And if he isnt risen...

[Ojian]

Yes, I am asking you to prove negative. I know it is an absurd request, but you claimed:
".the evidence shows that the 'stuff' it can do is limited."
Absence of evidence is not an evidence of absence (assuming that the evidence is absent, which is incorrect).
More importantly, you seem to confuse evidence with physical observation. The two are related, but not the same.

Apologies for the long response.
As I said before, the evidence of what M+NS can do it out there. I gave a few of the popular examples. Everything that has been observed or demonstrated is limited to microevolutionary levels (Microevolution = minor changes within existing species). When I say that it is "limited", that is just my word (perhaps not the best word) to point to what the data shows. Macroevolutionary changes have not been demonstrated with M+NS. And no, I am not referring to just physical observations. But I wonder then what it is you are defining as evidence?
Absence of evidence may not be evidence of absence (I agree), but you certainly cannot claim something as truth or settled without evidence. Without evidence, it will not stand. And that is the scenario I am claiming unguided macroevolution is in - it is bereft of evidential support.

There are few examples of direct observation of macroevolution, but they do exist. I suspect that you will reject them, because they are marginal.

Then what are they??? Whether or not I reject them will depend on the evidence itself. But I wonder, for something that is supposed to be such a rock solid idea, why is the evidence only "marginal". I would suspect that it would be quite clear and in abundance.

But let me ask you this: what kind of macroevolution would convince you? Does it have to be something spectacular, like a transition of a hippopotamus into a dolphin?

No, it doesn't have to be so dramatic, but of course something like that would work well. I don't suppose you have that evidence, do you?
I'm defining macroevolution as a process using M+NS to be the origin of new species, organs, and body plans. It also could be referred to as the Modern/New Synthesis, Neo-Darwinism.

Contrary to your other claim, vast majority of research biologists and related scientists consider evidence for macroevolution overwhelming. This is demonstrably true if you do search for peer reviewed papers on evolution in scientific databases. This is not a proof that macroevolution is true of course, but it will show that your claim:
"many scientists are very aware of the capabilities of NS and are instead looking for an alternative explanation."
is unsupported. Unless of course your definition of "many" is few.
Also, what is this alternative scientific explanation that they are looking for?

Again, I ask: What evidence? Just give me one good example, your best.
As far as telling me to go search google, that is just a huge citation bluff. You need to do a little better, and it is not my job to do yours for you.
As for scientists doubting Neo-Darwinian methods, making some statement as to how many of one side or another is a weak argument. Science is not determined by consensus.
But for examples of a group of leading scientists that are doubting things :
Home | The Third Way of Evolution
And the recent Royal Society meeting, one report - The Biologists Who Want to Overhaul Evolution - The Atlantic

Going back to hippopotamuses and dolphins. They are actually quite closely related. No one will be able to demonstrate to you that transition (or rather transition from the common ancestor) but there is plenty of evidence for that relationship. There is at least half a dozen transitional forms in the fossil record and related palaeogeographical, paleoenvironmental and geochemical evidence. These are not so-so stories.

Hippos and whales are hardly close. How are they related? Are you referring to the often stated land mammal to whale evolution that is often described as this LINK?

Before addressing that, I must point out that you seem to have lost your eye on the ball. We've been focusing on (supposed) M+NS changes in the DNA that can create new organs, functions information, species, etc. None of the (again supposed) transitional fossil examples speak to DNA, but instead based on homology and/or morphological traits where evolution is assumed to be the process. But in order for a hippo or a similar ancestor to change into a whale via M+NS methods requires a whole host of new organs and body features to arise from random mutations (even assuming it is possible) in an impossibly short time period (relative to popuation genetics). Frankly, you need to tell a "whale" of a tale (LOL, get it?!?) to get there.

But as for the fossils, they discovered a fossilized whale similar to Basilosauras that was dated to within a million years of the oldest supposed land mammal relative. That would leave no feasible time to accomplish whale 'evolution'.

Tell me, why do dolphins and whales share more DNA with hippopotamuses or cows than cows with horses? Why do whales have muscles for moving ears if they don't have external ears that can be moved? why do they have vestigial olfactory nerves? Can they smell underwater? Why do their foetuses have hair or vestigial limbs?

At least now you reference DNA. Too bad though as that argument means nothing. Share how? Humans supposedly share 50% of their DNA with a banana. But I'm not hearing anyone claim we came from a banana ancestor. The issue is not that we may have similar DNA - that can be explained by a creation/intelligent design just as well (if not better) as M+NS explanation. The issue is how is the information expressed by the DNA come about and used for whatever particular purpose. M+NS is impotent to explain that. And when you get even beyond DNA to epigenetics, sugar code, spacial arrangement of cellular components (leaving off body plan arrangements), HGT, gene splicing and editing.... none of that is addressed by M+NS.

I've not heard about the whale ear muscles issue, unless you are referring to the ear bones in Pakicetus (which today is a non-issue and whose link on that basis has been pretty much falsified). Do you have a reference?

Vestigial olfactory nerves? Again, what specifically are you referring to? Is this linked to supposed psuedogenes involving the OR olfactory genes? If so, that has been basically busted as well. The gene has benefits other than olfactory purposes, which would make it not a psuedogene and pretty much negates it as being vestigial.

I haven't heard of the "hair" issue and am not sure why that would be an issue. As for vestigial limbs? Again, this is no longer an issue as they have found for whales a function for the (supposed) 'hind limb' bones that involve reproduction. So again, calling them vestigial is a bit of a misnomer.

Can you explain the purpose of all these features?

Pretty much did for most. I can link references if you really need them.

Or maybe you don't believe in any purpose of such things?

Oh, but I do. See above.

Maybe you think that animals are just lumps of random organs thrown together, whether they fit or not?

No I dont. Actually, that is the position that evolution takes.

Maybe the alternative theory of your many biologists can explain that?

They are not 'my' biologists. Nevertheless, the reason they are looking for an alternate explanation is because they realize that M+NS cannot do the job. Please understand that most of these scientists are not supporting ID or any creation or creationist model. They are looking for a materialistic explanation, but they do not have any faith in M+NS for it.

Please, share these explanations. Because all these things can be explained by evolution. And all you have been saying so far is that it has not been demonstrated.

If you mean evolution as M+NS,. then no, they cannot be explained. That is what I have been trying to say. It has not been demonstrated and it has not been even hypothetically shown how it could happen. Beyond an assumption that evolution is true and a bunch of hand-waving general stories: "We think X evolved into Y", there is nothing there.

Also, can you or your alternative theory explain why humans posses mutated, non-functional genes for production of egg yolk in exactly the same genome location as chickens? Is this a sign that in our "plasticity" we may start laying eggs at some point?

*sigh* Are you referring to vitellogenin pseudogene story? Please! If this is the level of support that is going to be laid out, I have nothing to worry about.
For those needing the story, there are six genes that were studied that are supposedly shared by humans and chickens. For chickens, these genes are involved the production of egg yolk. The idea is that since humans do not produce egg yolk, then in humans these genes are pseudogenes (genes with relatively the same arrangement that are not active or not used for coding proteins) derived from common descent with chickens.
Of those 6 genes, 3 of them (ELTD1, SSX2IP, CTBS) are functional in both chickens and humans, so there is no evidence of them being pseudogenes. Of the remaining 3 (VIT1, VIT2, VIT3 - referred to as vitellogenin), 2 of those (VIT2, VIT3) have almost no showing in humans and arguably are not even there.
So the whole argument comes down to the vitellogenin psuedogene VIT1. Of the almost 43,000 base pairs in this gene, there are two stretches of about 150 base pairs that line up relatively well between chickens and humans. This gene in chickens is functional and produces egg-yolk. There is no indication that in humans it is used to make protein. The argument rests on the assumption that the human version of the gene comes via common descent, and the genes only function is to produce egg yolk but it lost its protein producing capabilities (for humans) along the way.
The problem with the argument is 1) the amount of sequence similarity is very low, 2) the gene is transcribed into long non-coding RNA which may have regulatory functions - which means that the sequence similarity could be due to function and doesn't have to indicate common ancestry or the prescence of an egg-laying protein.

So your claim and question are a bit overstated.

1) we have witnessed NS operating for as long as we know, and
2) there are no known factors that would prevent NS from continuing its operation on a larger scale in longer timeframes.

Agreed! But the problem I have is that #2 does not produce new species, forms, or body plans.
Per your number example, I'm not disputing that NS works like 1+1+1+... What I am saying is that result "5" is not an example of a new form. It's more like going via 1+1+1... you need to get to result 997 and only prime numbers along the way are viable steps. Each time you hit a non-prime number you run a high probability of the whole process failing.

 

[Ojian]

So you fault others for not proving a negative, while not being up to the task yourself?

You seem to be missing the meaning here. Just because I put a phrase in a negative framing does not mean I am asking to prove a negative.

The original topic was discussing Jesus sacrifice and the link to Adam and Eve. Then Mole came along and basically said: 'Because natural selection, Adam and Eve didnt exist'. I asked for that idea to be expounded on, but when that failed to happen I pointed out that the evidence shows M+NS can explain minor changes in things (X), but there is no evidence to support that it can explain major changes (Y). I restated that concept in a negative framing by saying M+NS was "limited" to explaining X. But then Gunboat Diplomat asked: 'How do you know it is only limited to X?' To which the answer is: Because all the evidence (so far) shows it can do X, but no evidence shows it can do Y. I'm pointing to the evidence that leads to X. I'm not responsible to provide evidence that it can do Y (because I do not think there is any). If GB is asking me to provide evidence for Y, that is asking for me to prove a negative. My end point in this exchange was that M+NS does not negate the idea of Adam and Eve.

Now the phrase of mine that you have contention with is more of the same. Putting the historical reference aside for a moment (because that was not part of the topic), recall that the issue was whether scientific evidence disproves Adam and Eve (which is a negative argument). My responses have been to negate that negative argument. You come back and state that there is no positive scientific evidence for Adam and Eve. I agree, and I have not submitted any scientific evidence for Adam and Eve. I actually think science is pretty much neutral to the concept of Adam and Eve. But my response to you was to very generally again point out there is no valid negative scientific reasons against Adam and Eve. That is not asking to prove a negative, I merely dispelled one.

As [MENTION=33169]Gunboat Diplomat[/MENTION] ably pointed out already, absence of evidence is not an evidence of absence.

I agree. But in this case, this point works in my behalf regarding the statement you are contending.

None of which says anything about any of them living in blissful ignorance in a garden paradise where everything was provided, so long as they followed the rules of some deific being.

And neither am I asking for evolution (or science in general) to speak to the Genesis story. It does not have any bearing on it.

And that is the point of the thread: whether some initial disobedience by the first human couple precipitated a legacy of sin that required an event like the resurrection to correct. Anyone who insists on the literal truth of this narrative is missing the point. The Bible is not about science and the physical world, but rather about the spiritual world, human nature, and our relationship to the divine.

I agree that originally that was the point. But you seem to be thinking I am conflating the story with evidence for the story, which I am not. I do not think that the Bible is about science, nor does science prove or disprove the specific Adam and Eve narrative. That has been the point of this long tangent.

(And by the way, DNA millions of years old has been identified and studied. The scientists doing this work, though, know better than to attempt to draw conclusions about God. It would be good if religious people could return the favor.)

No, there is not DNA from millions of years ago being studied. Where is your reference? The rest is irrelevant.

 

[Coriolis]

The original topic was discussing Jesus sacrifice and the link to Adam and Eve. Then Mole came along and basically said: 'Because natural selection, Adam and Eve didnt exist'. I asked for that idea to be expounded on, but when that failed to happen I pointed out that the evidence shows M+NS can explain minor changes in things (X), but there is no evidence to support that it can explain major changes (Y). I restated that concept in a negative framing by saying M+NS was "limited" to explaining X. But then Gunboat Diplomat asked: 'How do you know it is only limited to X?' To which the answer is: Because all the evidence (so far) shows it can do X, but no evidence shows it can do Y. I'm pointing to the evidence that leads to X. I'm not responsible to provide evidence that it can do Y (because I do not think there is any). If GB is asking me to provide evidence for Y, that is asking for me to prove a negative. My end point in this exchange was that M+NS does not negate the idea of Adam and Eve.

Now the phrase of mine that you have contention with is more of the same. Putting the historical reference aside for a moment (because that was not part of the topic), recall that the issue was whether scientific evidence disproves Adam and Eve (which is a negative argument). My responses have been to negate that negative argument. You come back and state that there is no positive scientific evidence for Adam and Eve. I agree, and I have not submitted any scientific evidence for Adam and Eve. I actually think science is pretty much neutral to the concept of Adam and Eve. But my response to you was to very generally again point out there is no valid negative scientific reasons against Adam and Eve. That is not asking to prove a negative, I merely dispelled one.

The original topic was speculating on what the implications for Christianity would be if the resurrection were not an actual historical event. The whole Adam and Eve discussion came up as part of someone's attempt to explain the role of the resurrection in the Christian mythos. The argument that evolution and natural selection disprove the existence of an Adam and Eve is Mole's. I frankly find it irrelevant. My criticism was levelled at your apparent willful ignorance of modern science in this area, independent of its use to support or refute any Biblical claims.

IME the real truth of the resurrection, if it has any, is figurative. In that sense, one doesn't even need a real-life Adam and Eve and Garden of Eden. We can learn the lesson just as well without it. We can stop there, or play the story out further and bring in Jesus to redeem the sin of Adam and his progeny, which gives it a rather satisfying, almost poetic, symmetry. Insisting it all really happened makes about as much sense as insisting there really were a tortoise and a hare that had a foot race.

I agree that originally that was the point. But you seem to be thinking I am conflating the story with evidence for the story, which I am not. I do not think that the Bible is about science, nor does science prove or disprove the specific Adam and Eve narrative. That has been the point of this long tangent.

No, there is not DNA from millions of years ago being studied. Where is your reference? The rest is irrelevant.

Science does render the notion of a real Adam and Eve in an Eden-like scenario highly improbable: Occam's Razor failure. It was your contention that there isn't DNA from millions of years ago to study, so that proof is on you. A discussion of available DNA is quite off topic, and I don't have time to do the legwork for you.

 

[thepink-cloakedninja]

Ah thanks for stating that for me. I literally just saw a few posts on the last 2 pages, and didn't want to look at all the other pages and see how things got to where they did... so I had no idea what originally started where it ended up lol.

Speaking of implications, there are things with much larger implications. Evolution being chief among them. You cannot have an 'Adam and Eve' with evolution... there's no two ways about it. One might be able to 'verbal semantics' one's way out Christianity being undermined if Jesus wasn't resurrected. But in regards to creation, there's no room for semantics there. The bible is very explicit "god made everything, this is the order he made them in, and then he made people by starting with Adam and Eve"

That, to me, seems to be a bigger issue as far as implications for Christianity, than Jesus's resurrection. The latter... we can't definitively talk about that, the guy lived (or never lived at all) 2 thousand years ago. Anything said on the subject is just speculation... you may as well argue the length of Zeus's lightning bolts, you'd have the same amount of provable information to work with lol.

But evolution not only has information that can be directly proven true or false, but it's implications for Christianity are bigger. And here's one of the most important facts in regards to that...

THE POPE ACCEPTS EVOLUTION

That's how inarguable it is, that the freaking pope accepts it lol. The same place that repeatedly tried stifling the forward progress of science through the years, has accepted what has the biggest implications for it (of course, despite those implications many Catholics still continue believing religion while also accepting evolution, cognitive dissonance lol)



I addressed that in my previous post.

So I just got a notification that you quoted me but ... I don't see the quote here? Wait, have I even posted in this topic? *sings twilight zone theme*

 

[Coriolis]

Ah thanks for stating that for me. I literally just saw a few posts on the last 2 pages, and didn't want to look at all the other pages and see how things got to where they did... so I had no idea what originally started where it ended up lol.

Speaking of implications, there are things with much larger implications. Evolution being chief among them. You cannot have an 'Adam and Eve' with evolution... there's no two ways about it. One might be able to 'verbal semantics' one's way out Christianity being undermined if Jesus wasn't resurrected. But in regards to creation, there's no room for semantics there. The bible is very explicit "god made everything, this is the order he made them in, and then he made people by starting with Adam and Eve"

That, to me, seems to be a bigger issue as far as implications for Christianity, than Jesus's resurrection. The latter... we can't definitively talk about that, the guy lived (or never lived at all) 2 thousand years ago. Anything said on the subject is just speculation... you may as well argue the length of Zeus's lightning bolts, you'd have the same amount of provable information to work with lol.

Well, strictly speaking, science never proves anything to be true. A hypothesis just fails to be disproven over time, and becomes the accepted theory until eventually some new evidence surfaces that requires its reexamination. Often even then it doesn't need to be abandoned, but instead qualified or added to, much as quantum mechanics expands upon classical mechanics. But that, too, is off topic.

As I mentioned earlier, evolution can accommodate an Adam and Eve only if they are very loosely defined as the first humans, the first male and female offspring of our pre-human ancestors to have the DNA and attributes of a modern human. They might not even have known each other, much less mated in some primordial garden. Anything more than that is inconsistent with accepted evolutionary theory. As I also mentioned earlier, much of the Bible is best interpreted as myth or allegory. This doesn't lessen its truth, just identifies it as quite distinct from scientific or historical truth. The lessons of Jesus own life are equally valid whether he actually lived or not.

My own perspective for now is that there was a real historical Jesus, who did many of the things attributed to him in the Bible: healing, teaching, preaching, reaching out to the marginalized in his society, and going against if not actively trying to reform the Judaism of his day. It wouldn't be surprising for such a person to run afoul of authorities, Jewish and Roman. Followers of what would have been a remarkable man, in promoting his philosophy after his death, associated common mythological elements with him: virgin birth, God come to earth, sacrificial death and victory over death, etc. This is similar to how the real Saint Nicholas took on legendary proportions to became modern day Santa Claus.

Ok fine, you may scoff at that tortoise... but surely you have the good sense to believe in the World Tortoise, don't you? The one supported by a column of tortoises beneath him? And if you tried to go to the bottom to see what the last tortoise is standing on, you'd only find that it's tortoises all the way down?

Either you believe in the World Tortoise, or you're an exception to the rule of 'INTJ intellectualism'.

I am quite familiar with turtles in myth, but INTJ intellectualism (which might also be a myth) doesn't hinge on any belief in the supernatural.

 

[Ojian]

A 'vestige' of a gene that once did something, but now doesn't do anything. It is there in the DNA, but 'turned off'.

And how do they know this without having ancient DNA to compare? Beyond making an assumption about evolution...? Think about it.

This is why humans, for example, have genes for fur covering their whole body, or a tail, and many others. The genes remain in the DNA, but are turned off.

Humans already have hair genes, obviously. I have some friends that hair all over their body . Humans do not have a tail (the coccyx is not a tail), nor genes for a tail (whatever that means).

because of vestigial genes that are present in the velociraptor's present day descendant, the chicken. The chicken, obviously, doesn't have teeth, a tail, fingers with claws, or a big curved claw on each foot... but it has the genes for these traits in it's DNA. Why... because 71 million years ago, it existed in the form of a velociraptor.

But we do not have velociraptor DNA! So how would anyone know that the chicken has DNA from 71mya that is dormant. By the way, chickens do have functional DNA for teeth (ever hear of an egg tooth?) and claws on the end of 'fingers'. Again, the 'tail' DNA I would like to hear more about. And I doubt that you can support it has DNA for a 'big curved claw on each foot'.

Yet even if we assumed everything you said above was true, it still is not likely that 'vestigial' DNA would stick around for 71 million years. You should look up Dollo's Law.

So... we would not be able to do this,

Umm, we haven't done it.

The entire field of medicine and all other fields that lie under it is based on evolutionary biology... we would not have medicine altogether if we didn't have evolutionary biology and, in turn, all the things we've learned from it about how things evolve.

And this is where I have to call BS. Evolution has virtually nothing to do with medical science, either in diagnosis or the development of treatments. As I said in an earlier post, the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria may be a result of microevolutionary processes. But the development or discovery of new antibiotic drugs does not involve evolutionary ideas at all.

This short 3 minute video ...

I enjoyed that video, it was amusing. But it was also totally unrealistic and pretty much a strawman argument. (Hint: Leviticus 14 is not talking about a cure for leprosy )

 

[thepink-cloakedninja]

There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition... and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge.

This is a dimension of shadow and substance.​

It is an area which we call... the Twilight Zone.​

OPEN ON A GIRL HUMMING TO HERSELF​

Meet Lucy. Lucy's an optimistic girl full of sunshine birthed in the screen of a Disney movie. She likes ice cream, horse rides, posting on Typology Central, and wrapping herself in a pink blanket while calling herself a pink ninja.

But little does Lucy know of real ninjitsu, or of their sworn moral code of Bushido. Nor of the nightmares that befall those who would lay false claim to Bushido.

One day while going to school, it seemed just like every other day, until something seemed... a bit off about it. Starting with the neighbor's dog. Unbeknownst to Lucy, she just crossed over... into the Twilight Zone.

We've established this. My ninjitsu is reverse psychology.

 

[Ojian]

never has a small scale change directly led to a big scale change... we haven't experienced it, therefore, it is intuitive to end on an assumption of "it can't happen". That's understandable

But that is not what I am arguing. Though I agree, intuition may lead one to think that evolution (mutations at a genetic level changing the arrangement of DNA nucleotides which are then selected for) cannot happen, that is not my argument. My argument is one from the scientific evidence.

but then when one throws religion in with that, that's when we cement into place a kind of hostility to empiricism and reason.

That is not a given, and in general has not been the case with religion and science, your Galileo example not withstanding. Either way, this is irrelevant to my argument.

That's the kind of thing that made the Catholic church persecute Galileo and Copernicus when they made the downright blasphemous claim that the Earth isn't the center of the universe, and then later that our solar system isn't the entire known universe

With relation to Galileo's experience, I agree with you. The Catholic church was wrong in it's approach. It's important to understand that the church was not arguing with Galileo over scientific data. They had a philosophical (and political) problem with Galileo's discovery. The church held that the Earth was the center of the universe, but that is not what the Bible teaches. Galileo held a high view of the Bible, and he realized the problem was in how the church was handling things. He wrote to a pupil of his: "“Even though Scripture cannot err, its interpreters and expositors can, in various ways. One of these, very serious and very frequent, would be when they always want to stop at the purely literal sense.” I share his view

and then with every subsequent juncture of scientific discovery, the church following with the expected persecution.

Though I do not hold the Catholic church in any high esteem, I'm having a hard time believing this statement. Do you have any other examples?

How similar does that look to a chicken to you?
... That would be the velociraptor.
Now if you're being honest in your answer, I expect you to say it looks like a different animal, but also not that much different from a chicken... especially for an animal 71 million years separated from a chicken.

You honestly cannot be pointing to an artist rendering of a velociraptor and then saying: "See, it kinda looks like a chicken" and saying that is evidence for evolution, can you?!?

That's the point. That evolution is very, very, very, very gradual. See, you're thinking about this in a very misdirected, obfuscated way... you think 'species evolving into another' and you think 'crocoduck', 'kangapotamus'... no no no.

No, no, no. That is not how I am thinking about it. Nothing I have said should have given you that impression.
Yes, evolution is a very, very, ...., very slow and gradual process. I agree. But, and this is important, life is not made out of components that come about from small, gradual changes. The small, gradual changes can account for microevolutionary changes. But in those cases it is almost always just a variation on an already prescribed form. So evolution CAN refine and tune something that already exists, but there is a boundary (based on what changes, where the changes occur, and when they occur for an individual) as to how far the changes can go. Macroevolutionary changes would involve developing new forms, body plans, organs and/or species. Any of those requires a series of complex changes on multiple levels that would have to be coordinated to achieve even a modest level of success. M+NS is not up to the task. And this is even assuming that such changes are governed solely by DNA, which recent scientific data in epigenetics is beginning to show is probably not the case. This all applies to whatever 'line' of lifeform you want to propose.

So if we take the chicken for example. We go backwards in evolution millions of years,

You really like the chickens, dont you? But how does one go back in evolution millions of years without assuming that evolution is true? We dont have chicken DNA that goes back that far. We don't have any set of transitional fossils from chickens to velociraptors. How exactly are you making the determination of relatedness without just assuming it is so?

DNA says what it says regardless if people want to believe it or not. It just plainly, unequivocally shows that every animal on Earth is related to every other animal, and all life's DNA is arranged in a 'hierarchy' that shows we are all related. As Richard Dawkins once said... if 'god' is actually responsible for life, then the fact that DNA is arranged in a hierarchy like this across all life is him playing a practical joke on us to make it look like we evolved, but he's just 'testing our faith'. Which... I don't even need to include the eye rolling smiley for that. One should have rolled their eyes reflexively merely upon reading that.

Richard Dawkins is simply mistaken. DNA does not show a clear hierarchy as Dawkins claims. Yes he may point to two forms of life where common ancestry is assumed and be able to say, 'See here in this section, the DNA is very similar'. But he also fails to acknowledge the many other places between the same forms where the DNA is very different. And he completely ignores life forms that are not thought to share a common ancestor yet have basically the same genes and/or homology in some body function. He is cherry picking.
Many microbiologists that study DNA relationships between species are seeing less of a tree-like pattern linking them and more of a bush pattern. And that pattern often changes dramatically as different DNA genes are compared.

 

[Ojian]

I'll keep this one really brief.

My criticism was levelled at your apparent willful ignorance of modern science in this area, independent of its use to support or refute any Biblical claims.

But you just asserted this without giving any evidence. I asked for you to support this, but have only responded with more assertions and insults.

Insisting it all really happened makes about as much sense as insisting there really were a tortoise and a hare that had a foot race.

I don't think anyone has insisted it happened. Though I wonder what qualifies you to insist it didnt?

Science does render the notion of a real Adam and Eve in an Eden-like scenario highly improbable: Occam's Razor failure. It was your contention that there isn't DNA from millions of years ago to study, so that proof is on you. A discussion of available DNA is quite off topic, and I don't have time to do the legwork for you.

First off, Occam's Razor is not a scientific principle, it is a philosophical one. But either way, you would have to explain how Occam's razor applies, cause I don't agree with your assertion.
Yes, the DNA subject is rather off-topic, but I wasn't the one that brought it up first.
But since you are insisting I (again?) prove a negative, I will attempt to take on the challenge.
The DNA that is millions of years old that scientists currently have to study is listed as follows:

 

[Coriolis]

We don't need to get needlessly down in the weeds here lol. For the purposes of practicality, let's assume science disproved a first man and woman appearing as an adult without a childhood, and that every other person descended from these two.

Yea, yea, "technically we can't say that"... but to list off all these caveats and hedges bogs it down and makes the topic needlessly unwieldy. Yes, it is true that despite all we know in regards to genetics, fossils, and everything else... if we should come across evidence that we in fact did not evolve, we have to go with the evidence, and that is what makes us different from religion.

But also with what we know from genetics and fossils... we know that is as likely as the flying spaghetti monster suddenly showing up lol. So the caveats, while technically being true, don't really need to be listed off because it makes the topic unnecessarily unwieldy to talk about.

The highlighted is an important point that I (and apparently everyone else) overlooked. The biblical Adam and Eve did indeed spring into life as fully formed adults. Now there is no scientific basis for that. And I am a great fan of the FSM.

So evolution is, once again, incompatible with the bible due to this lineage listed in there. The main flaw is that the more details are provided, the more ammunition there is to show inconsistency... and the bible does nothing if give out tons of details about what happened, when, what cloths should you not mix together, what superstitious behavior 'cures' illnesses, etc, etc. The more details it provides, the more consistency it is responsible for keeping in order to be legitimate... something which it is clearly unable to do.

I agree that evolution is incompatible with the Bible, or more correctly, the Bible is incompatible with evolution, but that covers far more than the existence of a supposed Adam and Eve.

I'm not 100% sure on this... are you Christian?

I assumed you weren't based off of what I read and what you were replying to, but then, I only read one post of yours lol. But what you just said seems like you do believe in this? I'm not sure.

This thing about 'much of the bible is best interpreted as myth or allegory' is the result of 300 years of reason and empiricism being waged at it on account of the Age of Enlightenment. It sure as heck wasn't interpreted as 'just a myth' before that lol. Or recently... heck, don't most Christians still believe Noah's ark to be literally true? Or have they changed on that now?

But what you said is what happened to everything else. No one is basing life decisions off of what Zeus, Horus, Ishtar, Atamerasu, The Four Immortals, etc said, and those things are seen as just myths. And what you just said, "much of the bible is best interpreted as myth", is the same outcome in the process of befalling the bible, that befell Zeus.

I am not Christian, though I do respect many of the teachings associated with Jesus, real or mythical. I also find it interesting that Christianity may be the only major religion that insists its stories are historically and factually true. As I mentioned elsewhere, Islam might as well, but I don't know enough to make that claim. Other faiths seem perfectly content to understand their stories in a very figurative sense, without that lessening their inspirational value or impact.

What??

Are you telling me that the MBTI type which is my kryptonite (me being an ENFP), their biggest selling point is not really there?

So what was happening to me anytime I felt flutters in my stomach anytime I heard an INTJ talk? Was that just the placebo effect going on? lol.

Perhaps you were reacting to something other than our intellectual appeal.

But you just asserted this without giving any evidence. I asked for you to support this, but have only responded with more assertions and insults.

The evidence lies in your own posts.

I don't think anyone has insisted it happened. Though I wonder what qualifies you to insist it didnt?

I did not insist it didn't happen (just as I did not insist that there isn't a family of leprechauns living under the Golden Gate Bridge). I pointed out that the truth and value of the story was independent of its historical veracity. In fact, I have never heard anyone even bother to make a claim one way or another. They know that would be barking up the wrong tree.

First off, Occam's Razor is not a scientific principle, it is a philosophical one. But either way, you would have to explain how Occam's razor applies, cause I don't agree with your assertion.
Yes, the DNA subject is rather off-topic, but I wasn't the one that brought it up first.
But since you are insisting I (again?) prove a negative, I will attempt to take on the challenge.
The DNA that is millions of years old that scientists currently have to study is listed as follows:

You are unable to make a scientific or historical case for the existence of the Biblical Adam and Eve, and instead have expended your energies trying to goad others into proving a negative. I'm sure you have better things to do with your time than this, such as looking for the broader lessons the story has for humanity, or even researching DNA evidence. As I mentioned before, I am not going to spoonfeed you.

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

Ojian,

There is too much to respond in one comment, so I will just address a couple of points.

As for scientists doubting Neo-Darwinian methods, making some statement as to how many of one side or another is a weak argument. Science is not determined by consensus.

I have a hard time believing that you didn't understand my simple statement:

This is not a proof that macroevolution is true of course

Additionally, it was not I who used the number of scientists to support my argument in the first place - it was you. I just questioned the veracity of your claim as stated.

Your first link lists about 50 people. There are at least tens of thousands of scientists in fields related to evolution. It is statistically pretty much inevitable that a few of them would question macroevolution. There are actually at least ten times as many members of The Flat Earth Society. Do you call that "many"?

Your second link does not even mean what you think it means. Most of the proponents of the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis do not doubt macroevolution. They just talk about additional sources/mechanisms of macroevolution. And those additional mechanisms are already discussed and often incorporated into the mainstream evolutionary theory (and this actually started with the last work published by Darwin). So you haven't really provided much support for YOUR claim.

But I wonder then what it is you are defining as evidence?
Absence of evidence may not be evidence of absence (I agree), but you certainly cannot claim something as truth or settled without evidence. Without evidence, it will not stand. And that is the scenario I am claiming unguided macroevolution is in - it is bereft of evidential support.

I define evidence pretty closely to the way it's defined in law. Let's say The Suspect is accused of murdering The Victim. The evidence is presented in the court of law. There are no direct witnesses who have seen The Suspect shooting The Victim. Or even a video recording. But at the murder scene, the police found a gun (exhibit A) registered to The suspect (exhibit B). The Victim died from a bullet wound (exhibit C) where a bullet fitting the gun was found (exhibit D). The gun was covered with fingerprints of The Suspect (exhibit E), The Suspect was seen leaving the crime scene at the estimated time of death (exhibit F), when The Suspect was apprehended, The Victim's wallet was found on him (exhibit G) and The Victim's blood was found on his shirt (exhibit H). I could continue, but I hope you get the drift. None of the exhibits (evidence) is completely convincing by itself. A good lawyer will try to exploit it: the gun may have been stolen from The Suspect, he might have found the wallet on a sidewalk, etc. (coincidentally, this is exactly what you seem to be doing with the evolutionary evidence*). A sensible jury however will see through this and convict The Suspect, since the evidence (in its entirety, not individually) is beyond a reasonable doubt.

* And not so coincidentally, your type of reasoning has lost in the court of law at least twice already.

It's the same with science, except that the requirement for "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not even there. The scientific truth is always provisional and does not require an absolute proof. A better evidence for a different theory might be out there. It does not mean that we discard our current evidence, just because it's not perfect, even before finding the better one.

There are thousands of arguments for evolution. None of them might be totally convincing (and a few of them might be false), but they reinforce each other thousand-fold.


[MENTION=33301]Despotic Ocelot[/MENTION] described some evolutionary evidence much better than I could, so I will stop here. But I notice, that you use the same tactic with him - questioning the details, avoiding the central points while not providing any positive counter-theory or explanations with a predictive power or falsifiability.

 

[Coriolis]

[MENTION=33301]Despotic Ocelot[/MENTION] described some evolutionary evidence much better than I could, so I will stop here. But I notice, that you use the same tactic with him - questioning the details, avoiding the central points while not providing any positive counter-theory or explanations with a predictive power or falsifiability.

Indeed. You described this much better than my attempt above. Thank you. This is not behavior designed to facilitate learning, by anyone involved in the discussion.

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

This is not behavior designed to facilitate learning, by anyone involved in the discussion.

You are absolutely right. Though I have learned a thing or two from your and Ocelot's comments.

 

[Coriolis]

You are absolutely right. Though I have learned a thing or two from your and Ocelot's comments.

When you come to a discussion with an open mind, there is no telling what you might learn. I appreciate your contributions as well.

 

[Ojian]

This is an action that has been playing out repeatedly without fail over the last 300 years. Either science will discover something... or society changes in some way and religion will have an immediate kneejerk reaction of "nooooo!!! this can't be, we won't let this be!!"

This is what I am disputing. I hold no sympathy for the Catholic church. But the Galileo event was 400 years ago. How has this 'action been playing out repeatedly' by religion since that relative time? What are your examples? I think you are being disingenuous.

And no, the homosexual example doesn't fit. That is a cultural and moral dispute, not a scientific one.

Because we know that birds evolved from dinosaurs

How. Do. You. Know. This? That is my main question regarding all of this.

There is currently no velociraptor or dinosaur DNA to compare too. So you have no link there.
So then you have fossils. You can infer to an extent a common source between birds and reptilian dinosaurs due to homology, but you cannot determine the process that links them from fossils. In other words, you cannot say that Neo-Darwinian processes are what made birds from dinosaurs. Yes, that is the popular choice. but it is just a guess, an assumption.
Clasistic analysis is often used to link dinosaurs with birds based on similar traits. But cladistics itself does not speak to ancestors (it is the nature of that science), so any idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs is only a hypothesis.
Yet the dino->bird group claims they are the scientific consensus and thus by fiat: Science Says birds are dinorsaurs.

And the chicken has genes for velociraptor's traits, that the chicken does not have. Traits like teeth, claws, a tail, etc.

This is such a weak statement. First off, you're ignoring that birds (and chickens) already have functional genes for teeth and claws. Granted the teeth genes are expressed only with the egg tooth now, but the genetics are already there. Claws already exist (as talons) unless you are referring to the forelimbs. But some modern birds, like the ostrich, do have claws already expressed on their forelimbs. I'm not aware of any modern birds that have 'tails' to the extent you might be thinking of, but why would you think they have the genes for them. Archeopteryx was a pre-historic bird that had a long tail, so the concept of other birds having tails is nothing new. Nonetheless the current understanding is that Archeopteryx is not an ancester of modern birds and was just a bird line that went extinct.
Secondly, you're being hyper-selective on what animal those traits supposedly link to. Why does the chicken (or bird) genes need to especially match up to a velociraptor? Why could it not match up to some other prehistoric animal that had teeth, claws, etc,? Because an evolutionary link between raptor and birds is assumed.
Thirdly, expecting any 'vestigial' dinosaur genes to stick around to be expressed today goes against a principle of evolution called Dollo's law. So unless you are saying that evolution applies except when it's convenient for it to do so, you have no case.

There's no 'assumption'. You're calling it that because you don't know anything about it and have a desperate need for one

My statement here was directly in response to your talking about vestigial genes. There are no vestigial genes for teeth, claws, whatever in birds. The only way you could know this would to have DNA from an ancient animal (which there is none in posession) to compare. Plus, the scientists that are doing experiments with trying to produce teeth, claws, or bird beak into dinosaur snouts, are not activating vestigial genes, but have in fact been either inserting genes from another animal (usually a mammal) OR breaking/disabling genes in the chicken to produce some morphological effects. And lastly, as mentioned before, vestigial genes lying around for a long time breaks another evolutionary concept (Dollo's law)

So, the reason why vestigial dinosaur genes are believed to be in birds is simply because evolution is assumed and the scientists wants there to be vestigial genes there. Think about it.

You need to test whether something is true or not. Which, ironically, is actually a commandment in the bible (something about "don't just believe me, but test my words to see for yourself if they stand") That's the activity science is doing... testing. That's how they know what I've put here... you might not like what I've put, but you don't know anything about it, so you're not in a position to make a judgment.

And I completely agree with this statement. Test away! But this is also what I have been pointing too. Despite all the tests, they have not been able to demonstrate macroevolution via M+NS.

You claim they have. So show me one example.

No dude. This may come as a surprise to you, but no... scientists do not merely 'draw up' something, and then go "hurr durr that kinda looks like a chicken. tada! thesis statement complete!" That is not, I'm sorry to inform you, how science works.
The drawing is based on something called a fossil...
That's how it's done. Not in the "hurr durr" way you put forth. I'm sorry to tell you, but science has not been producing 300 years of results due to 'hurr durr'.

LOL!!! But a 'hurr durr' moment is exactly what you did back in post #165. You said: "Instead of million year old DNA... let's try the human eye." Then you proceeded to show a picture, which is an artist representation of what a velociraptor may have looked like, and then asked: "How similar does that look to a chicken to you?". And your point? - "I expect you to say it looks like a different animal, but also not that much different from a chicken... especially for an animal 71 million years separated from a chicken." So, because a picture representation of a velociraptor looks vaguely like a chicken (and that is really stretching one's subjective opinion), that is supposed to be evidence of relation? "Hurr durr"

ROFL!

And just in case you're not getting it.... that is not how science is done.

There's gotta be at least a modicum of knowledge, a kind of 'bar for entry', that the other person has to have to justify debating them on something. Kind of like the rides at the amusement park that say "must be this tall to ride". Or else you'll be wasting time answering jaw dropping questions like the previous one.

LOL

 

[Ojian]

You are unable to make a scientific or historical case for the existence of the Biblical Adam and Eve, and instead have expended your energies trying to goad others into proving a negative.

I do not think you understand the concept of 'proving a negative'. Your (and Despotic Ocelot's) contention was that there is DNA from millions of years ago that scientists have to work with. I disputed that contention, and said that there is NOT million-year-old DNA available. So, you said something exists, I said that something does not exist. If you ask me to prove that something doesnt exist, that is asking me to prove a negative. Me asking you to prove that something exists is not asking to prove a negative. For me to be asking you to prove a negative, you would summarily be admiting that the something does not exist, which in this case supports my contention.

Now for Adam and Eve. As I said before, there is nothing scientifically wrong with the concept that humans came from a single pair of individuals. Moden DNA evidence could allow for all humans to spring from one couple, but that is a general statement and does not support pointing to any specific two early humans (for which we do not have their DNA). So at best, that is merely dispelling a negative argument (ie, it scientifically could not happen) for a possible original pair.

I do think there is positive scientific evidence that humans were intelligently designed. But 1) that is a highly debated subject that is too much to discuss (beyond already) in this forum and I doubt that any agreement would be met there, and 2) even if intelligent design could be proven, we could not link it to apply to any specific individuals (the specific Adam and Eve).

So I would say that any scientific case is silent. Science is neutral on a specific Adam and Eve. And that is often the case with science when speaking to any specific historical event. There just is not any evidence either way to appeal to.

Now a historical case is different, and has different standards with often involve more subjective opinions. A particular testimony can be made, but whether or not it is believed depends on the character view one has of the person/thing giving testimony, much as how a court case is done.. My historical support for Adam and Eve is primarily based on the Bible, which I view as historically accurate (Please do not read into that too much). You may not hold that view. Any further debate would have to come down to battling over one's character view of the Bible, which is probably much too involved and lengthy for this forum.

 

[Ojian]

Additionally, it was not I who used the number of scientists to support my argument in the first place - it was you. I just questioned the veracity of your claim as stated.

What?!? After you stated that the "vast majority of research biologists and related scientists consider evidence for macroevolution overwhelming," to which I am still asking for an example of said evidence, you were the one that pointed at my contention that 'many scientists are questioning the capability of M+NS" and questioned what I meant by "many" and defined that as "few". So, it was YOU sir that pulled the 'there are more scientists on my side than yours' card.

To which you are still going on about in your next paragraph.....

Your first link lists about 50 people. There are at least tens of thousands of scientists in fields related to evolution. It is statistically pretty much inevitable that a few of them would question macroevolution. There are actually at least ten times as many members of The Flat Earth Society. Do you call that "many"?

I feel like there some statement about a black pot that is appropriate here.

The ratio of scientists that support to don't support something is largely irrelevant. What is germaine to the discussion is that for a supposedly rock-solid theory, there are a significant number of scientists that dispute it's contentions. The first list I gave was only one example of some scientists that are leaders in their fields that hold a dissenting opinion as to the power of M+NS to produce macroevolutionary changes. Here is a second example (of many): www.dissentfromdarwin.org . That list contains hundreds of names. Is it the majority of all scientists? Or course not. But minority/majority means very little. It is more what does the data actually show.

Your second link does not even mean what you think it means. Most of the proponents of the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis do not doubt macroevolution.

If by defining macroevolution as the same as the process for the Modern Synthesis... then yes, many of them do. That was the essentially the purpose for convening that Royal Society meeting (which btw, the Royal Society is one of the oldest and most prestigious scientific groups around). It's not that those proponents necessarily doubt a materialistic explanation, which they do not. It is just that they recognize that the Modern Synthesis (process of M+NS) is not sufficient to explain the arrival of new genetic information that is required to produce new forms, species, body plans, etc. They are looking for a new or additional factor to account for the information problem.

I define evidence pretty closely to the way it's defined in law....

Then what is (some) of your evidence. You keep saying that there is this airtight case, but you actually have not laid out the case yet. You are merely using hearsay and pointing to a bunch of scientists that are also saying they have a good case.... but what is the actual evidence?

It's like the prosecutor gave a piece of paper with a list of the same exhibits, just as you have written them down in your post, to the jury. And now the prosecutor is saying, "See, the evidence is written down right there". Do you really expect a jury to favorably judge?

I keep asking for some decent examples of evidence, and so far the only thing that has actually been presented is Despotic Ocelot has put up an artistic picture and said: 'See, it kinda looks like a chicken'.

And not so coincidentally, your type of reasoning has lost in the court of law at least twice already.

If you are referring to Dover, you should look again at what the judgement was about.

 

[Lark]

When you come to a discussion with an open mind, there is no telling what you might learn. I appreciate your contributions as well.

Aye but most of the time its just the extent of peoples ignorance!!!

I never ask myself how fucking dumb people can be anymore because they inevitably decide to demonstrate.

 

[Coriolis]

I do not think you understand the concept of 'proving a negative'. Your (and Despotic Ocelot's) contention was that there is DNA from millions of years ago that scientists have to work with. I disputed that contention, and said that there is NOT million-year-old DNA available. So, you said something exists, I said that something does not exist. If you ask me to prove that something doesnt exist, that is asking me to prove a negative. Me asking you to prove that something exists is not asking to prove a negative. For me to be asking you to prove a negative, you would summarily be admiting that the something does not exist, which in this case supports my contention.

Now for Adam and Eve. As I said before, there is nothing scientifically wrong with the concept that humans came from a single pair of individuals. Moden DNA evidence could allow for all humans to spring from one couple, but that is a general statement and does not support pointing to any specific two early humans (for which we do not have their DNA). So at best, that is merely dispelling a negative argument (ie, it scientifically could not happen) for a possible original pair.

I do think there is positive scientific evidence that humans were intelligently designed. But 1) that is a highly debated subject that is too much to discuss (beyond already) in this forum and I doubt that any agreement would be met there, and 2) even if intelligent design could be proven, we could not link it to apply to any specific individuals (the specific Adam and Eve).

So I would say that any scientific case is silent. Science is neutral on a specific Adam and Eve. And that is often the case with science when speaking to any specific historical event. There just is not any evidence either way to appeal to.

Now a historical case is different, and has different standards with often involve more subjective opinions. A particular testimony can be made, but whether or not it is believed depends on the character view one has of the person/thing giving testimony, much as how a court case is done.. My historical support for Adam and Eve is primarily based on the Bible, which I view as historically accurate (Please do not read into that too much). You may not hold that view. Any further debate would have to come down to battling over one's character view of the Bible, which is probably much too involved and lengthy for this forum.

Establishing the historical veracity of the Bible would require its version of events to be corroborated elsewhere, including other contemporary writings, archaeological evidence, etc. Many events described in the Bible are readily corroborated in this manner. The Genesis story of Adam and Eve is not one of them. This renders your acceptance of the historical validity of those parts of the Bible a belief, to which you are entitled just like the next person. Such a belief is not part of my personal faith.

I have already explained the scientific plausability of Adam and Eve. Namely it is possible (though unlikely) that there were a single male and single female human ancestor. As someone else pointed out, however, their appearance, fully grown, in the Garden of Eden cannot be explained by any natural process known to science. Accepting an Adam and Eve of this nature is therefore an act of faith. We should not demean our faith by expecting it to stand up to scientific scrutiny. It cannot, but then it doesn't need to.

And the negative I was referring to in "proving a negative" was the absence of a Biblical Adam and Eve. The DNA example was just for contrast.

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

What?!? After you stated that the "vast majority of research biologists and related scientists consider evidence for macroevolution overwhelming," to which I am still asking for an example of said evidence, you were the one that pointed at my contention that 'many scientists are questioning the capability of M+NS" and questioned what I meant by "many" and defined that as "few". So, it was YOU sir that pulled the 'there are more scientists on my side than yours' card.

Once more - the full quote of what I have said:

Contrary to you other claim, vast majority of research biologists and related scientists consider evidence for macroevolution overwhelming. This is demonstrably true if you do search for peer reviewed papers on evolution. This is not a proof that macroevolution is true of course, but it will show that you claim that

"many scientists are very aware of the capabilities of NS and are instead looking for an alternative explanation."

is unsupported.

This is not the 'there are more scientists on my side than yours' card. This is clearly the 'you are talking nonsense' card.

Now, since you are still asking for evidence:
99% of working scientists (this includes astronomers and computer scientists) in US believe in human evolution. In Europe, it's likely more.

An Elaboration of AAAS Scientists’ Views | Pew Research Center

The ratio of scientists that support to don't support something is largely irrelevant. What is germaine to the discussion is that for a supposedly rock-solid theory, there are a significant number of scientists that dispute it's contentions.

You are quite a contortionist.

Then what is (some) of your evidence. You keep saying that there is this airtight case, but you actually have not laid out the case yet. You are merely using hearsay and pointing to a bunch of scientists that are also saying they have a good case.... but what is the actual evidence?

It's like the prosecutor gave a piece of paper with a list of the same exhibits, just as you have written them down in your post, to the jury. And now the prosecutor is saying, "See, the evidence is written down right there". Do you really expect a jury to favorably judge?

I keep asking for some decent examples of evidence, and so far the only thing that has actually been presented is Despotic Ocelot has put up an artistic picture and said: 'See, it kinda looks like a chicken'.

I have already provided some evidence. So have [MENTION=9811]Coriolis[/MENTION], [MENTION=33301]Despotic Ocelot[/MENTION] and others. Your typical response was:

I've not heard about the whale ear muscles issue, unless you are referring to the ear bones in Pakicetus (which today is a non-issue and whose link on that basis has been pretty much falsified). Do you have a reference?

I did not mention Pakicetus, I said whales. The following:

The external ear (pinna) of whales has disappeared and the muscles which moved it have also atrophied. However, scholars have found remnants of ear (auricular) cartilage beneath the skin of some porpoises (Delphinidaehocoena); in addition, remnants of the external ear muscles linger beneath the skin of all whalebone whales.

is from Whales of the World by Spencer Wilkie Tinker, available on Amazon. I am sure that with some effort you would be able to find more mentions of this (as I have seen in the past) since whale anatomy is not a big mystery - I am sure there are more whales, despite being protected species, than biologists questioning evolution.

In the end, we still don't know what is your proposed explanation for this and many other facts listed by people here.

I am not going to list more evidence - there are plenty of great books, papers, articles and youtube videos. I don't think you are really interested. But in case you were, here's a good video talking about evidence (including ear muscles) for the evolution of cetaceans: