One transitional series from 99% of the fossil record

[ardipithecus]

Originally posted by npetreley

What makes this such a good example is that it illustrates exactly what I said -- that the comparison is improved by the bad art. That drawing of Ambulocetus is terrible.

The drawing of Ambulocetus is dead on or close to dead on if one is to judge from the actual bones. 

But even if this was true, it is not true that paleontologists classify by comparing artist's conceptions and thus your point is utterly moot.

 

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
This one..

Oooookaaay....so help me with this, Jerry. I accused you of....me suggesting that you draw transitions? I think it's time for a visit to your shrink, Jer.

 

[OldBadfish]

There is missing info and incomplete evidence Nick, you have made that clear. IMO Just keep it nice.

Sean (Moderator)

 

[Jerry Smith]

That's the easiest way to prove evolution, and evolutionists will gladly accept your art as evidence. No talent, needed, either. In fact, the worse you are at art, the better the evidence, since you can argue about the difficult-to-discern details in the art.

Evolution"ists" will accept made up drawings as evidence. That's the accusation. Further, they will accept poorly drawn made up illustrations as evidence. Further, there is the implication that something even remotely like this happens and is part of the reason why scientists and/or non-scientists who do not revile all things scientific accept evolution.

There are "illustrations" in science textbooks of atoms that are drawn without anything close to accurate scale, with little neat electron orbits. No one uses those as "evidence". They use them as graphic representations of real atoms, that are useful in explaining some specific relevant feature(s) of the atoms. I don't see you out attacking the atomic model of chemistry and physics. Why not? I never hear you make snide comments about how blind and stupid "chemicalists" are. Why not? Their model is (dare I say it in a public forum?) naturalistic.

Chemical data can be alternatively explained by supernaturalistic theories that mimic natural chemical events (i.e. common designer "theories"). Why aren't you out there sarcastically telling every one that the evidence for chemistry is imaginary?

You haven't shown that evolutionary scientists or the educated public will accept fraudulent illustrations as evidence. You have shown that the educated public will accept illustrations as representations of the evidence, but you haven't shown that anything is wrong with that. Until you do the former, it is better to drop your claims and implications that the former happens. Until you do the latter, it is better for you to drop the subject all together, and choose between entering the debate and leaving the debate alone. Who wants to listen to a loud and angry fan of the losing team jeering the referee from the sidelines?