so the question is "why"

[ollagram88]

i'm always amazed at how much science has accomplished in understanding our universe.

the one thing that i never could get an answer to, however, is WHY - why does does this universe exist? (or universes, depending on what you fancy).

i'm looking at the big picture here. one might ask, why are we here? well, billions of years of moving particles, evolution, ideal conditions, and the constants that make life possible tell us how we got here, and by that alone, the question of why can be considered irrelevant.

i'm not interested in the how, however, and it doesn't even have to concern life (because as science would like to tell us, we're pretty insignificant). i'm not asking how the universe functions. i don't care that it's possible for non-carbon based lifeforms to exist provided our universe was fine-tuned differently.

i'm asking WHY. why we have physical laws. why there exists matter. why the big bang(s) had to occur. why all that is, is?

is science just not there yet? if so, what can we guess based on our current knowledge? what does science and philosophy have to say about this? i don't want to insert God if God is not necessary to answer this question.

[JoeyKnothead]

As abortion is not the point of this thread, I will not comment further on it.

Ken1burton, that's some mighty fine preaching, but would you mind addressing the OP?

[Thought Criminal]

I've read it and I can't find the answers to my questions. How many morphical changes would have to occur for this wolf like artiodacyls related to Pakicetus to go from that to the whale we see today? No number is given just different species but it doesn't list nor explain the changes that occured. How long would this process take? and where is the evidence for these changes? I haven't found the evidence maybe it is somehwere else.. why dont you show me these answers instead of side stepping the qusetions...And no all non-muslims do not look alike.

Your question about the specific number of morphological changes makes little sense because changes aren't discrete, so the number depends on how we do the counting. Is sonar one adaptation or should we count each of the features that contribute to it?

The deeper problem is that you don't actually care about the answer. You're asking rhetorically so you can wave your hands and say that it's a huge number. This ignores the fact that many of these adaptations are evolving at the same time, driven by the same pressures to be more effective in the marine environment.

Anyhow, if you followed the link from the article I mentioned to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cetacea#Re ... holocation, you'll see that it lists a number of specific adaptations, without pretending to be exhaustive. Some of these adaptations are not going to be preserved well in fossil remains, but some are.

A good example of a well-preserved adaptation is the loss of legs. We have plenty of fossils for every stage in this process, from terrestrial, to amphibious and then to fully aquatic. This is a simple disproof of your claim that there is no evidence for these changes, not that it's going to matter.

I'll go on to point out that the article lists the terrestrial Pakicetus as living 53 million years ago, while the habitually aquatic Indohyus was around 48 million years ago. It had some of the adaptations that whales do now, but still looked pretty much like a typical land mammal.

From there to the first fully marine whales took until Dorudon, 38 million years ago. Even then, there were still small legs and it didn't yet have echolocation, which came around 33 million years ago. By about 14 million years ago, we had whales that looked pretty much like they do today. To put it in context, this was still more than 7 million years before the lineage that led to us branched off from our closest living relatives, the chimpanzees.

So, depending on what you pick as the starting point, I'd say from 50 million years ago when the lineage became partially aquatic until fully modern whales 14 million years ago, it took about 36 million years for the transition from land mammal to whale. Of course, even though this is overwhelmingly supported by evidence from many different directions, you're going to deny it anyhow, because your fundamentalist take on your religion compels you to disregard the truth.

TC

[ken1burton]

[Thought Criminal]

Thought Criminal.

I think the conversation between us needs an abortion.

You're free to run away, but first you owe me an apology.

TC

[JoeyKnothead]

[ken1burton]

[Thought Criminal]

[Jester]

You might feel you won the debate, I think you showed yourself worst then I had even suggested some Atheists are. Abortion is of a pregnancy, not a Baby? Swift, real Swift.

Moderator note:

Please refrain from making negative comments about others. While this can be an emotional issue for many of us, these kinds of comments will not serve to convince anyone of your beliefs.

[JoeyKnothead]

[ken1burton]