More Evolutionary Nonsense

God bless you Mark.

 

Where is your link for this, Mark?

 

Mark

I think you are going to have to provide some documentation for that because I do not believe it to be true. Now, it is thought that whales evolved from a creature the size of a wolf but that is not quite the same as being a wolf. You cannot post nonsensical material and call it nonsense from the other side. It really does hurt your argument.

It has long been known that whales evolved from ungulates (or hoofed animals). (I have not seen a wolf with hoofs before.) For a long time, scientists thought that they started with a group of extinct, carniverous ungulates called mesonychians. But genetic testing of modern ungulates disagreed with this. But lately, there have been finds of nearly complete early whales called Pakicetids. These more complete skeletons have shown that the Pakicetids had a unique ankle structure only shared with a group of ungulates called artiodactyls. The fossil data and the genetic data are now somewhat in agrement that whales evolved from artiodactyls. This means that it is fairly likely that whales are most closely related to hippos. Other artiodactyls include pigs, deer, antelopes, deer, llamas, giraffes, goats, sheep, ,camels, and cattle.

We can get much more specific into the specific bone structures of the fossils that support the evolution of whales if you wish. But I doubt you would.

If anyone wants to get a head start, you can find high resoltion photos of the early whales skeletons Pakicetus, Ichthyolestes and Ambulocetus at the following URL. You will see that the skeletons are very complete and in very good shape. There are also some links from there to some other information on fossil whales.

http://darla.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/publ.html

 

Regardless of what secular scientists are declaring to be true this time, the fact is the Bible declares the large sea creatures to have been created before the land animals. Ref. is Genesis 1, Scott. And to call Mark on the designation of 'wolf' instead of understanding the point he was making is actually dragging a red herring across the path.

All evidence that whales 'evolved' from any kind of land creature is pure speculation based on the belief that evolution actually did happen in the first place.

 

You have got to be kidding me. Mark makes as outrageous and untrue statement as saying that scientists claim whales evolved from a wolf and you are going to call pointing out such a huge mistake a red herring? Oh no, he was trying to make a point without using factual information. It is not a red herring to point out such an obvious mistake when the mistake was the key part of his statement. The point he was trying to make was that scientists are nuts for proposing such an obviously wrong idea. If he wants to show where the interpretation of the evidence for whale evolution is wrong and actually wants to start from a premise that scientists agree with, fine. But it was perfectly acceptable to call him out on such a blantant statement as what he made. But I will not allow the mistake of confusing something as being the size of a wolf as being the same as being a wolf to go unchecked. It is unacceptable and purposefully deceitful. (Though based on his earlier posts proclaiming a proud lack of any knowledge of evolution, I suspect he his just copying from another source and it is the actual source that is being deceitful. One of my big problems with the people who put out the YEC material. The ends do not really justify the means.)

And the evidence for whales evolving is actually based on the actual fossil and genetic data and not mere speculation. It has been the evidence that has driven the acceptance of evolution and not the other way around.

 

Well, all one has to do is Google !!

I found this obscene statement from an evolutionist:

Oh, puleease!

The evolutionists may have a point, however. Animals are much more intelligent than most humans, so the recognition-of-reality gene may have gotten lost somewhere along the chain of missing links.

 

And the evidence for whales evolving is actually based on the actual fossil and genetic data and not mere speculation. It has been the evidence that has driven the acceptance of evolution and not the other way around.

No, that's wrong. The 'evidence' for whales evolving is based on

1. the prior assumption that evolution took place

2. the careful selection of fossils to try to bolster this assumption

3. ignoring the multitude of material against such a change

4. deliberate, on the part of those claiming to be Christian, ignoring or mythologizing of God's Word regarding creation.

 

SheEagle

I am not sure what your problem with the above is. Nothing there says anything about whales being closely related to wolves, only that they resembled a wolf. Big difference. A dolphin and a shark also superficially resemble one another, but we do not confuse them.

Maybe it would help to show an artist drawing of Pakicetids. It seems that there is confusion on where being the size of a wolf or superficially resembling a wolf has any relation to actually being a wolf.

Go to this page. http://darla.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/Pakicetid.html and scroll down near the bottom.

Glad you got a good laugh, though. Everyone needs some humor.

 

Look at my statement. Evolution has not always been the accepted theory. Quite the opposite. It was the evidence that drove Darwin and the others of the time to propose evolution. And like any other good theory, its acceptance or rejection has hinged on the research and discoveries of many scentists over a very long period of time. I think it should have been apparent that I was speaking more generally. It is the overwhelming evidence collected over many decades that has caused evolution to become accepted in the scientific community. The data has driven the theory. Whales are just another small part of it. The fossil whale data is in agrement with the theory of evolution and is accepted as part of it.

 

Read it again, please. I know I need a nap, but it doesn't say "related," it says evolved.

 

Resembling a wolf. Not from a wolf. Subtle but important difference.

Think about it like this. There are a lot of things that superficially resemble each other. We all the time speak of things as looking like something else or being the size of something else. That does not mean we think they are the same or even related, it just helps to get a mental image. Go look at the artist drawing. It is hard to come up with a good example of what it looks like it is so different from what we have seen. Wolf is as good as I can come up with.

[ October 26, 2003, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: UTEOTW ]

 

Sorry, double post. I hit ENTER when I mistakenly thought I was in the text box.

I may be the one who needs a nap. The time change meant 13 instead of 12 hours last night, then I did not sleep well at all today and I'm due back shortly. I feel like a zombie.

 

if you believe this stuff you write, then you believe the Lord took on humanity which came from evolved animal like creatures,and it is dishonor that i cannot let go on. please read romans and please stop using evolution as an alternative christian belief system

Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

 

Amen, massdak! Good point. Never thought about that verse in light of the "evolution" context before. Thanks!

 

Would you please stop taking Scripture out of context? It is clear in the context exactly what Paul is talking about.

 

Would you please stop taking Scripture out of context? It is clear in the context exactly what Paul is talking about. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]so tell me what is paul saying in that verse??

 

How much time have you spent looking at the evidence? Any? What are these fossil whales we have dug up then? The very specific transion of very specific bone structures. The genetic evidence. I am sure that you would not claim that whales and pigs should share as much DNA as they do (one being a marine mammal, the other a land mammal, each with superficially very different bodies) but the fossil evidence can trace a common group of ancestors and the genetics proves it out.

Wrong again. See the transition from fish to amphibians. Although I'll grant you that from what I understand, it was not fish in the sea but fish in fresh water.

 

Would you please stop taking Scripture out of context? It is clear in the context exactly what Paul is talking about. </font>[/QUOTE]so tell me what is paul saying in that verse?? [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]I take it that Paul is speaking of those who falsely worship idols of the corruptable world, whether it be worshipping a man or a golden calf, instead of the incorruptable God. Thus making, in their mind, the corruptable creation equal to the incorruptable God. The context gives some idea of the problems that these people then run into.