Forums | MacLife

So, awhile back in this thread (I'm not going to look for where, exactly) it was repeatedly asserted that whale evolution had been debunked.

Never having heard of such an occurance, I was pretty skeptical.  At the time, I did a bit of research and pasted some links and a nice little picture of a complete transitional whale fossil.

As usual, my deft and timely response was mainly ignored.

Then, along came Carl Zimmer with this amazing article on the topic:

http://www.corante.com/loom/archives/20 … puzzle.php
(you may have to scroll down a bit to see it, I did)

It summarized things nicely, provides lots of links with pictures of bones (and near-complete skeletons, etc.) and pretty much decimates the "no transitional fossils) argument.

Have fun reading!

"not admissible as evidence?"
You sound pretty keen to have some kind of court step in and decide this.

As for science vs. religion, I'm issuing a restraining order: Religion must stay 500 yards from science at all times.

resedit wrote:

His post starts with an APE to MAN stawman conversation.

First off, he's using an analogy to highlight a creationist strawman.  That is, the idea that there must be ONE missing link between a land-based "whale" and what we see as a whale today.

He is showing, as has also been shown scientifically (thanks jerwin) that there are SEVERAL missing links.

Secondly, that AIG stuff is EXACTLY the stuff the he demolished in his article.  But, if you want to post it so that everyone can see how it relates to reality, thanks!

jerwin wrote:

Madar, S.I., J. G. M. Thewissen, and S. T. Hussain. 2002. Additional holotype remains of Ambulocetus natans (Cetacea, Ambulocetidae), and their implications for locomotion in early whales. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 22:405-422.

Wow!  Who woulda thunk that AIG might have their facts wrong!  I mean, they must just be wrong, it couldn't be that they might be LYING would it?

Hank Rearden wrote:

jerwin wrote:

Madar, S.I., J. G. M. Thewissen, and S. T. Hussain. 2002. Additional holotype remains of Ambulocetus natans (Cetacea, Ambulocetidae), and their implications for locomotion in early whales. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 22:405-422.

Wow!  Who woulda thunk that AIG might have their facts wrong!  I mean, they must just be wrong, it couldn't be that they might be LYING would it?

No, I don't think they are lying.
You should use their feedback feature and let them know where the article it is in.
They like to get feedback from evolutionists. They welcome it.

Notice the addendum is dated January 2002 - which means it quite probably pre-dates the 2002 reference you give.

Just to let everyone see how YEC creationists have things totally screwed up (not LYING, of course), here is a virtually complete fossil of Ambulocetus from Thewissen's lab website that jerwin posted above.  Note that creationists love to talk about how fossils are sooooo incomplete.  Well, judge for yourself:

webpage with picture wrote:

The bones of Ambulocetus natans arranged in its approximate body shape. These are the original fossils, all pertaining to a single individual. Note hammer for scale.

(note that the site says that pictures are public domain, if the site is referenced.  So, there you go.)

Note that when the AiG article was written, these additionals finds had not been published in a peer review article - and that when AiG wrote their rebuttal to the accusation of lying, they both pointed that out, and pointed out that the new finds still had not been through a peer review journal.

The article hank referred to was published after the date of the AiG response to the accusation of lying.

AiG isn't disputing that the animal exists, they were pointing out assumptions and claims made about that animal without peer reviewed evidence with which to make them. That is an unfortunate problem with evolutionists, and it has resulted in false information being published numerous times - sometimes intentional frauds, sometime non intentional, but always because conclusions were drawn before the data was complete - which is the result of conclusions being drawn before the data was even examined.

Hank Rearden wrote:

resedit wrote:

Note that when the AiG article was written, these additionals finds had not been published in a peer review article - and that when AiG wrote their rebuttal to the accusation of lying, they both pointed that out, and pointed out that the new finds still had not been through a peer review journal.

(snip)

AiG isn't disputing that the animal exists, they were pointing out assumptions and claims made about that animal without peer reviewed evidence with which to make them.

Then:

A) AIG should retract their article now that the complete facts are out.

Retract, no - Addend, perhaps.
The peer review of the new information should be looked at.

B)  Speculation is different from fact.  When you recover a great deal of a new type of skeleton that has certain implications, you report the facts of the find and speculate as to what it could mean.

Then, you go out and look to see if your speculation was correct.  If not, too bad but nice try.

But in this case, the speculation was used as evidence to support evolution of the whale - just like that other fossil where they found a few pieces, and had an artist draw it diving for fish, which was completely wrong.

