Any comments on this unknown authored DI piece:
It seems to be mostly polemics.
“Strangely, she overlooks the comeback argument that if the environment was able to preserve soft parts, it should have preserved transitional forms, if there were any.”
What a non-sequitur. Their view of taphonomy is so naive. One sediment that preserves one type of organism may not preserve another type of organism. My Mosasaur is missing six verts. But the others are preserved. So why not the other six? They should have been preserved too. I mean the rest were. Well I guess this mosasaur just had six less verts than all the others.
Here’s another nugget to add:
Fresh with 200 new samples of Stromatoveris , she labels it an “animal.” But the paper she wrote in Paleontology with Jian Han shows that it has no hierarchical body plan, organs or even a body cavity.
Sounds quite a bit like Phylum Porifera.
I think it does a good job of exposing how vacuous evolutionary “explanations” often are.
Can you provide the missing details or are you satisfied with hand-waving science.
Why do you think that DI does a good job of exposing what you call “vacuous evolutionary explanations”?
If we could interrupt Darwinians every time they say a biological phenomenon “has evolved,” and ask how it evolved, debate about the Cambrian explosion would consist of a series of long pauses. But since journals refuse to give voice to Darwin skeptics due to the arbitrary rule of methodological naturalism, the Darwinians continue to get away with non-answers to the origin of hierarchical complexity.
Good news, no Darwinians in science any more. Falsified a long time ago. Catch up.
Like @swamidass says, if you want to interrupt a Darwinian then you are going to have to build a time machine.
I would agree that peer review journals are quite persnickety about their authors using the scientific method.
But you sure find plenty of them on the internet still!
As far as whether or not they can still be found in science I recommend the following:
Send them here and we’ll set them straight. They will enjoy an education on current evolutionary theory. Maybe they will give up Darwinism and you will give up anti-evolutionism. Nothing is challenging in the evidence of the Cambrian Explosion to current understanding of evolution. Catch up.
I’m supposing that Joshua and Mung might not agree on what “Darwinian” means. Is Jonathan Losos a Darwinian? What are the criteria?
Incidentally, that’s a great book. Lots of interesting experimental evolutionary biology, though it isn’t clear what Mung sees in it.
Have Coyne and Dawkins abandoned Neo Darwinism at this point?
Yes, they use the term evolution for anything to do with evolutionary science. You should try it. Just say evolution with a lowercase e. No need to mention Charles Darwin any more. He’s been dead a long time so won’t mind at all. And don’t need to a Theistic in front of evolution either as evolution is neutral on the existence of God or not.
Coyne does use the term Darwinism sometimes still. It would be great if he stopped altogether.
okay, I’ll tell him to stop.
5 posts were split to a new topic: Why Venerate Darwin?
Blah blah blah
You would do well to provide MORE adjectives than fewer when corresponding with YECs.
I will when Patrick stops telling me ways to describe Evolution which, if I followed them, are guaranteed to harm your labors here.