|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: More transitional features of Tiktaalik - 10/22/2008 1:33:27 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7621
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Not if they can still interbreed.
Exactly; calling them a species (sub or otherwise) is merely a human convention.
_____________________________
Jack
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
- C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: More transitional features of Tiktaalik - 10/22/2008 6:07:46 PM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 271
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: robto
???
A theory, if it is worth anything, makes predictions. Those predictions are then tested against the available evidence. The theory of evolution predicts the existence of species with transitional characteristics. I know very well what a transitional is thank you. But in Darwinism and with your definition, anything can be touted as transitional - no need for proof. I suggest you look over this other thread where this was discussed.
Briefly, the problem with this prediction is that it can apply to virtually every living species as well as every past extinct one. And indeed several Darwinists here do so. Everything is transitional!
All you have to do is say, "A has certain characteristics. B has some of the same with new ones. C has some of both with new ones. Therefore B is transitional between A and C." Simple to do, but purely speculative in nature.
I keep trying to point out to Darwinists that you have to actually demonstrate it empirically or at least remove all reasonable doubt. You can't just say "hey look this platy looks part duck, part beaver and part ... therefore this is proof of Darwinian evolution" That doesn't work under real scientific scrutiny yet in the Darwinist world it does because you believe.
quote:
Tiktaalik shows evidence of head mobility that is between the mobility of fish and that of later land animals. That makes it a transitional feature. You don't have to believe that Tiktaalik is descended from fish, or ancestral to tetrapods, for that to be true. The transitional characteristic is there no matter what the relationships are.
Your point here is moot. Anything, under Darwinism, can be called a transitional. Shared traits do not a transitional make. You need that smooth transitional curve and there is none.
quote:
2. If Darwinism were true we should have billions of no longer missing links, showing smooth transitions to the estimated 13+ million extant species on earth - we don't
quote:
Um - "billions"? How many fossils do you think there are in existence - total? Yes billions. How many intermediate states do you imagine there may be in going from one original organism to 13+ million others? Think about it. Then try to estimate the number of phases needed for each species to have developed. It's staggering. So where are they?
No one even knows how many recorded fossils exist, due to poor record keeping among collections.
However, the question is not how many fossils exist - there are certainly a few 100,000 - but rather how many of those are demonstrable as truly transitional? Rather than mere speculation that doesn't even fit the evidence. Like the links I gave point out. Check here
On tiktaalik, geologist Paul Garner says: quote:
[T]here are functional challenges to Darwinian interpretations. For instance, in fish the head, shoulder girdle, and circulatory systems constitute a single mechanical unit. The shoulder girdle is firmly connected to the vertebral column and is an anchor for the muscles involved in lateral undulation of the body, mouth opening, heart contractions, and timing of the blood circulation through the gills.6 However, in amphibians the head is not connected to the shoulder girdle, in order to allow effective terrestrial feeding and locomotion. Evolutionists must suppose that the head became incrementally detached from the shoulder girdle, in a step-wise fashion, with functional intermediates at every stage. However, a satisfactory account of how this might have happened has never been given.
Indeed, Tiktaalik’s fin was not connected to the main skeleton, so could not have supported its weight on land.
Anyway, the real answer to how many credible transitionals exist is "precious little", and none when it comes to one species turning into a completely new and other species outside the family.
Evolution has genetic limitations built into DNA itself in order to preserve the original species.
quote:
Darwinism does not predict, or require, smooth transitions in the fossil record. Learn something about the theory of punctuated equilibrium. Indeed punctuation! Gould's solution for the glaring absence of transitional forms in the record! The record does indeed support sudden appearance and then stasis for millions upon millions of years. Gradualism simply doesn't work and Gould saw it.
quote:
3. The entire fish-to-tetrapod transition is supposed to have occurred in 20 Ma, but other salamanders, according to Shubin himself (one of the Tik talkers), have remained unchanged for far longer : quote:
There is no requirement that all animals evolve at the same rate. Indeed, there is no rule at all except selection, it's a literal free-for-all in Darwinism. And no one even knows what rule, if any, selection carries other than - it survived therefore was fit; It evolved therefore it needed to, it didn't therefore it didn't need to. Utterly useless as an explanatory system as even Lewontin noted. So tell us, why did the first fit organism evolve at all seeing it didn't need to?
And even selection is now being down-played as insufficient to account for what we see. So once again we see how Darwinism fails because it explains everything and thus nothing. It can accommodate anything at all.
quote:
Classic example of the fallacy known as the appeal to ridicule.
Is that all you've got? You don't get it. Tell me this whale ancestor is not ridiculous with a straight face if you can. By the way, ridicule, not used as an argument in debate is not a fallacy. Ridicule, simply because a claim is ridiculous, hardly needs to be an argument. In this case it is self-evident and you are picking at straws.
You should also read this to get where I'm coming from. Barry Commoner, Senior director of the Critical Genetics Project asks, why the central dogma of Darwinism has continued to stand. He answers, "To some degree the theory has been protected from criticism by a device more common to religion than science: dissent, or merely the discovery of a discordant fact, is a punishable offense, a heresy that might easily lead to professional ostracism...."
_____________________________
"The formation within geological time of a human body, by the laws of physics..., starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field, is as unlikely as the separation by chance of the atmosphere into its components." Kurt Godel
|
|
|
|
|
RE: More transitional features of Tiktaalik - 10/23/2008 10:33:20 AM
|
|
|
robto
Posts: 98
Joined: 10/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
I keep trying to point out to Darwinists that you have to actually demonstrate it empirically or at least remove all reasonable doubt.
That's exactly what these scientists are doing - didn't you read the article?
quote:
2. If Darwinism were true we should have billions of no longer missing links, showing smooth transitions to the estimated 13+ million extant species on earth - we don't
quote:
Um - "billions"? How many fossils do you think there are in existence - total? Yes billions. How many intermediate states do you imagine there may be in going from one original organism to 13+ million others? Think about it. Then try to estimate the number of phases needed for each species to have developed. It's staggering. So where are they?
No one even knows how many recorded fossils exist, due to poor record keeping among collections.
However, the question is not how many fossils exist - there are certainly a few 100,000 - but rather how many of those are demonstrable as truly transitional?
So there are a few hundred thousand fossils in existence - and among these, according to you, there should be billions of transitionals? That's not even coherent.
quote:
On tiktaalik, geologist Paul Garner says: quote:
[T]here are functional challenges to Darwinian interpretations. For instance, in fish the head, shoulder girdle, and circulatory systems constitute a single mechanical unit. The shoulder girdle is firmly connected to the vertebral column and is an anchor for the muscles involved in lateral undulation of the body, mouth opening, heart contractions, and timing of the blood circulation through the gills.6 However, in amphibians the head is not connected to the shoulder girdle, in order to allow effective terrestrial feeding and locomotion. Evolutionists must suppose that the head became incrementally detached from the shoulder girdle, in a step-wise fashion, with functional intermediates at every stage. However, a satisfactory account of how this might have happened has never been given.
And exactly this transition is what the article is reporting - again, did you even bother to read it? Or do you just keep posting your favorite quotes regardless?
And as for smooth transition curves, there are some well-documented cases, like this one.
Or would you like to try to argue that A. afarensis and H. sapiens are not "completely different species"?
_____________________________
The Theory of Almost Everything: Everything you always wanted to know about elementary particles but were afraid to ask
|
|
|
|
|
RE: More transitional features of Tiktaalik - 10/23/2008 11:12:16 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7621
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
And exactly this transition is what the article is reporting - again, did you even bother to read it? Or do you just keep posting your favorite quotes regardless?
And as for smooth transition curves, there are some well-documented cases, like this one.
This odfo course is the reasoning upon which paleontologists determined that Homo Flourensis was a primitive type of human - only to determin later that it was not primitive at all. Cranial capacity (which even with that graph with it's compressed time scale) is not a relaible indicator of humaness, and even with that said, there are still obvious leaps in that graph.
quote:
Or would you like to try to argue that A. afarensis and H. sapiens are not "completely different species"?
Why would someone contend that such radically different organisms are the same species?
_____________________________
Jack
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
- C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: More transitional features of Tiktaalik - 10/23/2008 7:11:21 PM
|
|
|
robto
Posts: 98
Joined: 10/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
And exactly this transition is what the article is reporting - again, did you even bother to read it? Or do you just keep posting your favorite quotes regardless?
And as for smooth transition curves, there are some well-documented cases, like this one.
This odfo course is the reasoning upon which paleontologists determined that Homo Flourensis was a primitive type of human - only to determin later that it was not primitive at all. Cranial capacity (which even with that graph with it's compressed time scale) is not a relaible indicator of humaness, and even with that said, there are still obvious leaps in that graph.
At what value of cranial capacity do you see a "leap" in the graph?
quote:
quote:
Or would you like to try to argue that A. afarensis and H. sapiens are not "completely different species"?
Why would someone contend that such radically different organisms are the same species?
The claim was that there are no smooth transitions between species, except for small transitions that don't take you far from the original. (At least that's how I interpreted GHItch's remarks.) So, there are two possibilities for the creationist when faced with the cranial capacity graph. You can argue (as you did) that it's not smooth, or you can argue that the difference between the original and the endpoint isn't that great.
But I thought you were an ID supporter, JHud. Doesn't ID accept the evidence for evolutionary transitions? That's what I got from reading Behe.
_____________________________
The Theory of Almost Everything: Everything you always wanted to know about elementary particles but were afraid to ask
|
|
|
|
|
RE: More transitional features of Tiktaalik - 10/23/2008 7:32:27 PM
|
|
|
robto
Posts: 98
Joined: 10/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
quote:
Classic example of the fallacy known as the appeal to ridicule.
Is that all you've got?
You don't get it. Tell me this whale ancestor is not ridiculous with a straight face if you can.
From the Thewissen Labs:
quote:
"Pakicetids did not look like whales at all, and resembled land mammals. However, the skulls of pakicetids have an ear region that is highly unusual in shape, and only resembles that of modern and fossil whales. These features are diagnostic for cetaceans, they are found in all cetaceans, and in no other animals. These features are the main reason why pakicetids are considered whales."
See, here's the thing, Hitch: the scientists have ACTUAL HARD EVIDENCE to back up their claims. Pakicetus, like all other cetaceans, and unlike any other animal on the planet, had the typical ear region for a whale. Now, you can try to argue that they're wrong, if you know enough biology to investigate the fossil evidence yourself. Or you could try to claim that Pakicetus might have gotten this ear region some other way - not by being related to modern whales, that is.
Instead, you are simply trying to laugh the evidence away. That might make you feel better about yourself, it might help you hang on to those outdated notions of yours. But it's not at all convincing as an argument, and I'm pretty sure it's not at all convincing to anyone sitting on the sidelines.
Face it, you've got squat. If you had a real argument, you'd give it. You don't, so you ridicule.
quote:
By the way, ridicule, not used as an argument in debate is not a fallacy. Ridicule, simply because a claim is ridiculous, hardly needs to be an argument. In this case it is self-evident and you are picking at straws.
That's just .... ridiculous.
_____________________________
The Theory of Almost Everything: Everything you always wanted to know about elementary particles but were afraid to ask
|
|
|
|
|
RE: More transitional features of Tiktaalik - 10/27/2008 8:10:05 AM
|
|
|
robto
Posts: 98
Joined: 10/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
I mean come on, have you seen what they claim is the ancestor of the whale! A large rodent-like furry creature that turned into a huge sea going whale whose heart is bigger than the so-called ancestor itself and spews water out of its top!!
So what did you expect as a whale ancestor - a blue whale with with training wheels?
Your response to the whale discoveries is really pretty funny. Back in the 1970s, when I was in high school, creationists loved to use the "no transitional forms for whales" argument. The discussion would go something like this:
Creationist: Whales are mammals, right?
Evolutionist: Right.
C: And mammals supposedly evolved on land, right?
E: Yeah.
C: So whales must have descended from some sort of land animal, right? Some furry animal was the great-grandaddy of all the modern whales? So, why haven't we ever seen any such animal? Why hasn't a fossil ever been found that has whale characteristics but lived on land? And shouldn't there be a whole series of transitional forms, too? Other whale ancestors that were partially aquatic, like walruses or seals? Where are they?
E: (mumbles) well... gaps in the fossil record... not all forms are preserved...don't really expect every species that ever existed to be found...
C: Yeah, sure. I'll believe in evolution when you can show me some furry animals that were ancestors of whales.
Fast-forward to 2008:
Evolutionist: Hey, guess what! We've discovered some furry land animals that could be the ancestors of whales! And we've got a bunch of transitional forms: There's a furry animal (Pakicetus) whose ear structure indicates it's related to modern whales, a seal-like creature (Ambulocetus) that was partially aquatic, and some later, fully aquatic species, all having the same ear characteristics of cetaceans.
Creationist: You expect me to believe that small furry creature was a whale ancestor? Ridiculous!
E: But that's exactly what evolutionary theory predicted! You said so yourself!
C: Yeah, come back when you have billions of transitional fossils showing complete transitional series for every organism that ever existed. Until then, I'm not going to accept evolution.
Creationists, it seems, are impervious to evidence.
_____________________________
The Theory of Almost Everything: Everything you always wanted to know about elementary particles but were afraid to ask
|
|
|
|
|
RE: More transitional features of Tiktaalik - 10/28/2008 2:44:29 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7621
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Evolutionist: Hey, guess what! We've discovered some furry land animals that could be the ancestors of whales! And we've got a bunch of transitional forms: There's a furry animal (Pakicetus) whose ear structure indicates it's related to modern whales, a seal-like creature (Ambulocetus) that was partially aquatic, and some later, fully aquatic species, all having the same ear characteristics of cetaceans.
Do you evolutionists actually even read the articles you cite: From the article:
The pakicetids are hoofed-mammals that are sometimes classified as the earliest whales.[2][3] They lived in the early Eocene, around 53 million years ago. They looked rather like dogs with hoofed feet and long, thick tails. They have been linked to whales by their ears: the structure of the auditory bulla is formed from the ectotympanic bone only...
And then:
Thewissen has since found the same ear structure in fossils of a small deer-like creature, Indohyus, which lived about 48 million years ago in Kashmir. About the size of a raccoon or domestic cat, this herbivorous creature shared some of the traits of whales, and showed signs of adaptations to aquatic life, including a thick and heavy outer coating to bones which is similar to the bones of modern creatures such as the hippopotamus,
So you have two roganisms one which actually appears to have been around more recently than the other, both with supposed 'ear structures' that link them two whales. Except of course, both can't be ancestral to whales.
And then of course to have the oldest whale fossils which are dated to 53.5 million years, whiich are older than their presumed land ancestor.
Transistionals my foot (or lack thereof).
_____________________________
Jack
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
- C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: More transitional features of Tiktaalik - 10/29/2008 2:37:51 PM
|
|
|
robto
Posts: 98
Joined: 10/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Do you evolutionists actually even read the articles you cite: From the article:
The pakicetids are hoofed-mammals that are sometimes classified as the earliest whales.[2][3] They lived in the early Eocene, around 53 million years ago. They looked rather like dogs with hoofed feet and long, thick tails. They have been linked to whales by their ears: the structure of the auditory bulla is formed from the ectotympanic bone only...
And then:
Thewissen has since found the same ear structure in fossils of a small deer-like creature, Indohyus, which lived about 48 million years ago in Kashmir. About the size of a raccoon or domestic cat, this herbivorous creature shared some of the traits of whales, and showed signs of adaptations to aquatic life, including a thick and heavy outer coating to bones which is similar to the bones of modern creatures such as the hippopotamus,
So you have two roganisms one which actually appears to have been around more recently than the other, both with supposed 'ear structures' that link them two whales. Except of course, both can't be ancestral to whales.
And then of course to have the oldest whale fossils which are dated to 53.5 million years, whiich are older than their presumed land ancestor.
Transistionals my foot (or lack thereof).
You have some major misconceptions here, but they help show an important aspect of the theory of evolution.
First, let me point out that the TOE predicted that land animals with whale-like skeletal characteristics would be found, and they were found. That counts as a successful prediction/confirmation regardless of when those land animals lived. In fact, if we had found living organisms with these characteristics, it still would have been a successful prediction.
Similarly, Archaeopteryx represents a successful prediction of TOE, even if it is not directly ancestral to modern birds.
Since this is a point that is often misunderstood, let me try to spell it out. TOE, of course, insists that there was some land animal that was ancestral to whales. That land animal - let's call it L1 - should have some skeletal characteristics whales inherited. Now, many species are part of a larger group of similar species. For instance, lions, tigers, leopards and jaguars are part of the group we call "big cats" (genus Panthera). So it's possible (but not required) according to TOE, that L1 had relatives, L2, L3, etc. Now, let's suppose that L1 gave rise to an amphibious species, A1, that is also ancestral to whales. When this happened, what happened to L2, L3, etc? They went their own way in evolutionary terms - having no impact on the eventual evolution of whales. However, they and their descendants still retained the characteristic skeletal features of the whale ancestors.
OK, I admit this is all very speculative, but bear with me a little longer. Given this scenario, what are we likely to find when we start looking for fossils? It's highly unlikely that the first fossil we find is L1 - the actual whale ancestor. Much more likely, we'll find one of the relatives, L2, etc, or one of the descendant species of those relatives - simply because there are more of the non-ancestor species, while there is only one ancestor species (at that particular time). Still, finding one of the non-ancestor species confirms that land animals with whale-like characteristics existed, at around the right time. The existence of such a group of species doesn't, of course, prove that an ancestor species existed, too. Perhaps the ancestor species will be found some day. perhaps not. But the existence of such a group of land animals is still a confirmation of a prediction of the TOE.
Now, to some of your misconceptions.
quote:
So you have two roganisms one which actually appears to have been around more recently than the other, both with supposed 'ear structures' that link them two whales. Except of course, both can't be ancestral to whales.
Why not? Do you have only one ancestor? This is like the classic question "If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" To which the answer is, "If you are descended from your grandfather, why do you have cousins?"
quote:
And then of course to have the oldest whale fossils which are dated to 53.5 million years, whiich are older than their presumed land ancestor.
From the linked article:
quote:
The fossilised jawbone of the oldest whale yet discovered has confirmed the theory that the giant sea mammals' ancestors were amphibians. They rested and reproduced on land but dived into rivers and the ocean to fish for food.
...
The researchers, from the University of Roorke, India and the University of Michigan, USA, analysed the newly discovered teeth and found the chemical composition was halfway between values expected for fresh and marine water.
Whales were land animals tempted back into the sea by plentiful fish
This, they believe, shows that the first whales swam in rivers, estuaries and oceans in search of fish, as well as spending time on land.
So, to disprove the existence of transitional forms, you cite the existence of yet more transitional forms??? I don't get it.
_____________________________
The Theory of Almost Everything: Everything you always wanted to know about elementary particles but were afraid to ask
|
|
|
|
|
RE: More transitional features of Tiktaalik - 10/29/2008 2:49:46 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7621
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Similarly, Archaeopteryx represents a successful prediction of TOE, even if it is not directly ancestral to modern birds.
Since this is a point that is often misunderstood, let me try to spell it out. TOE, of course, insists that there was some land animal that was ancestral to whales. That land animal - let's call it L1 - should have some skeletal characteristics whales inherited. Now, many species are part of a larger group of similar species. For instance, lions, tigers, leopards and jaguars are part of the group we call "big cats" (genus Panthera). So it's possible (but not required) according to TOE, that L1 had relatives, L2, L3, etc. Now, let's suppose that L1 gave rise to an amphibious species, A1, that is also ancestral to whales. When this happened, what happened to L2, L3, etc? They went their own way in evolutionary terms - having no impact on the eventual evolution of whales. However, they and their descendants still retained the characteristic skeletal features of the whale ancestors.
OK, I admit this is all very speculative, but bear with me a little longer. Given this scenario, what are we likely to find when we start looking for fossils? It's highly unlikely that the first fossil we find is L1 - the actual whale ancestor. Much more likely, we'll find one of the relatives, L2, etc, or one of the descendant species of those relatives - simply because there are more of the non-ancestor species, while there is only one ancestor species (at that particular time). Still, finding one of the non-ancestor species confirms that land animals with whale-like characteristics existed, at around the right time. The existence of such a group of species doesn't, of course, prove that an ancestor species existed, too. Perhaps the ancestor species will be found some day. perhaps not. But the existence of such a group of land animals is still a confirmation of a prediction of the TOE.
Actually, you have outlined a fairly serious problem with investigating evolutionary claims; they make a 'prediction' about some vague characteristics we can expect in an organism that lived in the past (or don't, and claim they did later), they scour the fossil record, when they find an organism that seems to fill the bill within broad interprative criteria, whether or not that organism could reasonably be understood to be 'ancestral' to the organism they claim it evolved into, they claim victory. It's a scam.
quote:
Why not? Do you have only one ancestor? This is like the classic question "If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" To which the answer is, "If you are descended from your grandfather, why do you have cousins?"
Actually, it's like, "If my a person was born after me, could they be my ancestor?" Obviously not.
quote:
So, to disprove the existence of transitional forms, you cite the existence of yet more transitional forms??? I don't get it.
I am sorry you are confused; the animal in question was an aquatic animal; it predated the land based forms you claim were ancestral to whales. Both can't be true.
_____________________________
Jack
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
- C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: More transitional features of Tiktaalik - 10/30/2008 2:00:43 PM
|
|
|
robto
Posts: 98
Joined: 10/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
I am sorry you are confused; the animal in question was an aquatic animal; it predated the land based forms you claim were ancestral to whales. Both can't be true.
This after all the time I spent explaining why transitional forms need not be ancestral? Sigh...
But anyway, if you accept Himalayacetus subathuensis as an ancestor of modern whales, then you are conceding that evolution happened. If you don't accept it as a whale ancestor, then your argument doesn't work. (I.e., if Himalayacetus subathuensis is not a whale ancestor, then Pakicetus or Indohyus could still be a whale ancestor.) So either way, you're sunk.
_____________________________
The Theory of Almost Everything: Everything you always wanted to know about elementary particles but were afraid to ask
|
|
|
|
|
RE: More transitional features of Tiktaalik - 10/30/2008 2:44:12 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7621
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
But anyway, if you accept Himalayacetus subathuensis as an ancestor of modern whales, then you are conceding that evolution happened. If you don't accept it as a whale ancestor, then your argument doesn't work. (I.e., if Himalayacetus subathuensis is not a whale ancestor, then Pakicetus or Indohyus could still be a whale ancestor.) So either way, you're sunk.
Sorry to disappoint, but I am constrained to no such choices; all I needed to do was to demonstrate that an aquatic animal that was identifiably a whale existed before your imaginary land dwelling whale ancestors (or cousins, or friends of the family, or whatever).
Obviously whales occur now, and presumably then, in all sorts of shapes and sizes.
_____________________________
Jack
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
- C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: More transitional features of Tiktaalik - 10/31/2008 8:38:19 AM
|
|
|
robto
Posts: 98
Joined: 10/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
But anyway, if you accept Himalayacetus subathuensis as an ancestor of modern whales, then you are conceding that evolution happened. If you don't accept it as a whale ancestor, then your argument doesn't work. (I.e., if Himalayacetus subathuensis is not a whale ancestor, then Pakicetus or Indohyus could still be a whale ancestor.) So either way, you're sunk.
Sorry to disappoint, but I am constrained to no such choices; all I needed to do was to demonstrate that an aquatic animal that was identifiably a whale existed before your imaginary land dwelling whale ancestors (or cousins, or friends of the family, or whatever).
Obviously whales occur now, and presumably then, in all sorts of shapes and sizes.
So how do you view these amphibious creatures, then? (Let's say Himalayacetus, since you seem happy with the idea that it is related to modern whales.) Are they the ancestors of modern whales? Extinct, but related species that left no descendants? I'm curious how the existence of these animals fits into your world view. (BTW, you still haven't answered my question about ID: in your view, does it include that concept of common descent of all life forms?)
_____________________________
The Theory of Almost Everything: Everything you always wanted to know about elementary particles but were afraid to ask
|
|
|
|
|
RE: More transitional features of Tiktaalik - 10/31/2008 2:43:01 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 679
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: robto
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
I am sorry you are confused; the animal in question was an aquatic animal; it predated the land based forms you claim were ancestral to whales. Both can't be true.
This after all the time I spent explaining why transitional forms need not be ancestral? Sigh...
But anyway, if you accept Himalayacetus subathuensis as an ancestor of modern whales, then you are conceding that evolution happened. If you don't accept it as a whale ancestor, then your argument doesn't work. (I.e., if Himalayacetus subathuensis is not a whale ancestor, then Pakicetus or Indohyus could still be a whale ancestor.) So either way, you're sunk.
If the earliest finding of this animal occurs 10 million years after the earliest whale, then how could anybody possibly be sunk other than you? If the whale has no non-whale ancestor, then what is your theory of whale evolution founded on?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: More transitional features of Tiktaalik - 11/1/2008 4:49:38 PM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 271
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
|
robto: quote:
Creationists, it seems, are impervious to evidence. Hmmm... You're engaging in an intellectual process known as fog displacement.
Darwinists are impervious to finding any evidence that isn't entirely speculative. And then when asked for smooth transitionals, they can't find any that are not pure conjecture. Strange reversal here. So indeed, where are the 1000's of missing smooth transitions?
Anyone can line up skeletons and get artists conceptions. In every other scientific domain it's called slight of hand. Where's the lab evidence? Where's the genetic evidence?
Suggest you re-read my answers and those of the others. You don't get it. Empirical evidence means something you can demonstrate. Where is the demonstration of this so-called whale ancestor?
Where did this idea that whales were once land mammals even come from?!
As for my "favorite quotes", I would respond but you haven't addressed anything of their contents. That's called avoidance.
Finding similarities in an ear structure is hardly empirical evidence! This is always where Darwinism fails. Again, everything is a transitional in Darwinism! A theory whose basis requires everything to be in the process of transition from one form to another and then is constantly looking for smoothly transitioning ancestors it can't find is in big trouble.
A glance through the wikipedia page on the evolution of cetaceans reveal how easily, and without any qualms over the absence of real links, Darwinists spin their sorry tale.
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Evolution+of+cetaceans that you point to is also rather quaint.
Note the line up of skeletal structures showing smooth transition. But is this true? Did they actually prove any of it? No. Can they? No.
Anyone can line up skulls to make it look like a transition. Darwinists are famous for this. Fortunately there are real scientists out there that see through the slight of hand. And even more fortunately, a layman can see through it merely by reasoning it though objectively.
Here's a very short look at what Darwinists have totally failed to do in this example (as with most others):
Genetically - what are the mutational steps needed for the following?
1. How did it lose it's legs?
2. How did it's nostrils move to the top of it's head?
3. How did it grow to be a good 10x larger than the original?
4. How did it's skin change so radically - no sweat glands or oil glands - pilot whale skin, for ex., "is made up of tiny pores 0.1 micrometres across surrounded by raised "nanoridges". In between the ridges is a rubber-like gel containing enzymes that denature proteins and carbohydrates. " ...
5. Whale eyes & vision?
n. Explain the other <b>thousand or so morphological changes... and the 100's of thousands</b> of advantageous, inter cooperative, mutations that must have occurred for those to have happened.
You can't. No one can. But that would be true empirical evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Yet we're still required to swallow this bull?!
Enter statistical mechanics - probabilities - and the case is closed to any Darwinist explanation at all.
Truly laughable yet they think they are doing real science. Speculation is the backbone of Darwinism.
Indohyus is no more whale ancestor than a peach. The whole idea that mammals, for some reason, 'decided' to go back to the sea is also foolishness disguised as pseudo-science.
Thewissen and his team admitted that even though whales have some structures similar to Indohyus, other mammals that they admit are unrelated to whales have the same structures.
So where's the link really? It's invented.
You pretend scientists have hard evidence when what you really mean is they have hard speculations and wishful thinking coupled with enormous imaginations. Darwinian 'reasoning' cripples the mind (Hoyle).
Here's another question - why the whale link rather than a much more obvious link to the African mouse deer or the mouse deer of the Sri Lankan highlands or any number of mouse deer species? Answer? Because Darwinists seek media coverage to propagate their theory in fear of it's imminent demise.
http://www.calauitisland.com/photos/mouse_deer.jpg
http://nationalzoo.si.edu/animals/SmallMammals/images/mousedeer.jpg
http://www.pcsd.ph/photo_gallery/fauna/mousedeer.jpg
quote:
"What does Indohyus actually prove? It proves that the alleged closest relative of the whale can change from the hippopotamus to a small deer-like creature in the blink of an eye, based on certain similar structures that it has in common with other mammals besides whales. Furthermore, the path whales took in their alleged evolution can be completely and immediately revamped, overturning years of “scientific” writings, because Indohyus was a herbivore and did not take to the seas to find food. Yet, the fact that its herbivorous teeth are one of the structures that supposedly link it to modern carnivorous whales does not seem to daunt the evolutionists at all. The truth is, there is no evidence that whales evolved at all, much less from Indohyus.
You might want to read this also as well as it's follow up here
Do you really believe this mouse deer like animal is a whale ancestor? If so I have a big beautiful bridge to sell you real cheap, right near San Francisco.
_____________________________
"The formation within geological time of a human body, by the laws of physics..., starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field, is as unlikely as the separation by chance of the atmosphere into its components." Kurt Godel
|
|
|
|
|
RE: More transitional features of Tiktaalik - 11/3/2008 9:19:22 AM
|
|
|
robto
Posts: 98
Joined: 10/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
If the earliest finding of this animal occurs 10 million years after the earliest whale, then how could anybody possibly be sunk other than you? If the whale has no non-whale ancestor, then what is your theory of whale evolution founded on?
We're talking about a whale that reproduced on land. This, as I said earlier, is exactly the sort of creature that creationists used to claim was missing from the fossil record for whales. Several such animals have now been found. How is this NOT support for the TOE?
quote:
Hmmm... You're engaging in an intellectual process known as fog displacement.
All the references to "fog displacement" seem to come from creationists - with no definition. Please define.
quote:
Darwinists are impervious to finding any evidence that isn't entirely speculative. And then when asked for smooth transitionals, they can't find any that are not pure conjecture.
What we have here is the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. When faced with the fossil record, creationsists invariably claim "it's not smooth", "it's not transitional", or "it's pure conjecture". I already linked my favorite example of "smooth transition" - the graph of cranial capacity in hominids. What's your response to that?
The fact is, evolution predicted that animals like Ambulocetus and Archaeopteryx must have existed, and now we know they did exist.
quote:
Where's the lab evidence? Where's the genetic evidence?
The field evidence shows that evolution proceeds much faster than is required to explain the fossil record. The real puzzle is not whehter organisms can evolve, but rather why species remain so stable for such long periods.
Genetic evidence, for the most part, does not fossilize. Sure, it would be great if we could do a "paternity test" on Ambulocetus to determine if it was an ancestor of modern whales. But we can't - we only have the bones to look at. So if your argument is "bones are irrelevant - only genetics counts" then your game is fixed. You've decided ahead of time to rule out the only hard evidence that's available.
quote:
Empirical evidence means something you can demonstrate.
...
Finding similarities in an ear structure is hardly empirical evidence!
Similarities in ear structures are something you can demonstrate - so it's empirical evidence.
When looking at fossils, skeletal structure is all we have to go on. (Most of the time - rarely there are "soft" structures preserved, like the feathers in Archaeopteryx.) Similarity of structure is how biologists have always done biology. Linnaeus classified the plants and animals a centuriy before Darwin. The similarities are there, regardless of the interpretation you put on them.
It is only with the TOE that we can understand why these similarities exist. TOE organized the whole tree of life into one big chain of descent. No other theory has provided explanations for the relationships among existing organisms AND predictions about other organisms that MUST have existed.
_____________________________
The Theory of Almost Everything: Everything you always wanted to know about elementary particles but were afraid to ask
|
|
|
|
|
RE: More transitional features of Tiktaalik - 11/3/2008 2:31:58 PM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 271
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL: robto
quote:
We're talking about a whale that reproduced on land. Yes, we can see how this could become a whale!
quote:
This, as I said earlier, is exactly the sort of creature that creationists used to claim was missing from the fossil record for whales. Several such animals have now been found. How is this NOT support for the TOE? I don't think you understand the word speculation.
quote:
All the references to "fog displacement" seem to come from creationists - with no definition. Please define. Fog displacement - "we don't know so we speculate something that fits our ideas" - a just so story that dismisses the lack of real evidence by replacing it with speculation on because of either missing or contradicting evidence. Slight of hand, smoke and mirrors... TOE accepts it all.
quote:
What we have here is the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. When faced with the fossil record, creationsists invariably claim "it's not smooth", "it's not transitional", or "it's pure conjecture". I guess you've never heard of the Cambrian and Avalonian explosions, or the fact that Darwinists are constantly claiming links they can't prove.
quote:
I already linked my favorite example of "smooth transition" - the graph of cranial capacity in hominids. What's your response to that? Anyone can line up skulls and make claims based on what they believe it may mean - Darwinists are great magicians at this- Line up some skulls, create a few graphs, hand out an artists rendering and poof - proof! Well thats what they hope you will believe is proof anyway.
quote:
The fact is, evolution predicted that animals like Ambulocetus and Archaeopteryx must have existed, and now we know they did exist. The fact is evolution predicts everything that we find and everything we don't- so it is useless. No matter what is found Darwinists have a quaint just-so scenario. This occurred, well TOE predicted it; it didn't occur, well TOE predicted that too. How convenient. You should take a closer look at this 'method' of interpretation of data.
quote:
The field evidence shows that evolution proceeds much faster than is required to explain the fossil record. The real puzzle is not whehter organisms can evolve, but rather why species remain so stable for such long periods. 'Much faster', the evidence shows no such thing. It shows sudden appearance without precedents. And the 'puzzle' would be no puzzle at all if you accepted the evidence as meaning something else more realistic and logical like ID.
quote:
Genetic evidence, for the most part, does not fossilize. The genetic evidence we do have demonstrates that DNA is programmed for stability, not sudden and radical transformations. Punctuation is just more speculation devised to explain the lack of fossil evidence for graduation.
quote:
Similarities in ear structures are something you can demonstrate - so it's empirical evidence. It is certainly evidence, but of what?
That because some ancient creature, that looks uncannily like the modern mouse deer, has - along with many other ancient and extant mammals - similarities in ear structure with whale ears, that therefore (here's the huge leap of faith) it is a whale ancestor? That is known as speculation based on flimsy evidence at best. Why is not this creature called the ancestor of one of the extant land mammals that share the same similarities in ear structure and at least have some similar morphology? Explain that.
Can anyone say pig tooth to Piltdown?
quote:
When looking at fossils, skeletal structure is all we have to go on. (Most of the time - rarely there are "soft" structures preserved, like the feathers in Archaeopteryx.) Similarity of structure is how biologists have always done biology. Linnaeus classified the plants and animals a centuriy before Darwin. The similarities are there, regardless of the interpretation you put on them. Exactly. Its all in how you interpret data. Therefore you cannot leap to Darwinian conclusions then can you. The interpretation of data is the where we separate the men from the boys. Under TOE everything is transitional so no other interpretation is even possible - can you see why this is not falsifiable?
quote:
It is only with the TOE that we can understand why these similarities exist. Utter nonsense. Darwinism fails more as each new discovery is made. Why do you think so many top Darwinists are looking for a "new and improved" version of TOE? (Check the Altenberg 16).
ID provides a far more coherent explanation given the enormous level of complex specified information, algorithms and inter-cooperating nano machines underlying all living things. A message lies at the heart of life, language, code and extremely complex information processing systems. Materialism has no explanation for this.
quote:
TOE organized the whole tree of life into one big chain of descent. No other theory has provided explanations for the relationships among existing organisms AND predictions about other organisms that MUST have existed. See above on predictions in TOE. They predict everything and nothing and can accommodate anything at all, so explain nothing.
Tree of life?! You're kidding right? There is no viable tree of life. The so-called trees have been upended, revised, twisted around, contested and what not for years now and no one has a clue what it really ought to look like under TOE - cladists say one thing systematists say another and geneticists say something else again. The ones base everything on morphologies, the others and genes, etc. And they do not fit together at all. They are all based on evolutionary assumptions anyway. But if those assumptions are wrong? Do the math.
The TOE has failed miserably to explain all but mere micro-evolution.
_____________________________
"The formation within geological time of a human body, by the laws of physics..., starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field, is as unlikely as the separation by chance of the atmosphere into its components." Kurt Godel
|
|
|
|
|
RE: More transitional features of Tiktaalik - 11/3/2008 5:08:32 PM
|
|
|
jmjphe
Posts: 102
Joined: 4/29/2008
Status: offline
|
So what i gather from your post GHitch is that a model was devised and all data becomes retrofitted to fit that model?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: More transitional features of Tiktaalik - 11/5/2008 1:31:36 PM
|
|
|
robto
Posts: 98
Joined: 10/10/2006
Status: offline
|
Hitch, you've already made it clear that you won't be convinced of TOE no matter what evidence there is, so there's little point in my responding point-by-point here.
I do want to indicate how you (fail to) deal with the evidence.
quote:
Anyone can line up skulls and make claims based on what they believe it may mean - Darwinists are great magicians at this- Line up some skulls, create a few graphs, hand out an artists rendering and poof - proof! Well thats what they hope you will believe is proof anyway.
??? What is this supposed to mean? No, anyone can't just line up skulls - not if they don't exist!!! You can only line them up if they exist: and they DO exist. These are not ar | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
