Looking for all the missing links

[Lion Hearted Man]

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

I wear glasses already, thanks. Since you admitted long ago that you have no education in biology, I understand that your posts are 50% rhetoric, 50% emotional bitterness, and 0% facts or reasoning.

 

[Davian]

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

Pretty much. They are easy enough now just to skim over. I do find educational value in the responses from those that take the time to dismantle her 'arguments'.

 

[Astridhere]

LionHeartedMan and Davian too bad well credentialed evolutionists such as Rose and other well credentialed researchers that have more credentials than your big mouth can attest, agree with me on the back of your simplistic replies, that the case is not made for Indohyus.

Too bad you have not got more than hot air behind you, that is more like what baseless rhetoric looks like.

Now have any of you got the skill to present anything more than your most humble and useless opinion.

You two have demonstrated beyond doubt that you absolutely refuse to look at the evidence behind this fossil. However your ignorance will never be a challenge to me, let alone a refute.

 

[Astridhere]

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.

Look above LionHeartedMan and Davian.

I have already demonstrated to Tiberius what an appropriate refute should look like. I have even helped you by pointing to what evidence would challenge my assertions.

Now stop playing these games of ignorance and evasion and demonstrate how Indohyus has any substance to it, seeing as you are not prepared to move on. I will speak to this for the next 5 years or until one of you present something that is more substantial than any old possible scenario.

Go!

 

[Tiberius]

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.

Well I'm not going to at the moment because I am on the train going home and I've been up since 2am, so I'm very tired and not in the mood for searching the net for the answer. I'll get around to it when I have the chance, ina few days.

However, I'm still boggled by your attitude. You seem to claim that a small group have a certain qualification and say such and such, therefore you believe them, and yet when there is a larger group with identical qualifications who disagree, you claim that they are wrong.

So I'd like to ask you (again) why you discount the opinion of most scientists in the field when they are all much more qualified than you to make decisions on this topic!

 

[Astridhere]

Well I'm not going to at the moment because I am on the train going home and I've been up since 2am, so I'm very tired and not in the mood for searching the net for the answer. I'll get around to it when I have the chance, ina few days.

However, I'm still boggled by your attitude. You seem to claim that a small group have a certain qualification and say such and such, therefore you believe them, and yet when there is a larger group with identical qualifications who disagree, you claim that they are wrong.

So I'd like to ask you (again) why you discount the opinion of most scientists in the field when they are all much more qualified than you to make decisions on this topic!

Tiberius you are starting to sound like a broken record. You show me one evolutionary researcher that is sucked into suggesting the case for Indohyus is made, and I'll show you a researcher that knows about as much about Indohyus as you did before speaking to me.

I'd say the researchers that like to speak to Indohyus as an intermediate whale have little to no idea what they are talking about. The lack of substantiation behind Indohyus would see only a fool accept Indohyus as evidence of anything other than an overactive imagination.

So again, the reason why some researchers disagree with well credentialed evolutionary researchers like Rose and Gingerick that state the case for Indohyus is NOT made is because they are clearly idiots and have no idea what they are supporting, which is stuff all apart from a mess. That is why you should not listen to them. You should look at the data yourself instead of listening to desperate researchers that are seeking headlines and grants, particularly in relation to their own work. Now do you understand.

Now would you like to try to defend Indohyus or are you going to play the same old record again?

You play the same old record because you are unable to articulate an appropriate defence for Indohyus, which further supports my assertions.

 

[Astridhere]

Pretty much. They are easy enough now just to skim over. I do find educational value in the responses from those that take the time to dismantle her 'arguments'.

Well here is something of educational value for you to consider while you toot your own horn....

†Mesonychia is only distantly related to Artiodactyla in our shortest trees, with †Indohyus grouping as a close relative to living cetaceans. However, in trees just two steps longer than minimum length, we find the more ‘traditional’ arrangement of †Mesonychia positioned close to Cetacea. In these trees, †Indohyus is a cetaceamorphan but is not as closely related to Cetacea as is †Mesonychia. The lack of abundant support for either topology and the outstanding incongruence between data that fossilize and those that do not, suggests that many key fossils remain to be discovered.

The relationships of †Mesonychia and †Indohyus are highly unstable, however - in trees only two steps longer than minimum length, †Mesonychia falls inside Artiodactyla and displaces †Indohyus from a position close to Cetacea.
PLoS Collections: Relationships of Cetacea (Artiodactyla) Among Mammals: Increased Taxon Sampling Alters Interpretations of Key Fossils and Character Evolution

So you can add Spaulding, O'Leary and Gatesy to Rose and Gingerick that do not see the case for Indohyus being made and more evidence of the mess you like to call evidence for evolution.

 

[Hammster]

MOD HAT ON


it's all fun and games until people start flaming.

Closed for review. During the time out, please review the rules. Thanks.


MOD HAT OFF