What about the DNA evidence?

[46AND2]

this quote:





needs evidence, he provided a few examples, but that SOME doesn't mean ALL. His is the positive statement regarding mutations that need evidence. I merely disagreed negatively. It looks like both of you are shifting the burden of proof. Negative statements don't need evidence. Only the positive assertions. If I said God exists because you can't prove otherwise, is shifting the burden of proof, an argument from silence. There must be evidence for God's existence. (And there is, teleological, cosmic etc). If you disagreed with the above statement you don't need evidence, THEY need evidence. It's the same with our situation I disagreed that everything could have been produced by mutation, so HE needs to state his claim with fact.

 

[ffinder]

Creationists continue to claim there are no transitional fossils (which is not true) and will ignore any evidence presented to them regarding the same. So, what about the DNA evidence that supports evolution? And, what about Francis Collins (a christian) who led the Human Genome Project and his stance below?

http://www.astro.umd.edu/~miller/teaching/astr380f09/slides08.pdf


Francis Collins: The evidence is overwhelming..

The DNA is a dead giveaway that there is a God..



Who programmed the millions of chemical codes
inside the DNA of the very 1st living cells on the planet?

A thunder here.. a lightning there..
hitting a mix of lava, rocks, water etc. everywhere..
and a dash of hundreds of millions of years..

..and voila ! ! the very 1st millions of codes of DNA
were magically formed inside the 1st living cells ! !

Code came from a coder..

It takes tons upon tons of faith to believe in Evolution
than to believe in God..

ff

VIDEO of: Programming of Life - DNA programming

 

[Subduction Zone]

The DNA is a dead giveaway that there is a God..



Who programmed the millions of chemical codes
inside the DNA of the very 1st living cells on the planet?

A thunder here.. a lightning there..
hitting a mix of lava, rocks, water etc. everywhere..
and a dash of hundreds of millions of years..

..and voila ! ! the very 1st millions of codes of DNA
were magically formed inside the 1st living cells ! !

Code came from a coder..

It takes tons upon tons of faith to believe in Evolution
than to believe in God..

ff

VIDEO of: Programming of Life - DNA programming

DNA is not code as you think it is. But the problem of abiogenesis is a tough one. There are signs that researchers could be getting quite close to an answer. And you just shifted the argument away from evolution to abiogenesis. A related but different topic.

I assume that you are therefore conceding the debate on evolution. That is the only logical reason for such a shift.

 

[createdtoworship]

Dogs did not transition to whales. We do have plenty of transitionals for whales The evolution of whales

dog like creatures transitioned into whales,

so you have any of those?

 

[USincognito]

In their book The Myths of Evolution, Ian Tattersall and Miles Eldredge, both well-known paleontologists, described how the stasis in the fossil record conflicted with the assumptions of Darwinism:

If you're going to dishonestly plagiarize large amounts of text and photos from a website - including typos - it's a good idea not to do so from Harun Hahahah.

It's Niles Eldredge, not Miles. And the title of the book is "The Myths of Human Evolution".

 

[USincognito]

dog like creatures transitioned into whales...

Wrong.

 

[stevevw]

Name:

Pakicetus (Greek for "Pakistan whale"); pronounced PACK-ih-SEE-tuss
Habitat:

Shores of central Asia
Historical Epoch:

Early Eocene (50 million years ago)
Size and Weight:

About 3 feet long and 50 pounds
Diet:

Fish
Distinguishing Characteristics:

Small size; dog-like appearance

They say it is about the size of a dog and looks like a wolf or dog.

 

[USincognito]

They say it is about the size of a dog and looks like a wolf or dog.

That looks like it comes from about.com.

About the size of a dog =/= "dog-like". Dog-like would mean having the characteristics of a dog and Pakicetus did not. It had the characteristics of an artiodactyl, but with some cetacean characteristics like the shape of it's head and it's ear bones.
The First Whale: Pakicetus

 

[[serious]]

dog like creatures transitioned into whales,

so you have any of those?

This is dog like?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

If you're going to dishonestly plagiarize large amounts of text and photos from a website - including typos - it's a good idea not to do so from Harun Hahahah.

It's Niles Eldredge, not Miles. And the title of the book is "The Myths of Human Evolution".

But of course you have nothing to say about the evidence, because we both know it is true. All fossils are the same from the first appearance of a species, until its extinction. Those that survived the extinction event are the same as their fossils.

Coelacanth used to be your prime evolutionary fossil between fish and tetrapods, until one was found to still exist exactly as it has always been.

Coelacanth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"A group led by Chris Amemiya and Neil Shubin published the genome sequence of the coelacanth in the journal Nature. The African coelacanth genome was sequenced and assembled using DNA from a Comoros Islands Latimeria chalumnae specimen. It was sequenced by Illumina sequencing technology and assembled using the short read genome assembler ALLPATHS-LG.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth#cite_note-genome-21

The vertebrate land transition is one of the most important steps in our evolutionary history. We conclude that the closest living fish to the tetrapod ancestor is the lungfish, not the coelacanth."

But of course we were assured for years that it was a transitory species between fish and tetrapods by evolutionists. Why? Because that is what they wanted it to be. Then we found one and DNA evidence disproved that theory. So basically evolutionists fabricated an entire evolutionary line simply on their desire to attempt to prove this important transitional step completely missing from the fossil record.

Darwin found this same missing steps, but convinced everyone to look the other way, that they would be found in the future. Over 100 years later and here we are, still missing these transitional steps.

But you will continue to look the other way and assure us that what you claim are transitional are transitional, just like you assured us the Coelacanth was transitional. You were wrong then and are wrong now. It is only too bad we have no living specimens of these other transitional claims to DNA test.

 

[stevevw]

That looks like it comes from about.com.

About the size of a dog =/= "dog-like". Dog-like would mean having the characteristics of a dog and Pakicetus did not. It had the characteristics of an artiodactyl, but with some cetacean characteristics like the shape of it's head and it's ear bones.
The First Whale: Pakicetus

Yes it was,
About Pakicetus:

If you happened to stumble across the small, dog-sized Pakicetus 50 million years ago, you'd never have guessed that its descendants would one day include giant sperm whales and gray whales. As far as paleontologists can tell, this was the earliest of all the prehistoric whales, a tiny, terrestrial, four-footed mammal that ventured only occasionally into the water to nab fish (we know that Pakicetus was largely landbound because its ears weren't well adapted to hearing underwater). Over the next 10 or 20 million years, the limbs of Pakicetus' great-great-great, etc. grandchildren gradually evolved into flippers, and the whale lineage was launched in an irreversibly aquatic direction. (By the way, Pakicetus wasn't the only walking whale of its day; its close relatives on the Indian subcontinent included Ambulocetus and Indohyus.)

Pakicetus – About.com Prehistoric Mammals

Evolutionist have used the bone structure and anatomy of animals to link them through similar features. They are relying on visual observations though the fossil records of a creature and comparing that to other extinct and living species to connect them. But sometimes even though they have similar features the DNA evidence doesn't link them.

"What Thewissen is saying is that Indohyus is the closest relative of whales - and we agree. Where we think he is wrong, is that he is saying that that hippos are more closely related to true pigs than they are to whales," says Theodor. "This contradicts most of the data from DNA from the last 12 or 13 years. Those data place hippos as the closest living relative to whales."
She says Thewissen did not use DNA evidence, instead used fossil evidence alone to create a family tree and reach the conclusion that hippos have more in common with pigs than whales.
"And the reason their tree is so different is simple: by excluding all the DNA information they left out all the data that shows a strong relationship between whales and hippos."


Before the widespread use of DNA data, hippos had been thought to be closely related to pigs, but DNA data show that whales are closely related to hippos. Geisler and Theodor argue that leaving out the DNA data not only ignores important information, it implies that the evolution of swimming evolved independently in hippos and whales, when it may have evolved only once in a common ancestor.
Is The Hippopotamus The Closest Living Relative To The Whale?

Even though Pakicetus has some similar features to the whale it doesn't mean they are definitely connected by the DNA. Unfortunately we cant check that but as the link shows some scientists have got it wrong. They have based the connection oh the look, shape and similar features which showed they should be linked and the DNA showed otherwise.

The other thing is they dont show many transitions from Pakicetus to the whale. Pakicetus lived about 50 million years ago and is about as big as a wolf. You have a few species after that at around 10 to 15 feet. Then came the LIanocetus which was about 30 feet. It was the first that was fully whale with baleen and no rear legs. It was around about 34 million years ago. Considering a modern blue whale are about 98 feet long and weight 170 tonnes there seems to be some big gaps.

There would have to be a lot of transitions as just the size along. As a mother could not give birth to an offspring that would be to big it would have to have taken many transitions maybe 100 or more. I also find it hard to see how complex sonar ability could evolve by a mutation. How does a creature know it needs sonar and how does a chance mutation even know how to develop that.

How do we know that the Pakicetus just happened to have some similar features to the whale and was its own species that died out and the whale evolved in the sea. The Pakicetus also had similar features to goats and deer such as its hoofs and a inflated auditory bullae or shape of its ear bones as well. So maybe it was a land animal.

As i said before even though it had some similar features DNA testing has shown that this alone is not necessarily proof that they are linked.

 

[[serious]]

But of course you have nothing to say about the evidence, because we both know it is true. All fossils are the same from the first appearance of a species, until its extinction. Those that survived the extinction event are the same as their fossils.

Coelacanth used to be your prime evolutionary fossil between fish and tetrapods, until one was found to still exist exactly as it has always been.

Coelacanth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"A group led by Chris Amemiya and Neil Shubin published the genome sequence of the coelacanth in the journal Nature. The African coelacanth genome was sequenced and assembled using DNA from a Comoros Islands Latimeria chalumnae specimen. It was sequenced by Illumina sequencing technology and assembled using the short read genome assembler ALLPATHS-LG.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth#cite_note-genome-21

The vertebrate land transition is one of the most important steps in our evolutionary history. We conclude that the closest living fish to the tetrapod ancestor is the lungfish, not the coelacanth."

But of course we were assured for years that it was a transitory species between fish and tetrapods by evolutionists. Why? Because that is what they wanted it to be. Then we found one and DNA evidence disproved that theory. So basically evolutionists fabricated an entire evolutionary line simply on their desire to attempt to prove this important transitional step completely missing from the fossil record.

Darwin found this same missing steps, but convinced everyone to look the other way, that they would be found in the future. Over 100 years later and here we are, still missing these transitional steps.

But you will continue to look the other way and assure us that what you claim are transitional are transitional, just like you assured us the Coelacanth was transitional. You were wrong then and are wrong now. It is only too bad we have no living specimens of these other transitional claims to DNA test.

Do you think transitionals have to be extinct to be transitional?

 

[createdtoworship]

Yes it was,
About Pakicetus:

If you happened to stumble across the small, dog-sized Pakicetus 50 million years ago, you'd never have guessed that its descendants would one day include giant sperm whales and gray whales. As far as paleontologists can tell, this was the earliest of all the prehistoric whales, a tiny, terrestrial, four-footed mammal that ventured only occasionally into the water to nab fish (we know that Pakicetus was largely landbound because its ears weren't well adapted to hearing underwater). Over the next 10 or 20 million years, the limbs of Pakicetus' great-great-great, etc. grandchildren gradually evolved into flippers, and the whale lineage was launched in an irreversibly aquatic direction. (By the way, Pakicetus wasn't the only walking whale of its day; its close relatives on the Indian subcontinent included Ambulocetus and Indohyus.)

Pakicetus – About.com Prehistoric Mammals

Evolutionist have used the bone structure and anatomy of animals to link them through similar features. They are relying on visual observations though the fossil records of a creature and comparing that to other extinct and living species to connect them. But sometimes even though they have similar features the DNA evidence doesn't link them.

"What Thewissen is saying is that Indohyus is the closest relative of whales - and we agree. Where we think he is wrong, is that he is saying that that hippos are more closely related to true pigs than they are to whales," says Theodor. "This contradicts most of the data from DNA from the last 12 or 13 years. Those data place hippos as the closest living relative to whales."
She says Thewissen did not use DNA evidence, instead used fossil evidence alone to create a family tree and reach the conclusion that hippos have more in common with pigs than whales.
"And the reason their tree is so different is simple: by excluding all the DNA information they left out all the data that shows a strong relationship between whales and hippos."


Before the widespread use of DNA data, hippos had been thought to be closely related to pigs, but DNA data show that whales are closely related to hippos. Geisler and Theodor argue that leaving out the DNA data not only ignores important information, it implies that the evolution of swimming evolved independently in hippos and whales, when it may have evolved only once in a common ancestor.
Is The Hippopotamus The Closest Living Relative To The Whale?

Even though Pakicetus has some similar features to the whale it doesn't mean they are definitely connected by the DNA. Unfortunately we cant check that but as the link shows some scientists have got it wrong. They have based the connection oh the look, shape and similar features which showed they should be linked and the DNA showed otherwise.

The other thing is they dont show many transitions from Pakicetus to the whale. Pakicetus lived about 50 million years ago and is about as big as a wolf. You have a few species after that at around 10 to 15 feet. Then came the LIanocetus which was about 30 feet. It was the first that was fully whale with baleen and no rear legs. It was around about 34 million years ago. Considering a modern blue whale are about 98 feet long and weight 170 tonnes there seems to be some big gaps.

There would have to be a lot of transitions as just the size along. As a mother could not give birth to an offspring that would be to big it would have to have taken many transitions maybe 100 or more. I also find it hard to see how complex sonar ability could evolve by a mutation. How does a creature know it needs sonar and how does a chance mutation even know how to develop that.

How do we know that the Pakicetus just happened to have some similar features to the whale and was its own species that died out and the whale evolved in the sea. The Pakicetus also had similar features to goats and deer such as its hoofs and a inflated auditory bullae or shape of its ear bones as well. So maybe it was a land animal.

As i said before even though it had some similar features DNA testing has shown that this alone is not necessarily proof that they are linked.

it was a meat eater not plankton lol

 

[createdtoworship]

DNA is not code as you think it is. But the problem of abiogenesis is a tough one. There are signs that researchers could be getting quite close to an answer. And you just shifted the argument away from evolution to abiogenesis. A related but different topic.

I assume that you are therefore conceding the debate on evolution. That is the only logical reason for such a shift.

chemical evolution, (abiogenesis)

biological evolution


are both evolution.

 

[createdtoworship]

I heard a whale of a story:

a dog evolved into a whale.

That isn't far from the truth.

right guys?

I mean after all it was the size of a dog and "dog like" according to some.

 

[createdtoworship]

That looks like it comes from about.com.

About the size of a dog =/= "dog-like". Dog-like would mean having the characteristics of a dog and Pakicetus did not. It had the characteristics of an artiodactyl, but with some cetacean characteristics like the shape of it's head and it's ear bones.
The First Whale: Pakicetus

sounds like dog like to me. Not a dog, but dog like.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Yes it was,
About Pakicetus:

If you happened to stumble across the small, dog-sized Pakicetus 50 million years ago, you'd never have guessed that its descendants would one day include giant sperm whales and gray whales. As far as paleontologists can tell, this was the earliest of all the prehistoric whales, a tiny, terrestrial, four-footed mammal that ventured only occasionally into the water to nab fish (we know that Pakicetus was largely landbound because its ears weren't well adapted to hearing underwater). Over the next 10 or 20 million years, the limbs of Pakicetus' great-great-great, etc. grandchildren gradually evolved into flippers, and the whale lineage was launched in an irreversibly aquatic direction. (By the way, Pakicetus wasn't the only walking whale of its day; its close relatives on the Indian subcontinent included Ambulocetus and Indohyus.)

Pakicetus – About.com Prehistoric Mammals

Evolutionist have used the bone structure and anatomy of animals to link them through similar features. They are relying on visual observations though the fossil records of a creature and comparing that to other extinct and living species to connect them. But sometimes even though they have similar features the DNA evidence doesn't link them.

"What Thewissen is saying is that Indohyus is the closest relative of whales - and we agree. Where we think he is wrong, is that he is saying that that hippos are more closely related to true pigs than they are to whales," says Theodor. "This contradicts most of the data from DNA from the last 12 or 13 years. Those data place hippos as the closest living relative to whales."
She says Thewissen did not use DNA evidence, instead used fossil evidence alone to create a family tree and reach the conclusion that hippos have more in common with pigs than whales.
"And the reason their tree is so different is simple: by excluding all the DNA information they left out all the data that shows a strong relationship between whales and hippos."


Before the widespread use of DNA data, hippos had been thought to be closely related to pigs, but DNA data show that whales are closely related to hippos. Geisler and Theodor argue that leaving out the DNA data not only ignores important information, it implies that the evolution of swimming evolved independently in hippos and whales, when it may have evolved only once in a common ancestor.
Is The Hippopotamus The Closest Living Relative To The Whale?

Even though Pakicetus has some similar features to the whale it doesn't mean they are definitely connected by the DNA. Unfortunately we cant check that but as the link shows some scientists have got it wrong. They have based the connection oh the look, shape and similar features which showed they should be linked and the DNA showed otherwise.

The other thing is they dont show many transitions from Pakicetus to the whale. Pakicetus lived about 50 million years ago and is about as big as a wolf. You have a few species after that at around 10 to 15 feet. Then came the LIanocetus which was about 30 feet. It was the first that was fully whale with baleen and no rear legs. It was around about 34 million years ago. Considering a modern blue whale are about 98 feet long and weight 170 tonnes there seems to be some big gaps.

There would have to be a lot of transitions as just the size along. As a mother could not give birth to an offspring that would be to big it would have to have taken many transitions maybe 100 or more. I also find it hard to see how complex sonar ability could evolve by a mutation. How does a creature know it needs sonar and how does a chance mutation even know how to develop that.

How do we know that the Pakicetus just happened to have some similar features to the whale and was its own species that died out and the whale evolved in the sea. The Pakicetus also had similar features to goats and deer such as its hoofs and a inflated auditory bullae or shape of its ear bones as well. So maybe it was a land animal.

As i said before even though it had some similar features DNA testing has shown that this alone is not necessarily proof that they are linked.

Yes, they based the Coelacanth on mere similarities as well, as the link between fish and tetrapods, until actual living specimens were found and the DNA was sequenced. Evolutionists have a habbit of using fragments to make up entire evolutionary trees on.

Yet time after time they have been shown that error, yet they continue to do the same thing again and again, base a theory off of mere fragments.

You might as well get used to it, they are not going to change. Its far easier to claim something as fact when you have such tiny information to go upon, so the theory can not be disproved as there is no evidence.

 

[Shemjaza]

it was a meat eater not plankton lol

Yeah! Whales only eat plankton!

Ummm...

chemical evolution, (abiogenesis)

biological evolution


are both evolution.

A silly distinction to try and tar the loose set of undemonstrated hypothesis of abiogenesis to the well established theory of evolution.

I'm shocked you didn't try to attach both Hitler and the big bang.

sounds like dog like to me. Not a dog, but dog like.

Furry, has four legs and ate meat would include cats, baboons and badgers... if you are comfortable lumping them into some new creationist "dog kind", please feel free to tell us.

 

[[serious]]

sounds like dog like to me. Not a dog, but dog like.

Um, ok. YOu must know some weird dogs if that looks dog like to you, but to each their own I guess...

a dog evolved into a whale.

No, it didn't we've been over this.

That isn't far from the truth.

It's very far from the truth. Pay attention please.

right guys?

No.

I mean after all it was the size of a dog

yes, about the size of a dog.

and "dog like" according to some.

"some" being you.

But aside from your strange insistence that anything the approximate size of a dog is dog-like, lets' take a look:

There's your "dog-like" animal. I don't see it being very dog like, but whatever.

Ambulocetus, clearly adapted for both land and water. Stubbier limbs and no external ear.

Kutchicetus, further reduction in limbs, tail of more prominent use. May have been primarily water dwelling, but still capable of land locomotion.

Protocetus, further reductions in limbs, hind limbs still externally present, but likely had little to no function. Nostrils have started to transition rearward to where the blowhole will eventually be in modern cetaceans. Obligate water dweller.

 

[46AND2]

Yeah! Whales only eat plankton!

Ummm...



A silly distinction to try and tar the loose set of undemonstrated hypothesis of abiogenesis to the well established theory of evolution.

I'm shocked you didn't try to attach both Hitler and the big bang.



Furry, has four legs and ate meat would include cats, baboons and badgers... if you are comfortable lumping them into some new creationist "dog kind", please feel free to tell us.

Pardon the semantics, but killer whales are actually dolphins. Though dolphins are in the toothed whale sub-order.