What about the DNA evidence?

[Justatruthseeker]

Um, ok. YOu must know some weird dogs if that looks dog like to you, but to each their own I guess...
No, it didn't we've been over this.It's very far from the truth. Pay attention please.No.yes, about the size of a dog.
"some" being you.

But aside from your strange insistence that anything the approximate size of a dog is dog-like, lets' take a look:

There's your "dog-like" animal. I don't see it being very dog like, but whatever.

True, looks like a big rat, with nostrils and all, not a single breathing hole. Quite a conjectural leap to a whale, but whatever. We all know about fragments and evolutionary theory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

True, looks like a big rat, with nostrils and all, not a single breathing hole. Quite a conjectural leap to a whale, but whatever. We all know about fragments and evolutionary theory.

Yes, early finds are often fragments. Quite often they are filled out more with later finds. Creationists, since they are losers, concentrate only on the first finds and ignore the later finds that show that the first find was correct after all.

 

[createdtoworship]

Um, ok. YOu must know some weird dogs if that looks dog like to you, but to each their own I guess...
No, it didn't we've been over this.It's very far from the truth. Pay attention please.No.yes, about the size of a dog.
"some" being you.

But aside from your strange insistence that anything the approximate size of a dog is dog-like, lets' take a look:

There's your "dog-like" animal. I don't see it being very dog like, but whatever.

Ambulocetus, clearly adapted for both land and water. Stubbier limbs and no external ear.

Kutchicetus, further reduction in limbs, tail of more prominent use. May have been primarily water dwelling, but still capable of land locomotion.

Protocetus, further reductions in limbs, hind limbs still externally present, but likely had little to no function. Nostrils have started to transition rearward to where the blowhole will eventually be in modern cetaceans. Obligate water dweller.

just look at the pictures, doesn't that look like a dog? Not a rat, and a whale?

no.

I would call it ridiculous to compare that animal as compatible to a whale.

regardless of hundreds of transitions. You provide not even half dozen.

 

[createdtoworship]

Yeah! Whales only eat plankton!

Ummm...



A silly distinction to try and tar the loose set of undemonstrated hypothesis of abiogenesis to the well established theory of evolution.

I'm shocked you didn't try to attach both Hitler and the big bang.



Furry, has four legs and ate meat would include cats, baboons and badgers... if you are comfortable lumping them into some new creationist "dog kind", please feel free to tell us.

so your saying that this creature is what the dog evolved into?

I would beg to differ.

not even your buddies would agree with that one.

 

[[serious]]

True, looks like a big rat, with nostrils and all, not a single breathing hole. Quite a conjectural leap to a whale, but whatever. We all know about fragments and evolutionary theory.

Yes, if only I had posted several other images with comments explaining how they evolved into whales. Oh wait, I did, and you just neglected to include that in your quote.

YOu see, from Pakicetus to cetacean is a big jump. From Pakicetus to Ambulocetus? Much easier to see. From Ambulocetus to Kutchicetus? Also a reasonable jump. From Kutchicetus to Protocetus? well, now you have something that's clearly an early whale!

 

[[serious]]

so your saying that this creature is what the dog evolved into?

No one in this thread is calling Pakicetus a dog except you. Everyone one else keeps telling you it isn't a dog or even dog-like. Seriously dude, READ!

I would beg to differ.

I'm sure you would. The whole point of strawmen is to knock them down. But you are supposed to have the shame to abandon them when this many people have told you that what you are saying bears NO resemblance to the other person's argument.

not even your buddies would agree with that one.

That's because no one, including him, has said that except for you. When showna picture of it, even YOU didn't say it looked like a dog.

 

[[serious]]

just look at the pictures, doesn't that look like a dog? Not a rat, and a whale?

no.

I would call it ridiculous to compare that animal as compatible to a whale.

regardless of hundreds of transitions. You provide not even half dozen.

which one? the last one? I can show you more transitions taking it to the modern whale, but I didn't think you'd really need that. I mean, that last one is really whale-like in my eyes. Certainly more whale like than Pakicetus is dog-like.

 

[Shemjaza]

so your saying that this creature is what the dog evolved into?

I would beg to differ.

not even your buddies would agree with that one.

No, my buddies, as you call them would agree.

All dolphins and whales have common ancestors well after the "dog".

Check out the fossils the nostrils move back and the limbs get more aquatic... unless you have some "intelligent" designer making a sequence of animals from the land predator to the water filter feeder.


So, given you think evolution isn't true, what are these "dogs" or "rats" actually? Why are the only living creatures with common bone structure sea mammals?

 

[Shemjaza]

That's because no one, including him, has said that except for you. When showna picture of it, even YOU didn't say it looked like a dog.

I think he thinks because someone pointed out that dolphin rather then whale is a better label for an orca that we don't think they have a common ancestor.

(I guess that's a much wetter version of "why are there still monkeys!").

 

[[serious]]

I think he thinks because someone pointed out that dolphin rather then whale is a better label for an orca that we don't think they have a common ancestor.

(I guess that's a much wetter version of "why are there still monkeys!").

Well, at this point he's just repeating the same stuff that he's already been corrected on, so I'm out.

 

[Shemjaza]

Well, at this point he's just repeating the same stuff that he's already been corrected on, so I'm out.

The Black Knight always wins.

 

[stevevw]

evolutionists have linked animals in the past through their looks. Using similar features bone structures and anatomy to show how they are linked. Now that DNA is being used more this is showing how you cant necessarily depend on that alone. In some cases it is linking animals that dont look the same together. It is taking links in their branches out and putting other animals in that shouldn't belong.

The whale is an example. They say the Pakicetus is one of the land creatures that developed into the whale. This is based on similar features such as the nasal position and enlarged ear bone cavities. But when i look at the creature it doesn't look like a whale. DNA evidence has the hippo as the whales closet living relative yet it is put well back in the branch. Many say the pig was the hippos closest relative and looking at it you could see why. But evidence has found it is not and its the whale that is.

So until the DNA evidence supports the links i wouldn't be saying with confidence that certain animals are linked.

pakicetus Sperm whale Pilot Whale

pakicetus

Tasmanian tiger which looks very similar to the pakicetus even its skeleton does.

Tapir Numbat

hyena

Hyena amphicyon bear dog

Crocodile head Komodo dragon

Thylacoleo carnifex

pakicetus

Tasmanian tiger

hyena

As you can see many animals look the same at face value. I know that the experts will have a more detailed look. But on face value the pakicetus looks more similar to half a dozen other species than the whale.

To me the whale has more similarities to the hippo or a dugong which is related to an elephant.

 

[46AND2]

To me the whale has more similarities to the hippo or a dugong which is related to an elephant.

Hence your employment in something other than paleontology.

 

[Subduction Zone]

evolutionists have linked animals in the past through their looks. Using similar features bone structures and anatomy to show how they are linked. Now that DNA is being used more this is showing how you cant necessarily depend on that alone. In some cases it is linking animals that dont look the same together. It is taking links in their branches out and putting other animals in that shouldn't belong.

Yes, that is mostly true. The main thing that you should realize is that scientists are always improving. New technology is always driving science closer and closer to a more and more correct answer.

Is there anything wrong with that?

The whale is an example. They say the Pakicetus is one of the land creatures that developed into the whale. This is based on similar features such as the nasal position and enlarged ear bone cavities. But when i look at the creature it doesn't look like a whale. DNA evidence has the hippo as the whales closet living relative yet it is put well back in the branch. Many say the pig was the hippos closest relative and looking at it you could see why. But evidence has found it is not and its the whale that is.

It is not just that Pakicetus has certain features that makes us think it was a forerunner to the whale. There are later fossils that connect the link. We can observe the nostrils move back and become a blowhole in the various fossils. We can observe other features too.

So until the DNA evidence supports the links i wouldn't be saying with confidence that certain animals are linked.

Why not? Yes occasionally there have been minor mistakes as to relationships. Overall it the fossil evidence gives us the right answer. It is nice to be able to check occasionally and correct it.

As you can see many animals look the same at face value. I know that the experts will have a more detailed look. But on face value the pakicetus looks more similar to half a dozen other species than the whale.

To me the whale has more similarities to the hippo or a dugong which is related to an elephant.

Appearances alone are not enough. I will agree with you there. The skeletons of animals are much more telling. We would never make the mistake of thinking that crocodiles are similar to mammals when looking at the skeletons.

For others you might want to ask a biologist.

 

[USincognito]

So until the DNA evidence supports the links i wouldn't be saying with confidence that certain animals are linked.

Hand2. Sonic Hedgehog. Look them up.

As you can see many animals look the same at face value. I know that the experts will have a more detailed look. But on face value the pakicetus looks more similar to half a dozen other species than the whale.

It's a good thing we don't use face value.

And I notice you make the claim that the skeleton of a thylacine and a Pakicetus "look very similar".

Are you sure about that?

 

[46AND2]

To me the whale has more similarities to the hippo or a dugong which is related to an elephant.

Does the whale have more similarities to a hippo than protocetus?

 

[USincognito]

edit - snip quote

Please don't quote a message full of images in it's entirety just to reply with one sentence.


Thanks.

 

[46AND2]

Does the whale have more similarities to a hippo than protocetus?

And if you had the choice, which looks more similar to each other:

Whale and hippo, or

Protocetus and kutchicetus?

 

[46AND2]

edit - snip quote

Please don't quote a message full of images in it's entirety just to reply with one sentence.


Thanks.

On my phone...was in the process of deleting them, like I did on the previous post. ;-) just neglected to do it on initial posting; had to go back and edit, and my phone sucks for posting to these boards.

 

[stevevw]

edit - snip quote

Please don't quote a message full of images in it's entirety just to reply with one sentence.


Thanks.

Why not, I am using the images as a visual means to make a point. As they say pictures paint a thousand words. I wanted to use pictures rather than words to show what i meant. This was my personal observation. It may be off the mark and exaggerated but the fact that the experts have got it wrong themselves shows the basic point to be true. I have seen people post pictures to show their points on your side with much writing so whats the problem. If they want to show the wings og a bat or the skulls of apes they will post many to make their points.