Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Darwin's Doubt, beginning a summary

830 views
Skip to first unread message

John Harshman

unread,
Sep 4, 2013, 1:55:29 PM9/4/13
to
A summary of Darwin's Doubt

Prologue. All about his previous book, Signature in the Cell, wrongs
done to him by critics, and why he decided to write this book. Nothing
interesting.

Part 1: The mystery of the missing fossils.

1: Darwin's Nemesis. Why Louis Agassiz was a great scientist and was
perfectly right not to accept evolution. Agassiz was all for separate
creation of each species, which Meyer conveniently elides into the
inability of evolution to generate "wholly novel organisms", without
ever confronting the difference. And of course he raises the title
problem that the book is ostensibly about: the sudden appearance of
disparate animal taxa in the Cambrian explosion.

2: The Burgess bestiary. All about the Burgess Shale and, eventually,
the Chengjiang fauna, interpreted as weird wonders with no relatives.
Hallucigenia, for example, is considered a bizarre, one-of-a-kind
monster, which was certainly Conway Morris's original notion; but that
changed, and now we know it's connected to a number of other Cambrian
fossils and to modern onychophorans. Similarly, he can simultaneously
claim there are no transitional forms while touting Anomalocaris as just
an unusual arthropod.

Here we begin two major confusions that are repeated and amplified in
succeeding chapters: first about when the Cambrian explosion happened,
as any phylum with a first appearance in the Cambrian is counted in fig.
2.5 as part of the explosion, including phyla that appear in the 20+
million years of the Cambrian that he fails to mention before his
explosion starts; second, confusing appearance in the fossil record with
appearance on earth, as if the record were perfect.

And we also begin the habit of cognitive dissonance; Anomalocaris
(above) is one such example. He also is capable of noticing (in fig.
2.5) that a dozen phyla have no or almost no fossil records while
simultaneously proposing that the record is nearly perfect. I suppose
you can reconcile that if you presume that some phyla have been created
just recently, but Meyer seems not to notice, as will often be the case
below, that his claims have implications.

A major claim in this chapter is the idea of "top-down" appearance:
phyla appearing before families, families before species, etc. He
dismisses the idea that this is an artifact of classification, but makes
no real argument. But phyla were defined based on extant species as the
broadest classifications, and so must arise earliest in the history of
life, before lower-level groups that they contain. His counter is that
these early taxa all have the distinctive features of their modern
relatives. Oddly enough, he frequently cites one of my favorite papers,
Budd & Jensen 2000, which shows that nearly all Cambrian taxa are at
best stem-members of their respective groups. And he relegates potential
transitional fossils (Anomalocaris, Opabinia, halkieriids, etc.) either
to extant phyla or to new phyla, again unrelated to any others. Each
transitional fossil, in other words, just creates another gap.

3: Soft bodies and hard facts. Here we dismiss the idea that the sudden
appearance of soft-bodied taxa in the Cambrian explosion can be a
preservational artifact. For example, we have preserved fossils of
bacteria in stromatolites billions of years old. If tiny little bacteria
can be preserved, reasons Meyer, then no large animals should remain
unpreserved. Can anyone be this naive about taphonomy? I suppose so. But
different taphonomic conditions preserve different things; what
preserves bacteria doesn't necessarily preserve animals, and vice versa.

More cognitive dissonance: he takes pains to point out (in the previous
chapter) that fossil deposits like the Burgess shale are extraordinarily
rare, but here declares that if there were equivalent species before the
Chengjiang, we would have found them. (I will note also that he doesn't
say "before the Chengjiang"; he says "in the Precambrian", again
ignoring a 20-million-year stretch of early Cambrian time).

Meyer also perpetuates the claim that many body plans are impossible
without mineralized skeletons; he consistently confuses "hard" with
"mineralized", despite the evidence of the commonly preserved,
mineralized trilobites vs. rarely preserved, non-mineralized arthropods
of the Burgess and Chengjiang. Clearly, a tough, organic exoskeleton or
shell can make a body plan possible without readily preservable
mineralization. So, what we have in the Cambrian explosion is the sudden
appearance in the fossil record of a host of phyla, but what that means
is that they all appear in a single deposit, the Chengjian fauna. There
are no earlier deposits with a similar type of preservation. Meyer,
looking through a narrow window into a meadow, sees a horse, and
therefore concludes that there are no other horses in that meadow to
left or right of his view.

4: The *not* missing fossils? This chapter is all about the Ediacaran
fauna, with the purpose of dismissing Ediacaran life as transitional.
And indeed much of it isn't. Much of what he says here is true.
Spriggina probably isn't bilaterian at all, since it isn't bilaterally
symmetrical. However, he also dismisses other potential intermediates on
the basis that they lack derived characters when in fact we can't know
whether they had them or not; preservation quality just isn't good
enough to tell. At the end, he mentions Kimberella, a fossil he had
earlier accepted as a mollusk, but here he does all he can to cast doubt
on its nature. Note again: Meyer goes straight from the Chengjiang
(about 520ma) to the Precambrian (ending about 543ma) and never talks
about the 20+ million years in between. God of the gaps, indeed.

OK, that's enough for now. I'll try some more later. Here are the previews:

5: The genes tell the story? In which any notion of molecular dating is
quashed.

6: The animal tree of life. In which any notion of phylogenetic analysis
is likewise quashed.

7: Punk eek! In which the punctuated equilibria theory is eliminated as
an explanation for the Cambrian explosion, to the surprise of nobody,
including Gould and Eldredge.

And the even more pre-previews:

Part 2: How to build an animal

8: The Cambrian information explosion
9: Combinatorial inflation
10: The origin of genes and proteins
11: Assume a gene
12: Complex adaptations and the neo-Darwinian math
13: The origin of body plans
14: The epigenetic revolution

Part 3: After Darwin, What?

15: The post-Darwinian world and self-organization
16: The other post-neo-Darwinian models
17: The possibility of intelligent design
18: Signs of design in the Cambrian explosion
19: The rules of science
20: What's at stake

Budd, G. E., and S. Jensen. 2000. A critical reappraisal of the fossil
record of the bilaterian phyla. Biological Reviews 75:253-295.

Mark Isaak

unread,
Sep 4, 2013, 11:50:40 PM9/4/13
to
On 9/4/13 10:55 AM, John Harshman wrote:
> A summary of Darwin's Doubt
> [...]
>
> 4: The *not* missing fossils? This chapter is all about the Ediacaran
> fauna, with the purpose of dismissing Ediacaran life as transitional.
> And indeed much of it isn't. Much of what he says here is true.
> Spriggina probably isn't bilaterian at all, since it isn't bilaterally
> symmetrical. However, he also dismisses other potential intermediates on
> the basis that they lack derived characters when in fact we can't know
> whether they had them or not; preservation quality just isn't good
> enough to tell. At the end, he mentions Kimberella, a fossil he had
> earlier accepted as a mollusk, but here he does all he can to cast doubt
> on its nature. Note again: Meyer goes straight from the Chengjiang
> (about 520ma) to the Precambrian (ending about 543ma) and never talks
> about the 20+ million years in between. God of the gaps, indeed.

A relevant recent paper:
Robert S. Sansom & Matthew A. Wills,
Fossilization causes organisms to appear erroneously primitive by
distorting evolutionary trees.
_Scientific Reports_ 3 (2013),
http://www.nature.com/srep/2013/130829/srep02545/full/srep02545.html?WT.ec_id=SREP-20130903
Abstract:
Fossils are vital for calibrating rates of molecular and morphological
change through geological time, and are the only direct source of data
documenting macroevolutionary transitions. Many evolutionary studies
therefore require the robust phylogenetic placement of extinct
organisms. Here, we demonstrate that the inevitable bias of the fossil
record to preserve just hard, skeletal morphology systemically distorts
phylogeny. Removal of soft part characters from 78 modern vertebrate and
invertebrate morphological datasets resulted in significant changes to
phylogenetic signal; it caused individual taxa to drift from their
original position, predominately downward toward the root of their
respective trees. This last bias could systematically inflate
evolutionary rates inferred from molecular data because first fossil
occurrences will not be recognised as such. Stem-ward slippage, whereby
fundamental taphonomic biases cause fossils to be interpreted as
erroneously primitive, is therefore a ubiquitous problem for all
biologists attempting to infer macroevolutionary rates or sequences.

Meyerian conclusion: See! Phylogenetic inferences are bogus!

> [snip previews]

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

Ray Martinez

unread,
Sep 7, 2013, 4:48:44 PM9/7/13
to
What does Meyer conclude?

Ray

John Harshman

unread,
Sep 7, 2013, 7:05:33 PM9/7/13
to
On 9/7/13 1:48 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> What does Meyer conclude?
>
He concludes that evolution is impossible beyond very slight changes. He
hints, though he doesn't actually say so, that the phyla and classes at
least are separately created. But he never addresses the implications of
his first conclusion, which would be that most species are separately
created.

Ray Martinez

unread,
Sep 7, 2013, 8:54:47 PM9/7/13
to
I suspected as much. Thanks for confirming.

What Meyer doesn't understand is the fact that the concept of creation, and the concept of natural evolution, since the advent of Darwinism, are mutually exclusive.

Ray

Mark Buchanan

unread,
Sep 7, 2013, 9:15:21 PM9/7/13
to
Do you mean like the implication of a designer creating all those
critters then simply letting them go extinct?

According to ID theory we are not supposed to ask about the motives of
the designer. Maybe we are just supposed to be amazed that there is a
designer, and that evolution with its moral deleterious implications
isn't true.

Thanks for the review. I managed to get a library copy of 'Darwin's
Doubt' along with 'The Cambrian Explosion: The Construction of Animal
Biodiversity', Erwin & Valentine, 2013. It's very refreshing to read
Erwin/Valentine after a bit of Meyer as you don't need to sort through
the crap to get at learning the real issues.

Mark

John Harshman

unread,
Sep 7, 2013, 9:43:55 PM9/7/13
to
That is certainly one thing he doesn't understand. He also doesn't
understand that the moon is made of strawberry yogurt. Some things are
good not to understand. As usual, you allow for only two positions in a
black and white world. But it's perfectly consistent to allow for some
evolution and some creation.

John Harshman

unread,
Sep 7, 2013, 9:48:33 PM9/7/13
to
On 9/7/13 6:15 PM, Mark Buchanan wrote:
> On 9/7/2013 7:05 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 9/7/13 1:48 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> What does Meyer conclude?
>>>
>> He concludes that evolution is impossible beyond very slight changes. He
>> hints, though he doesn't actually say so, that the phyla and classes at
>> least are separately created. But he never addresses the implications of
>> his first conclusion, which would be that most species are separately
>> created.
>
> Do you mean like the implication of a designer creating all those
> critters then simply letting them go extinct?

No. That isn't an implication within the subject matter of the book.
That's all about the motivation of the designer, which isn't considered
at all until the very end, in what's more or less a postscript.

> According to ID theory we are not supposed to ask about the motives of
> the designer. Maybe we are just supposed to be amazed that there is a
> designer, and that evolution with its moral deleterious implications
> isn't true.

That's the last chapter, all right. But of course if the designer is a
nutcase, or evil, then the moral implications of a designer are
problematic. Meyer doesn't consider that question.

> Thanks for the review. I managed to get a library copy of 'Darwin's
> Doubt' along with 'The Cambrian Explosion: The Construction of Animal
> Biodiversity', Erwin & Valentine, 2013. It's very refreshing to read
> Erwin/Valentine after a bit of Meyer as you don't need to sort through
> the crap to get at learning the real issues.

Yes, comparisons between those two books are very instructive.

Robert Carnegie

unread,
Sep 8, 2013, 1:19:10 AM9/8/13
to
This is not true. As I have explained many times, the four-footed
Cretaceous walking cuckoo is the result of alien spacemen performing
genetic experiments on the two-footed Cretaceous walking cuckoo and
therefore was created by the spacemen. All other species that have
existed on the Earth are solely the product of natural evolution.
Therefore the theory of evolution is /substantially/ true, with
the four-footed cuckoo being the only exception.

John Harshman

unread,
Sep 9, 2013, 2:05:34 PM9/9/13
to
Continuing where I left off. This is still Part 1: The mystery of the
missing fossils.

5: The genes tell the story? Meyer starts by attacking the molecular
clock, which is admittedly an easy target. Estimates of the age of the
bilaterian common ancestor vary widely depending on data and methods. To
Mayr this means that all such estimates are meaningless, but that isn't
necessarily true. We might, in fact be learning more about how to do it
right. But I will agree that error bars should generally be wide. Meyer
does however compound the problem by failing to clearly distinguish at
least three separate nodes: Metazoa, Bilateria + diploblasts, and
Bilateria. These all presumably have different ages, so randomly listing
dates as if they all estimate the same thing is a problem. We now also
believe there are multiple clades of both sponges and diploblasts, so
lumping them conceals further nodes.

This, however, is perhaps the weirdest claim, which bears quoting:
"Histones exhibit little variation from one species to the next. They
are never used as molecular clocks. Why? Because the sequence
differences between histones, assuming a mutation rate comparable to
that of other proteins, would generate a divergence time at significant
variance with those in studies of many other proteins. Specifically, the
small differences between histones yield an extremely recent divergence,
contrary to other studies. Evolutionary biologists typically exclude
histones from consideration, because the times do not confirm
preconceived ideas about what the Preambrian tree of life ought to look
like." In other words, he's accusing biologists of cherry-picking data
to fit (the irony of which escapes him). No that isn't why. It's because
histones have an evolutionary rate (not, incidentally, equivalent to
mutation rate) much slower than that of other proteins, and this can
easily be shown by comparing divergences much more recent than the
Cambrian. Though it may be that Meyer doesn't believe in different
evolutionary rates, because he doesn't seem to believe in those recent
divergences either, or in evolution of pretty much any sort.

In another part of the chapter, Meyer begins to doubt that there is such
a thing as homology or phylogenetic relationships. While it's true that
tree-building methods assume that there is a tree to build, there are
also ways of testing whether the tree built is a better fit to the data
than some other tree, or in fact than no tree at all (e.g. Theobald
2010). But to Meyer, phylogenetic analyses do not count as evidence of
common ancestry. Conveniently.

And finally there is an attempt at Catch-22. A bilaterian ancestor must
lack the special characters of descendant groups, so those characters
must arise later. And he thinks that there can't be time for such
characters to arise (because, as he tells us later, no amount of time,
including the entire history of the earth, would be sufficient for even
one of those characters to evolve).

The question of whether there was a bilaterian ancestor is of course
separate from the question of its age. We end with a shameless
quote-mine from Simon Conway Morris that doesn't at all say what Meyer
wants to make it say, much less mean what he wants it to mean. "A deep
history extending to an origination in excess of 1000 Myr is very
unlikely", which Meyer takes to mean that Conway Morris thinks metazoan
evolution must begin very close to the Atdabanian. How 1000 became close
to 520 is unclear.

6: The animal tree of life. Although Meyer doubted common ancestry in
the previous chapter, it's necessary here to drive a stake through its
heart by showing that phylogenetic analyses are invalid. And we do that
the same way we dealt with the molecular clock: different analyses
disagree! For this he goes as far back as the 1940s, never acknowledging
that significant consensus has emerged more recently. Meyer falsely
claims, though I'm not sure he realizes what he's saying, that
phylogenetic analyses assume a molecular clock.

By the way, either the quote-mining is thicker in this chapter than in
previous ones, or I've just read more of the papers. He cites a paper
about conflicts among gene trees due to lineage sorting to claim that
phylogenetic analyses are spurious. Of course it means nothing of the
sort, only that the histories of genes may differ slightly from the
histories of the species in which they are embedded. And he uses studies
that claim extensive horizontal transfer to make the same point.
Finally, he uses other studies that point to the possibility of very
short branches that would be hard to resolve. In other words, if history
is more complicated than a simple, single, obvious tree, it therefore
doesn't exist. Oddly enough, though Meyer rejects the tree, he accepts
affirmations based on it that the Cambrian radiation was quick.

Next he attacks the agreement between molecular and morphological
phylogenies by pointing out that there are disagreements. Should have
actually read Theobald's "29+ Evidences" instead of merely quote-mining it.

After that, we discover that morphological characters are not always in
agreement with each other, and that some are quite labile. Therefore, of
course, there is no real phylogeny.

We finish with repetition of an earlier point, that phylogenetic
algorithms assume a tree; again, no mention of statistical tests. And
anyway, convergent evolution (or, to Meyer, a hypothesis of convergent
evolution, since he never accepts that evolution really happens) makes
phylogenies invalid. Because hey, if there's any homoplasy at all, we
can't trust anything, right?

7: Punk eek! The existence of this chapter is inexplicable, since PE was
never intended, by Eldredge, Gould, or anyone else, to account for the
Cambrian explosion. Nevertheless, Meyer triumphantly and at length
proves what everyone knew from the start. Meyer indulges in two main
confusions (neither limited to creationists). First, confusion of time
scales. The difference between PE and "gradualism" isn't about the
mechanism of evolution -- natural selection in each case -- but about
whether change has a constant rate over geological time or is episodic;
but while PE episodes are rapid in geological time, they are gradual on
the human scale. Second, confusion of magnitude. The lack of transitions
PE is intended to explain are those between closely related, similar
species, not those between higher groups. Nothing at all to do with the
Cambrian explosion. Meyer, despite a long explanation of its genesis,
doesn't seem to know that PE was originally intended as an exploration
of the consequences of Ernst Mayr's ideas of speciation for the fossil
record.

Here's another fine quote mine, again just one I happened to notice
because I've read the relevant paper. Meyer says "As Foote explained
(writing with Gould in fact), the adequacy of punctuated equilibrium as
an account of the fossil record depends on the existence of a mechanism
'of unusual speed and flexibility'". But in fact Foote & Gould weren't
writing about PE at all, or even about a mechanism. Here's the actual
sentence in which that fragmentary quote is embedded: "Moreover, even if
their conclusion were correct, it would support the idea of unusual
speed and flexibility in Cambrian evolution followed by constraint upon
fundamental anatomical change." In that sentence, "They" are Briggs et
al., who attempted to show that arthropod disparity in the Cambrian was
about the same as that of present-day arthropods, and the Foote & Gould
letter is a methodological critique. The underlying issue is whether
rates of evolution were unusually fast in the Cambrian explosion because
of increasing developmental canalization toward the present. Again,
exactly nothing to do with PE or any evolutionary mechanisms.

OK, that's all the paleontology. The rest of the book is just about why
evolution to any significant degree is impossible. So all the argument
about how long the Cambrian explosion lasted, or just how much happened,
is irrelevant, since no matter how much time is available, it isn't
enough, and all of the other radiations in the history of life are
impossible too.

Still left to consider:

Part 2: How to build an animal

8: The Cambrian information explosion
9: Combinatorial inflation
10: The origin of genes and proteins
11: Assume a gene
12: Complex adaptations and the neo-Darwinian math
13: The origin of body plans
14: The epigenetic revolution

Part 3: After Darwin, What?

15: The post-Darwinian world and self-organization
16: The other post-neo-Darwinian models
17: The possibility of intelligent design
18: Signs of design in the Cambrian explosion
19: The rules of science
20: What's at stake

Foote, M.

Mark Isaak

unread,
Sep 9, 2013, 8:47:20 PM9/9/13
to
On 9/9/13 11:05 AM, John Harshman wrote:
> [...]
> Still left to consider:
>
> Part 2: How to build an animal
>
> 8: The Cambrian information explosion
> 9: Combinatorial inflation
> 10: The origin of genes and proteins
> 11: Assume a gene
> 12: Complex adaptations and the neo-Darwinian math
> 13: The origin of body plans
> 14: The epigenetic revolution
>
> Part 3: After Darwin, What?
>
> 15: The post-Darwinian world and self-organization
> 16: The other post-neo-Darwinian models
> 17: The possibility of intelligent design
> 18: Signs of design in the Cambrian explosion
> 19: The rules of science
> 20: What's at stake
>
> Foote, M.

Is that last line just a footenote?

John Harshman

unread,
Sep 9, 2013, 8:58:59 PM9/9/13
to
On 9/9/13 5:47 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 9/9/13 11:05 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>> [...]
>> Still left to consider:
>>
>> Part 2: How to build an animal
>>
>> 8: The Cambrian information explosion
>> 9: Combinatorial inflation
>> 10: The origin of genes and proteins
>> 11: Assume a gene
>> 12: Complex adaptations and the neo-Darwinian math
>> 13: The origin of body plans
>> 14: The epigenetic revolution
>>
>> Part 3: After Darwin, What?
>>
>> 15: The post-Darwinian world and self-organization
>> 16: The other post-neo-Darwinian models
>> 17: The possibility of intelligent design
>> 18: Signs of design in the Cambrian explosion
>> 19: The rules of science
>> 20: What's at stake
>>
>> Foote, M.
>
> Is that last line just a footenote?
>
Ha. I meant to include the citation: Foote, M. H., and Gould, S. J.
1992. Cambrian and Recent morphological disparity. Science 258:1816-1817.

John Harshman

unread,
Sep 10, 2013, 5:09:15 PM9/10/13
to
On 9/4/13 10:55 AM, John Harshman wrote:

Continuing where I left off with

Part 2: How to build an animal

8: The Cambrian information explosion. We begin with the stunning
revelation that without new variation, natural selection will eventually
grind to a halt. A tedious review of the history of genetics eventually
arrives at mutations to DNA sequences as a potential source of
variation. From there we make a leap to the assumption that the Cambrian
explosion required vast amounts of new biological information. But of
course that's an undefined term, and Meyer realizes that a definition is
necessary.

First, a digression into complexity. We intuitively suppose that a
sponge is more complex than a choanoflagellate, and a trilobite more
complex than a sponge. But how could that be quantified? Meyer starts
with the number of cell types, which gives him a convenient ladder of
life. He is even able to estimate, by making it up on the spot, the
number of cell types in various extinct taxa. (Once again, by the way,
we jump instantly from 555ma, without intervening events, to 530ma. Just
saying.) How true is that? Hard to tell, as cell types are difficult to
quantify, and tend to expand in numbers as you look for more fine
distinctions. The closer to humans we get, the more cell types we tend
to see. But does that reflect anything more than our obsession with
ourselves?

Suddenly we're back to genetic information, which we are now estimating
by looking at genome sizes. Using exactly three data points (minimal
prokaryote genome at c. 500,000bp, unspecified protist at "upwards of a
million", and Drosophila melanogaster at 140 million) we see that genome
size is nicely proportional to either complexity or information content,
not sure which. At this point I wonder if Meyer has ever in his life
encountered the term "C-value paradox".

Though we still haven't defined "information", Meyer now asserts that
the Cambrian explosion must have required oodles of it in the form of
new cell types, proteins, and genetic information, the third of which is
apparently in addition to the other two.

Finally, Meyer promises to define "information". He starts with two
sorts: Shannon information and functional information. He spends much
time explaining Shannon information, after which he tells us that isn't
what he's talking about. No, he's talking about that functional
information. But unfortunately, he never bothers to define that. It's
like, you know, meaning and/or specification.

So, in sum, pretty much a useless chapter, in which Meyer alleges
without real evidence or argument that a huge increase happened in a
quantity he is unable either to quantify or define.

9: Combinatorial inflation. This is mostly about the Wistar Conference,
an attempt by engineers and computer scientists to help evolutionary
biologists by showing that they were wrong about everything and
introducing a little mathematical rigor into the field founded in part
by R. A. Fisher. It develops that it's hard to assemble a specific
protein sequence by chance. And that only 1 in 10^90 of all 100-residue
proteins is a functional cytochrome c. There is much time spent proving
that a very big number can still be much, much smaller than an even
bigger number. But don't worry: Doug Axe will make everything clear in
the next chapter. This chapter is merely preliminary to the meat of it all.

10: The origin of genes and proteins. First, Doug Axe has epiphanies. He
realizes that artificial selection is intelligent design, and so is
Dawkins' "Me thinks it is like a weasel" program. And he realizes that
building a new organism requires building new proteins, apparently
forgetting his claimed expertise in gene regulation, or perhaps only
forgetting what promoters are. Oddly enough, this is followed fairly
quickly by a citation of one of Ohno's papers, of which the major point
was that most Cambrian explosion animals had the same genetic tool kit,
"nearly identical genomes, with differential usage of the same set of
genes accounting for the extreme diversities of body forms." But of
course some of those nearly identical genes were new before the
explosion, and that's what Meyer wants to notice. I know we were
supposedly talking about the Cambrian explosion itself, not its
prologue, but bear with him. He's making a point.

Next we discuss protein folds. How different does a tertiary structure
have to become before it can be called a new fold? I have no idea, and
Meyer doesn't say. Here's another thing Axe knew, because he was a
protein scientist and they know stuff: "...new protein folds could be
viewed as the smallest unit of structural innovation in the history of
life." And "...the ability to produce new protein folds represents a
sine qua non of macroevolutionary innovation." I guess Ohno was just
kidding. So, having reduced macroevolution to the evolution of new
protein folds, Axe finds that randomly replacing 1/5 of the exterior
amino acids in a protein make it no longer functional, at least in its
old role. We don't know if it had a new function, but of course it's
hard to test for some unknown function. Axe also finds, surprisingly,
that changes to a protein resting on an adaptive peak tend not to be
selectively advantageous.

But here's the important bit: Axe's experiments show that it's
impossible (that is, so improbable as to have a low chance of ever
happening, anywhere, during the entire history of life) for one
functional protein fold to evolve into another, either gradually through
selection or drift, or by macromutation. Thus the duration of the
Cambrian explosion is irrelevant. The smallest unit of structural
innovation is unable to emerge no matter how much time you give it. No
new proteins can evolve. And macroevolution is all about new proteins.
Oh, and "new function" is synonymous with "new fold", so no new
functions, ever. Bumblebees can't fly, so don't bother pointing out that
bee in the garden.

Again, Meyer seems uninterested in grasping the implications of what
he's just proven. If no new protein can arise, it isn't just the
Cambrian explosion that's in trouble. It's the entire history of life.
The relationship of humans to chimps and many other comparatively recent
divergences are also problematic. Why no mention?

Still remaining:

Glenn

unread,
Sep 10, 2013, 6:05:16 PM9/10/13
to

"John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:R_CdnUiyCpP...@giganews.com...
> On 9/4/13 10:55 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>
> Continuing where I left off with
>
> Part 2: How to build an animal
>
snip spin
>
> First, a digression into complexity. We intuitively suppose that a
> sponge is more complex than a choanoflagellate, and a trilobite more
> complex than a sponge. But how could that be quantified? Meyer starts
> with the number of cell types, which gives him a convenient ladder of
> life. He is even able to estimate, by making it up on the spot, the
> number of cell types in various extinct taxa.

Oops.

Page 162:
"James Valentine has noted that one useful way of comparing degrees of complexity
is to assess the number of cell types in diferent organisms (fig. 8.). [11]"

"[11] Valentine: Late Precambrian Bilaterians"

"James W. Valentine is an American evolutionary biologist and Professor Emeritus in
the Department of Integrative Biology at the University of California, Berkeley."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_W._Valentine

"Perhaps the best practical index of body-plan complexity is cell-type number..."
http://www.pnas.org/content/91/15/6751.full.pdf
You might like to look at and read about figure 3.

Question for you, John. Did Valentine "make it up on the spot"?


snip more deceptive rhetoric

Ray Martinez

unread,
Sep 10, 2013, 6:42:46 PM9/10/13
to
On Saturday, September 7, 2013 6:43:55 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> > What Meyer doesn't understand is the fact that the concept of creation, and the concept of natural evolution, since the advent of Darwinism, are mutually exclusive.

> That is certainly one thing he doesn't understand. He also doesn't understand that the moon is made of strawberry yogurt. Some things are good not to understand. As usual, you allow for only two positions in a black and white world. But it's perfectly consistent to allow for some evolution and some creation.
>

Perfectly consistent with what, exactly?

Do you accept the concept of creation to exist in nature?

Before you answer it should be noted that if you answer in the affirmative then you are admitting evidence supporting the existence of God exists, which contradicts your Atheism worldview.

If you answer in the negative then what on Earth are you talking about? It's okay for Meyer but not for you?

I predict more obfuscation is about to pour out of Harshman's keyboard, if he answers at all.

Ray


nyi...@bellsouth.net

unread,
Sep 10, 2013, 7:24:11 PM9/10/13
to
On Saturday, September 7, 2013 8:54:47 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Saturday, September 7, 2013 4:05:33 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> > On 9/7/13 1:48 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:

> > > What does Meyer conclude?

> > He concludes that evolution is impossible beyond very slight changes.

Correction: he concludes that UNDIRECTED evolution...[continue as above]

I've been through this with Harshman, on the original Prothero hatchet job,
er, review thread. Harshman no longer has the book readily available, so that
I thought it best to wait till he can check it out of the library again before
continuing the discussion of that with him.

> > He hints, though he doesn't actually say so, that the phyla and classes at
> > least are separately created.

And rightly so. I have found NOTHING in his book so far that precludes God,
or some archangel, so manipulating the zygotes of a species as to
make big, but not fatal, changes in their genomes. In that case, he could
be endorsing "direct ancestors all the way down to the first microorganism."

All this is illustrated by one of my favorite quotes:

``Perhaps there also, among rotting fish heads and blue,
night-burning bog lights, moved the eternal mystery,
the careful finger of God. The increase was not much.
It was two bubbles, two thin-walled little balloons at the
end of the Snout's small brain. The cerebral hemispheres
had appeared.''
--Loren Eiseley_The Immense Journey_



> >But he never addresses the implications of
> > his first conclusion, which would be that most species are separately
> > created.

This reads like a complete *non sequitur*, unless John is claiming that there is no objective difference between a species and a phylum.

And given what an ardent cladophile he is, he may actually be claiming just that.

> I suspected as much. Thanks for confirming.

<sigh> Another case of the severely myopic one-eyed leading the blind.

> What Meyer doesn't understand is the fact that the concept of creation, and
> the concept of natural evolution, since the advent of Darwinism, are mutually > exclusive.

What I don't understand is how Ray can make an abysmally stupid and ignorant
claim like this about Meyer.

Peter Nyikos

John Harshman

unread,
Sep 10, 2013, 7:35:02 PM9/10/13
to
On 9/10/13 3:42 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Saturday, September 7, 2013 6:43:55 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>>> What Meyer doesn't understand is the fact that the concept of creation, and the concept of natural evolution, since the advent of Darwinism, are mutually exclusive.
>
>> That is certainly one thing he doesn't understand. He also doesn't understand that the moon is made of strawberry yogurt. Some things are good not to understand. As usual, you allow for only two positions in a black and white world. But it's perfectly consistent to allow for some evolution and some creation.
>>
>
> Perfectly consistent with what, exactly?
>
> Do you accept the concept of creation to exist in nature?

That's a convoluted and confusing way to say whatever it is you mean.
Concepts exist in people's heads, which I suppose are parts of nature.
So yes. If that isn't what you meant, what did you mean?

> Before you answer it should be noted that if you answer in the affirmative then you are admitting evidence supporting the existence of God exists, which contradicts your Atheism worldview.

The existence of God exists? Why can't you write clear English sentences?

> If you answer in the negative then what on Earth are you talking about? It's okay for Meyer but not for you?

What's OK for Meyer but not for me? Creation and evolution are not
mutually exclusive. That doesn't mean Meyer's model, whatever it is, is
correct. It just means it's logically possible.

> I predict more obfuscation is about to pour out of Harshman's keyboard, if he answers at all.

I'm just attempting to untangle your opaque prose. Have been for years.

John Harshman

unread,
Sep 10, 2013, 7:42:42 PM9/10/13
to
On 9/10/13 4:24 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Saturday, September 7, 2013 8:54:47 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> On Saturday, September 7, 2013 4:05:33 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 9/7/13 1:48 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
>>>> What does Meyer conclude?
>
>>> He concludes that evolution is impossible beyond very slight changes.
>
> Correction: he concludes that UNDIRECTED evolution...[continue as above]

Where does Meyer claim that there is directed evolution? I will agree
that he avoids explaining what he thinks happened, but the hinting is
all in the direction of separate creation. That's why it's essential
that the Cambrian explosion fauna have no visible precursors.

> I've been through this with Harshman, on the original Prothero hatchet job,
> er, review thread. Harshman no longer has the book readily available, so that
> I thought it best to wait till he can check it out of the library again before
> continuing the discussion of that with him.

No, I just didn't have the book available at that moment. I still have it.

>>> He hints, though he doesn't actually say so, that the phyla and classes at
>>> least are separately created.
>
> And rightly so.

What do you mean "and rightly so"?

> I have found NOTHING in his book so far that precludes God,
> or some archangel, so manipulating the zygotes of a species as to
> make big, but not fatal, changes in their genomes. In that case, he could
> be endorsing "direct ancestors all the way down to the first microorganism."

Except he never offers any hints that go in that direction, only in the
direction of separate creation.

> All this is illustrated by one of my favorite quotes:
>
> ``Perhaps there also, among rotting fish heads and blue,
> night-burning bog lights, moved the eternal mystery,
> the careful finger of God. The increase was not much.
> It was two bubbles, two thin-walled little balloons at the
> end of the Snout's small brain. The cerebral hemispheres
> had appeared.''
> --Loren Eiseley_The Immense Journey_

Why is that one of your favorite quotes?

>>> But he never addresses the implications of
>>> his first conclusion, which would be that most species are separately
>>> created.
>
> This reads like a complete *non sequitur*, unless John is claiming that there is no objective difference between a species and a phylum.

I'm claiming that closely related species commonly differ by an amount
that Meyer has just proven is impossible to achieve. The implications of
his conclusion have nothing, particularly, to do with phyla.

> And given what an ardent cladophile he is, he may actually be claiming just that.

If there's any doubt in your mind, you should ask me to clarify rather
than making guesses, because you are so very bad at resolving perceived
ambiguities in what I say.

>> I suspected as much. Thanks for confirming.
>
> <sigh> Another case of the severely myopic one-eyed leading the blind.
>
>> What Meyer doesn't understand is the fact that the concept of creation, and
>> the concept of natural evolution, since the advent of Darwinism, are mutually> exclusive.
>
> What I don't understand is how Ray can make an abysmally stupid and ignorant
> claim like this about Meyer.

Really? I understand perfectly: Meyer disagrees with Ray on some point;
therefore Meyer doesn't understand.

nyi...@bellsouth.net

unread,
Sep 10, 2013, 7:50:00 PM9/10/13
to
On Tuesday, September 10, 2013 6:42:46 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Saturday, September 7, 2013 6:43:55 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>
> > > What Meyer doesn't understand is the fact that the concept of creation,
> > > and the concept of natural evolution, since the advent of Darwinism, are > > > mutually exclusive.

As I said just now, in an attempted post, what I don't understand is how
Martinez can make such an abysmally stupid, ignorant claim about Meyer.

But here is something else I don't understand: how John could read Martinez's
sentence without thinking that "natural" means "without any supernatural
intervention."


> > That is certainly one thing he doesn't understand. He also doesn't
> > understand that the moon is made of strawberry yogurt.

The way I read "natural," the correct analogy is "He also does not understand
that "2+2 = 4" and "2+2 = 5" are mutually exclusive statements."

Which, of course, would be insulting the intelligence of Meyer back when he
was 6 years old, never mind how old he is now.


> Some things are good not to understand. As usual, you allow for only two
> positions in a black and white world. But it's perfectly consistent to allow
> for some evolution and some creation.

Funny, I had to put in linebreaks. John's sentence covers a huge line in any
text reader without wraparound.

> Perfectly consistent with what, exactly?

Sanity, for one thing. It is even consistent with Genesis 1, which says on
the one hand that God made man and woman in his own image, but on the other
hand that he commanded the earth to bring forth vegetation.

> Do you accept the concept of creation to exist in nature?

This is a trick question. No matter how one interprets it, Martinez is almost
sure to interpret it in the opposite way and thus score debating points over
his adversary, in the little black book that he keeps score with.

Of course, this assumes the adversary takes care not to just answer Yes or
No, but explains his answer.

> Before you answer it should be noted that if you answer in the affirmative
> then you are admitting evidence supporting the existence of God exists,
> which contradicts your Atheism worldview.

Ray is telegraphing his punches here, but he's also leaving himself with
enough wiggle room to be able to do what I describe above, should his
adversary carefully interpret a Yes answer differently than Ray is doing here.


> If you answer in the negative then what on Earth are you talking about?
> It's okay for Meyer but not for you?

This takes me back to the idiotic books we were given in debate club, on
a national topic, full of advice for people on the affirmative side of the
debate, and those on the negative side of the debate topic for the year.

The one I studied carefully had the national Forensic League topic as "Should
the United Nations be significantly strengthened?"

Two big chapters were devoted to sneaky questions, one chapter for the team
supporting the Affirmative to ask their opponents, with long paragraphs headed by
"IF THEY SAY YES"
and
"IF THEY SAY NO"
respectively.

And the other did the same for the Negative.

In actual practice, the team being asked these questions would try to give
qualified answers, or ask the interrogator to clarify their question, but
the usual response would be, "Straight Yes or No, please!" [If they
had a commanding enough voice, they would say "Straight Yes or No answer!"
as if that were an ironclad rule in these question and answer sessions.

Ray has never outgrown this kind of Forensic League training, it seems.

> I predict more obfuscation is about to pour out of Harshman's keyboard,
> if he answers at all.

Translation: Harshman isn't about to play by the artificial rules of
forensic leagues.

Peter Nyikos

John Harshman

unread,
Sep 10, 2013, 7:59:01 PM9/10/13
to
On 9/10/13 4:50 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 10, 2013 6:42:46 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> On Saturday, September 7, 2013 6:43:55 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>>
>>>> What Meyer doesn't understand is the fact that the concept of creation,
>>>> and the concept of natural evolution, since the advent of Darwinism, are> > > mutually exclusive.
>
> As I said just now, in an attempted post, what I don't understand is how
> Martinez can make such an abysmally stupid, ignorant claim about Meyer.

> But here is something else I don't understand: how John could read Martinez's
> sentence without thinking that "natural" means "without any supernatural
> intervention."

Yes, that's just what I understood it to mean. Supernatural creation and
evolution without any supernatural intervention are not mutually
exclusive if you explain some bits of life's history by one and some by
the other. Is that so hard to figure out?

Now here's what I don't understand: out of everything in this thread,
including my several initial posts on various chapters of the book, you
choose to make your only entry into a discussion of Ray Martinez.


Glenn

unread,
Sep 10, 2013, 8:31:37 PM9/10/13
to

"John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:jrudnULtKfT...@giganews.com...
> On 9/10/13 4:24 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 7, 2013 8:54:47 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >> On Saturday, September 7, 2013 4:05:33 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> >>> On 9/7/13 1:48 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >
> >>>> What does Meyer conclude?
> >
> >>> He concludes that evolution is impossible beyond very slight changes.
> >
> > Correction: he concludes that UNDIRECTED evolution...[continue as above]
>
> Where does Meyer claim that there is directed evolution? I will agree
> that he avoids explaining what he thinks happened, but the hinting is
> all in the direction of separate creation. That's why it's essential
> that the Cambrian explosion fauna have no visible precursors.
>
You're so full of shit. Peter didn't say that Meyer concludes "directed evolution",
and Meyer does not use the term "separate creation", whatever you think
people will assume that means.

Here's some "hinting": "[ID] affirms that there are certain features of living systems that are best
explained by the design of an actual intelligence-a conscious and rational agent, a mind-as opposed to a mindless, materialistic rocess. The theory of intelligent design does NOT reject "evolution" defined as "change over time"
or even universal common ancestry, but it does dispute Darwin's idea that the cause of major biological change
and the appearance of design are wholly blind and undirected."

Where is there room for doubt about what he thinks happened?

Robert Carnegie

unread,
Sep 10, 2013, 9:24:57 PM9/10/13
to
On Wednesday, 11 September 2013 00:24:11 UTC+1, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Saturday, September 7, 2013 8:54:47 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > (nothing left here)
> > On Saturday, September 7, 2013 4:05:33 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> > > He hints, though he doesn't actually say so, that the phyla and classes at
> > > least are separately created.
>
> And rightly so. I have found NOTHING in his book so far that precludes God,
> or some archangel, so manipulating the zygotes of a species as to
> make big, but not fatal, changes in their genomes. In that case, he could
> be endorsing "direct ancestors all the way down to the first microorganism."

It isn't very clear to me that God creating, say, a dog from a fish
(if he so chose) is so much different from God creating a man from soil.
It's just matter being changed. And soil is full of living microbes,
anyway. It was plenty alive before God made Adam out of it.
If that had happened, which it didn't.

Greg Guarino

unread,
Sep 11, 2013, 10:12:45 AM9/11/13
to
On 9/7/2013 8:54 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> What Meyer doesn't understand is the fact that the concept of creation, and the concept of natural evolution, since the advent of Darwinism, are mutually exclusive.

And yet, in another thread, you accept that people hold to all manner of
combinations of thought on the matters of God and biology. Some do
indeed think that God created every individual species separately, with
no role for evolution at all. Some believe that no God exists at all.
But many believe that God created *some* things, leaving others to
proceed without further action on His part.:

God creates only a universe that would bring forth life by the physical
processes of that universe. Evolution by mutation, selection and drift
proceeds as per standard biology. Some would add that God grants a soul
to some of the resultant creatures.

God creates the seeds of the first lifeforms, leaving evolution to shape
that initial life into many other forms.

