Darwin's Illusion

[gnostic]

Indeed! Some individual consciousness is very simple. But unlike a rock it is still alive and "aware" of its function.

More ignorant claims.

Care to show evidence that rocks are alive?

Or are you just going to make up some more fictitious claims, as you have been doing since Ancient Reality thread?

 

[gnostic]

Every individual is different. If the only oak trees that survived a solar event were growing in rocky crags then they would breed a new species that, you guessed it, preferred rocky crags.

I remember you giving this nonsensical scenario about the oak and the rock before. You didn't show any evidence for then, and I won't be holding my breath that you will show evidence now.

Do you really think that repeating the same silly example again is going to make any difference? You still don't have evidence back then, and recycling and reposting this example will only demonstrate you don't know how to think logically and you cannot support that you will species of oak will grow in the rocky crag, because you actually are clueless as to what species is.

Do you have evidence that the oak in crag is different from oak in nearby wooded area?

 

[cladking]

Care to show evidence that rocks are alive?

You really believe this!!!

Do you have evidence that the oak in crag is different from oak in nearby wooded area?

ALL individuals are different. Some acorns will thrive in the rocks and some under ideal conditions but they are all equally healthy until a squirrel eats them.

Can you show any two things living, dead, or undecided that are identical? If every snowflake and ever electron is individual then how can two acorns be identical? There's not really such a thing as "apples" or "oranges" except as an abstraction in modern language. There are no "species".

To say this another way if we were as smart as people think we are we could separate acorns into those most likely to grow in crags and those least likely. And we still wouldn't know why there are numerous exceptions, outliers, and bad predictions. Right off the top of my head I'd suggest that those which would grow would tend to be larger since small ones are more likely to get lodged in places that they have no chance in very rugged terrain. Life is individual and nature equips every individual with the greatest odds of success. There is no natural selection because nature selects every individual equally. We are each equally fit to survive.

Cue gainsaying and word games.

 

[cladking]

Let try again, what was your jobs or career, your fields of expertise, work experiences?

You're going to have to accept that all such considerations are irrelevant to my argument. You wouldn't believe in professional loose cannons or bulls in china shops anyway. I fixed problems that arose in systems, processes and operations in various arenas. I've never been liked by the status quo and the feeling is highly mutual.

All my arguments are derived from experience and experiment; mostly deduction and very little induction. I did nothing on any of my jobs within the normal scope of that job that can be considered relevant to "Evolution" or "change in species". I did employ such knowledge as a part of a job though. I do not desire to belabor this as I am now retired.

 

[LIIA]

Genocide itself is among the negative impacts of a belief in God.

Maybe or maybe not, I never claimed that the belief in God is immune to false interpretations or false alterations/deviations. It’s a separate argument irrelevant to the influence of the ToE.

I guess you are not trying to make an irrelevant fourth grader’s argument, “you did wrong so that makes it OK that I did wrong”. Do you?

 

[LIIA]

So what?

He is not advocating for a God.

So we agreed on the point of discussion that the ToE (MS) has failed and need a replacement. I never argued that Gerd B. Müller is advocating for God! Did I?

He said:
“A rising number of publications argue for a major revision or even a replacement of the standard theory of evolution, indicating that this cannot be dismissed as a minority view but rather is a widespread feeling among scientists and philosophers alike” see #911.

 

[LIIA]

Depends on how you define "species". There are plenty of populations out there that we address as being different species which CAN interbreed, but simply don't.

But sure, with such population, if there is no interbreeding then it's a matter of time before they diverge so much that they become physically unable to interbreed.

I'll also point out that at this point, the "original" species no longer exists. Latin evolved into spanish and french. Latin as a spoken language didn't exist anymore. It was only really kept alive artificially.

Just like today we have chimps and humans. The original common ancestral species, doesn't exist any longer. Because it evolved in us and chimps.




Not necessarily. Again, it depends from which angle one is coming from.
It can also refer to populations that could (still) interbreed, but simply don't or very very little.




No. And speciation is not "the mechanism". The mechanism is reproduction with variation followed by selection. Speciation is the rather inevitable result of that. Speciation is a very gradual process.
At no point in history, for example, did a Homo Erectus ever give birth to a Homo Sapiens.

Every creature ever born, was of the same species as its parents.
There is no line where you can say "HERE! NOW it's a different species".



False.



This contradiction only exists in your misrepresentation of the matter.
In actual evolution theory, ring species are not only explained, they are EXPECTED.




So, stating the obvious then.
Selection obviously has no innovative capacity.
It merely selects. It doesn't create, add, remove, substitute,...
Mutation does that. Selection is the filter that follows.

A biological species is a group of organisms that can reproduce naturally with one another and create fertile offspring. This is not my definition; it’s the biological definition of " species”.

Different species, which CAN interbreed, but simply don't, would not produce fertile offspring. Hybridization such as the case with liger and tigon are typically infertile.

Per the ToE, not only present species at the tip of the alleged human evolutionary tree (humans, chimps and bonobos) are different from each other and different from the alleged common ancestor species, but also the intermediate transitional forms that resulted from the alleged gradual speciation process over millions of years were different species.

Again, speciation is not a reason for the original species to go extinct. If you say that the alleged human speciation never happened, then I definitely agree. If it did happen, we should see different human species today especially in isolated geographical areas. They cannot all go extinct. All living human beings on earth today belong to the same Homo sapiens species.

I do agree that every creature ever born was of the same species as its parents. And the alleged speciation of humans never happened. The ring species show that variants driven by reproductive isolation stay recognized as a single species even if the ability of interbreeding is lost among some variants at the ends, it will never transform into totally different species.

Even if we try creating a new species through artificial breeding, it will always be variants of original species. If you produce hybrids such as a mule or a liger it will always be infertile. Being infertile, it cannot be considered as new species.

This kind of alleged transformation of one species to totally different species, is not science. There is no evidence for it. It belongs to “Geisteswissenschaften” as stated by Ernst Walter Mayr in his book “What Makes Biology Unique?”. See # 331

Darwin's Illusion | Page 17 | Religious Forums

So, stating the obvious then.

I guess you agree with Müller then!

The ToE deals only with existing parts. I also agree with Müller that the ToE cannot explain how the existing parts originated or the morphological organization.

Gerd B. Müller said, “Although, at the phenotypic level, it deals with the modification of existing parts, the theory is intended to explain neither the origin of parts, nor morphological organization, nor innovation…But selection has no innovative capacity: it eliminates or maintains what exists. The generative and ordering aspects of morphological evolution are thus absent from evolutionary theory.”

 

[LIIA]

I'm not interested in argument by youtube.

I did provide yotube, links to the articles and the PDF of the entire lecture. On the other hand, you respond with excuses and some unsubstantiated claims of yours.

Like ignoring the response of the scientific community to the claims of Shapiro and NGE?

Unsubstantiated claims provide your evidence.

BTW: did you know that Shapiro explicitly distanced himself from the likes of "intelligent design" and stuff and repeated time and again that the processes he was talking about are natural?

As I said many times, I specifically quote evolutionists who submit to the ruling dogma. If I quote proponents of "intelligent design", you guys would typically engage in a fallacious “ad hominem" to argue against the persons rather than the position or argument that they’re maintaining. Wouldn’t you?

Do you think you will make a dent in scientific consensus by repeating these claims on this religious forum?

The dent is there, its not by me. I provided the evidence in #911. You’re making a meaningless unsubstantiated claim.

 

[LIIA]

why didn't it happen much sooner and why didn't it happen in all 12 populations?

Lenski’s “Escherichia Coli” experiment (#680) didn’t include any drugs designed to kill the bacteria. The change was not necessary for survival that is why it didn’t happen sooner or in all population and even when it happened, it was an activation of an existing but previously silent citrate transporter. When the change is necessary for survival, the mutations happened at a frightening speed.

Out of the BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS, a few happen to have won that lottery ticket.

Harvard University experiment (#781) showed that the spread of bacteria stopped at each band until a mutant appeared then the mutants continued to spread to the next band and the mutation process repeated till the accumulating successive mutations evolved/adapted to over 1000 fold resistance level against antibiotics within 11 days.

The experiment showed repeated directed successive mutations that produced a change that didn’t exist in original bacteria.

The fast response was driven by the threat to the survival of the bacteria.

Scientists reveal the frightening speed at which bacteria can develop antibiotic resistance (smh.com.au)

The Evolution of Bacteria on a “Mega-Plate” Petri Dish (Kishony Lab)`` - YouTube

Yes. Bacteria reproduce like crazy and every reproduction event brings mutations.
And what happens in that experiment is pretty much the concept of Punctuated Equilibrium.
The rate of evolution going hand in hand with the rate of change in the environment.
Increasing selection pressure will do that....

Punctuated equilibrium rejects the degree of gradualism attributed to Charles Darwin as nonexistent in the fossil record but on the other hand doesn’t provide a coherent explanatory framework for the sudden appearance of new genetic info. It’s a description of an observation but not an explanation.

The fact that the same results of Harvard University experiment above repeat at a frightening speed proves that the process is neither random nor gradual. It’s a directed mutation. Cells have mechanisms for choosing which mutations will occur. Experiments demonstrated that cells come up repeatedly with just the right ‘adaptive’ or ‘directed’ mutations

January 2022, SciTechDaily wrote,” DNA Mutations Do Not Occur Randomly – Discovery Transforms Our View of Evolution” , “Mutations of DNA do not occur as randomly as previously assumed, according to new research from Max Planck Institute for Biology Tübingen in Germany and University of California Davis in the US. The findings have the potential to dramatically change our view of evolution. “

DNA Mutations Do Not Occur Randomly – Discovery Transforms Our View of Evolution (scitechdaily.com)

 

[LIIA]

Yes, you've said that already.

I asked you how you determined that the current unknowns in physics are "beyond science".
I guess you have no answer and just would like to run with your bare assertions without being challenged on it.

Because you say so?

I’m not talking about unknowns in physics. Again, if an entity cannot be observed or experiment with especially if the entity is non-physical, then its necessarily beyond the jurisdictions of science.

If the existence beyond the Big Bang cannot be observed or experiment with, if there is no physical existence beyond the Big Bang, then its necessarily beyond the jurisdictions of science. Science is not limitless.

The understanding of the non-physical existence beyond the physical realm/ natural laws (beyond the Big Bang) is not attainable through the typical scientific method; it doesn’t apply as explained above.

Because it's a work in progress. Duh.


If by "evolve" you mean biological evolution - sure. Since those are processes that living things are subject to.

There is no KNOWN mechanism.
You keep ignoring that abiogenesis is a work in progress.
Just because it's an open question today doesn't mean it won't be answered tomorrow.

All bare assertions, with some fallacious sauce on top like argument from ignorance, argument from awe, argument from incredulity.....

Quite embarrassing for a person who wishes to come across as scientifically literate.

I provide facts. You provide wishful thinking. If you don’t agree with any of the following points, state your reasons

-Non-living matter cannot evolve, (can't pass gradual changes to offspring)

-Under abiotic conditions, there is no process to create the required biomolecules

-Under abiotic conditions, there is no process to assemble biomolecules

-If some biomolecules somehow emerged through an unknown process, it will not wait millions of years to get the other essential molecules. It will simply decompose in a relatively very short time.

-Non-living matter don’t give rise to live or consciousness.

No meaningless denial please.

Did Ben Stein tell you that?


I'm skipping the rest.
That last line showed your true colors.

I'm done.

Did Richard Dawkins make such claim that the origin of live may have been seeded from outer space? or not? If you know he did, then stop the nonsense.

In fact, I didn’t know it was in an interview with Ben Stein. thank you for that; at least we have a proof of what Richard Dawkins said. Here is the link. See 3:26

Ben Stein vs. Richard Dawkins Interview - YouTube

 

[LIIA]

I can only repeat myself.

Neither has anything to do with evolutionary biology.

They are only related insofar as the one raping and misrepresenting the other to advance ideological and racist worldviews.


Oh well...

Go back to watching your Ben Stein "documentaries."

The influence of the biological ideas on evolution on social sciences and philosophy is a fact that shouldn’t be subject to any argument. The denial of such fact can only be attributed to ignorance, dishonesty or both.

You have to differentiate between the original purpose of the theory with respect to biology and the fact that its actual influence/impact on humanity extends beyond biology.

The 2017 article below published by the Royal Society stated:
“There cannot be much doubt that biological ideas on evolution have greatly influenced the social sciences and philosophy.”

New trends in evolutionary biology: biological, philosophical and social science perspectives | Interface Focus (royalsocietypublishing.org)

 

[LIIA]

Saying “God did it” or “Allah did it” or the “Creator did it” or the “Designer did it”, don’t count as evidence, LIIA.

Either statements are unsubstantiated assertions, personal opinions or personal belief.

Yes, I definitely believe in God but I never said that the modern synthesis is false because God did it. Did I? I substantiated my reasons against the MS so many times as clarified in # 753 & # 781

That said, believing in God is not in any way against science. As I said before, Founders of modern science were very favorable to this idea of God’s causal influence on the world. Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein believed in God. See# 1034

The Islamic scientific achievement of the “Islamic Golden Age” that established the basis of the modern scientific method was driven by the very idea of God’s causal influence on the world.

Robert Briffault in his book “The Making of Humanity” wrote “What we call science arose in Europe as a result of a new spirit of inquiry, of new methods of investigation, of the method of experiment, observation, measurement, of the development of mathematics in a form unknown to the Greeks. That spirit and those methods were introduced into the European world by the Arabs.”

Here is the link for “The Making of Humanity”. See page 191

https://ia600905.us.archive.org/5/items/makingofhumanity00brifrich/makingofhumanity00brifrich.pdf

 

[LIIA]

One small detail I think you need to rethink.

Viruses can replicate, and have nucleic acid (DNA, RNA), and covered by protein and lipids, viruses aren't microorganisms.

They are infectious agent, capable of infecting living cells of organisms, including being able to infect microorganisms of Bacteria species or of Archaea species.

What differed viruses and microorganisms, bacteria and archaea have cells, therefore they have cell structures.

Whereas viruses and virions (a virion is an agent that haven’t yet infected a host cell) have no cells of their own, no cell structure, and therefore viruses not microorganisms.

Some people often confuse virus with bacteria, but bacteria is a living organism, where as a virus or a virion isn’t a living organism.

Bacteria, algae, protozoa, fungi, and viruses are all categories of microorganisms. Although viruses are not considered living organisms, but they’re classified as microorganisms

Regardless, your irrelevant info about viruses has nothing to do with my argument in #1029 about directed mutation and the specific experiment by Harvard University.

Your response shows that you couldn’t think of any thing to say to refute the experiment and decided to throw in some irrelevant info about viruses as an attempt to move the goalposts.

 

[LIIA]

What a load of craps.

Do you understand that word “natural” in Natural Selection, means not man-made or artificial.

Everything you have just listed are artificial and don’t exist out human creations or human activities. Meaning culture, society, sociology, psychology, philosophy, politics, religion don’t exist in nature as they are artificial works of man.

When people talk of evolutionary biology, they means exactly that, biology, descendants can only be produce through reproduction, passing genetic traits through DNA or RNA.

Same Irrelevant nonsense as usual. The theory is concerned with biology but its influence extends beyond biology to include social science and philosophy. It cannot be that difficult for you to understand? Why is that ridiculous denial?

The 2017 article below published by the Royal Society stated:
“THERE CANNOT BE MUCH DOUBT THAT BIOLOGICAL IDEAS ON EVOLUTION HAVE GREATLY INFLUENCED THE SOCIAL SCIENCES AND PHILOSOPHY.”

New trends in evolutionary biology: biological, philosophical and social science perspectives | Interface Focus (royalsocietypublishing.org)

NONE OF THEM in your list, can be passed genetically through DNA or RNA.

The only person not understanding these things is you.

Try studying biology, instead of mixing everything up.

Do you see any other animals studying sociology, anthropology, psychology, politics, etc? How about plants, fungi and microorganisms?

Are you forgetting Natural Selection isn’t just about human evolution, but other organisms too?

Your ignorance and you penchant for going off-topic into non-biology subjects are staggering. You seemed unable to focus on Natural Selection.

But that typical for creationist, even though you are a Muslim, I means that you uses exactly same predictable Christian creationist tactics: spreading misinformation only demonstrate your intellectual dishonesty as they do.

What a mess? How is this confused mess is an argument against the negative influence of the ToE (especially with respect to racism)? What is your point?

On one hand, you showed your ignorance of the very theory that you’re advocating; on the other hand you greatly supported my argument.

You said in #1048 & #1102 that “belief, ideology, wisdom, intelligence, ambition, favorite color, favorite food, etc, and these won't ever reach descendants, because they cannot be passed on to other genetically.”

Do you know that the evolutionary idea tries to attribute everything to a materialistic explanation? No exception? If you say that the materialistic explanation wouldn’t apply to concepts, ideology and moral values, THEN HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN IT?

To the contrary of your understanding, in his Descent of Man, Darwin attempted to explain everything human as an effect of natural or sexual selection. Morality, faithfulness, sympathy, loyalty, feelings, values are no exception. See #1031.

Even human spirituality/belief in God was claimed to be attributed to genetic influence (God gene). God gene - Wikipedia

On my end, I absolutely agree with you that concepts, beliefs, feelings, moral values are not materialistic products and cannot be replicated through materialistic means (as you said, cannot be passed on genetically), which means that we’re indeed in agreement that Darwin’s approach to explain human traits including morality through materialistic means was false

As I said before (#1081), conceptual characteristics of a consciousness cannot be inherited or replicated. it’s quite the opposite. Concepts that resides within a consciousness are neither physical nor may be inherited. Material doesn’t give rise to consciousness. We discussed that before. See #281

 

[LIIA]

So when S.J. Gould says transitional fossils are "abundant" and anyone who tries to quote him as saying otherwise is doing so out of either stupidity or deceit, do you accept that?

False. Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism (transitional fossils) commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually NONEXISTENT IN THE FOSSIL RECORD, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.

See the link below
Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia

But again, whether the modern synthesis or extended evolutionary synthesis is the most accurate, it still doesn't change the conclusion of universal common ancestry.

The universal common ancestry is a hypothesis that belongs to the Geisteswissenschaften, its not an exact science as Ernst Walter Mayr said in his book “What Makes Biology Unique?” on the other hand latest 21st century scientific finds of molecular biology (which disproved all central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis) is exact science. see #331 & #753.

Yet every one of the "scientists of the highest caliber" you've quoted agrees with the conclusion of UCA. Do you appreciate how from my perspective, it looks like you're cherry picking?

Choosing exact science over the Geisteswissenschaften is not cherry picking.

Cherry picking happens when you selectively pick from within the same domain

Sorry, but your mere say so isn't compelling, especially given the fact that the very "scientists of the highest caliber" you've been quoting disagree with you.

See the link below under "Criticism”

Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia

Yet the works of Darwin were banned in Nazi Germany. Seems odd to ban books about the very concept that allegedly inspired one's movement, doesn't it?

no, this is a myth (you didn’t even bother to substantiate your claim) yet arguing about is irrelevant since the Holocaust Encyclopedia shows beyond doubt how the racial ideology of Nazi Germany was influenced by social Darwinism.

So again....what exactly is your point? Even if we assume your argument, I still have to wonder...."The Nazis were inspired by Darwinism, therefore......."?

Therefore we are in agreement about this specific point and we may move forward.

Again this seems like cherry picking to me. You keep citing Denis Noble when he agrees with you but you reject him when he doesn't (e.g. on UCA).

In these international conferences, scientists such as Gerd B. Müller and Denis Noble present the latest in the field. As the President of the International Union (2013 Birmingham) of Physiological Sciences (IUPS), Denis Noble lecture was not about personal opinions. He cited many other scientists in his lecture. Again, its not a minority view see # 911.

I provided many different articles about directed mutations in previous posts that have nothing to do with Denis Noble. See below

January 2022, SciTechDaily wrote,” DNA Mutations Do Not Occur Randomly – Discovery Transforms Our View of Evolution” , “Mutations of DNA do not occur as randomly as previously assumed, according to new research from Max Planck Institute for Biology Tübingen in Germany and University of California Davis in the US. The findings have the potential to dramatically change our view of evolution. “

DNA Mutations Do Not Occur Randomly – Discovery Transforms Our View of Evolution (scitechdaily.com)

Also, are you aware that Noble's claims never really went anywhere in evolutionary biology? Have you read through any of the responses from his colleagues?

Again, Noble was not presenting a personal claim and it’s not a minority view. See above.

 

[LIIA]

I have discovered his hidden agenda between the lines.
He/she slipped up in a previous post, where (s)he claimed that "Dawkins assumes life comes from outer space".

I know where that nonsense comes from. And knowing that source, I also understand now the obsessive focus on "social darwinism".

All that stuff, comes from the creationist propaganda gem called "Expelled! No intelligence allowed" by Ben Stein.

Impressive! What a discovery, you should be proud of yourself!

I did mention Ben Stein’s documentary film "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” before in an argument about dogmatic control. See # 202. If you don’t agree with the content of the documentary, you may search it and verify it for yourself. The documentary did touch on the idea of eugenics, social Darwinism influence on nazi Germany but the main subject was freedom of speech suppression to which Intelligent Design proponents are being subjected to by the atheistic American academic dictatorship. Here is the link

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (full movie) - YouTube

You don’t need to speculate about my “hidden agenda”, let me clarify it to you; I have a moral and more importantly religious obligation from an Islamic perspective to make others informed. I only need to convey a message. If I don’t convey the message, it’s on me, if I do convey but you deny, it’s on you and I’m done with my part.

If you honestly didn’t get it or don’t understand it, I have a moral obligation to help within my capacity. If I see evidence of (dishonest) denial, then I know the message was conveyed and I’m done with my part. Every one is free to choose for himself.

Many people are on the forum to waste time or for some entertainment. Many are retired with lots of time to waste and very rigid mindset. their beliefs/ideology that they maintained for decades is part of who they are, refuting it or part of it, is perceived as threat that should be met aggressively. I understand that but on my I end, my "agenda" here is to help and to fulfill my moral obligation. It’s not about wasting time or making false claims.

Prof Dawkins, along with several others like PZ Myers, were literally tricked to appear in the film, their responses edited and the premises of the questions lied about. The context of the question was literally edited out so that it appears that Dawkins believes things whereas he was actually asked to bend over backwards and entertain a ridiculous hypothetical.

Another sentence that appears in the film after they tell lie after lie after lie about evolution and nazi's:
"Creationism leads to Jesus. Evolution leads to killing people".


When I read that sentence where @LIIA references Dawkins and his supposed "belief" that life comes from aliens.... All pieces of the puzzle fell into place.

It's all at least inspried by the propaganda by Ben Stein and his cohorts.

Richard Dawkins made the claim that the origin of life may have been seeded from outer space. Not only him, the idea that the building blocks of life may have come from outer space was mentioned in many articles.

Again, I didn’t know it was in an interview with Ben Stein. At least I can provide the proof of what Richard Dawkins said. Thank you for that.

Here is the link. See 3:26

Ben Stein vs. Richard Dawkins Interview - YouTube

 

[LIIA]

Another bare claim.
I'm not interested in you just "telling" us things. You do enough of that all day long.
I'm interested in what you can support with evidence.

Bare claims aren't evidence.

Meanwhile, look above. Just as I said: the older the fossil of the whale ancestor, the more to the front the nostrils are.
The younger they are, the more to the top of the head the nostrils are located.

Derp di derp derp.

Yes.
If aging is gradual, then the older the pictures of the man, the more child-like his face will be.
The younger the pictures, the more middle-aged-man-like it will be.

Off course, we can't for obvious practical reasons show you a picture of his face of every second of his life, so that you can see the exact series of gradual change from second to second.

Just like we can't show you a fossil of every generation of whale ancestors from 50 million years ago till today.

Nor is it required. Like @Subduction Zone has told you several times already (yet it keeps falling on deaf ears): evidence are those things that support the thesis under review and / or which match the predictions of said thesis.

The fossil record perfectly matches the predictions and expectations of gradual change.
Just like Cruise's picture match the predictions and expectations of gradual aging.

You? You have yet to share a SINGLE thing you expect to see in the world under your very weird thesis. You have yet to mention a SINGLE testable prediction naturally flowing from your thesis.
We can't even BEGIN to talk about potential evidence for your bizar thesis until you share such expectations / predictions. You have yet to do so.

So far, all we got from you are bare assertions, like in this post which amounts to nothing more then:
"NO! ME RIGHT, YOU WRONG, PERIOD".

Many evolutionists consider that evolution of whales to be a crown jewel in evolution's case, a masterpiece thought to be an undeniable example of evolution in action.

The tale about the transformation of a four-legged wolf-sized land mammal into fully aquatic whale-sized animals spending no time on land needs quite a leap of faith but does the evidence justify the leap?

Evolutionists claim that they have a chronologically ordered series of fossils, a lineage of ancestors and descendants showing their movement from land to water.

The general timeline that evolutionists claim is as follows:

Pakicetus: around 50 million years ago, complete skeletons are rare but fossils suggest Pakicetus was a four-legged land mammal a bit like a wolf only one to two meters long

Ambulocetus: around 48 million years ago Ambulocetus which means walking whale was larger than its supposed ancestor

Rodhocetus: around 46.5 million years ago, showing features that would have benefited the creature to move through water

Procetus: around 45 million years ago

Kutchicetus: around 43–46 million years ago

Dorudon: around 37 million years ago, fully aquatic animals

Basilosaurus: around 37 million years ago, 50 foot long fully aquatic animals

Aetiocetus: around 24–26 million years ago, fully aquatic animals

This fossil sequence elongating bodies, nostrils moving around on the skull is considered some of evolution's best evidence transforming from a wolf-sized land-dwelling Pakicetus to whale-sized sea-loving Basilosaurus that evolutionists point to as picture perfect evidence for whale evolution but it is the tail created using these fossils true?

The fact is that these are fossils of different species. Evolution is assumed from the beginning as the only possible explanation and then that assumption is used to interpret the evidence.

Typically, complete skeletons are very rare; often the evidence consists of skull fragments. Skeletons are made from multiple creatures with missing bones. Scientists and artists fill in missing parts and other features often by relying on evolution-based assumptions but let’s assume that scientists and artists’ imaginations are spot on and the creatures looked exactly as they appear to look in their impressive charts.

An essential part of the alleged wale transitional forms is the chronological order of the sequence. This order of fossils is crucial to their ability to serve as evidence. Descendants have to come after ancestors if evolution is correct; the fossils have to be in order.

In 2011, the jawbone of an ancient whale found in Antarctica may be the oldest fully aquatic whale yet discovered.
Argentine paleontologist Marcelo Reguero, who led a joint Argentine-Swedish team, said the fossilized Archaeocete jawbone dates back 49 MILLION YEARS.

Scientists discover oldest whale fossil in Antarctica | The World from PRX

Ancient whale jawbone found in Antarctica (nbcnews.com)

This discovery poses a serious problem to the alleged evolution of whales, this places fully aquatic whales back at least 10 million years or so long before almost all of their supposed ancestors (Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Procetus, Kutchicetus, Dorudon, Basilosaurus, Aetiocetus) with the exception of the wolf-sized land-dwelling four-legged Pakicetus.

Fully aquatic whales already existed alongside their alleged ancestors when whales were still supposedly land creatures.

Given the brand new bodily structures and biological functions of the fully aquatic whales, its impossible to be a descendant of Pakicetus in such a short time, especially without any transitional forms between Pakicetus and the 49 million years old fully aquatic Archaeocete.

To put things in perspective, here is a list of some of the required changes to convert a land dwelling mammal (Pakicetus) into an ocean-dominating whale:

- The whale's fluke is remarkably complex working through a specialized and coordinated system of tendons and muscles that land-based ancestors would not need.

- Whale’s blow holes demonstrate a great deal of specified design they're naturally closed by default not open even above water, a system of specialized muscles anchored to the skull open a tissue around the blowhole.

- Whenever the whale needs to breathe, a system that is foreign to land-based ancestors, collapsible lungs and ribcages with diaphragms oriented completely unlike those of land mammals allow whales to achieve deep dives that would crush other creatures.

- The interior linings of the whale's lungs contain fluids that allow them to repeatedly collapse and re-expand, stay underwater for two hours. this is only possible with a far more efficient metabolism.

- A male cetacean's reproductive organs are inside the body to streamline the creature in water and need special cooling by circulating blood from the dorsal fin on their backs directly to the reproductive organs absorbing the excess heat and carrying it back to the dorsal fin, without these coordinated systems the animal could not reproduce.

- How whales nurse their young is highly specialized, without it the calf would not survive.

This is only a small sampling of required hundreds of coordinated innovations and massive addition of new genetic info that is not possible through accidental mutations in such a short time to convert a land-walking mammal into a fully aquatic ocean-dominating whale.

The evolution of whales from four-legged land mammals which has been touted by many evolutionists as one of the best evidences for the theory of evolution is not just extremely unlikely, it’s absurd.

 

[LIIA]

Good grief! Are you serious? Your opinion is not the basics. There is nothing known that would prevent evolution from occurring on living things from either divine or natural origin. All that is required is living, reproducing organisms with heritable variation.

Lets try again for those who may benefit from it.

Evolution is not about the origin of life, its about the diversity of existing live, evolution may change existing live but doesn’t cause life to exist/originate from nonliving matter.

An organism that is alive with the ability of growing and reproducing is an absolute prerequisite before any evolutionary process may take place. Without a living organism that can pass changes to offspring, no evolution would exist. evolution didn't play any role for the appearance of first life.

Life with the ability of reproducing is the starting point, from which the alleged evolutionary process may take place. Life creates a chance for the alleged evolution to exist. Evolution doesn’t create life. It changes life.

That said, the real process is adaptation as a result of directed mutation to allow an organism to better fit an environment. Survival is not a function of natural selection, survival depends on the organism’s ability of adaptation to better fit an environment. See # 1080

January 2022, SciTechDaily wrote,” DNA Mutations Do Not Occur Randomly – Discovery Transforms Our View of Evolution” , “Mutations of DNA do not occur as randomly as previously assumed, according to new research from Max Planck Institute for Biology Tübingen in Germany and University of California Davis in the US. The findings have the potential to dramatically change our view of evolution. “

DNA Mutations Do Not Occur Randomly – Discovery Transforms Our View of Evolution (scitechdaily.com)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Maybe or maybe not, I never claimed that the belief in God is immune to false interpretations or false alterations/deviations. It’s a separate argument irrelevant to the influence of the ToE.

I guess you are not trying to make an irrelevant fourth grader’s argument, “you did wrong so that makes it OK that I did wrong”. Do you?

Oh my, so backwards. Eugenics is not part of the fact of evolution. Nor is it even implied by the theory. The same applies to social Darwinism. They are as you said "false interpretations". And they are far more wrong than the interpretations by various theists that have led to genocide after genocide and war after war. What you are doing is much worse than the pot calling the tea kettle black. By your poor logic theism is false. That was the point of that. If you think that you have refuted evolution with that poor argument then you also refuted your own belief in God. It is not a winning line of reasoning.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So we agreed on the point of discussion that the ToE (MS) has failed and need a replacement. I never argued that Gerd B. Müller is advocating for God! Did I?

He said:
“A rising number of publications argue for a major revision or even a replacement of the standard theory of evolution, indicating that this cannot be dismissed as a minority view but rather is a widespread feeling among scientists and philosophers alike” see #911.

I a m sorry if you do not understand your own sources.

You cannot win if you don't understand what the people that you link to are saying. They are not saying that evolution is wrong. Not at all. They are merely disagreeing with some aspects of the current model. This again is not a winning argument on your part. It is like arguing that Bugs Bunny did not get to the beach via Phoenix but via Cucamonga. No matter how he got there we know that he got there by tunneling. The same applies to new models. They are not saying that man is not the product of evolution, they are merely disagreeing about the route taken.

And like many advocates of new ideas they appear to be over valuing the contributions that they have discovered. Will the theory change a bit? Yes, probably, but not noticeably to an amateur like you or me. Life will have been the product of evolution. You will still be an ape.