Darwin's Doubt: a recycled thread

[John Harshman]

As advertised in the title, I'm starting a new thread on Stephen Meyer's
book by reposting old material, the incomplete review I wrote when the
book was new. Just in case anyone still wants to discuss Meyer's ideas.

First, a take on the whole book that I don’t recall seeing in other reviews:

I've finished reading the book, and to my surprise it turns out not to
be about the Cambrian explosion at all. Sure, the first few chapters
are, but they and the explosion they discuss are irrelevant to the main
point, which is that any significant amount of evolution is impossible.
Meyer proves that no new protein can arise, and no developmental program
can change, not even once in the entire history of life. So forget the
Cambrian explosion, whose duration is by the way irrelevant. Humans and
chimps can’t be related; they’re just too different for evolution to
manage. Oddly enough, Meyer seems not to take his own message and
doesn't draw the conclusions about the history of life that follow
directly from his studies. Not even with a “much light will be thrown”
sentence.

And, by the way, don’t go countering with anything like “we have
conclusive evidence that it happened, so it must be possible”. Meyer
rejects all historical evidence as mere conjecture.


Part 1: The mystery of the missing fossils

Chapter 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.


Chapter 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.


Chapter 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 Chengjiang 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.


Chapter 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.


Chapter 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.


Chapter 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?



Chapter 7:

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.


Part 2: How to build an animal



Chapter 8:

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.


Chapter 9:


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.


Chapter 10:


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?


References:

Budd, G. E., and S. Jensen. 2000. A critical reappraisal of the fossil
record of the bilaterian phyla. Biological Reviews 75:253-295.
Foote, M. H., and Gould, S. J. 1992. Cambrian and Recent morphological
disparity. Science 258:1816-1817.
Theobald, D. L. 2010. A formal test of the theory of universal common
ancestry. Nature 465:219-222.

[erik simpson]

UGH! I'm sure you know where this is going, but why?

[Ray Martinez]

On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 4:44:16 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:

> As advertised in the title, I'm starting a new thread on Stephen Meyer's
>
> book by reposting old material, the incomplete review I wrote when the
>
> book was new. Just in case anyone still wants to discuss Meyer's ideas.
>
>
>
> First, a take on the whole book that I don't recall seeing in other reviews:
>
>
>
> I've finished reading the book, and to my surprise it turns out not to
>
> be about the Cambrian explosion at all. Sure, the first few chapters
>
> are, but they and the explosion they discuss are irrelevant to the main
>
> point, which is that any significant amount of evolution is impossible.

[Second reply; first was deleted due to error----R.M.]

So you understand Meyer as accepting the concept of evolution, defined as species and environment producing new species, existing in nature? But extent is limited, broken, or continually interrupted?

If the questions above can be answered in the affirmative, then the real issue with Meyer's view of evolution, contrasted against the accepted view of evolution, is his rejection of the logic of cumulative selection, and common descent?

Ray

[huge snip....]

[Dana Tweedy]

On 3/5/14, 6:33 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 4:44:16 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
>> As advertised in the title, I'm starting a new thread on Stephen Meyer's
>>
>> book by reposting old material, the incomplete review I wrote when the
>>
>> book was new. Just in case anyone still wants to discuss Meyer's ideas.
>>
>>
>>
>> First, a take on the whole book that I don't recall seeing in other reviews:
>>
>>
>>
>> I've finished reading the book, and to my surprise it turns out not to
>>
>> be about the Cambrian explosion at all. Sure, the first few chapters
>>
>> are, but they and the explosion they discuss are irrelevant to the main
>>
>> point, which is that any significant amount of evolution is impossible.
>
> [Second reply; first was deleted due to error----R.M.]

Your first post is still there, Ray. Deleting it on Google Groups
doesn't make it disappear.

>
> So you understand Meyer as accepting the concept of evolution, defined as species and environment producing new species,

Ray, that is not how evolution is defined. What you are referring to is
common descent. Evolution is defined as change in allele frequencies in
populations over generations. This has been observed repeatedly, and
cannot be denied without looking extremely foolish.



> existing in nature?


As pointed out many times already, concepts only exist within minds.
The fact of common descent has been repeatedly observed in nature.

> But extent is limited, broken, or continually interrupted?
>
> If the questions above can be answered in the affirmative, then the real issue with Meyer's view of evolution, contrasted against the accepted view of evolution, is his rejection of the logic of cumulative selection, and common descent?
>
> Ray

Myer's view of evolution is to deny it, except for when it's too obvious
to deny without looking foolish. His position is the same as yours,
except you deny evolution when it is too obvious to deny without looking
foolish.


DJT

[Ray Martinez]

On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 6:59:27 PM UTC-8, Dana Tweedy wrote:
> On 3/5/14, 6:33 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 4:44:16 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
>
> >> As advertised in the title, I'm starting a new thread on Stephen Meyer's
>
> >>
>
> >> book by reposting old material, the incomplete review I wrote when the
>
> >>
>
> >> book was new. Just in case anyone still wants to discuss Meyer's ideas.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> First, a take on the whole book that I don't recall seeing in other reviews:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> I've finished reading the book, and to my surprise it turns out not to
>
> >>
>
> >> be about the Cambrian explosion at all. Sure, the first few chapters
>
> >>
>
> >> are, but they and the explosion they discuss are irrelevant to the main
>
> >>
>
> >> point, which is that any significant amount of evolution is impossible.
>
> >
>
> > [Second reply; first was deleted due to error----R.M.]
>
>
>
> Your first post is still there, Ray. Deleting it on Google Groups
>
> doesn't make it disappear.
>

According to Google Groups, it was deleted. You can confirm by logging on to Google Groups Talk.Origins. When one views this topic a separate line in the form of a long rectangle appears where the message once was, in the center it says "This message has been deleted." Above and below this long rectangular box are other messages.

I won't be derailing this thread with anymore comments about this matter.

>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> > So you understand Meyer as accepting the concept of evolution, defined as species and environment producing new species,
> >
>
>
> Ray, that is not how evolution is defined. What you are referring to is
>
> common descent. Evolution is defined as change in allele frequencies in
>
> populations over generations. This has been observed repeatedly, and
>
> cannot be denied without looking extremely foolish.
>

Your reply indicates that you don't understand what "concept of evolution" means. It was defined as "species and environment producing new species." Said definition doesn't say anything about allele change definition----that's why a definition was provided. Your assumption that what I said has anything to do with allele change definition is groundless.

>
>
>
>
>
>
> > existing in nature?
>
>
>
>
>
> As pointed out many times already, concepts only exist within minds.
>
> The fact of common descent has been repeatedly observed in nature.
>

Your understanding of "concepts" is completely faulty. Scientifically, the concept of "conceptual" conveys the widest application of a non-fictitious noun. It presupposes existence----wide or varied existence.

For example; the concept of table: flat surface supported by legs.

The surface and legs can be found in many different shapes and sizes. The material thing, in whatever shape or size, existed first, then the noun, which represents the concept, came into use to describe the thing known as "a table."

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > But extent is limited, broken, or continually interrupted?
>
> >
>
> > If the questions above can be answered in the affirmative, then the real issue with Meyer's view of evolution, contrasted against the accepted view of evolution, is his rejection of the logic of cumulative selection, and common descent?
>
> >
>
> > Ray
>
>
>
> Myer's view of evolution is to deny it, except for when it's too obvious
>
> to deny without looking foolish. His position is the same as yours,
>
> except you deny evolution when it is too obvious to deny without looking
>
> foolish.
>
>
>
>
>
> DJT

Your comment isn't helpful at all.


Ray

[Dana Tweedy]

On 3/5/14, 8:54 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 6:59:27 PM UTC-8, Dana Tweedy wrote:
>> On 3/5/14, 6:33 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 4:44:16 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
>>
>>>> As advertised in the title, I'm starting a new thread on Stephen Meyer's
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> book by reposting old material, the incomplete review I wrote when the
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> book was new. Just in case anyone still wants to discuss Meyer's ideas.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> First, a take on the whole book that I don't recall seeing in other reviews:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> I've finished reading the book, and to my surprise it turns out not to
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> be about the Cambrian explosion at all. Sure, the first few chapters
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> are, but they and the explosion they discuss are irrelevant to the main
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> point, which is that any significant amount of evolution is impossible.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> [Second reply; first was deleted due to error----R.M.]
>>
>>
>>
>> Your first post is still there, Ray. Deleting it on Google Groups
>>
>> doesn't make it disappear.
>>
>
> According to Google Groups, it was deleted.

Google Groups is not USENET. It's still visible on any proper
newsreader.

> You can confirm by logging on to Google Groups Talk.Origins. When one views this topic a separate line in the form of a long rectangle appears where the message once was, in the center it says "This message has been deleted." Above and below this long rectangular box are other messages.
>
> I won't be derailing this thread with anymore comments about this matter.

In other words, you won't admit your error.

>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> So you understand Meyer as accepting the concept of evolution, defined as species and environment producing new species,
>>>
>>
>>
>> Ray, that is not how evolution is defined. What you are referring to is
>>
>> common descent. Evolution is defined as change in allele frequencies in
>>
>> populations over generations. This has been observed repeatedly, and
>>
>> cannot be denied without looking extremely foolish.
>>
>
> Your reply indicates that you don't understand what "concept of evolution" means.

On the contrary, I do understand what the "concept of evolution"
actually is.

> It was defined as "species and environment producing new species."

That definition is flawed on many levels. "Species and environment
producing new species" does not accurately describe evolution, and how
it works. It's merely an indication of your own ignorance on the matter.

> Said definition doesn't say anything about allele change definition

Which is why it's wrong.

> ----that's why a definition was provided.

That's the definition scientists actually use. That's why I mentioned
it. See:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Scientific+theory+of+evolution

3. Biology
a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive
generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic
variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new
species.


http://ncse.com/rncse/21/1-2/defining-evolution
"The "allele-frequency" definition of evolution has survived to become
the "standard" definition in textbooks and discussions about the nature
of evolution."

More from the above link:

Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations
of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The
ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual
organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered
evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material
from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or
substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the
proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those
determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the
earliest proto-organism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions
(Futuyma 1986: 7).

[E]volution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency
of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next (Curtis
and Barnes 1989: 974).

The fundamental evolutionary event is a change in the frequency of
genes and chromosome configurations in a population (Wilson 1992: 75).

On the simplest perspective of all, biological evolution is
analyzed initially as changes in allelic frequencies at a single locus.
More complicated phenomena must be explained by means of combinations of
these minimal units (Hull 1992: 185).

Natural selection deals with frequency changes brought about by
differences in ecology among heritable phenotypes; evolution includes
this as well as random effects and the origin of these variants (Endler
1992: 221).

Since evolution may be defined as cumulative change in the genetic
makeup of a population resulting in increased adaptation to the
environment, the fundamental process in evolution is change in allele
frequency (Hartl 1988: 69).

Organic ... evolution, or biological evolution, is a change over
time of the proportions of individual organisms differing genetically in
one or more traits; such changes transpire by the origin and subsequent
alteration of the frequencies of alleles or genotypes from generation to
generation within populations, by the alterations of the proportions of
genetically differentiated populations of a species, or by changes in
the numbers of species with different characteristics, thereby altering
the frequency of one or more traits within a higher taxon (Futuyma 1986:
551).



Would you like to provide a single citation for your definition?

> Your assumption that what I said has anything to do with allele change definition is groundless.

I did not assume any such thing. What you said was mistaken, and I was
correcting your mistake.

The real definition of evolution is allele change in populations over
generations, whether you like it, or not. What you said was wrong, and
I was providing a correction.

>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> existing in nature?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> As pointed out many times already, concepts only exist within minds.
>>
>> The fact of common descent has been repeatedly observed in nature.
>>
>
> Your understanding of "concepts" is completely faulty.

Wrong again, Ray. A concept is an abstract idea, not something that
exists in nature, or anywhere else.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/concept


con·cept
[kon-sept] Show IPA
noun
1.
a general notion or idea; conception.
2.
an idea of something formed by mentally combining all its
characteristics or particulars; a construct.
3.
a directly conceived or intuited object of thought.

> Scientifically, the concept of "conceptual" conveys the widest application of a non-fictitious noun.

No, the "concept" of "concept" is that it's an idea, an abstraction.
Fictitious, or not is irrelevant. Concepts may apply to real, or
unreal things, but the concept itself is always abstract.

Please provide a single reference to any scientist who uses the word the
way you claim.

> It presupposes existence----wide or varied existence.

Wrong again, Ray. Concepts often apply to unreal, or imagined things.
See the definition above. Nothing there about "wide or varied
existence".

>
> For example; the concept of table: flat surface supported by legs.

And the "concept" of a table also applies to King Arthur's Round Table,
to a Table of Contents, or a Water Table. A mountain with a flat top
is called a "mesa", Spanish for Table.

>
> The surface and legs can be found in many different shapes and sizes.

and some things called tables don't have legs, or any kind of surface.
So, the "concept" of table goes beyond the real, and into abstractions.

The material thing, in whatever shape or size, existed first, then the
noun, which represents the concept, came into use to describe the thing
known as "a table."

and as I've pointed out above, a table may, or may not be a physical
thing. Are multiplication tables a surface with legs? Are "Round
Table Talks" a surface with legs?

another example is a LASER. (Light Amplifcation by Stimulated Emission
of Radiation) The concept of the laser existed long before one was
actually built.

Face it, Ray, you don't really understand what the word "concept"
conveys.

>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> But extent is limited, broken, or continually interrupted?
>>
>>>
>>
>>> If the questions above can be answered in the affirmative, then the real issue with Meyer's view of evolution, contrasted against the accepted view of evolution, is his rejection of the logic of cumulative selection, and common descent?
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Ray
>>
>>
>>
>> Myer's view of evolution is to deny it, except for when it's too obvious
>>
>> to deny without looking foolish. His position is the same as yours,
>>
>> except you deny evolution when it is too obvious to deny without looking
>>
>> foolish.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> DJT
>
> Your comment isn't helpful at all.

It's not meant to be "helpful" to you. (It could be helpful, if you'd
actually bother to learn) It's meant to point out your errors, and
hopefully lead others to avoid your mistakes.

Myer denies evolution for religious reasons, just as you do. He's
slightly more honest about it, as he recognizes that some amount of
evolution is far too strongly supported to deny.


DJT

[John Harshman]

On 3/5/14 5:03 PM, erik simpson wrote:

>
> UGH! I'm sure you know where this is going, but why?

Let's just see how long we can avoid a meltdown, shall we?

[Greg Guarino]

That's not how I read what John wrote. Consider this bit:

"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. "

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

[Ray Martinez]

John has a doctorate in evolutionary biology, yet he cannot, with any specificity, describe Meyer's view of evolution. All John can say about Meyer is that "any significant amount of evolution is impossible"(see the OP).

This skeletal description says Meyer is not a fixist. I'm not blaming John for anything. The point is: If an expert like John cannot tell us Meyer's view of evolution it's because Meyer hasn't told anyone. How many books and papers has this person written and yet he has yet to reveal how species appear in nature?----which is the main question of the debate. Not even Peter can defend such dishonesty.

As long as John cannot tell us Meyer's view of evolution, my observations about Meyer remain correct. It seems Meyer gives lip service to the bare concept. His entire position toward evolutionary theory is one of negativity. His refusal to reveal his positive views as to how species appear indicates a closet Creationist.

Ray

[Burkhard]

Don't recall if it was nominated already first time round if not,
here it is

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

John Harshman wrote:
> As advertised in the title, I'm starting a new thread on Stephen
> Meyer's book by reposting old material, the incomplete review I wrote
> when the book was new. Just in case anyone still wants to discuss Meyer's
> ideas.
> First, a take on the whole book that I don’t recall seeing in other
> reviews:
> I've finished reading the book, and to my surprise it turns out not to
> be about the Cambrian explosion at all. Sure, the first few chapters
> are, but they and the explosion they discuss are irrelevant to the
> main point, which is that any significant amount of evolution is
> impossible. Meyer proves that no new protein can arise, and no
> developmental program can change, not even once in the entire history
> of life.

Is "Meyer proves ..." meant ironically or is it a typo? I think a casual
reader of the review may take it as written.

[snip extremely well argued and worthwhile refutation of the book]

[TomS]

"On Wed, 05 Mar 2014 16:44:16 -0800, in article
<I9KdnZPuO6d9WYrO...@giganews.com>, John Harshman stated..."

>
>As advertised in the title, I'm starting a new thread on Stephen Meyer's
>book by reposting old material, the incomplete review I wrote when the
>book was new. Just in case anyone still wants to discuss Meyer's ideas.

[...snip...]

"Meyer's ideas"

I did not see in Meyer's book any "idea" about what happened, where or
when, why or how, or even "who".

Shouldn't that be pointed out?

Maybe the human body is physically related (maybe even by common
descent with modification) to that of chimps and other apes - but
there is a natural law that we just haven't discovered.

Maybe there is a higher purpose what had similar goals for all
the primates.

In brief, what if every word in Meyer's book is true, and important?


--
---Tom S.

[Dai monie]

Then it must be shelved near the Koran? <Yay, hypothetical games>

[Dai monie]

Now you need a second, right? If i'm allowed to; consider it done.

[John Harshman]

Do I need to start using smileys?

[Mitchell Coffey]

[snip]

Yes, actually. Remember whom you're dealing with.

Mitchell Coffey

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

Arguably no in this group but likely yes if you are going to publish it
elsewhere. You should definitely put it on Amazon but I think quotes around
"prove" would be better than a smiley or more straightforward something like
"claims to prove".

[John Harshman]

If I put it on Amazon -- no plans to -- I might edit for the audience.
But I'm pretty sure that any confusion there would be settled by a
reading of the later bits.

[jillery]

Heaven forbid! That would alter your finely honed public persona.

[TomS]

"On Fri, 07 Mar 2014 10:39:45 -0800, in article
<HZGdnSpk7Insj4fO...@giganews.com>, John Harshman stated..."

What about a nugget for a quote mine?


--
---Tom S.

[TomS]

"On Fri, 07 Mar 2014 10:39:45 -0800, in article
<HZGdnSpk7Insj4fO...@giganews.com>, John Harshman stated..."
>

[TomS]

"On Fri, 07 Mar 2014 10:39:45 -0800, in article
<HZGdnSpk7Insj4fO...@giganews.com>, John Harshman stated..."
>

[TomS]

"On Fri, 07 Mar 2014 10:39:45 -0800, in article
<HZGdnSpk7Insj4fO...@giganews.com>, John Harshman stated..."
>

[TomS]

"On Fri, 07 Mar 2014 10:39:45 -0800, in article
<HZGdnSpk7Insj4fO...@giganews.com>, John Harshman stated..."
>

[TomS]

"On Fri, 07 Mar 2014 10:39:45 -0800, in article
<HZGdnSpk7Insj4fO...@giganews.com>, John Harshman stated..."
>

[John Harshman]

Please. One question at a time.

[erik simpson]

Tom... Roger. We copy.

[TomS]

"On Fri, 07 Mar 2014 11:25:09 -0800, in article
<tcCdnTgOlImKgIfO...@giganews.com>, John Harshman stated..."

My apologies. Sometimes, don't know why, I'm posting multiple copies.


--
---Tom S.

[Greg Guarino]

On 3/7/2014 2:10 PM, TomS wrote:
> What about a nugget for a quote mine?

It's the mother lode, apparently.

[jillery]

Unplug it!

[Burkhard]

On Friday, March 7, 2014 8:10:15 PM UTC+1, TomS wrote:
<snip>

>
>
>
> What about a nugget for a quote mine?
>
>

Don't know - when Saturday rolls around
are you too tired to have any fun?
Are you so tired that you wonder
how long can this go on?

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

One of the fundamental rules of good writing is you should get your message
out at least in the first paragraph, ideally in the first sentence. Readers
judge what you are going to say by the first couple of sentences and, if
they don't like what you say, they are likely to read no further.

You've put a lot of work into an excellent piece, why risk its impact by
playing games in your opening paragraph?

[Robert Carnegie]

That's appropriate if you don't want a reader to suppose that
you meant exactly what you wrote, but they aren't understood
in every context. Even though the smiley is recognised widely
in conversational written speech, it may be misunderstood, just
as LOL is thought by a lot of people to stand for "Lots of love".
"Sorry to hear your dad died LOL".

In this case, how about "Meyer pretends..."?

[Mike Painter]

On Sat, 8 Mar 2014 09:09:53 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie
<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:

> it may be misunderstood, just
>as LOL is thought by a lot of people to stand for "Lots of love".

Everybody knows it stands for Little Old Lady.
Everybody who remembers Herb Cain.

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

I have a wee bit of time to spare, just enough for a pair of posts in reply
to a pair of people, Harshman and Tweedy, who are seriously in need of
getting their act together.

Harshman rather explicitly invited me to read this thread, and when I get back
from a conference [for which I am very busy preparing] next week I
will have much more to say here and also on other threads where Harshman
and I have been debating, especially the Yugoslav analogy thread.

On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 7:44:16 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:

> Just in case anyone still wants to discuss Meyer's ideas.

Sure, I'm game. I'm using a crude rating of your comments, on a scale
of 1 to 5, no intermediate numbers yet:

1: Pure farce
2: Fairly obvious hyperbole or tongue in cheek comment
3: Intermediate
4: Largely correct but with a strong element of hyperbole or humor
5: Correct factual statement.

> I've finished reading the book, and to my surprise it turns out not to
> be about the Cambrian explosion at all.

2., but only because of what immediately follows. Otherwise it would
be rated 1.

> Sure, the first few chapters
> are, but they and the explosion they discuss are irrelevant to the main
> point, which is that any significant amount of evolution is impossible.

You've gone on record elsewhere as claiming to be only sure that Meyer
believes in separate creation of phyla, and of humans. Hence I
must rate this a 2.

However, if one accepts Dana Tweedy's "correction" of Ray
Martinez, it would be 1 (Pure Farce).

This "correction" reads as follows:

RAY: "So you understand Meyer as accepting the concept of evolution,
defined as species and environment producing new species,"

DANA: "Ray, that is not how evolution is defined. What you are referring
to is common descent. Evolution is defined as change in allele frequencies
in populations over generations."

You haven't corrected Dana yet, John. Why not?

