I note many public evolutionists, Prothero and Shermer and many others always stress the cases of vestigial parts in marine mammals as evidence for evolutionary biology.
Yet in reality this is a sampling error that in fact makes the opposite case against evolution.
I agree marine mamnmals once were land lovers and only later gained features to surbvve in the water. Not the impossible steps said by evolutionists, as Berlinski demonstrates, but some other mechanism.
Anyways evolutionists persusde themselves, and try to persuade others, that the real changes found in marine mammals proves creatures changed greatly and by Darwins method.
Yet the great truth is that for all the living and fossil biology that is observed at least 99%% has no vestigial features whatsoever. If all biology evolved then all biology should be crawling with remaining bits but in fact its a great missing anatomy. There are no vestigial bits save in very few special cases like marine mammals.
Therefore if evolutionists use these few cases to make the evolution case then in strict sampling disipline they actually make the opposite case. If finding a few vestigial bits is to prove evolution then the glorious ascence makes the true case that evolution didn’t happen because it should be that vestigial bits are the norm and not the exception.
So i propose its a sampling error to say vestigial bits of marine mammals prove evolution and in fact it must be proving the opposite.
I think this is a good point unless someone can show otherwise.
To add to what Robin said, the relevant data being considered for fixed land masses was that land masses show no obvious indication of being in motion. And yes, that was data, and it was relevant. The extension comes in when additional data becomes recognized as relevant, which Robin listed. You should note that any theory of moving land masses must STILL explain why land masses appear fixed and no motion was visible.
And you might be interested to learn that geologists are STILL trying to figure out exactly how and why land masses move. The most recent issue of Science News, for example, had a story on new discoveries about the viscosity gradient in the mantle, and how that might contribute to the observed motion.
No sailing but I got it.
Are you uncomforable with the 99% having no vestigial bits/ if it is that number does this persuade you? Do you need to find biology crawling with remnants of previous body plans? YES!
Save for a few special cases there are none. A horse might have three toes in some births showing a three toed heritage. yet the horse has no vestigial bits at all. Relative to the glory of its body and the origins of proposed previous body plans.
I do think the horse looked different once but changed from innate triggers leaving no remnants.
It shouldn’t be me detailing samples as I’m saying its almost all of them. This is by the way what evolutionism says and must as you have done so.
Are you saying evolution didn’t erase all remnants and so no leftovers or that it did?
We originally were meant to walk safely without footwear. So our toes would of been better. Not the modern shrimps.
We have the ape body plan and so they have toes and so do we.
They are still useful.
This thread of mine got a lot of hits. For a minority ACTUALLY on the subject of the thread.
Anyways.
No one showed me wrong in my first point that evolutionists wrongly sample , the few, vestigal bits in some creatures as evidence in biology of evolutions processes by their ideas.
some tried but come up short, on a second point, to defend the complete abscence of vestigial bits in most creatures despite so much evolving.
I still say they all should be crawling with knobs and knabs of former bosy plans JUST like in the marine mammals.
There is other options for mechanisms to explain the changes in creatures body plans.
Thanks all.