The evidence for the alleged land mammal to sea mammal evolution is still missing far too many pieces of the puzzle for it to be anywhere near demonstrated. This may be a fossil of a mammal with legs that dwelled mostly in water - as many current mammals do, but it was far from being a whale.

resedit wrote:

But in this case, the speculation was used as evidence to support evolution of the whale - just like that other fossil where they found a few pieces, and had an artist draw it diving for fish, which was completely wrong.

The evidence for the alleged land mammal to sea mammal evolution is still missing far too many pieces of the puzzle for it to be anywhere near demonstrated. This may be a fossil of a mammal with legs that dwelled mostly in water - as many current mammals do, but it was far from being a whale.

That's because it was (and is, even more so now) a valid forecast of what reality may be.

Yet, it was still a speculation.

Now, however, the entirety of that skeleton (plus many others of the same and different creatures) have come to light.  That little speculation is pretty much bang on, as it turns out.  Turns out that when highly-trained scientists make cautious predictions of what their results may imply, they often turn out to be correct.

That's how science works.  You find something, you think about it, and then you ask "what might this imply?"  Then you set out to test that question of implication (which is often referred to as an "hypothesis").  All hypotheses, by the way, are speculation...but speculation based on facts.

That differs from the speculations of the AIG and DI folks with are mere speculations based on absolutely nothing at all (except their questionable interpretation of the Bible, at most), and are completely and utterly untestable and wholly devoid of any scientific meaning.

When the whale researchers speculated of what their find meant, there was a means to test it (i.e., go out and look for other parts of the skeleton).  That they did, and it turned out that they were mostly correct, other than minor details.

So, you can cry foul all you want...but them's the facts, Jack.

Now, however, the entirety of that skeleton (plus many others of the same and different creatures) have come to light.  That little speculation is pretty much bang on, as it turns out.  Turns out that when highly-trained scientists make cautious predictions of what their results may imply, they often turn out to be correct.

They sometimes are correct.
They sometimes are way out in left field - like the earlier fossil that turned out to be a completely land mammal.
Speculation, no matter how educated, is still speculation - and is not fact or evidence.

resedit wrote:

What about my statements were inconsistant?

Peer review happens BEFORE a paper makes it to print.  Not after.

Peer review does not happen on websites, op-ed pieces, or collections of essays.

I do not "peer review" AIG articles.  I read them and decide that they are a bunch of crapola.  If such articles were subjected to peer review, they would not show up on the web to waste peoples time.

Peer review:

I do an experiment

I write about the leadup, methods, results, and implications (including new hypotheses stemming from the results).

I submit the paper to an editor or associate editor of an appropriate journal.

The editor sends the paper to two (or sometimes three) experts in the field, who remain anonymous unless they ultimately reveal themselves purposefully to me by signing the review.

The reviewers read the paper and make extensive comments on everything ranging from methodology and interpretation of results to simple grammar.

The reviewers turn in their review to the editor who then decides among a number of options:
1. Reject outright (quite common)
2. Accept outright (almost never happens)
3. Accept with minor changes (quite usual)
4. Accept with major changes (also quite usual)

The comments of the reviewers and editor are returned to me.  If my paper is accepted with required changes, then I respond TO EACH AND EVERY suggestion presented to me by the reviewers and the editor.  I need not make every change, but I must have a dang good reason for not making any specific change.  In other words, I either submit to the knowledge of the reviewers or I vigorously defend my choice not to...IN EACH AND EVERY CASE.

I then return the revised manuscript to the editor who reviews my changes and defenses and then either accepts it, rejects it, or sends it out for another round of review.

Once everyone is happy (me, the editor and/or associate editors that get involved in the process as well, and the reviewers) the paper is put to print.

That, my friend, is the process.  Articles posted on AIG never have been (and never will be) subjected to that process.  Why?  Because their authors know full well that they would not survive in any recognizable form.

ICR to do an Age of the Earth Conference in a couple months.
I probably won't be able to attend, though I would like to.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0913RATE.asp
http://www.icr.org/

resedit wrote:

Hank Rearden wrote:

resedit wrote:

What about my statements were inconsistant?

Peer review happens BEFORE a paper makes it to print.  Not after.

Some peer review happens before the paper is published.
When the paper is published, it is opened up to a lot more peer review. In fact, many journals publish peer reviews that result from having read the article, do they not?

No, they do not.  They do, however, publish further peer reviewed papers that may relate to the findings and hypotheses of the original article.

That is, if a researcher disputes the findings or finds them to be interesting, he/she may do additional experiments and then submit a paper to the same process.

It is true that "peers" (and the general public, who are not peers) can read a paper after publication.  That, however, is not "peer review" in the strict sense.  And the only official recourse that the readers have at that point is to do their own experiments and then submit that to the process, as I just described.