A Paul Nelson Anniversary Missed!

Geez I wish those guys would hurry up with their research. They have everything all down and "precise" and everything. They just probably gotta have the people do the research and stuff.

The big question is whose paper will materialize first, Paul Nelson's or Ray Martinez's magnum opus?

And the Dembski and Marks paper, don't forget that!

Iason Ouabache said: The big question is whose paper will materialize first, Paul Nelson's or Ray Martinez's magnum opus?

I'm fairly sure you're a few days early with this. While the 29th is indeed the date of the first "tomorrow," last year PZ named April 7th as "Paul Nelson Day". See here and here.

Iason Ouabache said: The big question is whose paper will materialize first, Paul Nelson's or Ray Martinez's magnum opus?

I was unfamiliar with this until I backtracked to PZ's critique. And no reply... Paul did seem somewhat reasonable in his comments, though. Better than the sniping of Dembski or Luskin.

John Lynch said: I'm fairly sure you're a few days early with this. While the 29th is indeed the date of the first "tomorrow," last year PZ named April 7th as "Paul Nelson Day". See here and here.

KP said: I was unfamiliar with this until I backtracked to PZ's critique. And no reply... Paul did seem somewhat reasonable in his comments, though. Better than the sniping of Dembski or Luskin.

RBH said:

John Lynch said: I'm fairly sure you're a few days early with this. While the 29th is indeed the date of the first "tomorrow," last year PZ named April 7th as "Paul Nelson Day". See here and here.

OK, well, Hell, five years ago plus or minus two weeks! That's an acceptable error of estimate.

Hmm, I hadn't been aware of "Paul Nelson Day" but it has its appeal. I suggest, along with its current payload, the addition of: "Yet another year when the imminent and long-predicted utter collapse of DARWINIZM has failed to occur."

This would have the advantage of blanket coverage
of absolutely every disproof DARWINIZM, past and
future.
If it was counted retroactively that would make a century at least, but to be charitiable that should not apply. So is it now "YEAR 3 PN"?

MrG http://www.vectorsite.net

Only reason I mention the earliness is that I have a post planned for Tuesday over at my place. Not to worry ... plus or minus a few days isn't a huge deal for those of us who accept the evidence for deep time. For a YEC like Nelson it is probably a little worrying!

mrg said: ...imminent and long-predicted utter collapse of DARWINIZM has failed to occur.

Just Bob said: But for some reason I can't get him to explain any ways in which it can be considered to have failed.

"We missed an important anniversary last week. It was five years ago last Sunday, March 29, that Paul Nelson told us that he’d provide a reply to PZ Myers’ critique of “ontogenetic depth.”

"Ontogenetic depth" is horsepookey...let's move on.

Lynn Margulis: "Well Niles Eldredge, a wonderful friend and colleague of mine, is talking about those scientists who derive from zoology. He probably refers to the deliberate intellectual activity that reconciles Mendelian stability with Darwinian gradual change and tries to force it into this procrustean population genetics neo-Darwinism.

Francisco Ayala is presenting at the "evolutionary mechanisms session" in Rome. He was trained in Catholicism, Spanish-style, as a Dominican. We were in California at a meeting with Whiteheadian philosopher John Cobb. At that meeting Ayala agreed with me when I stated that this doctrinaire neo-Darwinism is dead. He was a practitioner of neo-Darwinism but advances in molecular genetics, evolution, ecology, biochemistry, and other news had led him to agree that neo-Darwinism's now dead.

The components of evolution (I don’t think any scientist disagrees) that exist because there's so much data for them are: (1) the tendency for exponential growth of all populations -- that is growth beyond a finite world; and (2) since the environment can’t sustain them, there’s an elimination process of natural selection.

The point of contention in science is here: (3) Where does novelty that’s heritable come from? What is the source of evolutionary innovation? Especially positive inherited innovation, where does it come from?

It is here that the neo-Darwinist knee-jerk reaction kicks in. "By random mutations that accumulate so much that you have a new lineage." This final contention, their mistake in my view, is really the basis of nearly all our disagreement.

Everybody agrees: Heritable variation exists, it can be measured. Everybody agrees, as Darwin said, it’s heritable variation "that’s important to us" because variation is inherited. Everyone agrees "descent with modification" can be demonstrated. And furthermore, because of molecular biology, everybody agrees that all life on Earth today is related through common ancestry, as Darwin showed.

Everybody agrees with ultimate common ancestry of Earth's life, because the DNA, RNA messenger, transfer RNA, membrane-bounded cell constituents (lipids, the phospholipids) that we share – they’re all virtually identical in all life today, it's all one single lineage. So that part of Darwinism – that we’re all related by common ancestry –no scientist disagrees with.

The real disagreement about what the neo-Darwinists tout, for which there's very little evidence, if any, is that random mutations accumulate and when they accumulate enough, new species originate. The source of purposeful inherited novelty in evolution, the underlying reason the new species appear, is not random mutation rather it is symbiogenesis, the acquisition of foreign genomes.

When Salthe says we haven't seen that, he’s talking about new species. He’s not saying we haven’t seen natural selection, he's saying we haven't seen natural selection produce new species, this particular aspect of neo-Darwinism."

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0903/S00194.htm

Check back next PND, sport, for a status update.

Only reason I mention the earliness is that I have a post planned for Tuesday over at my place. Not to worry … plus or minus a few days isn’t a huge deal for those of us who accept the evidence for deep time. For a YEC like Nelson it is probably a little worrying!

Not really, you can have the third day before the second day or the first day after the fourth day or whatever! No worries they don't have to be in the right order!! Except for the seventh day of course!!! No worries!

Please!

You harsh Darwinists!

Paul has a very full schedule of Lying for Jesus that you simply don't appreciate. Do you have any idea how much money, time and effort it takes to maintain the Bunker of Silence?

Charlie Wagner said: The real disagreement about what the neo-Darwinists tout, for which there's very little evidence, if any, is that random mutations accumulate and when they accumulate enough, new species originate. The source of purposeful inherited novelty in evolution, the underlying reason the new species appear, is not random mutation rather it is symbiogenesis, the acquisition of foreign genomes.

mrg said:
Hmm, I hadn’t been aware of “Paul Nelson Day” but it has its appeal. I suggest, along with its current payload, the addition of: “Yet another year when the imminent and long-predicted utter collapse of DARWINIZM has failed to occur.”

John Lynch said: Only reason I mention the earliness is that I have a post planned for Tuesday over at my place. Not to worry ... plus or minus a few days isn't a huge deal for those of us who accept the evidence for deep time. For a YEC like Nelson it is probably a little worrying!

RBH said:

John Lynch said: Only reason I mention the earliness is that I have a post planned for Tuesday over at my place. Not to worry ... plus or minus a few days isn't a huge deal for those of us who accept the evidence for deep time. For a YEC like Nelson it is probably a little worrying!

Ah. Oh. Hm. Sorry. But don't hold back on my account. I had my calendar marked for Paul's first avoidance, and was up to my ass in alligators and didn't post then. Else it'd have been even earlier.

Charlie Wagner blathered: "Blah, blah, blah"

I thought these guys never wrote papers but instead had their “papers” delivered on stone tablets.

It’s been a while since the last one was delivered, and they don’t follow much of that one anyway.

RBH said: What use are reasonable but content-free responses?

Just thought I'd throw this out. The renowned ex-professor John West is giving a six "weak" seminar at a church (of course) in Tacoma, Washington starting April 15 (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=781&program=CSC-Society&isEvent=true). I heard him ramble on at a church in Bellevue, WA. I suspect his talk/s there will be the same gibberish (according to their website). He'll trash theistic evolution, he'll talk about the nazis, and he'll throw in his nonsense about ID. If anyone else is in the neighborhood at those times you might stop in & raise some good questions. He's pretty lame and feigns surprise at misquoting Darwin, etc. I suspect his talks are pretty canned, just like the one I heard. I think that's why he's no longer at Seattle Pacific Univ. because he kept bringing up this stuff in his classes & they finally dumped him after his students kept complaining that he wasn't teaching poly sci. I don't know if they'll let me in the door. I don't know also if they plan on charging like they did at the other church.

OK, well, Hell, five years ago plus or minus two weeks! That’s an acceptable error of estimate.

I just love this site! I read Charlie's jibberish, too (beginning to end - I read everything in its entirety ... I can't help it). Thank you Traffic Demon; you made my day! I laughed my sides into pain! May I have your permission to use that line?!

Now that Charlie has conceded pretty much all of evolutionary theory, we just have to educate him as to his misconceptions about "neo-Darwinism"; he apparently thinks it means an insistence that only single point mutations count. Since in fact _any_ heritable variation counts, from SNPs through copy number variations right up to horizontal gene transfer, this isn't the case, and if "symbiogenesis" were true then humans and chimps would have to count as _one species_. Margulis has gone way off the rails lately.

I have an easy solution to this date conundrum! Make Paul Nelson Day a floating holiday! The Vapor Paper won't care, and it could come on the First sunday of every month- or you could apply a quadratic equation to it's date.

Stephen Wells said: Margulis has gone way off the rails lately.

By tradition the fifth anniversary of an event is the “wood” anniversary.

Paul gets wood!

Nelson: ... with title and epigraph from a Rolling Stones song. I’ll post it tomorrow.

— RBH

I suspect the epigraph should be “(I can’t get no) Satisfaction.”

Stones, Schmones. Nelson can take the advice of his distant cousin, that late, great objectivist philosopher E. Hilliard Nelson, who said "You can't please everyone, so you got to please yourself."

Well at least Charlie does seem to be getting more rational lately. After all, endosymbiosis, allopolypolidy and lateral gene transfer are all well recognized mechanisms of evolution.

Of course, if he can understand that, then why does he still have a problem with random mutations? How could random mutation and natural selection possibly fail to be of importance if random events such as those listed above are of admitted importance? Especially since autopolyploidy, aneuploidy and gene duplication are also recognized examples of random mutations that are in some sense intermediate between "symbiogenesis" and other types of mutation.

re : "Don’t forget The Year of the Linux Desktop. "

slightly off topic - but since portables are outselling desktops I think "the year of the Linux PC" is more apporopriate- quite a few Linux pc's are sold now - about 10% of 'netbook' sales are Linux.

Stephen Wells said: Margulis has gone way off the rails lately.

"...not random mutation rather it is symbiogenesis, the acquisition of foreign genomes."

I'm not, alas, a biologist. This confuses me. Is he claiming dinosaurs genetically acquired feathers from birds and this guided the dinosaur's evolution towards becoming primitive birds? Or what?

"I am afraid that Margulis is now in the running for the “Fred Hoyle Prize For Brilliant Scientist Gone Bonkers”."

This is standard procedure when great minds get old and say things that are out of the mainstream.

Hoyle and Margulis are only two examples. Add in Bertrand Russell, Freeman Dyson, Barbara McClintock, Norman Thomas, Linus Pauling and many others.

Wir werden zu früh altes und zu spätes intelligentes!
(We grow too soon old and too late smart.)

Then, on the other hand, I think it was Finley Peter Dunne's Mr. Dooley who said: "Many a man who can barely tell ye how to get to the corner drugstore will be given a respectful hearin' after age has further dulled his faculties."

I understand this as more and more, now being increasingly inclined to make notes on my voice memo recorder to remember what I'm after when I go from the office to the kitchen.

sharky said: "...not random mutation rather it is symbiogenesis, the acquisition of foreign genomes." I'm not, alas, a biologist. This confuses me. Is he claiming dinosaurs genetically acquired feathers from birds and this guided the dinosaur's evolution towards becoming primitive birds? Or what?

"For the record, we have seen evolution produce new species. There are tons of links about it, in fact. Let me give my Bookmarks folder a cursory examination…

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq[…]ciation.html
And the sequel: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
Paper about speciation in bacteria: http://www.pnas.org/content/96/13/7348.full
Speciation in a known population of lizards: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/[…]a_lizard.php

There is no consensus on what constitutes a "species".
The term lacks intuitive clarity.
Your examples are trivial variations on existing "species".

WRT bacteria:
The acquisition of new genetic programs among prokaryotes appears to depend entirely on horizontal gene transfer (HGT).

There is no consensus on what constitutes a “species”.

— Charlie Wagner

Hmm. I wonder why there is no consensus on what constitutes a species...

hen why does he still have a problem with random mutations? How could random mutation and natural selection possibly fail to be of importance if random events such as those listed above are of admitted importance?

Mike said: Hmm. I wonder why there is no consensus on what constitutes a species...

sharky said: "...not random mutation rather it is symbiogenesis, the acquisition of foreign genomes." I'm not, alas, a biologist. This confuses me. Is he claiming dinosaurs genetically acquired feathers from birds and this guided the dinosaur's evolution towards becoming primitive birds? Or what?

Meanwhile the “evolutionists,” who don’t even need an unambiguous definition, nevertheless make a valiant effort to find one. And they admit their differences and definitional difficulties.

Y'know, there's time I really wish PT had a killfile mechanism.

Remember Charles Darwin spent many years working on his scientific theory, and it withstood 150 years of scientific scrutiny. Paul Nelson must be trying to figure out how to clarify the his thesis so that it can withstand scientific scrutiny.

John Lynch said: I'm fairly sure you're a few days early with this. While the 29th is indeed the date of the first "tomorrow," last year PZ named April 7th as "Paul Nelson Day". See here and here.

Charlie Wagner said:

Meanwhile the “evolutionists,” who don’t even need an unambiguous definition, nevertheless make a valiant effort to find one. And they admit their differences and definitional difficulties.

The first requirement of any theory is to define it's terms clearly and unambiguously. If evolutionists cannot define "species" then the whole theory collapses.

Charlie Wagner said: The first requirement of any theory is to define it's terms clearly and unambiguously. If evolutionists cannot define "species" then the whole theory collapses.

So the theory that we're pretty much all one "species" collapses when there is no concrete definition for all cases of what a species is? How does that make any sense whatsoever?

If creationists cannot define “kind” then the whole theory collapses.

— David Fickett-Wilbar

If evolutionists cannot define “species” then the whole theory collapses.

Charlie's right.

;-)

Frank J said:

If creationists cannot define “kind” then the whole theory collapses.

— David Fickett-Wilbar

The amazing thing is that most professional creationists undoubtedly know that their "theory" stands or falls on the definition of "kind" (and several other things from which they steadily backpedal), but that evolution does not stand or falls on the definition of "species." Michael Behe's solution was to simply concede common descent, but that is much too politically incorrect for the big tent. BTW, since this thread is about Paul Nelson, I recommend "Why Intelligent Design Fails" (multi-authored, edited by Matt Young and Taner Edis) to anyone who hasn't read it. Gert Korthof's chapter on Nelson's "Dynamic Creation Model," is IMO worth the price of the book.

Henry J said:

If evolutionists cannot define “species” then the whole theory collapses.

Just the opposite. If there were a universally accepted and unambiguous definition of "species", that would be when the theory collapses; the basic principles implied by the theory imply the lack of a definitive boundary between parent and daughter species for most types of speciation events. Henry

Charlie Wagner said: "For the record, we have seen evolution produce new species. There are tons of links about it, in fact. Let me give my Bookmarks folder a cursory examination… http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq[…]ciation.html And the sequel: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html Paper about speciation in bacteria: http://www.pnas.org/content/96/13/7348.full Speciation in a known population of lizards: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/[…]a_lizard.php There is no consensus on what constitutes a "species".

The term lacks intuitive clarity.

Your examples are trivial variations on existing "species".

WRT bacteria: The acquisition of new genetic programs among prokaryotes appears to depend entirely on horizontal gene transfer (HGT).

"Ray Martinez’s magnum opus?" Would that be the bit where he labels all Christians who accept evolution as "Judas?" I've already heard that, so how can he top it? Scream louder and with more babyish self-pity?

Oh, and hello and goodbye, realpc. You're still an idiot; and no, all of the known mechanisms of evolution still work whether or not you're satisfied with the definition of this or that word. Also, as others have already pointed out, failure to define their most important terms is only one of many reasons why cretinism fails in ALL of its forms and disguises.

The Universe isn't waiting for you to accept it, and neither are we. Buh-bye.

"The term lacks intuitive clarity."

Yes but has deep ontogenetic clarity.

And it's complex specified clarity is off the charts.

Charlie wrote:

"My problem is your use of the word “random”.
While endosymbiosis, allopolypolidy and lateral gene transfer may be “random on one level of organization, there is no evidence that the “package” itself was the result of random processes."

That was exactly my point. There is a random element to all of these processes. That is not the important part of the process. Nor does it preclude the process from eventually producing useful information. Random mutation can produce any sequence, and given enough time it will eventually produce just about every sequence. That is where selection takes over.

If you can envision new species coming about by genetic transfers, than why not by mutation random mutation and natural selection? There is not need for an information generator as long as selection can act. You are simply presuming that there is another mechanism that generates the information somewhere. No such mechanism is known or necessary.

Charlie Wagner said: The first requirement of any theory is to define it's terms clearly and unambiguously. If evolutionists cannot define "species" then the whole theory collapses.

Charlie Wagner said: The first requirement of any theory is to define it's terms clearly and unambiguously. If evolutionists cannot define "species" then the whole theory collapses.

Charlie Wagner said:

Meanwhile the “evolutionists,” who don’t even need an unambiguous definition, nevertheless make a valiant effort to find one. And they admit their differences and definitional difficulties.

The first requirement of any theory is to define it's terms clearly and unambiguously. If evolutionists cannot define "species" then the whole theory collapses.

dNorrisM said: Charlie's right. ;-)

So please explain how the current inability to provide a clear and concise, universally applicable definition of “species” prevents known examples of evolution from occurring, like production of new breeds and strains of domesticated plants and animals, speciation events such as the apple maggot fly and Lake Victoria cichlid diversifications, appearance of the honeysuckle maggot fly and London Underground mosquito, or the rise of antibiotic and pesticide resistant bacteria and agricultural pests.

Other words used by evolutionists suffer the same dilemma.

Now I've discussed the issue of homology before. The reason there is homology is because the same genes are used over and over again in many different forms. If you go back in history, the concept of homology began in the 1830's, probably with Owens famous paper in which he defined homology as "the same organ in different animals under every variety of form and function". While people have continued to try to "define" homology for the past 150 years, even today there is no consensus on the definition of homology, although everyone agrees that it has something to do with "sameness and common ancestry". There are many ancient words floating around, like "species" and "adaptation" that we try in vain to give exact modern meanings, never fully agreeing on their meaning. This is one reason why evolutionary theory is so hard to attack. It's jargon is largely undefinable, with no precise technical meanings. The trend in evolutionary biology, as I see it, has been to broaden the iconography of descent. linear descent gave way to the "evolutionary tree" which gave way to the "evolutionary bush", which gave way to the "evolutionary lawn". Where does it all end? If it goes on like this, it will end up just as I predicted. Every living thing is related to every other living thing, but no one form is ancestral or descendant to any other form.

HOW COULD GROUPS OF FISH ALL SWIMMING TOGETHER IN LAKE VICTORIA EVER BE ISOLATED ENOUGH TO PRODUCE 300 SPECIES?

Charlie Wagner said: WRT cichlids: HOW COULD GROUPS OF FISH ALL SWIMMING TOGETHER IN LAKE VICTORIA EVER BE ISOLATED ENOUGH TO PRODUCE 300 SPECIES? (italics added)"

Charlie,

If the cards are dealt randomly, how can anyone possibly win at poker? Where does the information come from? Certainly you could never get a straight flush if the cards are dealt randomly.

By the way, African rift lake Cichlids are a classic example of sympatric speciation through ecological niche partitioning. Just because they are in the same lake doesn't mean that they are eating or breeding in the same habitats. It is well documented that reduced gene flow will lead to reproductive isolation and then genetic divergence until reproductive isolating mechanisms evolve. At that point the concept of genetic dscontinuity comes into play, no matter what your definition of "species" may be.

As for homology, how can the same genes be "used over and over again" if the organisms are not related by common descent? Are you making stuff again you rascal.

I'll know it when I see it ...

Charlie Wagner said: If you make the statement "random mutation and natural selection can lead to new species" and you can't define what a species is (I'll know it when I see it?) then your theory is worthless. You can call anything you want a "new species"

Species of cichlids in African lakes have rapidly diverged; species of finch on the Galapagos Islands have diverged less rapidly. The environments are, to say the least, greatly dissimilar, and subject to different rates of change in entirely different particulars. The organisms in question are also, to say the least, very different in mobility and breeding rate. The selection pressures are difficult to measure, but there's no reason to think that they are remotely similar. Differences in speciation rate are obviously to be expected. The point is that divergence has taken place in both.

How is it possible to present this as a problem for the Theory of Evolution?

YOU explain, how the FRESHWATER family Cichlidae has a native distribution in S. America, Africa, and a few related land masses. Without plate tectonics, how exactly did this family disperse? Also, some methods for testing your alternative “theory” would be desirable. Finally, please explain the designer’s purpose in ‘creating’ 300 species of cichlids in a single lake.

Charlie Wagner said: I don't have a clue ...

Charlie Wagner said: Mayr himself says "the most common way in which species evolve is by being isolated from one another geographically and slowly evolving to become two distinct species. HOW COULD GROUPS OF FISH ALL SWIMMING TOGETHER IN LAKE VICTORIA EVER BE ISOLATED ENOUGH TO PRODUCE 300 SPECIES? (italics added)"

The real puzzle, as posed by Dr. Mayr, arises because the most common way in which species are thought to evolve is by being isolated from one another geographically and slowly evolving to become two distinct species. How could groups of fish all swimming together in Lake Victoria ever be isolated enough to produce 300 species? One hint, Dr. Meyer said, comes from the fact that cichlids are weak swimmers and have very specific preferences for certain kinds of habitats. By clinging, for example, to sandy bottoms and never crossing a rocky area to reach the next sandy stretch, he said, groups of neighboring cichlids might well have been able to be as isolated from one another as if they had been living in separate lakes.

Charlie,

How do you explain the genetic data showing the clear evolutionary relationship of the African Cichlid and Galapagos Finch lineages? How do you account for their genetic similarity to other bird and fish species and their degree of relatedness to each other? You do realize that this is exactly what descent with modification would predict right? You do realize that you will have to come up with a more explanatory and predictive explanation in order to call common descent into question right?

Wheels said:

Charlie Wagner said: WRT bacteria: The acquisition of new genetic programs among prokaryotes appears to depend entirely on horizontal gene transfer (HGT).

Except when it doesn't. But fear not, Sir! I am sure that the lowly Richard Lenski would be honored to have you correct his misconception that a novel trait evolved via mutation in his monoculture colonies of e. coli! If you would deign to speak to the poor, slovenly fellow, you could of course explain (in small words so that he could understand them) that it was in fact horizontal gene transfer and not mutation which caused the abrupt appearance of citrate-metabolizing strains in his experiment. I'm sure he'd take the Word of Our Most Mighty And High Charlie Wagner as fact as soon as it were issued, for who could dare to disagree with You?

Finally, please explain the designer’s purpose in ‘creating’ 300 species of cichlids in a single lake.

Dan said:

Charlie Wagner said: Mayr himself says "the most common way in which species evolve is by being isolated from one another geographically and slowly evolving to become two distinct species. HOW COULD GROUPS OF FISH ALL SWIMMING TOGETHER IN LAKE VICTORIA EVER BE ISOLATED ENOUGH TO PRODUCE 300 SPECIES? (italics added)"

In fact, Mayr did not say that. Here's the source of the misquotation: http://www.nytimes.com/1996/08/27/science/lake-victoria-s-lightning-fast-origin-of-species.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2 and here I've reproduced some context:

The real puzzle, as posed by Dr. Mayr, arises because the most common way in which species are thought to evolve is by being isolated from one another geographically and slowly evolving to become two distinct species. How could groups of fish all swimming together in Lake Victoria ever be isolated enough to produce 300 species? One hint, Dr. Meyer said, comes from the fact that cichlids are weak swimmers and have very specific preferences for certain kinds of habitats. By clinging, for example, to sandy bottoms and never crossing a rocky area to reach the next sandy stretch, he said, groups of neighboring cichlids might well have been able to be as isolated from one another as if they had been living in separate lakes.

Strangely enough, there's a cartoon about Charlie in this week's New Yorker http://www.cartoonbank.com/item/128431

Charlie Wagner said: HOW COULD GROUPS OF FISH ALL SWIMMING TOGETHER IN LAKE VICTORIA EVER BE ISOLATED ENOUGH TO PRODUCE 300 SPECIES? (italics added)"

John Kwok said: Cichlids tend to be ecological opportunists, which has enabled them to have relatively rapid species radiations in these East African lakes. But they're not the only ones. Here in North America, sticklebacks have undergone extensive morphological divergence too

Charlie,

If the East African Cichlids are not related by common descent, why do they all share the same SINE inserions? Molecular Biology and Evolution 20(6):924=930 (2002)

Here are a few more references about cichlid phylogenetics:

MBE 24:1269-1282 (2007)
MBE 19:865-893 (2002)
MBE 10:751-768 (1993)
JME 61:666-681 (2005)
JME 60:277-289 (2005)
JME 60:299-314 (2005)
JME 58:79-96 (2004)
MPE 45:629-642 (2007)
MPE 38:426-438 (2006)
Sys Bio 51:1-23 (2002)
PNAS 96:10230-10235 (1999)

Now if you can explain all of the genetic evidence for common descent with a better hypothesis, I'm sure there will be a publication in it for you. If not, you've got a lot of reading to do.

Seems there are two separate cichlid questions here: Are they related by common descent (only someone devoutly committed to error would think otherwise), and HOW cichlid speciation occurs. Sure, once it has happened we notice that branched species school together, and perhaps behave slightly differently (different diet or mating displays or whatever)from the parent population.

But what sort of environmental variation triggered the initiation of the branching event? Do these lakes have THAT many distinctly different niches cichlids can occupy? Or is there something about the cichlid genome that facilitates speciation?

I'll give Charlie the benefit of the doubt as much as I can here. Presumably we DO start with some interbreeding population, which somehow differentiates for some reason. What reason might that be? Now granted, Charlie can't imagine any reason, so he thinks there can't be any reason, but we understand that his required preconceptions prevent him from any sincere attempt to look.

I admit I get this picture of the school of interbreeding cichlids swimming past some bunch of rocks at some depth, temperature, salinity, pH or whatever and kind of deciding "this is the place for us" and leaving the school to start their own species. How does this work anyway?

I perhaps shouldn't feel sorry for Paul, but I do.

Yes, I know he's preparing the c. desevolution questionentsists textbook de jure to be used in the next Kansas or Dover PA case.

Still, it's the thankless, janitorial s__twork of the Discovery Institute. Dembski can say anything he wants in his books, but Paul has to work his Panda until it's something a school board president can wave at the cameras.

Charlie Wagner said:

YOU explain, how the FRESHWATER family Cichlidae has a native distribution in S. America, Africa, and a few related land masses. Without plate tectonics, how exactly did this family disperse? Also, some methods for testing your alternative “theory” would be desirable. Finally, please explain the designer’s purpose in ‘creating’ 300 species of cichlids in a single lake.

I don't have a clue...nor does anyone else. I have no "alternate" theory. It's a poser...

Charlie's cichlid error shows up a rather common creationist failing: a total lack of appreciation for the details of reality. To a biologist, the cichlid populations in the lack are a set of ~300 distinguishable separately breeding populations each one occupying its own specific ecological niche. But to Charlie, they're all just fish. In water.

Creationism is biology for people who think the animal kingdom consists of horsies, doggies, kitties and fishies.

“Ray Martinez’s magnum opus?” Would that be the bit where he labels all Christians who accept evolution as “Judas?” I’ve already heard that, so how can he top it?

— Raging Bee

A serious defect in the practice of evolutionariansm is the failure of scientists to educate life forms to have a proper understanding of species loyalty.

How often have we seen paleontological evidence of species failing to observe their God-prescribed boundaries, thereby provoking divine retribution, whether simply through replacement by new species, or by cataclysmic means like the odd dropped meteorite?

If the dinosaurs had not tolerated species traitors among them, they would still dominate the Earth. With men. Or vice versa. It's in the Bible somewhere, I'll find it later.

Creationist half-wits scientists have a much clearer sense of their duty. When St Francis of Assisi preached to the birds and animals, do you think he was reading from Darwin's Origins of the Specious? Of course not. He was telling those cute little things how they had been created each after their own kind, and that miscegenation was against God's law*. And that is why there are no dinosaurs in Italy.

* A lesson those Commies in the Supreme Court shoulda learnt, but that's for next week's sermon.

Amadán said: And that is why there are no dinosaurs in Italy.

Stanton said:

Amadán said: And that is why there are no dinosaurs in Italy.

*cough*

Charlie Wagner said:

YOU explain, how the FRESHWATER family Cichlidae has a native distribution in S. America, Africa, and a few related land masses.

I don't have a clue...nor does anyone else. I have no "alternate" theory. It's a poser...

Not very nice ridiculing the creotards.
(Hm, have to think about that)
Oh yes, it is! And they generally manage to create the risibility themselves, - without any visible effort.

Science uses the best available theory. Absent any better alternative, evolution will remain “best” no matter how much mud you sling at it.

Not very nice ridiculing the creotards. (Hm, have to think about that) Oh yes, it is!

Charlie Wagner said: That's just another way of saying that if we don't know, we'll just make something up and that'll do fine.

Amadán said:

"And that is why there are no dinosaurs in Italy."

.. and the dinosaur said "With these prices, I'm not surprised!"

</rimshot>

Charlie, you conceded all of evolutionary theory in your earlier comments. You didn't realize what you'd done, because you're a bit thick, but give it time.

Amadán said: A serious defect in the practice of evolutionariansm is the failure of scientists to educate life forms to have a proper understanding of species loyalty. How often have we seen paleontological evidence of species failing to observe their God-prescribed boundaries, thereby provoking divine retribution, whether simply through replacement by new species, or by cataclysmic means like the odd dropped meteorite? If the dinosaurs had not tolerated species traitors among them, they would still dominate the Earth. With men. Or vice versa. It's in the Bible somewhere, I'll find it later. Creationist half-wits scientists have a much clearer sense of their duty. When St Francis of Assisi preached to the birds and animals, do you think he was reading from Darwin's Origins of the Specious? Of course not. He was telling those cute little things how they had been created each after their own kind, and that miscegenation was against God's law*. And that is why there are no dinosaurs in Italy. * A lesson those Commies in the Supreme Court shoulda learnt, but that's for next week's sermon.

Charlie,

Take a good look at DS's post on the 6th at 10:17 PM. Let's set aside the fact that you are unwilling or unable to posit an alternative hypothesis. I defy you to even criticize the genetic evidence for common descent in a way that isn't laughably ridiculous.

Charlie Wagner said:

Science uses the best available theory. Absent any better alternative, evolution will remain “best” no matter how much mud you sling at it.

That's just another way of saying that if we don't know, we'll just make something up and that'll do fine.

Science uses the best available theory. Absent any better alternative, evolution will remain “best” no matter how much mud you sling at it.

That’s just another way of saying that if we don’t know, we’ll just make something up and that’ll do fine. This is not science as I understand it.

John Kwok said: Are you for real, or is this an Monty Pythong-esque joke (I'm inclined to believe the latter.) that should have been posted on April Fool's Day:

Amadán said: A serious defect in the practice of evolutionariansm is the failure of scientists to educate life forms to have a proper understanding of species loyalty. How often have we seen paleontological evidence of species failing to observe their God-prescribed boundaries, thereby provoking divine retribution, whether simply through replacement by new species, or by cataclysmic means like the odd dropped meteorite? If the dinosaurs had not tolerated species traitors among them, they would still dominate the Earth. With men. Or vice versa. It's in the Bible somewhere, I'll find it later. Creationist half-wits scientists have a much clearer sense of their duty. When St Francis of Assisi preached to the birds and animals, do you think he was reading from Darwin's Origins of the Specious? Of course not. He was telling those cute little things how they had been created each after their own kind, and that miscegenation was against God's law*. And that is why there are no dinosaurs in Italy. * A lesson those Commies in the Supreme Court shoulda learnt, but that's for next week's sermon.

PS There are indeed dinosaurs in Italy. They're known as birds (These are avian descendants of a certain theropod dinosaur lineage.).

Frank J said: No, it's another way of saying that if we don't know every last detail, we'll just use the best explanation based on multiple lines of independent evidence, until that evidence demands a better alternative.

Amadán said:

John Kwok said: Are you for real, or is this an Monty Pythong-esque joke (I'm inclined to believe the latter.) that should have been posted on April Fool's Day:

Amadán said: A serious defect in the practice of evolutionariansm is the failure of scientists to educate life forms to have a proper understanding of species loyalty. How often have we seen paleontological evidence of species failing to observe their God-prescribed boundaries, thereby provoking divine retribution, whether simply through replacement by new species, or by cataclysmic means like the odd dropped meteorite? If the dinosaurs had not tolerated species traitors among them, they would still dominate the Earth. With men. Or vice versa. It's in the Bible somewhere, I'll find it later. Creationist half-wits scientists have a much clearer sense of their duty. When St Francis of Assisi preached to the birds and animals, do you think he was reading from Darwin's Origins of the Specious? Of course not. He was telling those cute little things how they had been created each after their own kind, and that miscegenation was against God's law*. And that is why there are no dinosaurs in Italy. * A lesson those Commies in the Supreme Court shoulda learnt, but that's for next week's sermon.

PS There are indeed dinosaurs in Italy. They're known as birds (These are avian descendants of a certain theropod dinosaur lineage.).

John, your sense of irony is a bit rusty.

Charlie Wagner said: That’s just another way of saying that if we don’t know, we’ll just make something up and that’ll do fine. This is not science as I understand it.

Richard Feynman said: ("The Character of Physical Law" pages 165-166) It is not unscientific to make a guess, although many people who are not in science think it is. Some years ago I had a conversation with a layman about flying saucers. I said "I don't think there are flying saucers." So my antagonist said, "Is it impossible that there are flying saucers? Can you prove that it's impossible?" "No", I said, "I can't prove it's impossible. It's just very unlikely." At that he said, "You are very unscientific. If you can't prove it impossible then how can you say that it's unlikely?" But that is the way that *is* scientific. It is scientific only to say what is more likely and what less likely, and not to be proving all the time the possible and impossible. To define what I mean, I might have said to him, "Listen, I mean that from my knowledge of the world that I see around me, I think that it is much more likely that the reports of flying saucers are the results of the known irrational characteristics of terrestrial intelligence than of the unknown rational efforts of extra-terrestrial intelligence." It is just more likely, that is all. It is a good guess. And we always try to guess the most likely explanation, keeping in the back of the mind the fact that if it does not work we must discuss the other possibilities.

The funny thing about arguing with such folks is that everybody here -- or almost everybody here -- knows it's a waste of breath. One would have a more constructive conversation with a concrete block.

It's partly the monkey mind at work, but there's also the urge to articulate an answer to trash logic even with an audience consisting of the faithful, plus a concrete block. Might come in handy one of these days, right?

Or maybe not.

MrG http://www.vectorsite.net

Charlie Wagner said:

Science uses the best available theory. Absent any better alternative, evolution will remain “best” no matter how much mud you sling at it.

That's just another way of saying that if we don't know, we'll just make something up and that'll do fine. This is not science as I understand it.

Dan and Eric -

Of course scientists can and should form hypotheses in cases where explanations are lacking.

But theories are strongly supported general concepts which explain many observations.

If I drop something tomorrow and it fall to the ground, I don't need a new hypothesis to explain what happened. In fact, if I drop something tomorrow, assuming no radical changes in my local environment, it will drop to the ground, unless air resistance/wind current/obstacle such as tree branch interferes. And even then, a macroscopic object will get to the ground eventually. I have gravitational theory to explain what will happen. I don't need to guess, or to be more accurate, I have one potential guess that is far better than any other guess I might make. A theory allows me to make a strong prediction.

I understand that Charlie is wrong to say that scientists shouldn't make rational, educated, testable guesses (also known as hypotheses). But he's somewhat wronger than just that, because the theory of evolution is a theory.

The theory of evolution explains and predicts a great deal, including all the examples Charlie brought up.

I don't think we disagree, but I do want to emphasize that the theory of evolution is more than just a useful working guess. It has survived numerous potential challenges.

As he formulated his writings, Darwin had no way of knowing anything about most of the currently known fossil record, Mendelian "classical" genetics, cell biology, microbiology, or modern molecular genetics.

Yet as each of these fields subsequently developed, the theory of evolution became stronger.

eric said: Only creationists have this fundamentally wrong concept that scientific theories must meet some objective standard of truth before they are accepted.

harold said: As he formulated his writings, Darwin had no way of knowing anything about most of the currently known fossil record, Mendelian "classical" genetics, cell biology, microbiology, or modern molecular genetics. Yet as each of these fields subsequently developed, the theory of evolution became stronger.

harold said: The theory of evolution explains and predicts a great deal, including all the examples Charlie brought up. I don't think we disagree, but I do want to emphasize that the theory of evolution is more than just a useful working guess. It has survived numerous potential challenges.

eric said: When I describe the theory as a tool, it is not to compare its utility to a wrench or microscope. That comparison would be woefully inadequate. ToE is one of the best and most enduringly useful tools we've ever had. Its so good its hard to conceptually imagine anything that could replace it. Its the sonic screwdriver of the biology toolbox. :)

The interesting thing is that when we look at Darwin's legacy, it has grown with massive elaboration from the roots he laid down. Is it the same theory? Absolutely not; it still does contain major elements of his original thinking, but one could almost tell the critics: "Forget about Darwin, he's irrelevant, focus on what we've got in the here and now."

However, he's not irrelevant, because if you render down what Darwin said to simplest terms it is: "Evolution exists and it is a nondeterministic process." Evolution was not a new idea but Darwin was the first to honestly understand its implications, and to base it on processes that had nothing to do with any overall direction. That was new.

That is precisely the idea that gives the critics the shake rattle and roll. As long as it survives, they are at war with it. It has only become stronger over time and their efforts to dislodge it, or even water it down, have failed completely.

MrG http://www.vectorsite.net

Dan said: The reason that the tools of science are sharper than the tools of, say, theology (or law) is precisely because we don't take them to be fixed and "god-given" (or "legislator-given").

For anyone who is interested, here are a few references on the phylogenetics of the Galapagos Finches:

PNAS 96:5101-5106 (1999)

Zoo J 118(2):119-1342008)

Proc Biol Sci 266(1417):321 (1999)

Auk 116(3):577-588 (1999)

Bioscience 53(10):965-975 (2003

Proc Roy Soc B 272"819-826 (2005)

The last two references also discuss ecological factors that that are important for driving speciation.

Of course all of these studies, as well as the cichlid studie reveal a nested hierarchy of genetic similarity that is expected from common descent. And the phylogenies are generally concordant whether mitochondrial sequences, microsatellites, SINE insertions or allozyme markers are used as characters. I'm just dying to see how Charlie explains all this.

Dan said: The reason that the tools of science are sharper than the tools of, say, theology (or law) is precisely because we don't take them to be fixed and "god-given" (or "legislator-given"). We know our "laws" are fallible, hence we can improve them. (The modern theory of evolution is very different from Darwin's theory of evolution.) If we had ever said "We must not question Darwin's word" (as some theologists insist "We must not question god's word") then we would never have improved on it, and we would not now face the prospect of improving it further.

Like Feynman’s antagonist, Charlie doesn’t know much science nor does he understand the character of science. And like Feynman’s antagonist, Charlie uses his misconceptions concerning science to go around telling scientists that they’re being unscientific!

Charlie Wagner said: I've been using that Feynman quote for years. I don't have to prove that darwinism is impossible. I just have to demonstrate that it is highly unlikely. "It is scientific only to say what is more likely and what less likely, and not to be proving all the time the possible and impossible." - Feynman I look around the world for empirical evidence for a link between random mutation and natural selection and the emergence of highly organized structures, processes that are found in living organisms and I don't find any. Therefore. I conclude that it is highly unlikely.

Look, guy, you've said this repeatedly, we understand where you're coming from, we have no questions about it. And nobody here buys a word you say, and never will.

So I think we're done here. Have a nice day.

Charlie wrote:

"I don’t have to prove that darwinism is impossible. I just have to demonstrate that it is highly unlikely."

Well I don't know what "darwinism" is, but you are on record as saying that common descent has not occurred. However, I have provided evidence that shows unambigously that common descent has actually occurred in African cichlids and Galapagos finches. You have not even addressed this data let alone provided any alternative hypothesis. Until you do, you will must excuse everyone for not taking you at all seriously.

Now, how do you explain the nested herarchy of genetic similarity shown in mutliple data sets for African cichlids and Galapagos finches? Here is a hint, it does not depend on the same genes being used over and over and it does not depend on the definition of species. It is however exactly the pattern that one would predict if common descent is true.

Another "poser", which will be ignored in favor of "there's no evidence".

DS,

Don't hold your breath. Multiple independent lines of empirical evidence from genetics dovetailing in ironclad support of common descent cannot be dismissed on their own merits.

So, Charlie will at the most pull a Behe and, sight unseen, cavalierly dismiss the professional scientific work you cited as inadequate.

Chances are he'll simply ignore the point completely, spew a smokescreen of twisted epistemological arguments, then declare victory.

Charlie wrote:

"I look around the world for empirical evidence for a link between random mutation and natural selection and the emergence of highly organized structures, processes that are found in living organisms and I don’t find any. Therefore. I conclude that it is highly unlikely."

Well I look around the world for empirical evidence for a link between random mutation and natural selection and the emergence of highly organized structures, processes that are found in living organisms and I find lots of evidence that it has actually occurred. I also find lots of evidence for many known mechanisms whereby it could, and most likely did, occur. Therefore, I conclude that it is highly unlikely that you have any idea what you are talking about. I also find it highly unlikely that your conclusion is based on a careful examination of all of the evidence, or that it can be affected by any evidence.

DS said: Therefore, I conclude that it is highly unlikely that you have any idea what you are talking about.

Well I don’t know what “darwinism” is, but you are on record as saying that common descent has not occurred.

— DS

I look around the world for empirical evidence for a link between random mutation and natural selection and the emergence of highly organized structures, processes that are found in living organisms and I don’t find any.

ing.

Charlie Wagner said: I've been using that Feynman quote for years.

If I drop something tomorrow and it fall to the ground, I don’t need a new hypothesis to explain what happened. In fact, if I drop something tomorrow, assuming no radical changes in my local environment, it will drop to the ground, unless air resistance/wind current/obstacle such as tree branch interferes. And even then, a macroscopic object will get to the ground eventually. I have gravitational theory to explain what will happen. I don’t need to guess, or to be more accurate, I have one potential guess that is far better than any other guess I might make. A theory allows me to make a strong prediction.

Well I don’t know what “darwinism” is, but you are on record as saying that common descent has not occurred.

Charlie Wagner said: You're talking about the LAW of gravity. There is no one universally accepted "Theory of Gravity". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity

Charlie Wagner said: I don't have to prove that darwinism is impossible. I just have to demonstrate that it is highly unlikely.

"It is scientific only to say what is more likely and what less likely, and not to be proving all the time the possible and impossible." - Feynman I look around the world for empirical evidence for a link between random mutation and natural selection and the emergence of highly organized structures, processes that are found in living organisms and I don't find any.

Therefore. I conclude that it is highly unlikely.

Charlie Wagner said:

Well I don’t know what “darwinism” is, but you are on record as saying that common descent has not occurred.

Here's what darwinism is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism

I do not deny a common origin for all living organisms.

The Wikipedia article Charlie linked describes the term ‘darwinism’ several ways. Charlie, you have told us nothing of what you think darwinism means.

Charlie,

So you haven't looked at any of the evidence for common descent and you don't have any alternative explanation for any of the evidence. Well I can't believe that anyone who hasn't looked at the evidence would expect anyone else to be convinced by the fact that they are not aware of any evidence, therefore you can't possibly be making any real argument.

If you want to discuss the evidence then by all means read one of the papers and we can discuss it. Some of the papers have been published online and free access is available. If you are unable or unwilling to do that, then no one will be willing to accept your argument from incredulity.

Charlie,

Here is the link for the Bioscience paper.

http://courses.washington.edu/biol354/GrantGrant03BioScience.pdf

The title is:

What Darwin's Finches can teach us about the evolutionary origin and regulation of biodiversity.

From the abstract:

Key factors in their evolutionary diversification are environmental change, natural selection and cultural evolution.

Charlie Wagner (April 6 7:02 PM) "Every living thing is related to every other living thing, but no one form is ancestral or descendant to any other form."

Charlie Wagner (April 7 7:00 PM) "I do not deny a common origin for all living organisms."

These statements lack "intuitive clarity." Charlie, before you start writing your Nobel Prize acceptance speech, you should work on expressing your ideas more "clearly and unambiguously."

Charlie,

Here is a link for a paper that describes the genes involved in the evolution of beak size in finches:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v442/n7102/full/nature04843.html

The reference is: Nature 442:563-567 (2006)

The paper shows which types of genes and which types of mutations are responsible for changes in beak morphology.

So now I have provided evidence for the role of both random mutation and natural selection in speciation of finches. I can also provide similar evidence for chiclids or probably just about any other group that you would care to discuss.

By the way, I was also interested in how you can possibly reconcile the two statements that there is a common origin of all living things but that one form cannot be descended from another. Are you saying that were all poofed into existence by the same person but at different times, or are you just trying to be deliberately obtuse?

nor have you bothered to explain why, if such diverse suites of fish did not appear due to speciation from ancestral invaders, all of them have the exact same SINE insertions in their genomes.

Charlie Wagner said: I don't have to prove that darwinism is impossible. I just have to demonstrate that it is highly unlikely.

You're talking about the LAW of gravity. There is no one universally accepted "Theory of Gravity".

sorry. 'natural' was meant to be 'nature'

Knowledge of truth and falsity in empirical matters, as we have been stressing, is gained only by work, not by verbal manipulations. (p. 58)

“It is scientific only to say what is more likely and what less likely, and not to be proving all the time the possible and impossible.” - Feynman

Paul and John (not the Beatles) wrote:

"Knowledge of truth and falsity in empirical matters, as we have been stressing, is gained only by work, not by verbal manipulations."

Charlie wrote:

“Every living thing is related to every other living thing, but no one form is ancestral or descendant to any other form.”

Talk about verbal manipulations. If no "one form" is ancestral or descendant to any other then apparently Charlie is claiming that he has no parents and can never have any children. How in the world can things be "related" without being ancestral or descendant?

There are only two ways to be related, by descent or by marriage and finches and cichlids do not get married. A Chevy Tahoe is not "related" to a Suburban just because they are made by the same company. They can be similar or serve the same function but they cannot be "related". Charlie has got some spalinin to do.

As for doing the work, if you can't even be bothered to read the relevant literature, why on earth would anyone suppose that you would ever actually produce some relevant literature?

Charlie Wagner said: I look around the world for empirical evidence for a link between random mutation and natural selection and the emergence of highly organized structures, processes that are found in living organisms and I don't find any. Therefore. I conclude that it is highly unlikely.

So far “ontogenetic depth” is just one of those verbal manipulations, as, incidentally, is Nelson’s Dynamic Creation Model.

— RBH

Charlie Wagner said: I don't have a clue...nor does anyone else.

Charlie Wagner said: I look around the world for empirical evidence for a link between random mutation and natural selection and the emergence of highly organized structures, processes that are found in living organisms and I don't find any. Therefore. I conclude that it is highly unlikely.

Dan said:I look around Ohio for empirical evidence that the Earth is round, and I don't find any. Therefore. I conclude that it is highly unlikely.

Keelyn said: I just love this site! I read Charlie's jibberish, too (beginning to end - I read everything in its entirety ... I can't help it). Thank you Traffic Demon; you made my day! I laughed my sides into pain! May I have your permission to use that line?!

Charlie Wagner said: Where does it all end? If it goes on like this, it will end up just as I predicted. Every living thing is related to every other living thing, but no one form is ancestral or descendant to any other form.

Anthony said: It is apparent that Mr. Wagner just does not understand biology, or he must be just a prankster.

Charlie Wagner said:

Science uses the best available theory. Absent any better alternative, evolution will remain “best” no matter how much mud you sling at it.

That's just another way of saying that if we don't know, we'll just make something up and that'll do fine. This is not science as I understand it.

realridiculousuneducabletroll Charlie Wagner blithers uneducably on:

If you make the statement “random mutation and natural selection can lead to new species” and you can’t define what a species is (I’ll know it when I see it?) then your theory is worthless.

I could just as easily say: 'If you make the statement “F=ma” and you can’t define what a force is (I’ll know it when I see it?) then Newtonian physics is worthless.' Guess what -- Newtonian physics worked, and was far from "worthless," regardless of its inability to encompass all aspects of what "force" actually meant.

Furthermore, how we define -- or fail to define -- "species" has absolutely no bearing on the OBSERVABLE FACT that physical changes do indeed occur as a result of random mutation, natural selection, lateral gene transfer, etc. etc.; and that the theory of evolution is still THE ONLY USEFUL EXPLANATATORY AND PREDICTIVE TOOL available to deal with what we observe.

Besides, it's the CREATIONISTS who insist that new "species" can't be created through evolution. So if the lack of a solid definition of the word "species" is a problem, it's a problem for creationists, not evolutionists.

I could just as easily say: ‘If you make the statement “F=ma” and you can’t define what a force is (I’ll know it when I see it?) then Newtonian physics is worthless.’

Stephen Hawking on Cosmic Ancestry (Panspermia)

"Hawking also talked about what humans may find when venturing into space, such as the possibility of alien life through the theory of panspermia, which says that life in the form of DNA particles can be transmitted through space to habitable places.

“Life could spread from planet to planet or from stellar system to stellar system, carried on meteors,” he said.

7 April 2009

Stephen Hawking, April 2009. Hawking is one of several celebrity-scientist who have recently endorsed panspermia.
Ruminations on other worlds: Stephen Hawking’s daughter, Lucy Hawking, presents her father’s work via prerecorded audio and slideshow at an Origins Symposium at Arizona State University, Tempe, 3-6 Apr, reported by Rheyanne Weaver, 7 Apr 2009.
http://www.asuwebdevil.com/node/5745

Oh wait...he's only a Physicist.
What the hell does he know about Biology??

Charlie Wagner said: Stephen Hawking on Cosmic Ancestry (Panspermia) "Hawking also talked about what humans may find when venturing into space, such as the possibility of alien life through the theory of panspermia, which says that life in the form of DNA particles can be transmitted through space to habitable places. “Life could spread from planet to planet or from stellar system to stellar system, carried on meteors,” he said.

Charlie,

A brilliant physicist has an opinion about panspermia. So what? For that matter, so what if a brilliant exobiologist has an opinion on panspermia? That and a couple of bucks will get you a cup of coffee. Until they publish their ideas with supporting evidence in the primary scientific literature it still amounts to an argument from authority, nothing more.

Now, why don't you succinctly explain how all organisms can be related, but not through descent. If it has anything to do with horizontal gene transfer, read DS's posts again before you answer.

Charlie,

Until you explain the following statement:

“Every living thing is related to every other living thing, but no one form is ancestral or descendant to any other form.”

no one is going to take anything you say at all seriously. How in the world can two living things be "related" if neither is ancestral or descendant? Are you claiming that they are not really related? Are you claiming that they are really ancestral or descendant? Are you making any real point at all, or are you just making stuff up again?

By the way, I have provided you with nearly twenty references, many with free links. You have thus far failed to address any of this evidence. Once again, until you do, no one is going to take anything you say at all seriously.

DS said: Once again, until you do, no one is going to take anything you say at all seriously.

Wait a minute, I get it now. It's all so clear. "related" means "came from outer space". Terrific. Well that explains everything. That explains all of the basic similarities between all life forms on earth, including the genetic code and the nested hierarchy of genetic similarities. It certainly explains the SINE insertions in whales and cichlids and the different beak sizes in Galapagos Finches. I'm totally convinced.

News flash for Charlie - no one is interested in connecting the dots of your little delusion for you. If you have something constructive to say just spit it out. The Obi-wan technique is not going to work here grasshopper. No one is going to be fooled by your vague musings.

I tried to fix this for realpc ..er Charlie
“Every living thing is related to every other living thing, but no one extant species is ancestral or descendant to any other extant species”

but that still isn't right - a an emerging species certainly could arise while the population is was isolated from was still extant- nope, no way to make this anything but gibberish

DS said: Charlie, ... I have provided you with nearly twenty references, many with free links. You have thus far failed to address any of this evidence. Once again, until you do, no one is going to take anything you say at all seriously.

It is no wonder that the producers of this website are so threaten by Paul Nelson; in just a few paragraphs of his speech he invalidates and discredits the antiquated claims from this website.

http://www.cross.tv/40166

(sniff, sniff).... nah. Not worth it.

I listened. I doubt that Gould ever said that, or if he did, it was to blow off a nuisance who had been wasting his time by parading his ignorance and refusing to learn anything. And as for seizing on the word "create" in that wickedly insidious manner, words fail me. I haven't heard anything that dishonest since, oh, the last time I had to listen to a creationist.

The only thing Nelson threatens rational people with is exasperation.

The Panda's thumb is for power-grasping. It holds bamboo so that the panda can eat it. It's very specialised to that purpose. Of course it works fine - for that, and for very similar tasks. But not even Nelson is enough of a dill to say that it's as versatile as the human hand. He just dicks around with the word "suboptimal" as though it means "not good for holding bamboo", when what it means is "not good for all grasping and manipulating tasks".

Of course evolved structures work for the purpose they're evolved for - they're specifically selected to do that. If they didn't, they wouldn't have evolved. So why on Earth would anyone think that this is a problem for evolution?

In fact, it's a vindication for evolution, because evolution explains why the panda doesn't use its fifth digit, its real thumb. Why wasn't that evolved into an opposable digit? Why this curious development of the sesamoid bone in the wrist?

The answer is that the ancestors of the panda were more generalised bears, as DNA evidence shows. They had no opposable digit, no "thumb". The fifth digit was already fully evolved into a parallel claw. In bears, it can hardly move independent of the others. It can't be used for grasping. The panda's ancestors "grabbed" things to eat them by using the paws as grappling hooks. Look at a black bear eating berries, for example. It pulls the loaded branches towards itself by hooking them with its whole paws, bent at the wrist.

Evolution works with what is. As the panda specialised, there was an advantage in making that action more efficient for grabbing bamboo and other food plants. Hence, a structure that optimised that action was selected for, and evolved. But it didn't develop the fifth digit, because the bear doesn't use it. It developed the wrist instead, which is the structure the bear does use.

So the panda's thumb is explained by evolution. Now look at it the other way up. Nelson is trying to give the impression that this is a "challenge" for evolution, which it isn't, but he's also trying to imply that if evolution can't explain it, then "designer did it" does.

Only "designer did it" explains nothing. Not the panda's thumb, not anything to do with any structure of any living creature, not anything. So not only is Nelson wrong, he isn't even in the contest. If this were a tennis game, Roger Federer would be serving for match point at Flushing Meadow while Nelson was looking for the stadium in Ouagadougou, wearing plus-fours and carrying a fly-fishing rod.

Professor X said: It is no wonder that the producers of this website are so threaten by Paul Nelson; in just a few paragraphs of his speech he invalidates and discredits the antiquated claims from this website. http://www.cross.tv/40166

mplavcan said:

Professor X said: It is no wonder that the producers of this website are so threaten by Paul Nelson; in just a few paragraphs of his speech he invalidates and discredits the antiquated claims from this website. http://www.cross.tv/40166

Niiiiiice. This is worth replying to, but only in the sense that it illustrates so nicely just how a creationist can twist an argument. Luckett hit the key points. But just to underscore, the argument is NOT about whether the "thumb" works or not. Nelson knowingly omits the key point that the "thumb" is not the true thumb, thereby raising the question of why would God have to rely on a jerry-rigged apparatus when a perfectly serviceable structure is already there. Given that Gould pounded this point home over and over, there are only two ways Nelson could omit this point -- 1) he is too stupid to understand it, or 2) he is deliberately omitting the point and thereby effectively lying. Take your pick.

That's one way to capitalize on a concept.