|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2513 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A Whale of a Tale | |||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Yeah, and my grandpa is dead, too. Does that mean I'm not alive?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Ancestry within a species such as you and your grandpa is well documented. So too is ancestry betwen species. We see it all the time. What's your point, exactly?
A species must be ancestral so the question is what are they ancestral to. That's because it's much more common for a species to have decendants then not to have them, so it's a reasonable question - what is it the ancestor of? If it's the ancestor of nothing, what leads you to that conclusion? What's the evidence?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Can you subsantiate that? The individuals of the vast majority of species are both spread among a wide geographical area and largely successful at attracting mates and reproducing. QED. The logical conclusion is that it's much more likely for an extant species to have decendants than not, since the only thing that would prevent it from having decendants is it's wholesale and rapid destruction and extinction. Do you have evidence that the majority of species have experienced wholesale, rapid destruction? The fossil record, in fact, is a record of exactly the opposite - the gradual extinction of life forms, one at a time, as they're replaced and outcompeted by other organsisms, including their decendants.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Gradual or rapid extinction, they are both opposite of most species continuing or evolving as you claim. Absolutely incorrect. Gradual extinction is exactly what we would expect from evolution, with the occasional rapid extinction from circumstance. Extinction does not preclude decendants, as you erroneously assert.
It appears you were caught making a wrong assertion and now are moving the goalposts. If that's what you believe then I suggest you go back and re-read. No goalposts have been moved. You're either a phenomenally poor reader or you're simply casting aspersions to conceal your ignorance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
The actual transitions are not seen in the fossil record Nonsense. Almost every fully-formed species fossil is transitional. By definition, they have to be, since I've just proved a few posts ago that almost every extinct species has decendants.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I asked you to back that up, and you cannot. I did, in post 22. Are you equipped to address that post, or not?
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? Because you claimed that it was a faulty assumption that species are almost always the ancestor of something. If that point isn't germaine, then why did you raise it?
My assertion is the evidence supports the concept Pakicetus went extinct, and you ignorantly challenged that with muddled thinking and nonsense. Nobody challenged that Pakicetus is extinct. It obviously is. But why is that relevant? I've asked you three times now and you don't seem to have a response.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Calling everything transitional does not mean we see the actual transitions because we do not. If what we have are transitionals, then what we see are obviously the actual transitionals. Incontrovertable. If you want to see the actual transition from one individual to another, there's probably a video you can watch on that subject; the process is called "birth." Maybe you've heard of it?
Or show how every major feature of whales, or most features, gradually emerged. What are the major features of whales?
If you cannot do that, you have no basis but a wild guess to assert fossil rarity. How large was the population of American Passenger Pigeons at its greatest? How many such pigeons are known from fossils? I rest my case about fossil rarity, though you're the one that brought it up off-topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
You claim that species must almost always have ancestors. Back that up. I've done so, in post 22. Are you equipped to address that post?
you are making a specific claim, that species tend to evolve into new species and not go extinct. Where did I make the claim that they do not go extinct? Now you're simply being dishonest. Are you equipped to deal with my actual claims or are you simply going to lie about what I've acually posted?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
There is not need to use the word "lie" when someone may simple be mistaken. But there's no possibility that randman is mistaken. I appreciate your desire to have posters use non-inflammatory language, but accusing someone of a knowing falsehood isn't inflammatory when it's accurate. What's next? Are we not allowed to tell another poster that their position is "wrong"?
It is adequate to point out that you haven't made such a statement. I'm sorry, I've been using the word "lie" as a kind of shorthand to describe a situation where a poster makes a statement of fact that they know not to be true. Is this inappropriate?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Crash, you retorted to my claim that Pakicetus probably went extinct with the claim that most species leave descendants. Your claim in context is clearly that most species do not go extinct. Absolutely incorrect. I've never even implied that most species do not go extinct; why would I imply something I know not to be correct? Over 90% of the species that have ever existed are now extinct. Why would I even imply something that I know isn't true?
I asked you to back that up, and you have not. Why would I "back up" a statement I know to be false?
Either back it up or retract the claim. I'm under no obligation to do either, when the claim in question is not a claim that I have made. Show me where I did so, plainly, or retract your spurious accusations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I rest my case that you now primarily have made 2 incredibly ignorant claims on this thread thus far. And yet, anybody who reads this thread knows that the claims that you describe as "ignorant" are purely of your own invention, and ones that you have falsely attributed to me. I presume by this behavior that you're quite unequipped to actually address my claims. Why do you even bother to post here, Randman? Since it's obvious that you'd prefer to argue both sides by yourself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
How long have you been here? Long enough to understand the difference between calling my opponent a liar and describing his knowingly false statements as lies. This is a difference I presumed was apparent to the admins, as well. When did that change? Descriptions of an opponents arguments as "false" or as "a falsehood" or even as "a lie" have always been allowed, until recently. What's different?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Perhaps a better explanation for why these transitionals do not exist in the fossil record is that they never existed in the first place? Did the American passenger pigeon ever exist? This message has been edited by crashfrog, 01-03-2006 03:11 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
LOL...crash, the fact you cannot see how the pidgeon differs from whales and their habitat is amusing. Ah, so it's not fossil rarity in general that you dispute?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
No, on this thread, it's the idea that fossil rarity explains the lack of whale ancestral forms when we see large numbers of whale fossils and Basilosaurus. Nobody's advanced that idea but you, Randman. It would be better for you to rebut the arguments being put before you rather than your own substitutions. Unless you enjoy talking to yourself?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024