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.

Flash! Stu Pivar is unsuing PZ Myers

I just heard from a source I think reliable that Stuart Pivar has dropped his lawsuit against PZ Myers/. 'Bout time, too. I stand by my comment of earlier today:

Incidentally, I do not expect PZ to lose his pajamas to the Pivar writ.

Defamation suits generally require a demonstration of harm. PZ verbally assaults people more or less on a daily basis, and who can really claim to have been harmed thereby other than himself?

Had he thought of choosing his targets more carefully and aiming more accurately, he might run risks that are not foreseen in the present case.

Let the Internet police itself.

Stuart Pivar suing PZ myers?

It's August, after all. Keep that in mind. Even so, I wouldn't have seen it if I hadn't believed it, but apparently, according to SciAm blogger Christopher Mims, Lifecode author Stuart Pivar is suing PZ Myers for libel.

Yes, Stuart is the one who was friends with the late Stephen Jay Gould. Hat tip to Jack, who draws my attention to Mims' last graff, quoting Myers:

Huh. I'd heard some noise from Pivar threatening to sue, but this is the first I've heard of any formal action being taken. Since I'm a defendant (one who hasn't been notified of his status!) I suppose I should just shut up at this point and let justice run its course. Since I'm a blogger, though, I can't completely shut up. I will just say that this is Pivar's attempt to squash a negative review of his book, which I posted here. Nothing in the review was motivated by personal malice, and I actually am inclined to favor structuralist arguments in evolution ... but I'm afraid my honest assessment of Pivar's work is that it does not support his conclusions. I still stand by my review, and now I'm a bit disturbed that someone would think criticism of a scientific hypothesis must be defended by silencing its critics.

Oh, my stars. When has anyone ever have tried to do that before? Just unbelievable.

And yes, PZ Myers is the U of Minnesota biologist who got into a row with Dilbert's alter ego. Yes, that Dilbert, the baby engineer. Honest.

If PZ were to libel anyone, like, how would we KNOW?

Update: To learn more about Pivar's actual theory, as opposed to detractions thereof, go here and here. It is a theory of self-organization, it is not an intelligent design theory.

Morpho field theory again

Stuart Pivar, who is sending me a copy of his new book, arguing for morphology as the best way to understand evolution, offers a history of morphogenetic field theory:

Morphogenetic Fields Forever

Rupert Sheldrake has nothing to do with morphogenetic Field theory except at the Wikapedia level. He attached his name to the then fifty year old theory of morphogenetic fields as an explanation of his famous theory of “Cosmic Consciousness”, about monkeys washing coconuts, and lab mice in Chicago and Berlin.

The history of the morphogenetic field theory begins a hundred years ago. Almost every biologist became occupied with its implications as expressed in 1937 by Paul Weiss. By mid-century it was the leading account for many baffling phenomena of early embryogenesis.

The advent of genetic inheritance wiped out morphogenetic field work. But it returned as an accepted reality at every level of biological scale in recent decades, including the molecular level where the theory is of basic importance.

Note that the similar term Morphogenic Fields refers to the reaction-diffusion theory of morphology of Alan Turing, unrelated to the present case.

The best recent source is Developmental Biology by Scott F. Gilbert, the standard evo devo textbook. The chapter called the Return of Morphogenetic Fields is conveniently reproduced in his evo devo website. The name Rupert Sheldrake does once not appear.

The theory of embryonic self-organization does not depend on morphogenetic fields.
The phenomenon has been cited to account for the quantification of biological development much as the quantum theory does for space.

I linked the Web site mentioned; presumably if the chapter is still there, interested readers will find it. Apparently, Pharyngula continues to rave about Pivar's theories, and with enemies like that, he hardly needs friends.

That said, I hope that the little lambs of affirmation can bear the shock if someone, somewhere reads Pivar's book with an open mind, because if I get anywhere near the bottom of my in tray, I am planning to.

Update!: Stuart Pivar writes to tell me that a planetarium director who supported the project in the past withdrew his support on receiving a call from the Pharyngulite. Hmmm. If so, that's too bad. Perhaps someone should tell Mr. Orbit about call screening ...

Anyway, I have now received Pivar's book and am sending it out to be reviewed by a non-pharyngulite who is versed in evolutionary biology. I will publish that biologist's review on this blog when I receive it. (I can always read it myself later.) Thanks to all the pharyngulites who have visited today. I don't yet have PayPal, but you can buy my books to show your appreciation instead.

Update 2 (2007 07 19): Well, I have a little more information now: I e-mailed the planetarium director, and quoted him the blurb that appears on the back of Pivar's book, over his name:

"Another possibility is that life has encoding that has nothing to do with DNA. That would be more important for biology than finding other life with DNA, because it would be a way to encode life that no one has dreamt of before ... No mere mathematical curiosity, this physically plausible model should be investigated seriously by biologists.

- Neil de Grasse Tyson, director, The Hayden Planetarium

asking for clarification of the report that he has now withdrawn his support.

He replied,

The first part of the quote is out of context and relates specifically to the search for alien life, in which I have publicly suggested, in multiple media outlets and in my writings, that alien life may have its identity encoded in ways that do not invoke DNA at all.

The second half of the quote I have never said, nor do I agree with. In all fairness to Mr. Pivar, I had the opportunity to have noticed the quote much earlier (he sent me his materials many times over the past half year) and I might have called these errors to his attention in advance of the press release and other sources of publicity that the work has received. But that did not happen, given my overstuffed schedule and given that last November I has already submitted to him,
at his request, a multi-page assessment of his work, after which, I did not feel the need to monitor his progress.

In response to my statement that he appears to have withdrawn his support, he replied,

The support implied by the quote was never there in the first place. The thrust of my written comments to Mr. Pivar from last November was that I had no opinion on whether his ideas were correct or not. But that his research paper fell below the standards of evidence expected for papers in my field. And so I recommended a suite of tests that, if he conducted them, would allow me to pass judgment. I further said that if the tests wre successful that he would not need my support, and that people would be beating a path to his door.

None of my recommendations have yet been heeded, and so I continue to have no opinion.

He then punted my question as to whether the Pharyngulite had played any role in his sudden attention to the material that appears over his name on the back jacket of Pivar's book.

Meanwhile, Pivar tells me that the following persons: Robert Hazen, Dimitar Sasselov, Brian Goodwin and Richard Milner have not withdrawn their support.

I wonder, are they in line for a call from the Prophet of the Pharyngula? Well, they can do whatever they want, but I am getting an independent assessment of the work in question.

The thing about Darwinists is that they are so predictable. Here are samples of two comments I borfed recently:

Say, Tyson withdrew his support because he never lent it. Pivar claimed it unjustifiably. PZ had sent him an e-mail asking if he really supported an idea for which there was no experimental nor obervational basis.

(Here I am being invited to substitute speculation ["Say, ..."] for asking Tyson to comment. But come to think of it, Darwinism is 99% speculation anyway, isn't it?

As it happens, the present is NOT a prehistoric era. I can just ask Tyson, and I did. He appears to want me to belive that the Pharyngulite Prophet had no influence. I guess I could speculate and say that the circumstances suggest that Prophet PZ did have an influence on Tyson, but I am not a Darwinist, so I cannot simply count that as fact and launch a persecution against anyone who doubts it.)

Here's the other one:

As a fellow Torontonian, I hope that you can inject a little more objectivity and rationalism into your articles.

Well, fellow Torontonian, don't move to my neighbourhood, there's a dear. What YOU mean by "objectivity and rationalism" is "behaving like the pharyngulite mob." Some of us have standards.

Stuart Pivar has implied to me that there is a long trail of correspondence around an effort to get his theory published in a journal. I just bet there is. I covered the Rick Sternberg uproar, after all.

If Pivar sends me a wallop of paper, I guess I'll have to read it.

My own opinion so far is that a lot of people should just grow up. Darwinism is clearly and obviously dead, and it is not coming to life again.

As the cop said to the perp, who offered him a lame excuse, "You're going to have to come up with something better than that."

Update 2007 07 20:

So who is Neil deGrasse Tyson anyway? A friend, David, writes,

Hey Denyse - You may have seen this already but I'm sharing it anyway. Tyson spoke spoke at the Beyond Belief conference last year. Here he goes against ID where he totally caricatures the theory and uses the argument from evil against design. Apparently Tyson has his own religious beliefs about what a God should and should not do. For him, bad design means no design........and this guy is supposed to be a logical scientist?

The arguments from evil were:

The universe is a hostile place for life

We have to eat for food to stay alive

There are volcanos and other natural disasters that kill people

There are diseases that kill people

There are genetic abnormalities that kill people

No engineer would design the place were you use the bathroom to be close to the place were your genitals are (argument from uncleanliness, this is a new I have to admit:)

And THEN he takes a jab at REPUBLICANS!

Well, now, David, they must have called it the Beyond Belief conference for a reason, right? Personally, I have watched with interest the decline in reasonableness of atheist arguments over the years. (I wonder where Dr. Tyson thinks the anus should be, for example? All real design features constraints as well as disadvantages. That is a function of existence in this particular real world. )

What I am now most interested to see is whether the other parties who endorsed Pivar's book/ideas/articles will receive a special revelation from the Prophet of the Pharyngula, and if so, how they will respond. Anyone can have an opinion. Only people of courage and intellect can have convictions.

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.