quote:Rea[d] your plankton thing but its just speciation and interpretation still to me.
Of course it is interpretation, what else are you going to do with data. Data has to be interpretated in order for it to say anything. Evolution is an interpretation that is CONSISTENT with the data while creationism is not. This is what science does, interpret data so that ALL of the data fits into a coherent picture through testable theories.
Second, speciation is exactly what evolution is. Change over time and genetic isolation (ie speciation). So you are saying that you interpret this as being evolutionary change just as I do. There is nothing stopping this sort of change creating greater diversity over greater spans of time resulting in the biodiversity we see today.
quote:About the whale and land relative. Speciation must of been a thing of only a few generations. Most completed within a few decades or centuries of the flood.
Will you please point me to the evidence that led you to this conclusion. This is quite a claim, going from a land mammal to a fully adapted aquatic mammal in just a few (5-10?) generations.
quote:However there would be probably something in between the land and sea like a coastal creature like the sea otter. They filled all niches immediately and so inbetweens would be there but not as part of the speciation.
So we go from otter to blue whale in how long? 5-10 generations? And how long would they stay in that niche? One generation, or about 5 years? This isn't even enough time for an otter like environment to develop after a catastrophic world wide flood.
Next, you have an otter giving birth to an aquatic mammal that weighs upwards of 300 pounds at birth. Care to explain how that happens?
Don't you realize how wild and unsupported your claims are? Especially in the face of known transitional fossils for aquatic mammals that show a step by step process that never anything as drastic as what you are claiming.
This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 09-03-2004 02:46 PM
This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 09-07-2004 11:27 AM
I offer only an alternative view (probably correct) on what must of happened to explain speciation. There is a new thing now where divers can hold thier breaths longer and longer and they talk about a before unknown ability of the human body to adapt to the underwater. No evolution just adaption of what exists already. Likewise with animals the adaption to the sea could be a smaller matter the one would think. Anyway no one was there. And evidence is open to intetrpret Rob
they talk about a before unknown ability of the human body to adapt to the underwater.
Thats the mammalian dive reflex. Triggered during deep dives, its been well known in certain marine mammals since the early 1900s and until the 1950s wasnt thought to exist in humans. Its hardly a new thing.
Remember too that all animals that grow within an egg type process are immersed in liquid during that phase. Ability of newborns to learn to swim also is known, and would be a survival advantage.
What is NOT seen here is that the lenght of time that human free-divers can stay down has increased significantly beyond the ability of the japanes pearl divers (who have\had been doing this for years and have not transformed into "marinized" humans). Or that the time the japanese divers can stay down is significantly greater than the newer free-divers that train for the competitions. If they were able to adapt, these pearl divers that have culturally been doing this for thousands of years should be developing fins on hands and feet to fit Roberts scenario. It ain't so.
quote:There is a new thing now where divers can hold thier breaths longer and longer and they talk about a before unknown ability of the human body to adapt to the underwater. No evolution just adaption of what exists already. Likewise with animals the adaption to the sea could be a smaller matter the one would think.
Not one human can hold their breath as long as either a dolphin or whale. Nor can humans withstand the same depths for prolonged periods as whales can. Also, humans need freshwater while whales can drink saltwater. Sorry, but the amount of adaptation needed to adjust to a TOTALLY aquatic lifestyle requires mutation and natural selection. There is no other way around it. Also, do you see anything that resembles a whale that lives in a savanna? Of course not. It is a much larger change in physiology and morphology than you think.
quote:Anyway no one was there. And evidence is open to intetrpret
But the fossils are here now as is the DNA of living organisms. Both of these point to the slow evolution of land mammals to aquatic mammals.
WJ: I think you should be more skeptical about the stuff you read.
[b]Well, that is part of the problem. Creationists exhibit a strong unidirectional skepticism. They are ONLY skeptical of evolution and evolutionist claims. They swallow any nonsensical bilge that a creationist spews without question.
quote:Is Robert Byers now arguing that whales micro-evolved from land animals?
Yep. And in only a couple hundred years.
Added in edit:
From Rob in mssg 225:
About the whale and land relative. Speciation must of been a thing of only a few generations. Most completed within a few decades or centuries of the flood. There would be no intermediates in actuality. However there would be probably something in between the land and sea like a coastal creature like the sea otter. They filled all niches immediately and so inbetweens would be there but not as part of the speciation. Rob
So he is doing away with the land mammal to whale transitionals by saying that they shouldn't exist since whales evolved in only a few generations. He is claiming that the fossils are not transitionals but rather species with no links to either whale or land mammal.
This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 09-21-2004 02:18 PM
The thing that is wrong with Toe is where it disagrees with the time honoured scriptures. Otherwise we are free to explore. And that claims of Toe can be shown to be without evidence to persuade or down right wrong. Creationists have said wrong things in fighting Toe. Like not being liberal enough with species change and getting hung up on kind. Even though human differences is striking and mush of been instant after the Ark. Any speciation that is seen today or shown to have occured is just a special case. However Toe'ers take conviction from it of major change explaining origins. Like Einstein correcting Newton. Newton stuff seemed to explain all but in fact was only a special case. The Einstein of Toe has not yet come.And it will be bad news for most Toe/origin thought. Rob
quote:The thing that is wrong with Toe is where it disagrees with the time honoured scriptures. Otherwise we are free to explore.
AHH, finally, we get to the bottom of what makes Rob tick. No amount of evidence is going to make Rob go against the sheep herder's manual. Oh well, I had hoped that he would be open minded. I guess not.
Saying that there is no 1 single 'complete' fossil lineage doesn't mean that there is no physical evidence of evolution and certainly doesn't mean that scientists are lying. At the worst all it means is that we don't have fossils showing every transitional stage in any 1 evolutionary lineage, so what? Such a fossil lineage still wouldn't be 'proof' to those who object to evolution on religious grounds.
I'm almost a prophet . I expected WILLOWTREE to use this argument but over in the Bible thread.
Let me see if I can explain the difference in a straightforward way. I have no formal education in any biology related subject beyond O-level - the exams you took at ~16 in my part of England in the 1970s - so if I screw up in the evolutionary part I hope some of those who know more will correct it (and be gentle with me !).
In terms of describing the lineage of a given individual (in our case the current Queen of England) you are, by definition, talking about individuals. Specifically, you are talking about parent to child relationships. You are saying this person is the son/daughter of that person. Family trees for people are very exact things - if I don't know who my grandparents are how can I claim that someone is my great-grandparent ? It is simply impossible.
In terms of describing the lineage of a given species you are, by definition talking about species. As I understand it the original lineage charts for species were derived based on the morphology (structure and shape) of the fossils in the fossil record. As such the lineages derived from the fossil record reflect the general path from one species to another based on traceble changes in structure coupled with position in the fossil record.
In other words you're trying to compare apples and oranges. The lineage of individuals is not the same as the lineage of species.