New discoveries of 'missing links.'

[dad]

The first important discovery was an important link in the evolution of whales. The new discovery was a species of ancient whale that showed the beginnings of the development of a tail fine to propel through water. There are already many species found in the fossil record for the evolution of a land mammal that over recent geologic history to modern whales. Most of these fossils are found in sequence over time in the sediments of the Ancient Indian ocean.

It all depends on what you want to read into this. I see the creature as a possible adaptation. In no way does that mean whales came from this. All it shows is that in the period where the creature is found in the record, some creatures had a need to adapt to both land and water. So what? It is religion to claim whales came from this.
Maybe there were whales at the same time this thing lived. You want to offer the fossil record as some complete record (Complete enough to represent a good sample of what life existed in a given era). That is ridden with assumption and belief, not least of which is the belief that our current nature existed then also.

A more reasoned and balanced way to look at the early fossil record, is as a record of only a tiny percentage of life-creatures that could leave remains in that former nature, while most life could not. Therefore any claim of where this creature came from or what creatures came from it is impossible to make.

 

[dad]

The first important discovery was an important link in the evolution of whales. The new discovery was a species of ancient whale that showed the beginnings of the development of a tail fine to propel through water. There are already many species found in the fossil record for the evolution of a land mammal that over recent geologic history to modern whales. Most of these fossils are found in sequence over time in the sediments of the Ancient Indian ocean.

It all depends on what you want to read into this. I see the creature as a possible adaptation. In no way does that mean whales came from this. All it shows is that in the period where the creature is found in the record, some creatures had a need to adapt to both land and water. So what? It is religion to claim whales came from this.
Maybe there were whales at the same time this thing lived. You want to offer the fossil record as some complete record (Complete enough to represent a good sample of what life existed in a given era). That is ridden with assumption and belief, not least of which is the belief that our current nature existed then also.

A more reasoned and balanced way to look at the early fossil record, is as a record of only a tiny percentage of life-creatures that could leave remains in that former nature, while most life could not. Therefore any claim of where this creature came from or what creatures came from it is impossible to make.

 

[shunyadragon]

It all depends on what you want to read into this. I see the creature as a possible adaptation. In no way does that mean whales came from this. All it shows is that in the period where the creature is found in the record, some creatures had a need to adapt to both land and water. So what? It is religion to claim whales came from this.
Maybe there were whales at the same time this thing lived. You want to offer the fossil record as some complete record (Complete enough to represent a good sample of what life existed in a given era). That is ridden with assumption and belief, not least of which is the belief that our current nature existed then also.

'Arguing from ignorance' from what your wishful thinking of what may be found in the future is not a coherent argument and is a fallacy with a religious agenda. You are looking for 'rabbits in Cambrian rocks.'

It is not religion, it is based on the 'objective verifiable evidence' of the fossils found in the stratigraphic record. By definition religious beliefs are not based on 'objective verifiable evidence.' There is absolutely no evidence of contemporary whales in the strata of the ancient ancestors of whales. In fact the progressive evolution of the ancestors of whales are found in neat order in the stratigraphic record as the rocks get older the ancestors of whales are first land mammals adapted to coastal waters, and than land mammals.

A more reasoned and balanced way to look at the early fossil record, is as a record of only a tiny percentage of life-creatures that could leave remains in that former nature, while most life could not. Therefore any claim of where this creature came from or what creatures came from it is impossible to make.

This is not a reasoned and balanced way . . it is a religious agenda rejecting the vast amount of objective verifiable evidence supporting the sciences of abiogenesis and evolution.

 

[shunyadragon]

Imagine - scientists actually learning new things.
And creationists? Just the usual - defending the same old nonsense.

The advancing knowledge of the science of abiogenesis and evolution has by far outstriped any possible ojections from fundamentalists and Intelligent Design advocates.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The advancing knowledge of the science of abiogenesis and evolution has by far outstripped any possible rational objections from fundamentalists and Intelligent Design advocates.

Fixed that for you
(And I threw in two spelling corrections for free!)

 

[shunyadragon]

Fixed that for you
(And I threw in two spelling corrections for free!)

Thank you!

 

[dad]

'Arguing from ignorance' from what your wishful thinking of what may be found in the future is not a coherent argument and is a fallacy with a religious agenda. You are looking for 'rabbits in Cambrian rocks.'

Not true. If rabbits were one of the majority of creatures on earth that could not leave remains why would I look for remains from them? You are arguing from ignorance.

It is not religion, it is based on the 'objective verifiable evidence' of the fossils found in the stratigraphic record

Absurd. Of course, we have fossils that we can verify are there, but if most creatures could not leave remains, all you can verify involves a tiny fraction of what was alive.
Therefore when you try to offer up the small percentage of life that happened to be able to fossilize as verifiable evidence that all life on earth was like that or had to be evolved from that, it is ridiculous religion.

. By definition religious beliefs are not based on 'objective verifiable evidence.'

You have no verifiable evidence nature was the same as now, therefore you cannot claim that fossilization would apply to all creatures equally. Period. That means that you cannot apply what we see in the fossil record to life in general on earth. So looking at that little partial record is not verifiable evidence of the broad spectrum of life here.

There is absolutely no evidence of contemporary whales in the strata of the ancient ancestors of whales.

Nor should there be, any more than we should see man there. That does not mean man was not there, and whales, and lions, etc. That just means that they would not be represented in fossils because fossils represent the life that could leave remains!

In fact the progressive evolution of the ancestors of whales are found in neat order in the stratigraphic record as the rocks get older the ancestors of whales are first land mammals adapted to coastal waters, and than land mammals.

False.

The extreme few creatures that could be considered whale-like in the fossil record have no relation to the broad panorama of life that lived on earth. The fossil record only reflects a tiny tiny tiny percentage of all creatures that lived, that could leave remains!

Claiming anything else is belief based.

 

[shunyadragon]

You have no verifiable evidence nature was the same as now, therefore you cannot claim that fossilization would apply to all creatures equally. Period. That means that you cannot apply what we see in the fossil record to life in general on earth. So looking at that little partial record is not verifiable evidence of the broad spectrum of life here.

Nor should there be, any more than we should see man there. That does not mean man was not there, and .

ALL the evidence available demonstrates the time and natural processes are constant over billions of years.

 

[dad]

ALL the evidence available demonstrates the time and natural processes are constant over billions of years.

Only your circular beliefs say that actually. Isotope ratios were here since creation. You try to attribute the ratios all to present nature processes. Franky, that is ridiculous.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Only your circular beliefs say that actually. Isotope ratios were here since creation. You try to attribute the ratios all to present nature processes. Franky, that is ridiculous.

Oh dad, accusing others of your sins again.

You do not seem to be able to reason rationally and you refuse to discuss even the basics of evidence and logic. The lurkers that you appear to can see that. Why do you run away from knowledge?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Only your circular beliefs say that actually. Isotope ratios were here since creation. You try to attribute the ratios all to present nature processes. Franky, that is ridiculous.

Why would these things be created in such a way as to deliberately decieve, mislead, and misguide is? Why did God not make them congruent with the age of his creation? Why the dishonesty that suggests something other than what is?

 

[shunyadragon]

Only your circular beliefs say that actually. Isotope ratios were here since creation. You try to attribute the ratios all to present nature processes. Franky, that is ridiculous.

ALL the evidence available demonstrates the time and natural processes are constant over billions of years.

The discovery of the new ancient intermediate species of whale reflects a very important part of the falsification of Hypothesis. Making prediction in a hypothesis is critical. Over recent years scientist have made predictions where in the strata scientists could find intermediates in the evolution of different lineages of species. The evolution of whales is a classic example of the success of making predictions to support a hypothesis.

 

[tas8831]

The advancing knowledge of the science of abiogenesis and evolution has by far outstriped any possible ojections from fundamentalists and Intelligent Design advocates.

They do not even seem to be trying any more.

Their flagship research institute? NOTHING in 5 years:

Research

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Exactly. That's why there were many who were believing in creationism yet believing in evolutionary biology centuries before Darwin.

Evolutionary biology wasn't a thing before Darwin.

Having said that, your semantic argument is unhelpfull and needlessly muddies the waters.

Creationism as an "ism" is always pitted against evolution theory, because creationism is about much more then just "the origins of life". It doesn't just address the origins of life, it also addresses the origins of diversity, of species and therefore stands in direct opposition to evolution.

So when you have a religious person who believes god created first life and that through the natural process of evolution diversity of species arose, it is incorrect to label that person a "creationist" within context of such discussion.

Because it implies rejection of evolution theory.

This is why they came up with terms like "theistic evolutionist" - which exist only because they explicitly wish to distance themselves from the implied meaning and baggage that comes with the term "creationist".

 

[firedragon]

Evolutionary biology wasn't a thing before Darwin.

Having said that, your semantic argument is unhelpfull and needlessly muddies the waters.

Creationism as an "ism" is always pitted against evolution theory, because creationism is about much more then just "the origins of life". It doesn't just address the origins of life, it also addresses the origins of diversity, of species and therefore stands in direct opposition to evolution.

So when you have a religious person who believes god created first life and that through the natural process of evolution diversity of species arose, it is incorrect to label that person a "creationist" within context of such discussion.

Because it implies rejection of evolution theory.

This is why they came up with terms like "theistic evolutionist" - which exist only because they explicitly wish to distance themselves from the implied meaning and baggage that comes with the term "creationist".

Great. Thanks.

 

[dad]

Why would these things be created in such a way as to deliberately decieve, mislead, and misguide is? Why did God not make them congruent with the age of his creation? Why the dishonesty that suggests something other than what is?

One assumes if there are processes needed in the world in which atoms are involved, that God knew. So the world would have started off with rocks and isotopes in place so that the processes could start to work. The forces and laws that existed at the time would determine how all the atoms behaved. We do not know what nature existed at creation, and afterward up till the time of Noah. There is no reason that I am yet aware of, or have heard, that the nature that existed was the same as what we have today.
Therefore that different nature would be responsible for a lot of the isotopes we have. It is not known that there even was radioactive decay in that time. So whatever processes were going on may have had nothing to do with any decay sequence radioactivity. We do not know what forces and laws existed.

All we know is what nature exists NOW. We see decay NOW happening, and science has simply assumed it was always like this. That is why the ratios represent great ages in their minds.

 

[dad]

ALL the evidence available demonstrates the time and natural processes are constant over billions of years..

No. You simply interpret ratios with your chosen beliefs. Nothing to do with time or billions of anything.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

One assumes if there are processes needed in the world in which atoms are involved, that God knew. So the world would have started off with rocks and isotopes in place so that the processes could start to work. The forces and laws that existed at the time would determine how all the atoms behaved. We do not know what nature existed at creation, and afterward up till the time of Noah. There is no reason that I am yet aware of, or have heard, that the nature that existed was the same as what we have today.
Therefore that different nature would be responsible for a lot of the isotopes we have. It is not known that there even was radioactive decay in that time. So whatever processes were going on may have had nothing to do with any decay sequence radioactivity. We do not know what forces and laws existed.

All we know is what nature exists NOW. We see decay NOW happening, and science has simply assumed it was always like this. That is why the ratios represent great ages in their minds.

What I'm getting from that is god, who allegedly created the natural universe and the natural laws that govern it, was either unable to bypass those laws he designed, or did things in a deliberate way that would decieve us and lead us away from god. Either one just sounds bad and isn't flattering for god.

 

[dad]

What I'm getting from that is god, who allegedly created the natural universe and the natural laws that govern it, was either unable to bypass those laws he designed, or did things in a deliberate way that would decieve us and lead us away from god. Either one just sounds bad and isn't flattering for god.

Or, there were different laws in Noah's day, as there will be again in the future. You have ignored creation and the former nature, and attributed everything we see to only the present nature. The deception lies in that.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Or, there were different laws in Noah's day, as there will be again in the future. You have ignored creation and the former nature, and attributed everything we see to only the present nature. The deception lies in that.

How do you get different laws? The Bible doesn't even make such a claim. And very innefficient, dont you think? And it still must be asked why the deception? Why was god not more clear on this, instead of designing something that would inevitably suggest the universe and earrth are billions of years old?