Dr Funkenstein (whom I believe blogs alternately as Rintintin) (he's not trying to hide or anything, it's just not 100% clear to me if they're blogfriends or the same person) has read In Search of Deep Time by Henry Gee and has written a review of it. Thing is, I really think that he has missed a lot of the implications of the points Gee is making, and the points that I've been making based off of that. Let's take us a look.
Dr Funkenstein said:
Gee's book did not give obvious grounds for supporting anti-evolutionary viewpoints'.
Except for calling into extremely serious question any hope of using the fossil record to support Darwinian theory. Gee would look at other evidence.
And I've been selective in how I quoted and cited him. I've not said he's YEC or anythg close. So your book review should prolly take that into acct unless you're also responding to someone else about the book (which is of course possible).
Other taxonomic systems suffer for various reasons
Which is why your criticism of creationist classifications are specious.
If you are going to cite Gee, you have to be willing to accept that he makes a lot of statements that support the complete opposite of your worldview.
I cite Gee for what he is saying, not for what I'd like him to say.
He's making serious points with respect to the fossil record, and he's wrong that evolution from common ancestor occurred. Big deal - you refer to me as if I'm a real person, so you get at least one thing right. Yet you're wrong in being an atheist. People are complicated and capable of making many different kinds of assertions.
The cladistic approach described in Deep Time generates a phylogenetic tree where our closest living relative is the chimpanzee.
Which does not appeal to the fossil record for support. Fine.
we would expect to find fossils that show a pattern of being more/less morphologically similar to us and chimps.
Here's where you missed the point. You don't know. That's Gee's point.
And mine as well, just I make it in a different way; I tell you you're not being scientific b/c you're not observing.
This statement is what makes me wonder with what mind you read Gee.
Again, as Deep Time points out,
Deep Time doesn't point out ANYthing. That's Gee's whole thesis. It is an impenetrable fog.
Single celled organisms appear before multicellular ones. Fish appear before reptiles, birds and mammals, and and ancient hominids appear before what we recognise as modern humans.
Assumption, assumption, assumption. Gee's book is saying that you. Don't. Know. That.
the fossil record is far from the only line of evidence used in evolutionary theo
I know, but I'm not quoting Gee against those other things. I quote him where he's relevant.
there's only so much space he has available, and I don't think the main purpose of his book was to go over that evidence in detail
Not asking him to. I'm asking YOU to review him fairly, and I'm disappointed.
A fossil is observed,
And you don't know what it means, what it belonged to, when, nor where.
And no, it's not observed with the repetitive basis I discussed. We've been over this.
You also appear to have ignored the points where he states that based on the fossil record it becomes impossible to determine where fish end and tetrapods start, likewise for birds and non-birds.
I? No, maybe you forgot that I'm the one claiming the fossil record tells you nothing. I think you reversed me and you.
This is pretty clearly in line with what would expected if evolution were true is it not, with the blurring of boundaries between what were previously considered distinct 'archetypes'?
Um, I guess, but that is just as easily accted for in YEC, so it's not evidence for your position.
And this is irrelevant to Gee.
but it is the kind of extinct animal that is expected to exist if the prediction (and by extension, evolutionary theory) is sound
Which are assumptions pulled out of your butt. This is the overwhelming evidence and methodology I'm supposed to bow down to?
you are a presuppositional apologist, and thus your entire worldview is based on concluding anything that doesn't fit with what you want to believe must be flat wrong by default.
That is a poor misstatement of what it is to be a presuppositional apologist.
How is this even an argument? This is just invoking ad hoc miracles
It's an argument b/c it accts for the data. Darwinians should try that some time - accting for data.
How are they ad hoc when they've been known about and referred to for many thousands of years longer than Darwinian theory? You're just making stuff up to throw "ad hoc" at.
coupled with the bizarre assertion that your God has it in for me and people like me for no apparent reason.
1) Make the argument it's "bizarre".
2) God has it in for you b/c you're a sinner and you use the gifts He's given you to deny He exists and that He created all this. Maybe you'd be OK with it if I claimed all the credit for YOUR life's work.
So not a single dinosaur in the same strata as a human, either because a violent flood managed to somehow separate every single human fossil from every single dinosaur fossil.
Which I doubt is true, but so what?
Any chance he could take some time to cure AIDS or cancer instead of playing with fossils?
What is your argument that He should?
Then make an argument that you have any rational grounds for making "should" statements at all.