Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

"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.

OK. No big deal.

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?

Earlier *animals*. Why did you cut your quote off in mid-sentence? Oh, I
see. Because it's where he says there were no earlier animals: "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 (including those in China, Canada, and elsewhere) adds up
to over 50 phyla. That means [there are] more phyla in the very, very
beginning, where we found the first fossils [of animal life], than exist
now."

What do you think "in the very, very beginning" means?

And this claim of over 50 phyla is just wrong. Show me a reference to
that in the scientific literature. Give me a count.


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."

That's comparing it to the Burgess Shale, which is younger. Not to any
of the older deposits, some of them of Cambrian age, that also have
animal fossils.

"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.)"

Whose consensus? None that I know of. And I know the literature pretty well.

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.

Again: He claims to know that no new phyla have originate since the
Cambrian. How does he know? On the basis of fossils? But, like I said,
half of all modern phyla have no fossil record. So how can he possibly
know this?

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.

I'm arguing from authority, and therefore you have to know my
credentials? But I'm not arguing from authority. And his being chairman
of a department had nothing to do with his knowledge of Cambrian
fossils. He has never published on the subject, and as far as I can tell
never taught a course on the subject. He has no scholarly footprint in
paleontology. What he does is study the effects of pollution on marine
invertebrates. This is all irrelevant to the question.

"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.

No. If you were smart you wouldn't believe anyone, even the chairman of
the biology department, because he says so. I have given you citations
and urls for my claims. Either look them up or don't.

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

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

Feel free to be skeptical. It's a good attitude to take when examining
creationist claims. I will continue to assert that my credentials are
unimportant. If you really believe only arguments from authority, and
insist upon it, I will tell you. But I'm giving you one more opportunity
to realize that credentials don't matter before I do.

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.

The only things I can do here are make assertions and direct you to
places where you can confirm what I said. What more can anyone do?

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.

You could say this about any reference I gave you. What would you take
as evidence?

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.

Pick one or a few, specifically.

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?

If you think I'm lying about the references I cite, you are free to look
them up. Argument from authority is a bit different from my claim that I
am not lying about things I have read, and you haven't.

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.

That's death for you.

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

The site doesn't seem to be in working condition right now. Perhaps later.

"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?

That's a complicated question, since PE is a complicated theory. I would
say that he hasn't (and of course is not likely to in the future, being
dead and all). We can take apart PE into several parts: 1) stasis, 2)
morphological punctuation, 3) coincidence of 2 with speciation, 4)
Gould's proposed mechanism, essentially Mayr's peripatric speciation
theory. Of these, 1 is easiest to show, but I don't think it has yet
been adequately demonstrated as a widespread phenomenon. 2 is a bit
harder, requiring very good stratigraphic and geographic controls. It
may have been demonstrated in some species, mostly forams. 3 is, I
think, impossible from the fossil record, simply because we can only try
to recognize species based on morphological change, and the assertion
then becomes circular. And the genetics on 4 are not looking good.

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.

I'm not clear what you mean by micro or macro. I sense you are using
them in ways that are different from what biologists mean. At any rate,
macroevolution by any definition doesn't depend on PE, or even on
fossils. The best evidence for macroevolution is the nested hierarchy of
living species, especially the DNA sequence evidence.

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.

You read the quote from Gould in which he specifically says that
creationists misinterpreted him in exactly the way you do here, right?
Your choices are to admit this, or to claim that Gould never said it and
I made up the quote.

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.

Give me an argument from the site that you like. We'll look at it together.

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.

Always in the same context. You are reaching here. If you won't take
Gould's word on what he meant, how can you take Chien's word on what
Johnson's said Gould meant?

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.

The problem here is with the ambiguity of "they". Gould is talking about
species, Chien about phyla. Species and phyla are different.

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.

Gould is saying that? Are you really claiming that S. J. Gould rejected
evolution? Choose your words carefully.

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.

Apparently they can't, since you refuse to believe that he meant what he
said.

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."

If you will read his bio, he was influenced by conservative Christians
from an early age, long before he became a biologist. His formal
conversion may have come later, but his doubts and his religious beliefs
went hand in hand.

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.

What biologist? What book? And what can I possibly do to turn my
assertions into evidence that I haven't done already?

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.

I still would sign. There are other *known* evolutionary mechanisms
besides random mutation and 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.

Didn't say anything about Darwinian evolution, actually. I said
"Scientists who actually work on this do see transitional forms". And by
"this" I meant Cambrian paleontology. How many of the signers of that
document do you imagine don't believe there are transitional forms? How
would you know?

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.

Maybe you need to make clear what you are claiming this list shows, and
how it has anything to do with the existence, or lack thereof, of
transitional fossils in the Cambrian.

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.

Scientific papers are just assertions? Well, I suppose they are. We do
have to trust to some degree that the people who write these things
aren't actually lying, unless we duplicate all their research ourselves.
But in what way are your citations any less assertions than mine? At
least mine were to the primary literature. Your guys, at most, are
merely secondary sources.

How would I go about getting beyond assertions? What form would that take?

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

Right.

Really.

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

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

Like I said, there's nothing in that statement I wouldn't agree with.

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.

What am I missing here?

Well, this is a disappointment. I started off talking about actual
fossils, real facts, and end up in pointless, circular arguments about
what assertions are, and whether Gould meant what he said or something
else. Now what?