Comments on: About That ‘Dog-Cat’ Thing Again…

By: Steven Crankder

Steven Crankder — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 01:50:12 +0000

Dogs sure are one of the most amazing gods creation lol

By: Rocket Mike

Rocket Mike — Sat, 23 May 2009 21:22:56 +0000

Despite the inexcusable hype from some of the media, this can be a real teachable moment because of all the attention. Given the abysmal understanding of evolution in this country, we need all the chances we can get. I just heard a physicist say that he had gotten the most invitations to speak that he ever had because of the “Black Hole” speculation associated with the Large Hadron Collider. He used these chances to explain the physics in lay terms and reach a much larger audience than he ever had before. We can use this hyped situation to show that the scientists are rational and have the honesty and humility to present the true story.

That said, Michael needs to read the scientific reports on Ida again, paying closer attention this time. They do not refer to a grooming tooth, but to a tooth comb. This refers to the physical arrangement of the dentition, not to a comb used for grooming.

By: Ben

Ben — Sat, 23 May 2009 20:11:13 +0000

“something that is supposedly 47 million years old”

Wild guess: Michael thinks Ida can’t possibly be more than about six thousand years old.

By: Michael

Michael — Sat, 23 May 2009 07:30:33 +0000

Blind leading the blind, come on, CNN and the AP? There is more than that to the story of Ida! This isn’t exactly the stamp of approval most scientists look for…lol The fossil of this animal is “astonishingly complete” for something that is supposedly 47 million years old. Only two things are different from a modern version, the grooming claw, and a grooming tooth, other than than it looks like a modern version. Even the authors of the paper in PLOS put on a disclaimer, that it’s not a claim they’ve proved it. Yet, we got people in here proclaiming it’s evidence for a transitional from before much needed study. I think we really do need critical thinking even more now than ever before!

By: EOAustin

EOAustin — Fri, 22 May 2009 21:57:51 +0000

McLeroy will say that fossil was put into the earth by God! Mark my words. Remember…God can do anything! I hear the cracking of the walls of Religiondumb slowly but surely

By: Thomas M.

Thomas M. — Wed, 20 May 2009 23:02:51 +0000

Given all the overblown reactions to this in the media, I think it be best to give a link to a well-reasoned critique (of the claim that it’s an ancestor of man, NOT of evolution):

http://scienceblogs.com/laelaps/2009/05/poor_poor_ida_or_overselling_a.php

By: Rocket Mike

Rocket Mike — Wed, 20 May 2009 22:17:37 +0000

Repeat!!! The University of Texas should revoke Ken Mercer’s biology degree for egregious malpractice.

By: toucantoad

toucantoad — Wed, 20 May 2009 20:20:28 +0000

Ida is indeed an interesting fossil and apparently worthy of some notoriety. But there are problems with the extent of hysterical notoriety she is receiving. Much of the press is behaving in an unfortunate unrestrained manner – obviously because Ida is a primate, our order of mammals. Ida seems actually no more amazing as a paleospecies with transitional features than are countless others (Pakicetus, Tiktaalik, Acanthostega, Archaeopteryx, Rhonavis, Confusciousornis, and on and on ad infinitum). In their zeal for Ida, they’re trotting out shoddy journalistic sensationalism – “missing link” – “leading to humans” – “Darwin’s theory finally proved” and senseless word associations “monkeys, primates, and humans” for example. Monkeys and humans are primates. And as if Darwin’s theory hadn’t been confirmed 19,000 times or more over the past 150 years.
It is a really cool fossil with important transitional features, but Ken Mercer could just as easily be lashed with Tiktaalik. Our transitional cudgle doesn’t have to be a member of our order of mammals. The hype over Ida diminishes in the lay public eye the significance to evolution of non-primate transitional forms.

By: John M. Hays

John M. Hays — Wed, 20 May 2009 19:03:50 +0000

I happen to have a couple of those “cat-dogs” living at my house. Though one is clearly feline, she has a bob tail and takes great delight in converting large pieces of paper into confetti. And that’s especially true if she happens to find the paper on my desk.
The other “cat-dog” does have a full length tail for a cat. Her favorite treat is one of the rawhide chews savored by out two goofy Labs. Her claws are sharp enough and fast enough to keep the Labs at bay while she munches.
The two cat-dogs are not kin, or at least not close with one being about ten years older than the other. So given the gestation period of cats, thse “cat-dogs” had to begin evolving about thirty generations back.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Wed, 20 May 2009 18:43:53 +0000

Well, experts are always standing up to each other. It’s hard to be an expert. Other experts are always telling you that you are wrong in some detail or another. So it is a big mess.

Out of which emerges a pretty good idea of how all this works.

BTW, everybody loves cat-dog:

http://www.jrj-socrates.com/Cartoon%20Pics/Nick%20Toons/Cat%20Dog/Catdog_300.gif