Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
ikester7579

Macro-evolution

Recommended Posts

Could someone post "empirical evidence" for macro-evolution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could someone post "empirical evidence" for macro-evolution?

70977[/snapback]

Here you go... :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will be just another thread that I do and no one will be able to answer. I'm thinking about making a new section and post all the threads I have put up that evolutionists ignore because to answer is to face real reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Circular reasoning will become an empirical equivocation, science is self correcting, and scientific theories aren't always absolutes, even though gravity can be proven to work every time it's tested in a laboratory experiment.

 

Oh yeah. We also can't forget that chromosonal mutations don't increase genetic information, but it will be paraded around as an example of speciation.

 

It will be just another thread that I do and no one will be able to answer. I'm thinking about making a new section and post all the threads I have put up that evolutionists ignore because to answer is to face real reality.

Careful, Isaac. That's where they come back with:

 

Posted Image

 

At which point, apart from the evidence, we will have to concede that we have faith, too. :(

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Circular reasoning will become an empirical equivocation, science is self correcting, and scientific theories aren't always absolutes, even though gravity can be proven to work every time it's tested in a laboratory experiment.

 

Oh yeah. We also can't forget that chromosonal mutations don't increase genetic information, but it will be paraded around as an example of speciation.

Careful, Isaac. That's where they come back with:

 

Posted Image

 

At which point, apart from the evidence, we will have to concede that we have faith, too. :(

Thanks.

70982[/snapback]

Yet I can face real reality of what I believe. Can they? Nope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet I can face real reality of what I believe. Can they? Nope.

I can see the whole world, even myself as a former unbeliever, scoffing when the world is proven to be less than 10,000 years old and a global flood is proven. It would only prove to them that evolution happened in thousands instead of millions of years.

 

Were we saved by the evidence or were we saved when we believed the message that was preached? Unbelief is an enemy and people are going to have to believe it!

 

So much so, that satan is tempting me to edit the unbelief part out of my post right now. What a pig LOL.

 

"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces."

 

 

Enjoy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not waste my time if I knew the only ones who would see it is them. We have many who come here and read and never join. If what I say plants a seed or strengthens their faith then I have done my work for the kingdom. But to never do it for that reason of waste, is to never reveal to others the truth.

 

There is no "empirical evidence" for macro-evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is some evidence for macro-evolution.

 

-ONwp56pMBE

CvrmZLGWfFs

8cn0kf8mhS4

 

Virtual animation is the only place macro-evolution happens. If not, still waiting on that "empirical" evidence for macro-evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet I can face real reality of what I believe. Can they? Nope.

70989[/snapback]

And the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power. God is not mocked, and resists the proud. Those who are sincere about their doubts God can work with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could someone post "empirical evidence" for macro-evolution?

70977[/snapback]

1) all biotic DNA falls into a perfect hierarchical pattern.

 

2) geographical distribution of species: if species radiated out from, say, Noah's Ark in more or less their present form, why did not a single species of marsupials fail to march straight to Australia? Why did no placentals (except bats, who can fly) succeed in getting to Australia? Why did all penguins choose to take the long waddle south instead of the long waddle north, to equally habitable climates? Why do island-bound species always look the most like similar species on the nearest piece of mainland?

 

3) though we have almost none of the fossil record available to us (250,000 of the estimated 4,000,000,000 species that have lived), no fossil has ever been found in a place or layer that evolution does not say it should.

 

4) hundreds of species, both fossil and living, have had their existence and traits predicted by evolutionary theory prior to their discovery.

 

5) true atavisms: why, for example, is 1 whale in 500 born with an atavistic leg complete with all the bones necessary for walking on land?

 

6) vestigial traits: why do penguins have wings rather than flippers? why do humans, who do not eat leaves at a high rate, still have that leaf-processing apparatus known as the appendix?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) all biotic DNA falls into a perfect hierarchical pattern.

 

2) geographical distribution of species:  if species radiated out from, say, Noah's Ark in more or less their present form, why did not a single species of marsupials fail to march straight to Australia?  Why did no placentals (except bats, who can fly) succeed in getting to Australia?  Why did all penguins choose to take the long waddle south instead of the long waddle north, to equally habitable climates? Why do island-bound species always look the most like similar species on the nearest piece of mainland?

 

3)  though we have almost none of the fossil record available to us (250,000 of the estimated 4,000,000,000 species that have lived), no fossil has ever been found in a place or layer that evolution does not say it should. 

 

4) hundreds of species, both fossil and living, have had their existence and traits predicted by evolutionary theory prior to their discovery.

 

5) true atavisms:  why, for example, is 1 whale in 500 born with an atavistic leg complete with all the bones necessary for walking on land?

 

6) vestigial traits:  why do penguins have wings rather than flippers?  why do humans, who do not eat leaves at a high rate, still have that leaf-processing apparatus known as the appendix?

71040[/snapback]

With due respect, that is not empirical evidence for macro-evolution. And if you want to start another thread addressing those issues, feel free to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) all biotic DNA falls into a perfect hierarchical pattern.

 

2) geographical distribution of species:  if species radiated out from, say, Noah's Ark in more or less their present form, why did not a single species of marsupials fail to march straight to Australia?  Why did no placentals (except bats, who can fly) succeed in getting to Australia?  Why did all penguins choose to take the long waddle south instead of the long waddle north, to equally habitable climates? Why do island-bound species always look the most like similar species on the nearest piece of mainland?

 

3)  though we have almost none of the fossil record available to us (250,000 of the estimated 4,000,000,000 species that have lived), no fossil has ever been found in a place or layer that evolution does not say it should. 

 

4) hundreds of species, both fossil and living, have had their existence and traits predicted by evolutionary theory prior to their discovery.

 

5) true atavisms:  why, for example, is 1 whale in 500 born with an atavistic leg complete with all the bones necessary for walking on land?

 

6) vestigial traits:  why do penguins have wings rather than flippers?  why do humans, who do not eat leaves at a high rate, still have that leaf-processing apparatus known as the appendix?

71040[/snapback]

1) this is also evidence of a common designer since it is not DIRECT evidence showing evolution... Evolution is assumed from this.

 

2) Again this is not direct evidence of evolution, rather a statement against creationism

 

3) There is a thread showing many different animals that have not "evolved" over these "millions" of years... Hence these pictures refute your claims here...

 

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/in...topic=4202&st=0

 

 

Modern frogs / fish / dragonflys etc.... Its just that they are given different "species" names to cover the fact that they are the same...

 

4) Which predictions are these? Since evolution is based on RANDOM mutations it has no predictive power.

 

5) Can you show us this? :P

 

6) ???? The appendix is used to store good bacteria... In my physiology lectures last year it was never said to be a "leaf processing apparatus"... Where did you get this information?

 

EDIT: These sites give evidence against your claims

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/he...gut-396277.html

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/...71008102334.htm

 

A penguins wings are its "flippers" have you seen the shape of their wings?..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To pick two examples, whales and snakes both have vesigial pelvic bones showing that they evolved from animals with legs. There is also, in the case of whales, a sequence of fossils showing the transition from terrestrial quadrupeds through amphibious intermediates to modern whales.

 

Just out of curiosity, if you don't agree with the above evidence, what would you actually accept as evidence of macro-evolution? Is there any hypothetical discovery which could change your minds?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To pick two examples, whales and snakes both have vesigial pelvic bones showing that they evolved from animals with legs.

71067[/snapback]

The above is an ‘a priori’ opinion driven, and not ‘empirically’ driven statement. There is absolute no ‘empirical’ evidence that these so-called “vestigial†bones haven’t always been as they are today. But the evolutionist will grasp onto anything that they cannot explain ‘empirically’ (i.e. scientific gray area) and call it a ‘fact proving evolution’, not even realizing (or purposefully ignoring) the “evolution of the gaps†implications.

 

First – Provide the gradual sequential transition of fossils that prove your ‘evolutionary’ hypothesis, and not mere opinion ‘suggesting’ macro-evolution, then proceed.

 

Second – Quit calling an ‘opinion’ a fact.

 

Third – Saying something is so, doesn’t make it so! And you will be called on it here every time. So, if you don’t want to put yourself in a bind by wasting everyone’s time by making assertions you cannot back up, think through your posts (before you post them) and provide the evidences to back up your assertions.

 

There is also, in the case of whales, a sequence of fossils showing the transition from terrestrial quadrupeds through amphibious intermediates to modern whales.

71067[/snapback]

Really? Can you provide this “sequence of fossils showing the transition from terrestrial quadrupeds through amphibious intermediates to modern whales?†This should be interesting! Especially given the FACT that evolutionary driven science has only provided “some†fossils (a very limited amount at best), lined them up, and called it evolution. But when the critical thinker actually looks it, they see leaps and gaps (evolution of the gaps) that don’t even support “punctuated equilibriumâ€ÂÂ, let alone any semblance of macro evolution.

 

Here’s my challenge to you (since you made the bold assertions): Provide the gradual sequential transition of fossils that prove the transition from terrestrial quadrupeds through amphibious intermediates to modern whales! Further: The modern evolutionary model claims the ancestry of whales to be aquatic to terrestrial and back to aquatic, so I would appreciate those gradual sequential fossils transitions as well.

 

At the end of the day, the only thing macro-evolutionary science has done is provided a few displaced and disjointed fossilized remains, and said “wah-lah†look evolution!!! Once again, provided the “Empirical evidence†(as the OP called for) and not mere pre-supposed opinion.

 

Just out of curiosity, if you don't agree with the above evidence, what would you actually accept as evidence of macro-evolution?

71067[/snapback]

First – You haven’t provided a shred of evidence, so if you could do that, it would be appreciated.

 

Second – If you would fulfill number one, we could move on to answering the second half of your question.

 

Is there any hypothetical discovery which could change your minds?

71067[/snapback]

The term “hypothetical discovery†is a misnomer as applied to evidence or fact. Why; because the term “hypothetical†means something “existing as or involving phenomena that exists as an unproven idea, theory, or possibilityâ€ÂÂ. Therefore something “hypothetical†is not “discovered†but rather “Imaginedâ€ÂÂ.

 

So, to answer your question: If you actually provided “real evidence†and not “imaginary evidenceâ€ÂÂ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To pick two examples, whales and snakes both have vesigial pelvic bones showing that they evolved from animals with legs. There is also, in the case of whales, a sequence of fossils showing the transition from terrestrial quadrupeds through amphibious intermediates to modern whales.

Snakes used to have legs according to The Bible. Now they have little limbs that are used in mating.

 

The whale's "pelvis" attaches muscles that are used for mating, a rather important function if you ask me. There is no evidence whatsoever that these bones and muscles were ever used for anything else.

 

Just out of curiosity, if you don't agree with the above evidence, what would you actually accept as evidence of macro-evolution? Is there any hypothetical discovery which could change your minds?

71067[/snapback]

If you show a reptile changing into a bird then I'll concede to the entire theory of evolution. We observe that animals stay within the same kind, and we see this in the stratas as well. This observation has far more evidence than the uniformitarian view of evolution does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The above is an ‘a priori’ opinion driven, and not ‘empirically’ driven statement. There is absolute no ‘empirical’ evidence that these so-called “vestigial†bones haven’t always been as they are today. But the evolutionist will grasp onto anything that they cannot explain ‘empirically’ (i.e. scientific gray area) and call it a ‘fact proving evolution’, not even realizing  (or purposefully ignoring) the “evolution of the gaps†implications....

71070[/snapback]

I guess there are also vestigal arms and fingers:

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=3831220&page=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polydactyly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The above is an ‘a priori’ opinion driven, and not ‘empirically’ driven statement. There is absolute no ‘empirical’ evidence that these so-called “vestigial†bones haven’t always been as they are today. But the evolutionist will grasp onto anything that they cannot explain ‘empirically’ (i.e. scientific gray area) and call it a ‘fact proving evolution’, not even realizing  (or purposefully ignoring) the “evolution of the gaps†implications....

71070[/snapback]

I guess there are also vestigal arms and fingers:

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=3831220&page=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polydactyly

71073[/snapback]

Yes, and I suppose the question would then be raised (as per the OP) “what empirical evidence can we find that would lend us to believe that the above links could be used to support macro-evolution?â€ÂÂ

 

And the answer????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Second – If you would fulfill number one, we could move on to answering the second half of your question.

The term “hypothetical discovery†is a misnomer as applied to evidence or fact. Why; because the term “hypothetical†means something “existing as or involving phenomena that exists as an unproven idea, theory, or possibilityâ€ÂÂ. Therefore something “hypothetical†is not “discovered†but rather “Imaginedâ€ÂÂ.

 

So, to answer your question: If you actually provided “real evidence†and not “imaginary evidenceâ€ÂÂ.

71070[/snapback]

I think you may have misinterpreted me here.

 

In the interests of fairness, I asked a die-hard evolutionist if there was any discovery which would cause him to reject evolution, and he replied with "show me a fossil bird in Devonian strata". This would indeed be very difficult for evolution to explain and would force many to abandon, or at the very least drastically revise, the theory of evolution.

 

What I want to know is this: is there a parallel example in creationism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you may have misinterpreted me here.

 

In the interests of fairness, I asked a die-hard evolutionist if there was any discovery which would cause him to reject evolution, and he replied with "show me a fossil bird in Devonian strata". This would indeed be very difficult for evolution to explain and would force many to abandon, or at the very least drastically revise, the theory of evolution.

 

What I want to know is this: is there a parallel example in creationism?

71083[/snapback]

In the interests of fairness.... That isn't evidence of evolution, it is a claim against creationism. Just because that person feels that creationism is wrong doesn't count as evidence for evolution, (and visa versa). What must be accepted is that both worldviews consist of a faith-based perspective.. Creationists admit this gladly, evolutionists deny this tooth and nail... (Despite invoking assumption based research that requires a measure of faith).

 

Here check out this thread it has lots of modern animals found as fossils that haven't changed over the "millions" of years.

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/in...topic=4202&st=0

 

 

I think a parallel example to your anti-creationist claim will be, show me a mechanism or process that allows for complex inter-dependent parts and systems to "evolve".... (This is a big point for me, as I am sick and tired of it being placed under the ambiguous banner of "natural selection"... Natural selection doesn't define the steps taken)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Second – If you would fulfill number one, we could move on to answering the second half of your question.

The term “hypothetical discovery†is a misnomer as applied to evidence or fact. Why; because the term “hypothetical†means something “existing as or involving phenomena that exists as an unproven idea, theory, or possibilityâ€ÂÂ. Therefore something “hypothetical†is not “discovered†but rather “Imaginedâ€ÂÂ.

 

So, to answer your question: If you actually provided “real evidence†and not “imaginary evidenceâ€ÂÂ.

71070[/snapback]

I think you may have misinterpreted me here.

71083[/snapback]

I don’t think so… I went back and reviewed your post, and found absolutely no misinterpretation, as I answered all of your assertions cogently and concisely. I could repost it again, in its entirety if you find any of it confusing.

 

In the interests of fairness, I asked a die-hard evolutionist if there was any discovery which would cause him to reject evolution, and he replied with "show me a fossil bird in Devonian strata". This would indeed be very difficult for evolution to explain and would force many to abandon, or at the very least drastically revise, the theory of evolution.

71083[/snapback]

 

gilbo12345 is “a die-hard evolutionist� I don’t find that to be a fair assessment at all… Nor did he make the claim that you allege.

 

Further, ALL claims submitted as fact by evolutionists are “very difficult†for them to provide empirical evidence. Which begs the question: Why didn’t you actually address my refutations of your assertions, as I did yours? Side stepping the refuted issues via “bait and switch†and/or “Red Herring†argumentation will be pointed out as it happens.

 

 

What I want to know is this: is there a parallel example in creationism?

71083[/snapback]

What I want to know can be found in post# 14.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gilbo12345: the mechanism as I understand it is:

 

Step 1: add a part

 

Step 2: make the part necessary.

 

As an example, lets say people want to make a bridge to cross a ravine from point A to point B, as shown here: http://www.img861.imageshack.us/i/step1q.jpg/

 

The first effort is rather crude, just one part is used. It is the simplest possible solution: http://img859.imageshack.us/i/step2v.jpg/

 

The bridge builders then realize that if they cut a split in the block after it has been laid down, it allows the material to cope better with heat expansion, like this:

http://img140.imageshack.us/i/step3m.jpg/

 

The builders realize that adding multiple splits in the block allow it to cope even better with heat. The bridge now looks like this:

http://img508.imageshack.us/i/step4r.jpg/

 

The bridge builders then add a top layer to the bridge. This makes the bridge easier to sue, as people no longer have to step over the gaps in the blocks. http://img508.imageshack.us/i/step5q.jpg/

 

Finally, with the top layer in place, the bridge builders realize that the middle blocks are unneccesary and they remove them in order to get a refund ont he material. The bridge now looks like this:

http://img571.imageshack.us/i/step6w.jpg/

 

The system is now irreducibly complex. Removing any of the 3 remaining blocks will render it useless. It was, however, produced by gradual processes which added no more than 1 change every time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To pick two examples, whales and snakes both have vesigial pelvic bones showing that they evolved from animals with legs. There is also, in the case of whales, a sequence of fossils showing the transition from terrestrial quadrupeds through amphibious intermediates to modern whales.

 

Just out of curiosity, if you don't agree with the above evidence, what would you actually accept as evidence of macro-evolution? Is there any hypothetical discovery which could change your minds?

71067[/snapback]

Did anyone see this happen? You see saying it happened this way, and observing it are two different things. Because if it's that easy to prove something then I claim God created everything because you cannot explain how the laws of physics cam into being. Same logic. Same conclusion using that logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you may have misinterpreted me here.

 

In the interests of fairness, I asked a die-hard evolutionist if there was any discovery which would cause him to reject evolution, and he replied with "show me a fossil bird in Devonian strata". This would indeed be very difficult for evolution to explain and would force many to abandon, or at the very least drastically revise, the theory of evolution.

 

What I want to know is this: is there a parallel example in creationism?

71083[/snapback]

Want to convince me of evolution:

1) Show me an observable "process" of macro-evolution. All evos here are avoiding it.

2) Show me a living fossil found in any other layer than it's lowest one proving it survived without change to this point and time. Just one living fossil.

3) Show me that all lifeforms in the lowest layer have no complexity. Which would prove evolution is from simple life to complex life.

4) Prove the change in my life upon getting saved was my imagination.

6) Prove that people at my church are not getting healed. That they just evolved what they needed when they prayed with the church.

7) Explain how a woman at my church had bones so brittle that just lifting her arm would break it. Doctors gave her no hope, 2 weeks ago she walked out of the hospital and into church and doctors cannot explain it. You can actually see the scars from the bones broken that actually stuck through her skin.

8) How another woman who had bleeding on her brain so bad, there was no hope. They told her that an operation would give her a slight chance, but they said she would probably die on the table. So she refused the operation and said she would rely on God. The MRI showed she had blood all over one side of her brain. They gave her hours or days to live. 30 days later more than half the blood is gone as seen through another MRI, and they want to do another later to see if it all goes away unexplainable. TBN was there to record this testimony and show the MRI pics. I hope to get a copy of them and display them here and on my site.

 

How does evolution explain sudden healing in the face of death? Spontaneous generation in seconds, hours, or even days? I think you know the answer, though I doubt you will admit it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gilbo12345: the mechanism as I understand it is:

 

Step 1: add a part

 

Step 2: make the part necessary.

 

As an example, lets say people want to make a bridge to cross a ravine from point A to point B, as shown here: http://img861.imageshack.us/i/step1q.jpg/

 

The first effort is rather crude, just one part is used. It is the simplest possible solution: http://img859.imageshack.us/i/step2v.jpg/

 

The bridge builders then realize that if they cut a split in the block after it has been laid down, it allows the material to cope better with heat expansion, like this:

http://img140.imageshack.us/i/step3m.jpg/

 

The builders realize that adding multiple splits in the block allow it to cope even better with heat. The bridge now looks like this:

http://img508.imageshack.us/i/step4r.jpg/

 

The bridge builders then add a top layer to the bridge. This makes the bridge easier to sue, as people no longer have to step over the gaps in the blocks. http://img508.imageshack.us/i/step5q.jpg/

 

Finally, with the top layer in place, the bridge builders realize that the middle blocks are unneccesary and they remove them in order to get a refund ont he material. The bridge now looks like this:

http://img571.imageshack.us/i/step6w.jpg/

 

The system is now irreducibly complex. Removing any of the 3 remaining blocks will render it useless. It was, however, produced by gradual processes which added no more than 1 change every time.

71086[/snapback]

Oranges and apples dude...

 

You have simplified it to the point whereby it can be (somewhat) explained..

 

Using your example, how did you get the bricks / materials... Since in this analogy the materials represent proteins... Considering that proteins are produced from DNA and that only specific proteins are needed is a totally different situation to generic blocks that have no defined origin.

 

If it were this simple then why have you chosen an analogy that has nothing to do with what is claimed? I ask you to show an actual example of this process, rather than defering to an imaginary hypothesis and posit it as proof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ron: gilbo12345 is not the "die-hard evolutionist" I was referring to, I don't even know him aside from the few posts of his I have read here. I was actually referring to a real life conversation I had with a friend of mine.

 

As for the evidence, the case for terrestrial mammals evolving into whales comes from several areas of science. Firstly there are several fossils bridging the gap from land mammals in the early Eocene to modern whales. In order, they are:

 

Pakicetus (~53 Mya) – This was a carnivorous ungulate. Going by its genera morphology, it is a land animal. It is also found alongside fossils of other land animals as well as some of amphibious or water animals such as crocodilians and turtles. This indicates that pakicetus lived a wet terrestrial environment, probably along coastlines the banks of rivers, as these environments can have all of these other animals present. The shape of the ear bones, however, is highly unusual. The only living animals with this ear structure are whales, which is what first lead scientists to believe that Pakicetus was and ancestor to them. In modern whales, the joint between the malleus and incus is oriented between the side and front of the head, whereas in land animals it is between the middle and the front. In pakicetus it is intermediate between the two. Its teeth are also much more like whales than like those of modern terrestrial carnivores.

 

Ambulocetus (~50Mya) - This creature was somewhat mammalian crocodile. It was amphibious, but the size of the muscle attachments on its hind limbs indicate that the muscles themselves were quite small, and walking on land would have been rather awkward, probably like modern seals. Its ears and teeth were also more like those of modern whales than those of pakicetus were. The toes of the back feet ended in hooves, which are believed to be a leftover from the terrestrial ungulates from which it evolved. It's skull was more elongated than the skull of pakicetus. It's fossils are found in association with marine mollusks, indicating that it lived in shallow seas.

 

Rhodocetus (~47 Mya) - this was more whale like still. Although a fossil has not yet been discovered with the tail preserved, the size of the muscle attachment points indicate the presence of powerful tail muscles, and by extension a powerful tail for swimming. The pelvis of the animal was smaller than those of pakicetus and ambulocetus, and was still attached to the spine, and the leg bones were shorter. This would have made movement on land more difficult. It's skull was again more elongated than ambulocetus'. The nostrils had also began to move backward along the snout to where modern whales have a blowhole. The ears are also even more whale-like. Rhodocetus fossils are found in the type of sediments laid down in deeper seas rather than coastal environments, as would be expected if the animals were adapting to deeper and deeper water, and becoming less and less dependent on the land.

 

Dorudon – (~40 Mya) – this animal was now fully aquatic. It had very small hind limbs that would have only just projected beyond the body wall. The nostrils were further back on the head and the muscle attachments on the spine indicate an even more powerful tail for swimming (the actual tail flukes are not made of bone and are therefore unlikely to be fossilized). Its fossils are found in a wide range of ocean envoronments, as would be expected givent hat these creatures were now fully aquatic, they had a much greater range than their predecessors.

 

Finally, we have modern whales. These we know to have large tail flukes and a blowhole which is on top of the head. Their teeth and ears are similar to Dorudon’s, and they are of course fully aquatic.

 

Another interesting point is that the genetic evidence agrees with the fossils. Based on the theory that pakicetus is the ancestor of modern whales, we would expect a modern whale’s DNA to be more similar to other modern ungulates (hoofed animals) than to any other animals. Studies have confirmed that this is the case.

 

Then there is the vestigial evidence – whales have several features which seem like leftovers from a terrestrial past. Modern whales often retain vestiges of pelvic and hind leg bones. These are entirely internal and so can’t really benefit the animal. The openings which connect ears to the outside world are closed in whales, sometimes the canal is “pinched off†halfway through, so it seems that they are in the process of closing. Whales also retain the muscles which are used in land animals to move their ears. Most land mammals use these for directing their ears toward sources of sound, but of course whales have no external ears so these are useless.

 

Some of the vestiges show during the embryological development of the whale. Many embryonic whales develop body hair, proving that they have the genes to grow fur, however no whales actually have fur. This makes sense if they descended from other animals who also had the genes for growing fur but makes little sense otherwise. Also, some embryonic whales develop external limb buds which then disappear as the whales get larger. Evolution also predicts that because whales evolved from toothed, carnivorous land animals, even baleen whales might still possess the genes for making teeth, and this is in fact the case. Embryonic baleen whales sometimes develop teeth which then disappear before birth, proving that they still have the genes for teeth. Again, this makes sense in conjunction with the evolution, but is difficult to explain otherwise.

 

Finally, there is chronological evidence from the order the fossils were found in. If Dorudon was found below ambulocetus, for example, the entire sequence would be thrown out. The fact is, however, that they are found in this order.

 

On that subject, a quick question to creationists here: how do you account for the order of these fossils? The usual explanation for fossils is that there were laid down by the genesis flood, and that the order of the fossils was essentially a combination of hydrological sorting and ecological zonation, i.e. clams are near the bottom because they live on the sea floor and can’t exactly get out of the way of rising floodwaters, and humans are at the top because we are extremely resourceful and would have gotten to high ground quickly. In this case however, wouldn’t we expect t find the land dwelling pakicetus above the rest? And things like dorudon and rhodocetus nearer the bottom?

 

Anyway, there you have a sequence of fossils showing morphological intermediates. Predictions were made based on the intermediates and these turned out to be true, i.e. the genes carried by modern whales. Is this enough evidence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms