Asking for interpretations of this cladogram

pshun2404 said:

"In the case of Pakicetus, the environment in which it lived (by shorelines), the position of its eyes on top of the head, and the type of wear on the teeth all are representative of creatures that primarily hunt from within the water."

I agree that these things can indicate that...however, hunting in the water, and turning into creatures 100 times its size without clearly defined limbs and more is a huge stretch of the imagination.

Click to expand...

That sounds like a personal problem rather than an objective problem. Also, both whales and dolphins have clearly defined forelimbs, made more obvious when you look at their skeletal structure. Plus, I'd say dogs quite clearly demonstrate that size can definitely be drastically changed over time. Not that I am saying it is plausible to breed for a whale sized dog, there are structural complications related to terrestrial organisms that aquatic ones don't have to deal with. Also, it's not like Pakicetus evolved like a Pokemon and the blue whale was its final form.

pshun2404 said:

So what you are saying (correct me if I am wrong) is that due to some of these factors Paki COULD BE or MIGHT BE a candidate for "common ancestor" of whales and dolphins (not IS)...Okay, I can go with that as what you are saying (disagreeing obviously for the other reasons I mentioned).

Click to expand...

Oh, I'd use the "could be" type of language only because science doesn't do absolutes, regardless as to how likely it is that Pakicetus is an ancestor of whales and dolphins. Might it be a cousin, much like we and Neanderthals were, and its lineage died out? Sure, but it has got to be closely related to the lineage to have that inner ear structure.

pshun2404 said:

IMO the COULD BE/MIGHT BE qualification is intellectually honest, it shows your objectivity, and it is open minded because it accepts that IT MIGHT NOT BE....

Click to expand...

Ha, it just shows that I know science utilizes evidence but does not prove. Every scientific conclusion has a chance of being incorrect, and to be honest, without DNA, I'd say it's unreasonable to absolutely assert that Pakicetus MUST be an ancestor of whales and dolphins. It is exceedingly unlikely that it isn't in some way related to that evolutionary line, though, given that tell-tale inner ear.

pshun2404 said:

The alleged vestigiality of the form and function of the pelvic areain whales and dolphins has been blown up recently...read Sexual selection targets cetacean pelvic bones

Click to expand...

XD never in my life did I expect to have to read a study on how some whale and dolphin species select mates based on ball size. But, yeah, it mentions that it's comparing species that exhibit that sexual selection with those that don't, and noting that the former also seem to have larger pelvic bones than the latter. Which is certainly interesting, but we both know that plenty of aquatic organisms get by without having a pelvis to attach penile muscles to.

pshun2404 said:

Based on this there is no longer any reason to "ASSUME" that in this creature it was once much larger (and shaped entirely different) or had the function of supporting legs...though these researchers may agree with the vetigiality assumption this proves the structure could just be what it is for the purpose it serves in this type of organism (nothing more).

Click to expand...

Lol, why do whales and dolphins even have penises, when most aquatic vertebrates just have cloacas? Heck, there are even a few mammals that have cloacas, so that's not an excuse. Why give a whale a huge member to have to make additional "design" adjustments to in order to avoid it causing immense drag while swimming? It's silly stuff like this that makes more sense with an unguided, natural process than an intelligent design. Sorry, I'm still laughing from the fact that there are dolphins and whales that care about ball size.

Also, since the paper brought up sexual selection, what designer in their right mind would design creatures to reject perfectly healthy suitors because their feathers weren't colorful enough or because their testicles weren't big enough?

pshun2404 said:

Yes, it would be hard to fathom that this one small similarity would eventually morph the entire creature into a whale.

Click to expand...

Lol, I'm not suggesting that this inner ear structure made Pakicetus destined to give rise to whales and dolphins, that's just silly. However, since it's exceedingly unlikely for the mutations that resulted in that inner ear structure to happen twice in separate lineages, I'd conclude that Pakicetus must either be an ancestor to modern whales and dolphins, or has a close genetic relation with the terrestrial ancestor of whales and dolphins and the inner ear structure predates it.

pshun2404 said:

The factors I mentioned and others (like the placement and form of their auditory system) make them so different, I can hardly see how they can assume this is the first whale!?!

Click to expand...

It's not a whale, it's considered a terrestrial ancestor of whales. I'm pretty sure people only call it "the first whale" as clickbait. It happened to live 50 million years ago, which is the estimate for when the lineages of whales and dolphins diverged from those of hoofed mammals such as hippos. But it itself is not a whale.

