Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How cows evolved into whales.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by Lighthouse View Post
    Yeah, because some animals no longer exist, so they must have evolved into something else.

    What did the dodo become?
    Dinner.
    "Those who have crossed
    With direct eyes, to death's other Kingdom
    Remember us--if at all--not as lost
    Violent souls, but only
    As the hollow men
    The stuffed men." ... T.S. Eliot

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Lighthouse View Post
      Yeah, because some animals no longer exist, so they must have evolved into something else.

      What did the dodo become?
      You know Lighthouse perhaps if you had spent more time learning science than looking at porn you might really understand this evidence.
      Militant Moderate

      Comment


      • #93
        Oh, OK, now I believe, but wait, the dates on those pictures are from July 2007, not several 1000 years ago. I know that NYC was hit pretty hard this morning with rain storms but not sure I am willing to agree that these are really pictures of Noah's Ark.
        "Against stupidity, the gods themselves fight in vain", G. Smiley

        "Send money, guns and lawyers..." W. Zevon

        "If it is possible for something to happen, that is evidence that it did happen." Stripe on TOL

        "There but for fortune...", P. Ochs

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by noguru View Post
          You know Lighthouse perhaps if you had spent more time learning science than looking at porn you might really understand this evidence.
          What evidence? All I've seen are drawings and one skeleton. None of that proves whatever that thing was evolved into a whale.

          And I know I'm guilty of personal attacks, but I have never attacked someone for something they used to do that they have repented of. That's uncalled for.
          sigpic

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Jukia View Post
            Oh, OK, now I believe, but wait, the dates on those pictures are from July 2007, not several 1000 years ago. I know that NYC was hit pretty hard this morning with rain storms but not sure I am willing to agree that these are really pictures of Noah's Ark.
            It was a joke. I happened to have uploaded those pix to my ImageShack account last night, and then you asked for pix of Noah's Ark. Opportunity knocked, I answered.
            sigpic

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Jukia View Post
              Oh, OK, now I believe, but wait, the dates on those pictures are from July 2007, not several 1000 years ago. I know that NYC was hit pretty hard this morning with rain storms but not sure I am willing to agree that these are really pictures of Noah's Ark.
              Originally posted by Lighthouse View Post
              It was a joke. I happened to have uploaded those pix to my ImageShack account last night, and then you asked for pix of Noah's Ark. Opportunity knocked, I answered.
              Anyway, those digital camera dates can be off, especially if the camera is very old, like thousands of years... Also, rain does a real job on digital cameras.




              Comment


              • #97
                Ever notice how evolutionists can never stay on topic?

                Ever notice the fascination evolutionists have with Noah's ark?

                Typical conversation.....


                Creationist: Isn't it a bit far fetched to think that a whale evolved from a cow?

                Evolutionist: Not really, after all.... whales have been discovered with vestigial hind legs!

                Creationist: Actually that isn't true and here is proof.....

                Evolutionist: How did Noah fit all those animals on the ark? Huh??? Huh??? Tell me how he did that.

                Creationist:
                Last edited by Knight; August 8th, 2007, 04:26 PM.
                Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
                TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Knight View Post
                  Ever notice how evolutionists can never stay on topic?

                  Ever notice the fascination evolutionists have with Noah's ark?

                  Typical conversation.....


                  Creationist: Isn't it a bit far fetched to think that a whale evolved from a cow?

                  Evolutionist: Not really, after all.... cow's have been discovered with vestigial hind legs!

                  Creationist: Actually that isn't true and here is proof.....

                  Evolutionist: How did Noah fit all those animals on the ark? Huh??? Huh??? Tell me how he did that.

                  Creationist:
                  Actually, I have found that fundamentalists sometimes tend to avoid actually responding to questions. "Evolutionists" (your term, not theirs), from my experience, tend to stay on topic.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Knight View Post
                    Ever notice how evolutionists can never stay on topic?

                    Ever notice the fascination evolutionists have with Noah's ark?

                    Typical conversation.....


                    Creationist: Isn't it a bit far fetched to think that a whale evolved from a cow?

                    Evolutionist: Not really, after all.... cow's have been discovered with vestigial hind legs!

                    Creationist: Actually that isn't true and here is proof.....

                    Evolutionist: How did Noah fit all those animals on the ark? Huh??? Huh??? Tell me how he did that.

                    Creationist:
                    Shouldn't that say "whales?"
                    sigpic

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Lighthouse View Post
                      What evidence? All I've seen are drawings and one skeleton. None of that proves whatever that thing was evolved into a whale.
                      First off, all drawings were reconstructions made from paleontological evidence. Secondly, it is not proof. It is evidence that such animals did exist. For those who are willing to accept it this is evidence that whales had an ungulate ancestor. For those who need to cling to a YEC view of origins in order to cleanse themselves from the guilt of their past it appears as it does to you.

                      Originally posted by Lighthouse View Post
                      And I know I'm guilty of personal attacks, but I have never attacked someone for something they used to do that they have repented of. That's uncalled for.
                      Well if what you use to do has an effect on your current thinking then it still must be considered. It was not an attack, just something I felt should be considered.
                      Militant Moderate

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by noguru View Post
                        First off, all drawings were reconstructions made from paleontological evidence. Secondly, it is not proof. It is evidence that such animals did exist. For those who are willing to accept it this is evidence that whales had an ungulate ancestor. For those who need to cling to a YEC view of origins inorder to cleanse themselves from the guilt of their past it appears as it does to you.
                        :squint:

                        So what if that animal existed? I'm not arguing against that. I'm asking for proof that these animals evolved into whales. I haven't even seen evidence of such. Only evidence that a certain animal once existed.

                        And why are those who accept this one fossil, with no transitional fossils, the ones who are right? Those who follow blindly lose their vision.

                        Well if what you use to do has an effect on your current thinking then it still must be considered. It was not an attack, just something I felt should be considered.
                        You're a fool.
                        sigpic

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Knight View Post
                          Ever notice how evolutionists can never stay on topic?

                          Ever notice the fascination evolutionists have with Noah's ark?

                          Typical conversation.....


                          Creationist: Isn't it a bit far fetched to think that a whale evolved from a cow?

                          Evolutionist: Not really, after all.... cow's have been discovered with vestigial hind legs!

                          Creationist: Actually that isn't true and here is proof.....

                          Evolutionist: How did Noah fit all those animals on the ark? Huh??? Huh??? Tell me how he did that.

                          Creationist:
                          Well Knight perhaps you have difficulty in critically analysing your own world view, but this does not mean others should share in your difficulty.
                          Militant Moderate

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Lighthouse View Post
                            :squint:

                            So what if that animal existed? I'm not arguing against that. I'm asking for proof that these animals evolved into whales. I haven't even seen evidence of such. Only evidence that a certain animal once existed.
                            One more time, there is no proof, only evidence. You refuse to accept this as evidence that whales evolved from a common ungulate ancestor. I strongly suspect that your reasons for such are emotional rather than logical.

                            Tell me Lighthouse, what in your mind would qualify as evidence that these are transitionals between an extinct ungulate and modern whales?

                            Originally posted by Lighthouse View Post
                            And why are those who accept this one fossil, with no transitional fossils, the ones who are right? Those who follow blindly lose their vision.
                            One more time Lighthouse, it clearly says that all the pictures are reconstronstructions made from paleontological evidence.

                            How is this following blindly? It sure seems like this is the pot calling the kettle black.

                            Originally posted by Lighthouse View Post
                            You're a fool.
                            Thank you sir. Coming from you I take this as a compliment. Oh and I see that just calling me a fool was not enough for you. You had to neg rep me as well. Bravo, my friend. I hope this helps you sleep better tonight.

                            You do realize that for a YEC on this site with the amount of post you have that your rep meter is very low. If you calculated what my rep meter would be had I the amount of posts you have I would have a much higher score.
                            Last edited by noguru; August 8th, 2007, 02:33 PM.
                            Militant Moderate

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by noguru View Post
                              One more time, there is no proof, only evidence. You refuse to accept this as evidence that whales evolved from a common ungulate ancestor. I strongly suspect that your reasons for such are emotional rather than logical.
                              One skeleton is not enough evidence, twit.

                              Tell me Lighthouse, what in your mind would qualify as evidence that these are transitionals between an extinct ungulate and modern whales?
                              Images of those transitional fossils, that aren't drawings of what someone think happened.

                              One more time Lighthouse, it clearly says that all the pictures are reconstronstructions made from paleontological evidence.
                              And? Where are the fossils that are the supposed paleontological evidence?

                              How is this following blindly? It sure seems like this is the pot calling the kettle black.
                              It's believing someone because they're a scientist, without enough evidence that they're telling the truth.

                              And how is it the pot calling the kettle black?

                              Thank you sir. Coming from you I take this as a compliment. Oh and I see that just calling me a fool was not enough for you. You had to neg rep me as well. Bravo, my friend. I hope this helps you sleep better tonight.
                              You're more than a fool. And it has nothing to do with your being an evolutionist.

                              You do realize that for a YEC on this site with the amount of post you have that your rep meter is very low. If you calculated what my rep meter would be had I the amount of posts you have I would have a much higher score.
                              And that's supposed to mean something? Of course, I highly doubt it. Your rep would be much lower, actually. More posts to neg rep.
                              sigpic

                              Comment


                              • (Barbarian shows lighthouse a skeleton of the earliest known whale)

                                So, what features does it have that are only found in whales?
                                The skull, mostly. The teeth and jaws are those of whales, and the sigmoid bone in the ear is only found in whales, and this one has it, and the nostrils are set back on the skull somewhat.

                                The first hint that they were probably right came in 1983, when researcher Phil Gingerich found a 52-million year old skull in shallow deposits in Pakistan. Although fragmentary, the skull had teeth that were nearly identical with those of Mesonychids and the Archaeocetes. The configuration of the bones at the rear of the skull, however, were different from those in the Mesonychids, and were identical to that of the Archaeocetes. Gingerich thus concluded that the animal, which he named Pakicetus, was a very primitive whale. "In time and in its morphology," Gingerich reported, "Pakicetus is perfectly intermediate, a missing link between earlier land mammals and later, full-fledged whales." (Gingerich, The Whales of Tethys, Natural History, April 1994, p. 86)
                                http://www.fsteiger.com/whales.html

                                Ironically, the first specimen was only of a skull, and people were very surprised to see that the next one was connected to the skeleton of an ungulate.

                                And, yes, I would like to see some more "evolved" versions.
                                Sure. Here's a somewhat more evolved whale...

                                http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/...bulocetus2.jpg

                                Ambulocetus had an even more whale-like skull, more adapted for hearing underwater. But it had functional legs, and could still move clumsily on land, a bit more so than a sea lion. And the oxygen isotopes in the teeth indicate that while it was capable of venturing out to sea, it still had to return to land to drink fresh water.

                                And then there's...

                                http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/U...ocetidaeA5.jpg

                                Rhodocetus was larger, and with smaller legs that would have made moving about on land rather difficult (but still possible) and the oxygen isotope ratios in the teeth now show that it drank salt water, and therefore did not need to return to land at all.

                                And then...
                                http://www.toyohaku.gr.jp/sizensi/03...n/dorudon1.jpg

                                Dorudon was pretty much like Rhodocetus, but much larger, with smaller legs, and the pelvis was no longer connected firmly to the spine. It could not leave the water at all.

                                And then...

                                http://daley.med.harvard.edu/assets/...silosaurus.jpg

                                Basilosarus was truly huge, with even smaller legs, and the rear legs were now tiny relative to the huge body.

                                There were other trends as well. The nostrils of these are gradually moved farther back on the skull until in Basilosaurus, they are almost like the modern blowhole.

                                And the spine changed gradually from a very rigid ungulate spine to an extremely flexible whale spine. And this transition explains why whales have horizontal flukes. Ambulocetus had large, wide feet, like that of an otter, and swam by vertical undulations, as an otter does. And more evolved whales with broader tails, used the same motion, which required a horizontal fluke, rather than a vertical fin.

                                I'd like to see the "process" that took that and turned it into a whale.
                                This is only an outline. You might want to read "At the Water's Edge" by Carl Zimmer, to get more detail. It's a fascinating and well-documented story.

                                Also, if there were no platypuses would you think Ducks and Beavers evolved from them, since they have features that are only found in ducks,
                                Platypuses have no features found only in ducks. They do have some features found only in reptiles and other monotremes, however. The "bill" is just a figure of speech; it is not remotely like the beak of a duck, although it does resemble the "bill" of some extinct reptiles. Since genetic studies show that they are not the ancestors of placental mammals, I would not think that they are ancestral to beavers, either. Beavers are more closely related to the advanced therapsid reptiles,(they share a simplified mammalian shoulder girdle) and platypuses don't have any features found otherwise only in beavers.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X