Is a Hippo a Pig or a Whale?

CEH ^ | March 24, 2009

[Ira_Louvin]

Well I can see that I can no longer type, so it is time for bed.

It has been fun guys.

I would like to give special thanks for being respectful in your arguments, that is appreciated.

I am sure we will continue the discussion at a later date.

God Bless America.

[CottShop]

[[Then it should be no problem for you to cite a few of those misrepresentations, and please specific.]]

Ira- You may look through the site- you can do it just as well as I have doen so over the past few years- I’ve got more importanthtings to do than to do your homework for you- I gave you the link- go to the main page, there is a TON of info there exposing talkorigins lies, half-truths, misdirections and outright deceits. You may be particularly interested in Tim Wallace’s discussion with Schneider about the second law of thermodynamics (Whicxh incidently was posted on talkorigins as supposed proof that nature somehow could violate the second law- based on some silly examples of STATIC geometrical law abidign crystals which had absolutely NOTHING to do with living dynasmic systems such as life)- The scientist he discussed hte matter with was apparently so embarrassed he left huffing and puffing and set up a website whining about he got picked on by little old Tim Wallace lol- Just type ‘second law’ into his search field- you’ll find the article- as well there are tons other such refutations and exposings

[[How many peer-reviewed papers has Ashby B Camp authored?]]

How many peer review papers did Pasteur have? How many did any number of scientists and great thinkers who shaped our lives and science have? Are you now movign hte goalposts and stating that the only people allowed to review claims are people with phd’s after their names?

[[As far as refuting what was written Mr. Camp has the same misconception of many people. All his paper is pointing out is his perceived problems with the “Gaps in the fossil record” He completely fails to offer an alternate hypothesis, much less provide any testable evidence]]

Good golly- you STILL are refusing to discuss anyhtign he said, and simply hand-waving it away- sicne hwen does criticism and pointing out flaws NEED an alternative in order to be valid criticisms? Moving hte goalposts again are we? Just can’t win with you folks apparently-

[[“The fact that some transitional fossils are not preserved does not disprove evolution]]

Nope- but it IS STRONG evidence that just further strengthens the idea that species were created- try to explain the absence away al lyou like, but at hte end of the day, we SHOULD BE seeing all manner of fossil evidences- We don’t- end of story-

[[Evolutionary biologists do not expect that all transitional forms will be found and realize that many species leave no fossils at all.]]

What a copout- We don’t see ANY transitional fossils- all we see are morphological comparisons between dissimilar species and told they are descended fro meach other

[[It is commonly stated by anti-evolutionists that there are no known transitional fossils. According to evolutionary scientists, this position is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of what represents a transitional feature. A common creationist argument is that no fossils are found with partially functional features. It is entirely plausible, however, that a complex feature with one function can adapt a wholly different function through evolution. The precursor to e.g. a wing, might originally have only been meant for gliding, trapping flying prey, and/or mating display. Nowadays, wings can still have all of these functions, but they are also used in active flight.]]

This is just further cop out crock of crap- while it is PLAUSIBLE- the FACT still remains we have NO evidence to support this- none- zilch- zero- They can invent ‘plausible’ scenarios till the cows come home- I’m interested ONLY in the actual evidences!

Yawn-

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

An early ancestor of the horse was named *hippocampus*.

'Hippo' is Latin for 'horse' and the scientific names for horses and their ancestors include hippo as part of the name. The hippopotamus is otherwise known as a 'water horse' because it was clearly related to horses, pigs, and other hoofed animals with an odd number of toes, and more distantly to animals with an even number of toes, such as cattle, deer, buffaloes, etc.

[CottShop]

[[Well I can see that I can no longer type,]]

Hey! I thought I did perty durn good in my last reply! Beauty is in the eye of the bohlder anywho!

[[I would like to give special thanks for being respectful in your arguments, that is appreciated.]]

I will try to be as logn as I get the saem in return- IF we can keep this strictly fact driven, isntead of devolving into figner pointing, then I can be as civil as anyone- however, one of my shortcomings is responding in liek kind- which can mean figner pointing on my account IF that’s all I’m getting in return. As I said- I’ll do my best not to engage- but no promisses- I’m a compelte failure when it coems to returning volleys.

[CottShop]

[[Conversely, we do observe quite ‘macro’ changes that involve no new information, e.g. when a control gene is switched on or off.”]]

Wow- This is just patently false- That info was already present- and is NOT a creation of anyhtign new, and therefore does NOT fall into the category of MACROEvolution-
CMI is MISREPRESENTING what Creationists beleive! We have NEVER said a species does not experience change- we have said all the changes witnessed in species fall into MICROEvolution because the info was already present- whether active or not- there was NO creation ex nihilo- or from lateral transference from higher compelxity species that introduced non species specific info. The ‘macrochange’ pointed out by CMI is no such hting- that change falls purely within an alrteady established species specific parameter, and just goes to show that there is a higher metainformation present already that anticipates such species specific microchanges within the parametes of pre-Design.

That info was already present- and we can assume, was already useful right fro mthe start- even if it wasn’t, it just further shows, once again, how marvelously designed species really are- to anticipate, and correctly react to such changes- without hte metainfo of hte species already inplace and anticipating such change,- the change woudl be purely detrimental- throwing noise at a finely tuned information network dissrupts- it doesn’t add anythign significant- Again- Can you see the predesign here? The Higher info was already coded for such change within species parameters- nothign was created- info was simpy changed, and hte species was already designed to accept and utilize these changes.- nothign macro goign on here.

[[These terms, which focus on ‘small’ v. ‘large’ changes, distract from the key issue of information.]]

Nope- they clear it up- the ones distracting are those trying to claim that micro extrapolates to macro- it does not.

A micro change is change that works on info already present- Macro change involves itnroducing non species specific info that results in NEW non species specific info that fascilitates creation of new non species specific systems or features.

MICRO invovles changing traits- Macro involves creating NEW non species specific traits-

MICRO involves altering info that is controlled by the metainformation. MACRO involves introducing non species specific info for which the species has no metainformation for, and for which nature must somehow create that metainformation fro mscratch while the species somehwo tries to survive in fitness while this itnroduced foriegn information screws up the species finely tuned works

[CottShop]

[[Also, scientists have found many transitional fossils. For example, there are fossils of transitional organisms between modern birds and their theropod dinosaur ancestors, and between whales and their terrestrial mammal ancestors.”]]

I’m sorry- but did you miss the title of htis very thread and the resulting article cited?

Alert:

“What one authority defines as a “transitional form” between lineage A and lineage B can be (and often is) just as authoritatively declared not so when it is said to better fit between lineage X and lineage Y, or when a specimen is found in a position stratigraphically “older” than the first occurrence of lineage A or “younger” than B—and all of these are common occurrences.”

http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp#fossils

Morphological and Phylogenetic Homology
From at least the time of Aristotle, people who study living organisms have noted some remarkable similarities among very diverse creatures. Bats and butterflies are quite different from each other, yet both have wings to fly; bats fly and whales swim, yet the bones in a bat’s wing and a whale’s flipper are strikingly alike. The first kind of similarity involves different structures which perform the same function, and in 1843 anatomist Richard Owen called this “analogy.” In contrast, the second kind of similarity involves similar structures which perform different functions, and Owen called this “homology.” Owen (and other pre-Darwinian biologists) attributed homology to the existence of archetypes: biological structures are similar because they conform to pre-existing patterns. (Bowler, 1989; Panchen, 1994)

A. Classical (morphological) view:

Premise 1 (Definition). Features are homologous if and only if they have similar structures.

Premise 2 (Empirical observation). A bat’s wing and a whale’s flipper have similar structures.

Conclusion. Therefore, a bat’s wing and a whale’s flipper are homologous features.

A’. Darwin’s extension of the morphological view:

Premise 1 (Conclusion from classical view). A bat’s wing and a whale’s flipper are homologous features.

Premise 2 (Proposed explanation). Features are homologous because they are inherited from a common ancestor.

Conclusion. Therefore, a bat’s wing and a whale’s flipper are inherited from a common ancestor.

B. Post-Darwinian (phylogenetic) view:

Premise 1 (Definition). Features are homologous if and only if they are inherited from a common ancestor.

Premise 2 (Assumption? Empirical inference?). A bat’s wing and a whale’s flipper are inherited from a common ancestor.

Conclusion. Therefore, a bat’s wing and a whale’s flipper are homologous features.

Ironically, the post-Darwinian (phylogenetic) definition of homology undercuts one of Darwin’s own arguments for evolution, since it requires that common ancestry be established (or assumed) before features can be called homologous. Logically speaking, it is a fallacy to infer evolution from phylogenetic homology: once one determines (or assumes) that features are homologous because of common ancestry, it would be circular reasoning to claim that homology demonstrates common ancestry. This does not mean, however, that structural similarities can no longer be used to infer homology, but only that they must be traced back through a fossil lineage to a common ancestor. For example, the similar bone structures in a bat’s wing and a whale’s flipper cannot, by themselves, justify an inference of phylogenetic homology. But if one could establish that fossil bats and fossil whales are more similar in this regard than extant organisms, - especially if the fossils suggest gradual divergence from a presumed common ancestor, - then one could infer that they are phylogenetically homologous.

http://www.trueorigin.org/homology.asp

The Dino Bird Myth

Evolution of Flight?
As Dawkins says, “to a first approximation, all animals fly ... because ... to a first approximation, all species are insects”. Also, “there are twice as many bird species as mammal species, and a quarter of mammals species are bats.” Flying is of course a very complicated process as any aircraft designer would know. Birds have a number of complex structures to enable them to fly: wings with a good aerofoil shape, the intricately structured feathers, the lungs with their unique air circulation system though parabronchi, and the algorithm for the controlled muscle movements to achieve flight.33

Again, Dawkins exudes confidence that Neo-Darwinism can bridge the gaps from non-flying to flying animals. But he can’t help admitting:

“My guess is that both bats and birds evolved flight by gliding downwards from the trees. Their ancestors might have looked a little like colugos. Birds could be another matter.... Here’s one guess as to how flying got started in birds.... Perhaps birds began by leaping off the ground while bats began gliding out of trees. Or perhaps birds too began by gliding out of trees.” (pp. 113-4, emphases added).

The example of eye evolution showed that Dawkins is a master of glossing over difficulties. In support of the running, jumping and mid-course correcting theory, he writes:

“The beauty of this theory is that the same nervous circuits that were used to control the centre of gravity in the jumping ancestor would, rather effortlessly, have lent themselves to controlling the flight surfaces later in the evolutionary story.” (p. 114)

The words “rather effortlessly” make the mind boggle, but then his word ‘story’ inadvertently gives the game away.

Some more story-telling is evident in Dawkins’ discussion of feathers. Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds, says “Feathers are a near-perfect adaptation for flight” because they are lightweight, strong, aerodynamically shaped and have an intricate structure of barbs and hooks which makes them waterproof and able to repair their shape.34

But Dawkins glibly states: “Feathers are modified reptilian scales.” But scales are folds in skin; feathers are complex structures with a barb, barbules and hooks. They also originate in a totally different way, from follicles inside the skin in a manner akin to hair. Finally, feather proteins (f-keratins) are biochemically different from skin and scale proteins (a-keratins) as well. One researcher concluded:

“At the morphological level feathers are traditionally considered homologous with reptilian scales. However, in development, morphogenesis, gene structure, protein shape and sequence, and filament formation and structure, feathers are different.”35

http://www.trueorigin.org/dawkrev2.asp

so, are htere really the transitionals you claim? Or are there simply assumptions made about morphological similarities? Are there Dinos devolping lungs and Bronchia to deal with flight? No? Muscles features to control flight? No? So all we’re left with are a priori assumptions that dinos evolved into birds- or that they both shared a commo nanscestor (See- even these supposed transitions are disputed by macroevos as being transitions- so are we to then conclude, since even Macroevos don’t agree- the so called experts- that dinos threfore evovled int odinos? I think not- the gaps are glaring, they are hugem, and those making the claims simply assume far too much, dismiss far too much, and overlook far too much for us to simpyl take htier word for it- You know, it’s funny- Creatioinists are accused of being naroow minded- but when we exhibit critical thinking, we’re accused of being ‘antievolutionsits who prefer religion over ‘real science’- lol Again- We just can’t win with ‘you folks’

[Nipplemancer]

lizards have scales, birds have feathers and both are made of keratin, the same stuff as your fingernails. They’re made essentially by the same process in pretty much all animals, with minor structural differences. imagine if you will that these structural differences started off as just a slight mutation in the keratin producing cells and the scales started growing in thin shafts much like the quills of the porcupine providing a natural adaptation in defense. in time this mutation can then lead to those quills to thin out and sprout thinner branches along the shaft. these protofeathers could add the benefit of cammoflage and insulation. in a few million generations such mutations in a simple structure like the scale can turn into a feather due to small errors in transcription. these changes need not mean a half bird half lizard gimp with teeny-weenie useless wings, but normal limbs with a skin condition.
that is an example of microevolution over a very long time. other small mutations lead to other big changes over time as well. the cumulative effects of these simple changes are what evolution is.
the history of life on earth is very long and we’ve only been around for a small part of it. to think that we could possibly have found every form of life that has ever existed is rather silly. Our understanding of the history of the earth is even shorter than our collective time on earth and much has yet to be learned.
Declaring evolution as debunked without providing sufficient evidence of an alternate theory is not science. Geocentricism was debunked due to the rise of heliocentricism, not because people said it was a flawed theory and certainly not because the bible told them otherwise.

[Fichori]

Technically speaking, mine is more accurate.

[Fichori]

“If Whattajoke thinks FR has become a nuthouse (over a single issue, no less!), then what is he/she/it still doing here?” [excerpt]

Its called relapsing.

Apparently, FR can be somewhat addictive.

[WVKayaker]

...on the basis of certain dental similarities between the mesonychid Dissacus navajovius (which is Dissacus carnifex of Cope) and some archaeocete specimens. His rather cautious statement of the claim is worth recalling: ...

Look...wabbits!

[Jess Kitting]

That one is obviously a hippo - a hippo-crit.

[theDentist]

A great observation Jess.

[GourmetDan]

"So you are saying that you cannot add one plus one until you get the sum of one million?"

No, I said that the fact that you can apply a methodology to increase your vertical leap does not mean that you can continue the process until you can jump to the moon.

[BroJoeK]

"FR's owner has posted that he agrees with Young Earth Creationism, a truly childish and absurd idea that has no merit whatsoever. He, like most YEC's, feels persecuted by the evidence at hand. In short order, almost every adult with a scientific background or interest has left FR or has been banned."

Sorry, but I'm not certain how true all this is. If I may speak from personal experience, I think what Jim Robinson insists on is reasonable respect and due deference for the opinions of YEC's and other anti-evolutionists. After all, when all is said & done, these folks are our friends and allies, even if we don't agree on this particular issue (obviously, I don't).

Of course it's difficult, because the basic anti-evolutionist idea is: science is bunk. So they want the right to throw rocks at science, to mock and ridicule science, and not be treated the same way in return. OK.

Remember, science itself is a very agnostic discipline. Strictly speaking, it's entirely scientifically possible that at least some anti-evolutionists arguments are correct. Science doesn't credit them, because there's no physical evidence for them. But you never know what may turn up someday.

Why burn bridges that don't need burned?

[BroJoeK]

Ira_Louvin:"So you are saying that you cannot add one plus one until you get the sum of one million?"

GourmetDan: "No, I said that the fact that you can apply a methodology to increase your vertical leap does not mean that you can continue the process until you can jump to the moon."

Arguing metaphors. It's entirely possible to reach the moon, on foot at a time, if you start with the right methodology -- i.e., a large rocket. Indeed, given the right start, each succeeding foot becomes EASIER than the one before.

So the obvious question is, at what precise point does "micro-evolution" become "macro-evolution," and are the recognized processes of evolution adequate to explain such changes?

Seems to me they are, but that's the debate...

[Jim Robinson]

Statement by the founder of Free Republic

Excerpts:

As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc. We also oppose the United Nations or any other world government body that may attempt to impose its will or rule over our sovereign nation and sovereign people. We believe in defending our borders, our constitution and our national sovereignty.

We aggressively defend our God-given and first amendment guaranteed rights to free speech, free press, free religion, and freedom of association, as well as our constitutional right to control the use and content of our own personal private property. Despite the wailing of the liberal trolls and other doom & gloom naysayers, we feel no compelling need to allow them a platform to promote their repugnant and obnoxious propaganda from our forum. Free Republic is not a liberal debating society. We are conservative activists dedicated to defending our rights, defending our constitution, defending our republic and defending our traditional American way of life.

Our God-given liberty and freedoms are not negotiable.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1103363/posts

[Don W]

I thought that *equus* was latin for horse, being the root word of equine, the descriptor of all things horse-y.

[GourmetDan]

"Arguing metaphors."

Obviously. That was the point. Metaphor is useless, yet a foundation of evolutionary 'thought'.

"It's entirely possible to reach the moon, on foot at a time, if you start with the right methodology -- i.e., a large rocket. Indeed, given the right start, each succeeding foot becomes EASIER than the one before."

Of course it's possible to reach the moon. That has been scientifically-proven.

"So the obvious question is, at what precise point does "micro-evolution" become "macro-evolution," and are the recognized processes of evolution adequate to explain such changes?

I see that you have a firm grasp of the obvious.

"Seems to me they are, but that's the debate..."

Where was this scientifically-proven as was your 'rocket' at metaphor?

Or are you simply mis-using metaphor like the other poster and proving my statement above about metaphor (not science) being the foundation of evolutionary 'thought'?

[GodGunsGuts]

Actually, I have no problem with your puny non-arguments against God’s creation. But what I do have a problem with is you calling FR a nuthouse for allowing the Christian Right, one of the MAIN pillars of the Reagan Coalition, to have its voice heard on FR. As far as I’m concerned, YOU and your fellow jackbooted Evo-atheists are the reason why the Republican Party is losing. You don’t care a wit about what it takes to build and maintain the main pillars that hold up the conservative movement in this country. As far as I’m concerned the sooner we collectively say good riddance to you and your perfidious band of internal rotters the better.