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.
Good grief!....The fact that the cetacean nose moved, in the course of evolution, from the tip of the rostrum up to the vertex of the head, is among the most perfect of adaptations to aquatic life. In this and many other special adaptations of their morphology and physiology, cetaceans surpass most primarily aquatic animals even though they themselves have developed from land mammals that breathe with lungs, and have only secondarily conquered the aquatic environment. To a certain extent, cetaceans can be considered to be the most successful group of aquatic animals of all time. Whale evolution: The blowhole - The Panda's Thumb
Take a good look at to photos of the whale embryos...Does the one on the left look familiar? It should because is looks almost identical to all mammal embryos, including humans. What more evidence for evolution do you need?
All that above demonstrates adaptation within whales - iit does nothing to prove that cows transformed into whales.
All that above demonstrates adaptation within whales - iit does nothing to prove that cows transformed into whales.
Well, ignoring that cows did not transform into whales (another group of mammals did) I note to this point complete silence on your part about the fossil record of whale evolution.
LOL - why is that? What could the context possibly be that would make those rather clear and unequivocal statements against evolution mean the exact opposite?
Well, let's start with a bit of critical thinking. Stephen Jay Gould helped form the hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium, a theory that makes no sense if evolution doesn't take place. What's more likely - somebody lifted a quote out of context, or he just off-hand disavowed his entire life's work?
As it happens, he's made his feelings clear: "Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists--whether through design or stupidity, I do not know--as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."
The Dr. Etheridge whom the creationists hold in such high esteem is an obscure 19th-century figure, "Assistant Keeper of Geology" in the British Museum from 1881 - 1891. The quote has never been traced to anything actually published by Dr. Etheridge, it appears to spring fully formed onto the pages of creationist literature. Intelligently designed, so to speak.
Dr. L. Harrison Matthews (the one with the 1971 introduction to Origin of Species) of course wrote on the next page: "During the last fifty years genetics has unravelled many of the extremely complex phenomena of inheritance, and has show that evolution by natural selection of random mutations, generally of small size, is a logical explanation of the origin of the immense array of organisms now and in the past living on earth. The theory is so plausible that most biologists accept it as though it were a proven fact, although their conviction rests upon circumstantial evidence; it forms a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature."
The creationists quite forgot that bit, didn't they? He was spitting mad to be used as quote fodder by creationists, by the way.
You can research the other quotes yourself, if you're actually interested.
So we are going to base arguments around semantics? Ok. Land mammals - specifically hippopotumuses - cannot be demonstrated to have transformed into whales by your above post about Cetacian adaptation.
So we are going to base arguments around semantics?
So. We are not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier
Ok. Land mammals - specifically hippopotumuses - cannot be demonstrated to have transformed into whales by your above post about Cetacian adaptation.
That's good because hippopotami did not evolve into whales either.
Quote:
Hippos are large and aquatic, like whales, but the two groups evolved those features separately from each other. We know this because the ancient relatives of hippos called anthracotheres (not shown here) were not large or aquatic. Nor were the ancient relatives of whales that you see pictured on this tree — such as Pakicetus. Hippos likely evolved from a group of anthracotheres about 15 million years ago, the first whales evolved over 50 million years ago, and the ancestor of both these groups was terrestrial.
We are not talking about semantics. We are talking about the actual evidence... evidence recorded in the fossil record and in the DNA. We can scoff at the old creationist canard about cows and whales because we actually know how whales evolved. We actually have fossils of the intermediate forms between the sea going whales and their fully terrestrial ancestors.
What is most delicious is that these fossils have all been found since the mid 1980s when Creationist Duane Gish was famous for making jokes about the "udder failure" of cows evolving into whales. It is almost as if God Himself led paleontologists to find these fossils specifically for the purpose of shutting the creationists up.
That's good because hippopotami did not evolve into whales either.
Now you are contradicting yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
Well... sadly for you the fossils say otherwise. In fact the transition of whales from land mammals to seagoing creatures is spectacularly well documented.
I believe the legislation simply wants to have kids be taught and/or be allowed to discuss alternative theories to evolution, which is not a sure-fire way and the proven way that everything happened.
then they can be taught in Social Studies, Religious History and/or Study of Cultures as part of History.
It doesn't belong in a Science Class
Quote:
The Left...they want no opposition to their plans of indoctrination...
Teaching FACT is not indoctrination.
Intelligent Design being taught as a science, is indoctrination.
then they can be taught in Social Studies, Religious History and/or Study of Cultures as part of History.
It doesn't belong in a Science Class
Teaching FACT is not indoctrination.
Intelligent Design being taught as a science, is indoctrination.
Exactly! This thread is a perfect example of why the US is falling so far behi d the rest of the world when it comes to science and math. It's embarrassing how many people truly think ID is a possibility and should be taught as a LEGITIMATE Theory. It's not, and never will be.
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.
