Do you agree with these statements?

inquiring mind said:

Something in the ocean decided it wanted to live on land, crawled out of the water and floundered until it finally grew legs

Click to expand...

Funny thing is there are semi aquatic fish that seem to do just that.

This is what is so fascinating about semi aquatic organisms. There is a whole gamut of living species that span the ocean to land and back again.

Far from being impossible, the transitions between environments are all quite viable.

inquiring mind said:

Something in the ocean decided it wanted to live on land, crawled out of the water and floundered until it finally grew legs, ran about for several million years then decided it liked the ocean better after all, jumped back in and splashed around until it lost its legs and finally got the size of a mountain. That makes sense… not. I think sea turtles did the same thing, except they remained turtles for some reason. Hmmm.

Click to expand...

And to follow on the last post there, for some fish, it's actually important to be able to "flounder" out if water. For those of us who are familiar with fish of the south, some catfish will actually "flounder" from one pond to another. And especially when one pond dries up, this is actually quite valuable to their survival.

Anyway...

Kylie said:

I've never seen anyone point out alleged holes before, at least none that would invalidate the theory.

But if you can do so, please go right ahead.

Click to expand...

First, I guess I should define my meaning of hole. Let’s go with ‘gaps in factual representations that require some form of speculation.’ Invalidate TOE, no, but I thought it was widely recognized that selective dog breeding had created (through manipulation efforts of every kind in observable timeframes) a pretty big hole in TOE and its mutation mechanism. Dog genes have been manipulated to create many different breeds, but dog DNA hasn’t been changed despite all that manipulation that I know of… and they’re all still dogs. So, to me anyway, that begs the question, would one kind ever change into another kind? I think not.

inquiring mind said:

Dog genes have been manipulated to create many different breeds, but dog DNA hasn’t been changed despite all that manipulation that I know of

Click to expand...

Well, obviously the dog DNA has changed: if it hadn't all dogs would look the same.

inquiring mind said:

and they’re all still dogs

Click to expand...

True. The changes caused by breeding have not been enough to create a new species. Not only are they all still dogs, they're all still Canis lupus. Then again, dog breeding has only been going on for 20,000 years or so.

Speedwell said:

One never knows whether to take you seriously when you're hyperbolic like that.

Click to expand...

That's the definition of a POE:

From Poe's Law - "Without a clear indication of the author's intent, it is difficult or impossible to tell the difference between an expression of sincere extremism and a parody of extremism."

inquiring mind said:

... I thought it was widely recognized that selective dog breeding had created (through manipulation efforts of every kind in observable timeframes) a pretty big hole in TOE and its mutation mechanism.

Click to expand...

Nope.

Dog genes have been manipulated to create many different breeds, but dog DNA hasn’t been changed despite all that manipulation that I know of… and they’re all still dogs. So, to me anyway, that begs the question, would one kind ever change into another kind? I think not.

Click to expand...

Evolution doesn't change kinds - any new species is a subspecies of the species from which it derives, never a 'new kind'. Over very long timescales, a sequence of species-level changes might produce a very different end-result from the starting population - still a member of the same clade, but very different.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

Evolution doesn't change kinds

Click to expand...

I'll leave you to explain that.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

any new species is a subspecies of the species from which it derives

Click to expand...

If it's a "new species," then it's not a "subspecies."

Please get the terminology straight.

Radagast said:

If it's a "new species," then it's not a "subspecies."

Please get the terminology straight.

Click to expand...

The terminology isn't well-defined. 'Species' is not a well-defined scientific term.

But a more specific description might be that a new species derives from a subspecies of a species.

klutedavid said:

In some places hoofed animals can venture into the water, to cool off. To have a wash, to rid themselves of flying pests.

We need large amphibian fossils to confirm your hypothesis.

Click to expand...

I think you need to clarify what you are talking about here.

An amphibian is a type of animal including frogs, toads, salamanders and axolotls.

Amphibious is an adjective to describe something that operates on lad and water.

Is your issues that you don't accept hoofed animals in particular transitioning to a more water focused lifestyle, or land animals in general?

Kylie said:

Actually, they basically repeated this with foxes. And foxes changed in many of the same way we've seen dogs change.

Click to expand...

The thing about dogs is they're essentially neotenous wolves. Many of the domestication changes are about turning some adult behaviours off, while retaining other (often juvenile) behaviours.

Such changes are much, much easier than trying to produce radically new behaviours.

KomatiiteBIF said:

The Chinese giant salamander has been measured at 5.9 feet in length, versus Pakicetus which ranged from 3-6 feet.

Click to expand...

Furthermore, amphibian ancestors could be MASSIVE.

There are several members of the Metoposauridae family that measure better than 3 meters (10 feet long) and at least one that measured around 10 meters (33 feet).

These were semi-aquatic predators, mostly at home in the water. But there are also preserved trackways that show they were mobile across mudflats and other ground (probably relocating when the body of water they lived in began to dry up).

Gene2memE said:

There are several members of the Metoposauridae family that measure better than 3 meters (10 feet long) and at least one that measured around 10 meters (33 feet.

Click to expand...

Kind of scary, actually.

Radagast said:

Well, obviously the dog DNA has changed: if it hadn't all dogs would look the same.

Click to expand...

You’re not saying that the selective breeding changes in gene sequence demonstrate how the TOE mutation mechanism can actually bring about a new ‘kind’ (something other than a recognizable dog), are you???

Kylie said:

Actually, they basically repeated this with foxes. And foxes changed in many of the same way we've seen dogs change. Friendly Foxes’ Genes Offer Hints to How Dogs Became Domesticated

So that kind of change is certainly not only possible, but actually quite likely.

Click to expand...

ditto

inquiring mind said:

You’re not saying that the selective breeding changes in gene sequence demonstrate how the TOE mutation mechanism can actually bring about a new ‘kind’ (something other than a recognizable dog), are you???

Click to expand...

I'm saying that DNA changes are easy. To get a recognisably different "kind" (as in genus or family) requires quite substantial DNA changes.

Such evolution has been inferred, but never demonstrated. Indeed, it cannot be demonstrated on human timescales (except, perhaps, using computer simulation).

Radagast said:

I'm saying that DNA changes are easy. To get a recognisably different "kind" (as in genus or family) requires quite substantial DNA changes.

Such evolution has been inferred, but never demonstrated. Indeed, it cannot be demonstrated on human timescales (except, perhaps, using computer simulation).

Click to expand...

So, it's a TOE hole (gap in factual representations that require some form of speculation).

inquiring mind said:

So, it's a TOE hole (gap in factual representations that require some form of speculation).

Click to expand...

I'm not arguing. I've already said that the standard of scientific proof in evolutionary biology is far, far lower than in say, chemistry.

Radagast said:

I'm not arguing. I've already said that the standard of scientific proof in evolutionary biology is far, far lower than in say, chemistry.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I didn’t mean to sound too argumentative. It’s just that TOE requires so much time that it’s not even close to observable. It can’t be proven or disproven, and yet it is considered absolute by the brightest minds. Does that suggest there’s a lot of evidence that stacks up in its favor… certainly. Where does that leave me? Seeing the reasons to doubt it, still asking questions and thinking maybe that knowledge is and always will be beyond the scope of science, thereby rendering the naturalistic-only view forever questionable, and that God made sure the Genesis ‘God did it’ answer, however so, will always remain an option for any level of education.