Found: Humanity’s great-grand-rat
All of that information went into a gigantic Web-based database called MorphoBank, in which the scientists recorded more than 4,500 individual traits, both physical and behavioral, culled from 86 placental mammal species, about half of them extinct. “I was working in one cell [of the database],” recalls Novacek, “when another was suddenly populated with information that was being entered in real time by a collaborator from Brazil. It was really exciting.”
MorphoBank established the species relationships among placental mammals, while DNA and fossil-dating calculations established the timeline — and while that sounds simple enough, it was, says Novacek, “hugely laborious.” Indeed, writes Duke University biologist Anne Yoder in a Science commentary, “O’Leary et al.’s study offers a level of sophistication and meticulous analysis of morphological and paleontological data that is unprecedented.”
All that impressive brainwork led us back to a rather humbling place: You, your loved ones and your friends, not to mention Abe Lincoln, Winston Churchill, Napoleon, Babe Ruth, Marilyn Monroe—all of us, in other words—are the multi-multi-generational grandkids of a rat-like, half-pound, furry-tailed bug-eater.








Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Swap a few phrases and this bilge could have come from an AGW propaganda site where a lot of ‘impressive brainwork’ had just ‘proved’ that we were responsible for melting the polar caps and starting a worldwide famine that would both coincide in 10 years time.
MelonCollie on February 8, 2013 at 10:15 PM
I’m the retarded offspring of 5 monkeys having bhutts3x with a fish squirrel.
lorien1973 on February 8, 2013 at 10:27 PM
We’re called to believe that the fetus is NOT human, but an ancient rat IS. I disagree.
RBMN on February 8, 2013 at 10:48 PM
0.0 Close the thread.
We.
Have.
A.
Winner.
MelonCollie on February 8, 2013 at 10:51 PM
I read that as “Hannity’s great-grand-rat” at first.
vegconservative on February 8, 2013 at 10:56 PM
Me too! I’m due for stronger reading glasses!
Brat on February 8, 2013 at 11:05 PM
You dirty rat! Oh wait, we’re all dirty rats now.
Bigfoot on February 8, 2013 at 11:25 PM
I would have thought that the common ancestors of all mammals would have been a much more simpler species than a rat.
ZachV on February 8, 2013 at 11:50 PM
Right. If evolution were real Christ would have mentioned it.
DarkCurrent on February 9, 2013 at 3:50 AM
If Darwin was right, then Christ would not have repeatedly cited Genesis as literal history.
itsnotaboutme on February 9, 2013 at 6:12 AM
Did he? I hope not. That would certainly undermine his credibility.
DarkCurrent on February 9, 2013 at 9:08 AM
Bologna.
We are not called to believe that at all. We are called to believe that the path to the creation of humanity by the almighty creator, using the tool of evolution, passed through a small rat-like creature which is now extinct.
The creature was not human, and not described as human.
some of the babies of that creature spawned another less rat-like creature, and theirs spawned another less rat like creature and so on for uncounted generations over tens of millions of years, until eventually a few million years ago, man stood up, and started to speak.
Evolution does not suggest that those rats were human.
It also supports the idea that the fetus is human. In fact, it also answers the question ‘which came first, the chicken or the egg’ — the egg had to come first. two proto-chickens got together and made chicken babies. Which had to be awkward for the first chicken if he realized, “Oh my goodness, my parents aren’t chickens!”
WashingtonsWake on February 9, 2013 at 9:39 AM
Pretty sure Christ never did that.
And regardless, Genesis can be ‘true’ without being scientifically accurate. There is no description of the mechanics of what happened, nor some detailed account of how time worked before man started describing it. how long are God’s days?
I think using the bible as a basis for science of the universe is a bit silly. It wasn’t written for that reason and doesn’t have the detail and focus necessary for it. On top of that, there are hundreds of translations of translations of translations over the last 3-6000 years, I’m unwilling to trust man to get it right that many times.
The King James bible has a lot of very pretty poetry to it, and it is actually my favorite translation, but it isn’t a paragon of linguistic accuracy.
I realize zealots are going to fight evolution and try to bolster creationism, and generally, I feel it’s best to just let people do as they please, but once in a while it’s good to speak up and just roll one’s eyes and say “Whatever.”
WashingtonsWake on February 9, 2013 at 9:49 AM