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

A group of four-footed mammals that flourished worldwide for 40 million years and then died out in the ice ages is the missing link between the whale and its not-so-obvious nearest relative, the hippopotamus.

The conclusion by University of California, Berkeley, post-doctoral fellow Jean-Renaud Boisserie and his French colleagues finally puts to rest the long-standing notion that the hippo is actually related to the pig or to its close relative, the South American peccary. In doing so, the finding reconciles the fossil record with the 20-year-old claim that molecular evidence points to the whale as the closest relative of the hippo.

"The problem with hippos is, if you look at the general shape of the animal it could be related to horses, as the ancient Greeks thought, or pigs, as modern scientists thought, while molecular phylogeny shows a close relationship with whales," said Boisserie. "But cetaceans – whales, porpoises and dolphins – don't look anything like hippos. There is a 40-million-year gap between fossils of early cetaceans and early hippos."

In a paper appearing this week in the Online Early Edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Boisserie and colleagues Michel Brunet and Fabrice Lihoreau fill in this gap by proposing that whales and hippos had a common water-loving ancestor 50 to 60 million years ago that evolved and split into two groups: the early cetaceans, which eventually spurned land altogether and became totally aquatic; and a large and diverse group of four-legged beasts called anthracotheres. The pig-like anthracotheres, which blossomed over a 40-million-year period into at least 37 distinct genera on all continents except Oceania and South America, died out less than 2 and a half million years ago, leaving only one descendent: the hippopotamus.

This proposal places whales squarely within the large group of cloven-hoofed mammals (even-toed ungulates) known collectively as the Artiodactyla – the group that includes cows, pigs, sheep, antelopes, camels, giraffes and most of the large land animals. Rather than separating whales from the rest of the mammals, the new study supports a 1997 proposal to place the legless whales and dolphins together with the cloven-hoofed mammals in a group named Cetartiodactyla.

"Our study shows that these groups are not as unrelated as thought by morphologists," Boisserie said, referring to scientists who classify organisms based on their physical characteristics or morphology. "Cetaceans are artiodactyls, but very derived artiodactyls."

The origin of hippos has been debated vociferously for nearly 200 years, ever since the animals were rediscovered by pioneering French paleontologist Georges Cuvier and others. Their conclusion that hippos are closely related to pigs and peccaries was based primarily on their interpretation of the ridges on the molars of these species, Boisserie said.

"In this particular case, you can't really rely on the dentition, however," Boisserie said. "Teeth are the best preserved and most numerous fossils, and analysis of teeth is very important in paleontology, but they are subject to lots of environmental processes and can quickly adapt to the outside world. So, most characteristics are not dependable indications of relationships between major groups of mammals. Teeth are not as reliable as people thought."

As scientists found more fossils of early hippos and anthracotheres, a competing hypothesis roiled the waters: that hippos are descendents of the anthracotheres.

All this was thrown into disarray in 1985 when UC Berkeley's Vincent Sarich, a pioneer of the field of molecular evolution and now a professor emeritus of anthropology, analyzed blood proteins and saw a close relationship between hippos and whales. A subsequent analysis of mitochondrial, nuclear and ribosomal DNA only solidified this relationship.

Though most biologists now agree that whales and hippos are first cousins, they continue to clash over how whales and hippos are related, and where they belong within the even-toed ungulates, the artiodactyls. A major roadblock to linking whales with hippos was the lack of any fossils that appeared intermediate between the two. In fact, it was a bit embarrassing for paleontologists because the claimed link between the two would mean that one of the major radiations of mammals – the one that led to cetaceans, which represent the most successful re-adaptation to life in water – had an origin deeply nested within the artiodactyls, and that morphologists had failed to recognize it.

This new analysis finally brings the fossil evidence into accord with the molecular data, showing that whales and hippos indeed are one another's closest relatives.

"This work provides another important step for the reconciliation between molecular- and morphology-based phylogenies, and indicates new tracks for research on emergence of cetaceans," Boisserie said.

Boisserie became a hippo specialist while digging with Brunet for early human ancestors in the African republic of Chad. Most hominid fossils earlier than about 2 million years ago are found in association with hippo fossils, implying that they lived in the same biotopes and that hippos later became a source of food for our distant ancestors. Hippos first developed in Africa 16 million years ago and exploded in number around 8 million years ago, Boisserie said.

Now a post-doctoral fellow in the Human Evolution Research Center run by integrative biology professor Tim White at UC Berkeley, Boisserie decided to attempt a resolution of the conflict between the molecular data and the fossil record. New whale fossils discovered in Pakistan in 2001, some of which have limb characteristics similar to artiodactyls, drew a more certain link between whales and artiodactyls. Boisserie and his colleagues conducted a phylogenetic analysis of new and previous hippo, whale and anthracothere fossils and were able to argue persuasively that anthracotheres are the missing link between hippos and cetaceans.

While the common ancestor of cetaceans and anthracotheres probably wasn't fully aquatic, it likely lived around water, he said. And while many anthracotheres appear to have been adapted to life in water, all of the youngest fossils of anthracotheres, hippos and cetaceans are aquatic or semi-aquatic.

"Our study is the most complete to date, including lots of different taxa and a lot of new characteristics," Boisserie said. "Our results are very robust and a good alternative to our findings is still to be formulated."

Brunet is associated with the Laboratoire de Géobiologie, Biochronologie et Paléontologie Humaine at the Université de Poitiers and with the Collège de France in Paris. Lihoreau is a post-doctoral fellow in the Département de Paléontologie of the Université de N'Djaména in Chad.

The work was supported in part by the Mission Paléoanthropologique Franco-Tchadienne, which is co-directed by Brunet and Patrick Vignaud of the Université de Poitiers, and in part by funds to Boisserie from the Fondation Fyssen, the French Ministère des Affaires Etrangères and the National Science Foundation's Revealing Hominid Origins Initiative, which is co-directed by Tim White and Clark Howell of UC Berkeley.

Again, I note that you are setting up a strawman. The theory of evolution does not seek to answer metaphysical questions like 'what is truth.' Scientists do not claim this. They do claim that the theory of evolution is an explanation of why we see so many fossils of creatures which are very similar but not exact to animals we see around us, and why we see so many so many fossils of animals who bear little resemblance to those alive today.

There's nowhere else for the debate to go. Scientist end up saying, "here is what the facts are", as they should. The two are compared as if they're in competition. You hinted at this in an earlier post when you said, "....most scientists would point out that the 'theory of evolution' better matches the evidence than the 'theory of creationism.' Some creationists seem to interpret this as meaning the scientists want to trump religion."

I'm not claiming that scientist are "out to get" religion or anything else. I'm merely saying that this issue leads us to use scientific reasoning where it doesn't apply, and the logical conclusion is that science is real and other things aren't.

No, again you have set up a conflict between science and religion where there is none. Scientists do not point out that the theory of evolution is superior to creation. Scientists point out that the theory of evolution is superior to the theory of creationism.

What's the difference?

You have accused scientists of reaching a foregone conclusion, but here you have done just the same. There are numerous examples of transitional forms in the fossil record, from whales with hip-bones to mammal-like reptiles. Claims that there exist no transitional forms are directly contradicted by fossil evidence. There are veritable mountains of fossils in in every museum in America.

From a scientific standpoint, there's still huge gaps everywhere. How does a whale with a hip bone point to the idea that life gradually (the key word being gradually) evolved from a common ancestor? In other words, we go from whale to whale with a hip bone to what?

It's true that they are rare, and that there are gaps in the fossil record. However, there are gaps all through the fossil record. It is wrong to assume that forensic evidence would be laid out like a catering table.

That's what I'm saying. Why is it wrong to assume that the fossil record should be a lot more complete? If life did evolve from creature to creature over time, science should be able to do a lot better than that. I still say that if evolution were not theorized before the digging afterwords began, the fossils found wouldn't indicate evolution to scientist or anyone else. Your defense of the theory against the fossil evidence isn't unreasonable, but the point is, it's a defense, or a possible explanation.

Thirdly, I looked up Cladoselache and it is wrong to say that it would be "essentially indistinguishable" from a modern shark. It had its mouth at the front of its head while modern sharks have their mouth below their nose. Fourthly and lastly, it's absurd to suggest that we should see sharks with feet. The shark is a highly successful apex predator. It is well suited to its environment. This kind of statement demonstrates a lack of understanding of natural selection and the role environmental stress plays on living organisms.

Fair enough, they aren't "indistinguishable" from modern sharks - but they're real close for being 350 million years apart. The "shark with feet" comment was an exaggeration, but my point is there is a lack of intermediaries, not just with fish, but everywhere. Your theory implies that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must be an astounding number. The fossil record documents a consistent absence of fundamental directional change - that's positively documented. It is also the norm and not the exception.

I apologize for being shrill.

Liberal Classic,
The fossil record is extremely important. I don't see why it's explained away (if you will) by saying that fossils are rare, or that we haven't found everything yet, or whatever. Nobody is claiming that natural selection doesn't happen. But that's quite different from saying that so many different creatures came about by slowly changing from one to another over time.

You show an impressively well developed ability to create strawmen. You have effortlessly encapsulated with one post a number of frequently debunked creationist misrepresentations of evolution.

"Like what? If everything evolved there should be an abundance of intermediary fossils."

[sarcasm alert]

[/sarcasm]

"This is why I say that scientist have broken away from core scientific principals and methods in defense of evolution. Let's look at the fossil evidence:"

You will have to be more specific about which core principles and methods scientists have broken.

"The honeybees that you mentioned earlier supposedly originated on earth about 180 million years ago. They have remained unchanged ever since. 180 million years and they don't even show the slightest beginning of mysterious transformation. What gives?"

What gives is that evolution does not specify that all species change morphology continuously. There is no need for any species to change, as long as they adapt well enough to their environment. Some changes are such that they enable the organism to remain static for millions of years. Other changes will be intensely environment specific and as the environment changes the organism will either die out or adapt.

The marsupials are a favorite of evolutionist. Consider the kangaroo and wallaby. They apparently arrived on earth so recently that they haven't had time to make an evolutionary history via the fossil record. Some point to a few other marsupials as being "related". This is exciting news. They had to of morphed at such a fantastic rate that we should be able to find a freakish wombat-garoo or something of that sort of we look hard enough."

Wrong. If speciation happened that rapidly, there would have been a very small window of opportunity and few organisms between the end species for fossils to form.

That the transitional we find should be some monstrous combination of the two is a gross misunderstanding of common descent. In the case of Kangaroos and Wombats we would need to find the common ancestor of both and look for transitionals between the ancestor and each of them. This is unlikely because of my previous point.

"What about birds? They just kind of "appeared" with feathers about 100 million years ago. They looked a hell of a lot like the birds of today. We're missing a lot of the part bird / part whatever creatures to still support the gradual change idea."

Incremental change does not necessarily mean gradual, or continuous, or consistent. Where some changes may be gradual and even, many will not be. Evolution is full of fits and starts.

You seem to have missed the number of dinosaurs with feathers found recently in China. You also dismiss archeopteryx for some reason. It may not be a transitional between dinos and modern birds but it had features of both dinos and birds. It is an obvious transitional between dinos and a now extinct relative of extant birds.

"We can trace hippos and / or elephants back about 60 million years ago to Moeritherium. Where in the world did he come from? Whatever animal you point to, I'm sure it almost had a heart attack when it sired him because the fossil record is blank before that and in between that (as always)."

See above.

"One of my favorites is the shark. We found one that swam the oceans 350 million years ago. I think it's safe to say that Cladoselache and the modern day shark are essentially indistinguishable. That's disappointing because if their fins haven't started to shrink away by now, we'll never live to see a shark with legs. Please take note of the fact that Cladoselache apparently didn't have parents either. 349 million years ago - nothing...........350 million years ago - POOF a damned shark. Wow."

see above

"We could go on and on. All of these things seem to have just "showed up" one day where nothing closely resembling them had been."

see above.

"Where's your fossil evidence? You can't look at fossils and think "evolution" is reasonable. Why do you keep saying that, "there are lots of good examples of fossil evidence of common ancestry"???? Scientific study of evolution doesn't appear to be objective."

The interesting thing is that your claim that evolution is falsified by the lack of transitionals needs only one transitional to debunk.

Of course if there aren't a large number of intermediary fossils between each and every species, those that we do find are evidentially valueless in verifying the path between those species. The fact that fossils need specific conditions to be preserved, large geological changes continually occur, destroying what fossils that may be there, we generally have to wait for most fossils to reach the surface before we find them, we have barely scratched the surface in our search for fossils and have probably recovered just a tiny percentage of existing fossils will, of course, not impact the number of transitionals found.

That's a reasonable explanation. However, unless reasonable explanations have taken the place of evidence, there's still a great deal that has to be answered to satisfy the theory of evolution scientifically. The fossil record shows geologically 'sudden' origin of new species and failure to change thereafter. Instead of recognizing that, you point to how difficult it is for fossils to form and say that there's probably lots more to be found. The theory of evolution has to be believed in spite of the fossil record, not because of it.

What gives is that evolution does not specify that all species change morphology continuously. There is no need for any species to change, as long as they adapt well enough to their environment. Some changes are such that they enable the organism to remain static for millions of years. Other changes will be intensely environment specific and as the environment changes the organism will either die out or adapt.

Wrong. If speciation happened that rapidly, there would have been a very small window of opportunity and few organisms between the end species for fossils to form.

That the transitional we find should be some monstrous combination of the two is a gross misunderstanding of common descent. In the case of Kangaroos and Wombats we would need to find the common ancestor of both and look for transitionals between the ancestor and each of them. This is unlikely because of my previous point.

Incremental change does not necessarily mean gradual, or continuous, or consistent. Where some changes may be gradual and even, many will not be. Evolution is full of fits and starts.

Gawd. Here's the problem with all of that gibberish:

Natural selection eliminates (the black moths didn't evolve, they were already here) it doesn't create. The white moths get eaten, which leaves the black ones. Next, maybe the moths with the largest wings survive while the others are eliminated for some environmental reason. Next maybe the moths with the longest legs survive while the others are eliminated. So we end up with black moths that have long legs and large wings. Whatever the changes, they come as a result of eliminating some traits while maintaining others. In every case the trait was already there.

We already know that grand changes in organisms don't come from shuffling the existing gene pool around. If that were true, evolution could be proved by experimentation. Evolution requires new, different genes. Breeding isn't the answer because while it does shuffle existing genes, resulting in variations within a kind; breeding creates neither new genes nor new kinds of animals. Breeding has shown us that there can be many variations within a species; however, this variation comes from information already present in our genes. Variations with special characteristics can be produced by combining existing genes which have the desired characteristics, and/or eliminating dominant genes which inhibit the expression of the desired characteristic.

The only thing we're left with is mutation.

I'll concede that mutations sometimes occur. For example, mutations can sometimes occur as part of the cell reproduction process. I also concede that when they occur in the reproductive cells there is a chance that the offspring can be affected. In such a case, the offspring will inherit the mutation and will be different from the parents in some way. If so, it may or may not provide any survival advantage.

First, cells by their very nature tend to discourage mutations. If mutations really were the creative source which powers evolution, then cells should have evolved a mechanism that promotes mutation - not the preventative mechanism that we actually find in living cells.

Second, the real issue isn’t whether a mutation is beneficial or not. The real issue is whether a mutation is creative. That is, does the mutation create a new feature or system that never existed before? The theory of evolution requires some process by which new features (backbones, hair, lungs, eyes, immune systems, etc.) arise all by themselves, apart from conscious design. There is no such process. The "common ancestor" of all living things did not have a vast array of genes that could be modified to form new features. Genes for bones, eyes, and brains, had to form from scratch by accident, according to your belief.

The interesting thing is that your claim that evolution is falsified by the lack of transitionals needs only one transitional to debunk.

LOL! Talk about an impressively well developed ability to create strawmen! You've taken my title as "Best Strawman Creator" away. I'll try to get you a lifetime of Tupperware, or some designer luggage out as soon as I can. Seriously, the elusive bones aren't the half of it. See above.

"My arguments are sound. I can only post so much, and I find your claim that my "arguments are empty of supporting data" humorous since I've not seen you present any."

In your post recent post you make these two claims. You say your "arguments" are sound and that I have not posted supporting data. Both of your claims are false. Your arguments are not sound, because you don't post any evidence other than your own opinion or post a "primitive shark" which in your "expert opinion" looks like modern sharks.

I continually provide evidence for my positions. I post links to science papers and articles that demonstrate the vacuity of the creationist position. I also post hard evidence that the Bible is being "raped" by the misinterpretation of key passages by your side.

Here is some data from talkorigins on transitional species to early sharks and rays. If you can show that your early shark someone refutes evolution, you must post this evidence. As scientists, we know you can't. All your "arguments" are so much bluster. It is not that we assume the "truth" of evolution, we just have not seen any evidence it is not true and mountains of evidence it is true. The following is evidence:
Transition from primitive jawless fish to sharks, skates, and rays
Late Silurian -- first little simple shark-like denticles.
Early Devonian -- first recognizable shark teeth, clearly derived from scales.
GAP: Note that these first, very very old traces of shark-like animals are so fragmentary that we can't get much detailed information. So, we don't know which jawless fish was the actual ancestor of early sharks.

Cladoselache (late Devonian) -- Magnificent early shark fossils, found in Cleveland roadcuts during the construction of the U.S. interstate highways. Probably not directly ancestral to sharks, but gives a remarkable picture of general early shark anatomy, down to the muscle fibers!
Tristychius & similar hybodonts (early Mississippian) -- Primitive proto-sharks with broad-based but otherwise shark-like fins.
Ctenacanthus & similar ctenacanthids (late Devonian) -- Primitive, slow sharks with broad-based shark-like fins & fin spines. Probably ancestral to all modern sharks, skates, and rays. Fragmentary fin spines (Triassic) -- from more advanced sharks.
Paleospinax (early Jurassic) -- More advanced features such as detached upper jaw, but retains primitive ctenacanthid features such as two dorsal spines, primitive teeth, etc.
Spathobatis (late Jurassic) -- First proto-ray.
Protospinax (late Jurassic) -- A very early shark/skate. After this, first heterodonts, hexanchids, & nurse sharks appear (late Jurassic). Other shark groups date from the Cretaceous or Eocene. First true skates known from Upper Cretaceous.
A separate lineage leads from the ctenacanthids through Echinochimaera (late Mississippian) and Similihari (late Pennsylvanian) to the modern ratfish.

If you think the experts in shark anatomy and forensics have made errors, go to the library and look up the peer reviewed articles. Refute them if you can. Science welcomes being corrected. Just posting a picture of a shark and saying they look like another shark is laughable.
I am a biologist, but have not studied shark anatomy enough to understand all the details. I can tell from the above data that there are significant changes over time in sharks and that these changes are in line with predictions of the ToE.

"Hello guys, I've been away for a short time but I have a final thought for us to consider. I still stress the possibility that evolution has been given the special treatment by scientist. That is, in some cases they've been willing to overlook the deliberative processes, or methods, that give science authority and respect:

That the evidence must be evaluated independent of any assumption about the truth of the theory being tested."

Hypotheses are tested. Theories are essentially confirmed.

When there are substantial interlocking verified hypothesis a system of ideas is given the HIGH status of scientific theory. Your claim that science is not continually trying to find data and evidence that refutes a theory is completely specious. In fact, it is exactly the kind of rhetorical trick that is so infuriating about creationist sophistry in the first place.

The Theory of Evolution is given no special treatment. Your misapprehension of the definition of "theory" demonstrates your thesis is incorrect.

"That one must be able to prove it false."

Science is always falsifiable, unlike creationism which uses solely the "authority" of misinterpreted Bible passages or debunked ideas from the likes of Behe.

"That the concept must be formed by empirical demonstration, not by logical deduction."

Analysis of data and evidence is NOT "logical deduction".
However, science does use reasoned deductions in filling in gaps in data. There will never be perfection. It is certainly better to use "logical deduction" than twisted "illogical deductions" the creationists routinely use.

"Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions."

Who determines what is risky? You? Darwin took enormous risks in his predictions. They were found to be true. We continue to confirm most of his predictions. Your statement contrasts with creationism's inability to make any data fit with its ideas, which is confirmed by your and every other creationists inability to state positive scientific evidence for your ideas. In fact, it is so bad, many of you refuse to detail what your "hypothesis" is. Normally, it goes back to assertions like "there was a global flood". Oh really? There is absolutely no evidence there ever was a global flood.

"Though some scientist seem willing to concede that the theory of evolution may be improved, and that our understanding may one day be much greater than it is now, they see any question as to whether evolution itself is true as nonsense. Evolution is the only conceivable explanation for life, and so the fact that life exists proves it to be true.........and the fact that life exists in different forms proves it to be true.........and the fact that those different forms have similar molecular structures proves it to be true.........and we know that ancestors had to exist so we'll group the most likely candidates together - and that proves it to true....and so on."

All biological scientists know the theory of evolution can be improved. They work on it every day. They also know that evolution is an observed fact. It is only the various detailed mechanisms that are in question. Evolution does not purport to be an explanation of origin of life, as you seem to claim above. The misinterpretation of Origin of Species to Origin of Life is the crumbling premise that undermines all of creation science.

"It's as if the scientific organizations are devoted to protecting evolution rather than testing it, and the rules of scientific investigation have been shaped to help them succeed."

"As if" makes your view just another untrue opinion.

" The fossil record on the whole testifies that whatever evolution might have been, it was not the process of gradual change in continuous lineages that modern science implies."

Your statement is only untrue if you think that 4 speciations per mother species every million years is not gradual. That is an absurd assertion on its face.

" As an explanation for modifications in populations, evolution is an empirical doctrine. As an explanation for how complex organisms came into existence in the first place, it's pure philosophy."

THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN HOW "COMPLEX ORGANISMS" CAME INTO EXISTENCE IN THE FIRST PLACE!! The ToE demonstrates with forensic evidence how life forms change over long periods of time to become forms that look a whole lot different from when they started. Your judgment of what is complex and what is not is another rhetorical trick, for which you have absolutely no evidence. Behe and Paley are refuted. There is no irreducible complexity in biological systems. This has been shown to you repeatedly. It is not our problem that you don't apprehend the fact that ID is not even a tested hypothesis. To continue to claim that "complexity" is a relevant argument is pure charlatanism.

"If scientific empiricism were the only value at stake, evolution would long ago have been limited to "micro" evolution, where it would have no important theological or philosophical implications."

OK, this is really it!!! We have shown you repeatedly that there is no difference between micro and macro evolution. Creationists have again twisted scientific definitions to deceive laymen into thinking they are talking about science. I and others have posted several articles and definitions showing you that they are the same process and you continue to ignore the facts. This is willful ignorance and intellectual dishonesty of the first order.

If you continue to change the definitions of words it is like debating the Mad Hatter.

" If evolutionist accepted the primacy of empiricism, they could still hope eventually to find a naturalistic explanation for everything, but for now they would have to admit that they have made a big mistake. To prevent such a "catastrophe", defenders of evolution must enforce rules of procedure for science that preclude opposing points of view."

The above seem like some sort of paranoia. It is unintelligible.

"I only care about this for two reasons:

1. I believe that there is a heaven and a hell and I'd like to see you end up in the former rather than the latter. I can't force that on you. The only thing I can do is tell you what I believe. I have no choice but to move on if you dismiss me as a kook. Big deal."

I resent the implication that your misunderstanding of science and misinterpretation of the Bible condemns me to Hell! This continued attempt at extortion and conflation of Genesis into the Gospel of Jesus Christ to force people to give up reality is despicable. I don't dismiss this kind of thing as kooky. As a Christian Minister, I take very seriously attempts to attribute things to God that are not His.

"2. The theory of evolution is an exceptional case which involves religious and philosophical questions distinct from those present in other areas of science. Some may fear the social effects of the "religious fanaticism" that I promote. But whenever science is enlisted in some other cause - religious, political, or racial - the result is always that the scientists themselves become fanatics. This is clear to scientist when they think about the mistakes of their predecessors, but they find it hard to believe that their colleagues could be making the same mistakes today."

You are forgetting that the same arguments you are making that religion somehow trumps observed fact were used to the detriment of the Church in the battle for geocentrism and flat earth among others. Evolution is just as substantiated as gravity. It is up to you to show evidence that gravity doesn't exist if you want it discarded. You have the same obligation to science for evolution. Since you bob and weave around presenting any evidence, it is clear you have none.

"There are several post in this thread that denounce creation as fantasy, nonsense, or unreal."

No, not creation, creationism is fantasy made up out of whole cloth. It is obvious to anyone that has a basic knowledge of biology that it is only by arguing that the theory of evolution doesn't explain creation of life that you can attack evolution. Well, that is not an attack on evolution, because evolution doesn't say anything about original creation of life. Thus, this whole debate is crosstalk about two completely different subjects.

Try to get this straight. Scientists agree that evolution doesn't explain creation of life. There is no argument. So stop arguing about it.

" Evolution is then called reality, fact, and truth. If science succeeds in this battle it will eventually lead mankind to judge all thinking by scientific criteria, and to that end classify statements as meaningful only to the extent that they can be verified."

What's wrong with that? LOL Why should anyone accept statements that are not verified? Should we accept all the statements of a Jimmy Baker without verification? Even Paul requires verification of gifts of the Holy Spirit.

" Science will be considered the only reliable source of knowledge, and the only power capable of of bettering (or even preserving) the human condition. Unverifiable statements such as "adultery is immoral", or "(fill in the blank) is wrong" will either be meaningless noise or an expression of personal taste."

You are correct. Science does not make moral judgments. Again, you are inserting a strawman into the debate. If your side would stop making science a moral issue, there would be no debate. But what your side has done is confuse the religious side of the debate. People think that your brand of Christianity is the arbiter of what is considered moral and the way to be a Christian. That is as untrue as the unsupported attacks on science you promote.

This is exactly the reason I think creationism is one of the most destructive, evil movements in the history of the world. It hurts the spread of the Gospel and scientific progress. If it succeeds in destroying biology teaching, it will result in the starvation of millions, perhaps the end of humans on Earth.

"The potential ramifications are so grievous that I selfishly consider my inevitable death a blessing. Science has proclaimed that evolution belongs in the category of knowledge, not belief, and that resistance to it results from ignorance, which they rightly aim to eliminate. They'd better be damned sure about that because the ultimate result isn't our enlightenment - it's our undoing."

Your analysis of the consequences are from your own unsupported ideas and faulty premises. Because of biology, to which evolution is foundational, the world is fed and continued scientific progress in lifesaving medicines and treatment continues.

Comparative anatomy and understanding of common heritage with animals is necessary for continued technical progress. If your side wins, that is likely to destroy the world, not adherence to verified science and sound theology based on the Gospel. If people like you have to die to save countless millions in the future, it is probably worth it.

Great! Show me an example of an Intelligent Designer (no humans, no animals and no plants) at work. Not in the way of saying 'Oh, look that is IC therefore ID'. No I want an testable case to show ID. Historical records won't count as a scientific example. ToE is an ongoing process but ID is a one time occurrence. So I want an occurrence. If you need IC and you got nothing else we can start with decomposing IC.

You're dodging the question. Does evolution stand up to Popper's method and the scientific method in general, or doesn't it? Creation is irrelevant to the question.

Oooooooh? The ToE? An other prediction is about herbicide resistant plants used in agriculture. The companies selling this plants claim you need less but stronger herbicide (Mostly they sell resistant seed and the proper herbicide). From ToE you can derive the claim if some weeds survive you will need more and more herbicide to fight against the more and more resistant weeds. Ask your nearest farmer who uses seeds from Monsanto.

I asked you who predicted bacterial multi resistances to antibiotics and you said, "Oooooooh? The ToE?"
???????????
A prediction, by it's very nature, takes place before the event being predicted.

Nearly there!
But you are a little bit mixed up between breeding (men made selection) and mutation and mutation itself. Mutation inside a grown body may cause cancer but not always. Against this kind of mutation our body has a defense system because those cells didn't work any longer for the body. Mutation inside an egg cell must be a slight one. You got no body control system because there is no body. Is the mutation as great as in a cancer cell you want get an embryo.

From a ToE view point cancer at old ages is acceptable due to a higher possible rate of mutation.

1) Axiom: No mutation happen.
Breeding without mutation would therefor not enable dogs especially Chihuahua.
=>Therefore mutation exists.

