Flann 5 wrote:Show me where biologists have described this [whale] evolution biochemically. They line up dubious and even discredited fossils as if these were proof of whale evolution..
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-n ... -73276956/Smithsonian wrote:For more than a century, our knowledge of the whale fossil record was so sparse that no one could be certain what the ancestors of whales looked like. Now the tide has turned. In the space of just three decades, a flood of new fossils has filled in the gaps in our knowledge to turn the origin of whales into one of the best-documented examples of large-scale evolutionary change in the fossil record.
What's striking here is the sheer will to find problems in evolution where actual scientists find none. Flann, I would say you are an expert at coming up with ID propaganda that purports to find gaps in our knowledge and insinuate problems with evolutionary theory. Someone who is similarly motivated could find "problems" in just about any scientific field. Evolution is the target here for obvious reasons.
This information taken from Smithsonian's web site is just a a summary of our current understanding of whale evolution, but it offers a strikingly different take than whatever this is that Flann dredged up somewhere. Which source do you think is more trustworthy or credible? Flann, what is the reason why you disregard mainstream science sources such as National Geographic, Smithsonian, Berkeley University, or any other university or high school science text book (or encyclopedia)? To answer this question you will have to resort to conspiracy-thinking and assertions of mass delusion, borrowing the tactics used by Holocaust deniers and other conspiracy theorists. You are missing the big picture on purpose, forever focusing on miniscule problems. Your personal "skepticism" of evolution, like Ant's "skepticism" of gravitational waves, speaks only to your own personal motivations, not for the actual state of the science which can be learned in numerous well written science books and by mainstream and credible science organizations. The fact that you continue to seek scientific answers in Creationist literature shows a remarkably stubborn and disingenuous approach. But in the end you're only fooling yourself.
http://carlzimmer.com/books/evolution-m ... xcerpt.pdf
http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520277069