Comments on: James Shapiro goes after natural selection again (twice) on HuffPo

By: SiftingPoint | Peer Reviewed Paper: Neo-Darwinism Falsified

SiftingPoint | Peer Reviewed Paper: Neo-Darwinism Falsified — Thu, 23 May 2013 17:08:38 +0000

[…] Jerry Coyne James Shapiro goes after natural selection again (twice) on HuffPo […]

By: James Shapiro goes after natural selection again (twice) on HuffPo – Jerry Coyne – Why Evolution Is True | Living Without Faith

Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:38:40 +0000

[...] Read more Share this: [...]

By: Hello, Readers! (I do have readers, right?) « Anthony Richer

Hello, Readers! (I do have readers, right?) « Anthony Richer — Sat, 22 Sep 2012 14:47:32 +0000

[...] James Shapiro goes after natural selection again (twice) on HuffPo (whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com) [...]

By: nitya47

nitya47 — Sun, 09 Sep 2012 02:35:48 +0000

Actually, extra legs, arms heads etc do get thrown up fairly frequently as mutations, however if they do not confer an evolutionary advantage to the organism in question, they do not progress past the random mutation stage.

By: thyshuman

thyshuman — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 17:23:48 +0000

Thanks, especially for finding the time to reply to my query. I can use this quite well.

Your book WEIT remains one of the best. Using it daily in debates. TH Pretoria

By: whyevolutionistrue

whyevolutionistrue — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 13:18:00 +0000

Yep, I said this, and I think it’s in one of my posts on Shapiro (just enter “Shapiro” into the search engine and then do a “find” for the quote. I don’t have it at hand and don’t have time to hunt for it right now. However, just because all of the opposition to evolution from scientists comes from molecular biologists doesn’t meant that there is a LOT of opposition to evolutionary biology from molecular biologists! That’s the mistake the newspaper made. In fact, very, very few molecular biologists don’t accept the modern theory of evolution: James Shapiro happens to be one, and one of the rare exceptions. It’s like saying that because virtually all serial killers are men, that serial killing is widespread among men.

And you can quote me on this to that newspaper.

By: thyshuman

thyshuman — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 13:05:45 +0000

In a letter today in an Afrikaans newspaper in South Africa a well-known creationists quotes Jerry Coyne as follows:

“Virtually all of the non-creationist opposition to the modern theory of evolution… come from molecular biologists. I’m not sure whether there’s something about that discipline (the complexity of molecular mechanisms) that makes people doubt the efficacy of natural selection, or whether it’s simply that many molecular biologists don’t get a good grounding in evolutionary biology.”

Is this a correct quote and if so could you refer me to the full item so that I can see whether it was taken out of context or was not elaborated on – as I suspect.

The quote is being used to “prove” that it is not only creationists who oppose evolution but also scientists. I would like to have ammo to kick his… well, to kick his arguments out of the park!

thks

By: GS Hurd

GS Hurd — Wed, 29 Aug 2012 13:04:52 +0000

The question of whether or not Shapiro’s arguments are being helpful to creationism is answered affirmitively just by noting that the Discovery Institute is so happy with them. They are promoting Shapiro as evidence that there is “dissent” among biologists, as in the Disco’tute “Dissent from Darwin” list. And, in many people’s minds, if not Darwin then creationism.

Actually, Darwin could have happily signed the “Dissent from Darwin” statement;
http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/search/label/Dissent%20From%20Darwin

By: reddogbear

reddogbear — Mon, 27 Aug 2012 16:00:06 +0000

Thanks for that comment. I found his article very difficult to read but I was getting that impression as well and you’ve confirmed it. For example, he says things like “natural selection can’t be creative”

It actually fits in with the general woo outlook at the Huffington Post. Ms. Huffington is very much into New Age BS, stuff like “The Secret”, etc.

By: Asa

Asa — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 23:53:21 +0000

I found Dr. Shapiro’s article disappointing in an unusual way after reading your book. I hadn’t done a lot of reading about evolution since I read your book and your blog, and I was surprised that a biology professor from your university doubted something like natural selection (especially after reading your book). I was a little uncomfortable with what I might find, so I went to read Shapiro’s article ready to learn some facts that would make me uncomfortable.

Instead of make me uncomfortable with facts, I was annoyed by the excessive use of soft, philosophical points such as such as natural selection is a short answer (so people like it), or people who question evolution are abused, and there is a scientific crusade for Darwinian evolution, etc. If you want to challenge the professional consensus, you should start with brutal facts, not give me all this talk about being open-minded. UFO conspiracy theorists give me a lot of similar soft talk too, but they take a long time to get to the facts.

Dr. Shapiro then lists some causes of genetic variation (some of which I remember your book or blog addresses in depth, such as gene transfer, hybridization, genetic duplication, etc.) but doesn’t explain how natural selection does not act on them. For example, I do not see how natural selection would not act on hybrids… or for that matter, any genetic change.

I’ll be following what Dr. Shapiro says closely, and I hope his answer gets right to the point without any philosophical talk or comments on the battle for education or atheist crusades, etc. If he actually makes some good factual points, then I’ll read a book he recommends.