Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Scientists find missing link between whale and its closest relative, the hippo
UC Berkeley News ^ | 24 January 2005 | Robert Sanders, Media Relations

Posted on 02/08/2005 3:50:43 AM PST by PatrickHenry

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 2,241-2,242 next last
To: Ichneumon
Gee, if you say "all dispute is over"--I guess it's over! We shall now bow and scrape. Say "om". What a relief. Does this make you pope, or something?

There is no religious fanatic so obnoxious as the doctrinaire PhD crank longing for tenure and relevance.

41 posted on 02/08/2005 5:22:47 AM PST by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: patriot_wes
There you have it - if given enough time my 65 Ford Mustang could evolve to be a fruit fly.

No it couldn't, because your Mustang doesn't replicate itself, which is one of the three necessary conditions for evolutionary processes to occur. (The other two are heritable variation, and selection.)

Duh. Ridiculing a distorted cartoon-version of an opposing position is known as a "straw man fallacy", because it's equivalent to knocking around a scarecrow dressed up to look like Mike Tyson, then beating your chest about how you've defeated the champ...

That also explains why Hoyle's moronic "tornado in a junkyard" analogy (so beloved by creationists) is bogus as well. It's a completely invalid model of evolutionary processes. Hoyle was famous as an astronomer, but as a biologist he was way out of his field and pretty much a complete idiot (he also believed that insects might be as smart as humans, but just hiding it from us...)

42 posted on 02/08/2005 5:22:54 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv; Strategerist
Yep. Whales evolved from primitive land whales (aka pakiceti) that looked something like this:

What proof do we have that a species can make a dramatic change into a completely different species over any period of time, no matter how long? Will you point to laboratory fruit flies in which scientist have produced changes in a multitude of characteristics? They're still just fruit flies. Let’s suppose that a supreme world leader comes to power and declares that all blond haired people must be put to death, and that any new offspring with blond hair also be killed. After several generations, humans would all be born with hair some color other than blond. Does that mean that as a species we evolved into something different? No more so than the finches on Galapagos Island evolved. The birds with the smallest beaks simply couldn’t eat the large seeds necessary for them to survive. Therefore, as a species the only survivors were the finches with large beaks.

The question is not whether natural selection occurs. Of course it does, and it has an effect in maintaining the genetic fitness of a population. Creatures with severe birth defects do not survive to maturity and creatures which do not survive to reproduce do not leave descendants. These effects are unquestioned, but you assert a great deal more than natural attrition among the genetically unfit. Your theory claims that this same force of attrition has a building effect so powerful that it can begin with a bacterial cell and gradually craft its descendants over billions of years to produce such wonders as trees, flowers, ants, birds, and humans. Bullsh*t.
43 posted on 02/08/2005 5:24:10 AM PST by Jaysun (Nefarious deeds for hire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

Creationists don't deny that animals are related. What we dispute is how they got there.

Your thread falsely implies that a simple copying error accounts for the change between animals. But what your thread doesn't show is ALL of the differences in genetics between those different animals. It's a lot more than just one change.

The differences are better explained by "Common Design". Humans share 50% of their genes with Bananas. That doesn't mean that humans came from bananas or shared a common ancestor with bananas.


44 posted on 02/08/2005 5:25:35 AM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Junior

I do believe that eventually my dog will evolve into road kill.


45 posted on 02/08/2005 5:26:19 AM PST by HankReardon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: shubi

Okay, I now believe that humans and human lice have a common ancestor. Talk about a leap of Faith!


46 posted on 02/08/2005 5:29:12 AM PST by HankReardon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle

If Pope said that, would that make a difference to you?


47 posted on 02/08/2005 5:31:19 AM PST by neutrality
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle
Gee, if you say "all dispute is over"--I guess it's over! We shall now bow and scrape. Say "om". What a relief. Does this make you pope, or something?

Just stating the facts, son.

If that bothers you, then *you're* also invited to tackle the part of my post you're trying to pretend you didn't see:

If you disagree, feel free to provide alternative explanations accounting for ALL the mountains of available evidence which explains *all* of the evidence (not just some small corner of it, *ALL* of it) in a way that a) makes actual sense, and b) somehow explains why all the evidence "just happens" to point strongly towards evolutionary processes if in fact they never actually happened. Go for it.
We all await the elucidation which is sure to come from your great intellect and massive knowledge on this subject.

Really, the world of science is just dying for further helpful insights from you on these active research topics. Please review the papers in my post and get back to us with your dissertations on them. Since you take exception to my assessment, then surely something *must* be wrong with all of these findings -- please identify the errors for us. Have your mommy explain the bigger words if you need assistance.

And that goes for the rest of the anti-evolution know-it-alls on these thread as well. Come on, folks, show us what ya got. Since you're such self-proclaimed experts on evolutionary biology, this should be a piece of cake for y'all. Now's your chance, go for it. If evolution is the nonsense you claim it is, feel free to point out what's wrong with each of these papers, and what theory you've got that better explains the results and observations (*ALL* of them, not just one or two isolated observations).

Once you've finished with those, I'll post a few thousand more for you, but hey, that should be no problem for you "experts", you've got it all figured out already, right?

There is no religious fanatic so obnoxious as the doctrinaire PhD crank longing for tenure and relevance.

Are you under the mistaken impression that having nothing more substantive to add this petulant whining is going to help make you appear less of a "religious fanatic", less "obnoxious", or less of a "doctrinaire crank" than those whom you accuse who do actual research and support their positions with evidence?

Because if so, it's not working.

48 posted on 02/08/2005 5:31:59 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

WOW! That maple tree is my cousin a trillion times removed!


49 posted on 02/08/2005 5:32:29 AM PST by HankReardon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: HankReardon

No faith involved, just ability to analyze evidence.

When any creationist, AIG, ICR or DI actually provides some evidence for their arguments from personal incredulity, I might take the attacks on science seriously.

Until then, it just makes me sad that so many people in this country believe misinterpretations of the Bible that falsely make them think they are superior spiritually.


50 posted on 02/08/2005 5:33:23 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Sorry, I didn't see your giant post before I responded to others. This was my basic response:

What proof do we have that a species can make a dramatic change into a completely different species over any period of time, no matter how long? Will you point to laboratory fruit flies in which scientist have produced changes in a multitude of characteristics? They're still just fruit flies. Let’s suppose that a supreme world leader comes to power and declares that all blond haired people must be put to death, and that any new offspring with blond hair also be killed. After several generations, humans would all be born with hair some color other than blond. Does that mean that as a species we evolved into something different? No more so than the finches on Galapagos Island evolved. The birds with the smallest beaks simply couldn’t eat the large seeds necessary for them to survive. Therefore, as a species the only survivors were the finches with large beaks.

The question is not whether natural selection occurs. Of course it does, and it has an effect in maintaining the genetic fitness of a population. Creatures with severe birth defects do not survive to maturity and creatures which do not survive to reproduce do not leave descendants. These effects are unquestioned, but you assert a great deal more than natural attrition among the genetically unfit. Your theory claims that this same force of attrition has a building effect so powerful that it can begin with a bacterial cell and gradually craft its descendants over billions of years to produce such wonders as trees, flowers, ants, birds, and humans. Bullsh*t.
51 posted on 02/08/2005 5:34:10 AM PST by Jaysun (Nefarious deeds for hire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Jaysun
What proof do we have that a species can make a dramatic change into a completely different species over any period of time, no matter how long?

Because they have. See post #37. Read the links, as well as the primary literature referenced in the links.

52 posted on 02/08/2005 5:34:19 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

I bet it was a really intersting world when birds just "kinda" flew. They just really didn't have it down yet. Maybe birds just kinda sang. That's it! A hummingbird hums because he hasn't evolved enough to know the words yet!


53 posted on 02/08/2005 5:35:30 AM PST by HankReardon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: HankReardon

What makes you think you are better than a maple tree?

Maple trees are pretty. They give us various useful items, including maple syrup and they provide homes for various other living things that you are also related to.


54 posted on 02/08/2005 5:35:36 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: HankReardon
WOW! That maple tree is my cousin a trillion times removed!

Indeed it is. So did you have some sort of point?

55 posted on 02/08/2005 5:35:44 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: neutrality
Nope--I'm not Catholic. I'd listen, though. I read halfway though Ich's post before I started chuckling. So pious.

So bristling with anticipation of heresy! So righteous! Righteous me a Grant! Of course the hippo is the missing link, it just makes so much sense.

And anyone who'd dispute that the close ties of all earthly life, found in the genetic programming, means that one species popped out of another is evidence of the reader's refusal to wear shoes in winter...

I think that pretty little artist's rendering (which has the horse in the wrong "swoop" of evolution, btw) ought to be recreated in stained glass and mounted on an altar to Hopeless Tenure Track and Our Lady of Perpetual Unemployability.

All very amusing...

56 posted on 02/08/2005 5:37:53 AM PST by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

"Humans share 50% of their genes with Bananas. That doesn't mean that humans came from bananas or shared a common ancestor with bananas."

Your keen analysis makes it more likely we are related to bananas.


57 posted on 02/08/2005 5:38:06 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: shubi

I did not even imply that I might be better than a maple tree. I am just delighted to have discovered we are related!


58 posted on 02/08/2005 5:39:11 AM PST by HankReardon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Because they have. See post #37. Read the links, as well as the primary literature referenced in the links.

I have read tons on the matter. I know that I can't be persuaded, and it doesn't appear that you can either. So what good does it do for us to argue about this? Just call me a fu*king fool, I believe in God Almighty.
59 posted on 02/08/2005 5:39:13 AM PST by Jaysun (Nefarious deeds for hire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

(he also believed that insects might be as smart as humans, but just hiding it from us...)



Did he believe that creationists are almost as smart as humans, but just hiding it from us?


60 posted on 02/08/2005 5:39:41 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 2,241-2,242 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson