James's theory on dinosaurs

Quote from: Johannes on September 16, 2010, 11:10:31 AM

Quote from: markjo on September 16, 2010, 06:22:49 AM

Quote from: Johannes on September 16, 2010, 12:08:13 AM

Quote from: General Disarray on September 15, 2010, 09:35:56 PM

Quote from: Johannes on September 15, 2010, 07:21:36 PM

for a wolf to turn into a whale

wat

Plus, evolution has evidence, dinosaurs building ocean-going boats does not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans#Earliest_ancestors

Unless early wolves had hoofs, that link does not support your claim that a wolves evolved into whales.

I am not making the claim that wolves evolved into whales.

Then why did you bring it up?

Because certain evolutionary biologists have proposed wolf-like (according to "science" wolves are recent) creatures evolved into whales.

Quote from: markjo on September 16, 2010, 12:31:03 PM

Quote from: Johannes on September 16, 2010, 11:10:31 AM

Quote from: markjo on September 16, 2010, 06:22:49 AM

Quote from: Johannes on September 16, 2010, 12:08:13 AM

Quote from: General Disarray on September 15, 2010, 09:35:56 PM

Quote from: Johannes on September 15, 2010, 07:21:36 PM

for a wolf to turn into a whale

wat

Plus, evolution has evidence, dinosaurs building ocean-going boats does not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans#Earliest_ancestors

Unless early wolves had hoofs, that link does not support your claim that a wolves evolved into whales.

I am not making the claim that wolves evolved into whales.

Then why did you bring it up?

Because certain evolutionary biologists have proposed wolf-like (according to "science" wolves are recent) creatures evolved into whales.

But that isn't what you said.  Please make up your mind and keep your story straight. 

Because certain evolutionary biologists have proposed wolf-like (according to "science" wolves are recent) creatures evolved into whales.

Those evolutionary biologists did not say "an animal just like a wolf". They probably said "a four legged animal the approximate size of a wolf".

Wolves and the whole "Canis" family is just about 6 to 8 million years old, while the last land based ancestor of the whales is about 55 million years old.

If you are going to say that the fossil record does not disprove whatever story you like to invent, the least you can do is accept this simple fact about the fossil record.

Have you considered the possibility that the essence of a wolf is in fact not phylogenetic, but based rather on its dimensions, appearance and behaviour?

Have you considered the possibility that the essence of a wolf is in fact not phylogenetic, but based rather on its dimensions, appearance and behaviour?

Gee, that's just what he said. I wonder what your problem is.

Have you considered the possibility that the essence of a wolf is in fact not phylogenetic, but based rather on its dimensions, appearance and behaviour?

If only the biological definition of a species requires the ability to interbreed in animals capable of sexual reproduction.

In what circumstances would it be possible to try and interbreed a prehistoric wolf with a modern one? It seems that we are in need of a Jurassic Park - or perhaps an Eocene Park for these two types of wolves to intermingle.

In what circumstances would it be possible to try and interbreed a prehistoric wolf with a modern one? It seems that we are in need of a Jurassic Park - or perhaps an Eocene Park for these two types of wolves to intermingle.

Your claim was that phylogeny doesn't matter, but by definition it does.

Oh, no, I think you misunderstood my point. I was just curious as to whether the possibility had been considered. I am happy that the variety of ways in which we use the word "wolf" is a loose cloud of applications with no single defining feature.

Oh, no, I think you misunderstood my point. I was just curious as to whether the possibility had been considered. I am happy that the variety of ways in which we use the word "wolf" is a loose cloud of applications with no single defining feature.

There are really few things less important than your opinion on the variety of ways in which the word "wolf" is used.

There is a real species which has been extensively studied, called "canis lupus", which has existed for about 6 to 8 million years. There is a real order, called Cetacea, which includes all whales. It has existed for about 50 million years. There is no relationship between them except for the fact that they are both mammals and their ancestors were land dwelling mammals.

All the other 'ways in which we use the word "wolf"' have little to do with the actual animals and a lot to do with the cheap philosophical arguments that FE'rs like so much.

Yes, and as I have hopefully communicated, the modern wolf is one of they ways in which we generally use the word wolf, and the ancient wolf, which evolved into the modern whale, is another!

Yes, and as I have hopefully communicated, the modern wolf is one of they ways in which we generally use the word wolf, and the ancient wolf, which evolved into the modern whale, is another!

Please show us any scientific article that claims wolf evolved into the modern whale. Oh is asking you for evidence even worth the trouble? You don't seem to care much for providing it.

Yes, and as I have hopefully communicated, the modern wolf is one of they ways in which we generally use the word wolf, and the ancient wolf, which evolved into the modern whale, is another!

Please be less vague, you just said wolf has no real meaning other than some vague concept.

Quote from: James on September 22, 2010, 05:24:09 PM

Yes, and as I have hopefully communicated, the modern wolf is one of they ways in which we generally use the word wolf, and the ancient wolf, which evolved into the modern whale, is another!

Please show us any scientific article that claims wolf evolved into the modern whale. Oh is asking you for evidence even worth the trouble? You don't seem to care much for providing it.

And please let us all beg James to show us his time machine, which he apparently has used to transport the 8 million year old ancient wolves to the Paleocene, some 55 million years ago, so that they could become the ancestors of the whales.

Is James even going to acknowledge his blatant trolling ways?

Yes, and as I have hopefully communicated, the modern wolf is one of they ways in which we generally use the word wolf, and the ancient wolf, which evolved into the modern whale, is another!

Saying that wolves and whales had a common ancestor is one thing.  Saying that wolves evolved into whales is quite different.

You must please understand that when one uses the word "wolf" one may quite well by involved in quite different applications - one may be correct both in saying "wolves evolved into whales" and in saying "whales precede wolves", simply because the word "wolf" possesses many referents and many systems of use.

This is why it is best to say "ancient wolves evolved into whales" and "whales precede modern wolves" so that it may be more obvious what we mean when we use these terms outside of a context which dictates their meaning more intuitively.

You must please understand that when one uses the word "wolf" one may quite well by involved in quite different applications - one may be correct both in saying "wolves evolved into whales" and in saying "whales precede wolves", simply because the word "wolf" possesses many referents and many systems of use.

This is why it is best to say "ancient wolves evolved into whales" and "whales precede modern wolves" so that it may be more obvious what we mean when we use these terms outside of a context which dictates their meaning more intuitively.

So can you provide any evidence that anyone else has ever said that "wolves evolved into whales" or not? Can we trust anything you say, or not?

Can we trust anything you say, or not?

You must be new here.

Quote from: ClockTower on September 22, 2010, 08:09:45 PM

Can we trust anything you say, or not?

You must be new here.

Point taken.

Quote from: James on September 22, 2010, 08:06:32 PM

You must please understand that when one uses the word "wolf" one may quite well by involved in quite different applications - one may be correct both in saying "wolves evolved into whales" and in saying "whales precede wolves", simply because the word "wolf" possesses many referents and many systems of use.

This is why it is best to say "ancient wolves evolved into whales" and "whales precede modern wolves" so that it may be more obvious what we mean when we use these terms outside of a context which dictates their meaning more intuitively.

So can you provide any evidence that anyone else has ever said that "wolves evolved into whales" or not? Can we trust anything you say, or not?

Yes, Johannes also said it on the previous page. As long as he does not delete his post, you are free to review it at any time!

Quote from: ClockTower on September 22, 2010, 08:09:45 PM

Quote from: James on September 22, 2010, 08:06:32 PM

You must please understand that when one uses the word "wolf" one may quite well by involved in quite different applications - one may be correct both in saying "wolves evolved into whales" and in saying "whales precede wolves", simply because the word "wolf" possesses many referents and many systems of use.

This is why it is best to say "ancient wolves evolved into whales" and "whales precede modern wolves" so that it may be more obvious what we mean when we use these terms outside of a context which dictates their meaning more intuitively.

So can you provide any evidence that anyone else has ever said that "wolves evolved into whales" or not? Can we trust anything you say, or not?

Yes, Johannes also said it on the previous page. As long as he does not delete his post, you are free to review it at any time!

LOL, Now seriously. Do you just make things up or do you have any evidence?

You must please understand that when one uses the word "wolf" one may quite well by involved in quite different applications - one may be correct both in saying "wolves evolved into whales" and in saying "whales precede wolves", simply because the word "wolf" possesses many referents and many systems of use.

This is why it is best to say "ancient wolves evolved into whales" and "whales precede modern wolves" so that it may be more obvious what we mean when we use these terms outside of a context which dictates their meaning more intuitively.

*sigh*  I can't see how referring to the common ancestor of wolves and whales as a wolf is correct in any application.

Quote from: ClockTower on September 22, 2010, 08:09:45 PM

Quote from: James on September 22, 2010, 08:06:32 PM

You must please understand that when one uses the word "wolf" one may quite well by involved in quite different applications - one may be correct both in saying "wolves evolved into whales" and in saying "whales precede wolves", simply because the word "wolf" possesses many referents and many systems of use.

This is why it is best to say "ancient wolves evolved into whales" and "whales precede modern wolves" so that it may be more obvious what we mean when we use these terms outside of a context which dictates their meaning more intuitively.

So can you provide any evidence that anyone else has ever said that "wolves evolved into whales" or not? Can we trust anything you say, or not?

Yes, Johannes also said it on the previous page. As long as he does not delete his post, you are free to review it at any time!

Another lie.

I am not making the claim that wolves evolved into whales.

Yes, Johannes also said it on the previous page. As long as he does not delete his post, you are free to review it at any time!

This is hilarious. A troll quoting a FE'r who is most probably a troll too.

I am almost certain that the most prominent "FE'rs" decided a few months ago to throw in the towel and become blatant, unrepentant trolls. That is when Ichi became the world renowned injured plant expert, and another one (please remember me his name) decided that charcoal and ink are in on the conspiracy, just to name a few.

If you have a problem with what we're saying, nobody is forcing you to read what we publish on this website!

If you have a problem with what we're saying, nobody is forcing you to read what we publish on this website!

No one forces us to read what you publish on this website, regardless of any problem we might have with its accuracy.

No one forces you to face the reality of our questions or critiques either. You just look silly, posting about your dreams, for example.

You are the one posting about my dreams, not me. We should get back to the topic at hand, which is whether or not whales evolved from wolves.

I happened back into this thread and took a search of the wolf/whale issue.  There does appear plenty of evidence that the ancient wolf was a precursor of the modern whale.  I am just the messenger of this information.  A search to each their own will prove this out.   

Yes, I concur. We may rightly say that whales evolved from ancient wolves.

Agreed, surprisingly