Jump to content


Jurassic Beaver - No Kidding


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
16 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_George R_*

Guest_George R_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 February 2006 - 05:41 PM

'Jurassic beaver' turns theory on its tail

Thursday, February 23, 2006; Posted: 2:09 p.m. EST (19:09 GMT)


http://www.cnn.com/2...r.ap/index.html


As usual, you will see here an "artists rendition" of the large sea mammal (1.7 pounds actually despite the picture)... and no photos of the actual find.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As always ... a lot of "firsts" in the evolution newsroom:

FIRST aquatic animal 110 million years before the other known ones... 165 million years ago!

FIRST EARLY specialized mammal

First suggestion of hair and soft tissue (and tail scales!!) in 165 million year old mammal.


And to think that a lot of this is coming out of Inner Mongolia!


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FAIR USE NOTICE
This post contains copyrighted material, which is reproduced under the Fair Use Provision of Title 17, U.S.C. Section 107, and is posted for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. This material is posted without profit for the benefit of those who, by accessing this site, are expressing a prior interest in this information for research and educational purposes.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From cnn.com and AP:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- For years the mammals living in the era of dinosaurs have been thought of as tiny shrew-like creatures scurrying through the underbrush. Now the discovery of a furry aquatic creature with seal-like teeth and a flat tail like a beaver has demolished that image.

Some 164 million years ago the newly discovered mammal was swimming in lakes in what is now northern China, eating fish and living with dinosaurs.

"Its lifestyle was probably very similar to the modern day platypus," Zhe-Xi Luo, curator of vertebrate paleontology at Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh, said in a statement. "It probably lived along river or lake banks. It doggy-paddled around, ate aquatic animals and insects, and burrowed tunnels for its nest."

Luo was part of a team led by Qiang Ji of the Chinese Academy of Geological Sciences in Beijing that discovered the remains in the Inner Mongolia region of China. They report their findings in Friday's issue of the journal Science.

Thomas Martin of the Research Institute Senckenberg in Frankfurt, Germany, said the discovery pushes back the mammal conquest of the waters by more than 100 million years.

"This exciting fossil is a further jigsaw puzzle piece in a series of recent discoveries," commented Martin, who was not part of Luo's team.

Matthew Carrano, curator of dinosaurs at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History, called the find "a big deal."

An important factor is how specialized the creature was, said Carrano, who was not part of the research group.

"It gives a hint that early mammals were not just these shadowy creatures at the time of dinosaurs" but were having their own evolution. There have been hints of such animals in the past but nothing equal to the remains found by Luo and colleagues, he said.

It's the first evidence that some ancient mammals were semi-aquatic, indicating a greater diversification than previously thought, according to the researchers.

Modern semi-aquatic mammals such as beavers and otters and aquatic mammals like whales did not appear until between 55 million years ago and 25 million years ago, according to the researchers.

The animal is not related to modern beavers or otters but has features similar to them. Thus the researchers named it Castorocauda lutrasimilis. Castoro from the Latin for beaver, cauda for tail, lutra for river otter and similis meaning similar.

The animal had fur, a broad scaly tail with vertebra similar to those in a beaver or otter, swimmer's limbs and seal-like teeth for eating fish, they said.

The researchers found imprints of the fur, both guard hairs and short, dense under fur that would have kept water from the skin. Scales were also apparent on the tail as well as a suggestion of soft tissues. There was also the skeleton including teeth.

Weighing in at between 1.1 and 1.7 pounds, about the size of a small female platypus, Castorocauda is also the largest known Jurassic early mammal.

The research was funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation, National Natural Science Foundation of China, Ministry of Science and Technology of China, Chinese Ministry of Land Resources, National Geographic Society and Carnegie Museum

#2 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 26 February 2006 - 02:06 PM

What an interesting find.

Lots of stuff on the net about it, like this fromLINK

Posted Image

#3 Guest_George R_*

Guest_George R_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 February 2006 - 07:05 AM

chance

Do you feel that it is "confirmation" of evolution ... when a previously unknown animal shows up in the fossil record (like this ancient sea mammal)? Especially when it shows up in an unexpected era?

This fossil is neither an "expected" example of the innumerable transitionals that were predicted by Darwinism... Nor is it at a long-awaited link point between known groups that can serve the purpose of filling a gap... Nor does it serve to help us understand the powerful mechanism that supposedly cause complex organisms to come into being in the first place.

I suppose if you "believe" in evolution, any indication of ANY change in the characteristics or list of animals serves as an example of how natural selection "evolves" another member in some ancestral lineage.

I suppose if you "believe" in evolution, any indication of any NO change in the characteristics or list of animals (stasis) serves also as an example of how natural selection shows its power of defending a gene line from change.

That's why evolution is non-falsified by most findings: using ad-hoc explanations, it is easy to describe anything as either "expected" change or "expected" stasis.

That's why even when the find is totally unexpected, as in this case, it is proclaimed as "just as predicted by Darwinism".

That's why when the known explanation ("sea mammals descend from land mammals by specializations that happened as they made their way back to a water life AFTER they branched out into early pigs, bears, sheep etc. ") has a counter-example ... it is no counter-example at all. It is shamelessly incorporated into the "evidence" with an ad-hoc modification to the explanations ("and this may have happened BEFORE the land mammals specialized into bears, sheep, pigs etc)

Without pausing for a breath, the darwinist explanatory engine has an answer to any example, ... as if it is some kind of proof.

By new observations and fossil examples ... nothing is learned.

- Dating can never be disconfirmed ("I guess it happened earlier")
- Darwinism's supposed (but invisible) lineages of billions of creatures cannot be disconfirmed ("I guess the example was a dead end because it occurred early with no descendent examples")
-lack of expected gradual darwinian transitions cannot falsify anything ("I guess it was stasis. natural selection preventing unadaptive change")
-findings of unexpected sudden non-darwinian transitions are minimized away ("I guess it was gradual but the fossil record is incomplete - there are in fact some pre-cambrain fossils")

All this whitewashing ... without saying that there should be millions of pre-cambrain multi-cellular fossils ... and they should show continuous gradual changes on a vast scale.

Why vast? because each new phyla incorporates structural and reproductive body differences that are a far cry from a little bit of specialization.

To get to the multi-phyla cambrain era explosion, hundreds of thousands of multicellular generations should have branched and expanded leaving billions of ancestors to fossilize. The number of intermediates BEFORE the Cambrian would have to be vast on any gradualist darwinian scenario.

But there are very few. And most of these are already within ancient phyla, not leading towards them as intermediates between phyla.

At some point the evidence has to be looked at from a empirical viewpoint:

What does this fossil evidence actually show us about the predicted gradual smooth continuous transition of life forms?

What does it show us about the powerful gradualist mechanisms that are supposed to develop organisms in the first place?

#4 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 27 February 2006 - 02:00 PM

Do you feel that it is "confirmation" of evolution ... when a previously unknown animal shows up in the fossil record (like this ancient sea mammal)? Especially when it shows up in an unexpected era?


First, all first finds are ‘unexpected’ aren’t they, someone has to find the first T-rex for example.

There is nothing unexpected in finding a ‘rodent like’ mammal in the Mesozoic, the mammal linage is just as old as the dinosaurian, indeed the proto-mammals almost dominated the world prior to the dinosaurs out evolving them.

This fossil is neither an "expected" example of the innumerable transitionals that were predicted by Darwinism... Nor is it at a long-awaited link point between known groups that can serve the purpose of filling a gap... Nor does it serve to help us understand the powerful mechanism that supposedly cause complex organisms to come into being in the first place.


I disagree with the ‘not expected’ aspect, It’s rodent like, and small (compared to the life at the time), if it weren’t for the aquatic tail I doubt it would have got a mention in the popular press. Other than that, it's exactly what is found in that time period.
Mammals are comparatively rare finds in the Mesozoic, a picture of their lineage is nigh on impossible so you can’t make any claims about what is transitional to what, there is just not enough evidence.


I suppose if you "believe" in evolution, any indication of ANY change in the characteristics or list of animals serves as an example of how natural selection "evolves" another member in some ancestral lineage.

I suppose if you "believe" in evolution, any indication of any NO change in the characteristics or list of animals (stasis) serves also as an example of how natural selection shows its power of defending a gene line from change.


No ‘belief’ is required, the evidence is all I go on, the fact that a typical mammal is found in the Mesozoic is expected, if you have seen the series “Walking With dinosaurs” it shows a couple of examples of the mammalian life at that time, the biggest was about the size of a Badger like this LINK

Change is directly proportional to the evolutionary stress, more stress more change, (with an upper limit set by the reproductive cycle)

That's why evolution is non-falsified by most findings: using ad-hoc explanations, it is easy to describe anything as either "expected" change or "expected" stasis. That's why even when the find is totally unexpected, as in this case, it is proclaimed as "just as predicted by Darwinism".


Absolutely wrong, this current find is in no way out of the ordinary, please explain what it is exactly you feel this find proves against evolution.



That's why when the known explanation ("sea mammals descend from land mammals by specializations that happened as they made their way back to a water life AFTER they branched out into early pigs, bears, sheep etc. ") has a counter-example ... it is no counter-example at all. It is shamelessly incorporated into the "evidence" with an ad-hoc modification to the explanations ("and this may have happened BEFORE the land mammals specialized into bears, sheep, pigs etc)

Without pausing for a breath, the darwinist explanatory engine has an answer to any example, ... as if it is some kind of proof.


There is evidence that shows Whale evolution, how can you deny that simple fact, even today some are born with rudimentary external hind legs, and the baleen whales pass the a toothed embryonic phase.

That some animals find a survival solution by going back to the sea while others do not, does not disprove evolution, how could it? I don’t understand your objection.



By new observations and fossil examples ... nothing is learned.

- Dating can never be disconfirmed ("I guess it happened earlier")
- Darwinism's supposed (but invisible) lineages of billions of creatures cannot be disconfirmed ("I guess the example was a dead end because it occurred early with no descendent examples")
-lack of expected gradual darwinian transitions cannot falsify anything ("I guess it was stasis. natural selection preventing unadaptive change")
-findings of unexpected sudden non-darwinian transitions are minimized away ("I guess it was gradual but the fossil record is incomplete - there are in fact some pre-cambrain fossils")

All this whitewashing ... without saying that there should be millions of pre-cambrain multi-cellular fossils ... and they should show continuous gradual changes on a vast scale.


There is no white washing, you are confusing this simple find with many other topics that require a detailed explanation, take them one at a time and the ‘dilemma’ will disappear I promise you.

Why vast? because each new phyla incorporates structural and reproductive body differences that are a far cry from a little bit of specialization.

To get to the multi-phyla cambrain era explosion, hundreds of thousands of multicellular generations should have branched and expanded leaving billions of ancestors to fossilize. The number of intermediates BEFORE the Cambrian would have to be vast on any gradualist darwinian scenario. But there are very few. And most of these are already within ancient phyla, not leading towards them as intermediates between phyla.


Now your talking about the ‘Cambrian explosion’! a little off topic don’t you think? Tell you what I will be starting to read “In the blink of an eye” soon, a new book on the subject of the Cambrian explosion, I’ll start a topic on the claims if you like.


At some point the evidence has to be looked at from a empirical viewpoint:
What does this fossil evidence actually show us about the predicted gradual smooth continuous transition of life forms?

What does it show us about the powerful gradualist mechanisms that are supposed to develop organisms in the first place?


This current find show a typical mammal of the period with an aquatic adaptation, do you see anything else?

It shows that some mammals took to an aquatic life style, do you see anything else?

#5 Guest_George R_*

Guest_George R_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 February 2006 - 05:41 PM

(1) If it's not unexpected, and darwinism is testable because it makes specific predictions...

would I be unfair to ask for a list of Darwinists that predicted 165 million year old aquatic mammals?

Can anybody cite any such predictions for the record?


(2) Are all first observations unexpected?

Scientifically... I would say NO.

Good Science is supposed to have predictability of as yet unseen observations.

Example 1: Einstein predicted the movement of Mercury before it was first observed as affected by warped space-time... and he was validated based on his risky and specific prediction.

Einstein applied his General Theory to the motion of Mercury and found that the somewhat higher gravitational pull as the planet approaches the sun in General Relativity causes Mercury to move a bit further around the sun each time it passes. His calculation found exactly the observed extra precession. Because the precession of Mercury's orbit is a direct result of the full General Theory, not just the Equivalence Principle, Einstein viewed it as the most critical test of his theory


from  http://cassfos02.ucs...utorial/GR.html



Example 2: The Bible predicts we would see signs of a definite beginning to the universe.

In spite of hundreds of years of naturalist speculation that the universe is eternal and "just exists".... based on background radiation discovered since 1954, this singularity or beginning is now accepted science.

Source of prediction:

Genesis 1:1 declares, "In THE beginning..."

Romans 1:18-21 declares, “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.”




(3) Is the Cambrian explosion off topic here?

I guess you are right.

I thought of it as further confirming proof of blindness & rigidity in the belief set of the evolutionist church... but I was stretching it on this thread. (by about 400 million years)

#6 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 28 February 2006 - 08:09 PM

(1) If it's not unexpected, and darwinism is testable because it makes specific predictions...

would I be unfair to ask for a list of Darwinists that predicted 165 million year old aquatic mammals?

Can anybody cite any such predictions for the record?


Why the big hang up about the aquatic nature (of a very typical early mammal morphology), I really don’t get this as an objection. I don’t see this find any different than finding any unique species in the fossil record, it’s not like they found an elephant, giraffe or something similar is it?

Evolution makes predictions but not in the sense of gazing into a crystal ball and say “you will find a ‘Jurassic beaver”, the predictive power is that what you will find is consistent with the ToE and what that implies.

So what if no palaeontologist foresaw the likelihood of this creature, what does that prove, “a lack of imagination”?


(2) Are all first observations unexpected?

Scientifically... I would say NO.

Good Science is supposed to have predictability of as yet unseen observations.

Example 1: Einstein predicted the movement of Mercury before it was first observed as affected by warped space-time... and he was validated based on his risky and specific prediction.


Re, unexpected – I would say there is no hard and fast rule.

Your example with Mercury is in slight error (nice link by the way), it was observed that mercury’s orbit could not be predicted by Newtonian mathematics, i.e. the actual position was out of synch with the predicted position by a small amount. This prompted astronomers to look for a planet that orbited closer to the sun than Mercury, (provisionally given the name Vulcan), it wasn’t until Einstein’s theory was used to confirm that the sun’s radiated energy has an equivalence of mass, ‘the missing mass’, thus bringing the predicted and observational together.

Observation first, explanation second.

However, I have a good example for you, using Newtonian physics, and ancient records of comets, Edmond Halley successfully predicted years in advance, the return of a comet that now bares his name.

As for the fossil record, the predictive part of evolution is that we evolved from common ancestor, thus, you will not find and ancestor preceding it’s progenitor in the fossil record, e.g. like Humans before Australopithecus, or Dog before Wolf, or Blue Whale before Basilosaurus, ever!



Example 2: The Bible predicts we would see signs of a definite beginning to the universe.

In spite of hundreds of years of naturalist speculation that the universe is eternal and "just exists".... based on background radiation discovered since 1954, this singularity or beginning is now accepted science.

Source of prediction:

Genesis 1:1 declares, "In THE beginning..."

Romans 1:18-21 declares, “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.”


This hardly qualifies as a very good prediction does it, I mean you only have a choice of two, eternal or not eternal! The prediction that Edmond Halley made IMO is a ‘real’ prediction, approximate date and position in the sky, with the mechanism/math to show it’s wasn’t a fluke.

#7 Guest_George R_*

Guest_George R_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 March 2006 - 06:16 PM

On point 1 we agree ... nobody used darwinian theory to predict it.

So you might well ask, so who cares? Well if I saw the presence and the absence of a species both fitting well into a darwinian mold, I might start asking just what is empitacle about a theory that opposites fit in so easily

On point 2 .. we are far apart. predictability power is based on the surprise factpor, not a liust of 2 possibilities.

It is not eternal versus not eternal == 50:50.

It is the eternal predicted by almost every scientist versus the laughable prediction of a beginning point in Genesis.

#8 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 01 March 2006 - 07:16 PM

On point 1 we agree ... nobody used darwinian theory to predict it.

So you might well ask, so who cares? Well if I saw the presence and the absence of a species both fitting well into a darwinian mold, I might start asking just what is empitacle about a theory that opposites fit in so easily


Well lets be realistic about this, how can the ToE possibly have the predictive power of “dig here to find an undiscovered species”, that’s impossible. It can tell you what you won’t find. And it can tell you in general terms what should be at certain levels.

But specifically what do you find about the ‘Jurassic Beaver that does not fit in with the Darwinian mould? because I honestly can’t see the dilemma you claim is there.




On point 2 .. we are far apart. predictability power is based on the surprise factpor, not a liust of 2 possibilities.

It is not eternal versus not eternal == 50:50.

It is the eternal predicted by almost every scientist versus the laughable prediction of a beginning point in Genesis.


I think you miswrote your paragraph, it reads as if ‘genesis is laughable’, and I’m sure that was not what you meant.

Also I don’t understand what you mean by “predictability power is based on the surprise factor”

But to answer point 2, I think you are inferring that science has changed it’s mind from the steady state to the Big Bang, yes? If so, this just reflects the fluid nature of a ‘scientific truth’, i.e. it’s provisional, and dependant upon the evidence. This is in contrasts to your position i.e. that a revealed truth is presented in Genesis, which does not change.

#9 Guest_George R_*

Guest_George R_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 March 2006 - 07:10 AM

What I meant was indeed that: to some, Genesis 1:1 was very laughable.

It was for centuries laughable .... to the philosophical naturalist mind that "knew" that the universe always existed!

And they thought that the facts of science backed up their views.

Why did science "know all along" that the universe was eternal?

Just reason it out for yourself. "After all we have the law of consevation of many things ... such as enegy and mass. Nothing comes from nothing. It is laughable that anyone believed there was a beginning...
"

They thought, "Don't they ever use their heads, these religious types. Don't they simply accept at face value the easiest explanation??? ... that the universe just happened."

In fact Genesis 1:1 was so laughable that as reasons to doubt arose... naturalistic views led key scientists to work around discomforting facts of an expanding universe
- Einstein added a fudge factor to his General Relativity Theory just to allow a universe to go on forever (http://www.astronomy...thol/fudge.html)

But then Hubble confirmed an expanding universe.(http://astron.berkel...ter/hubble.html)

Roll time backwards ... and that led back to the "singularity" of a much disliked and laughable beginning point.

This caused a philosophical issue for naturalism. How could a world spring from nothing without the possibility of an external timeless agent?

So Hoyle (on pure speculation with no facts) mused that a small amount of matter is created everywhere (out of nothing) to permit the observation of an expanding universe that had no beginning or end (http://www.goodbyema...ul01/hoyle.html)

But eventually incontrovertible evidence arrived based on background radiation, new speculation was required. (http://csep10.phys.u...mology/cbr.html)

The common thing about each speculation is that it is based on math (not real evidence from physics) and each speculative guess runs amock ... its only purpose is not to explain known evidence i.e. truth. The purpose of this speculation is somehow to preserve the philosophy behind a "zero singularity" "no beginning" explanation
- Sagan popularized the "oscillating universe" - which is now defunct
(http://www.apologeti...g/articles/2199)
- Hawking added a imaginary factor in his equations to avoid a singularity (http://www.facingthe...org/hawking.htm)

That's what I mean that it was laughable.

They laughed at the "unseen Creator" who as needed to account for a "beginning of the universe". Make the universe a eternal given, and who needs a Creator??

The philosophical naturalists (based on their false science) laughed and laughed...

Then evidence arrived that caused them to run for cover... behind their own "unseen particles beinh created" or "unseen univer oscillatin" or "unseen imaginary mathematical constructs"

Only thriough these ad-hoc explantions could they keep their unshakable faith in humanistic naturalism, once their laughing stopped.

Having ruled out a Creator, naturalistic philosophy requires an escape hatch... no matter how improbable, unporoven, unprovable, or speculative

Now we have multiverses, string theory (the jury is out from a math POV, but the evidence is missing from a physics POV) and inflation theory (it may be true, but who Created the multiverse machinery?).

For centuries, the rule of logic called Occam's Razor was used to rule out a creator (Who needs a universe plus a creator?... simplify this ... just have an eternal universe).

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor)

Now there is evidence that the universe is not eternal, Occam's Razor should rule out the need for multiverses just to get around the hard truth that a finite universe implies a creative agent.

#10 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 02 March 2006 - 01:50 PM

OK I think I understand. You are describing the scientific process, i.e. that a better theory replaces a weaker one, BUT as steady state, big bang, oscillating universe, multi-universes etc, were/are championed “above creation” during their time, this appears somewhat hypocritical, yes?

I would make these points:

a. theirs no disgrace in getting something wrong, especially if you are working with inadequate information.
b. Cosmology is a relatively new discipline, it’s bound to have significant changes.
c. But mostly, these competing hypothesise, were competing amongst themselves, I doubt one of the scientists involved ever thought he was seen as challenging YEC. As you observed there is a long history of naturalism in scientific circles.

Anyhow back to the matter at hand, how does the ‘Jurassic beaver’ fit into this mind set?

I would have to conclude that:
a. you feel that this new find does not fit into the evolutionary picture adequately, and for me to answer I need to know what it is about this find that seem to feel is wrong. or
b. you feel that science has yet again has changed is position on some aspect and you feel this weakens the standings of science in general?

#11 Guest_George R_*

Guest_George R_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 March 2006 - 03:15 PM

(1) Theories going thru the Spin Cycle

Actually I am shocked that you should see the constant spin of absurd new theories that do NOT account for any facts ... as some sort of progress.

They are pure speculation.

It's not as if there was ever any evidence to explain away with a good theory ...

There never was evidence such as such as spontaneously created hydrogen atoms (explainable by Hoyle) or a slowdown of the expansion (explained by Sagan) or missing energy (explained by Einstein's fudge factor) or an echo of pre-Big-bang (explainable by multiverses).

No such evidence ever existed that needed explaining.

All the crazy theories have in common is that they avoid accepting a beginning point ... that Genesis 1:1 did predict.

In other words, they are philosophically motivated to find a material explanation because they recognize no other truth.

In doing so (a ) they lack evidence, (B ) they fail, and (c ) in the meanwhile they comfort the faithful materialist that he seek no further than the naturalist explanatory field alone for all knowledge.

(2) Darwin's Amazing Ability to Be Validated by ANY Discoveries

I have no trouble with rational explanations being superseded by better rational explanations.

Science should march on.

But as formulated today, the Darwinian fairy tale of biological origins will never march forward.

Their motto should be: No species can defeat us!

Are fossils lacking? So what... they existed invisibly ... and did not fossilize for all kinds of reasons.

Is stasis the rule ... when gradual change was promised? So what... other species existed invisible, and the visible fossils prove how natural Selection preserves remarkable optimal adaptations.

Did fast change occur? No problem. So what? an army of invisible intermediates are just missing.

With this power to "explain" .... No lack (nor any difference from) predicted fossils evidence will be ever seriously be taken as a test of darwinism.

I believe that we do agree on many things.

What do we agree on..

New facts that can be accommodated in a theory - fine.

Theories are refined over time - fine.

New facts that open an ad hoc explanation within a theory - fine.

My hangup is ..

A theory with so wide a scope that it accepts any fact... and too many ad hoc explanations - is NOT fine.

It is dangerous when
(a ) any new fact is always "predicted" by the theory or its ad hoc additions
(B ) no new fact can ever falsify the theory
i.e. it is bad science (Popper)

Lets look at our Jurassic beaver. Is he a fact that fits right in ... or another fact that can fit anywhere??

If he had been two ounces instead of 2 pounds ... no problem.
If he had been 5 pounds instead of 2 pounds ... no problem.
If he had been found in North America instead ... no problem
If he had been 20 million years old instead of 165 million ... no problem.
If he had wings ... no problem.
If he had reptilian eyes ... no problem ... we found an intermediate at last
(unless we use the platypus escape hatch)
If he was 2 million years old and hunted by humans ... no problem
If he was 50 million years older than any known mammal ... no problem
we just move that time frame back


EVEN If he turned out to be a hoax ... no problem
we just say "science was good enough to uncover a hoax.

In short ... any new story is "no problem" ... not because darwinism "predicted" anything like it ... but because any fact can made to fit.

And people just stare at it and say "That's more proof for darwinism" ... as if Creation scientists before Darwin were unaware of extinct animals.

Hogwash. They certainly were very much aware of extinct animals and fossils long before darwin.

They just refused to believe until some of the billions of intermediaries through tens of thousands of generations started showing up as evidence in the fossil record ... in the billions as they should (if gradual evolution, then gradual transitionals would abound).

#12 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 02 March 2006 - 07:44 PM

1) Theories going thru the Spin Cycle

Actually I am shocked that you should see the constant spin of absurd new theories that do NOT account for any facts ... as some sort of progress.

They are pure speculation.

It's not as if there was ever any evidence to explain away with a good theory ...

There never was evidence such as such as spontaneously created hydrogen atoms (explainable by Hoyle) or a slowdown of the expansion (explained by Sagan) or missing energy (explained by Einstein's fudge factor) or an echo of pre-Big-bang (explainable by multiverses).

No such evidence ever existed that needed explaining.

All the crazy theories have in common is that they avoid accepting a beginning point ... that Genesis 1:1 did predict.

In other words, they are philosophically motivated to find a material explanation because they recognize no other truth.

In doing so (a) they lack evidence, ( they fail, and © in the meanwhile they comfort the faithful materialist that he seek no further than the naturalist explanatory field alone for all knowledge.


We’re getting seriously off topic here, but I would respond that cosmology (re the beginnings of) are informed speculation, with various hypothesis waxing and waning with the evidence. I doubt you could find a scientist who would say “this is how it happened, no doubt about it”. I’m quite comfortable with that level of understanding, hopefully in the future things will become clearer.

(2) Darwin's Amazing Ability to Be Validated by ANY Discoveries

I have no trouble with rational explanations being superseded by better rational explanations.

Science should march on.

But as formulated today, the Darwinian fairy tale of biological origins will never march forward.

a.) Their motto should be: No species can defeat us!
b.)  Are fossils lacking? So what... they existed invisibly ... and did not fossilize for all kinds of reasons.
c.) Is stasis the rule ... when gradual change was promised? So what... other species existed invisible, and the visible fossils prove how natural Selection preserves remarkable optimal adaptations. Did fast change occur? No problem. So what? an army of invisible intermediates are just missing.
d.) With this power to "explain" .... No lack (nor any difference from) predicted fossils evidence will be ever seriously be taken as a test of darwinism.

my paragraphing.

By oversimplifying things you are obscuring rational explanations.
a.) yes it can, and very simply with an out of sequence fossil, as I have explained previously, humans in or lower than the Mesozoic or Dinosaurs in the Devonian for example, there is literally a myriad of examples you could pick from.
b.) Fossilisation is a rare event, do you dispute this?
c.) There is no hard and fast rule, do you believe there should be, if so why? Evolution is governed by the speed that the environment changes, and limited by the reproductive strategy.
d.) Yes you can for the reasons stated in a to c, there is nothing irrational in the reasons given.


My hangup is ..

A theory with too wide that it accepts any fact... and too many ad hoc explanations - not fine.
It is dangerous when
(a) any new fact is always "predicted" by the theory or its ad hoc additions
( no new fact can ever falsify the theory
i.e. it is bad science (Popper)


Ok, but IMO evolution does not fit this description. As you have replied to the Jurassic beaver below, lets see if your misgivings are justified.

Lets look at our Jurassic beaver. Is he a fact that fits right in ... or another fact that can fit anywhere??

a. If he had been two ounces instead of 2 pounds ... no problem.
b. If he had been 5 pounds instead of 2 pounds ... no problem.
c. If he had been found in North America instead ... no problem
d. If he had been 20 million years old instead of 165 million ... no problem.
e. If he had wings ... no problem.
f. If he had reptilian eyes ... no problem ... we found an intermediate at last (unless we use the platypus escape hatch)
g. If he was 2 million years old and hunted by humans ... no problem
h. If he was 50 million years older than any known mammal ... no problem we just move that time frame back If he turned out to be a hoax ... no problem we just say "science was good enough to uncover a hoax
i. In short ... any new story is "no problem" ... not because darwinism "predicted" anything like it ... but because any fact can made to fit
j. And people just stare at it and say "That's more proof for darwinism" ... as if Creation scientists before Darwin were unaware of extinct animals. They were not. They just refused to believe until some of the billions of intermediaries through tens of thousands of generations started showing up as evidence in the fossil record ... in the billions as they should (if gradual evolution, then gradual transitionals would abound).


Agreed, no problem with a, b, c, d, g. However:

e. A mammal with wings, in that age might be a problem, all Mesozoic mammal finds are of ‘rat like’ animals and then most of these are only fossilised teeth and jaws. Given that early bat evolution is lacking in evidence, I would not rule it out exclusively, but it’s unlikely, I would not be surprised however at gliding mammal however.

f. (reptilian eyes not sure) But avian eyes would be very problematic for mammals, their internal construction is quite different from our own. But as this would not fossilise it could not be determined.

h. Emphatically “No”, there will be a lower limit which you could not go beyond. I.e. you will never find a true Mammal, nor Dinosaur lower than the Permian (Dinosaurs and Mammals arose in the Triassic, although the mammals were not as advances as modern mammals).

i. Again “no”, there are real limits that can’t be breached, hopefully adequately explained above.

j. Jurassic Beaver, does not qualify for your points e, f, and h. IMO it is very typical of all other mammals of the period, i.e. small and rat like.

#13 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 12 March 2006 - 01:30 PM

Seems as unusual finds are in the news of late, the “Laotian Rock Rat” LINK it appears that this new find has controversial linage

The results of the phylogenetic analyses performed by Jenkins et al. (2005) are somewhat inconclusive and contradictory. Both morphology and molecules show Laonastes as a member of the rodent suborder Hystricognathi. The morphological analysis suggests that it is the most basal member of the suborder. This would suggest that this living fossil represents the first living evolutionary split among the hystricognaths. In other words, all living members of the suborder Hystricognathi are more closely related to one another than to the Laotian rock rat.



#14 Guest_George R_*

Guest_George R_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 March 2006 - 06:04 PM

It's time to come back to

As for the fossil record, the predictive part of evolution is that we evolved from common ancestor, thus, you will not find and ancestor preceding it’s progenitor in the fossil record, e.g. like Humans before Australopithecus, or Dog before Wolf, or Blue Whale before Basilosaurus, ever!


Good examples.

Lets' first admit that this is a key general point and seems to be one of the winning points of darwinian predictability ....

How could any sane person deny the plain correspondence between ancestral lineage and position in the fossil bed?

How could anyone not immediately conclude "darwinian ancestry of species" is proven?

After that applause ... now let's see just what it is really evidence of.

Bear in mind... It is indeed good descriptive evidence of types changing over time in sequence. (depending merely on how you explain the fossil bed)

It is NOT empirical evidence for the supposed means for this change. It provides no real additional knowledge of how the supposedly powerful all-darwinian mechanisms work (i.e. create new complex organs and organisms)

... but it IS good prima facie confirming evidence that a lineage of ordered life appeared.

A lineage of life along predictable grounds is certainly very consistent with a darwinian view of ancestral relations between organisms over time

.... and you would snicker if anyone suggested that it is consistent with a view that "dogs walked with trilobites" all created on the same day.

But ... believe it or not ... read on


(1) the examples you cite are not anywhere as strong as they appear to the darwinist mindset

Ah, the self-delusion of the already faithful mindset that automatically sees any physically analogous resemblance as a good candidate for a literal ancestral relationship.

A mindset that spontaneously draws dotted lines -- extrapolation -- between living types ... even when lacking visible fossil evidence of such a transition no matter how major... somehow without seeing any possible technical encumberances to ANY dotted line needed to fill the linkage putatively filled by viable living forms.


(2) the strata of species is also evidence that could be offered as consistent with many non-darwinian explanations... just wait and see


First lets see what the examples show us.

(I sincerely thank you for sparing me one example ... the defunct eohippus-to-equine line... because I expect greater things from you.)

Note all examples conveniently are vertebrates, and in fact are part of the classic lineage models that get trotted out as "proof" of amazing powers to create wings, eyes, new reproductive schemes, new body structures, etc...

But look closer.

(1) The Dog. The dog is not a product of natural selection - but merely guided intelligent human selection.

Guided breeding accelerates and directs changes.

Yet ... Intensive dog breeding over thousands of years has yielded only dogs. In fact it has yielded dogs that are biologically capable of breeding with wolves in vitro at least.

From one species vantage point (see Mayr), the dog breeds are selections of wolf variances. It is not yet a non-wolf.

Is this the best proof that undirected darwinian evolution is capable of amazing powers to create wings, eyes, new reproductive schemes, new body structures, new animal families, plants, first cells etc?

A balanced observer ... beyond Dover city limits ... would have to leave the courtroom howling if the judge decided to make such a conclusion on this "evidence".

And what if a fluke fossilized ancient mutant wolf looked like a samoyed and preceeded most wolves in the fossil column??.

Would that falsify a darwinian prediction?

Naaaaaaaaaah.

I challenge the claim that darwinists would "cry uncle" and admit such evidence as falsifying darwinism.

