Scientists find missing link between whale and its closest relative, the hippo

UC Berkeley News ^ | 24 January 2005 | Robert Sanders, Media Relations

[AnotherCreationist]

Indeed, little do you know how little you know. Little do you know how little scientists know, too, for that matter. Red Skelton, like the rest of us, was mortal.

First, I'd like to address the claim made via someone else's quotation that we must ignore the fossil evidence of "apparent whale ancestors." We do not ignore them. We challenge the unprovable assertions made, such as that they are "apparent" whale ancestors at all.

Next, I'll address some of the articles you've bombed the message board with:

SINE Evolution, Missing Data, and the Origin of Whales
- This paper assumes that common ancestors exist. It ignores the possibility that similarities can exist
without common ancestry (as is possible if all were designed by one Creator.) And as can be expected, it ignores the possibility that a worldwide curse (caused by sin) could affect many organisms in exactly the same way.

Phylogenetic relationships among cetartiodactyls based on insertions of short and long interpersed elements: Hippopotamuses are the closest extant relatives of whales
- The same is true for this paper, and while the subject may be different, the assumptions about evolution are identical to those found in the last paper.

Evidence from Milk Casein Genes that Cetaceans are Close Relatives of Hippopotamid Artiodactyls
- Again, we see the same problem. This article uses different characteristics to claim common ancestry, but it
assumes that the common characteristics observed are a result of inheritance, and not common design.

Analyses of mitochondrial genomes strongly support a hippopotamus±whale clade
- This article, again, exhibits the same assumptions. Moreover, the title is extremely helpful in placing this
"proof" in proper context: "strongly support" means "remains consistent with." It does not mean "unquestionable proof."

A new, diminutive Eocene whale from Kachchh (Gujarat, India) and its implications for locomotor evolution of cetaceans
- This article was more interesting than the last few. Fortunately, it included a picture of the skeleton of
the creature it was discussion, which helped show the dearth of information they are working from. In short, it
seems quite possible that a new species is seen here (although, if the remains were better preserved, it is also
possible that this organism would turn out to be something more familiar) but it does nothing to prove or even
support evolution unless evolution is assumed.

A new Eocene archaeocete (Mammalia, Cetacea) from India and the time of origin of whales
- This article is no longer posted, but it appears to be similar to the last one.

Mysticete (Baleen Whale) Relationships Based upon the Sequence of the Common Cetacean DNA Satellite1
- This article makes conclusions that creatures are related because of similarities. As I've already stated,
this does not prove anything except that the creatures have similarities.

The Mitochondrial Genome of the Sperm Whale and a New Molecular Reference for Estimating Eutherian Divergence Dates
- This article is no longer posted.

Limbs in whales and limblessness in other vertebrates: mechanisms of evolutionary and developmental transformation and loss
- This article is one of the more interesting thus far. Its flaw is that it assumes whales and dolphins and such
ever had limbs. It discusses limb-loss in snakes and tries to compare limb-loss in other vertebrates to it, coming
up with theoretical mechanisms for this to occur. Interestingly, the Bible does deal with snake limb-loss. How about that?

Eocene evolution of whale hearing
- Could not access this site.

Novel Phylogeny of Whales Revisited but Not Revised
- This article was thankfully short, but again, sought to draw inferences of common ancestry (and proximity of
such ancestry) from similarities between the creatures. Again, I restate that this is also consistent with
common design.

Land-to-sea transition in early whales: evolution of Eocene Archaeoceti (Cetacea) in relation to skeletal proportions and locomotion of living semiaquatic mammals
- This article is no longer posted.

Subordinal artiodactyl relationships in the light of phylogenetic analysis of 12 mitochondrial protein-coding genes
- A couple of interesting things going on here, neither of which you'll want to hear about. First, conclusions
are again drawn based on similarities between the species that do not necessarily follow. But more interestingly,
the study supports the findings of some studies, but does not support the findings of other studies. Could this
be because this entire branch of science is analyzing data under false presumptions, such as that similarities
in different organisms will show common ancestry?

New Morphological Evidence for the Phylogeny of Artiodactyla, Cetacea, and Mesonychidae
- So as to avoid repeating myself, I will say that this paper is making the same mistakes most of the others were.
Interestingly, it is also inconsistent with other "evolution" studies based on different methods. That's always fun for a creationist to see.

Cetacean Systematics
- With this link, it becomes obvious that you know nothing about the articles you have posted. This is a schedule of presentations at a conference, with abstracts of each included. Nice. No actual information is given. And with this, I will no longer review your articles. The amount of time to point out the same problem(s)over and over again is not worth it.

Just because you can find information about why evolutionists think the way they do does not mean that the
conclusions are correct. You can find an equally overwhelming amount of "scientific" information about how
Jewish people and Black people, among others, are less evolved than the Master German Race. Of course, you won't
appreciate the Nazi reference. Few evolutionists do, because it reveals one of the major moral problems with the
theory, when followed to its logical conclusion.

For kicks, I will attempt to offer you an explanation that explains "ALL the mountains of available evidence."
God created everything. Man sinned, thus incurring punishment, and the world became cursed. Indeed, the effects of this curse remain far reaching, and probably impossible to fully understand (remember what Red Skelton said? The whole point of his little adage was that we don't know everything, and can't possibly know everything.) 1656 years later, God flooded the entire earth, killing millions of organisms and leaving the fossil record that we interpret based on the little we know today, overwhelmingly to our detriment.

You can deny creation all you want, and you can subscribe to all the inventive ways others use to "prove" their anti-creation views, but you cannot change reality. You will die, and you will either be reconciled to your creator or not. Your beliefs do not threaten me, nor those like me. Based on your hostile posting, however, I suspect that our views threaten you. I wonder why that is, considering that you appear to believe we all evolved from nothing, and will become nothing again. If you're correct, then who cares? What is the point? Rather than sit here and argue about it, you should go enjoy the limited time you have left to exist. Or you can continue to ponder why and how we exist, and pray that the Lord opens your heart to the truth.

[Quark2005]

Little do you know how little scientists know, too, for that matter.

Crank.

Quit while you're not so far behind.