Nick Matzke and “Clutching in Mid-Air”

_{Barry Arrington

December 9, 2013

Intelligent Design}

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

As his recent posts in these pages demonstrate, Nick Matzke loves cladistics, and for reasons that defy explication, he seems to think that cladistics demonstrates – rather than assumes – common descent. It really is a stumper.

One wonders if his faith commitment to metaphysical naturalism renders him unable to see the circularity of his arguments, or if he does see it and just chooses to look the other way. My money is on the former. I think he is literally unable to grasp the obvious question begging that is immediately apparent to those who do not share his faith.

David Berlinski’s skewering of Matzke is particularly fun to watch:

[P]hylogenetic methods as they exist now,” [Matzke] writes, “can only rigorously detect sister-group relationships, not direct ancestry, and, crucially, … this is neither a significant flaw, nor any sort of challenge to common ancestry, nor any sort of evidence against evolution.” But there can be no sisters without parents, and if cladistic analysis cannot detect their now mythical ancestors, it is hard to see what is obtained by calling them sisters. No challenge to common ancestry? Fine. But no support for common ancestry either. Questions of ancestry go beyond every cladistic system of classification, no matter the character states. . . .

The relationship between cladistics and Darwin’s theory of evolution is thus one of independent origin but convergent confusion. “Phylogenetic systematics,” the entomologist Michael Schmitt remarks, “relies on the theory of evolution.” To the extent that the theory of evolution relies on phylogenetic systematics, the disciplines resemble two biologists dropped from a great height and clutching at one another in mid-air.

Tight fit, major fail.

By the way, I have quoted Berlinski. Matzke’s is always yelling “quote mining!!” whenever he sees a quote with which he disagrees. Let me be clear, then, what I am quoting Berlinski for. I am quoting him for the proposition that Nick Matzke is a fool who cannot see the obvious circularity of attempting to support Darwinian evolution through cladistics methods. I am pretty sure that in context this is what Berlinski means.

Comments

Evolve @42:
Mapou #33 ///There are many instances of horizontal inheritance between species that are in distant branches of the hierarchy.//// Which is why we don’t infer relationships based on one gene, instead we do it from many genes or portions of DNA. Moreover, horizontal gene transfer is much more rampant in microbes than it is in, say, animals.
The important point here is that horizontal genes are found at very high levels in the hierarchy. This breaks the nested hierarchy prediction of common descent. Statistics has nothing to do with it.
////Convergent evolution comes to mind (how evolution can reinvent entire sets of genes is part of the religious “poofery” of Darwinism). //// Similar selection pressures can produce similar genetic/morphological solutions. It’s quite simple actually.
Nonsense. There is absolutely no way random mutations can give rise to the exact same complex DNA sequences in distant species. You are delirious if you believe this hogwash.
///The problem is that common descent does not predict that a subset of the tree of life will be non-nested. This is what intelligent design predicts and this is what is observed. Live with it./// Wrong. ID doesn’t predict any nested hierarchy because we don’t see that in designed objects. If most of the tree agrees with common descent, then what more do you need? Phenomena like HGTs are more of an exception rather than the rule.
You are severely misinformed to the point of absurdity. Intelligent design can produce both nested and non-nested designs over time. I have used the programming language C++ to design both nested and non-nested (multiple inheritance) classes of software objects in the past. Modern languages like Java and C# forbid multiple inheritance so that one is forced to implement only strictly nested class hierarchies. I suggest you get a clue before you come on this forum and act like you have something important to teach us. You're wasting our time with your idiotic nonsense.Mapou_{December 12, 2013
December
12
Dec
12
12
2013
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT}

Evolve, "C’mon guys, you can do better than this." Actually, you don't seem to understand the point of the OP either. I hope you can do better too. Go back. Read it again. Think really really hard. It will come to you. (Well, maybe not; the OP does discuss the whole ideological blindness thing)Barry Arrington_{December 11, 2013
December
12
Dec
11
11
2013
08:18 PM
8
08
18
PM
PDT}

Actually, I like the cell phone analogy. - Cell phones are pretty complex (though nowhere near that of a single cell) - They share many common features - They compete in a brutal natural/commercial selection process - They change over time, employing different strategies and technologies as the commercial environment changes - They have the appearance of design, though not nearly as much as a single cell. It would be interesting to challenge a Darwinist to create a phylogenetic tree of these devices. The rules are 1. You must follow the same logic as used for organizing, let's say, the phylum Mollusca (because it's large and offers more flexibility, not to mention the bivalve analogy). 2. You must classify them first ONLY according to their morphology, ordering them in tiny increments, and estimate how many millions of years it took for each of them to evolve. 3. You cannot use any historical market data to order them---that would be cheating! 3. Later, you can pick from several internal similarities to justify some adjustments and argue for convergent evolution, etc. This might get a little technical. What fun! You don't even have to be a Darwinist to join in. -QQuerius_{December 11, 2013
December
12
Dec
11
11
2013
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT}

Your feature phone group will have makes such as Samsung, Nokia and Blackberry. Your smartphone group will also have the same. Both groups can feature the same operating systems and/or features. Processors used in one brand will be found in another. Gorilla glass used in one make will be present in another make. Cameras used in one will be found in another. Sensors found in one are present in the other. When it comes to touchscreens, they’re found on everything from information kiosks to phones, tablets, even desktops! In short your tree will be a jumbled mess with no nested arrangement. That’s exactly what one expects with designed objects. Technology used in one category will be used in another too. But this is not the case with living things. Features unique to mammals are found ONLY in mammals. They’re absent in reptiles or birds, each of which have their own unique traits. But all three groups share another set of features that allows you to group them into a larger set -amniotes. Amniotes have unique features not found in amphibians or fishes. But all three of them share traits which allows you to group them into a still larger set – vertebrates. That’s how living things form a groups-within-groups arrangement. This is characteristic of naturally evolved systems.
Wait. LOL. What?TSErik_{December 11, 2013
December
12
Dec
11
11
2013
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT}

Mapou #33 ///There are many instances of horizontal inheritance between species that are in distant branches of the hierarchy.//// Which is why we don't infer relationships based on one gene, instead we do it from many genes or portions of DNA. Moreover, horizontal gene transfer is much more rampant in microbes than it is in, say, animals. ////Convergent evolution comes to mind (how evolution can reinvent entire sets of genes is part of the religious “poofery” of Darwinism). //// Similar selection pressures can produce similar genetic/morphological solutions. It's quite simple actually. ///The problem is that common descent does not predict that a subset of the tree of life will be non-nested. This is what intelligent design predicts and this is what is observed. Live with it./// Wrong. ID doesn't predict any nested hierarchy because we don't see that in designed objects. If most of the tree agrees with common descent, then what more do you need? Phenomena like HGTs are more of an exception rather than the rule.Evolve_{December 11, 2013
December
12
Dec
11
11
2013
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT}

Shader #30 ///It’s really silly to say that smartphones wouldn’t produce a nested hierarchy pattern... For instance, the first cellphone sits on top. Perhaps the tree then branches into the flip-phones and non flip-phones. Then somewhere down the line, the touch-screens form a branch, after which the smartphones emerge./// Your feature phone group will have makes such as Samsung, Nokia and Blackberry. Your smartphone group will also have the same. Both groups can feature the same operating systems and/or features. Processors used in one brand will be found in another. Gorilla glass used in one make will be present in another make. Cameras used in one will be found in another. Sensors found in one are present in the other. When it comes to touchscreens, they're found on everything from information kiosks to phones, tablets, even desktops! In short your tree will be a jumbled mess with no nested arrangement. That's exactly what one expects with designed objects. Technology used in one category will be used in another too. But this is not the case with living things. Features unique to mammals are found ONLY in mammals. They're absent in reptiles or birds, each of which have their own unique traits. But all three groups share another set of features that allows you to group them into a larger set -amniotes. Amniotes have unique features not found in amphibians or fishes. But all three of them share traits which allows you to group them into a still larger set - vertebrates. That's how living things form a groups-within-groups arrangement. This is characteristic of naturally evolved systems.Evolve_{December 11, 2013
December
12
Dec
11
11
2013
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT}

Barry #27 and Optimus #34 ////The point that Berlinski made (and which neither you nor Nick has addressed) is that calling two species “sisters” is pointless if you can’t detect direct ancestry. Go back and read the OP. I don’t think you’ve grasped it yet.//// ////However, how did you determine the ‘sisterhood’ of the organisms in the first place? As none of us were present to observe said organisms, we have no empirical knowledge of their relationship. It must be either inferred or assumed. It tends to be assumed./// C'mon guys, you can do better than this. "Sister" here means genetic relationship. Ho do you determine relationship? By comparing DNA sequences, just like you determine paternity. Now, when you say you're related to someone in your family what does that mean? That both of you shared a common ancestor at some point in the past. It's the same for species too. When we detect "sister" relationships between two species, that means they descended from a common ancestor because relatives are known to arise ONLY from a common ancestor. It's the same in your family and it's the same for all species. Barry, you don't have to detect the ancestor to infer sister relationships. All you need to do is detect a relationship which you can by phylogenetic methods. Relatives invariably arise from a common ancestor. You won't get anywhere with this unless you understand this basic point.Evolve_{December 11, 2013
December
12
Dec
11
11
2013
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT}

Professor Matzke_UD objected
No, what I was saying is that transitional fossils between *very* similar sister species are thought to be rare (how rare is debated, Eldredge says very rare, Gingerich says fairly common, actually). Whales and dolphins are not very similar sister species! Duh! Where did this bizarre characterization come from? If anything, the difference between dogs and bears is roughly like the difference between whales and dolphins, in that dogs and bears are quite different from each other, but members of the same order or superfamily, and whales and dolphins are quite different from each other, but members of the same order or superfamily. (I forget what the Linnaean ranks are, because I don’t care about Linnaean ranks.)
I guess I'm surprised. Supposedly bears diverged from a bear-like dog about 27-34 million years ago. Dolphins supposedly evolved about 10 million years ago. If dogs and bears are indeed about as closely related as whales and dolphins, it would would suggest that the family Delphinidae evolved about three times as fast as the Arctoidea/Ursoidea branch. What evidence would you cite to arrive at this conclusion? The context is phylogenetic comparisons.
What Eldredge and other strong punctuated equilibria advocates would say are rare, are fossils showing smooth, continuous transitions between very closely-related sister species. E.g., wolves and dire wolves, or wolves and dogs. Or two very similar species of dolphins in the same genus (there are dozens of genera of whales and dolphins, IIRC).
Ok, let's take Canis lupus familiaris and Canis lupus as you suggest as closely related "sister" species. It doesn't make any sense to me that there should ever exist any "transitional" fossils between "sister" species such as these. In fact, they might actually be the same species. But this is beside the point.
It’s a simple matter to put in *all* the available proteins into a phylogenetic analysis of a particular group, the fast ones and the slow ones, if you are that worried about it. It’s not efficient in terms of genome sequencing money or computational time, but it can be done.
I'm not "worried" about it, but if it's all so simple ("inefficient" as this might be), why are we supposedly more phylogenetically related to cartilaginous fish than they are to other classes of fish?
I am mostly concerned when you guys confidently spout things that are actually straight-up nonsense to anyone who has learned the basics of the field, and done some research in it themselves.
I can see where your conclusion is true and obvious from your perspective, which is based on an evolutionary paradigm and the detail to which you've committed your time and study (certainly more than I have). However, from an ID paradigm, I'm simply not confident in the credibility of evolution as a viable method for generating new information in comparison to losing information (eyeless fish, for example). I find many Darwinist claims to be "magical" and contrived. The cherry-picking rationalization of phylogenetic anomalies is such an example. Oh, I mostly agree with the Soviet point of view of Lord Baden-Powell's "boy scouts," who were indeed intended to participate in military operations. His original book supposedly included garrotting techniques to be used by boy scouts on enemy guards. And that the president of the U.S. is a short term dictator is generally agreed on by a significant segment of the American voting public. However, which segment seems to depend entirely on whether he is a Republican or Democrat. ;-) -QQuerius_{December 10, 2013
December
12
Dec
10
10
2013
08:41 PM
8
08
41
PM
PDT}

OT BTW for all CSI skeptics - Please check out my comment toward the end of the 'Tragedy of Two CSIs' thread...Optimus_{December 10, 2013
December
12
Dec
10
10
2013
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT}

Barry, from the OP:
One wonders if his faith commitment to metaphysical naturalism renders him unable to see the circularity of his arguments, or if he does see it and just chooses to look the other way. My money is on the former. I think he is literally unable to grasp the obvious question begging that is immediately apparent to those who do not share his faith.
I think you're right. I think his comments in this thread alone confirm that he in fact cannot see the circularity of his reasoning and that of others who contend that cladistics confirms common descent. In this he is not alone, of course. Most people take their worldview, their fundamental paradigms regarding the nature of reality, as Truth, often unconsciously, without realizing they have done so. It is then not uncommon for someone to make an argument for the truth of some cherished belief in which their unexamined paradigms are hidden premises, just as they will rationalize away or simply ignore any evidence which threatens that worldview.Bruce David_{December 10, 2013
December
12
Dec
10
10
2013
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT}

For anyone interested in cladistics I highly recommend Henry Gee's In Search of Deep Time. I read it this past summer, and I was quite struck by his bluntness in criticizing some of the sloppy reasoning evident in pop-science discussions of evolution. He also had a number of interesting things to say about how many evolutionary narratives rely on appeals to authority. He also makes clear that cladograms rest on the presumption of common ancestry.Optimus_{December 10, 2013
December
12
Dec
10
10
2013
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT}

Barry @ 32 Beat me to the punch: POptimus_{December 10, 2013
December
12
Dec
10
10
2013
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT}

Evolve @ 26 You have smuggled assumptions into your basic terminology. You asked Barry what alternative explanation he has for 'sisterhood.' You then reasoned to the effect of, 'What besides common descent can account the sisterhood of these groups?' However, how did you determine the 'sisterhood' of the organisms in the first place? As none of us were present to observe said organisms, we have no empirical knowledge of their relationship. It must be either inferred or assumed. It tends to be assumed.Optimus_{December 10, 2013
December
12
Dec
10
10
2013
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT}

Evolve @29:
Common descent produces what’s called a nested hierarchy (groups within groups arrangement). Common design does not. Try constructing a phylogenetic tree of smartphones and see if it produces a nested hierarchy pattern. It won’t. Only naturally descended things produce that pattern, designed things do not. The fact that living things fall into nested hierarchies is strong evidence for common descent as opposed to design.
I agree that intelligent design does not produce a nested hierarchy. But this is actually an argument against common descent and Darwinian evolution. We do not observe a nested hierarchy in nature. There are many instances of horizontal inheritance between species that are in distant branches of the hierarchy. This is such a huge problem for evolutionists that they have invented a bunch of cockamamie pseudoscientific arguments to explain it away. Convergent evolution comes to mind (how evolution can reinvent entire sets of genes is part of the religious "poofery" of Darwinism). The latest trend is to pretend that the problem is a statistical one. The argument is that, since most of the hierarchy is nested, therefore common descent is confirmed. The problem is that common descent does not predict that a subset of the tree of life will be non-nested. This is what intelligent design predicts and this is what is observed. Live with it.Mapou_{December 10, 2013
December
12
Dec
10
10
2013
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT}

The point that Berlinski made (and which neither you nor Nick has addressed) is that calling two species "sisters" is pointless if you can't detect direct ancestry. Go back and read the OP. I don't think you've grasped it yet.Barry Arrington_{December 10, 2013
December
12
Dec
10
10
2013
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT}

For anyone who thinks designed objects cannot be placed into tree-like pattern of relationships: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/09/science/scientist-work-niles-eldredge-bursts-cornets-evolution-bring-harmony-night-day.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm Can't we just put this one to rest?Optimus_{December 10, 2013
December
12
Dec
10
10
2013
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT}

Evolve @ 29. It's really silly to say that smartphones wouldn't produce a nested hierarchy pattern. If you look at all the phones that have ever existed, they most certainly do. For instance, the first cellphone sits on top. Perhaps the tree then branches into the flip-phones and non flip-phones. Then somewhere down the line, the touch-screens form a branch, after which the smartphones emerge. But if one wanted, they could build a whole branch based only on processor speed. Or cameras. Or virtually anything else. Doing this would probably give you a completely different tree each time. But there is no doubt that you would still have a tree, even though they were designed.shader_{December 10, 2013
December
12
Dec
10
10
2013
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT}

JoeCoder #23 ///But it can’t be used to argue against: 3. A single designer who reused designs as necessary. But Nick is using it to argue against #3./// Common descent produces what's called a nested hierarchy (groups within groups arrangement). Common design does not. Try constructing a phylogenetic tree of smartphones and see if it produces a nested hierarchy pattern. It won't. Only naturally descended things produce that pattern, designed things do not. The fact that living things fall into nested hierarchies is strong evidence for common descent as opposed to design.Evolve_{December 10, 2013
December
12
Dec
10
10
2013
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT}

////I quote Matzke for the admission that the methods in question do not detect direct ancestry. I take it you disagree with him. That’s interesting. Why do you disagree?/// You can beat around the bush as much as you want and pretend that you didn't get the point. But I said the same thing as Matzke. Phylogenetic analyses may not detect the common ancestor directly, but it does detect sister relationships and such relations are only known to arise from a common ancestor. We see the telltale signatures of common ancestry in such analyses even if we don't see the ancestor itself.Evolve_{December 10, 2013
December
12
Dec
10
10
2013
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT}

Evolve @ 26. In the OP I quote Matzke for the admission that the methods in question do not detect direct ancestry. I take it you disagree with him. That's interesting. Why do you disagree?Barry Arrington_{December 10, 2013
December
12
Dec
10
10
2013
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT}

Barry #5 ///In order to support common descent (far less the Darwinian mechanism that purports to account for common descent), a method of investigation would need to detect direct ancestry./// This is unbelievable. What explanation do you have for sisterhood other than common ancestry? Sisters, or any relatives in any family for that matter, are known to arise from a common ancestor, plain & simple! No circular reasoning is required here. We don't have to pinpoint the common ancestor to prove common ancestry. Common ancestry is expected to produce certain patterns in phylogenetic analyses, which is exactly what we see.Evolve_{December 10, 2013
December
12
Dec
10
10
2013
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT}

An interesting piece of trivia related to the ‘credibility bridge’ that Matzke burned long ago with ID proponents:
https://uncommondescent.com/cambrian-explosion/steve-meyer-cambrian-gaps-not-being-filled-in/#comment-482236
,,,,is that the main blog that Matzke posts own is named Panda's Thumb. The term 'Panda's Thumb' is an allusion to the supposedly bad design of the Panda's digit.
Gould argues that the "thumb" of the panda (which really consists of uniquely modified wrist bones) functions much worse for grasping objects, such as bamboo shoots, than does the true opposable thumb found in humans and therefore Gould says it has poor design.
Yet,,,
it turns out that the panda's thumb is NOT poorly designed. The human opposable thumb would actually NOT be a good design to accommodate 12 hours/day of scraping leaves from bamboo branches (which is what pandas do) however the panda's thumb can accomplish this function without a problem. A study published in Nature used MRI and computer tomography to analyze the panda's thumb and concluded the following: "The radial sesamoid bone and the acessory carpal bone form a double pincer-like apparatus in the medial and lateral sides of the hand, respectively, enabling the panda to manipulate objects with great dexterity." (Hideki Endo, Daishiro Yamagiwa, Yoshihiro Hayashi, Hiroshi Koie, Yoshiki Yamaya, Junpei Kimura, "Role of the giant panda’s pseudo-thumb," Nature, Vol: 347:309-310, January 28, 1999, emphasis added). The authors go on to marvel at the functionality of the panda thumb saying, "[t]he way in which the giant panda .. uses the radial sesamoid bone -- its 'pseudo-thumb' -- for grasping makes it one of the most extraordinary manipulation systems in mammalian evolution." http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1477 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
Thus, ironically, it turns out that even the very name of the blog that Matzke primarily posts own testifies to Intelligent Design over and against him on Darwinian evolution. Moreover, the 'Panda's Thumb' was not even a 'scientific' argument to begin with, but was a Theologically based 'bad design' argument:
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=HVx42Izp1ek
Also of interest, here is a excellent deconstruction of PZ Myer's favorite Icon Of Evolution: Pharyngula (PZ named his 'science' blog after it!);
Vertebrate Gene Expression and Other Properties Don't Support a "Phylotypic" Stage - Casey Luskin - June 14, 2013 Excerpt: a new article in PLoS Genetics, "The Hourglass and the Early Conservation Models -- Co-Existing Patterns of Developmental Constraints in Vertebrates," shows that,, an analysis of the genome based on Darwinian assumptions fails to confirm many predictions of the "phylotypic" stage. ,,, (as they report),,, "During development, vertebrate embryos pass through a "phylotypic" stage, during which their morphology is most similar between different species. This gave rise to the hourglass model, which predicts the highest developmental constraints during mid-embryogenesis. In the last decade, a large effort has been made to uncover the relation between developmental constraints and the evolution of the genome. Several studies reported gene characteristics that change according to the hourglass model, e.g. sequence conservation, age, or expression. Here, we first show that some of the previous conclusions do not hold out under detailed analysis of the data." (Barbara Piasecka, Pawe? Lichocki, Sebastien Moretti, Sven Bergmann, Marc Robinson-Rechavi, "The Hourglass and the Early Conservation Models -- Co-Existing Patterns of Developmental Constraints in Vertebrates Barbara Piasecka," PLoS Genetics, Vol. 9(4) (April, 2013).),,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/06/vertebrate_gene073171.html
And, much like Matzke's "Panda's Thunb', it turns out that embryological development, as is represented by the term 'Pharyngula', supports intelligent Design and not Darwinian evolution:
Haeckel's Embryos - original fraudulent drawing http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Haeckels-Embryos-Cropped-II.jpg There is no highly conserved embryonic stage in the vertebrates: - Richardson MK - 1997 Excerpt: Contrary to recent claims that all vertebrate embryos pass through a stage when they are the same size, we find a greater than 10-fold variation in greatest length at the tailbud stage. Our survey seriously undermines the credibility of Haeckel's drawings, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9278154 Actual Embryos - photos (Early compared to Intermediate and Late stages); http://www.ichthus.info/Evolution/PICS/Richardson-embryos.jpg
Thus it turns out that two of the most popular science blogs on the internet defending Darwinian evolution, Panda's Thumb and Pharyngula, are named after things that, in fact, support Intelligent Design instead of Darwinian evolutionbornagain77_{December 10, 2013
December
12
Dec
10
10
2013
04:19 AM
4
04
19
AM
PDT}

Matzke claims that his questions aren't being answered which is, as Barry pointed out, a smoke screen tactic he is using to avoid answering Barry's questions to him in the first place. ,,, Moreover, asked a few simple questions of Matzke the other day:
"even if the fossils did provide such a smooth gradual transition as you imagine they do, what empirical evidence can you provide that it (the transition) happened by the purely random, ‘bottom up’, materialistic processes that are postulated by neo-Darwinists? https://uncommondescent.com/cambrian-explosion/steve-meyer-cambrian-gaps-not-being-filled-in/#comment-482487
and,
While you are at it Nick, can you also clear up a few more details so as to make Darwinism ‘scientific’ in the first place? https://uncommondescent.com/cambrian-explosion/steve-meyer-cambrian-gaps-not-being-filled-in/#comment-482492
Nick never did answer these 'simple' questions I put to him, but only put up a smoke screen as he is doing now, but these simple questions are of primary importance that supersede practically any other questions that can be asked.,,, because 1. Since Darwinism has no demonstrated mechanism to generated even trivial levels of functional complexity, then everything postulated beyond that by Darwinists is highly superfluous in importance! and 2. Since Darwinism is not really even scientific in the first place, then, once again, everything postulated beyond that by Darwinists is highly superfluous in importance!bornagain77_{December 10, 2013
December
12
Dec
10
10
2013
03:20 AM
3
03
20
AM
PDT}

Testing - I appear to have been banned . . . UD: No, you have been placed in mod. Keep your comments civil and on topic and they will be released from mod.Pro Hac Vice_{December 9, 2013
December
12
Dec
9
09
2013
11:03 PM
11
11
03
PM
PDT}

selvaRajan @21 If that's the case then the paper can be used to argue against: 1. Multiple independent origins of life 2. Multiple designers who did not share designs. But it can't be used to argue against: 3. A single designer who reused designs as necessary. But Nick is using it to argue against #3.JoeCoder_{December 9, 2013
December
12
Dec
9
09
2013
07:56 PM
7
07
56
PM
PDT}

JoeCoder @ 16, Simply put, the paper compares common ancestry with multiple ancestry and concludes that multiple ancestry is improbable. So, taking your analogy, iOS apps came out of iOS SDK and Android apps came out of Android SDK. It is more likely that both Andorid and iOS SDK have a common ancestor language, than iOS SDK and Android SDK having separate ancestor language.selvaRajan_{December 9, 2013
December
12
Dec
9
09
2013
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PDT}

Frustrated by the animosity in this thread. Hoping I can do better. Nick wrote @14:
is there statistically significant tree structure in the data? Stephen Meyer and most of his fans around here seem to deny that there is,
My understanding of the design position isn't that there's no statistically significant data, but only that it's not significant enough to separate design from descent. Like I wrote @16. With both common design and common descent, the common bits of separate clades will have more in common than any two members of those clades. That's certainly statistically significant--but it's the same thing we see among designed objects. Nick also wrote:
Over here in reality, such data indicate close relationship, even if the exact relationship might not be determinable with the data/method available.
To separate design from descent you would need to be able to always an unambiguously bifurcating pattern of gene flow--which is unexpected under common design. Otherwise you have nothing better than the IOS and Android analysis. This doesn't falsify common descent but it also doesn't favor it over common design.JoeCoder_{December 9, 2013
December
12
Dec
9
09
2013
07:30 PM
7
07
30
PM
PDT}

Uncommon Descent should do some sort of podcast or interviews with famous evolutionists. I would like to see an interview done with this Matzke character (no fighting though) :)TheisticEvolutionist_{December 9, 2013
December
12
Dec
9
09
2013
07:21 PM
7
07
21
PM
PDT}

Matzke @ 14: “I won’t reply unless I get direct answers to the questions I asked in this post.” For the uninitiated, let me translate from Darwinist-speak: “I can’t refute your argument, so unless you allow me to change the subject, I will skulk off and tell all my Darwinist buddies at the Thumb that I was forced to leave because you would not dialogue in good faith."Barry Arrington_{December 9, 2013
December
12
Dec
9
09
2013
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PDT}

Matzke @ 14 goes into full spin mode. Astounding really.
Your/Berlinski’s argument is precisely similar to the argument that forensic DNA tests cannot determine that there is some close genetic relationship between samples, because the markers used in a DNA test cannot always tell you if the sample came from a direct ancestor (e.g. grandfather) or a collateral ancestor (e.g. uncle).
Umm, Nick, I am not the one that asserted that “phylogenetic methods as they exist now can only rigorously detect sister-group relationships, not direct ancestry.” You are. You quote the argument based on your assertion (which, as I said, I am willing to accept provisionally). But then you fail to even address the argument, far less refute it. Let me ‘splain how addressing an argument works. You can either attack its validity or you can attack its soundness. If you want to attack its validity you must show how the conclusion does not follow from the premises. If you want to attack its soundness, you must show how the premises are false. In this case, it will be difficult for you to attack the minor premise unless you want to attack your own assertion. Therefore, for you to attack the soundness of the argument, you must show the major premise is false. So, Nick. Does the conclusion not follow from the premises? Or is the major premise false. Those are your two options if you want to refute the argument. I’ll be waiting.Barry Arrington_{December 9, 2013
December
12
Dec
9
09
2013
06:51 PM
6
06
51
PM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply