Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Whale of a Tale
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 211 of 243 (276344)
01-06-2006 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by randman
01-06-2006 9:50 AM


Re: see message 149
randman writes:
No, Randman, this is not true. Nothing like this has occurred in this thread, you have merely repeated this baseless charge again and again.
You say I have not responded. You said it before as well, and I responded and you did not. Here is the same post again.
No, Randman, you are again wrong. In this post you say:
For instance, such a study would compare numbers of whale fossils with known and extinct whales, and try to asses levels of fossilization frequency. Are they "common" or "rare"?
This point has been responded to many times explaining why this isn't possible, and you have ignored it every time. Instead of responding to our explanations you have instead just rejected them out of hand without explanation while repeating yet again that we're ignoring you.
Let me repeat the explanation again, but this time I'll use a little math. Keeping this simple, the fossilization rate (call it r) for a given whale species is equal to the number of fossils preserved (call if f) divided by number of whales (call it w) that have lived during a given time period. The equation would look like this:
r = f / w
Obtaining values for f over a meaningfully large timeframe might be possible. It depends upon the accuracy of the dated layers and how broad a range of the time period has been exposed to us through erosion. But we have no way of obtaining a value for w, the number of whales that lived during that period. Because we cannot determine w, we cannot calculate r.
Your subsequent argument begins like this:
Then, presuming that similar habitats of either ocean...etc...
But it is of no value because your initial premise, that we can determine the fossization rate, is false.
When you reply, please quote what you are responding to. Thanks!
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by randman, posted 01-06-2006 9:50 AM randman has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 212 of 243 (276345)
01-06-2006 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by randman
01-06-2006 8:44 AM


Re: Randman, give us your story.
randman,
First off, there are thousands of whales, dolphins, and some archaeocetes like Basilosaurus, not just for cetaceans in general.
That's what I said. Given there are tens of millions of years, it can hardly be called abundant, can it?
Show me the evo study that addresses that specific question!
For the FOURTH time.
quote:
And just to head you off at the pass, no, it is not evolutions job to exclude all the possibilities, no other science has to. It just has to support it's own position in a way that isn't contradicted by evidence. You have made a positive assertion, it is your job to support it. Given you can't, then you have provided no evidence, just subjective speculation.
Mark
This message has been edited by mark24, 01-06-2006 10:52 AM
This message has been edited by mark24, 01-06-2006 12:55 PM

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by randman, posted 01-06-2006 8:44 AM randman has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 213 of 243 (276348)
01-06-2006 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by randman
01-06-2006 9:16 AM


Huh?
Okay, I understand what you are saying here:
First, my point is that (Basilo) swam not like a whale does, and it's tail was not whale-like in motion or really in any regard.
First off, how did Basilo swim? Was it side to side like a fish, rippling like a snake, something different? What evidence leads us to believe this?
Do we have evidence of any mammal swimming in anything other than an undulation motion? (Doggy-paddle aside)
Now onto the Huh? section
My own beliefs involve speculations I feel are strongly supported in physics, that the time-line aspect of space-time is so interwined with space that there are causal effects not simply forward in time but towards space-time as a whole, and some effects from our perspective backwards in time.
You may be talking right over my head but it sounds like you are making these points:
1) There is more evidence for speciation in physics than in biology
2) Since time is not necessarily linear, species do not need to adapt linearly through time.
3) Therefore it's possible that species we see today are decended from things not in the past, but in the future.
Am I close?
The YEC answer is that they escaped higher in the Flood. I am not sure I buy that
I don't buy it either. Let's leave the YEC crowd out of the discussion.
One answer is that they had not been created yet.
Okay, let's follow that out. There is clearly a (long) period of the fossil record which contains no mammals. At some point, mammal fossils appear - but they are tiny rodent-like animals.
You are speculating that those tiny rodent-like mammals were created as is at that time. (Note: I understand that this is not necessarily your belief-system, just one of the possible answers)
At a later time in the fossil record (post dino-killing meteor) we see many more mammal fossils.
Still later, we find more fossils, similiar in form to the ones preceding them, but more complex.
This pattern of new forms continues all the way through to today. (special note - it's not just mammals. All forms of life exhibit this pattern).
So, it seems, the hypothesis for multiple creation is this - Powerful Being creates life, then subsequently over billions of years, creates more life. The new life is based on the life which existed previously but adds characteristics.
Now, let me raise an interesting question -
How are these creations done?
Animals "poofing" into existance sounds silly, and we have never seen any evidence for it - so, let's rule that out.
Could it be that this powerful being is creating these slightly different species through the natural process of birth? Tweaking the next generation while it's still in the womb?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by randman, posted 01-06-2006 9:16 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by arachnophilia, posted 01-07-2006 12:22 AM Nuggin has not replied
 Message 240 by randman, posted 01-09-2006 2:25 PM Nuggin has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 214 of 243 (276360)
01-06-2006 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by randman
01-06-2006 10:15 AM


Randman, provide links, and check them
You want me to respond to you, but you ignore posts like 149 on this thread, and then misrepresent me when you do respond.
When you reference a post, please do so as a link. It doesn't take much effort to type in [msg=-149] in place of the bare number, and that makes it for others to find the post.
Once you have it as a link, then check that link yourself.
You have twice mentioned Message 149, and you to be referring people to one of your own posts. However, Message 149 was posted by Percy, not by you.
What is it that you want people to look at?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by randman, posted 01-06-2006 10:15 AM randman has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 215 of 243 (276364)
01-06-2006 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by randman
01-06-2006 10:15 AM


Re: Put Up or Shut Up!
randman writes:
You were questioning whether it was reasonable for a species to have a small population and range for long periods of time,
No, I wasn't and had you bothered to read and respond to my points instead of constantly ignoring them, you would know that. You want me to respond to you, but you ignore posts like 149 on this thread, and then misrepresent me when you do respond.
You have once again taken things out of context. That conversation was not about "a species" versus "many species". You had accused me of responding generally to comments from you that were specifically about whales. I showed that your were wrong by quoting speaking generally. And I responded generally. The focus of that part of the discussion was on whether you had been speaking generally or specifically. Again, please stop forcing me to waste time correcting the record.
I do not question a species having a small population and range. I question theorizing that among large aquatic, semi-aquatic, and near-water terristial mammals, that we would have one small species in a small habitat evolve into one small species in a small habitat evolve one small species in a small habitat, on and on, hundreds of times and not ever evolving into branches that spread out and grow in sufficent numbers to leave fossils, for say, 5 million years.
I already understand that. I said as much in Message 157:
Percy writes:
You remember the part of an earlier post where I said we're people just like you who aren't perfect? Well, guess what? I was right, I'm not perfect. Though I held the thought correctly in my mind, it was not correctly expressed when it reached my fingers. I understood what you said, and I intended to capture it accurately, but it somehow just didn't come out that way. What I should have said was, "You seem to think it rare, almost miraculous in fact, that many species would have a small population and limited range, but that is the case for most species alive today." I don't know how "many" became "a", I can't explain it.
Moving on:
randman writes:
In other words, as I stated before, the PE scenario may work for some species. If we had 30-40% of the actual transitionals represented in the fossil record, the scenario that we don't see the others because they were in smaller populations would make sense, but it doesn't make sense that continual subgroups among very small groups and habitats could continually evolve to fill the missing areas where we don't see whale features gradually emerging. This is especially true considering the habitat is the most favorable in many respects to fossilization.
You've said this exact same thing before. And it's been responded to before. The series of species may have remained small all during its history before the big "breakout" into the big time. Or it may have developed in a region of the world where fossilization wasn't favored. Or in a region which either hasn't been eroded down to the right layers yet, or which has since subducted and been destroyed forever. It is possible that some in the series of species had periods of extraordinary success as measured by population and range, but in a region of the world where fossils from have not yet come to light. There are many possibilities almost too numerous to even think of.
In order to rebut the above and demonstrate that there had to have been intermediate species recorded in the fossil record that we've had opportunity to discover had they been present, you have to show that none of the possibilities is really possible. And that no future possibilities that might one day be uncovered are possible, either. Only when you've completed that exercise can you reasonably conclude that evolution could not have been responsible.
randman writes:
The evolution could have occurred elsewhere, and when chance and happenstance resulted in a species capable of competing successfully against the current inhabitants of the ecological niche, they took over.
Care to explain that? This is a generality, once again. Maybe you could argue that some subgroup evolved into freshwater and then back again into salt water, but we are dealing with areas with a lot of mobility, being aquatic, and areas with good likelihoods of fossilization occuring. Most of all, you are not doing anything but posting generalities. There is no data related to whales in your posts at all.
Wow, you're quoting actual points I made and responding to them. Be still my heart! Thank you, Lord, for you have given me a sign!
Sorry, pardon the sarcasm, but it was just so unexpected I couldn't help it.
Yes, I'm speaking in generalities. It usually isn't possible to know the ranges and habits and so forth of extinct species from millions of years ago because of the incompleteness of the fossil record. In the absence of evidence we can only speculate. No one can magically create evidence where none exists.
Your original question was why no intermediate species are recorded in the fossil record between one "aquatic mammalian species" (see your Message 164) and whales. The short answer is "We don't know." The longer answer involves any number of possibilities. You mention an additional one that I didn't with fresh water habitats. I mentioned inland seas cut off from the ocean. Some or all of the intermediate species may have been very small in population or range. They may have preferred certain environments such as the shallows in regions of the world where this era of life's history is not available to us geologically. I also mentioned predators and disease. There's also the type of preferred food and its range. Temperature variations can isolate populations when ocean currents are too warm or too cold. The continents are constantly moving and changing accessibility.
randman writes:
A period which lacks fossils could indicate absence, or it could indicate conditions were prevalent that didn't favor fossilization, or perhaps some breed of scavanger became prevalent that left few remains, or perhaps a period of predation greatly reduced populations. Who knows?
That doesn't add up. We are talking periods of millions of years. The idea that for millions of years, for example, that conditions in an aquatic environment were different so no fossils occurred, but then again, we got back into fossils for 30 million years is prepostrous. Moreover, that can be checked. Evos can see if fossils occurred during this time.
But conditions keep changing. Perhaps fossilization wasn't favored for millions and millions of years, or perhaps it was and something else is responsible. Perhaps one species of the series ballooned into great success during a period when fossilization wasn't favored, or in places where fossilization wasn't favored. I also mentioned scavengers. Perhaps for millions of years there were species of scavengers that caused the survival of bone long enough to be buried to become very unlikely.
Same with the idea of other predators. All of this stuff you claim is impossible with the "who knows?" could be verified if evos wanted to, instead of making claims that are unsubstantiated.
Given the name that one can make for oneself with new discoveries, the likelihood that evos could find this missing evidence but just don't want to is ludicrous.
Further, we're not making unsubstantiated claims. We're saying we don't really know for sure, but there are any number of things that could have happened. If I dig up a rock in my backyard, I have no way of knowing for sure how it got there. But I can think up a very large number of possibilities.
And that's all we're doing here. We're not saying that we know this possibility happened or that possibility happened, though expert paleontologists can probably narrow down the possibilities far better than I can. All we're saying is that there are many, many possibilities, and your claims that evolution could not possibly be responsible for the whale fossil sequence cannot stand up until you address the possibilities and show how none could ever have happened for whales. And that no one will ever come up with a reasonable possibility.
In a way you've set yourself an impossible task. You're arguing that the evidence doesn't support a conclusion of evolution, but there's so little actual evidence and such a huge number of degrees of freedom that finding a contradiction that would rule out natural processes is highly unlikely.
randman writes:
But if you guys just want to chalk up whale evolution to "who knows?", that would at least be better than every few years presenting a whole new theory just as dogmatically as the first one, such as the Mesochynid theory. I don't think asking evos to actually show that their claims are true is so much to ask for, and I think an answer such as "who knows" indicates evos need to be far less dogmatic in their claims. Otherwise, they are just relying on overstatements.
I think you miscontrue what paleontologists are doing. When they research species ancestry they're not really constructing scientific theories. What they're doing is constructing reasonable scenarios based upon evidence interpreted within an evolutionary framework. As more is learned the picture of evolutionary history changes. The same happens with human paleontologists. Each new discovery changes the picture we have of human ancestry, and there's a lot of disagreement and animosity in this field. But everyone agrees on the evolutionary interpretive framework.
randman writes:
Maybe a "functional mammal" (whatever that is) evolved, but wasn't suited to fill the entire niche. Perhaps it evolved in an isolated sea, or some temporarily cut off part of the ocean.
Then what took Basolosaurus' place for 5 million years?
I don't think we know at this time. We may never know. Maybe nothing in the cetacea order took its place, with the niche being filled by a non-mammal. Maybe conditions did not favor large cetaceans for a while. Who knows? That's a valid, though informal, answer when there's insufficient evidence.
I agree that it is unlikely that an aquatic mammal fully capable of outcompeting the current occupier of an ecological niche and with full access to that ecological niche would just sit on the sidelines for millions of years. But you are the only one who has expressed this possibility. No evolutionist is saying this is what happened.
Then, what are they saying happened? Who knows????
I enumerated some possibilities that evolutionists would actually consider in the following paragraph. In this paragraph I was merely pointing out that you were critiquing a possibility that evolutionists wouldn't consider.
Organisms give birth to offspring that possess very similar genetic makeup to themselves, but not identical because of copying error and allele recombinations, and this process of gradual change goes on for generation after generation.
So we should expect to see then within a given population, gradual emergence and shifting of features, not species appearing suddenly and fully formed, right?
If you could watch them actually evolve through time by way of some kind of time-traveling camera, sure! But all we've got is the sporadic and unreliable fossil record.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by randman, posted 01-06-2006 10:15 AM randman has not replied

  
bernd
Member (Idle past 3980 days)
Posts: 95
From: Munich,Germany
Joined: 07-10-2005


