Tracing the whale’s trail [Evolution trial, daily thread for 15 Oct]

York Daily Record [Penna] ^ | 15 October 2005 | LAURI LEBO

[phantomworker]

It seems that the concept of an absolute reference point for motion is as odd as the concept of an absolute reference point for ethics.

A little mind blowing, but I'll buy that. The lack of absolute reference point for motion and space does have some basis in engineering design so it is not that odd. The concept of a lack of absolute reference point for ethics....That makes a lot of sense. That is why it is so debatable.

Conceptualization is a product of human intelligence. One of the features of conceptualization is the communication about the reality of things. The goal is to come to a true conceptualization of other things. Some conceptualization is self-referential. Some is not. But in both cases, it is still a product of human intelligence. So, the fact that we produce concept does not negate the possibility of it being true or false.

This is where perception comes in. The perception of reality does not negate the possibility of it being true or false. Thanks, Cornelis. My mind has been expanded enough so early in the morning. Time to get back to reading about some concrete generalized least squares models and multivariate analysis theory for my dissertation. Do you know anything on that topic btw? Or maybe I'll just go out shopping. LOL

[cornelis]

I'm glad you found that helpful, but I'm afraid I'll strike out if I try for another home run.

[Junior]

Welcome aboard.

[Junior]

Yesterday's talk on these threads was interesting to me because of a claim that went like this: if my arguments or statements or concepts of evolution appear to be in any way fallacious, that is not the fault of the process of evolution, that's simply the fault of our language. There's something fishy about that.

Is it any different than a literalist claiming that, should one find discrepancies or contradictions in Scripture it is simply because one has read it wrong?

[Thombo2]

Good article.IMO,"Creationists"will never be satisfied with the fossil evidence.Ex,Have u ever seen manatees in the wild?It doesn't take a lot of imagination to see how modern day manatees are related to hippos.Difference is M's evolved to live in the water,hippo's are comfortable on land,but prefer water.Evolution is NOT a big deal if you accept the fact that animals(humans too)adapt in order to survive/reproduce,the process is on-going,and takes millions of years,not 7 days and 7 nights,or the snap of some "higher powers" fingers.Asbestos suit is on:)

[curiosity]

The believers in ID do not categorize their beliefs that way (God designed the mechanism). They argue Simultaneous Creation, that each species was created completely intact by an intelligent designer.

That's not true. The highest profile IDer, Michael Behe, beleives in common descent. Denton and Dembski do as well.

There are a few ID advocates who believe what you say, like Phillip Johnson, but they are in a minority.

[curiosity]

Who created God?

No one. He is the eternal first cause, by definition.

[WildTurkey]

Who created God?

No one. He is the eternal first cause, by definition.

As defined by some men. hmmm.

[2ndreconmarine]

I, for one, have never had a problem with evolution AND intelligent design being one process.

Part of the problem is the definition for "Intelligent Design."

The pro-ID folks on these threads have given us about a half dozen definitions, all significantly different. Which one is the correct one???

To our credit, the pro-evolution posters have presented only a single definition of evolution, or the big bang, etc.

[AndrewC]

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.

Yeah, so good that Thewissen the discoverer of the anklebone that supposedly ties the Pakicetus to the artiodactyls doesn't accept the molecular evidence showing the close relationship between the hippo and the whale. Except for the anklebone the whales would still not be considered as close a relative to the hippo as the molecular evidence shows. It would be a mesonychid.

Whale Origins

Until the early years of the 21st century, most paleontologists thought that cetaceans were most closely related to mesonychians (The Mesonychian Hypothesis). Mesonychians are an extinct (Paleocene-Oligocene) group of hoofed mammals from the Northern Hemisphere. They varied in size from that of a weasel to a grizzly bear, and may have eaten carrion or meat. Unlike paleontologists, most scientists studying DNA were of a different opinion. They considered hippopotamids as the closest relatives to cetaceans (The Hippopotamid Hypothesis). Hippopotamids (including the recent Hippo and the Pygmy Hippo) are included in a group of mammals called even-toed ungulates or artiodactyls. Other artiodactyls are: pigs, peccaries, camels, llamas, giraffes, deer, goats, sheep, cattle, and antelopes.

Skeleton of a mesonychian.

In 2001, two important skeletons of pakicetids, found by the Thewissen-lab, were described (see Pakicetidae for images). These skeletons helped to change our opinions on what the closest land relatives of cetaceans were. Data gathered from the new pakicetid skeletons show that mesonychians are not the closest relatives of cetaceans (sister groups in scientific lingo). However, these new data also disagree, less strongly, with the sister group relation between hippos and cetaceans championed by the molecular scientists. Instead, the new data are most consistent with close relationships between whales and all of artiodactyls, the Artiodactyl Hypothesis. To understand the differences between these hypotheses, let's compare the relations of these groups of animals to those of a number of female members of a human family. Let's say that we are trying to describe the relation of Celia to her relatives Heidi, Arlene, and Megan, and we know that all are from the same generation.

[AndrewC]

I saw that the general was put into "time-out". What happened? I hope it is not a permanent situation.

[Junior]

Naw. He took a sabbatical of his own free will. We're hoping he'll eventually return and his name can be removed from the wall of the fallen.

[curiosity]

Here's a quote from Behe about common descent:

I want to be explicit about what I am, and am not, questioning. The word "evolution" carries many associations. Usually it means common descent -- the idea that all organisms living and dead are related by common ancestry. I have no quarrel with the idea of common descent, and continue to think it explains similarities among species.

http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_dm11496.htm

[AndrewC]

Well, here's hoping his absence is not prolonged.

[Junior]

Amen, brother!

[RightWingAtheist]

Manatees are actually more closely related to elephants, while hippopotamuses (hippopotami?) are more closely related to whales.

[2ndreconmarine]

Agree. And even if the two are not 'one process', it is conceivable that The Hand of God (ID) has some influence over evolution and what evolves over time. Does evolution necessarily have to be random?

There is a subtle issue of logic here, and it probably contributes to much of the controversy (and, IMHO, the support of ID).

A key element of science is that it is silent on anything it cannot prove. That does not mean it is negative, because a negative assertion is still an assertion.

When we consider the random nature of evolution we must be careful about definitions. The mutation process is random; the natural selection process clearly isn't. However, some of questioned whether the mutation process itself is random. Again, we have to be carefull about definitions. We can directly observe that at least part of the mutation process random. That can be observed from radiation effects or established from quantum mechanics. The proper question is then, is the random process the only process that drives the mutations?? This is difficult to answer in the affirmative because it requires a completeness argument. And the completeness argument is the most difficult to prove in science.

In some instances we can prove completeness because we can observe species change on the order of years or decades, and the mutation rate can be measured. Since the random mutation process is a Markov process, it obeys the Diffusion equation (yes, just like for heat), and we can then calculate the anticipated evolution rate, which does indeed match the observed evolution rate.

However, in the most general sense completeness cannot be proven and the pro-ID croud has used this to assert ID. However, that is not logical. When something cannot be proven, that does not mean that its converse is necessarily true. Now, what are the real issues??

Is ID necessarily false or disproven by science??? Answer is no. We cannot absolutely disprove ID.

Is their any scientific proof that ID is true? Again, there is no evidence (i.e. evidence that meets the scientific standard) that it is true.

Therefore, science is really silent about ID. ID is not necessarily wrong, it is simply not science.

The controversy is that some ID proponents assert that ID is correct. Their proof, however, is insufficient. Moreover, their belief that since the random aspect of the mutation process cannot be proven as complete, it means that ID must be correct. The correct answer is that science is silent; there is no positive assertion that can be inferred.

The other problem is when ID proponents advocate teaching ID in schools. That requires a positive assertion that ID is correct. Those of us opposed note that when science is silent on something, it is, well, silent. That does not mean you can teach it.

[WildTurkey]

Behe: "Indeed, until I completed my doctoral studies in biochemistry, I believed that Darwin's mechanism -- random mutation paired with natural selection -- was the correct explanation for the diversity of life. Yet I now find that theory incomplete."

Not wrong, just incomplete. Of course. This is how it is in science. Just like the theory of gravitation. Newton was not wrong, just incomplete.

[nightdriver]

It might be interesting to see what Setephen Jay Gould says about evolution today.

It's too bad that he hadn't evolved into a cancer-resisting organism.

[Antonello]

Yes, those T.V. people have so much power don't they? We had better fall into lockstep w/ the scientists, and the ACLU lawyers that are attacking this school district, why at no charge!, and lo and behold, Republicans will get elected by the Bushel!!

No, you don't have to fall into lockstep with anyone. Just quit being wrong and associating your wrongness with conservatism. Go be wrong independently; you're making the rest of us look bad.