A Whale of a Tale

Well, your "poof" answer is one interpretation. You are correct that it is time for Randman to offer an interpretation. I've not noticed another one other than the "poof" answer. Maybe RM has one. I think the expression that applies is "put up or shut up".This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-03-2006 11:25 AM

Yaro, that's the only logical solution you can see. Frankly, it's just your rant though.How an Intelligent Designer would design is the source of some speculation, and even includes guided evolutionary processes.

Nosy, I started a thread on a possible ID mechanism. If you want to participate on it, you are welcome to. Otherwise, the put up or shut up comments from you should be more self-directed.This message has been edited by randman, 01-03-2006 11:38 AM

This isn't asking for the mechanism. It is asking for a description of what unfolded in time. The mechanism is a separate issue.ABE
A link to that mechanism thread would be nice that is what is usually done in this kind of case.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-03-2006 11:32 AM

No, that's what you said:
http://EvC Forum: Why do we only find fossils? -->EvC Forum: Why do we only find fossils?

quote:

---

Yaro, no I am saying we always only witness "poofs." Poofs are basic to what consitutes physical reality. Understanding that helps to understand how any of the following can be possible:

​

1. Species could evolve via an intelligent force causing the changes to occur much faster than what is called "natural means" via random mutation and selection; super-evolution via ID.

​

2. Species could appear from other multi-verses.

​

3. Species could appear, poof, into the earth created by an Intelligent Designer.

​

4. The universe itself, containing both subluminal and superluminal structures, could have built-in mechanisms for manifesting new species besides biological evolution.

​

Any of all of the above.
  —"randaman"

---

Basicaly, you offer nothing. A magical explanation based on a half-assed intepretation of QM. You have no explanations, you think things just magicaly come into being one day at the whim of an invisible sky man.

Can you subsantiate that?

The individuals of the vast majority of species are both spread among a wide geographical area and largely successful at attracting mates and reproducing.QED. The logical conclusion is that it's much more likely for an extant species to have decendants than not, since the only thing that would prevent it from having decendants is it's wholesale and rapid destruction and extinction.Do you have evidence that the majority of species have experienced wholesale, rapid destruction? The fossil record, in fact, is a record of exactly the opposite - the gradual extinction of life forms, one at a time, as they're replaced and outcompeted by other organsisms, including their decendants.

Actually, if look at my comments, you will see that I am addressing your false concept of the physical world, which makes you think something like instant change is magical when in reality, all physical form is derived, or poofed, from an information state. So poofing or what you call magic is basic to all physical things.Unfortunately, you are thus far incapable of understanding some basic concepts, and so ridicule something you are ignorant of.

And what is the significance of the evidence for similarity and relatedness between Pakicetus and modern whales? Mere coincidence? That it's a large world with many, many species over the eons, and that some are bound to be more like whales than others?The problem this leaves you is that the geologic column contains a fossil record of change over time. Interpreted within an evolutionary framework, fossils are a record of evolution over time.Genetics tells us there is no fixity of species, that the genetic profile of populations inevitiably changes over time. Field studies reveal species to adapt gradually to environmental pressures, and even find a number of speciation events. Laboratory studies duplicate these findings with bacteria and fruit flies.In other words, evolution is observed to happen, and we understand the genetic mechanisms behind evolutionary change. The interpretation of the fossil record is an application of this knowledge to natural history. Though not perfect, the similarities and differences apparent at the skeletal level are used as key indicators of evoutionary relatedness.Like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is tentative, but it also has no competitors. If you think it *does* have competition, then answer Yaro's question and tell us your explanation for the record of change found in the fossil record.--Percy

Gradual or rapid extinction, they are both opposite of most species continuing or evolving as you claim. It appears you were caught making a wrong assertion and now are moving the goalposts.

No, I am fed up with your baseless assertions. All you want to do is trash evolution, science, and biology. Yet you have nothing to offer in return. You have no proff for your hypothesis, you have no evidence.How on earth can you be even remotely sure of it?I mean, seriously, if the world is as random and unstable as you are proposing, no wonder you call yourself randman.

What similarities? You act like there is a significant level of similarity. Show how Pakicetus has any of, say, the top 20 whale distinquishing characteristics. Except you have a big problem. The actual transitions are not seen in the fossil record, and you guys have no way to explain that credibly, other than to assert vague concepts like fossil rarity, which does not explain why some species and even suborders like whales have so many fossils, but none of their immediate ancestors. No, it is not observed. What is observed is one definition of the word "evolution", but the definition of the word evolution we are discussing is not observed to happen. As usual, you guys are resorting to sophistry here and clouding the issue by arguing that since change occurs, ToE must be true since both "change" and ToE go by the same word, evolution.

Absolutely incorrect. Gradual extinction is exactly what we would expect from evolution, with the occasional rapid extinction from circumstance. Extinction does not preclude decendants, as you erroneously assert. If that's what you believe then I suggest you go back and re-read. No goalposts have been moved. You're either a phenomenally poor reader or you're simply casting aspersions to conceal your ignorance.

Sorry Yaro, but your rant has no substance at all. I suppose when you cannot answer back, you just resort to personal name-calling and attacks.As far as evidence, I offered the It from Bit approach of QM advocated by men like John Wheeler and Anton Zellinger.

Nonsense. Almost every fully-formed species fossil is transitional. By definition, they have to be, since I've just proved a few posts ago that almost every extinct species has decendants.