A Whale of a Tale

Here's some stuff from Randman from a different thread: I suggest we move this to a new topic before we completely derail the previous one.I'll take your bait, Randman. But you've gotta clear some stuff up for me first: What is a "whale" feature? What is not a "whale" feature? Is this the ONLY evidence for Paki being a whale ancestor? What are the other whale ancestors?
-and-
What distingushing characteristics seperate whales from them?Let's make sure we are all on the same page to start off with.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Thought of this the other day as an addendum to my openning post. Not adding by edit because I want this to bump the thread back up.I don't want this to be a "the definition of is" argument.Evolutionists are arguing that Paki is an ancestor of modern whales. That gets shortened by various people to "Paki is a whale".We are not trying to argue here that Paki "is" a whale.If you accept that Paki is an ancestor of modern whales, but want to stick on the shortened "Paki is a whale", then there isn't much here to debate - we are all in agreement.

Nuggin, thewiesen on his website has Pakicetus as "the first whale."Are you up-front conceding this is an overstatement and exagerration at best?

I'm trying to define the argument. I don't fully understand your position.Are you saying that Pakicetus is not related to whales?Or are you saying that Pakicetus is an ancestor to whales, but is so far removed that calling it the "first whale" is sort of like calling Lucy "the first Human".If it's the later, I see your point, but don't understand the zeal with which you pursue it. After all, there is a long tradition of "the first"'s. (ie "The abacus was the first computer")Maybe it's because it's late, but I can't find the site you are refering to. There's plenty of mention of Hans Thewissen and Pakicetus, etc, so I know I'm onto the right guy, but which site is his site?

nuggin, come on. If you can't find it, you are not looking. Try looking at the numerous times I have linked to it on different threads, some of which you ostensibly participated on.The fact is evos call Pakicetus the first whale when it is clearly not a whale at all.That's simple and straightforward. Why do I have the sneaking suspicion you will muck it up?http://www.neoucom.edu/...Thewissen/whale_origins/index.htmlThis message has been edited by randman, 01-03-2006 02:00 AM

I'm not mucking up anything. I want us to be very clear up front. I don't want this to be a "what is the meaning of -is-" thread.Are you saying that Pakicetus is not an ancestor to whales?thx for link, btwThis message has been edited by Nuggin, 01-03-2006 02:02 AM

Followed your link -Disagree with your possition about the label at the front end of the page. It's the subtitle.For readers: The page opens with The page then goes on to make his point.However, and this is a big however, so I'll do it in caps. HOWEVER, later in the page there is a photo of three skulls. Two are Pakicetidae, one is a coyote - it's meant to show size. The caption for that photo clearly reads: Here I think he has overstepped.I hope you see the distinction. While I accept him saying these are ancestors to whales, and accept the title "the first whales", labeling the skull a "whale" skull is a little much.And, before my brethren jump on me, I'll give an example (using me Lucy example from before). If an article showed Lucy's skull and labelled it an "Australopithicus Human" skull, we'd all scratch our heads.Is this the extent of our debate though? You agree that Paki is the ancestor of whales, it's just that the description is often over zealous?

I don't agree Pakicetus is ancestral to whales, but I also think it's important to note how evos typically overstate their case, especially when the evidence is weak, as is the case here. It seems the MO is to overstate the case to make up for lack of factual data and analysis, and imo, thats's not good science.

Would you agree that the evidence is strongest for an ancestral relationship to whales than to any other group? If not, what group do you think the evidence most strongly points to?--Percy

I'd say the evidence points to Pakicetus going extinct.

Yeah, and my grandpa is dead, too. Does that mean I'm not alive?

Uh, species consist of more than one member. Ancestry within a species such as you and your grandpa is well documented. Not the same thing.But it is interesting to note the way you guys think. A species must be ancestral so the question is what are they ancestral to. In other words, evos assume evolution is true, and thus any argument that supports that assumption is acceptable as science, and any argument that rejects that assumption is not acceptable to you guys.

Right, because as we have discussed before, the only logical conclusion is that different species suddenly *poof* into existance when the "intelligent-poofer" seeas fit. Isn't that the conclusion we came to before?The earth is old, and animals don't evolve. Therefore, an ID (or rather, IP) *poofs* species into existance according to some mysterious will/plan. Sounds like a perfect explanation to me, and entirely irrational to boot. This message has been edited by Yaro, 01-03-2006 11:23 AM

So too is ancestry betwen species. We see it all the time.What's your point, exactly? That's because it's much more common for a species to have decendants then not to have them, so it's a reasonable question - what is it the ancestor of? If it's the ancestor of nothing, what leads you to that conclusion? What's the evidence?