Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)
I do not concern myself with gods and spirits either good or evil nor do I serve any.
[Lao Tse, founder of Taoism]
A complex regulatory network in a diploblast
Vertebral variation, Hox genes, development, and cancer
Stay abreast of your favorite bloggers' latest and greatest via e-mail, via a daily digest.
« Freethought symbology | Main | Time bobbles the God and science debate »
Category: Organisms
Posted on: November 5, 2006 12:49 PM, by PZ Myers
Now this is cool:
Just as sometimes humans are born with little tails, it seems that a few bottlenosed dolphins are born with vestiges of hindlimbs. The genetic toolbox for making limbs is all there, and sometimes it can get re-expressed, revealing these fascinating atavisms.
Send this entry to:
Email this entry to a friend
View the Technorati Link Cosmos for this entry
(TrackBack URL for this entry: )
Comments
Vestiges my bum. Those, like every other, past and present, case of 'vestigial' hindlimbs ever reported, are obviously designed to help in mating, turning that dolphin into one mean playah. Just a last minute improvement of the Designer in this case, who apparently thought dolphins need more sexin' up.
This is too easy. Next!
Posted by: Sotiris | November 5, 2006 1:10 PM
Wow, I just heard this reported on ABC radio news (don't ask why I've got KSTP on... I just can't stand Garisson is all)
The ABC radio news announcer introduced it as "A sign, that maybe, once, mammals that live in the ocean, once walked on land"
Maybe? Ya don't say? Wow, I never woulda thunk it!
Posted by: thomis | November 5, 2006 1:10 PM
Sad,
While fascinating for providing more evidence of the mechanism of evolution, I suspect that it is actually evidence of a species under stress. Expressions of vestigal limbs may indicate a diminishment of gene pool variation. That population of dolphins might have other genetic characteristics that will inhibit thier survivability. When I was twelve years old a friend of mine and I worked on and developed a strain of tailless mice. The local pet store would buy them for $2.00 each as curiosities. They were worth $.20 each if they had tails. They all died out after 9 generations. This occured though we introduced mice with tails every third generation. It was the mid sixties and we had been exposed to Mendel. I learned then that an obviously expressed anomoly can have other problems that inhibit survival. I wonder what would have been the survivability of that line of tailless mice if I then had real scientific training. And why would we promote such a thing?
Ken
Posted by: Ken Mareld | November 5, 2006 1:20 PM
Can't comment on your hypothesis in general, Ken,
although it sounds at least possible to me, but here's a data point in favor of your general line of thought. You're familiar, I assume, with how dog breeds have been artificially selected with, shall we just say, the interests of the dogs themselves as less than the highest priority (/euphemism).
Anyway, because of this selective breeding for recessive traits and the associated meticulous record-keeping, Elaine Ostrander's lab is able to use that information to study cancer:
Posted by: RavenT | November 5, 2006 1:37 PM
Frack. That should have been:
I need more caffeine, stat!
Posted by: RavenT | November 5, 2006 1:43 PM
Those, like every other, past and present, case of 'vestigial' hindlimbs ever reported, are obviously designed to help in mating...
Like dolphins need any more encouragement :) Wait, maybe that's it - dolphins ver1.0 used to have these little mating clasps, but they misused them with all their gay sex and general promiscuity, and God, or I mean the ID, decided to remove them.
Posted by: windy | November 5, 2006 1:48 PM
I guess you could say that the Japanese researchers discovered the vestigial limbs by some fluke.
Ha-ha-ha-ha! Fluke! Enh? Enh? Don't you get it? You see, because fluke can mean an unexpected stroke of good luck or chance, but it can also refer to the flattened, triangular tail of a cetacean, used for propulsion. And, uh, they were lucky to find it, but also the limbs were near the dolphin's fluke. So, it was by fluke (as in luck), but also by the fluke.
Oh, man, I crack myself up sometimes.
You're not laughing? Here, let me explain the joke some more....
Posted by: HP | November 5, 2006 1:51 PM
I thought I had tapeworms once, but it was just a fluke...
On an unrelated note, I wonder why I don't get invited to fancy dinner parties any more, being as how I'm such a raconteuse and all.
Posted by: RavenT | November 5, 2006 2:11 PM
You Darwinists are so silly sometimes...
Here, check out my blog on this "incredible find"...
http://reasonablekansans.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Forthekids | November 5, 2006 3:37 PM
While fascinating for providing more evidence of the mechanism of evolution, I suspect that it is actually evidence of a species under stress. Expressions of vestigal limbs may indicate a diminishment of gene pool variation.
I don't see why this type of observations would point in any direction at all. If so, you could say that of any phenotypic variation.
Obviously, everyone who has ever seen a whale skeleton has noted the "vestigial hind limbs". If one day a whale would turn up with limbs somewhat bigger or smaller, would that be a basis for speculations about "a species under stress"?
Re: tailless mice:
Many mutations causing short or no tails are in important genes that function in axial extension. Apparently primates found a way to get along with their tail-lessness.
Those, like every other, past and present, case of 'vestigial' hind limbs ever reported, are obviously designed to help in mating, turning that dolphin into one mean playah.
It is true that pythons have rudimentary hind limbs http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/articles/snake_vestigial_limb.html
and that these are apparently functional during mating (to keep Mrs. Python in place). I don't know if that would work in the water, though. If so, why did they ever lose them in the first place?
Posted by: amph | November 5, 2006 3:47 PM
I wonder how long before some creationist or cryptozoologist tries to claim that this isn't a picture of a dolphin at all but rather an ichthyosaur.
You should put this post up on Pandas as well PZ.
Posted by: Troy Britain | November 5, 2006 4:04 PM
Here, check out my blog on this "incredible find"...
Welp, I'm convinced. Time to turn my back on evolutionary biology.
Posted by: Patrick | November 5, 2006 4:31 PM
It is true that pythons have rudimentary hind limbs and that these are apparently functional during mating (to keep Mrs. Python in place). I don't know if that would work in the water, though. If so, why did they ever lose them in the first place?
Actually, the spurs of pythons and boas aren't really big enough to grasp with, but they seem to play a role in stimulating the female during mating. See here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfaB4Awnqt0
As for why dolphins lost their hind limbs, it's likely for hydrodynamic reasons; things that stick out create drag, and drag force is proportional to both surface area and the square of velocity. This means that for fast-moving animals, things that increase surface area, like limbs, increase drag and slow them down (or require higher forces to achieve the same speed).
Posted by: Henry | November 5, 2006 5:08 PM
"Welp, I'm convinced. Time to turn my back on evolutionary biology."
ROTFLMAO, Cool. See, I knew I'd convert some of you monkey men!
Well, Patrick, now you can leave PZ and his nonsense and come on over to the brighter side of life. Hope you visit me again soon...
Posted by: Forthekids | November 5, 2006 5:10 PM
Forthekids:
Wow. Your use of photoshopped animals sure put us evolutionists in our place.
Posted by: BC | November 5, 2006 5:24 PM
I wonder if this might restrict movement in some way. It would seem if these fins are usable they would need some sort of pelvis to support them. However, dolphins move much of their body when propelling themselves. I would think having a pelvis would significantly impede the sorts of body movements dolphins need to make. Perhaps not enough to be lethal, but perhaps enough for it to be selected against.
Posted by: TheBlackCat | November 5, 2006 5:34 PM
Yes but....lol
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/vestigial-structures
This cartoon page will probably get portal page status for a while.
Posted by: Gene Goldring | November 5, 2006 6:24 PM
Slashdot poster "jemptymethod" wrote:
"should the vestigial limbs be removed....?"
"that would be de-feeting the porpoise"
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=204817&cid=16723523
Posted by: Domomojo | November 5, 2006 6:52 PM
Vestigial limbs are cool and all, but when I look at that picture I can only think they're about to drown the poor dolphin trying to get a good shot. Turn him back over, damnit! Don't they have waterproof cameras?
Posted by: wyomeg | November 5, 2006 6:54 PM
And I'm not sure if it's sad or funny when the creationists post links to their bs "answer" pages on a site like this!
Posted by: wyomeg | November 5, 2006 6:57 PM
It's amazing the kind of individual variations one can find in a population when you drive hundreds, if not thousands of individuals into a spot where fisherman kill them one at a time by hand after inspecting them closely to separate the absolute best specimens for live sale to private industry. It's a hands-on method that allows for close inspection!
Posted by: Chris Clarke | November 5, 2006 7:02 PM
I just read the AiG 'answer', and I must say I'm amazed by the way these people can type away for 18 paragraphs without actually saying anything of substance. Remarkable.
This is surprisingly accurate, however:
"With the growing culture war between Christianity and secular humanism, people recognize that the foundational issue is the Bible versus human reason--and the creation/evolution issue is at the cutting edge of this battle".
Human reason versus the bible- couldn't have said it better myself.
Posted by: Sotiris | November 5, 2006 7:07 PM
Isn't it proportional to surface area and velocity? Terminal speed calculations are based on the fact that gravity is a constant force while air resistance is proportional to speed.
Posted by: Alon Levy | November 5, 2006 7:16 PM
Alon, Henry is right. Drag force is a function of the frontal area and square of the velocity. It's also a function of the coefficient of drag, which itself is a function of a lot of things, like shape and surface roughness.
Posted by: Carolyn | November 5, 2006 8:05 PM
I looked around a while for that quote, it's here (in case anyone else is interested):
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/1105dolphin-legs.asp
They have a link to Whale evolution on that page. I had to laugh at this quote:
Gee, that's weird, I thought. Let's find out more about that quote by clicking on the "3". Oh gee, that quote is from a book published in 1962. I have to give them credit for using such a recent quote (only 44 years old, and that information is long out-of-date since lots has been learned about whale transitionals since then), afterall, their science is several centuries out-of-date.
Posted by: BC | November 5, 2006 9:03 PM
Hopefully you didn't mean my post wyomeg. Just in case, when I said "This cartoon page..." I meant the "answers" page. Sorry for any confusion.
No creationist zone here. Atheist and damn proud of it. :-)
Posted by: Gene Goldring | November 5, 2006 9:04 PM
"Oh gee, that quote is from a book published in 1962. I have to give them credit for using such a recent quote (only 44 years old, and that information is long out-of-date since lots has been learned about whale transitionals since then), afterall, their science is several centuries out-of-date."
I actually sent them some feedback on a different article saying something similar. They responded by sending a book and note to my mailbox. I should really make some scans of that book; they allege that I'm planting gay abortion trees in my heart (this is an illustration in the book) by questioning the currency of their sources.
Posted by: April | November 5, 2006 10:20 PM
I guess these are "vestigial," but that's not the point--they're atavistic. Much cooler. One of Gould's books of essays is titled after one he wrote on atavisms (Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes. I have an old newspaper photo I use in class of a humpback whale with hindlimbs; the femur and tibia are clearly shown. These are much more killer as quick "evidence for evolution"...the IDiots are always talking about loss of information, but when something lost COMES BACK...
Posted by: CCP | November 5, 2006 11:53 PM
Just now followed the link...can't wait for the x-rays!
Posted by: CCP | November 5, 2006 11:55 PM
Isn't the big news here the fact that a cetacean survived an encounter with the Japanese?
Posted by: Mike | November 6, 2006 3:26 AM
who says it survived? i'd think it'd be on a japaneses ebay auction already into the millions of yen on who gets to tempura those suckers.
Someone mentioned that atavisms such as this are an indicator of inbreeding or loss of genetic diversity. What's the evidence for this? Are atavisms generally linked to genetic polymorphisms or are they developmental defects due to environment or other random events during embryogenesis? i've never heard of heritable atavisms. Maybe they can be triggered by environmental stresses that perturb development and unmask underlying variability that is normally suppressed during developmental... as has been shown in flies.
Anyway, I've never heard of an atavism linked to deleterious mutations.
Posted by: miko | November 6, 2006 3:47 AM
That picture is blurry as heck...Any clearer pictures happen to be avalible?
"I actually sent them some feedback on a different article saying something similar...they allege that I'm planting gay abortion trees in my heart (this is an illustration in the book) by questioning the currency of their sources." Haha. Sounds like another wonderful answer from Genesis. I remember one of the comics there about..Genesis, actually, that painted Tyrannosaurus Rex as a gigantic daemon from hell. Good stuff there.
Posted by: Dustin | November 6, 2006 5:40 AM
Australian aboriginies traditionally drown dugongs by turning them upside down and holding their tails up so the head is submerged. Looks like the Japanese have forgone the exploding harpoon for the more traditional approach.
Posted by: Lab Lemming | November 6, 2006 6:09 AM
While fascinating for providing more evidence of the mechanism of evolution, I suspect that it is actually evidence of a species under stress.
Studies I was involved with a long time ago (about 20 years ago)on organophosphate contamination in Pacific Bottlenose Dolphins revealed very high levels (higher than for any previously recorded tissues from any mammal) for PCB's and DDT metabolites (DDE).
I've periodically checked over the last 20 years, and the situation does not seem to be improving much; many marine mammals are exhibiting signs of physiological stress that may be from high levels of organochlorine/phosphate residues. likely high levels of mercury too, but I never looked at those. preliminary work I was helping with about 10 years ago around Monterey Bay, CA, with elasmobranchs also revealed high levels of similar contaminants.
However, I have no idea as to the likelihood of these kinds of toxics affecting expression of these particular traits.
A lot more data would be needed, and apparently the condition is rare enough (in delphinids) that it would be difficult.
I wonder if comparative tests for the effects of these kinds of contaminants in the development of other species that have dropped limbs might shed some light? That would be more PZ's forte, I would think, and maybe he has some relevant references to share?
IIRC in snakes, a Hox gene complex is involved in the expression of this trait. I don't know if it is the same in delphinids, but maybe it would shed light on the situation if we did some developmental studies on snakes using similar concentrations of organochlorine/phosphate residues?
just a thought.
Posted by: Ichthyic | November 6, 2006 6:56 AM
Posted by: Andrew Wade | November 6, 2006 9:04 AM
OOOO, let us take this great discovery and quickly use it to rack up another point on the evolution score board only to later be sadly disappointed that it lends us no further proof to evolution than "Lucy" or "Neanderthal Man".
Come on people, let's get real and quit sightlessly grasping for evidence. Find us something UNDINIABLE if that's what evolution is.
" It is the height of bigotry to teach only one theory of origin."
Clarence Daryl
Posted by: Joe | November 6, 2006 9:08 AM
Come on people, let's get real and quit sightlessly grasping for evidence. Find us something UNDINIABLE[sic] if that's what evolution is.
uh, joe, not that you would have anything intelligent to respond with, and not that this particular data point is anything but a curiosity raiser to see if delphinids share similar developmental pathways to other legless wonders, like snakes, but your post begs the question:
what would you consider "undiniable" evidence?
(guess: you're gonna say something stupid, like a dog giving birth to a cat, right?)
Posted by: Ichthyic | November 6, 2006 9:49 AM
I suppose you are trying to quote Clarence Darrow, not Daryl. You might want to check your sources on that one Joe. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/darrow.html
Come on, let's get real and quit grasping for sourceless quotes, and find something that actually undermines the theory.
Creationists are so dumb sometimes.
Well, most of the time.
Posted by: Magnus | November 6, 2006 9:50 AM
It's so heartwarming to see that the promotion of ignorance is "for the kids."
Posted by: Kseniya | November 6, 2006 12:27 PM
Oops, made a mistake and that I'll admit to it, my bad Mr. Let's Poke Fun at People Magnus. You know that's one of the main reasons I'm turned off with evolution. I've never had or seen a conversation with an evolutionist that doesn't involve condescending remarks against the opposing side. Would one of you out there please prove to me that your not all a bunch of evolution "Pharisees" walking around in your robes of science (in by which the threads are constantly changing).
And Ichthyic, show me some transitional fossils. If creatures evolved over millions of years, we should be literally tripping over thousands, perhaps millions of transitional forms. Yet here we are with a handful of possible maybes that are consistently disproved by secular scientists. Where are the thousands of fossils, Find me a couble hundred and I'll start consider that undeniable.
"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?"
-Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, in letter to Luther Sunderland, April 10, 1979. Cited in: Sunderland, Luther D., Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems (El Cajon, CA: Master Books, 1988), p. 89.
Posted by: Joe | November 6, 2006 12:41 PM
Maby the reason why you are turned off by evolution is that your arguments against it are paper thin and every time someone pokes a hole in them you need to consort to another misquote without checking the references.
Again you fail to impress anyone with your eloquent typing of what someone else supposedly has said.
And again I have to refer to talkorigins:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html
Posted by: Magnus | November 6, 2006 12:53 PM
Alright Magnus, way to avoid the question allow me to refer you back to it.
WHERE ARE THE FOSSILS?
Posted by: Joe | November 6, 2006 1:03 PM
from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossils
It is commonly stated by anti-evolutionists that there are no known transitional fossils. This position is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of what represents a transitional feature. A common creationist argument is that no fossils are found with partially functional features. It is entirely plausible, however, that a complex feature with one function can adapt a wholly different function through evolution. The precursor to, for example, a wing, might originally have only been meant for gliding, trapping flying prey, and/or mating display. Nowadays, wings can still have all of these functions, but they are also used in active flight.
Although transitional fossils elucidate the evolutionary transition of one life-form to another, they only exemplify snapshots of this process. Due to the special circumstances required for preservation of living beings, only a very small percentage of all life-forms that ever have existed can be expected to be discovered. Thus, the transition itself can only be illustrated and corroborated by transitional fossils, but it will never be known in detail. However, progressing research and discovery managed to fill in several gaps and continues to do so.
Posted by: Steve_C | November 6, 2006 1:13 PM
Actually you asked Ichthyic that question, but since i'm such a nice, godless, evolutionary layman I'll give you some references that I doubt will be accepted.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
Notice to self: Must stop feeding the trolls.
Posted by: Magnus | November 6, 2006 1:15 PM
It's funny how creationists need hundreds of examples to prove evolution but only need the second hand accounts of 2000 year old cultists to believe that Jesus was the son of a god that has zero evidence of existing.
Posted by: Steve_C | November 6, 2006 1:18 PM
Joe, perhaps if you didn't wrap yourself in your ignorance and smugly call it "faith," perhaps you'd be aware of various "transitional" organisms such as the four-legged whales, such as Ambulocetus and Pakicetus, as well as primitive, four-finned whales like Basilosaurus.
Posted by: Stanton | November 6, 2006 1:36 PM
Steve, my man, blurp blurp. Thanks for proving my earlier point for everyone to see. Yes I need scientific evidence to back up a scientific theory, is that not science, where'd you come from? Jesus and God on the other hand is NOT science therefore I need no scientific proof for that now do I. The moment someone could put God into a test tube He would no longer be God. Magus I will read it, and I will consider and study the facts with more research. I'm not an evolutionist, I will consider opposing evidence.
Posted by: Joe | November 6, 2006 1:44 PM
So, Joe, in the good fight between the bible and human reason, which side are you on?
Posted by: Sotiris | November 6, 2006 1:48 PM
But you seem to ignore the evidence when it's shown to you.
And are willing to believe in something that has none.
If a god created anything... there would be evidence.
And there's no such thing as evolutionist. It's a false title.
Posted by: Steve_C | November 6, 2006 1:56 PM
Okay, I was going to go ahead and study the evidences but you keep giving me questions.
Sotiris, human reason once told us the earth was flat, human reason once told us that we were the center of the universe, human reason is inherently selfish resulting in the rights and human dignity of some to be trampled by others asserting their own will--which to them seems reasonable. So I'll side with the bible any day thanks.
Steve, you're killing me here man. Ignoring evidence? What about the evidence you ignore in the name of evolution? Now I know I'm about to open a can of worms here but, irreducible complexities. I'm guessing that the first fish to come crawling out of the goo said to himself, it would sure be nice to be able to breath some of that there air, I think I'll go back to swimming until by random chance I start to develop the very lung that will drowned me in the water before I realize that I have it. Now before you fall back on the famous talk origins, been there done that.
"We can summarize these four possibilities this way:
* Previously using more parts than necessary for the function.
* The parts themselves evolve.
* Deployment of parts (gene regulation) evolves.
* New parts are created (gene duplication) and may then evolve."
Theories 1 and 2, how do you start with complexity all at once and have parts to spare. You might as well say that humans were the first to crawl out of the goo and decided they were too complex and dropped parts until we were back to single celled organisms and then eventually found our original state. Evolution itself starts small and grows.
Theories 3 and 4 do not deal with the problem of this living organism, whatever it may be, can not exist without everything it has in it's current genetic makeup. Take the dragonfly, why has it not evolved? Is it the only creature perfect enough for it's DNA to say "no reason for me to change, I'm good just the way I am"? The smallest of the small, amino acids need all that they have or they cease to live. Were did non-life become life and with all it's complexities?
Oh and I guess dictionary.com is run by ignorant hillbilly creationists because this is their definition of an evolutionist.
ev‧o‧lu‧tion‧ist /ˌɛvəˈluʃənɪst or, especially Brit., ˌivə-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ev-uh-loo-shuh-nist or, especially Brit., ee-vuh-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-noun
1.a person who believes in or supports a theory of evolution, esp. in biology.
2.a person who supports a policy of gradual growth or development rather than sudden change or expansion.
-adjective Also, ev‧o‧lu‧tion‧is‧tic.
3.of or pertaining to evolution or evolutionists.
4.believing in or supporting a theory of evolution, esp. in biology.
Posted by: Joe | November 6, 2006 3:21 PM
Joe, you're an amazing creature.
Ever heard of a lungfish?
Ever heard of Galileo?
Do you have a sense of irony?
Have you ever considered the vast array of light-sensing organs of varying complexity currently on display in the animal kingdom?
What Steve_C said is true. Self-evidently true. How can you sanely deny it, let alone imply it's an insult?
What do Creationists and Dominionists have in common?
Answer: An remarkable capacity to unquestioningly accept as immutable fact things for which there in no evidence whatsoever, while stubbonly ignoring evidence that supports ideas to which they object and which they do not fully understand. Instead, they make up their own "evidence" to the contrary (e.g. fictional, distorted, or badly misrepresented quotations) and try, with a straight face, to pass it off as fact.
Posted by: Kseniya | November 6, 2006 3:48 PM
There's no proof or evidence if irreducible complexity. There's no science there.
Of course dragonflies have evolved... why do you assume they haven't?
Also not everything in your genetic makeup is required for your survival or continued existence. Humans still have an appendix but it's useless now.
I screwed up. Darwinist is a false title. And some throw around evolutionist like it a belief based on faith. It's not.
Posted by: Steve_C | November 6, 2006 3:49 PM
This just seems like a Hox gene mutation expressing fins in the wrong location. Not much more. I doubt the x-rays will reveal much more than that. Much like fruits flys with extra pairs of wings and cows with an extra pair of legs. This situation is quite common, but probably the first time it has been dicovered in a marine animal. It would be much more convicing if they actually looked like legs with flexible joints and if they were connected to the axial skeleton. But for the most part (for now) they are just fins. But evolutionits are willing to grasp at anything. This really doesn't prove anything anymore than Polydactyls prove that humans once had six digits on their hands or feet. But I guess you're minds are made up. Anyone that doesn't accept your meaningless and purposless world view is
an absolute idiot.
Posted by: Mr. Hanson | November 6, 2006 3:55 PM
Oh I love this quote!
"So, Joe, in the good fight between the bible and human reason, which side are you on?"
I guess human reasoning supercedes hope,meening and purpose. I guess supercedes guilt, love, and all thoes things which cannot be explained by science. If human reason is the end result of accumulative random mutations and therefore not designed, how do you know you can trust it?
Posted by: Mr. Hanson | November 6, 2006 4:03 PM
Man, I have never seen ignorance and I mean rank ignorance as displayed by the creationists in this thread. Their stupidity is almost painful to read.
More than a few thought the Earth was flat because of the bible. More than a few, actually most, thought the Earth was the center of the universe- again from the bible.
Human reason is what keeps human dignity alive along with compassion for our fellow man. Before talking about the bible as a source of anything find an agreed upon version. And by stating you'll side with the bible you are simply siding with the men that wrote it. Which seems an odd position seeing how we don't know who most of them where.
Posted by: Uber | November 6, 2006 4:09 PM
Yeah and fossils don't prove evolution.
Posted by: Steve_C | November 6, 2006 4:10 PM
I don't know what meening is but I guess you mean 'meaning'. Why would reason not include hope and purpose? Why would that go away? An odd dicotomy you have set up there fella.
What makes you think they can't be explained? They are a natural process brought about by physiological interactions.
It doesn't exist in a vacuum. You provide evidence for your stances. How do you know you can trust whatever you trust in? Because someone told you?
Posted by: Uber | November 6, 2006 4:13 PM
Tsk.
We're talking about what science CAN tell us, not vague concepts like "meaning." What will be your next argument? "The theory evolution doesn't explain why the universe exists, and is therefore invalid?" Must we suffer that one again?
Can love, meaning, and purpose explain the extra fins? No? Then why are you bringing them up?
But while we're on the subject of meaning: Hey, bud, if you can't find meaning and purpose in life without clinging to some dusty old middle-eastern mythologies like a frightened toddler clinging to his mother's leg, I pity you.
That doesn't mean they're not true, of course. *cough*
But do you really need them to find purpose and meaning in life? To know how to be a good person? To believe your own existence is a fantastic, once-in-a-lifetime chance to experience the universe? I don't.
Posted by: Kseniya | November 6, 2006 4:16 PM
Thank you Kseniya, I am an amazing creature, created in the image of God and so are you.
Lungfish, which I'm sure will be a racoon by the time the year 2006,000 rolls around.
Galileo? Your point? One man against a world of human reason.
In this conversation I believe I can empathise with him.
Light-sensing organs. Who can prove to me this is and evolved trait and not somthing that's always been there?
Dragonflies, I have held in my hands the fossil remains of a dragonfly and there are no differences that can be identified when compared to the ones we have flying around today.
Mr. Hanson, if your going to saty in this chat get used to being the Galileo.
Posted by: Joe | November 6, 2006 4:16 PM
"If human reason is the end result of accumulative random mutations and therefore not designed, how do you know you can trust it?"
The word "nihilism" comes to mind when I read things like this.
Posted by: Numad | November 6, 2006 4:16 PM
Oops, before anyone jumps on the make fun of Joe bandwagon I made the corrections in what was a quick response.
Thank you Kseniya, I am an amazing creature, created in the image of God and so are you.
Lungfish, which I'm sure will be a raccoon by the time the year 2006,000 rolls around.
Galileo? Your point? One man against a world of human reason.
In this conversation I believe I can empathize with him.
Light-sensing organs. Who can prove to me this is and evolved trait and not something that's always been there?
Dragonflies, I have held in my hands the fossil remains of a dragonfly and there are no differences that can be identified when compared to the ones we have flying around today.
Mr. Hanson, if your going to stay in this chat get used to being the Galileo.
Posted by: Joe | November 6, 2006 4:18 PM
Why should they look like legs with joints. Why should they not look more like the last set of legs that the ancestor of the dolphins would have had? These limbs are the kind of things we'd expect to see in Basilosaurus or Dorodon. The hind legs of these animals were not attached to the axial skeleton.
Dragonflies have certainly evolved since the Carboniferous, as have Lungfish and all the other "living fossils". their gross morphology may have changed little (if you're well adapted to your environment it doesn't need to). But you can bet your life that they'll have changed at a genetic level, dealing with diseases, parasites, and competing for mates.
Posted by: Dave Godfrey | November 6, 2006 4:19 PM
Let's give up on this one. He's created in God's image... who can argue with that?
Why he doesn't look like a pink unicorn? I don't know.
Posted by: Steve_C | November 6, 2006 4:21 PM
Joe-
You are not the Galileo you are those that opposed him. He would find your ilk to be his jailer and repugnant.
Add in the fact that you don't know what your talking about ensures you have nothing at all in common with those that used evidence and reason to tackle dogma and superstition.
Posted by: Uber | November 6, 2006 4:24 PM
"Man, I have never seen ignorance and I mean rank ignorance as displayed by the creationists in this thread. Their stupidity is almost painful to read."
Typical "Creationists are stupid" argument put out by evolutionists. That definitely gets quite old and only hurts your position. The arrogance on this website is what is painful. But I don't want to start the name calling game. That is for so called "enlightened evolutionists".
"More than a few thought the Earth was flat because of the bible"
That is the most ridiculous thing I ever heard. Nowhere in the bible gives that idea. People believed the earth was flat because of their observation and lack of knowledge.
*sigh*
Oh by the way you just called Charles Babbage, Isaac Newton, James Clerk Maxwell,Lord Kelvin, Michael Faraday, Gregor Mendel, Wernher von Braun, JRR Tolkien, James Irwin etc..., stupid.
Posted by: Mr. Hanson | November 6, 2006 4:27 PM
all those guys were commenting on this thread? Alert the media at once!
Ignorance =/= stupidity...many creationists are not, in fact, stupid.
But it's hard to avoid concluding that they're ignorant.
Posted by: CCP | November 6, 2006 4:30 PM
Actually you are twisting that quite nicely. Just the Creationists on this thread are showing their stupidity. No one said ALL or throughout history.
W.A.T.B.
Posted by: Steve_C | November 6, 2006 4:30 PM
I agree that people chose that on their own and then backed it up using the four corners passages from the bible. And I agree it is ridiculous.
Well we could sit here on a blog and give you a biology lesson that clearly you didn't comprehend during your schooling but personally I find it much easier to tell you your arguments are weak and your knowledge base pretty pathetic and yet you trudge into a biology blog and spew ignorance to those who know better. And then YOU talk about biologists being arrogant. What a load of crap and frankly it makes you a hypocrite.
No I didn't.
Posted by: Uber | November 6, 2006 4:37 PM
Galileo? Your point? One man against a world of human reason.
No... no... I can't believe someone who is smart enough to use a computer could actually come up with something like that. Galileo's views on heliocentricism were condemned by the Church because they contradicted Scripture.
