Looking for all the missing links

[AV1611VET]

You can please yourself.

I never went to a garden party.

 

[Greg1234]

"Holy mammals" is what Robin said after visiting the creationist theme park. (there's no way it's a museum)

Am I right in thinking that most of the professional creationists have started up their own theme parks?

You should see the Darwinian art gallery.

 

[USincognito]

Is this a trick question? Ok I will bite. How about Buddhism started with Buddha?

Before Buddha was Confucius.

Confucius say: "Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire."

Interestingly Buddha was born of a virgin too. What are the chances of that?

From wiki:

AV likes to derail threads with off-topic questions. Please ignore them and simply inform him that the roots of Buddhism have nothing to do with the thread topic.

 

[Tiberius]

I'm still waiting to hear from Astrid why I should take her word over the word of actual biologists when they have studied for years and have qualifications and she doesn't.

 

[Astridhere]

The one thing an evolutionist is incapable of doing is accepting the data their own researchers come up with.

Kenneth Rose stated that the inner ear of Indohys was poorly seen in just one example. Everyone here knows now that the bones were washed together and are not from one individual. You have Indoyus with toes and hooves. You have a mess to offer in Indohyus and the rest or your so called whale intermediates aren't any better. Kenneth Rose challenges Thewessin. Thewessin wants headlines and grants, not truth.

Look at you all squirming, denying, playing fruit loops with each other and stroking each others ego, ad nauseum.

There is a very full rubbish bin filled with peer reviewed twoddle that ended up being nothing more than evolutionary delusions. Hence hitting on my scientific credentials means absolutely nothing. I have plenty of credentials, a phd and honours, in other fields and I am no idiot.

There is no quote mine and the information I gave is as it is and reflective of the status quo, with a very well credentialed evolutionary researcher, Kenneth Rose, also alluding to the fact that Thewissen has not made his case.

None of you could reinstate Indohyus back to its' glory state. Not one of you, nor can you if you tried. The facts are the facts, lovies, so suck it up and deal with it.

Indohyus is a sham and none of you have been able to defend it with anything more than having a cheap shot at me. What a laugh!

Why didn't they disagree with Kenneth Rose? Because they can't. This is why they chuck ridicule at me and try to take walks down the garden paths of evasion. :o. You evos should be embarrased at the this display of yours given all your crap about basing your views on science.

Come on Tiberius and the other big mouths here.... you have many words to say against me, refute Rose a well credentialed evolutionist, you loosers that are a total waste of anyones time.

I have made my point and it is irrefuteable because it is based on the true state of the evidence around Indohyus rather than the glossy misrepresentation that is printed and sold to the public.

I'll bet the majority of evos didn't even know Indohyus was a piecemeal reconstruction, don't know you have never found a near complete fossil, did not know indohyus comes with hooves and toes, did not know indohyus inner ear was theorised from one single specimen that was poor and vague and did not know that some evo researchers question the validity of Thewissens assumptions. Well I am pleased to be the one to bring this to your attention. Are you gobsmacked? Obviously, Yes, most of you are becauuse you simply cannot deal with factual information and cannot repel it with anything more than personal shots at me.

Party on you evos at my expense as much as you like. I have demonstrated the true state of Indohyus and your denial and evasion of the factual state of indohyus will never ever be a refute to me, now matter how much you wish it was. That is just one example of a plethora of misrepresentations evos use as evidence for TOE.

Thanks for the blessings all those that like what I have to say.....

Tiberius, Kenneth Rose is a well credentialed evolutionist. How many times do you have to ignore this before you wake up? Hello!!!!!

I am still waiting for you to defend just one fossil at the head of one of your best documented examples for mammal evolution, and you refuse to.

I'll repeat this again, You have nothing more to offer than "Astrid is wrong"

That means nothing to anyone except you and demonstrates your incapacity to articulate an appropriate response to me.

If you wish to make a name for yourself here then refute Rose, an evo researcher, who also said that Thewissens case for Indohyus is not made.

Kenneth Rose, a professor of functional anatomy and evolution at Johns Hopkins University, said Thewissen didn't provide enough evidence to merit his conclusions. He also questioned the use of the composite skeleton.
The ear bone thickness, the key trait that Thewissen used, was difficult to judge and seemed based on a single specimen, Rose said. Much of the work is based on teeth, and overall the remains preserved from this family of species are poorly preserved, he said.
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/wh.indohyus.pdf​

Feel free to call both of your evolutionary researchers idiots if you can refute them. However, "They said so" just doesn't cut it.

