Not dancing.
then what are you doing? i'll try to cut this down to only talk about the actual points, instead of these ad-hominem red herrings you so enjoy.
For example, you are aware of pretty major differences between pakicetus and ambulocetus,
i'd actually be more than happy to point out the differences. but that wasn't the point, was it? i'd also be more than happy to point the differences between neanderthals and homo sapiens. no one is contending that these are the SAME animal -- we leave that to the creationists. the question is what make neanderthal a modern human, but pakicetus not an ambulocetus? what standard are you using to draw that line?
I also think you are intelligent enough to realize that glancing at similarities without a more detailed analysis does not equate closeness in relatedness in the manner you imply,
are the similarites so obvious that even you are jumping to conclusions? the point i was replying to was:
quote:
They went with the description which just happens to exagerrate the creature that makes it appear more like the next creature in the so-called transition.
does pakicetus appear similar to ambulocetus? we'll get on to the transition stuff later, once we get around to acknowledging that YES, they are quite similar.
or many Marsupials would be considered more closely related to their counterparts among non-marsupial mammals,
gross over simplification and ignorance of paleontology/biology/osteology. i promise you that there are skeletal features that signal whether or not an animal is a marsupial. so, no, this point's not right either.
You refuse to acknowledge and deal in the basic points and arguments here, even the claims of mainstream evolution you deny, in an attempt to debase the arguments and discussions into pettiness instead of honestly admitting what evos believe,
that, what? pakicetus had webbed feet? isn't that what this is about?
look, it's a drawing. it may or may not have had webbed feet -- there's almost no way to tell. you brought up an academic argument that would have made them implausible (not impossible) and that argument was refuted.
would you like to talk about the whale transition yet? or can you still not admit that pakicetus looks a lot like ambulocetus? (let alone like a modern whale)
If you cannot see your basic approach as dishonest
randman, i posted two pictures and asked you to compare. how is that dishonest? what's dishonest is this preposterous dance you're doing, accusing your opponents of your own faults, claiming bias and dishonesty.
If you are so ignorant that you think Neaderthals are more distantly related to modern humans(when they can arguably be considered the same species) than Pakicetus is to Ambulocetus,
they are not arguably the same species. just because creationists argue it doesn't mean it is "arguably" so. there is no academic argument that neanderthals are the same species as homo sapiens. period.
pakicetus and ambulocetus are different species as well. where neanderthals and homo sapiens are something like sister spies, pakicetus is more like ambulocetus's uncle. is it more distant? well, slightly. but the question is where YOU are drawing the line. why is neanderthal a homo sapien, but pakicetus NOT an ambulocetus?
because you know what i see different? braincase structure, chins, rib cage shape, and limb proportions -- in BOTH.
Otherwise, you are basically wasting everyone's time.
i would describe this as a waste of time, yes. but only because you seem
belligerently ignorant. instead of admitting the obvious -- that pakicetus looks an awful lot like ambulocetus -- and retracting your false claim, you attack your opponent; claiming dishonesty, ignorance, pettiness, etc.
you've been warned by the admin three times now. debate the point.
אָרַח
™ Version 4.2