We're archiving here a YouTube discussion prompted by our evolution of rsr.org/whales resources. This thread between Bob Enyart and Creatard Slayer foxlake02 in March 2021 appears beneath a video on RSR's channel that debunks a major part of the whale lineage legend, Dr Hans Thewissen interviewed about Blowhole of Ambulocetus.
They are very clear about what fossils were found and what were not in these museums when you look at the displays and read the literature that goes with it. No nasal opening in the back where we have fossils and related animals have them in the front. This is not unreasonable conjecture but it is not dogma unlike creationist dogma.
Hey fl, to produce his videos and write his books on this Dr. Werner traveled to the world's leading museums making a full photographic record and taking extensive notes, including going to the Smithsonian, Carnegie, American Museum of Natural History, NHM of London, NMNS of Tokyo, Melbourne Museum, Canadian Museum of Nature, and the NHM of Paris. When you say, "they are very clear", are you speaking for all major museums, or certain ones? ) Btw, you can see more at rsr.org/werner. )
@Bob Enyart I'm not interested in an advertisement for more misinformation. There is some conjecture here but it is not in a vacuum. This anatomy is part of a larger picture of fossil anatomy in which there are quite a lot and more being discovered every year. The reliability of ancient stories takes a lot of conjecture since they didn't even seem to know the difference between a fish and a whale or a bat and a bird back then.
@foxlake02 FL, here are two reconstructions:
The first is from the cover of Science and both are the standard images used all over the world. They're juxtaposed with the ACTUAL skeletons after further excavataion.
You are the reason FL that such wild flights of fancy pass as reasonable scientific inference. As you would know if you visited rsr.org/whales , since 1998 leading institutions have argued whether whales evolved from animals like hyenas, cats, deer, wolves, or hippos, just as Darwin himself focused on the wide-open mouth and predator behavior to claim that whales evolved from bears. "Evolutionists change their selection of what evidence they use to show 'lineage', from DNA to fossils to genes to body plans to teeth to many specific anatomical features to proteins to behavior to developmental similarities to habitat to RNA, etc. and to a combination of such. Darwinism is an entire endeavor based on selection bias, a kind of logical fallacy. By anti-science they arbitrarily select evidence that best matches whichever evolutionary story is currently preferred." - rsr.org/whales
A magazine cover from 1983. Looks like they were trying to sell magazines. I care more about the details that experts in anatomy can make conclusions about myself.
@foxlake02 Hey FL! I imagine you know that that "magazine cover" was on the most prestigious science journal in the United States, published, as it says on that cover, by the AAAS. Might you consider taking perhaps a baby step and asking God for the humility to admit that your "side" of the evolution debate was rather reckless with the unjustified reconstructions that they then widely promoted? After all, that overselling affected not only millions of people, but you too. (Of course this step wouldn't mean that you're conceding the theory of evolution, but it'd just be a baby step, on how this one issue was handled.)
@Bob Enyart would that be your interpretation of a god? Most Christians accept the theory of evolution. A few people scam the public with conspiracy theories to make money.
@foxlake02 Hey FL, two things I hope you agree with: Something isn't true or false because most people oppose or accept it, and scamming people is wrong. If you do agree with both, that should equip you (with a bit of humility) to consider the following from my article at rsr.org/whales ...
- Leading evolutionists focusing on teeth, ear bones, ankles, mouth, or genes thus argue for a different land ancestor
- Since 1998, leading institutions argue whether whales evolved from animals like hyenas, cats, deer, wolves, or hippos
- Darwin focused on the wide-open mouth and predator behavior to claim that whales evolved from bears
- Dr. Gingerich explains that what "is similar between hoofed hyenas and the archaic whales are the teeth."
- Tokyo Institute of Sciences focused on genome similarity and concludes that whales evolved from a hippo-like species
- The whale evolution saga pits geneticists against anatomists against paleontologists
"Evolutionists change their selection of what evidence they use to show 'lineage', from DNA to fossils to genes to body plans to teeth to many specific anatomical features to proteins to behavior to developmental similarities to habitat to RNA, etc. and to a combination of such. Darwinism is an entire endeavor based on selection bias, a kind of logical fallacy. By anti-science they arbitrarily select evidence that best matches whichever evolutionary story is currently preferred." - rsr.org/selection-bias
- Neo-Darwinism claims that evolution happens in the genes, yet unlike whales, hippos have plant-eating teeth
- Geneticist claims whales evolved from hippos but paleontologists say hippos evolved tens of millions of years too late
- Howard University's whale fossil expert Prof. Daryl Domning: "this is nonsense... Hippos were very late on the scene"
Remember FL, what you agreed to (I hope) above: Something isn't true because most people believe it, and it's wrong to scam people (including into overconfidence about what evolutionists actually "know").
@Bob Enyart What a load of crap. Paleontologists are experts in anatomy and genetics. Of course they argue about the details. It isn't dogma.
@foxlake02 Hey FL, of course you're correct that there's nothing wrong with arguing details. What is wrong though is that, with all the extreme uncertainty evolutionary scientists have in the presumed whale lineage, they've deceived you into being overconfident in their conclusions, and now even though you've seen the above, you're still willing to deceive others with that same overconfidence. Humility comes in especially well in this context FL, including for scientific integrity.
@Bob Enyart The debate about the evolution of life is long over. Nobody in this field is debating whether it happened. They are debating details like the exact phylogenies and timelines.
@foxlake02 Have you ever noticed that your side thinks they won the debate about biological life when they can't open their mouths to even utter the first word about how life began? And have you ever noticed how your side is so quick to lie to itself, like claiming that water is the key to the origin of life, when NASA's senior "astrobiologist" Dr. Mary Voytek admitted while answering my question that water, being the universal solvent, is actually a problem for abiogenesis because it relentlessly dissolves most of the compounds needed to build a living organism. See her answer my question at rsr.org/abio and then see your side's blind faith made manifest FL, at rsr.org/origin. You guys also lie to yourselves and others by saying that the debate is over because you think you can't be honest because materialism requires adherence to its rules especially if that means getting the biggest questions completely wrong.
@Bob Enyart Actually I don't claim to know how life started. My only assertion is that the theory of evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life on earth. Period. If you have a better explanation, submit it for peer review.
Bob Enyart 2 minutes ago (edited)
@foxlake02 Hey FL! So, like a school boy who has an arithmetic problem at the very beginning of a difficult problem, until he goes back and gets that right, he's never going to arrive at the right answer. Darwinism is an entire endeavor, as described above, based on selection bias. So, with the error at the very start (the beginning of life) and the house built of logical fallacy upon that missing foundation, it'd be best for you to start over.
Matter and energy are not good candidates for the emergence of life. Life is information based and information is not physical. Even though that tends to freak out materialists, they should take a chill pill and then realize that everything most substantive is not made of matter. For example, from my article rsr.org/physical...
- Numbers are not physical. They're not made of matter and they're not made of energy. Regardless of how much we use them or how often, they never run out and they never run down. Numbers are without limit and do not have temperature, density, color, mass, volume, shape, a melting point, hardness, odor, length, etc. They lack the properties of matter and energy, and even space and time.
- Math is not physical.
- Information is not physical.
- Logic is not physical.
- Ideas are not physical.
- Language is not physical.
- Science is not physical.
- Truth is not physical.
- Probability is not physical.
- Codes are not physical.
- A Googol is not physical.
- A Googolplex is not physical.
- The square root of negative one is not physical, and yet, the quantum physical foundation of the universe functions based on this non-physical purely intellectual concept. FL, life does not have a materialist origin. As suggested above, you might want to check out rsr.org/abio and rsr.org/physical.