1/24/10

Coelacanth - From Evidence to Tall Tale (or is it tall “tail”?)

This post has been moved to this link.

Share |

TwitThis

Posted by Ken
Labels: , , , , , , ,

26 comments:

  1. bossmanhamJanuary 24, 2010 at 12:18 PM

    Haha. Darwinism fail.

    ReplyDelete
  2. secularist10January 24, 2010 at 1:25 PM

    Mariano,
    I'm not sure if you realize this, but this whole story does absolutely nothing to debunk evolution--not even a chink in the armor. So scientists 100 years ago were wrong. Okay, fine. Congratulations, Captain Obvious. As if that's never happened before.

    I am exceedingly curious as to how you reckon with the overwhelming evidence in favor evolution. Do you just ignore it, true "skeptic" that you are? Or are you simply too fascinated with the personal failings of Darwinist and evolutionist scientists to notice?

    ReplyDelete
  3. managermalebaconJanuary 25, 2010 at 9:20 AM

    First, you misunderstand evolution. Even though we evolved from bacteria, there are still bacteria around. Alligators have remained relatively unchanged for millions of years. When a gene pool separates and one group evolves in response to new environmental pressures, that doesn't mean that the old niche necessarily disappears.

    Second, if you think that our evidence for fish to tetrapod evolution is based on a single debunked fossil, allow me to get you caught up to our present scientific understanding:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils#Fish_to_Tetrapods

    Write more essays about the trinity or something. Your science essays make baby Jesus cry.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Masked MarauderJanuary 25, 2010 at 12:57 PM

    Not this nonsense again!

    "Coelacanth" is a generic descriptor applied at the Order or Family taxonomic level. To say that Latimeria (Genus, not even species) hasn't changed in umpteen million years is like pointing to African and Indian elephants and concluding mastodons haven't evolved either.

    And, not that you care, evolution simply says that species can and sometimes do change visibly over time. It does not say that they must. This is a problem with your ignorance about the theory of evolution, not a problem for the theory.

    Your claims are just plain ridiculous and won't work on anyone unless they're stupid, blind or ignorant.

    ReplyDelete
  5. bossmanhamJanuary 25, 2010 at 1:10 PM

    Mmm. I love all this ad hoc goodness.

    ReplyDelete
  6. AnonymousJanuary 25, 2010 at 1:25 PM

    Just because evolution can't be proven and many of it's predictions have been shown to be false, doesn't mean that evolution isn't true!

    Evolution is infallible, and deniers simply lack faith.

    ReplyDelete
  7. secularist10January 25, 2010 at 7:20 PM

    Anonymous:

    I'm curious, how do you reckon with the overwhelming evidence in favor of evolution?

    ReplyDelete
  8. execdudeporkchopJanuary 25, 2010 at 9:33 PM

    There is nothing ad hoc about it. Our ancestors were bacteria, fish, reptiles, then mammals and yet all of these things still exist today. If you think that this is incompatible with evolution, then you don't understand evolution. Reptiles didn't have to all die out so that their cousins, the early mammals, could live on. Coelacanths didn't all have to die out for their cousins to become tetrapods. If you claim that the theory of evolution would require their niche to disappear and for them to die out, please explain how you came to this conclusion.

    Mariano's science essays share a common theme. Point out instances when certain evidence compatible with evolution was meant to make a strong claim that is later shown to be invalid. This was the theme of Mariano's essay on Ardi. The logical leap then is to say that somehow by showing that the strong claim is unsupported, the theory of evolution is destroyed.

    To help you understand why this is a fallacy, allow me to give you a completely parallel analogy. Theory: Jesus was a real historical figure. Overzealous evidence: Shroud of Turin. Outcome: Evidence debunked. Conclusion: Therefore, Jesus was not a real historical figure.

    Yeah, that's pretty stupid logic. Stop using it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. BathTubJanuary 26, 2010 at 2:07 AM

    Hahah this is what I caught bossmanham out on AJ's blog wasn't it? The article is built on the ignorance the Coelacanth is not a species a fish. It's an Order of Fish. And the 2 Species of this Order of Fish are different to what's found in the fossil record.

    For example the Order Canivora is the link between Cats & Dogs. So that's the sort of taxonomic size we're talking about.

    So basically this is an example of something that has changed over Family, Class, Genus & Species. So a fine example of "Macro"-Evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  10. secularist10January 27, 2010 at 3:17 PM

    Hmm... It looks like Anonymous has just disappeared without answering my question. Very mysterious, indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  11. AnonymousJanuary 27, 2010 at 5:04 PM

    Hey... Mariano? Your 'science' sucks as much as your blog.

    ReplyDelete
  12. AnonymousJanuary 28, 2010 at 12:47 PM

    Secularist...

    "Hmm... It looks like Anonymous has just disappeared without answering my question. Very mysterious, indeed."

    Hmm....it looks like you don't actually have a life outside of the blogosphere.

    What about my statement was untrue? I don't think any reputable scientist would say that science provides "proofs" of anything. If you think it does then you simply know nothing of science.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Masked MarauderJanuary 28, 2010 at 1:30 PM

    Poor Anonymous!

