Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Professor James Tour accepts Nick Matzke’s offer to explain macroevolution

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In my last post, A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution, I wrote about Professor James Tour, who is one of the ten most cited chemists in the world – and a Darwin skeptic. Professor Tour is not an Intelligent Design proponent, but he is openly skeptical of macroevolution, which is generally defined as “evolution happening on a large scale, e.g. at or above the level of species, over geologic time, resulting in the formation of new taxonomic groups.” In 2001, Tour, along with over 700 other scientists, signed the Discovery Institute’s “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism”, which read: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

On Professor Tour’s Website, there’s a very interesting article on evolution and creation, in which Tour declares that he does not understand how macroevolution could have happened, from a chemical standpoint (all bold emphases below are mine – VJT):

I simply do not understand, chemically, how macroevolution could have happened. Hence, am I not free to join the ranks of the skeptical and to sign such a statement without reprisals from those that disagree with me? … Does anyone understand the chemical details behind macroevolution? If so, I would like to sit with that person and be taught, so I invite them to meet with me.

In a recent talk, entitled, Nanotech and Jesus Christ, given on 1 November 2012 at Georgia Tech, Professor Tour revealed that he had a long-standing offer to buy lunch for anyone who would sit down and explain evolution to him, but that no-one had taken him up on his challenge:

But about seven or eight years ago I posted on my Web site that I don’t understand. And I said, “I will buy lunch for anyone that will sit with me and explain to me evolution, and I won’t argue with you until I don’t understand something – I will ask you to clarify. But you can’t wave by and say, ‘This enzyme does that.’ You’ve got to get down in the details of where molecules are built, for me.” Nobody has come forward.

The Atheist Society contacted me. They said that they will buy the lunch, and they challenged the Atheist Society, “Go down to Houston and have lunch with this guy, and talk to him.” Nobody has come!

Nick Matzke makes an offer…

Nick Matzke, who is is currently a doctoral student in evolutionary biology at the University of California, Berkeley, and who is also the former Public Information Project Director at the National Center for Science Education, declared on February 18 that he would “love to” take up Professor Tour’s offer of a free lunch, “if someone pays my airfare.”

Two offers to contribute towards the cost of Mr. Matzke’s air travel were made. Mung kindly offered to pay for part of the cost. Another contributor, groovamos, went further and declared: “I will buy a ticket for Nick to Houston and will buy a night at a hotel on a weekend.” Groovamos added that he lives in Houston and would like to attend the meeting. He also promised that he would remain silent throughout the meeting, requesting only that he be permitted to ask questions after the meeting.

… which Professor Tour accepts…

I have just received an email from Professor James Tour, in response to Nick Matzke’s invitation. I trust that he will not mind me quoting a brief excerpt, as it directly pertains to the terms of the invitation:

If you would please inform Mr. Matzke that I would be delighted to have him to lunch at the Rice faculty; my treat. I really want to learn this, and I hope he can help me. And I shall be fine with groovamos paying his airfare and joining us in the meeting, which will not extend beyond the three of us, please. I shall pay for groovamos’s lunch too as only members can pay at the faculty club. So if groovamos agrees to stay quiet and settle in as a quiet observer only, I am fine with that as long as Mr. Matzke agrees.

Professor Tour added that he would do his very best to listen attentively to Mr. Matzke’s description without interjecting, and that he would only question Mr. Matzke when he did not understand what he said. Professor Tour also expressed his deep appreciation to Mr. Matzke, saying that it was very kind of him to propose such an offer.

… on one condition!

There’s just one condition that Professor Tour attached to the meeting, however. In his email to me, he stated: “It shall not be recorded or extend beyond the three of us as this is not for show but for my edification.”

In my original invitation which I issued to Professor Tour, when I informed him that Nick Matzke would like to explain macroevolution to him in person, I naturally mentioned his wish that someone pay his airfare, but I neglected to mention his wish that the meeting be recorded. I gave Professor Tour the address of my Web post, to which the conditions of Nick Matzke’s offer were attached. However, Professor Tour is a busy man, and he informed me in his email that he has not viewed my post, as he rarely reads blogs.

Barry Arrington recently wrote a very entertaining post about the “No true Scotsman” logical fallacy. Well, Nick Matzke may not be a true Scotsman; but he is certainly a true scientist. And what distinguishes a true scientist from ordinary mortals is that he/she is passionately motivated by the pursuit of truth for its own sake. Mr. Matzke is also the the former Public Information Project Director at the National Center for Science Education. In other words, he’s someone who really cares about educating people in the truth. I take it, then, that Mr. Matzke would regard the goal of setting Professor Tour straight about evolution as a worthy objective, in and of itself. Let me add that in my experience, Mr. Matzke has always shown himself to be a true gentleman. I trust, therefore, that he would happily respect another gentleman’s wish for privacy – particularly when that gentleman is an esteemed and distinguished scientist.

Professor Tour is a very kind and courteous man, and he has also informed me that there is a chance that Mr. Matzke can get a flight to Houston from SFC in the morning, have lunch, and fly back on the same day. Professor Tour adds (and I hope he won’t mind me quoting him here): “If he needs a night here in Houston, he is welcome to stay in my home. Maybe we can have more conversations at our family dinner table. I enjoy seeing my children exposed to diverse insights from kind people.”

Finally, Professor Tour writes that Mr. Matzke is welcome to contact him directly to arrange a mutually agreeable time when they can reserve a couple of hours for a private lesson over lunch. He also suggested that Mr. Matzke contact groovamos. To facilitate matters, Professor Tour’s contact details are here and Mr. Matzke’s contact details are here. I sincerely hope that the parties concerned can make suitable arrangements.

I also asked Professor Tour about the Atheist Society’s offer to cover the cost, and he replied that the offer had been made from the national office, and not from Rice University. He added that it was made many years ago, and said that it might still be somewhere on the Web. Unfortunately I haven’t been able to locate it, so I presume that the relevant page must have been taken down.

In any case, it is now up to Mr. Matzke to respond to Professor Tour’s offer. The ball is in his court. Your move, Nick.

Comments
"It's not what you think it is" is not a definition.Mung
February 20, 2013
February
02
Feb
20
20
2013
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT
Professor Tour made it very clear that his concerns are about the chemical details:
Professor Tour: ... I simply do not understand, chemically, how macroevolution could have happened. Hence, am I not free to join the ranks of the skeptical and to sign such a statement without reprisals from those that disagree with me? ... Does anyone understand the chemical details, behind macroevolution? If so, I would like to sit with that person and be taught so I invite them to meet with me.
Nick Matzke is planning to sidestep the issue by changing the subject.
Nick Matzke: No, the goal is to rebut the claim that "no one understands macroevolution."
I quote the title of the original post that started all this: "A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there's no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution" Apparently actually a lot of people thought that's what it was about.
Right. Since Professor Tour accepted microevolution without asking for chemical details, he forfeited the right for asking about the chemical details behind macroevolution.
That, actually, would be a valid argument. It would show the arbitrariness and fake-rigorousness of demanding "chemical" explanations of phenomena which are actually mostly about processes that cannot be reduced to chemistry.
Of course, it won't help if Nick means one thing by "macroevolution" and Prof. Tour means something entirely different by "macroevolution." I see that as a real possibility here. So Nick will go thinking he can explain macroevoltion and he'll depart with Prof. Tour being no closer to having an answer to his questions. So, Nick, what are you going to do when you find out that you're not talking the same thing? Throw up your hands and say "
If Tour learned that the scientific definition of "macroevolution" is something almost entirely different from the creationist definition of "macroevolution", and learned what "macroevolution" actually means to scientists who work in the field, that would be meaningful learning on his part, and I would deem it a success, and a demonstration that Tour and his fans were not in the least educated enough on the topic to offer meaningful opinions on the validity of macroevolution, any more than someone who confused carbon and oxygen would be qualified to discuss chemistry.NickMatzke_UD
February 20, 2013
February
02
Feb
20
20
2013
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT
Does anyone deny that macroevolution implies the historical fossil record (HFR)? But that fact alone doesn't solve any problems in determining if macroevolution is responsible for it. "If macroevolution then HFR." But so what? I suspect Tour wants to know how macroevolution works (or is supposed to work) and not a rehash of macroevo→HFR. It's doubtful he expects every last detail, but he will expect enough details to render it experimentally verifiable, or at least plausible. That's hardly hyperskeptical. As a matter of fact, it sounds like genuine scientific curiosity. We all know that, if some brute physical force is indeed capable of engineering all of biological diversity from a universal common ancestor, then we may expect to see such evidence in the historical fossil record. What we all don't know, and I gather Tour suspects that nobody knows, is how this brute physical force actually conducts the transformations. Why should he settle for an epistemic gap where an actual, verifiable mechanism should be? Why should anyone? This isn't a matter of assessing every last detail, it's a matter of having a testable hypothesis for the claimed power of physical chemistry to transform a single class of self-replicators into everything bearing the label of life. On the other hand, if we take the converse of the implication, that HFR→macroevolution, then any mechanism or occurrence, designed or otherwise, that is capable of producing something like the HFR, would need to be included in the definition of macroevolution.Chance Ratcliff
February 20, 2013
February
02
Feb
20
20
2013
03:57 PM
3
03
57
PM
PDT
Nick @20:
Multiply the questions by a billion or so for the macroevolution question.
I presume you're just referring to the level of difficulty and not suggesting that macroevolution = microevolution + time.
As for chemistry, consider microevolution. Tour and everyone else says they accept it. Could they provide a “chemical” explanation? In what sense is that even meaningful? Regardless of the answer to that, did they really need a “chemical” explanation in order to accept microevolution in the first place?
I think I understand what you're saying, but this isn't quite accurate. There is a kernel of truth here masking a larger inaccuracy. It is true that many details of the biochemistry of microevolution remain to be worked out. (And it is true that even with microevolution the more we learn the less potent the traditional RM+NS mechanism seems to be.) So yes, there is much about microevolution that is not understood. Nevertheless, it would be inaccurate to suggest that there is some kind of equivalence. Depending on the definition of microevolution, there is decent observational evidence and, in some cases, at least a rudimentary inkling of the biochemical basis. For example, if we go with the broad "change over time" definition, this is well observed and amounts to little more than the observation that nature is not forever static. If we talk about limited common descent, it is observationally true that organisms leave offspring and that those offspring are (in may species) slightly different than the parents. And if we talk about changes in allele frequency in a population, there is at least a decent understanding of genetic inheritance of different alleles, as well as a decent understanding of how mutations (of various types) can lead to various diseases (in nearly all cases, by breaking a previously-functional sequence). So there is good evidence to support things like the changes in a population, like finch beak variations or melanism in moths (setting aside for the moment all the questions about the data and the interpretation and just taking those stock examples at face value for purposes of discussion). And there is a decent understanding of the biochemical basis for many aspects of inheritance and some diseases (if not a full understanding, at least an understanding of what biochemical changes can contribute to the disease). But those are all minor changes in existing, functional organisms. There is nothing like that at all with macroevolution. We haven't the faintest idea what would be involved biochemically in constructing something like a wing or a heart or a brain, or what would be involved in building a new body plan or, shudder, origin of life. What we have instead are a spotty fossil record, some rough morphological similarities, and some homologous DNA sequences, many of which are liberally interpreted and are subject to significant debate. We also have speculations, and models, and stories, and guesses. No offense to anyone working in the area, but we just need to be frank about the limitations of trying to reconstruct a historical narrative for things that allegedly occurred in the remote historical past. ----- So there is a meaningful difference between microevolution and macroevolution, both in terms of organism/species observations and our understanding of the underlying biochemical basis (the former probably being still stronger than the latter). As a result, it will not do to simply say that if someone accepts microevolution they should also accept macroevolution because they are on the same ground. They are not on the same ground, and the latter cannot be assumed to be simply an extrapolation over time of the former.Eric Anderson
February 20, 2013
February
02
Feb
20
20
2013
03:40 PM
3
03
40
PM
PDT
What Box said. lolMung
February 20, 2013
February
02
Feb
20
20
2013
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT
Professor Tour made it very clear that his concerns are about the chemical details:
Professor Tour: … I simply do not understand, chemically, how macroevolution could have happened. Hence, am I not free to join the ranks of the skeptical and to sign such a statement without reprisals from those that disagree with me? … Does anyone understand the chemical details, behind macroevolution? If so, I would like to sit with that person and be taught so I invite them to meet with me.
Nick Matzke is planning to sidestep the issue by changing the subject.
Nick Matzke: No, the goal is to rebut the claim that “no one understands macroevolution.”
According to Nick chemical details are not part of a ‘reasonable scientific understanding’. Because Nick holds that there is a “difference between ‘reasonable scientific understanding’, which is the goal in many fields, and 'absolutely complete understanding of every last detail'". So will Professor Tour be informed about the chemical details behind macroevolution?
Nick Matzke: As for chemistry, consider microevolution. Tour and everyone else says they accept it. Could they provide a “chemical” explanation? In what sense is that even meaningful? Regardless of the answer to that, did they really need a “chemical” explanation in order to accept microevolution in the first place?
Right. Since Professor Tour accepted microevolution without asking for chemical details, he forfeited the right for asking about the chemical details behind macroevolution. So just a general outline of the theory of macroevolution will do.
Nick Matzke: Multiply the questions by a billion or so for the macroevolution question.
Way to go Nicky! Any questions Professor Tour?Box
February 20, 2013
February
02
Feb
20
20
2013
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT
Of course, it won't help if Nick means one thing by "macroevolution" and Prof. Tour means something entirely different by "macroevolution." I see that as a real possibility here. So Nick will go thinking he can explain macroevoltion and he'll depart with Prof. Tour being no closer to having an answer to his questions. So, Nick, what are you going to do when you find out that you're not talking the same thing? Throw up your hands and say "that's not what I mean by macroevolution," or try to answer his questions? Are you going to bone up on the molecular bases of macroevoltion or deny there is any connection between the two? You can't even avoid equivocating over microevolution. Nick:
Regardless of the answer to that, did they really need a “chemical” explanation in order to accept microevolution in the first place? Multiply the questions by a billion or so for the macroevolution question.
So when Alan Fox asked you, why didn't you just say that macroevolution is just repeated rounds of microevolution taking place in different species over very long timescales? That's apparently what he thinks and you couldn't even be bothered to disabuse him of the notion. "It just happened, that's all, and you'll have to accept it on faith" is not likely to convince Prof. Tour.Mung
February 20, 2013
February
02
Feb
20
20
2013
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT
KN @23:
Fair enough, but I suspect you’re dealing with someone who thinks that it’s not reasonable to accept macroevolution until every last detail is completely understood.
What is it to accept without having a real understanding? The devil is in the details. Or God is in the details. I provisionally "accept" it at the beginning of many conversations and thought experiments. But that is not of much value, beyond conversations and thought experiments. It's a bit like stopping the telling of a joke before the punch line. And then saying it was still pretty good.MrMosis
February 20, 2013
February
02
Feb
20
20
2013
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT
In re: Matzke @ 20
No, the goal is to rebut the claim that “no one understands macroevolution.” This would have to include a discussion of what “understand” means, and the difference between “reasonable scientific understanding”, which is the goal in many fields, and “absolutely complete understanding of every last detail”, which is unachievable in everything except perhaps very simple subtopics.
Fair enough, but I suspect you're dealing with someone who thinks that it's not reasonable to accept macroevolution until every last detail is completely understood.
As for chemistry, consider microevolution. Tour and everyone else says they accept it. Could they provide a “chemical” explanation? In what sense is that even meaningful?
This is a good point. Tour probably means that mutations within the existing population are in principle explainable in terms of the interactions of molecules. But yes, it seems like reductionism gone wild to think that an explanation at the molecular level is more meaningful than an explanation at the population-genetic level, or that it would be unreasonable to accept the latter unless the former were also available. I worry that the conversation will become one about whether the biological and geological sciences have methodological autonomy over and against chemistry and physics. Tour strikes me as the kind of person who has a very good hammer, and hence everything looks to him like a nail.Kantian Naturalist
February 20, 2013
February
02
Feb
20
20
2013
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT
KN: Pardon, but it is not selectively hyperskeptical to ask for evidence that answers at the level where any body plan level evolution must happen: molecules in cells. KF PS: Okay, reluctantly, a meeting for dinner on a private basis. It would be interesting to find out the net effect on balance.kairosfocus
February 20, 2013
February
02
Feb
20
20
2013
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT
Why does Nick have to fly over in the first place? Just as WJM mentions Skype is more than sufficient for this purpose. And if Nick does indeed fly over it would be a waste of time and money if it wasn't recorded (audio, at minimal).computerist
February 20, 2013
February
02
Feb
20
20
2013
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT
5 Kantian NaturalistFebruary 20, 2013 at 1:32 pm The real question is, can Matzke meet the standard that Tour has set? And is it a problem if he cannot? Tour has set the terms as, “can macroevolution be explained at the level of molecules?” I very much doubt that anyone can meet that standard.
No, the goal is to rebut the claim that "no one understands macroevolution." This would have to include a discussion of what "understand" means, and the difference between "reasonable scientific understanding", which is the goal in many fields, and "absolutely complete understanding of every last detail", which is unachievable in everything except perhaps very simple subtopics. As for chemistry, consider microevolution. Tour and everyone else says they accept it. Could they provide a "chemical" explanation? In what sense is that even meaningful? Regardless of the answer to that, did they really need a "chemical" explanation in order to accept microevolution in the first place? Multiply the questions by a billion or so for the macroevolution question.NickMatzke_UD
February 20, 2013
February
02
Feb
20
20
2013
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT
Going along with what Eric said @6 and a theme I see in many of the posts, I would suggest that some agreement should be reached in advance regarding what constitutes an explanation for macroevolution. If Professor Tour is not convinced by the evidence and/or explanations that are “out there” now, what does he need to know to become convinced? If Mr. Matzke is going to repeat the same public arguments in private, will anything be achieved? If he has new evidence and new arguments, then wouldn’t they have been published and make the conversation moot?NeilBJ
February 20, 2013
February
02
Feb
20
20
2013
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT
I wonder how productive the conversation can be when at least one party is by his own admission the antithesis of the philosophically inclined and the other is from what I have seen immersed in a world interpreted via unexamined metaphysical naturalism, oblivious to the boiling over of his methodological naturalism into other domains. (no offense to either party) I would still love for it to take place though.MrMosis
February 20, 2013
February
02
Feb
20
20
2013
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT
I was just saying that if the "payoff" isn't enough for Dr. Matzke if the meeting cannot be recorded, considering the expense in time and carbon emissions, skype might be a bridge to solve the issue.William J Murray
February 20, 2013
February
02
Feb
20
20
2013
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT
As Dr. Matzke utilizes Dr. Tour's lack of understanding about macroevolution as a means of undermining any weight to Tour's dissent from Darwinism, one wonders if Dr. Matzke has a proficient enough understanding of the chemistry in question to fully appreciate the challenges it presents to evolutionary theory?William J Murray
February 20, 2013
February
02
Feb
20
20
2013
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT
I think Prof. Tour wants a conversation, not a debate. Face-to-face over lunch/dinner is probably better.Mung
