Looking for all the missing links

[RickG]

so I do not debate it unless dating is the topic at hand.

See ya in the thread: "Evidence for an earth much older than 6,000 years".

http://www.christianforums.com/t7657744/

 

[FaithIsAll]

All the evo researchers that for the past 150 years supported human knucklewalking ancestry were wrong. Hence publlished works in relation to evolutionary theory aren't even worth the paper they are printed on.

These published works now reside in the great rubbish bin of evolutionary delusions past that were once evidence for evolution. There resides human knuckelwalking ancestry, Turkana Boy the athlete, your predictions around the Y chromosome, your theories around increasing complexity, the revolving door of human ancestors, non coding dna being junk, Mendelian inheritance being the only form of genetic inheritance, ancestors cohabitating with their descendants, gradual as oppposed to punctuated evolution, etc etc etc.

So much for published and peer reviewed papers and the credentialed academia behind them!

Astrid you are wasted in New South Wales, get yourself over to the creation museum in Kentucky and join your countryman Ken Ham and make a fortune, someone like yourself who can embrace creationism should be able to get a job no problem, plus you could explain the exhibits to the punters.
They love their creationism over there so you should certainly give it some thought, why not send him an E-mail?
And while you're over there why not get yourself a Doctorate or even a PhD? you will only need to be there a fortnight to get those and if you don't like it you can go home.

 

[NailsII]

Hey AnotherAtheist and you evos. I have a question for you.

Look at this.. Let's stick to one thing so posts aren't a mile long, giving too much opportunity to go around in circles.

The team found that the least complex evolutionary tree places Indohyus and similar fossils close to whales, while mesonychids are more distantly related. Hippos remain the closest living relatives. These results suggest that cetacean ancestors transitioned to water before becoming carnivorous but that the meat-eating diet developed while these ancestors could still walk on land.
Getting A Leg Up On Whale And Dolphin Evolution: New Comprehensive Analysis Sheds Light On The Origin Of Cetaceans

..And remember your link that I had already posted on below. Well if Thewissen states Indohyus is like a mouse deer then why isn't the mouse deer a whales closest living ancestor. Does a hippo have an aquatic middle ear? I don't think so.

So why do you believe that a hippo is the closest living relative to Indohyus? Mouse deer are still alive and well, look similar, same diet, dive etc.

The link above cites research with stacks of indicators and the best they could come up with is a hippo that looks nothing like a mouse deer? Seriously?


"The new model is that initially they were small deer-like animals that took to the water to avoid predators," Professor Thewissen told BBC News. "Then they started living in water, and then they switched their diet to become carnivores."
Although the behaviour and habits of Indohyus appear somewhat strange, there is a modern day parallel in the African mousedeer (chevrotain). The mousedeer lives on land, but is known to leap into the water to avoid predators such as eagles.

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Whale 'missing link' discovered

Your post answes itself.
The mousedeer does look like a Indohyus, it may even have behaved like obe.
But the two are completely different and not closely related.
How do we know this?
By studying their anatomy.
This has been pointed out to you before, yet you are ignoring it completely.
That is why a mouse-deer isn't a close relative of a hippo or a whale - because they have stunning different internal physiological traits.
One unmissable feature - indohyus has an internal ear structure only found in cetaceans - a mouse deer doe not have this feature.
They were superbly adapted to dive underwater, much more so than its modern-day doppleganger.

That would be because nothing short of a precambrian rabbit would discredit evolution. In fact I am sure evos would come up with some convolution to explain it anyway.

The TOE is one scientific idea that has no credible support for it. After 150 years your researchers are still debating as to the how, when where and why of evolution.

Robust debate and inconsisted, unstable and opposing theories are what you call evidence.

Despite several pages, the evidence has been pushed right under your nose.
so far you have failed to even acknowledge it.

To review:
You have claimed that the Y chromosome mutation rate disproves evolution - and been shown evidence why you are wrong.
You have claimed that indohyus is a mouse-deer, and so evolution is wrong and have ignored all attepmts to show you that you are incorrect.
You have claimed that Ambulocetus natans is a sea-lion relative, and thus disprove evolution - and this has been shown to be hopelessly inaccurate.
You also claimed that 200 millin year old bird footprints disprove evolution , despite the fact that bird-like dinosaurs have been known for over a century.
You have claimed that pseudogenes (vitamin c in particular) do not show common descent and thus disprove evolution, and I still can't work out for the life of me the logic behind that.

When are you going to give this game up?

 

[Astridhere]

Dawkins' decision to go with the scientific consensus instead of Gribbins and Cherfas clearly shows that he does not support their work as much as he supports the current scientific consensus. Dawkins is able to say that Person A makes a very good case, but he still finds person B to be more convincing.

You are ignoring this.

Then you do not know what "Reluctantly" means.

The point of course is that Dawkins has no idea, just like any other evo researcher. Dawkins likes Gribbins and Chefas's work because Dawkins said so. If Dawkins had of said he disagrees with Gribbins or just mentioned the work in passing then he would not be demostrating support for their work. However, Dawkins makes speaks to this work a couple of times and takes the majority view reluctantly. Support simply means support. Dawkins, like any other evo scientist, does not know.

My comment way back was appropriate. Just like any evo USingocnito chose to make a big deal out of it becuase straing points ad nauseum is what he likes to do when he is gobsmacked.

However, when it comes down to it Dawkins is as big a goose as the rest of them. Take a look at this paper. It lists many of the contradictory research finding surrounding just one aspect of humanity, bipedalism. These researchers cannot even make up their minds about that with consolidation. All of them presenting their findings as peer reviewed and published papers. They can't all be right meaning the majority of them are wrong, regardless of having been published. This article also speaks about research that suggests the Laetolli footprints are fully human, not fully human, Lucy made them, Lucy couldn't have made them. IOW it is all as clear as mud.
http://evolution.binghamton.edu/evo...10/01/WHS-2007-Origins-Bipedal-Locomotion.pdf

Fortunately for me, I know there is no common ancestor in between mankind and chimp. What you do have that is not speculative is curved fingers, chimp brain, and an ape skull. It is not difficult for me to work out that Lucy was a non human ape. You need intermediates. Thankfully it is evos that have to try to instill humanity in a non human ape with a revolving door of identified suites of traits, debates and challenging each others work. You have mountains of it. You call this evidence for evolution. I do not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lucy_blackbg.jpg

 

[Astridhere]

Your post answes itself.
The mousedeer does look like a Indohyus, it may even have behaved like obe.
But the two are completely different and not closely related.
How do we know this?
By studying their anatomy.
This has been pointed out to you before, yet you are ignoring it completely.
That is why a mouse-deer isn't a close relative of a hippo or a whale - because they have stunning different internal physiological traits.
One unmissable feature - indohyus has an internal ear structure only found in cetaceans - a mouse deer doe not have this feature.
They were superbly adapted to dive underwater, much more so than its modern-day doppleganger.

Despite several pages, the evidence has been pushed right under your nose.
so far you have failed to even acknowledge it.

No my friend, it is you that are ignorant. Indohyus is a mosaic of bones washed together.


"We think that Indohyus was living there in little herds and that a whole bunch of these animals died," said Thewissen, of Northeastern Ohio Universities Colleges of Medicine and Pharmacy. "Their bones were then washed into this river and they were all buried together."

These findings were "very surprising," given Indohyus' deerlike appearance, Thewissen said.
Whales Evolved From Tiny Deerlike Mammals, Study Says

You have indohyus with toes and indohyus with hooves.

And below is one of the imagined diagrams of what Indohyus may have looked like.

So I'll keep it simple. Nothing you produce as scenarios for indohyus or what it may or may not have been, has any credibility what so ever. You lot do not even know if the inner ear found belongs to any individual. You lot couldn't even get Neanderthal correct with a plethora of bones and being more recent.

You lot need to zero in on any difference you see and totally ignore the huge variety seen around today in species to make your very own intermediates.

Thewissen himself suggests Indohyus is deer like. Hooves, external ears, and an ability to hear underwater to me means something is very amiss with these reconstructions of yours. Only evolutionists can cope with this sort of nonsense.

Some sketches look just like a modern day deer. Given the huge range of differences we see in deer today there is no reason to suggest Indohyus was anything less than a variety of deer if there is any credibility to the reconstruction at all,.... that is unless you are desperate for intermediates.

You have Indohyus with toes and you have Indohyus with hooves meaning you have a contradictory mess that can be what anyone wants it to be.

So the biggest point here is that we can debate Indohyus for years and we will be debating a bunch of bones washed together that could belong to anything as evidence by hooves and toes in Indohyus.

The rest of your post is simply aimless.

 

[AV1611VET]

A Precambrian rabbit would be more than enough to discredit evolution. Perhaps you can go searching for one.

Time for a quote mine:

Even if the "Precambrian rabbits" turned out to be genuine, they would not instantly refute the theory of evolution, because that theory is a large package of ideas, including: that life on Earth has evolved over billions of years;

SOURCE

 

[NailsII]

No my friend, it is you that
are ignorant. Indohyus is a mosaic of bones washed
together.

