Denial of Evolution VI.

[Aqueous Id]

And your newer version would not include gradualism, right?

So, from a:

(an ungulate - mesonychid?)

to a:

(killer whale)

in just 3 generations or less?

Wow. That's some magic trick.

I'm not sure if leopold understands that evolution applies at the fork of a clade - not across distal ends - and how this has no bearing on the validity of any theory as much as it does understanding basic biology - if not just a light treatment of morphology and cladistics.

I notice the fundies have devoted a substantial amount of propaganda to the denial of the evidence for whale evolution. They seem more worried about the threat of a link to land mammals than to the varieties of cetaceans already in existence or even to similar transitional fossils. Considering all of the effort they expend on this, you would think they would just cut to the chase and take a course in biology. Of course that presumes a rational logic they have learned to squelch.

Here's another candidate "transitional" form, as the term is loosely being used here, which might fit into the description "whale-dog" (or deer) as the example you give suggests. This is the Eocene Rodhocetus which may bump more familiar looking ungulates from their place in cetacean evolution. It's probably in the list you posted earlier, and adds to some of the more colorful transitional forms leopold is asking for. (Makes me wonder if we'll ever see a flick called Eocene Park which sounds like fun.)

 

[billvon]

world hunger isn't a valid concept?

It's a very valid concept.

are you saying that needing to feed more and more people using less and less land will not be a valid constraint?

It will be - but Monsanto will not be helping cure world hunger. That's not in their business plan; indeed, if farmers in an African country were discovered using Monsanto seeds they'd be arrested and jailed. Such avenues will be pursued by people like Potrykus and Beyer; those are kinds of people to support if you want to make a dent in world hunger.

 

[Trippy]

in order to "disprove evo" they need to "prove god" and i'm not holding my breath.
replacing current evo theory with a newer version DOES NOT disprove evo.

Go back and read what I said again, then try replying with something that is actually relevant.

 

[Trippy]

Fixed. -- I was thinking about saying Lemurs don't require vitamin C in their diet while Chimps and Humans do, which is evidence of common descent with modification, but I changed my mind and decided to write about skin pigmentation (Europeans are mutants) and wrote the wrong letter when I did.

Fair enough. I hate it when that happens.

 

[leopold]

I'm not sure if leopold understands that evolution applies at the fork of a clade - not across distal ends

okay, in my opinion:
assumption, a rat turns into a dog.
this rat varies around the norm for a certain length of time, it will always remain a rat just different varieties.
some event happens that turns this rat into a dog.
whatever this event is, it doesn't seem to affect some species.
fossils are created and preserved during the above process.
finding a fossil with the characteristics of a rat and dog is just that, a ratdog species, it does nothing to say a rat turns into a dog.
on the other hand in addition to the above fossil, if you could find 2 others, one on each side of the mentioned one, that clearly show relations amongst them, this would clearly be, no question, a transitional fossil.
finding fossils isn't exactly easy, and find ones that meet my definition would be hard to say the least.
so, what is a transitional fossil?
one that clearly shows the change and you can't get that from just one fossil.

on other, more important matters:
in reality this molecular evo stuff is going to blow some doors.

 

[leopold]

Go back and read what I said again, then try replying with something that is actually relevant.

i have no idea how much a person would be paid.

 

[leopold]

What sort of equation?

the kind that explains or models molecular evo.
it 's probably a mistake to imply this equation will only be one or a simple one.
the variables will probably be processes.

What type of information are you looking for?

i'm not looking for any information in this regard.

 

[Trippy]

assumption, a rat turns into a dog.

That's your first and most important mistake.

 

[leopold]

i knew i should have included the phrase "hypothetical scenario" in there somewhere.
oh my.

 

[Trippy]

i knew i should have included the phrase "hypothetical scenario" in there somewhere.
oh my.

I might accept that if it was only the first time, but you've said that, or something analagous how many times now?

Consider, for example, your complaints about fruit flies.

 

[Rav]

(an ungulate - mesonychid?)

"The stages of early whale evolution that we have documented are shown here in Figure 1. We have found and collected virtually complete skeletons of middle-to-late Eocene Basilosauridae (Dorudon and Basilosaurus), exceptionally complete skeletons of middle Eocene Protocetidae (especially Rodhocetus and Artiocetus), and a partial skull of earliest middle Eocene Pakicetidae (Pakicetus). Recovery of diagnostic ankle bones in the skeletons of primitive protocetids during our field work in Pakistan in 2000 confirmed their derivation from Artiodactyla (the mammalian order including cows, deer, hippos, etc.), and showed convincingly that whales did not originate from mesonychid condylarths as Van Valen hypothesized (and we had expected)." - Philip D. Gingerich, Research on the Origin and Early Evolution of Whales (Cetacea)

The first picture I posted was of a Diacodexis, which is simply an early example of the Artiodactyla order. Apparently whales aren't necessarily descended from the Diacodexis specifically, but something like it.

I'm not sure if leopold understands that evolution applies at the fork of a clade - not across distal ends - and how this has no bearing on the validity of any theory as much as it does understanding basic biology - if not just a light treatment of morphology and cladistics.

Part of the blame might lie with the presentation of absurdities like the infamous Crocoduck:

It's probably in the list you posted earlier, and adds to some of the more colorful transitional forms leopold is asking for. (Makes me wonder if we'll ever see a flick called Eocene Park which sounds like fun.)

It wasn't me who posted the list you are referring to. I can't remember who it was now, and I'm feeling too lazy to go check

 

[Trippy]

Part of the blame might lie with the presentation of absurdities like the infamous Crocoduck:

I've mentioned the Hippocrocoduckopus a few times in this thread, but I thought this was cool:

 

[Robittybob1]

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/pgifs/Platypus_bw.GIF

Duckbill platypus is an actual example!

 

[Rav]

I've mentioned the Hippocrocoduckopus a few times in this thread, but I thought this was cool:

I've probably missed a few things in this thread as a result of my eyes bleeding so much. Love your Rhinoseal though!

How about a dooster:

Or a chickapug:

(apparently his bark is worse than his flight*)

 

[Rav]

Sea Cougarcroc:

More awesomeness here.

 

[Rav]

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/pgifs/Platypus_bw.GIF

Duckbill platypus is an actual example!

Indeed.

A hot topic too.

 

[andy1033]

Most of everyone that is into evolution, all they have is richard dawkins, primary school play ground idea of debating. Your know what i mean, your mum is this and your mum is that, this is the debating skills of people behind evolution, as evolution is based on nout, and they just want to attack the opposition, and not the idea of creationism.

So this debate is useless.

Oh no some evolution person is going to say your mum is this or your mum is that idea of debating.

Evolution people have nout to offer, and cannot explain anything behind there theory.

 

[leopold]

I might accept that if it was only the first time, but you've said that, or something analagous how many times now?

there is no doubt i bring it up often in discussions about evo.
the process i outlined IS evo albeit a broad one.
how you failed to see that is an astounding mystery.
right, you were too busy "prosecuting the creationist".

Consider, for example, your complaints about fruit flies.

the complaint i voiced about fruitflies was they haven't shown macroevolution.
you know, the concept of some sort of "barrier" first mentioned by spidergoat.

 

[Trippy]

there is no doubt i bring it up often in discussions about evo.
the process i outlined IS evo albeit a broad one.

No it isn't. Why? Because Evolution does not predict rats turning into dogs. It also does not predict the existence of Rat-Dog hybrids.

 

[Dinosaur]

Andy1033: What do you have to say about the facts of evoultion?

Most of everyone that is into evolution, all they have is richard dawkins, primary school play ground idea of debating. Your know what i mean, your mum is this and your mum is that, this is the debating skills of people behind evolution, as evolution is based on nout, and they just want to attack the opposition, and not the idea of creationism.

So this debate is useless.

Oh no some evolution person is going to say your mum is this or your mum is that idea of debating.

Evolution people have nout to offer, and cannot explain anything behind there theory.

As posted here several times.

The fossil record provides the facts of evolution. Eohippus to modern horse. Early primates to Homo Sapiens are two of many examples.

You cannot deny the facts of the fossil record. to put down evolution, you must provide an alternative explanation for the fossil record.

What is your explanation?