God creates the first lifeform front-loaded with all possible
variations. Some form of Natural evolution sorts those variations into a
diversity of organisms.

God creates the first life and tweaks natural evolution at points in
time to add in new features.

God creates numerous "kinds", from which something like natural
selection produces varieties within those kinds.

Now at least some, and possibly all of those positions are wrong, but
they are not conceptually inconsistent. If you disagree, please explain
why a god could not choose any of those as its plan.


nyi...@bellsouth.net

unread,
Sep 11, 2013, 2:43:23 PM9/11/13
to
On Tuesday, September 10, 2013 7:42:42 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/10/13 4:24 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 7, 2013 8:54:47 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >> On Saturday, September 7, 2013 4:05:33 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> >>> On 9/7/13 1:48 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:

> >>>> What does Meyer conclude?

> >>> He concludes that evolution is impossible beyond very slight changes.

> > Correction: he concludes that UNDIRECTED evolution...[continue as above]

> Where does Meyer claim that there is directed evolution?

He does not need to claim it. He's content for his book to remain agnostic
on the whole subject of what form the intelligent design took.

And it is a very prudential decision as far as sales for his book go. He's
already alienated the YECs by accepting the standard dating of events; it
would have a catastrophic effect on sales to alienate the traditional OECs as
well. Although the scientifically literate people who believe in guided
evolution probably outnumber the scientifically literate ones in these
two categories put together, only a tiny minority of them are sufficiently
interested to buy the book.


> I will agree
> that he avoids explaining what he thinks happened, but the hinting is
> all in the direction of separate creation.

Sorry, you are too far from his worldview to appreciate what he is doing.
But perhaps an analogy will help. You are too well versed in the distinction
between agnosticism and atheism to think that just because someone talks
about evidence for the existence of a creator without trying to undermine
it, that he therefore is a theist.

Now, if he called the evidence "proof" like so many Christians so irritatingly
call something that obviously falls way short of even a strong piece of
evidence, then you could assume that he is claiming that God exists.

But have you ever seen Meyer do anything analogous with directed evolution?
I haven't.

Remainder deleted, to be replied to later if I see a need for it.

Peter Nyikos

nyi...@bellsouth.net

unread,
Sep 11, 2013, 2:59:32 PM9/11/13
to
On Tuesday, September 10, 2013 7:59:01 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/10/13 4:50 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, September 10, 2013 6:42:46 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> >> On Saturday, September 7, 2013 6:43:55 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>> What Meyer doesn't understand is the fact that the concept of creation,
> >>>> and the concept of natural evolution, since the advent of Darwinism,
> >>>> are mutually exclusive.

> > As I said just now, in an attempted post, what I don't understand is how
> > Martinez can make such an abysmally stupid, ignorant claim about Meyer.

> > But here is something else I don't understand: how John could read Martinez's
> > sentence without thinking that "natural" means "without any supernatural
> > intervention."

> Yes, that's just what I understood it to mean. Supernatural creation and
> evolution without any supernatural intervention are not mutually
> exclusive if you explain some bits of life's history by one and some by
> the other. Is that so hard to figure out?

What you say is true, but I don't think even Ray is daft enough to miss
such a point, and I naturally concluded that he had in mind

"creation and EXCLUSIVELY natural evolution are mutually exclusive"

and would play games endlessly with people who interpret what he said
the way you do.

I've had some pretty intensive debates with Ray, and so I have some insight
into the nefarious workings of his mind.

> Now here's what I don't understand: out of everything in this thread,
> including my several initial posts on various chapters of the book, you
> choose to make your only entry into a discussion of Ray Martinez.

It's not easy to decide where to begin tackling your inaugural post, so I
settled on a post where the agenda was clear-cut.

And, although you are boycotting Glenn, *I* would like an answer to the
question he poses at the end of the following excerpt from his post, where
he is responding to you:

> Meyer starts
> with the number of cell types, which gives him a convenient ladder of
> life. He is even able to estimate, by making it up on the spot, the
> number of cell types in various extinct taxa.

Oops.
>
Page 162:
"James Valentine has noted that one useful way of comparing degrees of complexity
is to assess the number of cell types in diferent organisms (fig. 8.). [11]"

"[11] Valentine: Late Precambrian Bilaterians"

"James W. Valentine is an American evolutionary biologist and Professor Emeritus in
the Department of Integrative Biology at the University of California, Berkeley."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_W._Valentine

"Perhaps the best practical index of body-plan complexity is cell-type number..."
http://www.pnas.org/content/91/15/6751.full.pdf
You might like to look at and read about figure 3.

Question for you, John. Did Valentine "make it up on the spot"?

===================end of excerpt

Peter Nyikos

John Harshman

unread,
Sep 11, 2013, 3:30:25 PM9/11/13
to
On 9/11/13 11:59 AM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 10, 2013 7:59:01 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 9/10/13 4:50 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, September 10, 2013 6:42:46 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>>>> On Saturday, September 7, 2013 6:43:55 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> What Meyer doesn't understand is the fact that the concept of creation,
>>>>>> and the concept of natural evolution, since the advent of Darwinism,
>>>>>> are mutually exclusive.
>
>>> As I said just now, in an attempted post, what I don't understand is how
>>> Martinez can make such an abysmally stupid, ignorant claim about Meyer.
>
>>> But here is something else I don't understand: how John could read Martinez's
>>> sentence without thinking that "natural" means "without any supernatural
>>> intervention."
>
>> Yes, that's just what I understood it to mean. Supernatural creation and
>> evolution without any supernatural intervention are not mutually
>> exclusive if you explain some bits of life's history by one and some by
>> the other. Is that so hard to figure out?
>
> What you say is true, but I don't think even Ray is daft enough to miss
> such a point, and I naturally concluded that he had in mind
>
> "creation and EXCLUSIVELY natural evolution are mutually exclusive"
>
> and would play games endlessly with people who interpret what he said
> the way you do.

I think you underestimate Ray's daftitude.

> I've had some pretty intensive debates with Ray, and so I have some insight
> into the nefarious workings of his mind.

In my experience, your insights into other people aren't reliable.
First, Meyer is not using Valentine's numbers, which have no points for
"flatworms" or "chordates". Second, I think Valentine's plot (his Fig.
3) is bogus. You only have to look and see that Hominidae stands alone
at the apex of creation. Do you really think humans have way more cell
types than any other organisms? Or is there perhaps a bias in favor of
the ones doing the counting? Also, a majority of the data points come
from a single reference which itself contains no actual counts.

By the way, if you believe Valentine's estimate (which I don't), then
there was a roughly linear increase in maximum number of cell types
between 600 and 150ma, with no particular peak in or around the Cambrian.

John Harshman

unread,
Sep 11, 2013, 3:35:47 PM9/11/13
to
On 9/11/13 11:43 AM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 10, 2013 7:42:42 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 9/10/13 4:24 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>>> On Saturday, September 7, 2013 8:54:47 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, September 7, 2013 4:05:33 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>> On 9/7/13 1:48 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
>>>>>> What does Meyer conclude?
>
>>>>> He concludes that evolution is impossible beyond very slight changes.
>
>>> Correction: he concludes that UNDIRECTED evolution...[continue as above]
>
>> Where does Meyer claim that there is directed evolution?
>
> He does not need to claim it. He's content for his book to remain agnostic
> on the whole subject of what form the intelligent design took.

I will agree that he is careful not to provide any real hypotheses, but
he isn't perfect. One can reconstruct much of his missing point from
what he chooses to talk about and what he doesn't.

> And it is a very prudential decision as far as sales for his book go. He's
> already alienated the YECs by accepting the standard dating of events; it
> would have a catastrophic effect on sales to alienate the traditional OECs as
> well. Although the scientifically literate people who believe in guided
> evolution probably outnumber the scientifically literate ones in these
> two categories put together, only a tiny minority of them are sufficiently
> interested to buy the book.

Still, he does provide clues to his thinking, and I don't think they
lead to guided evolution.

>> I will agree
>> that he avoids explaining what he thinks happened, but the hinting is
>> all in the direction of separate creation.
>
> Sorry, you are too far from his worldview to appreciate what he is doing.

Are you saying that you're closer to his worldview than I am? In what way?

> But perhaps an analogy will help. You are too well versed in the distinction
> between agnosticism and atheism to think that just because someone talks
> about evidence for the existence of a creator without trying to undermine
> it, that he therefore is a theist.

In my experience, anyone who talks about evidence for the existence of a
creator is extremely likely to be a theist. By your analogy, then, Meyer
is extremely likely to be a creationist.

> Now, if he called the evidence "proof" like so many Christians so irritatingly
> call something that obviously falls way short of even a strong piece of
> evidence, then you could assume that he is claiming that God exists.
>
> But have you ever seen Meyer do anything analogous with directed evolution?
> I haven't.

I've never seen Meyer so much as mention directed evolution. Doesn't
that seem just the least bit odd to you? Are you claiming that Meyer's
position is directed evolution, or that there is evidence that he has
such a position, or are you just expressing no opinion on Meyer's position?

John Harshman

unread,
Sep 11, 2013, 3:43:32 PM9/11/13
to
On 9/10/13 4:42 PM, John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/10/13 4:24 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

>>>> He hints, though he doesn't actually say so, that the phyla and
>>>> classes at
>>>> least are separately created.
>>
>> And rightly so.
>
> What do you mean "and rightly so"?

I really would like an answer to that.

>> All this is illustrated by one of my favorite quotes:
>>
>> ``Perhaps there also, among rotting fish heads and blue,
>> night-burning bog lights, moved the eternal mystery,
>> the careful finger of God. The increase was not much.
>> It was two bubbles, two thin-walled little balloons at the
>> end of the Snout's small brain. The cerebral hemispheres
>> had appeared.''
>> --Loren Eiseley_The Immense Journey_
>
> Why is that one of your favorite quotes?

And that.

nyi...@bellsouth.net

unread,
Sep 11, 2013, 3:49:08 PM9/11/13
to
On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 3:35:47 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/11/13 11:43 AM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, September 10, 2013 7:42:42 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:

> In my experience, anyone who talks about evidence for the existence of a
> creator is extremely likely to be a theist.

I've talked a lot about evidence for a creator, but you repeatedly insist on
calling it "no evidence."

And so, your "experience" is meaningless, and the two sentences of yours that
I've left in are pure GIGO.

> By your analogy, then, Meyer
> is extremely likely to be a creationist.

By the way, where in _Darwin's Doubt_ does he explicitly say that the evidence
for intelligent design is evidence for a creator?

Peter Nyikos

John Harshman

unread,
Sep 11, 2013, 4:14:26 PM9/11/13
to
On 9/11/13 12:49 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 3:35:47 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 9/11/13 11:43 AM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, September 10, 2013 7:42:42 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>
>> In my experience, anyone who talks about evidence for the existence of a
>> creator is extremely likely to be a theist.
>
> I've talked a lot about evidence for a creator, but you repeatedly insist on
> calling it "no evidence."

True.

> And so, your "experience" is meaningless, and the two sentences of yours that
> I've left in are pure GIGO.

So you're saying that a single (supposed -- I'm not actually sure)
counterexample, i.e. you, is sufficient to falsify my claim? Why would
that be? Are you a representative sample?

>> By your analogy, then, Meyer
>> is extremely likely to be a creationist.
>
> By the way, where in _Darwin's Doubt_ does he explicitly say that the evidence
> for intelligent design is evidence for a creator?

You mean using exactly that word? I'm not sure what distinction between
"intelligent design" and "creator" you are trying to make here. Are you
trying to point to the use of a singular noun? Inferring ex nihilo
creation? Please clarify.

Meyer is of course vague on the identity of the designer except in the
final chapter, in which -- surprise! -- it's God. But of course that's
walled off carefully from the "scientific" content of the rest of the
book. He's just saying.

Now, he does say in that chapter that ID doesn't necessarily challenge
common descent, but why add the word "necessarily" unless he's thinking
about such a challenge? Also in that chapter, he does define the
designer to be "a mind or personal intelligence beyond all life". Note
the singular.

nyi...@bellsouth.net

unread,
Sep 11, 2013, 4:53:35 PM9/11/13
to
On Wednesday, September 4, 2013 1:55:29 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:

I skipped over the Prologue and Chapter 1 in my reading, so I begin
my comments with:

> 2: The Burgess bestiary. All about the Burgess Shale and, eventually,
> the Chengjiang fauna, interpreted as weird wonders with no relatives.

Wouldn't "missing ancestors" [see p. 38] be more accurate than "no relatives"?
Look at my next comment before answering.

> Hallucigenia, for example, is considered a bizarre, one-of-a-kind
> monster,

Nah. He makes no claims of mystery about it, like he does with Nectocaris
[p. 53]

> which was certainly Conway Morris's original notion; but that
> changed, and now we know it's connected to a number of other Cambrian
> fossils and to modern onychophorans. Similarly, he can simultaneously
> claim there are no transitional forms while touting Anomalocaris as just
> an unusual arthropod.

You are leaving out a crucial qualifying clause: "or creatures
closely related to them." [p. 53] He was talking about A. and Marrella
together.

And, since he is not a cladophile, you CANNOT interpret "transitional"
in the way you are accustomed to interpreting it. IMHO only
a cladophile would not think it ridiculous to call a platypus
"transitional between reptiles and therians."

> Here we begin two major confusions that are repeated and amplified in
> succeeding chapters: first about when the Cambrian explosion happened,
> as any phylum with a first appearance in the Cambrian is counted in fig.
> 2.5 as part of the explosion,

There is no use of the word "explosion" on that page. He's talking about
a "spike" of taxa making their first appearance in the Cambrian in a bar
graph, but that is all.

Where Prothero flagrantly misrepresented Meyer by leaving out the word
"explosion" at a key juncture, you are only mildly misrepresenting him by
putting it in where it does not belong.


> including phyla that appear in the 20+
> million years of the Cambrian that he fails to mention before his
> explosion starts;

He makes no list, 'tis true, but he pares down the number to "at least
16" for the 5-6 million years that make up "the main pulse of the
Cambrian explosion." [p. 73]

> second, confusing appearance in the fossil record with
> appearance on earth, as if the record were perfect.

Isn't it acceptable among paleontologists to say, informally,
things like "primates first appear in the Paleocene"?

> And we also begin the habit of cognitive dissonance; Anomalocaris
> (above) is one such example.

In what way?

> He also is capable of noticing (in fig.
> 2.5) that a dozen phyla have no or almost no fossil records while
> simultaneously proposing that the record is nearly perfect.

Just what do you mean by "simultaneously"? There is no such proposition
on that page.

No wonder you have so much trouble following what I write. If you turned
in this summary in an English class, I doubt that you would do better
than a D.

Just look how many mistakes I've uncovered, and I'm only halfway through
your account of Chapter 2!!!!

Mathematical trivia: 2! = 2, so I can add as many exclamation points as
I wish. :-)

TO BE CONTINUED

Peter Nyikos

John Harshman

unread,
Sep 11, 2013, 6:35:37 PM9/11/13
to
On 9/11/13 1:53 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 4, 2013 1:55:29 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>
> I skipped over the Prologue and Chapter 1 in my reading, so I begin
> my comments with:

Don't skip over Chapter 1. It's a defense of Louis Agassiz's rejection
of common descent. If you're looking for evidence that Meyer is a
creationist, that would seem like a good start.

>> 2: The Burgess bestiary. All about the Burgess Shale and, eventually,
>> the Chengjiang fauna, interpreted as weird wonders with no relatives.
>
> Wouldn't "missing ancestors" [see p. 38] be more accurate than "no relatives"?
> Look at my next comment before answering.

No, it wouldn't. Your next comment seems irrelevant to the question,
which is puzzling. Of course relatives imply ancestors, and Meyer makes
clear his belief that if there had been ancestors we would have found
them by now.

>> Hallucigenia, for example, is considered a bizarre, one-of-a-kind
>> monster,
>
> Nah. He makes no claims of mystery about it, like he does with Nectocaris
> [p. 53]

Strange. Page 53 is one of the places where he makes just such a claim:
"[Opabinia] exemplified the unique forms on display in the Burgess. But
so did Hallucigenia, Wiwaxia, Nectocaris, and many other Burgess
animals." And then he has a sentence in which he uses Nectocaris as an
example of what he means by that. Page 29 is where he discusses
Hallucigenia in more detail, never even hinting that it has relatives,
and using it as an example of a fossil so bizarre that nobody can find a
category for it.

>> which was certainly Conway Morris's original notion; but that
>> changed, and now we know it's connected to a number of other Cambrian
>> fossils and to modern onychophorans. Similarly, he can simultaneously
>> claim there are no transitional forms while touting Anomalocaris as just
>> an unusual arthropod.
>
> You are leaving out a crucial qualifying clause: "or creatures
> closely related to them." [p. 53] He was talking about A. and Marrella
> together.

I'll admit this is confusing. What does "related" mean to Meyer? I think
the proper reading of that is that he's talking about Whittington's
ideas rather than his own. You miss the point that Anomalocaris is
clearly one of those transitional fossils for which Meyer has been
searching in vain.

> And, since he is not a cladophile, you CANNOT interpret "transitional"
> in the way you are accustomed to interpreting it. IMHO only
> a cladophile would not think it ridiculous to call a platypus
> "transitional between reptiles and therians."

Are you claiming that transitional fossils must be restricted to actual
ancestors only?

>> Here we begin two major confusions that are repeated and amplified in
>> succeeding chapters: first about when the Cambrian explosion happened,
>> as any phylum with a first appearance in the Cambrian is counted in fig.
>> 2.5 as part of the explosion,
>
> There is no use of the word "explosion" on that page. He's talking about
> a "spike" of taxa making their first appearance in the Cambrian in a bar
> graph, but that is all.

What is this spike intended to convey if not the Cambrian explosion? You
are fixated on particular words to the exclusion of the ideas they
represent. I will note that Fig. 2.6 has a cartoon explosion, with an
arrow pointing to, among others, brachiopods and hyoliths, both of which
appeared before what Meyer is calling the explosion, during that 20+
million years he never talks about.

> Where Prothero flagrantly misrepresented Meyer by leaving out the word
> "explosion" at a key juncture, you are only mildly misrepresenting him by
> putting it in where it does not belong.

Again, you are fixated on words rather than concepts.

>> including phyla that appear in the 20+
>> million years of the Cambrian that he fails to mention before his
>> explosion starts;
>
> He makes no list, 'tis true, but he pares down the number to "at least
> 16" for the 5-6 million years that make up "the main pulse of the
> Cambrian explosion." [p. 73]

He never explains how the main pulse differs from the full explosion,
does he?

>> second, confusing appearance in the fossil record with
>> appearance on earth, as if the record were perfect.
>
> Isn't it acceptable among paleontologists to say, informally,
> things like "primates first appear in the Paleocene"?

Yes. Sometimes that means a hypothesis that they first evolved then, and
sometimes it means just that their first known fossils appear then.
Context should help to recognize the difference. In this case, Meyer's
extended argument is that they did actually appear (though not by
evolution) then.

>> And we also begin the habit of cognitive dissonance; Anomalocaris
>> (above) is one such example.
>
> In what way?

I already told you. But he mentions it as an odd arthropod, so as to
magnify the weirdness of the fauna, without noticing that it's weird
because its a plausible transitional form. As you know, to creationists
every transitional form just introduces two more gaps.

>> He also is capable of noticing (in fig.
>> 2.5) that a dozen phyla have no or almost no fossil records while
>> simultaneously proposing that the record is nearly perfect.
>
> Just what do you mean by "simultaneously"? There is no such proposition
> on that page.

I'm going to suppose that the book is intended as a unified whole, in
which his opinion doesn't change from page to page, and that any two
opinions he states, even if on different pages, are held simultaneously.
Are all math professors this incapable of looking at broader contexts?

> No wonder you have so much trouble following what I write. If you turned
> in this summary in an English class, I doubt that you would do better
> than a D.

Let's just count "English teacher" as another of your non-skills.

> Just look how many mistakes I've uncovered, and I'm only halfway through
> your account of Chapter 2!!!!

Perhaps they aren't really mistakes.

Ray Martinez

unread,
Sep 11, 2013, 8:20:03 PM9/11/13
to
On Tuesday, September 10, 2013 4:24:11 PM UTC-7, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Saturday, September 7, 2013 8:54:47 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, September 7, 2013 4:05:33 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>
> > > On 9/7/13 1:48 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
>
>
> > > > What does Meyer conclude?
>
>
>
> > > He concludes that evolution is impossible beyond very slight changes.
>
>
>
> Correction: he concludes that UNDIRECTED evolution...[continue as above]

Where did you obtain the idea that evolution might indicate directedness? When we speak of evolution the vast majority understand the term to mean undirected or unguided. IF "evolution" is directed then it isn't evolution, but Creationism. And why do I get the distinct feeling that you don't understand these BASIC facts?

> I've been through this with Harshman, on the original Prothero hatchet job,
>
> er, review thread. Harshman no longer has the book readily available, so that
>
> I thought it best to wait till he can check it out of the library again before
>
> continuing the discussion of that with him.

Since you're a full-blooded Evolutionist who accepts all the major Darwinian concepts existing in nature, including human evolution, why do you care about an alleged hatchet job on Meyer by one of your colleagues, Peter?

> > > He hints, though he doesn't actually say so, that the phyla and classes at
>
> > > least are separately created.
>
>
>
> And rightly so. I have found NOTHING in his book so far that precludes God,
>
> or some archangel, so manipulating the zygotes of a species as to
>
> make big, but not fatal, changes in their genomes. In that case, he could
>
> be endorsing "direct ancestors all the way down to the first microorganism."

Meyer has written very many books, papers, and essays; yet he has never addressed the MAIN question put forth by the Creation/Evolution debate----how species appear in nature? I conclude rightfully that he's a dishonest coward. And before you commence shooting the messenger, in behalf of your alleged enemy, my point can be applied to Dembski and the DI as a whole as well. Why hasn't the DI ever told us how species appear? Said failure is **indefensible.** Both Paley and Darwin took clear opposing positions.


> All this is illustrated by one of my favorite quotes:
>
>
>
> ``Perhaps there also, among rotting fish heads and blue,
>
> night-burning bog lights, moved the eternal mystery,
>
> the careful finger of God. The increase was not much.
>
> It was two bubbles, two thin-walled little balloons at the
>
> end of the Snout's small brain. The cerebral hemispheres
>
> had appeared.''
>
> --Loren Eiseley_The Immense Journey_
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > >But he never addresses the implications of
>
> > > his first conclusion, which would be that most species are separately
>
> > > created.
>
>
>
> This reads like a complete *non sequitur*, unless John is claiming that there is no objective difference between a species and a phylum.
>
>
>
> And given what an ardent cladophile he is, he may actually be claiming just that.
>
>
>
> > I suspected as much. Thanks for confirming.
>
>
>
> <sigh> Another case of the severely myopic one-eyed leading the blind.
>
>
>
> > What Meyer doesn't understand is the fact that the concept of creation, and
>
> > the concept of natural evolution, since the advent of Darwinism, are
> > mutually exclusive.
>
>
>
> What I don't understand is how Ray can make an abysmally stupid and ignorant
>
> claim like this about Meyer.

It appears you don't understand the fundamental fact either.

Ray

Ray Martinez

unread,
Sep 11, 2013, 8:35:14 PM9/11/13
to
On Tuesday, September 10, 2013 4:35:02 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/10/13 3:42 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, September 7, 2013 6:43:55 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>
> >>> What Meyer doesn't understand is the fact that the concept of creation, and the concept of natural evolution, since the advent of Darwinism, are mutually exclusive.
>
> >
>
> >> That is certainly one thing he doesn't understand. He also doesn't understand that the moon is made of strawberry yogurt. Some things are good not to understand. As usual, you allow for only two positions in a black and white world. But it's perfectly consistent to allow for some evolution and some creation.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > Perfectly consistent with what, exactly?
>
> >
>
> > Do you accept the concept of creation to exist in nature?
>
>
>
> That's a convoluted and confusing way to say whatever it is you mean.
>
> Concepts exist in people's heads, which I suppose are parts of nature.
>
> So yes. If that isn't what you meant, what did you mean?

John's comments equate to crystal clear evidence: a man with a doctorate doesn't understand basic epistemology (meaning of the word "concept"), unlike the vast majority of his colleagues who do.

> > Before you answer it should be noted that if you answer in the affirmative then you are admitting evidence supporting the existence of God exists, which contradicts your Atheism worldview.
>
>
>
> The existence of God exists? Why can't you write clear English sentences?

A deliberate misrepresentation; anyone can re-read what I wrote and confirm. John doesn't like anything I've said and he can't refute.

> > If you answer in the negative then what on Earth are you talking about? It's okay for Meyer but not for you?
>
>
>
> What's OK for Meyer but not for me? Creation and evolution are not
>
> mutually exclusive. That doesn't mean Meyer's model, whatever it is, is
>
> correct. It just means it's logically possible.

John Harshman doesn't accept the concept of creation to exist in nature; yet suddenly, after weeks of pounding on Meyer for an infinite amount of sins, contained in his new book, John defends Meyer; creation is now "logically possible"....what gives?

John's defense of Meyer is because Meyer accepts the concept of evolution to exist in nature. That's the only reason why creation is "logically possible."

Ray

Ray Martinez

unread,
Sep 11, 2013, 8:57:49 PM9/11/13
to
On Tuesday, September 10, 2013 4:35:02 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/10/13 3:42 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, September 7, 2013 6:43:55 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>
> >>> What Meyer doesn't understand is the fact that the concept of creation, and the concept of natural evolution, since the advent of Darwinism, are mutually exclusive.
>
> >
>
> >> That is certainly one thing he doesn't understand. He also doesn't understand that the moon is made of strawberry yogurt. Some things are good not to understand. As usual, you allow for only two positions in a black and white world. But it's perfectly consistent to allow for some evolution and some creation.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > Perfectly consistent with what, exactly?
>
> >
>
> > Do you accept the concept of creation to exist in nature?
>
>
>
> That's a convoluted and confusing way to say whatever it is you mean.
>
> Concepts exist in people's heads, which I suppose are parts of nature.
>
> So yes. If that isn't what you meant, what did you mean?
>
>
>
> > Before you answer it should be noted that if you answer in the affirmative then you are admitting evidence supporting the existence of God exists, which contradicts your Atheism worldview.
>
>
>
> The existence of God exists? Why can't you write clear English sentences?
>
>
>
> > If you answer in the negative then what on Earth are you talking about? It's okay for Meyer but not for you?
>
>
>
> What's OK for Meyer but not for me? Creation and evolution are not
>
> mutually exclusive. That doesn't mean Meyer's model, whatever it is, is
>
> correct. It just means it's logically possible.

Invisible Guide created unguided process is not logically possible----just the opposite.

You want Meyer and his kind to remain asleep lest he comes to understand mutual exclusivity and drop evolution like a hot potato. It appears John's understanding of Naturalism and evolutionary theory insecure, in need of Creationists accepting some evolution.

Ray

Ray Martinez

unread,
Sep 11, 2013, 9:19:53 PM9/11/13
to
On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 7:12:45 AM UTC-7, Greg Guarino wrote:
> On 9/7/2013 8:54 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > What Meyer doesn't understand is the fact that the concept of creation, and the concept of natural evolution, since the advent of Darwinism, are mutually exclusive.
>
>
>
> And yet, in another thread, you accept that people hold to all manner of
>
> combinations of thought on the matters of God and biology.

Yes, I acknowledge the fact, but I go on to say that said thought immersed in ignorance and illogic.

> Some do
>
> indeed think that God created every individual species separately, with
>
> no role for evolution at all. Some believe that no God exists at all.
>
> But many believe that God created *some* things, leaving others to
>
> proceed without further action on His part.:
>
>
>
> God creates only a universe that would bring forth life by the physical
>
> processes of that universe. Evolution by mutation, selection and drift
>
> proceeds as per standard biology. Some would add that God grants a soul
>
> to some of the resultant creatures.

Greg reiterates existence of positions immersed in illogic and ignorance.


> God creates the seeds of the first lifeforms, leaving evolution to shape
>
> that initial life into many other forms.

"Intelligence created unintelligent process" (see Michael Seimon, Dana Tweedy, Ken Miller, Michael Behe).

Logical thinking says the alleged fact of unintelligent process refutes the possibility of Intelligent initiation, if not what does? In short: how does unintelligence indicate Intelligence? Of course my question is rhetorical. The underlining point is the fact that persons who accept evolution immersed in illogical thought without any awareness.

> God creates the first lifeform front-loaded with all possible
>
> variations. Some form of Natural evolution sorts those variations into a
>
> diversity of organisms.

More "Intelligence created unintelligent process and results" (= illogical).

> God creates the first life and tweaks natural evolution at points in
>
> time to add in new features.
>
>
>
> God creates numerous "kinds", from which something like natural
>
> selection produces varieties within those kinds.
>
>
>
> Now at least some, and possibly all of those positions are wrong, but
>
> they are not conceptually inconsistent. If you disagree, please explain
>
> why a god could not choose any of those as its plan.

Again, our Evolutionist sees nothing terribly amiss with "Intelligence creating unintelligent process" model. If the major concepts are consistent, then which concepts are not?

Ray

John Harshman

unread,
Sep 11, 2013, 9:33:51 PM9/11/13
to
On 9/11/13 5:35 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 10, 2013 4:35:02 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 9/10/13 3:42 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, September 7, 2013 6:43:55 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>>
>>>>> What Meyer doesn't understand is the fact that the concept of creation, and the concept of natural evolution, since the advent of Darwinism, are mutually exclusive.
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> That is certainly one thing he doesn't understand. He also doesn't understand that the moon is made of strawberry yogurt. Some things are good not to understand. As usual, you allow for only two positions in a black and white world. But it's perfectly consistent to allow for some evolution and some creation.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Perfectly consistent with what, exactly?
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Do you accept the concept of creation to exist in nature?
>>
>>
>>
>> That's a convoluted and confusing way to say whatever it is you mean.
>>
>> Concepts exist in people's heads, which I suppose are parts of nature.
>>
>> So yes. If that isn't what you meant, what did you mean?
>
> John's comments equate to crystal clear evidence: a man with a doctorate doesn't understand basic epistemology (meaning of the word "concept"), unlike the vast majority of his colleagues who do.

Really? Could you define "concept" for me? I would take it to be similar
to "idea", another thing that exists only in people's heads.

>>> Before you answer it should be noted that if you answer in the affirmative then you are admitting evidence supporting the existence of God exists, which contradicts your Atheism worldview.
>>
>>
>>
>> The existence of God exists? Why can't you write clear English sentences?
>
> A deliberate misrepresentation; anyone can re-read what I wrote and confirm. John doesn't like anything I've said and he can't refute.

Ah, I see. What you meant is that there is evidence supporting the
existence of God. See how to make that clear? I don't think there is any
such evidence.

>>> If you answer in the negative then what on Earth are you talking about? It's okay for Meyer but not for you?
>>
>>
>>
>> What's OK for Meyer but not for me? Creation and evolution are not
>>
>> mutually exclusive. That doesn't mean Meyer's model, whatever it is, is
>>
>> correct. It just means it's logically possible.
>
> John Harshman doesn't accept the concept of creation to exist in nature; yet suddenly, after weeks of pounding on Meyer for an infinite amount of sins, contained in his new book, John defends Meyer; creation is now "logically possible"....what gives?

Simple. Logical possibilities need have no real existence. The moon
being made of strawberry yogurt, for example, is a logical possibility.
Meyer being wrong about most things doesn't imply he's wrong about
everything. That's your binary world talking again.

> John's defense of Meyer is because Meyer accepts the concept of evolution to exist in nature. That's the only reason why creation is "logically possible."

That made even less sense than what you usually say.

>>> I predict more obfuscation is about to pour out of Harshman's keyboard, if he answers at all.
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm just attempting to untangle your opaque prose. Have been for years.
>
Sometimes with success, sometimes without.

Ray Martinez

unread,
Sep 11, 2013, 9:36:10 PM9/11/13
to
On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 11:59:32 AM UTC-7, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 10, 2013 7:59:01 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>
> > On 9/10/13 4:50 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Tuesday, September 10, 2013 6:42:46 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >> On Saturday, September 7, 2013 6:43:55 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >>
>
> >
>
> > >>>> What Meyer doesn't understand is the fact that the concept of creation,
>
> > >>>> and the concept of natural evolution, since the advent of Darwinism,
>
> > >>>> are mutually exclusive.
>
>
>
> > > As I said just now, in an attempted post, what I don't understand is how
>
> > > Martinez can make such an abysmally stupid, ignorant claim about Meyer.
>
>
>
> > > But here is something else I don't understand: how John could read Martinez's
>
> > > sentence without thinking that "natural" means "without any supernatural
>
> > > intervention."
>
>
>
> > Yes, that's just what I understood it to mean. Supernatural creation and
>
> > evolution without any supernatural intervention are not mutually
>
> > exclusive if you explain some bits of life's history by one and some by
>
> > the other. Is that so hard to figure out?
>
>
>
> What you say is true, but I don't think even Ray is daft enough to miss
>
> such a point, and I naturally concluded that he had in mind
>
>
>
> "creation and EXCLUSIVELY natural evolution are mutually exclusive"
>
>
>
> and would play games endlessly with people who interpret what he said
>
> the way you do.
>
>
>
> I've had some pretty intensive debates with Ray, and so I have some insight
>
> into the nefarious workings of his mind.

Peter defends: Invisible Designer created results and effects lacking any signs of design.

Instead of the logical position that said effects rule out the possibility of an Intelligent cause.

Peter, like John Harshman, feels more comfortable about evolutionary theory when Creationists accept the concept of evolution to exist in nature. The fact renders the Evolutionist dependent on the Creationist. If not, why are two Evolutionists, with advanced degrees, suddenly providing comfort and aid to their enemy, Creationists?

Ray (species immutabilist)

John Harshman

unread,
Sep 11, 2013, 9:36:52 PM9/11/13
to
On 9/11/13 6:19 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 7:12:45 AM UTC-7, Greg Guarino wrote:

>> God creates the seeds of the first lifeforms, leaving evolution to shape
>>
>> that initial life into many other forms.
>
> "Intelligence created unintelligent process" (see Michael Seimon, Dana Tweedy, Ken Miller, Michael Behe).
>
> Logical thinking says the alleged fact of unintelligent process refutes the possibility of Intelligent initiation, if not what does? In short: how does unintelligence indicate Intelligence? Of course my question is rhetorical. The underlining point is the fact that persons who accept evolution immersed in illogical thought without any awareness.

I start up my car, put it in gear, and then jump out the door. The car
careens around for a while before running into a light pole. Was the car
guided into that light pole?


Ray Martinez

unread,
Sep 11, 2013, 9:53:42 PM9/11/13
to
No.

So what's the point?

Ray

Ray Martinez

unread,
Sep 11, 2013, 10:04:59 PM9/11/13
to
You've departed context. I never suggested that you thought Meyer wrong about everything. I only observed why you're suddenly defending Meyer's lack of understanding concerning causation mutual exclusivity. It's because he does accept some evolution. So you have every reason to argue against mutual exclusivity. In essence, you're protecting what he's right about. But mutual exclusivity still true. No Darwinist accepts the concept of design to exist in nature, yet many Creationists accept the concept of evolution to exist in nature. The latter is wholly ignorant of what evolution means.

Ray (species immutabilist)

RMcBane

unread,
Sep 11, 2013, 10:22:00 PM9/11/13
to
I doubt that anyone is surprised that you don't understand the point.

John just described how an intelligence might create an unintelligent
process. The event was started by intelligence, but the ensuing process
was unguided and unintelligent. The car could have run into the light
pole or a tree or tore down a thousand mail boxes or just ran out of
gas. else. If John tried it over and over, it is likely the result
would have been different each time.

But of course you don't get it. You never do when the point defeats
your argument.


--
Richard McBane

Greg Guarino

unread,
Sep 11, 2013, 10:39:12 PM9/11/13
to
On 9/11/2013 9:19 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> Logical thinking says the alleged fact of unintelligent process refutes the possibility of Intelligent initiation,

Why? Human intelligence - the one kind we all agree exists - has
created a great deal, but to my knowledge, none of it actually
intelligent. Much as we may refer to some human inventions as "smart"
phones, or artificial "intelligence", they are at best simulations,
complex algorithms.

if not what does?

What refutes the possibility of an intelligent designer of some
feature(s) of the universe? Nothing. But some of what we observe argues
against some roles for God. The pattern we see in life on Earth argues
strongly against any explanation that doesn't involve common descent,
for instance. So a God who is claimed to have created all species
individually is a poor fit.

In short: how does unintelligence indicate Intelligence?

It doesn't, but it does not refute the possibility either. Do you
believe that gravity operates "naturally", according to the properties
of matter, without intelligence? Why couldn't God have designed an
"automatic", unintelligent process like gravity?

John Harshman

unread,
Sep 12, 2013, 12:29:19 AM9/12/13
to
I grow bored with you. Sorry.

Roger Shrubber

unread,
Sep 12, 2013, 1:07:12 AM9/12/13
to
John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/11/13 5:35 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> On Tuesday, September 10, 2013 4:35:02 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 9/10/13 3:42 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:>>>> On Saturday, September 7, 2013 6:43:55 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> What Meyer doesn't understand is the fact that the concept of
>>>>>> creation, and the concept of natural evolution, since the advent
>>>>>> of Darwinism, are mutually exclusive.

>>>>> That is certainly one thing he doesn't understand. He also doesn't
>>>>> understand that the moon is made of strawberry yogurt. Some things
>>>>> are good not to understand. As usual, you allow for only two
>>>>> positions in a black and white world. But it's perfectly consistent
>>>>> to allow for some evolution and some creation.

>>>> Perfectly consistent with what, exactly?

>>>> Do you accept the concept of creation to exist in nature?

>>> That's a convoluted and confusing way to say whatever it is you mean.

>>> Concepts exist in people's heads, which I suppose are parts of nature.
>>> So yes. If that isn't what you meant, what did you mean?

>> John's comments equate to crystal clear evidence: a man with a
>> doctorate doesn't understand basic epistemology (meaning of the word
>> "concept"), unlike the vast majority of his colleagues who do.

> Really? Could you define "concept" for me? I would take it to be similar
> to "idea", another thing that exists only in people's heads.

There are a number of us who have difficulty with Ray's perspective
on "concept". The issue runs rather deep and intermingles with
platonic ideals. For example, the concept of _table_ apparently
exists with a reality that distinguishes it from erstwhile
concepts that do not exist. However, I never did grok from Ray
if table required 4 legs, or 3 or some sort of U-brackets, or
perhaps some lines suspended from a ceiling holding up a flat
surface, or a counter projected from a wall. In English proper,
"concepts" exist in the mind, but Ray asserts a very special
sort of transcendence upon which concepts exist and do not
exist. The phrase "in nature" associates and qualifies in a way
that confuses. Ray dismisses those who use, and have for centuries
used, English inconsistently with his uniquely proscribed syntax.
I've yet to grasp if Ray's usage is self-consistent. It is certainly
unconventional.

solar penguin

unread,
Sep 12, 2013, 3:55:37 AM9/12/13
to
On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 19:04:59 -0700, Ray Martinez wrote:

> On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 6:33:51 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 9/11/13 5:35 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>>
>> >
>> > John Harshman doesn't accept the concept of creation to exist in
>> > nature; yet suddenly, after weeks of pounding on Meyer for an
>> > infinite amount of sins, contained in his new book, John defends
>> > Meyer; creation is now "logically possible"....what gives?
>>
>> Simple. Logical possibilities need have no real existence. The moon
>> being made of strawberry yogurt, for example, is a logical possibility.
>> Meyer being wrong about most things doesn't imply he's wrong about
>> everything. That's your binary world talking again.
>
> You've departed context. I never suggested that you thought Meyer wrong
> about everything. I only observed why you're suddenly defending Meyer's
> lack of understanding concerning causation mutual exclusivity.

Ray, "causation mutual exclusivity" only exists in your personal
imagination. Nobody understands it apart from you. Why should Meyer be
an exception? And why do you think John should expect Meyer to be an
exception?

solar penguin

unread,
Sep 12, 2013, 4:15:50 AM9/12/13
to
On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 17:20:03 -0700, Ray Martinez wrote:

> On Tuesday, September 10, 2013 4:24:11 PM UTC-7, nyi...@bellsouth.net
> wrote:
>> On Saturday, September 7, 2013 8:54:47 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>> > On Saturday, September 7, 2013 4:05:33 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>>
>> > > On 9/7/13 1:48 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>>
>> > > > What does Meyer conclude?
>>
>>
>> > > He concludes that evolution is impossible beyond very slight
>> > > changes.
>>
>>
>> Correction: he concludes that UNDIRECTED evolution...[continue as
>> above]
>
> Where did you obtain the idea that evolution might indicate
> directedness? When we speak of evolution the vast majority understand
> the term to mean undirected or unguided. IF "evolution" is directed then
> it isn't evolution, but Creationism. And why do I get the distinct
> feeling that you don't understand these BASIC facts?


Probably because those "BASIC facts" don't exist outside your imagination.

There's lots of guided evolution going on all the time. Darwin knew
about it, and called it "artificial selection." Farmers and animal
breeders guide the evolution of their livestock, have done for thousands
of years.

>
> Meyer has written very many books, papers, and essays; yet he has never
> addressed the MAIN question put forth by the Creation/Evolution
> debate----how species appear in nature? I conclude rightfully that he's
> a dishonest coward. And before you commence shooting the messenger, in
> behalf of your alleged enemy, my point can be applied to Dembski and the
> DI as a whole as well. Why hasn't the DI ever told us how species
> appear? Said failure is **indefensible.** Both Paley and Darwin took
> clear opposing positions.
>

You've been pretty vague on this subject too. You've said that your God
creates them, but you haven't explained how. If we were watching a new
species being created, what exactly would we see happening?

alias Ernest Major

unread,
Sep 12, 2013, 4:58:48 AM9/12/13
to
If you follow Ray's logic down the rabbit hole you end up with
"Scientific Storkism" (aka "Intelligent Delivery"). Ray denies that new
species arise by natural processes (even though we've seen it happen);
he claims that God creates each new species (with the appearance of
having evolved). Ray denies that changes in allele frequencies in
populations occur by natural processes. Applying this to antibiotic
resistance in bacteria this not only means that the original mutation
did not occur naturally, but by God creating the mutant bacterium, but
that the spread of the resistant phenotype did not occur naturally, but
by God creating the next generation of bacteria. The same argument
applies to any trait in any species; hence Scientific Storkism.

--
alias Ernest Major

solar penguin

unread,
Sep 12, 2013, 6:11:21 AM9/12/13
to
Yes, I know this is what Ray's beliefs imply. But he seems reluctant to
admit it in detail.

That's why it's so ironic that Ray was criticising Meyer for not
explaining the details of his creation theory.

Pots and kettles anyone?

nyi...@bellsouth.net

unread,
Sep 12, 2013, 9:30:54 AM9/12/13
to
On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 6:35:37 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/11/13 1:53 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, September 4, 2013 1:55:29 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:

> Don't skip over Chapter 1. It's a defense of Louis Agassiz's rejection
> of common descent. If you're looking for evidence that Meyer is a
> creationist, that would seem like a good start.

Will do, but there are more pressing matters. Have you looked at skepticblog today yet? Everything beyond Post 3, including my first reply to it, has disappeared.

Also gone are the questions you've asked of Prothero after his first evasive
reply.

Is this due to a glitch in our university computer, or is it a universal phenomenon?


> >> 2: The Burgess bestiary. All about the Burgess Shale and, eventually,
> >> the Chengjiang fauna, interpreted as weird wonders with no relatives.

> > Wouldn't "missing ancestors" [see p. 38] be more accurate than "no relatives"?
> > Look at my next comment before answering.

> No, it wouldn't.

Then please justify your "no relatives" with a cite. Keep in mind the colossal
difference (in your POV) between "sister group" and "ancestor candidate".

> Your next comment seems irrelevant to the question,
> which is puzzling. Of course relatives imply ancestors, and Meyer makes
> clear his belief that if there had been ancestors we would have found
> them by now.

Quote or page reference, please.

> >> Hallucigenia, for example, is considered a bizarre, one-of-a-kind
> >> monster,

> > Nah. He makes no claims of mystery about it, like he does with Nectocaris
> > [p. 53]

> Strange. Page 53 is one of the places where he makes just such a claim:
> "[Opabinia] exemplified the unique forms on display in the Burgess. But
> so did Hallucigenia, Wiwaxia, Nectocaris, and many other Burgess
> animals."

Sheesh. Are you so averse to giving people the benefit of the doubt that
you can't read "unique" as "found nowhere else"?

> And then he has a sentence in which he uses Nectocaris as an
> example of what he means by that.

Your bias is showing, Harshman. He has specific information about how
paleontologists can't make up their minds as to whether it is more like
a cephalopod, an arthropod or (get this!) a chordate.

He says NOTHING like it about the other unique critters. How convenient of
you to zero in on Hallucigenia and not even mention Nectocaris the first
time around.

By the way, do you know what the "consensus" is on Wiwaxia and Opabinia? You
said the later is potentially transitional. Between what and what?


>Page 29 is where he discusses
> Hallucigenia in more detail, never even hinting that it has relatives,
> and using it as an example of a fossil so bizarre that nobody can find a
> category for it.

Well, since you have sentenced the Linnean classification to the maximum
security prison of your mind, I can see where a statement like "It belongs to a
genus and family of one" can throw you for a loop.

"There is only one Limpkin. It belongs to a family all by itself." [The first
sentence is an exact quote, the other maybe just a close paraphrasal.] I read
this in a book titled something like _The Pocket Guide to Birds_ when I
was only 6 years old, and it really puzzled me. But you are a lot older and
wiser than I was then.

Actually, I'm not sure about the "wiser" part. :-) :-)

Continued in next reply, which may only be tomorrow. This skepticblog business
is a matter of some concern to me, and to you too, I hope.

nyi...@bellsouth.net

unread,
Sep 12, 2013, 9:55:02 AM9/12/13
to
On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 9:36:10 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 11:59:32 AM UTC-7, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

To Harshman:

> > What you say is true, but I don't think even Ray is daft enough to miss
> > such a point, and I naturally concluded that he had in mind
> > "creation and EXCLUSIVELY natural evolution are mutually exclusive"
> > and would play games endlessly with people who interpret what he said
> > the way you do.

> > I've had some pretty intensive debates with Ray, and so I have some insight
> > into the nefarious workings of his mind.

> Peter defends: Invisible Designer created results and effects lacking any
> signs of design.

Ray defends: "I, Ray Martinez, am a troll who will throw in editorializing
as blatant as `lacking any visible signs of design' just to yank the chain
of `straight man' Peter Nyikos."

By the way, how visible do you think your alleged designer is? does he look
like an old man ten feet tall with a white beard?


> Instead of the logical position that said effects rule out
> the possibility of an Intelligent cause.

An archangel so skilled at altering genomes that the resulting zygotes are
still viable must be ruled out as intelligent?????

Give me one good reason why I should think of you as anything but an atheist
mocking Christians by the clever literary device of pretending to be one of
them.

> Peter, like John Harshman, feels more comfortable about evolutionary theory
> when Creationists accept the concept of evolution to exist in nature.

"You've got hold of the correct stick -- but at the wrong end,"
--from "Basic Right," by Eric Frank Russell

I feel more comfortable with Creationists when they accept that concept.

You, of course, don't fit that description, and the smart money says that
it is because you are only pretending to be a Creationist.


> The fact renders the Evolutionist dependent on the Creationist. If not, why
> are two Evolutionists, with advanced degrees, suddenly providing comfort and > aid to their enemy, Creationists?

We give aid and comfort to sincere, sane people, and where you are concerned,
even one out of two {sincere, sane} ain't so bad at this point.

> Ray (species immutabilist)

This line is a lie. When I told you that there is a chain of speciations in
the fossils available to us, linking Hyracotherium to Equus, you ripped off your immutabilist mask and taunted us with
"That's ONE example out of how many millions of species?" or words to
that effect.

That's your cue to disappear from this thread and peddle your snake oil
to some other thread.

Peter Nyikos

nyi...@bellsouth.net

unread,
Sep 12, 2013, 10:27:07 AM9/12/13
to
On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 6:35:37 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/11/13 1:53 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

The situation on skepticblog is even worse than I first thought. I tried doing
a post there just now, because the facility for doing posts is still there.
When I hit submit, there was no error message, but the page continued to look
the way it did before.

Here is what I tried to post:

___________________________________________________________
There is something very strange going on here. All I see out of 12 initial posts and many times that many replies to them are posts 1, 2, and a MUCH
later post by Harshman, now labeled 3, and Prothero's flagrantly evasive reply to a question by John Harshman on post 2.

Gone are John's many questions in reply to Prothero, prefaced with a thanks and a polite observation that this reply by Prothero did not answer his questions.

Gone, too, are all my replies to John's post misnumbered 3, as well as many
other posts where it becomes crystal clear that I have extensively looked at
the book starting shortly after Harshman posted his cutting remark that ends the misnumbered post 3.
=====================================================

Now back to our discussion of Meyer's book, with only two lines added
from the first reply for continuity.

> > On Wednesday, September 4, 2013 1:55:29 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:

>> Hallucigenia, for example, is considered a bizarre, one-of-a-kind
>> monster,
> >> which was certainly Conway Morris's original notion; but that
> >> changed, and now we know it's connected to a number of other Cambrian
> >> fossils and to modern onychophorans.

Meyer says that "later studies by Cambridge paleontologist Harry Wittington
classified it not as a trilobite, nor a chelicerate... and not even as a
crustacean, but as a fundamentally distinct form of arthropod. [4]"

[4], p. 417, begins with "A distant relationship between *Marella* and
chelicerates is currently the favored hypothesis. See...[three references
follow].

You really need to be more thorough with your "homework," John.

> >>Similarly, he can simultaneously
> >> claim there are no transitional forms while touting Anomalocaris as just
> >> an unusual arthropod.

There's that bizarre use of "simultaneously" again. Please give page
numbers.


> > You are leaving out a crucial qualifying clause: "or creatures
> > closely related to them." [p. 53] He was talking about A. and Marrella
> > together.

> I'll admit this is confusing. What does "related" mean to Meyer?

He may be doing the same sort of thing "Henry Drummond" (played by
Spencer Tracy) does in "Inherit the Wind" when he says to
"Matthew Harrison Brady" (played by Frederick March) "OK, we'll play
in your ballpark."

He seems to do a pretty good job of that everywhere in the book that
I have read so far.

Then again, if he believes in guided evolution, he may be using the same
meaning that you and I and all other believers in common descent mean.

Continued in next reply.

John Harshman

unread,
Sep 12, 2013, 11:16:29 AM9/12/13
to
On 9/12/13 6:30 AM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 6:35:37 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 9/11/13 1:53 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, September 4, 2013 1:55:29 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>
>> Don't skip over Chapter 1. It's a defense of Louis Agassiz's rejection
>> of common descent. If you're looking for evidence that Meyer is a
>> creationist, that would seem like a good start.
>
> Will do, but there are more pressing matters. Have you looked at skepticblog today yet? Everything beyond Post 3, including my first reply to it, has disappeared.

I've decided to stop looking at Skepticblog. Bring it here.

> Also gone are the questions you've asked of Prothero after his first evasive
> reply.
>
> Is this due to a glitch in our university computer, or is it a universal phenomenon?
>
>
>>>> 2: The Burgess bestiary. All about the Burgess Shale and, eventually,
>>>> the Chengjiang fauna, interpreted as weird wonders with no relatives.
>
>>> Wouldn't "missing ancestors" [see p. 38] be more accurate than "no relatives"?
>>> Look at my next comment before answering.
>
>> No, it wouldn't.
>
> Then please justify your "no relatives" with a cite. Keep in mind the colossal
> difference (in your POV) between "sister group" and "ancestor candidate".
>
>> Your next comment seems irrelevant to the question,
>> which is puzzling. Of course relatives imply ancestors, and Meyer makes
>> clear his belief that if there had been ancestors we would have found
>> them by now.
>
> Quote or page reference, please.

There's a whole chapter about that. I'm sure you can find it.

>>>> Hallucigenia, for example, is considered a bizarre, one-of-a-kind
>>>> monster,
>
>>> Nah. He makes no claims of mystery about it, like he does with Nectocaris
>>> [p. 53]
>
>> Strange. Page 53 is one of the places where he makes just such a claim:
>> "[Opabinia] exemplified the unique forms on display in the Burgess. But
>> so did Hallucigenia, Wiwaxia, Nectocaris, and many other Burgess
>> animals."
>
> Sheesh. Are you so averse to giving people the benefit of the doubt that
> you can't read "unique" as "found nowhere else"?

Pretty sure that isn't what it means. For one thing, some of the taxa he
mentions are indeed found elsewhere. For another thing, that isn't what
"unique" means unless you use it in a formulation like "x is unique to
Passaic, New Jersey".

>> And then he has a sentence in which he uses Nectocaris as an
>> example of what he means by that.
>
> Your bias is showing, Harshman. He has specific information about how
> paleontologists can't make up their minds as to whether it is more like
> a cephalopod, an arthropod or (get this!) a chordate.
>
> He says NOTHING like it about the other unique critters. How convenient of
> you to zero in on Hallucigenia and not even mention Nectocaris the first
> time around.

What do the words "for example" mean to you? And why should my failure
to mention Nectocaris be considered a problem?

> By the way, do you know what the "consensus" is on Wiwaxia and Opabinia? You
> said the later is potentially transitional. Between what and what?

Opabinia is another of the arthropod-like lobopods, along with
Anomalocaris. It has something like a jointed appendage, limited to the
head. Wiwaxia has similarities to both mollusks and annelids.

>> Page 29 is where he discusses
>> Hallucigenia in more detail, never even hinting that it has relatives,
>> and using it as an example of a fossil so bizarre that nobody can find a
>> category for it.
>
> Well, since you have sentenced the Linnean classification to the maximum
> security prison of your mind, I can see where a statement like "It belongs to a
> genus and family of one" can throw you for a loop.
>
> "There is only one Limpkin. It belongs to a family all by itself." [The first
> sentence is an exact quote, the other maybe just a close paraphrasal.] I read
> this in a book titled something like _The Pocket Guide to Birds_ when I
> was only 6 years old, and it really puzzled me. But you are a lot older and
> wiser than I was then.

Time to make a point explicitly again. How does the phrase you quote
cause problems for my interpretation?

> Actually, I'm not sure about the "wiser" part. :-) :-)

Being wiser, I could help you with that.

John Harshman

unread,
Sep 12, 2013, 11:22:00 AM9/12/13
to
Jesus Christ. That's Marella he's talking about, not Hallucigenia. Both
times. Who needs to be more thorough?

>>>> Similarly, he can simultaneously
>>>> claim there are no transitional forms while touting Anomalocaris as just
>>>> an unusual arthropod.
>
> There's that bizarre use of "simultaneously" again. Please give page
> numbers.

For what? It's a pervasive claim throughout the book.

>>> You are leaving out a crucial qualifying clause: "or creatures
>>> closely related to them." [p. 53] He was talking about A. and Marrella
>>> together.
>
>> I'll admit this is confusing. What does "related" mean to Meyer?
>
> He may be doing the same sort of thing "Henry Drummond" (played by
> Spencer Tracy) does in "Inherit the Wind" when he says to
> "Matthew Harrison Brady" (played by Frederick March) "OK, we'll play
> in your ballpark."
>
> He seems to do a pretty good job of that everywhere in the book that
> I have read so far.
>
> Then again, if he believes in guided evolution, he may be using the same
> meaning that you and I and all other believers in common descent mean.

I claim that you have to ignore the main thrust of the book and
concentrate only on single sentences to maintain this view.

John Harshman

unread,
Sep 12, 2013, 11:36:54 AM9/12/13
to
On 9/12/13 7:27 AM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 6:35:37 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 9/11/13 1:53 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> The situation on skepticblog is even worse than I first thought. I tried doing
> a post there just now, because the facility for doing posts is still there.
> When I hit submit, there was no error message, but the page continued to look
> the way it did before.

Didn't mean to ignore this. Actually, I do find it a bit disturbing,
both that Prothero never replied to anything (I mean with real answers)
and that discussion has apparently been stopped (and pruned back)
without any sort of announcement or explanation.

I tried a post myself, with the same result you had.

nyi...@bellsouth.net

unread,
Sep 12, 2013, 11:43:35 AM9/12/13
to
OK, now I know it is not our computer that is at fault for the missing
material: on the home page for skepticblog, http://www.skepticblog.org/
one can read that Prothero's blog now has "4 replies". And there were
more than ten times that many yesterday.

Anyone reading this, please go to that page, scroll down to Prothero's review
[it's about halfway down the page as of now] click on the "4 replies" and see
whether you can do a reply.

If you've never posted to any skepticblog page before, it may be best to leave
it up to someone else to do this, because it may take the better part of the
day for you to be approved by the moderators, but once your post appears, you
are cleared for leaving replies on any skepticblog page.


On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 4:14:26 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/11/13 12:49 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 3:35:47 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>
> >> On 9/11/13 11:43 AM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> On Tuesday, September 10, 2013 7:42:42 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:

> >> In my experience, anyone who talks about evidence for the existence of a
> >> creator is extremely likely to be a theist.

> > I've talked a lot about evidence for a creator, but you repeatedly insist
> on calling it "no evidence."

> True.

And you also know that I am an agnostic.

> >And so, your "experience" is meaningless, and the two sentences of yours
> >that I've left in are pure GIGO.

> So you're saying that a single (supposed -- I'm not actually sure)
> counterexample, i.e. you, is sufficient to falsify my claim? Why would
> that be? Are you a representative sample?

YOU tell me, John. Is anyone who tries to present evidence for a creator
treated with the claim that what he is presenting is "no[t] evidence"?

If so, you've been talking about the empty set, which is OK in mathematics
but highly misleading in a forum like this one.

> >> By your analogy, then, Meyer
> >> is extremely likely to be a creationist.

That's the GO half of what still looks to me like GIGO.

Concluded in next reply.

nyi...@bellsouth.net

unread,
Sep 12, 2013, 11:53:44 AM9/12/13
to
On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 4:14:26 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/11/13 12:49 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> > By the way, where in _Darwin's Doubt_ does he explicitly say that the
> > evidence for intelligent design is evidence for a creator?

> You mean using exactly that word? I'm not sure what distinction between
> "intelligent design" and "creator" you are trying to make here.

The following is one form of "intelligent design" that does not involve
a creator:

The senders could well have developed wholly new strains of
microorganisms, specially designed to cope with prebiotic
conditions, though whether it would have been better to try to
combine all the desirable properties within one single type
of organism or to send many different organisms is not
completely clear.
--Nobel Laureate Francis Crick, _Life Itself_
Simon and Schuster, 1981

Now, granted, the Cambrian explosion is a different matter altogether, but
Meyer leaves open the possibility of a colony of aliens doing genetic
engineering on a grand scale for many years, then departing earth,
doesn't he?


> Meyer is of course vague on the identity of the designer except in the
> final chapter, in which -- surprise! -- it's God.

"It suggests the possibility that life may have been designed by an
intelligent person, indeed, one that many would identify as God. [p412]

Where does he come flat out like you insinuate?

>But of course that's
> walled off carefully from the "scientific" content of the rest of the
> book. He's just saying.

Looks like your brain is walled off from other interpretations of sentences
like the above.

> Now, he does say in that chapter that ID doesn't necessarily challenge
> common descent, but why add the word "necessarily" unless he's thinking
> about such a challenge? Also in that chapter, he does define the
> designer to be "a mind or personal intelligence beyond all life". Note
> the singular.

Yeah, just as above. Please show us that you didn't cherry-pick that phrase
by quoting the sentence in full.

I don't have time to skim the chapter for it. Duty calls.

[That Marella error was due to me skimming because of shortness of time.]

Peter Nyikos

Roger Shrubber

unread,
Sep 12, 2013, 12:36:25 PM9/12/13
to
nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> OK, now I know it is not our computer that is at fault for the missing
> material: on the home page for skepticblog, http://www.skepticblog.org/
> one can read that Prothero's blog now has "4 replies". And there were
> more than ten times that many yesterday.

Get your own blog.
People do not like it when folks like you invade their blogs
to wage their little wars. Comment sections are for making
comments, not for pushing agendas. Invading somebody's blog
in that way is simply rude.

Ray Martinez

unread,
Sep 12, 2013, 1:13:50 PM9/12/13
to
In response to me initiating discussion concerning mutual exclusivity, you promptly indicated that the subject should not be addressed. So your comment about growing bored is explained.

Ray

Burkhard

unread,
Sep 12, 2013, 1:45:19 PM9/12/13
to
Just another example how intelligence can create chaotic
and unguided results - like e,g. building a bomb and then setting
it to explore. All very simple counterexamples that disprove
the quite frankly bizarre idea that intelligent minds can't
cause unintelligent and random processes - we do it all the
time.

John Harshman

unread,
Sep 12, 2013, 1:45:17 PM9/12/13
to
On 9/12/13 8:43 AM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> OK, now I know it is not our computer that is at fault for the missing
> material: on the home page for skepticblog, http://www.skepticblog.org/
> one can read that Prothero's blog now has "4 replies". And there were
> more than ten times that many yesterday.
>
> Anyone reading this, please go to that page, scroll down to Prothero's review
> [it's about halfway down the page as of now] click on the "4 replies" and see
> whether you can do a reply.
>
> If you've never posted to any skepticblog page before, it may be best to leave
> it up to someone else to do this, because it may take the better part of the
> day for you to be approved by the moderators, but once your post appears, you
> are cleared for leaving replies on any skepticblog page.
>
>
> On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 4:14:26 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 9/11/13 12:49 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 3:35:47 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>
>>>> On 9/11/13 11:43 AM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> On Tuesday, September 10, 2013 7:42:42 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>
>>>> In my experience, anyone who talks about evidence for the existence of a
>>>> creator is extremely likely to be a theist.
>
>>> I've talked a lot about evidence for a creator, but you repeatedly insist
>> on calling it "no evidence."
>
>> True.
>
> And you also know that I am an agnostic.

Well, I know you make such claims, and I'm sure that's how you imagine
yourself, but I'm not sure you know your own mind. Still, I don't see
how this is relevant.

>>> And so, your "experience" is meaningless, and the two sentences of yours
>>> that I've left in are pure GIGO.
>
>> So you're saying that a single (supposed -- I'm not actually sure)
>> counterexample, i.e. you, is sufficient to falsify my claim? Why would
>> that be? Are you a representative sample?
>
> YOU tell me, John. Is anyone who tries to present evidence for a creator
> treated with the claim that what he is presenting is "no[t] evidence"?
>
> If so, you've been talking about the empty set, which is OK in mathematics
> but highly misleading in a forum like this one.

But you're the only one talking about the empty set here. My claim is
that a person presenting evidence (or even what he says is evidence) for
the existence of god is very likely to be a theist. You attempted to
attack that claim by presenting yourself as a counterexample. I
responded that one counterexample (even if valid) doesn't counter a
claim, especially one that was explicitly probabilistic.

>>>> By your analogy, then, Meyer
>>>> is extremely likely to be a creationist.
>
> That's the GO half of what still looks to me like GIGO.

Why?

John Harshman

unread,
Sep 12, 2013, 1:48:28 PM9/12/13
to
It seems to me that a blogger should respond to criticism and, if he
chooses not to, should at least explain why. Rendering the commenter a
non-person is not a good way to deal with it.

OK, Peter was in fact fairly rude, starting the whole thing with a
large, visible chip on his shoulder. But I merely asked a question that
could easily have been answered, and followed up by noting that the
question hadn't been answered.

Burkhard

unread,
Sep 12, 2013, 1:52:38 PM9/12/13
to
On Thursday, 12 September 2013 01:35:14 UTC+1, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 10, 2013 4:35:02 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>
> > On 9/10/13 3:42 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Saturday, September 7, 2013 6:43:55 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >>> What Meyer doesn't understand is the fact that the concept of creation, and the concept of natural evolution, since the advent of Darwinism, are mutually exclusive.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >> That is certainly one thing he doesn't understand. He also doesn't understand that the moon is made of strawberry yogurt. Some things are good not to understand. As usual, you allow for only two positions in a black and white world. But it's perfectly consistent to allow for some evolution and some creation.
>
> >

> > > Perfectly consistent with what, exactly?
>

> > > Do you accept the concept of creation to exist in nature?
>
> > That's a convoluted and confusing way to say whatever it is you mean.
>
> >
>
> > Concepts exist in people's heads, which I suppose are parts of nature.
>
> >
>
> > So yes. If that isn't what you meant, what did you mean?
>
>
>
> John's comments equate to crystal clear evidence: a man with a doctorate doesn't understand basic epistemology (meaning of the word "concept"), unlike the vast majority of his colleagues who do.

Quite on the contrary, John's use is perfectly in line with
how the term "concept" is normally used - you have been given citations
to that effect before, including quotes form Ayn Rand.

There is a very small minority of philosophers who might argue
similarly to you, Penelope Maddy when she was younger woudl claim
that when we see a collection of five objects, we see at the
same time the independent concept of "5", but even she would never
use your convoluted expression of "concepts existing in nature",
as it is at best grossly misleading and idiosyncratic language use,
at worst plain wrong
>
>
>
<snip>

Ray Martinez

unread,
Sep 12, 2013, 1:56:28 PM9/12/13
to
I asked what the point was because I recognized John's analogy to be weak; suspecting that he'd have second thoughts and not follow through in defending his argument. It appears my suspicion was correct. John has created a reason to bail out.

But I will continue with you since you seem to think his analogy and point is sound.

John's analogy conveys a visual restatement; defending, as logically possible, the proposition that Intelligence created unintelligent process. Unintelligence does not indicate the work of Intelligence; rather, the same supports a claim of fact that Intelligence is not present and did not initiate.

Ernst Mayr "One Long Argument" (1991:99):

"There is indeed one belief that all true original Darwinians held in common, and that was their rejection of creationism, their rejection of special creation. This was the flag around which they assembled and under which they marched. When Hull claimed that 'the Darwinians did not totally agree with each other, even over essentials', he overlooked one essential on which all these Darwinians agreed. Nothing was more essential for them than to decide whether evolution is a natural phenomenon or something controlled by God. The conviction that the diversity of the natural world was the result of natural processes and not the work of God was the idea that brought all the so-called Darwinians together in spite of their disagreements on other of Darwin’s theories."

"Natural processes" speaks of unintelligence; so I am using the same logic that original Darwinians used to conclude against Intelligence.


>
>
>
> But of course you don't get it. You never do when the point defeats
>
> your argument.

As I have already observed, in this thread; it is Christian Evolutionists don't get it: they have no awareness of the fact that Intelligence creating unintelligent process is illogical. This is the real reason why John Harshman has bailed out; he doesn't want to argue illogically and he wouldn't dream of joining me and criticizing TEists lest they wake up and abandon evolution.

If you really think its logically possible that Intelligence created unintelligent process, then Intelligence creating intelligent process is what? In other words, what scenario serves as potential falsification?

Ray (species immutabilist)

jillery

unread,
Sep 12, 2013, 2:00:25 PM9/12/13
to
On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 10:45:19 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:


[...]


>Just another example how intelligence can create chaotic
>and unguided results - like e,g. building a bomb and then setting
>it to explore. All very simple counterexamples that disprove
>the quite frankly bizarre idea that intelligent minds can't
>cause unintelligent and random processes - we do it all the
>time.


Sometimes they are called unintended consequences.

John Harshman

unread,
Sep 12, 2013, 2:10:07 PM9/12/13
to
On 9/12/13 8:53 AM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 4:14:26 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 9/11/13 12:49 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>>
>>> By the way, where in _Darwin's Doubt_ does he explicitly say that the
>>> evidence for intelligent design is evidence for a creator?
>
>> You mean using exactly that word? I'm not sure what distinction between
>> "intelligent design" and "creator" you are trying to make here.
>
> The following is one form of "intelligent design" that does not involve
> a creator:
>
> The senders could well have developed wholly new strains of
> microorganisms, specially designed to cope with prebiotic
> conditions, though whether it would have been better to try to
> combine all the desirable properties within one single type
> of organism or to send many different organisms is not
> completely clear.
> --Nobel Laureate Francis Crick, _Life Itself_
> Simon and Schuster, 1981
>
> Now, granted, the Cambrian explosion is a different matter altogether, but
> Meyer leaves open the possibility of a colony of aliens doing genetic
> engineering on a grand scale for many years, then departing earth,
> doesn't he?

No. He doesn't. That's you. Meyer makes clear that the designer is a
single person; plurals are not considered at all. There are many
implications of Meyer's ideas of the designer that are never discussed,
perhaps because they're incompatible with his idea that the designer is
God, and I count the failure to consider them as evidence that he's
thinking of God and only God.

>> Meyer is of course vague on the identity of the designer except in the
>> final chapter, in which -- surprise! -- it's God.
>
> "It suggests the possibility that life may have been designed by an
> intelligent person, indeed, one that many would identify as God. [p412]
>
> Where does he come flat out like you insinuate?

That's as flat as he gets. Not enough for you?

>> But of course that's
>> walled off carefully from the "scientific" content of the rest of the
>> book. He's just saying.
>
> Looks like your brain is walled off from other interpretations of sentences
> like the above.

You really have to consider context; it helps to narrow down alternative
readings. I can't type in the whole book for you, but you could try
reading it.

>> Now, he does say in that chapter that ID doesn't necessarily challenge
>> common descent, but why add the word "necessarily" unless he's thinking
>> about such a challenge? Also in that chapter, he does define the
>> designer to be "a mind or personal intelligence beyond all life". Note
>> the singular.
>
> Yeah, just as above. Please show us that you didn't cherry-pick that phrase
> by quoting the sentence in full.

It's in his attack on Francis Collins and other theistic evolutionists:
"Though the theory of intelligent design, which Collins says he opposes,
does not necessarily challenge this part (common descent) of Darwinian
theory, the factual basis of his arguments has now also largely
evaporated as the result of ENCODE and other developments in genomics."
Meyer here is referring to Collins' use of junk DNA as evidence for
common descent; he's saying that those arguments are invalid because
there's no such thing as junk DNA. So why is Meyer so dedicated to
debunking arguments for common descent?

> I don't have time to skim the chapter for it. Duty calls.
>
> [That Marella error was due to me skimming because of shortness of time.]

I accept your apology. Was that an apology? I assume you're retracting
your accusations that I have poor reading skills.

Burkhard

unread,
Sep 12, 2013, 2:11:29 PM9/12/13
to
On Thursday, 12 September 2013 01:35:14 UTC+1, Ray Martinez wrote:
<snip>
> >
>
> > What's OK for Meyer but not for me? Creation and evolution are not
> > mutually exclusive. That doesn't mean Meyer's model, whatever it is, is
> correct. It just means it's logically possible.
>
>
>
> John Harshman doesn't accept the concept of creation to exist in nature; yet suddenly, after weeks of pounding on Meyer for an infinite amount of sins, contained in his new book, John defends Meyer; creation is now "logically possible"....what gives?

Nothing much. "Being logically possible" is only a necessary, not a sufficient
condition for being true. Lots and lots of things are logically possible
that do not actually exist. The fountain of youth, unicorns,luminiferous
aether are all things that are logically possible ("may exist", or maybe even "exist is some possible world" but do not exist in this world.


> John's defense of Meyer is because Meyer accepts the concept of evolution to exist in nature. That's the only reason why creation is "logically possible."


Nope, it is a pretty straightforward claim that his claims are intelligible,
but wrong, as opposed to unintelligible and therefore not even wrong



Roger Shrubber

unread,
Sep 12, 2013, 2:19:56 PM9/12/13
to
John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/12/13 9:36 AM, Roger Shrubber wrote:
>> nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>>> OK, now I know it is not our computer that is at fault for the missing
>>> material: on the home page for skepticblog, http://www.skepticblog.org/
>>> one can read that Prothero's blog now has "4 replies". And there were
>>> more than ten times that many yesterday.
>>
>> Get your own blog.
>> People do not like it when folks like you invade their blogs
>> to wage their little wars. Comment sections are for making
>> comments, not for pushing agendas. Invading somebody's blog
>> in that way is simply rude.
>>
> It seems to me that a blogger should respond to criticism and, if he
> chooses not to, should at least explain why. Rendering the commenter a
> non-person is not a good way to deal with it.

Well maybe a blogger should write things I agree with in
the first place as well but shoulds and nice-to-be exist
in all sorts of flavors. The blog belongs to its author(s).
Guests have no business complaining about the decor.

> OK, Peter was in fact fairly rude, starting the whole thing with a
> large, visible chip on his shoulder. But I merely asked a question that
> could easily have been answered, and followed up by noting that the
> question hadn't been answered.


Whatever policy an author has about the comments left on
their blog is their choice. Their choice will have its
consequences. I can't see how it's up to anybody else to
tell them what they should do, whether it involves annoying
people or people who attract annoying people.

Ray Martinez

unread,
Sep 12, 2013, 2:20:02 PM9/12/13
to
But everyone already knows that bombs and roulette wheels are designed.

No rational mind would conclude for invisible Intelligence based on undesigned effects. The proposition is illogical. And the preceding conclusion is elementary to say the least.

Ray

John Harshman

unread,
Sep 12, 2013, 2:29:31 PM9/12/13
to
Are you telling me you would never complain about creationist blogs that
don't allow comments or that make comments raising uncomfortable
questions disappear?

Roger Shrubber

unread,
Sep 12, 2013, 2:59:14 PM9/12/13
to
I don't think I would. I would possibly make snarky comments
at people who did complain. My only complaint would be if
somebody edited user comments without the commenters permission.
And I mean editing but leaving in, not editing out as in deleting.
I prefer an uncensored comment section most of the time. I dislike
blogs that make a pretense at allowing comments but in fact
censor, just like I dislike other forms of dishonesty. But I
guess I think it's important to keep in mind that it's a "let
the buyer beware" world out there, including the internet where
I'm told some people occasionally behave poorly. I expect creationist
web sites to censor comments. Perhaps I would complain if one
didn't and I had to revise my expectations.

Mark Isaak

unread,
Sep 12, 2013, 3:29:56 PM9/12/13
to
On 9/12/13 10:56 AM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>[snip example of something which Ray calls intelligence (a person)
> creating a process which Ray calls unintelligent (an unguided car)]
>
> As I have already observed, in this thread; it is Christian
> Evolutionists don't get it: they have no awareness of the fact that
> Intelligence creating unintelligent process is illogical.

Illogical? Is it also illogical for something tall to create something
short? For something dull to create sharpness? For something hot to
create coolness? For something hard to create something soft? For an
action to create an equal and opposite reaction? Intelligence creating
something unintelligent is no less logical than any of the above, so
please explain how all of the above are illogical.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

John Harshman

unread,
Sep 12, 2013, 4:02:53 PM9/12/13
to
So do you expect that a skeptic blog will censor comments? If not,
shouldn't you complain that they've forced you to revise your expectations?

RMcBane

unread,
Sep 12, 2013, 4:33:05 PM9/12/13
to
> "There is indeed one belief that all true original Darwinians held in common, and that was their rejection of creationism, their rejection of special creation. This was the flag around which they assembled and under which they marched. When Hull claimed that 'the Darwinians did not totally agree with each other, even over essentials', he overlooked one essential on which all these Darwinians agreed. Nothing was more essential for them than to decide whether evolution is a natural phenomenon or something controlled by God. The conviction that the diversity of the natural world was the result of natural processes and not the work of God was the idea that brought all the so-called Darwinians together in spite of their disagreements on other of Darwin�s theories."
>
> "Natural processes" speaks of unintelligence; so I am using the same logic that original Darwinians used to conclude against Intelligence.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> But of course you don't get it. You never do when the point defeats
>>
>> your argument.
>
> As I have already observed, in this thread; it is Christian Evolutionists don't get it: they have no awareness of the fact that Intelligence creating unintelligent process is illogical. This is the real reason why John Harshman has bailed out; he doesn't want to argue illogically and he wouldn't dream of joining me and criticizing TEists lest they wake up and abandon evolution.
>
> If you really think its logically possible that Intelligence created unintelligent process, then Intelligence creating intelligent process is what? In other words, what scenario serves as potential falsification?
>
> Ray (species immutabilist)

Intelligence can create both intelligent processes and unintelligent
processes. And unintelligence or nature can create unintelligent
processes and processes that appear to be intelligent. Whether a
process appears to be intelligent or unintelligent is not an indicator
of whether an intelligence was involved or not.

I believe that John's point was that it is possible that an Intelligence
created the process we call evolution. And I think he would agree that
there is no evidence and probably no way of testing to see if an
intelligence was involved or not.

Is weather an intelligent process or an unintelligent process? And how
do you know?



--
Richard McBane

Roger Shrubber

unread,
Sep 12, 2013, 4:38:49 PM9/12/13
to
Having read the Postscript to the post in question, and the
commenting policy on the site, I suspect the authors decided
things were just getting too tedious for them. I say this
without having read the comments that have been removed. Why
I would presume there was something tedious in there shall
be left to your imagination. I'd further guess that once the
culling began it proceeded without significantly refined
consideration of what to keep and toss. All wild speculation.
Their editing has its consequences. It doesn't really hurt
my expectations which are fairly low to begin with but it does
tend to kill any interest I might have developed in their blog.

John Harshman

unread,
Sep 12, 2013, 5:03:28 PM9/12/13
to
I will take that as sympathy for my whining complaint, which was all I
was going for anyway.

Rolf

unread,
Sep 12, 2013, 5:05:12 PM9/12/13
to

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> skrev i melding
news:cb01ea86-73d3-4c37...@googlegroups.com...
A rational mind have a problem of conceving of an invisible, non-detectable
source of intelligence. We do not have any evidence for the existence of
pure intelligence without a physical foundation.
Thatt kind of intelligence is a religious conjecture.
> Ray
>


nyi...@bellsouth.net

unread,
Sep 12, 2013, 5:07:03 PM9/12/13
to
On Thursday, September 12, 2013 2:10:07 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/12/13 8:53 AM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 4:14:26 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 9/11/13 12:49 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

> >>> By the way, where in _Darwin's Doubt_ does he explicitly say that the
> >>> evidence for intelligent design is evidence for a creator?

> >> You mean using exactly that word? I'm not sure what distinction between
> >> "intelligent design" and "creator" you are trying to make here.

> > The following is one form of "intelligent design" that does not involve
> > a creator:

[quote from _Life Itself_, by Nobel Laureate biochemist Francis Crick, snipped
for brevity]

> > Now, granted, the Cambrian explosion is a different matter altogether, but
> > Meyer leaves open the possibility of a colony of aliens doing genetic
> > engineering on a grand scale for many years, then departing earth,
> > doesn't he?

> No. He doesn't. That's you. Meyer makes clear that the designer is a
> single person; plurals are not considered at all.

Sorry, nothing I've seen makes that clear. Nothing you've
posted, for sure. Ironically, the closest we have come with a complete
sentence was posted by me. It's below.

> >> Meyer is of course vague on the identity of the designer except in the
> >> final chapter, in which -- surprise! -- it's God.

> > "It suggests the possibility that life may have been designed by an
> > intelligent person, indeed, one that many would identify as God. [p412]

Note how this does NOT rule out multiple designers, which is ANOTHER
possibility.

> > Where does he come flat out like you insinuate?

> That's as flat as he gets. Not enough for you?

Absolutely not. How can you be so dense about the expression "possibility"?

[snip inconclusive back and forth]

> >> Now, he does say in that chapter that ID doesn't necessarily challenge
> >> common descent, but why add the word "necessarily" unless he's thinking
> >> about such a challenge?

This is too inconclusive to be worth going into.


> >> Also in that chapter, he does define the
> >> designer to be "a mind or personal intelligence beyond all life". Note
> >> the singular.

> > Yeah, just as above. Please show us that you didn't cherry-pick that phrase
> > by quoting the sentence in full.

Instead, you quoted another sentence.

> It's in his attack on Francis Collins and other theistic evolutionists:
> "Though the theory of intelligent design, which Collins says he opposes,
> does not necessarily challenge this part (common descent) of Darwinian
> theory, the factual basis of his arguments has now also largely
> evaporated as the result of ENCODE and other developments in genomics."

> Meyer here is referring to Collins' use of junk DNA as evidence for
> common descent; he's saying that those arguments are invalid because
> there's no such thing as junk DNA. So why is Meyer so dedicated to
> debunking arguments for common descent?

Sifting the chaff of easy-to-dispose-of arguments from the wheat of tough
arguments is the obvious possibility.

Why are you so eager to discredit Meyer that you miss such obvious
interpretations? To help make it more obvious to you, consider the
following analogy.

Here in talk.origins, there is the constant temptation to reply to no-brainers
in preference to posts that will take much longer because they force you
to do some real thinking.


> > I don't have time to skim the chapter for it. Duty calls.

And now I'm at home, and the book is back at my departmental office.

> > [That Marella error was due to me skimming because of shortness of time.]

> I accept your apology. Was that an apology? I assume you're retracting
> your accusations that I have poor reading skills.

You can take it as an apology. But note, I didn't accuse you on this occasion
of what you are alleging I accused you of. So my apology does not affect those
earlier statements. But I do acknowledge that I read poorly on this occasion.

Peter Nyikos

John Harshman

unread,
Sep 12, 2013, 5:21:09 PM9/12/13
to
On 9/12/13 2:07 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Thursday, September 12, 2013 2:10:07 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 9/12/13 8:53 AM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 4:14:26 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 9/11/13 12:49 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
>>>>> By the way, where in _Darwin's Doubt_ does he explicitly say that the
>>>>> evidence for intelligent design is evidence for a creator?
>
>>>> You mean using exactly that word? I'm not sure what distinction between
>>>> "intelligent design" and "creator" you are trying to make here.
>
>>> The following is one form of "intelligent design" that does not involve
>>> a creator:
>
> [quote from _Life Itself_, by Nobel Laureate biochemist Francis Crick, snipped
> for brevity]

Gosh, thanks for explaining who Francis Crick is.

>>> Now, granted, the Cambrian explosion is a different matter altogether, but
>>> Meyer leaves open the possibility of a colony of aliens doing genetic
>>> engineering on a grand scale for many years, then departing earth,
>>> doesn't he?
>
>> No. He doesn't. That's you. Meyer makes clear that the designer is a
>> single person; plurals are not considered at all.
>
> Sorry, nothing I've seen makes that clear. Nothing you've
> posted, for sure. Ironically, the closest we have come with a complete
> sentence was posted by me. It's below.

Sorry. I keep assuming that you have access to the book and can read.
Have you read the last chapter?

>>>> Meyer is of course vague on the identity of the designer except in the
>>>> final chapter, in which -- surprise! -- it's God.
>
>>> "It suggests the possibility that life may have been designed by an
>>> intelligent person, indeed, one that many would identify as God. [p412]
>
> Note how this does NOT rule out multiple designers, which is ANOTHER
> possibility.

How does "an intelligent person" fail to rule out multiple designers? Is
it the words "may have been"? Because I don't think that applies to the
number of designers, but to design itself.

>>> Where does he come flat out like you insinuate?
>
>> That's as flat as he gets. Not enough for you?
>
> Absolutely not. How can you be so dense about the expression "possibility"?

Again, if you would just step back from tortured parsing of individual
sentences and look at the whole work, your job would be simpler.

> [snip inconclusive back and forth]
>
>>>> Now, he does say in that chapter that ID doesn't necessarily challenge
>>>> common descent, but why add the word "necessarily" unless he's thinking
>>>> about such a challenge?
>
> This is too inconclusive to be worth going into.

You tend not to mind inconclusive unless it goes a way you don't like.
So what do you think the function of "necessarily" might have been?

>>>> Also in that chapter, he does define the
>>>> designer to be "a mind or personal intelligence beyond all life". Note
>>>> the singular.
>
>>> Yeah, just as above. Please show us that you didn't cherry-pick that phrase
>>> by quoting the sentence in full.
>
> Instead, you quoted another sentence.

I thought you were talking about his rejection of common descent. Sorry.

Here: "But unlike strict Darwinian materialism and the New Atheism built
atop it, the theory of intelligent design affirms the reality of a
designer -- a mind or personal intelligence behind life."

>> It's in his attack on Francis Collins and other theistic evolutionists:
>> "Though the theory of intelligent design, which Collins says he opposes,
>> does not necessarily challenge this part (common descent) of Darwinian
>> theory, the factual basis of his arguments has now also largely
>> evaporated as the result of ENCODE and other developments in genomics."
>
>> Meyer here is referring to Collins' use of junk DNA as evidence for
>> common descent; he's saying that those arguments are invalid because
>> there's no such thing as junk DNA. So why is Meyer so dedicated to
>> debunking arguments for common descent?
>
> Sifting the chaff of easy-to-dispose-of arguments from the wheat of tough
> arguments is the obvious possibility.

Do you really propose that with a straight face? Is it your claim that
Meyer is an agenda-free seeker after truth here?

> Why are you so eager to discredit Meyer that you miss such obvious
> interpretations?

Why are you so eager to defend Meyer that you make interpretations that
don't fit the book?

> To help make it more obvious to you, consider the
> following analogy.
>
> Here in talk.origins, there is the constant temptation to reply to no-brainers
> in preference to posts that will take much longer because they force you
> to do some real thinking.

I don't understand the analogy. Please explain.

>>> I don't have time to skim the chapter for it. Duty calls.
>
> And now I'm at home, and the book is back at my departmental office.
>
>>> [That Marella error was due to me skimming because of shortness of time.]
>
>> I accept your apology. Was that an apology? I assume you're retracting
>> your accusations that I have poor reading skills.
>
> You can take it as an apology.

Cleverly worded. I can of course take anything as anything else if I so
choose.

> But note, I didn't accuse you on this occasion
> of what you are alleging I accused you of. So my apology does not affect those
> earlier statements. But I do acknowledge that I read poorly on this occasion.

Do you acknowledge that I didn't read poorly on that occasion? Don't
forget that your Marella mistake was part of an attempt to show how
silly I was for not reading correctly. Can we at least agree that I did
read at least that part of the book correctly?

Paul J Gans

unread,
Sep 12, 2013, 7:25:22 PM9/12/13
to
One of the problems facing blogs (and newsgroups such as this
one as well) is the disruptive comment. Inability to curb
that lead to the death of most newsgroups. Even talk.origins
suffered from it, but a lucky throw of the dice on retromoderation
of SHM saved it.

Bloggers have these problems in spades. Most reserve the right
to delete comments that they, the blogger, see as disruptive.
Usually no explanation is given since that explanation will
likely be challenged with effects the same as if the disruptive
comment had been allowed in the first place.

Major public bloggers do this. I recall one bit, months ago
now, where Paul Krugman explained that he deletes blogs that
he feels are disruptive. That does not mean that he deletes
comments that he disagrees with, he doesn't do that.

I have no idea as to the merits of the case of blogger deletions
being discussed here. My desire is to point out that the
ability to delete keeps a blog from becoming a sewer.

The best cure I've seen mentioned here is for folks who object
to put up their own blog. That's easy to do. See, for example,
<wordpress.com>

--
--- Paul J. Gans

Ray Martinez

unread,
Sep 12, 2013, 10:24:39 PM9/12/13
to
On Thursday, September 12, 2013 10:52:38 AM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:
> On Thursday, 12 September 2013 01:35:14 UTC+1, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, September 10, 2013 4:35:02 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On 9/10/13 3:42 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > On Saturday, September 7, 2013 6:43:55 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >>> What Meyer doesn't understand is the fact that the concept of creation, and the concept of natural evolution, since the advent of Darwinism, are mutually exclusive.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >> That is certainly one thing he doesn't understand. He also doesn't understand that the moon is made of strawberry yogurt. Some things are good not to understand. As usual, you allow for only two positions in a black and white world. But it's perfectly consistent to allow for some evolution and some creation.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
>
>
> > > > Perfectly consistent with what, exactly?
>
> >
>
>
>
> > > > Do you accept the concept of creation to exist in nature?
>
> >
>
> > > That's a convoluted and confusing way to say whatever it is you mean.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Concepts exist in people's heads, which I suppose are parts of nature.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > So yes. If that isn't what you meant, what did you mean?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > John's comments equate to crystal clear evidence: a man with a doctorate doesn't understand basic epistemology (meaning of the word "concept"), unlike the vast majority of his colleagues who do.
>
>
>
> Quite on the contrary, John's use is perfectly in line with
>
> how the term "concept" is normally used - you have been given citations
>
> to that effect before, including quotes form Ayn Rand.

Ridiculous. I am a Randian.

What John Harshman and yourself do not understand is the fact that when a scholar writes "the concept of...." (insert any given noun) the same is talking about existence of the "thing itself." You guys seem to think that the phrase is not talking about reality, first and foremost, but only a word separated from reality. This relates FUNDAMENTAL misunderstanding on your part.

The **reason-for-being** of Rand's epistemology exists to reiterate the point above: words or concepts CLAIM correspondence with material thing. I read the publications of John Harshman's colleagues on a regular basis. I've never seen even one of them assume, say, or indicate otherwise. The point I make above, about the word "concept," is seen clearly in all of their arguments.

You, John, and anyone else who agrees with your nonsense (non-reality thinking) equate to a very tiny minority.

Ray

Roger Shrubber

unread,
Sep 12, 2013, 10:56:44 PM9/12/13
to
Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Thursday, September 12, 2013 10:52:38 AM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:
>> On Thursday, 12 September 2013 01:35:14 UTC+1, Ray Martinez
>>> On Tuesday, September 10, 2013 4:35:02 PM UTC-7, John Harshman


>>> John's comments equate to crystal clear evidence: a man with a
>>> doctorate doesn't understand basic epistemology (meaning of the
>>> word "concept"), unlike the vast majority of his colleagues who
>>> do.


>> Quite on the contrary, John's use is perfectly in line with
>> how the term "concept" is normally used - you have been given
>> citations
>> to that effect before, including quotes form Ayn Rand.

> Ridiculous. I am a Randian.

> What John Harshman and yourself do not understand is the fact that
> when a scholar writes "the concept of...." (insert any given noun)
> the same is talking about existence of the "thing itself." You guys

No. Exactly the opposite. The concept is the abstraction. Concepts
exist in the world of ideas independent of physical reality.
A concept "exists" independently of the exemplars the concept
abstracts. Your pet dog is distinct from the concept of dog.
Concepts exist independently of a requirement for exemplars to
exist. The concept of a rocket existed prior to physical rockets.

Whether the confusion you manifest is purely a matter of a
non standard definition of the word concept, or rests more
deeply in a strange epistemology remains unclear to me.
But whatever the root of it all is, your usage of "concept"
is not standard.

> seem to think that the phrase is not talking about reality, first and
> foremost, but only a word separated from reality. This relates
> FUNDAMENTAL misunderstanding on your part.
>
> The **reason-for-being** of Rand's epistemology exists to reiterate
> the point above: words or concepts CLAIM correspondence with material
> thing.

No they don't. Not necessarily. The very essence of abstraction
is the divorce from examples. Concepts permit a generalization
and extension beyond physical experience.

> I read the publications of John Harshman's colleagues on a
> regular basis. I've never seen even one of them assume, say, or
> indicate otherwise. The point I make above, about the word "concept,"
> is seen clearly in all of their arguments.

No Ray. You're deeply confused.

> You, John, and anyone else who agrees with your nonsense (non-reality
> thinking) equate to a very tiny minority.

No Ray. You're wrong. Your perspective is an extreme minority.

nyi...@bellsouth.net

unread,
Sep 12, 2013, 11:38:02 PM9/12/13
to
On Thursday, September 12, 2013 11:36:54 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/12/13 7:27 AM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 6:35:37 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>
> >> On 9/11/13 1:53 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

> > The situation on skepticblog is even worse than I first thought. I tried doing
> > a post there just now, because the facility for doing posts is still there.
> > When I hit submit, there was no error message, but the page continued to look
> > the way it did before.

This could just be a temporary malfunction of the whole system, because when
I tried to post to another scienceblogs article, the same thing happened.

On the other hand, it is possible that I have been completely expelled
from scienceblogs without so much as a warning. Time will tell.

> Didn't mean to ignore this. Actually, I do find it a bit disturbing,
> both that Prothero never replied to anything (I mean with real answers)
> and that discussion has apparently been stopped (and pruned back)
> without any sort of announcement or explanation.

The really irritating thing is the highly selective trimming back. Prothero's
own evasive "answer" to your questions was leftin while your subsequent
questions were deleted. At the same time, a much later post --one of yours--
was kept in, while all kinds of posts made before and after that one were
deleted.

That later post was originally numbered 10 or thereabouts, but its number
has been changed to 3. It's "just a coincidence" that this was by far the
most favorable to him of the posts that were made by others, except for
the very first, which was also kept.

I think you've been used, John.

> I tried a post myself, with the same result you had.

It might be worthwhile attempting a reply on another scienceblog yourself.

The one question that remains in my mind was whether the trimming was done
by Prothero himself, or by someone else who thought (or knew) that [s]he was
doing Prothero a favor thereby.

The selection was just too un-random to be due to a malfunction.

Peter Nyikos

nyi...@bellsouth.net

unread,
Sep 12, 2013, 11:52:16 PM9/12/13
to
On Thursday, September 12, 2013 12:36:25 PM UTC-4, Roger Shrubber wrote:
> nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> > OK, now I know it is not our computer that is at fault for the missing
> > material: on the home page for skepticblog, http://www.skepticblog.org/
> > one can read that Prothero's blog now has "4 replies". And there were
> > more than ten times that many yesterday.

> Get your own blog.

I'm not the kind of skeptic Prothero is. Do you think "skepticblogs"
would allow skeptics falling outside a narrow range of skepticism to have blogs
on their site?

I don't mean "skeptics" pushing far out agendas. I mean skeptics of treatises
in science that make all kinds of arbitrary claims, like the one I mention
below.

> People do not like it when folks like you invade their blogs
> to wage their little wars. Comment sections are for making
> comments, not for pushing agendas.

The only agenda was to correct numerous mistakes Prothero made, as well as
to try to arrive at a correct picture of the themes on which Prothero wrote.

For instance, Prothero decided, for reasons apparently only known to him,
that the period from 600mya to 520mya was what should be called the Cambrian
explosion. This depended, in some measure, on some estimates for the
emergence of bilateria which have since been revised. Harshman and I wrote
about various estimates for that, the most recent of which puts the split
at 573mya.

However, even that one is open to question, and I was starting to explain
why shortly before Prothero (or whoever is responsible for the change) decided
to censor the whole discussion.

> Invading somebody's blog
> in that way is simply rude.

You tend to make suppositions like this all too often, Shrubber.

Peter Nyikos

John Harshman

unread,
Sep 12, 2013, 11:59:41 PM9/12/13
to
That isn't true. The only unfavorable posts were yours.

> I think you've been used, John.

How so?

>> I tried a post myself, with the same result you had.
>
> It might be worthwhile attempting a reply on another scienceblog yourself.
>
> The one question that remains in my mind was whether the trimming was done
> by Prothero himself, or by someone else who thought (or knew) that [s]he was
> doing Prothero a favor thereby.
>
> The selection was just too un-random to be due to a malfunction.

I don't think it was a malfunction. Anyway, it happened after I had
already abandoned the blog. Try posting here.

nyi...@bellsouth.net

unread,
Sep 13, 2013, 12:12:14 AM9/13/13
to
On Thursday, September 12, 2013 1:48:28 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:

> OK, Peter was in fact fairly rude, starting the whole thing with a
> large, visible chip on his shoulder.

That was about Prothero's commenters and voters on the Amazon blog, correcting a highly distorted account by Prothero of what was going on in that blog, now
grown to over 2300 posts.

But I wasn't holding Prothero responsible for any of it. No one can be expected
to wade through even a tenth that many posts to get the lay of the land; even
two percent is fairly time consuming.

Three people (includingold-time talk.origins participant Loren Petrich)
were rude to me in reply to that post, but I don't think I was any more rude
in return than they were.

Anyway, I soon got around to talking about Prothero's review, and the first
few posts where I addressed him were very polite, civil, and on-topic.
The second one was even helpful, giving him advice on where to turn to
improve his review by stressing disparity [his whole emphasis was on diversity,
which biologists rather peculiarly take to mean "number of species"].

> But I merely asked a question that
> could easily have been answered, and followed up by noting that the
> question hadn't been answered.

Yes, and you then asked some more questions, which helped to flesh out
the whole theme. Can you recall some of them? Unfortunately, I did
not record them, naturally assuming that they would stay there for months.

I should have learned from an experience on scienceblogs. Last year, I posted to
a fascinating blog that had to do with protobats-- hypothetical intermediates
between a colugo-like ancestor and the first known bat, whose wings were
just like those of modern bats. It had some very nice illustrations.
The conversation was very friendly all the way through.

The blog url no longer works, and I haven't been able to find the blog again.

Peter Nyikos

nyi...@bellsouth.net

unread,
Sep 13, 2013, 1:27:04 AM9/13/13
to
On Thursday, September 12, 2013 5:21:09 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/12/13 2:07 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, September 12, 2013 2:10:07 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:

Harshman, you have done a very irritating thing. You've held a clincher
in reserve, meanwhile baiting me with tortuous logic, highly under-supported
jumping to conclusions, accusations of me bending over backwards to defend
Meyer -- all done as if you had already shown me the clincher.

I will now show you just what I am referring to.


> >>>> Meyer is of course vague on the identity of the designer except in the
> >>>> final chapter, in which -- surprise! -- it's God.

I skimmed the chapter rapidly, being quite short on time, and the best
I could find on short notice was this.

> >>> "It suggests the possibility that life may have been designed by an
> >>> intelligent person, indeed, one that many would identify as God. [p412]

That is ONE possibility.

> > Note how this does NOT rule out multiple designers, which is ANOTHER
> > possibility.

ONE possibity does not rule out ANOTHER possibility.

> How does "an intelligent person" fail to rule out multiple designers?

One possibility is that you are "feigning the 'tard". Another possibility
is that I am not communicating well enough.

Your question is like asking, "How does my feigning the 'tard fail to
rule out your not communicating well enough?"

In short, it looks to me like you are missing out on the very essence of the
word "possibility".

> >>> Where does he come flat out like you insinuate?

> >> That's as flat as he gets. Not enough for you?

On the contrary, he got a LOT flatter in the clincher you quoted below.
Are you so dense that you couldn't see how much more clear cut it was?

> > Absolutely not. How can you be so dense about the expression "possibility"?

> Again, if you would just step back from tortured parsing of individual
> sentences and look at the whole work, your job would be simpler.

"Do as I say, not as I do." See below.

> > [snip inconclusive back and forth]

> >>>> Now, he does say in that chapter that ID doesn't necessarily challenge
> >>>> common descent, but why add the word "necessarily" unless he's thinking
> >>>> about such a challenge?

Note how now it is YOU who are parsing sentences, in a more tortuous
way than I am above.

> > This is too inconclusive to be worth going into.

"Thinking of a challenge" is inconclusive because he could also be thinking
of non-challenges as well.

> You tend not to mind inconclusive unless it goes a way you don't like.

This kind of meta-talk is out of place here. I thought it was obvious to you
by now that ID theory comes in various flavors, some of which challenge common
descent, others which don't. We've even talked about two of them--divine
nudges vs de novo creation.

[snip for focus]

> Here: "But unlike strict Darwinian materialism and the New Atheism built
> atop it, the theory of intelligent design affirms the reality of a
> designer -- a mind or personal intelligence behind life."

Wow, that really seems to clinch it. If you had shown me this to begin with,
it would have saved us both a great deal of time and aggravation.

Had Prothero quoted it, he could have saved a huge amount of space in his
review and made a far better case than he actually does.

Well, the rest of the post to which I am replying features more back and forth--
utterly pointless -- in hindsight. At the time it seemed to have a point, because you hadn't quoted anything remotely like the clincher, except for
an ambiguous string of words embedded in it.

Note, however, that one part ABOVE is not pointless, in that Meyer could opt
for a single divine designer and yet accept common descent.

[snip rest, except for the following, about a passage about Marella]

> > But I do acknowledge that I read poorly on this occasion.

> Do you acknowledge that I didn't read poorly on that occasion?

Yes.

Peter Nyikos

Burkhard

unread,
Sep 13, 2013, 10:00:32 AM9/13/13
to
On Friday, September 13, 2013 3:24:39 AM UTC+1, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Thursday, September 12, 2013 10:52:38 AM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, 12 September 2013 01:35:14 UTC+1, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Tuesday, September 10, 2013 4:35:02 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > On 9/10/13 3:42 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > On Saturday, September 7, 2013 6:43:55 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >>> What Meyer doesn't understand is the fact that the concept of creation, and the concept of natural evolution, since the advent of Darwinism, are mutually exclusive.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >> That is certainly one thing he doesn't understand. He also doesn't understand that the moon is made of strawberry yogurt. Some things are good not to understand. As usual, you allow for only two positions in a black and white world. But it's perfectly consistent to allow for some evolution and some creation.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > > Perfectly consistent with what, exactly?
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > > Do you accept the concept of creation to exist in nature?
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > That's a convoluted and confusing way to say whatever it is you mean.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Concepts exist in people's heads, which I suppose are parts of nature.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > So yes. If that isn't what you meant, what did you mean?
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > John's comments equate to crystal clear evidence: a man with a doctorate doesn't understand basic epistemology (meaning of the word "concept"), unlike the vast majority of his colleagues who do.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Quite on the contrary, John's use is perfectly in line with
>
> >
>
> > how the term "concept" is normally used - you have been given citations
>
> >
>
> > to that effect before, including quotes form Ayn Rand.
>
>
>
> Ridiculous. I am a Randian.

Well, that's why I chose amongst others that specific writer
And you only _claim_ to be a Randian, big difference. All your
posts on the topic show that your actual understanding of her position
is extemely limited, and mostly wrong


>
> What John Harshman and yourself do not understand is the fact that when a scholar writes "the concept of...." (insert any given noun) the same is talking about existence of the "thing itself."

another case in point. a proper Randian would never use the term thing itself", which is from Kantian idealism (the "noumenon) and his takeon platonism
both positions Rand was explicitly arguing against


>You guys seem to think that the phrase is not talking about reality, first and foremost, but only a word separated from reality. This relates FUNDAMENTAL misunderstanding on your part.

No, that is the understanding that pretty much everybody in the history of
philosophy has. Single objects like this chair here, and
"this chair over there" arguably "exist in nature". The question then is
if there is independent from and in addition to the individual chairs
also a "concept of chair"

That is the core of one of the most enduring philosophical questions.
Nominalists such as William of Occam, Peter Abelard, Stuart Mill
or in modern times Strawson, Goodman or our own John Wilkins
argue that these terms are just words "flatus vocis".

Universal realists or Platonists say by contrast that these
abstract objects exist independently of the things they instantiate,
so for them, these abstract objects are real, but independent of
physical reality and most certainly do not exist "in nature"

And then there are somewhere between the two conceptualists who
argue that these concepts are real, but mind dependent, e.g. Leibniz

Nobody, but really nobody, claims however that concepts "exist in
nature" or would phrase it the way you do, not even Penelope Maddy
whose Platonism in mathematics sometimes seems to allow direct sense
perception of concepts, or trope theories like David Armstrong's
and his "instantiated universal"



>
> The **reason-for-being** of Rand's epistemology exists to reiterate the point above: words or concepts CLAIM correspondence with material thing.

But _are_ not material things. "Correspondence" is not "identity"
You conflate the word with the thing, a mistake
not even Rand would make.

>I read the publications of John Harshman's colleagues on a regular basis. I've never seen even one of them assume, say, or indicate otherwise. The point I make above, about the word "concept," is seen clearly in all of their arguments.
>

That simply shows that you also misunderstand all these articles,nobody, but absolutely nobody, not even
>
>
> You, John, and anyone else who agrees with your nonsense (non-reality thinking) equate to a very tiny minority.
>
No "non-reality thinking" involved, quite on the contrary, it is you who
conflates abstraction and imagination with the real thing




John Harshman

unread,
Sep 13, 2013, 10:18:18 AM9/13/13
to
On 9/12/13 9:12 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Thursday, September 12, 2013 1:48:28 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>
>> OK, Peter was in fact fairly rude, starting the whole thing with a
>> large, visible chip on his shoulder.

[snips]

> Anyway, I soon got around to talking about Prothero's review, and the first
> few posts where I addressed him were very polite, civil, and on-topic.

So you probably imagined.

John Harshman

unread,
Sep 13, 2013, 10:23:50 AM9/13/13
to
On 9/12/13 10:27 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Thursday, September 12, 2013 5:21:09 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 9/12/13 2:07 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, September 12, 2013 2:10:07 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>
> Harshman, you have done a very irritating thing. You've held a clincher
> in reserve, meanwhile baiting me with tortuous logic, highly under-supported
> jumping to conclusions, accusations of me bending over backwards to defend
> Meyer -- all done as if you had already shown me the clincher.
>
> I will now show you just what I am referring to.

You will definitely have to, since I have no clue what you're talking about.

>>>>>> Meyer is of course vague on the identity of the designer except in the
>>>>>> final chapter, in which -- surprise! -- it's God.
>
> I skimmed the chapter rapidly, being quite short on time, and the best
> I could find on short notice was this.
>
>>>>> "It suggests the possibility that life may have been designed by an
>>>>> intelligent person, indeed, one that many would identify as God. [p412]
>
> That is ONE possibility.
>
>>> Note how this does NOT rule out multiple designers, which is ANOTHER
>>> possibility.
>
> ONE possibity does not rule out ANOTHER possibility.
>
>> How does "an intelligent person" fail to rule out multiple designers?
>
> One possibility is that you are "feigning the 'tard". Another possibility
> is that I am not communicating well enough.
>
> Your question is like asking, "How does my feigning the 'tard fail to
> rule out your not communicating well enough?"
>
> In short, it looks to me like you are missing out on the very essence of the
> word "possibility".

Because you are so bad at this, what looks to you has little relation to
what is. But thanks for using a gratuitous insult as your analogy.

>>>>> Where does he come flat out like you insinuate?
>
>>>> That's as flat as he gets. Not enough for you?
>
> On the contrary, he got a LOT flatter in the clincher you quoted below.
> Are you so dense that you couldn't see how much more clear cut it was?

Apparently. Thanks for another gratuitous insult.

>>> Absolutely not. How can you be so dense about the expression "possibility"?
>
>> Again, if you would just step back from tortured parsing of individual
>> sentences and look at the whole work, your job would be simpler.
>
> "Do as I say, not as I do." See below.
>
>>> [snip inconclusive back and forth]
>
>>>>>> Now, he does say in that chapter that ID doesn't necessarily challenge
>>>>>> common descent, but why add the word "necessarily" unless he's thinking
>>>>>> about such a challenge?
>
> Note how now it is YOU who are parsing sentences, in a more tortuous
> way than I am above.

We disagree on that.

>>> This is too inconclusive to be worth going into.
>
> "Thinking of a challenge" is inconclusive because he could also be thinking
> of non-challenges as well.
>
>> You tend not to mind inconclusive unless it goes a way you don't like.
>
> This kind of meta-talk is out of place here. I thought it was obvious to you
> by now that ID theory comes in various flavors, some of which challenge common
> descent, others which don't. We've even talked about two of them--divine
> nudges vs de novo creation.

Of course I know that. The question is what Meyer's flavor is. Much of
his book is an attack on common descent, and "necessarily" should be
read in that context.

> [snip for focus]
>
>> Here: "But unlike strict Darwinian materialism and the New Atheism built
>> atop it, the theory of intelligent design affirms the reality of a
>> designer -- a mind or personal intelligence behind life."
>
> Wow, that really seems to clinch it. If you had shown me this to begin with,
> it would have saved us both a great deal of time and aggravation.
>
> Had Prothero quoted it, he could have saved a huge amount of space in his
> review and made a far better case than he actually does.

I confess that I just can't tell what might convince you, but I'm glad
that at least we have that out of the way.

> Well, the rest of the post to which I am replying features more back and forth--
> utterly pointless -- in hindsight. At the time it seemed to have a point, because you hadn't quoted anything remotely like the clincher, except for
> an ambiguous string of words embedded in it.
>
> Note, however, that one part ABOVE is not pointless, in that Meyer could opt
> for a single divine designer and yet accept common descent.

Could, yes. Doesn't, from all that we can see.

> [snip rest, except for the following, about a passage about Marella]
>
>>> But I do acknowledge that I read poorly on this occasion.
>
>> Do you acknowledge that I didn't read poorly on that occasion?
>
> Yes.

Thanks.

Roger Shrubber

unread,
Sep 13, 2013, 10:53:57 AM9/13/13
to
John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/12/13 10:27 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>> On Thursday, September 12, 2013 5:21:09 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 9/12/13 2:07 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thursday, September 12, 2013 2:10:07 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>
>> Harshman, you have done a very irritating thing. You've held a clincher
>> in reserve, meanwhile baiting me with tortuous logic, highly
>> under-supported
>> jumping to conclusions, accusations of me bending over backwards to
>> defend
>> Meyer -- all done as if you had already shown me the clincher.
>>
>> I will now show you just what I am referring to.
>
> You will definitely have to, since I have no clue what you're talking
> about.

Please, do not concern yourself with trifling details.
The critical point is that you recognize that you are
to blame for Peter's behavior. Your failure to convince
him from the beginning, and the shameless way others
leapt to the correct conclusion about Meyers were all
part of a conspiracy to make Peter make dozens upon dozens
of posts defending phantom possibilities. You are a
very very bad man John. Shame on you.

Glenn

unread,
Sep 13, 2013, 1:05:35 PM9/13/13
to

"John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:Fb2dnfZUdKs...@giganews.com...
Do you imagine that other posters were not "fairly" rude, and that Peter
"started the whole thing" in any meaningful way?

nyi...@bellsouth.net

unread,
Sep 13, 2013, 2:21:17 PM9/13/13
to
On Thursday, September 12, 2013 4:38:49 PM UTC-4, Roger Shrubber wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:
>
> > On 9/12/13 11:59 AM, Roger Shrubber wrote:
>
> >> John Harshman wrote:

> >>> Are you telling me you would never complain about creationist blogs that
> >>> don't allow comments or that make comments raising uncomfortable
> >>> questions disappear?

> >> I don't think I would.

On the other hand, two of the most prominent and prolific commenters on
the Amazon.com blog for Prothero's review commiserated on how cowardly it
is of Luskin's not to allow comments to his critique of Prothero's review.

One of them is an ornithologist, David A. Rintoul. I wonder whether
Harshman has met him.

> > >I would possibly make snarky comments
> >> at people who did complain. My only complaint would be if
> >> somebody edited user comments without the commenters permission.

Well, it isn't exactly the same thing, but the censor of that
skepticblog picked ONE post of Harshman's subsequent to the exchange
I report on below, and deleted all the rest because their content
wasn't advancing Prothero's agenda.

[snip for focus]

> Having read the Postscript to the post in question,

The first paragraph of the Postscript is a self-serving fantasy on how things
on the Amazon.com blog were going. He even mixed up "commenters" with people
who actually voted on whether they found his review helpful or not. The former
are a minuscule fraction of the latter.

> and the
> commenting policy on the site, I suspect the authors decided
> things were just getting too tedious for them.

"too tedious" is often code for "I can't cope with this, so I'll pretend
to be bored." That is certainly the case here.

Harshman had asked Prothero:

"When you say the Cambrian explosion (or whatever you want to call it) took 80
million years, when (and with what event) do you propose to begin it and with
what do you propose to end it? And why does your figure show the explosion as
being around 15 million years, beginning in mid-Tommotian and ending at the end
of the Botomian?"

And Prothero completely evaded both questions, responding only to Harshman's
second paragraph, where Harshman gave his opinion on how he (Harshman)
would date the explosion. Prothero's response was:

"That�s what I�ve written in most of my publications, although many would
include the Ediacara fauna, since they are the logical step between single-
celled and multicellular life. Even at 20-25 m.y., though, that�s no rapid
�explosion� by ANYONE�S sense of the term�not even geologists!"

Harshman's reply to that very politely began: "Thanks, but that does not really
answer my questions." [I'm not sure about the "really". Harshman's reply has
been expunged.] Harshman then went on to ask a bunch of more questions, and waited patiently for a reply. Several days later he meekly asked Prothero whether it was too much to ask for a reply. No answer--Prothero never posted
to his own blog again.

Shortly before Prothero decided to yank everything that didn't put him in the
best conceivable light, Harshman asked "Is anyone still reading this?"


> I say this
> without having read the comments that have been removed.

Alas, we may never know the exact wording of most of them, because there is
no forwarding address on the blog, so to speak. There is no link labeled
"Contact" and it's almost a sure bet that any e-mail John or I could send
to the people responsible for this censorship would simply be ignored.

> I'd further guess that once the
> culling began it proceeded without significantly refined
> consideration of what to keep and toss.

Actually, as I indicated above, it was about as refined as it is possible to be.

Peter Nyikos

Greg Guarino

unread,
Sep 13, 2013, 3:01:13 PM9/13/13
to
On 9/12/2013 1:56 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> If you really think its logically possible that Intelligence created unintelligent process,
> then Intelligence creating intelligent process is what? In other words, what scenario serves as potential falsification?

I'm curious to know if you think that gravity has intelligence, and
further, if gravity was designed by God.

Greg Guarino

unread,
Sep 13, 2013, 3:44:47 PM9/13/13
to
On 9/12/2013 2:20 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> No rational mind would conclude for invisible Intelligence based on undesigned effects.

You confuse several things here. Firstly, the question under discussion
is not whether "undesigned effects" make us "conclude" that there is an
"invisible intelligence", but rather, whether there is an inherent
contradiction in the idea that some things could be created directly
while other things result from unguided processes.

I say no. Arguing otherwise is tantamount to constraining the abilities
of a supreme being. Are you asserting that God *cannot* create a process
(gravity, for instance) that would thereafter operate on its own?

As for "undesigned effects", I'm curious to know how you think the path
of the Mississippi River came to be where it is now. I think that the
(changing) channel we see is a Physics problem: gravity, fluid dynamics,
erosion, topography, etc. If one were to suggest that God designed the
fundamental forces and properties of matter, but left the paths of
rivers to happen on their own, why would that present a contradiction?

Let's take it a step further. I was walking to a luncheonette yesterday
just at the moment it began to rain. I stepped into the restaurant just
in time, but I still got three or four drops on my shirt. I think that
the path those raindrops took between the cloud and my shirt was
unsupervised by any intelligence. If some intelligence was involved in
the "design" of the universe - among them the properties of water, the
gases that make up our air, and gravity - why would there be a
contradiction?

Must God either shepherd every subatomic particle or else be non-existent?

Glenn

unread,
Sep 13, 2013, 4:39:44 PM9/13/13
to

<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:f050fe68-04ac-47e2...@googlegroups.com...
> "That�s what I�ve written in most of my publications, although many would
> include the Ediacara fauna, since they are the logical step between single-
> celled and multicellular life. Even at 20-25 m.y., though, that�s no rapid
> �explosion� by ANYONE�S sense of the term�not even geologists!"
>
> Harshman's reply to that very politely began: "Thanks, but that does not really
> answer my questions." [I'm not sure about the "really". Harshman's reply has
> been expunged.] Harshman then went on to ask a bunch of more questions, and waited patiently for a reply. Several days later he meekly asked Prothero whether it was too much to ask for a reply. No answer--Prothero never posted
> to his own blog again.
>
> Shortly before Prothero decided to yank everything that didn't put him in the
> best conceivable light, Harshman asked "Is anyone still reading this?"
>
>
> > I say this
> > without having read the comments that have been removed.
>
> Alas, we may never know the exact wording of most of them, because there is
> no forwarding address on the blog, so to speak. There is no link labeled
> "Contact" and it's almost a sure bet that any e-mail John or I could send
> to the people responsible for this censorship would simply be ignored.
>
That is probably Prothero. Expect this behavior to manifest in all his work.

Dana Tweedy

unread,
Sep 13, 2013, 10:01:04 PM9/13/13
to
On 9/12/13 12:20 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Thursday, September 12, 2013 10:45:19 AM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:
snip


>> Just another example how intelligence can create chaotic
>>
>> and unguided results - like e,g. building a bomb and then setting
>>
>> it to explore. All very simple counterexamples that disprove
>>
>> the quite frankly bizarre idea that intelligent minds can't
>>
>> cause unintelligent and random processes - we do it all the
>>
>> time.
>
> But everyone already knows that bombs and roulette wheels are designed.

But that "designed" roulette wheel, and bomb produce undesigned chaotic
products.



>
> No rational mind would conclude for invisible Intelligence based on undesigned effects.


Well, first of all, Ray, you don't know what a rational mind would
conclude, as you don't possess one. "Invisible Intelligence" is not a
conclusion, it's your irrational assumption.

Second, what are "undesigned effects". Can you give an example of an
effect that is not designed, in your little world?

>The proposition is illogical.

This implies you know enough about logic to say what is, or is not
illogical. From your performance so far, you have no basis for that
implication. You seem to think that "intuition" and "logic" are the
same thing.




> And the preceding conclusion is elementary to say the least.

Again, Ray, your "conclusion" is nothing more than your unsupported
assumption. Whether or not it's is "elementary", it's still wrong.


DJT

Dana Tweedy

unread,
Sep 13, 2013, 10:15:03 PM9/13/13
to
On 9/12/13 11:56 AM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 7:22:00 PM UTC-7, RMcBane wrote:
>> On 9/11/2013 9:53 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
snip


>> John just described how an intelligence might create an unintelligent
>>
>> process. The event was started by intelligence, but the ensuing process
>>
>> was unguided and unintelligent. The car could have run into the light
>>
>> pole or a tree or tore down a thousand mail boxes or just ran out of
>>
>> gas. else. If John tried it over and over, it is likely the result
>>
>> would have been different each time.
>
> I asked what the point was because I recognized John's analogy to be weak; suspecting that he'd have second thoughts and not follow through in defending his argument. It appears my suspicion was correct. John has created a reason to bail out.


Like usual, Ray, you got it wrong. The analogy was fairly apt.



>
> But I will continue with you since you seem to think his analogy and point is sound.


It is sound. If you think it's not, show why.



>
> John's analogy conveys a visual restatement; defending, as logically possible, the proposition that Intelligence created unintelligent process.


It is logically possible, as has been shown to you numerous times. You
still can't tell the difference between logical, and what you want to
believe. They aren't the same thing by a long shot.



> Unintelligence does not indicate the work of Intelligence;


You haven't demonstrated what does, or does not indicate the work of
intelligence. You have merely assumed the above, without any
reasoning. You can't even distinguish an "unintelligent" event, from an
intelligently caused one.



> rather, the same supports a claim of fact that Intelligence is not present and did not initiate.


How does it support this, Ray? Come on, explain your "reasoning" here.
It appears to be simply "that's how I think it should be".





>
> Ernst Mayr "One Long Argument" (1991:99):
>
> "There is indeed one belief that all true original Darwinians held in common, and that was their rejection of creationism, their rejection of special creation. This was the flag around which they assembled and under which they marched. When Hull claimed that 'the Darwinians did not totally agree with each other, even over essentials', he overlooked one essential on which all these Darwinians agreed. Nothing was more essential for them than to decide whether evolution is a natural phenomenon or something controlled by God. The conviction that the diversity of the natural world was the result of natural processes and not the work of God was the idea that brought all the so-called Darwinians together in spite of their disagreements on other of Darwin’s theories."


Ray, you hold onto these out of context quotations as if they were a
security blanket. The idea that scientists might practice science
seems to be foreign to you.



>
> "Natural processes" speaks of unintelligence;

Why, Ray? Please give any rational reason for this assertion.




> so I am using the same logic that original Darwinians used to conclude against Intelligence.


Ray, you aren't using "logic" at all. You are making unsupported
assertions that everyone else is supposed to take as given. 'original
darwinians" did not "conclude against intelligence", the concluded for
natural laws. The possibility that a supernatural intelligence was
behind it all can't be ruled out by the action of science.



>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> But of course you don't get it. You never do when the point defeats
>>
>> your argument.
>
> As I have already observed, in this thread; it is Christian Evolutionists don't get it: they have no awareness of the fact that Intelligence creating unintelligent process is illogical.

That's because it's not illogical. You have never been able to explain
why you imagine it's illogical, and you have never demonstrated even the
smallest familiarity with actual logic.




> This is the real reason why John Harshman has bailed out; he doesn't want to argue illogically and he wouldn't dream of joining me and criticizing TEists lest they wake up and abandon evolution.

You are merely assuming that John has "bailed out". What evidence to
you have to support that?

Also, Ray, Christians who accept evolution are not going to abandon the
fact of evolution, just because you mistakenly assert it's "illogical".



>
> If you really think its logically possible that Intelligence created unintelligent process, then Intelligence creating intelligent process is what?

That's what you need to show, Ray. You have to show why an intelligent
being can't produce both.




> In other words, what scenario serves as potential falsification?


Nothing can falsify that, Ray, that's why religious beliefs are NOT
SCIENCE. If you assume the action of a supernatural being, you are
giving up any attempt to falsify your claim.


DJT

Dexter

unread,
Sep 20, 2013, 6:33:52 PM9/20/13
to
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:59fd2ee5-02bf-485e...@googlegroups.com...

--------| lil bit o' snippage |----------

>>
>> Budd, G. E., and S. Jensen. 2000. A critical reappraisal of the fossil
>>
>> record of the bilaterian phyla. Biological Reviews 75:253-295.
>
> What does Meyer conclude?
>
> Ray
>

__________________________________________________

Seriously, Ray? You posted 9KB just to ask a single question?

http://youareanidiot.org/

nyi...@bellsouth.net

unread,
Sep 25, 2013, 9:12:50 AM9/25/13
to
On Wednesday, September 4, 2013 1:55:29 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:

Continuing my critique of Harshman's summary of Chapter 2:

> A major claim in this chapter is the idea of "top-down" appearance:
> phyla appearing before families, families before species, etc.

Yes, but you seem to be misinterpreting the main thrust of what he says.
His point, which can also be found in the quotes he gives on pp. 41-42,
is that the main features of body plan that distinguish the phyla from
each other today are already to be found in the Cambrian explosion.
See especially the quote from Erwin, Valentine, and Seposki's article [6].

> He dismisses the idea that this is an artifact of classification, but makes
> no real argument.

False, see above.

> But phyla were defined based on extant species as the
> broadest classifications,

If you stop and think what is behind that word "broadest," you may see
the point mentioned above. Also see use of "morphological difference" below.

> and so must arise earliest in the history of life,

Or perhaps not, as in the case of the phylum Placozoa, known only from ONE
SPECIES, and unknown from fossils, but set apart from other phyla because
of the vast morphological differences.

> life, before lower-level groups that they contain. His counter is that
> these early taxa all have the distinctive features of their modern
> relatives.

What we see next from you is a change of subject, which you may not
think of as one because of the cladophile blinders you are perpetually
wearing.


> Oddly enough, he frequently cites one of my favorite papers,
> Budd & Jensen 2000, which shows that nearly all Cambrian taxa are at
> best stem-members of their respective groups.

This is silly. It is like saying that Archaeopteryx is a stem member of Aves,
therefore birds in the strict sense were not really represented in Jurassic fauna.

>
> And he relegates potential
> transitional fossils (Anomalocaris, Opabinia, halkieriids, etc.) either
> to extant phyla or to new phyla, again unrelated to any others.

"Unrelated" in the cladophile sense, not the morphological sense. You
might as well be saying the same thing about EVERY fossil of an extinct
species ever found, since you cladophiles don't even call them "ancestor
candidates."

> Each
> transitional fossil, in other words, just creates another gap.

Is this Meyer's claim, or your conclusion drawn from other claims he
makes?

You even call the platypus "transitional" between birds and mammals! All
the word seems to mean to you is that the platypus belongs to the stem
group of extant mammals.

Continued in next post.

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages