Evidence for God from Science

ClassicalTeacher wrote:

neo-x wrote:Alter 2 EGO...PLEASE READ THIS PAPER AND LET ME KNOW WHAT YOU THINK.

Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution is an essay by the evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky.

And dude, its hard to read your posts in many colors, try a single color.

Pot, meet kettle.

??? I didn't get your point, CT.

Did you read the paper? if so please cite your point with respect to that.

ClassicalTeacher wrote:

hughfarey wrote:Hi Alter2Ego, good of you to return to your thread!

You first make the point that we should not simply grab quotes to support our arguments, which I thoroughly agree with. However you then grab three quotes from a pair of the most dedicated evolutionists of our time, wholly out of context, which seems a little inconsistent.

No matter. The context is easy to explain, and it becomes clear that Eldredge and Gould in no way support a creationist position. Their point is that for thousands of generations a species remains fairly stable, adapted to its surroundings, but that when its environment changes suddenly, or a group of organisms from a species move to a new environment, then they take a few hundred generations to adapt to the new conditions. Obviously we would expect far fewer fossils from the relatively short transitional stages than from the long stable stages, which is exactly what we find. The contrast they are making is not between evolution and creation, but between continuous gradual evolution and sporadic rather rapid evolution.

You find that Eldredge and Gould's stated lack of evidence for gradual evolution is evidence for creation, but this is not true either. Quote number 2 mentions an absence of 'gradationally intermediate transitional forms.' What is clear from the rest of the book is that for many species or groups of species they observe a geologically rapid series of intermediate transitional forms between the ages-long series of stable forms, which accounts for the disproportionate number of fossils of each kind. Quote 3 says that there is 'precious little' in the way of transitional fossils, which is good evidence against Darwin's idea of continuous gradual evolution (Quote 4). However, the quoted paucity of the transitional stages is always relative to the abundance of stable-stage fossils, and is what it says it is, a relative paucity, not a non-existence. There are sufficient transitional forms to demonstrate the truth of saltatory, or punctuated evolution, as explained in earlier posts.

Having examined your objections to evolution, may I inquire about your creationist views. New Earth or Young Earth? Progressive Creation or all at once at the beginning?

HughFarey: This is no surprise. She's done this kind of thing on numerous forums. She will ignore your questions and get back on her "merry-go-round"! Good luck!

I had kinda figured that after the first few posts I saw, that is why I didn't engage.

ryanbouma wrote:Hi guys,

I didn't mean Gen 2 is emotionally upsetting. I meant, if Gen 1 & 2 are taken literally, it upsets the TE way of thinking. I must be mistaken, TEs find Gen 2 more literal? Ok fine.

I am still a little unsure how the TE explains some of the problems with evolution? Do you just inject God into those problems, like a god of the gaps mentality? I think most atheists would find that unsettling. I don't, but others may. I could get on board with evolution IF I could use God to bridge problems like:

- co-option is a silly explanation for irreducible complexity;
- origin of life;
- 23 chromosone fusion;
- many leaps in the fossil record like the explosions and whales;
- Seemingly sudden appearance of mankind;
- Warm bloodedness and lack of understanding why this would occur;
- etc.

If God could be used to say, "well God directed creation this way miraculously to overcome, say warm bloodedness" then that would be at least viable to me. Obviously I don't have a problem with God creating through miracles.

Taking Genesis 1-2 completely literal would upset the vast majority of contemporary creation views. Almost every creation view (whether they admit it or not) has parts that they interpret in a non-literal way. But no, I wouldn't take Gen 2 entirely literally. It certainly has literal elements but it also has allegorical/spiritual elements as well.

As for your concerns about evolution, Many of those problems are not really problems at all. For example, the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution (I'm pretty sure you know this Ryan). Evolution tells us what happens when we have life, not how we got life.
Did you get a chance to look at the Dawkin's video on irreducible complexity? IC is, in all candor, an outdated argument. Most consider the argument pseudo-science.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mb9_x1wg ... &index=130

Nobel prize-winning geneticist H. J. Muller used a two step argument to basically shut down IC. It goes as follows: 1. Add a part 2. Make it necessary. There are tons of hypothetical or even real-life examples here. Dawkin's, on the video, gives excellent examples for the eye. In his book The God Delusion, he takes about the wing and gives examples there.
So, as most leading scientists agree, the irreducible complexity argument is basically worthless.

I'm open to ideas about the explosions. This could be a point in favor of some kind of progressive creationism, or God intervening in time.
The evolution of whales, however, is very well documented and not a problem to evolutionist.
And the evolution of man has tremendous evidence for it. There are a number of excellent transitional fossils here. It's really humbling seeing the transitional fossils for us

The few others I haven't looked into much so I won't comment there. But I'm open to using God to explain the "gaps" although I think we should be careful when doing this.

Hi, ClassicalTeacher and Danieltwotwenty!

I note that CT describes himself (herself?) as a Young Age Creationist. Is that the same as a literal interpretationist, or does it allow for some metaphorical application? I hope you won't go away. Alter2Ego swoops in from time to time, and like many of her genre completely fails to engage in any science, but ryanbouma has been a worthy defender of "Genesis Creation" which I have found refreshing.

Which leads me onto:

Co-option being silly? I'm sorry you think that, particularly considering the remarkable similarity between chloroplastic DNA and that of various photosynthetic prokaryotes. The composition of the eukaryotic cell as a confederation of prokaryotes I think is a very promising and fruitful line of research. It happens at macroscopic levels too, such as the sting of some jellyfish, and at intermediate evolutionary stages, such as lichens.

Origin of life. Well, I agree we're some way off that, and could not say that the scientific evidence against spontaneous creation is sufficiently robust to challenge it yet. I believe it will come, ryanbouma believes it won't. No doubt we both look forward to the next 20 years or so!

23 chromosome fusion. I'm not sure what is surprising about this. Although the origin of sex is still uncertain, fusing two pairs of 23 chromosomes is fairly run of the mill in the living kingdoms. Our good friend Wikipedia lists an ant with only a single pair of chromosomes, and a fern with 600 or more.

Explosions and whales! Two rather distinct ideas, if I may say so. Whales I think I have mentioned before. Explosions I take to mean things like the Cambrian explosion, when a great many different 'kinds' of organisms appear quite suddenly in the fossil record. To my mind these are better explained by Evolution than Creation, and are caused in three main ways.
The first is a bit of a cop-out, because it deals with how these things were discovered rather than the origin of the things themselves. In both archaeology and palaeontology, if often happens that we have a single instance (or very few) of something, be it a coin, or piece of pottery, or fossil, which for years has to stand as the type for that period, for want of anything better. Then suddenly somebody discovers a whole hoard of artefacts (or fossils) on a single occasion, and new light is shed on the whole period, and the original specimen at last seen in context. This isn't, of course, evidence of a sudden cultural (or biological) explosion, just that we now know a whole lot more about something we didn't know before.
Putting that aside, there are two more explanations for evolutionary explosions. One is developmental, and one environmental. From a development point of view, evolution progresses by random experimentations, the vast majority of which fail, and no progress is made. When, after thousands of generations, a beneficial change arrives, it is immediately and suddenly exploited in many different directions. Such explosions would be those that occurred after the development of the eukaryotic cell, after the first development of multi-celled organisms, and after the first terrestrial-fish developed a way of coping with air and land.
The environmental explanation depends on the sudden opening up of a new exploitable niche, into which organisms can pour, evolving rapidly to make the best of all its available possibilities. The best known of these would be the mammalian explosion after the extinction of dinosaurs, but similar explosions occurred after other mass extinctions, particularly in the sea, and there are also geographical explosions, such as the diversity of organisms on the Galapagos or Hawaii, as a few species from other places arrived and immediately set about diversifying to fill the ecological niches available.

Mankind. Again, Evolution explains the fossil record better than Creation. We have gradual physiological emergence, upright posture, forward facing eyes, reduced teeth and so on, and gradual mental emergence from the earliest evidence of tool using, care for the dead, wall painting, personal decoration and so on. RTB Creationists are hard put, as we have already seen, to pinpoint precisely when two humans were suddenly appointed a soul, or to say what might have distinguished hominids immediately before humans, from humans themselves.

Warm bloodedness. The global decrease in temperature which contributed to the decline of the dinosaurs is a very likely candidate for the evolution of warm bloodedness (probably at least twice). Warm blood itself, of course, is a consequence of any metabolic activity, including that of 'cold-blooded' reptiles, so what we are looking for here is the evolution of thermoregulation rather than warm blood itself. However, thermoregulation is already present in many reptiles, as they carry out strategies for increasing or reducing their core temperatures. Maintaining a core temperature at a constant temperature is only a small evolutinary step further.

Hugh, thanks for the compliment. I've enjoyed the discussion as well. Usually when these issues are discussed with an atheist, there isn't much kindness directed my way

I have rebuttles for your points. They're good points though. But I don't want to push the issue further because:

1. I'm not much of an authority on the subject.
2. I think at some point we just say "hey, we both believe God alone saves us from our sins, so how much does it matter how we got here". If we divide ourselves we becomes like the cults.

Overall, hopefully I was able to offer some perspective to your original question about how creationists believe God did it. And you've given me perspective on how you can combine mainstream science/evolution with your faith in Christ. Amen for that

Ryan

neo-x wrote:

ClassicalTeacher wrote:

neo-x wrote:Alter 2 EGO...PLEASE READ THIS PAPER AND LET ME KNOW WHAT YOU THINK.

Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution is an essay by the evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky.

And dude, its hard to read your posts in many colors, try a single color.

Pot, meet kettle.

??? I didn't get your point, CT.

Did you read the paper? if so please cite your point with respect to that.

I read it and it's a really bad article. Each section basically summarizes by saying, either evolution is correct or God was playing tricks which is absurd. I didn't see a single point in the article that clashed with the PC view or a single point that made it clear that ONLY evolution makes sense. But the article was directed towards YEC. In general, the article read like someone on a soap box who looked down on creationists who hold a different view. I'd refrain from using that article in the future.

neo-x wrote:

ClassicalTeacher wrote:

neo-x wrote:Alter 2 EGO...PLEASE READ THIS PAPER AND LET ME KNOW WHAT YOU THINK.

Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution is an essay by the evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky.

And dude, its hard to read your posts in many colors, try a single color.

Pot, meet kettle.

??? I didn't get your point, CT.

Did you read the paper? if so please cite your point with respect to that.

Sorry...I was aiming my comment to Alter2Ego. I know her from another forum. I'm just learning how to navigate around here! Anyway, sorry about the mix-up!

hughfarey wrote:Hi, ClassicalTeacher and Danieltwotwenty!

I note that CT describes himself (herself?) as a Young Age Creationist. Is that the same as a literal interpretationist, or does it allow for some metaphorical application? I hope you won't go away. Alter2Ego swoops in from time to time, and like many of her genre completely fails to engage in any science, but ryanbouma has been a worthy defender of "Genesis Creation" which I have found refreshing.

Which leads me onto:

Co-option being silly? I'm sorry you think that, particularly considering the remarkable similarity between chloroplastic DNA and that of various photosynthetic prokaryotes. The composition of the eukaryotic cell as a confederation of prokaryotes I think is a very promising and fruitful line of research. It happens at macroscopic levels too, such as the sting of some jellyfish, and at intermediate evolutionary stages, such as lichens.

Origin of life. Well, I agree we're some way off that, and could not say that the scientific evidence against spontaneous creation is sufficiently robust to challenge it yet. I believe it will come, ryanbouma believes it won't. No doubt we both look forward to the next 20 years or so!

23 chromosome fusion. I'm not sure what is surprising about this. Although the origin of sex is still uncertain, fusing two pairs of 23 chromosomes is fairly run of the mill in the living kingdoms. Our good friend Wikipedia lists an ant with only a single pair of chromosomes, and a fern with 600 or more.

Explosions and whales! Two rather distinct ideas, if I may say so. Whales I think I have mentioned before. Explosions I take to mean things like the Cambrian explosion, when a great many different 'kinds' of organisms appear quite suddenly in the fossil record. To my mind these are better explained by Evolution than Creation, and are caused in three main ways.
The first is a bit of a cop-out, because it deals with how these things were discovered rather than the origin of the things themselves. In both archaeology and palaeontology, if often happens that we have a single instance (or very few) of something, be it a coin, or piece of pottery, or fossil, which for years has to stand as the type for that period, for want of anything better. Then suddenly somebody discovers a whole hoard of artefacts (or fossils) on a single occasion, and new light is shed on the whole period, and the original specimen at last seen in context. This isn't, of course, evidence of a sudden cultural (or biological) explosion, just that we now know a whole lot more about something we didn't know before.
Putting that aside, there are two more explanations for evolutionary explosions. One is developmental, and one environmental. From a development point of view, evolution progresses by random experimentations, the vast majority of which fail, and no progress is made. When, after thousands of generations, a beneficial change arrives, it is immediately and suddenly exploited in many different directions. Such explosions would be those that occurred after the development of the eukaryotic cell, after the first development of multi-celled organisms, and after the first terrestrial-fish developed a way of coping with air and land.
The environmental explanation depends on the sudden opening up of a new exploitable niche, into which organisms can pour, evolving rapidly to make the best of all its available possibilities. The best known of these would be the mammalian explosion after the extinction of dinosaurs, but similar explosions occurred after other mass extinctions, particularly in the sea, and there are also geographical explosions, such as the diversity of organisms on the Galapagos or Hawaii, as a few species from other places arrived and immediately set about diversifying to fill the ecological niches available.

Mankind. Again, Evolution explains the fossil record better than Creation. We have gradual physiological emergence, upright posture, forward facing eyes, reduced teeth and so on, and gradual mental emergence from the earliest evidence of tool using, care for the dead, wall painting, personal decoration and so on. RTB Creationists are hard put, as we have already seen, to pinpoint precisely when two humans were suddenly appointed a soul, or to say what might have distinguished hominids immediately before humans, from humans themselves.

Warm bloodedness. The global decrease in temperature which contributed to the decline of the dinosaurs is a very likely candidate for the evolution of warm bloodedness (probably at least twice). Warm blood itself, of course, is a consequence of any metabolic activity, including that of 'cold-blooded' reptiles, so what we are looking for here is the evolution of thermoregulation rather than warm blood itself. However, thermoregulation is already present in many reptiles, as they carry out strategies for increasing or reducing their core temperatures. Maintaining a core temperature at a constant temperature is only a small evolutinary step further.

Hello! I am new here. I am a girl... I do not believe in Darwinist evolution. Although I have taught science and math for 25+ years in upper grades, I am by no means an expert in the argument of creationism vs. evolution. I do not believe in evolution, however, When I teach science, I teach evolution as a poor scientific theory and engage my students in provocative discussions and research to prove it is a poor scientific theory. I have seen and read many arguments on the young-earth philosophy. I believe it is possible for a young-earth, but I think more scientific evidence is needed for this to be proven. I do not believe that the universe is billions and billions and billions of years old. I have been very impressed with the Intelligent Design theories and the renowned scientists who belong to that thinking. I was impressed with Ben Stein's expose "Expelled" regarding how ID or anti-evolutionist professors in schools and colleges are singled out for disparagement and removal. The teaching of science has become fueled by a political and societal agenda rather than by truthful scientific inquiry.

The bottom line for me is that God created all things from nothing. Call it a "big bang" if you will, but it is nonetheless a creation by God out from nothing.

Hope that clarifies things for you!

P.S. I know "alter2ego" from another forum. She displays the same behavior on this other forum. She likes to accuse people of "mudslinging" and persecuting her for her beliefs. She needs to get a job or a hobby....

Alter2Ego wrote:

hughfarey wrote:

Alter2Ego wrote:I cannot imagine why you are surprised that I returned to my thread. I debate at several other websites. I also have a life off-line, in the real world. So I do not have the time to come here every single day.

I'm surprised because in my experience it's quite rare for creationists to want to discuss the science of creation. I have been delighted that both Philip, to some extent, and much more generously ryanbouma have been prepared to explain clearly what they think occurred, rather than what they think didn't occur. I noted that having 'thrown down the gauntlet', so to speak, you did not then explain your position. and say what you think occurred. Nor have you yet. I look forward to it.

ALTER2EGO -to- HUGH FAREY:
I believe the Genesis creation account, as stated in God's inspired word, the Judeo-Christian Bible. Every creature that has ever existed was created as is, according to their kind.

Very interesting. God's inspired word?? It seems you pick and choose which inspired word to believe. You don't use the "Judeo-Christian Bible". You use the re-written "bible" of the watchtower society--re-written, of course, to fit their erroneous beliefs. When will the "trinitarian conspiracy" argument start, A2E?? I'm waiting for that one.

Your friend, ClassicalTeacher...in case you forgot, I'm from RO....

ClassicalTeacher wrote:Hello! I am new here. I am a girl... I do not believe in Darwinist evolution. Although I have taught science and math for 25+ years in upper grades, I am by no means an expert in the argument of creationism vs. evolution. I do not believe in evolution, however, When I teach science, I teach evolution as a poor scientific theory and engage my students in provocative discussions and research to prove it is a poor scientific theory. I have seen and read many arguments on the young-earth philosophy. I believe it is possible for a young-earth, but I think more scientific evidence is needed for this to be proven. I do not believe that the universe is billions and billions and billions of years old. I have been very impressed with the Intelligent Design theories and the renowned scientists who belong to that thinking. I was impressed with Ben Stein's expose "Expelled" regarding how ID or anti-evolutionist professors in schools and colleges are singled out for disparagement and removal. The teaching of science has become fueled by a political and societal agenda rather than by truthful scientific inquiry.

The bottom line for me is that God created all things from nothing. Call it a "big bang" if you will, but it is nonetheless a creation by God out from nothing.

Hope that clarifies things for you!.

[/quote]Well, sort of. I'm sorry you think Evolution is a poor theory. However, you don't seem very clear about the Scientific credentials (as opposed to the Theological ones) of the alternatives. Intelligent Design theories, for example, tend to require an earth billions of years old, which you say you don't believe in, while the Young Earth Creationists, on the other hand, hold Intelligent Design in a certain amount of scorn.

I wonder if you would agree that while there are more Christians on the earth than ever before, fewer and fewer people believe that spontaneous creation was God's way of going about producing the world. Can it be true that atheists are managing to convince people of evolution without getting them to disbelieve in God? Or are Christians drawn to evolution for other reasons? What is, I wonder, the "political and societal agenda" which is apparently affecting my reason without my being aware of it?

hughfarey wrote:

ClassicalTeacher wrote:Hello! I am new here. I am a girl... I do not believe in Darwinist evolution. Although I have taught science and math for 25+ years in upper grades, I am by no means an expert in the argument of creationism vs. evolution. I do not believe in evolution, however, When I teach science, I teach evolution as a poor scientific theory and engage my students in provocative discussions and research to prove it is a poor scientific theory. I have seen and read many arguments on the young-earth philosophy. I believe it is possible for a young-earth, but I think more scientific evidence is needed for this to be proven. I do not believe that the universe is billions and billions and billions of years old. I have been very impressed with the Intelligent Design theories and the renowned scientists who belong to that thinking. I was impressed with Ben Stein's expose "Expelled" regarding how ID or anti-evolutionist professors in schools and colleges are singled out for disparagement and removal. The teaching of science has become fueled by a political and societal agenda rather than by truthful scientific inquiry.

The bottom line for me is that God created all things from nothing. Call it a "big bang" if you will, but it is nonetheless a creation by God out from nothing.

Hope that clarifies things for you!.

Well, sort of. I'm sorry you think Evolution is a poor theory. However, you don't seem very clear about the Scientific credentials (as opposed to the Theological ones) of the alternatives. Intelligent Design theories, for example, tend to require an earth billions of years old, which you say you don't believe in, while the Young Earth Creationists, on the other hand, hold Intelligent Design in a certain amount of scorn.

I wonder if you would agree that while there are more Christians on the earth than ever before, fewer and fewer people believe that spontaneous creation was God's way of going about producing the world. Can it be true that atheists are managing to convince people of evolution without getting them to disbelieve in God? Or are Christians drawn to evolution for other reasons? What is, I wonder, the "political and societal agenda" which is apparently affecting my reason without my being aware of it?[/quote]

I don't know what you mean about not being clear about the scientific credentials of the alternatives? I have no idea how many Christians there are on this planet vs. the number of them in previous times, and I have no idea what they believe about evolution or "spontaneous creation". I can only speak for my beliefs. It is true that atheists have had a huge impact on society today. It is self-evident especially in the U.S. and Europe. And, I'm sure you know exactly what I mean in your last question. I am not going to get into a debate with you on this because I stated that these were my own personal beliefs. You don't like them? Don't agree with them? Oh well....I guess you'll have to deal...

ClassicalTeacher wrote: ... I am by no means an expert in the argument of creationism vs. evolution. I do not believe in evolution, however, When I teach science, I teach evolution as a poor scientific theory and engage my students in provocative discussions and research to prove it is a poor scientific theory. ... I do not believe that the universe is billions and billions and billions of years old....

Out of curiosity, why do you teach evolution as a "poor scientific theory" if you would not consider yourself an expert in the field? Wouldn't it be better to stay objective and describe the contemporary scientific scene as a teacher? (Especially if the subject is not something you're well-educated in).
I just hope the students know about the objective evidence and are aware that the vast majority of scientists hold to the view that the universe is 13.7 billions years old and in the theory of evolution.

ClassicalTeacher wrote: ... I am by no means an expert in the argument of creationism vs. evolution. I do not believe in evolution, however, When I teach science, I teach evolution as a poor scientific theory and engage my students in provocative discussions and research to prove it is a poor scientific theory. ... I do not believe that the universe is billions and billions and billions of years old....

Out of curiosity, why do you teach evolution as a "poor scientific theory" if you would not consider yourself an expert in the field? Wouldn't it be better to stay objective and describe the contemporary scientific scene as a teacher? (Especially if the subject is not something you're well-educated in).
I just hope the students know about the objective evidence and are aware that the vast majority of scientists hold to the view that the universe is 13.7 billions years old and in the theory of evolution.[/quote]

I am not going to get into a debate with you on this because I stated that these were my own personal beliefs. You don't like them? Don't agree with them? Oh well....I guess you'll have to deal...

You teach evolution to young kids and show them how it's a "poor scientific theory" yet are not willing to discuss the view? And your justification is because they are your "personal beliefs"? I don't quite understand this
And why do you respond to Huge with "You don't like them? Don't agree with them? Oh well....I guess you'll have to deal..." Come on now. No need for that

neo-x wrote:Alter 2 EGO...PLEASE READ THIS PAPER AND LET ME KNOW WHAT YOU THINK.

Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution is an essay by the evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky.

And dude, its hard to read your posts in many colors, try a single color.

ALTER2EGO -to- NEO-X:
I don't do links. If you want to make a point, please quote the portion from your source here, and then include the weblink, in case someone wants to confirm that you correctly quoted your source. It would also be a good idea if you gave the paragraph and/or page number.

hughfarey wrote:

Alter2Ego wrote:Eldredge and Gould came up with the replacement theory of punctuated equilibrium after Charles Darwin's predictions failed. Darwin predicted that future scientists would find bones to fill in the gaps in the fossil record and show how creatures evolved from one another. According to one of Darwin's failed predictions, future paleontologists would find bones showing a whale on its way to becoming a bear and bones showing a squirrel on its way to becoming a bat. Guess how many bones they found to prove the aforementioned? I will give you a single guess.

Dear me. From some of your earlier posts I gained the impression that you had read a little about evolution, but I'm not sure now if that's the case. Bears are not evolved from whales, which is why there are no transitional fossils showing "a whale on its way to becoming a bear." Whales are evolved from creatures not unlike a modern hippopotamus, and there are a great many fossils showing "a hippo on its way to becoming a whale." Luckily, both hippos and whales are quite large animals, and their bones are relatively easy both to fossilise and to detect. Bats are small and delicate, and their fossils are indeed scarce. However a few transitional forms have been found, such as Onychonycteris finnyi, which show both bat-like characteristics (long thin fingers) and shrew like characteristics (claws on each finger).

ALTER2EGO -to- HUGHFAREY:
Maybe you should wake Charles Darwin up from the dead and explain that to him, including your version of science fiction where you have whales evolving from hippo-like creatures.

Charles Darwin predicted that future generations of paleontologists would find fossils showing a whale on its way to a bear. I believe he got the idea after he saw a bear swimming across the river.

In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.

(SOURCE: Charles Darwin, Origin of Species; Chapter 6, p. 184)