Show Notes:: The Junk of a Fallacy (Pt 3) - Random Chance

So, two weeks ago I left off with my "KISS" it

Background:: http://www.mrwallpaper.com/wallpapers/gradient-background.jpg

Let's look at each in a bit more detail

First up, Random Chance

And this is a point Michael (my initial adversary) alludes to, a common trope among the ID crowd, "order and information don't just come together by randomness and chance."  Well sir, last I looked I was not slammed together like the 747 or in your case a computer code. I am the product of my parental lineage which operated according to five principles of natural selection.  Which are, [1]

[I will be hitting the idea of "no new information" in a separate segment as it is a topic unto itself.]
 
Chance does plays a part in Evolution (ie. the random mutations that can give rise to new traits), but evolution does not depend on it. Natural selection, harnesses nonrandom change by preserving "desirable" features and eliminating "undesirable" ones.  [Again the oft twisted notion of "survival of the fittest"] As long as the forces of selection stay constant, natural selection can push evolution forward. [2]

http://image.slidesharecdn.com/evolutionandnaturalselectionwhms2012-121025115835-phpapp02/95/evolution-and-natural-selection-powerpoint-13-638.jpg?cb=1382441321

The most excellent example of this is HBD Kettlewell's 1952 Peppered Moth experiment: [1,3]

The classic case study of natural selection was recorded by H. B. D. Kettlewell in 1952. In a most interesting experiment, he concluded that an environmental influence, predation by birds, affected the total number of reproducing moths depending on their color. Kettlewell was working at Oxford University at the time and discovered a shard of information from the 1840s, 100 years earlier, that noted the first appearance of a dark morph of the peppered moth. Until that time, only white or pepper-colored moths had been observed. He connected the dates with the onset of heavy industrial output in that area. He also knew that the factories at that time and in his time produced [lots of] daily clouds of black smoke heavily laden with soot. He also knew that the peppered moths were common all over England; they were nocturnal and hid on tree trunks during the day; they were preyed upon by many species of birds. He hypothesized that the birds were preying upon the moths that were less camouflaged and therefore easier to see. In so doing, they were favoring the one morph type over another, which created uneven reproductive rates that favored an increase in one type of moth over the others.

,,,Those moths best adapted to the environment survived and reproduced; the others did not. Kettlewell's experiment is an example of how environmental pressures can determine the characteristics of species.

So taking the 5 basic principles of natural selection as outlined prior and comparing to Kettlewell's experiment this is what we see:

Background::http://www.psdgraphics.com/file/blurry-lights-background.jpg

What is interesting to note, as pointed out in my class on Genetics and Evolution [4], this genetic melanism continued until around 1980s, when the Clear Air Acts in 1956 and 1968 began to have an impact.  Instead of the dark morph, the peppered color is again the predominant. [5]

Another classic example would be Darwin's Finches. [6]  And I know y'all are familiar with this one.

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6448/1315/1600/finches.0.gif

What Darwin discovered, with the assistance of ornithologist John Gould, these birds (14 different specimens), "although nearly identical in all other ways to mainland finches, had different beaks. Their beaks had adapted to the type of food they ate in order to fill different niches on the Galapagos Islands. Their isolation on the islands over long periods of time made them undergo speciation."   What Darwin had to say: [7]

http://www.dvd-ppt-slideshow.com/images/ppt-background/background-15.jpg

And finally, if you want to see NS in action, one needs to look no further than your medicine cabinet and take note of what is no longer there - Penicillin. [8]

From the time of discovery through WWII, penicillin was the "miracle drug" in fighting staph bacteria.  By 1947 the first resistant strain of staph was discovered; by the 1960s, 80% of staph isolates were resistant to penicillin.  Now, well virtually all the strains out there are resistant to penicillin.

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/goldenage/state/images/thanks_penicillin_sm.jpg

My battle with MRSA finally ended after 18 months of hell because of this adaptation by bacteria.  Three different antibiotics and one messed up belly, I have been MRSA free almost 2 years.  I did have one minor flair but that was thankfully dispatched quickly.

[FYI::As some may be aware, I am diabetic which at times can weaken my immune system hence I am prone to what is called CA-MRSA - Community Associated MRSA.  Although not a "serious" as the newsworthy cases, as it usually is confined to localized skin infection, it can be a fairly substantial battle.  My first bout was a case in point as I have a 1" scar in my armpit where a drainage hole was inserted.  Needless to say it was gross and I felt like shit for 3 months.]

One final important note concerning "chance", natural selection is a measurement "across a population and through generations. If a creationist someone starts talking about natural selection being random and pointing out individual responses to the environment, then we might not be talking about the same evolutionary mechanism anymore. Everything that happens within evolution is happening to populations. Individuals do not evolve. So natural selection is the differential survival of individuals (or genes, depending on your perspective), but it is measured through time and within the context of a population. [9]

An overly simplified explanation using the "Blueprint Analogy":

What I hope to have provided is 3 solid refutations to the notion that Evolution by Natural Selection is just "chance". [10]

NOTES:
[1]  http://www.infoplease.com/cig/biology/natural-selection.html Excerpted from The Complete Idiot's Guide to Biology (2004), Glen E. Moulton, Ed.D. 

[2]  http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/

[3]  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettlewell%27s_experiment

[4]  Class notes: Introduction to Genetics and Evolution w/ Dr. Mohamed Noor, Lecture 1.1:  What is Evolution? https://www.coursera.org/learn/genetics-evolution/home/welcome

[5]  According to AIG, Ken Ham's racket, there is some "controversy" surrounding Kettlewell's experiment.  We may explore that a we bit next week.  https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/peppered-moth-again/

[6]  http://evolution.about.com/od/Darwin/a/Charles-Darwins-Finches.htm

[7]  Darwin's Journal of researches into the natural history and geology of the countries visited during the voyage of H.M.S. Beagle round the world, under the Command of Capt. Fitz Roy, now known as Voyage of the Beagle, 379-380  http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F14&pageseq=392

How Darwin describes the findings,

The remaining land-birds form a most singular group of finches, related to each other in the structure of their beaks, short tails, form of body and plumage: there are thirteen species, which Mr. Gould has divided into four subgroups. All these species are peculiar to this archipelago; and so is the whole group, with the exception of one species of the sub-group Cactornis, lately brought from Bow Island, in the Low Archipelago. Of Cactornis, the two species may be often seen climbing about the flowers of the great cactus-trees; but all the other species of this group of finches, mingled together in flocks, feed on the dry and sterile ground of the lower districts. The males of all, or certainly of the greater number, are jet black; and the females (with perhaps one or two exceptions) are brown. The most curious fact is the perfect gradation in the size of the beaks in the different species of Geospiza, from one as large as that of a hawfinch to that of a chaffinch, and (if Mr. Gould is right in including his sub-group, Certhidea, in the main group) even to that of a warbler. The largest beak in the genus Geospiza is shown in Fig. 1, and the smallest in Fig. 3; but instead of there being only one intermediate species, with a beak of the size shown in Fig. 2, there are no less than six species with insensibly graduated beaks. The beak of the sub-group Certhidea, is shown in Fig. 4. The beak of Cactornis is somewhat like that of a starling, and that of the fourth subgroup, Camarhynchus, is slightly parrot-shaped. Seeing this gradation and diversity of structure in one small, intimately related group of birds, one might really fancy that from an original paucity of birds in this archipelago, one species had been taken and modified for different ends. In a like manner it might be fancied that a bird originally a buzzard, had been induced here to undertake the office of the carrion-feeding Polybori of the American continent.

For a more modern take on Darwin's finches, ie science never stops seeking answers

Darwin's finches are a classic example of species diversification by natural selection. Their impressive variation in beak morphology is associated with the exploitation of a variety of ecological niches, but its developmental basis is unknown. We performed a comparative analysis of expression patterns of various growth factors in species comprising the genus Geospiza. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/305/5689/1462.abstract

Researchers at Harvard Medical School have taken the story one step further. Using modern genetic analyses, they found a molecule that regulates genes involved in shaping the beaks of Darwin finches. "Calmodulin is a protein that binds and activates certain enzymes, which triggers a signal that eventually turns specific genes on or off," explains Arkhat Abzhanov, an evolutionary biologist at Harvard. These signals alter the behavior of cells responsible for beak sculpturing.  http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/2006/08.24/31-finches.html and http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v442/n7102/abs/nature04843.html

[8]  Class notes: Introduction to Genetics and Evolution w/ Dr. Mohamed Noor, Lecture 1.3:  Acceptance of Evolution  https://www.coursera.org/learn/genetics-evolution/home/welcome

[9]  http://forthesakeofscience.com/2011/02/20/is-natural-selection-random/

[10] Adam Lee has a very nice explanation as to why the JA of chance is such bunk.  What I really like is his summation:  http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/essays/why-evolution-isnt-chance/

But evolution itself is a science, and like all sciences, it tells us only what is, not what should be. It is a description of one particular aspect of reality, and that is all it is. It would be foolish to use it in an attempt to derive a moral code, a purpose for our lives, a meaning to life, or any such thing. Those things do not fall within the realm of science, and science will not give us answers to them; it is up to us as individuals to decide that for ourselves. Some people seek answers to these questions through religion, while others find them through other paths.

When creationists say that one who accepts evolution must believe that life is nothing but the result of random chance, they are abusing the theory. In the scientific sense, this conclusion leaves out the most important part of the entire theory, and in the metaphysical sense, this is a deceptive attempt to derive from the theory an explanation of something it was never meant to explain. Evolution does not tell us that our life is the purposeless result of chance; it does not say anything on the topic at all. Either way, the creationists’ conclusion is flatly inaccurate. Their strategy is to tar evolution with offensive-sounding implications and turn people away from it regardless of the evidence, but this fallacious attack will always wither before the truth.

Other Images Used:
http://cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org/img/prod/primary/lg/10-3-085.jpg
https://sepetjian.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/mutant-snake.jpg
http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/Charles_Darwin_Wide.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Biston.betularia.7200.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Biston.betularia.f.carbonaria.7209.jpg
http://plaidcircuitry.com/computational_thinking/images/pepper-moth-line-graph.png
http://www.topsecretwriters.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/penicillin.jpg
https://jonarnefoss.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/penicillin-vk-500mg.jpg

Show Notes:: The Junk of a Fallacy (Pt 2) - A side trip

If you remember, in part one I introduced the basics of the JA.  I also made mention that my adversary had a "a very polished apologistic agenda".  I want to briefly expand on that point before continuing.  What many people, religionists and non-believers, don't fully grasp is the importance of the Theory of Evolution and why some Creationists or IDers cling so tightly to their refusal to accept science.

Simply put, eliminate the Creation mythos you eliminate the authority of the "church".  As I have noted before, "It's all about manipulation and control.  Without Genesis, the creation narrative, there is no Christ and he becomes just another myth."  But there is a deeper level to the controversy.

In an article titled "Were There Dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark?", Jeffrey Goldberg writing for The Atlantic spoke with Ken Ham and Terry Mortenson of AIG.  The gist of both men can be summarized by the following. [1]

Background::http://greeknews.eu5.org/images/background/ambient/ambientturquoise.jpg

As Goldberg notes, Mortenson stayed on the subject of gay marriage.

Background::http://www.idealhut.com/file/deep-dream/1440x900.jpg

While Goldberg seems to have a simplistic view of the controversy, "I found this preoccupation with gay marriage significant, because it suggests that perhaps at least some of those who profess a belief in creationism might simply be signaling their preference for a more traditional social order, rather than a rejection of modern science and free intellectual inquiry."  I beg to differ based on Ham's own words. 

Background: http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/6000000/Howrse-Background-howrse-6034876-757-597.jpg

From Ham's 2002 posting, "The Evolution Connection": [2]

Many Christians, including most Christian leaders, don’t understand the connection of evolution to the social ills of our culture and the difficulties in getting people interested in Christianity. They see evolution as something totally separate from such issues. I think the main reason for this misunderstanding is because many Christians have been indoctrinated to believe that evolution is factual science.
,,,
It is true that most evolutionary scientists, the media and the average public school textbook today present atheistic (perhaps subtly rather than overtly) evolution as fact. Students are taught that the universe and all life arose by strictly material causes. God is not given any place in the ‘origin of anything.’ Over the years, the teaching of evolution has intensified in our school systems and through the media. So much so that the average person believes that scientists have proved the earth is billions of years old and that the different forms of life arose through an evolutionary process of death and struggle.
,,,
The more evolutionary ideas pervade the culture, the more a person’s whole way of thinking will change. For them, right and wrong will be whatever they determine for themselves, if they can get away with it. If they are just an animal, then no-one owns them, so their body is their own. Thus, why can’t they do what they want with sex? Also, if this life is all there is, and death ends it all, then if things get tough, why not commit suicide now and get out of it—after all, a person won’t remember they ever had life, so what’s the point anyway? And, if we get rid of spare animals by killing them, then what’s wrong with getting rid of spare babies by abortion?
,,,
Some people misunderstand me when I say there’s a connection between evolution and these social ills mentioned above. I’m not saying that evolution is the cause of abortion or school violence. What I am saying is that the more a culture abandons God’s Word as the absolute authority, and the more a culture accepts an evolutionary philosophy, then the way people think, and their attitudes, will also change. I’m not saying that a student says to himself, ‘Now, I’m just an animal—I know evolution is true—therefore there’s no basis for right or wrong—so there’s nothing to stop me from shooting my teacher.’

What people need to keep in mind is what Ham means by "authority" and how and where it is applied.  In the Christian theocratic mind-set, that authority is their particular simplistic interpretation of what the Bile states devoid of any actual hermeneutical principles.  In other words they are biblical "letteralists". [3]  Some day I may revisited that premise, but for now I am safe in saying there really is an apologistic agenda to those with a "polished" ID presentation.[4]


In other words they want what the Kleins and Kim Davis want. [5] In essence,

Background: http://mytwitterbackgrounds.com/backgrounds/images/bg_hl2u/906.jpg

Or,

Background:: http://www.ryanmulready.com/images/background.png

They want what Ted Cruz [6] wants and the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. [7]  Yes, I am talking about Dominionist.  Listen to the 3 characteristics shared by all forms of dominionism:

Background:: http://www.psdgraphics.com/file/fresh-green-background.jpg

It is an ideology that has been well polished and implemented within the ranks since, at least, 1982 when the failures of the Religious Right were examined and the need to "reconstruct" the church began. [8]

Background:: http://wallpoper.com/images/00/31/33/51/black-background_00313351.jpg

I know I went a bit off-topic today, but it is relevant especially in light of recent headlines.  Dan Arel's battle with AIG's, Ark Encounter - Kentucky bill looks to extend summer vacation to promote creationism. [11]  Dan Courtney and Katherine Stewart's ongoing battle with the Good News Club infiltrating schools. [12]  Or, Roy Moore's continued fight with the supremacy of SCOTUS rulings. [13]


I can't say for sure that Michael's agenda goes quite this deep but his association with the Discovery Institute makes his motivations suspect.  Religionists can not "lose" this battle as I mentioned prior, to do so would undermine the whole of Christianity.  It is a battle they have been waging since the 1968 Epperson trial [9], through Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) [10] and more recently the 2006 Kitzmiller trial.  The Reich's tactics might change but the desired outcome is still the same.

How do I know this, because Phillip E. Johnson admitted as such as the architect of the Wedge Document: [14]

I promise that next week to get back to dismantling the JA but I think y'all  may understand why fighting against such bullshit is important.  Nothing is as simple as the creationist loons make it out to be.  It has nothing to do with "it's just a belief" or simple denial of science and much to do with manipulation and control.

NOTES:
[1]  http://interestinghmm.blogspot.com/2014/10/were-there-dinosaurs-on-noahs-ark.html
 
[2]  http://interestinghmm.blogspot.com/2014/07/creationism-in-classroom-causes-concern.html

[3]  I have prior spoken about the hermeneutical principles I still adhere to from my bile-thumping days http://interestinghmm.blogspot.com/2014/12/no-homos-in-my-church-pt-1.html

Back in 1983 or 1984 (maybe even 1985 things are kind of a blur going back that far), I was taught that there were two prominent, overall thought processes in regards to biblical interpretation.  The "literal view" asserts that a biblical text should be interpreted according to the “plain meaning” conveyed by its grammatical construction and historical context; its meaning is held to correspond to the intention of the authors.  The second process is what my professor referred to as the "letteral view" of interpretation.  In essence it is a strict almost legalistic point of view.  A good example, that illustrates both views, Christ versus the Pharisees.   Within the Bible, the Pharisees are seen as people who place the letter of the law above the spirit (cf. Mark 2:3–28, 3:1–6)

[4]  In concluding his 5-part presentation on the Arrogance of Creationists,  KC in part 3 talks about how Creationists love to use vague and misleading terminology which leads to equivocation and moving the goal posts.  This equivocation, as KC explains is due to that same view concerning authority that both Ham and Mortenson both have, "in the case of most creationists it is because of a dogmatic adherence to a literal interpretation of their sacred texts,,,.  Discourses in science are not centered around learning but to rationalize that which they adhere to as unquestionable." [paraphrased]

In other words, we have one big circle-jerk: 1] the Bible is inerrant and authoritative in all things (science included); 2] this leads to equivocation and shifting the goal-posts; 3] in order to rationalize their dogmatic adherence the Bible.

[5]  http://interestinghmm.blogspot.com/2015/09/what-is-so-sad-pathetic-really-is-this.html

[6]  http://interestinghmm.blogspot.com/2013/10/christian-dominionists-support-ted-cruz.html

[7]  http://interestinghmm.blogspot.com/2014/06/rafael-cruz-preaches-seven-mountains.html

[8]  http://www.talk2action.org/story/2012/4/3/155629/6754 Christian Reconstructionism is often described as the movement that wants to execute adulterers, blasphemers, and homosexuals, by stoning.  Since this is not likely to happen any time soon, the movement is often dismissed as fringe and inconsequential.  The preoccupation with the stoning aspect has obscured the fact that many other foundational components of the movement have been mainstreamed in the Religious Right since the time when Gary North wrote the following words.

Gary North writing in the first volume of the journal Christianity and Civilization, published by the Geneva Divinity School in Spring, 1982.  The entire issue was dedicated to a symposium on "The Failure of American Baptist Culture."  http://www.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/html/cc_1/cc_1.html  (40-25)

[9]  Susan Epperson challenged the Arkansas law that prohibited public school teachers from teaching, or using textbooks that teach, human evolution.

[10]  Which held that traditional creationism is a religious doctrine that cannot be taught in public school biology classes.

[11]  http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danthropology/2016/01/kentucky-bill-looks-to-extend-summer-vacation-to-promote-creationism/

[12]  https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/atheist-parents-take-on-christian-good-news-club-with-better-news-club/2015/01/08/3487b884-9766-11e4-8385-866293322c2f_story.html

[13]  http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/breaking_alabama_chief_justice_issues_order_blocking_same_sex_marriage_licenses

[14]  Bohlin, Ray, ed. (2000). Creation, Evolution, & Modern Science: Probing the Headlines That Impact Your Family. Foreword by Phillip E. Johnson. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, p. 5.

