You would have to ask biologists [In other words you can't answer the Qs yourself but are just assuming....based on faith....that they have the answers. If you can't articulate an answer for yourself you don't really understand the issues. Of course I have already heard what the biologists have to say. I also know what science and logic are and can see when "evidence" is not evidence. May you learn to do the same. for the evidence that whales evolved from mammals with hooves, although I believe ["I believe" is another faith based statement containing no data. that the genetic evidence points to "Points to....indicates....we can infer", i.e the usual fuzz factor words, no real data. Or, if one examines the data what one always, always sees are the usual logical fallacies, unsupported presumptions presented as fact - pretty much as you present your "facts" here and general smoke and mirrors sophistry a relationship between whales and hoofed mammals. I am merely asking whether there is any evidence that modern whales are descended from Mesozoic or Palaeozoic whales, given that there is no fossil evidence for such ancient whales. You're asking me? Of course my answer is Nope, no way. No evidence for that whatsoever.
First, sharks are fish; whales and ambulocetus are mammals. A platypus is a mammal too. It has a bill, and webbed feet, much like a duck.
so what? It doesn't matter if you are comparing sharks and dolphins or whales and ambulocetus or a platypus and a duck. Correlation Does Not Imply Causation in each case. I notice that evo. fans really don't understand logical fallacies and that when they are presented with them, they just evade them, the way you keep evading my actual Qs.Second, the fact that life comes from life means that modern whales must be descended from ancestors that lived at a geological time when there is no fossil evidence of whales, or even of mammals. Your argument here is based on a faulty premise, which you are religiously adhering to you. You are reasoning backwards. You have accepted evolutionary theory and cannot even imagine that it's not true. You are here demonstrating the Fallacy Of The Single Cause. Frist you assume that evolution is true, while you offer no data to support that belief, and which I know through years of study does not exist, then you tell me "See! It has to be true because evolution is true, so that's the only answer!"
So what are whales descended from? If you went to a museum and looked at Paleocene or Eocene fossils, what animals would you select as the ancestors of whales? Please learn to read. I think it should be abundantly clear that I don't think whales descended from anything but....whales.
Perhaps you should read some geology books, or books on the history of geology. Just to help you, though, all of the geological periods except for the Ordovician were named before Charles Darwin wrote The Origin of Species, the Jurassic and Tertiary periods were named before Charles Lyell and Charles Darwin were even born, and the Carboniferous, Cretaceous and Quaternary periods were named before Lyell published Principles of Geology. Did you know that Geology students study a geologist who based his theories on showing that the Great Flood was true? Guess what, they don't know that either most of the time. His theories are taught, his reasons for them are ignored. What does it matter when or who named fictious time periods. As I demonstrated in an earlier post, p.2 in blue, there are evolution believing scientists who admit how subjective and biased are all the "time lines." Look outside the box. Please stop just parroting what you have heard and analyze it with critical thinking. Keep asking yourself, "Where is the actual....data....to show what they are telling us is true." Here is a quote for you, compliments of icr.org: Steno, the "father of stratigraphy", whose principles of stratigraphic interpretation are still followed today, and of John Woodward, Sir Isaac Newton’s hand-picked successor at Cambridge, whose studies on sedimentary processes laid the foundation for modern sedimentology and geomorphology. These men and the other flood geologists of their day were careful scientists, thoroughly acquainted with the sedimentary rocks and the geophysical processes which formed them. ,
.
A quick look at Wikipedia yields Indohyus, the pakicetids, the ambulocetids, the remingtoncetids, the protocetids, the basilosaurids, the dorudontids, and Llanocetus, Janjucetus hunderi, Aetiocetus weltoni, Ashorocetus, Morowanocetus, Mammalodon, Chonecetus, Willungacetus, Cetotheriopsis, Eomysticetus, Tohoraata, and Kentriodon. That should give you enough research material to keep you occupied.Exactly where in your regurgitated information in your last paragraph, or where anywhere in your posts, as you answering my questions? Where did you tell me how I can know that ambulocetus, a hooved animal with four legs, turned into a great whale, or how I can know that it is related to any of the other so called transitional whales? How can I know it isn't just a dead end, extinct life form? It doesn't even look like a whale. To me the fossil looks more like a horse. So...how do I know it didn't turn into some kind of equine type creature? Rhetorical Q,
You can't build science on logical fallacies like Correlation Does Not Imply Causation.
If you want to keep evading my Qs and typing out "factoids" to make it look like you are actually responding to what my posts have asked for, I'm sorry, I don't have time for red herring logical fallacies. Either answer my Qs - and you won't, because you can't because there are no answers that support evolutionary theory, there or elsewhere - or let's drop this. I have better things to do and you do too.
But, how very kind of you to condescend to want to show me how to "Keep occupied". (Now where is a rolling eyes icon when one needs one?) Occupy me with the answers to my questions!
