Oddities Living in the Deep Blue Sea

_{Donald McLaughlin

November 23, 2009

Biology, Intelligent Design, Media, Science, The Design of Life}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

We all know that our planet is awash with wonderful and beautiful life forms, none more so than we find in our oceans. This photo essay from the Fox News Website provides a glimpse into the strange world of creatures that inhabit the deepest parts of the seas. Truly remarkable.

Here is but one example — the blind lobster:

Blind Lobster

Comments

Zachriel:
But biologists *do* classify lions and tigers as separate species, so you are apparently confused on how the term is used by the biological community. THAT is the whole point! The distinction is arbitrary!!!
If we look at organisms, they do tend to group into breeding populations that maintain their distinctive characteristics.
Another argument against Common Descent. Thanks Zach!!
Joseph_{November 25, 2009
November
11
Nov
25
25
2009
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT}

Jerry:
And in doing so I was illustrating the absurdity of the debate with absurdities.
Whether you were serious or just funnin' them poor dumb critics for effect, you were attributing to biologists a single definition for what makes a species (reproductive isolation) which they demonstrably don't hold. Misrepresentations like that don't make your case any stronger.
Have a nice Thanksgiving if you are in the US.
Let me see if I got this right. You call me clueless, sarcastic, brainless, courageless, and heartless. But you wish me a Happy Thanksgiving, as if a throwaway pleasantry absolves you of your previous incivility? What can I say but Happy Thanksgiving and make enough stuffing to fill two turkeys.hummus man_{November 25, 2009
November
11
Nov
25
25
2009
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT}

jerry: I suggest that anyone quibbling with my comments about what a species is go to the biological community and change their definition of species because you have special insight.
But biologists *do* classify lions and tigers as separate species, so you are apparently confused on how the term is used by the biological community. You are correct that reproductive isolation is an important aspect of speciation. But isolation can be partial and can grade between varieties. And even what were thought to be isolated populations can hybridize sometimes (e.g. brown bears and polar bears). But it's not a smooth continuum. If we look at organisms, they do tend to group into breeding populations that maintain their distinctive characteristics. You might take a look at John Wilkins' book, Species: A History of the Idea. He discusses many of the various related concepts.Zachriel_{November 25, 2009
November
11
Nov
25
25
2009
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT}

hummus man, Just a little bit of a clue for the clueless. I was responding to another commenter who seemed not to understand the debate. And in doing so I was illustrating the absurdity of the debate with absurdities. The whole debate is about the origin of species and it is clear that this term has no good meaning. We as well as the rest of the biology community have discussed this several times. To see a more recent discussion go to ITunes university and download the Stanford Darwin series lecture by the Grants on the Galapagos finches. Charles Darwin wrote his book about this absurd term which has no real meaning. By using tigers and lions, my favorite absurdity, I was illustrating to the commenter some issues. Then you butt in with your sarcastic put down like it was new and us country bumpkins have to be straightened out. And then you continue on to defend your irrelevant examples which we all know about. We can read Wikipedia too and know how they are supposedly classified. Way to go with your insight. We can now go home. "Scientists consider horses (Equus caballus) and donkeys (Equus asinus) different species, too." My God, the ID movement can now shut down because we have finally been shown the light. We know everything you have said so you are only repeating the obvious. And in truth it is all irrelevant to the debate. So getting irrelevancies from critics here is nothing new for us. It is what one does when they have nothing of substance to contribute. So continue with your ass-inine examples and by mutation and natural selection we mayl finally see something interesting some day. It is as rare from the anti ID crowd as the generation of a gene de novo. What is missing from those who come here and criticize is brains, courage and heart. In the Wizard of Oz, the scarecrow, Tin Man and lion were missing just one each but the critics here seem to missing all three. And I am cleaning and helping with food preparation for Thanksgiving so I am standing except to write this but I will manage. Thank you for my concern. So thanks for advice. It is as good as any we have received here recently from those who criticize us. It is the level we come to expect. Have a nice Thanksgiving if you are in the US.jerry_{November 25, 2009
November
11
Nov
25
25
2009
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT}

Scientists consider horses (Equus caballus) and donkeys (Equus asinus) different species, too.
Yeah, well, that's just a bunch of ***inine horse****.Mung_{November 25, 2009
November
11
Nov
25
25
2009
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT}

One other thing, Jerry. Are you sitting down? Scientists consider horses (Equus caballus) and donkeys (Equus asinus) different species, too.hummus man_{November 25, 2009
November
11
Nov
25
25
2009
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT}

