Scientists find missing link between whale and its closest relative, the hippo

UC Berkeley News ^ | 24 January 2005 | Robert Sanders, Media Relations

[Ichneumon]

The University of Chicago professor (two of my previous posts have links) asserted that he had "launched" a new species of fruit fly. It doesn't take a close reading at all to find out that nothing of the sort had happened, but the scientist when on to say, "It's happened...at least it'll happen any second now! All indications are go!" This is a scientist? I'm supposed to take this ridiculous braggart seriously? And I refused to do so--I also refused to forget about it. If he says "any moment now!", why not check back to see if that moment has occurred? That was well over a year ago. When people pointed out--"There is no fly"--they were greeted with hoots of "Superstition."

Just one question: Are you truly under the impression that this is an accurate summary of that article, and the subsequent discussion? Because if so, you're vastly mistaken.

Or are you just lying about it?

Either way, your misrepresentation bears little resemblance to the reality.

Hmm, come to think of it, the same could be said for most of your posts on this thread.

[King Prout]

sadly, it probably won't

[houeto]

The liger example shows, IMO, that speciation is a gradual process with lots of gray areas.

After reading 350 of these threads, it appears to me that the word species is loosely-knit.

[Mamzelle]

re: This brings a certain surface appeal to your argument, Translation: "Uh oh, that's undermining my point, I'd better try to hand-wave it away as just "a certain surface appeal", without actually refuting it...")))

That's your characterization, not my translation, and a very telling one on your part, indeed.

So, you don't think that a scientist should be very careful to avoid those tricks of analysis that are just surface appeal? It has surface appeal that, if you cut off the tails of enough mommy mice, sooner or later the offspring will lack tails. It had enough appeal that it was an actual experiment. Tail-less mice didn't happen, but such assumptions frequently mislead.

Modernman suggested that weakening the species of dog through breeding (the papillion, an obviously weak little misbegotten creature) would lead to a new species. I assert that it merely would lead to a fetid gene pool and inevitable "extinction" of a breed type.

Surface appeal can mislead people testing a new drug--frankly, it misleads all the time. As I have said, the evo-priests would do well to read briefs written by pharmeceudical developers to know how scientists should write and think, which is cautious and qualified and respectful of the guinea-pig public. 'Cause if pharm guys get pompous, arrogant, grandiose and ego-addled, they'll kill somebody and land in jail. Evo-guys just get tenure, I suppose.

re: Your "leap" is still a huge one. Dogs are still dogs--goats are still goats. Humans are still primates... Still apes too, for that matter.

Here you rather worry me...I do hope that "canine" means more to you than "dog"-- dog is a subset of canine, as ape is a subset of primate. And PhD is a subset of Grantgrubbicus.

[Liberal Classic]

No one can disprove the Lord, therefore evolution is false? Hmm. :\

[Dimensio]

Genesis is accurate because Noah's flood occurred. How do you arrive at the conclusion that the flood occurred?

Moreover, how do you go from "a logal flood occured" to "the creation account of Genesis is accurate"?

It's not like Genesis is the only story that contains an account of a worldwide flood. Seems RaceBannon flunked Intro to Logic.

[DannyTN]

"The liger example shows, IMO, that speciation is a gradual process with lots of gray areas.

Creationists admit to speciation within kind. Man's demonstrated that with dogs, horses, pigs, cows, etc.

But just because a lion and a tiger can mate with mixed results, doesn't prove either that they were created separately or that they are an example of genetic sorting from a common ancestor. And even scripture doesn't help me out much there.

But to go from a hippo to a whale. That's just not believable.

[Liberal Classic]

Life is more like a spread spectrum. People like to put things into categories, though, so we have taxonomy.

[Jaysun]

Basically then, what you are asserting is that the Bible, while true, doesn't necessarily tell us every single detail about the creation of the universe. Therefore, is it impossible that God, in the beginnning, arranged the laws of physics in such a way that the big bang would occur and inevitably lead to the formation of the earth and all life on it, including man? Couldn't the other "people" you mentioned in reference to the question about who Cain and Abel married be simply pre-human ancestors that were close enough to human to interbreed with the earliest humans? Couldn't being made in God's image refer more to the spiritual and mental capabilities of man, rather than physical ones? (ie. ability to think and reason, ability to make moral decisions, etc.) If you don't take everything literally in the Bible, and if you recognize that there can be things that aren't in the Bible, it opens up many possibilities, such as the possibility that science and religion really aren't contradictory.

Those are good points. The only one that I simply can't accept as possible is that God created man as anything less than man. I gave a few scriptures that I feel support that idea. It's also a belief that I can't separate from my faith. Man is special, man is in charge, man was made in the image of God.

As to the other points, I absolutely agree. Science and religion really aren't contradictory. While I've said that the Bible isn't a "creation blueprint", there are things that line up with science throughout the bible. For example, some scientist believe that the continents were once connected. Some Biblical scholars believe that scripture says just that:

And unto Eber (means "the region beyond" in Hebrew) were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg (means "division" in Hebrew); for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan (means "smallness" in Hebrew). Genesis 10:25

Others believe that this is referring to the Tower of Babel. From a Biblical perspective, what's it really matter if the earth was once one large mass of land or not? If you look at these questions from that perspective I think it becomes clear why there are so many things that aren't addressed. Who cares?

[Dimensio]

But to go from a hippo to a whale. That's just not believable.

Argument from incredulity?

[DannyTN]

"No one can disprove the Lord, therefore evolution is false? Hmm. :\"

No, that sounds like the arguments evolutionists make. "No one can disprove evolution, therefore creation is false."

But if you can prove the Lord, then evolution as purely the consequence of natural phenomenon is false. If you can prove the scripture is inspired, then macro-evolution is false.

[Ichneumon]

These are not scientists as much as they are priests. They don't present a reasonable theory, they insist I ascribe to it lest I be "ignorant".

Whatever you say, hon. You believe whatever helps you deal with those pesky "facts" thingies.

I don't know how life began, and I don't credit these erstwhile Darwin-thumpers who claim to know, either.

Obviously.

I have beliefs--but I don't call people "superstitious" or "ignorant" who don't happen to agree.

Neither do I. I call people ignorant when they *are* ignorant -- when they have little or no knowledge of a field, but insist on pontificating on it anyway and using their misconceptions (and often outright fantasies) in order to get snotty with people who *do* have such knowledge. When someone spews multiple inanities which are in direct opposition to the *facts*, they're being ignorant. And for some reason the more ignorant someone is on a particular topic, the more belligerently arrogant they seem to be about it -- perhaps as a defense mechanism. Instead, they would be well advised to have some humility -- especially when they have so *very* much to be humble about.

[Mamzelle]

I linked twice--just start with the title..."Changing one gene launches new species"-- people are free to go read it and decide whether there's a new fly, or a shoo fly.

And, while you follow the article, follow the money. That's generally a good way to find a liar.

[RadioAstronomer]

Willful blindness is almost always an incurable malady.

Sigh. This trend seems to be growing. :-(

[Liberal Classic]

Creationists admit to speciation within kind.

When does this change stop? If it keeps going for lone enough...

But to go from a hippo to a whale. That's just not believable.

More believable than killing a thousand men with the jawbone of an ass?

[Dimensio]

No, that sounds like the arguments evolutionists make. "No one can disprove evolution, therefore creation is false."

Who has made this argument? Be specific.

[DannyTN]

Argument from incredulity?

Yes, I don't buy evolutionist's claim that "statistical improbability" is not a valid argument.

By the way, evolutionists argue from incredulity all the time when they say, "It must have been from natural causes, because a designer is unbelievable"

[Junior]

And monkies [sic] are likely to fly out of my butt!

Not only scientifically illiterate, but just plain illiterate.

[houeto]

All of this is perfectly consistent with the idea that man is a product of evolution, the same as all the other species of life on earth.

With this exception:

Gen: 2

[7] And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

[Dimensio]

By the way, evolutionists argue from incredulity all the time when they say, "It must have been from natural causes, because a designer is unbelievable"

Who, exactly, says this? I simply say that a designer is unscientific. I've even stated on a number of occasions that a designer is entirely possible, it's just not a valid scientific explanation because it's not science.