Evolution debate: State board should reject pseudoscience

Columbus Dispatch ^ | February 17, 2002 | Editorial

[PatrickHenry]

Neither does ad hominem, but that never stops you from trying, which is counter to the please line above each post reply window.

Andrew, if this is what you're talking about, I can assure you that you've never seen me when I'm making a serious ad hominem attack:

My post #450 to VadeRetro:
AndrewC has the natural abilities that would make him an excellent proof-reader. But fly-specking, although a necessary task, isn't the same thing as making a substantive review, and it certainly doesn't constitute a rebuttal.

I was most definitely criticizing your analytical technique here, which is sometimes good, but too often mere fly-specking; however I've said nothing negative about your character, your veracity, your sincerity, or your intelligence. Not ever.

[VadeRetro]

Unknown elements have not been reconstructed.

Good point.

I'm surprised nobody pounced on my mistaking the dorsal skull surface for the ventral in post 457. I noticed it right after I posted it, then went out to eat expecting to have to do a lot more crow-eating when I got back.

Paki had a small bump on the top of the head called a nuchal crest. It's clearly labelled in the Thewissen picture, but it's in the area missing in the UCMP replica. (Gee, you'd think those fakers would have gone ahead and filled it in.)

[AndrewC]

Reconstructions are based on fossils from H-GSP Locality 62 in the Eocene of Pakistan. Unknown elements have not been reconstructed.

These are the bones

These are the reconstructions from those bones

Those from Pakicetidae

[AndrewC]

These are the reconstructions from those bones

Whoops!! I erred. It is a line drawing, the reconstruction is another picture.

[VadeRetro]

Reconstructions are based on fossils from H-GSP Locality 62 in the Eocene of Pakistan. Unknown elements have not been reconstructed.

Pakicetus is a multi-fossil species. Locality 62 would seem to be a multi-Pakicetus-fossil locality.

Unknown elements have not been reconstructed.

[AndrewC]

I've said nothing negative about your character, your veracity, your sincerity, or your intelligence. Not ever.

Absolutely true, and I appreciate that and laud you for your approach, however an ad hominem as far as an argument is concerned is not necessarily negative.

Example of Ad Hominem

1. Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
   Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
   Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
   Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

[AndrewC]

Pakicetus is a multi-fossil species.

Composite?

[scripter]

The problem is, it is the Bible that is claiming that God said it is His book. There is no evidence outside the Bible that the Bible is the Word of God. Do you understand the circular reasoning implicit in this?

You both have a point. Junior has a point in the circular reasoning argument. Biblewonk has a point in that the Bible isn't just one book. It's a collection of 66 "books" written over (I think) a 1500 year span.

[Nebullis]

The skull is a composite. Four skulls plus 150 post-cranial bones were found.

[Nebullis]

Composite?

Ah. Yes.

[VadeRetro]

Composite?

The line drawing includes all features indentified from site 62, yes. The photo is of a single spectacular fossil (evidently, it's uncommon to get much preserved back of the head in Pakicetus).

Note the difference between mosaic-ing a specimen (definitely bad paleontology) and showing in a drawing what features are represented in one fossil or another and what is unattested.

[AndrewC]

The skull is a composite. Four skulls plus 150 post-cranial bones were found.

Thank you. That does not make it a bad thing, but it does clarify what we are looking at. (I assume we are now talking of the bones and not the skull replica original).

[VadeRetro]

mosaic-ing a specimen

I'd better clarify. Mixing parts from different individuals is bad. Trying to fit together the parts from one individual is the point of the game.

[Nebullis]

The cast, the replica, looks like the line drawing. I'm guessing that the replica is of a composite.

[VadeRetro]

The cast, the replica, looks like the line drawing.

It's the same species.

I'm guessing that the replica is of a composite.

I'd be surprised and disappointed if there's more than one fossil find represented in the original.

[VadeRetro]

I'm guessing that the replica is of a composite.

Again, they might as well have thrown in the area of the nuchal crest, unless those parts weren't known at the time.

[Nebullis]

The museum piece is labeled as a composite.

[Nebullis]

I don't know. If you use A to reconstruct B, you can use B to reconstruct A. I think the final interpretation is a reconstruction regardless. I don't have a problem with mosaics of individuals found in the same dig.

[Nebullis]

I think the final interpretation is a reconstruction regardless.

That is, the final reconstruction of a single individual is an interpretational composite, regardless.

[PatrickHenry]

Trying to fit together the parts from one individual is the point of the game.

[Plato the Platypus is good at that game.]