Who Is Your Creator message forum

 

Who Is Your Creator message forum
This Forum is Locked
Author
Comment
View Entire Thread
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.