where was the transition within fossil record?? [Stalled: randman]

Mark, Please do not use the word "liar" so easily.That is suggesting a motive for the behavior that you can't actually know and it doesn't further the discussion at all.Randman, is getting a lot of responses. It may simply be hard for him to keep up. Additionally, he has shown himself to have a limited memory and may simply be forgetting what he has and has not answered.This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 10-21-2005 09:17 AM

Pleasing to see that there is not an instant gpenalising of a person for using the word "liar". Hopefully such commen sense will continue. But the challenge is still out there for randman to respond to Mark24's questions.

AdminNosy, I don't use the word easily, Randman IS a liar. See below.I have asked him to support one of his comments no less than four times. Each time I asked him, I told him how many times I have am making the same request. I'm up to five now. Are you seriously suggesting he is merely mistaken & misunderstood in some way? If he is not reading my posts & pretending he has answered them, then that's lying.I have asked him three times now to comment on the nature of evidence (as per my post). Nothing. He missed it three times? If he is not reading my posts & pretending he has answered them, then that's lying.I have lost count how many times I have asked for a direct & forthright answer to the question, why is there a correlation between cladistics & stratigraphy? Again, nothing, lots of diversion, but no direct answer. And so on, & so on...I expect moderator support in getting some honest replies from Randman. If not, & since this thread is stalled anyway by his nibs, the thread loses absolutely nothing by me calling a spade a spade. Absolutely true. But pretending he has answered points when he hasn't is still lying.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 10-21-2005 12:31 PM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Randman may be deeply mistaken or profoundly self-deluded, but I don't believe he is lying. But any opinions on this are beside the point. The Forum Guidelines require respectful treatment of other members.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Admin, Does the "respectful treatment of others" extend to actually answering questions rather than merely saying you have? I mean, what's the bloody point of all this?MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 10-21-2005 12:59 PM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Board administration has already classified this thread as stalled and has no plans for any further actions that attempt to coax Randman into productive discussion. We don't believe such is possible with Randman and suggest that those seeking it look elsewhere.In many ways, the dialogue between Creationists and evolutionists is more a psychological study of delusion and denial than a scientific discussion. Creationists will misunderstand or misinterpret whatever is necessary in order to avoid confronting the problems with Creationism, but since every Creationist is a unique individual they all do it in different ways. This causes them to arrive at different answers, and they usually end up all alone in threads defending viewpoints few other Creationists share.Note that I'm not saying there are few Creationists who believe transitional fossils are a significant problem for evolution. What I'm saying is that the labyrinth of misreason and misunderstanding traveled by each Creationist in order to hold this view is fairly unique. While most any decently informed evolutionist could enter this thread and defend the views of any of the other evolutionists, very few Creationists could enter this thread and defend what Randman has been saying, because his illogic is unique to himself.A few years ago, before TrueCreation went completely over the edge, he would engage Creationists who had incorrect notions. He was no more successful than anyone else of disabusing them of their erroneous views, but it was fun to watch! Each Creationist travels in his own privately constructed world of self-delusion from which not even fellow Creationists can extricate them. About the best you can hope to do is point out the errors and leave it at that.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Mark, imo, you are the one not being truthful here. You even quoted me. What part of my answers do you not understand?Sure, cladistics and stratigraphical studies are PART OF a comprehensive analysis, but they do nothing to explain the absence of the vast majority of transitional forms. You are completely ignoring the debate here and trying to bring up a separate issue altogether.I went on to explain and will do so again, repeating my answers and contrary to your false accusations, not dodging your questions, that cladistics do nothing as far as speaking of the method of evolution or creation, nada.The simple fact is many evolutionary sequences, such as the land mammal to whale theoritical evolution, we do not see the vast majority of whale traits emerging. The fossil record does not show that.For example, if you were to look at the features that are supposedly whale-like in Pakicetus, that warranted some evos calling the fully land mammal, Pakicetus a cetacean or whale, what you find is that there were some similarities in teeth and the beginning of an expanded aural cavity.That's it.On that basis, Pakicetus is said to be a whale ancestor.Is that reasonable? Unless you are predisposed to accept Pakicetus as a whale ancestor, it does not seem reasonable to me. Other creatures also have the same similar teeth pattern, which could just as easily have been created of convergently evolved that way. Same goes for the increased cranial cavity. It is thought to be a precursor to whale skulls, but hey, it could just as easily not be.The evidence is so scant as to be farcical, but with a straight face such creatures are presented as transitional.Well, what about the other whale features? Why don't we see them evolving or present in semi-aquatic mammals? Evos like to draw pics trying to create similarities, but basically the vast majority of whale features just appear fully formed and suddenly in the fossil record.But let's say cladistic studies indicate a strong connection for a nested heirarchy.That still does nothing to prove ToE. It could just as easily be strong evidence of Intelligent Design, or directed evolution by an Intelligent Agent.That's the point you fail to grasp. Your evidence or comprehensive analysis supports ID perhaps more so than ToE.

Ya know, back when we had that row in the whale transitional thread I pointed out to you that whales, and packicitids share the same order.The following animals also share the same order: The only reason packicetus bothers you so much is because you don't WANT it to be true. You don't LIKE the idea that he is a primative whale relative.Though you gladly accept the same taxanomic principles that place bears, dogs, and seals in the order caniformia. I find it highly susppicious that taxonomy ONLY bothers you when it is applied to extinct species.This message has been edited by Yaro, 10-21-2005 04:19 PM

So a tight correlation between two sets of data, both previously predicted by a hypothesis, supports that hypothesis less well than it supports vague notions that make no predictions at all?To quote mark, "Pah!"Say, randman: Are you still claiming that 90% of all existing fossils have already been found, or have you abandoned that point-free collector's curve?Also, could you point me to where you get your quantifications of whale species, past and present, and fossil discoveries? I'm having trouble finding that data.Nor can I find info that supports your oft-repeated assertion that the ocean is conducive to fossilization. A little help there, too, would be nice.Come to think of it, I cannot find anyone else anywhere asserting that they know how many species must have evolved between a modern species and its ancestral species--could you go over where you come up with those ballpark numbers of thousands and thousands?Further, since there are species whose ancestral species are well represented in the fossil record--and if you disagree that there are, answer the question anyway, hypothetically: How many lineages are/would be required before qualifying as evidence? If you have found one group not well represented, so what, as long as there are others? Another way to ask the same question: Will only one well represented lineage knock your argument aside, or are you holding out for thousands and thousands?edit: subject-verb agreement...O the shame.This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 10-21-2005 04:45 PM

I'm not sure what is your point here. Would you prefer that it be identified as an invisible pink unicorn?Jaws and teeth have often been used in identifying fossils. Maybe the evidence was scant. The people who attempt to identify fossils have to do the best they can, even when there is only scant evidence available. As more fossils are found, the evidence will increase. That will allow more accurate classification. Perhaps the initial classification will eventually be found wrong. Scientists don't claim to be perfect. They do the best they can with the evidence available. You are missing the main point. This is not the major evidence for ToE. It is supporting evidence for ToE, because it is consistent with the theory. That's about it.There was very strong evidence for ToE before the Pakicetus fossil was found. There is very strong evidence for ToE after the fossil was found. It would seem that the fossil isn't very important (exactly as others have been telling you in the past).The fossil is valuable for reconstructing the natural history of whales. It has little importance with respect to establishing ToE.Sure, it might be taken as evidence of ID among those who do not apply scientific standards. So what? You are the one failing to grasp.Show me an actual intelligent designer in the process of designing a biological creature, and you will have the beginnings of some evidence of intelligent design. At the present the only evidence for intelligent design is in the imagination of ID proponents. By contrast, evolutionary biological processes are routinely seen.(edit: change subtitle)This message has been edited by nwr, 10-21-2005 04:15 PM

And I pointed out where one of the leading researchers in the field in terms of whale evolution states publicly that Pakicitids are in the same suborder and are "whales" or cetaceans.Unfortunately, you are too obstinate to learn anything first time around, but here's the link. Note: Seals are not in this suborder. http://www.neoucom.edu/...Thewissen/whale_origins/index.htmlCare to apologize for your tone and slander? Ok Yaro, I can tell I hurt your religious philosophy so you resort to absurd slander.have a nice life..

So you admit that a comprehensive analysis has not been done by evos?Good, now we are getting somewhere.My ball-park figures are based on the numbers of species per a range of similarities and differences with current whales, and with land mammals such as horses. For example, we believe at least 28 horse-like creatures, that could be called transitional (although still "horses" or horse-like) existed in the past, leading to although not all directly to one horse today.Now, that is a small range of differences yet a 28-1 ratio between existing forms and the prior forms leading up to it within that small range of evolving traits.Looking at whales, we can see within that range, something like 80 species, and they are fairly similar. The range of differences between Basilosuarus and current whales is much larger than horse ancestors mentioned above.The range is even bigger going back to land mammals.So let's say the immediate prior ancestors to the 80 whale species with just small differences would be, ball-parking, 80 x 28 (using the horse comparisons since it is another mammal). That equals 2240.Now, going back from there in similar ranges of differences, using those same ratios, to get back to Basilosaurus, would be at least 2240 x 28 which equals 62,720 species, and going back to a land mammal using these numbers would lead to well over millions of species.So I erred on the vastly conservative side and said let's just work with a few thousand "forms." Let's look at families of species to narrown it down, and assume for no good reason, to accept absurdly low numbers of a few thousand forms being needed.Even with that, all we have from evos is a paltry few, and imo, highly questionable, so-called transitional forms.Where are the fossils of the thousands of forms over millions of years it would take to evolve gradually in geologic terms a land mammal to a whale?Statistically, they are non-existent, which is why we have evos making wild claims that a hoofed animal, with barely any hint of whale-like features and arguably none at all, is, in fact, a cetacean.And you guys call such claims valid science?I am sorry, but as an ex-evo who once believed your claims before looking into it for myself, I just cannot make myself believe in such a wildly unsupported scenario.This message has been edited by randman, 10-21-2005 05:24 PM

quote:

---

And I pointed out where one of the leading researchers in the field in terms of whale evolution states publicly that Pakicitids are in the same suborder and are "whales" or cetaceans.

---

I still fail to see why you have a problem with the fact that Pakicetids were whales.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

I consider the fossil evidence extremely inconsistent with ToE and very strong, hard evidence against it.Quite simple, the fossil record does not show ToE models to have occurred.Cladistic studies and such just show "relatedness" in terms of similar features, but the whole notion that similarity equals common descent is an unproven claim, and as such, there is good reason to seriously doubt ToE and universal common descent.However, if universal common descent were true, it would still not be evidence of ToE since the fossil evidence indicates evo theories of the emergence of species is incorrect. In other words, if common descent is true, the fossil record suggests some sort of other mechanism at work than JUST observed natural mechanisms.

Ha! You beat me to it to comment on the sub-topic title. I wish people paid more attention to using it well.