Real Science Friday: Whale of a Tale, Telethon, & Saturn's Rings

[Jefferson]

Whale of a Tale & Saturn's Rings

This is the show from Friday September 2nd, 2011.

SUMMARY:

* Whale Ancestor Now Denied by Discoverer: Real Science Friday co-hosts Fred Williams and Bob Enyart discuss on articles on Saturn and whales from the latest issue of Creation magazine, July - September 2011. As documented in Creation and on video in Dr. Carl Werner's fabulous Evolution / Creation DVDs, the discoverer Dr. Philip Gingerich now admits, "I speculated that it might have had a fluke [whale-like tail], I now doubt that Rodhocetus would have had a fluked tail." And the same with the whale-like flippers, Gingerich said: "Since then we have found the forelimbs, the hands, and the front arms of Rodhocetus, and we understand that it doesn't have the kind of arms that can spread out like flippers on a whale."


* Bob & Fred Suggest the BEL Science Store: If you enjoy the science you hear about on our fast-paced RSF radio shows, you'll really love the books, audio, and DVD science materials in our online store's Science Department! The KGOV September Telethon is 7.5% toward it's goal of $20,000 in donations and purchases from our store, and $20 per month pledges! So, please help keep RSF airing and online for another year by shopping in the KGOV Store, getting a BEL monthly subscription, making a one-time donation or a monthly pledge to RSF and Bob Enyart Live! 

* Cassini Spacecraft Scientist Lists Evidence for a Young Saturn: Bob and Fred also discuss the extensive evidence against an old age for Saturn and its rings as reported by one of the Cassini spacecraft's leading scientists, Dr. David Coppedge!



Today’s Resource: Have you browsed through our Science Department in our online store? Check out especially Walt Brown’s In the Beginning and Bob’s interviews with this great scientist in Walt Brown Week! You’ll also love Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez’ Privileged Planet (clip), and Illustra Media’s Unlocking the Mystery of Life (clip)! You can consider our BEL Science Pack; Bob Enyart’s Age of the Earth Debate; Bob's debate about Junk DNA with famous evolutionist Dr. Eugenie Scott; and the superb kids' radio program Jonathan Park: The Adventure Begins!

 

[Ted L Glines]

Looks just like the thing that crawled outta the harbor and ate Tokyo.

Dr. Philip Gingerich's Rodhocetus appears to be an amphibian. An amphibian is making the change from the sea to a land creature; not a likely near ancestor for a whale.

 

[Frayed Knot]

This story just highlights the dishonesty of the creationists. Fossils of Rodhocetus were found in 2001 - when was this drawing made? So Dr Gingerich speculated on the shape of the tail when making this sketch, but later changed his mind.

There's another sketch of Rodhocetus made in November of 2001 here that shows it without a fluked tail.

But so what? It's not like the fluked tail would be what shows this was a transitional species between land-dwelling mammals and modern whales - there are lots of features of the skeleton that show this clearly.

And what about all the other species we've discovered showing a gradual transition, before and after Rodhocetus? What about Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Gaviocetus, Basilosaurus, etc.? We have a large number of fossils that clearly show gradual changes from mostly land-dwelling mammals to modern whales, but dishonest creationists pick one small feature of one creature in the chain, that someone changed his mind about, and this is supposed outweigh all the evidence we have?

This is so dishonest, it's why I don't see the leading creationists as sincere believers. They're people who have a career telling the uneducated rubes what they want to hear. They must have a pretty low opinion of their audience.

 

[Stripe]

This story just highlights the dishonesty of the creationists.

Please point out the dishonesty. :up:

 

[Lighthouse]

And what about all the other species we've discovered...

Like brontosaurus?

 

[Granite]

Creationists seem to have a really hard time grasping the notion that science changes. A creationist, accustomed to the flat inerrant finality of his story, doesn't really seem capable of understanding that nothing is inerrant and that science regularly has to change its conclusions and assumptions.

 

[Stripe]

Creationists seem to have a really hard time grasping the notion that science changes.

I think you mean to say that scientific ideas change. This creationist knows full well that ideas, explanations and theories can change.

A creationist, accustomed to the flat inerrant finality of his story, doesn't really seem capable of understanding that nothing is inerrant and that science regularly has to change its conclusions and assumptions.

So you're wrong about this somehow, correct?

 

[Frayed Knot]

Please point out the dishonesty. :up:

Uh, that would be the part where he nit-picked a tiny detail, implying that our understanding of whale evolution depends on that tiny detail, when it reality it was completely superfluous. Have you heard of "lying by omission"? We have a very full set of fossils showing the evolution of whales from land-dwelling mammals that Pastor Bob "forgot" to mention.

 

[Stripe]

Uh, that would be the part where he nit-picked a tiny detail, implying that our understanding of whale evolution depends on that tiny detail, when it reality it was completely superfluous. Have you heard of "lying by omission"? We have a very full set of fossils showing the evolution of whales from land-dwelling mammals that Pastor Bob "forgot" to mention.

Sounds like you need to chill out and address what was said rather than what you imagine was "implied". :thumb:

 

[TeeJay]

Granite,

Actually "science" is an abstract concept and can't change or do anything. It's "scientists" using science who change.

If God did not exist, scientific experimentation and scientific discoveries would not be possible. To do science, one must assume that there is rational thought and laws of logic. Both of these are not physical and not part of an atheist's worldview where only matter exists.

The atheist must assume that his senses and memory are reliable. An atheist in a random chance evolutionary worldview has no reason to assume and believe this is so.

An atheist has to assume and believe that there is uniformity of nature, that the laws of nature are law-like and will not change arbitrarily in the future. An atheist has no reason to believe that the physical laws will not change.

Now atheist do science, and assume all these things, but he has no reason to assume them. When an atheist uses laws of logic and rational thought, he is inconsistent, arbitrary, and irrational within his worldview. He is borrowing from the Christian worldview.

For the atheist to think rationally, use laws of logic, assume his sense are reliable, and believe that the physical laws will not change tomorrow, his worldview has to be wrong.

Tom

 

[Granite]

If God did not exist, scientific experimentation and scientific discoveries would not be possible.

You're awfully impressed with your double talk, I notice...

To do science, one must assume that there is rational thought and laws of logic.

"Do science"? To write better, Confuscius say you must think before you type.

Both of these are not physical and not part of an atheist's worldview where only matter exists.

You're parroting the same nonsense Enyart tries to peddle about conscienceness. The least you can do is try to be original...

Why don't you insult the poor and needy some more and explain why you hold them in such contempt? Because that seems to be what you're best at.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Uh, that would be the part where he nit-picked a tiny detail, implying that our understanding of whale evolution depends on that tiny detail, when it reality it was completely superfluous. Have you heard of "lying by omission"? We have a very full set of fossils showing the evolution of whales from land-dwelling mammals that Pastor Bob "forgot" to mention.

No you don't. All you have are a bunch of dead animals that you think are related to whales. You have no evidence beyond speculation that this is actually true. Of course, you guys are so desperate for missing links, you'll sign off on anything these days.

 

[Frayed Knot]

No you don't. All you have are a bunch of dead animals that you think are related to whales. You have no evidence beyond speculation that this is actually true.

What we have are fossils from a land-dwelling creature that lived 50 million years ago, with many features that are sort of similar to whales. Then we have other fossils that aren't quite as old, which are more similar to whales. Then some others that are not as old as that, which are even more like whales. There's a nice line of gradually different creatures which, the younger they are, the more like whales they are. How can that be explained except by gradual evolution?

If God did not exist, scientific experimentation and scientific discoveries would not be possible. To do science, one must assume that there is rational thought and laws of logic. Both of these are not physical and not part of an atheist's worldview where only matter exists.

What if we don't assume that, but we just look around us, and since we can describe how the physical universe seems to follow patterns, without any exceptions that we've ever seen, we provisionally accept that it always does?

The atheist must assume that his senses and memory are reliable.

What if we don't assume that, but we just note that our senses and memory seem to roughly correspond to an external reality? Of course our senses and memory have problems, so what if we come up with methods of figuring out how not to let those problems lead us astray? And what if we called this set of methods "science"?

An atheist has to assume and believe that there is uniformity of nature, that the laws of nature are law-like and will not change arbitrarily in the future.

What if we don't assume that, but just go by our observations? We can note that the behavior of the physical world seems to be the same from year to year. Since it's so constant within our observation, we could, at least provisionally, accept that the universe always behaves this way. Then what if we make observations of things that we're seeing as they were 10 billion years ago, and even back then, we can figure out that things behaved the same as they do now? I think that we'd be justified in thinking that physical behavior has always been the same.

All this with no assumptions required.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

What we have are fossils from a land-dwelling creature that lived 50 million years ago, with many features that are sort of similar to whales. Then we have other fossils that aren't quite as old, which are more similar to whales. Then some others that are not as old as that, which are even more like whales. There's a nice line of gradually different creatures which, the younger they are, the more like whales they are. How can that be explained except by gradual evolution?

Anyone can take a group of unrelated animals and arrange them in such a sequence that it looks as if they've evolved. It takes more than that to impress me.

 

[DavisBJ]

All you have are a bunch of dead animals that you think are related to whales. You have no evidence beyond speculation that this is actually true.

Do you really think determining a lineage of fossils is just laying them out in an order that looks good?

 

[Frayed Knot]

Anyone can take a group of unrelated animals and arrange them in such a sequence that it looks as if they've evolved. It takes more than that to impress me.

Do you have an alternate explanation for the evidence? I mean, it takes a lot to impress me, too, and the line of fossils leading up to whales is extremely impressive.

Did the creator make Pakicetus, then after a few million years decide he'd had enough of him, and then ex nihilo make the somewhat different Ambulocetus, and let those creatures stay for a few million more years, then decided to kill them off and make something really similar but more whale-like, etc. etc. etc.?

Was he perfecting his design abilities? Maybe he knew he wanted a sea-dwelling mammal eventually, but wasn't sure how to do it, so he implemented the features a little bit at a time?

Or did Satan plant those fossils just to tempt us to turn away from a literal reading of Genesis?

I'd like to hear how you would explain the evidence.

 

[Stripe]

I'd like to hear how you would explain the evidence.

You would have to start by shedding the assumptions of age that you bring as baggage into the conversation. I can show you three compelling reasons why the fossils we find were not deposited ages apart from each other. Do you know where the fossils you speak of were deposited? Do you know the nature of the strata they were deposited between or within? Do you know the orientation and pose of the skeleton within the rock?

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Do you have an alternate explanation for the evidence? I mean, it takes a lot to impress me, too, and the line of fossils leading up to whales is extremely impressive.

Maybe they are to you. Not to me. As for an alternate explanation, of course I have one.

Did the creator make Pakicetus, then after a few million years decide he'd had enough of him, and then ex nihilo make the somewhat different Ambulocetus, and let those creatures stay for a few million more years, then decided to kill them off and make something really similar but more whale-like, etc. etc. etc.?

No.

Was he perfecting his design abilities? Maybe he knew he wanted a sea-dwelling mammal eventually, but wasn't sure how to do it, so he implemented the features a little bit at a time?

No.

Or did Satan plant those fossils just to tempt us to turn away from a literal reading of Genesis?

No.

I'd like to hear how you would explain the evidence.

They're just dead animals buried in sediment, many of which are extinct. Lots of things have gone extinct since the beginning -- quite a few of them during our own place in time.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Do you really think determining a lineage of fossils is just laying them out in an order that looks good?

For the most part, that's all you can do. Kinda hard to extract DNA from a rock.

 

[DavisBJ]

For the most part, that's all you can do. Kinda hard to extract DNA from a rock.

I want to make sure I understand your position on this. You are holding to the claim that since DNA is not typically available in fossil specimens, then all that is left to determine how to order them is morphology.

You have previously made the claim that you once were an evolutionist, but the evidence converted you to the creationist view. If it turns out that evolutionists decide on the arrangement of fossils by more than morphology, then that would indicate you probably could not have defended evolution long ago because of your own poor understanding of it.

From “The Theory and Practice of Organic Evolution”, Ayala and Valentine, (1978):

… when abundant fossils are available in a continuous record …relationships among the fossils are thus judged by their relative ages and their morphological resemblances and differences.

For most lineages we have to employ more indirect methods of phylogenetic reconstruction." (wording slightly rearrange for brevity)

Doesn’t sound like what you are claiming.