A Whale of a Tale

Nuggin, thewiesen on his website has Pakicetus as "the first whale."Are you up-front conceding this is an overstatement and exagerration at best?

nuggin, come on. If you can't find it, you are not looking. Try looking at the numerous times I have linked to it on different threads, some of which you ostensibly participated on.The fact is evos call Pakicetus the first whale when it is clearly not a whale at all.That's simple and straightforward. Why do I have the sneaking suspicion you will muck it up?http://www.neoucom.edu/...Thewissen/whale_origins/index.htmlThis message has been edited by randman, 01-03-2006 02:00 AM

I don't agree Pakicetus is ancestral to whales, but I also think it's important to note how evos typically overstate their case, especially when the evidence is weak, as is the case here. It seems the MO is to overstate the case to make up for lack of factual data and analysis, and imo, thats's not good science.

I'd say the evidence points to Pakicetus going extinct.

Uh, species consist of more than one member. Ancestry within a species such as you and your grandpa is well documented. Not the same thing.But it is interesting to note the way you guys think. A species must be ancestral so the question is what are they ancestral to. In other words, evos assume evolution is true, and thus any argument that supports that assumption is acceptable as science, and any argument that rejects that assumption is not acceptable to you guys.

Yaro, that's the only logical solution you can see. Frankly, it's just your rant though.How an Intelligent Designer would design is the source of some speculation, and even includes guided evolutionary processes.

Nosy, I started a thread on a possible ID mechanism. If you want to participate on it, you are welcome to. Otherwise, the put up or shut up comments from you should be more self-directed.This message has been edited by randman, 01-03-2006 11:38 AM

Can you subsantiate that?

Actually, if look at my comments, you will see that I am addressing your false concept of the physical world, which makes you think something like instant change is magical when in reality, all physical form is derived, or poofed, from an information state. So poofing or what you call magic is basic to all physical things.Unfortunately, you are thus far incapable of understanding some basic concepts, and so ridicule something you are ignorant of.

Gradual or rapid extinction, they are both opposite of most species continuing or evolving as you claim. It appears you were caught making a wrong assertion and now are moving the goalposts.

What similarities? You act like there is a significant level of similarity. Show how Pakicetus has any of, say, the top 20 whale distinquishing characteristics. Except you have a big problem. The actual transitions are not seen in the fossil record, and you guys have no way to explain that credibly, other than to assert vague concepts like fossil rarity, which does not explain why some species and even suborders like whales have so many fossils, but none of their immediate ancestors. No, it is not observed. What is observed is one definition of the word "evolution", but the definition of the word evolution we are discussing is not observed to happen. As usual, you guys are resorting to sophistry here and clouding the issue by arguing that since change occurs, ToE must be true since both "change" and ToE go by the same word, evolution.

Sorry Yaro, but your rant has no substance at all. I suppose when you cannot answer back, you just resort to personal name-calling and attacks.As far as evidence, I offered the It from Bit approach of QM advocated by men like John Wheeler and Anton Zellinger.

This is what you said. There is absolutely nothing about gradual or rapid extinction rates. You claimed that "it's much more common for a species to have descendants than not to have them", and did so in the context of species have other species as descendants to boot.I asked you to back that up, and you cannot. If you are just claiming that at any given point, species reproduce, then your point is just dumb. How could that be germane at all to this discussion?My assertion is the evidence supports the concept Pakicetus went extinct, and you ignorantly challenged that with muddled thinking and nonsense.

Calling everything transitional does not mean we see the actual transitions because we do not.But I'll give you a chance. List the 10 species prior to Pakicetus and the 10 species after Pakicetus?Or list the 10 immediate species prior to modern whales.Or show how every major feature of whales, or most features, gradually emerged. Not hints, but actual slow transitions, well-documented.If you are claiming they are absent from the fossil record due to fossil rarity, then show a quantitative analysis concerning whales and their ancestors, and the likelihood of fossilization based on actual data of numbers of whale fossils and near ancestors. If you cannot do that, you have no basis but a wild guess to assert fossil rarity.

Yaro, since you insist on mischaracterizing me and speak of wormholes and what-not, I must assume you have no substantive responses, and I will just treat you as a troll from now on.