• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Asking for interpretations of this cladogram

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,027
620
✟86,400.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The evidence you ask for is the genetic and molecular evidence of common descent, in the fossil record, and morphology. Particularly when this is combined with geology. (E.g. species that evolved during different geological epochs when the land masses were arranged differently.) There's plenty of such evidence, but you just ignore it and claim it isn't there.

Note that genetic and molecular evidence in particular is produced in the laboratory, with laboratory testing including computer analysis.

There is none so blind as they who refuse to see.

You say "There's plenty of such evidence, but you just ignore it and claim it isn't there."

That is a misrepresentation (I hope not intentional). If you were to go back and re-read post #134 very carefully you would see I neither ignore what we have seen NOR do I "claim it is not there". I simply see it as being something different based on actuality and sound reasoning (though our conclusions would disagree). So go back and re-read this post and maybe you and I (and others) can discuss the issues you have one at a time.
 
Upvote 0

PsychoSarah

Chaotic Neutral
Jan 13, 2014
20,522
2,609
✟102,963.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Cool! And what makes you think it is a common ancestor for these two aquatic mammals?

First is it Pakicetus or Ambulocetus? The reconstructions I have seen look very similar...

1776Ambulocetus-natans.jpg


This was what we actually found of Ambulocetus and there are some differing opinions
The one I posted is Pakicetus, and the reason it is considered a common ancestor for dolphins and whales is due to shared features in the skull structure between all three, namely that they all have structures of the inner ear exclusive to cetaceans.

Pakicetus came before Ambulocetus, with the former existing 50 million years ago and the latter existing 41-47 million years ago. It's currently thought that Ambulocetus is a descendant of Pakicetus.
 
Upvote 0

PsychoSarah

Chaotic Neutral
Jan 13, 2014
20,522
2,609
✟102,963.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
You misundetstood what he asked for. Look back at what you quoted - he asked for one of the following:
  1. Orangutans and gorillas
  2. Humans and chimps
  3. All primates
What you presented is none of the above. As I predicted, he asked for something very specific and will ignore anything else we could present. That, in my book, is extremely inflexible.
To be blunt, even if I had thought he'd only accept primate ones, I know for a fact that there aren't any fossils currently considered to be the shared ancestor of all apes, or even humans and chimps specifically. So, I gave the best possible example of the basic premise that I could.
 
Upvote 0

PsychoSarah

Chaotic Neutral
Jan 13, 2014
20,522
2,609
✟102,963.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
At some point you're going to have to address deep time and evidence through evidence of common descent. If you feel that you can do a better job of addressing that, please feel free to do so.
Lol, when did I say I'd debate you as a YEC? I would have debated you as an OEC.
 
Upvote 0

AnotherAtheist

Gimmie dat ol' time physical evidence
Site Supporter
Aug 16, 2007
1,225
601
East Midlands
✟146,326.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Lol, when did I say I'd debate you as a YEC? I would have debated you as an OEC.

I don't understand your answer in the context of mine. I was talking about discussions in general.
 
Upvote 0

PsychoSarah

Chaotic Neutral
Jan 13, 2014
20,522
2,609
✟102,963.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
I don't understand your answer in the context of mine. I was talking about discussions in general.
I offered to debate you, with me playing the creationist, in private messages to give us both some debate practice. Then you said I'd have to address deep time when debating you in that context, which implies that you thought I would be debating as a YEC. However, since I'd be debating you with the creationist arguments I find the hardest to debate against, I'd debate as an OEC.

Send me a PM if you want to be debate practice partners :)
 
Upvote 0

AnotherAtheist

Gimmie dat ol' time physical evidence
Site Supporter
Aug 16, 2007
1,225
601
East Midlands
✟146,326.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
I offered to debate you, with me playing the creationist, in private messages to give us both some debate practice. Then you said I'd have to address deep time when debating you in that context, which implies that you thought I would be debating as a YEC. However, since I'd be debating you with the creationist arguments I find the hardest to debate against, I'd debate as an OEC.

Send me a PM if you want to be debate practice partners :)

My post that started this sub-thread here (two of my posts above) was about debating in public. I don't think it's necessary to debate by PM. I think that if we're going to discuss creationists who believe in Noah's Ark and speciation within kinds after that, that we're going to have to address deep time and common descent from very long ago.

I don't know enough about your own beliefs yet to know what side you'd be on that.
 
Upvote 0

PsychoSarah

Chaotic Neutral
Jan 13, 2014
20,522
2,609
✟102,963.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
My post that started this sub-thread here (two of my posts above) was about debating in public. I don't think it's necessary to debate by PM. I think that if we're going to discuss creationists who believe in Noah's Ark and speciation within kinds after that, that we're going to have to address deep time and common descent from very long ago.

I don't know enough about your own beliefs yet to know what side you'd be on that.
I thought I adequately explained that I am:
1. not a creationist
2. would practice debating you as if I were a creationist, since I think that would be a good challenge for both of us. For me because it is much harder to debate for a position you don't agree with, and for you because thanks to my background in biology and debates on this site, I can present much harder arguments to debunk than you'll get day to day on here.

I'd rather it be in private messages though, because the times I've played the creationist in a public setting, people mistake me for a creationist, which I would rather not have happen. Yes, even if I explicitly state that I am not a creationist, that still happens.

If you came on here expecting to debate YECs exclusively, you'll get your butt handed to you by the plethora of OEC people that roam this subforum.
 
Upvote 0

AnotherAtheist

Gimmie dat ol' time physical evidence
Site Supporter
Aug 16, 2007
1,225
601
East Midlands
✟146,326.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
I thought I adequately explained that I am:
1. not a creationist
2. would practice debating you as if I were a creationist, since I think that would be a good challenge for both of us. For me because it is much harder to debate for a position you don't agree with, and for you because thanks to my background in biology and debates on this site, I can present much harder arguments to debunk than you'll get day to day on here.

That's what I thought, but I was confused by your recent posts. I now understand fully given your clarification.

I'd rather it be in private messages though, because the times I've played the creationist in a public setting, people mistake me for a creationist, which I would rather not have happen. Yes, even if I explicitly state that I am not a creationist, that still happens.

I think there's enough to get on with in the main forum without other debates.

If you came on here expecting to debate YECs exclusively, you'll get your butt handed to you by the plethora of OEC people that roam this subforum.

I'm not expecting people here to all be YECs, and am aware of OECs and their beliefs. E.g. invisible hand guiding evolution. God as the creator of the first life which then evolved by natural unguided means. Etc.
 
Upvote 0

PsychoSarah

Chaotic Neutral
Jan 13, 2014
20,522
2,609
✟102,963.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
That's what I thought, but I was confused by your recent posts. I now understand fully given your clarification.



I think there's enough to get on with in the main forum without other debates.



I'm not expecting people here to all be YECs, and am aware of OECs and their beliefs. E.g. invisible hand guiding evolution. God as the creator of the first life which then evolved by natural unguided means. Etc.
-_- doesn't sound very challenging to debate only arguments you expect.
 
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,027
620
✟86,400.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The one I posted is Pakicetus, and the reason it is considered a common ancestor for dolphins and whales is due to shared features in the skull structure between all three, namely that they all have structures of the inner ear exclusive to cetaceans.

Pakicetus came before Ambulocetus, with the former existing 50 million years ago and the latter existing 41-47 million years ago. It's currently thought that Ambulocetus is a descendant of Pakicetus.

Yeah I can see associations between those two, but aside from similarities in the inner ear bones there is nothing to suggest either of these creatures was ever even semi-Aquatic (the illusory webbing and such on the reconstructions are totally hypothesis driven). Even the environment in which Paki was found (as well as the shape of the rear foot bones) indicate a land walker. Plus it has a definite pelvis that the rear legs are attachable to where whales and dolphins lack even a semblance of these features.

Thewissen himself said that ""Pakicetids were terrestrial mammals, no more amphibious than a tapir."
 
Upvote 0

AnotherAtheist

Gimmie dat ol' time physical evidence
Site Supporter
Aug 16, 2007
1,225
601
East Midlands
✟146,326.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
-_- doesn't sound very challenging to debate only arguments you expect.

The challenge is not in the basic form of the argument such as YEC or OEC. It's in the details.
 
Upvote 0

PsychoSarah

Chaotic Neutral
Jan 13, 2014
20,522
2,609
✟102,963.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Yeah I can see associations between those two, but aside from similarities in the inner ear bones there is nothing to suggest either of these creatures was ever even semi-Aquatic (the illusory webbing and such on the reconstructions are totally hypothesis driven).
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.


Even the environment in which Paki was found (as well as the shape of the rear foot bones) indicate a land walker.
Never said it couldn't walk on land. It is, after all, considered the terrestrial ancestor of whales and dolphins. However, organisms which primarily hunt outside of the water don't have eyes on top of their head. It's an adaptation that only suits organisms like crocodiles, which peak out from the water while mostly submerged, or fully aquatic organisms that hunt organisms as they swim above them. Given the terrestrial nature of the creature, I'd say the former is more likely.

Plus it has a definite pelvis that the rear legs are attachable to where whales and dolphins lack even a semblance of these features.
-_- whales have a vestigial pelvis and femur, and dolphins have a small vestigial pelvic bone.

Not a whole lot of point to them having these tiny bones.

Thewissen himself said that ""Pakicetids were terrestrial mammals, no more amphibious than a tapir."
I never said it was amphibious. And Pakicetus and Ambulocetus (the latter of which has far more developed features for being in the water) are not the only fossil species relevant to whale and dolphin evolution. http://www.prehistoric-wildlife.com/images/species/0/tracing-the-evolution-of-whales.jpg

I labelled Pakicetus as the common ancestor of dolphins and whales over the other ones because as far as I am aware, it's the oldest species with that inner ear structure, so there is less of a chance that they diverged before that point than with any of the other relevant fossil organisms.
 
Upvote 0

Bungle_Bear

Whoot!
Mar 6, 2011
9,084
3,513
✟262,040.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
To be blunt, even if I had thought he'd only accept primate ones, I know for a fact that there aren't any fossils currently considered to be the shared ancestor of all apes, or even humans and chimps specifically. So, I gave the best possible example of the basic premise that I could.
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".
 
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,027
620
✟86,400.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
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.

Never said it couldn't walk on land. It is, after all, considered the terrestrial ancestor of whales and dolphins. However, organisms which primarily hunt outside of the water don't have eyes on top of their head. It's an adaptation that only suits organisms like crocodiles, which peak out from the water while mostly submerged, or fully aquatic organisms that hunt organisms as they swim above them. Given the terrestrial nature of the creature, I'd say the former is more likely.

-_- whales have a vestigial pelvis and femur, and dolphins have a small vestigial pelvic bone.

Not a whole lot of point to them having these tiny bones.

I never said it was amphibious. And Pakicetus and Ambulocetus (the latter of which has far more developed features for being in the water) are not the only fossil species relevant to whale and dolphin evolution. http://www.prehistoric-wildlife.com/images/species/0/tracing-the-evolution-of-whales.jpg

I labelled Pakicetus as the common ancestor of dolphins and whales over the other ones because as far as I am aware, it's the oldest species with that inner ear structure, so there is less of a chance that they diverged before that point than with any of the other relevant fossil organisms.

Yes, it would be hard to fathom that this one small similarity would eventually morph the entire creature into a whale. 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!?! It's like they are grasping for straws to make what they believe seem to be true.
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Veiled insults are better than honest insults in creationist land.


Veiled insults usually followed by whiny fake martydom in place of presenting evidence supportive of their position.
Like lack of common ancestors for every single split on every single tree? That is your supporting evidence? Imaginary lines drawn to imaginary common ancestors to bridge the gaps to your imaginary relationships?
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Yes, it would be hard to fathom that this one small similarity would eventually morph the entire creature into a whale. 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!?! It's like they are grasping for straws to make what they believe seem to be true.
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.

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....
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
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".
It may be moot, since there are those claiming morphological and dna data show orangutans, and not chimps are our closest relation.

Yah, except now it might be 97% similar to orangutans and not chimps. Seems that along with everything else, what we are related to changes every time we test something.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090618084304.htm

Might as well claim mice are our direct ancestor.

Just 2.5% of DNA turns mice intomen

They are closer than all of the apes.

National Geographic News and Latest Stories

Chimps are 96%, not 98.

Epicycles upon epicycles, whatever keeps the theory from falsification when the data keeps going against one, just flip it to another and start the claims all over again.
 
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,027
620
✟86,400.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
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.

Never said it couldn't walk on land. It is, after all, considered the terrestrial ancestor of whales and dolphins. However, organisms which primarily hunt outside of the water don't have eyes on top of their head. It's an adaptation that only suits organisms like crocodiles, which peak out from the water while mostly submerged, or fully aquatic organisms that hunt organisms as they swim above them. Given the terrestrial nature of the creature, I'd say the former is more likely.

-_- whales have a vestigial pelvis and femur, and dolphins have a small vestigial pelvic bone.

Not a whole lot of point to them having these tiny bones.

I never said it was amphibious. And Pakicetus and Ambulocetus (the latter of which has far more developed features for being in the water) are not the only fossil species relevant to whale and dolphin evolution. http://www.prehistoric-wildlife.com/images/species/0/tracing-the-evolution-of-whales.jpg

I labelled Pakicetus as the common ancestor of dolphins and whales over the other ones because as far as I am aware, it's the oldest species with that inner ear structure, so there is less of a chance that they diverged before that point than with any of the other relevant fossil organisms.

"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.

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).

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....

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

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).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Just to give you some context, at one point on this forum Justatruthseeker was trying to argue that the only truly 'novel' genetic material could from the addition of all new nucleotide bases. For some reason in his mind, duplication and re-arrangement of existing nucleotides even if it creates novel genes doesn't count as "new".

In a way, he seems to think that one can't create any new words or writings unless one first invents new letters for the English alphabet. No, it doesn't make any sense, but this appears to be his mindset.
You mean a possibility that already existed, correct? Without new letters or genetic material, that possibility already exists.

And as the Grants showed, interbreeding naturally affected multiple loci simultaneously at every pairing, versus your one in a million year useless change.

But then that’s why actual mutation studies with plant and animal husbandry only kept producing repeats and has been virtually abandoned.
 
Upvote 0