Psudopod said:
Where do either of your articles, let alone a scientific paper state that Indohyus is just a mouse deer? A creature similar to, is not the same as. Dolphins are similar to sharks on a superfical level, but very different when examined closely. And my point is made by the quote from one of the articles you linked to:
"Hyemoschus [the African mouse deer] is
not osteosclerotic and spends relatively little time in the water.” (Bolding mine)
astridhere said:
There is no use in my replying to twisted asides. The point was that a mouse deer/chevrotain is very similar to a mouse deer and one of your researchers says so. The rest of anything you said is woffle based on speculation....
What's twisted? This is a quote from the very source you posted. I'm not, and no one is distuting that Indohyus is a very similar creature to the modern mouse deer. What we're saying is it is not a modern mouse deer, and one of the differences is indohyus is osteosclerotic. Because of this aquatic nature, it has been proposed as part of the route from landbased (we can tell that indohyus mostly ate non-aquatic material) to fully aquatic mammals like whales.
astridhere said:
If a fossil looks like a mouse deer could it be a variety of mouse deer? I say "Yes". Evos say "No", it must be something on its' way to becoming a whale.
It's not enough to look like it superficially. No one is denying that this was a small mammal of similar shape and size to the modern mouse deer, that probably behaved in a similar fasion. But that doesn't make it identical to the modern mouse deer. And no one has said it has to be on it's way to being a whale. It's a proposed transition between solely land based and aquatic. We can see this from their bone structure. Whether these creatures were the very distant relations of whales, or whether something else was, we don't have enough information from what I've read.
astridhere said:
I hold the upper hand here.
No you don't. You are just claiming indohyus and the modern mouse deer are the same thing, despite there being differences, and saying that there is a problem if indohyus is not in the whale ancestory. Again, no, there is not, not to evolution as a whole, and not to our current understanding of whale evolution.
astridhere said:
Both evo and my assertions are unfalsifiable because they are theoretical. However I strongly suggest that evolutionists in their desperation to find intermediates ignore the obvious and seek myths instead.
Nope, for example I would have thought if we could get suitable genetic material for indohyus, we should be able to compare with modern whales and see if there is a genetic match. However simple biology will tell you the indohyus is not the same as a modern mouse deer, as it is not classified as such. They are similar types of creature occupying a similar niche, but they are not the same thing.
astridhere said:
I have posted skeletons of both and the similarities are obvious. Indohyus sure looks more like a mouse deer than a whale.
Yes it looks more like a mouse deer than a whale. Has anyone claimed otherwise? Remember, this is being preposed as a very distant whale ancestor, pretty much the first step from fully terrestrial living on the way to fully aquatic. There's no way it should look anything like a modern whale.
astridhere said:
[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] evolutionists never deny evolution. The reply was in response to some goose suggesting that I had invented the idea of a 'chaos theory; of evolution. Get with the program Psudopod
It was to your comment that evolution should be able to comment on chaos theory. I never suggested that you had invented the idea of a chaos theory of evolution, just that evolution can't comment on chaos theory, chaos theory comments on evolution.
astridhere said:
I do not care if you lot maintain it as an important discovery. The point is It was an intermediate that was the first to land and heralded as such and that has been falsified by older tetrapod footprints and fossils. Get with the program.
Again, you had stated that is the first, but failed to back it up with a scientific source. And again, even if it wasn't, does this change anything about tiktaalik morphology? Does it stop having both fish and amphibian traits? Does it stop being found in the geological and historical location that such a creature was predicted to live?
Psudopod said:
So do you understand this point or not? It's so hard to understand what you actually understand when you don't address points and go off on tangents. This is a very important, very basic point - you can't escape your clades.
It's very easy to show if the classification system is wrong. All you have to do is show which of the ape traits humans lack. Surely if humans being apes is such as mistake, someone should have been able to point this out by now.
astridhere said:
The main point here is that similarity denotes ancestry except when you lot conveniently say that it doesn't. eg bipedal cockroaches and the independent evolution of eyes and just about everything else, it seems.
Similarity is often superficial when just looking at photos of two things side by side. You need to examine all of it. Sharks and dolphins look very similar if just looking at pictures. If you knew nothing about either and looked up two pictures on the internet, you might not spot that they have different breathing methods, that dolphins only give birth to live young, that only dolphins feed their young milk. This is why looking at two pictures is not enough.
Psudopod said:
So again you cannot back up your argument that people are ridiculing theists rather than creationists.
astridhere said:
"God did it" is a smear on theist evolutionists as well as creationists because theist evolutionists still evoke the power of God in their scenarios.
I'm not sure what you mean. The only ones I've heard using God did it as scientific answer are some creationists. It's not a smear on anyone to point out this is not scientific. And no, theistic evolutionists don't tend to use God when discussing science, they just know that when studying science they are studying the handiwork of God.
psudopod said:
I have never seen anything like this, certainly not from professional scientists. I've never seen knuckle-walking ancestory as considered irrefutable proof of evolution. As I said before, other than when the trait arose, nothing has really changed in our understanding.
psudopod said:
astridhere said:
Rubbish. Ardi has falsified all the nonsense related to mankind being chimp like. 150 years down the drain and new scenario to play around with that is also not irrefuteable
We are definitely agreed on this one. There is no irrefuteable evidence for evolution
No one but you has suggested that the ancestor looked like a modern chimp, any more than it looked like a modern human. Modern English and Italian are two different languages, that share a common origin in Latin. What you are suggesting is is the equivalent of if English and Italian share a common origin language, then that ancient language must be like Italian. It's like neither, but both languages share some of the same features. .
And yes, there is no irrefutable evidence, because science has to be falsifiable. Being falsifiable doesn't mean it has been falisfied though.
Psudopod said:
Except for a different skeletal structure. It's also a proposed very early whale ancestor, it's not certain that indohyus definitely is on the whale line.
astridhere said:
The point being evolution and its supports are no more solid than any crearionist paradigm
Except that's not true. Evolution explains for example, why all veribrate are tetrapod; why we see a nested hierachy of living creatures; why monkeys and apes are a better match for disease modelling than mice and rats; why such crazy "designs" like eating and breathing through the same whole persist; why humans have an apendix - an organ that can be perfectly safely removed, showing it is not necessary, and which carries a risk of death if infected; why sometimes offspring are born with atavistic features like humans with tails, whales with feet etc.