Paul Nelson wrote:
>So when I hear that molecules have affirmed the monophyly
>of the arthropods (or whatever), I say maybe, maybe not:
>how much of the result should I believe? The ongoing instability
>of metazoan phylogeny is not confidence-inspiring.
I might point out that the fossil evidence is entirely consistent with
monophyly of the arthropods. For years anti-evolutionists claimed that
there was no evidence of phyla level evolution, but as it turns out, there
is. Surprise surprise. See
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/cambevol.htm
The fossil evidence shows a nice progression from worms to arthropods.
By the way, Paul, for 3 months now I have asked the Discovery Institute to
correct a small error on their web page concerning the inflated (and I
might add boastful) claim that Dembski presented a plenary paper at the
Nature of Nature conference. I was there, he didn't and I have the program
to prove it. I have talked to Jay Richards 2 or 3 times, to you at least 2
times, and others if I recall correctly. I really can't believe that no
one at the Discovery Instutute has had the 5 minutes it would take to
correct this obvious inflation of Dembski's place at the conference. Does
the Discovery Inst. not care for truth when it comes to the activities of
their fellows?
For those on this list, I have tried for 3 months to get this error
corrected because many of my atheist friends, who are critics of DI, are
saying it is just another example of their failure to care about the truth.
Dembski didn't give a plenary paper in spite of the patently false claim on
the web page:
http://www.discovery.org/news/baylorConfUpdate.html
See for your self. The fact that no one has done anything about it for 3
months, in spite of my pleas, sure seems to confirm my friends' criticisms.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 22:06:58 EDT