Evidence for God from Science

dougp59 wrote:Please visit my new anti-evolution website;

http://www.evolutionsucks.org

The battle against evolution intensifies!

Okay, well you posted it, so I will take question one: He's wrong. They have mapped the entire history of whale evolution, through fossil records and anatomical autopsies, all the way back.

The website is ad hoc, misspellings abound, there is no use of accurate terminology, scientific or otherwise, and is obviously done by a late teenager.

Someone want to take on Question 2?

Cool! I want to see the whale-evolution timeline! Is it as accurate as the one for humans?

Mystical wrote:Cool! I want to see the whale-evolution timeline! Is it as accurate as the one for humans?

National geographic link:
http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/ ... 101.4.html

Which will lead you to volumes of referenced studies in books, that make it virtually impossible to refute, to all but the most ardent delusionists.

Evolution is the signature of a world built on enlightened intelligence, not a detractor. It shows the beauty of not only concern for myriad creation, so that inspite of itself, it may survive, but also that we may discover of ourselves that our place is within the system, as was intended, not domineering over it with destructive, arrogant malice. We might even find, if our species survives long enough(highly doubtful), that we can reach a new evolutionary state.

Ha!

Laughable. No facts, but a link at the bottom for you to go and pay money to see the rest of the article.

A whale of a tale again.

Mystical wrote:Cool! I want to see the whale-evolution timeline! Is it as accurate as the one for humans?

Here is cytochrome C from several animals.
Without a functioning copy of this particular gene multicellular life aborts.

whale......GDVEKGKKIF VQKCAQCHTV EKGGKHKTGP NLHGLFGRKT GQAVGFSYTD ANKNKGITWG EETLMEYLEN PKKYIPGTKM IFAGIKKKGE RADLIAYLKK ATNE
hippo......GDVEKGKKIF VQKCAQCHTV EKGGKHKTGP NLHGLFGRKT GQSPGFSYTD ANKNKGITWG EETLMEYLEN PKKYIPGTKM IFAGIKKKGE RADLIAYLKQ ATNE
sheep......GDVEKGKKIF VQKCAQCHTV EKGGKHKTGP NLHGLFGRKT GQAPGFSYTD ANKNKGITWG EETLMEYLEN PKKYIPGTKM IFAGIKKKGE REDLIAYLKK ATNE
rat........MGDVEKGKKIF VQKCAQCHTV EKGGKHKTGP NLHGLFGRKT GQAAGFSYTD ANKNKGITWG EDTLMEYLEN PKKYIPGTKM IFAGIKKKGE RADLIAYLKK ATNE
rabbit......GDVEKGKKIF VQKCAQCHTV EKGGKHKTGP NLHGLFGRKT GQAVGFSYTD ANKNKGITWG EDTLMEYLEN PKKYIPGTKM IFAGIKKKDE RADLIAYLKK ATNE
kangaroo.GDVEKGKKIF VQKCAQCHTV EKGGKHKTGP NLNGIFGRKT GQAPGFTYTD ANKNKGIIWG EDTLMEYLEN PKKYIPGTKM IFAGIKKKGE RADLIAYLKK ATNE
rhesus.....GDVEKGKKIF IMKCSQCHTV EKGGKHKTGP NLHGLFGRKT GQAPGYSYTA ANKNKGITWG EDTLMEYLEN PKKYIPGTKM IFVGIKKKEE RADLIAYLKK ATNE
monkey

dougp59 wrote:Ha!

Laughable. No facts, but a link at the bottom for you to go and pay money to see the rest of the article.

A whale of a tale again.

It is more the researcher in the link that is of importance. There is nothing to refute here. They have found the record, including, if you had read the article, the remnants of legs on some whales when they are born.

This should be helpful:
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/cgi-bin/w ... etacean_08

It is completely laid out. The empirical evidence is there to support.

Please visit my new anti-evolution website;

http://www.evolutionsucks.org

The battle against evolution intensifies!

Quick question arising from your "scientific" website (sarcasm)...what is your explanation for the observation that cetaceans have finger, hand, and wrist structure similar to land mammals, but fish do not have this structure? If they were "created" for the same medium (water), why wouldn't they have a similar structure? I could go on, but it appears from this website that it is yet another creation from someone without a solid understanding of science.

dougp59 wrote:Ha!

Laughable. No facts, but a link at the bottom for you to go and pay money to see the rest of the article.

A whale of a tale again.

hehehe. I agree facts are far between with that sort. They bring empty claim and conjecture and then have the audacity to say well "science this" or "science that".

I will have to check your site, sounds interesting, of course by posting that you do realize that everyone is going to redicule your logic as fallacy, and bring into question your intellectual acuity.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Mystical wrote:Cool! I want to see the whale-evolution timeline! Is it as accurate as the one for humans?

Here is cytochrome C from several animals.
Without a functioning copy of this particular gene multicellular life aborts.

whale......GDVEKGKKIF VQKCAQCHTV EKGGKHKTGP NLHGLFGRKT GQAVGFSYTD ANKNKGITWG EETLMEYLEN PKKYIPGTKM IFAGIKKKGE RADLIAYLKK ATNE
hippo......GDVEKGKKIF VQKCAQCHTV EKGGKHKTGP NLHGLFGRKT GQSPGFSYTD ANKNKGITWG EETLMEYLEN PKKYIPGTKM IFAGIKKKGE RADLIAYLKQ ATNE
sheep......GDVEKGKKIF VQKCAQCHTV EKGGKHKTGP NLHGLFGRKT GQAPGFSYTD ANKNKGITWG EETLMEYLEN PKKYIPGTKM IFAGIKKKGE REDLIAYLKK ATNE
rat........MGDVEKGKKIF VQKCAQCHTV EKGGKHKTGP NLHGLFGRKT GQAAGFSYTD ANKNKGITWG EDTLMEYLEN PKKYIPGTKM IFAGIKKKGE RADLIAYLKK ATNE
rabbit......GDVEKGKKIF VQKCAQCHTV EKGGKHKTGP NLHGLFGRKT GQAVGFSYTD ANKNKGITWG EDTLMEYLEN PKKYIPGTKM IFAGIKKKDE RADLIAYLKK ATNE
kangaroo.GDVEKGKKIF VQKCAQCHTV EKGGKHKTGP NLNGIFGRKT GQAPGFTYTD ANKNKGIIWG EDTLMEYLEN PKKYIPGTKM IFAGIKKKGE RADLIAYLKK ATNE
rhesus.....GDVEKGKKIF IMKCSQCHTV EKGGKHKTGP NLHGLFGRKT GQAPGYSYTA ANKNKGITWG EDTLMEYLEN PKKYIPGTKM IFVGIKKKEE RADLIAYLKK ATNE
monkey

yes and that makes it quite similar to other patterns within the DNA structure. So what of it are you saying there is something common amoung life? hmmmmm. Great observation.

dougp59 wrote:Please visit my new anti-evolution website

Hmm...,
1) Question 2 is hard to respond to (doesn't exist)
2) Home page link does not work
3) Contact link does not work
4) Leave comment does not work
5) No link for teacher
6) What do flasks of colored liquids have to do with flagella ?

Is this site the product of ID or evolution ?

BGood: That really doesn't say much.

Mastrini: People are sometimes born with scales. Does that mean we once lived in the water? I'll have to read more of your site, but I didn't see much convincing information. I am sure it will be just as accurate as the human evolutionary timeline or the horse.

The theory of evolution states that modern birds are descendants of the dinosaurs.

So, VERY large complex reptiles emerged from the VERY small fish of the ancient seas, had their fun, then decided to get VERY small and grow wings and fly?! LOL!

Question #4 Can you show the transitional fossils for all THREE of these GIANT steps of evolution?

Eusthenopteron
Acanthostega
Icthyostega
Tulerpeton
Pytonius
Doleserpeton
"Bambiraptor" and similar forms
Archaeopteryx
Protoavis
Sinornis
Hesperornis
Icthyornis

On to question #5, who's got dibs? These may not be in the right order but you get the idea. Really, this site is pretty much a joke.

The discovery of two 50-million-year-old whales from the family Pakicetidae suggest that the previously thought link between the mesonychians and whales seems unlikely, according to Dr. Hans Thewissen (Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine). The fact that these fossils have more primitive teeth than the mesonychians from which they were supposed to have evolved led Dr. Thewissen to conclude that there was "considerable doubt" that cretaceans (whales) are closely related to mesonychians. Paleontologists now are attempting to link whales with the hippopotamus (artiodactyls). However, Dr. Maureen O'Leary (State University of New York) stated, "it's difficult to connect hippos with whales in the fossil record."

The whale phylogeny is a fairy tale which has been strongly disproven by genetic testing as well as the fossil record. Your argument is logically invalid because you appeal to authority-the authority which is bent on proving naturalism. This so called evidence was strongly debated in 2004 by John Renee and Fuz Rana and Rana not only blew him away, but completely shut down his argument. Just because you see a conspicous homological line up does not make it true. Homology has proven to be strongly inaccurate when contrasted with the genetic record.

Dan

The argument is now limited to which ungulate gave rise to whales. I don't see how this gives creationists any comfort.

Whether Pakicetus was more closely related to mesonychids, or some other group seems immaterial to the fact that genetic analysis shows that whales are ungulates, and the fact that we see many transitional species between whales and other ungulates.

Indeed, the prediction of a walking whale was so unlikely in any other context, that creationists used to laugh about it. Until they found one. And then another. And another. And...