BioBeing

I'm with you Justin although i did skip about ten pages - figured I wasn't missing anything.

I have learnt that... no wait, thats not it...

Duvenoy

Uh huh. And where, precisly, did the god(s) come from? What created them?

doov

gcameron

650,000 posts just to get to "infinite regression"?

Oy...

Ed

No, since we know that Homo "erectus" is actually Homo sapiens (remember the Kow Swamp fossils article?), there is a huge difference especially in the key area of avg brain size between homo sapiens and Australopithicines. And the so-called transitional "whale" is plainly 100% whale with rear claspers. And I have already dealt with the other transitions you mention earlier in this thread.

Quote:

olon: Say Ed, I�m terribly sorry, I can�t remember your answer after all this time. Please please, could you remind us what the definition of �kind� is again? It�s kinda crucial, if we�re to see if your above claim�s justified, and not the steaming do-dos it appears. DT

Depending on the organism it is probably either genus or family.

lpetrich

Ed:
No, since we know that Homo "erectus" is actually Homo sapiens (remember the Kow Swamp fossils article?),

I don't see how the Kow Swamp fossils imply that Homo erectus == Homo sapiens. Try looking at the Turkana Boy some time -- his skull is too different from present-day human skulls (no chin, prominent brow ridges, low forehead).

Furthermore, Homo erectus never made tools as fancy as even the earliest Homo sapiens has made. H. erectus made Acheulian-style handaxes and other tools for nearly the whole existence of the species, from ~1.8 m years to ~400,000 years, while even the earliest H. sapiens tools show regional variation.

Also H. erectus did not have much of an artistic muse -- there are no cave paintings that can reasonably be attributed to H. erectus.

there is a huge difference especially in the key area of avg brain size between homo sapiens and Australopithicines.

Such species as H. erectus and H. habilis nicely bridge the gap.

And I think that Ed is working from the work of creationist Lubenow; that would seem apparent from this discussion of Homo erectus.

However, other creationists disagree, as this creationist-evaluation-comparison page shows.

And the so-called transitional "whale" is plainly 100% whale with rear claspers.

How so? Ambulocetus and the like have rather big "claspers".

Jack the Bodiless

Ed:

Ambulocetus was basically the mammalian eqivalent of a crocodile. From here:
If a mammalian crocodile is a "whale with grippers", then I am a gazelle with hands.

Ed

Hello Nightshade. No, it is called rational explanation of the gaps argument.

Quote:

ns: As DT, pointed out, we do in fact find intermediate forms in the fossil record. If we were having this conversation 10 years ago, you would no doubt argue that the lack of transitional forms between land-dwelling mammals and whales is evidence for creation. The fact that we've found intermediate forms in recent years effectively destroys that view. Pointing at gaps in our knowledge and saying "that's God there" is not only bad science, it's bad theology.

Ambulocetus has hooves, this makes it extremely unlikely it spent any time in the water. Also there is no evidence of a transition from hooves to fins. Therefore it is unlikely to be a transitional form. Just because we hypothesize action by a designer in areas where there are no transitions does not mean we stop looking. All scientific theories are tentative.

Quote:

(woohoo, my very first contribution to the "Ed Thread" )

Congratulations!

Jack the Bodiless

Ambulocetus had little hooves on its toes, just as modern hippopotami do (hippos are the closest modern land-dwelling relatives of whales). So hippos don't spend any time in the water?

And, yes, their legs gradually become fins in later forms: you obviously know this already, because you mentioned whales with "grippers". So you're lying again.

Oolon Colluphid

Ambulocetus natans:





And it having hooves is relevant to where it lived, how? Please explain, then, why the (not closely related) dugongs and manatees have toenails.

I suggest you look into these buggers� ears. (I�d tell you about them now, but, typically, I took my copy of Carroll�s Patterns and Processes home yesterday after using it on the BBC�s forum )

DT

(Edited for stupid tyop)

Duvenoy

Ed my friend, this is preposrerous. You can't have it "Depending on the organism." You can't change the definition of kind as you go from beast to beast, although many creationists seem to do to do exactly that. It ain't science, and I suspect that it ain't good religion, as well. Also, "probably' ain't hittin' on shit either. Not when you're trying to describe a term in such common usage. Is it is, or is it not? And what's the definition of, 'is'?

Surely, bro, you can do better than this.

As for whale evolution, it is well documented. I'd put up a link or two, but I think they've already in this thread.... somewhere..... in the rambling, bewildering streams and sloughs of our conversations.

(sigh)

doov