PZ Myers responds to my critique of evolution, ignores current research by Klingenberg

As faithful readers have knowledge of, I am no friend of intelligent design. You would think that this alone would make PZ Myers, professor of evolutionary genetics at U of M, friendly to my research. But no one can do! Recently I politely asked Myers what he thought of my research on Evolution (or EvoDevo):

Unfortunately for him but fortunately for Honesty in Science, he proceeded to go on a Twant:



Now, in my original research into this question, I pointed out that the following conjunction

(1) Evolution happens via mutant descent;
(2) Mutants are negligibly likely to reproduce

are logically inconsistent. Because (2) is inconvertibly disputeless, (1) must be false, and hence evolution has serious holes (which E.O. Wilson has already shown, BTW). I have also discovered moral objection to evolution here.

Now it is worth noticing that Christianity “Peter” Klingenberg and his colleagues have shown in their work, “Morphological Integration and Developmental Modularity,” that the existence of mutants is doubly unlikely in the first places, because if there were mutants, than morphological integration would disintegrate into ashes. This is unsurprising in light of E.O. Wilson’s (I think?) “Convalescing Theory”, according to which mutated “alleles” break down or “convalesce” only when they share the same originating genomes, which is exceedingly (read: very) unlikely.

But what about PZ’s LOGIC? We can ignore his latter two Tweets, because they merely add hominem to insults. But he does say one thing of interest: “I’m a mutant, you’re a mutant, everyone is a mutant. I’ve got a wife & 3 kids. QED, you’re wrong.” First, the “QED” (sic): what follows from this is only that PZ’s wife and kids, and I/me, are/am mutants. But it does NOT follow that I’m wrong. Why not? Think about it! i never said that mutants themselves cannot meet other mutants and reproduce. It’s true that they can’t, but it’s not what I said. So it turns out that PZ has refuted a blog made of straw. I suspect this will damage his Twitter follow-rate, though in the days of Trump mania, one cannot be sure!


7 thoughts on “PZ Myers responds to my critique of evolution, ignores current research by Klingenberg

  1. Give up, you moron … Myers isn’t going to have anything to do with an ignorant imbecile like you.

    [NS (cheers): I’m going to start a practice of replying to comments within comments themselves – this is more primary. To reply: your comment is defeated by the very post you are commenting on. Myers has already had something to do with me. He was so threatened that he twanted for several minutes about me (in public; in private, he probably did so for a longer duration). Cheers.]

  2. “Mutants are negligibly likely to reproduce”

    This is demonstrably untrue. In fact, you can test it for yourself. You can order drosophilia with all kinds of highly visible mutations and you can track the propagation of the mutation through the population as they breed.

    As already pointed out, every reproducing organism alive today is a mutant.

    [NS: This is a classic Bayesian begging of the question in that if you already select reproducing mutants then of course you are getting mutants who reproduce. This is like theists who say that you can test fine tuning by finding a place on the earth and seeing if it is hospitable for life.]

  3. Hi Rasun God,

    I think we need to step back and have conversations about intellect and blog etiquette. You are to engage my points, of which are many! Not just disagree.

    Hope this helps in future,

  4. This noted scholar seems to merely be waiting for some one to point out that

    (1) Evolution happens via mutant descent;
    (2) Mutants are negligibly likely to reproduce

    are not logically inconsistent! Just because (2) is inconvertibly disputeless, does not mean that (1) must be false.

    Eventually, after penultimate numbers of years of mutation, failed reproduction, and bullying or death, a mutant strain will reproduce massively and the non-mutant strain will fail to reproduce whatsoever. This will occur thanks to the inconvertibly disputless “negligibly likely” mentioned in (2). At the point of occurrence it would be wise to consult Derrida as to whether this “mutant” strain could be considered the new non-mutant strain (or ex-mutant strain) or whether it should be still considered the mutant strain.

    It does not matter exactly which was Derrida swings, either way he will be supporting evolution: If he declares it a non-mutant strain, then this would support evolution in penultimate leaps and bounds. If he declares it a mutant strain all the same, then this explains mass extinctions!

  5. P.S. WordPress wants me to type my comment(s) into the computer screen? Can anyone offer some insight into how it might be possible to do that? I hope they don’t ban me for failing to comply.

  6. Dear Cat Goes Purr,

    You are purring indeed! This is an interesting engagement with my criticisms – of which there are to be many in number – of evolution and Scientist-Priests like P.Z. Myers. You bring up a good issues with regarding logic. Are 1 and 2 logically consistent? It remains to be seen. But likeliness and logic have a distance between them in the beholder – it all depends on how you look at it.


Type your comment(s) into the computer screen

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s