Intelligent Design / Evolution

[idscience]

The whale is one of evolutions supposed best documented examples of macro-evolution complete with a smooth transitional set of fossils.

• "The traditional theory of cetacean evolution was that whales were related to the mesonychids, an extinct order of carnivorous ungulates (hoofed animals), which resembled wolves with hooves and were a sister group of artiodactyls (even-toed ungulates). These animals had unusual triangular teeth similar to those of whales. This is why scientists long believed that whales evolved from a form of mesonychid. But more recent molecular phylogeny data suggest that whales are more closely related to the artiodactyls, specifically the hippopotamus. ... However, the anthracothere ancestors of hippos do not appear in the fossil record until millions of years after Pakicetus, the first known whale ancestor.The molecular data is supported by the recent discovery of Pakicetus," (Wikipedia)

Ok, did you catch the reason why artiodactyls were proposed as whale ancestors? Their teeth look the same. This is the power of of morphology. This is supposedly the evidence for macro-evolution. Apparently, everything but the teeth of this animal had to change to become a whale. Why didn't the teeth change too? The fallacy of morphology could not be more apparent, and shows it is only a search mission to try and find something, anything that could be said to be related to something else. There is no science to morphology. It is presented as legitimate science, but in reality it is just a macro-evolutionary tool invented to validate the hypothesis.





Pakicetids, are thought to be earliest whales and lived around 53 million years ago. Morphological analysis by Thewissen et al., pakicetids have no skeletal adaptations for aquatic life but instead, display adaptations for running and jumping (Nature). Why then are they thought to be whale ancestors? Not the teeth this time, it is their ears. There is some uniqueness with them that they share with whales. Whales were thought to have evolved over about 10 million years (Nature 15 gems of evolution). From around 53 million years ago, whales transformed from fully terrestrial to fully aquatic mammals. Until, you guessed it, a wrench in the works was dug up. A fully aquatic whale fossil was found that dated back 49 million years ago.

• "Argentine paleontologist Marcelo Reguero, who led a joint Argentine-Swedish team, said the fossilized archaeocete jawbone found in February dates back 49 million years. In evolutionary terms, that's not far off from the fossils of even older proto-whales from 53 million years ago that have been found in South Asia and other warmer latitudes."

According to the Paleobiology database, pakicedids date back to 40-56 million years ago. The earliest fully aquatic whale fossil is 49 million years old, which leaves a best case scenario of 7 million years to evolve from fully terrestrial to fully aquatic mammals. Does this sound like long enough? Lets consider a study of eye evolution.

On The Origin Of Eyes​

Julian Cribb; Friday, 04, September 2009

• Professor Lamb says "that when our camera-style visual system emerged, it probably did so at lightning speed in terms of the pace of evolution – over less than 30 million years"

Professor Lamb believes the evolution of the eye took place over 30 million years give or take. In only 7 million years the whale went from the size of a dog or fox to a monster of the sea. This is a complete body plan overhaul, almost every system would need modification or complete reconstruction. All in 1/4 of the time it took the eye to evolve. Remember, whale evolution is one of evolutions premiere, best documented examples of transformation.

• Let's look at another time line of primate to man. According to NewScientist, 5.8 million years ago lived "Orrorin tugenensis, oldest human ancestor thought to have walked on two legs".

So to be generous, in about the same time it takes to evolve a primate already walking on two legs, with a very similar body plan to humans, a whale evolves into a completely different body plan, and moves from land to open ocean.

Have a look at the following videos. They illustrate the problem whale evolution poses from a standpoint of population genetics;

(Richard Sternberg PhD)​

WHALE EVOLUTION PART 1​

WHALE EVOLUTION PART 2​

Whale Evolution Vs. Population Genetics​

Whale Evolution? - Exposing The Deception In The Fossil Record - Dr. Terry Mortenson​

Dr. David Berlinski: What Does It Take for Change?​

Clearly, if whale evolution is the most documented, best example evolution has to support macro-evolution then they have a serious problem. If these whales that are number one on Natures "15 gems of evolution" list, are the poster children to woo a new generation of believers, than you can see why evolution is fragmenting.​

You also get a better understanding why Intelligent Design is so vigorously opposed, suppressed and censored. The whale tale is also the best example of how useless morphology and homology is for guessing what belongs to what. Based on this example alone, "evolutions best example", we can see how morphology and homology is simply an invented mechanism to support a hypothesis without empirical evidence or testability. Obviously the predictive power is staggeringly off the mark.​

It is examples like this that shows the Intelligent Design supporter why personal attacks, rhetoric and ridicule is so prevalent in discussion and debate. The irony of a group of scoffers and suppressors, laughing at the lack of evidence for ID while supporting such an untenable position as whale evolution. Not only supporting it but touting it as a crowning example of the power of common descent.​

monkey to human, 6 million years, evolution of the camera eye, 30 million years, dog to whale, priceless years.​

Now it is understood why they like to stick with bacteria resistance.​

 

[Split Rock]

The whale is one of evolutions supposed best documented examples of macro-evolution complete with a smooth transitional set of fossils.

Yes, but what you guys always ignore is that there are multiple lines of evidence leading to the conclusion that whales evolved from ungulates, not just the fossil record. Instead, you like to nit-pick about one particular line of evidence and raise doubts about it. Any single line of evidence, in isolation, will always leave a trail of doubts behind it. It is what the preponderance of the evidence (fossil, morphology, embryology, genetic, etc.) infers that is important, not just one line. It is the exact same way a murder case is used to convict a criminal of a crime, when no one saw it happen. Of course, you guys are OK with that when murders are put in prision, but not when it leads to conclusions which conflict with your faith.

The traditional theory of cetacean evolution was that whales were related to the mesonychids, an extinct order of carnivorous ungulates (hoofed animals), which resembled wolves with hooves and were a sister group of Artiodactyls (even-toed ungulates). These animals had unusual triangular teeth similar to those of whales. This is why scientists long believed that whales evolved from a form of mesonychid


Ok, did you catch the reason why artiodactyls were proposed as whale ancestors? Their teeth look the same. This is the power of of morphology. This is supposedly the evidence for macro-evolution.

This is an example of convergent evolution, and it is always an issue when a single morphology trait is used alone. When the genetic evidence came out that placed whales with the Artiodactyls, that was when the inference of the teeth was reconsidered. Yet, even then, what was the error? A sister-group was misidentified as the ancestor. This was not a major reconsideration of whale evolution as you like to make it out to be. Important? Yes. Game changing? No.

Apparently, everything but the teeth of this animal had to change to become a whale. Why didn't the teeth change too? The fallacy of morphology could not be more apparent, and shows it is only a search mission to try and find something, anything that could be said to be related to something else. There is no science to morphology. It is presented as legitimate science, but in reality it is just a macro-evolutionary tool invented to validate the hypothesis.

Again, convergent evolution is recognized as a issue with comparative morphology. This is why the conclusion that whales evolved from four-legged terestrial mammals was supported by mulitple lines of evidence, and has been enforced rather than degraded over the years. Also, it is not true that everything changed but (supposedly) the teeth. Whales have the same basic morphology as terrestrial mammals do (as do seals, sealions, walruses, etc.), that is one of the major supporting issues, not the teeth. Why do you think that whales use the same vertical movements to swim as terrestrial ungulates use to run, rather than use horizontal movements like fish do? Does I.D. have an explanation for that?

Pakicetids, are thought to be earliest whales and lived around 53 million years ago. Morphological analysis by Thewissen et al., pakicetids have no skeletal adaptations for aquatic life but instead, display adaptations for running and jumping (Nature). Why then are they thought to be whale ancestors? Not the teeth this time, it is their ears. There is some uniqueness with them that they share with whales. Whales were thought to have evolved over about 10 million years

The earlier the ancestor, the fewer the derived characteristics that ancestor will possess. That is simple logic.

So to be generous, in about the same time it takes to evolve a primate already walking on two legs, with a very similar body plan to humans, a whale evolves into a completely different body plan, and moves from land to open ocean.

It is pretty well established that evolution does not proceed at the same rate at all times for all species.

Clearly, if whale evolution is the most documented, best example evolution has to support macro-evolution then they have a serious problem. If these whales that are number one on Natures "15 gems of evolution" list, are the poster children to woo a new generation of believers, than you can see why evolution is fragmenting.

But evolution is not "fragmenting" at all... any more than creationism, unfortuately. This is just more wishful thinking on your part.

I will see if I can dig up an old thread I made here on whale evolution and how it is supported by multiple confirming lines of evidence. It was called "whales revisted" I believe. I'll bump it for you.

*OK. I found the thread and bumped it for you. I also updated the primary supporting link. In addition I found another thread covering other lines of evidence infering whale evolution that was in the Archive and bumped it. Both are in the Creation & Evolution sub-forum.*

 

[CabVet]

These animals had unusual triangular teeth similar to those of whales. This is why scientists long believed that whales evolved from a form of mesonychid.

Oh, and you are going to single out this one line of evidence and ignore everything else? This is called misleading.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Always cracks me up when people reference Berlinski... what a boob.

Did anyone watch his debate with Hitchens? Hitch tore him up. I almost felt sorry for Berlinski.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

2. Hmm, I bet a three year old would recognize there is a difference. "old man" is paramount to seeing forms in clouds.

I'm not asking for comparison. I'm simply asking if you think the Old Man of the Mountain could have been designed. It closely resembles the profile of a face, and could easily be constructed with simple tools. I could easily see someone designing it.

3. snow flakes are repitative patterns, not unlike waves in sand dunes.

There's no rule that says things that are designed can't be symmetrical, and you're evading the question.

4. that is a poor excuse not to look at evidence.

No, it was a poorly phrased request to stop linking to your blog and instead give us a summary.

5. The goal of science is to seek the truth by following the evidence. You are saying science now has a policy it won't stray beyond dispite the evidence?

Scientific doctrine follows the evidence. Science itself seeks the evidence out. There's nothing stopping you from having a hypothesis with no evidence. You just can't expect to have it published or accepted until that evidence exists.

6. I haven't read much of anything in regard to front loading on this thread. Looks like your backing down pretty quick. You are screaming science, science, yet your own position is untenable. How can you crucify ID on one hand as non science, then accept front loading on other? You demand ID answer every quesion beyond doubt, yet are happy to ignore the inconsistancy of your personal recombination hypothesis (God + blind undirected natural selection)

Ad hominem attacks are not appreciated. My personal beliefs are not up for debate - all that matters for the purpose of this thread is that I don't accept ID and won't even consider it until I see convincing evidence.

7. Your still on that?

You keep bringing it up.

8. I see you don't want to discuss this one.

No, I just don't have sufficient knowledge to do so. I leave the biological details to people like Split Rock.

9. I will let the readers judge the maturity level of that one.

Says the one whining about the length of my posts.

10. last time I did that you ridiculed me for not replying to your questions.

I did not ridicule. I asked you nicely to reply to the rest of the post I had written after you picked out the least relevant part of the post and attacked me over it. I also gave you several hours to respond to the rest of the post before asking. In the end, you waited over a day (after I asked you twice to respond) before replying.

In the future, if you want to break down my posts into smaller chunks, just say so. At the beginning of your post just put "I'm breaking your last post down into smaller chunks so I can answer your points more thoroughly." or something similar. That way I know that you're actually reading what I write and that I'm not wasting my time here.

 

[idscience]

I'm not asking for comparison. I'm simply asking if you think the Old Man of the Mountain could have been designed. It closely resembles the profile of a face, and could easily be constructed with simple tools. I could easily see someone designing it.


There's no rule that says things that are designed can't be symmetrical, and you're evading the question.


No, it was a poorly phrased request to stop linking to your blog and instead give us a summary.


Scientific doctrine follows the evidence. Science itself seeks the evidence out. There's nothing stopping you from having a hypothesis with no evidence. You just can't expect to have it published or accepted until that evidence exists.


Ad hominem attacks are not appreciated. My personal beliefs are not up for debate - all that matters for the purpose of this thread is that I don't accept ID and won't even consider it until I see convincing evidence.


You keep bringing it up.


No, I just don't have sufficient knowledge to do so. I leave the biological details to people like Split Rock.


Says the one whining about the length of my posts.


I did not ridicule. I asked you nicely to reply to the rest of the post I had written after you picked out the least relevant part of the post and attacked me over it. I also gave you several hours to respond to the rest of the post before asking. In the end, you waited over a day (after I asked you twice to respond) before replying.

In the future, if you want to break down my posts into smaller chunks, just say so. At the beginning of your post just put "I'm breaking your last post down into smaller chunks so I can answer your points more thoroughly." or something similar. That way I know that you're actually reading what I write and that I'm not wasting my time here.

no. you many see an old man face someone else may see a rock face.
your question was answered, No, patterns don't equal design. All patterns are not design but all design has pattern.
I know you looked. I am going to link to what ever page has considerable information and not redo it here. The liked page has links to a good many law suits lost by evolutionists discriminating against ID, scientists outside of Id who also have experience censorship because they were not in line with the current dogma and a Doctors group who were discriminated against, suppressed and censored in Spain for discussing problems with evolution and nothing to do with ID.
You don't know enough about biology to show proof, but you seem to know enough to say what isn't proof. Interesting.

 

[idscience]

Oh, and you are going to single out this one line of evidence and ignore everything else? This is called misleading.

You are arguing for a mammal that is no longer considered to be in the line of whales, but that is ok, you go for it brother. Your guess is as good as theirs.

Here is some real certainty for ya (wiki)

Relationship with whales
Mesonychids possess unusual triangular molar teeth that are similar to those of Cetacea (whales and dolphins), especially those of the archaeocetids, as well as having similar skull anatomies and other morphologic traits. For this reason, scientists had long believed that mesonychids were the direct ancestor of Cetacea, but the discovery of well preserved hind limbs of archaic cetaceans as well as more recent phylogenetic analyses[3][4][5] now indicates that cetaceans are more closely related to hippopotamids and other artiodactyls than they are to mesonychids, and this result is consistent with many molecular studies.[6] Most paleontologists now doubt the idea that whales are descended from mesonychids, and instead suggest that whales are either descended from or share a common ancestor with the anthracotheres, the semi-aquatic ancestors of hippos.[7] However, the close grouping of whales with hippopotami in cladistic analyses only surfaces upon deletion of Andrewsarchus, which has often been included within the mesonychids.[8][9] One possible conclusion is that Andrewsarchus is not a mesonychid, but rather closely allied with hippopotamids. The current uncertainty may in part reflect the fragmentary nature of the remains of some crucial fossil taxa, such as Andrewsarchus.[8] wikipedia

Round and round it goes, where evolution stops,
nobody knows.​

 

[Elendur]

Round and round it goes, where evolution stops,
nobody knows.​

I thought it didn't stop.

I'll take a correct maybe before a wrong certainty every day.

 

[idscience]

Yes, but what you guys always ignore is that there are multiple lines of evidence
*OK. I found the thread and bumped it for you. I also updated the primary supporting link. In addition I found another thread covering other lines of evidence infering whale evolution that was in the Archive and bumped it. Both are in the Creation & Evolution sub-forum.*

I read the thread and posted there. I think the pelvis and hind bones are an interesting feature but not enough to conclude whales came from a land animal which came from the sea

The embryonic gill slits and limb nubs theories are unimpressive conjecture. I still read where it is said human embryos have gill slits.

I conclude the evidence does not support the transition, and certainly not to the certainty to make whales the number 1 evolutionary gem.

I will say, I can see how the whale logic runs down that path. I just think it is trumped by the evidence.

Cheers.

 

[idscience]

I thought it didn't stop.

I'll take a correct maybe before a wrong certainty every day.

It has for some...maybe not for others.

• "For those who dream of a better life, science has bad news: this is the best it is going to get. Our species has reached its biological pinnacle and is no longer capable of changing."

 

[Elendur]

It has for some...maybe not for others.

• "For those who dream of a better life, science has bad news: this is the best it is going to get. Our species has reached its biological pinnacle and is no longer capable of changing."

And the sentence after:
"That is the stark, controversial view of a group of biologists who believe a Western lifestyle now protects humanity from the forces that used to shape Homo sapiens."

Edit: It seems to me you like to make things sound more extreme than they are.

 

[idscience]

And the sentence after:
"That is the stark, controversial view of a group of biologists who believe a Western lifestyle now protects humanity from the forces that used to shape Homo sapiens."

Edit: It seems to me you like to make things sound more extreme than they are.

Buddy, it was a joke!

 

[Elendur]

Buddy, it was a joke!

Ah, my bad sorry about that.

Internet misinterpretation strikes yet again!

 

[idscience]

Ah, my bad sorry about that.

Internet misinterpretation strikes yet again!

No worries M8.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

no. you many see an old man face someone else may see a rock face.

Well, seeing as this is the current state of your evidence for ID, I don't see the difference.

your question was answered, No, patterns don't equal design. All patterns are not design but all design has pattern.

So then what makes design? Your argument for DNA being designed is that it resembles a coded language (aka has a pattern). If not all patterns are designed, then your evidence proves nothing.

I know you looked. I am going to link to what ever page has considerable information and not redo it here. The liked page has links to a good many law suits lost by evolutionists discriminating against ID, scientists outside of Id who also have experience censorship because they were not in line with the current dogma and a Doctors group who were discriminated against, suppressed and censored in Spain for discussing problems with evolution and nothing to do with ID.

A few lawsuits are hardly enough evidence to declare that the scientific community has a problem with censorship. It may or may not, but that's beside the point - I've yet to see any good science providing evidence for ID. You can't claim to be censored until you actually have something that could be published.

You don't know enough about biology to show proof, but you seem to know enough to say what isn't proof. Interesting.

Biology knowledge isn't necessary to recognize bad science. If you noticed, I've never said anything about the actual biology that anyone has presented, just the methods.

 

[idscience]

reposted

 

[idscience]

reposted

 

[Blackwater Babe]

So, rather than present evidence AGAINST evolution, how about you show some FOR inteligent design?

Can ya do it?

 

[JoeyArnold]

So, rather than present evidence AGAINST evolution, how about you show some FOR inteligent design?

The evidence for design is too much to fit into this room.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

The evidence for design is too much to fit into this room.

Cool, it should be easy to quote a paragraph or two, then, shouldn't it?