Bungle_Bear said:

But that's the whole point. They will choose something that they know doesn't exist and pretend that that means any that do exist can be ignored. Hence my question of how many would we need to provide but (correctly) expecting the answer to be "this specific one".

Click to expand...

He's actually discussing the one I brought up just fine, and hasn't said anything about human evolution the whole time.

PsychoSarah said:

He's actually discussing the one I brought up just fine, and hasn't said anything about human evolution the whole time.

Click to expand...

2 reasons: 1) He's dodged the question like a good creationist. 2) He's not JTS to whom the original question was posed. Have you seen where he's going?

Bungle_Bear said:

2 reasons: 1) He's dodged the question like a good creationist. 2) He's not JTS to whom the original question was posed. Have you seen where he's going?

Click to expand...

Uh... dodging what question? pshun asked for a fossil species that was ancestral to distinctly different modern species. I gave one and we are discussing it with each other.

Justatruthseeker said:

More importantly the only two parts of the fossil that would prove or disprove their belief is conveniently missing.

If whale, the part behind the cranium where a blowhole would be is missing. If not, the end of the snout where nostrils would be is missing.

Click to expand...

Lol, Pakicetus is only called "the first whale" for clickbait reasons. It's not a whale. Also, the heck are you talking about? That description only fits the first fossil of that genus ever found, dude.

a better view of the nostril at the top of the upper jaw:

Justatruthseeker said:

Only these two parts conveniently happen to be missing.

I’m surprised they haven’t just added a peice of whale skull and claimed whalaaa. Didn’t seem to bother them to use pigs teeth and orangutan skulls for humans....

Click to expand...

Oh my gosh, the pig tooth thing was in the 1800s and was sensationalism promoted by a newspaper author, not the scientific community (which demonstrated that it was a pig tooth, fyi). Also, Piltdown man was again, a hoax never accepted within the scientific community, and you got the forgery incorrect: it had an altered orangutan mandible and teeth forced into a small skull of a modern human.

PsychoSarah said:

Uh... dodging what question? pshun asked for a fossil species that was ancestral to distinctly different modern species. I gave one and we are discussing it with each other.

Click to expand...

I've shown both you and pshun that's not what he actually asked for, just what he changed to when you misunderstood. One last time, here is what he asked:

pshun2404 said:

Wolves from wolves, fish from fish, bears from bears and humans from humans??? NO one doubts that...maybe you could show him the alleged common ancestor for orangutans and gorillas [you accept he asked that] or for humans and chimps [you accept he asked that]...or even better the one for all of them [who are "all of them"? In context it would be orangutan/gorilla/chimp/human. For some reason you see this as being "any common ancestor you like"]....you pick?

Click to expand...

Bungle_Bear said:

I've shown both you and pshun that's not what he actually asked for, just what he changed to when you misunderstood. One last time, here is what he asked:

Click to expand...

-_- the "you pick" at the end signified to me that he meant something along those lines, not those specific examples (albeit, I bet he would have preferred it).

To be blunt, he's kinda more of an authority of what he meant by his post than you are, and even if he did change the intended meaning to fit my response, what's the problem? If he wanted to trap us into trying to portray something we know doesn't exist, he would have just shot my post down as not understanding what he wanted. That would have been much easier than catering to a response that didn't fit the bill.

You seem to be intensely focusing on a non-issue, when you could be presenting a different example of an ancestor to two different modern species instead.

PsychoSarah said:

-_- the "you pick" at the end signified to me that he meant something along those lines, not those specific examples (albeit, I bet he would have preferred it).

Click to expand...

When somebody says "You could show a, b or c..... you pick" in my part of the world the implication is that you get to pick from a, b or c. Options d, e and f are not on the table.

You seem to be intensely focusing on a non-issue

Click to expand...

When you're the one who keeps bringing it up, please don't accuse me of focusing on a non-issue.

Bungle_Bear said:

When you're the one who keeps bringing it up, please don't accuse me of focusing on a non-issue.

Click to expand...

I'm just responding to your posts about it, no more and no less. If you want to drop it, let's drop it.

PsychoSarah said:

I don't disagree with you, which is why I always put it in quotes. Justa, on the other hand...

Also, he's kinda a wingnut, even for a YEC, considering that he thinks dog breeds are too different from each other to arise via mutation.

Click to expand...

Justa on the other hand had to keep pointing out to you that skin color made no difference. Even tho psycho’s kept trying to bring it up.....

Justa finally had to present a paper from your own biologists because you kept trying to make skin color mutation an issue.

Just had already told you repeatedly an African was called an African because they lived on the continent of Africa, as Asians were called Asians because they lived on the Asian continent.

Justa had to admonish you several times because you kept bringing skin color into the discussion, as if the color of ones skin, hair, feathers, etc makes any difference at all.

Justa had to remind psycho’s that it is evolutionists that think the color of feathers, etc has anything to do with species.

Justa had to remind evolutionists that it is their claim of mutations that might give one person biological superiority over another, not Justa’s belief that all men are created equal and equal in God’s eyes.

Justa is not the one insisting that a future mutation might make one set of humans superior to another. In fact Justa argues against this ridiculous idea of biological superiority of one over another.

Justa thinks your theory is inherently racist to begin with by asserting one might gain an evolutionary advantage over another, making them superior and better fit for survival.

Justa laughs at your pathetic attempt, when psycho is the one that kept insisting skin color mutations were important in classifications.

Justatruthseeker said:

Justa on the other hand had to keep pointing out to you that skin color made no difference. Even tho psycho’s kept trying to bring it up.....

Justa finally had to present a paper from your own biologists because you kept trying to make skin color mutation an issue.

Just had already told you repeatedly an African was called an African because the lived on the continent of Africa, as Asians were called Asians because they lived on the Asian continent.

Justa had to Adonis you several ties because you kept being sin color into the discussion, as if the color of ones skin, har, feathers, etc makes any difference at all.

Justa had to remind psycho’s that it is evolutionists that think the color of feathers, etc has anything to do with species.

Justa had to remind evolutionists that it is their claim of mutations that might give one person biological superiority over another, not Justa’s belief that all men are created equal and equal in God’s eyes.

Justa is not the one insisting that a future mutation might make one set of humans superior to another. In fact Justa argues against this tediculous idea of biological superiority of one over another.

Justa thinks your theory is inherently racist to begin with by asserting one might gain an evolutionary advantage over another, making them superior and better fit for survival.

Click to expand...

I keep bringing it up because I have no idea what you think makes human "races" so different from each other that one human "race" can't arise from another one, even if you are applying them as regions of similar ancestry. How can I avoid misinterpreting your position if you won't clarify it?

Also, different species are not distinguished purely by something as dumb as feather color. I would hope that would be obvious by how our own species is classified. Feather color only comes up for birds because birds are heavily influenced by sexual selection based on feather color, and many birds physically able to breed won't because of that trait. If they won't breed, then they aren't a part of the same interbreeding population. Hypothetically, it might be possible for humans and chimps to breed, but no one's trying.

AnotherAtheist said:

What examples do you want? Ubiquitous genes and other evidence, combined with more mountains of evidence for evolution itself, show common ancestry of everything. Since both us and portabello mushrooms have a common ancestor, something has clearly evolved into something radically different.

Click to expand...

Or that everything was created from the exact same protons, neutrons and electrons, that only number, configuration and interaction make everything unique, we would expect nothing less than similarity all the way down to the subatomic level.

That gold and lead are made from the same protons, neutrons and electrons and are similar at the subatomic level, differing merely in number, configuration and interaction of said particles, in no way implies gold evolved from lead, or vice versa.

PsychoSarah said:

Also, Piltdown man was again, a hoax never accepted within the scientific community

Click to expand...

To be fair, it was accepted by a number of scientists at the time, albeit not without some controversy.

PsychoSarah said:

I keep bringing it up because I have no idea what you think makes human "races" so different from each other that one human "race" can't arise from another one, even if you are applying them as regions of similar ancestry. How can I avoid misinterpreting your position if you won't clarify it?

Click to expand...

Where did you ever get that idea? Have you not been listening? All humans came from Adam and Eve, in the same way that all dogs arose from wolves.

I object to your claims Asians evolved from Africans, not that Africans mated with Neanderthals.

Justa thinks you have no problem understanding that over 100 breeds of dogs came about from interbreeding one wolf stock, but finds it remarkable you can’t understand how a mere 12 to 15 races could come about the same way. Justa finds that selective understanding remarkable.

Also, different species are not distinguished purely by something as dumb as feather color. I would hope that would be obvious by how our own species is classified. Feather color only comes up for birds because birds are heavily influenced by sexual selection based on feather color, and many birds physically able to breed won't because of that trait. If they won't breed, then they aren't a part of the same interbreeding population. Hypothetically, it might be possible for humans and chimps to breed, but no one's trying.

Click to expand...

You best check your classification of birds and fish again, because they are indeed classified by something as dumb as feather or scale color in several instances.

I’ll give you time to check your facts first for once in your life.

Oh please, in Russia they indeed tried to breed humans and chimps.

Humanzee - Wikipedia

We have had this discussion of your making claims without checking your claimed facts first many times have we not?

Ilya Ivanovich Ivanov - Wikipedia

PsychoSarah said:

Lol, Pakicetus is only called "the first whale" for clickbait reasons. It's not a whale. Also, the heck are you talking about? That description only fits the first fossil of that genus ever found, dude.

a better view of the nostril at the top of the upper jaw:


Oh my gosh, the pig tooth thing was in the 1800s and was sensationalism promoted by a newspaper author, not the scientific community (which demonstrated that it was a pig tooth, fyi). Also, Piltdown man was again, a hoax never accepted within the scientific community, and you got the forgery incorrect: it had an altered orangutan mandible and teeth forced into a small skull of a modern human.

Click to expand...

Let’s be clear I’m discussing your next in line that must be more whale like to be an ancestor.

File:Ambulocetus fossil remains.JPG - Wikimedia Commons

No blow hole and tip of snout missing where nostrils would be. Or are we to assume the blow hole migrated backwards in one giant leap?

You’d have better luck arguing that crocodile like animal became crocodiles from interbreeding.

And it took them 20 years to figure out a pigs tooth and orangutan skull were not human.

So how many years must we wait for the other mistaken beliefs to be corrected?

It only took 200 years for someone to finally observe finches mating. Falsifying Darwin’s belief they were reproductively isolated and that Speciation occurred. Not that one would know by listening to those that ignore their definitions.

pitabread said:

To be fair, it was accepted by a number of scientists at the time, albeit not without some controversy.

Click to expand...

Just long enough for the Swopes trial. False presentation of evidence usually gets a retrial.

PsychoSarah said:

Lol, I'm not suggesting that this inner ear structure made Pakicetus destined to give rise to whales and dolphins, that's just silly. However, since it's exceedingly unlikely for the mutations that resulted in that inner ear structure to happen twice in separate lineages, I'd conclude that Pakicetus must either be an ancestor to modern whales and dolphins, or has a close genetic relation with the terrestrial ancestor of whales and dolphins and the inner ear structure predates it.


It's not a whale, it's considered a terrestrial ancestor of whales. I'm pretty sure people only call it "the first whale" as clickbait. It happened to live 50 million years ago, which is the estimate for when the lineages of whales and dolphins diverged from those of hoofed mammals such as hippos. But it itself is not a whale.

Click to expand...

"it's exceedingly unlikely for the mutations that resulted in that inner ear structure to happen twice in separate lineages"

Sarah really? You cannot say mutations resulted in that ear structure (you simply do not know that). This could have been the structure as it always was (that is just as likely). And yes similarity within anatomical and physiological aspects of different forms, in different organisms, do exist without having to fall on any imagined ancestral relations. We have actual whale fossils from all the way across the world dating to only 14 million years later (and they obviously had already been around). We needed to attach a lineage to support the already pre-held belief.

Bungle_Bear said:

When somebody says "You could show a, b or c..... you pick" in my part of the world the implication is that you get to pick from a, b or c. Options d, e and f are not on the table.


When you're the one who keeps bringing it up, please don't accuse me of focusing on a non-issue.

Click to expand...

"When somebody says "You could show a, b or c..... you pick" in my part of the world the implication is that you get to pick from a, b or c. Options d, e and f are not on the table."

All you had to do was read and not try to read into...Sarah got the point...she gave an intelligent response (and I'll even bet we can agree to disagree and still respect one another) and is defending her position well.

Perspective:

Tiny Pakicetus (around 50mya) is believed to have existed about 15my (according to other fossils found) but huge Baleen Whales already existed fully formed at least 35mya (which places them fully formed near Peru when Paki was still living in Pakistan). Can’t you see the conflict of interpretation of the data?

The story simply does not accurately portray the facts, because in the sci fi hypothesis driven narrative (we are taught is likely the truth), Paki is followed by Ambulo, and then others (on the way to whale-ness), while fully formed whales already existed.