Darwinist attack on self-org theorist James Shapiro: Payback for talking to ID guys?

_{Denyse O'Leary

February 20, 2012

Darwinism, News, Self-Org. Theory}

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

Darwin’s man Jerry Coyne (the one who refused to have lunch with Moshe Averick to discuss the origin of life) has now gone after self-organization theorist James Shapiro:

Shapiro’s piece then rapidly goes downhill as he starts repeating creationist arguments. Here’s one:

The first problem with selection as the source of diversity is that selection by humans, the subject of Darwin’s opening chapter, modifies existing traits but does not produce new traits or new species. Dogs may vary widely as a result of selective breeding, but they always remain dogs.

You’ll recognize this as the old creationist canard. Yes, of course we can’t turn a dog into a cat by artificial selection, because that would take millions of years, and we’ve only been selecting on dogs for a couple of thousand years. But the true refutation of this idea is in the fossil record: we can see land-living artiodactyls (resembling small deer) turning into whales, we can see fish turning into amphibians, we can see early reptiles turning into mammals, we can see theropod dinosaurs turning into birds, and we can see our apelike ancestors turning into more modern humans. In other words, we find in fossils precisely those transformations that Shapiro says are impossible. I deplore that a colleague of mine makes this misguided argument, and in the Science section of HuffPo, which I’m increasingly beginning to deplore as well.

Hmmm. Shapiro would never describe himself as a proponent of design theory, let alone a “creationist.”

Here’s Shapiro’s recent Huffpopost (2 16 2012) But Shapiro has recently been dialoguing with design theorists, so we naturally wonder if this attack is also payback for that. See, for example,

James Shapiro: Bill Dembski asks the question we’ve all been dreading …

“Is James Shapiro a Design Theorist?”: James Shapiro Replies to Bill Dembski

Dembski replies to Shapiro: “Natural genetic engineering” is just magic, by another name. Can you make it science?

See also: Reviewing James Shapiro’s book, Darwinist admits: Growing number of gene scientists unconvinced by Darwinism

Is it payback? Thoughts?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

CLAVDIVS:
I don’t prefer an atheistic Darwinian worldview.
Well exactly what do you 'prefer' since your actions are inconsistent to me?bornagain77_{February 23, 2012
February
02
Feb
23
23
2012
04:52 AM
4
04
52
AM
PDT}

Hi bornagain77
Thus CLAVDIVS, it is clear that the overall pattern of their study found stasis (save the caveat of killer whales)! ,,, You may not agree that the study supports a overall pattern of stasis, but so what??? Why should I care???
I can only tell you that I would care about representing that study as supporting overall stasis, for the reasons I've already specified. I cannot dictate to you what you should care about. Others can form their own opinions -- the relevant articles are just a click away. By the way, I don't prefer an atheistic Darwinian worldview. CheersCLAVDIVS_{February 22, 2012
February
02
Feb
22
22
2012
09:26 PM
9
09
26
PM
PDT}

CLAVDIVS, well lets look at it a little more soberly at the study shall we???, The authors, despite being card carrying neo-Darwwinists, indeed trying to force fit the evidence into the most friendly neo-Darwinian position they could muster, (indeed making several unwarranted leaps in the fossil record) candidly admit, after fairly extensive study, to a reporter these very un-Darwinian facts about their extensive, 'Darwinianly' biased, study:
"Our study is the first to test the idea that evolution in early whales was explosively fast." "One explanation for whale diversity is simply that they have been accumulating species and evolving differences in shape as a function of time. The more time that goes by, the more cetacean species one would expect, and the more variation in body size one would expect to see in them. Instead, what we found is that very early in their history, whales went their separate ways from the standpoint of size, and probably ecology," Alfaro said. "This pattern provides some support for the explosive radiation hypothesis." "Species diversification and variations in body size were established early in the evolution of whales, Alfaro and his colleagues report. Large whales, small whales and medium-sized whales all appeared early in the history of whales, with the large whales eating mostly plankton, small whales eating fish and medium-sized whales eating squid." "Those differences were probably in place by 25 million years ago at the latest, and for many millions of years, they have not changed very much," said the study's lead author, Graham Slater, a National Science Foundation-funded UCLA postdoctoral scholar in Alfaro's laboratory. "It's as if whales split things up at the beginning and went their separate ways. The distribution of whale body size and diet still corresponds to these early splits." "The shape of variation that we see in modern whales today is the result of partitioning of body sizes early on in their history," "We could have found that the main whale lineages over time each experimented with being large, small and medium-sized and that all the dietary forms appeared throughout their evolution, or that whales started out medium-sized and the largest and smallest ones appeared more recently -- but the data show none of that. Instead, we find that the differences today were apparent very early on." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100528211150.htm
Thus CLAVDIVS, it is clear that the overall pattern of their study found stasis (save the caveat of killer whales)! ,,, You may not agree that the study supports a overall pattern of stasis, but so what??? Why should I care??? The Darwinian authors themselves are the ones pointing out that they were surprised at the stasis pattern they found!!! Perhaps you should write them and tell them of your disappointment and try and have them retract their forthright statements to the reporter! :) ,, Methinks you doth protest too much!!! ,,,, much like your recent embryonic stem cell complaint (red flag in my book), it clearly seems that you are the one who is really trying to skew things to a seemingly preferred atheistic Darwinian worldview.
bornagain77_{February 22, 2012
February
02
Feb
22
22
2012
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT}

Hi bornagain77 So, just to wrap this up -- As support for the contention that "Whales Have (NOT) Changed Over 35 Million Years" you're going to continue to use a small quote from an article that: - is entitled "How Whales Have Changed Over 35 Million Years"; - discusses changes in whales between 55 and 25 million years ago; - discusses significant changes in killer whales over the past 10 million years; and, - is based on interviews with the authors of a scientific paper where they discuss, in considerable detail, significant diversification and extinction in whales over 55 million years. Let's just leave it at this: I don't agree with you that the cite you used counts as support for your proposition. CheersCLAVDIVS_{February 22, 2012
February
02
Feb
22
22
2012
06:04 PM
6
06
04
PM
PDT}

Yeah I think I will leave my cite just as it is CLAVDIVS, despite your objections, since the quote I used from the Science Daily article is directly from the lead researchers themselves.,,,bornagain77_{February 22, 2012
February
02
Feb
22
22
2012
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT}

Then again CLAVDIVS, the Science Daily article does quote directly from Slater and Alfaro,,, for instance.
"Those differences were probably in place by 25 million years ago at the latest, and for many millions of years, they have not changed very much," said the study's lead author, Graham Slater, a National Science Foundation-funded UCLA postdoctoral scholar in Alfaro's laboratory.
thus I will just quote directly from them;bornagain77_{February 22, 2012
February
02
Feb
22
22
2012
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT}

CLAVDIVS, You have made your point. Thank You! I did not read the original paper at first but only read the Science Daily article. ,,, The Science Daily article readily gives the impression, at least to me, that they were far more forthright in the original paper. But as you have made clear, it is not nearly as clear as the Science Daily article implied. ,,, I will search for a more reliable source. Perhaps dig through their sources.bornagain77_{February 22, 2012
February
02
Feb
22
22
2012
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT}

Hi bornagain77 If one thinks the Slater et al paper in Proc. R. Soc. B has glaring deficiencies, then one shouldn't be citing it in support of an argument. On the other hand, if one credits the paper with some validity, it doesn't support the argument that whales did not evolve for over 35 million years. This has been my point all along. The Science Daily article was referenced, which in turn cited the Proc. R. Soc. B paper. I was interested enough to read the actual paper, and it was apparent (to me) that it did not in any way support the original argument -- namely, that whales remained in stasis for over 35 million years. I thought this was worth mentioning. And I don't see how Abel's work or Dollo's law in any way detracts from what I'm saying. We can drop it now, bornagain77. I think I've made my point. CheersCLAVDIVS_{February 22, 2012
February
02
Feb
22
22
2012
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT}

CLAVDIVS, well since you do not readily see the glaring deficiencies in their analysis, nor their unwarranted extrapolations they make in the fossil record to neo-Darwinian processes, perhaps it is because you believe material processes can magically generate complex, and 'transcendent', functional information? Hence the primary relevance of Abel's null hypothesis! Myself, I hold the position that speciation will follow a 'top down' genetic entropy pattern following initial 'sudden' appearance in the fossil record; (which happens to be the pattern that conforms to the second law and Conservation of Information) The following is perhaps the best case study we have for the overall 'top down' pattern we should expect to see in the fossil record:
The Cambrian's Many Forms Excerpt: "It appears that organisms displayed “rampant” within-species variation “in the ‘warm afterglow’ of the Cambrian explosion,” Hughes said, but not later. “No one has shown this convincingly before, and that’s why this is so important.""From an evolutionary perspective, the more variable a species is, the more raw material natural selection has to operate on,"....(Yet Surprisingly)...."There's hardly any variation in the post-Cambrian," he said. "Even the presence or absence or the kind of ornamentation on the head shield varies within these Cambrian trilobites and doesn't vary in the post-Cambrian trilobites." University of Chicago paleontologist Mark Webster; article on the "surprising and unexplained" loss of variation and diversity for trilobites over the 270 million year time span that trilobites were found in the fossil record, prior to their total extinction from the fossil record about 250 million years ago. http://www.terradaily.com/reports/The_Cambrian_Many_Forms_999.html
further note: In fact, the loss of morphological traits over time, for all organisms found in the fossil record, was/is so consistent that it was made into a 'scientific law':
Dollo's law and the death and resurrection of genes: Excerpt: "As the history of animal life was traced in the fossil record during the 19th century, it was observed that once an anatomical feature was lost in the course of evolution it never staged a return. This observation became canonized as Dollo's law, after its propounder, and is taken as a general statement that evolution is irreversible." http://www.pnas.org/content/91/25/12283.full.pdf+html
A general rule of thumb for the 'Deterioration/Genetic Entropy' of Dollo's Law as it applies to the fossil record is found here:
Dollo's law and the death and resurrection of genes ABSTRACT: Dollo's law, the concept that evolution is not substantively reversible, implies that the degradation of genetic information is sufficiently fast that genes or developmental pathways released from selective pressure will rapidly become nonfunctional. Using empirical data to assess the rate of loss of coding information in genes for proteins with varying degrees of tolerance to mutational change, we show that, in fact, there is a significant probability over evolutionary time scales of 0.5-6 million years for successful reactivation of silenced genes or "lost" developmental programs. Conversely, the reactivation of long (>10 million years)-unexpressed genes and dormant developmental pathways is not possible unless function is maintained by other selective constraints; http://www.pnas.org/content/91/25/12283.full.pdf+html
This recent study falls in line as well:
No Positive Selection, No Darwin: A New Non-Darwinian Mechanism for the Origin of Adaptive Phenotypes - November 2011 Excerpt: Hughes now proposes a model he refers to as the plasticity-relaxation-mutation (PRM) model. PRM suggests that adaptive phenotypes arise as follows: (1) there exists a phenotypically plastic trait (i.e., one that changes with the environment, such as sweating in the summer heat); (2) the environment becomes constant, such that the trait assumes only one of its states for a lengthened period of time; and (3) during that time, deleterious mutations accumulate in the unused state of the trait, such that its genetic basis is subsequently lost. ,,, But if most adaptations result from the loss of genetic specifications, how did the traits initially arise? One letter (Chevin & Beckerman 2011) of response to Hughes noted that the PRM "does not explain why the ancestral state should be phenotypically plastic, or why this plasticity should be adaptive in the first place." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/11/no_positive_selection_no_darwi052941.html A. L. Hughes's New Non-Darwinian Mechanism of Adaption Was Discovered and Published in Detail by an ID Geneticist 25 Years Ago - Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig - December 2011 Excerpt: The original species had a greater genetic potential to adapt to all possible environments. In the course of time this broad capacity for adaptation has been steadily reduced in the respective habitats by the accumulation of slightly deleterious alleles (as well as total losses of genetic functions redundant for a habitat), with the exception, of course, of that part which was necessary for coping with a species' particular environment....By mutative reduction of the genetic potential, modifications became "heritable". -- As strange as it may at first sound, however, this has nothing to do with the inheritance of acquired characteristics. For the characteristics were not acquired evolutionarily, but existed from the very beginning due to the greater adaptability. In many species only the genetic functions necessary for coping with the corresponding environment have been preserved from this adaptability potential. The "remainder" has been lost by mutations (accumulation of slightly disadvantageous alleles) -- in the formation of secondary species. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/12/a_l_hughess_new053881.html
Dollo's Law was further verified to the molecular level here:
Dollo’s law, the symmetry of time, and the edge of evolution - Michael Behe Excerpt: We predict that future investigations, like ours, will support a molecular version of Dollo's law:,,, Dr. Behe comments on the finding of the study, "The old, organismal, time-asymmetric Dollo’s law supposedly blocked off just the past to Darwinian processes, for arbitrary reasons. A Dollo’s law in the molecular sense of Bridgham et al (2009), however, is time-symmetric. A time-symmetric law will substantially block both the past and the future. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/10/dollos_law_the_symmetry_of_tim.html Evolutionary Adaptations Can Be Reversed, but Rarely - May 2011 Excerpt: They found that a very small percentage of evolutionary adaptations in a drug-resistance gene can be reversed, but only if the adaptations involve fewer than four discrete genetic mutations. (If reverting to a previous function, which is advantageous, is so constrained, what does this say about gaining a completely novel function, which may be advantageous, which requires many more mutations?) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110511162538.htm Some Further Research On Dollo's Law - Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig - November 2010 http://www.globalsciencebooks.info/JournalsSup/images/Sample/FOB_4(SI1)1-21o.pdf
So CLAVDIVS, basically we have no evidence that material processes can generate functional information yet we have abundant evidence that material processes, and neo-Darwinian processes in particular, reduce genetic infomation! Go Figure!!!bornagain77_{February 22, 2012
February
02
Feb
22
22
2012
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT}

Hi bornagain77 Despite the potted summary in the Science Daily article, it's difficult for me to understand how anyone could read the original paper in Proc. R. Soc. B as support for the idea that whales have not evolved for over 35 million years -- even if one just focuses on the fossil evidence. And I don't see how Abel's work makes this any easier to understand. CheersCLAVDIVS_{February 22, 2012
February
02
Feb
22
22
2012
04:42 AM
4
04
42
AM
PDT}

CLAVDIVS, well I'm quite comfortable with their 'surprise' at finding overall stasis in the fossil record, from 'early on' for whales, as was reflected, clearly, in the Science Daily article. Moreover, since the problem of 'functional information generation' is acute for neo-Darwinists, I really don't feel the need to have to point out to you their severely unwarranted extrapolations from their very shaky molecular interpretations. And if you don't feel, their 'free-willing' interpretation of molecular sequences is problematic, or the problem of function information generation is critically acute for neo-Darwinists, perhaps you would care to falsify Abel's null hypothesis with empirical evidence?
The Law of Physicodynamic Insufficiency - Dr David L. Abel - November 2010 Excerpt: “If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise.”,,, After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided. The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction: “No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.” http://www-qa.scitopics.com/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Insufficiency.html The Law of Physicodynamic Incompleteness - David L. Abel - August 2011 Summary: “The Law of Physicodynamic Incompleteness” states that inanimate physicodynamics is completely inadequate to generate, or even explain, the mathematical nature of physical interactions (the purely formal laws of physics and chemistry). The Law further states that physicodynamic factors cannot cause formal processes and procedures leading to sophisticated function. Chance and necessity alone cannot steer, program or optimize algorithmic/computational success to provide desired non-trivial utility. http://www.scitopics.com/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Incompleteness.html
bornagain77_{February 22, 2012
February
02
Feb
22
22
2012
02:29 AM
2
02
29
AM
PDT}

Hi bornagain77 Ok. It wasn't clear to me that you were relying on just some parts of the article, and disregarding others. Even so, just looking at the fossil evidence parts, the article still doesn't seem to support the idea that "Whales Have (NOT) Changed Over 35 Million Years". For example, the authors state:
Despite an overall pattern of decrease through time, subclade disparity [in body size i.e. based on fossil evidence] shows two increases: one occurring shortly after the origination of neocetes and another between approximately 11 and 6 Ma (approx. 0.7–0.825 relative time), coincident with the radiations of several extant families, such as Delphinidae, Phocoenidae and Balaenopteridae.
They have a nifty chart illustrating this (Figure 4). CheersCLAVDIVS_{February 21, 2012
February
02
Feb
21
21
2012
09:05 PM
9
09
05
PM
PDT}

Well CLAVDIVS, since I consider pretty much all of their hypothesizing from molecular sequences to be bunk,,,
Whale Evolution Vs. Population Genetics – Richard Sternberg PhD. in Evolutionary Biology – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4165203
,,, since they can't even account for the fixation of a single 'coordinated' beneficial mutation for whales, then I pretty much look at the stasis portion of their paper that was forced on them by their cross check to the fossil evidence.,,Moreover, As far as the Diversity vs. Disparity title of their paper, this is funny for Diversity vs. Disparity in the fossil record is actually a common pattern and is actually a point that, though danced around by neo-Darwinists, argues very forcefully for 'top down' creation of specific 'kinds' of animals;
The unscientific hegemony of uniformitarianism (Disparity precedes Diversity) - David Tyler - May 2011 Excerpt: Evolution has been implicitly viewed as a uniformitarian process where the rates may vary but the underlying processes, including the types of variation, are essentially invariant through time. Recent studies demonstrate that this uniformitarian assumption is false, suggesting that the types of variation may vary through time. http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2011/05/16/the_unscientific_hegemony_of_uniformitar
as well, since evolutionists continually misrepresent the true state of the evidence from molecular sequences, here are several comments and articles, by leading experts, on the severe incongruence of molecular sequences to what Darwin's gradualistic theory expects: https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1S5wXsukzkauD5YQLkQYuIMGL25I4fJrOUzJhONvBXe4bornagain77_{February 21, 2012
February
02
Feb
21
21
2012
06:56 PM
6
06
56
PM
PDT}

I read the article Diversity versus disparity and the radiation of modern cetaceans referenced at Science Daily and here. I really don't see how it supports the contention that "Whales Have (NOT) Changed Over 35 Million Years". Rather, the authors find quite a lot of diversification spread out over 55 million years:
Our time tree (figure 1) is broadly congruent with other recently published studies of cetacean phylogeny (McGowen et al. 2009; Steeman et al. 2009). The split between hippopotamuses and cetaceans dates to 54.5 Ma (95% high posterior density, HPD: 54.1–55.1), and extant cetaceans (Neoceti) share a most recent common ancestor at 36.9 Ma (95% HPD: 34.4–39.9). Crown mysticetes originated at 28.8 Ma (95% HPD: 28–30.1). Crown odontocetes originated at 34.8 Ma (95% HPD: 30.9–38.7) and show a gradual pattern of lineage divergence. The sperm whales (Physeteroidea), beaked whales (Ziphiidae) and river dolphins (Platinistidae, Lipotidae, Iniidae and Pontoporidae) are old, originating prior to 20 Ma. The remaining odontocete families within the Delphinoidea are younger than 15 Myr old and the most speciose cetacean clade, Delphinidae, containing 36 of 84 species, is less than 10 Myr old.
Its really worth a read. CheersCLAVDIVS_{February 21, 2012
February
02
Feb
21
21
2012
05:19 PM
5
05
19
PM
PDT}

Oops- "some period of time greater than a few MILLION years"Joe_{February 21, 2012
February
02
Feb
21
21
2012
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PDT}

Yes, of course we can’t turn a dog into a cat by artificial selection, because that would take millions of years, and we’ve only been selecting on dogs for a couple of thousand years.
The formula: Dogs + artificially selected magical mystery mutations + some period of time more than a few thousand years = CatsJoe_{February 21, 2012
February
02
Feb
21
21
2012
04:48 PM
4
04
48
PM
PDT}

lastyearon, You can continue piling insults following good old TalkOrigins tradition. Anyone can start "arguments" with nonsensical intro: "How do you convince an evolutionist that a fossil is not a transitional fossil? Give up? It is a trick question. You cannot do it. There is no convincing someone who has his mind made up already. But sometimes, it is even worse..." However I don't think that approach adds anything to our understanding of whale evolution or any other such subject. Instead of calling other people ignorant maybe you should better spend your time researching the given subject using more respectable sources. And no, I don't mean dreaded Creationist's materials, but am referring to, in "scientific circles", recognized experts like Robert L. Carroll, J. G. M. Thewissen, G. A. Mchedlidze etc. Saying all this I have no illusions that you will familiarize yourself with evolutionary science proper. It must be infinitely more satisfying and gratifying to quote TalkOrigins' mythology (so called Vestigial Evidence being case in point). But hey, I don't blame you, I know the feeling, same feeling I had as a kid reading Greek pagan stories.inunison_{February 21, 2012
February
02
Feb
21
21
2012
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT}

Lastyearon 'Why do you think that “they” would like everyone to think evolution is a fact?' I asked for evidence of transitional fossils linking any of the examples of evolution sited by Coyne, and you gave me TO, and its explanation of 'Whale evolution'. I take it by doing so you found this evidence suffice. My point was that Coynes argument fails on many parts because of a severe lack of what he claims. Dr.Phil Gingerich clearly admits that one of the major players in 'Whale evolution' was deliberately doctored to give the appearance of a transitional, it is also used by many top paleontologists, can be found in the pages of nearly every science text book on the subject, yet it really is nothing more than a fraud. You accuse other of being 'happy in their ignorance', yet you willfully deny the truth. That must be a gift of evolutionists. A well honed skill. Good luck to you.PeterJ_{February 21, 2012
February
02
Feb
21
21
2012
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT}

Watched the video. It would take more time to correct all the misconceptions in it than it did to watch it. But I do want to ask you something. You said this:
tell me if you still believe what TO says about whale evolution is the fact they would like everone to think it is?
Why do you think that "they" would like everyone to think evolution is a fact? Do you think there's some sort of conspiracy going on? O, and by the way, they do use the "why are there still monkeys" argument with regards to ambulocetus at the 13-14 minute mark.lastyearon_{February 21, 2012
February
02
Feb
21
21
2012
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT}

Lastyearon. 'I’m assuming you mean the objection: why were there Packacetus’s living at the same time as whales, when according to evolution, Packacetus is transitional between whales and land dwelling mammals?' No not in slightest. The video was made long before the discovery of the whale's jaw. It's a shame you can't spare the 9 minutes to watch what I think is a very startling confession by Dr. Phil Gingerich. (who is one of the worlds leading experts on Whale evolution) I suppose it's just easier for to fill your head with TO stuff, but that doesn't do it for me I'm afraid. Watch the video and then tell me if you still believe what TO says about whale evolution is the fact they would like everone to think it is? Go on, I dare you.PeterJ_{February 21, 2012
February
02
Feb
21
21
2012
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT}

Well since LYO refuses to be forthright with the genetic evidence which falsifies his assertion, and stiucks to fossil evidence, then here is another video that clearly shows how fraudulent neo-Darwinists can be with the fossil record:
Whale Evolution? - Exposing The Deception - Dr. Terry Mortenson - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4032568
This following studies provides solid support for Dr. Terry Mortenson's critique of 'imaginary' whale evolution in the preceding video:
Of Whale and Feather Evolution: Nature's Two Macroevolutionary Lumps of Coal (Dismantling Nature's evolutionary evangelism packet) - Casey Luskin _ November 2010 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/08/of_whale_and_feather_evolution037221.html How Whales Have (NOT) Changed Over 35 Million Years – May 2010 Excerpt: We could have found that the main whale lineages over time each experimented with being large, small and medium-sized and that all the dietary forms appeared throughout their evolution, or that whales started out medium-sized and the largest and smallest ones appeared more recently—but the data show none of that. Instead, we find that the differences today were apparent very early on. https://uncommondescent.com/education/beacon-comes-home-with-the-bacon/#comment-356170
bornagain77_{February 21, 2012
February
02
Feb
21
21
2012
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT}

inunison, I'm not after respectability on this blog. I'm more interested in getting people like you to question a little. If you think Talk Origins is biased, you can do a Google search for whale transitional fossils. Although you may consider each and every article/resource you find to be evolutionary propaganda. If so, I suggest that you're happy in your ignorance, and that you tell yourself "it's all propaganda" because you don't like feeling ignorant.lastyearon_{February 21, 2012
February
02
Feb
21
21
2012
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT}

LYO, Dr. Sternberg doesn't even contest the fossil record (which is severely contorted by neo-Darwinists), he just demonstrates, from population genetics, that the mechanism of neo-Darwinism is grossly inadequate to explain the origination of whales. Do you have empirical of mathematical evidence to the contrary???bornagain77_{February 21, 2012
February
02
Feb
21
21
2012
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT}

PeterJ,
I don’t just want to hear what they assumed happened, as in ‘Whale evolution’, but see the transitions in between.
No you don't want to see the transitions. Otherwise you would have read the article, and seen them.
What is your answer to this claim?
I can't view the video now. I'm assuming you mean the objection: why were there Packacetus's living at the same time as whales, when according to evolution, Packacetus is transitional between whales and land dwelling mammals? That claim is the same as asking "Why are there still monkeys, if we evolved from them?" Think about it a little (please).lastyearon_{February 21, 2012
February
02
Feb
21
21
2012
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT}

Or what is your answer to this observation from population genetics?
Whale Evolution Vs. Population Genetics - Richard Sternberg PhD. in Evolutionary Biology - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4165203
If that wasn't bad enough, The time frame for the supposed transition of whales, from some supposed ancestral four legged creature, has recently been dramatically shortened from the 10 million years Dr. Sternberg used in his calculation;
A Whale of a Problem for Evolution: Ancient Whale Jawbone Found in Antartica - JonathanM - October 2011 Excerpt: Argentine paleontologist Marcelo Reguero said the fossilized archaeocete jawbone found in February dates back 49 million years. In evolutionary terms, that’s not far off from the fossils of even older proto-whales from 53 million years ago that have been found,,, https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-whale-of-a-problem-for-evolution-ancient-whale-jawbone-found-in-antartica/ Discovery of "Oldest Fully Aquatic Whale" Fossil Throws a Major Bone into Whale Evolution Story - Casey Luskin - October 18, 2011 Excerpt: In fact, if this find has been correctly identified, then fully aquatic whales might have existed before many of their alleged semi-aquatic evolutionary precursors. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/discovery_of_oldest_fully_aqua052021.html Whales: New "Icon of Evolution" or a Challenge to Darwinian Theory? - podcast http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2011-12-02T13_36_08-08_00
Moreover the blatant misrepresentation of the fossil record by neo-Darwinists for supposed whale evolution should make the blood boil in anger of any person who is concerned with the truth of this matter;
Whale Evolution vs. The Actual Fossil Evidence http://vimeo.com/30921402/ Whale Tale Two Excerpt: We think that the most logical interpretation of the Pakicetus fossils are that they represent land-dwelling mammals that didn’t even have teeth or ears in common with modern whales. This actually pulls the whale evolution tree out by the roots. Evolutionists are back to the point of not having any clue as to how land mammals could possibly have evolved into whales. http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/v6i2f.htm Meet Pakicetus, the Terrestrial Mammal BioLogos Calls a "Whale" - November 2010 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/meet_pakicetus_the_terrestrial039851.html Ambulocetus (49 million years ago) Excerpt: Of all the supposed whale transitions, ambulocetus is probably the most well known. It is often depicted as an animal that is adapted to living on land and in the water. Of course, just like pakicetus, the artistic reconstructions of ambulocetus go beyond what the fossil findings justify. The ambulocetus remains that have been discovered are much more complete than the first findings of pakicetus; however, crucial parts of the animal still have not been discovered. For example, the pelvic girdle has not been found.[7] Without this, there is really no way of telling how the creature moved. This, however, does not stop evolutionists from using artistic manipulations to make ambulocetus look like it is a transitional form. Very often, popular science journals, such as National Geographic, have depicted ambulocetus as being very transitional-like by giving the creature webbed feet.[8] This is another place where the reader must be able to distinguish between fact and fiction. Soft tissue rarely ever gets preserved, and the ambulocetus remains are no exception. In other words, all we have are the bones. There is no evidence that the creature had webbed feet other than in the imagination of the evolutionists. http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/whale.htm
As for 'vestigial legs'; It turns out the 'vestigial legs' are humorously revealed to be very functional pelvic bones instead:
An Email Exchange Regarding "Vestigial Legs" Pelvic Bones in Whales by Jim Pamplin Excerpt: The pelvic bones (supposed Vestigial Legs) of whales serve as attachments for the musculature associated with the penis in males and its homologue, the clitoris, in females. The muscle involved is known as the ischiocavernosus and is quite a powerful muscle in males. It serves as a retractor muscle for the penis in copulation and probably provides the base for lateral movements of the penis. The mechanisms of penile motion are not well understood in whales. The penis seems to be capable of a lot of independent motion, much like the trunk of an elephant. How much of this is mediated by the ischiocavernosus is not known. In females the anatomical parts are smaller and more diffuse. I would imagine that there is something homologous to the perineal muscles in man and tetrapods, which affect the entire pelvic area - the clitoris, vagina and anus. The pelvic rudiments also serve as origins for the ischiocaudalis muscle, which is a ventral muscle that inserts on the tips of the chevron bones of the spinal column and acts to flex the tail in normal locomotion. http://www.darwinisdead.com/an_email_exchange_regarding.htm
bornagain77_{February 21, 2012
February
02
Feb
21
21
2012
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT}

Now really lastyearon! While I fully understand that theological arguments and mythology have very powerful influence on ones worldview, I would strongly suggest that you refrain quoting or linking to tabloid evolutionary propaganda sites like The TalkOrigins Archive. That is if you want to retain some level of respectability on this blog.inunison_{February 21, 2012
February
02
Feb
21
21
2012
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT}

Lastyearon I have already looked through Talk Origins, and as I said I don't just want to hear what they assumed happened, as in 'Whale evolution', but see the transitions in between. We also have to remember that fossilized a fossilized jaw of a whale was discovered, dated to have existed at the same time as Packacetus. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cf9CTrvEeE0 Why dont you watch the above link, it's only 28mins long, but certainly from 8min - 17min. What is your answer to this claim?PeterJ_{February 21, 2012
February
02
Feb
21
21
2012
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT}

http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/lastyearon_{February 21, 2012
February
02
Feb
21
21
2012
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT}

Coyne says: 'But the true refutation of this idea is in the fossil record: we can see land-living artiodactyls (resembling small deer) turning into whales, we can see fish turning into amphibians, we can see early reptiles turning into mammals, we can see theropod dinosaurs turning into birds, and we can see our apelike ancestors turning into more modern humans. In other words, we find in fossils precisely those transformations that Shapiro says are impossible.' It's all very well for him to say but are they really there? I don't just want to see a fossilized 'dear like creature' and then a 'whale', but the steps in between. I don't want to see only a few fossilzed 'fish' then a fossil of a fully formed 'Amphibian', I want to see the stages in between. I don't want to hear about 'reptiles' in one breath and in the next 'mammals', I want to see the transitions. I don't to hear about 'birds' and how they evolved from 'theropod dinosaurs', I want to see the pathway. I don't want to just hear that my distant relative was an 'ape' I want to see how it became human. I know it's a lot of wants, but if it is such a fact as he seems to say it is the fossils themselves must exist. Right? So where are they? Can somone please point me to some fossil evidence of 'something' turning into 'somthing else', the operative word being used here 'turning', as Mr.Coyne puts it. Thank youPeterJ_{February 21, 2012
February
02
Feb
21
21
2012
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT}

This bit:
But the true refutation of this idea is in the fossil record: we can see land-living artiodactyls turning into whales, we can see fish turning into amphibians, we can see early reptiles turning into mammals, we can see theropod dinosaurs turning into birds
Do evolutionists actually have any actual examples; or is it just one big thumb-suck consisting of nothing but "favourable interpretations" of the fossil record?Stu7_{February 21, 2012
February
02
Feb
21
21
2012
01:41 AM
1
01
41
AM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply