"Debate" (sort of): The Origin and Evolution of Whales

[he_who_is_nobody]

Now I wouldn't want you to run away because you're being ganged up on, so unless you address me directly I'll reserve my comments for the peanut gallery.

This debate has has long since ended. There is no point in commenting in the peanut gallery anymore. Since this was not a formal debate, there is no reason to restrict comments on this thread anymore. In fact, I believe the more people that are able to point out the blatant falsehoods benthemiester seems to still be clinging too would be good for him to see.

 

[ProcInc]

First of all, Sternberg has been a friendly critic of the creationist group you mentioned, and has went on record as being skeptical of their views.

Group? Plural Ben.

Of course when he was discovered to be involved with these groups he claimed to be a 'friendly critic' but that hardly reflects his output connected with it. Seems to be there was only contribution...where's the criticism? Funnily enough you seem to want to just take his word for it.

Furthermore he did not go on record as skeptical of their views, he went on record as being skeptical of the "Young Earth position", deliberately leaving out creationism.

It would be difficult to write him off as skeptical of their views when he wrote areticles declaring with erroneous absolute certainty that animals came about in sepertely created "Baramins"

Secondly, you failed to mention that he has two PhDs. The first from 1995 in molecular evolution from Florida International University and that he did post-doctoral work between 1999 and 2001 at the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institution and obtained a 3 year appointment as an unpaid research collaborator at the NMNH.

At which point should I have mentioned this exactly? Was it at the time you "failed" to mention his asscciation and contribution to several YEC organisations and boards?

Furthermore as I pointed out, the fact he has a PhD in biology of any kind and yet misrepresents evolution so much is a clear sign of dishonesty. The kind of dishonesty directed at laymen you repeatedly tried to pin on non-fringe scientists.

Sternberg also appears to be getting increasingly bad at the work he does ever since he pinned himself down as a "critic" of evolutionary theory. Here is one example:

Sternberg attempted to explain that alternative splicing presented a serious problem for evolutionary theory, but in attempting to explain it he made a ridiculously bad mathematical error in doing so. When someone else pointed it out he made another, different mistake!, letting us in on the fact that he actually didn't understand the concept. A classic example of ignorance=believing one has a legitimate challenge to evolution.

A delusion you are quite familiar with yourself, Ben

The only timed anyone complained was when he published a peer review paper that Meyer's wrote.

That was a considerably big slip up. What was the deal with Sternerg filing a "religious discrimnation" case? (which was dismissed). I thought that they were trying to pretend ID was not religious. I've heard of a Freudian slip but never a freudian suit.

Thirdly,You have not proven why his questions are irrelevant.

Remember that I brought this guy up because you claimed to have evidence pertaining to population genetics that went against the evolution of whales. You never presented it. I demonstrated this video because it had a suspiciouly similar title.

His questions are more irreverent than irrelevent.

What part of the video am I meant to demonstrate?

Fourthly, Sternberg subscribes to process structuralism. Even you have admitted that this is what his belief is in.

So...either I "admit" things or I "fail to admit" things? No room for simply stating something? Perhaps you should consult a thesaurus, there are many more relevent synonyms.

As I pointed out, process structuralism usually is a crackpot position that subscribes to acceptence of common descent which is why it is all the more ironic that Sternberg is trying to marry it with baraminology! its a uniquely nutty position.

It wasn't an "admission" to point this out, that implies reluctance or pointing out something unhelpful to my case. This was pointing out how backward Sternberg's views are.

The only difference is, you use this quote below as means to try to prove your deception, which is a classical example of quote mining, which simply means quoting someone out of context"¦.

You must have learnt that recently because only a few days ago you misused the term quote mine.

"Some structuralists are striving to establish a "rational systematics""¦ that would reflect the 'Plan of Creation'." Nowhere does he say that he is one of those people, and as I have said in the past, he remains skeptical.

As I pointed out, nowhere does he make an effort to distnce himself from these people (Which at best is a ploy to maintain sympathy from the Young Earth Creationist audience he is wasting his time and career addressing)

And I repeat nowehere did he "remain" (or whatever) "skeptical" on the 'creation' part, merely (and deliberately) the Young Earth part. This makes sense since most (but not all, eg Dean Kenyon) ID charlatans are Old Earthers

Wikipedias definition of process structuralism"¦..
Biological or process structuralism is a school of biological thought that deals with the law-like behavior of the structure of organisms and how it can change.
Structuralists tend to emphasize that organisms are wholes, and therefore that change in one part must necessarily take into account the inter-connected nature of the entire organism. Whilst structuralists are not necessarily anti-Darwinian, the laws of biological structure are viewed as independent and ahistorical accounts that are not necessarily tied to any particular mechanism of change. A structuralist might thus hold that Darwinian natural selection might be the driving force behind how structures change, but nevertheless be committed to an extra layer of explanation of how particular structures come into being and are maintained.
Typical structuralist concerns might be self-organisation, the idea that complex structure emerges out of the dynamic interaction of molecules, without the resultant structure having necessarily been selected for in all its details. For example, the patterning of fingerprints or the stripes of zebras might emerge through simple rules of diffusion, and the resulting unique structure need not have been selected for in its finest details. Structuralists look for very general rules that govern organisms as a whole, and not just particular narratives that explain the origin or maintenance of particular structures. The interplay between structural laws and adaptation thus govern the degree to which an adaptationist account can fully explain why a particular organism looks as it does. END

Which makes it all the stranger that Sternberg tried to make it compatable with this

Baraminology is a creationist taxonomic system that classifies animals into groups called "created kinds" or "baramins" (pronounced with accent on second syllable) according to the account of creation in the book of Genesis and other parts of the Bible. It claims that kinds cannot interbreed, and have no evolutionary relationship to one another. Baraminology developed as a subfield of the system of belief known as "creation science" in the 1990s among a group of creationists that included Walter ReMine and Kurt Wise.

As a part of creation science, baraminology is considered a pseudoscience by the scientific community, as the evidence for common ancestry of all life has general scientific acceptance. The taxonomic system widely applied in modern biology is cladistics, which classifies species based on evolutionary history and emphasizes objective, quantitative analysis.

As for the evolutionary biologist who attended the Altenberg summit and who have also questioned the limitations of the Darwinian synthesis, as well as proposing self organization models. Should we call these men creationist also?

For somebody who hasn't read any of the output resulting from the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (and no, pseudojournalist Suzan Mazur doesn't count) you seem to believe you have a pretty good idea of what the summit entailed.

As for the question "should we call them creationist"? Well, I don't see anything in "Evolution: The Extended Synthesis" challenging evolutionary theory nor anything about 'Baramins'. "Neodarwinism" is intact in its entiraty and now large scale evolution has a more detailed and accurate account of the mechanisms involved as well as plenty (and unnecessarily) more evidence in favour of Universal Common Descent and a superior population dynamics model.

In shrt the answer is I think the term creationist should be limited to people:

1. Who subscribe to the idea that life was created
2. Who subscribe to bad science

So Ken Miller, Keith Miller, Francis Collins (who uses the term Biologos rather than evolution), Bob Bakker etc etc are not creationists since they believe in a Creator (very firmly and conventionally too)

Just as Perriannan Senapathy (Bad "science", no creator) is not a creationist.

Remember, Newman even criticized the Dover trial

Newman's Criticisms obviously weren't incapatable with the decision. Its funny that we have a case in which not only the verdict but the content so trouncingly exposes ID and all creationists have been able to do is accuse it of the judicial system failing.

Newman criticised the Dover trial on the point that is emphasised Neo-Darwinian systematics however he would have done well to note:

1. This was an adequate model to introduce the mechanisms or evolution since this was a ninth grade class
2. By "not true" he should have instead stated that it disagreed with his new (and still in infancy) synthesis of self organisation (Which still relies on Darwinian Natural selection)
3. This was a very mild response (he did this in part) considering he was coached into such a response why a pseudojournalist who finished her question with the term "Darwinian Industrial Tapeworm"

Many non creationist scholars who have been critical or skeptical of creationism, and have proposed their own theories, have also attended creationist debates, meetings and talk groups.

Can you give a specific example?

Should we apply this same standard of marginalizing someones scientific observation because they happen to be atheist?

We aren't talking about observation (there has never been a verified/observed datum of evidence that ran counter to evolutionary theory) we are talking about crackpot theories running counter to evidence.

So yes, we should apply the same standard of marginalisation to Atheists who offer crackpot theories:

I already mentioned one of these, Perriannan Senapathy.

As I pointed out, the religious beliefs don't matter

You are at least by all practical standards of definition, an atheist since you deny and even resent being associated with creation.

None the less you believe silly documentaries that suggest humans and (Non-Avian) Dinosaurs coexisted etc. So you are clearly not religious, but you are a crackpot.

However I stand by refering to you as a creationist in anticipation of you denying your projected atheism.

At best, all you can do is accuse Sternberg of is being open minded

It is not open-minded to choose to be wrong for the sake of being different. Openmindedness includes accepting evidence as well as suspending judgement on insufficient evidence.

Nor is it closed minded to deny something because it is widely accepted, especially by the experts. The Flat Earthers tried that ploy and the logic is the same in either case

and you have no more evidence to prove that he is a creationist than you do to prove the late former atheist Anthony Flew, or current atheists Professor Thomas Nagel, Professor of Philosophy at New York University or Dr. Bradley Monton. University of Colorado are or were also creationist.

How many creationist newsletters and seminars did these people attend?

Also, you will notice that all of these are philosophers, not scientists with at least one (Flew) expressing regret at making a fool of himself over allowing incredulity to sway his opinion.

They also apparently fail to understand that ID did have and does have the chance to make a cae for itself scientifically and fails to do so consistantly.


You mention that some questions are too difficult for me. Which questions are these?

I've answered the one's you've asked me so yo must be leading up to more questions.

That's fine but I've prefer you answer mine first.

Even if you just answer question one.

 

[benthemiester]

hE WHO IS NOBODY You dont even understand what my point of contention was, you just think you do. I have never disputed that according to molecular biologist who believe in the concept of homology that there is a relationship between whales and hippos, and I'm am not going to start from the beginning to try to make you understand, since I dont know who you are, and I never invited you into the conversation. I have already spoken about the intricacies of whales and their relationships. I dont owe you anything. Go bug someone else. No one asked you for your spin or for your misinterpretation of what I said.

 

[ProcInc]

We're all curious, ben. What IS your point of contention?

If you acknowledge the intricacies of the relationship between whales and hippos then, as has been said you must at least implicitly accept the relationship.

Also don't reply for the sale of refusing to reply. If you wanted to ignore him you have have addressed my message.

Assuming charitably that you could

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

hE WHO IS NOBODY You dont even understand what my point of contention was, you just think you do.

Let me see if I can spell out the events that led up to this.

First:

This is obviously outdated (You should have dated it too) since paleontologists are in agreement now that Whales are indeed artiodactyls or an immediate sister group to the artiodactyls. I guess the short answer is I side with the most updated and accurate evidence.

You can go back through old papers in any subjects and find different paradigms and arguments since refuted. It is outright dishonest to use them as a reflection of the current attitude.

I also gave a challenge as a response. Find an example post dating 2005 in which a paleontologist argues in contrast to the molecular evidence

Second:

You also challenged me to find an example from at least 2005 in which paleontologist argue in contrast to the molecular evidence.
I accept your challenge. The study below goes into great detail concerning the conflicting data between the disciplines already cited, and discusses the problems with many different alternative hypothesis that try to resolve these conflicting opinions. It also mentions disagreement with your citation, and goes on to say this"¦"¦ "It disagrees with Geisler and Uhen (33), "who obtained a clade (Hippopotamidae, Cetacea) that excludes all other artiodactyls. In fact, the latter result is not strongly consistent with paleontological data"

Therefore, it seems obvious that the challenge was to find a paper, wherein the paleontologists disagreed with the molecular biologists about whale evolution. If I do not understand your point of contention, perhaps it is because you need to work on your reading comprehension skills.

I have never disputed that according to molecular biologist who believe in the concept of homology that there is a relationship between whales and hippos, and I'm am not going to start from the beginning to try to make you understand, since I dont know who you are, and I never invited you into the conversation.

I am but a humble observer. In addition, I know your dispute is not with the molecular biologists. Your dispute is that the molecular biologists do not agree with the paleontologists about the relationship of hippos and whales. ProcInc charged you with the challenge of finding a paper that disputed this and you failed.

I have already spoken about the intricacies of whales and their relationships. I dont owe you anything.

Really? Where? I have read this "debate" from day one and the most you have discussed about whales is an almost 30-year-old drawing of Pakicetus on the cover of Science. From that, you have diverted the thread to a discussion about the relationship of whales and hippos and their common ancestor. You have also peppered in a few other non-sequiturs (e.g. thylacines).

Furthermore, I know you do not owe me anything; you do however owe ProcInc a lot. Moreover, you can start by answering these questions:

1. Why do whales have a complete gene toolkit for making legs which need to be secondarily switched off in development? (Except when the gene fails to switch off and the whale makes legs anyway)

2. Do you disagree that Pakicetus was a terrestrial mammal that swam and hunted in water and that I have always stated this was the case?

3. Do you accept that science is a self correcting process or insist that its mistakes are permanent?

4. Is the complete scientific agreement over the evolution of whales from land mammals from at least 1928 a sign of scientific incompetence or is it more likely that the flavour of the denialists indicate the opposite?

5. Where is your purported problem in the fossil sequence? Since you claimed there was and cited the erroneous representation of Pakicetus despite the fact I presented emperically recognisable sequences featuring the real Pakicetus reconstruction?

6. How unforgivably dishonest is it for some (unspecified) museum or indeed anybody to confuse this reasonably accurate scientific reconstruction based on a reasonable prediction:

with this reconstruction based on the newly available data?

7. Considering all the data that has been discovered, how come there hasn't been anything even close to a reasonable alternative hypothesis to the evolution of whales?

8. What can you say is a fact (not an argument or arbitrarily deemed unsatisfactory amount of data on a specific detail etc) that specifically deals with the evidence pertaining to whales descending from mammals

No one asked you for your spin or for your misinterpretation of what I said.

What spin or misinterpretation have I made? As anyone that would take the time to read this thread can plainly see, you are the one that has put a spin on almost everything being said.

 

[benthemiester]

I stand by my point. You were and are lying about Sternberg, and you go one to criticize him for being critical of theory as your proof.
You cite a young earth group that he in his own words says he is skeptical of their beliefs, and you use this as evidence, and what proof do you have that he deliberately left out any thing? Unbelievable. Is this a another weak unfounded theory of yours? He has not only been critical of this same organization you speak of, he has also been critical of ID as well as neo Darwinism. As I said before, I challenged you to put forth any evidence that he ever advocated creationism, or has ever referred to himself as a creationist. You have not done so, but instead offer conspiracy theories. You also go on to say that he made a mathematic mistake, as if that has never happened to a scientist before, and you give no citation or proof. What was his mistake? Who made the charge? How did they correct it? How relevant was it to his point?

Now the next error you make, I will not call you a liar. I believe your making this error because of your willful ignorance, more than because your lying. It was actually the SNMNH that accused him of having religious and political motivations. Eugenie Scott has went on record as saying that that people were pissed. She also has said that that if someone is not nice to you, so what. They say he wasn't a paid in employee so I guess thats OK.

"David Klinghoffer in the Wall Street Journal, Dr. Sternberg has been penalized by the museum's Department of Zoology, and his religious and political beliefs questioned"

I agree with Klinghoffer. This is a cat and mouse game. We accuse you of being religiously and politically motivated, and when you try to sue us for religious and political harassment, we can then say, AHA GOT YA!!


The next one is however another lie. You go on to say that Sternberg is trying to make process structuralism compatible with Baraminology, thinking that giving a definition of Baraminology is proof enough. Very silly logic.

You cant even get yourself out of the first lie, so you create more, hoping that more lies will cover it up. As for Altenberg, I never even mentioned Suzan Mazur. Stewart Newman is a big boy, and can speak for himself. He is not an idiot and he makes no silly excuses like you do. (Poor me, the smart lady tricked me) Bullshit!! Yes, he did criticize the Dover circus and surprisingly enough it wasn't the side most might think. Another fail in logic and in truth.

 

[benthemiester]

Now that He who Knows Nothing and Procinc both agree that hippos are the closet relatives to whales. Lets look a little further.

In an article by a guy Procnic put down because I cited him, and then a few threads later praised him, because he found out that he out that was an evolutionist whose name is Brian Switek, well here is another article by same.

Rearranging the whale family tree
Category: Evolution "¢ Mammals "¢ Whales"¨Posted on: March 19, 2009 11:25 AM, by Brian Switek

Interesting read. I will cite part of it below.....

So what do Thewissen and colleagues think of this? In a reply they state that the new analysis backs up their primary conclusion that the raoellids are the closest relatives of cetaceans. Their original phylogenetic tree was based on fossil evidence and that is why the placement of hippos came into dispute.

Did he say dispute? No, how could this be? I thought fossil evidence was the clincher that put everyone on the same page.

On to next article, and please notice dates.


Long-Lost Relative of Whales Found?
by Erik Stokstad on 19 December 2007, 12:00 AM

Another Interesting article also, that ends with this paragraph below"¦.

and according to Zhe-Xi Luo, a paleontologist at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. "This much improves the picture of incremental evolution toward whales and their aquatic life." Not everyone is convinced that Indohyus is the closest cetacean relative, however. Another analysis, in press at Cladistics, suggests that an extinct group of carnivorous mammals, called mesonychids, were more closely related to cetaceans.

Did he say not everyone is convinced? and that some still believe that they are related to mesonychids? How can this be? Not in 2007


Now Lets look at Wikipedia"¦
Indohyus ("India's pig") is a genus of extinct artiodactyl known from Eocene fossils in Asia, purported to be approximately 48 million years old. A December 2007 article in Nature by Thewissenet al. used an exceptionally complete skeleton of Indohyus from Kashmir to indicate that raoellids may be the "missing link" sister group to whales (Cetacea).[1][2] All other Artiodactyla are "cousins" of these two groups. δ18O values and osteosclerotic bones indicate that the raccoon-like or chevrotain-like Indohyus was habitually aquatic, but δ13C values suggest that it rarely fed in the water. The authors suggest this documents an intermediate step in the transition back to water completed by the whales, and suggests a new understanding of the evolution of cetaceans.


Two Indohyus
The fossils were discovered among rocks that had been collected more than 30 years ago in Kashmir by the Indian geologist A Ranga Rao who found a few teeth and parts of a jawbone, but when he died many rocks had yet to be broken open. Ranga Rao's widow gave the rocks to Professor Thewissen, who was working on them when his technician accidentally broke one of the skulls they had found and Thewissen recognised the ear structure of the auditory bulla, formed from the ectotympanic bone in a shape which is highly unusual and only resembles the skulls of whales and the earlier land creature Pakicetus.[3]
About the size of a raccoon or domestic cat, this herbivorous deer-like creature shared some of the traits of whales, and showed signs of adaptations to aquatic life, including a thick and heavy outer coating to bones which is similar to the bones of modern creatures such the hippopotamus, and reduces buoyancy so that they can stay underwater. This suggests a similar survival strategy to the African mousedeer or water chevrotain which, when threatened by a bird of prey, dives into water and hides beneath the surface for up to four minutes.[3][4][5]
However, not all paleontologists are firmly persuaded that Indohyus is the transitional fossil that cetacean-origin experts were looking for. ScienceNOW, a daily news feature of the journalScience, notes that a team set to publish in the journal Cladistics postulates an extinct group of carnivorous mammals called "mesonychids" as more closely related to cetaceans. Additionally, the ScienceNOW article notes that "cetaceans are so different from any other creature that researchers haven't been able to agree which fossil relatives best represent their nearest ancestors."[6]
[edit]


Did they say this below?
However, not all paleontologists are firmly persuaded? How can this be? and that ScienceNOW, a daily news feature of the journalScience, notes that a team set to publish in the journal Cladistics postulates an extinct group of carnivorous mammals called "mesonychids" as more closely related to cetaceans.
I thought everyone now agreed that cetaceans were more closely related to hippos.

Shit you guys have me convinced. This stuff is all wrapped up. How could I have ever doubted you guys? The shame!

 

[fightofthejellyfish]

This debate has has long since ended. There is no point in commenting in the peanut gallery anymore. Since this was not a formal debate, there is no reason to restrict comments on this thread anymore. In fact, I believe the more people that are able to point out the blatant falsehoods benthemiester seems to still be clinging too would be good for him to see.

It would be nice if it worked that way. Unfortunately more people pointing out his errors only proves that they only believe it cause they support each others stories. It wouldn't matter if a thousand people came and showed ben where he was wrong, 999 of them only said it 'cause the first guy did, and the first guy only said it 'cause he knew the other 999 would back him up.

 

[ProcInc]

Ben, I am very curious as to how on Earth you interpreted not all paleontologists being convinced that the specific Genus Indohyus is a closer relative to whales than Mesonychids to mean there is a dispute between paleontologists and molecular biologists...

Are you seriously unable to distinguish between dispute on minor points and dispute on the entire construct?

Is that really how bad your reading comprehension skills are? That you skim read bodies of text until you find the word "dispute" anywhere you feel it must make your point regardless of the context..

That is the only explanation for how spectacularly you fouled this up..

__________________________________________________________________________________

I stand by my point.

Why? Your point failes miserably. You are trying to take what someone says over what they do.

You were and are lying about Sternberg

There you go again with that "lying" card. No scientist serious about a balanced look at evolutionary biology would contribute uncritically to a Baraminology Study Group Newsletter and attend Creationist seminars, not as a spectator but as a presenter!

You're calling me a liar for pointing out these facts that support my claim so well and you have no counter argument aside from Sternberg's own dishonest description of the capacity of his involvement (More on that further down).

You cite a young earth group that he in his own words says he is skeptical of their beliefs, and you use this as evidence, and what proof do you have that he deliberately left out any thing?

As I pointed out earlier, Sternberg did not say that he was skeptical of Young Earth creationist beliefs but rather deliberately left of the term 'creationism'. Instead he commented that he was skeptical of their views of a young Earth, not any other feature of their ridiculous worldview.

Where is the proof? The fact that it is left out. Simple really.

Now, if he is skeptical of their beliefs, where dies he express this skepticism? When he was discovered to be involved with these groups he labelled himself a "Friendly but critical contributor", I see the friendliness....where the criticism?

Instead his articles are an integral part of the organisation.

He has not only been critical of this same organization you speak of, he has also been critical of ID as well as neo Darwinism.

In what words has he been critical? Or do you only have him saying he is critical? Surely if he was critical enough to make this claim he would have at least a comparable contribution to the criticism of ID to his long winded (and erroneous) denial of evolutionary theory.

I mean, you're a fan of Simon Says (Despite the fact you repeatedly got the name of the game wrong) so it stands to reason that you must understand the principle of "Do as I say, not as I do". If you are relying solely on what Sternberg claims rather than the actions behind it then you may as well be lied to by him. Which appears to be the case.

Yet when I point out these actions you direct the call of liar to me. Is that fair?

As I said before, I challenged you to put forth any evidence that he ever advocated creationism, or has ever referred to himself as a creationist.

Can you explain how contributing without criticism (while somehow describing himself as 'critical') to a creationist newletter and in doing so providing and or repeating specific creationist arguments not an advocation of creationism?

Of course he wouldn't refer to himself as a creationist because he knows exactly how well established it is that creationism (/"intelligent design") is wrong and that any self-avowed proponent of it woud have their credibility dethroned faster than Popoff around a wireless.

The same thing has happened to Intelligent Design since now most people understand it is nothing more than creationism, you yourself deny involvement with Intelligent Design and even the Discovery Institute is increasingly supplanting reference to it in favour of "Critical analysis of Evolution" or more humourously "Sudden Emergence Theory"

You also go on to say that he made a mathematic mistake, as if that has never happened to a scientist before, and you give no citation or proof. What was his mistake? Who made the charge? How did they correct it? How relevant was it to his point?

First off yes, scientists can make mathematical errors however the point ws the error wouldn't be an issue if

A. Sternberg understood the subject enough to propoerly do the math (He made another error after being corrected showing that his misunderstanding was in the fundamentals of the science, not merely a mathematical hiccup)
B. Sternberg did not make such a big deal of the science in question (alternative splicing) being a problem for evolution (of course it isn't)


The mistake was written here (surprise! a creationist website...)

and identified here

Sternberg's second attempt (and failure) was here

Just in case you haven't worked out the math yet to identify the mistake yourself (as if I need to presume that) the second correction is also found in the same blog as earlier

Say, why is Sternberg now appearing on an Intelligent Design Creationism ignorantly criticising science he doesn't understand? Doesn't that also reek of creationism?

Is he on any "NeoDarwinist" blogs criticising ID?

That's shouldn't be farfetched according to what you believe, after all he is "critical" of ID but a staff member of their tragically awfully fake new site...

Now the next error you make, I will not call you a liar. I believe your making this error because of your willful ignorance, more than because your lying.

spare me your misdirected ego.

It was actually the SNMNH that accused him of having religious and political motivations.

If you are responding to when I pointed out that Sternberg filed a religious discrimination case then you are aren't exactly countering that point on showing it to be incorrect.

After all, Sternberg DID file such a complaint, didn't he?

Eugenie Scott has went on record

Nice English Ben. (Speaking of which, in specifically what what words did Scott go on record as saying and where?)

as saying that that people were pissed.

Allowing a religiously motivated and poorly written paper to slip under peer reivew and go straight into publishing, resultingly jeopardising the reputation of the entire institution he is affiliated with...and you don't expect people to be pissed?

Surely any employed person understands the frustrations affiliated with one bad egg with his own agenda ruining it for his institution and profession? I mean, you have a respectable job, right?

"David Klinghoffer in the Wall Street Journal, Dr. Sternberg has been penalized by the museum's Department of Zoology, and his religious and political beliefs questioned"

I agree with Klinghoffer. This is a cat and mouse game. We accuse you of being religiously and politically motivated, and when you try to sue us for religious and political harassment, we can then say, AHA GOT YA!!

Putting aside how strange it was that you agree with someone who didn't say anything close to your conclusions. Is there a better confirmation of such an accusation than what Sternberg demonstrated?

He could have avoided the issue altogether if he was confident enough with the paper to have it properly reviewed before publication.

He did something wrong in affiliation with a religious and political organisation and you seem indignant at people calling the waddling, feathered, quacking thing a duck.

You go on to say that Sternberg is trying to make process structuralism compatible with Baraminology, thinking that giving a definition of Baraminology is proof enough. Very silly logic.

No Ben, what was proof enough was him contributing papers on process structualism to baraminological review papers. Specifically attempting to marry the two usually contradictory disciplines.

At least you are operating off the correct position that baraminology is in no way a viable science nor position. Universal Common Ancestry is the only explanatoin compatable with the evidence. The fact you are trying to distance both yourself and Sternberg from it is at least another implicit admission that you acknowledge that Universal Common Descent is both correct ad extremely damaging to credibility to try and deny. So props for that.

As for Altenberg, I never even mentioned Suzan Mazur.

Its funny how you haven't given her proper credence (lately) since she is your only source of information on the Summit and Extended Synthesis itself. Your description of it parrots hers and has been refuted by the scientists involved.

Stewart Newman is a big boy, and can speak for himself.

Funny you should say that. I fyou feel he is able to speak for himself why not quote him directly rather than paraphrase him? After all, it helps to see in what words he stated what you claim: better yet I'll do it myself.

Suzan Mazur: The National Center for Science Education director Eugenie Scott told me that her organization does not support self-organization because it is confused with intelligent design, i.e., "design-beyond-laws" as Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University describes it. NCSE also pays lucrative fees to conference speakers who keep the lid on self-organization by beating the drum for Darwinian natural selection. NCSE and its cronies completely demonize the intelligent design community, even those who agree evolution happened. Religion is not the target since even the National Academy of Sciences embraces religion. So it seems the real target is those who fail to kneel before the Darwinian theory of natural selection and prevent the further fattening of the Darwinian industry tapeworm.

NAS and NASA/NAI in their respective publications Science, Evolution and Creationism, and Astrobiology Primer have also kept out any discussion of self-organization. What is your response to this? Why do you think such organizations continue to feed unenlightened information to the public at public expense?

Stuart Newman: Although I may not use all the terms that you used, I would have to agree with you that if you look at the Pennsylvania legal case on the teaching of evolution, there was a very solid identification of evolution with Darwin's theory of evolution. I think that this was very reinforced in the public mind that if you believe in evolution, you believe in Darwin's theory of evolution because it's supposedly the same thing. And if you don't believe in Darwin's theory, you must believe in something supernatural.

This is not at all valid and I think it's a big mistake because we know there are non-linear and what I call saltational mechanisms of embryonic development that could have contributed , and I'm virtually certain they did , to evolution. It was Darwin who said that if any organ is shown to have formed not by small increments but by jumps, his theory would therefore be wrong.

The people you refer to instead of moving beyond and expanding Darwin's ideas to include things like self-organization and bringing other mechanisms into it adhere to this Darwinian orthodoxy where everything has to be incremental. And when confronted with something very complex like the bacterial flagellum or the segmented vetebral column, they say that it had to have arisen in an incremental fashion.

But there are other mechanisms involving self-assembly and involving self-organization that could potentially explain these things as long as one did not seek purely incremental explanations. And physics and the theories of self-organization show us that those mechanisms exist. I think it's an unfortunate error that some advocates of evolution are making by adhering so closely to this incrementalist Darwinian dogma.

Now at some points, Newman does appear to get defensive and even use strong language but anybody can see the message he is conveying.

You will notice I highlighted some of the Mazur's "question" (coaching) leading up to this. The reason is that each o fthese claims are wholly untrue (something Newman responded to not knowing).

The sheer number of contributions form the 16 scientists attending the meeting expressing their regret at being deceived by Mazur is well documented both online and in literature (See: "Nonsense on Stilts"-Massimo Pugliucci) so it needn't be laboured on in great detail.

Needless to say Ben, basically every thing you have said to describe the Altenberg summit and views are wholly incorrect and all spur from a single source with zero credibility and honesty and wholly rebuked by the victims.

(Poor me, the smart lady tricked me)

She is devious in many ways but smart isn't the right word. Unless you are trying to imply it would take a smart person to trick you.

Yes, he did criticize the Dover circus and surprisingly enough it wasn't the side most might think. Another fail in logic and in truth.

Ben, Dover was a resounding blow to the credibility of Intelligent Design. Your attempts to call it a "circus" etc are sour grapes at the fact that when put under oath, creationists get exposed.

Newman uses strong words inspired by Mazur's coaching to criticise the emphasis of "incrementalism" in the trial but to try and imply from that (or even assert as you are doing) that the emphasis on incrementalism or even "Darwin's theory" as true wa stantamount to the case decision is ludacris.

In fact the decision itself washes away this accusation flawlessly in just a few short words

...To be sure, Darwin's theory is imperfect...

Again we've gone full circle and it appears to be that you implicitly support Universal Common Descent and the Extended theory of Evolution. So much that you are even trying to distance other people from their association with anti-evolution groups. Are we to take this as a 'silent admission' that you concede that at the very least the evidence supports evolution...even if you choose not to?

 

[benthemiester]

Since your going to ignore the points made or pretend that disputes and disagreements between these different disciplines that you now call minor, (but before you said were non existent) dont count, then thats your choice. You were so sure that conflicting data and opinions concerning relationships which are central to this hypothesis could not be found in any paper as recent as 2005 that you challenged me to cite any. I just did, and now your answer is, those are minor points. You failed to prove that Sternberg was a creationist, and continue to lie. Tell me what exactly did he present at this meeting? Are you saying he advocated creationism? If so, where is your proof? The fact is you have none. You believe because he didn't distance himself enough from them, he must be a creationist? Again you have nothing but a conspiracy theory. Even Wikipedia who is known for writing hit pieces on Intelligent deign advocates states that he is not a proponent of ID and never says he is a creationist. If he was, then why would he criticize the same organisation you accuse him of being an advocate of. Your logic fails. I have countered your challenges and all you and the girls have left are mantras. You have not responded in detail to any of the harder questions asked. I know it, and you know it.

As for Suzan Mazur being my only source. Again you lie. Its a habit with you. I cited the MIT paper weeks ago concerning these men calling for the relaxation of many of the assumptions of the modern synthesis. You really need some help man.

I noticed you also couldn't back up your statement about Sternbergs mathematical errors.


I believe I made all the points Im going to be able to make, in light of who I am debating with.

Prediction 1 fail. It was initially thought that the ears of Pakicetus were adapted for underwater hearing, but now we know this is false.
^ J. G. M. Thewissen, E. M. Williams, L. J. Roe and S. T. Hussain (2001). "Skeletons of terrestrial cetaceans and the relationship of whales to artiodactyls". Nature 413 (6853): 277-281.

Prediction 2 fail. They were initially thought to have the morphology of Karen Kliz drawings including webbed feet, but this was also proven wrong. That was also the first time you were caught lying. No need to cite that one. Its already been documented on these threads

Prediction 3. fail. They were originally thought to be mesonchids based on teeth homology, but now are considered by molecular biologist to be closely related to hippos. Yet at the same time I cited journal of science article that said "However, not all paleontologists are firmly persuaded and that ScienceNOW, a daily news feature of the journalScience, notes that a team set to publish in the journal Cladistics postulates an extinct group of carnivorous mammals called "mesonychids" as more closely related to cetaceans." Of course you write this off as a minor point.

I think I have made my points clear. Hopfully some honest evolutionist can read this sometime soon and be able to engage in an intellectually honest debate, but it isn't going to happen here. I thought this was going to be a little more challenging, but instead has been more frustrating than anything. FIGHTOFTHEJELLYFISH and HEWHOKNOWSNOTHING didn't seem to be of much help to you. Over and out. Ill let you guys pat yourself on the back now and offer words of comfort to each other.

 

[ProcInc]

Since your going to ignore the points made

Woah, seriously? You're actually going to claim that?


Look, there's a reason that I take the time and make the effort to make my posts a sequence of Quote and answer. It is to show that your points are being systematically addressed. I don't just respond in a block of writing without even proper paragraphing.

Because that would allow me to do what you do, ignore your points.

You were so sure that conflicting data and opinions concerning relationships which are central to this hypothesis could not be found in any paper as recent as 2005 that you challenged me to cite any. I just did, and now your answer is, those are minor points.

Noo Ben, you didn't answer it. You made a massive mistake in what the abstract said! They weren't minor points. They weren't points at all relevent to your claim!

You failed to prove that Sternberg was a creationist

Really? Doesn't really seem that way when you add up all the affiliations.

Of course I knew from the beginning you had you mind made up already and convincing you would have been a shock. But the information is freely available now.

As well as the added bonus of Sternberg's incompetence.

Tell me what exactly did he present at this meeting?

You don't know? Yet you are defending his involvement in it? How does that work?

Are you saying he advocated creationism?

Well, put it this way. If Duane Gish never wrote for the ICR in their various publications nor wrote any of his books, never represented a creationist organisation and never participated in creationist seminars ther would be no evidence he was a creationist.

But we do have have all of things, and each of them applies to Sternberg.

Again you have nothing but a conspiracy theory. Even Wikipedia who is known for writing hit pieces on Intelligent deign advocates states

How can you be so ironic and not notice it?

If he was, then why would he criticize the same organisation you accuse him of being an advocate of.

Good questions, in what words does he do this?

There is more to criticism than paying lip service to disagreement.

I have countered your challenges

You couldn't recognise my points let alone answer them. Just recently I had eight questions and challenged you to answer one. Did you counter those challenges....when?

You have not responded in detail to any of the harder questions asked. I know it, and you know it.

No, but I'm seriously beginning to think you believe this.

As for Suzan Mazur being my only source. Again you lie. Its a habit with you. I cited the MIT paper weeks ago concerning these men calling for the relaxation of many of the assumptions of the modern synthesis. You really need some help man.

This again is your lack of comprehension skills, you obviously have your own idea of what that means. Here is the unanimously signed outcome of the Alternberg Summit released following the meeting and prior to the publication.

Below is the final statement emerging from the Altenberg workshop, agreed upon by all 16 participants. Individual commentaries about the workshop will be posted on the KLI web site, and MIT Press will publish the full proceedings by the end of 2009.

A group of 16 evolutionary biologists and philosophers of science convened at the Konrad Lorenz Institute for Evolution and Cognition Research in Altenberg (Austria) on July 11-13 to discuss the current status of evolutionary theory, and in particular a series of exciting empirical and conceptual advances that have marked the field in recent times.

The new information includes findings from the continuing molecular biology revolution, as well as a large body of empirical knowledge on genetic variation in natural populations, phenotypic plasticity, phylogenetics, species-level stasis and punctuational evolution, and developmental biology, among others.

The new concepts include (but are not limited to): evolvability, developmental plasticity, phenotypic and genetic accommodation, punctuated evolution, phenotypic innovation, facilitated variation, epigenetic inheritance, and multi-level selection.

By incorporating these new results and insights into our understanding of evolution, we believe that the explanatory power of evolutionary theory is greatly expanded within biology and beyond. As is the nature of science, some of the new ideas will stand the test of time, while others will be significantly modified. Nonetheless, there is much justified excitement in evolutionary biology these days. This is a propitious time to engage the scientific community in a vast interdisciplinary effort to further our understanding of how life evolves.
Signed,

John Beatty (University of British Columbia); Werner Callebaut (University of Hasselt); Sergey Gavrilets (University of Tennessee); Eva Jablonka (Tel Aviv University); David Jablonski (University of Chicago); Marc Kirschner (Harvard University); Alan Love (University of Minnesota); Gerd Muller (University of Vienna); Stuart Newman (New York Medical College); John Odling-Smee (Oxford University); Massimo Pigliucci (Stony Brook University); Michael Purugganan (New York University); Eors Szathmary (Collegium Budapest); Gunter Wagner (Yale University); David Sloan Wilson (Binghamton University); Greg Wray (Duke University).

I noticed you also couldn't back up your statement about Sternbergs mathematical errors.

Uh what?

my last post...taje a look at the links.

Seriously?




I originally thought that you were opposed to evolution. It seems I was wrong. You accept it wholeheartedly. You just hate everyone who does.

Putting you on a public forum was a mistake. It was like letting an incontinent rottweiler on the sofa

 

[ExeFBM]

You know, I just had a thought. Maybe Ben doesn't realise that the text in orange is a clickable link to a source? Suddenly things might start to make sense when Ben keeps denying the evidence has been presented. Is this true Ben, or am I being overly optimistic?

 

[ProcInc]

haha THAT would be a classic.

 

[fightofthejellyfish]

That's it? Six pages of incoherent crap, never once "critiquing the theory", declares victory and runs. He seems to have forgotten that he'd already lost long ago.

It's a shame he chickened out on inviting me in, given the topic you'd think he'd be keen to show that pakicetus was not a whale, seems like you'd want to do that if you were trying to show that whales didn't evolve from land animals.

He spent all that energy jumping around trying to find any excuse not to examine any evidence. It seems to me to demonstrate something really dishonest, to fully understand the weakness of an argument well enough to evade such topics but still, argue it anyway.

You know, I just had a thought. Maybe Ben doesn't realise that the text in orange is a clickable link to a source? Suddenly things might start to make sense when Ben keeps denying the evidence has been presented. Is this true Ben, or am I being overly optimistic?

No that's a little too optimistic, he did however complain that Procinc wasn't pasting uncited slab quotes into his posts. I think rather that scientific papers were too much of a struggle and he wanted Procinc to abridge them for him.

 

[benthemiester]

I said that Wikipedia has said that he is not proponent of ID. It also says he has criticized both the organization that you try to say he endorses. Wikipedia never accuses him of being anything more than a scientist. If Wikipedia had any evidence that he was a creationist. I guarantee you, that is the first thing they would say about him. Lets look at your Gish analogy, and lets apply those same standards to S.Miller and F.Collins. and my Paisano & over all nice guy Fransisco Alaya. These men all claim to be Christians, but let me go into cuckoo land conspiracy mode for an minute. They both associate themselves and side with many evolutionist who are also atheist. AHA Likely! Ayala is a member of the American Academy an organization that is comprised of an atheist majority. AHA! They have all been critical of Biblical creationism. AHA!! Miller has went on record as saying he had a great deal of respect for anti religious God hating out spoken atheist FILTHY FORNICATING Richard Dawkins. AHA!!! THERE IT IS!! CHRISTIAN MY ASS !
A LIKELY STORY!! They are all closet case atheist conspiring against us. Yeah has it. If this sounds really silly to you, then you know how your logic sounds to me.


When Paul Nelson said there was a molecular biology revolution going on, he was jumped on and ridiculed, yet even you cite this revolution.
I told you weeks ago that these men who are as evolutionist as they come, were trying to relax many of the assumptions of the modern synthesis. You conveniently left this out below.


Evolution,the Extended Synthesis
Edited by Massimo Pigliucci and Gerd B. Mà¼ller

Most of the contributors to Evolution,The Extended Synthesis accept many of the tenets of the classical framework but want to relax some of its assumptions and introduce significant conceptual augmentations of the basic Modern Synthesis structure,just as the architects of the Modern Synthesis themselves expanded and modulated previous versions of Darwinism. This continuing revision of a theoretical edifice the foundations of which were laid in the middle of the nineteenth century,the reexamination of old ideas, proposals of new ones, and the synthesis of the most suitable,shows us how science works, and how scientists have painstakingly built a solid set of explanations for what Darwin called the "grandeur" of life.

If neoDarwinism which is being taught is the force behind evolution, then we would be building up Neo Darwinism, but instead we are trying to relax its assumptions and move on to self organization models, and do so very quietly. Suzan Mazur wrote this concerning Altenberg, and Scott has never denied it. If it was untrue then Scott who has been involved in many lawsuits would not hesitate to sue her for slander. If you have any evidence Mazur is lying, then prove it. No conspiracy theories please.

MAZUR
I decided to ask [NCSE Executive Director Eugenie Scott] some questions since I'd interviewed her colleague [NCSE President] Kevin Padian about the "evolution debate", and he'd hung up on me. ...

"¦"When I introduced myself to Eugenie Scott, who was unfamiliar with my stories on evolution, I asked her what she thought about self-organization and why self-organization was not represented in the books NCSE was promoting?
She responded that people confuse self-organization with Intelligent Design and that is why NCSE has not been supportive.
So much for the neo Darwinian crowed. Jerrry Coyne another neo Darwinist has also been critical of Altenberg and Piggliucci who is as hard core an evolutionist as they come. Seems there is a controversy after all. Citation bellow.
Jerry Coyne And Extended Evolutionary Synthesis
By Massimo Pigliucci | February 18th 2009 01:08 PM | 2 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments



It seems that in every post you seem to have to lie. Again, I seriously think you need some professional help. You said that you originally thought that I was opposed to evolution, yet I told you in previous conversations, time and time again that i was not, and I went into great detail several times at explaining where I thought it worked, and where it was limited. Why you continue to lie is beyond me? You cant argue with a sick mind. Apparently many of the Altenberg summit also think that neo Darwinian synthesis is limited.
Hey, I know, maybe their really closet case creationist. Yeah thats it.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I know benthemiester left, but this post was addressed to me so I thought I might as well comment on it.

He who Knows Nothing

Cute.

Now that He who Knows Nothing and Procinc both agree that hippos are the closet relatives to whales. Lets look a little further.

Please do not straw man ProcInc and I. We both have maintained that hippos are the closes extant relative to whales. As ProcInc and I have both pointed out there could, and indeed probably are, many extinct species that would have a closer relationship to whales or hippos, but their lineage died out.

Perhaps you should look up the meaning of extinct and extant, than my posts might make more sense to you. Because I am going to demonstrate that I do agree with all of the "articles" you cited, because none of them are a problem for my position.

In an article by a guy Procnic put down because I cited him, and then a few threads later praised him, because he found out that he out that was an evolutionist whose name is Brian Switek, well here is another article by same.

First off, this is not an article; it is a blog post. There is a major difference, and it is very telling that you cannot tell the difference.

Second, ProcInc has already given his reasons for why he first dismissed Switek and than later apologies for that dismissal and asked you to read his book.

Rearranging the whale family tree
Category: Evolution "¢ Mammals "¢ Whales"¨Posted on: March 19, 2009 11:25 AM, by Brian Switek

Interesting read. I will cite part of it below.....

So what do Thewissen and colleagues think of this? In a reply they state that the new analysis backs up their primary conclusion that the raoellids are the closest relatives of cetaceans. Their original phylogenetic tree was based on fossil evidence and that is why the placement of hippos came into dispute.

Did he say dispute? No, how could this be? I thought fossil evidence was the clincher that put everyone on the same page.

As anyone can plainly see in the blog post, the raoellids are an extinct group of animals that turn out to be a sister taxa to whales. Therefore, what we have here is an extinct animal that has a closer relationship to whales than hippos have, which is something ProcInc and I both agreed we could find. Moreover, this does not remove hippos from being the closes living extant animal to whales. This is made even clearer if you would have looked at the second cladogram they provided. However, I think I will let Brian Switek have the last word on this.

So there you have it. It is not the sort of thing that is going to make the news but it is good to see hypotheses tested and discussed further. (Phylogenetic trees are, after all, hypotheses that are constantly being revised.) With the confirmation that whales are closest to raoellids and that both form a sister group to hippos there are plenty of new questions to delve into, and I am glad to see how detailed our understanding of early whale evolution is becoming.

This seems to be another example of benthemiester's quote mining skills.

On to next article, and please notice dates.

Again benthemiester, this is not an article, this is a press release. This is rather pathetic.

Long-Lost Relative of Whales Found?
by Erik Stokstad on 19 December 2007, 12:00 AM

Another Interesting article also, that ends with this paragraph below"¦.

and according to Zhe-Xi Luo, a paleontologist at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. "This much improves the picture of incremental evolution toward whales and their aquatic life." Not everyone is convinced that Indohyus is the closest cetacean relative, however. Another analysis, in press at Cladistics, suggests that an extinct group of carnivorous mammals, called mesonychids, were more closely related to cetaceans.

Did he say not everyone is convinced? and that some still believe that they are related to mesonychids? How can this be? Not in 2007

Swing and a miss again.

The quote you provided says that a paper is in press, this does not mean it will be published. If you would have provided a link to the actual article that was alluded too, you might have a case. However, it seems that article was never/has not been published. If it was never published, this could mean that the results they found were faulty and caught in peer-review.

Now Lets look at Wikipedia"¦
Indohyus ("India's pig") is a genus of extinct artiodactyl known from Eocene fossils in Asia, purported to be approximately 48 million years old. A December 2007 article in Nature by Thewissenet al. used an exceptionally complete skeleton of Indohyus from Kashmir to indicate that raoellids may be the "missing link" sister group to whales (Cetacea).[1][2] All other Artiodactyla are "cousins" of these two groups. δ18O values and osteosclerotic bones indicate that the raccoon-like or chevrotain-like Indohyus was habitually aquatic, but δ13C values suggest that it rarely fed in the water. The authors suggest this documents an intermediate step in the transition back to water completed by the whales, and suggests a new understanding of the evolution of cetaceans.

Two Indohyus
The fossils were discovered among rocks that had been collected more than 30 years ago in Kashmir by the Indian geologist A Ranga Rao who found a few teeth and parts of a jawbone, but when he died many rocks had yet to be broken open. Ranga Rao's widow gave the rocks to Professor Thewissen, who was working on them when his technician accidentally broke one of the skulls they had found and Thewissen recognised the ear structure of the auditory bulla, formed from the ectotympanic bone in a shape which is highly unusual and only resembles the skulls of whales and the earlier land creature Pakicetus.[3]
About the size of a raccoon or domestic cat, this herbivorous deer-like creature shared some of the traits of whales, and showed signs of adaptations to aquatic life, including a thick and heavy outer coating to bones which is similar to the bones of modern creatures such the hippopotamus, and reduces buoyancy so that they can stay underwater. This suggests a similar survival strategy to the African mousedeer or water chevrotain which, when threatened by a bird of prey, dives into water and hides beneath the surface for up to four minutes.[3][4][5]
However, not all paleontologists are firmly persuaded that Indohyus is the transitional fossil that cetacean-origin experts were looking for. ScienceNOW, a daily news feature of the journalScience, notes that a team set to publish in the journal Cladistics postulates an extinct group of carnivorous mammals called "mesonychids" as more closely related to cetaceans. Additionally, the ScienceNOW article notes that "cetaceans are so different from any other creature that researchers haven't been able to agree which fossil relatives best represent their nearest ancestors."[6]
[edit]

I do not understand why you quoted wikipedia, since it seems obvious whoever wrote that entry was heavily influenced by the ScienceNOW press release. Both of them explain how the extinct creature is a wonderful transitional fossil between modern whales and land animals (I thought you were arguing that whales did not come from the land?), both explain the reasons why the scientist that found it thought it was transitional, and both alluded to the article that will be published in Cladistics. Again, if you would have cited the article from Cladistics, you might have had a case, but as I pointed out earlier, there is no such article, at least not now.

Did they say this below?
However, not all paleontologists are firmly persuaded? How can this be? and that ScienceNOW, a daily news feature of the journalScience, notes that a team set to publish in the journal Cladistics postulates an extinct group of carnivorous mammals called "mesonychids" as more closely related to cetaceans.

Yes, I saw how you tried to make another mountain out of this molehill. Nothing special about that, we have seen you make even higher mountains out of smaller molehills. One last time, there is no article in Cladistics about whales having a closer relationship to Mesonychids than to Artiodactyls. Science is not done through press releases and blog posts. It is done in the peer-review process.

I thought everyone now agreed that cetaceans were more closely related to hippos.

Correct, and everything you have presented so far has shown that relationship. Nothing you have presented has disputed the relationship between whales and hippos. All you have done is point out that there are extinct animals that are closer in relation to whales or hippos, something that ProcInc and I both agreed is probably the case and pointed out long before you did.

Shit you guys have me convinced. This stuff is all wrapped up. How could I have ever doubted you guys? The shame!

Well I know that there is nothing that will convince you. For some reason you have a priori bias to dismiss evolution out of hand.

The real funny thing about this post is that you abandoned your last citation all together. I do not see why you did that unless, to put it crudely, I caught you with your pants down and you are refusing to acknowledge that point.

Good-bye benthemiester and good riddance. Have fun living in your arrogant ignorance.

 

[benthemiester]

He who knows nothing: Great name by the way. Yes it was an article, and the same one that you used to try to make a point, but you actually missed the point again, because you only make my point in that, anything you perceive to show some kind of reasonable evidence for your side is accepted whole heartedly with out a reasonable of skepticism. I gave also cited Wikipedia that cast doubt on this findings as stated by a paleontologist and printed by a prestigious publication, which in reality, escapes you, as well as the earlier points I made concerning disputes and disagreements between these different fields. Again after I confirmed my previous contentions, now all of a sudden it becomes a minor point. I guess I have to accept the fact that no matter what I say, it will have to go through the mindset of the asylum and be regurgitated by the patience that dwell in it.

 

[fightofthejellyfish]

The quote you provided says that a paper is in press, this does not mean it will be published. If you would have provided a link to the actual article that was alluded too, you might have a case. However, it seems that article was never/has not been published. If it was never published, this could mean that the results they found were faulty and caught in peer-review.

...

I do not understand why you quoted wikipedia, since it seems obvious whoever wrote that entry was heavily influenced by the ScienceNOW press release. Both of them explain how the extinct creature is a wonderful transitional fossil between modern whales and land animals (I thought you were arguing that whales did not come from the land?), both explain the reasons why the scientist that found it thought it was transitional, and both alluded to the article that will be published in Cladistics. Again, if you would have cited the article from Cladistics, you might have had a case, but as I pointed out earlier, there is no such article, at least not now.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Palaeontology and phylogenetics are very complicated sciences, and this is still on the frontiers of knowledge. Piecing together the complex interrelationships of creatures so far in the past is a difficult task. That other studies will be made with different findings is almost guaranteed. However, whether or not whales and hippos branched off before or after the split from mesonychids, makes no difference to the well document pakicetus to modern whales sequence now known. All you're doing is setting up an undeserved, false victory when such a paper is found, the scientific literature is very large and someone, somewhere will have a different opinion. This is the strength of science ideas are continually tested.

Now if ben does decide to stick around It would be interesting to see if he could stop making any excuse to avoid considering the evidence. pakicetus: teeth, cranium, ear and any other trait.

 

[australopithecus]

:facepalm:

Also, patients*

 

[fightofthejellyfish]

He who knows nothing: Great name by the way.

Yes and a wonderful compliment, Ben clearly is not familiar with Socrates. (or Shakespeare for that matter) :lol: