Nick Matzke, despite faulting ID proponents for quote-mining, is himself not averse to taking things out of context. At http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/coopting_coopti.html he purports to show how Scott Minnich, during his testimony in Kitzmiller v. Dover, gave away the store in regard to cooption and irreducible complexity. Not so. During the Dover trial, Minnich, as an expert witness, quoted from the Nature paper by Lenski (Pennock was a co-author) as well as Shapiro’s comment concerning the lack of a single phylogenetic history of a sub-cellular organelle or biochemical pathway.
Steve Harvey (ACLU lawyer) came back with the degradation pathway paper that Matzke had produced
during Minnich’s deposition (back in July) done by the Air Force on 2, 4, dinitro-toulene degradation and the purported evolution of a biochemical pathway to it. Minnich replied that this was an example of microevolution — adapting an enzyme to an expanded substrate recognition, not evolution of an entire system. In other words, this Air Force paper was not making the same type of argument as the Lenski paper — the Air Force paper was talking about adapataional responses, which was not the point at issue. Besides, the Air Force group’s publication pre-dated both Lenski and others citing the lack of such a phylogenetic history. Were these authors unaware that the Air Force had provided a key component missing in evolutionary theory and published it in a second tier journal?
Matzke, whose addiction to the argument from irrelevant reference is exacerbated by Google and PubMed search engines, is as usual bluffing.