Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Don’t dare this man

arroba Email

He might just take you up on it:

Ruse with his new tattoo

That lovely trilobite tattoo now resides on Michael Ruse’s right arm, thanks to a dare from one of his students.

Blacknad, I read the article. Notice words like : probably didn’t interact They don't need to interact to be related. Heck I have many relatives I have never interacted with. What the article is suggesting, IMHO, is that one cannot have a great-grandparent be alive at the same time the great-grandchild is also alive. That's nonsense. Again there isn't any "rule" that says a parent population has to die out before an ancestral population can take hold. Joseph
There isn’t anything in Common Descent or the theory of evolution that says the parent population must die off before any ancestral population can take hold.
To begin with I am not aware of anything in the theory of evolution that is true 100% of the time. However, I am often told that the definition of evolution is an increase in the frequency of an allele in a population. That means populations evolve in toto. In order for the parent population to remain while a subgroup evolves there must be some type of speciation event so that the improved alleles only increase in the sub group. It seems to me the most probable type of speciation event would be geographical, where two groups become reproductively isolated by geography or terrain. So I think it is problematic for one group to be the parent of the other while they lived in such proximity. Jehu
Joseph, You may want to read the article: 'The two species lived near each other, but probably didn't interact, each having its own "ecological niche," Spoor said. Homo habilis was likely more vegetarian while Homo erectus ate some meat, he said. Like chimps and apes, "they'd just avoid each other, they don't feel comfortable in each other's company," he said.' From the article I get the idea that it is unlikely that either was a parent population. Blacknad
Thanks lars. At the least this is one more thing that shows the arrogance of materialist evolutionists. Once upon a time there was no questioning the lovely textbook pictures showing the ordered advance of Homo habilis through Homo erectus to Homo sapiens. It was FACT. Well so much for facts eh? I remember not long ago (on scienceagogo's forum) seeing someone made to feel like a moron for asking whether mutation was an adequate mechanism for evolving complexity. And guess what... IT'S NOT. I'm grateful for the nasty and arrogant attitudes of people like Dawkins and Pharyngula. They turn people off and bring their discipline into disrepute as they aggressively try to prop up a theory that is being discredited at an accelerating rate. These people are not enemies of ID - they are our secret weapon. Blacknad
Joseph, Nice post on the common design evidences. I look forward to the entire series. Atom
Wow - yes, Ruse is a bold man. He is certainly not a shy fellow. He will always be one those guys who is young at heart - gotta respect that:) ceruleanboy72
To Blacknad and Lars: What's to comment on? Even if it is correct that the two populations lived at the same time that does not mean one population couldn't have given rise to the other. There isn't anything in Common Descent or the theory of evolution that says the parent population must die off before any ancestral population can take hold. And even if there were such a (stupid) rule, all this finding would do is exactly what some scientists have already stated- made a chaotic bush out of a ordered tree. As for Mr Ruse: I dare him to present any scientific data which demonstrates that a population of single-celled organisms can "evolve" into something other than single-celled organisms. Now for a blog plug: I just posted a new article on my blog: Evidences for Common Design- Evidence 1 the Fundamental Unity Notice how it very closely follows the talk origins article on the 29+ evidences for common descent. ;) Joseph
PS to Blacknad: I was hoping to see some commentary here about that news item as well. ("Fossils Challenge Old Evolution Theory" -- good thing evolutionary theory changed just in time to avoid being challenged!) I've commented about it at http://www.huttar.net/wordpress/?p=125, but I'm not a biologist/paleontologist and I'd like to hear from the experts. lars
For a moment I thought Gloppy was reporting on another victim of mutation paste. scordova
Thanks crandaddy. Lars, see the Kevin Padian thread, somehwere in the 200's commentwise. Atom
So where's the photo of Atom's fiance? And ... is it a real tattoo, i.e. permanent? What does Ruse's wife think? lars
ah, come on guys...no need to insult his appearance. Now if he wobbles his arm he could make the trilobyte swim. Patrick
I take it all back. Ruse and Darwinist colleagues are right after all. No Creator in Her right mind would ever design that. jstanley01
Sorry to be off topic, but can anyone look at the following link and comment? Cheers. http://news.wired.com/dynamic/stories/H/HUMAN_EVOLUTION?SITE=WIRE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT Blacknad
Was it really necessary that he take his shirt off for us? I just saw the picture of your fiance, Atom. She is most definitely eye candy. Congratulations! crandaddy
My scientific comment on that is: Argh!! "Hell hath no fury as a naked Darwinist" Mats
What a RUSE: Michael Ruse dosen't need that on his arm; he's always come across to me as already BEING a trilobite! --SWT S Wakefield Tolbert
Lol @ bork Atom
Thank God I saw Atom's fiance picture after seeing this.... There is apparently balance in the world. Though I do like the tat. bork

Leave a Reply