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.
NO, it is not a product of my imagination, it is a repeating of a fact that is taught by Evolutionist. Honestly, you people come here to defend the Theory of Evolution, and you don't even know what is being taught.
Remember that you claimed that whales evolved from modern wolves. Nothing you've posted below backs up that claim. You did point out good evidence from the fossil records that supports these animals sharing a common ancestor, but that's different from what you're claiming evolution says.
Quote:
Evolutionist have often cited the long-tailed, hoof creature Ambulocetus as a transition between wolf and whale, hence a walking whale! This was based on the find being near a seashore, closer to sea than its assumed predecessor the Mesonyx (wolf)! The closer to sea , the more whale-like our wolf gets, until finally, POOF, he's a whale! What imagination!
I hate to break this to you but wolves don't have hooves, they have feet. So whatever creature you're talking about, it's not a wolf. Try again.
Quote:
Update: Hans Thewissen, a foremost "expert" on whales "evolution", recently discovered fossils that in his words "wheaken the link between whales and the mesonychaians, which was primarily based on similarities in the teeth" (New Views of the Origins of Mammals Science, Aug 7, 98, p775). I guess the evolutionists are going to have to dream up some other kind of wolf to pin their fairy tale on! Maybe next time they will say a moose that ventured into the water eventually became a whale!
Again, mesonychians are not wolves - they had hooves and are extinct, neither of which is true of modern wolves. This find is interesting, but it has nothing to do with your claim that modern whales evolved from modern wolves.
Again, nothing in this page talks about modern wolves except as a small sidebar about how the evil evolutionists are wrong.
Quote:
This link comes from TalkOrigins, it hilarious, there still pushing the (Wolf to Whale Theory) even after your own people have scraped it. Evolutionist have so much crap out there they can't even stay on the same page anymore. The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence
The only place wolf is mentioned in this article is as a size comparison for certain species of extinct animals. There's also a mention of canine teeth, which are unfortunately for your case not unique to canis.
Again, you obviously aren't reading or understanding what you're posting. All of these articles show what scientists really have discovered about whale evolution, and none of them claim that whales come from modern wolves. I don't know what else to say other that you continue to argue against your own misconceptions about science even when posting articles that show that you are wrong.
The skulls found on the link on post #391 are not transionals fossils. They are fully animal or human skulls of questionable orgins.
Really? What are the origins of each of the skulls, and how are they questionable? Please be specifc and include references so we can check up on your claims.
Quote:
A true transional fossil would show two obvious species inbeded. This is the kind of transional fossil that would be a slam dunk for Evolution, and they should number in the millions.
These skulls did show an intermediate form between human ancestors and modern humans. What else do you expect - bits of a wolf thrown in as well for good measure?
Quote:
I have look at many of the transitionals, even the ones in national geographic. And everytime they think they finally have the evidence to prove Evolution, suddenly we discover that evidence is another fake fossil that came out of China.
Let's see some references, please. How are these fossil remains on the page I pointed to fakes?
Quote:
I am still waiting for my first transional fossil that is not a fake. Care to show me my first one that shows two species in fossil form that shows us the evolutionary change frozen in time.
I just did. The fossils I posted clearly show a transition from early to modern humans. Just because you don't know what you're looking at or for doesn't make them any less real.
I mentioned change within the species, that change is obvious just from results we see in breeding. Various results may occure, yet I see no evidence of change beyond a given species. And I have never seen any evidence offered by a believer in Evolution to such a change. And by now one would expect to see that change in the fossil record, and we have not.
You don't need fossils for this. The evolution of new species have been observed in the lab and in the wild during our lifetimes, so you not seeing the evidence for them is not the fault of researchers -
Granted, the fossils and genetic evidence for common descent add evidence that similar processes were working in the past, but they're not necessary.
Quote:
It was not my intention to quote Gaylord Simpson, that is why I seperated the sentence from the chapter, and did not add quotation marks.
I'll let everyone else decide what you meant.
Quote:
The fact is that there is no such thing as a simple generalized animal fossil record that proves that organisms developed from simple to complex. George Gaylord Simpson, the famous proponent of the evolution theory, already witnessed to this fact and stated so in his book The Meaning of Evolution:
The earliest organisms in the fossil record were complex organisms and there is no evidence for the progressive advance required by the theory of evolution.
That's not an attempt at a quote? Sure, OK, if you insist.
Quote:
However, his quote is. "It has been suggested that all animals are now specialized and that the generalized forms on which major evolutionary developments depend absent. In fact, all animals have always been more or less specialized really generalized living form is merely a myth or an abstraction."
Yes, life is more or less specialized to its environment now and in the past. He's not saying that transitional forms don't exist - which should be obvious to anyone who read and understood the quote of his I provided previously. All he's saying is that there's no generic unspecialized "rodent" that was the predecessor of all modern rodents. The now-extinct last common ancestor of all rodents was just as specialized to its environment (more or less) as modern rodents are to theirs.
If you look up this reference in his book, immediately before and after this paragraph he describes how new species would evolve to specialize themselves to fill niches vacated by species being wiped out. That's hardly the writing of someone who thinks evolution is false.
So why the irrelevant quote? Why not provide a quote of a prominent biologist saying "transitional fossils don't exist and evolution between species is false"? Why resort to these vaguely-unrelated quotes to try and distract from the argument?
Quote:
I have no problem with a transional fossil within the species, yet it is a mistake to believe I think there are fossils that offer evidence of a transional fossil outside of a species. And those changes may of occured because of climate, diet, or breeding. My arguement is, there are no transional fossils showing us two species combined during the evolution of change. And there should be millions of them, and yet we can't find even one?
We have discovered tons of them. The problem is that you simply do not understand what a transitional fossil should look like, so when they are provided you "know" that it can't be one. Your previous claim that we should find a half modern wolf, half modern whale chimera proves that you're out of touch with what scientists describe evolution to be. The problem does not lie with the evidence.
Mark Twain said that man was made at the end of the week’s work when God was tired. Charles Darwin proposed that man descended from the apes, but had little hope for improvement as a species, observing: "Man scans with scrupulous care the character and pedigree of his horses, cattle, and dogs before he matches them; but when it comes to his own marriage he rarely, or never, takes any such care. . . ." Charles Darwin, Descent of Man, Ch. XXI, "General Summary and Conclusion" (1871). Twain, who was an astute observer of human nature, had some doubts about Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection, and was of opinion, that if man descended from the apes, that the apes were the "higher animals." See Mark Twain, The Damned Human Race (1916); republished as Letters from the Earth (1962). Either way you want to view it, we don’t come out looking very good.
Imo I think that the best species are the microscopic organisms. Bacteria out number every other living thing and will very quickly evolve to survive pretty much anything.
This link comes from TalkOrigins, it hilarious, there still pushing the (Wolf to Whale Theory) even after your own people have scraped it. Evolutionist have so much crap out there they can't even stay on the same page anymore. The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence
You do realize there's a difference between "wolf" and "wolf-sized animal", right?
I believe God could of used Evolution if He had wanted to, but that's not how God said he made the human race. So I don't think God lied to us. And since the Bible is a Book that is being confirmed by new discoveries. I tend to believe the Bible.
Where in the Bible does it say how God made the human race? It always seemed to me to be fairly light on the methodological details.
Once I was in discussion with a chap who said he was a teacher of philosophy; I picked him up when he was hitch-hiking in a desolate place. He started a discussion by stating his philosophy was based on one posit. Naturally I asked him what it was, and he said, "Truth." Then he launched into a long sermon about it being the one and only posit ever needed for one's life. Quietly I interrupted and told him I could not agree with his posit. After a long period of silence he looked at me in a state of melancholy and asked me why I couldn't accept his posit. I responded by telling him that the term 'truth' can be relative. "How can truth be relative?" He asked loudly but looking perplexed. I responded that truth had to be when in competition with untruths, and there are times when we can't know the truth with certainty. .
I would say that the discipline of philosophy.. is not so much to "find the truth".
But rather.. our goal should be.. to consistently speak it.
And always speaking the truth..
Is what "finding the truth".. really means.
----
“I beg myself as well as my readers not to mistake understanding for attainment; and not to imagine, on the strength of their realization of certain truths, that they possess them, or still less, that they can use them. Our being, in which alone truth is possessed, is still along way behind our understanding.”
A. R. Orage
-
“In summoning even the wisest of physicians to our aid, it is probably that he is relying upon a scientific `truth', the error of which will become obvious in just a few years' time.”
Marcel Proust
-
Last edited by accelerator; 04-16-2008 at 09:29 PM..
I have to agree with your statement. It would be like starting a thread entitled "Do You Support Gravity?".
There are cases where gravity seems to have no effect. People actually pay for the ability to float in mid air without a force pushing back against them...or gravity to bring them down.
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.
