Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Quoting, Misquoting, Quote-Mining

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

UD Editors: There is nothing new under the sun says the teacher. With all the furor over false quote mining charges recently, it seems appropriate to revisit this piece Dr. Dembski first published on April 26,2005 (making it among the first of the now 11,000+ UD posts).

Unlike the serious sciences (e.g., quantum electrodynamics, which is accurate up to 14 decimal places), evolution has become an exercise in filling holes by digging others. Fortunately, the cognitive dissonance associated with this exercise can’t be suppressed indefinitely, so occasionally evolutionists fess-up that some gaping hole really is there and can’t be filled simply by digging another hole. Such admissions, of course, provide ready material for evolution critics like me. Indeed, it’s one of the few pleasures in this business sticking it to the evolutionists when they make some particularly egregious admission. Consider the following admission by Peter Ward (Ward is a well-known expert on ammonite fossils and does not favor a ID-based view):

“The seemingly sudden appearance of skeletonized life has been one of the most perplexing puzzles of the fossil record. How is it that animals as complex as trilobites and brachiopods could spring forth so suddenly, completely formed, without a trace of their ancestors in the underlying strata? If ever there was evidence suggesting Divine Creation, surely the Precambrian and Cambrian transition, known from numerous localities across the face of the earth, is it.
— Peter Douglas Ward, On Methuselah’s Trail: Living Fossils and the Great Extinctions (New York: W. H. Freeman, 1992), 29.

Pretty convincing indicator that the Cambrian explosion poses a challenge to conventional evolutionary theory, wouldn’t you say? Note that this is not a misquote: I indicate clearly that Ward does not support ID and there’s sufficient unedited material here to make clear that he really is saying that the Cambrian explosion poses a challenge to conventional evolutionary theory.

You’d think, therefore, that the evolutionary community might be grateful to evolution critics for drawing their attention to this problem, treating it as an incentive to get the lead out and figure out just what happened during the Cambrian. But that’s not what happens. Rather, evolution critics are charged with “quote mining,” misrepresenting the true state of evolutionary theory by focusing on a few scattered problems rather than toeing the party line and admitting that evolution is overwhelmingly confirmed.

This happened when I quoted from the above passage by Ward in a popular piece titled “Five Questions Evolutionists Would Rather Dodge” (go here). In due course I received the following email:

Dear Dr. Dembski,

I would appreciate the citation for your recent quote from Peter Ward, “The Cambrian Explosion so flies in the face of evolution that paleontologist Peter Ward wrote, “If ever there was evidence suggesting Divine Creation, surely the Precambrian and Cambrian transition, known from numerous localities across the face of the earth, is it.”

Thank you,

Gary Hurd, Ph.D.

Innocent enough request. The piece in which the quote appeared was popular, so I hadn’t given the reference. I wrote back giving the full citation. Next thing I read on the web is a piece (co-authored by Hurd) twice as long as my original piece focused on the sin of quote-mining (go here). And, as is now standard operating procedure, the original author of the quote is contacted for comment on being “quote-mined.” Predictably, the author (in this case Ward) is shocked and dismayed at being quoted by evolution critics for being critical of evolution. Evolutionists may not know much about what actually happened in the course of natural history, but they have this script down:

We [i.e., Gary Hurd et al.] emailed and then telephoned Peter Ward to ask him for a citation to this quote. He actually couldn’t recall where he had written this. Ultimately we had to ask William Dembski for the citation, which he promptly provided. We would like to thank him publicly for this courtesy. Professor Ward was not at all pleased, and wished us to convey to Dr. Dembski his displeasure at his writing being manipulated in this fashion. We consider this as done herein.

Word of advice: if you are an evolutionist and don’t want to be quoted by evolution critics for being critical of evolution, resist the urge — don’t criticize it. If tempted, even if the reality of evolution’s gaping holes is staring you in the face, close your eyes and repeat the phrase “overwhelming evidence” or “nothing in biology makes sense apart from evolution.”

Through long experience, this has been found to be the most effective way to rejoin your fellow sleepwalkers.

Comments
What is the mechanism of speciation in Gould's and Eldredge's punctuated equilibrium theory? What I am asking is this: How can natural forces suddenly create new highly complex body plans without ancestral precursors? My point is that it does not suffice to say that evolution occurred via the sudden appearance of new body plans followed by stasis for millions of years. There has to be either a clear biological mechanism (not a just-so story) or a massive introduction of new species via genetic engineering. I think this is the reason that Darwin stuck to gradualism in spite of the damning fossil evidence, because he could not fathom how speciation could happen otherwise. So Gould and Eldredge come to the rescue by positing that the sudden appearance of new species in the fossil record is just evolution at work. Please. Who do these jackasses think they're preaching to? What makes them think it's OK to insult the intelligence of the public? How much more condescending can you get? I swear, I cannot stand the elitism of the scientific community. The insufferable pomposity of physicists has found its match in the Darwinist community. Sooner or later this crap must come to an end.Mapou
December 26, 2013
December
12
Dec
26
26
2013
09:42 PM
9
09
42
PM
PDT
I think the ID movement should focus on the destruction of Stephen Jay Gould's punctuated equilibrium nonsense, which is nothing more than an added epicycle on top of the piles of epicycles that comprise evolutionary theory. Gould tried to rescue the theory of evolution from impending falsification (the fossil record does not lie) by positing his Punk Eek crap. In my opinion, people like Gould and Eldredge are the ultimate cowards and arse kissers. Some may not like it but that's the way I see it.Mapou
December 26, 2013
December
12
Dec
26
26
2013
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT
M & WJ, Looks like, rather than acknowledge wrongdoing,accept correction and turn from what has been done, we have a silent tip-toeing away. Speaks volumes, sad but revealing volumes. KFkairosfocus
December 26, 2013
December
12
Dec
26
26
2013
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT
Roy asks "Then what is it?" in the same post where he quotes where I tell him what it is. Typical.William J Murray
December 26, 2013
December
12
Dec
26
26
2013
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT
Roy, What quote mining is, has been explained several times in this thread, and twice to you. That you are immune to correcting your incorrect understanding is not our problem. It's yours.William J Murray
December 26, 2013
December
12
Dec
26
26
2013
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT
Roy: On evidence, you are a troll, spewing squid ink the better to provide distractive, toxic cover for an evasion of responsibility for some grievous false accusations by NM. Further to this, I took time to substantiate a sample from the book by Gould, and can assure you that the other cites which trace to journals are well known, in some cases famous. Further to all this, it is highly significant that instead of directly addressing the substance of the problem: a persistently dominant pattern of gaps at major body plan levels in the fossil record for 150+ years, with the Cambrian level phylum and subphylum level case being particularly prominent, you chose to make a personal attack. If you actually had the dominant pattern of transitionals in hand that you are trying to leave the impression of by shooting at the messenger, you would have simply linked chapter, verse and media rich web sites. That you have not done so, is itself a strong sign that the fossil record is just as I have cited major admissions on, and just as what allowed Gish et al to win so many public debates by highlighting. Namely, there is NOT an overwhelming pattern of transitional forms in the fossil record, which there SHOULD be on Darwinist gradualism. That is why for 150 years we have seen so many "missing links -- found" headlines come and go. And, as I just demonstrated by specific example taken from Gould, I have not misquoted him, and I have not distorted him. He plainly does intend to say that from Darwin's day to his, c. 2002, there has been a major gaps problem with the fossils. The actual fossils, not the icons that are presented to the public. So, to cite him to that effect is accurate. Here is what you are coming across as. Dawkins, notoriously is on record that objectors to his evolutionary materialism are ignorant, stupid, insane and/or wicked. Far too many new atheism- and Alinsky- influenced objectors to design theory come in that line. So, the first resort is to distract from the issues on the table, and to accuse and denigrate, besmich and smear those who support design thought, or worse, Creationism. In my case it has gone to cases of vandalising blog comment pages, trying to out uninvolved family including children and to try to paint targets on the backs of my family by attempting to reveal home addresses. That is the company you are keeping, and such are the thug-tactics you are enabling. Go look in a mirror, and I hope you have enough common decency left to be deeply ashamed of yourself. Especially on Boxing Day. For shame! KF PS: Observe above, where I gave the cites and you will see that I am giving the context of the very first cite from Gould's last book of 2002 on the Structure of the Theory of Evo. If you want to accuse me sight unseen of misquoting or quoting out of context, I think on fair comment the ball is in your court to show that my citation is inaccurate. Failing that, you are obviously making unjustified accusations without grounds [and are gratuitously assuming and implying dishonesty on the part of interlocutors without good grounds . . . which is defamatory], and in fact since I know the cite to be accurate, you are making false insinuations.kairosfocus
December 26, 2013
December
12
Dec
26
26
2013
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT
Roy:
1) I’m not blustering; 2) Valuable time is not required. It would take kairusfocus mere seconds to tell us where he got those quotes from. Certainly less time than it took to write his latest response. Why has he not done so?
1) You're doing worse than blustering. You're acting like a jackass, in my opinion. 2) Maybe kairosfocus is not your bitch, eh? You ever thought of that? And so what if kairosfocus copied them from a second source? What does that prove? Maybe the onus is on you to prove that the quotes are false, since you're the one making the thinly veiled accusations. 3) Since your partner in crime, Matzke, is not forthcoming (as I expected), maybe you can show us the evidence for the fine Darwinian gradation between small Precambrian shellies and trilobites. It should not be that hard. LOL.Mapou
December 26, 2013
December
12
Dec
26
26
2013
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT
I think you need to be very careful about using terms that typically mean misquoting or out of context, distorting quoting, especially what is actually going on is citation of important instances of damaging admissions against interest. And BTW, you cannot just come along and insinuate that Gould did not write what I cited from reasonable source, ...
What source? You haven't cited any source other than Gould. And who says it's reasonable? Are you denying that you got those quotes from an on-line collection? And FYI, I am being as careful as I can to make sure that everything I say is justifiable. RoyRoy
December 26, 2013
December
12
Dec
26
26
2013
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT
F/N: Just for fun, let me fill in some of the surrounding text for the first cite I made above from Gould's last book: ___________ >> The common knowledge of a profession often goes unrecorded in technical literature for two reasons: one need not preach commonplaces to the initiated; and one should not attempt to inform the uninitiated in publications they do not read. The longterm stasis, following a geologically abrupt origin, of most fossil morphospecies, has always been recognized by professional paleontologists, as the previous story of Hugh Falconer [c. 1862] testifies. This fact, as discussed on the next page, established a basis for bistratigraphic practice, the primary professional role for paleontology during most of its history. But another reason, beyond tacitly shared knowledge, soon arose to drive stasis more actively into textual silence. Darwinian evolution became the great intellectual novelty of the later 19th century, and paleontology held the archives of life's history. Darwin proclaimed insensibly gradual transition as the canonical expectation for evolution's expression in the fossil record. He knew, of course, that the detailed histories of species rarely show such a pattern, so he explained the literal appearance of stasis and abrupt replacement as an artifact of a woefully imperfect fossil record. Thus, paleontologists could be good Darwinians and still acknowledge the primary fact of their profession — but only at the price of sheepishness or embarrassment. No one can take great comfort when the primary observation of their discipline becomes an artifact of limited evidence rather than an expression of nature's ways. Thus, once gradualism emerged as the expected pattern for documenting evolution — with an evident implication that the fossil record's dominant signal of stasis and abrupt replacement can only be a sign of evidentiary poverty — paleontologists became cowed or puzzled, and even less likely to showcase their primary datum . . . >> ______________ "Quote mined" indeed -- NOT. Remember, gaps and stasis at species level form the basis for the same at higher levels. KFkairosfocus
December 26, 2013
December
12
Dec
26
26
2013
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT
Oops! Hit the post button too early. Attempt #2: ------- Mapou,
This just goes to show you that, with you people, if it’s not one thing, it’s always another. What will you say when kairosfocus spends his valuable time to prove the correct provenance of those quotes and show that you’re just blustering?
1) I’m not blustering; 2) Valuable time is not required. It would take kairusfocus mere seconds to tell us where he got those quotes from. Certainly less time than it took to write his latest response. Why has he not done so? RoyRoy
December 26, 2013
December
12
Dec
26
26
2013
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT
Mapou,
This just goes to show you that, with you people, if it’s not one thing, it’s always another. What will you say when kairosfocus spends his valuable time to prove the correct provenance of those quotes and show that you’re just blustering?1, I'm not blustering; 2) valuable time is not required. It would take kairusfocus mere seconds to tell us where he got those quotes from. Certainly less time than it took to write his latest response. Why has he not done so? Roy
Roy
December 26, 2013
December
12
Dec
26
26
2013
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT
If posting isolated extracts from secondary or worse sources without knowing or caring whether they’re in context isn’t quote-mining, then what is it?
That’s not what quote-mining is. Quote mining is using quotes in order to make it appear the person being quoted meant something other than what they actually meant. Finding a quote from a secondary source and posting it wihtout referring to the original source is not, in and of itself, “quote-mining”.
Then what is it? Remember, KF is not working from original sources. He has no way of knowing what the author actually meant. Any claim he makes about that original meaning is a potential quote-mine, since he cannot compare his understanding against the original text - and he knows this. He may not be deliberately quote-mining, but he is certainly not taking any steps to avoid doing it accidentally.
It’s not the person who is accused of quote-mining that bears the responsibility of proving his/her innocence; the burden of making a case falls on those making the charge of quote mining.
Perhaps not, but it is the responsibility of some-one who uses a quote to ensure that the quote is accurate and does not misrepresent the author's meaning. KF is shirking that responsibility - and it will come back to bite him. RoyRoy
December 26, 2013
December
12
Dec
26
26
2013
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT
Roy: I think you need to look at 17 above, on what "quote-mining" is or is not, and what is seriously wrong with ever so many cases where pro-Darwinist critics of design thought show up at places like UD, spewing this accusation. I think you need to be very careful about using terms that typically mean misquoting or out of context, distorting quoting, especially what is actually going on is citation of important instances of damaging admissions against interest. And BTW, you cannot just come along and insinuate that Gould did not write what I cited from reasonable source, that too is outrageous -- the book is there, the review is there, the cites from the book and from Gould's earlier papers, I have cause to understand, are accurate. and, the words mean just what they say and are backed up with abundant substance -- if you doubt, simply provide us with a sufficient number of cases of observed, well dated lines of actual fossils leading up to the dozrns of phyla and subphyla in the Cambrian revolution and similar major transitions, as well as similar evidence on the origin of life. While you are at it, explain Flannery's review of Gould's final book in NYRB, which you may read here. False and/or unwarranted accusatory insinuations or slippery-slidy assertions that carry the normal implication of a damaging assertion but allow for squid ink rhetorical squirts that deny such and 4evade responsibility while all the time the damaging insinuation is out there unjustly damaging reputations through 1984 style doublespeak, is seriously uncivil behaviour. Go take a long, sobering look in the mirror, then do better. KFkairosfocus
December 26, 2013
December
12
Dec
26
26
2013
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT
Roy:
So: where did you really get them? Why should anyone believe they’re legitimate?
This just goes to show you that, with you people, if it's not one thing, it's always another. What will you say when kairosfocus spends his valuable time to prove the correct provenance of those quotes and show that you're just blustering? Don't tell me, I know. You'll just find some other crap to focus on in order to hide the fact that you people are a bunch of insufferably pompous asses. You are not nearly as smart as you think you are. I'll repeat my request to that other liar, Matzke. Someone has got to keep you liars on your toes. I want to see the evidence for the fine Darwinian gradation between small Precambrian shellies and trilobites. Put up or shut the hell up.Mapou
December 26, 2013
December
12
Dec
26
26
2013
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT
Roy, It's not the person who is accused of quote-mining that bears the responsibility of proving his/her innocence; the burden of making a case falls on those making the charge of quote mining. They must show that what the quoter implies is the meaning of the quote is in fact not what the original author meant by the quote.William J Murray
December 26, 2013
December
12
Dec
26
26
2013
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT
If posting isolated extracts from secondary or worse sources without knowing or caring whether they’re in context isn’t quote-mining, then what is it?
That's not what quote-mining is. Quote mining is using quotes in order to make it appear the person being quoted meant something other than what they actually meant. Finding a quote from a secondary source and posting it wihtout referring to the original source is not, in and of itself, "quote-mining".William J Murray
December 26, 2013
December
12
Dec
26
26
2013
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT
By 12:02 pm Mr Matzke re-appeared in 58, and — by direct implication of my citation of Gould,and adds the false accusation of quote mining.
Is it really a false accusation? You are posting snippets you claim are from Gould's work, but you didn't actually get them from Gould at all, did you. You found them on one of the many dubious creationist quote lists. You have no way of knowing if they are even real, let alone whether they are in context; and if they happen to be in context it's purely coincidental on your part, since you have no clue what Gould was talking about when - or if - he wrote those words. Nor do you seem to care. For all you know he was referring only to transitions between major groups of snails. If posting isolated extracts from secondary or worse sources without knowing or caring whether they're in context isn't quote-mining, then what is it?
Where — notice Roy, when a world class paleontologist speaks of a scarcity of transitional forms among “THE major groups” [all caps emphasis added], the direct, normal import of his meaning is quite plain and obvious...
If Gould wrote those words, and if there is no surrounding context that clarifies his intent. Until and unless you confirm that those quotes are both accurate and reflective of Gould's views, rather than being misquotes, misconstructions or misrepresentations, you have nothing, and the only necessary response is to ask for their provenance. So: where did you really get them? Why should anyone believe they're legitimate? RoyRoy
December 26, 2013
December
12
Dec
26
26
2013
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT
PS: Don't let the common reference to the darwinist process as "natural selection" mislead you, the engine of variation held to account for novel biological information is successive small blind chance variations:
inheritable chance variations [CV] - eliminated less successful varieties [ELSV] ____________________________ --> incremental descent with modifications [IDWM] --> branching tree patterns of evolution [BTPE] --> Body plan level macroevo [BPLME} --> Darwinist Tree of life [DTOL]
CV - ELSV --> IDWM --> BTPE --> BPLME --> DTOL The only positive source of novel information is chance variations, NOT the loss of less successful varieties, commonly called natural selection, and commonly presented as though it were not a chance driven process and as though it were capable of wonderful feats of design and creation. But it seems to me that if chance variations were plainly termed the only source of the claimed novel complex bio-info, the whole scheme would be much less persuasive. We are far more familiar with chance and its patent limitations as a tool of composition of complex functionally specific information and/or organisation. KFkairosfocus
December 26, 2013
December
12
Dec
26
26
2013
04:35 AM
4
04
35
AM
PDT
J1: I will take for a moment, as one slice of the cake with all the ingredients in it, the case illustrated here, an argument from broad-brush homology and reconstruction, which portrays first an ape's hand compared to a man's hand, and secondly a compressed sequence of a series of mammals (possibly led off by a reptile with feathers and/or hair) culminating in an ape then an ape-man then possibly a neanderthal then a modern man of caucasoid race. This is an example of a misleading icon of evolution presented as documented, unquestionable fact. On stepwise points of thought: 1 --> It is circular to define homology as resemblance due to evolutionary descent -- as has often been done, e.g. Wiki: " homology is the existence of shared ancestry between a pair of structures, or genes, in different species.[1] A common example of homologous structures in evolutionary biology are the wings of bats and the arms of primates" -- then present homology as if it were factual proof of evolution. 2 --> This first fails to highlight that there are ever so many structures that are held to be independently and separately derived, as with the examples of multiple origins of flight, eyes, and echolocation in bats and whales. In short close resemblance is due to ancestry, except where it isn't. Circularity and special pleading, presented while dressed up in the lab coat. 3 --> Similarly, a major duck-dodge is being done on accounting for the origin of required FSCO/I and particularly genetic info to account for the difference. Just 500 - 1,000 bits worth . . . i.e. 250 - 1500 genetic base pairs taxes the entire capability of blind chance and mechanical necessity across the solar system or the observed cosmos. 4 --> For example it has been commonly said that we are 98% similar in genome to chimps. But 2% of 3 billion base pairs, is 6 * 10^7, or 12 mn bits. And, with reasonable pop sizes and generation times, as well as pop genetics factors, this would require hundreds of millions of years and up, not the six or so that are commonly held to be available. Assuming, that there is an incremental path. 5 --> In fact, to transform an ape-like ancestor into a human requires a huge reconstructive job, starting with posture, hanging of the head on the spine, angles of bones, creating linguistic capacity and speech organs co-ordinated with such, and more. 6 --> The number of intermediate steps required is huge, especially if we realise that on empirical genetic evidence, ~ 6 - 7 co-ordinated mutations at a time is an upper empirically plausible limit. So, transitionals from the implied ancestor to both the chimp and the modern man, should dominate the fossil forms and/or still be around. They simply are not -- the screaming headlines of the past 150 years starting with Neanderthal, notwithstanding. Nor is the time that would be required. (Never mind convenient distractors on chromosome fusion events and whatnot, these are just red herrings compared to the real and unanswered challenge.) 7 --> Where, just on linguistic and closely linked rational ability, until a Darwinist can explain to you how -- on observed empirical evidence not just so stories full of hypotheticals -- by chance speech, language, and credible reasoning ability arose and have succeeded in accounting for our minds and their capacities to know, understand, reason and so forth, as well as consciousness, s/he refutes himself every time s/he opens the mouth to speak or keys in words on a keyboard or draws a meaningful drawing, as I discuss in more details in this current thread. A rock has no dreams and GIGO limited computation critically dependent on functionally specific organisation is not equal to conscious rational thought, insight and knowledge. 8 --> the broad-brush darwinist sequence of reptile to mammal to ape to ape-man to man then collapses for the same basic reasons. There is no credible, properly empirically grounded incrementalist account of how the required body plan transformation changes can happen by blind chance and mechanical necessity without intelligent direction, so it is a strawman caricature -- an argument from resemblance that ducks the real challenge of explaining the origin of required functional information of requisite complexity on available material resources and time on the usual timelines. (Cf the more detailed 101 level discussion of OO body plans challenges here on.) 9 --> Where, I again underscore that design theory does not deny common descent or even universal common descent, e.g. cf Behe who accepts UCD. What it highlights is that body plan origins is a case of origin of FSCO/I and often of many irreducibly complex -- IC --systems [the two overlap but are not equivalent], and that even granting an ancestral branching tree pattern, this still requires design to account for the underlying information and structures. Until that origin of FSCO/I challenge is satisfactorily answered, the darwinist narrative is little more than, having a priori imposed evolutionary materialism by playing with definition games and caricatures, one then looks at the evidence and asks, what is the best evolutionary materialist account of our cosmos and the world of life, from hydrogen to humans. 10 --> In case you doubt me, here is Harvard prof Richard Lewontin responding to Cornell prof Carl Sagan's last book:
[T]he problem is to get [people] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations, and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth [--> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]. . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [--> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [--> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. [From: “Billions and Billions of Demons,” NYRB, January 9, 1997. Bold emphasis and notes added. If you have been led to imagine that this is "quote mined" kindly see the filler citation and notes here.]
. . . and here is ID thinker Philip Johnson's well merited rebuke to such tactics:
For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [[Emphasis original] We might more accurately term them "materialists employing science." And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence. That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." . . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. [[Emphasis added.] [[The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]
11 --> Likewise, a major case in point is the Cambrian revolution, the subject of a current major ID book by Stephen Meyer, Darwin's Doubt. Laying all the side tracks and distractors to one side, the basic facts are as Meyer laid them out in his 2004 PBSW paper, which passed proper peer review by "renowned scientists" and was then retracted under the impact of inexcusably abusive political pressure games that inter alia cost the editor of the journal his marriage:
The Cambrian explosion represents a remarkable jump in the specified complexity or "complex specified information" (CSI) of the biological world. For over three billions years, the biological realm included little more than bacteria and algae (Brocks et al. 1999). Then, beginning about 570-565 million years ago (mya), the first complex multicellular organisms appeared in the rock strata, including sponges, cnidarians, and the peculiar Ediacaran biota (Grotzinger et al. 1995). Forty million years later, the Cambrian explosion occurred (Bowring et al. 1993) . . . One way to estimate the amount of new CSI that appeared with the Cambrian animals is to count the number of new cell types that emerged with them (Valentine 1995:91-93) . . . the more complex animals that appeared in the Cambrian (e.g., arthropods) would have required fifty or more cell types . . . New cell types require many new and specialized proteins. New proteins, in turn, require new genetic information. Thus an increase in the number of cell types implies (at a minimum) a considerable increase in the amount of specified genetic information. Molecular biologists have recently estimated that a minimally complex single-celled organism would require between 318 and 562 kilobase pairs of DNA to produce the proteins necessary to maintain life (Koonin 2000). More complex single cells might require upward of a million base pairs. Yet to build the proteins necessary to sustain a complex arthropod such as a trilobite would require orders of magnitude more coding instructions. The genome size of a modern arthropod, the fruitfly Drosophila melanogaster, is approximately 180 million base pairs (Gerhart & Kirschner 1997:121, Adams et al. 2000). Transitions from a single cell to colonies of cells to complex animals represent significant (and, in principle, measurable) increases in CSI . . . . In order to explain the origin of the Cambrian animals, one must account not only for new proteins and cell types, but also for the origin of new body plans . . . Mutations in genes that are expressed late in the development of an organism will not affect the body plan. Mutations expressed early in development, however, could conceivably produce significant morphological change (Arthur 1997:21) . . . [but] processes of development are tightly integrated spatially and temporally such that changes early in development will require a host of other coordinated changes in separate but functionally interrelated developmental processes downstream. For this reason, mutations will be much more likely to be deadly if they disrupt a functionally deeply-embedded structure such as a spinal column than if they affect more isolated anatomical features such as fingers (Kauffman 1995:200) . . . McDonald notes that genes that are observed to vary within natural populations do not lead to major adaptive changes, while genes that could cause major changes--the very stuff of macroevolution--apparently do not vary. In other words, mutations of the kind that macroevolution doesn't need (namely, viable genetic mutations in DNA expressed late in development) do occur, but those that it does need (namely, beneficial body plan mutations expressed early in development) apparently don't occur . . .
12 --> in short, once question-begging ideological materialist a prioris are laid aside, there is not a good non question-begging, empirically grounded case on the origin of the main branches of the animal kingdom of life. And this has been so ever since Darwin had to deal with this case and admitted that he had no solid empirical evidence based -- as in chains of fossils showing clear transitions across what we now know to be dozens of phyla and subphyla -- answer but hoped that future evidence would bear him out. 13 --> Huffing and puffing and dismissals notwithstanding, the future evidence is abundantly in and after 150 years,the problem is worse than in Darwin's day. if you doubt me, simply ask NM et al to provide the chains of observed credibly . . . non question-beggingly . . . dated fossils. Such advocates will not, as you can see above in this thread, as they cannot. (And, remember, this is across dozens of basic body plans, in a context where the transitionals should be there across hundreds of millions of years worth of rocks.) 14 --> Do not let the Ediacaran fossils, which seem to be further extinct body plans, be used as a distractor: we need to see the chains of fossils, and the empirically grounded observed demonstration of he body-plan originating capacity of Darwinist mechanisms of chance variation and subtraction of less successful varieties to originate the scope of incremental descent with modification leading to body plan level macro-evo, required. 15 --> Nor is this the biggest problem by any means. The real sunday punch is the origin of life, which Darwinists will typically tell you is not part of the theory of evolution. But, as you know it is commonly presented in textbooks with an air of assurance, and it is the root of the whole tree of life. (I speak here in a context where for a full year there was an unmet open challenge to answer to the tree of life here at UD. In the end I had to accept something that simply ducked the root issue and had no solid answer tot he sort of challenges laid out above. All the meanwhile the circle of objector and fever swamp sites carried on with business as usual and abuse as usual as though there were no problems.) 16 --> The problem here is that you have to start with chemistry and physics in Darwin's warm little pond or the like and get to an encapsulated, intelligently gated, metabolising automaton with a code-using self replicating facility, based on aqueous medium Carbon chemistry in a cosmos that is evidently fine tuned for the possibility of such life. Where also, the empirically grounded lower scale of the genome is going to be about 100 - 1,000 k bits. Well beyond the FSCO/I threshold of 500 - 1,0000 bits where empirical evidence and needle int eh haystack challenge grounds both say that such organised and functionally specific complexity is a reliable sign of design as cause. 17 --> Even leaving off the fine tuning question -- and that is actually the bigger half of the design theory, the key issue is that one cannot appeal to natural selection as there is no reproduction to begin with, that too has to be explained, and explained as to how it begins and is integrated with the sort of encapsulated, gated metabolising entity that has been summarised. Explained, on empirical, observational evidence. 18 --> Which just is not there, leading to a situation where the major schools of thought stand in mutual ruin; each successfully pointing out the fatal flaws in the other. (Cf 101 level details here on.) 19 --> So, from the root of the tree of life, there is good reason to infer to intelligent design, and this continues through the main branches up to the very tips, including human origins. 20 --> That is, in an ideal world ID should sit at the table of biological origins science discussions and education policy discussion, not by sufferance but by right. it does not, because of ideological dominance of materialism, which is actually self refuting. So much so that if you harbour or come to harbour serious doubts about Darwin, I must counsel you to keep quiet about them, until you hold the sort of tenure or stature that Darwinist bullies cannot do you serious harm. __________ I trust this will suffice to help you understand why the picture is not all so rosily one-sided as you may well have been led to believe in school or college. But don't ever forget that it is dangerous to be right when the establishment is wrong. KFkairosfocus
December 26, 2013
December
12
Dec
26
26
2013
04:20 AM
4
04
20
AM
PDT
Sorry I misspelled your name my keyboard on my phone is a little laggy.Jaceli123
December 25, 2013
December
12
Dec
25
25
2013
11:24 PM
11
11
24
PM
PDT
Sorry kairisfocus thanks for responding I apologize for the interruption its just that I could not find anwsers sorry and thanks again.Jaceli123
December 25, 2013
December
12
Dec
25
25
2013
11:23 PM
11
11
23
PM
PDT
Pardon non- "inconvenient qualification suppressive" . . . I need to go back to sleep.kairosfocus
December 25, 2013
December
12
Dec
25
25
2013
11:07 PM
11
11
07
PM
PDT
J1: Pardon, but with all due respect, you have cut across into a discussion in progress addressing a significant ethically charged matter with tangential remarks. I would first suggest to you that the existence of some transitionals [especially at levels up to taxonomic family] are consistent with the point we are making: transitionals -- were the Darwinist narrative an accurate representation of the truth about the past of origins -- should be THE dominant feature of the fossil record. But, as the very term "missing link" testifies, they are not. And after over 100 years of searching and not finding, major paleontologists such as Gould and Eldredge set out to construct an alternative theory to explain the largely missing transitional fossils. In the course of laying out that theory, they put on record some telling accounts and summary statements. In addition, now that genome studies and studies of protein fold domains etc are increasingly common, we now know that there are multiple, contradictory molecular homology based trees, that also cut across the classic Darwinist tree of life. This is multiplied by mosaic animals like the platypus and by shocking parallels such as the discovery of considerable overlaps between the human and kangaroo genomes [which should be very diverse, the implied branch is ~ 150 MYA], and between whales and micro-bats in their echolocation systems. These join classic cases like the claimed multiple origins of sight/eyes and flight/wings . . . both of which are classic irreducibly complex engineering challenges. (You have to have several well matched components just right, or the system will not work.) So, I would suggest to you that you take time out to get and read a copy of Wells' Icons of Evolution, to understand the difference between what is headlined or presented as textbook "facts" and artistic diagrams, and what is actually a non-question-begging, inconvenient qualification suppressive presentation designed to induce consent in those who do not easily have access to the rest of the story. Having noted this, please understand that design theory is not equal to young or even old earth creationism. It is perfectly consistent with there having been considerable degrees of common descent across the history of life from its origins up, even with universal common descent. indeed,t eh no 2 ID theorist int eh world, Behe, believes in universal common descent as do many contributors and commenters here at UD. Just, similar to what the co-founder of the modern theory of evolution -- Alfred Russel Wallace -- held, the evolutionary process is viewed as being intelligently directed in possibly several ways. (You would be well advised to read Wallace's The World of Life, which can be found online as well as in print again thanks to Forgotten Books. You should also scroll up to the top of the page and click on the resources tab then work your way through the definition of ID and the weak argument correctives. If you want to debate fossil trees in the particular cases, go to where such are debated, this is not a site that is about such debates but he overall issue of scientifically investigating unobserved origins through well warranted inductions from observation of presently active causal forces and factors, and patterns that on serious scientific investigation point to design. Where small scale adaptation is an obviously built in design feature of life forms, starting with the immune system and the ways growth adapts to circumstances up to the way that varieties of animals form in response to natural and artificial selective pressures, e.g. the breeds of dogs and the varieties of cichlids. But also, there is no reason why major body form transformations should not be seen as examples of technological evolution, which is an easily observed feature of designers in action as can be seen all around us. For just one instance, consider what the use of retroviri to inject targetted modifications of genomes could manifest.) I make that remark to set this in context. The fundamental argument of design theory is that in addressing scientifically matters where we cannot make direct observations for whatever reason -- we were not there over the past 13.7 or so BY to see the cosmos' origins, or that of our galaxy and solar system, nor over the past 3.8 or so BY to see origin of life and of major body plans thereafter so claimed knowledge is necessarily inferential, never mind the pretty pictures and animations -- we must make inferences to explanations that are demonstrated based on forces we observe in action in the present. This is actually a commonplace since Newton, and is the sub-title of Lyell's major book on Principles of Geology. (Contrast Job 38:1 - 7, a bit of a Creationist motto; and one not without cogency to the matter in hand. Knowledge claims about the remote past of origins must properly be seen as provisional and subject to change in light of further evidence. Unfortunately, there is a strong tendency to project them to the public as practically certain facts, but an inferred explanatory model is not to be equated to a fact. Likewise, too often major issues are begged through the imposition of materialist assumptions -- a worldview level begging of questions. Lewontin's notorious and highly revealing remarks on a priori materialism and "science" as "the only begetter of truth" motivated by the view that "we" cannot allow an unwelcome "Divine Foot" in the door, are well worth studying carefully in this regard.) In that context, design theorists, over the past 25+ years, have identified certain key features that often mark designed systems and -- per reliable, tested empirical signs -- distinguish them from those that are credibly produced by blind chance and mechanical necessity. For instance, irreducibly complex objects are a commonplace: functional entities that require a cluster of core parts that are each necessary and jointly sufficient to carry out a specific core function. We routinely see this produced by design and ONLY see it produced by design, where the need for well matched, properly organised, correctly coupled and mutually coherent parts, easily accounts for this. Implying that degree of happy coincidence again and again, over and over again across the history of life strains credulity and is indistinguishable from an appeal to materialist poof-magic miracles of good luck. Similarly, in the biological world, many functional entities exhibit specific, complex organisation and associated information. Such functionally specific complex organisation and associated information, FSCO/I, is commonly seen being created in our modern world . . . indeed the text of posts in this thread is a case in point . . . and uniformly, reliably and for good needle in haystack blind search challenge reasons, is a characteristic sign of design as cause. Indeed, we can see that something that has 500 - 1,000 bits of FSCO/I is not credibly produced by any conceivable causal process based on blind chance and/or mechanical necessity across the lifespan of the solar system or at the upper end the observed cosmos. Notice, while many specific chance and necessity processes may act, they cannot exceed the capacity of viewing the 10^57 atoms of our solar system as observers, making independent observations of configurations every 10^-14 seconds, the speed of ionic chemical reactions. At that speed, for 10^17 s [a reasonable lifespan for the observed solar system], we could at most sample of the set of configurations for 500 bits . . . think 500 fair coins in a row on a table as a concrete illustration . . . as much as a one straw sized sample to a cubical haystack 1,000 light years thick, as thick as our barred spiral galaxy at its central bulge. Where a light year is the distance light travels in a year. In short, no conceivable chance and/or necessity based based process on the gamut of our solar system can sample enough of the config space of 500 bits, to make it credible that such would stumble upon isolated islands of function. Where also, such islands of function emerge from the requisites of putting together many well matched components in a properly coupled pattern, for the items of interest to work. (And focussing on function specifically dependent on configuration and coupling of components allows us to go tot he chase scene and deal with the real issue at stake instead of getting lost in a thicket of tangential debates and obfuscatory talking points over technical definitions and mathematics of the broader concept complex specified information.) So, you will see that I have not directly responded to your demanded list of questions. That is not just because it is tangential to and interrupting of a significant discussion on an important issue, nor even that I have no way of knowing that you are not just another Darwinist troll using distractive tactics to spread a cloud of rhetorical squid ink behind which a major darwinist public advocate can escape responsibility for some outrageous tactics above. Nope, it is a test. You need to show us that you are willing to address design theory on its own merits, and to come to the table understanding what is the main issue at stake. Otherwise, to try to chase after ever more red herrings and strawman distortions will be fruitless and in the main a waste of time as this has happened over and over already. So, the ball is now in your court. Show us that you are worth the time and effort to invest in a serious discussion on points that seem to be on your agenda. Where, already, I have invested a significant effort on providing background you should have brought to the table. KFkairosfocus
December 25, 2013
December
12
Dec
25
25
2013
11:04 PM
11
11
04
PM
PDT
As I said in my comment #75 from diagrams and phylogenetic trees on transitional fossils it looks like a smooth transition from one species to another. Trust me im not a darwinist but its just looks transitional to me. Look at these diagrams here http://reptileevolution.com/megazostrodon2.htm http://reptileevolution.com/megazostrodon.htm http://reptileevolution.com/evolutionofman.htm Im sorry but maybe I just dont understand please help!!!!Jaceli123
December 25, 2013
December
12
Dec
25
25
2013
10:51 PM
10
10
51
PM
PDT
kairosfocus, Box and bornagain77, Thank you all for your very informative and refreshing comments on this thread. This is very exciting stuff. The more I read about the fossil record, the more convinced I am that the Darwinist era was just one big stupid hoax, a complete deceptive farce. I don't understand how those jackasses have been able to pull it off. It is not a nice thing to deceive entire generations.Mapou
December 25, 2013
December
12
Dec
25
25
2013
10:36 PM
10
10
36
PM
PDT
F/N: I cite Luskin further from the article Box so kindly gave us: _________ >> . . . the history of life shows a pattern of explosions where new fossil forms come into existence without any clear evolutionary precursors, concurring with design theory that predicts that species might appear abruptly. In Origin of Species, Charles Darwin stated that his theory of evolution predicted that “[t]he number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, [must] be truly enormous.” However, Darwin recognized that the fossil record did not contain fossils of these "intermediate" forms of life: “Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.”6 Today, 150 years after Darwin’s work, very little has changed; out of thousands of species known from the fossil record, only a small fraction are claimed to be candidates for intermediate forms. In a famous admission, the leading evolutionary paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould stated that “[t]he absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.”7 This problem led to various failed attempts to save Darwin’s theory from the lack of confirming fossil evidence. Darwin tried to save his theory by claiming that the geological record is “imperfect,” and that transitional organisms just happened to avoid becoming fossilized. Even Gould acknowledged that the “imperfection” argument is weak, stating that it "persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution directly."8 Biologists were eventually forced to accept that the jumps between species in the fossil record were real events and not artifacts of an imperfect fossil record . . . . Some paleontologists (including Gould and Eldredge) attempted to explain the lack of transitional forms by speculating that evolutionary transitions occurred in small populations, too rapidly or too remotely for evolutionary change to be recorded in the fossil record. This theory of “punctuated equilibrium” was problematic not only because it required too much evolutionary change in too little time, but because it predicted that the direct fossil evidence confirming an evolutionary transition should not be expected to be discoverable.14 Rather than documenting the evolution of new species, the fossil record consistently shows a pattern where new fossil forms come into existence “abruptly,” without clear evolutionary precursors. Scientists have dubbed many of these events “explosions” of new life forms. A striking example is the Cambrian explosion, where nearly all of the major living animal groups (called “phyla”) appear in the fossil record in a geological instant about 530 million years ago. As one college-level textbook acknowledges, “Most of the animal phyla that are represented in the fossil record first appear, 'fully formed,' in the Cambrian ... The fossil record is therefore of no help with respect to the origin and early diversification of the various animal phyla."15 Intelligent agents tend to produce machines that are fully functional when they are introduced for usage. As noted, four pro-ID scientists wrote when discussing the Cambrian explosion that “a blueprint or plan for the whole precedes and guides the assembly of parts in accord with that plan.”16 The finding of such “fully formed” features is precisely what we would expect if an intelligent agent rapidly infused large amounts of CSI into the biosphere. Indeed, the Cambrian explosion is not the only such "explosion" in the fossil record. Paleontologists have observed explosions of fish species, a plant explosion, a bird explosion, and even a mammal explosion. Abrupt explosions of mass biological diversity seem to be the rule, not the exception, for the fossil record. Transitions plausibly documented by fossils seem to be the rare exception. As leading evolutionary biologist, the late Ernst Mayr, wrote in 2001, "When we look at the living biota, whether at the level of the higher taxa or even at that of the species, discontinuities are overwhelmingly frequent. . . . The discontinuities are even more striking in the fossil record. New species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates."17 This phenomenon exists not only at the species level but also at the level of higher taxa, as one zoology textbook admits: "Many species remain virtually unchanged for millions of years, then suddenly disappear to be replaced by a quite different, but related, form. Moreover, most major groups of animals appear abruptly in the fossil record, fully formed, and with no fossils yet discovered that form a transition from their parent group."18 Throughout the history of life we see large amounts of biological information appearing very rapidly, often without any clear evolutionary precursors. The fossil record shows wholesale blueprints introduced fully formed with integrated parts already functioning within the body plan . . . . The abrupt appearance of large amounts of biological information in the history of life, as evidenced by the numerous “explosions” of life detailed in the fossil record, is uniquely explained by the ability of intelligent agents to rapidly introduce large amounts of information into the biosphere. The fossil record provides powerful evidence for intelligent design. _______________ [4.] Stephen C. Meyer. Marcus Ross, Paul Nelson, Paul Chien, "The Cambrian Explosion: Biology's Big Bang," in Darwinism, Design, and Public Education, pg. 386, John A. Campbell and Stephen C. Meyer eds. (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 2003). [6.] Ibid. [7.] Stephen Jay Gould "Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?," Paleobiology, Vol. 6(1): 119-130 (1980). [8.] Stephen Jay Gould "Evolution's erratic pace," Natural History, Vol. 86(5): 12-16, (May, 1977) (emphasis added). [14.] As Gould Wrote: Under punctuated equilibrium “Speciation … is so rapid in geological translation (thousands of years at most compared with millions for the duration of most fossil species) that its results should generally lie on a bedding plane, not through the thick sedimentary sequence of a long hillslope.” Stephen Jay Gould "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?" Paleobiology, Vol 6(1):119-130 (1980). [15.] R.S.K. Barnes, P. Calow & P.J.W. Olive, The Invertebrates: A New Synthesis, pgs 9-10 (3rd ed., Blackwell Sci. Publications, 2001). [16.] Stephen C. Meyer. Marcus Ross, Paul Nelson, Paul Chien, "The Cambrian Explosion: Biology's Big Bang," in Darwinism, Design and Public Education, pg. 386, John A. Campbell and Stephen C. Meyer eds. (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 2003). [17.] Ernst Mayr, What Evolution Is, pg. 189 (Basic Books, 2001). [18.] C.P. Hickman, L.S. Roberts, and F.M. Hickman, Integrated Principles of Zoology, pg. 866 (Times Mirror/Moseby College Publishing, 1988, 8th ed). >> _________ In short, we are actually not just defending ourselves from false accusations but are pointing onward to the differential predictions or retrodictions of design and blind chance and necessity-driven Darwinist macroevolution. Then, we are in a position to underscore that the actual observed pattern after 150 years and "an almost unmanageably rich" fossil record, is not in favour of the gradualistic, branching tree Darwinist account but comports well with well known characteristics of designers in action. Where also, above, cases have been identified that point strongly to re-use and adaptation of a library of common informational parts, a major and well known characteristic of designers especially when writing software. (As in, why re-invent the wheel instead of re-apply and/or adapt it?) Thus, it seems quite evident that many of the debate tactics being used by Darwinists above and in the wider context are an instance of the trifecta combination fallacy: red herring distractors led away to strawman caricatures of design thinkers and thought laced with ad hominem attacks (here, outright false accusations), and set alight to confuse, cloud, poison and polarise the atmosphere for discussion. Mr Matzke needs to admit to resort to this irresponsible pattern of rhetoric, retract it, apologise for resort to such, and promise to refrain from such in future. Which promise, he is duty bound to keep. Failing which, for good reasons and in simple self-defense, appropriate conclusions will be drawn. KFkairosfocus
December 25, 2013
December
12
Dec
25
25
2013
10:04 PM
10
10
04
PM
PDT
Hey @kairosfocus Ive been getting sick if not having answers for the transitional fossils. Ive looked every where asked tons of questions and im not getting the answers I’m looking for! Before the break in my highschool biology class we where shown this website http://reptileevolution.com and on that website we looked at transitional fossils. If you go to the left and click on mammal evolution to me it looks like a perfect transition from jaw bone to jaw bone in theraspids and many other animals. Its also got many other animals that show a smooth convincing transition from one to the next! To me it looks like a clean transition from one animal to the next I cant get over it and its been bothering me for sometime now I tried to not ask you guys because I know you guys are sick of me but it would make my christmas day if you could respond. I hate doing this but I’m getting not very many answers from this! Again im sorry I hate to bother. Heres dome of the transitions that I think look convincing. http://reptileevolution.com/megazostrodon2.htm http://reptileevolution.com/megazostrodon.htm and http://reptileevolution.com/evolutionofman.htmJaceli123
December 25, 2013
December
12
Dec
25
25
2013
10:01 PM
10
10
01
PM
PDT
NOTICE ON FALSE ACCUSATIONS: On December 22nd, at 24 above, at 8:30 pm on the UD time stamp, Nick Matzke accused me of making a "Gish Gallop." I protested the next morning at 10:37 am in 30 following, given that its easily documented meaning is both a smear on a man not present to defend himself and falsely implies that I have lied in one or more of several ways. In 31 immediately following, Mr Matzke provided a self serving redefinition, at 1:08 pm. At 50, 2:12 am Dec 24, in 50, I pointed out just what Rational Wiki gives as the generally understood meaning of that accusation and again called on Mr Matzke to correct his false accusation and defamation of a man not present to defend himself, continuing down to 53 by documenting my point. By 12:02 pm Mr Matzke re-appeared in 58, and -- by direct implication of my citation of Gould,and adds the false accusation of quote mining. Where -- notice Roy, when a world class paleontologist speaks of a scarcity of transitional forms among "THE major groups" [all caps emphasis added], the direct, normal import of his meaning is quite plain and obvious [and where Eldredge supplies just the expected groups] . . . i.e. the upper levels above family, and in that context general scarcity of transitionals at species level actually arguably implies much the same as the upper levels are based on grouping species. Remember, there is no good reason to believe that fossilisation/failure to be fossilised should be correlated with whether or no a specimen would count as a transitional and that unlike in Darwin's day the now "almost unmanageably rich" fossil record holds upwards of 1/4 million species from all levels around the world, with millions and millions of specimens in museums etc and billions more seen in the ground. It is in that context that the pattern of sudden appearance, stasis, disappearance and/or continuity in the modern era is the dominant pattern in our observations. Not, what on the implied dominance of transitional forms in the history of life implied by incremental evolutionary change and branching, should be the reasonable expectation. Thanks to Box (HT, Luskin), we may note further from Eldredge, Gould's partner in the founding of punc eek, a now somewhat faded alternative theory put forth precisely to account for the pattern of gaps in the record:
“[m]ost families, orders, classes, and phyla appear rather suddenly in the fossil record, often without anatomically intermediate forms smoothly interlinking evolutionarily derived descendant taxa with their presumed ancestors.”12 “the higher up the Linnaean hierarchy you look, the fewer transitional forms there seem to be.”13 ___________ [12.] Niles Eldredge Macroevolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, pg. 22 (New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, 1989). [13.] Niles Eldredge, The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism, pg. 65-66 (New York: Washington Square Press, 1982).
In short, the evidence is that on "an almost unmanageably rich" fossil record in our time, what should be the dominant feature of the history of life on branching tree incrementalism, is not so. And to cite world class paleontological experts to that effect is an appropriate citation of damaging admissions against obvious and well known interest, not misquoting or distortion by citation out of context. To point out that this has been a persistent problem for 150 years by citing examples from archaeopteryx on is an appropriate allusion to a pattern in the history of ideas, not a dishonest pattern of half truths, lies and strawman caricatures. And more. Mr Matzke has since been absent; perhaps he is enjoying his Christmas. However, he now has a duty of care to accuracy, truth and fairness to set the record straight, to take back and apologise for misrepresentations of any number of people supportive of design thought and even Creationism [e.g. the estate of Mr Gish], including the president of UD and the undersigned. I hope Mr Matzke will now take the time and effort to do the civil thing, promptly. Failing which, appropriate conclusions will be drawn. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 25, 2013
December
12
Dec
25
25
2013
09:42 PM
9
09
42
PM
PDT
Box, 65: Thank you for watching my 6:00. Your citation from Luskin is well taken. KF PS: I trust you continue to enjoy the season.kairosfocus
December 25, 2013
December
12
Dec
25
25
2013
08:45 PM
8
08
45
PM
PDT
Peter Ward has debated Stephen Meyer in the past: Intelligent Design vs. Evolution - Stephen Meyer vs. Peter Ward (rematch) - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sakmq5L3IiE This following quote from Ward, though not related to the fossil record, is interesting none-the-less: "If some god-like being could be given the opportunity to plan a sequence of events with the expressed goal of duplicating our 'Garden of Eden', that power would face a formidable task. With the best of intentions but limited by natural laws and materials it is unlikely that Earth could ever be truly replicated. Too many processes in its formation involve sheer luck. Earth-like planets could certainly be made, but each would differ in critical ways. This is well illustrated by the fantastic variety of planets and satellites (moons) that formed in our solar system. They all started with similar building materials, but the final products are vastly different from each other . . . . The physical events that led to the formation and evolution of the physical Earth required an intricate set of nearly irreproducible circumstances." Peter B. Ward and Donald Brownlee, Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe (New York: Copernicus, 2000) Is There Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God? How the Recent Discoveries Support a Designed Universe - Dr. Walter L. Bradley http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9403/evidence.htmlbornagain77
December 25, 2013
December
12
Dec
25
25
2013
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply