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

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

[WildTurkey]

When I calculate something to be a pressure of 22.5psi. I can show you the math and the result is always 22.5psi, not 21 or not 23.

Please show me the math!

[Stultis]

I know. Your point is wrong. Bishop Ussher's estimate was only accepted by certain sects and then became really popular about 100 years ago when the fundamentalists dreamed up this nonsense against evolution.

Actually the young earth view was not typical among evangelical or conservative Christians 100 years ago. (Strictly speaking "fundamentalists" didn't exist until less than 90 years ago, until after the publication of the series of articles collected as The Fundamentals circa 1917, IIRC.) Even when the antievolution and fundamentalist movements were going strong in the 1920's, the vast majority of "experts" on the creation side were old earthers.

It was, however, in the 20's, or maybe just a bit before (I don't have my references out) that "flood geology," which would form the basis for the modern young earth view, was invented by a 7th Day Adventist named George McCready Price. But it would not be until the publication of Whitcomb and Morris' The Genesis Flood in 1960 that flood geology and the young earth view would be adopted by any appreciable number of conservative Christians.

IOW its a pretty recent phenomena. It's also interesting that flood geology, in it's inception, was not based on biblical literalism but rather on extrabiblical literalism. It's no coincidence that it's inventor was a 7th Day Adventist. While the Bible can be interpreted various ways as to the flood account, the writings of Ellen G. White cannot. White was the "prophetess" and founder of the sect, whose writings the most conservative members accept as inerrant. She wrote explicitly and unequivocally that fossils, and therefore the sedimentary layers that contain them, were deposited by Noah's flood. Of course the Bible has nothing to say about fossils or sediments.

Just curious, Race (and the other younge earthers here), did you know you've been peddling a doctrine derived from the teachings of (what most evangelicals and fundamentalists consider) a false prophet? Were you even aware that this doctrine was rejected by the vast majority, indeed near totality, of educated evangelicals for over a hundred of fifty years previously (all of the early 19th founders of modern geology, btw, were Christians, and most quite pious ones)?

[narby]

My facts have put a man on the moon,

That's funny.

I've noticed that creationists and moon shot doubters use the same tactic. They pick at endless nits and imagined "holes" in the theory that we went to the moon, or that Evolution is true.

Both are based on spreading seeds of doubt, not affirmative evidence in their favor.

What creationists are looking for is "scientific" proof of God. That will never be found, and the Bible was the first document that claimed thus.

[Theo]

That's a lot of words.

[AntiGuv]

Are you saying that it is possible all life may not have a common ancestor?

That is certainly possible and would not contravene the scientific underpinnings of evolution in the slightest.

[narby]

Just curious, Race (and the other younge earthers here), did you know you've been peddling a doctrine derived from the teachings of (what most evangelicals and fundamentalists consider) a false prophet?

That's quite interesting history of the creationist folks.

I can't help but note that while the fundamentalist/creationist people have been gathering momentum for decades, the influence of Christian denominations in secular life has been declining.

My theory is that these fundamentalist movements have been "dumbing down" members of Christian churches. It's much easier to lead those who have completely handed over any critical thinking to their leaders. So churches get "stronger", but at the cost of losing members who actually have a skill of evaluating information on their own.

[garybob]

I've noticed that creationists and moon shot doubters use the same tactic. They pick at endless nits and imagined "holes" in the theory that we went to the moon, or that Evolution is true.

Refute my post #664 then.

[Junior]

Would that misspelling "monkeys" was the worst of your transgressions.

[Junior]

Maybe it's your belittling of the evidence without even considering it. Maybe it's the snide little comments you've made. It all comes across as militant ignorance. Would that you would learn something from any of this.

[muir_redwoods]

Pakicetus. Look it up

[Stultis]

Are you saying that the mathematical proof needed in physics, engineering, quantitative chemistry, etc, etc.. is not science?

Yes, that's what we're saying. They are not, in any case, natural science.

A mathematical proof is only valid in the context of some formal system, such as Euclidean geometry, some particular flavor of set theory, etc. For such formal systems, although we may not know all the properties (otherwise there wouldn't be theoretical mathematicians) we do know the essential rules, indeed we define them.

But science is the study of nature. We don't know the rules of nature in advance. Proof is therefore impossible with respect to postulates about the natural world. If it were possible then there would be no point in constructing, testing and investigating scientific theories in the first place. If we were able to do "natural proofs" it would mean we already had correct and final scientific theories. It would mean that we understood nature as a "formal system".

You could even say that claiming such "proof" is possible is blasphemy, as it would put us, insofar as understanding, in the same position as God, the author of the universe's "formal system".

[UltraKonservativen]

Glad you had a good laugh.

True to your "Defender of Evolution", you immediately try to paint me as some idiot "moon shot doubter" because I ask for proof of your evolution is a FACT.

I was involved in the engineering for our second flight to the moon.We went to the moon based on proven mathematics and proven laws of physics.

You ,on the other hand, spout arrogant pronouncements on what I am looking for. I asked for the proof that evolution is a fact but you are compelled to jump in and insult me.
Your opinion is not what I asked for.

[AntiGuv]

I read your post #664 and there is only one sentence that seems to demand refutation.

One of the most difficult problems facing those who accept the naturalistic origin of life is that the odds are against the chance formation of even the most simple organic molecules.

In the sense that you mean this, it's absolutely false. Yes, it is true that the odds are against the "chance" formation of vasopressin in the sense of random formation (i.e., a bunch of elements drop out of the ether into a pool and just so happen, by "chance" as it were, to fall in precisely the arrangement of vasopressin or insulin or hemoglobin or whatever).

However, when using "chance" in the sense of unguided (e.g., by external intelligence) which is how you're using it (although you are engaging in the typical creationist dissembling tactic of obscuring the very different meanings of the word "chance") it is false. Since the process of emerging organic molecules is a graduated, compiled assemblage the odds of a random configuration just happening to pop out of nowhere and into the present configuration (which are the odds you have given) are meaningless, misguided, misleading, and quite simply wrong.

[Theo]

A note to those who believe that evolution is a faulty theory:

I've learned that discussing creationism with evolutionists -- even on FR -- isn't worth the time and frustration. Evolutionists' favorite responses are ad hominem attacks and straw men fallacies. I've also seen the "data deluge" that just can't be dealt with in this kind of discussion board.

It's a waste of time and bandwidth to try to dialog with evolutionists who casually dismiss anti-evolutionist scientists and evidence contradicting evolutionary theory. These evolution threads just are not constructive. Don't get worked up over them. Ignore the insults and spend time on other threads....

[Stultis]

IOW these mathematical systems are tools or instruments used in the process of doing science. But they are not science. Not natural science. They are of course part of the mathematical sciences. (Duh!)

[WildTurkey]

I was involved in the engineering for our second flight to the moon.We went to the moon based on proven mathematics and proven laws of physics.

Then you should recognize the stupidity of your statement that everytime you calculate the pressure of something to be 22.5 it is 22.5 everytime (unless you fudge the numbers).

Where's the Math?

[WildTurkey]

It's a waste of time and bandwidth to try to dialog with evolutionists who casually dismiss anti-evolutionist scientists and evidence contradicting evolutionary theory.

You mean those quacks selling their DVD's?

[HankReardon]

Yes, thanks to the freepers today I have my dictionary at the ready.

[VadeRetro]

Where? I don't see any pictures or drawings where the two branches meet?

This is an incredible performance. What did you say in post 13? "Look at the tree," you urged. What tree? Anyone would have assumed the tree in the posted article, not the tree in your backyard.

This tree.

That is a tree of common descent. Every item on there has a common ancestor down the tree with every other one.

Look there. Cetaceans and hippos have a common ancestor there. In that picture, the two branches meet down the tree.

Your latest post lists at least some of the extant artiodactl groups. All the species alive today are on the branch tips, not down the tree. You don't find your own ancestors among your siblings and cousins.

Before you get dumb in some other direction, there are still apes today but your ancestral line also goes back through apes. There are still reptiles today but your ancestral line goes back through reptiles. There are still fish today but your ancestral line goes back through fish.

The modern versions are not your ancestors. They're just sort of throwbacks toward your ancestors.