If an IDist had made that statement critics would be quick to point out that NS makes a stochastic generator the source of a causal outcome.

Eh? What is that supposed to mean?

There's the historical branch of evolutionary biology which documents how life actually diversified on earth over billions of years, and then there's the branch that studies the mechanisms that cause evolution. The study cited in this post is perhaps surprising for the first branch, but it doesn't obviously contradict the mainstream ideas of the second branch.

Contradict is too strong a term. This is not a black and white issue. An adjustment is suggested.

You are as usual trying to make political hay "” rather unethically, but no surprise there "” by confusing the two branches, and make it sound as if this new finding does contradict some aspect of the mechanistic theory of evolution.

You are the one using the word contradict. A theory could be off if the mechanism needs tweaking or if there are unknowns that have yet to be identified. Your spin is unethical.

It's like saying that the discovery that two continents drifted apart earlier than thought before casts doubt on the mechanisms presumed to cause continental drift. Evolution and plate tectonics are stochastic processes that are hard to predict, even if the underlying mechanisms were fairly well understood.

If an IDist had made that statement critics would be quick to point out that NS makes a stochastic generator the source of a causal outcome. But even without NS the underlying mechanism cannot be assumed to be completely stochastic.

For the benefit of ID critics, when you consistently come across the phrase much older than assumed or older than expected or thought possible etc. what is being said in different words is that the familiar theory would not have predicted x, y and z hence the surprise.

There's the historical branch of evolutionary biology which documents how life actually diversified on earth over billions of years, and then there's the branch that studies the mechanisms that cause evolution. The study cited in this post is perhaps surprising for the first branch, but it doesn't obviously contradict the mainstream ideas of the second branch. You are as usual trying to make political hay — rather unethically, but no surprise there — by confusing the two branches, and make it sound as if this new finding does contradict some aspect of the mechanistic theory of evolution. It's like saying that the discovery that two continents drifted apart earlier than thought before casts doubt on the mechanisms presumed to cause continental drift. Evolution and plate tectonics are stochastic processes that are hard to predict, even if the underlying mechanisms were fairly well understood.

Excellent point.

Also, gotta love this quote from the article: "The fact that both [plants and animals] share some similarities in the endosomal signaling system means that this system is either much older than we could have ever assumed, or that plants have independently evolved the same solution to the same problem, a scenario that I favor . . ."

In other words, says Geldner, it is preferable (not as matter of evidence, mind you, but as a matter of philosophical preference) to assume that this complex system happened — by dint of pure, dumb luck — to come about twice, rather than assume that the system shakes up the family tree.

It's tough being an RM+NS believer these days — you're damned if you do, damned if you don't.

"The fact that both [plants and animals] share some similarities in the endosomal signaling system means that this system is either much older than we could have ever assumed, or …

For the benefit of ID critics, when you consistently come across the phrase much older than assumed or older than expected or thought possible etc. what is being said in different words is that the familiar theory would not have predicted x, y and z hence the surprise.