More on whale evolution Indohyus

" . . . what has Intelligent Design contributed to our scientific knowledge."

Nothing.

This has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions. (ht Atrios)

I am always amazed to hear from people like these scientists who have the mileage and experience measuring and analyzing these fossils. With that experience comes the ability to recognize the importance of structures in the fossils. I don't understand how creationists or ID proponents can dismiss their work as "speculation" only. Clearly they have no appreciation for the hours spent by experts like this. I get annoyed when I hear non-educators pontificate on education, but then, we all went to school so we all know something about teaching, right? But how many of us have spent time in the field and lab doing paleontology?

Anyway, I am glad that these scientists bother to communicate their finds to laypeople like me, and use a format that I can understand!

I will never ever understand the people who say science sucks all the wonder out of life.

” … what has Intelligent Design contributed to our scientific knowledge.”

I wonder how Intelligent Design proponents explain cases where the design is not intelligent. There are many cases of veistgal organs like the appendix or the coxix but, as a 57 year old man, there is one case that stands out. Why would any intelllegent designer route a fleixble tube (urethra) through the middle of the prostate gland when the prostate grows larger during life. The urethra will be cut off in some males inevitably causing problems in later life.

Evolution explains this because 57 year old males are not an evolutionary priority. Their reproductive years are generally behind them. But an Intellegent designer would not commit such a mistake. I am not a biologist but when I look at the design of species, I see one basic pattern replicated when possible and modified when needed to fit the situation. That is not intelligent design, it's evolution.

” … what has Intelligent Design contributed to our scientific knowledge.”

Personally, the cdesign proponentists have contributed greatly to my understanding of the nature of mental delusions.

No matter how much a fool someone is, it is usually possible to learn something from them. Even if it is only to learn that they are a fool.

Why would any intelllegent designer route a fleixble tube (urethra) through the middle of the prostate gland

I am sometimes forced to wonder if maybe ID isn't actually good for the sciences. People who don't care much hear of the "controversy" end up becoming interested and actually spend a little time researching - or even going to school. Lo and behold, another scientist.

Those that don't, who just blindly follow either trail are.. well, lost anyway.

I applaud Mike and his example of .. ahem... piss poor design. I can't but wonder, though, if sugar isn't a better example. Here we have a chemical our body can make in sufficient quantity that we don't have any need to be able to detect it. Not only can we detect it, it tastes good. So good that we will seek it out and consume it to the greater detriment of the individual eating it.

That strikes me as absolutely *horrible* design, and it's not limited to any age group or either sex.

Lurchgs: I am sometimes forced to wonder if maybe ID isn't actually good for the sciences. People who don't care much hear of the "controversy" end up becoming interested and *gasp* actually spend a little time researching - or even going to school. Lo and behold, another scientist. Those that don't, who just blindly follow either trail are.. well, lost anyway. I applaud Mike and his example of .. ahem... piss poor design. I can't but wonder, though, if sugar isn't a better example. Here we have a chemical our body can make in sufficient quantity that we don't have any need to be able to detect it. Not only can we detect it, it tastes good. So good that we will seek it out and consume it to the greater detriment of the individual eating it. That strikes me as absolutely *horrible* design, and it's not limited to any age group or either sex.

missing link

Ikeithlu said I am always amazed to hear from people like these scientists who have the mileage and experience measuring and analyzing these fossils. With that experience comes the ability to recognize the importance of structures in the fossils.

I just read an opinion piece by former presidential speechwriter Michael Gerson that introduced some of the usual questions Creationists ask with the statement, "I have little knowledge of, or interest in, the science behind this debate." Such acknowledgments rarely, if ever, stop a person from proceeding to argue from a basis of ignorance.

Indeed. What sort of person insists that they KNOW their viewpoint is correct, even they disagree with the folks who actively work in the area involved? It's a slap in the face, really. These sorts should not be in important political positions, IMO.

Is this satire? A missing link? Over half of the frigging chain in missing! Indohyus is considered evolutionarily relevant because... it ran to the water when scared? ... it's inner ear looks "whale-like"? Too bad after 15 years of working on the fossil and recognizing the important structures, they accidentally broke off the fossilized ear bone(?). Then the take away is "ID sux"! You guys are a hoot!

lkeithlu: Indeed. What sort of person insists that they KNOW their viewpoint is correct, even they disagree with the folks who actively work in the area involved?

Thomas: Is this satire? A missing link? Over half of the frigging chain in missing! Indohyus is considered evolutionarily relevant because... it ran to the water when scared? ... it's inner ear looks "whale-like"? Too bad after 15 years of working on the fossil and recognizing the important structures, they ally broke off the fossilized ear bone(?). Then the take away is "ID sux"! You guys are a hoot!

Thomas: Is this satire? A missing link? Over half of the frigging chain in missing! Indohyus is considered evolutionarily relevant because... it ran to the water when scared? ... it's inner ear looks "whale-like"? Too bad after 15 years of working on the fossil and recognizing the important structures, they accidentally broke off the fossilized ear bone(?). Then the take away is "ID sux"! You guys are a hoot!

Thomas, you should be aware of the work of Georges Cuvier, an anti-evolution scientist who is famous for his reconstructions of animals from fragmentary remains. Famous enough that he is even mentioned by Sherlock Holmes: "As Cuvier could correctly describe a whole animal by the contemplation of a single bone, so the observer who has thoroughly understood one link in a series of incidents should be able to accurately state all the other ones, both before and after."
("The Five Orange Pips")

Why can't creationists like Thomas just admit that they can't accept any science that doesn't fit in neatly with their literal interpretation of the bible, instead of attempting to poke holes in science.
Creationists are such a dishonest ilk.

Thomas the creo troll: You guys are a hoot!

Imagine if Thomas was your high school science teacher.

"No need to look at recent fossil discoveries today, kids. Why waste time classroom looking at long dead animals. Instead we'll read real science from the book of Genesis and after lunch I'm going to show you some very enlightening farty videos made by Design Theorist Dr William Dembski"

Here we have a chemical our body can make in sufficient quantity that we don’t have any need to be able to detect it. Not only can we detect it, it tastes good. So good that we will seek it out and consume it to the greater detriment of the individual eating it.

it’s inner ear looks “whale-like”?

Indohyus shares with cetaceans several synapomorphies that are not present in other artiodactyls. Most significantly, Indohyus has a thickened medial lip of its auditory bulla, the involucrum (Figs 1 and 3), a feature previously thought to be present exclusively in cetaceans. Involucrum size varies among cetaceans, but the relative thickness of medial and lateral walls of the tympanic of Indohyus is clearly within the range of that of cetaceans and is well outside the range of other cetartiodactyls (Fig. 3). Other significant derived similarities between Indohyus and cetaceans include the anteroposterior arrangement of incisors in the jaw, and the high crowns in the posterior premolars.

Then the take away is “ID sux”!

Gentlemen, adjust your spelling checkers.

It's cdesign proponentsists.

Gentlemen, adjust your spelling checkers. It’s cdesign proponentsists

Got my paleo-powered computer working again. It was unplugged. Seems like it takes an epoch to reboot. Science IS amazing. Could make a good God-supplement. Hmmm.... I'm getting the point, guys. Religion without science is blind. Didn't someone famous say that? I'm thinking Oprah or Ptolemy.

Thomas: Got my paleo-powered computer working again. It was unplugged. Seems like it takes an epoch to reboot. Science IS amazing. Could make a good God-supplement. Hmmm.... I'm getting the point, guys. Religion without science is blind. Didn't someone famous say that? I'm thinking Oprah or Ptolemy.

Albert Einstein said: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Shocking though it may be, something isn't necessarily true just because Einstein said it ... especially in regard to religion, a word that Einstein used rather idiosyncratically.

Meanwhile our troll seems to have abandoned his ignorant and intellectually lazy "satire ... hoot" argument.

This is true for the plural. Since a plural was inserted into a plural.

For the purpose of standardization, would the singular be “cdesign proponentsist”, or “cdesign proponentist”

This is, as they themselves said, only a “working hypothesis” at best. Compare that with the triumphal announcements in the The Register quoted at the beginning of this entry: “The tables are turned now [against the creationists] because we have fossils that show that dramatic transition step by step.”

There is indeed, MUCH more work to be done, it would seem.

So, FL, can you demonstrate what ID or Creationism have done to contribute to the description of fossil whales and fossil whale-like artiodactyls like Indohyus?

What's that?

Absolutely nothing beyond sanctimonious jibberish and holier-than-thou bellyaching?

I thought so.

Let the readers compare/contrast the information that's been given and judge for themselves, Stanton. Somebody's claiming that Indohyus "is a missing link", and obviously they've got you sold on it.

But there's nothing wrong with doing some critical thinking on this story instead of merely swallowing it hook line and sinker, and Creation-Evolution Headlines definitely offers some critical thinking on the matter; just some stuff to think about.

FL

"evolutionists are wrong when they point out similarities between whales and fossil ungulates" "And the evil evolutionists are changing their minds, therefore, they've been wrong all this time!"

it's funny, but FL is guilty of each and every charge that would have gotten him banned from Pharyngula long ago:

wanking
insipidity
spamming (see the above advertisment for creation news)
concern trolling
godbotting
slagging
stupidity
trolling

well, at least he isn't a sockpuppet or a morpher, like larry farfromsane.

just what value does he represent to PT again?