[_ Old Earth _] Earliest known manatee fossil found

[Barbarian]

And it has legs, instead of flippers:

The earliest known fully quadrupedal sirenian
D. P. Domning
Modern seacows (manatees and dugongs; Mammalia, Sirenia) are completely aquatic, with flipperlike forelimbs and no hindlimbs1, 2. Here I describe Eocene fossils from Jamaica that represent nearly the entire skeleton of a new genus and species of sirenian—the most primitive for which extensive postcranial remains are known. This animal was fully capable of locomotion on land, with four well-developed legs, a multivertebral sacrum, and a strong sacroiliac articulation that could support the weight of the body out of water as in land mammals. Aquatic adaptations show, however, that it probably spent most of its time in the water. Its intermediate form thus illustrates the evolutionary transition between terrestrial and aquatic life. Similar to contemporary primitive cetaceans3, it probably swam by spinal extension with simultaneous pelvic paddling, unlike later sirenians and cetaceans, which lost the hindlimbs and enlarged the tail to serve as the main propulsive organ. Together with fossils of later sirenians elsewhere in the world1, 4, 5, 6, 7, these new specimens document one of the most marked examples of morphological evolution in the vertebrate fossil record.
Nature 413, 625-627 (11 October 2001)

Which also explains why manatees, like whales, swim with a vertical movement of the spine, unlike fish, which swim by horizontal movements.

 

[Barbarian]

There's an equivalent seal as well:

Puijila darwini, a seal, but with legs.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7241/full/nature07985.html

 

[Mike S]

It's amazing how much we can learn from not much more than fossilized bones.

 

[Barbarian]

Bones are actually really good stress meters. Osteoblasts are attracted to electrical energy, and calcium phosphate produces electrical energy when stressed. So bone is built up where the most stress is placed on it. Given that, we then can infer a lot of things about the nature of the organism and its behavior.

 

[AirDancer]

The Manatee is also known as a Sea Cow .....

 

[AirDancer]

Rather looks like they're walking..........

 

[Barbarian]

They have extraordinarily dense bones, that keeps them from bobbing up to the surface. Oddly, they go into the ocean, but must have a source of fresh water for drinking. But they can go up to several weeks without drinking water; they get a lot of water from the plants they eat.

 

[brother Paul]

Its not a manatee...its not a seal....

 

[brother Paul]

We mustn't lose sight of the fact that Taxonomic classifications are a man-made system of compartmentalization defining groups on the basis of shared characteristics, and then this outside intelligent force (man) names those groups. The names given, like the taxa to which they are assigned, are not actually real things, but first made up according to opinion, and then the names are assigned. Organisms with whatever anatomical similarities are grouped together (dissimilarities can be ignored where they would question the hypothesis), and then the groups are given rank according sometimes by dating and others by dissimilarities, so they can be collected to form super groups of alleged higher and higher rank, thus creating the illusion of legitimate hierarchy. From this these outside intelligent forces then form opinions that fit their preconceived hypotheses.

 

[AirDancer]

From this these outside intelligent forces then form opinions that fit their preconceived hypotheses.

This is true in just about every aspect in Life. Yet, it is a means to create order out of chaos. Human beings deal better when chaos has been eliminated or at least smoothed out somewhat.

 

[Barbarian]

Its not a manatee...its not a seal....

But they are. The manatee is typical of manatees, the unique ribs and skull, etc. Only with legs.

The seal has the dentition, skull, and so on of a seal, but with legs.

 

[Barbarian]

We mustn't lose sight of the fact that Taxonomic classifications are a man-made system of compartmentalization defining groups on the basis of shared characteristics, and then this outside intelligent force (man) names those groups.

Sort of the way God told Adam to do. But as you know, there are very obvious ways in which mammals are classified as verious things, including the sirenians and pinnipeds.

The names given, like the taxa to which they are assigned, are not actually real things, but first made up according to opinion, and then the names are assigned.

Yes. This is one of the most difficult problems for creationism. If organisms were created separately, then there would be nice, neat categories in which to put every organism. But, as Darwin predicted, there will always be the transitional forms, like manatees and seals with legs. This is a consequence of evolution, and powerful evidence for it.

Organisms with whatever anatomical similarities are grouped together (dissimilarities can be ignored where they would question the hypothesis),

In fact, that's a misunderstanding. For example, bats, pterosaurs, and birds all use forelimbs for wings, and this similarity seems to have confused some Israelites, who thought bats were birds. On the other hand, the difference between analogous and homologous structures, shows us that descent is not merely by "anatomical simliarities." And we know this is accurate, since DNA analysis has confirmed the role of homology in descent.

and then the groups are given rank according sometimes by dating and others by dissimilarities, so they can be collected to form super groups of alleged higher and higher rank, thus creating the illusion of legitimate hierarchy.

In fact, the hierarchy of taxa was discovered long before people realized it was because of common descent. And of course, the predicted relationships were later confirmed by DNA and by the discovery of predicted transitional forms. Even more impressive than finding predicted transitionals, it is a fact that we never find a transitional where there shouldn't be one. No feathered mammals, no insects with bones, etc. This is an insoluble problem for creationism, but is a prediction of evolution.

 

[brother Paul]

The point was that the hierarchy of taxa was NOT "discovered", it was devised. And I highly doubt that no feathered mammals or insects with bones poses any problem for creationists (of whom you are one variety of). Finally we are all related by DNA....all living creatures have DNA...it is the blueprint God made that distinguishes living things from dead matter (only existing in the context of living systems and not outside of them).

 

[Barbarian]

The point was that the hierarchy of taxa was NOT "discovered", it was devised.

No, it was discovered by Linnaeus, who did not know about evolution at all. He assumed it was "the great ladder of being", some sort of schema by which God made living things. Only later, when he tried and failed to do the same sort of thing with minerals, did he realize there was something unusual about living things in this regard.

Later, DNA evidence confirmed the hierarchy, as did numerous transitional forms in the fossil record.

And I highly doubt that no feathered mammals or insects with bones poses any problem for creationists

It's completely inexplicable for them. They talk about a "common designer", but cannot explain why the "designer" couldn't use those things for other kinds of living things. Evolutionary theory makes it clear why things are so.

Finally we are all related by DNA....all living creatures have DNA...

As you know, we still use it today to find the descent of living things. Even the few variations in the code sort out according to common ancestry. And this too, is an inexplicable mystery to creationists.

 

[brother Paul]

The point was that the hierarchy of taxa was NOT "discovered", it was devised.

No, it was discovered by Linnaeus, who did not know about evolution at all. He assumed it was "the great ladder of being", some sort of schema by which God made living things. Only later, when he tried and failed to do the same sort of thing with minerals, did he realize there was something unusual about living things in this regard.

Semantics….he made the first attempt at taxonomic classification…an intelligence did this based on apparent similarities (one of the ways humans have always “classified” people and things)

And I highly doubt that no feathered mammals or insects with bones poses any problem for creationists (they all can see there is no such thing....)

It's completely inexplicable for them. They talk about a "common designer", but cannot explain why the "designer" couldn't use those things for other kinds of living things. Evolutionary theory makes it clear why things are so.

In fact they do NOT try to explain why God does not use these things....Also these things would be a problem for Darwinian advocates as well….as a Designer He COULD HAVE used anything He wanted and did…He in fact used exactly what He knew would work for each of them. Just because Pterodactyls and Bats both have wings does not equal one eventually becoming the other (such assumption based thinking is simply hypothesis based opinion)


Finally we are all related by DNA....all living creatures have DNA...

As you know, we still use it today to find the descent of living things. Even the few variations in the code sort out according to common ancestry. And this too, is an inexplicable mystery to creationists.

No! Not a mystery at all. You interpret it as evidence for descent, there is a difference! There is DNA common to all living things because we live, there is DNA common to all fruit as opposed to all cats, and DNA common to all creatures with similar functions or anatomy….and so on. It’s all how you look at it. "Creationists" like yourself certainly have your explanations, and other creationists and non-creationists have theirs…none of it makes it the truth. Plausibility? Probability? Maybe… but truth? No! You simply agree with the interpretation of one group (a group which interprets to confirm the preconceived hypothesis)… one should always try to view things from outside the box…

What one is taught can be what one is convinced of, but it does not allow for an objectivity necessary to derive truth…it hinders it. That applies to all of us....

 

[Barbarian]

The point was that the hierarchy of taxa was NOT "discovered", it was devised.

Barbarian explains how it was discovered:
No, it was discovered by Linnaeus, who did not know about evolution at all. He assumed it was "the great ladder of being", some sort of schema by which God made living things. Only later, when he tried and failed to do the same sort of thing with minerals, did he realize there was something unusual about living things in this regard.

Semantics….

Nope. Linnaeus wasn't expecting this at all. Much later, when genetics made it clear that the hierarchy wasn't just a neat classification system, but physical reality, the reason for his discovery was made clear.

And I highly doubt that no feathered mammals or insects with bones poses any problem for creationists

(they all can see there is no such thing....)

Barbarian observes:
It's completely inexplicable for them. They talk about a "common designer", but cannot explain why the "designer" couldn't use those things for other kinds of living things. Evolutionary theory makes it clear why things are so.

In fact they do NOT try to explain why God does not use these things.

Because they have no way of doing it. Creationism denies what we see. Like so many other things in evidence, they just say "God must have done it that way." Science can explain why it is as it is.

...Also these things would be a problem for Darwinian advocates as well….

Nope. In fact Darwin's theory explains the discovery, and predicts transitionals were none were known to exist. And later they were found. The modern synthesis with genetics predicted genetic data would confirm the discovery, and did.

as a Designer He COULD HAVE used anything He wanted and did…

"God must have done it", in other words. And he did. The point is, evolutionary theory shows how He did it.

He in fact used exactly what He knew would work for each of them. Just because Pterodactyls and Bats both have wings does not equal one eventually becoming the other

Evolutionary theory shows why. But creationists are unable to understand the difference between homology and analogy, and so it's a mystery to them.

Finally we are all related by DNA....all living creatures have DNA...

Barbarian observes:
As you know, we still use it today to find the descent of living things. Even the few variations in the code sort out according to common ancestry. And this too, is an inexplicable mystery to creationists.

No! Not a mystery at all.

An impenetrable mystery for creationists. Why should whales have genes closely allied to hoofed mammals, and seals have genes closely allied to dogs and bears? Creationists can only shrug and say "God must have done it." Science can show how He did it.

You interpret it as evidence for descent, there is a difference!

Sorry, the postmodernist argument that reality is whatever we make of it, and that we can't use evidence to learn the truth, has no persuasion for me. There is an objective reality, and evidence can show us what it is.

There is DNA common to all living things because we live, there is DNA common to all fruit as opposed to all cats,

What creationists can't figure out is why fruit and cats are genetically more similar than either is to prokaryotes. But evolutionary theory can show why.

and DNA common to all creatures with similar functions or anatomy….

But that isn't true. Bats and pterosaurs, for example, have similar functions and anatomy, but bats are genetically more closely related to other mammals, and pterosaurs are much more closely related to other reptiles. Remember what I said about the difference between homlology and analogy?

It’s all how you look at it.

Sorry, there is an objective reality, and it's not obligated to follow anyone's beliefs.

"Creationists" like yourself

Because "creationist" has become the term for those who reject science, I'll stay with "Christian."

You simply agree with the interpretation of one group (a group which interprets to confirm the preconceived hypothesis)

The preconceived hypothesis was special creation. Both Darwin and Wallace started from there. But they discovered the evidence did not support such a belief. Again, not all beliefs are equal; those with evidence win out. Opinion is weaker than evidence.

 

[brother Paul]

And I highly doubt that no feathered mammals or insects with bones poses any problem for creationists

(they all can see there is no such thing....)

Barbarian observes:
It's completely inexplicable for them. They talk about a "common designer", but cannot explain why the "designer" couldn't use those things for other kinds of living things. Evolutionary theory makes it clear why things are so.

Nice attempt at deflection but meaningless gibberish. “These things” (feathered mammals and insects with bones are just as inexplicable for Darwinians (that was my point)….

Why? Because they do not exist….and I did explain. He used and did what He intended for each. Mammals are not meant to have feathers and insects were not intended to have bones.

Because they have no way of doing it. (explaining why God DOES NOT do these things)

Neither can Darwinians explain why God does not do these things.

...Also these things would be a problem for Darwinian advocates as well….

Nope...

Really? Can Darwinians really explain mammals with feathers or insects with bones? Really? Please have at it….

And please remember repeating one’s self (which was unrelated anyway) does not make your point correct.

(MY) point is, evolutionary theory shows how He did it.

Well it certainly is plausible he use some aspects of evolution (depending on one’s definition) but certainly nothing proves he made men out of monkeys or birds out of reptiles…or that living things rose out of dead matter.

But creationists are unable to understand the difference between homology and analogy, and so it's a mystery to them.

No they are not, and it is not a mystery that God would use similar form and function features in various living things. Homology is not proof of anything. I have a face and a fish has a face (they are better looking) do what….creatures He designed required similarities because He wanted them to have them many are equally as dissimilar. Again so what….

As you know, we still use it today to find the descent of living things. Even the few variations in the code sort out according to common ancestry. And this too, is an inexplicable mystery to creationists.

Nope! They understand what they are told these things mean perfectly well and there is no inexplicable mystery for them. They simply do not accept the notion nor do the scientifically minded interpret the phenomena of shared structures within the DNA or shared functions as necessitating common descent (that’s the spin that fits the idea).

Why should whales have genes closely allied to hoofed mammals, and seals have genes closely allied to dogs and bears?

Because for whales to be whales this was what they needed along with the rest of THEIR genes, and for bears to be bears these are what they needed along with THEIR other genes. Same with seals….

There is ABSOLUTELY not one iota of PROOF that aquatic creatures ever became bears which later became whales (LOL! That’s totally a spin according to the point of view)

"Creationists" like yourself

Because "creationist" has become the term for those who reject science, I'll stay with "Christian."

Well I certainly do not reject science I just separate data (what’s there) from conclusion (what is said it means)….I am a Christian (formerly a die-hard agnostic) who loves science and am proud to be a creationist….

 

[Barbarian]

And I highly doubt that no feathered mammals or insects with bones poses any problem for creationists

(they all can see there is no such thing....

Barbarian observes:
It's completely inexplicable for them. They talk about a "common designer", but cannot explain why the "designer" couldn't use those things for other kinds of living things. Evolutionary theory makes it clear why things are so.

“These things” (feathered mammals and insects with bones are just as inexplicable for Darwinians (that was my point)….

I don't see how you can avoid the fact that evolutionary theory explains them. Nor can you avoid the fact that they are a mystery for creationism. It's no surprise to scientists that feathers aren't found on mammals. It's a fact that they were first evolved on archosaurs, and since birds are evolved from archosaurs, it's no mystery to science why birds have feathers. And since mammals are not evolved from archsaurs, it's no mystery to science why mammals don't have feathers.

He used and did what He intended for each. Mammals are not meant to have feathers and insects were not intended to have bones.

A shrug and "God just did it that way." But scientists know how He did it that way.

Because they have no way of doing it. (explaining why God DOES NOT do these things)

Neither can Darwinians explain why God does not do these things.

I just showed you how scientists know why mammals don't have feathers.

Also these things would be a problem for Darwinian advocates as well….

Barbarian chuckles:
Nope...

Really?

Yep. In fact Darwin's theory explains the discovery, and predicts transitionals where none were known to exist. And later they were found. The modern synthesis with genetics predicted genetic data would confirm the discovery, and did.

No feathered mammals, no insects with bones, etc. This is an insoluble problem for creationism, but is a prediction of evolution.

Can Darwinians really explain mammals with feathers or insects with bones?

As I showed you, scientists can explain why mammals don't have feathers and insects don't have bones. This is an impenetrable mystery for creationists, who can only shrug and say that God must have done it that way.

Really? Please have at it….

I just did. You see, feathers evolved in a group of reptiles, and since birds evolved from those reptiles, it's no surprise that they have feathers. Likewise, mammals did not evolve from that group, so there's no surprise that they don't have feathers. It turns out that archosaur genes for scute scales are merely a variation on the genes for feathers.

Barbarian observes:
point is, evolutionary theory shows how He did it.

Well it certainly is plausible he use some aspects of evolution (depending on one’s definition) but certainly nothing proves he made men out of monkeys

That's a creationist story, that has no basis in fact. Humans evolved from apes, not monkeys.

or birds out of reptiles…

The evidence is overwhelming. In the 1800s, on basic anatomical data, Huxley predicted the evolution of birds would be from dinosaurs. A bit later, the first transitional was found, confirming his prediction. Later, we learned that dinosaurs had feathers, the avian respiratory system, endothermy, scutes, and many other features of modern birds. When a T-rex bone was found to have retained a bit of heme (fraction of the hemoglobin molecule) tests showed it to be more like that of birds than of other reptiles. Which is exactly what Huxley's prediction would require.

So not much point in denying it any longer. Alan Feduccia, an ornithologist, has argued that birds and dinosaurs have a common thecodont ancestor, based on the differences in the digits of the hands of each of them. However, evo-devo has shown that birds do have the same digits as dinosaurs after all.
http://www.livescience.com/12808-dinosaur-hands-fingers-birds-digits-evolution.html

or that living things rose out of dead matter.

Sorry, that's not part of evolutionary theory. Darwin, for example, just supposed that God created the first organisms.

Barbarian observes:
But creationists are unable to understand the difference between homology and analogy, and so it's a mystery to them.

No they are not,

You, for example, conflated the two.

and it is not a mystery that God would use similar form and function features in various living things.

That is analogy, not homology. See what I mean?

Homology is not proof of anything.

It is powerful evidence for evolution. I'll show you in a moment...

I have a face and a fish has a face

Indeed. You have the same bones, but used for different purposes. The hyomandibular bone in fish is to strengthen the skull between the operculum (gill cover) and the braincase. The same bone, determined by the same genes, is the stapes of tetrapods. Homology. Same structure, different function.

On the other hand, sound in fish is handled by the lateral line system. Within that system are hairs remarkably like those of the cochlea of tetrapods, but derived from different tissues entirely.

This is analogy. Same function, similar structure.

Barbarian, regarding DNA:
As you know, we still use it today to find the descent of living things. Even the few variations in the code sort out according to common ancestry. And this too, is an inexplicable mystery to creationists.

Nope!

Sorry, it is exactly an inexplicable mystery. All we get is a shrug and "God did it."

They simply do not accept the notion nor do the scientifically minded interpret the phenomena of shared structures within the DNA or shared functions as necessitating common descent (that’s the spin that fits the idea).

You've been misled on that. In fact, we still check descent in humans that way. And we can check the validity of such tests by doing them on organisms of known descent. No point in denying it.

Barbarian regarding another mystery to creationists:
Why should whales have genes closely allied to hoofed mammals, and seals have genes closely allied to dogs and bears?

Because for whales to be whales this was what they needed along with the rest of THEIR genes, and for bears to be bears these are what they needed along with THEIR other genes. Same with seals….

Another shrug and "God did it." But the discovery of a host of transitionals shows that whales are descended from hoofed mammals, and genetic analysis has since confirmed the fact.

