Land Mammal to Whale transition: fossils Part II

MangyTiger:

quote:

---

It all sounds like good stuff to me.

​

I think the fool's errand part may be if you have any vague hope of convincing folks like randman.

---

Naw, not since randman insisted that one generation of physicists "accepting" steady state and another "accepting" the Big Bang was evidence of hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty among scientists...I guess as a scientist you are either guilty of intelletual dishonesty or dogmatic inflexibility: you takes your degree and you takes your chances.I try to debate in good faith, but I must confess sometimes the sputter-stutter replies give me more satifaction than a better man would take.Learning a great deal more about evolution (and ID and creationist rhetoric) is valuable, but randman's limp replies to my exposure of his collector's curve and Evopeach's rants when I hoisted him with his own "regressive falsification" petard...priceless.Here my shameful off-topic sniggering ends.This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 08-09-2005 09:12 PM

Hi Randman,I see your Message 56 is being responded to in this thread already and I don't have to do anything. I'm sorry you don't like the spectrum analogy, but you were the one who introduced it in Message 51: This isn't an analogy that would have occurred to me, but it seemed an okay analogy, so I just stayed with the analogy you seemed to like. If you think it's a dumb analogy I suggest you complain to the originator. I haven't read past this message yet, I hope this isn't indicative. Let's keep this thread on topic and not start arguing about analogies.--Percy

I see AdminJar has suspended randman, I assume for just 24 hours.To randman I'd like to suggest that he try not to turn every thread into a discussion of his favorite topic, the dishonesty of evolutionists. The topic of this thread is the fossil record for whales and whether it is supportive of evolution.To everyone, for a thread supposedly about whales, damn few messages contain the word whale.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

So essentially what you are saying is that threads discussing the fossil record are not germane because we already know ToE is true, eh?Seems like that is generally you guys' argument every time. Refuse to acknowledge the data, and claim it says a certain thing because "we know ToE is true."Looks more like a faith-based ideology than real science.For Jar, I say that because here we have evos that make an argument that the fossil record indicates the ToE is true, and then argue that the fossil record must show ToE because "we know ToE is true." So you are now claiming no modern forms mixed in with the old, eh? Please prove that or retract. Uh, did you ever bother to study what you were being told to see if the facts they told you about really were facts?Unlike you, I don't have an ideology based on gross overstatements and exagerrations to defend.Once again, where are the thousands of transitionals? Why do we seem for example, ample evidence of current whale families dating back to the Miocene era, using evo assumptions, but we don't see the land mammal to whale transitions?Where are they?

No, it was introduced by evos and defended by NoseyNed and is amply evidence he does not even understand the process of ToE.Evolution is not considered to be strictly a linear process. It occurs with discrete groups and forms branches according to standard ToE, and therefore produces nothing like the spectrum analogy at all.

Randman,Just a short while after your return from suspension, you've already got me plenty worried. Please read the Forum Guidelines, especially rule 10. I'm going to come back in a couple hours, and if I don't see a marked improvement in the constructiveness of your approach I will suspend you again.I'll take this opportunity to caution others discussing with Randman. Anyone who follows Randman in tone or style, and I believe I'm seeing increasing examples recently, will follow him to the sidelines.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

No, this is well established. It's how the geologic column works:Geologic time scale - Wikipedia
Biostratigraphy - Wikipedia
Fossil - WikipediaShow me an example of a modern creature (NOT SOME BURRIED HUMANS) In in pre-cambrian rock. Also, don't you dare cite Mr. Cremo. You belive in the bible right?Where are Peters bones? Where are Jhons bones? Where are Lukes Bones? Where is the Ark of the covenant?I demand them now! Why can't you turn them up? It has only been 2000 years! We should have all their bones!SHAM SHAM! LIES! FRAUD! BLAAARG!BTW: Did you get around to reading the excelent article posted by mick?This message has been edited by Yaro, 08-10-2005 06:31 PM

Admin, it seems in general you are asking for unilateral disarmament, so to speak, on my end.There are all sorts of false accusations, absurd posts, etc,...levelled at me, but I am not allowed to respond in-kind.OK, since that is the case, can you censure Yaro here?

My last post made a point. Your demands are as unreasonable as mine are when demanding the bones of the apostles.

Admin, if I am not allowed to defend myself, will you please censure Mangy for this unfounded and false accusation upon my integrity and character?

Ned, you and I know that the claim here is that this is not possible.Why you would misrepresent me here is beyond me.Let me just say that speciation is a common idea accepted within biology. It does occur, and contrary to what you seem to have said, speciation did have to occur between land mammals and whales.If you are having difficulty with the concept, maybe you could start another thread to discuss it, instead of using your difficulties in grasping the concept to ruin a legitimate thread.

Do you have a problem with the idea that fossils forming can be pretty much a "pot luck" kinda thing?I mean, sometimes they form, sometimes they don't. Mick posted an article about a study which models fossil distribution of homanid species and how many we shuld expect to find and where. So such things can be done when a bunch of heads get together.Did you read the article? I think it's what you have been asking for all along.

Yaro, I don't want to get banned so I am ignoring your posts as I think they are generally unnecessarily inflammatory and usually not germane to the discussion anyway.Furthermore, you have a habit of never answering my questions, and then trying to move on in attack mode while avoiding the substance of what I am talking about.If you want to discuss topics with a critic of evos, I suggest you find someone else to talk to about it.

This message has been edited by Yaro, 08-10-2005 07:02 PM

OK, I'll give you a response written yesterday. Please look up the molecular clock before responding back, and be man enough to admit when you have learned a concept you had believed in was not quite right.There's a lot of errors in thinking in your last post. What are you trying to say here? It makes no sense because fossils are evidence, and ToE models do predict forms of which the fossils are evidence for or against. Well, they appear to be evidence against ToE, side occurence or not, and the reason is we don't see in the fossil record the types of gradual evolutionary changes predicted by ToE. Why not? We are talking mammal to mammal evolution. So looking at mammalian families of species living today and looking at the fossil record's evidence of change over millions of years of those exact same species ought to give us an average and a range of what to expect for theoritical non-observed mammalian families of species that evolutionists claimed existed. Can you back that up? Are you saying over a long period of time, millions and millions of years, that mutation rates are random?What properties of DNA cause faster and slower rated when averaged over very long time periods? The molecular clock is a theory used by evolutionists to predict mutation rates, and basically makes the claim of a predictable rate of mutation over geologic time periods. If that's the case, we should expect data on current species that is congruent with that claim. Where is the data?It really seems like evos have not tested their claims in this area.Btw, fossils are a fact, and so is the fact they don't illustrate a gradual evolving process from land mammals to whales.