<i>Ventastega</i>

Posted 27 June 2008 by PZ Myers

↗ The current version of this post is on the live site: https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/06/ventastega.html

The paleontologists are going too far. This is getting ridiculous. They keep digging up these collections of bones that illuminate tetrapod origins, and they keep making finer and finer distinctions. On one earlier side we have a bunch of tetrapod-like fish — Tiktaalik and Panderichthys, for instance — and on the later side we have fish-like tetrapods, such as Acanthostega and Ichthyostega. Now they're talking about shades of fishiness or tetrapodiness within those groups! You'd almost think they were documenting a pattern of gradual evolutionary change.

The latest addition is a description of Ventastega curonica, a creature that falls within the domain of the fish-like tetrapods, but is a bit fishier than other forms, so it actually bridges the gap between something like Tiktaalik and Acanthostega. We look forward to the imminent discovery of yet more fossils that bridge the gap between Ventastega and Tiktaalik, and between Ventastega and Acanthostega, and all the intermediates between them.

Here's Ventastega's place in the phyletic universe, and I think you can see what I mean — all those species represent an embarrassment of riches, revealing the flowering of the tetrapod transition.

The skull can be compared to others, and the meat of the description of this animal is largely a description of each of the bones of the skull, categorizing and comparing them, and showing that we really are looking at a beast that is partway between Tiktaalik and Acanthostega.

(click for larger image)
Skulls of Tiktaalik, Ventastega, Acanthostega and Ichthyostega in dorsal view, showing the skull roof (grey) used in the morphometric comparison. In Ventastega and Acanthostega the internasal fontanelle is shown darker grey. Not drawn to scale.

I know, you really just want to see what it looks like. Here's a diagram of the bits and pieces of this wonderful fossil.

(click for larger image)
a, Whole-body reconstruction showing known skeletal elements on a body outline based on Acanthostega. Scale bar, 10 cm. b, c, Skull reconstruction in lateral and dorsal views, based on material presented here and described previously. d, Reconstructed association of skull and shoulder girdle in lateral view. e, Shoulder girdle in anterior view. Curvature of cleithrum based on LDM G 81/522. Unknown bones are indicated with vertical hatching. Scale bar for b–e, 10 mm. f, g, Life reconstructions of head in lateral and dorsal views (copyright P. Renne, 2007). an, anocleithrum; ang, angular; cla, clavicle; clei, cleithrum; de, dentary; fr, frontal; icl, interclavicle; i.fon, internasal fontanelle; it, intertemporal; ju, jugal; la, lacrimal; mx, maxilla; m.ro, median rostral; na, nasal; pa, parietal; pmx, premaxilla; po, postorbital; pof, postfrontal; pop, preopercular; pospl, postsplenial; pp, postparietal; prf, prefrontal; pter, pterygoid; qj, quadratojugal; sang, surangular; scapcor, scapulocoracoid; spl, splenial; sq, squamosal; ta, tabular.

There's one important fact Ahlberg warns us about, though. When you see a detailed, species-packed cladogram like the one shown above, it is tempting to see the roster of species as a linear series, with one form succeeding another. This is not the case! Many of those species were dead ends, and we're seeing the tips of the branches, not necessarily any of the members of the main trunk. What all these fossils tell us is a combination of fortunate trivia — it's good to live your life along the water's edge if you hope to be fossilized — and amazing success. These early tetrapods were exploring a new niche and were radiating into diverse morphologies at a rapid rate, and so what we're also seeing is a portrait of a spectacularly successful strategy, the exploitation of the boundary between land and water by large animals.

Ahlberg PE, Clack JA, Luksevics E, Blom H, Zupins I (2008) Ventastega curonica and the origin of tetrapod morphology. Nature 453(7199):1199-204.

173 Comments

Wheels · 27 June 2008

This is terrible news indeed! Now just look at all those gaps we have to fill! Each time we find a new missing link, it's creating TWO gaps! [/sarcasm]

Michael Roberts · 27 June 2008

The government must stop funding this work as it may prove evolution

Daoud · 27 June 2008

Scientists have failed to find a SINGLE transitional fossil in 150 years of trying! They have no evidence, just faith!

RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!!!

fnxtr · 27 June 2008

It's still just a... er... um... thing...

harold · 27 June 2008

This and the preceding article are the type of thing I really enjoy here.

I guess that makes PZ Meyers close to my favorite science writer.

I would recommend that anyone of any religious persuasion learn from his generous and articulate sharing of biology with the public.

But I don't comment on this stuff very often, because the summaries are usually so complete, I don't have much to add.

harold · 27 June 2008

Wait - I do have some questions.

I won't ask the fossils approximate date, as I can google or even make a guess at that.

The teeth look sharp. Was it a carnivore? Who did it eat - any ideas? Would there have been any tetrapod herbivores to speack of at the time? How big was it?

Paul Burnett · 27 June 2008

harold said: The teeth look sharp. Was it a carnivore? Who did it eat - any ideas? Would there have been any tetrapod herbivores to speack of at the time? How big was it?

The Ventastega curonica fossil is 365 million years old - 100 million years before the first dinosaur. "Ventastega was likely three or four feet long, and swam in shallow waters eating other fish." - http://www.tothecenter.com/news.php?readmore=5752

FastEddie · 27 June 2008

It's interesting that this is yet another discovery NOT made by the Discovery Institute.

vorwof · 27 June 2008

I've been lurking for some time, and this seems like an appropriate thread to ask a questions that's bugged me for some time.

How can we draw an entire body of a creature for which we have only a few bones? In PZ's example, we have a skull and a couple of "fin" bones. Is it a simple matter of looking at the similarities with other more complete fossils to extrapolate to the full body?

How confident are we that we've got the right body type?

Thanks in advance.

Flint · 27 June 2008

It’s interesting that this is yet another discovery NOT made by the Discovery Institute.

Creationists are all devotees of Orwell. "Teach the controversy" means preach creationism. "Present both sides" means present only one side. The Discovery Institute exists to inhibit discovery. "Critical thinking" translates as "don't question dogma." This is a long and growing list.

RBH · 27 June 2008

As the figure caption clearly says, the body outline is based on Acanthostega, for which additional skeletal material is available. The justification for using Acanthostega as a guide to reconstructing Ventastega is that the skulls are sufficiently similar that the bodies are likely to also be similar. Obviously, as and if additional skeletal material for Ventastega becomes available that reconstruction will be modified accordingly.

vorwof · 27 June 2008

RBH said: As the figure caption clearly says, the body outline is based on Acanthostega, for which additional skeletal material is available. The justification for using Acanthostega as a guide to reconstructing Ventastega is that the skulls are sufficiently similar that the bodies are likely to also be similar. Obviously, as and if additional skeletal material for Ventastega becomes available that reconstruction will be modified accordingly.

Sigh. I re-read the post a number of times to make sure I wasn't asking a question that was already answered, and for some reason failed to read the captions. Thanks for the response, RBH.

FastEddie · 27 June 2008

Flint said:
It’s interesting that this is yet another discovery NOT made by the Discovery Institute.
Creationists are all devotees of Orwell. "Teach the controversy" means preach creationism. "Present both sides" means present only one side. The Discovery Institute exists to inhibit discovery. "Critical thinking" translates as "don't question dogma." This is a long and growing list.

I recently read 1984 for the first time since highschool and long before I even knew creationists existed. As I reread it, the similarities between creationist belief systems and The Party kept popping up in my mind. Doublethink galore. The AiG's statement of faith, the Wedge Document, and other comparable creationist screeds are like IngSoc. Ignorance is Strength.

iml8 · 27 June 2008

Wheels said: This is terrible news indeed! Now just look at all those gaps we have to fill! Each time we find a new missing link, it's creating TWO gaps!

Goalpost manufacturers say they haven't been able to keep up with the demand for ever smaller and subdivided goalposts. Sigh, and we thought we were in enough trouble with rising fuel and food prices. White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

Bubba Von Grubba · 27 June 2008

vorwof said: I've been lurking for some time, and this seems like an appropriate thread to ask a questions that's bugged me for some time. How can we draw an entire body of a creature for which we have only a few bones? In PZ's example, we have a skull and a couple of "fin" bones. Is it a simple matter of looking at the similarities with other more complete fossils to extrapolate to the full body? How confident are we that we've got the right body type? Thanks in advance.

They just throw a bunch of chicken bones in a pile and fill in the rest with their imagination and call it "evidence." These are the people that called Piltdown Man, the feejee mermaid and John Merrick trasitional forms. It's all just fraud and imagination!

Scince Nut · 27 June 2008

Does anyone have the email address for Ann Coulter? I need to send her a link to this post.

vorwof · 27 June 2008

Bubba Von Grubba said:
vorwof said: I've been lurking for some time, and this seems like an appropriate thread to ask a questions that's bugged me for some time. How can we draw an entire body of a creature for which we have only a few bones?...
They just throw a bunch of chicken bones in a pile and fill in the rest with their imagination and call it "evidence." These are the people that called Piltdown Man, the feejee mermaid and John Merrick trasitional forms. It's all just fraud and imagination!

You forgot Nebraska man. ;)

Alun Hughes · 27 June 2008

"They just throw a bunch of chicken bones in a pile and fill in the rest with their imagination and call it “evidence.” These are the people that called Piltdown Man, the feejee mermaid and John Merrick trasitional forms. It’s all just fraud and imagination!"

Glad to see us creationist aint the only ones to do that...Maby we does have somthing in like wit da scienceism!

fnxtr · 27 June 2008

No point. Morton's Demon has pretty thoroughly possessed Ms. Coulter.

Cedric Katesby · 27 June 2008

"It's still just a tetrapod"

(Sorry. I just couldn't resist.)

Daoud · 27 June 2008

Cedric Katesby said: "It's still just a tetrapod" (Sorry. I just couldn't resist.)

Damn straight! Until they show me in a lab one of them Ventastegategathingies give birth to a cat, it's all just *theory*! Where's the evidence????

iml8 · 27 June 2008

fnxtr said: No point. Morton's Demon has pretty thoroughly possessed Ms. Coulter.

A Coultergeist-demon hybrid! They never came up with something so bizarre on BUFFY and ANGEL. White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

stevaroni · 27 June 2008

A Coultergeist-demon hybrid!

Eh, it's still just another kind of demon.

harold · 27 June 2008

Paul Burnett -

Thanks.

This is an area I'll have to do some reading in.

John Kwok · 27 June 2008

Dear Paul - What you said below isn't quite accurate:

Paul Burnett said:
harold said: The teeth look sharp. Was it a carnivore? Who did it eat - any ideas? Would there have been any tetrapod herbivores to speack of at the time? How big was it?
The Ventastega curonica fossil is 365 million years old - 100 million years before the first dinosaur. "Ventastega was likely three or four feet long, and swam in shallow waters eating other fish." - http://www.tothecenter.com/news.php?readmore=5752

The earliest known dinosaurs date from somewhere in the mid to late Triassic, with an age range of approximately 230 to 190 million years ago. So this means that the earliest tetrapods, including Ventastega, arose nearly two hundred million years before the earliest dinosaurs. Regards, John

Daniel Gaston · 27 June 2008

PZ raises a good point from the paper:

There's one important fact Ahlberg warns us about, though. When you see a detailed, species-packed cladogram like the one shown above, it is tempting to see the roster of species as a linear series, with one form succeeding another. This is not the case! Many of those species were dead ends, and we're seeing the tips of the branches, not necessarily any of the members of the main trunk. What all these fossils tell us is a combination of fortunate trivia — it's good to live your life along the water's edge if you hope to be fossilized — and amazing success. These early tetrapods were exploring a new niche and were radiating into diverse morphologies at a rapid rate, and so what we're also seeing is a portrait of a spectacularly successful strategy, the exploitation of the boundary between land and water by large animals.

I TA a bioinformatics course that my supervisor teaches which the first half is predominantly on phylogenetics. Every year we have to teach students how to look at phylogenetic trees and it can be difficult. Dealing with rooted versus unrooted trees, relationships, etc. In terms of getting the point that it is the branching pattern that matters and not how close things are in a linear order the trick is to get students to understand that all branches are freely rotatable around nodes. Get them to take the cladogram in this case and rotate things around nodes. They will quickly see that the linear order is radically different yet they are the same tree. The relationships haven't changed at all. An excellent excercise to get anyone used to looking at trees.

Henry J · 27 June 2008

They will quickly see that the linear order is radically different yet they are the same tree. The relationships haven’t changed at all.

I gather that it's like each branch is perpendicular to all the others - effectively a new dimension? (But to put the thing on paper means forcing it into two dimensions.) Henry

Henry J · 27 June 2008

An excellent excercise to get anyone used to looking at trees.

But the tree is still just a woody green plant!!one!eleven!!!!

deedee · 27 June 2008

I couldn't resist commenting, even though it seems that it will fall on deaf ears on this blog. Just a bit of advice, if you want to continue with the cherade that evolution is real science you might want to tone down the sarcasim just a tad. The defensiveness and general mimicking the same old darwinian rhetoric reveals how strong the faith is, the faith you pretend isn't a faith that is. By the way, If you think Ann Coulter would be impressed with any of the same old stuff on this site that appears in every other evolutionary sight, you must be kidding.

deedee · 27 June 2008

iml8 · 27 June 2008

deedee said: I couldn't resist commenting, even though it seems that it will fall on deaf ears on this blog. Just a bit of advice, if you want to continue with the cherade that evolution is real science you might want to tone down the sarcasim just a tad.

Sigh, deja moo all over again. Have you tyring decaf, too? I really recommend it. White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite

Mike from Ottawa · 27 June 2008

deedee spells charade incorrectly and goes downhill from there. Mountains of evidence? Who cares, certainly not deedee and even less Ann Coulter, Goebbels in a skirt.

iml8 · 27 June 2008

Mike from Ottawa said: deedee spells charade incorrectly and goes downhill from there. Mountains of evidence? Who cares, certainly not deedee and even less Ann Coulter, Goebbels in a skirt.

Hey, I think he's a relative of mine. I object. White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

deedee · 27 June 2008

Mike from Ottawa said: deedee spells charade incorrectly and goes downhill from there. Mountains of evidence? Who cares, certainly not deedee and even less Ann Coulter, Goebbels in a skirt.

Hey Mike good eye for spelling. I guess the semantics games so important to you evolutionists is what your "mountains of evidence" are all about, huh? How about putting your "mountains of evidence" where your mouth is. Tell me one piece of it that didn't begin with the presupposition that what ever you see has to fit into your faith in evolution in the first place. Oh, realizing spelling is your field and not science, I thought you might want to know that you followed my lead and didn't capitalize my name. How embarrassing.

