Where did Whales come from?

[Job 33:6]

Come to think of it, I actually own the book where that Gould quote came from. I'll crack it open when I have some free time to give more insight into his thoughts.

 

[Job 33:6]

@omega2xx

I have devoted the last ten years of my professional life in paleontology to constructing an unorthodox theory for explaining the lack of expected patterns during normal times -- the theory of punctuated equilibrium. Niles Eldredge and I, the perpetrators of this particularly uneuphonious name, argue that the pattern of normal times is not a tale of continuous adaptive improvement within lineages. Rather, species form rapidly in geological perspective (thousands of years) and tend to remain highly stable for millions of years thereafter. Evolutionary success must be assessed among species themselves, not at the traditional Darwinian level of struggling organisms within populations. The reasons that species succeed are many and varied -- high rates of speciation and strong resistance to extinction, for example -- and often involve no reference to traditional expectations for improvement in morphological design. If punctuated equilibrium dominates the pattern of normal times, then we have come a long way toward understanding the curiously fluctuating directions of life's history. Until recently, I suspected that punctuated equilibrium might resolve the dilemma of progress all by itself.

I now realize that the fluctuating pattern must be constructed by a complex and fascinating interaction of two distinct tiers of explanation -- punctuated equilibrium for normal times, and the different effects produced by separate processes of mass extinction. Whatever accumulates by punctuated equilibrium (or by other processes) in normal times can be broken up, dismantled, reset, and dispersed by mass extinction. If punctuated equilibrium upset traditional expectations (and did it ever!), mass extinction is far worse. Organisms cannot track or anticipate the environmental triggers of mass extinction. No matter how well they adapt to environmental ranges of normal times, they must take their chances in catastrophic moments. And if extinctions can demolish more than 90 percent of all species, then we must be losing groups forever by pure bad luck among a few clinging survivors designed for another world.

~Gould




Only young earth creationists would be so deceptive, as to state that Gould rejects the fossil succession.

 

[Aman777]

Gen 1:21 doers not say every living creature was created and brought forth from water.

Sure it does:
Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after Their kind, and every winged fowl after His kind: and God saw that it was good.

If our "advanced" Science is so advanced, then WHY did it take them more than 3k years to discover what God told us in Genesis One? What is indicated is that God HID His Truth, which will be discovered by Science, in the last days.

Did these brilliant scientist explain the origin of the water and how a substance that does not have all of the element need for life, prdoduce life?

Sure, and it agrees in every way with Genesis 1:21 since the last universal common ancestor of all life on Planet Earth began as a single cell from WATER exactly as God told us in Gen. 1:21. It's empirical testable evidence of the literal God since NO man of the time could have possibly known this. Amen?

 

[omega2xx]

Sure it does:
Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after Their kind, and every winged fowl after His kind: and God saw that it was good.

You need a better translation: God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, which the waters swarmed. after their kind, and God saw that it was good--NASB

If our "advanced" Science is so advanced, then WHY did it take them more than 3k years to discover what God told us in Genesis One? What is indicated is that God HID His Truth, which will be discovered by Science, in the last days.

The truth was discovered years ago, but their is a group that doesn't believe what is repeated and observed thousands of times every day.

They think evolution is based on science.

Sure, and it agrees in every way with Genesis 1:21 since the last universal common ancestor of all life on Planet Earth began as a single cell from WATER exactly as God told us in Gen. 1:21. It's empirical testable evidence of the literal God since NO man of the time could have possibly known this. Amen?

What a silly, non-scientific idea. They can't tell the source of the water, they can't tell what this first life form became and water does not contain all of the elements to make life. Do you really believe that life originated from lifeless element?

 

[omega2xx]

@omega2xx

I have devoted the last ten years of my professional life in paleontology to constructing an unorthodox theory for explaining the lack of expected patterns during normal times -- the theory of punctuated equilibrium. Niles Eldredge and I, the perpetrators of this particularly uneuphonious name, argue that the pattern of normal times is not a tale of continuous adaptive improvement within lineages. Rather, species form rapidly in geological perspective (thousands of years) and tend to remain highly stable for millions of years thereafter. Evolutionary success must be assessed among species themselves, not at the traditional Darwinian level of struggling organisms within populations. The reasons that species succeed are many and varied -- high rates of speciation and strong resistance to extinction, for example -- and often involve no reference to traditional expectations for improvement in morphological design. If punctuated equilibrium dominates the pattern of normal times, then we have come a long way toward understanding the curiously fluctuating directions of life's history. Until recently, I suspected that punctuated equilibrium might resolve the dilemma of progress all by itself.

One does not need to study paleontology to know that "punctuated equilibrium is not only absurd it is 110% unscientific. Gould and Eldridge and you, evidently, although have never heard your name mentioned with the term, recognized the fossil record does not support evolution, invented a fairy tale to give the faithful hope they have not believed in vain. Nothing you said in the above paragraph is supported by science. If evolution was true, the great majority of fossils would be transitional, and you have none.

now realize that the fluctuating pattern must be constructed by a complex and fascinating interaction of two distinct tiers of explanation -- punctuated equilibrium for normal times, and the different effects produced by separate processes of mass extinction. Whatever accumulates by punctuated equilibrium (or by other processes) in normal times can be broken up, dismantled, reset, and dispersed by mass extinction. If punctuated equilibrium upset traditional expectations (and did it ever!), mass extinction is far worse. Organisms cannot track or anticipate the environmental triggers of mass extinction. No matter how well they adapt to environmental ranges of normal times, they must take their chances in catastrophic moments. And if extinctions can demolish more than 90 percent of all species, then we must be losing groups forever by pure bad luck among a few clinging survivors designed for another world.

~Gould

More evo rhetoric with absolutely no supporting, scientific evidence'

Only young earth creationists would be so deceptive, as to state that Gould rejects the fossil succession.

And only a old earth evolutionist would be so deceptive to say he didn't reject the fossil succession, when he said "appeared suddenly, not connected with their ancestor.

FYI, I am no a young earth creationist. You need to get your facts straight before you lable someone.

 

[omega2xx]

For that, i could,

You would if you could, but you can't.


[/QUOTE]but id rather let the biologists here make a joke of you.[/QUOTE]

Until one of them, or you presents some scientific evidence that makes what they say possible, the joke is on them and you.

I will keep laughing until some evidence is presented.

 

[omega2xx]

Have you actually read any of Goulds books or publications? He very much supports common descent as identified by the fossil succession.

I have a few of his books and, his publications are readily available online. Anyone who has actually read his books knows that he is utterly infatuated with the fossil succession, and is goes out of his way in his own books, to talk about how people misconstrue and take his words out of context.

IMO believing there are millions of years between new species forming, and with no intermediates is more absurd and less scientific than gradualism. Also he offers no evidence to support his theory.

If you want to believe something with no evidence , be my guest, but it seems rather foolish too me.

 

[omega2xx]

Come to think of it, I actually own the book where that Gould quote came from. I'll crack it open when I have some free time to give more insight into his thoughts.

Please include any scientific evidence he used to support what he says.

 

[Job 33:6]

Please include any scientific evidence he used to support what he says.

So you have essentially lied, stating that Gould rejects the fossil succession. When you are informed that he doesn't, all of a sudden it doesn't matter if you lied or not, you are more concerned about the science in his research.

Did you take even a moment to ponder how you became misinformed to begin with?

 

[Job 33:6]

And only a old earth evolutionist would be so deceptive to say he didn't reject the fossil succession, when he said "appeared suddenly, not connected with their ancestor.

FYI, I am no a young earth creationist. You need to get your facts straight before you lable someone.

Apparently you don't know what the fossil succession is if you think Gould rejects it. Either you do not know what the succession is, or you are mistaken about Gould's position.

Either way, you wear your ignorance on your shoulder, and are making false claims. You clearly aren't in a position to be taken seriously in this discussion.

 

[Aman777]

You need a better translation: God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, which the waters swarmed. after their kind, and God saw that it was good--NASB

Your ALTERED version leaves out "His" kinds and the fact that winged fowl also were created and came forth from WATER after His kinds.

Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after Their kind, and every winged fowl after His kind: and God saw that it was good.

This reveals that your version is willingly ignorant of the difference between His and Their kinds. This means that their understanding of Genesis One is totally FALSE. I use the KJV because it is the one which God chose to reveal His Truth to most people. It's less altered than your's. God Bless you

 

[omega2xx]

Your ALTERED version leaves out "His" kinds and the fact that winged fowl also were created and came forth from WATER after His kinds.

Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after Their kind, and every winged fowl after His kind: and God saw that it was good.

This reveals that your version is willingly ignorant of the difference between His and Their kinds. This means that their understanding of Genesis One is totally FALSE. I use the KJV because it is the one which God chose to reveal His Truth to most people. It's less altered than your's. God Bless you

Anyone who knows anything about Bibles knows the KJ is not a good translation because our knowledge of Hebrew and Greek has greatly improved from when it was translated.

"Whales" is not in that verse. It should read "great sea monsters, and saying "after His kin makes it sound like , birds were created after God's kind. It is well known that "you shall not kill," should be "you shall not murder. Under some circumstances we are allowed to kill;

In I Cor 13:1-4 The word for "love" is agape. I am sure you know what agape means The KJ translates that word as "charity."

There are several other words the KJ has mistranslated, but but it is a waste of time to try and show the KJ only folks their translation is not as accurate


if you goggle most accurate Bible," you will find the NASB near the top and the KJ, farther down.

Don't get me wrong, the KJ is a good translation, just not the best.

 

[omega2xx]

Apparently you don't know what the fossil succession is if you think Gould rejects it. Either you do not know what the succession is, or you are mistaken about Gould's position.

Fossil succession" is not rocket surgery. Even a cave man with a 2 digit IQ can understand it. Gould tries to justify "punctuated equililbra" because it is obvious that the age old standard of "gradualismcan't support evolution. I give him credit for having the courage to go against the grain. The succession he accepts, is more absurd than than one he replaced it with. It has a new species evolving over night, geologically so to speak, with no intermediates With no intermediates. NO fossil record can support evolution without intermediates. If evolution was true, the great number fossils would be intermediates, and you have NON.

[/QUOTE]Either way, you wear your ignorance on your shoulder, and are making false claims. You clearly aren't in a position to be taken seriously in this discussion.[/QUOTE]

Until you can provide some scientific evidence for whale evolution, you wear your ignorance in your head. Only a fool accepts something as true without some evidence. You are not qualified to say I will not be taken seriously. Some will, some wont, which is the case with you also.

 

[omega2xx]

So you have essentially lied, stating that Gould rejects the fossil succession. When you are informed that he doesn't, all of a sudden it doesn't matter if you lied or not, you are more concerned about the science in his research.

Did you take even a moment to ponder how you became misinformed to begin with?

Until you post where I said he did not accept succession, you are the one lying.

 

[mark kennedy]

Did Whales come from land creatures or did they come from water creatures?

It's possible they were originally amphibians.

 

[omega2xx]

The Bible is fully compatible with evolution, even more than it is with the idea of a spherical earth. The creation account is clearly speaking to the people of the ancient world, and not meant to be taken literally. After all, it describes a flat earth, under a hard dome, under water, and the fact that it was not literal was recognized by many early Christians, including St. Augustine and Origen.

Sorry I am late to this dance but when I read it I couldn't let it go unchallanged. "After their kind" refutes evolution. That phrase says each species , fish, birds, cattle and man will only reproduce the same as it source life. This proven FACT is verified thousands of times ever day in each category of species. All conservative theologians say Genesis is literal and there is no reason to think otherwise with an omnipotend Creator.

More importantly, it's blasphemy to deny the evolution of the whale, because to claim it was designed that way says that God is a really stupid designer. First of all, what kind of designer would make a fully aquatic creature unable to breathe water? That's like driving a car into the lake. Why would a god put so many transitional fossils showing a clear and obvious transition from a land creature into a whale into the earth?

