Irrefutable Proof of Evolution

[OldMercsRule]

Tomorrow I will go to the library to respond to your post in full, as there is too much to type on my mobile and I what to give a fullfilling answer.

Very kool

I will be waiting......

Respectfully, JR

[PostmodernProphet]

Do you really think the whale developed a full tail before figuring out that it needed to live in the water?

/boggle.....bad news, Miss.....the whale "figured out it needed to live in water", jumped in and drowned....another promising evolutionary line ended prematurely.....

[OldMercsRule]

/boggle.....bad news, Miss.....the whale "figured out it needed to live in water", jumped in and drowned....another promising evolutionary line ended prematurely.....

That was kinda funny was it not????

[Missileman]

The whale figured out all by itself that it needed to live in the water yer sayin??????? LOLOLOLOL

OK Einstein........... sort if out for me will ya? Purdy please?????

Did that magic one at a time random mutation chit create a huge tail with large horizontal flukes just after he went for his first swim??? If not: how did he get from point A to point B out in the water?

Did he have his magic random mutation blow hole and his blubber as features too? How did that work out before he took the big swim eh? Or was he out swimmin' first........eh??????

Didn't he need to compete with other land organisms for survival before his first swim accordin' to yer religion n' such????

Those special lungs and special eyes, ears and mouth created by all those well timed random mutations that arrived just in time fer success after the swimmin' started yer sayin'? Hmmmmmmmmm???????

Purdy kool if ya can 'splain how all this real fancy chit came together sooo nicely from random one at a time OVER TIME events............



My brain cell works just fine. Thanks though........... fer yer corncern............ Pfffffffffffffft..... burp

Let me introduce you to the seal...really...just too easy.

While you're at it, explain why an intelligent designer would make a fish that can't breathe underwater.

[OldMercsRule]

Let me introduce you to the seal...really...just too easy.

While you're at it, explain why an intelligent designer would make a fish that can't breathe underwater.

Wow you really are Einstein aren't ya, eh: clown?

The people in your Evolution religion don't think seals and whales are related at all, so I guess yer a lot smarter then they are eh?

Here is the ancestor of whales according to yer fellow believers:


Indohyus ("India's pig") is a genus of extinct artiodactyl known from Eocene fossils in Asia, purported to be approximately 48 million years old. A December 2007 article in Nature by Thewissen et al. used an exceptionally complete skeleton of Indohyus from Kashmir to indicate that raoellids may be the "missing link" sister group to whales (Cetacea).[1][2] All other Artiodactyla are "cousins" of these two groups. δ18O values and osteosclerotic bones indicate that the raccoon-like or chevrotain-like Indohyus was habitually aquatic, but δ13C values suggest that it rarely fed in the water. The authors suggest this documents an intermediate step in the transition back to water completed by the whales, and suggests a new understanding of the evolution of cetaceans.

Of course not all the kool aid drinkers of yer religion agree:

However, not all paleontologists are firmly persuaded that Indohyus is the transitional fossil that cetacean-origin experts were looking for. ScienceNOW, a daily news feature of the journal Science, notes that a team set to publish in the journal Cladistics postulates an extinct group of carnivorous mammals called "mesonychids" as more closely related to cetaceans. Additionally, the ScienceNOW article notes that "cetaceans are so different from any other creature that researchers haven’t been able to agree which fossil relatives best represent their nearest ancestors."[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indohyus

As to seals, looks like they have only been here fer 15 million years or some such, (BTW: whales entered the water 50 million years ago).


There is evidence to suggest that seals have been on the Earth for more than 15 million years. The remains that have been found show that these seals were once mainly land animals. However, over time their appendages changed into flippers so they could survive mainly in the bodies of water. Researchers believe that if the seals hadn’t been able to do so they would have become extinct millions of years ago.

There is no doubt based on DNA and other scientific methods that seals are definitely related to the early land ancestors found. Many of these early findings show that there were times when the seals didn’t have to evolve or adapt to any changes for a very long time. Then during other periods of time it seems like they have had to make many changes over the course of a very short span of time.

It may seem like we are just touching on the tip of what took place with seal evolution. You have to remember though that it does take time to find the verifications. It also takes time to develop great testing methods so that the information can be valuable and real instead of mere speculation.

http://www.seals-world.com/seal-evolution.html

These clowns ^^^^^, (see contradictions in red), make you look smart: Missileman, (and that isn't easy).

Then there is more:

Researchers from the United States and Canada have found a fossil skeleton of a newly discovered carnivorous animal, Puijila darwini. New research suggests Puijila is a "missing link" in the evolution of the group that today includes seals, sea lions, and the walrus. The analysis of the skeleton and support for the hypotheses that pinniped origins can be found in the Arctic will be described in the April 23 issue of the journal Nature. Modern seals, sea lions, and walruses all have flippers—limb adaptations for swimming in water. These adaptations evolved over time, as some terrestrial animals moved to a semi-aquatic lifestyle. Until now, the morphological evidence for this transition from land to water was weak

http://esciencenews.com/articles/200...anadian.arctic

Yer "just too easy" chit still didn't explain how random mutations OVER TIME explain the very sepcialized features of whales neccessary for success in a DEEP OCEAN water environment, (that would be very bad on land).

Maybe Noir can help ya out tomorrow eh?

[Missileman]

Wow you really are Einstein aren't ya, eh: clown?

The people in your Evolution religion don't think seals and whales are related at all, so I guess yer a lot smarter then they are eh?

I didn't say they were related, but limbs that became flippers, that eventually became a tail is perfectly logical and doesn't require a whale with a tail to have survived as a land animal as your retarded post suggested.

[PostmodernProphet]

I didn't say they were related, but limbs that became flippers, that eventually became a tail is perfectly logical and doesn't require a whale with a tail to have survived as a land animal as your retarded post suggested.

Doesn't the fact that both seals and whales are NOT related, yet have similar features such as flippers and tails, demonstrate that evolution is NOT a necessary explanation for their existence......they are simply well designed for their environment......it doesn't have to be the result of millions of years of random evolution......it can be the result of one intentional act of manipulating DNA........

[OldMercsRule]

I didn't say they were related,

No you said "just too easy".

but limbs that became flippers, that eventually became a tail is perfectly logical

"Just too easy/ perfectly logical" if yer brain doesn't werk very well, or yer smokin' something very VERY strong.

You really think seals have all of the very special features of whales that I listed?

Seals live in fairly shallow waters near the coast where whales are huge deep sea going mammals.

Your religion that produces random mutations could not logically put together such a string of timely very complex modifications for a smooth transition from a "small deer like" land animal to a huge specialized deep sea organism under any rational application of random one at a time over time mutations imaginable.

and doesn't require a whale with a tail to have survived as a land animal as your retarded post suggested.

Your religion claims the "small deer like" land animal became a whale. The mechanism is one random mutation at a time over time. When would the tale happen then: Einstein??? On land or after the partially evolved organism begins swimming??

You really like to make up some silly chit don't ya????

Seems like a huge problem to me since there are a significant number of additional very complex modifications to a "small deer like" land animal, to create a significantly different huge very successful deep sea mammal.

[Missileman]

No you said "just too easy".



"Just too easy/ perfectly logical" if yer brain doesn't werk very well, or yer smokin' something very VERY strong.

You really think seals have all of the very special features of whales that I listed?

Seals live in fairly shallow waters near the coast where whales are huge deep sea going mammals.

Your religion that produces random mutations could not logically put together such a string of timely very complex modifications for a smooth transition from a "small deer like" land animal to a huge specialized deep sea organism under any rational application of random one at a time over time mutations imaginable.



Your religion claims the "small deer like" land animal became a whale. The mechanism is one random mutation at a time over time. When would the tale happen then: Einstein??? On land or after the partially evolved organism begins swimming??

You really like to make up some silly chit don't ya????

Seems like a huge problem to me since there are a significant number of additional very complex modifications to a "small deer like" land animal, to create a significantly different huge very successful deep sea mammal.

What part of the limb to flipper to tail thing went zooming over your head? You think the random mutation would be a deer born with a fully functional whale tail?

[OldMercsRule]

What part of the limb to flipper to tail thing went zooming over your head? You think the random mutation would be a deer born with a fully functional whale tail?

A seal and a whale are unrelated organisms according to yer religion: Einstein the clown.

The appearence on earth of the whale is 50 million years ago, (when they hit the ol' water), and the seal 15 million years ago, again: according to yer religion, and I provided the cites that maybe you were too lazy ta read.

Hit the books: clown.

One more time:

The two fully developed NON TRANSITIONAL modern mammals, (seals and whales), are quite different in food sources, size, habitat and anatomical features. You maybe surprized to learn that whales don't even have "flippers": clown, (how the seals propel themselves), whales have fins. The structure of the two mammal's tails couldn't be more different, the whales being huge with a large horizontal structure, (the only way they can move in the water).

Here again is a list of features I gave Noir of whales absolutely necessary to survive in the deep ocean, that 50 million years ago a "small deer like" land mammal had to aquire one at a time to become a whale via random one by one mutations OVER TIME according to yer religion:

OH..... I see..... let's work through the list shall we:

#1: Enormous lung capacity with efficient oxygen exchange for long dives.

Now explain how a random mutation over time could lead to such an extremely complex lung with efficient oxygen echange? Not possible one random mutation at a time!

#2: A powerful tail with large horizontal flukes enabling very strong swimming.

How would the land animal, (pre goin' in the ol' water as your religion dictates), be able to compete on land with such a large powerful and very heavy tail........before the next random mutation caused the next necessary feature to be a successful whale....... hmmmmmmm???????

#3: Eyes designed to see properly in water with its far higher refractive index, and withstand high pressure.

Very complex organs with irreducible components that must all function together flawlessly for the eye to function. If he went in the water before this highly improbable developement from random one at a time mutation he would starve eh?

#4: Ears designed differently from those of land mammals that pick up airborne sound waves and with the eardrum protected from high pressure.

Very complex organs highly improbable from random one at a time mutation!!!!!

#5: Skin lacking hair and sweat glands but incorporating fibrous, fatty blubber.

Can ya imagine the land animal walking around on land competing for survival with this feature????? I sure can't!!!

#6: Whale fins and tongues have counter-current heat exchangers to minimize heat loss.

A real advantage for land survival before the rest of those necessary random mutations showed up?????

#7: Nostrils on the top of the head (blowholes).

Kinda hard to make it as a whale without this feature, eh? How's the land animal survive and compete with the huge tail and blubber and fins if this feature doesn't show up right on time eh?

#8: Specially fitting mouth and nipples so the baby can be breast-fed underwater.

Seems like a rather complex and very important feature unless ya don't think reproduction is important, eh????

#9: Baleen whales have sheets of baleen (whalebone) that hang from the roof of the mouth and filter plankton for food.

How do ya think that feature would work on land for superior competition, eh?

The majority of these features are absolutely necessary for pedestrian survival in a very competitive ocean that already had very successful organisms living in the sea 50 million years ago. NOT LOGICAL OR POSSIBLE one random mutation at a time.

You have to be a true believer unable to think outside the box to imagine this list of very necessary features (that would not work well on land at all), to all arrive just in time to make a successful whale from a previously successful land mammal from random one at a time mutations

In yer snarky criticizm of ID ya made up some siily chit ta mock ID.

Remember when ya made up this chit, clown?

No, there is a difference between a theory and a scientific theory. There is this theory...the Keebler Theory wherein the universe emerged from a hollow tree where elves were churning out all the elements that make up everything. If you look at atomic structure, the particles are so tiny that only the little hands of magical elves could have worked with them. So you see, the Keebler Theory is the best explanantion of the hole in the big bang theory.

The Keebler Theory has as much going for it scientifically as ID.

Then ya made high brow claims that yer religion was verified by real (not pseudo) science n' proven "scientific methods".

Claimin' some sorta snarky look down yer nose superoity of yer faith in evolution vs ID.

Ya can't have yer cake and eat it too: clown.

Then in defense of yer religion ya pull seals outa yer arse n' claim it is "just too easy/ perfectly logical".

As I said before: IT TAKES FAR MORE FAITH TO BELIEVE IN THE LOGICAL HAND STANDS NECESSARY TO ACCEPT EVOLUTION AS GOSPEL THEN INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

This discussion of the evolution of the whale from a "small deer like" land mammal via one at a time over time random mutations makes that stretch of the imagination real obvious to even the dimmist of bulbs.

What a clown.


On a serious note: some form of Evolution may have happened, (see ID). The mechanism of one by one random mutations over time is surely false, and the theory needs major modifications to fit now known observations of irreducable complexity and the fossil record.

Rapid systemic modification of organisms must occur to fit observations.

The faith neccessary to maintain this failed theory is incredible.

[Missileman]

A seal and a whale are unrelated organisms according to yer religion: Einstein the clown.

The appearence on earth of the whale is 50 million years ago, (when they hit the ol' water), and the seal 15 million years ago, again: according to yer religion, and I provided the cites that maybe you were too lazy ta read.

Hit the books: clown.

One more time:

The two fully developed NON TRANSITIONAL modern mammals, (seals and whales), are quite different in food sources, size, habitat and anatomical features. You maybe surprized to learn that whales don't even have "flippers": clown, (how the seals propel themselves), whales have fins. The structure of the two mammal's tails couldn't be more different, the whales being huge with a large horizontal structure, (the only way they can move in the water).

Here again is a list of features I gave Noir of whales absolutely necessary to survive in the deep ocean, that 50 million years ago a "small deer like" land mammal had to aquire one at a time to become a whale via random one by one mutations OVER TIME according to yer religion:



In yer snarky criticizm of ID ya made up some siily chit ta mock ID.

Remember when ya made up this chit, clown?



Then ya made high brow claims that yer religion was verified by real (not pseudo) science n' proven "scientific methods".

Claimin' some sorta snarky look down yer nose superoity of yer faith in evolution vs ID.

Ya can't have yer cake and eat it too: clown.

Then in defense of yer religion ya pull seals outa yer arse n' claim it is "just too easy/ perfectly logical".

As I said before: IT TAKES FAR MORE FAITH TO BELIEVE IN THE LOGICAL HAND STANDS NECESSARY TO ACCEPT EVOLUTION AS GOSPEL THEN INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

This discussion of the evolution of the whale from a "small deer like" land mammal via one at a time over time random mutations makes that stretch of the imagination real obvious to even the dimmist of bulbs.

What a clown.

I didn't put seals up because I was trying to say they are related to whales. I put them up as an example of flippers developing from limbs previously used to walk on land. It's no giant leap from that to an animal with flippers evolving into an animal with a tail.

[OldMercsRule]

I didn't put seals up because I was trying to say they are related to whales. I put them up as an example of flippers developing from limbs previously used to walk on land. It's no giant leap from that to an animal with flippers evolving into an animal with a tail.

I have less of a logic problem with the deer to seal transition then the deer to whale. That said: it didn't happen according to science.

That is a demonstration of the huge problem with obvious religious beliefs in Darwin's evolution for me, (that seems to not be a problem for true believers like you and Noir).

Observations do not fit the theory at all and modern science is making things worse discovery by discovery, (especially the random one at a time over time mutation mechanism). Why can't you see that?

When the Greeks/Chinese/Persians proposed the observation philosophy based theory (before modern science) and discoveries of the fossil record, (Cambrian explosion), the logic of deer to seal to whale could be imagined as long as the mechanism for change was both very rapid and orderly. Not random mutations one at a time over time, (each mutation creating a stand alone improvement of the survival of the organism before the next one at a time mutation).

The similarities of part time land dwelling seals to land mammals is not the stretch that deer to whales is. That said: the science, (which I do accept BTW), states that did not occur.

Seal to whale is just as big of a stretch as from a deer, (IMHO), due to the unique and distinct features of the whales competing in a sea full of advanced competitors.

Evolution and modern science makes the clear cut claim of "small deer like" land mammal to whale. That makes the scientific observations challange the basic mechanism of the religion of Darwinian evolution.

The theory is a long way from irrefutably proven.

I will admit that this debate has forced me to look deeper into evolution then I had done before, so I thank you and Noir for the lesson.

Respectfully, JR

[Noir]

Good day all, my apologies for not being able to made the post I intended to today, however my old employer back home was having some staff trouble so I have come in to work for her, I will make my post as soon as I can, which looks likly to be Thursday, I'm sure you are all most disapointed to have to wait lol.

[Missileman]

I have less of a logic problem with the deer to seal transition then the deer to whale. That said: it didn't happen according to science.

That is a demonstration of the huge problem with obvious religious beliefs in Darwin's evolution for me, (that seems to not be a problem for true believers like you and Noir).

Observations do not fit the theory at all and modern science is making things worse discovery by discovery, (especially the random one at a time over time mutation mechanism). Why can't you see that?

When the Greeks/Chinese/Persians proposed the observation philosophy based theory (before modern science) and discoveries of the fossil record, (Cambrian explosion), the logic of deer to seal to whale could be imagined as long as the mechanism for change was both very rapid and orderly. Not random mutations one at a time over time, (each mutation creating a stand alone improvement of the survival of the organism before the next one at a time mutation).

The similarities of part time land dwelling seals to land mammals is not the stretch that deer to whales is. That said: the science, (which I do accept BTW), states that did not occur.

Seal to whale is just as big of a stretch as from a deer, (IMHO), due to the unique and distinct features of the whales competing in a sea full of advanced competitors.

Evolution and modern science makes the clear cut claim of "small deer like" land mammal to whale. That makes the scientific observations challange the basic mechanism of the religion of Darwinian evolution.

The theory is a long way from irrefutably proven.

I will admit that this debate has forced me to look deeper into evolution then I had done before, so I thank you and Noir for the lesson.

Respectfully, JR

The transition wasn't straight from deer to whale. It would have been more like deer to something seal-like, then to whale in tiny graduated stages over millions of years.

[OldMercsRule]

The transition wasn't straight from deer to whale. It would have been more like deer to something seal-like, then to whale in tiny graduated stages over millions of years.

Nope that is not what the Archeologists say.

Yer jus' makin' chit up again.

Ya like to debate that way eh?

Hit the books; I provided cites before.

Seals are very dissimilar to whales.

Whales don't have flippers at all yer just maken chit up.

The tales of the two water mammals are totally and obviously very different in primary structure and purpose as well.

The whale's only means of moving through the water is with their tales, as they don't have flippers; they have fins.

Whales are a very specialized deep sea mammal that require the very specialized features that seals and "small deer like" land mammals very clearly lack.

It is hard to imagine survival of whales, ("in tiny graduated stages over millions of years" ), without the full compliment of these features in a very competitive ocean.

Furthermore some of these whale features showing up at random times in random order "over millions of years" would hurt the survival of the transition organisms that could not possibly be functional or competitive.

That clearly challanges the one random mutation at a time over time mechanism of your religion to free thinkers (of which you clearly are not).

Single celled life is not simple at all, (as Darwin assumed).

Only the foolish adherance to the religion by people as full of kool aid as you keep this failed theory alive.