Print
Whale 'missing link' discovered
by BBC News
Thanks to Charles Rodgers for the link.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7150627.stm?lsm
Whale 'missing link' discovered
The whale is descended from a deer-like animal that lived 48 million years ago, according to fossil evidence.
Remains found in the Kashmir region of India suggest the fox-sized mammal is the long-sought land-based ancestor of whales, dolphins and porpoises.
Research in Nature suggests the animal lived mainly on land but dived into water to escape predators.
Whales are known to be descended from land-dwellers but the "missing link" has been a mystery until now.
Although Indonyus, as it is known, looks nothing like the whales of today, it shares certain anatomical features.
The structures of its skull and ear are similar to those of early whales, and like other animals that spend a lot of time in water, it had thickened bones that provided ballast to keep its feet anchored in shallow water.
"We've found the closest extinct relative to whales and it is closer than any living relative," said study leader Professor Hans Thewissen of the Department of Anatomy at Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine in Ohio, US.
Hippo link
Indonyus belongs to an ancient order of mammals that had two or four toes on each foot. Modern day representatives of the group include camels, pigs, and hippopotamuses.
DNA studies show that hippos are in fact closely related to modern whales. They do not appear in the fossil record, however, until about 15 million years ago, some 35 million years after the cetaceans originated in south Asia.
This led Professor Thewissen and his team to search for an older land-based ancestor that would fill in some of the gaps in our knowledge of the whale's dramatic evolutionary journey from land to sea.
After seeing loose teeth and fragments of jaw bones found by the late Indian geologist A Ranga Rao some 25 years ago, Professor Thewissen obtained rock samples from Rao's private collection. They harboured a treasure trove of complete Indohyus fossils, including skulls and leg bones.
Dietary clues
The stable-oxygen-isotope composition of its teeth suggest that the animal spent much of its time in water.
Some have assumed that the ancestor of whales first took to the water to feed on fish but the latest evidence suggests otherwise.
"The new model is that initially they were small deer-like animals that took to the water to avoid predators," Professor Thewissen told BBC News. "Then they started living in water, and then they switched their diet to become carnivores."
Although the behaviour and habits of Indohyus appear somewhat strange, there is a modern day parallel in the African mousedeer (chevrotain).
The mousedeer lives on land, but is known to leap into the water to avoid predators such as eagles.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7150627.stm?lsm
Whale 'missing link' discovered
The whale is descended from a deer-like animal that lived 48 million years ago, according to fossil evidence.
Remains found in the Kashmir region of India suggest the fox-sized mammal is the long-sought land-based ancestor of whales, dolphins and porpoises.Research in Nature suggests the animal lived mainly on land but dived into water to escape predators.
Whales are known to be descended from land-dwellers but the "missing link" has been a mystery until now.
Although Indonyus, as it is known, looks nothing like the whales of today, it shares certain anatomical features.
The structures of its skull and ear are similar to those of early whales, and like other animals that spend a lot of time in water, it had thickened bones that provided ballast to keep its feet anchored in shallow water.
"We've found the closest extinct relative to whales and it is closer than any living relative," said study leader Professor Hans Thewissen of the Department of Anatomy at Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine in Ohio, US.
Hippo link
Indonyus belongs to an ancient order of mammals that had two or four toes on each foot. Modern day representatives of the group include camels, pigs, and hippopotamuses.
DNA studies show that hippos are in fact closely related to modern whales. They do not appear in the fossil record, however, until about 15 million years ago, some 35 million years after the cetaceans originated in south Asia.
This led Professor Thewissen and his team to search for an older land-based ancestor that would fill in some of the gaps in our knowledge of the whale's dramatic evolutionary journey from land to sea.
After seeing loose teeth and fragments of jaw bones found by the late Indian geologist A Ranga Rao some 25 years ago, Professor Thewissen obtained rock samples from Rao's private collection. They harboured a treasure trove of complete Indohyus fossils, including skulls and leg bones.
Dietary clues
The stable-oxygen-isotope composition of its teeth suggest that the animal spent much of its time in water.
Some have assumed that the ancestor of whales first took to the water to feed on fish but the latest evidence suggests otherwise.
"The new model is that initially they were small deer-like animals that took to the water to avoid predators," Professor Thewissen told BBC News. "Then they started living in water, and then they switched their diet to become carnivores."
Although the behaviour and habits of Indohyus appear somewhat strange, there is a modern day parallel in the African mousedeer (chevrotain).
The mousedeer lives on land, but is known to leap into the water to avoid predators such as eagles.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Thursday, December 20, 2007 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 51 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #101238 by VanYoungman on December 20, 2007 at 6:16 am
No. It means the gap is filled. Other Comments by VanYoungman
3. Comment #101241 by USA_Limey on December 20, 2007 at 6:16 am
Keep this stuff coming I love it. Exactly the kind of article that finds a perfect home with a website set up by RD.
Thanks.
Other Comments by USA_Limey
4. Comment #101248 by jdb on December 20, 2007 at 6:29 am
So... is this the one that swallowed Jonah? Other Comments by jdb
5. Comment #101261 by Eamonn Shute on December 20, 2007 at 6:49 am
I wish they would tell us how Indonyus is related to Ambulocetus, Pakicetus etc. Other Comments by Eamonn Shute
6. Comment #101267 by NormanDoering on December 20, 2007 at 6:54 am
Carl Zimmer has more:http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2007/12/19/whales_from_so_humble_a_beginn.php
Other Comments by NormanDoering
7. Comment #101354 by konquererz on December 20, 2007 at 9:14 am
Another mystery solved by science, whaddya know! And yes, this creates a gap before and after this animal! More evidence for god! Rock on church dudes! Other Comments by konquererz
8. Comment #101426 by Conrad on December 20, 2007 at 10:56 am
No, no, you guys don't understand! This was simply one of the animals that wasn't in walking distance from Noah's house and it died in the great flood at the same time as the dinosaurs! It must have been an EVIL animal and so god smote it. Whales however are towers of virtue.Other Comments by Conrad
9. Comment #101430 by annabanana on December 20, 2007 at 11:04 am
Hahaha is "smote" actually the past tense of smite? And for those interested in the clades, etc. of the indohyus, wikipedia has some good info. I looked it up yesterday after I read about this on Reuters.Btw, I think the Reuters article is better than this one. Incidentally, it's indoHyus, not indoNyus...
Other Comments by annabanana
10. Comment #101442 by quill on December 20, 2007 at 11:19 am
Clearly, this is just another kind of whale--Even noted evolutionist Hans Thewissen of Northeastern Ohio University is forced to admit that. Macroevolution, or evolution beyond one's kind, remains an unproven theory. Other Comments by quill
11. Comment #101526 by dariusdeluded on December 20, 2007 at 1:30 pm
Scientist version of finding a "missing link" fossil: We've found EXACTLY the kind of creature that the theory of evolution
predicts, at EXACTLY the right time in history, in EXACTLY the right area.
Theist version:
This creates a gap before and after this "missing link" and thus now there
are two gaps - and thus more evidence for the existance of God
Other Comments by dariusdeluded
12. Comment #101578 by theantitheist on December 20, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Do you think there's Blue Whales out there that are swimming round singing to each other "bollocks, my mother was never a Indonyus and if we teach our Calves that then they'll act like Indonyus!!"The great bearded whale in the sky told us so!!
In fact this leads to an interesting point, is it only people in heaven? surely they'd let kittens in and if they let little kittens in what about dogs and if dogs what about fleas, or mosquitoes? in fact why not rats, they don't do anything wrong they just act in the way the great bearded rat made them.
There we go if I could ask the pope one question it would be, are there Rats in heaven.
Other Comments by theantitheist
13. Comment #101682 by Dr Benway on December 20, 2007 at 6:25 pm
He would reply, "Of course there are Ratz in heaven, dummkopf!" Other Comments by Dr Benway
14. Comment #101684 by black wolf on December 20, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Dr Benway, you're wrong.Given his stance on promoting traditional clerical value, his answer would be:
"Nimirum illic es muris in aether, bardus!"
Other Comments by black wolf
15. Comment #101893 by Azven on December 21, 2007 at 5:16 am
The stable-oxygen-isotope composition of its teeth suggest that the animal spent much of its time in water
Don't-cha just love science. No amount of prayer would ever have told me this!
Other Comments by Azven
16. Comment #101894 by Divineosaur on December 21, 2007 at 5:21 am
Sweet! More evidence to be dismissed as part of the secular conspiracy to discredit the infallibility of the Word. Other Comments by Divineosaur
17. Comment #102211 by Vadjong on December 22, 2007 at 2:37 am
The pinnacle of creation, the perfect Orca came from some cowardly capybara ??? Really, no way ! I'm done with evolution now, thank you.
Other Comments by Vadjong
18. Comment #102348 by SurfDude on December 22, 2007 at 12:44 pm
The great bearded whale in the sky told us so!!They probably worship humans. We certainly treat them badly enough to be considered as "gods".
Other Comments by SurfDude
19. Comment #102534 by The Flying Trilobite on December 23, 2007 at 6:50 am
Let's spread some illustrator's credits around, shall we? I believe the pic above is by the legendary Carl Buell, (link at http://olduvaigeorge.com/ )and the university has also had the help of the talented Jacqueline Rae Dillard (link at http://jacquelinerae.deviantart.com/ ).
As an artist myself, it's nice to see the credits, and these two scientific illustrators are excellent.
Other Comments by The Flying Trilobite
20. Comment #154598 by aragorn2007 on April 3, 2008 at 1:40 pm
"...is the long-sought land-based ancestor of whales, dolphins and porpoises".Friends,I bet that if a Christian told you that
the above fossil and painting , represents a ...
link between a land animal and a whale ,you would
laugh out loud and think "how ridiculous!!!this has
certainly nothing to do with a whale!!!".But now,
only because scientists said so , you swallow your
disbelief and accept it, even if ( I am sure ) you
too make the unavoidable thought "This has NOTHING
to do with a whale!!!".Where is your common sense?
Does THIS really look like a WHALE to you?!
Do you have 100% faith in science?Is that it?
Cause what may now seem the "best fitting
explanation" , will be regarded as a joke
to future generations!Your kids will laugh at
you for believing such nonsense!
Please take a moment to LOOK that illustration.
Forget for a moment your blind faith to science.
Just think "Am I looking at an ancestor of ...a whale?"....
Visit this link which shows a skeleton of a whale.
http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/llaplante/BI337/WhaleSkeleton.JPG
They look the same,right?...Or perhaps it looks
like a dolphin?!
Other Comments by aragorn2007
21. Comment #154610 by Goldy on April 3, 2008 at 1:59 pm
aragorn2007, you're joking, eh?Other Comments by Goldy
22. Comment #154936 by aragorn2007 on April 4, 2008 at 2:24 am
No Goldy , I am serious.If I am missing something, please help me
understand...
Other Comments by aragorn2007
23. Comment #154937 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 2:30 am
Aragorn2007-
Where is your common sense?
Does THIS really look like a WHALE to you?!
Forgive me if I've misunderstood, but is that the extent of your argument? It doesn't LOOK like a whale, so therefore they cannot be related?
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
24. Comment #155003 by aragorn2007 on April 4, 2008 at 4:13 am
Quetzalcoatl,I just find that you are readyto accept anything science will tell you.
I myself believe in science.But I question it more.
Scientists change their minds often.You have so
much faith in evolution but at the same moment
you still try to come up with an abiogenesis
explanation.Scientists can hardly predict next
week's weather.But they feel so confident when
they talk about what happened 35,000,000 years
ago.They are also confident to talk you about
what happened 0,000000000000000000000000000000001
seconds after the big-bang , 15,000,000,000 years
ago.Should scientists be a little more cautious
and humble or is it just me?...
Other Comments by aragorn2007
25. Comment #155007 by osoiretsim le on April 4, 2008 at 4:17 am
But they feel so confident when
they talk about what happened 35,000,000 years
ago.
Funny, I've never had a problem predicting the past. Why do you struggle so much aragorn2007? No photos or newspaper clippings? But I bet you just know what happened 2000 odd years ago. Not that you were there, not that you can be sure anybody was there. But you just know don't you? Those crazy scientists should be more modest in your presence. Lucky for them you're humble.
Other Comments by osoiretsim le
26. Comment #155008 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 4:21 am
Aragorn2007-
I just find that you are ready
to accept anything science will tell you.
No I'm not. What do you base that on? It's rare that you'll find someone on this site who blindly accepts things without questioning.
You have so
much faith in evolution but at the same moment
you still try to come up with an abiogenesis
explanation
What's your point? Abiogenesis is the theory of how life got started. Evolution is the theory of what happened ONCE life got started. The one does not invalidate the other.
And I don't have "faith" in evolution. I think it is correct based on the overwhelming mountain of evidence in favour of it.
Scientists can hardly predict next
week's weather.But they feel so confident when
they talk about what happened 35,000,000 years
ago.
Different things entirely.
Should scientists be a little more cautious
and humble or is it just me?
It's just you. Science is cautious by default. Extensive testing and retesting is undertaken continuously before something can become a new theory.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
27. Comment #155009 by Steve Zara on April 4, 2008 at 4:24 am
Scientists can hardly predict next
week's weather.But they feel so confident when
they talk about what happened 35,000,000 years
ago.
This really isn't a good argument. Some things in nature are very chaotic and some things are less so. We may not be able to predict the weather in a week, but we can be pretty sure that winters are colder than summers.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
28. Comment #155013 by BillySands on April 4, 2008 at 4:29 am
Quetz, I wouldn't waste your time here if this guy cant grasp the concept that the ancestors of whales should not look like modern whales. Other Comments by BillySands
29. Comment #155015 by Cartomancer on April 4, 2008 at 4:30 am
Where is your common sense?Yeah, the thing is you're confusing your own investigative method (have a quick look and jump to conclusions) with the scientific method (gather evidence, form hypotheses, test hypotheses, test hypotheses again, alter hypotheses, test again, etc. etc.). Just because you have no more effective tool at your disposal than taking a quick peek and deciding on the spot does not mean that everyone else is the same. "Common sense" is hardly ever the most effective investigative tool to use once we scratch the surface of reality.
Does THIS really look like a WHALE to you?!
Take a look at a picture of yourself as a baby. Go on, a really good cursory look so you get the full revealing force of occasional casual observation. How can that pudgy, tiny drooling thing possibly be you? It's only a foot tall - you're much bigger than that! It can't even walk or talk or eat solid food yet - you can do all of those things! And we're supposed to believe that this soggy, gurgling lump of flesh is an ancestral form of you? Pull the other one! Ok, its brain is probably about as developed as yours is now, but really, all this human infant theory that science tells us about, so much dross...
The reason we find scientific conclusions so compelling is precisely the method used to reach them - the painstaking investigation and theorising and taking evidence into account. And we also understand the provisional nature of those conclusions. Scientists are indeed constantly changing their minds with new experimental results and the uncovering of new evidence - doesn't the fact that the theory of evolution by natural selection has remained intact for 150 years in this powerful reducing crucible of science give you at least some inkling of its explanatory capacity and predictive power? Much more its fit to the evidence.
Other Comments by Cartomancer
30. Comment #155017 by Steve Zara on April 4, 2008 at 4:34 am
Quetz, I wouldn't waste your time here if this guy cant grasp the concept that the ancestors of whales should not look like modern whales.
On reading this I had an image of tiny sperm whales flopping around in forests attempting to catch rabbits...
Other Comments by Steve Zara
31. Comment #155019 by The Reverend Dark on April 4, 2008 at 4:38 am
Aragorn,
Perhaps I am being unfair, but you come across as an ignorant little gobshite.
No, scratch that, I am being fair, and you are an ignorant little gobshite.
Let's start with the obvious.
Does THIS really look like a WHALE to you?!
This is likely an ancestor of modern whales. How do we know this? Morphology, comparative anatomy. The shape of specific features, teeth, inner ears, hip structure. The list is as numerous as there are bones. By identifying these structures and comparing them, you can note specific similarities in development from one form to the next. We can do this in the fossil record and also by examining the vestigial features of modern whales.
We can also analyze the DNA of whales and other animals to see where they fit in. Whales are closely related to ungulates, and therefore must share a common ancestor.
Should scientists be a little more cautious
and humble or is it just me?
It is just you; and you are a twat. When a scientist publishes a paper for peer review, it is like stepping into a boxing ring. You have to be ready to present your mad evidence skills and cunning interpretation to hooks, crosses, body blows and uppercuts from your peers. You are going to be ripped up one side and down the other, and the only defense you have is evidence and interpretation of that evidence.
If you don't have that, then you are on your back. Feeling battered and a right berk to boot.
You survive this and then you are champion - until someone with better evidence and a more compelling interpretation comes along. Science is a battle. Science likes to be proven wrong; but you need to bring something to the party other than half-arsed blather.
And finally, you do not have to take it on faith! You might be a lazy butt-munch who can't be arsed to look up any information on Indonyus; but anyone can do so. They can educate themselves on the subject and then examine the evidence. No faith required.
Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark
Other Comments by The Reverend Dark
32. Comment #155020 by Verylee on April 4, 2008 at 4:42 am
Cause what may now seem the "best fitting explanation", will be regarded as a joke to future generations! Your kids will laugh at you for believing such nonsense!
Possibly yes, but so what? That's science. Future generations of scientists will take up the mantle and continue to ask questions and get answers based on reason, lifetimes of research and available evidence. How much easier it would be if everyone just agreed that goddidit and that we prostrate ourselves in front of all its gory. Oh the arrogance of scientists.
Other Comments by Verylee
33. Comment #155023 by BillySands on April 4, 2008 at 4:49 am
On reading this I had an image of tiny sperm whales flopping around in forests attempting to catch rabbits...
Come on Steve every proper creationist knows that sperm whales ate mangos before the fall. Those tails are perfectly designed for hitting the base of mango trees and making the fruit fall to the ground.
Other Comments by BillySands
34. Comment #155028 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 4:54 am
Steve-
On reading this I had an image of tiny sperm whales flopping around in forests attempting to catch rabbits
Just imagine taking a walk in the woods, being able to hear the sperm whales calling to each other from their burrows. It would be beautiful.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
35. Comment #155032 by The Reverend Dark on April 4, 2008 at 4:58 am
Quetz speaks, bringing the aroma of well brewed tea.
Just imagine taking a walk in the woods, being able to hear the sperm whales calling to each other from their burrows. It would be beautiful.
Sod that! Creepy!
"Sseeennd Mooooorrre Jooonaaaaahsss!"
"Sseeendd Mooooorrrre Jooonaaaaaahhhss!"
It is after all a biblical interpretation.
Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark
Other Comments by The Reverend Dark
36. Comment #155056 by aragorn2007 on April 4, 2008 at 5:46 am
Thank you all for your comments.The Reverend Darkwas a bit harsh on me but I forgive him.
I want to ask you something.It's a bit irrelevant.Why would you feel so happy if the
theory of abiogenesis and evolution is proved to be correct? What can this mean?The universe had no
designer.It either always existed or created out
of nothing.It means that humanity and all we see around us have no special meaning.You,myself, are only well organized molecules and atoms."We are not a beautiful snowflake".We are a byproduct of
chance and natural selection.Your feelings?Your sense of existence?Your love for your family?Delusions.Delusions made by electrical and chemical reactions.Right now,I am not speaking
to human beings,I am speaking to some trillion
cells,which function together to move,eat,
reproduce and survive.I may very well kill you,
or treat you unjust.It's no big deal.We are not
much different than garbage.Next time you see some
garbage, don't think little of it.Give it some million of years.It can become a beautiful colored
bird.You never know.
So,to finally make up a question.
Why do you look up on evolution so much?
Will this give you a meaning in life?
Do you just care for the truth,whatever this is?
Have you really thought that if God does not exist
our life may very well be meaningless?
What do you worry so much about your life,your
career,your girlfriend,your family,your income?
You just try to make the best out of life?
Well...this is life is not going anywhere...
why should we build towers of sand on the beach?
Other Comments by aragorn2007
37. Comment #155058 by Cartomancer on April 4, 2008 at 5:48 am
We build towers of sand because we find towers beautiful, and all we have to build them with is sand...
I find the idea that life is without an objective, metaphysical meaning entirely liberating and wonderful thank you. It allows me to impose whatever meaning I like onto its fabric, and live my life how I want to the best of my ability. It heightens and glorifies my sense of wonder, of love, of achievement and of excitement knowing every day that my successes and my failures are mine and mine alone, and not to be credited to some distant, whimsical arbiter of fate. The tragedies of my life are made more poginant too - there is no reason, no animus, no intelligence punishing me according to its crazy ineffable plan, no vengeful bloated sky-tyrant who despises what I do. No, the only things that cause tragedy in my life are the cold, grinding wheels of unfeeling, unthinking circumstance. What candle can your petty anthropomorphic explanation of fate hold to this grand and majestic vision of the universe?
I laugh. I cry. I love. I hate. I live. I learn. I die. What more meaning could you want from life?
In order for my life to have meaning I don't need a god. I just need me. How I got here is a wonderful and interesting story - a true story that we can learn more about every day - but ultimately it is irrelevant to the purpose of my life. I am here. That is all that matters. What I do now I am here is up to me. IT doesn't mean anything, and nor should it have to - I do enough meaning for the entire cosmos and so does each and every one of us.
Other Comments by Cartomancer
38. Comment #155060 by Steve Zara on April 4, 2008 at 5:53 am
It means that humanity and all we see around us have no special meaning
Think of religion like being in prison. Your life has the meaning given to it by the jailer. Follow the routine and you will be OK. Finally, your sentence is over. You walk out the gate. Where is the meaning of life now? Not surprisingly, some want to go back inside.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
39. Comment #155061 by Ygern on April 4, 2008 at 5:54 am
Aragorn2007Your feelings?Your sense of existence?Your love for your family?
That these are governed by chemicals & atoms does not diminish them by a jot. In fact it makes them and us all the more amazing and wonderful.
Other Comments by Ygern
40. Comment #155065 by BillySands on April 4, 2008 at 5:59 am
aragorn
You may need "ultimate meaning" in your life, but that is all it is - a personal need. It does not mean there is an objective metaphysical meaning. You will probably find that most people here are actually fulfilled while accepting the evidence for evolution - and its consequences on purpose. If you think you can make people believe in god by trying to make them feel empty and devoid of purpose, I suggest you try somewhere else - like a disaster zone.
Other Comments by BillySands
41. Comment #155068 by phasmagigas on April 4, 2008 at 6:04 am
aragorn 2007.
yours is a position of personal incredulity (i call it lack of imagination). you cannot imagine an animal form very slowly shifting incrementally until from any given start and finish point they look very different from each other. What you are basically saying is 'i cant imagine it, there for it didnt happen and you are wrong'. you offer no other explanation.
we are not laughing at our grandparents who could well have had evolution explained to them. with each added bit of evidence evolution is more and more firmly cemented as the most likely explanation we have for lifes diversity. as yet NOT ONE, NOT ONE SINGLE shred of evidence on this entire planet has falsified the theory.
post 36, ah, i now see your position very clearly. you dont want evolution to be true because if it is then it suggests a designer wasnt needed and you cannot cope with that, in a nutshell it suggests that when you die you might really turn to dust and thats it, and thats what you cannot deal with. it amazes me how wishful thinking can so cloud ones judgement.
if you want to discuss evolution youve come to the right place, if you want to criticise it you need some weaponry, unfortunately there is none as yet, any anti evolution argument you pose will be sliced and diced, it happens every time an antivolutionist comes on here, some leave feeling they have learned something, some just vanish after they realise all they have left is hurling scriptures and idle threats of hell.
I hear this type of nonsense all the time
We are not
much different than garbage.Next time you see some
garbage, don't think little of it.Give it some million of years.It can become a beautiful colored
bird.
thats pathetic, so if some event showed evo to have actually be true youd see people as garbage?? thats the problem isnt it, appreciation, goodness and morality are only injectable via the syringe of a deity. a pile of garbage doesnt become a beatiful little bird, creationsist like saying things like 'just how can some slimy rock become a human'. This demonstrates straight away a total lack of understanding of evolution at a level that an average 12 year old could achieve
aragorn2007, you dont know what evolution is, you havent studied it, you have no comprehension of how it works despite its actual simplicity, i dont look 'up' to evolution, thats is you transferring your requirement for guidance upon me.
actually the indohyus (incorrect spelling in the article) is most cerainly not the actual ancestor of whales but is a transitional form close to the ancestor, ie a sister branch to those animals that become whales. confused?? then learn some evolution, cladistics and palaentology.
Other Comments by phasmagigas
42. Comment #155076 by Quetzalcoatl on April 4, 2008 at 6:18 am
Aragorn, son of Arathorn-
Why would you feel so happy if the
theory of abiogenesis and evolution is proved to be correct?
Just to nit-pick. Abiogenesis and evolution are two separate theories. You shouldn't group them together.
It means that humanity and all we see around us have no special meaning.You,myself, are only well organized molecules and atoms."We are not a beautiful snowflake".We are a byproduct of
chance and natural selection.
There's nothing wrong with that. I will say what I always say: just because we are not the creations of a God, doesn't mean our lives are devoid of meaning. It's just that the meaning comes from ourselves, and from each other.
I may very well kill you,
or treat you unjust.It's no big deal.We are not
much different than garbage.
Of course it's a big deal, don't be daft. Is it then your opinion that humans are garbage without God?
This is a fairly common response from anti-evolutionists. Why should our lives be worth anything if we are just accretions of cells, without any purpose or plan to our existence?
Why should our lives NOT be worth anything?
What do you worry so much about your life,your
career,your girlfriend,your family,your income?
You just try to make the best out of life?
Exactly. I worry about these things because they matter to me. I am trying, as are we all, to make the best out of the time I have. The fact that I am an evolved being does not diminish that in any way. In fact, I would say that it enhances it.
Without a God to intervene, it is up to us to make things happen for ourselves. God does not write my books for me. I do. And they matter more because of that.
All we can do is live our lives as best we can. No God required.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
43. Comment #155077 by Cartomancer on April 4, 2008 at 6:24 am
Why should a mortal man, the sport of chance,
With no assured foreknowledge, be afraid?
Best live a carefree life as best we may.
- Sophocles, Oedipus Tyrannos
Other Comments by Cartomancer
44. Comment #155084 by phasmagigas on April 4, 2008 at 6:38 am
Do you just care for the truth,whatever this is?
Have you really thought that if God does not exist
our life may very well be meaningless?
massive yawn.
heard this before.
yes, i care for the truth whatever it is, we can never know about god (and of course you can have god and evo! it just doesnt make any sense atall, our bodies are just as hotch potched and frail and subject to gravity etc just like that of a fly or a worm, we have no special priveleges). but... if there was no god, SO WHAT, you give your own life meaning, well i do, waking up is great, literally smell the coffee and make myself and wife a cup, play with my dogs, check the spring plants growing, see if one of my tarantulas has moulted, grab cup of coffee #2, cook some breakfast, eggs on wholemeal and some fruit (very healthy), so delicious, the cupboard is full, life is great, then again im lucky, i live at a very fortunate time, what has got us all these goodies and privelege, not praying, but manipulating and studying teh environment, its called science. the majority of the people on this planet are not so fortunate, hardly the work of a benevolant god, things are difficult, thats why they need gods, bashing science in the west is an insult to all the ingenuity that scientists and engineers in the past have brought to us.
its really sad, you WANT a priveleged place in the universe, how selfish is that, so you decide you dont like evo, so you dont like science, and then you have disdain for those who do, like the people you will meet here. then all you can muster is an ill founded argument from personal incredulity, 'how can THAT be a whale' is that all you can offer?????
i dont need god to give my dogs a good life and im quite hapy knowing that about 65-70 million years ago, my dogs and I were one and the same within our common ancestor, i like to imagine what that animal was like, (it certainly wasnt a half dog/half man as creationst like to erronously think)a small rather generic mongoosy ratty little thing, that they could morph in multiple directions over time to 'create' both man and dog is truly mind expanding, it is the most amazing thing to imagine, it feeds, dare i say it, the soul.
aragorn2007, come back when you have something new, insightful or interesting to say.
you probably feel like we are a nasty sarcastic bunch here but honestly weve heard it all before, beleif in god is one thing but the antievolution mentality really gets my goat, the arguments are squashed before they even start, they get sooo boring, try to challenge evo here through argument, you will shocked that nobody stands back and goes 'ohh, hes got a point there' it hasnt happened yet, if it does then you will find yourself in the annals of science one day. we are here with open ears.
Other Comments by phasmagigas
45. Comment #155097 by phasmagigas on April 4, 2008 at 7:04 am
aragorn2007, you're joking, eh?
aragorn, you notice that goldy asked the above and you many wonder why?
well thats because forum members often make deliberately sarcastic posts (theres a few above in this thread)just for the fun of it or when theres no choice but to ridicule, thats the thing you see.
Its easy to satirise/parody and charicature creationism, so your post here looked like it could have been a parody, thats because no knowledge is required. you cannot do the same as effectively for evolution, if you parody evolution with intricate details and correct explanations then it means there is a degree of technical understanding and an individual with that is unlikey to oppose evolution (there are exceptions, rarely) as they will have actually understood it, i know personally no creationist who knows what evolution even is, not even close!!
to my mind it says a great deal that its easy for an 'evolutionist' to mimic a creationist but not the other way around.
Other Comments by phasmagigas
46. Comment #155133 by The Reverend Dark on April 4, 2008 at 7:36 am
Aragorn, Son or Araporn (He of the well used ring) writes
Thank you all for your comments.The Reverend Dark
was a bit harsh on me but I forgive him.
Sunshine, I need your forgiveness like a parrot needs the daily newspaper. Superfluous, but occasionally useful to crap upon.
I may very well kill you,
or treat you unjust.It's no big deal.We are not
much different than garbage.
This is rather telling of the pathetic nature of a 'higher' or biblical morality. You do not trust yourself to be moral without sky daddy threatening to paddle your arse for eternity? Naughty boy! Naughty boy.
We create our morals; we work with them within the societies we create, and we have mechanisms for dealing with people who move outside of what is considered acceptable. Whether that be through the rule of law, or by more subtle social distinctions.
It is a big deal. To us. The ones that matter. Not to some imaginary tossbag that you created to have someone to talk to when you feel a little put out. We are responsible to each other.
Why do you look up on evolution so much?
Actually, I tend to look down more than up, as I can come face to face with an elegant, pink, proof of it. Evolution offers meaningful answers to how we came to be where we are. Religon offers none, and tries to skew the question from how to why. How is meaningful. Why is more often than not, wish thinking.
Have you really thought that if God does not exist
our life may very well be meaningless?
Oh your poor little deluded bastard... My life has meaning. I create meaning. I nurture it. I work my hairy Canadian arse off in living it. I don't need an imaginary friend for that. When I die - and we all die, what I have done will leave ripples, like a stone tossed in a pond. This could be through the progeny I sire, the writing I leave behind, or even my well planned final practical joke. These ripples may last years, decades, or many lifetimes. That is worth doing.
Is your life so empty that the only meaning you can find in it is through your god. That is sad.
If you are going to spend time on your knees, there are better things do be doing than praying to an imaginary friend.
Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark
Other Comments by The Reverend Dark
47. Comment #155165 by phasmagigas on April 4, 2008 at 8:02 am
If you are going to spend time on your knees, there are better things do be doing than praying to an imaginary friend.
;)
Other Comments by phasmagigas
48. Comment #155169 by Philip1978 on April 4, 2008 at 8:04 am
Aragorn
I am with Reverend Shayne on this one, I too am working my hairy, English, arse off living life, taking my joy in the people around me and the time I have left to arse around!
Why would I have to imagine a good life when I can actually live it?
Living alongside a God is bollocks in comparrison to living alongside your fellow humans, especially those who love you.
You can only imagine God's love - though its more Stockholm Syndrome in God's case - my friends, my family, they are real, they make a real difference to my life and I am a VERY lucky man because of it.
There are things worth living for and I live for them, I don't call being God's hostage a worthy one, I call it living a lie - I would rather be honest with myself and those I care about.
If you think I am miserable without a God, think again, I challenge the world to find a happier man than me thats how sodding happy I am! Flippin heck, I have a cup of Tea by my side right now, HOW COOL IS THAT? :)
As for evolution, it happens mate, simple as that - works without God just fine, remove him from the equation and, wow, life continues to leap along!
Tally Ho!
Philip
Other Comments by Philip1978
49. Comment #155173 by irate_atheist on April 4, 2008 at 8:08 am
36. Comment #155056 by aragorn2007 -Thank you all for your comments.The Reverend Dark was a bit harsh on me but I forgive him.Ho, ho, ho. If you think the goodly Rev a bit harsh, if you persist in your breathtaking inanity, you will find what harsh is.
It may just be that the purpose of your life is to provide me with a few minutes of visceral amusement. Only time will tell.
Other Comments by irate_atheist
50. Comment #155179 by phasmagigas on April 4, 2008 at 8:13 am
i remember a few years ago a muslim girl in the UK asked me if i was a christian, i told her i didnt have carry a belief in god, and she looked at me in amazement and said 'how do you get through life', i answered with 'well i obviously do don't I?'
god to my mind is like having closets full of junk, just shit you really do not need, actually i need to work on that one, prior to marriage I tried to be a minimalist as best as i could but compromise with a partner stopped that very, very quickly!
Other Comments by phasmagigas
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Links:
Quotes of Note:
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike."
Delos B. McKown
"It is an article of passionate faith among "politically correct" biologists and anthropologists that brain size has no connection with intelligence; that intelligence has nothing to do with genes; and that genes are probably nasty fascist things anyway."
Richard Dawkins
"The objections to religion are of two sorts - intellectual and moral. The intellectual objection is that there is no reason to suppose any religion true; the moral objection is that religious precepts date from a time when men were more cruel than they are and therefore tend to perpetuate inhumanities which the moral conscience of the age would otherwise outgrow."
Bertrand Russell
"Aquarius is a miscellaneous set of stars all at different distances from us, which have no connection with each other except that they constitute a (meaningless) pattern when seen from a certain (not particularly special) place in the galaxy (here)."
Richard Dawkins
"Nothing can be more contrary to religion and the clergy than reason and common sense."
Voltaire
Other Recommended Reading
Darwin's Dangerous Idea
Daniel C. Dennett
The Portable Atheist
Christopher Hitchens (editor)
Pale Blue Dot
Carl Sagan
Freedom Evolves
Daniel C. Dennett
Against All Gods
A C Grayling
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'AAI 2007 Conference' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #101236 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 20, 2007 at 6:13 am
Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen