I could not have said it better

| 69 Comments
Denyse O'Leary Wrote:

Tiktaalik, an early fossil fish with sturdy forefins, helps illustrate the difference between the approach of scientists who are convinced Darwinists and that of scientists who view the problems of evolution primarily in terms of information theory (intelligent design).

Indeed, the scientist provides testable predictions and hypotheses while the information theoretician is complaining at the lack of details while failing to explain how Intelligent Design explains the evolution of fish.

Of course, the gap approach by ID proponents was predicted by PZ Myers

So what has ID done for science when it comes to understanding Tiktaalik and other fossils? Nothing, and the fantastic reality is that when scientists come up with scientific hypotheses, ID remains fully irrelevant and unable to contribute its scientific hypotheses or provide the necessary probabilistic calculations which are necessary to ‘infer design’.

This was indeed an unexpected Christmas present from O’Leary.

69 Comments

PZ Myers described it well

Creationists (including Intelligent Designers!):

* Do not understand evolutionary theory * Belittle genuine scientific discoveries * Offer no testable alternative explanations * Demand details from evolution that they do not provide in their own hypotheses

He was responding to the Discovery Institute claims that

These fish are not intermediates, explain Discovery Institute scientists I queried about the find. Tiktaalik roseae is one of a set of lobe-finned fishes that include very curious mosaics—these fishes have advanced characteristics of several different groups. They are not intermediates in the sense that they are half-fish/half-tetrapod. Rather, they have some tetrapod-like features.

Remarkable admission

But it gets worse

According to DI Fellows a number of these fishes—Ichthyostega, Elpistostege, Panderichthys—have been hailed in the past as the “missing link.” Maybe one is a missing link; maybe none are. What remains unexplained is how natural selection and random mutation could produce the many novel physiological characteristics that arise in true tetrapods.

and

“This latest fossil find poses no threat to intelligent design.” So says Discovery Institute senior fellow and leading intelligent design theorist Dr. William Dembski, adding:

“Intelligent design does not so much challenge whether evolution occurred but how it occurred. In particular, it questions whether purposeless material processes—as opposed to intelligence—can create biological complexity and diversity.

Dembksi said: “Intelligent design does not so much challenge whether evolution occurred but how it occurred. In particular, it questions whether purposeless material processes—as opposed to intelligence—can create biological complexity and diversity.”

Any idea how to test that, Dembski? So far, just plain old evolution is what’s been able to come up with the successful testable predictions. How can you figure out a test for “intelligence” vs. “purposeless material processes”?

As for our side, we only have to look at sub-optimal designs and parasitism, vestigial and atavistic organs, etc to support our side.

“They are not intermediates in the sense that they are half-fish/half-tetrapod. Rather, they have some tetrapod-like features.”

Uh, if a fish has “tetrapod-like features” what is it then, if not an intermediate? What would those people accept as as a “true” intermediate”?

the information theoretician

This is giving the IDiots too much. I doubt there exists even one ID text where information theory, whether classic channel capacity or algorithmic information theory, have been properly defined.

Of course IDiots have to resort to parroting the party line which involves a lot of handwaving and mumbling of magical words without biological context, as a proper use of information theory would kick the legs out from under Behe’s IC and Dembski’s wretched abuse of information theory.

(Heh! PZ covers that too, his slide #4 illustrates exactly the voodoo that creationists do.)

I don’t want to unduly destroy the Yule spirit, but as the second post I linked to quite timely is concerned with PT posts giving IDiots too much, I think I should lift it up here:

What I wanted to comment on was the PT critique of Sal’s foolish statement. Sal’s article said:

In information science, it is empirically and theoretically shown that noise destroys specified complexity, but cannot create it. Natural selection acting on noise cannot create specified complexity. Thus, information science refutes Darwinian evolution. The following is a great article that illustrates the insufficiency of natural selection to create design.

This is an entirely bogus statement. What concerned me, though, was the rebuttal from the Pim van Meurs at PT:

In fact, quite to the contrary, simple experiments have shown that the processes of natural selection and variation can indeed create specified complexity. In other words, contrary to the scientifically vacuous claims of Sal, science has shown that information science, rather than refuting Darwinian evolution, has ended up strongly supporting it.

Plenty of simple experiments have shown that evolution can create complexity, irreducible complexity, etc. But complex specified information is a meaningless quantity - it cannot be measured. It can only be described in informal, unquantifiable ways. By admitting to the validity of this thoroughly nonsensical concept, we give creationists like Sal an undeserved gift that aids their arguments. …
So CSI can be either a meaningless term that includes all complex systems, or it can be a meaningless term that cannot include any systems at all. We shouldn’t try to debate the IDists by arguing about whether or not CSI can be produced in any particular way, when the entire argument is predicated on nonsense. …

Reynold Hall:

Dembksi said: “Intelligent design does not so much challenge whether evolution occurred but how it occurred. In particular, it questions whether purposeless material processes—as opposed to intelligence—can create biological complexity and diversity.”

Any idea how to test that, Dembski? So far, just plain old evolution is what’s been able to come up with the successful testable predictions. How can you figure out a test for “intelligence” vs. “purposeless material processes”?

As for our side, we only have to look at sub-optimal designs and parasitism, vestigial and atavistic organs, etc to support our side.

“They are not intermediates in the sense that they are half-fish/half-tetrapod. Rather, they have some tetrapod-like features.”

Uh, if a fish has “tetrapod-like features” what is it then, if not an intermediate? What would those people accept as as a “true” intermediate”?

I saw Gish give his speel several times and his whale intermediate was a cow with the tail of a whale. No joke, that is what he had up on his slide. He even showed it after the first intermediate fossils from Pakistan had made big news in the early 1990s, and he knew what an intermediate would look like.

Ron Okimoto

You could in fact have said it *much* better - by leaving out any reference to information theory. IDologists don’t deal in information theory any more than they deal in biology.

Uh, if a fish has “tetrapod-like features” what is it then, if not an intermediate? What would those people accept as as a “true” intermediate”?

Nothing. There are no intermediates. Evolution doesn’t happen.

I stand by my statement that Intelligent Design has absolutely no descriptive power whatsoever.

Come on, PvM: To call any ID advocate an “information theoretician” can be an oxymoron of the day.

Dr. Kirk Cameron from Growing Pains University has suggested that a “crocaduck” would be a good intermediate.…I believe he has pictures

Flint:

Uh, if a fish has “tetrapod-like features” what is it then, if not an intermediate? What would those people accept as as a “true” intermediate”?

Nothing. There are no intermediates. Evolution doesn’t happen.

Wow, that’s either really ignorant, or you’re just being sarcastic.

Ok, what would an intermediate look like in your opinion, if evolution were true?

Come on, PvM: To call any ID advocate an “information theoretician” can be an oxymoron of the day.

I was paraphrasing Denyse’s usage of the term. I agree that the term is quite inappropriate.

Flint wrote:

“Nothing. There are no intermediates. Evolution doesn’t happen.”

Actually, Flint is exactly right. Since these people already “know” that evolution didn’t happen, they have absolutely no need to examine any evidence. They already “know” that nothing you discover can possibly be a real intermediate form, so they will not accept anything as an example of an intermediate form. They then feel the need to place an unreasonable burden of proof on you by demanding that you produce their distorted version of a intermediate form such as a crocoduck, knowing full well that it is an unreasonable demand. They then claim victory when their demand is not met.

No you, being a reasonable person, cannot figure out if they are really that igonorant or they are just lying to you. So you patiently take the time to explain the difference between the tree of life and their distorted view of the ladder of life. You explain the significance of the combinations of ancestral and derived characteristics and how the expectations of real evolutionary science are met in the evidence. They respond that yes they understand all that sciency stuff, but you still haven’t produced a crocoduck so they still win! Now you still don’t know for sure whether they are lying or just plain stupid, but you have ceased to care, so you give up. That is of course when they claim ultimate victory and declare that the evidence was always on their side.

Honestly, I once say some preacher claim that a spork was an intermediate between a spoon and a fork and that this revelation somehow proved evolution wrong! All I can add is, in the immortal words of Lisa Simpson: “Don’t let the butt heads win.”

As far as informatioin theory goes, perhaps someone should ask Sir Issac if six is intermediate between eight and five (in tetrapod evolution), or if three is intermediate between five and one (in equine evolution). Perhaps BD (aka Issac) will be able to develop a proper equation for those questions.

According to DI Fellows a number of these fishes—Ichthyostega, Elpistostege, Panderichthys—have been hailed in the past as the “missing link.” Maybe one is a missing link; maybe none are.

Ooh! Ooh! I vote for “none are.” Because they’ve all been found! Not one of those named fossils is still missing.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM: Of course IDiots have to resort to parroting the party line which involves a lot of handwaving and mumbling of magical words without biological context…

Isn’t that one of the hallmarks of a pseudoscience? Why should we be surprised?

This reminds me of a tradition started in my family many…weeks ago. We have sleighbells hanging on the door for Christmas, and every time someone jingles them, they have to recite: “Every time a bell rings a paleontologist finds a transitional fossil.” (apologies to Mr. Capra)

“These fish are not intermediates, explain Discovery Institute scientists I queried about the find. Tiktaalik roseae is one of a set of lobe-finned fishes that include very curious mosaics—these fishes have advanced characteristics of several different groups. They are not intermediates in the sense that they are half-fish/half-tetrapod. Rather, they have some tetrapod-like features.”

Translation: Its intermediate. Its just not intermediate enough.

I saw Gish give his speel several times and his whale intermediate was a cow with the tail of a whale. No joke, that is what he had up on his slide

Intermediate a la Gish. (An intermediate that a creationist would believe)

What’s most interesting to me about the DI’s approach to Tiktaalik (and all extinct species for that matter) is this: They are all completely convinced that it is not “intermediate” or “transitional” (whatever they mean by that). And at least one of them, Michael Behe, will tell you with just as much confidence that it lived 375 million years ago and is nevertheless our biological relative. Yet ask other DI members if they agree with Behe and watch the self-proclaimed experts magically become too “humble” to answer.

Neither Behe nor Dembski has explained to me in private e-mail correspondence how Intelligent Design is a better, more viable, alternative to contemporary evolutionary theory in explaining the origins, history and current complexity of Planet Earth’s biodiversity. I have the utmost confidence that I will never receive such an answer from either one.

The example of the crockaduck illustrates a point most posters here never quite notice - our blind spot in this sense. The creationists do more than simply deny that evolution happens and therefore transitionals are impossible. What we need to understand is how deeply they have internalized the notion of kinds.

In their view, all critters alive today are as they always were. In their world, change does not happen. In this static world, the only *possible* “intermediate” is something halfway between one current kind and another current kind. Because current kinds are as they always have been and ever shall be. Extinction is permitted. But how could some extinct kind be halfway between two current kinds?

And this is why every hominid fossil must be categorized as entirely human, entirely ape, or insufficient evidence to decide. Present forms didn’t develop out of past forms. Present forms ARE past forms. And just because some kind was killed in the flud (or however) is bafflingly irrelevant to how evolutionists claim one current kind morphs into another. SHOW me, dammit! Extinct kinds aren’t “transitional”, they’re DEAD. Sheesh.

Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t pretty much every fossil ever found a transitional fossil between two somethings?

ifeelfine72:

Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t pretty much every fossil ever found a transitional fossil between two somethings?

Yes, except for the youngest species of entirely extinct lineages, such as the trilobites from the very end of the Permian.

Information theory is a very real science that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the babbling nonsense coming out of the Discovery Institute. Can we PLEASE be more careful about slagging a legitimate field just because a few nitwits keep calling themselves “information theorists?”

Flint sez: “And this is why every hominid fossil must be categorized as entirely human, entirely ape, or insufficient evidence to decide.”

What do you mean there is insufficient data to decide? You mean there *is* some ambiguity because of the sheer number of anatomical characters shared by the two primate species? We’re not talking about trivial similarities like bilateral symmetry, but widespread similarities in the details of the skeletal structures.

Why should there even be such similarities if they are divinely created “kinds”? Why shouldn’t there be an unambiguous gap between human and non-human primates if they were independently created? Is the creative capacity of the deity limited in some way, so that the creator has to resort to repetition? Or is this an example of the divine trickster at work, making species seem to be related when they are not? KInd of: IM IN UR GROUND, TESTING UR FAITH?

God is subtle but he is not malicious.

“Present forms didn’t develop out of past forms. Present forms ARE past forms.”

And so why don’t we ever find whales and trilobites in the same strata? More work of a cosmic prankster?

Jeh, Flint was being sarcastic, in that he’s describing how creationists compartmentalize reality in order to make it fit their strict, literal interpretation of the Bible.

jeh:

What do you mean there is insufficient data to decide?

I’m trying to help you see through the other guy’s eyes. You KNOW evolution doesn’t happen, your (interpretation of parts of your) bible tell you this, this is the very Word Of God, who (as you say) is not malicious, nor mendacious. If your god SAYS the universe is young and He only created it a few thousand years back, yet we are surrounded with mountains of clear indications that the universe is old and evolution happens, how do you explain this?

I ask this as a serious question. You are intelligent, you are curious, you understand the scientific method, you’re familiar with large swaths of the evidence, and you KNOW it’s being misinterpreted. It MUST be, because the universe is NOT old and evolution does NOT happen. Your god TELLS you this, you hear His very voice in your heart! When you pray, He assures you you’re right. Always. There is no doubt.

So how can this possibly be? WHY would your god make the evidence so misleading? No, He would never do that, so that’s not the answer. But then WHY would so many educated, intelligent experts be so willing to assume (your) god is lying to you? There MUST be an explanation. Yeah, they’re all atheists (some of them lie about that, but you know better). But still, there’s that evidence. Yeah, you might find a reason that convinces you why THIS datum is being misinterpreted, or THAT one, piecemeal.

Yeah, if you had multiple lifetimes you might be able to individually, uniquely refute every datum in those mountains, show why each and every observation is misguided or misinterpreted. Your prayers could guide you in this. But still, if you are honest with yourself, you’d have to understand that even this Herculean effort would ultimately boil down to a bunch of unique, unrelated special pleadings. This is satisfying only if you regard your god as whimsical and arbitrary.

So what IS the answer? Being merely mortal, you are reduced to finding and illustrating evolutionists’ errors one by one, in each case ultimately finding Absolute Support for your position in your (interpretation of) scripture, the only real source of Truth. If your god TELLS you evolution doesn’t happen, and someone produces what LOOKS like a transitional form, how can you correct this error? It’s based not only on the false assumption of evolution, but the false assumption of Deep Time. And this is what happens when people don’t listen to (your) god - they pile one error atop another. Errors based on whole chains of false assumptions aren’t trivially easy to correct; you have to dig out and refute the assumptions first. WHY can’t they listen to (your) god?

And so I ask you, how do you deal with this? There are only two absolutes necessary: Scripture is infallible, and your interpretation of scripture is equally infallible. God TOLD you this; questioning it cannot even be conceived of. Other than that, go for it!

Even if Flint is being sarcastic, these questions still have to be answered by the creo-IDists.

Their approach to theology is approximately the same as their approach to science: figure out a way to fit the “data” to your pre-existing notions, ignore everything that does not conform, treat everyone who does not agree as a heretic.

With this kind of thinking, anything is possible. Ask them about divinely-ordered genocide in the Old Testament, and they will end up justifying the murder of men, women, children, and animals as a good thing–even though it goes against their “pro-life” stance. Or in the present sense, if innocents die in Iraq or Afghanistan, they are just collateral damage, an acceptable loss in their pursuit of a higher purpose.

The example of the crockaduck illustrates a point most posters here never quite notice - our blind spot in this sense. The creationists do more than simply deny that evolution happens and therefore transitionals are impossible. What we need to understand is how deeply they have internalized the notion of kinds.

In their view, all critters alive today are as they always were. In their world, change does not happen. In this static world, the only *possible* “intermediate” is something halfway between one current kind and another current kind. Because current kinds are as they always have been and ever shall be. Extinction is permitted. But how could some extinct kind be halfway between two current kinds?

And this is why every hominid fossil must be categorized as entirely human, entirely ape, or insufficient evidence to decide. Present forms didn’t develop out of past forms. Present forms ARE past forms. And just because some kind was killed in the flud (or however) is bafflingly irrelevant to how evolutionists claim one current kind morphs into another. SHOW me, dammit! Extinct kinds aren’t “transitional”, they’re DEAD. Sheesh.

Really well described, Flint! This indeed illustrates why such discussions with creationists end up nowhere. They really, truly cannot even begin to grasp the fundamentals of evolution since such is so counter to their static world view.

This is such a classic example of what a science stopper IDC is. Lick on the link given http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/ and look at all the rich information about Tiktaalik, evolution, fossils, etc. It’s amazing stuff. Compare that with what the DI and their creationist cranks offer. It’s pretty obvious IDC is a science stopper with zero content.

In fact had an IDCer discovered Tiktaalik they would have likely concluded “it doesn’t prove anything” and thrown the fossil in the trash while babbling about it is not their job to connect the dots (while reminding us the intelligent designer could be a space alien wink-wink).

Tards, all tards!

PS Has Behe ever weighed in on Tiktaalik?

Tiktaalic had eight “digits” in its fin-legs, not five. The fin-legs were too short to allow it to walk on land. So how did it dis-evolve three digits, and how did it’s non-legs turn into legs?

Assuming you are correct in this (but most of what is claimed by people who criticise evolution is wrong), how long do an animal’s legs need to be so it can walk on land and who says it walked on land anyway? It probably used them for scrambling through marshy vegetation and thick waterplants.

The number of digits on a limb seems to reduce fairly easily. Think of birds, cows and horses. I’ve met a person who inherited just two digits on each hand (I gather from another source that it goes with two toes on each foot, but I did not ask) so it can occur in humans too.

How did non-legs turn into legs? I think the bones getting longer would do the trick, don’t you?

To all of you brilliant evolutionists who think you are not also brainwashed:

Nothing like beginning the day with an insult.

Look, just because you are ignorant that a major part of biology is science, doesn’t preclude that informed citizens do. It is really easy to check, just contact your nearest national research council.

Tiktaalic had eight “digits” in its fin-legs, not five.

So? Snakes and whales, which like us has Tiktaalik among the ancestry as we are all fishes alike, have no visible digits. AFAIU, IANAB, legs and digits are guided by developmental programs that are fairly easy to switch on and off. There is no law that fixes the number of digits, any more than there is a law that fixes the number of say eyes.

Concerning leg and digit evolution, a more substantive example may be horses. Currently they have one major digit in its legs, not five. As you can see from a description of horse evolution, ancestral populations derived from browsers that had more digits which they subsequently lost.

But tetrapod evolution, where Tiktaalik belong, seems to be pretty well researched by now. Tiktaalik has a number of features in the scull feeding and breathing apparatus that shows that it probably lived in an environment with reduced water flow at the scull. It also has signs that the limbs (as it is hard to call them fins) are used for support.

Look at the fin-to-limb transition sequence of the shown tetrapods. Now tell me how you can identify that Tiktaalik had evolved a trait of “digits” and the number of them. I get zero digits and nine bone protrusions.

When you do this, note that the ancestral populations could have many more bone protrusions, and when there starts to be clearly identifiable digits there is still a continuing loss.

If you guys tripped on a dead seal, you would celebrate a great “transitional” find.

Populations change over time, as observations and the very definition of evolution both tells us. It is quite possible that seals are transitioning to a purely aquatic environment, as whales once did.

But it would take a lot more and different evidence than that to make such a prediction into the future, as opposed to the historical predictions that uncovered Tiktaalik for us, placing it in the right age and type of rock formation according to its predicted traits. Again, IANAB, but what you propose looks preposterous on the face of it.

Did the eye evolve in one specie, which then spread it to other species? (How could it, since species can’t procreate with other species.) Or, did the eye evolve in millions of species all in unison, at the same time?

This is so muddled, that it will take too long to straighten out fully.

For starters, yes, different eyes has developed several times (~ 40, I think) as core photosensitive mechanisms evolved very early. (Compare with limb development.)

And species, at least those that are defineable according to the “biological species” definition, are such that they tend not to procreate with each other. As you should know, it isn’t a strict barrier, as for example different species related to horses can crossbreed to some limited extent when opportunity arises.

More importantly here, species doesn’t crossbreed to give rise to new species, they evolve - populations split up and continue to change independently. That is why it is depicted as a bush, with branches of populations each following their own evolutionary trajectory. And that is how photosensitive mechanisms have spread through history - by simply remaining.

Finally, yes, “the eye” is still evolving in “millions of species”, in those that have one or several types (say, spiders) of them, or possibly are evolving the trait as we speak. Why, do you think evolution ever stop? Why would it, it is the process of life.

Stephen Thomas:

To all of you brilliant evolutionists who think you are not also brainwashed: Tiktaalic had eight “digits” in its fin-legs, not five. The fin-legs were too short to allow it to walk on land. So how did it dis-evolve three digits, and how did it’s non-legs turn into legs? If you guys tripped on a dead seal, you would celebrate a great “transitional” find.

Actually, Tiktaalik had no “digits” at all, as it had fins, instead. Its descendants, such as Ichthyostega, had at around 7 digits. And please do not create nonsense neologisms if you want us to take you seriously. The degeneration of appendages occurs very frequently in vertebrate evolution, and it occurs when the use of an appendage is no longer necessary or vital for a species’ wellbeing. Thus, mutations that would impair the growth and function of this unwanted appendage crop up and are not selected against, causing the appendage to degenerate over each generation. If you actually knew how to read, you would also know that there are plenty of seal, walrus, and fur seal fossils, and they all suggest that they all descended from an otter-like carnivore some 30 million years ago.

Here is just one of thousands of question you might ponder: Did the eye evolve in one specie, which then spread it to other species? (How could it, since species can’t procreate with other species.) Or, did the eye evolve in millions of species all in unison, at the same time? How did this actually take place.

We do not ponder such a stupid question as yours, as we, unlike you, understand how evolution of features works. If you actually knew how to read, rather than flaunt your gross stupidity, you would know that all vertebrates descended from an eyed ancestor, AND that seals evolved from otter-like carnivores some 30 million years ago.

Me: I don’t go for Genesis or Darwin in case you have a great urge to call me names, which is the modus operandi of most evolution believers.

You do not go for reading or learning, period. If you want to flaunt your grotesque ignorance, you have absolutely no right to do so without informed people pointing out your grotesque ignorance to you. The monstrously incompetent person who was in charge of your miserable science education should be rewarded with being tarred, feathered and run out of town.

Did the eye evolve in one specie, which then spread it to other species? (How could it, since species can’t procreate with other species.) Or, did the eye evolve in millions of species all in unison, at the same time?

Also, “species” is both plural and singular. The term “specie” is a Latin word referring to unminted money.

Whenever one of these so-called “critics of evolution” flaunt their ignorance, they always remind me of a five year old, armed with an empty peashooter, trying to hunt elephants that are armed with semi-automatic rifles and rocket-launchers.

they always remind me of a five year old, armed with an empty peashooter,

Yes, and when the sound of some of the release of some of their imaginary pea shoots gets muffled, they don’t pretend to hear.

As they repeat their mistakes however many times they are pointed out, I can reveal the next big joke coming up:

Creationist Guillermo Gonzalez, coauthor of The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery, apparently combines the Rare Earth hypothesis with a claim that Earth is a prime location for observations, to arrive at the conclusion that Earth is designed.

But now it appears that Earth is living on the edge of habitability, as it really is marginally large to support plate tectonics. [This probably explains why Venus have no plate tectonics as it lost the water that Earth dearly needs due to no magnetic field protection, and why Earth plate tectonics have been completely stopped at times while waiting for the internal heat to build up from radioactivity until its rare active subduction zones redevelop.]

Imagine the laugh fest when the next creo raises the Rare Earth hypothesis (no, Earth isn’t rare because it is especially beneficial to support life, it is rare because it supports life marginally) and the Prime Observability hypothesis (no, Earth isn’t a prime location, because we can’t observe typical plate tectonics). I can hardly wait for the next piece of “when creationists talks against readily available observations”!

… and of course another problem with the Rare Earth hypothesis is that possibly planets forms in protoplanetary disks where they can. (I.e. where they find stable orbits.)

It is a possibility, since the hypothesis allowed the first real verified planet detection since Neptune in the 1840’s. Caveat: There has been a lot of similar searches since that time, so there really need to be more confirmations at this time. But it is an intriguing development.

Also intriguing is the possible observation of planetary formation in old systems, where star collisions and their subsequent novas throw off new protoplanetary disks with possible planet formation before the surviving stars calms down again. Some stars may have several different periods of planets. (I leave this piece of recent news for googling.)

Think of the exciting implications for planet search and life search. Possibly the next time a creo parades this old argument, the Rare Earth hypothesis is buried beneath the evidence.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM:

Think of the exciting implications for planet search and life search. Possibly the next time a creo parades this old argument, the Rare Earth hypothesis is buried beneath the evidence.

It’s not so much as “buried beneath the evidence,” Torbjörn, it was buried during the Devonian, subducted beneath the crust, subjected to billions of tons of pressure over millions of years and transformed into a block of pretty pink gneiss that’s being carved into someone’s bathroom sink.

:-)

That is what I call “weight of evidence”!

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PvM published on December 25, 2007 2:06 AM.

The latest moves in Disco Dancing was the previous entry in this blog.

More on whale evolution Indohyus is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter