Steve Meyer’s Darwin’s Doubt is still doing well in paleontology

_{Denyse O'Leary

July 20, 2017

Cambrian explosion, Darwinism, Evolution}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Maybe Darwin and Steve Meyer aren’t the only ones who claim the right to honest doubt.

Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #25,107 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

#6 in Books > Science & Math > Evolution > Organic
#6 in Books > Science & Math > Biological Sciences > Paleontology
#8 in Books > Christian Books & Bibles > Theology > Creationism

Comments

WHAT MEYER DOESN'T MENTION The Cambrian "explosion" features animals that look like variations on worms or slugs. Early "vertebrates" don't look like modern day vertebrates. The earliest vertebrates in the Cambrian didn't have jaws, scales, a bony skeleton, or anything else that most readers would associate with the word “fish!” And the creationist scientist, Agassiz (that Meyer says deserves far greater praise than Darwin), was particularly pig-headed when it came to acknowledging the evidence that fish evolved from these jawless Cambrian creatures. See this piece: https://edward-t-babinski.blogspot.com/2014/11/is-intelligent-design-viable-scientific.html Also, it can't be emphasized enough that the earliest identifiable representatives of Cambrian "phyla" were preceded by millions to tens of millions of years of small shelly fossils, i.e., organisms that had already been evolving and diversifying prior to the Cambrian. Also, deposits like the Chenjiang have dozens and dozens of trilobite-like and arthropod-like organisms that preceded the Cambrian "explosion" but which fall cladistically outside of these respective clades--these are transitional forms. How can I.D.ists ignore the plain evidence that the Cambrian "explosion" did not come out of nowhere? Again, see https://edward-t-babinski.blogspot.com/2014/11/is-intelligent-design-viable-scientific.htmlEdwardTBabinski_{July 30, 2017
July
07
Jul
30
30
2017
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT}

scottH @ 17: Excellent comment. Thank you.Truth Will Set You Free_{July 24, 2017
July
07
Jul
24
24
2017
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT}

ET @ 19: He contributes a regular gush of a/mat philosophy. He's a mere debunker, of course, but even a debunker can be helpful by presenting counter arguments that might otherwise be missed. That is rvb8's great contribution to UD and the main reason why I regularly thank him for his service.Truth Will Set You Free_{July 24, 2017
July
07
Jul
24
24
2017
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT}

rvB8:
If I go, you’re down to less than 20 contributors.
What do you contribute?ET_{July 24, 2017
July
07
Jul
24
24
2017
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT}

Mung, make the best of it. If I go, you're down to less than 20 contributors.:)rvb8_{July 23, 2017
July
07
Jul
23
23
2017
09:07 PM
9
09
07
PM
PDT}

"Living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity". [ L.E. Orgel, 1973. The Origins of Life. New York: John Wiley, p. 189scottH_{July 22, 2017
July
07
Jul
22
22
2017
06:03 PM
6
06
03
PM
PDT}

There is dissent from Darwin in the science community. Ah-Huh. Don’t mention project Steve. Trolling.Mung_{July 22, 2017
July
07
Jul
22
22
2017
05:21 PM
5
05
21
PM
PDT}

Specified Complexity. (Whateverthe hell that is; no one seems to be able to measure or explain this.) Trolling.Mung_{July 22, 2017
July
07
Jul
22
22
2017
05:21 PM
5
05
21
PM
PDT}

Irreducible Complexity. (Whatever the hell that is; I believe it says blood clotting, and flagella are too complex to evolve; trollingMung_{July 22, 2017
July
07
Jul
22
22
2017
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT}

“It looks really complex, evolution can’t explain the complexity, therefore design.” trollingMung_{July 22, 2017
July
07
Jul
22
22
2017
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT}

rvb8 @10: Actually my friend does write and sells books and magazine articles -- that's what I said. How many? I don't know. But more to the point of your questions: 3) Irreducible Complexity. 4) Specified Complexity. Why no reply on these two points? Seeing IC and SC should be intuitively obvious, even to a sea going corporal.DonJohnsonDD682_{July 22, 2017
July
07
Jul
22
22
2017
02:33 AM
2
02
33
AM
PDT}

rvb8 @ 10: You will die waiting. Thank you for your service.Truth Will Set You Free_{July 21, 2017
July
07
Jul
21
21
2017
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT}

Don @7, Don's friend; "Don...sometimes I think it is easier to sell cow manure to dairy farmers than it is to write and sell books." Ah-huh: Don, despite dairy farmers having a ready supply of their own manure, it is still immeasurably harder to write books than sell a product to a person who already has that product. If your friend believes writing books is an easier task than selling cow dung to cow farmers, then it probably explains why your friend doesn't sell many of his books. Mung, not trolling, just awaiting the end.rvb8_{July 21, 2017
July
07
Jul
21
21
2017
06:34 PM
6
06
34
PM
PDT}

