Posted on 01/30/2003 9:33:28 AM PST by matthew_the_brain
Drs. Gould and Dawkins were professional enemies for many years, though I never really understood why. Gould died last year, and Dawkins has gone over to the Dark Side politically, I'm afraid.
At its most superficial level, a clergyman can be described as a psychologist or performer, just as a doctor can be described as a mechanic or tradesman.
Both can function at a passable level without believing in or even understanding the underpinnings of their professions.
Again, I would choose a rabbi of faith, given a choice.
LOL and I agree completely. Many conservatives rail against PC hardball tactics on campus- speech codes- and the like and demand action from federal or state authorities. This is anti conservative and against the constitution. YOu don't like Harvard and it's totalitarian PC power stucture? Don't go there or send your kid there. But don't make it a federal case because it is not one.
(You realize, some will dispute your terms).
(Lurkers see Matthew 8:20 and Luke 9:60.)
Yet more ignorance from an anti-evolutionist...
You can get the same results by starting with a genetically homogenous colony of bacteria (i.e., one started from a *single* bacterium, which guarantees that all bacteria in the colony have identical DNA).
Then apply the mutagen and add an anti-biotic. Most of the bacteria will be wiped out (showing that the original strain was no resistant), but eventually some will arise which have mutated to be resistant, and the colony will spring back. DNA sequencing will then show that there was indeed a change in the DNA, due to a mutation, which accounts for the change in antibiotic resistance. Furthermore, the clinical decisions that lead to antibiotic resistance have nothing to do with either bacterial or human origins and have everything to do with antibiotic use in livestock and overprescribing them for use in the human population. In fact, nothing in clinical medicine is even remotely related to Darwin's theory.
You're a liar.
Doesn't that violate the 10 Commandments?
Adaptation is not the issue. Neither worldview has any problem with adaptation. Bacteria changing into bacteria are still bacteria.
You shouldn't lie like that. God looks harshly on those who bear false witness.
For a brief overview of transitional fossils (which you claim don't exist), see Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ.
That's just a summary, check the journals and you'll find that new transitional fossils are being discovered literally on a daily basis.
Here's a taste -- it's the transitional fossils which have been found filling in the sequence between early Condylarths (the first hoofed mammals) and whales:
The professor is right. Anyone who doesn't know these things is way too ignorant to be given a passing grade in the biomedical sciences.Cetaceans (whales, dolphins)
Just several years ago, there was still a large gap in the fossil record of the cetaceans. It was thought that they arose from land-dwelling mesonychids that gradually lost their hind legs and became aquatic. Evolutionary theory predicted that they must have gone through a stage where they had were partially aquatic but still had hind legs, but there were no known intermediate fossils. A flurry of recent discoveries from India & Pakistan (the shores of the ancient Tethys Sea) has pretty much filled this gap. There are still no known species-species transitions, and the "chain of genera" is not complete, but we now have a partial lineage, and sure enough, the new whale fossils have legs, exactly as predicted. (for discussions see Berta, 1994; Gingerich et al. 1990; Thewissen et al. 1994; Discover magazine, Jan. 1995; Gould 1994)
- Eoconodon or similar triisodontine arctocyonids (early Paleocene) Unspecialized condylarths quite similar to the early oxyclaenid condylarths, but with strong canine teeth (showing first meat-eating tendencies), blunt crushing cheek teeth, and flattened claws instead of nails.
- Microclaenodon (mid-Paleocene) -- A transitional genus intermediate between Eoconodon and the mesonychids, with molar teeth reorganizing in numerous ways to look like premolars. Adapted more toward carnivory.
- Dissacus (mid-Paleocene) -- A mesonychid (rather unspecialized Paleocene meat-eating animal) with molars more like premolars & several other tooth changes. Still had 5 toes in the foot and a primitive plantigrade posture.
- Hapalodectes or a very similar mesonychid (early Eocene, around 55 Ma) -- A small mesonychid with very narrow shearing molars, a distinctively shaped zygomatic arch, and peculiar vascularized areas between the molars. Probably a running animal that could swim by paddling its feet. Hapalodectes itself may be just too late to be the whale ancestor, but probably was a close relative of the whale ancestor. Says Carroll (1988): "The skulls of Eocene whales bear unmistakable resemblances to those of primitive terrestrial mammals of the early Cenozoic. Early [whale] genera retain a primitive tooth count with distinct incisors, canines, premolars,, and multirooted molar teeth. Although the snout is elongate, the skull shape resembles that of the mesonychids, especially Hapalodectes...."
- Pakicetus (early-mid Eocene, 52 Ma) -- The oldest fossil whale known. Same skull features as Hapalodectes, still with a very terrestrial ear (tympanic membrane, no protection from pressure changes, no good underwater sound localization), and therefore clearly not a deep diver. Molars still have very mesonychid-like cusps, but other teeth are like those of later whales. Nostrils still at front of head (no blowhole). Whale- like skull crests and elongate jaws. Limbs unknown. Only about 2.5 m long. This skull was found with terrestrial fossils and may have been amphibious, like a hippo.
- Ambulocetus natans (early-mid Eocene, 50 Ma) -- A recently discovered early whale, with enough of the limbs and vertebrae preserved to see how the early whales moved on land and in the water. This whale had four legs! Front legs were stubby. Back legs were short but well-developed, with enormous broad feet that stuck out behind like tail flukes. Had no true tail flukes, just a long simple tail. Size of a sea lion. Still had a long snout with no blowhole. Probably walked on land like a sea lion, and swam with a seal/otter method of steering with the front feet and propelling with the hind feet. So, just as predicted, these early whales were much like modern sea lions -- they could swim, but they could also still walk on land. (Thewissen et al., 1994)
- Rodhocetus (mid-Eocene, 46 Ma) -- Another very recent (1993) fossil whale discovery. Had hind legs a third smaller than those of A. natans. Could probably still "waddle" a bit on land, but by now it had a powerful tail (indicated by massive tail vertebrae) and could probably stay out at sea for long periods of time. Nostrils had moved back a bit from the tip of the snout.
- Basilosaurus isis, Protocetes, Indocetus ramani and similar small-legged whales of the mid-late Eocene (45-42 Ma) -- After Rodhocetus came several whales that still had hind legs, but couldn't walk on them any more. For example, B. isis (42 Ma) had hind feet with 3 toes and a tiny remnant of the 2nd toe (the big toe is totally missing). The legs were small and must have been useless for locomotion, but were specialized for swinging forward into a locked straddle position -- probably an aid to copulation for this long-bodied, serpentine whale. B. isis may have been a "cousin" to modern whales, not directly ancestral. Another recent discovery is Protocetes, a slightly more advanced whale from the late Eocene. It was about 3m long (dolphin sized), and still had primitive dentition, nostrils at end of snout, and a large pelvis attached to the spine; limbs unknown. Finally Indocetus is known from only fragmentary remains, but these include a tibia. These late Eocene legged whales still had mesonychid-like teeth, and in fact, some of the whale fossils were first mis-identified as mesonychids when only the teeth were found. ( See Gingerich et al. (1990) for more info on B. isis.)
- Prozeuglodon (late Eocene, 40 Ma) Another recently discovered whale, found in 1989. Had almost lost the hind legs, but not quite: still carried a pair of vestigial 6- inch hind legs on its 15-foot body.
- Eocetus, & similar "archeocete whales" of the late Eocene These more advanced whales have lost their hind legs entirely, but retain a"primitive whale" skull and teeth, with unfused nostrils. They grew to larger body size (up to 25m by the end of the Eocene), an had an elongate, streamlined body, flippers, and a cartilaginous tail fluke. The ear was modified for hearing underwater. Note that this stage of aquatic adaptation was attained about 15 million years after the first terrestrial mesonychids.
- Dorudon intermedius -- a late Eocene whale probably ancestral to modern whales.
In the Oligocene, whales split into two lineages:
- Toothed whales:
- Agorophius (late Oligocene) -- Skull partly telescoped, but cheek teeth still rooted. Intermediate in many ways between archaeocetes and later toothed whales.
- Prosqualodon (late Oligocene) -- Skull fully telescoped with nostrils on top (blowhole). Cheek teeth increased in number but still have old cusps. Probably ancestral to most later toothed whales (possibly excepting the sperm whales?)
- Kentriodon (mid-Miocene) -- Skull telescoped, still symmetrical. Radiated in the late Miocene into the modern dolphins and small toothed whales with asymmetrical skulls.
- Baleen (toothless) whales:
- Aetiocetus (late Oligocene) -- The most primitive known mysticete whale and probably the stem group of all later baleen whales. Had developed mysticete-style loose jaw hinge and air sinus, but still had all its teeth. Later,
- Mesocetus (mid-Miocene) lost its teeth.
- Modern baleen whales first appeared in the late Miocene.
And apes changing into humans are still primates. "Bacteria" is a very broad classification.
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.