Since whales have survived quite well in the environment God put them in why does that make their very intelligent Designer stupid. You don't even know there are no intermediate fossils between pakicetus and whales.

Explain genetically of course, how the leg of a land animal can become the fin of a sea creature.

Why have whales grow teeth in the womb before re-absorbing them before birth? Why have genes for making hair that are then turned off? Why have DNA that shows a nested hierarchy, and ancestry from land animals, in nearly every cell of the whale? Why have whales form legs before birth, which also are reabsorbed before birth?

Why have a l and animal surviving quite will on land have a need to become anything else. That sounds like "natural selection" in reverse. Another fairy tale evolutin can't prove

And it goes on and on. To suggest that whales didn't descend from land animals seems to be calling God a liar for making so many different lines of clear evidence of that, in addition to the brain-dead design.

To say God did not create whales as they are is the ones calling God a liar. There are no lines of evidence,m let alone clear lines.



But the Bible does actually say that people are beasts - and we both (I hope) agree that Jesus was fully human.

Ecl 3:18 -
I said in my heart with regard to human beings that God is testing them to show that they are but animals.[/QUOTE]

A better translation says, " for them to see that they are all but beast." Why do you take that literally, but not Genesis? Men as beast is a metaphor indication men tend to act like beast at times.

Read the next verse: the sons of MEN and the fate of BEASTS is the same...there is no advantAgge for MAN over BEASTS.

scientists have helped us see more and more of God's creation, and most scientists are believers in God.

Actually most scientist today seem not to be believers in God. Most are evolutionists and they deny God.

I don't see why you have such distrust of the many Christians who give God the glory. After all, the biggest institution teaching evolution is explicitly Christian, and most who accept the reality of evolution in the United States are Christians.

In Christ-

Who gives God the most glory, those who say God is the Creator of life or He is not?

What institutions teaching evolution are Christians?

Most who accept evolution as reality are not Christians.

 

[omega2xx]

It's possible they were originally amphibians.

It is more than possible, it is a FACT.

 

[Job 33:6]

Fossil succession" is not rocket surgery. Even a cave man with a 2 digit IQ can understand it. Gould tries to justify "punctuated equililbra" because it is obvious that the age old standard of "gradualismcan't support evolution. I give him credit for having the courage to go against the grain. The succession he accepts, is more absurd than than one he replaced it with. It has a new species evolving over night, geologically so to speak, with no intermediates With no intermediates. NO fossil record can support evolution without intermediates. If evolution was true, the great number fossils would be intermediates, and you have NON.

First you say Gould rejects the faunal succession, which he doesnt. Then you propose that gradualistic rates of evolution could not produce what we see in the fossil succession, but they can. And you further propose that Gould believes in some sort of overnight speciation without intermediates, which he doesnt. Gould recognizes the thousands of intermediates we have, and does not recognize rates of evolution beyond what gradualism can produce.

I can't be bothered to hold this conversation with someone who just spouts things out without having any education about them. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

I suppose ill add you to the ignore list. Ive wasted enough time here.

 

[mark kennedy]

It is more than possible, it is a FACT.

As usual, a Darwinian zealot is an instant expert, feigning moral indignation on a matter that is as obscure as ghosts in the fog. You have absolutely no interest in the actual facts but you have a caps lock so it's a FACT. Notice, you have nothing to say about the alleged fact, just that its is a FACT. Do you have any idea how many times I've seen this performance, the melodrama doesn't impress me.

 

[Christie insb]

That is laughable and void of any scientific evidence. To preach that a dog-like land animal surviving on land needed to become a sea creature is one of evolution's most absurd guesses. However it is necessary or the TOE is exposed as the unscientific fraud it is.

Maye you can explain, genetically of course, how a furry leg can become a scaly fin and how something in the front of the animal, its nose, can move back and become a blowhole.

Their morphological differences come from how they were created, not from evolution.

Whales don't have scales. They are mammals and have rubbery-feeling skin.