Whale evolution without fossils.

Justatruthseeker said:

Until you realize the true significance of "pair" and the genetic structure (part of a rib and the two becoming one) there isn't much use discussing it. Until you accept that breed mates with breed and produces a new breed - understanding the fossil record will always be beyond your grasp.

Click to expand...

This is in a sense what we are saying. In this case the breed can be a new species. Eventually a new genus, family, class, etc. You are the one denying it.

Justatruthseeker said:

Until you accept that it was a priest explaining creation in his interpretation in harmony with science - in a way that let each make up his own mind about that thing "hidden in the beginning," where the math breaks down and can no longer traverse, you won't understand.

Click to expand...

We have no problem with any of this.. until you guys claim to know what constitutes an accepted scientific theory and what does not.

Justatruthseeker said:

And this is it's supposed evolutionary tree.

So we again see flippers develop before limbs. But when it comes to whales - suddenly it's the exact opposite. And now you seem to want to use an animal that developed legs from flippers to prove flippers developed from legs?????

I fail to comprehend that reasoning as being scientifically sound.

Click to expand...

Not flippers, but Fins! Fish do not have "flippers!"

In any case, what is your problem with this phylogeny? That some animals evolved to live on land and some of their ancestors went back into the water later? Why is this a problem??

Justatruthseeker said:

I can't describe fantasy to you - one description would be as good as another.

Click to expand...

So you agree that those are transitional fossils.

None exist -

Click to expand...

Based on what criteria?

just as none exist between the Husky or Mastiff and the Chinook.

Click to expand...

Where did the Husky come from? Wouldn't there be intermediates between wolves and huskies?

Loudmouth said:

So you agree that those are transitional fossils.

Click to expand...

Apparently you didn't read. But what's new. I'll repeat the relevant portion.

None exist.

Based on what criteria?

Click to expand...

The fact that none exist between any of the breeds we see in nature - not a single solitary one. Those Finches that interbreed, the new breed is not a gradual thing - but occurs in a series of mating, all remaining almost the same. You have never observed evolution through mutation in the entire history of natural observations amongst breeding animals.

So on what criteria do you claim otherwise?

Where did the Husky come from? Wouldn't there be intermediates between wolves and huskies?

Click to expand...

There are different breeds yes - which you mistake in the fossil record as being the evolution of one species into another through the process of mutation. But we understand the history of dogs - and so your claims of species becoming species lies falsified. When we know from 200+ years in plant and animal husbandry that it is the mixture of two strands of DNA and the recessive and dominant traits rearranged from what already existed. Mutation puts legs on the back of cows and deforms children so they can't walk at birth. This is all those mutations that make it past the repair mechanism does.

All the different Kinds alive today point back to an original pair. Where the line begins abruptly in each and every case. And then you want us to play the imagine the transitional fossil game.

I sure can't wait until we find a better fossil with the nose tip and the tail end so we can finally get this game over.

This, this is the entirety of your claim.


If you say it's a transitional you must be right - being as how you are basing that claim of such an abundance of evidence. Right about par with naming Finches separate species before even studying them and then finding they all interbreed. Kinda like naming baby or adult dinosaurs as separate species as well. Sorry, evolutionists lost all their credibility a long time ago when they stopped correcting their mistakes and insist on arguing for the mistakes anyways.

Justatruthseeker said:

Apparently you didn't read. But what's new. I'll repeat the relevant portion.

None exist.

Click to expand...

What criteria did you use to make that determination?

Click to expand...

At one time there were no huskies, but there were just wolves. Later, there were wolves and huskies. How do you explain this?

Didn't the huskies come from wolves? Wouldn't there be generations between those ancestral wolves and modern huskies, and wouldn't those generations in between be transitional?

There are different breeds yes - which you mistake in the fossil record as being the evolution of one species into another through the process of mutation. But we understand the history of dogs - and so your claims of species becoming species lies falsified.

Click to expand...

You will notice that the fossils I am point to are not dog fossils.

When we know from 200+ years in plant and animal husbandry that it is the mixture of two strands of DNA and the recessive and dominant traits rearranged from what already existed.

Click to expand...

So what mixture of human traits will produce a chimp, or a bear?

I sure can't wait until we find a better fossil with the nose tip and the tail end so we can finally get this game over.

This, this is the entirety of your claim.

If you say it's a transitional you must be right - being as how you are basing that claim of such an abundance of evidence. Right about par with naming Finches separate species before even studying them and then finding they all interbreed. Kinda like naming baby or adult dinosaurs as separate species as well. Sorry, evolutionists lost all their credibility a long time ago when they stopped correcting their mistakes and insist on arguing for the mistakes anyways.

Click to expand...

What features is this fossil missing that a real transitional would have? Repeating stuff about dogs proves nothing.

Justatruthseeker said:

Click to expand...

This graph alone completely destroys your argument. Notice anything about it? How one breed is branching off into multiple others? In your model, this really shouldn't happen. But the fact is that even within dog breeding, your incredibly selective model of "Breed A + Breed B -> New Breed" does not apply, because a single breed can clearly split up into various different breeds without crossbreeding from another separate shared breeding stock. Or, to put it another way: Wolf+Wolf->Husky, Retriever.

...Huh.

See, this is the problem. Your model predicts a branching tree of life converging towards the bottom, with ever less genetic material to share around. This is absolutely not what we observe, however. We observe a tree of life diverging as we go further down it, with ever more variety as breeds and species separate. Even within your incredibly unrepresentative example, we see this.

The Cadet said:

This graph alone completely destroys your argument. Notice anything about it? How one breed is branching off into multiple others? In your model, this really shouldn't happen. But the fact is that even within dog breeding, your incredibly selective model of "Breed A + Breed B -> New Breed" does not apply, because a single breed can clearly split up into various different breeds without crossbreeding from another separate shared breeding stock. Or, to put it another way: Wolf+Wolf->Husky, Retriever.

...Huh.

See, this is the problem. Your model predicts a branching tree of life converging towards the bottom, with ever less genetic material to share around. This is absolutely not what we observe, however. We observe a tree of life diverging as we go further down it, with ever more variety as breeds and species separate. Even within your incredibly unrepresentative example, we see this.

Click to expand...

Well lets see. In real life instead of Fairie Dust land we know two different breeds mate and produce another. They are branching where two different breeds mate. You know, just like when a Husky mated with a Mastiff and produced a Chinook. Not some imaginary intermediate in your delusional evolutionary religion.

Because the original pair had all the genes available to that Kind. This is why your evolutionary model fails in finding the addition of genes that never existed and magically come into existence. The DNA is degrading with time - not evolving. This is why as breeds interbreed more and more genetic problems occur.

Stop ignoring real life, You and I both know exactly how those different dogs branched off. One breed was mated with another. At no time did one evolve into another through mutation. No, my model predicts a tree converging near the bottom with more genetic material the further into the past you go. Genes can be lost - but never have they been observed to be gained, even if you try to claim that in wonderland. The first pair had all the genetic material contained in the species. The wolf DNA MUST have had all the genetic material to form every dog in existence - else breed mating with breed would never produce a new breed.

Why is all you people have strawmen???? Can't any of you at least come up with a valid argument for your theory?

We see genes loose material through mutation - never gain any. A mutation can only take what already exists and re-write into a different combination, it has never and can never produce something that does not exist in either parent. At least accept reality when it comes to breeding and genes.

Justatruthseeker said:

We see genes loose material through mutation - never gain any. A mutation can only take what already exists and re-write into a different combination, it has never and can never produce something that does not exist in either parent. At least accept reality when it comes to breeding and genes.

Click to expand...

Have you never been told that you personally have about 60 mutations not found in either of your parents?

lifepsyop said:

Wouldn't you just assume they had "evolved" to swim side-to-side/vertical fluke, if that was the traits whales exhibited?

Click to expand...

That would irreconcilable with the side-to-side movement of fish and lizards.

It would be similar to a single mammal species growing feathers instead of fur.
It would be a violation of the nested hierarchy.

Justatruthseeker said:

And just as easily have a horizontal one as opposed to a vertical one. And if they evolved from land mammals then they de-evolved - since all life supposedly started in the ocean.

Click to expand...

Why do you keep repeating such nonsense?
I'm 110% sure plenty of people here have already informed you that evolution is not a ladder, that there is no such thing as a direction upward making some "more evolved" then others.

Yet, here you are... talking about "de-evolution" because life evolved from sea to land and then back to sea.

You make no sense and if I didn't know any better, I would have to call you a liar and dishonest person.

But, I think you genuinly simply don't remember all this criticism or simply assume (for some reason) everybody is wrong and only you are correct.

In any case, just to repeat: evolution is not a ladder. There's no such thing as "more evolved" or "less evolved" or "de-evolved". There is only change over time.

Except flippers evolved long before limbs did - since sea life with flippers existed long before land animals.

Click to expand...

Those flippers do not contain all the bones we find in mammal limbs.
If whales evolved from land animals, we would expect at the very least remnants - even if only during embryonic stage. And we do. In the embryo's as well as in adult whales.

So you want flippers to now evolve from limbs, instead of limbs evolving from flippers? I think you have that slightly backwards according to your own theory that life first arose in the seas, then slowly evolved limbs and climbed onto the land.

Click to expand...

Maybe you should compare the skeleton of a shark, a whale, a cow and a primate. Especially the bones in the limbs/flippers.

And here, again, we have you misrepresenting evolution once more....
Whales are land creatures that returned to the sea and adapted accordingly. Nothing in evolution says that this couldn't happen. So I wonder what you are talking about...

So the fact that whales have flippers is a point against any belief they came from anywhere other than the ocean.

Click to expand...

Again: look at the bones in the "flippers". Compare them with what's inside a regular fish's "flippers". Then come back and try to pretend that "whale flippers" are more alike to "fish flippers" then they are the mammal limbs.

Under evolutionary theory limbs developed from flippers - not flippers from limbs. At least get the sequence correct if you are going to propose something.

Click to expand...

Please learn what the theory actually says and stop trying to draw your own conclusions... GIGO - ever heared from it? "Garbage In, Garbage Out".
When you start with a misconception of what evolution is, you're not going to draw correct conclusions.

Justatruthseeker said:

A mutation can only take what already exists and re-write into a different combination,

Click to expand...

And that is all that it needs to do.

I like a simplistic software analogy here.
A bit can do 2 things: 1 and 0. Analogous to that, DNA can do 4 things: C, A, T and G.

The only difference between Grand Theft Auto 5 and Microsoft Word is the order of the 1's and 0's.

In DNA it is off course a bit more complex then that.
But the basic idea is the same.

There's nothing in your DNA that isn't found in other DNA of other species. It's the same molecule - just ordered differently.

Justatruthseeker said:

Well lets see. In real life instead of Fairie Dust land we know two different breeds mate and produce another. They are branching where two different breeds mate. You know, just like when a Husky mated with a Mastiff and produced a Chinook. Not some imaginary intermediate in your delusional evolutionary religion.

Because the original pair had all the genes available to that Kind. This is why your evolutionary model fails in finding the addition of genes that never existed and magically come into existence. The DNA is degrading with time - not evolving. This is why as breeds interbreed more and more genetic problems occur.

Click to expand...

Can you make any of these arguments without referring to dogs? Seriously, find another species. Just any species that humans did not explicitly breed, and make these same arguments. Come on, if this is the norm in nature, rather than a completely unrepresentative cherry-pick, then it should be trivial of you to find another species or "kind" where this same reasoning applies. You've shown quite clearly how dogs are illustrative, but are they representative?

Additionally, finding new genes that never existed? How about platypus venom? It can clearly be shown that the platypus's venom is a modified duplicate gene of an existing protein found in the platypus and its closest relatives. Weird.

No, my model predicts a tree converging near the bottom with more genetic material the further into the past you go. Genes can be lost - but never have they been observed to be gained, even if you try to claim that in wonderland.

Click to expand...

But we did.


We've directly observed gene duplication. We've directly observed the improvement of an existing function through the creation of a new gene.

We see genes loose material through mutation - never gain any. A mutation can only take what already exists and re-write into a different combination, it has never and can never produce something that does not exist in either parent. At least accept reality when it comes to breeding and genes.

Click to expand...

It's called gene duplication and we've known about it for almost half a century. Professor Susumu Ohno wrote his seminal work on the subject in 1970.

Justatruthseeker said:

Well lets see. In real life instead of Fairie Dust land we know two different breeds mate and produce another. They are branching where two different breeds mate. You know, just like when a Husky mated with a Mastiff and produced a Chinook. Not some imaginary intermediate in your delusional evolutionary religion.

Because the original pair had all the genes available to that Kind. This is why your evolutionary model fails in finding the addition of genes that never existed and magically come into existence. The DNA is degrading with time - not evolving. This is why as breeds interbreed more and more genetic problems occur.

Stop ignoring real life, You and I both know exactly how those different dogs branched off. One breed was mated with another. At no time did one evolve into another through mutation. No, my model predicts a tree converging near the bottom with more genetic material the further into the past you go. Genes can be lost - but never have they been observed to be gained, even if you try to claim that in wonderland. The first pair had all the genetic material contained in the species. The wolf DNA MUST have had all the genetic material to form every dog in existence - else breed mating with breed would never produce a new breed.

Why is all you people have strawmen???? Can't any of you at least come up with a valid argument for your theory?

We see genes loose material through mutation - never gain any. A mutation can only take what already exists and re-write into a different combination, it has never and can never produce something that does not exist in either parent. At least accept reality when it comes to breeding and genes.

Click to expand...

This is nothing but mistaken assertion after mistaken assertion. Show us that any one of these dog breeds has less genetic material than the progenitor wolf has. Go ahead... I'll wait.

Justatruthseeker said:

The DNA is degrading with time - not evolving.

Click to expand...

Show us the physical evidence that DNA "degrades" over time.

Justatruthseeker said:

This is why as breeds interbreed more and more genetic problems occur.

Click to expand...

This is due to inbreeding, not to lose of genetic material as you claim.

Split Rock said:

This is nothing but mistaken assertion after mistaken assertion. Show us that any one of these dog breeds has less genetic material than the progenitor wolf has. Go ahead... I'll wait.

Click to expand...

You should no better by now.

http://askabiologist.asu.edu/plosable/dna-dogs

"Diversity is lost in this process, or in other words, lots of those nucleotide puzzle pieces get eliminated. For centuries people have been creating gene bottlenecks by selectively breeding different dogs for different traits. That explains why so few areas on the genome are responsible for how dogs look."

http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/94/1/81.full

"In this case, it may indicate that outcrossing occurred in the miniature bull terrier or that the bull terrier experienced a genetic bottleneck since the two breeds diverged."

Split Rock said:

Show us the physical evidence that DNA "degrades" over time.


This is due to inbreeding, not to lose of genetic material as you claim.

Click to expand...

See above references - your misconceptions abound.

Justatruthseeker said:

Well lets see. In real life instead of Fairie Dust land we know two different breeds mate and produce another.

Click to expand...

What two different breeds mated together to get the husky?

Split Rock said:

This is nothing but mistaken assertion after mistaken assertion. Show us that any one of these dog breeds has less genetic material than the progenitor wolf has. Go ahead... I'll wait.

Click to expand...

All all you present as usual in defense is more "claims" that everyone else is always wrong - yet you supply not one shred of science.

Justatruthseeker said:

All all you present as usual in defense is more "claims" that everyone else is always wrong - yet you supply not one shred of science.

Click to expand...

How did we go from having just the wolf to having the wolf and the husky? Where did the husky come from?

Loudmouth said:

What two different breeds mated together to get the husky?

Click to expand...

Do some research - answer your own questions, which you should already know before you even start making claims on subjects you apparently know nothing of.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Husky

"Husky type dogs originally were landrace breeds kept by Arctic indigenous peoples.[8] DNA analysis has found that Huskies are one of the oldest types of dog, although one researcher "questioned the assignment of dogs to the ancient breed group, saying that any recent crossbreeding with wolves, as has happened with malamutes and Siberian huskies, could make a breed look primitive." [9]

Examples of these landraces in modern times have been selectively bred and registered with various kennel clubs as modern purebred breeds, including the Siberian Husky from Russia (Siberia) and Greenland Dog from Greenland. The Sakhalin Husky is a Japanese sled dog related to the Japanese Spitz and Akita Inu."

But since you also know dog breeds just don't magically pop into existence through spontaneous generation - you should know they had parents. Oh that's right, you still believe in spontaneous generation - my bad.