The Scientific Method

OK I've observed a presumably natural change in the design of whales - that is, the feet have been reduced to vestigal bones. The direct observation is of the vestigal bones. That they were once feet is seen by the intermediate examples preserved in the fossil record.

A method of testing that they are vestigal feet instead of useful platforms for something in the whale would be to determine what genes are involved in making legs in land animals and then see if the same genes exist, though repressed mostly (except for those that make the bone scraps that remain) within whales today.

Here's a link to my webpage that shows the vestigal bones:

http://www.epud.net/~richmond/science/science.htm

 

Well either that or God created these two specimens as separate creatures. There is exactly zero observational evidence when you are dealing with fossils - it (evolution) is inferance based upon assumption based upon a committment to humanism that intentionally excludes the possibility that the Bible is right.

Real science is based on repeatable observable fact. It's watching and repeating those things. Evolution is based upon assumption. No one was there to observe these whale's tranformations, they must be inferred based upon the assumption that they weren't created as full discreet organisms, and based upon uniformitarian assumptions of millions of years.

As a creationist I would say that I have evidence that these were not the evolution of the same whale, but rather two separate species of whale. I would then show the same pictures of the bones that PauloE showed. There is no observational evidence that says these were not created separately... and no observational evidence that says one evolved from the other. It is pure assumption and speculation.

 

Read back throug the whole thread. The fossil record is just part of the story. YOu ahve fossils that show a progression from a land based creature through an amphibious stage and into a marine creature of today. These are in the correct temporal location. (Just how a flood would have sorted them as such is still a question you cannot answer!) The ratio of oxygen isotopes in their fossils agree with the transition. The morphology changes agree. The legs get shorter and shorter until they no longer exist.

That you still have whales born with atavistic legs is a testament to this. The whales still have the genes for legs but they are not expressed. Why would created whales have such? Look at the evidence presented above about vestigal olfactory genes. Just how do you explain this? Why would whales be created with disabled versions of genes for a sence of smell? Genes that match those of land animals.

It is a complete picture. You try and dissect it into pieces and vaguely attack the pieces. Even at that, you have to pretend that we cannot learn about the past in the present. YOu have to pretend that observations and predictions cannot be made about past events. Whales having vestigal olfactory genes would be a prediction of evolution and not of creationism. But, most importantly, you ignore how the whole of the evidence fits together. You cannot offer any coherent, factual, logical scenario to explain what common descent explains so well.

 

He is the URL for the whale thread you should read.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/23.html

Here are pictures of one atavistic whale leg.

http://daphne.palomar.edu/ccarpenter/whale_legs.htm

And you should read the following:

Andrews, R. C. (1921) "A remarkable case of external hind limbs in a humpback whale." Amer. Mus. Novitates. No. 9. June 3, 1921, Figures 2, 3, and 4.

And

"Limbs in whales and limblessness in other vertebrates: mechanisms of evolutionary and developmental transformation and loss," Lars Bejder* and Brian K. Hall, Evolution & Development, Volume 4 Issue 6 Page 445 - November 2002

 

A question for Jc: Finding atavistic whale legs is, or is not, an observation?

 

from www.dictionary.com

design (see below)

Note that every definition requires volition. The phrase "Natural design in nature" doesn't compute.

n 1: the act of working out the form of something (as by making a sketch or outline or plan); "he contributed to the design of a new instrument" [syn: designing] 2: an arrangement scheme; "the awkward design of the keyboard made operation difficult"; "it was an excellent design for living"; "a plan for seating guests" [syn: plan] 3: something intended as a guide for making something else; "a blueprint for a house"; "a pattern for a skirt" [syn: blueprint, pattern] 4: a decorative or artistic work; "the coach had a design on the doors" [syn: pattern, figure] 5: an anticipated outcome that is intended or that guides your planned actions; "his intent was to provide a new translation"; "good intentions are not enough"; "it was created with the conscious aim of answering immediate needs"; "he made no secret of his designs" [syn: purpose, intent, intention, aim] 6: a preliminary sketch indicating the plan for something; "the design of a building" 7: the creation of something in the mind [syn: invention, innovation, excogitation, conception] v 1: make or work out a plan for; devise; "They contrived to murder their boss"; "design a new sales strategy"; "plan an attack" [syn: plan, project, contrive] 2: design something for a specific role or purpose or effect; "This room is not designed for work" 3: create the design for; create or execute in an artistic or highly skilled manner; "Chanel designed the famous suit" 4: make a design of; plan out in systematic, often graphic form; "design a better mousetrap"; "plan the new wing of the museum" [syn: plan] 5: create designs; "Dupont designs for the house of Chanel" 6: conceive or fashion in the mind; invent; "She designed a good excuse for not attending classes that day" 7: intend or have as a purpose; "She designed to go far in the world of business"


Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University