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
God darn it. I want to see the evidence for the fine Darwinian gradation between small Precambrian shellies and trilobites. Where are those Darwinists hiding? Are they all celebrating Christmas? LOL.Mapou
December 25, 2013
December
12
Dec
25
25
2013
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT
Where is Matzke, that Darwinist weaver of lies and deception?
Probably with his family, given that today is Xmas. You might not change your routine at Xmas, but others do. RoyRoy
December 25, 2013
December
12
Dec
25
25
2013
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT
Then he tries very hard to explain why he (Ward) does not think it is a problem.
If the later text shows that Ward did not think the Cambrian explosion was a problem, then Dembski's use of Ward's text as a "Pretty convincing indicator that the Cambrian explosion poses a challenge to conventional evolutionary theory" is dubious - right?
But nobody has to accept Ward’s pronouncements as truth. Who in the hell is he?
No idea - I never heard of him before. But it doesn't matter, since the topic of this thread is not the Cambrian explosion, but quote-miners - and you've just confirmed Dembski as one. Well done. RoyRoy
December 25, 2013
December
12
Dec
25
25
2013
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT
Let me speak now of Mr Gould’s well-known remarks, in The Structure of Evolutionary Theory (2002) — his last book published just before he died: [quotes deleted] What are “major groups” and “major transitions in organic design” to a world class paleontologist?
Gould gave an example of a major transition on the same page. Why don't you quote that? RoyRoy
December 25, 2013
December
12
Dec
25
25
2013
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT
Where is Matzke, that Darwinist weaver of lies and deception? We're still waiting for the evidence for the fine Darwinian gradation between small Precambrian shellies and trilobites, darn it.Mapou
December 25, 2013
December
12
Dec
25
25
2013
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT
just what process led to the appearance of new species, especially the one with functional complex novelties.
I meant to add the following to my previous comment since Mr Matzke is a graduate student at Berkeley (or has he received his degree). A few years ago I went through three different semesters of the same biology course given at Berkeley on evolution. They are online. Each was by a different instructor. I was interested in how they presented the material and what evidence they used to justify their conclusions. There was nothing in any of the lectures from the three different professors that contradicted any ID position. Which I thought was curious. They certainly did not support anything like ID but nor was there anything that would undermine it.jerry
December 24, 2013
December
12
Dec
24
24
2013
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PDT
Casey Luskin: Before proceeding, it’s important to address one rhetorical issue. During debate, Darwinists are known for framing arguments and ruling out contradictory evidence such that it is logically impossible for their side to ever be challenged in any meaningful way. For this reason, many Darwinists live by the self-serving rule that if someone quotes a neo-Darwinian evolutionist while critiquing neo-Darwinian evolution, then that person is guilty of “quote-mining.” Darwinists’ common treatment of those accused of “quote-mining” would make one think the accused had violated the Geneva Convention. But Darwinists’ self-serving allegations of “quote-mining” are often misplaced. In a court of law, citing an admission from one’s opponent about a weakness in their own case is not considered to be a weak argument, but strong and highly reliable evidence. I should thus state upfront that unless stated otherwise, all of the scientists I have quoted in this second opening statement support neo-Darwinian evolution and oppose ID. This does not diminish the force of their admissions. If anything, it makes their admissions all-the-more weighty. Despite the fact that numerous statements could be provided from evolutionary paleontologists admitting the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record, sometimes Darwinists try to engage in politically-motivated damage control to disavow their statements that the fossil record lacks plausible transitional intermediates. For example, Stephen Jay Gould complained about being quoted on the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record, saying “it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists--whether through design or stupidity, I do not know--as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.” Yet this statement was written during the heat of political battles over teaching creationism in the early 1980s, and it directly contradicts one of Gould’s earlier statements where he clearly admitted that “transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.” In his earlier quote, Gould plainly admitted that “transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt” but then later, during the heat of political battles with creationists in the early 1980s, he alleged that transitional forms are “abundant between larger groups.” Which Gould are we to believe? The answer is clear: Gould’s scientific partner in promoting the punctuated equilibrium model, Niles Eldredge, concurs with the former Gould that “[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.” Elsewhere, Eldredge again validates the former Gould, stating that “the higher up the Linnaean hierarchy you look, the fewer transitional forms there seem to be.” It seems very clear which Gould we should believe--and it is not the one who made his statements in the heat of political battles with young earth creationists.Box
December 24, 2013
December
12
Dec
24
24
2013
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT
Mr. Matzke,
just repeating the same old creationist tropes,
Not everyone here or advocates of ID in general are creationists in the young earth or old earth sense. Depends on what is meant by the term. You say you are not an atheist so that could mean a whole host of different things from a deist to belief is some form of god(s). But most people who believe in some type of creator believe in some type of creation. Thus, that makes you most likely a creationist under some form of meaning of the word. As an aside, just what process led to the appearance of new species, especially the one with functional complex novelties. You must have some theory on how this happened. Merry Christmas.jerry
December 24, 2013
December
12
Dec
24
24
2013
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT
NM: Yes, we are aware of the usual anti-Creationist disclaimers given after the fact. We are also very aware that Gould in particular laid out how what Darwin plainly expected or hoped for has not come out -- as has been cited above, and which you have nothing in reply to but a generic disclaimer. And, frankly given the headlines given over 150 years to eye of faith cases that have repeatedly had to be walked back, we know what would be happening if you actually had the goods on what should be the dominant feature of the fossil record -- transitions at all levels. The silence and the making the most of what you have multiplied by especially the reactions to the Cambrian and OOL cases tell us what we need to know. Remember, we also know the general no-concession policy and your particular track record, especially here at UD and at Dover. You have a lot to live down, which somebody needs to tell you. Anyway, enjoy the season. KFkairosfocus
December 24, 2013
December
12
Dec
24
24
2013
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT
bornagain77:
Darwinism will continue to linger on and on for years and years (provided society continues as it is)
Remember I told you this. Things are about to get very interesting, very quick, in the not too distant future. The old Kuhnian term "paradigm shift" won't come close to doing it justice. Rather, a paradigm apocalypse is what's on the horizon, with all the weeping and gnashing of teeth that it entails. LOL.Mapou
December 24, 2013
December
12
Dec
24
24
2013
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT
Matzke, You're pathetic, man. Nobody gives a hoot about the opinion of some forgettable Darwinist or other with regard to the fossil evidence. We can make up our own minds, thank you very much. We're still waiting for the evidence for the fine Darwinian gradation between small Precambrian shellies and trilobites, darn it. What's holding you up? Surely all those diligent evolutionary paleontologists out there must have compiled this stuff during those many decades of digging and collecting. Personally, I'm not holding my breath. I know you got diddly squat. :-DMapou
December 24, 2013
December
12
Dec
24
24
2013
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT
I'm afraid I have to agree with Matzke. Since Darwinism is not even a rigid science in any meaningful sense of the word in the first place, so as to allow for its falsification, then Darwinism will continue to linger on and on for years and years (provided society continues as it is), defended to the death by those who refuse to submit to God. It is not, nor has Darwinism ever been, primarily about the science! Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality,,, Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse - Prominent Atheistic Philosopher Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin's Use of Theology in the Origin of Species - May 2011 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo046391.html Even the name of Matzke's home turf, Panda's Thumb, reflects the theological, not scientific, basis of Darwinism: From Discovering Intelligent Design: Two Thumbs Up - May 27, 2013 Excerpt: evolutionary paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould argued that "odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution -- paths that a sensible God would never tread." Likewise Miller claims that an intelligent designer would have "been capable of remodeling a complete digit, like the thumb of a primate, to hold the panda's food." It turns out that the panda's thumb is not a clumsy design. A study published in Nature used MRI and computer tomography to analyze the thumb and concluded that the bones "form a double pincer-like apparatus" thus "enabling the panda to manipulate objects with great dexterity." The critics' objection is backed by little more than their subjective opinion about what a "sensible God" should have made. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/05/from_discoverin_4072531.html Here, at about the 55:00 minute mark in the following video, Phillip Johnson sums up his, in my opinion, excellent lecture by noting that the refutation of his book, 'Darwin On Trial', in the Journal Nature, the most prestigious science journal in the world, was a theological argument about what God would and would not do and therefore Darwinism must be true, and the critique from Nature was not a refutation based on any substantiating scientific evidence for Darwinism that one would expect to be brought forth in such a prestigious venue to support such a, supposedly, well supported scientific theory: Darwinism On Trial (Phillip E. Johnson) – lecture video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwj9h9Zx6Mw The role of theology in current evolutionary reasoning - Paul A. Nelson - Biology and Philosophy, 1996, Volume 11, Number 4, Pages 493-517 Excerpt: Evolutionists have long contended that the organic world falls short of what one might expect from an omnipotent and benevolent creator. Yet many of the same scientists who argue theologically for evolution are committed to the philosophical doctrine of methodological naturalism, which maintains that theology has no place in science. Furthermore, the arguments themselves are problematical, employing concepts that cannot perform the work required of them, or resting on unsupported conjectures about suboptimality. Evolutionary theorists should reconsider both the arguments and the influence of Darwinian theological metaphysics on their understanding of evolution. http://www.springerlink.com/content/n3n5415037038134/?MUD=MP Dr. Seuss Biology | Origins with Dr. Paul A. Nelson - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVx42Izp1ekbornagain77
December 24, 2013
December
12
Dec
24
24
2013
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT
A few decades from today, Darwinism will be just a footnote in the annals of scientific aberrations.
Are you even trying???? The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/demise.htmlNickMatzke_UD
December 24, 2013
December
12
Dec
24
24
2013
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT
Meh. If you guys aren't even going to try to understand what scientists are saying and the distinctions they are making, and are determined to just blend it all into quote-mine salad where a scientist saying "up" means they are saying "down", there's not any more point in me contributing. I've hit all these points before -- the Stephen Jay Gould quote mines and his actual views on transitional fossils, the difference between species-to-very-similar species transitions and transitions across larger differences, etc. No one even has the memory/sense of fairness/guts to point out to kairosfocus and his fans Gould's actual views on transitional fossils?
"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups." --Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution as Fact and Theory, Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994, p. 260
Understanding takes effort, people. You aren't putting in any, just repeating the same old creationist tropes, as usual uncomprehending of what the actual detailed issues the scientists were commenting on. This is perhaps the worst feature of ID/creationism: laziness.NickMatzke_UD
December 24, 2013
December
12
Dec
24
24
2013
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT
Box:
If Matzke cannot accommodate Mapou’s request for a presentation of all the gradations from small shellies to trilobites, what exactly are we talking about? “Some possible intermediate fossils” is still in perfect accord with the need for punk eek, Darwin’s dissapointment and Gould’s and Eldridge’s negative accounts about the fossil record. The last two are strongly contested by Matzke – all quotes are somehow quote-mined. I wonder why that is, if Matzke is not arguing for the presence of infinitely many fine gradations between past and present species.
It's all bluster. They're grasping at straws while falling into the inevitable abyss of failure. Neither Matzke nor the rest of the prevaricating bunch got diddly squat in the way of solving Darwin's problem with the Cambrian explosion. Count this as one more example of the falsification of the Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution. A few decades from today, Darwinism will be just a footnote in the annals of scientific aberrations.Mapou
December 24, 2013
December
12
Dec
24
24
2013
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT
After several threads it isn't clear to me what it is that Matzke is arguing for. Does he claim that some credible transitional fossils have been unearthed or is he talking about a vast array of intermediate fossils? If Matzke cannot accommodate Mapou's request for a presentation of all the gradations from small shellies to trilobites, what exactly are we talking about? "Some possible intermediate fossils" is still in perfect accord with the need for punk eek, Darwin's dissapointment and Gould's and Eldridge's negative accounts about the fossil record. The last two are strongly contested by Matzke - all quotes are somehow quote-mined. I wonder why that is, if Matzke is not arguing for the presence of infinitely many fine gradations between past and present species.Box
December 24, 2013
December
12
Dec
24
24
2013
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT
Darwinism/materialism is not much more than the bluff that chance and necessity can produce what appears to be clearly designed, and the blocking out of any evidence/argument otherwise.William J Murray
December 24, 2013
December
12
Dec
24
24
2013
03:33 AM
3
03
33
AM
PDT
Nikey @49, I wrote:
The other problem with all of this Darwinian evolutionary nonsense is that the Cambrian explosion did not happen in just one spot on the planet. It appeared suddenly everywhere, as if somebody decided to seed the entire ocean with a bunch of new species at the same time.
