How cows evolved into whales.

The Berean

Well-known member
Well that proves it. I might as well burn my Y.E.C. membership card, cancel my subscription to Creation Magazine, and start an anti Ken Ham campaign.
 

Lighthouse

Star-Spangled Kid
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Why would something crawl out of the sea, and then end up going back in to evolve into a sea creature? Why not stay in the water?
 

Real Sorceror

New member
Why would something crawl out of the sea, and then end up going back in to evolve into a sea creature? Why not stay in the water?
Probably because most every other mammal decided to stay on land. It could have been competition for over resources (aka food and territory). The ocean is full of food and open space.
 

Lighthouse

Star-Spangled Kid
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Probably because most every other mammal decided to stay on land. It could have been competition for over resources (aka food and territory). The ocean is full of food and open space.
But why not just stay in the water to begin with?
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
What's funny, is that most YE creationists actually believe that's how scientists think it happened.

And (of course) they get jowl-quivering indignant when people conclude they aren't very smart.

They can hardly be blamed. About 20 years ago, I saw a video in which a creationist (I think Henry Morris) presented his version of a whale transitional.

It was the front half of a cow attached to the rear half of a fish. And his audience nodded with great seriousness, when he declared that is what evolution says about whales.

He also declared that if anyone found a whale with legs, it would make an evolutionist of him. Later, when such whales were found, he declared that if they had legs, they wouldn't be whales. :rolleyes:
 

Mr. 5020

New member
What's funny, is that most YE creationists actually believe that's how scientists think it happened.

And (of course) they get jowl-quivering indignant when people conclude they aren't very smart.

They can hardly be blamed. About 20 years ago, I saw a video in which a creationist (I think Henry Morris) presented his version of a whale transitional.

It was the front half of a cow attached to the rear half of a fish. And his audience nodded with great seriousness, when he declared that is what evolution says about whales.

He also declared that if anyone found a whale with legs, it would make an evolutionist of him. Later, when such whales were found, he declared that if they had legs, they wouldn't be whales. :rolleyes:
You do realize it was a joke, right?
 

PlastikBuddha

New member
But why not just stay in the water to begin with?

Because when animals began moving to the land there was a pretty empty ecosystem- just plants to chow on and no real predators. Of course, the predators followed them onto the land soon, but hey- nothing's perfect.
 

Mr. 5020

New member
Because when animals began moving to the land there was a pretty empty ecosystem- just plants to chow on and no real predators. Of course, the predators followed them onto the land soon, but hey- nothing's perfect.
Just to be clear, you're making an educated guess, right? You actually have no idea.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
You do realize it was a joke, right?

(Knight thinks of a clever insult)
No, because she evolved no sense of humor.

Fortunately, I'm a Christian, and therefore don't think it's shameful to be a woman. So your gender confusion "insult" is just funny, not insulting.

As far as the video being a joke, it's hard to tell with creationists. I've had them tell me stuff like that for straight. It's funny, of course, but not in the way you think it is.

Reminds me of a joke:

"How many creationists does it take to replace a light bulb?"

"THAT'S NOT FUNNY!!!"
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Originally Posted by PlastikBuddha
Because when animals began moving to the land there was a pretty empty ecosystem- just plants to chow on and no real predators. Of course, the predators followed them onto the land soon, but hey- nothing's perfect.

Just to be clear, you're making an educated guess, right?

No. At the time of these transitional tetrapods, there were no large animals on the land, just insects, none of which were any threat to them. In fact, they were probably utilized as prey, first by the fish rising up out of shallow water ( the evidence shows that the earliest fish with legs could basically only do a "pushup" motion) and then later by venturing onto land. No predators, there.

You actually have no idea.

If he's familiar with the evidence, he does.
 

PlastikBuddha

New member
Just to be clear, you're making an educated guess, right? You actually have no idea.

No, it is not an educated guess- it is pretty clear when the history of life is examined. Plants were the first land pioneers, stiffening their stalks and reaching for the sun and into the earth. They were followed by arthropods, and later vertebrates who left the water to avoid predators and find food. You may accept it or not, but I have a very good idea and it is supported by the evidence. We still have amphibians which need to return to the water for part of their lifecycle and many insects do the same.
 

Mystery

New member
They were followed by arthropods, and later vertebrates who left the water to avoid predators and find food.
What prevented them from dying then, that does not prevent them now? Perhaps you could tell me about some vertebrate that in recent history has made the slightest change towards this event.
 

PlastikBuddha

New member
What prevented them from dying then, that does not prevent them now? Perhaps you could tell me about some vertebrate that in recent history has made the slightest change towards this event.

What are you talking about? The transition from water to land has happened a few times, as I mentioned, and there are animals today that straddle the gap. If you want more details check out the lungfish and the mudskipper.
 
Top