Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Fossil dragonfly named in Mike Behe’s honor has implications for ID

Denyse O'Leary
April 28, 2018
Culture, Darwinism, Evolution, Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Michael Behe Michael Behe is one of the original design theorists and the author of Darwin’s Black Box. The fossil was named by Gunter Bechly, as he explains at Evolution News and Science Today:

It was July 2011 when I accidentally stumbled upon a photo of a beautiful fossil dragonfly on a website about fossils from Early Jurassic sediments on the English coast at Charmouth in Dorset. I immediately recognized that this specimen is not only remarkably well-preserved, but certainly represents an unknown species as well.

He got permission to study the fossil. And it is a beauty.

Actually, it represents worldwide one of the most beautifully preserved and most complete fossil dragonflies from the Early Jurassic period known at all. It allowed body characters of Asiopteridae to be described for the first time, which include compound eyes that meet dorsally, robust thorax, legs with short spines, and very long leaf-like terminal appendages (cerci). The forewing venation features a short fusion of veins near the tip of the so-called discoidal cell, which is an absolutely unique character state within the order Odonata. This is now described for the first time, having never been observed in any of the approximately 6,500 species of fossil and recent damselflies and dragonflies. With an estimated wing span of 4.5 inches, it is also a relatively large odonate, especially for its era.

The fossil has implications for ID:

A study of the different anatomical features of this fossil and comparison with other fossil odonates revealed a very incongruent pattern of similarities. Such homoplasy is a ubiquitous phenomenon in systematic biology and does not readily align with a hierarchical system required by evolutionary classification. While surprising from the perspective of common ancestry, such incongruences would not be surprising from the perspective of common design. This suggests that the currently ruling paradigm of cladistic classification based on assumed common ancestry should be reconsidered in favor of a traditional phenetic classification based on maximum similarity. More.

So what to name it? Bechly chose Chrismooreia michaelbehei, the first name being that of the fossil hunter who owns the specimen.

What chance Darwinists will get up a petition to force a name change, and maybe “unlearn” everything Bechly discovered about the fossil? Maybe a person they prefer could study it all over again, once again erasing Bechly (and Behe). After all, Wikipedia erased Bechly, despite his stellar record, apparently over his support for design in nature.

Paper. Open access as pdf. Warning: This link takes you to BIO-Complexity, an ID-friendly peer-reviewed journal. Depending on where you work, it might not be safe for work.

See also: “Erased” paleontologist Bechly gets support from Science and Health Council

Comments
Allan, why do you run away every time someone asks you to support the claims of your position? ET
Some examples of humorous taxonomic names: Ytu brutus Vini vidivici La cerveza Ba humbugi Allan Keith
Yes, scientists do have a sense of humor despite what people may think ET
Bob O'H,
Beyond that, I can’t see anyone caring that much. It’s accepted that as long as the rules are followed, people can give fossils whatever names they want.
I agree. I am not aware of any name changes that weren't the result of a prior published description, or subsequent evidence that the newly described species was not a new species. If you look at some scientific names, they are quite humorous. Allan Keith
What chance Darwinists will get up a petition to force a name change, and maybe “unlearn” everything Bechly discovered about the fossil?
If they do it'll be Bechley's fault. Not because of the unpopularity of any of his views, but because he didn't publish in a journal without checking that the formalities had been put in place. As far as I can see, this has been done (I haven't checked the pdf format, but if that's not correct then the problem is with the software the journal is using, and my sympathy would be with the editors). The rules on nomenclature are strict: basically, the descriptions have to be published somewhere that is permanently accessible. The specific rules about publication are here: essentially the paper needs to be in a robust format (§8.1.3), and be registered at ZooBank (§8.5), which this specimen is. Beyond that, I can't see anyone caring that much. It's accepted that as long as the rules are followed, people can give fossils whatever names they want. Bob O'H
Dr. Allan Keith, perhaps you can point us to your scientific research papers in those libraries you mentioned? Not that it would help much in this instance, since you admit yourself in your comment 1 above that you don't have competency in Dr. Bechly's field to evaluate his findings. But if nothing else, it would establish that you actually do have competency in an area other than firing off knee-jerk ad hominem attacks against people whose work you wish to reject because of its implications to your precious world view. It's been my experience that people who carry on such attacks do so because of deep seated insecurities about their own world view or because they are so sure of themselves that they feel it is their right to treat others with disrespect. Either way doesn't bode well. Hold that thought in mind if you ever decide to study the history of ideas and how revolution in thought is often suppressed against all evidence until the old guard is literally dead and buried. And the greater the implications against the reigning world view, the more dead bodies required. I submit to you it is there that you will find the answer to your taunt why Dr. Bechly finds it difficult to publish now in those journals you esteem whereas he had no trouble before. He has committed the unpardonable sin: he has opened the door to the possibility that science is not to be the lackey of atheistic materialistic dogma. You know, your precious world view. Word of advice: lay off the ad hominem attacks. Also, if you don't appreciate nice words from ET or anyone else, I suggest you not throw the first stone. It doesn't convince the thoughtful reader. It only hardens you. Science is more than about having a degree or working in it. Wouldn't you agree? blip
Just an observation, Allan. Your posts betray you. ET
ET,
Wow, what a loser you are, Allan:
More kind words from ET. Allan Keith
Wow, what a loser you are, Allan:
Not if the individual steps are equally or more fit than the original structures. For example, the difference between an injectisome and a flagellum is not that great. The change would require the loss of function as an injectisome but the function of a flagellum may more than offset this loss of function.
You didn't understand that the TTSS is also IC You have no idea how many mutations it would take to do what you are suggesting You don't even know if such a thing is possible You clearly don't understand science ET
ET,
The link: comment 177– you ran away after that when pressed in comment 178
Sorry, our comments obviously crossed in the ether. Please read my comment again. I never claimed that the flagellum evolved from an injectisome, only that they were very similar in structure. Allan Keith
Allan:
That is your choice.
What choice? Your posts don't leave us any place to choose. You clearly don't understand science nor what it entails
I still don’t remember claiming that the flagellum evolved from this structure.
I am sure it is very difficult trying to keep up with all of the nonsense that you post ET
ET,
And yet you don’t seem to understand what science is nor what it entails. So I don’t believe you.
That is your choice.
You called it an injectisome instead of its proper name the TTSS.
I still don’t remember claiming that the flagellum evolved from this structure. Providing a link to a comment where I make this claim would clear up the disagreement. Allan Keith
The link: comment 177- you ran away after that when pressed in comment 178 ET
Allan:
Someone who makes a living in science.
And yet you don't seem to understand what science is nor what it entails. So I don't believe you
Maybe you are looking in the wrong spots.
That could be but no one can find any. Not even you
It’s hard to run away from a claim that was never made. Maybe you could provide a link.
You called it an injectisome instead of its proper name the TTSS. Thank you for proving what I already knew- you just don't understand science ET
ET,
Who are you to make such a claim, Allan?
Someone who makes a living in science. You?
And why is it that there isn’t any journal that supports evolution by means of blind and mindless processes?
Maybe you are looking in the wrong spots. Try a university library. You know, those big buildings full of books. The ones that are not full of comic books.
For example you ran away from your claim that bacterial flagella evolved from some type three secretory system when pressed to support it.
It’s hard to run away from a claim that was never made. Maybe you could provide a link. Allan Keith
Who are you to make such a claim, Allan? And why is it that there isn't any journal that supports evolution by means of blind and mindless processes? Your entire position has a suspect reputation of avoiding questions and failing to provide any means to test its claims. For example you ran away from your claim that bacterial flagella evolved from some type three secretory system when pressed to support it. ET
ET,
Allan- The journal only has a questionable reputation to those who have a questionable reputation. And to those who don’t understand science.
Any journal that obtains most of its papers from its editorial board has a suspect reputation. Allan Keith
Allan- The journal only has a questionable reputation to those who have a questionable reputation. And to those who don't understand science ET
News, “
It is a splendid find and I am glad for Bechly that his paper found a home,...
Where I am sure that it will receive the attention it deserves. :) Allan Keith
Allan Keith knows as well as anyone else that GUnter Bechly became an unperson and so might anyone be who publishes in BIO-Complexity, irrespective of the merits of their work. Shame on him. It is a splendid find and I am glad for Bechly that his paper found a home, even if some will need to hold their noses to read it. News
Come on ET. Even you have to admit that the optics do not look good. The journal announces his appointment to the editorial board and then his paper is published. A journal that is having a very difficult time attracting authors. Only a hand full or articles in the last couple years, almost all authors on the editorial board. I didn’t read the paper, but based on the title I assume that it is one describing a new species. He has authored or co-authored over 100 papers, many along the same lines, so it doesn’t appear that he has a problem getting published. As I said, I am not qualified to critique the article. It is probably very good. I just question why he would resort to publishing it in a journal with a questionable reputation. Allan Keith
But it's all well and good when evos do it. Amazingly hypocritical, Allan. The "reputable" science journals that publish unreproducible findings? Or those that publish articles that are then refuted? Those journals? ET
from Günter Bechly’s’ web site.
I am also a senior scientist at the Biologic Institute in Redmond and senior fellow with Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, working on paleontological evidence for intelligent design theory.
The Biologic Institute is the owner of the Biocomplexity journal in which this paper is published. To add to the incestuous nature of this paper, Günter is also on the editorial board of the journal. None of this is a critique of the paper, the subject is outside by competence zone, but it does call into question why this paper was published in Biocomplexity rather than one of the many reputable science journals. Allan Keith

Leave a Reply