How ancient whales lost their legs, got sleek and conquered the oceans

EurekAlert (AAAS) ^ | 22 May 2006 | Staff

[ScubieNuc]

I posted that I admitted my error. What is it you would rather have me do?

I'm human. I use sarcasm at times when it offends, but doesn't entertain. I appologize.

I have done a cursory overview of my most recent posts of today and yesterday. I say have a nice day or night. I respond kindly to people I wasn't even corresponding with jump on a post and claim strange things. These things you seem to have failed to notice.

I truely don't understand CarolinaGuitarman. He seems hung up an a word. I wasn't even debating him. The correction to my (admittedly bad) sumation of what evolution claims didn't change what I was trying to get across to someone else.

I think you fail to see the vindictiveness on your own side. Where do CarolinaGman or others ever wish me well?

I'll admit to jumping in Evo threads that I disagree with, and if that is trolling then so be it, but I don't do it with the intend of belittling someone. I do it to make a stand for what I believe. I thought that's what Freerepublic was for. If my beliefs can't stand up to the criticism they recieve, then I should leave. So far that hasn't happened.

When people like CarolinaGuitarman, whom I didn't post anything to, jump into my posts, they invaribly do it with superiorist sarcasm. I sometimes respond in kind. Maybe not Christ-like, but I figured they could handle their own medicine.

I may, in the future, restrain my sarcasm, but I will continue to post my beliefs. If you or the Mods think it is inappropriate, then report me or remove me. Until then......Be seeing ya.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I truely don't understand CarolinaGuitarman."

Hello.

"He seems hung up an a word. I wasn't even debating him. The correction to my (admittedly bad) sumation of what evolution claims didn't change what I was trying to get across to someone else."

Evolutionary theory has nothing to do with the origins of the universe; it makes no claims at all about the age of the universe.

"Where do CarolinaGman or others ever wish me well?"

Good luck.

"When people like CarolinaGuitarman, whom I didn't post anything to, jump into my posts, they invaribly do it with superiorist sarcasm."

I pointed out your errors. They were many; they were compounded with each post. You were the one who dismissed what scientists said without even knowing what they said. You are the one with the *superiorist* attitude.

[gedeon3]

This is total b.s.; Whales never had legs. This is one of the big lies of science.

[Almagest]

"It's not my fault. Those mean old evo's talk to me when I try to pontificate. It's not fair."


Excuses, excuses. Exactly as we are taught to do in scripture -- right?

[ScubieNuc]

"Good luck."

Thank you. Now I can sleep tonight. /sarcasm

I hope that sarcasm wasn't too cruel. If it was I'll extend this thread with another apology.

8^)

[Almagest]

"This is total b.s.; Whales never had legs. This is one of the big lies of science."


No, Senor Galileo. I will NOT look through that telescope. What you saw is NOT TRUE, no matter what. There's no point in looking, because it's not there. [Putting hands over ears and closing eyes tight -- and singing 'LALALALALALALALA -- I can't HEEEEAAAARRRR you!"

[ScubieNuc]

"Excuses, excuses. Exactly as we are taught to do in scripture -- right? "

Not excuses friend, defense of what I believe.

1Pe 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and [be] ready always to [give] an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

I need to learn to do it with meekness and fear of God's correction of my pride. Otherwise, yes it is scriptural.

Sincerely

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Thank you. Now I can sleep tonight."

Glad to be of service.

"I hope that sarcasm wasn't too cruel. If it was I'll extend this thread with another apology."

No doubt.

[Almagest]

"Not excuses friend, defense of what I believe."


So let me get this right. Castigating the other poster for having evolution as her/his "god" is a defense of what you believe.

You are delusional. Once again, I have wasted my efforts in appealing to someone's conscience.

[Almagest]

Hey, Scubi -- we have had a lot of back and forth, and in all the scuffle, I noticed that you never did answer my question. You had claimed that speciation had never occurred -- and I responded with a question. I would appreciate an honest answer, in the Christian spirit that you claimed to aspire to, and without the sarcasm that you apologized for.

Please get back to me on this. I know you are concerned with truth, and that if you find that you have said something untruthful, even inadvertantly, you would want to correct it -- right? This question goes directly to the heart of your claim about the lack of speciation, and it's a very simple question. Here it is again:

Why can't domestic wheat interbreed with emmer grass?

[jerryem]

thank you for not answering my questions,but here is a simple one, what color skin did Adam and Eve have? I expect another tirade of abuse but if you would read all and try to understand some of the more simple things in life, like my tag line as an example!

[ahayes]

Not even this whale found in 1921?

Humpback whale femur, tibia, tarsis, and metatarsal. Found here.

[Almagest]

<< thank you for not answering my questions,but here is a simple one, what color skin did Adam and Eve have? >>


Hey, Scubie -- speaking of not answering questions -- I have one for you that I have asked several times now, and I still don't see any answers. Here it is again:


If speciation does not occur, why can't domestic wheat interbreed with emmer grass?

[jerryem]

Salutations and good wishes, your apologies are not needed, the post was understood, as Scubie has put his head under the sand ( 150 ft. under the water ) looking for a whales foot.

[ScubieNuc]

Hey Al....

I was suprised that you are still posting to me. In post #329 you posted...'You are delusional. Once again, I have wasted my efforts in appealing to someone's conscience. "

And in post # 258 you posted...."You are so far removed from understanding basic logic that I don't see any point in explaining it again."

So I have to ask myself...If you believe me to be delusional, and lacking the basic understanding of logic (crazy)...Why are you trying to convince me of anything? Like I posted to someone else, which is crazier? The crazy man holding to his beliefs, or the person trying to convince a crazy man he's crazy?

Of course, I know I'm not crazy, but you think I am. I believe you are pursueing this because the Holy Spirit of God is convicting your heart of something, and you feel that by trashing me, the convicting feeling will go away. Well, I'll give you your chance.

First, your "grass" question came about in post # 152 in response to this..."A scientific fact requires observation. Like I said in another post, you can't test or observe non-life creating life, transitional forms, or primitive organisms, to name a few."

You posted...."Transitional forms have been observed; speciation has been observed, both in the lab and in nature. If you think speciation has not occurred, then answer this simple question: why can't domestic wheat inter-breed with emmer grass? If you don't understand the question, you are not ready to refute anything about transitional forms."

My statement about transitional forms comes from a pro-evolution book called "Denying Evolution" by Massimo Pigliucci. If you want to fight him about transitional forms, be my guest.

I find it interesting that you have made yourself the judge and jury on my ability to enter into the discussion of transitional forms. You post some "grass" question, declare if I don't have the answer to your question of "specification" then I'm not qualified to dispute whale walking tales. (Specification is a word you used, not me, and I suspect a side argument on it's scientific definition. I'll leave that alone, though.)

Ok, here's my answer to your "grass" question.....I don't know. I could look it up, but I'm not interested. I did look up some stuff on the whale walking problems. You can access it Here . I'm sure you have answers to all those problems too.

Here's my bottom line with you...Someday you'll stand before God, and answer to Him for your life. Is your reason for not having faith in His son going to be along the lines of, "I couldn't believe in your Bible because science had shown me that domestic wheat can't interbreed with emmer grass."?

Sincerely

[Doctor Stochastic]

I still don't see what the big deal is.

If you are continually inaccurate in merely quoting people on this thread, why should we believe that anything else you say is accurate?

[Doctor Stochastic]

He's partially correct. Whales never did have legs nor does science claim so. Whales's ancestors had legs and hippos share these ancestors.

[ScubieNuc]

"thank you for not answering my questions,but here is a simple one, what color skin did Adam and Eve have? I expect another tirade of abuse but if you would read all and try to understand some of the more simple things in life, like my tag line as an example!"

I did answer your question, you just don't agree with my answer. I'm sorry if my sarcasm was too harsh. Your friend Al, already brought that to my attention. I assumed that since the posting of your question was in a sarcastic manner, that you would be able to deal with my sarcasm. I now see that my sarcasm is too much for some. I'll try to be more serious.

Now, to the question of Adam's skin color....I don't know. However, I think your question may be answered Here.

I hope that answers your question.

Sincerely

[ScubieNuc]

"If you are continually inaccurate in merely quoting people on this thread, why should we believe that anything else you say is accurate?"

The point you are missing is when I realized I had made a mistake, I corrected it. I'm not asking anyone to assume what I post is 100% accurate. I'm merely exercising my right to object.

Like I said in other posts, I'm not qualified to be considered an authority in these matters of science. That, however, doesn't exclude me from having opinions, and posting them.

In the end, I place my faith in the authority of God and not the origins ideas of scientists.

Sincerely

[VadeRetro]

PMFJI, but I ignored my better judgment and followed your link. It's a grab bag of reasons why whales can't have evolved from land-based artiodactyls. It ignores the evidence for this having happened and concentrates on barriers real and imagined, mostly the latter.

Here's the problem. We have long had a series of whales called Archaeocetes with primitive features unknown or atavistic on modern whales. Legs and pelvises visibly shrinking over time. Nostrils visibly rising on the head over time to become the modern blowhole. But these were all still fully marine animals.

The 80s and 90s have further fleshed out the picture. We have a fully terrestrial land artiodactyl, Pakicetus. We have an obvious but later near-relative (similar head) Ambulocetus, about as aquatic as a crocodile. We have a later near-relative Rhodocetus about as aquatic as a pinniped (seal, walrus). Still has the head similarities and still has an artiodactyl ankle bone, the astralagus. The series has fleshed out in other places as well.

And what your link refers to only elliptically in the most negative light it can manufacture is that whales are molecularly speaking even-toed ungulates. All it can do is find someone somewhere expressing incredulity at how unrelated traditional taxonomy has made cows and whales, given the molecular relatedness.

We have the clear forensic trail in the fossil record and molecular biology. All creationists can do is squirm and quote-mine. This is weaker than weak. Given clear and positive evidence that a thing has happened, evidence which makes no sense at all if the thing didn't happen, it DOESN'T MATTER if we don't know every detail down to the molecule of how it happened. It does no good to invent silly excuses why it was supposedly impossible.

The exact parallel happens in discussions of dinosaurs becoming birds. Someone will post something along the lines of "A theropod claw can't become a wing because the in-between thing is not a wing and not a claw and no good as anything."

To which I post a picture.

That is the forelimb of what creationists, shrieking in denial, call "A bird! Just a bird! Not a transitional!"

And to deal with another point of yours, said pictures never convinces the nutcase who made the point being answered of anything. Never. After all, he's nuts.

But I can hear the lurkers belly-laughing.