Kukucan

No, actually I got your point. You see, I was making a point myself about your not exactly sober debate tactics which are not unlike those seen on cable news channel shouting matches.

Now comparing whales to bulls is like comparing apples and oranges. You really don't seem to comprehend the enormity of your proposal. Not to mention the fact that protein isn't all that scarce and especially that very few people are even likely to be interested in eating whale meat. There is no profit motive without demand.

Oh, as in your 521 word brief detour about the tree-huggers, African Elephants, bleeding hearts and Greenies, and something to do with rectums... ...and your point conveniently lacked a single reference to any "scientific" research in the area of whale intelligence.

I wasn't sure if "antropocentric" was a word I haven't heard of. Anthropocentrism basically means human-centered, as in man has no direct moral responsibilities toward, or even that man is superior to, whales so why not exploit them them commercially for protein. I am sure you know what "egocentric" and "ethnocentric" mean... see the similarity? On the other hand, anthropomorphism means "attribution of human motivation, characteristics, or behavior to inanimate objects, animals, or natural phenomena".

Antropocentric? Do you mean anthropocentric? If so, it would be quite ironic seeing how the definition of anthropocentric (with an "h") is "regarding man as the central fact or final aim of the universe". Anthropomorphic would seem to fit more correctly to your argument. If your knowledge of whale intelligence is limited to dolphins and orcas doing tricks, it is not dissimilar to the creationists lack of knowledge about geology. There is scientific documentation on this subject. Aditionally, your idea for commercial whale exploitation falls short of being convincing for practical reasons. For example the great whales such as the blue whale, how will they be fed and bred, and where will they be kept? After all, they are not only the largest animal alive today but the largest animal that has ever lived, up to 30 m in length, even bigger than dinosaurs. "New Agers", "tree-huggers", "Greenies"... Sounds like those cable news shows where they shout at each other.

Haven't you ever been to Sea World or seen the movie Free Willie? Whales are not just intelligent, they also have the ability to communicate. They even seem to display some of the same emotions as humans. We still have much to learn about them, and they are of greater scientific value alive. Wild whales may also become more fearful of humans from hearing the cries and moans of the captave whales, who can't be kept too far from the sea, becoming more difficult for marine biologists to study. And after all, it was not elephant farming which ensured the survival of the wild African elephant, it was a ban on ivory.

It would likely be too costly to test individual intelligence, and this would doubtfully satisfy those against the systematic distruction of these beloved creatures.

I used to wonder the same thing a few years ago, questioning food taboos. After learning more about these animals, my mind changed. Guess you're not a dog lover?... As for the Chinese, they also keep bears in tiny cages and "milk" their gall bladders.

We have to wait until 2008... :)

"New Agers" aren't the only ones who are against the killing of our highly intelligent mammalian brethren. :( Should we also farm gorillas, orangutans, dogs? ;) We must draw the line somewhere, dude! ;)

Exactly! ;) If we kill anything to save the whale, it would make more sense to go after what is killing THEM. Yeah, why shouldn't humans be an economic form of protein? Plus, there's more than enough humans to go around. ;)

I was wondering why there isn't a biology forum. ;)

The "supposed skulls of extinct races" or human/alien hybrids. That was simply caused by "head binding", a practice of wrapping the heads of infants, which changes the shape of the skull as it grows. In the Americas this was often done to signify nobility. And the artifacts, it is mostly a case of seeing what one wants to see. Nothing convincing there. As far as the whole "alien" ;) thing, it still fails to answer pretty much the same question which creationism fails to answer: If god created us, who created god? If we were put hear by aliens, who put them wherever they were put?

The platypus and echidnas are actually monotremes, not marsupials. Monotremes are "egg-laying mammals", and are said to be the most primitive mammals on the planet. Just because two different species have similar morphological characteristics does not in itself mean that they both descended from a common ancestor with that specific trait(s). In the case of the platypus (a mammal) and the duck (a bird), the fossil record does not support them being related. Sometimes two unrelated species will evolve similar traits, and this is called "convergent evolution". Here are a few examples: humans and birds are both bipedal the wings of insects, birds and bats the body shape of dolphins, sharks, and penguins

Isn't that jalapeno ketchup? I've never tried it, but do like hot sauce sometimes. The platypus' closest releatives include the two species of echidna, the long-beaked echidna (found in New Guinea) and the short-beaked echidna (found in Australia).

...but skip the green eggs and ham.

I'd worship Sam-I-Am before some invisible man who is everywhere at once. :naughty:

Here is a link to a BBC News article, with illustrations, on the evolution of whales.

Like the Nag Hammadi codices...

This is beginning to look like religious solicitation.

Speaking of semantics:

Yeah, it may work. I like the idea of biology and history forums.

Though I have not finnished reading it yet, it is very interesting and am keeping an open mind.

Maybe it is needed. But somehow I doubt that it will prevent the topics in the "Evolution" forum from being reduced to a religious debate.

How about a religious forum on another website? This is a science forum after all. Isn't it? :note: