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
What is the moral difference between "diagram-mining" and "quote-mining"?Mung
September 29, 2013
September
09
Sep
29
29
2013
07:21 PM
7
07
21
PM
PDT
ouchMung
September 29, 2013
September
09
Sep
29
29
2013
07:20 PM
7
07
20
PM
PDT
@ EL I took the trouble to reread your post over at TSZ and I came away with the impression that you were terribly uncharitable and made no genuine effort to set aside your considerable prejudices so as to understand the point being made. As I am not a paleontologist, though, my criticism of your post will attempt to be modest. I should add that I didn't bother to wade through all the preceding posts with any diligence, so I may inadvertently make critiques that have already been posted. My apologies if that is the case...
Well, of course it does, Dr Meyer! You have just, in Chapter 2 of your fat book made an absolutely fundamental error of understanding of the entire principle of phylogenetics and taxonomy. No, of course you wouldn’t expect phyla to follow “lower-level diversification on those basic themes”. How could it possibly? And how could you possibly so fundamentally misunderstand the entire point of Darwin’s tree and its relationship to the nested hierarchies observe by Linnaeus?
What a tiresome rant - you display all the characteristic restraint of an over-caffeinated, arrogant high school sophomore. Deficiencies of your prose aside, the principal shortcoming of your post is that you assume that the terminological difference between you and Meyer is purely a function of his stupidity. In your post you describe phyla in this manner:
It’s because what we call phyla are groups of organisms with an early common ancestor, whose later descendents have evolved to form a group that has a large morphological distance from contemporary populations who descended from a different early common ancestor.
The description you present clearly assumes as a starting point the evolutionary relatedness of organisms. So it's really a loaded definition, and it wouldn't make any sense for Meyer, writing a book critical of several aspects of contemporary evolutionary theory, to define phyla or any other level of classification in a manner that assumes the truth of evolutionary theory! Instead it seems that he employs a conception of phyla that uses morphology as its guide (the phenetic definition according to infallible Wikipedia) instead of putative evolutionary relatedness. On page 31 of Darwin's Doubt he writes:
The term "phyla" (singular: "phylum") refers to divisions in the biological classification system. The phyla constitute the highest (or widest) categories of biological classification in the animal kingdom, with each exhibiting a unique architecture, organizational blueprint, or structural body plan. (Emphasis mine)
So right in the beginning of the text, before any of the maligned diagrams, he makes it perfectly clear what he means by phyla. He also explicitly acknowledges that there are different ways classifying organisms - page 31 again:
Throughout the book I will use these conventional categories of classification, as do most Cambrian paleontologists. Nevertheless, I am aware the some paleontologists and systematists (experts in classification) today prefer "phylogenetic classification," a method that often uses a "rank-free" classification shceme. Advocates of modern phylogenetic classification argue that the traditional classification system lacks objective criteria by which to decide whether a certain group of organisms should be assigned a particular rank of, for example, phylum or class or order. Proponents of rank-free classification attempt to eliminate subjectivity in classification (and ranking) by grouping together animals that are thought, based on studies of similar molecules in different groups, to share a common ancestor. (Emphasis mine - internal citations removed)
Grasping the distinction between the phylogenetic view and the phenetic view (and understanding that Meyer employs the latter view) removes the difficulty that you feel attends the several diagrams in the book. Really a careful reading of the text, combined with a careful examination of the diagrams makes their point quite clear. You write (in reference to 2.11):
I’ve amended the drawings in the book as below, and, instead of labeling the trees by what a contemporary phylogeneticists[sic] might have called them, I’ve called each tree a phylum, and I’ve drawn round the organisms that constitute various subdivisions of phyla in colours from orange to green to represent successive branchings. Rather than the little bunch of twigs marked “families” by Meyer, I’ve indicated the entire clade for each subdivision, or tried to.
As is evident in your caption, you take the phylogenetic view, oblivious to the fact that Meyer is using classification in a morphologically-oriented fashion. The second tree, marked genus #1, contains organisms similar enough in morphology that one might (on said grounds) group them as being in a single genus. Time passes and we arrive at tree three which contains genera #1-3. More evolution has taken place, and the extant organisms no longer fit into a single genus, necessitating the need for two more. By the time we reach tree number four there are four genera, #1&2 of which can be grouped as a family, #3&4 comprised in another family. As long as one bears in mind that these diagrams (and the book in general) utilize a morphological perspective (not a phylogenetic perspective) they are quite easy to understand (unless you read sloppily or have an axe to grind). In a sense your post (laden with suffocating condescension) is itself an excellent case study of the difficulty inherent in having a meaningful interaction with a viewpoint that challenges one's own. While Meyer obviously has a point in mind to make, his use of terminology is much more neutral than is yours, which is clearly question-begging. So instead of reading the text carefully to find out why he uses the terms as he does, you simply upbraid him for being stupid and top it off with a snarky one-liner about not knowing the singular form of "phyla." To your credit you corrected the error, but it nevertheless remains astonishing that you could make such a fuss over a typo (especially given that your OP is infested with them as a corpse is with maggots). And all this after stating that you are not qualified to judge factual errors. Simply disgraceful. But so that you do not feel too bad, here is a smiley face!:)Optimus
September 29, 2013
September
09
Sep
29
29
2013
07:03 PM
7
07
03
PM
PDT
continuing from 120:
Darwin himself made this point in On the Origin of Species. Explaining his famous tree diagram (see Fig. 2.11a), he noted that it illustrated more than just the theory of universal common descent. The tree diagram also illustrated how higher taxa should emerge from lower taxa by the accumulation of numerous slight variations. He said, "The diagram illustrates the steps by which small differences distinguishing varieties are increased into larger differences distinguishing species." He went on to assert that the process of modification by natural selection would eventually move beyond the formation of species and genera to form "two distinct families, or orders, according to the amount of divergent modification supposed to be represented in the diagram." - Meyer, p. 42
So, once more, we should consider the context of Fig. 2.11b. "Diagram-mining" is no better than quote-mining. Given the preceding text, is it just coincidence that 2.11b just happens illustrates two families? Probably not. Before you criticize a diagram, Elizabeth, you ought to consider the context and the intent of the author.Mung
September 29, 2013
September
09
Sep
29
29
2013
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT
According to Darwin's theory, the differences in form, or "morphological difference," between evolving organisms should increase gradually over time as small-scale variations accumulate by natural selection to produce increasingly complex forms and structures (including, eventually, new body plans). In other words, one would expect small-scale differences of diversity among species to precede large-scale morphological disparity among phyla. As the former Oxford University neo-Darwinian biologist Richard Dawkins puts it, "What had been distinct species within one genus become, in the fullness of time, distinct genera within one family. Later, families will be found to ahve diverged to the point where taxonomists (specialistgs in classification) prefer to call them orders, then classes, then phyla." - Meyer, p. 40-41
This is the context of Figure 2.11 on page 42. Given the context, kf has accurately described the efforts of EL et al. as straining a gnat to swallow a camel. How the circles are drawn are completely irrelevant to the point Meyer is making, which is the expected trajectory of differentiation, with minor difference (diversity within taxa) coming before major differences (disparity).Mung
September 29, 2013
September
09
Sep
29
29
2013
05:42 PM
5
05
42
PM
PDT
wd400: Please give an example of an event that could split two phyla, preferably one that doesn't involve the mind of some taxonomist with phyla merely being a way to classify organisms. Do you believe that phyla are real entities that can be separated by some event prior to the advent of humans and their attempts to classify the living world? Do you believe that phyla exist apart from human minds? Just asking. wd400:
Take two sister-phyla and trace them back through time you’ll arrive at a shared-common ancestor. That’s the splitting event. When the split happened in formed two new species.
So you're emending your earlier comment? I thought you might. Mung:
There is no such thing as an event that splits two phyla
wd400:
Of course there is.
