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

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

[garybob]

So... you're an atheist baiting us with ridiculous assertions that only a creationist with a grammar school science background could think of? haha, big joke.

You're not an atheist too?

[WildTurkey]

You're not an atheist too?

I didn't realize you were an atheist.

[Alacarte]

You're not an atheist too?

Listen fool, you are not an atheist. Look at your profile page... If you are an atheist, you have an unhealthy amount of energy invested in this ruse. Why would you go to such lengths? Unless you were trying to make creationists look stupid, in which case don't bother, they do just fine on their own.

i think you're just a creationist nutter.

[WildTurkey]

Look at your profile page...

I like this one:

"Most people, sometime in their lives, stumble across truth. Most jump up, brush themselves off, and hurry on about their business as if nothing had happened." - Sir Winston Churchill

[WildTurkey]

Actually, this one is better. It is unsourced so maybe it is his?

"When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.

[Ichneumon]

For those who don't know the reference: Tsar Bomba

Cool! Thanks for the link, I hadn't heard of that one.

[AndrewC]

LOL A creationist disses me for lack of logic. What a hoot!

You dissed yourself. Your logic remains faulty. (and I agree, you are hilarious)

[Doctor Stochastic]

Is not an ouche of gold a weight of somewhat less gravitas than an ouche of feathers? Neither of them can be boiled in oil with an onion added thereunto for making sandwiches.

[SubSailor]

My problem is not with the Bible, but the fanatics that insist that they only know how to interpret it.

Well, then, a problem could arise there because there are a number of organized religions whose organization itself derived from certain interpretations that they all adhere to. However, it has been my experience that those Christians I meet are generally pretty tame and not fanatical in-your-face types that show up here. Most in my church believe in Noah's Ark, the flood, and a young earth...but they are not radical about it. It is not like it is a requirement to worship there. Most of our evangelical work is done through matters of the heart and spirit. Noah's Ark, the flood, and a young earth are not matters that are even discussed much. Yet because we have young earth believers in our congregation, we would be labled as nutcases and whackos by many who have posted on this board. Even though our Doctrine about Christ is acceptable and widely held as correct.

[Alacarte]

When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.

That is too ironic.

[Doctor Stochastic]

In Arabic this is sometimes referred to nunation. An N jumps from the end of one word to the first of another or vice versa, but that's a whole nother story.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Richard Rhodes is pretty good as a writer; he wrote "The Big Red Bomb."

Bamford's "Body of Secrets" isn't bad either.

[WildTurkey]

In Arabic this is sometimes referred to nunation. An N jumps from the end of one word to the first of another or vice versa, but that's a whole nother story.

Sometimes, trying is just not good enough ...

[shubi]

A simple man believes anything,
but a prudent man gives thought to his steps.
(Pr 14:15).

[MHalblaub]

How do mousetraps have sex?
You'll have to present that puzzle to Drs. Miller & McDonald.

Or to Michael Behe? So as I understand the whole thing is about. - It is to simple - you can't take anything away -
So you and Michael are omniscient and knew that it is impossible to make a flagellum more simple?

The comparison flagellum-mousetrap is funny. Because something what didn't catch a mouse isn't a mousetrap. Behind the mousetrap is the aim to catch a mouse. Behind the theory of evolution is no aim just a selection process. So I don't know for sure a flagellum started with something more complex or with something with a different purpose. Do you know?

Well gene sequencing is a means science uses to determine descent(if it's happening hee hee)

But you know what gene sequencing mean? You can't determine what occurred first in gene according to the position of it in a gene. You need some old genes to compare with. In common you don't determine descent you conclude affinity with genes because you rarely get intact ancient genes.

And, in referring to natural phenomena, they would not be wrong although to educate them I'd insist they ask how and why -- and if they can't answer after considering to truthfully say "I don't know."

And that is what we are talking about here. To give even your children more answers. Because "I don't know" has the same level of explanation as "God did it". The scientists try to explain more and more why something happen. Every scientist is well aware of the fact at some point he has to say "I don't know".
Saying "I don't know" to problems that are well explained through a theory is what most people in this thread upset.

[stremba]

Of course everyone knows that springs couldn't have been designed without being designed as a part of a mousetrap, since there's no other purpose that springs can be used for. Same applies to metal rods, pieces of wood, etc. That's the downfall of many of these irreducible complexity arguments. It is possible that all the parts evolved for some other function and only later became incorporated into the system that is claimed to be irreducibly complex.

[HankReardon]

If you have facts, Faith is not necessary.

[stremba]

Sorry if I make your headache worse, but... Special relativity actually implies that the mass of an object is not an absolute quantity. That is the mass of an object depends on its reference frame and the reference frame of the observer who measures its mass. The mass of the object in a reference frame in which that object is at rest is called its proper mass, or more commonly (and surprisingly enough) its rest mass. In a reference frame in which that object is moving its mass will be measured to have a larger value than the rest mass. This is a consequence of the fact that, at least in ordinary circumstances, there doesn't seem to be any such thing as negative energy. So the answer to your question, based on relativity theory is that both the object and its environment are moving. If you are moving with respect to the environment in the same direction as the object and at the same speed, you will measure the rest mass of the object. If you are in any other reference frame you will measure a higher mass.

[stremba]

Chemistry courses are focused on the old law of conservation of mass and that is drummed into the students heads so often even the teachers start to believe it.

That's probably because, as an approximation, the law of conservation of mass holds pretty well in chemical reactions. You wouldn't be able to actually measure the mass loss in any reaction. This law is a simpler one to teach chemistry students than the law which actually holds. The law of conservation of mass (as well as the law of conservation of energy) has been superseeded by the law of conservation of mass-energy, but there's really no reason to introduce that distinction into an introductory chemistry course.

[stremba]

the lack of evidence for 'ape-men'

You mean that whole series of fossils that some creationist claim are "just apes" and other creationists claim are "fully human." I would think that disagreement among creationists as to whether these are apes or men would be sufficient evidence that we have something in between.