[_ Old Earth _] Article of Whale and Dolphin Evolution

[Crying Rock]

You, Sir, have the onus of proving whales evolved from land dwelling mammals.

"...I have provided compelling evidence and links to compelling evidence. If you want 'proof' you need to go elsewhere..."

I've not found it compelling at all. I guess I'll go elsewhere for proof. I'm not particular interested in conjecture. Come to the Americas and try to sell the story of preClovis people based on conjecture. ;) You'll get eaten alive. I checked!

 

[lordkalvan]

[quote="Crying Rock":8osiqrbj]You, Sir, have the onus of proving whales evolved from land dwelling mammals.

"...I have provided compelling evidence and links to compelling evidence. If you want 'proof' you need to go elsewhere..."

I've not found it compelling at all. I guess I'll go elsewhere for proof. I'm not particular interested in conjecture. Come to the Americas and try to sell the story of preClovis people based on conjecture. ;) You'll get eaten alive. I checked![/quote:8osiqrbj]
Another comment that amounts to nothing more than unsubstantiated denial varnished with the gloss of a red herring. I can do no better than repeat the content of my last two posts, which you have largely ignored:

Agreeing with a comment from Barbarian:

[Crying Rock's} argument against the presented evidence amounts to little more than saying that it doesn't satisfy him, without either saying exactly why it doesn't satisfy him or what evidence would satisfy him. I think it is reasonable to conclude therefore that he has no argument to offer beyond nay-saying.

In direct reply to Crying Rock:

[quote:8osiqrbj]The defendants' evidence has so far proved little.

Saying so does not make it so. What is your explanation for the origin of whales? I have lost count of the number of times I have asked this question and you have resolutely avoided answering it. Why is this?[/quote:8osiqrbj]

 

[Crying Rock]

I'm not the one arguing for Macro Evolution. The onus is on you and Barb. Explain how, without doubt, how land dwelling mammals evolved into marine dwelling mammals. This is the case at hand.

 

[John]

I'm not the one arguing for Macro Evolution. The onus is on you and Barb. Explain how, without doubt, how land dwelling mammals evolved into marine dwelling mammals. This is the case at hand.

O but didn't you know? The whales "pelvis" proves it! Checkmate. :rolling

 

[lordkalvan]

I'm not the one arguing for Macro Evolution. The onus is on you and Barb. Explain how, without doubt, how land dwelling mammals evolved into marine dwelling mammals. This is the case at hand.

What do you mean by 'without doubt'? What will determine for you that 'without doubt' has been achieved? As science is concerned with the weight of evidence rather than absolute proof, I rather think you are deliberately demanding something that you have already pre-determined you are never going to accept because it will not fulfill whatever your 'without doubt' criteria might be.

Evidence has been offered that is persuasive support for the hypothesis that whales evolved from land-dwelling mammals. You have failed to say both why you find this evidence unconvincing and what evidence you would find convincing. You have also continually dodged the question of what your explanation for the origin of whales might be. If the onus is on others to present evidence, this has been done; the onus is then on you to critique that evidence in some meaningful way. A discussion is a two-way street and if you are determined to limit your part in that discussion to repeated cries of 'Taint so! then I don't know why you are participating.

 

[lordkalvan]

I'm not the one arguing for Macro Evolution. The onus is on you and Barb. Explain how, without doubt, how land dwelling mammals evolved into marine dwelling mammals. This is the case at hand.

O but didn't you know? The whales "pelvis" proves it! Checkmate. :rolling

The whale's pelvic girdle is but one element of the multiple lines of persuasive evidence that whales descended from ancestral, land-dwelling animals. 'Scare' quotes placed around a word do not constitute a convincing argument against presented evidence. Perhaps you have a more detailed critique to offer?

 

[lordkalvan]

^ I'll take that as a 'No', then.

 

[John]

Actually they serve a use in reproduction the whole pelvis brewhaha was an interpretation placed upon them by evolutionists and has zero merit.

The whale pelvis is in the same trash can as, embryo gill slits, humans vestigial tail bone, the appendix and many other supposed vestigial nonsense. But lets say that i am wrong here (it happens) and they are actuality vestigial..that is the opposite evolution the animal is loosing something not gaining.

 

[lordkalvan]

Actually they serve a use in reproduction the whole pelvis brewhaha was an interpretation placed upon them by evolutionists and has zero merit.

Your pelvis also 'serve a use in reproduction' because it is the relevant anchor point for both the relevant muscles and those muscles associated with the legs. This does not mean that the only function of the pelvic girdle is to act as an attachment point for those muscles.

The whale pelvis is in the same trash can as, embryo gill slits, humans vestigial tail bone, the appendix and many other supposed vestigial nonsense.

The pelvis of the whale is not a vestigial feature, but simply demonstrates the animals' descent from a land-dwelling animal. What is atavistic or vestigial in whales in association with the whale's pelvis is the evidence of femurs and tibias (i.e. leg bones) attached to that structure; see http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/mpm/struthers.html. If you believe vestigial features to be 'nonsense. you need to do more than simply assert this as if it was a given.

But lets say that i am wrong here (it happens) and they are actuality vestigial..that is the opposite evolution the animal is loosing something not gaining.

You make the mistake of assuming that evolutionary theory argues that evolution only happens by things being 'added to' an organism. This is not so. Evolutionary theory only argues that species change over time through natural selection, for example blind cave-dwelling animals have lost the use of their eyes, the great apes have lost their prehensile tails, whales have ear-twitching muscles but have no external ears to be 'twitched', etc.

 

[John]

Your pelvis also 'serve a use in reproduction' because it is the relevant anchor point for both the relevant muscles and those muscles associated with the legs. This does not mean that the only function of the pelvic girdle is to act as an attachment point for those muscles.

Your right, however you cannot show that the whale has a rudimentary pelvis that is simply your interpretation thrust upon the evidence.

The pelvis of the whale is not a vestigial feature, but simply demonstrates the animals' descent from a land-dwelling animal.

That is your interpretation merely thrust upon the fact that there are bones down there.

What is atavistic or vestigial in whales in association with the whale's pelvis is the evidence of femurs and tibias (i.e. leg bones) attached to that structure; see http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/mpm/struthers.html. If you believe vestigial features to be 'nonsense. you need to do more than simply assert this as if it was a given.

Just because someone calls them a femur/ tibia doe snot make it true.

You make the mistake of assuming that evolutionary theory argues that evolution only happens by things being 'added to' an organism. This is not so. Evolutionary theory only argues that species change over time through natural selection, for example blind cave-dwelling animals have lost the use of their eyes, the great apes have lost their prehensile tails, whales have ear-twitching muscles but have no external ears to be 'twitched', etc.

Ok. Come back to me when the cave fish start walking around, growing feathers and talking and i'll give you a cookie.

 

[lordkalvan]

^ I see nothing but unsubstantiated assertion and argument from personal incredulity in this post. That you are ignorant of the methods of comparative anatomy does not constitute grounds for instant dismissal of any findings from this or any other field of study that happens to collide with an idiosyncratic view of the natural world derived from a pre-scientific text. Your final comment continues to display your profound misunderstanding of evolutionary theory and demonstrates an unwillingness to even acknowledge the point that the comment it is ostensibly replying to was addressed to.

 

[John]

From AIG.

Comparing the anatomy of one kind of animal with another is supposed to prove descent from a common ancestor. This is often put forward as strong evidence for evolution. However, the science of comparative anatomy can just as easily be used as evidence of creation.

The bones of a horse are different from our bones, but there is such a similarity that if we are familiar with the human skeleton, we could easily identify and name the bones of a horse. We could do the same if we studied the skeleton of a salamander, a crocodile, a bird, or a bat. However, not only are the bones similar, but so also are other anatomical structures, such as muscles, the heart, the liver, the kidneys, the eyes, the lungs, the digestive tract, and so on. This is interpreted by the evolutionists as proof that these various animals are all descended from a common ancestor.

One of the classic examples that is often used in biology textbooks to illustrate comparative anatomy is the forelimbs of amphibians, reptiles, humans, birds, bats, and quadrupeds. In the illustration, it can be seen that all the forelimbs of these six different types of creatures have an upper arm bone (the humerus) and two lower arm bones (the radius and the ulna), although in the case of the bat there is only one bone, called the radio-ulna.

Evolutionists teach that these structures are said to be homologous when they are similar in structure and origin, but not necessarily in function. But notice how subtly the notion of origins is introduced into the definition. The bat’s wing is considered to be homologous to the forelimb of a salamander because it is similar in structure and believed to have the same origin. However, it is not considered to be homologous to the wing of an insect because, even though it has the same function, it is not considered to have the same origin. However, the fact that the two structures are similar does not necessarily mean that they are derived from a common ancestor.

We have to realize that the entire line of reasoning by evolutionists is based upon a single assumption: that the degree of similarity between organisms indicates the degree of supposed relationship of the said organisms. In other words, it is argued that if animals look alike, then they must be closely related (from an evolutionary point of view), and if they do not look very much alike, then they are more distantly related. But this is just an assumption.

The presence of homologous structures can actually be interpreted as evidence for a common designer. Contrary to the oversimplified claim in this figure, the forelimbs of vertebrates do not form in the same way. Specifically, in frogs the phalanges form as buds that grow outward and in humans they form from a ridge that develops furrows inward. The fact that the bones can be correlated does not mean that they are evidence of a single common ancestor.2

In fact, there is another logical reason why things look alike—creation by an intelligent designer using a common blueprint. This is the reason that Toyota and Ford motor vehicles look so much alike. They are built to a common plan—you only have to look at them to realize this. However, the problem with the living world is that in many cases either explanation (i.e., evolution or creation) appears to be logical and it is often impossible for us to tell which is the more reasonable explanation. This is why it is important for us to understand which worldview we are using to interpret the evidence.

There is, however, one discovery that appears to make the evolutionary view of descent from a common ancestor look illogical and flawed. This discovery is that structures that appear homologous often develop under the control of genes that are not homologous. If the structures evolved from the same source, you would expect the same genes to make the structures. The fact that these structures are similar (or homologous) is apparent, but the reason is not because of Darwinian evolution. It is more logical and reasonable to believe in a common Creator rather than a common ancestor.

Many evolutionists readily admit that they have failed to find evidence of the evolution of large structures such as bones and muscles, so instead they argue that they have found homology among the complex organic molecules that are found in living systems. One of these is hemoglobin, the protein that carries oxygen in red blood cells. Although this protein is found in nearly all vertebrates, it is also found in some invertebrates (worms, starfish, clams, and insects) and also in some bacteria. Yet there is no evidence of the evolution of this chemical—in all cases, the same kind of molecule is complete and fully functional. If evolution has occurred, it should be possible to map out how hemoglobin evolved, but this cannot be done. To the creationist, however, hemoglobin crops up complete and fully functional wherever the Creator deems it fitting in His plan.

 

[lordkalvan]

From AIG.

Perhaps you can make arguments of your own rather than simply C&P-ing screeds of AiG nonsense? Nevertheless:

Comparing the anatomy of one kind of animal with another is supposed to prove descent from a common ancestor.

Nope, it may provide evidence of common ancestry that is supported by other strands of evidence from other fields of research.

This is often put forward as strong evidence for evolution.

Where such evidence is considered to be soundly based, it is certainly put forward as supporting evidence for the theory of evolution.

However, the science of comparative anatomy can just as easily be used as evidence of creation.

Only in the febrile imaginations of those who want to assume their conclusion from the very beginning.

The bones of a horse are different from our bones, but there is such a similarity that if we are familiar with the human skeleton, we could easily identify and name the bones of a horse. We could do the same if we studied the skeleton of a salamander, a crocodile, a bird, or a bat. However, not only are the bones similar, but so also are other anatomical structures, such as muscles, the heart, the liver, the kidneys, the eyes, the lungs, the digestive tract, and so on. This is interpreted by the evolutionists as proof that these various animals are all descended from a common ancestor.

Back to the obsession with 'proof'. No, these homologous structures and anatomical similarities are put forward as some of the supporting evidence that makes evolutionary theory one of the soundest ideas in informing our understanding of the development of life.

One of the classic examples that is often used in biology textbooks to illustrate comparative anatomy is the forelimbs of amphibians, reptiles, humans, birds, bats, and quadrupeds. In the illustration, it can be seen that all the forelimbs of these six different types of creatures have an upper arm bone (the humerus) and two lower arm bones (the radius and the ulna), although in the case of the bat there is only one bone, called the radio-ulna.

Evolutionists teach that these structures are said to be homologous when they are similar in structure and origin, but not necessarily in function. But notice how subtly the notion of origins is introduced into the definition. The bat’s wing is considered to be homologous to the forelimb of a salamander because it is similar in structure and believed to have the same origin. However, it is not considered to be homologous to the wing of an insect because, even though it has the same function, it is not considered to have the same origin.

Nope, it's not put forward as homologous to the wing of an insect because this is not what homologous means. This quite unsubtle sleight-of-hand by AiG demonstrates either a fundamental misunderstanding or a fundamental dishonesty in approaching this question. There is no anatomical similarity between the wing of an insect and the wing of a bat, in the same way that there is no anatomical similarity between the wing of a bat and the wing of a pterodactyl. Therefore the structures are not homologous: they do not derive from the same structure present in an ancestral species.

However, the fact that the two structures are similar does not necessarily mean that they are derived from a common ancestor.

Another piece of sleight-of-hand: the two structures are similar in function, but they are not homologous; no one other than AiG is arguing that they might so be considered.

We have to realize that the entire line of reasoning by evolutionists is based upon a single assumption: that the degree of similarity between organisms indicates the degree of supposed relationship of the said organisms.

It is a great deal more than 'a single assumption'; it is a conclusion based on more than a century-and-a-half's research into relationships amongst species supported by multiple lines of evidence from independent fields of inquiry.

In other words, it is argued that if animals look alike, then they must be closely related (from an evolutionary point of view), and if they do not look very much alike, then they are more distantly related.

Again quite false and either intentionally or ignorantly misleading. Dolphins look pretty much like sharks and sharks look pretty much like Ichthyosaurs, but no one other than AiG propagandists would try to suggest that they are to be considered 'closely related' as a consequence of this apparent resemblance. What determines degrees of relationship in evolutionary theory is shared traits. Which brings us to the idea of convergent evolution, which AiG appears to have tried to confuse with homology in order to mislead its target audience: the wing referred to in bats and insects is an example of convergent evolution: they are analogous structures, not homologous structures.

But this is just an assumption.

Nope, it's a complete misrepresentation by AiG which you appear to have swallowed whole with all the eagerness of a seal going after a piece of fish.

The presence of homologous structures can actually be interpreted as evidence for a common designer. Contrary to the oversimplified claim in this figure, the forelimbs of vertebrates do not form in the same way. Specifically, in frogs the phalanges form as buds that grow outward and in humans they form from a ridge that develops furrows inward. The fact that the bones can be correlated does not mean that they are evidence of a single common ancestor.

As the illustration critiqued makes no reference to frogs at all, this seems to be another piece-of-sleight of hand. Why not critique the examples given, which point to the anatomically similar features in the animals referenced? Where has it been claimed that the forelimbs of all vertebrates form in the same way?

In fact, there is another logical reason why things look alike—creation by an intelligent designer using a common blueprint.

And how is this idea supported by the evidence? Common descent requires nested hierarchies, but there is no such requirement for common design. Common design further presupposes an understanding of the alleged common designer's intentions, abilities and limitations with absolutely no evidence to support any of this arrived-at understanding.

This is the reason that Toyota and Ford motor vehicles look so much alike. They are built to a common plan—you only have to look at them to realize this.

But, strangely, not by a common designer, but rather by designers whose intentions, purposes, capabilities and existence we can actually observe and measure.

However, the problem with the living world is that in many cases either explanation (i.e., evolution or creation) appears to be logical and it is often impossible for us to tell which is the more reasonable explanation. This is why it is important for us to understand which worldview we are using to interpret the evidence.

That would be the difference between a 'worldview' informed by the inferences drawn from observed and measured evidence and a 'worldview' where the evidence takes second place to an idiosyncratic interpretation of a pre-scientific creation myth: By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. (AiG 'Statement of Faith', 4.6).

There is, however, one discovery that appears to make the evolutionary view of descent from a common ancestor look illogical and flawed. This discovery is that structures that appear homologous often develop under the control of genes that are not homologous.

Yet another sleight-of-hand. In genetics homology refers to DNA sequences that are similar, not to individual genes.

If the structures evolved from the same source, you would expect the same genes to make the structures.

I don't know what this means and I don't know why 'you' or anyone else would 'expect' this. Perhaps you do?

The fact that these structures are similar (or homologous) is apparent, but the reason is not because of Darwinian evolution. It is more logical and reasonable to believe in a common Creator rather than a common ancestor.

But it is not explained why this 'is more logical and reasonable', nor has it been explained why it 'is not because of ... evolution'.

Many evolutionists readily admit that they have failed to find evidence of the evolution of large structures such as bones and muscles, so instead they argue that they have found homology among the complex organic molecules that are found in living systems.

'many evolutionists' who are not cited, of course.

One of these is hemoglobin, the protein that carries oxygen in red blood cells. Although this protein is found in nearly all vertebrates, it is also found in some invertebrates (worms, starfish, clams, and insects) and also in some bacteria. Yet there is no evidence of the evolution of this chemical—in all cases, the same kind of molecule is complete and fully functional. If evolution has occurred, it should be possible to map out how hemoglobin evolved, but this cannot be done. To the creationist, however, hemoglobin crops up complete and fully functional wherever the Creator deems it fitting in His plan.

More vacuous and unsupported assertion. There appear to be multiple research papers and articles on the evolution of haemoglobin, for example this one:

Phylogenetic origins and adaptive evolution of avian and mammalian haemoglobin genes at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v298/n5871/abs/298297a0.html

ETA And this is also an interesting and informative article on the origins of haemoglobins:

A primaeval origin for plant and animal haemoglobins? by C A Appleby, E S Dennis and W J Peacock at http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/SB9900081.htm

 

[Crying Rock]

Does this image from 1893:

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/whales/ev ... tavism.gif

Look like this photograph from modern times:

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/mpm/WHL_TH03.JPG

LK, I still don't understand why an atheist is spending most of his waking hours on a Christian board. All I can think of is evangelism. What is your purpose of spending most of your waking hours on a Christian board versus a standard evolutionary science board? Have you been commisioned by Dawkins?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc

 

[lordkalvan]

Does this image from 1893:

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/whales/ev ... tavism.gif

Look like this photograph from modern times:

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/mpm/WHL_TH03.JPG

Do you have a point? If so, perhaps you could make it? While you are making it, perhaps you would care to reply to all those outstanding questions and requests for clarification of your position that you have persistently ignored?

LK, I still don't understand why an atheist is spending most of his waking hours on a Christian board.All I can think of is evangelism. What is your purpose of spending most of your waking hours on a Christian board versus a standard evolutionary science board?

Well, as I'm not 'spending most of [my] waking hours on a Christian board', your lack of comprehension is misdirected - less than 2 posts a day on average.

Have you been commisioned by Dawkins?

I wish....

 

[freeway]

Hey guys, if I may jump in? Lets see the question is, or. How did a four legged land walking animal “mammal†evolve of course over millions of years to become what we now know as a whale. First off why would it? Second why the huge change in size. I mean, come on from the size of roughly a wolf to the largest living mammal on the planet. Talk about theory. Do you just might think? I don’t know, God created the whale that way? The fossil record does not support this theory. There is not any missing links why because the whale did not evolve. Supposedly the last little bones of the legs are still tucked away inside the back end of the whale. As John has shown and I’ not going to repost his post, earlier in his post you have to mate to keep the species going. I’ve read the reports seen the videos by the likes of Dawkins and so forth. If you really what to believe something bad enough or not believe in a Creator well I guess you can gather together enough people who think like you and then call it evolution. But for me I’m going to stick with the account in Genesis…. God Created it.. Oh and evolution is the greatest lie that Satan came up with, other than making the world believe that he does not exist.

 

[lordkalvan]

Hey guys, if I may jump in? Lets see the question is, or. How did a four legged land walking animal “mammal†evolve of course over millions of years to become what we now know as a whale. First off why would it? Second why the huge change in size. I mean, come on from the size of roughly a wolf to the largest living mammal on the planet. Talk about theory. Do you just might think? I don’t know, God created the whale that way? The fossil record does not support this theory. There is not any missing links why because the whale did not evolve. Supposedly the last little bones of the legs are still tucked away inside the back end of the whale. As John has shown and I’ not going to repost his post, earlier in his post you have to mate to keep the species going. I’ve read the reports seen the videos by the likes of Dawkins and so forth. If you really what to believe something bad enough or not believe in a Creator well I guess you can gather together enough people who think like you and then call it evolution. But for me I’m going to stick with the account in Genesis…. God Created it.. Oh and evolution is the greatest lie that Satan came up with, other than making the world believe that he does not exist.

Personal incredulity and unsupported assertion are not evidential. You can start with the Wiki article -

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

This YouTube video is also informative -

[youtube:2ev2xec4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2C-3PjNGok[/youtube:2ev2xec4]

And finally, Philip Gingerich's own site has interesting and useful insights into discoveries relating to the origins of whales:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gingeric/PDGwhales/Whales.htm

 

[freeway]

Just to make sure I have this right? "LK" Whenever someone who does not support your theory "and thats just what it is a theory and a bad one at that" on evolution. Whenever we post a link its garbage, does not support our claim and that we should put something of credabilty in our own words. Now but you and your group, can post links, pictures of and animals, fish, birds or bugs and we are to take that as creditable... Sounds like a double standard to me LK . As I said before in other post, you cannot and never will prove evolution, all you have are pictures of creatures that have died, you, we do not know if they ever reporduced anything.. Also you need millions and billions of years for your theory to work. Creation, the fall of man, the Flood, no life past 4500 yrs or around about there cannot be found on our little green planet today. Oh and one more thing the evolution of the whale from a wolf size land mammal to the largest living mammal period, well thats not my theory but your beloved Richard Dawkins and his groonies. I can't wait to find out how a flea became a horse, I know I'm being foolish, but is that any worse than the whale theroy?

 

[lordkalvan]

Just to make sure I have this right? "LK" Whenever someone who does not support your theory "and thats just what it is a theory and a bad one at that" on evolution.

You appear to be using the term theory in an improper way in this context: a theory in the sense that it is used in the term theory of evolution does not mean a proposed idea whose arguments are conjectural - such as, I have a theory that the craters on the Moon were caused by a war between Superintelligent Space Bunnies and Klingons - but rather it means a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena and that is supported by observation, measurement and testing - as is the case with the theory of evolution, the special and general theories of relativity, the pathogenic theory of disease, and many others. I doubt you would take exception to any but the first of these, and yet it is one of the most soundly supported of scientific theories that we know.

Whenever we post a link its garbage, does not support our claim and that we should put something of credabilty in our own words.

I have no problem with links, only posts that comprise nothing more than a C&P exercise devoid of comment.

Now but you and your group, can post links, pictures of and animals, fish, birds or bugs and we are to take that as creditable...

No, the links are for you to consider in the context of not just the post I have made that points towards them, but also in the context of the claims and arguments I have made elsewhere in the thread. They are also to demonstrate that there is at least some scientific research in the field which I am relying on to support my position.

Sounds like a double standard to me LK .

I have critiqued such references as I have been given. I have seen no attempt to critique those I have provided, nor to respond to my own critiques.

As I said before in other post, you cannot and never will prove evolution, all you have are pictures of creatures that have died, you, we do not know if they ever reporduced anything.

The evidence that supports evolution is overwhelming. Asserting that evolution cannot be 'proved' is not a persuasive argument.

Also you need millions and billions of years for your theory to work.

It's not 'my' theory at all and there is ample evidence from multiple lines of research - from dendrochronology, through varve analysis, to isotope dating - that the timescales you refer to are indeed available.

Creation, the fall of man, the Flood, no life past 4500 yrs or around about there cannot be found on our little green planet today.

Nonsense. The coral reef at Eniwetok Atoll would have taken at least 130,000 years of growth to reach its current state.

Oh and one more thing the evolution of the whale from a wolf size land mammal to the largest living mammal period, well thats not my theory but your beloved Richard Dawkins and his groonies.

This does not in any sense critique the idea that modern whales evolved from smaller, land-dwelling ancestral species. The smallest elephants known to have lived were about the size of a calf, whereas the modern African elephant weighs around 26 tonnes. I have no idea what a 'groonie' is, but I suspect it is not meant to be flattering.

I can't wait to find out how a flea became a horse, I know I'm being foolish, but is that any worse than the whale theroy?

If this is your cartoon-like idea of what the theory of evolution proposes, it is no wonder you have so much difficulty with the concept.

 

[freeway]

LK says:
You appear to be using the term theory in an improper way in this context: a theory in the sense that it is used in the term theory of evolution does not mean a proposed idea whose arguments are conjectural - such as, I have a theory that the craters on the Moon were caused by a war between Superintelligent Space Bunnies and Klingons - but rather it means a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena and that is supported by observation, measurement and testing - as is the case with the theory of evolution, the special and general theories of relativity, the pathogenic theory of disease, and many others. I doubt you would take exception to any but the first of these, and yet it is one of the most soundly supported of scientific theories that we know.

A theory is something you usally cannot prove, and in the conversation at hand the theory is' " evolution" of the whale. How one speices start off with four legs and ends up with no legs and living in water. I understand the theory of evolution quite well, thank you...

LK again:
I have no problem with links, only posts that comprise nothing more than a C&P exercise devoid of comment

Good because I have alot of links, but I to do not like to c/p unless time will not premit it..

Lk again:
No, the links are for you to consider in the context of not just the post I have made that points towards them, but also in the context of the claims and arguments I have made elsewhere in the thread. They are also to demonstrate that there is at least some scientific research in the field which I am relying on to support my position.

As like wise.