To open this presentation I would like to post a quote from LinearAq, asking a creationist to answer the following:
LinearAq wrote:More importantly, how do these "new" revelations provide support for your God-did-it-in-7-days theory, or the God-designed-it theory? I read the websites and the research they quoted, yet found no supportive evidence for 7-day-creation 6000 years ago. In fact there was no evidence at all that support the existence of God at work in forming life.
Now, this particular question was posed to the poster CTD, whom, if we're lucky, (s)he will have the time available to respond -- as well as other creationist posters -- and thus contribute to the mountainous evidence supporting creation. After answering the above questions with clear and testable evidence, we can then expand on the presentation by adding additional creationist research, but it would be fair to start by answering the above questions before moving forward.
It can be a time-consuming task, extracting truth from evospeak. Likewise, I'm not sure anyone who is predisposed to accept the inevitable spin which accompanies many discussions of unwelcome discoveries will consider the evidence "compelling". I haven't spent my time trying to answer LinearAQ's question; but I came across something:
DNA research has resulted in a new make-believe clade called
Whippomorpha. Whale evolution stories are in disarray because the hippo is "closer" to whales than the old "tree" allows. But the hippo can't just be plugged in as a whale ancestor, so... Well, they're trying to backtrack without appearing to backtrack. Arguing about the new tree, etc.
Anyone other than a committed evolutionist should have no problem understanding that there
is no tree.
I didn't find out on my own, but thanks to
rbarclay I am now hep to this jive.
Now here they are arguing that DNA is wrong simply because it does not fit into their evolutionary dogma. After all they can not have an end product (whales) 35 Myrs before their common ancestor (Hippos). So paleontologists use homology so they can keep artiodactyls as the common ancestor. That way they do not have to worry about any time lines
As evidence of doubletalk, I submit
indohyus. They make out that this creature "Known mostly through a few fossil teeth" is the earliest of whippokind. But they've tacked on this disclaimer
(As a note for journalists and creationists, Indohyus is not a direct ancestor of whales, as many news sites are claiming, and nor did whales ‘evolve from deer’!)
Now then. What are the pretty pictures for? Why does the headline say "Whales evolved from small aquatic hoofed ancestors"? Why even bring this critter into the conversation?
