A Whale of a Tale

Yeah, and my grandpa is dead, too. Does that mean I'm not alive?

So too is ancestry betwen species. We see it all the time.What's your point, exactly? 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?

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.

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. 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.

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.

I did, in post 22. Are you equipped to address that post, or not? 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? 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.

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? What are the major features of whales? 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.

I've done so, in post 22. Are you equipped to address that post? 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?

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"? 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?

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? Why would I "back up" a statement I know to be false? 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.

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.

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?

Did the American passenger pigeon ever exist?This message has been edited by crashfrog, 01-03-2006 03:11 PM

Ah, so it's not fossil rarity in general that you dispute?

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?