Skip to comments.
Our ears once breathed [evolution of ears]
Nature Magazine ^
| 18 January 2006
| Helen Pearson
Posted on 01/18/2006 6:10:34 PM PST by PatrickHenry
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180 ... 281-285 next last
To: wyattearp
Your reply is sexist, but that's OK--sometimes I wish I'd chosen a different screen name so the boys couldn't always retreat into romance metaphors when the discussion annoys them. Why keep posting to me? I'll let you have the last word.
Whatever feminine silliness you ascribe, notice that I don't attempt to psych-anal you--
To: Ichneumon
His statement is objectively correct.
Objectivity implies undistorted by emotion or personal bias. The statement contained both emotion and personal bias.
It appears you are slandering his motives based on the fact that he makes a correct statement which you find uncomfortable for your beliefs.
No, I am interpreting his motives based on what he wrote. If you've ever read an article written by a liberal, you have to read between the lines to figure out what is really going on. You cannot take a liberal at face value. I do not know if this guy is a liberal, but he sure acts like one.
And nowhere have you established in any way, nor is there anything in the article which suggests, that he "detests" people like you.
Then why does he want to slap people? He seems pretty irrational with some violent tendencies as well.
It looks to me as if you're engaging in either psychological projection, or paranoia. Maybe both.
No, I am engaging in reality. You are the one in denial.
To: Ichneumon
You might present him with a bit of logic.
For those of who would aspire to learning and the seeking of knowledge the world offers science, mathematics, philosophy and in general a education that furnishes the necessary tools. However if you aspire to mediocrity, reject change, fear knowledge, prefer indoctrination, seek dogma, and would have your life determined then by all means join a church. You will only have to read one book!!
143
posted on
01/18/2006 7:35:21 PM PST
by
jec41
(Screaming Eagle)
To: PatrickHenry
I can hear ya breathing..
144
posted on
01/18/2006 7:37:20 PM PST
by
crz
To: Mamzelle
But you generally smell where you breathe (or taste).But, I am not in this article, it's about a primitive fish and there's nothing in the article about that fish's manner of olfaction. Yet you said (But our ears could smell--until we evolved. That's according to the peers who pitch their wares here--) there was and used that false statement to criticize the article.
It would seem you're more motivated to hurl false claims that to honestly debate the substance.
145
posted on
01/18/2006 7:37:54 PM PST
by
Rudder
To: wyattearp
It's always sad when people stick to their opinion and don't take into account that someone else, with differing views, might actually have knowledge that might have merit. People should be open to learning and possibly expanding their knowledge and horizons.
146
posted on
01/18/2006 7:40:51 PM PST
by
Emmalein
(To each his/her own.)
To: longshadow
Festival of the full moon, placemarker.
147
posted on
01/18/2006 7:42:33 PM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
To: PatrickHenry
New answer to the immortal question:
How does a fish smell?
(drumroll)
Awful!
(budum-chhh)
(crickets)
148
posted on
01/18/2006 7:44:14 PM PST
by
P.O.E.
To: jec41
You will only have to read one book!! That's what you think.
Every time that I quote The Book, I am told that that's the Wrong Book, and I need to read a different Version of The Book, which says something totally different, and then somebody else pipes in with their Version of The Book, which says something totally different, and then somebody mentions differing Hebrew and Greek versions of The Book, which are the Only True Versions of The Book, which nobody actually has access to, assuming that they could read it if they did, so we have to rely on Translations of The Only True Versions of The Book, of which There Are Many, but only One True Translation, and the debate rages for days, sometimes weeks, and when it is all over nobody has any idea what actually happened.
149
posted on
01/18/2006 7:45:39 PM PST
by
wyattearp
(The best weapon to have in a gunfight is a shotgun - preferably from ambush.)
To: Rudder
This article is whimsy and speculation. Caprice. A joyride of possibilities. Maybe it's how it happened--who can deny a maybe?--but the really great thing about evo-"science" is that you can present all these fruitings of the imagination and no one is going to hold your feet to the fire. This is unaccountable, whereas if you feed a person a bad medicine, the results are immediate and unmistakable.
A scientist is as good or bad as any other person--this is the basic assertion I make. They can discover a great medicine--or they can feed you hokum and jeer at you when you doubt them.
To: crghill
These threads keep reminding me of the Sceptics Society. Have you heard of them? You'd think that an organization that calls itself "the Sceptics Society" would be an island of sanity and common sense in the crazy world of feverish fanatics of all kinds of ideas invented by fallible humans. Well, I suppose that you'd think that the ACLU... etc, I don't need to finish the sentence. The Sceptics Society, if you don't know them, is sceptical of astrology, of UFOs, of psychics and faith healers. Wow, what a brave crew, huh? What they are not sceptical of are any claims parading as "science" (or at least until they are disproven or revealed as hoaxes), or of their own scepticism. In my mind, a sceptic is a sceptic is a sceptic, and not a fanatical believer in some narrowly defined human pursuit. Such as, yes, science.
When it comes to metaphysical questions, I look to philosophy, literature and religion to ask questions and to sometimes provide some approximation of answers. Let science discover a cure for common cold and fully explain how aspirin works (another mystery of aspirin was reported by scientists this morning) before tackling questions that rightly belong to other disciplines.
151
posted on
01/18/2006 7:46:27 PM PST
by
Revolting cat!
("In the end, nothing explains anything.")
To: Emmalein
It's always sad when people stick to their opinion and don't take into account that someone else, with differing views, might actually have knowledge that might have merit. People should be open to learning and possibly expanding their knowledge and horizons. Which is why I read. A lot.
152
posted on
01/18/2006 7:47:29 PM PST
by
wyattearp
(The best weapon to have in a gunfight is a shotgun - preferably from ambush.)
To: wyattearp; Mamzelle
And you trust the PEERS? I'm glad America moved beyond the peerage. I don't need barons and squires and such--
Um, peer review is other scientists reviewing the research and attempting to replicate the experiments that produced the results. Peerage? Barons and Squires? Actually the UK House of Lords has enough expertise under it's belt to blow any Paleyist organiation out of the water.
And then there is the practice of granting a peerage to emminant scienists - even the Creationist heroes Lord Kelvin and Lord Zuckerman got a guernsey (although I hold ouu hope for a Lord Dawkins as a successor to Lord Medawar)
153
posted on
01/18/2006 7:47:50 PM PST
by
Oztrich Boy
(Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering)
To: DouglasKC
The word is "could've" -- as in "could have." "Could of" makes absolutely no sense grammatically.
And, unlike religionists, scientists never speak in absolutes because there is always the potential that tomorrow something could turn up that would obviate any given statement.
154
posted on
01/18/2006 7:49:07 PM PST
by
Junior
(Identical fecal matter, alternate diurnal period)
To: PatrickHenry
And some people's asses still talk.
155
posted on
01/18/2006 7:49:12 PM PST
by
Cinnamon Girl
(OMGIIHIHOIIC ping list)
To: Oztrich Boy
Honest, you don't have to think in metaphors or even catch a pun. That's not for evos. Just let it all whiz by.
To: Oztrich Boy
Ha! Not a squire among them!
(thanks, though, that was interesting)
157
posted on
01/18/2006 7:51:52 PM PST
by
wyattearp
(The best weapon to have in a gunfight is a shotgun - preferably from ambush.)
To: Cinnamon Girl
And some people's asses still talk. Especially after a large meal of legumes.
To: Ichneumon
...this is where the amphibian/reptile system of using a modified bone (the hyomandibular in fish) as a sound transmission rod (the stapes bone in amphibians and their descendants).If you check out my post 29, it seems that the distal strucures of the ear (tympanum, ossicles, etc.) and their evolution coincide nicely with the evolutionary development of the proximal, neural structures of the vertebrate ear (and the data I posted were reported in the 1930's and '40's.)
159
posted on
01/18/2006 7:53:52 PM PST
by
Rudder
To: Oztrich Boy
Why, it was Superman, of course.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180 ... 281-285 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson