15 Sep 10
Originally posted by Proper KnobOk I fixed my post (I said please..) and checked on Indohyrus. Wiki says it my be the missing link to whales, but there is no explanation as to how it may be that link. Do you know?
I think what you meant to type was - Yes please Mr Knob.
Indohyus
Pakicetus
Ambulocetus
Maiacetus
Rodhocetus
Basilosaurus
Squalodon
Dorudon
Balaena
15 Sep 10
Originally posted by Rajk999That's not quite how it works. The direct ancestors of cetaceans which were land-based have now become extinct. This may have been because they were out-competed, because they lost the arms race against their predators, or simply through misfortune (the dinosaur scenario, for instance). There are probably other ways a species can fail that I've not mentioned. Fortunately, however, due solely to chance and possibly chance mutation (not through 'need to evolve'😉, some members of that species survived in a more aquatic environment (hippo like, perhaps). They prospered. Perhaps they favoured fresh-water, perhaps marine. Further mutations occurred. In some cases this led to creatures which were better adapted to the aquatic sphere - these creatures and their offspring were more successful still, so prospered further. Some mutations undoubtedly did not lead to more successful offspring, so these mutations did not persist. Eventually this led to the development of cetaceans as we know them. This is the gradualist view of evolution. It is thought that species mutate more rapidly when under extreme stress. This is the basis of the punctuated equilibrium view of evolution. Frogs, bees, ants, butterflies and termites have survived because they didn't become extinct. You will notice, however, that there are many more species of these creatures than there are species of cetacean. This is because they have had a lot more time for mutations to take place. Some butterflies, for instance, mutated to become nocturnal and became moths. Some bees mutated to become more and more social, as did some ants.
So 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.
Gotcha !
15 Sep 10
Originally posted by Rajk999There is plenty of scientific evidence that whales and dolphins evolved from land mammals. Fossil evidence, though supportive is hardly the only bit of scientific evidence. And I consider most scientific evidence when properly researched and double-checked by multiple studies etc to be 'solid evidence'.
Can you suggest other kinds of 'solid evidence'?
A number of things come to mind:
1. Genetic evidence.
2. Skeletal similarities.
3. General similarities to other mammals.
4. Behavioral factors - such as the fact that they breathe air.
5. Vestigial bones - showing a skeleton with hind legs.
I find the above just as convincing if not more convincing than fossil evidence.
Living Fossils - animal with fossilized remains but which are still living with us and some have been around for over 400,000,000 years.
The fossils appear similar to modern species, but your claim of 'no evolution' cannot be proven unless you have actual DNA from those fossils. In fact, unless every member of each of those species has identical DNA (which they obviously don't) then evolution must be taking place in each generation by definition.
Even a basic study of family trees should tell you that either new genes are regularly created, or cockroaches would end up with nearly uniform genes across the whole species within a few hundred thousand generations (a few centuries perhaps?) for them to survive 400,000,000 years some considerable amount of evolution must necessarily be taking place.
16 Sep 10
Originally posted by Rajk999As i understand it, the fossil has certain unique features found on it's skull that are only found on cetaceans. DNA evidence also points to cetaceans having 'originated' from a particlualr group of animals, the artiodactyls, this animal is/was a artiodactyls.
Ok I fixed my post (I said please..) and checked on Indohyrus. Wiki says it my be the missing link to whales, but there is no explanation as to how it may be that link. Do you know?
16 Sep 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieTwo days on and your only argument for not accepting that mammals adpated to life in the water is - it's a bit strange?
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?
Surely there's more?
19 Sep 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadI understand. I see the point about DNA evidence v fossil evidence. What do you make of this article:
There is plenty of scientific evidence that whales and dolphins evolved from land mammals. Fossil evidence, though supportive is hardly the only bit of scientific evidence. And I consider most scientific evidence when properly researched and double-checked by multiple studies etc to be 'solid evidence'.
A number of things come to mind:
1. Genetic eviden ...[text shortened]... e 400,000,000 years some considerable amount of evolution must necessarily be taking place.
http://www.physorg.com/news156605855.html
19 Sep 10
Originally posted by Proper KnobI have over 200 bones in my body, and if you take 1 out, it may look exactlyl like a bone that would be found in a wolf or bear or tiger ect....but that doesnt mean I evolved from one of those animals.
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.
A Pakicetidae might have teeth or a bone that looks the same as another animal, but that doesnt mean one animal is evolving into anther animal........there has always been a wolf, a tiger, a goat, a mouse, a rat, a elephant and a pakicetidae.
But the pakicetidae is extinct along with dinosaurs, as soon will be the pygmy elephants because of the palm oil industry.
What evolutionary scientist are doing, is trying to put round pegs into square holes.
Evolution is a bebunct therory, and now with the release of the book "Forbidden Archeology" we have scientific and scholarly proof that it is. (just read it) and move on.
vishva
19 Sep 10
Originally posted by vishvahetuI thought correspondence was terminated? You back for another 'takedown'?
I have over 200 bones in my body, and if you take 1 out, it may look exactlyl like a bone that would be found in a wolf or bear or tiger ect....but that doesnt mean I evolved from one of those animals.
A Pakicetidae might have teeth or a bone that looks the same as another animal, but that doesnt mean one animal is evolving into anther animal........th ...[text shortened]... logy" we have scientific and scholarly proof that it is. (just read it) and move on.
vishva
I have over 200 bones in my body, and if you take 1 out, it may look exactlyl like a bone that would be found in a wolf or bear or tiger ect
To an ignorant fool like you, yes. To a trained professional, no.
there has always been a wolf, a tiger, a goat, a mouse, a rat, a elephant and a pakicetidae
Yet again, you've laid your ignorance fo all to see. Utterly wrong.
What evolutionary scientist are doing, is trying to put round pegs into square holes.
And you base this on what? Your expert opinion on the subject?!
Evolution is a bebunct therory, and now with the release of the book "Forbidden Archeology" we have scientific and scholarly proof that it is. (just read it) and move on.
bebunct therory? Do you mean 'debunked theory'? As for 'Forbidden Archeology', i think the least said the better.
19 Sep 10
Originally posted by Proper KnobWhats the pay off for holding on to this bebunct therory of evolution....there must be a pay off for you to dogmatically hold on to it without one scrap of evidence.
I thought correspondence was terminated? You back for another 'takedown'?
[b]I have over 200 bones in my body, and if you take 1 out, it may look exactlyl like a bone that would be found in a wolf or bear or tiger ect
To an ignorant fool like you, yes. To a trained professional, no.
there has always been a wolf, a tiger, a goat, a mouse ...[text shortened]... an 'debunked theory'? As for 'Forbidden Archeology', i think the least said the better.
I think I know what the pay off is for you.....here goes
The scientist are suppose to know everything (thats the way they think) so when the scientist is asked how the world came to be, and all the species....they have to have an answer or they will loose face. So because they haven,t a clue to how the world came to be with all the life on it, they latch onto Darwins evolution therory, and put that forward, but theres one problem with that.... "its not true" ...so they try to put round pegs into square holes, and ask us to believe it (no thanks)
So you see its all about pretending to know all about the world you live in, because to be honest and say (i dont know ) is something you and the rest cannot do, so you push this silly therory of evolution, and the worst thing is, many scientists who preach evolution...dont actually believe it in their heart, but they have nothing else to offer.
Any evidence you have is fabricated, and if you just get the book and read it you will see for yourself (just do it) and move on, because in the future when the whole world recognizes this truth, you will be left standing there feeling awkward and silly, so be a gentleman and give it up now, and at least people will respect you for coming to the higher realization on your own, instead of having to suffer the embarresment of exsposer later.
vishva
19 Sep 10
Originally posted by vishvahetuThe scientist are suppose to know everything
Whats the pay off for holding on to this bebunct therory of evolution....there must be a pay off for you to dogmatically hold on to it without one scrap of evidence.
I think I know what the pay off is for you.....here goes
The scientist are suppose to know everything (thats the way they think) so when the scientist is asked how the world came to be, ...[text shortened]... ization on your own, instead of having to suffer the embarresment of exsposer later.
vishva
Really? What scientist has ever said that?
and the worst thing is, many scientists who preach evolution...dont actually believe it in their heart
Really? Any evidence to back this bizarre claim or is it more twoddle?
because to be honest and say (i dont know ) is something you and the rest cannot do
Again, more BS to add to your huge and ever growing pile.
You singlehandely seem to spew unfounded, unsubstaniated, erroneous, incorrect views across this forum about almost everything you talk about. That in itself is quite an achievement that i don't think you have managed to comprehend yet.
20 Sep 10
Originally posted by Proper KnobI seem to hit a nerve......are you a science teacher or something?
[b]The scientist are suppose to know everything
Really? What scientist has ever said that?
and the worst thing is, many scientists who preach evolution...dont actually believe it in their heart
Really? Any evidence to back this bizarre claim or is it more twoddle?
because to be honest and say (i dont know ) is something you and ...[text shortened]... . That in itself is quite an achievement that i don't think you have managed to comprehend yet.
vishva
20 Sep 10
2 edits
Originally posted by vishvahetuNot a science teacher.
I seem to hit a nerve......are you a science teacher or something?
vishva
You haven't hit a nerve, but i grow tired of your constant trolling. As i pointed out above, you engage in topics where it's clear you don't know what you're talking about.
It was not long ago you made a public apology for your forum etiquitte, and then disappeared. Now your back your carrying on in exactly the same arrogant manner.
Now have you anything lucid to say on the evolution of cetaceans?
20 Sep 10
Originally posted by Proper KnobWhen i apologized before, for being rude and arrogant, I meant that I apologized if people thought I was rude and arrogant, because I dont want to be...........and my frankness and harsh words are not rude and arrogant, and I wanted people to know when i choose the words that I choose, that I am not intending to be rude and arrogant. ( i hope thats sorta clear )
Not a science teacher.
You haven't hit a nerve, but i grow tired of your constant trolling. As i pointed out above, you engage in topics where it's clear you don't know what you're talking about.
It was not long ago you made a public apology for your forum etiquitte, and then disappeared. Now your back your carrying on in exactly the same arrogant manner.
Now have you anything lucid to say on the evolution of cetaceans?
I do get annoyed when people dont call a spade a spade.
Anyway i have nothing to say about cetaceans, because it really is depressing having to discuss something that I see as false (evolution) and I keep asking you to read "Forbidden Archeology" because the authors are the experts on that subject matter, and all the answers will be in that book, and you can be very sure that what you discover in "Forbidden Archeology" will be 100% true and accurate, because these men are honest and are of excellent character, and have left no stone unturned to give the public the truth about evolution. ( i should say non evolution)
vishva