15 Sep 10
In light of a couple of discussions recently (with Mr Jay & RC) i've started a seperate thread. The evolution of cetaceans ie. whales, dolphins and porpoises, states that these mighty beasts were once land based mammals who over millions of years evolved to life in the water. The genetics, DNA and fossil record backs this up, but of course our good friends 'the creationists' deny this.
I'm looking for why, in your view, this couldn't have happenned. And please merely stating 'becasue the Bible says so' ain't cutting it today.
We'll start here.
15 Sep 10
Originally posted by Proper Knobit seems strange that an animal should first of all evolve in the sea, decide to come to land, evolve on land and then decide to return back to the sea. Does that not seem strange to you dear Noobster?
In light of a couple of discussions recently (with Mr Jay & RC) i've started a seperate thread. The evolution of cetaceans ie. whales, dolphins and porpoises, states that these mighty beasts were once land based mammals who over millions of years evolved to life in the water. The genetics, DNA and fossil record backs this up, but of course our good frien ...[text shortened]... stating 'becasue the Bible says so' ain't cutting it today.
We'll start here.
15 Sep 10
Originally posted by Proper KnobEvolution of the type you describe is just a theory. The only solid evidence which can prove this theory correct is if you were to find fossilized remains of these animals at different stages of evolution, which will show the gradual change in their structure and shape. Is there such evidence?
In light of a couple of discussions recently (with Mr Jay & RC) i've started a seperate thread. The evolution of cetaceans ie. whales, dolphins and porpoises, states that these mighty beasts were once land based mammals who over millions of years evolved to life in the water. The genetics, DNA and fossil record backs this up, but of course our good frien ...[text shortened]... stating 'becasue the Bible says so' ain't cutting it today.
We'll start here.
However there is solid evidence that animals have existed for the same many millions of years with zero evolution. And to claim that these animals were 'perfect' therefore did not need to evolve is a nonsense argument.
15 Sep 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt is only strange if you believe that there was some thoughtful process guiding it all. If there isn't then there is nothing strange about it at all. Interesting yes, strange no.
it seems strange that an animal should first of all evolve in the sea, decide to come to land, evolve on land and then decide to return back to the sea. Does that not seem strange to you dear Noobster?
15 Sep 10
Originally posted by Rajk999Why would that constitute solid evidence, and why is it the only possible solid evidence?
Evolution of the type you describe is just a theory. The only solid evidence which can prove this theory correct is if you were to find fossilized remains of these animals at different stages of evolution, which will show the gradual change in their structure and shape. Is there such evidence?
When you say "at different stages of evolution", how many intermediate fossils do you require? I am sure that some can be found, but you will probably just demand more, so I want to establish what you are looking for first.
However there is solid evidence that animals have existed for the same many millions of years with zero evolution.
Oh? Where is that evidence then?
And to claim that these animals were 'perfect' therefore did not need to evolve is a nonsense argument.
Has anyone made such a claim?
15 Sep 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadCan you suggest other kinds of 'solid evidence'?
Why would that constitute solid evidence, and why is it the only possible solid evidence?
When you say "at different stages of evolution", how many intermediate fossils do you require? I am sure that some can be found, but you will probably just demand more, so I want to establish what you are looking for first.
[b]However there is solid evidence that ...[text shortened]... therefore did not need to evolve is a nonsense argument.
Has anyone made such a claim?[/b]
Living Fossils - animal with fossilized remains but which are still living with us and some have been around for over 400,000,000 years.
Check this site:
http://www.living-fossils.com/3_1.php
eg .Cœlacanth, Cockroach, horseshoe crab, the Okapi , and others.
.. This is by no means the end of the list of creatures that still survive today unchanged, in exactly the same form as they displayed millions of years ago. The sturgeon, mackerel, freshwater bass, herring, needlefish, lobster, crawfish and the Devonian-period shark are all examples of living fossils. Other examples include the jellyfish, sponges, frogs, bees, ants, butterflies and termites. The 230-million-year-old dragonfly, soldier ants dating back 100 million years, and the 150-million-year-old salamander are all still living today. The same applies to arachnids such as the spider and myriapods such as the millipede....
15 Sep 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieonly if you picture that species of animals spanning millions of years as a undecided 20 year old who pays a lot of money for medschool then goes to pilot school then flips burgers then finds a job as a medic.
it seems strange that an animal should first of all evolve in the sea, decide to come to land, evolve on land and then decide to return back to the sea. Does that not seem strange to you dear Noobster?
this isn't about a human being being undecided and illogical. this is about some animals that evolved in some way then found a new environment, thrived there and branched out. kinda like the chinese evolved chopsticks instead of forks
15 Sep 10
Originally posted by Rajk999if the environment stays basically the same, the animals don't need to evolve
Evolution of the type you describe is just a theory. The only solid evidence which can prove this theory correct is if you were to find fossilized remains of these animals at different stages of evolution, which will show the gradual change in their structure and shape. Is there such evidence?
However there is solid evidence that animals have existed for ...[text shortened]... aim that these animals were 'perfect' therefore did not need to evolve is a nonsense argument.
15 Sep 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Rajk999Is there such evidence?
Evolution of the type you describe is just a theory. The only solid evidence which can prove this theory correct is if you were to find fossilized remains of these animals at different stages of evolution, which will show the gradual change in their structure and shape. Is there such evidence?
However there is solid evidence that animals have existed for ...[text shortened]... aim that these animals were 'perfect' therefore did not need to evolve is a nonsense argument.
As a matter of fact there is. Remarkable fossils have been found for whale evolution in the last 30yrs or so that clearly show a progression form land to water. I can name them for you of you like and you can look them up?
Did you know whales still have tiny little vestigial leg bones buried deep inside their bodies?
15 Sep 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper KnobWell ... name them. ...[Edit] Please Mr Knob.
[b]Is there such evidence?
As a matter of fact there is. Remarkable fossils have been found for whale evolution in the last 30yrs or so that clearly show a progression form land to water. I can name them for you of you like and you can look them up?
Did you know whales still have tiny little vestigial leg bones buried deep inside their bodies?[/b]
15 Sep 10
Originally posted by ZahlanziYou kidding right? An environment that stayed the same over a few hundred million years? There is no such thing.
if the environment stays basically the same, the animals don't need to evolve
And there were other species in that same 'unchanged' environment that did not evolve into anything else over the same 400,000.000 years. So two animals in the same environment and one did zero evolving and another moved from sea to land?
Try again.
15 Sep 10
Originally posted by Rajk999If an organism is successful in the environment in which it finds itself, it will continue to exist. It is not necessary that the environment remain unchanged for hundreds of millions of years. At the same time, members of this species may find themselves in less favourable environments elsewhere and die out, while mutated specimens may survive and even prosper.
You kidding right? An environment that stayed the same over a few hundred million years? There is no such thing.
And there were other species in that same 'unchanged' environment that did not evolve into anything else over the same 400,000.000 years. So two animals in the same environment and one did zero evolving and another moved from sea to land?
Try again.
15 Sep 10
Originally posted by avalanchethecatSo what Mr. Knob posted ..whales, dolphins and porpoises .. were unsuccessful as land based animals and frogs, bees, ants, butterflies and termites are successful as land based animals and therefore had no need to evolve.
If an organism is successful in the environment in which it finds itself, it will continue to exist. It is not necessary that the environment remain unchanged for hundreds of millions of years. At the same time, members of this species may find themselves in less favourable environments elsewhere and die out, while mutated specimens may survive and even prosper.
Gotcha !