I see rvb8 is trolling again.Mung_{July 21, 2017
July
07
Jul
21
21
2017
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT}

I must confess to being a “wannabe writer.”
I must confess to being a "wannabe learner." It's hard!Mung_{July 21, 2017
July
07
Jul
21
21
2017
05:30 PM
5
05
30
PM
PDT}

rvb8: I must confess to being a “wannabe writer.” It’s hard! A friend and neighbor is an excellent historian and writer and actually sells books and magazine articles and once told me: “Don … sometimes I think ‘s easier to sell cow manure to dairy farmers than it is to write and sell books.” Boy is he right! But now back to the task at hand. 3) Irreducible Complexity. (Whatever the hell that is … ) That’s actually easy and trivial to explain. All you have to do is take inventory of your own body and the myriad of things it accomplishes. Then drill down to the cellular level and take a look at cell replication and machines such as the Kinesin Motor. Easy, right? 4) Specified Complexity. (Whatever the hell that is; … ) That’s actually easy and trivial to explain. All you have to do is take inventory of your own body and the myriad of things it accomplishes. Then drill down to the cellular level and take a look at cell replication and machines such as the Kinesin Motor. Easy, right? There, I’ve said it twice in case you didn’t catch it the first time.DonJohnsonDD682_{July 21, 2017
July
07
Jul
21
21
2017
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT}

rvb8 - If you read TWSYF's actual post, the answer to your main question is directly in the post!
and others. Ann Coulter regularly makes the top ten of the NYT bestseller list therefore…?
The quantity of people who find her ideas interesting is not miniscule and dying.
ID books make the top 20-25,000 at Amazon therefore…?
The quantity of people who find the ideas of the movement interesting is not miniscule and dying. It isn't actually hard to read (I think TWSYF's post was three sentences long), but you do have to do it.johnnyb_{July 21, 2017
July
07
Jul
21
21
2017
03:39 AM
3
03
39
AM
PDT}

TWSYF @2, and others. Ann Coulter regularly makes the top ten of the NYT bestseller list therefore...? Therefore what exactly? ID books make the top 20-25,000 at Amazon therefore...? I won't go into the obvious questions about publishing original ideas and new areas of investigation,in peer reviewed respected journals, (and I don't mean AIG Science Mags, or the Journal of Creation Research, Heh:), let me just sum up all of these books. 1) "There are areas in evolution where evidence is not absolute and an area of doubt remains." Write a book, with no peer review; or the, 'Book of the Gaps' approach:) 2) "It looks really complex, evolution can't explain the complexity, therefore design." 3) Irreducible Complexity. (Whatever the hell that is; I believe it says blood clotting, and flagella are too complex to evolve; try reading the litterature. It's too scientific for me, I suggest you use Dionisio, TWSYF, and others to make it approachable for the likes of me; cheers:) 4) Specified Complexity. (Whateverthe hell that is; no one seems to be able to measure or explain this.) 5.) There is dissent from Darwin in the science community. Ah-Huh. Don't mention project Steve. 6.) ID is a scientific movement not a poltical, ideological, religious one. Ah-Huh. Don't mention the 'Wedge Strategy'. 7.) We run rings around rvb8, here at UD, bring on the Nobel Laurettes. Heh:) 8.) Our ideas can suffer scientific scrutiny. We don't fear bringing our new EQUATIONS to the attention of the wider scientific community. (Dionisio, I'm looking at you; Heh:) Have I missed anything? Good luck with the NYT's bestseller list, and Amazon rankings to further the 'academic rigour', that is ID.rvb8_{July 20, 2017
July
07
Jul
20
20
2017
08:20 PM
8
08
20
PM
PDT}

@asauber lol! True, intelligent design is undetectable for materialists.EricMH_{July 20, 2017
July
07
Jul
20
20
2017
05:45 PM
5
05
45
PM
PDT}

Materialists can't read book pages. It's just random dark chemical squiggles on a light background. Andrewasauber_{July 20, 2017
July
07
Jul
20
20
2017
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT}

johnnyb: How can this be true? Rvb8 told me that ID is a minuscule and dying movement (or words to that effect). He wouldn't lie to me...would he?Truth Will Set You Free_{July 20, 2017
July
07
Jul
20
20
2017
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT}

Intelligent Design-oriented books actually occupy three of the top fifteen spaces in Amazon's Paleontology list (Fossil Forensics being a new one released into that category).johnnyb_{July 20, 2017
July
07
Jul
20
20
2017
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply