THIS BLOG IS NOW IN STASIS.


PLEASE VISIT MY NEW WEBSITES:


My other projects include:


TrueFreethinker.com


My side projects are:


Worldview and Science Examiner


Fitness Trends Examiner (wherein I review individual exercises and workout routines, diet and nutrition, supplements and healthy snacks)


My YouTube channel

1/24/10

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

This post has been moved to this link.

32 comments:

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. Mmm. I love all this ad hoc goodness.

    ReplyDelete
  5. 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
  6. Anonymous:

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

    ReplyDelete
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. Hmm... It looks like Anonymous has just disappeared without answering my question. Very mysterious, indeed.

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

    ReplyDelete
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. MaskedMarauder...

    "Nobody is saying your statement is untrue!"

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

    ReplyDelete
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. Anonymous:

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

    ReplyDelete
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. MaskedMarauder....

    Who's slinging insults? You are sounding more foolish with each post. Your previous post was addressed... "Pay attention Anon", and, after your correction, you continued to impress us with your reasoning skills in suggesting an explanation for how I came to be a Christian.

    Obviously, your previous post was addressing me in particular. Either you are very dishonest or you have extremely poor communication skills and are socially retarded.

    Either way, thanks for the correction, I'll be watching for that in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Wow. Thanks for making my day, this was a great laugh.

    ReplyDelete
  28. "you find that the fish is still alive, well and unchanged?"

    Hahaha. Unchanged? Modern coelacanth species make up their own genus - unknown from the fossil record. I didn't need to read anymore. What a load of old shit.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Wow, you sound like the simplest person on earth.

    ReplyDelete
  30. An entire species doesn't nessarly evolve, some of them mutate. Those that mutate and survive, mostly due to their mutation, live to reproduce those "new" genes into the gene pool. Not every fish mutates at the same rate.

    Have you seen all the different potatoes there are in the world. Isn't it weird that they are all so different yet simply, just a potato?

    Atheism is alive and well. In fact, I believe there are more Atheists them Theists. Prove I'm wrong, oh you can't because "I believe" this.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Is this guy retarded?

    "So... some fish decided not to take a stroll a zillion years ago, therefore Jesus loves me."

    @_@

    ReplyDelete