I agree, but there is substantial difficulty even getting evos here that want to debate to deal with the Yes/No part.
A Yes/No answer is meaningless if not provided in a proper context. Yaro answered your Yes/No question in
Message 9, by providing a picture from the National Geographic. This answer also provided the context which, in my opinion, showed that there was no deception or misrepresentation involved.
Look at arach's post demanding to deal with a separate issue of whether pakicetus is related to ambicoletus.
I have not gone back to recheck. It is my impression that you were only asked whether the skeletons were similar. I don't recall your being asked for a statement on whether they are related. The question seemed relevant, since it has to do with what is or is not a reasonable inference, which is what you were attempting to challenge.
It's just that it is freaking absurd to involve oneself with people that refuse to discuss the data.
And arachnophilia provided data, you refused to discuss it.
I leave work at 4:30 pm, and I arrive home at 5:00 pm. A reasonable person would infer that at 4:45 I was approximately halfway home. There is, however, no evidence for this. I could have poofed out of existence just after 4:30, and poofed back into existence just before 5:00, and thus I might have made it home without ever going through the intermediate points.
We make these inferences every day. It is not only scientists who make these inferences. Everybody makes such inferences. They are based on interpolation and extrapolation from known data. Such interpolations and extrapolations are not guaranteed to be correct, but they have a well established record of giving useful results.
1. Did Pakicetus have webbed feet? Yes/no is helpful to move the discussion forward.
2. Should depictions of webbed feet be shown with such scant evidence?
That's the topic here.
In
Message 6 you said "PK, promote it in Education so he can present the pictures, and we can discuss whether the way Pakicetus is presented was right or not." That's what you agreed was the topic.
Yaro has defended the view that the way it was presented was right, because there was a clear statement as to the basis of the depiction and as to the fact that it was an artist's rendition. You have been consistently asserting that it was wrongly depicted. I am having great difficulty finding where you are providing a basis for your assertions.
If you want to argue that case, it seems to me that you would need to get into the issue of interpolation and extrapolation. And that would involve discussing a lot of related evidence that scientists use.
™ Version 4.2