There is ABSOLUTELY not one iota of PROOF that aquatic creatures ever became bears

You've gotten it mixed up. The ancestors of bears and dogs also gave rise to pinnepeds. Bears themselves only recently became marine creatures. (polar bears) And they are only partially adapted to a marine environment. And of course, no carnivore gave rise to whales. Genetic, anatomical, and fossil evidence shows the origin of whales from hoofed mammals.

Barbarian observes:
Because "creationist" has become the term for those who reject science, I'll stay with "Christian."

Well I certainly do not reject science

You've rejected genetics, biochemistry, and a host of other sciences.

 

[brother Paul]

I just showed you how scientists know why mammals don't have feathers.

Sadly that was not the discussion, nor the point I had made but I understand.

No feathered mammals, no insects with bones, etc. This is an insoluble problem for creationism, but is a prediction of evolution.

Not an insoluble problem for creationists at all. They always knew there were no feathered mammals or insects with bones, thus no need for such a prediction.

That's a creationist story, that has no basis in fact. Humans evolved from apes, not monkeys.

Yeah, I know you are convinced its true but I enjoy seeing you repeat yourself in denial of God being man’s direct creator (having Himself formed them from the elements of the earth and breathing into them their very LIFE). But please continue with your cognitive dissonance it is quite entertaining.

But creationists are unable to understand the difference between homology and analogy, and so it's a mystery to them.

No they are not,

You, for example, conflated the two.

I know the difference…

and it is not a mystery that God would use similar form and function features in various living things.

That is analogy, not homology. See what I mean?

Clearly not a homological explanation but can be seen as analogous in the sense where analogy means a similarity between two things but that’s the extent of it. And not for the purpose of explanation just simple correspondence between the same thing in more than one type of creature having similarly intended purpose, but not always.

Same structure, different function.

Yes indeed, even the same genes can be for different functions in different creatures, thus producing different results, and just as in some cases totally different genes in different creatures can sometimes produce very similar results in totally different creatures. But you know this.

Why should whales have genes closely allied to hoofed mammals, and seals have genes closely allied to dogs and bears?

Because for whales to be whales this was what they needed along with the rest of THEIR genes, and for bears to be bears these are what they needed along with THEIR other genes. Same with seals….(this is the case whether or not we factor in God. It is just what it is.)

Another shrug and "God did it." But the discovery of a host of transitionals shows that whales are descended from hoofed mammals, and genetic analysis has since confirmed the fact.

Many say bears (which are not hoofed) but you all can discuss that among your group.

You've gotten it mixed up. The ancestors of bears and dogs also gave rise to pinnepeds. Bears themselves only recently became marine creatures. (polar bears) And they are only partially adapted to a marine environment. And of course, no carnivore gave rise to whales. Genetic, anatomical, and fossil evidence shows the origin of whales from hoofed mammals.

I know it’s the recent mantra, but that is hilarious, really….

Well I certainly do not reject science

You've rejected genetics, biochemistry, and a host of other sciences.

Not at all, but I do question many of the hypothesis based conclusionisms of many of today’s geneticISTS and biochemISTS…much of what they conclude is only because they first bought into the preconceived explanation (which without agreement they would have failed their courses), anyone who disagrees or sees things from a different perspective is characterized, judged, discredited, or rejected…there is no room for dissidence from the Darwinian model.

I can only consider it similar (and this IS an analogy) to if Aquinas were in Geneva trying to reason among the Calvinists…or if Polycarp or Ignatius found himself within a Puritan state here in the 1600s and tried to get them to see the same teachings from a different perspective…no original thought can be allowed…you will be assimilated…resistance is futile…sputter sputter repeat repeat…

May the Lord forgive them both (us all), but imagine if you ever questioned Calvin's semi-Augustinian distortion in his theocracy? Or Leo the 10th in middle ages Rome (whose original position was first purchased by filthy lucre)?

So no, not a manatee and not a seal....though there are some similarities as well as differences...

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
I just showed you how scientists know why mammals don't have feathers.

Sadly that was not the discussion, nor the point I had made

Yes, that was the discussion. I pointed out that it was a complete mystery to creationists why there are no mammals with feathers, but it's quite understandable to scientists. Not only is evolution supported by transitional forms, but there are no transitional forms where they shouldn't be.

No feathered mammals, no insects with bones, etc. This is an insoluble problem for creationism, but is a prediction of evolution.

Not an insoluble problem for creationists at all.

It is. And so far, all creationists do is shrug and say "God did it."

Barbarian on the creationist story that science says humans evolved from monkeys:
That's a creationist story, that has no basis in fact. Humans evolved from apes, not monkeys.

Yeah, I know you are convinced its true

It all comes down to evidence. Even honest creationists like Kurt Wise admit that there is powerful evidence to support it.

but I enjoy seeing you repeat yourself in denial of God being man’s direct creator

God directly created all things. Creationists just don't approve of the way He did it. Our bodies are formed naturally. He used nature to created you, for example. Your soul was given directly by Him, but your body was formed by natural processes.

Barbarian observes:
But creationists are unable to understand the difference between homology and analogy, and so it's a mystery to them.

No they are not,

Barbarian reminds:
You, for example, conflated the two.

Barbarian shows an example:

and it is not a mystery that God would use similar form and function features in various living things.

That is analogy, not homology. See what I mean?

Clearly not a homological explanation

Right. You've confused the two. You were talking about analogy, not homology. Here's another example:

I have a face and a fish has a face

Barbarian observes:
Indeed. You have the same bones, but used for different purposes. The hyomandibular bone in fish is to strengthen the skull between the operculum (gill cover) and the braincase. The same bone, determined by the same genes, is the stapes of tetrapods. Homology. Same structure, different function.

Barbarian asks:
Why should whales have genes closely allied to hoofed mammals, and seals have genes closely allied to dogs and bears?

Because for whales to be whales this was what they needed along with the rest of THEIR genes, and for bears to be bears these are what they needed along with THEIR other genes. Same with seals….

(this is the case whether or not we factor in God. It is just what it is.)

Barbarian observes:
Another shrug and "God did it." But the discovery of a host of transitionals shows that whales are descended from hoofed mammals, and genetic analysis has since confirmed the fact.

Many say bears (which are not hoofed)

Show us that, from the literature. Never saw anything like that. The evidence for ungulate ancestry is overwhelming. Would you like me to show you again?

Barbarian observes:
You've gotten it mixed up. The ancestors of bears and dogs also gave rise to pinnepeds. Bears themselves only recently became marine creatures. (polar bears) And they are only partially adapted to a marine environment. And of course, no carnivore gave rise to whales. Genetic, anatomical, and fossil evidence shows the origin of whales from hoofed mammals.

I know it’s the recent mantra, but that is hilarious, really….

Scoffing at the evidence won't help. Try to put a cogent argument together for your belief.

Well I certainly do not reject science

Barbarian observes:
You've rejected genetics, biochemistry, and a host of other sciences.

Not at all,

You have. For example, genetics says that DNA relationships show common descent. We use it routinely to find parentage, determine ancestry of organisms and so on. And it works. Biochemistry says that T-rex is a closer relative to a bird than it is to a snake. Geology says that there was never a universal flood. And so on.

I can only consider it similar (and this IS an analogy) to if Aquinas were in Geneva trying to reason among the Calvinists…or if Polycarp or Ignatius found himself within a Puritan state here in the 1600s and tried to get them to see the same teachings from a different perspective…no original thought can be allowed…you will be assimilated…resistance is futile…sputter sputter repeat repeat…

Sorry, I'm not a postmodernist. There is an objective reality, and we can learn about it from evidence. I doubt if many people here will be swayed by the idea that reality is whatever we make of it.

May the Lord forgive them both (us all), but imagine if you ever questioned Calvin's semi-Augustinian distortion in his theocracy? Or Leo the 10th in middle ages Rome (whose original position was first purchased by filthy lucre)?

Sorry, no bunny trails.