Don't be absurd. You just back-tracked from your earlier statement and now you want to insist on owning it fully? You seemed to finally be on the same page with Elizabeth (sort of). Something, a population perhaps, splits and becomes two distinct species. There is no splitting of two phyla, there is no splitting of a population into two phyla. wd400:
The event that splits two phyla is speciation event, so indeed Elizabeth is right and you are confused.
What you are proposing is not even possible.Mung
September 29, 2013
September
09
Sep
29
29
2013
05:35 PM
5
05
35
PM
PDT
You full well know the challenge is to observationally anchor development of a phylum from LUCA. Ah... so you want 3 billion years of evolution minutely described in a comment box. Think the "onlookers" you are so concerned about can probably see through that challenge...wd400
September 29, 2013
September
09
Sep
29
29
2013
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PDT
This is hilarious. Left to right, Genus 1 : Genus #1, Genus #2, Genus #3. The way it's circled, is Genus 2 a monopyletic group? The way it's circled, is Genus 3 a monopyletic group? Going further to the right, Genus 1 as member of Family 1 and Genus 2 as member of Family 1. Both Genera in Family 1 circled as monophyletic groups? I mean, seriously, your major critique of this drawing is that the circles aren't all drawn as carefully as those four? Not that it matters. The drawing is an illustration.
Figure 2.11b (bottom) Growth of the tree of life in the manner envisioned by Darwin with new species giving rise to new genera and families, eventually giving rise to new orders, classes and phyla (these higher taxonomic categories not depicted).
Is that not what Darwin envisioned? Even Elizabeth has agreed, however reluctantly, that these first differences would only be classified as different Genera and Families, not as distinct Phyla. And that's Meyer's point. It should be non-controversial. But this is about trying to make Meyer look foolish. Now if you actually read the text, Meyer quotes Darwin himself to substantiate this claim. I'll probably type it up, sigh, and hopefully put a stop to this foolishness. But until then bottom of p. 40 through p. 41.Mung
September 29, 2013
September
09
Sep
29
29
2013
05:03 PM
5
05
03
PM
PDT
WD400, I simply don't believe you. You full well know the challenge is to observationally anchor development of a phylum from LUCA. Actually show the observationally grounded emergence of a major muticellular animal basic body plan. Not inferred and imagined or modelled, observed and backed up with the fossils. KFkairosfocus
September 29, 2013
September
09
Sep
29
29
2013
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PDT
Onlookers: Observe how far removed we are from addressing the root issue that in fact the observed pattern of life forms in the Cambrian layers shows phylum/basic body plan first, dozens of times over? Notice how the focus is shifted to attacking a person instead of addressing actual observationally grounded evidence? Guess why I have so often had to point to a darwinist rhetorical pattern of red herrings led away to strawmen soaked in ad hominems and set alight to cloud, poison and polarise. Remember also, it took a full year to get a half-hearted half answer to the challenge issued to actually observationally ground the tree of life pattern from root up, i.e. specifically OOL and origin of body plans on blind watchmaker chance and necessity. It seems to me that absent ideological a prioris, the whole scheme falls apart on examination. KF.kairosfocus
September 29, 2013
September
09
Sep
29
29
2013
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PDT
WD400, I safely bet you cannot give us a case of a macroevolutionary tree that shows nodal connexions from actually observed ancestral unicellular root all the way up to phylum, with observed fossils and still existing species all the way I don't even know what this means - do you want an organism-by-organism chains from the ur-metazoan to each of the ~36 extant animal phyla? Or are you trying to say something else?wd400
September 29, 2013
September
09
Sep
29
29
2013
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle:
If it happened long enough ago, eventually the lineages will be vastly different, and we will call them different phyla. But at the root it was a speciation event.
To which phylum does the original species belong? Both? By the way, in case you missed it, you're echoing Meyer. Eyes back on the ball please Elizabeth, there's still the matter of the drawings to settle. Are the Cladograms? Phylogentic Trees? Neither? Both? You obviously have some standard of what they are supposed to look like in mind based upon what you think they are intended to represent, and I'd sure like to hear what that is.Mung
September 29, 2013
September
09
Sep
29
29
2013
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT
WD400, I safely bet you cannot give us a case of a macroevolutionary tree that shows nodal connexions from actually observed ancestral unicellular root all the way up to phylum, with observed fossils and still existing species all the way. Until you do so, you are presenting ideology as fact. KFkairosfocus
September 29, 2013
September
09
Sep
29
29
2013
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT
I love "idealised" diagrams that illustrate important points, and my papers often have more of them than editors would really like. But it's very important that such diagrams accurately represent the processes they describe. These are not good diagrams. Not just because they are unclear but because they are inaccurate. The essence of modern taxonomy is about shared common ancestors and these trees, whatever else you think they are, are wrong. They certainly don't show an ideal!wd400
September 29, 2013
September
09
Sep
29
29
2013
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT
WD400, the clades are based -- necessarily -- on observations. There is a consistent pattern of lack of deeper connecting nodes in these trees. Do I need to remind of Gould's observations on gaps? I put it to you that the inferred macroevolutionary roots of the groups are just that, inferred not observed. What we actually see are diverse animals with clusters of similar characteristics grouped per keys. That is why on a closer look I suggested that one way to look at Meyer's groupings was that he was looping the (for sake of illustration, assumed . . . ) observed groups; the only ones whose characteristics could actually be used in a classification based on what we see rather than imagine. Of course he is giving an abstract picture, so it is all stylised and schematic. And in any case he is correct to point out that it is "top down" that we see in the Cambrian, and have seen for more than 150 years. KF PS: Someone above complains dismissively about simplified diagrams. I suggest such a one is either inexperienced badly with the need for toy examples in education [e.g. why would we start with a fixed bias circuit to explain how transistor amps work, when we know such are very poor design for serious work? why start accounts with simplistic sole traders and tee accounts? Why start programmingwith hello world? Why start reading with "see Spot run" -- and DON'T do the Kellogg diagram for it, which is horrendously complex . . . ], or is disingenuously looking for any hook to make a long since decided dismissal seem plausible to his fellow true believers and the naive. Judging by the slander games already in play, it does not look good.kairosfocus
September 29, 2013
September
09
Sep
29
29
2013
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT
There is no such thing as an event that splits two phyla Of course there is. Taxa, at whatever level, are defined by their shared common ancestors. Take two sister-phyla and trace them back through time you'll arrive at a shared-common ancestor. That's the splitting event. When the split happened in formed two new species.wd400
September 29, 2013
September
09
Sep
29
29
2013
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT
wd400:
I don’t think you get it either. “Family 1? is not a family, where ever you cut in the line for circle, because it is not monophyletic. There is really no argument that it’s a mistake.
There's an argument that both you and Elizabeth have made a mistake in interpretation. That's where the mistake is. Do you really think these drawings are meant to be cladograms or phylogenetic trees? If so, why? Let's go back to Figure 2.8, for example, and cast our eyes on the text "idealized representation." And then let's move forward to Fig 2.11 where there's no hint that this is meant to be a cladogram or phylogenetic tree. It's an illustration! And then there's Fig. 2.12. Again, no claim that it's a cladogram or a phylogenetic tree. In fact, if you look at the axes it's an illustration of morphological change over time. And then on to the infamous Fig. 7.3, with the horizontal arrow labelled changes in form. These diagrams are not intended to be what you are faulting them for not being. The entire critique is a straw-man. They are not phylogenetic trees, and they are not cladograms, and were never intended to be interpreted as such. I'm sure if you just take the time to contact Dr. Meyer he'll confirm this.Mung
September 29, 2013
September
09
Sep
29
29
2013
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT
littlejohn: all models are hypothetical, that's why they are called "hypotheses". And they are certainly "admissable". Science is based on them.Elizabeth B Liddle
September 29, 2013
September
09
Sep
29
29
2013
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT
Yes, there is, Mung. It's called a speciation event. wd400 are entirely on the same page. Everytime a population divides into two separately evolving subpopulation it's a "speciation event" and the two resulting populations are at first very similar. If it happened long enough ago, eventually the lineages will be vastly different, and we will call them different phyla. But at the root it was a speciation event. At least that is the theory. And it is supported by the fossil record. The problem Meyer sees is an artefact of his own misunderstanding.Elizabeth B Liddle
September 29, 2013
September
09
Sep
29
29
2013
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT
wd400:
The event that splits two phyla is speciation event, so indeed Elizabeth is right and you are confused.
You and Elizabeth can't even get on the same page, so it's hard to believe either of you when you accuse me of being confused. There is no such thing as an event that splits two phyla, I don't care what you choose to call it. Your choice of words was perhaps just a poor one? Care to rephrase?Mung
September 29, 2013
September
09
Sep
29
29
2013
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT
The tree of life portrayed by the fossil record is the evidence of paraphyletic orgins. Whether we like it or not, thus far, the fossil record is our only tangible evidence, and, under these circumstances, IMO, hypothetical models and simulations in the absence of physical evidence should not be admissible. Granted, the UCA model is logical, but only if we are assuming a singular origin of life. Eventually, someone will produce some viable paraphyletic simulations and models of origins, especially if it turns out that adaptive mechanisms are pre-programmed, as they appear to be. Nevertheless, the trunk of the tree is completely missing, and much of the major branches we first observe in the fossil record are missing their base portions. The fact is, bau-plan evolution (the skeletal system, our evidence) is one way, reductive; and, the deep time pattern is overwhelmingly by simplification of bauplan organization (reduction of skeletal elements-decent with modification). The evidence for accent with modification, at least at the bauplan level (skeletal system), is absent.littlejohn
September 29, 2013
September
09
Sep
29
29
2013
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PDT
I defended him on the those grounds. I don't recall defending him on any others. And your assertion that I have no grounds for making moral judgements because I am an atheist is absurd. And yes, it is off topic.Elizabeth B Liddle
September 29, 2013
September
09
Sep
29
29
2013
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT
"Dawkins understandably refused to debate man who thinks it is morally obligatory to commit genocide if commanded to do so by God." But that wasn't the reason why dawkins ducked debate, he kept changing his reasons and you were defending dawkins even though his contradictions and dishonesty were exposed and as an atheist you have no grounds to make moral judgements agains anyone, You are inconsistent in your Atheism. Anyway it is off topic and I don't want to derail the thread so I will get the popcorn and watch you desperately chasing those crumbs.mrchristo
September 29, 2013
September
09
Sep
29
29
2013
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT
Mung:
“Elizabeth, so you agree with Meyer then, that disparity precedes diversity?” – Mung “No, of course I don’t.” – Elizabeth But that’s a question of fact, right? So you may be wrong.
The radiation of animal life in the early Paleozoic reflects a proliferation of body plans more than a multiplication of species. Two of the principle conclusions of James W. Valentine’s research on the Paleozoic biosphere are that morphological diversification (i.e., increase in morphological disparity) is concentrated early in the history of animal phyla, and that clades show different patterns of morphological diversification depending on their level in the taxonomic hierarchy. …some recent studies based explicitly on morphological data point to the same conclusions as the taxonomic studies…morphological diversification is most rapid early in the history of several major animal groups. …There is also evidence that subclades within these major groups attained their maximal morphological disparity more gradually than the more inclusive clade.
