The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

[davidm]

For whales, perhaps you'd like to learn about Gingerich words on the subject (which you know but ignore):

"I speculated that it might have had a fluke [whale-like tail], I now doubt that Rodhocetus would have had a fluked tail."

"Since then we have found the forelimbs, the hands, and the front arms of Rodhocetus, and we understand that it doesn’t have the kind of arms that can spread out like flippers on a whale."

Rodhocetus tale is based on conjectures created when a few fragments of it emerged. The conjectures were contradicted by later discoveries, but the tale remained for Evolutionauts please.

Also note that the terrestrial ancestors-to-be of whales all lived in the same era, Ambulocetus even antedated the predecessors. Too bad for Evolutionauts, but they ignore this.

If no humans at dinosaurs time validates evolution, all ancestor-to-be at same time, some even antedating, do what? What about sham ancestors like Rodhocetus?

Why, looka that! Recycled lies from Creation Ministries!

What a surprise! I mean, it's not like you're a creationist or anything, right?

[PauloL]

What a surprise! I mean, it's not like you're a creationist or anything, right?

Right, David. I told you before. You must strengthen your memory.

Accordingly, I'm not interested in creationists materia. Use scientific evidence instead. Is it possible for you, David?

Aren't Gingerich quotes enough objective for you? He concedes there's no evidence for Rodhocetus as ancestor, as he thought (or imagined) before.

[Harbal]

Accordingly, I'm not interested in creationists materia. Use scientific evidence instead. Is it possible for you, David?

All you are doing is refuting everything davidm says. What's your theory? How do you think we got to what we are now?

[davidm]

Accordingly, I'm not interested in creationists materia. Use scientific evidence instead. Is it possible for you, David?

All you are doing is refuting everything davidm says. What's your theory? How do you think we got to what we are now?

Correction. He's attempting to rebut what I say. He has refuted nothing.

[davidm]

What a surprise! I mean, it's not like you're a creationist or anything, right?

Right, David. I told you before. You must strengthen your memory.

Accordingly, I'm not interested in creationists materia.

You're a creationist who recycles long-debunked creationist lies. Ho-hum.

[PauloL]

David, without Rodhocetus you must jump from Kutchicetus to Durondon.

Not to mention that Ambulocetus, third in sequece, lived before Pakicetus and Indohyus, first and second...

Too bad for an Evolutionaut.

[PauloL]

You're a creationist who recycles long-debunked creationist lies. Ho-hum.

Are giving up Evolutionism so early?

Not a word about Gingerich neither Ambulocetus... Not even cockroaches...

Your argument is just pretending I'm a creationist. Fertile imagination but bad capacity to defend Evolutionism to death.

Ho-hum is a formidable scientific argument. It's said that Newton and Einstein used it often to impose their theories.

[Harbal]

Correction. He's attempting to rebut what I say. He has refuted nothing.

I meant refute in the sense of contradicting.

[davidm]

"I speculated that it might have had a fluke [whale-like tail], I now doubt that Rodhocetus would have had a fluked tail."

From From Talk Origins

It is also likely that Rodhocetus had a tail fluke, although such a feature is not preserved in the known fossils: it possessed features - shortened cervical vertebrae, heavy and robust proximal tail vertebrae, and large dorsal spines on the lumbar vertebrae for large tail and other axial muscle attachments - that are associated in modern whales with the development and use of tail flukes. All in all, Rodhocetus must have been a very good tail-swimmer, and it is the earliest fossil whale committed to this manner of swimming.

Bold mine

He speculated that it had a fluke, but such a feature is not preserved in the known fossils. This changes nothing about the fact that these fossils and others do show a stepwise evolution from land mammal to whale; a fluke or not a fluke is a detail – eventually it evolved. Are you seriously trying to suggest that with this quote, Gingerich is renouncing land mammal-to-whale transition?

Philip Gingerich
Honestly, can creationists be any more dishonest?

[Harbal]

Ho-hum is a formidable scientific argument. It's said that Newton and Einstein used it often to impose their theories.

You seem very reluctant to disclose your theory.

[PauloL]

Pity Gingerich didn't know that. You must tell him.

Again, evolutionism keeps supported by imperfect geologic data.

What about the leg of R. balochistanensis? The fossil was wrong? At least it missed fluke tail again (so good).

It's good for Evolutionists that Sutera also ignores those Gingerich words.

[davidm]

Rapid evolution is exciting. I checked this one.

Well, the poison selected out cockroaches that tasted glucose sweet and selected in those that tasted glucose bitter (so good for their teeth, too). Great, David. You deserve some pats on the back (just kidding). Like Morgan said, evolution means producing new things, not more of what exists.

My goodness, you are such a liar. And of course, I knew you were going to say this. It's straight out of the creationist handbook!

Evolution produced a whale from a land animal. I also gave you the example upthread of evolution producing something that had never existed, and never could have existed, in the history of the world -- nylon-eating bacteria.

Although you didn't use the word, in the case of the cockroaches, this is an example of microevolution. Creationists love to yammer on about how, well, sure, microevolution takes place, but not macroevolution. But of course, if you string along enough microevolutionary changes over a long enough period of time, you get something substantially different from what you started with. You get speciation.

Finally, evolution does NOT mean "producing new things" in the sense of being completely different. Evolutionary theory predicts that organisms will be related, with common ancestors -- since no species is completely different from any other species. Humans and chimps, our nearest relatives, are 98 percent genetically alike.

Anyway, I'm done responding to your dishonest, underhanded creationist bafflegab. I don't debate creationists. It's a waste of time. I had given you the benefit of the doubt -- that you were really puzzled about some aspects of evolution and wanted to learn more. Now you've shown your true colors.

[Harbal]

I'm done responding to your dishonest, underhanded creationist bafflegab. I don't debate creationists.

Don't give up on him, we'll never get to know his alternative word for creationism.

[PauloL]

David, I argumented on your nice thought experiment about nylon-bacteria. Pity it was far from perfect. You should review my answers.

I negate neither microevolution nor macroevolution, as you call it. I'm asking for evidence, as I see none.

At least you agree that cockroaches was microevolution, as you call it (creating more that already exists).

Perhaps people here would like to know I'm irreligious. An agnostic maybe. Not an atheist in the sense they give it nowadays, as I'm don't antagonize established religions. Atheists are fanatic.

[Harbal]

I'm asking for evidence, as I see none.

What do you see evidence of? Tell us how you think it all happened.