Topic: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion

[docelmo]

Speaking of Pakicetus, what is the scientists' basis for saying that it's the ancestor of whales?

Sasabihin ng mga evolutionists sa ating thread:  Ah, basta ancestor yan.  Sabi ng scientist, e.
 
Ano nga ang reason nila? 
 
Basahin mo na lang.  Bakit ko pa uulitin sa iyo?

Kasi, ang tingin ko, hindi mo rin alam ang reason nila, kunyari ka lang na naintindihan mo.
 
Bakit ko pa uulitin.  Sinabi na nga nila lahat.  Basahin mo na lang.

 

Lakas ng faith, talo pa ako...   

Taken from berkely.edu site:
The evolution of whales

"The first thing to notice on this evogram is that hippos are the closest living relatives of whales, but they are not the ancestors of whales. In fact, none of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any other, as far as we know. That's why each of them gets its own branch on the family tree."

http://i678.photobucket.com/albums/vv150/docelmo/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zps80b65002.jpg


Wait...so now NONE of the individual animals are Direct ancestors of any other, and here is the kicker statement.......AS FAR AS WE KNOW!!!

[leomarley]

Wait...so now NONE of the individual animals are Direct ancestors of any other, and here is the kicker statement.......AS FAR AS WE KNOW!!!

that's because scientist don't claim to know everything. if they did, there wouldn't be anymore research and no reason anymore to find new fossils. as we've discussed earlier, a theory can change, evolve or be discarded altogether if new evidence is discovered that contradicts the current model. that is also the reason why there are peer reviews in science unlike in theology where once they saw that it is written it is the truth and it should not be changed.

your claims that whales need more than 200 million to evolve and could not have evolved in tens of millions of years may be true, or perhaps they just evolved faster. now i haven't read the papers fully but from what i gather, they based it purely on mathematical computations and our current understanding of DNA and perhaps didn't consider other factors like what do they eat, how the environment is back then, what are the predators preying on the whales or proto-whales, so on and so forth. mathematics alone cannot predict how fast a specie can evolve. as with my example in earlier posts, we witness a lizard evolve with bigger limbs in 15 years due to a competing specie. that's just one factor, imagine what other factors there might have been 40-50 million years ago.

[RU9]

radiometric method - just series of assumption

Uranium/Lead, Potassium/Argon, Argon/Argon and others, are able to measure much longer time periods, and are not restricted to things that were once alive. Generally applied to igneous rocks (those of volcanic origin), they measure the time since the molten rock solidified. If that happens to be longer than 10,000 years, then the idea of a young-Earth is called into question. If that happens to be billions of years, then the young-Earth is in big trouble.

The putative age of the Earth, about 4,500,000,000 years is based on the radiometrically measured age of meteorites, and is also about 500,000,000 years older than the oldest rocks. But regardless of the accuracy of this age for the earth, the existence of rocks circa 4,000,000,000 years old puts the squeeze on a 10,000 year old Earth.

So the natural response from a young-Earth perspective is to claim that radiometric dating is inaccurate or untrustworthy. Unfortunately, while the young-Earthers are long on criticism, they are short on support.

It's easy to assert that radiometric methods don't work, but it's quite another thing to prove it. This the
young-Earth creationist regularly fails to do.

Radiometric dating gives reliable results.

1. Independent measurements, using different and independent radiometric techniques, give consistent results

 Such results cannot be explained either by chance or by a systematic error in decay rate assumptions.

2. Radiometric dates are consistent with several nonradiometric dating methods. For example:

--The Hawaiian archipelago was formed by the Pacific ocean plate moving over a hot spot at a slow but
observable rate. Radiometric dates of the islands are consistent with the order and rate of their being
positioned over the hot spot.

--Radiometric dating is consistent with Milankovitch cycles, which depend only on astronomical factors such as precission of the earth's tilt and orbital eccentricity.

--Radiometric dating is consistent with the luminescence dating method.

--Radiometric dating gives results consistent with relative dating methods such as "deeper is older".

http://www.tim-thompson.com/radiometric.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD010.html

[barrister]

Radiometric dating gives reliable results.  ...


http://www.tim-thompson.com/radiometric.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD010.html

 
Radiometric dating is indeed reliable.   
 
The Young Earth Creationsists (YEC) are the only ones opposing it.  But the "science" they present as basis is lacking. 
 
YECs say that it is falsely assumed that radioactive decay rates are constant.  They say the decay  was actually faster in the historical past, and is progressively slowing down.  This causes radiometric dates to be overstated.
 
But it is reasonable to assume that decay rates were the same today as they were thousands or billions of years ago.  It is the assumption that decay rates are slowing down that is the unreasonable speculation.

[docelmo]

that's because scientist don't claim to know everything. if they did, there wouldn't be anymore research and no reason anymore to find new fossils. as we've discussed earlier, a theory can change, evolve or be discarded altogether if new evidence is discovered that contradicts the current model. that is also the reason why there are peer reviews in science unlike in theology where once they saw that it is written it is the truth and it should not be changed.

your claims that whales need more than 200 million to evolve and could not have evolved in tens of millions of years may be true, or perhaps they just evolved faster. now i haven't read the papers fully but from what i gather, they based it purely on mathematical computations and our current understanding of DNA and perhaps didn't consider other factors like what do they eat, how the environment is back then, what are the predators preying on the whales or proto-whales, so on and so forth. mathematics alone cannot predict how fast a specie can evolve. as with my example in earlier posts, we witness a lizard evolve with bigger limbs in 15 years due to a competing specie. that's just one factor, imagine what other factors there might have been 40-50 million years ago.

Actually the berkeley  "evogram" shows essential differences between other whale evolution scenario where they show the gradual march from pakicetus, ambulocetus......to modern whale. In my opinion this adds more complications and difficulty for natural selection to act on random mutations in so short a time. Given the lack of more transitional animals in between the branches they have previously identified as part of the whale family tree!

The change in the Whale evolution pattern is i believe a "convenient" way to point to another as yet unknown animal in the past w/o admitting that a mistake was made in previously tagging the Pakicetus as the original whale ancestor. Thereby extending  the whale evolution further back into the past.

And another point, since it stated that no one is the ancestor of the other then the conclusion/implication is that all the animals from the pakicetus to the basilosaurus were NOT transitional species of the whale!

On the contrary sir Leo

Population genetics is the study of the distributions and changes of allele frequency in a population, as the population is subject to the four main evolutionary processes: natural selection, genetic drift, mutation and gene flow.

the  equation actually do take  into account environmental aspect as well....

[barrister]

 
Pakicetus:
 

Early 1980s --- Discovery of Pakicetus skull fragments:




The light blue area represents the fragments actually discovered; the white area represents an artist's reconstruction.  Note that only those skull fragments were discovered and nothing more.  No complete skull; not a single body skeleton fragment.

Based on the skull fragments, here was the original artist's reconstruction:




Wow, parang flippers yung paa.  Sumisisid pa sa dagat... !

"This same picture also appeared in a journal for teachers to help them indoctrinate students into evolution. The author, Philip Gingerich, proclaimed in another article for popular consumption: ‘In time and in its morphology, Pakicetus is perfectly intermediate, a missing link between earlier land mammals and later, full-fledged whales."

Galing ng imagination, konting skull fragments lang, nalaman nila lahat yon!

Whale ancestor nga!  Perfect transitional fossil!  Missing Link!  ---  Tindi talaga...
 

2001 --- Discovery of an almost complete Pakicetus fossil:
 
 

 
Based on the new fossil, here's updated artist's recontruction version 2.0:


Oops... Ang layo pala ... 
 
"New discoveries have blown away this imaginative ‘reconstruction’. A prominent evolutionary whale expert, Thewissen, and colleagues, unearthed more bones of Pakicetus, and published their work in the journal Nature.  The commentary on this paper in the same issue says, ‘All the postcranial bones indicate that pakicetids were land mammals, and … indicate that the animals were runners, with only their feet touching the ground.’ This is very different from Gingerich’s picture of an animal right at home in the sea!"

So, hindi na raw transitional fossil ngayon ang Pakicetus?

Transitional pa rin daw.

Bakit transitional pa rin?

Basta transitional pa rin daw ...   
 
 
http://creation.com/not-at-all-like-a-whale

[dpogs]

pakicetus...

lakas ng faith sa scientist...

[RU9]

Pakicetus:
 

Early 1980s --- Discovery of Pakicetus skull fragments:



 http://creation.com/not-at-all-like-a-whale

Siyempre naman, ang source ay creation.com so the slant is to to prove evolution wrong.

The Bible, the written Word of the all-knowing God, never changes. This shows the folly of churchians who ‘reinterpret’ (i.e. disbelieve) the Bible because of ‘science’. If they had reinterpreted the biblical teaching on the creation of whales because of Pakicetus, then they would have to reinterpret their reinterpretation now that Pakicetus has been shown to be a swift land animal. from Creation.com

"The Bible, the written Word of the all-knowing God"--Creation.com
Back to the same question--How would they know? A more unsupported claim in my opinion.

Eto naman, http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03 , kaya lang mas scientific ang approach.

[docelmo]

Sir RU9

That's precisely the evogram I was referring to where the site said this:( You might want to read carefully and understand the implication of the statement...)

"The evolution of whales"

"The first thing to notice on this evogram is that hippos are the closest living relatives of whales, but they are not the ancestors of whales. In fact, none of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any other, as far as we know. That's why each of them gets its own branch on the family tree."

So if these are NOT the ancestors of whales then they are...
NOT...transitional species and have lived independently of each other!
The missing links....STILL MISSING!

[barrister]

Siyempre naman, ang source ay creation.com so the slant is to to prove evolution wrong.

You're correct.  Creation.com is indeed biased towards the bible and against evolution.

But merely stating that the source site is biased is not enough to conclude that the Pakicetus is a transitional form.

Ganito kasi ang logic mo sir:

- Creation.com says Pakicetus is not a transitional fossil.
- Creation.com is biased towards the bible.
- Therefore Pakicetus is a transitional fossil.

That kind of reasoning is illogical and non-sequitur.
 
Why don't you point out what's wrong with my post and prove that the Pakicetus is transitional to a whale?

 
 

"The Bible, the written Word of the all-knowing God"--Creation.com
Back to the same question--How would they know? A more unsupported claim in my opinion.

You're corrrect.  The claim that the bible is the Word of God is unsupported.
 
But merely stating that the claim about the bible is unsupported is not enough to conclude that the Pakicetus is a transitional form.
 
Ganito kasi ang logic mo sir:
 
- The bible says evolution is wrong.
- The claim that the bible is the Word of God is unsupported.
- Therefore, evolution is true.
 
That kind of reasoning is again illogical and non-sequitur.  The fact that creation is unprovable does not automatically mean that evolution is true, since it's possible that both creation and evolution are wrong.
 
Specify what's wrong with my post and prove that the Pakicetus is transitional to a whale.


 
=======================================
 

 
Sir heisenbergman pointed out many transitional fossils via Wikipedia:
 

Whut?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

In response, I issued this challenge:
 

Choose one.  Start with the fossil, then explain why it is transitional.
 
You really think I haven't seen that page before? 

 
None of the evolutionists here took me up on it.
 
Akala ko atapang atao.  Atulin pala atakbo ...     

[RU9]

But merely stating that the claim about the bible is unsupported is not enough to conclude that the Pakicetus is a transitional form.
 
Ganito kasi ang logic mo sir:
 
- The bible says evolution is wrong.
- The claim that the bible is the Word of God is unsupported.
- Therefore, evolution is true.
 

ito ang conclusion ko:

therefore the theory of evolution is more rational than the belief in god.

[dpogs]

isang pirasong buto fossil
ginawa ng scientist nagdrawing ng transitional species "kuno" galnig sa isang pirasong buto
aba eh scientific approach nga...

hindi nga naman magic... pero minagic


parang LGBT lang ah... kapag may naipost na link against sa evolution... sinasabihan agad na bias .... kaya hindi dapat paniwalaan...

[RU9]

Sir heisenbergman pointed out many transitional fossils via Wikipedia:
 
In response, I issued this challenge:
 
 
None of the evolutionists here took me up on it.
 
Akala ko atapang atao.  Atulin pala atakbo ...     

I disagree. You did not respond to the last statement on the subject --"Please tell".

Are you actually saying that the list of transitional fossils as listed on that page, collated from the many references cited at the bottom of the page, throughout years of study... are actually not transitional fossils??

I think the burden of proof is on you to explain why these are not transitional fossils, since all the whats, hows and whys are already listed there and on related pages for all to see.

Why repeat? It's all there. Do us all a favor and tell us why they aren't transitional fossils.

We're not scientists. We rely on those who we think are experts. If you know something we don't, please tell.

[RU9]

Sir RU9

That's precisely the evogram I was referring to where the site said this:( You might want to read carefully and understand the implication of the statement...)

I was trying to show the approach of creation.com vs. http://evolution.berkeley.edu on the subject.

Who is more systematic?

[barrister]

 

I disagree. You did not respond to the last statement on the subject --"Please tell".

 
I did respond later with the Paki fossil.
 
I asked evolutionists here to start with a fossil, then explain why it is transitional.  Instead of complying, they just threw the question back at me.
 
I waited for someone to comply, but when it seemed that none was coming, I pointed out a fossil claimed to be transitional (Pakicetus) then explained why it is not.     
 
Now we go back to your side.  Point out a fossil, then explain why it's transitional.

[docelmo]

I was trying to show the approach of creation.com vs. http://evolution.berkeley.edu on the subject.

Who is more systematic?

Sir,
Both sites are actually saying the same thing......The Pakicetus is NOT a Whale ancestor!!! Same goes for the ambulocetus, rodhocetus etc etc....
So there goes your systematic whale evolution!

[RU9]

 I waited for someone to comply, but when it seemed that none was coming, I pointed out a fossil claimed to be transitional (Pakicetus) then explained why it is not.     
 
Now we go back to your side.  Point out a fossil, then explain why it's transitional.

Well you told them what you know. No reply, so I presume it was accepted. End of story.

[RU9]

Sir,
Both sites are actually saying the same thing......The Pakicetus is NOT a Whale ancestor!!! Same goes for the ambulocetus, rodhocetus etc etc....
So there goes your systematic whale evolution!

Ganito iyon--

creation.com says the whale is created by god as is, instantly. while
evolution.berkeley.edu show how the whales evolved.

[docelmo]

Ganito iyon--

creation.com says the whale is created by god as is, instantly. while
evolution.berkeley.edu show how the whales evolved.

Evolved how? From which animal? Since apparently not one of those animals are its ancestor?

[bumblebee]

Do we all agree with this definition? (from wikipedia)

A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.[1] This is especially important where the descendant group is sharply differentiated by gross anatomy and mode of living from the ancestral group. These fossils serve as a reminder that taxonomic divisions are human constructs that have been imposed in hindsight on a continuum of variation. Because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know exactly how close a transitional fossil is to the point of divergence. Therefore, we can't assume transitional fossils are direct ancestors of more recent groups, though they are frequently used as models for such ancestors.

[sirhc]

Ganito iyon--

creation.com says the whale is created by god as is, instantly. while
evolution.berkeley.edu show how the whales evolved.

I've been following this thread for a while now. Allow me to share my 2 cents worth. I've been formulating my own opinion on the matter based on what has been shared in this thread.

Here's my argument, for those opposed to creationists, they say that the higher being "Instantly" created each being right? I'm thinking, why does it have to be "Instantly"? Why do those opposed to creationist have to ridicule intelligent design as "magical" and has no scientific basis, I don't know but with the scientific progress that were being exposed to right now, DNA and genetic material manipulation is being done, would it be possible that the creator designed these beings on a genetic level and somehow, DNA is an evidence of how the creator programs the beings he designed?

The berkeley, whale evolution really looked awkward to me. I know Scientists based those findings on observable information such as skeletal features and such, but I find it lacking.

Apology if i could not present any studies supporting my claim as as of the moment, this just sprung out of my mind and thought of contributing to the thread.

[RU9]

Evolved how? From which animal? Since apparently not one of those animals are its ancestor?

So you find evolution.berkeley.edu lacking in detail? Here:

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/08/whale-evolution/mueller-text/1

Do we agree on the definition of evolution as shown:

The article title from which this info-graphic was lifted is Top five misconceptions about evolution according to science.

So Humans descend fro chimps is a misconception.

[RU9]

Here's my argument, for those opposed to creationists, they say that the higher being "Instantly" created each being right? I'm thinking, why does it have to be "Instantly"? Why do those opposed to creationist have to ridicule intelligent design as "magical" and has no scientific basis, I don't know but with the scientific progress that were being exposed to right now, DNA and genetic material manipulation is being done, would it be possible that the creator designed these beings on a genetic level and somehow, DNA is an evidence of how the creator programs the beings he designed?

It is not my intention to ridicule intelligent design. If you look at creation.com closely, it is a ‘Young-Earth Creationist" site (http://creation.com/biblical-creationists). They believe the earth is actually old—very old—to the order of 6,000 years where science put it at 4,000,000,000 years. Their interpretation of the bible is literal hence my use of "instantly".

[heisenbergman]

2001 --- Discovery of an almost complete Pakicetus fossil:
 
 

 
Based on the new fossil, here's updated artist's recontruction version 2.0:


Oops... Ang layo pala ... 

Kanina pa ako tawang-tawa ako sa hirit na to. Hehehe.

Para mo na ding sinabi na...



Oops... Ang layo pala ...

[barrister]

Kanina pa ako tawang-tawa ako sa hirit na to. Hehehe.

Para mo na ding sinabi na...



Oops... Ang layo pala ...

 

I really have to explain this?

 
Sir, hindi ito ang sinabi kong malayo:
 

2001 --- Discovery of an almost complete Pakicetus fossil:
 
 

 
Based on the new fossil, here's updated artist's recontruction version 2.0:

Ito ang sinasabi kong malayo:
 
 

Based on the skull fragments, here was the original artist's reconstruction:




Based on the new fossil, here's updated artist's recontruction version 2.0:


Oops... Ang layo pala ...   

I can't believe I had to explain something so simple... 

OK lang sir, kung talagang nahihirapan ka pa rin, e wala na kong magagawa ...   

[heisenbergman]

hahaha! sige lang sir

[RU9]

Evolved how? From which animal? Since apparently not one of those animals are its ancestor?

The Title of the evogram is The evolution of whales. Are you saying that
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ is wrong?

[barrister]

This jpg was made created by a certain AddisonDM.

http://www.conservapedia.com/File:Pakicetus_reconstruction.jpg
http://www.conservapedia.com/User:AddisonDM

There is no indication that it was "made/created" by username AddisonDM, an administrator of conservapedia.com.   All that indicates is who uploaded it to the conservapedia.com site, not who originally authored it.

Notice that the image was uploaded by AddisonDM on 01 July 2009.  But the creation.com article is earlier --- it's a reprint from an issue of Creation magazine, dated March 2005 (http://creation.com/creation-magazine-table-of-contents-272. on pp. 20-22) 
 

 

This was not made by the authors or included in the cited references by creation.com. Very deceiving indeed.

Gingerich, P.D., Wells, N.A., Russell, D.E. and Shah, S.M.I., Origin of whales in epicontinental remnant seas: new evidence from the early Eocene of Pakistan, Science220(4595):403–406, 22 April 1983.

Gingerich, P.D., Evidence for evolution from the vertebrae fossil record, J. Geol. Educ. 31:140–144, 1983.

The cited reference is the cover of Science.
 

Here's the creation.com article: http://creation.com/not-at-all-like-a-whale
 

The info box on the left reads:

Right: The original reconstruction^1,2 based on only the skull fragments represented in blue^1,2 (below).  Evolutionists often make grandiose claims based on insignificant fossil finds. Artists’ reconstructions can exaggerate their significance. The general public doesn’t realise just how much artistic and imaginary licence is added to these announcements
 
Here's footnote #1:

Gingerich, P.D., Wells, N.A., Russell, D.E. and Shah, S.M.I., Origin of whales in epicontinental remnant seas: new evidence from the early Eocene of Pakistan, Science220(4595):403–406, 22 April 1983.
 
That's Science, Vol. 220, Issue No. 4595, dated 22 April 1983.   "Science" is a scientific journal.
 

The body of the creation.com article reads:
 
For example, on the cover of the prestigious journal Science,⁴ there was a picture of an alleged transitional creature. It looked like it had just splashed into the sea, and was chasing fish. However, it had feet and legs more like a land animal’s, but on the way to becoming flippers.
 
Footnote #4 reads:
 
Gingerich, P.D., Wells, N.A., Russell, D.E. and Shah, S.M.I., Origin of whales in epicontinental remnant seas: new evidence from the early Eocene of Pakistan, Science 220(4595):403–406, 22 April 1983.
 
That's the same issue: Science, Vol. 220, Issue No. 4595, 22 April 1983.
 

 
=======================================


 
This is the cover of the journal "Science," Vol. 220, Issue No. 4595, 22 April 1983:
 
 
 

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/220/4595.toc

 
Here's a trace outline of the Science cover (upper left):


 
Here's the creation.com illustration:



It's just a reverse image based on the trace drawing, which was in turn based on the Science journal cover, which creation.com cited.
 

[docelmo]

The Title of the evogram is The evolution of whales. Are you saying that
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ is wrong?

You tell me, when the site itself says "none of the animals are the direct ancestors of any other". All we see are fully formed animals in the past, but no proof that one evolved to another.

Simply stated they Don't Know of any direct ancestors in the fossil records!

[barrister]

Paulit-ulit na lang ang discussion.  Bago naman, para interesting...
 
Here's another controversial area.  Sana may interesado... 
 
Some creationists say that evolution is evil, because some of the most evil men of the 20th century based their murderous ideas on the theory of evolution. 
 
I don't believe that's true, since it's a bit extreme and not convincingly supported by evidence.  Howewer, there might be a slight connection...  Anyway, I still think it's an interesting topic...
 

 
Darwin’s impact—the bloodstained legacy of evolution
by Raymond Hall
http://creation.com/charles-darwins-impact-the-bloodstained-legacy-of-evolution
 
 
 
Darwin, Hitler, and the Hijacking of Evolutionary Theory
By Michael Schulson | March 11, 2014
http://religionandpolitics.org/2014/03/11/darwin-hitler-and-the-hijacking-of-evolutionary-theory/