"This is therefore the beginning (not the end) of the review process for ID. Perhaps one day the scientific community will be convinced that ID is worthwhile." -Panda's thumb
An encouraging comment, but we are off to a rough start to say the least.
"Although ID is discussed in the concluding section of the paper, there is no positive account of “intelligent design” presented, just as in all previous work on “intelligent design”.
While that's true, that's not unexpected. One must study the design to the point that you almost fully understand it to begin to understand the science involved in creating the design. We don't have the level of understanding yet of either the genetics or molecular manipulation to formulate theories of the design process which is what this is asking for. We've barely begun to learn how to manipulate DNA ourselves, much less theorize about how the Creator did it.
But there are many questions about design itself that may be asked and while evolution and design may ask slightly different questions, in many cases they are so similar as to lead to the same studies. One case in point is the so-called "junk DNA" where evolution seemed ready to accept that that DNA had no function, while Creationists vocalized that they suspected there was function. Both would have continued to study DNA, regardless.
"1. Meyer tries to evaluate morphological evolution by counting taxa, a totally meaningless endeavor for investigating the evolution of morphology."
I don't understand why counting is meaningless in this instance. It seems to me the first step in trying to explain any phenomenon is to attempt to describe, measure and quantify that phenomenon.
2. Meyer repeats the claim that there are no transitional fossils for the Cambrian phyla.
And there's not. Panda's thumb attempts to wave this away by pointing to the microscopic life and then at worms.
Meyers does talk about the Cambrian and whether it was long or short but eventually dismisses it as irrelevant, because you just can't get here from there for the reasons in the rest of his paper.
"3. Meyer attempts to argue that the “gaps” in the fossil record reflect an actual lack of ancestors for Cambrian phyla and subphyla. "
Panda's thumb makes the case that soft bodied animals were not preserved. But there was a recent scientific article published that said that the soft bodied animals were in fact preserved and that the fossil record is reliable in this regard. I believe Meyer's references that article too.
Information and Misinformation
Again Panda's thumb, simply waves away the arguments. In 1 they fuss about the definition of CSI, in 2 they fuss because noone has used CSI to classify stuff, in 3 they fuss because it hasn't been proven that CSI can arrive from random chance, in 4 they seem happier at counting cell types but then dismiss it as not revelant to CSI.
Effectively Panda's thumb is employing a negative argument like they accuse Meyer of doing. They are arguing that the improbability of CSI arriving from natural causes hasn't been fully calculated and therefore we should completely disregard the theory.
"Of Text and Peptides"
"The evolution of new genes has been observed in the lab, in the wild, inferred in great detail between closely-related modern species, and reconstructed in hundreds of cases by comparing the genomes from organisms sequenced in genome projects over the last decade"
Without reviewing the papers cited by Panda's thumb, I doubt seriously that "new genes" evolved. What we are probably dealing with is a robust design that has built in variability that we have selected for in the case of bacterial metaboliziation of toxic substances. This in turn has been interpreted as "new genes" when it is really a function of original design.
This is therefore the beginning (not the end) of the review process for ID. Perhaps one day the scientific community will be convinced that ID is worthwhile.An encouraging comment, but we are off to a rough start to say the least.
An almost delusional encouragement on your part, considering the review went on to say the following.
Only through this route — convincing the scientific community, a route already taken by plate tectonics, endosymbiosis, and other revolutionary scientific ideas — can ID earn a legitimate place in textbooks.Plate tectonics and endosymbiosis offered something that ID does not: real explanatory power. They were genuine advances in our understanding.
Meyer's paper is clearly not the vehicle to do the same for ID. Its failure to present a case for ID at all is telling. It devoted all of its space to taking mostly invalid potshots at evolution. ID is only the UNevolution theory, the theory that, whatever did happen, it couldn't have evolved.
ID needs a story that works. The people who hide behind this front indeed have a story, but they can't tell it because it doesn't work. ID is a Trojan Horse that doesn't fool anyone.
I don't understand why counting is meaningless in this instance. It seems to me the first step in trying to explain any phenomenon is to attempt to describe, measure and quantify that phenomenon.
You not understanding doesn't help you. The review went on to explain that mainstream science has found measures of relatedness it likes better for cladistic analysis. Taxa are hopelessly arbitrary, precisely because evolution HAS happened and every possible shade of relatedness is out there somewhere.
Meyers does talk about the Cambrian and whether it was long or short but eventually dismisses it as irrelevant, because you just can't get here from there for the reasons in the rest of his paper.
Meyer's conclusions on the Cambrian are deliberately misinformed and naive. I noticed the same myself in an earlier paper.
Panda's thumb makes the case that soft bodied animals were not preserved. But there was a recent scientific article published that said that the soft bodied animals were in fact preserved and that the fossil record is reliable in this regard. I believe Meyer's references that article too.
There are a very few Cambrian sites which show soft-bodied preservation. Panda's Thumb is not disputing that. There are almost no Precambrian sites with soft-bodied preservation.
As for CSI, Panda's Thumb is not fussing. I'm not going to try to explain it again if you don't get their version. I'll just say it don't mean a thing until somebody besides Dembski can say what the hell it is and everybody knows a consistent formula for it.
Without reviewing the papers cited by Panda's thumb, I doubt seriously that "new genes" evolved.
I doubt seriously that your doubts will ever have any impact on my doubts that anything else happened.