 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Biology / Paleontology / August 2006"janjucetus hunderi" discussed,article link
Ferocious ancestor of whales http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/08/23/ancient.water.system.reut/index.html > Ferocious ancestor of whales http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/08/23/ancient.water.system.r eut/index.html Link correction: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/08/16/blue.whale.ancestor.re ut/index.html Regards, Edward Hennessey Edward Hennessey wrote: >>Ferocious ancestor of whales > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/08/16/blue.whale.ancestor.re > ut/index.html Mind the wrap. You have to love science journalism. How many fallacies can you find in this short article? I've got two: 1. The assumption that this fossil is an ancestor of modern whales. 2. The claim that the fact this fossil has no baleen is evidence that baleen had not evolved by 25ma. (Implied by but distinct from #1.) > Edward Hennessey wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > 2. The claim that the fact this fossil has no baleen is evidence that > baleen had not evolved by 25ma. (Implied by but distinct from #1.) 1. It is not an assumption, it is an inference based upon comparative anatomy. 2. There is no mention of 25ma. 3. It's not "science journalism." It's some editor's shortened version of a report about a scientific finding. >>Edward Hennessey wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > 1. It is not an assumption, it is an inference based upon comparative > anatomy. You are very confused. There is no way to tell from comparative anatomy whether the fossil is an actual ancestor or just a cousin of that ancestor. There is a 25ma (see below) toothed baleen whale. There is no reason to suppose it's the actual ancestor of modern baleen whales. And there is no reason to suppose that there were no baleen whales with baleen back then, just as the existence of apes with primitive features today (chimps, say) doesn't mean there are no highly derived primates chattering on usenet. > 2. There is no mention of 25ma. "The 25 million-year-old fossil is of an early type of baleen whale..." > 3. It's not "science journalism." It's some editor's shortened version of a > report about a scientific finding. Yes, that's science journalism. A reporter, or perhaps an editor, reads, or perhaps skims, a scientific paper, or perhaps a university press release and writes a little article on it. He may preserve existing errors or introduce his own. I generally like to give scientists the benefit of the doubt and suppose that the science journalist is at fault. Sometimes I'm wrong. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.