Gingerick is another one that challenges Thewissens findings. Feel free to refute him also.
Whales Evolved From Tiny Deerlike Mammals, Study Says

These are both well credentialed evolutionary researchers that say in simple terms you can understand, 'THE CASE FOR INDOHYUS BEING A WHALE ANCESTOR IS NOT MADE'

Here is a hint to refute me, Rose and Gingerick whom all say the case for Indohyus being a whale ancestor is not made; Show me evidence of multiple inner ear samples that are not vague and poor samples, show me evidence that indohyus is a consistent rank with either feet or hooves if I am incorrect, show me evidence of a complete or near complete fossil evidence for Indohyus, show me evidence that Indohyus is not a composite skeleton.

Here is another hint... You can save yourself heaps of time if you just admit that Indohyus is not convincing evidence for anything at the moment.


Now you know what you need to produce to challenge me. If you can't do that, anything you have to offer is a waste of time, clogging up the thread with rubbish and no more than grand standing.

 

[Norman321]

I never went to a garden party.

Then you need to come to our house. We have so much glass in our addition that it's like being out in the garden.

 

[NailsII]

Although this wasn't directed to me, I will add my comments while I wait for Astrid to respond to my last post directed to her.

Here is a hint to refute me, Rose and Gingerick whom all say the case for Indohyus being a whale ancestor is not made; Show me evidence of multiple inner ear samples that are not vague and poor samples, show me evidence that indohyus is a consistent rank with either feet or hooves if I am incorrect, show me evidence of a complete or near complete fossil evidence for Indohyus, show me evidence that Indohyus is not a composite skeleton.

Indohyus is a candidate, it is found in the right time and the right place. I agree that more conclusive evidence would be nice, but until we have it Indohyus is a good candidate.
Not sure why you are so obsessed with its feet though.

Here is another hint... You can save yourself heaps of time if you just admit that Indohyus is not convincing evidence for anything at the moment.

To you maybe, it is not conclusive.
Among biologists, some are supportive and some are negative, others sit on the fence.

Now you know what you need to produce to challenge me. If you can't do that, anything you have to offer is a waste of time, clogging up the thread with rubbish and no more than grand standing.

Pot, meet the black kettle.

 

[GrannyM]

Perhaps you can tell us why Buddhism got started then?

Hint: It is a breakaway religion from another one.

As is Christianity.

 

[Astridhere]

Although this wasn't directed to me, I will add my comments while I wait for Astrid to respond to my last post directed to her.Indohyus is a candidate, it is found in the right time and the right place. I agree that more conclusive evidence would be nice, but until we have it Indohyus is a good candidate.
Not sure why you are so obsessed with its feet though.

More evidence would be nice Nails. However you do not have any more. To suggest in any way that Indohyus presents convincing evidence of whale evolution that only the ignorant would deny is foolish.

To you maybe, it is not conclusive.
Among biologists, some are supportive and some are negative, others sit on the fence.

Pot, meet the black kettle.

You are incorrect or are unable to comprehend the links I posted because I have already spoken to 2 evolutionary researchers that also agree that Thewissen has not made the case as yet, meaning it is inconclusive.

ALSO MEANING THE CASE FOR INDOHYUS NOT BEING MADE IS NOT MY EVALUATION ALONE. Get Those evogoggles off.

When evolutionists here avoid the obvious truths I present that are acknowledged by your own evolutionary researchers your credibility vanishes. I'd say the majority of evo scientists have no idea what the basis to the claim is based on, just like most of you didn't.

The thread is about missing links in the chain of evolution. I have presented one link you thought you had, Indohyus the beginning of whale evolution, but you don't. You do have a wish list for more of something that actually looks like evidence, but that is not the case at present.

 

[Tiberius]

Tiberius, Kenneth Rose is a well credentialed evolutionist. How many times do you have to ignore this before you wake up? Hello!!!!!

I am still waiting for you to defend just one fossil at the head of one of your best documented examples for mammal evolution, and you refuse to.

I'll repeat this again, You have nothing more to offer than "Astrid is wrong"

That means nothing to anyone except you and demonstrates your incapacity to articulate an appropriate response to me.

If you wish to make a name for yourself here then refute Rose, an evo researcher, who also said that Thewissens case for Indohyus is not made.

Kenneth Rose, a professor of functional anatomy and evolution at Johns Hopkins University, said Thewissen didn't provide enough evidence to merit his conclusions. He also questioned the use of the composite skeleton.
The ear bone thickness, the key trait that Thewissen used, was difficult to judge and seemed based on a single specimen, Rose said. Much of the work is based on teeth, and overall the remains preserved from this family of species are poorly preserved, he said.
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/wh.indohyus.pdf​

Feel free to call both of your evolutionary researchers idiots if you can refute them. However, "They said so" just doesn't cut it.

Gingerick is another one that challenges Thewissens findings. Feel free to refute him also.
Whales Evolved From Tiny Deerlike Mammals, Study Says

These are both well credentialed evolutionary researchers that say in simple terms you can understand, 'THE CASE FOR INDOHYUS BEING A WHALE ANCESTOR IS NOT MADE'

Here is a hint to refute me, Rose and Gingerick whom all say the case for Indohyus being a whale ancestor is not made; Show me evidence of multiple inner ear samples that are not vague and poor samples, show me evidence that indohyus is a consistent rank with either feet or hooves if I am incorrect, show me evidence of a complete or near complete fossil evidence for Indohyus, show me evidence that Indohyus is not a composite skeleton.

Here is another hint... You can save yourself heaps of time if you just admit that Indohyus is not convincing evidence for anything at the moment.


Now you know what you need to produce to challenge me. If you can't do that, anything you have to offer is a waste of time, clogging up the thread with rubbish and no more than grand standing.

So why are you jumping on his side and claiming that since he says something he must be right when others are saying differently and they are wrong?

On what basis are you able to reach the conclusion that Rose and Gingerick are right and everyone else is wrong?

Or are you playing the usual creationist card of "Everyone who says something I agree with is right, and everyone else is wrong"?

 

[Astridhere]

So why are you jumping on his side and claiming that since he says something he must be right when others are saying differently and they are wrong?

On what basis are you able to reach the conclusion that Rose and Gingerick are right and everyone else is wrong?

Or are you playing the usual creationist card of "Everyone who says something I agree with is right, and everyone else is wrong"?

There is no 'everyone else'. Everyone else takes on what they get told, including the majority of evolutionary researchers.

The majority of evolutionary researchers believed in human knucklewalking ancestry and that non coding DNA had absolutely no function and guess what? They, the majority of well credentialed evolutionary researchers, were WRONG.

Hence what the majority believe is no defence to indohyus and I can similarly demonstrate the misrepresentation within the entirely of your fossil and genomic so called support for evolution.

If suggesting 'the majority say so' is the end of any matter then show me the evidence that you or others base their evaluation of indohyus on. To suggest this washed together mongrel of many feet has any creibility you will need to articulate an appropriate response with supportive research.

If you are unable to do that, then I feel sad for you. Not everyone has a good grasp on their topic and that goes for both creationists and evolutionists alike. This is a debating forum where my expectation is that I get to have discussions with people that can actually debate and support their point of view with more than 'they said so'.

Here I am talking about one point of evolutionary support, Indohyus. If you disagree with Rose, Gingerck and me you will have to do better than suggesting 'common thinking' has any merit when viewing the huge rubbish bin of evolutionary woopsies.

 

[NailsII]

More evidence would be nice Nails. However you do not have any more. To suggest in any way that Indohyus presents convincing evidence of whale evolution that only the ignorant would deny is foolish.

I have never suggested that it is conclusively proven to be a


whale ancestor.
It is an interesting possibilty.
The point you have failed to take on board is science is not based on revelation. This means that anything deemed as fact is only provisional, new evidence can change our understanding in the future.
This is not a weakness, it is a strength of science, and has led to improvements in how we understand the world.
This means that most people would be very happy if Indohyus is removed the evolutionary line of cetaceans, because that would mean that, in all likelihood, we have replaced it with a better one ie supported by more evidence.

Now you know what you need to produce to challenge me. If you can't do that, anything you have to offer is a waste of time, clogging up the thread with rubbish and no more than grand standing.

Pot, meet the black kettle.

You are incorrect or are unable to comprehend the links I posted because I have already spoken to 2 evolutionary researchers that also agree that Thewissen has not made the case as yet, meaning it is inconclusive.

ALSO MEANING THE CASE FOR INDOHYUS NOT BEING MADE IS NOT MY EVALUATION ALONE. Get Those evogoggles off.

When evolutionists here avoid the obvious truths I present that are acknowledged by your own evolutionary researchers your credibility vanishes. I'd say the majority of evo scientists have no idea what the basis to the claim is based on, just like most of you didn't.

The point I was trying to make is that you are clogging up this thread with the same old lines of argument - and I don't know if you have noticed but we agree more than we disagree about Indohyus.
Where we differ is that I accept it as a possible ancestor, you refuse to accept that there are any ancestors (if I have understood you correctly).

The thread is about missing links in the chain of evolution. I have presented one link you thought you had, Indohyus the beginning of whale evolution, but you don't. You do have a wish list for more of something that actually looks like evidence, but that is not the case at present.

t isn't a missing link though is it.
Nor is it the beginning of whale evolution.
And new evidence will be unearthed - we just need patience.

Talking of patience, mine is running out - please answer my previous posts which were direct replies to your posts.

 

[Astridhere]

Nails11 I have responded to you. I'll hence on these words of yours

I have never suggested that it is conclusively proven to be a
whale ancestor.
It is an interesting possibilty.

Here you agree with me. However to suggest that basing ones evolutionary evidence on possibilities means TOE can only ever be a philosophy, not a science.

The point you have failed to take on board is science is not based on revelation. This means that anything deemed as fact is only provisional, new evidence can change our understanding in the future.
This is not a weakness, it is a strength of science, and has led to improvements in how we understand the world.
This means that most people would be very happy if Indohyus is removed the evolutionary line of cetaceans, because that would mean that, in all likelihood, we have replaced it with a better one ie supported by more evidence.

This is where I see your evolutionary indoctrination is apparent. Indeed Indohyus and its vaguary is one example of 'possible scenarios' being upheld as evidence for something that may or may not look like a mouse deer being able to macroevolve into something that may or may not look like a seal.

Indeed, even a biased piecemeal reconstruction more closely resembles a modern day mouse deer, yet Indohyus is said to be more closely related to a whale than a deer likely because of a vague and poor sample of a middle ear seen in one specimen. It appears to me something is very much amiss with the whole deal evolutionists have presented, particularly in relation to whale evolution.

I have strained one point intentionally. To have several on the table becomes confusing with asides flying everywhere. I have strained Indohyus intentionally to bring home to you exactly what it is you are calling mountains of evidence for evolution.

So basically you agree with me on indohyus. It isn't good enough but it is the best you've got. I agree with that. The point being, Indohyus is not good enough at present to suggest it is good evidence for transition from tetrapod to whale.

Is there any other remarkable evidence for any transition you would like to herald as convincing evidence for evolution, in line with the thread topic, missing links in a theorised chain? You can stick with whales and we'll go down the chain or you can pick your own this time.

I suggest these 'links' are no more than 'possible scenarios'. I call them 'wish lists'. In either case a possible scenario is not evidence. Evolutionists should not be surprised if some of us do not accept possible scenarios as evidence.

 

[Tiberius]

There is no 'everyone else'. Everyone else takes on what they get told, including the majority of evolutionary researchers.

The majority of evolutionary researchers believed in human knucklewalking ancestry and that non coding DNA had absolutely no function and guess what? They, the majority of well credentialed evolutionary researchers, were WRONG.

Hence what the majority believe is no defence to indohyus and I can similarly demonstrate the misrepresentation within the entirely of your fossil and genomic so called support for evolution.

If suggesting 'the majority say so' is the end of any matter then show me the evidence that you or others base their evaluation of indohyus on. To suggest this washed together mongrel of many feet has any creibility you will need to articulate an appropriate response with supportive research.

If you are unable to do that, then I feel sad for you. Not everyone has a good grasp on their topic and that goes for both creationists and evolutionists alike. This is a debating forum where my expectation is that I get to have discussions with people that can actually debate and support their point of view with more than 'they said so'.

Here I am talking about one point of evolutionary support, Indohyus. If you disagree with Rose, Gingerck and me you will have to do better than suggesting 'common thinking' has any merit when viewing the huge rubbish bin of evolutionary woopsies.

How can you write six paragrpahs and yet not answer my question?

Why should I believe you and two scientists when the vast majority of scientists have looked at their work and not found it convincing enough to accept as fact?

 

[Astridhere]

How can you write six paragrpahs and yet not answer my question?

Why should I believe you and two scientists when the vast majority of scientists have looked at their work and not found it convincing enough to accept as fact?

For the fifth time...

If suggesting 'the majority say so' is the end of any matter then show me the evidence that you or others base their evaluation of indohyus on. To suggest this washed together mongrel of many feet has any creibility you will need to articulate an appropriate response with supportive research.
The majority of evolutionary researchers believed in human knucklewalking ancestry and that non coding DNA had absolutely no function and guess what? They, the majority of well credentialed evolutionary researchers, were WRONG.

Hence what the majority believe is no defence to indohyus and I can similarly demonstrate the misrepresentation within the entirely of your fossil and genomic so called support for evolution.

IOW what the majority thinks means zilch and I have demonstrated why. If you still have a bee in your bonnet about this silly question of yours then refute the above and substantiate why anyone should believe any of them and their flavours of the month and possible scenarios instead of repeating yourself, ad nauseum.

Now, that Nails11 and I have nailed Indohyus as being nothing more than a possible scenario for evolutionists and a 'wish list' for me, would you care to choose another example from the mountains of misrepresentation evolutionists call evidence for links in the chain of evolution. I'll demonstrate one by one how they are actually pretty much all nothing more than 'possible scenarios' like Indohyus. "Possible scenarios" are not evidence of anything any more than a 'wish list' is evidence.

I'll bet you do not rise to the challenge Tiberius.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

For the fifth time...

If suggesting 'the majority say so' is the end of any matter then show me the evidence that you or others base their evaluation of indohyus on. To suggest this washed together mongrel of many feet has any creibility you will need to articulate an appropriate response with supportive research.
The majority of evolutionary researchers believed in human knucklewalking ancestry and that non coding DNA had absolutely no function and guess what? They, the majority of well credentialed evolutionary researchers, were WRONG.

Hence what the majority believe is no defence to indohyus and I can similarly demonstrate the misrepresentation within the entirely of your fossil and genomic so called support for evolution.

IOW what the majority thinks means zilch and I have demonstrated why. If you still have a bee in your bonnet about this silly question of yours then refute the above and substantiate why anyone should believe any of them and their flavours of the month and possible scenarios instead of repeating yourself, ad nauseum.

Now, that Nails11 and I have nailed Indohyus as being nothing more than a possible scenario for evolutionists and a 'wish list' for me, would you care to choose another example from the mountains of misrepresentation evolutionists call evidence for links in the chain of evolution. I'll demonstrate one by one how they are actually pretty much all nothing more than 'possible scenarios' like Indohyus. "Possible scenarios" are not evidence of anything any more than a 'wish list' is evidence.

I'll bet you do not rise to the challenge Tiberius.

Does anyone else have a crap ton of trouble even reading these posts? My eyes glaze over after one sentence.

 

[Astridhere]

Does anyone else have a crap ton of trouble even reading these posts? My eyes glaze over after one sentence.

That's because your brain is skilled in the art of avoidance. BTW. Glasses won't help.

 

[NailsII]

Nails11 I have responded to you. I'll hence on these words of yours

It doesn't matter, I shouldn't expect you to answer all my posts
.

Here you agree with me. However to suggest that basing ones evolutionary evidence on possibilities means TOE can only ever be a philosophy, not a science.

It is not an agreement though is it, because we still hold contradictory positions. I expect further evidence to settle the mater one way or the other, and you believe that no amount of evidence will ever settle the matter - because you would still not accept it based upon your prior religious beiefs.

This is where I see your evolutionary indoctrination is apparent. Indeed Indohyus and its vaguary is one example of 'possible scenarios' being upheld as evidence for something that may or may not look like a mouse deer being able to macroevolve into something that may or may not look like a seal.

I still cannot understand why religious people have to use words that describe them (like indoctrination) and just throw them back, as if it adds credibility to their argument.
It doesn't.
You need to get over this mythological stumbling block of 'macro-evolution' before you will ever understand biology.
Sorry.

Indeed, even a biased piecemeal reconstruction more closely resembles a modern day mouse deer, yet Indohyus is said to be more closely related to a whale than a deer likely because of a vague and poor sample of a middle ear seen in one specimen. It appears to me something is very much amiss with the whole deal evolutionists have presented, particularly in relation to whale evolution.

Even if the ear turns out to be wrong (ie mixed-up specimen or disease - whatever) then it is unlikely to be a deer ancestor (but not impossible) as it is in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Unfortunately there is much more to piecing together the past than just looking at a skeleton and saying "It looks like a deer, so it must be a deer".

I have strained one point intentionally. To have several on the table becomes confusing with asides flying everywhere. I have strained Indohyus intentionally to bring home to you exactly what it is you are calling mountains of evidence for evolution.

You have strained the point because you think it supports your position, but in reality it doesn't.
If it did, then there would be two ex-evolutionary biologists that you quoted, right?

So basically you agree with me on indohyus. It isn't good enough but it is the best you've got. I agree with that. The point being, Indohyus is not good enough at present to suggest it is good evidence for transition from tetrapod to whale.

Again, i don't agree with you on with regards to Indohyus.
you reject it, will never accept it and don't want to accept it, I provisionally and tentatively regard it as a possibilty.
In no way do we share a position on this.

Is there any other remarkable evidence for any transition you would like to herald as convincing evidence for evolution, in line with the thread topic, missing links in a theorised chain? You can stick with whales and we'll go down the chain or you can pick your own this time.

I like cetaceans.
So far you gave blown a lot of hot air about Ambulocetous, because it is a great transitional specimen.
Lets get down to the bottom of this one shall we.

I suggest these 'links' are no more than 'possible scenarios'. I call them 'wish lists'. In either case a possible scenario is not evidence. Evolutionists should not be surprised if some of us do not accept possible scenarios as evidence.

Call them what you will, it makes no difference.
If all the transitional fossils ever discovered are just 'wished' into a family tree, you still have a change in animal life from simple, single-celled organsims to groups of single-celled organisms, to simple animals, to more complex life - invertabrates, then vertibrates, then tetrapods, amphibians, lizards, reptiles, birds mammals etc etc.
It still all fits into a tree of life.
DNA evidence draws a tree that matches up pretty well with what was already established using fossils. (so we call it a twin-nested hierarchy).
I can think of no other mechanism that could explain this fact.

After all, if you consider all the evidence to be circumstancial at best, at what point do you think that there are an awful lot of circumstancial lines of evidence all pointing in the same direction.

 

[Astridhere]

Nails11 I have responded to you. I'll hence on these words of yours



Here you agree with me. However to suggest that basing ones evolutionary evidence on possibilities means TOE can only ever be a philosophy, not a science.



This is where I see your evolutionary indoctrination is apparent. Indeed Indohyus and its vaguary is one example of 'possible scenarios' being upheld as evidence for something that may or may not look like a mouse deer being able to macroevolve into something that may or may not look like a seal.

Indeed, even a biased piecemeal reconstruction more closely resembles a modern day mouse deer, yet Indohyus is said to be more closely related to a whale than a deer likely because of a vague and poor sample of a middle ear seen in one specimen. It appears to me something is very much amiss with the whole deal evolutionists have presented, particularly in relation to whale evolution.

I have strained one point intentionally. To have several on the table becomes confusing with asides flying everywhere. I have strained Indohyus intentionally to bring home to you exactly what it is you are calling mountains of evidence for evolution.

So basically you agree with me on indohyus. It isn't good enough but it is the best you've got. I agree with that. The point being, Indohyus is not good enough at present to suggest it is good evidence for transition from tetrapod to whale.

Is there any other remarkable evidence for any transition you would like to herald as convincing evidence for evolution, in line with the thread topic, missing links in a theorised chain? You can stick with whales and we'll go down the chain or you can pick your own this time.

I suggest these 'links' are no more than 'possible scenarios'. I call them 'wish lists'. In either case a possible scenario is not evidence. Evolutionists should not be surprised if some of us do not accept possible scenarios as evidence.

Well after a reasonable discussion with Nails11, I had hoped to move on to another one of these incredible 'links' in some chain of evolution

The only point Tiberius can raise is that the majority of scientists accept Indohyus as a whale intermediate. That means nothing and is no refute at all because, firstly very well credentialled evolutionary researchers that are up to date on what the evidence is, suggest Thewissen has NOT made his case, as I do. I am not alone regardless of the majority.

Secondly, the 'majority of researchers' have been wrong many times before so they are not the last word on anything by any means.

Thirdly, I'd say most researchers get their info from glossy articles that do not speak to the true state of the evidence presented.

Fourthly, the evidence speaks for itself as being vague regarding the inner ear of one specimen, a species that has both toes and hooves, all bones are poor and not well preserved, no complete fossils, is a composite reconstruction and is challenged by more than one evo researcher as being a possibility but far from conclusive. You lot should be able to evaluate the evidence for yourselves without needing to gobble up anything based on any articles misrepresentation.

The fourth point is the most important. The evidence speaks for itself and requires no interpretation to confirm it is vague, inconsistent and presents no more than a possible scenario. Indohyus could be representative of at least two species or many different ones. It is only speculation at this time.

This is an example of all your so called 'links'. Indohyus is also an example of the mountains of what you call evidence for evolution.

Evolutionists should not be surprised that creationists do not accept 'possibe scenarios' that change like flavours of the month, to be convincing evidence in favour of evolution.

Now I am happy to strain this one point in Indohyus further or we can move on. It is up to you. Can you pick another intermediate for me to expose? Surely there is one that is clear, substantiated, well supported and not challenged or contested in any meaning full way!

Why doesn't someone give it a go?

 

[Astridhere]

It doesn't matter, I shouldn't expect you to answer all my posts

I have replied to you a plethora of times you are way too out in orbit to realise.
.

It is not an agreement though is it, because we still hold contradictory positions. I expect further evidence to settle the mater one way or the other, and you believe that no amount of evidence will ever settle the matter - because you would still not accept it based upon your prior religious beiefs.

Oh indeed you are incorrect. Theist evolutionists demonstrate faith in God alone does not inform the creation/evolution debate.

My stance is scientific and I am demonstrating why I am a creationist on one small point at a time so we can be absolutely clear.

I may also point out that I am doing a heck of a lot better than any of you in putting some legs behind what I say with research and the words of your own evo researchers instead of a simplistic 'your're wrong' or 'because they said so'.

You have agreed in your own words Indohyus is a possible scenario and ready to be replaced with much better, hopefully. Possible scenarios are not evidence and neither is a reconstruction of God knows what at this stage. A good scenario will gain data to confirm it and not confuse it eg hooves and toes. This very fact alone demonstrates the illegitamacy of this taxon. The fact that you hate that your comment agrees in principle with me appears to be your problem and not mine.

Again, i don't agree with you on with regards to Indohyus.
you reject it, will never accept it and don't want to accept it, I provisionally and tentatively regard it as a possibilty.
In no way do we share a position on this.
I like cetaceans.
So far you gave blown a lot of hot air about Ambulocetous, because it is a great transitional specimen.
Lets get down to the bottom of this one shall we.

No indeed you have blown a lot of hot air in relation to Indohyus with many words of no substance compared to my documentation of the state of this mess, Indohyus, you cannot appropriately refute. "Astrid is wrong" and "they said so" is about the best you can do.

Call them what you will, it makes no difference.
If all the transitional fossils ever discovered are just 'wished' into a family tree, you still have a change in animal life from simple, single-celled organsims to groups of single-celled organisms, to simple animals, to more complex life - invertabrates, then vertibrates, then tetrapods, amphibians, lizards, reptiles, birds mammals etc etc.
It still all fits into a tree of life.
DNA evidence draws a tree that matches up pretty well with what was already established using fossils. (so we call it a twin-nested hierarchy).
I can think of no other mechanism that could explain this fact.

After all, if you consider all the evidence to be circumstancial at best, at what point do you think that there are an awful lot of circumstancial lines of evidence all pointing in the same direction.

Well what do you want to talk about DNA or ambulocetus natans. You have already had a snip of what I have to say about ambulocetus on this thread.

Here is a snip of the line I will begin with relating to DNA....

Species comparison - DNA rainbow

Fish are closest to birds, as the bible dictates, and lizards are a mess in phylogeny.

You should remember what I have to say about the remarkable differences in the chimp/human Y chromosome and the research I can provide from evolutionary researchers in relation to the myth of 1% and unquantifiable comparisons. I can also handle ervs.

Now you choose, which do you want to talk about, Ambulocetus natans or DNA? Be relatively specific.

You go first. You state your evidence and demonstrate how it is connected to an ancestor and how convincing that is. You do some work for a change if you want to debate me. I have had a gut full of talking to evos that have got nothing better than their opinion to offer likely based on outdated research.