Message 216 of 243 (276365)
01-06-2006 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by randman
01-06-2006 9:50 AM


Completeness of fossil record
Hallo Randman,
When I understand you correctly you are asking, why we don’t see transitionals on the species level. To describe a transition between species we would need to find fossils every 20.000 to 80.000 years, the documentation of evolutionary bursts would require even shorter intervals. This is only possible in environments with a constant and undisturbed sedimentation for millions of years, something we generally find only at the bottom of the deep sea. Consequently nearly all examples of species level transitionals are found by deep sea drilling projects (compare [1]).
So what does this mean for whale transitionals? Relevant is not the sheer number of fossils found, but the number of independent records (see [2] )
The number N of independent records can be estimated by counting the
number of records coming from different geological formations,
representing different temporal epochs in various
geographic states or countries of the world.
Gingrich determined by a survey of the Georef online database this number for archaeocetes (23), mysticeti (34) and for odontoceti (46). Considering that the known temporal range of archaeocetes is about 19.8 million years, it should be obvious that we can’t expect the documentation of transitions on the species level, instead what we would long for - and that’s what we in fact observe - is the documentation of a general lineage, defined in [3] as:
This is a sequence of similar genera or families, linking an older group to a very different younger group. Each step in the sequence consists of some fossils that represent a certain genus or family, and the whole sequence often covers a span of tens of millions of years. A lineage like this shows obvious morphological intermediates for every major structural change, and the fossils occur roughly (but often not exactly) in the expected order. Usually there are still gaps between each of the groups -- few or none of the speciation events are preserved. Sometimes the individual specimens are not thought to be directly ancestral to the next-youngest fossils (i.e., they may be "cousins" or "uncles" rather than "parents"). However, they are assumed to be closely related to the actual ancestor, since they have intermediate morphology compared to the next-oldest and next-youngest "links". The major point of these general lineages is that animals with intermediate morphology existed at the appropriate times, and therefore the transitions from the proposed ancestors are fully plausible.
-Bernd
P.S.
Please note that you’ll have to wait for further posts until Sunday. Thanks for you understanding.

References
[1] http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/sle.htm
[2]University of Michigan: File Not Found ( 404 )
[3] Indiana University Bloomington

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by randman, posted 01-06-2006 9:50 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by randman, posted 01-06-2006 6:16 PM bernd has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 217 of 243 (276486)
01-06-2006 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by bernd
01-06-2006 11:48 AM


Re: Completeness of fossil record
Bernd, I am not asking for full species to species sequences necessarily, although I do think it's important that it is pointed out that such sequences largely do not exist in the data, and that no one should have any problem stating that the actual transitions are not seen in the fossil record. Rarely though have I ever met evos that will just own up to that, and so I ask for that sometimes so that we can see that when evos talk of gaps, there really is not a large bit of the process with just gaps missing, but we don't see the transitions taking place in the fossil record.
However, I do think it reasonable to see the major features evolving, and while we may not see species to species, unless one takes a gradualistic approach, I think we should see something of species to species or forms to forms, but with gaps.
We don't see that however.
I think we should also see more change within one species, and we don't typically see that either.
Let's imagine that if we recorded the morphing of a land mammal to a whale with every single change in features consisting of one frame. How many frames would there be?
Now, compare that to the actual "frames" or fossils of sets of distinct features we do have, and I think one can then get a proper understanding of just how large the so-called gaps are, and begin to see that it is somewhat deceptive to speak of gaps when so little of the movie is seen. I think that while we should expect to see some aspects of the morphing absent from the movie, we should expect to see most of these features emerging. In other words, we should probably see something like 40%, and we see maybe 1%.
Imo, the argument then for the other 99% of the frames in the movie is more based on an assumption the movie had to occur as evos claim rather than just looking at the evidence to see what it says and does not say.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by bernd, posted 01-06-2006 11:48 AM bernd has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by crashfrog, posted 01-06-2006 6:57 PM randman has not replied
 Message 222 by Nuggin, posted 01-07-2006 1:11 AM randman has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 218 of 243 (276495)
01-06-2006 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by randman
01-06-2006 6:16 PM


Re: Completeness of fossil record
although I do think it's important that it is pointed out that such sequences largely do not exist in the data
Well, do they largely not exist, or do they not exist at all? It would seem to me that the existence of any number of complete species sequences basically proves evolution.
and that no one should have any problem stating that the actual transitions are not seen in the fossil record.
You mean, do the fossils change right before your eyes from one species to another, sitting there on the table? No, of course not. Why would anybody need to see that happen to believe in evolution?
I think we should see something of species to species or forms to forms, but with gaps.
You've already admitted that that's exactly what we do see.
In other words, we should probably see something like 40%, and we see maybe 1%.
Support?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by randman, posted 01-06-2006 6:16 PM randman has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 219 of 243 (276582)
01-07-2006 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by Nuggin
01-06-2006 10:50 AM


Re: Huh?
Now onto the Huh? section
My own beliefs involve speculations I feel are strongly supported in physics, that the time-line aspect of space-time is so interwined with space that there are causal effects not simply forward in time but towards space-time as a whole, and some effects from our perspective backwards in time.
You may be talking right over my head but it sounds like you are making these points:
1) There is more evidence for speciation in physics than in biology
2) Since time is not necessarily linear, species do not need to adapt linearly through time.
3) Therefore it's possible that species we see today are decended from things not in the past, but in the future.
Am I close?
w - o - w. that is a whole new world of pseudo-intellectual wankery.
hey randman, can you provide a non-hypothetical example of a causal relationship, where from our perspective the cause comes after the effect?

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Nuggin, posted 01-06-2006 10:50 AM Nuggin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by NosyNed, posted 01-07-2006 12:36 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 220 of 243 (276584)
01-07-2006 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by arachnophilia
01-07-2006 12:22 AM


SpaceTime in total
Arch, this is off topic and a half but:
RM has been reading material about physicists understanding that time does not "flow"; that our perception of that is another illusion about the universe we live in. This appears to be the correct way to view it.
He, like many who grab onto something without understanding it, thinks this suggests that the past can be affected (since it is as there as the present and future are). This is, as I understand it, not supported by any physics and is contradicted by it.
RM is just like the new agers who grab onto parts of popular explanations of QM and try to warp it to support their views. You are not going to get anything sensible out of him since he hasn't forumlated a coherent view of it. When he says that we don't know thae answers to things that is the best you will get. He doesn't want to know so he tries to find ways to suggest that the underlying fabric of the universe is unknowable and cause and effect aren't connected as we think. This allows him to pretend that there might be some, as yet undiscovered mechanism to make whatever he imagines to be correct. (It is, as you state, pseudo-intellectually flummery of a kind that is all too common. )
If you are interested in a better view of time and space try "The Fabric of the Cosmos" by Brian Greene. Excellently written!
Meanwhile, don't help RM to drag this off topic into fanciful flights of sciencefictional speculations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by arachnophilia, posted 01-07-2006 12:22 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by arachnophilia, posted 01-07-2006 12:52 AM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 231 by randman, posted 01-09-2006 1:07 AM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 232 by AdminAsgara, posted 01-09-2006 1:17 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 221 of 243 (276590)
01-07-2006 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by NosyNed
01-07-2006 12:36 AM


Re: SpaceTime in total
Arch, this is off topic and a half but:
not totally off-topic. it explains entirely why a clear succession of transitional forms means nothing to randman -- he doesn't believe in linear causality.
RM has been reading material about physicists understanding that time does not "flow"; that our perception of that is another illusion about the universe we live in. This appears to be the correct way to view it.
it's immaterial. frankly, time can do whatever it wants. we still experience in a set direction and a somewhat uniform rate (unless you like doing relativistic calculations). things from our perspective still appear to move forward, causally.
this is basically "last thursdayism" in disguise. how do we know the world existed on wednessday? maybe it's just a big hoax, designed to look older. -- it doesn't matter, it still appears to be old, and for all intents and purposes is old. maybe time doesn't go forward, but it still appears to do so, so for all intents and purposes it does.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by NosyNed, posted 01-07-2006 12:36 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 222 of 243 (276596)
01-07-2006 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by randman
01-06-2006 6:16 PM


Re: Completeness of fossil record
Let's imagine that if we recorded the morphing of a land mammal to a whale with every single change in features consisting of one frame. How many frames would there be?
Now, compare that to the actual "frames" or fossils of sets of distinct features we do have, and I think one can then get a proper understanding of just how large the so-called gaps are, and begin to see that it is somewhat deceptive to speak of gaps when so little of the movie is seen.
Well, on this thread and others people have gone over the reasons why transitionals are rare.
But let's use the camera analogy you propose.
Let's say we have a security camera in a museum that takes a picture every 30 seconds. Someone breaks into the museum and steals some artwork. They are in the museum for an hour total. How many pictures would we expect to see of them?
60? None? We can't answer the question yet, we don't have enough information. Where is the camera located? Which way is it facing? Are their lights on in the museum?
The pace of the evolution of pre-historic whales may have been comparitively fast (or slow), but if the camera is not pointed in the right direction, we aren't going to get any photos.
A good response from you would be: "Okay, I understand that - for whales - but you can't use that excuse for everything. Surely, there have to be enough "cameras" up that we can see the "thief" on one of them."
Well, we do have sets that contain many of the frames you'd expect to see.
Feather evolution, for example, is extremely well documented in fossils from China (despite the fact that feathers are very unlikely to leave a fossil record).
Horse legs are another example of a feature in development. We have many representatives showing a clear progression over time.
Some sets are more complete than others, which is to be expected.
Additionally, it's pretty common for "new" fossils to turn up which fit in the gaps.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by randman, posted 01-06-2006 6:16 PM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by arachnophilia, posted 01-08-2006 10:21 PM Nuggin has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 223 of 243 (277195)
01-08-2006 3:04 PM


Cetaceans
I've been looking into pakicetus and its classification as a cetacean. I still have plenty to learn. Here is a picture, which is blatantly stolen from here
The top left picture is a typical land mammals ear structure, the top right is pakicetus and the bottom right is a modern whale the one between pakicetus and modern whale in appearance is Rodhocetus.
So I'm going to paraphrase the page somewhat for y'all. The principle difference between pakicetus' ear and land mammals is the inner ear cavity. First look at the land mammal, see the area marked 'TyBo'? That's the the tympanic bone. Follow it around the bottom of the diagram and back up towards the 'MeTy' (medial synostosis). In land mammals this is connected to the area labelled 'Per', the periotic bone. In cetaceans, there is a gap, the medial synostosis is missing. This gap is present in Pakicetus.
The part that is labelled 'inv' is the involucrum, a structure that replaces the medial synostosis in pakicetus and other cetaceans. As far as I am aware, only cetaceans have this structure, but I could be wrong. Randman has stated on several occasions that the unique cetacean characteristics found in pakicetus are found in other non-cetacean mammals, I would be keen to see which other organisms have this particular feature.

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by arachnophilia, posted 01-08-2006 10:10 PM Modulous has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 224 of 243 (277346)
01-08-2006 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Modulous
01-08-2006 3:04 PM


Re: Cetaceans
mod, where were you in the last pakicetus thread? we could have used that...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Modulous, posted 01-08-2006 3:04 PM Modulous has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 225 of 243 (277347)
01-08-2006 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by Nuggin
01-07-2006 1:11 AM


Re: Completeness of fossil record
The pace of the evolution of pre-historic whales may have been comparitively fast (or slow), but if the camera is not pointed in the right direction, we aren't going to get any photos.
that's not the issue. you see, if we have a picture of burglar on one side of the door, and then the burglar on the other side of the door, the creationist would want the picture in between. otherwise, you can't prove he broke in.
or if have a picture of the burglar walking up to a wall with a painting, and then walking away with the painting, the creationist would want us to prove that he took the painting off the wall.
the issue is basically that creationists are unwilling to play "connect the dots." each individual picture could be a specially posed and created work of art, and in no way indicate motion. motion blur only establishes breif ("micro") motion, but not that the action as a whole was carried out.
this proves two things:
  1. no evidence of intermediaries will never satisfy a creationist. they start with the assumption that the bit you're trying to prove can't happen, therefore it doesn't. there are, in effect, an infinite number of half-way points between any two points, but only a finite number of organisms to populate that path.
  2. if i ever rob a museum and get caught on camera, i'm hiring a creationist lawyer.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Nuggin, posted 01-07-2006 1:11 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by MangyTiger, posted 01-08-2006 11:12 PM arachnophilia has not replied
 Message 227 by Nuggin, posted 01-08-2006 11:12 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024