1. Comment #154103 by Stephen Maxwell on April 2, 2008 at 4:18 pm

Who needs creationism to find something "beautiful" when this guy is talking about the "fossil genes" ???

Truly Mesmerizing! I love hearing someone who is so passionate about the subject of evolution.

Other Comments by Stephen Maxwell

2. Comment #154107 by Elles on April 2, 2008 at 4:39 pm

Ha! I have his book sitting on my bedroom floor!

I'm GOING to read it... eventually...

Other Comments by Elles

3. Comment #154108 by Geoff on April 2, 2008 at 4:53 pm

Another book for my list! This site should get a commission from amazon!

Other Comments by Geoff

4. Comment #154112 by chuckgoecke on April 2, 2008 at 4:58 pm

Best catchphrase: "a devastating argument against creationists" equal and similar to "breathtaking inanity". Just my 2 cents

Other Comments by chuckgoecke

5. Comment #154118 by gyokusai on April 2, 2008 at 5:37 pm

Is it just me, or are there others here who also think this interviewer was rather obnoxious? I mean, just listen to this nugget:

Are we getting any closer to the resolution of the ancient debate that goes back to, I suppose, the Scopes trial in 1925 and [pause] evolution versus, if you like, creationism, because, in a way, ultimately there has to be a leap of faith that says, 'this was natural selection that drove it' rather than [pause] intelligent design, or these alternative theories ...

or,

[the Scopes trial:] Could you have a better argument now against the creationists? [...]

Now if anyone asked me to explain why this is inflationary b.s. on the big bang scale, I just wouldn't know where to start.

^_^J.

Other Comments by gyokusai

6. Comment #154131 by dragonfirematrix on April 2, 2008 at 6:22 pm

I love the phrase "a leap of reason."

A lot of people on this planet need "a leap of reason."

Other Comments by dragonfirematrix

7. Comment #154134 by rod-the-farmer on April 2, 2008 at 6:26 pm

I love the linkage of DNA in the courtroom, in paternity cases, to DNA in the evolution lab. Why did no one think to voice this before ? Excellent. If you believe the science in one arena, why not in another ?

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

8. Comment #154149 by Sittingduck on April 2, 2008 at 6:57 pm

I would like to hear more from Prof. Carroll. I live an hour from the U of W, Madison, and I have never heard him interviewed before in the Midwest.

I can't say enough about all the excellent characters I have learned about since I began lurking around RichardDawkins.net. (My pile of books to read keeps growing!!).

Just loved when he politely corrected the interviewer "Leap of reason rather than leap of faith"...

Other Comments by Sittingduck

9. Comment #154171 by HappyPrimate on April 2, 2008 at 7:42 pm

Well don't you know that a new bill is being introduced in the Louisiana State legislature to allow the teaching of creation science in Louisiana's public schools, along side evolution of course. Insert four letter words here.
Maybe I can send the good state senator a link to this interview?

Other Comments by HappyPrimate

10. Comment #154187 by JD Cherry on April 2, 2008 at 8:14 pm

Sean B Carroll is good, but he's no Sean M. Carroll.

Other Comments by JD Cherry

11. Comment #154230 by Ian on April 3, 2008 at 12:13 am

Too Short!

I prefer Sean B Carroll, but then that's just my biophilia coming out. Both Seans are a credit to their name.

I read Carroll's earlier book Endless Forms, Most Beautiful and it's one of the best books on biology I've ever read; right up there with Richard and Mark Ridley.

Other Comments by Ian

12. Comment #154231 by Barry Pearson on April 3, 2008 at 12:14 am

I recently bought and read Sean's "The Making of the Fittest" and Neil Shubin's "Your Inner Fish".

I enjoyed both of them, and learned a lot. Sean answers so many of the questions about how new genes can "appear" without ruining the use of existing genes, and shows how some genes are conserved for very long periods while others are highly changeable. It makes me wonder just how much we will learn about genomes throughout the whole evolutionary tree. Research into the whole Theory of Evolution appears to be stronger than ever!

Neil's book is shorter (although well over 200 pages!), presumably on the principle "leave 'em wanting more", but shows both the enjoyment that people get from doing science in different ways, and has good diagrams which shows key aspects of evolution (eg. jaw to ear bones). These diagrams show just how important the evolution of development of the embryo is with more clarity than I have seen elsewhere.

Both recommended by me.

Other Comments by Barry Pearson

13. Comment #154264 by sornord on April 3, 2008 at 2:26 am

The Florida education system is also under a similar attack as Louisiana's, using the same "educational freedom" argument I hear is the latest tactic from the Discovery Institute.

SW

Other Comments by sornord

14. Comment #154296 by Barry Pearson on April 3, 2008 at 4:27 am

gyokusai said:

Is it just me, or are there others here who also think this interviewer was rather obnoxious?

This is the "Today" programme! These people regularly interview senior politicians and attempt to get past their b*llsh*t. I think they assume by default that their interviewees are trying to get away with something, until they show they are not.

That interview was very mild in comparison!

(I was once interviewed, pre-recorded in advance then edited, for the "Today" programme. The interviewer kept going until I had expressed myself with clarity. It isn't a chat show).

Other Comments by Barry Pearson

15. Comment #154342 by cheetahhead on April 3, 2008 at 5:54 am

Rod-the-farmer said:

If you believe the science in one arena, why not in another ?

I've had this same thought about the cdesign proponentsists. They spend a great deal of time denigrating both science and scientists, but when someone like Behe comes along with scientific credentials* and supports their cause, they rally behind the "science" he promulgates. They can't have it both ways.

* Note that I simply mean a scientific degree here and not necessarily scientific talent or ability

Other Comments by cheetahhead

16. Comment #154376 by PJG on April 3, 2008 at 6:41 am

One of the most enjoyable books I've read for many years. Brilliant.

Fossil genes must be such a problem for creationists - why on earth would God give us the genetic potential for something and then diminish it? (E.g. about 50% of the genes humans carry for olfaction are now non-functioning having apparently been "side-lined" in favour of selection for our full colour vision)

This is such a good interview - shame it wasn't a one hour programme... or two hours... or three!!!

Other Comments by PJG

17. Comment #154823 by babrock on April 3, 2008 at 7:03 pm

I have a fairly large interest in history but I am no scholar.
I am wondering how long after Galilao produced evidence, that t Ptolomaic view of t heavens was wrong, did it become generally accepted by everyone that it was wrong, and that we were not t center of anything.
He just said it had been 149 years since Darwin. Or one could start counting from Watson and Cricks' discovery.
From my point of view t stupidity has gone on way too long tho maybe I am being impatient.

Other Comments by babrock

18. Comment #155919 by Riley on April 6, 2008 at 10:04 am

I don't think it took long after Galileo's published discoveries for people to accept that the Ptolomaic view of the heavens was wrong. What they wouldn't do for many decades yet, was BOTH accept that the Ptolomaic model was wrong AND accept that the heliocentric model was right. And for good reason.

The heliocentric model seemed to them to create worse problems than the Ptolomaic model. For starters: where is the parallax of the stars? (answer: the stars were so much further away than anyone had imagined) The bigger question was: How is it that the earth could be moving? At such great speeds, shouldn't we all be blown off by the wind? Tycho Brahe, in order to both account for the phases of Venus and avoid the moving earth problem, proposed a model that had the sun going around the earth, but all the other planets going around the sun.

Further muddying the issue, was the fact that Galileo himself was claiming that the tides of the earth were proof that the Earth was in motion - and he was wrong. When it was shown to him that if the motion of the earth's rotation and movement around the sun were the cause of the tides, then that would produce only one tide per day, not two, Galileo found himself on the other end of denying the evidence. Galileo's discredited himself in this regard, and the whole heliocentric model as a result, unfortunately. Newton put the issue all to rest by 1687, but in the meantime, the Ptolomaic model for calculating the position of planets was still useful, so it kept getting used.

The primary source of Catholic Church philosophical resistance to the heliocentric model I think was that it would make the church look like a sun worshiping cult in the eyes of many at a time when they were being criticized for being too liberal ... not what they needed in the middle of the political battle ensuing with the followers of Martin Luther. Even Galileo was suspicious of Kepler's "perfect solid" mysticism and Christian-based sun-worship.

Other Comments by Riley

19. Comment #155931 by Riley on April 6, 2008 at 10:44 am

Carol mentions here something relevant to a topic that I've been wondering a lot about. He said that evolution is much more predictable than biologists have thought.

So I've wondered, if we were to start the process all over again, would we get pretty much the same sorts of creatures all over again?

photosynthesis, sexual reproduction, eyes, hearing, reptiles, birds, mammalians (the basic forms) ... would we see them re-emerge? Is the emergence of intelligence, somewhat like our own, inevitable given enough time as well?

Other Comments by Riley