A Question for Creationists

[Smidlee]

I can find neither hide nor hair for this claim. Any idea where you heard it from?

If I remember where I read it I will post it.

 

[lasthero]

IOW, you have no explanation for how the moon came into being, so you try to make it a strawmen.

There are explanations. You wouldn't accept them, to be sure, but to say they don't exist at all isn't true.

 

[frogman2x]

Why 'at least 10'? On what basis do you go for that exact number?

I was trying to post a numbmer of the minimum number of steps it would take for an speciesd to evolve int a different species. If you have a number you like better, post it.

Only one similar trait? Now you're simply being disingenuous. There are way more than just one similar trait between each of those steps.

Not in the chart you posted.

First off, whales still have the DNA for making legs. This only makes sense if they once had them.

Sonic hedgehog - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I could not find that in the link you gave. If they really had DNA for legs, atd some time we would have a whale with legs.

They lost their legs through lack of use. In their new environment, they moved faster and were more agile without hind legs (just like fish) and so natural selection favored whales with smaller and smaller hind limbs.

Think about that with an open mind. If they lost their legs through lack of use, the ony thing they would have evolved into would be lunch for the next predator that came along or they would have starved to death long beform they became aquatic.. Also, you can't just say it happend though lack of use. You have absolutely no evidence to support such a claim Also, legs are obtained from the genes of the parents. If they had kids, they would have legs and to survive, they need to use them.

No, that didn't go through fossilization. However, we can tell from the composition of their bones that these creatures spent a lot of time around water, and could likely ingest saltwater without the harmful effects that most animals are subject to -

All yoou are doing is making up stuff for which you have no evidende to try and support whale evolution. You have nno evidence from bonesd dor anythign else that they spenct time around water and they certainly could not injest saltwater.

which, by the way, is something whales can do, and is exceedingly rare among land animals, which will avoid drinking saltwater if at all possible, but I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

It is not rare, it is non-existence. Can you name one species that can drink salt water?

At any rate, we can tell it spent a lot of time in the water both from that, and the fact that these animals are found in areas that were once estuaries.

Again you have no evidende for that and even if it ws true, it would not cause them to lose their legs.

Most animals that spend any time near water have webbed feet - amphibians, for instance, but all birds like ducks, mammals like beavers and otters, and even certain bears like Grizzlies and Polars. It's a very, very common adaption for semi-aquatic animals, and since the whales ancestors, by all indications, were semi-aquatic, it's more than reasonable to assume it, too, had this feature.

But they NEVER lose their legs and there is absolutely no evidence that . There is also no evidence that semi-aquatic animals adapted, they were created that way. There is also no biolgial evidence for anything you have claimed in this post. If there was you would have posted it. Everything you have said is pure, but necessary speculation.

It is puzzling to me why intelligent people would ever accept such things.

Untrue. Well, at least not really true. In the latter steps, the nose on these creatures is moving upward.

That's basically what a blowhole is - a nose.

Your pictures do not explain how packicetus lost its nose. You can't blame that one on lack of use. Also the 3 pictures of the blowhole in different postions on the skull is better explained by saying they are different species that were created that way.

 

[frogman2x]

Yes.

Two possible explanations:

(1) The first man was created from the bone cells of a prehistoric ape just as Eve was created from the bone cells of Adam.

(2) The first man was created from the cells of a prehistoric ape just as Dolly was created from the cells of a sheep.

Thanks for giving ne a good laugh. Did you rule out they came from another planet?

 

[frogman2x]

Notice every one of the creatures on the chart branches off of a Unknown Mythological Creature ; UMC. This allows evolutionist with the greatest flexibility with their story telling. The idea that A evolved to B , B to C and C to D doesn't fit the theory. There are too many examples of A and C having traits that B and D don't. So all branches joins to a UMC. So you first starts with UMC which A evolved from then later B evolved from UMC then C and finally D.
The latest whale fossil discovery has screw up even this pattern . Ancient whale jawbone found in Antarctica - Technology & science - Science | NBC News

I dont think they are mythological. They have the fossils but the linkage is all in their minds. Gringrich, the current whale "expert" had sketches made and I am sure he was present give the artist the way it really happened

This mean the Whale (D) evolved from this UMC before some of the immediates (B and C) that showed up later.

All you got to do to prove whale evolution is false is to prove this UMC didn't exist.

Right. They try to use DNA but DNA does not join species, it separates them into distinct species. DNA really refutes evolution as does the fossil record and genetics.

Those 3 things really support after its kind.

 

[frogman2x]

Mendacious prevarication and nothing more. Gingerich never said anything of the sort.

Yu need to do some googling on whale evolution. Gringich said whales evolved from pakicetud a land, dog-like animal. Lasthero posted a drawing of supposed whale evolution ahd 2 dog-like creatures weer included.

Hint - whales are Cetartiodactyls, dogs are Carnivora.

Hint. That is why whales could not evolve into whales. Now go tell lasthero he is wrong.

 

[lasthero]

I was trying to post a numbmer of the minimum number of steps it would take for an speciesd to evolve int a different species.

Yeah, but why 10? I'm just trying to figure out your reasoning.

Not in the chart you posted.

Yes, it did. It had numerous similarities that show progression - the obvious ones, like the skull and the feet, as well as the tail and the inner ear region.

I could not find that in the link you gave. If they really had DNA for legs, atd some time we would have a whale with legs.

You could have just typed 'whale' in your find bar, and it would have stared you in the face.

The absence (non-expression) of SHH has been shown to control the growth of nascent hind limbs in cetaceans[19] (whales and dolphins).

Regardless, sometimes it DOES happen. Occasionally, whales and dolphins are born with these limbs to varying degrees, like here.

Think about that with an open mind. If they lost their legs through lack of use, the ony thing they would have evolved into would be lunch for the next predator that came along or they would have starved to death long beform they became aquatic.

.

They were already aquatic when they lost their legs. They spent a great deal of time in the water and were proficient and frequent swimmers. Losing their legs made them BETTER swimmers.

Also, you can't just say it happend though lack of use.

That's not all I said, now was it?

You have absolutely no evidence to support such a claim

Yes, I do. I presented this evidence. That you find unsatisfactory does not negate its existence.

Also, legs are obtained from the genes of the parents. If they had kids, they would have legs and to survive, they need to use them.

Not if they're in an environment where legs slow them down. Like the water.

All yoou are doing is making up stuff for which you have no evidende to try and support whale evolution. You have nno evidence from bonesd dor anythign else that they spenct time around water and they certainly could not injest saltwater.

I'm not making anything up.

Compared to other early whales, like Indohyus and Pakicetus, Ambulocetus looks like it lived a more aquatic lifestyle. Its legs are shorter, and its hands and feet are enlarged like paddles. Its tail is longer and more muscular, too. The hypothesis that Ambulocetus lived an aquatic life is also supported by evidence from stratigraphy — Ambulocetus's fossils were recovered from sediments that probably comprised an ancient estuary — and from the isotopes of oxygen in its bones. Animals are what they eat and drink, and saltwater and freshwater have different ratios of oxygen isotopes. This means that we can learn about what sort of water an animal drank by studying the isotopes that were incorporated into its bones and teeth as it grew. The isotopes show that Ambulocetus likely drank both saltwater and freshwater, which fits perfectly with the idea that these animals lived in estuaries or bays between freshwater and the open ocean.

It is not rare, it is non-existence. Can you name one species that can drink salt water?

Bactrian camels.

Wild Bactrian camel videos, photos and facts - Camelus ferus - ARKive

Sea Lions. Seals.

How can sea mammals drink saltwater? : Scientific American

They avoid it when possible and prefer freshwater, but they are capable of drinking it in limited amounts. Also, the presence of saltwater in the bones would still be an indication of its spending a great deal of time in the water - even if they can't drink saltwater, something that spends a lot of time swimming is going to get some in its body eventually, anyway, way more than a creature that spends its time on land. And these animals have far more salt in their blood than is normal, as the chart shows. It's not a big leap - animals that spent a lot of time in saltwater show that through the isotopes in their bones. This particular creature has a lot of said isotopes, indicating it spent a great deal of time swimming.

Again you have no evidende for that and even if it ws true, it would not cause them to lose their legs.

I don't recall saying that drinking saltwater would cause that.

There is also no biolgial evidence for anything you have claimed in this post.

Yes, there is. It all deals with biology, so by definition it's biological evidence.

It is puzzling to me why intelligent people would ever accept such things.

I'm sure a great many things are puzzling to you.





Your pictures do not explain how packicetus lost its nose. You can't blame that one on lack of use. Also the 3 pictures of the blowhole in different postions on the skull is better explained by saying they are different species that were created that way.[/quote]

 

[frogman2x]

Nothing in science is ever 'set in cement'. It's always subject to change in light of new data.

NOt true. That there is more than one blood type is set in cement. Your blood type is set in cement. There are many other truth set in cement but 2 is enought to h=show you are wrong.

The link I gave you addressed this problem just fine.

If you say so.

Where did bone come from?

Stop pretending like this is some completely unsolvable problem that no one has ever thought up or figured out.

Well so far you have not explained it and neitghe did you link.

Stop saying I am pretending until you can answer the question.

 

[lasthero]

NOt true. That there is more than one blood type is set in cement.

No, it's not. All knowledge in science is tentative and subject to change in the light of new data.

Well so far you have not explained it and neitghe did you link.

Stop saying I am pretending until you can answer the question.

I'll stop saying that when you stop pretending.

 

[frogman2x]

No, we share a common ancestor and we can show that.

Talk is cheap, if you can sdow it, do so.

There is no valid excuse for your claim of common design. That only works with an incompetent designer. Are you claiming that your god is incompetent? We know evolution is not perfect and we expect to find certain imperfections from it. Can you give a valid excuse for those imperfections showing up using a "designer"?

Which imperfections? Be specific.

 

[lasthero]

Gringich said whales evolved from pakicetud a land, dog-like animal.

Dog-like. The 'like' part is important. It is not, in fact, a dog. It resembles a dog in some ways. But so do hyenas and aardwolves, and they're not dogs, either.

Hint. That is why whales could not evolve into whales. Now go tell lasthero he is wrong.

I never said dogs evolved into whales. No one ever said that.

Note: I'm assuming you meant 'dogs could not evolve into whales', but with you, I can't be sure.

 

[frogman2x]

Whales didn't evolve from hippos. They evolved from a cetartiodactyl common ancestor and hippos are the closest living relatives to whales.

"Dont tel me, tell Gringrich and last hero.

And how did you arrive at that precise number?

I was trying to use a number of the minimum number of steps the evo would accept as How many steps it would take a species to evolve into a diferent species.

You keep mentioning drawings, but there was 5 photos of fossil skeletons in that post. Are you just pretending they don't exist?

Of course the existed butg ther is no evidence they are intermediates. To say tehy are is a necessary classification.

Exactly. And if he'd actually look at the skulls represented in the cladegram, he'd notice the blowhole migrating on pakicetus, rodhocetus, dorudon and the dolphin.

What I did notice is that no biological evidence was presented that would allow a nose to become a blowhole. I guess he just for got. Why don't you help him out and produce that evidence. Just make sure it is biological.

I am sure he and all the evos would appreciate it.

 

[frogman2x]

I did. And I would gladly discuss your further comments but you butchered the VBB tags so badly that I can't tell what's what in this post. If you clean it up (you can edit forever here) I'll respond to the rest of it.

Tell you what. You explain how an offspring can get a trait it parents did not have the gene for and I will discuss anythign you want to. I keep asking the evos this and not one has responed yet. I wonder why.

 

[frogman2x]

Perhaps, but we're not just talking about features between species here, but features between entirely different clades. For instance, you'll never find a fish with a neck or a tetrapod with gills, but titaalik has these, and features that show a mixture of amphibian and fish traits, like its ear region. It's exactly what we would expect to find if amphibians evolved from fish - a creature with traits from both, as well as traits that show a mixture of both.

And you will never find a dog with fins and a blowhole.

 

[lasthero]

And you will never find a dog with fins and a blowhole.

Nobody ever said that whales evolved from dogs or vice versa. That's your idiotic misunderstanding of the actual argument, and your strange inability to distinguish between something being dog-like and actually being a dog.

 

[frogman2x]

Debating with creationists is like telling the moth that the light is a flame!

Debating with evolutions is like pulling the teeth of a tiger trying to get them to produce the evidene for what they say.

ps: You poste a message complaining about my typing and I can find it. I appologize for not doing a good job of editing wht I type and I know it is frustrating to want to reply and the typing is so bad it is hard to know for sure what has been said.

I do try to edit eveything I write, but somemtime s I get in a hurry and forget.

 

[lasthero]

I do try to edit eveything I write

I am highly skeptical of this claim.

 

[AV1611VET]

There are explanations. You wouldn't accept them, to be sure, but to say they don't exist at all isn't true.

To quote one poster here:

They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong.

 

[lasthero]

To quote one poster here:

They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong.

I said nothing to the contrary. But they do exist, which was the entire point.

 

[AV1611VET]

I said nothing to the contrary. But they do exist, which was the entire point.

For the record, all six of them are wrong.