The Panda's Thumb Legacy Archive — pandasthumb.net

Your Inner Fish -- tomorrow on PBS

Posted 8 April 2014 by Matt Young

It's a 3-part series with Neil Shubin, the paleontologist who discovered Tiktaalik. The series begins tomorrow, Wednesday, April 9, at 10 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time. You can see a preview here. Rocky Mountain PBS says about the series

Anatomist and paleontologist Neil Shubin sees evidence of our ancient past in our anatomy and in our DNA. Join him as he journeys to meet our ancient animal ancestors, while revealing the impact those animals have had on our bodies

and they have an interactive webpage here. The second and third episodes are called "Your Inner Reptile" and "Your Inner Monkey." Update, April 9: An AP release yesterday afternoon notes that PBS will also premiere a 3-part Nova series tonight. Tonight's episode: "Inside Animal Minds." These 2 series, along with Nature, exemplify PBS's new "Think Wednesday" schedule, which AP characterizes as "a three-hour prime-time block of nature, science and technology programs" anchored by Nature and Nova.

69 Comments

Mike Waldteufel · 8 April 2014

Shubin's book is a good read, and I recommend it booth for its content and its style. Looking forward to the mini-series.

DS · 9 April 2014

I can't wait to see the Ham reaction to this series. I bet he thinks it's pure evil, just like the Noah movie. Meanwhile, he can't do anything to stop the entire country from seeing the truth. And as we all know, the truth will set you free.

Karen S. · 9 April 2014

This is going to be wonderful; Neil Shubin is a great presenter and I loved the book. In general, these are dark times for creationists:
  • We are in the middle of the "Cosmos" series
  • The "Your Inner Fish" series is starting;
  • Ken Miller, much hated by the ID creationists, has been honored with the Laetare award by Notre Dame.
It's enough to drive a creationist to drink!

KlausH · 9 April 2014

Thank you for posting this. I love the book. I have scheduled the series to record.

Henry J · 9 April 2014

Ah dint come from no (HIC!) fish! (HIC!)

DS · 9 April 2014

The first episode was terrific. I think I am going to show this to all my classes. A wonderful example of the intersection of paleontology, anatomy, development, genetics and evolution. Some of our resident trolls could learn a thing or two from this episode. The rest of the series promises to be just as good.

Karen S. · 9 April 2014

I agree, it was terrific

Matt Young · 9 April 2014

I missed Nature, but I thought that Nova was excellent too.

Some of our resident trolls could learn a thing or two from this episode.

Wishful thinking!

Mark Sturtevant · 10 April 2014

I too watched it. This is what science shows should be like. It is at the level of a general audience, explains things carefully, but it is not oversimplified. Also I thought every bit was ACCURATE, which is more than I can say for other science shows like Cosmos (although I am enjoying that too). It looks like Neil Shubin had a hand in the narration, which of course makes sense since he did almost all the talking.

Charley Horse · 10 April 2014

Excellent back to back programs....I have to rethink using 'birdbrain' as a putdown.
Those parrots opening the locks was simply amazing.

Marilyn · 10 April 2014

Sad to say it's an exclusive region so cannot view it in England. I would have liked to see them.

Jonathan Smith · 10 April 2014

I agree with all the comments. I thought the program was brilliant.

ksplawn · 10 April 2014

And although the new Cosmos is still a great experience, it was so much better to watch a program like this without commercials every seven minutes.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 10 April 2014

With creationism certainly one implicit target of this program, it was good to hear the history of homology briefly explained. Owen noticed a then unexplained phenomenon, which waited for the evolutionary explanation. That the homologies exist throughout vertebrates was a great point, with the example of bird wings developing from the same ancestral bones more or less destroying any "common design" notion. Essentially bird wings end up with quite a different "design," in fact, but begin with the same resources, Tiktaalik's "hand," which is also the lobe-finned fishes' fin.

Evolution has no choice but to do so. Why any intelligence would do so cannot be explained. Babble "insrutable" all you want, only one explanation actually explains.

Glen Davidson

ksplawn · 10 April 2014

Yep, I felt it really drives home the point that there are limitations to the "designs" in life that simply wouldn't be there if each "design" was independently created. If you can essentially start from scratch every time, why make everything look almost identical and operate on the same underlying framework? That leads to a lot of inefficiencies in the final "design."

DS · 10 April 2014

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: With creationism certainly one implicit target of this program, it was good to hear the history of homology briefly explained. Owen noticed a then unexplained phenomenon, which waited for the evolutionary explanation. That the homologies exist throughout vertebrates was a great point, with the example of bird wings developing from the same ancestral bones more or less destroying any "common design" notion. Essentially bird wings end up with quite a different "design," in fact, but begin with the same resources, Tiktaalik's "hand," which is also the lobe-finned fishes' fin. Evolution has no choice but to do so. Why any intelligence would do so cannot be explained. Babble "insrutable" all you want, only one explanation actually explains. Glen Davidson
And the commonalities are not restricted to the morphological features either. Shubin demonstrated how the basic molecular mechanisms of development are also conserved across evolutionary time. He also showed how the developmental pathways were tweaked in order to produce the diversity of vertebrate body types we observe today. These concepts were carefully explained so that anyone could understand them. Now what excuse does anyone have to deny this?

TomS · 10 April 2014

ksplawn said: Yep, I felt it really drives home the point that there are limitations to the "designs" in life that simply wouldn't be there if each "design" was independently created. If you can essentially start from scratch every time, why make everything look almost identical and operate on the same underlying framework? That leads to a lot of inefficiencies in the final "design."
However, the advocates of ID would reply that "design" does not mean "perfect design". In effect, they would argue that the Designers could things this way, and our not knowing why is not a reason to reject it. Myself, I prefer to handle the argument this way: Common descent with modification accounts for homologies. But ID does not account for them. Therefore, ID is not an alternative to evolution. Even if ID is true, it is not a (scientific) theory. Something is lacking from ID before it can be counted as a "peer" to evolution: it must attempt to explain at least some of the things that evolution explains.

Karen S. · 10 April 2014

Evolution has no choice but to do so. Why any intelligence would do so cannot be explained. Babble “insrutable” all you want, only one explanation actually explains.
If God puts so much time and effort into making it appear that evolution is true, shouldn't creationists just go along with the deception?

DS · 10 April 2014

TomS said:
ksplawn said: Yep, I felt it really drives home the point that there are limitations to the "designs" in life that simply wouldn't be there if each "design" was independently created. If you can essentially start from scratch every time, why make everything look almost identical and operate on the same underlying framework? That leads to a lot of inefficiencies in the final "design."
However, the advocates of ID would reply that "design" does not mean "perfect design". In effect, they would argue that the Designers could things this way, and our not knowing why is not a reason to reject it. Myself, I prefer to handle the argument this way: Common descent with modification accounts for homologies. But ID does not account for them. Therefore, ID is not an alternative to evolution. Even if ID is true, it is not a (scientific) theory. Something is lacking from ID before it can be counted as a "peer" to evolution: it must attempt to explain at least some of the things that evolution explains.
Sure, they could say that. But a wise man once said that unintelligent design doesn't get you anywhere. Once again, I was right. :) The point is that this is the pattern we MUST see if descent with modification is true. It is NOT the pattern you would expect with any type of "intelligent" design. This is intuitively obvious to even the most casual observer.

Just Bob · 10 April 2014

DS said: Now what excuse does anyone have to deny this?
A: It's all a LIE by atheist scientists! B: SATAN just makes it look that way! C: It ain't what the Bible says! D: Common Design! E: Adolph Hitler!

DS · 10 April 2014

Just Bob said:
DS said: Now what excuse does anyone have to deny this?
A: It's all a LIE by atheist scientists! B: SATAN just makes it look that way! C: It ain't what the Bible says! D: Common Design! E: Adolph Hitler!
A. Most scientists aren't atheists, besides this is irrelevant, they all agree on the basics anyway. B. Satan might have made it look that way, but he obviously did it with god's permission so you better go along with it. C. The bible does not state the evolution did not happen. Deal with it already. D. As demonstrated previously, common design is definitely not the answer her. Do try to pay attention. E. Grocho Marx! (So there).

icstuff · 11 April 2014

Where can a non-American view this?

TomS · 11 April 2014

DS said: The point is that this is the pattern we MUST see if descent with modification is true. It is NOT the pattern you would expect with any type of "intelligent" design. This is intuitively obvious to even the most casual observer.
What pattern would one expect with intelligent design? Paisley? Klein bottle? Penrose triangle? My point being that with intelligent design, anything is possible. Even the impossible. If the intelligent designers of life wanted to have things to look like - exactly like - common descent with modification over billions of years, then they could do no better than to choose the pattern of life on Earth.

Robert Byers · 11 April 2014

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

TomS · 11 April 2014

The point is not that there are similarities - not only that there are similarities. The point is that there is a particular pattern to the similarities. The "nested hierarchies" of similarities known as the "tree of life". This is a pattern of a great deal of complicated similarities. If you think that the human eye is complicated, think of more complicated are all the eyes of all the vertebrates. Moreover, we can predict, for many different traits, what we will find when we took at a new trait, or at a new living thing (or a previously unknown fossil). One might call that "specified".

So, there there is this mass of complex, specified data. It is not satisfying to say that this by pure chance. So to look for a reason for this. The only explanations that anyone has ever thought of are ones involving common descent with modification.

You bring up the concept of common design. That does might account for a certain number of commonalities between living types, but it does not attempt account for the differences - much less for the pattern of similarities and differences.

But let's just think a while about how well common design accounts for just one of the similarities. The similarity between the human body and that of chimps and other apes. How would common design account for that? Is it because there are some constraints on the common designer(s), something about the material that they were given to work with, something about the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology that they had to obey? Or was it that the designer(s) had similar goals in mind when they designed human, chimps, and other apes?

Karen S. · 11 April 2014

what else would a creator be expected to do? How should a thinking creator have made his INDEPENDENTLY created biology?
Well, for one thing, a designer could DESIGN human testicles so they are outside the body from the beginning and don't have to descend; that way you wouldn't be vulnerable to hernias. Or better yet, design sperm that tolerate heat; the testicles wouldn't need to descend at all. That would prevent a lot of injuries. The whole point of the show is that evolution from fish best explains quirks in our anatomy. (hiccup!)

DS · 11 April 2014

Robert Byers said: As recommended i watched it. In short it makes the same case as always. that looking alike in anatomy equals common descent ONLY. In stresses how we, all biology, all have such like skeletons. It stresses this skeleton is simply changed for all creatures from a original fish skeleton etc. Why wouldn't we have the same skeleton? Or rather why wouldn't a creator give a basic blueprint plan to all biology? what else would a creator be expected to do? How should a thinking creator have made his INDEPENDENTLY created biology? Everything have a different order to itas physical structure? what would you do? I would make everything the same at basic levels just like in the physics of the universe. biology by its likeness inside and out screams somebody had a basic PLAN. Its not surprising to find everything has eyeballs!! Yet once again the even more important point is about scientific evidence. No evidence , at all, was shown for a single fact claimed in the show for common descent. It was all lines of reasoning from the dominating presumption, without allowance for other options, that like biology equals like (common) descent. Same with the fetus stuff. No evidence except the concept of likeness is presented for common descent with fish. Its not true and the reasoning is fishy!!
Sorry, no. You completely missed the point. Unless of course you can explain the expression of sonic hedge hog.? Thought not. You lose.

Dave Lovell · 11 April 2014

Marilyn said: Sad to say it's an exclusive region so cannot view it in England. I would have liked to see them.
Marilyn and icstuff, you need to hide where you are by using a proxy server or a VPN. Hotspotshield (http://www.hotspotshield.com/) creates a VPN terminating in the US that works okay on their 3-day trial version, even if the bandwidth limits can make it a bit jerky at times. This packages does revert to their standard free version, which may still be good enough. Beware that there are a lot of pop-up invitations to buy the full product though.

icstuff · 11 April 2014

Thank you Dave

I see the ID people are now crying for equal time on PBS...

DS · 11 April 2014

icstuff said: Thank you Dave I see the ID people are now crying for equal time on PBS...
Sure, no problem. Just as soon as they make a discovery just as spectacular as Tiktalik or the sonic hedge hog experiments. I'm sure that their "research labs" are just pumping out discoveries every day. I can't wait to see them! Some film footage of them digging in the ground for fossils would be super, along with some ectopic gene expression studies. Maybe they could show us the blueprints the designer drew up.

DavidK · 11 April 2014

Mother Jones has a nice review of the show:

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/04/neil-shubin-inquiring-minds-tiktaalik-creationist-nightmare

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 11 April 2014

I know it's an unthinking troll, but it puts out common unthinking creationist tripe, so...
It stresses this skeleton is simply changed for all creatures from a original fish skeleton etc. Why wouldn’t we have the same skeleton?
Because we don't do the same things. Birds fly. We type, make tools, and pick up babies with our hands. Our hand bones, interestingly, aren't all that different from early vertebrate hands, but bird wings are, and their development of fused bones out of many once-articulated bones is unnecessarily complex. No engineer designs fairly simple rigid structures to be welded out of many little parts, yet that's how bird wings are made. Evolution doesn't know better, many non-Byers' brains do.
Or rather why wouldn’t a creator give a basic blueprint plan to all biology?
OK, why isn't the octopus eye made in the same way as the vertebrate eye? The vertebrate eye actually develops largely from the brain, while the cephalopod eye develops from an invagination of its skin. Completely different. Yet most of its genes are related to vertebrate genes, and in cellular processes it is much like vertebrates (less true, yet quite true, of plants, too). Evolution has a splendid explanation, which is that only crude eyes existed when metazoa split apart, so that most macroscopic eye structures arose without common ancestry delimiting the possibilities (while vertebrates and cephalopods are highly limited in visual possibilities now). Common design explains nothing about these matters, since the supposed common designer of cephalopods and vertebrates could have made eyes homologous in both. So where is the common blueprint, if you proclaim that it makes sense? An honest ID is thereby falsified, since there is no common design, only common ancestry, which often produces very different solutions in--you guessed it--lineages that have long ago diverged.
what else would a creator be expected to do? How should a thinking creator have made his INDEPENDENTLY created biology? Everything have a different order to itas physical structure?
Yet it made very different solutions in divergent lines, just as evolution predicts. And completely unlike how common design would honestly predict. Glen Davidson

Karen S. · 11 April 2014

Sure, no problem. Just as soon as they make a discovery just as spectacular as Tiktalik or the sonic hedge hog experiments. I’m sure that their “research labs” are just pumping out discoveries every day. I can’t wait to see them! Some film footage of them digging in the ground for fossils would be super, along with some ectopic gene expression studies. Maybe they could show us the blueprints the designer drew up.
Would stock photography of a laboratory count?

s.t.early · 11 April 2014

Karen S. said:
Sure, no problem. Just as soon as they make a discovery just as spectacular as Tiktalik or the sonic hedge hog experiments. I’m sure that their “research labs” are just pumping out discoveries every day. I can’t wait to see them! Some film footage of them digging in the ground for fossils would be super, along with some ectopic gene expression studies. Maybe they could show us the blueprints the designer drew up.
Would stock photography of a laboratory count?
Sure, you all laugh now, but I know for certain that the DI keeps a set of the Designer's discarded tools hidden in a titanium vault at an undisclosed location. They're just waiting for the right moment to go public. My comment for this year. Back to lurking. P.S. But seriously, really enjoyed Your Inner Fish. Just stumbled across it by accident.

Just Bob · 11 April 2014

s.t.early said: Sure, you all laugh now, but I know for certain that the DI keeps a set of the Designer's discarded tools hidden in a titanium vault at an undisclosed location. They're just waiting for the right moment to go public.
Holy Micrometers! Sacred 3D Printers! Divine Programmable Laser Cutters! Maybe Saintly Scissors?

Tenncrain · 11 April 2014

DS said:
icstuff said: Thank you Dave I see the ID people are now crying for equal time on PBS...
Sure, no problem. Just as soon as they make a discovery just as spectacular as Tiktalik or the sonic hedge hog experiments. I'm sure that their "research labs" are just pumping out discoveries every day. I can't wait to see them! Some film footage of them digging in the ground for fossils would be super, along with some ectopic gene expression studies. Maybe they could show us the blueprints the designer drew up.
Maybe Howard Ahmanson Jr just needs to quadruple his funding of the DI. Then we might have wonderful ID research coming out of our ears. But seriously, back to the real world; want to echo what others have already touched on. The first episode of Your Inner Fish exceeded my expectations. Very much in line with the book. Can't wait for the other episodes.

harold · 12 April 2014

TomS said -
Common descent with modification accounts for homologies. But ID does not account for them. Therefore, ID is not an alternative to evolution. Even if ID is true, it is not a (scientific) theory. Something is lacking from ID before it can be counted as a “peer” to evolution: it must attempt to explain at least some of the things that evolution explains.
Literally all of ID is just logically flawed ad hoc attempts to deny away evolution from above, without ever even addressing the case for evolution honestly - no matter what the evidence, evolution ostensibly can't have happened because of the watchmaker, irreducible complexity, or complex specified information. This makes perfect sense when you remember that ID was just an attempt to have creationism take the fifth. ID can't ever advance a novel idea of what happened when and how, because it already has an implied answer for those questions - the YEC "creation science" answers. ID can't contradict plain old creationism with new positive claims, because the whole point of ID is to reassure and pander to creationists as political allies. It also can't state creationism openly, because the whole point of ID is to disguise creationism, in a childish attempt at a cunning legal strategy.

rob · 12 April 2014

We watched Your Inner Fish last night on Amazon as a family. It is very nicely done.

SLC · 12 April 2014

icstuff said: Where can a non-American view this?
The program, like the Cosmos series can be downloaded from BTTorrent. However, be advised that such downloading is completely illegal so do so at your own risk. Use of proxys and anonymousers is strongly recommended.

FL · 12 April 2014

I can’t wait to see the Ham reaction to this series...

Be careful what you wish for, Mr. DS. It's a well-written, detailed response from Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2014/04/12/review-inner-fish-1 FL

stevaroni · 12 April 2014

FL said:

I can’t wait to see the Ham reaction to this series...

Be careful what you wish for, Mr. DS. It's a well-written, detailed response from Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2014/04/12/review-inner-fish-1 FL
Be careful what you wish for, FL, and go re-read Dr. Mitchell's response carefully. The vast majority of her post simply re-states Shubin's line of thought. She basically acquiesces on the facts that Tiktallik existed, is an ancient animal, and has both fish and amphibian characteristics. She recaps the whole "pattern" thing, too. What she pointedly does not ever do is use this sentence "And here's the evidence that Shubin got this wrong". Yes, she says Shubin is wrong, she says that Shubin is just making assumptions, and, of course, she takes the obligatory swipe or two at the ever-evil Darwin. But she never puts any evidence of her own on the table. Her summary argument is, in her own words

God designed a perfect human body along with a perfect world in the beginning. How do we know? He told us so in Genesis 1:31. And God warned Adam that rebellion would have consequences (Genesis 2:16–17).... (snip a couple of hundred words) ...and with the psalmist declare we are “fearfully and wonderfully made” (Psalm 139:14).

Now, that may work in your bible-thumping circles, FL, but it's frappin' obvious that she's got nothing. And this is the crux of your problem. perform a little experiment of your own, FL. Go out and find a teenager and show them Shubin's program. Then read them Mitchell's rebuttal and ask them which one made a better case for their side. Watch their eyes roll. But you already know this, Fl. You already know that you can't win against actual data because you haven't got any. All you've got is a two-thousand year old book which is simply useless at refuting modern science because so many of the things it says do not correlate with easily observed reality. That's why this stuff freaks you out so much. Because you know that you've lost, it's just a matter of postponing the inevitable public acceptance of the fact that the Biblical stories are just pretty fairy tales. A position that much of the modern world outside America has already arrived at.

phhht · 12 April 2014

stevaroni said: But she never puts any evidence of her own on the table.
This is standard operating procedure for FL as well: no evidence of his own. It's mostly second-hand spurious arguments borrowed from others.

DS · 12 April 2014

FL said:

I can’t wait to see the Ham reaction to this series...

Be careful what you wish for, Mr. DS. It's a well-written, detailed response from Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2014/04/12/review-inner-fish-1 FL
Be careful what you wish for Floyd. Episode two is coming up. If it's anything like Episode one, creationists everywhere will be in mourning, even in the evening. When you, or any other creationist, discovers anything, anything at all, then maybe someone will care what you think. Until then, not so much. There are no answers in genesis. Give it up already. You have lost once again.

FL · 12 April 2014

Stevaroni said, Her summary argument is, in her own words: God designed a perfect human body along with a perfect world in the beginning. How do we know? He told us so in Genesis 1:31. And God warned Adam that rebellion would have consequences (Genesis 2:16–17).... (snip a couple of hundred words) ...and with the psalmist declare we are “fearfully and wonderfully made” (Psalm 139:14).

Now, that may work in your bible-thumping circles, FL, but it's frappin' obvious that she's got nothing. That's interesting, because you have thereby totally conceded the Biblical aspect on this issue. And since PBS's "Your Inner Fish" sales-pitch is clearly being marketed to viewers as an explanation of the all-important question of the nature and origin of HUMANS, you have effectively conceded that the Theory of Evolution is incompatible not just with the Bible, but also with Christianity itself. So once again, unexpectedly, evolution is demonstrated to be incompatible with Christianity. Thanks. ****

perform a little experiment of your own, FL. Go out and find a teenager and show them Shubin's program. Then read them Mitchell's rebuttal and ask them which one made a better case for their side. Watch their eyes roll.

But we do not **know** if your claim is really true, do we? You've already conceded the Biblical aspect, and that's all the more true and convincing when we re-insert those "two hundred words" that you conveniently snipped out. That's likely going to count for many teenagers, especially those raised in theistic or Christian households. Here's what you left out (identified by the "~~").

~~But what about those pesky hernias? ...God designed a perfect human body along with a perfect world in the beginning. How do we know? He told us so in Genesis 1:31. And God warned Adam that rebellion would have consequences (Genesis 2:16–17). ~~Adam did rebel and ever since that day the entire world has groaned (Romans 8:22) under sin’s curse. People’s bodies have worn down, gotten ill, and died. ~~The problem is neither bad design nor evolutionary bondage, but the perversion of God’s good original designs as a consequence of man’s rebellion against the Creator. ~~We should be thankful that our bodies work as well as they do, and that embryologic development usually operates as it should. Anyone who has studied human anatomy and physiology without evolutionary presuppositions—as I, a physician, have been privileged to do—should not recognize our “inner fish” but instead the hand of the Master Designer, our Creator and Savior Jesus Christ (Colossians 1:16–17), ...and with the psalmist declare we are “fearfully and wonderfully made” (Psalm 139:14).

Given the fuller quotation there, I suspect that many teenagers might would find such statements resonating in their minds and hearts, ESPECIALLY after they have read all of the various scientific flaws that Dr. Mitchell pointed out with Shubin's sales-pitch. **** Here's just one example of those scientific flaws, as explained by Mitchell. Emphases mine:

Your Inner Fish also promotes the myth of embryonic recapitulation by showing us “Molly’s gill.” Molly is a woman with a small pit in front of her ear, an inconsequential embryologic remnant that Shubin identifies as “a leftover from an ancient gill” saying, “We’re all fish,” and “Sometimes things go wrong, and when they do your inner fish can come out.” ...Based on superficial appearance and evolutionary thinking, they were once called things like gill slits, gill pouches, gill arches, or branchial arches. Only in fish do these arches differentiate into components of gills. Many embryology textbooks have abandoned this deceptive terminology in favor of pharyngeal arches, for mammalian embryos never at any time develop any sort of gill. Pharyngeal arches in human embryos become parts of the jaw, face, ear, middle ear bones, and voice box. We can speak, hear, chew, and smile because of complex array of structures these pharyngeal arches form. Nevertheless, Shubin calls them “gill arches” and gives Molly an imaginative evolutionary explanation rather than an embryologic one. Molly's pre-auricular pit is a tiny remnant that was left over when parts of the first and second pharyngeal arches fused to form her ear, but neither Molly nor her ancestors ever had a gill.

That's 100 percent science right there, Stevaroni. So Dr. Mitchell has just totally BUSTED Dr. Shubin on that example. Wouldn't you agree? I think many rational teenagers would readily agree. FL

phhht · 12 April 2014

FL said: But we do not **know** ...
Why do you think that quoting the Bible adds anything to the conversation? In particular, how, beyond unsupported allegation, does it weaken the ToE, since the Bible is nothing but fairy tales? Why should any rational person believe that gods are real? Ever heard of the notorious god-of-the-gaps fallacy? Why do you loons keep deploying it? Rational people don't buy it.

Rolf · 12 April 2014

Your Inner Fish also promotes the myth of embryonic recapitulation by showing us “Molly’s gill.”
I am certain FL will be responded to by people knowing a lot more than I know about the subject but right off the top of my head, I can only say I am under the impression that the recapitulation issue was declared deceased and buried a long time ago. Simply because, as anyone can see, there never lived a creature looking like any of the variety of developing human embryos. But at the different stages of development, embryos represent the embryonal stage at branching events during evolution over millions of years. That's where we find our inner fish: No fish like what a human embryo looks like at the fish stage - but the fish ancestry is detectable there. The problem with types like FL is that they never go to the sources and learn the facts, they just parrot misleading creationist propaganda. That's what a non-scientist like me have to say but I don't think I am to far off. That's because I have tried to get a handle on the facts and have been thinking things over. If FL had wanted to, he too should have known.

Matt Young · 12 April 2014

Please do not feed the FL troll any more.

phhht · 12 April 2014

Matt Young said: Please do not feed the FL troll any more.
I'd like you to be more clear about what you want from us. Are we not to reply to FL at all in your threads?

stevaroni · 12 April 2014

FL said:

Stevaroni said, Her summary argument is, in her own words: Genesis 1:31.... Genesis 2:16–17.... Psalm 139:14

Now, that may work in your bible-thumping circles, FL, but it's frappin' obvious that she's got nothing. That's interesting, because you have thereby totally conceded the Biblical aspect on this issue.
Yes, FL. Yes. Once again, you have done that marvelous thing you do where you state a golden chunk of actual wisdom yet remain blissfully ignorant to the profundity of the little nugget you've dropped. The Bible does totally, unambiguously, unquestionably, say that God created every thing and every creature for his own ineffable reasons, and that's that. The various creobot religions say that this means that since the Bible and actual physical measurement of the easily examined physical world disagree, you have to pick one or the other to believe. All this is true FL. Where you fall down, FL is that you somehow think it is rational to believe a 3000 year old book written by bronze-age shepherds with virtually no understanding of the physical world instead of trusting people who measure shit all day for a living and obsessively double-check everybody else's measurements all the time. But you know what, FL? Deep down you don't really trust your Bible stories either. Because you realize that most people, when presented with both sides, will roll their eyes and go with science every time. That's why it's so important for you to deny, deny, deny. Because you know that if you can't stop kids from thinking, then your fairy stories are doomed to a fate worse than neglect. They are doomed to contempt.

stevaroni · 12 April 2014

stevaroni said: (Some stuff to FL)
Sorry, Matt. I posted before I read your notice not to feed FL

DS · 12 April 2014

Floyd can read my answer to his nonsense on the bathroom wall. It's where he belongs. Always. If even there.

phhht · 12 April 2014

DS said: Floyd can read my answer to his nonsense on the bathroom wall. It's where he belongs. Always. If even there.
Hear, hear.

tomh · 12 April 2014

icstuff said: Where can a non-American view this?
In case you haven't found it yet, the pbs website is posting the videos after they air. Episode 1 is here.

Matt Young · 12 April 2014

Are we not to reply to FL at all in your threads?

That would be a splendid idea! The FL troll rarely has anything interesting to say; if you feel obliged, you may reply on the BW, but I do not especially recommend it.

phhht · 12 April 2014

Matt Young said:

Are we not to reply to FL at all in your threads?

That would be a splendid idea! The FL troll rarely has anything interesting to say; if you feel obliged, you may reply on the BW, but I do not especially recommend it.
If we are to reply at the BW, may we ask you to move FL's posts there?

TomS · 12 April 2014

harold said: TomS said -
Common descent with modification accounts for homologies. But ID does not account for them. Therefore, ID is not an alternative to evolution. Even if ID is true, it is not a (scientific) theory. Something is lacking from ID before it can be counted as a “peer” to evolution: it must attempt to explain at least some of the things that evolution explains.
Literally all of ID is just logically flawed ad hoc attempts to deny away evolution from above, without ever even addressing the case for evolution honestly - no matter what the evidence, evolution ostensibly can't have happened because of the watchmaker, irreducible complexity, or complex specified information. This makes perfect sense when you remember that ID was just an attempt to have creationism take the fifth. ID can't ever advance a novel idea of what happened when and how, because it already has an implied answer for those questions - the YEC "creation science" answers. ID can't contradict plain old creationism with new positive claims, because the whole point of ID is to reassure and pander to creationists as political allies. It also can't state creationism openly, because the whole point of ID is to disguise creationism, in a childish attempt at a cunning legal strategy.
While I agree with all you said here, I would also point out that "traditional" creationism itself lacks enough substance to be an "alternative" to evolution. It does not attempt to account for the pattern of similarities and differences that characterize biologic taxonomy. "Common design" does not close to telling us why various apes share more things in common than all of the other primates, which in turn mammals, then tetrapods, vertebrates, ... The literal interpretations of Genesis do not offer an account of what it was like when, for example, a "cattle kind" was created. (A few individuals created at a stage of life which bears the marks of a prior existence, with knowledge which is normally learned by experience? Or what?) ID is just less of the same.

apokryltaros · 12 April 2014

TomS said: ...I would also point out that "traditional" creationism itself lacks enough substance to be an "alternative" to evolution. It does not attempt to account for the pattern of similarities and differences that characterize biologic taxonomy.
"Traditional" creationism lacks any substance to be an alternative to evolution(ary biology) because Creationists make no effort to demonstrate how creationism can be used to explain anything beyond reiterating and rewording "because I said God said so" for the umpteenth-thousandth time.

stevaroni · 12 April 2014

Don't know if anybody noticed, but Slate posted an article today, 'Why creationists hate Tiktaalik' They must have interviewed Shubin, at least briefly, because the article talks about a lecture series he's been doing in the red states...

"I decided at that point, I'm going to go give talks in Alabama, in South Carolina, in Oklahoma, in Texas, and elsewhere, where I'll bring Tiktaalik with me, or the cast of Tiktaalik," says Shubin. "And I've done this every year." Having the fossil to show, says Shubin, changes the entire nature of the discussion. "It's about the data, it's about the evidence, it's about the discovery," he says. "It's about, 'How do you date those rocks, how do you compare that creature to another creature?' Well, if we do that, we kind of win, because what it means is it changes the conversation in a way where it's now about evidence," he continues. "You're not going to change everybody's mind, but you're going to affect a few, most definitely. And that's kind of my passion. That's what I think I can bring to the table."

One nice thing, in an era where the science writing in the popular press feels increasingly clueless, the Slate piece gets why Tiktalik is so important...

Creationists snipe, raise doubt, and deny almost everything that we know, but the reason that Tiktaalik is such a momentous find appears to be beyond them: Evolutionary theory (complemented by an extensive knowledge of geology) predicted not only that this fish would have existed, but also that its fossilized remains would probably be found within a specific part of the world, in geological layers of a particular age.

TomS · 13 April 2014

apokryltaros said:
TomS said: ...I would also point out that "traditional" creationism itself lacks enough substance to be an "alternative" to evolution. It does not attempt to account for the pattern of similarities and differences that characterize biologic taxonomy.
"Traditional" creationism lacks any substance to be an alternative to evolution(ary biology) because Creationists make no effort to demonstrate how creationism can be used to explain anything beyond reiterating and rewording "because I said God said so" for the umpteenth-thousandth time.
I only suggest some substance to "traditional" creationism in contrast with "Intelligent Design". For instance, Young Earth Creationism and Old Earth Creationism each have a "when", which ID pointedly refuses to choose between them. As far back as Cicero, it was noticed something lacking:
For with what eyes of the mind was your Plato able to see that workhouse of such stupendous toil, in which he makes the world to be modelled and built by God? What materials, what bars, what machines, what servants, were employed in so vast a work? How could the air, fire, water, and earth, pay obedience and submit to the will of the architect? From whence arose those five forms, of which the rest were composed, so aptly contributing to frame the mind and produce the senses? It is tedious to go through all, as they are of such a sort that they look more like things to be desired than to be discovered. De Natura Deorum (On the Nature of the Gods) I, 18.9.
And Herbert Spencer published this essay in 1852 The Development Hypothesis

harold · 13 April 2014

TomS said:
harold said: TomS said -
Common descent with modification accounts for homologies. But ID does not account for them. Therefore, ID is not an alternative to evolution. Even if ID is true, it is not a (scientific) theory. Something is lacking from ID before it can be counted as a “peer” to evolution: it must attempt to explain at least some of the things that evolution explains.
Literally all of ID is just logically flawed ad hoc attempts to deny away evolution from above, without ever even addressing the case for evolution honestly - no matter what the evidence, evolution ostensibly can't have happened because of the watchmaker, irreducible complexity, or complex specified information. This makes perfect sense when you remember that ID was just an attempt to have creationism take the fifth. ID can't ever advance a novel idea of what happened when and how, because it already has an implied answer for those questions - the YEC "creation science" answers. ID can't contradict plain old creationism with new positive claims, because the whole point of ID is to reassure and pander to creationists as political allies. It also can't state creationism openly, because the whole point of ID is to disguise creationism, in a childish attempt at a cunning legal strategy.
While I agree with all you said here, I would also point out that "traditional" creationism itself lacks enough substance to be an "alternative" to evolution. It does not attempt to account for the pattern of similarities and differences that characterize biologic taxonomy. "Common design" does not close to telling us why various apes share more things in common than all of the other primates, which in turn mammals, then tetrapods, vertebrates, ... The literal interpretations of Genesis do not offer an account of what it was like when, for example, a "cattle kind" was created. (A few individuals created at a stage of life which bears the marks of a prior existence, with knowledge which is normally learned by experience? Or what?) ID is just less of the same.
That's absolutely true but a little bit tangential to my point, which is an important one. I didn't mean to "not attack creationism enough". Again, no matter how low an opinion of "creation science" type creationism we may have, and I think you would agree that I have a very low opinion of it, ID exists to defend "creation science" in a clumsily disguised way. And "creation science" does make positive claims. Thus a critical point about ID is that its advocates literally cannot make positive claims. They can only carp about the evidence for evolution. It's a catch-22. They can't advance "creation science" claims, that there was a global flood 4000 years ago for example, because the whole point of ID is to disguise such openly Biblical claims. Yet they can't say that there wasn't a global flood 4000 years ago, either, because the whole point of ID is to defend that claim in a disguised way. They can't say it's true, and they can't say it's not true. A common childish ruse is "could have been" language. The designer "could have been" an alien. That's understood by creationist audiences to mean "the designer 'could have been' an alien, ha ha ha, but we all know the designer was the God of post-modern right wing fundamentalism". But they can never, ever, ever say "The designer could have been an alien and here is some evidence supporting that conjecture. "The bacterial flagellum could not have evolved". That's a negative claim. Any viable model of how it could have evolved negates that claim. They can't say "this is what the 'designer' did to 'design' the bacterial flagellum and here is some evidence supporting this claim". They can't because "God magically poofed it 6000 years ago" is what they're trying to disguise, and anything else would dispute what they're trying to disguise. It is critical to understand and demonstrate this weakness of ID every time it rears its head. This weakness arises because ID is a fundamentally dishonest word game. This type of dishonesty rapidly turns off third party observers. At the beginning of the Dover trial in 2005 people in the courtroom were probably biased slightly in favor of ID. The press had been pumping it for ten years as a bold, dynamic, maverick new idea that overturns paradigms and changes the rules of the game, that the hide-bound and atherosclerotic liberal academics of old science were desperately trying to suppress, and all that typical mainstream/right wing media crap. But by the middle of the trial the audience in the courtroom was laughing at ID.

TomS · 13 April 2014

harold said: Thus a critical point about ID is that its advocates literally cannot make positive claims. They can only carp about the evidence for evolution.
It is critical to understand and demonstrate this weakness of ID every time it rears its head.
100% agreed. Let me never lose sight of that.

Matt Young · 13 April 2014

If we are to reply at the BW, may we ask you to move FL’s posts there?

I usually do so, except for a brief moratorium during the Nye-Ham "debate," but all too often you or someone else beats me to the punch. Please be patient.

harold · 13 April 2014

TomS said:
harold said: Thus a critical point about ID is that its advocates literally cannot make positive claims. They can only carp about the evidence for evolution.
It is critical to understand and demonstrate this weakness of ID every time it rears its head.
100% agreed. Let me never lose sight of that.
I will try not to :).

phhht · 13 April 2014

Matt Young said:

If we are to reply at the BW, may we ask you to move FL’s posts there?

I usually do so, except for a brief moratorium during the Nye-Ham "debate," but all too often you or someone else beats me to the punch. Please be patient.
I did not know that a reply to a comment would inhibit its removal to the BW.

Matt Young · 13 April 2014

I did not know that a reply to a comment would inhibit its removal to the BW.

I guess it doesn't exactly, but then sometimes there are "dangling" comments that appear to have no antecedent.

DS · 16 April 2014

Episode two was great. Neil described how fossils and development both demonstrate how our inner ear bones were co-opted from jaw bones of reptiles. Creationists have no explanation for any of this evidence. It certainly isn't intelligent design. It only makes sense in the light of evolution.

Next up, your inner monkey. The creationists will just hate it, but once again, they won't have any answers.

Just Bob · 16 April 2014

I don't see why evangelicals don't just embrace these things: Acknowledging your inner monkey (or reptile, or fish) could be seen as just another form of confessing that you're a sinner.

TomS · 16 April 2014

Just Bob said: I don't see why evangelicals don't just embrace these things: Acknowledging your inner monkey (or reptile, or fish) could be seen as just another form of confessing that you're a sinner.
"Intelligent Design" says that those similarities are due to purposeful decisions on the "Intelligent Designers" responsible. (Either that, or the designers were constrained by the materials they were given to work with and the laws of nature; or that the similarities are just a result of pure chance.) If there is a purpose to those designs, shouldn't we honor our designers' purposes and act like animals (most of all like chimps and other apes)? Naturalistic evolution says that those similarities are merely due to common ancestry, with no consequences for how we ought to behave. (Just because my great-uncle was a horse thief, that does not influence my choice of making of a living.)

u14006792 · 1 May 2014

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:
It stresses this skeleton is simply changed for all creatures from a original fish skeleton etc. Why wouldn’t we have the same skeleton? I have to agree and say that this seems to be the first retort of many who believe in "creation science". For example many will ask that if we descended from apes then how is it possible that there are still apes today. To me this points to a gap in the general understanding of evoltuion. The theory of evolution simply states that organisms evolve from a common ancestor. It would seem that people are very quick to dismiss any opinions that they perceive to be against their religion without even considering the evidence provided.