Posted on 10/11/2002 9:02:01 PM PDT by gore3000
Pleasant dreams.
| . . , , | ____)/ \(____ | _,--''''',-'/( )\`-.`````--._ | ,-' ,' | \ _ _ / | `-. `-. | ,' / | `._ /\\ //\ _,' | \ `. | | | `. `-( ,\\_// )-' .' | | | ,' _,----._ |_,----._\ ____`\o'_`o/'____ /_.----._ |_,----._ `. | |/' \' `\( \(_)/ )/' `/ `\| | ` ` V V ' '
Of course there is an explanation. You just won't admit it. The answer is --- the Pakicetus is not the ancestor of the whale. But the implications of that put into jeopardy much of what has been touted as prima facie evidence of Darwinian evolution.
Could be. When dealing with prehistoric animals, new fossils and evidence may indicate minor alterations to the current theoretical lines of descent. Scientific theories are often subject to revision. Newton to Einstein to Hawking and all that.
Now, while you've been focusing on minutia, the larger question is, so what?
Some evidence used to support Darwinian evolution, in fact a highly regarded piece of evidence, lies in ruin. It calls into question the validity of the modelling done in the constructing the trees of relatedness using the techniques which provided the trees for the mesonychus and the pakicetus. And it shows the necessity of something akin to the double blind in the field of fossil analysis.
Your answer also demonstrates what many have been pointing out for so long. That Darwinism is nothing but a "religious" viewpoint, separate from the question of evolution.
So they connected the dots in the wrong order. Or included a dot in a series where it didn't fit. It happens. Someone evenutally notices and fixes it. This could be your shot. Publish your results and get your discovery footnoted somewhere.
Just don't kid yourself; the evidence still exists. The fossils are still standing. If memory serves there have been a few incidents where the wrong head was attached to a skeleton. The mistakes are found and corrected. So what? None of these concerns are foreign to scientific inquiry, and none support the contention that the general theory of common descent, driven by variation and natural selection, is crumbling like a house of cards.
I just wanted to point out that this is the first time I can recall seeing someone from your side of the school yard publicly criticize gore3000. Call it wishful thinking, but maybe we all CAN just get along... ;^)
That is their main job and supposedly this is one of the showpieces demonstrating Darwinian evolution. Not only were the dots connected in the wrong order, the dots were not even "connected". But that is not really the problem. The problem is their inability to step back and ponder where they have gone wrong.
Yes that is entirely possible. But understand my question was not to make anyone the topic of discussion. My question went to the analysis of data. Some people do not answer questions knowing full well that the intent is to embroil them in a defense of themselves rather than to develop the discussion on the topic at hand.
And you draw this conclusion because you've studied paleontology and its methods? Hell, you probably know as much about paleontology as you do about math and geometry.
Most of the discussions between the creos and evos are typically semi-civil -- with the notable exception of g3k.
Believe me, there is some young, upstart paleontologist wanting to make a name for himself that is pondering this whale of a problem even as we speak.
Most likely true. But that paleontologist will need the help of "chemistry". That is what originally turned the boneheads on to the hoofed creatures instead of Darwin's bear. New DNA studies might be able to provide a time range for the whale/hippo split.
You wrote: Absolutely. The eohippus was dead long before there was a horse. But I'm not talking about the horse nor the eohippus. I am talking about where the Pakicetus fits into the DNA tree. Are you willing to answer the question?
I'm not familiar with Pakicetus, and thus have no opinion on your position on same. But since you make the strong claim that evolution is impossible, any evolution disproves your "theory." You are of course familiar with eohippus.
Yes, I agree that "eohippus was dead long before there was a horse," for the trivial reason that once the animal grew to where it is called the horse it is no longer called eohippus. But the eohippus: 1) got much larger over time in a well-represented series of fossils; and 2)eventually evolved into the horse.
You obviously deny #2 above. Do you also deny #1? (That eohippus grew several-fold?) Or is it that the little eohippi were killed first by the flood?
Until you have enough dots, any section of the Tree of Life is subject to revision. That doesn't change the big picture at all.
Just don't kid yourself; the evidence still exists. The fossils are still standing. If memory serves there have been a few incidents where the wrong head was attached to a skeleton. The mistakes are found and corrected. So what? None of these concerns are foreign to scientific inquiry, and none support the contention that the general theory of common descent, driven by variation and natural selection, is crumbling like a house of cards.
Well stated.
Not only is satanic evolution crumbling from the relentless assault of creationism science, but -- O give thanks! -- the satanic lie of astronomy is soon to crumble because of the excellent work of this fine institution:
KEPLER COLLEGE OF ASTROLOGICAL ARTS.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.