Looking for all the missing links

[createdtoworship]

Fraid not.

Astrid clearly stated that her comment was based on her interpretation. Her interpretation is flawed, as she has constantly demonstrated in this thread. Therefore, anything built on that interpretation is also flawed.

My argument against Astrid's position has the same construction as "That house is not safe because it is built on a foundation of sand."

This is not a logical fallacy. I am pointing out that a particular thing is not valid because it is based on things that are flawed and incorrect.

Even if she did have incorrect interpretation in the past, you can't say that that will carry forward into all her interpretations. You cannot state that because she has made bad interpretations in the past that all interpretation is therefore flawed. That is the fallacy of poisoning the well and why it was put in place.

 

[Astridhere]

gradyll don't worry about Tiberius he has not reponded to my posts with any substance at all, let alone demonstrate why anyone with reasoning ability would want to accept Indohyus as evidence of anything, much less an intermediate whale.

Tiberius is a man of amny words with nothing at all to say apart from tooting his own horn without back up.

Let me predict his comeback. It will sound something like "bla bla bla because they said so" OR "Bla bla bla Astrid is wrong but I have no idea how to articulate an appropriate response to her so I'll just stick with bla bla bla."

 

[Astridhere]

I don't think anything about Indohyus because there is no point knocking oneself out with a plethora of speculations and scenarios. Doing so with indohyus and many other throw togethers and single bones may fill books and libraries and keep researchers employed but is really speculation on both sides of the debate, in the end.

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​

But "I do not believe the evidence presented here demonstrates that with confidence," he said in an email. "It is an interesting hypothesis to be tested as more complete [Indohyus] fossils are discovered."
Whales Evolved From Tiny Deerlike Mammals, Study Says

So, given you have indohyus with toes and indohyus with hooves, given that even some evo researchers are skeptical of what the fossils are telling us, I'd say Indohyus presents some support for a deer like creature 48mya and anything else is speculation, including it being an intermediate whale. This mosaic reconstruction is not what I would call convincing evidence for whale evolution.

The majority of the mountains of 'evidence' evolutionists present, both morphilogical, fossil or genomic, is likewise not credible in my view.

This mosaic reconstruction of Indohyus is as equally a good support, when painted with speculation, for a deer like creature that has changed little in 48 million years. When it comes to non colocated mosaics, single bones or skulls, biased algorithmic findings, many scenarios can accommodate the data.

I am a creationist still because the fossil evidence that does not require much speculation from anyone demonstrates 'kinds' appearing in the fossil record quickly. eg Cambrian, a site with many modern bird footprints thriving less than 200my after the Devonian, many varieties of tetrapods dated to 400mya.

Tiberius will say many things.

What he cannot do is refute the post above appropriately with more than his most humble opinion or 'because they said so".

 

[Astridhere]

Even if she did have incorrect interpretation in the past, you can't say that that will carry forward into all her interpretations. You cannot state that because she has made bad interpretations in the past that all interpretation is therefore flawed. That is the fallacy of poisoning the well and why it was put in place.

Gradyll, I'd say stooging the public into thinking Indohyus is anything more than a mess is evidence that evolutionists have no idea what an incorrect interpretation is let alone accuse me of same.

Tiberius is full of words with nothing to back them up and he has demonstrated this on many occasions.

Just watch him wriggle out of refuting my quote above.

 

[createdtoworship]

gradyll don't worry about Tiberius he has not reponded to my posts with any substance at all, let alone demonstrate why anyone with reasoning ability would want to accept Indohyus as evidence of anything, much less an intermediate whale.

Tiberius is a man of amny words with nothing at all to say apart from tooting his own horn without back up.

Let me predict his comeback. It will sound something like "bla bla bla because they said so" OR "Bla bla bla Astrid is wrong but I have no idea how to articulate an appropriate response to her so I'll just stick with bla bla bla."

I see the use of fallacies all the time and I just wanted to point it out. But you are right probably no answers will come out of this.

 

[Tiberius]

Even if she did have incorrect interpretation in the past, you can't say that that will carry forward into all her interpretations. You cannot state that because she has made bad interpretations in the past that all interpretation is therefore flawed. That is the fallacy of poisoning the well and why it was put in place.

It doesn't matter what her interpretation was in the past. It matters what her interpretation is when she uses it as a basis to say that the evidence is not credible.

And given that her interpretation is contradicting scientific consensus (which is built on evidence and testing, all of which has been going on for a few centuries now, and has been conducted by thousands, if not millions of scientists all around the world), which is more likely?

Is Astrid correct, and all these scientists who have been studying evolution in depth for centuries are wrong?

Or, are the scientists correct and Astrid is wrong?

After all, we're talking about countless scientists, working their whole lives, studying, testing, submitting for peer review, and actually using their results to make predictions that are shown to be correct...

...and we have Astrid, who has... what?

What do you have that makes you more qualified than all those scientists, Astrid? Why should I believe you when you tell me that those scientists are wrong?

 

[Tiberius]

Tiberius will say many things.

What he cannot do is refute the post above appropriately with more than his most humble opinion or 'because they said so".

Well, let's say that you are correct (because honestly, it's almost 1am and I really don't feel like trawling the internet looking for evidence against this).

So, let's say you are correct. What is the point you are trying to make here?

The interpretation of this fossil is wrong, therefore... what?

Evolution is disproved?

 

[Astridhere]

It doesn't matter what her interpretation was in the past. It matters what her interpretation is when she uses it as a basis to say that the evidence is not credible.

And given that her interpretation is contradicting scientific consensus (which is built on evidence and testing, all of which has been going on for a few centuries now, and has been conducted by thousands, if not millions of scientists all around the world), which is more likely?

Is Astrid correct, and all these scientists who have been studying evolution in depth for centuries are wrong?

Or, are the scientists correct and Astrid is wrong?

After all, we're talking about countless scientists, working their whole lives, studying, testing, submitting for peer review, and actually using their results to make predictions that are shown to be correct...

...and we have Astrid, who has... what?

What do you have that makes you more qualified than all those scientists, Astrid? Why should I believe you when you tell me that those scientists are wrong?

It would appear that the only rant Tiberius has to base his comment on is that 'common evolutionary knowedge does not aside with me' .

Well fancy that. If that is the best Tiberius can do then he is wasting his time locking horns with me.

I said that Tiberius will be incapable of refuting my post re Indohyus and he has demonstrated that beyond doubt and with yet another reply that offers nothing more than his opinion. :o

TOE is supported by a plethora of underlying theories, and one of them is whale evolution. Whale evolution is said to be one of the best documented examples of mammal evolution.

I am suggesting that whale evolution is one of the best documented examples of misrepresentation, and Tiberius, you can do squat to defend it.

Bla bla common knowledge disagrees with me means absolutely nothing because these fools have been wrong many times before as demonstrated by 150 years of tooting knucklewalking ancestry, the revolving door of human ancestors, gradual evolution replaced with punctuated evolution, Turkana boy the athlete that isn't running anywhere but more likely waddling, non coding DNA being junk. All this was also presented as published and peer reviewed and it ended up being nothing more than delusionary.

Tiberius the more you reply to me the more your lack of ability is demonstrated. Some evos can offer a challenge to me. You are not one of them.

 

[Davian]

Perhaps they were irradicated prior to the flood or the creation of mankind !!!!!! Like 63mya.

You do know pterosaurs haven't been around for the last 5,000 years or so, don't you?.

That does not make sense, if life began on this planet only about 6000 years ago.

What evidence do you have for that?

According to this web page, they flew in the skys above Eden, and sightings of what we call pterosaurs were documented in the KJV of the bible:

OBJECTIVE: Creation Education | Pterosaurs

Dude.. that's a POE site.

I do wonder, how can one be sure?

Astridhere, do you think that this is a "Poe" site?

 

[Astridhere]

Davian. Either you can defend your whale evolution as the best documented example of mammal evolution or you cannot. Skipping around with asides may relieve the urge you have to defend your science but in actual fact makes evolutionists look worse.

This is just one example of evos heading for the hills when it comes down to the nitty gritty. You will evade, turn to asides, evoke the mountains of similar rubbish on offer. The one thing you cannot do is successfully defend Indohyus as a whale ancestor.

The truth is Indohyus is an excellent example of evolutionists in straw grabbing mode being prepared to offer any rubbish to the gullible. If I am wrong then, do please demonstrate why anyone should accept your reconstruction of Indohyus as having any merit.

Quite clearly from your reply, I take it that you cannot mount an appropriate defence of Indohyus. That is all I have to say to you.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Bla bla common knowledge disagrees with me means absolutely nothing because these fools have been wrong many times before as demonstrated by 150 years of tooting knucklewalking ancestry, the revolving door of human ancestors, gradual evolution replaced with punctuated evolution, Turkana boy the athlete that isn't running anywhere but more likely waddling, non coding DNA being junk. All this was also presented as published and peer reviewed and it ended up being nothing more than delusionary.

Tiberius the more you reply to me the more your lack of ability is demonstrated. Some evos can offer a challenge to me. You are not one of them.

You don't even have any qualifications in biology (not even a bachelor's), yet you claim that you are right and the vast majority of biologists are wrong. Don't you think that's a bit delusional?

 

[NailsII]

so when you find it we can all admit we were wrong.

Or until we find it you can admit defeat.

you choose.

But you won't admit you're wrong, that is the whole point!!
Example - Ambulocetus is a pretty good transitional specimen for whale evolution - and Astrid (amongst others) insists it is a seal - despite being in the wrong time and te wrong place.

I believe I was told that I would receive a Pulitzer Prize (or whatever it was), and I disagree.

I would never see that in my lifetime.

The Theory of Evolution would go the way of theories of the moon -- just shelved and forgotten.

Despite what GrannyM thinks, I'm sure there are (were?) six men who are now awaiting their Pulitzer prizes as pertains to how we got our moon.

One of the six, if scientists ever come to a consensus, will get his reward -- posthumously, I'm sure.

It seems a silly point to disagree over, but I think it would have massive implications.
If a theory cannot explain all the evidence, it cannot be right - end of.

I don't think anything about Indohyus because there is no point knocking oneself out with a plethora of speculations and scenarios. Doing so with indohyus and many other throw togethers and single bones may fill books and libraries and keep researchers employed but is really speculation on both sides of the debate, in the end.

It's not really speculation though is it.
I wouldn't expect everyone to accept one researchers findings, and I generally wouldn't myself.
This hypothesis might be wrong, but it still doesn't change anything about evolution. After all, this fossil is in the right place at the right time, and shows some features which make it a good candidate. As with all science, time (and further research) will tell.

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. ​

​

I am aware of this criticism, and it is justified.
When more fossils are found, it will show us whether this line of thinking is right or wrong.
One thing that is sure, if Indohus is shown beyond all reasonable doubt to be a whale ancestor, you would still not accept it.
Yet we all know that if it is shown to be a red herring, many people would accept it based on new evidence, while all the creationists will jump up and down shouting "I told you so".

But "I do not believe the evidence presented here demonstrates that with confidence," he said in an email. "It is an interesting hypothesis to be tested as more complete [Indohyus] fossils are discovered."

I totally agree with that.
Pending further evidence, it is the best piece we have - it could be right, and it could be wrong.

So, given you have indohyus with toes and indohyus with hooves, given that even some evo researchers are skeptical of what the fossils are telling us, I'd say Indohyus presents some support for a deer like creature 48mya and anything else is speculation, including it being an intermediate whale. This mosaic reconstruction is not what I would call convincing evidence for whale evolution.

If it is a deer, that is a more interesting proposition because I think (and I could be wrong, so please correct me if I am) that the earliest deer fossils are around 20-25 million years old and are from Africa.
So it is not impossible, but Indohyus is not in keeping with what is known about deer evolution.

The majority of the mountains of 'evidence' evolutionists present, both morphilogical, fossil or genomic, is likewise not credible in my view.

We know.
Even when it is clear, you still dismiss it.

This mosaic reconstruction of Indohyus is as equally a good support, when painted with speculation, for a deer like creature that has changed little in 48 million years. When it comes to non colocated mosaics, single bones or skulls, biased algorithmic findings, many scenarios can accommodate the data.

How do you know it has changed little in 48 million years?
Have you been doing some research on the sly - or is that a guess based on pictures on the internet?

I am a creationist still because the fossil evidence that does not require much speculation from anyone demonstrates 'kinds' appearing in the fossil record quickly. eg Cambrian, a site with many modern bird footprints thriving less than 200my after the Devonian, many varieties of tetrapods dated to 400mya.

You are a creationist who questions punctuated equlibrium because the evidence shows great increases in complexity 550 million years ago, then 400 million years ago we see the first tetrapods, followed by a slower period of change then dinosaurs followed by birds evolving and then the rise of mammals 65 million years ago?

It would appear that many well credentialed evolutionists would disagree with your statement and prefer morphology to DNA for the final word, rather than the other way around. The issue being of course that when it comes to fossils all you have is morphology eg Hippo/pig/whale.

I'll tell you another one of my own reasoning. The fact that chimp DNA is heralded as being closer to mankinds DNA than an orangutan or gorilla tells me something is very amiss with these algorithms of yours.

Each to their own - but DNA is conclusive evidence.
Your last statement is very telling.
You might as well say that you don't trust the theory of gravity becasue you cannot see the sun orbiting the centre of the galaxy.
I really am sorry if you have issues with how closely related we are to chimpanzees, but facts are not designed with our feelings in mind.

 

[Davian]

Davian. Either you can defend your whale evolution as the best documented example of mammal evolution or you cannot.

Where did I claim that I would?

Skipping around with asides may relieve the urge you have to defend your science but in actual fact makes evolutionists look worse.

Your repeated evasion of dealing with 'asides' does show the gaping holes in your assertions.

This is just one example of evos heading for the hills when it comes down to the nitty gritty. You will evade, turn to asides, evoke the mountains of similar rubbish on offer. The one thing you cannot do is successfully defend Indohyus as a whale ancestor.

The truth is Indohyus is an excellent example of evolutionists in straw grabbing mode being prepared to offer any rubbish to the gullible. If I am wrong then, do please demonstrate why anyone should accept your reconstruction of Indohyus as having any merit.

Science. You are doing it wrong. It is up to *you* to provide a falsifiable hypothesis that better explains the data. You have yet to provide this.

But I am sure you will ignore that and carry on regardless.

Quite clearly from your reply, I take it that you cannot mount an appropriate defence of Indohyus.

I am still waiting for you to answer my questions on pterosaurs.

That is all I have to say to you.

I am sure you are wrong even on that.

 

[Tiberius]

It would appear that the only rant Tiberius has to base his comment on is that 'common evolutionary knowedge does not aside with me' .

Well fancy that. If that is the best Tiberius can do then he is wasting his time locking horns with me.

I said that Tiberius will be incapable of refuting my post re Indohyus and he has demonstrated that beyond doubt and with yet another reply that offers nothing more than his opinion. :o

TOE is supported by a plethora of underlying theories, and one of them is whale evolution. Whale evolution is said to be one of the best documented examples of mammal evolution.

I am suggesting that whale evolution is one of the best documented examples of misrepresentation, and Tiberius, you can do squat to defend it.

Bla bla common knowledge disagrees with me means absolutely nothing because these fools have been wrong many times before as demonstrated by 150 years of tooting knucklewalking ancestry, the revolving door of human ancestors, gradual evolution replaced with punctuated evolution, Turkana boy the athlete that isn't running anywhere but more likely waddling, non coding DNA being junk. All this was also presented as published and peer reviewed and it ended up being nothing more than delusionary.

Tiberius the more you reply to me the more your lack of ability is demonstrated. Some evos can offer a challenge to me. You are not one of them.

So Astrid, why should I accept your word over the words of scientists?

Oh, but you are right about one thing. The fact that I am unable to form a coherent argument in the early hours of the morning while I am still half asleep proves conclusively that my position is deeply flawed. If I was right, I would certainly be able to form a devestating argument to support my position regardless of how clear my mind is. [/sarcasm]

 

[createdtoworship]

It doesn't matter what her interpretation was in the past. It matters what her interpretation is when she uses it as a basis to say that the evidence is not credible.

And given that her interpretation is contradicting scientific consensus (which is built on evidence and testing, all of which has been going on for a few centuries now, and has been conducted by thousands, if not millions of scientists all around the world), which is more likely?

Is Astrid correct, and all these scientists who have been studying evolution in depth for centuries are wrong?

Or, are the scientists correct and Astrid is wrong?

After all, we're talking about countless scientists, working their whole lives, studying, testing, submitting for peer review, and actually using their results to make predictions that are shown to be correct...

...and we have Astrid, who has... what?

What do you have that makes you more qualified than all those scientists, Astrid? Why should I believe you when you tell me that those scientists are wrong?

maybe I should copy and paste the definition of poisoning the well:

Description of Poisoning the Well

This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form:

1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
2. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.

and also you are changing what you said here. Too. You originally said here

1. Her interpretation is flawed, as she has constantly demonstrated in this thread.
2. Therefore, anything built on that interpretation is also flawed.

see any connections there?

 

[createdtoworship]

But you won't admit you're wrong, that is the whole point!!
Example - Ambulocetus is a pretty good transitional specimen for whale evolution - and Astrid (amongst others) insists it is a seal - despite being in the wrong time and te wrong place.

evolutionary paleontologist Barbara J. Stahl admits that; "the serpentine form of the body and the peculiar serrated cheek teeth make it plain that these archaeocetes (Pakicetus and Ambulocetus) could not possibly have been ancestral to any of the modern whales."

169 B.J. Stahl, Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution, Dover Publications Inc., 1985, p. 489.

 

[TerraIncognita]

evolutionary paleontologist Barbara J. Stahl admits that; "the serpentine form of the body and the peculiar serrated cheek teeth make it plain that these archaeocetes (Pakicetus and Ambulocetus) could not possibly have been ancestral to any of the modern whales."

169 B.J. Stahl, Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution, Dover Publications Inc., 1985, p. 489.

Did you read this book?

 

[razeontherock]

It seems a silly point to disagree over, but I think it would have massive implications.
If a theory cannot explain all the evidence, it cannot be right - end of.

Exactly! Which is why, even though Christians understand perfectly well that cosmology, abiogenesis and ToE are divided into different disciplines -

we don't hold you to be correct about such grand matters, where you outright contradict the Word of G-d. You simply cannot explain all the evidence, and by your own accounting, over 96% of it is unaccounted for.

 

[Tiberius]

maybe I should copy and paste the definition of poisoning the well:

Description of Poisoning the Well

This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form:

1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
2. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.

and also you are changing what you said here. Too. You originally said here


[/LIST]

see any connections there?

I am not changing what I said, nor am I poisoning the well.

If I said, "Astrid wears silly hats, so how can we think she know anything about evolution," then that would indeed be poisoning the well.

But I am not doing that. I am showing that she is unskilled in an area, and therefore her claims about that area may not be correct. That is no more poisoning the well than it is to say, "George Clooney has no knowledge about brain anatomy, so he could be mistaken when he says X about the brain."

And if George Clooney says X about the brain, and brain surgeons say "Not-X" about the brain, who should we conclude is right?

 

[createdtoworship]

I am not changing what I said, nor am I poisoning the well.

If I said, "Astrid wears silly hats, so how can we think she know anything about evolution," then that would indeed be poisoning the well.

But I am not doing that. I am showing that she is unskilled in an area, and therefore her claims about that area may not be correct. That is no more poisoning the well than it is to say, "George Clooney has no knowledge about brain anatomy, so he could be mistaken when he says X about the brain."

And if George Clooney says X about the brain, and brain surgeons say "Not-X" about the brain, who should we conclude is right?

but you ARE changing what you have said. Now you are saying "she is unskilled" which is a different aspect from before. So now that you are changing the bars here we can move on. Now WHY is she unskilled? Are you any more skilled? How can one unskilled person tell another that they are unskilled? Unless you have a degree or something that you are not sharing. Of course.