Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence for Evolution: Whale evolution
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 256 of 443 (803748)
04-04-2017 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by Percy
04-04-2017 8:38 AM


Another creationist ignoring any form of scrutiny. Not surprised.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Percy, posted 04-04-2017 8:38 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 257 of 443 (803753)
04-04-2017 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by Dredge
04-04-2017 3:47 AM


Dredge writes:
... except is reduces the noble pursuit of science to embarrassing quackery.
Well, following the evidence can take you to strange places - and truth is stranger than fiction. Whale evolution isn't something that anybody is likely to make up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Dredge, posted 04-04-2017 3:47 AM Dredge has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 258 of 443 (803768)
04-04-2017 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by Dredge
04-04-2017 3:47 AM


The whale tale is one of the funniest yarns concocted by evolutionists: Some land-lubbing, vegetarian deer-like creature supposedly developed a taste for swimming in the ocean and devouring seafood.
No. You made that up.
Its nose somehow ends up on top of its head and its legs somehow turn into flippers.
Were you asleep in class when they explained the theory of evolution?
I love it! ... except is reduces the noble pursuit of science to embarrassing quackery.
Well, scientists --- who unlike you actually carry out "the noble pursuit of science" --- think that evolution is well-supported by the evidence and that creationism is stupid shit.
Isn't it interesting what some people are willing to believe?
Some people are willing to believe anything so long as it's proved by the evidence. They're called scientists. Other people believe without evidence that a talking snake outwitted God, and they are called creationists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Dredge, posted 04-04-2017 3:47 AM Dredge has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 259 of 443 (803798)
04-05-2017 4:17 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by Dr Adequate
12-04-2016 12:46 AM


It never ceases to amaze me that the scientific community invests so much time and effort (and more than a little arrogance and dogma) in a subject that is nothing more than an historical curiosity and is as irrelevant and useless as a fairy tale. It seems to have never occurred to evolutionists that 150 years of research into how one species supposedly gave rise to another species has produced absolutely nothing of any practical use - zilch. It also seems that it has never occurred to evolutionists that perfect uselessness is the hallmark of a theory that is false. I wonder how many more decades will go by before the penny drops.
Furthermore, which part of the whale tale can be put to the test in order to establish its veracity? The embarrassing answer is, none of it. There is no way of knowing whether any of it is factual.
"It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another ... But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test." - Dr. Colin Patterson.
So your much-vaunted morphology, genetics, embryology and fossil records amount to an exercise in futility that contributes nothing to science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-04-2016 12:46 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by vimesey, posted 04-05-2017 5:07 AM Dredge has replied
 Message 264 by vimesey, posted 04-05-2017 5:26 AM Dredge has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 260 of 443 (803799)
04-05-2017 4:26 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by RAZD
12-14-2016 11:51 AM


Re: This just in ...
You mentioned paleontology. There are so many grey areas, ambiguities and uncertainties associated with paleontology that the whole flaky mess hardly deserves to be called a science. It should come as no surprise that evolutionists love it so much, since it offers their vivid imaginations a lot of room for expression.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by RAZD, posted 12-14-2016 11:51 AM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by Pressie, posted 04-05-2017 5:23 AM Dredge has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 261 of 443 (803800)
04-05-2017 4:30 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by Percy
04-04-2017 8:38 AM


I don't know what happened there; as far as I know I only posted it once ... and it is only one sentence from my original post. A bit weird.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Percy, posted 04-04-2017 8:38 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by Percy, posted 04-05-2017 7:12 AM Dredge has replied

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


Message 262 of 443 (803801)
04-05-2017 5:07 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by Dredge
04-05-2017 4:17 AM


has produced absolutely nothing of any practical use - zilch.
Presumably then, you will be refusing the latest medical treatments if you are unfortunate enough to be diagnosed with a chronic genetic condition ? After all, if the science that led to those treatments is bad, then surely the treatments themselves are bad.

Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Dredge, posted 04-05-2017 4:17 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Dredge, posted 04-05-2017 5:27 AM vimesey has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 263 of 443 (803803)
04-05-2017 5:23 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by Dredge
04-05-2017 4:26 AM


Re: This just in ...
Dredge writes:
You mentioned paleontology. There are so many grey areas, ambiguities and uncertainties associated with paleontology that the whole flaky mess hardly deserves to be called a science. It should come as no surprise that evolutionists love it so much, since it offers their vivid imaginations a lot of room for expression.
Oh, I don't know. Oil exploration companies employ lots of palaeontologists. Those companies do consider palaeontology one of the natural sciences. One of the hard sciences. Palaeontology is one of the basic sciences they are involved in.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Dredge, posted 04-05-2017 4:26 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Dredge, posted 04-05-2017 5:45 AM Pressie has replied

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


(1)
Message 264 of 443 (803804)
04-05-2017 5:26 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by Dredge
04-05-2017 4:17 AM


Here's a quotation from Dr Colin Patterson:
Because creationists lack scientific research to support such theories as a young earth ... a world-wide flood ... or separate ancestry for humans and apes, their common tactic is to attack evolution by hunting out debate or dissent among evolutionary biologists. ... I learned that one should think carefully about candour in argument (in publications, lectures, or correspondence) in case one was furnishing creationist campaigners with ammunition in the form of 'quotable quotes', often taken out of context.
Your creationist play book is a bit behind the times on this one - your quoted source does not deny evolution - he studied it and worked as an evolutionary scientist. He denied creationism and creationist arguments. He is really not a good source for you.

Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Dredge, posted 04-05-2017 4:17 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by Dredge, posted 04-05-2017 5:37 AM vimesey has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 265 of 443 (803805)
04-05-2017 5:27 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by vimesey
04-05-2017 5:07 AM


In my post I said (or at least, meant to say) that species-to-species research has produced nothing of any practical use. Which medical treatment involves one species evolving from another species?
The point I was trying to make is, if speciation is a "fact", why hasn't it produced a practical use? Evolution is often touted as the greatest discovery in science, yet there is not one, single use for the mechanism that it critically depends on - speciation.
Unlike speciation, natural selection is a demonstrable scientific fact that no one can deny. There are many, many practical uses for natural selection. Speciation, in stark contrast, is not a demonstrable scientific fact, and has not a single practical use. Do you see a pattern here? Could it be that speciation is perfectly useless because it's nonsense? That would make a lot of sense.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by vimesey, posted 04-05-2017 5:07 AM vimesey has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Pressie, posted 04-05-2017 6:31 AM Dredge has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 266 of 443 (803806)
04-05-2017 5:37 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by vimesey
04-05-2017 5:26 AM


Dr. Patterson's words still stand and will always stand - ie, there is no place in science for ideas that can't be tested.
However, ideas that can't be tested might find a home in the realms of pseudo-science and atheist theolgy; evolution being a prime example.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by vimesey, posted 04-05-2017 5:26 AM vimesey has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 267 of 443 (803807)
04-05-2017 5:45 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by Pressie
04-05-2017 5:23 AM


Re: This just in ...
Ok, well thank you for that information. There must be at least some aspects of paleotology that are true and subsequently, useful. Even the theory of evolution contains some truth that is also useful - natural selection, for example.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Pressie, posted 04-05-2017 5:23 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by Pressie, posted 04-05-2017 7:13 AM Dredge has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 268 of 443 (803808)
04-05-2017 6:31 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by Dredge
04-05-2017 5:27 AM


Dredge writes:
In my post I said (or at least, meant to say) that species-to-species research has produced nothing of any practical use.
Not true. USING MICROFOSSILS IN PETROLEUM EXPLORATION . Oil exploration. Existing and extinct foraminifera species play an important part in oil exploration.
From there:
quote:
For paleoenvironmental analyses of Gulf of Mexico exploration, studies of the distribution of living benthic foraminifera (Poag, 1981; Pflum and Frerichs, 1976, Phleger and Parker, 1951) provide an excellent database. Using these studies and others, paleontologists constructed models for interpreting past Gulf of Mexico environments using fossil benthic foraminifera (Breard, Callender and Nault, 1993: Culver, 1988, Tipsworth et al., 1966). Wells drilled in Pleistocene and Pliocene age sediments encounter fossils of many extant species of benthic foraminifera and consequently paleoenvironmental interpretations are made with reasonable confidence. However, as wells are drilled deeper into older sediments, the percentage of extinct species encountered rises rapidly. In the older sediments paleoenvironments are more speculative, but can be inferred.
Commonly in Gulf Coast paleontology, ancient marine environments are related to interpreted water depths (paleobathymetry). This is an oversimplification because benthic foraminifera often respond to water conditions (temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, etc.) rather than to depth. However, there are over 40,000 wells drilled in the Gulf. By combining data from existing wells, it is possible to reconstruct the profile of the continental shelf and slope at various points in geologic time. Such paleogeographic maps, combined with seismic profiles and other geologic data sets, are the tools used in the search for hydrocarbons. It is paleontology that uniquely explains the element of geologic time and depositional environment to petroleum geology.
  —Brian J. O'Neill
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Dredge, posted 04-05-2017 5:27 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by Dredge, posted 04-06-2017 5:22 AM Pressie has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 269 of 443 (803809)
04-05-2017 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by Dredge
04-05-2017 4:30 AM


Dredge writes:
I don't know what happened there; as far as I know I only posted it once...
Every message is numbered and time stamped - it is pretty clear "what happened." You joined EvC Forum on 6-Sep-16, posted Message 243 as your very first message on 3-Dec-16, ignored the four responses, then posted Message 254 on 4-Apr-17. After I brought the earlier responses to your attention in my Message 255 you responded to one of them.
...and it is only one sentence from my original post.
What you're referring to as your "original post," Message 254, is actually your second post to this thread. Your first post was Message 243. They share no sentence beyond "I love it!"
The topic of this thread is the evidence for whale evolution, not evolution generally. You should probably review the thread so that you're familiar with the evidence.
By the way, though evolution is the most important unifying concept in natural history and is essential to our understanding in myriad ways, there is no requirement that knowledge be of pragmatic use to human beings to be true.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Dredge, posted 04-05-2017 4:30 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by Dredge, posted 04-06-2017 6:44 AM Percy has replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 270 of 443 (803810)
04-05-2017 7:13 AM
Reply to: Message 267 by Dredge
04-05-2017 5:45 AM


Re: This just in ...
Dredge writes:
Ok, well thank you for that information. There must be at least some aspects of paleotology that are true and subsequently, useful. Even the theory of evolution contains some truth that is also useful - natural selection, for example.
Thank you for admitting reality. Natural selection (amongst others) indeed is very helpful in trying to explain how modern forms of life came to be here. Lots of evidence for natural selection. That's the first step in accepting reality.
Now, any evidence that species get poofed into existence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Dredge, posted 04-05-2017 5:45 AM Dredge has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024