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

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

[RightWhale]

I thought I alone was cursed with acute color vision. I stopped pointing out any but the most blatant sky color effects to anybody long ago.

[SubSailor]

OUCH, a brooch, clasp or buckle, especially one ornamented with jewels, enamels, &c., and used to clasp a cope or other ecclesiastical vestment. It is also used, as in Exod. xxxix. 6, of the gold or silver setting of jewels. The word is an example of the misdivision of a substantive and the indefinite article, being properly nouche, a nouche being divided into an ouche, as a napron into an apron, a nadder into an adder, and, reversely, an ewt, i.e. eft, into a newt. Nouche was adapted into 0. Fr., whence English took the word, from the Late Lat. nusca, brooch; probably the origin.al is Celtic, cf. 0. Irish nasc, ring, nasgaim, fasten.

[RaceBannon]

Yes, that means I won.

[King Prout]

dang. not as funny as my explanation, but more plausible ;)

[King Prout]

it took me a long time to figure out what everyone else meant when they said it was "dark"

the real downside: bright sunlight - sunglasses = rapid color washout, near total (temporary) blindness in 15 minutes

[js1138]

Yes, that means I won.

Notification being sent to the Nobel Committee.

[shubi]

LOL A creationist disses me for lack of logic. What a hoot!

[RightWhale]

Well, you have somewhat more sensitive vision than I do, but I removed all my outdoor lights long ago. It's never that dark that I actually need them. I would be blind in daylight except for these photocoated automatic darkening glasses. I have been using that kind for decades, it's the only way I can get around without squinting like the High Plains Drifter.

[King Prout]

sadly, two of my neighbors recently put up some rather obnoxious lights, so my land is no longer bathed in cool shade at night.

grrrrrrrrrrrr....

[RightWhale]

I hate to do it, but I have spoken with some neighbors about that. They get it, but it's funny they don't think about it on their own that they might be annoying their neighbors with their lights.

[Dimensio]

Are you so ignorant of genetic coding as to suggest that simple life forms can develop into complex life forms without any sort of "instructions"? If it were possible, I'd like for you to explain how that happens.

It's called "mutation". You might do well to actually study the mechanics of evolution before proclaiming yourself an expert.

For the creationist, the knowledge that God created all life as we see it today settles the issue.

Yes, I am aware that creationists don't feel a need to do any research because they already "know" that "God did it all.

But for evolutionists, they have to deal with the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record,

What lack of transitionals?

the lack of evidence for 'ape-men,'.

What 'ape-men'?

The failure to answer the question regarding if we evolved from apes, then why are the apes still here?

Humans didn't come from ape species like the ones that we see today. Humans and currently existing apes share a common ape ancestor species which no longer exists today. Even if it did, however, it wouldn't be a problem because evolution does not require that an "older" species become extinct even when a new species branches off from it. Your question is a rephrasing of "if man came from monkeys, why are there monkeys", which is only asked by the truly ignorant who don't understand a thing about evolution.

So by dispensing with the "where did life begin?" question, evolutionists are free to invent any sort evolutionary tree.

No, they're not. It starts with a single-celled organism. The matter of where that single-celled organism originated, however, is irrelevant; if a life form did not come into existence as the offspring of a previously existing life form, then evolution does not apply.

[King Prout]

I've spoken with them. one has no objection to me installing some kind of deflector at the light to shield my property.

the other, however, will not let me do this: they are the hospital, the lights cover thei lot, and they have had crime problems there, so i won't push it.

[SubSailor]

I didn't get what I would call definitive answers from any of them.

I doubt that you will ever get definitive answers from anyone. Eventually, it is for you to decide. From my own experience in seeking answers regarding faith, I would offer that you will find what it is you seek.

I don't mean to be cryptic, that is just what I believe. If you earnestly seek reasons to believe, then you will find them. If you seek excuses not to believe, then those are what you will find. One of the biggest hindrances to my own faith was my desire to understand everything. Once I finally realized that I wasn't required to understand it all in order to believe, it became much easier to believe. Like the example I used before, I believe that God created and I don't think it necessary to understand how he created in order to believe that he created.

(I have left some of my questions for a later time when I have been freed from my chains.)

[RightWhale]

There are solutions to institutional lighting spillage. The local planning commission may be of some assistance. International Dark Sky, too.

[King Prout]

"local planning commission"

thanks for the chuckle - this might be a "city" in political terms, but it is low-pop and dirt-poor.

there's really nothing the hospital can do/afford to do, short of yanking the new lights.

my blackout curtains suffice for my preference for deep darkness for sleep, and the bulk of the house will at least shadow the back yard once I get that shield up on the other light source.

[King Prout]

well, it has only been 17 years since pure logic led me to the necessity of accepting faith as a requisite for informed sanity ;)

[SubSailor]

Thanks for the discussion. I have to go now. Good luck on finding the correct Message before your chain runs out of links. :-)

[King Prout]

or instead hope I am correct in suspicion that this kind of rigged-odds game is not how the big guy works.

[King Prout]

it has been a pleasure. good night.

[Tribune7]

"Both the man-made world and the biological world are full of examples of "Irreducible Complexity." That is, systems or machines which were designed with a number of specific parts "wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." Here is your definition. It was falsified before Behe published.

The flagellum is quite literally an outboard motor that some bacteria use to swim. It is a rotary device that, like a motorboat, turns a propeller to push against liquid, moving the bacterium forward in the process. It consists of a number of parts, including a long tail that acts as a propeller, the hook region, which attaches the propeller to the drive shaft, the motor, which uses a flow of acid from the outside of the bacterium to the inside to power the turning, a stator, which keeps the structure stationary in the plane of the membrane while the propeller turns, and bushing material to allow the drive shaft to poke up through the bacterial membrane. In the absence of the hook, or the motor, or the propeller, or the drive shaft, or most of the forty different types of proteins that genetic studies have shown to be necessary for the activity or construction of the flagellum, one does not get a flagellum that spins half as fast as it used to, or a quarter as fast. Either the flagellum does not work, or it does not even get constructed in the cell.

Now, which of those parts of the flagellum mentioned can be removed leaving it able to function?