- Apr 25, 2005
- 18,279
- 1,221
- 48
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Conservatives
Tomk80 said:
ok, that being true, how does a gilled creature evolve into one that breathes air?
Upvote
0
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.
Tomk80 said:Because gills require a completely different circulatory system. Evolution does not go the way of the most efficient, it goes with what works good enough given what it has. Evolution cannot plan ahead and decide that gills were beneficial.
Uphill Battle said:ok, that being true, how does a gilled creature evolve into one that breathes air?
Uphill Battle said:ah, I see. They "extrapolated" quite a bit on the skeletal structure on that one, it would seem.
Late_Cretaceous said:From fossils of primitive whales, of which there are several. One in particular called ambulocetus
An animal's lifestlyle can be infered from it's body plan. With the large head and short lets and sharp teeth - it is quite similar to a crocodile so we can infer that it may have fed like one. Of course we don't know for sure, but it would be unlikely that this animal couuld have fed like a gazelle or a cheetah.
PWN3D
Karl - Liberal Backslider said:No, not really.
http://www.studyworksonline.com/cda/image/preview/0,1127,1309,00.jpg
pwned again, methinks (what does that stand for?)
Look at it logically, UB. Why would a designer produce a completely aquatic animal with lungs? We're talking about design, and a supposedly intelligent designer. Going on the assumption of design, we have a designed whale shark, a fish that performs the same function as baleen whales. We have a designed white shark, a fish that performs the same function as an orca. Why would an intelligent designer create air breathing aquatic creatures when it is shown that this designer is capable of creating their equivalents as fish? To argue from design, especially intelligent design, you have to answer this question.Uphill Battle said:or, perhaps, an arguement against natural selection, as I see no benifit to go from air breating on land to air breating in the sea.
At the end of the Cretaceous, almost all forms of large marine animals became extinct along with the dinosaurs (e.g. mosasaurs, ichtyosaurs). This left some nice ecological niches wide open for mammals to exploit.Uphill Battle said:or, perhaps, an arguement against natural selection, as I see no benifit to go from air breating on land to air breating in the sea.
Silly Penguin!Linux98 said:Did you see they caught one of these off the coast of Nova Scotia and keep it in a warehouse in an undisclosed location?
nvxplorer said:Look at it logically, UB. Why would a designer produce a completely aquatic animal with lungs? We're talking about design, and a supposedly intelligent designer. Going on the assumption of design, we have a designed whale shark, a fish that performs the same function as baleen whales. We have a designed white shark, a fish that performs the same function as an orca. Why would an intelligent designer create air breathing aquatic creatures when it is shown that this designer is capable of creating their equivalents as fish? To argue from design, especially intelligent design, you have to answer this question.
Uphill Battle said:About this.... what in this skeleton suggests
1) aquatic life
2) webbing around the digits
3) fur of any kind (this one may be provable, please tell me if it is.)
4) behaviour (the attacking like a crocodile)
I would argue that there are ecological niches for air-breathing aquatic predators. As was indicated earlier, lungs are better at gathering oxygen than gills. In addition, twice in history (broadly speaking) air-breathing animals evolved to adapt to such roles. Therefore, I don't really think this is a good argument against ID.nvxplorer said:Look at it logically, UB. Why would a designer produce a completely aquatic animal with lungs? We're talking about design, and a supposedly intelligent designer. Going on the assumption of design, we have a designed whale shark, a fish that performs the same function as baleen whales. We have a designed white shark, a fish that performs the same function as an orca. Why would an intelligent designer create air breathing aquatic creatures when it is shown that this designer is capable of creating their equivalents as fish? To argue from design, especially intelligent design, you have to answer this question.
Uphill Battle said:how is it logical or illogical to assume what the creator will or will not make? Is an ostrich logical? or any flightless bird for that matter?
is a human logical? other than brain size, we are inferior PHYSICAL specimens, wouldn't you say?
Karl - Liberal Backslider said:Perfectly, if you're working by evolution from ancestors that could fly. Reason #46456356 I prefer TE over YEC.
No, not really. We are jacks of all trades, and by using tools, masters of them as well. Was H G Wells' conception of martians as physically incapable but using machines for everything also illogical?
Uphill Battle said:how is it logical or illogical to assume what the creator will or will not make? Is an ostrich logical? or any flightless bird for that matter? is a human logical? other than brain size, we are inferior PHYSICAL specimens, wouldn't you say?
Split Rock said:Silly Penguin!
That's a LUCK DRAGON!
I quess we can't assume anything about the creator, since we don't know his/her intentions. This is a big reason why ID is Useless. It makes no predictions and leads to no new understanding of the natural world. "The creator did what he did and we don't know why. End of Story ... Next!"Uphill Battle said:how is it logical or illogical to assume what the creator will or will not make? Is an ostrich logical? or any flightless bird for that matter? is a human logical? other than brain size, we are inferior PHYSICAL specimens, wouldn't you say?
Karl - Liberal Backslider said:Shape of pelvis, suited for folding the legs back when swimming.
Reasonable assumption for a partially aquatic animal
The fact it's a mammal. We don't know how much it had. Perhaps it had none, like modern whales. This matters why?
Big teeth show it was a carnivore. Large jaws are usually associated with holding onto large thrashing prey. But again, what would it matter if it ate wrens' eggs and eidelweiss petals?
random_guy said:That's why ID isn't scientific. ID doesn't allow any questions regarding the designer and we can't possibly know anything about the designer from the creations.
A side note, your post is full of irony as you say that you can't assume anything about the creator other than he wouldn't create using evolution.
Uphill Battle said:Wait a minute, isn't bird evolutions supposed to be the other way around?
That is why I all capped PHYSICAL. we are weaker, slower, worse senses, more fragile, less resistant to heat, cold, etc...
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?