Pearls Before Swine by Stephan Pastis

Pearls Before Swine

Comments (47) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Sherlock Watson

    Sherlock Watson said, about 2 years ago

    Is this the beginning of a Jurassic Park arc?

  2. TEMPLO S.U.D.

    TEMPLO S.U.D. said, about 2 years ago

    And after 60,000,000 years, the little fly (what “mosquito” really means in Spanish) is still talking. How flabbergasting.

  3. Bruno Zeigerts

    Bruno Zeigerts said, about 2 years ago

    Apparently, you could never clone dinosaurs from 60,000,000 year old DNA.

  4. Three Steps Over Japan

    Three Steps Over Japan said, about 2 years ago

    Goat: “I’m going to call him ‘Vincent’. He’s really fly.”

  5. F6F5Hellcat

    F6F5Hellcat said, about 2 years ago

    @Three Steps Over Japan

    Beat me to it.

  6. cdgar

    cdgar said, about 2 years ago

    I’d call it “Spanish Fly”.

  7. Nabuquduriuzhur

    Nabuquduriuzhur said, about 2 years ago

    @Bruno Zeigerts

    You definitely couldn’t.
    .
    The news last year actually had idiots is Spain that tried to claim they could get DNA from fossilized material. The crystalization process destroys most of the information of the cell so fossilized because the size of the crystals are typically in fractions of a millimeter to fractions of an inch. DNA is in nanometers and the crystalization process destroys any DNA, RNA, and other small structures present.
    .

    Another major problem with the idea of fossils that old is atomic motion. Even solid objects would deform over time under gravity. Most fossils simply are not deformed enough to be a million years old, much less dozens or hundreds. Plus the obvious problem with radioisotopic dating when you assume no daughter products as is normally done.
    .
    One wonders if scientists who make illogical assumptions like that realize that they will be laughed at in a hundred years or so. Science based on bad assumptions cannot be held to be science, and yet a sizeable chunk of the “science” out there only “works” if you make assumptions that contradict other established science.

  8. naturally_easy

    naturally_easy said, about 2 years ago

    @Nabuquduriuzhur

    So, no, then?

  9. corzak

    corzak said, about 2 years ago

    @Nabuquduriuzhur

    Sorry. Evolution isn’t going away just because you don’t like it.

  10. TheNeedle

    TheNeedle said, about 2 years ago

    @corzak

    “Evolution isn’t going away just because you don’t like it.” Of course it’s not. Faith persists and is absolute. You aren’t right because he is wrong, though. Your faith is is ascendence, enjoy your fancy.

  11. Puddlesplatt McLearn

    Puddlesplatt McLearn said, about 2 years ago

    Gulp!

  12. Puddlesplatt McLearn

    Puddlesplatt McLearn said, about 2 years ago

    Sorry!…just had to passsome gas.

  13. unnormal

    unnormal said, about 2 years ago

    @Nabuquduriuzhur

    The most common assumption I have observed:
    “Although (branch of study) does not support the Theory, we assume other branches of science must support it.”

  14. Number Six

    Number Six said, about 2 years ago

    @Nabuquduriuzhur

    One can dream…

  15. ShadowBeast

    ShadowBeast GoComics PRO Member said, about 2 years ago

    Okay I think Goat has been ripped off with a fake.

  16. Load 15 more comments. | Load the rest (32).