Of course Denyse O'Leary defends Pivar — any crackpot in denial about evolution is a friend of the IDists. They do point out a bizarre flaw in Wikipedia, though, and a common mangling of a concept.
There is an idea that's been around for almost a century, the morphogenetic field. This is a concept in developmental biology that refers to a local domain of interactions that work independently of more global factors to assemble an organ. For instance, we can talk about a limb field or an eye field, and it identifies a patch of tissue that is dedicated to a particular developmental task, and that is coordinated by signaling factors that operate across the field, but not necessarily in adjacent tissues. It's a perfectly ordinary idea, although admittedly it has gone through periods of nebulosity where, for example, the nature of any coordinating factors was unknown and only inferred. But it's not woo-woo pseudoscience. (Pivar gets this right, although he confuses morphogenetic fields with reaction-diffusion mechanisms, which is weird and hard to do if you know anything about either.)
Now there is another, similar term that has often been intentionally muddled up with morphogenetic fields: morphic fields. This is a coinage by Rupert Sheldrake, who claims that morphogenetic fields are a subset of morphic fields, and also postulates an extra-organismal property that unites morphic fields, called morphic resonance. Morphic fields and resonance are complete crackpottery. It's the basis of the Hundredth Monkey Effect, which doesn't exist, and Sheldrake's broader claims of a mystical field-force that has all kinds of metaphysical implications.
The fields organizing the activity of the nervous system are likewise inherited through morphic resonance, conveying a collective, instinctive memory. Each individual both draws upon and contributes to the collective memory of the species. This means that new patterns of behaviour can spread more rapidly than would otherwise be possible. For example, if rats of a particular breed learn a new trick in Harvard, then rats of that breed should be able to learn the same trick faster all over the world, say in Edinburgh and Melbourne. There is already evidence from laboratory experiments (discussed in A NEW SCIENCE OF LIFE) that this actually happens.
The resonance of a brain with its own past states also helps to explain the memories of individual animals and humans. There is no need for all memories to be "stored" inside the brain.
Needless to say, none of these ideas are supported by any credible evidence, and what little there is all seems to come from gullible New Age phonies.
Bottom line: Morphogenetic fields = entirely natural concept describing the organization of developing tissues. Morphic fields = unlikely pseudoscientific mystical contrivance to support belief in magical action at a distance and a sort of spirit world. Now try reading the Wikipedia entry for "morphogenetic field". It's all wrong! It describes the work of Sheldrake (with painful credulity) and has substituted a discussion of morphic fields and morphic resonance for anything to do with legitimate developmental biology. Ooops. Look quick: I hope some Wikipedian somewhere will swoop in and fix this embarrassing error quickly.
Oh, and O'Leary calls my description of Pivar's book a "rave" and promises to read him with an open mind. Go ahead, but anyone who actually accepts his work as worthwhile isn't open-minded—they're mindless. I just don't know how anyone could look at his transitional drawings, which bear no resemblance to anything in phylogeny or ontogeny, and not realize that he's just making it all up.
- Log in to post comments
The wikipedia article on the Coventry Faeries has a similar undue credulity. As does John Titor's page.
Rare random subjects get more attention from the devotees, I guess.
Oh, God, that's a mess.
I am again reminded of Neal Adams's scheme of an ever-expanding earth, wherein a series of cleverly-rendered transitions, as drawn by Adams, shows the 'illusion' of plate tectonics. Contrary data just doesn't have a chance against the beauty of our own imaginations, it seems: Pivar just seems to have similarly fallen in love with the idea because of the way his intuitions appear to map onto reality.
Ah, but perhaps we are all selective about such things. The Skeptical Enquirer has a nice piece on selective skepticism, using Einstein as an example. Well worth the read.
(And, for the anonymous person who sent a free copy of said Enquirer to my school site mailbox, thanks much---it beats the hell out of the usual creationist, out to save my soul!)
As a non-biologist, I'd only ever come across the term morphogenetic field in the horrible woo-woo way until now - I was actually quite surprised to find it's a respectable biological concept.
So, anyway, the abuse of the term is more widespread than simply Wikipedia.
OK, I'm confused. Morphogenesis was studied/invented by Turing right? and depends on reaction diffusion mechanisms.