I would accept mis-informed, but not ignorant - and I am certainly not a friend of yours or your way of thinking.
And the dispersed nature of the fossil find is of little consequence - rarely are fossils neatly packaged with a little species label on them.

"We think that Indohyus was
living there in little herds and that a whole bunch of
these animals died," said Thewissen, of Northeastern
Ohio Universities Colleges of Medicine and Pharmacy.
"Their bones were then washed into this river and they
were all buried together."

These findings were "very surprising," given Indohyus'
deerlike appearance, Thewissen said.
Whales Evolved From Tiny Deerlike Mammals, Study Says

You have indohyus with toes and indohyus with hooves.

I agree, it is a suprising find.
And it could also be wrong - but that is the beauty of science; one find could change the way we think of things, especially the relationship between long-dead animals.
Until any more evidence emerges, it is the best link we have so far.
Thewissen and Gingerich were both cautious, as is the norm with new findings - as your quote shows. But neither of them could oppose the findings, which is something you do - despite you having no evidence to oppose the findings.
So it would appeasr that you are following an agenda and your mind is already made up. No evidence is ever going to sway you.

So I'll keep it simple.
Nothing you produce as scenarios for indohyus or what it
may or may not have been, has any credibility what so
ever. You lot do not even know if the inner ear found
belongs to any individual. You lot couldn't even get
Neanderthal correct with a plethora of bones and being
more recent.

No, you are of course correct - if all these animals had the same inner ear structure, the fact that the bones were mixed could indicate that the ears belonged to another animal, and every other bone (note - the denser than would be expected bones) belong to a mouse-deer. Maybe some evil omnipitent creature mixed them up on purpose, taking away the real ears!
And again, the way we view past species is subject to revision and further knowledge being gained.
This is not a weakness, it is a strength.

You lot need to zero in on
any difference you see and totally ignore the huge
variety seen around today in species to make your very
own intermediates.

but some differences are more important - and more unique - than others.
For example, i have pet rabbits - their front teeth grow constantly and need wearing down.
But they are not rodents.

Thewissen himself suggests
Indohyus is deer like. Hooves, external ears, and an
ability to hear underwater to me means something is very
amiss with these reconstructions of yours. Only
evolutionists can cope with this sort of nonsense.

Indeed, it does appear to be deer-like.
Maybe that is why it is classed as an artiodactyl - which we know from genetic evidence are closely related to whales!
The inner ear structure also indicates much more than underwater hearing. You might want to do some research to understand this.

Some sketches look just like
a modern day deer. Given the huge range of differences
we see in deer today there is no reason to suggest
Indohyus was anything less than a variety of deer if
there is any credibility to the reconstruction at
all,.... that is unless you are desperate for
intermediates.

How many deer that are alive today have heavy bones and cetacean-style inner ears?
these are not just variations, they are adaptions.
Deers don't have denser bones so they can walk on river beds.

You have Indohyus with toes
and you have Indohyus with hooves meaning you have a
contradictory mess that can be what anyone wants it to
be.

What do you think hooves are?
The key find here is the cetacean-style ear and balast bones.
The fossil is also in the right place at the right time with these key adaptations.

So the biggest point here is
that we can debate Indohyus for years and we will be
debating a bunch of bones washed together that could
belong to anything as evidence by hooves and toes in
Indohyus.

Again you ignore the key findings of ears and bone density.

The rest of your post is
simply aimless.

Which means you have no answers I presume.
Maybe you did read some of the posts after all.

 

[NailsII]

Time for a quote mine:


SOURCE

Philosophy can take a hike.

No seriously, if a pre-Cambrian rabbit was found and shown to be genuine, evolution by natural selection would be in serious trouble.
As would the foundations of cladistics.

It certainly wouldn't overturn the multitude of evidence thus far uncovered, but it would mean that the theory is incomplete and in need of a massive overhaul.

To put it into perspective, Einstein didn't disprove gravity - he just found a better and more accurate way to explain it.

Or it could be like Pasteur disproving spontaneous generation.

It would certainly make me sit up and take note, that is for sure.

* edit - re: the wiki link, it attributes the quote to Dawkins. I'm pretty sure it was actually JBS Haldane who muttered those immortal words *

 

[GrannyM]

Fortunately for me, I know there is no common ancestor in between mankind and chimp. [/URL]

You do understand, don't you, that chimps are not considered ancestral to humans? Both chimps and humans have a common ancestor - chimps are our cousins.

 

[createdtoworship]

You do understand, don't you, that chimps are not considered ancestral to humans? Both chimps and humans have a common ancestor - chimps are our cousins.

it's that common ancestor that is evasive and cannot be seen anywhere in the world's fossil record

 

[NailsII]

it's that common ancestor that is evasive and cannot be seen anywhere in the world.

That's because its been dead for several million years and so we have to search for its remains under the ground, if there are any.
Anyhow, DNA evidence suggest that we don't even need the bones, they are just a bonus.

 

[createdtoworship]

That's because its been dead for several million years and so we have to search for its remains under the ground, if there are any.
Anyhow, DNA evidence suggest that we don't even need the bones, they are just a bonus.

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

Or until we find it you can admit defeat.

you choose.

 

[AV1611VET]

No seriously, if a pre-Cambrian rabbit was found and shown to be genuine, evolution by natural selection would be in serious trouble

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.

 

[Astridhere]

I would accept mis-informed, but not ignorant - and I am certainly not a friend of yours or your way of thinking.
And the dispersed nature of the fossil find is of little consequence - rarely are fossils neatly packaged with a little species label on them.

I agree, it is a suprising find.
And it could also be wrong - but that is the beauty of science; one find could change the way we think of things, especially the relationship between long-dead animals.
Until any more evidence emerges, it is the best link we have so far.
Thewissen and Gingerich were both cautious, as is the norm with new findings - as your quote shows. But neither of them could oppose the findings, which is something you do - despite you having no evidence to oppose the findings.
So it would appeasr that you are following an agenda and your mind is already made up. No evidence is ever going to sway you.

No, you are of course correct - if all these animals had the same inner ear structure, the fact that the bones were mixed could indicate that the ears belonged to another animal, and every other bone (note - the denser than would be expected bones) belong to a mouse-deer. Maybe some evil omnipitent creature mixed them up on purpose, taking away the real ears!
And again, the way we view past species is subject to revision and further knowledge being gained.
This is not a weakness, it is a strength.

but some differences are more important - and more unique - than others.
For example, i have pet rabbits - their front teeth grow constantly and need wearing down.
But they are not rodents.
Indeed, it does appear to be deer-like.
Maybe that is why it is classed as an artiodactyl - which we know from genetic evidence are closely related to whales!
The inner ear structure also indicates much more than underwater hearing. You might want to do some research to understand this.

How many deer that are alive today have heavy bones and cetacean-style inner ears?
these are not just variations, they are adaptions.
Deers don't have denser bones so they can walk on river beds.

What do you think hooves are?
The key find here is the cetacean-style ear and balast bones.
The fossil is also in the right place at the right time with these key adaptations.
Again you ignore the key findings of ears and bone density.

Which means you have no answers I presume.
Maybe you did read some of the posts after all.

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.

 

[Astridhere]

That's because its been dead for several million years and so we have to search for its remains under the ground, if there are any.
Anyhow, DNA evidence suggest that we don't even need the bones, they are just a bonus.

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.

 

[Tiberius]

Then you do not know what "Reluctantly" means.

The point of course is that Dawkins has no idea, just like any other evo researcher. Dawkins likes Gribbins and Chefas's work because Dawkins said so. If Dawkins had of said he disagrees with Gribbins or just mentioned the work in passing then he would not be demostrating support for their work. However, Dawkins makes speaks to this work a couple of times and takes the majority view reluctantly. Support simply means support. Dawkins, like any other evo scientist, does not know.

Yes, support means that he thinks their work is good and deserves further study.

However, there are degrees of support. And even though Dawkins supports their work, he supports the current scientific consensus even more, which is why he went with it.

 

[Astridhere]

Yes, support means that he thinks their work is good and deserves further study.

However, there are degrees of support. And even though Dawkins supports their work, he supports the current scientific consensus even more, which is why he went with it.

Great, because 'I think' is as good as it gets within evolutionary theory.

You can refute my post 774 anytime you feel you have an edge.

 

[Tiberius]

Great, because 'I think' is as good as it gets within evolutionary theory.

You can refute my post 774 anytime you feel you have an edge.

Easily refuted. The instant you said it wasn't credible in your view, because you have repeatedly demonstrated that your view is built in misinformation and flawed reasoning.

 

[createdtoworship]

The instant you said it wasn't credible in your view, because you have repeatedly demonstrated that your view is built in misinformation and flawed reasoning.

objection!

using the logical fallacy:

"poisoning the well"

 

[Tiberius]

objection!

using the logical fallacy:

"poisoning the well"

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.