Despite the title, according to this article, there is no “.vs” between evolution and design.
“Prehistoric mammal swung tail like baseball bat“
Or..at least, we’re pretty sure, kinda, but it sounds like a good script!
The findings about glyptodonts — which looked like a cross between an armadillo and a Volkswagen beetle car — apply to dinosaurs that also had spiked tails, the team of researchers believes.
Any time you see the words, “researchers believe,” please feel free to replace with, “we’re pretty much just making this shit up as we go along.” Same diff.
Glyptodonts lived in both South and North America, first emerging around 2.5 million years ago and going extinct 8,000 years ago, possibly due to hunting by humans.
Wait. I thought that the idea that dinosaurs and humans lived together during the same period was solely the purview of a bunch of wacky creationist types? I’m confused. I thought “faith” and “science” can’t mix, and yet here we have these scientists rambling on about their beliefs. Hmm.
The study, published in the latest Proceedings of the Royal Society B, “reinforces the idea that in that (sweet spot) was something useful to cause more damage during an impact,” Blanco said, adding that glyptodonts might have evolved this defensive technique to help fight off “terror birds,” prehistoric South America’s dominant predator.
(Please apply the same grammatical rule to “might” as that proposed for “researchers believe.”)
And of course, my all-time favorite, the ubiquitous and seemingly unavoidable imputation of will and intent to the marginally sentient in deciding to “evolve”. Can’t you just picture the conversation at one of their weekly staff meetings?
“Uh, hey guys? GUYS?! Yeah, well, as I’m sure some of you have noticed, a lot of us have been getting knocked off lately by these freakingly hellish terror bird thingies. And I, for one, am just flat stumped as to what to do about it. Any ideas?
It is then that Walter, heretofor a fairly quiet and unassiming sort, rather tentatively raises a proto-metatarsal and tremulously suggests, “Well, uhm, I mean, you know, we COULD evolve a defense. I’ve been thinking a lot lately about trying to grow some spikes in the middle of my tail, maybe add a little bone density down there. I’m pretty sure it would work.”
The assembled glyptodonts sit for a moment in stunned silence, and then suddenly all are shouting at once. What an idea! Walter, you’ve done it! Walter for President! Woo-hoooo!
Utter freaking genius, that Walter.
Glyptodonts might have therefore evolved their body armor, not to mention their spiked tails, to withstand this bird’s potentially deadly kicks.
Another of Walter’s breakthrough ideas. One thing though: Walter sort of left out the “how” of reprogramming his DNA in response to the external stimuli provided by Raptor-lite. The key element in the logical disconnect of it all is that one word “therefore.” “Therefore” implies a cause-and-effect relationship, a stimulus -response action. “I experienced this, THERFORE, I took this action.” “I analyzed these facts, and therefore, I came to this conclusion.” One might attempt to chalk it up to a meaningless grammatical slip or colloquialism, but this kind of thing is so prevalent in these kinds of articles that I don’t think we can’t call it a typo. It reveals a trend in thought, a propensity for ascribing motive, ability and aforethought to a series of responses to environmental conditions or changes.
In addition to defense against predators, Blanco and his colleagues believe glyptodonts used their tails in fights against each other over territory, food, mates and more.
Ah yes, more “beliefs.” They have to use the word “believe” here because they have no evidence for these assertions, other than, “Well, sounds kinda plausible to me based on other things I’ve seen.” These scientists have no ability to observe glyptodonts in the wild, to observe their actual behavior, and so must make deductions and inferences based on mostly anecdotal evidence, no matter how sketchy. Which, I’m told, is a methodology summarily dismissed as “unscientific” when attributed to Creationists.
Hutchinson said he was surprised by “how the positions of spikes and nubbins on the tail clubs in a variety of species seem to line up pretty well with the mechanically most reasonable positions.”
He concluded, “That’s what evolution should produce, of course, but it’s always satisfying finding different kinds of evidence for sufficiently good biological design.”
I am continually amazed at dissonance reduction that goes on with these people, whereby the better the “design” of a species or an apparent adaptation, the better the case for the amazing efficacy of evolution.
I, for one, have to heartily agree with Mr. Hutchinson on this one. I am continually gratified to find evidence of biological design in nearly ever aspect of our creation. God’s hand in the amazing workmanship and incredible complexity of the life around us simply cries out in support of design.
It’s heartening to see the academic community finally coming around to embrace the same ideas.
Let’s run through that quote one more time. “Evolution should produce…evidence for sufficiently good biological design.”
That Walter. What a freakin’ genius. Here our most advance scientists struggle to map and understand DNA and the human genome, and yet, millions of years ago critters like Walter had already figured out how to redesign themselves to not only be more resistant to predators, but to optimize their design in a variety of insightful and provocative ways.
So, in review, evidence of design supports the theory of evolution. No further discussion required, and certainly no alternate or competing theories need be entertained. Moving on…
Found this from one of the auto-links on this post:
However, Kenneth Miller does give some insight on where the attack is coming next. It is teaching the “controversy.” A controversy that is wholly politically manufactured and not scientific. It also comes from an attempt to discredit evolution by holding it to an impossible burden of proof. The reason is that it is impossible is that the people in the movement take it as an article of faith that evolution must be false because it contradicts their religious view of an inerrant religious text or their interpretation of it. That is not a rational standard, but rather an irrational one which is why Kenneth Miller’s remark that everything is at stake is not an understatement.
Replace creationism with evolution, and science with religion:
It also comes from an attempt to discredit creationism by holding it to an impossible burden of proof. The reason is that it is impossible is that the people in the movement take it as an article of faith that creationism must be false because it contradicts their scientific view of an inerrant scientific [theory] or their interpretation of it. That is not a rational standard, but rather an irrational one which is why [Kenneth Miller’s] remark that everything is at stake is not an understatement.
Evidence must only be examined within the context of evolution. Evidence can never disprove evolution, only modify the theory. Any other approach is apparently holding science to an impossible standard, the very approach they take with creationists. They are blind to their own hypocrisy.