Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
@klutedavid
Regarding whale evolution, it's also worth looking at the fossil succession of cetaceans.
Notice how cetaceans don't appear in the fossil succession anywhere in the hadean or archean, proterozoic, Cambrian, ordovician, silurian, devonian, carboniferous (Mississippian or Pennsylvanian), permian, Triassic, Jurassic, or Cretaceous.
And nowhere in between any of these.
They appear at a later point in time that is consistent with the theory of evolution.
Triangular serrated sharp teeth, much like other aquatic proto whales, a long conical head, found in lacustrine prehistoric river beds of Pakistan. This is Pakicetus. 50 million years ago.
You mentioned larger aquatic predators, but this animals wasn't swimming in the deep ocean, it would have been near shallow streams and rivers where much like bears, it could take a brief dip in the water to catch fish.
Ambulocetus, the latter transitional of Pakistan (among several others), was much larger, some 5-10 feet in length, triangle shaped teeth much like Pakicetus, the long conical head, a long slender body like a crocodile. It's spine resembles that of prehistoric whales in that it could, much like a dolphin, undulate up and down through water. And again, wasn't a deep marine animal, but rather has been observed in freshwater environments and shallow marine environments (no battling of giant sharks necessary). We aren't just making up the animals environment, the animal is found in strata of their respective environments, so we know where these animals lived and clearly their sizes didn't affect their ability to live near and within lakes and streams, 45-50 million years ago.
The next popular of the group rodhocetus, again with the long conical head and triangular teeth, long slender body, but larger still growing some 10-15 feet in length. Only now it's vertebra and skull have fused (it has no neck). A clearly aquatic animal, yet it still has 4 limbs and could walk on land. Now more whale-like than terrestrial tetrapod-like. 40-45 million years ago.
And we could keep going. There are probably at least 10 popular transitional of the sequence. Basilosaurus, Dorudon, takracetus, dalanistes etc.
But the point is that, once again, we have fossils that fit into the theory. We aren't finding these fossils in the silurian, or Triassic. No, they're in the eocene, after terrestrial mammals came to dominate post k-t boundary.
And again, it isn't about the quantity of fossils (even though we have many), but it's about the succession and how it matches genetic phylogenies, viral dna dna studies, biogeographical sequences, comparative anatomical phylogenies, protein phylogenies, etc. The whale sequence fits the same pattern predicted by the theory of evolution. Indeed, it was through the theory that these fossils were predicted to exist to begin with at the geologic time and location that they were.
American scientists didn't just wake up in the morning and say "oh I want to go dig for fossils in Pakistan just for fun", no, they had an objective to find these fossils based on a prediction, ie whales existed around 30 million years ago, and animals with terrestrial anatomical features, hoofed mammals with long conical heads, ungulates in particular appeared around 60 Mya, so the answer to how whales came to be, according to the theory, was presumably somewhere between 60-30 million years ago. And so it was.
Find the right age, go to strata of ancient stream beds and lakes, and there it is. Much like the discovery of tiktaalik.
@klutedavid
Regarding whale evolution, it's also worth looking at the fossil succession of cetaceans.
Notice how cetaceans don't appear in the fossil succession anywhere in the hadean or archean, proterozoic, Cambrian, ordovician, silurian, devonian, carboniferous (Mississippian or Pennsylvanian), permian, Triassic, Jurassic, or Cretaceous.
And nowhere in between any of these.
They appear at a later point in time that is consistent with the theory of evolution.
Triangular serrated sharp teeth, much like other aquatic proto whales, a long conical head, found in lacustrine prehistoric river beds of Pakistan. This is Pakicetus. 50 million years ago.
You mentioned larger aquatic predators, but this animals wasn't swimming in the deep ocean, it would have been near shallow streams and rivers where much like bears, it could take a brief dip in the water to catch fish.
Ambulocetus, the latter transitional of Pakistan (among several others), was much larger, some 5-10 feet in length, triangle shaped teeth much like Pakicetus, the long conical head, a long slender body like a crocodile. It's spine resembles that of prehistoric whales in that it could, much like a dolphin, undulate up and down through water. And again, wasn't a deep marine animal, but rather has been observed in freshwater environments and shallow marine environments (no battling of giant sharks necessary). We aren't just making up the animals environment, the animal is found in strata of their respective environments, so we know where these animals lived and clearly their sizes didn't affect their ability to live near and within lakes and streams, 45-50 million years ago.
The next popular of the group rodhocetus, again with the long conical head and triangular teeth, long slender body, but larger still growing some 10-15 feet in length. Only now it's vertebra and skull have fused (it has no neck). A clearly aquatic animal, yet it still has 4 limbs and could walk on land. Now more whale-like than terrestrial tetrapod-like. 40-45 million years ago.
And we could keep going. There are probably at least 10 popular transitional of the sequence. Basilosaurus, Dorudon, takracetus, dalanistes etc.
But the point is that, once again, we have fossils that fit into the theory. We aren't finding these fossils in the silurian, or Triassic. No, they're in the eocene, after terrestrial mammals came to dominate post k-t boundary.
And again, it isn't about the quantity of fossils (even though we have many), but it's about the succession and how it matches genetic phylogenies, viral dna dna studies, biogeographical sequences, comparative anatomical phylogenies, protein phylogenies, etc. The whale sequence fits the same pattern predicted by the theory of evolution. Indeed, it was through the theory that these fossils were predicted to exist to begin with at the geologic time and location that they were.
American scientists didn't just wake up in the morning and say "oh I want to go dig for fossils in Pakistan just for fun", no, they had an objective to find these fossils based on a prediction, ie whales existed around 30 million years ago, and animals with terrestrial anatomical features, hoofed mammals with long conical heads, ungulates in particular appeared around 60 Mya, so the answer to how whales came to be, according to the theory, was presumably somewhere between 60-30 million years ago. And so it was.
Find the right age, go to strata of ancient stream beds and lakes, and there it is. Much like the discovery of tiktaalik.
Some questions...
Do you agree that if you have a group of animals - say a herd of zebra - then each individual will be slightly different to the others? Yes
Do you agree that some of those differences can make it easier for that individual to survive - say, better eyesight so it has a better chance of spotting an approaching predator? Yes
Do you agree that these differences are due to the genes that the animals have? In many cases, but there are too many other variables at play for such a broad statement.
Do you agree that if an animal has some genes that mean it has a difference that helps it survive, this animal is more likely to have more offspring precisely because these differences help it live longer (living longer means more chances to reproduce)? Possibly, but another broad statement that doesn’t consider other variables at play.
Do you agree that if animals with these helpful differences produce more offspring, then the number of animals in the herd that have this helpful difference will tend to increase over the generations? It’s a theory anyway.
Do you agree that if we wait for enough generations to pass, most if not all animals in the herd will have this difference, and what was once different is now normal? No, it’s just a theory… too many other variables to ever achieve near perfect vision for all specifically, or project zebras or anything else changing into something beyond its Kind generally.
Shorter legs makes them slower.
With herd animals if one or more see very well due to breeding, the whole herd benefits. I think one of the caveats of speciation is a population is split by geography. Then through mutations the separated populations diverge into differing species.
Hard to believe and I struggle to believe this occurs.
You may do better to choose a different species.
Those skulls have basically all the structures of normal homo sapiens and signs of growth distortions.View attachment 279686
Yes, and maybe in another 45-50 million years some new civilization will, consistent with the TOE, try to place finds of these elongated skulls somewhere in the human transitional sequence. Fossils that fit into the theory you might say.
View attachment 279686
Yes, and maybe in another 45-50 million years some new civilization will, consistent with the TOE, try to place finds of these elongated skulls somewhere in the human transitional sequence. Fossils that fit into the theory you might say.
Those skulls have basically all the structures of normal homo sapiens and signs of growth distortions.
So the future paleontologists will either conclude that it's a rare very close variant of homo sapiens... or that they suffered some kind of developmental problem. Reasonable conclusions from the evidence.
I have to admit, you were pretty thorough. My response was a bit lazy, and only pointing out the possibility of confusion with interpretation of evidence, especially over millions of years.In addition to the above, I'll just note that your response doesn't address the evidence.
Because I wear glasses and my brother doesn't.You've agreed to everything I've said so far. Why do you think it's only theoretical?
Are you claiming that these different species of Zebra, cannot reproduce with another species of Zebra?And yet we have different species of zebra.
Think it through. If the legs get shorter and shorter, when are they too short to run properly?Shorter legs allow for more maneuverability and are less likely to break. Do you think that longer automatically equals faster without any cost to it?
I hope you're just trying to be funny.Think it through. If the legs get shorter and shorter, when are they too short to run properly?
When do the fins start growing?
How does a swimming Zebra with very short legs catch anything in the water?
I meant normal for our time, now.Fair enough from today’s perspective, but 45-50 million years is a long time. Who’s to say what normal will be then, or how perplexing such finds might be, when "normal" present-day skulls will even be hard to find?
Are you claiming that these different species of Zebra, cannot reproduce with another species of Zebra?
Not really trying to be funny. I want you to explain how a zebras legs get shorter and shorter. While still being a terrestrial species. This shortening of the legs occurs over millions of years.I hope you're just trying to be funny.
Are there predators in the water or on land. Obviously a Zebra with shorter legs is not swimming very fast, nor running for that matter. So how does this species survive?I'm pretty sure the plants don't run away.
If species of Zebra have different chromosomes, say 62 and 44. How do the Zebra species end up with differing number of chromosomes?
Because I wear glasses and my brother doesn't.
Are you claiming that these different species of Zebra, cannot reproduce with another species of Zebra?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?