Today's most viewed
Whales as evidence of intelligent design?
Joe Pieri claims (Letters, October 17) that a watertight cap around the nipples of whales that fits tightly around the baby's snout to prevent sea water entering is a perfect illustration of intelligent design (ID) as any gradual transitional form would result in the baby whale's death. If this is the best example a supporter of ID can muster, it only helps to illustrate how flawed this non-scientific idea is and why it has absolutely no place in the science classroom. First, as a whale biologist, I can say with some certainty that no such structure exists.
Baby whales use "fringes" around the edge of their tongue to help channel milk from the nipple to their thoats. This does not to prevent the entrance of sea water into the baby whale's mouth, nor is it intended to, but only serves to reduce the mixing of sea water and milk. This leaves plenty of possibilities for functional transitional forms where the tongue is only slightly more fringed and, therefore, only slightly better at keeping the milk and sea water separate, making the milk less dilute and, therefore, beneficial to the calf as it gets more concentrated milk faster.
Secondly, there is no need for baby whales to prevent sea water entering their mouths as it will not kill them. Presumably, Mr Pieri thinks that the reason the baby whale would die if sea water entered the mouth is because it might get into the airway causing the animal to drown.
However, unlike humans, the windpipe of a whale sticks right through its oesophagous, completely separating the airway and the digestive tract (a requirement for all whales, whether adult or baby, as they need to be able to open their mouths underwater to feed) so there is no risk of drowning while nursing in baby whales. A similar, but not as complete, separation of the digestive tract and the airway is found in all young terrestrial mammals, including humans, to allow them to breath while nursing, and while adaptation is lost in older humans through a descent of the larynx, this basic mammalian separation has been enhanced by natural selection in whales because it is beneficial to their life in the sea. Incidentally, this positioning of the larynx through the digestive tract limits the size of fish whales can swallow because if the fish is too big it may displace the larynx and allow water into the airway, resulting in death.
In fact, whales are not uncommonly found washed up on the shore having died due to suffocation with large fish wedged in their throat, demonstrating that while this design works most of the time, it is far from perfect and certainly not evidence of any ID. Therefore, Mr Pieri's "perfect" example for ID is a figment of his imagination based a poor understanding of biology and no facts.
Dr Colin D MacLeod,
Beaked Whale Research Project,
1 Froghall View, Aberdeen.
In reply to Joe Pieri, to suggest that the atheist is as much a believer as a theist is like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby. Utter nonsense.
Stephen Middlemass,
27 Wester Drylaw Park, Edinburgh.
I, like everyone else, cannot "know" whether or not there is a God. I believe in scientific explanations of physical processes, but I do not confine my believing to what is based on scientific evidence. There is no proper scientific evidence that any actions in the world are morally wrong, yet I believe many are, and this is fundamentally true. What sort of scientific evidence could there be for that? I believe certain authors show superb insight into the human condition, and that this statement is true however you break it down. There may be reasonable arguments for holding that opinion, but there is no scientific or empirical evidence for its truth or falsity. The literary critic can only persuade with examples.
Alan J Sangster (Letters, January 27) maintains that "the evidence for the God of the creationists and intelligent designers is non-existent". What sort of evidence does he want? What sort of evidence could there be? A copyright attached to DNA saying: "I, God, am responsible for this"? A banner appearing every now and then in the heavens saying: "Here I am, the God that made all this"? What sort of evidence would atheists accept, evidence that would prevent them from supposing that a scientific explanation had yet to be found?
All this bleating about evidence is irrelevant. Mr Sangster half sees this himself when he writes that after all natural processes have a scientific explanation "the God that remains will not be eradicated by science". He is being scornful, but how true that is. It is because belief in God has nothing to do with science, nor indeed did ancient mythology which was not, as he suggests, some kind of pre-science "making life less threatening". Making life less threatening? Most of the ancients were terrified of the gods. Maybe Dawkins and his disciples should read more widely and remove themselves from their time-warped nineteenth-century take on the so-called battle between science and religion. Read some Kierkegaard, or start with philosopher A E Taylor's Does God Exist?, where they will find, from a very intelligent man, a much wider
concept of rationality than scientific method alone.
