Function for a hundred years? An uncommon outcome for our hearts, actually. I’m always amazed at the stupidity of the “how could something so complex and perfect come about through a series of accidents, rather than by intelligent design?” argument. Eyes, perfect? Why are there so many LASIK surgeons then, and why do we deal with incurable macular degeneration in old age? Bipedalism? Why so do so many people grapple with foot and back disorders, if this feature was intelligently designed rather than a marginally effective modification from quadrupedalism? Yes, the human body is complex and fascinating and still houses many processes that can be described as mysteries… but intelligently designed?

I agree that the appeal to lack of authority is bogus but there are a lot of well educated idiots out there too.

Sometimes experts make silly mistakes. All of us involved in science have read papers outside our field that were obviously wrong; where someone is doing dodgy sub group analysis, anomaly hunting or has just completely missed the point. I’ve gotten into arguments with people talking about these kinds of things where their counter argument has been very similar to what Dr Novella has said. Recently I was discussing Luc Montagnier’s paper on electromagnetic signals from bacterial DNA, it’s obvious that he’s anomaly hunting, even though I’m a physicist and know very little about bacterial DNA I can see the error that invalidates the paper, I don’t need the expertise in that field even though I’m disagreeing with a Nobel prize winner.

I know there is a big difference between one crazy kook with excellent credentials and a consensus of opinion throughout the scientific community but you get my point. Maybe I’m nit picking or just taking out some of my annoyance over that argument out this article (sorry).

Actually, that is incorrect. He has contradicted the consensus scientific view on climate change.

It’s the arguing against the consensus as a non-expert that tends to mark one out as a bit of a loon, not arguing against one particular scientist who may or may not be incorrect.

There are countless examples of people who do do the above, though. My old field of particle physics attracts a lot of cranks who fall into this category, people who are self taught who just think that the consensus can’t be right.

I agree it’s not directly relevant, but it’s a fair reminder.

I’m not attempting to give any credence to Mr May in anyway, but is there anything in his argument that there is no evidence for evolution at a biochemical level?

I know there plenty of evidence in the genetic (mitochondrial DNA) and fossil areas and just like a crime scene, if you don’t have one form of evidence (e.g. eye-witness) does not negate any others that do exist (fingerprints, DNA, confession etc)

Rather, he says that he has a specific areas of expertise, part of a tradition of expertise in magic and deception, that is sometimes relevant to scientific research. It is an expertise that scientists may lack and not even be aware they need for particular types of research. Randi’s examples generally involve researchers going outside their area of expertise and into Randi’s, without really knowing it.

Really, no analogy there.

I’ve obviously never listened to everything that Randi’s every said, but from what I’ve heard he does seems to stick to his own area of expertise ie stage magic and how intelligent people can get taken in by simple trickery being passed off as real.

“I know you were talking about beliefs that are held to be correct or at least highly plausible by the scientific community at large but still I think it’s a relevant point.”

was meant to indicate that I know that Randi doesn’t argue against those things but I feel the point is still valid for the reasons discussed.

In which area would he even try to call the scientific consensus into doubt?

I genuinely don’t understand what you are trying to say about the man, but this characterization of him seems very wrong.