Looks like the Wikipedia article has been taken down and now has a stub in its place
I'm curious: What does Sheldrake cite as his evidence that the distant rat populations do learn tricks faster?
best part about wikipedia?
when stuff like that is found, it gets fixed. i do it myself sometimes.
Like DrFrank, I've only ever come across morphogenetic field in the incorrect usage. Thanks for clearing this up.
I moved the Sheldrake nonsense to its own page and started a stub for the real science — that seemed to be the cleanest fix. People who know more about the subject than I should pitch in, even if it's just to add external links to scientific references.
You're being sarcastic, right? No to both.
You know...and this isn't very nice, but considering Denyse O'Leary's nick-name, she shouldn't be praising any sort of morphs at all.
Ahhhh, Rupert Sheldrake! As reliable as the Farmer's Almanac.
Man, I tell ya, the way that crazy gang at ID/UD/We-all-scream-for-Dembskream (it's his B-Day today!) is going, they're going to perform seances next. And I will be so there with my trumpet and my tin drum and my best impression of a male 17th-century Arian mathematician. (O'Leary: "But I sense a female presence." Dembski: "I could swear I've just been pinched!")
PZ,
for the confused amongst us, how about some pointers to the difference between morphogenetic fields and reaction-diffusion mechanisms? I thought the former depended on the latter.
Please?
Reaction-diffusion mechanisms are a specific set of chemical processes involving two diffusible agents that can spontaneously set up alternating patterns. That's it. There's essentially no evidence that they are used in real organisms. There are suggestions that they might be important in setting up some pigment patterns, and I recall there was a guy at the Friday Harbor meetings who always showed up to describe theoretical details of RD models, but that's it.
Fields are tissues that are set aside and specified for a specific developmental function. They don't need to be set up with reaction-diffusion molecules, and it would actually be peculiar to do so -- a simple gradient should be enough. Something like an imaginal disc from a fly would be a good example of a kind of morphogenetic field.
This is the biggest problem with Wikipedia. When it comes to Science (or religion), most of the posts cannot be trusted. People writing up their understanding of a scientific concept varies greatly from what the science actually IS. Don't look to wikipedia for science, look to it for all of the b-sides released by Nirvana.
By the way, when did I become your lamb of affirmation? That was kind of a bizarre attack on me.
I have no idea. O'Leary is a weird little freak, and I can't possibly imagine what's going on in her brain.
Nice job by Anville for moving pages around on Wikipedia. I have followed up by proposing a merge of the old article that Anville has moved into the Morphic field article.
My biggest problem with O'Leary is her attempt to pass off her blog as journalism. For the most part she is neither objective or unbiased, and her inane remarks about those people qualified in their fields are a journalistic abomination. It's like me as an Electrical Engineer telling a Doctor they have a diagnosis wrong. Utterly inane, midguided, and dangerous....
PZ:
Uh, no I wasn't. I'm in physics not biology and I don't know about these things. The only time I've heard of morphogenesis is in connection to Turing.
Another Wikipedia goof: Alexis Carrel's bogus immortal chicken heart cell culture: "The tissue was still growing 20 years later, longer than a chicken's normal lifespan."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexis_Carrel
The entry in Wikipedia has been disambiguated and "Morphogenetic field (Rupert Sheldrake)" version, has been described as a subset of "Morphic field," whatever that is.
Off-topic: Kittens!
Yeah! That's right! Tell her PZ. Wooohooo. You rock!
Now that's a lamb of affirmation.
There does seem to be some connection between morphogenesis and Turing's reaction diffusion mechanism:
Turing's Reaction-Diffusion Model of Morphogenesis
http://www.sfu.ca/~cjenning/toybox/turingmorph/
Maybe biologists use the term morphogenesis differently to physicists. I bow to PZ's knowledge- but I am confused.
Morphogenesis is a very general term: it just refers to the development of form. Morphogenetic field is much narrower. You can talk about morphogenesis without saying a thing about morphogenetic fields.
Turing's model is simply theory, a clever idea about how you could generate repeating patterns with a minimal number of components.
For those of you reading Y: The last man, you will instantly recognize "morphic resonance" because it forms a key part of the story and forms the basis of explaining why every single man died off so suddenly...but I haven't gotten to the later issues yet (#55 was my last) so I don't know how that story has progressed now.
In comment #21:
What is the problem here? Carrel did keep the tissue alive for 32 years, I think. It was not an entire heart, of course; but the article does not say that. Is there a problem in the article about Alexis Carrel?
Thanks PZ for explaining.
Speaking of problems with Wikipedia articles, does anybody here know anything about the pharyngula stage of embryonic development?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharyngula
There is very little information and apparently "The factual accuracy of the article is disputed."
Scotty B
When Sheldrake's drivel appeared years ago, I leafed through a copy of his first book in a bookshop. Sheldrake cited as evidence for his fabulations the fact that ostrich chicks develop knee calluses while in the egg; he stated that this couldn't happen via normal natural selective processes.
That a guy with a doctorate in biochemistry who taught biology at Cambridge University could be so totally ignorant of simple evolutionary theory is depressing. If he can't understand the calluses thing, how can he remember to tie his shoe laces in the morning?
Maybe he wears slip-ons?
My first guess is that the "Pharyngula" article has been contaminated by creationist talking points:
Mmmm. Remind me again why I should care about Haeckel instead of all the work that has been done since?
I also think O'Leary needs to be introduced to Pastafarianism. The Flying Spaghetti Monster created the world and is actively tampering with our scientific data. All hail the great Spaghediety, RAmen.
In all seriousness, This is a great parody to ID and was used to protest the Kansas ID decision. It's also really funny. Anyone who hasn't seen it http://www.venganza.org/
Furthermore, I Think that organized religion is more dangerous than individual faith, I have many friends who have rejected organized religious doctrine and the literality of the bible but who still believe in god (and in a few cases Jesus) but believe that they have no influence on the natural world scientifically. I don't think it is right to tell these people they are misguided and ignorant because they happen to believe in god. In no way do they seek to belittle or contradict science with their faith nor do they try to impress their beliefs on anyone else. They are just more comfortable with a strong symbol of the personal ethics and belief in "good" in their lives. As an athiest myself I don't believe in it, but I cannot condemn it because they in no way try to impress their belief on me or try to challenge scientific knowledge. Alienating them by chastizing their beliefs when they do no harm to others seems hypocritical to me in the face of my own discriminatory experiences based on my belief.
Kelson: I agree that we should be tolerant of personal viewpoints - even if we personnaly think they are a little kooky.
The issue is not with belief in god(s), per se. It is with the organized and proselytizing belief that is religion.
Religion is a non-evidentiary meme-set that confers on it's victims a feeling of belonging... but not necessarily peace.... 'Love' is a recent 'innovation'
Note that I (we?) don't have issues with any persons beliefs. Believe what you want. Believe in pink flying bunnies for all I care. Just don't try to impose your belief on me. Don't tell me I am immoral because I do not share your particular delusion. Don't (as my mom used to do) feel 'sorry' for me because I don't share your delusional worldview.
Feel free to tell me I'll go to hell -- that is not a place I recognize (may as well tell me I'm off to Terabithia!)
I have a standard response now when people tell me im going to hell "Really?! I LOVE Michigan!". But ya as long as people don't try to convert me, It's all good.
or try to put their beliefs in conflict with education and good science. That gets my blood boiling too.
Duae Quartunciae: "What is the problem here? Carrel did keep the tissue alive for 32 years, I think."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/horizon/june98/microbes.h…
"What about Carrel's immortal chicken cells? Hayflick could not confirm Carrel's result. His own cultured chicken cell lines invariably became extinct after 15 to 35 rounds of cell division. Scientists now generally believe that Carrel's cell line was not really continuous. His method of feeding cells used serum prepared from chicken blood in a way that inadvertently included fresh chicken cells. The old cells, it now seems obvious, must have been dying but, unbeknownst to Carrel, were being replaced repeatedly with new cells."
I suppose I will be completely "tolerant" (ie indifferent) to religion when people express their religious beliefs as sheepishly as they admit to retaining a superstition. "I know it's silly, but I still knock on wood sometimes to keep away bad luck." Well, okay.
Instead, they seem to feel that this is the real wisdom which gives their life meaning and allows them to understand reality more clearly. Supernatural essences are the facts behind what is only apparent, and accepting them (or even hoping they're true enough to strive to believe) is the sign of maturity and depth we should all seek. Supernatural beliefs make us better people.
Not so okay. I should at least be allowed a polite demur.
Um, that was a rhetorical question on IDiots, right? ... Right?
IIRC comparisons finds Wikipedia no worse or better than other large dictionaries (but much faster to change errors as we see here), and the serialized articles seems like good starting points for references as one could expect. The articles covering subjects I know looks mostly fine to me. (There are always points that are arguable...)
I have noted that serious math users like Terence Tao and n-Category Café routinely links to Wikipedia for definitions/context.
Then again, there are bloopers to be found.
Sastra@38
I think I'd want more than a polite demur...
If someone is in my face about religion, I'll be doubly in their face about religion.not.!
"Morphogenetic fields" is commonly used to refer to the latter thing, though; I've seen it in lots of comic books and such. I suppose you can say it's bad terminology on their part, but since they're talking about something fictional anyway....
See Animal Man, for instance. I imagine that since Sheldrake talks about "morphogenetic processes", while explaining them as due to his morphic field, people ended up associating both words with him.
Not to complain PZ, I've got nothing but respect for you, but why don't YOU fix the Wikipedia entry? You know, that's what the whole concept is about. Anyone (more or less) can add information and correct mistakes. While it sometimes leads to inaccurate information, it is also an advantage over traditional encyclopedias because you don't have to wait for the next revision if there is an error.
About PZ and the article in Wikipedia on him: although people can note errors about themselves, there are restrictions on people's ability to write about themselves, in order to promote a Neutral Point of View.
Say, PZ, did you intimidate Neil DeGrasse Tyson into retracting his ringing endorsement, or did you just do him the courtesy of letting him know that his name was being dropped inappropriately?
PZ,
thanks for the explaination. I totally misunderstood the meaning of reaction-diffusion.
Bill
Turing's paper on this is a beautiful read, but it's true that the title -- "The Chemical Basis of Morphogenesis" -- seems in retrospect a touch hubristic. Its big point, really, is that pattern formation does not require magic -- something still lost on the ID crowd a half century later. I think -- I could easily be wrong -- that such RD systems do very occasionally play a part in some organisms' development, but on the whole nature's way is a lot more messy and contingent. Still no call for magic, though.
Cranks have always been one of Wikipedia's biggest problems - because anyone can edit, they see it as an unmediated platform to get THE HIDDEN TRUTH!!!1! out there. The "no original research" provision on English Wikipedia was instituted specifically because of physics cranks, for instance. (Though it's proven to be a remarkably useful and sound fundamental rule for writing an encyclopedia, which after all should be a secondary or tertiary source.)
Or Norway.
*embarrased throat clearing*
... the only time I've ever heard the term 'morphic field' it was in a Discworld novel. I just assumed it was something Pratchit had made up, given the crazy way everything else on the Disc works.
Thank you Colugo, for your Comment #37. It gave the information I needed to locate a few primary sources relating to refutation of Carrel's chicken heart experiment.
I have revised the Wikipedia article on Alexis Carrel accordingly. Please have a look and see if it is now correct. This is all new to me, but it was very interesting to look it up. Thank you!
So this (non-bogus) biological use of "field" is closer in a way to "soccer field" or "field of grain" than say, the mathematical definition or the physics definition?
Not quite. It's not just an arbitrary plot of cells, but a set of cells with a common pattern of signaling and gene expression.
There have been changes. I wrote a kind of historical introduction. Would appreciate feedback! How does it look now? Wikipedia entry for morphogenetic field.
And while we are on the subject... the wikipedia article could benefit from a nice illustration. If you or anyone has an image that is freely available for use, which shows a morphogenetic field within an embroyo, that would be great. Just put a comment here with an indication of where a useful image file can be obtained.
Thanks!
Um, that was a rhetorical question on IDiots, right? ... Right?
IIRC comparisons finds Wikipedia no worse or better than other large dictionaries (but much faster to change errors as we see here), and the serialized articles seems like good starting points for references as one could expect. The articles covering subjects I know looks mostly fine to me. (There are always points that are arguable...)
I have noted that serious math users like Terence Tao and n-Category Café routinely links to Wikipedia for definitions/context.
Then again, there are bloopers to be found.