Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Whale of a Tale
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 196 of 243 (276310)
01-06-2006 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by mark24
01-05-2006 1:34 PM


Re: Randman, give us your story.
Failure to objectively answer these questions renders your position as being mere speculation.
No failure of evos to provide answers to all of these questions in detail with regard to the fossils found related to whales and their proposed ancestors shows the bankruptcy of evo claims in that regard.
The simple fact is things like the way fossils appear in the geologic column conclusively demonstrate that evolutionary models are wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by mark24, posted 01-05-2006 1:34 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by mark24, posted 01-06-2006 10:30 AM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 197 of 243 (276311)
01-06-2006 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by mark24
01-05-2006 7:09 PM


Re: Randman, give us your story.
But tens of millions of years yielding a few thousand cetacean fossils doesn't sound like fossil abundance to me.
First off, there are thousands of whales, dolphins, and some archaeocetes like Basilosaurus, not just for cetaceans in general.
But you are still dodging the point. Why should one species or form have thousands of fossils, and the remaining 99% that should have evolved have no fossils at all, especially when they occupied similar if not the same ecological niches favorable to fossilization?
Show me the evo study that addresses that specific question!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by mark24, posted 01-05-2006 7:09 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by mark24, posted 01-06-2006 10:34 AM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 198 of 243 (276313)
01-06-2006 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by NosyNed
01-05-2006 8:00 PM


Re: Dolphin variability
Basils swam like a serpent, side to side movement of the tail, not the up and down movement of whales and dolphins. There is considerable difference here. To call them having the same fluke is just wrong. In fact, this is one of the major differences and issues raised by many, even evos, in dismissing Basilosurus as directly ancestral to whales.
This message has been edited by randman, 01-06-2006 08:47 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by NosyNed, posted 01-05-2006 8:00 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Coragyps, posted 01-06-2006 8:57 AM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 199 of 243 (276314)
01-06-2006 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by Percy
01-05-2006 9:30 PM


Re: Randman, give us your story.
So you suggest I not discuss evo frauds, but stick to the topic, eh?
When have you stuck the topic on this thread, percy?
You and others are the ones demanding I give an answer to my views on ID and all sorts of things, and then when I honestly tell you why I focus on criticizing evolution, because I think it's rife with overstatements, frauds, illogic, etc,..., you come back retorting it has nothing to do with this thread?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Percy, posted 01-05-2006 9:30 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Yaro, posted 01-06-2006 8:57 AM randman has not replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 200 of 243 (276315)
01-06-2006 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by randman
01-06-2006 8:39 AM


Re: Randman, give us your story.
Percy, show me the studies that predict, within a range, the numbers of transitional forms either at the species level, or major features at the family level or anything, that would need and would be likely to have evolved to evolve a land mammal to a whale.
Please cite specific studies, not reasons or excuses for their being none.
Show me then a study comparing this estimate with the actual numbers of transitional forms we see in the fossil record for this range.
Show me then studies showing that the numbers of both fossils per species or forms, and the number of forms indicates a pattern reflective of ToE.
Variables are astronomical. It is foolish for US to speculate on a webboard on these subjects.
Can you solve for z in this equation: a + b = z.
None the less, a while back, someone posted a relevant study for you that calculated probabilities of fossilization and distribution for a given group of creatures (early homonids).
Over and over again, you guys think merely presenting a potential half-way or intermediate point validates evolutionary models. It does not, for a variety of reasons. I have given specifics on how to predict fossilazation rates, and a range per numbers of transitional forms. To this date, neither you nor any evo has ever responded to the specifics of my posts in that regard, but merely repeatedly ignore entirely the specifics and spout vague generalities.
You never gave specifics. You pulled numbers out of your hat and tried to pass them off as reality.
I am sorry, but anyone not a biased evolutionist can see you are dodging the point. Take, just as one example, my point on Basilosaurus being found in the same region as whales, but none of the theoritical intermediates in between in the geologic layers between the 2. This shows that the geologic column in regards to whale evolution does not support evo models.
Says you.
You just completely ignored that point, and present a bunch of hypotheticals on why potentially the fossil record could be incomplete. You present no actual specifics, no analysis related to whale evolution, no clear answers as to what could have been occupying the ecological niche between Basilosaurus and whales, for example, nada, and then you have the gall to act like I am dodging you guys.
I showed you the skeletons. They look like whales. That's the evidence. I don't think it's hypothetical or incompleat. It seems obvious whales changed over time into their modern form.
Again, what do you think happened? (prediction: you will not answer this question no matter how many times I ask it *sigh*)
Show me the studies or admit they have never been done!
If they havent been done.... guess what? ToE still stands.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by randman, posted 01-06-2006 8:39 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by randman, posted 01-06-2006 9:22 AM Yaro has replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 201 of 243 (276317)
01-06-2006 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by randman
01-06-2006 8:50 AM


Re: Randman, give us your story.
You and others are the ones demanding I give an answer to my views on ID and all sorts of things, and then when I honestly tell you why I focus on criticizing evolution, because I think it's rife with overstatements, frauds, illogic, etc,..., you come back retorting it has nothing to do with this thread?
This is the problem randman. You have exausted our responses. We have all responded to you and explained how ToE accounts for all of your critisizms. You don't like the answers, fine.
Those are the answers. You got them out of us. If you don't think they fit, then you got to show us something that does!
We see these transitional forms in the fossil record. You say they aren't transitional forms. Then, what are they, where did they come from, and how did they get there?
That's a fair question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by randman, posted 01-06-2006 8:50 AM randman has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 202 of 243 (276318)
01-06-2006 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by randman
01-06-2006 8:46 AM


Re: Dolphin variability
Basils swam like a serpent, side to side movement of the tail, not the up and down movement of whales and dolphins.
Untrue. Wikipedia:
"It is also believed to have rather unique locomotion compared with all other cetaceans; similarly sized thoracic, lumbar, sacral and causal vertebrae imply that Basilosaurus moved in an anguilliform (eel-like) fashion, only vertically. Even more oddly, paleontologist Philip Gingerich theorized that is may also move in a horizontal anguilliform fashion to some degree, something completely unknown in cetaceans. The skeletal anatomy of the tail suggests that a small fluke was probably present, which would have only aided vertical motion. Most reconstructions show a small, speculative dorsal fin similar to a rorqual whale's, but other reconstructions show a dorsal ridge."
My emphasis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by randman, posted 01-06-2006 8:46 AM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 203 of 243 (276319)
01-06-2006 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Nuggin
01-05-2006 10:29 PM


Re: Dolphin variability
So you admit you were way wrong on 2 points. Let's deal with the fluke claims. First, my point is that it swam not like a whale does, and it's tail was not whale-like in motion or really in any regard. If it had a fluke on the end, that seems somewhat anamolous, but it still didn't swim like a whale.
Keep in mind that it wasn't too long ago you guys swore Basils were near proof whales evolved from Mesochynids.
The fossils of Basilosaurus cetoides (Owen) and Zygorhiza kochii (Riechenbach) were the first of many fossil finds that show that modern whales, e.g. the humpback whales evolved from dog-like creatures known as Mesonychids. Both Basilosaurus and Zygorhiza, exhibit unmistakable characteristics of the terrestrial Mesonychids from which they developed. For example, their skulls retained many of the features of the mesonychids despite a pronounced elongation. Also, the primitive whales such as Basilosaurus processed the distinctive, teeth set of the Mesonychids with well-defined incisors, canines, premolars, and multirooted molar.
http://www.intersurf.com/~chalcedony/Basilosaurus1.html
So it's best to take things evos say with a grain of salt.
A note from that same site on how common the fossils are.
The bones of Basilosaurus cetoides (Owen) and other primitive whales have been found throughout a belt across Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama where exposures of Middle and Upper Eocene marine strata, called the Moodys Branch Formation (or Marl) and the Yazoo Clay occur. The vertebrates were so common within some areas of this belt that local residents used them as andirons for fireplaces and blocks to support cabins. The bones and skeletons of Basilosaurus also have been found in Australia, Egypt, within other marine sediments of Upper Eocene age (Domning 1969, Johnston 1991, Thurmond 1981).
Your questions:
Is it your belief that these animals "began" in the sea? In other words, do you feel that basilosaurus (and whatever immediately led up to it) existed first in the ocean, rather than decended from something on land?
My own beliefs involve speculations I feel are strongly supported in physics, that the time-line aspect of space-time is so interwined with space that there are causal effects not simply forward in time but towards space-time as a whole, and some effects from our perspective backwards in time. We have hints of these things now, but will discover them more plainly, I believe.
In order to comprehensively answer your question, I think we need to more fully understand how space-time works in reference to the issue of non-linear effects raised above. So perhaps an answer of we don't know for sure is the best answer.
Subsequent question: Why is it that the fossil record of times in the very distant past show many types of fish, mollusks, etc. but no aquatic mammals? The aquatic mammals don't show up until after the regular mammals show up on land.
The YEC answer is that they escaped higher in the Flood. I am not sure I buy that, but at the same time, based on my experience with "evo facts", I am not ready to concede that evo interpretations are correct in claiming we do not find more ancient aquatic mammals, but for sake of argument, let's assume your claim is correct.
Why would we not see mammals earlier?
One answer is that they had not been created yet. I think as scientists are willing to consider that the fossil record does not show what one would expect from random mutation with natural selection in the fact we have such rapid and repeated evolution taking place with whales such that what we see is their appearance somewhat magically in the fossil record, I think scientists may begin to look for other mechanisms. Perhaps there is a creative force within the design of the universe that could explain the data?
For example, I think some areas of research, such as adaptive mutations, indicate a decidedly non-random mutation process, and so we could well be seeing what one might call a program embedded within the universe and life on earth directing and triggering super-rapid, non-random evolution.
Another possibility, of course, is progressive creation, and still another is more of a hybrid, which gets into my own beliefs, that there is a design embedded by an intelligent cause manifesting the reality we experience. In this scenario, we may well have had a different set of events in the past, but the pattern would remain the same, and so as the universe was affected as a whole, there would be changes, but still the same pattern.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Nuggin, posted 01-05-2006 10:29 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Yaro, posted 01-06-2006 9:29 AM randman has not replied
 Message 213 by Nuggin, posted 01-06-2006 10:50 AM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 204 of 243 (276323)
01-06-2006 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by Yaro
01-06-2006 8:53 AM


Re: Randman, give us your story.
If the variables are such that we cannot know, then it is foolish for evos to have claimed the fossil record supported ToE.
Imo, you guys need to verify your claims first, and the variables are not astronimical since we have data we can use with comparitive studies. You don't have to plug in all the specific variables since we can use statistical analysis of similar situations to show a range. We can study the range of species with living whales compared to the range of differences, and do that with other mammals, and then extrapolate that with the larger range between land mammals and whales.
We can also look at ranges with things like horses and their ancestors. There is a 28 to 1 range with previous horse forms and modern horses. So, considering the fact we could well have an incomplete fossil record, I would say that per that range, we should see a 28 to one ratio of forms, right?
There are lots of ways to do an analysis. Evos have never done one, it seems. Just like with the Biogenetic Law, evos have developed a completely unsubstantiated claim, and have presented it as fact, with the evo community as a whole insisting that the claims of fossil rarity can explain why we don't see the whale transitions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Yaro, posted 01-06-2006 8:53 AM Yaro has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Yaro, posted 01-06-2006 9:32 AM randman has not replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 205 of 243 (276325)
01-06-2006 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by randman
01-06-2006 9:16 AM


Re: Dolphin variability
Randman, in your response to Nuggins you have explained your view as to how things got here. At least, more so than before. I qill quote them:
My own beliefs involve speculations I feel are strongly supported in physics, that the time-line aspect of space-time is so interwined with space that there are causal effects not simply forward in time but towards space-time as a whole, and some effects from our perspective backwards in time. We have hints of these things now, but will discover them more plainly, I believe.
In order to comprehensively answer your question, I think we need to more fully understand how space-time works in reference to the issue of non-linear effects raised above. So perhaps an answer of we don't know for sure is the best answer.
BTW, this is the scientific position. All answers are tentative. Essentially "We don't know for sure, but the evidence strongly indicates X."
Why would we not see mammals earlier?
One answer is that they had not been created yet. I think as scientists are willing to consider that the fossil record does not show what one would expect from random mutation with natural selection in the fact we have such rapid and repeated evolution taking place with whales such that what we see is their appearance somewhat magically in the fossil record, I think scientists may begin to look for other mechanisms. Perhaps there is a creative force within the design of the universe that could explain the data?
For example, I think some areas of research, such as adaptive mutations, indicate a decidedly non-random mutation process, and so we could well be seeing what one might call a program embedded within the universe and life on earth directing and triggering super-rapid, non-random evolution.
Another possibility, of course, is progressive creation, and still another is more of a hybrid, which gets into my own beliefs, that there is a design embedded by an intelligent cause manifesting the reality we experience. In this scenario, we may well have had a different set of events in the past, but the pattern would remain the same, and so as the universe was affected as a whole, there would be changes, but still the same pattern.
Ok. Here is the thing. We have never wittnesed a "creation event" or an "inteligent program" in this universe. We haven't seen one. So you are correct at stating that it is pure speculation.
However, we have seen animals give birth and change over time. Those are things that I don't even think you deny.
So, when we aprocah the fossil record and we see very different whales at very different periods of time, it is only logical to assume those whales came about like every other creature. Thrugh natural reproduction. The next question, is how did they change?
Well, we can get species to change (fruit flys, bacteria, etc.), we can see how genes change in a population. etc.
Given that we know all that, we can only infer that whales changed as well.
This is all based on evidence. Things we can see and test. To put things into the equation we have never observed would be foolish.
In order for the ToE to be topled and replaced by your theory. You first need evidence of "creation events" and "inteligent universal programming" etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by randman, posted 01-06-2006 9:16 AM randman has not replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 206 of 243 (276326)
01-06-2006 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by randman
01-06-2006 9:22 AM


Re: Randman, give us your story.
If the variables are such that we cannot know, then it is foolish for evos to have claimed the fossil record supported ToE.
Wrong.
Imo, you guys need to verify your claims first, and the variables are not astronimical since we have data we can use with comparitive studies. You don't have to plug in all the specific variables since we can use statistical analysis of similar situations to show a range. We can study the range of species with living whales compared to the range of differences, and do that with other mammals, and then extrapolate that with the larger range between land mammals and whales.
Possibly, I know similar studies have been done for other creatures but neither you, nor I, have the expertiese or all the data necissary. None the less, such a study isn't necissary to support ToE.
We can also look at ranges with things like horses and their ancestors. There is a 28 to 1 range with previous horse forms and modern horses. So, considering the fact we could well have an incomplete fossil record, I would say that per that range, we should see a 28 to one ratio of forms, right?
I don't know. Something tells me you aren't taking all the variables into account.
In either case such a study is not necissary to support the ToE.
There are lots of ways to do an analysis. Evos have never done one, it seems. Just like with the Biogenetic Law, evos have developed a completely unsubstantiated claim, and have presented it as fact, with the evo community as a whole insisting that the claims of fossil rarity can explain why we don't see the whale transitions.
Bald assertion.
This message has been edited by Yaro, 01-06-2006 09:33 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by randman, posted 01-06-2006 9:22 AM randman has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 207 of 243 (276327)
01-06-2006 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by randman
01-06-2006 8:39 AM


Re: Randman, give us your story.
randman writes:
Percy, show me the studies that predict, within a range, the numbers of transitional forms either at the species level, or major features at the family level or anything, that would need and would be likely to have evolved to evolve a land mammal to a whale.
Please cite specific studies, not reasons or excuses for their being none.
If you do not quote the "reasons or excuses" we provided and explain why you do not find them valid, then there's nothing we can do but repeat what we've already said. I feel I've explained this enough times and won't repeat myself again. If you'd like to go back to one of the messages where I explained this, quote what I said, and then explain why it is insufficient or invalid or incorrect, then I might be able to respond in a helpful way. As it is, you've once again given me nothing to go on.
Discussions cannot move forward if every new day the discussion begins from square one. We're not trying to imitate the movie Groundhog Day here. Every discussion has a context that moves along from day to day. As I have recommended to you many times, you should quote what you're responding to. That way you can have the text you're responding to immediately above your own response, and you'll be better able to avoid the constant repetition of your initial assertions that typifies so many of your posts.
I have given specifics on how to predict fossilazation rates, and a range per numbers of transitional forms. To this date, neither you nor any evo has ever responded to the specifics of my posts in that regard, but merely repeatedly ignore entirely the specifics and spout vague generalities.
No, Randman, this is not true. Nothing like this has occurred in this thread, you have merely repeated this baseless charge again and again. If you really think you have a message in this thread where you were specific and no one responded then I suggest you find it and provide a link to it.
I am sorry, but anyone not a biased evolutionist can see you are dodging the point. Take, just as one example, my point on Basilosaurus being found in the same region as whales, but none of the theoritical intermediates in between in the geologic layers between the 2. This shows that the geologic column in regards to whale evolution does not support evo models.
Please see my Message 171 that you still haven't responded to. When you respond, please quote something I said so that I can put your response in context and so that you can keep your response apropos to what I said.
You just completely ignored that point, and present a bunch of hypotheticals on why potentially the fossil record could be incomplete. You present no actual specifics, no analysis related to whale evolution, no clear answers as to what could have been occupying the ecological niche between Basilosaurus and whales, for example, nada, and then you have the gall to act like I am dodging you guys.
You are mixing two separate topics. You're refusal to provide your explanation for the origin of the cetacea order is unrelated to the fact that one cannot answer questions for which there is insufficient evidence. If you think you know how such studies could be conducted, then please explain how.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by randman, posted 01-06-2006 8:39 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by randman, posted 01-06-2006 9:50 AM Percy has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 208 of 243 (276330)
01-06-2006 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by Percy
01-06-2006 9:36 AM


see message 149
No, Randman, this is not true. Nothing like this has occurred in this thread, you have merely repeated this baseless charge again and again.
You say I have not responded. You said it before as well, and I responded and you did not. Here is the same post again.
qs Then please do so again. If we've failed in the past to point out the fallacies in your approach, I'll make sure it doesn't happen again.[/qs]
Here is a response on this thread to Belfry suggesting how evos could verify their claims.
On the studies per fossils, what I mean is we have an unsubstantiated claim of fossil rarity to explain why we don't see the immediate whale ancestors and whale ancestors between archeocetes.
For instance, such a study would compare numbers of whale fossils with known and extinct whales, and try to asses levels of fossilization frequency. Are they "common" or "rare"?
Then, presuming that similar habitats of either ocean, or near rivers and bodies of water, for these ancestors, do we see the numbers of transitional forms one would expect. One way to assess that is to do studies of the range of differences in whales and other mammals so we can assess how many different species and forms occur per a range of similarity and differences. This would examine living species to determine this range. Expanding the range, we could see then and predict a range of the potential numbers of intermediates including all of the ancillary dead-end branches that it would take to evolve a land mammal into a whale.
With that range, we could assess then if the fossil record does not show the transitions due to fossil rarity, as evos claim, or that the data is not actually what evolution predicts should be found.
This is the type of comprehensive analysis evos would need to take before they accept as factual thier claims that fossil rarity can explain the lack of intermediates. But I have never seen any evo studies along these lines. The claim is just stated, accepted and believed without any real scientific study to back it up.
That, in my experience, is basically how evolutionism proceeds. There are claims made, such as the Biogenetic law and recapitulation (as discussed on other threads), and then taught and believed without any real factual studies to verify those claims. The claim of fossil rarity, so critical to the evo dismissal of the lack of transitionals, is just an unsubstantiated claim, taught and argued as fact, with critics ridiculed in the worse way without there ever being a factual response.
When are you going to deal with the issues raised here?
This message has been edited by randman, 01-06-2006 09:51 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Percy, posted 01-06-2006 9:36 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Percy, posted 01-06-2006 10:31 AM randman has not replied
 Message 216 by bernd, posted 01-06-2006 11:48 AM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 209 of 243 (276337)
01-06-2006 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Percy
01-04-2006 5:28 PM


Re: Put Up or Shut Up!
You were questioning whether it was reasonable for a species to have a small population and range for long periods of time,
No, I wasn't and had you bothered to read and respond to my points instead of constantly ignoring them, you would know that. You want me to respond to you, but you ignore posts like 149 on this thread, and then misrepresent me when you do respond.
I do not question a species having a small population and range. I question theorizing that among large aquatic, semi-aquatic, and near-water terristial mammals, that we would have one small species in a small habitat evolve into one small species in a small habitat evolve one small species in a small habitat, on and on, hundreds of times and not ever evolving into branches that spread out and grow in sufficent numbers to leave fossils, for say, 5 million years.
In other words, as I stated before, the PE scenario may work for some species. If we had 30-40% of the actual transitionals represented in the fossil record, the scenario that we don't see the others because they were in smaller populations would make sense, but it doesn't make sense that continual subgroups among very small groups and habitats could continually evolve to fill the missing areas where we don't see whale features gradually emerging. This is especially true considering the habitat is the most favorable in many respects to fossilization.
The evolution could have occurred elsewhere, and when chance and happenstance resulted in a species capable of competing successfully against the current inhabitants of the ecological niche, they took over.
Care to explain that? This is a generality, once again. Maybe you could argue that some subgroup evolved into freshwater and then back again into salt water, but we are dealing with areas with a lot of mobility, being aquatic, and areas with good likelihoods of fossilization occuring. Most of all, you are not doing anything but posting generalities. There is no data related to whales in your posts at all.
A period which lacks fossils could indicate absence, or it could indicate conditions were prevalent that didn't favor fossilization, or perhaps some breed of scavanger became prevalent that left few remains, or perhaps a period of predation greatly reduced populations. Who knows?
That doesn't add up. We are talking periods of millions of years. The idea that for millions of years, for example, that conditions in an aquatic environment were different so no fossils occurred, but then again, we got back into fossils for 30 million years is prepostrous. Moreover, that can be checked. Evos can see if fossils occurred during this time.
Same with the idea of other predators. All of this stuff you claim is impossible with the "who knows?" could be verified if evos wanted to, instead of making claims that are unsubstantiated.
But if you guys just want to chalk up whale evolution to "who knows?", that would at least be better than every few years presenting a whole new theory just as dogmatically as the first one, such as the Mesochynid theory. I don't think asking evos to actually show that their claims are true is so much to ask for, and I think an answer such as "who knows" indicates evos need to be far less dogmatic in their claims. Otherwise, they are just relying on overstatements.
Maybe a "functional mammal" (whatever that is) evolved, but wasn't suited to fill the entire niche. Perhaps it evolved in an isolated sea, or some temporarily cut off part of the ocean.
Then what took Basolosaurus' place for 5 million years?
I agree that it is unlikely that an aquatic mammal fully capable of outcompeting the current occupier of an ecological niche and with full access to that ecological niche would just sit on the sidelines for millions of years. But you are the only one who has expressed this possibility. No evolutionist is saying this is what happened.
Then, what are they saying happened? Who knows????
Organisms give birth to offspring that possess very similar genetic makeup to themselves, but not identical because of copying error and allele recombinations, and this process of gradual change goes on for generation after generation.
So we should expect to see then within a given population, gradual emergence and shifting of features, not species appearing suddenly and fully formed, right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Percy, posted 01-04-2006 5:28 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by nwr, posted 01-06-2006 11:31 AM randman has not replied
 Message 215 by Percy, posted 01-06-2006 11:45 AM randman has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 210 of 243 (276343)
01-06-2006 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by randman
01-06-2006 8:41 AM


Re: Randman, give us your story.
randman,
No failure of evos to provide answers to all of these questions in detail with regard to the fossils found related to whales and their proposed ancestors shows the bankruptcy of evo claims in that regard.
Randman stock answer no.7. You are just repeating yourself & not addressing the point I made.
For the THIRD time.
quote:
And just to head you off at the pass, no, it is not evolutions job to exclude all the possibilities, no other science has to. It just has to support it's own position in a way that isn't contradicted by evidence. You have made a positive assertion, it is your job to support it. Given you can't, then you have provided no evidence, just subjective speculation.
Mark
This message has been edited by mark24, 01-06-2006 10:53 AM

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by randman, posted 01-06-2006 8:41 AM randman has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024