Prove that links exist

[FutureAndAHope]

We have some evidence of a dishonest presentation.
By you.

There's more than one Ambukocetes skeleton.

Let's see you post a photos that do show front and hind legs.
There's a whole lot more than " a few fragments".

Sometimes living dolphins also have hind legs, so don't be
scared, be honest!

Careful though. Integrity is incompatible
with your presentation.

For a start that image is not a fraud, it is taken from the National Geographic Image collection, by Robert Caputo, showing where the bones were in relation to one another.

Sure the actual skeleton appears more complete, but I had not seen that.

 

[Astrid]

For a start that image is not a fraud, it is taken from the National Geographic Image collection, by Robert Caputo, showing where the bones were in relation to one another.

Sure the actual skeleton appears more complete, but I had not seen that.

I did not say the skeleton is a fraud, I said your choice
to just post a drawing of one without back legs was
dishonest. Though perhaps you did notice the proximal
end of a tibia is present and hoped nobody would
notice that a robust tibia is like part of a leg.

Now, post a photo of one that doesclearly show the legs,
lest anyone suspect you are acting again in bad faith.
ET A
They don't "appear" more complete, they ARE more complete.

 

[Frank Robert]

Ok, let's start with Archaeopteryx. It is a reptilian-like creature, with a wing. Where are the transitions to birds? Or from reptile to Archaeopteryx.

Archaeopteryx is not a reptilian creature. That is an apologetic myth.

It is a self-contained creature, and could easily have been created the way it is.

What is so difficult in understanding that Archaeopteryx is a transitional fossil between dinosaurs and modern birds with a blend of avian and some reptilian features?

Could it have been created by an omnipotent deity? Yes, but such a deity could have created anything including the laws of nature that govern evolution which is a significantly better conservative position to a deity that constantly makes adjustments to living organisms.

Instead of wasting time with come up with a consillience of evidence that better fits the scientific observations and makes better predictions.

 

[pitabread]

Well get me my links.

Why, so you can just handwave everything away? I know the game creationists play with fake 'challenge' threads like this.

You're not interested in transitional fossils. The least you can do is be honest about that.

 

[Frank Robert]

I have https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03 and investigated it's counter argument Refuting Evolution chapter 5: Whale evolution? - creation.com

First creation.com is all about creationist apologetics, not evolution.

Second the berkeley.edu link is great for learning basics but does not contain current material on whale evolution.

 

[driewerf]

Surely a quick glance at the web will be a gold mine, for me. Looks like you educated lot are real good at hiding the evidence from the public.

Yes indeed we do hide the evidence from the public. but we're not very good at it.
We are so bad at it that even school children can find our hidden evidence.

Or that public lectures are organised and then uploaded to Youtube. Imagine, this slipped out of the hidden, restricted area into the public part.

Or, in our attempt to hide the evidence some people made a Youtube film "Evolution made easy"

Yep, we hide the evidence.

 

[Shemjaza]

I'm sure the Israelites did.

Except the only remains found of most of these are vastly more ancient than anything that the children of Abraham could have seen.

 

[Shemjaza]

I have https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03 and investigated it's counter argument Refuting Evolution chapter 5: Whale evolution? - creation.com

It is interesting that the poster boy of whale evolution was a partial skeleton that contains only a few bone fragments, yet in textbooks is shown as a whale with legs.

Ok, so let's go back to my list:

- You have a group of skulls
- 1 dino bird
- and whale evolution from a few bone fragments

Surely there must be more evidence than that?

Are you deliberately lying in an attempt to get a rise from the "evolutionists"?

You claimed that transitional fossils don't exist. People present them to you and your tone of dismissiveness just kept going.

These are good, simple examples and there are consistent repeatable, explicable techniques to demonstrate their validity.

No one claimed that these are the only examples, but your dishonesty and arrogance don't really show any reason to show you more.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

Yes indeed we do hide the evidence from the public. but we're not very good at it.
We are so bad at it that even school children can find our hidden evidence.

Or that public lectures are organised and then uploaded to Youtube. Imagine, this slipped out of the hidden, restricted area into the public part.

Or, in our attempt to hide the evidence some people made a Youtube film "Evolution made easy"

Yep, we hide the evidence.

When I said a good job is done of hiding the evidence, I am talking about transitional fossils. We should see vast numbers of these but we don't. My challenge is not to show evolutionary teaching but evolutionary fossils.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

When I said a good job is done of hiding the evidence, I am talking about transitional fossils. We should see vast numbers of these but we don't. My challenge is not to show evolutionary teaching but evolutionary fossils.

Every fossil is a transitional fossil. In evolution, no animal reaches a finishing line.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

Are you deliberately lying in an attempt to get a rise from the "evolutionists"?

You claimed that transitional fossils don't exist. People present them to you and your tone of dismissiveness just kept going.

These are good, simple examples and there are consistent repeatable, explicable techniques to demonstrate their validity.

No one claimed that these are the only examples, but your dishonesty and arrogance don't really show any reason to show you more.

You can present a handful of things that could possibly be a transition. But you can not produce evidence of the evolution of the species currently on the earth.

As a side note Ambukocetes, was not found with a blowhole (like a whale), that part of the skull was missing. But it was added in reconstructions so because of evolutionary thinking and bias alone.

And as for the comment that Dolphins grow legs, that also is not true, some Dolphins have a rear fin, not leg structures.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You can present a handful of things that could possibly be a transition. But you can not produce evidence of the evolution of the species currently on the earth.

Are you really qualified to make that statement?

As a side note Ambukocetes, was not found with a blowhole (like a whale), that part of the skull was missing. But it was added in reconstructions so because of evolutionary thinking and bias alone.

Where did you get that claim from?

And as for the comment that Dolphins grow legs, that also is not true, some Dolphins have a rear fin, not leg structures.

Oh, the evidence is not really in your favour, like at all, especially since you've probably never actually studied, let alone even looked at the skeletons of a dolphin, have you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok, I know to you this is evidence, but does a series of monkey skulls "prove", evolution? Everything has evolved, right? You must prove that. It is possible you have just found various species of monkey?

You really should try to learn what is and what is not evidence if you are going to demand evidence.

 

[klutedavid]

I have https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03 and investigated it's counter argument Refuting Evolution chapter 5: Whale evolution? - creation.com

It is interesting that the poster boy of whale evolution was a partial skeleton that contains only a few bone fragments, yet in textbooks is shown as a whale with legs.

Ok, so let's go back to my list:

- You have a group of skulls
- 1 dino bird
- and whale evolution from a few bone fragments

Surely there must be more evidence than that?

I had a look at the evolution of the whale and I had a serious issue with Pakicetus. How they decided that Pakicetus was a transitional species in the evolution of the whale, is far beyond reason. Pakicetus was a small four legged species that walked on hoofs.

Pakicetus had an ear bone that was similar to a whale's ear bone and that was the reason for it's inclusion. That Pakicetus was included in the whale's evolutionary history gives the game away. There is insufficient evidence to include a four legged, hoofed species, into the whale's evolutionary tree. These scientists are grasping at straws.

The fossil record is incomplete and it is impossible to construct an evolutionary tree for the whale.

 

[Ophiolite]

If you are so sure you can beat me you had better get your links up.

Science is not about "beating people" it is about a sober, committed, painstaking examination of the evidence and the formulation and testing of hypotheses to account for the evidence. Cynical demands of the type you make here are an affront to science and to polite debate.
If you honestly have done some research on evolution then you will have read a few textbooks on the matter and a substantial number of peer reviewed research papers. In that case you will have encountered many examples of what you are asking for. The fact that you are still asking for this means that either you haven't bothered doing any serious research, or you have chosen to ignore it. Neither position encourages me to take the time to meet your request. (Especially when it comes across as a hysterical demand.)

I don't need a peer reviews to have eyes and a brain. Don't leave yours at the door.

You would have had a better chance of stringing us "evolutionists" along if you had at least made a pretence of being polite.

Ok, I am a believer. Better work a bit harder guys, rather than insulting me. This, so far, is not evidence of evolution.

The insults thus far are coming from your snide, patronising dismissive comments. Not a good advert for Christian humility.

Seeing you can easily overwhelm me you had better get started.

Laddy, you were overwhelmed before you even started. Evolution is not going to go away because you throw a hissy fit on an obscure website and I'm not going to waste anymore time on your insincere approach.

 

[Jay Sea]

There is a vast difference between a Dinosaur and a man. If we are honest with ourselves there must be huge numbers of transitional forms. I have started this thread with the goal of showing there are not these transitions.

Could the Evolutionists in this thread put up links to the best-known transitions. I will not accept something like one example, how many creatures are there in the world? Millions, so we should have millions of transitions.

Also Horse and Dog evolution will not be accepted, due to the fact today we still have varying sizes of Dogs. Any size-based transition will be rejected. For it does not prove a change in type, only a change in size.

Does this not come down to a question of the literalness of the bible or the acceptance that the bible has used the full spectrum of man's creativeness of stories to tell G-d's truth in a way that satisfies man's spirit and not just his head.
In Love
Jay Sea

 

[pitabread]

Pakicetus had an ear bone that was similar to a whale's ear bone and that was the reason for it's inclusion. That Pakicetus was included in the whale's evolutionary history gives the game away. There is insufficient evidence to include a four legged, hoofed species, into the whale's evolutionary tree. These scientists are grasping at straws.

Classifications of fossils are based on physical characteristics of those fossils relative to other species. Far from grasping at straws, it's simply a matter of following the evidence where it leads.

It's also worth noting there are numerous examples of semi-aquatic hoofed mammals in contemporary times. So the idea of a semi-aquatic hoofed mammal being the ancestors of modern whales is hardly an usual idea.

Of course fossils are only one piece of the evidence for the terrestrial origins of whales. The genetic evidence is arguably even stronger, since there are numerous genetic indicators of terrestrial ancestry that just don't make sense otherwise.

The fossil record is incomplete and it is impossible to construct an evolutionary tree for the whale.

It's clearly not impossible, since evolutionary trees for whales already exist.

Now granted any such tree is always going to be an approximation, since the data set is always going to be incomplete relative to the totality of reality. That's just how everything works in science. Everything is a simplification of reality; that doesn't mean it's not useful to do so, however.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

Where did you get that claim from?

Dr Hans Thewissen Interviewed About Blow Hole of Ambulocetus

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Dr Hans Thewissen Interviewed About Blow Hole of Ambulocetus

So the position of the snout was more based on conjecture on homologous and similar lifeforms, a valid school of thought for reconstruction work, not "because of evolutionary thinking and bias alone."

Good to know. At least you showed evidence for your claim, no matter how wrong your claim was.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

If you honestly have done some research on evolution then you will have read a few textbooks on the matter and a substantial number of peer reviewed research papers. In that case you will have encountered many examples of what you are asking for. The fact that you are still asking for this means that either you haven't bothered doing any serious research, or you have chosen to ignore it.

If it is so easy to find these research papers, please get me one.