1. Mathematics

Sal,I like the way you think. If the numbers
don’t add up, somethin’s not right.

You’ll find lots of them that do at:

http://www.hereoisreal.com
more at:
http://www.bloglines.com/blog/hereoisreal

Zero

In support of this argument, he uses an example from his student’s paper in the Cornell ID class. Allen writes,

As Broaddus points out, one of the side-effects of such an “agency detector” would be the detection of intentionality in entities that clearly had no such intentions. If, for example, one of the most important functions of such a detector in humans is to quickly “read” and assess the intentions betrayed in human facial expressions, then it would almost certainly detect human facial expressions in objects in the environment that clearly do not have such expressions, such as rocks, foliage, water stains, etc

Allen continues his argument with this example. (more…)

Evans, E. M. (2001). Cognitive and contextual factors in the emergence of diverse belief systems: Creation versus evolution. Cognitive Psychology, 42, 217-266

pdfs are available at her site:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~evansem/

I see some have already commented on the leaf insect mimicry issue. In this specific case, however, the sources of the confusion are worth commenting on, I think. Mr. Bruno states in his essay:
—
“The point is highlighted if we return to the walking leaf insect (Phyllium) from before. There are fossil records that indicate that these insects existed back in the early Jurassic Period- long before the emergence of any deciduous trees. (Wickler, 109) If this is true, then how can mimicry via natural selection be attributed to the Phyllium? How can the mimic come before the model?”
—
Let’s go issue by issue. The reference provided (Wickler’1968) actually says the following:
—
“It is claimed that this [i.e. Phyllium’s resemblance to angiosperm leaves] cannot be a case of leaf mimicry, since Handlirsch has found leaf-like fossil insects in the Upper Jurassic, when deciduous trees had not yet evolved.”
—
Now, I am not sure what the main source for Mr. Bruno’s information was (whether Wickler or a secondary source), but his quote does not seem to reflect the information in Wickler’s original.

First of all, as Nick mentioned above, Euphasmida (which include Phyllium) actually appear in the fossil record only in the Tertiary. So, whatever fossils Handlirsch described (Wickler provides no reference), they may have been “leaf-like”, as stated in the original, but they were not Phyllium. Since Phyllium are exquisitely adapted to mimic leaves of specific angiosperms, this is of course a significant difference.

Second, the “Upper Jurassic” is not the “early Jurassic”. In geology, “upper” and “lower” are stratigraphic terms - the “upper Jurassic” strata, laying above the “lower Jurassic” strata, were deposited more recently, and correspond therefore to the late, not early, Jurassic. This is not just a nitpick, because Angiosperms show their major radiation in the early Cretaceous, the period immediately following the late Jurassic. For this reason, and based on some (admittedly, limited) fossil evidence, it is now believed that Angiosperms (or at least angiosperm-like sister taxa, sharing features with them) in fact originated in the Jurassic, which would make them contemporaries to Handlirsch’s “leaf-like” fossils (whatever they were).

Third, of course, leaves existed long before Angiosperms, and in fact there are Gymnosperm fossils at the way back to the Permian with angiosperm-like leaves. Thus, there was abundant opportunity for insects to develop leaf-like mimicry, thanks to the selective pressure coming from visual predators, long before the Angiosperms took over the botanical world.

Not to make too big of a deal out of it, this seems to be just the product of a bit of sloppiness by a student. That’s OK, but should serve as a warning about making far-reaching arguments based on limited information.

The reference provided (Wickler’1968) actually says the following:It is claimed that this [i.e. Phyllium’s resemblance to angiosperm leaves] cannot be a case of leaf mimicry, since Handlirsch has found leaf-like fossil insects in the Upper Jurassic, when deciduous trees had not yet evolved. Now, I am not sure what the main source for Mr. Bruno’s information was (whether Wickler or a secondary source), but his quote does not seem to reflect the information in Wickler’s original.

First of all, as Nick mentioned above, Euphasmida (which include Phyllium) actually appear in the fossil record only in the Tertiary. So, whatever fossils Handlirsch described (Wickler provides no reference), they may have been “leaf-like”, as stated in the original, but they were not Phyllium. Since Phyllium are exquisitely adapted to mimic leaves of specific angiosperms, this is of course a significant difference.

Second, the “Upper Jurassic” is not the “early Jurassic”. In geology, “upper” and “lower” are stratigraphic terms - the “upper Jurassic” strata, laying above the “lower Jurassic” strata, were deposited more recently, and correspond therefore to the late, not early, Jurassic. This is not just a nitpick, because Angiosperms show their major radiation in the early Cretaceous, the period immediately following the late Jurassic. For this reason, and based on some (admittedly, limited) fossil evidence, it is now believed that Angiosperms (or at least angiosperm-like sister taxa, sharing features with them) in fact originated in the Jurassic, which would make them contemporaries to Handlirsch’s “leaf-like” fossils (whatever they were).

Third, of course, leaves existed long before Angiosperms, and in fact there are Gymnosperm fossils at the way back to the Permian with angiosperm-like leaves. Thus, there was abundant opportunity for insects to develop leaf-like mimicry, thanks to the selective pressure coming from visual predators, long before the Angiosperms took over the botanical world.

Not to make too big of a deal out of it, this seems to be just the product of a bit of sloppiness by a student. That’s OK, but should serve as a warning about making far-reaching arguments based on limited information.