Jerry:
And then the person uses the comment “oh my” like it is my comment that is flawed when it is his understanding that is problematic.
Umm, Jerry, it was a reference to the Wizard of Oz. "Lion and tigers and bears, oh my!" Remember now? It was intended as light humor. Sorry about that.
I suggest that anyone quibbling with my comments about what a species is go to the biological community and change their definition of species because you have special insight. They would laugh you out of the room.
It was the scientific community that classified tigers (Panthera tigris) and lions (Panthera leo) as different species. The same community that classified cattle (Bos primigenius) and bison(Bison bison) as different genus and species. So, it is you, not me, that has some 'splaining to do! (BTW, that is an "I Love Lucy" reference.)hummus man_{November 25, 2009
November
11
Nov
25
25
2009
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT}

""there is no most accepted definition of what comprises a species. So, why do you suppose the scientific establishment disagrees with you on lions and tigers and bison, oh my" Now here is a comment by someone who is quickly demonstrating that he should not be paid attention to. Instead of saying, yes the accepted definition of species (and by the way I can show you discussions about just what a species is and that in the past I have brought up this specious definition of species as having difficulties) has problems and then moving on, he tries to defend his lame comment. So you already disqualified yourself as a serious commentator and just one who wants to quibble over minutiae. And then the person uses the comment "oh my" like it is my comment that is flawed when it is his understanding that is problematic. It is just another indication of attitude of someone who has nothing to say except to take some shots at someone. And then someone tries to defend him with the obvious example that is well known to everyone of A mating with B and B with C and A can not mate with C. How pathetic is that. I suggest that anyone quibbling with my comments about what a species is go to the biological community and change their definition of species because you have special insight. They would laugh you out of the room. Everybody knows the problems with the definition but they must have something or else what would that book, Origin of Species be but specious. It is specious anyway even if species were in fact completely separate entities. The problem is that all of evolutionary biology is specious.jerry_{November 25, 2009
November
11
Nov
25
25
2009
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT}

Zachriel:
The borders of a species can be fuzzy and chaotic, and many species hybridize, especially in plants. The gray zone between species is considered important evidence in support of the Theory of Evolution, and has been since Darwin.
It is because those borders are fuzzy and chaotic that we do not expect to see a nested hierarchy constructed via descent with modififcation/ Common Descent. That is because nested hierarchies require distinct categories that transitional forms would violate. As for lions and tigers- try telling them apart given only their bones or fossils. Good luck with that...Joseph_{November 25, 2009
November
11
Nov
25
25
2009
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT}

jerry: Look up Ligers and tiglons. They can interbreed so they are the same species.
Lions and tigers are both members of the genus Panthera. There is virtually no gene flow between wild populations; and hybrids, if they occur, are very unlikely to mate and continue the line. Compare to humans, who readily mate wherever and whenever given the opportunity, and where there is a great deal of mixing between subpopulations throughout their geographic range. Even if we were to adopt such a stringent definition, it doesn't remove ambiguities. Variety A may mate with Variety B, which may mate with Variety C, but A may be unable or unwilling to mate with Variety C. Generally, a species is a breeding population that maintains a set of distinctive characteristics. There are a number of operational definitions that are used, depending on the field of study. This can lead to some ambiguities, of course. The borders of a species can be fuzzy and chaotic, and many species hybridize, especially in plants. The gray zone between species is considered important evidence in support of the Theory of Evolution, and has been since Darwin. Species is a difficult concept, but lions and tigers are clearly separate species, so your understanding is in error.Zachriel_{November 25, 2009
November
11
Nov
25
25
2009
05:24 AM
5
05
24
AM
PDT}

Jerry, there is no most accepted definition of what comprises a species. So, why do you suppose the scientific establishment disagrees with you on lions and tigers and bison, oh my.hummus man_{November 25, 2009
November
11
Nov
25
25
2009
02:40 AM
2
02
40
AM
PDT}

Does this critter have eyes and just can't see, or no eyes? I ask because I wonder how eyes stand up at those depths.Mung_{November 24, 2009
November
11
Nov
24
24
2009
10:13 PM
10
10
13
PM
PDT}

Jerry, you forgot Thylacine and wolves in your list (cf. Dr. Hunter).osteonectin_{November 24, 2009
November
11
Nov
24
24
2009
07:21 PM
7
07
21
PM
PDT}

hummus man, I am sorry but they are the same species. We have been down this road before more than once. Look up Ligers and tiglons. They can interbreed so they are the same species. Look up beefalo and cows and bison can inter breed. Next look up what a species is. It is all very confusing I admit but the most accepted definition of a species is inter breeding and that has lots of problems. So after 10 years of study I have found out a lot of things.jerry_{November 24, 2009
November
11
Nov
24
24
2009
06:33 PM
6
06
33
PM
PDT}

Jerry:
A tiger and a lion are the same species
No, they are not. The tiger is Panthera tigris and the lion is Panthera leo. Same genus, different species.
A cow and a bison are the same species.
Domestic cattle are Bos primigenius and bison are Bison bison. Same family, different genus, different species. I'd think after 10 years of study, you would know that.hummus man_{November 24, 2009
November
11
Nov
24
24
2009
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT}

"I really don’t understand this distinction between micro and macro evolution." Think no eye and then think eye and all the machinery that is necessary to make it happen. Think no flight and then think flying. What is necessary for this to happen. It is not just small changes as seen in micro evolution. As an analogy. Think a sentence and then think a paragraph or a page or a chapter. A lot has to be changed. None of it has ever been observed through naturalistic processes. It happens all the time through intelligent processes. "You admit species change over time. We see it happening over the course of decades (I think) with Galapagos finches (I think – not a scientist)." All the Galapagos finches are essentially one species that can inter breed. Don't be fooled by physical appearances and look at the range of human differences over the planet. A tiger and a lion are the same species. A wolf and a dog are the same species. A cow and a bison are the same species. It takes over 20 million years to form a new finch species. And this is only for small changes. "As I understand it, it is relatively uncontroversial that new species have evolved since Darwin’s time." You may be uninformed on the topic if you think that is true. Like what and whatever changes that have happened they are very small. How many changes do you think has happened? No one ever presented that here. Remember it takes over 20 million years for a new finch species. "This over a few tens or hundreds of years. Multiply that by several billion years! To me it seems completely unsurprising that we end up with the diversity we see now and in the fossil record. I admit that’s from a layman’s point of view though." The Cambrian was 520 million years ago and it popped out of no where. So it is not as long as you believe compared to what it takes for even small species changes to happen naturally. Remember it takes so long even for the smallest changes. Assume we know what we are talking about. We are occasionally wrong and we learn here but no one has made the case for naturalistic macro evolution ever here or any other place. If it was made convincingly any place the hoards of anti ID people here would be repeating it non stop. I personally have been studying this for over 10 years and have read a ton of stuff. We occasionally get some new stuff here but it is rare and they hate our guts and want to show us so desperately. But they have nothing. What does that tell you.jerry_{November 24, 2009
November
11
Nov
24
24
2009
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT}

fg:
Or, it shows a pattern of overall stability punctuated with sudden bursts of rapid evolution.
Is the "sudden burst of rapid evolution" an inference from teh data? It shows a pattern of overall stability punctuated by a lack of evidence for any evolution going on whatsoever which we call "a sudden burst of rapid evolution."Mung_{November 24, 2009
November
11
Nov
24
24
2009
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT}

No surprise though- cause if Dawkins could have really proven DE he would have done it in one book a long time ago before he started making big money with all these pointless sequels.
He actually admits in this latest book that in none of his earlier books did he explicitkly set forth the case for evolution, and that it is his intent to do so in this book.Mung_{November 24, 2009
November
11
Nov
24
24
2009
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT}

Jerry, I really don't understand this distinction between micro and macro evolution. You admit species change over time. We see it happening over the course of decades (I think) with Galapagos finches (I think - not a scientist). As I understand it, it is relatively uncontroversial that new species have evolved since Darwin's time. This over a few tens or hundreds of years. Multiply that by several billion years! To me it seems completely unsurprising that we end up with the diversity we see now and in the fossil record. I admit that's from a layman's point of view though.zeroseven_{November 24, 2009
November
11
Nov
24
24
2009
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT}

Yeah my point is that Darwin's theory is BS. No way can natural selection and random change- even coupled with chance and natural laws- give you what we see in the world. It is totally improbable and even with the aid of scientists and well funded laboratories we cannot even design or "reproduce intelligently" what evolution supposedly did "unintelligently" and unguided according to Darwin,. Any you can talk all about punctuated equilibrium and all of that nonsense- but it is "not an explanation" at all but just a term which tries to "soften" the obvious and almost unanimous fossil record of stasis- going back through the dinosaurs. SO my point is NOT that evolution does not occur, obviously. It is that I looked into the pages of "The Greatest Show On Earth" and it wasn't. It was totally pathetic. And he had his chance to riddle the pages with thousands of transitional fossils showing clear and major morphologies over time- but he couldn't do it- cause even with all of Dawkin's expertise and funding, such evidence as this does not exist. Q: How many biased hard core atheist scientists does it take to prove that Darwinism is true? A: More than has ever existed in the history of the world up to this point in time. And that is probably what Dawkin's book really shows. No wonder he dodged debating Stephen Meyer- using a total ad hominem attack calling Meyer a "creationist"- of which he apparently "does not debate." Worse than just an ad hominem attack from Dawkins- it also could sound to many people like he is actually "conceding" creationism- fearing to face it.Frost122585_{November 24, 2009
November
11
Nov
24
24
2009
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT}

I am afraid Faded Glory has revealed his spots or stripes or whatever it is he has been hiding. He feigns confusion but is not really confused and bring up detailed quotes from irrelevant stuff trying to make it into something relevant. That is the joke he has been trying to pull as many here have honestly tried to answer his questions. It is similar to JayM, our persistent critic posing as a friend of ID> First, no one and I mean no one is questioning that new species arrived on the planet at different times in the planet's history and that every species known to man changes over time somewhat. The arrival of new species is technically not evolution unless one can tie it to a pattern of natural change. Even if every new species was due to the input of an intelligence, one could argue that it was not evolution or it was evolution depending upon how one wants to use the term. Was Craig Ventner's modification of DNA evolution? Some would say yes, some would say no. We use the term evolution in the popular lexicon to refer to the progression of something over time such as the evolution of the automobile, fashions, language etc. It is a common term used in lots of ways and it has been applied big time to life. When applied to life it often conjures up specific images in people. A common one is change by naturalistic processes over time and using this concept the changes we see in many species is frequently observed and is called micro evolution. By this use of the term, Craig Ventner changes would not be evolution.. So one has to be careful what they mean by evolution and the people supporting ID are often careless letting the context of the conversation determine the meaning of the last usage of the term they made. When Richard Dawkins uses the term he is meaning something different than when a typical ID person is using it except when the ID person is referring to how someone like Dawkins uses it. An important distinction is how the term macro evolution is used. Some use it as just micro evolution extended as small changes are made in a species over time eventually leading to something one calls a new species (but the term species has no exact definition so this use is shall we say confusing.) ID people tend to use it for the origin of complex novel capabilities. Here people will play games with the terms to try and confuse the discussion but the feigned ignorance of the distinction made is also obvious. I am sure Faded Glory is capable of such a distinction that I just made but the faux confusion is getting old. Similar the pretense of confusion about the term mechanism which could mean anything from a Rube Goldberg contraption, to the intricate workings of a clock, to natural processes playing out over time or to someone opening a door by turning a knob. Most of us know how the term is being used by the context but when one claims confusion and then quotes an obscure comment by Dembski, the game has become obvious. Else one would try to have an intelligent conversation instead of looking to how can they can play this farce out a little longer on the possible misinterpretation of the various terms. Dembski's statement about the cause of evolution or the origin of new species is an accurate distinction that few fail to pick up. Most of the anti ID people assume that ID a mechanistic theory just like natural processes and follows specific patterns. They want to know the specific outcomes the theory predicts trying to compare it to one based on natural laws. They then want to know where are the patterns. But it is just the opposite. It does not follow any patterns as one would expect when an intelligence contravenes the laws of nature. It is the lack of patterns that underlie ID validity. It is the inability of any pattern or process that can explain the outcome that strengthens ID. So if others want to play a game with Faded Glory and try to answer his bogus questions, be my guest. But to all who try, it is a fools errand that you are on. Faded Glory is not interested in answers but only how he can find a quibble with anything being said. Else he would have taken a different tack. It is what anti ID people always resort to. They have no evidence or logic. All they can do is play games.jerry_{November 24, 2009
November
11
Nov
24
24
2009
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT}

Punk eek does not describe a mechanism for speciation. Instead, Gould and Eldredge said punk eek is the pattern we see in the fossil record, a pattern consistent with what we expect for the allopatric model of speciation.Dave Wisker_{November 24, 2009
November
11
Nov
24
24
2009
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT}

jerry, you have once again managed to confuse me. Your insistence that the debate is about the mechanisms for evolution is at odds with Dr. Dembski's view. In his words: "ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories." If the debate is about mechanisms, and if ID is not about mechanisms, what then is the role of ID in the debate? fGfaded_Glory_{November 24, 2009
November
11
Nov
24
24
2009
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT}

Does it point to any mechanism for the origin of new species? If so then logically justify it.
And the relevance of relative time wrt mechanism would be? Or are you unaware of the current theoretical framework of mechanisms?Cabal_{November 24, 2009
November
11
Nov
24
24
2009
05:04 AM
5
05
04
AM
PDT}

This is what Darwin had to say about the subject. Not quite slow and steady, nor fancy words like 'punctuated Equilibrium, but a simple and yet profound insight:
From the foregoing considerations it cannot be doubted that the geological record, viewed as a whole, is extremely imperfect; but if we confine our attention to any one formation, it becomes more difficult to understand, why we do not therein find closely graduated varieties between the allied species which lived at its commencement and at its close. Some cases are on record of the same species presenting distinct varieties in the upper and lower parts of the same formation, but, as they are rare, they may be here passed over. Although each formation has indisputably required a vast number of years for its deposition, I can see several reasons why each should not include a graduated series of links between the species which then lived; but I can by no means pretend to assign due proportional weight to the following considerations. Although each formation may mark a very long lapse of years, each perhaps is short compared with the period requisite to change one species into another. I am aware that two palæontologists, whose opinions are worthy of much deference, namely Bronn and Woodward, have concluded that the average duration of each formation is twice or thrice as long as the average duration of specific forms. But insuperable difficulties, as it seems to me, prevent us coming to any just conclusion on this head. When we see a species first appearing in the middle of any formation, it would be rash in the extreme to infer that it had not elsewhere previously existed. So again when we find a species disappearing before the uppermost layers have been deposited, it would be equally rash to suppose that it then became wholly extinct. We forget how small the area of Europe is compared with the rest of the world; nor have the several stages of the same formation throughout Europe been correlated with perfect accuracy.
Cabal_{November 24, 2009
November
11
Nov
24
24
2009
04:57 AM
4
04
57
AM
PDT}

"You know the concept of punctuated equilibrium" What is this concept indicative of. Does it say anything about the mechanism of evolution. Yes evolution happened but the debate has always been over the mechanism for the appearance of new species. That was what Darwin's book was supposedly about and that is what the issue is now. You use the term "punctuated equilibrium" but what does the evidence of this phenomena prove? Does it point to any mechanism for the origin of new species? If so then logically justify it.jerry_{November 24, 2009
November
11
Nov
24
24
2009
03:27 AM
3
03
27
AM
PDT}

Or, it shows a pattern of overall stability punctuated with sudden bursts of rapid evolution. You know, the concept of punctuated equilibrium. Not quite what Darwin proposed, but a process that has been part of evolutionary theory for decades now. And in case you ask, yes, there is empirical evidence for this happening at least some of the time. You can Google for that, some of it is on the Internet. As I said in another thread, the 'suddenness' of 'sudden' needs to be understood in the context of geological time. The resoluton of our fossil data is thousands of generations or more. fGfaded_Glory_{November 24, 2009
November
11
Nov
24
24
2009
02:04 AM
2
02
04
AM
PDT}

And my implied point is that if there were hard fossil evidence showing a slow process consistent with what Darwin hypothesized then Dawkins would have included it- because Dawkins as made is biases clear- and he is holding back nothing.Frost122585_{November 23, 2009
November
11
Nov
23
23
2009
11:32 PM
11
11
32
PM
PDT}

Fg, I am saying the fossil record will either show a slow higgly piggly process of random mutation and natural selection or it will show a more sudden emergence consistent with design. We see no fossil evidence in Dawkin's book. Pardon my use of the word "evolution" for what Dawkins advocates which is "Darwinism."Frost122585_{November 23, 2009
November
11
Nov
23
23
2009
11:29 PM
11
11
29
PM
PDT}

Frost, When you say you didn't see any pictures of the fossils proving evolution, do you mean you don't believe there are any fossils that prove evolution? How does that fit with the repeatedly expressed view here that ID is not against evolution? Surely you know that there is overwhelming and uncontroversial fossil evidence that life on Earth has changed immensely over a period of hundreds of millions of years? If we don't call that evolution, what should we call it? 'Wobbling stability' perhaps? fGfaded_Glory_{November 23, 2009
November
11
Nov
23
23
2009
11:23 PM
11
11
23
PM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply