New Whale Species Unearthed In California Highway Dig 70
sciencehabit writes "Thanks to a highway-widening project in California's Laguna Canyon, scientists have identified several new species of early toothed baleen whales. The new fossils date to 17 to 19 million years ago, or the early-mid Miocene epoch, making them the youngest known toothed whales. Three of the fossils belong to the genus Morawanocetus, which is familiar to paleontologists studying whale fossils from Japan, but hadn't been seen before in California. These three, along with the fourth new species, which is of a different genus, represent the last known occurrence of aetiocetes, a family of mysticetes that coexisted with early baleen whales. Thus, they aren't ancestral to any of the living whales, but they could represent transitional steps on the way to today's whales."
Re:Anyone else feel small in the presence of natur (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you're leaving out some of the good stuff. The moon landings and the Large Hadron Collider make me feel a bit better about what humans are able to achieve. And it's not as if we're done yet, either.
When is an ancestor not an ancestor? (Score:4, Insightful)
The summary says
Thus, they aren't ancestral to any of the living whales, but they could represent transitional steps on the way to today's whales.
If they're not ancestors, in what sense do they represent transitional steps? Are the two not synonymous?
Re:Anyone else feel small in the presence of natur (Score:4, Insightful)
If you hadn't had your study of evolution replaced by fundamental Christian teachings
Uh, no. Saying that humans have come up with internal combustion, digital computers, drone strikes, Minecraft, or anything else does not logically lead to "I believe in an Invisible Sky Daddy". On the other hand, dismissing human accomplishments as having come from "nature" does. You know, like how hand-egg players will thank their particular flavor of Invisible Sky Daddy for the skills to do what they did.
If you want to believe in an Invisible Sky Daddy, that's fine. But when you claim that the attribution of human accomplishments and advancements to humanity equates to a belief in an Invisible Sky Daddy, while the attribution of human accomplishments and advancements to "nature" does not? I don't know what to say to that, other than it feels like you are trying to be deliberately deceptive.
Re:Anyone else feel small in the presence of natur (Score:4, Insightful)
Give me millions of years and I'll create all sorts of cool shit. Remember that "nature" has had aeons to do all this stuff, humans have had what, 100 000 years or less? Hardly the same time scale.