How ancient whales lost their legs, got sleek and conquered the oceans

EurekAlert (AAAS) ^ | 22 May 2006 | Staff

[WKUHilltopper]

Good points!

[Dimensio]

Well, they have to believe that we're decended from rocks and rain.

It is clear that you are unfamiliar with the theory of evolution. There is no claim that humans are descended from "rocks and rain".

You see, before there were the apes, you had to be a flipper relative and then a goo ball.

This statement also suggests a lack of understanding of the theory of evolution.

And the goo balls and other nasty slime was a result of rain and the cooling off of rocks. You see, the rocks were real hot because they were a result of an explosion in space that came from nothing.

The theory of evolution does not state any of the above. It is clear that you are not qualified to speak on the subject of evolution.

[Dimensio]

.I have no particular problem with that but Creation by Intelligent Design is not Creation by Evolution

Curious. You are aware, are you not, that "Intelligent Design" accepts that organisms are related through common descent?

[Almagest]

<< Evolution implies you gotta die and evolve, die and evolve, die and evolve, die and evolve... >>


Not quite. You either reproduce or die before you can. And individuals do not evolve -- populations do.

If you don't understand that statement, you have no basis upon which to argue against evolution. The first step in refuting something is to understand what it is you are refuting. Making stupid statements that have no relation to the facts does not refute anything -- it just makes you look ignorant.

Fortunately -- ignorance, unlike stupidity, can be cured.

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

The oceans quickly fill with sub-assemblies of organic molecules.

Soup myth.

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

Star Trek V was better.

[Almagest]

<< And the Evos posting their beliefs aren't emotional? >>


Oh, they use emotions, just as all do. They are passionate about some things -- just as others are. But they are not basing their beliefs -- in this area -- on their feelings. As shown in the massive evidence they reference -- they are basing their beliefs about evolution on extremely well-supported conclusions derived from the real world -- not from feelings.

Your comments about basing your religious beliefs on emotions are just more evidence to support what we are saying -- that you are refusing to look at evidence because your feelings will not allow you to consider it. You erroneously believe that if you were to accept the evidence, you would have to overthrow your belief in God.

That is not necessary. A large percentage of those who accept the scientific evidence for common descent are religious people. What you cannot do is accept that evidence and continue to hold to a literalistic interpretation of the beginning of Genesis.

This is why I asked you -- and you have ignored my question: If I were to demonstrate for you that the evidence supporting common descent is overwhelming, and that your characterization of the theory of evolution is erroneous -- what would you do?

Why not just answer that simple question?

[ScubieNuc]

"There is NOTHING in the Bible which either supports or condemns evolution. Nothing. NADA. "

If by that you mean the study in the change in animals, you are correct. If by that you mean billions of years with death and destruction before mankind evolves from apes, you are wrong.

"You would have made GREAT Pharisees."

That's funny! Obviously, you don't know me. 8^)

"The Message in the Bible is a simple one - God created the world and everything in it, man sinned, God sent His Son to redeem us and through His suffering and death we are saved should we accept His words, believe in Him and keep God's commandments. Christ never commanded that we not believe in evolution, nor is such a commandment in Mosaic Law. "

and

"The reality and sacrifice of Christ doesn't stand on the ability to disprove evolution."

Basically, I agree with you there.

"Get over it. Evolution happened. Its a scientific fact.

Wrong. A scientific fact requires observation. Like I said in another post, you can't test or observe non-life creating life, transitional forms, or primitive organisms, to name a few.

" Unless you want to join the Inquisition and the Medieval Papacy and condemn a sun-centered world because some passage in the Old Testament states that God made the sun stand still in the sky. You are just making yourself look foolish, the Bible look foolish and bringing disdain and criticism on Christ and the Bible itself. And it isn't necessary. "

I am not concerned with looking wise. As far as criticism on Christ, I can take no credit or blame for that.

1Cr 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

1Cr 1:19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

1Cr 1:20 Where [is] the wise? where [is] the scribe? where [is] the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

1Cr 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

and

Jhn 15:18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before [it hated] you.

Jhn 15:19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

Sincerely

[WKUHilltopper]

"Fortunately -- ignorance, unlike stupidity, can be cured."

I don't know, Mr Smart@ss, you tell me? How many hours in paleontology do you have? I have a few. Your argument sure is compelling.

[WKUHilltopper]

Then where'd the apes come from? I know quite about the THESIS. You're right, I know nothing about the theory, because it doesn't qualify as one.

[Dimensio]

Then where'd the apes come from?

Earlier, non-ape primates.

I know quite about the THESIS.

To what "THESIS" do you refer?

You're right, I know nothing about the theory, because it doesn't qualify as one.

Given that you have displayed extensive ignorance regarding the theory of evolution, to the point where you have made wildly inaccurate claims regarding what evolution states, there is no reason to believe that you are informed enough to declare that evolution does not qualify as a theory.

[Almagest]

<< A scientific fact requires observation. Like I said in another post, you can't test or observe non-life creating life, transitional forms, or primitive organisms, to name a few. >>


Is it a scientific fact that Pluto has been circling the Sun for at least several thousand years? The fact is that Pluto has not been observed to have circled the Sun even once! So -- is it not a fact?

Life from non-life is not part of the theory of common descent -- so it has nothing to do with this discussion. Whether life came about as an act of God or not is not something that evolution speaks to.

Transitional forms have been observed; speciation has been observed, both in the lab and in nature. If you think speciation has not occurred, then answer this simple question: why can't domestic wheat inter-breed with emmer grass? If you don't understand the question, you are not ready to refute anything about transitional forms.

And primitive organisms have been observed. What an odd statement.

[WKUHilltopper]

Where'd the non-ape primates come from? CrackJack box?

Yeah, it's a THESIS. If you weren't ignorant, you'd know the difference! LOL

[Dimensio]

Where'd the non-ape primates come from?

A non-primate common ancestor, branched off from other terrestrial mammals.

Yeah, it's a THESIS.

Stating that it is a THESIS, and not a theory, does not demonstrate your claim. Given that you have demonstrated a remarkable lack of understanding of the theory of evolution, including falsely claiming that the theory states that humans originated from "rain and rocks", there is little reason to believe your unsupported assertion.

If you weren't ignorant, you'd know the difference!

I am aware of the difference between thesis and theory. I am pointing out that thus far you have failed to support your claims with evidence and your credibility on the subject is highly questionable given your previous false statements regarding evolution.

[Almagest]

"Fortunately -- ignorance, unlike stupidity, can be cured."

<< I don't know, Mr Smart@ss, you tell me? How many hours in paleontology do you have? I have a few. Your argument sure is compelling. >>


Not trying to be a smart-ass. It's just that your statements give clear evidence that you have no idea what evolution is about. The other alternative is that you do know, but you are pretending to be ignorant for some reason. I just assumed you were being honest.

How many hours have I had in paleontology? You mean in college classes? None. Most of my science hours were in biology and physics, before I made the mistake of switching to humanities. I have put in many thousands of hours since then, studying books and papers written by paleontologists, evolutionary biologists, geologists, and astronomers.

I'm not too good in chemistry, though -- so you can easily stump me there. If I were to start arguing about chemistry -- and say some off-the-wall things about chemistry, the way you have done about evolution -- and if you were knowledgeable in chemistry -- you would have every right to tell ME that MY ignorance is curable.

That is -- if I'm not just stupid! LOL! Like I said -- that ain't curable.

Assuming that you have had many more hours in paleontology than I -- that makes me wonder, then, about my assumption that you were honestly misunderstanding things. It's hard for me to believe that someone can have a lot of hours in paleontology -- even if he doesn't believe what he was taught there -- and say the things you are saying.

Something's not right here.

[WKUHilltopper]

To be honest with you, I've not read any study that is compelling enough for me to believe this is any different than believing in UFO abductions, pixies and brownies hiding in tress. I really don't have any trouble if it's factual, but I haven't seen anything that makes me "buy into it".

I'm kinda clowning around with ya--sorry. But if you boil it down, it amounts to "die and evolve", especially if you ascribe to the idea of natural selection. Because at one point the thought was adapting to an environment that promoted the species through it's offspring. Mutations, if you will.

[WKUHilltopper]

Maybe I was spending too much time playing with bananas.

[Almagest]

<< But if you boil it down, it amounts to "die and evolve", especially if you ascribe to the idea of natural selection. >>


Even creationists accept natural selection. They even accept "evolution" within "kinds" -- even though they never can seem to tell us what "kinds" are, or what the barrier is that keeps the "evolution" from going further.

[ScubieNuc]

"Then your evidence is purely subjective, and is of no use. Clearly the state of "having children" does not amount to evidence against the theory of evolution."

I get it. If this were a labratory, it would be of no use to convince you. You would have to have children, I guess to understand what I am saying. I was merely trying to give you an insight into what else can convince people of "facts." You don't seem to understand, so I'll move on.

" I am aware that many individuals choose to ignore knowledge when they do not wish to be convinced of facts that they do not wish to believe, instead relying upon emotion as a means of escaping reality."

You are so wrong. I embrace reality, and they are beautiful! Plus, you are over generalizing on what facts are. I believe we already hashed that out, though.

"Then you acknowledge that your rejection of the theory of evolution is not based upon logical reasoning, but in fact upon logical fallacies."

Wow! How you came to that conclusion, escapes me! I reject the evolutionary theory of origins because it requires believing unproven ideas of scientists over believing the Bible.

Tell you what...when you create your own lifeless chemicals from nothing and then combine them to make life, I'll accept the evolutionary theory of origins.

We are talking in circles now. It's getting late. No one is gaining anything. Good night.

Sincerely

[Dimensio]

To be honest with you, I've not read any study that is compelling enough for me to believe this is any different than believing in UFO abductions, pixies and brownies hiding in tress.

I do not doubt that this is accurate, because it is apparent that you have read no studies at all.

But if you boil it down, it amounts to "die and evolve", especially if you ascribe to the idea of natural selection.

It does not, as has been explained earlier. It is curious that you continue to make the same incorrect claim repeatedly, despite having corrected information provided to you.