That's a laugh. We "evos" actually research and analyse what's going on, and critique claims. Let's see how good you are at critiquing a rebuttal.
Oh, and by the way, have you any answer for the rebuttal of Sanford's simulations?
More bluster. Fortunately after quite a bit of unsupported blustering in this post, you do eventually get to the point.
Two small species of artiodactyl skeleton viewed from a distance look similar. This is what we would
expect from evolution. It doesn't argue against it. But look at the tail, it's significantly different. So we have two species of artiodactyl which have some similarities, but some differences. And this argues against evolution ..... how?
This is what I mean concerning the logic of your posts. You don't actually specify the logic by which your links and evidence are supposed to support your argument.
Which researchers? Do you have references or links? Here's a news report o a "treasure trove" of complete Indohyus fossils being found.
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Whale 'missing link' discovered
It's good that you've made a point here. Though, when I researched your claim, it appears to be false. There are complete Indohyus fossils. That's the normal to-ing and fro-ing of academic argument. Now, do you have evidence that these complete Indohyus fossils .... aren't?
Yes, occasionally DNA contradicts morphology. And evidence such as DNA sequencing allows us to refine and improve our DNA trees. That's how science works - as new evidence comes in, we can improve our theories. You consistently claim that this means that there is something "wrong" with science, but can you explain why refinement of theories counts against science when it's actually a vitally important part of what makes science as accurate as it is.
Indohyus dates from about 48 million years ago. The pakicetids were around about 53 million years ago. There is no "oops" here, because people aren't claiming that Indohyus was a direct ancestor of the whales. Look at the title of your reference, it says "Closest whale
cousin". What does "cousin" mean? This is what I find so amazing about your posts, you post links where it is immediately obvious that your links and evidence don't support your argument. You haven't even stopped to think about what "cousin" means before claiming "oops".
Your own reference describes Indohyus as a "sister group" to whales.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v450/n7173/full/nature06343.html Do you know what "sister group" means? It doesn't mean that anyone is claiming that Indohyus is an ancestor of whales, but is a descendent from a common ancestor of both Indohyus and whales. No "oops", but still Indohyus gives us clues about what that common ancestor would be like.
What it means is that Indohyus is a common descendent of the creatures that evolved into whales. And like looking at modern amphibians gives us clues about how water living fish evolved into land living reptiles, and also how currently living lancelets give clues as to how invertebrates evolved into vertebrates, Indohyus gives us clues about how the whales arose from land animals. That species and the fossils found aren't the ancestors of whales, because whales existed by that time. But nobody is claiming that they evolved into whales. So you are trying to create a "mistake" where absolutely none was made.
The Scientific American article that you reference is very short, and gives few details. I can't access the Nature article in the weekend, but reports on it call the skeleton "exceptionally complete". Do you have links or evidence that this skeleton was a hodge-podge, possibly of different species? You claim it, but where is the evidence?
yes, but this is much less of a problem if you actually have a "treasure trove" of complete Indohyus skeletons. Which we have. Then we can look to see if the morphology is consistent across different individuals, or not.
Later on you say:
Erm, no, we have a "treasure trove" of complete skeletons. For one species that gives us some clues about whale evolution, but is clearly not on the evolutionary path to whales.
Which no-one is disputing. So, why did you post a picture of Indohyus in your post? How does it argue against evolution? How does the hippo being whales closest living relative have relevance to you posting some pictures and noting that Indohyus skeletons look a bit like mouse deer skeletons?
You complain that I have "questions". But that's because you post fragments of argument, but don't actually post a proper argument. Therefore we need to ask questions to find out what on earth it is that you are actually thinking so that we can address the issue.
Personally, looking through your post, I think you have a very confused view of the modern theory of how whales evolved and the physical evidence for that theory. And because your own understanding is "a mess" you're claiming that the theory of whale evolution is a mess.
Actually we have a "treasure trove" of complete skeletons. And no-one is "waving away" the similarity to the mouse deer. Which is hardly incredible. Even from a distance such as in your photo, you can see that the tail and skull is quite different. A closer examination, as in the scientific literature, shows that there are quite a few whale-like characteristics. I.e. we've found an intermediate form between land-living ungulates and whales. And this argues against evolution ..... how?
Indohyus has some similarities to deer, and some similarities to whales. Common sense would suggest that it has some relation to both. Evolutionists do not suggest that all creatures are directly related to each other by ascent or descent. In fact most are "cousins".
You posted a very interesting intermediate which has some ungulate characteristics, and some whale characteristics, and some adaptations for aquatic habitat. Thank you for posting this interesting evidence that supports the theory of evolution.
Now can you explain why you post evidence in support of evolution, then intersperse anti-evolution blustering?
E-mail this to a friend
Printable version 
USincognito take a peek at this......
