An Appeal to Authority; in defense of Expertise.

You miss the point entirely, unless you are saying that those early cetaceans didn’t use DNA.

It is the system/method/implementation of DNA systems that was presumably there at microbe One that is the hurdle that both abiogenesis and evolution must pass. I am assuming you do accept the assumption that all Lifeforms on earth were DNA based organisms, even though we have no direct evidence of that.

There were hundreds of systems changes required for that assumed whale transition, each of them requiring all new proteins. We have never seen a new protein emerge naturally. I have several times asked you for a plausible evolutionary path for the morphology change in the male cetaceans reproductive organs and you were stone silent.

I also told you I’d reconsider my stance on 'life happening' if you could explain the emergence of a single protein. Crickets again. There is no defense of evolution based on DNA.

You all are unable to reach agreement because you confuse appeal to authority with appeal to experience. They are not the same at all.

experience and training, like the airline pilot, leads to authority.
Im amazed that several of you ven doubt that. AUTHORITY certainly does not come from looking **** up on sites where conclusions and "facts" are prepared for clowns .

Perhaps he is referring to science where people take DNA from current living animals and use the differences in their DNA to make estimates about their common ancestor and how long ago that was.

a more likely scientific scenario would be to compare two LIVING end members that seemed to have an evolutionary link besides a "sorta looks like" . Elephants and hyrax support this ,(but the family Proboscidea goes all the way back to the Eocene and MOST of the genera are extinct well before hyrax and eleohants showed up in the Miocene .Hyrax arent ancestors of lephant , they are merely related groups like turtls and lizards.Their relationships are based on their kidneys and function, scrota, incisors and nails. Several other grous also are related (the dugongs and seacows)
However, when it comes to all cetaceans, there are NO living "parental members" from the beginning with which to compare DNA. So we have no idea in hell what early pakecetus and ambulocetus DNA even looked like, and how big were the functional part of their genomes .

I get your point and agree it is valid, but when it comes to subjects like trying to tie DNA to Darwinian evolution, there is no direct experience.

The only question at this point in time is - Why doesn’t mainstream Science recognize the obvious design they have uncovered.

Darwins theory has a number of flaws (motof them mathematical not biological). He was silent on ANYTHING genetic because he was totlly unaware of Fr Mendel's own theory. You do realize tht the entire evidentiary basis of many theories had to use the test of time. (Germ theory, General Relativity, the periodic table, Atomic theory , big Bang, Seafloor spreading, ).
The fact that YOU cannot see the relationship between Darwinian evolution and DNA doesnt make it invalid, it only reveals that we all hve much to learn, some more than others.

Im still trying to understand how you discount whale evolution by "relationships" you see in DNA and their effects on thhe rise of an entire family of animals. Admit that you have no idea what youre talking about and Ill quit bringing it up. Otherwise you are the new IONUS of A2k.(IONUS swore weve gotten dna from T-rex soft tissue

think he even read the post?