Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8891 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-20-2019 6:16 AM
140 online now:
CosmicChimp, PaulK, vimesey (3 members, 137 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Upcoming Birthdays: CosmicChimp
Post Volume:
Total: 847,714 Year: 2,751/19,786 Month: 833/1,918 Week: 120/301 Day: 3/35 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
910
11
121314Next
Author Topic:   IC & the Cambrian Explosion for Ahmad...cont..
mark24
Member (Idle past 3241 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 151 of 199 (32022)
02-12-2003 6:45 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by peter borger
02-12-2003 12:00 AM


quote:
PB: If you are able to demonstrate an organisms that you qualify as TF in an evolutionary sense, then I will explain them from GUToB.

Nonononono! You make your PREDICTION, rationalise it, & then we'll take a look.

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by peter borger, posted 02-12-2003 12:00 AM peter borger has not yet responded

    
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5712 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 152 of 199 (32023)
02-12-2003 7:07 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by wj
02-12-2003 5:30 AM


Dear WJ, Peter, Mark,

Listen, guys, Hans Thewissen has a very nice job. He is traveling all over the world, digs a bit in dirt here and there, in the mountains, in Pakistan, returns home to the Netherlands with a crate of rocks, fossils, and then he presents his Ambulocetus (MPG) to Science as a whale (ungalata, cetacea). He's doing fine.
However, if you have a close look at what he put together it is not a whale. It doesn't even look like a whale. If this is a whale than it can also be an 12 ft otter. If it is a whale it should be more like a cow. It is no cow, however, and it doesn't even look like a cow. Okay, if you look very hard it could be a cow since it has four legs and a head (No horns, though). So, is it a cow? Or is it an otter? A whale perhaps? That's a lot of questions. DNA analysis will shed light on the issue, I guess. But probably not. No DNA.

Best wishes,
Peter


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by wj, posted 02-12-2003 5:30 AM wj has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by mark24, posted 02-12-2003 8:15 AM peter borger has responded
 Message 155 by Andya Primanda, posted 02-12-2003 9:41 AM peter borger has not yet responded

    
mark24
Member (Idle past 3241 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 153 of 199 (32027)
02-12-2003 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by peter borger
02-12-2003 7:07 AM


Peter B,

quote:
However, if you have a close look at what he put together it is not a whale. It doesn't even look like a whale. If this is a whale than it can also be an 12 ft otter. If it is a whale it should be more like a cow.

Who said Ambulocetus was a whale, the name is merely an honorific?

Why should taxa that have ungulate ancestors look like cows? This is an old, old strawman, Peter B.

But, no matter, I'm sure all will become clear when you hand your equivocation crown to someone else, & tell us what the ToE predicts of such a transitional form.

What does GUToB predict regarding fossils?

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by peter borger, posted 02-12-2003 7:07 AM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by peter borger, posted 02-12-2003 4:56 PM mark24 has responded

    
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 154 of 199 (32038)
02-12-2003 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Andya Primanda
02-08-2003 10:08 PM


quote:
Thewissen, J. G. M. and M. Aria 1994. Fossil evidence for the origin of aquatic locomotion in archaeocete whales. Science 263: 210-12.
PB: Yeah, I know this paper. Fossil evidence of another MPG.

Dr Borger, did all whales come from one MPG (Ambulocetus?) or should they be split into three MPGs (archaeocetes(paraphyletic), toothed whales(paraphyletic), baleen whales (monophyletic)) or four (archaeocetes, baleen whales, sperm whales, dolphins (including orca)) or five (archaeocetes, baleen whales, sperm whales, dolphins, orca) or one MPG=one genus, or one MPG=one species like Homo vs Pan?

[reissued]

You asked me to make predictions based on the GUTOB (the MPG side), and these are what I come up with. Please elaborate my predictions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Andya Primanda, posted 02-08-2003 10:08 PM Andya Primanda has not yet responded

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 155 of 199 (32041)
02-12-2003 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by peter borger
02-12-2003 7:07 AM


Since we're into whale MPGs let me throw in two other examples

Dorudon atrox & Rodhocetus balochistanensis

That is the page of Philip Gingerich. He has some free PDFs at the bottom of the page.

My prediction based on GUTOB: Rodhocetus was near the original Cetacea MPG, but it still has hind legs. Later processes eliminate the leg.

Why do I start to think that the legs were created just to be eliminated later?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by peter borger, posted 02-12-2003 7:07 AM peter borger has not yet responded

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5712 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 156 of 199 (32049)
02-12-2003 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by mark24
02-12-2003 8:15 AM


Dear Mark,

You ask: What does GUToB predict regarding fossils?

PB: The GUToB predicts sudden appearance of MPGs, (major) gaps between original MPGs and MPG extinctions if unable to reproduce properly and catastophes.

Best wishes,
Peter

[This message has been edited by peter borger, 02-12-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by mark24, posted 02-12-2003 8:15 AM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by wj, posted 02-12-2003 5:33 PM peter borger has not yet responded
 Message 158 by mark24, posted 02-12-2003 5:45 PM peter borger has responded
 Message 159 by Quetzal, posted 02-13-2003 1:07 AM peter borger has responded

    
wj
Inactive Member


Message 157 of 199 (32050)
02-12-2003 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by peter borger
02-12-2003 4:56 PM


So PB, do the different mpg's correspond to any taxanomic strata? Phylum? Order? Genus? You seem to have been unclear on this point in the past.

From whence could mpg's suddenly appear?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by peter borger, posted 02-12-2003 4:56 PM peter borger has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3241 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 158 of 199 (32052)
02-12-2003 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by peter borger
02-12-2003 4:56 PM


Peter the Equivocator,

quote:
You ask: What does GUToB predict regarding fossils?

PB: The GUToB predicts sudden appearance of MPGs, (major) gaps between original MPGs and MPG extinctions if unable to reproduce properly and catastophes.


Well, that was one of the questions I asked. Interestingly you only answered that when you could give a glib answer.

So, we're into double figures for the asking of this question:

Define transitional form as predicted by the ToE

We need to define terms before a discussion can take place.

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by peter borger, posted 02-12-2003 4:56 PM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by peter borger, posted 02-13-2003 6:19 PM mark24 has responded

    
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 3918 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 159 of 199 (32074)
02-13-2003 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by peter borger
02-12-2003 4:56 PM


Out of curiousity - how would the GUToB classify Cryptogale australis? We're talking an extinct critter that is smack dab intermediate between the Tenrecinae and the Oryzorictinae, having the skull and certain skeletal details of the Tenrecinae and the dentition and other skeletal details of the Oryzorictinae. Does this count as an intermediate/transitional form? Does Cryptogale represent the MPG of the Tenrecomorpha? If so, where does the Geogalinae and the Potomogalinae fit in, since they are all tenrecomorphs? Inquiring minds and all that...
This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by peter borger, posted 02-12-2003 4:56 PM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by peter borger, posted 02-13-2003 6:16 PM Quetzal has responded

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5712 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 160 of 199 (32161)
02-13-2003 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Quetzal
02-13-2003 1:07 AM


Hi Quetzal,

PB: Out of curiousity - how would the GUToB classify Cryptogale australis? We're talking an extinct critter that is smack dab intermediate between the Tenrecinae and the Oryzorictinae, having the skull and certain skeletal details of the Tenrecinae and the dentition and other skeletal details of the Oryzorictinae. Does this count as an intermediate/transitional form? Does Cryptogale represent the MPG of the Tenrecomorpha? If so, where does the Geogalinae and the Potomogalinae fit in, since they are all tenrecomorphs? Inquiring minds and all that...

PB: Did you exclude the possibility of a hybrid?

Best wishes,
Peter


This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Quetzal, posted 02-13-2003 1:07 AM Quetzal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Quetzal, posted 02-14-2003 2:28 AM peter borger has responded

    
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5712 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 161 of 199 (32162)
02-13-2003 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by mark24
02-12-2003 5:45 PM


dear mark,

MP: "Define transitional form as predicted by the ToE"

PB: Ages ago you gave your definaition of TF and I sid Show me the money. You did, I guess, so what's the fuss about?

The TFs demonstrated in this thread aren't TFs, they are MPGs.

Best wishes,
Peter


This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by mark24, posted 02-12-2003 5:45 PM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by wj, posted 02-13-2003 9:50 PM peter borger has responded
 Message 167 by mark24, posted 02-14-2003 4:58 AM peter borger has responded

    
wj
Inactive Member


Message 162 of 199 (32175)
02-13-2003 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by peter borger
02-13-2003 6:19 PM


PB, your posts are now degenerating into meaningless drivel.

Are you going to give a serious answers to the multitude of outstanding question on this tread addressed to you?

Just as a sample:

So PB, do the different mpg's correspond to any taxanomic strata? Phylum? Order? Genus?

From whence could mpg's suddenly appear?

Did all whales come from one MPG (Ambulocetus?) or should they be split into three MPGs (archaeocetes(paraphyletic), toothed whales(paraphyletic), baleen whales (monophyletic)) or four (archaeocetes, baleen whales, sperm whales, dolphins (including orca)) or five (archaeocetes, baleen whales, sperm whales, dolphins, orca) or one MPG=one genus, or one MPG=one species like Homo vs Pan?

PB: If you are able to demonstrate an organisms that you qualify as TF in an evolutionary sense, then I will explain them from GUToB.
Ambulocetus natans
PB: This another MPG.
Ungulate or cetacean mpg? if all vertebrates are from the one mpg, why don't we see transitions between dogs and cats?

[This message has been edited by wj, 02-13-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by peter borger, posted 02-13-2003 6:19 PM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by peter borger, posted 02-13-2003 10:59 PM wj has responded

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5712 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 163 of 199 (32180)
02-13-2003 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by wj
02-13-2003 9:50 PM


dear WJ,

You say:
Are you going to give a serious answers to the multitude of outstanding question on this tread addressed to you?

PB: I am aware of these outstanding questions. However, it needs immense scrutiny to define MPGs. It in nowadays almosts impossible to exactly define species. So, why do you expect me to be able what a thousand wise men are unable to? Of course I will think about these excellent questions.

WJ: Just as a sample:
So PB, do the different mpg's correspond to any taxanomic strata? Phylum? Order? Genus?

PB: Excellent question. Hard to answer.

WJ: From whence could mpg's suddenly appear?

PB: From the Creative Force? As if evolutionism has an answer to these question.

WJ: Did all whales come from one MPG (Ambulocetus?) or should they be split into three MPGs (archaeocetes(paraphyletic), toothed whales(paraphyletic), baleen whales (monophyletic)) or four (archaeocetes, baleen whales, sperm whales, dolphins (including orca)) or five (archaeocetes, baleen whales, sperm whales, dolphins, orca) or one MPG=one genus, or one MPG=one species like Homo vs Pan?

PB: Probably, probably not. How do I know? I postulate a new idea, that's all I do. Now it is time for scrutiny. Andya's idea should be tested. Did you really think that I am able to say option 1 is true, or option 2 is good. Of course not. It will takes decades to find out whether or not the idea can hold. It took about 140 years to find out that evolutionism is wrong, so be patient.

PB: If you are able to demonstrate an organisms that you qualify as TF in an evolutionary sense, then I will explain them from GUToB.
[url=http://darla.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/Ambulocet.html]

WJ: Ambulocetus natans

PB: This another MPG.

WJ: Ungulate or cetacean mpg? if all vertebrates are from the one mpg, why don't we see transitions between dogs and cats?

PB: Cat and wolf are probably distinct MPGs.

PB: How do we recognise and discriminate between MPGs? I don't know yet. It suspect that it has something to do with Ernst Mayers definition of species. But it should be extended.

Best wishes,
Peter

WJ: Ambulocetus natans

PB: This another MPG.

WJ: Ungulate or cetacean mpg? if all vertebrates are from the one mpg, why don't we see transitions between dogs and cats?

PB: Cat and wolf are probably distinct MPGs.

PB: How do we recognise and discriminate between MPGs? I don't know yet. It suspect that it has something to do with Ernst Mayers definition of species. But it should be extended.

Best wishes,
Peter
[]

WJ: Ambulocetus natans

PB: This another MPG.

WJ: Ungulate or cetacean mpg? if all vertebrates are from the one mpg, why don't we see transitions between dogs and cats?

PB: Cat and wolf are probably distinct MPGs.

PB: How do we recognise and discriminate between MPGs? I don't know yet. It suspect that it has something to do with Ernst Mayers definition of species. But it should be extended.

Best wishes,
Peter

WJ: Ambulocetus natans

PB: This another MPG.

WJ: Ungulate or cetacean mpg? if all vertebrates are from the one mpg, why don't we see transitions between dogs and cats?

PB: Cat and wolf are probably distinct MPGs.

PB: How do we recognise and discriminate between MPGs? I don't know yet. It suspect that it has something to do with Ernst Mayers definition of species. But it should be extended.

Best wishes,
Peter


This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by wj, posted 02-13-2003 9:50 PM wj has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by wj, posted 02-13-2003 11:26 PM peter borger has responded

    
wj
Inactive Member


Message 164 of 199 (32183)
02-13-2003 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by peter borger
02-13-2003 10:59 PM


It would appear, PB, that you have very little idea about what your mpg is, but this does not stop you from offering it as an explanation for any observations in the fossil record. Surely these should have been thought about and tenative answers found before declaring your gutob as a better theory than the theory of evolution.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by peter borger, posted 02-13-2003 10:59 PM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by peter borger, posted 02-14-2003 1:43 AM wj has not yet responded

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5712 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 165 of 199 (32197)
02-14-2003 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by wj
02-13-2003 11:26 PM


Hi WJ,

WJ:
It would appear, PB, that you have very little idea about what your mpg is, but this does not stop you from offering it as an explanation for any observations in the fossil record. Surely these should have been thought about and tenative answers found before declaring your gutob as a better theory than the theory of evolution.

PB: It would appear, WJ, that biologists have very little idea about what a species is (Hey, J. The mind of the species problem. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 2001, vol 16, no7. AT LEAST I BACK UP MY CLAIMS), but is does not stop them from offering evolutionism for any observations, including medicine, psychology, day-to-day-life, criminology, etcetera. Surely, these should have been thought about thoroughly and tentative answers found before declaring that evolutionism is a theory that can explain all life associated phenomena. As demonstrated, it can not. It is story telling, and I can make up stories myself.

Best wishes,
Peter

[This message has been edited by peter borger, 02-14-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by wj, posted 02-13-2003 11:26 PM wj has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
910
11
121314Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019