Is evolution a fact or theory?

[GenemZ]

I wonder which book Jude was quoting?

"And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints [holy ones], To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him." -- Jude 1:14-15 KJV​

The book Enoch contains the same statement

"And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones To execute judgement upon all, And to destroy all the ungodly: And to convict all flesh Of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed, And of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him." -- Enoc 1:9​

Enoch scrolls were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, and precedes the book of Jude.

Dan

Try here too.... https://www.neverthirsty.org/bible-qa/qa-archives/question/did-jude-copy-from-the-book-of-enoch/

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Tiktaalik.

Its a tetrapod, found with bosh fish and amphibian traits. It is found in the devonian, right where it was predicted to be. It has robust shoulder bones and ribs like a tetrapod, it does not have a fused skull with its neck vertebrae, yet it has scales and fins like a fish. Its head is like that of a fish as well, yet its eyes are on top, like a crocodile.

It has both fish traits, like scales and fins and gills. But it also has traits that are not fish like, such as its neck and shoulders, and the shape of its skull. It is, both fish and tetrapod, in one. And it is located in the fossil succession, right where one would predict it to be, in the devonian.

All of the earliest tetrapod fossils are found in the middle to late devonian, and this is between the times at which fish dominated, and carboniferous in which reptiles took over. Its a transitional period of amphibious tetrapods.

Where are the other transitional forms before and/or after the Tiktaalik? If there are none, it would seem to be more scientific (e.g., less agenda-driven) to declare the Tiktaalik to be simply another extinct species.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Try here too.... https://www.neverthirsty.org/bible-qa/qa-archives/question/did-jude-copy-from-the-book-of-enoch/

Thanks for the link.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

[QUOTE="KomatiiteBIF, post: 72681527, member: 39[/QUOTE]

I am not sure what you intended to prove by posting all of those charts, but let me comment on this one:

Packicetus: no blowhole, no flippers, no whale type of neck, no whale-like ear bone, and no other whale features. It is a typical land animal.

Ambulocetus: no whale-like ear bone (as claimed), no blowhole, and no other whale features.

Rodhocetus: newer fossil evidence revealed there is no evidence of a whale-like tail or flippers, as originally claimed.

Therefore, you can strike those three out of the chart.

To play it safe, it would also be a good idea to strike out any others that Gingerich, his students, or colleagues claim to be whale transition forms

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Like I said... it was common understanding amongst those who studied to Torah. Just as the GAP Fact was also understood back then. Need I remind you again?

Without Form and Void - Chapter 1

We are the Johnny Come Lately's when it comes to understanding many things that had been long understood by Jews who were also born again....

Back to Jude vs Enoch, there is not a dimes worth of difference between the R.H. Charles version of Enoch and the King James Version when comparing the Jude statement about the coming of the saints. The Charles version of Enoch (1st Enoch) is available for download, here:

The book of Enoch, or 1 Enoch. Translated from the editor's Ethiopic text and edited with the introd. notes and indexes of the 1st ed. wholly recast, enl. and rewritten, together with a reprint from the editor's text of the Greek fragments : Charles, R. H. (Robert Henry), 1855-1931 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive​

Dan

 

[4x4toy]

Like I said... it was common understanding amongst those who studied to Torah. Just as the GAP Fact was also understood back then. Need I remind you again?

Without Form and Void - Chapter 1

We are the Johnny Come Lately's when it comes to understanding many things that had been long understood by Jews who were also born again....

Genesis 1:1 Tells us God, he created his working points in the beginning of time ''Earth and Space''
Genesis 1:2 Tells us he then could form it and space to fill it ''a place to put it'' with heavenly bodies as he saw fit ..

This is why the ''big bang'' is impossible, there had to be physical space and physical material in order for matter to condense on itself in the first place which makes it ''the big bang'' wrong ..

 

[4x4toy]

You can say God knew us and all living things from the beginning through DNA, RNA, and other wonders of genetics .. All kinds were created with all the DNA that accounts for every living thing we see today , all contained in each kinds DNA from the beginning that allowed diversification within kinds to breed out to subdue in all climates and purpose successfully , even the post flood climates .. Yes God is that big and bigger .. And he even became a man for us, our Lord and Savior Jesus the Christ

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Genesis 1:1 Tells us God, he created his working points in the beginning of time ''Earth and Space''
Genesis 1:2 Tells us he then could form it and space to fill it ''a place to put it'' with heavenly bodies as he saw fit ..

This is why the ''big bang'' is impossible, there had to be physical space and physical material in order for matter to condense on itself in the first place which makes it ''the big bang'' wrong ..

Evolution is a fairy tale, since there is absolutely ZERO evidence for it. Every so-called "proof" claimed by the pseudo-scientists of evolutionism is based on magic. Those pseudo-proofs go something like this:

1. An infinitely dense "egg", also called a "singularity", or whatever, magically appeared out of nothing. That, in itself, is a pretty neat trick; but there is more.

2. The unimaginable mass of the universe was magically created by that exploding "egg" (I kid you not!)

3. The stars, galaxies and our solar system were magically created from "gases" that formed when the magic "egg" exploded (I guess the gas laws also didn't apply).

4. The earth magically appeared with the perfect watery environment, perfect atmosphere, and with a perfectly located sun and moon to sustain life.

5. Life magically appeared from inorganic matter as a single, living organism.

6. The astonishing complexity of life magically "evolved" from that single living organism.​

Mathematicians have determined, over and over again, that the possibility of life evolving from non-life is ZERO, not to mention that the possibility of the universe itself being evolved from nothing is also ZERO.

There is a logical and reasonable alternative to all that magic:

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." -- Gen 1:1 KJV​

Or, explained another way:

"There is a kind of religion in science: it is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the Universe. Every event can be explained in a rational way as the product of some previous event .. This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover .. At this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." [Jastrow, Robert, "God and the Astronomers." W. W. Norton, 2nd Ed, 1992, p.113-114, 116] ​

Dan

 

[Job 33:6]

Where are the other transitional forms before and/or after the Tiktaalik? If there are none, it would seem to be more scientific (e.g., less agenda-driven) to declare the Tiktaalik to be simply another extinct species.

Dan

Hold on, are you first admitting that tiktaalik has fish like features, such as scales and fins? While also having tetrapod features such as an unfused neck and rotating wrist bones?

 

[Job 33:6]

I am not sure what you intended to prove by posting all of those charts, but let me comment on this one:

Packicetus: no blowhole, no flippers, no whale type of neck, no whale-like ear bone, and no other whale features. It is a typical land animal.

Ambulocetus: no whale-like ear bone (as claimed), no blowhole, and no other whale features.

Rodhocetus: newer fossil evidence revealed there is no evidence of a whale-like tail or flippers, as originally claimed.

Therefore, you can strike those three out of the chart.

To play it safe, it would also be a good idea to strike out any others that Gingerich, his students, or colleagues claim to be whale transition forms

Dan

Pakicetus of course it has no blow hole, its at the beginning of the succession while the ancestors still lived on land. It has a rounded whale like skull, angular teeth, and its in the right location at the right time, as we will see with further fossils.

Ambulocetus: no other whale features? it has its triangular ungulate teeth like those of whales, it has a long snout like pakicetus and rodhocetus, it was a marine animal, it has an undulating spike with shorter limbs. Just like pakicetus, it has aquatic traits, while still clearly has terrestrial features indicating that it is not a whale.

Ill add two more here, Dalanistes and remingtonocetus: longer whale like snout, contain the same whale like teeth, webbed feet, yet still with terrestrial traits, like toes.

"
The vertebral elements of the sacrum are solidly fused and form a well-developed articular surface for the pelvis. The ilium is robust and long, and has a large acetabulum similar to that in Remingtonocetus. The femur had a spherical head, a medial condyle considerably larger than the lateral, and a shallow patellar groove. Taken together this morphology suggests the presence of well-developed hind limbs.[2]

Dalanistes is similar to but 20% larger than Remingtonocetus; the external nares are located more anteriorly (above C1); the sagittal crestis much higher; the rostrum is angled down 20° relative to the main axis of the braincase; the mandibular symphysis is relatively open (ends at P3) and the mandibular canals fail to unite at the symphysis. This mandibular morphology is also different from that of Andrewsiphius (another remingtonocetid).[4]"

"
Remingtonocetus is larger, has a broader rostrum, and longer premolars than Andrewsiphius. It is smaller than, has more gracile premolars and molars than Dalanistes. R. harudiensis differs from R. domandaensis in molar morphology.[4]

Gingerich et al. 2001 interpreted R. domandaensis as an older and more generalized species than R. harudiensis. Based on a morphological analysis, they concluded that the hindlimbs of Remingtonocetus were probably not weight-bearing, and that (1) the fused sacrum indicates a limitation in tail-powered locomotion, and (2) the presence of powerful hip extensors and femoral adductors indicates that Remingtonocetus was an efficient and specialized foot-powered swimmer.[5]

Remingtonocetus had four working and usable limbs, a slender whale-like body with long tail and slender, hydrodynamic head."

So what we see are animals of a succession with increasingly more and more whale like features. Although they are not whales themselves, and therefore do not have things like blow holes.

Rodhocetus: Rodhocetus has a further elongated snout. Its similar to ambulocetus and pakicetus, but it has not only a longer whale like snout, but also shorter limbs

Rodhocetus spp. | College of Osteopathic Medicine | NYIT

"Additionally, the vertebrae of the sacrum (the portion of the vertebral column that is connected to the pelvis) are not fused together, unlike is the condition seen in all land mammals. The unfused sacrum allows the vertebral column to be more flexible during swimming, at the expense of better support of the body on land."

"The vertebrae of the upper back have very tall spines like those of some land mammals, again suggesting that this whale may have been able to support its weight on land. Small bony crests on the toe bones imply that Rodhocetus had webbed feet (an obvious adaptation for swimming), but the toes themselves appear to have been hoof-shaped. The fore- and hindlimbs of Rodhocetus are relatively short as compared to those of most land mammals, particularly those adapted for running. "

"Sensory Abilities: Although the skull of Rodhocetus is fairly complete, few details have been published on its skull and ear region. The lower jaw has a large hole near the jaw joint (the mandibular foramen), which in modern toothed whales, is filled with fat ("the mandibular fat pad"). In living odontocetes, sound travels through the thin bone on the side of the jaw and is channeled into the middle and inner ear by the pad of fat. In land mammals (including humans), underwater hearing takes place by sound waves traveling through the bones of the skull to the ears. Sound traveling in this manner arrives at each ear at nearly the same time, and it is not possible to tell the direction from which the sound came. The fat pad in the lower jaw of Rodhocetus and some other cetaceans allows directional hearing when underwater. This indicates that Rodhocetus was well adapted to the aquatic environment."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The point is that, none of these animals are actually whales, but what we see are land animals becoming more and more, progressively like whales. and they are very similar to one another, though we see shortening limbs, an elongation of the snout, and more and more progressively aquatic features forming, one after another.

Also, theyre found in the same region. Pakicetus and land based ancestors are found in shallow marine and terrestrial environments, while further down the list when we get to rodhocetus, we are in marine environments. But theyre regionally in the same place. Its not like anyone went out and picked up one in america and the other in china. They are in a geologic succession, from deep layers to shallow, grading from more land like to more sea like.[/QUOTE]

Ill add another.

Basilosaurus: Longer body, longer snout, same whale like skull, same whale like teeth, aquatic

The snout progressing toward the back of the skull. Its about mid-way now. Unfused hips, but still that same iconic long snout with whale like teeth. Still not a true blow hole though. But it does appear to be a whale, just not like any whale we have seen before..

I can keep going...

 

[Job 33:6]

The bottom line is

Anyone who has eyes can see this transition. You dont have to be a genius.

The later fossils are of mammals that breathes air and have feet and leg bones. Yet clearly they are also whales. Like basilosaurus, its a whale, and yet, not really, it kind of looks like some sort of...elongated whale like dorudon or a elongated whale like rodhocetus. But it still looks more like a whale.

Everyone keeps saying, "where are the transitionals?", well above are a few.

They dont all need to be exactly like whales. They dont all need to be exactly like a hippo. They share traits, some more than others, with both whales and land based animals.

Someone said Pakicetus has no other whale like features, but its skull really isnt much different from ambulocetus, which isnt much different from durodon or basilosaurus. their teeth are whale like as well.



-------------------------------------------------------------------
They are by definition of their morphological traits, whale-like land-based mammals and whale-like sea-based animals, and they are found in order in a sequence in a single region transitioning from terrestrial to shallow marine to marine rocks from older rocks to younger rocks.

And it doesnt matter how much anyone wants to deny this, it meets every check box of an evolutionary transition of fossils.

 

[Job 33:6]

And remember guys, the main point is that, we have all these fossils showing up at roughly similar and sequential times. They arent randomly popping up in random places around earth in random beds of the geologic column. Nobody found pakicetus in the holocene while finding dorudon in the silurian. Right...

Theyre showing up in very specific types of rocks in a very specific locality in an observable order.

Some guy said "well pakicetus doesnt have a blow hole, how can it be a transitional?"

this shows a lack of understanding of the topic, because nobody would expect pakicetus to have a blow hole, as it was a land based animal. Its like saying that amphibians should have wings because birds evolved from them. Its just a statement made from ignorance.

But the worst part is that despite the fact that many on this forum are not scientists and cant even read a geologic map, people are still willing to argue as if you actually know what theyre talking about. But they dont...

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Hold on, are you first admitting that tiktaalik has fish like features, such as scales and fins? While also having tetrapod features such as an unfused neck and rotating wrist bones?

I will agree that much of the claims about the tiktaalik structure is over-hyped, especially by Shubin. Currently there is no evidence the tiktaalik evolved from or into anything. Fish come in a bewildering array of varieties and forms; so to prove the tiktaalik is anything other than an extinct species would require the discovery of a substantial number of clearly-defined intermediate forms.

Some of the more "non-standard" varieties of living fish include the lungfish, mud skippers, coelacanth, snakehead, bowfin, walking catfish, climbing perch, and flying fish, to name a few.

Dan

 

[Job 33:6]

I will agree that much of the claims about the tiktaalik structure is over-hyped, especially by Shubin. Currently there is no evidence the tiktaalik evolved from or into anything. Fish come in a bewildering array of varieties and forms; so to prove the tiktaalik is anything other than an extinct species would require the discovery of a substantial number of clearly-defined intermediate forms.

Some of the more "non-standard" varieties of living fish include the lungfish, mud skippers, coelacanth, snakehead, bowfin, walking catfish, climbing perch, and flying fish, to name a few.

Dan

Excuse me,

Do you recognize the fact that tiktaalik has qualities, such as scales and fins, that are commonly observed in fish, and also qualities that are commonly observed in land based tetrapods, such as an unfused skull and nostrils at the top of its head?

This is the question at hand^

Nothing else matters for a transitional fossil, but the basic question of it it has traits of multiple animal groups that are observed before and after its location in the succession. Regardless of what you believe about it.

https://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/meetTik2.html

Fish are observed before it. Tetrapods after it. It has both fish and tetrapod traits.

Go out and look at devonian rock, what will you see? You will see tetrapods, you will see fish. Here in tiktaalik, is both fish and tetrapod, in one. Right where it geologically and spatially, should be, if evolution were true.

It is by definition a transitional fossil, it meets all the requirements, regardless of if youre capable of admitting to this.

And fossils of the whale collection meet these requirements as well.

 

[Job 33:6]

And ill just add that, there are many of these sequences. Fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptiles, reptile to mammal is well known, reptile to bird is well known. There are sequences of modern animals, horses, whales, turtles, elephants, of course apes, birds, marsupials etc. Countless sequences, these are just some popular ones.

 

[Job 33:6]

And all of evolution can easily be disproven, if an obstruction to the succession was found.

All anyone would have to do is find the...well known "cambrian bunny". Surely in a chaotic global flood, obstructions to the succession should exist.

Or, find a mammal in the ordovician or silurian. Find a bird in the carboniferous. Find a reptile in the cambrian. Anything like this.

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Pakicetus of course it has no blow hole, its at the beginning of the succession while the ancestors still lived on land. It has a rounded whale like skull, angular teeth, and its in the right location at the right time, as we will see with further fossils.

Ambulocetus: no other whale features? it has its triangular ungulate teeth like those of whales, it has a long snout like pakicetus and rodhocetus, it was a marine animal, it has an undulating spike with shorter limbs. Just like pakicetus, it has aquatic traits, while still clearly has terrestrial features indicating that it is not a whale.

Ill add two more here, Dalanistes and remingtonocetus: longer whale like snout, contain the same whale like teeth, webbed feet, yet still with terrestrial traits, like toes.

Don't be fooled by the visual effects. National Geographic has a history of presenting highly imaginative artistic drawings as fact; and paleontologist Phil Gingerich, who was involved in most, if not all of these discoveries, is a proven dreamer.

The so-called Pakicetus was initially mischaracterized by Phil Gingerich as a "primitive whale", based solely on the only fossil evidence at the time -- the skull. Additional parts have since been discovered which give it the appearance of land animal similar to a modern wolf. There is no evidence whatsoever the Pakicetus was anything other than an upright, four-legged, walking land animal. There were claims that the ear bone had whale-like features, but that claim was later determined to be "questionable"

The so-called Ambulocetus is presented in imaginitive drawings and museum mock-ups as some sort of web footed creature, but there is no fossil evidence that it was anything other than a quadrupedal land animal, with real legs, real toes, and a backbone that ends at the pelvis. There were claims that the ear bone had whale-like features, but that claim was later determined to be "as questionable", as it was for the Pakicetus.


The rule of thumb, as suggested by Dr. Carl Werner, is don't believe anything a paleontologist says until you see the actual fossils; and certainly do not believe the reconstructed mock-ups as in this highly-suggestive scheme:

I can keep going...

Don't believe anything about whale evolution until you see the actual fossils, such as these from the Ambulocetus:

[National Geographic Image collection, Robert Caputo]

And, even then, don't let you imagination run wild, like many in the evolutionary fields. Gingerich, from his own mouth, admits he has "imagined" key structural features when there are missing components.

But so has his partner in fantasy, Hans Thewissen:

So, if those key structural components were "imagined", or are "questionable", what else are they not telling us?

Another rule of thumb is, "Beware of those who are out to make a name for themselves."

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

The bottom line is

Anyone who has eyes can see this transition. You dont have to be a genius.

But can they see the highly creative artwork that went into inventing these highly-suggestive mock-ups?

Display the actual fossils in the same sequence, with no mock-ups, and see if "anyone who has eyes can see this transition". I'll bet no one can, unless they truly, truly want to see it. LOL!

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

And remember guys, the main point is that, we have all these fossils showing up at roughly similar and sequential times. They arent randomly popping up in random places around earth in random beds of the geologic column. Nobody found pakicetus in the holocene while finding dorudon in the silurian. Right...

So, these animals lived in the same general habitat and were rapidly covered by flood sediment, which is about the only way possible that they would fossilize? Makes sense to me.

The fact that there are no undisputed transitional forms of whales, or anything else, after 150+ years of feverish digging by those seeking to prove Darwin right (and keep that research grant money coming in), should alert even the least educated in this ongoing debate that whale evolution might simply be 100% hype.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Excuse me, Do you recognize the fact that tiktaalik has qualities, such as scales and fins, that are commonly observed in fish, and also qualities that are commonly observed in land based tetrapods, such as an unfused skull and nostrils at the top of its head?

If true (and I am not disputing it), that does not prove the fins of the Tiktaalik could in any way support its own weight.

Nothing else matters for a transitional fossil, but the basic question of it it has traits of multiple animal groups that are observed before and after its location in the succession.

That is a good way to define it if you want to keep the myth "alive". But if the definition required actual evidence of a transition, the concept of transitional fossils would already be relegated to the dustbin of history.

Dan