February 20, 2013
February
02
Feb
20
20
2013
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT
What is it with these organic chemists? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_SkellMung
February 20, 2013
February
02
Feb
20
20
2013
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT
You know, there is such a thing as "skype".William J Murray
February 20, 2013
February
02
Feb
20
20
2013
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT
microevolution - evolution that's too small to see macroevolution - evolution that's too big to see goldilocksevolution - evolution that's just rightMung
February 20, 2013
February
02
Feb
20
20
2013
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT
semi OT: Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of 70% - by Jeffrey P. Tomkins - February 20, 2013 http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v6/n1/human-chimp-chromosomebornagain77
February 20, 2013
February
02
Feb
20
20
2013
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT
further notes:
Ediacarans Not Related to Cambrian Animals - December 16, 2012 http://crev.info/2012/12/ediacarans-not-related-to-cambrian-animals/ 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 Darwin's Dilemma - The Cambrian Explosion - In Darwin's Own Words Excerpt: 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. [emphasis added] —Chapter IX, “On the Imperfection of the Geological Record,” On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin - fifth edition (1869), pp. 378-381. Does Lots of Sediment in the Ocean Solve the "Mystery" of the Cambrian Explosion? - Casey Luskin April, 2012 Excerpt: I think the Cambrian fossil record is surprisingly complete. I think it may be more complete than we realize. The reason for that is, for instance, if you look at the stratigraphy of the world, if I go and collect Cambrian rocks in Wales and find certain fossils, if I then go to China, I don't find the same species but I find the same sorts of fossils. If I go into Carboniferous rocks, I go to Canada, they are the same as what I find in this country. So there is a clear set of faunas and floras that take us through geological time. The overall framework is falling into position. - Simon Conway Morris http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/04/lots_of_sedimen059021.html
bornagain77
February 20, 2013
February
02
Feb
20
20
2013
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT
I can't speak for N.Matzke but in my opinion it would be a privilege and wortwhile experience for anyone to meet an eminent scientist of the caliber of Dr. Tour. Especially on someone else's dime. Equating that to a low payoff absolutely boggles my mind.ecs2
February 20, 2013
February
02
Feb
20
20
2013
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT
As to:
Professor Tour is not an Intelligent Design proponent, but he is openly skeptical of macroevolution, which is generally defined as “evolution happening on a large scale, e.g. at or above the level of species, over geologic time, resulting in the formation of new taxonomic groups.”
As well he should be for,,
Challenging Fossil of a Little Fish "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 In Explaining the Cambrian Explosion, Has the TalkOrigins Archive Resolved Darwin's Dilemma? - JonathanM - May 2012 Excerpt: it is the pattern of morphological disparity preceding diversity that is fundamentally at odds with the neo-Darwinian scenario of gradualism. All of the major differences (i.e. the higher taxonomic categories such as phyla) appear first in the fossil record and then the lesser taxonomic categories such as classes, orders, families, genera and species appear later. On the Darwinian view, one would expect to see all of the major differences in body plan appear only after numerous small-scale speciation events. But this is not what we observe. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/05/has_the_talk-or059171.html Jerry Coyne's Chapter on the Fossil Record Fails to Show "Why Evolution is True" - Jonathan M. - December 4, 2012 Excerpt: Taxonomists classify organisms into categories: species are the very lowest taxonomic category. Species are classified into different genera. Genera are classified into different families. Families are classified into different orders. Orders are classified into different classes. And classes are classified into different phyla. Phyla are among the very highest taxonomic categories (only kingdom and domain are higher), and correspond to the high level of morphological disparity that exists between different animal body plans. Phyla include such groupings as chordates, arthropods, mollusks, and echinoderms. Darwin's theory would predict a cone of diversity whereby the major body-plan differences (morphological disparity) would only appear in the fossil record following numerous lower-level speciation events. What is interesting about the fossil record is that it shows the appearance of the higher taxonomic categories first (virtually all of the major skeletonized phyla appear in the Cambrian, with no obvious fossil transitional precursors, within a relatively small span of geological time). As Roger Lewin (1988) explains in Science, "Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are the bottom-up and the top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit. The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect." Erwin et al. (1987), in their study of marine invertebrates, similarly conclude that, "The fossil record suggests that the major pulse of diversification of phyla occurs before that of classes, classes before that of orders, orders before that of families. The higher taxa do not seem to have diverged through an accumulation of lower taxa." Indeed, the existence of numerous small and soft-bodied animals in the Precambrian strata undermines one of the most popular responses that these missing transitions can be accounted for by them being too small and too-soft bodied to be preserved. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/12/jerry_coynes_c067021.html All skeletalised metazoan phyla appeared in the Cambrian - David Tyler - 2010 Excerpt: This means that Cambrian strata can be said to record examples of all the skeletalized metazoan phyla.,,, Subsequent periods of Earth history may have had more dramatic radiations at the Order, Class or Family level, but there were no further bauplan innovations affecting skeletalized metazoan organisms. http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2010/12/09/all_skeletalised_metazoan_phyla_appeared
The evolutionary theory would have us believe that we should have more phyla today due to ongoing evolutionary processes. These following timeline graphs highlight the loss of phyla through time since the Cambrian:
Origin of Phyla - The Fossil Evidence - Timeline Graph http://lutheranscience.org/images/GraphC2.gif http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfMzNobjlobjNncQ&hl=en The unscientific hegemony of uniformitarianism - David Tyler - May 2011 Excerpt: The pervasive pattern of natural history: disparity precedes diversity,,,, The summary of results for phyla is as follows. The pattern reinforces earlier research that concluded the Explosion is not an artefact of sampling. Much the same finding applies to the appearance of classes. These data are presented in Figures 1 and 2 in the paper. http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2011/05/16/the_unscientific_hegemony_of_uniformitar Creation and Evolution: The Biological Evidence - Dr. Marc Surtees - Disparity precedes Diversity - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HT70ltbkQo&feature=player_detailpage#t=402s
bornagain77
February 20, 2013
February
02
Feb
20
20
2013
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT
JLAfan2001 @4: It would be an interesting result indeed. And I, for one, would love to know what evidence convinced him and would love to examine it for myself to see if I might become convinced.Eric Anderson
February 20, 2013
February
02
Feb
20
20
2013
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT
This will be great if it can happen and I applaud Nick for being willing to participate. Nick, if you are putting together some notes, as I presume you will, perhaps you could share them after your meeting with Dr. Tour, in the context of "Here is what I shared with Dr. Tour." That would allow you to present the information in the strongest possible light to a broader audience without (hopefully) requiring a lot of additional research and effort. Maybe that is a way to compromise on the recording issue. ----- KN:
I believe there’s a term for what Tour is doing here: “selective hyperskepticism.”
No, you are wrong. The term is: "calling a bluff." The "evidence" for macroevolution is often touted as being overwhelming, based on similar-looking organisms, comparative genetics, the broad idea that things change over time, and so on. But all the wonderful evolutionary changes have to ultimately happen at the molecular level, every eye, wing, heart, new body plan, etc. It is perfectly reasonable to wonder what molecular changes might be required to effect such morphological changes, and what evidence exists for such molecular changes. It is not selective hyperskepticism. It is trying to pin down the slippery, ever shifting evolutionary storyline, to see if the emperor actually has any clothes. I think Dr. Tour actually wants to know the evidence. I'd love to know as well. Based on your post, I presume if we asked you what molecular changes are required to go from A to B you'd shuffle your feet, shift your gaze downwards, and mumble something about the question being unfair and hyperskeptical. You know, Alan Fox's old canard about any questioning of evolution being an argument based on incredulity.Eric Anderson
February 20, 2013
February
02
Feb
20
20
2013
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT
The real question is, can Matzke meet the standard that Tour has set? And is it a problem if he cannot? Tour has set the terms as, "can macroevolution be explained at the level of molecules?" I very much doubt that anyone can meet that standard. What Matzke could do, obviously, is provide all sorts of reasons for accepting that there are macroevolutionary patterns and processes. That would involve ecology, geography, paleontology, and maybe some developmental biology. But it would not involve chemistry, which is where Tour is insisting that the battle be joined. Matzke, I know you don't know me and my opinion might not mean much to you, but I'll offer it unsolicited: don't do it. Tour will insist on setting a bar so high that it can't be met, and then when you're not able to meet it, he'll declare it a victory. I believe there's a term for what Tour is doing here: "selective hyperskepticism."Kantian Naturalist
February 20, 2013
February
02
Feb
20
20
2013
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT
Wouldn’t it be something if Nick convinces Tour that macroevolution is a fact. What would the people at UD think then?JLAfan2001
February 20, 2013
February
02
Feb
20
20
2013
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT
Thanks to all who are making this come together. This may turn out to be a very interesting encounter.bornagain77
February 20, 2013
February
02
Feb
20
20
2013
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT
If my $500.00 offer is needed to make this happen just let me know. I expect to appear in the Credits. ;)Mung
February 20, 2013
February
02
Feb
20
20
2013
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply