Darwinian Debating Device #18: The “You’re Too Stupid to Understand Why I’m Smarter than You” Dismissal

_{Barry Arrington

May 10, 2015

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

DDD # 18 is a particularly contemptible form of ad hominem, which Mark Frank and Elizabeth Liddle do us the service of demonstrating in the combox to this post. In the post Dr. Torley refers to Darwin’s Doubt by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, which explains many of the shortcomings of various Darwinian narratives. Frank and Liddle tag team for a DDD #18:

Mark Frank:

[Meyer] explains perceived weaknesses in his understanding of evolutionary theory but gives no reason why design is a better alternative.

Liddle:

Exactly. His understanding of evolutionary theory is weak, and actual evolutionary theory is a better alternative.

Follow this link and take a look at what scientists who actually know what they are talking about have said about Darwin’s Doubt. A sample:

Darwin’s Doubt is by far the most up-to-date, accurate, and comprehensive review of the evidence from all relevant scientific fields that I have encountered in more than forty years of studying the Cambrian explosion. An engaging investigation of the origin of animal life and a compelling case for intelligent design.

Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, Senior Scientist Emeritus (Biologist) at the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research

Darwin’s Doubt is an intriguing exploration of one of the most remarkable periods in the evolutionary history of life—the rapid efflorescence of complex body plans written in the fossils of the Burgess Shale . . . No matter what convictions one holds about evolution, Darwinism, or intelligent design, Darwin’s Doubt is a book that should be read, engaged, and discussed.

Dr. Scott Turner, Professor of Biology, State University of New York

Does anyone believe that numerous highly-credentialed scientists, many of whom specialize in biology, would recommend Meyer’s book if his “understanding of evolutionary theory is weak”? Of course not. What does this mean? It means that Elizabeth Liddle’s statement is false. I will leave it to others to debate whether she is merely too muddle-headed to understand that she has made an egregiously false ad hominem attack as a substitute for argument, or she knows the truth and has deliberately misled. The point is that either way, Liddle has avoided having to actually defend against Meyer’s claims by simply dismissing him as too stupid to understand why Darwinists like her are smarter than he. And that is contemptible.

Comments

As Dr. Wells pointed out in the preceding video, Darwin predicted that minor differences (diversity) between species would gradually appear first and then the differences would grow larger (disparity) between species as time went on. i.e. universal common descent as depicted in Darwin’s tree of life. What Darwin predicted should be familiar to everyone and is easily represented in the only illustation in his book and in the following modern graph.,,,
Darwin’s illustration of an evolutionary tree, from The Origin of Species (1859). http://diogenesii.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/charles-darwins-diagram.jpg The Theory – Diversity precedes Disparity – graph http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/JOURNEY/IMAGES/F.gif
But that ‘tree pattern’ that Darwin predicted is not what is found in the fossil record. The fossil record reveals that disparity (the greatest differences) precedes diversity (the smaller differences), which is the exact opposite pattern for what Darwin’s theory predicted.
The Actual Fossil Evidence- Disparity precedes Diversity – graph http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/JOURNEY/IMAGES/G.gif Investigating Evolution: The Cambrian Explosion Part 1 – (4:45 minute mark – upside-down fossil record) video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DkbmuRhXRY Part 2 – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZFM48XIXnk Challenging Fossil of a Little Fish Excerpt: "In Chen’s view, his evidence supports a history of life that runs opposite to the standard evolutionary tree diagrams, a progression he calls top-down evolution." Jun-Yuan Chen is professor at the Nanjing Institute of Paleontology and Geology http://www.fredheeren.com/boston.htm Timeline graphic on Cambrian Explosion (Disparity preceding Diversity) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/07/its_darwins_dou074341.html
James Valentine, whom some Darwinists tried to call on for support when Darwin’s Doubt came out, contrary to what the Darwinists had hoped for, agreed with Dr. Meyer’s assessment of the fossil record.
Erwin and Valentine's The Cambrian Explosion Affirms Major Points in Darwin's Doubt: The Cambrian Enigma Is "Unresolved" - June 26, 2013 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/06/erwin_valentine_cambrian_explosion073671.html
Here is particularly damning quote from Valentine:
“Darwin had a lot of trouble with the fossil record because if you look at the record of phyla in the rocks as fossils why when they first appear we already see them all. The phyla are fully formed. It’s as if the phyla were created first and they were modified into classes and we see that the number of classes peak later than the number of phyla and the number of orders peak later than that. So it’s kind of a top down succession, you start with this basic body plans, the phyla, and you diversify them into classes, the major sub-divisions of the phyla, and these into orders and so on. So the fossil record is kind of backwards from what you would expect from in that sense from what you would expect from Darwin’s ideas.” James W. Valentine – as quoted from “On the Origin of Phyla: Interviews with James W. Valentine” – (as stated at 1:16:36 mark of video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtdFJXfvlm8&feature=player_detailpage#t=4595
bornagain77_{May 11, 2015
May
05
May
11
11
2015
04:32 AM
4
04
32
AM
PDT}

Andre:
Well there you have it, Nick Matzke and Dr Liddle have solved the issue and Dr Stephen Meyer is charged with the usual nonsense of “he just does not understand evolution” If I had a penny for every time I’ve heard a materialist say that to me I’d be richer than Bill Gates.
Well the fact that it is true would certainly ensure a steady income for you :) He doesn't. He's got the prediction wrong (not that it was actually a "prediction" - Darwin produced his theory to account for the observed pattern, and it does).Elizabeth Liddle_{May 11, 2015
May
05
May
11
11
2015
04:32 AM
4
04
32
AM
PDT}

It would be hard to imagine a more un-Darwinian feature of the fossil record than the Cambrian Explosion. In regards to the Cambrian Explosion Darwin himself stated the Cambrian Explosion could be “truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained”:
“Consequently, if the theory be true, it is indisputable that, before the lowest Silurian or Cambrian stratum was deposited long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Cambrian age to the present day; and that during these vast periods the world swarmed with living creatures… To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods, I can give no satisfactory answer… The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained. —Chapter IX, “On the Imperfection of the Geological Record,” On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin – fifth edition (1869), pp. 378-381.
The evidence for the Cambrian Explosion has only gotten worse, not better, for Darwinists since Darwin wrote those words.
Materialistic Basis of the Cambrian Explosion is Elusive: BioEssays Vol. 31 (7):736 – 747 – July 2009 Excerpt: “going from an essentially static system billions of years in existence to the one we find today, a dynamic and awesomely complex system whose origin seems to defy explanation. Part of the intrigue with the Cambrian explosion is that numerous animal phyla with very distinct body plans arrive on the scene in a geological blink of the eye, with little or no warning of what is to come in rocks that predate this interval of time.” —”Thus, elucidating the materialistic basis of the Cambrian explosion has become more elusive, not less, the more we know about the event itself, and cannot be explained away by coupling extinction of intermediates with long stretches of geologic time, despite the contrary claims of some modern neo-Darwinists.”,,, serving as perennial fodder for creationists. The reasoning is simple — as explained on an intelligent-design t-shirt. “Fact: Forty phyla of complex animals suddenly appear in the fossil record, no forerunners, no transitional forms leading to them; ”a major mystery,” a ”challenge.” The Theory of Evolution — exploded again (idofcourse.com).” Although we would dispute the numbers, and aside from the last line, there is not much here that we would disagree with. Indeed, many of Darwin’s contemporaries shared these sentiments, and we assume — if Victorian fashion dictated — that they would have worn this same t-shirt with pride. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/06/bioessays_article_admits_mater.html
Of Note:
"Phyla are broad categories of classification. All fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals are in the same phylum. Squid, octopi, oysters, clams and snails are in another phylum. Lobsters, crayfish, insects, and millipedes are in still another." Ray Bohlin PhD A Graduate Student (Nick Matzke) Writes – David Berlinski July 9, 2013 Excerpt: Representatives of twenty-three of the roughly twenty-seven fossilized animal phyla, and the roughly thirty-six animal phyla overall, are present in the Cambrian fossil record. Twenty of these twenty-three major groups make their appearance with no discernible ancestral forms in either earlier Cambrian or Precambrian strata. Representatives of the remaining three or so animal phyla originate in the late Precambrian, but they do so as abruptly as the animals that appeared first in Cambrian. Moreover, these late Precambrian animals lack clear affinities with the representatives of the twenty or so phyla that first appear in the Cambrian. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/07/a_graduate_stud074221.html Ediacaran embryos in retrospect – David Tyler – January 28, 2013 Excerpt: “there is currently no convincing evidence for advanced animals with bilateral symmetry in the Doushantuo biota”. This particular quest for animals preceding the Cambrian Explosion has drawn a blank. Needless to say, Darwin’s dilemma remains in full force. http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2013/01/28/ediacaran_embryos_in_retrospect Dr. Stephen Meyer: Darwin’s Dilemma – The Significance of Sponge Embryos – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPs8E7y0ySs Deepening Darwin’s Dilemma – Jonathan Wells – Sept. 2009 Excerpt: “The truth is that (finding) “exceptionally preserved microbes” from the late Precambrian actually deepen Darwin’s dilemma, because they suggest that if there had been ancestors to the Cambrian phyla they would have been preserved.” http://www.discovery.org/a/12471
A book, Darwin’s Doubt, and a movie, Darwin’s Dilemma, both highlight the impossibility of Darwinian explanations to account for the Cambrian Explosion. If anyone has not read Stephen Meyer’s Darwin’s Doubt yet, Dr. Paul Giem has done a chapter by chapter ‘cliff notes’ video series on the book here:
Darwin’s Doubt – Paul Giem – video playlist http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLHDSWJBW3DNUaMy2xdaup5ROw3u0_mK8t
For an even shorter ‘cliff notes’ version, here is the movie on the Cambrian Explosion:
Darwin’s Dilemma https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxh9o32m5c0
Here is a short excerpt from the movie that highlights just how explosive the Cambrian Explosion was:
Cambrian Explosion Ruins Darwin’s Tree of Life (2 minutes in 24 hour day) – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQKxkUb_AAg
bornagain77_{May 11, 2015
May
05
May
11
11
2015
04:31 AM
4
04
31
AM
PDT}

Box:
Meyer’s argument is perfectly clear: things are upside-down. Which terms, if not “phyla” and “species”, should Meyer have adopted in order to point that out?
His terms are fine. It he's just wrong about the "upside-down" part. He implies that exemplars of different "phyla" that we see early in the fossile record should, under "Darwinism" be as morphologically distant as their descendents are in the present day. Which they aren't. And under Darwinism they shouldn't be. They should be close (because the tree has only relatively recently branched). So he's got the data the right way up, but Darwinism upside down.Elizabeth Liddle_{May 11, 2015
May
05
May
11
11
2015
04:29 AM
4
04
29
AM
PDT}

Andre:
The whole Darwin’s doubt, with all its arguments are in doubt because Dr Meyer “misunderstands” something that almost everybody is grappling over as a problem? Come now Dr Liddle you’re just clutching at straws here, you’re not critical you’re just raising your own opinion on the matter. The Species problem is not some religious thing it is a clear problem in biology and if you have the answer lets hear it then!
You seem to have missed my point, Andre, as, of course, has Meyer, so you are in good company :) So let me go back a little further. Linnaeus observed that if he classified organisms by their morphological features they fell naturally into a branching hierarchy. This turned out also to apply to fossils, and, moreoever, the strata in which the fossils were found also mapped neatly on to the branching hierarchy if you regarded the hierarchy as a family tree. The highest level hierarchical groupings were given names like or "phyla" or "kingdom", while the lower groupings were given names like "genus" or "species". So the first thing Darwin proposed (not very originally) was that this tree was indeed a family tree. That is the theory of "Common Descent": that there was originally just one "grouping" which then branched into "kingdoms" then "phyla", then "orders" then "species" etc (I've left some of them out, and now of course there are now far more than the canonical seven "King Philip Came Over For Great Soup" tiers, because there are far more sub-branches. So then the question became: if Common Descent is the reason for this branching pattern of characteristics, how did each lineage "evolve" (in the sense of "change") over time? And that is where Descent with Modication and Natural Selection came in. Many IDists accept Common Descent. I gather Meyer doesn't. And the first part of his book is a critique of Common Descent (actually, most of it is - Signature in the cell was more about DM+NS). But he bases his criticism of Common Descent on a misunderstanding of the very pattern for which Common Descent is an explanation. He thinks that if common descent were true (and in fact the theory of Common Descent was proposed to explain the tree-like pattern of the data) we would see "phyla" come first (as they do) followed by the rest of King Philip's mob in turn, ending up with Good Soup). But because the higher levels of the hierarchy are NOW (i.e. late in evolutionary time) separated by "large morphological distances (which is true, and is how the tree is derived), common descent would predict that they must ALSO have been separated by "large morphological distances" when they first appeared. And of course they aren't. So, having made the diametrically wrong prediction from Common Descent (which would predict that close in time to a branching point the morphological distance will be very short, increasing over time), he then concludes from the fact that this is NOT what we observe, that Common Descent must be wrong! Here he is again:
Instead of more species eventually leading to more genera, leading to more families, orders, classes and phyla, the fossil record shows representatives of separate phyla appearing first followed by lower-level diversification on those basic themes.
Yes, exactly. It does. Phyla separating off early, followed by Classes, followed by Orders etc. But at the TIME of separation, the branches are morphologically close. They diversify over time AFTER the branching. It was to account for that diversification over time, down a lineage, that Darwin proposed his famous mechanism. Which obviously many here don't buy. But that is not the issue here - the issue Meyer is taking is with Common Descent, which he thinks it predicts the opposite of what we see. It doesn't. It predicts what we see, which was why it was advanced to explain it!Elizabeth Liddle_{May 11, 2015
May
05
May
11
11
2015
04:23 AM
4
04
23
AM
PDT}

EL, following up: 1: can you demonstrate observationally that projected step by step branching process from diverse sub populations leading to ever wider morphological distance? 2: Alternatively, can you observationally show the operating power of chance variation and differential reproductive success to give rise to major organisational transformations involving the FSCO/I required to de novo create body plans? I suggest you cannot soundly answer yes to either, much less both. What we see is sudden appearances, gaps and stasis of core characteristic forms. We also see that embryological development etc to create a body plan is massively informational and integrated. Further, what we see is that FSCO/I has but one known adequate cause. Namely, intelligently directed configuration, AKA design. (And those who tried to object to the reality, relevance and use of the concept this descriptive abbreviation tags, kindly cf the response here: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/fyi-ftr-sparc-et-al-vs-the-patent-reality-and-relevance-of-wickens-organized-systems-which-must-be-assembled-element-by-element-according-to-an-external-wiring-diagram-with-a/ ) In this light, you seem to have restated the problem as though that were the solution. KF PS: A strawman caricature of an argument, dismissed then turned into attacking the credibility of the person who made the argument is an ad hominem attack. That is, an attack to the man based on misrepresentations, not addressing the actual case..kairosfocus_{May 11, 2015
May
05
May
11
11
2015
03:47 AM
3
03
47
AM
PDT}

Well there you have it, Nick Matzke and Dr Liddle have solved the issue and Dr Stephen Meyer is charged with the usual nonsense of "he just does not understand evolution" If I had a penny for every time I've heard a materialist say that to me I'd be richer than Bill Gates.Andre_{May 11, 2015
May
05
May
11
11
2015
03:24 AM
3
03
24
AM
PDT}

Dr Liddle Here is a whopping 290 pages of the problem from Intech http://library.umac.mo/ebooks/b28045919.pdf Enjoy.....Andre_{May 11, 2015
May
05
May
11
11
2015
03:12 AM
3
03
12
AM
PDT}

Lizzie, Meyer's argument is perfectly clear: things are upside-down. Which terms, if not "phyla" and "species", should Meyer have adopted in order to point that out?Box_{May 11, 2015
May
05
May
11
11
2015
03:10 AM
3
03
10
AM
PDT}

Dr Liddle The whole Darwin's doubt, with all its arguments are in doubt because Dr Meyer "misunderstands" something that almost everybody is grappling over as a problem? Come now Dr Liddle you're just clutching at straws here, you're not critical you're just raising your own opinion on the matter. The Species problem is not some religious thing it is a clear problem in biology and if you have the answer lets hear it then!Andre_{May 11, 2015
May
05
May
11
11
2015
03:05 AM
3
03
05
AM
PDT}

Andre wrote:
Thank you for this, so your whole beef with Stephen Meyer is because he does not understand phylogeny and taxonomy. this makes his knowledge weak on evolutionary theory how exactly?
Because is argument is based on that misunderstanding.Elizabeth Liddle_{May 11, 2015
May
05
May
11
11
2015
02:59 AM
2
02
59
AM
PDT}

Dr Liddle Thank you for this, so your whole beef with Stephen Meyer is because he does not understand phylogeny and taxonomy. this makes his knowledge weak on evolutionary theory how exactly? It's not like he is the only one who's had this issue, ever heard of the Species problem Dr Liddle? Do you think its all figured out? Did you figure it all out? The Species problem is real and you just need to look around to know that. http://www.intechopen.com/books/the-species-problem-ongoing-issuesAndre_{May 11, 2015
May
05
May
11
11
2015
02:44 AM
2
02
44
AM
PDT}

Meyer's error is right here:
Instead of more species eventually leading to more genera, leading to more families, orders, classes and phyla, the fossil record shows representatives of separate phyla appearing first followed by lower-level diversification on those basic themes.
"Phylum" is a retrospective label. It refers to the entire branch, right back to the original branching point. At the time of that original branching point, the two branches would have looked like two "species" - very similar. But at the ends of the two branches, the organisms look very different. This is not because we have "phyla" at the ends (later) and "species" at the beginning (earlier) but because we call an entire branch a "phylum" if it stems from a very early branch. ALL of it is the phylum, not just the end.Elizabeth Liddle_{May 11, 2015
May
05
May
11
11
2015
02:17 AM
2
02
17
AM
PDT}

PS: I have clipped the critique linked by EL, in what seems to be her summary of her main objection to DD: >>You have just, in Chapter 2 of your fat book made an absolutely fundamental error of understanding of the entire principle of phylogenetics and taxonomy. No, of course you wouldn’t expect phyla to follow “lower-level diversification on those basic themes”. How could it possibly? And how could you possibly so fundamentally misunderstand the entire point of Darwin’s tree and its relationship to the nested hierarchies observe by Linnaeus? All branching events, in Darwin’s proposal, whether the resulting lineages end up as different phyla or merely different species, start in the same way, with two populations where there once was one, and a short morphological distance between them. It is perfectly true that the longer both lineages persist for, the greater the morphological distance will become. But that isn’t because they started different, or because the phyla come later. It’s because what we call phyla are groups of organisms with an early common ancestor, whose later descendents have evolved to form a group that has a large morphological distance from contemporary populations who descended from a different early common ancestor. So when a phylum, or a class, or even a kingdom first diverges from a single population into two lineages, the “morphological distance” from the other lineage will be very short. We only call it a “phylum” because eventually, owning to separate evolution, that distance becomes very large . . . >> My first problem is there is an underlying sneeringly dismissive tone manifest in loaded language that needs to be addressed, as this is part of the enabling problem that I have had to again highlight now that stalking seems to also be on the ground. Second, much of the above pivots on reiterating the assertion of common ancestry in a way that seems to assume away the OOBP problem Meyer points to -- required reasonable adequate cause of the origin of required info by cumulative blind chance and mechanical necessity. Backed up by observational evidence. Where, a simple calc or examination of typical genomes will show that we are requiring perhaps 10 - 100+ mn bases of info, dozens of times over, and per the "explosion" in a fairly short window. Sure, if there was a viable, observed incremental blind chance and mechanical necessity mechanism for branching from unicellular organism to major body plans you could probably get away with a fossil gaps argument. But, as fair comment no such mechanism has been demonstrated on observation as leading to OOBP or even just to novel FSCO/I beyond 500 - 1,000 bits. What we do see instead is an ideological imposition of de facto a priori materialism, and the logical deduction that such a process must have happened. As, notoriously Lewontin admitted. Moreover, there is a basic logical problem with the objection -- repeating what Meyer pointed to in different words as though it refutes him. Meyer says, changes have to be bottom up to achieve cumulative body plan level transformation. In dismissing him as making a fundamental error, you start with "All branching events . . . start in the same way, with two populations where there once was one, and a short morphological distance between them." In short, bottom up, minor changes accumulated to major ones. But that would statistically be expected to present a pattern dominated by transitionals showing accumulation of morphological distance. But from Darwin's day to this, the actual fossils show already established main, top level, diversity. It looks to me rather like saying much the same thing from a diverse perspective which controls the narrative. So, per fair comment, the matter looks a lot more like: you do not agree with our core ideology and we lock you out and dismiss you. Philip Johnson's reply to Lewontin seems relevant:
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.]
And, a question like this is exactly one for which one with a phil and history of science background is specifically qualified to address.kairosfocus_{May 11, 2015
May
05
May
11
11
2015
01:33 AM
1
01
33
AM
PDT}

For those with penguin allergies, I have reproduced my post below. I have linked to the graphics. They are hosted on the TSZ server but do not link to the actual blog. For those with principles about clicking on TSZ, you will have to decide whether that is acceptable to you. I'm not going to rehost the pictures somewhere else.
Quite apart from any factual errors, about which I’m not at all qualified to judge, here is what seems to me to be Meyer’s fundamental logical error IMO:
According to Darwin’s theory, the differences in form, or “morphological distance,” between evolving organisms should increase gradually over time as small-scale variations accumulate by natural selection to produce increasingly complex forms and structures (including, eventually, new body plans). In other words, one would expect small-scale differences or diversity among species to precede large-scale morphological disparity among phyla.
(Darwin’s Doubt, Chapter 2) He illustrates this by asking us to comparing this figure, which he says is what we do see: Figure_2.12 With this (appallingly badly drawn) one: Figure_2.11_Meyer Which he claims Darwin’s theory says we ought to see. And he says:
The actual pattern in the fossil record, however, contradicts this expectation (compare Fig. 2.12 to Fig 2.11b). Instead of more species eventually leading to more genera, leading to more families, orders, classes and phyla, the fossil record shows representatives of separate phyla appearing first followed by lower-level diversification on those basic themes.
Well, of course it does, Dr Meyer! You have just, in Chapter 2 of your fat book made an absolutely fundamental error of understanding of the entire principle of phylogenetics and taxonomy. No, of course you wouldn’t expect phyla to follow “lower-level diversification on those basic themes”. How could it possibly? And how could you possibly so fundamentally misunderstand the entire point of Darwin’s tree and its relationship to the nested hierarchies observe by Linnaeus? All branching events, in Darwin’s proposal, whether the resulting lineages end up as different phyla or merely different species, start in the same way, with two populations where there once was one, and a short morphological distance between them. It is perfectly true that the longer both lineages persist for, the greater the morphological distance will become. But that isn’t because they started different, or because the phyla come later. It’s because what we call phyla are groups of organisms with an early common ancestor, whose later descendents have evolved to form a group that has a large morphological distance from contemporary populations who descended from a different early common ancestor. So when a phylum, or a class, or even a kingdom first diverges from a single population into two lineages, the “morphological distance” from the other lineage will be very short. We only call it a “phylum” because eventually, owing to separate evolution, that distance becomes very large. I’ve amended the drawings in the book as below, and, instead of labeling the trees by what a contemporary phylogeneticist might have called them, I’ve called each tree a phylum, and I’ve drawn round the organisms that constitute various subdivisions of phyla in colours from orange to green to represent successive branchings. Rather than the little bunch of twigs marked “families” by Meyer, I’ve indicated the entire clade for each subdivision, or tried to. Figure_2.11_Meyer_EL In Meyer’s version, he called the early sprout “ONE SPECIES”, which a contemporary phylogeneticist (Dr Stephen Chordata perhaps) would have called a “species”. But by the time of the next tree (which I think is supposed to incorporate the first), and Dr Chordata’s distant descendent comes along, she may call it an entire “genus”, and become rather more interested in the “species” that she observes it contains. Move along one to the next tree on Meyer’s time-line and an even more distantly descendent will call the whole tree a “family” containing “genera” and “species”. What was a “genus” to her great^10 grandmother will be several genera to her, and so on. And with each multi-generation of palaeontologist, the descendents of what were close relations in her ancestral palaentologist’s day are now separated by a wide “morphological distance. So of course, if we look at the fossil record as these speciation-events were happening and try to categorise the organisms in terms of their modern descendents, we will find a great number of different phyla, and far fewer species. Of course they have different body plans, because they lived at a time when many different lineages from the first populations of rather amorphous multi-cell colonies were still around, some with not much symmetry, some with bilateral symmetry, some with five-fold symmetry, and many that didn’t go very far and left no extant lineages. Because of course Meyer also forgets the big extinction events, which are the other part of the answer to why one particular branch “exploded” while the others were never seen again. It’s even in his terrible Figure 1.11. Which he may not have been responsible for drawing, but he should at least have looked at. ETA: the other drawing, fixed: Figure_2.12_EL ETA2: Another extraordinary example of Meyer’s complete failure to understand what a clade is, or that the words “phyla” and “class” refer to clades. Coloured emendations are mine (orange/red for Meyer’s “phyla”, blue for Meyer’s “class”): Meyer_7.3_EL I’d have expected an urbane, Cambridge-educated guy like Meyer to ~~know the~~ [ETA: spot the erroneous] singular of “phyla” but that’s minor compared to his crashing howler of an attempt to demonstrate what the term means. ETA:3 Note: As Mung has pointed out, Meyer shows that he does know the singular of “phyla”, he just doesn’t get it correct it in this particular diagram. However, as I have said elsewhere (and above), this error is minor compared with the howler of including only a group of of descendents in his circled “phyla”, not the whole branch, which as I’ve said, undermines his entire argument.
Elizabeth Liddle_{May 11, 2015
May
05
May
11
11
2015
01:32 AM
1
01
32
AM
PDT}

F/N: Clip on Stephen Meyer's biography: >> Stephen C. Meyer received his Ph.D. in the philosophy of science from the University of Cambridge. A former geophysicist and college professor, he now directs Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture in Seattle. He has authored the New York Times best seller Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design (HarperOne, 2013) as well as Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (HarperOne, 2009), which was named a Book of the Year by the Times (of London) Literary Supplement in 2009. In his first book on intelligent design, Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (HarperOne, 2009) Meyer examined the mystery of the origin of the first life. With Darwin’s Doubt, he has expanded the scope of the case for intelligent design to the whole sweep of life’s history. Meyer’s research addresses the deepest mystery surrounding the origin of life and the origin of animal life: the origin of biological information necessary to produce it. Meyer graduated from Whitworth College in Spokane, Washington, in 1981 with a degree in physics and earth science. He later became a geophysicist with Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) in Dallas, Texas. From 1981 to 1985, he worked for ARCO in digital signal processing and seismic survey interpretation. In 1986 as a Rotary International Scholar, he began his training in the history and philosophy of science at Cambridge University, earning an M.Phil. in 1987 and a Ph.D. in 1991. His doctoral thesis was titled “Of Clues and Causes: A Methodological Interpretation of Origin-of-Life Research.” >> It would be reasonable to conclude that someone with that background will understand the relevant history and phil of sci connected to biological origins sufficiently that "you don't understand jack" is not an appropriate dismissal. Particularly, given that the pivotal issue, the origin of bio-functional, complex specific organisation and/or information is indeed a significant issue. And, this holds for both OOL and OOBP. Perhaps, the root issue is that he proposes a controversial alternative, as say his reply to Falk outlines:
The central argument of my book [Signature in the Cell] is that intelligent design—the activity of a conscious and rational deliberative agent—best explains the origin of the information necessary to produce the first living cell. I argue this because of two things that we know from our uniform and repeated experience, which following Charles Darwin I take to be the basis of all scientific reasoning about the past. First, intelligent agents have demonstrated the capacity to produce large amounts of functionally specified information (especially in a digital form). Second, no undirected chemical process has demonstrated this power. Hence, intelligent design provides the best—most causally adequate—explanation for the origin of the information necessary to produce the first life from simpler non-living chemicals. In other words, intelligent design is the only explanation that cites a cause known to have the capacity to produce the key effect in question . . . . In order to [[scientifically refute this inductive conclusion] Falk would need to show that some undirected material cause has [[empirically] demonstrated the power to produce functional biological information apart from the guidance or activity a designing mind. Neither Falk, nor anyone working in origin-of-life biology, has succeeded in doing this . . .
Can objectors show a credible counter-example to this point? Nope. Can we show that FSCO/I has intelligently directed configuration as adequate, observed cause? Trillions of cases in point backed up by the blind needle in haystack search challenge. So, he has a perfect right to put his main claim. And those who dispute it on the claim or implication that he utterly misunderstands evolution should be able to make their basic claim in a paragraph or so that gives main thesis and core warrant for it in outline. KFkairosfocus_{May 11, 2015
May
05
May
11
11
2015
12:58 AM
12
12
58
AM
PDT}

If it is a matter of principle to you not to go to TSZ, then, as I said, you will have to wait, because I don't have time to precis that article right now. In any case, as I said, it includes graphics (because it addresses a point that Meyer makes with graphics) so it would take me a while to recast that in a form that did not require illustration. But if it reassures, you, I do not get any financial or any other kick-back from hits to my site, so you would not be supporting any materialist project by clicking on the link. There are no paid ads or sponsored links on the site.Elizabeth Liddle_{May 11, 2015
May
05
May
11
11
2015
12:52 AM
12
12
52
AM
PDT}

Dr Liddle Are you a person of principle? I am and if I go back on my principles of never ever going to TSZ, what kind of person am I then?Andre_{May 11, 2015
May
05
May
11
11
2015
12:33 AM
12
12
33
AM
PDT}

Thanks. I'll need to digest it for a day or two before I can form an informed opinion.Mapou_{May 11, 2015
May
05
May
11
11
2015
12:24 AM
12
12
24
AM
PDT}

Andre, if you don't want to sully your eyes with TSZ, then you will have to wait. I don't have time right now to try to write a 200 word precis when I already wrote a fairly concise and carefully written piece, with supporting graphics, that you can read at the click of a mouse, without registering, or even encountering anything more odoriferous than a couple of penguins.Elizabeth Liddle_{May 11, 2015
May
05
May
11
11
2015
12:20 AM
12
12
20
AM
PDT}

OK, Mapou, but as I said, I laid them out in piece I wrote at TSZ. Here is the link: Meyer's Mistake. You will simply have to avert your eyes from the blog title, I'm afraid, because I'm not going to change it now. I've bought the domain name. And I can't put the illustrations in a comment box here.Elizabeth Liddle_{May 11, 2015
May
05
May
11
11
2015
12:16 AM
12
12
16
AM
PDT}

Liddle:
Looks like no-one wants to actually engage with my reasons for concluding that Meyer doesn’t understand evolutionary theory.
I am actually interested and I said so at #49 above.Mapou_{May 11, 2015
May
05
May
11
11
2015
12:09 AM
12
12
09
AM
PDT}

Dr Liddle I'll bite, give us your critique that Meyer's understanding is weak, I'll define my terms clearly and concisely. 1.) Do not link me to anything at TSZ, I refuse to visit that site because all it is, is a cesspool of angry materialists that don't give a crap about anything truthful, it is a very unpleasant place. 2.) You have 200 words to make your case. 3.) Please no personal attacks, just point out his weaknesses. Regards AndreAndre_{May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
11:39 PM
11
11
39
PM
PDT}

Looks like no-one wants to actually engage with my reasons for concluding that Meyer doesn't understand evolutionary theory. Fine. But I cannot help point out the irony of the accusation that I have "no right" to criticise Meyer because I do not have qualifications in palaeontology.Elizabeth Liddle_{May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
10:52 PM
10
10
52
PM
PDT}

Mung
Are you another ‘critic’ who hasn’t read the book?
I wasn't criticising the book. VJ asked for rebuttals of the 200 word quote in his OP. My comment was about that and nothing else and all I said was the quote did not include any argument for why ID was the best explanation.Mark Frank_{May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
10:37 PM
10
10
37
PM
PDT}

"convoluted garbage"
Great description! Maybe getting close to a concise and apt label for what spews from Miss EL.butifnot_{May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
10:07 PM
10
10
07
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth Liddle, "I am certainly not a palaeontologist. And nor is Meyer." I see, the bio presented in 38 is of the correct Elizabeth Liddle. With no biological qualification that I can see you dare to declare: "But he is no palaeontologist, and apparently doesn’t see that as a problem." "Well, I certainly know more about evolutionary theory than Meyer, that’s for sure." Ma'am, you have no right to speak as you do.bFast_{May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
10:06 PM
10
10
06
PM
PDT}

So why does Liddle believe that Meyer's book should be dismissed as the work of someone who does know what he's talking about? PS. I don't read TSZ. Anything with the word "skeptical" in it is a turn-off for me. It smacks of self-righteousness.Mapou_{May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
09:55 PM
9
09
55
PM
PDT}

phoodoo:
Based on your saying so?
No. Based on the grounds I gave.Elizabeth Liddle_{May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
09:32 PM
9
09
32
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth, I have pointed out all kinds of errors in your writing. Anyone can simply say, Oh, you are wrong, and then force others to spend the next three days responding to mountains of convoluted garbage. You struggle with the meaning of the simplest words, and you want people to point out all of your errors in your critique of Meyer? You made a totally baseless accusation. You said Stephen Meyer does not have a strong understanding of evolutionary theory, and that yours is stronger. Based on your saying so? Well, guess what, I have a stronger understanding than you, and you are wrong. And look I didn't even need to point out that you have no science background for me to say that right? Does Behe have a stronger understanding of biology than you? How about Jonathon Wells? Simon Conway Morris? Ann Gauger? Philip Skell? Richard von Sternberg? Lev Beloussov? Giuseppe Sermonti? Or the 500 other scientists who signed the Dissent From Darwin document? Do they have a better understand of evolutionary theory than you, Lizzie.phoodoo_{May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
09:29 PM
9
09
29
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply