A Whale of a Tale

Okay, I understand what you are saying here: First off, how did Basilo swim? Was it side to side like a fish, rippling like a snake, something different? What evidence leads us to believe this?Do we have evidence of any mammal swimming in anything other than an undulation motion? (Doggy-paddle aside)Now onto the Huh? section You may be talking right over my head but it sounds like you are making these points:
1) There is more evidence for speciation in physics than in biology
2) Since time is not necessarily linear, species do not need to adapt linearly through time.
3) Therefore it's possible that species we see today are decended from things not in the past, but in the future.Am I close? I don't buy it either. Let's leave the YEC crowd out of the discussion. Okay, let's follow that out. There is clearly a (long) period of the fossil record which contains no mammals. At some point, mammal fossils appear - but they are tiny rodent-like animals.You are speculating that those tiny rodent-like mammals were created as is at that time. (Note: I understand that this is not necessarily your belief-system, just one of the possible answers)At a later time in the fossil record (post dino-killing meteor) we see many more mammal fossils.Still later, we find more fossils, similiar in form to the ones preceding them, but more complex.This pattern of new forms continues all the way through to today. (special note - it's not just mammals. All forms of life exhibit this pattern).So, it seems, the hypothesis for multiple creation is this - Powerful Being creates life, then subsequently over billions of years, creates more life. The new life is based on the life which existed previously but adds characteristics.Now, let me raise an interesting question -
How are these creations done?Animals "poofing" into existance sounds silly, and we have never seen any evidence for it - so, let's rule that out.Could it be that this powerful being is creating these slightly different species through the natural process of birth? Tweaking the next generation while it's still in the womb?

Well, on this thread and others people have gone over the reasons why transitionals are rare.But let's use the camera analogy you propose.Let's say we have a security camera in a museum that takes a picture every 30 seconds. Someone breaks into the museum and steals some artwork. They are in the museum for an hour total. How many pictures would we expect to see of them?60? None? We can't answer the question yet, we don't have enough information. Where is the camera located? Which way is it facing? Are their lights on in the museum?The pace of the evolution of pre-historic whales may have been comparitively fast (or slow), but if the camera is not pointed in the right direction, we aren't going to get any photos.A good response from you would be: "Okay, I understand that - for whales - but you can't use that excuse for everything. Surely, there have to be enough "cameras" up that we can see the "thief" on one of them."Well, we do have sets that contain many of the frames you'd expect to see.Feather evolution, for example, is extremely well documented in fossils from China (despite the fact that feathers are very unlikely to leave a fossil record).Horse legs are another example of a feature in development. We have many representatives showing a clear progression over time.Some sets are more complete than others, which is to be expected.Additionally, it's pretty common for "new" fossils to turn up which fit in the gaps.

Better to have a creationist jury. Having a lawyer who's unfamiliar with terms like "evidence" probably isn't in your best interest.

Let's bring it back to this time travel theory - while ducking the mud slinging, you failed to respond to my initial post.Are you suggesting that the rules of QM apply to living organisms? That evolution is wrong because it assumes a linear timeline and we should try and look at it from a multi-dimensional timeline?If so, do we have any evidence of any creature which is alive today, died last week and will be born tomorrow? (I'll allow all sorts of variations on the time period)It's one thing for sub-atomic particles to mathematically travel through time, it's a very different thing to have a Yak doing it.To tie it to the topic -Are you saying that modern whales are actually decended from future whales which don't yet exist? Or that prehistoric whales are devolved from modern whales?What does this theory predict we should be looking for to confirm it?

edit - bygones Assuming a multiverse and a fluctuating past, at some point in time (call it the observation point) the past leading to that point will be static. If we choose a different observation point, the past leading to that point will be different than that leading to the initail observation point, but it will likewise be static.So, call it a variation on the uncertainty principle, but how would you determine if the past is in motion, if by observation of the past you have locked it in place? No, it's a silly argument that Evos respond to. There is a multiverse of difference between the two. Do we have any evidence for this? How would we test for this? Let's assume that this is true and that time is elastic. You still haven't answered my question - Do you think this has an effect on biology?Even if this is correct - Who cares? Theory of Evolution does not require that mutations take place as a result of classical mechanics or quantum mechanics - just that they take place.If your argument is that Evolution doesn't happen because mutations are taking place, you better rethink the argument.This message has been edited by Nuggin, 01-09-2006 04:45 PM