A Whale of a Tale

randman, If cetacea & whale are synonymous, then yes, Pakicetus is the first known whale. Pakicetus is grouped with the cetacea via exactly the same logic & methodology that puts foxes & wolves in the same canine clade.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 01-03-2006 12:02 PM

---

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

randman, Take a look at any cladistic analysis that includes prehistoric & extant cetacea, & examine the character matrix that the cladogram/phylogeny was derived from. There you will see the apomorphies that place Pakicetus et al in that clade. There you will see what it takes for an organism to be considered a cetacean.Big clue: it doesn't have to be a marine mammal.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 01-03-2006 04:18 PM

---

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

randman, I told you what you need to do. If you really want to know. Look up those matrices. This will involve work on your part, I am certainly not doing it for you.This is the guy who had to spend several pages pointing out your logical fallacies, citing what the fallacy was, showing how your argument met it. Only to be told, "no it doesn't", with no further discussion. This is the guy who spent multiple posts showing what you are required to know before you can say that their aren't enough fossils, only to be ignored. So you will have to excuse me for thinking putting serious work into discussing anything with you is largely a waste of time. You only have yourself to blame. We do look at distinguishing whale characteristics, if "whale" is synonymous with "cetacean", then some whales were terrestrial. This is demonstrated objectively via cladistics.Mark

---

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

randman, That's right, the matrices denoting the characters that cladograms are derived from that place pakicetus in the cetacean clade don't exist. Right now I don't have access, but if you are genuinely interested in learning the answer to your question, rather than point scoring, that's where you should look. It is a fact that the most objective, parsimonious classification places Pakicetus in the cetacean clade. The cladistic analyses are based on morphological characteristics that are listed in a matrix in order for the program to recognise & process the data. Those characters are your answer.I am not debating you, I am trying to help you get your answer. You now know where to look in order to edify yourself. OK? You can either be bothered to find out, or you can't. If not, please don't whine that you don't understand what characters make Pakicetus a cetacean.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 01-03-2006 06:50 PM

---

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

Randman, At no point have you provided credible evidence that ID is indicative of reality. Let's recap.Evolution predicts that whales descended from a terrestrial mammalian ancestor. Molecular & genetic evidence supports this. Cladograms & phylogenies derived from morphological characters support this. A perfectly valid scientific proposition with evidence.Your response? "There aren't enough fossil intermediates". This is spite of your failure to attain knowledge logically required to come to this conclusion:What is the geographical range of a potential transitional population?;
What is the population size of a potential transitional population?;
What percentage of a population, if any, live in habitats that are conducive to fossilisation?;
What is the range in time of a potential transitional population?;
Has the area previously conducive to fossilisation changed & become non-conducive?;
Has the species become locally extinct?;
How much of the earth today has exposed strata of the relevant ages?;
Just because a species is numerous & has many fossil examples, how can I be so sure that any other daughter species are so numerous & have a wide range?
How many fossiliferous strata are unavailable to us?;
etc.Failure to objectively answer these questions renders your position as being mere speculation.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

---

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

lol

randman, The fossil record does show transitions. Not as many as you would like. But they are there. The fossils line up cladistically with stratigraphy. I addressed this in my last post. If you are going to reply please go to the trouble of reading what you are responding to.

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

---

But tens of millions of years yielding a few thousand cetacean fossils doesn't sound like fossil abundance to me.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 01-05-2006 07:35 PM

---

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

randman, 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.

---

MarkThis 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

randman, That's what I said. Given there are tens of millions of years, it can hardly be called abundant, can it? For the FOURTH 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.

---

MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 01-06-2006 10:52 AMThis message has been edited by mark24, 01-06-2006 12:55 PM

---

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