Killer Whales Are Evolving Into Two Different Species

[SkyWriting]

What "Engineered limits"?

There are limits and tolerances for those processes that won't gradually transition from one type of process into a new type of process with a different outcome.

All biological and chemical processes.

 

[laconicstudent]

There are limits and tolerances for those processes that won't gradually transition from one type of process into a new type of process with a different outcome.

All biological and chemical processes.

So you've said. Now what exactly are these "limits and tolerances" and what is your proof that they restrict evolution?

 

[SkyWriting]

So you've said. Now what exactly are these "limits and tolerances" and what is your proof that they restrict evolution?

All engineering and chemical processes have limits and tolerances.
This has no restriction or influence in any way on your imagination.

 

[laconicstudent]

All engineering and chemical processes have limits and tolerances.
This has no restriction or influence in any way on your imagination.

Ok.... Now cite a source that supports your claim that something like Australiopithecus couldn't evolve into humanity.

 

[Naraoia]

Welcome on board!

Each kind of animal has enough information programed into it to evolve (change) into an altered version that will survive in a deteriorating world. It may even cross the holy "SPECIES" bar that man has invented.

You can't burn off the end of a lever, have it evolve into a cam, and then into a wheel. There are functional limits to DNA evolution with the same constraints .....it won't work half-ashed.

Can I just say that I don't understand what you wrote? In what sense does evolution "burn off the end" of DNA?

We call that inherent variation in a population.
And it's all there at the start, and it degrades over time.

Bearing in mind that there are a number of biologists/biology students (myself included) frequenting this board, can you provide any evidence for that claim?

Can you explain how gene duplication is "degradation"?

Your "the tiny bits add up" has NO parallel in the known world. Nothing follows the model you propose. Not atomic structure, not chemical processes, not the orbit of the stars, nothing in engineering, ....nothing in the real world follows the model you propose as the foundation of all life.

Wait. Are you arguing that because nothing else works like living things, living things can't work like that either?

Not the strongest argument I've seen...

So it's a foundational model without a foundation to back it up.

Except evolution, including evolutionary novelty, is an observed reality. For a really cool example, feel free to familiarise with the long-term evolution experiment still ongoing in the Lenski lab. These guys have been watching their bacteria evolve for over 20 years. That means they have been observing many descendant lineages from a common ancestor for about 50 000 generations now. In that time, they have observed adaptation, novelty and a whole bunch of other interesting things.

Actually it was based on a false model of geological gradualism popular at the time. If it weren't for non-gradual factors in geology, we'd only have firewood to heat our homes at night.

Aside from the minor problem that you have provided no specifics, why would that mean that gradual events are not important? I'm not following your reasoning.

 

[Shemjaza]

All engineering and chemical processes have limits and tolerances.
This has no restriction or influence in any way on your imagination.

Sure, but in the case of the evolution whales we seem to have a whole lot of little steps in evidence from cow type thing to sorta hippo to pudgy mamalian sea crocodile to the diverse set of sea bound leviathans we see today.

You can say there's a limit to evolution, but you need to demonstrate that something about evolutionary theory somehow breaks it, not just assert that it has.

 

[SkyWriting]

Ok.... Now cite a source that supports your claim that something like Australiopithecus couldn't evolve into humanity.

I can't fight your imagination. I can simply say that you
don't have any tools to accomplish the creation of life.

Nor any scientific laws or principals to even suggest it.
Nor any engineering methods to accomplish the task.
Nor any models in the Cosmos to parallel it.

Gradualism is a dead science.

 

[laconicstudent]

I can't fight your imagination. I can simply say that you
don't have any tools to accomplish the creation of life.


Nor any scientific laws or principals to even suggest it.
Nor any engineering methods to accomplish the task.
Nor any models in the Cosmos to parallel it.

Gradualism is a dead science.

Citation please.

 

[Freysinn]

I can't fight your imagination. I can simply say that you
don't have any tools to accomplish the creation of life.

Nor any scientific laws or principals to even suggest it.
Nor any engineering methods to accomplish the task.
Nor any models in the Cosmos to parallel it.

Gradualism is a dead science.

Take note, this poster is opperating over the assumption that if we are wrong, he must be right.

 

[SkyWriting]

Sure, but in the case of the evolution whales we seem to have a whole lot of little steps in evidence from cow type thing to sorta hippo to pudgy mamalian sea crocodile to the diverse set of sea bound leviathans we see today.

You can say there's a limit to evolution, but you need to demonstrate that something about evolutionary theory somehow breaks it, not just assert that it has.

What we SEEM to have is a lack of information. The "tree" of life started out as a tree with a trunk & branches. It is currently much closer to it final form, a stand of reeds in a swamp with no branching top to bottom.

I fully support all scientific research, because while all the foam rises to the top and the girls squeal about whale legs, the lab coats very quietly, bit by bit cut off each branch and plant it back into the soil back where it belongs. In the end, no branching will be left.

Your cow, hippo things either were there and died out, or they lived right alongside of the thing they were supposed to have evolved from or into. It eventually happens in EVERY case and the lab coats have to keep finding new branches to keep the team spirit alive. But eventually they quietly plant the branch back in the dirt.
This search will show the old tree - "Cuvier, Huxley, Wallace, Morgan,"
and this search the newer one - " the above diagram showing the Evolution of Life."

Even as supporters cheer each other on, they undercut the theory by pulling down the branches. You should note that the only branches left are the larger fossils that are exponentially more rare. Another reason to focus all attention on a whale. Hey everyone...look over here at this whale

 

[laconicstudent]

What we SEEM to have is a lack of information. The "tree" of life started out as a tree with a trunk & branches. It is currently much closer to it final form, a stand of reeds in a swamp with no branching top to bottom.

Citation please.

I fully support all scientific research, because while all the foam rises to the top and the girls squeal about whale legs,

You mean atavisms? What are you talking about "girls squeal"?

the lab coats very quietly, bit by bit cut off each branch and plant it back into the soil back where it belongs. In the end, no branching will be left.

Of course you have no proof of this.

Your cow, hippo things either were there and died out, or they lived right alongside of the thing they were supposed to have evolved from or into.

The physical evidence indicates otherwise.

It eventually happens in EVERY case and the lab coats have to keep finding new branches to keep the team spirit alive. But eventually they quietly plant the branch back in the dirt.

Citation please.

This search will show the old tree - "Cuvier, Huxley, Wallace, Morgan,"
and this search the newer one - " the above diagram showing the Evolution of Life."

No. Find it for us, and post it here.

Even as supporters cheer each other on, they undercut the theory by pulling down the branches.

No, they don't.

You should note that the only branches left are the larger fossils that are exponentially more rare.

This is not the case.

Another reason to focus all attention on a whale.

Um, because atavisms are a brilliant example of Evolution.

Hey everyone...look over here at this whale

Yeah, science is amazing isn't it?

 

[SkyWriting]

Take note, this poster is operating over the assumption that if we are wrong, he must be right.

Take note:
"This poster" is in the "Creation & Evolution" section of the forum.
I watched Chariots of the Gods when I was a kid. Some of those cave drawings really do look like space ships. But I didn't think we were on that topic. Getting back to whales:

Whales may have had arms and legs.
Maybe some do now.
Maybe they always have and since whale skeletons are as rare as Popes in a brothel, we just haven't found them and maybe never will. Who knows.

 

[SkyWriting]

Of course you have no proof of this.
The physical evidence indicates otherwise.
Citation please.

This search will show the old tree > "Cuvier, Huxley, Wallace, Morgan,"
and this search the newer one > " the above diagram showing the Evolution of Life."

Use your eyes and SEE for yourself what science has done to Darwins precious tree of life.
(With all the braches ripped off and stuck back in the dirt.
Not just one, but a HANDFULL of evolution trees with most
of the branching ripped off and stuck back in the dirt.)

 

[laconicstudent]

This search will show the old tree > "Cuvier, Huxley, Wallace, Morgan,"
and this search the newer one > " the above diagram showing the Evolution of Life."

(With all the braches ripped off and stuck back in the dirt.
Not just one, but a HANDFULL of evolution trees with most
of the branching ripped off and stuck back in the dirt.)

No, I don't want a diagram, I want you to prove that Evolution doesn't happen do to magical limitations of DNA, remember?

 

[SkyWriting]

No, I don't want a diagram, I want you to prove that Evolution doesn't happen do to magical limitations of DNA, remember?

Science is proving my point for me. Each time a branch comes down
it is PROVING that a type of organism is UNABLE to mutate into another
kind, or species, or family. What ever name you'd like to use.

A Branch is a mutation or evolution direction that succeeded in creating something new. The slow steady removal of branches is proof positive in actual results that barriers exist. Not theory....actual fossil documentation.

In all honesty.......the barriers could be environmental or maybe artificial. Maybe the species is watched over by space aliens and mutants are killed with ray guns from space. All I know is that the branches are coming down over time. This fits my predictions to a T.

 

[laconicstudent]

Science is proving my point for me. Each time a branch comes down
it is PROVING that a type of organism is UNABLE to mutate into another
kind, or species, or family. What ever name you'd like to use.

This isn't the case.

A Branch is a mutation or evolution direction that succeeded in creating something new. The slow steady removal of branches is proof positive in actual results that barriers exist. Not theory....actual fossil documentation.

Except that this is not the case.

In all honesty.......the barriers could be environmental or maybe artificial. Maybe the species is watched over by space aliens and mutants are killed with ray guns from space. All I know is that the branches are coming down over time. This fits my predictions to a T.

Oh, so your conceding?

 

[BananaSlug]

Science is proving my point for me. Each time a branch comes down
it is PROVING that a type of organism is UNABLE to mutate into another
kind, or species, or family. What ever name you'd like to use.

Really? Really? Could you provide a reference for such a thing? I'm sure there is a research article some where that could back your statements up, if they are really true.

A

Branch is a mutation or evolution direction that succeeded in creating something new. The slow steady removal of branches is proof positive in actual results that barriers exist.

Example?

Not theory....actual fossil documentation.

Like Thrinaxodon? Or Archaeopteryx? Acanthostega? Do you even know the significance of just those three fossil species?

In all honesty.......the barriers could be environmental or maybe artificial.

Again, could you provide evidence for these "barriers"?

Maybe the species is watched over by space aliens and mutants are killed with ray guns from space. All I know is that the branches are coming down over time. This fits my predictions to a T.

Poe?

 

[Obzocky]

I've always wondered why people seem to believe the Lord is so weak He could not be the creator of evolution, that it is beyond His power to create life forms that seemingly come from nothing, to progress, to shift, to change, would this not point towards a far more talented God than one who simply went "let there be life" and unleashed a plethora of species which we have since failed to look after?

(and by people I mean Christians, since it doesn't apply to those who don't believe)

How can you dismiss something with so much solid, touchable evidence and then take the word of a book written by mortal men, translated over and over again since the time it was written, modified, added to by several different men ... it may well of started as the word of God, He may of spoken to individuals who wrote down everything, but people change things, it is in the very nature of humanity to twist everything to suit them. Is it easier to think of the Lord as being so churlish as to whip up species and place them here without the ability to change, look at humans, did we not change our ways, discover new technology?

I do not even understand the problem with cetaceans. Splitting off to be reclassified as a new species by humans, yet still within the same general taxonomic area is not exactly cause for arguments revolving around "fake" fossils and such nonsense.

Can someone point out to me the exact verse where it says no new species shall come into existence, nothing vague like they were created, but something that says creation of new species is not plausible? Have I missed it?

 

[firechild_82]

Use your eyes and SEE for yourself what science has done to Darwins precious tree of life.
(With all the braches ripped off and stuck back in the dirt.
Not just one, but a HANDFULL of evolution trees with most
of the branching ripped off and stuck back in the dirt.)

The funny thing is that creationists who do not understand biology or most if not all other fields of science, see change to hypotheses as failure on the part of science. The beauty of science is we can have a hypothesis, test it then change our hypothesis based on the results and then test again. Each time we come closer to the correct hypothesis. With regards to evolution, the hypothesis does not change, we are still left with natural selection driving modifications to species or "descent with modification". We are still trying to work out some of the finer points but the major components we are quite sure of. It was once believed that all bats were related but it has more recently been demonstrated that micro bats evolved from rodent or rodent-like ancestors while macro bats and primates evolved from common ancestors. This does not destroy everything we know about evolution, it is simply an adjustment of the pieces of the puzzle, taking us closer to the correct picture.

 

[bibleblevr]

WOW! it took a huge number of pages in this forum until christian posters began to make intelligent comments other than things like " tell me when the whale gives birth to a antelope" or " well, only their teeth are changing what does that prove, they are still whales and will always be whales its micro not macro evolution"

Ignorance or feigned ignorance like this makes Christians look silly and neive, so lets not discredit ourselves it only serves to make non-Christians mad and it gives them a distaste for our faith. It is important for us Christians to understand evolution and not just the stawman variety that is so often constructed, it offers many valid contributions to science. I personally don't accept the evolutionary view of the origin of species or the scientific theories about the origin of life. however the people who hold these views and create these ideas are not stupid and their theories should not be attacked in such a ignorant way. on the flip side, I'd like to thank the Christians who are much more knowledgeable than I, who can ablely defend our stance so on these threads.