How many steps does it take?

[The Cadet]

I think you confuse yourself when you act as if simple genetic recombination of already established DNA is evolution.

What I am talking about is the ability for random chance mutations to form completly new systems. Show us how random mutations have the ability to make these adaptations that increase the information in our DNA code.
Lets focus on the nostril to blowhole.

Um... That is recombination of already established DNA. Over generations, the nose just drifts higher and higher on the head, as those with higher nostrils are favored. This is not rocket science.

 

[-57]

Um... That is recombination of already established DNA. Over generations, the nose just drifts higher and higher on the head, as those with higher nostrils are favored. This is not rocket science.

So, the nose simply drifted up to the top of the head....That's your answer? Nothing changed internally?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So, the nose simply drifted up to the top of the head....That's your answer? Nothing changed internally?

A diagram on the way that a dolphin (which is not the evolutionary descendant of the Ambulocetus) creates it's distinctive clicking sounds is nowhere near the same as the rearrangement of the nasal passages in the whale.

 

[ecco]

ecco said: ↑
This has no appendages or organs either.

OK, I care about that because....

Because you made a comment about new appendages. The thing in the picture has no appendages, but it will form them.

 

[-57]

ecco said: ↑
This has no appendages or organs either.

Because you made a comment about new appendages. The thing in the picture has no appendages, but it will form them.

Perhaps I should say again....OK, I care about that because...

 

[Loudmouth]

Because you can't show how it's possible.

You can't show how it is impossible.

 

[Jfrsmth]

Evidence for evolution
And it's not evolutionism. There is no -ism to be attached to evolution. It's a scientific theory of biology.

Yes, the term evolutionism can be used as easily as the term creationism. Both indicate a belief in how things came to be absent of direct observation.

Evolutionism is very much a worldview of naturalistic origins and progression:

1. A theory of biological evolution, especially that formulated by Charles Darwin.
2. Advocacy of or belief in biological evolution.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evolutionism

Evolutionism is a world-view, which seeks to explain every aspect of this world in which we live. It encompasses a wide variety of topics, from astronomy to chemistry to biology. At its core, it teaches that there were different stages in the evolution of our universe

http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/evolutionism.htm

a person who supports a policy of gradual growth or development rather than sudden change or expansion.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolutionism

"It's a scientific theory of biology."

For us to move forward with that comment, please define your use of the word "scientific" and your use of the word "theory".

 

[Jfrsmth]

So? Let's just take the example in the first post again. For Ambulocetus to become a blue whale, what "new appendages" need to be formed? The tail? Ambulocetus has a tail; it simply needed to be adapted. Baleen? Ambulocetus had teeth - again, they simply needed to be adapted. A blowhole? That would be nostrils.

Can you imagine the changes that would need to take place to go from a land creature to a water animal? Think about the massive numbers that might be necessary from my own ignorant perspective:

a change in pelvis from having a flimsy one for a tail to having one for swimming
a change in pelvic movement from side to side to up and down for propulsion
the skin of a mammal to a waterproof covering for a whale that includes a thick layer of blubber that keeps it warm in cold water
the change from a land runner to that of a streamlined, hydro-dynamic whale
the change in eyes from seeing on land in sunlight to seeing underwater
the change from communicating by vocal sounds to communication through communication through clicks
the change from the ability to eat underwater to being able to eat underwater without drowning
the change in birth from land to water without the death of the newborn from drowning

and there are many more...

*Please note, that each of these major changes above in features would require numerous micro-changes; and that these micro-changes would create a freakish, incomplete transitional animal that would be easy prey for predators and or fail in the environment it was morphing into. When we put this all together, could we not plausibly determine that there would have to be changes in the thousands? Keep in mind also, that these changes were supposed to have taken place between a period of 5-10 million years.

Another question, as per the OP; how does natural selection know what the land animal is morphing into?
A second question: Wouldn't the developing transitional creature die as it is not adapted to either land or water?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

For us to move forward with that comment, please define your use of the word "scientific" and your use of the word "theory".

You keep asking for this on nearly every thread you are on. Tell us: how do YOU define the word 'scientific' and 'theory'.

 

[Jfrsmth]

You keep asking for this on nearly every thread you are on. Tell us: how do YOU define the word 'scientific' and 'theory'.

You were the one using those terms. Could you define them? I have been and do ask that participants define their terms in order for us to be on the same page, so to speak; otherwise, we could be talking apples and oranges and it would be nothing more than an exercise in futility. I have found that people use different or inaccurate definitions of terms when it comes to these types of discussions, so, I like to know.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You were the one using those terms. Could you define them? I have been and do ask that participants define their terms in order for us to be on the same page, so to speak; otherwise, we could be talking apples and oranges and it would be nothing more than an exercise in futility. I have found that people use different or inaccurate definitions of terms when it comes to these types of discussions, so, I like to know.

If it'll make you happy:
Scientific: anything relating or pertaining to science.
Theory: A coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena.
Both definitions are taken from dictionary.reference.com and will be the very first definitions you find when you type those words in to the search bar.
Happy now?

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes, the term evolutionism can be used as easily as the term creationism. Both indicate a belief in how things came to be absent of direct observation.

The theory of evolution is not a belief.

Evolutionism is very much a worldview of naturalistic origins and progression:

The theory of evolution a scientific theory, not a worldview.

 

[Loudmouth]

*Please note, that each of these major changes above in features would require numerous micro-changes; and that these micro-changes would create a freakish, incomplete transitional animal that would be easy prey for predators and or fail in the environment it was morphing into.

A seal is halfway between a land mammal and a fully aquatic whale, and yet they aren't freakish, incomplete transitional animals that are easy prey. They are doing quite well. It would appear that you are making this part up.

 

[Jfrsmth]

Are you asserting that a seal is a transitional creature? If so, on what basis?

 

[Loudmouth]

Are you asserting that a seal is a transitional creature?

I am asserting that the seal has all of the characteristics that you claim a transitional would have. You also claim that such a creature would be a " freakish, incomplete transitional animal that would be easy prey for predators and or fail in the environment it was morphing into." Seals prove you wrong. They are not fully aquatic. They are not fully terrestrial. Guess what? THEY DO JUST FINE.

 

[Jfrsmth]

Because a creature can live in both water and on land, does that constitute a transitional fossil? Is there any evidence a seal is transitioning into another creature? When I speak of freakish, I am suggesting deformity - how is a seal deformed? Where/What is the evidence that a seal is transforming? Has it been observed? And, from what, pray tell is the seal transitioning into, and from what has it transformed from?

 

[Jfrsmth]

I am asserting that the seal has all of the characteristics that you claim a transitional would have. You also claim that such a creature would be a " freakish, incomplete transitional animal that would be easy prey for predators and or fail in the environment it was morphing into." Seals prove you wrong. They are not fully aquatic. They are not fully terrestrial. Guess what? THEY DO JUST FINE.

Because a creature can live in both water and on land, does that constitute a transitional fossil? Is there any evidence a seal is transitioning into another creature? When I speak of freakish, I am suggesting deformity - how is a seal deformed? Where/What is the evidence that a seal is transforming? Has it been observed? And, from what, pray tell is the seal transitioning into, and from what has it transformed from?

 

[Jfrsmth]

If it'll make you happy:
Scientific: anything relating or pertaining to science.
Theory: A coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena.
Both definitions are taken from dictionary.reference.com and will be the very first definitions you find when you type those words in to the search bar.
Happy now?

Oops, you are defining an adjective ("scientific") using the noun "science." What is your definition of science?

Your/The dictionary definition of "theory" concur with. However, since you copied and pasted from a dictionary, how do I know that you are clear about a theory? Can you give an example of a theory?

Once we get these settled, I guess we can get back to the talk at hand and use them coherently in a discussion of the topic? This way, we can remove a great deal of confusion and even frustration. I look forward to that.

 

[Jfrsmth]

The theory of evolution is not a belief.

Maybe, if you say that enough times, you will start to believe it.

 

[Jfrsmth]

The theory of evolution a scientific theory, not a worldview.

What do you mean by theory? Can a theory be falsified?