Scientists find missing link between whale and its closest relative, the hippo

UC Berkeley News ^ | 24 January 2005 | Robert Sanders, Media Relations

[shubi]

"Good. We're rejecting the direct Darwinian path. "

Pretty much demonstrates YOUR bias. LOL

[spitlana]

I never argue with true believers. Just sittin quietly back--bemused that there are folk that actually believe fish can grow arms! But that's cool dude--there's lots of religions out there that believe all sorts of oddities.

(The only difference is that Evolution uses public funding and a captive audience to be promoted--other religions are pretty much on their own to promote what they believe).

[MHalblaub]

I still can't think of even one example that would fit IC.

Taking parts away and saying the function is gone is nonsense.

Example: car

Function: take me from here to there.

Yes, the aimed purpose of a car is gone if you take the motor out. But it will still able rolling down a hill (soapbox). So there is still a function. But not your aimed. Take the tyres away and you'll have something you can make heat. IC?

The function is introduced by an observer. The theory of evolution works with no aim. So even parts with no use are in the game.

For IC you take a function as a basis. But the function or aim is introduced by an observer.

How can we be sure about the function or aim of a flagellum? We just observe the results.

[shubi]

Uh, right, no evidence against evolution in your arsenal either?

No matter how much you attack evolution for being as void of data as creationism, until you actually come up with data for your position, you have NOTHING.

There are mountains of data supporting evolution. One of the pieces of data evolution doesn't consider is creation of original life. It's not in the Theory.

[shubi]

"bemused that there are folk that actually believe fish can grow arms!"

Bemused that anyone would be so ignorant of what science actually says...

When you explain evolution to your kids or other people in your church, do you lie to them like the above?

[stremba]

In common parlance, entropy has been associated with disorder, but that's not really the definition of entropy. The change of entropy in going from state A to state B is defined to be the heat absorbed by the system in a reversible process connecting the two states divided by the temperature at which the heat is absorbed. An increase in entropy is accompanied by an absorption of heat, a decrease is accompanied by a release of heat. Consider the sun and the surrounding space. The sun continually releases a large amount of heat, call it q, into the surrounding space. The sun's entropy decreases as a result by an amount equal to Q/6000K, since the surface temperature of the sun is 6000K. The surrounding space, at the same time, increases in entropy by an amount Q/3K. Therefore the overall entropy change as a result of this heat release is Q/3-Q/6000, which after some algebra is equal to 1999q/6000. Since Q is very large, this is an enormous increase in entropy. A similar analysis shows that the earth's absorption of solar energy from the surrounding space is accompanied by an entropy decrease equal to 93q/282, where q is the amount of heat that the earth absorbs from the surrounding space, a value typically much smaller than Q, the heat output of the sun. (I have assumed an average temperature for earth of ~50 F) Even in a worst case scenario, which would be assuming that the earth absorbs all the energy output of the sun (ie. Q=q), the overall process would result in an entropy increase of ~0.003Q, which would be a very large increase since Q is very large. In reality, the entropy increase is 1999Q/6000 - 320q/969, which is larger than the case where Q=q, since q is usually several orders of magnitude smaller than Q.

The practical upshot is that the absorption of solar radiation is a process that increases the entropy of the solar system to such a degree that it can be used to drive processes that would result in a decrease in entropy, such as evolution. That's why shubi is correct in saying that the sun makes entropy irrelevant on earth. To a good approximation, the solar system is an isolated system. Therefore, the total entropy of the solar system must increase, but the second law makes no requirement that all parts of the solar system must increase in entropy.

[b_sharp]

Very well done. It was very readable, succinct and easy enough for a layman to understand.

It is important to mention that with the change in function, which is a basic property of evolution, information, as defined by IDists, does not necessarily need to be increased, the 'message' simply has to change.

Their insistence of an increase in information really has no impact on micro-evolution, which is simply macro-evolution that does not result in speciation. There are no limitations that restrict micro-evolution from resulting in macro-evolution. By the way, the way IDists use the term micro-evolution is not the way it is used by evolution proponents and is simply a red herring.

At this point it is impossible to separate IC, Design Inference, and IDist Information Theory.

[b_sharp]

Another excellent explanation. It is refreshing to see so many science geeks on the side of rationality here.

[b_sharp]

"Yes, the aimed purpose of a car is gone if you take the motor out. But it will still able rolling down a hill (soapbox). So there is still a function. But not your aimed. Take the tyres away and you'll have something you can make heat. IC?"

There is also no need for the functions in biological organisms to be restricted to the specific function found in the putative IC organism.

At one time Behe proposed that the eye was an example of IC until it was shown that it could very easily have evolved. He has now chosen flagellum because he believes it will be too difficult for 'evolutionists' to show possible paths for evolution. He is wrong of course.

http://www.newswise.com/p/articles/view/503362/ http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html

[b_sharp]

"I never argue with true believers. Just sittin quietly back--bemused that there are folk that actually believe fish can grow arms! But that's cool dude--there's lots of religions out there that believe all sorts of oddities."

What evidence do you have that evolution is a religion, other than your faith that it is?

[King Prout]

A survey found that 45% of the US population believes that a bullet fired from a curved barrel will continue to curve after leaving the barrel.

you are kidding, I hope

[b_sharp]

I'd be interested in where you get your dates for TTSS.
Dates on soft parts that don't fossilize are difficult to establish or verify.

Another TTSS paper.
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

[b_sharp]

"A survey found that 45% of the US population believes that a bullet fired from a curved barrel will continue to curve after leaving the barrel. "

"you are kidding, I hope"

Ask your average person what would fall faster, a 10lb weight or a 2lb weight. Then ask them which would hit the ground first between a dropped bullet and a bullet fired horizontally.

Now, what do you think the answer to your question might be?

[King Prout]

well, that 10lb-2lb question is a trick question.
insufficient data.
assuming air resistance is not a factor, the 10"lb" weight would hit the ground sooner than the 2"lb" weight by an immeasurably infinitessimal amount of time, as the gravity constant is actually a sum of those of the masses in question (earth's and that of the object)

but, yes, I see your point.
sickening.

[Tribune7]

Function: take me from here to there. Yes, the aimed purpose of a car is gone if you take the motor out. But it will still able rolling down a hill (soapbox). So there is still a function.

Unless "there" is the top of the hill.

Take the tyres away and you'll have something you can make heat.

You're not going to start arguing that wheel could have evolved and been put to use by random mutation?

The function is introduced by an observer. The theory of evolution works with no aim.

I'll concede that the theory of evolution -- unlike ID -- is not an empirical science.

How can we be sure about the function or aim of a flagellum? We just observe the results.

[WildTurkey]

assuming air resistance is not a factor, the 10"lb" weight would hit the ground sooner than the 2"lb" weight by an immeasurably infinitessimal amount of time, as the gravity constant is actually a sum of those of the masses in question (earth's and that of the object)

Then, five, two-pound weights tied together would fall faster than one two-pound weight .... hmmmm

[King Prout]

very, very slightly.
not enough to measure by any method available to science at this time.

it is, like the chemistry error you corrected for me, a matter of convenient shorthand: the Earth's mass (and, thus, gravity, is so disproportionately huge that the difference between the gravitic acceleration of a 1kg mass vs. a 5kg mass is so small it cannot be measured directly.

[WildTurkey]

very, very slightly. not enough to measure by any method available to science at this time.

Actually, it depends on the order. If you drop them at the same time, true. If you pick up the 10# and drop it and then pick up the 2# and drop it, they will fall in the same time.

[King Prout]

ok, you lost me.

[MHalblaub]

I'll concede that the theory of evolution -- unlike ID -- is not an empirical science.

First: LOL!

Second: IC is an axiom.

Third: Please show me one Intelligent Designer at work. If you can't detect a hypothesis then you won't have empirical science. ID speculates that there have to be some kind of ID at work. IC is speculating about the aim of something.

I want one explicit observation of ID, nothing more. Implicit is speculation and therefore not empirical science.