Posted by: Kseniya | November 6, 2006 4:39 PM
You are correct CCP. I do not think creationists are stupid, but I do think they are very ignorant as displayed here. But I do think they are making stupid uninformed arguments here.
Posted by: Uber | November 6, 2006 4:40 PM
This just seems like a Hox gene mutation expressing fins in the wrong location. Not much more.
not much more?
what the hell more would you want at that point, considering than in all analogous situations, it's a hox gene complex that regulates development of limbs?
I suggest you take a gander at the relevant sections on evolution and hox gene regulation (especially wrt limbless wonders like snakes), in a text like Scott Gilbert's Developmental Biology
or, just google for recent articles on the developmental basis for limb reduction.
frankly, I think you haven't a clue what that would mean, if it really is tied directly to a hox gene system.
Posted by: Ichthyic | November 6, 2006 4:42 PM
"I find it much easier to tell you your arguments are weak and your knowledge base pretty pathetic and yet you trudge into a biology blog and spew ignorance to those who know better. And then YOU talk about biologists being arrogant. What a load of crap and frankly it makes you a hypocrite."
There it is again. That same sort of attitude. I'm a person
of faith so therefore I'm "ignorant" chant. I'm not trying to offend anyone, but I do get quite angry. Oh and I talk about ALL biologists being arrogant? As you people constantly state, if you don't have common dissent with evolutionary biologists then I guess you're not a true biologist. There are several PHD biologists that question evolutionary theory. A site like this lacks any sort of retraint of ridicule anyone of any faith. Anyone who objects or tries to defend their position is flamed. I should have known better. Especially from a blog of a professor who compares Abraham Lincoln with Hitler. How sad.
Posted by: Mr.Hanson | November 6, 2006 5:25 PM
Ah yes let us critique scripture. I may not be a scientist, but you stepped in my territory when you decided come at me with scripture Uber, hold on tight.
"I agree that people chose that on their own and then backed it up using the four corners passages from the bible. And I agree it is ridiculous." Uber
Revelation 7:1 (as your referring to says) And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth,...
This is a reference to the cardinal directions: north, south, east, and west. Similar terminology is often used today when we speak of the sun rising and setting, even though the earth, not the sun, is doing the moving.
These are passages taken from the Hebrew-English Bible/Meechon-Mamre translated by the Jewish Publication Society.
Isaiah 40:21-22 Know ye not? hear ye not? Hath it not been told you from the beginning? Have ye not understood the foundations of the earth?: It is He that sitteth above the CIRCLE of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in;
Proverbs 8:27 When He established the heavens, I was there; when He set a CIRCLE upon the face of the deep,
Don't blame the bible for people's misinterpretations.
Posted by: Joe | November 6, 2006 5:33 PM
Now it's not the faith that makes you ignorant it's your alck of knowledge on the topic your speaking about and then telling folks that do they are wrong. And I'm not the least bit angry, quite the opposite amused rather.
So what? Every profession has it's cranks. There are 1000's upon 1000's that don't. So how can you mentioning a few make any substance of an argument at all?
I am a man who has faith. You got flamed because you spout ignorance about this topic.
Posted by: Uber | November 6, 2006 5:41 PM
You're ignorant of biology and science.
I glaze over whevever anyone starts quoting the bible.
Where did PZ compare Hitler to Abraham Lincoln? Wasn't Abe an atheist?
Posted by: Steve_C | November 6, 2006 5:42 PM
I wasn't quoting the bible to you glazer.
Posted by: Joe | November 6, 2006 5:50 PM
Sure you were. It's a comments section. Everyone is reading it.
Posted by: Steve_C | November 6, 2006 5:54 PM
Your right Joe I hadn't heard that before. A person trying to tell someone exactly what a verse in the bible means. Ho-hum. I guess my years of studying it at university left me not knowing what you just typed.
None of what you said about scripture matters in this discussion so essentially who cares? I already told you many people accepted a round earth and those that didn't clearly had a different interpretation than you.
Right. It couldn't be that it's impossible for two men to agree on any of it because it simply is a hodge podge of material splattered together and accepted upon review by a vote.
Oh and which bible?
Posted by: Uber | November 6, 2006 6:00 PM
Your right Joe I hadn't heard that before. A person trying to tell someone exactly what a verse in the bible means. Ho-hum. I guess my years of studying it at university left me not knowing what you just typed.
None of what you said about scriptu