That is not the realm of the scientist. A scientist can demonstrate what is plausible and reasonable--but what you want in the province of the shaman. The article was perfectly interesting until the scientist wanted to claim something he could not possibly claim--that not only are the hippo and whale related (we already knew that, btw) but that means--positively--that they were produced by some common ancestor. Kabang, popped out of the same cabbage patch.
That requires huge assumptions and leaps of faith--all kinds of surprising surmising.
The flies have indeed been the material of genetic experiments before we knew what genetics are. If ideal lab conditions, over considerable time and insolation, cannot produce your new Pet, it's not likely that nature can magically produce millions of fortuitous accidents in perfect fortuitous order!.
I don't know how it came about--and I'll admit that. You claim to know, and that is obvious arrogance. Who's the scientist?
Translation: How dare I present facts which challenge Mamzelle's cherished preconceptions...
That is not the realm of the scientist.
The "realm of the scientist" is knowledge. I'm sorry that this seems to annoy you, and that you find it offensive when someone is "rude" enough to present you with some.
A scientist can demonstrate what is plausible and reasonable--but what you want in the province of the shaman.
Huh?
The article was perfectly interesting until the scientist wanted to claim something he could not possibly claim--
He "claimed" what the overwhelming body of evidence clearly indicates. You are clearly uncomfortable with what it indicates, but don't blame that on *him*.
that not only are the hippo and whale related (we already knew that, btw) but that means--positively--that they were produced by some common ancestor.
Excuse me, but what the hell ELSE would being "related" mean in a biological sense, other than "having a common ancestor"? Related: "Connected by kinship, common origin, or marriage."
You're not making much sense here. If you "already knew" that "the hippo and whale are related", in what manner do you claim they are "related" if you don't mean, you know, *related*?
Kabang, popped out of the same cabbage patch.
Is there some reason that anti-evolutionists are so fond of childishly incorrect scenarios?
That requires huge assumptions and leaps of faith--all kinds of surprising surmising.
It requires none of that, actually, it requires a familiarity with the evidence, a knowledge of the processes involved, and the intellectual honesty to not keep thinking up excuses for ignoring them.
The flies have indeed been the material of genetic experiments before we knew what genetics are. If ideal lab conditions, over considerable time and insolation, cannot produce your new Pet,
First, I already showed you a "new pet". Selective amnesia?
Second, you're hallucinating if you think that 1000 generations is long enough to evolve a fly into, I don't know, a cabbage? Just what bizarre, unrealistic scenario *are* you demanding to be shown before you'll even *begin* look at the massive amounts of evidence that, even though it can't be done *poof* in a lab to your specifications (*NOR* would one expect to be able to), IT STILL HAPPENED whether you want to accept it or not.
There are *hundreds* of independent lines of evidence which overwhelmingly indicate that whether you like it or not, LIVING CREATURES SHARE COMMON ANCESTRY, *and* that they have evolved over time. If you want to remaind belligerently ignorant of that fact in order to protect your fragile preconceptions, feel free, but don't expect those of us who *have* taken the time to learn something about the real world to sit idly by while you spew errant nonsense. Your claims are contrary to the facts, I regret to have to inform you. So if you want to stay in that knowledge-free cocoon, I suggest that you refrain from making the kind of air-headed and flatly *wrong* pronouncements which are so common from the anti-evolutionists, because that *will* prompt people who recognize your pap for what it is to step up and correct your misstatements, lest anyone else mistake them as reliable.
it's not likely that nature can magically produce millions of fortuitous accidents in perfect fortuitous order!.
Nor would anyone who wasn't entirely misinformed on the subject of evolutionary biology presume that adaptive modifications need be performed "in perfect fortuitous order", much less "magically".
So much nonsense, so little time...
I don't know how it came about--and I'll admit that.
Well then that's a start.
You claim to know, and that is obvious arrogance.
No, it is obvious knowledge. I have spent years reading thousands of papers, personally examining the evidence, personally modelling the processes, personally checking the math, and so on. If it is "arrogance" to realize that I have an informed opinion on the matter, well then hell, color me guilty.
But it seems to me that the *real* arrogance is coming from those who want to cling to the notion that ignorance is just as valid as knowledge, misconceptions are just as good as informed opinion, and that "no one can really know anything anyway", so their "whatever I want to think"s are "just as good" as the results of over a hundred years of accumulated knowledge on a subject.
Which statement is actually more arrogant:
1. "I have studied this subject for many years, I know quite a bit about it, and have on tap the accumulated knowledge of millions of others collected over more than a century."
2. "You don't know s**t, I laugh at your so-called 'knowledge', I know it's all bunk, and besides I read a pamphlet that tells me how stupid it is!"
Who's the scientist?
I am, and so are the millions of evolutionary biologists who do this sort of thing as well.
Everyone's entitled to an opinion. But not every opinion is an informed one.