Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Darwin’s folk have noticed Science and Human Origins

arroba Email

From Ann Gauger at Biologic Institute here:

Our recent book “Science and Human Origins” has caught the attention of a number of evolutionary bloggers. Go here. to get the flavor. Even our Facebook page has seen as spike in commenting. But most have chosen to recycle a review by a graduate student named Paul McBride, so as to avoid reading the book itself, and dealing with its arguments. His posts (six of them and almost as long as our book!) can be found here. He raises a number of issues that we plan to address. To begin I will discuss his critique that deals with phylogeny.

Mr. McBride doesn’t like using cars as an example of design versus common descent, even though another evolutionary biologist once used it as an analogy for evolution. The car analogy was a throw-away comment in my piece, not intended as a serious model for anything. But McBride took it seriously, and said that cars, which are obviously designed, would produce a patchwork pattern of relatedness, with no single tree predominating. In contrast he said common descent produces a nested hierarchy of relatedness, with a single species tree that is well-supported and does not require arbitrary weighting of characters.

This wouldn’t be our local Paulmc, would it? Hey, a local boy.

See also:

More from Ann Gauger on wy humans didn’t happen the way Darwin said.

Science and Human Origins conclusion: It IS possible we came from just two parents

Adam and Eve could be real?: Genes’ introns and exons tell different stories here. Who to believe?

Adam and Eve possible?: Ayala’s contrary claim built in favourable assumptions

Breaking: Adam and Eve are scientifically possible

What is amusing is that people like Paul really believe they need to educate scientists like Gauger and Axe. The reality is both these scientists know all too well what evolutionists claim. that is why they are well equipped to test those claims in the lab and find them wanting. Kudos to Gauger and Axe for taking the time to wade through the sophistry Paul finds preferable to Gauger/Axe's lab work. Steve
Stop Maus, you are making my head hurt. intelligent design is too logical and rational for my blood. I'll stick to smoking the darwinian opiate. Evolution comes together nicely upon exhaling. Steve
Amusing, I just made the same car analogy in another thread. Though if you create a phylogeny of automobiles on the basis of morphological features alone, chassis works, then you have done as Linnaeus and do receive a very stable tree. If you create such a tree based on the totality mechanical features then you again receive a stable tree, though with some surprising and hard to place branches. Indeed, the Tucker and the air-cooled Volkswagens and Porsches stand out as oddballs. But if you create that tree on the basis of, say, shock absorbers. Or shock absrobers, and suspension springs only. Then you will receive a very regular tree. But if you base it on wheel bearings and cylinder counts you will receive a widely different tree. And just such this problem continues to plague phylogenic trees in which we find that men are closest to monkeys, mice, horses, or what have you based on which minority fragment of the machine is vetted. So just as with biology you can make a number of highly consistent, or highly inconsistent trees, depending on what you see as demonstrative. But if you only collect up the most consistent trees then of course the trees will be highly consistent. The point is not that 'your tree' is right or wrong, it is that you cannot establish that it is right at all. But even then the notion that a regular tree of non-intersecting subsets can be created requires that there are no horizontal transfers. For if you have HGT or AC Delco making sparkplugs for multiple manufacturers, then the entire notion is refuted. Such trees make a nice heurisitic for categorization, defintion, and recognition, but they are purely human issues. Maus
paulmc- Do you present any evidence that knuckle-walkers can evolve into upright bipeds via ccumulations of random mutations? If not what good is your "criticism" of the book? And BTW, paul, evolution would not expect a nested hierarchy based on charateristic traits. You have no idea what you are talking about and it is hilarious seeing other evos agree with you. Joe
Incidentally, I have also replied to Gauger's criticism on my blog, and shall soon draft a response to Axe's criticism that was also posted today. paulmc
BTW, come one come all- roll up to comment over at my blog on the book if you've read it. There's a chapter-by-chapter discussion. paulmc
"How religion drives science and why it matters", CH. I personally felt his critique was riddled with strict religious adherence. One can certainly see how blind faith compromises his objectivity and reason. coresa
It would be, yes (easily seen from my responses to Ann Gauger on this blog). paulmc

Leave a Reply