Bgood wrote:No I think it's safe to say that populations of animals existed in the past, based on fossil findings.
If your population doesn't or didn't consist of biological chemicals then you don't have any fossil findings..
Bgood wrote:The facts of the dolphin article are still under investigation.
That mutations occur commonly which do not cause failure is a fact.
You are conflating two unrelated statements.
And what about deleterious mutations? The accumulation of these are lethal...
Quote:"Evolutionists are faced with a serious problem in explaining how hominids could have evolved given their high rate for accumulation of deleterious mutations, and their extremely low reproductive rates. How do these harmful mutations get removed as one species evolves into another? If evolution is correct, then the hominids should have become extinct many millions of year ago, due to the accumulation of these bad mutations."
Quote:"According to evolutionary theory, a new adaptation must be acquired fairly quickly, or else organisms will be poorly adapted to both the new and the old conditions and will not survive. Therefore, it seems logical that the first genetic changes must have large effects or else the changes will not be selected. However, the observation that large beneficial mutations seem to occur (of course de novo creation is eliminated as a possibility) poses a problem, since these mutations are thought to be mostly rare and mostly disadvantageous when they do happen so "they contradict theory," according to Dr. H. Allen Orr, an evolutionary geneticist at University of Rochester in New York (19). "We're in a funny situation - we're about to have a wave of data crash down on us and no theory to hang it on." New models have been proposed to attempt to explain these data, although they are yet to be confirmed."
Bgood wrote:Um, no I think it's clear that I meant that we need to do comparative anatomical analysis to see if the rear fins structure is like that of the front flippers or more homologous to the hindlimbs of terrestrial mammals. This simply cannot be done by looking at pictures.
No.... I was pointing out to the fact that you said there was a need to see if there is any skeletal structure...
Obviously there is a skeleton in there to hold up the fins... Even if it isn't fully formed...
Bgood wrote:First off, I stated from the very outset(first post) that this particular case (the four finned dolphin) may not be good evidence (This does not mean I think there is no evidence, just this particular instance may not add to the argument) in the case for the terrestrial origin of dolphins.
Notice the many qualifies in the previous sentence, this is to prevent mis-interpretation and conflation in future discourse.
Very Happy LOL
And additionally you misrepresent the scientists themselves. See below.
"Japanese researchers said Sunday that a bottlenose dolphin captured last month has an extra set of fins that could be the remains of back legs, a discovery that may provide further evidence that ocean-dwelling mammals once lived on land."
Notice the could and may, this is not the language of a definitive statement.
First off you are wrong... This is what you stated...
Quote Bgood: "There is not enough information to apply ANY statement of this sort to this dolphins rear fins."
"Any" meaning NO statements... Nada... "Could" and "May" are statements... This is why these scientists should have waited before opening their mouths so quickly before examining things further...
Bgood wrote:As I said earlier the telescoping ot the dolphin skull could have caused the nasal cavity to recess. I don't have a concrete explanation describing the evolution of the blowhole.
You are finally being reasonable... No facts...
Bgood wrote:If you are getting upset, let's end the conversation here. You may have the last post.
I doubt if you will...