Science v Intelligent Design: ID and whales

You're lumpy and you smell awful. [Leela shoots him a look.] Hey, I calls 'em like I sees 'em! I'm a whale biologist.

The suit was ugly - whale biologist!

Oh well, back to the old claim that it is completely unfair to predict that design will actually be "good". Only optimal designs are evidence for or against the "designer", after all, so it turns out that this one doesn't count.

Sheesh, you really think ID is going to pay attention to "materialist science's" claims that all of the evidence should be considered? That's just unfair to alternative sciences which at the outset claimed the right to pick and choose.

What about the flagellum? Huh?

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Secondly, there is no need for baby whales to prevent sea water entering their mouths as it will not kill them.

Well of coarse not, because whales are equiped with an intelligently designed windpipe...

I can say with some certainty that no such structure exists.

— Dr Colin D MacLeod

"Must always remember creationist are lying sacks of slime."

Which, curiously, is evidence of ID... if the Intelligent Designer has a very twisted sense of humor.

Trackbacks don't seem to be working. I get an error page when I try to use the trackback URL listed above.
http://tinyfrog.wordpress.com/2007/10/23/whales-and-intelligent-design/

It seems clear that another ID ‘prediction’ has been falsified

when will ID admit defeat?

Which, curiously, is evidence of ID… if the Intelligent Designer has a very twisted sense of humor.

When I first saw this, the phrase 'cap around the nipple' was confusing but deduced it meant some sort of raised collar. It didn't then seem so hard to deduce a series of evolutionary changes to account for it. It just didn't occur to me that they could just make up the whole thing. How do you engage with people who just lie?

But yes, if we take upon ourselves to go through the implications then “perfect” design is falsified. The IDC scam artists will only duck out and claim this wasn’t it. (Most likely, descend into silence.)

— Torbjörn Larsson

Acleron wrote: It just didn’t occur to me that they could just make up the whole thing. How do you engage with people who just lie?

Good point. In refuting the watertight cap theory Dr. MacLeod unwittingly gave them yet another example of the evidence of design that OMG! is all around us everywhere we look...

However, unlike humans, the windpipe of a whale sticks right through its oesophagous, completely separating the airway and the digestive tract (a requirement for all whales, whether adult or baby, as they need to be able to open their mouths underwater to feed) so there is no risk of drowning while nursing in baby whales.

Okay, sure it isn't perfect...

In fact, whales are not uncommonly found washed up on the shore having died due to suffocation with large fish wedged in their throat, demonstrating that while this design works most of the time, it is far from perfect and certainly not evidence of any ID.

... but the reason it is not perfect is a consequence of "the fall" and is not a result of any mistakes from the Designer. :P

This is why references are so important.

Every time a creationist makes a factual claim you should demand the reference. If they don't have one, chances are they are just making stuff up. They may have heard it somewhere, but that doesn't make it true. If the reference they give is some creationist web site or discredited creationist book, you know that the source is probably not reliable.

When you provide information in rebuttal of creationist claims you should provide references whenever possible. That shows that this is not just something you made up. Popular sources such as National Geopgraphic are OK because they contain scientific references, but it is always best to reference the primary literature if possible. Using references that are readily available on-line is also a good idea, especially in a blog format, since everyone who wants to can read the paper with a mimimum of effort. The Talk Origins archive is an excellent source for scientifc references regarding almost any common creationist claims.

Of course the most important thing to remember is never take the word of a creationist for anything. Their credability is zero and they are strongly motivated to lie for Jesus. Just remember what happened on the witness stand in Dover. When one side constantly uses scientific references and one side steadfastly avoids them, it should be obvious to even the most casual observer who is trying to pull a fast one and who is being honest.

This is another example of why I love reading the Panda's Thumb!

Of course the most important thing to remember is never take the word of a creationist for anything. Their credability is zero and they are strongly motivated to lie for Jesus.

I don't know why, but I'd been under the impression that the problem with seawater during whale nursing was not that the baby whale would inhale it, but that it might swallow it. After all, there's already liquid in the oral cavity and esophagus during nursing; why would an admixture of seawater make inhalation of liquid any more likely, even if whale anatomy didn't prevent it? On the other hand, excessive sodium intake has known ill effects in at least some mammals (think of humans drinking seawater).

Of course, I know nothing of whale sodium metabolism. Probably, since they live in the stuff, they've evolved ways of dealing with large quantities of swallowed seawater. That wouldn't make nearly as good a putative example of design, though, as the supposed "nipple cap", because it's easy to imagine incremental changes to kidney function or whatever. Or do I just think that because I'm not an IDist?

Not being an IDist is definitely helpful when it comes to not making a complete fool of yourself, biologically speaking. I've been re-watching a whole lot of David Attenborough BBC documentaries lately on DVD, and it's a cornucopia of weird wildlife with odd, evolutionary adaptations and (whisper it) transitional forms. Oh look, there's a snake that glides by flattening its body. There's a lizard whose legs are so short it's become snakelike. There's a flying squirrel. There's a frog laying its eggs in a pond on a leaf. There's one that keeps its eggs on its back. There's one that embeds them in the skin of its back. There's one that keeps them inside its body and gives birth to a wriggling tadpole. There's a bird with claws on its wings. There's one with no wings at all...

I think ID-thinking is based in a children's colouring-book view of biology, or the Noah's Ark model- cow, sheep, pig, horse, beetle, fish, whale, we're done here. They see unbridgeable gaps everywhere because they haven't seen the animals that are living in the gaps!

First, as a whale biologist, I can say with some certainty that no such structure exists.

Stephen wrote:

"I think ID-thinking is based in a children’s colouring-book view of biology, or the Noah’s Ark model- cow, sheep, pig, horse, beetle, fish, whale, we’re done here. They see unbridgeable gaps everywhere because they haven’t seen the animals that are living in the gaps!"

I completely agree. This is undoubtedly why virtually no one with any real biological training is a creationist. Exposure to the comparative evidence is very convincing. There are not just a few dozen species put here for the benefit of mankind. There are millions of different species, including at least 600,000 different species of beetles and 25,000 species of weevils. Now why would God do that when she knew that they would all have to fit on the ark? What, you say they evolved after the ark? That's a lot more evolution than any evolutionary bioplogist is willing to accept in 6,000 years, at least without some evidence. And of course the vast majority of species that have ever lived have already gone extinct, not very intelligent design that.

Indeed, I am sure that somewhere, right now, someone is making the argument that a four chambered heart could never evolve. It's just too complex. I can't imagine how a heart with one chamber, or two or three could ever work! What's that you say, ... oh, never mind.

I don’t know why, but I’d been under the impression that the problem with seawater during whale nursing was not that the baby whale would inhale it, but that it might swallow it. After all, there’s already liquid in the oral cavity and esophagus during nursing; why would an admixture of seawater make inhalation of liquid any more likely, even if whale anatomy didn’t prevent it? On the other hand, excessive sodium intake has known ill effects in at least some mammals (think of humans drinking seawater). Of course, I know nothing of whale sodium metabolism. Probably, since they live in the stuff, they’ve evolved ways of dealing with large quantities of swallowed seawater. That wouldn’t make nearly as good a putative example of design, though, as the supposed “nipple cap”, because it’s easy to imagine incremental changes to kidney function or whatever. Or do I just think that because I’m not an IDist?

when will ID admit defeat?

Indeed, I am sure that somewhere, right now, someone is making the argument that a four chambered heart could never evolve. It’s just too complex. I can’t imagine how a heart with one chamber, or two or three could ever work! What’s that you say, … oh, never mind.

ben said: The fundies hate science because it fails to prove their god for them, an offense which apparently justifies any level of prevarication on their part.