More evidence for evolution.

[John MacNeil]

This has got to be the funniest example of evolution I've ever seen:

www.neoucom.edu/Depts/ANAT/whaleorigins.htm

and I'm glad it was posted so I could have a good laugh. It makes such a comical picture imagining a thousand pound Mesonychian cow wandering down to the ocean and going for a swim and then magically turning into a fifty ton whale. But of course, the whole herd would have had to wander into the ocean at the same time and all of them change into whales all at once so that there would be a breeding population. It's even funnier how the people who are gullible enough to believe such nonsense try to defend it by saying they have "evidence".

The idea that dogs can be bred to make other shapes of dogs is no evidence of evolution. They're still dogs. It doesn't matter if you call them a wolf or a coyote or a dalmation. If you can take two dog and make a cat, then you have the beginnings of an argument. If all life evolved from the same source, then that should be replicateable in the lab. But of course nothing like that will ever happen.

The questions should be asked, Why do evolutionists doggedly adhere to a theory that has no consistency? And why can't they tell the difference between Natural Selection and evolution theory?

 

[Doubting Thomas]

A thousand pound Mesonychian cow "magically" turning into a fifty ton whale or two dogs producing a cat would actually be powerful disconfirmations of evolutionary theory. But, hey! Why bother actually understanding anything about the real theory when one can present a grotesque caricature of it and then pat oneself on the back for supposedly destroying 150 years of scientific work? Would you like me to book your flight to Stockholm now, or would you prefer to hear from the Nobel committee first?

 

[chickenman]

troll alert

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by John MacNeil
This has got to be the funniest example of evolution I've ever seen:

www.neoucom.edu/Depts/ANAT/whaleorigins.htm

and I'm glad it was posted so I could have a good laugh. It makes such a comical picture imagining a thousand pound Mesonychian cow wandering down to the ocean and going for a swim and then magically turning into a fifty ton whale. But of course, the whole herd would have had to wander into the ocean at the same time and all of them change into whales all at once so that there would be a breeding population. It's even funnier how the people who are gullible enough to believe such nonsense try to defend it by saying they have "evidence".

Well, when you put it that way, it is rather funny. Unfortunately your little straw man bears no resemblance to evolutionary theory.

Besides, why is your little tale any less funny than the thought of God "poofing" a 50-ton whale into existence in thin air, one after another, only to watch them splash into the ocean and go swimming merrily away.

"Abracadabra!" ... *poof* ...*splash!*
"Abracadabra!" ... *poof* ...*splash!*
"Abracadabra!" ... *poof* ...*splash!*
"Abracadabra!" ... *poof* ...*splash!*
"Abracadabra!" ... *poof* ...*splash!*
"Abracadabra!" ... *poof* ...*splash!*

(Note: "abracadabra" is an English translation. God actually speaks Hebrew, of course)

 

[MSBS]

Originally posted by lucaspa
As I said, I haven't seen biracial kids in Australia or any mention of them.

Do some checking into half caste laws that were inacted in the 1920s or so in Austrialia. A quick search in google should come up with quite a few web sites. The laws lay down how biracial people are to be treated by the sate, with discussion of 1/4th and 1/8th Aboriginal and European mixtures as well as various other biracial mixes of Aboriginies and various "greater" and "lesser" Asians. I very much doubt they would have enacted these laws were biracial people not possible.


Found this on a quick search:

http://www.usyd.edu.au/su/social/robert/arc/notes/tindale.htm

The 2,197 persons classified as half-castes constitute the "Problem" in South Australia. This "Problem" is part of a larger one concerning the 24,718 persons of mixed-blood origin in the Commonwealth of Australia.

Tindale, Norman B, 1941. 'Survey of the half-caste problem in South Australia' Proceedings of the Royal Geographical Society of Australasia, South Australia, 42 (1940-41): 66-161

 

[John MacNeil]

Hey?...What's with the straw man and troll business?

Didn't that web site, which was presented by a believer in evolution, say that a fully developd land animal, with four legs, moved into the water and became whales? Why would an animal do that? Never mind how, you'll never be able to explain it.

And why do you think that just because people criticize your funny theory that people don't understand what you mean by evolution? I understand exactly what you mean by evolution. I also understand that most evolutionists confuse natural selection with evolution.

And why do you evolutionists always bring up creation as a counter-argument whenever anyone challenges your goofy theory? Do you think that if you make someone else's belief look stupid that your theory will look less stupid?

No one needs a "straw man", as you call it, to ridicule the evolution theory. The evolution theory is consistently stupid all on it's own. The fully developed cows wandering into the ocean and gradually turning into fifty ton whales is just one more dumb idea in a long succession of dumb ideas. The science doesn't affirm evolution, it shows huge, irreconcilable gaps in the theory. The more science progresses, the bigger the gaps get. The theory just doesn't work from a logical or scientific perspective. You evolutionists think that if you produce tens of thousand of document itemizing minute changes in some species or other, that you can convince everyone your theory is real. But all those document of minute changes ever prove is that natural selection works, and no one is disputing that. It's your overall theory of everything that doesn't work.

You evolutionists should realize that having a theory of everything is ridiculous. When you claim that you know how, and when, life evolved 3 & 1/2 or 4 billion year ago, that you are expected to prove how dogs evolved 15 thousand year ago. But you can't even do that. All you can do is speculate and say the speculations fit your evolution theory. The same inconsitencies are found in all your fancy speculations. There isn't a single species that you can prove evolved from the beginning of time. Not one! Out of how many million of species are there? So why do you keep harping on about evolution? You would be far better off saying that you believe natural selection works and that you are studying how species are interrelated through their DNA. That way you wouldn't be opening yourselves up to so much ridicule for endorsing a theory that science is proving impossible.

 

[kaotic]

Hey?...What's with the straw man and troll business?

No idea.

Didn't that web site, which was presented by a believer in evolution, say that a fully developd land animal, with four legs, moved into the water and became whales? Why would an animal do that? Never mind how, you'll never be able to explain it.

I could think of maybe one reason. Well say something happened and they ran out of food and the only food was in the ocean and it's the only food that they can eat they would have to go into the ocean. There is lots of reasons.

And why do you think that just because people criticize your funny theory that people don't understand what you mean by evolution? I understand exactly what you mean by evolution. I also understand that most evolutionists confuse natural selection with evolution.

Well A lot of people that make fun of the theory of evolution have never learned anything about it.

And why do you evolutionists always bring up creation as a counter-argument whenever anyone challenges your goofy theory? Do you think that if you make someone else's belief look stupid that your theory will look less stupid?

Well creation has no evidence backing it up and people try to challenge the thoery of evolution with something that has nothing scientific backing it up.

No one needs a "straw man", as you call it, to ridicule the evolution theory. The evolution theory is consistently stupid all on it's own. The fully developed cows wandering into the ocean and gradually turning into fifty ton whales is just one more dumb idea in a long succession of dumb ideas. The science doesn't affirm evolution, it shows huge, irreconcilable gaps in the theory. The more science progresses, the bigger the gaps get. The theory just doesn't work from a logical or scientific perspective. You evolutionists think that if you produce tens of thousand of document itemizing minute changes in some species or other, that you can convince everyone your theory is real. But all those document of minute changes ever prove is that natural selection works, and no one is disputing that. It's your overall theory of everything that doesn't work.

No The more science progresses they better we understand the universe and the world and past. And we don't have a theory of everything yet it's being worked out it's called the Unified Field Theory.

You evolutionists should realize that having a theory of everything is ridiculous. When you claim that you know how, and when, life evolved 3 & 1/2 or 4 billion year ago, that you are expected to prove how dogs evolved 15 thousand year ago. But you can't even do that. All you can do is speculate and say the speculations fit your evolution theory. The same inconsitencies are found in all your fancy speculations. There isn't a single species that you can prove evolved from the beginning of time. Not one! Out of how many million of species are there? So why do you keep harping on about evolution? You would be far better off saying that you believe natural selection works and that you are studying how species are interrelated through their DNA. That way you wouldn't be opening yourselves up to so much ridicule for endorsing a theory that science is proving impossible.

No the theory of everything isn't ridiculous, do you have any evidence that says it's ridiculous.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

I apologize for feeding the troll.

 

[John MacNeil]

Seesaw, if you are going to say that scientists are working on the Unified Field Theory, then you should refer to it as Einstein's Unified Field Theory, at least unitl it is well known and undisputed. Otherwise, people might confuse it with the Grand Unified Theory which some scientists are working on and which includes the black hole, big bang scenario and other unworkable postulations, and specifically excludes a single field universe.

 

[Morat]

Seesaw, if you are going to say that scientists are working on the Unified Field Theory, then you should refer to it as Einstein's Unified Field Theory, at least unitl it is well known and undisputed. Otherwise, people might confuse it with the Grand Unified Theory which some scientists are working on and which includes the black hole, big bang scenario and other unworkable postulations, and specifically excludes a single field universe.

Strangely enough, most people can learn from their mistakes. You, for instance, have been told on numerous occasions that Einstein did not create a Unified Field Theory. He spent a few decades trying, but got nowhere. Currently, quantum mechanics and relativity remain unreconiciled. Since Einstein is dead, I think we can safely say that, when quantum mechanics and relativity are unified, Einstein won't be the one to do it. (BTW, this also holds true for attempts to unify gravity with the other three).

Since Einstein's being dead, and the non-existance of a unified field theory are both matters of public record, I'm not sure why you continue to make this error. I find it telling, of course, that you cannot point to Einstein's Unified Field Theory. You have not, to date, cited any papers he wrote on it, linked to websites that discuss it, or in fact done anything than repeat an obviously false statement over and over again. Since I can't imagine you'd want to deliberatly destroy any traces of credibility, I can only imagine some other reason lurks in the depths of your mind.

Research is always ongoing into the mysteries of the human mind

 

[chickenman]

That way you wouldn't be opening yourselves up to so much ridicule for endorsing a theory that science is proving impossible.

why do you make statements like this? I can only conclude you're either making it up or getting it from someone else who is making it up - because anyone who knows the state of scientific research and thought knows this isn't true. There aren't any papers published by any scientist which show evolution to be impossible, until you can find one, you should retract this silly statement.

 

[John MacNeil]

If only you kids knew how funny you are! Always talking like you know the subject you're talking about and being completely unaware of the reality. How amusing! Ohhh...To be young and brash, again!

I suppose I could help you out here, since you are obviously lost on the subject. Here is a link to the theory that you are advocating, since you don't even know the name of it;

www.grandunifiedtheory.org.il/

Do you want me to give you some pointers on how to better defend it, too?

How can anyone who knows Einstein's work say Einstein didn't propose a Unified Field Theory? If you are as ignorant about that as about the Grand Unified Theory then you should read some of Einstein. If Einstein spent thirty year working on the Unified Field Theory, then that is evidence that there was one. Read some of his work and you will find that out in short order. To keep complaining that you don't know what it is or that it doesn't exist, is only an indication of your lack of knowledge.

There are a bunch of websites on the web that describe Einstein's life and work. Or you can look to Princeton University's website and order Einsteins papers. They publish them in drafts that cost about $80. U.S. each and there are a couple of dozen of them. Or you could buy or borrow some of his book. If you are interested in real science then you should endeavor to learn something about real science. Continuing to support cartoon science and then chastising people who know real science only makes you look uneducated and unrefined. But, it sure is good for a laugh!

 

[chickenman]

Continuing to support cartoon science and then chastising people who know real science only makes you look uneducated and unrefined.

the irony is unbearable

hypocrisy, macneill is thy name

 

[John MacNeil]

You know....students shouldn't even be allowed to talk publicly about science until after they've read some Einstein. It should be a mandatory part of the curriculum of all science classes. Following that witchy cult science which makes universes out of nothing must make your mind logy. Here's a couple of links to Einstein's early papers on the Unified Field Theory which show he had begun working on it about thirty year before his death.

www.lrz-muenchen.de/~aunzicker/rep2.html

www.lrz-muenchen.de/~aunzicker/einst.html

If you do a little resarch you will find that Einstein always based his work on reality, as opposed to the fiction of the people who endorse the goofy expansion-universe, contraction-black hole cartoon theory.

When Hubble first endorsed Georges LeMaitre's "Big Bang!" theory, in 1929, he based his assumptions on the observations of V.M.Slipher, who was the one who first observed red-shift in galaxies. The false assumption that Hubble made was that the red-shift meant that all bodies in the universe were moving away from all other bodies, thus denoting an expanding universe. But red-shift doesn't mean that at all, as Halton C. Arp proved in his book "Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies", c.1987. If you kids were really interested in science you would know about that and you would engage in real discussion, instead of beating the drum and shaking the rattle of voodoo science.

 

[chickenman]

if you do a little research john, you'll find out that although einstein worked on a unified field theory until his death - he never actually accomplished his goal - the unified field theory still eludes physicists

 

[kaotic]

chickenman is right the unified field theory is being worked on right now. There is a number of physicist working on it.

 

[Humanista]

Two things:

1)Individuals do not evolve. A single cow did not go into the water and become a whale in its single short lifetime. Evolution does not happen to individuals, it happens within a population over a LONG perios of time.

2)There is only one race of humans, homo sapien. The inability to interbreed between species refers to an inability for the sperm and egg to unite or implant. The pregnancy does not happen or does not progress because the genetic differences are too wide. The material from the egg and the sperm can't work together.

Scientists agree that the differences that used
to be used to distinguish one "race" from another are superficial (hair texture, skin color, width of nose, how the eyes are set )and in many cases, when you get down to the DNA, an American negro may be more closely related to a caucasian that he is to African negroes. (Sorry if that term is offensive or politically incorrect to anyone, I'm just using the traditional racial term, like mongoloid or polynesian.)

 

[Morat]

*laugh*. Under John's logic, if I work for years on a math problem, fail to solve it, die, and then Chickenman comes along and solve's it, they'll call it "Morat's Solution".