Is a Hippo a Pig or a Whale?

CEH ^ | March 24, 2009

[Don W]

An early ancestor of the horse was named *hippocampus*.

That could be why you thought of horses. I had the same association.

[Richard Kimball]

It’s half hippo, half bear and half pig. Excelsior!

[Ira_Louvin]

Yes they can be questioned, just do the research, write a paper citing your falsifiable evidence, and submit it for peer-review.

“While biologists do draw a distinction between micro-evolution and macro-evolution it really is a distinction without much difference. Or to put it another way, the distinction is a rather artificial one imposed by biologists. The simple answer is that the process at work in macro-evolution is precisely the same one at work in micro-evolution. So to say I believe micro-evolution, but not macro-evolution may sound erudite to the uneducated, but to those who are familiar with the topic you sound like a boob. It is like saying I believe in molecules, but not in atoms, electrons, protons and neutrons.” ~ Steve Verdon

“Microevolution is a term - when used by creationists - that is the evolutionary equivalent of the belief that the mechanism you use to walk from your bedroom to the kitchen is insufficient to get you from New York to Los Angeles.” ~ Unknown

[atlaw]

Excellent analogy placemarker

[demshateGod]

And more of our money is wasted. Evolution is hurting science by wasting the time of scientists.

[demshateGod]

Pig humpin whales? Or whale humpin pigs?

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

The most basic assumption of macroevolution, that of common descent, cannot be questioned

There are different kinds of assumptions. The word can refer to taking something to be true without any evidence: "I assume that if we ask them nicely, Al-Qaeda will be our friends." It can also mean taking something to be true because so much evidence supports it: "I assume that if I throw this ball in the air, it will come down."

At this point, common descent is much closer to the second kind. Lots of new evidence could have weakened it as a hypothesis; instead, new evidence from fossils, molecular biology, lab experiments, and more have tended to support it. So now it's an assumption the way a gardener assumes he has to water his crops. It's not something to reconsider every time he plants a new garden--and common descent isn't something scientists reconsider every time they find a new fossil.

Which isn't to say it can't be questioned. But scientists aren't going to pay attention to someone questioning it just on the basis of its being an assumption and saying they have to demonstrate its validity all over again, any more than a gardener is going to listen to someone saying, "Are you sure you need to water those?" The questioner needs to bring an awful lot of counterevidence to get those kinds of assumptions reconsidered. And that's as it should be.

[GourmetDan]

"“Microevolution is a term - when used by creationists - that is the evolutionary equivalent of the belief that the mechanism you use to walk from your bedroom to the kitchen is insufficient to get you from New York to Los Angeles.” ~ Unknown"

"Microevolution is a term - when used by evolutionists - that is the evolutionary equivalent of the belief that the mechanism you use to increase your vertical leap is sufficient to allow you to jump to the Moon." - GourmetDan

[Ira_Louvin]

So you are saying that you cannot add one plus one until you get the sum of one million?

[RegulatorCountry]

No matter what you're writing about, how can anyone expect to be taken seriously when one writes slop like your typical sentence:

Careful, don't strain oneself. Spellcheck can provide one with a false sense of security.

[Oztrich Boy]

it’s a subtle way of saying more than what certain KEY WORDS appear to first indicate

Not particularly

[GodGunsGuts]

Don’t let CottShop’s typos fool you. I have seen him in action. If you ever stuck around long enough to have real debate, I am quite certain that Cottshop would eat you for lunch, and then pick his teeth with what’s left of your bones.

[CottShop]

[[Also what examples do you have for talkorigins misrepresentations?]]

Lol- What examples? That whole site, trueorigins is chock full of examples- that is their primary reason for the site- exposing talkorigins lies- As well, you didn’t refute one hting written- all you did was denigrade the writer- that isn’t exactly a valid arguemtn

[CottShop]

[[”Microevolution is a term - when used by evolutionists - that is the evolutionary equivalent of the belief that the mechanism you use to increase your vertical leap is sufficient to allow you to jump to the Moon.” - GourmetDan]]

Lol- precisely- No matter how uyou change hte available info within the species specific parameters,. you can NOT create NEW non species specific systems via simple mutaitons- it takes lateral gene transference of non species specific info in order to create NEW systems not specific to that species- but that apparently escapes macroevolutionists who beleive that one can jump to hte moon simply because one can jump an anthill

[CottShop]

GGG to whatajoke: [[If you ever stuck around long enough to have real debate,]]

That’s the problem- none of htem DO stick around for real debate- they simply are content nitpicking and tyhrowing around ad hominem attacks- but again- it’s quite apparent they lack the ammo to engage in real combat.

[GodGunsGuts]

I see Whattajoke’s comments have been removed. When I first read what he said about you, I thought “What a joke,” only to find out that I was reacting to comments issued by the very personification of someone who treats life like its all a big joke. This prompted me to visit the Joker’s FR profile page. And wouldn’t ya know it, here is what I found:

“FR has become a haven for too many loons who equate science with Satanism and label everyone a liberal if they disagree with them...Enjoy your nuthouse.”

If Whattajoke thinks FR has become a nuthouse (over a single issue, no less!), then what is he/she/it still doing here?

[Ira_Louvin]

Then it should be no problem for you to cite a few of those misrepresentations, and please specific.

Also I was merely pointing out the credentials of the author that you cited.

I quick google search show 44 recent peer-reviewed papers by Dr. Phillip D. Gingerich.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=philip+d+gingerich+%22ph+d%22+author:p-gingerich&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&start=20&sa=N

How many peer-reviewed papers has Ashby B Camp authored?

Ashby B Camp is an attorney, that my friend is a far cry from a professor of Paleontology, Geological Sciences, Biology, Anthropology, and the Director Museum of Paleontology

Would you rather have a board certified neurosurgeon or a hospital orderly performing the surgery on your embolism?

As far as refuting what was written Mr. Camp has the same misconception of many people. All his paper is pointing out is his perceived problems with the “Gaps in the fossil record” He completely fails to offer an alternate hypothesis, much less provide any testable evidence

“The fact that some transitional fossils are not preserved does not disprove evolution. Evolutionary biologists do not expect that all transitional forms will be found and realize that many species leave no fossils at all. Lots of organisms don’t fossilize well and the environmental conditions for forming good fossils are not that common. So, science actually predicts that for many evolutionary changes there will be gaps in the record.

Also, scientists have found many transitional fossils. For example, there are fossils of transitional organisms between modern birds and their theropod dinosaur ancestors, and between whales and their terrestrial mammal ancestors.”

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#b3

“Transitional fossil - Misconceptions

It is commonly stated by anti-evolutionists that there are no known transitional fossils. According to evolutionary scientists, this position is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of what represents a transitional feature. A common creationist argument is that no fossils are found with partially functional features. It is entirely plausible, however, that a complex feature with one function can adapt a wholly different function through evolution. The precursor to e.g. a wing, might originally have only been meant for gliding, trapping flying prey, and/or mating display. Nowadays, wings can still have all of these functions, but they are also used in active flight.

Although transitional fossils elucidate the evolutionary transition of one life-form to another, they only exemplify snapshots of this process. Due the special circumstances required for preservation of living beings, only a small percentage of all life-forms that ever have existed can be expected to be discovered. Thus, the transition itself can only be illustrated and corroborated by transitional fossils, but it will never be known in detail. However, progressing research and discovery managed to fill in several gaps and continues to do so.

The theory of punctuated equilibria developed by Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldredge is often mistakenly drawn into the discussion of transitional fossils. This theory, however, only pertains to well-documented transitions within species or between closely related species over a geologically short period of time. These transitions, usually traceable in the same geological outcrop, often show small jumps in morphology between periods of morphological stability. To explain these jumps, Gould and Eldredge envisaged comparatively long periods of genetic stability separated by periods of rapid evolution.”

http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Transitional_fossil_-_Misconceptions/id/5302098

[CottShop]

[[If Whattajoke thinks FR has become a nuthouse (over a single issue, no less!), then what is he/she/it still doing here?]]

Heckling of course- but htink about it- what kind of a nut would ittake to stick aroudn a so called nuthouse to heckle said nuts? Egads! Not saying He/She is a nut- just askign a general quesiton about fictitional persons who may or may not exist- the hecklers I mean- not that he/she is a heckler, but hten again, it does appear to be heckling.

I didn’t even see his/her post- probably a good thing though- I’m sure it was just another derailment attempt because the facts of science are too icky for said hecklers to deal with.

[Ira_Louvin]

You might want to review this link from Creation Ministries International

http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use

“Creationists believe in microevolution but not macroevolution.’

These terms, which focus on ‘small’ v. ‘large’ changes, distract from the key issue of information. That is, particles-to-people evolution requires changes that increase genetic information, but all we observe is sorting and loss of information. We have yet to see even a ‘micro’ increase in information, although such changes should be frequent if evolution were true. Conversely, we do observe quite ‘macro’ changes that involve no new information, e.g. when a control gene is switched on or off.”