From Ann Gauger at Biologic Institute here:
Our recent book “Science and Human Origins” has caught the attention of a number of evolutionary bloggers. Go here. to get the flavor. Even our Facebook page has seen as spike in commenting. But most have chosen to recycle a review by a graduate student named Paul McBride, so as to avoid reading the book itself, and dealing with its arguments. His posts (six of them and almost as long as our book!) can be found here. He raises a number of issues that we plan to address. To begin I will discuss his critique that deals with phylogeny.
Mr. McBride doesn’t like using cars as an example of design versus common descent, even though another evolutionary biologist once used it as an analogy for evolution. The car analogy was a throw-away comment in my piece, not intended as a serious model for anything. But McBride took it seriously, and said that cars, which are obviously designed, would produce a patchwork pattern of relatedness, with no single tree predominating. In contrast he said common descent produces a nested hierarchy of relatedness, with a single species tree that is well-supported and does not require arbitrary weighting of characters.
This wouldn’t be our local Paulmc, would it? Hey, a local boy.
See also:
More from Ann Gauger on wy humans didn’t happen the way Darwin said.
Science and Human Origins conclusion: It IS possible we came from just two parents
Adam and Eve could be real?: Genes’ introns and exons tell different stories here. Who to believe?
Adam and Eve possible?: Ayala’s contrary claim built in favourable assumptions
Breaking: Adam and Eve are scientifically possible