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

[freeway]

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

well here a link for AiG. So I guess its who you want to put your faith in, To me this is right in line with what the bible says. around 4000 years ago or so, God destroyed the world with a flood..

Under certain conditions, coral reefs can grow rapidly. Modern coral reefs are often small accumulations of corals, coralline algae, and other organisms that secrete calcium carbonate (calcite, the main ingredient of limestone) exoskeletons. However, some can be massive and thick, like the Great Barrier Reef (thickness of 180 feet [55 m])35 off the coast of Australia or Eniwetok Atoll36 (thickness of 4,590 feet [1,400 m])37 in the Marshall Islands of the Pacific. Some have argued that because of the slow growth rate of corals, large reefs need tens of thousands of years to grow.38 Corals, which build coral reefs, have been reported to grow as much as 4 to 17 inches (99–432 mm) per year.39

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... s-required

Again with LK:
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.

Here we have it again, A theory that you are trying to pass off as proof. and as for"groonies" = followers, want-abes..

 

[lordkalvan]

A theory is something you usally cannot prove...

And your supporting argument for this assertion is what, exactly? A scientific theory (as opposed to the popular use of the term to mean an unproved - or even unprovable - guess lacking credibility and evidence) 'is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers.' (Source: http://wilstar.com/theories.htm). So in this sense the theory of evolution is widely researched, multiply tested and verified as the best explanation for a wide range of inter-related phenomena. The theory of evolution as it stands today is based on a series of rigorous procedures that comprise the scientific method; it is about as well-proven as it is possible for a scientific theory to be.

...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.

Evolution is evolution. Some sightless cave-dwelling animals demonstrably 'started off' with eyes and now no longer have them. The evolutionary history of the whale from a land-dwelling ancestral species is quite clear: even whales' method of locomotion mimics the same pattern as that of their terrestrial predecessors.

I understand the theory of evolution quite well, thank you...

And yet you don't seem to understand that it is based on a great deal more than hopeful guess-work.

 

[lordkalvan]

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

well here a link for AiG. So I guess its who you want to put your faith in...

It's not a question of faith, it's a question of the use and misuse (in not-untypical AiG sleight-of-hand fashion) of evidence and how it is presented.

To me this is right in line with what the bible says. around 4000 years ago or so, God destroyed the world with a flood.

As far as I am aware, the Bible says nothing at all about the date of the alleged flood, a flood for which the evidence is, to say the least, lacking.

Under certain conditions, coral reefs can grow rapidly. Modern coral reefs are often small accumulations of corals, coralline algae, and other organisms that secrete calcium carbonate (calcite, the main ingredient of limestone) exoskeletons. However, some can be massive and thick, like the Great Barrier Reef (thickness of 180 feet [55 m])35 off the coast of Australia or Eniwetok Atoll36 (thickness of 4,590 feet [1,400 m])37 in the Marshall Islands of the Pacific. Some have argued that because of the slow growth rate of corals, large reefs need tens of thousands of years to grow.38 Corals, which build coral reefs, have been reported to grow as much as 4 to 17 inches (99–432 mm) per year.39

That under certain conditions certain types of coral can grow more rapidly than other types of coral under other conditions does not amount to evidence that Eniwetok Atoll coral grew at either the lower or the higher of the two rates proposed. 4,590 feet/17 inches per year works out at 3,240 years; 4,590 feet/4 inches per year works out at 13,770 years - so which do you prefer and what is the basis for your preference? What evidence supports your preference?

It is interesting to note, also, that AiG's principal source for the irrelevant piece of datum that they use to argue that Eniwetok atoll is not 130,000 years old, i.e. A.A. Roth, when testifying under cross-examination during the 1981 Arkansas trial of Act 590 acknowledged that the last sentence of his article on coral reef growth concluded 'this does not establish rapid growth of coral development' and further admitted that there was no evidence that coral reefs were created in recent times (Source: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/coral_reef.html).

Furthermore, studies of reef-building corals (as typified by those that are responsible for Eniwetok Atoll, as opposed to the faster-growing, thin, branchy corals which are incapable of resulting in solid reef building and that Roth relies on for his figures) indicate that the fastest growth-rate for such organisms is around 0.40 inches per year. It is also the case that coral is nowhere observed to grow continuously, but is frequently subject to variations between faster and slower rates and anything inbetween. Additionally, reef-building action is affected by storm-damage and daily wave-erosion which further inhibits the rate at which corals can accumulate features like Eniwetok Atoll.

Drilling on Eniwetok Atoll also revealed unconformities at depths of about 300 feet, 1,000 feet and 2,780 feet which contained pollen from shrubs and trees and which demonstrate that there were at least three periods when the surface of the reef was above sea-level and so no coral reef-building could have taken place.

In brief, the assertion that Eniwetok Atoll could have formed in less than 4,500 years is entirely absurd and wholly unsupported by any evidence relevant to the Atoll itself.

[quote:26zsjaiq]Again with LK:
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.

Here we have it again, A theory that you are trying to pass off as proof. and as for"groonies" = followers, want-abes..[/quote:26zsjaiq]
I am offering evidence from which you can draw conclusions or, alternatively, criticize. Are you suggesting that such small elephants from the fossil record are imaginary? If not, why do you not find their existence to be evidence that small animals can evolve into larger animals (or the contrary)? Hand-waving denial does not constitute a critique of presented evidence.

By the way, Richard Dawkins is only one of many tens of thousands of professional biologists around the world. I would be surprised if you can find more than a handful of these who seriously doubt the tenets of evolutionary theory.

 

[Crying Rock]

LK wrote:

The theory of evolution as it stands today is based on a series of rigorous procedures that comprise the scientific method; it is about as well-proven as it is possible for a scientific theory to be.

Nonsense.

Macro-evolution is not observable, repeatable, testable, etc...

http://www.whatyououghttoknow.com/show/ ... nt-design/

 

[freeway]

Show me the fossils. Just show me the fossils of a wolf size mammal who’s tail and legs and all the other thing that make it a wolf “or whatever creature it was. Just show me the slow process of mammal loosing it legs and then how the tail became wider and longer just show me and I will become a believer.. I’ll even let you throw in a few millions years. I need the fossil not just where it is a wolf then presto it’s a horse size mammal with still four legs and we jump a couple million yrs and now it a dino size mammal. Then like a star trek movie we jump another million yrs and we have a whale. After all it is your theory of evolution that you hold to, not mine..

 

[freeway]

I believe God created the whale just as it is. No evolution would be needed for God. After all He created the universe and all thats in it. He created man and woman upright walking, not from prim soup on a dead lifeless rock floating through space.. He created all birds of the air beast of the field just as they are.. no need for macro evolution.
And because we like links here at this forum.. here's my link on said above topic..

http://www.bible.com/
http://www.bible.com/

linked twice in case you don't believe the first..

 

[lordkalvan]

Show me the fossils. Just show me the fossils of a wolf size mammal who’s tail and legs and all the other thing that make it a wolf “or whatever creature it was

You should start begin by considering the history of the Artodactylia (http://www.ultimateungulate.com/Cetartiodactyla.html) wherein lie the origins of the common ancestor of hippopotamuses and whales.

Just show me the slow process of mammal loosing it legs and then how the tail became wider and longer just show me and I will become a believer.

If you want to see a complete fossil representing each and every transitional stage from a land-dwelling mammal to an entirely marine-dwelling mammal, you are almost certainly awrae that you are demanding the impossible. The evidence from fossil remains such as Pakicetus, Ambulocetus natans, Rodhocetus, Basilosaurus isis, Prozeuglodon, Eocetus and Dorudon intermedius, coupled with evidence from molecular phylogeny is indicative of the evolutionary pathways followed by the ancestors of modern whales.

I’ll even let you throw in a few millions years.

That would be tens of millions of years, which don't need your graciously allowing them to be 'throw[n] in' at all. I take it that you now accept that the AiG reference you provided to refute the understanding that Eniwetok Atoll is at least 130,000 years old does no such thing; there are multiple additional lines of independent, consilient evidence that extend this timeline for Earth's age into the millions and then billions of years.

I need the fossil not just where it is a wolf then presto it’s a horse size mammal with still four legs and we jump a couple million yrs and now it a dino size mammal. Then like a star trek movie we jump another million yrs and we have a whale. After all it is your theory of evolution that you hold to, not mine.

I cannot reason you out of a belief that you do not appear to have been reasoned into. What you 'need' is not my problem as a demand for a particular evidential requirement to be met is not in any sense a critique of the evidence that is available, but rather no more than a hand-waving away of that evidence. Because of the dynamic geology of Earth, the fossil record is fragmentary and incomplete; however, even the limited fossil evidence that is available - and more is being discovered all the time - is itself persuasive of the transitional steps that led from a land-dwelling to a marine-dwelling mammal. When that fossil evidence is taken in conjunction with the evidence from molecular genetics, the case becomes even more persuasive.

 

[lordkalvan]

I believe God created the whale just as it is.

Belief is not itself evidential. The fact that there are ancestral whale species that are no longer living is itself indicative that modern whales evolved from those extinct animals.

No evolution would be needed for God.

Unsupported assertion.

After all He created the universe and all thats in it.

Which does not preclude the idea that evolution is a tool of that creation.

He created man and woman upright walking, not from prim soup on a dead lifeless rock floating through space.. He created all birds of the air beast of the field just as they are.. no need for macro evolution.

The creation mythology of a pre-scientific culture is not evidential and is itself no more persuasive than the creation mythology of any other culture, such as the Egyptian legend that humanity sprang up from the mound where Atum's tears of joy fell on the return of his children Shu and Tefnut.

And because we like links here at this forum.. here's my link on said above topic..
...
linked twice in case you don't believe the first..

The links provided offer no insight at all into the evidential support for your assertions.

 

[freeway]

Lk I’ve read the link you provided about the ungulates and whales.. So if I may..
http://www.ultimateungulate.com/Cetartiodactyla.html
1st part= the grouping of the single toe to split toe herbivores that’s on the earth today, nothing new here..
2nd part= says that the whale and dolphin belong in this group.. ….. well the whale and dolphin are air breathing mammals, second and more important to me is that God created these animals and of course I believe common creator common molecular evidence. Don’t see a problem so far..
3rd part= the “EVOLUTION†now this is where we differ in the first paragraph I see nothing wrong other than the 54 million years. But that’s a whole different thread. Then it goes into the area of faith that they 'believe' this is how it came about, and this is what we 'think'.. “faith†answers. Then to add on the millions of years upon million of years to fit the theory, is this no less than me saying God created all the mammals and that simply some have gone extinct. After all does this not happen even in our time? One such mammal the California grizzle now gone, extinct.
Last paragraph, the description of limbs, the way I see it is different mammals have different limbs, big, bigger, biggest. Again I see no problem with this other than they say that nature killed off one after another until what? Nature got it right. Then Nature is a intelligent force picking and choosing who lives and who does not.
Then lastly. the picture of the tree of evolution life, this is only a made up drawing nowhere is it proven as fact but it looks good for someone who does not know that evolution is a faith based theory, so the more pictures you and come up with the better..

 

[lordkalvan]

Lk I’ve read the link you provided about the ungulates and whales.. So if I may..

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

1st part= the grouping of the single toe to split toe herbivores that’s on the earth today, nothing new here..

I'm not sure what you mean or what your point is. The animals in question are classified as they are because of the evolutionary relationships between them. The classification is supported by various strands of evidence, including shared traits, morphology, genetics and fossil remains.

2nd part= says that the whale and dolphin belong in this group.. ….. well the whale and dolphin are air breathing mammals, second and more important to me is that God created these animals and of course I believe common creator common molecular evidence. Don’t see a problem so far..

Evolutionary theory posits a reason why relationships exist amongst these animals and provides a mechanism whereby those relationships can be examined and the animals can be grouped in a nested hierarchy based on shared traits; this hierarchy can be extended to extinct animals and results in only one, objective hierarchical chart. When molecular genetic analysis is used to classify animals, these hierarchical relationships based on shared traits are supported. If you argue rather that God did it in a single creative act, in the first place you have no evidence to support such an act, in the second place there is no logical reason why such a creative act should so perfectly match a hierarchical structure based on shared traits - why should whales be grouped as related to land-dwelling mammals rather than marine-dwelling fish, for example? - and in the third place God must have made an awful lot of mistakes as up to 99% of his creation became extinct only very shortly after he had created it if your chronology of Earth's history is correct.

3rd part= the “EVOLUTION†now this is where we differ in the first paragraph I see nothing wrong other than the 54 million years. But that’s a whole different thread.

It impacts directly on arguments concerning the evolutionary history of particular animals, therefore it is quite relevant to this thread. If only 6,000 years are available, then your arguments against evolutionary theory as widely understood are reinforced; if Earth is over 4 billion years old then your arguments about creation in situ are rendered less plausible.

Then it goes into the area of faith that they 'believe' this is how it came about, and this is what we 'think'.. “faith†answers.

Believe is used in a different sense from what you are suggesting: I can believe that the Sun will rise in the East tomorrow based on the evidence of experience and cosmology; this is not the same evidential basis as belief founded on theological doctrine. The beliefs in this case are based on the best inferences and conclusions that can be drawn from the available evidence and can be supported objectively and independently.

Then to add on the millions of years upon million of years to fit the theory...

The 'millions of years' are not simply 'add[ed] on' as a justification of the theory: evidence from fields of research that are wholly independent of and have nothing to do with evolutionary biology indicate that the age of Earth can be measured in timescales that far exceed those proposed by YE creationism.

...is this no less than me saying God created all the mammals and that simply some have gone extinct. After all does this not happen even in our time? One such mammal the California grizzle now gone, extinct.

By your arguments, virtually all living organisms must have 'simply...gone extinct' almost immediately they were created. Our scientific understanding of Earth's history provides reasons for extinctions; your understanding says it 'just happens'.

Last paragraph, the description of limbs, the way I see it is different mammals have different limbs, big, bigger, biggest.

You need to ask yourself why limbs are different, what similarities exist amongst different limbs, what those similarities imply and why 'instant and complete creation' provides a more robust and evidentially-supported explanatory paradigm than does evolutionary theory.

Again I see no problem with this other than they say that nature killed off one after another until what?

By your argument, 'Nature' does an awful lot of 'kill[ing] off' in a very short time for no very good reason that I can see.

Nature got it right.

There is no moral judgement in Nature. The dinosurs were as 'right' in their time as you and I are in ours.

Then Nature is a intelligent force picking and choosing who lives and who does not.

There is no intelligence in Nature, unless you regard the simple algorithm of modify, repeat if successful, otherwise discard as evidence of a hidden intelligence at work.

Then lastly. the picture of the tree of evolution life, this is only a made up drawing nowhere is it proven as fact but it looks good for someone who does not know that evolution is a faith based theory, so the more pictures you and come up with the better..

Nested hierarchies are based on evidentially-based relationships amongst the organisms in question. If you believe that any 'made up drawing' is as good as any other and can be equally justified, please feel free to provide your own such drawing together with the supporting arguments that justify the relationships you have built into that drawing. I rather doubt that you can do this without finding yourself presented with numerous irreconcilable contradictions.

 

[Crying Rock]

Nested hierarchies are based on evidentially-based relationships amongst the organisms in question.

Please, Lord (arrogant) Calvin, explain to us common layman what a nested hierarchy is. :gah

 

[lordkalvan]

Please, Lord (arrogant) Calvin, explain to us common layman what a nested hierarchy is. :gah

Ad hom noted. The Wiki article on hierarchies has a reasonable description of a nested hierarchy; you can find it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy#Nested_hierarchy

In brief, a nested hierarchy is an ordering of subject items such that each subject item belongs in a higher-ordered set and each such set belongs in a still higher-ordered set. When a nested hierarchy of living organisms is made based on shared traits the resulting chart reflects the evolutionary relationships amongst those organisms. You may find this simplified chart helpful in illustrating the concept:

Source: http://scientia.groups.vox.com/library/post/6a00fad6aef25f00050123ddcb7b20860c.html

By the way, are you ready yet to share with us your thoughts on the origins of whales and what evidence supports those thoughts?

 

[Crying Rock]

By the way, are you ready yet to share with us your thoughts on the origins of whales and what evidence supports those thoughts?

I'm not the one defending such a silly notion. The onus is on you.

So far you have failed miserably.

BTW, the "Lord" in your title comes off as quite arrogant.

 

[lordkalvan]

By the way, are you ready yet to share with us your thoughts on the origins of whales and what evidence supports those thoughts?

I'm not the one defending such a silly notion. The onus is on you.

If it is a silly notion, you have yet to explain why it is silly, why the evidence and arguments that you have been presented with have been misconstrued, and why the evidence that has been presented is better explained by whatever understanding you have concerning the origin of whales. Your continued evasiveness on this matter speaks for itself.

So far you have failed miserably.

And yet you are incapable of showing how I 'have failed miserably' beyond repeated cries of 'Taint so!' Give me a break.

BTW, the "Lord" in your title comes off as quite arrogant.

I see you're not an H Beam Piper fan.

 

[Crying Rock]

"...If it is a silly notion, you have yet to explain why it is silly, why the evidence and arguments that you have been presented with have been misconstrued, and why the evidence that has been presented is better explained by whatever understanding you have concerning the origin of whales. Your continued evasiveness on this matter speaks for itself..."

I'm not the one arguing that macroevolution is a solid scientific theory. The onus is on you to show that it is. I have nothing to evade.

 

[freeway]

Naturalists shroud such whimsical statements with the mantle of science. Indeed, one encounters many bizarre explanations for the origin of the species when such strange fiction grips biology. A popular contemporary "just so" story tells how land mammals ventured back into the ancient seas and became whales. The idea was first presented by Darwin in the first edition of his book, Origin of Species. The naturalist stated: "I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale." Interestingly, Darwin retracted this example in all later editions of his book.

This has not stopped later evolutionists. For example, the ancient ancestors of whales, writes the late Sir Gavin de Beer, ". . . had dentitions enabling them to feed on large animals, but some took to preying on fish and rapidly evolved teeth like sharks. . . . Next, some whales preyed on small cuttlefish and evolved a reduced dentition. Finally the whalebone whales, having taken to feeding on enormous numbers of small shrimps, also evolved rapidly.2

This imaginary tale explains nothing. No one was there to observe, measure, or take notes regarding the above process. Thus, it is idle speculation and should not be considered science.
http://www.icr.org/article/scientific-r ... evolution/

As I have been saying all along with a few others here. There is no real hard evidence for this to happen. As evolution claims all life started off in water, then for reasons they can not explain this early life form by shear luck or bad luck somehow crawed up and out of the oceans, lakes, mudhole what ever it was. Now a sad turn of luck for them nature now wants them back in the water. Thus we have mammals coming from water only to return to the water. Is it only me but does this just sound crazy. Along with on proof that can be witnessed.

 

[freeway]

The Problem of Molecular Biology
At the 1997 keynote lecture of Darwin Day at the University of Tennessee, Douglas Futuyma stated that ". . . the molecular revolution in biology has furnished us with mountains of information that not only attests to the history of evolution, but also sheds even more light on evolutionary processes." A far different evaluation was given the same year by three evolutionary biologists who stated: ". . . even with the appropriate genes, the molecular tree of life is difficult to interpret."12 Few systematists (biologists who study taxonomy and are involved in reconstructing phylogenetic, or evolutionary, history) would say that morphological patterns of form line up with the molecular evidence.

Regarding the supposed relationship between terrestrial and aquatic mammals, one publication reported: "These results reveal a large discordance between morphological and molecular measures of similarity. Rats and mice are classified in the same family, while cows and whales are classified in different orders. Perhaps molecular sequences are not necessarily giving us an accurate picture of ancestry."13

Zoologist John Gatesy reports competing interpretations of whale origins using phylogenetic analyses of a blood-clotting protein gene from cetaceans, artiodactyls (pigs, hippopotamuses, ruminants, and camels), perissodactyls (rhinos and horses), and carnivores. He says that in combination with published DNA sequences, the data of this clotting protein " . . . unambiguously support a hippo/whale clade and are inconsistent with the paleontological perspective."14

Ever since Darwin we have seen that neither natural selection nor random mutations could possibly serve as remotely sufficient mechanisms of change that would turn terrestrial tetrapods into whales. Molecular biology, physiology, and morphology present impenetrable roadblocks for tracing a common ancestry from tetrapods to archaeocetes to modern whales.

References

1.Margulis and Sagan, What is Life? (New York: Simon & Schuster 1995), p. 53.
2.Atlas of Evolution (1964).
3.F. Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (Ticknor & Fields, New Haven & New York, 1982), p. 90.
4.M. Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Adler & Adler, 1985), p. 174.
5.Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia (1996).
6.J. Thewissen, et al., "Evolution of Cetacean Osmoregulation," Nature, 381:379-380 (1996).
7.Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia (1996).
8.J. Heyning and J. Mead, "Thermoregulation in the Mouths of Feeding Gray Whales," Science, 278:1138-39 (1997).
9.Noble, et al., Parasitology, 6th ed. (Lea & Febiger, 1989), p. 516.
10.S. J. Gould, "Hooking Leviathan by Its Past," Natural History (May 1994), pp.8-15.
11.B. J. Stahl, Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution (Dover Publications, Inc., 1985), p. 489.
12.Erwin, Valentine and Jablonski, American Scientist, 85:127 (1997).
13."The Marsupial Mitochondrial Genome and the Evolution of Placental Mammals," Genetics, 137:243-256 (1994).
14.J. Gatesy, "More DNA Support for a Cetacea/Hippopotamidae Clade . . ." Molecular Biological Evolution 14(5):537-543 (1997).
* Biologist Frank Sherwin is a creation lecturer at ICR

Looks like to me a whale has always been just that a whale. Just goes to show what you what to put your faith in, you can find evidence to support your claim. As I said before the evolution agenda at heart is to disprove the existences of God. I think this man says it better than I can.. to quote him…

"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution."
(Dr. George Wald, evolutionist, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the University at Harvard, Nobel Prize winner in Biology.)

 

[Barbarian]

In fact, it has been shown for a long time that whales are ungulates. The issue was which clade of ungulates. Molecular biology indicates that whales and hippos are the survivors of the transitional ungulate/whales found in the fossil record.

If you think the transition from a normal ungulate to a whale is impossible, tell us which stage you think couldn't evolve, and I'll see if I can find the connections for you.

Fair enough?

 

[freeway]

In fact, it has been shown for a long time that whales are ungulates. The issue was which clade of ungulates. Molecular biology indicates that whales and hippos are the survivors of the transitional ungulate/whales found in the fossil record.

If you think the transition from a normal ungulate to a whale is impossible, tell us which stage you think couldn't evolve, and I'll see if I can find the connections for you.

Fair enough?

Barbarian, thanks for the answer/question. Ok. I'm going to take a stabe at your question on which part is missing from the evolution chain of the whale. The part which I most certainly believe the evolution commuity wants to get rid of is, Now this might be a small thing to you and other evolutionist. I have faith in this is Exactly the reason a whale has always been a whale. Note photo, a picture is worth a thousand words, in this case millions..

 

[lordkalvan]

"...If it is a silly notion, you have yet to explain why it is silly, why the evidence and arguments that you have been presented with have been misconstrued, and why the evidence that has been presented is better explained by whatever understanding you have concerning the origin of whales. Your continued evasiveness on this matter speaks for itself..."

I'm not the one arguing that macroevolution is a solid scientific theory. The onus is on you to show that it is. I have nothing to evade.

My bolding. And so you continue to avoid addressing any of the evidence and argument you have been shown. This is evasiveness, no matter how much you shout that it isn't.