Bible contradictions?

[Undeceived]

Could someone explain to me how a wolf evolves into a blue whale?

[DeistPaladin]

Could someone explain to me how a wolf evolves into a blue whale?

It didn't. Anything else I can answer for you?

[Minimalist]

They must breed them for stupidity in the churches.

[KichigaiNeko]

WTF?? Wolves INTO Blue whales? I despair over the level of education these theists are demonstrating...

[Undeceived]

Could someone explain to me how a wolf evolves into a blue whale?

It didn't. Anything else I can answer for you?

PBS doesn't think so.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/change...ocene.html

"Gradually, over 5-10 million years, whale ancestors abandon their terrestrial ties in favor of a sea-going existence. Hoofed, wolf-like, carnivorous mammals called mesonychids hunt for food along the seashore. They probably spend more and more time offshore because a more abundant food supply exists in the water."

[Jackalope]

Hoofed, wolf-like, carnivorous mammals called mesonychids hunt for food along the seashore.

That is not a wolf, dipshit. Try a little intellectual honesty next time.

Find a phylogenetic tree that contains the clade of the species species you're interested in, and the clade of it's distant ancestor. Follow the tree to see the transitional clades, as they are currently understood. Note that this will require you to do something hard, called reading, and probably lots of it, in order to understand the material. Nobody is going to do that for you.

You're welcome.

[Undeceived]

Hoofed, wolf-like, carnivorous mammals called mesonychids hunt for food along the seashore.

That is not a wolf, dipshit. Try a little intellectual honesty next time.

Find a phylogenetic tree that contains the clade of the species species you're interested in, and the clade of it's distant ancestor. Follow the tree to see the transitional clades, as they are currently understood. Note that this will require you to do something hard, called reading, and probably lots of it, in order to understand the material. Nobody is going to do that for you.

You're welcome.

Why do you take offense at my calling it a wolf? The point is the same. It's a wolf-like creature, and no matter what its name the problem of turning aquatic and growing 100x larger still exists. Coincidentally, your "wolf-like creature" is not even on the fossil record, so I should be able to call it what I like. It's a hypothetical land animal contrived after the evidence to fill the hole in the tree. I'm still waiting for an explanation how--or why--this type of dog would return to the ocean, and any evidence whatsoever that it did.

[Minimalist]

Try a little intellectual honesty next time.

You ask too much of him.

[Jackalope]

Try a little intellectual honesty next time.

You ask too much of him.

Sarcasm. I know you're familiar with it.

---

Why do you take offense at my calling it a wolf?

Because it isn't one. By calling it one, you're implying that two widely disparate species are related, and yet live in the same time frame. You're implying a relationship that no one claims exists.

Pro-tip: They aren't.

The point is the same. It's a wolf-like creature, and no matter what its name the problem of turning aquatic and growing 100x larger still exists. Coincidentally, your "wolf-like creature" is not even on the fossil record, so I should be able to call it what I like.

Presumably it already has a name in the biologic taxonomy. In the interests of accuracy, how about you call it that, instead of something it's not?

It's a hypothetical land animal contrived after the evidence to fill the hole in the tree. I'm still waiting for an explanation how--or why--this type of dog would return to the ocean, and any evidence whatsoever that it did.

Presumably you have a source, which cites either original research or it's sources? If so, follow those leads for the information you seek. If not, until you have a better source, feel free to consider it highly speculative. Do your own damn research. Oh, I see your source is pbs.org - and no sources are cited. You might try looking in scientific journals instead, instead of a source that's geared more towards entertainment than knowledge. The source you did provide doesn't offer enough information to even begin to answer the question.

Biology is a huge, complex field, and it's unlikely that anyone here is going to be able to give you an adequate answer with the information you've quoted. Particularly when you misrepresent what it is you're looking for. Even if someone could, it's questionable whether they'd want to take the time to do research you ought to do yourself.

As for how it happened, presuming that it did for the moment, it's a matter of small incremental changes over very long periods of time. However, I can't say that I even believe this particular case, as you've done a piss-poor job of presenting the question. I personally wouldn't even use that source unless I had something to corroborate it that was properly cited.

[NoMoreFaith]

Its remarkably telling of the insidious lying going on in the heart here.

Anybody who had read even one thing about Giraffes would know they didn't descend from Horses as myself and others have explained, and their heritage. Notable silence.

Anybody who had read even one thing would realise that "wolf-like" in appearance, does not equate to being a wolf.
A Hyena is wolf-like but is closer to mongoose than wolves.

I want to know, why are you lying. What purpose do you have, you must know it doesn't help your argument to lie when a simple search exposes it for ignorance.
I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt, but when such simple information is available, why not .. avail yourself of it.

Why ask questions, receive answers, then simply ignore it and move to another question.. usually also answerable.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=blue+whale+evolution

Do you really consider what your doing to be using your mind in any shape or form? You think the study of creatures dating back 100's of millions of years is an EASY thing to do. Of course its prone to mistakes, when was the last time you worked out the eating habits of something that died out millions of years ago and only leaves remains in very very special circumstances?

If evolution is wrong, in which case, I would like to ask our creationist friends to explain scientifically the existence of a fossil record at all.

If you want to play the "explain this" game, I believe its our turn. Explain why fossils exist. If God is involved, why does he wipe out species over and over again and replace it with a slightly different version.
If you want us to explain the transitions, its only fair you explain them too.. what about the transitions which are there, why do they exist at all?

So far, all we've seen is a inability to google, or weigh the evidence, all you have shown is dishonesty, and frankly, I'm more or less done with the morally defective.