> Meyer proves that no new protein can arise, and no developmental program
> can change, not even once in the entire history of life.

This being unsupported elsewhere in your long post, I must rate this a 2
also, since "proves" is obviously tongue in cheek but leaves the reader
completely up in the air as to what the true statement behind it is
supposed to be. If you simply say "proves" means "claims" you are going
to have a huge amount of trouble supporting it.

> So forget the
> Cambrian explosion, whose duration is by the way irrelevant. Humans and
> chimps can't be related; they're just too different for evolution to
> manage.

3. Intermediate: while Meyer has expressed doubts about this
elsewhere (but not, AFAIK, in _Darwin's Doubt_) he has not come out
with any statement of the sort you are claiming here.

> Oddly enough, Meyer seems not to take his own message and
> doesn't draw the conclusions about the history of life that follow
> directly from his studies. Not even with a "much light will be thrown"
> sentence.

Impossible to rate, because you are keeping your cards tightly to
your chest as to what "conclusions" you are expecting him to draw.

> And, by the way, don't go countering with anything like "we have
> conclusive evidence that it happened, so it must be possible". Meyer
> rejects all historical evidence as mere conjecture.

"Mere conjecture" is a farcical substitute for what Meyer actually
writes, but not having read the book from cover to cover yet, I'm
not sure just how far he is going. So I'm not rating this one
just yet.

That ends the preamble, and I'm afraid that's all the time I have
for your long post now. Back when you first posted it, I had read
much less of _Darwin's Doubt_ than I have by now, so I'll be able
to give a much better informed critique of the rest than I could
back then.

Peter Nyikos

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 9:59:27 PM UTC-5, Dana Tweedy wrote:
> On 3/5/14, 6:33 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:

>
> > On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 4:44:16 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:

> >> they and the explosion they discuss are irrelevant to the main
> >> point, which is that any significant amount of evolution is impossible.

> > So you understand Meyer as accepting the concept of evolution, defined as
> > species and environment producing new species,

That is the definition that Harshman is using, but just one new species
is very insignificant by the most charitable interpretation of what
he wrote. You can read more about this in my direct reply to him.

> Ray, that is not how evolution is defined. What you are referring to is
> common descent. Evolution is defined as change in allele frequencies in

> populations over generations. This has been observed repeatedly, and
> cannot be denied without looking extremely foolish.

What? That this is the correct definition of "evolution"? Then Harshman
must look very foolish in your eyes.

If you mean that "change in allele frequencies in populations over
generations" cannot be denied without looking extremely foolish,"
then you are really sticking your neck out below:

<snip to get to point>

>
> Myer's view of evolution is to deny it, except for when it's too obvious
> to deny without looking foolish.

You are here alleging that Meyer usually denies "change in allele frequencies in populations over generations" by your OWN definition of "evolution."

I would be staggered if you could come up with a single instance of Meyer
doing that.

Peter Nyikos

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Monday, March 10, 2014 1:40:36 PM UTC-4, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

> On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 7:44:16 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:

> > So forget the
> > Cambrian explosion, whose duration is by the way irrelevant. Humans and
> > chimps can't be related; they're just too different for evolution to
> > manage.

Most readers will probably guess from context that, below, "this"
refers to humans and chimps being related (thru descent from a
common ancestor), but just for the record, that IS what I meant:

> 3. Intermediate: while Meyer has expressed doubts about this
> elsewhere (but not, AFAIK, in _Darwin's Doubt_) he has not come out
> with any statement of the sort you are claiming here.

Peter Nyikos

[Earle Jones27]

*
That's Herb Caen.

earle
*

[John Harshman]

Sorry, but that "preamble" seemed to consist of nothing but bloviation.
At the very least, one would have to carve out the little bits of
content in order to reply, and I don't have the energy. Next time, leave
out the trash talk and put in the serious argument.

[John Harshman]

Not explicitly, no. But if you follow his argument, not even one new
protein and not even one sizable innovation can arise through evolution.
And this would presumably include the things that separate us from other
apes; I don't see a way out unless you want to claim that humans have no
new proteins or sizable innovations.

There is the possibility, of course, of guided evolution. But I don't
recall that Meyer mentions that in the book. Still, I don't have it
handy. Does Meyer explain how innovation actually happens? The main
thrust of the book is to deny common descent.

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

I was referring to YOUR preamble in the paragraph above. "Bloviation"
does describe it very well, as I took pains to point out.

> At the very least, one would have to carve out the little bits of
> content in order to reply,

You could have supported one or more of your claims, or you could have
stated what "conclusions" Meyer was silly not to draw from what he
wrote, or you could have explain why your claim about Meyer denying any
significant amount of evolution isn't patently false in the light of Dana
Tweedy's insistence that "evolution" means

"change in allele frequencies in populations over generations."

At the very least, you might have answered the question of why
you haven't corrected Dana yet.

> and I don't have the energy. Next time, leave
> out the trash talk and put in the serious argument.

This is just an arrogant way of saying you don't want to support anything
you wrote in your preamble and you don't give a fig if Dana Tweedy
makes you look ridiculous (or vice versa).

Your arrogance also shows to some extent in your brush-off of the criticism of
AlwaysAskingQuestions and your ignoring of his second criticism,
especially in light of the way Amazon.com works: anti-Meyer zealots
are sure to come out in force and vote to hide many statements that would
set you to rights out of immediate view, allowing Amazon.com to
post a falsehood on their behalf that they did not think the statements
added to the discussion.

Aren't you glad Meyer is vastly more civil towards his critics than
you are toward yours?

Peter Nyikos

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Monday, March 10, 2014 2:55:06 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 3/10/14 11:04 AM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> > On Monday, March 10, 2014 1:40:36 PM UTC-4, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

> >> On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 7:44:16 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:

> >>> So forget the
> >>> Cambrian explosion, whose duration is by the way irrelevant. Humans and
> >>> chimps can't be related; they're just too different for evolution to
> >>> manage.

> > Most readers will probably guess from context that, below, "this"
> > refers to humans and chimps being related (thru descent from a
> > common ancestor), but just for the record, that IS what I meant:

> >> 3. Intermediate: while Meyer has expressed doubts about this
> >> elsewhere (but not, AFAIK, in _Darwin's Doubt_) he has not come out
> >> with any statement of the sort you are claiming here.

> Not explicitly, no. But if you follow his argument, not even one new
> protein and not even one sizable innovation can arise through evolution.

You would have to show me where in the book he says anything
implying "not even one new protein" before I take that part of your
assertion seriously.

And both parts of your statement depend on you continuing
to doubt that Meyer takes seriously what Behe almost surely believes in:
divinely guided evolution. But your personal (and biased) doubt does not
add much credibility to the flamboyant assertion quoted above from your OP.

Must call it quits now; too much yet to prepare for the upcoming
conference. But you can expect me back on this thread a week from
today.

Peter Nyikos

[Dai monie]

Would not (You cannot deny change in allele frequencies in population over generations without looking foolish) and (Meyer denies evolution, except when it is too obvious to deny without looking foolish) lead to (Meyer does not deny changes in allele frequencies)?

I have not read the book. At all. But it seems to me that it is possible to just make up your own definition of evolution, or write very suggestively, so that readers do not see that evolution means allele-frequency changes. If so, then it is perfectly possible to say that allele frequencies change, without ever telling the reader that that is essentially evolution.

[erik simpson]

I wouldn't recommend reading the book. I read the description of the Cambrian
explosion because it's a strong interest of mine, but I couldn't get through
much of the rest. As you may have already guessed, there's a lot of unclear
exposition going on, and arguments (!) have arisen about just what 'he's
trying to say'. Coming from someone with intimate association with the
Discovery Institute, and obvious doubt about 'evolution', whatever he means
by that, it's a murky job.

[John Harshman]

On 3/10/14 12:55 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Monday, March 10, 2014 2:55:06 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 3/10/14 11:04 AM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, March 10, 2014 1:40:36 PM UTC-4, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
>>>> On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 7:44:16 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>
>>>>> So forget the
>>>>> Cambrian explosion, whose duration is by the way irrelevant. Humans and
>>>>> chimps can't be related; they're just too different for evolution to
>>>>> manage.
>
>>> Most readers will probably guess from context that, below, "this"
>>> refers to humans and chimps being related (thru descent from a
>>> common ancestor), but just for the record, that IS what I meant:
>
>>>> 3. Intermediate: while Meyer has expressed doubts about this
>>>> elsewhere (but not, AFAIK, in _Darwin's Doubt_) he has not come out
>>>> with any statement of the sort you are claiming here.
>
>> Not explicitly, no. But if you follow his argument, not even one new
>> protein and not even one sizable innovation can arise through evolution.
>
> You would have to show me where in the book he says anything
> implying "not even one new protein" before I take that part of your
> assertion seriously.

Or perhaps you should actually read the book, which I see you haven't
done, before you start making such demands.

> And both parts of your statement depend on you continuing
> to doubt that Meyer takes seriously what Behe almost surely believes in:
> divinely guided evolution. But your personal (and biased) doubt does not
> add much credibility to the flamboyant assertion quoted above from your OP.

I don't think Meyer would count divinely guided evolution as evolution.
Nor would Behe, author of The Edge of Evolution. I would, but I was
using Meyer's meaning here. The message of the book, however, isn't
about theistic evolution, even though he doesn't rule that out. It's
creationism. Perhaps if you read it, you will find out.

[Robert Camp]

That is Meyer's particular skill. His approach is almost always faithful
to the DI talking points, and he seldom falls prey to the occasional,
presumably accidental breaches of candor that afflict his fellow fellows.

Having seen him in person and in many recorded debates and interviews I
can attest to his polished persona. The things he's written that I've
read are assertive and targeted but hardly ever compelling. He speaks
with sincerity and assurance but says very little.

It's best to think of him as a politician.

[Mike Painter]

That's the last time I dictate a reply to my cat. He types fast but
can't spell.

[Robert Carnegie]

> That's Herb Caen.

I'm in Scotland and I don't remember either of them and they've
both passed on so perhaps it doesn't matter, but that was a pretty
confusing Google session, and I didn't get to the bottom of this
"little old lady" thing.

Conventionally, "Lots Of Love" is adopted by a female relative of
mature years - or a female friend of any age, to whose mind
love occurs more naturally than laughter at someone else's
expense - but if your aunt starts signing off as "LOL" meaning
"Little Old Lady", the chaos - well, you'd better tell her.

I'm not sure what to do about electronic messages and signature
anyway. It's sort of vestigial since a message comes with your
name or phone number attached anyway, although the recipient
may be nevertheless not sure who you are, and the name might
be a pseudonym. And in e-mail, there may be some disclaimer
or some junk added to the message after it leaves your screen,
and in a phone message, you're charged for so many letters -
pennies, but it adds up. I expect that someone's written an
etiquette guide, but that doesn't mean that they actually
know anything, people have done that sort of thing and have
just made it all up.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 10 Mar 2014 18:27:15 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Mike Painter
<md.pa...@SBCGLOBAL.net>:

>On Mon, 10 Mar 2014 11:27:33 -0700, Earle Jones27
><earle...@comcast.net> wrote:

>>On 2014-03-10 02:21:20 +0000, Mike Painter said:

>>> On Sat, 8 Mar 2014 09:09:53 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie
>>> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:

>>>> it may be misunderstood, just
>>>> as LOL is thought by a lot of people to stand for "Lots of love".

