Evolution debate: State board should reject pseudoscience

Columbus Dispatch ^ | February 17, 2002 | Editorial

[AndrewC]

It can, but, in this case, there is only one fossil listed (GSP-UM 084).

Then I wonder what the composite entry means.

[Nebullis]

composite resin

[Nebullis]

I should add a '?' to that. There's no legend.

[VadeRetro]

All that you are establishing is where you are going with what began as a minor error.

You sought to obscure and discredit my original point. (Pakicetus is a multi-fossil species, etc. Gore was of course assuming that the picture he had was the only basis for reconstructions.) If you didn't do either of those things--and you didn't--you've certainly provided a nice object lesson on the accuracy and limited focus of the AndrewC Accuracy Police Detail.

So, what does it mean when you say, "It is in better shape, because it is a replica?"

[AndrewC]

So, what does it mean when you say, "It is in better shape, because it is a replica?"

It didn't "weather" for umpteen million years.

[VadeRetro]

It didn't "weather" for umpteen million years.

It is a replica of something that has endured, out of the weather, about 50 million.

[Nebullis]

It didn't "weather" for umpteen million years.

I'm glad the wind has shifted the from earlier:

If the level of veracity displayed by the replica is anywhere near what you in general have been displaying, the original skull probably consisted of a tooth, a decayed one at that.

[VadeRetro]

I'm glad the wind has shifted the from earlier:

The wind shifts; a forward trench is abandonned for a rearward one. (Is that mixing the ol' metaphors or what?) But no mistep is acknowledged.

[VadeRetro]

mistep

Misstep. (BWAHAHAHAHAHA!)

[PatrickHenry]

If you didn't do either of those things--and you didn't--you've certainly provided a nice object lesson on the accuracy and limited focus of the AndrewC Accuracy Police Detail.

AndrewC has the natural abilities that would make him an excellent proof-reader. But fly-specking, although a necessary task, isn't the same thing as making a substantive review, and it certainly doesn't constitute a rebuttal.

[VadeRetro]

Especially when your conscientiousness has such a limited scope.

[Nebullis]

If your reasoning is as sloppy as your spelling obviously is (to say nothing of my grammar), all your conclusions about evidence for evolution is merely sloppy data interpretation.

[AndrewC]

Evidently, this is not a replica. They used an inferior quality specimen to illustrate their point. Why?

[VadeRetro]

Proof of creation if I ever saw it. I once wrote "nucleotides" when I meant "nucleons."

[VadeRetro]

They used an inferior quality specimen to illustrate their point.

The "better shape" replica isn't in "better shape" for all points. In particular, it is missing the "forehead" area prominent in Thewissen's specimen.

[VadeRetro]

Your drawing looks like another view of the fragment gracing the top of Dr. Thewissen's Pakicetidae Page. He seems to prefer his own finds.

[VadeRetro]

Not to mention the Thewissen one gives you a better shot of the interior.

[Nebullis]

From the Thewissen Nature (2001) paper:

Skeletons of the pakicetid cetaceans Pakicetus (a) and Ichthyolestes (b). Reconstructions are based on fossils from H-GSP Locality 62 in the Eocene of Pakistan. Unknown elements have not been reconstructed.

[Junior]

In Darwin's (the god of evolutionists) own words. "It is absurd to think that blind chance could make a seeing eye"

Ah, the prime example of quote mining. If you've been on these threads for any length of time, you'd realize that the quote above was a lead in to showing how an eye could happen by blind chance. Even the folks at Answers in Genesis know this.

[AndrewC]

and it certainly doesn't constitute a rebuttal

Neither does ad hominem, but that never stops you from trying, which is counter to the please line above each post reply window.