Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ed · 06-06-2003, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Oolon Colluphid
Are you suggesting then that these creatures did not have genes at all?
Or �merely� that their genes worked in some radically different way from modern ones?

In either case, please give your reasons.

Why is it not a perfectly reasonable inference to think that genomes then worked in similar gene cascades to present ones?

And hence, pray tell which �kinds� there are in the Burgess shale. If a kind is present back then that is still present now, why and how did their genomes so substantially alter their modus operandi to how it is today? And would that not be evolution?

Jack, I�ll go into a little more detail on one point if I may...

According to the bible, angiosperms -- flowering plants, �grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit� -- were created on Day 3 (Gen 1:11-12).

Now Ed, you will find that grasses and fruit trees are angiosperms.

If Day 5 = Cambrian explosion, where is all the Cambrian (or even precambrian) angiosperm pollen? It is bloody everywhere after the end of the Jurassic. But nowhere before that. And the end of the Jurassic is three hundred and forty million years after the Cambrian. Why no trace of it in that all that time, if these plants were created before most animals?

To be sure, pollen of sorts is found earlier than that, but it is from gymnosperms. From here:

So:

(1) Pollen is fairly easily preserved, and hence it is widespread in the fossil record.

(2) Pollen, but still not angiosperm �proper� pollen (ie from grasses etc), is around from the upper Devonian. That, dearest Ed, is still at least 140 million years after the appearance of animals on Day 5. Not before, as being created on Day 3 would predict. In other words, there is not a trace of such plants until well after Day 5.

Please explain how the biblical Days match.

TTFN, Oolon

See my posts to Jack above.

Ed · 06-06-2003, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless

Ed: I was referring to Basilosaurus, see above. And if what you say is true then how come crocodiles didnt evolve into the reptilian equivalent of a whale?

jtb: There WERE reptilian equivalents of whales! Have you honestly never heard of icthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, mosasaurs etc?

They became extinct when the dinosaurs did.

Ed: Yes, but they did not evolve from crocodiles. Also, they are not as specialized as whales, ie they still had pelvises and did not have a highly specialized breathing apparatus(blowholes) and etc.

jtb: They evolved from land reptiles, and filled the "fully aquatic air-breathing carnivore" niche. A mosasaur would have regarded an ocean-going crocodile as a tasty snack: crocs couldn't have evolved to occupy the mosasaur's niche while the mosasaur was still around.

Afterwards: ambulocetus had a significant advantage over the croc, being warm-blooded. Handy for maintaining vigor when swimming out into deep, cold water to hunt.

And, yes, icthyosaurs did have blowholes. So you're making stuff up again. You do this by reflex?

Evidence ichtyosaurs had blowholes?

Quote:

jtb: Hooves ARE toenails.

Ed: Technically yes, but morphologically they are quite different. With toenails the toe pad still has contact with the ground and could contain webbing to aid swimming, but with hooves only the hoof touches the ground and there is no place for webbing due to the large size of the hoof so they are not made for swimming.

jtb: Of course there is! Ambulocetus had little hooves on each toe. Plenty of room for webbing between the toes.

Those sound like toenails not hooves. Somebody is lying. Is it you?

Quote:

jtb: And where did you get the notion that whales don't have pelvic bones? They DO have vestigial pelvises! And there are transitional forms which cover that.

Are you just making this up as you go along?

Ed: No, last time I saw a whale skeleton they did not have a true pelvis. Evidence they have a true pelvis?

jtb: What is a "true" pelvis?

Ambulocetus had a true pelvis, with legs attached. So did basilosaurus, but the pelvis and limbs could no longer be used for walking. Modern whales have lost the legs and have a vestigial pelvis. Transitional forms, Ed: and there are plenty more between those. What more can you possibly want?

It is a falsehood that ambulocetus hooves would make it a poor swimmer, a falsehood that whales don't have (vestigial) pelvises, and a falsehood that there is some sort of uncrossable gap between ambulocetus and modern whales (and we have the transitional fossils that bridge that gap).

A true pelvis is where the vertebrae change and become part of the pelvis. In the picture of the basilosaurus the vertebrae are identical from the back to the tail. There may be a tiny piece of something near the pelvis area but there is no transition from the full pelvis in ambulocetus to the tiny "remnant" in basilosaurus.

Quote:

jtb: A few names to search for: Pakicetus (50 million years ago), Ambulocetus (49 million years ago), Rodhocetus (46.5 million years ago), Procetus (45 million years ago), Kutchicetus (43-46 million years ago), Durodon (37 million years ago), Basilosaurus (37 million years ago), Aeticetus (24-26 million years ago), Squalodon (16 million years ago), Cetotherium [early baleen whale] (15 million years ago), and Kentridon [early dolphins] (15 million years ago).

Where is the gap, Ed?

Thanks for the info. However, you just hurt your cause. Pakicetus is plainly a whale and yet it lived before ambulocetus so it is unlikely to have been its ancestor.

Jack the Bodiless · 06-07-2003, 05:30 AM

Quote:

Please explain how the biblical Days match.

TTFN, Oolon

See my posts to Jack above.

Again, you are hallucinating. There are no "posts to Jack above" in which you actually dealt with the undisputable fact that the "days" do not match. You lost that argument, so referring to those posts doesn't help your cause.

Quote:

And, yes, icthyosaurs did have blowholes. So you're making stuff up again. You do this by reflex?

Evidence ichtyosaurs had blowholes?

Just how difficult is it to type "ichthyosaur" and "blowhole" into Google?

From Ichthyosaur State Park:

Quote:

While similar to dolphins in speed, mobility, giving birth rather than laying eggs like reptiles and possessing a blowhole, the comparisons rightly end there. Oversized eyes indicate that this creature hunted by sight, not sonar as do dolphins. The ichthyosaurs found here are classified Shonisaurus Popularis, the name derived in honor of the surrounding Shoshone Mountains. As fossils of the ichthyosaur are found throughout the world (except Antarctica), it is thought that these mighty reptiles were at the top of the aquatic food chain.

Why did you claim that ichthyosaurs did NOT have blowholes? What was your source?

Quote:

jtb: Hooves ARE toenails.

Ed: Technically yes, but morphologically they are quite different. With toenails the toe pad still has contact with the ground and could contain webbing to aid swimming, but with hooves only the hoof touches the ground and there is no place for webbing due to the large size of the hoof so they are not made for swimming.

jtb: Of course there is! Ambulocetus had little hooves on each toe. Plenty of room for webbing between the toes.

Those sound like toenails not hooves. Somebody is lying. Is it you?

Correction: somebody is being an idiot, and it is you.

You have been told, several times, that Ambulocetus has little hooves on the end of its toes. You have been shown an Ambulocetus fossil which plainly has multiple toes. You chose to ignore everything that was said, and everything you were shown, in order to create an imaginary "problem": large, horselike hooves, unsuitable for swimming.

These existed only in your imagination, Ed.

I presume they're called "hooves" rather than "toenails" because of their size. A hoofed animal WALKS on its "toenails": they are the contact point with the ground, they are large enough to support weight.

Quote:

A true pelvis is where the vertebrae change and become part of the pelvis. In the picture of the basilosaurus the vertebrae are identical from the back to the tail. There may be a tiny piece of something near the pelvis area but there is no transition from the full pelvis in ambulocetus to the tiny "remnant" in basilosaurus.

You are, of course, lying again. Transitional forms between ambulocetus and basilosaurus don't magically disappear because you don't want them to exist!

And basilosaurus obviously has a true (but small and useless) pelvis. This is clear from the illustration you have been shown.

And a pelvis is NOT a modified vertebra. You are profoundly ignorant of vertebrate anatomy.

Quote:

Thanks for the info. However, you just hurt your cause. Pakicetus is plainly a whale and yet it lived before ambulocetus so it is unlikely to have been its ancestor.

(Illustration by Carl Buell, and taken from http://www.neoucom.edu/Depts/Anat/Pakicetid.html)

According to you, this is "plainly a whale". Hmmm...

Duvenoy · 06-07-2003, 06:59 AM

Hey Ed:

`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!"

He took his vorpal sword in hand:
Long time the manxome foe he sought --
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.

And, as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!

One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.

"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.

`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

Lewis Carroll

The slaying of a Pakicetus , eh?

doov

Coragyps · 06-07-2003, 07:50 AM

Quote:

A true pelvis is where the vertebrae change and become part of the pelvis.

You mean this pelvis I've been carrying around for 55 years now isn't true? Damn, I want my money back!

Duvenoy · 06-07-2003, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Coragyps
You mean this pelvis I've been carrying around for 55 years now isn't true? Damn, I want my money back!

Don't take it too hard, bro. What with 2 spinal fusions, my pelvis looks like the rats have been at it. And they've refused me a refund, the bastards.

It seems that our friend Ed will go far into the realms of Hogwarts to get the illusion of credibility.

POOF, I'm gone!

doov

Ed · 06-07-2003, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Oolon Colluphid
Oh no you don�t Ed, you�re not getting away with that little switch-around.

Evolution predicts that a formerly-land-dwelling creature, heavily modified to a watery existence, might exhibit some sign of a pelvis.

Creation says that each thing was created to fit its circumstances.

So whether a modern whale�s anatomy contains a �true pelvis� is irrelevant. Of course it does not have a �true pelvis�, because true pelvises are used by land creatures for locomotion with legs. A whale is not a terrestrial critter, so why should it have a �true pelvis�?

What you need to explain is, why a creature designed by god for life in the sea should have any sort of pelvic bits at all. Why are those bones there, and why do they resemble bits of pelvis?

To reiterate for emphasis:

A whale is not a terrestrial critter, so why should it have anything even slightly like a pelvis?

TTFN, Oolon

If it truly is parts of a remnant pelvis it may be left over when early whales had pelvic fins. Which may have been eliminated later by microevolution.

Ed · 06-07-2003, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Oolon Colluphid
Ed, what counts as a �true pelvis�? Might it have bits like this associated with it, perhaps?

But look at it in proportion to the rest of the animal. It's the bit at the back, btw.

Please state why this is not vestigial -- or a damned stupid thing for an intelligent designer to give a sea creature.

TTFN, Oolon

I stand corrected. But it may be vestigial of pelvic FINS, not necessarily legs and feet.

Ed · 06-07-2003, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Duvenoy
Ed, you're starting to sound like Kent Hovind. Shame on you!

Of course they're still crocodiles. I briefly described them in answer to a question (your's, if I'm not mistaken) as to why crocs didn't evolve into whales, instead of some land mammal. If you can come up with an explanation as to why they might be well suited for future whaledom, I'd be interested, nay fascinated, to hear it.

You will have to ask Jack. He is the one that claimed that ambulocetus is like a mammal croc that turned into a whale.

Quote:

duv: The Galapagos marine iguana is another kettle of lizard. Yes, it is still an iguana, but one that has lived in isolation for a very long time. Thus, it is evolving away from it's original form. NO other terrestrial reptile has developed feeding habits similar to this one: diving several feet deep into cold water to eat algae from the rocks.

Along with the algae they ingest a downright posionous amount of salt. This, they seperate and expel through their nostrils. Show me another ig that can do this.

Do some research, Ed. Compare the marine ig with all others, remembering that one of the other species was the immigrint that colonized the Galpagos. Then come and tell me all about it.

doov

But it is not turning into something besides an iguana.

Ed · 06-07-2003, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lpetrich
[B](a lot of argument about quantum mechanics...)

(why only personal objects can produce other personal ones)
Ed:
Empirical experience. Throughout all of human experience only persons can produce the personal.

lp: Which could "demonstrate" that the human species is eternal, since nobody in recorded history has ever seen a human being come into existence as a result of some nonhuman cause.

No, we know that humans are not eternal because of the fossil record and Genesis. We know there were ages when no humans existed.

Quote:

lob: And Creationism is still the equivalent of logical horseshit. It explains nothing, predicts nothing, and can be molded to fit any arbitrary data. ...

Ed: Actually you sound like you are talking about Evolution. Evolution is the theory that is unfalsifiable. For example, if there are no transitions then that means that it occured too fast for fossils to be left behind or the transitionals did not have any hard parts to be fossilized or etc. Also survival of the fittest does not explain anything.

lp: Like what does Ed expect to see and why? He always likes to seem bitterly disappointed, but he does not make clear what makes him that way.

I am disappointed that evolutionists pretend that the theory is unfalsifiable but when confronted with some evidence against it, it suddenly becomes unfalsifiable.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-07-2003, 06:59 AM	#894
Duvenoy Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Just another hick from the sticks. Posts: 1,108	Hey Ed: `Twas brillig, and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe: All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe. "Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun The frumious Bandersnatch!" He took his vorpal sword in hand: Long time the manxome foe he sought -- So rested he by the Tumtum tree, And stood awhile in thought. And, as in uffish thought he stood, The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame, Came whiffling through the tulgey wood, And burbled as it came! One, two! One, two! And through and through The vorpal blade went snicker-snack! He left it dead, and with its head He went galumphing back. "And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy. `Twas brillig, and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe; All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe. Lewis Carroll The slaying of a Pakicetus , eh? doov

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.