Arthur F Jones,
23 MacPhie Road, Dumbarton.
© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without
permission is prohibited.
Posted by: heredal, perth on 10:01pm Fri 19 Oct 07
Thank you Dr McLeod and Mr Middlemass for two on-the-mark contributions.
Perhaps Mr Pieri would benefit from lifting his head from his bible and finding out a bit more about the real world, as opposed to the fantasy world
Thank you Dr McLeod and Mr Middlemass for two on-the-mark contributions.
Perhaps Mr Pieri would benefit from lifting his head from his bible and finding out a bit more about the real world, as opposed to the fantasy world
Posted by: Westcoast, Ayrshire on 10:10pm Fri 19 Oct 07
Briefly, two things. One) Stepehen Middlemass is extremely accurate and very succint - RESPECT!!! Two) I wonder if it is actually possible to ever provide sufficient evidence to those convinced that ID has any basis in anything other than fantasy that they are at least misguided and at worst totally barking. In my limited experience, it seems that these people are able to dismiss any and all evidence that conflicts with the basic ID concept purely on the basis that those who don't agree must be wrong. Not very convincing though, is it?
Briefly, two things. One) Stepehen Middlemass is extremely accurate and very succint - RESPECT!!! Two) I wonder if it is actually possible to ever provide sufficient evidence to those convinced that ID has any basis in anything other than fantasy that they are at least misguided and at worst totally barking. In my limited experience, it seems that these people are able to dismiss any and all evidence that conflicts with the basic ID concept purely on the basis that those who don't agree must be wrong. Not very convincing though, is it?
Posted by: T. Watson, Inverness on 4:34am Sat 20 Oct 07
Arthur Jones of Dumbarton :
yours is as reasoned and fair a comment as we have had on this subject which obviously fires emotions on all sides.
The points you make so well give us all food for thought.
Arthur Jones of Dumbarton :
yours is as reasoned and fair a comment as we have had on this subject which obviously fires emotions on all sides.
The points you make so well give us all food for thought.
Posted by: Joe, Scotland on 7:18am Sat 20 Oct 07
The debate rumbles on with one contrived argument after another. The ID people produce them like rabbits out of a hat. While I appreciate the debunking contributions above, I think we should recognise that the objective of these ID people is not to convince anyone (except those who are already of that persuasion) that ID is a sound idea, but to promote the fiction that there is really anything left to discuss.
We know that ID and general religious belief is wrong – plain wrong – and we don’t need to defend evolution to make that point. Attempts are often made to support the idea that religious belief is beyond scientific proof either way. There are actually two ways to show that an idea is wrong – by producing evidence, which contradicts some prediction based on the idea (not easy if the idea has no predictions) or by showing that the idea contains a logical contradiction. It is that second possibility that defeats the religious idea. All religious belief (including ID) tries to plug the gap in our knowledge about the origins of the universe, life etc. with another gap of the same size. When the question WHO DESIGNED THE DESIGNER? (or the GOD) is posed, it is never answered. All we get is a diversion to some other contrived argument about some minutia of evolution.
If it is the case that all complicated things must have been created by and intelligent creator, then the same argument applies to the creator it/him/herself. That leads logically to an endless series of creators. It is an absurd idea that shows the falsity of ID FULL STOP. There is no need to pursue the issue any further. An alternative view is to recognise that we do actually have intelligent creators, every one of us has two of them – called Mummy and Daddy. And yes there are a (nearly) endless series of creator of that kind. But that of course is just another way of describing Darwin’s Theory of Evolution.
As for general religious belief. Canon Kenyon Wright tried to put his God-belief beyond the reach of science by defining it that way – a thing beyond the dimensions of the universe including time. What he has done, however, is to define it in a way that is indistinguishable from non-existence. So what we have is a logical contradiction – a non-existent thing which exists.
When people try to “explain” the origin of the universe by introducing a concept which does not need to have its origins explained, I am reminded of the man who received a letter from his bank demanding that he clear his overdraft – so he sent them a cheque.
The debate rumbles on with one contrived argument after another. The ID people produce them like rabbits out of a hat. While I appreciate the debunking contributions above, I think we should recognise that the objective of these ID people is not to convince anyone (except those who are already of that persuasion) that ID is a sound idea, but to promote the fiction that there is really anything left to discuss.
We know that ID and general religious belief is wrong – plain wrong – and we don’t need to defend evolution to make that point. Attempts are often made to support the idea that religious belief is beyond scientific proof either way. There are actually two ways to show that an idea is wrong – by producing evidence, which contradicts some prediction based on the idea (not easy if the idea has no predictions) or by showing that the idea contains a logical contradiction. It is that second possibility that defeats the religious idea. All religious belief (including ID) tries to plug the gap in our knowledge about the origins of the universe, life etc. with another gap of the same size. When the question WHO DESIGNED THE DESIGNER? (or the GOD) is posed, it is never answered. All we get is a diversion to some other contrived argument about some minutia of evolution.
If it is the case that all complicated things must have been created by and intelligent creator, then the same argument applies to the creator it/him/herself. That leads logically to an endless series of creators. It is an absurd idea that shows the falsity of ID FULL STOP. There is no need to pursue the issue any further. An alternative view is to recognise that we do actually have intelligent creators, every one of us has two of them – called Mummy and Daddy. And yes there are a (nearly) endless series of creator of that kind. But that of course is just another way of describing Darwin’s Theory of Evolution.
As for general religious belief. Canon Kenyon Wright tried to put his God-belief beyond the reach of science by defining it that way – a thing beyond the dimensions of the universe including time. What he has done, however, is to define it in a way that is indistinguishable from non-existence. So what we have is a logical contradiction – a non-existent thing which exists.
When people try to “explain” the origin of the universe by introducing a concept which does not need to have its origins explained, I am reminded of the man who received a letter from his bank demanding that he clear his overdraft – so he sent them a cheque.
Posted by: PeteK, Edinburgh on 2:42pm Sat 20 Oct 07
Even if you could find biological structures or processes that looked intellgently designed, they could still have evolved by naural selection, bythe known proceses of duplication and divergence, and mutation/selection/d
rift. It's not enough to claim that structures LOOK designed, prima facie - science provides mechanisms, and, according to the creationists themselves, the designer operates from OUTSIDE the universe, by supernaural means. Science only deals ith natural processes, phenomena, mechanisms. So the whole thread of thought collapses.
Irreducible complex structures, such as a mousetrap, are claimed to indicate (but does not) that certain systems could not have evolved gradually. However, there is nothing about irreducibly complex systems that is positive evidence for design.
Maybe irreducible complexity suggests a lack of design. If you were designing a creature, you wouldn't want systems that will fail if any one part fails. You'd want systems that are robust...
Some would argue that ID-creationism belittles both science and religion.
See "talkorigins.org/ind
excc" or "talkdesign.org" for more information...
Even if you could find biological structures or processes that looked intellgently designed, they could still have evolved by naural selection, bythe known proceses of duplication and divergence, and mutation/selection/d
rift. It's not enough to claim that structures LOOK designed, prima facie - science provides mechanisms, and, according to the creationists themselves, the designer operates from OUTSIDE the universe, by supernaural means. Science only deals ith natural processes, phenomena, mechanisms. So the whole thread of thought collapses.
Irreducible complex structures, such as a mousetrap, are claimed to indicate (but does not) that certain systems could not have evolved gradually. However, there is nothing about irreducibly complex systems that is positive evidence for design.
Maybe irreducible complexity suggests a lack of design. If you were designing a creature, you wouldn't want systems that will fail if any one part fails. You'd want systems that are robust...
Some would argue that ID-creationism belittles both science and religion.
See "talkorigins.org/ind
excc" or "talkdesign.org" for more information...
Posted by: Gordon Hide, Ruislip UK on 9:47pm Mon 22 Oct 07
I have been moved to write this criticism of Arthur F Jones opinion above. I have seldom seen poorer logic. This despite the praise of T. Watson, Inverness, also above.
[QUOTE]There is no proper scientific evidence that any actions in the world are morally wrong, yet I believe many are, and this is fundamentally true. What sort of scientific evidence could there be for that?[/QUOTE]
Well Mr Jones we have a whole system of law which judges people on their actions. And the judgement is based on evidence, scientific or otherwise.
All actions, including moral actions, have consequences. The quality of your moral actions should be judged on those consequences.
[QUOTE]I believe certain authors show superb insight into the human condition, and that this statement is true however you break it down. There may be reasonable arguments for holding that opinion, but there is no scientific or empirical evidence for its truth or falsity.[/QUOTE]
In general, matters of opinion are difficult to judge. But that doesn’t prevent examiners from marking English papers. Nor does it prevent a general consensus arising amongst experts over things like the literary gifts of authors. That consensus represents evidence. Mr Jones has made the mistake of assuming that because evidence is hard to come by or is not of the best sort that it doesn’t exist or is of no value.
[QUOTE]Alan J Sangster (Letters, January 27) maintains that "the evidence for the God of the creationists and intelligent designers is non-existent". What sort of evidence does he want? What sort of evidence could there be? A copyright attached to DNA saying: "I, God, am responsible for this"? A banner appearing every now and then in the heavens saying: "Here I am, the God that made all this"? What sort of evidence would atheists accept, evidence that would prevent them from supposing that a scientific explanation had yet to be found?[/QUOTE]
This “logic” leads to the idea that we should all believe everything for which there can be no evidence. This is clearly silly and if it had been advanced for anything else other than religious belief its silliness would have been apparent even to Mr Jones himself.
I have been moved to write this criticism of Arthur F Jones opinion above. I have seldom seen poorer logic. This despite the praise of T. Watson, Inverness, also above.
There is no proper scientific evidence that any actions in the world are morally wrong, yet I believe many are, and this is fundamentally true. What sort of scientific evidence could there be for that?
Well Mr Jones we have a whole system of law which judges people on their actions. And the judgement is based on evidence, scientific or otherwise.
All actions, including moral actions, have consequences. The quality of your moral actions should be judged on those consequences.
I believe certain authors show superb insight into the human condition, and that this statement is true however you break it down. There may be reasonable arguments for holding that opinion, but there is no scientific or empirical evidence for its truth or falsity.
In general, matters of opinion are difficult to judge. But that doesn’t prevent examiners from marking English papers. Nor does it prevent a general consensus arising amongst experts over things like the literary gifts of authors. That consensus represents evidence. Mr Jones has made the mistake of assuming that because evidence is hard to come by or is not of the best sort that it doesn’t exist or is of no value.
Alan J Sangster (Letters, January 27) maintains that "the evidence for the God of the creationists and intelligent designers is non-existent". What sort of evidence does he want? What sort of evidence could there be? A copyright attached to DNA saying: "I, God, am responsible for this"? A banner appearing every now and then in the heavens saying: "Here I am, the God that made all this"? What sort of evidence would atheists accept, evidence that would prevent them from supposing that a scientific explanation had yet to be found?
This “logic” leads to the idea that we should all believe everything for which there can be no evidence. This is clearly silly and if it had been advanced for anything else other than religious belief its silliness would have been apparent even to Mr Jones himself.
Posted by: Let Me Through I'm a Doctor, Coatbridge on 8:57am Tue 23 Oct 07
Whales are pretty intelligent. Last year I was in Australia and a big whale came in near the harbour. It was wearing a USA baseball cap and shouting for people to bring it a Big Mac with extra cheese and large fries. One man obliged. It then took off its nipple cap and ate the burger while its pup weaned on its nipple - I was going to say breast but I don't think it had any breasts to speak of. As the whale left it shouted, "I'm off to church now." Intelligent or what?
Whales are pretty intelligent. Last year I was in Australia and a big whale came in near the harbour. It was wearing a USA baseball cap and shouting for people to bring it a Big Mac with extra cheese and large fries. One man obliged. It then took off its nipple cap and ate the burger while its pup weaned on its nipple - I was going to say breast but I don't think it had any breasts to speak of. As the whale left it shouted, "I'm off to church now." Intelligent or what?
INDEX
Comment | Read Comments (7)