    Nobody is saying your statement is untrue! Why so paranoid? I would never argue with anyone who says "Evolution is infallible" except to say that you're a bit too zealous and overstate the case a little bit.

    ReplyDelete
  14. AnonymousJanuary 28, 2010 at 1:55 PM

    MaskedMarauder...

    "Nobody is saying your statement is untrue!"

    I know my statement is true, Secularist seems to disagree.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Masked MarauderJanuary 28, 2010 at 2:24 PM

    Anonymous: perhaps the confusion stems from your posting anonymously. There's an atavistic poster here abouts who also posts anonymously and would never agree with you that evolution is infallible.

    ReplyDelete
  16. BathTubJanuary 28, 2010 at 2:27 PM

    I know I am certainly missing something, I don't know anyone who thinks any scientific theory is infallible. More simply 'the best explanation for the evidence we have'.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Masked MarauderJanuary 28, 2010 at 4:00 PM

    Well, Anonymous claims to think evolution is infallible. But you're right and hence my criticism for the overzealous endorsement of the theory.

    Probably immature and clearly inclined to express him, her or it's self in an over-the-top hebephrenic style, Anonymous' sentiment is nearly acceptable when read in a vernacular sense.

    ReplyDelete
  18. secularist10January 28, 2010 at 4:22 PM

    Anonymous:

    "Hmm....it looks like you don't actually have a life outside of the blogosphere."

    Holy ad hominem, batman!

    You said:
    "What about my statement was untrue? I don't think any reputable scientist would say that science provides 'proofs' of anything. If you think it does then you simply know nothing of science."

    Unsurprisingly you have (1) not answered my very simple question, (2) changed the subject, (3) attacked me personally...AGAIN

    So I'll ask again:
    I'm curious, how do you reckon with the overwhelming evidence in favor of evolution?

    ReplyDelete
  19. secularist10February 5, 2010 at 7:42 PM

    Well, it's now been over a week since my comment above. Therefore I feel justified in saying that Anonymous has disappeared without answering my very simple question. But then again, maybe it's just because I have no life outside the blogosphere.

    Anonymous remains mysteriously anonymous here. Easy come, easy go.

    ReplyDelete
  20. secularist10February 7, 2010 at 8:28 AM

    Anonymous:

    You are really as stupid as Mariano. He is a complete fool when it comes to science. I will answer your question - you are an asshole! Get a life outside this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  21. MaskedMarauderFebruary 7, 2010 at 8:36 AM

    Anonymous:

    You truly are an idiot just like is stated above by secularist10

    ReplyDelete
  22. AnonymousFebruary 8, 2010 at 2:39 AM

    Secularist...

    "You are really as stupid as Mariano. He is a complete fool when it comes to science. I will answer your question - you are an asshole! Get a life outside this blog."

    MaskedMarauder...

    "You truly are an idiot just like is stated above by secularist10."


    O.M.G!!!

    The sad thing is that you guys are seriously enraged. I'm truly embarassed for you. Secularist, your repeated returning to this thread in an attempt to pick an internet fight is pathetic and indicative of a lack of a life outside of the blogosphere. Unfortunately, that's where the evidence leads.

    MaskedMarauder, right back at you.

    It's evident that I've somehow seriously challenged the sacredness of both of your belief systems. How else to explain the outrage?

    As for this thread, it's unlikely I'll participate further, but I might. So, Secularist, please keep returning to show us what an exciting life you lead away from this blog, just in case.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Masked MarauderFebruary 8, 2010 at 9:02 AM

    Pay attention, Anon.

    Those are spoofs. The faux MM has no "avatar," and the link goes to a different destination. The same is so for the fake secularist10. The spoofer is using a leading blank space on the name so its different, but doesn't look different...

    I expect your lack of attention to detail and indifference to analysis explains a lot about how you came to be a christian. Intellectual sloth is a big part of credulity.

    ReplyDelete
  24. secularist10February 8, 2010 at 12:32 PM

    I am the real secularist10 (I'm Spartacus!...I'm Spartacus!... ;)

    Thanks, MM.

    And what about answering the question, Anonymous? I notice you accuse me of coming back to this thread, and yet... you keep coming back to this thread. Still without answering my question, I might add.

    ReplyDelete
  25. AnonymousFebruary 8, 2010 at 2:05 PM

    MaskedMarauder....

    Are you serious?

    I wish I could bring myself to be more impressed with your analytical prowess, but I find myself even more awed by your pompous, self-importance.

    People change avatars all the time, and who follows the links from a commenter's profile name every time that person posts?

    It's clear that you hold your internet personna to be more relevant to other posters lives than it actually is. You should get out more.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Masked MarauderFebruary 8, 2010 at 3:00 PM

    Anon: exactly my point, you're more interested in slinging insults than you are in who you sling them at or why. Its all theatre for you. Not everyone is so shallow.

    The correction was for the benefit of anyone who happens to read this. It was not intended for you. I'm not foolish enough to suppose that somebody without a personality actually cares about anyone who does.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)