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

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

[WildTurkey]

Yeah, right. So let me hear the refutation.

Show me the statistics, Mr. Expert.

[narby]

Narby: 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.

garybob: Refute my post #664 then.

You're kidding, right? Your post #664 is nothing but picking at nits and imagined "holes", and you want me to refute it?

Apparently you don't get it. You have no affirmative evidence. You are merely trying to cast doubt on science. Give me some positive evidence that points to an Intellegent Designer. God's signature in the cement. Something. Anything. (hint: a reply of "the fact that we exist is evidence" will not work. That's a philosophic argument suited for religion class, not science)

It's always possible to cast doubt on anything. Even reality itself.

Perhaps I don't even exist at all. Perhaps I'm only a reply-bot. Face it, you don't really KNOW that I'm actually a real person.

It's easy to create doubt, particularly among those ignorant of the subject.

[WildTurkey]

It was not an "ad hominem attack". It was the truth.

[King Prout]

if she's the only known wolphin, how does anyone know that she is capable of sexual reproduction? she may merely be a cetacean equivalent of a henny.

however, if you will cast your eyes slightly up the page, you will see an expression of my opinion of the proper use of the term "species":

#813, excerpt:
back to the Canis Family: IMO, dogs, coyotes, and wolves do not have sufficient genetic dissimilarity to be considered different species. That they don't often naturally interbreed doesn't matter - neither do Icelandic ponies with Shires, but both are still horses. Differences in temperament and morphology are likewise insufficient - there is more such variation among breeds of c.familiaris than there are between, say, a north american grey wolfe and a german sheherd.

IMO, "species" should denote a strict level of genetic incompatability when applied to sexually reproduced life forms.

"wolfe"? bedtime is coming on fast.

[Tribune7]

Research indicates there may have been a time when exchange was so pervasive there was no easy way to define individuals.

OK, so your vote is that all life may not have come from a single cell.

What isn't hypothetical is the evidence that all known life on earth shares a common DNA lineage.

What is established is that all life has DNA -- whether it's a common lineage or not is hypothetical.

[shubi]

That was not ad hominem. AIG is not a man.

[Theo]

It had a baby. Perhaps that webpage hasn't been updated.

[js1138]

Denial is not going to work in a paternity suit.

[Jaysun]

Species A gives rise to species B1 and B2.

This is where I fall off the train. Could you please explain how species 'A' gives rise to species 'B1' and 'B2'?

Please note that I'm not talking about survival of the fittest, or natural selection. I accept natural selection as scientific fact.

As I said earlier, the question is not whether natural selection occurs. Of course it does, and it has an effect in maintaining the genetic fitness of a population. Creatures with severe birth defects do not survive to maturity and creatures which do not survive to reproduce do not leave descendants. These effects are unquestioned, but your claim asserts a great deal more than the fact that species avoid genetic deterioration due to natural attrition among the genetically unfit. You're basically claiming that this same force of attrition has a building effect so powerful that it can begin with Species 'A' and gradually craft its descendants over billions of years to produce such wonders as trees, flowers, ants, birds, and humans.

When Darwin wrote “The Origin of Species”, he could offer no good cases of natural selection because no one had looked for them. He drew instead an analogy with the artificial selection that animal and plant breeders use to improve domesticated varieties of animals and plants. By breeding only from the woolliest sheep, the most fertile chickens, and so on, breeders have been spectacularly successful in altering almost every imaginable characteristic of our domesticated animals and plants to the point where most of them differ from their wild ancestors far more than related species differ from them. This explanation is misleading because artificial selection is fundamentally different than natural selection. Human breeders produce variations among sheep or pigeons for purposes absent in nature, including sheer delight in seeing how much variation can be achieved. If the breeders were acting in the same manner as natural selection, which is interested only in having animals survive in the wild and be able to reproduce, then the extreme variation would not exist. When domesticated animals return to the wild, the most highly specialized breeds quickly perish and the survivors revert to the original wild type.

What artificial selection actually shows is that there are definite limits to the amount of variation that even the most highly skilled breeders can achieve. Breeding of domesticated animals has produced no new species, in the commonly accepted sense of new breeding communities that are infertile when crossed with the parent group. For example, all dogs form a single species because they are chemically capable of interbreeding, although inequality of size in some cases makes natural copulation impracticable. The fact is that selection gives tangible form to and gathers together all the varieties a genome is capable of producing, but it does not constitute an innovative evolutionary process. In other words, the reason that dogs don’t become as big as elephants, much less change into elephants, is not that we just haven’t been breeding them long enough. Dogs do not have the genetic capacity for that degree of change, and they stop getting bigger when the genetic limit is reached.

I’m simply saying that these questions that remain unanswered by science. I ask you again, what proof do we have that a species can make a dramatic change into a completely different species over any period of time, no matter how long? Have scientist provided proof that what they’ve been telling us is true, or most just believe it because they said so? That question seems so elementary and it often angers people, but I still beg the answer.

You guys possess an understanding of science that reaches far beyond what little I know. But one of the things that I admire about science is that it's built upon that wonderful foundation referred to as the "scientific method". The great advantage of the scientific method is that it is unprejudiced: one does not have to believe a given researcher, one can redo the experiment and determine whether his/her results are true or false. The results are not subject to opinion, a consensus, or verified by a vote. The conclusions will hold irrespective of the state of mind, or the religious persuasion, or the state of consciousness of the investigator and/or the subject of the investigation - and science doesn't make moral judgments.

How does one test the theory of evolution? There's no absolute way to objectivity test the assertions of creation or evolution. There aren't any eyewitnesses. Both ideas are left to propose a model and then compare it with nature for consistency. Can evolution be proved false? What part of the theory of evolution is open to invalidation, some small detail, or the entire principle?

How can you honestly subject evolution to the scientific method and consider it anything more than a theory?

[narby]

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.

Moon shot doubters and creationists are two sides of the same coin. They are both people who didn't work in the relevant field, but think they know enough to doubt the people who do know what they talking about.

I'm just amazed at the number of Christians arrogant to think that they know how God created the universe by simply reading a few hundred words in Genesis.

God created the universe, and He gave us the Bible. Yet you're willing to call His creation a "lie", but His word "truth". It is nonsensical to believe that there is a contradiction between the evidence of fossils and microbiology created by God and the Word of God. The contradiction is merely in your understanding, not in the evidence itself.

There can be no conflict between Genesis and science, except in the arguments of men.

[Tribune7]

Which a monkey will never have to worry about.:-)

[Theo]

Sure, etymologically, ad hominem refers to a "person," but in common usage its meaning is broader than that (as illustrated by the definition on dictionary.com: "Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason.")

[WildTurkey]

"The retina can detect a single photon of light, and it's impossible to improve on this sensitivity! More than that, it has a dynamic range of 10 billion (1010) to one; that is, it will still work well in an intensity of 10 billion photons."

An example of how scientific facts are distorted on creationists websites. A single photon may be "detected" but we will never see it. Also "intensity" units are wrong but most non-scientists would never notice that. Did you?

[Hootowl]

Damn, God is more clever than I thought!

[WildTurkey]

How can you honestly subject evolution to the scientific method and consider it anything more than a theory?

Example of creationist mis-stating the meaning of "theory".

[WildTurkey]

I'm just amazed at the number of Christians arrogant to think that they know how God created the universe by simply reading a few hundred words in Genesis.

You forgot about the thousands of words on the creationists' websites ...

[WildTurkey]

I just find it fascinating that you care so much about what other people think about your beliefs.

I don't give a hoot what creationists think, just keep that darn false science out of the public arena.

[Jaysun]

The technical definition is:
Change in allele frequency in populations over time. Do you know what an allele is?

All I know is that it's a gene. Hey, where can I find the results of the test that observes the "change in allele frequency in populations over time"? If such a test doesn't exist then the technical definition that you gave is nothing more than a statement of your theory. That's the same as me telling you that the technical definition of creation is:

Creation: The divine act by which God Almighty brought the world and everything in it into existence.

You buy that?

[garybob]

Show me the statistics, Mr. Expert.

You're the one who said "Your "statistics" has been thoroughly refuted time and time again." So it ought not too hard for you to come up with the refutations...unless you are really making up that statement...

[garybob]

Your post #664 is nothing but picking at nits and imagined "holes", and you want me to refute it?

Yes, if you have the cognitive ability to do so.