Early Whales Had Legs

Post Reply New Topic

also I should mention that these mutations are random and they dont convert an animal into something other than what it is.. actual macro evolution would be gradual, not sporradic.

Ah ! But the current theory is punctuated evolution, which says creatures evolve so quickly that they leave no fossil record.

well, a lot of scientists say they have the fossil records to prove it.. then they also say that fossil records don't matter.. which is it? but a fossil doesn't prove anything. there's no way of telling if it bore children, or if its ancestors are something different.



btw, there's evidence that jurrassic creatures still exist. In africa these people say that they have seen terradactals.. (sp?) they are not common though.. and also theres lots of stories of strange sea monsters.. if they still exist then it throws the theory of evolution out the window. Which explains why more of these stories dont make headlines.

There are NO fossils of intermediate evolution. Period. Every fossil thus found is of a normal, well formed creature that exited in it's own niche. Check the trilobite.

As for sightings in Africa, yes, they tell tales of what could be living dinosaurs. Check the website Cryptomundo.

There are other living fossils: the cockroach, the shark, gecko, ant, dragonfly, horseshoe crab, and the wasp. All of these are identical to their fossil ancestors. Whoops! Forgot me favorite! The Caelocanth. Alive and well, and swimming the seas. Never evolved, still the same after "millions and millions" of years.

Cool!.. thart's very true.. it doesn't really explain evolution too well does it?

I recommend you drop into this thread in philosophy forum.
http://www.wrongplanet.net/posts76936-start105.html

although I warn you they're kind of obstinate on the matter.. and it started as a christian thread but somehow became an evolution debate.

You could see it happen if you were interested in looking. You could watch bacteria and insects, which have very short generation times. For instance, prof Lenski at Michigan State University has an experiment that monitored more than 44,000 generations of bacteria. He periodically saves the bacteria and deep freezes them, and has 're-played' the experiment. All of the results are consistent with the idea of evolution - mutation, selection, rinse, repeat.

Natural Selection isn't evolution. For example in America, ranchers have poisoned coyotes for decades. The effect has been to select out stupid coyotes. Smart coyotes, those who stay away from anything seemingly man-made, have the exclusive right to reproduce. So now these ranchers face coyotes that won't go near traps or bait. But the coyotes haven't sprouted wings, or gills. They're simply a breed apart from coyotes 100 years ago.

Natural selection is evolution.

Furthermore, it is not required that the morphology of a species change. All that must change to constitute a new species is a change in behavior. If the scions of a mutant will no longer breed into the original population, then they are effectively a new species. Of course its more likely that the original members become less and less likely to accept the mutant progeny as suitable mates.

There is a stunning example, at least here in North America. People encounter it most every day. Canis lupus familiaris(the dog) evolved from Canus Lupus(the wolf). In this case, the pack society of wolves will not allow the intrusion of a stray dog, so they dont normally interbreed. When you see it happen its a stray wolf breeding into a domesticated dog.

Down under you have a similar situation, right? Canis Lupus Dingo.

You'll have to fill me in on wild dingos, but the domestic dog is different to the wolf in that it has shed some behavior and picked up new instincts. This is readily observable. A domestic dog reads human body language, they look at peoples faces. If you have ever encountered a real wolf, they do not exhibit this. The progeny of a wolf and dog may or may not carry this instinct as well.

You simply cannot raise a wolf from birth and have a fully domesticated animal. Something about dogs causes them to form pack relationships with humans. Kitties as well, to a lesser degree.

This is evolution through selective pressure. It was tested and verified by a Prussian scientist, though it took him decades. He recreated the domestication of the dog by force selecting (with domestication as a goal) the silver fox, vulpes vulpes.

I appologise for the lengthly pdf, but its a fascinating read.

domestication of vulpes vulpes

You'll note in this case that, no, they havent sprouted wings, but these new foxes are physically different from regular vulpes vulpes, and that they breed true. That is, their children resemble the parents.

I have a other examples of deviation in genetic stock, the chinese tallow tree in the southern US has deviated naturally(and signifigantly) from its base stock. What has changed is the output of its growth. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 084502.htm

Monty mentioned the experiment with bacteria. Here is a link about that. http://www.newscientist.com/channel/lif ... e-lab.html

Humans: in the last 300 years dental records have shown a marked decrease in law size, with an attendant problem with tooth placement. This has been verified with comparison to skulls excavated from medieval sources, such as l'empire de la mort, a catacomb filled with human bones, situated under Paris France. Wisdom teeth are an artifact of this.

Evolution of a complex celled creature in our life times? http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008 ... d.php#more

It is important to note that mutation or selective pressure can have a cascade effect. Have you ever seen one of those arcade machines that have a sweeping arm and a tray of coins? The arm brushes just over a vast pile of coins, and you drop more coins in in hopes that suddenly a bunch will cascade over the edge.

You can see that cascade effect in the pdf on the foxes.

The artificial selection of dogs out of wolves could be termed micro-evolution. It's still a four legged doggy type creature. Domestic dogs go into heat several times a year, as opposed to wolves who only breed once a year. But on the DNA level, you'd see that a domestic dog (particularly a pure bred) has less information in it than a wolf or wild dog. That's why people breed collies with other collies. You get the desired characteristics. But you also have an animal that has genetic weaknesses, and is susceptable to disease. A domestic dog is still a dog, and a cousin of the wolf. They can breed together. Some dogs, such as Basenjis are actually more wolf than dog. Dogs aren't evolved wolves.

If that was the theory of evolution then I would not have a problem with it.. micro evolution is proven. A dog may mutate or change over time, he may breed with different dogs.. but it's still a DOG! It says this same exact thing in the bible.. micro evolution is..MICRO evolution.. a dog may change over time by breeding and natural selection, but he will always remain a dog.



Has anyone bothered to ask the dogs why ? .. animals lose their instincts after a while... a house cat can't hunt.. and am sure that it wouldnt try to mate with a wild cat.

Your argument then, is that some higher power blocks micro evolution from accumulating into macro evolution?

It is unreasonable to expect that a creature, whole from the womb, being vastly different from its parents would have anything to mate with. Thus, it doesnt perpetuate. You can look at the pictures in the abortion thread for an example of that. But it happens. The Mütter Museum in Philadelphia has numerous preserved human and animal examples of such beings.

I'm pretty sure the Bible doesn't mention micro-evolution, although it does say that abortion is ok under certain circumstances (in as much as women who are raped are supposed to be executed if they don't resist enough, and the Bible makes no exception for rape victims that get pregnant).

what the f**k does this have to do with abortion?


the bible says animals will breed with like kinds, but not put forth different kinds.. I wish i knew the exact lingo, but that's what it says. That there describes the possibility of micro evolution, but not macro evolution.

no, my argument is much more provincial.. im saying that macro evolution doesn't exist.





mutated animals and humans?.. that's a long way from macro evolution..

Previously established, but ok. What prevents accumulated micro evolution from effectively adding up to macro evolution? Are you positing a limited time scale? If you are a YEC, then its understandable that you believe there would be insufficient time for creatures to change sufficiently enough to constitute a new species.

No because I don't think that time has ANYthing to do with the reason Macro evolution doesn't exist. Like I say, dogs will breed and put forth dogs of all species, but they will always be a dog. Mutations are disturbing and dont seem to reflect anything positive. If some people in Africa are immune to Malaria then so freakin what?.. they're still human beings.