If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(io9)   Newspaper reporter writes article about "how" hippos became whales, without actually mentioning how   (io9.com) divider line 50
    More: Cool, fin whales, whales, minke whales, bottlenose dolphins, Ocean Science, Evolutionary history, porpoises, hippo  
•       •       •

1497 clicks; posted to Geek » on 25 Nov 2013 at 1:13 PM (39 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



50 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-11-25 12:30:40 PM
how is io9 considered a 'newspaper' subby?
 
2013-11-25 12:32:56 PM

calbert: how is io9 considered a 'newspaper' subby?


That's fair, actually.
 
2013-11-25 01:16:21 PM
It made sense to me, subby.  Maybe your failure to understand is not the fault of the article.
 
2013-11-25 01:24:19 PM
Maybe we need to simplify some for subby. When two hippos love each other very much, ...
 
2013-11-25 01:30:00 PM
I don't think it's fair that they got to swim in the ocean AND ride aboad Noah's Ark during the Great Flood while so many dinosaurs drowned.
 
2013-11-25 01:35:28 PM
"First and foremost, the adaptation to ocean life was marked by resistance to physiological stresses caused by a lack of oxygen and high salt levels. The researchers were able to identify several whale-specific genes strongly associated with these crucial adaptations, including the peroxiredoxin (PRDX) family, O-linked N-acetylglucosaminylation (O-GlcNAcylation). Basically, adaptations to the water favored those mutations that were associated with stress-responsive proteins and anaerobic metabolism[...]"

Seems fairly explanatory to me.
 
2013-11-25 01:38:09 PM

FloydA: It made sense to me, subby.  Maybe your failure to understand is not the fault of the article.


So, like, I get that the adaptation of glutathione production helps them dive, but how did they get to that point in the first place?  Why were they trying to dive?  How did hippos get the desire to even try diving?  What in their environment led them to aggressively diving deep to catch their food?  etc., etc...  The how isn't "they adapted" - we know that.  It's "how is it that their adaptation was triggered?"
 
2013-11-25 01:38:56 PM
Duh. Sea creatures were made on the 4th day.
 
2013-11-25 01:40:26 PM
So it's a story about homeschooling and evolution?
 
2013-11-25 01:54:46 PM

reillan: FloydA: It made sense to me, subby.  Maybe your failure to understand is not the fault of the article.

So, like, I get that the adaptation of glutathione production helps them dive, but how did they get to that point in the first place?  Why were they trying to dive?


There is food down there.

How did hippos get the desire to even try diving?

They were hungry.


What in their environment led them to aggressively diving deep to catch their food?  etc., etc...

If the food swims deeper to avoid the predators, the predator with the mutation that allows it to dive deeper than its cohort is the one that gets to eat.


The how isn't "they adapted" - we know that.  It's "how is it that their adaptation was triggered?"


Could you re-phrase the question?  Are you asking what caused the mutations that created the variation that allowed some ancestors to have more offspring than others?  If so, the only honest answer is "we don't know specifically, but we know in general how mutations are caused."

If you're asking something else, I'm afraid I'm not understanding your question.
 
2013-11-25 01:55:02 PM
Any of that explain why cetaceans don't get the bends?
 
2013-11-25 01:59:25 PM
I would love to someday have a science thread where half the threads aren't tired old "let's make fun of Genesis" jokes.  We get it.  You're edgy enough to not believe the Noah's Ark fable.  Kudos to you for being so smart.  Every single "joke" you're making has already been made in another thread.  You're almost as mindless as though you are trying to mock.
 
2013-11-25 02:01:44 PM

simplicimus: Any of that explain why cetaceans don't get the bends?


yes
 
2013-11-25 02:05:25 PM
Biologists aren't entirely sure which creature modern cetaceans (dolphins, whales, and porpoises) are descended from.

Yes they do! Himalayacetus is the most likely culprit. On top of that, they have found literally thousands of extinct cetacean fossils going back 50 million years, and the cool thing is if you organize them all chronologically like a flipbook, they morph from land-roaming to amphibious to sea-roaming.

Cetacean evolution is one of the most complete evolutionary records we have of any animal (with the exception of the horse), because of their size and the strength of their bones. We know more about whale evolution than we do about human evolution!

Does Io9 ever do ANY research?
 
2013-11-25 02:07:43 PM

simplicimus: Any of that explain why cetaceans don't get the bends?


they do, actually.

God hasn't fixed that part yet.
 
2013-11-25 02:08:53 PM

simplicimus: Any of that explain why cetaceans don't get the bends?


The article doesn't explain it directly, but there are good reasons. Simple explanation.

Basically, human scuba divers are susceptible in part because we use pressurized air when we dive.  The whales either take a single breath and hold it, so they don't get a lot of dissolved nitrogen in their blood, and then they surface slowly like human divers, or they exhale before diving so they don't get any dissolved nitrogen during the dive.  But as the video mentions, whales can actually get decompression sickness if they are startled into surfacing too quickly.
 
2013-11-25 02:09:41 PM

FloydA: reillan: FloydA: It made sense to me, subby.  Maybe your failure to understand is not the fault of the article.

So, like, I get that the adaptation of glutathione production helps them dive, but how did they get to that point in the first place?  Why were they trying to dive?

There is food down there.

How did hippos get the desire to even try diving?

They were hungry.


What in their environment led them to aggressively diving deep to catch their food?  etc., etc...

If the food swims deeper to avoid the predators, the predator with the mutation that allows it to dive deeper than its cohort is the one that gets to eat.


The how isn't "they adapted" - we know that.  It's "how is it that their adaptation was triggered?"


Could you re-phrase the question?  Are you asking what caused the mutations that created the variation that allowed some ancestors to have more offspring than others?  If so, the only honest answer is "we don't know specifically, but we know in general how mutations are caused."

If you're asking something else, I'm afraid I'm not understanding your question.


It's like this: When I see "how", I expect something like this:

How do I get to St. Louis from Tulsa?
You hop on I-44 headed northeast and drive for 400 miles.

I do not expect something like this:
By car.  It's a motorized vehicle that explodes gasoline to generate motion.

Yes, I know that.  I don't want to know how cars work, I want to know where I'm going.  So, in the case of the article - I understand hippos (to a very vague extent, admittedly).  I understand whales.  I can guess that there's going to need to be some kind of adaptation for the hippo to be able to dive, for it to be able to hold its breath longer, for it to adapt flippers instead of feet, etc.  That's all sort of evolutionary guesswork.

How did the gene that led to whales diving deeper get changed?  Did code that's off in a hippo get turned on?  Or is it a modification of code that was already on and active?  If it's a modification to active code, did it change anything else significant (e.g., is that the same piece of code that gave hippos their feet.  No, I know that's not what it was.  I'm just giving you a very far-out example.)
 
2013-11-25 02:12:07 PM

Some 'Splainin' To Do: "First and foremost, the adaptation to ocean life was marked by resistance to physiological stresses caused by a lack of oxygen and high salt levels. The researchers were able to identify several whale-specific genes strongly associated with these crucial adaptations, including the peroxiredoxin (PRDX) family, O-linked N-acetylglucosaminylation (O-GlcNAcylation). Basically, adaptations to the water favored those mutations that were associated with stress-responsive proteins and anaerobic metabolism[...]"

Seems fairly explanatory to me.


So we now know what genese to implant to create a merperson?
 
2013-11-25 02:13:04 PM
Perhaps subby, you should have linked to the article in Nature, written by:

Hyung-Soon Yim,
Yun Sung Cho,
Xuanmin Guang,
Sung Gyun Kang,
Jae-Yeon Jeong,
Sun-Shin Cha,
Hyun-Myung Oh,
Jae-Hak Lee,
Eun Chan Yang,
Kae Kyoung Kwon,
Yun Jae Kim,
Tae Wan Kim,
Wonduck Kim,
Jeong Ho Jeon,
Sang-Jin Kim,
Dong Han Choi,
Sungwoong Jho,
Hak-Min Kim,
Junsu Ko,
Hyunmin Kim,
Young-Ah Shin,
Hyun-Ju Jung,
Yuan Zheng,
Zhuo Wang,
Yan Chen
 
2013-11-25 02:14:53 PM

Speaker2Animals: Perhaps subby, you should have linked to the article in Nature, written by:

Hyung-Soon Yim,
Yun Sung Cho,
Xuanmin Guang,
Sung Gyun Kang,
Jae-Yeon Jeong,
Sun-Shin Cha,
Hyun-Myung Oh,
Jae-Hak Lee,
Eun Chan Yang,
Kae Kyoung Kwon,
Yun Jae Kim,
Tae Wan Kim,
Wonduck Kim,
Jeong Ho Jeon,
Sang-Jin Kim,
Dong Han Choi,
Sungwoong Jho,
Hak-Min Kim,
Junsu Ko,
Hyunmin Kim,
Young-Ah Shin,
Hyun-Ju Jung,
Yuan Zheng,
Zhuo Wang,
Yan Chen


I should go read the article in Nature, instead of bothering with io9.
 
2013-11-25 02:20:18 PM

FloydA: There is food down there.


I am liable to assert now that the principle driving mechanism behind almost all evolution is diet.

In the pacific northwest here there are two pods of orca. They are pretty much physiologically identical but they don't interact much because their dietary habits are different. One pod eats seals almost exclusively while the other eats salmon. And they've been accustomed to these food sources for generations and there's rarely any cross-over. Newborns likely don't have a preference for one or the other, but like humans, whatever they're first taught by their parents, that's how they roll for the rest of their lives. And they teach it to their children. And so on. Like cultural values.

So over time, you'd think that the salmon-eating pod will evolve adaptations that allow them to better catch, eat, and digest salmon, and the same for the seal-eating pod, until eventually a few million years from now we'll have two different species of ocean mammals descended from orca, one smaller and sleeker so it can go up river and chase salmon sources, the other with tough, undulating underbelly skin so it can beach itself chasing seal sources.

That's evolution in a nutshell.
 
2013-11-25 02:22:27 PM

FLMountainMan: I would love to someday have a science thread where half the threads aren't tired old "let's make fun of Genesis" jokes.  We get it.  You're edgy enough to not believe the Noah's Ark fable.  Kudos to you for being so smart.  Every single "joke" you're making has already been made in another thread.  You're almost as mindless as though you are trying to mock.


I know, right?  People have been making those jokes since the beginning of time... 6000 years ago.
 
2013-11-25 02:23:10 PM

reillan: FloydA: It made sense to me, subby.  Maybe your failure to understand is not the fault of the article.

So, like, I get that the adaptation of glutathione production helps them dive, but how did they get to that point in the first place?  Why were they trying to dive?  How did hippos get the desire to even try diving?  What in their environment led them to aggressively diving deep to catch their food?  etc., etc...  The how isn't "they adapted" - we know that.  It's "how is it that their adaptation was triggered?"


*Waves neoLamarckian fairy wand over everything*
 
2013-11-25 02:26:22 PM

Saiga410: Some 'Splainin' To Do: "First and foremost, the adaptation to ocean life was marked by resistance to physiological stresses caused by a lack of oxygen and high salt levels. The researchers were able to identify several whale-specific genes strongly associated with these crucial adaptations, including the peroxiredoxin (PRDX) family, O-linked N-acetylglucosaminylation (O-GlcNAcylation). Basically, adaptations to the water favored those mutations that were associated with stress-responsive proteins and anaerobic metabolism[...]"

Seems fairly explanatory to me.

So we now know what genese to implant to create a merperson?


Head down to Weekiwachie in Florida and see for yourself.
 
2013-11-25 02:27:54 PM

reillan: It's like this: When I see "how", I expect something like this:

How do I get to St. Louis from Tulsa?
You hop on I-44 headed northeast and drive for 400 miles.

I do not expect something like this:
By car.  It's a motorized vehicle that explodes gasoline to generate motion.

Yes, I know that.  I don't want to know how cars work, I want to know where I'm going.  So, in the case of the article - I understand hippos (to a very vague extent, admittedly).  I understand whales.  I can guess that there's going to need to be some kind of adaptation for the hippo to be able to dive, for it to be able to hold its breath longer, for it to adapt flippers instead of feet, etc.  That's all sort of evolutionary guesswork.

How did the gene that led to whales diving deeper get changed?  Did code that's off in a hippo get turned on?  Or is it a modification of code that was already on and active?  If it's a modification to active code, did it change anything else significant (e.g., is that the same piece of code that gave hippos their feet.  No, I know that's not what it was.  I'm just giving you a very far-out example.)



OK, well the only honest answer is "we do not know."  I'm not a geneticist, nor a cetacean expert, but to answer which  specific mutations occurred in which order would require us to be able to extract DNA from the fossil cetaceans.  As  Ishkurnoted, we have a great fossil record of cetacean evolution, but AFAIK, the majority of the fossils are fully permineralized, so there is no fossil DNA that we can extract.

We know which genes were altered (that's what the io9 article discusses, albeit in minimal detail).  We know this, in part, because we can compare living cetacean DNA to the genomes of their closest living relatives.  But unfortunately, we can't easily determine the order in which the various mutations occurred.  Given the evidence that's available to us today, that question isn't answerable.

We can note that, in general, mutations can be triggered by exposure to some forms of radiation (including sunlight) or some types of chemicals.  We also know that recombination of (grand)parental genomes during meiosis results in the introduction of genetic novelty.  So we can tell you how genetic variation originates, in a general sense, and we can tell you which genes distinguish one species from another.  But we can't usually tell you the precise sequence in which these novel genetic combinations appeared, nor which individual first possessed them.

To follow your "Tulsa to St. Louis" analogy, we can get as detailed as "head generally northeast, and keep going until you see an arch."  We can't warn you about that idiot in the minivan who changes lanes without signaling or looking, or the semi going 95 through Vinita.  The details of your specific journey are unknown, but we can describe the general direction of travel and even about how long it will take.

Does that answer your question?  (This is one of my favorite subjects, so I'm happy to keep yammering on about it if you like.)
 
2013-11-25 02:32:44 PM

Saiga410: Some 'Splainin' To Do: "First and foremost, the adaptation to ocean life was marked by resistance to physiological stresses caused by a lack of oxygen and high salt levels. The researchers were able to identify several whale-specific genes strongly associated with these crucial adaptations, including the peroxiredoxin (PRDX) family, O-linked N-acetylglucosaminylation (O-GlcNAcylation). Basically, adaptations to the water favored those mutations that were associated with stress-responsive proteins and anaerobic metabolism[...]"

Seems fairly explanatory to me.

So we now know what genese to implant to create a merperson?



Sorry buddy.
i105.photobucket.com 
You're going to need a lot more than a Genesee to get me to fark a fish.
 
2013-11-25 02:35:37 PM
All I know is that that is a badass photo of an Orca. I'd hate to be a seal or anything else they thought was tasty or a mitigatable threat in their range.
 
2013-11-25 02:36:47 PM

FloydA: reillan: It's like this: When I see "how", I expect something like this:

How do I get to St. Louis from Tulsa?
You hop on I-44 headed northeast and drive for 400 miles.

I do not expect something like this:
By car.  It's a motorized vehicle that explodes gasoline to generate motion.

Yes, I know that.  I don't want to know how cars work, I want to know where I'm going.  So, in the case of the article - I understand hippos (to a very vague extent, admittedly).  I understand whales.  I can guess that there's going to need to be some kind of adaptation for the hippo to be able to dive, for it to be able to hold its breath longer, for it to adapt flippers instead of feet, etc.  That's all sort of evolutionary guesswork.

How did the gene that led to whales diving deeper get changed?  Did code that's off in a hippo get turned on?  Or is it a modification of code that was already on and active?  If it's a modification to active code, did it change anything else significant (e.g., is that the same piece of code that gave hippos their feet.  No, I know that's not what it was.  I'm just giving you a very far-out example.)


OK, well the only honest answer is "we do not know."  I'm not a geneticist, nor a cetacean expert, but to answer which  specific mutations occurred in which order would require us to be able to extract DNA from the fossil cetaceans.  As  Ishkurnoted, we have a great fossil record of cetacean evolution, but AFAIK, the majority of the fossils are fully permineralized, so there is no fossil DNA that we can extract.

We know which genes were altered (that's what the io9 article discusses, albeit in minimal detail).  We know this, in part, because we can compare living cetacean DNA to the genomes of their closest living relatives.  But unfortunately, we can't easily determine the order in which the various mutations occurred.  Given the evidence that's available to us today, that question isn't answerable.

We can note that, in general, mutations can be trigg ...


Happy with that, thanks.  I guess I got a little to uppity about the rhetorical use of "how".
 
2013-11-25 02:37:24 PM

Ishkur: FloydA: There is food down there.

I am liable to assert now that the principle driving mechanism behind almost all evolution is diet.

In the pacific northwest here there are two pods of orca. They are pretty much physiologically identical but they don't interact much because their dietary habits are different. One pod eats seals almost exclusively while the other eats salmon. And they've been accustomed to these food sources for generations and there's rarely any cross-over. Newborns likely don't have a preference for one or the other, but like humans, whatever they're first taught by their parents, that's how they roll for the rest of their lives. And they teach it to their children. And so on. Like cultural values.

So over time, you'd think that the salmon-eating pod will evolve adaptations that allow them to better catch, eat, and digest salmon, and the same for the seal-eating pod, until eventually a few million years from now we'll have two different species of ocean mammals descended from orca, one smaller and sleeker so it can go up river and chase salmon sources, the other with tough, undulating underbelly skin so it can beach itself chasing seal sources.

That's evolution in a nutshell.



Thanks for the info!  I thought the J clan were all salmon eaters.  Can you recommend some references?
 
2013-11-25 02:39:25 PM

reillan: Happy with that, thanks.  I guess I got a little to uppity about the rhetorical use of "how".


My pleasure.  We often don't realize how complicated an apparently "simple" question can be!  :-)
 
2013-11-25 02:48:45 PM
How do hippos become whales? Every husband already knows the answer
 
2013-11-25 02:59:44 PM

FloydA: Thanks for the info! I thought the J clan were all salmon eaters. Can you recommend some references?


Nothing scientific, unfortunately. I literally got it from our guide on a whale-watching tour last year (and she would never lie!).

She specified that the transients (seal-eating) will go all the way up and down the coast (and by that I mean down to Chile), while the residents (fish-eating) -- the one we were following -- stays mostly in the pacific northwest, Alaska/Bering Sea, and the arctic. It was pretty nifty. The matriarch of the clan followed the wake of the boat for several miles. They are curious bastards; they like to spyhop and check us out constantly.
 
2013-11-25 03:06:01 PM

FloydA: Thanks for the info! I thought the J clan were all salmon eaters. Can you recommend some references?


Oh, and I just realized I didn't specifically answer your question. The J-clan are all residents, so they ARE all salmon eaters. It's the transients that are marine mammal eaters.

Here's something. Goes into detail about various orca clans and their habits.
 
2013-11-25 03:08:09 PM
all they gotta do is mutate.
it's really that simple.
 
2013-11-25 03:10:59 PM

Ishkur: FloydA: Thanks for the info! I thought the J clan were all salmon eaters. Can you recommend some references?

Nothing scientific, unfortunately. I literally got it from our guide on a whale-watching tour last year (and she would never lie!).

She specified that the transients (seal-eating) will go all the way up and down the coast (and by that I mean down to Chile), while the residents (fish-eating) -- the one we were following -- stays mostly in the pacific northwest, Alaska/Bering Sea, and the arctic. It was pretty nifty. The matriarch of the clan followed the wake of the boat for several miles. They are curious bastards; they like to spyhop and check us out constantly.



Oh, yes, I see.  The Bigg's (transient) pods aren't part of the SRKW, that's what had me confused!

I'm fortunate enough to get to ride the ferry to and from work, so I get to see J pod pretty regularly in late Spring or early Fall quarter.  It's pretty awesome to see them up close!

Cheers.
 
2013-11-25 03:12:04 PM

Ishkur: FloydA: Thanks for the info! I thought the J clan were all salmon eaters. Can you recommend some references?

Oh, and I just realized I didn't specifically answer your question. The J-clan are all residents, so they ARE all salmon eaters. It's the transients that are marine mammal eaters.

Here's something. Goes into detail about various orca clans and their habits.


Cool, thanks!
 
2013-11-25 03:21:20 PM
I think I know the problem: Readability.

I threw the article into a readability analyzer and I pops up with a Flesch of 50 (10-12th grade) and a Fog of 14.1 (difficult).  The original article isn't much worse.
 
2013-11-25 03:25:52 PM

calbert: how is io9 considered a 'newspaper' subby?


Over time, it developed survival characteristics that allowed it to flourish in an online environment.  You can see quite clearly that it originated in a print medium based on vestigial structures like headlines and page-oriented navigation.  Although no one is quite sure which newspaper that io9 evolved from, one thing that most scientists can agree upon is that intelligent design had nothing to do with it.

/just kidding.  io9 is quite the cool web site.
 
2013-11-25 03:35:26 PM

tillerman35: calbert: how is io9 considered a 'newspaper' subby?

Over time, it developed survival characteristics that allowed it to flourish in an online environment.  You can see quite clearly that it originated in a print medium based on vestigial structures like headlines and page-oriented navigation.  Although no one is quite sure which newspaper that io9 evolved from, one thing that most scientists can agree upon is that intelligent design had nothing to do with it.

/just kidding.  io9 is quite the cool web site.


Heh heh.
 
2013-11-25 04:11:38 PM

tamsnod27: Maybe we need to simplify some for subby. When two hippos love each other very much, ...


Man, I'm tired of hearing about People At Wal-mart.
 
2013-11-25 04:22:20 PM
FLMountainMan:  You're almost as mindless as though you are trying to mock.

Brave card.
 
2013-11-25 04:35:32 PM

FloydA: It made sense to me, subby.  Maybe your failure to understand is not the fault of the article.


Subby's probably one of those who expects evolution to produce Kirk Cameron's crocoduck.
 
2013-11-25 04:49:20 PM

reillan: Yes, I know that.  I don't want to know how cars work, I want to know where I'm going.  So, in the case of the article - I understand hippos (to a very vague extent, admittedly).  I understand whales.  I can guess that there's going to need to be some kind of adaptation for the hippo to be able to dive, for it to be able to hold its breath longer, for it to adapt flippers instead of feet, etc.  That's all sort of evolutionary guesswork.


The problem is that you're asking "how did a hippo turn into a whale?" But a hippo didn't turn into a whale; an ancestor to both hippos and whales turned into a whale, while another of those ancestors turned into a hippo.  This is a common mistake, and central to "crocoduck" arguments like Kirk Cameron and the "kind" arguments of other creationists.  It muddies the fact that hippos and whales are the same "kind"...if you go back far enough.  In fact, every mammal is the same "kind", if your definition of "kind" goes back far enough to cover "mammals".

Basically, it's as though a group of people started in St. Louis and each walked in a different direction.  One will end up in Seattle, one in Miami, one in LA, and one in New York...but they're all still from St. Louis. It's not technically correct in asking "how do you go from Seattle to Miami like those two guys did?" because they didn't; they started from a different place they both shared.
 
2013-11-25 06:24:01 PM

FloydA: reillan: How did hippos get the desire to even try diving?

They were hungry.


Hungry, hungry hippos.  Did we not learn this in grade school?
 
2013-11-25 07:49:47 PM

2chris2: FLMountainMan: I would love to someday have a science thread where half the threads aren't tired old "let's make fun of Genesis" jokes.  We get it.  You're edgy enough to not believe the Noah's Ark fable.  Kudos to you for being so smart.  Every single "joke" you're making has already been made in another thread.  You're almost as mindless as though you are trying to mock.

I know, right?  People have been making those jokes since the beginning of time... 6000 years ago.


Yeah, and "not believing the Noah's Ark fable" is apparently "edgy" to FLMountainMan, who has a good point about how nice it would be to have a evolution thread that doesn't devolve (if you'll pardon the joke) into snide sideswipes at religious ignoramuses. An evolution thread that sticks to the subject at hand would be refreshing.

But that's not the world we live in right now. As long as people who choose to ignore science in favor of fantasy hold any sway over science education and related politics, and as long as there are people who, even mistakenly, seem to think it's "edgy" to understand the difference, there will be jokes at their expense when the subject comes up.
 
2013-11-25 09:45:05 PM

100 Watt Walrus: 2chris2: FLMountainMan: I would love to someday have a science thread where half the threads aren't tired old "let's make fun of Genesis" jokes.  We get it.  You're edgy enough to not believe the Noah's Ark fable.  Kudos to you for being so smart.  Every single "joke" you're making has already been made in another thread.  You're almost as mindless as though you are trying to mock.

I know, right?  People have been making those jokes since the beginning of time... 6000 years ago.

Yeah, and "not believing the Noah's Ark fable" is apparently "edgy" to FLMountainMan, who has a good point about how nice it would be to have a evolution thread that doesn't devolve (if you'll pardon the joke) into snide sideswipes at religious ignoramuses. An evolution thread that sticks to the subject at hand would be refreshing.

But that's not the world we live in right now. As long as people who choose to ignore science in favor of fantasy hold any sway over science education and related politics, and as long as there are people who, even mistakenly, seem to think it's "edgy" to understand the difference, there will be jokes at their expense when the subject comes up.


It's not edgy.  That's the point.  No one believing the earth was made 6000 years ago is coming into a Fark thread about whales evolving from hippos.  But keep up the brave work in the atheist echo chamber theocracy that is Fark.  I'm sure you are reaching a lot of hearts and minds on here.
 
2013-11-25 10:39:21 PM
Back in the 70's guys called them "hippos" but now "whales" is more commonplace.
 
2013-11-26 02:09:43 AM
Why is "how" in quotes?
 
2013-11-26 05:38:26 AM

FLMountainMan: 100 Watt Walrus: 2chris2: FLMountainMan: I would love to someday have a science thread where half the threads aren't tired old "let's make fun of Genesis" jokes.  We get it.  You're edgy enough to not believe the Noah's Ark fable.  Kudos to you for being so smart.  Every single "joke" you're making has already been made in another thread.  You're almost as mindless as though you are trying to mock.

I know, right?  People have been making those jokes since the beginning of time... 6000 years ago.

Yeah, and "not believing the Noah's Ark fable" is apparently "edgy" to FLMountainMan, who has a good point about how nice it would be to have a evolution thread that doesn't devolve (if you'll pardon the joke) into snide sideswipes at religious ignoramuses. An evolution thread that sticks to the subject at hand would be refreshing.

But that's not the world we live in right now. As long as people who choose to ignore science in favor of fantasy hold any sway over science education and related politics, and as long as there are people who, even mistakenly, seem to think it's "edgy" to understand the difference, there will be jokes at their expense when the subject comes up.

It's not edgy.  That's the point.  No one believing the earth was made 6000 years ago is coming into a Fark thread about whales evolving from hippos.  But keep up the brave work in the atheist echo chamber theocracy that is Fark.  I'm sure you are reaching a lot of hearts and minds on here.


That's not really true. Members of the creationist community don't spend much time on Fark because people here run rings around them logically. But they do show up and beat their feeble heads against the wall at times. If they didn't, the kind of posts you're complaining about would never happen in the first place, let alone be echoed in a thread like this, where nobody's made the argument to their counter-argument, and yet they still make the counter-arguement.

BTW, calling Fark's noisy atheist contingency a "theocracy" just as absurd.
 
2013-11-26 08:31:47 AM
manilovefilms.com

Life.... finds a way
 
Displayed 50 of 50 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report