New transitional whale fossil

[The Barbarian]

Yes I have read the paper, and this is exactly what I meant by my original post. Anyone who doesn't "accept with docility" the speculation of any given scientist is automatically uninformed and gets opened up to cheap shots by people like you.

Often, creationists and scientists get their backs up, because they don't really understand what the other side is about, and so they inadvertently insult the other.

De-escalate a bit and see what happens. Not everyone will respond in kind, but some of us will.

The evidence for evolution is voluminous, and while some of it is easy to understand, other parts of it are quite difficult for a non-biologist. Like theology is for those of us who are not trained theologians.

BTW, are you aware that your particular Christian tradition (for which I have great respect) also acknowledges that evolution is consistent with Christian faith?

 

[Musa80]

I am aware that my particular Tradition makes no claim either way. Science has changed a 101 times over the past 2000 years and I have no reason to think that any one particular theory is so well formed that scientists 200 years from now won't be calling all of us idiots. The ECFs though made it perfectly clear what they thought about creation and when their interpretation changes, so will mine.

My point in posting in this thread really wasn't to challenge evolution. I could care less either way as it doesn't affect my faith, life, or career. I was only pointing out that it's ridiculous to take something that any sane human being would look at and determine is very close to a crocodile and try to pass it off as some sort of proto-whale.

 

[Mallon]

I was only pointing out that it's ridiculous to take something that any sane human being would look at and determine is very close to a crocodile and try to pass it off as some sort of proto-whale.

Crocodiles don't give live birth. Their auditory bulla is not formed solely by the ectotympanum. They don't have retracted nares. Maiacetus does, and it shares these characters with whales.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Wow. Two separate people have now straight out called me a liar simply for stating that I have a problem with drawings, especially with overlays of stuff that doesn't exist, being presented in lieu of actual images of the fossils. This is where I'll be unsubscribing. You guys can believe whatever you like, but it's flat out wrong to put forth a skeleton of something that in no way whatsoever resembles a whale and does in fact have every attribute of a modern crocodile and accuse anyone who notices such as "lying for Jesus".

Actually a quick glance at the skull I see mammalian teeth, a mammalian jaw, and mammalian skull features. I don't know how you could confuse this with a crocodilian skull.

The teeth alone should be a dead giveaway that this is a mammal.

 

[shernren]

So much for unsubscribing, too.

 

[The Barbarian]

duplicate, sorry

 

[The Barbarian]

I am aware that my particular Tradition makes no claim either way. Science has changed a 101 times over the past 2000 years and I have no reason to think that any one particular theory is so well formed that scientists 200 years from now won't be calling all of us idiots. The ECFs though made it perfectly clear what they thought about creation and when their interpretation changes, so will mine.

It's been well over 2000 years since a scientist discovered that the Earth goes around the sun. We don't call Aristarchus of Samos an idiot. Nor Darwin (about 150 years) or Mendel (150 years) or Newton (about 300) or Kepler or Gallileo...

Science doesn't throw out things as a rule, it refines them.

My point in posting in this thread really wasn't to challenge evolution. I could care less either way as it doesn't affect my faith, life, or career. I was only pointing out that it's ridiculous to take something that any sane human being would look at and determine is very close to a crocodile and try to pass it off as some sort of proto-whale.

Goes back to my point. To you, that's a sensible statement. To anyone with any understanding of mammalian anatomy, it's hilariously wrong to the point of seeming insulting. As one person here said, the teeth alone would tip you off. The sigmoid bone in the skull and numerous other anatomical features says "whale, derived from artiodactyl ancestors."

I'm not trying to insult you here; I'm trying to shine a bit of light on the issue of why we often get angry at each other over this. If more scientists understood theology, and more creationists understood science, it would go better.

 

[MiserableSinner]

I am sure this point has been dutifully made in the past, but phylogeny !iff homology. Fossils demonstrate homology; they are not "transitional."

Obviously, the entire question is to what degree we can infer phylogeny from homology. Slapping "transitional" onto everything simply affirms the consequent and begs the question. Please respect logic.

We observe, of course, that a Ford pickup and a Toyota pickup are homologous.

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

they are not "transitional."

My father is a transitional being between me and my grandfather.

 

[The Barbarian]

I am sure this point has been dutifully made in the past, but phylogeny !iff homology. Fossils demonstrate homology; they are not "transitional."

Perhaps you don't know what the word means. It is an organism with apomorphies of two separate groups. For example, a dinosaur with feathers, or a whale with functional legs.

Living ones are even more useful, since we can examine their DNA and see if they match the phylogeny suggested by their anatomy. So far, perfect match. And even more telling, there are no transitional forms where they shouldn't be, between groups not indicated to be evolutionarily connected.

That's a devastating problem for anyone inclined to deny transitionals.

Obviously, the entire question is to what degree we can infer phylogeny from homology.

Quite a bit, it turns out. Early scientists thought that whales were descended from ungulates, based on some anatomical data. Later, the expected transitionals were found, and DNA data confirmed that artiodactyls are the closest relatives of whales.

Slapping "transitional" onto everything simply affirms the consequent and begs the question. Please respect logic.

Perhaps you're unfamiliar with induction. Find out about it, and see why using inference from evidence has been so successful for science. The key is, transitionals need to be supported by evidence. And they are.

 

[MiserableSinner]

...the phylogeny suggested by their anatomy.

As I said, this is the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Why? Obviously, design results in homology. Thus it is an error to claim that homology "suggests" phylogeny; the inference is invalid.

And even more telling, there are no transitional forms where they shouldn't be, between groups not indicated to be evolutionarily connected.

Either that is tautological, or you affirm that phylogeny is not inferred by homology.

Later, the expected transitionals were found, and DNA data confirmed that artiodactyls are the closest relatives of whales.

You are confused. When we observe similarities, we cannot infer lineage, because design produces similarities. Affirming the consequent, as I said.

Perhaps you're unfamiliar with induction.

Curious that, in fact, my argument illuminates your lack of familiarity with induction.

The key is, transitionals need to be supported by evidence.

Homologous fossils, etc. are the evidence.

 

[Mallon]

Why? Obviously, design results in homology.

What definition of homology are you using, MiserableSinner?

 

[MiserableSinner]

It seems unhelpful to define a word such that it begs the question.

Homology refers to similarity.

 

[The Barbarian]

...the phylogeny suggested by their anatomy.
​

As I said, this is the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Why? Obviously, design results in homology.

No. Design results in analogy. You have confused analogous and homologous organs. Perhaps you should learn the difference.

Thus it is an error to claim that homology "suggests" phylogeny; the inference is invalid.

You've simply assumed that homology is similarity. It's not. Homology is observed in the fact that vertebrate fins, wings, legs, diggers, etc. all have widely differing functions, but use all the same bones, muscles, etc. but greatly modified for the purpose, when there is no functional need for them to be composed of the same tissues and organs.

Similarity would be the horns of a beetle and the horns of a deer. Those are analogous organs. The fins of a whale and the wing of a bat are homologous organs. They would only be so, if they had a common ancestor from which they inherited those bones.

Barbarian observes:
And even more telling, there are no transitional forms where they shouldn't be, between groups not indicated to be evolutionarily connected.
​

Either that is tautological, or you affirm that phylogeny is not inferred by homology.

Nope. It just points out that if you were right, we should find transitionals that don't fit in to the nested hierarchy of organisms we see as the result of evolution. But there are no such transitionals.

Barbarian observes:
Later, the expected transitionals were found, and DNA data confirmed that artiodactyls are the closest relatives of whales.
​

You are confused.

Nope. As you learned, scientists used homology to make predictions about animals that lived in the past, which were later confirmed. That is compelling evidence for homology as an indicator of evolution. Keep in mind, that this evidence fits the nested hierarchy developed by Linnaeus, a creationist. So it's foolish to argue it depends on "evolutionary assumptions."

When we observe similarities, we cannot infer lineage, because design produces similarities.

But not homologies. And it can't explain why homologies fit the nested hierarchy of organisms, while analogies don't. Which is another reason scientists don't accept "design."

Barbarian observes:
Perhaps you're unfamiliar with induction. Find out about it, and see why using inference from evidence has been so successful for science. The key is, transitionals need to be supported by evidence. And they are.

Curious that, in fact, my argument illuminates your lack of familiarity with induction.

Clearly you don't know what it is. Induction depends on gathering evidence, and making inferences from it. You've tried to do it backwards, assuming the inference, and trying to make the evidence fit. This would be OK if you knew the ultimate rules and then applied them by deduction. But science doesn't have the ultimate rules. It has to look at the evidence, and then infer what the rules are.

The key is, transitionals need to be supported by evidence. The nested hierarchy of Linnaeus (a creationist who did not assume evolution), the DNA phylogenies, and the transitional organisms that all fit the nested hierarchy make up a large and convincing body of evidence for common descent.


​

Homologous fossils, etc. are the evidence.

Only part of it.

We observe, of course, that a Ford pickup and a Toyota pickup are homologous.

Analogous. They are superficially similar, but when we look at the details, they are all different, much as a thylacine (marsupial wolf) looked superficially very much like a wolf, but the details were all different. On the other hand, a kangaroo looks very different than a thylacine, but the homologies show that they are closely related.

Likewise, a Toyota pickup looks superficially more like a Ford pickup than it does many other Toyotas, but when you look at the details, you find that the Toyota is homologous to a Toyota sedan, and analogous to a Ford .

 

[Mallon]

It seems unhelpful to define a word such that it begs the question.

Homology refers to similarity.

So does analogy. Homology has a specific meaning beyond "similarity". It means similarity due to common ancestry. So your earlier assertion that two trucks can be homologous makes no sense because they are incapable of reproduction. You're not using these terms the same way biologists do.

 

[MiserableSinner]

Likewise, a Toyota pickup looks superficially more like a Ford pickup than it does many other Toyotas, but when you look at the details, you find that the Toyota is homologous to a Toyota sedan, and analogous to a Ford.

Perhaps you forget that the Toyota pickup and the Toyota sedan share the same designer. Game, set, match.

Homology has a specific [biological] meaning beyond "similarity". It means similarity due to common ancestry.

I'm keenly aware of that. And I suggested that a questing-begging definition might be unhelpful. Nevertheless, the point is moot, as Barbarian has been kind enough to demonstrate.

 

[Mallon]

Perhaps you forget that the Toyota pickup and the Toyota sedan share the same designer. Game, set, match.

If similarities between organisms point to a common designer, do differences between organisms point to uncommon designers?
Moreoever, why do similarities between organisms point to a common designer? Are designers not capable of creating vastly different things that do not adhere to the nested hierarchy into which life is organized? Maybe it's time to dig up that common designer challenge thread again...

 

[MiserableSinner]

Please focus.

I object when the term "transitional" is applied to fossils, because phylogeny is not the only thing that explains homology. Asking people to refrain from affirming the consequent and/or begging the question is hardly unreasonable. Don't you agree? Where would science be without logic?

If similarities between organisms point to a common designer [...] why do similarities between organisms point to a common designer?

I'm surprised this needs pointing out, but the corollary to "phylogeny !iff homology because a designer can create homology" is not "design iff homology."

Maybe it's time to dig up that common designer challenge thread again...

I am sure there are other important matters to discuss, but first let's get this one right.

 

[Mallon]

I object when the term "transitional" is applied to fossils, because phylogeny is not the only thing that explains homology.

But it is. As you've just been told, homology -- as biologists use the term -- refers specifically to the similarity of features due to phylogeny. Similarities NOT due to phylogeny (but rather due to convergence) are termed analogies.

 

[MiserableSinner]

Please recall that motor vehicles are the product of design, and that they evidently evidence both homology and analogy. Clearly note that despite evidencing homology and analogy, they are not the product of lineage, convergence, lateral transfer, or whatever other naturalistic mechanism you decide to talk about next.

Therefore, we conclude that such mechanisms are not the only things which explain similarity, and restrain ourselves from slapping inappropriate labels onto everything. Begging the question is a fallacy. Where am I losing you?

Anyway, it is sufficiently obvious that we do not observe lineage or convergence. Rather, we observe similarities, and we discover it is useful to classify them. Obviously, it is helpful to postulate explanations for these similarities, and phylogeny and convergence seem to be sensible explanations for certain classes of similarities, respectively. Nevertheless, design is, evidently, an equally sensible explanation. As good scientists, we therefore restrain ourselves from conflating an observation with an explanation.

Similarities NOT due to phylogeny (but rather due to convergence) are termed analogies.

Please recall Barbarian's assertion, "Design results in analogy." I encourage you to share notes.