the title of this thread is the title of the article.....
doesn't this prove that species can evolve from one species to another? why or why not?
any other questions, comments, or words of wisdom?
ancient whales walked on four legs and moved like giant otters -- seriously
Posts
Total:
16
nope
-->
@n8nrgmi
1} That is one set of evidence.
2} Then there is the evidence that correlates whales to wolves because of the inner ear bone.
..."A startling discovery made in the arid sands of Pakistan announced by University of Michigan paleontologists Philip Gingerich and Donald Russell in 1981 finally delivered the transitional form scientists had been hoping for. In freshwater sediments dating to about 53 million years ago, the researchers recovered the fossils of an animal they called Pakicetus inachus.
..Little more than the back of the animal’s skull had been recovered, but it possessed a feature that unmistakably connected it to cetaceans.
..Cetaceans, like many other mammals, have ear bones enclosed in a dome of bone on the underside of their skulls called the auditory bulla.
....Where whales differ is that the margin of the dome closest to the midline of the skull, called the involucrum, is extremely thick, dense, and highly mineralized. This condition is called pachyosteosclerosis,
....and whales are the only mammals known to have such a heavily thickened involucrum. The skull of Pakicetus exhibited just this condition.".....https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-did-whales-evolve-73276956/
3} Fullers ideas, first humans left safety of their warm-water atoll ponds and began entering the sea. They learned to hold their breath longer and longer under water so on and so on >>>> became cetacceans aka one tongued, two eyed, purple-people-eaters. :--)
-->
@n8nrgmi
ancient whales walked on four legs
and then on two legs and then none at all.
56 days later
evolution says animals adapted to there environment. an example would be the polar bear turning white in order to blend i with the white snow.
this is wrong
god created the polar bear white to go with the snow
i am wearing a red shirt to go with my red pants
god created seasonal creatures to turn white during the winter to go with the snow
a race car driver wears green clothing to go with the green car.
god created trees green to go with the green grass.
god created desert animals yellow to go with the yellow desert.
there is no reason for this coloring except it would not go together. but it does go together but that is because of god. here s no environmental reason for grass to be green just like trees
44 days later
-->
@crossed
Neither Polar Bears or Snowflakes are actually White.
It's all Brain Trickery.
-->
@zedvictor4
But what is the rule for something to be white?
If you are correct then it has to exclude polar bears and snow - I wish you luck putting it in to words!
-->
@keithprosser
But what is the rule for something to be white?
Its called 'chemistry'.
Why does molecules change?
1} ..."Lamarck is best known for his Theory of Inheritance of Acquired Characteristics, first presented in 1801 (Darwin's first book dealing with natural selection was published in 1859): If an organism changes during life in order to adapt to its environment, those changes are passed on to its offspring. He said that change is made by what the organisms want or need.".....
2} Darwins evolution.
There exist grape stompers in Europe whose job for most of their lives has been to stomp { mush } a large barrel of grapes into mush with their feet and they have enlarged spaces { gaps } between their all of toes after many years of doing that.
Bruce Liptons book "Biology of Belief" follows along the lines of chemistry changing to adapt to its environment.
Biology of Belief ergo the placebo effect occurs 10% of the time in some lab experiements ergo mind over matter and that is what my mother sort of tried to follow via her readings of Mary Baker Eddys Christian Science pathways of thought.
-->
@mustardness
OK, but what is the rule for something to be white?
Are you into quantum mechanics? You will have to go there for 'rules'.OK, but what is the rule for something to be white?
White is a frequency combination of all visible light { EMRadiation }.
Some molecules ergo some electrons or their combinations emit this or that frequency and or hue of visible light.
Fred Hoyle states in his 1990's book, "The Intelligent Universe" that the gene that causes yellow light{ frequency emission } in this or that plant is the same in another plant or animal etc. I dont know if that is true in all biological cases. But perhaps you get the idea.
Synergy is more commonly non-predictable resultant of combinatorial phenomena. However, all resultant phenomena follow quantum rules irrespective of whether as synergetic effect or not.
I forget when --mid 40s-- humans were able to predict a synergtistic resultant.
..."Antagonism is the opposite of synergy"...LINK
-->
@keithprosser
Yep.
I get your point.
From a basic and typical human perspective (brain held data and how we respond to incoming data) white is white.
EMRadiation and our response to it begins with the retina. Old news.
..."Color can be thought of as a psychological and physiological response to light waves of a specific frequency or set of frequencies impinging upon the eye. An understanding of the human response to color demands that one understand the biology of the eye. Light that enters the eye through the pupil ultimately strikes the inside surface of the eye known as the retina."...
IN the following LINK place red and green and blue together to arrive at white. It is called chemistry and chemistry is based on physics.
...."In the case of malaria (and probably many other diseases one wants to treat), the desired effect sought after is usually synergy, i.e., a drug combination for which the antimalarial effect is greater than that observed by each compound alone, and greater than what would be expected by assuming solely additivity of compound effect (Sucher, 2014)."....
Using Machine Learning to Predict Synergistic Antimalarial Compound Combinations With Novel Structures
Human access to metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts is a synergistic effect of out-breeding
Human loss of access to metaphysical-1 mind/intellect/concepts and antagonistic effect to synergy via inbreeding.
Cetaceans are 2nd only to humans in their access to metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept abilities ergo they may have had the least amount of inbreeding to arrive to the phase/stage of evolution that currently exist with.
how cool
16 days later
It seems like mustardness is conflating Lamarck and Darwin's concepts, but that's not accurate.
Lamarck thought someone who developed big muscles from a life of blacksmithing (or whatever) would pass big muscles to offspring (that doesn't happen). Darwin held that whatever traits helped organisms to survive in a given environment (before producing offspring) would be selected for. (Not sure how the grape stomper example fits into this)