1. SubscriberProper Knob
    Cornovii
    North of the Tamar
    Joined
    02 Feb '07
    Moves
    51467
    15 Sep '10 09:42
    In light of a couple of discussions recently (with Mr Jay & RC) i've started a seperate thread. The evolution of cetaceans ie. whales, dolphins and porpoises, states that these mighty beasts were once land based mammals who over millions of years evolved to life in the water. The genetics, DNA and fossil record backs this up, but of course our good friends 'the creationists' deny this.

    I'm looking for why, in your view, this couldn't have happenned. And please merely stating 'becasue the Bible says so' ain't cutting it today.

    We'll start here.
  2. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    15 Sep '10 13:49
    Originally posted by Proper Knob
    In light of a couple of discussions recently (with Mr Jay & RC) i've started a seperate thread. The evolution of cetaceans ie. whales, dolphins and porpoises, states that these mighty beasts were once land based mammals who over millions of years evolved to life in the water. The genetics, DNA and fossil record backs this up, but of course our good frien ...[text shortened]... stating 'becasue the Bible says so' ain't cutting it today.

    We'll start here.
    it seems strange that an animal should first of all evolve in the sea, decide to come to land, evolve on land and then decide to return back to the sea. Does that not seem strange to you dear Noobster?
  3. Standard memberRajk999
    Enjoying
    On the Beach
    Joined
    04 Apr '04
    Moves
    170571
    15 Sep '10 14:08
    Originally posted by Proper Knob
    In light of a couple of discussions recently (with Mr Jay & RC) i've started a seperate thread. The evolution of cetaceans ie. whales, dolphins and porpoises, states that these mighty beasts were once land based mammals who over millions of years evolved to life in the water. The genetics, DNA and fossil record backs this up, but of course our good frien ...[text shortened]... stating 'becasue the Bible says so' ain't cutting it today.

    We'll start here.
    Evolution of the type you describe is just a theory. The only solid evidence which can prove this theory correct is if you were to find fossilized remains of these animals at different stages of evolution, which will show the gradual change in their structure and shape. Is there such evidence?

    However there is solid evidence that animals have existed for the same many millions of years with zero evolution. And to claim that these animals were 'perfect' therefore did not need to evolve is a nonsense argument.
  4. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    15 Sep '10 14:33
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    it seems strange that an animal should first of all evolve in the sea, decide to come to land, evolve on land and then decide to return back to the sea. Does that not seem strange to you dear Noobster?
    It is only strange if you believe that there was some thoughtful process guiding it all. If there isn't then there is nothing strange about it at all. Interesting yes, strange no.
  5. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    15 Sep '10 14:37
    Originally posted by Rajk999
    Evolution of the type you describe is just a theory. The only solid evidence which can prove this theory correct is if you were to find fossilized remains of these animals at different stages of evolution, which will show the gradual change in their structure and shape. Is there such evidence?
    Why would that constitute solid evidence, and why is it the only possible solid evidence?
    When you say "at different stages of evolution", how many intermediate fossils do you require? I am sure that some can be found, but you will probably just demand more, so I want to establish what you are looking for first.

    However there is solid evidence that animals have existed for the same many millions of years with zero evolution.
    Oh? Where is that evidence then?

    And to claim that these animals were 'perfect' therefore did not need to evolve is a nonsense argument.
    Has anyone made such a claim?
  6. Standard memberRajk999
    Enjoying
    On the Beach
    Joined
    04 Apr '04
    Moves
    170571
    15 Sep '10 15:23
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Why would that constitute solid evidence, and why is it the only possible solid evidence?
    When you say "at different stages of evolution", how many intermediate fossils do you require? I am sure that some can be found, but you will probably just demand more, so I want to establish what you are looking for first.

    [b]However there is solid evidence that ...[text shortened]... therefore did not need to evolve is a nonsense argument.

    Has anyone made such a claim?[/b]
    Can you suggest other kinds of 'solid evidence'?

    Living Fossils - animal with fossilized remains but which are still living with us and some have been around for over 400,000,000 years.
    Check this site:
    http://www.living-fossils.com/3_1.php

    eg .Cœlacanth, Cockroach, horseshoe crab, the Okapi , and others.

    .. This is by no means the end of the list of creatures that still survive today unchanged, in exactly the same form as they displayed millions of years ago. The sturgeon, mackerel, freshwater bass, herring, needlefish, lobster, crawfish and the Devonian-period shark are all examples of living fossils. Other examples include the jellyfish, sponges, frogs, bees, ants, butterflies and termites. The 230-million-year-old dragonfly, soldier ants dating back 100 million years, and the 150-million-year-old salamander are all still living today. The same applies to arachnids such as the spider and myriapods such as the millipede....
  7. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    15 Sep '10 15:30
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    it seems strange that an animal should first of all evolve in the sea, decide to come to land, evolve on land and then decide to return back to the sea. Does that not seem strange to you dear Noobster?
    only if you picture that species of animals spanning millions of years as a undecided 20 year old who pays a lot of money for medschool then goes to pilot school then flips burgers then finds a job as a medic.

    this isn't about a human being being undecided and illogical. this is about some animals that evolved in some way then found a new environment, thrived there and branched out. kinda like the chinese evolved chopsticks instead of forks
  8. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    15 Sep '10 15:33
    Originally posted by Rajk999
    Evolution of the type you describe is just a theory. The only solid evidence which can prove this theory correct is if you were to find fossilized remains of these animals at different stages of evolution, which will show the gradual change in their structure and shape. Is there such evidence?

    However there is solid evidence that animals have existed for ...[text shortened]... aim that these animals were 'perfect' therefore did not need to evolve is a nonsense argument.
    if the environment stays basically the same, the animals don't need to evolve
  9. SubscriberProper Knob
    Cornovii
    North of the Tamar
    Joined
    02 Feb '07
    Moves
    51467
    15 Sep '10 16:381 edit
    Originally posted by Rajk999
    Evolution of the type you describe is just a theory. The only solid evidence which can prove this theory correct is if you were to find fossilized remains of these animals at different stages of evolution, which will show the gradual change in their structure and shape. Is there such evidence?

    However there is solid evidence that animals have existed for ...[text shortened]... aim that these animals were 'perfect' therefore did not need to evolve is a nonsense argument.
    Is there such evidence?

    As a matter of fact there is. Remarkable fossils have been found for whale evolution in the last 30yrs or so that clearly show a progression form land to water. I can name them for you of you like and you can look them up?

    Did you know whales still have tiny little vestigial leg bones buried deep inside their bodies?
  10. SubscriberProper Knob
    Cornovii
    North of the Tamar
    Joined
    02 Feb '07
    Moves
    51467
    15 Sep '10 16:46
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    it seems strange that an animal should first of all evolve in the sea, decide to come to land, evolve on land and then decide to return back to the sea. Does that not seem strange to you dear Noobster?
    Short answer.

    Nope.
  11. Standard memberRajk999
    Enjoying
    On the Beach
    Joined
    04 Apr '04
    Moves
    170571
    15 Sep '10 17:561 edit
    Originally posted by Proper Knob
    [b]Is there such evidence?

    As a matter of fact there is. Remarkable fossils have been found for whale evolution in the last 30yrs or so that clearly show a progression form land to water. I can name them for you of you like and you can look them up?

    Did you know whales still have tiny little vestigial leg bones buried deep inside their bodies?[/b]
    Well ... name them. ...[Edit] Please Mr Knob.
  12. Standard memberRajk999
    Enjoying
    On the Beach
    Joined
    04 Apr '04
    Moves
    170571
    15 Sep '10 18:00
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    if the environment stays basically the same, the animals don't need to evolve
    You kidding right? An environment that stayed the same over a few hundred million years? There is no such thing.

    And there were other species in that same 'unchanged' environment that did not evolve into anything else over the same 400,000.000 years. So two animals in the same environment and one did zero evolving and another moved from sea to land?

    Try again.
  13. SubscriberProper Knob
    Cornovii
    North of the Tamar
    Joined
    02 Feb '07
    Moves
    51467
    15 Sep '10 18:27
    Originally posted by Rajk999
    Well ... name them.
    I think what you meant to type was - Yes please Mr Knob.

    Indohyus
    Pakicetus
    Ambulocetus
    Maiacetus
    Rodhocetus
    Basilosaurus
    Squalodon
    Dorudon
    Balaena
  14. Standard memberavalanchethecat
    Not actually a cat
    Joined
    09 Apr '10
    Moves
    14251
    15 Sep '10 18:28
    Originally posted by Rajk999
    You kidding right? An environment that stayed the same over a few hundred million years? There is no such thing.

    And there were other species in that same 'unchanged' environment that did not evolve into anything else over the same 400,000.000 years. So two animals in the same environment and one did zero evolving and another moved from sea to land?

    Try again.
    If an organism is successful in the environment in which it finds itself, it will continue to exist. It is not necessary that the environment remain unchanged for hundreds of millions of years. At the same time, members of this species may find themselves in less favourable environments elsewhere and die out, while mutated specimens may survive and even prosper.
  15. Standard memberRajk999
    Enjoying
    On the Beach
    Joined
    04 Apr '04
    Moves
    170571
    15 Sep '10 18:34
    Originally posted by avalanchethecat
    If an organism is successful in the environment in which it finds itself, it will continue to exist. It is not necessary that the environment remain unchanged for hundreds of millions of years. At the same time, members of this species may find themselves in less favourable environments elsewhere and die out, while mutated specimens may survive and even prosper.
    So what Mr. Knob posted ..whales, dolphins and porpoises .. were unsuccessful as land based animals and frogs, bees, ants, butterflies and termites are successful as land based animals and therefore had no need to evolve.

    Gotcha !
Back to Top