Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A decendent of a cow or whatever, the idea of such animals as a link to whales is far fetched at best. And I say this because of the lack of evidence presented by those pushing the theory. Their whole arguement rest on speculation, not solid science.
This would be a wonderful argument, if it weren't for the fact that you've shown that you have no idea what the evidence is. You're not willing to do any work to learn, and instead just try and quote-mine misleading snippets from the text. I don't understand why you feel justified in accusing scientists of being liars and frauds based on such shoddy work, but if it makes you feel good I guess you can do what you want.
Just a quick example - again, the article doesn't claim that whales evolved from descendants of cows, mostly because cows are modern animals. If you don't know the difference between descendants and ancestors, you really aren't qualified to judge what biologists do.
Quote:
And the reason I say you will believe anything they present before you, is because I don't see you questioning anything they have stated.
I'm not saying that they're 100% correct. I'm just saying you're wrong. You'll remember that you were the one originally claiming that whales evolved from wolves, not me. Any you're still the one who can't tell us what a series of hominid skulls really is, but despite that you're still 100% positive that they can't be transitional fossils and are happy to accuse me of propagating fraudulent information.
Quote:
And I also stated that both the Pakicetus and the Ambulocetus examples lack the crucial features needed to support the Evolutionist claims for transsitionals. Evolutionary Biologist Ann Alisa Berta commented on the Ambulolcetus fossil stating "that since the pelvic girdle is not preserved there is no direct evidence in Ambulocetus for a connection between the hind limbs and the axial skeleton. This hinders interpretations of locomotion in this animal."
Another post, another honesty "problem" with a quote. First off, you have the author's name wrong - how sloppy can you get?. Secondly, you left out an important part of this paragraph - "Thewissen et al. [i.e. the paper announcing Amulocetus; see AiG’s reference above] provide some solid comparative data to support their conclusions regarding the evolution of locomotion in whales; however, a well-corroborated phylogenetic context with which to interpret these character transformations would greatly enhance its utility."
In other words, she finds the evidence convincing but would like even more information, since it could produce additional scientific finds. That's pretty typical for a scientist - the more data the better. But to use this quote to claim she finds the fossil data inconclusive is dishonest.
And as far as the Pakicetus goes, they only have some cheek teeth and fragments of the skull and lower jaw, so we have no way of knowing whether it's locomotion was transitional.
This is also false. See Thewissen, Williams, Roe, and Hussain, 2001, Nature Vol. 412, September 20, 2001, with some diagrams reproduced at Pakicetidae (http://www.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/Pakicetid.html - broken link). Again, a few seconds of research at anything but creationist propaganda sites would have directed you to both the original publication and a picture of the suppopsedly non-existent fossilize skeleton.
Quote:
What I do understand is that science should be based on evidence, and not speculation about non existant evidence. I donot choose to remain ignorant, yet I will not buy into a theory without evidence, and that is something I believe you are willing to do.
Considering your inability to look at the evidence that's out there, I'm not sure I find your claims that the evidence is missing all that interesting. Doesn't it bother you that everything you claim about the fossil evidence for whale evolution is contradicted by the evidence which you claim isn't there?
Maybe, but once math loses its logic it stops being math.
Art and philosophy can exist without any 'logical' foundation. You could say that 'religion' is art or philosophy without 'logic'.
Well, ladies and gentlement of the jury the Canuck is back with an opinion and with an honest opinion that perhaps the Phoenix Lander will again attend to, are we simply alone in the entire Universes and in heavens name why? Well, I suppose that there is a source all around us, creating life in many forms, where elemental life and even our elemental reincarnic life forms and swims within our Genes, rather feels positively newt at that point and from youth up rather a imaginative journey. How can some say that others evolve slowly and constantly and others do it much faster but really at their own elemental point. Or that whales aren't better adapted to last on Earth than the oceans support? Already highly adapted, so why not a species that adapts more quickly to what is around it. The perenial philosophy it must happen, the A-priori in our minds meets our A-priori in nature (close your eyes once do some math in the dark for a change) and that contact is with an elemental space-time fabric, true, then that attitude is highly evolved, other species don't write that or communicate to the masses that effectively. So why not, include a sentiment that exceeds the sum-total of man and his environment and then really stop there? Perhaps if we can get back to the cost of simply knowing does life exist will our minds capture a positive intellectual after-effect but as certain as the mind that speaks within us.
To help some I used even the word reincarnation with some natural trepidation that someone might be helped. Proving it would provide the necessary parallel lines for some to subdue a large part of the countless argument of do we live again after life in some form or another and how long and why, it would be that we also evolve up another ladder, the mental and spiritual one, the body is the last so to speak in our homosapien forms. We western christian types will accept angels and virgins and saints and really relatives and peoples the accusation of lasting and affecting the fabric of reality, but then totally scare ourselves in tales of unless you believe and exactly what is still in vogue you can burn in an eternal hell. But then prove it exists and stumble back at the humble but lasting effects of really the one over against the other, I don't have knowledge of it, but yet we all do and that virginity lasts because confusion starts it, sorry. How can we envision galaxies and other natural forms if we are not evolving to do it. Proving the other exists is also rather easy, natural evolution and microevolution are now as much proven fact as could be asked in the post-Darwin period of our planet. It probably should make us all laugh, because we have already evolved in ways unthinkable to the animal of the 1800's it would seem sci-fiction, so think of that if it helps. Hey if it helps, see evolution in very primitive forms first and then work towards the monuement, Mankind that can conceive of her realities in the mean time then. Over and out, until you see those parallels, it seem unimistakable to me and where Man will go, it could blow our minds if we give it time.
Then how could you possibly believe in creationism? There isn't any evidence whatsoever. You ridicule evolution but you don't have any problem believing in a woman being made out of a rib from her husband who lives to be over 900 years old?
I don't have any problem with that story because many of the stories of the Bible are being exposed as true, where as much of the evidence for Evolution has already been exposed as false. The Bible is a Book that is continually being confirmed, not the other way around. Even the prophecies of the Bible are being confirmed as well. So yes, I do have confidence in the Scriptures because of that truth.
I think that if god exists, she sure as hell is trying really hard to disprove cretinism. She already gave us fertile hybrid offspring polyploidity to quickly disprove no macroevolution claims and it literally takes about 2 weeks to prove microevolution.
At the end of the day what we get are arguments against an imaginary version of what evolution is or just a subtle attack to the character of the scientists who have spent their lives studying evolution over the last 150 years or so
This would be a wonderful argument, if it weren't for the fact that you've shown that you have no idea what the evidence is. You're not willing to do any work to learn, and instead just try and quote-mine misleading snippets from the text. I don't understand why you feel justified in accusing scientists of being liars and frauds based on such shoddy work, but if it makes you feel good I guess you can do what you want.
Just a quick example - again, the article doesn't claim that whales evolved from descendants of cows, mostly because cows are modern animals. If you don't know the difference between descendants and ancestors, you really aren't qualified to judge what biologists do.
I'm not saying that they're 100% correct. I'm just saying you're wrong. You'll remember that you were the one originally claiming that whales evolved from wolves, not me. Any you're still the one who can't tell us what a series of hominid skulls really is, but despite that you're still 100% positive that they can't be transitional fossils and are happy to accuse me of propagating fraudulent information.
Another post, another honesty "problem" with a quote. First off, you have the author's name wrong - how sloppy can you get?. Secondly, you left out an important part of this paragraph - "Thewissen et al. [i.e. the paper announcing Amulocetus; see AiG’s reference above] provide some solid comparative data to support their conclusions regarding the evolution of locomotion in whales; however, a well-corroborated phylogenetic context with which to interpret these character transformations would greatly enhance its utility."
In other words, she finds the evidence convincing but would like even more information, since it could produce additional scientific finds. That's pretty typical for a scientist - the more data the better. But to use this quote to claim she finds the fossil data inconclusive is dishonest.
This is also false. See Thewissen, Williams, Roe, and Hussain, 2001, Nature Vol. 412, September 20, 2001, with some diagrams reproduced at Pakicetidae (http://www.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/Pakicetid.html - broken link). Again, a few seconds of research at anything but creationist propaganda sites would have directed you to both the original publication and a picture of the suppopsedly non-existent fossilize skeleton.
Considering your inability to look at the evidence that's out there, I'm not sure I find your claims that the evidence is missing all that interesting. Doesn't it bother you that everything you claim about the fossil evidence for whale evolution is contradicted by the evidence which you claim isn't there?
It takes more faith than I have to look at an extinct species, and then claim that it has evolved into a whale. And you do this because certain things look similar to another species. WOW. And when you look at the fossil record and see nothing showing Evolution in the stone record, then in desperation you try and say an extinct species is a transional? WOW again. Even if you had the entire fossil in front of you, how can you make the claim that this extinct species is evolving into a whale based on some common traits? Many species have common traits, yet we don't try and make them into something other than what they are. The whole Evolution Theory requires a belief that species have to evolove. Yet, if there is nothing in the stone record to indicate this ever happen, why try and convince people that extinct species must of evolved? Belief in Evolution requires faith. It requires that you believe in something without ever seeing it. You must be willing to simply claim something happened without ever witinessing it. And your entire belief is based on the assumption that if something looks similar, then it must of evoloved. Some people might call that blind faith. Now I am a Christian, yet I remained a Christian because my faith is based on evidence that I can point to, and have confidence in. I don't see this kind of evidence for the Theory of Evolution. I do see a lot of speculation, a lot of guess work, and a lot of evidence that was once imbraced now being proven false. When Darwin said if his theory was true we would find an abundance of transionals, I believe he was correct. It bothered Darwin that in his time they could never find that abudance, and over one hundred years latter it should really bother you today. The stone record is empty, all we see is what was, and is. Trying to wave your magic wand and claim that extinct species were once transionals, is nothing but a false hope.
I did not say that every species or others evolved to the whale, or that the whale came from the morass of others, though by studying the incredible edible fossil record it would probably easily appear to be. That non-withstanding, though it is said to be one of the oldest, perhaps one of the very oldest living mammals, so stick that in the Bible, from the St. Augustine point of view and research your own churches to, then for parallel of evolving still. So to this, this is from Astronomy picture of the day, and hopefully some day, and this from today the 21 of April, hey maybe to be found on Mars by the USA. With url's left in and credit initially to wikipedia as well. Perhaps one day, study and knowledge of these will help end human diseases:
"Explanation: There are more bacteriophages on Earth than any other life-like form. These small viruses are not clearly a form of life, since when not attached to bacteria they are completely dormant. Bacteriophages attack and eat bacteria and have likely been doing so for over 3 billion years ago. Although initially discovered early last century, the tremendous abundance of phages (broken link) was realized more recently when it was found that a single drop of common seawater typically contains millions of them. Extrapolating, phages are likely to be at least a billion billion (sic) times more numerous than humans. Pictured above is an electron micrograph of over a dozen bacteriophages attached to a single bacterium. Phages are very small -- it would take about a million of them laid end-to-end to span even one millimeter. The ability to kill bacteria makes phages a potential ally against bacteria that cause human disease, although bacteriophages are not yet well enough understood to be in wide spread medical use."
It takes more faith than I have to look at an extinct species, and then claim that it has evolved into a whale. And you do this because certain things look similar to another species. WOW. And when you look at the fossil record and see nothing showing Evolution in the stone record, then in desperation you try and say an extinct species is a transional? WOW again.
How can you say that there's nothing in the fossil record showing evolution? You ignore every bit of evidence that's been posted. You do your best to find misleading quotes from outdated sources that barely relate to your view, and at the same time ignore reams of data which is clearly opposed to it.
Remember that you thought we should find modern wolves changing into whales. You also think that the descendants of cows, whatever they end up being in the future, were also the predecessors of modern whales. You claim that fossils don't exist when I've repeatedly posted pictures of them. You think that two modern animals being in the same group means that one evolved from the other. You claim ignorance on what a particular series of skulls is, and yet you are sure to claim that those skulls are frauds and forgeries.
You are hopelessly confused on the topic, and yet instead of trying to learn something, you instead lash out with even more confusion at anything which contradicts your misunderstandings.
Quote:
Even if you had the entire fossil in front of you, how can you make the claim that this extinct species is evolving into a whale based on some common traits? Many species have common traits, yet we don't try and make them into something other than what they are.
Baseless generalization. You have been shown several transitional fossils and can't identify why they are not transitional. All you do is show your absolute faith that they are not, regardless of the evidence.
Quote:
The whole Evolution Theory requires a belief that species have to evolove.
Again, we've seen species evolve, so this isn't that hard to believe.
Quote:
Yet, if there is nothing in the stone record to indicate this ever happen, why try and convince people that extinct species must of evolved?
Sure, there's lot of evidence in the fossil record. The homind skulls I posted are one such example. If this wasn't evidence of human evolution, you'd be able to tell me that all of the skulls are obviously and clearly human. Or at the very least, you'd explain why they look like transitionals but aren't. You can't - you try and change the subject, claim that they are frauds, and so on, but the fact that you can't deny that they show change from a proto-human from to human gives away what you're trying so hard to ignore.
Quote:
Belief in Evolution requires faith. It requires that you believe in something without ever seeing it. You must be willing to simply claim something happened without ever witinessing it.
None of this is true. If you'd take a bit of time to actually look at the evidence and try to learn, you wouldn't continue to embarrass yourself in public like this. Ignorance can be cured if you're willing to do some work.
Quote:
And your entire belief is based on the assumption that if something looks similar, then it must of evoloved.
It's really a bad plan to lie when the proof of your dishonest is just a few posts back. I've already pointed out examples of evidence for common descent besides morphology. It was even in the articles you posted "disproving" evolution. It's things like these that make me discount your claims that there's no evidence for evolution. If you can't even read what's in sources that you think support your faith, how can we think you'd be in the least bit objective about things which might contradict it? You've shown a willingness and ability to misrepresent data when it makes your case look better - this is more of the same.
Quote:
Now I am a Christian, yet I remained a Christian because my faith is based on evidence that I can point to, and have confidence in. I don't see this kind of evidence for the Theory of Evolution.
That's only because you're not looking. I'd have a lot easier time believing you if you could actually address the issues that have been raised instead of changing the subject.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
in art and philosophy 1+1 is not always 2.
