Evolutionists and Wrapped-up Lies

Society Religion & Philosophy
1

Heres something interesting I came upon.

A Whale Fable From Evolutionists

One of the most curious evolutionary fables is the one about the “evolution of whale” that was published in National Geographic, widely respected as one of the most scientific and serious publications in the world:

Besides the fact that there is not a single scientific basis for any of this, such an occurrence is also contrary to the principles of nature.This fable published in the National Geographic is noteworthy for being indictive of the extent of the fallacies of seemingly serious evolutionist publications.

*Victor B.Scheffer, “Exploring the Lives of Whales”, National Geographic , vol.50,December 1976,p.752.

(From “The Evolution Deceit” by Harun Yahya)

Excuse any typos I might have made folks.

2

Doesnt anybody find this interesting.:o

3

sorry MQ,
if it has the word ‘anima’ in it :smiley:
I dont read it :bummer:

4

Got bored of this topic the last time. :slight_smile:

link

5

Actually I dont want anybody to discuss the theory of evolution.Its just I find it so ridiculous how descriptions such as this are actually believed by some people.Its so funny.I mean a hairy mammal turning into a whale.Have any of you read that book? There are tons of other interesting topics in it.:o

6

Well, it does sound funny, but whales do have terrestrial cousins – the hippo – who in turn may have hairy relatives.

There is an interesting article in the Nov issue of NG by David Quammen on the theory of Natural Selection. It’s an interesting read.

7

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Muslim_Queen: *
Actually I dont want anybody to discuss the theory of evolution.Its just I find it so ridiculous how descriptions such as this are actually believed by some people.Its so funny.I mean a hairy mammal turning into a whale.Have any of you read that book? There are tons of other interesting topics in it.:o
[/QUOTE]

I don't believe in Darwin's theory of random evolution, but the gradual mutation from one lifeform into another can be seen even today occuring in a period of a few hours.

I'm talking about disease resistance bacteria, which form when genetic mutation alters the physical surface of organisms to render them immune to certain antibiotics. A change like that can occur for single-celled organisms over just a few hours. Simply, the bacterial cells with the mutation are more likely to survive the antibiotics, so all future generations of the bacteria would be of the mutated variety

The physical properties of dogs have been altered by mankind in just a few hundred years, through selective breeding designed to produce dogs with longer ears or thicker coats. Cocker spaniels, which have incredibly long ears, got that way because men would only breed the dogs with the longest ears together, producing longer eared dogs. Only the longest-eared of the long-eared dogs would be allowed to breed, producing even longer-eared dogs ... and so on.

Over a period of millions of years, it's not inconceivable to me that larger organisms could undergo similar changes. Hind legs could vanish over time because the proto-whales with the smallest hind legs would be more agile in water (have less drag), thus better able to escape predators and find food . They would be more likely to survive and give birth to small hind-legged offspring. Those of the offspring with the smallest hind legs would in turn perform the best in water, and so on. Over an extremely long period of time, the hind legs would become tiny and vestigal (because the animals with the smallest hind legs would be strongest in water)) and ultimately disappear.

Similar tale for front leg to flipper transition, and blubber, etc. From each generation that was born, those who were very slightly better suited to water would be more likely to be strong and survive to breed, with these characteristics being passed on and amplified through generations.

The area where I disagree with Darwin are a) I believe that the whole thing is strictly divinely guided, because nothing takes place without Allah SWT permitting it to occur, and b) I don't believe in human evolution, since it's evident that Hazrat Adam (saws) was created from clay.

8

however, MS, in the examples you describe above bacterian will remain bacteria and dogs will remain dogs. I don't see them evolve into a new species. Even after 1000000 generations the meningitisbacterium doesn't transform into the tuberculosis bacterium

9

Its kinda hard to actually have solid proof infront of you as no one alive is nearly old enough to have witnessed it. Thats why we have theories.

10

Its hard for people to grasp the concept of evolution because it usually takes place over the course of millions of years. We have no point of reference to even fathom how long that is. Its like trying to imagine having a billion dollars in your bank account.

NeSCio, why is it hard to believe a new species can be created. Although there is only one species of dog there are many different species of cat. And a mule is a cross between two different species of equine: the horse or pony (Equus caballus) and the domestic donkey (Equus asinus).

Have you ever seen a Flounder (type of fish)? Its a perfect example to support the theory of evolution.

Remember, the idea of God/Allah is also a theory.

11

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Muslim_Queen: *
Its just I find it so ridiculous how descriptions such as this are actually believed by some people.Its so funny.I mean a hairy mammal turning into a whale.
[/QUOTE]

whats ridiculous about it? whales are mammals, give birth to their young, bring them up on mother's milk, have remnants of hair follicles on their face which are now sense organs, are warm blooded, show close similarity in bone structure to land mammals, have fossil records showing intermediate ancestors, especially in warm shallow seas.

12

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by brothanpakistan: *
Its hard for people to grasp the concept of evolution because it usually takes place over the course of millions of years. We have no point of reference to even fathom how long that is. Its like trying to imagine having a billion dollars in your bank account.
[/quote]

your argument of an infinite long time span doesn't hold. The earth is only a couple of billion years old, and the first life is supposed to have appeared only a few hundreds of thousands of years ago. So there is a very limiting time span in which all of evolution till now shud have taken place.

[quote]
NeSCio, why is it hard to believe a new species can be created. Although there is only one species of dog there are many different species of cat.
[/quote]

but the fact that there are different species of cat, how does this support evolution? cuz there is only one species of dog, does that mean that dogs don't show evolution whereas cats do?

[quote]
And a mule is a cross between two different species of equine: the horse or pony (Equus caballus) and the domestic donkey (Equus asinus).
[/quote]

i don't see this as evolution, this is just cross-fertilization. After all, the mule itself is infertile, so it cannot reproduce itself. This wud be deadly to evolution! to create a species through evolution that cannot reproduce itself.

[quote]
Have you ever seen a Flounder (type of fish)? Its a perfect example to support the theory of evolution.
[/quote]

tell me something more about the fish and how it is related to evolution?

13

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by queer: *

whats ridiculous about it? whales are mammals, give birth to their young, bring them up on mother's milk, have remnants of hair follicles on their face which are now sense organs, are warm blooded, show close similarity in bone structure to land mammals, have fossil records showing intermediate ancestors, especially in warm shallow seas.
[/QUOTE]

*Structural similarities between different species are called "homology" in biology. Evolutionists try to present those similarities as evidence for evolution.

Darwin thought that creatures with similar (homologous) organs had an evolutionary relationship with each other, and that these organs must have been inherited from a common ancestor. According to his assumption, both pigeons and eagles had wings; therefore, pigeons, eagles, and indeed all other birds with wings were supposed to have evolved from a common ancestor.

Homology is a deceptive argument, advanced on the basis of no other evidence than an apparent physical resemblance. This argument has never once been verified by a single concrete discovery in all the years since Darwin's day. Nowhere in the world has anyone come up with a fossil remain of the imaginary common ancestor of creatures with homologous structures. Furthermore, the following issues make it clear that homology provides no evidence that evolution ever occurred.

  1. One finds homologous organs in creatures belonging to completely different phyla, among which evolutionists have not been able to establish any sort of evolutionary relationship;

    1. The genetic codes of some creatures that have homologous organs are completely different from one another.
    2. The embryological development of homologous organs in different creatures is completely different.*
14

mq how come pig valves fit perfectly in humans and it saves lives?

15

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by rvikz: *
mq how come pig valves fit perfectly in humans and it saves lives?
[/QUOTE]

how come the 200-odd other organs don't fit? and of the many other mammals nothing fits?

16

even if we assume for a minute that homologous organs dont imply a not so distant common evolutionary past, what about the rest of the stuff i mentioned? are you saying a whale isnt a mammal?

17

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by queer: *

whats ridiculous about it? whales are mammals, give birth to their young, bring them up on mother's milk, have remnants of hair follicles on their face which are now sense organs, are warm blooded, show close similarity in bone structure to land mammals, have fossil records showing intermediate ancestors, especially in warm shallow seas.
[/QUOTE]

those fossil records have major gaps in them and are far from complete. secondly, how come fossils that are supposed to come after each other are sooo scattered over the globe. thirdly, how come we don't see intermediary forms now? i mean the previous intermediary can't be sooooo worse that it has become extinct so easily.

as for the resemblences, it cud have been that there is a basic template from which the mammals are made, and depending on their niche those structures show a certain development in their embryonic growth

18

nescio,

whale fossil records are pretty localized, and come mostly from the ancient Tethys sea area.

several intermediate and transitional forms have been unearthed that depict the change of walking limbs into paddling limbs into fins, and many other anatomical changes.

we dont see these intermediate whales today, because there is no Tethys sea today. nor was the Tethys a stagnant environment during its existance - which is why there are several stages of intermediaries. The intermediaries were possibly the best suited for survival in their sea at that point in time.

as for the case of basic template for mammals; why/how would the ecological niche of the organism affect its embryonic development? where is the feedback path?

19

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by queer: *

several intermediate and transitional forms have been unearthed that depict the change of walking limbs into paddling limbs into fins, and many other anatomical changes.
[/quote]

i don't have a lot in-depth info on this, but i doubt whether the smooth development is present in the fossils.

[quote]
we dont see these intermediate whales today, because there is no Tethys sea today. nor was the Tethys a stagnant environment during its existance - which is why there are several stages of intermediaries. The intermediaries were possibly the best suited for survival in their sea at that point in time.
[/quote]

how come the whales of now aren't well suited anymore to their environment? (which includes hunters killing them!) is evolution failing? I thought evolution even stood above humans, cuz they were subject to it as well. Or are these signs that evolution has lost its battle against humans?

[quote]
as for the case of basic template for mammals; why/how would the ecological niche of the organism affect its embryonic development? where is the feedback path?
[/QUOTE]

why would there be a feedback loop? in the alternative I'm presenting there is no need for a feedback loop. the niche doesn't influence the embryonic development. in the extreme anti-evolution scenario the animal with that particular development was just 'put' there in that niche

20

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by NeSCio: *

i don't have a lot in-depth info on this, but i doubt whether the smooth development is present in the fossils.
[/quote]

if i'm not mistaken, there are atleast 4-5 kinds of intermediary fossils known already (almost all of them coming from india and pakistan). i agree, 4-5 is in all likelihood not a complete evolutionary pathway, but since they show a gradation from legs to flippers, shrinking and disappearance of hind limbs, and gradual appearance of other whale-like features, it would be hard to not argue that almost all the unearthed fossil evidence seem to suggest evolvution.

[quote]
how come the whales of now aren't well suited anymore to their environment? (which includes hunters killing them!) is evolution failing? I thought evolution even stood above humans, cuz they were subject to it as well. Or are these signs that evolution has lost its battle against humans?
[/quote]

evolution can only help battle environmental changes that are slower than survivable mutation rates. even before humans were on the scene, changes in the environment have driven millions, if not billions of species to extinction. and humans hunting whales has been a very very very recent phenomenon in evolutionary time spans. hardly 100 years. my guess is, if humans are the biggest deciders of their fate, a clearly inedible whale would probably be the evolutionary survivor, and his mutants would be in contention to take over niches left by the other whales that were wiped out.

[quote]
why would there be a feedback loop? in the alternative I'm presenting there is no need for a feedback loop. the niche doesn't influence the embryonic development. in the extreme anti-evolution scenario the animal with that particular development was just 'put' there in that niche
[/QUOTE]

i see what you are saying. i have problems with that though. how often do animals get put in their niches? niches so clearly undergo changes in a few thousand years. new ones are created, old ones destroyed.

why are the animals in geographically close niches having similar conditions show a lot more similarity than idential niches that are separated spatially onto different continents? different kinds of fish would make an excellent example of this. you will find the continents split away into various almost "feudal" families that have their subfamilies occupying almost all niches on their continent, while the other continent has the very same niches occupied by another family.