Jump to content

Dolphin May Have 'remains' Of Legs


Amethyst
 Share

Recommended Posts

Dolphin may have 'remains' of legs

 

By HIROKO TABUCHI, Associated Press Writer

Sun Nov 5, 2:30 AM ET

 

TOKYO - Japanese researchers said Sunday that a bottlenose dolphin captured last month has an extra set of fins that could be the remains of hind legs, a discovery that may provide further evidence that ocean-dwelling mammals once lived on land.

 

Fishermen captured the four-finned dolphin alive off the coast of Wakayama prefecture (state) in western Japan on Oct. 28, and alerted the nearby Taiji Whaling Museum, according to museum director Katsuki Hayashi.

 

Fossil remains show dolphins and whales were four-footed land animals about 50 million years ago and share the same common ancestor as hippos and deer. Scientists believe they later transitioned to an aquatic lifestyle and their hind limbs disappeared.

 

Whale and dolphin fetuses also show signs of hind protrusions but these generally disappear before birth.

 

Though odd-shaped protrusions have been found near the tails of dolphins and whales captured in the past, researchers say this was the first time one had been found with well-developed, symmetrical fins, Hayashi said.

 

"I believe the fins may be remains from the time when dolphins' ancient ancestors lived on land ... this is an unprecedented discovery," Seiji Osumi, an adviser at Tokyo's Institute of Cetacean Research, said at a news conference televised Sunday.

 

The second set of fins — much smaller than the dolphin's front fins — are about the size of human hands and protrude from near the tail on the dolphin's underside. The dolphin measures 8.92 feet and is about five years old, according to the museum.

 

Hayashi said he could not tell from watching the dolphin swim in a musuem tank whether it used its back fins to maneuver.

 

A freak mutation may have caused the ancient trait to reassert itself, Osumi said. The dolphin will be kept at the Taiji museum to undergo X-ray and DNA tests, according to Hayashi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 131
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Slamdunk

    37

  • Antlerman

    28

  • Legion

    17

  • neverclear5

    15

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Why would land dwelling animals choose to live in water?

Its amazing animals living on land can become dolphins.

This is interesting I don't know much about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would land dwelling animals choose to live in water?

Its amazing animals living on land can become dolphins.

This is interesting I don't know much about it.

Same thing with whales. They did so because of less competition for food with the other land animals. They get more and more adapted to water, spending less and less time on land, until they live exclusively in the water. Whales and dophins are not fish. They are mamals and swim differently than fish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the muscles became weak and the legs became finlike cause they didn't use them enymore?

I'v read alittle on it when I looked up evolution of whales but I'm still wondering on somethings how'd they get from breathing threw their nose to breathing threw a blow hole? it seems like that would've went away and they'd be fish. How does a dolphin or whale sleep if its got to go get air? I'll look up more stuff. Evolution is so facinating I wish I could understand it better I run into words and stuff I know nothing about but I can look that up too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the muscles became weak and the legs became finlike cause they didn't use them enymore?

I'v read alittle on it when I looked up evolution of whales but I'm still wondering on somethings how'd they get from breathing threw their nose to breathing threw a blow hole? it seems like that would've went away and they'd be fish. How does a dolphin or whale sleep if its got to go get air? I'll look up more stuff. Evolution is so facinating I wish I could understand it better I run into words and stuff I know nothing about but I can look that up too.

Yes it is fascinating to learn about these things. I should have added also that they also would have been avoiding land preditors being in the water. As they become more adapted to it and they stop using their land legs, there's no more need for their biology to put energy into keeping that limb healthy. Humans have vestigial tails you know? Now and then, people are born with tails. See photos: http://www.dimaggio.org/Archive/tails_in_humans.htm

 

Now, square that with the book of Genesis! :lmao:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the people on that website should've blurred the kids faces lol

I can't remeber what species it was I saw at the zoo but these "I'll call them apes" was walking upright eating fruit but not for long, sitting like people do with their legs bent in front of them thats when I knew we decended from a common ancestor. Also their faces to me looked nearly human exept for the mouth sticking out further. As too genesis I'd rather believe I decended from an ape than a man made of dirt. I don't know why anybody likes that story and why a woman would like thinking she came from a rib lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the muscles became weak and the legs became finlike cause they didn't use them enymore?

I'v read alittle on it when I looked up evolution of whales but I'm still wondering on somethings how'd they get from breathing threw their nose to breathing threw a blow hole?

Isn't the blow hole the nasal passages? In the skulls of the species that lead to modern whales you will probably notice that the nasal opening gets higher and higher on the skull. So it isn't a change from nose to blow hole, just a change in nose location.
it seems like that would've went away and they'd be fish.
For them to go away they would have to evolve a different way of getting oxygen (like gills). Perhaps in the future a branch will, who knows. But evolution uses what it has, and they since their immediate ancestors had lungs and breathed through their noses, that is what evolution, through natural selection, will specialize. Unless a mutation occurs that allows some to develop another way of getting oxygen, they will continue to breath air.

How does a dolphin or whale sleep if its got to go get air? I'll look up more stuff. Evolution is so facinating I wish I could understand it better I run into words and stuff I know nothing about but I can look that up too.

I saw on a show about dolphins that they don't sleep as deep as we do, they remain conscious enough to surface for air. I would imagine that whales aren't much different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought about something seals have flippers and the split tail and go in and out of water is that what the dolphins ancestors would've been like? Did seals use to have legs. Are they future sea creatures?

This is really interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought about something seals have flippers and the split tail and go in and out of water is that what the dolphins ancestors would've been like? Did seals use to have legs. Are they future sea creatures?

This is really interesting.

I've read that seals, sea lions and walruses (suborder Pinnipedia) may have evolved from mustelids. I've also read that they are related to bears (see Pinnipdeia link). The fossil record appears to be very sparse so it isn't known. Either way, yes they had legs, and they still do, their "tails" are actually their back flippers (legs) and not a true tail. It is easier to see in sea lions and walruses that their ancestor had legs. A good ancestor to look at is the Enaliarctos, which looks like a mix of otter and sea lion with its short legs and elongated phalanges. The only true seal ancestor I have ever read about is Acrophoca (crappy image), and there isn't much information on it.

 

Whales and dolphins came from Mesonychids, which is a family of ungulates. Apparently the most well known is the Andrewsarchus (image) which had a huge skull.

 

So their ancestors really didn't look much like each other. The difference in ancestors would account for the drastic differences in the two groups, including morphology and physiology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dolphin may have 'remains' of legs

 

By HIROKO TABUCHI, Associated Press Writer

Sun Nov 5, 2:30 AM ET

 

TOKYO - Japanese researchers said Sunday that a bottlenose dolphin captured last month has an extra set of fins that could be the remains of hind legs, a discovery that may provide further evidence that ocean-dwelling mammals once lived on land.

 

[slam] I often wonder what it would have been like for a land animal to gradually make its way into the sea and survive. For example, its four legs must have reached the point where it would have been immoblie on land to the extent it would have been prime meat for predators. All four-legged animals have hair. I'm just trying to envision what this creature must have looked like with little or no hair, four stumpy legs and a head that looked life a whale or dolphin. Also, can you imagine how the eye of a land animal evolved into an eye that could see just as well under water as it did on land?

 

Fishermen captured the four-finned dolphin alive off the coast of Wakayama prefecture (state) in western Japan on Oct. 28, and alerted the nearby Taiji Whaling Museum, according to museum director Katsuki Hayashi.

 

[slam] Could this extra set of fins not have been the result of some kind of mutation?

 

Fossil remains show dolphins and whales were four-footed land animals about 50 million years ago and share the same common ancestor as hippos and deer. Scientists believe they later transitioned to an aquatic lifestyle and their hind limbs disappeared.

 

[slam] Scientists "believe." Are you aware of any fossils that show the gradual disappearance of this creature's legs as they began to change into fins? Is there a record in the fossils showing how the head of the land animals gradually evolved into that of the marine creatures? Also, imagine the dramatic change in the reproductive apparatus of the two creatures. It's just hard to imagine how these creatures managed to reproduce half way through their evolution and at the same time survive. I think it's OK for scientists to say they "believe" it happened this way or that way, but certainly not to say they know.

 

Whale and dolphin fetuses also show signs of hind protrusions but these generally disappear before birth.

 

[slam] But couldn't these just be protrusions that are peculiar to some creatures and have no relationship to the morphology of a previous species? Kinda like the appendix.

 

Though odd-shaped protrusions have been found near the tails of dolphins and whales captured in the past, researchers say this was the first time one had been found with well-developed, symmetrical fins, Hayashi said.

 

"I believe the fins may be remains from the time when dolphins' ancient ancestors lived on land ... this is an unprecedented discovery," Seiji Osumi, an adviser at Tokyo's Institute of Cetacean Research, said at a news conference televised Sunday.

 

[slam] Here again we see "I believe." I "believe" that the Creator designed his creations for the environments in which he put them as Genesis records.

 

A freak mutation may have caused the ancient trait to reassert itself, Osumi said. The dolphin will be kept at the Taiji museum to undergo X-ray and DNA tests, according to Hayashi.

 

[slam] I believe this is the only explanation:-)

 

 

Dolphin may have 'remains' of legs

 

A freak mutation may have caused the ancient trait to reassert itself, Osumi said. The dolphin will be kept at the Taiji museum to undergo X-ray and DNA tests, according to Hayashi.

 

[slam] Ooops! I'm sorry, I ment to say that I agree it was a mutation, but not one of a previous trait.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[slam] I often wonder what it would have been like for a land animal to gradually make its way into the sea and survive. For example, its four legs must have reached the point where it would have been immoblie on land to the extent it would have been prime meat for predators.
What the hell are you talking about?
All four-legged animals have hair. I'm just trying to envision what this creature must have looked like with little or no hair, four stumpy legs and a head that looked life a whale or dolphin. Also, can you imagine how the eye of a land animal evolved into an eye that could see just as well under water as it did on land?
Well I can't imagine a God creating everything. Reality isn't bound by what you can imagine.
[slam] Scientists "believe." Are you aware of any fossils that show the gradual disappearance of this creature's legs as they began to change into fins?
Yes.
Is there a record in the fossils showing how the head of the land animals gradually evolved into that of the marine creatures?
Yes.
Also, imagine the dramatic change in the reproductive apparatus of the two creatures. It's just hard to imagine how these creatures managed to reproduce half way through their evolution and at the same time survive.
Once again, what you can or can't imagine has no bearing on reality.
[slam] But couldn't these just be protrusions that are peculiar to some creatures and have no relationship to the morphology of a previous species? Kinda like the appendix.
:drink::lmao::funny: Ah, thanks for the laugh. Slam, I'm not even going to bother with the rest because you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Do some research then come back. Until that happens, assuming it happens, I'm not going to bother with you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[slam] I often wonder what it would have been like for a land animal to gradually make its way into the sea and survive. For example, its four legs must have reached the point where it would have been immoblie on land to the extent it would have been prime meat for predators. All four-legged animals have hair. I'm just trying to envision what this creature must have looked like with little or no hair, four stumpy legs and a head that looked life a whale or dolphin. Also, can you imagine how the eye of a land animal evolved into an eye that could see just as well under water as it did on land?

 

[slam] Could this extra set of fins not have been the result of some kind of mutation?

lifestyle and their hind limbs disappeared.

 

[slam] Scientists "believe." Are you aware of any fossils that show the gradual disappearance of this creature's legs as they began to change into fins? Is there a record in the fossils showing how the head of the land animals gradually evolved into that of the marine creatures? Also, imagine the dramatic change in the reproductive apparatus of the two creatures. It's just hard to imagine how these creatures managed to reproduce half way through their evolution and at the same time survive. I think it's OK for scientists to say they "believe" it happened this way or that way, but certainly not to say they know.

 

[slam] But couldn't these just be protrusions that are peculiar to some creatures and have no relationship to the morphology of a previous species? Kinda like the appendix.

 

[slam] Here again we see "I believe." I "believe" that the Creator designed his creations for the environments in which he put them as Genesis records.

 

You know, I like you slam. But I'm beginning to see why you have such a hard time with science and faith, and why someone like Kent Hovind would sound reasonable to you. From what you're saying above, it really is clear you have no idea what the science is behind the Theory of Evolution.

 

Its land legs finally disappeared because it was no longer using them! It wouldn't have been on land and vulnerable to land preditors. If it was on land, it would have still been using them and they wouldn't have disappeared. :scratch:

 

Here's a long list of Whale evolution for you to spend some time on. http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/whales/evolution_of_whales/

 

I like what is said below in regard to the section talking about the PBS speical on whales: http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/whales/evolu...hales/#pbs_nova

 

Footnote

Edward T. Babinski: I'd just like to add that there are some creationists out there who aren't even phased by the loss of legs in cetaceans over time. They just chalk that up to "de-volution," degeneration. But at the same time these creationists don't even consider the major adaptations those same cetaceans underwent over time to enable them to live their entire lives in the ocean without using legs at all. All of those sea-going adaptations are far from being "devolution," but are examples of positive evolutionary traits. The evolution of the ear for increasing underwater hearing, the evolution of the fins and streamlining of the body for better swimming, the evolution of the position of the nostril from the nose's tip to the middle of the nose to the top of the head so that breathing is accomplished easier for a sea-going mammal. All in all, the anatomy of cetaceans also remains strikingly like the anatomy of their land-lubbing forebears, including the pelvis and vestigial femurs and tibias in right whales. Also, in some species of whales there's still two blow-holes in the tops of their heads rather than one, which is a remnant of the two nostrils that formerly existed. And in the forefins there remains the tendons and bones of the forelimb of their ancestors, but which move a lot less.

 

I tell you what though, it is a lot simpler to just say "God did it" and not bother trying to understand all this technical stuff, and to just tell them they're wrong when I don't like what they've discovered. But then again, is living in denial easy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

[slam] Scientists "believe." Are you aware of any fossils that show the gradual disappearance of this creature's legs as they began to change into fins?

 

Yes.

 

[slam] Please present them.

 

Is there a record in the fossils showing how the head of the land animals gradually evolved into that of the marine creatures?

 

Yes.

 

[slam] Please present this too.

 

Also, imagine the dramatic change in the reproductive apparatus of the two creatures. It's just hard to imagine how these creatures managed to reproduce half way through their evolution and at the same time survive.

 

Once again, what you can or can't imagine has no bearing on reality.

 

[slam] I'm just hungry for evidence. So feed me:-)

 

[slam] But couldn't these just be protrusions that are peculiar to some creatures and have no relationship to the morphology of a previous species? Kinda like the appendix.
:drink::lmao::funny: Ah, thanks for the laugh. Slam, I'm not even going to bother with the rest because you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Do some research then come back. Until that happens, assuming it happens, I'm not going to bother with you.

 

[slam] I'm just asking questions and making observations. Can you provide evidence? BTW, I have searched for answers concerning the questions I have asked here. I can't find any. Perhaps you have some. Specifically, do you know of any fossils showing the characteristics of a four-legged land animal and a whale, or dolphin-like creature? Also, do you know of any fossils showing the GRADUAL evolution of the animal's head into a whale's head? Artist's concepts not accepted:-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[slam] I often wonder what it would have been like for a land animal to gradually make its way into the sea and survive. For example, its four legs must have reached the point where it would have been immoblie on land to the extent it would have been prime meat for predators. All four-legged animals have hair. I'm just trying to envision what this creature must have looked like with little or no hair, four stumpy legs and a head that looked life a whale or dolphin. Also, can you imagine how the eye of a land animal evolved into an eye that could see just as well under water as it did on land?

 

[slam] Could this extra set of fins not have been the result of some kind of mutation?

lifestyle and their hind limbs disappeared.

 

[slam] Scientists "believe." Are you aware of any fossils that show the gradual disappearance of this creature's legs as they began to change into fins? Is there a record in the fossils showing how the head of the land animals gradually evolved into that of the marine creatures? Also, imagine the dramatic change in the reproductive apparatus of the two creatures. It's just hard to imagine how these creatures managed to reproduce half way through their evolution and at the same time survive. I think it's OK for scientists to say they "believe" it happened this way or that way, but certainly not to say they know.

 

[slam] But couldn't these just be protrusions that are peculiar to some creatures and have no relationship to the morphology of a previous species? Kinda like the appendix.

 

[slam] Here again we see "I believe." I "believe" that the Creator designed his creations for the environments in which he put them as Genesis records.

 

You know, I like you slam. But I'm beginning to see why you have such a hard time with science and faith, and why someone like Kent Hovind would sound reasonable to you. From what you're saying above, it really is clear you have no idea what the science is behind the Theory of Evolution.

 

Its land legs finally disappeared because it was no longer using them! It wouldn't have been on land and vulnerable to land preditors. If it was on land, it would have still been using them and they wouldn't have disappeared. :scratch:

 

Here's a long list of Whale evolution for you to spend some time on. http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/whales/evolution_of_whales/

 

I like what is said below in regard to the section talking about the PBS speical on whales: http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/whales/evolu...hales/#pbs_nova

 

I tell you what though, it is a lot simpler to just say "God did it"

 

[slam] And a lot truer:-)

 

and not bother trying to understand all this technical stuff, and to just tell them they're wrong when I don't like what they've discovered. But then again, is living in denial easy?

 

[slam] I visited the whale evolution site. I can see why evolutionists would believe that land creatues evolved into whales. There are some exotic drawings and illustrations that look very appealing. But in my view, the creatures illustrated are not creatures in change between animal specie and whale specie, rather extinct creatures of species bearing similarity to the land animal or whale, or variations within a particular specie. I did not see any ACTUAL fossils showing the gradual disappearance of the land animal's four legs, head, etc. working towards the appearance of fins or flippers. It's easy to draw what you want to believe:-)

 

 

 

 

[slam] By the way Antlerman, I like you too. You're no where near as abusive as some others I have had to contend with. If we disagree, let's try not to be disagreeable:-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And a lot truer:-)

 

And right there, you've proven you're not worthy of honest debate.

 

You've obviously already decided "Godidit" is the correct answer, and nothing is going to sway you from that "Truth." You're not looking for information for any legitimate cause, just being sneaky about attacking your wholly inadequate understanding of evolution.

 

I'd almost rather read a fundy's posts. At least they're up-front and honest about their intentions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slamdunk why don't you look up sites proving man came from dirt and eve came from a rib and snakes talk I bet you wont.

Genesis was written at a time when people didn't have microscopes and the technololgy to see how plants and animals evolved.

Dolphins are not in genesis does that mean they don't exist? Also the bible talks about the windows of heaven, The sun staying still for day and the earth is flat, mary a virgin has a baby, jesus walks on water, stuff that is proven wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[slam] I visited the whale evolution site. I can see why evolutionists would believe that land creatues evolved into whales. There are some exotic drawings and illustrations that look very appealing. But in my view, the creatures illustrated are not creatures in change between animal specie and whale specie, rather extinct creatures of species bearing similarity to the land animal or whale, or variations within a particular specie. I did not see any ACTUAL fossils showing the gradual disappearance of the land animal's four legs, head, etc. working towards the appearance of fins or flippers. It's easy to draw what you want to believe:-)

Where do I begin? Do you honestly view these people like school children with crayons making up drawings that look so good it makes the case for the ToE on this basis alone? You say that “in your view” you do not see in these creatures illustrated as a in change between [a land mammal and an aquatic mammal].

 

In your view, you do not see this? Your view is based on what exactly? What research? What sort of evaluation? A surface evaluation of the author’s illustrations showing what those animals looked like? Can you even imagine your approach to science here being anything even remotely connected to what really happens in science?

 

You didn’t see transitional fossils for these stages in his article? They were there. There are truck loads of transitional fossils out there. Of course, the religious non-scientist lay person who is ignorant of science, imagining all sorts of threats in this to their religious beliefs will try to explain them away – not using science of course to dispute how science concludes these things through careful research, but through logic arguments based on emotionally appealing religious beliefs, laced with political maneuverings impugning the spiritual character of any scientific researcher who see anything different than what they see, as being “un-biblical”, or put another way, “sinful”!

 

This is the same thing you are saying about scientists who see something different than what you think they should be in regards to the origins of the cosmos. The problem isn’t with their science; it’s your willingness/ability to incorporate what is, into your belief systems. This isn’t about science; it’s about your faith.

 

I’d like to share a story with you. I was shopping at a Target store a few years back, and there was a little girl with her mother in the aisle. She was looking at some toy dinosaurs on the shelf and said, “Mommy look at all the dinosaurs!” Her mother responded thusly, “Those never really existed, honey. Those bones were just put there by the devil to test our faith.” I kid you not!!

 

When I was a child myself of 12 years age, I recall my best friend coming home from his church and telling me how that his minister told them that Sunday how that all those bones were really only the bones of large buffalo, and that scientists were reading too much into them! I remember giving my friend the strangest look, and how that he himself looked rather puzzled by this “new information”. :twitch:

 

Sadly Slam, I see you doing these same things. You are accusing the scientist of making mistakes, without having the first idea what they are looking at and how they are arriving at their conclusions. You are gravitating to preachers, like my best friends pastor who thought dinosaur bones were really buffalo bones, because it sounds good to you, because it salves some anxiety you seem to have about all this. Kent Hovind preys on people just like you. He’s a con artist and not a scientist in any sense of the word. He’s good at exploiting people’s fears.

 

Honestly I can’t imagine any other reason for why someone accepts the veracity of science when they agree with it, while not fully understanding all the specifics of their research, but when it runs into some sacred belief, suddenly the scientists are in error. This is what you are doing. Based on what, are they in error?

 

Are you saying that all science should agree with conventional wisdom? You do realize that conventional wisdom changes don’t you? On what basis are you questioning the scientist doing his job he is trained to do, not when you agree with them mind you, but when you disagree with them? Where is your supporting research to dispute their research? Can you just dismiss them with the wave of hand because you simply “just believe”? How is this different from the Reverend Buffalo Bones from my childhood?

 

[slam] By the way Antlerman, I like you too. You're no where near as abusive as some others I have had to contend with. If we disagree, let's try not to be disagreeable:-)

I’ve been told this. But so you understand that this site is a place for people who have come out of Christianity or are leaving it, to come to deal with all the questions and angers that came from their experience in the Christian religion. Even I on a couple occasions have gone off pretty severely on some ultra-fundi who was sending everyone to hell.

 

Try to understand that there’s a lot of genuine hurting going on here, along with lots of other types of discussions. If you show understanding and respect, you won’t be attacked too badly. We have some resident Christians here who went through their own initial baptism of fire, but are now respected members of the community, because they are respectful (plus they’re great people). General rule: if you try to send someone to hell, you’ll get sent to hell. :grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slam, do your own damn research. And no, I don't believe you looked very hard. And my intuition was right, you just deny evidence, this time because it's a drawing. But you have also (tried) to cover your ass by saying

But in my view, the creatures illustrated are not creatures in change between animal specie and whale specie, rather extinct creatures of species bearing similarity to the land animal or whale, or variations within a particular specie.
Let's see what you are asking me for:
Specifically, do you know of any fossils showing the characteristics of a four-legged land animal and a whale, or dolphin-like creature?
So when presented with exactly what you ask me for, you deny that it is a transitional fossil. You are a disingenuous douche bag who thinks his (her?) ignorance is proof that evolution is wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slam, here's one of the transitional fossils mentioned you missed. I remember watching a special on Basilosaurus and them showing the fully defined hind-limbs that were still there but too small for use. See illustration from the site I listed:

 

 

 

 

 

Again, I generally assume scientists are not idiots, and between them and peers in their fields who review each others work, I'll generally accept that they know how to do science and aren't making an endless series of stupid assumptions like little school children. Don't you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slam, here's one of the transitional fossils mentioned you missed. I remember watching a special on Basilosaurus and them showing the fully defined hind-limbs that were still there but too small for use. See illustration from the site I listed:

 

[slam] How do you KNOW these "fully defined hind limbs" are throwbacks to the hind limbs of a four-legged land animal. Do they look like animal legs? But let's keep going back. What was the creature before Basilosaurus that manifested anything that looked like the hind legs of a land animal.

 

Again, I generally assume scientists are not idiots,

 

[slam] Idiots, no way. Capable of misreading fossils? I think so.

 

and between them and peers in their fields who review each others work, I'll generally accept that they know how to do science and aren't making an endless series of stupid assumptions like little school children. Don't you?

 

[slam] Sometimes yes, sometimes no:-) But I would like to see more fossil evidence of creatures bearing morphology that resembling the four legs of a land animal. Could it be that Basilosaurus was just an extinct major kind, or variation within another one?

 

BTW, did you know that many evolutionists agree that the fossil record is extremely sparse in showing one major kind evolving into a different major kind? Some even say that the fossils don't even record a single transitional between major kinds. Most of these evolutionists say that gradualism is out and punctuated equilibria is in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slam, do your own damn research. And no, I don't believe you looked very hard. And my intuition was right, you just deny evidence, this time because it's a drawing.

 

[slam] Let's get into the fossils. I'm asking specifically for any that show the gradual disappearance of a land animals legs as they started to evolve into flippers or fins. I'm familiar with the ones seen on one of the whale evolution sites poste here, but I have yet to see any showing disappearing legs.

 

But you have also (tried) to cover your ass by saying

But in my view, the creatures illustrated are not creatures in change between animal specie and whale specie, rather extinct creatures of species bearing similarity to the land animal or whale, or variations within a particular specie.
Let's see what you are asking me for:
Specifically, do you know of any fossils showing the characteristics of a four-legged land animal and a whale, or dolphin-like creature?
So when presented with exactly what you ask me for, you deny that it is a transitional fossil. You are a disingenuous douche bag who thinks his (her?) ignorance is proof that evolution is wrong.

 

[slam] When did you or anyone present any fossils showing the gradual disappearance of the land animal's legs? BTW, did you know that many evolutionists don't believe the fossil record supports gradual evolution?

 

One more thing. Please stop using language like "disingenuous douche bag."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You didn’t see transitional fossils for these stages in his article? They were there. There are truck loads of transitional fossils out there.

 

[slam] Specifically, where are the ones showing the gradual series of fossils which show the disappearing legs of the land animal?

 

I’d like to share a story with you. I was shopping at a Target store a few years back, and there was a little girl with her mother in the aisle. She was looking at some toy dinosaurs on the shelf and said, “Mommy look at all the dinosaurs!” Her mother responded thusly, “Those never really existed, honey. Those bones were just put there by the devil to test our faith.” I kid you not!!

 

[slam] Well, that's just plain stupid:-)

 

When I was a child myself of 12 years age, I recall my best friend coming home from his church and telling me how that his minister told them that Sunday how that all those bones were really only the bones of large buffalo, and that scientists were reading too much into them! I remember giving my friend the strangest look, and how that he himself looked rather puzzled by this “new information”. :twitch:

 

[slam] Dumb and getting dumber.

 

Sadly Slam, I see you doing these same things.

 

[slam] I don't deny the existance of dinosaurs. I think it's even possible some are alive today. How's them apples? And how about the one recently found with undecayed blood cells and vessels?

Did you know that the Bible records a huge creature that appears to be a dinosaur?

 

You are accusing the scientist of making mistakes, without having the first idea what they are looking at and how they are arriving at their conclusions.

 

[slam] Even scientists make mistakes. All I'm doing right now is asking for the fossil evidence of disappearing legs. When I only see drawings of what scientists believe was real, then I have to pause, unless it is backed up with solid fossil evidence.

 

You are gravitating to preachers, like my best friends pastor who thought dinosaur bones were really buffalo bones, because it sounds good to you, because it salves some anxiety you seem to have about all this. Kent Hovind preys on people just like you. He’s a con artist and not a scientist in any sense of the word. He’s good at exploiting people’s fears.

 

Honestly I can’t imagine any other reason for why someone accepts the veracity of science when they agree with it, while not fully understanding all the specifics of their research, but when it runs into some sacred belief, suddenly the scientists are in error. This is what you are doing. Based on what, are they in error?

 

[slam] Think back on what I was asking for in the creation of the universe. I'm doing the same thing here. I'm looking for solid evidence. Having read much about what many evolutionists say about a fossil record seriously lacking in intermediate forms, I have to conclude that someone doesn't have it right.

 

Are you saying that all science should agree with conventional wisdom? You do realize that conventional wisdom changes don’t you? On what basis are you questioning the scientist doing his job he is trained to do,not when you agree with them mind you, but when you disagree with them? Where is your supporting research to dispute their research?

 

[slam] I have made the statement that many notable evolutionists don't believe the fossil record supports major kinds gradually evolving into different major kinds. Do you think otherwise?

 

Can you just dismiss them with the wave of hand because you simply “just believe”? How is this different from the Reverend Buffalo Bones from my childhood?

 

[slam] You're chasing a fox up the wrong tree:-) I'm only asking for evidence and sharing what other evolutionists have to say about the fossil record. Yes, I do believe all life forms were created by God, but I don't believe the fossils support evolution based on what I see, don't see and hear. If by the words of those evolutionists who don't believe the fossils support the ToE, then perhaps that will lead you to reevaluate the evidence. Please don't think I'm only saying I don't believe in evolution because I believe that "God did it."

 

[slam] By the way Antlerman, I like you too. You're no where near as abusive as some others I have had to contend with. If we disagree, let's try not to be disagreeable:-)

 

I’ve been told this. But so you understand that this site is a place for people who have come out of Christianity or are leaving it, to come to deal with all the questions and angers that came from their experience in the Christian religion. Even I on a couple occasions have gone off pretty severely on some ultra-fundi who was sending everyone to hell.

 

Try to understand that there’s a lot of genuine hurting going on here, along with lots of other types of discussions. If you show understanding and respect,

 

[slam] Did you see the understanding and respect I got from skitsofreaky?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[slam] Specifically, where are the ones showing the gradual series of fossils which show the disappearing legs of the land animal?

What exactly is it about the ones they have you don’t accept? I showed you one. What are you expecting to see? Do you find some fault in the method? Or is there another - non-scientific reason why?

 

I’d like to share a story with you. I was shopping at a Target store a few years back, and there was a little girl with her mother in the aisle. She was looking at some toy dinosaurs on the shelf and said, “Mommy look at all the dinosaurs!” Her mother responded thusly, “Those never really existed, honey. Those bones were just put there by the devil to test our faith.” I kid you not!!

[slam] Well, that's just plain stupid:-)

I call it wilfull ignorance.

 

When I was a child myself of 12 years age, I recall my best friend coming home from his church and telling me how that his minister told them that Sunday how that all those bones were really only the bones of large buffalo, and that scientists were reading too much into them! I remember giving my friend the strangest look, and how that he himself looked rather puzzled by this “new information”. :twitch:

[slam] Dumb and getting dumber.

Or, “religion denying science”.

 

[slam] I don't deny the existance of dinosaurs. I think it's even possible some are alive today. How's them apples? And how about the one recently found with undecayed blood cells and vessels?

Did you know that the Bible records a huge creature that appears to be a dinosaur?

The point is, you don’t accept the scientific research. You see man and dinos living together. I see no difference between this sort of pseudo-science and the Right Reverand Buffolo Bones of my youth. Each is motivated by the same thing, a strong, emotional desire for it to fit their preconceived ideas. Neither has credible scientific support.

 

I know that some people read the word “Leviathan” in the Book of Job, as indicating a Dinasauour. Of course like their pseudo-science in seeing dino tracks and man tracks in the mud in Texas, this reading is also not supported by the majority of trained Biblical scholars. This is what is known as “reading into the Bible what you want it to say.” This is the same approach they take with science. This isn't about about the Bible, nor about science. It’s about the effect of the Faith being used to deny any percieved challenges to a preconcieved belief. I call this denial.

 

[slam] Even scientists make mistakes. All I'm doing right now is asking for the fossil evidence of disappearing legs. When I only see drawings of what scientists believe was real, then I have to pause, unless it is backed up with solid fossil evidence.

Why are you asking for fossil evidence? Do you have sufficient scientific reasons to doubt their research? You have evaded answering this question: “What is your basis for disputing them? Scientific reasons, or Bible-based religious reasons?” I know the answer to this, I just want you to look at this. I accept that the scientific method is a reliable system of checks and balances to reduce and elimiate personal and religious biases from influencing the results of the research. You don't. It's that's simple. You think the scientific method is hog-wash.

 

[slam] Think back on what I was asking for in the creation of the universe. I'm doing the same thing here. I'm looking for solid evidence. Having read much about what many evolutionists say about a fossil record seriously lacking in intermediate forms, I have to conclude that someone doesn't have it right.

So you insist on solid proof, and not the weight of evidence, like everything else in the world? I don’t think that’s a requirement for you. Show me God! Show me the cross of Jesus. Show me the tomb of Jesus. Show me one non-religious, dispastionate, contemporary writer who mentions Jesus in his lifetime (should be easy with all those dead people walking the streets of Jerusalem, and all that). Show me the archeological “proof” that the Israelites lived in Egypt. Show me the mud that God used to make a man. Show me the rib that God used to make a woman. Show me a walking, talking serpent and a flaming sworded angel. Am I making my point?

 

Again, you are taking your lack of knowledge of science, along with religious biases, and using logic fallacies to support your leap of faith. We have so vastly much more real evidence than what there is for a flying Messiah and 1500-mile wide Borg-like cube-cities with streets of God and doors of pearls. Yet this is something you can’t accept. Forgive me, but does this make sense?

 

[slam] I have made the statement that many notable evolutionists don't believe the fossil record supports major kinds gradually evolving into different major kinds. Do you think otherwise?

First of all, they are not “Evolutionists”. That is a politically charged term that is completely bogus. They are scientists. They use science. A “Creationist” however, is in fact a correct term, as they are using religious belief as the foundation of their pseudo-science.

 

Please cite who these “notable” “scientists are. Let’s look at their credentials. BTW, how do they come out after peer review? I suspect not too damned well. Do you think peer review is important, or unimportant in science? Please answer that last question for me.

 

 

[slam] You're chasing a fox up the wrong tree:-) I'm only asking for evidence and sharing what other evolutionists have to say about the fossil record. Yes, I do believe all life forms were created by God, but I don't believe the fossils support evolution based on what I see, don't see and hear. If by the words of those evolutionists who don't believe the fossils support the ToE, then perhaps that will lead you to reevaluate the evidence. Please don't think I'm only saying I don't believe in evolution because I believe that "God did it."

You don’t believe the fossil records support evolution. What about geology, biology, genetic research, and practically every, single field of science that there is??? Are you unaware that the ToE is not just limited to the research done in Palentology? Yet, with the wave of a magic wand, science as a whole in every field is WRONG about this. What am I supposed to say to this?

 

You have nothing but a few crack-pots out to make a name for themselves, who have no-support in the world of science, and only a culturally-derived perception of a Creator to try to make sense of the world. The entire world of science is wrong, and Kent Hovind, is right on target.

 

Please, again, how is an intellegent, educated person supposed to respond to this entire premise? It’s nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

[slam] Let's get into the fossils. I'm asking specifically for any that show the gradual disappearance of a land animals legs as they started to evolve into flippers or fins. I'm familiar with the ones seen on one of the whale evolution sites poste here, but I have yet to see any showing disappearing legs.

Are your eyes closed?

 

[slam] When did you or anyone present any fossils showing the gradual disappearance of the land animal's legs? BTW, did you know that many evolutionists don't believe the fossil record supports gradual evolution?
I assume you are referring to punctuated equilibrium. What that refers to is evolution occurring relatively fast, i.e. fast relative to the geological time scale. To put it in perspective, 10000 years is all but nothing.

This is also an example of you being disingenuous. You ask for a specific type of evidence, then claim that "evolutionists don't believe that anyway."Which leads me to...

One more thing. Please stop using language like "disingenuous douche bag."

I calls 'em hows I sees 'em.
[slam] Did you see the understanding and respect I got from skitsofreaky?
I understand that you will deny every piece of evidence given, which is why I don't respect you. And way to spell my name.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[slam] Specifically, where are the ones showing the gradual series of fossils which show the disappearing legs of the land animal?

What exactly is it about the ones they have you don’t accept? I showed you one. What are you expecting to see? Do you find some fault in the method? Or is there another - non-scientific reason why?

 

[slam] I'm looking for more fossil evidence (not drawings or illustration) for the gradual disappearance of the land animals bone structures, esp. it legs.

 

[slam] I don't deny the existance of dinosaurs. I think it's even possible some are alive today. How's them apples? And how about the one recently found with undecayed blood cells and vessels?

Did you know that the Bible records a huge creature that appears to be a dinosaur?

The point is, you don’t accept the scientific research. You see man and dinos living together.

 

[slam] Are you not familiar with all the ancient pottery, pictographs, etc. showing man and dinosaur? Check out these sites:

 

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/dino-art.htm

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v...4/dinosaurs.asp

 

And how about the T-REx recently found with undecayed blood cells and tissue?

 

I know that some people read the word “Leviathan” in the Book of Job, as indicating a Dinasauour.

 

[sLam] It is "Behemoth" that Job applied to this large creature (40:15). Leviathan appears to be a sea creature.

 

[slam] Even scientists make mistakes. All I'm doing right now is asking for the fossil evidence of disappearing legs. When I only see drawings of what scientists believe was real, then I have to pause, unless it is backed up with solid fossil evidence.

 

Why are you asking for fossil evidence? Do you have sufficient scientific reasons to doubt their research?

 

[slam] Fossils are the best evidence. If life forms evolved, there should be a slow and steady reflection of life from the simple to complex life forms. I think it is perfectly reasonable to expect the fossil record to show this gradual major change from land creature to sea creature.

 

You have evaded answering this question: “What is your basis for disputing them? Scientific reasons, or Bible-based religious reasons?”

 

[slam] My basis is that many notable evolutonists don't believe the fossil record supports evolution between major kinds. So I'm wondering why some web sites take the opposing view. It's a given that I don't believe evolution because the Bible doesn't support it. But I want to stay away from it and just let the scientists speak.

 

I know the answer to this, I just want you to look at this. I accept that the scientific method is a reliable system of checks and balances to reduce and elimiate personal and religious biases from influencing the results of the research. You don't. It's that's simple. You think the scientific method is hog-wash.

 

[slam] Again, you have me painting science/scientific method with a broad brush. I have only questioned our origins as viewed by science and now evolution based on the statements of evolutionists who take exception to the position that the fossil record supports evolution between major kinds. I'm sure you must be aware of this. Yes?

 

Again, you are taking your lack of knowledge of science, along with religious biases, and using logic fallacies to support your leap of faith. We have so vastly much more real evidence than what there is for a flying Messiah and 1500-mile wide Borg-like cube-cities with streets of God and doors of pearls. Yet this is something you can’t accept. Forgive me, but does this make sense?

 

[sLam] I have to ask that we stay on focus. Right now, I'm asking for fossil evidence supporting evolution between major kinds, especially in light of the statements of many notable evolutionists show say the evidence is not there. If we can establish what the fossils really show, then we can move on to other areas. The evolution from a four-legged land creature to dolphin or whale is a major jump between two different kinds. I think that science is depending more on drawings and illustrations to communicate this to the public rather than what the fossils really show, or I should say, don't show.

 

 

Please cite who these “notable” “scientists are. Let’s look at their credentials.

 

[slam] Ok, let's begin with Newsweek:

 

As Newsweek explains: "In 1972 Gould and Niles Eldredge collaborated on a paper intended at the time merely to resolve a professional embarrassment for paleontologists: their INABILITY TO FIND FOSSILS OF TRANSITIONAL FORM BETWEEN SPECIES, the so-called 'missing links.' Darwin, and most of those who followed him, believed that the work of evolution was slow, gradual and continuous and that a complete lineage of ancestors, shading imperceptibly one into the next, could in theory be reconstructed for all living animals . . . But a century of digging since then has only MADE THEIR ABSENCE MORE GLARING. . . It was Eldredge and Gould's notion to call off the search and accept the evidence of the fossil record on its own terms" ("Enigmas of Evolution," Newsweek, March 29, 1982, pp. 44-49 - emphasis added).

 

and Steven Stanley:

 

"In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a SINGLE TRANSITION (emph added) from one species to another." S. M. Stanley, The New Evolutionary Timetable (New York: Basic Books, 1981) p. 95

 

 

BTW, how do they come out after peer review? I suspect not too damned well. Do you think peer review is important, or unimportant in science? Please answer that last question for me.

 

[slam] These people are the peers. Who is more knowledgable then they?

 

You don’t believe the fossil records support evolution. What about geology, biology, genetic research, and practically every, single field of science that there is??? Are you unaware that the ToE is not just limited to the research done in Palentology? Yet, with the wave of a magic wand, science as a whole in every field is WRONG about this. What am I supposed to say to this?

 

[slam] If you are willing to admit there is a serious question about the fossil record supporting evolution between major kinds, we can move onto other areas that supposedly support evolution.

 

Please, again, how is an intellegent, educated person supposed to respond to this entire premise? It’s nonsense.

 

[slam] Let's try to settle the fossil record. One final statement:

 

"There are about 25 major living subdivisions (phyla) of the animal kingdom alone, all with gaps between them that are NOT BRIDGED BY KNOWN INTERMEDITES (emph. added)." (Fransisco Ayala and James Valentine, “Evolving, the Theory and Process of Organic Evolution” (Menlo Park, Cal.: The Benjamin Cummings Pub. Co,. 1979), p. 258

 

Ayala and Valentine are anything but crackpots. They are ardent supporters of evolution, but they do see major problems in the fossils.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.