Where did Whales come from?

[omega2xx]

Whales don't have scales.

I didn't say they did.

They are mammals and have rubbery-feeling skin.

And Pakicetus had fur and no way to get rubbery feeling skin.

 

[omega2xx]

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.

You are misreading me. What is a FACT is that whales were created amphibians . I am a Bible thumbing creationist and FYI a 4 point Calvinist.

 

[omega2xx]

First you say Gould rejects the faunal succession, which he doesnt.

I didn't say what he believed. I said what he said.

Then you propose that gradualistic rates of evolution could not produce what we see in the fossil succession, but they can.

According to Gould, there is no succession. Do you not understand what "appears suddenly not linked by intermediates" means?

And you further propose that Gould believes in some sort of overnight speciation without intermediates, which he doesnt.

You need some lessons in reading between the lines. You are not good at it.

Gould recognizes the thousands of intermediates we have, and does not recognize rates of evolution beyond what gradualism can produce.

Punctuated equlibra refutes gradualism, which eliminates intermediates.

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.

That's fine with me. Especially since you can't produce a single intermediate fossil.

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

That is fine with me also since all you do is spout the usual evo rhetoric and offer no evidence for your speculations.

"I regard the failure to find a clear 'vector of progress' in life's history as the most puzzling FACT of the fossil record...we have sought to impose a pattern that we hoped to find on a world that does not really display it---STEPHEN JAY GOULD.

New species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not connected to their ancestors by a series of intermediates.--Ernst Mayr

He also says the fossil record remains woefully inadequate.

 

[mark kennedy]

You are misreading me. What is a FACT is that whales were created amphibians . I am a Bible thumbing creationist and FYI a 4 point Calvinist.

That's not what I was talking about, first you make a quote and then go into a rant about how dishonest creations are. You bring up Tompkins and his buggy algorithm but appear to have no interest when Talk Origin blatantly misrepresents the divergence. Ok so now you want to talk about amphibians. Paleontology is not an exact science and conclusions can vary by a huge degree.

 

[Christie insb]

You are misreading me. What is a FACT is that whales were created amphibians . I am a Bible thumbing creationist and FYI a 4 point Calvinist.

I am not questioning your Creationist creds, believe me. (I thought this section was for discussion of theistic evolution not Bible thumbing Creationism). I really don't get how whales could have become mammals (warm-blooded, with live births and nursing their young) from amphibians. I don't think amphibians have scales either, back to our previous discussion. So - - How do Creationists imagine amphibians had limited evolution to become mammals? Also - - I am going to research but I can't think of any saltwater amphibians, although I could be incorrect. I go now to research that. But what??????! As far as whales being created as amphibians? I just don't see how you got there.

 

[Christie insb]

You are misreading me. What is a FACT is that whales were created amphibians . I am a Bible thumbing creationist and FYI a 4 point Calvinist.

Crab-eating frog - Wikipedia
There are no saltwater amphibians, just this one toad (frog I guess) who can tolerate brackish water. ????
Crab-eating frog - Wikipedia

 

[Christie insb]

You are misreading me. What is a FACT is that whales were created amphibians . I am a Bible thumbing creationist and FYI a 4 point Calvinist.

Well reading the Wikipedia article on this species which I never heard of before (pakicetus) - - please excuse my ignorance - - it appears they were amphibious, not an amphibian. They lived on land and water but had hair, birthed live young, and were warm-blooded. They are classified as mammals, so - - huh?

 

[omega2xx]

That's not what I was talking about, first you make a quote and then go into a rant about how dishonest creations are. You bring up Tompkins and his buggy algorithm but appear to have no interest when Talk Origin blatantly misrepresents the divergence. Ok so now you want to talk about amphibians. Paleontology is not an exact science and conclusions can vary by a huge degree.

You got your wires crossed somewhere. I am a hard core creationists.

 

[omega2xx]

Well reading the Wikipedia article on this species which I never heard of before (pakicetus) - - please excuse my ignorance - - it appears they were amphibious, not an amphibian. They lived on land and water but had hair, birthed live young, and were warm-blooded. They are classified as mammals, so - - huh?

Not hearing of pakicetus is not ignorance. Most in the forum have probably never heard of it unless he did some research into whale evolution.

The were a medium sized, dog-like, land animal. They were not amphibious, which make whale evolution a fairy tale for young children. That their legs became fins and their nose became a blowhole, things that are impossible genetically, is icing on the cake for creationists. To believe wading in the water and eating fish ans surviving quite will, caused them to become a whale is laughable and food for the gullible.

 

[omega2xx]

I am not questioning your Creationist creds, believe me. (I thought this section was for discussion of theistic evolution not Bible thumbing Creationism). I really don't get how whales could have become mammals (warm-blooded, with live births and nursing their young) from amphibians. I don't think amphibians have scales either, back to our previous discussion. So - - How do Creationists imagine amphibians had limited evolution to become mammals? Also - - I am going to research but I can't think of any saltwater amphibians, although I could be incorrect. I go now to research that. But what??????! As far as whales being created as amphibians? I just don't see how you got there.

Well if creationist are not allowed to participate in this discussion, which we are, only one side of the coin will be seen. The TOE needs to be challenged with science, not the Bible. Whales did not become mammals, they were created that way(Gen 1:21).

I hope you find the truth in your research. You might also look at genetics to see if it is possible for a leg to become a fin.