Bearing

[Glenn]

"Charles Darwin wrote in The Origin of Species: “I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.” Bears turning into whales?"

https://evolutionnews.org/2022/05/2022-youtube-film-festival-long-story-short-on-whale-evolution/

Chuck should be given a break here. His example shouldn't be taken literally or seriously. Or should it. Tune in tomorrow for the rest of the story.

I can sympathize with Chuck concerning the big mouths, but blowholes and flippers? How would poor Polars get around on the ice with flippers?

[Bill]

The whole concept of speciation requires various impossibilities and becomes
absurd if one thinks about it too deeply.

Here's a question I posted once ...

" I have a question about natural selection that seems
significant. The Arctic Fox, according to Wikipedia, "lives
in some of the most frigid extremes on the planet.It also
has the thickest coat of any animal.

Among its adaptationsfor cold survival are its deep, thick fur, a system of
countercurrent heat exchange in the circulation of paws to
retain core temperature, and a good supply of body fat. The
fox has a low surface area to volume ratio, as evidenced by
its generally rounded body shape, short muzzle and legs, and
short, thick ears. Since less of its surface area is exposed
to the Arctic cold, less heat escapes the body. Its furry
paws allow it to walk on ice in search of food.

The Arctic Fox has such keen hearing that it can precisely locate the
position of prey under the snow. When it finds prey, it
pounces and punches through the snow to catch its victim.
Its fur changes color with the seasons: in the winter it is
white to blend in with snow, while in the summer months it
changes to brown". This seems to accumulate a lot of very
specialized adaptations into one animal.

Notice the wording in the quoted entry, it suggests that all
these adaptations were the result of thought and planning
and purpose. While we know this isn't the case, it's
interesting that there is no way to explain these
adaptations without implying intelligence in natural
selection. It's as if the fox deliberately chose these
adaptations. I've noticed that all popularizations of
evolutionary theory make this same mistake. Maybe there
really is no other way to explain it.

Another interesting point is that the fox changes its color
in the winter "to blend in with snow". This is yet another
teleological phrase implying a deliberate purpose. It
becomes even more interesting that the same adaptations
apply to the Arctic Hare. The coloration of the hare is so
it can hide from predators.

So we have two highly specialized adaptations in the same
geographical area. Apparently the Arctic Hare becomes white
so it can hide from the Arctic Fox. The Arctic Fox changes
to white so it can sneak up on the Arctic Hare. In both
cases these adaptations, as they are explained,
seem like serendipity; just a little to pat for comfort.

It's like the question, does the lion have long teeth and
claws so it can eat the gazelle (who has no camouflage oddly
enough) or does it eat the gazelle because it has long teeth
and claws? Or, why do we say that some animals have bright
coloration to attract a mate and others have camouflage to
hide from predators? Shouldn't we expect one or the
other based on the success of the adaptation?

This isn't trivial. The facts of these adaptations are clear
enough but the explanations for them are not. We have to
assume the philosophy of Naturalism which is simply a bias."

Bill

[jillery]

On Wed, 25 May 2022 12:43:55 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

Since you asked, perhaps about as well as do walrus and seals. You're
welcome.

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

[Glenn]

Ooh, you'll attract all the atheist loons within range with this one.
It should be taken seriously but what you'll get is slaps on the wrist.

To me, both naturalism and adaptation are meaningless words used by atheist evolutionists, with no informative value except about their own biases.
Most, perhaps all "random" mutations leading to "natural" selection are neutral or harmful.
The rare beneficial changes are not contingent on the environment, and organisms simply
use what they get.
Natural selection has been reduced to the simple concept of differential reproductive success, and excludes fitness. Animals either "adapt" to changes, good or bad, or die. Whether intelligence, from whatever source, or some unknown "natural" law is involved is unknown.

[Glenn]

That's why you often see them on the ice with polar bears present.

[jillery]

On Wed, 25 May 2022 14:49:47 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

If by "them" you mean walrus and seals, then you show your own
question to be non-sequitur and your comments to be mindless noise.

[Glenn]

That's mindless noise. You're welcome.

[Mark Isaak]

No, it does not. The "thought and planning" are from you reading those
concepts into it. If I write, "the beach has a thick layer of dark sand
which effectively absorbs heat from the sun," do you think that implies
someone designed the beach to absorb heat? (It doesn't.) That is no
different in principle from the writing about the fox's thick fur and
other adaptations.

> While we know this isn't the case, it's
> interesting that there is no way to explain these
> adaptations without implying intelligence in natural
> selection.

Except, if you have read Darwin's _Origin of Species_, you should know
that there *is* a way to explain them without implying intelligence. In
fact, it would be ludicrous to explain it any other way. For one thing,
the realities of genetics and ecology make adaptions such as that
inevitable. For another, an explanation of certain features in terms of
deliberate intelligence makes a mockery of the creators.

Your homework, then, is to read _Origin of Species_ from cover to cover.

> Another interesting point is that the fox changes its color
> in the winter "to blend in with snow". This is yet another
> teleological phrase implying a deliberate purpose.

Okay, I'll grant that that is the *only* teleological phrase you have
identified, but even that's a borderline case; it could be shorthand for
"allowing it to blend in with the snow."

