|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evidence for Evolution: Whale evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
This is a very impressive list ... of bogus Darwinists claims. If you investigate each of these items you will find that they are either theoretical (with no practical application to living organisms) or are uses that would have been discovered if no one had ever heard of the theory of evolution. None of them depend in any way on the belief/theory/"fact" that all life evolved from single-cell organism.
In other words, this list is just more mendacious bs from Darwinists and their irrelevant space-cadet biology (aka atheist theology). You can't fool all of the people all of the time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Curious lies you told there.
I note that they are not about whales.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
The term "whale" is being rarely used, and when it is, it seems to be in the context that the discussion is off-topic.
Let's bring things back to things whale evolution, or this topic is going to go into summation mode. AdminnemooseusOr something like that. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Dredge writes: Contrary to your claim, experiments with short-generation organisms such as bacteria have not proved that large changes over many generations are possible. There is no limit to evolutionary change, as experiments with short-generation bacteria show. The longer the bacteria are followed the more change is observed. More generally, species evolve gradually into new species in response to adaptation pressures. I'm not sure this is the right topic for you - you don't seem interested in the evidence for whale evolution. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
If I'm hearing you right, you are claiming that experiments which show changes in bacteria prove that there is "no limit to evolutionary change" and that therefore it is possible that whales evolved from some deer-like land animal. Wow. To you, this sort of reasoning is scientific?
For starters, the changes observed in experiments with bacteria prove only that the observed changes in those bacteria are possible - nothing more. So it is an absurdity to cite such changes as evidence for deer-to-whale evolution. So what evidence is left for this tale about whale evolution? The fossil record, of course. Or is there more? Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
For starters, the changes observed in experiments with bacteria prove only that the observed changes in those bacteria are possible - nothing more. What a bizarrely antiscientific statement.
So what evidence is left for this tale about whale evolution? The fossil record, of course. Or is there more? There's also genetics, morphology, and embryology. A great deal has been written on these forums and elsewhere about whale evolution, did it ever occur to you to read it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Dredge writes: If I'm hearing you right, you are claiming that experiments which show changes in bacteria prove that there is "no limit to evolutionary change" and that therefore it is possible that whales evolved from some deer-like land animal. Actually it's a rebuttal to your arguments that there are limits to evolutionary change, and that therefore species in general and whales in particular do not evolve from predecessor species. There are no genetic limits we're aware of to evolutionary change.
So what evidence is left for this tale about whale evolution? The fossil record, of course. Or is there more? The fossil record is one of change over time. It records species change from Indoyus and Pakeicetus through intermediate species up to modern whales. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Percy writes: The fossil record is one of change over time. It records species change from Indoyus and Pakeicetus through intermediate species up to modern whales. A nice relatively short yet detailed summary of the state of whale fossil lineage from about ten years ago can be found here. Also the Smithsonian has another relatively clear and well laid out description of the learning process the scientists went through including the advent of genetic evidence that can be found here. Both articles show that the evidence developed over a long period of time as new discoveries were made yet every new discovery confirmed the hypothesis that whales descended from land dwelling mammals. Edited by jar, : fix sub-title
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
You accuse me of being "antiscientific", so please explain how the changes observed in bacteria can be used as evidence that whales evolved from a deer-like animal.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Sure. I can. Changes in the inherited characteristics of populations occur frequently. In labs and in the field.
No species has ever been witnessed to be poofed into existence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
You accuse me of being "antiscientific", so please explain how the changes observed in bacteria can be used as evidence that whales evolved from a deer-like animal. I did not say that "the changes observed in bacteria can be used as evidence that whales evolved from a deer-like animal". I said that the fossil record, genetics, morphology, and embryology could be used as evidence for that. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Pressie: "Changes in the inherited characteristics of populations occur frequently."
Going from observing small differences to claiming that the massive changes alleged in whale evolution is quite an extrapolation. How can you be certain that small observed changes mean unlimited change is possible? My nephew grew an inch taller in the last twelve months - does this mean he will grow one inch taller every year for the rest of his life?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
How can you be certain that small observed changes mean unlimited change is possible? An understanding of the underlying mechanisms. Together with the fact that there is no mechanism by which a lineage can keep count of how many mutations it's had and then have no more mutations after it hits a certain number.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
But is it not true that scientists cite small observed changes in bacteria as evidence that unlimited change is possible, thus enabling whale evolution to be possible?
--------------------------- Embryology. Haeckel's fraudulent embryo charts are still cited in some textbooks to support the theory of evolution. Wow, that's disturbing. Darwinists love their snake-oil science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
But is it not true that scientists cite small observed changes in bacteria as evidence that unlimited change is possible, thus enabling whale evolution to be possible? Those observations are evidence suggesting that it's possible, but they are obviously not evidence that it happened. Those are two different questions. Lots of things are possible and don't happen. Which is why I didn't say that "the changes observed in bacteria can be used as evidence that whales evolved from a deer-like animal".
Embryology. Haeckel's fraudulent embryo charts are still cited in some textbooks to support the theory of evolution. Wow, that's disturbing. Darwinists love their snake-oil science. In which textbooks? Or did you make that up? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024