Posted on 10/15/2005 3:44:16 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
A paleontologist testified in the Dover school board trial about how fossils connect species.
The ancestor of the whale and its first cousin the hippopotamus walked the Earth for 40 million years, munching on plants, before dying out in the ice ages.
Known as the anthracotheres, it became extinct 50 to 60 million years ago, but not before its evolutionary tree diverged — the whale forging into the oceans, the hippopotamus to the African swamps.
Kevin Padian, a University of California-Berkeley paleontologist, told the story of the whale’s journey, along with the travels of its closest living relative, in U.S. Middle District Court Friday to illustrate how the fossil record connects us to our past.
In the First Amendment lawsuit over Dover Area High School’s intelligent design policy, Padian was the plaintiffs’ final science expert to testify. The defense will begin to present its side Monday.
Padian’s testimony was essentially a response to intelligent-design proponents’ claims that paleontology does not account for missing links and the fossil record belies evolutionary theory.
“The problem is that there are no clear transitional fossils linking land mammals to whales,” the pro-intelligent-design textbook “Of Pandas and People” states.
“How many intermediates do you need to suggest relationships?” Padian wondered.
He pointed to numerous transitional fossils as he traced the lineage of the whale to its early ancestors, a group of cloven-hoofed mammals of a group named cetartiodactyla, illustrating the gradual changes of features along the way.
“We think the transitions are pretty good,” he said.
One of Padian’s concerns with intelligent design — the idea that life’s complexities demand an intelligent designer — is that it shuts down the search for answers, he said. “It worries me that students would be told that you can’t get from A to B with natural causes,” he said.
One of the complaints of 11 parents suing the school district is that, after Dover biology students are told about intelligent design, they are referred to “Pandas,” which is housed in the high school library.
While the connection between the whale and hippopotamus is recent, Padian said some of the fossils linking whales to land-dwelling mammals go back to the Civil War but were ignored by the authors of “Pandas.”
The curator of Berkeley’s Museum of Paleontology and author of the “Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs” also testified to the evolutionary link between dinosaurs and birds.
“Pandas” states, “Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agent, with their distinctive features already intact — fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc.”
But Padian, at times affectionately, showed numerous pictures and diagrams of different reptiles evolving from ones possessing scales to ones possessing feathers.
Of a fossil of an archaeopteryx found in the 1860s, Padian said, “Now this is a beautiful critter.”
He also criticized the book’s assertions on homology — the study of similar characteristics of living organisms used to explain their relationships to other organisms.
As he cross-examined Padian, Dover’s attorney Robert Muise brought up one of science’s most ardent evolutionists in raising questions about the fossil record.
Muise asked Padian about the late Stephen Jay Gould’s theory of punctuated equilibrium, the idea that rather than Darwin’s characterization of evolution as slow and gradual change, it may be better described as taking place in fits and starts.
Gould offered the idea as an explanation for the patterns found in the fossil record, which shows abrupt appearances of new species, followed by long stagnant periods with little change.
While “Pandas” argues that intelligent-design proponents consider punctuated equilibrium unprovable, Padian said Gould offered the theory as an explanation to gaps in the fossil record.
“Is natural selection responsible for punctuated equilibrium?” Muise asked at one point.
“That’s a great question,” Padian said. While it may raise questions about the mechanism of evolution, he answered, it doesn’t contradict the idea of common descent.
Seems we both have the same complaints, not necessarily against each other mind you, since I don't pretend to speak for science.
That said, my complaint against you in particular is your claim that common descent is off the table. If that is true, then common descent is irrefutable, and as such, you have an obligation to demonstrate that when asked, rather than defer to the tired "science never proves anything, dontchaknow."
It's that simple. Period. You can't have it both ways.
Good idea. Thanks.. I was going to watch the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy DVD today on the airplane out to White Sands, NM and Area 51, Roswell, etc, lol, but sleep seemed like a better option. There is even a listing for 42 in Wikipedia. Thanks for the google tip. Now I can say I am a REAL engineer. Is that book just for geeks or nerds or what? It seems pretty interesting to me.
No it isn't irrefutable. But it has survived 150 years without any evidence against it. Even Behe admits that.
My demonstration is simply that after a century of trying, evolution opponents are empty-handed, and biologists have developed dozens of line of supporting evidence.
Go figure...
After seven and a half million years of pondering the question, Deep Thought provides the answer: " forty-two".
"Forty-two!" yelled Loonquawl. "Is that all you've got to show for seven and a half million years' work?"
"I checked it very thoroughly," said the computer, "and that quite definitely is the answer. I think the problem, to be quite honest with you, is that you've never actually known what the question is."
Ahhh!!! It almost seems like a creationist problem, n'est pas?
My demonstration is simply that after a century of trying, evolution opponents are empty-handed, and biologists have developed dozens of line of supporting evidence.
You sound like a defense lawyer arguing for his client, and what good defense lawyer would quickly acknowledge, or entertain the existence of, dispositive evidence...or even search for it outright at any time.
Here's a thought. If science, in principle, can not prove anything...then what's the point really, and why the death grip by adherents of ToE. If I were a logical person, which I like to think I am, then I would have to assume that certain behavior is not the result of what science has to say, but rather, what religion has to say.
Think about that.
Base 13.
" I don't speak for science, or creationism, or religion, or anything else but Wolf."
If only that were so.
BTW, you're still a creationist.
Science does not prove anything. It has high confidence in theories. As for the "death grip," the same methodology that led to the high confidence in the theory of evolution also led to high confidence in hundreds of other theories that underlie modern science. When you attack the methodology that supports evolution, you're attacking all those other theories at the same time.
Oh please, this is nothing but nonsense. If you believe, however, that there is but one immutable method to all of science, let alone theories, then post it.
This should be interesting.
Additionally, is it then, your opinion, that theories are not subject to revision, adjustment, or modification.
Here's some advice regarding this matter....either remain silent, or just admit, in any dignified way you choose, that spoke before thinking.
You completely dropped the context of my statements which I carefully detailed. You guys specialize in dropping contexts because you cannot make your point if you maintain context. The original statement I was rebutting was:
Religion stopped Man from destroying itself.
And this is factually inaccurate. Period.
Segue.
I disagree, but perhaps this is so in your mind and with your logic set.
There isn't "my logic set" and "your logic set" - there is only one logic set. What there are, are differing premises. Yours, which don't stand scrutiny, and mine, which do.
My quote:
The fully rational mind is immune to evil.
To which you replied:
This is wrong, you might not see that or believe it, therefore how could I prove it to you?
You can't prove it "wrong" because any attempt to do so would require the very rationality that you say is wrong. All you can to is make the weak Assertion Without Proof.
The problem is you have a mystical definition of evil. That which is impossible to prove and is entirely dependent up faith, not rationality and not reality. You believe it because somebody told you so.
The critique you applied to me:
you might not see that or believe it, therefore how could I prove it to you?
Is a psychological projection that actually applies to you. You only see what you want, believe what you want, and, heaven forbid (a little humor there) letting the facts stand in the way.
Which begs the question, that if you have a rational definition of evil, then how can the rational mind, fully or otherwise, be immune to it.
Fly away and think about that for a while.
The problem you have with your statement re Ice core samples is that they are referenced as annual even on widely publicized PBS specials. And while you explain that they indicate long term changes, you don't indicate properly that you have no idea what they actually mean where matters of age are concerned. Short of knowing specifics about any given year's precipitation levels, Ice cores tell you nothing about age. Absolutely nothing. That is not, however, how they are dealt with in practice.
Another problem you have is all you specialists going on A&E, Nova, the History Channel et al specials and running your mouths about how you deal with this stuff. Then when someone listens and criticizes, it's Oh no, we never said 'that' - you must have misunderstood... lol. Yep, annual till called on it, then it's just cycles. Tell me, genius, how do you get hundreds of thousands of years of "cycles" from data you have no yearly specifics for. You do not and cannot - correct. Thank you for playing.
Apparently, you haven't caught up.
Well, what I said doesn't Beg any such Question, but . . .
Because it can recognize a willful evasion of reality within itself.
There are so many things I can say to you; but, at this point after returning to this flood of your inane lies, halftruths, and dishonest tactics, What can I say that you haven't proven already to be true of yourself. I mean any twit with eyes can read this thread and see precisely where you are lying. They can also see that you ref'd a hit piece without knowing thing one about whether it was true or not because the information you were asking me for was cited indirectly within your own hitpiece. I mean, how much more blatant does it need to be?
The cite you wanted - referred backhandedly to in your hitpiece is to Kent Hovind's Seminar #1. It isn't even copywritten so you can get it for free off the web or p2p with no problem. It's even posted for free on Hovind's website. That's how tough a job it would have been for you to bother to check accuracy of your own hitpiece before dumping it on us.. lol. And as if that were some big obstacle, you can buy the videos from him, copy them and return them - something he actually recommends doing. Since you were too busy to bother with it before, the time reference within the tape is at about the 90 minute mark. He not only provides what his source stated; but, gives a picture of him and the guy's PHONE NUMBER in the video begging for the ref check.
Guess Hovind was so worried about being found out, he went to great lengths to hide from it - must be why you need to character assassinate him; but, that's here or there. Apparently he's so effective at what he does that you have to find some way around him. Lord knows guys from your side of the isle have seemed afraid to debate the man. When he can take on the likes of Rainbow and win, I understand why. For those interested, the Hovind vs. Rainbow debate is 3 hours and well worth the watch if for nothing other than to hear Rainbow speak. How's that for bias.
See, in the world here where we're not much afraid of the facts, we don't need to character assassinate our opponenets in attempt to undermine what they say. We can deal squarely with what they say. Course, when the truth is on one's side, that's pretty easy. ;)
Let me quote Bertrand Russell who typified the thought of the day.
Religion in any shape or form, is regarded as pernicious and deliberate falsehood, spread and encouraged by rulers and clerics in their own interests, since it is easier to control over the ignorant.
Then to quote Marx:
Law, morality, religion, are to him so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests.
There are other comments out there. You'll believe what you want to believe.
On the contrary, the masses at that time and before embraced their religion wholeheartedly.
Which religion? What religion? A major portion of the world's religions are actually atheist. Buddhism is at heart atheist. The Dali Lama is Buddhist. So what are you talking about?
Bandwagon Fallacy. As an old, old commercial used to claim (which will tell some of you how old I am) "Forty Million Frenchmen can't be wrong." [This was back when French men were supposed to be great heterosexual lovers as opposed to poofs]
Social institutions as persistent as religion don't do so unless there is a very strong and widespread social force.
Oh really? Then why is marriage dying away? Why are inner cities experiencing riots at the slightest cause? What social institutions don't exist except through force, indimidation or, in the one exception of the Constitution of the United States, the social contract? Hmmmmm?
An addiction is much harder to overturn than an oppression.
Opinion stated as fact. Addiction is easy, you only have to deal with yourself. Oppression means you have to kill the other guys. Ever been in a room full of Hell's Angels? Ever hear of Iraq?
What is "oppression" anyway? You pay your income taxes? Why? Because you want to, or because they will come throw you in jail if you don't. Be honest now. Evil is evading the truth about reality and acting upon that evasion.
Does it take an evo nutcase to lie about ice cores and "annual rings" in ice. Scientific American Feb 1998, page 82. Thank your pal for the Hovind video because it provides that right along with the Glacier girl discussion. Perhaps you can all check that out in your public library and tell us we'er all just nuts when it comes to how science does use terms and then wants to argue they don't when criticized and put on the spot for it. Annual rings in Scientific American. Do tell. Next.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.