Who Is Your Creator message forum

 

Who Is Your Creator message forum
This Forum is Locked
Author
Comment
View Entire Thread
Re: The Lore of Evolutionism

This whole "evolutionism" thing cracks me up. You weren't able to convince anyone that creationism is science, so now you're trying to convince people that evolution is religion. Clever, I must admit.

Re: Re: The Lore of Evolutionism

I have never tried to convince anyone that creationism is science. My discussions have been mostly limited to asking your side for proof that evolutionism is valid. Please provide same. Thank you.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

This whole "evolutionism" thing cracks me up. You weren't able to convince anyone that creationism is science, so now you're trying to convince people that evolution is religion. Clever, I must admit.

There is one point that we can agree on...

However, I completely disagree with your position that evolution is not science.

Your point is not proven.

You have a poorly written blurb on a promotional web page. There are times that people supporting evolution will not express themselves well. I gave you a couple of reasons why that particular example is not well done.

It does not prove your point. It only establishes that one man wrote a bad paragraph. I have a very specific issue with that paragraph.

Birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs.

I want to make this point clear. I don't accept your characterization or that author's. Dinosaurs did not 'turn into' birds. That sounds like some sort of magical process. One day we have dinosaurs and the next they all 'turn into' birds. That is simply a very bad way of expressing what actually did happen.

One specific branch of dinosaurs, the theropods, gave rise to birds. This occurred by a process of speciaton. This idea is different from your characterization and is supported by scientific evidence. The similarities in skeletal structure have been known since the time of Darwin. Huxley noted them himself. More recent fossil finds from China have shown many theropods were feathered. Archaeopteryx itself has many reptilian characteristics.

No contradiction if you follow the logic and the evidence.

WiYC said:
"*** NOTE ***
Arneson contradicts himself and actually points to a 'wolf-like' creature (Pakicetus) supposedly evolving into a whale (cetacean/dolphin).
Carl Zimmer used the description of ‘wolf-like’ for Pakicetus in his book."

Any mention of Pakicetus as "wolf-like" is an analogy, and was meant to help the reader understand something of what it might have looked like. I didn't find that term applied to Pakicetus in my copy of "At the Water's Edge". You might want to provide a page citation for that claim. In fact, on page 203, the diagram showing the whale family tree has the following statement.

"A provisional phylogeny of whales. While there are many species not shown, this tree includes the major branches of whale evolution. A few caveats: some reconstructions (such as Pakicetus) are based on very limited fossils. Also, because the mesonychid relationships are so unclear, future research may show that whales actually have a more recent common ancetry with a particular mesonychid species. Finally, this tree is based on morphology: molecular studies don't agree on some of the branchings."

Zimmmer published "At the Water's Edge" in 2001. The post-cranial skeleton was unknown until its discovery by Thewissen in that year. A consensus has developed around an artiodactyl ancestry for whales. Mesonychids were proposed earlier because of a similarity in teeth. Other morphological features (such as the ankles) and DNA and biochemical analysis point to artiodactyls and not mesonychids.

Pakicetus was not related to wolves which are carnivores. Mesonychids and artiodactyls come from a completely different branch of mammals neither Zimmer or the scientists are proposing a wolf to whale evolutionary model.

Pakicetus was terrestrial as expected in the first in the transition from land to sea.

WiYC said:
"1. Our lengthy debate can be found starting at (latest):
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/713509/5

WIYC summary of Pakicetus

"Unlike any other cetacean, the pakicetid outer ear was unspecialized and similar to that of land mammals... "
"It is most likely that the specializations of the pakicetid middle ear are analogous to those of some subterranean mammals and are related to the reception of substrate-borne vibrations or sound when the ear is in contact with the ground..."
"Taken together, the features of the skull indicate that pakicetids were terrestrial, and the locomotor skeleton displays running adaptations ..."
"Pakecetids were terrestrial mammals, no more amphilbious than a tapir."
From:
'Skeletons of terrestrial cetaceans and the relationship of whales to artiodactyles'
J.G.M. Thewissen, E.M. Williams, L.J. Roe, S.T. Hussain
Nature/Vol 413 / 20 September 2001 / www.nature.com"

The characteristics that are terrestrial start to change in the whales that followed. Note that Pakicetus is a whale by the nature of the sigmoid process on the ear.

"The pakicetid middle ear was highly specialize and included the pachy-osteoscleotic ossicles, an inbolucrum and a plate-like sigmoid process."
IBID p. 278

Also, it is clear that even though pakicetid hearing was terrestrial, their ear structures are intermediate between modern cetaceans and modern artiodactyls.

"Thewissen and Hussain examined a small ear bone or ossicle called the incus of Pakicetus. They say that in shape and proportions it is intermediate between the equivalent bone in modern cetaceans and that in modern artiodactyls. They also claim that its orientation relative to the malleus - the second of the chain of three ossicles in the middle-ear cavity - is at a similar halfway stage."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13718652.900-science-the-amphibious-past-of-whales-.html

Which of Thewissen and Hussain's summary would you go by? 1993 or 2001?

You New Scientist article citing Thewissen and Hussain's review of Pakicetus was written in 1993.

Why don't you contact Thewissen and Hussain and ask them why they changed their mind 8 years later and wrote, "Pakecetids were terrestrial mammals, no more amphilbious than a tapir."
'Skeletons of terrestrial cetaceans and the relationship of whales to artiodactyles'
J.G.M. Thewissen, E.M. Williams, L.J. Roe, S.T. Hussain
Nature/Vol 413 / 20 September 2001 / www.nature.com"

The most current that shows terrestrial whale and completes the sequence.

Post-cranial bones were found and it was a boon to understanding whale evolution. We had a terrestrial animal that fit nicely into the sequence by having ears that were cetacean, ankles that were artiodactyl, and teeth that were similar to the mesonychids. All of these characteristics established it as part of the series.

What is most important is that it establishes the long predicted walking whale - the animal that was to be the last obligate terrestrial in the sequence. Both Darwing and Flower predicted this and Thewissen and Hussain provided the key fossil evidence.

Thewissen and Hussain explained their 'change of mind'.

It was on the basis of hard evidence. At first, they only had the skull of Pakicetus. The discovery of post-cranial bones opened the door to a better understanding of this transitional series. Pakicetus anchored the start of the series on land. The fossil species that followed showed increasing adaptaton to land.

WiYC carefully trims quotes to avoid the obvious whale evolution conclusion from the evidence.

WiYC picks a sentence here and a sentence there but for gets the most important part:
"Together these pelvises form an excellent transitional series, in which ambulocetids and remintonocetids retain all elements of land mammals, and protocetids lose the fused sacrum (Rodhocetus) and the iliosacral joints (Georgiacetus) and have some short femurs (in known forms). Basilosaurids and dorundontids have greatly reduced hind limbs and reduced ilia, while still retaining the acetabulum and foramen of the innominates. Only vestiges of these structures are present in modern whales."

‘Whale Origins as a Poster Child for Macroevolution’ J.G. M Thewissen and Sunil Bajpai, December 2oo1 / Vol. 51 No. 12, BioScience (1043)"

This is after all an evolutionary series that demonstrates this transition. We would expect the early ones to have more terrestrial characteristics. We would expect that there would be significant differences between them and modern whales. We see that and more importantly, we see graduated changes between the two. You had no argument the first time through and you don't have one now.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

From:
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/726117
Arneson:
“You were provided with a number of transitional forms that provided multiple lines of evidence supporting the macroevolutionary transition of whales from fully terrestrial to committed marine mammal. You could not effectively counter the evidence. More importantly, you can not and did not provide a creationist "theory" for that evidence. The only silence I remember was on your account when asked to provide a creationist explanation that better fit the evidence.”


1. Our lengthy debate can be found starting at (latest):
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/713509/5

WIYC summary of Pakicetus

"Unlike any other cetacean, the pakicetid outer ear was unspecialized and similar to that of land mammals... "
"It is most likely that the specializations of the pakicetid middle ear are analogous to those of some subterranean mammals and are related to the reception of substrate-borne vibrations or sound when the ear is in contact with the ground..."
"Taken together, the features of the skull indicate that pakicetids were terrestrial, and the locomotor skeleton displays running adaptations ..."
"Pakecetids were terrestrial mammals, no more amphilbious than a tapir."
From:
'Skeletons of terrestrial cetaceans and the relationship of whales to artiodactyles'
J.G.M. Thewissen, E.M. Williams, L.J. Roe, S.T. Hussain
Nature/Vol 413 / 20 September 2001 / www.nature.com

WIYC summary of Ambulocetus:
“In Ambulocetus, the radius, ulna, wrist, and much of the hand are preserved. They show that Ambulocetus had mobile joints at elbow, wrist, and fingers, and that the fingers were not embedded in a flipper. All of these features are similar to land mammals and unlike modern cetaceans …”
“The pelvis (or hip girdle) is dramatically different in modern whales and land mammals…”
“In Ambulocetus and Kutchicetus, the pelvis is much like that of a land mammal.”
From:
‘Whale Origins as a Poster Child for Macroevolution’ J.G. M Thewissen and Sunil Bajpai, December 2oo1 / Vol. 51 No. 12, BioScience (1043)

In regard to the ‘supposed’ disproportionate increase in size of the mandibular foramen:
Without any connection to hearing, the mandibular foramen is present in mammals for the purposes below:

"The Mandibular foramen is an opening on the internal surface of the ramus (posterior and perpendicularly oriented part of the mandible) for divisions of the mandibular vessels and nerve to pass.
The mandibular nerve is one of three branches of the trigeminal nerve (CN V) and the only branch with motor innervation.
The inferior alveolar nerve and inferior alveolar artery enter the foramen traveling through the body and exit at the mental foramen on the anterior mandible at which point the nerve is known as the mental nerve.
These nerves provide sensory innervation to the lower teeth, as well as the lower lip and some skin on the lower face."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandibular_foramen

The (alleged) proportionately larger mandibular foramen does not prove containment of fat pads. Without fat pads, there is no hearing capability through the jaw.

Considering that there would be more nerves, vessels, and arteries passing through the foramen due to Ambulocetus’ jaw being proportionately larger (than body size) than Pakicetus, it’s only faith that would have evolutionists believe that this is in anyway proof for Ambulocetus having the ability to hear underwater.


2. In regard to the last two sentences of the posting:
“More importantly, you can not and did not provide a creationist "theory" for that evidence. The only silence I remember was on your account when asked to provide a creationist explanation that better fit the evidence.”

How interesting that evolutionists actually admit that:
a. Macroevolution is above the specie level.
b. Evolution is only true because nothing naturalistic can explain creation.

And your proof is where?

You have one terrestrial animal that is "no more amphilbious than a tapir" and claim it's an "walking whale."

Interesting theory. Where is your proof again?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

WiYC picks a sentence here and a sentence there but for gets the most important part:
"Together these pelvises form an excellent transitional series, in which ambulocetids and remintonocetids retain all elements of land mammals, and protocetids lose the fused sacrum (Rodhocetus) and the iliosacral joints (Georgiacetus) and have some short femurs (in known forms). Basilosaurids and dorundontids have greatly reduced hind limbs and reduced ilia, while still retaining the acetabulum and foramen of the innominates. Only vestiges of these structures are present in modern whales."

‘Whale Origins as a Poster Child for Macroevolution’ J.G. M Thewissen and Sunil Bajpai, December 2oo1 / Vol. 51 No. 12, BioScience (1043)"

This is after all an evolutionary series that demonstrates this transition. We would expect the early ones to have more terrestrial characteristics. We would expect that there would be significant differences between them and modern whales. We see that and more importantly, we see graduated changes between the two. You had no argument the first time through and you don't have one now.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

From:
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/726117
Arneson:
“You were provided with a number of transitional forms that provided multiple lines of evidence supporting the macroevolutionary transition of whales from fully terrestrial to committed marine mammal. You could not effectively counter the evidence. More importantly, you can not and did not provide a creationist "theory" for that evidence. The only silence I remember was on your account when asked to provide a creationist explanation that better fit the evidence.”


1. Our lengthy debate can be found starting at (latest):
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/713509/5

WIYC summary of Pakicetus

"Unlike any other cetacean, the pakicetid outer ear was unspecialized and similar to that of land mammals... "
"It is most likely that the specializations of the pakicetid middle ear are analogous to those of some subterranean mammals and are related to the reception of substrate-borne vibrations or sound when the ear is in contact with the ground..."
"Taken together, the features of the skull indicate that pakicetids were terrestrial, and the locomotor skeleton displays running adaptations ..."
"Pakecetids were terrestrial mammals, no more amphilbious than a tapir."
From:
'Skeletons of terrestrial cetaceans and the relationship of whales to artiodactyles'
J.G.M. Thewissen, E.M. Williams, L.J. Roe, S.T. Hussain
Nature/Vol 413 / 20 September 2001 / www.nature.com

WIYC summary of Ambulocetus:
“In Ambulocetus, the radius, ulna, wrist, and much of the hand are preserved. They show that Ambulocetus had mobile joints at elbow, wrist, and fingers, and that the fingers were not embedded in a flipper. All of these features are similar to land mammals and unlike modern cetaceans …”
“The pelvis (or hip girdle) is dramatically different in modern whales and land mammals…”
“In Ambulocetus and Kutchicetus, the pelvis is much like that of a land mammal.”
From:
‘Whale Origins as a Poster Child for Macroevolution’ J.G. M Thewissen and Sunil Bajpai, December 2oo1 / Vol. 51 No. 12, BioScience (1043)

In regard to the ‘supposed’ disproportionate increase in size of the mandibular foramen:
Without any connection to hearing, the mandibular foramen is present in mammals for the purposes below:

"The Mandibular foramen is an opening on the internal surface of the ramus (posterior and perpendicularly oriented part of the mandible) for divisions of the mandibular vessels and nerve to pass.
The mandibular nerve is one of three branches of the trigeminal nerve (CN V) and the only branch with motor innervation.
The inferior alveolar nerve and inferior alveolar artery enter the foramen traveling through the body and exit at the mental foramen on the anterior mandible at which point the nerve is known as the mental nerve.
These nerves provide sensory innervation to the lower teeth, as well as the lower lip and some skin on the lower face."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandibular_foramen

The (alleged) proportionately larger mandibular foramen does not prove containment of fat pads. Without fat pads, there is no hearing capability through the jaw.

Considering that there would be more nerves, vessels, and arteries passing through the foramen due to Ambulocetus’ jaw being proportionately larger (than body size) than Pakicetus, it’s only faith that would have evolutionists believe that this is in anyway proof for Ambulocetus having the ability to hear underwater.


2. In regard to the last two sentences of the posting:
“More importantly, you can not and did not provide a creationist "theory" for that evidence. The only silence I remember was on your account when asked to provide a creationist explanation that better fit the evidence.”

How interesting that evolutionists actually admit that:
a. Macroevolution is above the specie level.
b. Evolution is only true because nothing naturalistic can explain creation.

I think you would find it in the article from which you selectively quoted.

You must have responded without reading my post (or the article you quoted for that matter).

Let me give you the conclusion that talks about the sequence with respect to hips and legs and the movement of whales from land to sea.
"Together these pelvises form an excellent transitional series, in which ambulocetids and remintonocetids retain all elements of land mammals, and protocetids lose the fused sacrum (Rodhocetus) and the iliosacral joints (Georgiacetus) and have some short femurs (in known forms). Basilosaurids and dorundontids have greatly reduced hind limbs and reduced ilia, while still retaining the acetabulum and foramen of the innominates. Only vestiges of these structures are present in modern whales."

‘Whale Origins as a Poster Child for Macroevolution’ J.G. M Thewissen and Sunil Bajpai, December 2oo1 / Vol. 51 No. 12, BioScience (1043)"

Pakicetus is the first terrestrial whale. Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Georgiacetus, and Basilosaurus all show increasing adaptations to life at sea. It is clear that they are related and that each member of the series fits into appropriate time and environmental sequence.

Ears and foramen.

WiYC tries to
"The (alleged) proportionately larger mandibular foramen does not prove containment of fat pads. Without fat pads, there is no hearing capability through the jaw.

Considering that there would be more nerves, vessels, and arteries passing through the foramen due to Ambulocetus’ jaw being proportionately larger (than body size) than Pakicetus, it’s only faith that would have evolutionists believe that this is in anyway proof for Ambulocetus having the ability to hear underwater."

The measure of the mandibular foramen for these whales is already relative to the size of the animal. We see more than a doubling between pakicetids and ambulocetids. Because it is a relative measurement, it already takes into account the extra nerve and vessel size required. It took multiple posts on my part trying to explain the concept of relative measurement before you finally dropped the discussion. Now you come back months later trying to revive a point long lost by you.

The species following ambulocetids have mandibular foramen at minimum 1.5 times greater than ambulocetids relative to each creatures body size with the other more than doubling the relative measurement. I offered to come over and explain ratios to you. I am still willing to help you with your math.

Give your evidence of fat pad containment and explanation of development

Failing to note that, without fat pads, there is NO hearing via the jaw.

Again, we ask for your precise step-by-step creation of the fat pads through random mutation and natural selection.

If you can't articulate properly, given free use of fantasy, you CANNOT claim it occurs miraculously.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

WiYC tries to
"The (alleged) proportionately larger mandibular foramen does not prove containment of fat pads. Without fat pads, there is no hearing capability through the jaw.

Considering that there would be more nerves, vessels, and arteries passing through the foramen due to Ambulocetus’ jaw being proportionately larger (than body size) than Pakicetus, it’s only faith that would have evolutionists believe that this is in anyway proof for Ambulocetus having the ability to hear underwater."

The measure of the mandibular foramen for these whales is already relative to the size of the animal. We see more than a doubling between pakicetids and ambulocetids. Because it is a relative measurement, it already takes into account the extra nerve and vessel size required. It took multiple posts on my part trying to explain the concept of relative measurement before you finally dropped the discussion. Now you come back months later trying to revive a point long lost by you.

The species following ambulocetids have mandibular foramen at minimum 1.5 times greater than ambulocetids relative to each creatures body size with the other more than doubling the relative measurement. I offered to come over and explain ratios to you. I am still willing to help you with your math.

Miraculous is your gig not mine.

Fat doesn't fossilize, but they can be infered from the great increase in relative size of the mandibular foramen. There is fat in the faces of mammals. Those whales fortunate enough to have sufficient fat to better hear would have a survival advantage. It is you that claims it all occurs miraculously and counter to the way the evidence pointed it occurred.

But let's put that fantasy sneaker on your foot. What is the creationist explanation for the dramatic increase in relative size of the mandibular foramen? Evolution provides a good explanation especially in conjunction with the change in ear structure as whales moved into the water. What would a creationist theory propose if one existed?

Why is it that evolutionists cannot explain how evolution occurs?

From my previous posting:

"Again, we ask for your precise step-by-step creation of the fat pads through random mutation and natural selection.
If you can't articulate properly, given free use of fantasy, you CANNOT claim it occurs miraculously."


By the way, if you ever do give it a stab, remember that you must also connect all the wiring to the brain so that vibrations can be reacted to. Otherwise, your natural selection hypothesis is null and void.

Why is it WiYC always changes the subject?

I believe you dropped your point on the evolutionary change of the mandibular foramen again. Thanks for giving me that point.

Now for fat. Gee, we have a mammal that is living in a marine environment. What is one very common physiological characteristic of mammals in these environments? Fat. Whale blubber. The creatures have it everywhere in their bodies. It acts as an insulator, energy store, provides boyancy, and even helps dolphins to whip their tales more efficiently and even aids in hearing.

As I said earlier whale that happen to have fat in the right places have a selective advantage. The nerves are already in the location. If they can more effectively pick up vibrations, it is to the advantage of that individual. Even a small improvement is advantageous.

This is not fantasy. It makes sense especially when you note that both the mandibular foramen and the ear bones show dramatic change during the same time period.

So you admit you are unable to articulate how evolution occurs?

Yes, let's just put the fat pads where they belong because, what the heck, fat is all over the body anyway.

And it's no big thing that somehow nerve endings and sensors evolved and miraculously connected to the brain ... and then the brain developed the complex ability to interpret the messages.

No problem for the imagination of the evolutionist.

But a very serious problem for reality.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

I believe you dropped your point on the evolutionary change of the mandibular foramen again. Thanks for giving me that point.

Now for fat. Gee, we have a mammal that is living in a marine environment. What is one very common physiological characteristic of mammals in these environments? Fat. Whale blubber. The creatures have it everywhere in their bodies. It acts as an insulator, energy store, provides boyancy, and even helps dolphins to whip their tales more efficiently and even aids in hearing.

As I said earlier whale that happen to have fat in the right places have a selective advantage. The nerves are already in the location. If they can more effectively pick up vibrations, it is to the advantage of that individual. Even a small improvement is advantageous.

This is not fantasy. It makes sense especially when you note that both the mandibular foramen and the ear bones show dramatic change during the same time period.

The scenario was already provided. You chose to ignore it.

There are already nerves and endings there. Remember what the mandibular foramen is for? As I already indicated in the post you were responding to, the nerves are already there. They are connected to the brain and to nerve endings in the area. I also provided an answer to your question here.
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/726593/

I am not the one appealing to the miraculous. This would be pretty mundane stuff compared with the changes in ear structure which are documented in the fossil record.

Evolution explains the changes in whale hearing.

From WiYC's posting:

"Again, we ask for your precise step-by-step creation of the fat pads through random mutation and natural selection.
If you can't articulate properly, given free use of fantasy, you CANNOT claim it occurs miraculously."

WiYC then said:
"By the way, if you ever do give it a stab, remember that you must also connect all the wiring to the brain so that vibrations can be reacted to. Otherwise, your natural selection hypothesis is null and void."

Nerves are already going to the jaw that is one of the functions of the mandibular foramen. These nerves will sense vibrations. Fat is everywhere in marine mammals. Blubber is found from tip to tail. It provides a couple of advantages in terms of food storage and as insulation. It serves other functions in modern whales. In dolphins, it aid in locomotion by helping the whipping action of the tail. It also is the main constituent of the mellon used in echolocation and is in the mandibular foramen aiding hearing.

The mandibular foramen increased dramatically in relative size at the same time that whale's ear bones were changing and whales were becoming more aquatic. It does not seem far-fetched that a substance so common in a whale might be stored in a space that evolved. Especially when that storage provides an competative advantage. Whales that store more fat there gain even more. At each step, the whale is better off with fat stored than not.

It's your claim that evolution has been proven, so the burden of proof is yours.

In regard to your comment:

"But let's put that fantasy sneaker on your foot. What is the creationist explanation for the dramatic increase in relative size of the mandibular foramen? Evolution provides a good explanation especially in conjunction with the change in ear structure as whales moved into the water. What would a creationist theory propose if one existed?"

1. Since your haven't provided the "good explanation" yet, we'll assume you haven't got a clue.

2. You have repeatedly claimed that evolution has been proven, so the burden of proof it yours, not for us to prove creation. Provide your evidence.

3. Yes, another admission of "Evolution is true only because there is NO other naturalistic explanation."

Evolution is nothing but your faith in the unseen and unproven, not science.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Fat doesn't fossilize, but they can be infered from the great increase in relative size of the mandibular foramen. There is fat in the faces of mammals. Those whales fortunate enough to have sufficient fat to better hear would have a survival advantage. It is you that claims it all occurs miraculously and counter to the way the evidence pointed it occurred.

But let's put that fantasy sneaker on your foot. What is the creationist explanation for the dramatic increase in relative size of the mandibular foramen? Evolution provides a good explanation especially in conjunction with the change in ear structure as whales moved into the water. What would a creationist theory propose if one existed?

Evolution provides the explanation.

WiYC said:
"1. Since your haven't provided the "good explanation" yet, we'll assume you haven't got a clue."

You make a lot of assumptions. A good explanation is the evolutionary one. The creature gained an advantage from these changes. We see a tremendous increase in the relative size of the mandibular foramen, far beyond anything required for blood supply or nerve function. This animal is storing fat all over its body as a food source, and insulation. Other functions for fat evolved such as the aid in locomotion provided by the specialized blubber of the dolphin. The body is going to put something in this void and fat seems to be the logical solution.

At the same time the foramen increases in relative size to the jaw, the ears are evolving rapidly also. All of these changes are occurring at the same time that whales are becoming obligate aquatic creatures never to return to the land. Any whale that has even a small advantage in hearing will be better suited to effectively survive and reproduce.

WiYC's burden.

WiYC said:
"2. You have repeatedly claimed that evolution has been proven, so the burden of proof it yours, not for us to prove creation. Provide your evidence."

Evolution is the accepted scientific theory explaining the development and diversity of life on earth. It is the best explanation of the evidence we have. It has been repeatedly tested and met the test for almost a century and a half. I have no burden to prove anything to you. If you choose to ignore science, more the pity for you. Burying you head in the sand will not make the scientific evidence go away.

The only way for you to defeat evolution is to provide a better scientific theory. If you don't, won't or can't, evolution stands.

Different plan of attack?

In regard to your comment:

"I have no burden to prove anything to you."

Then, why have you been trying for so long?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

WiYC said:
"2. You have repeatedly claimed that evolution has been proven, so the burden of proof it yours, not for us to prove creation. Provide your evidence."

Evolution is the accepted scientific theory explaining the development and diversity of life on earth. It is the best explanation of the evidence we have. It has been repeatedly tested and met the test for almost a century and a half. I have no burden to prove anything to you. If you choose to ignore science, more the pity for you. Burying you head in the sand will not make the scientific evidence go away.

The only way for you to defeat evolution is to provide a better scientific theory. If you don't, won't or can't, evolution stands.

Re: Different plan of attack?

====
"I have no burden to prove anything to you."

Then, why have you been trying for so long?
====

Because you continually accuse it of being false on premises that have been consistently refuted. You don't seem to understand the evidence when it's given to you.

And your alternative solution is unacceptable.

Nope. I explained this to you many times. The burden is on creationists. Evolution is established

Evolution is established science whether you like it or not. To counter evolution, you need to provide a better explanation than evolution. That means the burden has been on creationists for some time to provide a scientifically valid theory that better explains the evidence we see in the world. I have been telling you this for quite some time, many times.

You don't like it. However, once a theory is well establishe only a better theory will unseat it. Creationists have not even presented a testable hypothesis much less a full blown theory.

Awesome admission!

Thank you for claiming that evolution can't stand on its own merit.

Evolution is held up as being the "best possible (naturalistic) explanation" in spite of the utter lack of evidence, facts surrounding it, and observation of it ever or presently occurring.

How very sad for the state of science...

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Evolution is established science whether you like it or not. To counter evolution, you need to provide a better explanation than evolution. That means the burden has been on creationists for some time to provide a scientifically valid theory that better explains the evidence we see in the world. I have been telling you this for quite some time, many times.

You don't like it. However, once a theory is well establishe only a better theory will unseat it. Creationists have not even presented a testable hypothesis much less a full blown theory.

I think you are mistaken as usual.

WiYC said:
"Thank you for claiming that evolution can't stand on its own merit."

That is not what I said. This is what I said.

"Evolution is established science whether you like it or not. To counter evolution, you need to provide a better explanation than evolution. That means the burden has been on creationists for some time to provide a scientifically valid theory that better explains the evidence we see in the world. I have been telling you this for quite some time, many times.

You don't like it. However, once a theory is well establishe only a better theory will unseat it. Creationists have not even presented a testable hypothesis much less a full blown theory."

Creationists are free to join the scientific fray. They just need to start practicing science. In order to overturn evolution, you need to have a better scientific theory.

I think you mean sad for creationism.

WiYC said:
"Evolution is held up as being the "best possible (naturalistic) explanation" in spite of the utter lack of evidence, facts surrounding it, and observation of it ever or presently occurring.

How very sad for the state of science..."

Evolution fits the evidence we see in the world. According to Darwin, all life on earth shares a common descent. All life on earth shares the same genetic code.
"There must be a mechanism for transmitting information from the genetic material to the catalytic material. All known organisms, with extremely rare exceptions, use the same genetic code for this. The few known exceptions are, nevertheless, simple and minor variations from the "universal" genetic code (see Figure 1.1.1) (Lehman 2001; Voet and Voet 1995, p. 967), exactly as predicted by evolutionary biologists based on the theory of common descent, years before the genetic code was finally solved (Brenner 1957; Crick et al. 1961; Hinegardner and Engelberg 1963; Judson 1996, p. 280-281)."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#genetic_code

The creatures on earth appear in nested hierarchies. The relationships inferred from morphology are confirmed in the closeness of genetic affinity. For example, chimps appear to be closely related to humans on the basis of morphology, social behavior, intelligence, and tool making ability. Comparison of the genetic code for the humans and chimps confirms this predicted relationship.

It is not sad for the state of science. Science has been productive using the evolutionary model. Commonalities between humans and chimps have helped in the research for drugs to counter AIDS. The same is true for the common genetic heritage of the AIDS virus and its counterpart in chimpanzees. The same cannot be said about creationism.

Evolution is true because it has met the test.

WiYC said:
"3. Yes, another admission of "Evolution is true only because there is NO other naturalistic explanation."

Evolution is nothing but your faith in the unseen and unproven, not science."

Evolution is true because it better explains the development and diversity of life on earth. It explain the evidence that we see of life changing over time. It explains the long history of life and the commonalities that we see both in specific kinds of life and all life on earth.

There are other naturalistic explanations besides evolution by natural selection, such as Lamarckism. They don't hold up.

Creationism is not science. There is no evidence for it. Evolution on the other hand has plenty of evidence. The whale sequence provides eloquent evidence of a transformation of creatures from terrestrial to marine. We see graduated changes in body parts and in the function of those parts. Creationism asks us to stop thinking and accept a view of the world that is at odds with this evidence. Evolution explains this evidence.

WiYC misses forest for the trees.

WiYC's specious conclusions:
"2. In regard to the last two sentences of the posting:
“More importantly, you can not and did not provide a creationist "theory" for that evidence. The only silence I remember was on your account when asked to provide a creationist explanation that better fit the evidence.”

How interesting that evolutionists actually admit that:
a. Macroevolution is above the specie level.
b. Evolution is only true because nothing naturalistic can explain creation."

Macroevolution is defined as speciation and above. Micro as below the level of speciation. I am not sure how you draw that conclusion. I have corrected you multiple times on your mistake, and provided references more than once. Do try to get this one right in the future.

Evolution is true because it better explains the evidence. It has been tested for nearly a century and a half and come through with flying colors. Its predictions have been confirmed, i.e., that whales have an ungulate ancestry.

To unseat evolution, you creationists need to come up with a theory that better fits the evidence. The one thing that has become clear in my discussions with you is that you can't explain the evidence. In fact, you generally ignore it in order to take a bit here or there out of context. Your recent quotations of whale anatomy are a perfect example. The evidence points to a transition from terrestrial to marine existence and you point out that the early terrestrial whales were well, terrestrial.

What an Incredible Admission

The quote you gave by Dr. Niles Eldredge and the severely-outdated 50-plus-year-old horse exhibit is just astounding! One more glaring example of scientificated Just So stories. It is obscene that the minds of little children are being warped with such lies, and the people in charge know it and allow it to continue unchallenged. I am truly shocked.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

The following is an example of the ‘evidence’ that evolutionists consistently use for attempting to substantiate their faith:

From: http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/726246
akg41470
“I'm pretty darn sure there's a heck of a lot of evidence that supports evolution. Since you seem to not be aware of any of it, let me point you to some:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_01
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=62
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Now, if you're saying there's no evidence at all, then I'm afraid you've got a lot of explaining to do, becuase those links above carry a LOT of material - well researched, peer reviewed and accepted by the scientific community.”



Yes, first PLEASE go to Berkeley’s interesting examples of ‘evidence’:
Horse evolution – This has been disproved decades ago:
‘I admit that an awful lot of that has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs (in the American Museum) is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we’ve got science as truth and we’ve got a problem.’
– Dr. Niles Eldredge, curator at the American Museum of Natural History, in a recorded interview with Luther Sunderland, published in Darwin’s Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, Master Books, El Cajon, California, USA.

Blue mussels:
Thicker shells? Wow, now there’s a big leap in evolution …

Antibiotic resistant bacteria evolution:
Why is it that NO bacteria have been discovered that possess more complexity and … why are they still bacteria?

Cricket evolution
Chirpless? So losing features is now evolution at work?

Global warming:
That’s a new one … Why doesn’t this even surprise me?

As far as the talkorigins link, again why is it that you guys are silent when I ask for ONE specific ‘transitional’ fossil?
Here are just two in the last 10 days:
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/726086/
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/724588/3

(Go to next thread for whale evolution.)

Re: What an Incredible Admission

===
One more glaring example of scientificated Just So stories. It is obscene that the minds of little children are being warped with such lies, and the people in charge know it and allow it to continue unchallenged. I am truly shocked.
===

1. One more "glaring example" of a quote out of context (read Arneson's responses)
2. Do you have any evidence that the "people in charge know it"?
3. Who are the "people in charge"?

I am reminded of a scene in Anchorman (Will Ferrell movie) with Steve Carrell's character -- LOUD NOISES! I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE YELLING ABOUT!

If you are so utterly shocked and disturbed and consider it obscene, take it to where it's supposed to go, get it fixed! Why waste your time with two guys on an online forum? Stop being an armchair quarterback! Tell your legislators! Go to your nearest school board! Tell them evolution is wrong and it should be replaced by Creation or Intelligent Design!

Oh wait...
Kitzmiller vs. Dover
sorry.

Critical analysis of evolution only

In regard to your comment:

"Go to your nearest school board! Tell them evolution is wrong and it should be replaced by Creation or Intelligent Design!
Oh wait...
Kitzmiller vs. Dover
sorry."


WhoIsYourCreator is NOT advocating replacing evolution with creation or Intelligent Design.

Since evolutionists can't even articulate how evolution occurs, as well as their inability to provide ANY scientific evidence that proves it EVER or is still occurring, the issue is presenting evolution as fact without a realistic scientific critical analysis of it.

Evolutionists know evolution can't survive under such scientific scrutiny, but it's only a matter of time that we will prevail.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

===
One more glaring example of scientificated Just So stories. It is obscene that the minds of little children are being warped with such lies, and the people in charge know it and allow it to continue unchallenged. I am truly shocked.
===

1. One more "glaring example" of a quote out of context (read Arneson's responses)
2. Do you have any evidence that the "people in charge know it"?
3. Who are the "people in charge"?

I am reminded of a scene in Anchorman (Will Ferrell movie) with Steve Carrell's character -- LOUD NOISES! I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE YELLING ABOUT!

If you are so utterly shocked and disturbed and consider it obscene, take it to where it's supposed to go, get it fixed! Why waste your time with two guys on an online forum? Stop being an armchair quarterback! Tell your legislators! Go to your nearest school board! Tell them evolution is wrong and it should be replaced by Creation or Intelligent Design!

Oh wait...
Kitzmiller vs. Dover
sorry.

Re: Critical analysis of evolution only

===
WhoIsYourCreator is NOT advocating replacing evolution with creation or Intelligent Design.
===

Well I'm sorry, but you HAVE to address this point, because it is the next logical step if you are successful at your aim.

(and I've posted this before but you deleted it the last time)

Let's say you succeed, and evolution is proven wrong and is no longer taught in school. What's to take its place? Certainly you can't expect there to be a void there... would you expect that science classes would just SKIP OVER what is generally considered one of the most important studies of science - the origins of mankind? Spend their time with something else?

You have something waiting in the wings to replace it and you KNOW IT. You ARE silently advocating creation or ID -- and that's just not gonna happen. Period. Again, I refer you to Kitzmiller vs Dover.

Evolution MAY be wrong! It's possible! But it's currently the best explanation of what we see in the world. Until we find a better explanation, evolution is it. But I will tell you, creation or ID will certainly NOT be taking its place.

All the while shielding creationism from scientific scrutiny.

"Evolutionists know evolution can't survive under such scientific scrutiny, but it's only a matter of time that we will prevail."

Gosh, you would have to have some kind of theory or even a testable hypothesis in order to prevail over evolution. I don't think that you have that do you?

Evolution has been tested for nearly a century and a half and met the challenge. Creationists have been predicting the downfall of evolution for nearly that whole time. Too bad creationism isn't as good at fulfilling predictions as evolution.
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm

Don't worry. A better understanding of evolution easily corrects it.

The story of horse evolution is more complicated and interesting than a simple linear progression. It was portrayed that way partly because we had fewer fossils and partly because of a teleological bias on the part of some evolutionists. This simplistic model has long been replaced. Your kids can have a deeper and richer understanding of evolution as a result of this scientific progres.

Without proof again

Because it's "deeper and richer" doesn't make it true.

Again, please provide your evidence and we'll debate it. Otherwise, it's nothing but your faith in the unseen and unproven.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

The story of horse evolution is more complicated and interesting than a simple linear progression. It was portrayed that way partly because we had fewer fossils and partly because of a teleological bias on the part of some evolutionists. This simplistic model has long been replaced. Your kids can have a deeper and richer understanding of evolution as a result of this scientific progres.

Without proof is your gig not mine.

I provided links. The picture presented by horse evolution is a good deal more complicated than a straight-line progression. Your quotemine talks about an exhibit showing this straight-line progression. That is what Eldrige disagrees with. You try to conflate it into a broader argument even claiming horse evolution has been refuted.

I have read more than a bit of Eldridges work. He is not claiming horses did not evolve. He is saying that we should be presenting a more up-to-date presentation of this evolutionary history. Your quote does not support your position. You have no evidence that horse evolution has been refuted. READ the FAQ I provided earlier. It will give you an idea of how horses evolved.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Because it's "deeper and richer" doesn't make it true.

Again, please provide your evidence and we'll debate it. Otherwise, it's nothing but your faith in the unseen and unproven.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

The story of horse evolution is more complicated and interesting than a simple linear progression. It was portrayed that way partly because we had fewer fossils and partly because of a teleological bias on the part of some evolutionists. This simplistic model has long been replaced. Your kids can have a deeper and richer understanding of evolution as a result of this scientific progres.

Horse evolution was not 'refuted'. Eldredge was talking about the need to update an old exhibit.

WiYC said:
"Yes, first PLEASE go to Berkeley’s interesting examples of ‘evidence’:
Horse evolution – This has been disproved decades ago:
‘I admit that an awful lot of that has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs (in the American Museum) is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we’ve got science as truth and we’ve got a problem.’
– Dr. Niles Eldredge, curator at the American Museum of Natural History, in a recorded interview with Luther Sunderland, published in Darwin’s Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, Master Books, El Cajon, California, USA."

Eldredge is talking about a specific exhibit at the American Museum of Natural History. It depicted horse evolution as a straight line. Many more fossil horses have been found. Eldredge is complaining that we know that horse evolution is a bushy tree and not straight line and feels that our textbooks should reflect that scientific reality.

A better understanding of the evolution of horses.

WiYC asserted that Niles Eldredge 'refuted' horse evolution. Eldredge was arguing against the outdated idea of horses evolving in a straight line progression. Eldredge and other paleontologists would argue that the fossils point to a more complicated bushy tree of fossils with the only surviving member being the modern horse.

From the Horse Evolution FAQ on TalkOrigins:
"As new fossils were discovered, though, it became clear that the old model of horse evolution was a serious oversimplification. The ancestors of the modern horse were roughly what that series showed, and were clear evidence that evolution had occurred. But it was misleading to portray horse evolution in that smooth straight line, for two reasons:

1. First, horse evolution didn't proceed in a straight line. We now know of many other branches of horse evolution. Our familiar Equus is merely one twig on a once-flourishing bush of equine species. We only have the illusion of straight-line evolution because Equus is the only twig that survived. (See Gould's essay "Life's Little Joke" in Bully for Brontosaurus for more on this topic.)
2. Second, horse evolution was not smooth and gradual. Different traits evolved at different rates, didn't always evolve together, and occasionally reversed "direction". Also, horse species did not always come into being by gradual transformation ("anagenesis") of their ancestors; instead, sometimes new species "split off" from ancestors ("cladogenesis") and then co-existed with those ancestors for some time. Some species arose gradually, others suddenly.

Overall, the horse family demonstrates the diversity of evolutionary mechanisms, and it would be misleading -- and would be a real pity -- to reduce it to an oversimplified straight-line diagram."

Re: Enough montificating - Where is your evidence?

WiYC said:
"Antibiotic resistant bacteria evolution:
Why is it that NO bacteria have been discovered that possess more complexity and … why are they still bacteria?"

Do you have a source for that? I am sure that you have done an exhaustive search of all of the scientific literature showing that no bacteria has ever evolved greater complexity. Maybe you should rethink that in light of bacteria that developed the ability to consume recently developed nylon oligoemrs. I am sure that you have a creationist explanation for nylon eating bacteria.

"2 Bacteria that eat nylon

Well, no, they don't actually eat nylon; they eat short molecules (nylon oligoemrs) found in the waste waters of plants that produce nylon. They metabolize short nylon oligomers, breaking the nylon linkages with a couple of related enzymes. Since the bonds involved aren't found in natural products, the enzymes must have arisen since the time nylon was invented (around the 1940s). It would appear this happened by new mutations in that time period.

These enzymes which break down the nylon oligomers appear to have arisen by frameshift mutation from some other gene which codes for a functionally unrelated enzyme. This adaptation has been experimentally duplicated. In the experiments, non-nylon-metabolizing strains of Pseudomonas were grown in media with nylon oligomers available as the primary food source. Within a relatively small number of generations, they developed these enzyme activities. This would appear to be an example of documented occurrence of beneficial mutations in the lab."

Re: Enough montificating - Where is your evidence?

WiYC said:
"Antibiotic resistant bacteria evolution:
Why is it that NO bacteria have been discovered that possess more complexity and … why are they still bacteria?"

Perhaps you better read this FAQ at TalkOrigins. There are plenty of examples of increased complexity evolving.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

The theory is yours so the burden of proof is yours - 'Nylon-eating' bacteria

In regard to your comment:
"Since the bonds involved aren't found in natural products, the enzymes must have arisen since the time nylon was invented (around the 1940s). It would appear this happened by new mutations in that time period."


This 'evidence' is purely based on the evolutionary presupposition that they were NEVER there to begin with. Without proof of that , you are back to the bacteria still being nothing but more bacteria that are NO MORE complex.

"Interestingly, Yomo et al. also show that it is highly unlikely that any of these genes arose through a frame shift mutation, because such mutations (forward or reverse) would have generated lots of stop codons. This nullifies the claim of Thwaites that a functional gene arose from a purely random process (an accident)...
P. aeruginosa is renowned for its ability to adapt to unusual food sources—such as toluene, naphthalene, camphor, salicylates and alkanes. These abilities reside on plasmids known as TOL, NAH, CAM, SAL and OCT respectively. Significantly, they do not reside on the chromosome (many examples of antibiotic resistance also reside on plasmids).
The chromosome of P. aeruginosa has 6.3 million base pairs, which makes it one of the largest bacterial genomes sequenced. Being a large genome means that only a relatively low mutation rate can be tolerated within the actual chromosome, otherwise error catastrophe would result. There is no way that normal mutations in the chromosome could generate a new enzyme in nine days and hypermutation of the chromosome itself would result in non-viable bacteria. Plasmids seem to be adaptive elements designed to make bacteria capable of adaptation to new situations while maintaining the integrity of the main chromosome...
It seems clear that plasmids are designed features of bacteria that enable adaptation to new food sources or the degradation of toxins. The details of just how they do this remains to be elucidated. The results so far clearly suggest that these adaptations did not come about by chance mutations, but by some designed mechanism. This mechanism might be analogous to the way that vertebrates rapidly generate novel effective antibodies with hypermutation in B-cell maturation, which does not lend credibility to the grand scheme of neo-Darwinian evolution."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/bacteria.asp

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

WiYC said:
"Antibiotic resistant bacteria evolution:
Why is it that NO bacteria have been discovered that possess more complexity and … why are they still bacteria?"

Perhaps you better read this FAQ at TalkOrigins. There are plenty of examples of increased complexity evolving.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

You really should stop quoting AIG in general and Don Batten in particular.

Don got his head handed to him at TalkOrigins. It doesn't appear that he got much of anything right.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr04.html

Batten's claims were answered specifically and thoroughly.

Read the link I gave you. He went point by point showing that Batten was wrong on every count. You have brought Batten's work in several times and there is one commonality. It is shoddy. The same was seen in his whale articles.

You know better

Did you forget again? You know how this works:

Give us ONE example only and then we will debate it and go on to another if you so choose.


By the way, did you throw in the towel on the 'nylon-eating' bacteria?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

WiYC said:
"Antibiotic resistant bacteria evolution:
Why is it that NO bacteria have been discovered that possess more complexity and … why are they still bacteria?"

Perhaps you better read this FAQ at TalkOrigins. There are plenty of examples of increased complexity evolving.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

You have been given plenty of examples

And you have failed to respond effectively to any of them.

Batten was refuted thoroughly, point by point.

I think you should read the link I gave you. As usual, Batten provides no scientific content, only specious claims. The science establishes that this characteristic evolved both in the wild and in the lab.

Again, you know better - New deal

This is the deal:

ALL postings that include links only for rebuttals without commentary or copied quotes directly pertaining to the issue at hand will be deleted.