Pointy eggs and whales (Evolution)

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Monday, August 27, 2018, 17:50 (114 days ago) @ dhw

TONY: I know you live your life with purpose and certainty. But in this area of 'theory of the immaterial' you are hoist onto your personal picket fence with both feet planted firmly in mid air.

DHW: Yes, that is the nature of agnosticism.

The above quote was David.

TONY: Can you show me that 90% of the birds that laid round eggs on cliffs died? Also, can you show me the 10% of birds of this variety with round nests on cliffs that did survive? Or evidence that they ever laid round eggs on these cliffs? Or perhaps you could show me two of the same species of birds that have the genetic differences needed to go from round egg to pointy, with the round egg layer being an older specimen?

DHW: Of course I can’t. NOBODY knows how speciation took place, and that is why we have different theories. Can you show me evidence that out of the blue your God created birds with pointy-shaped cloacae? In any case, if I remember rightly, you DON’T believe he did. Your view of life is that God created species in the broad sense, but not variations within species. So do please let us have your own theory to explain the pointy-shaped eggs.

If A then B programming. I don't know what the parameters are, but I would hazard a few guesses and say that perhaps certain dietary or environmental inputs (A) are the parameters that determine the output of the eggshape (B). I would also guess that when we find out what those inputs are, they will be ubiquitous between all pointy egg bird species.

TONY: What about 10% of the whales that did not go into the water but survived? Where did they go? Where is the record of them? And don't tell me another damn fairy tale that has no objective evidence, no record, no traceable, documented process that took them from form A to form B.

I never said anything about 10% that didn’t go into the water. But if it all began with a local crisis,I would assume that any pre-whales stuck on land would have died. We have fossils that show different stages of development from pre-whales to whales. Here is a website that traces all the known stages.

Whale Evolution - AMNH

That link will not open, but here is one of my own: The Evolution of Whales

I love the opening statement, which makes me both want to laugh and cry at the sheer lunacy:

"The first thing to notice on this evogram is that hippos are the closest living relatives of whales, but they are not the ancestors of whales. In fact, none of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any other, as far as we know. That's why each of them gets its own branch on the family tree."

And almost as laughable:

From the outside, they don't look much like whales at all. However, their skulls — particularly in the ear region, which is surrounded by a bony wall — strongly resemble those of living whales and are unlike those of any other mammal. Often, seemingly minor features provide critical evidence to link animals that are highly specialized for their lifestyles (such as whales) with their less extreme-looking relatives

So, this is how we got whales, but they aren't direct ancestors, and we have no trail of direct ancestry. How do we know? Cause they all got dem der ear holes bubba. Dey musta all been in da same family cuz dey all got da same ears. Don't matter that the other bits don't look nuthin like'n each other. Look at dem ears!

Please. Such claims are an insult to intelligent people everywhere.

TONY: Show me something that can be repeated in a lab, step-wise. We can manipulate DNA now, at will. Show me one, just one, scientist that has managed to make stepwise adjustments to DNA to take a creature from an amphibian to a reptile, or reptile to a bird or mammal. Hell, show me one that has managed to change one mammal into another. Hell, change one single celled organism into another single celled organism. Say, e coli to yeast.
In chemistry, we can prove the claims made by chemist by doing it. We have the technology now. So show me the evidence by reproducing the process. That is science.

DHW: Agreed. I make a similar point at the end of the “brief guide”. But how does this prove scientifically that organisms can spring from nowhere, as opposed to springing from other organisms, and “don't tell me another damn fairy tale that has no objective evidence, no record, no traceable, documented process.”

Because the evidence shows that they spring up from nowhere, with no direct ancestry. That is documented. See above. I claim that the evidence shows no direct ancestry because the evidence shows no direct ancestry. I am not the one making incredible claims based off ear holes.

What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum