What we need is a fossil that shows the transition from Republican to human. That ought to do it.

Of course, the creationist cretins will fall back on their standard "these fossils were invented by God to test our faith."

Hard to accept, but some people are just so flat dumb and/or crazy that there's no reaching them.

What we need is a fossil that shows the transition from Republican to human. That ought to do it.

Well, we have Sean Hannity, a fine example of the transition from man to ape. And Rush Limbaugh, a transitional form between man and slug....

Hard to accept, but some people are just so flat dumb and/or crazy that there's no reaching them.

Just wait until the sun burns out. Ha! Won't they be sorry then.

And Rush Limbaugh, a transitional form between man and slug....

You malign me, sir!

Do you seriously think that may be there exists some piece of evidence that will change the creationists' minds?

Creationists will either conveniently forget yet another transitional fossil find, or decide it's not transitional enough.

Do creationists not realize that "new" fossils are being discovered all the time, and that the fossil record (the evidence against their beliefs) will continue to grow for the forseeable future?

Could it beeeee....Satan?!?!?

Seriously, the true believers will go through astounding mental contortions to deny this or any other evidence. Stand by for screeds denouncing the find because the dating is wrong, or the fossil isn't clear enough, or it came from someplace that it could not have come from. For example, I'm sure some fundie will point out that the fossil was found in Antarctica--and everyone KNOWS that Antarctica is frozen. Thus, no fish could ever have lived there because there is no liquid water.

Not untill the Bible is retranslated again and someone changes something simple like Gods to God.

the fossil was found in Antarctic

Maybe Santa put it there, to test our faith.

The paleontologist from the AMNH doesn't get it. To a creationist, a transitional fossil would have an appendage that looked like a foot on one side and like a fin on the other, or would have fins in front and feet in back, or something that would - in fact - be evidence against evolution. Archaeopteryx is well adapted for its environment and therefore not a transitional fossil. That is the depth of ignorance we are dealing with.

Do you seriously think that may be there exists some piece of evidence that will change the creationists' minds?

Well there are several types of creationists: there are the opportunists who use creationism as part of a system of control whodon't necessarily believe in it or care if its true, there are the committed true believers that believe it as a fundamental axiom and are unlikely to revise their views based on evidence, and there are the people influenced by both of the former two groups who honestly believe it is the position best supported by the evidence and whose belief can be changed, or at least challenged, by evidence.

Each new bit of evidence, particularly that is widely reported, probably effects some of the last group, particularly when it provokes responses that show up the other two groups as dishonest and/or crazy.

But the last group is probably not all that much in touch, and therefore hard to reach.

Maybe Santa put it there, to test our faith.

What are you talking about? Santa lives in the "other" North Pole.

Why should we expect transitional fossils to bring people around when transitional living species have not sufficed?

well I'll be a walking-fish's uncle.

On a related issue the Intelligent Design malignancy, it is argued, has reached into the bureacracy of the Canadian science establishment, as reported today:

A clash between McGill University and the key federal agency that funds social science research in the country is sparking a scholarly debate in Canada about the theory of evolution.

McGill University says the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council made a "factual error" when it denied Professor Brian Alters a $40,000 grant on the grounds that he'd failed to provide the panel with ample evidence that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is correct.

America, a culture exporter to the rest of the world!

What we need is a fossil that shows the transition from Republican to human. That ought to do it.

We have John McCain who keeps changing from Republican to human and then back to Repub.

If it's okay to believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead after three days, despite all the scientific evidence that such an event is impossible, why isn't it okay to believe that the world was created 6,000 years ago, despite all the scientific evidence to the contrary? Sure, one might be a bigger "miracle" than the other, but we're talking about an omnipotent God here.

What are you talking about? Santa lives in the "other" North Pole.

So? He can fly around the whole world in one night, man! Surely he can take a quick coffee break at the South Pole. Maybe that's where the naughty elves live...

If it's okay to believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead after three days,

It's "okay" to believe whatever the hell you want. Just don't call it science.

So young-earth creationism is okay, just as long as you don't call it science?

So young-earth creationism is okay, just as long as you don't call it science?

Yes. It isn't any sillier than some other religious beliefs. Confusing faith with science, though, is a pretty big category error, and a nasty thing to do to an impressionable mind.

You can worship the holy purple turtle named edgar, who carries the universe around on his back - it makes no nevermind to me. It just isn't science.

If it's okay to believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead after three days, despite all the scientific evidence that such an event is impossible, why isn't it okay to believe that the world was created 6,000 years ago, despite all the scientific evidence to the contrary?

I don't think anyone said it wasn't okay to believe the latter; OTOH, presenting creationism (whether in young-earth, as you lay our here, or other forms) as the best scientific explanation of reality is a different beast.

Fundamentally, the difference is that science isn't about (though some believe it is a way to access) "Truth", it is about pragmatic predictive value. The attacks one evolution are based on misrepresentation of, and designed to advance ignorance of (as illustrated by the wedge document), the methods of science as a pragmatic predictive tool because of the perception that its utility there threatens certain religious groups ability to convince people of the truth of their doctrine.

In the marketplace of ideas, religions offering
doctrines that conflict with the explanations that are empirically useful ought to be challenged by those conflicts (and some may defend them with claims of an anti-divine deceiver, that's okay) rather than get away with concealing the existence of the conflicts.

Satan planted false evidence that the world is very old to try and trick us. He is the King of Lies, you know.

Archaeopteryx, rom Wikopedia

"..from the Late Jurassic of Germany, is the earliest and most primitive known bird."
but

Artiodactlya is the theoretical common ancestor of whales, hippos, pigs, and Ted Kennedy.

Did someone mis quote, mis-spell, or am I blundering?

"If it's okay to believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead after three days, despite all the scientific evidence that such an event is impossible"

let's be fair. It is not impossible to rise from the dead after three days, but it is much easier to do it after only one day.

"Fundamentally, the difference is that science isn't about (though some believe it is a way to access) "Truth","

Really? So science cannot tell us whether it's true that the world is round rather than flat, or made of rock rather than cheese?

I have a feeling most scientists would disagree with you.

The common name of the ancient land whale:

Falwellosaraus

Did someone mis quote, mis-spell, or am I blundering?

I think you are misunderstanding: Archaeopteryx is something like a transitional form to birds from (other) dinosaurs, which is why it is cited. Transitional forms and common ancestors are not the same thing.

My great grandfather rose from the dead after three days, so it's scientifically possible. He didn't ascend into heaven afterwards, but lived brain damaged in a darkened room for some decades.

How come monkeys don't turn into men down at the zoo?

Maybe that's where the naughty elves live...

Craigie, no naughty elves, just some gay penguins. The two are easily confused, especially by citizens of Georgia.

"My great grandfather rose from the dead after three days"

I very seriously doubt that.

How come monkeys don't turn into men down at the zoo?

It hasn't happened at the White House, either.

Really? So science cannot tell us whether it's true that the world is round rather than flat, or made of rock rather than cheese?

I have a feeling most scientists would disagree with you.

Essentially, the disagreement relies on equivocation on what "truth" means; most people who would disagree, scientists or not, would fail to distinguish between "truth" and predictive utility (or, phrased another way, do not distingush between "X behaves as if it were Y" and "X is Y".) While the question of whether there is a fundamental difference between the best pragmatic predictive model and the truth is perhaps an interesting epistemological debate, as long as one presumes there is a distinction, what science explores is only one side of it.

In any case, non-scientific beliefs are particularly problematic and dangerous when they masquerade as science and are mistaken for claims about pragmatic predictive capacity, and the danger from creationism is not from belief in it per se, but from the anti-science perspective used by those who advance it as science, or as an alternative to science in science's role.

"How come monkeys don't turn into men down at the zoo?"

Only ugly women visit the monkey cage.

You can believe what you like, but he was pronounced dead by a doctor and lay on a marble slab for three days with no detectable breathing or heartbeat. If you read your gospels, you'll find out that the Roman guard was convinced that Jesus was dead, and furthermore, that his followers should take him down against the rules. Now you tell me whether that guard is more qualified to determine death of a man up on a cross than a doctor from the turn of the last century who had the body laid out in front of him.

So a creationist and a tyrannosaurus walk into a coffee shop...

trex:[...something something]

Creationist: "How long did you say it was?"

trex[...something something]

Creationist:"I don't believe it. That's...impossible!"

trex: "I know it's hard to believe, just consider it a Jurassic Perk."

I'm still working on the middle bits. ;)

What? Oh, so you mammals think you're sooooo funny just because you're brains are proportionally so much larger. Well I'm here to tell ya, that ain't where it matters baby.

"the fossil was found in Antarctic"

The article says the skeletons were from the Canadian Arctic, 600 miles from the North Pole.

Which would tend to support the idea that either Santa put them there, as stated above, or that they are the ancestors of the elves.

"Yes. It isn't any sillier than some other religious beliefs. Confusing faith with science ..."

If faith is treated as a legitimate basis for belief, and people believe something strongly as a matter of faith, it's not really surprising that they would attack scientific evidence that undermines that belief.

Ah, Kevin.

Coming back again with some more athiestic loony-toon stuff.

I swear you are a glutton for punishment. How many times do I have to slap the sense into you?

There are no transitional fossils. Archaeopteryx was clearly a bird. Compare a bird fossil to an archae fossil, and you'd be hard pressed to tell one from the other.

There are just too many gaps in the fossil record. If anything, the fossil record points more to a catastrophic deluge than a slow, gradual process of evolution.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

If faith is treated as a legitimate basis for belief, and people believe something strongly as a matter of faith, it's not really surprising that they would attack scientific evidence that undermines that belief.

Arguably, faith should only be treated as a legitimate basis for belief for certain categories of claims, which do not overlap those for which science provides a legitimate basis for belief.

egbert,

Thank you for demonstrating where creationism becomes problematic.

Boronx: My great grandfather rose from the dead after three days.

Dinasaw: I very seriously doubt that.

Hey, if it's okay to believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead after three days, despite all the scientific evidence that such an event is impossible, why isn't it okay to believe that Boronx's great-grandfather rose from the dead after three days, despite all the scientific evidence to the contrary? Sure, one might be a bigger "miracle" than the other, but we're talking about an omnipotent God here.

"Essentially, the disagreement relies on equivocation on what "truth" means;"

No, the disagreement relies on your bizarre claim that science doesn't tell us whether the earth is flat or round, or whether you'll fall to your death rather than float in the air if you jump off a cliff. Somehow, I doubt you really believe that.

Of course, the creationist cretins will fall back on their standard "these fossils were invented by God to test our faith."

I'm a prankster God! Ha ha! I slay Me!

"Arguably, faith should only be treated as a legitimate basis for belief for certain categories of claims, which do not overlap those for which science provides a legitimate basis for belief."

Why?

"Hey, if it's okay to believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead after three days, despite all the scientific evidence that such an event is impossible, why isn't it okay to believe that Boronx's great-grandfather rose from the dead after three days, despite all the scientific evidence to the contrary?"

I don't think it's okay to believe either of them.

if it's okay to believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead after three days,

I, myself, am the product of an immaculate conception. And I can walk on water.

Doubt that? Then prove me wrong, my friends. Prove me wrong.

"There are no transitional fossils. Archaeopteryx was clearly a bird."

No one who actually knows anything about Archaeopteryx and birds (and dinos) could possibly claim this. But then, you seem like someone that doesn't actually know anything about any of those things aside from "look! Teh wingz!"

Transitional fossils are those which have features that are otherwise unique to separate families. They are not necessarily ancestors of any modern life: they are branches from the part of the tree where two groups split off.

In the case of Archy, it has features otherwise unique to be both dinos and modern birds. Of course, there are many dinos that had feathers, so mostly what we are talking about are particular bone structures.

Oh great. Now we have another creature for the Scifi channel to use for its monster movie of the week.

I was kinda hoping once they ran out of the mythicals that would be it.

Stefan,

That's funny, but if you are lampooning Catholicism at least get your terms straight.

It wasn't Jesus who was the product of the immaculate conception.

Sheesh.

cmdicely,

"Arguably, faith should only be treated as a legitimate basis for belief for certain categories of claims, which do not overlap those for which science provides a legitimate basis for belief."

Science certainly provides a legitimate basis for believing that Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead --- it would violate the laws and principles of biology and chemistry. Therefore, by your "arguably," faith should not be treated as a legitimate basis for the belief that Jesus Christ did rise from the dead.

Dinasaw, quoting Cmdicely, wrote:

"Fundamentally, the difference is that science isn't about (though some believe it is a way to access) "Truth","

to which Dinasaw replied:

"Really? So science cannot tell us whether it's true that the world is round rather than flat, or made of rock rather than cheese?

I have a feeling most scientists would disagree with you."

No, actually most scientists would heartily agree with Cmdicely on this.

The late Issac Asimov wrote about this a good deal, and I'm sorry I have no access to any of his books here. If I did, I could cite some of the specific essays. But in summary, Asimov often pointed out that the scientific method is NOT about "finding truth." Rather, it is about finding ERROR, in order to exclude it.

That's a little different than what Cmdicely said, but it's closely related. And, indeed, I do think Asimov also discussed predictive value as the ultimate purpose of the scientific method, although no specific quotes of his on this come to mind. Probably you'd find more theory along these lines in, say, Karl Popper's work.

Of course, scientists refer casually to "the search for truth" or "scientific truths" all the time. Quite natural to do so. But when the context is a bit more formal, you'll notice the word "truth" or "natural law" or anything similar quickly drops away (it's why they haven't appended the term "Law" to any scientific work -- for example, Einstein's theories -- for well over a century now, and maybe longer. The "laws" of thermodynamics is about it, and lots of scientists would cheerfully drop those usages too, were it possible).

I personally prefer Asimov's formulation -- about "identifying and excluding error" -- to Cmdicely's favored "predictive value." But they're both accurate descriptions of fundamental qualities of the scientific method.

"No, actually most scientists would heartily agree with Cmdicely on this."

I'd love to see your evidence for this claim. I think the vast majority of scientists would consider it perfectly reasonable to say, for example, that science shows that the claim that the earth is flat is false.

Creationists dislike Archaeopteryx because it's clearly a mosaic of reptilian traits (teeth, tail) and avian traits (feathers, wings). Those with just enough knowledge to be dangerous, however, like to point out that Archaeopteryx flourished after the supposed split between birds and reptiles, hence it cannot be a transitional form between the two species. Wrong! Archaeopteryx is simply a representative of a branch that descended from whatever species also gave rise to modern birds and reptiles. Creationists always seem to think that evolution requires neat and tidy family trees of descent, but Stephen Jay Gould often pointed out that the tree of life is closer to a messy bush than a clean-limbed tree.

Actually, in Creationist-logic-land, every transitional fossil found actually WEAKENS the case for evolution. Don't believe me? Follow along:

Imagine a line of descent. We have have two fossils, A and Z, and we surmise that Z is descended from A.

"Ah!" say the creationists. "There's no fossils showing how you get from A to Z. Look at that gap! You call that a theory?"

"Well, fossils are (relatively speaking) rare" responds the scientist. "I bet we'll find more that more directly establish the line of descent between A and Z."

And lo! Paleontologists unearth a half-dozen new fossils. C and I and J and M and R and X. So now the line of descent looks like A -> C -> I -> J -> M -> R -> X -> Z, just as the theory of evolution and the scientist had predicted. A triumph for science and rationality!

Except that the creationist now points out that there are SEVEN gaps in the record instead of just ONE. The theory of evolution is collapsing from within, and those God-hating, brainwashed "scientists" can't even begin to bring themselves to acknowledge this. And we teach this in the schools??!? The creationist goes on to write a bunch of articles in the crank-chirstian press with titles like DARWIN'S THEORY IN CRISIS and NEW CHALLENGES TO EVOLUTION, and fields call and interviews from mainstream outlets looking to add "balance" to their science reporting.

You really can't win arguing with these people.

Of course, the creationist cretins will fall back on their standard "these fossils were invented by God to test our faith."

I understood that the organized creationists (not the free-lance wingnut type) had pretty much abandoned this claim. Even they realized that a God that was perfectly good would not systematically lie to people. Now, the claim noted upstream that Satan made the fossils is more interesting, but also would seem to have deep theological problems. I mean, who created the world, anyway? It surely wasn't Satan, so if those fossils result from an initial creation a few thousand years ago, God made them, or nobody did. The more plausible case, of course, is that they are the scientific evidence of the development of the world over millions of years, perhaps after an initial divine impulse, but not necessarily evidencing such an impulse.

Unfortunately, Keeling, whatever science does, it's a lot closer to anything deserving what most poeple understand "truth" to mean than anything else out there. The musings of Popper and others are complex metaphysics that basically don't boil down to anything particularly important for day to day operation. If you don't think empirical facts are facts, hey that's fine. Just don't pretend that you live your life that way.

Santa H. Claus! Don P, would you pick one new name and stick with it already?

"I appreciate the sentiment, but I imagine that this latest discovery will have approximately zero effect. Sigh."

Sorta like no amount of discoveries or scientific evidence would ever convince liberals that there are differences between the genders and races?

If it's okay to believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead after three days, despite all the scientific evidence that such an event is impossible,

Dinasaw - These are the kind of stupid statements which give naturalism a bad name. Science can not prove whether something that claims to be a miracle is impossible. Please take some philosophy of science classes before promulgating more ignorance.

"What more do we need from the fossil record to show that the creationists are flatly wrong?"

What you need is an audience that listens to reason. Creationists, by definition, put a faith in a literal interpretation of Genesis above reason; they're not going to be swayed by reasoned argument, even if an archaeopteryx is discovered nesting in an Arkansas swamp tomorrow.

Proponents of "intelligent design" do the same thing, but they're not willing to admit it.

"Arguably, faith should only be treated as a legitimate basis for belief for certain categories of claims, which do not overlap those for which science provides a legitimate basis for belief."

Science can be used to study whether prayer works. So faith should not be treated as a legitimate basis for the belief that prayer works, right?

"These are the kind of stupid statements which give naturalism a bad name. Science can not prove whether something that claims to be a miracle is impossible."

Terrific. So we'll just call young-earth creationism a "miracle," and, voila, it's immune to refutation through science.

"What you need is an audience that listens to reason. Creationists, by definition, put a faith in a literal interpretation of Genesis above reason; they're not going to be swayed by reasoned argument, even if an archaeopteryx is discovered nesting in an Arkansas swamp tomorrow."

Liberals do that exact same thing when they subscribe to political correctness. Liberals are just as scientifically challenged as creationists, but libs are hypocrites to boot.

I've often wondered at the literalist approach to Genesis, even from the perspective of a hard-core believer.

Jesus spent most of his ministry speaking in parables. Wouldn't Dad speak the same language?

(As much as I doubt we have many fundamentalists on this site, I thought I'd put it out there.)

That only means that there are now TWO missing links in the chain of evolution for every creationist. You didn't prove anything.

"I understood that the organized creationists (not the free-lance wingnut type) had pretty much abandoned this claim. Even they realized that a God that was perfectly good would not systematically lie to people."

How do you know that? If God can be perfectly good and still inflict, or allow, diseases and disasters that cause an immense amount of pain and suffering then surely he can also be perfectly good and lie to us to test our faith, or for some other reason that serves his higher purposes.

"Now, the claim noted upstream that Satan made the fossils is more interesting, but also would seem to have deep theological problems. I mean, who created the world, anyway? It surely wasn't Satan, so if those fossils result from an initial creation a few thousand years ago, God made them, or nobody did."

Huh? Maybe Satan planted them in the rock shortly after God created it.

I do enjoy these posts because the proto-fascists are usually fairly quiet.

lib asks: Do you seriously think that may be there exists some piece of evidence that will change the creationists' minds?

How about a very loud-voiced Gd speaking from the heavens to all on earth simultaneously, saying:

Pay attention! Darwin was right.

So much for prayer...

American Heart Journal
Volume 151, Issue 4 , April 2006, Pages 934-942

Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: A multicenter randomized trial of uncertainty and certainty of receiving intercessory prayer

((much text))

...Conclusions

Intercessory prayer itself had no effect on complication-free recovery from CABG, but certainty of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with a higher incidence of complications.

> or am I blundering

Matt, I had the same problem for a moment but the scientist quoted was enumerating, as such:

"We've got:
(1)Archaeopteryx,
(2)an early whale that lived on land
and now
(3)this animal showing the transition from fish to tetrapod"

Freedom Fighter: it's not that we don't believe in differences (we're the guys who were getting laid all the time, believe me, we know the differences) we just are damn sure that the differences aren't what you misogynistic racists think they are.

And finally, a nod to the guy who pointed out that we got things walking and/or swimming around that show transitional features. We don't need no stinkin' fossils -- although they are sure way cool!!

At one point in my life, I decided I was going to read the Bible.

I thought it would be best if I just read it as if I believed it. I told myself that I was just going to read it, and pretend I actually believed that all of it happened literally.

I got up to about the book of Kings where it said that Pi=3.0.
But I really, really did enjoy Genesis. Good story. I really did like the story of Joseph. And there may be some historical factual parallels in Egypt's documented history. But there's a lot of it that I consider must have been just plain allegory or mythological.

What we need is bloggers who say "in yer face, creationists!" Instead of "I imagine this will have zero effect" and such.

THAT'S what we need Kevin.

Sorta like no amount of discoveries or scientific evidence would ever convince liberals that there are differences between the genders and races?

That's right, Freedom Fighter. Every liberal believes as a matter of holy faith that penises and vaginas are exactly alike! We really can't tell the difference! How cleverly you catch us out! I suppose we could try to refute you by saying we actually believe people should not be discriminated against on the basis of sex or race, but you are undoubtedly are too smart to fall for that, you rascal!

Sorta like no amount of discoveries or scientific evidence would ever convince liberals that there are differences between the genders and races?

That's right, Freedom Fighter. Every liberal believes as a matter of holy faith that penises and vaginas are exactly alike! We really can't tell the difference! How cleverly you catch us out! I suppose we could try to refute you by saying we actually believe people should not be discriminated against on the basis of sex or race, but you are undoubtedly too smart to fall for that, you rascal!

Freedom Fighter raises straw men.

There may be liberals who deny any differences between genders or races. The ones I know, however, don't deny the obvious -- that there are differences -- but also point out that the differences between groups are minor compared to the differences within groups. The whole point of harping on the differences between genders and races is to justify discrimination, but that dog won't hunt, because whatever the averages are, it's not hard to find a person from one group who's more like the average from annother group than a member of that second group is.

Furthermore, there are fundamental differences between mental traits and physical ones. There is some interesting evidence of different proportions of muscle type, with west Africans having high proportions of "fast-twitch" muscles that make them good sprinters, east Africans having high proportions of "slow-twitch" muscles that make them good distance runners, and caucasians having muscle types somewhere in the middle. 50 years ago, with few Africans having the material means to compete on the world stage, caucasians dominated running. But today it's west Africans and their descendents elsewhere who dominate the sprints, east Africans and their descendents who dominate marathons, and caucasians do better at middle distances than at either sprints or marathons.

But these physical differences (never mind the more obvious differences in average body size between men and women) aren't as interesting to people who want to discriminate as are mental differences, and here the problem is separating the undeniable genetic component from the pervasive influence of the social environment -- everything from family to schools to TV. It's clear enough that pretty much anyone with the right home setting and a good school can do well intellectually and end up better at logical argument than Freedom Fighter. It's revealing that he's more interested in insisting that some people are inherently dumb than looking for ways to bring out the native intelligence that is in most people -- hidden in too many cases.

I'm serious Kevin. What the hell is the point of having a progressive blog if you are going to give up the fight before it begins? YOU are the voice of the Monthly. YOU need to say "In yer face", and you need to say it loud. Not "Oh dear zero effect. Sigh.". Have you seen the "Shhhhhhh" Lieberman video? This post is about on that same level.

Get some balls, man. For the sake of our country and our party, get some balls. Lives are on the line here.

How come monkeys don't turn into men down at the zoo?

They do when you aren't looking. You have to stay there all night to see.

I don't know where the heck people get the idea that there aren't transitional forms. They're all over the place. Every school child can clearly follow the evolution of the horse through several forms.

The term "transitional form" is often misused. Some people seem to think it would be some gross mutant, half one thing, half another. Transitional forms are only viewed as such through a long history of development. They are seen as "transitional" long after the fact. At the time they're alive, they're perfectly normal animals or plants. Of COURSE transitional forms are adapted to their environment or stable. Every life form has to survive for thousands to millions of years to leave a fossil record. Obviously, for that given environment, they were suited. When things changed, descendants suited by random selection to the new environment did better than their transitional ancestors.

Remember, "Whales Got Leg Bones!"

"There are no transitional fossils. Archaeopteryx was clearly a bird. Compare a bird fossil to an archae fossil, and you'd be hard pressed to tell one from the other."

edgbert, on the other hand if you put Achaeopteryx next to a small dinosaur you would be hard pressed to tell one from the other (except for the feathers.) That is why it is called a transitional fossil.

Also notice that Freedom Fighter doesn't bother arguing that creationism is right -- he doesn't dispute Kevin's point. All he's basically got is "Liberals are teh stupid." Sheesh.

Oh, I forgot. Plunge reminded me. There are a lot of dinosaurs whose fossils show signs of feathers.

For the record, Achaepteryx is not a transition between reptiles and birds, it might be a transition between dinosaurs and birds. As I understand it, the differences are relatively small. It could be that birds are dinosaurs, at least of a sort.

Plunge,

You don’t have the slightest friggin’ clue who Karl Popper was, do you? For that matter, do you even know of Isaac Asimov was? I'd say not given your completely ignorant comment. Popper was not involved in "metaphysics" or anything remotely close to that. He was a distinguished Professor of Logic (and later Methodology) at the London School of Economics. His students included Lakatos, Feyerabend, and – probably best known – financier George Soros. He is generally considered the greatest philosopher of the scientific method of the 20th century, as well as one of the most brilliants critics of all forms of “religious”-type thinking, most specifically Marxism and Fascism. Some scientists and philosophers of science do indeed disagree with his views, but that’s like saying that some of the physicists at MIT and Stanford disagree with Einstein. No one who knows squat about it disputes that Popper’s work stands at the pinnacle of 20th century thought in defining exactly how the scientific method operates, what we mean by it, and why it is the premier means of understanding the natural world around us.

Dinasaw and Plunge: did either of you actually READ what I wrote? Again, do you have the slightest goddamned idea of what you're talking about? Do either of you even know any scientists? (I started to put down all my own credentials here in that regard, but it made too long a digression. Leave it go that as a writer I used to occasionally work with Carl Sagan ... and he was but one of many scientists – folks intimately concerned with these issues – whom I’ve dealt with in my work).

Speaking of which: If neither Asimov (for example, in his book of essays, “The Relativity of Wrong”) nor Popper are your thing, try reading Carl Sagan's "A Demon-Haunted World." Practically the whole of that book is directly or indirectly dedicated to this very topic. Or check out "The Blind Clockmaker" by Richard Dawkins -- if memory serves, that stalwart defense of Darwinism against religious magical thinking covers a bit of this topic also. I'm absolutely positive that Richard Feynman hit it once or twice, too. A shame I have none of these close to hand right now save for Sagan’s book.

These scholars -- fervent advocates all for empiricism and the scientific method's primacy over religion -- took pains to avoid the glib use of the term "truth." In casual language, yes, you see the word a lot, even from good scientists. But Cmdicely's argument was that "truth" is not actually a good scientific term or concept. Dinesaw, you keep referring to flat v. round earth. An extraordinarily dumb example. Nevermind that the earth is spherical but not precisely round (it "bulges" at the equator), the issue here is WHAT DISTINGUISHES SCIENCE FROM RELIGION. That is what Cmdicely was talking about, apparently miles above your head.

In point of fact (and in stark contrast to the absolutes of religion), science invites you -- if you really think you can muster robust evidence to your cause -- to try to prove any damned thing you want, including that the earth is flat. Good luck, of course, 'cause you'll need it (as Sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence).

Still, sometimes what seem to be clear "scientific truths" (to use your favored term) turn out to be wrong. That is, to cite one excellent example, precisely what ultimately happened with the "continental drift" theory. In 1950, or 1960, or even 1965, most geophysicists -- if they were as sloppy about using the word "truth" as you imply -- would have assured you that it's "settled truth" that modern geology had disproved any claptrap about continents drifting here and there (they could see no mechanism for it – see Sagan, “Demon-Haunted World,” pp. 302-303). The (usually great) Asimov, in his "Intelligent Man's Guide to Science," said something to the effect of, "Continental drift is a nice idea, which however has crashed upon the rocky shore of reality." There was only one problem with that: continental drift -- now incorporated into Plate Tectonics -- turned out to be apparently right, and the old torsional tectonic "truths" apparently wrong. Or, put in “casual” terms: plate tectonics is the truth, and torsional tectonics (land masses rise and fall, but don’t “drift”) was false. But, that’s a flippant use of those words: we just can’t absolutely be sure that someone won’t come along and eventually prove that much of what geologists think about plate tectonics is also false.

THAT is why this is no academic "metaphysical" argument. It is that very essence of science -- that even the most settled scientific question can at any time be re-opened, re-evaluated, and the existing paradigm perhaps completely tossed aside in favor of a new theory -- that distinguishes science from the dogmas of religion and "revealed truths." If you don't get this, you simply don't "get" science, however much you claim to approve of it over religion.

Twits!

Well, it will have zero effect on the true believers, who will believe in someone or something in spite of all evidence to the contrary (see Bush, George W.). But it may make the general public a little less likely to elect born-again presidents and congressmen in the future and a little more skeptical about letting one minority group of religious extremists dominate our politics and our discourse. Godless knows it can't hurt.

Hey! It's as much nurture as nature you cretin!

How about some recognition for those flagellate moms laboring day-in and day-out. Working to bring the kids up right, give them a chance at a better life, and help them take their rightful place among the higher phyla.

Of course you don't see it in the fossil record. They're illegals, you dolt. No documentation. No benefits. No trace.

As for those creationist creeps, if they want "transitional forms" they should try a Taco Bell. 30 minutes and they'll have more transitional forms than they can handle.

Roger Keeling,

So much bluster.

You're seriously claiming that most scientists would say that we just don't know whether the earth is flat or round, are you?

Leave it go that as a writer I used to occasionally work with Carl Sagan ... and he was but one of many scientists – folks intimately concerned with these issues – whom I’ve dealt with in my work).

The earth is round. It's the truth. Deal.

Dinesaw, you've SO badly missed Cmdicely's point. Troll-like, you've chomped your pearly-whites into one trivial thing and won't let go long enough to grasp the larger argument. Well, guess what lad: everyone here can plainly see you're fishing in waters way too deep for you.

(By the way, I know damned good and well you didn't even read my last posting. Your response came almost instantly ... not long enough for you to have even thought about it. Wanker!)

I got your transitional form right here, buddy.
(Points to coccyx)
Seriously, why do we have the remnants of a tail and appendix if we didn't have ancestors that used them?

" did either of you actually READ what I wrote? Again, do you have the slightest goddamned idea of what you're talking about"

Sorry, but I know exactly of what I speak. I read what you wrote: did you THINK about what you wrote? Or are YOU so certain of your views that you can just scream "YOU ARE ALL IGNORANT" and expect that to suffice as an argument?

I understand everything you are saying. The problem is, most of the conclusions still basically track better with people's everyday unstanding of "fact" than denying that it does (which gives people a VERY wrong impression of things). People understand that facts aren't ever 100% certain: you could always be wrong, and that's why you've just got to keep checking and rechecking. It's pretty much the basis of the liberal scientific method: no one is a final authority, and no one ever gets to declare "game over." The vast majority of people who talk and debate science already understand all that.

And, so, guess what: the causal usages of the words "truth" and "fact" seem to work just fine. The rubes already get it. In fact, I can't quite see what your point is other than screaming about your own genius-level understanding of the theory of science.

Who cares? Everyone already gets the non-trivial points of what you are saying and agrees with it without having to name drop or rant on and on about Karl Popper... it just that the rest of us aren't so pretentiously absurd about it.

Roger Keeling,

I too would like to see your evidence that most scientists would deny that it's true that the earth is round rather than flat. You made this claim. Substantiate it.

I think Novacek and Gould are (was) misguided. A paleontologist actively trying to dispel creationist myths in popular media just looks like a paleontologist with an agenda. It probably has the net result of increasing creationist scepticism of science and making them think there is an actual debate to be had. Now creationists are waiting for the next fossil find which might swing things back in their favor. A male labyrinthodont missing a rib? Novacek would probably cast a fake one to put it on display -- damn atheist.

It's difficult to take seriously arguments regarding race, gender, and heritability from a group so clearly invested in justifying their own racism and mysoginism.

There is no proof for faith. If there were a way to prove their faith was wrong, it would not matter because faith is beyond proof or evidence.

In fact, if there were a way to prove it, then there would be no need for faith at all.

So, it does not matter what science discovers. Faith has nothing to do with evidence. Facts are the opposite of faith. And FAITH is key because none of what any religious person believes can be proved.

"For the record, Achaepteryx is not a transition between reptiles and birds, it might be a transition between dinosaurs and birds. As I understand it, the differences are relatively small. It could be that birds are dinosaurs, at least of a sort."

Cladistically, birds are dinosaurs (if that theory continues to hold up, and at this point it's pretty well and widely accepted) in the same way that humans are mammals. Birds are still a subgroup OF dinosaurs. Same way that humans are still apes, primates, eutherians, therians, amniotes, tetrapods, vertebrates (which is basically the lowest grouping that still contains all fish: ALL large land animals are subgroups of the vertebrate group, nested within a particular line of fish), eukaryotes, and so on. Evolutionis cladistically conservative: you don't leave your group, you descend as a modified form of what came before. Even the seeming exceptions, like snakes and dolphins not seeming like tetrapods anymore, give themselves away with vestigial features, atavisms, embryonic remnants, and the same basic tetrapod body-plan, even if they no longer have the distinguishing four limbs in the adult stage.

Note that dinos are not what people normally think of as "lizards": they have all sorts of key morphological differences that make them different and a distinct group from other reptiles.

But today it's west Africans and their descendents elsewhere who dominate the sprints, east Africans and their descendents who dominate marathons, and caucasians do better at middle distances than at either sprints or marathons.

And them Asians is good at ping-pong.

"So, it does not matter what science discovers. Faith has nothing to do with evidence. Facts are the opposite of faith. And FAITH is key because none of what any religious person believes can be proved."

Ah, were that only true. The problem is that, clearly, many creationists have modified or amended their views in the face of evidence that's become too overwhelmingly and simply demonstrated to seriously deny without any good evidence. The problem with evolution is that the evidence is often too complex to understand with a neat phrase or picture: you have spend lots of time understanding a bunch of different subjects in order to grok the larger picture. Most people aren't willing to put in that sort of time. THAT is the problem.

And them Asians is good at ping-pong.

Posted by: brooksfoe on April 5, 2006 at 10:56 PM | PERMALINK

And tests, along with the Jews.

"There is no proof for faith. If there were a way to prove their faith was wrong, it would not matter because faith is beyond proof or evidence."

Depends entirely on what it is that they believe through faith. Faith that the earth is only 6,000 years old is obviously not "beyond proof or evidence."

"In fact, if there were a way to prove it, then there would be no need for faith at all."

Why do you "need" faith whether there's proof or not?

Dinasaw: You're seriously claiming that most scientists would say that we just don't know whether the earth is flat or round, are you?

Roger Keeling is right, and has explained himself in great detail (particularly about the loose vs. strict use of the word "truth" in science).

Don't act cocky about science if you don't understand the basics of it.

In essence it's real simple. To be scientific, a hypothesis must be falsifiable (possible to show it's false, if indeed it is false). You can't prove that it's true, you can only try real hard to show it's false. If enough people try hard enough for long enough to show it's false, but fail to show it's false, your hypothesis gets upgraded to a theory or principle.

Brownie points for predictive ability (under controlled conditions if possible) and explanations of underlying mechanisms.

That's it. "We ain't proved it wrong yet, so it's our current educated guess".

"Truth" and non-falsifiable hypotheses are left to philosophers and theologians.

Re: The immaculate conception:

"The Immaculate Conception means that Mary, whose conception was brought about the normal way, was conceived without original sin or its stain—that’s what "immaculate" means: without stain."

I found this on some wev site by someone who seemed smarter than the lecherous nuns who taught me. But, I guess Mary had sex, well at least intercourse. We do not know if she gave oral, but if she did, it sure was graceful!

I admit I was wrong, and you can see that years of Catholic training have left me neurotically obsessed with deranged women. I keep looking for grace and they always run off with the deranged boyfriends. Now I get it.

What I have never understood is how a group of people who believe the bible is the inerrant word of god, believe that a man/god was conceived without intercourse and subsequently rose from the dead, that a talking snake conned a woman who was made from the rib of a man who was himself made from mud to do the one thing that would get her banned from paradise... that this group of people is so fanatical when it comes to proof in other areas?

As far as I know there isn't any evidence that Jesus actually existed let alone an invisible all powerful god. This group of individuals which is so caught up in the frenzy of faith that allows them to believe that the entire earth was covered in water and that every species of animal today descends from stock that was saved on a wooden boat that by any stretch of the imagination could not have been large enough to house even a mere fraction of them, this group demands that they be able to SEE evolution in action in order to believe it?

The double standard displayed here is breathtaking.

Keeling, hopefuly despite my savaging your manhood, you get what I was saying: its great that there are books explaining in detail the scientific method and the way empiricism really defines understanding. But unless we are prepared to prepend all our statements with a paragraph distinguishing religious absolute truth from what we mean by scientific fact, by and large most of us get on just fine explaining things in the more intelligible way of describing things as being facts, proven, etc. That's because empiricism isn't just something airy, it's pretty much the basis for how most people reflexively live their life and deal with their everyday physical environment. You can touch a stove ten times, not get burned, and then get burned when it happens to be turned on. No one runs around claiming that it is absolute truth that they cannot trip over a rock, or that stoves can't be hot.

No offence but Lungfish and fish that use fish to scrabble on the grounds have been around for a while. What's the big deal?

Besides scientists use the word Proto to declare 'vaguely looks like'.

Unless they can understand the natural selection purpose/process for these changes that mandates a fishy needing proto-wrists...you could argue that this is evidence of intelligent design....

e.g. God creates a niche eco-system that will result in his next day of Creation that leaves it for a while and starts working on Pluto or something...

"If enough people try hard enough for long enough to show it's false, but fail to show it's false, your hypothesis gets upgraded to a theory or principle."

Ug, no. Theories are not "upgrades" to hypotheses. They are bodies of explanations often involving an innumerable number of tested and testible hypotheses. Heck, even when something is definitively WRONG we still call it a theory (i.e. theory of orgone energy). And even when something is deductively proven, like number theory, it's still called a theory.

alex:

"Roger Keeling is right,"

No, he's not right. The idea that most scientists would object to statements like "It's true that the earth is older than 6,000 years" is just utter nonsense. As plunge has explained at length, Keeling just engaging in an exercise in self-promotion to make a trivial metaphysical point that is utterly irrelevant to how we understand truth and falsehood, fact and fiction, in the real world, including how working scientists use those terms.

Upon his deathbed, David Hume was asked if he believed in an eternal soul. He is said to have replied:

"It is also possible that a knob of coal placed upon the fire will not burn".

Empiricism is how people live their life with regard to the material world of course, but we all apply an empiricial view of reality at differing levels (with different phenomena, and in differing situations) based upon faith, cultural factors, etc.

Is it empiricism to base lightning upon Zeus' thunderbolts? It does match the evidence at hand at that time, it seems.

that this group of people is so fanatical when it comes to proof in other areas?

Posted by: Eric Paulsen on April 5, 2006 at 11:02 PM | PERMALINK

Fanatical when it comes to proof? Saved by Faith.

There are many Christians who view the Creation-myth aspects of the Bible as a metaphor.

And the bottom line of science is that they have no idea where the first life formed (in comets, in vast space alcohol clouds, in primorial soup)
and the mechanism for evolution for proto-lifeforms too simple to have DNA or DNA equivalents.

I should note in addition that cladistics is the reason objections to observed evolution like "but it's still a cow!" or "But it's still a dog" are so goofy. Yes, no matter how much cows evolve, the descriptor "cow" will always describe a grouping of creatures, in the same way that "eukaryote" still describes human beings as a group. Every new species that will ultimately descend from canis familiaris will still fit into the definitions that set canis familiaris apart from all other species, in the same way that human beings are still tetrapods. You can just as easily look at the transition from the early tetrapods to elephants and scream "but it's still a tetrapod!" Well, uh, yeah. It is. That's how evolution works. Descent with modification.

e.g. God creates a niche eco-system that will result in his next day of Creation that leaves it for a while and starts working on Pluto or something.

The 'next' day of creation? What, after Ragnarok?

You are willing to throw the entire Judeo-Christian theological view of a revelation operating within history out the window to tenuously 'explain' a few fossils?

With there be a 'next' Judgement day, as well? A 'next' Assumption? A 'next' Virgin Birth?

A 'next' Saviour?

Your Christianity is sounding a hell of a lot like 'The Matrix 3', McA.

You'll have to do better than that.

At one point in my life, I decided I was going to read the Bible.

I thought it would be best if I just read it as if I believed it. I told myself that I was just going to read it, and pretend I actually believed that all of it happened literally.

I got up to about the book of Kings where it said that Pi=3.0.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on April 5, 2006 at 9:31 PM | PERMALINK

Try just one of the Gospels first & Acts.
The Pi =3.0 has been covered. If I remember the wheel thickness is an issue and whether the diameter is the inner or outer diameter, and whether the perimeter is the inner or outer.

In fact, one person thinks that they got Pi right so far back, its evidence of the divine.

In fact, one person thinks that they got Pi right so far back, its evidence of the divine.

And if people claim it's not 'proof' of the divine, you can always fall back on faith and claim no proof is necessary/possible, can't you.

By the way. Have any of the atheist here explained why morality is necessary, when no one is looking?

I'm suprised at the number of deep thinkers who can happily ignore evolutionary theory when it talks about the game theory of cheating and retaliation....

You have to accept morality by faith. So why not God, especially if you've had the Holy Spirit in your life?

Beats the mass hallucination theory, especially when the hallucination has largely positive aspects on a personal front.

McA -- having a bit of familiarity with Novacek I think the big deal is that he is a self important ass who thinks his observations of mundane happeniings deserves to be heard by the masses.

"Have any of the atheist here explained why morality is necessary, when no one is looking?"

What? Has anyone explained to you the basics of english grammar? I mean, my spelling and grammar are not perfect (though mostly its from typing too fast) but I at least can be understood. Your questions don't even make any sense.

"I'm suprised at the number of deep thinkers who can happily ignore evolutionary theory when it talks about the game theory of cheating and retaliation...."

Buh....? Eh? What?

"You have to accept morality by faith."

Uh, what? Why? Morality is a value, not a testible proposition with a truth value.

By the way. Have any of the atheist here explained why morality is necessary, when no one is looking?

Simple. It's necessary to keep society functioning properly.

Most libertarians have already grappled with this in the earlty stages of their philosophical fixation - how to justify or inculcate worthwhile moral behaviour without an overarching authority.

Whether they can answer convincingly is not the point - we all agree that morality is a necessary aspect of living in social groups.

Next.

Beats the mass hallucination theory, especially when the hallucination has largely positive aspects on a personal front.

Ah, yes. Let's argue that the validity of propositions is largely based upon the utilitarian usefulness of their outcomes.

Isn't that called 'the ends justify the means'?

you can always fall back on faith and claim no proof is necessary/possible, can't you.

Posted by: floopmeister on April 5, 2006 at 11:18 PM | PERMALINK

Yup.