> It becomes even more interesting that the same adaptations
> apply to the Arctic Hare. The coloration of the hare is so
> it can hide from predators.
>
> So we have two highly specialized adaptations in the same
> geographical area. Apparently the Arctic Hare becomes white
> so it can hide from the Arctic Fox. The Arctic Fox changes
> to white so it can sneak up on the Arctic Hare. In both
> cases these adaptations, as they are explained,
> seem like serendipity; just a little to pat for comfort.

So you think a designer worked at cross-purposes, to make the fox a
better predator while simultaneously giving the hare better defense?
Like I said, it sounds like you're mocking the creator.

> It's like the question, does the lion have long teeth and
> claws so it can eat the gazelle (who has no camouflage oddly
> enough) or does it eat the gazelle because it has long teeth
> and claws? Or, why do we say that some animals have bright
> coloration to attract a mate and others have camouflage to
> hide from predators? Shouldn't we expect one or the
> other based on the success of the adaptation?
>
> This isn't trivial. The facts of these adaptations are clear
> enough but the explanations for them are not. We have to
> assume the philosophy of Naturalism which is simply a bias."

Do your homework. Read _Origin of Species_.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred
to the presence of those who think they've found it." - Terry Pratchett

[Glenn]

Are you even conscious?

[jillery]

Perhaps, for those who are determined to read teleology in every
casual explanation.

Using your own example: Which lions are more likely to capture prey
and defend themselves against other predators, and so reproduce more
lions like themselves? Is that really too hard a question for you to
understand?

[jillery]

On Wed, 25 May 2022 16:20:43 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

I agree that your comments are mindless noise. Do you really believe
walrus and seals are incapable of getting around on ice with their
flippers? Or do you suppose your designer endowed them with studded
snowshoes?

[Öö Tiib]

What was the question? Can you note it with question mark?

> Notice the wording in the quoted entry, it suggests that all
> these adaptations were the result of thought and planning
> and purpose. While we know this isn't the case, it's
> interesting that there is no way to explain these
> adaptations without implying intelligence in natural
> selection. It's as if the fox deliberately chose these
> adaptations. I've noticed that all popularizations of
> evolutionary theory make this same mistake. Maybe there
> really is no other way to explain it.

Adaptation has indeed purpose of better survivability but that
does not imply planning. Worse at surviving did not survive.
Still no questions?

> Another interesting point is that the fox changes its color
> in the winter "to blend in with snow". This is yet another
> teleological phrase implying a deliberate purpose. It
> becomes even more interesting that the same adaptations
> apply to the Arctic Hare. The coloration of the hare is so
> it can hide from predators.

Several other animals do turn white at winter as it is easy to
see in all boreal forest zone. Most animals have moulting twice
a year anyway for to have fur with different thickness for summer
and for winter. The whole mutation is in different color of hair,
not only in thickness.

> So we have two highly specialized adaptations in the same
> geographical area. Apparently the Arctic Hare becomes white
> so it can hide from the Arctic Fox. The Arctic Fox changes
> to white so it can sneak up on the Arctic Hare. In both
> cases these adaptations, as they are explained,
> seem like serendipity; just a little to pat for comfort.

Huh? Animals can evolve (or be breed towards) such minor
differences with not too many generations. Both cases use
random mutations for drift towards said differences.

> It's like the question, does the lion have long teeth and
> claws so it can eat the gazelle (who has no camouflage oddly
> enough) or does it eat the gazelle because it has long teeth
> and claws? Or, why do we say that some animals have bright
> coloration to attract a mate and others have camouflage to
> hide from predators? Shouldn't we expect one or the
> other based on the success of the adaptation?

OK finally few questions. In reality or in
most of models we should expect that conditions and situations
differ. What is advantage/efficient/optimal for something is
always disadvantage/inefficient/pessimal for something else.
Jack of all trades is master of none. Going against adaptations
is hard; lion that eats fruit and dandelions probably spoils its
health. In controlled conditions and sterile experiments we can
have clear optimums for given conditions but we do not seem
to live in such world and that can be the whole reason of
diversity.

> This isn't trivial. The facts of these adaptations are clear
> enough but the explanations for them are not. We have to
> assume the philosophy of Naturalism which is simply a bias."

But these questions felt trivial and had nothing to do with
naturalism. Even lot of common decent deniers tend to classify
your "high and major" adaptations of arctic fox as mere
"microevolution" that they accept.

[Glenn]

On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 7:56:06 PM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:

Yours is to watch the Discovery video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9i2vFEa6rE

"a hope for understanding complexity
in biology then organized is to uncover operational principles
through a calculus of purpose by asking teleological questions
such as why cellular networks are as observed
given their known or assumed function"

-a quote from MIT press

https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/system-modeling-cellular-biology

[Ernest Major]

On 25/05/2022 21:02, Bill wrote:
> The whole concept of speciation requires various impossibilities and becomes
> absurd if one thinks about it too deeply.

Since speciation has been observed to occur in the laboratory, under
cultivation, and in the wild, your speculation about what conclusions
deep thought leads to would seem to be incorrect.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Bill]

Of course it is. A bear fall in the lake, decides he likes is and decides to
become a whale, makes perfect sense. A dinosaur decides it would be cool to
fly so develops feathers and wings. Carnivores like to kill and eat things
so they develop fangs an claws and the ability to run really fast.

Each generation will preserve the tiny changes they inherit from their
parents and pass them long to their own offspring. A mole becomes a bear who
likes the water, A Triceratops becomes a humming bird.

Bill

[Kalkidas]

I once sold Chuck the Brooklyn Bridge. He seemed to have no difficulty
in believing I owned it.

[Kalkidas]

So they have bred whales from bears in the laboratory?

[Bill]

Laboratory time is too expensive so the intrepid biologists opt for
conjecture. These scholarly meanderings are then published in scholarly
journals that have evolved into unassailable sources for all the other
scholars. Uniformity of opinion is thereby preserved and, best of all, no
laboratory time to impeded progress.

An example of this kind of thing can be found here:

https://www.livescience.com/13363-7-theories-origin-life.html


Bill

[John Harshman]

Contempt for science you know nothing about is not a good look for you.
I recommend a book: Speciation, by Jerry Coyne and H. Allen Orr.

[John Harshman]

https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2020/05/as-monstrous-as-a-quote-mined-whale.html

[Bill]

It isn't contempt for science I attempt to express but rather the credulity
of those who slavishly accept the latest trends in the presentation of
science. In another 10 years, the books you recommend will be obsolete,
replaced by newer and better books which will enjoy popularity for a while
until they are likewise supplanted by other books touting newer trends.

If those who claim to honor science devolve into scientism and resort to
hostile ridicule and smug certainties, their efforts do more harm than the
flaky crackpots.

Bill

[jillery]

There is crackpottery for a cause, and there is willful stupidity for
the sake of it. Your problem is you argue as if they're the same
thing. Your arguments reek of strawmen, and show you have nothing
intelligent to say.

[Glenn]

Pandasthumb quotes Chuck:

"I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale."

The article claims 'The video proceeds to laugh at Darwin for suggesting that whales evolved from bears"

Yet the video transcript says: "
"even sillier Darwin thought that bears
could turn into whales back in 1800s
when Darwin first published the Origin"

This was the first criticism, and it is so trivial that I need not read any more.
The video did *not* say that Darwin suggested that whales evolved from bears, but that Chuck thought that bears *could* turn into whales.

They would have been more accurate to have said that Chuck thought that bears could turn into an animal as big as a whale.

But then pandasthumb rambles on to say; "He’s not saying that bears turned into whales. He’s saying that a population of bears, in a particular environment with a particular food source, might end up converging on a whale-like phenotype."

I suppose a creature as monstrous as a whale could be seen as a whale-like phenotype, eh?

[Burkhard]

so in essence you are saying you are refusing to learn anything new
right until your deathbed, out of fear you read something that you later
have to revise in the light of newer findings. Yes, that makes sense

[daud....@gmail.com]

Flippers are just enlarged flattened paws, they may still sweat on their palms/soles (cf fur seal eccrine sweating), and may have sharp claws for grip on ice (assisting the tusks of walruses when hauling out of the water). Polar bears have longer more pointed noses than other bears, plausibly associated with prey-chase swimming hypercarnivory which is shared with whales and dolphins with modified breathing apparatus while non-prey-chasing swimmers like dugongs did not develop unusual noses.

[jillery]

On Fri, 27 May 2022 22:46:02 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

>On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 4:51:10 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 5/25/22 12:43 PM, Glenn wrote:
>> > "Charles Darwin wrote in The Origin of Species: “I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.” Bears turning into whales?"
>> >
>> > https://evolutionnews.org/2022/05/2022-youtube-film-festival-long-story-short-on-whale-evolution/
>> >
>> > Chuck should be given a break here. His example shouldn't be taken literally or seriously. Or should it. Tune in tomorrow for the rest of the story.
>> >
>> > I can sympathize with Chuck concerning the big mouths, but blowholes and flippers? How would poor Polars get around on the ice with flippers?
>> >
>> https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2020/05/as-monstrous-as-a-quote-mined-whale.html
>
>Pandasthumb quotes Chuck:
>"I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale."
>
>The article claims 'The video proceeds to laugh at Darwin for suggesting that whales evolved from bears"
>
>Yet the video transcript says: "
>"even sillier Darwin thought that bears
>could turn into whales back in 1800s
>when Darwin first published the Origin"
>
>This was the first criticism, and it is so trivial that I need not read any more.
>The video did *not* say that Darwin suggested that whales evolved from bears, but that Chuck thought that bears *could* turn into whales.

Read for comprehension. In your haste to post yet more mindless
noise, you ignore the fact that in context "could turn into" means
"evolved from"

>They would have been more accurate to have said that Chuck thought that bears could turn into an animal as big as a whale.

"They" would have been even more accurate to have said that Chuck
thought something like bears, which lived in the past, and not modern
bears, could have evolved into an animal as big as a whale.

>But then pandasthumb rambles on to say; "He’s not saying that bears turned into whales. He’s saying that a population of bears, in a particular environment with a particular food source, might end up converging on a whale-like phenotype."
>
>I suppose a creature as monstrous as a whale could be seen as a whale-like phenotype, eh?

So what's your actual objection here? Giantism? If so, apparently
you don't know that giantism is one of the most trivial of
evolutionary changes. Adult blue whales reach over 300,000 pounds,
while dwarf sperm whales average 400 pounds, which is even smaller
than some bears.

[John Harshman]

Yes, that's how science works: we learn more over time. But that doesn't
mean that what we knew before is wrong, as you seem to think. Usually it
gets added to, not overthrown.

You may not intend to express contempt for science, but it shines
through nevertheless.

> If those who claim to honor science devolve into scientism and resort to
> hostile ridicule and smug certainties, their efforts do more harm than the
> flaky crackpots.

Hostile ridicule is a proper response to your hostile ridicule. Read
what you said about bears, etc., and tell me otherwise.

[Bill]

You are a Lamarckian then. Some creature "evolves" some feature is needed,
so it may "have sharp claws for grip on ice (assisting the tusks of walruses
when hauling out of the water" No random mutations needed, just the
environment telling nature that this or that creature needs this or that
feature. and, poof! there it is.

It's all kind of like magic: nature thinks up new adaptations and, a few
years later, there it is.

Bill

[Bill]

I like bears but I do have a problem with those who believe they could be
whales. It's funny how a theory of evolution can explain anything making
questions not only unnecessary but heresy.

Bill

[Glenn]

On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 3:41:11 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Fri, 27 May 2022 22:46:02 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> wrote:
> >On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 4:51:10 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 5/25/22 12:43 PM, Glenn wrote:
> >> > "Charles Darwin wrote in The Origin of Species: “I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.” Bears turning into whales?"
> >> >
> >> > https://evolutionnews.org/2022/05/2022-youtube-film-festival-long-story-short-on-whale-evolution/
> >> >
> >> > Chuck should be given a break here. His example shouldn't be taken literally or seriously. Or should it. Tune in tomorrow for the rest of the story.
> >> >
> >> > I can sympathize with Chuck concerning the big mouths, but blowholes and flippers? How would poor Polars get around on the ice with flippers?
> >> >
> >> https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2020/05/as-monstrous-as-a-quote-mined-whale.html
> >
> >Pandasthumb quotes Chuck:
> >"I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale."
> >
> >The article claims 'The video proceeds to laugh at Darwin for suggesting that whales evolved from bears"
> >
> >Yet the video transcript says: "
> >"even sillier Darwin thought that bears
> >could turn into whales back in 1800s
> >when Darwin first published the Origin"
> >
> >This was the first criticism, and it is so trivial that I need not read any more.
> >The video did *not* say that Darwin suggested that whales evolved from bears, but that Chuck thought that bears *could* turn into whales.
> Read for comprehension. In your haste to post yet more mindless
> noise, you ignore the fact that in context "could turn into" means
> "evolved from"

"But they didn't say evolved!!" cried he.

[Glenn]

What makes sense is that *you* "slavishly accept the latest trends in the presentation of science'.

[Glenn]

On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 3:41:11 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:

You might check with Chuck about that.

[Öö Tiib]

You do not ask questions, just are being hostile and it is not heresy just
boring.
You never say where is that science that tells that whales evolved from
bears. It probably exist only in your fantasies. Also if someone expressed
opinion that bears may evolve into whale-like over enough millions
of years then it is just opinion. No one has resources nor desire to test
it out.

[Bill]

I merely responded to what was said. This must mean that I am entirely
innocent and deserving of grovels and backpeddles.

Bill

[Öö Tiib]

See? Your whole bears evolved to whales is your own made up garbage
at what you snark. It is just mildly moderated Usenet group. So you are
free to respond with your hostility to anything and make up whatever
positions no one as expressed. But you deserve nothing as what you do
is boring.

[Glenn]

What, no questions?

[Glenn]

Idiot, no IDers propose that existing bears could turn into existing whales.
You seem to have been taught that by evolutionists that they do.

Not sure which group is more boring, those who know better or the gullibles like you.

[Öö Tiib]

All I see that some IDots say that there is theory in science that bears
did evolve to whales. They back it up with nothing. And then express
their hostility. It is boring.

[jillery]

On Sat, 28 May 2022 10:39:06 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

What part of "I like bears but I do have a problem with those who
believe they could be whales" do you not understand?

>You seem to have been taught that by evolutionists that they do.
>
>Not sure which group is more boring, those who know better or the gullibles like you.
>

[jillery]

On Sat, 28 May 2022 08:48:50 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

wrote:

>On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 3:41:11 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 May 2022 22:46:02 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
>> wrote:
>> >On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 4:51:10 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>> >> On 5/25/22 12:43 PM, Glenn wrote:
>> >> > "Charles Darwin wrote in The Origin of Species: “I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.” Bears turning into whales?"
>> >> >
>> >> > https://evolutionnews.org/2022/05/2022-youtube-film-festival-long-story-short-on-whale-evolution/
>> >> >
>> >> > Chuck should be given a break here. His example shouldn't be taken literally or seriously. Or should it. Tune in tomorrow for the rest of the story.
>> >> >
>> >> > I can sympathize with Chuck concerning the big mouths, but blowholes and flippers? How would poor Polars get around on the ice with flippers?
>> >> >
>> >> https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2020/05/as-monstrous-as-a-quote-mined-whale.html
>> >
>> >Pandasthumb quotes Chuck:
>> >"I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale."
>> >
>> >The article claims 'The video proceeds to laugh at Darwin for suggesting that whales evolved from bears"
>> >
>> >Yet the video transcript says: "
>> >"even sillier Darwin thought that bears
>> >could turn into whales back in 1800s
>> >when Darwin first published the Origin"
>> >
>> >This was the first criticism, and it is so trivial that I need not read any more.
>> >The video did *not* say that Darwin suggested that whales evolved from bears, but that Chuck thought that bears *could* turn into whales.
>> Read for comprehension. In your haste to post yet more mindless
>> noise, you ignore the fact that in context "could turn into" means
>> "evolved from"
>
>"But they didn't say evolved!!" cried he.

What part of "rendered by natural selection" do you not understand?

>> >They would have been more accurate to have said that Chuck thought that bears could turn into an animal as big as a whale.
>> "They" would have been even more accurate to have said that Chuck
>> thought something like bears, which lived in the past, and not modern
>> bears, could have evolved into an animal as big as a whale.

<from your second post>

>You might check with Chuck about that.

Do you mean unlike how you checked with Chuck? I actually comprehend
what he wrote.

>> >But then pandasthumb rambles on to say; "He’s not saying that bears turned into whales. He’s saying that a population of bears, in a particular environment with a particular food source, might end up converging on a whale-like phenotype."
>> >
>> >I suppose a creature as monstrous as a whale could be seen as a whale-like phenotype, eh?
>> So what's your actual objection here? Giantism? If so, apparently
>> you don't know that giantism is one of the most trivial of
>> evolutionary changes. Adult blue whales reach over 300,000 pounds,
>> while dwarf sperm whales average 400 pounds, which is even smaller
>> than some bears.

No response. No surprise.

[jillery]

Nobody posted anything remotely close to what you say they said. It
is your trademark style to convert what others post into smelly
strawmen.

[John Harshman]

1. Nobody believes or suggests that bears could be whales.

2. You aren't asking questions; you are ridiculing.

[daud....@gmail.com]

On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 10:31:11 AM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
> daud....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 3:46:06 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> >> "Charles Darwin wrote in The Origin of Species: “I can see no difficulty
> >> in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more
> >> aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths,
> >> till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.” Bears turning into
> >> whales?"
> >>
> >> https://evolutionnews.org/2022/05/2022-youtube-film-festival-long-story-short-on-whale-evolution/
> >>
> >> Chuck should be given a break here. His example shouldn't be taken
> >> literally or seriously. Or should it. Tune in tomorrow for the rest of
> >> the story.
> >>
> >> I can sympathize with Chuck concerning the big mouths, but blowholes and
> >> flippers? How would poor Polars get around on the ice with flippers?
> >
> > Flippers are just enlarged flattened paws, they may still sweat on their
> > palms/soles (cf fur seal eccrine sweating), and may have sharp claws for
> > grip on ice (assisting the tusks of walruses when hauling out of the
> > water). Polar bears have longer more pointed noses than other bears,
> > plausibly associated with prey-chase swimming hypercarnivory which is
> > shared with whales and dolphins with modified breathing apparatus while
> > non-prey-chasing swimmers like dugongs did not develop unusual noses.
> You are a Lamarckian then.

Strike one. Nope.

Some creature "evolves" some feature is needed,
> so it may "have sharp claws for grip on ice

Strike two. Having claws is normal for most mammals, but using claws & tusks to haul out of water onto ice is a specialized use of pre-existing features, not newly evolved organs.

(assisting the tusks of walruses
> when hauling out of the water" No random mutations needed, just the
> environment telling nature that this or that creature needs this or that
> feature. and, poof! there it is.
>
> It's all kind of like magic: nature thinks up new adaptations and, a few
> years later, there it is.
>
> Bill

Strike three. Magic is illusion. Science is observation and explanation.

[Pro Plyd]

On 25/05/2022 21:02, Bill wrote:
> The whole concept of speciation requires various impossibilities and
> becomes absurd if one thinks about it too deeply.

How about breathing on dirt to make a human?

[Pro Plyd]

Kalkidas wrote:

> On 5/27/2022 9:33 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
>> On 25/05/2022 21:02, Bill wrote:
>>> The whole concept of speciation requires various impossibilities and
>>> becomes
>>> absurd if one thinks about it too deeply.
>>

>> Since speciation has been observed to occur in the laboratory, under
>> cultivation, and in the wild, your speculation about what conclusions
>> deep thought leads to would seem to be incorrect.
>

> So they have bred whales from bears in the laboratory?
>

Someone blew on dirt and made a human.

[Bill]

Glenn wrote:
Charles Darwin wrote in The Origin of Species: “I can see no difficulty
in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more
aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths,
till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.” Bears turning into
whales?

So, it was Charles Darwin himself who planted the seed that blossomed forth
into the nonsense quoted here. At the time he wrote this ,there was no
science supporting his conjecture, but with Darwin, it's ok.

>
> 2. You aren't asking questions; you are ridiculing.

I ridiculed what was said because it's ridiculous.

Bill

[Glenn]

""even sillier Darwin thought that bears
could turn into whales back in 1800s
when Darwin first published the Origin"

>

> 2. You aren't asking questions; you are ridiculing.

You're dishonest.

Pandasthumb quotes Chuck:

"I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale."

Chuck might have been careful not to say whales, because that would have been silly.

[Glenn]

Just about everything they say or claim is nonsense.

> >
> > 2. You aren't asking questions; you are ridiculing.
> I ridiculed what was said because it's ridiculous.
>

It is ridiculous to pick on an IDer's choice of words, "Bears turning into whales?"
and it would have made no difference had the article questioned "Bears turning into animals like whales?". They want to make it appear that the IDers think Darwin meant
existing bears turning into what are existing whales of his time. The reason though,
is comparable to a sadist's reason for mental masturbation.
John even, unknowingly, exhonerates the IDer: "Nobody believes or suggests that bears could be whales."

[John Harshman]

Here you go:

https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2020/05/as-monstrous-as-a-quote-mined-whale.html

>> 2. You aren't asking questions; you are ridiculing.
>
> I ridiculed what was said because it's ridiculous.

So you admit you aren't asking questions. You don't make a lot of sense,
and all you seem to be doing is trying to score points in a game inside
your head.

[Glenn]

"Darwin (1859) suggested that whales arose from bears, sketching a scenario in which selective pressures might cause bears to evolve into whales"

https://ncse.ngo/origin-whales-and-power-independent-evidence

Damn creationists!

[jillery]

Before Darwin's time, the creation of new species and the extinction
of old species, was considered ridiculous. This conclusion was a
consequence of our ignorance. In the face of ignorance, people relied
on Biblical dogma, that God created literally everything in a literal
week, that His Creation was perfect, and would remain forever
unchanged.

Knowledge of Earth's natural history and the fossil record reduced our
ignorance. This knowledge proved that over time Earth changed, and
new species rose, thrived, and went extinct, contrary to Biblical
dogma. Reliance on dogma in the face of knowledge is ridiculous.

Darwin and others speculated about the causes and processes of what
the fossils record manifestly demonstrates. Testable speculations in
the face of ignorance are both reasonable and necessary. They provide
the basis to further increase our knowledge and reduce our ignorance.
Reliance on ignorance in the face of knowledge is ridiculous.

In our time, additional knowledge of molecular processes, genetics and
biology reduce our ignorance even further, and help explain how
populations evolve in form, function, and behavior. Some of this
knowledge proves incorrect some earlier speculations. This is
unsurprising, as those speculations were based on ignorance, by
definition. At the same time, some of this knowledge also proves
correct some earlier speculations This is also unsurprising, as those
speculations were also testable, by design. Reliance on disproved
speculations in the face of knowledge is ridiculous.

Even proved speculations are ever only partly correct, because
knowledge is limited and ignorance is vast. To increase our knowledge
and reduce our ignorance necessarily requires more testable
speculations, to form the basis to discover more knowledge. More
knowledge necessarily requires additional testing of previously proved
speculations. This is how science works, by design.

You don't say why you mindlessly assert testable speculations
ridiculous. This suggests to me you have no idea what you're talking
about. Also, you provide no alternative testable speculations. This
suggests to me you're proud of your ignorance. Pride in ignorance,
the hallmark of pseudoskeptics, is ridiculous.

[jillery]

On Sat, 28 May 2022 20:13:07 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

>Pandasthumb quotes Chuck:
>"I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale."

Once again, what part of "rendered by natural selection" do you not
understand?

[broger...@gmail.com]

Of course it's ridiculous. If it were possible for something like a bear, to gradually evolve into something like a whale, that would mean that at some time in the earth's history there would have to have been weird, half-formed intermediates, say things that looked like bears but spent a lot of time swimming and hunting in the water, or mammalian carnivores with limbs adapted to swimming who still spent some time on land and couldn't yet dive as deep as whales. Never happen.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Of course it's ridiculous, because is something that Bill invented as
an aunt sally, not something any serious biologist has said or
believed. The crackpots we have here can't find any real targets to
attack, so they make stuff up.

> If it were possible for something like a bear, to gradually evolve into
> something like a whale, that would mean that at some time in the
> earth's history there would have to have been weird, half-formed
> intermediates, say things that looked like bears but spent a lot of
> time swimming and hunting in the water, or mammalian carnivores with
> limbs adapted to swimming who still spent some time on land and
> couldn't yet dive as deep as whales. Never happen.

--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

[Bill]

jillery wrote:

> On Sat, 28 May 2022 20:13:07 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Pandasthumb quotes Chuck:
>>"I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural
>>selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with
>>larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a
>>whale."
>
>
> Once again, what part of "rendered by natural selection" do you not
> understand?
>

Natural Selection is magic, nature changing itself into perfectly
functioning creatures - by accident. It is superficially plausible, enough
so the those who don't want to think about it, don't have to. After several
generations, few will bother to dispute the concept; it has a kind of
religious aura.

Even so, it must be true because so many people believe it.

Bill

[Mark Isaak]

It must be true because so many people believe it.


--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred
to the presence of those who think they've found it." - Terry Pratchett

[Glenn]

On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 9:51:13 AM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 5/28/22 7:15 PM, Pro Plyd wrote:
> > On 25/05/2022 21:02, Bill wrote:
> >> The whole concept of speciation requires various impossibilities and
> >> becomes absurd if one thinks about it too deeply.
> >
> > How about breathing on dirt to make a human?
> It must be true because so many people believe it.
>

Name one person besides yourself who believes they can breath on dirt to make a human.

[Glenn]

I'm not at all comfortable with the claim "so many people" believing in natural selection.

But in researching the subject, I came across an interesting article. Here's a quote:

"In this view, any real understanding of a scientific proposition (such as evolution) cannot be achieved without acceptance of that proposition as true, and lack of acceptance can be a serious barrier to scientific understanding."

https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-011-0371-0

[Bill]

Which supports my point that the dominant worldview influences, probably
dominates, how evidence will be understood. This is a routinely verified
fact of human history and an essential component in both orthodoxy and
heresy. Going against the established opinions current at any one time has
always been risky. It seems, in fact, to be basic to human nature.

Bill

[Glenn]

You better believe it! :)

[Bill]

jillery wrote:

...

>
> You don't say why you mindlessly assert testable speculations
> ridiculous. This suggests to me you have no idea what you're talking
> about. Also, you provide no alternative testable speculations. This
> suggests to me you're proud of your ignorance. Pride in ignorance,
> the hallmark of pseudoskeptics, is ridiculous.

A testable speculation should be tested. Much of what is called scientific
knowledge is speculation that should be testable but, in fact, isn't simply
because it can't be. It's just as important to ensure that what is tested
agrees with the theory to which the speculation applies. From what I've
found through reading (comic books, science fiction, cereal boxes, etc.) the
whole enterprise is fragile, routinely modified and often disputed.

This doesn't make it a waste of time but it does justify skepticism.

Bill

















9

[jillery]

The above is not the point you expressed previously in this thread,
still included in the quoted text above.

>This is a routinely verified
>fact of human history and an essential component in both orthodoxy and
>heresy. Going against the established opinions current at any one time has
>always been risky. It seems, in fact, to be basic to human nature.
>
>Bill

Glenn's cite and quote don't support any of your expressed points. The
quote refers to one of several points of view publicly expressed by
others, but does not express the point of view of the author.

More to the point, and once again, you conflate mindless belief with
reasoned acceptance. Your comments above are just more of your
mindless word games.

[jillery]

On Sun, 29 May 2022 08:40:08 -0500, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>jillery wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 28 May 2022 20:13:07 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Pandasthumb quotes Chuck:
>>>"I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural
>>>selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with
>>>larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a
>>>whale."
>>
>>
>> Once again, what part of "rendered by natural selection" do you not
>> understand?
>>
>
>Natural Selection is magic,

If by "magic" you mean wonderful and enchanting, I suppose you're
right. Your comments below imply you mean superstitious dogma.

>nature changing itself into perfectly functioning creatures

Only the religious claim life is perfect. Science recognizes life is
contingent and kludgy, usually functioning just well enough to
reproduce itself.


>by accident.


Once again you conveniently forget, not just by accident.


>It is superficially plausible,


How is "it" less plausible than the Biblical account?

>enough so the those who don't want to think about it, don't have to.

People can and do mindlessly believe anything without thinking about
it. But to understand natural selection requires rubbing more than a
few brain cells together.

>After several
>generations, few will bother to dispute the concept; it has a kind of
>religious aura.
>
>Even so, it must be true because so many people believe it.
>
>Bill

So, in answer to the question 'what part of "rendered by natural
selection" do you not understand?', your answer is, 'no part at all'.

[jillery]

On Sun, 29 May 2022 10:08:18 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

Read for comprehension. Nobody said or implied they could breathe on
dirt to make a human. The Bible says *God* did:

*********************************
Genesis 2:7 New International Version
Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a
living being.
*********************************

[jillery]

On Sun, 29 May 2022 16:25:49 -0500, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>jillery wrote:

...more than this.

>> You don't say why you mindlessly assert testable speculations
>> ridiculous. This suggests to me you have no idea what you're talking
>> about. Also, you provide no alternative testable speculations. This
>> suggests to me you're proud of your ignorance. Pride in ignorance,
>> the hallmark of pseudoskeptics, is ridiculous.
>
>A testable speculation should be tested.

And they are tested. The problem is you reject the results.

>Much of what is called scientific
>knowledge is speculation that should be testable but, in fact, isn't simply
>because it can't be.

Give examples.

>It's just as important to ensure that what is tested
>agrees with the theory to which the speculation applies. From what I've
>found through reading (comic books, science fiction, cereal boxes, etc.) the
>whole enterprise is fragile, routinely modified and often disputed.
>
>This doesn't make it a waste of time but it does justify skepticism.

No it doesn't. And you *still* provided no alternative testable
speculations. You keep proving how proud you are of your willful
stupidity.

[Bill]

My stupidity is not willful since that would require intent. I do nothing
intentionally, everything is an accident that surprises me every time. I
have difficulty understanding how people can be so certain of what they must
surely know is just a fleeting impression, a hunch.

Civilization requires its members to believe in civilization and the
civilization makes the rules that guide us all. We are trapped in the
necessity to adapt to what others believe; free choice is something we talk
about but never really experience.

Even so, seeing how avid some are to know their world is always
entertaining.

Bill

[Glenn]

On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 5:21:14 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Sun, 29 May 2022 10:08:18 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> wrote:
> >On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 9:51:13 AM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >> On 5/28/22 7:15 PM, Pro Plyd wrote:
> >> > On 25/05/2022 21:02, Bill wrote:
> >> >> The whole concept of speciation requires various impossibilities and
> >> >> becomes absurd if one thinks about it too deeply.
> >> >
> >> > How about breathing on dirt to make a human?
> >> It must be true because so many people believe it.
> >>
> >Name one person besides yourself who believes they can breath on dirt to make a human.
> Read for comprehension. Nobody said or implied they could breathe on
> dirt to make a human. The Bible says *God* did:

And now, for one who thinks they can read for comprehension, a book speaks.

[jillery]

To the contrary, you intentionally refuse to learn anything, and
intentionally lie about what others say ...

> I
>have difficulty understanding how people can be so certain of what they must
>surely know is just a fleeting impression, a hunch.

... and you intentionally give no examples ...

>Civilization requires its members to believe in civilization and the
>civilization makes the rules that guide us all. We are trapped in the
>necessity to adapt to what others believe; free choice is something we talk
>about but never really experience.
>
>Even so, seeing how avid some are to know their world is always
>entertaining.
>
>Bill

... and you intentionally give no alternative speculations, all
characteristics of willful stupidity.

[jillery]

On Sun, 29 May 2022 18:47:52 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

wrote:

>On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 5:21:14 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 May 2022 10:08:18 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
>> wrote:
>> >On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 9:51:13 AM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> >> On 5/28/22 7:15 PM, Pro Plyd wrote:
>> >> > On 25/05/2022 21:02, Bill wrote:
>> >> >> The whole concept of speciation requires various impossibilities and
>> >> >> becomes absurd if one thinks about it too deeply.
>> >> >
>> >> > How about breathing on dirt to make a human?
>> >> It must be true because so many people believe it.
>> >>
>> >Name one person besides yourself who believes they can breath on dirt to make a human.
>> Read for comprehension. Nobody said or implied they could breathe on
>> dirt to make a human. The Bible says *God* did:
>>

>> *********************************
>> Genesis 2:7 New International Version
>> Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and
>> breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a
>> living being.
>> *********************************

>And now, for one who thinks they can read for comprehension, a book speaks.

Those who believe the Bible say it's the Word of God. You don't have
to believe the Bible to know it's the source of Pro Plyd's allusion.
Do you think it's clever to pretend you don't know?

[Glenn]

Damn, I thought I could keep it a secret.

[Mark Isaak]

Do you just make this stuff up as you go along?

[John Harshman]

On 5/30/22 10:37 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 5/29/22 2:25 PM, Bill wrote:
>> jillery wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>
>>> You don't say why you mindlessly assert testable speculations
>>> ridiculous.  This suggests to me you have no idea what you're talking
>>> about.  Also, you provide no alternative testable speculations.  This
>>> suggests to me you're proud of your ignorance.  Pride in ignorance,
>>> the hallmark of pseudoskeptics, is ridiculous.
>>
>> A testable speculation should be tested. Much of what is called
>> scientific
>> knowledge is speculation that should be testable but, in fact, isn't
>> simply
>> because it can't be. It's just as important to ensure that what is tested
>> agrees with the theory to which the speculation applies. From what I've
>> found through reading (comic books, science fiction, cereal boxes,
>> etc.) the
>> whole enterprise is fragile, routinely modified and often disputed.
>>
>> This doesn't make it a waste of time but it does justify skepticism.
>
> Do you just make this stuff up as you go along?
>

This is particular is worthy of Lewis Carroll: "Much of what is called

scientific knowledge is speculation that should be testable but, in
fact, isn't simply because it can't be."

Nohow! Contrariwise!

[Bill]

Turns out Carroll collaborated with another Englishman of the time. Seems
the guy needed fantastic explanations for fantastic beasts and, together
they created some great fiction.

Bill

[Pro Plyd]

Any creationist.

[Glenn]

Not all creationists are fundamentalist Christians, bozo.

[RonO]

On 5/25/2022 4:14 PM, jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 25 May 2022 12:43:55 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
>> "Charles Darwin wrote in The Origin of Species: “I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.” Bears turning into whales?"
>>
>> https://evolutionnews.org/2022/05/2022-youtube-film-festival-long-story-short-on-whale-evolution/
>>
>> Chuck should be given a break here. His example shouldn't be taken literally or seriously. Or should it. Tune in tomorrow for the rest of the story.
>>
>> I can sympathize with Chuck concerning the big mouths, but blowholes and flippers? How would poor Polars get around on the ice with flippers?
>
>
> Since you asked, perhaps about as well as do walrus and seals. You're
> welcome.
>

How strange is how it actually seems to have occurred using the fossils
and DNA? You have a hooved carnivore that was more like a dog than a
hippo (Pakicetus). A possible aquatic predator more like a crocodile
(Ambulocetus). They were fully aquatic by the time toothed and baleen
whales diverged, and the baleen lineage evolved lunging and filter
feeding. So Darwin was wrong. They didn't start using a big mouth to
capture small prey.

Darwin was wrong, but so what? Glenn knows that it doesn't matter. He
even knows that he put it up to maintain the self deception that all
IDiots need to maintain. It is just as much of a loss as everything
else Glenn gets from the ID perps when he can't stand what they tell him
about what ID is supposed to be and how it should be defended, instead
of doing what he does.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/what-are-evograms/the-evolution-of-whales/

Ron Okimoto

[Dexter]

-----------------------------

Yeah, but one were betting, that's where the money is.