How did whales, porpoises, and dolphins evolve?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Apr 27 2007, 02:45 AM) [snapback]431060[/snapback]</div>

I understand. You are postulating that we are basing our opinions on things we may have never seen or on evidence that has to be interpreted by a scientist because we cannot do it ourselves and thus have a certain amount of faith in their work. It is a good arguement even if that wasn't the intent.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ZenCruiser @ Apr 27 2007, 09:10 AM) [snapback]431102[/snapback]</div>

i sincerely agree. when i started meeting people down here and i said one or two things about how i had a rough past, they'd launch into their "abuse" stories... how their dad was always too busy to pitch a softball for them, or how they were spanked as a little kid when they did something naughty and how that was oh so horrible.

it was all i could do to keep my mouth shut. i never did say another word to them about the horrors i've endured.

seems like anything other than perfection in your childhood is now considered abuse (edit: and parents are human beings, who make mistakes. it happens. people survive that kind of stuff.) absolute last of my concerns as a kid was the fact that nobody ever said "i love you" in our family. i was just a bit more concerned with staying alive till i could leave that situation.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Apr 27 2007, 11:14 AM) [snapback]431154[/snapback]</div>

I am sorry you had to go through that (as inadequate as that sounds, I sincerely mean it). Part of me wishes you clued some of these people in; part of me knows it wouldn't impact some of them, and that exposing your past may not be in your best interests.

But you are exactly who I was unknowingly referring to; those people diminish your experiences, imo, with their broadened definition of abuse. My father never threw a ball around with me, never went to any of my games, hit me with his hand or belt when he felt I was misbehaving, basically ignored that I existed, etc. Do I consider that abuse? No. Do I wish it was different? At the time, yes; now, maybe not. Would I ever do this to my children? No. Why? Because I had the perfect role model for what not to do. And I'm not saying EVERYTHING he did was bad - there were many good things about him that I have modeled.

On a broad spectrum, your childhood seems to fall on the extreme end; it's a very wide spectrum, and I would place mine close to the middle (for the time period). I think it is in your choice of how you respond to what was done to you that you define yourself.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Apr 27 2007, 12:09 AM) [snapback]431039[/snapback]</div>

So caffeine-free Coke is not a "cola"?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Apr 27 2007, 01:08 AM) [snapback]431046[/snapback]</div>

That is the essence of creationism. It is an assertion with nothing in reality to back it up. On the other hand, the fossil record of evolution by gradual change (and even punctuated equilibrium is very gradual by human time-spans) is voluminous. In other words, the brain came from no design. It evolved as an adaptation that gave certain individuals a reproductive advantage over the long course of its gradual development.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Apr 27 2007, 02:45 AM) [snapback]431060[/snapback]</div>

Consult a biology textbook. The evolution of cetacians from a land animal is quite well documented in the fossil record. The problem is that so many creationists are repeating arguments developed when fewer fossils had been found. The evolution of cetacians is now well-documented. Where are the intermediate forms? In museums.

Stephen Jay Gould wrote a wonderful essay about just this subject on the occasion of the discovery of a particularly important link in this particular chain.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Apr 27 2007, 06:29 AM) [snapback]431112[/snapback]</div>

Umh, ok then here's my proof for the existence of God.

<div align="center">[attachmentid=7708]

Noah's Ark and coindencially the Flood!

[attachmentid=7709]

Charlton Heston!

[attachmentid=7710]

Alien's (Little Green Men)

[attachmentid=7711]

Nebraska Man ( Mmmm, Evolution Your favorite!)

[attachmentid=7712]


</div>

Wildkow

p.s. Edited to reflect the fact that I did not have any proof of the Easter Bunny.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Apr 27 2007, 08:53 PM) [snapback]431445[/snapback]</div>

So the Easter bunny and Charleton Heston evolved from Jesus? And this proves God? It's humorous, for sure, but it's not really an argument against the obvious physical transition between species in the other chart...You just picked a bunch of unrelated religious (or not) symbols. There is no connection.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tyrin @ Apr 27 2007, 08:22 PM) [snapback]431486[/snapback]</div>

I think that's Wildkow's point: it's just as preposterous to infer evolutionary connections from (what he believes) is fragmentary (literally) evidence as it is to infer a god from a few bits of myth and a dead alien. It's a neat piece of sarcastic wit.

But I'm not sure Wildkow realizes the true extent of evidence across several scientific fields that together confirm evolution as a demonstrated physical fact beyond all reasonable doubt, as solid an inference as the theories that declare if you drop a rock, it will fall down, not up. I'll offer this analogy: the scale, consistency and variety of evidence that prove evolution as compared to what creationists think is all the evidence is as all the worlds oceanic systems, complete with tides, currents, seafloor topography, tectonic plate effects, climatic effects, and all their the vast diversity of life compare to a single drop of distilled and sterile water. Denying evolution is like standing on the seashore, turning your back on the ocean and saying there's nothing but desert.

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Apr 27 2007, 09:30 PM) [snapback]431525[/snapback]</div>

I agree and I gave him credit for it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Apr 27 2007, 09:30 PM) [snapback]431525[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Apr 27 2007, 10:12 PM) [snapback]431556[/snapback]</div>

Well I think you guys are giving me too much credit but I'll take it if you insist. My point is that Alric said

That is no kind of evidence, whatsoever, and I am shocked that it was used in any way in a court room. It is just as ridiculous for me to use pictures and drawings of Jesus to prove he exists. Show me peer reviewed transitional forms, that’s all I’m asking.

Wildkow

 

Oopsy, Hmmmm, it sure would be nice to be able to delete your own post for when you mess up like this.

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Apr 28 2007, 04:21 AM) [snapback]431607[/snapback]</div>

Ahh you want journals? I'll find you some when I get home. I'm headed out the door to run a Creek Clean-up celebration.

This was an interesting find. Saw the printout in a classroom yesterday. We're going to have to look into this one.



National Geo

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Apr 27 2007, 09:30 PM) [snapback]431525[/snapback]</div>

Excellent analogy!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Apr 28 2007, 06:21 AM) [snapback]431607[/snapback]</div>

But there is. Didn't I tell you that all those animals share characteristics that only whales have and some have characteristics intermediate of land-dwelling animals and aquatic animals. All of them are peer reviewed transitional forms.

If you want to be a contrarian all the power to you. But you do so against the evidence.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Apr 28 2007, 08:01 AM) [snapback]431629[/snapback]</div>

As Gould would say: Hen's teeth and horses toes!!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Apr 26 2007, 09:47 PM) [snapback]431023[/snapback]</div>

I think that's an important point. Certainly, there are kids who rise above abusive childhoods, but I think it makes sense that the kinds of brutality we are talking about when we describe "chiild abuse" in any of its standard forms usually causes lasting harm of some kind to the person. And as you note, you do not see that with most children of religious people who did not also engage in traditionally abusive practices.

I think the "religious indoctrination is child abuse" sentiment is largely due to a misunderstanding of British versus American culture. I'm not positive, but I think the idea started with the Brits, and folks like zoologist Richard Dawkins signed on to a very scary sounding petition (found at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/freethinking/) that said, in effect, that the government "... Make it illegal to indoctrinate or define children by religion before the age of 16."

Laws have consequences, and in the case of the US, where religious instruction is entirely left up to the parents and is in no way the responsibility of government, real free thinkers were horrified. Just how would this be accomplished?

But in Britain, religious indoctrination is still done, at least in a nominal fashion, by the government. And the phrase "define children" has a specific meaning there, as the government does classify children as a "Christian child", "Muslim child", etc., just as we classify children by race. There's a great dialog between an American atheist and evolutionist who took issue with Dawkins (at first) and Mr. Dawkins himself at http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/1...ed_by_a_co.html

Atheists often make an appeal to reason in citing their disbelief, but so often their arguments are simply just like everyone else's in this kind of forum; sometimes irrational, incorrect and emotional. A person appealing to logic and reason, while denigrating those around him with claims that they suffer from delusions and abuse their children in passing on their delusions, should take greater care to be at least correct in their claims, and avoid provocative and emotionally charged language. Their claim to being the only rational people, by virtue of their own irrational statements, shows them only to be ego-centric. In short, Daniel is right when he said there are no logical people.

Atheists should at least avoid making medical diagnoses, such as saying religionists suffer from delusions, until religious belief is studied and declared to be a delusion under the authority of some kind of peer-reviewed medical board (such as done by the APA). Until that time, they can qualify the statement and say they "believe" religious belief is a delusion, but they are on no more stable grounds than I am when I say I "believe" that my yearning for spiritual things is an innate part of my makeup, and has been satisfied with adoption of a major religion.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Apr 28 2007, 03:21 AM) [snapback]431607[/snapback]</div>

First, courtrooms often use diagrams, drawings, models and the like as evidence. Its easier than ripping up the entire intersection where an accident took place, for instance. The important thing is that the evidence is "validated" by an expert who swears that it is an accurate representation for the purposes outlined in that particular trial.

My evolution from a Creationist to a Christian who accepts evolution came about because I saw what I thought was an explosion in the discovery of the transitional forms. In truth, the Creationists simply lie and say they do not exist, when in fact, they do.

Fossils are a rare event; the conditions have to be just right for a creature to be fossilized rather than return to dust as the Bible promises. So it stands to reason that our knowledge of prior life on this planet would be like our knowledge of God Himself; imperfect, as if we see through a glass darkly now, and not "face to face".

But evolutionary theory has proven itself to be true science, because predictions have been made about what we would find, and sure enough ... we found them. That takes the place of the "test tube" so many Creationists want to see. The predictive nature of a model proves that model (which is why, 10 years from now, if the earth STILL isn't warmer than 1995, the GW advocates are all going to be thrown out the window).

We haven't found all transitional forms, mind you, but thousands of examples that fit precisely into the scheme proposed so many years ago. Here's the most recent one I know of:

<div align="center"></div>

From http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/0...orthrozanc.html

Also, see http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2007/3/1/7278 for more on this little guy.

This isn't a very impressive fossil, really. But it is one more piece of evidence that fits precisely where predicted by evolutionists.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ZenCruiser @ Apr 27 2007, 11:59 AM) [snapback]431191[/snapback]</div>

eh... this general feeling of numbness (well, that's present most of the time) comes with the territory... that is, i no longer care. at the time i was PO'd nearly beyond my ability to control myself. the more one person here knows about you, the more the entire department knows, if you know what i'm saying. i keep my mouth shut because i've already been labeled as many things i'm not.

from day one my response has been the definition of who i am. i don't the events of let my past life (and i treat it literally as a different life) describe me. i, as a person, am not a victim. i am a survivor and i've got it from here, thanks.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Apr 29 2007, 02:02 AM) [snapback]432021[/snapback]</div>

All the more power to you, my friend. In a way, evolution works in our own lifetimes, not just from one to the next.

 

The suspense is killing me!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Apr 30 2007, 06:00 AM) [snapback]432445[/snapback]</div>

I hestitate to ask. What are you waiting for? Several people have answered your misgivings about whale evolution transitional forms already.