Your Inner Fish - Hiccups

As just a slight sidetrack from this interesting update, some folks might recall that I sent a copy of Shubin's book to Beverly Slough, one of the members of the St. Johns County, FL school board who spoke out against the new evolution standard on the basis that there was no evidence of a transition of fish to humans.

I've since gotten a couple of emails from Ms. Slough, the last one just last night. She's just gotten back from a family vacation and has started reading Your Inner Fish. She has been quite courteous and has said that she is willing share her thoughts on the book with me when she's done reading it.

Who knows; when all is said and done, there may just be some documented evidence that Shubin's work has induced the intellectual evolution of at least one Creationist. I'll update with any developments when and if there are some to talk about.

We can also block gill breathing by stretching the wall of the chest, just as we can stop hiccups by inhaling deeply and holding our breath.

Mike,

Well done! If only most antievolutionists were that willing to engage in dialogue like that.

Nothing like a 'teachable moment'. At least once each year a student has 'the hiccups' during class. They almost always want to know how to stop them; and many students chime in with the predictable and mostly effective solutions "drink a glass of water", "hold your breath and count to 30", "breath into a bag". Often students will ask "what causes the hiccups"? The usual answer: "a spasm in the diaphragm and chest wall". With no objection from Paul Harvey, "and now, the rest of the story".

I wouldn't expect too much honest response from Ms. Slough. In fact I would predict that her responses will very closely match that of the DI.

Wow. I just got the book for my birthday. Can't wait to read it!

While we think of creationists as those that deny science, there are also those that accept science but also believe in gods actions.

Perhaps this lady will come to understand St. Augustine's warning. for today most creationists look silly and stupid.

PVM asks rhetorically So how does the hiccup links us to our common ancestor? The story is fascinating...

Neil Shubin is quoted: The reason for this absurd route lies in our developmental and evolutionary history. Our gonads begin their development in much the same place as a shark’s: up near our livers. As they grow and develop, our gonads descend. In females the ovaries descend from the midsection to lie near the uterus and fallopian tubes. This ensures that the egg does not have far to travel to be fertilized. In males the descent goes farther.

Nothing like a ‘teachable moment’. At least once each year a student has ‘the hiccups’ during class.

In a perfectly designed world—one with no history—we would not have to suffer everything from hemorrhoids to cancer.

So William Wallace admits that inferior design in humans and other organisms is evidence for an inferior Creator, not the infallible one despicted in traditional Biblical dogma? Nice to see that!

The rest of his post is just B.S.

Dale Husband: So William Wallace admits that inferior design in humans and other organisms is evidence for an inferior Creator, not the infallible one despicted in traditional Biblical dogma? Nice to see that! The rest of his post is just B.S.

Wow Mr. Wallace.

Shubin's example is a case of a complex suite of characters that on the surface are mysteriously intertwined, but can be easily and elegantly understood in the context of evolution -- especially when considering the details of comparative anatomy, neuroanatomy, physiology and even the fossil record. Obviously, though, you have studied this issue in great depth. So before you cast any more aspersions, perhaps you would like to expound on how your model provides greater understanding, or is more consistent with the evidence?

While we are at it, could you also explain what you personally would have done given the task of illustrating how the variable coloration of peppered moths impacts their visibility against different natural backgrounds? Then, having done that, please explain how the use of an illustration of moth coloration impacts the results of the multitudinous studies on the moths? And please, instead of citing Johnston and Wells' stuff, refer to the actual studies themselves.

Gill breathing in tadpoles can be blocked by carbon dioxide, just like our hiccups.

Dale Husband: So William Wallace admits that inferior design in humans and other organisms is evidence for an inferior Creator, not the infallible one despicted in traditional Biblical dogma? Nice to see that! The rest of his post is just B.S.

So, then, Mr Wallace, can you address and answer mplavcan's questions, too, or are you going to conveniently ignore them because you are physically incapable of comprehending them?

What passes for reasoning in the world of evolutionists boggles the mind. Cars are not designed because they rust and allow themselves to collide. Photocopiers that distort images were not designed since they introduce noise.

Wow, another story. If only it were illustrated with moths glued to tree trunks or embryos. Opps just checked, it is illustrated. Nice art work.

William Wallace:

Dale Husband: So William Wallace admits that inferior design in humans and other organisms is evidence for an inferior Creator, not the infallible one despicted in traditional Biblical dogma? Nice to see that! The rest of his post is just B.S.

So Dale Husband resorts to inventing admissions as well as words (despicted). Yawn.

Adapting a story to fit newly discovered and admittedly misunderstood coincidences is not scientific theory; it is conspiracy theory–not even a very good one. And using the hiccups as an excuse to teach about religion should not be allowed–especially if you introduce snarks against what you believe to be an imaginary “perfect designer”.

PvM:

Wow, another story. If only it were illustrated with moths glued to tree trunks or embryos. Opps just checked, it is illustrated. Nice art work.

What's your problem with the peppered moth story which has recently been found to be correct after taking into consideration the various objections to Kettlewell's excellent studies. As far as embryos, I guess you are still being fooled by the ignorance of the Discovery Institute's assertions. How sad

PS, William Wallace commented on the Cambrian thread in which O'Leary made her usual ill informed claims about Charles Walcott. I assume that he believes what O'Leary stated in the thread? Would he be interested in pursuing the real story?

Consider it a challenge to see if ID proponents are really interested in teaching the truth.

William Wallace:

Dale Husband: So William Wallace admits that inferior design in humans and other organisms is evidence for an inferior Creator, not the infallible one despicted in traditional Biblical dogma? Nice to see that! The rest of his post is just B.S.

So Dale Husband resorts to inventing admissions as well as words (despicted). Yawn.

(ignoring Willy Wally the BTI):

Maybe that explains the "breath into a bag" strategy, too: increase local CO2 levels by rebreathing.

Stanton: ...you infer that God either is capable of producing flawless organisms, but deliberately created flawed organisms or is only capable of producing flawed organisms...

PVM: ...William Wallace commented on the Cambrian thread in which O’Leary made her usual ill informed claims about Charles Walcott. I assume that he believes what O’Leary stated in the thread? Would he be interested in pursuing the real story?

For the amusement of my fellow supporters of evolution, I submit this rediculous statement by Creationist Kurt Wise:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/313.asp?vPrint=1

(((The evidence from Scripture is by far the best evidence for creation. No better evidence can be imagined than that provided from Him who is not only the only eyewitness observer, but who also is the embodiment of all truth. All Christians should be content in His claims for creation. There are those, however, who reject the authority of the Scriptures.

I believe that the best extra-biblical evidence for creation would come from the design of organisms past and present. The schizochroal compound eye of the trilobite (a horseshoe crab-like organism of the past), for example, contains the only known lens in the biological world which corrects for focusing problems that result from using non-flexible lenses. The designs of the schizochroal lenses, in fact, are the very same designs that man himself has developed to correct for the same problems. Furthermore, the design of the schizochroal eye combines this optimum focusing capability with the optimum sensitivity to motion provided by the compound eye as well as the stereoscopic (3-D) vision provided by closely spaced eyes.

The design of the schizochroal eye makes it unique among eyes; perhaps even to the point of being the best optical system known in the biological world. This design, in fact, seems to far exceed the needs of the trilobite. The origin of the design of the schizochroal eye is not understood by means of any known natural cause. Rather, it is best understood as being due to an intelligent (design-creating) cause, through a process involving remarkably high manipulative ability. Among available hypotheses, creation by God is the most reasonable hypothesis for the origin of the complexity of the trilobite’s schizochroal eye.)))

I tore him apart here:
http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=2192&pst=668443&archival=&posts=11

It's amazing how someone could earn a Ph.D, even study under Stephen Jay Gould, and still be an absolute idiot!

William Wallace:

Stanton: ...you infer that God either is capable of producing flawless organisms, but deliberately created flawed organisms or is only capable of producing flawed organisms...

Those are the only two choices I have? See false dilemma under logical fallacies.

PVM: ...William Wallace commented on the Cambrian thread in which O’Leary made her usual ill informed claims about Charles Walcott. I assume that he believes what O’Leary stated in the thread? Would he be interested in pursuing the real story?

Sure. I presume you know how to contact me. William Wallace

Well, he mentioned his spectacular find in Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, a publication read by few people. And then he put them in drawers and left them there. They did not receive the attention they deserved for eighty years. Many people have tried to understand and explain why Walcott ignored the significance of his Cambrian fossils, but the most likely reason is that the fossils were not what he had expected to see. He ignored them in order to preserve a belief system.

No, because there was a problem. The problem was that the find obviously did not support Darwin’s theory of evolution:

An investigation by the United States Office of Special Council uncovered emails by Smithsonian scientists indicating that they had been conspiring with the official sounding National Center for Science Education (NCSE)—which is actually an evolutionist activist group out of Berkley, California—to out the normally anonymous peer reviewers and find ex post facto cause to terminate Richard Sternberg.

Check this out:

http://blog.coincidencetheories.com/?p=27

Here William Wallace repeats the old Creationist lie that teaching evolution was somehow responsible for what the Nazis did.

Imagine that! "We evolved from apelike creatures via natural selection, therefore we must exterminate Jews, make war on our neighbors, and live under absolute tyranny!"

Nope! That's nonsense, like the things WW posted right here!

Dale Husband: Check this out: http://blog.coincidencetheories.com/?p=27 Here William Wallace repeats the old Creationist lie that teaching evolution was somehow responsible for what the Nazis did. Imagine that! "We evolved from apelike creatures via natural selection, therefore we must exterminate Jews, make war on our neighbors, and live under absolute tyranny!" Nope! That's nonsense, like the things WW posted right here!

Unless, of course, you can give a scientific explanation for why there are flaws in biological systems… Can you, or are you only capable of ridiculing people who do not deign to share your dim and narrow view of the world?

Here William Wallace repeats the old Creationist lie that teaching evolution was somehow responsible for what the Nazis did.

One could always tell when the CO2 level was high because you could feel your heart pounding in your chest, and a match wouldn’t stay lit. However, during those times, I never once experienced hiccups. Now I know why.

Perhaps Mr. Wallace is one of those who believe that Creation was truly perfect until the Fall. It was Eve's sin that led to all the imperfection we see around us today, according to that school of thought.

That would explain his complaint about the "excluded middle". It lets the creator off the hook, you see. Unless, of course, you start actually thinking about it, and realize that Adam, Eve, and the Serpent were also parts of the supposedly perfect creation.

Wow!

William Wallace, I'm so impressed. I used to be a TOOS-thumping Darwinist, but your erudite and elegant comments have made me see the light.

(And, for the cognitively impaired: [/sarcasm])

An MD once told me that hiccups may be cured by quickly swallowing a tablespoon of something granular...sugar, salt or sand (the former is most palatable).

Can any of the physiology geeks offer an explanation of why this works?

BTW...Torbjorn...I am not so sure that your "old sub standard design" theory holds much water.

Science nut, I think you'll find the theory acceptable once you go deeper and get beneath the surface.

Sheez! A guy floats an hypothesis, and immediately it gets torpedoed out of the water.

Which leaves me with that sinking feeling of a stop-hypothesis-exegesis.

William Wallace: What passes for reasoning in the world of evolutionists boggles the mind. Cars are not designed because they rust and allow themselves to collide. Photocopiers that distort images were not designed since they introduce noise.

Ot - I apologize but this just came up. There is a new Florida petition directed at the Florida State legislature here if anyone cares to sign. :-)

Mr. Wallace. Please, enough rhetoric and apologetics. I checked your site. As for here, you have not provided a single shred of data or evidence for your position. You have failed to answer or address even the simplest questions. You freely concede on your web site that you know so little about biology that you can't understand leukocytes, yet mock an entire scientific discipline. Why don't you actually answer the questions? Or are just another in a long line of ignorant, arrogant dogmatists? (yawn)

mplavcan: Mr. Wallace. Please, enough rhetoric and apologetics. I checked your site. As for here, you have not provided a single shred of data or evidence for your position. You have failed to answer or address even the simplest questions. You freely concede on your web site that you know so little about biology that you can't understand leukocytes, yet mock an entire scientific discipline. Why don't you actually answer the questions? Or are just another in a long line of ignorant, arrogant dogmatists? (yawn)

There are other characteristics of hiccups of interest to an evolutionary biologist. For example, the various muscle contractions generated by a hiccup exercise the diaphragm and other muscles involved with breathing, while simultaneously preventing actual inhalation of air (or fluid) into the lungs. Also, hiccups are quite common in human babies in utero (my wife complained many times about her babies' hiccups keeping her awake), and are common in very young infants, tapering off with age until adulthood, when they are quite rare. An interesting hypothesis is that hiccups actually serve an adaptive function in mammals, allowing developing fetuses to exercise the various muscles and reflexes of breathing in utero, without inhaling amniotic fluid. If this hypothesis is valid, then hiccups aren't a "leftover" from a previous adaptation, but rather an adaptation for fetal development in its own right.
--Allen

P.S. In my experience, the best thing to do vis-a-vis willfully ignorant trolls like Wallace is to ignore them altogether. Responding to their incoherent rants is what fuels them, not any desire to actually learn anything or debate ideas on their intellectual merits.

***********************************************
Allen D. MacNeill, Senior Lecturer
The Biology Learning Skills Center
G-24 Stimson Hall, Cornell University
Ithaca, New York 14853
***********************************************
phone: 607-255-3357 (Allen's office)
email: adm6@cornell.edu
website: http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/
***********************************************
"I had at last got a theory by which to work"
-The Autobiography of Charles Darwin
***********************************************

Welcome back Allen, hope all is well. Yes, ignoring Wallace may be the best approach.

Allen MacNeill: There are other characteristics of hiccups of interest to an evolutionary biologist. For example, the various muscle contractions generated by a hiccup exercise the diaphragm and other muscles involved with breathing, while simultaneously preventing actual inhalation of air (or fluid) into the lungs...

So you are saying that carbon dioxide blocked hiccups is an example of old sub standard design?

So do hiccups count as a vestigial organ?

Since hiccups involve the throat,

that would be a vestigial pipe organ.

There are other characteristics of hiccups of interest to an evolutionary biologist. For example, the various muscle contractions generated by a hiccup exercise the diaphragm and other muscles involved with breathing, while simultaneously preventing actual inhalation of air (or fluid) into the lungs. Also, hiccups are quite common in human babies in utero (my wife complained many times about her babies’ hiccups keeping her awake), and are common in very young infants, tapering off with age until adulthood, when they are quite rare. An interesting hypothesis is that hiccups actually serve an adaptive function in mammals, allowing developing fetuses to exercise the various muscles and reflexes of breathing in utero, without inhaling amniotic fluid. If this hypothesis is valid, then hiccups aren’t a “leftover” from a previous adaptation, but rather an adaptation for fetal development in its own right.

Mike Elzinga: It made our old diesel-electric look like a bucket of bolts. It was even better designed than many of our newer nuclear boats. On the other hand, I also toured a Russian diesel boat. It was a real death trap.

So you are saying that carbon dioxide blocked hiccups is an example of old sub standard design?

(Lets have a flame war with Swedish nationalists to drown out the creationists ;-))

Thanks PvM, this is such a great story!

Off-topic, but this survey may be of some use to Panda's Thumbers:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/25/america/25usreligion.php

surveys current religious preferences.

PvM: Excellent. I am just about working my way through the various relevant manuscripts. O'Leary suggests, based on the claims by another author, that Walcott somehow burried the fossils from the Burgess Shale because they disagreed with Darwinian theory. Do you agree with her position?

Well, he mentioned his spectacular find in Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, a publication read by few people. And then he put them in drawers and left them there. They did not receive the attention they deserved for eighty years. Many people have tried to understand and explain why Walcott ignored the significance of his Cambrian fossils, but the most likely reason is that the fossils were not what he had expected to see. He ignored them in order to preserve a belief system.

and

No, because there was a problem. The problem was that the find obviously did not support Darwin’s theory of evolution:

Time to expose the truth. Ready?

Please provide evidence of Johannes Kepler stealing Tycho Brahe's data and claiming it for his own, and please provide evidence to support Denyse O'Leary's claim that Walcott deliberately hid away the fossils he dug up and described from the Burgess Shales.

And, please explain why you think that Johannes Kepler stole Tycho Brahe's notes and data even though he was named as Brahe's replacement as Imperial Mathematician by Emperor Rudolph II.

Perhaps you are confusing "intellectual theft" with the facts that Kepler was given Tycho Brahe's observations and notes as part of his inheritance, and the fact that he was saddled with the obligation to finish his deceased mentor's unfinished works?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler#Work_for_Tycho_Brahe

In short, scientists are human,

William Wallace:

Stanton: ...you infer that God either is capable of producing flawless organisms, but deliberately created flawed organisms or is only capable of producing flawed organisms...

Those are the only two choices I have? See false dilemma under logical fallacies.

I agree that O’Leary’s position sounds reasonable. For example, I recently encountered an interesting story of my own. My understanding is that Nicolaus Copernicus reinterpreted long existing evidence and came up with a new mathematical (important and inaccurate) kinnetic model of the solar system, Copernican heliostatic theory, using no new data. In fact, the data he used to come up with his model had been available for over 1200 years. Later, Tycho Brahe, who took accurate astronomical measurements, came to the conclusion that Copernicus’ model was incorrect, and that the old model of a stationary Earth produced just as accurate (or equally inaccurate) predictions. Johannes Kepler had to feign agreement with Tycho in order to gain access to his many careful measurements. When Tycho died, Kepler took the data and ran. ... In short, scientists are human, and O’Leary’s entry certainly seemed plausible.

Bill Gascoyne: A scientist can corrupt his data and make false claims, but the universe will ultimately reveal any dishonesty. If Tycho was dogmatic and Kepler dishonest, new observations and measurements would eventually correct whatever errors they made.

Incidentally, William, there IS another explanation for all this that does not require you to worship an incompetent or underacheiving god. The question is, do you have a brave enough heart to accept it?

#Ravilyn Sanders:
It's not the chewing but the motion of the jaw that is supposed to open the eustacian tubes: if you flex your jaw as if in a yawn, you can start to get a feel of the mechanism. Subjectively, I can clear them by alternately flexing my jaw and exhaling, and with a little practice can clear them without working my jaw back and forth.

It's also easier for the pressure to clear out of those tubes than it is to force pressure back the other way - to do that, hold your nose and close your mouth and exhale - GENTLY at first.

Stanton: Kepler was not dishonest: he was tasked with finishing his deceased mentor's unfinished work. William Wallace is incapable of comprehending this piddling detail.

William Wallace: But if it is not mentioned at wikipedia, it must be false. My apologies:-)

The next year, 1601, Tycho's lifestyle caught up with him. He became very ill at a banquet, and a few days later died in agony of a bladder infection. Tycho's heirs were anxious to make as much money as possible out of the estate, and the impoverished Kepler realized that if he didn't act immediately, he would never get to use most of Tycho's data. As he wrote in a letter in 1605: "I confess that when Tycho died, I quickly took advantage of the absence, or lack of circumspection, of the heirs, by taking the observations under my care, or perhaps usurping them..." (ref 1, page 280)

SJG talks quite a bit about Walcott in "Wonderful Life". If memory serves (I don't bring my library to work), Walcott was just plain busy... and possibly didn't appreciate the significance of his finds.

PvM:

The next year, 1601, Tycho's lifestyle caught up with him. He became very ill at a banquet, and a few days later died in agony of a bladder infection. Tycho's heirs were anxious to make as much money as possible out of the estate, and the impoverished Kepler realized that if he didn't act immediately, he would never get to use most of Tycho's data. As he wrote in a letter in 1605: "I confess that when Tycho died, I quickly took advantage of the absence, or lack of circumspection, of the heirs, by taking the observations under my care, or perhaps usurping them..." (ref 1, page 280)

But Kepler's penchant for Platonic ecstasy was wedded to an acid skepticism about the validity of all theories, his own included. He mocked no thinker more than himself, tested no ideas more rigorously than his own. lf, as he avowed in 1608, he was to "interweave Copernicus into the revised astronomy and physics, so that either both will perish or both be kept alive," he would need more accurate observational data than were available to Ptolemy or to Copernicus. Tycho had those data. "Tycho possesses the best observations," Kepler mused. ". . . He only lacks the architect who would put all this to use according to his own design."'" Tycho was "superlatively rich, but he knows not how to make proper use of it as is the case with most rich people. Therefore, one must try to wrest his riches from him."'" Suiting action to intention, Kepler wrote adoring letters to Tycho, who in reply praised his theories as "ingenious" if rather too a priori, and invited him to come and join the staff at Benatek Castle.

A year and a half into his working relationship with Brahe, the Danish astronomer became very ill at dinner and died a few days later of a bladder infection. Kepler took over the post of Imperial Mathematician and was now free to explore planetary theory without being constrained by the watchful eye of Tycho Brahe. Realizing an opportunity, Kepler immediately went after the Brahe data that he coveted before Brahe's heirs could take control of them. "I confess that when Tycho died," Kepler wrote later, "I quickly took advantage of the absence, or lack of circumspection, of the heirs, by taking the observations under my care, or perhaps usurping them."

Pat: It's also easier for the pressure to clear out of those tubes than it is to force pressure back the other way - to do that, hold your nose and close your mouth and exhale - GENTLY at first.

fnxtr: SJG talks quite a bit about Walcott in "Wonderful Life". If memory serves (I don't bring my library to work), Walcott was just plain busy... and possibly didn't appreciate the significance of his finds.

fnxtr: SJG talks quite a bit about Walcott in "Wonderful Life". If memory serves (I don't bring my library to work), Walcott was just plain busy... and possibly didn't appreciate the significance of his finds.

Source

There appears to be at least some hint of conflict of interests here. Need to do more research though.

Pat & Ravylin Sanders:

Opening the auditory (Eustachian) tubes can be done voluntarily if one knows how. The primary attachment to the cartilaginous portion of the tube is the tensor veli palatini muscle, but the levator veli palatini and salpingopharyngeus muscles also attach to the tube. Voluntary contraction of the soft palate opens the tube (leading to a cracking sound, or sudden "wind" sound with breathing -- a way to quietly amuse yourself during particularly long meetings). Most people are not aware of this, and are unable to do it on command. Opening the jaw or swallowing opens the tube because the individual contracts these muscles in the process.

Thank you for the defense of both Tycho & Kepler. The social/political/religious environment for and against Kepler is very well framed in "Kepler's Witch" by James A. Connor. A good read to understand the life outside the science.

It was even better designed than many of our newer nuclear boats.

Makes it look like a dandy toy.

The simple fact that William Wallace dodged and ignored serious issues (flawed design in humans and other organisms) put before him and brought up an unrelated issue (what Kepler may have done to Tycho), disqualifies him from being taken seriously here.

Wallace channeling the Canadian Ann Coulter: Well, he mentioned his spectacular find in Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, a publication read by few people. And then he put them in drawers and left them there. They did not receive the attention they deserved for eighty years. Many people have tried to understand and explain why Walcott ignored the significance of his Cambrian fossils, but the most likely reason is that the fossils were not what he had expected to see. He ignored them in order to preserve a belief system.

The Burgess Shale fossils are special because of their great age, and their exquisite preservation. They were designated as an UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1981, and later became a protected site within the Rocky Mountain Parks World Heritage Site.

Just once I'd like to see an IDer support his position without going more than 50 years backwards. Do they not understand how far and fast scientific knowledge has progressed recently? Do they not understand that I, a lowly BS in math, know more physics than Sir Isaac? Any time an IDer says "I saw a paper pre 1970 that said..." they should be interrupted, and rudely, right there, and asked "So WHAT?"

Dale Husband has no shame: The simple fact that William Wallace dodged and ignored serious issues (flawed design in humans and other organisms) put before him and brought up an unrelated issue (what Kepler may have done to Tycho), disqualifies him from being taken seriously here.

raven made up:

Wallace channeling the Canadian Ann Coulter: [quote of somebody who is not william wallace removed]

This is just a lie. Denyse O'leary is a Coulter wannabee. Making Stuff Up.

Bill Gascoyne wrote:

William Wallace wrote: ...In short, scientists are human...

Scientists may be human and subject to all human frailties, but in science the final arbiter is the universe itself, which is not so limited. The universe always gives the same answer to the same question, no matter who asks. A scientist can corrupt his data and make false claims, but the universe will ultimately reveal any dishonesty. If Tycho was dogmatic and Kepler dishonest, new observations and measurements would eventually correct whatever errors they made.

Dale Husband: The simple fact that William Wallace dodged and ignored serious issues (flawed design in humans and other organisms) put before him and brought up an unrelated issue (what Kepler may have done to Tycho), disqualifies him from being taken seriously here.

I think sometime before Kepler; that is, we currently have a Ptolemaic/dogmatic theory of evolution.

just because your thinking exists at medieval levels, doesn't mean you can logically project that onto actual modern theory.

the ToE is about as fucking far from dogma as one can get, regardless of what you "think".

why not look at some of the fantastic arguments AMONG SCIENTISTS historically that have resulted in some excellent experiments testing various aspects of the theory, eh?

even going back to Fisher (30's), the ToE has changed much; has had much added and refined because of the results of tests and new hypotheses.

one of the biggest shifts being the idea of inclusive fitness when modeling the action of selection on any given trait, and the idea of neutral drift being important (or even exclusive) in large, well mixed populations.

many are the hours I have spent in argument over some aspect of sexual selection theory, as well.

dogma???

hardly.

logic: you're doing it wrong.

try not using so much projection, and do try spending more time learning.

William Wallace:

Dale Husband has no shame: The simple fact that William Wallace dodged and ignored serious issues (flawed design in humans and other organisms) put before him and brought up an unrelated issue (what Kepler may have done to Tycho), disqualifies him from being taken seriously here.

Serious? You call a straw man false dilemma serious? Get serious.

The only dodging here is the dodging of this comment. But I suppose if enough of you repeat the lie, it will be believed.

And now to "raven"...

A point I deem worthy of consideration in the Ptolemy/Copernicus/Tycho/Kepler progression is that it took centuries to get from a Ptolemaic epicyclic/geocentric theory to Copernican heliostatic/heliocentric/epicyclic/constant-velocity model, and even after that, the venerated (as an observational astronomer) Tycho Brahe asserted that the data better matched a Ptolemaic model over the falsified Copernican model. By falsified, I mean, from a sixteenth century perspective: No 1000+ mph wind at equator due to Earth’s axial spin; no observed parallactic displacement of stars. Subsequently, Kepler seems to have simultaneously recognized the scientific value of Tycho’s data as well as the harm in Tycho’s dogmatism, and decided that the ends justified the means. Kepler deceived Tycho and his heirs. But Kepler ultimately produced the heliocentric/elliptical/changing velocity planetary orbit model we so clearly recognize as “true” today

— William Wallace

Assuming this progression and regression is not unique, where in this drama is evolution?

I think sometime before Kepler; that is, we currently have a Ptolemaic/dogmatic theory of evolution.

The truth is mighty, and will prevail (eventually).

Meanwhile, we have panda’s thumb.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM: [flame war?] I take what Mike said about shallow-water ops and raise you the Baltic Sea archipelagos. The russian nuclear sub U137 ran afoul on an islet off Sweden. We're still waiting for a shallow-water sub to do the same.[/flame war?]

Nigel D: Sadly for you, PT exists not to publish biological research, but to serve as a resource to refute and counter the lies of the creationists. Ask Stacy S. whether PT serves that function adequately or not.

" The problem is that the brain stem originally controlled breathing in fish; it has been jerry-rigged to work in mammals. "

OT - I always thought the term was "JURY-rigged"

WW wrote:

"Assuming this progression and regression is not unique, where in this drama is evolution?"

It's in journals and conferences and lab meetings and anywhere real scientists do real science. If you don't read the journals or go to the conferences or work in the lab, how would you know what goes on in the real science of evolution?

The theory of evolution has undergone dramatic changes in the 150 years since it was first proposed. It has incorporated modern genetics, developmental biology and every discovery in palentology, not to mention revolutions involving drift and cladistics. It is the most dynamic and progressive theory ever conceived.

If you don't like the theory of evolution, you are of course free to propose a more predictive and explanatory idea. You will have to account for all of the available data however. Or I guess you could just sit in the corner and cry about how dogmatic evilutionists are while science continues to progress.

Stacy S.: OT - I always thought the term was "JURY-rigged"

Wallace channeling the Canadian Ann Coulter: Well, he mentioned his spectacular find in Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, a publication read by few people. And then he put them in drawers and left them there. They did not receive the attention they deserved for eighty years. Many people have tried to understand and explain why Walcott ignored the significance of his Cambrian fossils, but the most likely reason is that the fossils were not what he had expected to see. He ignored them in order to preserve a belief system.

This is just a lie. Denyse O’leary is a Coulter wannabee. Making Stuff Up.

Wallace: I think sometime before Kepler; that is, we currently have a Ptolemaic/dogmatic theory of evolution.

raven: Suppose Bill Gates had decided that MS-DOS running on a 100 megahertz PC with a 40 megabyte hard drive was as far as personal computers could go?

Stacy S.: " The problem is that the brain stem originally controlled breathing in fish; it has been jerry-rigged to work in mammals. " OT - I always thought the term was "JURY-rigged"

WW writes:

"A point I deem worthy of consideration in the Ptolemy/Copernicus/Tycho/Kepler progression is that it took centuries to get from a Ptolemaic epicyclic/geocentric theory to Copernican heliostatic/heliocentric/epicyclic/constant-velocity model, and even after that, the venerated (as an observational astronomer) Tycho Brahe asserted that the data better matched a Ptolemaic model over the falsified Copernican model."

This isn't so strange as it seems in hindsight. Although the epicylcic method was based on an incorrect theory, it did offer an alogorithm that could be used to compute orbital phenomenon of arbitrary precision limited by the number of "cycles" that could be determined and used.

I believe (someone correct me if I am wrong) that Copernicus claimed that the orbits of the planets were circular (now I think old Nic knew better, but circular orbits may have been a nod to certain religious authorities). It could be that Tycho could see from his detailed observations that circular orbits couldn't cut it. Hence, although a Copernican paradigm was ultimately a better picture of the solar system, epicycles allowed one to compute more precise timing of astronomical phenomena. So from a 16th century perspective, I would argue that epicylces were the better model.

With Kepler's laws came a more precise view of the nature of planetary orbits, and a more concise alogorithm for computing orbits. At that point, epicycles were doomed to a footnote in history.

"By falsified, I mean, from a sixteenth century perspective: No 1000+ mph wind at equator due to Earth’s axial spin; no observed parallactic displacement of stars. Subsequently, Kepler seems to have simultaneously recognized the scientific value of Tycho’s data as well as the harm in Tycho’s dogmatism, and decided that the ends justified the means. Kepler deceived Tycho and his heirs. But Kepler ultimately produced the heliocentric/elliptical/changing velocity planetary orbit model we so clearly recognize as “true” today

Assuming this progression and regression is not unique, where in this drama is evolution?

I think sometime before Kepler; that is, we currently have a Ptolemaic/dogmatic theory of evolution."

Not a chance. At worst it may be between classical mechanics and QM.

"The truth is mighty, and will prevail (eventually)."

The "truth" has already prevailed. What we are trying to do is get a more precise descrition of the "truth"

Stacy S.: OT - I always thought the term was "JURY-rigged"

Torbjörn, although it showed radioactivity it was not a “nukular” sub as such, but rather a conventional diesel. Probably it did carry nuclear weapons, however.

Channeling is a slang term not clearly defined but can mean repeating or copying someone elses words.

Ehrm, that should be "ran" into a mine. Nap time.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM: Ehrm, that should be "ran" into a mine. Nap time.

Do reptiles and/or birds get hiccups too?

(If a T-Rex hiccuped, how loud would it be? Eek.)

We can also block gill breathing by stretching the wall of the chest...

Pierce,
Would water even have enough oxygen content for a mammal to manage on it even with a way of extracting it?

Henry

Would water even have enough oxygen content for a mammal to manage on it even with a way of extracting it

breathe faster!

I think we would have to ditch the lungs, though. not efficient enough for gas exchange in liquid without increasing the partial pressures.

I think something like an axolotl might work:

http://www.ithaca.edu/faculty/jhardwick/axolotl.jpg

Henry J: Pierce, Would water even have enough oxygen content for a mammal to manage on it even with a way of extracting it? Henry

I generally liked the book and found it very interesting, however, I found the following passage deeply troubling on moral grounds:

“Imagine trying to jerry-rig a Volkswagen Beetle to travel at speeds of 150 miles per hour. In 1933 Adolf Hitler commissioned Dr. Ferdinand Porsche to develop a cheap car that could get 40 miles per gallon of gas and provide a reliable form of transportation for the average German family. The result was the VW Beetle. This history, Hitler’s plan, places constraints on the ways we can modify the Beetle today; the engineering can be tweaked only so far before major problems arise and the car reaches its limit.

“In many ways, we humans are the fish equivalent of a hot-rod Beetle. Take the body plan of a fish, dress it up to be a mammal, then tweak and twist that mammal until it walks on two legs, talks, thinks, and has superfine control of its fingers—and you have a recipe for problems. We can dress up a fish only so much without paying a price. In a perfectly designed world—one with no history—we would not have to suffer everything from hemorrhoids to cancer.

“Nowhere is this history more visible than in the detours, twists, and turns of our arteries, nerves, and veins. Follow some nerves and you’ll find that they make strange loops around other organs, apparently going in one direction only to twist and end up in an unexpected place. The detours are fascinating products of our past that, as we’ll see, often create problems—hiccups and hernias, for example. And this is only one way our past comes back to plague us.

“Our deep history was spent, at different times, in ancient oceans, small streams, and savannahs, not office buildings, ski slopes, and tennis courts. We were not designed to live past the age of 80, sit on our keisters for ten hours a day, and eat Hostess Twinkies, nor were we designed to play football. This disconnect between our past and our human present means that our bodies fall apart in certain predictable ways.

“Virtually every illness we suffer has some historical component. The examples that follow reflect how different branches of the tree of life inside us—from ancient humans, to amphibians and fish, and finally to microbes—come back to pester us today. Each of these examples show that we were not designed rationally but are products of a convoluted history.”

_______________________________________________

The author has apparently indicated that he was not intending to make an analogy with the very dark implication that Hitler is to Porsche is to VW Bug is to Hot Rod VW Bug as the Creator (or Designer) is to nature is to primordial fish is to human beings; however, the analogy comes in an argument against design which is clearly an argument against belief in a Designer and by implication ID and Creationism.
One reader of the text, not me, has suggested there is a plausible attack on those who believe in a Designer or Creator as it would seem that they are as blind as Hitler’s followers. I take this suggestion very seriously.
There is also nothing in the text that mitigates the use of the analogy, that is, Shubin expresses no regret in the text that Hitler, the most infamous person in history, is the designer and first cause of the particular technological example which he uses as an analogy for primordial life or the primordial fish. There is in the text not so much as an “alas.”
For good maesure I will add that the analogy comes in a chapter with the title: “The Meaning of It All” which clearly suggests that the author is pointing to or thinking of higher things in this particular chapter.
I do not think the analogy is an accident and I deem it a very dark and nasty joke on the author’s part.

Timothy E. Kennelly

Going by the quoted portion, the reference to Hitler pertained only to the influence on the design of the VW beetle, not to Hitler's better known actions.

Ergo, carping (pun intended) about the Hitler connection does not address the principle argument in the quoted material, which is that humans (and I presume mammals in general) have lots of suboptimal features that would get a human engineer fired (if not blacklisted) if he did anything comparable.

Henry

I am not arguing against evolution or the evidence for evolution discovered in the similarities between humans and other animals, but against an analogy which is morally offensive.
I do not think it is at all reasonable to suggest that one might use Hitler as an innocuous example of anything. Of course, this is not formally possible as Hitler probably brushed his teeth, but it would be a very odd thing indeed to motivate children to brush their teeth with the admonition, "Brush carefully, Hitler always did." Any reasonable person would ask, "What, can you think of no one else who brushed his teeth?" I have done the same thing here. There is no need for the use of Hitler as the designer of a car which is like primordial life or the primordial fish which in turn makes Hitler like God for Creationist and IDers. The analogy is unnecessary and morally indefensible. Hitler was a mass-murderer and in particular he was the murderer of the Jews. This analogy makes the murderer of the Jews into the Creator G-d who chose the Jews. It is in exceedingly poor taste.

Timothy E. Kennelly

I will add that nothing in the text indicates that Hitler is only the designer of the VW Bug. The analogy is put on the table, VW Bug is to Hot Rod VW Bug as primordial fish is to human and design, in a cosmic sense, is argued against thereby. Only marked stupidity could lead one to use Hitler as an example in such a case without a clear understanding that the analogy implies that Hitler is in the place of the Creator.
Whatever else Shubin is, well, he is not stupid.

Timothy E. Kennelly

Yeah, that was a really bad choice of analogy for the argument, since it pulls in things that 1) have nothing to do with the argument, and 2) produce strong emotional reactions that 3) lead to people to talk about those other things rather than the stated topic.

Henry J:
Yeah, that was a really bad choice of analogy for the argument, since it pulls in things that 1) have nothing to do with the argument, and 2) produce strong emotional reactions that 3) lead to people to talk about those other things rather than the stated topic.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

I can not argue with that at all. Of course the comment comes in a very good book, an excellent popular book on science. It is interesting and well-written. It is a very easy read and there is a good bit of interesting material in the book, but the Hilter analogy really shocked. It comes very close to the end of the book and it hit me like a bolt from the blue. I almost did not finish the book because of it.
I was so angry when I read it that I sent Shubin a long scolding e-mail, a regular howler, which he has thus far chosen to ignore.

Timothy E. Kennelly

Henry J:
Yeah, that was a really bad choice of analogy for the argument, since it pulls in things that 1) have nothing to do with the argument, and 2) produce strong emotional reactions that 3) lead to people to talk about those other things rather than the stated topic.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

I can not argue with that at all. Of course the comment comes in a very good book, an excellent popular book on science. It is interesting and well-written. It is a very easy read and there is a good bit of interesting material in the book, but the Hilter analogy really shocked. It comes very close to the end of the book and it hit me like a bolt from the blue. I almost did not finish the book because of it.
I was so angry when I read it that I sent Shubin a long scolding e-mail, a regular howler, which he has thus far chosen to ignore.

Timothny E. Kennelly

It is tenous to suggest that Shubin choose an analogy in a biology text because of any moral context. Why would he do that? And why would one want to argue anything besides the biology here; that Shubin doesn't answer only tells us that he thinks so too, which is as much a given fact as you can get.

The Beetle example is famous for how politics constrained engineering, and it is a basic historical fact mentioned whenever the Bug history is told. Without the emotional subtext, as far as I have seen. Poor biology, no one is willing to give it the slack cut other sciences.

Now, if I was interested in conspiracies I would start to wonder why there are so many interested in conspiracies out there ...

Torbjörn Larsson: It is tenous to suggest that Shubin choose an analogy in a biology text because of any moral context. Why would he do that? And why would one want to argue anything besides the biology here; that Shubin doesn’t answer only tells us that he thinks so too, which is as much a given fact as you can get.

"Your Inner Fish" is a popular book on science, and it is a polemic book. It includes a lengthy attack on design which is beyond the scope of biology as such and include a number of unstated assumptions which have nothing to with modern empirical science let alone biology as such.

Timothy E. Kennelly

Hmm. I should read it to judge and give a supportable response.

But in as much as "design" attacks biology and other sciences by way of pseudoscience and apologetics, it can't be outside science's (or Shubin's) interests to respond to it.

[As for unstated assumptions, the one you have already exemplified is one you make yourself. So I'm tentatively skeptic on the existence of those.]

But in as much as “design” attacks biology and other sciences by way of pseudoscience and apologetics, it can’t be outside science’s (or Shubin’s) interests to respond to it.

Henry J said:

But in as much as “design” attacks biology and other sciences by way of pseudoscience and apologetics, it can’t be outside science’s (or Shubin’s) interests to respond to it.

That was my thought too. If I.D. pushers continuously claim that biologists are all wrong about the basic principles of their subject, that makes it their business to respond to the claims. Henry

"Because cars rust they are not designed"....says a correspondent, when referring to human 'design' problems such as hernias, cancers, anal varicose veins etc. Poor analogy, not only for reasons already given above, but also the one that follows; It is not the DESIGN of the car, per se, that CAUSES rusting, but the MATERIALS used in the manufacture, or lack of maintenance. The fact that the human male testicles are formed high up in the abdomen, as in sharks etc, then descend through the abdominal wall, leaving a potential weakness, is POOR DESIGN. How could it be improved? Let me think for a moment! Oh yes, have the gonads form embryologically (is that a real word?)OUTSIDE of the abdomen (that's where they're going to end up)leaving no weaknesses in the abdominal wall. No, wait; that's too simple! And, on hiccups; I anxiously, and not without a little excitement, await the results of the intensive research being done, as we speak, by creationists to establish the cause of this phonomenon in mammals. I suspect that, as with 99.999% of their work, it will be done from an armchair rather than a laboratory stall, and will be a series of NEGATIVE statements, confirming what HICCUPS are NOT, or COULD NOT be!
At least with Dr Dino we got some POSITIVE suggestions about various iceballs hitting the earth, causing mammals to freeze while standing etc,. 'HICCUPS, an Irreducibly Complex Process' is coming to your local bookshop soon!

“Because cars rust they are not designed”.…says a correspondent, when referring to human ‘design’ problems such as hernias, cancers, anal varicose veins etc."

No, because cars rust they are not intelligently designed. They are certainly designed, but suboptimally. Many materials could be used that are lighter and will not rust, many could even cost less that those commonly used. What is being called into question is the competence or motivation of the people who design and sell the cars. It seems that thier priorities are profit not longeviety. Same thing with God. If humans are designed they are not designed to last. Why does God need to keep selling more humans? And what does God need with a star ship?

It is not the DESIGN of the car, per se, that CAUSES rusting, but the MATERIALS used in the manufacture

Wow this is a really nice article. It has been useful. Thank you for sharing it.

stevaroni: There’s simply no reason for God to compromise his creations.

Unlike mortal engineers, who are constrained by the physics and economics of available materials, God could simply poof up any material he pleased.

_________________________________

These claims are problematic for the obvious reason that if there is a God, then we can not pretend to know what limits God in creation or in anything else. The suggestion that God might "poof up any material" may or may not be correct; in short, such a claim should not be made.

Regards,

Timothy E. Kennelly

Timothy E. Kennelly said: These claims are problematic for the obvious reason that if there is a God, then we can not pretend to know what limits God in creation or in anything else. The suggestion that God might "poof up any material" may or may not be correct; in short, such a claim should not be made.

Timothy E. Kennelly said: These claims are problematic for the obvious reason that if there is a God, then we can not pretend to know what limits God in creation or in anything else. The suggestion that God might "poof up any material" may or may not be correct; in short, such a claim should not be made.

This is DonExodus from youtube.
Try:
1. Swallowing. This works 99.999% of the time.
2. Sudafed.
3. A 2nd generation histamine blocker, such as claratin.
4. Wasabi.

Hope this helps, as an avid scuba diver, I share your pain!

Whit