Actually, it's that just because one person _thinks_ they have evidence, it does not really mean its evidence.
No s***, Sherlock. Evidence has to be valid. Now tell us something we don't know.
The problem, however, is that creationists tend to *IGNORE* the evidence, no matter how strong and caerfully verified and cross-checked and voluminous, by airily blowing it all off without a glance by waving around dismissals like, "just because one person _thinks_ they have evidence, it does not really mean its evidence", then smugly sitting back and declaring victory.
It gets pretty old after the fourth or fifth hundred time.
Ultimately, the arguments for Darwinism are metaphysical in nature.
No.... The arguments for "Darwinism" are based on repeated validations of its predictions, the passing of countless tests of potential falsification, and the overwhelming amount of independently confirming, overlapping lines of evidence.
The *dismissals* of the overwhelming amounts of evidence and confirmations of evolution by creationists , however, *are* based on "metaphysical" arguments, usually boiling down to "you can't present me with evidence that I can't hand-wave away in some manner, like cavalierly labeling it all 'metaphysical' and 'inconclusive'", etc. etc.
No need to *examine* the evidence and do your best to follow where it leads, or try to come up with an alternative explnation that actually fits the evidence better (*ALL* the evidence, not just one corner of it), when you can just label it away, right?
It is based on the assumption of scientific materialism
No it isn't, but thanks for playing. Johnson argues biology like, well, the lawyer he is -- by what *sounds* good to the "jury" (remember the OJ defense team?), not by the most honest assessment of what the full body of evidence indicates. Furthermore, what Johnson doesn't know about basic biology would fill volumes. I debated him online for about a week, ten years ago, and he had to keep resorting to bluster when he was faced with points which required an understanding of biology, which was often. I was not at all impressed.
But I can see why the creationists love him. He tells them what they want to hear, no matter how at odds it is with the actual real-world evidence, or how flawed it is to anyone who actually knows the biology.
The arguments from homology are especially bad. Every instance of "convergent evolution" is evidence that homology is meaningless in determining ancestry. The whole marsupial/placental convergence speaks against homology as a basis of anything at all.
Did Johnson feed you that one too? It fits his "if it sounds good, who cares if it's wrong" style. No, actually, arguments from homology are not "especially bad". Yes, such comparisons are subject to the sort of obvious pitfalls you mention. And GOSH, what do you know, biologists are aware of those obvious sources of error, and for over a century have employed safeguards and crosschecks (such as cladistics) which guard against that sort of elementary mistake.
Johnson sort of "forgot" to mention that when he was bad-mouthing and misinforming you about biologists, right? It's because he's grossly ignorant of how biology is actually practiced, so he just *imagines* how someone as stupid as he assumes all biologists to be might carry on their profession...
It's the typical creationist nonsense, which goes, "oh, wow, since *I* didn't think of this until just now, I'll bet the biologists have *never* thought of it or made adjustments for it!"
(Another classic example is every creationist who suddenly realizes that if the amount of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere varies, it will affect Carbon-14 dating methods. They then run around lecturing everyone on how scientists are all making the mistake of *presuming* that Carbon-14 is in constant supply. I've seen this happen literally dozens of times. What the creationist morons fail to grasp is that the scientists are *way* ahead of them, are well aware that Carbon-14 levels have been fluctuating over time, and have been calibrating Carbon-14 date calculations against huge databases of carefully measured readings and cross-checked historic Carbon-14 levels for OVER FIFTY YEARS now... I guess it takes creationists at *least* half a century to catch up to modern science.)
And Johnson sort of "forgot" to inform you that homologies at the DNA sequence level are not subject to the same kind of convergency issues, and (being "digital") are suitable for discrete mathematical analysis, which means both that DNA sequence homologies can't be handwaved away by Johnson's misrepresentations about morphological homologies, *and* that DNA analysis serves as an objective independent cross-check for morphological analyses.
Then you add in the fact that vertebrates account for only about 1% of the fossil record,
Yeah, so?
and that non-vertebrates show even LESS evidence for evolution than the vertebrates.
Wow, who told you *that* whopper? Whoever it was, they've been lying to you. Let us know your source, so that we can be sure not to trust them in the future.
And if you're going to post false claims, at least make them *specific* -- in what *way* do invertebrates allegedly show less evidence for evolution? Or didn't you think that was relevant?
Hint for the clueless: Bacteria and insects are both "non-vertebrates" (the word you're searching for is "invertebrates"), and due to their faster generational rates, and high reproductive fecundity, they are an even better subject for evolutionary analysis than the slower-reproducing vertebrates. They are also studied more intensely because of the obvious disease-related issues driving the urgency of learning as much as we can about bacterial and insect pests. As a result, there is a *huge* body of literature on evolutionary studies of bacteria and insects. And contrary to your amazing claim, the bacterial and insect studies provide *superb* confirmation of evolutionary biology.
Oh yeah, and the reason why vertebrates are so useful for showing evolution is that most of them are represented by just a few bones and the rest are simply inferred.
ROFL!!! Okay, you've been listening to *way* too many creationist fairy tales. Yes, some parts of vertebrates known via fossils are unavailable and need to be inferred, until further specimens are found. No, no biologist makes the mistake of presuming that the inferred portions are in any way certainties -- educated guesses are appropriately treated as tentative, as they should be, and work proceeds to try to find more hard information to fill in the misty portions. What approach would *you* suggest -- a dark area on the map that just reads, "here be dragons"?
And no, contrary to your (Johnson's?) bizarre and false accusation, that's not the reason that "vertebrates are so useful for showing evolution". If you're going to try to imply something as slanderous as, "evolutionists purposely choose the *least* complete information so that they can make up as much as possible", I suggest that you come right out and say so, so that it can become apparent to all just how disgusting and paranoid you're being.
No, biologists study vertebrates, and gather evidenece to fill in their evolutionary histories as much as possible, because *we're* vertebrates, and have a natural curiosity about our own origins. Furthermore, a great deal of evolutionary knowledge about vertebrates has direct medical application. No need for you to postulate any conspiracy theory to explain the interest in vertebrate evolution.
Recently they found out they had to redraw the lineage of one of the major groups of dinosaurs because their previous one -- you know, the one with transitional forms -- well, their transitional forms were based off of ONLY TEETH! They had transitional body parts assumed for the entire rest of the organism, but the entire existence of the assumed transitional species was based on teeth! Then this small amount of evidence was removed because they found the actual animal that the teeth belonged to -- a crocodilian species!
Ah, yes, another minor item in the self-correcting nature of science, spun by creationists (and a few science reporters looking to "sex up" their coverage) as some sort of Big Revolution In Evolution(tm).
Nice try, but a web search of references to this specimen from before the recent discovery of a complete skeleton clearly shows that the *TENTATIVE* nature of the original identification was clearly flagged all along. For example, from The Dinosaur Encyclopedia:
REVUELTOSAURUSSee that link at the end to "nomen dubium"? Click on it. It goes to the glossary, which clearly states:
(Revuelto Creek reptile)
Ornithischia incertae sedis.
ERA: Late Triassic ( Norian 220.7 - 209.6 Ma ).
SIZE:
LOCATION: North America.
FOSSILS: Teeth.
COMMENTS: The teeth of Revueltosaurus differ from other ornithischians but most closely resemble those of heterodontosaurids .
SPECIES LIST:
R. callenderi Hunt, 1989 (type) . Some consider this a nomen dubium .
![[fabrobkg.bmp]](http://www.dinoruss.org/de_4/00000083.gif)
"when used to refer to dinosaur classification means that fossil material is too incomplete to allow proper classification. The original name is retained for reference and the classification may be revised when further material is available."I'm sorry, what was that you were trying to imply about how biologists jumped to conclusions with some kind of foolhardy certainty? You're being dishonest. The specimen identification was clearly flagged as tentative, to be revisited "when further material is available".
Biologists 1, creationist accusations zero.
Want more? From Dinosaur and Paleontology Dictionary:
REVUELTOSAURUS(Emphasis in red is mine, for the reading-impaired creationists.) Oh, looky -- yet *again* the tentative nature of the specimen is plainly stated, *and* the fact that it is known only from teeth is clearly announced.
(pronounced re-VWELL-to-SAWR-us) Revueltosaurus (meaning "Revuelto ]Creek] lizard") is a poorly-known ornithischian dinosaur that lived during the late Triassic period, about 220 million years ago. Only fossil teeth of this bipedal plant-eater have been found in New Mexico and Arizona, USA. The type species is R. callenderi . Revueltosaurus was named by K. Padian in 1990; it was named for the Revuelto Creek in New Mexico, USA. This is a dubious genus of dinosuar due to the sparsity of fossils.
How about one more for the road? Here's the ORIGINAL PAPER on the find: A New ?Ornithischian Dinosaur From the Bull Canyon Formation (Upper Triassic) of East-Central New Mexico .
See that "?" before the identification IN THE FREAKING TITLE? That flags the identification as TENTATIVE. And citations to that paper in *other* papers include the "?" flag in their title citations as a fair "warning". In the paper itself, the tentative nature of the ID is clearly stated in many places, including for example:
Revueltosaurus apparently differs from Ornithischia in having incisiform teeth in the ?premaxillaGosh, the discoverer clearly POINTS OUT that the new tooth *differs* from that of the Ornithischia (which you imply this specimen was uncritically identified as a member of) in a significant way, and that even the identification of the tooth as being a premaxillar tooth is is an uncertain one (again, the "?" tag indicates this). He later concludes:
If this tooth does represent an anterior incisiform, then Revueltosaurus is a sister taxon to Ornithischia, as no ornithischians have anterior teethYet again, the discoverer takes pains to point out the *differences* between the teeth he found, and the previously known characteristics of the previously identified Ornithischia taxon of dinosaurs. Nonetheless, it was the closest match at the time, so the specimen known at that time only from a new type of tooth was tentatively (repeat, TENTATIVELY, and this tentative nature of the ID was well known among biolgists) classified as a new group among the Ornithischia, because that's the closest match that could be found at the time. And at the time, that was the most reasonable identification, for lack of any additional information.
Then when a more complete -- in this case, *very* complete -- skeleton was eventually found, the specimen was reclassified accordingly. Science keeps refining its knowledge as more information becomes available. This is its *strength*, not a weakness. And the new information turned out to be pretty exciting -- it was a *plant-eating* crocodile. All previously known crocodiles have been meat-eaters. This is another reason why it was difficult -- probably impossible -- to correctly ID the original teeth. No one thought to consider that it might have been something as outlandish as a vegetarian crocodile. So naturally, since the teeth were clearly plant-eating teeth, they went looking for the closest match among vegetarian dinosaur types. You do the most reasonable thing you can with the information you have at the time, and hope to subsequently refine it by acquiring more information. And that's what happened.
I don't see anything in this tale that reflects poorly on biologists, but the "spin" put on it by the creationists reflects *very* poorly on them.
So, if you restrict your data to the vertebrates
...which biologists don't.
where you can pretend you have whole animals from just a bone or two,
...which biologists don't.
which represent 1% of the available evidence,
...which biologists do not restrict themselves to.
you can show some things that might look to some people who are predisposed to it that you might have an evolutionary transition.
Sure, *if* that's what biologists actually do. But they don't. Your slander is a lie. Please explain yourself.
Also please explain why you were so dishonest as to fail to mention that the evolutionary trees implied by the fossil data are STUNNINGLY confirmed by the independent data from DNA studies, and those are further cross-checked by biogeographic studies, and those are futher cross-checked by over a DOZEN other methods of multiply and independently confirming methods.
Or were you just grossly ignorant of that, because Johnson and the other creationist propagandists didn't mention it?
Some of these methods aren't always applicable in all cases, of course (dinosaurs, having left no living descendants other than the birds, are obviously difficult to perform DNA studies on), but in the cases where they are, the validity of the various methods have been cross-checked against each other, and shown to be very reliable. What does *that* do to your conspiracy theory?
And why are you being grossly misleading by focusing on one case which had insufficient data, and then trying to imply that *all* evolutionary case studies have such poor data? There are *thousands* of cases which have an *overwhelming* wealth of data confirming their evolutionary validity. By what dishonesty did you think it proper to sweep *those* under the rug and pretend they don't exist? Oh, right, you're a creationist -- lying is allowed, even encouraged.
Of course, even then, as much as Darwinists want to paint creationism as being non-science,
For *DAMNED* good reason. See above. You really have no idea what you're talking about. You keep posting false fantasies about how science is performed, instead of realities.
I'd like to point out that making up hypothetical ancestry charts isn't part of experimental science by the same criteria.
It is when the "hypothetical ancestry charts" are clearly treated as hypotheses to be tested, and then *are* tested by cross-checking by comparing the predictions of those "ancestry charts" against DNA studies and so on. Cross-checking predictions, you'll note, is classic "experimental science".
Come back when you have a clue what you're talking about -- and you're willing to actually be honest.