NJ · 27 June 2008

Let's see, there deedee...

Concern trolling? Check.

Bad spelling? Check.

Insistence that science is actually religion? Check.

Referring to science as "Darwinism"? Check.

Believing that Ann Coulter has a non-zero IQ? Check.

Buh-bye. Don't let the doorknob hit you in the brain on the way out, mmmmkkkay?

iml8 · 27 June 2008

deedee said: I guess the semantics games so important to you evolutionists is what your "mountains of evidence" are all about, huh?

"The mountains of evidence for evolution are a fraud. These aren't the droids you're looking for. Let the boy go about his business." "I thought we were goners, Obi-Wan!" "The Force can have a significant influence on the weak-minded ... " White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

Stanton · 27 June 2008

And yet, deedee does not explain why it is so that the "Darwinists" (sic) are the ones doing the actual work, scientific or otherwise, while creationists have done absolutely nothing.

Frank J · 27 June 2008

I couldn’t resist commenting, even though it seems that it will fall on deaf ears on this blog. Just a bit of advice, if you want to continue with the cherade that evolution is real science you might want to tone down the sarcasim just a tad.
— deedee

OK. Since you think that evolution as real science is a charade, I have some very non-sarcastic questions about what you think might be the real science. The anti-evolutionist who is arguably the most familiar with the relevant science is Michael Behe. He thinks that life on Earth has a history of 3-4 billion years, and that humans share common ancestors with other species including Ventastega curonica. Do you agree with him on both points? If not, please give us your best guesses on the chronology and/or which lineages originated from nonliving matter independently.

deedee · 27 June 2008

More semanitcs, sarcasim, defensiveness (without any actual defense with substance of course, (a little obession with Coulter too I might add), and the ever-so-popular dodging the point...come on, I'm sure since your faith is really science you must have something that convincing you so stongly that your interpretation of the facts is correct. Something besides mocking people who DO NOT agree with you would show some maturity, but come on, you can't expect your religion to gain any credibility with that attitude, can you?

Frank J · 27 June 2008

By the way, If you think Ann Coulter would be impressed with any of the same old stuff on this site that appears in every other evolutionary sight, you must be kidding.
— deedee

Of course she would not be impressed. She admitted on Michael Medved's radio show in 2006 that she was an "idiot" (her exact word) about science.

iml8 · 27 June 2008

deedee said: More semanitcs, sarcasim, defensiveness (without any actual defense with substance of course, (a little obession with Coulter too I might add), and the ever-so-popular dodging the point...come on, I'm sure since your faith is really science you must have something that convincing you so stongly that your interpretation of the facts is correct.

Your Jedi mind tricks will not work on us. "I knew Obi-Wan Kenobi, and you're no Obi-Wan Kenobi." And DO try the decaf! White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

stevaroni · 27 June 2008

Tell me one piece of it that didn’t begin with the presupposition that what ever you see has to fit into your faith in evolution in the first place.

OK, I'll play troll games. But first, you tell me, deedee, what's the other obvious explanation for a long series of fossils, starting with 350 million year old primitive fishes, progressing forward through time, and over the course of 80 million years or so, gradually changing into therapods and then amphibians? These are actual bodies here, not some vacuaous conspiracy. You can actually touch this stuff. It's tough to argue they don't exist when you can go down to the local history natural museum and see them for yourself. So it seems like there ought to be a creationist explanation for how they got in the ground to begin with, but I don't seem to ever hear one. Especially since each step seems clearly constrained as no bigger than that great shibboleth of creationism - microveolution. I'd love to hear any reasonable alternate explanation that seems to actually fit the data, presupposition or not. Remember - it has to do two things, explain the gradual change itself, and explain why the pattern of change seems to be sorted according to age. Conviently, Darwinin evolution seems to actually accomplish this. So anyway, the creationist explanation is ... __________________________ Um, I'll wait.

iml8 · 27 June 2008

stevaroni said: But first, you tell me, deedee, what's the other obvious explanation for a long series of fossils, starting with 350 million year old primitive fishes, progressing forward through time, and over the course of 80 million years or so, gradually changing into therapods and then amphibians?

Never ask a lunatic-fringer a question. They'll give you an answer that will leave matters even more confused than they were before. This is done on the general principle that if one can't argue on the basis of sophistication, then dumb the argument down to the level where it's winnable. White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

vorwof · 27 June 2008

deedee said: More semanitcs, sarcasim, defensiveness (without any actual defense with substance of course, (a little obession with Coulter too I might add), and the ever-so-popular dodging the point...come on, I'm sure since your faith is really science you must have something that convincing you so stongly that your interpretation of the facts is correct. Something besides mocking people who DO NOT agree with you would show some maturity, but come on, you can't expect your religion to gain any credibility with that attitude, can you?

I stated earlier in this thread that I have been merely lurking for some time..long enough to realize that the posters here with real knowledge of biology (not me) have long since given up trying to explain it to the creationists that visit here. Every presentation of scientific evidence is met with cries of "nuh-uh" and "you can't prove abiogenesis" and "evolution is teh religion!" The snarky comments are more fun and waste a lot less energy. Hope that helps.

deedee · 27 June 2008

Frank. Thank you for a serious question. Although, I would like to first point out that it's always amusing how evolutionists refuse to answer the question themselves. As I asked, what convinces you so much about your interpretation of the facts? No one has decided to answer that, exept the old mocking-bird "mountains of evidence," which of course, we could go round in circles, by me calling my interpretation of the facts "mountains of evidence" too, but as much fun as it is its a little lame. Anyway, I briefly, No I do not agree with Behe's opinion on the age of the earth. Yes I absolutely agree with his logic that the complexity of biology at the molecular level is irrational to believe it came about through natural causes. "Design" is not something that scientists disagree on. From Behe, Crick, Dawkins, Sagan, Wise, Fawkins etc. No scientist argues that we don't see design in nature. Only, evolutionists call it "apparent" observable design, creationists & I.D. call it just "observable design." The Theory of design has been being used to solve cases long before evolutionists started getting their shorts in a knot about it. For example, a piece of evidence goes through the "explanatory filter" when we try to determine the cause of it. The order of elimination is very important. First we investigate whether a natural law could have caused it, when that is ruled out, we investigate the probability of random chance causing it, if that is ruled out, we concur that it was designed. I can give many examples of this, but for this post I should break and pick up later. I have to ask, why do so many evolutionists clump all creationists as part of the Ann Coulter fan club. Personally I think she is correct on a lot of things, incorrect on somethings, a little too sarcastic, sometimes rude, but often hilarious. However these bloggers seem a little fixiated on her.

Henry J · 27 June 2008

the same old darwinian rhetoric

Not everybody here is from Australia. ;)

iml8 · 27 June 2008

deedee said: Frank. Thank you for a serious question. Although, I would like to first point out that it's always amusing how evolutionists refuse to answer the question themselves.

You REALLY should try the decaf. I hear you can find some blends that are very delicious. White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

Eric Finn · 27 June 2008

There's one important fact Ahlberg warns us about, though. When you see a detailed, species-packed cladogram like the one shown above, it is tempting to see the roster of species as a linear series, with one form succeeding another. This is not the case!

I am aware that Daniel Gaston already addressed this question. To me, popular science magazines are often repulsive, because they present scientific discoveries in a form simplified beyond recognition. Even more repulsive is their habit of presenting all the discoveries as 'revolutionary' and 'challenging' all the current knowledge. This is a challenge in reporting scientific discoveries. By this comment, I do not try to imply that the current thread has those problems, on the contrary, I found the post most interesting. Regards Eric

fnxtr · 27 June 2008

"Interpretation of the facts"?

Modern Evolutionary Theory best fits all facts / data / touchable evidence found so far. At least according to the thousands of scientists, from all religions and none, who have actually, you know, done the work.

If you have a better, more comprehensive, useful theory, let's have it.

The Nobel is waiting, deedee.

Damian · 27 June 2008

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

This outlines a number of reasons why we accept the findings of evolutionary theory. It is but a small sample, in truth, but it will take you months to read through it.

Do come back when you have and I will be delighted to answer any questions, deedee.

Or, alternatively, ask some questions. Many people will be delighted to answer, if, and only if, you show some interest in, at the very least, understanding why we do accept the evidence. The reason that we may seem dismissive at first is because so many come here and really aren't interested in having a fruitful and respectful dialogue.

iml8 · 27 June 2008

fnxtr said: Modern Evolutionary Theory best fits all facts / data / touchable evidence found so far. At least according to the thousands of scientists, from all religions and none, who have actually, you know, done the work.

Not to be rude but ... obviously if people wanted to learn something about evolutionary science, they would go to Google and enter "Introduction To Evolution" or "Evolution Primer" or something along those lines and then follow up the various resources availble for free on the web. Equally obviously, somebody who decides instead to get onto an evolutionary biology watering hole, loudly denounce the subject as a fraud, and then demand explanations with no pretense of interest in them has a different agenda in mind. White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

Rolf · 27 June 2008

First we investigate whether a natural law could have caused it, when that is ruled out, we investigate the probability of random chance causing it, if that is ruled out, we concur that it was designed. I can give many examples of this, but for this post I should break and pick up later.

No need for many examples, just let us have output of the EF for this case. Of course withe the complete specifications of the input. That should teach the evilutionists some humility when faced with the exquisite science of ID.

Stanton · 27 June 2008

deedee said: For example, a piece of evidence goes through the "explanatory filter" when we try to determine the cause of it. The order of elimination is very important. First we investigate whether a natural law could have caused it, when that is ruled out, we investigate the probability of random chance causing it, if that is ruled out, we concur that it was designed. I can give many examples of this, but for this post I should break and pick up later.

Then demonstrate how to use Dembski's explanatory filter on Ventastega to prove that it is "designed".

fnxtr · 27 June 2008

What if we don't know if a natural law could have caused it?

Or if we don't know what the chances of the event are?

What then?

As pvm would point out, the explanatory filter exposes ID as the ultimate argument from ignorance.

recovering YEC · 27 June 2008

deedee I'll play. It's practice for explaining science to my fundy nieces and nephews.

So, on what grounds do you disagree with Behe on the age of the earth-and therefore the age of the fossils? Also, is the reported age of the fossils the main point you disagree with in the article or is there something else about their analysis that you think is wrong? Please be specific "mountains of evidence" in quotes isn't an argument-it's a phrase

Stanton · 27 June 2008

fnxtr said: What if we don't know if a natural law could have caused it?

~~GOD~~DESIGNERDIDIT

Or if we don't know what the chances of the event are?

~~GOD~~DESIGNERDIDIT

What then?

~~GOD~~DESIGNERDIDIT

As pvm would point out, the explanatory filter exposes ID as the ultimate argument from ignorance.

You know how it is, people conflate ignorance with piety, and get furious when others don't do the same.

recovering YEC said: deedee I'll play. It's practice for explaining science to my fundy nieces and nephews. So, on what grounds do you disagree with Behe on the age of the earth-and therefore the age of the fossils?

"Because the Bible said so."

Also, is the reported age of the fossils the main point you disagree with in the article or is there something else about their analysis that you think is wrong?

"Because the Bible said so."

Please be specific "mountains of evidence" in quotes isn't an argument-it's a phrase

"Because the Bible said so."

Mike from Ottawa · 27 June 2008

The Theory of design has been being used to solve cases long before evolutionists started getting their shorts in a knot about it. For example, ...

I think, poor deedee, that you are unclear on the concept of giving an example. Outlining how IDCers think Dembski's filter should be used does not constitute an example of how "Theory of design" has actually been used to 'solve a case'. BTW, since we know that humans design things and we have pretty good ideas how and why they do, identifying human design doesn't cut it. Make your example one of those from the non-human created world. And just what, deedee, _is_ "The Theory of design"? Can you state it for us?

recovering YEC · 27 June 2008

Please be specific "mountains of evidence" in quotes isn't an argument-it's a phrase
"Because the Bible said so."

way to steal the punchline from deedee.

raven · 27 June 2008

deedee the Death Cultist moron: Although, I would like to first point out that it’s always amusing how evolutionists refuse to answer the question themselves.

In many fields we don't have to "believe" evolution. We see it and deal with it every day. Cancer is a disease where somatic cells evolve to lose growth control, evade host defenses, and evade treatments. This is the rate limiting factor in cancer therapy and will kill 100 million of the 300 million US citizens alive today. Add in the routine evolution of anti-anything drug resistance and millions die every year worldwide from drug resistant HIV, malaria, and TB, the top three single agent infectious disease killers. Others merely manage to use evolutionary principles to feed 6.7 billion people. You are a parasite on the scientific community. If someone didn't do the thinking and discovering you would be sitting around in a cave somewhere, watching half your kids die before 5 of diseases you don't even have names for. And you are not the least bit interested or knowledgeable about the truth. If you were, you wouldn't be stringing together vapid insults, you would be reading a grade school biology book, wikipedia, or any of the countless resources on the net. Ignorance is curable but you have to want to cure it first.

Science Avenger · 27 June 2008

deedee said: As I asked, what convinces you so much about your interpretation of the facts? No one has decided to answer that.

That is because it is one of those questions that most of us have never, ever, heard come from someone who is sincerely that ignorant of how science works and how much of that science supports evolution. My experience is that 100% of people asking such a question really don't care about the answer, suffering as they do from a virulent ignorance that has little hope of being changed by it. I'd most likely brush you off as so many here have: here's the evidence, there is a ton of it, and you need to learn a bit about the scientific process. Start with the fact that in science "evidence" does not mean "interpreting facts the way you want to", just like "theory" doesn't mean "something we thought up when we were drunk". Until you learn the vocabulary, you'll never understand the language.

I have to ask, why do so many evolutionists clump all creationists as part of the Ann Coulter fan club. Personally I think she is correct on a lot of things, incorrect on somethings, a little too sarcastic, sometimes rude, but often hilarious.

We clump you all together because you all use all the same discredited arguments, as if you were reading from a script. And as Frank is about to reveal, you ignore, for purposes wholly unrelated to science, the disagreements between you. For example, I have yet to find a creationist that will grant that the "if we evolved from monkeys then why are there still monkeys" argument (a supreme idiocy in a sea of idiocy) does little other than reveal the ignorance of the person posing it. They hem and haw, change the subject, anything but admit one of their evolution-denying brethren were wrong about something. As for A. Hart Coulter, can you admit she is a boldfaced liar? You see, in her book "Godless", she made a ton of idiotic scientific claims, which were shredded all over the blogosphere (PZ called the science section of her book "wall to wall error"). Yet the shrill little harpy to this day lies through her teeth in interviews and claims no one would attack the science in her book. She tells lies, or just makes shit up on a regular basis. Do you call her on it? I'm not interested in what you think others do, let's stick with The Stick for now. If you hang around here long enough, you'll experience some knock down verbal brawls between us "evolutionists", as you will on most science sites. Yet we don't see this on IDer/creationist sites, not within an order of magnitude. Everyone walks in lock step. You want us to stop treating you as interchangable, stop BEING interchangeable.

Frank J · 27 June 2008

No I do not agree with Behe’s opinion on the age of the earth.
— deedee

I asked for the age of life not earth. Oddly, most anti-evolutionists and trolls make that switch. Since you brought up the Earth, please give me your best estimate of it's age (Behe's is 4.55 billion years, same as mainstream science) as well as that of life, and please answer the other question to the best of your knowledge.

I have to ask, why do so many evolutionists clump all creationists as part of the Ann Coulter fan club.
— deedee

I'm not one who lumps all creationists (are you one, or are you an "I'm not a creationist" IDer?) in the AC fan club. Plus I often criticize fellow "evolutionists" for lumping the different "kinds" of anti-evolutionist (YEC, OEC, "don't ask, don't tell IDer; professional, rank and file, etc.) in the same category. I'm trying to tear down the big tent, and they just help the IDers prop it up. What you call the "theory of design" is the design detection process (archaeology, forensics, etc.), which only works when one has independent evidence of a designer of the suspected intelligence level. Phillip Johnson and Paul Nelson have admitted that there is no theory of biological design. Anyway, one thing I have learned from ID activists is to not take the bait. Lurkers can look for themselves why evolution is so well supported. The fact that anti-evolutionists find it increasingly hard to state testable hypotheses about what the designer did, when and how, and the fact that potential candidate alternatives to evolution are hopelessly deadlocked in mutually contradictory versions is itself a powerful argument for evolution.

Bobby · 27 June 2008

Fortunately for creationists it merely "bridges the gap", and isn't a transitional form or missing link or anything like that.

Science Avenger · 27 June 2008

Yeah, and look at how many more gaps we have to hide the gods in!

BaldApe · 27 June 2008

deedee,

Saying it twice doesn't make it make any more sense. :-)

On Ann Coulter, I doubt that she believes half of the loony stuff she says. She's a comedian, not a journalist.

Frank J · 27 June 2008

Yeah, and look at how many more gaps we have to hide the gods in!
— Science Avenger

Like those gods that Behe said under oath at Dover might no longer exist? Oops, I hope Deedee is not reading. She already disagrees with Behe on the age of Earth (note that she has not said that she thinks it's younger, only that she disagrees). Not sure if her Morton's Demon could handle the "designer might be dead" thing on top of that.

rog · 27 June 2008

Raven,

raven said:
deedee the Death Cultist moron: In many fields we don't have to "believe" evolution. We see it and deal with it every day. Cancer is a disease where somatic cells evolve to lose growth control, evade host defenses, and evade treatments. This is the rate limiting factor in cancer therapy and will kill 100 million of the 300 million US citizens alive today.
On all points exactly right. Thank you.

rog · 27 June 2008

Raven,

raven said: In many fields we don't have to "believe" evolution. We see it and deal with it every day. Cancer is a disease where somatic cells evolve to lose growth control, evade host defenses, and evade treatments. This is the rate limiting factor in cancer therapy and will kill 100 million of the 300 million US citizens alive today.

On all points, exactly right. Thank you.

RBH · 27 June 2008

Per Ahlberg is commenting at length on the find on TalkRational.

Bubba Von Grubba · 27 June 2008

Daoud said:
Cedric Katesby said: "It's still just a tetrapod" (Sorry. I just couldn't resist.)
Damn straight! Until they show me in a lab one of them Ventastegategathingies give birth to a cat, it's all just *theory*! Where's the evidence????

Heck, I would be happy if I could only evolve the missus' useless cats into another hound dog. Why can't I do that if evolutionism was true? Heck, if evolutionism was true we could've repelled the Yankee aggressors. All we would have had to do is import some gorillas and evolve them into giant Negroes with which we could have formed a slave army which we would have kicked their arse at Gettysburg!

stevaroni · 28 June 2008

"Deedee" this time, yammers... the ever-so-popular dodging the point…How about putting your “mountains of evidence” where your mouth is.

This is, of course, one of the more disingenuous creationist arguments, “Show me the evidence (again, and again, and again)”. In and of itself, this is, of course, a perfectly valid, even laudable, demand - “Show Me!” is the basic premise of all science,and it keeps everybody honest. But people like Deedee don't actually want the evidence, creationists never actually do. If they did, it's readily available to them with a few keystrokes. What they want is to waste our time by making us regurgitate well know subject matter over and over, after which they will respond with “Well, that doesn't prove anything, what about this little unexplained detail”. As always, they conveniently ignore the mountain they're standing on and fixate on some weird little rock that looks like Mother Theresa. Still, you can't brush off the question entirely, because then they claim we're avoiding the issue, and causal readers can feel like something is being hidden. Especially on a weekend, when, I suspect, more casual readers are apt to stop by. Therefore, I would point anyone who actually wants some basic background into the giant pile of proof that evolution actually exists to start with the Wikipedia entry, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution. The article is well written on a basic level, and due to the open-editing nature of Wikipedia, generally accepted to be neutral (at least in a just-the-facts sense) and non-dogmatic. Especially this article, where every sentence has been fought over (in public, check the edit history). There is a conspicuous absence of hand-waving. Everything stated as fact is rigorously documented, with 198 citations, many of which are links to the actual published research so you can easily doublecheck the statements of fact for yourself. There is nothing to hide. Science doesn't need to hide anything. Also, see the Wikipedia article on the evidences for evolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_evidence, again, a basic, scrupulously checked overview of the subject with ample references. There are also good, thorough, articles on the evolution/creation controversy itself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation-evolution_controversy - 110 citations) and even equal time for the “other side”, creationism and intelligent design. The astute reader will instantly realize that articles advocating creationism are very light on actual verifiable facts, particularly in comparison to the evolution articles. Personally, I don't think I need to speculate why, but you can draw your own conclusions. Also, I would point you to the excellent, exhaustively detailed and documented talk origins archives. Hard core creationists would argue that these articles are not “neutral”, since casual users cannot edit them in the way Wikipedia users can, but in their defense, they are rigorously documented and peer reviewed, like all good science. This one, which is a collection of links to documents and deeper data about the 5 major strands of evidence for evolution, is particularly good... http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

mark · 28 June 2008

"...mimicking the same old Darwinian rhetoric..."

Yeah, things like "Here's yet another transitional form, one of those things that evolution deniers deny." When people deny scientific evidence, over and over and over again, they open themselves up to mockery and ridicule. If they could offer some valid scientific arguments against the evidence for evolution, they would be taken more seriously.

And by the way, I doubt anyone here seriously thinks Ann Coulter would be impressed by facts.

mark · 28 June 2008

...you must have something that convincing you so stongly that your interpretation of the facts is correct.

Where can we possibly find such evidence? How about starting with the topic of this post? There are libraries and museums as well as Internet sources chock full of consistent, science-backed information to answer this question. Supporting information is taught (and actively researched) in universities and colleges throughout the world; it's not hard to find. What is hard to find is evidence of Creationism, other than assertions that ultimately lead back to "the Bible tells me so."

iml8 · 28 June 2008

hamstrung said: Show me your best research to convince me the moon isn't made of green cheese. I will bet a THOUSAND dollars nobody will be able to convince me it isn't! No, make that TEN THOUSAND! Or a MILLION! Heck, let's make it a TRILLION! White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

iml8 · 28 June 2008

hamstrung said: Show me your best research cite/quote/url that validates that mammals evolved from reptiles by means of natural selection.

I'm convinced the Moon is made of green cheese, and I want somebody to show me any research that proves it isn't. In fact, I will pay a THOUSAND dollars to anyone who can convince me it isn't. No, make that a HUNDRED THOUSAND dollars! Or a HUNDRED MILLION dollars! Heck! Name your price, if you can convince me I'll pay ANY SUM YOU DEMAND! White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

stevaroni · 28 June 2008

At 7:38, I said...

What they want is to waste our time by making us regurgitate well know subject matter over and over, after which they will respond with “Well, that doesn’t prove anything, what about this little unexplained detail”. As always, they conveniently ignore the mountain they’re standing on and fixate on some weird little rock that looks like Mother Theresa.

At 9:05 "hamstrung" replied...

Show me your best research cite/quote/url that validates that mammals evolved from reptiles by means of natural selection.

As predicted, and apparently without any attempt to actually examine the information for himself (otherwise, he would have asked a specific question, rather than "just arguing"). It would have taken you exactly two clicks to find this, Hamstrung - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex2 - but then again, you didn't really want to, now did you? And so it goes...

iml8 · 28 June 2008

hamstrung said: Let's discuss your best evidence. I really do not understand how this green cheese comment works as a valid response to my query.

What did you say? Were you trying to explain to me why the Moon isn't made of green cheese? Sorry, I didn't hear your explanation -- I've got my fingers in my ears, lalalalalalala I can't hear you. White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

Draconiz · 28 June 2008

hamstrung said: Show me your best research cite/quote/url that validates that mammals evolved from reptiles by means of natural selection.

You can also see this for genetic evidences, natural selection is not the only mechanism for evolution. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/05/the_platypus_genome.php But I suspect you will simply ignore it, come back again in 2 minutes without reading or coming up with any reasonable counter and says "Lah lah lah, it isn't evidence, I can't hear you!!"

Peter Henderson · 28 June 2008

fnxtr said: It's still just a... er... um... thing...

I notice AiG's "News to note" is late this weekend (normally it's on their website by now). I'm sure they're preparing a response to this as we speak (it'll be interesting to see how they classify this find).

iml8 · 28 June 2008

Peter Henderson said: I'm sure they're preparing a response to this as we speak (it'll be interesting to see how they classify this find).

We already know, of course, that it will NOT be classified as a "transitional type". White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

Stanton · 28 June 2008

iml8 said:
Peter Henderson said: I'm sure they're preparing a response to this as we speak (it'll be interesting to see how they classify this find).
We already know, of course, that it will NOT be classified as a "transitional type". White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

"Even though Ventastega has features of both fish and tetrapods, and that it closely resembles Tiktaalik, that doesn't mean that it's a transitional form. The Bible said so, and to question the Bible is even more sinful than lying!"

Eric · 28 June 2008

hamstrung said: Let's discuss your best evidence. I really do not understand how this green cheese comment works as a valid response to my query.

Asking for proof of every implication of TOE is like claiming the moon is made of cheese because in both cases you are putting the burden of proof on the dominant theory, not the challenging theory. In legitimate science, the burden of proof rests on the challenger. If you disagree with TOE it is up to you to demonstrate your alternative - it is no longer up to us to demonstrate TOE. This is a practical rule - you couldn't teach science if every student's pet theory is right until proven wrong! Second, science is about best explanations not perfect explanations. QM has holes, but until someone comes up with a better explanation for what we observe, we'll stick with it. The same is true of TOE. You are making a classic fundie mistake. You think science is another religion promising Truth with a capital T. And so the fact that science provides incomplete, imperfect knowledge bothers you. But science is not a religion. We scientists claim only that our theories are useful, and we ask that if you have an alternative theory, you explain it and show how it's more useful.

Stanton · 28 June 2008

Eric said: You are making a classic fundie mistake. You think science is another religion promising Truth with a capital T. And so the fact that science provides incomplete, imperfect knowledge bothers you. But science is not a religion. We scientists claim only that our theories are useful, and we ask that if you have an alternative theory, you explain it and show how it's more useful.

Unfortunately, Eric, either hamstrung/bobby/bernard/balanced/george already knows this and does not care so he can continue trolling, or, he refuses to realize this. And if we attempt to press this, or any other point into the gaping holes in his logic, hamstrung/bobby/bernard/balanced/george will accuse us of being trolls, and repeat his questions again ad nauseum as though no one heard him the first 60 times.

David Stanton · 28 June 2008

Hamstrung,

Look at Figure 1 above. The best explanation for this pattern is that tetrapods were derived from fish ancestors. There is similar evidence that mammals were derived from reptilian ancestors. The evidence comes from palentolohy, developmental biology and genetics. These lines of evidence all provide the exact same answer. What is your evidence that mammals were not derived from reptiles?

By the way, if you are really bobby the name-changing troll, look at the mathematical analysis of the cladogram. This is part of the mathematical evidence that you always ask for and never acknowledge.

Science Avenger · 28 June 2008

hamstrung said: Show me your best research cite/quote/url that validates that mammals evolved from reptiles by means of natural selection.

Deedee, this is what one of those disingenuous inquiries looks like. Jacob/bobby/Bernard/Hamstrung/whatever does this all the time. He demands evidence, then ignores it. He's like a child that can't accept that the countable numbers are infinite, and keeps challenging you to count up to 10, then 100, then 1,000, and on and on to prove your position. It is an infinite regress with no end. A recording of "Oh yeah, but what about this?" repeated ad nauseum, with a few "I know you are but what am I?"s tossed in for good measure, sums up the content of his argument. Add sociopathic anger and you get Keith. Add a few hallucinagens and you get PBH. Toss in a Bible, and it is FL. Add a dab of persecution complex and it is John Davison. But in the end, it is all the same intellectually empty dreck. You have to understand. For someone who has followed this debate over the years, this stuff isn't challenging. It doesn't even approach threatening. It is BORING, deadly, mind-knumbingly boring, hearing the same stupid shit over and over and over again. It's like being challenged to a game of tic tac toe 10 times a day by snotty righteous kids, every one of which is convinced he can beat you. When someone barges in here and demands evidence, I don't think "Oh my gods, we're in trouble now!". I think "Great, another troll to stamp out".

Peter Henderson · 28 June 2008

iml8 said:
Peter Henderson said: I'm sure they're preparing a response to this as we speak (it'll be interesting to see how they classify this find).
We already know, of course, that it will NOT be classified as a "transitional type". White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

We didn't have to wait to long: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/06/28/news-to-note-06282008

In fact, according to the BBC News report, “Ventastega is a later species [than Tiktaalik] but is a more primitive animal.” Setting aside the arbitrary application of “primitive,” it is interesting that something hailed as transitional would be, by the author’s own estimation, a step backwards of sorts.

So, even though the reports have headlines proclaiming that this new find fills out gaps and represents “human ancestors,” the articles themselves do not bear out these claims. Instead, the facts (the fossils) are nearly lost in the pontification (evolutionary assumptions). The researchers approach Ventastega with the assumption that evolution of sea to land animals occurred, and this new species, according to National Geographic News, “in many ways fulfills scientists’ expectations of what an early water-land transition animal should look like” (emphasis added). In other words, they had a preconceived notion and found what they wanted to find, even despite some morphological surprises (which they did acknowledge, but then used the unexpected morphology to suggest a fix for another evolutionary problem). As Dr. Ted Daeschler, a paleontologist at the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia, says, “It’s kind of remarkable that when we start to see true limbed animals, they’ve already diversified and are filling various special niches.” Indeed, it is amazing how the original created kinds diversified once after creation and again after the Flood. What the scientists in this study did not do, was examine alternative ideas about what Ventastega represents. For example, if we start from the Bible—that God created the earth and all animal kinds in six days about 6,000 years ago, then we would likely conclude that Ventastega, like Tiktaalik, represents both the amazing creativity and economy that God has used in the multitude of diverse designs He made. In his debunking of the “missing link” status of Tiktaalik, Dr. David Menton’s conclusion there is just as appropriate for Ventastega: Sadly, “unfounded notions” of this kind continue to be uncritically taught and accepted in the popular media and in our schools. Even more sadly, these unfounded notions have been used to undermine the authority of Holy Scripture.

They still haven't classified this fossil although, I assume it's still a kind of fish (according to AiG that is) ????? I notice they've also commented on the Freshwater affair, which they've greatly downplayed. Shame on them. If this had happened in a school in the UK Social Services would have taken a very dim view indeed.

stevaroni · 28 June 2008

AIG yammers... For example, if we start from the Bible—that God created the earth and all animal kinds in six days about 6,000 years ago...

Um, if Ventastega, Tiktaalik and the rest of the primitive fish/threapod crew were made 6000 years ago (ignoring, for the moment the question of how they got buried under 300 million years of rock), wouldn't they kinda still be around? Isn't the fundie position on fish, frogs, and all the other swimmin' critters that God somehow arranged for them to ride out the flood in situ? Certainly these things had lifestyles and inhabited environments similar to crocodilians, manatees, sea snakes, mudskippers, crabs and any number of other coastal critters that did make it without a problem, why did all the tiktaalik and ventastega die? Why does God so selectively hate primitive amphibians? I bet it's that funky, double-hinged jaw. My bet is God was never happy with that design and just decided to do it in. Or maybe amphibians were excessively sinful, though it seems that it would have been difficult to be really sinful without any thumbs.

H. H. · 28 June 2008

hamstrung said: Show me your best research cite/quote/url that validates that mammals evolved from reptiles by means of natural selection.

Why don't you begin by stating how much research on the topic you've already done so we don't repeat ourselves. Clearly it's a question on which you have a genuine thirst for knowledge, so how far through the scientific literature have you gotten? How many hours have you already spent reading up on the subject?

Stanton · 28 June 2008

H. H. said:
hamstrung said: Show me your best research cite/quote/url that validates that mammals evolved from reptiles by means of natural selection.
Why don't you begin by stating how much research on the topic you've already done so we don't repeat ourselves. Clearly it's a question on which you have a genuine thirst for knowledge, so how far through the scientific literature have you gotten? How many hours have you already spent reading up on the subject?

Allegedly, he claims to have read alot on the subject, even though all of his posts under every single one of his alias betray a profound lack of understanding even elementary concepts.

Wheels · 28 June 2008

The researchers approach Ventastega with the assumption that evolution of sea to land animals occurred, and this new species, according to National Geographic News, “in many ways fulfills scientists’ expectations of what an early water-land transition animal should look like” (emphasis added). In other words, they had a preconceived notion and found what they wanted to find, even despite some morphological surprises (which they did acknowledge, but then used the unexpected morphology to suggest a fix for another evolutionary problem).

How dare those scientists made a prediction before-hand regarding what they would find if a certain theory were true! That's obviously not how science works at all!

H. H. · 28 June 2008

Stanton said: Allegedly, he claims to have read alot on the subject, even though all of his posts under every single one of his alias betray a profound lack of understanding even elementary concepts.

Which probably means he's spent all his time reading creationist material and zero time attempting to access evolution as it is actually understood, used, and taught by competent biologists. Everything he "knows" about evolution has come pre-filtered and distorted by religious ideologues. He's worse than ignorant, he's miseducated, or rather, indoctrinated. Convincing someone that they've been duped is very difficult, and almost impossible when its wrapped up in their religion.

fnxtr · 28 June 2008

Again, do it yourself, you lazy, ignorant turd.

Stanton · 28 June 2008

hamstrung/bobby/bernard/george/jacob said: For instance we have animals that have not changed in millions of years (Coelacanth) and when asked why they did not evolve we are told that their environment did not force any evolution. And then asked how we know they live in such enviroments we are replied that ' we know that because they did not change'.

Wrong: The closest relatives of Latimeria are the coelacanths of the Cretaceous genus Macropoma, and there are several differences between the two genera, the most important being that of size, in that Latimeria species average around 1 meter in length, and Macropoma species averaged around 30 centimeters in length. Another difference being that Latimeria prefers cold, deep rocky reefs, while Macropoma preferred warm shallow water.

And why these 'scientists' are not willing to look at evidence with cold hearted objectivity is a mystery. The only explanation is an agenda.

Scientists already do look at evidence with "cold hearted objectivity." Your concerns/paranoia over hidden agendas are without cause or reason.

fnxtr · 28 June 2008

Missing post: The troll formerly known as .. well, legion, really:

And why these ‘scientists’ are not willing to look at evidence with cold hearted objectivity is a mystery. The only explanation is an agenda.

Translation: All their hard work> didn't give me the answer I wanted, so clearly they're doing it wrong... see previous post.

fnxtr · 28 June 2008
arg! previous post in response to "agenda" bull$#!+ from the Troll Formerly Known As.. well, Legion, really.

fnxtr · 28 June 2008
If you don't like the answers of people who actually do the work, go do it yourself.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 28 June 2008
Yay, another tetrapod ancestor! Double yay, as Per Ahlberg works at Uppsala University, my alma mater. Devonian Times reporting:
Until the 1980s, the fossil record of early tetrapods was essentially limited to Ichthyostega, a Late Devonian tetrapod from eastern Greenland. (Another Greenland form and an Australian form were known only from fragmentary remains.) But the early tetrapod record has expanded dramatically since 1987. Moreover, the fossil record of their fish ancestors has also been greatly enlarged in recent years. These enhanced records, together with findings from other scientific disciplines has engendered a new understanding of how tetrapods evolved. The first tetrapods are now seen as fishes with legs.

The new understanding also decouples a long-standing approach for thinking about this important chapter in vertebrate evolution. Instead of thinking of a transition between aquatic fishes and terrestrial tetrapods, the new understanding considers both the transition between fish and tetrapod and the transition between aquatic and terrestrial.
Maybe these populations were busy exploring new niches, but it seems they could have done so in a step-wise [sic!] fashion.

Draconiz · 28 June 2008
hamstrung said: Show me your best research cite/quote/url that validates that mammals evolved from reptiles by means of natural selection.
This is what you asked Hamstrung, considering your usual ignorance on the subject I have to assume that you don't know about other mechanisms. I will stop feeding you now.

stevaroni · 28 June 2008
And why these ‘scientists’ are not willing to look at evidence with cold hearted objectivity is a mystery. The only explanation is an agenda.
No, not the only explanation, just the simplest and most forthright. They could have been placed there by aliens, or a duplicitous God, or we could all just be hallucinating. Those are other explanations, but none of them make any sense, nor do they have a whit of evidence behind them. So you tell me, hamstrung, what’s your "objective" explanation for a long series of fossils, starting with 350 million year old primitive fishes, progressing forward through time, and over the course of 80 million years or so, gradually changing into therapods and then amphibians? These are, after all, real physical bodies here, not some vacuous concept, presupposition or theory. You can actually go touch them - they exist, there should be some reasonable explanation for them, and that explanation should make sense of the evidence at hand (or underfoot). So here's your chance, hamstrung. Enlighen me. With my feeble powers of deduction, clouded with my "preconceptions" all I can make of this is something like "These dead bodies were from old, primitive animals that died long ago. They are different from current animals, so animals apparently change with time. The pattern of change indicates that at first there were only simple animals, then fish, then amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals appeared. From this I derive that a mechanism like evolution exists, because I see the bodies evolving." But I know you're a better man than I, hamstrung, because you can rise above all those pesky preconceptions and biases, so help me with this - tell me the explanation I would end up with if I could magically loose all that, and how it makes more sense than what I think now.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 28 June 2008
stevaroni said: This is, of course, one of the more disingenuous creationist arguments, “Show me the evidence (again, and again, and again)”.
This one major tactic of creationists or other anti-scientific crackpots is the equivalent of telling us that "I'm going to disregard the evidence that scientists use because it isn't scientific evidence."
Bobby said: Fortunately for creationists it merely "bridges the gap", and isn't a transitional form or missing link or anything like that.
And that is the other major tactic, to take a direct falsifiable test of the current theory, which it passed with flying color as the other n-th similar tests it has undergone without any problematic consequences, as a "merely" something -or-other. Because crackpot 'theories' never need to be testable as actual ones.
fnxtr said: As pvm would point out, the explanatory filter exposes ID as the ultimate argument from ignorance.
The funny thing is that according to creationist logic this evidence for evolution, Ventastega being ordered by a phylogenetic analysis, shows that creationism is utterly and irredeemably wrong. Creationists maintain that any problems for evolution would mean that creationism is correct, witness for example the resident troll's asking for (available) evidence. By their own logic, using such false dichotomies combined with equating ignorance (which is what the logical implication actually tells us) with creationism, any evidence for evolution would mean that creationism is incorrect.

iml8 · 28 June 2008
hamstrung said: Most of you trolls sound like spoiled junior high kids. Why cant you act like adults?
Did you know that you can find decaffienated coffee that tastes every bit as good as the real thing? White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

raven · 28 June 2008
stevaroni said: This is, of course, one of the more disingenuous creationist arguments, “Show me the evidence (again, and again, and again)”.
Someone who does that is deliberately being a moron. The proper response is to direct them to their kid's biology book. 150 years of evidence is a lot. Any university library is a multistory huge building. Plus any decent biology book from grade school on up to college. Plus the wealth of online resources, wikipedia, PT, talkorigins. ad infinitum. Any public library will have dozens to hundreds of books on evolution. Today to be that ignorant you must be very stupid, lazy, looney, or all three.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 28 June 2008
Eric said: Second, science is about best explanations not perfect explanations. QM has holes, but until someone comes up with a better explanation for what we observe, we'll stick with it. The same is true of TOE.
Much as TOEvo (to distinguish from a TOE, when discussing physics) is the best verified theory we have, QM is the best verified physics theory there is. I'm not aware of any holes (but arguably there isn't yet a full TOE). For example, gravity can be quantized (for weak fields), and I don't think it is fair to say that it is QM's fault that a full gravitational QFT isn't possible - and indeed string theory promises to do this instead. There isn't any predictive problems AFAIK. There is a philosophical dissatisfaction with it, as it doesn't help metaphysics much, makes local realism and hidden variables a foregone conclusion, et cetera, perhaps that is what you mean? Or do you have any specific issues in mind?

PvM · 28 June 2008
And why these ‘scientists’ are not willing to look at evidence with cold hearted objectivity is a mystery. The only explanation is an agenda.
You describe ID Creationists quite accurately.

Sylvilagus · 28 June 2008
deedee said: The Theory of design has been being used to solve cases long before evolutionists started getting their shorts in a knot about it. For example, a piece of evidence goes through the "explanatory filter" when we try to determine the cause of it. The order of elimination is very important. First we investigate whether a natural law could have caused it, when that is ruled out, we investigate the probability of random chance causing it, if that is ruled out, we concur that it was designed. I can give many examples of this...
I'd be interested in hearing about some examples of the application of this "filter", especially applications to living systems. Please continue...

Frank B · 28 June 2008
oh, deedee, or should I say effeff. We have trust in the theory of evolution. The theory has earned our trust with evidence from so many different disciplines. Faith is what you need when there is no evidence, or contrary evidence, like with creation. If you have faith in creation, that is fine for you. But I have trust in evolution, and that is better.

Frank J · 28 June 2008
Faith is what you need when there is no evidence, or contrary evidence, like with creation.
— Frank B
With "creation" it's even worse than no, or "contrary," evidence. There are different versions that contradict each other, and an increasing effort to cover up the contradictions as well as keeping the focus on evolution (& its fabricated "weaknesses") to avoid having to support any popular "creation" account on its own merits (which is impossible, and most anti-evolution activists these days know it). Note also that people like Francis Collins would say that they "believe in creation", but accept evolution (macro and all, common descent, ~4 billion year history of life etc.). So it's not "believing in creation" per se that's the problem, but the deliberate misleading of others to infer long-refuted "whats and whens" and keeping them ignorant of the weaknesses and contradictions.

iml8 · 28 June 2008
hamstrung said: Show me the evidence that reptiles evolved into mammals thru NS. Why are the trolls here so reluctant to show me this. Oh I forgot they are TROLLS. What else would I expect.
What I want to see is the evidence that the Moon isn't made of green cheese. Prove it to me and I'll pay any sum of money demanded. I'm sitting here with my arms folded waiting ... White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

Stanton · 28 June 2008
So, hamstrung/bobby/bernard/george/jacob, why am I mistaken about there being actual documented differences between Latimeria and Macropoma, and why is that considered "trolling"?

iml8 · 28 June 2008
hamstrung said: Someone who cannot come up with ONE study showing that reptiles evolved from mammals thru NS must be very stupid, lazy, incoherent, or all three.
DEAR SIR: My name is Dr. Moses Abu of the Discovery Institute of Nigeria in Lagos. We are conducting research on Intelligent Design and we are investigating the evolution of reptiles from mammals. We have SEVEN MILLION DOLLARS IN FUNDING for anyone who can provide information on this subject. If you are able to help in our research, please get in touch with our research department. For financing purposes, we will need the details of your bank account access so we can transfer the funds. Hoping to hear from you soon. MOSES ABU PHD White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

Stanton · 28 June 2008
How is demonstrating that your unsupported claim of Latimeria being unchanged is false by pointing out the major differences between Latimeria and its closest relative in the fossil record, Macropoma, "missing the entire point"? Can you prove me wrong by demonstrating how Latimeria is totally unchanged from its relative, Macropoma?
hamstrung/bobby/bernard/george/jacob said:
Stanton said: So, hamstrung/bobby/bernard/george/jacob, why am I mistaken about there being actual documented differences between Latimeria and Macropoma, and why is that considered "trolling"?
You missed the entire point which is nothing unusual. Your ignorance is truly a wonderment.

iml8 · 28 June 2008
hamstrung said: Is that response somehow going to make the fact that you have no answer disappear?
What? Did you say something? I have my fingers in my ears, lalalalala I can't hear you. White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

Science Avenger · 28 June 2008
hamstrung said: Sorry you are again mistaken. Troll elsewhere.
Fuck off you idiot. Do you really think pretending you don't understand what a troll is impresses anyone? Words mean things, you don't get to change their definitions on the fly.

iml8 · 28 June 2008
Science Avenger said: Words mean things, you don't get to change their definitions on the fly.

Lewis Carroll wrote: "When *I* use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you CAN make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master -- that's all."

deedee · 28 June 2008
Wow people (and I use the term loosly). All you have to do is read back over the temper tantrum you immature people have had due to the fact that I don't share your very strong faith, and you have yourselves proved my original point. That is, this board is not about an intelligent conversation that might actual aid in the discovery of what is really real, but rather you are content as a bunch of mocking birds. I will continue to hope that a spark of real interest in the truth will be ignited in someone here, but, as I first stated, ANYTHING I had to say here would fall on deaf ears, so my visit with you typical hissy fitters is done. For the record, I have been publicly speaking on world views and education verses indoctrination for 7 years now and have studied the creation/evolution debate for 9 years. I have interviewed more scientists on the subject than most of you have probably ever met. And, for any of you who hold to the view that our society at this time has not been indoctrinated with the state-funded religion of evolution are choosing to be ignorant. You keep right on thinking (another VERY loose term) that your attacks and intimidation tactics show that you are on the right side. But I think it'd be really neato if some of you hotheads studied SUBSTANCE & EVIDENCE instead of rhetoric, then you might have something intelligent to say. Oh, I'm sorry, I hope the word "intelligence" doesn't get you all in a tissy again like the word "design."

iml8 · 28 June 2008
deedee said:
But I think it'd be really neato if some of you hotheads studied SUBSTANCE & EVIDENCE instead of rhetoric, then you might have something intelligent to say.
"These droids aren't the ones you're looking for. There's no evidence or substance to evolutionary theory. This is not a scam." The Force
gives power over the weak-minded ...
White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

Mike Sigler · 28 June 2008
Is the long beard man who fly from cloud to cloud going to agree with this? Be careful he is aggressive.

iml8 · 28 June 2008
deedee said: But I think it'd be really neato if some of you hotheads studied SUBSTANCE & EVIDENCE instead of rhetoric, then you might have something intelligent to say.
"These droids aren't the ones you're looking for. There's no evidence to support evolutionary theory. This is not a scam." The Force gives power over the weak-minded ... White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

iml8 · 28 June 2008
Did you notice we're getting alternating lunatic-fringers here?
I'm beginning to suspect a sock-puppet show or something like it.
citing John Derbyshire:
It’s a wearying business, arguing with Creationists. Basically, it is a game of Whack-a-Mole. They make an argument, you whack it down. They make a second, you whack it down. They make a third, you whack it down. *So they make the first argument again*. This is why most biologists just can’t be bothered with Creationism at all, even for the fun of it. It isn’t actually any fun. Creationists just chase you round in circles. It’s boring.
It would be less boring if they’d come up with a new argument once in a while, but they never do. I’ve been engaging with Creationists for a couple of years now, and I have yet to hear an argument younger than I am. (I am not young.) All Creationist arguments have been whacked down a thousand times, but they keep popping up again.
White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

iml8 · 28 June 2008
Notice we seem to be getting alternating lunatic-fringers here? I suspect a sock-puppet show or something like it.
John Derbyshire: It's a wearying business, arguing with Creationists. Basically, it is a game of Whack-a-Mole. They make an argument, you whack it down. They make a second, you whack it down. They make a third, you whack it down. SO THEY MAKE THE FIRST ARGUMENT AGAIN. This is why most biologists just can’t be bothered with Creationism at all, even for the fun of it. It isn’t actually any fun. Creationists just chase you round in circles. It’s boring. It would be less boring if they’d come up with a new argument once in a while, but they never do. I’ve been engaging with Creationists for a couple of years now, and I have yet to hear an argument younger than I am. (I am not young.) All Creationist arguments have been whacked down a thousand times, but they keep popping up again.
White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

rog · 28 June 2008
Hamstrung has a classic passive-aggressive personality. As Jocob he, "reported PT as a pornographic website". I deeply pity anyone in a relationship with it.

stevaroni · 28 June 2008
Sigh... the trolls are out in force tonight. Note two things; first, the "hamstrung" incarnation can't actually answer our questions, so he's slipped a marker onto the table indicating the upcoming goalpost shift...
...who cannot come up with ONE study showing that reptiles evolved from mammals thru NS...
It's not going to be about overwhelming evidence that fish evolved reptiles which evolved mammals, as soon as he looses traction he's going to sidestep that issue and argue that we can't specify the the mechanism was natural selection. Of course, this is true, since mechanisms don't fossilize, but it totally ignores the bigger picture that hamstrung is arguing against, which is that evolution undeniably exists. Second, there's the "deedee" incarnation, she's all upset...
All you have to do is read back over the temper tantrum you immature people have had...
She's back on the dogma/presupposition argument, but somehow, though she's studied the issue for a decade now, she can't seem to manage the simple task of putting an alternative "non-dogmatic" argument on the table. Gee, I wonder why that is? So, um, guy(s), either put up or shut up. If evolution didn't leave us tiktaalik and ventastega, as my "presupposition filled" mind is want to assume, then please give forth with a rational explanation of how these very old, very dead fish-amphibian things, the likes of which seem to be no longer with us, got where we found them. I'm waiting (yes, I know, I know, I'll be waiting to the sounds of crickets chirping forever, while they evade the question and launch ad-hominems, but you gotta give em' a chance to answer. If nothing else, it shows they have nothing to offer)

Stanton · 28 June 2008
deedee blithered: I will continue to hope that a spark of real interest in the truth will be ignited in someone here, but, as I first stated, ANYTHING I had to say here would fall on deaf ears, so my visit with you typical hissy fitters is done.
Yet, everyone distinctly notices how deedee never actually said anything beyond recycled creationist craptrap
For the record, I have been publicly speaking on world views and education verses indoctrination for 7 years now and have studied the creation/evolution debate for 9 years. I have interviewed more scientists on the subject than most of you have probably ever met.
I would think that if deedee really was telling the truth about interviewing scientists for 7 years, she would have noticed by nowthat no scientist believes that the theory of evolution is a religion. So, I suppose this makes her a "Liar for Jesus."
And, for any of you who hold to the view that our society at this time has not been indoctrinated with the state-funded religion of evolution are choosing to be ignorant.
Yet, deedee still doesn't give any reason or explanation why the theory of evolution is a religion even though there are no recognized priests, messiah, holy books, or even prayer rituals.
But I think it'd be really neato if some of you hotheads studied SUBSTANCE & EVIDENCE instead of rhetoric, then you might have something intelligent to say.
What substance and evidence has Intelligent Design or Creationism ever produced? That she rants and gibbers about no evidence for evolution, yet, never bothers to produce any evidence to support Creationism or Intelligent Design makes her a "Hypocrite for Jesus" as well.

prof weird · 29 June 2008
Initiating pompous blithering : deedee said:
Wow people (and I use the term loosly). All you have to do is read back over the temper tantrum you immature people have had due to the fact that I don't share your very strong faith, and you have yourselves proved my original point.
What point ? That you believe that reality is a matter of debate or opinion ? Faith in what ? You seem to have the very common (and ridiculous) notion that evolution (and all of science) is a religion, and that it is a matter of 'interpretation' or 'worldview'. An interpretation or 'worldview' about how X works can be TESTED to see if it is correct by actually EXAMINING X. Just because religion is infested with untestable concepts does not mean science suffers the same defect - no matter how prissily you wish it so. I suppose the FACT that all people who know calculus would state : 'The derivative of x^2 + 4x + 3 is 2xdx + 4dx' somehow 'proves' there is some conspiracy, or that it is a dogmatic religion.
That is, this board is not about an intelligent conversation that might actual aid in the discovery of what is really real, but rather you are content as a bunch of mocking birds.
So how do YOU 'determine' what is really real ? Conformity to ancient fairy tales ? What makes the most people 'feel good' ? What ? We keep TRYING to have intelligent conversations on this board, but blithering god-botherers keep staggering in and vomitin' their oft-debunked whinings and sophistry all over the place.
I will continue to hope that a spark of real interest in the truth will be ignited in someone here, but, as I first stated, ANYTHING I had to say here would fall on deaf ears, so my visit with you typical hissy fitters is done.
Translation : "You aren't being fooled by my sanctimonious posturing, so I'm running away while declaring victory."
For the record, I have been publicly speaking on world views and education verses indoctrination for 7 years now and have studied the creation/evolution debate for 9 years.
And haven't really learned anything about it apparently. Or - you have been blithering AGAINST evolution and real science for almost a decade, and have all the talking points and evasive tactics memorized. Initiating arrogant bluff :
I have interviewed more scientists on the subject than most of you have probably ever met. And, for any of you who hold to the view that our society at this time has not been indoctrinated with the state-funded religion of evolution are choosing to be ignorant.
And I've been WORKING in science longer than you've been blithering against evolution. The FACT you are slack-witted enough to 'think' evolution is a religion shows a professional level of ignorance. So, in your lexicon, 'reality' equals 'indoctrination' ? Is the molecular weight of calcium chloride 'worldview' dependent ? Has everything every chemistry teacher said about its chemical activity 'indoctrination' ? More arrogant posturing :
You keep right on thinking (another VERY loose term) that your attacks and intimidation tactics show that you are on the right side.
Actually, EVIDENCE shows that we are on the right side. Unless you have something to SHOW otherwise ? (Note : blithering about the supposed flaws of evolution or science does NOT support Magical Skymanism. In REAL science, a hypothesis is as strong as the EVIDENCE FOR IT. Evolution has it; Magical Skymanism does not. Please get over it and yourself. You are nowhere near as important as your prissy postings suggest.
But I think it'd be really neato if some of you hotheads studied SUBSTANCE & EVIDENCE instead of rhetoric, then you might have something intelligent to say.
Translation : "You aren't being fooled by my sanctimonious posturing, so I'm running away while declaring victory." Most of the evo-posters here HAVE studied the substance and evidence (how ARROGANTLY POMPOUS of you to assume otherwise !), and do have intelligent things to say; it is usually the IDiots, creationuts and theoloons that are fixated on 'proper' rhetoric. Initiating standard sophistry/'pathologically fixate on one definition of a word just to spite everyone' routine :
Oh, I'm sorry, I hope the word "intelligence" doesn't get you all in a tissy again like the word "design."
You're not one of those gibbering buffoons who bellow 'DESIGN MEANZ DESIGNER !!11!1!11!!!' are you ? Just because something is too complex for you (or your Overlords of Misinformation) to understand does NOT mean some Unknowable Magical Sky Pixie~~Designer~~ DIDIT !!!!

Science Avenger · 29 June 2008
deedee said: Wow people (and I use the term loosly). All you have to do is read back over the temper tantrum you immature people have had due to the fact that I don't share your very strong faith, and you have yourselves proved my original point.
The only point that has been proved my dear, based on the fact that the only person throwing a temper tantrum here is you, is that you are another worthless troll who only pretends to have dialogue. I and many others here posted detailed, thought-out answers to your questions, and posed some questions of our own, and you paid attention to none of it, answered none of it. Do you grant the absurdity of the "why are there still monkeys" argument? Are you capable of admitting A. Hart Coulter is a lying sack? I'm waiting... Your response is so cookie-cutter and lacking in any evidence that it could have been written before any of us wrote our responses, and my bet says it was. So [yawn] you are just another boring liar, full of sound and fury signifying nothing. Kindly take your pompous posturing and place it in your evolutionarily evolved solid waste expulsion system until you learn how to have a real scientific dialogue. You haven't come within an order of magnitude of earning the scientific respect your tantrum demands.

sylvilagus · 29 June 2008
deedee said: Wow people (and I use the term loosly). All you have to do is read back over the temper tantrum you immature people have had due to the fact that I don't share your very strong faith, and you have yourselves proved my original point. That is, this board is not about an intelligent conversation that might actual aid in the discovery of what is really real, but rather you are content as a bunch of mocking birds. I will continue to hope that a spark of real interest in the truth will be ignited in someone here..
Hi Deedee - I'll try once more to prompt the intelligent conversation you want ... but I'm starting to think that isn't really your purpose...
deedee said: "The Theory of design has been being used to solve cases long before evolutionists started getting their shorts in a knot about it. For example, a piece of evidence goes through the “explanatory filter” when we try to determine the cause of it. The order of elimination is very important. First we investigate whether a natural law could have caused it, when that is ruled out, we investigate the probability of random chance causing it, if that is ruled out, we concur that it was designed. I can give many examples of this…"
I’d be interested in hearing about some examples of the application of this “filter”, especially applications to living systems. Please continue…

Frank J · 29 June 2008
For the record, I have been publicly speaking on world views and education verses indoctrination for 7 years now and have studied the creation/evolution debate for 9 years. I have interviewed more scientists on the subject than most of you have probably ever met.
— deedee
And yet you still choose to evade my simple questions. If you are not making it up about studying the "debate" and interviewing scientists for years, you are essentially admitting that you are in on the scam, and not just one of the scammed. No one who seriously thinks that they have a better scientific explanation would think of evading those questions. Indeed, back when anti-evolution activists had a component of honesty, they would jump at the chance of answering those questions, and many more about their "theory." Now the prior commitment is to the "big tent," which means that any statement that reveals the irreconcilable differences between anti-evolution "theories" has become politically incorrect. You better pray that science literacy does not progress to the point where most people notice the double standard in which "evolution" must account for every atom at every nanosecond while the alternatives keep retreating into "don't ask, don't tell." And now to get on the case of my fellow "Darwinists": Can you please take Dembski's advice and don't take the (troll) bait. Lurkers can find evidence for evolution, and refutations to the canards elsewhere. The only reason to reply to an anti-evolutionist is to alert the lurkers their evasion tactics.

iml8 · 29 June 2008
HamStrung said: I am hardly asking that. I am asking for just ONE study showing that reptiles evolved into mammals thru NS.
Just show me ONE study that shows me the Moon isn't made of green cheese. If you can convince me I'll pay you ANY SUM OF MONEY YOU WANT! White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

PZ Myers · 29 June 2008
Sock puppetry and frequent morphing of one's username to avoid filters is against the rules here. Later today, I'll be going through this thread and purging the ONE flaming asshole who has been using multiple names to say the same thing over and over again.
You all know who it is.
Please don't engage this jerk any further. Your comments will be left dangling without referents.

Science Avenger · 29 June 2008
PZ Myers said: Sock puppetry and frequent morphing of one's username to avoid filters is against the rules here. Later today, I'll be going through this thread and purging the ONE flaming asshole who has been using multiple names to say the same thing over and over again. You all know who it is. Please don't engage this jerk any further. Your comments will be left dangling without referents.
We of the troll-averse persuasion bow low in thanks.

stevaroni · 29 June 2008
Let him flame, PZ. It only shows that a) the creationist emperor has no clothes, b) they have no articulable answers and c) they have to resort to subterfuge, evasion, and name calling because they have nothing else.
Why make him a pathetic martyr when it's better just to leave him pathetic?

iml8 · 29 June 2008
Oh, I am disappointed. I was waiting for him to prove to me that the
Moon wasn't made of green cheese. I will just have to be satisfied
waiting for the next email from Dr. Moses Abu of the Discovery
Institute of Nigeria in Lagos.
Ah, but PZ Myers has figured out how to win at whack-a-mole: whack
every hole at once. That'll fix them pesky little moles.
White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

iml8 · 29 June 2008
I do have to add that it was getting a bit dull. After a while
teasing small noisy dogs gets to feel a little unsporting.
White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

iml8 · 29 June 2008
HamStrung said:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2006/pdf/2193.pdf How can you present such an obvious fabrication as proof? This document refers to the so-called "Apollo" missions to the Moon as the source of their "lunar dust". It is well known that the Apollo landing videos for NASA were fabricated by moviemaker Stanley Kubrick. And analysis of these "videos" shows them to be littered with inconsistencies! You can easily find websites describing them in detail. Show me some real proof and don't try to pawn off some obvious fraud as "evidence". White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

iml8 · 29 June 2008
HamStrung said: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2006/pdf/2193.pdf Now you show me the reptile-mammal study. Of course there isnt one. I know that is why you cannot show it to me.
You call that document proof? It claims as the source of the dust samples obtained by the Apollo Moon missions, which are well known to be hoax. The supposed Moon landing videos were created by moviemaker Stanley Kubrick for NASA as a fraud being pushed on the American public. The videos weren't even very good frauds, either, being littered with countless inconsitencies! You can easily find them listed on the net. If you have real proof, I want to see it! No, I DEMAND to see it! Don't try pawning off a transparent and pathetic fraud as "evidence". White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

stevaroni · 29 June 2008
(from hamstrungs referenced research paper about lunar soil analysis ...)
Due to the unique features of lunar soil, with the “Swiss-cheese” texture and the presence of porous agglutinate particles.... and The reactivation surface area of highly porous “Swiss-cheese” particles is about 26% higher than a sphere. (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lp[…]pdf/2193.pdf)
Gott in Himmel! Greg was right! Anyhow, isn't it amazing that hamstrung can quickly find research papers about the microscopic details of lunar regolith, but can't seem to find any convincing data bout the utility of natural selection. I think I'm going to name a new medical condition, "SSD" - Selective Search Dysfunction.

iml8 · 29 June 2008
blockquote>
HamStrung said:
Well the study is by a reputable organization. And the study you have sent me is.... well you never sent one. That is because there isnt one.
I guess I have shown my point.
"Reputable organization"? Do you think I am impressed by such a
bland "appeal to authority"? The scientific establishment has closed
ranks and is narrow-mindedly refusing to consider the fact that the
Moon really is made of green cheese. But the effort is doomed to
failure because the evidence against the tottering established
wisdom is now becoming overwhelming. Scientists are increasingly
questioning the dogma and are providing new evidence every day that
the Moon really is made of green cheese.
I think it is time for astronomy classes in schools to "teach the
controversy" and tell our kids what the Moon is *really* made of.
White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

iml8 · 29 June 2008
blockquote>
HamStrung said:
Well the study is by a reputable organization. And the study you have sent me is.... well you never sent one. That is because there isnt one.
I guess I have shown my point.
"Reputable organization"? Do you think I am impressed by such a
bland "appeal to authority"? The scientific establishment has closed
ranks and is narrow-mindedly refusing to consider the fact that the
Moon really is made of green cheese. But the effort is doomed to
failure because the evidence against the tottering established
wisdom is now becoming overwhelming. Scientists are increasingly
questioning the dogma and are providing new evidence every day that
the Moon really is made of green cheese.
I think it is time for astronomy classes in schools to "teach the
controversy" and tell our kids what the Moon is *really* made of.
White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

iml8 · 29 June 2008
Well the study is by a reputable organization. And the study you have sent me is.... well you never sent one. That is because there isnt one. I guess I have shown my point.
"Reputable organization"? Do you think I am impressed by such a bland "appeal to authority"? The scientific establishment has closed ranks and is narrow-mindedly refusing to consider the fact that the Moon really is made of green cheese. But the effort is doomed to failure because the evidence against the tottering established wisdom is now becoming overwhelming. Scientists are increasingly questioning the dogma and are providing new evidence every day that the Moon really is made of green cheese. I think it is time for astronomy classes in schools to "teach the controversy" and tell our kids what the Moon is REALLY made of. White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

iml8 · 29 June 2008
stevaroni said: Anyhow, isn't it amazing that hamstrung can quickly find research papers about the microscopic details of lunar regolith, but can't seem to find any convincing data bout the utility of natural selection. I think I'm going to name a new medical condition, "SSD" - Selective Search Dysfunction.
Google has added a "Morton block" option to their search engine. It eliminates inconvenient answers from the results of queries. Well, it looks like he finally went into oblivion, persisting to the end. A silence has settled over the landscape. White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 29 June 2008
deedee said: The Theory of design has been being used to solve cases long before evolutionists started getting their shorts in a knot about it. For example, a piece of evidence goes through the "explanatory filter" when we try to determine the cause of it. The order of elimination is very important. First we investigate whether a natural law could have caused it, when that is ruled out, we investigate the probability of random chance causing it, if that is ruled out, we concur that it was designed. I can give many examples of this, but for this post I should break and pick up later.
"Example". You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. It is easy to see that you are wrong by an actual example. FYI, that means to demonstrate how we can look for a specific occurrence among know design events. First, we must define what we mean by "a design event". YMMV, but for the purposes here I can simplest and most generally define that as an event caused by a designer. Such an event is an outcome "by design", for example creating an object. To complete the definition, I can define a designer as an agent; that is a system that (it) is (possible to model as) capable of making decisions and acting on them. Second, I will choose an incontrovertible example of a specific design event. For example, humans are agents fulfilling the above definitions, and their committing a crime is a typical example of designing a desired outcome. Okay, first we will try to take that through Dembski's EF filter. Stage one is a check for regularity. Humans are biological natural agents, working according to biology. This explains nicely why crimes have a typical "design" to them according to statistics, itself an example of regularities. So we get a hit in this bin. But wait, we aren't finished yet. Stage two is a check for chance. I just noted that statistics apply, and I'm sure that all criminals will agree that there is an element of chance involved in crime. So we get a hit in this bin. But wait, we aren't finished yet. Stage three is a check for an independent specification. I just noted that regularities and statistics apply, which is a typical example of how agents plan (specify) and execute their designs. So we get a hit in this bin. According to Dembski we have to look at the stages in order, so he would conclude that the design was due to regularity. I think we can easily outwit Dembski and conclude that a typical design is examples of regularities, chance and specification, and that they can't be distinguished from examples of regularities and chance except if you can observe and identify the actual designer involved. (One can substitute architect, engineer, scientist et cetera instead of criminal and come to the same conclusion, and that also means there is indeed a typical designer.) It is obvious by evaluating an actual specific example that Dembski's filter doesn't work. (And indeed he can't define "specification", so I had to use the practical definition that a specification is the observable acts of a designer.) It has never been used to "solve a case", and how could it? Dembski's filter is only a few years old. The reason why I used criminals in the example is obvious, we can now proceed to "solve a case" according to empirical methods. That means looking to means, motive and opportunity. (Any order will do, this is not a filter. Albeit I believe it is customary to use that specific order as it minimizes work.) So let us look at means. For example, in a "whodunnit" murder movie, that can mean that the murderer was an healthy adult in possession of a gun. Turns out the gun, left at the apartment, has the murderer's finger prints on it, not the victims, and that the placement of the gun matches a missing shooter. So we get a hit in this bin. Then we can look at motive. Turns out the wife was philandering; this wasn't a case of an accidental misfiring. So we get a hit in this bin. Finally let us look at opportunity. The foul murderer was able to drive from a party, murder his wife, and get back in time to be recognized before officially leaving. So we get a hit in this bin. Aha! We have know established with a fair degree of certainty that an actual murderer took the life of the woman, it was not a suicide nor an accident from say the victim dropping the gun. This was in fact a typical murder, a design event. Funny that, it takes actual validated empirical methods to detect design. Not some crackpot ideas published in obscure places. In fact it is a typical example of an empirical method because we used a theory behind crimes. It is acted out by agent systems which have some characteristics such as means, motive and opportunity. So we predicted that we should find these characteristics. And by failing to falsify the theory we can conclude beyond reasonable doubt that a specific murderer did it. Again, a theory (means, motive, opportunity) is much more robust than a single fact (say fingerprints on gun).

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 29 June 2008
deedee said: The Theory of design has been being used to solve cases long before evolutionists started getting their shorts in a knot about it. For example, a piece of evidence goes through the "explanatory filter" when we try to determine the cause of it. The order of elimination is very important. First we investigate whether a natural law could have caused it, when that is ruled out, we investigate the probability of random chance causing it, if that is ruled out, we concur that it was designed. I can give many examples of this, but for this post I should break and pick up later.
"Example". You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. It is easy to see that you are wrong by an actual example. FYI, that means to demonstrate how we can look for a specific occurrence among know design events. First, we must define what we mean by "a design event". YMMV, but for the purposes here I can simplest and most generally define that as an event caused by a designer. Such an event is an outcome "by design", for example creating an object. To complete the definition, I can define a designer as an agent; that is a system that (it) is (possible to model as) capable of making decisions and acting on them. Second, I will choose an incontrovertible example of a specific design event. For example, humans are agents fulfilling the above definitions, and their committing a crime is a typical example of designing a desired outcome. Okay, first we will try to take that through Dembski's EF filter. Stage one is a check for regularity. Humans are biological natural agents, working according to biology. This explains nicely why crimes have a typical "design" to them according to statistics, itself an example of regularities. So we get a hit in this bin. But wait, we aren't finished yet. Stage two is a check for chance. I just noted that statistics apply, and I'm sure that all criminals will agree that there is an element of chance involved in crime. So we get a hit in this bin. But wait, we aren't finished yet. Stage three is a check for an independent specification. I just noted that regularities and statistics apply, which is a typical example of how agents plan (specify) and execute their designs. So we get a hit in this bin. According to Dembski we have to look at the stages in order, so he would conclude that the design was due to regularity. I think we can easily outwit Dembski and conclude that a typical design is examples of regularities, chance and specification, and that they can't be distinguished from examples of regularities and chance except if you can observe and identify the actual designer involved. (One can substitute architect, engineer, scientist et cetera instead of criminal and come to the same conclusion, and that also means there is indeed a typical designer.) It is obvious by evaluating an actual specific example that Dembski's filter doesn't work. (And indeed he can't define "specification", so I had to use the practical definition that a specification is the observable acts of a designer.) It has never been used to "solve a case", and how could it? Dembski's filter is only a few years old. The reason why I used criminals in the example is obvious, we can now proceed to "solve a case" according to empirical methods. That means looking to means, motive and opportunity. (Any order will do, this is not a filter. Albeit I believe it is customary to use that specific order as it minimizes work.) So let us look at means. For example, in a "whodunnit" murder movie, that can mean that the murderer was an healthy adult in possession of a gun. Turns out the gun, left at the apartment, has the murderer's finger prints on it, not the victims, and that the placement of the gun matches a missing shooter. So we get a hit in this bin. Then we can look at motive. Turns out the wife was philandering; this wasn't a case of an accidental misfiring. So we get a hit in this bin. Finally let us look at opportunity. The foul murderer was able to drive from a party, murder his wife, and get back in time to be recognized before officially leaving. So we get a hit in this bin. Aha! We have know established with a fair degree of certainty that an actual murderer took the life of the woman, it was not a suicide nor an accident from say the victim dropping the gun. This was in fact a typical murder, a design event. Funny that, it takes actual validated empirical methods to detect design. Not some crackpot ideas published in obscure places. In fact it is a typical example of an empirical method because we used a theory behind crimes. It is acted out by agent systems which have some characteristics such as means, motive and opportunity. So we predicted that we should find these characteristics. And by failing to falsify the theory we can conclude beyond reasonable doubt that a specific murderer did it. Again, a theory (means, motive, opportunity) is much more robust than a single fact (say fingerprints on gun).

Eric Finn · 29 June 2008
Torbjörn Larsson, you presented a nice line of thoughts, but surely your thinking is flawed.
Torbjörn Larsson, OM said: In fact it is a typical example of an empirical method because we used a theory behind crimes. It is acted out by agent systems which have some characteristics such as means, motive and opportunity. So we predicted that we should find these characteristics.
One of the most objectable issues in building a worldview is the use of theories to come up with a conclusion. Theories are never proven beyond reasonable doubt. Scientists claim that theories help them to unite otherwise separate observations. But what do they actually do? They present experimental observations that support their theory. Sometimes they even publish observations that do not seem to fit in their theory. Quite clearly, they do not have any idea of what they are doing. And, they make modifications to their theories. Surely, the Truth must come first, and observations should be interpreted according to the Truth. Regards Eric

stevaroni · 29 June 2008
Deedee whines... The order of elimination is very important. First we investigate whether a natural law could have caused it, when that is ruled out, we investigate the probability of random chance causing it, if that is ruled out, we concur that it was designed. I can give many examples of this, but for this post I should break and pick up later.
Well, that's fine Deedee, let's use Dembski's explanatory filter method. Step one... Question; Are there plausible natural processes that could have produced these results, or do the results require supernatural intervention? (note, the question under the explanatory filter is not "Is it possible that there was supernatural intervention?" It is "Does supernatural intervention seems to be required because there is no natural explanation?") Answer; Why, yes, Deedee there are demonstrated natural processes that appear sufficient to produce the observed results. Conclusion; We can drop out right now, the explanatory filter returns a "Well then, nature probably did it." on the first stage of testing.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 29 June 2008
Eric Finn said: One of the most objectable issues in building a worldview is the use of theories to come up with a conclusion.
I'm not sure that this means. If a world view is anything like the empirical, it isn't build as much as learned, and it has no foregone conclusion to start with. It is a method; either it works (here: gives repeatable and verifiable knowledge) or you replace it with something else. So there doesn't seem to be anything here to object to. Unless you conflate empirical theories with colloquial?
Eric Finn said: Theories are never proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Granted it is originally a legal term. But I have adopted it, as some others, to describe what scientists do then they test according to more or less agreed on standards. For example, physicists aim to test predictions from theories to at least 3 sigma certainty, while stand alone observations preferably has to exceed 5 sigma or more:
In general, physicists and astronomers are more likely to accept an observation, even at the 3-sigma level, if it fits in with current theory. They are likely to be skeptical of a five-sigma observation if it runs counter to what they think should be true.

In particle physics we see statistical fluctuations all the time, and so to make a discovery of something really new, we have to demand that the probability of a random fluctuation causing the excess is very, very small. Usually we demand five sigma, that is five standard deviations from the peak, to claim “discovery.” With less statistical significance, we hedge and use words like “evidence” or “indication.”
Of course, YMMV:
To me this is hilarious because in particle physics people are quite accustomed to seeing 3-sigma results evaporating as more data are added or more careful treatment of systematic errors are accounted for. Hell, in HEP we do not believe in 5-sigma signals!
Note that "beyond reasonable doubt" doesn't mean that empirical science isn't provisional, it means that we may provisionally stop hunting for improved measurement precision because it is "unreasonable" to doubt the results and waste further cost. Obviously the line in the sand of agreement can, as so many other things in science, be argued over. :-P
Eric Finn said: Sometimes they even publish observations that do not seem to fit in their theory.
Sure, of two kinds: either a test has failed, or we see something that isn't predicted by current theory. This is how theories can be falsified or incomplete, and need to be replaced. Sometimes the new theory may have a new value of a single parameter, say the gravitational constant (which most of the times doesn't qualify for the epithet of new or even "modified" theory), at other times it will be a new theory of gravity altogether. I'm not sure if you are trying to be ironic when you mention absolute truth here, because you have just pointed out why there can't be any such thing.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 29 June 2008
Well, I'm reading your comment again, and I believe you are ironic over the creationist position. Never mind, it can be good to spell out why solid fact can cohabit science together with revisability. It isn't immediately obvious for a cherry-picking mind that would see a conflict instead of a different qualities on a coherent scale.

Eric Finn · 30 June 2008
Torbjörn Larsson,
Thank you for taking time to reply my comment.
I am sure we both agree that sarcasm is not the easiest style of writing to adapt. Maybe I should drop all attempts, since it doesn't come naturally.
You presented how observations (let's call them 'facts' for the current purpose) relate to theories. Theories are always provisional, but so are 'facts', in the sense you described.
A single find, e.g. Ventastega, might be interesting on its own, but its real value is only seen in context with other finds (facts). Those facts are obtained, not only in the field of biology, but also by applying inorganic chemistry, physics and geology. A conspiracy among all the scientist to make their facts fit is ... well, not very likely. Some posters do not seem to appreciate the harshness of evaluation any scientific theory or hypothesis must face.
Every active scientist has more promising research plans than (s)he can ever complete. Thus, a new revolutionary theory needs to have some supporting evidence (facts), before it will be studied by many scientist. At least, the new theory, or hypthesis, needs to make at least some verifiable predictions that can be tested (ID does not, according to my limited understanding).
Regards
Eric

paul flocken · 30 June 2008
Cedric Katesby said: "It's still just a tetrapod" (Sorry. I just couldn't resist.)
It's also still just a vertebrate.

Flint · 30 June 2008
bigbang:
yet you Darwinians go on and on engaging the YEC crowd in their nonsense—-YECs are obviously in denial, or perhaps, alas, are simply not being intellectually honest and/or rigorous. That you Darwinians can’t or won’t shut YECs down on these two slam-dunk issues, and/or that you refuse to ignore them, as any sane person would ignore, say, someone insisting that the moon landing was a hoax, amplifies your ineffectiveness
If they were harmless cranks, they'd be ignored. In fact, about 99% of general whackjob cranks are ignored by the scientific community. The problem here (as you should be aware) is that the whackjob creationists are organized, well funded, politically powerful, and tireless in their efforts to replace reason and knowledge with superstition and ignorance. Combine this with the generally low educational level and (apparent) desire to WISH to believe the evidence is all wrong on the part of the general public, and we have problems.
Of course a big problem is that virtually all the top Darwinians have convincingly unified evolution and atheism/antitheism into the current version of Darwinism
This is unfortunately the view through certain religious eyes. Science generally has no need for any supernatural interventions. In fact, any "explanation" that invokes any magical components is non-scientific by definition. This is neither FOR nor AGAINST any religious faith, it's simply how science works. But for certain creationist whackjobs, omitting THEIR preferred explanations in favor of what evidence supports, MEANS rejecting all "True Faith". Evolution as a theory is no more theistic OR atheistic than any other theory. It's just that these particular whackjobs WANT evolution to be theistic, and it's not. The theory of evolution just happens to conflict with some deeply-held religious notions, thus it LOOKS offensive to these nutbags. Change their religious tenets, and some OTHER scientific theory would be accused of being atheistic.
Here’s my advice: 1) Provide the YEC’s with the overwhelming evidence regarding the age of the earth and common descent (and that ID guys like Behe acknowledge those two realities); and if the YECs still don’t accept those realties, politely ignore them.
As you point out, this has been done thousands of times. The YEC's response is both to ignore any and all evidence, and to fight to preach that ignorance in public school science classes in order to inflict on us all future generations of ignorance. If someone is burning down your house, you don't "politely ignore" him because he's crazy. Just because creationist whackjobs are impervious to evidence, to reason, and even to the law, doesn't mean they are not dangerous. Any political movement that is organized, funded, and tireless is a force that must be recognized. If that movement is insane and dedicated to spreading insanity, ignoring it and doing nothing is the worst possible strategy. As for your "core issue", this is of course what science has been focusing on for 150 years and more. And indeed, very real and important progress continues to be made. Try (just for the sake of discussion) removing all direct and indirect references to religion from your post, leaving only the science as you recommend. You will find that nothing remains of your post. You are solely focused on your religious faith. You see evolution strictly as a religious issue, and the disinterest of science in any particular god(s) as being AGAINST those gods. You illustrate the problem.

Frank J · 30 June 2008
What is rather amusing ... is that the evidence for the 4 billion year plus age of the earth and for common descent is so overwhelming and undeniable, and yet you Darwinians go on and on engaging the YEC crowd in their nonsense—-YECs are obviously in denial, or perhaps, alas, are simply not being intellectually honest and/or rigorous.
— bigbang
You may have noticed that my particular issue with YECs is not the denial of mainstream chronology or common descent by the rank and file, but how the more well-read YEC promoters increasingly make excuses for OEC or the increasingly common "don't ask, don't tell" approach. When they do that I have to wonder if they truly believe YEC. If there really is a better theory, it will stand or fall on its own merits, not on weaknesses of "Darwinism." IDers know that there's no better theory out there (they sure aren't trying to develop one), and I suspect that most YEC promoters are painfully aware of that as well.

Frank J · 30 June 2008
What is rather amusing ... is that the evidence for the 4 billion year plus age of the earth and for common descent is so overwhelming and undeniable, and yet you Darwinians go on and on engaging the YEC crowd in their nonsense—-YECs are obviously in denial, or perhaps, alas, are simply not being intellectually honest and/or rigorous.
— bigbang
You may have noticed that my particular issue with YECs is not the denial of mainstream chronology or common descent by the rank and file, but how the more well-read YEC promoters increasingly make excuses for OEC or the increasingly common "don't ask, don't tell" approach. When they do that I have to wonder if they truly believe YEC. If there really is a better theory, it will stand or fall on its own merits, not on weaknesses of "Darwinism." IDers know that there's no better theory out there (they sure aren't trying to develop one), and I suspect that most YEC promoters are painfully aware of that as well.

gregwrld · 30 June 2008
Deediddly: Rhetoric won't cut it, no matter how pretty you think it is. You have yet to offer a better explanation for Ventastega than the one offered here. Crying "design" won't cut it, you have to have a better explanation for the evidence.
And it's obvious that you don't.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 30 June 2008
Eric Finn said: I am sure we both agree that sarcasm is not the easiest style of writing to adapt. Maybe I should drop all attempts, since it doesn't come naturally.
No, I believe you did fairly well. But I was perhaps too hasty, and the IDiots out-Poe themselves.

Nigel D · 1 July 2008
deedee said: ...I guess the semantics games so important to you evolutionists is what your "mountains of evidence" are all about, huh?
Well, you lackwitted troll, how about you show some intellectual honesty and acknowledge the correction without so much sarcasm, hmmm?
How about putting your "mountains of evidence" where your mouth is.
It's all in the public domain. If you really care to learn, start with a biology textbook that was written by scientists. If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask them. If you require extensive tuition, I'm up for that, at a very reasonable rate of US$200 per hour plus expenses.
Tell me one piece of it that didn't begin with the presupposition that what ever you see has to fit into your faith in evolution in the first place.
Evolution isn't a faith, it's a conclusion. And, BTW, every single piece of evidence didn't begin with any presuppositions. Tell me, is there anything in your comments that isn't founded on either presupposition or delusion?
Oh, realizing spelling is your field and not science, I thought you might want to know that you followed my lead and didn't capitalize my name. How embarrassing.
Proper nouns that are not capitalised by their owners shouldn't be capitalised (unless your original failure to capitalise your name was a mistake as well). BTW, that's "embarassing". Only one "r". Now, do you really want a typing contest, or did you come here to discuss some science?

Nigel D · 1 July 2008
deedee said: ...I guess the semantics games so important to you evolutionists is what your "mountains of evidence" are all about, huh?
Well, you lackwitted troll, how about you show some intellectual honesty and acknowledge the correction without so much sarcasm, hmmm?
How about putting your "mountains of evidence" where your mouth is.
It's all in the public domain. If you really care to learn, start with a biology textbook that was written by scientists. If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask them. If you require extensive tuition, I'm up for that, at a very reasonable rate of US$200 per hour plus expenses.
Tell me one piece of it that didn't begin with the presupposition that what ever you see has to fit into your faith in evolution in the first place.
Evolution isn't a faith, it's a conclusion. And, BTW, every single piece of evidence didn't begin with any presuppositions. Tell me, is there anything in your comments that isn't founded on either presupposition or delusion?
Oh, realizing spelling is your field and not science, I thought you might want to know that you followed my lead and didn't capitalize my name. How embarrassing.
Proper nouns that are not capitalised by their owners shouldn't be capitalised (unless your original failure to capitalise your name was a mistake as well). BTW, that's "embarassing". Only one "r". Now, do you really want a typing contest, or did you come here to discuss some science?

Nigel D · 2 July 2008
Whooops, sorry about the double-post, folks.
Mods, please feel free to delete one of them.

Nigel D · 2 July 2008
deedee said: ... I would like to first point out that it's always amusing how evolutionists refuse to answer the question themselves.
The question has been answered. Piece by piece, step by step, for about 140-odd years. Modern evolutionary theory (MET) is the answer. It explains, inter alia, the following: (1) The fossil record
(2) Anatomical similarities among organisms
(3) Differences between organisms, particularly those that occupy the same ecological niche on different continents
(4) Genetic similarities among disparate organisms
(5) Developmental similarities among disparate organisms
(6) Metabolic similarities among disparate organisms
(7) The fact that the similarities and differences among organisms form patterns of nested hierarchies
(8) Symbiosis
(9) Adaptation of organisms to their habitat
(10) Secondary sexual characteristics
(11) Predator-prey "arms races"
(12) Parasite-host "arms races"
And more. Perhaps, before you try to criticise evolutionary theory, you should actually go and learn what it says first.
As I asked, what convinces you so much about your interpretation of the facts?
The fact that MET is the only logical interpretation of the facts that does not call upon the superntaural, that's what.
No one has decided to answer that, exept the old mocking-bird "mountains of evidence," which of course, we could go round in circles, by me calling my interpretation of the facts "mountains of evidence" too, but as much fun as it is its a little lame.
No, it's not a little lame. Your claiming of the evidence for your position (which, BTW, is what, exactly?) is a lot lame. The evidence overwhelmingly supports one logical conclusion - that the mechanisms for biological change that are described in MET are what actually happens in the world.
Anyway, I briefly, No I do not agree with Behe's opinion on the age of the earth.
Why not? What age do you think the Earth is? Why? What do you say to all the evidence (e.g. measurements of rocks that are c. 4 billion years old)?
Yes I absolutely agree with his logic that the complexity of biology at the molecular level is irrational to believe it came about through natural causes.
On what do you base this leap of faith? What prevents natural processes from generating structures that appear to us to be complex?
"Design" is not something that scientists disagree on. From Behe, Crick, Dawkins, Sagan, Wise, Fawkins etc. No scientist argues that we don't see design in nature.
Now you are splitting hairs. Design in nature is not controversial. Evolution is a design process.
Only, evolutionists call it "apparent" observable design, creationists & I.D. call it just "observable design."
This is semantics. The term "design" has multiple meanings. The creationists are using it to imply the application of intelligence (i.e. God) during the processes of biological change over time. This is wholly unscientific, because there is no evidence to support it, there is evidence to gainsay it, and there is no conclusive way to measure it. BTW, what the hell do you mean by "observable design"? Do you mean something that is interpreted by our brains as being designed? Or do you mean something that was formed through the application of intent? Or what? I know what the words you use mean, but the way you put them together renders them meaningless.
The Theory of design has been being used to solve cases long before evolutionists started getting their shorts in a knot about it.
This is rubbish. What, then is the "theory of design"? ID, as expounded by Behe, Dembski, Wells et al., is nothing more than an expression of ignorance (the "set theoretic complement" of processes we know about).
For example, a piece of evidence goes through the "explanatory filter" when we try to determine the cause of it.
No it doesn't. You really are just making this up. The explanatory filter is of no use to anyone, mainly because it demands that every single possible explanation be conceived of and considered. Law courts don't work like this. Science doesn't work like this. Evidence is judged mainly against what is already known, and each piece of evidence must be set into the context of what we know to be possible; what we consider to be likely; and what we don't know.
The order of elimination is very important. First we investigate whether a natural law could have caused it, when that is ruled out, we investigate the probability of random chance causing it, if that is ruled out, we concur that it was designed.
But this ignores the possibility of unknown natural mechanisms operating. As well as ignoring the fact that "random chance" is a very loosely defined concept, and the fact that in combination, stochastic and regular processes can operate to produce phenomena that, while obeying all known laws, are still alrgely unpredictable without an extraordinary effort (e.g. weather prediction).
I can give many examples of this, but for this post I should break and pick up later.
I bet you can't really.
I have to ask, why do so many evolutionists clump all creationists as part of the Ann Coulter fan club.
Because you all deny reality to some extent or other.
Personally I think she is correct on a lot of things, incorrect on somethings, a little too sarcastic, sometimes rude, but often hilarious.
Oh dear. She is a lunatic. She publishes crap and promotes it through sheer chutzpah.
However these bloggers seem a little fixiated on her.
Well, wouldn't you be if someone with no knowledge of what you do was trying to persuade the taxpayers that your entire field of expertise was wrong?

Nigel D · 2 July 2008
iml8 said: What I want to see is the evidence that the Moon isn't made of green cheese. Prove it to me and I'll pay any sum of money demanded. I'm sitting here with my arms folded waiting ... White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html
What you don't seem to have realised, Greg, is that you are essentially offering to buy a piece of moon rock for any sum that can be conceived. Oh, wait ... I get it now. Carry on.

Nigel D · 2 July 2008
deedee said: Wow people (and I use the term loosly). All you have to do is read back over the temper tantrum you immature people have had due to the fact that I don't share your very strong faith, and you have yourselves proved my original point.
And you have just proved all of the counter-points. You are picking on trivial side issues in an attempt to deflect attention away from the actual main point. You appear to be sniping at MET from a position of profound ignorance, both of MET in particular and of science in general. You appear to have ignored the requests for further detail about your position. All you are doing now, having goaded your intellectual betters into saying something that sounds aggressive, is playing the "temper, temper" card.
That is, this board is not about an intelligent conversation that might actual aid in the discovery of what is really real, but rather you are content as a bunch of mocking birds.
Hypocrite. Show some interest in actually learning something and you will see a much more positive response.
I will continue to hope that a spark of real interest in the truth will be ignited in someone here, but, as I first stated, ANYTHING I had to say here would fall on deaf ears, so my visit with you typical hissy fitters is done.
Wrong again. There are people who visit this board who are actually scientists, i.e. people that actually do science, and know more detail than you can imagine about their particular fields of expertise. There are any number of things that you could ask that would receive a positive response, but you have carefully avoided them. Instead, you are behaving like a typical creationist troll. If, OTOH, you have a genuine interest in learning something, then do so. Ask some questions. But, seriously, expect there to be scepticism, and expect people to ask for clarification and detail. And be prepared to provide them. If you are prepared to engage in a rational discourse, then there are plenty of people here who would join you.
For the record, I have been publicly speaking on world views and education verses indoctrination for 7 years now and have studied the creation/evolution debate for 9 years.
Did you mean "versus" there, deedee? If you have "studied" the "debate" for 9 years, then you must know by now that there isn't any real debate. The "controversy" is a false dichotomy manufactured by the creos. And how come you are posting things here that one would expect of a heavily-indoctrinated creationist troll?
I have interviewed more scientists on the subject than most of you have probably ever met.
Have you really interviewed more than 600 scientists? Because 600 is a rough estimate of the number of scientists I have met (to speak to, that is, not just attending a conference at the same place). Plus, interviewing scientists is no substitute for doing science, and some of the experts here whom you denigrate actually are scientists.
And, for any of you who hold to the view that our society at this time has not been indoctrinated with the state-funded religion of evolution are choosing to be ignorant.
Yep, creationist troll. I'm bored now with challenging your viewpoint that evolution is a religion. It isn't, it's a conclusion. I can't be bothered to go over (for about the 17th time in the last couple of years) arguments that you will almost certainly ignore, and probably cannot even understand.
You keep right on thinking (another VERY loose term) that your attacks and intimidation tactics show that you are on the right side.
This is just a bunch of lies. Who is being attacked and intimidated? It is the people who teach MET who are being attacked and intimidated. Who is being persecuted? Certainly not the IDers. They are publishing book after book after book of utter drivel, but they have never once been threatened with violence by scientists. Certainly not the YECs, who recently had some of their lies on sale in the bookshop run by the Grand Canyon park authority.
But I think it'd be really neato if some of you hotheads studied SUBSTANCE & EVIDENCE instead of rhetoric, then you might have something intelligent to say. Oh, I'm sorry, I hope the word "intelligence" doesn't get you all in a tissy again like the word "design."
You are a lying hypocrite. Go away until you are prepared to accept Mosaic Law (something about "thou shalt not bear false witness"). Besides, I think you meant "tizzy".

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 2 July 2008
Nigel D said: What do you say to all the evidence (e.g. measurements of rocks that are c. 4 billion years old)?
LOL, speaking of "mountains of evidence". Okay, let me see if I got this right: - By spectral element analysis the Sun is a third generation star, and AFAIU can't be older than ~ 5 Ga or so.
- By modeling fusion, convection et cetera, the Sun must be ~ 5 Ga or so.
- By dating cratering on the Moon and other planetary bodies, the solar system clocks in at ~ 5 Ga or so. (Mars, Venus et cetera have their own datings covering these periods.)
- By dating Earth, meteorites (and perhaps Moon rocks), the solar system clocks in at ~ 4.6 Ga or so.
- By dating the oldest surviving rocks Earth is at least ~ 4 Ga or so.
- By dating increase of salinity of the seas, IIRC Earth is at least 2 Ga or so.
- By estimating ozone dissociation until sufficient UV blockage that enabled land colonization, Earth is at least 2 Ga or so. (Livio, et al.)
- By dating plate tectonics, IIRC Earth is at least 0.1 - 0.5 Ga or so.
- And by dating specific geological locales, weathering and rock formation times, I'm pretty sure you must get lower dates in the same range due to plate tectonics.
- By estimating species diversity, AFAIU Earth is at least 0.1 - 0.5 Ga or so.
Creationists aren't just bending backwards trying to avoid the evidence, they are totally spineless under the burden. "La la la, I can't hear you!"

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 2 July 2008
Btw, I believe I once have heard that there is a direct correlation between salinity in land animals and the time when we left the seas, and the respective ages concur. Though that merits a check. But that would put yet another lower limit on Earth age.

Eric · 2 July 2008
Lies! Its all lies! Jesus rode a dinosaur! The speed of light changes! Radioactive half-lives have decreased! Trees rings form every time it rains, not every year! The earth is in a black hole and so time passes much slower here than it does in the rest of the universe! Ferrets were catapulted from the Ark's landing spot across the rest of the planet via volcanic eruption! (I love that one) Arrarat was the highest mountain 4,000 years ago! Can't you see that you are bending over backwards to accept an overly complicated "theory" of evolution when the Truth is so elegant, so simple?
Torbjörn Larsson, OM said:
Nigel D said: What do you say to all the evidence (e.g. measurements of rocks that are c. 4 billion years old)?
LOL, speaking of "mountains of evidence". Okay, let me see if I got this right: - By spectral element analysis the Sun is a third generation star, and AFAIU can't be older than ~ 5 Ga or so.
- By modeling fusion, convection et cetera, the Sun must be ~ 5 Ga or so.
- By dating cratering on the Moon and other planetary bodies, the solar system clocks in at ~ 5 Ga or so. (Mars, Venus et cetera have their own datings covering these periods.)
- By dating Earth, meteorites (and perhaps Moon rocks), the solar system clocks in at ~ 4.6 Ga or so.
- By dating the oldest surviving rocks Earth is at least ~ 4 Ga or so.
- By dating increase of salinity of the seas, IIRC Earth is at least 2 Ga or so.
- By estimating ozone dissociation until sufficient UV blockage that enabled land colonization, Earth is at least 2 Ga or so. (Livio, et al.)
- By dating plate tectonics, IIRC Earth is at least 0.1 - 0.5 Ga or so.
- And by dating specific geological locales, weathering and rock formation times, I'm pretty sure you must get lower dates in the same range due to plate tectonics.
- By estimating species diversity, AFAIU Earth is at least 0.1 - 0.5 Ga or so.
Creationists aren't just bending backwards trying to avoid the evidence, they are totally spineless under the burden. "La la la, I can't hear you!"

Henry J · 2 July 2008
The earth is in a black hole and so time passes much slower here than it does in the rest of the universe!
Wouldn't they want it to be the other way around? Henry

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 2 July 2008
Eric said: Lies! Its all lies! [...] Ferrets were catapulted from the Ark's landing spot across the rest of the planet via volcanic eruption! (I love that one) [...]
That is a winner, all right. Well, on the strength of that argument I guess I have to reject my knowledgeable ways and join a fundamentalist cult as a "keith".

Henry J · 2 July 2008
Ferrets were catapulted from the Ark’s landing spot across the rest of the planet via volcanic eruption! (I love that one)
Would that explain why some ferrets have black feet?

stevaroni · 2 July 2008
The earth is in a black hole and so time passes much slower here than it does in the rest of the universe!
Wouldn’t they want it to be the other way around? No, it's the latest creationist answer to the "Starlight Problem", the fact that light from the distant stars has every appearance of having been in been in transit for billions of years. If we're in the middle of gigantic gravity well, and our time here runs relatively more slowly, then they can explain a 6000 year old earth inside a zillion year old universe. This is apparently a more palatable answer than the old standard, "God just made it look that way", which seemingly raises theological issues about the motives of a duplicitous god. Of course, that still doesn't explain why our earth itself looks to be billions of years old, but that's another evasion (apparently a question for another time, which hopefully will arrive quite slowly).

Eric Finn · 2 July 2008
Torbjörn Larsson, OM said: Btw, I believe I once have heard that there is a direct correlation between salinity in land animals and the time when we left the seas, and the respective ages concur. Though that merits a check. But that would put yet another lower limit on Earth age.
There is an explanation http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/may05.html why the body fluids of terrestrial vertebrates have the same salinity as the body fluids in fresh-water fish, about one third of the salinity of sea water. I am not sure it can be used to come up with an estimate for the age of the Earth. Regards Eric

Henry J · 2 July 2008
If we’re in the middle of gigantic gravity well, and our time here runs relatively more slowly, then they can explain a 6000 year old earth inside a zillion year old universe.
OK, with that they can rationalize ignoring cosmology and astrophysics, but not radiometric dating, plate tectonics, geological layers, or fossil ecosystems from highly different climates stacked on top of each other at the same location. I'd say they've still got a bit of work to do there.
Of course, that still doesn’t explain why our earth itself looks to be billions of years old,
It also doesn't explain why the incoming starlight isn't extremely blue shifted, as it would be if we were extremely time dilated relative to the stars. Not to mention that said starlight would then be coming in around a million times the intensity expected based on what's known about astrophysics, in addition to being compressed into mostly gamma (or worse?) radiation. So at the risk of repeating myself, I'd say they've still got a bit of work to do there. Henry

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 3 July 2008
Eric Finn said: There is an explanation http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/may05.html why the body fluids of terrestrial vertebrates have the same salinity as the body fluids in fresh-water fish, about one third of the salinity of sea water. I am not sure it can be used to come up with an estimate for the age of the Earth.
Eric, thanks. I'll admit it isn't an independent limit, but I was thinking of how it ties biology to the salination process and sets another lower limit of age way beyond creos puny 6 ka of "history".

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 3 July 2008
Henry J said: It also doesn't explain why the incoming starlight isn't extremely blue shifted, as it would be if we were extremely time dilated relative to the stars. Not to mention that said starlight would then be coming in around a million times the intensity expected based on what's known about astrophysics, in addition to being compressed into mostly gamma (or worse?) radiation. So at the risk of repeating myself, I'd say they've still got a bit of work to do there. Henry
IIRC, cdk007's series of videos on 'Why YEC's Must Deny Gravity' contains all combinations of YEC 'explanations', including a spherical shell of wormholes by shortcutting the distance to stars. Possibly you could 'use' such a shell to cut down on the intensity (by only admitting a smaller amount of light, while the rest is still on the road to fry us at the creo endtime next year or so.) Dunno if it 'solves' the blue shift, you would need some serious bullshit creo 'physics' fairy tales, and I'll need more coffee before tackling that. [The main problem for such a shell besides that stable wormholes can't exist and that it is ridiculously improbable with them perfectly positioned before each and every star, is that such a shell is gravitationally instable. Why try to impose impossible physics instead of admitting that creationism means "goddidit" anyway?] Btw, someone (probably cdk007 again) has posted an awesome youtube showing how a single nebula refutes all of yesterdays, todays and tomorrows creationist lightspeed variance models, since you can't speed up or speed down light and get a consistent result from the observations. Can't find it right now though.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 3 July 2008
Torbjörn Larsson, OM said: I was thinking of how it ties biology to the salination process and sets another lower limit of age way beyond creos puny 6 ka of "history".
Except it does not, which Erik was trying to tell me. Apparently vertebrates descend from fresh water adapted animals, so I was going from yet another old folk tale. Curious that sea fish stems from fresh water fish, but wow!

Nigel D · 3 July 2008
Torbjörn Larsson, OM said: Btw, I believe I once have heard that there is a direct correlation between salinity in land animals and the time when we left the seas, and the respective ages concur. Though that merits a check. But that would put yet another lower limit on Earth age.
I think that's an urban legend, Torbjorn. Sea water contains salt at a concentration of about 1.3 M (obviously, it varies a bit from place to place, but this is a typical figure for ocean water). Our blood contains salt at a concentration of about 0.3 M (or about a quarter the concentration in seawater). IIUC, marine fish have a salt concentration in their blood that is closer to ours than it is to that of seawater, so there seems to be some general advantage to possessing an internal salinity that is less than that of seawater. Because much of evolution has occurred in the oceans (especially pre-Ordovician), it is hard to see how this could correlate in time. Surely our single-celled ancestors would have been evolving to whatever internal salt concentration was most useful, and what is to say that ours has not changed since?

stevaroni · 3 July 2008
henry writes...
It also doesn’t explain why the incoming starlight isn’t extremely blue shifted...
Would it be? I can't quite get my head around this one. If we were at the bottom of the intense gravity well of a black hole and you put in some light, do we get the wavefronts at the right rate (but measure them withe wrong clock) or do they "stack up" as light itself slows down in transit. I can see the immense blue shift for a very deep but otherwise "normal" well, but (IIUC) black holes are massive enough to significantly affect light, so I have no idea what would theoretically happen inside the event horizon. This is not my area of expertise, and it mostly makes my head hurt. (If the energy doesn't get down in real time, though, there's one hell of an energy pile-up somewhere, too bad we can't tap that.

Henry J · 3 July 2008
Would it be... on further thought, I don't know. In the case of a very deep gravity well that's not quite a black hole, I'd expect incoming light to be extremely blue shifted when hitting a stationary object.
Inside a black hole though, to the limited extent that I understand it, there is no bottom to the gravity well (the distance to the "center" is infinite), and there's no such thing as "stationary". An object that wasn't shredded on entry will continue accelerating, which would tend to red-shift the blue-shifted light, so I'm unsure what the net result would be.
Henry