Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
GM Ramirez-Guerrero, CB Cameron Systematics of pterobranchs from the Cambrian Period Burgess Shales of Canada and the early evolution of graptolites Bulletin of Geosciences96(1), 1–18If it is so easy to find these research papers, please get me one.
An approximation you say?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.
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.
An approximation you say?
Pakicetus has nothing to do with whales as far as I am concerned.
You will need to keep staring at the fossil record until you find a valid transitional species.
How a whale became a mammal is an enigma.
Ultimately, science will never know with any degree of certainty. Whether or not, Pakicetus
belongs in the whale evolutionary tree.
This issue in evolutionary science is not just about Pakicetus. Evolutionary science has many unanswered questions which the general public never knows.
I am not an advocate of generating fictional evolutionary trees. Science relies on observation, hard evidence that is beyond any debate. If the evidence is unavailable then admit that.
Science relies on observation, hard evidence that is beyond any debate.
GM Ramirez-Guerrero, CB Cameron Systematics of pterobranchs from the Cambrian Period Burgess Shales of Canada and the early evolution of graptolites Bulletin of Geosciences96(1), 1–18
If you wish I can get you a further 10,000, for starters. If you need any help understanding them I can recommend some excellent university courses.
Why should we do your homework for you? Google Scholar exists. Go use it.
The difficulty is that to properly appreciate the reality of evolution one requires two things:I will read it as I have time. I am a very busy person. Because of this I don't want to study at a cellular level. If evolution is true we must have visible, transitions between modern-day, and semi-modern species. Things that can be seen with the eyes.
If evolution is true we must have visible, transitions between modern-day, and semi-modern species. Things that can be seen with the eyes.
Why, because I want you to see, what I am asking for does not exist. The gradual change in modern species does not exist.
Zero certainty is a problem.That's not true in the slightest. If there weren't things up for debate, there wouldn't be any reason to *do* science in the first place.
I think your assuming that you will get the answers, in your attempt to understand the universe. The scientific event horizon, is seriously, becoming far to complex and mysterious. The scientific paradigm is too limited. I would claim that the real universe is unobservable and cannot be understood.Science is all about gathering information about our natural universe in an effort to understand said universe. That we don't have all the answers yet and that are things to learn is what makes science so exciting and interesting.
A degree of uncertainty?Now this also does involve accepting a certain degree of uncertainty about things. For some people, that sparks curiosity. For others, fear and anxiety. So I understand that science's way of doing things is not for everyone.
Zero certainty is a problem.
I think your assuming that you will get the answers, in your attempt to understand the universe.
Science has been at it for centuries and we are not making headway.
All I have observed is that theories get replaced by other theories. None the wiser in the end.To prove the Theory of Evolution completely, you're right about that.
But it's a scientific theory, so no worries there. We don't expect to prove theories completely. We just need to get all the known evidence to fit. In the case of fossils, we need them to show clear morphologic trends. Which they do. If they didn't, we'd have a big problem.
Your assuming of course that scientific understanding progresses. I don't see it that way. I see science as accelerating the demise of mankind.I don't think so. I am comfortable with uncertainty.
I don't assume this at all. I don't expect to get answers in trying to understand the universe. And I'm okay with that.
Of course we've made headway. We know a lot more about things than we knew centuries ago. And centuries from now we'll know more still.
That doesn't mean we'll know everything or that the quest for knowledge will ever stop. It's just a case of endless progress, building on what came before.
Your assuming of course that scientific understanding progresses. I don't see it that way. I see science as accelerating the demise of mankind.
We have different world views.
Nearly every problem we experience now has a scientific origin.
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. It is a self-contained creature, and could easily have been created the way it is. There is no reason to say it has to be the result of evolution.
As for the monkey skulls, without sitting down with an expert, and having each one assessed, I can make no comment. However there are a myriad of creationist sites willing to put up their hands to dispute the validity of the image you showed me.
Where are the transitions from mammal to monkey? We have monkeys alive today, similar to all those skulls. But for evolution to be true there must be transitions from small mammals to monkeys, etc.
If it is so easy to find these research papers, please get me one.
All I have observed is that theories get replaced by other theories. None the wiser in the end.
The scientific world is like politics, competing theories, a clash of different ideas. Who cares if the theory is correct or not? We will never know anyway.
Is the universe infinite?
Are there multiple universes?
Is our universe sitting in a test tube on the bench of some alien species?
We will never know the answers.
If it is so easy to find these research papers, please get me one.
Pakicetus has nothing to do with whales as far as I am concerned.
How a whale became a mammal is an enigma.
Evolutionary science has many unanswered questions which the general public never knows.