Jerry Coyne represents himself as the epitome of science, reason and critical thinking. But “Dr. Reason” or shall we say “Dr. EvolutionIsTrue” often ends up as the butt of jokes and sarcasm in the ID community.
He got hoodwinked recently. He was pranked into believing a particular internet account was real and then started quoting from it to support his arguments. Turned out his evidence was from a faked source. Finally someone intervened to stop Coyne from making anymore a joke of himself. Coyne was forced to make a retraction:
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/09/06/more-twier-hilarity/
But more seriously, Coyne might not make retractions when fellow scientists discover serious flaws in his own work. First I point out physicists have overturned his claims that the “backward” wiring of the human retina is a design flaw. In fact because the wiring acts as light channel, the wiring acts serves an important photon segregating function. He totally embarrassed himself:
(Phys.org) —Having the photoreceptors at the back of the retina is not a design constraint, it is a design feature. The idea that the vertebrate eye, like a traditional front-illuminated camera, might have been improved somehow if it had only been able to orient its wiring behind the photoreceptor layer, like a cephalopod, is folly.
Hear that? Coyne’s ideas are called folly.
But that’s not all, he got called on the carpet by nuclear chemist Jay Wile who pointed out Coyne didn’t even bother consulting basic embryology textbooks. Coyne claims lanugo hair has no function and uses his false claim as evidence evolution is true. Wile point out Coyne’s error:
From about the third month lanugo hair (Latin, lana = wool) hair is initially formed and it has a role in binding vernix to skin.
Indeed, this is such a well-known fact that review materials for the U.S. Medical Licensing Exam discuss it. For example, Philip R. Brauer in his review book, Human embryology: the ultimate USMLE step 1 review says:
Vernix caseosa is a culmination of sebaceous gland secretions and dead epidermal cells, and the lanugo hair helps retain it on the outer skin surface.
I do credit Coyne with getting one thing right
In science’s pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to [the pseudoscience of] phrenology than to physics.
Something about motes and beams.
ok. For a minute there I thought Coyne had sent money to Colin. Gullible Coyne.
You teach your students to be like that?
Ah, that one’s easy. Pluck out the whole eye!
The difference between Coyne and IDists is that he quickly corrected the blog.
He should have just 404ed it then threatened other people who keep a running archive of his site (because of so many unacknowledged changes and retractions) with litigation.
The ID community, with its jokes and sarcasm, seems pretty selective in its outrage, none so more than you. And as to the charge of making a fool of oneself scientifically, Sal, you leave no discipline untouched.
Mung,
Bioth to be sure!
Why don’t you all help Salvador out by explaining how he can convince you to become his friends?
I guess I could lead by example. Maybe a post titled, An Apology to Jerry Coyne to lead things off.
In all candor I find you and Sal a mixed bag. Sal has, to his credit, admitted he is dogmatic IIRC. There’s a brain in there somewhere but he can’t help himself trying to get a rise out of people, to the point that googling ‘Sal Cordova’ is not a career booster.
I doubt either of you will be convinced by me or others but if you think ID is science ( I don’t think Sal does) do dome primary research to support a hypothesis to make a positive case. Opining on your nuanced appreciation of the bible isn’t helping.
I don’t really see the point to this thread.
I’m not a Coyne fan. But, in this case, he made a mistake and admitted it. What’s the big deal?
And ID?
Oh yeah, it really is the equivalent of phrenology.
Glen Davidson
Neil Rickert,
Neil Rickert,
He was hoodwinked and duped! Probably conned and taken for a ride as well.
Do you mean he was coyned?
I’m just some dude on the internet. My day job has nothing to do with “primary research” in any field of science. So asking me to “do some primary research to support a hypothesis to make a positive case” [for ID] is ho hum material. Maybe when I retire.
Pretty sure it was you who started the “biblical contradictions” thread. Then keiths followed up with his “Questions for Christians and other theists, part 6: Hell” thread. Crying foul now seems a bit beneath you.
Richardthughes, speaking of being duped, how do you feel about being coyned by keiths?
I will certainly admit and apologize for my mistake if I am wrong, but weren’t you buying in to that whole schtick of his that he had actually posted a response to my rebuttal of his argument?
see here
Look here, OldMung.
“Jerry Coyne represents himself as the epitome of science, reason and critical thinking. “
No, he doesn’t.
The utter bitterness of this post. lemons are looking on with envy!
Yeah there’s some serious butthurt between the lines there, they really depise Coyne almost as much as Richard Dawkins (remember how Dembski wrote that Dawkins is “a villain”?). In some ways I think Coyne has surpassed Dawkins as the new favorite boogeyman.
It’s nice that you admit your belief in ID came before any evidence for ID. Not surprising, but nice nonetheless.
You won’t make a positive case for ID but will talk about the bible forever?
I cry foul.
These sorts of bitter, deeply uncharitable posts from Sal are a bit of a head scratcher for me. That ridiculous quote about Darwin being a liar that he occasionally posts is another one. Certainly, when I read them, I’m less, not more, inclined to view ID favorably (granted, I’m biased). More importantly, though, my reaction to these sorts of posts is certainly not to say, “Boy this person is setting an amazing example – I should would like to know more about his faith!” Given that Sal, from what I can tell, seems to take apologetics and evangelism fairly seriously, these outbursts seems rather counterproductive.
Just my $0.02.
Hey, the OP wasn’t about me, it was about Jerry Coyne’s false assertions.
Isn’t any one here going to defend his dopey claims about retinas and lanugo hair? Do I take that to mean, you don’t want to actually admit one of your boys made 3 mistakes (2 of them pretty bad since Coyne uses these false claims in his writings to spread the Gospel according to Darwin).
But if it were an ID proponent, you’d be spiking the ball in the endzone a thousand times and not letting the internet stop hearing about it.
Isn’t TSZ the defender of science and reason? Where is the outrage here for Coyne spreading falsehoods to the next generation of science students? You’ll let him get away with spreading falsehoods just because it sort of agrees with your metaphysical biases?
And even one of those falsehoods would cause someone to err on exams related to medical licensing. Prospective doctors might be thinking, “I almost got that question wrong because I once believed falsehoods about lanugo hair.”
Where is the usual frothing at the mouth at TSZ in the defense of “science”.
Yes it was, Sal. You just didn’t think it through.
Rich,
Look, I know you like the guy, had lunch with him, etc.
I actually held back and was more polite than my usual nasty self in deference to you. But Coyne is still wrong, and he has no right to be labeling creationists as not knowing science when he will continues to be called on the carpet over and over again on his own misunderstandings. It’s not just the creationists but molecular biologists like James Shapiro.
Anyway, I do feel bad that you had to read what I wrote because he’s your friend, and your one of the more decent guys at TSZ. Sorry.
They would not be creationists if they understood science. Simple as that.
You are like the buzzing of flies to him!
Remind me how old the earth is again Sal and have you told that to your “ID” students you claim to be teaching?
Sal, whilst I’m thankful for you thing of my feelings, write for you, not me. You’re a smart guy. If you apply yourself you can leave the world a better place.I don’t think having a bug up your ass with atheist X, Y or Z isn’t going to help you or bother them.
If you want to fight the (YE) creationist cause I can’t stop you but so many lines of evidence are against it, even many Christian Scientists find it untenable. Unless you come up with something game changing its going to continue to fade away. Its my honest opinion that you wont help that cause at all.
I think you’re a good guy that likes to get a rise out of people. You’re not the only one. me too. But its not a good trait, and I recognize this in myself.
Why not pick a fight that:
You can get on the ticket
Has only good emotional engagement
Allows you to make a difference?
I’ve tried to write something nice and positive. Which is hard, because, um, me.
“Coyne might not make retractions when fellow scientists discover serious flaws in his own work. First I point out physicists have overturned his claims that the “backward” wiring of the human retina is a design flaw.”
Oh, so Jerry’s “own work” is research on human retinas?
Last I heard he worked with Drosophila. So whatever his statements about human retinas, he is not describing “his own work”.
Speaking of mistakes, Sal, you have thrown away your entire life on YEC, the dumbest idea in existence. You are smart enough to have understood thermodynamics, and tossed all that ability and energy int something Time Cube Dumb.
Speaking of which, the Time Cube domain will come up for auction soon. You could have it and continue the good work.
Look upon the Time Cube Sal. This is you.
Sal,
The wiring of the vertebrate retina and the function of lanugo have nothing to do with Coyne’s “own work” It seems to me that this is part of the error that IDists promote that evolution is ‘supported’ by Coyne and Dawkins and PZ Myers. This ignores the fact that evolution is supported by the entire scientific community, composed of hundreds of thousands of individuals – Coyne, Dawkins etc just happen to be in the public eye.
I think you’ve missed the point on why the retina and lanugo support evolution. Its not that these were assumed to have no function and/or advantage. Every design flaw can have a silver lining. Every bug in the system can turn out to have some sort of advantage. The reason they support evolution is that the ‘advantages’ and the design overall appear to be built by successive small changes on what preceded it. An intelligent designer doesn’t need to work under this severe constraint. Our uniform and repeated experience tells us that designers sit down at a drawing board and conceive the whole system at once, and then solve individual problems from there.
….so…is lanugo – fetal hair- the only conceivable way to bind vernix to the baby? What a coincidence that we evolved from creatures with fur. For that matter, why do adult humans have body hair? Is it to give lice something to hold on to?…and why do whales have lanugo and body hair? And why do we need vernix to insulate the baby? I would think blankets would work better!
The evolutionary question to be addressed is not whether a feature is optimized, but whether it is consistent with descent with modification.
When Sal applies the mind that figured out thermodynamics to the other findings of science, this will become clear to him.
I think Sal has jumped the shark with this one. I’d vote for suspending his posting abilities
I wonder if Time Cube guy ever crowed about somebody else being duped.
I mean, if an ID-supporter can’t see the irony of an ID-supporter accusing someone else of being a dupe, such a one should be crowned the king of dupes.
Dream on, Sal, that a real scientist is as incompetent in science judgment as yourself.
Glen Davidson
And if they are creationists, they simply don’t understand science. How convenient.
TSZ is gonna go far with logic like that for a foundation!
You are truly pathetic. My arguments, the ones you have not answered, came after that post. Bluff called.
Mung,
You’re such a bore.
You wrote:
I responded:
Oh, don’t get me wrong, they can get a PHD in some scientific field alright.
I’m not TSZ and I don’t set it’s logical foundations.
Anyway, have you seen the stuff some one called “Mung” writes at UD? UD is going to go far with quality thinking like that as a foundation.
So exactly what assertion are you quoting this in support of? That the Designer achieved perfection with the vertebrate eye, but made a hash of the cephalopod one?
It comes across as a feeling of inferiority, Sal, not just towards Coyne, but to all serious scientists, including the vast majority of theists who are natural scientists and reject both IDism and YECism. Playing little ‘gotchas’ is all too obvious IDist strategy for “I wanna play with the real scholars too”. And that of course includes Mung, who otherwise, even under pseudonym, can’t stand Salvador T. Cordova who has been “hoodwinked and duped” by…anything?
And I’m no friend of Coyne’s scientistic anti-theistic atheism, but come on Cordova – get real! – propagandists for YECism and IDism are no better (unless you sit beside them in Protestant churches, saying Amen!). The duplicity of IDists is far too easy to display.
I think that is an unfair summary of Coyne’s stance. He’s not opposed to people believing in god as such; he’s opposed to religious groups trying to enforce their beliefs on others.
Alan Fox,
Guffaw. 😉 So, Alan Fox, according to you, Jerry Coyne is not anti-theistic?!
Gregory,
Just quickly glancing at his
blogwebsite, I see this remark:Doesn’t sound like he is wanting to shut down Catholicism, just limit its interference in political issues.
Alan,
You are so naïve. Go search more than just a ‘quick glance’. The same question awaits you.
Thank-you for the compliment. Many people I meet say I’m cynical.
Hang on, that’s not how it works. You seemed to be making the claim that Coyne is an antitheist. I take that to mean he campaigns for the abolition of religion. I see no evidence of that. You have the burden to support your claim that Coyne is an antitheist if you can.
10 minutes. This is what Alan Fox considers a ‘search’ to prove his naïve point. 🙂
I don’t doubt that at all. And don’t take that as a compliment.
If you have evidence, just post it already, or withdraw your accusation.
I suppose we could quibble about the definition of anti-theist, but I honestly don’t think it’s a particularly inaccurate description of Coyne’s views.
What are you talking about, Gregory? I’m not an avid reader of Jerry Coyne. I visit occasionally, usually when someone has linked to a topical OP. Nothing I have read by Coyne suggests he advocates the use of pitchforks or bonfires. I seem to recall he has made some effort to engage with at least one Church group. I have made no positive claim about Coyne’s views. You were the one who alleged he is an antitheist. What evidence can you produce to support that claim?