>>> Everybody knows it stands for Little Old Lady.
>>> Everybody who remembers Herb Cain.

>>That's Herb Caen.

>That's the last time I dictate a reply to my cat. He types fast but
>can't spell.

Don't let it phase you; spell Czech is you're friend... ;-)
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Monday, March 10, 2014 4:46:25 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 3/10/14 12:55 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> > On Monday, March 10, 2014 2:55:06 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>
> >> On 3/10/14 11:04 AM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

> >>> On Monday, March 10, 2014 1:40:36 PM UTC-4, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

> >>>> On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 7:44:16 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:

> >>>>> So forget the
> >>>>> Cambrian explosion, whose duration is by the way irrelevant.

I was rushed in my first replies and didn't want to take time to deal
with this balderdash.

Meyer is trying to appeal to a general audience and
is naturally marshaling all evidence he can for his conclusions.
"Forget the Cambrian explosion" is only good advice for people who
are already convinced that there is intelligent design involved
in the grand march from prokaryotes to higher mammals.

> >>>>> Humans and
> >>>>> chimps can't be related; they're just too different for evolution to
> >>>>> manage.

> >>> Most readers will probably guess from context that, below, "this"
> >>> refers to humans and chimps being related (thru descent from a
> >>> common ancestor), but just for the record, that IS what I meant:

> >>>> 3. Intermediate: while Meyer has expressed doubts about this
> >>>> elsewhere (but not, AFAIK, in _Darwin's Doubt_) he has not come out
> >>>> with any statement of the sort you are claiming here.

> >> Not explicitly, no. But if you follow his argument, not even one new
> >> protein and not even one sizable innovation can arise through evolution.

> > You would have to show me where in the book he says anything
> > implying "not even one new protein" before I take that part of your
> > assertion seriously.

> Or perhaps you should actually read the book, which I see you haven't

I've read sizable chunks of the book, but I haven't read it cover to cover.

Have YOU read every word of the book? If so, why do you resort to an
imperious "do your own research" dodge instead of quoting or giving
page numbers? Hell, you don't even give a chapter number.

> done, before you start making such demands.

> > And both parts of your statement depend on you continuing
> > to doubt that Meyer takes seriously what Behe almost surely believes in:
> > divinely guided evolution. But your personal (and biased) doubt does not
> > add much credibility to the flamboyant assertion quoted above from your OP.

> I don't think Meyer would count divinely guided evolution as evolution.

Baseless speculation. Meyer knows the different meanings of "evolution" and
is quite capable of switching from one to the other.

However, if your allegation about "one new protein" holds water, he is
obviously referring to *naturalistic* evolution, without any intelligence
guiding it in THAT context.

But NOT necessarily in the context of human bodies being descended
from ape bodies.

> Nor would Behe, author of The Edge of Evolution.

Behe believes in common descent. You'd have to show me where he
disqualifies "evolution" as a valid description of "common descent"
before I'll buy this allegation of yours.

> I would, but I was
> using Meyer's meaning here.

Correction: the meaning you ALLEGE for Meyer in BOTH contexts above.

> The message of the book, however, isn't
> about theistic evolution, even though he doesn't rule that out. It's
> creationism. Perhaps if you read it, you will find out.

I've read enough to know that you are using "creationism" in a somewhat
nonstandard way here.

The standard way is creation *DE NOVO* of whole organisms. And Meyer
nowhere claims to show THAT in _Darwin's Doubt_. If you keep alleging that
he does, kindly provide some quotes.

Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

On 3/20/14 9:20 AM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Monday, March 10, 2014 4:46:25 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 3/10/14 12:55 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, March 10, 2014 2:55:06 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>
>>>> On 3/10/14 11:04 AM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
>>>>> On Monday, March 10, 2014 1:40:36 PM UTC-4, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
>>>>>> On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 7:44:16 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>
>>>>>>> So forget the
>>>>>>> Cambrian explosion, whose duration is by the way irrelevant.
>
> I was rushed in my first replies and didn't want to take time to deal
> with this balderdash.
>
> Meyer is trying to appeal to a general audience and
> is naturally marshaling all evidence he can for his conclusions.
> "Forget the Cambrian explosion" is only good advice for people who
> are already convinced that there is intelligent design involved
> in the grand march from prokaryotes to higher mammals.

Not that I can tell. Though the book is supposed to be about the
Cambrian explosion, Meyer abandons it after a few chapters to
concentrate on the real issue. And his whole argument that the explosion
was too fast for evolution is moot if no amount of time would suffice,
which he says in those later chapters.

If I may speculate, he's using the Cambrian explosion to create reader
interest in what would otherwise be a dry argument. But it's window
dressing.

>>>>>>> Humans and
>>>>>>> chimps can't be related; they're just too different for evolution to
>>>>>>> manage.
>
>>>>> Most readers will probably guess from context that, below, "this"
>>>>> refers to humans and chimps being related (thru descent from a
>>>>> common ancestor), but just for the record, that IS what I meant:
>
>>>>>> 3. Intermediate: while Meyer has expressed doubts about this
>>>>>> elsewhere (but not, AFAIK, in _Darwin's Doubt_) he has not come out
>>>>>> with any statement of the sort you are claiming here.
>
>>>> Not explicitly, no. But if you follow his argument, not even one new
>>>> protein and not even one sizable innovation can arise through evolution.
>
>>> You would have to show me where in the book he says anything
>>> implying "not even one new protein" before I take that part of your
>>> assertion seriously.
>
>> Or perhaps you should actually read the book, which I see you haven't
>
> I've read sizable chunks of the book, but I haven't read it cover to cover.
>
> Have YOU read every word of the book? If so, why do you resort to an
> imperious "do your own research" dodge instead of quoting or giving
> page numbers? Hell, you don't even give a chapter number.

Yes, I have read the book. All of it. But now it's back at the library,
so I can't quote or give page numbers. However, that's something he says
quite clearly and explicitly in the later chapters.

>> done, before you start making such demands.
>
>>> And both parts of your statement depend on you continuing
>>> to doubt that Meyer takes seriously what Behe almost surely believes in:
>>> divinely guided evolution. But your personal (and biased) doubt does not
>>> add much credibility to the flamboyant assertion quoted above from your OP.
>
>> I don't think Meyer would count divinely guided evolution as evolution.
>
> Baseless speculation. Meyer knows the different meanings of "evolution" and
> is quite capable of switching from one to the other.

He could, certainly. But I don't think that's what he does.

> However, if your allegation about "one new protein" holds water, he is
> obviously referring to *naturalistic* evolution, without any intelligence
> guiding it in THAT context.
>
> But NOT necessarily in the context of human bodies being descended
> from ape bodies.

Agreed that it's a possible interpretation. I don't think it's the one
he has, though.

>> Nor would Behe, author of The Edge of Evolution.
>
> Behe believes in common descent. You'd have to show me where he
> disqualifies "evolution" as a valid description of "common descent"
> before I'll buy this allegation of yours.

Why the title? Just for alliterative effect? Clearly it should have been
"The Edge of Naturalistic Evolution" if he was making that distinction.
I find that IDers tend to avoid using the word "evolution" for anything
they think is true. "Theistic evolution" is something they don't like,
even if their positions (like Behe's) are pretty much that. They say
"design" instead, and don't talk about common descent as evolution. This
is a trivial point. Yes, it's possible that Meyer would allow for guided
evolution. But I don't think that's his opinion. He tries very hard to
show that we have no evidence for common descent. Why?

>> I would, but I was
>> using Meyer's meaning here.
>
> Correction: the meaning you ALLEGE for Meyer in BOTH contexts above.

Go ahead and read the book. See if you agree.

>> The message of the book, however, isn't
>> about theistic evolution, even though he doesn't rule that out. It's
>> creationism. Perhaps if you read it, you will find out.
>
> I've read enough to know that you are using "creationism" in a somewhat
> nonstandard way here.

Nope. Standard way. What you say below:

> The standard way is creation *DE NOVO* of whole organisms. And Meyer
> nowhere claims to show THAT in _Darwin's Doubt_. If you keep alleging that
> he does, kindly provide some quotes.

Again, he is typical of creationists that they never try to show
evidence for creation, just against evolution. Meyer devotes
considerable space to demolishing the evidence for common descent. Do
you agree? So, if he's getting rid of common descent, what's his
alternative? Separate creation is clearly it, based on other statements
he has made. Would you agree that he is at least kindly disposed toward
separate creation, including separate creation of humans and apes?

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Monday, March 10, 2014 4:14:30 PM UTC-4, Dai monie wrote:
> On Monday, 10 March 2014 18:48:27 UTC+1, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 9:59:27 PM UTC-5, Dana Tweedy wrote:

> > > Ray, that is not how evolution is defined. What you are referring to is
> > > common descent. Evolution is defined as change in allele frequencies in
> > > populations over generations. This has been observed repeatedly, and
> > > cannot be denied without looking extremely foolish.

> > What? That this is the correct definition of "evolution"? Then Harshman
> > must look very foolish in your eyes.

> > If you mean that "change in allele frequencies in populations over
> > generations" cannot be denied without looking extremely foolish,"
> > then you are really sticking your neck out below:

> > > Myer's view of evolution is to deny it, except for when it's too obvious
> > > to deny without looking foolish.

> > You are here alleging that Meyer usually denies "change in allele
> > frequencies in populations over generations" by your OWN definition
> > of "evolution."

> > I would be staggered if you could come up with a single instance of
> > Meyer doing that.

> Would not (You cannot deny change in allele frequencies in population
> over generations without looking foolish) and (Meyer denies evolution,
> except when it is too obvious to deny without looking foolish) lead to
> (Meyer does not deny changes in allele frequencies)?

It would if this weren't an intensely politically charged newsgroup.
But Dana Tweedy stuck out his neck above by correcting Ray Martinez,
who used a definition essentially equivalent to Harshman's. So if
you follow my reasoning above, you will see that Dana has burned his
bridges behind him as far as your interpretation of these words goes.

[Pay PARTICULAR attention to the word "populations."]

You see, in an intensely political (in the broad Aristotelian sense)
newsgroup like talk.origins, it is understood that even if two people
in the dominant clique (in this case, Harshman and Dana Tweedy) directly
contradict each other, readers are perfectly free to ignore this as
long as

(1) one did not do it in direct reply to the other and

(2) one did not actually name the person whom he was contradicting.

In line with this, Dana Tweedy has abandoned this thread, while
Harshman has avoided acknowledging the existence of this contradiction,
which I've pointed out twice to him. The first time, he left it in,
uncommented, labeling it and everything else "bloviation."

The second time, he refrained from replying to the post at all. Almost
a week has passed, and so I doubt if he will ever reply to it.

> I have not read the book. At all. But it seems to me that it is possible
> to just make up your own definition of evolution, or write very
> suggestively, so that readers do not see that evolution means allele-
> frequency changes.

"evolution" means lots of things, and Dana Tweedy's is NOT the one which
is relevant to the very name of this newsgroup, talk.origins.

Over in sci.bio.evolution it would be a different matter.
But this is not s.b.e.

Peter Nyikos