06 May 12
2 edits
Originally posted by galveston75Lol, they believe that whales evolved in the sea, came to land and then went back to
So for me the "clueless one" could someone explain, or give me a link to explain without those famous words "We think it could have happened this way" how a land mammal would have evolved into an ocean mammal?
Just the basics will do......
And I don't need the same old responce " you just need to read more". I just want it explained by someone that can actually do it and not blow me off. If it's a fact, lets see it.
the sea, about 50 million years ago, to the nearest 10 million, yes they really believe
this! some of the more colourful attempts to explain this phenomena have been to
utilise the behaviour of the aquatic deer, yes you heard correctly Gman, deer, which
when faced with danger jumps into the water, it is proposed that whales did the same
thing, dont laugh, its the best they have.
06 May 12
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75thanks dear Gman, kind of hard to lose an argument you were never in, kind of like
Ha..Robbie lost nothing and a fantasictic posting that explains clearly what no evolutionist can touch. But your'e all welcome to keep trying...
winning a competition you've never entered, it really is the best the fallacy factory can produce.
06 May 12
1 edit
Originally posted by humyIn an attempt to prove evolution the following articles seems to prove the fact that the snake did not always crawl on its belly. According to Genesis, God took the legs away.
And I don't need the same old responce " you just need to read more". I just want it explained by someone that can actually do it and not blow me off.
I think that shouldn't be " you just need to read more" which is rather vague ( read what? Weather reports? ) but “you just need to look it up yourself". I could be wrong but I think you ju at they DO know and, of course, the fact remains it is a proven fact that life evolved.
"The dolphin walked, the snake walked, the human had some use for a tail."
http://antecessor.hubpages.com/hub/Unintelligent-Design-Vestiges-of-Evolution
I still see evidence of a common designer for all these creatures and no evidence of a common ancestor.
06 May 12
4 edits
Originally posted by RJHinds
In an attempt to prove evolution the following articles seems to prove the fact that the snake did not always crawl on its belly. According to Genesis, God took the legs away.
"The dolphin walked, [b]the snake walked, the human had some use for a tail."
http://antecessor.hubpages.com/hub/Unintelligent-Design-Vestiges-of-Evolution
I still see evidence of a common designer for all these creatures and no evidence of a common ancestor.[/b]
In an attempt to prove evolution the following articles seems to prove the fact that the snake did not always crawl on its belly.
-yes, which is clear evidence of evolution.
http://antecessor.hubpages.com/hub/Unintelligent-Design-Vestiges-of-Evolution
-yes, and that debunks your claims.
Have you actually read the whole of the part of the link before that quote and seen the diagrammatic evidence?
It is pretty impressive.
Here it is but you need to go to it to see the diagrammatic evidence:
Why Humans are never Born with Wings
Random mutations acting on a single individual can only cause small alterations. Over time these mutations, guided by natural selection, will cause larger changes in a species gene pool resulting in novel structures and organs. However returning to the individual, these small alterations do not create new organs or limbs, they only affect structures already possessed. This is why humans are sometimes born with extra fingers but never a pair of wings. Wings are just not in a humans genome and the probability against a mutation creating one from scratch is comparable to a freak wind assembling a Boeing 747 from junkyard scrap.
Rudimentary Limbs in Cetaceans
"The existence of a pair of small pelvic bones is known to exist in nearly all of the Cetacea...[and] in the Fin Whale, the Blue Whale, and the Humpback, the femur too is present near the pelvis. [Even in the Sperm Whale the femur is sometimes present (in the form of a small round-shaped bone near the pelvis).-E.T.B., there are photos at my website edwardtbabinski.us/whales] And in the Right Whale not only the femur but also the tibia exists. Ogawa, R., and Kamiya, T. A. (1957) "Case of the Cachalot [Sperm Whale] With Protruded Rudimentary Hind Limbs." Scientific Reports of the Whales Research Insititute, No. 12, p. 197-208.
Vestigal Genes
However sometimes people, and other animals are born with limbs and organs not usually found on that species. For an example we shall look at dolphins. Sometimes, a dolphin is born which has a tiny set of back legs complete with pelvis. Since dolphins do not usually have legs at all, and we know that mutation could not have created them from scratch, we must assume that the instructions for building these legs must be present somewhere in a dolphins genes. When we examine a dolphins genes we find that this assumption is indeed true, parts of a dolphins genome code for legs and even weirder (for a creationist) these parts are switched off so that under normal conditions a dolphin wont actually grow legs. Dolphins that do grow legs experience only a small mutation affecting switching in the genes so that particular stretch of genes is activated. Wait there are more surprises in the development of dolphins and other Cetaceans.
Virus and the Whale: Exploring Evolution in Creatures Small and Large
Virus and the Whale: Exploring Evolution in Creatures Small and Large
Amazon Price: $27.90
List Price: $29.95
Virus and the Whale: Exploring Evolution in Creatures Small and Large
Virus and the Whale: Exploring Evolution in Creatures Small and Large
Amazon Price: $22.46
More on Cetaceans Vestigal Structures
The absence today of hind limbs in dolphins and other living cetacean species serves as proof that even vestigial hind limbs are no longer needed for either guidance or copulation. Yet the fossil record shows that hind-limb rudiments were the RULE long ago when the first dolphin and cetaceans lived. And hind-limb buds can STILL be seen sprouting from the embryo in the same places as they do in other mammals, but in the case of the cetacea such buds are reabsorbed and do not develop into hind limbs, though sometimes the buds do become rudimentary hind limbs that have been found occasionally on modern day dolphins and other cetaceans, and those hind limb vestiges have been x-rayed and/or dissected and proven to contain vestigial bone and cartilage resembling femurs, and sometimes also contain vestigial femurs and tibias and synovial capsules between them, and sometimes they even contain femurs, tibias and some hand and fingerbones.
Embryo of a spotted dolphin in the fifth week of development. Note the hind limb buds near the base of the tail. The tail is approximately 1 inch/ 25 mm long. Prof. J. G. M. Thewissen 2006, used with permission.
Embryo of a spotted dolphin in the fifth week of development. Note the hind limb buds near the base of the tail. The tail is approximately 1 inch/ 25 mm long. Prof. J. G. M. Thewissen 2006, used with permission.
Special Creation cannot explain Vestigal Structures
Literally thousands of examples of this type have been found. Chickens have genes to grow a proper jawbone and teeth, humans grow gills and a tail, snakes also can have back legs. How can this be explained inside the framework of a special creation. Clearly in the past these organisms had and used these now useless features. The dolphin walked, the snake walked, the human had some use for a tail. They clearly were not then dolphins, snakes and humans. These vestiges are fingerprints, the fingerprints of evolution branded into the flesh of all life. To ignore such powerful evidence would be denial of history and reality equal to that of the holocaust denier.
galveston75 ; this is only a small start but the http://antecessor.hubpages.com/hub/Unintelligent-Design-Vestiges-of-Evolution link provided by RJHinds where he strangely scores an own-goal by providing it is one relevant link as you requested.
06 May 12
Originally posted by humyThis is fingerprints of God as the common designer, you Doofus. HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! 😏In an attempt to prove evolution the following articles seems to prove the fact that the snake did not always crawl on its belly.
-yes, which is clear evidence of evolution.
http://antecessor.hubpages.com/hub/Unintelligent-Design-Vestiges-of-Evolution
-yes, and that debunks your claims.
Have you actually read the who ...[text shortened]... where he strangely scores an own-goal by providing it is one relevant link as you requested.
06 May 12
Originally posted by humyDying out before reproduction age makes it harder for fossils of such dead to be available ? Is this what you are saying or am I misunderstanding you ?
My question is regarding availability of fossils which will prove that the varieties which had closed skulls had indeed died out.
as twhitehead basically just said, they would have died out generally before reproduction age so obviously we would not expect any fossils of them.
No such “ varieties which had closed skulls” would have evol ...[text shortened]... as ridiculously extreme as this latter one but I hope you still see the point I am making here.
06 May 12
2 edits
Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Dying out before reproduction age makes it harder for fossils of such dead to be available ? Is this what you are saying or am I misunderstanding you ?
Dying out before reproduction age makes it harder for fossils of such dead to be available ?
I am saying a particular MUTATION dying out before reproduction age makes it harder for fossils with THAT mutation to be available. I am NOT saying that an individual dying before reproduction age makes it harder for that individual to become fossilised if that is what you imply by the above.
The reason why a particular mutation dying out before reproduction age makes it harder for fossils with THAT mutation to be available is because if a particular mutation dies out soon after each time it forms then surely that would make such a mutation always kept extremely rare ( by natural selection ) within a population and therefore it would have to be EVEN rarer to find one fossilised if at all thus we should expect it to be extremely unlikely that we would find any such fossils.
OK, you clearly don't understand. But an attempt at answering the following question which is a variant of your first question might make you understand: either answer this question or say what is wrong with it:
why there are no fossils which will prove that the varieties which had no heads had indeed died out ?
if you can see what is wrong with this question then THAT is what is wrong with your first question.
We would not expect to see fossilised varieties which had no heads because such mutation would not make it to reproductive age thus making such mutations kept extremely rare by natural selection -the same is true for any mutation that gives a human or direct ancestor of human inflexible skulls.
06 May 12
Originally posted by humyI understand you perfectly now.Dying out before reproduction age makes it harder for fossils of such dead to be available ?
I am saying a particular MUTATION dying out before reproduction age makes it harder for fossils with THAT mutation to be available. I am NOT saying that an individual dying before reproduction age makes it harder for that individual to become fossil ...[text shortened]... same is true for any mutation that gives a human or direct ancestor of human inflexible skulls.
06 May 12
Originally posted by RJHindsNo, it isn't because, depending on exactly which form of the religious hypothesis you mean, that hypothesis is, at best, not falsifiable, and, at worst, already proven false by science. But evolution theory is falsifiable for it make predictions that you would not make if you didn't have that theory ( such as imperfections in the anatomy of many living things etc ) and, what is worse for your religious dogma, ALL those predictions have proven true thus proving evolution.
This is fingerprints of God as the common designer, you Doofus. HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! 😏
06 May 12
Originally posted by humyThis seems to me the same reason you would not see transitional fossils because they would all die out before they could be a transitional fossil. Is that right?Dying out before reproduction age makes it harder for fossils of such dead to be available ?
I am saying a particular MUTATION dying out before reproduction age makes it harder for fossils with THAT mutation to be available. I am NOT saying that an individual dying before reproduction age makes it harder for that individual to become fossil ...[text shortened]... same is true for any mutation that gives a human or direct ancestor of human inflexible skulls.
06 May 12
Originally posted by humyIt seems to me that evolution theory has already been proven false because of the lack of evolution from one kind to another kind of organism. We only have proof of adaptation changes in kinds and some mutations which usually does not get passed on due to the programmed limitations in the reproduction systems. There is no new information added that allows a change in kind. Sometimes there is a lose of information, but that would be the reverse of evolution, as I understand it.
No, it isn't because, depending on exactly which form of the religious hypothesis you mean, that hypothesis is, at best, not falsifiable, and, at worst, already proven false by science. But evolution theory is falsifiable for it make predictions that you would not make if you didn't have that theory ( such as imperfections in the anatomy of many living things e ...[text shortened]... worse for your religious dogma, ALL those predictions have proven true thus proving evolution.
06 May 12
Originally posted by VoidSpiritHow about this?
he has no argument that can stand to reason. the geological record is against creationism. they have not been able to explain that away despite their best efforts.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee2/geologic-column
Does that cover what you are referring to?
07 May 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieLol. I know I've heard that too. So I guess if that deer needs to run for his life more then usual and that would begin that process of him changing his hoofs into flippers as his eviroment is changing now, we should be able to prove that..Right?.
Lol, they believe that whales evolved in the sea, came to land and then went back to
the sea, about 50 million years ago, to the nearest 10 million, yes they really believe
this! some of the more colourful attempts to explain this phenomena have been to
utilise the behaviour of the aquatic deer, yes you heard correctly Gman, deer, which
when ...[text shortened]... the water, it is proposed that whales did the same
thing, dont laugh, its the best they have.
Sooooooo if that did happen, why do we not see the hundreds of thousands of years of fossils of all those inbetween changes of those two species? Ok I'll settle for a thousand fossils. Ok I'll be nice and easy and settle for a hundred.
Does anyone have those 100 fossils? No? 50? No? 10? No?
To me if I was that deer and needed to change so I could survive, I think staying on land would be easier then doing the hundreds of thousands of things needed to be done physically to live in water and just try to get longer arms to climb into a tree that was probably 10' in front of him, or grow long claws so I could dig into the ground that was right under his hoofs.
Oh....this evolution thing is so complicated!!!!!!!!!!!!!
07 May 12
Also a comment of the hundreds of thousands of different kinds that "just evolved".
In reality, how many different kinds of enviroments are there on this planet?
According to the first site I found, it's about 18. Lots of gray areas inbetween but still those are the basics.
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/ecosystems.html
So if most animal life lived in those basic ecosystems, lets say birds, why so many varities? They say 9K thru 10K variaties on the planet now and that is not including all that are now extinct.
http://www.birdlife.org/action/science/endemic_bird_areas/index.html
So with a basic 18 ecosystems on earth, why so many types of birds? It would seem that a basic 18 types of birds would evolved to survive into those ecosysytems. Maybe a few more for the adventerous bird that liked living on the edge, but why do that if if were a harder place to live?
In the Kagu rainforest there is 2,500 species or more just in that one area. Why?
If one bird was in that area to begin with and found food, water and shelter, why did he evolve into soooooo many varities? If he survived and was able to live there and reproduce, why change? If there wasn't food, water and shelter in an amount needed to survive to begin with, he would have moved on or died.
Just a thought.........