Real Science Friday: Stretching Out the Heavens

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
I read the article. It appears Jefferson did not. I wish he would. I left a link for anyone who wants to see what it really says.

Liar.

Well, let's take a look...
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2898442&postcount=29

Never lie about something still on the thread, Stipe.

Barbarian asks:
Do you think the part he posted is misleading as to his claim? If not, why would I want to read the rest? After all, I'm only commenting on that particular error.

Depends on the source.

The original is the only source that counts. And, as you learned, it doesn't say what Jefferson said it does.

Barbarian suggests:
Anyone who doubts it can go to the link and see what the article actually says.

Your link is not the source of the comment.

The comment was posted here. The link shows that the comment is not correct.

You need to quit with the demand that every game be played upon your court.

Reality is a tough game. But it has the virtue of being true.

 

[King cobra]

I’m still trying to figure out why something not found in the fossil record is being called a fossil.

 

[The Barbarian]

I’m still trying to figure out why something not found in the fossil record is being called a fossil.

Because the eel they found is looks a lot like the hypothesized basal group that gave rise to all eels. Such an organism is informally known as a "living fossil." Living fossils are not identical to those distant ancestors, but they retain primitive traits that show them to be directly descended from them.

We just haven't found any fossil eels like that yet. But this one looks like it could be a descendant of that group. Highly unlikely that it's been unchanged for that length of time, though.

 

[Stripe]

I’m still trying to figure out why something not found in the fossil record is being called a fossil.

Evolutionists. :chuckle:

What Barbarian says is probably correct. But till he shows some integrity and actually assesses the material referred to in the show there is no way he can win his little point.

 

[King cobra]

Because the eel they found is looks a lot like the hypothesized basal group that gave rise to all eels. Such an organism is informally known as a "living fossil." Living fossils are not identical to those distant ancestors, but they retain primitive traits that show them to be directly descended from them.

We just haven't found any fossil eels like that yet. But this one looks like it could be a descendant of that group. Highly unlikely that it's been unchanged for that length of time, though.

It seems a thin line between "retain primitive traits/looks a lot like" and "unchanged."

 

[The Barbarian]

It seems a thin line between "retain primitive traits/looks a lot like" and "unchanged."

I think it seems a lot thinner to those for whom homologous and analogous organs look the same.

Evolutionary theory isn't all that difficult, but some of the anatomical, physiological, and genetic material necessary to apply it, that can be difficult.

Consider the wolf, and the thylacine (the apparently now-extinct marsupial carnivore). Superficially, very much like the wolf. But then when you get to the details, entirely different. Anatomically and genetically, the thylacine is much more like a Koala than a wolf. But the wolf and the thylacine "look the same."

Does that help any?

 

[The Barbarian]

What Barbarian says is probably correct. But till he shows some integrity and actually assesses the material referred to in the show there is no way he can win his little point.

I'm puzzled by this. I already asked you if the material posted here accurately reflects the show, and you declined to say.

Which suggests that it is, and you don't want to admit it. If it does, then someone's already done that here. And if not, who is responsible for the dishonesty?

Not the Barbarian, who took it for an honest summary.

 

[some other dude]

What Jeff posted:

Eels Haven't Changed in an Allegedly 200 Million Years: A species of eel discovered in the South Pacific shows stasis

What barbie's article sez:

Such a long, independent evolutionary history dating back to
the early Mesozoic and a retention of primitive morphological features (e.g. the presence of a premaxilla,
metapterygoid, free symplectic, gill rakers, pseudobranch and distinct caudal fin rays) warrant recognition
of this species as a ‘living fossil’ of the true eels

and just what is a "living fossil"?

from the same paper:

Ever since Charles Darwin coined the term ‘living fossil’
in On the Origin of Species (p. 107 in [1]), organisms
that have been called living fossils have received considerable
attention. These extremely long-lived or geologically
long-ranging taxa with few morphological changes can aid
in forming a picture of ancient forms of life. Most ancient
forms of life, however, have gone extinct with no known
fossil remnants. Exceptions are represented by a few
extant animal lineages that have remained morphologically
static over geological time scales (e.g. horseshoe
crabs, plethodontid salamanders and lampreys [2]).

 

[The Barbarian]

Exceptions are represented by a few
extant animal lineages that have remained morphologically
static over geological time scales (e.g. horseshoe
crabs, plethodontid salamanders and lampreys [2]).

Yep. But that doesn't mean what you think it does.

But the idea that horseshoe crabs have not changed at all in millions of years is a pernicious myth. These are not creatures that evolution has left behind. The modern species I saw strewn across the Delaware beach – Limulus polyphemus – is not found in the fossil record, and the genus to which the Atlantic horseshoe crab belongs has only had a tenure of about 20 million years. The fossil record for horseshoe crabs as a group is even deeper. While their exact origin has been difficult to pin down, the record of horseshoe crabs goes back to the early days of a group called the Xiphosurida during the Cambrian over 510 million years ago. Since that time, as paleontologist Don Prothero pointed out in his book Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters, there have been a number of forms which deviated from the image of horseshoe crabs as we know them now. Prothero picked out the boomerang-like Austrolimulus and the “double-button” Liomesaspis as two examples of disparate body plans within the group and – just as with crocodiles and other sorts of so-called “living fossils” – there was historically greater variation within the group than what we observe today...Eventually, though, Huxley came to understand what Darwin maintained all along. Seemingly archaic creatures such as the duckbilled platypus, lungfish, crocodiles, and the horseshoe crab had not changed very much from their prehistoric forerunners because they were able to find a cozy spot, seemingly free of competitive pressures that would require them to change. Just as natural selection accounted for major evolutionary changes, the theory also explained why some lineages might persist with few alterations.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/11/in-evolutions-race-horseshoe-crabs-took-a-slower-pace/

As the article points out, the idea of relative stasis was in Darwin's theory before we actually had examples of it. Stabilizing selection was predicted before it was observed.

 

[some other dude]

Is this what you're niggling about?

....Eels Haven't Changed....

Do you really think that Bob meant to say "This species of eel is totally unchanged from its ancestors, down to the genetic level - no wait - the molecular level - no wait - the atomic level - no wait - the sub-atomic level. In fact, every single eel is exactly identical to every other single eel of its species that has ever existed and ever will exist, down to the individual quarks" ?


Or do you think perhaps that Bob saw "morphologically static" and understood what that meant?

barbie - is English your first language? I ask because you seem to have problems with it from time to time.

 

[The Barbarian]

Is this what you're niggling about?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jefferson
....Eels Haven't Changed....

In fact, there's no way to tell, because we don't have any fossils of the basal group. Scientists, working from the anatomical and genetic evidence, hypothesize that something like the eel that was recently found, is the ancestor of all ells. But the paper never said that this eel hadn't changed for 200 million years. Couldn't since they don't know what the ancestors actually looked like. Completely wrong.

Do you really think that Bob meant to say...

I'm supposing he meant to say that the eel hadn't changed in 200 million years. That's what Jefferson said. And even if for some reason that stupendously unlikely notion was true, we wouldn't be able to say, because we don't actually have an example of a basal eel to tell. Does that help?

Or do you think perhaps that Bob saw "morphologically static" and understood what that meant?

As you just learned, it doesn't mean "didn't change." Some scientists use the term "stasis" for horseshoe crabs, and the ones today are of a different species. In fact, it's an entirely new genus. They've changed quite a bit over time. To put it in perspective, it would like saying humans and chimpanzees don't have any differences between them. If you're beginning to suspect that "stasis" has several technical meanings in biology, that would be a revelation for you.

barbie - is English your first language? I ask because you seem to have problems with it from time to time.

You got tripped up by terms used by scientists, in very specific ways. Not an uncommon thing. I have listened to geneticists talking, and it occasionally sounds like a foreign language to me. Just learn from it.

 

[King cobra]

Consider the wolf, and the thylacine (the apparently now-extinct marsupial carnivore). Superficially, very much like the wolf. But then when you get to the details, entirely different. Anatomically and genetically, the thylacine is much more like a Koala than a wolf. But the wolf and the thylacine "look the same."

So when you said, “Because the eel they found is looks a lot like the hypothesized basal group that gave rise to all eels,” are you saying they could be as different as the wolf and the thylacine despite the contention that they “look the same”?

And, if they hypothesize that this “living fossil” “represents” the hypothesized basal group, should they be hypothesizing thus...rather than hypothesizing that?

 

[The Barbarian]

So when you said, “Because the eel they found is looks a lot like the hypothesized basal group that gave rise to all eels,” are you saying they could be as different as the wolf and the thylacine despite the contention that they “look the same”?

No. They wouldn't be that different, more like they could be as different as the thylacine and the tasmanian devil. Superficially, quite different, but with similar anatomical and genetic bases.

And, if they hypothesize that this “living fossil” “represents” the hypothesized basal group, should they be hypothesizing thus...rather than hypothesizing that?

They are saying that it should have these features. Picture a wolf and a thylacine. Long muzzles. Good runners. Lean "wolflike" body. Teeth for snagging and cutting up meat.

Similar. But... pouch for the thylacine. The "carnassal" teeth are different and the dental formula is very different. The genes are very different, making cows and wolves closer than wolves and thylacines.

Very similar superficially. Very different in the things that indicated descent. Wolves and thylacines are analogous, having become adapted for the same way of life, and mostly coming up with the same adaptations in quite different ways. Koalas and thylacines are homologous, having much the same structures and genes, albeit with very different adaptations.

If common descent is true, and natural selection works, then this is what would have to be.

 

[Stripe]

I'm puzzled by this.

Of course you are. :chuckle:

I already asked you if the material posted here accurately reflects the show, and you declined to say.

You could get the article referenced, listen to the show and, if you're still unsure, call up. :idunno:

Which suggests that it is, and you don't want to admit it. If it does, then someone's already done that here. And if not, who is responsible for the dishonesty?

It's quite obvious where the deception lies. You've spent the whole thread pretending your article is the only player. You've made no effort to do what you claim is so important - check the facts.

Not the Barbarian, who took it for an honest summary.

Actually, yes. You hold everyone else to a standard you will not meet yourself.

When you show some humility and honesty, you might be a little more well received. :thumb:

 

[King cobra]

No. They wouldn't be that different, more like they could be as different as the thylacine and the tasmanian devil. Superficially, quite different, but with similar anatomical and genetic bases.



They are saying that it should have these features. Picture a wolf and a thylacine. Long muzzles. Good runners. Lean "wolflike" body. Teeth for snagging and cutting up meat.

Similar. But... pouch for the thylacine. The "carnassal" teeth are different and the dental formula is very different. The genes are very different, making cows and wolves closer than wolves and thylacines.

Very similar superficially. Very different in the things that indicated descent. Wolves and thylacines are analogous, having become adapted for the same way of life, and mostly coming up with the same adaptations in quite different ways. Koalas and thylacines are homologous, having much the same structures and genes, albeit with very different adaptations.

If common descent is true, and natural selection works, then this is what would have to be.

So in essence, they are saying that some traits haven’t changed in 200 million years, but some have? That doesn’t seem to be saying much, hypothetically speaking.

 

[some other dude]

So in essence, they are saying that some traits haven’t changed in 200 million years, but some have? That doesn’t seem to be saying much, hypothetically speaking.

KC - I wouldn't bother very much with barbie's nonsense. He's got an axe to grind with Bob Enyart and picks apart Jefferson's posts often, focusing on niggling little details. For some reason he's too afraid to confront Bob directly by calling in to the show, prefering to take advantage of the anonymity of the internet to take potshots from a distance.

The authors (Johnson, et al) of the paper he linked to thought this eel exhibited enough ancient traits to qualify as a new family of eels. They were impressed enough to refer to it as a "living fossil" and gave definitions (see my post above) of the term.

Bob was indeed wrong to state that this eel had not changed in 200 million years, as the only way for that to be true to a pedant like barbie is if the population today are the same exact creatures from 200 million years ago.

barbie's niggling over a ridiculous point that even the authors of the article wouldn't, just because he dislikes Bob and his politics.

And let's not forget that barbie's widely regarded as the most dishonest poster on this site.

...a retention of primitive morphological features...

Forget wolves, Tasmanian devils and horseshoe crabs. That's barbie's way of clouding the discussion, just as he tried to get away with "I've read the paper and it doesn't say that" in the beginning of this thread until Jukia called him on it and made him provide a link.

"A retention of primitive morphological features" means features that didn't change.

For 200 million years.

 

[Stripe]

KC - I wouldn't bother very much with barbie's nonsense. He's got an axe to grind with Bob Enyart and picks apart Jefferson's posts often, focusing on niggling little details. For some reason he's too afraid to confront Bob directly by calling in to the show, prefering to take advantage of the anonymity of the internet to take potshots from a distance.

The authors (Johnson, et al) of the paper he linked to thought this eel exhibited enough ancient traits to qualify as a new family of eels. They were impressed enough to refer to it as a "living fossil" and gave definitions (see my post above) of the term.

Bob was indeed wrong to state that this eel had not changed in 200 million years, as the only way for that to be true to a pedant like barbie is if the population today are the same exact creatures from 200 million years ago.

barbie's niggling over a ridiculous point that even the authors of the article wouldn't, just because he dislikes Bob and his politics.

And let's not forget that he's widely regarded as the most dishonest poster on this site.

Yep.

With Barbarian it's always his way, his ideas, his assumptions, his sources and his conclusions. He will never honestly assess or respond to a challenge or another's idea.

 

[some other dude]

Of course you are. :chuckle: You could get the article referenced, listen to the show and, if you're still unsure, call up. :idunno:

It's quite obvious where the deception lies. You've spent the whole thread pretending your article is the only player. You've made no effort to do what you claim is so important - check the facts.


Actually, yes. You hold everyone else to a standard you will not meet yourself.

When you show some humility and honesty, you might be a little more well received. :thumb:

Is there a chance that barbie's reasoning is so clouded by his dislike of Bob that he doesn't realize that Bob wasn't referring to the article barbie cites (and misrepresents)?

Is there a chance that barbie is so blinded by his hatred for Christian Conservatives and Young Earth Creationists that he doesn't realize that Bob was referring to an article from Creation magazine?

Or is this just a case of barbie being his typical dishonest self again?


It's always a conundrum when dealing with barbie - is he a confused doddering old fool, or is he a dishonest liar? :idunno:

 

[some other dude]

Yep.

With Barbarian it's always his way, his ideas, his assumptions, his sources and his conclusions. He will never honestly assess or respond to a challenge or another's idea.

I always feel dirty after responding to a barbie post. Much like I do after responding to a Town post.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
I already asked you if the material posted here accurately reflects the show, and you declined to say.

You could get the article referenced, listen to the show and, if you're still unsure, call up.

Or you could have a fit of honesty and just tell me whether the part Jefferson posted was an honest representation of the program.

Which suggests that it is, and you don't want to admit it. If it does, then someone's already done that here. And if not, who is responsible for the dishonesty?

It's quite obvious where the deception lies. You've spent the whole thread pretending your article is the only player.

It is, in fact, the actual research paper by the people who discovered the eel. Everything else is second-hand.

You've made no effort to do what you claim is so important - check the facts.

The facts are in the primary literature. Everything else is hearsay.

Actually, yes. You hold everyone else to a standard you will not meet yourself.

I notice, for example that I went directly to the source for facts, while you have repeatedly declined to admit the truth.

When you show some humility and honesty, you might be a little more well received.

You might be surprised who's in my pos rep list. And I'm ever so glad you're not there, Stipe.