2) Axiom: Mutation is not always bad.
Cows that give more milk.
Wheat with more seed/grain.
And maybe some AIDS resistant people.
(Experiment ongoing in Africa)

I'm not sure what your point is here, and it's hard for me to understand some of your wording. Nevertheless, I'll try to answer you. That there are dogs, big and small, doesn't indicate that the kind of mutation necessary to prove evolution. They're still dogs - all of them - and men have been breeding dogs, and lots of other animals, to change their traits for a long time. There are many breeds of pigeons, cattle, horses, dogs, etc., but they are all pigeons, cattle, horses, dogs, etc. Recombination of existing genes can produce enormous variety within a kind, but the variation is limited by the genes present.

It is possible for mutation to generate new varieties with traits which are improved from man's point of view (shorter wheat plants, different protein quality, low levels of toxins). The trait is not due to the appearance of a new protein but the modification of an existing one, even when it seems to be a new trait (such as herbicide resistance).

We got selection and we got mutation. What else do you need for a biological evolution?

Natural selection and mutation can only account for variation within a kind, not evolution. Neither can provide a method by which a jellyfish can evolve eyes and a backbone to become a fish (for example).

You made two postulates:

1) Natural selection and mutation can only account for variation within a kind, not evolution.

evolvere: Latin for going on, make progress
Nobody (from the ToE side) claimed what evolution is not possible within a kind. It is possible. So even the selection of the claimed limited variation within a kind is evolution if the kind is then better adapted to its environment.

2) Recombination of existing genes can produce enormous variety within a kind, but the variation is limited by the genes present.

The first part of your sentence is correct but after your 'but' you made a restriction that have to be tested. You claim that the variation is limited to the present genes then the next variation will also got this genes. Assumed nothing gets lost the variety of genes therefore is fixed [ inductive argumentation].

Now I try to convince you that the variety isn't fixed. You start with one bacterium with a known genetic code. This bacterium will split and at some times you got an huge amount of bacteria. These bacteria will have to endure several stress factors e.g. heat, acid or UV-light. If you think these bacterias will still have the same genetic code as the first bacterium after this procedure then I can't help anymore.

I lied. Here are some other example:
- Virus infection
- Cancer
- Down-syndrom
- Thalidomid
- Monsanto
(If you believe what in one of the examples mentioned above a genetic change happens then stop arguing about one you disagree with. One true example is enough.)

Popper-Evolution-Creation
(I agree to discuss the last point later.)

Sorry the library is late and I not always trust what I find on the net. I ordered some books written by Popper.

Probably we can agree first about what I found on the net before we continue that issue:

Popper(with my words):
1) A theory must be false under some circumstances.
(my remark: a 'theory' that is always right is e.g. theology)

2) A theory must be observable (with out artificial conditions) or testable (with artificial conditions).
(my remark: e.g. for observable prehistorical bones, e.g. for testable nuclear spin)

3) A theory must make some statements to forecast what happens in future.
(Yeah! That's what natural science about. To know if the sun is still there tomorrow.)

Before we start ask yourself if following things got something in common with scientific theories.
- Heisenberg's Uncertainty, Schrödinger's Cat (Quantum mechanics)
- Weather forecast (Meteorology)
- Gas pressure (Statistical Mechanics)

Let us start with 3)
You want a prediction from the ToE. I gave you one above with the bacteria.
You want something more certain? Sorry live is not always certain. Look at the above mentioned theories. One theory is about uncertainty!

Because of that we are at 2)
It's hard to make a experiment with ToE like in physics. The problem is the elimination of influence on your experiment. That works pretty well in physics (exception: measurement of the gravitation constant G.). So ToE relies at the most on observation if e.g. mammals were of interest.

ToE is false 1)
Under Which circumstances will this hypothesis be true?
If “Intelligent Design is true”. BIG LOL
Why LOL? Because ID is another possibility how the origin of species may happened. You may belief ID intervene in process of life or not. The possibility is there even if ID still is not a scientific theory. You don’t need a scientific theory to falsify a theory. You need just an example that it could be false.
<Still LOL because that thought is quite nice.>

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.