"John Harshman"
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

You're very generous. He didn't claim to have made discoveries there
but he spent time with those who had at the site and presents his
visit with an international group as being informed to what the discoveries
were. those were his findings, you don't need to be so defensive.


I'm just saying that "findings" is a bit of a fancy term to apply to
what he did. That's all.


"Findings" is fancy? I don't agree.


He said it's the site of the first animals found in the early Cambrian times.
I asked why that was wrong and you countered with findings in
the Vendian period. That doesn't make sense.


The clear implication was not just that they were the first Cambrian
animals, but that they were the first animals.

Maybe to you but he said:

"A simple way of putting it is that currently we have about 38 phyla
of different groups of animals, but the total number of phyla discovered
during that period of time..."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Otherwise his claim makes
no sense. At any rate, it's wrong even if you make that restriction.
There are earlier animal fossils, even in the Cambrian, as I have
explained already.


Where does he say there was no earlier life?



The Chengjiang is the earliest well-preserved,
soft-bodied, diverse Cambrian fauna.

Yes, that's what he said

"But it turns out that the China site is much older, and the preservation
of the specimens is much, much finer."

"Since the Cambrian period, we have only die-off and no new groups
coming about, ever. There's only one little exception cited the group
known as bryozoans, which are found in the fossil record a little later.
However, most people think we just haven't found it yet; that group was
probably also present in the Cambrian explosion."


He agrees on the bryozoans, but he doesn't appear to know that the
majority of modern phyla have no fossil record. We have no data to tell
us whether Bryozoa originated in the Ordovician or earlier. But if they
did originate earlier, then they only developed mineralized skeletons in
the Ordovician.


Can you explain your assertion? What leads you to believe that he
doesn't know that the majority of modern phyla have no fossil record?

Because he's making claims about the total number of phyla through
history. How can he do that if there's no record of the majority of them
until the present?

He says the consensus is...

"(Actually the number 50 was first quoted as over 100 for a while,
but then the consensus became 50-plus.)"



You essentially repeat what he said, i.e. that the Bryozoa was found in
the later period. How does that lead to your conclusion?

It doesn't. The rest of what I said leads to that conclusion.


That makes less sense.


As for transitionals, there are many such in the Chengjiang, including
Yunnanozoon.

You are making a number of claims by assertion. He is chairman of the
biology department at the University of San Francisco and he said:

Actually, he's not chairman now. And what relevance does that have,
whether he is or isn't? Argument from authority?


He was chairman at the time but if he was as clueless as you suggested
it seems unlikely he would have had the position. On the contrary, so
far your argument is entirely on authority, which is why I asked for
credentials.



"In studying marine organisms, and mainly the invertebrate groups, I have a
clear vision of the distinct characteristics of each phyla."

I guess at this point I need to ask you what your credentials are, no
offense, but generalized accusations are a poor substitute for rebuttal.

Credentials are meaningless.


I see. So if we were smart we would disregard the chairman of the Biology
Dept. and believe some guy on usenet because he says so.


I certainly have better credentials than he
does, for what that's worth.


Consider me skeptical. Your assertions are getting a bit old though.


But my point is that it's worth nothing, so
I resist discussing the matter. What's worth something is the actual
information. I have made claims. You could verify them by reading the
primary scientific literature. There are also a few popular books, and
web sites too, but in the latter case there are also many web sites with
misinformation (like the Chien interview).


It seems he's better suited to understand the literature than you or I,
furthermore, he's actually been to the site. You like to back up
assertions with even more assertions. I hope you realize that it
isn't a very scholarly approach.


You will just have to decide
somehow.


Assertions and posturing don't go far with me.


I have already recommended an important scientific paper. Don't
know what else to do.


Important because it agrees with you no doubt.


But let's try. Which of my claims do you specifically doubt?


All of the ones so far that didn't mimick Dr. Chein's interview.


I'll try to
back them up. But that may require citing more literature, and unless
you actually go look up the papers, you will have to take my word.


I thought you didn't like arguments by authority?


As for books, Simon Conway Morris' book The Crucible of Creation is
pretty good, and corrects many of the errors of Wonderful Life (not to
pick on Gould, but science advances).


Unfortunantly Gould doesn't seem to be evolving.


Also, Andy Knoll's book Life on a
Young Planet gives you a quick rundown on that and much more. This is a
good scientific review of the general chronology that might help:
Valentine, J. W., D. Jablonski, and D. H. Erwin. 1999. Fossils,
molecules, and embryos: New perspectives on the Cambrian explosion.
Development 126:851-859.

Thanks, I'd like to recommend this for a start to see an alternative perspective:
http://www.origins.org/menus/book.html


"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is
infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether
through design or stupidity, I do not know-- as admitting that the
fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are
generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between
larger groups."

- Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in Hens
Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New
York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260.



Well, if it was really that simple he wouldn't need "punctuated equilibrium"
would he? Clearly the record is a stumbling block with myriads of
theories so he seems to be downplaying the objection quite a bit.
1983 was a while ago, are they any closer to an answer?

The point is actually that you don't even know the question.

We go from wild sweeping allegations to outright insults. That didn't
take long now did it? You also avoided my question, are we any closer
to an answer?

Not an insult, but an observation. An answer to what, exactly?


hint - You quoted Gould on why he proposed PE. That was
quite awhile ago, did he prove it yet?


PE has a
problem, in that it's really impossible to test it using the fossil
record.

How do you propose we test it?


I'm not sure it can be tested except by looking at the process of
speciation happening right now.


Wait a minute there. Micro-evolution isn't even in dispute. Your scientific
approach is an assertion. Micro doesn't prove macro.


But I hope at least you will retract your claim about what Gould
said.


What for? You should explain first why his theory is reasonable.
ID gets flak because it isn't testable so why doesn't Gould, or anyone
else, need to meet the same challenge?


I don't think his theory is reasonable. Gould does indeed need to meet
the testability challenge. All that has nothing to do with your
misinterpretation of what he was claiming.


Or your assertion that I misinterpreted it.


For more on that, go he
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quot....html#quote3.2

A good rebuttal site created to balance their view is:
http://www.trueorigin.org/

I don't find it very good. Perhaps you are too credulous.

More assertions.

Merely reporting my experience with that site.


Merely reporting another assertion.


Dr Gould was referring to the entire fossil record, Dr Chien is
referring to the Cambrian explosion and from then to now.


I have no idea what you meant by that.

Me neither. That's apparently why he dangled the post in your
group.

Now I think I know. Chien was apparently claiming that Gould called the
Cambrian explosion "the trade secret of paleontology" when in fact Gould
was referring to the apparent general stasis within species.

Well, no, it was a more general comment from Gould than that, he
said:
http://www.earthhistory.co.uk/propos...-trade-secret/
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as
the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our
textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest
is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."
S. J. Gould, The Panda’s Thumb, p 179 (1980)

Dr. Chien sited his source as being from Johnson's book so I suppose
it remains to be seen how accurate Johnson was. It seems Gould has
made that comment throughout the years, perhaps in different contexts.
However, it's a small point and I doubt that's why your group was recruited.


To set you, Chien, and Johnson straight on what Gould was actually
talking about? I don't know what could be clearer than quoting Gould
directly explaining what he was actually talking about, but apparently
that's not enough.


Not enough to support your claim about Chein. I don't know in what
context he saw Gould's quote, he used the term "trade secret throughout
the years.


http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp#fossils
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology ...
The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent
with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during
their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same
as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and direction less.
2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by
the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’”
[S.J. Gould (evolutionist); Natural History 86:14 (1977)]

What point are you trying to make by quoting this? Gould, as he himself
explained above, is talking here about fine-grained transitions between
closely related species, not about transitions between major groups.

It relates to what Dr. Chein said about the record, they are in agreement
here.


No. They are not. This is your misinterpretation, as Gould's own words
telling you that you are wrong should have made clear.


No, they agree with what Chein said. He said they were fully formed
and appeared suddenly. I don't know what part of that you don't get.



That is, he's talking about lack of evidence for exactly the sort of
transitions that creationists commonly agree do happen.


He said they look "much the same" as earlier versions. Not exactly
the same, so he is in fact saying that the record agrees with most
creationist's views, *not* disagrees. Micro-evolution is not in
dispute.


Gould is, in the quote above, talking about individual species: they
appear, do not change much during their lifetimes, and disappear. No
"earlier versions" mentioned.


There were no earlier versions, that's the point. He is saying that
they *didn't* evolve.



However closely similar species are found
in the record before them, and more such species after them, generally
in a temporal pattern that clearly demonstrates transitions on that
level. Which is what Gould means when he says "Transitional forms are
generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between
larger groups." So when he says transitionals are rare, he means smooth
transitions between, for example, one species of fruit fly and another.
Just the sort of thing you call "micro-evolution" and say is not in dispute.


Is micro-evolution in dispute? anyway you added greatly to his words,
they can speak for themselves.



As he says way
above, the evidence for the sort of transitions that creationists think
don't happen is plentiful enough.

Yes, he said that too but Dr. Chein doesn't see any. Seems like
if it was a fact it wouldn't be debatable.


It's Chien. And it's not really debatable, unless you come into it with
a full set of creationist preconceptions, as Chien does.


There's more assertions, you've got a million of them.

"Even before I became a Christian, I had doubts about evolution."


Scientists who
actually work on this do see transitional forms. Again, check out the
Budd & Jensen paper I cited earlier.


More and more assertions. I read an interview of a biologist that actually
wrote at least one book on evolution and now discounts it entirely. I
think you may be projecting some of your bias onto a chosen group.


Also you may be interested in a growing list of scientists that are
seriously questioning Darwinian Evolution.
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:I...ient=firefox-a

This list is bogus.

Oh my.

Many of the signers had no idea it would be used to
support creationism. It was a bait-and-switch that relied on the
ambiguity of "Darwinian evolution" to attract customers. But if you like
lists, try Project Steve:


Well, there's one guy who says he was later embarrassed to get involved,
although the Discovery site is available and makes no bones about
it's intent. He doesn't really say that his view on Darwinian Evolution changed
though, just that he's troubled on how it's used.


Precisely. Have you read the actual statement? *I* could have signed it,
as could most evolutionary biologists. It's not denying that evolution
happens, it's not denying that natural selection is important (merely
saying that it's not the only mechanism of evolution, which is clearly
true), and it calls for careful examination of data, which is what
scientists are always supposed to do. It's entirely innocuous. This has
nothing to do with the way in which the DI is trying to use it.


Nice try. But it actually said:

"...skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural
selection to account for the complexity of life"


That pretty much sums up Darwinian Evolution. The dissent isn't limited to
natural selection.


http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/new..._9_16_2005.asp

And...? Mine's bigger than yours? That means we discount
those who disagree with the majority, no matter what their
creditials are?


Nope. You brought up the list as if it proved something.


It does. If you were honest you would admit it. It refutes your theory
that scientists that study Darwinian evolution agree with it.


I'm merely
countering with a list of my own. If your list proves anything, my list
disproves it a lot louder. If my list proves nothing, so does yours. You
pick.


Wrong. The question had nothing to who had the bigger numbers.
Maybe you need to re-read the post.


You do make alot of statements by assertion,
guilt by association or innuendo. Maybe the signers are sick of it
and want a little more perspective and scientific objectivity?


Assertion, yes. But I've given you the tools to check my assertions.


Yes, more assertions. I've given you tools to get a balanced education.


Guilt by association? Innuendo? No idea what you're talking about.


Right.


Speculating about the signers, beyond reading what they signed, is
pointless.


How so when they are credible scientists that question your Darwinian
dogma?


And like I said, the actual statement says nothing I disagree
with. Maybe you should try reading it yourself.


I did, that's why I posted it. Take the blinders off, dude.