See what I did there? Foote use the two words interchangeably. You can word-lawyer all you like, Mung, but it does not alter the fact that Common Descent predicts, and the fossil record shows, increasing diversity as time goes by, with increasing "morphological distance" between extant members of any one branch and those of any other. So if you define "disparity" as "phyla", then, clearly, disparity will tend to decrease, as phyla won't generate new phyla, but may go extinct. But defined that way, it ceases to make Meyer's point, because at the time when the phyla appearing they were much more similar than the members of those phyla at a later time (and, in any case, he seems terminally confused, as he keeps drawing them as though they only refer to the later groups). Defined as the number of taxa in a population, disparity keeps on growing. I'm happy to use any definition you like, or Meyer likes, as long as he, and you, stick with it. But you can't define it one way at one time ("morphological distance") and another at another time ("number of phyla") and then try to pretend that what applies to one meaning must also apply to the other. Before the phyla had diversified they were much more similar than they were after they had. Which is exactly in accord with the expectation under Common Descent.Elizabeth B Liddle
September 29, 2013
September
09
Sep
29
29
2013
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PDT
Mung, its obvious EL is not constrained by facts, or by fairness. Meyer must be indicted as leader of a dangerous heresy as an enemy of humanity and found guilty. By any means necessary. That much is obvious. He’s guilty, let’s find some evidence to hook it on. KF
This is nonsense, KF. The FACTS are that Meyer has made a huge mistake in his book. He has misunderstood the basics of taxonomy, phylogeny and the relationship between the two, as is evident from both his blatantly wrong diagrams and the text that he accompanies them with. Nobody is apparently prepared to actually defend it, but instead, attacks the messenger. That is a true "ad hominem" actually - "never mind the argument, the women just has it in for Meyer". No, I don't. To attribute this view to me: "Meyer must be indicted as leader of a dangerous heresy as an enemy of humanity and found guilty" is completely unsupported by any evidence what so ever. It should go without saying that it is not my view.Elizabeth B Liddle
September 29, 2013
September
09
Sep
29
29
2013
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT
I remember when Elizabeth Liddle was defending Dawkins and his slippery behaviour in dodging debating Craig. Dawkins contradicted himself and his reasons but Liddle was there defending Dawkins slippery behaviour. I see she is looking for crumbs to discredit Meyer and the less that is said about her own cesspool of a site the better.
What? Crumbs? It's his entire argument! And yes, I do recall that debate about Craig. Dawkins understandably refused to debate man who thinks it is morally obligatory to commit genocide if commanded to do so by God. I'm no Dawkins fan, but rather Dawkins than Craig.Elizabeth B Liddle
September 29, 2013
September
09
Sep
29
29
2013
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT
She began her assault against Meyer by asserting he didn’t know the difference between phyla and phylum.
No, I did not. Mung, this is a blatant untruth. And I am pretty sure you know it. If not, you have no excuse not to. You know perfectly well that I did not BEGIN "my assault against Meyer by asserting he didn’t know the difference between phyla and phylum". It is clear from the record that I made a snarky remark as a throwaway line on an ETA on a long and substantial post several days after my original post and corrected it, to point out that he merely gets it wrong on that particular diagram. Which he does. As you perfectly well know, the context was my drawing attention to a howler of a mistake in the diagram itself, but rather than tackle this howler, you bugged me for weeks about the fact that I had implied that Meyer didn't "know" the difference whereas in fact he had merely made a proof-reading error, despite the fact that I readily acknowledged your correction. I have to say, Mung, your insistence on this utter distraction does not do your case any favours. As my original comment said, the mistake about the singular is utterly trivial compared with the mistake in the diagram itself. Yet you poke away at the mote, despite the fact that it has been acknowledged and corrected, and ignore the beam.Elizabeth B Liddle
September 29, 2013
September
09
Sep
29
29
2013
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT
I remember when Elizabeth Liddle was defending Dawkins and his slippery behaviour in dodging debating Craig. Dawkins contradicted himself and his reasons but Liddle was there defending Dawkins slippery behaviour. I see she is looking for crumbs to discredit Meyer and the less that is said about her own cesspool of a site the better.mrchristo
September 29, 2013
September
09
Sep
29
29
2013
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT
KF, I don't think you get it either. "Family 1" is not a family, where ever you cut in the line for circle, because it is not monophyletic. There is really no argument that it's a mistake.wd400
September 29, 2013
September
09
Sep
29
29
2013
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT
Mung, Two sister species do not two phylum make, whether now or in the past. The event that splits two phyla is speciation event, so indeed Elizabeth is right and you are confused.wd400
September 29, 2013
September
09
Sep
29
29
2013
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT
1 3 4 5 6 7 9

Leave a Reply