Review of Stu Pivar's book Lifecode

Okay, here at last is Jerry Bergman's review of Stuart Pivar's Lifecode:

Lifecode is an attempt to deal with some of the well documented problems with Darwinism.

First, I want to stress that I firmly believe that this research should be pursued, even though I am not enthusiastic about it.

This could well be because of my genetic bias. I was trained to believe, and it appears to me that the evidence supports, the conclusion that organisms are a result of the expression of genes which make proteins. In other words, the body plan results from the genome, not some Lifecode self-organization force.

Specifically, Pivar proposes an embryogenesis based on the properties of a toroidal surface - that is, the shape of a doughnut. The surface of the doughnut, known as a torus, is an annular shape generated by revolving a circle around an axis external to the circle.

All cells and embryos assume the toroidal shape. How they respond to this initial shape determines their adult morphology. The details of how this shape guides development and morphogenesis in general were, in my opinion, not very well defended in this work. This theory may explain certain aspects of the external morphology of a life form, but how much else does it explain?

Conversely, Pivar proposes a radically new theory, of which parts may well have merit. Only time will tell. What he needs is empirical and experimental evidence.

In the meantime, the comments on Amazon and various Web sites leave me wondering why there is such an emotional and vociferous reaction to a new theory of evolution. Part of the reaction is that any theory that proposes to replace Darwinism produces a knee-jerk reaction of uncalled-for invective. This attitude hardly encourages new ideas.

It is said that almost every genius produces a few good ideas and a lot of bad ideas, and that the only way to produce breakthroughs is to think a lot outside of the box. One or two, or perhaps several, ideas may pan out.

Criticism is needed, but it must be constructive criticism that focuses on the author's thesis and his support of his thesis, not attacks on the creator of the idea.

One reason I am cautious about simply rejecting this work is the new work done by the ENCODE project, which found that evidence exists for a much greater epigenetic influence than previously believed.

My second caution is that most of the reviews have been irresponsible character assassinations of the author. Why not attack the theory instead of the author? Some critics do just this, but many seem to express only dislike. The emotional invective which appears to be orchestrated by the same people who have rallied against intelligent design. - Jerry Bergman

(By the way, Bergman is himself about to publish a book, tentatively titled The War Against Darwin Skeptics, and edited by my able compatriot Cameron Wybrow.)

Here are some other Post-D stories about Stu Pivar and/or Lifecode:

Dissing St. Stephen Jay in his own church (September 20, 2005)

Pivar to NCSE: Change the wording on the Steve statement (November 2, 2005)

(July 16, 2007)

Morpho field theory again (July 18, 2007)

Stuart Pivar suing PZ Myers? (August 22, 2007)

Flash! Pivar is unsuing PZ Myers (August 28, 2007)

Note: The Post-Darwinist hits the Reject button practically every day. If you want to be part of this process, write some vulgar diatribe attacking Stu Pivar, Jerry Berman, Cameron Wybrow, or all three.

Stephen Jay Gould and doubting Darwinism

Stuart Pivar, a friend of the late Stephen Jay Gould, about whom I wrote years ago (because he doubted that Gould would have signed the Darwin lobby's "Steve" list, named in Gould's honour), contacted me recently about the new site for his book LifeCode. He thus ended a minor mystery I hadn't had time to get to the bottom of - why so many people from Pharyngula were researching my old posts on Pivar and his friendship with Gould:

New York, NY: In the foreword to the new book Lifecode: From Egg to Embryo by Self-organization by Stuart Pivar (Ryland Press), Darwin scholar Richard Milner* directs attention to the recent landmark ENCODE report (June 14) in which Human Genome Project Director Francis Collins calls the long-accepted model of genetics “badly flawed.” A week later, in a NY Times Science Times report, scores of scientists concluded that, after fifty years of genetic research, they don’t really understand what genes do, or how they work.

Lifecode presents an alternative theory of evolution which contends that the embryo is formed by self-organization, as are crystals, rather than by a genetic code subject to natural selection. Accompanying illustrations depict hypothetical construction blueprints for the various body forms. Biological Self-organization has long been a contending alternate theory for the code of life; recent proponents include evolutionary biologists Stephen Jay Gould and Brian Goodwin.

Of course, the Darwin lobby has always maintained that Pivar was making Gould's opinion up as he went along.

I doubt that. Gould knew as well as anyone that his status depended on upholding the status quo. He disagreed when it was safe enough to do so.

For example, Gould's serious and well-written attack on social Darwinism, The mismeasure of man, was grudgingly tolerated among those who longed to replace evidence-based psychology with "evolutionary" psychology - he was allowed that much leeway, on account of his immense popularity in American culture. He had appeared on The Simpson's, after all ...

But to assault Darwinism with the evidence that can no longer be evaded, as Mike Behe has recently done? Behe is indifferent to the power of Darwinists to unleash persecutions. Gould was evidently not that indifferent - and he couldn't be, precisely because of his iconic status. He who would be an icon cannot get down from the iconostasis. But privately, I think, he knew what he had to know, what everyone knows, including the Darwinists - absent persecution and indoctrination, it all just isn't working for them any more.