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

Name the distinquishing features of whales, the major features, and then list what percentage of those features are shared by pakicetus.As far as I can tell, the percentage is:0%Since i believe labels should correspond to reality, and not the wishes of evos, I think calling a creature with no major whale features at all a whale is farcical.

You were already told that the Pakicetids share features in the inner ears as well as features of dentition with modern whales. These are features shared by no other mammal, therefore they count as "sitinguishing".To say "0%", therefore, seems to be a bit dishonest.

---

"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

Chiropetera, what evos "tell" and what is the truth are often different.1. Pakicetus does not actually have a whale-ear. That's a totally false statement and a misconception, but something, as you pointed out, evos here have claimed (and pretend that I am ignorant). The creature has an expanded chamber not even close to a cetacean ear, but which evos believe (AND YOU NEED TO TAKE NOTICE OF THE VERB "BELIEVE") is a precursor to a whale ear. Because evos want it to be a precursor, they in typical fashion overstate the case.2. You are also wrong in claiming no other creature shares teeth similar to Pakicestus and whales, but rather than just continue to show where the facts are different than what evos claim, I offer a bit of logic.Presumably, teeth evolved according to evos based on design for eating meat in the case of meat eaters. One could argue they were designed as well. Either way, we should expect and predict based on convergent evolution or conversely design that meat eaters would evolve similar teeth or be designed at times with similar teeth but absolutely no relation in terms of common descent passing on those traits.But hey, facts and logic don't matter here it seems to evos.A fully land mammal, hooved, not aquatic or semi-aquatic in the slightest is, by golly, a whale, because we say so!This message has been edited by randman, 10-21-2005 05:42 PM

quote:

---

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.

---

You are ignoring my points regarding fossil rarity and the value of attempting to determine fossilisation frequency, despite the fact that you brought these issues up first.

quote:

---

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.

---

You have apparently dodged the questions I have put to you, to whit: why produce a study on fossilisation frequency despite its seeming inaccuracy and uselessness.

quote:

---

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.

---

The fossil record is limited to skeletal remains, therefore we do not expect to see the majority of whale traits emerging - because no soft tissue is preserved. The fact of this is irrelevent to the discussion, unless you wish to clarify.

quote:

---

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.

---

Again, see my earlier point - if this is an early whale ancestor, and no soft tissue features are preserved, exactly what are we supposed to see?

quote:

---

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.

---

You seem to suggest that scientists are, as we say in Ireland "pulling guesses out of their arse". On the contrary, clear and specific research has been done on Pakicetus.From here: Identifying Pakicetus as a transitional and a whale ancestor was not something done overnight, nor was it a mere guess based on superficial similarities.

quote:

---

The evidence is so scant as to be farcical, but with a straight face such creatures are presented as transitional.

---

The extent of your hand-waving away the peer-reviewed research of so many palaeontologists on the basis of your incredulity is farcical, amounting to wilful ignorance.

quote:

---

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.

---

And again, another bare assertation with no reference. I must point out that the onus is on you to support your statements; we are not in the business of doing your work for you.

quote:

---

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.

---

The bold emphasis is mine. Yet again, you present us with unsupported statements.You are the one claiming it may support ID. You are the one saying the evidence shows something other than the currently accepted view. Therefore the onus is on you to present your ideas, and show us how the evidence fits ID better than the ToE. Recall that I said science is not in the business of proving a negative; we will not try to disprove your hypothesis. You must either support what you say or accept that it will be disregarded.And repeating yourself is not considered a valid form of support.The Rock Hound

---

"Those who fear the darkness have never seen what the light can do."

quote:

---

Pakicetus does not actually have a whale-ear.

---

Which is not what I said.-

quote:

---

I offer a bit of logic.

---

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

---

"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

It's no use, Rockhound. You forget that Randman is a descendant(!) of the kind of people who used to say: "Although we say that you are a witch, to avoid the stake you must prove that you're not."That's the mindset you're fighting.

---

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." - Richard Dawkins

Do the analysis. If you can demonstrate extreme inconsistency, you should have no difficulty getting it published. That's hilarious. But I guess you don't see that it is extremely inconsistent.

On the contrary, they're the only things that matter here to evolutionists. No, because you say we say so. But we don't. You are doing what all creationists do, you distort what we say.This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 21-Oct-2005 11:02 PM

---

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." - Richard Dawkins

I never said seals are in the same suborder as whales, I said they are in the same suborder as dogs and bears. That's caniformia.And the fact that the researcher places packicitids in the same suborder as whales only bolsters my point.SEALS AND DOGS ARE IN THE SAME SUBORDER. They look nothing alike, they live in entirely different environments, yet YOU HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THIS FACT.You sir, are incorrect! The same taxanomic methodology that puts dogs and seals in the same suborder is the same methodology that places whales and pakicitids in the same suborder.YOU JUST DON'T LIKE THE IMPLICATIONS OF THAT.Caniformia - Wikipedia

Today, because of the triumph of reason and logic over religiously-derived nonsensical ideas, we no longer burn witches at the stake. Maybe I'm being naive, but I still have some hope that today's equivalent, creationism, can be overcome by reason and logic too.As it stands my points and those of others in this thread have gone unchallenged so far. This does not reflect well on creationism; that in order to avoid losing a debate, it simply stops participating.Randman, I hope this is not the case?

---

"Those who fear the darkness have never seen what the light can do."

Randman, I understand them perfectly. They just have nothing to do with directly answering the points I raise. And other questions have no attempted answers to even misunderstand. See below. Rubbish. YOU said that fossils contradict the ToE, I showed they didn’t. Why? Because this is predicted by the ToE, & is therefore evidence of it. It is actually falsifying the notion of taxa appearing by ID in the same way. Since you refuse to engage on my points on what evidence is, it is impossible to arrive on a consensus, & show you why you are wrong, & I am right. It must come as a big surprise to you, but this is exactly why this thread is [STALLED: RANDMAN]. That’s it? But the specific question that was posed was, “why does cladistics & stratigraphy match as well as it does?” Do you understand the difference between an evasive reply that fails to tackle the issue raised, as opposed to a valid answer that tackles the issue?Let’s break it down. In order to answer the question , “why does cladistics & stratrigraphy match as well as it does?”, it is logically imperative that you point to a causal link between cladistic results & fossil appearances. Any reply you make that fails to meet this standard, fails to actually answer the question. You may delude yourself that you are answering the question directly merely because you provide a reply, but a reply is not necessarily a valid answer to a question, or a direct & legitimate response to a point that has been raised. So, let’s break your “reply” down to see if it actually does point to the causal link that is required of you, in order for you to validly claim to have answered the question. Nope, just substance free evasion. Next two sentences: Nope, just substance free evasion. Next sentences: Nope, just irrelevant-to-the-question evasion.Note that at no point have you provided a causal link to explain the correlation between cladistics & stratigraphy as asked. THEREFORE YOU HAVE NOT ANSWERED THE QUESTION, “WHY DOES CLADISTICS & STRATIGRAPHY MATCH AS WELL AS IT DOES?”, & HAVE JUST ENGAGED IN CHILDISH, SELF DELUSIONAL EVASION. The penny has to drop sooner or later, randman.So, please answer the question, that is, just to be clear, provide a causal link to explain why cladistics & stratigraphy match as well as they do, I'm not in the slightest bit interested as to why you want to evade this question (I already know), I just want an explanation of a fact. A fact that is consistent with evolution to a colossal degree. I understand perfectly, this is why I went to some length to establish what evidence is but you refused to engage on the subject, making it impossible to show that I do grasp your point, but it is in fact, wrong. See related question (summarised in point 4), posed for the fourth time below.Now, would you please be good enough to answer the following questions you are avoiding like the plague. You won’t catch atheism, I promise. Please answer them point by point. It's difficult to see what you are evading, otherwise.A summary of questions asked/points raised that are still lacking answers:1/ What "comprehensive analysis" (that you demand of everyone else) has been undertaken in order for you to come to this conclusion? (For the 6th time of asking).2/Why does cladistics & stratigraphy match the way it does? As explained above, please answer the question, that is, just to be clear, provide a causal link to explain why cladistics & stratigraphy match as well as they do.3/Why do you demand more fossils when you know a species that contained billions of individuals (at any one time) leave no trace? Where have you addressed this? I have checked all of your posts since I raised the issue, & you have never provided an answer.4/Your denial of what evidence is. I repeat the following for the fourth time."A single fossil that is consistent with evolution is evidence of it, because it is a fact predicted by a logically valid scientific theory. There is no arbitrary evidence value line-in-the-sand that must be surpassed before we can accept that evidence. The only standard that logically valid evidence must meet is that it is a logically derived prediction made by a logically valid hypothesis."Agree, disagree, comment?I look forward to your direct non-evasional answers, but just so you don’t get your hopes up, I won’t be holding my breath.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 10-22-2005 12:14 PM

---

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

Using species and dates that I am sure have been presented to you by many others, Pakicetus 52Ma, Ambulocetus 50Ma, Rodhocetus 46- 47Ma, Dorudon 40Ma, Basilosaurus 35-45 Mawe can see somewhere between 52 Ma and 40Ma we have the gap, approx.12Ma, that you are looking for, for how many species there should be between a land mammal and an aquatic mammal. We do have species within this time that show there were animals showing intermediate features that did exist around that time period.
One thing that I would like to know is where is the original "kind" in this sequence, or do you suppose that each of these creatures came from different original "kinds"? If you agree that all present day species come from original "kind" species then how long did it take for that original "kind" species to adapt into the present day species. To make it easy let's just say pick a "kind" ancestor from any one of the above, or give us a date for that unknown "kind" ancestor. I don't think that you are a YEC so I don't think that you will say 6000y, as that would be very problematic for your calculations. Then tell us, by your reckoning how many of your "steps" it would take for that original "kind" ancestor to "adapt" into all the whale like species we see today, presuming that you accept that all present day cetaceans are of a "kind". I am being generous in allowing you a head start of 38Ma. Don't forget, if you reduce your figures from your previous post you are going to have to concede that there could be less steps for that land mammal to aquatic mammal transition. Please also note that there may be less "steps" involved in geting from something like Pakicetus to something like Ambulocetus or Rodhocetus than there are from something like Dorudon or Basilosaurus to a modern day Blue Whale or Amazon Dolphin (thinking of 2 quite different forms of what I presume you think of as a having a "kind" ancestor).Also, using your astronomical number of changes (whether you actually mean millions of species or millions of steps it's still not quite clear to me) is it clear to you that you are proposing numbers of changes that could replace an entire genome? we just do not require that many. How about cutting it down to the number of changes that would be required to the few genes in the genome that would actually require changing, we know all organisms share a high proportion of genes anyway. Oh yes and reduce that number by the number of changes that would be taking place at the same time while you are about it (by 80 whale species do you mean currently existing species that were changing at the same time, or 80 species steps? still not clear to me either). Also, if you are estimating the number of distinguishable species, then reduce that number by the number of changes seen in each species.If you are still talking about the number of fossils then reduce the number of changes by the number of things that require changing that would not be able to be seen in fossils, leaving mainly those changes that affect bone structure only.
Also are you still talking about the number of fossils that we might find of them, then reduce that number by er... lots and lots more to somewhere between 0 and a few. Then we might be getting somewhere near a guesstimate.

Yaro, it is totally inconsequential to this debate that evos classify dogs and sea lions in the same suborder or order. Why you think that opinion has relevance, I don't know, but evidently you think it has merit.In terms of process, not man-made classifications, the relevant issue involves groups that can interbreed, which I will label species for this post (although current definitions of "species" can vary widely from that).So species in this context is relevant because all members can interbreed and thus "evolve" together.I would also add that if there are strong hints that in the past, 2 groups could interbreed, or came from one group that interbred, by the fact that certain "species" for example can breed in captivity or produce infertile offspring, then I think that is relevant particularly to a discussion on whales since some whales can interbreed and do interbreed across genera, which imo, suggests that really we are dealing with a polytypic species.But irregardless, the fact evos or anyone put different species into various groupings really does very little to change the fact that Pakicetus has absolutely no fully-formed whale features.Moreover, the whole nation that similarities automatically involves relatedness via common descent is just a large, and totally unproven assumption.

Mark, if you want to address my points, we can have a discussion. Otherwise, just typing a lot while studiously and completely evading my points while insisting that is what I am doing is just resulting in me not reading your post past about a third of the way down.Obviously, and as I stated before, similarities and stratigraphy appearing to match does absolutely nothing to counter the lack of fossils that should appear to detail the process you claim occurred, but which the fossils suggest did not.If species evolved, then they would appear not to have evolved in a purely natural manner, but hyper-evolved in a manner to leave no trace of the vast majority of species that would have existed.The reasonable options, in light of the fossil record, are either some sort of ID via aided evolution to assist creating major "jumps" in evolution or some sort of special creation.

I don't know of any evolutionist who would disagree with that. That's why similar structures are sometimes credited to parallel evolution, rather than common descent.