Looking for all the missing links

Astridhere said:

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

Click to expand...

Lion Hearted Man said:

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

Click to expand...

Astridhere said:

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.

Click to expand...

Astridhere said:

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.

Click to expand...

Tiberius said:

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!

Click to expand...

Davian said:

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'.

Click to expand...