Darwin's Illusion

[Subduction Zone]

The point is the process is not random. The DNA replication machinery “proofreads” its own synthesis. “Control” is the rule; “errors” is the exception. Even when errors happen, the DNA repair mechanisms work to repair the damage. The cell machinery controls the process. Mutations are not random, it’s controlled/directed for the benefit of the organism.

See # 1245
Darwin's Illusion | Page 63 | Religious Forums



Nonsense, life in any shape or form is extremely complex. The ability of self-replication and metabolic functions dictates the complexity. Such complexity of the simplest living organism cannot be reduced. There is no evidence to support such empty claims.



We discussed that before, scientists used essential components that do not exist in nature especially under prebiotic conditions and they did it in controlled lab conditions, which call the relevance of the results into question.

See #1850

Darwin's Illusion | Page 93 | Religious Forums

See #2484

Darwin's Illusion | Page 125 | Religious Forums

All that you did was to admit that you lost the argument again. I do not play that silly game.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, I am supporting his general argument. And I have doubts that he claimed that date. He may have claimed that date, if he did he is probably wrong in that one aspect. And you are the one that believes in a fairy tale. You believe in magic. Plus that is not the date given in the article. There is a range of dates with one study, just one, putting it even earlier:

"Studies from 2000 to 2018 have suggested an increasingly ancient time for the LUCA. In 2000, estimates of the LUCA's age ranged from 3.5 to 3.8 billion years ago in the Paleoarchean,[26] a few hundred million years before the earliest fossil evidence of life, for which candidates range in age from 3.48 to 4.28 billion years ago.[27][28][29][30][31] This placed the LUCA shortly after the Late Heavy Asteroid Bombardment which was thought to have repeatedly sterilized Earth's surface. However, a 2018 study from the University of Bristol, applying a molecular clock model, found that the data (102 species, 29 common protein-coding genes, mostly ribosomal) is compatible only with LUCA as early as within 0.05 billion years of the maximum possible age given by the Earth-sterilizing Moon-forming event about 4.5 billion years ago.[32"[



What? How did you misinterpret that? You shouldn't take quotes out of context. No, just because they may not have the exact route that life took would not mean that it was not a solved problem. There is more than one possible routs that could have been taken.

Let's compare beliefs and compare it to a car trip. We have evidence about quite a few parts of the routes. But in one place the trip could have been completed with US 2 and another with I-90. Meanwhile you are off on the sidelines claiming that the car was magically transported across the country.

Not necessarily. Despite the fossil record, there is missing from that the [detailed] constructive links from one form to another.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nonsense, I’m neither demanding a major change nor demanding a specific timeframe for the change to emerge. Evolution has all the time in the world. Time is irrelevant. Random nonbeneficial colors in the wrong environment never happen. Neither darker colors randomly emerge among polar bears nor lighter/white color emerge among grizzly bears. Polar bears where only an example, there is no randomness in nature.



We all know white is not a color, it’s a reflection of all wavelengths, how is that relevant to anything. The mechanism through which specific color appears is irrelevant. If a mutation of polar bears allows any wavelength to be absorbed, then it will yield different color.



You keep talking about stasis because its all what we see, the point is how to reach stasis, how to reach a local optimum? It’s not possible to reach a local optimum without a preceding phase of gradual change, which simply doesn’t exist in the geological history.



I linked the online paleobiology database “fossilworks” as a credible reference for the age ranges of known fossils in general that is why I didn’t quote specific pages.

Fossilworks: Gateway to the Paleobiology Database

The concern is not Arcaheoceti as a group but as I previously clarified in #1217 & #1298 the fossil from the specific ancient whale that was discovered in Antarctica and dates back 49 MILLION YEARS, is considered to be the oldest fully aquatic whale yet discovered. See the links below.

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

Ancient whale jawbone found in Antarctica (nbcnews.com)

Please learn how to respond reasonably and rationally. Too many bad arguments. Your source about the 49 million was not a scientific article and I do not see a link to the peer reviewed paper. It links to another non-professional site and it only claims that it was just a jawbone that was found. I don't think that they could determine if it was "fully aquatic" from just a jawbone. The illustration in the article is not of the whale. And your other link only goes to a general page. How does that support you at all?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not necessarily. Despite the fossil record, there is missing from that the [detailed] constructive links from one form to another.

Really? How would you prove this claim?

 

[YoursTrue]

Really? How would you prove this claim?

Well, maybe there are and hopefully you can authenticate them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, maybe there are and hopefully you can authenticate them.

Why make a clam if you have no evidence?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I did but I’m not concerned about any empty speculation about an alleged root function, my concern is the already known facts about the proven function today, goosebumps have current functions as explained in #2876,

You really should read the article you yourself have posted.

I wonder why you failed to comment on the other items

I didn't "fail" to. I choose to. You post a lot of nonsense and I don't have the time and energy to comment on everything.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Really? Can an entity better fit a function other than the intended target of its design? Go ahead, demonstrate it.

You're moving the goalpost.
Your comment stated "The rare and illogical exception is that something would be used for another random purpose other than “Its goal. Its target. Its aim”"


You didn't sayin anything about that thing doing a "better" job at that "other random purpose other then its goal / target / aim".

So to now sneak that in, just so you can disagree with my reply, is just dishonest.
Having said that, how would you even determine what counts as "better"?

I have given you the example of using a doorstop as a weight to fix a glued puzzle piece.
It did a fine job as a weight for that.

How would you define it if did a "better" job as a weight then it did as an actual doorstop?

In fact............ in this particular case I'ld have to say it did in fact do a better job as a weight then it did as doorstop. A strong enough wind made the door shut anyway when I used it. But it never fell off the puzzle piece and it's very well glued. So I would give it a 10/10 as weight for puzzle glueing. I'ld give it only a 7/10 as a doorstop as I feel that it should be able to withstand a bit more wind.

Purpose is an intrinsic component of the process. You may purposefully change the function, but the entity always stays “best fit” for its intended purpose.

Apparently not as imo it did a better job as a weight to glue a puzzle piece as opposed to acting like an actual doorstop.

You made a new less intelligent purpose for the doorstop by using it as weight on a broken puzzle piece that you glued but the design of the doorstop stays "best fit" to be used as doorstop (a much more intelligent purpose).

I did re-purpose it, sure. But the intended purpose of the actual original design is NOT what its new function is.

And as already explained, no - it did a far better job as a puzzle glueing weight then it did as a doorstop.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Are you supporting TagliatelliMonster claim that the alleged LUCA is 2 billion years old?

Why are you repeating this falsehood?
I explicitly mentioned and explained that I wasn't claiming that.

I was instead making the point that LUCA does not refer to "first life ever". Instead, it refers to the last common ancestor of extant life.

And that LUCA thus could be just 2 billion years old. I know and have said explicitly that I know that it is known to be older then that.

You were claiming that LUCA = first life.
I was correcting that falsehood.
It could be first life. But it doesn't have to be and likely isn't.

Anyways, I agree abiogenesis would never be solved.

That's not what he said.

He said "the precise path..."

You seem to have a habit of sneakily add or ommit certain words which change claims and statements in significant ways.

It's very hard to have an open honest conversation like that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If random mutation happens that affects fur color of bears that live at the pole, it is not going to be a specific color to match that background. Random means any random color may emerge at any time even after reaching “local optimum”. And yes, once the mutated individual with new random color starts hunting, it would be subject to selection pressures. Again, the point is we never see such disadvantageous random colors emerging in nature. It should randomly emerge any time/all the time then gets eliminated by selection pressures. there is no evidence for such random colors, randomness in nonexistent in nature. Do you understand?

Let's have some fun with this.

Explain to us all why you think we should see this "randomly emerge all the time".

Your answer will have to involve the technical aspect of genetics, as in what type of mutations would alter fur color and what the probabilities of those mutations are.

Don’t you claim that disadvantageous random colors get eliminated by selection pressures that only keeps the best fit for the specific niche (white), where are these random colors? Why there is absolutely no evidence for it? Do you understand what randomness entails? Is it that difficult for you to understand?

I understand randomness quite well. It's a big topic in software development land when we require true random numbers.

But this isn't about mere randomness - and that's your mistake.
This is about randomness within a very narrow scope.
Randomness in biology with respect to fitness.
Not randomness across the board.

Polar bears are not going to give birth purple children.

Stasis are always followed by "sudden jumps".

Yes. I've already explained how PE works.

"Sudden jumps" are necessarily “massive jumps” with respect to new genetic info. Do you understand?

Not necessarily "new" though.
I'll stick to "altered", which includes change, addition and removal.

No relationship can be established between these fossils to fit any possible evolutionary development.

Excuse me while I take the word of well respected and published paleontologists over some internet arm-chair "scientist" who argues against very established science out of religious motivation.

Gradualism dictates observations of chronologically ordered series of fossils

Which is what we have.

, a lineage of ancestors and descendants showing the alleged gradual change leading to current species which was never established in any species. That is the why the word “ancestor” is typically replaced by the word “relative”. No lineage can be established.

Correct. Nor does it have to. I explained why already.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sure, you can simply ignore a couple billions of years, it doesn’t really matter since the whole thing is nothing but some meaningless “Geisteswissenschaften”. See #331.

I didn't ignore anything. You're the one who's ignoring the actual point.

The point is about what the "L" stands for in LUCA.
It's not about the age of LUCA.

But ow well..... clearly you aren't interested in having an actual honest conversation.

All you care about is scoring "debate points" to make it look as if you are "winning".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nonsense, “local optimum” may arguably cause stasis but “local optimum” must be preceded by gradual changes.

And it is.
All this has been explained already.



The rest of the post also, so I'm just skipping it.
You only insist on doubling down on your already corrected false claims.


There really is no point in continuing here..

 

[Valjean]

No, it cannot. That is the point. “Design” is always intentional/purposive. There is no non-purposive substitute. It doesn’t exist.

So There is no word for the development of complexity and functional 'non designs'? Makes discussion of this subject kinda difficult.

If the familiar processes “the automated process” create order and complexity, then the automated process itself is design. Design is a manifestation of purpose.

So you've defined it But if everything's designed, there would be no natural process at all; no chemistry, physics, or anything. Water freezing or a rock rolling downhill would be direct interventions by God.

All of nature manifests design. Design is everywhere. Being the norm is never evidence for the absence of purpose. It’s quite the contrary.

No. Order, complexity and functional interactions are everywhere, but there is no evidence of purposive or intentional design.

Design and purpose are inseparable. If we see design, then we have seen purpose.

Design and automatic function are everywhere.

The design itself is the evidence of intention. The finger of God is observed in every single designed entity. The fundamental question is “why there is design/order vs. chaos/randomness”. Why would the familiar processes dictate design/order? What dictates/causes the specific behavior of the familiar processes that give rise to design/order as the outcome?

The "design" can be explained by ordinary, unguided chemistry or physics. There is neither need nor evidence of intention in nature. Sodium and chlorine bond into salt. Fatty acids in water will assemble into membranes and vacuoles, no intention or design necessary, just chemistry.

There is no route through which an organism can survive and evolve without the essential systems that must be functional from day one. Such as the simple example of the epiglottis. It’s an illogical oversimplification.
Natural selection is not a creative mechanism. It works on what already exists. Selection would never cause the non-functional to be functional. It only causes what is already functional to be better. the non-functional will neither survive nor evolve.

This is just the old irreducible complexity argument. It's wrong. Functional elements may become more complex or modify their functions, but functional order exists from the beginning.

Illogical oversimplification, it must be functional from day one, the organism must survive to evolve. If evolution were what gives the organism the essential functions to survive, how would the organism survive to evolve?

Chemistry creates self-replicating, lifelike structures even before they develop into what most people would consider organisms. Life and it's complexity are a progression of increasing functional complexity.

Again, selection doesn’t create. The creative mechanism is mutation, which is allegedly random trial and error (no intention involved). In any case, the assumption of random mutations was disproved. See #1245

Selection selects from amongst random mutations, making the process non-random.

Its illogical, per the evolutionary idea, a functional pattern can be reached after a long route of non-functional patterns that got eliminated. There is no evidence for such nonsense.

Functional patterns don't emerge from non functional patterns. The non-functional is eliminated before it becomes a pattern. Functional patterns evolve from previously functional patterns.

Seriously, do we see randomly misplaced arms or eyes in nature all the time? The rule is perfection. In fact, exceptions/errors help use to recognize and appreciate the rule.

Random misplacements and 'errors' are variations for evolution to select from. Sometimes they prove useful.

Alleged dysfunctional variations cannot survive to evolve and acquire necessary systems. Slow accumulation of change is not possible if the organism doesn’t have vital systems required for survival from day one. The organism will neither survive nor evolve.

The vital systems have been in place from day one. Functional variations are retained, dysfunctional ones are eliminated. Easy-peasy.

Per the ToE, dysfunctional random variations should be the overwhelming rule; accidental functional variations should be the exception. There is no evidence of such overwhelming dysfunctional variations continuously emerging randomly before it gets eliminated by selection. We don’t see such nonsense in nature.

Neutral variation is the rule. Dysfunctional variation isn't usually frequent or virulent enough to cause extinction.

If you think unknown/ ununderstood cause is magic, then magic is the only explanation that science provides to observations, from the behavior of entire galaxies (influenced by dark energy) to the behavior of subatomic particles (influenced by strong nuclear force).

An unknown cause is not what I'd call magic. Magic is effect without cause or mechanism. Magic is more like miracle.

The intrinsic nature of these forces is neither known nor understood but when the observations are seen, the causes are inferred even if the causes itself are beyond observation or understanding. It’s not magic but rather logical inference of necessary causes. Such inference of causality can only end at an absolute first cause.

No. Inferring an unknown cause doesn't necessitate design or a designer, just a yet-to-be-discovered, natural force or mechanism. A designer still requires mechanism, unless there is actual magic involved.

 

[Valjean]

Yes, the universe did appear, and life did appear. Both are contingent entities that exist within a contingent realm. Both are caused. I never claimed that they are causeless.

Life may have had a chemical cause, but the appearance of the universe may well be beyond cause. It's not understood.

In both cases order/purpose is manifested. The specific nature/characteristics of the effects drives our inference of the causes. My claim is that the nature of the causal influence (God) cannot be observed or understood yet his existence, as the absolute/non-contingent cause is necessary to explain all contingent entities.

Order is manifested, but purpose? Purpose implies intention, and we don't have any reason to infer intention or purpose. Once the universe expanded, and its laws and constants fixed, the natural interactions they empowered unfolded automatically. Imagining an intentional mechanic or magician is just anthropomorphizing.

We are limited. God is limitless. We are confined within the realm of spacetime. God is not. We can neither observe nor understand the non-contingent nature of God, but your real issue is not the unknown/unobservable nature of the cause; we accept that all the time in science (as explained above in #3109). Your real issue is the notion that the causal influence (God) is conscious and exerts purposeful influence over contingent entities. If you understand the fact that the nature of fundamental causes are never known, then on what basis you would assert the absence of consciousness/purpose especially if all observations point to it?

Observations don't point to it. You're trying to ascribe everyday human experience to theoretical physics. Reality doesn't behave like our experience of the material world.
The burden of supporting this fantastical claim is on you. I hold the default position.

Yes, we're marvelously complex but you simply deny that the observed design is designed merely because you cannot wrap your mind around the nature of the designer. Your limited ability of understanding doesn’t impose any limits on the absolute reality. See #490

I thought noöne could understand God.
Why does the order and function we see in nature require an intentional designer or a purpose? Why isn't blind physics sufficient? Can you not wrap your mind around the unguided ramifications of chemistry and physics?

You claim that the interactions of matter explain life/consciousness but what explain the behavior of matter as it interacts? You are under the impression that science provides mechanisms and fail to understand that on a fundamental level, it never does. Science only assigns names to unknowns such as dark energy and strong nuclear force but never provides mechanisms.

The origins of the laws and constants created with the expansion of the universe are unknown. The whole process is unknown. Perhaps someday we'll unravel it, but, in the meantime, we'll just have to accept it -- without positing some magical, anthropomorphic entity behind it all,

What is your understanding of magic? Is it an effect without a cause? There is no such thing in our contingent realm. If the effect is observed, the cause must exist.

Exactly. So, were water transforming into wine, the sun standing still, Lot's wife transforming into a column of salt, the blind and lame being cured, the dead being resurrected all naturally caused, by known physical mechanisms, or were these all folklore -- or magic?

The universe appeared out of nothing, yet it’s a contingent entity dependent on a cause, “The specific behavior of entire galaxies” is a contingent entity dependent on a cause, etc. but again, a cause of an unknown nature has nothing to do with magic.

We don't know that the formation of the universe had a cause. Causation becomes fuzzy at a quantum level, plus doesn't a cause predate an effect. What cause existed before existence and time?
Once the universe existed, however, why would any cause beyond blind physics be necessary? If an effect required tweaking or suspending the laws of physics, that would seem to be magic.

Your notion is based on an empty claim about what you don’t know. It’s illogical to ignore what you do know in favor of what you speculate.

But isn't this just what theists are doing; inventing an unnecessary, unevidenced personage to manipulate things behind the scenes?

But I agree with you when you said, “Who knows?” yes, there are possibilities beyond our knowledge/understanding including the supernatural realm. If you acknowledge our limitation/lack of knowledge, then you open the door to all possibilities whether comprehensible to you or not.

What is supernatural if not magic?
Yes all possibilities are open, but believing in everything, whether evidenced or not, is foolishness. I believe in that which there's evidence of. I disbelieve the unevidenced, pending discovery of evidence.

If the system is the best fit for a very specific function, then its evidently design whether you know the designer or not. Consider the example of the epiglottis.

The epiglottis evolved like any other anatomical feature, and it's not a best fit. It's a 'good enough' feature, like most anatomic structures. An intentional designer could have done better, in so many ways.

The very specific role in addition to the precise integration/coordination with other complex functions towards a final goal cannot be anything but purposeful design. Other than wishful thinking, there is no route to give rise to design other than purpose/intention.

Wishful thinking is what you're employing. I'm just following the facts and evidence.

You are essentially claiming that any values of the constants/laws would always give rise to some other kind of live/universe. It’s simply an empty unevidenced claim.

When did I ever make such a claim? Maybe our universe is the only possible universe. Maybe different laws and constants would give rise to nothing. Who knows? We have an observed sample size of only one.

No other arrangement might have emerged from the Big Bang simply because physical nothingness doesn’t give rise to possibilities. The emergence of the Big Bang was not a matter of possibilities. It was a dictated outcome governed by dictated laws.

Why do you say no-thingness can't give rise to things? Where did this dictator of laws and possibilities come from? Who created him? What evidence do you have that he was either necessary or real? I think you're reasoning from personal incredulity.

It’s illogical to draw a conclusion based on mere speculation of the unknown while deliberately ignoring the known.

Which is exactly what you're proposing, isn't it?

Yes, other realm may exist but if our own realm exhibits design/purpose, what is the reason to think that other realms don’t?

I have no reason to think "other realms" exist, nor do I see any design or purpose in our own; just the unfolding of physics.

Only if you know for a fact that different parameters would always give rise to life/universe, which you agreed that you don’t.

Huh?

Interactions/arrangements of the already existing entities is what gives rise to (subsequent) possibilities. Without existing entities that could be arranged or interact in different ways, there are no possibilities. If no matter, no radiation, no physical laws, no time, no space exist beyond the Big Bang, then there was nothing to give rise to possibilities. The emergence of the Big Bang was not a matter of chance.

You keep making these blanket declarations, with no supporting evidence. The universe had an apparent beginning. It materialized from no thing. How this came about is unknown. Positing a preëxisting, conscious personage, creating existence, apparently from nothing, is a fantastic, unnecessary, and unevidenced claim.[/quote][/quote][/quote]

 

[Valjean]

If you understand that we observe design/purpose and that the emergence of the universe is not a matter of random chance (the prerequisites of chance didn’t exist), then you will understand that the existence of God is a necessary explanation.

We do not observe design or purpose. We observe order, function, and physics. We do not know what caused the emergence of the universe. Random chance? Physics? These are familiar. Magical, invisible personages -- this is a fantastic claim with no reason, need or evidence supporting it, and no mechanism explaining it.

You contradict yourself. If you agree that the universe may have arisen from nothing, then the element of chance did not exist, do you understand?

No. How the universe came to be is unknown. I don't know whether there was chance involved or not, nor do I understand your reasoning, here.

The entities before create the element of chance for what comes after. The “Nothingness” doesn’t give rise to any chance.

There was no "before." Time began with all the other laws of nature, at the Big Bang. Nor am I talking about nothing. I'm talking about no thing.

Again, a player throwing a die (existing entities interacting) gives rise to a chance or a specific range of possibilities (any number from 1 to 6), if there is no player or die (no entities/interaction), there is no chance of getting any number, simply because the prerequisites of chance didn’t exist. Whatever emerges out of “Nothingness” is not a matter of random chance. Do you understand?

We don't know what the prerequisites for the universe were. It could be uncaused. It could be random chance.
What player rolled the dice to create the chance of a god?

We exist, we are contingent entities, the causality chain must end at a non-contingent, otherwise it cannot exist because regardless of how far back it continues, the entire chain remains a contingent entity that doesn’t account for its own existence.

Contingence ends at the inflation point, where cause is an unknown factor. The universe happened. That's all we know. If you can have an uncaused God, why can't we have an uncaused universe? Reality does no correspond with commonsense or our experience of everyday life.

The “fine-tuned constants” is not my claim; it’s the scientific consensus. We agreed (above) “not all manifestations of laws and constants would support life or a universe”.

When was it decided that the universe was designed to fit human needs? I know of no scientific consensus on this.

You’re making an empty claim. Your argument may be logical if you know for a fact that different parameters would always give rise to different kind of life/universe.

I don't know this for a fact. We don't even know how the parameters of our own universe came about.

Again, the BB and emerged parameters controlling matter were not a matter of random chance. The prerequisites of chance did not exist. Nothingness doesn’t give rise to possibilities.

You keep saying this, but it doesn't follow. We don't know what state of 'thingness' existed. We don't know how or whether random chance was involved or not. We do not know how the universe came to exist, but goddidit clarifies nothing. There is no reason to posit a god, no known entity that could create a god, and no known mechanism by which a god would materialize from nothing.

 

[Joshua Pryce]

He lived in a time when people believed a brood of mice could suddenly appear in a basket of dirty clothes. In other words Darwin was under the illusion that life could appear spontaneously under the right conditions.

This is called a miracle and intervention of God. Gods sovereign will operates in random actions which promote long term personal effects.

 

[Valjean]

This is called a miracle and intervention of God. Gods sovereign will operates in random actions which promote long term personal effects.

"Random actions promoting 'personal effects'?" What does that mean?

 

[LIIA]

OK, I don't like to get too much into philosophy but I will say that (the Bible says) when God created Adam, He blew the "breath of life" into Adam's nostrils and then Adam came to be alive. Genesis 2:7 says "Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."

Yes, the body is only a vehicle for the soul. The soul is the driver that gives life to the body. Consiousness/selfawarnes/qualia are all characteristics of the soul. The body imposes physical limitations on the soul and allows it to interface with the physical world in a specific physical manner. Once the connection between the body and soul is broken, the body is dead, and the inner being/soul gets freed of the physical limitation of the body.

NDE studies shed light on the fact that our inner being/self-awareness (the soul) is not dependent on the physical body. Studies on persons who were considered clinically dead or near death during the state of a lifeless body and without a functioning brain, provided the evidence that enhanced (non-local) consciousness, with unaltered self-identity continues beyond the lifeless physical body.

1) See the NDE “Line of Evidence” #1 through #9 (especially #2 & #3), the “Conclusion of Study” and finally the “Conclusion”.

Near-Death Experiences Evidence for Their Reality

2) See the online forum of the “Near Death Experience Research Foundation"

www.nderf.org

3) The International Association for Near-Death Studies (IANDS)

IANDS - the most reliable source of information on NDEs

 

[LIIA]

Your source about the 49 million was not a scientific article and I do not see a link to the peer reviewed paper.

A joint Argentine-Swedish team led by Argentine paleontologist Marcelo Reguero discovered the oldest fully aquatic whale in Antarctica which dates back 49 million years. You can search it and verify it yourself. Here are some additional sources confirming the info.

<i style="color:#BF1424;" >Argentine find in Antarctica</i><br >The oldest whale fossil discovered<br/> (clarin.com)

Ancient whale jawbone found in Antarctica - Boston.com

Oldest Antarctic Whale Found; Shows Fast Evolution (nationalgeographic.com)

it only claims that it was just a jawbone that was found. I don't think that they could determine if it was "fully aquatic" from just a jawbone.

Scientists do it all the time. Paleontologists always derive quite a lot from mere "bone fragments” but the question is whether what they drive is true or false especially if we consider the role of extreme bias.

Hesperopithecus (Nebraska Man) was based on a single tooth, which turned out to be nothing more than a pig’s tooth and Orce Man was based on a single skull fragment which turned out to be from a 4-month-old donkey (see #1252).

In your case, if the conclusion supports your view, then “Scientists are trained to draw conclusions from small fragments” but if it’s against your view then you question how such elaborate conclusions can be possibly drawn from little bone fragments.

That said, the scientific consensus whether you accept it or not was that the jawbone that was discovered in Antarctica was from a fully aquatic whale which dates back 49 million years.

 

[LIIA]

I didn't "fail" to. I choose to. You post a lot of nonsense and I don't have the time and energy to comment on everything.

No, we both know that you realized that you were wrong especially about parroting Dawkins false claims about the eye design without much understanding of the facts. Didn’t you?

See # 2876
Darwin's Illusion | Page 144 | Religious Forums