Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Another rabbit jumps the hat: 419 mya JAWED fish

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Remember we were discussing how current Darwinian evolution theory would not be challenged even if a modern rabbit were found back in the 550 mya Cambrian era (and Darwin followers in the combox appeared to agree).

Hippety hop. A 419 mya jawed vertebrate.

The ancestors of modern jawed vertebrates are commonly portrayed as fishes with a shark-like appearance. But a stunning fossil discovery from China puts a new face on the original jawed vertebrate. [US$18 paywall]

National Geographic News reports*,

“Entelognathus primordialis is one of the earliest, and certainly the most primitive, fossil fish that has the same jawbones as modern bony fishes and land vertebrates including ourselves,” said study co-author Min Zhu of the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing.

But in the new fossil, found in China, has a distinctive three-bone system still used by chewing vertebrates today: a lower jawbone called the dentary and two upper jaw bones called the premaxilla (holding the front teeth) and the maxilla (holding the canine and cheek teeth).

“The exciting thing about this fossil is that when you look at the top of it, it looks like a placoderm, but when you look at the side of the fish and the structure of the jaw, it doesn’t look like any placoderm that we know of,” Friedman said.

“This tends to suggest the exciting possibility that these jawbones evolved way deep down in the lineage, so these features we used to hold as being unique to bony fishes may not be so unique.”

In other words, less evolution and more stasis.

The fish seems to lave lived at the end of the Silurian period, 443 mya to 417 mya.

*Reports it, that is, under the curious title,

”Fish Fossil Has Oldest Known Face, May Influence Evolution“

Influence evolution? Baby, if they found it back then, it IS evolution. Unless, of course, you mean Evolution, the Religion. In other words, the fish may shake up your dogmatics a bit, but whose problem is that, besides yours, at this point?

Fish guy, yer gettin’ ta be a rabbit with me.

Comments
Collin
What I do not understand (due to my lack of education in biology) is how you can have a phyla before, say, a genus or a species. If a rabbit showed up in the cambrian, then it would still have a vertebra and it would still be a mammal. So how does the appearance of one species cause an appearance of a phyla without the appearance of a genus?
OK, here is the principle. Let's say you start of with one kind of organism. We'll call it a Ribbit. The Ribbit population splits into two for some reason - perhaps half of it gets stranded on an island - and so you get two non-interbreeding populations of Ribbits. We call these two species of Ribbits. We'll call one lot Ribbit Islandia and the other lot Ribbit Mainlandia. After a while each species of Ribbit also subdivides, so we have four kinds of Ribbits. Ribbit Islandia Major and Ribbit Islandia Minor, and Ribbit Mainlandia Carnivore and Ribbit Mainlandia Omnivore. Then those subdivide as wall, so we have Ribbit Islandia Major Bigteeth and Ribbit Islandia Major Sharpteeth, Ribbit Islandia Major Bigfoot and Ribbit Islandia Major Smallfoot, Ribbit Mainlandia Carnivore Fluffy, Ribbit Mainlandia Carnivore Smooth, Ribbit Mainlandia Omnivore Hairy and Ribbit Mainlandia Ominivore Bald. So what was two species of Ribbit, Islandia and Mainlandia, now needs another name. So a taxonomist arriving late on the scene will declare Ribbit a "Kingdom", Islandia and Mainlandia, "phyla", Major, Minor, Omnivore and Carnivore "Classes", Bigteeth, Sharpteeth, Bigfoot, Smallfoot, Fluffy, Smooth, Hairy, Bald, all "Orders". And so on. So while the original Ribbits were identical, and the Ribbit Islandia and Ribbit Mainlandia were also very similar, now that we have Orders of classes of Ribbits, Ribbits in the phylum Islandia are now very different fro Ribbits in the phylum Mainlandia. So Meyer is correct when he says that phyla come before genera. He is also correct when he says that Darwinian theory says that things start out similar and diversify. Where he misses the point is that phyla are similar when they start (they are just like two different species today), but very different later on. So it isn't that "morphological distance" starts off great and then "fills in". Diversity is always increasing, including the distance between the diversifying branches. That's the pattern that Darwin's common descent with modification (never mind natural selection) accounted for, and that's the pattern we still observe, albeit with some gaps because the fossil record is wildly incomplete and fossilisation, and the preservations of fossils is non-random.Elizabeth B Liddle
October 1, 2013
October
10
Oct
1
01
2013
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT
Mung, I just checked, and you are in fact incorrect. Meyer does use the term common descent, and, just as I said, he separates the two separate strands of Darwin's argument - common descent, and descent-with-modification plus natural selection. But the mechanism of change is irrelevant to his argument in Chapter two. It is common descent of diverging lineages he is talking about, and my point holds. He correctly predicts what common descent should show, but then incorrectly maps that prediction on to the fossil evidence by equivocating with the term "phylum" and other taxonomic categories.Elizabeth B Liddle
October 1, 2013
October
10
Oct
1
01
2013
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT
Also, I have not yet read the book.Collin
October 1, 2013
October
10
Oct
1
01
2013
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT
Kf, I am also mad that people are calling Meyer et al enemies of humanity. But when you bring it up so much, it makes me think that you do not have a direct answer to Dr. Liddle's argument. KF and EL, What I do not understand (due to my lack of education in biology) is how you can have a phyla before, say, a genus or a species. If a rabbit showed up in the cambrian, then it would still have a vertebra and it would still be a mammal. So how does the appearance of one species cause an appearance of a phyla without the appearance of a genus?Collin
October 1, 2013
October
10
Oct
1
01
2013
03:40 PM
3
03
40
PM
PDT
Meyer:
The discovery of genetic mutations also suggested a way to reconcile Darwinian theory with insights from Mendelian genetics. During the 1930s and 1940s, a group of evolutionary biologists ... attempted to demonstrate this possibility using mathematical models to show that small-scale variations and mutations could accumulate over time in whole populations, eventually producing large-scale morphological change. These mathematical models formed the basis of a subdiscipline of genetics known as population genetics. The overall synthesis of Mendelian genetics with Darwinian theory came to be called "neo-Darwinism" or simply the "New Synthesis." According to this new synthetic theory, the mechanism of natural selection acting upon genetic mutations suffices to account for the origin of novel biological forms. Small-scale "microevolutionary" changes can accumulate to produce large-scale "macroevolutionary" innovations. The neo-Darwinists argued that they had revived natural selection by discovering a specific mechanism of variation that could generate new forms of life from simpler preexisting ones. ... it was widely assumed that natural selection and random mutations could indeed build new forms of life over the course of time with their distinctive body plans and novel anatomical structures. - p. 158
EL:
Nonetheless, you will find that what he is talking about in that Chapter is Darwin’s theory of common descent. He is not talking about the Darwin’s proposed mechanism of adaptive evolution.
Sure he is. The entire book is about proposed mechanisms that could potentially account for the Cambrian Explosion. "Darwinian theory" is just one among many. EL:
And I don’t think the Cambrian Explosion has much to do with healthy living.
So? This entire line of yours about the publisher is a red-herring. But if that's all you've got left...
The most important books across the full spectrum of religion, spirituality, and personal growth, adding to the wealth of the world's wisdom by stirring the waters of reflection on the primary questions of life while respecting all traditions.
Also published by HarperOne: Kindred Beings: What Seventy-Three Chimpanzees Taught Me About Life, Love, and ConnectionMung
October 1, 2013
October
10
Oct
1
01
2013
03:34 PM
3
03
34
PM
PDT
EL, if you do not mean exactly that, then kindly stop hosting and trying to justify posts at your blog that have that exact direct implication and specifically attacking DI by explicit name as prime locus of an imagined right wing theocratic totalitarian conspiracy. Nothing can excuse hosting and enabling such hate speech and slander fests. But, you have spent weeks trying to pretend nothing is wrong with such assertions. Where also the grotesque twisting of the so-called wedge document into conspiracist pretzels is a big part of the confirmation bias involved. In this context, for cause, everything you say about Meyer -- especially given its strawman tactic, ad hominem nature, is to be understood in light of your insistently hosting a post that concludes by declaring people like Meyer to be enemies of humanity. The same thread also contains the slanderous accusation that intelligent design is a "fraud." All of these were taken by the circle of your blog's usual participants, as if they were unquestionable fact. KFkairosfocus
October 1, 2013
October
10
Oct
1
01
2013
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT
PeterJ:
Is it not the case however, that he wasn’t claiming that as such, but arguing his point concerning mechanisms?
Elizabeth denies that his argument is over the mechanism(s). Yet that's exactly what it's about. The entire book is about proposed mechanisms to account for the early disparity in form (morphology). How anyone could read the book and come away with the exact opposite conclusion is just astounding.Mung
October 1, 2013
October
10
Oct
1
01
2013
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT
Now let's turn to chapter 7 to make the same point, the Chapter where the hated drawing Fig 7.3 appears:
neo-Darwinisn allegedly has a mechanism capable of producing new genetic traits, but it appears to produce them too slowly to account for the abrupt appearance of new form in the fossil record; punctuated equilibrium attempts to address the pattern in the fossil record, but fails to provide a mechanism that can produce new traits, abruptly or otherwise. (p. 151)
Neo-Darwinisn ALLEGEDLY has a mechanism. It's about the mechanism... Meyer continues:
No wonder, then that leading Cambrian paleontologists such as James Valentine and Douglas Erwin concluded in 1987, that "neither of the contending theories of evolutionary change at the species level, phyletic gradualism or punctuated equilibrium, seem applicable to [explaining] the origin of new body plans.
Not only is it clear from chapter 2, it's also clear from chapter 7. Those are the two chapters Elizabeth has used to try to make her case against Meyer. Behe attacked the mechanism, and so does Meyer. So does Dembski. Elizabeth thinks she can drive a wedge between Meyer and those in the ID camp who accept common descent. She's going to need more than an empty assertion that's directly contradicted by multiple passages from Meyer's own book. That's the thing about straw man arguments. They dry up and blow away, or go up in flames. Not a good basis upon which to attempt a refutation. But then, it's pretty obvious that refuting Meyer was never the goal in the first place.Mung
October 1, 2013
October
10
Oct
1
01
2013
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT
Hi Elizabeth, "If you want to believe that Meyer has made a devastating point about how the fossil evidence does not support common descent, feel free." Is it not the case however, that he wasn't claiming that as such, but arguing his point concerning mechanisms? I asked a question of you in post #55, concering the following statement you made in post #46: “What unites members of a specific taxon, both extant and extinct, is a set of shared features, even though there will be many members who have additional features. The younger the members, the more additional features they are likely to have, while the set of shared features is inferred to have been possessed by the common ancestor.” What I asked of you was this: "Can you show me an example of this, where I can clearly see what you mean from fossil evidence the “shared features of a common ancestor” in relation to “members of a specific taxon”? You of course explained what you meant, and provided a link to an example, however the example you gave had nothing at all to do with the Cambrian fossils, or what was being discussed in Darwin's Doubt. Therefore, if you consider Meyer's argument to have failed in regard to 'common descent', can you provide me with an example of your above statement using the Cambrian fossils instead. Again, I know what I am trying to ask, so I'm hoping it makes sense. Thanks for taking the time to reply to my questions as I know how busy you are :)PeterJ
October 1, 2013
October
10
Oct
1
01
2013
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle:
Nonetheless, you will find that what he is talking about in that Chapter is Darwin’s theory of common descent. He is not talking about the Darwin’s proposed mechanism of adaptive evolution.
Yes, Elizabeth, you are determined to maintain this contention in spite of all evidence to the contrary. EL:
If you want to believe that Meyer has made a devastating point about how the fossil evidence does not support common descent, feel free. He hasn’t.
He's not trying to. Your entire objection is based upon a straw-man. Speaking of what we would or would not expect:
Yet we would not expect the neo-Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random genetic mutations to produce the top-down pattern... - Meyer, p. 43
Meyer directly contradicts your assertion. When he is talking about what "we would not expect" it's quite clear he is talking about under natural selection and random mutation, the Darwinian mechanism. You're just wrong, and plainly so. Egregiously so. Irresponsibly so. You have to know that most of the "skeptics" at your site haven't read the book and it is therefore incumbent upon you to provide accurate and truthful information to them about it. You have failed at every turn. And now, because you no longer have a case against the material in the book, you turn to attacking it based upon who it was published by. Truly pathetic.Mung
October 1, 2013
October
10
Oct
1
01
2013
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT
To say that CD predicts that “diversity will precede disparity” but in fact we see “disparity preceding diversity”, thus putting CD in doubt, is sheer equivocation with terms.
This is nonsense. Disparity means large differences, more specifically completely different body plans. Diversity means slight variations between two different populations with identical body plans. No equivocation. That has been common usage. Darwin's theory has two orthogonal hypotheses. One is Universal Common Descent. The other is descent with modification or gradualism. They can exist independently of each other. One is a process (descent with modification) while the other is an outcome from potentially a lot of processes.. UCD can result from any mechanism that produces differential offspring including a mixture of mechanisms. It is possible to have some process or mechanism X that produces differential offspring that is not due to any mechanism that one knows about at the moment. It could be that there are other mechanisms such as Y and Z that also produce differential offspring. One could be what is called Darwinian processes or the accumulation of small variations. All could be working over time. And one or more could be design. Thus, UCD if it exist does not require a specific mechanism. Descent with modification does not need or imply UCD because there could have been several origins from which this process then proceeds. Thus, they are independent. When most people cast doubt on Darwinian processes they are usually casting doubt on the latter as a mechanism for change over time. The Cambrian poses a problems for gradualism because there are almost no predecessors to the Cambrian phyla when there should have been at least some to indicate that a gradual process took place. It also seems to cast doubt on UCD because the array of organisms that arose seem to originate from independent sources. Thus, the Cambrian is also a problem for UCD. But this is just a small part of what Meyer's book is about.jerry
October 1, 2013
October
10
Oct
1
01
2013
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT
And yes, HarperOne is a religious imprint.
The most important books across the full spectrum of religion, spirituality, and personal growth, adding to the wealth of the world's wisdom by stirring the waters of reflection on the primary questions of life while respecting all traditions.
Recently it has expanded from religion and spirituality into healthy living, but palaeontology is not in its remit. And I don't think the Cambrian Explosion has much to do with healthy living.Elizabeth B Liddle
October 1, 2013
October
10
Oct
1
01
2013
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT
Yes, Mung, you are correct. I should not have used inverted commas for that phrase without checking Meyer's usage. He does in fact use "Darwinian theory". That was careless of me. Nonetheless, you will find that what he is talking about in that Chapter is Darwin's theory of common descent. He is not talking about the Darwin's proposed mechanism of adaptive evolution. This is perfectly clear. But as it is also perfectly clear that most people here would rather use ad hominem arguments (literally - cast doubt on my argument by casting doubt on my character), rather than tackle the actual argument made by Meyer, then there is not a lot of point in my posting in this thread. If you want to believe that Meyer has made a devastating point about how the fossil evidence does not support common descent, feel free. He hasn't.Elizabeth B Liddle
October 1, 2013
October
10
Oct
1
01
2013
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT
kairosfocus: I do NOT consider that senior members of the DI are "enemies of humanity". The fact that that phrase was used, in a post about the Wedge Document, by a poster (not me) on my blog, is not evidence that I share that view, just as the fact that there are posts by a number of ID supporters on my blog is not evidence that I am an ID supporter. My blog is for discussion of disparate views. There is simply no warrant for assuming that I share the views expressed on my blog unless I have said so. So no "filtering" is required. And absolutely nobody has alleged that Stephen Meyer is an "enemy of humanity". This is getting quite ridiculous.Elizabeth B Liddle
October 1, 2013
October
10
Oct
1
01
2013
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT
Onlookers, everything EL says -- especially concerning senior staff at DI -- must be filtered through the fact that she has insisted on hosting the grotesque conspiracy narrative and slanders I have dissected here. Those slanders include as a culmination pronouncing such as Dr Meyer to be "enemies of humanity." I hold that this is utterly uncivil and unacceptable behaviour on EL's part, for cause. KFkairosfocus
October 1, 2013
October
10
Oct
1
01
2013
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT
As if.Mung
October 1, 2013
October
10
Oct
1
01
2013
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle:
Yet it contaminates his entire argument about what he says is expected “under Common Descent”. What is expected under Common Descent…
Mung:
I just re-read the entirety of chapter 2. Nowhere in it does Meyer employ the phrase “under Common Descent.” So where on earth did it come from, Elizabeth? Some other chapter perhaps?
Elizabeth B Liddle:
He uses the phrase “Darwinian theory”.
So you made up the quote. You weren't quoting Meyer at all. Shame on you. Elizabeth Liddle:
I used the phrase “Common Descent” because Darwin had two theories: common descent, and the mechanism of adaptive evolution (descent with modification plus natural selection).
You used the phrase "under common Descent" and made it appear like it came from Meyer because it served your purposes to do so, not because it had anything to do with Meyer's actual argument. Elizabeth Liddle:
The chapter (and indeed the book) concerns the case for common descent, rather than the case for Darwinian evolutionary mechanisms. And seeing that at least some ID proponents accept common descent but not Darwinian mechanisms, I wanted to make that clear.
Well I likewise want to make it clear how misguided you are. Once again it appears you either didn't read the book after all or that you ignore evidence contrary to your preconceived notions about Meyer. I will once again adequately document the case against your misreading of Meyer, beginning with the following tidbits, again from Chapter 2:
...the radically different Cambrian forms appear to occur far to suddenly to be readily explained by the gradual activity of natural selection and random variations.
That would be the mechanism. And in case that's not clear enough:
Darwin proposed a purely natural mechanism...His mechanism of natural selection...Thus, unless Darwin's evolutionary mechanism worked gradually by preserving the tiniest of random changes over many millions of years, it didn't work at all.
Meyer is quite clear what he is comparing against, and it's not "common descent." Go back and read the Prologue, where he sets the stage:
A steady stream of technical articles and books have cast new doubt on the creative power of the mutation and selection mechanism.
You are just wrong. Please do try to leave your priors at the door and give the book a fair reading.Mung
October 1, 2013
October
10
Oct
1
01
2013
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT
Elizabeth B. Liddle:
Is anyone seriously disputing that HarperOne is a religious imprint?
Now you're just trolling. Is it because you're losing on the facts? Are you seriously asserting that HarperOne is strictly a religious imprint?Mung
October 1, 2013
October
10
Oct
1
01
2013
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT
jerry, I am not impugning his knowledge on the basis of his credentials, although they do not include palaeontology. I am impugning his argument based on the logical fallacy (equivocation) that is apparent in the book itself, and which undermines his argument. It is evident to an extraordinary extent in his diagrams, but it is also apparent that theses are not the result of a poor illustrator and poor proofreading because the text itself repeated the self-same errors. Nothing in the fossil record contradicts the hypothesis that the hierarchical patterns we see in life and in the record, and which are apparent in the fact that the features of organisms form nested hierarchies, are due to a process by which lineages branched off from each other, similar at first, but growing further and further apart over time. To say that CD predicts that "diversity will precede disparity" but in fact we see "disparity preceding diversity", thus putting CD in doubt, is sheer equivocation with terms. We see small differences between branches become larger, just as predicted, and we see branches acquire sub-branches, which acquire sub-sub-branches, just as predicted. We also see entire branches come to an end, which is perfectly consistent with CD as long as we postulate that entire lineages can go extinct, and we have plenty of evidence that this is so. If "disparity" means "lots of different phyla" defined as biologists define phyla, then yes, it precedes diversity, but not in contradiction to the CD. If "disparity" means "lots of different phyla" as defined as Meyer seems to want to, then no, it doesn't precede diversity, but defined that way, CD doesn't predict that it it would, so CD is still not contradicted. Meyer is doing the old old trick:
A feather is light. What is light cannot be dark. Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.
Either he is so convinced of his own priors that he has missed his own error, or he knows it's there, but wanted to write a book that encouraged people to think that the Cambrian Explosion is evidence for God. But the error is there, regardless. As can be seen in those diagrams.Elizabeth B Liddle
October 1, 2013
October
10
Oct
1
01
2013
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT
Andre: no, I don't think there is empirical evidence that life was not designed.Elizabeth B Liddle
October 1, 2013
October
10
Oct
1
01
2013
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT
I believe Meyer was a geophysicist and worked for an oil company. As such he would have studied chemistry and geology and paleontology as part of these studies and then probably used these disciplines in his work. I believe fossil identification is part of the dating of layers in the earth's crust and essential to locating the high probability sites for oil. So my guess is that his education including his studies at Cambridge would have made him familiar with the basic concepts of geology, paleontology, chemistry and biology. Seems kind of lame to impugn his knowledge in these fields especially since he has written extensively on it before. Maybe there are differences of opinion which are common but to say one with a degree from Cambridge in science is ignorant of basics seems to be a non-starter. One is then also impugning Cambridge.jerry
October 1, 2013
October
10
Oct
1
01
2013
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT
Dr Liddle Like you a book's position is not an indication of it's truthfulness, I was just trying to point out that which you accuse Dr Meyer of as a lousy paleontologist is where his book is sitting at its best position, ironic don't you think? I have a question for you Dr Liddle. Simple straight forward and to the point. 1.) Is there empirical evidence that life is not designed?Andre
October 1, 2013
October
10
Oct
1
01
2013
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT
I read Meyer's book shortly after it came out. As I read it I made comments here at UD. At first I said that Meyer was breaking no new ground as he has already written extensively about the Cambrian and presented the same basic arguments by many in the paleontology field. I had read these basic arguments years ago by some of the top professionals in the field. The problems of the Cambrian are obvious, phyla/phylum before all the lower classifications. Or disparity before diversity. Then as the original body plans diversify, we start to get lower classifications. Just the opposite of what Darwin predicted. Essentially that is it in a nutshell. Nothing new just organized well with an emphasis on the arguments used to explain this by various paleontologists and why they are deficient. Then later in the book, Meyer addresses further problems for the Darwinian approach (everyone here assume and nearly everyone on the planet assumes that what is meant by this is gradualism.) He discusses the topic of epigenetics and expands on what epigenetics means to include information in the egg prior to fertilization that is not in the genome but is responsible for body design. That is the really interesting part of the book. The various trees of life are discussed with their problematic origins. To say that Meyer does not understand the basics of taxonomy is ludicrous. He has been writing about it for years. There may be disagreements but to argue that he doesn't understand what a good high school freshman understands is a non starter as a criticism. Meyer references hundreds of scientific studies as the basis for his conclusions. It is not like he is pulling anything out of the hat or is sloppy in his approach. I am sure the book is not perfect but when there is a second edition, the errors can be corrected or things made more clear for those not able to understand everything.jerry
October 1, 2013
October
10
Oct
1
01
2013
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT
Andre, it is in the religion section because it was published by a religious imprint. Is anyone seriously disputing that HarperOne is a religious imprint?Elizabeth B Liddle
October 1, 2013
October
10
Oct
1
01
2013
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT
Andre, I do not consider the position of book in a best seller list an indication of its quality.Elizabeth B Liddle
October 1, 2013
October
10
Oct
1
01
2013
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT
KF, there is really nothing much more I can say to you. It is not my own bed I am worried about, it is yours. I think you are making yourself unhappy without cause. That is why I offer you peace - I am not asking for it. Please do not read into my posts what is not there.Elizabeth B Liddle
October 1, 2013
October
10
Oct
1
01
2013
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT
Then there is the title of his last book aimed at children The magic of reality...... " Truth is more magical, in the best and most exciting sense of the word, than any myth or made-up mystery or miracle. Science has its own magic - the magic of reality." Dr Liddle Please tell me that alarm bells are going of in your head?Andre
October 1, 2013
October
10
Oct
1
01
2013
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT
EL, First, I would appreciate it if you would stop pretending to "peace" where there is no peace -- and that absence being in material part of your own making. As in cf. the declaration "enemies of humanity" you have hosted. When you host slander at that level you are no friend of peace and civility, period. Second, the subtext of spiteful contempt is quite patent, especially once we place it in the context of the smears you have been hosting. It is you who highlighted a "religious" imprint, which given context is heavily and toxically loaded. You have hosted conspiracy narratives about totalitarian takovers rooted in theocratic ideologies centred on DI. And Meyer is specifically now head of the DI CSC. So, he is a specifically identifiable target of deeming such persons "enemies of humanity" on grotesque conspiracy narratives. You have insistently made the bed hard, you will have to lie in it. No, you do not get to throw the stones then hide your hand behind a facade of sweet innocence. Ironically, one of the themes for Harper 1 -- derided by you as a religious publishing imprint [which in context is maliciously loaded] -- is building bridges across fundamental disagreements. Next, your dismissal of Meyer is frankly both contempt laced and dishonest. Given, that Meyer is a PhD level philosopher of science whose specific focus has been on evolution, I suggest he is likely to know at least as much on the subject as you do, and demonstrably shows relevant knowledge, research and insight. Let me cite his Amazon page bio:
Biography Dr. Stephen C. Meyer received his Ph.D. from the University of Cambridge in the philosophy of science. A former geophysicist and college professor, he now directs the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle. In 2004, Meyer ignited a firestorm of media and scientific controversy when a biology journal at the Smithsonian Institution published his peer-reviewed scientific article advancing intelligent design. Meyer has been featured on national television and radio programs, including The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, CBS's Sunday Morning, NBC's Nightly News, ABC's World News, Good Morning America, Nightline, FOX News Live, and the Tavis Smiley show on PBS. He has also been featured in two New York Times front-page stories and has garnered attention in other top-national media.
In this context the roots of your rhetorical tactics obviously trace to Dawkins' notorious characterisation of those who dare differ with his ideology: ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked. On the tree of life diagrams that you have attempted to use to trash and dismiss Meyer: 1 --> It is manifest that the Cambrian revo is a longstanding issue, precisely connected to the sudden onset in the fossil layers of phylum level diversity without the precursors expected or hoped for by Darwin and successors. 2 --> The branching tree pattern flowing from:
CV + DRS –> IDWUM CV — chance variation, DRS — differential reproductive success [aka natural selection or selection of favoured races], IDWUM — incremental descent with unlimited modification
. . . is indeed a repeatedly stated expectation. One that has the direct implication of diversity leading to disparity across time. 3 --> In that context, we can understand that given the pattern of gaps between the tree as hypothesised, and the observed patterns of life forms, a taxonomical pattern confining itself to OBSERVED forms will by logic exclude hypothetical root nodes and arcs that are just that: imagined not observed. 4 --> Thus, we will see a reason for drawing loops that will exclude such hypothetical roots. This, even before debates on stem and crown branching patterns. 5 --> In addition, we must recognise the difference between a typo and fundamental misunderstanding. 6 --> Further, it is evident that taxonomy and systematics have become deeply embedded with circular reasoning to the point where tree diagrams are now materially misleading icons, especially when presented as though they exhibit facts through and through. 7 --> In this context the contradictions across traditional trees, molecular trees and the molecular clock hypothesis are material. 8 --> So is the persistent absence of a proper, observationally warranted blind watchmaker chance and necessity mechanism adequate to account for origin of body plans. 9 --> So also, even more, the lack of a good observationally anchored explanation for abiogenisis thus OOL from physics and chem in a pond or the like. That is, no root. 10 --> It remains the case that there is but one empirically warranted causal explanation known to be adequate to cause the required FSCO/I to account for such a tree from root to crown: design. KFkairosfocus
October 1, 2013
October
10
Oct
1
01
2013
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT
Darwin's Doubt #11,794 (best sellers rank) Why Evolution is true #459,119 (best sellers rank) # The God Delusion #26,390 (best sellers rank) Thank goodness the God delusion is not in the science section but for some very strange reason The greatest Show on earth is and it's really a religious book with gems like this! "Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution is at least as strong as the evidence for the Holocaust, even allowing for eye witnesses to the Holocaust. It is the plain truth that we are cousins of chimpanzees, somewhat more distant cousins of monkeys, more distant cousins still of aardvarks and manatees, yet more distant cousins of bananas and turnips... continue the list as long as desired. "Andre
October 1, 2013
October
10
Oct
1
01
2013
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT
I forgot to mention it is number 18 overall in Biological sciences.....Andre
October 1, 2013
October
10
Oct
1
01
2013
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 9

Leave a Reply