Replies

No, I even stole the stealing of Akroyd's line to apply to Ann.

I do not dismiss Anns work for hyperbole, lack of nuance, etc. I dismiss it for being pig-ignorant nonsense.

Here's a sample which has come into my hands from page 225:

Instead of gradual change occurring by random mutation and natural selection choosing the most "fit" to survive and reproduce--in other words, "Darwin's theory of evolution"--Gould and Eldredge hypothesized that evolution could also happen really fast and then stop happening at all for 150 million years. Basically, what happens is this: Your parents are slugs and then suddenly--but totally at random--you evolve into a gecko and your brother evolves into a shark and your sister evolves into a polar bear and the guy down the street evolves into a porpoise and so on--and then everybody relaxes by the pool for 150 million years, virtually unchanged.

Note some key points, per Ann. Punctuated equilibrium is a non-Darwinian theory, discarding mutation and natural selection. It is a single-generation Goldschmidtian "hopeful monster" theory with some mysterious mechanism of its own.

The question is thus not whether this is stated without nuance, in your face, and hyperbolically, but whether Ann and Dembski combined could find a fact if you taped it in front of their eyes. (He apparently so held her hand through the writing of the evolution chapters that he takes responsibility for all errors. He's shouldered quite a burden, there.)

Here are two sober sources on what Ann is talking about.

Speciation By Punctuated Equilibrium.

The first thing you see:

A group of creatures gets isolated from the rest of their species. They can evolve easily, because they are a small group. Later, they spread and replace their parent species. Examples are known.

Hmmm. Where's the "shazam?"

The second thing you see:

Only a small portion of the world has been geologically explored. Only organic beings of certain classes can be preserved in a fossil condition, at least in any great number. Widely ranging species vary most, and varieties are often at first local, -- both causes rendering the discovery of intermediate links less likely. Local varieties will not spread into other and distant regions until they are considerably modified and improved; and when they do spread, if discovered in a geological formation, they will appear as if suddenly created there, and will be simply classed as new species. The Origin of Species, Chapter 14, p.439

WHO wrote that?

On down the page:

What Is The Mechanism Of Evolution In These Cases?

The theory of Punctuated Equilibrium does not say, and it shouldn't. There are a number of known evolutionary mechanisms, such as the Founder Effect, Natural Selection, neutral drift, sexual selection, and so on. Other mechanisms may be discovered in the future. There is no particular reason to expect that cases of Punctuated Equilibrium must all use the same mechanism. The point of the theory is only that evolution is more likely to happen to small groups, isolated from the homogenizing effect of the larger main group.

So, PE rejects no old mechanisms and posits no new ones, merely putting old ones into a particular higher-level scenario.

But let's try the second source.

All you need to know about Punctuated Equilibrium (almost)

There are two common uses of "gradualism," one of which is more traditional and correct, the other of which is equivalent to Eldredge and Gould's "phyletic gradualism."
Darwin was not a "phyletic gradualist," contrary to the claims of Eldredge and Gould.
PE is not anti-Darwinian; in fact, the scientific basis and conclusions of PE originated with Charles Darwin.
PE does not require any unique explanatory mechanism (e.g. macromutation or saltation).
Eldredge and Gould's PE is founded on positive evidence, and does not "explain away" negative evidence (e.g. a purported lack of transitional fossils).

So, not only is Ann not looking good, but Dembski himself seems blissfully unaware of rebuttals which have been regularly posted to creationist crackpots on FR for years. Perhaps he's militantly unaware.

Anyway, they're both full of it. Rumors around Darwin Central HQ in the Galapagos are that some freepers with brains are preparing a detailed dissection. I haven't written for that project but I've peeked over a shoulder or two.

How long will such a thread last on FR when all the creos go into hissies at once? Could be funny.

pig-ignorant

*Speciest

Arnold Ziffel.. . Arnold was a pig, but he was treated as the son of Fred and Doris Ziffel. Arnold could do pretty much anything he wanted. He was very talented. He could write his name, change the channels on the television, and play the piano. Arnold also attended school, carrying his lunchbox in his mouth, where he often played practical jokes on the other students.

He also fell in love with Mr. Haney's prized bassett hound "Cynthia", but in a scene full of pig grunts and dog barks, subtitles explained that they were realizing that their love could never be. Mr. Haney threatens to sue Mr. Douglas because Arnold has ruined Cynthia for show as she has begun to grunt like a pig too.

One story line had him inheriting millions of dollars as the sole descendant of the favorite pig of a pork-packing magnate, distinguished by his ability to predict the weather with his tail.

* It says a lot about you and your ilk when you assume pigs can't evolve into intelligent beings.

And do I have to remind you of the which-is-smarter-a-pig-or-a-horse debates between Messers Carson and McMahon?