Who Is Your Creator message forum

 

Who Is Your Creator message forum
This Forum is Locked
Author
Comment
Darwin's Standard v. Unclear Thinking

I will repeat what I stated before: Darwin was honest about the strengths and weaknesses of his theory, and he was respectful enough of the fact that he could be wrong to say:

"The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find INTERMINABLE VARIETIES, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life BY THE FINEST GRADUATED STEPS. He who rejects these views ON THE NATURE OF THE GEOLOGICAL RECORD will rightly reject my whole theory."

-Quoted from "The Panda's Thumb," page 181, by S.J. Gould. Caps mine.

Yes, Gould later stated that transitional forms are abundant between larger groups (a DIFFERENT STANDARD then the one Darwin laid out, please note), which is where we are now. That skinny little twig is all evolutionists have to hold into, and the reason it is so specious is because similarities in certain anatomical structures does NOT necessarily dictate common descent. Period. Going beyond that is going beyond the evidence.

Darwin's standard required that "interminable varieties" of fossils clearly showing "the finest graduated steps" were to be found for his theory to hold up. Words mean things--he said it and he meant it. Nothing like that exists, even after all the multiplied millions and millions of fossils that have been found and catalogued.

All the evolutionists have are fully-formed animals with a few similar anatomical structures, but any small, gradual changes leading up to the supposed "evolved creatures" are completely lacking.

In other words, the "missing links" are all still missing. In fact, the only links evolutionists have, are the sausage links they may have had for breakfast.

Think of it. Millions and millions and millions of missing links, all nowhere to be found. Nowhere to be found, because they don't exist. And they don't exist because evolution of the macro kind is simply not true.

This is where you people engage in fantastic leaps of logic, and up to now, you have been somewhat successful. But in this information age, as more and more people see the actual evidence that you do not have, they will doubt you more and more, as they should.

And they will bow out of your very, very odd little religion.

By that statement, Darwin seems to have retained the integrity of his soul, and that is a prize beyond any price.

And THAT is the burning truth.

Did you just repeat your quote mine? Again?

Wow. When you can't win an argument in one thread, you start a new one and say the same thing. Postulate on it, come to an illogical conclusion.
---
How about we see what happens when we use caps in a different area?

"The geological record is EXTREMELY IMPERFECT and this fact will to a large extent EXPLAIN WHY we do not find interminable varieties, CONNECTING TOGETHER ALL THE EXTINCT AND EXISTING FORMS OF LIFE by the finest graduated steps. HE WHO REJECTS THESE VIEWS on the nature of the geological record will rightly reject my whole theory."

Put the emphasis on the right words, you can glean a different and more accurate view.

===
Darwin's standard required that "interminable varieties" of fossils clearly showing "the finest graduated steps" were to be found for his theory to hold up.
===



-He never said it was a standard
-He never required it
-He never said "clearly showing" those steps
-He never based everything on the fossils. It was up to the reader to decide whether to reject the idea about why the record was imperfect.

You're putting words on Darwin's page and twisting the meaning.

He said if someone rejects his ideas on WHY the fossil record is imperfect (which is detailed in the surrounding paragraphs, which you do NOT quote), then they can reject the theory if they see fit. It's their option.

Quote mine.

===
All the evolutionists have are fully-formed animals with a few similar anatomical structures
===

What do you expect? A half-formed animal?
Why don't you tell us what you would expect a transitional form to be, because you seem to be looking for a different thing than what evolution expects.

BTW - you seem to be ignoring all my other questions on my other posts. Are they that ****ing? Why did you just start a whole new thread saying the same thing we all have discussed about before?

Have you read Gould's article or that chapter from Darwin's book.

It seems that you want to repeat an already refuted quote mine. Have you actually read what these authors wrote, or are you simply clipping a quote from some creationist source and thinking that somehow gives you reason and insight.

Before you use that quote again, I suggest that you read both Gould's complete essay from "The Panda's Thumb" and chapter 10 from "The Origin of Species". You are laboring under a misunderstanding of the meaning of both authors.

Arneson Unable to Understand or Respond

Dear Reader:

Please note how people like Arneson operate, so you will know what to expect.

Observe that the man has no intelligent reply to my assertions. He merely uses his slanderous charge of "quote mining," a term which has no precise meaning, because what he really means when he uses it, is that he does not like the quote I used because it is just too devastating to his argument. Therefore he must undermine the integrity of the quote itself, even though it has been faithfully reproduced from the book. (Check for yourself on page 81).

You will notice that he does not say what he thinks either Darwin or Gould actually meant by what they clearly said. That is because he does not know himself. He only knows that what Darwin said is just too debilitating to his side, so his only response is to engage in an ad hominem attack.

Let me be clear: Darwin set up a standard that Gould acknowledged, then later changed by lowering. Why? Because the evidence did not and does not confirm the theory. And as Einstein sarcastically said: If the evidence does not fit the theory, change the evidence.

The honest thing to do is change the theory, of course, but that is how dishonest these pseudo-scientists are. They are wedded to the theory even though it is wrong, because it is an article of religion with them.

Arneson claims that I am laboring under a misunderstanding, yet you will notice that he both fails to specify what that supposed misunderstanding is, and what his "superior" understanding is.

That is because he understands nothing. He only knows what talkorigins.org tells him. Beyond that, he is unable to think for himself.

The man is suffering from severe cognitive dissonance, and is apparently quite unaware of it.

Please be mindful of how smear-artists like Arneson and his ilk operate. You will thus be well-advised.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

It seems that you want to repeat an already refuted quote mine. Have you actually read what these authors wrote, or are you simply clipping a quote from some creationist source and thinking that somehow gives you reason and insight.

Before you use that quote again, I suggest that you read both Gould's complete essay from "The Panda's Thumb" and chapter 10 from "The Origin of Species". You are laboring under a misunderstanding of the meaning of both authors.

Have you read the article by Gould and the chapter in question from Darwin?

There is a reason that I ask this question. I want to know if you have actually taken the time to understand exactly what each man was talking about.

The quote by Gould is the end of one paragraph and the beginnig of another. The first paragraph explains why we should not expect to see a finely graduated series. The answer is simple, the fossil record is incomplete. Only a small percentage of animals are fossilized. Many are never found. At many times and places fossilization doesn't occur.

The next paragraph starts with this sentence.

"He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory."

In other words, Darwin is saying if you don't agree with the scientific assessment of geology you won't accept his theory. Take some time to read the chapter.

Here is What Darwin Said

From: Geological Succession of Organic Beings

Summary of the preceding and present Chapters

I have attempted to show that the geological record is extremely imperfect; that only a small portion of the globe has been geologically explored with care; that only certain classes of organic beings have been largely preserved in a fossil state; that the number both of specimens and of species, preserved in our museums, is absolutely as nothing compared with the incalculable number of generations which must have passed away even during a single formation; that, owing to subsidence being necessary for the accumulation of fossiliferous deposits thick enough to resist future degradation, enormous intervals of time have elapsed between the successive formations; that there has probably been more extinction during the periods of subsidence, and more variation during the periods of elevation, and during the latter the record will have been least perfectly kept; that each single formation has not been continuously deposited; that the duration of each formation is, perhaps, short compared with the average duration of specific forms; that migration has played an important part in the first appearance of new forms in any one area and formation; that widely ranging species are those which have varied most, and have oftenest given rise to new species; and that varieties have at first often been local. All these causes taken conjointly, must have tended to make the geological record extremely imperfect, and will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps.

He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory. For he may ask in vain where are the numberless transitional links which must formerly have connected the closely allied or representative species, found in the several stages of the same great formation. He may disbelieve in the enormous intervals of time which have elapsed between our consecutive formations; he may overlook how important a part migration must have played, when the formations of any one great region alone, as that of Europe, are considered; he may urge the apparent, but often falsely apparent, sudden coming in of whole groups of species. He may ask where are the remains of those infinitely numerous organisms which must have existed long before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited: I can answer this latter question only hypothetically, by saying that as far as we can see, where our oceans now extend they have for an enormous period extended, and where our oscillating continents now stand they have stood ever since the Silurian epoch; but that long before that period, the world may have presented a wholly different aspect; and that the older continents, formed of formations older than any known to us, may now all be in a metamorphosed condition, or may lie buried under the ocean.

The science of paleontology was far more primitive back in 1859 then it is today. The number of fossils was tiny compared to what we have today. But even in 1980, Gould admitted that the fossil record did not show the transitional forms in the finest graduated steps that Darwin's theory required. I remind you that Darwin himself stated:

"As natural selection acts solely by accumulating SLIGHT, SUCCESSIVE, favorable variations, it can produce NO GREAT OR SUDDEN MODIFICATION; it can act ONLY BY SHORT AND SLOW STEPS. Hence, the canon of 'NATURA NON FACIT SALTUM,' [Nature makes no leaps]
which every fresh addition to our knowledge tends to confirm, is on this theory intelligible."

The nature of the geological record was incomplete, thus faulty, which to Darwin's mind explained why he did not see the accumulated, slight, successive, favorable variations. Flash forward to today, and we still do not see what Darwin expected. Gould himself confirmed this weakness.

That is why he said:

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; THE REST IS INFERENCE, however reasonable, NOT THE EVIDENCE OF FOSSILS."

Inference is not evidence, and it is not science. It is conjecture and leaping to conclusions. It is fine for theory but don't call it fact, yet you people do call it fact, making it lies on top of lies.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

There is a reason that I ask this question. I want to know if you have actually taken the time to understand exactly what each man was talking about.

The quote by Gould is the end of one paragraph and the beginnig of another. The first paragraph explains why we should not expect to see a finely graduated series. The answer is simple, the fossil record is incomplete. Only a small percentage of animals are fossilized. Many are never found. At many times and places fossilization doesn't occur.

The next paragraph starts with this sentence.

"He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory."

In other words, Darwin is saying if you don't agree with the scientific assessment of geology you won't accept his theory. Take some time to read the chapter.

John unable to understand what a quote mine is

Let me give you a CRYSTAL CLEAR example of what an out-of-context quote is, so that we ALL understand what the general populus believe one is.

---

Here is a quote from Kenneth Miller during the Kitzmiller vs Dover trial:

"...evolution is a just-so story about our past, and it has no scientific significance in the world today, it's unimportant."

Looks pretty bad, doesn't it? Did Dr. MIller say this? Yes he did. Did he say it under oath? In a court of law? He sure did. In front of a judge, even.

Is that what he meant?...
NO

Here is THE FULL QUOTE, IN CONTEXT:

"...I've often been approached by people who have told me, well, evolution is a just-so story about our past, and it has no scientific significance in the world today, it's unimportant. I can't think of any statement that I would disagree with more."

When you mine a quote, you take something someone said and by paraphrasing or removing it from it's original reference and take it to mean something else. This is a perfect (if not a bit more dramatic) example of what you have done to Darwin and Gould's quotes.

----

THAT is an out of context quote, or a quote mine. THAT is what John has been going with Darwin and Gould. It is not a "vicious tactic", it is not "dishonest", it is not a "misunderstanding".

And John needs to lay off the ad hominem.

Enough back and forth EVERYONE! Quote mining

1. Your Miller example of 'quote mining' was good. The only problem is that no one has ever used it.

2. Too bad none of you have made the same compelling case for any of the ones you accuse us of 'mining.'

3. I just realized something funny. On the previous board, http://www.123forum.com/777 , your buzz word was 'cherry picking.' It's nice that talkorigins instructed you to use another phrase.

4. Do you think ALL quotes can be taken out of context?

5. Again, if I were you, I would focus on all the evidence you claim to have. It makes for a better debate.

Cherry Picking = Quote Mining = a Brilliant Observation

What a brilliant observation. Two concocted terms for a fallacious debate device that is designed to cripple a full, fair, and free give-and-take conversation. If one side does not like a quote and cannot respond substantively to it, one need only shoot it down by squawking "quote mining," or the previously-mentioned "cherry picking."

That way the accuser does not have to answer the point or points brought up. But besmirching is a poor substitute for maintaining a quality argument.

How about replying to points made by countering with points of your own? If one thinks a quote is misused or taken out of context, do the intellectual work with comments of your own, specifying what, where, and how, and what YOU actually think the quote means in context. It is hard to imagine how anything could be more fair that that.

That is what honest debate is supposed to be all about.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

1. Your Miller example of 'quote mining' was good. The only problem is that no one has ever used it.

2. Too bad none of you have made the same compelling case for any of the ones you accuse us of 'mining.'

3. I just realized something funny. On the previous board, http://www.123forum.com/777 , your buzz word was 'cherry picking.' It's nice that talkorigins instructed you to use another phrase.

4. Do you think ALL quotes can be taken out of context?

5. Again, if I were you, I would focus on all the evidence you claim to have. It makes for a better debate.

We are not lacking in transitionals.

There are plenty of transitional species and more are being found all of the time.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Why They are NOT Transitional

This article quotes two intellectually honest evolutionists, Stahl and Colbert, who, though they buy into the theory, are frank about the reality of what the fossils mean and don't mean. Please note with the whales, for instance, that they "appear suddenly...fully adapted by profound modifications."

That is why most of the Darwinist's drawings of whales and their supposed relatives are deceptive, because there are no slight and gradual changes leading up to each animal, as Darwin himself specified, and as would be expected if descent with modification actually occurred. They just appear suddenly, the way they would if they were created:


218b - Stalling over Transitional Forms

by Frank Sherwin, M.A.

Skeptics of Mr. Darwin's strange theory have for years used a truly remarkable book by evolutionist Barbara J. Stahl of Saint Anselm College in New Hampshire. It is titled, Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution, (1974).1 Sadly, this is now out of print. Dr. Stahl, anatomy professor and paleoichthyologist, is clearly no friend of the creationist. She was, however, intellectually honest enough to write this 604-page book documenting the many problems associated with alleged evolution of the vertebrates.

Darwinists were understandably quick to downplay Dr. Stahl's research. In recent years their only "valid" criticism is that the book is dated and anything found in its pages are now (thankfully) passé.

I beg to disagree. In 2001 Edwin H. Colbert and his coauthors published their fifth edition of Colbert's Evolution of the Vertebrates.2 Dr. Stahl's detailed research has held up all these years when compared with Colbert's more recent text.

Bird origin: "In the absence of fossil evidence, paleontologists can say little about the date at which these |sixty-nine living families of Passeri-formes| . . . appeared" (Stahl, 386). "Of all the classes of vertebrates, the birds are least known from their fossil record" (Colbert, 236).

Whale origin: "As with most tetrapods secondarily modified for aquatic living, ascertaining the terrestrial stock from which the whales came is exceedingly difficult" (Stahl, 486). "Like the bats, the whales (using this term in a general and inclusive sense) appear suddenly in early Tertiary times, fully adapted by profound modifications" (Colbert, 392).

Amphibian origin: "Since the fossil material provides no evidence of other aspects of the transformation from fish to tetrapod, paleontologists have had to speculate how legs and aerial breathing evolved" (Stahl, 195).

"This is certainly a logical explanation of the first stages in the change from an aquatic to a terrestrial mode of life. We can only speculate about this" (Colbert, 84-85).

Snake origin: "The origin of the snakes is still an unsolved problem" (Stahl, 318). "Unfortunately, the fossil history of the snakes is very fragmentary, so that it is necessary to infer much of their evolution" (Colbert, 154).

Fish origin: "The higher fishes, when they appear in the Devonian period, have already acquired the characteristics that identify them as belonging to one or another of the major assemblages of bony or cartilaginous forms" (Stahl, 126). "Both these groups |bony and cartilaginous| appeared in the late Silurian period, and it is possible that they may have originated at some earlier time, although there is no fossil evidence to prove this" (Colbert, 53).

Contrast this lack of fossil evidence for evolution with the clear evidence for creation: the sudden appearance of fully formed vertebrates (and invertebrates) in the fossil record.

Stahl, Barbara. 1974. Vertebrate history: Problems in evolution, New York: Dover Publications, Inc.
Colbert, E. H., M. Morales, and E. C. Minkoff. 2001. Evolution of the vertebrates: A history of the back-boned animals through time, 5th ed., New York: Wiley-Liss, Inc.
*Frank Sherwin is a zoologist and seminar speaker for ICR.
From icr.org/articles/3148, copyright © 2007 ICR

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

There are plenty of transitional species and more are being found all of the time.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Stahl's work is outdated on feathers.

The book was published in 1974. There was little fossill evidence for feathers beyond Archaeopteryx. That is no longer the case. A number of striking theropod fossils showing feathers and feather-like structures have been found. Beyond that, this feather quotemine is a particularly nasty example.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part4.html

Do you know what goes in the ellispes?

John 'quoted' Sherwin 'quoting' Colbert:
"Bird origin: 'In the absence of fossil evidence, paleontologists can say little about the date at which these |sixty-nine living families of Passeri-formes| . . . appeared" (Stahl, 386).'"

First of all, have you read Colbert's original text? As can be seen from Sherwin's earlier quote on feathers by Stahl, he is more than a bit selective in what he includes. Honest scholarship would require you to actually check the original source to make sure he is being fair and accurate. He certainly wasn't with Stahl.

Secondly, he is not talking about overall bird origin here but the origin of one of the families of birds. We are talking about two different issues. Sherwin is not going to make that clear. This isn't even close to compelling. It just makes you look foolish for posting it.

Bird origin fantasy

“The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith."

Storrs Olson, ornithologist and curator of Birds at the Smithsonian in a November 1, 1999 letter to Dr. Peter Raven at the National Geographic Society. (National Geographic featured a fossil on their front cover along with a lengthy article that ending up being nothing but a hoax.)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4159.asp

From our page:
http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/fossil_evidence.html

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

John 'quoted' Sherwin 'quoting' Colbert:
"Bird origin: 'In the absence of fossil evidence, paleontologists can say little about the date at which these |sixty-nine living families of Passeri-formes| . . . appeared" (Stahl, 386).'"

First of all, have you read Colbert's original text? As can be seen from Sherwin's earlier quote on feathers by Stahl, he is more than a bit selective in what he includes. Honest scholarship would require you to actually check the original source to make sure he is being fair and accurate. He certainly wasn't with Stahl.

Secondly, he is not talking about overall bird origin here but the origin of one of the families of birds. We are talking about two different issues. Sherwin is not going to make that clear. This isn't even close to compelling. It just makes you look foolish for posting it.

I think you missed a few bird transitionals...

Yes. Archaeoraptor liaoningensis was established as a chimera (the combination of two separate fossils). If only that was the only transitional fossil we have, you might have an argument. It is worth noting that scientists like Storrs Olson are the ones who pointed it out. Seems like evidence that science is critical and self-correcting.

There are a whole raft of other non-chimeric fossils that you failed to mention.

" Many new bird fossils have been discovered in the last couple of decades, revealing several intermediates between theropod dinosaurs (such as Allosaurus) and modern birds:

* Sinosauropteryx prima. A dinosaur covered with primitive feathers, but structurally similar to unfeathered dinosaurs Ornitholestes and Compsognathus (Chen et al. 1998; Currie and Chen 2001).

* Ornithomimosaurs, therizinosaurs, and oviraptorosaurs. The oviraptorosaur Caudipteryx had a body covering of tufted feathers and had feathers with a central rachis on its wings and tail (Ji et al. 1998). Feathers are also known from the therizinosaur Beipiaosaurus (Xu et al. 1999a). Several other birdlike characters appear in these dinosaurs, including unserrated teeth, highly pneumatized skulls and vertebrae, and elongated wings. Oviraptorids also had birdlike eggs and brooding habits (Clark et al. 1999).

* Deinonychosaurs (troodontids and dromaeosaurs). These are the closest known dinosaurs to birds. Sinovenator, the most primitive troodontid, is especially similar to Archaeopteryx (Xu et al. 2002). Byronosaurus, another troodontid, had teeth nearly identical to primitive birds (Makovicky et al. 2003). Microraptor, the most primitive dromaeosaur, is also the most birdlike; specimens have been found with undisputed feathers on their wings, legs, and tail (Hwang et al. 2002; Xu et al. 2003). Sinornithosaurus also was covered with a variety of feathers and had a skull more birdlike than later dromaeosaurs (Xu, Wang, and Wu 1999; Xu and Wu 2001; Xu et al. 2001).

* Protarchaeopteryx, alvarezsaurids, Yixianosaurus and Avimimus. These are birdlike dinosaurs of uncertain placement, each potentially closer to birds than deinonychosaurs are. Protarchaeopteryx has tail feathers, uncompressed teeth, and an elongated manus (hand/wing) (Ji et al. 1998). Yixianosaurus has an indistinctly preserved feathery covering and hand/wing proportions close to birds (Xu and Wang 2003). Alvarezsaurids (Chiappe et al. 2002) and Avimimus (Vickers-Rich et al. 2002) have other birdlike features.

* Archaeopteryx. This famous fossil is defined to be a bird, but it is actually less birdlike in some ways than some genera mentioned above (Paul 2002; Maryanska et al. 2002).

* Shenzhouraptor (Zhou and Zhang 2002), Rahonavis (Forster et al. 1998), Yandangornis and Jixiangornis. All of these birds were slightly more advanced than Archaeopteryx, especially in characters of the vertebrae, sternum, and wing bones.

* Sapeornis (Zhou and Zhang 2003), Omnivoropteryx, and confuciusornithids (e.g., Confuciusornis and Changchengornis; Chiappe et al. 1999). These were the first birds to possess large pygostyles (bone formed from fused tail vertebrae). Other new birdlike characters include seven sacral vertebrae, a sternum with a keel (some species), and a reversed hallux (hind toe).

* Enantiornithines, including at least nineteen species of primitive birds, such as Sinornis (Sereno and Rao 1992; Sereno et al. 2002), Gobipteryx (Chiappe et al. 2001), and Protopteryx (Zhang and Zhou 2000). Several birdlike features appeared in enantiornithines, including twelve or fewer dorsal vertebrae, a narrow V-shaped furcula (wishbone), and reduction in wing digit bones.

* Patagopteryx, Apsaravis, and yanornithids (Chiappe 2002; Clarke and Norell 2002). More birdlike features appeared in this group, including changes to vertebrae and development of the sternal keel.

* Hesperornis, Ichthyornis, Gansus, and Limenavis. These birds are almost as advanced as modern species. New features included the loss of most teeth and changes to leg bones.

* Modern birds. "

I would recomend a trip to the Field Museum. They were running an excellent exhibit on dinosars and they had some marvelous bird transitionals on display. It included a number from the list above.

Would you like to play?

Would you like to start with Sinosauropteryx prima or back to 'walking whales'?

Refer to my post at:

http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/727111/

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Yes. Archaeoraptor liaoningensis was established as a chimera (the combination of two separate fossils). If only that was the only transitional fossil we have, you might have an argument. It is worth noting that scientists like Storrs Olson are the ones who pointed it out. Seems like evidence that science is critical and self-correcting.

There are a whole raft of other non-chimeric fossils that you failed to mention.

" Many new bird fossils have been discovered in the last couple of decades, revealing several intermediates between theropod dinosaurs (such as Allosaurus) and modern birds:

* Sinosauropteryx prima. A dinosaur covered with primitive feathers, but structurally similar to unfeathered dinosaurs Ornitholestes and Compsognathus (Chen et al. 1998; Currie and Chen 2001).

* Ornithomimosaurs, therizinosaurs, and oviraptorosaurs. The oviraptorosaur Caudipteryx had a body covering of tufted feathers and had feathers with a central rachis on its wings and tail (Ji et al. 1998). Feathers are also known from the therizinosaur Beipiaosaurus (Xu et al. 1999a). Several other birdlike characters appear in these dinosaurs, including unserrated teeth, highly pneumatized skulls and vertebrae, and elongated wings. Oviraptorids also had birdlike eggs and brooding habits (Clark et al. 1999).

* Deinonychosaurs (troodontids and dromaeosaurs). These are the closest known dinosaurs to birds. Sinovenator, the most primitive troodontid, is especially similar to Archaeopteryx (Xu et al. 2002). Byronosaurus, another troodontid, had teeth nearly identical to primitive birds (Makovicky et al. 2003). Microraptor, the most primitive dromaeosaur, is also the most birdlike; specimens have been found with undisputed feathers on their wings, legs, and tail (Hwang et al. 2002; Xu et al. 2003). Sinornithosaurus also was covered with a variety of feathers and had a skull more birdlike than later dromaeosaurs (Xu, Wang, and Wu 1999; Xu and Wu 2001; Xu et al. 2001).

* Protarchaeopteryx, alvarezsaurids, Yixianosaurus and Avimimus. These are birdlike dinosaurs of uncertain placement, each potentially closer to birds than deinonychosaurs are. Protarchaeopteryx has tail feathers, uncompressed teeth, and an elongated manus (hand/wing) (Ji et al. 1998). Yixianosaurus has an indistinctly preserved feathery covering and hand/wing proportions close to birds (Xu and Wang 2003). Alvarezsaurids (Chiappe et al. 2002) and Avimimus (Vickers-Rich et al. 2002) have other birdlike features.

* Archaeopteryx. This famous fossil is defined to be a bird, but it is actually less birdlike in some ways than some genera mentioned above (Paul 2002; Maryanska et al. 2002).

* Shenzhouraptor (Zhou and Zhang 2002), Rahonavis (Forster et al. 1998), Yandangornis and Jixiangornis. All of these birds were slightly more advanced than Archaeopteryx, especially in characters of the vertebrae, sternum, and wing bones.

* Sapeornis (Zhou and Zhang 2003), Omnivoropteryx, and confuciusornithids (e.g., Confuciusornis and Changchengornis; Chiappe et al. 1999). These were the first birds to possess large pygostyles (bone formed from fused tail vertebrae). Other new birdlike characters include seven sacral vertebrae, a sternum with a keel (some species), and a reversed hallux (hind toe).

* Enantiornithines, including at least nineteen species of primitive birds, such as Sinornis (Sereno and Rao 1992; Sereno et al. 2002), Gobipteryx (Chiappe et al. 2001), and Protopteryx (Zhang and Zhou 2000). Several birdlike features appeared in enantiornithines, including twelve or fewer dorsal vertebrae, a narrow V-shaped furcula (wishbone), and reduction in wing digit bones.

* Patagopteryx, Apsaravis, and yanornithids (Chiappe 2002; Clarke and Norell 2002). More birdlike features appeared in this group, including changes to vertebrae and development of the sternal keel.

* Hesperornis, Ichthyornis, Gansus, and Limenavis. These birds are almost as advanced as modern species. New features included the loss of most teeth and changes to leg bones.

* Modern birds. "

I would recomend a trip to the Field Museum. They were running an excellent exhibit on dinosars and they had some marvelous bird transitionals on display. It included a number from the list above.

You should be able to handle both series and all of them at the same time.

Your 'argument' against bird transitional fossils was to quote Storrs Olson on the National Geographic's fossil scandal with the heading "Bird Origin Fantasy". Not really much of an argument when you consider that there are a number of real transitional fossils.

That is the problem with creationism. You can't really defeat evolution by arguing against the isolated fossil. Evolution provides many transitionals for both whales and birds. To refute these evolutionary sequences, you must address all of the members of the sequence and explain why they appeared when and where they did on the basis of a theorhetical construct.

For example, your continued assertion that Pakicetus was nothing but a terrestrial mammal and not a whale does not address the reality that there are a number of characteristics that like it to the artiodactyls (they descended from) and to later cetaceans. Pakicetus stands at the water's edge and the whales that followed changed as they went into that water.

That was an interesting answer ... So, you don't want to play?

Earth to Arneson:

The question was:

Would you like to start with Sinosauropteryx prima or back to 'walking whales'?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Your 'argument' against bird transitional fossils was to quote Storrs Olson on the National Geographic's fossil scandal with the heading "Bird Origin Fantasy". Not really much of an argument when you consider that there are a number of real transitional fossils.

That is the problem with creationism. You can't really defeat evolution by arguing against the isolated fossil. Evolution provides many transitionals for both whales and birds. To refute these evolutionary sequences, you must address all of the members of the sequence and explain why they appeared when and where they did on the basis of a theorhetical construct.

For example, your continued assertion that Pakicetus was nothing but a terrestrial mammal and not a whale does not address the reality that there are a number of characteristics that like it to the artiodactyls (they descended from) and to later cetaceans. Pakicetus stands at the water's edge and the whales that followed changed as they went into that water.

Both.

You haven't dealt with the evidence for the whale sequence yet, and I am okay talking about bird transitionals. However, as I have trying to explain to you since the start of the whale sequence discussions, you need to look at species in relation to each other to understand their natural history. I think that is the basis of your problem understanding evolution.

Re: You should be able to handle both series and all of them at the same time.

In regard to your comment:

"For example, your continued assertion that Pakicetus was nothing but a terrestrial mammal and not a whale does not address the reality that there are a number of characteristics that like it to the artiodactyls (they descended from) and to later cetaceans. Pakicetus stands at the water's edge and the whales that followed changed as they went into that water."


Are you aware that one could make a case that even a human has "characteristics that like it to the artiodactyls and later cetaceans"?

The point is that Thewissen, Williams, Roe, and Hussain recognized the truth when they found it.

"Pakecetids were terrestrial mammals, no more amphilbious than a tapir."
'Skeletons of terrestrial cetaceans and the relationship of whales to artiodactyles'
J.G.M. Thewissen, E.M. Williams, L.J. Roe, S.T. Hussain
Nature/Vol 413 / 20 September 2001 / www.nature.com

Since you obviously believe that this is not really what they meant to say and we are taking it "out-of-context," be specific and tell us what they really meant to say and what it really means.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Your 'argument' against bird transitional fossils was to quote Storrs Olson on the National Geographic's fossil scandal with the heading "Bird Origin Fantasy". Not really much of an argument when you consider that there are a number of real transitional fossils.

That is the problem with creationism. You can't really defeat evolution by arguing against the isolated fossil. Evolution provides many transitionals for both whales and birds. To refute these evolutionary sequences, you must address all of the members of the sequence and explain why they appeared when and where they did on the basis of a theorhetical construct.

For example, your continued assertion that Pakicetus was nothing but a terrestrial mammal and not a whale does not address the reality that there are a number of characteristics that like it to the artiodactyls (they descended from) and to later cetaceans. Pakicetus stands at the water's edge and the whales that followed changed as they went into that water.

Not in your wildest dreams.

WiYC said:
"Are you aware that one could make a case that even a human has 'characteristics that like it to the artiodactyls and later cetaceans'?"

You have human remains with cetacean sigmoid processes and artiodacyl astragali? That is the only way the you could begin to make that case.

You should read that Gee book you keep quoting from...

Your point shows that you don't understand the idea of nested hierarchies. Gee would show you how this analysis is done. You would understand that your claim has no basis in reality at all.

We have fossil whales.

John 'quoted' Sherwin 'quoting' Colbert:
"Whale origin: "As with most tetrapods secondarily modified for aquatic living, ascertaining the terrestrial stock from which the whales came is exceedingly difficult" (Stahl, 486).

This is an obvious point. It is not easy to determine where, when, and from what the transition occurred without evidence. That is not the case any longer, as has been presented with the work by Thewissen.

"Like the bats, the whales (using this term in a general and inclusive sense) appear suddenly in early Tertiary times, fully adapted by profound modifications" (Colbert, 392).

We have a number of whales that are not fully adapted. The series has been found from terrestrial to fully aquatic whales.

Sherwin seems a bit shady on dates here.

Sherwin claims that Colbert's book was published in 2001. It seems that he is off by only a half century from the original publishing date.

"Colbert, E. H., 1955, Evolution of the Vertebrates [1st ed.]: New York, Wiley and Sons, Inc."

That would explain why the book seems blithely unaware of the whale transitionals found in the last several decades.

I am sure that you went back to the original source to ensure that Sherwin was quoting the right edition.

Whale evolution fantasy

For anyone who missed out on the debates of Pakicetus and Ambulocetus, go to:

http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/710719/17
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/713509/7

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Sherwin claims that Colbert's book was published in 2001. It seems that he is off by only a half century from the original publishing date.

"Colbert, E. H., 1955, Evolution of the Vertebrates [1st ed.]: New York, Wiley and Sons, Inc."

That would explain why the book seems blithely unaware of the whale transitionals found in the last several decades.

I am sure that you went back to the original source to ensure that Sherwin was quoting the right edition.

The threads show who is fantasizing when it comes to whale evolution.

A review of the thread shows that questionable quotemines and unreliable creationists sources are the only arguments WiYC presents. When an argument is refuted, she returns to repeat the same untenable argument.

An example is WiYC selecting a sentence here and a sentence there from an article trying to establish that Pakicetus, the first whale in the sequence was terrestrial. Well, seeing as the sequence documents the transition of mammals from land to the sea, one would expect that the first in this sequence would indded be terrestrial.

Of course, WiYC ignores the conclusion of the very section that she has been quoting from explaining how the evidence fits together.

"Together these pelvises form an excellent transitional series, in which ambulocetids and remintonocetids retain all elements of land mammals, and protocetids lose the fused sacrum (Rodhocetus) and the iliosacral joints (Georgiacetus) and have some short femurs (in known forms). Basilosaurids and dorundontids have greatly reduced hind limbs and reduced ilia, while still retaining the acetabulum and foramen of the innominates. Only vestiges of these structures are present in modern whales."

‘Whale Origins as a Poster Child for Macroevolution’ J.G. M Thewissen and Sunil Bajpai, December 2oo1 / Vol. 51 No. 12, BioScience (1043)"

We stopped because you couldn't quite get them in the water ...

We stopped at Ambulocetus because you couldn't get your land mammals to hop in the water yet. Would you like to go on to another 'walking whale' or a bird transition offered on your recent posting:
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/726930/

We could start with Sinosauropteryx prima ('bird') as I think it would be very fun and interesting!

You pick it - Back to whales or 'birds'?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

A review of the thread shows that questionable quotemines and unreliable creationists sources are the only arguments WiYC presents. When an argument is refuted, she returns to repeat the same untenable argument.

An example is WiYC selecting a sentence here and a sentence there from an article trying to establish that Pakicetus, the first whale in the sequence was terrestrial. Well, seeing as the sequence documents the transition of mammals from land to the sea, one would expect that the first in this sequence would indded be terrestrial.

Of course, WiYC ignores the conclusion of the very section that she has been quoting from explaining how the evidence fits together.

"Together these pelvises form an excellent transitional series, in which ambulocetids and remintonocetids retain all elements of land mammals, and protocetids lose the fused sacrum (Rodhocetus) and the iliosacral joints (Georgiacetus) and have some short femurs (in known forms). Basilosaurids and dorundontids have greatly reduced hind limbs and reduced ilia, while still retaining the acetabulum and foramen of the innominates. Only vestiges of these structures are present in modern whales."

‘Whale Origins as a Poster Child for Macroevolution’ J.G. M Thewissen and Sunil Bajpai, December 2oo1 / Vol. 51 No. 12, BioScience (1043)"

Sorry, but the evidence indicates that Ambulocetus did get into the water.

It is only your determination to ignore evidence that allows you to say that.

Ambulocetus skeleton shows transition toward marine life.
"As mentioned above, no partial skeletons are known for the most primitive cetaceans, pakicetids [postcranial skeletal material has since been discovered by Thewissen and Hussain], but the skeletal morphology of Ambulocetus is intermediate in several respects between that of land mammals and that of modern cetaceans."
BioScience, Dec. 2001, p. 1042

Ambulocetus is part of a larger transitional sequence linking the terrestrial Pakicetus to the later aquatic whales.
"Together these pelvises form an excellent transitional series, in which ambulocetids and remintonocetis retain all elements of land mammals, and protocetids lose the fused sacrum (Rodhocetus) and the iliosacral joints (Georgiacetus) and have short femurs (in known forms). Basilosaurids and dorundontids have greatly reduced hind limbs and redduced ilia, while still retainingthe acetabulum and the foramen of the innominates. Only vestiges of these structures are present in modern whales."
IBID, p. 1044

Ambulocetus was intermediate in method of swimming:
"Thus Ambulocetus presents a true intermediate stage in locomotion and serves as an evolutionary link between the quadrupedal paddling of terrestrial ancestors of cetaceans and the effecient swimming of living cetaceans."

Oxygen isotope ratios in Ambulocetus teeth show transition toward marine life:
"Some specimens of Ambulocetus show marine values, demonstrating that these individuals did not ingest fresh water at the time there teeth mineralized. Although several explanations are possible, it is clear that Ambulocetus tolerated a wide range of salt concentrations (that is, it was euryhaline). As such, it is a transitional form that makes sense in the context of osmoregulatory evolution."
IBID, p. 1045

The evidence shows Ambulocetus in the water, transitioning in terms of morphology, swimming method, and movement into ocean water. It is also significant that ambulocetid fossils are only found in marine deposits. (IBID p. 1045)

You might not see it in the water, but the evidence that you ignore says something different.

So does that mean you don't want to play the "Let's See How Evolution Works Game" anymore?

Were you aware that we already debated Ambulocetus and Pakicetus in May and June?

A debate goes back and forth and then we go on, unless some additional information comes forth.

Since you don't have anything new, your choices were to debate another 'walking whale' or one of your 'bird' transition.

Which one is it?

I realize that you closed down your board in frustration in June.

You have made many unsupported claims about the folly of whale evolution. However, you haven't been able to counter any of the whale evidence. You have tried posting a few out of context quotes, which we have shown don't represent the science.

At the same time, we have shown multiple lines of analysis that all confirm the whale transitional series. And we all noted that you closed down your board after deleting a number of posts. I have noted that you have deleted a few post yesterday when that pointed to your inability to respond to these arguments. I have been quite patient with your willingness to bully when the game doesn't go your way.

Beyond that, I have not only harkened back to earlier arguments but have brought in new information in recent posts. You have chosen to ignore this information0.

The truth about the board being suspended.

As I stated before and after it occurred, I suspended the board due to vevamping our website.

See:
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/722499/

Also, during that time, my father passed away, so the delay was longer that anticipated.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

You have made many unsupported claims about the folly of whale evolution. However, you haven't been able to counter any of the whale evidence. You have tried posting a few out of context quotes, which we have shown don't represent the science.

At the same time, we have shown multiple lines of analysis that all confirm the whale transitional series. And we all noted that you closed down your board after deleting a number of posts. I have noted that you have deleted a few post yesterday when that pointed to your inability to respond to these arguments. I have been quite patient with your willingness to bully when the game doesn't go your way.

Beyond that, I have not only harkened back to earlier arguments but have brought in new information in recent posts. You have chosen to ignore this information0.

Sorry to hear about your dad.

He seemed like a nice guy according to the obituary.

I also noticed that you still haven't responded to any of my points.

You ignored the transitional nature of Ambulocetus in my last post. It has been pretty typical of your responses. As though a couple of out-of-context quotes could counter the scientific data supporting the whale transitional sequence.

Be specific - No drama necessary

1. Haven't you noticed yet that, unless you are specific, I don't respond to you?

2. Yes, we know you hate every quote that refutes your 'evidence.'

3. What do you consider 'data' if you don't think a quote from a scientific paper, article, or journal qualifies? Where is your 'data' from?

3. Isn't it interesting that I have NEVER claimed that any of your quotes were 'out-of-context'? Why do you suppose that is?


Whine on ...

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

You ignored the transitional nature of Ambulocetus in my last post. It has been pretty typical of your responses. As though a couple of out-of-context quotes could counter the scientific data supporting the whale transitional sequence.

Re: Be specific - No drama necessary

WiYC said:
" 1. Haven't you noticed yet that, unless you are specific, I don't respond to you?"

No drama. Just the facts ma'am. You didn't respond to a single point made and attempted to dodge the debate.
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/727125/

"2. Yes, we know you hate every quote that refutes your 'evidence.'"

You really haven't presented any quotes that refute the evolutionary evidence. You have presented many quotes. I then explain why they are not a refutation of evolution and you either drop the point or simply continue to repeat the quote.

"3. What do you consider 'data' if you don't think a quote from a scientific paper, article, or journal qualifies? Where is your 'data' from?"

It is not where it comes from but whether it says what you claim it does. Generally, it doesn't.

3. Isn't it interesting that I have NEVER claimed that any of your quotes were 'out-of-context'? Why do you suppose that is?"

You live in a glass house. I wouldn't if I were you either.


"Whine on ..."

As I have said to you many times before. It is not whining to expect honesty in the use of sources.

Is there something new?

Which topic is new and one that we haven't covered before?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

You ignored the transitional nature of Ambulocetus in my last post. It has been pretty typical of your responses. As though a couple of out-of-context quotes could counter the scientific data supporting the whale transitional sequence.

One example from today

Multiple SINE transposons that support the common ancestry of whales with hippos and ruminants. And like all the other evidence for the whale series, you couldn't present a creationist explanation for this occurance. With three shared and the other multiple lines of evidence common descent of these creatures becomes much stronger.

Did you forget I did respond twice, and you responded only 45 minutes before your tirade?

This is my response from a earlier posting on this very thread.

From: http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/727123/1
In regard to your comment:

"More specifically, three different specific SINE transpositions have been found in the same chromosomal locations of cetaceans (whales), hippos, and ruminants, all of which are closely related according to the standard phylogenetic tree. However, all other mammals, including camels and pigs, lack these three specific transpositions (Shimamura 1997)."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html

Please refer to contradictory scientific evidence:

"These results have major repercussions for phylogenetic analyses based on SINE insertions, indicating the need for caution when one concludes that the existence of a SINE at a specific locus in multiple individuals is indicative of common ancestry. Although independent insertions at the same locus may be rare, SINE insertions are not homoplasy-free phylogenetic markers."

From 'Genetics' June 2001 158(2) 769-777 published by Genetics Society of America:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=1461688&rendertype=abstract

Would you like to contact talkorigins to have them update their 'scientific' website?

Re: Did you forget I did respond twice, and you responded only 45 minutes before your tirade?

We weren't talking about analysis based on SINE insertions. We were talking about endogenous retrovirii being found in the same location among multiple species. SINE insertions are a different class of retrotransposons. One considerably less complex than ERVs. You might count this article as a response, but it really doesn't address the issue at hand.

You could try something new?

Actually engaging in debate about the specific evidence of the whale sequence instead of trying to avoid a debate. I can understand why you don't. The case for the whale sequence has multiple fossils that show a graduated change in characteristics over time. These characteristics show increasing adaptation to life in the oceans from the earliest terrestrial whales to the obligate marine creature we see today.

Postings like these will be deleted from now on

You must have forgotten about this.

From: http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/726906/1

"This forum is for creationists to present a critical analysis of the theory of evolution and for evolutionists to defend it.

Because evolution is claimed to be a scientific fact, the burden of proof is on evolutionists. Since you have NOT made your case yet, offering EVIDENCE instead of your insensate whinning is the only thing that will save your theory.

If you wish to start a thread with some evidence to prove your theory, go ahead. Otherwise, I will delete any postings without specific points.

If you don't like it, go play somewhere else."

Re: Postings like these will be deleted from now on

WiYC said:
"You must have forgotten about this.

From: http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/726906/1

"This forum is for creationists to present a critical analysis of the theory of evolution and for evolutionists to defend it."

Like so much of this forum, you have deleted that post. Interesting. I have shown you how your critical analysis just doesn't hold up. You don't want to talk about the actual evidence.

"Because evolution is claimed to be a scientific fact, the burden of proof is on evolutionists. Since you have NOT made your case yet, offering EVIDENCE instead of your insensate whinning is the only thing that will save your theory."

I have given you evidence and corrected your misconceptions about whale evolution. I am not the one deleting posts. You are the one that seems to whine about when you can't refute the truth of evolution. I have posted things more than once because you never responded to them the first time around. Not whining, just stating the facts. Of course when it is pointed out that you can't hold your own, you start deleting posts.