jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (29 posts)

The history of the whale

  1. aka-dj profile image77
    aka-djposted 3 years ago

    I heard some time ago that it is a commonly held belief amongst evolutionists that whales evolved from "dog sized mammals".

    I found it rather intriguing.

    So, according to the theory, life arose in the sea, "fish" eventually left the sae.
    Evolved into mammals, and in the case of whales (and I suppose all other marine mammals), they chose to go back to the sea.

    The thing that I find most fascinating, is the shere scale of the process.

    Microbe, to invertebrate, to vertebrate, to land dwelling creature, to mammal, ( smallish animal), to larger mammal, to sea creature to a whale.
    I haven't researched how many times bigger in mass a whale is from a dog, but common sense tells me, it's QUITE a difference.

    To me, this is not just unlikely, but downright ludicrous. Remember, all this in a few billion years.

    This is something that has to be accepted by faith, as it defies logic, and observable facts known today.

    Here's an article outlining the process I have tried to summarise.

    http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/otherpreh … whales.htm

    1. Zelkiiro profile image82
      Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Yes. A few billion. With each billion comprised of hundreds of millions of years, and each million comprised of hundreds of thousands of years.

      Given that much time, I'm frankly disappointed that modern creatures are as boring as they are. It's like we got complacent once the dinosaurs died off.

      1. aka-dj profile image77
        aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        So, you actually agree with me, in a strange sort of way.

        1. Zelkiiro profile image82
          Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Not necessarily. Your argument is that evolution hasn't had enough time to make it this far. My argument is that evolution sure is taking its sweet time to give us those extra arms and night vision.

    2. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      "It defies logic".  Can you describe the syllogism that is being violated, please?

      We already know that animal species change size; logic (and the "rules" of evolution)  says it should continue to optimum size given environmental factors.  Where is the illogic in whales doing just that?

    3. Quilligrapher profile image90
      Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Good evening, aka-dj. I thank you for starting this interesting and challenging thread. I bet it will generate a great deal of interest. wink

      The rarest breed of whale in the world is the casino whale. It is believed that there are only 150 to 500 in the entire world. More than half are thought to originate in Asia. In addition, they are frequently spotted near the West Coast of the United States but they are known to frequent the shoreline of New Jersey in the North Atlantic and Mederterainian as well. Observers have noted that they rarely linger in one place for long. {1}

      It is interesting how they travel in large groups but they have also been seen alone. Pictures and prominent features are available by following the endnote below.cool
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
      {1} Rare Sightings of Casino Whales

    4. Disappearinghead profile image89
      Disappearingheadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      According to creationists all animals before the fall were vegetarian and carnivorous animals weren't so until after the fall. So before the fall what do you think whales lived on? Last I looked plants don't grow more than a few feet from the surface of the sea which would mean whales beaching themselves risking their lives just to eat.

      1. Zelkiiro profile image82
        Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        And I'm sure velociraptors, with their myriad of razor-sharp teeth and clearly-and-obviously-designed-to-kill-every-motherf**ker-in-the-room claws were snacking on veggies.

        ...With you-could-shave-your-back-with-that-sh*t razor-sharp teeth that are useless for chewing veggies...

    5. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Too bad believers must litter the "Education and Science" forum with their faith-based beliefs especially when they have never taken the time to understanding anything scientific, but feel compelled to dishonestly state how "ludicrous" it is.

      They know little if anything about logic and most certainly are well known to deny or reject observable facts, which they don't even understand in the first place.

      But, if any scientific fact or theory jeopardizes their myths and superstitions, they will vehemently jump on the bandwagon of denial and rejection.

      Funny how we don't see them denying or rejecting less understood facts and theories, like gravity. lol

      1. aka-dj profile image77
        aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Oh, yes, gravity evolved. lol
        Sorry I missed that. lol

        Can we put that into another thread, not this one?

        1. Disappearinghead profile image89
          Disappearingheadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          So what about vegetarian whales then?

    6. profile image0
      mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      How long is a billion years? Is it even possible for the human mind to grasp the concept?

      So when you speak of a billion years not being long enough for evolution to occur, what does that mean?

      Interestingly, you also engage in a conversation about "billions" of years. I thought that Creationism insisted that the Earth (and the universe in which it resides) are just a bit over 10,000 years old?

      How can you counter evolutionary science with claims of billions of years having occurred, but being insufficient and yet hold on to Creationism?

    7. profile image0
      mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Are you aware that birds are evolving very rapidly---particularly crows, with increasing numbers of crows walking in situations would have "normally" and previously (and in the very recent past) been situations in which they would have taken flight?

      I am not understanding your insistence that evolution requires a specific amount of time and that no matter what the time elapsed, that time is not sufficient to explain evolution of a species.

      Nor do I understand why you believe that evolution cannot foster an increase in size over time; why you believe that evolution somehow must reduce size over time.

  2. aka-dj profile image77
    aka-djposted 3 years ago

    Just what does it take to make a whale?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ai-DXFXZr8s

    1. Zelkiiro profile image82
      Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      A lot of time, the genetic need to be larger and heartier, and a propensity for eating millions of krill.

    2. aka-dj profile image77
      aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I notice nobody addressed the message of the video.

      So, cow-to-whale satisfies the evolutionists as perfectly acceptable process, I guess.

      1. A Troubled Man profile image60
        A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Why do you keep showing videos of creationists from the Discovery Institute? Berlinski is woefully ignorant of evolution and provides all the same tired and refuted nonsensical arguments as the rest his ilk there. None of them have any credibility whatsoever when it comes to evolution, no less than you.

        1. aka-dj profile image77
          aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          OK.
          So, you have no problem with the "cow to whale" transition.

          You may not like the messenger, but you have a tendency to shoot the message too.

          That's reasonable! hmm

          1. A Troubled Man profile image60
            A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            No, I have a problem with folks who lie, who dishonestly reject or deny facts and evidence.

            1. aka-dj profile image77
              aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              That answer is not an answer.

  3. profile image0
    Beth37posted 3 years ago
    1. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      LOL. "If fat made a noise, it would sound like "Blub-ber" lol

      1. profile image0
        Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        He's the funniest man alive.

  4. A Troubled Man profile image60
    A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago

    This thread is a classical example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

    The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes.

    Dunning and Kruger proposed that, for a given skill, incompetent people will:

        tend to overestimate their own level of skill;
        fail to recognize genuine skill in others;
        fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy;
        recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill, if they are exposed to training for that skill.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2 … ger_effect

    1. aka-dj profile image77
      aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Come on now.
      You should not be bragging about you credentials.

      Still haven't answered the basic question.
      Why am I not surprised? lol

      1. A Troubled Man profile image60
        A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        "Here's a free clue for the IDiots: cows didn't evolve into whales. Instead whales are the modern descendants of a primitive carnivore that lived over 50 million years ago. See the video at the PBS site for basic information on the evolution of whales—the sort of information that you'd expect anyone to know if they were going to criticize the scientific explanation for the evolution of whales [Whale Evolution]. Berlinski knows some of this history but he's missing the big picture. Berlinksi and most of his fellow fellows at the CSC don't know much about evolution and how it works. It's all a big mystery to them; but then, that's why they are IDiots."

        lol

        http://sandwalk.blogspot.ca/2007/08/cow … hales.html

  5. profile image0
    mbuggiehposted 3 years ago

    I am baffled. As was noted in an earlier post: Why are science hugs, forums, and questions littered with Creationist speak from people who know basically no science?

    I would actually like to know why---exactly and specifically why, Creationists feel compelled to denigrate science most of which is (from their comments) utterly unknown to them; feel compelled to humiliate and attack those who understand and accept science, and feel compelled to ridicule basic facts (facts based on volumes and volumes of data and evidence) that even most elementary school students grasp, understand, and accept?

    1. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      See the Dunning–Kruger effect link I provided above. smile

      1. profile image0
        mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I read that, but I wonder if runaway intellectual conceit can explain it all?

        After all, just about every discussion forum related to anything whatsoever to do with science is just riddled with Creationist nonsense.  No matter what the topic, if there is a scientific "angle", the Creationists will be there disrupting what could otherwise be intelligent and productive conversations.

        And in the case of this forum, a clear and deliberate attempt was made to engage readers/commentators with evolution only to then ridicule those making informed scientific points.

 
working