Other Images used:
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhl9F9BMrngl5KObXi-eUabJNK391v3J4D0A4tqm7A83Xx_I2M8f-gF2Cr57IoXsejey0opoilg6QLAf014CLNcaJ0KfTx75ZVrInfD7NVrfiKM5UL0s75Nz-7C1x038X7bZI0KbLknZHo/s1600/Signs_foil_hat-thumb-550x373-17996.jpg
http://traditores.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/man_pulling_card.jpg
http://media.salon.com/2012/11/shutterstock_108806891.jpg
http://christianworshiplife.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/spiritual_authority_s.jpg
http://downtrend.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Aaron-Melissa-Klein-Oregon-Bakery.jpg
http://media.salon.com/2013/10/ted_cruz7.jpg
http://i01.i.aliimg.com/photo/v0/107057041/Polished_Concrete.jpg
http://www.payer.de/fundamentalismus/fund0247.gif
http://www2.maxwell.syr.edu/plegal/scales/edwards.gif
https://modernatheism.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/pandaam.jpg?w=630

Show Notes::The Junk of a Fallacy (Pt 1)

 

http://funny-pictures-blog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Stupid-People-vs.-Genius_1.jpg

 
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjcLhPdLm8ZyZf9FeEaCc7t3rZg9oakxS9nFWljkdT_fOoXL9Dthyphenhyphenw1c6OwrAFJZR6gjWoJqsnF_imDafH7sYtop0qY9BhaDr2UT5u0X-cEgRnHcZrO5R8MADxKcP-puWX2biw255FpH8/s320/intelligent+design+vs.+evolution.jpg

So recently I became involved in a discussion concerning Creationism/Intelligent Design vs Evolution or more specifically the principle of Natural Selection. (In retrospect the discussion goes much deeper than that but I will save that for another day.)  Debating such is NOT my forte, and I approach it from a layman's POV but considering I was unprepared, I think I held my own.  While the gentleman (Michael was the name he gave) involved, claimed he was not a biblical Creationist per se he was referring to a "creator" or "creative force"; his arguments where basically the standard fare presented in such discussions.  Michael's fall back position, used prominently throughout the conversation - besides the rejection of peer review [1] because of alleged bias against thinking outside the box [2],  ie. Christian persecution complex - Natural Selection does not account for the introduction of new genetic material. (No shit Sherlock, if you would quit conflating NS as Evolution you may not be so confused.  NS is only one mechanism of Evolution.)  Like I said standard fare.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/images/interviews/naturalselection1.gif

http://deacondance.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/debating.jpg

http://nerdreactor.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Jeremy-Brett-as-Sherlock-Holmes-sherlock-holmes-14711342-630-799.jpg

What I would like y'all to do whilst listening, is to remember I am a layman.  I am not a scientist nor a researcher.  Just like y'all I get into these discussions and sometimes flounder around trying to hold my own against individuals who have a very polished apologistic agenda. In other words, they are religious fucktards. Science, on the other hand, does not have an agenda; it is either true or it is not.  You either accept it or you don't.

http://www.funpawcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/10152001_10152298414362070_1978698415_n.jpg

My confrontation with Michael, was in essence the straw that broke the camels back.  It was time for me to become better able to counter his type of bullshit.  I wanted to know exactly "how" bad I did and where I could improve. If his "research" (he actually referred to "his team" and taking into consideration an "author" he cited was published by the Discovery Institute, I can imagine who his team consisted of) is so fucking brilliant and groundbreaking, why then is he hawking his shit on a BTR program? [3]  I even asked him where his paper was published and when he was receiving his Nobel prize.  But to no avail.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Privileged_Planet.jpg

This segment is the result of such.  This segment is the accumulation of my google-foo over the years.  It is a look at specific points with (what I think are) solid examples to refute those points.  [Whether a Creationist or IDer chooses to accept such evidence is a whole different story but at least I know I ain't crazy.]

http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_content_width/hash/8f/08/dna_500.jpg?itok=bGfMKquZ

What was missing at first listen though was the "Tornado in a Junkyard Fallacy".  It was there but I missed it in the beginning as Michael re-packaged the fallacy in more modern sounding terms, a computer coding analogy as well as moving the interjection of the "creative force".  It was an analogy I was unfamiliar with and have come to learn, that it is not new and has been around for some time.  So his "claim" for original thinking falls flat.  Just as with standard apologia, there is nothing new;  just re-packaged garbage.  Other forms I have come across:  DNA is like a computer, or DNA is like data on a hard drive.  There are others, but I think you get my drift.

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg25Bpqd_ckCq7BvQj9xNBpDyWzoWf2-vjF1cHuuSOwtnBwQu2fGRQZGcyMnB7vSpk06ySA9n3S6x5fQ54rzr47XasQiqmjJBnkJx-V7rbSwjLnrdG0_5rDRewlELSOi96H01KVUu4pygM/s1600/computer-code.jpg

So today we're going to take a look at this analogy and why it is a fallacy AND even if there was a prime mover Michael would still have to show this PM's existence.  Which we all know is not a possibility.  And, even if this PM existed, Evolution would still be true.  [Note::  It was at this point that Michael abruptly disappeared from the conversation.  Stan another participant, had alluded to this point and I was going to drive the point a bit more, but didn't get the chance.]  

There is no question whatsoever about the truth of Evolution. The only debates that exist about Evolution are about the relative importance of different forces on particular cases [4].  With that said,,,

http://www.codeanapp.co.uk/wp-content/themes/thesis_184/custom-sample/rotator/Toaster-Code.gif

The Fallacy

Background:  http://www.planwallpaper.com/static/images/1968081.jpg

Originally coined by British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, it was originally used as an argument against Abiogenesis not Evolution.  It is an oversimplifying of a complex theory hence a strawman. Abiogenesis does not suggest that complex high-order beings appeared from primordial soup in one magical step. As an argument against Evolution, it also fails as one of the main mechanisms of Evolution is Natural Selection which is non-random. [5]

 

 https://unzipyourgenes.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/haldane_s_primordial_soup_by_invaderxan-d5yhjwg.jpg

Michael wants to know the "initial formulation" of DNA as it comes together in a "system kind of way."

If I am understanding his POV we have this:

As much as Michael likes to state that he is NOT speaking to Abiogenesis (see show notes) [5], he is in fact making such a claim ("the initial formulation of DNA") but he makes his first mistake by referring to DNA.  What he "should" have said - for a better, but still flawed analogy - is GENOME which is the complete set of DNA (the hereditary material that makes up the genome or the "ordered code" of which DNA is a part of). [6]

That aside for the moment, it matters not in the grand scheme of things whether genome or DNA.  Arguing from analogy is a bad idea and always fails. Instead of discussing the actual issues (Intelligent Design vs Evolution) the conversation devolves to arguing the points of the analogy. "Analogies are a teaching tool. They are for describing a difficult concept to someone who has no experience with that concept. By relating that concept to something that they already understand, then they can begin to see how that concept works." [7]

https://criticalthinkersworld.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/warning-analogies13.jpg

BUT,,,

DNA cannot be placed in isolation, or taken out of context.  "It is not a stand alone piece of the puzzle."  As blogger Smilodon notes, it get us into some really techie areas of chromatids, histones and effects on replication, translation, and mutations, etc,,,.

http://www.clker.com/cliparts/4/b/1/3/13302772611564692152jigsaw-puzzle-piece.jpg

One final point concerning analogies [8]. As with Paley's Watch, [9] the JA , is comparing a nonliving object to living things capable of self-reproduction and subject to mutations.  Again as Smilodon points out, ",,,there is a false analogy.  Because watches and living things are so very different, a comparison between the two cannot be valid."  It is an invalid argument regardless of whether living things have a designer or not. [10]

So what is this analogy?

https://sciencebasedlife.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/2009-12-01.png

Let's take a we bit of a closer look.

As noted prior, the Junkyard Analogy can be attributed to Fred Hoyle, as an argument against Abiogenesis.  What was not mentioned in that brief introduction, the JA is a statistical analysis applied to Evolutionary origins.  In other words, the statistical probability of life originating by chance.  There are earlier iterations alluded to by the ID crowd such as the so-called "Borel's Law" [11] as well as other bad analogies. [12] Regardless of which is used, they all fail as noted prior "[b]ecause watches and living things are so very different, a comparison between the two cannot be valid."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Emile_Borel-1932.jpg

Also it gets into the sticky wicket of a Probability argument after the fact. 

Ian Musgrave in "Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations" highlights 5 problems: [13]

Background::  http://www.planwallpaper.com/static/images/colorful-triangles-background_yB0qTG6.jpg

While Musgrave goes into much more detail, his overall conclusion, "The very premise of creationists' probability calculations is incorrect in the first place as it aims at the wrong theory. Furthermore, this argument is often buttressed with statistical and biological fallacies."   Remember Abiogenesis, or origin of life is not Evolution.  They are two distinct fields with Natural Selection (Michael's apparent issue) being just one aspect of the later.  As Dr Mohammed Noor references in my class on Genetics and Evolution: [14]

Background::http://feelgrafix.com/data/background-images/Background-Images-11.jpg

In essence the JA is well, junk.  It doesn't really explain what IDer's or Creationists thinks it does and over looks the differences between complex living organisms that are able to reproduce themselves with inanimate objects that are unable to pass on any reproductive changes.

http://www.vivianpartnership.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/garbage-in-garbage-out.jpg

What about us peons?

So that in a nutshell is a more technical look at what is wrong with the JA, but what about for us peons that do not have the "science" at our finger tips to counter the bullshit?  What can we do besides using our google-foo?

Ten years ago I came across a really nice break-down of what is wrong with the JA, I have broken it down even further to "KISS" it. 

Background:: http://www.mrwallpaper.com/wallpapers/gradient-background.jpg

So next week we will take a look at what I consider four primary points of contention with the JA and how one can begin to counter the bullshit.

Notes:

[1]  https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/is-scientific-peer-review-a-sacred-cow-ready-to-be-slaughtered/

[2]  http://www.forwardprogressives.com/time-say-creationists-arent-christians-theyre-cult/

While I disagree that, "God and science can co-exist", I do agree with Clifton's overall point.

"To me creationists aren’t Christian (though they might believe in God and Jesus), they’re something entirely different.  I see them more like a cult than a religion.  A brainwashed grouping of people who reject all proven science for the sake of unrealistic beliefs.
,,,
But the fact is, Christianity is a faith – not science.  That’s something creationists fail to understand.  That’s why creationism doesn’t belong in a science class, because it’s not science."
,,,
And that’s the mindset of most who join cults.  They ignore all the reality outside of their system of beliefs and convince themselves (despite all facts to the contrary) that they’re right and everyone else is a part of some massive conspiracy to cover up the truth.  Just like creationists believe that science is some conspiracy to “get rid of God.”

[3]  http://www.blogtalkradio.com/theforbiddenfruit/2015/12/16/things-arent-like-they-used-to-be-back-in-the-day-intellegent-design

[4]  Class notes: Introduction toGenetics and Evolution w/ Dr. Mohamed Noor, Lecture 1.1:  What is Evolution? https://www.coursera.org/learn/genetics-evolution/home/welcome

[5]  http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hoyle's_fallacy

[6]  http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/24/the-genome-is-not-a-computer-p/

[7]  http://www.skepticink.com/smilodonsretreat/2014/09/10/dna-is-not-like-a-computer/#comment-1586623594

[8]  I lied, here is another pertinent point from Smilodon concerning computer-DNA analogies http://www.skepticink.com/smilodonsretreat/2014/03/23/evolution-analogies-and-why-they-arent-arguments/:

,,,DNA is nothing like a computer program. A computer program executes steps in a particular order. DNA can be transcribed in any order and each cell on uses part of the DNA. Again, a reasonably competent programmer can understand the code, figure out what it’s doing and even repair the program. Not so with DNA.

DNA is also not something that runs on some kind of platform. It is an integral part of the ‘platform’. Indeed, it is the “hardware” as well as the “software”. Oh and it’s also the memory and it’s also the CPU. Even further, the DNA can undergo some pretty drastic changes to the code and still work.  In fact, random changes to DNA can actually result in new effects and improvements in the resulting proteins. Which simply does not happen with software.

[9]  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy

[10]  http://www.skepticink.com/smilodonsretreat/2013/01/29/argument-by-analogy/

[11]  Any discussion concerning Emil Borel, while fascinating, is way beyond the scope of this presentation.  I note it only because 1) I'm  an information junky, and 2) as John Stockwell notes, it is another bit of science (in this case mathematics) that has been hijacked by creationists to suit their "needs".  The only issue, once examined the hijacking is thwarted.  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/borelfaq.html

The "law" in question does not exist as a mathematical theorem, nor is there a universally decided upon "minimum probability" among the physical sciences community. Rather, Borel's Law originated in a discussion in a book written by Emil Borel for non-scientists. Borel shows examples of the kind of logic that any scientist might use to generate estimates of the minimum probability below which events of a particular type are considered negligible. It is important to stress that each of these estimates are created for specific physical problems, not as a universal law.

As noted by Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkyard_tornado, "[t]he true law being referenced is actually the Strong Law of large numbers, but creationists have taken a simple statement made by Borel in books written late in his life concerning probability theory and called this statement Borel's Law."  Under his subsection "A Discussion of Borel's Law", Stockwell explain how and why this hijacking may have occurred and why such is in error, ",,,Borel says what many a talk.origins poster has said time and time again when confronted with such creationist arguments: namely, that probability estimates that ignore the non-random elements predetermined by physics and chemistry are meaningless.

[12]  With all the various analogies floating about, I will admit to some confusion.  These are but a few ideas to explore in a bit more depth:

• “[W]hat is the probability that a monkey (or chimpanzee) with a typewriter randomly pounding on the keys could produce the works of Shakespeare?” A better analogy is a monkey with a word processor, whose program (like your spell checker) automatically deletes or fixes mistakes, so that even by typing random keys, the monkey will eventually assemble a recognizable string of words.

• http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/

Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.
,,,
As an analogy, consider the 13-letter sequence "TOBEORNOTTOBE." Those hypothetical million monkeys, each pecking out one phrase a second, could take as long as 78,800 years to find it among the 2613 sequences of that length. But in the 1980s Richard Hardison of Glendale College wrote a computer program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed (in effect, selecting for phrases more like Hamlet's). On average, the program re-created the phrase in just 336 iterations, less than 90 seconds. Even more amazing, it could reconstruct Shakespeare's entire play in just four and a half days.

• Richard Dawkins (in The Blind Watchmaker, 1986, and Climbing Mount Improbable, 1996) has provided many interesting examples and computer models that show just how easily this can be done. This is the fundamental misunderstanding: evolution is not just “random chance” but a strong non-random force capable of changing genomes and acting upon material provided by chance.

• Explosion in a print shop producing a dictionary

• DNA in a blender producing a human being

[13]  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

[14]  Class notes: Introduction to Genetics and Evolution w/ Dr. Mohamed Noor, Lecture 1.4:  Responding to Criticisms of Evolutionary Theory https://www.coursera.org/learn/genetics-evolution/home/welcome

Lamar Smith: Harassment of scientists continues.

So there really is no easy way to introduce the brouhaha that is fomenting between science and the idiots that make up the GOTP.  But it is important to highlight the situation not just because of climate change but science in general.  

,,,what good is it to have a mechanism to uncover the truth, if the truth is twisted into a lie, and unabashedly used to damage the credibility, reputation, and careers of scientists that simply defend science and teach inconvenient facts?  When scientists are guilty until proven innocent, and written realities are manipulated to create false narratives from public records, how do we stand a chance?

Lamar Smith is not qualified to pick lint from my ass let alone assess a well documented scientific paper.

As Plait notes, the gist of the situation is this ."Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas—chairman of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee—doesn’t think global warming is real. He thinks it’s a huge conspiracy by climate scientists who fudge the data to make it look like the planet is heating up, because Obama."

Over the course of four articles, Plait delves into the nitty gritty of just how stoopid the Reich is being.  Part four being the most recent issue that has hit the mainstream, that "a paper was published in Science showing that the global warming “pause” so lauded by climate change deniers didn’t, in fact, exist."  And, "[t]hat the NOAA Science paper in question was rushed into publication, and that Smith has “whistleblowers” who will attest to it."

What strikes me though, is the tactics that science denialists (organizations such as US Right to Know; individuals such as Mike Adams, Andrew Wakefield, and Stanislaw Burzynski) are now engaging in.  And I am not talking "denying the established scientific consensus despite overwhelming evidence."  I'm talking the fifth grade tactics present in Climategate, the attacks against Dr. Paul Offit, writers Jon Entine and Emily Willingham, Dr. Dorit Reiss, Senator Richard Pan (SB 277) and Kevin Folta.  The play by our rules or else.

This mentality is now infiltrating a place it doesn't belong.  Science has no political ideology:

I strongly urge you to read Johnson’s letter; it really shows that Smith’s actions are the results of political grandstanding. NOAA had been complying with his requests, as silly and wasteful as those requests were, but Smith ignored this and kept making more and more unreasonable demands. Finally, NOAA put its foot down; NOAA Administrator Sullivan has refused to comply any further.

I’ve been saying that Smith is harassing scientists, and he’s abusing his power of congressional subpoena. Now we have even more evidence: He’s been pressuring Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker over all this, trying to get her to in turn pressure NOAA to turn over the scientists’ emails.* If NOAA doesn’t comply, he’s threatened to subpoena the secretary herself.
,,,
Smith is out of control. I earlier likened him to Sen. Joseph McCarthy, who, in the 1950s, went on a huge and reckless witch hunt, looking for Communists in government, ruining people’s careers and lives in the process. That likeness grows ever clearer into focus.

I don’t see any reason to change my assessment of Smith now. He is a demagogue, using and abusing his power to stifle scientific research, to create a climate of fear and pressure for those scientists, and to obfuscate and further cast doubt in the public’s mind about the reality of climate change and its effects (an effort that has of course found purchase with the usual right-wing media suspects).

Lamar Smith: Harassment of scientists continues.

Turin “Shroud” Still a Fake | Center for Inquiry

In 2005, Turin Shroud proponent Ray Rogers claimed that earlier carbon-14 tests of the shroud linen—showing it to date from between 1260 and 1390 and to thus be a fake—were invalid because, he hypothesized, the samples must have been taken from a “medieval patch.” Rogers and I had an exchange of arguments in the Skeptical Inquirer. But a new paper by three Italian chemists, in the same journal in which Rogers published, shows who was right.

Rogers had claimed that his analysis of two pyrolysis spectra showed a difference between the area selected for C14 dating and the remainder of the cloth—a finding that led some to suggest the C14 sample must have come from an area of “invisible reweaving.” This was hypothesized to have been done in the Middle Ages, thus invalidating the C14 tests, but I concluded that Rogers’ claims were “cut from whole cloth.” (Sadly, Rogers died while our latest exchange was in press.)

Now, chemists Marco Bella, Luigi Garlaschelli, and Roberto Samperi have published a paper that concludes (with its title), “There is no mass spectrometry evidence that the C14 sample from the Shroud of Turin comes from a ‘medieval invisible mending.’”

Turin “Shroud” Still a Fake | Center for Inquiry

Tracking the Ancestry of Corn Back 9,000 Years - The New York Times

For most of human history, our ancestors relied entirely on hunting animals and gathering seeds, fruits, nuts, tubers and other plant parts from the wild for food. It was only about 10,000 years ago that humans in many parts of the world began raising livestock and growing food through deliberate planting. These advances provided more reliable sources of food and allowed for larger, more permanent settlements. Native Americans alone domesticated nine of the most important food crops in the world, including corn, more properly called maize (Zea mays), which now provides about 21 percent of human nutrition across the globe.

But despite its abundance and importance, the biological origin of maize has been a long-running mystery. The bright yellow, mouth-watering treat we know so well does not grow in the wild anywhere on the planet, so its ancestry was not at all obvious. Recently, however, the combined detective work of botanists, geneticists and archeologists has been able to identify the wild ancestor of maize, to pinpoint where the plant originated, and to determine when early people were cultivating it and using it in their diets.
,,,
Dr. Beadle’s results showed that maize and teosinte were without any doubt remarkably and closely related. But to pinpoint the geographic origins of maize, more definitive forensic techniques were needed. This was DNA typing, exactly the same technology used by the courts to determine paternity.

Tracking the Ancestry of Corn Back 9,000 Years - The New York Times

New HIV Vaccine Proves Successful In Phase 1 Human Trial

The antibody against p24 capsid antigen increased as much as 64-fold in some vaccinees while the antibody against gp120 surface antigen increased up to eight-fold. P24 is a structural protein that makes up most of the HIV viral core also known as the ‘capsid.’ High levels of p24 are present in the blood serum of newly infected individuals during the short period between infection and seroconversion, making p24 antigen assays useful in diagnosing primary HIV infection. A glycoprotein, gp120, is necessary for attachment to cell surface receptors and also allows for the HIV virus to enter cells.
,,,
Since the virus was characterized in 1983, pharmaceutical companies and academic institutions around the world have attempted, yet consistently failed, to develop a vaccine. What is unique about Kang’s vaccine is its use of a killed-whole HIV-1, which is similar to the vaccines developed for polio, influenza, and rabies. HIV-1 is also genetically engineered; this raises its safety profile and the possibility of it being produced in large quantities.

New HIV Vaccine Proves Successful In Phase 1 Human Trial

How Jehovah’s Witnesses Are Changing Medicine - The New Yorker

This is one of those mixed feelings type articles.  On one hand, it is excellent "news" that science has advanced enough to accommodate the bizarre beliefs and restrictions of the Jehovah's Witnesses and we will all benefit from said advances.  On the other, why should we?  Because of the children.  And, “But we had to remind ourselves we were respecting his wishes. Patients have the right to determine their care.”

The whole story is an interesting read - and it’s only part one of a three-part series looking at this practice.  Faith-based ban on transfusions do not make any logical sense. But, it’s pretty amazing to see a religion that hurts its own sheeple followers, only to have science swoop in to fix the problem.

In the Book of Acts, the apostle Paul urges congregants to abstain “from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality.” Jehovah’s Witnesses, apparently alone among Christian groups, believe this verse, along with others, prohibits them from accepting blood transfusions, no matter how dire the circumstance. As Joan Ortiz, a Witness in her sixties, recently told me, it’s as much a sin to take a blood transfusion as to have an extramarital affair. In this interpretation of Scripture, those who comply will prosper and enjoy good health. Those who don’t can be cut off from their people and denied resurrection. “Everything about us is carried in our blood,” said Ortiz. “Our personality, our sicknesses, all the good things about us. It’s who we are. It’s our soul.” It should not be mixed, even if life depends on it.

Though Witnesses accept virtually all other medical interventions, the stricture against transfusion can affect their care. Patients may need donor blood when they lose their own blood rapidly, as a result of a car crash or surgery, or when they develop severe anemia—for instance, during cancer treatment. In the past several decades, specialty programs in “bloodless medicine” that cater to Jehovah’s Witnesses have grown up at dozens of hospitals.

Surprisingly, doctors’ experience in these programs has often led them to order blood far less frequently for other patients, as well. Some bloodless medicine experts have also helped lead a national movement calling for more sparing use of transfusion. Donor blood comes with risks for all patients, including the potential for immune reactions and infections. And clinical trials have shown that, for a broad range of conditions, restrictive transfusion practices do not lead to worse outcomes than liberal ones. In recent years, the American Medical Association has listed transfusion as among the most overused therapies in medicine.

,,,

Still, bloodless medicine requires more than surgical skill, as Steinberger himself also stressed. It rests on a myriad of small precautions and coördinated, blood-saving techniques that begin well in advance of surgery. When Ortiz had pre-operative testing done in Florida, on the advice of a nurse who was familiar with Witnesses, she insisted that the phlebotomist use pediatric tubes and draw the minimum amount possible.

How Jehovah’s Witnesses Are Changing Medicine - The New Yorker

“Aborted fetal tissue” and vaccines: Combining pseudoscience and religion to demonize vaccines « Science-Based Medicine

As hard as it is to believe after seven and a half years of existence and nearly 2,400 posts on SBM, every so often, something reminds me that we here at SBM haven’t discussed a topic that should be discussed. So it was a couple of weeks ago, when I saw a familiar name in a news story that wasn’t about vaccines. You might recall a news story last month when a shadowy group with ties to radical antiabortion groups, the Center for Medical Progress, led by a man named David Daleiden, ran a highly questionable “sting” operation (complete with fake IDs) to “prove” that Planned Parenthood was selling aborted fetuses for medical research.

While reading news stories about Daleiden and CMP, I came across a familiar name, a name that many of us who discuss antivaccine misinformation are familiar with. I’m referring to Theresa Deisher, founder of the Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute. It turns out that Deisher helped to prepare Daleiden for his role as a biomedical representative that he assumed in order to deceive representatives of Planned Parenthood. She taught him how to talk the talk and walk the walk, so to speak, so that he was convincing as a representative of a biomedical research firm.

I can hear you asking: So what? What do Daleiden and CMP have to do with vaccines? It’s not CMP per se, but Deisher who is relevant. The reason that Deisher is so relevant to Science-Based Medicine (SBM) is because she is one of the foremost promoters of a particularly pernicious form of antivaccine misinformation that tries desperately to create a religious basis to oppose vaccines with antivaccine activism. It is a form of misinformation designed to deceive those who believe abortion is a moral wrong into thinking that vaccines, too, are a moral wrong because some of the viruses used to make specific vaccines are grown during the manufacturing process in cell lines derived from human fetuses decades ago. But Deisher goes one huge step beyond just guilt by association for vaccines. She is, as the news story cited above notes, the foremost promoter of a related and equally pernicious form of antivaccine information that claims that DNA from the fetal cell lines used to grow vaccine strains of viruses is a cause of autism. The truly depressing thing about Deisher is that she is, in fact, a real scientist (or at least was).

In any event, it occurred to me that, although I’ve mentioned Deisher briefly before in the context of the Disneyland measles outbreak, I’ve never deconstructed her antivaccine misinformation in detail here. Yet, her work is often cited by antivaccine activists to persuade those whose religion tells them abortion is morally wrong that they shouldn’t vaccinate their children by adding to the false claim that somehow “fetal parts” are used in the making of vaccines the even more false claim that fetal DNA somehow gets into the brain, recombines with the DNA in neurons, and causes autism. She’s also just released what appears to be a new paper claiming to show how fetal DNA causes autism. The confluence of her name coming up in stories about CMP and Planned Parenthood and her release of this new “paper” makes this a perfect time to write about Deisher.

“Aborted fetal tissue” and vaccines: Combining pseudoscience and religion to demonize vaccines « Science-Based Medicine

GM -- 'the most critical technology' for feeding the world | EurekAlert! Science News

A former adviser to the US Secretary of State says that genetic modification (GM) is the most critical technology in agriculture for meeting the challenges of feeding a growing global population, writing in the open access journal Agriculture & Food Security.

Nina Fedoroff, molecular biologist and former Science and Technology Adviser to Hillary Clinton and Condoleezza Rice, warns of the detrimental influence of politics and misinformation on the safety of GM crops. Instead, Fedoroff says that: "GM crops are arguably the safest new crops ever introduced into the human and animal food chains."

Addressing safety concerns, Fedoroff highlights recent studies that have revealed that plant modification by molecular techniques has less impact on gene expression, protein and metabolite levels than conventional genetic crosses. New methods are also rapidly being developed that promise to further increase the specificity and precision of genetic modification.

"The overwhelming evidence is that the GM foods now on the market are as safe, or safer, than non-GM foods," argues Fedoroff. She also cites a recent overview by the European Union of more than 130 research projects over 25 years concluding that GM methods are not inherently more risky than conventional plant breeding technologies. Fedoroff adds: "Every credible scientific body that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion."
,,,

She writes: "Current yield growth trends are simply insufficient to keep up with growing demand...To live sustainably within planetary constraints, we must grow more on the same amount of land using less water, energy and chemicals. The molecular genetic revolution of the late 20th century that powered the development of precise GM methods is the most critical technology for meeting these challenges."

GM -- 'the most critical technology' for feeding the world | EurekAlert! Science News

America's Justice System Sure Doesn't Know Much Science | WIRED

James Holmes walked into a midnight screening of The Dark Knight Rises in 2012 carrying three guns including a semi-automatic rifle and opened fire, killing 12 people and injuring 70 more. Nobody, not even his defense attorneys, denied that. But those attorneys still told a jury and a judge that Holmes was not guilty of those crimes—because he was insane. Last month, that jury rejected that assertion, finding Holmes guilty on all counts.

Holmes’ plea didn’t get him off, but it did get people talking about the insanity defense again. It’s a rare move for defense attorneys these days, even quaint sounding. Psychiatrists no longer call patients “insane.” It’s not a clinical diagnosis. Yet the term persists in the courtroom—along with many other practices unsupported by modern psychology and neuroscience.

Americans inherited a legal system shaped by history, not by science. “The legal system is resistant to change and resistant to paying attention to scientific research,” says Adam Benforado, a law professor at Drexel University and author of the recent book Unfair: The New Science of Criminal Injustice. The system assumes that innocent people don’t confess to crimes they didn’t commit. It presumes that eyewitness testimonies are reliable. It counts on the impartiality of jurors.

None of those things are borne out by evidence.


America's Justice System Sure Doesn't Know Much Science | WIRED

Rice revolution? New rice could help feed world, fight climate change. - CSMonitor.com

The work began several years ago with a group of researchers at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences in Uppsala, says Christer Jansson, who headed the effort at the time. The scientists were trying to understand the genetic machinery that controls how carbon – in the form of sugars, starches, and other carbohydrates – is distributed in plants as they take up as carbon dioxide via photosynthesis.

The team found three types of genes that act like master switches controlling the distribution of carbon in barley. The researchers homed in on one in particular, which they labelled SUSIBA2, explains Dr. Jansson, currently director of plant sciences at the US Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.

Other researchers noticed that rice plants that have the largest number of grains produce the least amount of methane. The reason: More carbon going into rice grains left less carbon to go elsewhere – like to the roots, which ultimately feed microbes that produce methane.

In modeling how the gene SUSIBA2 worked in barley "we realized it would be possible to control carbon allocation in rice,"  Jansson says, creating "a win-win situation. We would get more starch, more food, and less methane."

Tests and field trials in China found that the SUSBIA2 gene indeed channeled carbon mainly to the rice plants' stems and grains, according to the new study's team, headed by Chuanxin Sun at the Institute for Biotechnology at the Fujian Academy of Agricultural Science in Fuzhou, China.

This redirection of carbon reduced the amount of carbon available to methane-forming microbes in the roots and adjacent soil, reducing the number of microbes and hence methane emissions.

Rice revolution? New rice could help feed world, fight climate change. - CSMonitor.com

Louisiana science education: School boards, principals, and teachers endorse creationism in public school.

In another email exchange with Rowland, a parent had complained that a different teacher, Cindy Tolliver, actually taught that evolution was a “fact.” This parent complained that Tolliver was “pushing her twisted religious beliefs onto the class.” Principal Rowland responded, “I can assure you this will not happen again.”

[,,,]
The Louisiana Science Education Act, passed by the state legislature in 2008, permits science teachers to use supplemental materials to “critique” evolution, opening a backdoor that these teachers are using, as intended, to teach creationism. Such lessons are allowed under this Louisiana law, but they are illegal under federal law.

“We know that one in eight high school biology teachers advocate for creationism, even though it's unconstitutional,” says Josh Rosenau of the National Center for Science Education. “These emails make clear that many teachers are interpreting the Louisiana Science Education Act as allowing such unconstitutional and scientifically-misleading lessons.”

On April 22 the Louisiana Senate Education Committee voted on a bill to repeal the Science Education Act, referred to by many on both sides as the “creationism act.” This was the fifth vote since 2010, and legislators voted 4–3 to keep creationism in Louisiana classrooms.

[,,,]
Louisiana school districts are clearly breaking the law all the time, but the Louisiana Legislature still refuses to repeal the Science Education Act. These newly released emails, from districts across the state, show that this law is being used systematically to teach creationism in public schools. This puts Louisiana on a collision course with a First Amendment lawsuit.

I asked Andrew Seidel, a lawyer for the Freedom From Religion Foundation, which litigates separation of church and state cases, about the legal situation surrounding the law. “It was clear when the [Science Education Act] was passed that it was just another shameful attempt to circumvent the First Amendment,” Seidel told me. He went on to warn teachers against teaching creationism, and said, “No state law, including the Louisiana Science Education Act, can shield public schools and public school teachers from liability for violating the U.S. Constitution.” Several separation of church and state advocacy groups, including the FFRF and the ACLU, have their eye on Louisiana.

Louisiana science education: School boards, principals, and teachers endorse creationism in public school.