Caterpillar Controversy Discloses Deep Evolutionary Disagreement

ICR News ^ | November 5, 2009 | Brian Thomas, M.S.

[GodGunsGuts]

In August 2009, retired University of Liverpool marine biologist Donald Williamson officially challenged the standard Darwinian interpretation of caterpillar origins. His paper was fast-tracked to publication by a “high-placed advocate,”[1] but shortly afterward his ideas were rebutted in the very same journal. While this back-and-forth exchange has sparked intense criticism over the submission and review processes that were used, the situation also reveals core problems with broad-scale evolution...

[count-your-change]

How do you know that they don’t?

[freedumb2003]

Thanks, dear.

[freedumb2003]

>>God doesn’t change, we do. He didn’t need this heaven and earth, we did.<<

As always, the profundity of your words lie in their simplicity :)

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

PS Creationists have a comprehensive, testable explanation for life’s origin, whereas the evos have got zip

Do tell. What is this test, and how could the creationist theory fail it?

[freedumb2003]

>>Do tell. What is this test, and how could the creationist theory fail it?<<

I was quoting the OP — I should have asked the same question :)

[rae4palin]

I have to speak up for CW here. There is better evidence for me being GGG than there is for Darwinism.

[aruanan]

However, it should be clear from what I quoted and other statements GGG has made that he represents people who want to determine the truth by debate. With science it’s a bit more formal, and what’s observed in reality is the ultimate test of what’s true.

This is somewhat of a misstatement of what science is all about. It's not surprising, though, since naturalists have worked hard to conflate the practice of science with the philosophy of naturalism.

It's scientific to say that one should make sure that one's instruments should provide accurate measurements. But it's not scientific to say that nothing exists except that which is, at least in principle and via instrumentation, open to observation by our senses. It's scientific to say that effects have causes. It's not scientific to say that effects can have only materialist causes.

Thus, if it is true that there exists a reality that is ontologically discontinuous from our reality but which is able, at will, to interact with it and to effect changes in it, the naturalist has put himself into a position of being unable to make an accurate assessment of cause and effect. He has done this because he has, from the beginning, simply declared certain possibilities not to exist. He doesn't do this upon a scientific basis, but upon a philosophical one.

So, presented with the claim that Jesus was killed, was buried, and rose from the dead, he responds that this is impossible and that the appearance to the contrary is only that, an appearance, and must, therefore, be accounted for by an appeal to ignorance (those people back then didn't understand natural law), deceit (either he never died or the followers are lying about his resurrection), or wishful thinking (it was a myth that developed centuries after the purported incident). They make none of these arguments on a scientific basis. But if it is, indeed, true that Jesus was killed and rose from the dead, then, by their previous decision as to what they'll accept as reality, they cut themselves off from this by believing, for one reason or another, something about the event that is, in fact, not true.

More in a bit after I get to the lab.

[ElectricStrawberry]

Ooooooo....haven't read any lyin' Brian Thomas MS* in a few days.

Williamson’s paper, “Caterpillars evolved from onychophorans by hybridogenesis,” circumvented part of the standard peer-review process when it was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The rebuttal, “Caterpillars did not evolve from onychophorans by hybridogenesis,” followed the more typical and rigorous pathway to publication ally some of the tallest hurdles in peer-reviewed publishing.

So why do you then place the lesser paper on a pedestal? Why not read the PEER REVIEWED ONE??

Williamson’s hypothesis was that insects which undergo metamorphosis evolved when an ancestral form of the “velvet worm” serendipitously cross-bred with an adult of a totally different creature. He named this process “hybridogenesis.”

But but but.....what's this I've been reading about non-coding "junk" DNA preventing mating between species?

Williamson offered a similar proposal in a January issue of New Scientist to explain why so many marine invertebrates that look the same in their larval stage have such radically different adult forms.

.....and was this other proposal peer-reviewed and published, or just "submitted"?? Aw heck, let's listen to non-peer-reviewed works too.

OYG!!!! Adult insects look different than larval insects.....stop the presses!! Brian Thomas MS* is obviously not a fly fisherman that ties his own flies.

Williamson acknowledged ten other people who contributed to his PNAS publication, including Lynn Margulis, who is reportedly responsible for ushering his paper past the normal front door review process.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST!!! In what world does a contributor have a say in fast-tracking a publication of an article? In the lyin' Brian world, that's where. Some "science" writer, Brian is.

neither explanation is sufficient. And if life could not have evolved, it must have been created.

Nice false conclusion, Brian. Negative information for A, does not prove B, Brian.

From the Scientific American and peer-reviewed rebuttal paper

Hart and Grosberg call Williamson's claim "astonishing and unfounded," asserting that data in the scientific literature show no genetic basis for his theory or its implications. For instance, they write, "all of the available phylogenetic tests strongly reject" Williamson's hypothesis that insects with caterpillar stages would contain a package of genes from the velvet worm.

It gets better...

Williamson's prediction that metamorphosing insects—the recipients of the hybridization genes—would have larger genomes than the donor velvet worms "is easily rejected": one velvet worm species, in fact, has a larger genome than is known for almost any other insect. The genome size data, they write, "are not merely inconsistent with Williamson's hypothesis but directly contradict its simplest predictions."

[DoctorMichael]

Whenever I want unbiased stories
about Science I always go to the
Institute for Creation Research.

[GodGunsGuts]

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Balding_Eagle]

Post #16 So you are saying that the scientific method is not based on beliefs or assumptions?

Arguing with a firm stand based on total ignorance of even the VERY BASIS of the scientific theory.

As a Bible Believer, I am stunned at your willingness to essentially lie about these things. Have you no shame? Are you a Leftist plant?

[OldNavyVet]

For the life of me, I cannot visualize scientists wanting to or having sufficient authority to burn creationists at the stake.

Have you read the book “Joan of Arc” by Mark Twain? It isn’t humorous. Twain wrote it as a serious biography based on facts from the national archives of France.

Joan of Arc was murdered by a Catholic bishop.

Joan of Arc was later canonized because she was responsible for the crowning of her French King, and he didn’t like critics saying he wore his crown thanks to a witch.

[freedumb2003]

>>For the life of me, I cannot visualize scientists wanting to or having sufficient authority to burn creationists at the stake.<<

People always forget just how awful humans smell when on fire.

>>Joan of Arc was later canonized because she was responsible for the crowning of her French King, and he didn’t like critics saying he wore his crown thanks to a witch.<<

Interesting — I’ll try to find that book and read it.

Thanks!

[GodGunsGuts]

Listen Baldy, as is so often the case with anti-science, Temple of Darwin Luddites like yourself, you have no clue what you’re talking about. Perhaps the following can serve as the stimulus that will ultimately lead to a remediation of your abject ignorance.

Basic assumptions of science

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/basic_assumptions

Once you get a clue, feel free to throw down. In the meantime, you may now return to pouring milk over your darwin idols. What a dope.

[Balding_Eagle]

What a dope.

You're the one who blantantly admited you don't know even the basic tenant of the scientific method: Post #16 So you are saying that the scientific method is not based on beliefs or assumptions?

You're like someone denigrating Christianity without even reading John 3:16 (you have read that verse?).

Given your stunning admission of blind loyalty to ignorance your posting history can now be clearly seen in the light of a Godless Leftist plant.

[count-your-change]

” With science it’s a bit more formal, and what’s observed in reality is the ultimate test of what’s true.”

Then on this basis we can say that Jesus’ raising of Lazarus from the dead (a large number of observers) in reality (a written record was kept) meets the ultimate test (here even Jesus’ enemies acknowledged the FACT of Lazarus resurrection) of what's true.

But as so often is the case when the posters have no understanding of the subject they find easier to make GGG the object of their personal comments and ridicule.
All the while explaining to us the depth of their Christian belief lest we not notice.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

I was quoting the OP — I should have asked the same question :)

Doh! I hate it when that happens.

[GodGunsGuts]

Did you read the link, Baldy? Science is indeed based on a number of assumptions that cannot themselves be absolutely proven—that is why they call them ASSUMPTIONS (and the link I sent you is only a partial list!). And btw, the biblical creation account is affirmed in the Old Testament and the New Testament...even by Jesus Christ Himself...and by science. The fact that a straightforward and honest reading of the Bible (which also happens to be the historic position of the Church) makes you so upset speaks volumes about your so-called Christianity. You came to the wrong forum if you want to stiffle Creation and/or ID. But don’t worry, your leftist, anti-science, evo-religious mantra is much better received by your pals over at the DU...as I’m sure you are well aware of from long experience.

[Balding_Eagle]

makes you so upset speaks volumes about your so-called Christianity.

Not at all upset about that.

You're lying does make me upset.

Your posts are those of a Lefty plant, OR you are posting from a strong position of ignorance.

[GodGunsGuts]

You are a Lefty plant —and— you are ignorant...The fact that you don’t even know that you are making an utter fool of yourself by claiming that the scientific method is not based on philosophical assumptions just underscores it.