A Whale of a Tale

I suggest you read Yaro's comments because right here on this thread, she (?) argues the exact opposite.

Randman, that is not what I belive. Nor is it why I ask you to state your case. The thing is, the only thing one can prove/disprove is a proposition.You have to propose something before you can ask that the currently reigning argument be taken down. So far, ToE works and explains the evidence.It is vitaly necissary that you PROPOSE something we can put in it's place. We can then take that proposition, see it's explanatory power in lieu of the evidence, and guage weather or not it trumps the reigning theory.I am afraid, unless you do that, you will never change anyones mind or gain any ground for your position.This message has been edited by Yaro, 01-04-2006 05:06 PM

nope, I don't. Read Message 167

My proposition on this thread is that evolution does not "work" and does not fit the evidence, and provide the lack of transitionals or intermediates in the whale evolutionary story as evidence.And you have consistently argued that one cannot make an effective argument against evolution unless one presents an alternative theory. I do present alternative theories, but that is besides the point, evolution is wrong based on facts even if there is no alternative offered at all. In other words, you do argue that something new must be proposed in order to argue that evolution is wrong. Just showing how evolution is wrong based on the facts is not good enough, right? Percy, you taking notice of this? Clearly some evos do argue that one must advance another theory, not just showing how the facts don't mesh with evolutionism.

Ya. And this has been disproven. The problem is, that you haven't done so. Evolution, even if it is wrong, has an explanation for the fatcs. That's what we have been giving you this whole damn thread.You obviously don't like the explantions. Yet you cann't seem to say they don't work other than incredulity.If you seriously want to discont ToE explanations, then you have to explain the evidence better. Which obviously, you can't. First. I am not Percy, I am not part of The United Front of Evil Evolutionists. I am simply speaking for myself on my opinion.From what I see you haven't disproven anything. You are arguing from incredulity and are incapable of providing a better explanation for what we see around us.This message has been edited by Yaro, 01-04-2006 05:23 PM

No, Randman, I was replying to a passage from you that was not "talking strictly aquatic creatures at that point". I was replying to your general statement from Message 150 that I quoted when I replied to it, and that I quote again more fully this time to make clear that you were speaking generally: You were questioning whether it was reasonable for a species to have a small population and range for long periods of time, and I responded. Clearly I was not responding generally to specific comments from you about whales. You are again wrong.Please stop forcing me to waste time correcting the record. I grew tired of being called a liar, I grew tired of being accused of making false statements, and now I'm growing tired of correcting false characterizations. Just stick to the topic and stop lecturing everyone about the many trespasses they commit against you. You always detect 17 of every 2 trespasses anyway, so there's no point to it except to emphasize your extreme sensitivity, of which we're already well aware. There is no such requirement. 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. There could have been an extinction followed by incursion of an opportunistic species into the empty niche. 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? Some of the story we may be able to eventually tease out, but most of it likely not. When there's not much left but bones it's really hard to reconstruct what happened in the past. Maybe one didn't evolve at that time. Maybe it did and left no fossils behind. 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. 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.But there are many other possibilities that might have happened. During much of its time in approximate isolation this evolving population might not have had the competitive oomph to outcompete the current occupiers of the wide oceans. Or maybe it did, but the isolation wasn't approximate but absolute because they evolved in an inland sea with no connection to ocean appropriate for them to migrate to the oceans. Or maybe there were other factors keeping them from taking over, such as vulnerability to an ocean-going virus that eventually became less a factor, or a predator that preferred their taste but eventually went extinct.There are so many possibilities it almost makes no sense to even try to begin discussing them. For you to pick one possibility and insist that it's the only way it could happen just makes no sense to anyone. But the evolution didn't necessarily take place there. It might have taken place somewhere else where erosion did later take place and wipe out the fossil record. Don't get this confused with PE. Populations evolve in continuous fashion, I was saying nothing more or less. There is no step-wise species evolution. No organism ever gives birth to a different species (excepting polyploidy and hybridism and some other exceptions). 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. In effect each offspring is a genetic experiment, and the environment selects which offspring are the successes.--Percy

If you're trying to replace evolutionary theory, then you must advance a theory with greater explanatory and predictive power. Your reluctance to provide any specifics about how ID accounts for the origin of species is fatal.My comments about the success of a theory not being a function of the poverty of its competitors was made in a different context. A bad theory does not become the "winner" just because all the other theories are worse. Scientists don't create successful theories by badmouthing other theories. They do it by demonstrating the theory's explanatory and predictive power.I said this in the context of creationism, which doesn't conduct any real science, but rather just tries to contrive convincing sounding arguments against evolution in order to cast doubt about it in the public mind. That's why creationism won't replace evolution if evolution is ever falsified, because creationism isn't really science and has no explanatory or predictive power. If creationism is ever to become successful scientifically then they have to cease putting all their efforts into the "badmouth evolution" bucket and start putting them into scientific research. Real scientific research, not the kind presented at creationism conferences.--Percy

Not necessarily. The amount of variation between the two groups is more dependant on the amount of time they remain seperated. If the "replacement" group is seperated only a short period of time, or not "very isolated" - that group would be expected to accumulate less collective change than a group fully isolated for an extended period.While a scenario is possible that a group becomes isolated, changes only slighty, then proceeds to replace the original group, that's not what I am suggesting for this situation.Let's assume (fairly safely, I think) that Basilo was successful and wide spread and remained so for quite some time.An isolated group of Basilo/Basilo-like animals evolves into a new species. That species (not Basilo, but also not modern whales) has some distinct advantage (maybe it breeds faster, maybe the climate is changing, maybe it feeds on more variety than Basilo). Something happens which brings them into competition with Basilo and it out competes them.Would this animal look like Basilo? Maybe, maybe not. Depends on how similiar you want them to look. Personally, I think the Minke whale looks a lot like Basilo - though I don't think the Minke is this transitional. I would expect this creature to have features that we find present in both Basilo and in modern whales - blow hole, tail fluke, maybe teeth similarities, ear components, vestigal hind limbs, etc.Do I know what this animal is? Not yet. I'm a screenwriter in Los Angeles, not a professor of palaentology, so I'm looking. Maybe we don't have a representative of it in the fossil record yet. Maybe we will never have a representative of it. What I'm chiefly concerned with is the plausibility of the scenario.If this scenario seems implausible to you - not because we don't have a fossil, but because you disagree with the idea of isolation, or change, or competetion, or replacement, or whatever, let me know - we'll get into that more directly.On niches:
The group which replaces the original in the niche need not even be related at all, they just need to be better at that niche. Typically we'd expect a minor change in a group which is already good at exploiting that niche to be the best option but there are examples showing extreme exceptions:Though I can't find a link for it, there are areas of forest where crabs have completely replaced the ground dwelling insects by out competing them for food - in this case leaves. Obviously the crabs did no evolve from the ants and beetles which lived in that particular area, they simply moved in and out competed them.On Paki:
Currently, our discussion - meaning you, Randman and me, has not come close to addressing Paki's connection to Basilo. I want to acknowledge that up front. I'm trying to establish a common ground work about more recent relatives before going way out there.Unfortunately, given the tone and length of the thread, that sort of discussion may end up taking place in "A Whale of a Tale part 2"

Randman, At no point have you provided credible evidence that ID is indicative of reality. Let's recap.Evolution predicts that whales descended from a terrestrial mammalian ancestor. Molecular & genetic evidence supports this. Cladograms & phylogenies derived from morphological characters support this. A perfectly valid scientific proposition with evidence.Your response? "There aren't enough fossil intermediates". This is spite of your failure to attain knowledge logically required to come to this conclusion:What is the geographical range of a potential transitional population?;
What is the population size of a potential transitional population?;
What percentage of a population, if any, live in habitats that are conducive to fossilisation?;
What is the range in time of a potential transitional population?;
Has the area previously conducive to fossilisation changed & become non-conducive?;
Has the species become locally extinct?;
How much of the earth today has exposed strata of the relevant ages?;
Just because a species is numerous & has many fossil examples, how can I be so sure that any other daughter species are so numerous & have a wide range?
How many fossiliferous strata are unavailable to us?;
etc.Failure to objectively answer these questions renders your position as being mere speculation.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

---

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

Actually, at no point has RM explained even his view of what ID means in this case (if that is what he is argueing).Here is a guess at what he is saying:God about 50 million or so years ago wiped out some mostly terrestrial animals that possessed some characteristics that, today, only the cetaceans possess. God then, a bit later, created in one fell swoop some more animals that were somewhat less terrestrial and possessed cetacean characteristics (somewhat more so than the earlier ones). God then wiped these unfortunates out too.After sometime God decided to make some more animals that were not very terrestrial at all (one suspects it was planed to keep trying this until he got it right so there would be something to swallow Jonah). These were more like the whale he needed for Jonah but after some millions of years (he takes his time on making decisions) he decided to wipe these out too.Then he created a number of different animals that were fully aquatic, very like today’s cetaceans but not exactly like today’s whales. These too, for some reason that we inadequate humans can't understand weren't quite right either. (At this point in my projects I give up and hire someone who knows what they are doing.)He wiped this guys out and sat back to think it through for a million or two years (maybe he even read the instructions at this point).Finally, just few million years ago, he had it figured out and got it right. Jonah had his ride and things have been left alone since then.Maybe that isn't the scenario RM means but he sure hasn't given much in the way of clues to try to guess. I thought I'd help out by offering one that he might like more than the evolutionary explanation. It has lots of God-did-it so maybe he will.ABE
Cleaned up some worse than usual typos, etc.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-05-2006 05:04 PM

lol

Percy, on the one hand, you say that it's not necessary to prove a new theory to discredit evolution and then another you basically say that it is. I realize you do not believe you are doing that. I think you are not seeing the effects of your own argument, but at this point, we can agree to disagree.I see evolution as based on outright fraud, overstatement and exagerration. You see creationism and ID as outside the realm of science.My suggestions are we should talk about the one area we agree on rules to debate. Are the stated and historical evidences for evolution based on overstatements and frauds, or not? And so, you will see on threads, that this will be the line of reasoning I take and discuss.Since you are committed a priori to rejecting ID and/or creationism as not science, you will generally not see my spending a lot of time advocating those positions. I will just stick to pointing out the overstatements, frauds, illogic, etc,...I believe characterizes much of evolutionism.Hopefully, you can come to the point of acknowleding that even if you disagree with my assessment of these details, that focussing on such details is not being secretive, but an honest, scientific and factual approach to the data.

It's amazing how you and percy insist on making this a thread on ID.Contrary to your false charges, I have repeatedly made known exactly what my position is, namely that the past is not static and that effects are not strictly linear in time. You have repeatedly ignored that, and even tried to ban me if I dared bring up my views on threads like this.As such, your dishonesty in smearing me is hard to see as a mere mistake.

I addressed how the fossil evidence does not show the transitions and how evos have not done any quantitative analysis to know if their claims of fossil rarity is true.The stance of evos is to make the claim, as you do, and then demand somehow others disprove it. That's what you are doing, and it leads to evos accepting on faith all sorts of myths, hoaxes, overstatements, etc,...such as the Biogenetic law.This message has been edited by randman, 01-05-2006 06:33 PM

Nuggin, Basilo does not have all these features. Let's debate facts, not what we hope is the case. Basilo is serpent-like for one, not whale-like in it's tail.I agree that there is no way under the current climate of evos posting here we can actually get back into the OP discussing Paki. I would just go ahead and start the part 2 thread with the same OP.