By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Greatest scientific evidence for evolution?

Kasz216 on 09 October 2009
highwaystar101 said:
Baroque_Dude said:
highwaystar101 said:
Baroque_Dude said:
highwaystar101 said:
Why would a creator make a whale so similar to a land mammal if it was supposed to live in the sea?

As far as I know, the whale hasn't problems with living in the sea despite being so similar to land mammals...

So why would a creator make it like a mammal and not a fish, it seems to me fish are far more adapted to the sea. They don't have to go up for air all the time. So why would you start off with a fish and say "No that design is too perfect, let's go back and make it worse and give it a load of organs it doesn't need while we're at it."


I understand your point but still the whale hasn't problems.

It does have problems, the whale is really just a transitional creature. If it was 'created' to live in the sea why would the creator give it lungs when gills would do the job just as well? The lungs are just a constant problem, it has to keep resurfacing, fish don't have to surface.

The cetacean branch of evolution (Dolphins, Whales, porpoises, etc...) all have the same attributes that support that cetacean creatures once lived on land. Genetically they bare far more resemblance to land mammals than they do fish. the Cetacean creatures all fall under the Cetartiodactyla order, which is a a group of animals that includes not just whales, dolphins and porpoises but also land mammals such as hippopotamuses. We've even found staged cetacean fossils in Pakistan that show the transition from land mammals to sea mammals.

Just out of interest the attributes that these animals share are defined as...

1. Their need to breathe air from the surface;

2. The bones of their fins, which resemble the jointed hands of land mammals; and

3. The vertical movement of their spines, characteristic more of a running mammal than of the horizontal movement of fish.

Why wouldn't he give him lungs?  I mean... i believe in evolution and all... but your argument here is kinda silly.

I mean why would a creator have to do everything logical and most functional.  Why couldn't they be whimsical every now and again?

I mean if YOU had the power to create your own universe would you only create creatures based on functionality... I mean that would be boring and lack imagination.



Around the Network
Baroque_Dude on 09 October 2009
highwaystar101 said:
Baroque_Dude said:
highwaystar101 said:
Baroque_Dude said:
highwaystar101 said:
Why would a creator make a whale so similar to a land mammal if it was supposed to live in the sea?

As far as I know, the whale hasn't problems with living in the sea despite being so similar to land mammals...

So why would a creator make it like a mammal and not a fish, it seems to me fish are far more adapted to the sea. They don't have to go up for air all the time. So why would you start off with a fish and say "No that design is too perfect, let's go back and make it worse and give it a load of organs it doesn't need while we're at it."


I understand your point but still the whale hasn't problems.

It does have problems, the whale is really just a transitional creature. If it was 'created' to live in the sea why would the creator give it lungs when gills would do the job just as well? The lungs are just a constant problem, it has to keep resurfacing, fish don't have to surface.

The cetacean branch of evolution (Dolphins, Whales, porpoises, etc...) all have the same attributes that support that cetacean creatures once lived on land. Genetically they bare far more resemblance to land mammals than they do fish. the Cetacean creatures all fall under the Cetartiodactyla order, which is a a group of animals that includes not just whales, dolphins and porpoises but also land mammals such as hippopotamuses. We've even found staged cetacean fossils in Pakistan that show the transition from land mammals to sea mammals.

Just out of interest the attributes that these animals share are defined as...

1. Their need to breathe air from the surface;

2. The bones of their fins, which resemble the jointed hands of land mammals; and

3. The vertical movement of their spines, characteristic more of a running mammal than of the horizontal movement of fish.

But the whale still lives well.



"I think that I don't think."

- Soli Deo Gloria -

The FUTURE is the FUTURE. Now... B_E_L_I_E_V_E!

Baroque_Dude on 09 October 2009
Kasz216 said:
highwaystar101 said:
Baroque_Dude said:
highwaystar101 said:
Baroque_Dude said:
highwaystar101 said:
Why would a creator make a whale so similar to a land mammal if it was supposed to live in the sea?

As far as I know, the whale hasn't problems with living in the sea despite being so similar to land mammals...

So why would a creator make it like a mammal and not a fish, it seems to me fish are far more adapted to the sea. They don't have to go up for air all the time. So why would you start off with a fish and say "No that design is too perfect, let's go back and make it worse and give it a load of organs it doesn't need while we're at it."


I understand your point but still the whale hasn't problems.

It does have problems, the whale is really just a transitional creature. If it was 'created' to live in the sea why would the creator give it lungs when gills would do the job just as well? The lungs are just a constant problem, it has to keep resurfacing, fish don't have to surface.

The cetacean branch of evolution (Dolphins, Whales, porpoises, etc...) all have the same attributes that support that cetacean creatures once lived on land. Genetically they bare far more resemblance to land mammals than they do fish. the Cetacean creatures all fall under the Cetartiodactyla order, which is a a group of animals that includes not just whales, dolphins and porpoises but also land mammals such as hippopotamuses. We've even found staged cetacean fossils in Pakistan that show the transition from land mammals to sea mammals.

Just out of interest the attributes that these animals share are defined as...

1. Their need to breathe air from the surface;

2. The bones of their fins, which resemble the jointed hands of land mammals; and

3. The vertical movement of their spines, characteristic more of a running mammal than of the horizontal movement of fish.

Why wouldn't he give him lungs?  I mean... i believe in evolution and all... but your argument here is kinda silly.

I mean why would a creator have to do everything logical and most functional.  Why couldn't they be whimsical every now and again?

I mean if YOU had the power to create your own universe would you only create creatures based on functionality... I mean that would be boring and lack imagination.

I agree. Diversity is a word to take into account.



"I think that I don't think."

- Soli Deo Gloria -

The FUTURE is the FUTURE. Now... B_E_L_I_E_V_E!

highwaystar101 on 09 October 2009
Kasz216 said:
highwaystar101 said:
Baroque_Dude said:

I understand your point but still the whale hasn't problems.

It does have problems, the whale is really just a transitional creature. If it was 'created' to live in the sea why would the creator give it lungs when gills would do the job just as well? The lungs are just a constant problem, it has to keep resurfacing, fish don't have to surface.

The cetacean branch of evolution (Dolphins, Whales, porpoises, etc...) all have the same attributes that support that cetacean creatures once lived on land. Genetically they bare far more resemblance to land mammals than they do fish. the Cetacean creatures all fall under the Cetartiodactyla order, which is a group of animals that includes not just whales, dolphins and porpoises but also land mammals such as hippopotamuses. We've even found staged cetacean fossils in Pakistan that show the transition from land mammals to sea mammals.

Just out of interest the attributes that these animals share are defined as...

1. Their need to breathe air from the surface;

2. The bones of their fins, which resemble the jointed hands of land mammals; and

3. The vertical movement of their spines, characteristic more of a running mammal than of the horizontal movement of fish.

Why wouldn't he give him lungs?  I mean... i believe in evolution and all... but your argument here is kinda silly.

I mean why would a creator have to do everything logical and most functional.  Why couldn't they be whimsical every now and again?

My argument isn't silly.

I understand your point and I accept that a creator can be whimsical and outrageous, but my original point was that the attributes that cetacean branch such as whales and dolphins possess are similar attributes to certain land mammals as opposed to fish. We have sufficient evidence to demonstrate the transition from land mammals to water mammals. To me all the evidence supports the fact that whales and dolphins were not created, they evolved from other animals.

 



WessleWoggle on 09 October 2009

Are you guys arguing that creation makes sense if the creator was just making animals for the lulz?

If so, why don't we see creatures that are complete contradictions to known evolutionary science(For example, a fish with fur, wings, and dog paws)? Why would all creatures follow a general pattern that seems to suggest evolution?



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 09 October 2009
highwaystar101 said:
Kasz216 said:
highwaystar101 said:
Baroque_Dude said:

I understand your point but still the whale hasn't problems.

It does have problems, the whale is really just a transitional creature. If it was 'created' to live in the sea why would the creator give it lungs when gills would do the job just as well? The lungs are just a constant problem, it has to keep resurfacing, fish don't have to surface.

The cetacean branch of evolution (Dolphins, Whales, porpoises, etc...) all have the same attributes that support that cetacean creatures once lived on land. Genetically they bare far more resemblance to land mammals than they do fish. the Cetacean creatures all fall under the Cetartiodactyla order, which is a group of animals that includes not just whales, dolphins and porpoises but also land mammals such as hippopotamuses. We've even found staged cetacean fossils in Pakistan that show the transition from land mammals to sea mammals.

Just out of interest the attributes that these animals share are defined as...

1. Their need to breathe air from the surface;

2. The bones of their fins, which resemble the jointed hands of land mammals; and

3. The vertical movement of their spines, characteristic more of a running mammal than of the horizontal movement of fish.

Why wouldn't he give him lungs?  I mean... i believe in evolution and all... but your argument here is kinda silly.

I mean why would a creator have to do everything logical and most functional.  Why couldn't they be whimsical every now and again?

My argument isn't silly.

I understand your point and I accept that a creator can be whimsical and outrageous, but my original point was that the attributes that cetacean branch such as whales and dolphins possess are similar attributes to certain land mammals as opposed to fish. We have sufficient evidence to demonstrate the transition from land mammals to water mammals. To me all the evidence supports the fact that whales and dolphins were not created, they evolved from other animals.

 

I'm not talking about that argument.  I'm talking about the "why would he give them lungs!" argument.  If animals were just magically poofed into existance... there is no reason why he wouldn't give some water guys lungs.  I would.  I'd give land animals gills too.



highwaystar101 on 09 October 2009
Baroque_Dude said:
highwaystar101 said:

It does have problems, the whale is really just a transitional creature. If it was 'created' to live in the sea why would the creator give it lungs when gills would do the job just as well? The lungs are just a constant problem, it has to keep resurfacing, fish don't have to surface.

The cetacean branch of evolution (Dolphins, Whales, porpoises, etc...) all have the same attributes that support that cetacean creatures once lived on land. Genetically they bare far more resemblance to land mammals than they do fish. the Cetacean creatures all fall under the Cetartiodactyla order, which is a a group of animals that includes not just whales, dolphins and porpoises but also land mammals such as hippopotamuses. We've even found staged cetacean fossils in Pakistan that show the transition from land mammals to sea mammals.

Just out of interest the attributes that these animals share are defined as...

1. Their need to breathe air from the surface;

2. The bones of their fins, which resemble the jointed hands of land mammals; and

3. The vertical movement of their spines, characteristic more of a running mammal than of the horizontal movement of fish.

But the whale still lives well.

I think you are purposely choosing to not understand what I'm saying.

Whether it lives well or not is not the argument I made, sufficient evidence exists to show that it evolved from land mammals and was not created to live in the sea from day one. It may have adapted to live in the sea, but the evidence shows that it does not come from the sea and that it evolved from a land mammal. This can be seen in the wide differences between fish and cetaceans, etc...

The way it lives shows attributes of land mammals, if it had never lived on land why would it have these land based vestigial organs and attributes such as land adapted spine and lungs that were made for land?

To me the whale is merely a "transitional" animal that is going through an evolution from land based life to water based life.



highwaystar101 on 09 October 2009
Kasz216 said:
highwaystar101 said:
Kasz216 said:
highwaystar101 said:
Baroque_Dude said:

I understand your point but still the whale hasn't problems.

It does have problems, the whale is really just a transitional creature. If it was 'created' to live in the sea why would the creator give it lungs when gills would do the job just as well? The lungs are just a constant problem, it has to keep resurfacing, fish don't have to surface.

The cetacean branch of evolution (Dolphins, Whales, porpoises, etc...) all have the same attributes that support that cetacean creatures once lived on land. Genetically they bare far more resemblance to land mammals than they do fish. the Cetacean creatures all fall under the Cetartiodactyla order, which is a group of animals that includes not just whales, dolphins and porpoises but also land mammals such as hippopotamuses. We've even found staged cetacean fossils in Pakistan that show the transition from land mammals to sea mammals.

Just out of interest the attributes that these animals share are defined as...

1. Their need to breathe air from the surface;

2. The bones of their fins, which resemble the jointed hands of land mammals; and

3. The vertical movement of their spines, characteristic more of a running mammal than of the horizontal movement of fish.

Why wouldn't he give him lungs?  I mean... i believe in evolution and all... but your argument here is kinda silly.

I mean why would a creator have to do everything logical and most functional.  Why couldn't they be whimsical every now and again?

My argument isn't silly.

I understand your point and I accept that a creator can be whimsical and outrageous, but my original point was that the attributes that cetacean branch such as whales and dolphins possess are similar attributes to certain land mammals as opposed to fish. We have sufficient evidence to demonstrate the transition from land mammals to water mammals. To me all the evidence supports the fact that whales and dolphins were not created, they evolved from other animals.

 

I'm not talking about that argument.  I'm talking about the "why would he give them lungs!" argument.  If animals were just magically poofed into existance... there is no reason why he wouldn't give some water guys lungs.  I would.  I'd give land animals gills too.

Oh, ok. My fault, I know you accept evolution and so you accept the argument of whales going from land to water. You're just playing devils advocate for a side argument, aren't you.

Either way my original point about evolving from land to seas still stands.



Baroque_Dude on 09 October 2009
highwaystar101 said:
Baroque_Dude said:
highwaystar101 said:

It does have problems, the whale is really just a transitional creature. If it was 'created' to live in the sea why would the creator give it lungs when gills would do the job just as well? The lungs are just a constant problem, it has to keep resurfacing, fish don't have to surface.

The cetacean branch of evolution (Dolphins, Whales, porpoises, etc...) all have the same attributes that support that cetacean creatures once lived on land. Genetically they bare far more resemblance to land mammals than they do fish. the Cetacean creatures all fall under the Cetartiodactyla order, which is a a group of animals that includes not just whales, dolphins and porpoises but also land mammals such as hippopotamuses. We've even found staged cetacean fossils in Pakistan that show the transition from land mammals to sea mammals.

Just out of interest the attributes that these animals share are defined as...

1. Their need to breathe air from the surface;

2. The bones of their fins, which resemble the jointed hands of land mammals; and

3. The vertical movement of their spines, characteristic more of a running mammal than of the horizontal movement of fish.

But the whale still lives well.

I think you are purposely choosing to not understand what I'm saying.

Whether it lives well or not is not the argument I made, sufficient evidence exists to show that it evolved from land mammals and was not created to live in the sea from day one. It may have adapted to live in the sea, but the evidence shows that it does not come from the sea and that it evolved from a land mammal. This can be seen in the wide differences between fish and cetaceans, etc...

The way it lives shows attributes of land mammals, if it had never lived on land why would it have these land based vestigial organs and attributes such as land adapted spine and lungs that were made for land?

To me the whale is merely a "transitional" animal that is going through an evolution from land based life to water based life.


I'm not purposely choosing to not understand what you are saying, I'm just saying that whales don't have problems as you say, they just live differently with respect other species.

All species have to take an effort in order to survive. Whales have to surface? Yes, and? What a coincidence that they are made in such a way that they don't go out of oxygen because they last large periods of time underwater while I need to breath almost every 4 seconds.

The affirmation that the whale has land mammal characteristics may be according to your assumptions. Whales have also eyes, like me, and a brain, and that doesn't make them a "flawed" animal just because they aren't like us. This last (and nonsense) line was to illustrate that things may not be as related as we always thing they are.

Regards.



"I think that I don't think."

- Soli Deo Gloria -

The FUTURE is the FUTURE. Now... B_E_L_I_E_V_E!

Dr.Grass on 09 October 2009

OMG. Look this tread is not helping anyone, but I've got to make some comments.

Archeology:
"Look, fossils are had to argue against, we have found repeatedly and with good stead the same story over an over again, life evolves. Have we ever found a dinosaur and a human in the same place dated at the same time? No. "

YOU DON'T KNOW JACK SHIT ABOUT ARCHEOLOGY DO YOU!!??? If you knew anything at all then you would know that the fossil record is in shambles. There are hardly any ape-men fossils, and MANY experts argue strongly that the fossils are either ape or human and not a cross breed. We're not talking about a fully formed fossil as the ignorant imagine. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A SINGLE THIGH BONE IN SOME CASES. Evolutionists have proposed whole new species just on a thigh bone to fill in the blanks. COMPELLING EVIDENCE INDEED.

AND HERE COMES THE MOST IRONIC THING: There HAVE been many sites with both human and dinosaur fossile side by side. They've just been covered up. Read FORBIDDEN ARCHEOLOGY.

Then we have to deal with posts like:
"Yea I can't necessarily cite off any evidence right now (too lazy) but some of the best evidence we have now is backed up in DNA evidence. I think this is really what has convinced many that this is a credible explanation for the origin of species. It's hard to argue DNA evidence haha. Not to mention evolution has been studied and tested numerous times and been proven correct every single time."

I'm sure he knows jack about DNA. Did all cars come from the same source just because they share the same features/parts? There are other explanations. And this is what stupid F*#+ING poeple just don't get: Just because the evidence suits the model doesn't mean the model is right. MAYBE THE MODEL WAS DESIGNED TO FIT THE EVIDENCE. HOW CAN THE EVIDENCE THEN PROVE THE MODEL?

Maybe if any of you actually had a science degree then I would take you seriously.