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.
Change within a species is of no value to Evolution as the Bible allows for that.
Now what evidence does the "Cetan sequence" actually provide that shows a crossing of the Kind barrier?
If the whale remained a whale/mammal and did not become a Lobster/crustacean or something outside its kind, it ain't proof. I can't google anything on it.
It really is wishful thinking and a rejection of what is actually scientifically seen.
You are asking for proof of something that it totally remote from what 'macro evolution' actually is. Of course you are not going to get it. The Cetan sequence shows a change from a four -legged land mammal to a sea -creature. If you are going to say 'That's not Macro -evolution' then any evidence of a creature changing to a very different one will be dismissed as 'it's still the same'.
You can Google 'Whale evolution'.
This is probably the best overview. There is no point in commenting on the inevitable dismissal of all the evidence but, just so you can't say we didn't try. http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
What is rather interesting is, reading the fatheaded dismissal of the sequence by Duane Gish 'Bossie (cow) to blowhole." explains where the other remark came from that whales are supposed to have come from cows. I didn't understand that, but now I do. Just reciting a kneejerk dismissal by prominent anti -evolutionist spokesman.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-17-2015 at 09:23 PM..
Change within a species is of no value to Evolution as the Bible allows for that.
Now what evidence does the "Cetan sequence" actually provide that shows a crossing of the Kind barrier?
If the whale remained a whale/mammal and did not become a Lobster/crustacean or something outside its kind, it ain't proof. I can't google anything on it.
It really is wishful thinking and a rejection of what is actually scientifically seen.
I am rank confused as to the definition of a kind since it is a religious term not a science one. So two species within the same genus is a kind, are two genera within a family one kind, two family within a single order?
With the whale lobster being two different kinds where the raven and the dove one kind or two?
This is a question not a debate as from your posting and other creationist posting on this forum I am not sure what is actually meant as a kind by you.
In science it is taxonomies who decide on species and there are the lumpers and the splitters. But here it seems like the same poster using a variety of definitions for the term kind.
I am rank confused as to the definition of a kind since it is a religious term not a science one. So two species within the same genus is a kind, are two genera within a family one kind, two family within a single order?
With the whale lobster being two different kinds where the raven and the dove one kind or two?
This is a question not a debate as from your posting and other creationist posting on this forum I am not sure what is actually meant as a kind by you.
In science it is taxonomies who decide on species and there are the lumpers and the splitters. But here it seems like the same poster using a variety of definitions for the term kind.
Thanks for any help hete.
Don't hold your breath.
The fundevangelists' definition of "kind" is: Whatever it needs to be to "prove" evolution is false.
I am rank confused as to the definition of a kind since it is a religious term not a science one. So two species within the same genus is a kind, are two genera within a family one kind, two family within a single order?
With the whale lobster being two different kinds were the raven and the dove one kind or two?
This is a question not a debate as from your posting and other creationist posting on this forum I am not sure what is actually meant as a kind by you.
In science it is taxonomies who decide on species and there are the lumpers and the splitters. But here it seems like the same poster using a variety of definitions for the term kind.
Thanks for any help here.
(Typing corrected for a start. No extra charge) The raven and the dove are two separate 'Kinds' as also 'cattle' since they were on the Ark. I would suppose that sheep and goats are also 'Kinds' since the clean animals needed for sacrifice were surely of that kind. I can't imagine Noah sacrificing hedgehogs or any other kind of hog. Though Pigs must have been on the Ark too since they are still around.
What is odd is that, if the "Kind" of cattle is regarded as the basic for all species of bovines (since the purpose of "Kinds" was not originally intended to discredit evolution - theory but to reduce the numbers of species so as to fit them all of the Ark) then I cannot understand why there was not just one Bird as the 'Kind' instead of two species, implying that we had to have an aviary on the upper deck for all the species of birds and that implies that cattle and sheep and goats and armadillos and badgers and moths and kangaroos and orange trees and vipers and scorpions and bindweed and buffalo and bubonic plague bugs all had to be on the Ark.
And that's before you even start on the prehistoric critters from Trilobite to Tyrannosaurus in order to have them lounge around in the Nile for the Bible to write about and for an astonished Cambodian sculptor to carve on Ta Phrom.
Cue Eusebius and his amazing Arkeology and Arq and his amazing Eusebiectomy.
P.s "whale lobster" I imagine a fleet or herd of them (or whatever the collective for a predatory gang of lobsters is) hunting down and bringing down a whale.
I have never understood why pro evolutionist will not address the question about evolution. They seem to resort to attacking the person asking as if they know they are promoting a lie. Surely some of you really believe what you claim and would have some evidence to support it.
Let me make it easy.
Can you show where a canine has changed into something other than a canine? Or something that changed into a canine that was not a canine before?
Can you show where a feline has changed into something other than a feline? Or something that changed into a feline that was not a feline before?
You may choose any species that has changed into another species if you can.
I have never understood why pro evolutionist will not address the question about evolution. They seem to resort to attacking the person asking as if they know they are promoting a lie. Surely some of you really believe what you claim and would have some evidence to support it.
Let me make it easy.
Can you show where a canine has changed into something other than a canine? Or something that changed into a canine that was not a canine before?
Can you show where a feline has changed into something other than a feline? Or something that changed into a feline that was not a feline before?
You may choose any species that has changed into another species if you can.
You are not making it easy - you are making it impossible . I'd say you are asking for something that is remote from evolution theory. You are still talking cows giving birth to Whales. By the time we had the first mammals evolving into canines or horse or bovines or felines, all that we would get is branches of canines from dingos to Jackals, felines from Jaguars to bobcats and horses from Quaggas to mustangs. And you can argue that they are still micro - evolved 'kinds'.
The point of 'macro' evolution is that one creature like a fish developed legs and made it onto land. The 'Darwin fish' was predicted, and Tiktaalik is pretty much what was predicted. Even a tail with a fin on. That is proof of that macro evolution.
The other examples of macro evolution are 'spotty' as the talk origins article said and of course would never make any impression on a doubter of evolution.
That is why the Cetan sequence from Pakicetus (a land animal of the all -purpose Jurassic -shrew -derived type) became Ambulocetus, the swimming version (1) and the various 'links' to the prehistoric whales is the best you will get and, with the bones of the front flipper guaranteeing that Whales were once land animals, what more evidence of macro -evolution of the type described by evolution and not the absurd crocoduck cats giving birth to dogs stuff demanded by Creationists, does one have to have?
How many more times do we have to exhibit the proof that would stand up in a court of law if it was forensics called on to trace a crime? What more do you want?
(1) my apologies to the site I questioned. Pakicetus is the previous (there is an earlier fossil ancestor than that) , Ambulocetus follows. They were right and my memory was at fault.
I have never understood why pro evolutionist will not address the question about evolution. They seem to resort to attacking the person asking as if they know they are promoting a lie. Surely some of you really believe what you claim and would have some evidence to support it.
Let me make it easy.
Can you show where a canine has changed into something other than a canine? Or something that changed into a canine that was not a canine before?
Can you show where a feline has changed into something other than a feline? Or something that changed into a feline that was not a feline before?
You may choose any species that has changed into another species if you can.
Wolf and dog are different species. Even punctuated equilibrium takes the and does not happen over a 1000-year period. To show some species turning into a feline you would have to go back into time to the common ancestors to felines and canines which creationist are unwilling due to the length of time involved. For an existing species of non-linear species to become a feline would DISPROVE the entire theory of evolution.
I am rank confused as to the definition of a kind since it is a religious term not a science one. So two species within the same genus is a kind, are two genera within a family one kind, two family within a single order?
Exactly. You can take it up even further. 'If an animal evolves, it's still an animal, so it is still micro-evolution of the animal kind.' It is placed where ever it can further one's argument. It is as I posted earlier. I just keep watching it play out.
As used in antievolutionary writing (young earth or ID varieties),"microevolution" is "evolution I accept" and "macroevolution" is "evolution I reject." That is what it boils down to. This conveniently conceals the vast disparity between evolution accepted by, e.g., Wells (about none) versus AIG and ICR (within a "kind", suggested to be about a family in conventional classification) versus Behe (full common descent). It also allows any particular example of evolution to be dismissed as mere microevolution.
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.
. I'd say you are asking for something that is remote from evolution theory. You are still talking cows giving birth to Whales. By the time we had the first mammals evolving into canines or horse or bovines or felines, all that we would get is branches of canines from dingos to Jackals, felines from Jaguars to bobcats and horses from Quaggas to mustangs. And you can argue that they are still micro - evolved 'kinds'.
