|
O.K....does this finally explain Oprah Winfrey?....
Amazing! Whales were always whales and hippos were always hippos. Are there any other theories that has promoted as much searching for evidence to support it than evolution? They're really stretching here.
When a species had to develop a defense measure to keep from being wiped out by predators this susposedly took millions of years, they must have been in hiding wating for armor, wings, poison glands or whatever to develop.
I assure you, all of our ancestors were fully human.
Somehow, a legless man chasing a white hippo just does not sound like a timeless classic to me.
"From Hell's heart I stab at the.....thou dammed hippo!"
hippopotamus=
hippo: Greek for horse
potamo: Greek for river
hence "river horse"
But wait...I thought evolution didn't make predictions, and therefore wasn't testable!
Another fascinating point on this are the peccaries -- they resemble pigs at least that's what the books say (I've never seen one in real life), but what's the differentiating factors?
And in further research it was found that Michael Moore is related to a pig and moron.
I bet the first whale that jumped on the beach and suddenly started breathing air only did so to get away from all of his pals and their cruel jokes about his freakish half hippo appearance.
pong
There you have it - if given enough time my 65 Ford Mustang could evolve to be a fruit fly. They say "life" somehow sprang from un-life so it'll eventually work out the problems.
Scientists find missing link between Janeane Garofolo and her nearest relative Roseanne Barr.
Both are fat and unfunny.
for later
Is this good for a juicy little grant for the seekers of PhD Welfare?
A whale became a hippo as likely as hydrogen gas cooled and became a single cell or a complex cell.
If you want to teach your chjildren that you are related to an Oak Tree, fine, but dont be an idiot and call it science, please.
SCIENTIFIC ROADBLOCKS TO WHALE EVOLUTION
- IMPACT No. 304 October 1998
by Frank Sherwin, M.A.*
© Copyright 2004 Institute for Creation Research. All Rights Reserved
Hamlet: Do you see yonder cloud that's almost in shape of a camel?
Polonius: By the mass, and 'tis like a camel, indeed.
Hamlet: Me thinks it is like a weasel.
Polonius: It is backed like a weasel.
Hamlet: Or like a whale?
Polonius: Very like a whale.
Introduction
The American public—including young people in our tax-supported public schools—is constantly indoctrinated with the curious idea that people (and whales) have come from bacteria.
One legitimate answer to the question "What is life?" is "bacteria." Any organism, if not itself a live bacterium, is then a descendant—one way or another—of a bacterium or, more likely, mergers of several kinds of bacteria.1
Naturalists shroud such whimsical statements with the mantle of science. Indeed, one encounters many bizarre explanations for the origin of the species when such strange fiction grips biology. A popular contemporary "just so" story tells how land mammals ventured back into the ancient seas and became whales. The idea was first presented by Darwin in the first edition of his book, Origin of Species. The naturalist stated: "I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale." Interestingly, Darwin retracted this example in all later editions of his book.
This has not stopped later evolutionists. For example, the ancient ancestors of whales, writes the late Sir Gavin de Beer, ". . . had dentitions enabling them to feed on large animals, but some took to preying on fish and rapidly evolved teeth like sharks. . . . Next, some whales preyed on small cuttlefish and evolved a reduced dentition. Finally the whalebone whales, having taken to feeding on enormous numbers of small shrimps, also evolved rapidly.2
This imaginary tale explains nothing. No one was there to observe, measure, or take notes regarding the above process. Thus, it is idle speculation and should not be considered science.
When we investigate whale evolution from a non-whale ancestor, the problems seem as enormous as the creatures themselves. In 1982, a British science writer and evolutionist said:
The problem for Darwinians is in trying to find an explanation for the immense number of adaptations and mutations needed to change a small and primitive earthbound mammal, living alongside and dominated by dinosaurs, into a huge animal with a body uniquely shaped so as to be able to swim deep in the oceans, a vast environment previously unknown to mammals . . . all this had to evolve in at most five to ten million years—about the same time as the relatively trivial evolution of the first upright walking apes into ourselves.3
Evolutionist Michael Denton described the problem of such a fantastic transition by saying: ". . . we must suppose the existence of innumerable collateral branches leading to many unknown types . . . one is inclined to think in terms of possibly hundreds, even thousands of transitional species on the most direct path between a hypothetical land ancestor and the common ancestor of modern whales . . . we are forced to admit with Darwin that in terms of gradual evolution, considering all the collateral branches that must have existed in the crossing of such gaps, the number of transitional species must have been inconceivably great.4
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-304.htm
I am just amazed at how evolutionists first tell us Whales came from hippos, now they tell us hippos came from whales!!
But this just creates 2 more missing links!!
;)