Skip to comments.
How ancient whales lost their legs, got sleek and conquered the oceans
EurekAlert (AAAS) ^
| 22 May 2006
| Staff
Posted on 05/23/2006 4:08:38 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 361-365 next last
To: Doctor Stochastic
If two (or more) parts happen to latch on to each other, the whole bag becomes full of that configuration. And in organic chemistry, they can't help doing so. The oceans quickly fill with sub-assemblies of organic molecules.
41
posted on
05/23/2006 9:09:46 AM PDT
by
PatrickHenry
(Unresponsive to trolls, lunatics, fanatics, retards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
To: sittnick
42
posted on
05/23/2006 9:13:34 AM PDT
by
js1138
(Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!")
To: RoadTest
I don't believe it.I should hope not. Wristwatch parts don't replicate.
43
posted on
05/23/2006 9:16:42 AM PDT
by
shuckmaster
(An oak tree is an acorns way of making more acorns)
To: trebb
isn't it reasonable to assume that there would be the occasional "throwback" that exhibited the properties of an earlier version?Sure. That's where hen's teeth and horses toes come from.
44
posted on
05/23/2006 9:21:48 AM PDT
by
shuckmaster
(An oak tree is an acorns way of making more acorns)
To: shuckmaster
Wristwatch parts don't replicate.These, however, do.
45
posted on
05/23/2006 9:23:06 AM PDT
by
ahayes
(Yes, I have a devious plot. No, you may not know what it is.)
To: PatrickHenry
Amazing (not). Now if they could just explain how half of a whale/dolphin brain falls asleep at a time so the creature doesn't drown we might be on to something. Hint: it really is a big deal, because each hemisphere must have the necessary tracts and nucleii for full function. That's something that isn't present in human brains, btw.
There's a great deal about science that members of the Darwin fan club won't - or perhaps can't - understand.
46
posted on
05/23/2006 9:25:09 AM PDT
by
Old_Mil
(http://www.constitutionparty.org - Forging a Rebirth of Freedom.)
To: ahayes
Scary. What do you call that thing?
47
posted on
05/23/2006 9:28:59 AM PDT
by
shuckmaster
(An oak tree is an acorns way of making more acorns)
To: Senator Bedfellow
"By integrating data from fossils with developmental data from embryonic dolphins, we were able to trace these genetic changes to the point in time when they happened," Thewissen said.I'm sorry, but this can't possibly be true. Everyone knows that Haeckel guy was a fraud, so therefore embryology can never, ever, ever tell us anything at all about evolution. Or something.
What's more Intelligent Denial proponents assure us that "Darwinists" NEVER conduct studies into the actual history of genetic/molecular changes, so obviously none of this article can be true.
48
posted on
05/23/2006 9:31:00 AM PDT
by
Stultis
(I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
To: ahayes
Then it is based on the game, I thought that was just a coincidence. I see now, its biologists just having a little fun. Those molecular biologists are wild and crazy guys lol.
49
posted on
05/23/2006 9:31:11 AM PDT
by
OmegaMan
To: All
Evolution at sea bump:
To: KeepUSfree
I'm ALWAYS amazed when these folks think that MAN knows better than GOD. God set it up this way, all we have to do is live by the rules. Figuring out those rules is what science does. To deny obvious truths spread about you by the creator is blasphemous!You tell him!
51
posted on
05/23/2006 9:33:15 AM PDT
by
Frapster
(Don't mind me - I'm distracted by the pretty lights.)
To: shuckmaster
It's a replicator from StarGate. They eat up any available metal and turn it into new replicators. When they're done with a planet it's just rock covered in layers and layers of replicator tiles.
52
posted on
05/23/2006 9:34:08 AM PDT
by
ahayes
(Yes, I have a devious plot. No, you may not know what it is.)
To: ahayes
This is why humans are sometimes born with little tails.
Correction:
Humans are born because someone got a little tail.
53
posted on
05/23/2006 9:38:38 AM PDT
by
WKB
(D.L. Moody "The Bible was not written for your information, but for your transformation")
To: WKB
I am shocked, SHOCKED!! :-o
54
posted on
05/23/2006 9:40:19 AM PDT
by
ahayes
(Yes, I have a devious plot. No, you may not know what it is.)
To: russdawg
"How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild and Got a Life" this sounds familiar and about as credible So, what? You mean it's not credible that whales, over 15 millions years, reduced and eventually lost their rear limbs?
If so, then precisely which of the rear limbed whales do you suggest ISN'T really a whale?
It would really help if you could clarify this, since antievolutionists have been all over the map. For instance they typically claimed, for years and years, that the common Eocene whale, Basilosaurus Isis, was "just a whale," and therefore did not provide any evidence of evolution despite the primitive nature of its skull morphology and etc wrt modern whales.
But then Basilorsaurs turned out to be the first whale discovered to have (tiny but perfectly formed) rear limbs. The creationist fossil "expert" Duane Gish, who had formerly dismissed the same creature as "just a whale," and had ridiculed the notion that any whale could have rear limbs, was thrown into such a panic that he suddenly declared that Basilosaurus wasn't even a mammal, let alone a whale, but some sort of reptile!!!
55
posted on
05/23/2006 9:46:09 AM PDT
by
Stultis
(I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
To: ahayes
The replicators of course evolved into something less scarier though...
56
posted on
05/23/2006 9:53:17 AM PDT
by
trashcanbred
(Anti-social and anti-socialist)
To: GarySpFc
Neither do I believe the Darwinists subjective nonsense. Activity (or lack thereof in modern ceteceans) of "Sonic Hedgehog" gene = OBJECTIVE.
Studies of embryological development in living ceteceans = OBJECTIVE.
Existence of fossil whales with rear limbs (in various stages of development, with larger, more functional and more complete ones generally earlier geologically) = OBJECTIVE.
So what's "subjective"?
57
posted on
05/23/2006 9:55:56 AM PDT
by
Stultis
(I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
To: PatrickHenry
Maybe it's just me, but there has to be a good story how sonic hedgehog got it's name.
To: colorado tanker
Maybe it's just me, but there has to be a good story how sonic hedgehog got it's name. Wouldja believe it? Wikipedia has this: Sonic hedgehog, which says: "... sonic hedgehog was named for Sega's video game character Sonic the Hedgehog."
59
posted on
05/23/2006 10:15:20 AM PDT
by
PatrickHenry
(Unresponsive to trolls, lunatics, fanatics, retards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
To: PatrickHenry
thxs, PH for the ping. :^)
60
posted on
05/23/2006 10:15:58 AM PDT
by
skinkinthegrass
(Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you....... :^)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 361-365 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