Evolution Again!

[_Ceeboo]

Hey Harold

Thanks for the reply, I do appreciate you taking the time.

And I double appreciate the fact that you did not lightly smack me in the ear or dismiss me!

As the next few comments are not directed at you (but do include/pertain to you) I will put them below your post to divide them.

No Ceeboo. That is not right. :)

Fish > amphibian > reptile > mammal
|
/ \
cycles of extinct ancestor of
fish and new species
| extinct mammal that extinct ancestor of rats
| lived off amphibians \
| and fish
|
| / \
| extinct ancestor of dolphins extinct ancestor of nocturnal forager
| and seals
| / \
| extinct ancestor of dolphins extinct ancestor of raccoons
| and whales
| / \
|
----------------------------2013 AD-------------------------------------
fish whales raccoons

Probably would have been faster to just draw a gif lol.

EDIT: That doesn't look at all like it did typing it in, it took out spaces. Well hopefully you can imagine how it looks lol.

So, I have just spent a few hours googling around and in addition to coming across information on this racoon to whale scenario, I ran into some debates (kinda like partial threads from a board like this) about this very topic.

Well, they were REALLY REALLY REALLY heated and REALLY personal with both sides accusing each other of ignorance, arrogance and a plethora of name calling! So, I am not sure if I will proceed with this or not.

Maybe I will just do my own "shaking the bushes" and leave it there.

Thinking!

Anyway, I just thought I would share that with you all in case my above preview is also the closing credits!

Peace,
Ceeboo

[Guest]

Ceeboo,

Here is a search tip for you.

If you are really interested in how whales evolved, just type <phylogenetics whale>, or <whale phylogenetic tree> as a search string into Google. This kind of string should work well for pretty much any animal. The latter string often returns nice graphics.

This is probably a better approach than hanging out on message boards (except this one, of course).

[_Harold Lee]

You know you want to post the link or you wouldn't have brought it up, so just post it. :)

Are you talking about this? http://www.world-science.net/othernews/ ... dohyus.htm

That's not a raccoon, or anything close to it.

But yes this is extraordinary if this theory is correct for whale evolution. To be honest it sounds like a stretch. Right now it's the only explanation we have which means... yes it sucks but it's better than nothing. And it certainly doesn't mean the entire principle of evolution is false now (which is the A=B=C that is trying to be argued by creationists). It just means that explanation is pretty weak sauce without more information. It's better than no explanation though, you have to at least premise something.

We do need to realize that first whales are mammals not fish, and second the bone structure and fingers in whales speak to a mammalian ancestor that spent much of its time in water (seals are mammals that do this today). Whatever that is and however it might have looked who knows? It has nothing to do with a raccoon- but that fossil happened to be raccoon sized (whether it's the ancestor of today's whales or not). I'm not sure if seals are related to dolphins and whales, but their bone structure seems similar enough that one could argue that if they don't share a common ancestor, it could be a model for how mammals might have made the transition back to the ocean where they faced much less significant threats of predation.

The best way to tell if something is related is not through bone structure but genetic similarities. We don't have that in this case so we need to go by skeleton and anatomical comparisons.

[_Ren]

The evolution of the whale is much more fleshed out than the impression that one link provides...

Here's a better one in my opinion:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... vograms_03

[_Ren]

Ceeboo,

I know you said you might be leaving this wonderful thread behind.

But if you did feel like popping back, I'd be interested in getting an idea of what you think of this particular graphic:



Now - of course - I understand you don't believe that the creatures at the bottom of the picture had ancestors 55 million years ago that looked like the creatures at the top.
And I'm under no delusion that I'll persuade you otherwise ;)

What I'm really interested in is what exactly you 'disbelieve' in the image.
Assuming you trust that the appropriate skeletons have been found (i.e. those evil scientists aren't literally 'making them up')...
...then specifically - do you disbelieve / discount:

* The ages assigned to them?
* The 'artists renditions' of them?
* The descriptions on the left, based on the skeletons?
* The assigned 'relationships' based on their comparative anatomy?

...or is it that you accept that all these creatures did exist, and at the times specified - but that all were created 'as they were' and none of the populations are related to each other in any way...

Honestly interested in your answer simply for the sake of hearing it - and not to try and rip it apart etc.
I'm more interested in just understanding where you are coming from...

[_Ceeboo]

Hey Ren!

Ceeboo,

I know you said you might be leaving this wonderful thread behind.

But if you did feel like popping back, I'd be interested in getting an idea of what you think of this particular graphic:

Sure!

Now - of course - I understand you don't believe that the creatures at the bottom of the picture had ancestors 55 million years ago that looked like the creatures at the top.

I sure don't!

What I'm really interested in is what exactly you 'disbelieve' in the image.
Assuming you trust that the appropriate skeletons have been found (i.e. those evil scientists aren't literally 'making them up')...
...then specifically - do you disbelieve / discount:

* The ages assigned to them?

I don't have a clue (I simply don't "know" and I would propose that nobody else "knows" either, no matter how many times it is suggested that they do "know")

* The 'artists renditions' of them?
* The descriptions on the left, based on the skeletons?
* The assigned 'relationships' based on their comparative anatomy?)

No comment!

...or is it that you accept that all these creatures did exist, and at the times specified - but that all were created 'as they were' and none of the populations are related to each other in any way...

Clearly, there is a ton of evidence concerning adaptation and variety within creatures of life (as well as plants, bacteria, etc) and I do not reject the apparent "relationship" that is seen throughout "life". As far as the question concerning all of these creatures existing and at the time specified, I will simply say that I do not know (And again propose that nobody else knows either)

Honestly interested in your answer simply for the sake of hearing it - and not to try and rip it apart etc.
I'm more interested in just understanding where you are coming from...

I believe you!

Look, I understand that I am looking at a 1 to 100 jump when it comes to this racoon to whale evolution (Just making up the number 100 for the purpose of discussion) and I understand that 2 to 99 plays a significant role in the attemp to wrap the mind aroud this BUT at the end of the day one (at least this one named Ceeboo) needs to look at the following that is being proposed. (Read this the other day)

1. Single cell organism is spontateniously formed from non-living matter
2. Single celled organism go multi and evolved into marine organism of some type
3. Marine organism of some type evolved a spinal cord
4. Fish with spinal cord evolved legs and began crawling out of water
5. Eyes migrate from side of head to front of head (fur evolved and legs extended) Result is 30 pound racoon-like creature like predator who kills and eats other animals.
6. Furry racoon creature goes back in water
7.Legs shrink to tiny bones
8. Fins evolve
9. Two nostrils migrate to top of head, become single opening blowhole, flap evolves over blowhole to keep water out
10. Ears that evolved previously gradually evolve away and become internal
11. Fur that previously evolved, evolves away
12. Eyes previosly migrated to the front migrate back to the side of head
13. 30 pound racoon evolves into 200,000 pound whale, the largest oraganism on earth
14. Diet goes from killer/predator to krill and plankton


Peace,
Ceeboo

[_DrW]

Hello Ceeboo,

What about this:

We evolutionists will frankly admit that we do not know for an absolute certainty that the whale evolved as indicated. There is always the possibility that some additional intermediate fossil will turn up to alter the story (but NOT the outcome).

In this regard, science reaches the most reasonable conclusions it can, based on the evidence, by using the process described in the first graphic on the Apostate or Science Deniers OP.

Now, just as an exercise, if we as hard nosed, bulheaded, scientistic evolutionists are willing to make such a statement, will you as a faithful, God-fearing creationist do the same?

Will you look at the available physical evidence and come up with the best narrative you can based upon that evidence, and that evidence alone - no supernatural magic or woo woo or personal feelings - just the facts?

As you decide, think about the speciation that is happening right now and within several human lifetimes, or a few hundred years, under reasonably uniform environmental conditions.

Then take that rate and think about what could happen over time periods that are millions of times greater under radically changing environmental conditions.

Let us know what you decide.

[_Ceeboo]

Hello Ceeboo,

Hello DrW!

What about this:

We evolutionists will frankly admit that we do not know for an absolute certainty that the whale evolved as indicated. There is always the possibility that some additional intermediate fossil will turn up to alter the story (but NOT the outcome).

And I will glady return the good will and offer you that I frankly admit that I do not know that a Craetor created (or even exists for that matter) but I do find this "belief" to be both reasonable and rational. (Especially given the options available)

Will you look at the available physical evidence and come up with the best narrative you can based upon that evidence, and that evidence alone - no supernatural magic or woo woo or personal feelings - just the facts?

Did you just do a switch-a-roo on your dear friend Ceeboo?
I think you just (seconds after a very good-willed and reasonable contribution above) flipped the switch back to "fact" again.

As you decide, think about the speciation that is happening right now and within several human lifetimes, or a few hundred years, under reasonably uniform environmental conditions.

Speciation thinking on:

Birds, plants, finch beaks, dogs, bacteria?????????????????????

Thinking!!!!!!!!!!

Then take that rate and think about what could happen over time periods that are millions of times greater under radically changing environmental conditions.

As I have already proposed, I do not reject anything that "could" have happened, but I would think that it ought to remain under the "could" column. Don't you?

Let us know what you decide.

I will!

Cool and interesting discussions (in my opinion)

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_DrW]

Hello Ceeboo,

Hello DrW!

What about this:

We evolutionists will frankly admit that we do not know for an absolute certainty that the whale evolved as indicated. There is always the possibility that some additional intermediate fossil will turn up to alter the story (but NOT the outcome).

And I will glady return the good will and offer you that I frankly admit that I do not know that a Craetor created (or even exists for that matter) but I do find this "belief" to be both reasonable and rational. (Especially given the options available)

Will you look at the available physical evidence and come up with the best narrative you can based upon that evidence, and that evidence alone - no supernatural magic or woo woo or personal feelings - just the facts?

Did you just do a switch-a-roo on your dear friend Ceeboo?
I think you just (seconds after a very good-willed and reasonable contribution above) flipped the switch back to "fact" again.

As you decide, think about the speciation that is happening right now and within several human lifetimes, or a few hundred years, under reasonably uniform environmental conditions.

Speciation thinking on:

Birds, plants, finch beaks, dogs, bacteria?????????????????????

Thinking!!!!!!!!!!

Then take that rate and think about what could happen over time periods that are millions of times greater under radically changing environmental conditions.

As I have already proposed, I do not reject anything that "could" have happened, but I would think that it ought to remain under the "could" column. Don't you?

Let us know what you decide.

I will!

Cool and interesting discussions (in my opinion)

Peace,
Ceeboo

Ceeboo,

If you would see your way clear to nudge your needle from "could" over to "highly probable based on available evidence" you and I might just have a deal.

Now, assuming that we can make that deal, please think about the overwhelming predictive power of evolutionary theory and to what extent the use of evolutionary theory (even as a "working hypothesis" if you wish), has benefited science and humankind in general.

There is absolutely no doubt that my wife is alive and healthy today because of this knowledge, as are millions of others.

If Ceeboo should ever find himself afflicted with certain types of cancer, he will depend on the knowledge gained from the application of evolutionary theory for successful treatment as well. In such an event, evolutionary theory could save his live, even if he doesn't believe in it.

Can Ceeboo say the same about his particular God?

[Guest]

Hello again, friend!

If you would see your way clear to nudge your needle from "could" over to "highly probable based on available evidence" you and I might just have a deal.

If we are talking about my example from racoon-like creature to whale, no - we have no deal, friend. MY needle is moving in the exact opposite direction.

Now, assuming that we can make that deal, please think about the overwhelming predictive power of evolutionary theory and to what extent the use of evolutionary theory (even as a "working hypothesis" if you wish), has benefited science and humankind in general.

This, in my opinion, is an entriley different matter, topic and question (A whole other thread perhaps). I not only am enormously grateful for the hard work and dedication from the scientific community, I am also deeply in debt (personally) for this marvelous work that has, and continues to, directly impact and benefit the lives of mankind!

There is absolutely no doubt that my wife is alive and healthy today because of this knowledge, as are millions of others.

I am not only very happy to learn this but I have deep appreciation for and agree with your contribution!

If Ceeboo should ever find himself afflicted with certain types of cancer, he will depend on the knowledge gained from the application of evolutionary theory for successful treatment as well. In such an event, evolutionary theory could save his live, even if he doesn't believe in it.

I never suggested that I don't believe in this and I find the innuedo severely lacking and entirely off the mark!

Do you suggest that we offer the plethora of fabulous advancements in medical treatment to those human beings, and only those human beings that are convinced that a racoon evolved into a whale. (I realize that this was a very bad example but I offer it as a counter to, in my opinion, your equally bad example above)

Can Ceeboo say the same about his particular God?

No!
I can not say it with any certainty!
(But I do indeed believe it)

Peace,
Ceeboo