Nickey replied:
This is just wrong — it is some kind of half-baked deduction from uncritical acceptance of ID/creationist assertions and quote-mining.
Wow. Where did this cr*p come from? Did not the trilobites appear everywhere on earth in the exact same layers? And what quote mining, pray tell? I just thought of the idea while writing my reply.
Heh. You just basically said, “If there really were a gradation from small Precambrian shellies to big complex Arthropods then instead of Precambrian small shellies we would see many ancestral skeletal fossils in the Precambrian that are at least similar in size and complexity to a trilobite.” Um, no, if there is a gradation starting with Precambrian small shellies, then it starts with Precambrian small shellies! You’re just throwing words around without even understanding what they mean or if one sentence is consistent with the next.
This is just weakly faked bluster on your part to cover up the fact that there is no gradation to speak of. Like every other Darwinist cult monger, you are an accomplished weaver of lies and deception. You bore me, Matzke.Mapou
December 24, 2013
December
12
Dec
24
24
2013
01:14 AM
1
01
14
AM
PDT
F/N 3: Where of course it is exactly this level of emergence of novel body plans, where design theory would suggest we would find wide gaps between islands of function unbridgeable by incremental processes. A good illustration of this would be the gaps between protein domains and the abundance of domains with one or very few members in various species across the domains of life. One hardly needs to underscore that new proteins are used to build cells and cells, tissues thence organs and systems, so the protein issue is fundamental and it is directly connected to the need to write new genetic code to instruct ribosomes to assemble the amino acid strings required for the new proteins. A simple calculation shows that we would need at reasonable minimum 5 - 10 million bases to move from a hypothetical single cell ancestor to a major body plan, and a survey of observed body plans points to 100+ millions as an empirically anchored threshold. The implied configuration space at 2 bits per base pair to get those, is well beyond the 500 - 1,000 bits that would fruitlessly exhaust the blind chance and necessity search capacity of the solar system or the observed cosmos. Per, needle in a cosmic scale haystack, where the scope of search on the solar system scale of 10^57 atoms, 10^17 s and one search per atom per 10^-14 s [as fast as ionic chem rxns] is as one straw to a cubical haystack as thick as our galaxy at its central bulge. Patently not feasible. The evidence in hand strongly points to design as best explanation of the origin of body plans. KFkairosfocus
December 24, 2013
December
12
Dec
24
24
2013
01:13 AM
1
01
13
AM
PDT
F/N 2: Let me speak now of Mr Gould's well-known remarks, in The Structure of Evolutionary Theory (2002) -- his last book published just before he died: _____________ >> . . . long term stasis following geologically abrupt origin of most fossil morphospecies, has always been recognized by professional paleontologists. [[p. 752.] . . . . The great majority of species do not show any appreciable evolutionary change at all. These species appear in the section [[first occurrence] without obvious ancestors in the underlying beds, are stable once established and disappear higher up without leaving any descendants." [[p. 753.] . . . . proclamations for the supposed ‘truth’ of gradualism - asserted against every working paleontologist’s knowledge of its rarity - emerged largely from such a restriction of attention to exceedingly rare cases under the false belief that they alone provided a record of evolution at all! The falsification of most ‘textbook classics’ upon restudy only accentuates the fallacy of the ‘case study’ method and its root in prior expectation rather than objective reading of the fossil record. [[p. 773.] >> _____________ But these are not his only remarks on the subject, they live in a context such as:
"The 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." [[Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), 'Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?' Paleobiology, vol.6(1), January 1980,p. 127.] "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between the major groups are characteristically abrupt." [[Stephen Jay Gould 'The return of hopeful monsters'. Natural History, vol. LXXXVI(6), June-July 1977, p. 24.]
What are "major groups" and "major transitions in organic design" to a world class paleontologist? Obvious, he is not speaking of just species -- the usual cop-out in attempts to portray these comments as quote-mined -- but the top level classifications at levels where major body plan features and functions are manifest, including phyla, subphyla, class and order. That is, he is saying that he fossil record does not show what it should reasonably be expected to in aggregate, a dominant pattern of gradual emergence of major body plan innovations. And he is thus highlighting the very same gap-driven pattern of sudden appearances, stasis and disappearance and/or continuity into the modern era that his more well known remarks state. As a clincher, here is Australian paleontologist Flannery in his NYRB review of Gould's last book:
Niles Eldredge and Gould first coined the term "punctuated equilibrium" in 1971 and published it the following year. The theory seeks to explain a persistent pattern in the fossil record whereby a species suddenly appears, then persists unchanged for a very long time before going extinct. This pattern is seen in a wide variety of contexts, from marine creatures such as shellfish and sea urchins to mammals and birds. Punctuated equilibrium posits that these species come into existence relatively rapidly (over tens of thousands of years), though just how (and indeed if) this happens is hotly debated. An opposing explanation is that these species have evolved much more slowly somewhere else, and their "sudden" appearance is the result of migration. While, as Galton's polyhedron suggests, the concept of punctuated equilibrium was not entirely new to paleontology, Eldredge and Gould's formulation of it was timely and coherent. Even among its supporters, however, argument has raged over its significance, with many questioning whether it really challenges Darwin's concept of gradualism. (After all, tens of thousands of years is sufficient time for species to evolve "gradually.") Most researchers, though, recognize that the concept has been invaluable in encouraging paleontologists to examine the fossil record with a rigor and attention to detail that previously was largely lacking. Punctuated equilibrium has forced paleontologists to focus not only on the origin of species, but also on their often long, unchanged persistence in the fossil record . . . [["A New Darwinism?," The New York Review of Books, 49 (May 23, 2002): pp. 52–54.]
Flannery of course highlights speciation, but the context of Gould's remarks across his career plainly shows that the pattern of suddenness, stasis, and gaps pervades the whole fossil record, and includes the challenge of explaining body plan origin on actual observed evidence, i.e. the gaps include top level taxonomical categories, not just species. And no amount of verbal gymnastics, turnabout accusations, accusations of quote mining and rhetorical gallops and slippery definitions will make that go away. In short, on fair comment: the TOL icon, and the fossils as presented in that context, seem to be habitually presented to the public and to students in a fundamentally misleading way. A smoking gun. KFkairosfocus
December 24, 2013
December
12
Dec
24
24
2013
01:03 AM
1
01
03
AM
PDT
F/N: Jonathan Wells speaks on the Cambrian life revolution and the tree of life icon: __________ >> . . . Of all the Icons of Evolution, the Tree of Life is the most pervasive, because descent from a common ancestor is the foundation of Darwin's theory. Neo-Darwinist Ernst Mayr boldly proclaimed in 1991 that "there is probably no biologist left today who would question that all organisms now found on the earth have descended from a single origin of life." Yet Darwin knew -- and scientists have recently confirmed -- that the early fossil record turns the evolutionary tree of life upside down. Ten years ago [[-->i.e. in the 1990's] it was hoped that molecular evidence might save the tree, but recent discoveries [[--> of sharply divergent molecular "trees"] have dashed that hope. Although you would not learn it from reading biology textbooks, Darwin's Tree of Life has been uprooted . . . . Darwin believed that if we could have been there to observe the process, we would have seen the ancestral species [[--> e.g. of humans and fruit flies] split into several species only slightly different from each other. These species would then have evolved in different directions under the influence of natural selection. More and more distinct species would have appeared; and eventually at least one of them would have become so different from the others that it could be considered a different genus . . . differences would have continued to accumulate, eventually giving rise to separate families . . . . Thus the large differences separating orders and classes would emerge only after a very long history of small differences: "As natural selection acts only by accumulating slight, successive, favourable variations, it can produce no great or sudden modifications; it can act only by short and slow steps." These "short and slow steps" give Darwin's illustration its characteristic branching-tree pattern . . . . But in Darwin's theory, there is no way Phylum-level differences could have appeared right at the start. Yet that is what [[--> understood on the conventional timeline] the fossil record shows. [[Icons of Evolution, 2000, pp. 29 - 35.] >> __________ That is what Meyer is speaking to in Darwin's Doubt, and the slip-sliding away from the upside down emergence is a huge sign that he has the better of the case. And when it comes to the root of the tree, OOL, the matter is even more decisive. For there is there no way to appeal to the processes of differences in reproductive success as the origin of reproduction on genes or the equivalent is exactly what is a major thing to be explained as here is how -- on observational evidence -- it happened. Also, we have the major problem that the TOL faces the result that Wells hints at: the molecular trees as constructed . . . never mind the circularities used, assuming degree of similarity implies degree of evolutionary relationship and then using same as evidence for said relationships . . . turn out to notoriously stand in mutual serious disparity. I will only mention mosaics such as the platypus, noting how this mosaic effect is presented as if it substantiated TOL branching pattern evolution instead of blatantly highlighting an evident case of a library of parts reused and adapted to particular cases -- a sign of design. Here is a clip:
Genomic analysis published today in the journal Nature, shows platypus' 18,527 protein-encoding genes contain alive-and-well representatives from mammals, birds and reptiles.
And if that was not enough to point to a library of parts, let us note on the kangaroo-human genome parallels . . . after a branching apart said to be what 150 MYA, which should have given us time aplenty for the onward differentiation that is used in the above case:
The tammar wallaby (Macropus eugenii), was the model kangaroo used for the genome mapping. Like the o'possum, there are about 20,000 genes in the kangaroo's genome, Graves says. That makes it about the same size as the human genome, but the genes are arranged in a smaller number of larger chromosomes. "Essentially it's the same houses on a street being rearranged somewhat," Graves says. "In fact there are great chunks of the [[human] genome sitting right there in the kangaroo genome."
The tree of life icon is rotten from the root up to the main trunks and branches. Period. Rotten on exactly the things it MUST get right if it is to be viable. And, recall, the fossil record is the only direct record of the world's past of origins, however we may want to interpret it. KFkairosfocus
December 24, 2013
December
12
Dec
24
24
2013
12:40 AM
12
12
40
AM
PDT
Mr Matzke: I am sorry to have to say this but in trying to spin what your false accusation of myself and smear of Mr Gish as a man not here to defend himself into something that it is not, you are speaking with disregard to the patent truth you know or should know, in hopes that the distortion will be perceived as truth. And, this is again demonstrably -- notice, the link that addresses the slander involved in your accusation above is from a year ago -- a case of informal smear-terms used to accuse design thinkers, then when you have been challenged on your tactics you have slipped and slided away into double-talk definitions that do not accord with the common use of the term by those on your side. I cite here an easily found definition from Rational Wiki (as was quoted in the just linked), which you either do know at minimum from pattern of usage, or should full well know before tossing verbal hand grenades:
The Gish Gallop, named after creationist Duane Gish, is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood in real time. The term was coined by Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education. Sam Harris describes the technique as “starting 10 fires in 10 minutes.”
To be accused of this is first an accusation of lying by outright false assertions, by half truths and by misrepresentations that are presumably deliberate. It is also plainly the case that Mr Gish is being accused in his absence [which I believe is now permanent], as in this is a smear of the name of a man. I hope you would understand if I were to now define the Matzke gallop on what you have done -- played the 1984 doubletalk card, it would be inappropriate. So, I will not. But I am confident that just pointing out the option you have opened up by your misbehaviour lets you know how outrageous it is to FALSELY attribute such -- in your case I would have cause and you are right here! -- to a man not present to defend himself. Why am I confident that the underlying accusation against Mr Gish is false on the whole? Simple. If the substance of the accusation were in fact the case, it would suffice to show that a few or several of the points listed are false or materially distorted. The credibility of the argument depending on such would collapse. That is, the very fact that the resort is made to label, smear and dismiss accusations, instead, is evidence that the accusation is substantially ill founded. (And in the case of Mr Gish, he did not win the vast majority of 300 - 400 public debates by focussing precisely on major and systemic gaps in the fossil record (further publishing entire books on his main arguments while doing so) by not having a substantial case. The attempt to smear and dismiss is patently a case of trying to lock off discussion of a major embarrassment for modern evolutionary theory by misrepresentation of the true balance on the merits. [Onlookers, kindly see my linked and the onward linked for details.]) So, you now have a very clear track record of slip-sliding definitions, with both "quote mining" and "Gish gallop." And sir, FYI, for excellent reason, false accusation of lying is a mortal insult. If you have any decency as a civilised person, any broughtupcy, you will immediately apologise and withdraw your false and unjustified accusation, sir. Failing which, the appropriate conclusions will be drawn, for cause. Good day, sir. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 24, 2013
December
12
Dec
24
24
2013
12:12 AM
12
12
12
AM
PDT
The other problem with all of this Darwinian evolutionary nonsense is that the Cambrian explosion did not happen in just one spot on the planet. It appeared suddenly everywhere, as if somebody decided to seed the entire ocean with a bunch of new species at the same time.
This is just wrong -- it is some kind of half-baked deduction from uncritical acceptance of ID/creationist assertions and quote-mining. See Maloof et al. (2010), which I previously cited. Or, Budd (2003):
CONCLUSIONS The combination of important refinements in the treatment of the systematics of Cambrian fossils, and in our understanding of Cambrian stratigraphy is leading to a more precise view of the Cambrian explosion. Phyla do not appear in a sudden jumble, implying an appearance in the fossil record induced by some external influence (e.g., a rise in atmospheric oxygen levels) that allowed a standing diversity already present to be manifested in the record. Rather, the impression rather is of a rapid, but nevertheless resolvable and orderly appearance, starting with the earliest skeletal forms such as Cloudina that are reasonably assignable to a diploblast grade (i.e., stem- or crown-group cnidarians or basal stem-group bilaterians). These are followed by taxa that lie in basal positions within bilaterian clades, and (in general) considerably later by representatives of the crown-groups of phyla. Revisions to the Cambrian time-scale allow a moderately long period of time, some tens of millions of years, between the first likely bilaterian trace fossils, and the general appearance of crown-group members of the phyla.
Graham E. Budd (2003). "The Cambrian Fossil Record and the Origin of the Phyla." Integr. Comp. Biol. (2003) 43 (1): 157-165. doi: 10.1093/icb/43.1.157
I see. It just goes to tell you. If it’s not one thing, it’s another. In other words, you got diddly squat. If there really were a gradation from small Precambrian shellies to big complex Arthropods (as predicted by Darwinian evolution), we would see many ancestral skeletal fossils in the Precambrian that are at least similar in size and complexity to a trilobite and the Darwinists would waste no time in announcing this fine gradation on the rooftops as a major victory for their cause. Unfortunately, it’s nowhere to be found. LOL.
Heh. You just basically said, "If there really were a gradation from small Precambrian shellies to big complex Arthropods then instead of Precambrian small shellies we would see many ancestral skeletal fossils in the Precambrian that are at least similar in size and complexity to a trilobite." Um, no, if there is a gradation starting with Precambrian small shellies, then it starts with Precambrian small shellies! You're just throwing words around without even understanding what they mean or if one sentence is consistent with the next.NickMatzke_UD
December 23, 2013
December
12
Dec
23
23
2013
10:01 PM
10
10
01
PM
PDT
Nickey:
all while not understanding that a paper on the phylogeny of whole-body fossils from lagerstatten will not contain small shelly fossils which are typically fragments of exoskeletons.
I see. It just goes to tell you. If it's not one thing, it's another. In other words, you got diddly squat. If there really were a gradation from small Precambrian shellies to big complex Arthropods (as predicted by Darwinian evolution), we would see many ancestral skeletal fossils in the Precambrian that are at least similar in size and complexity to a trilobite and the Darwinists would waste no time in announcing this fine gradation on the rooftops as a major victory for their cause. Unfortunately, it's nowhere to be found. LOL. The other problem with all of this Darwinian evolutionary nonsense is that the Cambrian explosion did not happen in just one spot on the planet. It appeared suddenly everywhere, as if somebody decided to seed the entire ocean with a bunch of new species at the same time. I think that, if the Darwinian hypothesis were correct, we would expect to see a spreading of the species from one area to another over a certain period, no? Personally, I have no problem with transitional fossils as this is what I think we should expect from intelligent design over time. However, we should not expect intelligent design to result in the fine gradation predicted by Darwin with the exception of normal adaptive transformations within a species. I expect to see jumps, small ones and big ones. We should also expect to see long periods of stasis after a major design explosion. Why? Only because the designers would probably want to study what kind of effect the introduction of new lifeforms is having on the ecology. This is what the fossil record shows, IMO. You can now assume the fetal position. :-DMapou
December 23, 2013
December
12
Dec
23
23
2013
08:21 PM
8
08
21
PM
PDT
46 MapouDecember 23, 2013 at 6:14 pm Matzke @45, That page is just making assertions, as far as I’m concerned. You should know by now that we don’t believe anything coming out of the mouth of a Darwinist unless we can check the data for ourselves. Can you list the specific lineage between a small shellie in the Precambrian and a Trilobite? Size and feature (number of legs, tails, etc.) comparisons would be nice, too. I want to see the gradations from small shellie to trilobite. If you don’t have that, you’re just urinating against the wind, IMO. After all, you guys are famous for showing pictures of supposed evolutionary transitions from ancient apes to humans. I want to see the same thing done for trilobites including the approximate time of their appearance.
Translation: "I'm a lazy creationist who can't be bothered to even read the referenced paper, let alone look up the fossils named in the phylogenies, let alone look at the morphology dataset even though it was made freely available online by Legg et al., all while not understanding that a paper on the phylogeny of whole-body fossils from lagerstatten will not contain small shelly fossils which are typically fragments of exoskeletons." Here's a hint: start with the trilobite species in Legg et al.'s Figure 4 and then trace backwards down the tree til you get to the common ancestor of the two extant phyla, arthropods and onychophorans. Look at all the fossils on the stems of these two groups, google them, and look at their character in the matrix and how those characters are distributed on the tree.NickMatzke_UD
December 23, 2013
December
12
Dec
23
23
2013
07:26 PM
7
07
26
PM
PDT
Matzke @45, That page is just making assertions, as far as I'm concerned. You should know by now that we don't believe anything coming out of the mouth of a Darwinist unless we can check the data for ourselves. Can you list the specific lineage between a small shellie in the Precambrian and a Trilobite? Size and feature (number of legs, tails, etc.) comparisons would be nice, too. I want to see the gradations from small shellie to trilobite. If you don't have that, you're just urinating against the wind, IMO. After all, you guys are famous for showing pictures of supposed evolutionary transitions from ancient apes to humans. I want to see the same thing done for trilobites including the approximate time of their appearance.Mapou
December 23, 2013
December
12
Dec
23
23
2013
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PDT
The missing fossils, Matzke, the missing intermediate fossils. Show them to us.
I did this long ago. See point #2 of: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2013/10/meyer-on-medved.html ...and the Legg et al. (2013) paper point #2 relies upon.NickMatzke_UD
December 23, 2013
December
12
Dec
23
23
2013
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT
Pop quiz #2. How many phyla have likely identified representatives in the small shelly fauna, thus actually occurring millions of years before "the Cambrian Explosion" as defined by Stephen Meyer?NickMatzke_UD
December 23, 2013
December
12
Dec
23
23
2013
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT
The missing fossils, Matzke, the missing intermediate fossils. Show them to us.Mapou
December 23, 2013
December
12
Dec
23
23
2013
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT
Pop quiz -- what does Charles Marshall say an intermediate between two crown phyla would look like. Would it be assignable to either phylum?NickMatzke_UD
December 23, 2013
December
12
Dec
23
23
2013
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply