Art, you're being tendentious. "Classic evolutionary theory," write Davidson & Erwin, "based on selection of small incremental changes, has sought explanations by extrapolation from observed patterns of adaptation." That's about as good a short description of neo-Darwinism as one could want.

Tendentious? I don't think so. This short description is rather different than, say, the classical definition of neo-Darwinism that Kutschera and Niklas (Naturwissenschaften (2004) 91:255"“276) provide. I suspect (but cannot prove) that Davidson was being careful in avoiding the term, because it means different things to different people.

Be that as it may. The title of your piece, Paul, if you wish to adhere to this particular usage, should have been "Neo-Darwinism is dead, long live neo-Darwinism". This is because Davidson's review shows how small incremental molecular changes in fact can "extrapolate" (although this may not be the best word) into large phenotypic changes. Indeed, there is much irony here, since the revival of that which you wish to bury, Paul, is done by Davidson using a distinctive engineering metaphor "“ namely, that of an amplifier. Basically, Davidson is giving some technical detail to Carroll's assertion that macroevolution is microevolution writ large.

I'm finding it interesting that none of the bloggers here have cared to mention the ramifications of Davidson's ideas for front-loading. Does front-loading entail the "deposition" in some ancestral genome of all of the kernels and downstream modules that we see in all extant metazoans? If not, what is the means of origination of the evolutionarily new modules? Paul mentions C. elegans (somewhere) "“ does the small number of modules in this organism reflect a derivative state (= loss of developmental modules) or an ancestral one? How would you ask this question experimentally (assuming you don't already know the answer)? Do you even care?

Finally, Paul, I was sort of hoping to cull a question or two for Massimo from your ppt file. That's not looking too likely, is it?

One more thing: One of the things you teach undergraduates is never to trust review articles - that is, articles reviewing and summarizing the literature on a subject - as authors can put their own spin on things, sometimes to the point of completely distorting the findings of the original articles. So the practice of quote-mining isn't unheard of, even in the sanctums of science. Yet ID critics are more interested in what's written on some blog on the internet. Go figure.

My impression is that original scientific research hardly ever "quotes" but rather "cites." Anyone both quoting and citing can hardly be accused of "dishonestly" interpreting the research, as its is a simple matter to investigate the source.

What makes this a bit more dicey, is when scientists, particularly those with a reputation (or who have a certain degree of notiriety), write popular books that are intended to explain the findings of science (what's reported in the peer reviewed journals) to the public at large. In many of those books, the interpretive nature of the explanations is hard to miss. Dawkins might perhaps be the worst offender in that regard, but he is by no means the only one. Then, when IDP's use direct quotes from those books…quotes which are themselves interpretive in nature and which often hint at real issues and problems with evolution…the IDPs are accused of 'quotemining' as if the orginal work itself was straightforward reporting and non-interpretive.
That part is often overlooked in these accuasations of 'quotemining.'

Well, I did make this prediction about the post-Wedge world: "I am cynical enough to expect most will still cling to Wedge-centrism, and invent exotic and convoluted reasons as to why ID still must be viewed as a threat to our way of life and why our adrenalin levels need to remain high (after all, some have built quasi-careers around fighting the wedge)."

When you consider the tone of Verdon and TTam, it's as if no one has told them about the decision from the Dover trial. They are still stuck in the Wedge World. But that's so 2005ish.

I think the accuracy of your description is confirmed by Steve's comment on his own blog: "What I have done it take apart the potential ID claims." Damn that rascal Paul Nelson. Potentially making an argument in which he qoute-mines!

Reminds me of Philip K. Dick's short story "The Minority Report", in which people are prosecuted for murders they are prophesied to have committed. ID critics really are a step ahead.

Because they're so fervent, and so confident in themselves and their judgment?

Really, you mean Paul Nelson isn't an ID advocate? Gee, I thought he wrote numerous articles on ID. My bad. You might want to tell the Discovery Institute to take his name off their website though.

And maybe Nelson is a Libertarian and his favorite television show is American Idol. This is all irrelevant. What is relevant is the actual argument on the table.

However, that you kick off your reply with this suggests that my perception of your argument was spot-on:

Nelson argues X.
Verdon says to himself, "Nelson argues X because he wants to get to Y in order to get to Z."
Davidson doesn't argue for Y or Z.
Therefore, Nelson is a liar.

Which would mean my criticism was likewise spot-on:

Those of us who understand critical thinking understand that Nelson can argue X and we can respond to X without having to consider Y or Z. If Nelson wants to get beyond X, it is his burden to move things. But because he has only argued X, we can consider X, and, upon consideration, take it in any direction that we see fit.

Then again, you have your own version to tell:

Nelson argues: Neo-Darwinism doesn't work for the pre-Cambrian.
Verdon points out: Davidson and Erwin actually make no such arguement.
Conclusion: Nelson is being misleading.

Not so fast. Even if we accept your version at face value, you still have a problem. You chose a particular word and attached it to Nelson "“ DISHONESTY. Y'see, someone's blog can be misleading without it being dishonest. I explained this before.

The bit about the supernatural ID designer was tossed in for good measure.

Yes, and that "good measure" was misleading, as you made it sound like Nelson was arguing the Davidson paper argued for a supernatural designer.

To claim that my post is simply about debunking the supernatural designer is"¦well to misrepresent my post"¦so I guess we know how much we can trust Krauze"¦neat how this works isn't it?

Actually, just as you misrepresented Nelson, you now try to misrepresent Krauze. Krauze did not claim your post "is simply about debunking the supernatural designer." Krauze wrote the following:

But notice this charge: "[W]hile the process that Davidson and Erwin had in mind for the development of the kernels and other biological components may not be neo-Darwinian it certainly isn't some supernatural designer."
Here's a little challenge for the reader: Use your browser's search function to search for the phrase "supernatural designer" in Paul Nelson's post. You'll probably find, as I did, that the phrase is nowhere to be found: Nelson did not claim that Davidson and Eric were proposing a supernatural designer to account for the origin of body plans.

I see no misrepresentation of you here.

Ooooh, an internet threat of a lawsuit? Gee how original.

Now you are over-reacting. According to Dictionary.com, libel is "A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation." You accused Nelson of being dishonest. Such accusations are intended to damage a person's reputation. I simply found that irresponsible.

Sorry Steve, I suggest you need to get hold of your emotions as you were obviously over-reaching by accusing Nelson of dishonesty and throwing in some things for "good measure." As TelicThoughts readers watch you defend your rhetoric, they will not get the impression that critics can approach this topic in a fair and open-minded manner. That's why I sometimes ask, "If there was some truth to ID, why would anyone trust an ID critic's ability to find or acknowledge it?"