Freethought & Rationalism Archive

kinetekade · 03-26-2003, 04:32 PM

I need help picking apart another Creationist's argument. This one's pretty simple and to the point.

Quote:

The scientific method.

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

Let's apply this to macro evolution of whales.

1. Whales are water dwelling mammals.

2. My hypothesis says that whales have always been water dwelling mammals, and will display such vivid signs of water living capabilities that all the evidence will show they were designed to live in the water.

3.Whale anatomy shows there are vast differences in whales to any known land-dwelling animal. To totally convert a land-dwelling mammal into a whale you would also have to replace its sweat glands with thick layers of blubbery fat, change its eyes so that the light rays under sea water are still brought to focus on the retina, change its skin to produce a curious surface efficiently designed to streamline the flow of water, and also find some way to enable it to give birth to young which suckle under water without drowning, a rather essential 'adaptation.'
Fossil records show whales at all levels of strata(including above their supposed ancestors).

4. All current observational and emperical evidence supports this.

And here's his response to an article I posted. I've already replied, but feel free to comment

Quote:

A creature VASTLY different than it's predacesor.

"Basilosaurus, known of for over 100 years, has no such missing parts. This oddly serpentine creature had functional reproductive claspers which gave rise to the claim that they "devolved" from hind legs. But a famous evolutionist fossil expert writes of this entire group that it "could not possibly have been ancestral to any of the modern whales"."

"What about the alleged in-between fossils that have been found? Do these prove that the whale has slowly become the whale we see today? One of these was pictured in the exhibition-the Basilosaurus. This was shown as an animal with a long snaky body, with flippers and smallish flukes on the tail. Its nostrils were halfway along the snout, as if they were midway between being at the end (like Andrewsarchus) and the top (like the whales). It had very tiny hindlimbs, which are claimed to have evolved (devolved?) from hind legs like those of Andrewsarchus,and its backbone was flexible. What the display did not tell us was that although hundreds of skeletons of Basilosaurus have been found, and hundreds of whale skeletons, nothing which would qualify as intermediate between these two has been found.4

Also, Basilosaurus was fully aquatic-not a part-land, part-sea dweller. Nor did it tell us that the tiny hind appendages are believed to have been useful 'grasping organs' during mating-they were not useless evolutionary leftovers!5"

Wowww...I'm soooo convinced now. That explains everything. So two pieces of skull prove that two totally different animals are related. Fascinating...

So these articles keep regurgitating that typical whale evolution story involving the alleged transitional forms, Pakicetus, Ambulocetus and Basilosaurus. The outlandish claim that, "With these fossils, almost all the steps from land animal to leviathan have been found." is taking quit a leap of faith and logic!

Where is the evidence?

I don't see it.

I'm not even bothering with the rest of the article. And those links will say the same as the rest.

You should know that a lot of evolutionists that don't agree with this model of whale evolution.

Doubting Didymus · 03-26-2003, 04:55 PM

Tell him to go read a book. Theres a bunch of them around on exactly this topic.

Edit: Theres one in our E/C reading list at the top of this page, actually.

Doubting Didymus · 03-26-2003, 04:58 PM

Just thought I'd point this out:

Quote:

Where is the evidence?

I don't see it.

I'm not even bothering with the rest of the article. And those links will say the same as the rest.

There appears to be a reason that he's not seeing the evidence.

lpetrich · 03-26-2003, 05:09 PM

I'll confront some of those claims head-on. Here goes:

Whale anatomy shows there are vast differences in whales to any known land-dwelling animal.

Totally laughable. Overall anatomical similarities are very evident.

To totally convert a land-dwelling mammal into a whale you would also have to replace its sweat glands with thick layers of blubbery fat,

Has this guy ever heard of subcutaneous fat? This is a layer of fat at the lower levels of the skin, a common feature in land vertebrates. Whales simply grow a thick layer of it.

And as to sweat glands, all that whales have to do is stop growing them, just as they do not grow hair.

change its eyes so that the light rays under sea water are still brought to focus on the retina,

Is that guy aware that his eyes are variable-focus? And even if one cannot get a good focus, one will get blurred vision and not no vision at all, as glasses-wearers experience in the absence of those contraptions.

And blurred vision can be corrected by adjusting the shape of the eye and its parts.

change its skin to produce a curious surface efficiently designed to streamline the flow of water,

It's possible to swim without being super-streamlined; one simply swims less efficiently. Consider dog and human swimming -- neither we or our "best friends" are aquatically-adapted, yet we can swim.

and also find some way to enable it to give birth to young which suckle under water without drowning, a rather essential 'adaptation.'

Underwater birth is done by the expedient of giving birth tail-first, so that the baby can be sustained as long as possible through the umbilical cord, making it unnecessary to breathe during the birthing process.

Underwater suckling is done by the expedient of pushing the milk out, so that the baby whale does not drink seawater.

It would not be surprising if whales' ancestors had gone through a seal-like phase, where they give birth on dry land; that makes it easier to become adapted to being aquatic.

Fossil records show whales at all levels of strata(including above their supposed ancestors).

I think that this guy means "below". However, that statement is demonstrably false. Fossil whales are only seen in the Cenozoic, and the earlier ones have features typical of land animals, like hindlimbs, forward nostrils, and small heads.

tgamble · 03-26-2003, 06:16 PM

Quote:

2. My hypothesis says that whales have always been water dwelling mammals, and will display such vivid signs of water living capabilities that all the evidence will show they were designed to live in the water.

Like fish you mean? So they should have gills right? So they breath underwater? Do whales have gills?

Quote:

3.Whale anatomy shows there are vast differences in whales to any known land-dwelling animal.

Oh how true! Whales aren't mammals for example. They don't give live births...

Oh hang on, those responses are bullshit!

whales DO NOT have gills. They have lungs. And they are mammals.

How about that!:banghead:

kinetekade · 03-26-2003, 07:16 PM

I should have told you guys sooner... those Creato mods locked that thread a little while after I posted this, but not before throwing in a few more cheap shots, followed by yet another childish cartoon.

Again, thanks for your responses; they weren't in vain! I'll start up another thread tonight or tomorrow morning to take care of that unfinished business and, once again, put those fools back in their places

Cade

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-26-2003, 04:55 PM	#2
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	Tell him to go read a book. Theres a bunch of them around on exactly this topic. Edit: Theres one in our E/C reading list at the top of this page, actually.

03-26-2003, 05:09 PM	#4
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	I'll confront some of those claims head-on. Here goes: Whale anatomy shows there are vast differences in whales to any known land-dwelling animal. Totally laughable. Overall anatomical similarities are very evident. To totally convert a land-dwelling mammal into a whale you would also have to replace its sweat glands with thick layers of blubbery fat, Has this guy ever heard of subcutaneous fat? This is a layer of fat at the lower levels of the skin, a common feature in land vertebrates. Whales simply grow a thick layer of it. And as to sweat glands, all that whales have to do is stop growing them, just as they do not grow hair. change its eyes so that the light rays under sea water are still brought to focus on the retina, Is that guy aware that his eyes are variable-focus? And even if one cannot get a good focus, one will get blurred vision and not no vision at all, as glasses-wearers experience in the absence of those contraptions. And blurred vision can be corrected by adjusting the shape of the eye and its parts. change its skin to produce a curious surface efficiently designed to streamline the flow of water, It's possible to swim without being super-streamlined; one simply swims less efficiently. Consider dog and human swimming -- neither we or our "best friends" are aquatically-adapted, yet we can swim. and also find some way to enable it to give birth to young which suckle under water without drowning, a rather essential 'adaptation.' Underwater birth is done by the expedient of giving birth tail-first, so that the baby can be sustained as long as possible through the umbilical cord, making it unnecessary to breathe during the birthing process. Underwater suckling is done by the expedient of pushing the milk out, so that the baby whale does not drink seawater. It would not be surprising if whales' ancestors had gone through a seal-like phase, where they give birth on dry land; that makes it easier to become adapted to being aquatic. Fossil records show whales at all levels of strata(including above their supposed ancestors). I think that this guy means "below". However, that statement is demonstrably false. Fossil whales are only seen in the Cenozoic, and the earlier ones have features typical of land animals, like hindlimbs, forward nostrils, and small heads.

03-26-2003, 07:16 PM	#6
kinetekade Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: :noitacoL Posts: 56	I should have told you guys sooner... those Creato mods locked that thread a little while after I posted this, but not before throwing in a few more cheap shots, followed by yet another childish cartoon. Again, thanks for your responses; they weren't in vain! I'll start up another thread tonight or tomorrow morning to take care of that unfinished business and, once again, put those fools back in their places Cade

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.