Whale evolution without fossils.

[Jimmy D]

The Haeckel is something I've known about for years...
Haeckel fraud proven - creation.com
Haeckel was a huge promoter for Darwin and he did anything to promote the fraud. In this blog, Stephen J. Gould admits that Haeckel's drawings were known to be a fraud from the beginning... https://evolutionnews.org/2007/06/lessons_learned_from_haeckel_a/

If you're not sure what a hoax is, just look at any evolutionary claim and you've found a hoax.

Haeckel fudged his drawings in order to illustrate and promote his ideas, no one would deny that.

Many of his ideas, that these drawings were intended to further, were undoubtedly wrong, this is no secret has been the scientific consensus for over a hundred years.

However being wrong or even falsifying drawings does not constitute a "hoax" even if it there may have been some dishonesty involved. But even if it did so what? Science has moved on a bit over the last 150 years you know.

Still, I don't really want to waste too much time on this, you are welcome to your opinion on Haeckel, it has absolutely no bearing on the veracity of modern biology

 

[Bungle_Bear]

As for what's controversial and fringe... evolution is fringe and not science. Otherwise, SHOW all the transitional fossils so we can OBSERVE the step-by-step transition from a reptile into an Archaeopteryx. You'll likely need at least a hundred fossils to SHOW the transition. Here's an article from ICR which does NOT promote the idea that dinosaurs had feathers, and says, none have been discovered... Did Some Dinosaurs Really Have Feathers?
The problem for the idea of feathered dinosaurs doesn't get any better at Answers in Genesis... Feathered Dinosaurs?

lol So your argument is that no feathered dinosaurs have been found, only extinct birds that look remarkably like dinosaurs and have all the transitional traits you'd expect to see if evolution were the correct explanation?

You creationists crack me up!

 

[Jimmy D]

There are a lot of mavericks in evolutionary circles. Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldredge says, there are no transitional fossils, so they invented Punctuated Equilibrium

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are just repeating what you've read on a creationist website and are not deliberately lying.

Which of Gould's books have you read?

 

[USincognito]

I really appreciate all the hard work with the copying and pasting from TalkOrigins. com.

Notice how he doesn't address a single word of the evidence presented?

A lot of imagination and speculation put into it.

Still not seeing him address any of the evidence presented.

It's a good way to save wear and tear on your brain.

Cute. Not addressing any of the evidence presented and pathetically attempting to be condescending.

But all of that hard work does not trump the comments from paleornithologist, Alan Feduccia, whom specializes in the origins and phylogeny of birds...

Bahahahah! An opinion "trumps" actual facts??? Wow, just wow. I know that Creationists are big on authority, and not so much on evidence, but I have never seen such a naked display of that fact in quite some time. What makes the quotes you clearly, and ironically, (after talking smack about citing Talk Origins) cribbed from a Creationist site hilarious is that you quoted Feduccia's Achilles heel. His problem is that he long ago staked out a position, which you paraphrase:

The fact is... birds have feathers... dinosaurs don't...

20 years ago and the more evidence we find that birds are descended from theropod dinosaurs the greater mental gymnastics Feduccia has to engage in to hold his entrenched position. I realize in your mind as an authority what he says is "fact" but he's just one guy with a maverick opinion that he's holding onto only because of his obstinacy and pride.
Dinosaurs of a Feather | Science | Smithsonian

a number of coelurosaurian dinosaurs, such as Anchironis, Microraptor and others, have been preserved with more complex feathers that more closely approximate those seen on living birds. These structures cannot be simply cast off as collagen fibers or other quirks of preservation, and so Feduccia makes a strange argument. Microraptor and kin are not dinosaurs, Feduccia argues, but are instead birds that lost the ability to fly and were molded into the form of dinosaurs through a circuitous evolutionary pathway. By employing a very narrow definition of what a feather is, and by asserting that only birds can have feathers, Feduccia tries to rearrange evolutionary relationships through semantics.​

Let me parse that out for you.
1. Feduccia has dug in on his position that only birds have feathers.
2. The discovery of dinosaur fossils with feathers shows that he is incorrect.
3. His response is to claim that they aren't dinosaurs, but actually are birds that have lost the ability to fly and changed morphologically to look like dinosaurs.

Do you see the problem with that?

 

[Jimmy D]

I'm still waiting for those transitional fossils that prove a reptile evolved into the Archaeopteryx. Why is it that not a single evolutionist can provide them? I know why... but I'm waiting for one of you guys to admit... they don't exist.

As the old aphorism goes - absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I'm not that familiar with Archaeopteryx but you are aware that fossils are fairly rare right? The fact that they only form under specific conditions and mostly exist encased in rock underground makes them quite difficult to find you know.

Instead on focusing on the fossils we haven't found wouldn't it be more productive to discuss the many transitionals we have got? I'm sure you can find creationist articles about them to post.

 

[USincognito]

I'm still waiting for those transitional fossils that prove a reptile evolved into the Archaeopteryx. Why is it that not a single evolutionist can provide them? I know why... but I'm waiting for one of you guys to admit... they don't exist.

Again, I must point out that I don't see any purpose in providing you with dinobird fossils because you have zero paleontological acumen. I mean you couldn't even identify the skull I presented as "fully ape" or "fully human" or what species it was. Why would we think you had sufficient anatomical and paleontological knowledge of dinosaurs and birds to know what you were looking at, much less to come to any sort of informed conclusion about them? I see this bluff and bluster from Creationists all the time. They claim there are no transitional fossils and when showed them either hand wave them away, declare they are not transitional for "reasons", claim they are or could be fakes, demand even more fossils or leave the conversation/change the subject.

That said. Here you go:

And here's a bonus for you. A dinosaur tail with feathers in amber.
https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(16)31193-9

edit - here's one more bonus. See the area of this bird like dinosaur fossil's stomach circled in red? This is a Caudipteryx and that mass is a gastolith, or the rocks some theropod dinosaurs swallowed to help them digest their food... just like their bird cousins and descendants do.

 

[USincognito]

I'll assume that Alan Feduccia did his research since he is the bird expert.

See post #104. As we've noted, science is evidence based, not authority based so Feduccia's opinions do not matter. All of the evidence points to birds being evolved theropod dinosaurs and Feduccia is simply wrong when he asserts that "if it has feathers, it's a bird".

And nothing wrong with quote mining, especially when the anti-evolution quotes come from evolutionists.

Do you not know what quote mining is? That's when you take a quote out of context or butcher it up with ellipses (or worse, not include ellipses) to try and make the speaker "say" something they're really not. It's a favorite, dishonest tactic of professional Creationists and those that parrot them.

Only hardcore evolutionists, like Dawkins, won't accept comments from A. Feduccia.

Do you not know that Feduccia is a "hardcore evolutionist"? He doesn't think birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs, but basal archosaurs. And you're simply wrong. Many paleontologists disagree with his conclusions and again I must stress, the evidence counters his "if it has feathers, it's a bird" position.

I can remember when Dawkins was upset with Stephen J. Gould because he didn't believe in gradualism, and Gould and N. Eldredge concocted their punctuated equilibrium hypothesis.

Do you have a citation for this supposed event? And I hope you're not one of those who thinks PE is an issue for evolution. Did you know that Gould and Eldredge formulated it to explain the abundance of transitional fossils above the species level verses the paucity at the species level.

 

[USincognito]

As for what's controversial and fringe... evolution is fringe and not science.

You aver that evolution is "fringe and not science". Could you please explain to us, in your own words, what evolution is. By that I mean what does evolution mean in the context of science.

Otherwise, SHOW all the transitional fossils so we can OBSERVE the step-by-step transition from a reptile into an Archaeopteryx.

Repeating your little mantra is not the same as demonstrating that you have sufficient scientific acumen to evaluate fossils. Also your little mantra shows you don't understand how phylogenetics works. Reptile is a bit outdated because it doesn't include birds and mammals which are subsets of "reptiles". A more accurate term is Amniote.
Amniota
Note that Amniota includes both Synapsids (Mammals and their extinct relatives) and Diapsids (Lizards, Sphenodon, crocodylians, birds, and their extinct relatives) and Anapsids (which includes Turtles, tortoises and terrapins and extinct relatives).

You'll likely need at least a hundred fossils to SHOW the transition.

Why? Wouldn't three suffice? Are you hedging your bet by suggesting that we'd need an unrealistic number of fossils?

Here's an article from ICR which does NOT promote the idea that dinosaurs had feathers, and says, none have been discovered...

Yeah, an opinion piece by two non-paleontologists is hilarious. I love this exercise in imagination on the part of Sherwin and Thomas.

The famous Chinese dinosaurs probably began rotting as they were transported by the waters of Noah’s Flood only 4,500 or so years ago, even as modern carcasses rot. The soluble flesh rotted first. The thickly woven collagen fibers would have soon rotted, too, but the surrounding mud or wet sand quickly turned to dry rock that inhibited growth of collagen-eating microbes.​

 

[AirPo]

As for what's controversial and fringe... evolution is fringe and not science. Otherwise, SHOW all the transitional fossils so we can OBSERVE the step-by-step transition from a reptile into an Archaeopteryx. You'll likely need at least a hundred fossils to SHOW the transition. Here's an article from ICR which does NOT promote the idea that dinosaurs had feathers, and says, none have been discovered... Did Some Dinosaurs Really Have Feathers?

The problem for the idea of feathered dinosaurs doesn't get any better at Answers in Genesis... Feathered Dinosaurs?

Thinking that it is necessary to show all the transitional fossils is fringe.

 

[USincognito]

It looks like Darwin's Myth is a weekend only poster. I do hope he comes back and responds to my posts.

 

[tas8831]

2. Cetacean embryos develop hind limb buds that are absorbed (except in cases of atavisms) during fetal development. This is due the interaction of two genes that normally would grow hind limbs (see below). If cetaceans never lived on the land, why do they develop limb buds during the embryonic stage?
Cetacean Evolution: Dolphin Hind Legs - Hind Limb Bud Images, Dolphin Embryo Hindlimb in Fetus Development

3. The sleek, hydrodynamic bodies of whales are due to a broken interaction between the genes Sonic Hedgehog and Hand2. Hand2 normally grows hind limbs in terrestrial mammals. If cetaceans didn't evolve from terrestrial mammals, why do they have the Hand2 gene?
05 » How ancient whales lost their legs, got sleek and conquered the oceans » University of Florida

4. The evolution of cetacean forelimbs into flippers is controlled by two genes - Hoxd12 and Hoxd13.
Adaptive evolution of 5'HoxD genes in the origin and diversification of the cetacean flipper. - PubMed - NCBI

These are just 4 of the many evidences making whale evolution one of the most compelling and supported lineages we can look at.

Also note the forelimb - one can see, very clearly DIGITS developing there, just like in human or mouse or galago embryos.

 

[tas8831]

It doesn't matter that the quote is from a book from 1978, because the more you look at the evolution lie, the more it stays the same. There are still ZERO transitional fossils. Before a single fossil can be proven to be a transitional fossil, there needs to be an OBSERVABLE transition between many, MANY fossils, showing a transition from one creature into a completely different creature. Realistically, you'd need hundreds of fossils that show a step-by-step transition happening. Evolutionists seem to think, just one fossil can show the incremental steps of a reptile transitioning into an Archaeopteryx.

Can we apply similar criteria to your creation myth?

Or will special pleading be the rule of the day should that occur?

Because I need to OBSERVE every intermediate molecule between the silicates of the 'dust of the ground' and Phosphatidylinositol, just for starters, lest creation be considered a lie.

 

[tas8831]

Now that you've made the claim that transitional fossils exist... SHOW me the ACTUAL fossils that prove the reptile evolved into the Archaeopteryx (the evolutionists prize fossil).

SHOW me the ACTUAL transitional molecules from SiO2 and phosphatidylserine that prove God made a man from dust of the ground!

 

[tas8831]

The Duck-billed Platypus appears to have a mixture of characteristics, too, but that doesn't mean it evolved from ducks, beavers, and gila monsters.

LOL! 4th grade stuff...

Yup... Totally looks like a duck's bill...