Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How cows evolved into whales.

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

  • So he concluded it was a whale, and when the next one was found attached to a skeleton with legs, they decided that whales descended from an animal with legs, rather than explore more thoroughly to see if they were wrong? Sounds like evolution theory to me.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Lighthouse View Post
      So he concluded it was a whale, and when the next one was found attached to a skeleton with legs, they decided that whales descended from an animal with legs, rather than explore more thoroughly to see if they were wrong? Sounds live evolution theory to me.

      I can see where your problems is.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Lighthouse View Post
        One skeleton is not enough evidence, twit.
        There is more than just one skeleton. There are fossils from other transitionals used for the reconstructions.

        Originally posted by Lighthouse View Post
        Images of those transitional fossils, that aren't drawings of what someone think happened.
        You obviously have a poor understanding of what paleontologists do.

        Originally posted by Lighthouse View Post
        And? Where are the fossils that are the supposed paleontological evidence?
        They are kept in a very potected place. But you might be able to see the casts made from the fossils, if you ask the right people.

        Originally posted by Lighthouse View Post
        It's believing someone because they're a scientist, without enough evidence that they're telling the truth.
        Well what evidence do you want?

        Originally posted by Lighthouse View Post
        And how is it the pot calling the kettle black?
        Originally posted by Lighthouse View Post
        You're more than a fool. And it has nothing to do with your being an evolutionist.
        Great, I am glad you settled that. Now can you explain the logic behind this claim?

        Originally posted by Lighthouse View Post
        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.
        Well I am not suprised you fail to understand. What comes around goes around, my friend.

        So you rep meter started very high and has been decreasing all this time?
        Militant Moderate

        Comment


        • Originally posted by noguru View Post
          There is more than just one skeleton. There are fossils from other transitionals used for the reconstructions.
          And where are they? How many are there? Enough to prove that they evolved into whales, slowly over millions of years? Are there enough to show each step that took place, as they evolved?

          You obviously have a poor understanding of what paleontologists do.
          They make assumptions based on their limited knowledge, and proclaim it as truth. Well, most of the time, anyway.

          They are kept in a very potected place. But you might be able to see the casts made from the fossils, if you ask the right people.
          They can't take pictures and post them on the internet? Have you ever seen these fossils? Or are they like the golden plates Joseph Smith "found."

          Well what evidence do you want?
          I already told you.

          Great, I am glad you settled that. Now can you explain the logic behind this claim?
          You are a fool, because you brought up something in my past, that I didn't even do that much, and used it against me as if it prohibited me from doing anything else. And you're a hypocrite.

          Well I am not suprised you fail to understand. What comes around goes around, my friend.
          Rep means nothing, because too many people are cheating the system. So my rep meter is no reflection on my beliefs, or my post count, dipstick.

          So you rep meter started very high and has been decreasing all this time?
          You would have more posts to neg rep, moron. Not to mention, when I started posting here they didn't have rep. It's fairly new. And I also haven't posted on here as regularly as I am this week, for the past four years, either. So of course my rep isn't going to be extremely high. Of course, that idiot BillyBob didn't help any when he neg repped me three times a day, every day for months when I told him his joke was getting old.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Lighthouse View Post
            Shouldn't that say "whales?"
            Yes!
            Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
            TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

            Comment


            • Originally posted by noguru View Post
              Well Knight perhaps you have difficulty in critically analysing your own world view, but this does not mean others should share in your difficulty.
              In this case we aren't analyzing "my world view", which only further demonstrates the point I was making.
              Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
              TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Lighthouse View Post
                They make assumptions based on their limited knowledge, and proclaim it as truth. Well, most of the time, anyway.
                This isn't limited to paleontologists, or even to scientists, but is true of all humans and all their proclamations of truth.

                We humans have limited knowledge, and yet we still proclaim to know things. It isn't an "absolute" truth (such things are reserved for omniscient beings), but it is what us humans would call truth, knowledge or facts.
                "What if the Hokie Pokie is really what it's all about?"

                "The best things in life aren't things"

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Lighthouse View Post
                  And where are they? How many are there? Enough to prove that they evolved into whales, slowly over millions of years? Are there enough to show each step that took place, as they evolved?

                  They make assumptions based on their limited knowledge, and proclaim it as truth. Well, most of the time, anyway.

                  They can't take pictures and post them on the internet? Have you ever seen these fossils? Or are they like the golden plates Joseph Smith "found."

                  I already told you.

                  You are a fool, because you brought up something in my past, that I didn't even do that much, and used it against me as if it prohibited me from doing anything else. And you're a hypocrite.

                  Rep means nothing, because too many people are cheating the system. So my rep meter is no reflection on my beliefs, or my post count, dipstick.

                  You would have more posts to neg rep, moron. Not to mention, when I started posting here they didn't have rep. It's fairly new. And I also haven't posted on here as regularly as I am this week, for the past four years, either. So of course my rep isn't going to be extremely high. Of course, that idiot BillyBob didn't help any when he neg repped me three times a day, every day for months when I told him his joke was getting old.
                  Your comments give me a good understanding of your character.
                  Militant Moderate

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Knight View Post
                    In this case we aren't analyzing "my world view", which only further demonstrates the point I was making.
                    OK we were not critically analyzing your world view. Carry on.
                    Militant Moderate

                    Comment


                    • Lighthouse, are you going to actually address all the evidence Barbarian presented? It's a well researched post, I think it deserves acknowledgment at the very least.

                      Originally posted by Lighthouse
                      They make assumptions based on their limited knowledge, and proclaim it as truth. Well, most of the time, anyway.
                      This is a blatant misrepresentation of what paleontologists do. Or all scientists, for that matter. They don't "proclaim truth", which (as is very clear from the many posts regarding truth and "Truth"®) is very subjective. It is evidence. Evidence which you seem to be completely ignoring. You ask for transitional fossils, they are presented to you, so now what?
                      ~ Atheism is as much a religion as "not collecting stamps" is a hobby. ~

                      Comment


                      • So he concluded it was a whale,
                        Right. Remember, he only found the skull on the first one. So it had a skull shaped like a primitive whale, Archaeocyte (primitive whale) teeth, and the unique structure of the ear found only in whales. Go figure.

                        and when the next one was found attached to a skeleton with legs, they decided that whales descended from an animal with legs,
                        This had been predicted long before, of course, based on other anatomical data. But no. The first question was "are you sure these are really the right skull for the right body?" And it was. And later, others were found like it. Then it was "let's go back and take another look at the skull." And it was confirmed to be the skull of a whale. So, there really wasn't another way to look at it.

                        Sounds like evolution theory to me.
                        You're a little confused. The process is the scientific method. The facts uncovered are evidence. The theory merely predicted that such animals as Pakicetus must have existed.

                        But it didn't end there. Turns out that there are whales from time to time that are born with hind legs, complete with femur and tibia. And they have an ungulate digestive system.

                        And when we were able to do DNA studies, it turns out whale DNA fits nicely into the ungulate group.

                        It is confirmations of predictions from the theory, such as these that make scientists so confident in it.
                        This message is hidden because ...

                        Comment


                        • You people are idiots. All I got was four pictures of actual skeletons, and everything else were drawings. Where are the fossils, and why are there no pictures of them available, if they have been found? And why does it have to mean that an animal evolved into something else, just because it no longer exists?

                          You say you have all this evidence, and yet, none of it proves anything. You even admit that. So why should I believe it, if nothing has been proved? There's a shadow of doubt remaining, can you remove it?

                          Comment


                          • I prefer this video:
                            Evoludicris?
                            "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin

                            Comment


                            • You people are idiots. All I got was four pictures of actual skeletons,
                              You asked for transitionals. There they are. Don't get angry. Get smart. Why do you think they told you that these skeletons didn't exist? They lied to you. And these are far from the only ones. Some species now have dozens of skeletons available.

                              Where are the fossils,
                              Mostly in museums (you may have noticed that several I showed you were on public display) or in research labs.

                              [quote]and why are there no pictures of them available, if they have been found? [quote]

                              Those are photographs.

                              And why does it have to mean that an animal evolved into something else, just because it no longer exists?
                              We call them intermediates, because we can show how the population of whales changed over time. The nostrils, you might have noticed, gradually moved back in the skull, as we looked at whales over that time.

                              You say you have all this evidence, and yet, none of it proves anything. You even admit that.
                              Science never "proves" anything. It just accumulates enough evidence to make it foolish to deny a theory. We can't prove the sun will be shining tomorrow, but the evidence is incontrovertable that it will.

                              So why should I believe it, if nothing has been proved?
                              For the same reason you don't walk off the top of high buildings. We can't prove you'll fall, but we have enough evidence to be sure you will.

                              There's a shadow of doubt remaining, can you remove it?
                              For an honest and rational person, it's gone.
                              This message is hidden because ...

                              Comment


                              • So let me get this straight, Lighthouse. You're saying that we are idiots for believing something for which we have huge amounts of evidence, yet you believe stories written in a book, thousands of years ago, with no evidence?
                                ~ Atheism is as much a religion as "not collecting stamps" is a hobby. ~

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X