No, they would "cry wolf" (pun intended). They would simple say "it was a precursor on a lineage that didnt bush out" or some such twaddle.

They would even emphasize that the wolf and dog are one species and these variances are to be EXPECTED since variance is a established part of evolution (as is stasis ...the "evil twin" of variation ... together they can be made to explain anything).

HA. It is so unfalsifiable.

The diagrams would change.

The fairy tale would go on undisturbed.

Nothing here falsifies Darwinism.



(2) The Human Lineage example.

Here we have the humble australopithecus potentially falsified by evidence of a more human-like precursor earlier in the fosssil beds.

What would really happen if that came to pass? Would darwinists "cry uncle"?

Not really. The time scale would be adjusted (as it so often is) and the putative list of descent and type differences would be jerrymandered (as it so often is) and the new facts would fit "better" the evidence at hand, once again proving a darwinian view.

I can cite how many times this "shuffle the evidence" game has occurred in the past over humanish bones and part bones - but you already know that.

I can even predict how it would play out.

Just like the "jurassic beaver" (110 million years off the scale!)

The eohomind quasi-sapiens, "early low IQ man" would be seen 10 or so million years out of his time but guess what... it was merely a lineage of primates that superficially resembles modern man but is more ancient and on a lineage that didn't pan out.

One characteristic (slightly smaller jaws, or larger arms, or larger cranium, or smaller cranium,etc) would be trotted out as "proof that he didnt have the wherewithall to survive"

and that characteristic "evidently accounts for" the extinction of the eohuman line before the dawn of savanna, forests, prehensile thumbs, vocal language, global cooling, deodorant sprays, microwave ovens or whatever

... while labelling whatever body parts are missing as clearly "non humanlike".

Pictures would give him hair and a lunging gait to "show" his primitiveness.

Museums would have posters with dotted lines followed by a "?" after his name in the tree of life.

It's all been done before.

And once again it will be cited not as falsifying evidence ... BUT BEHOLD ... it is paraded as evidence that PROVES darwinism.

This is exactly why I posted the jurassic beaver example.

Off the time scale? No problem. Same whitewash; maybe same hogwash and apewash too.

Older humanoid? It even proves that the DNA for certain body type evolution is pre-set in the primate clan, they will claim. More darwinian proof!

Creativity against Creationism will know no slaggarts. The molecular clock will find some DNA to hang its hat on and select only those parts that hint of an early human-like precursor. (MolyClockers can choose from thousands of DNA sequences to get their evidence.. there is magic in numbers, mah boys!)

Some wiser darwinists, in for the long haul, will suggest that it shows human lineage stasis! Try that on for size.

Are they ready to "Disprove and falsify" anything,

Indeed not, my, er, tailbone!



(3) Blue Whale before Basilosaurus

I love this example. It has already gone through the shuffle.

You see, mammals would have to be descended from ONE specific Therapsida reptile lineage to account for all the common characteristics of mammals arising from common descent....

Base on darwinian logic NO OTHER POSSIBILITY can be admitted, such as "cluster descent in various changeover species with common parallel development of new characteristics"... nor any life force / form archetype explanations.

Multiple Reptiles that are not yet mammalian and somehow independently develop all mammalian characteristics in parallel ... that is simply NOT Darwin. It is not even Lysenko!

So what was the one "changeover" species from which all mammals descended...?

None named. Can't even say that the changeover species and lineage was originally was land or aquatic based.

Instead we have a "zoo" of mammal-like reptiles .. we choose one of them for whale evolution (like, so it developed BOTH whale and mammalian characteristics independently of other mammals) and yet other unnamed reptiles without whale-like characteristics ... for the other mammal lines?

Or do we really claim that the the Basilosaurus was so nearly already a mammal and its land roving ancestors too?? And ALL mammals are descended from it?

They all took the great trip back to the land... resonating the fish to amphibian swim into thin air!

WAIT. OTHER EXPLANATIONS ABOUND. The theory must be this: Basilosaurus just lost the whale-like parts to become pigs, pandas, bears, horses, mice, bats and apes too. See ... one mammalian lineage from reptiles!

So ... Was all that before ...or after... it re-grew its legs and arms??

This is so cool.

How can anybody believe this stuff... who isnt already disposed to do so?

Let me pause for your answer before going on the what the "fossil placement" evidence really proves.

#15 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 26 March 2006 - 07:27 PM

As for the fossil record, the predictive part of evolution is that we evolved from common ancestor, thus, you will not find and ancestor preceding it’s progenitor in the fossil record, e.g. like Humans before Australopithecus, or Dog before Wolf, or Blue Whale before Basilosaurus, ever!


Good examples.

Lets' first admit that this is a key general point and seems to be one of the winning points of darwinian predictability ....


OK, I think it reasonable to admit this is a strong point no matter what side of the fence one is sitting on the evidence is rather undeniable (i.e. that such sequences are found in the strata).



<snip>
Bear in mind... It is indeed good descriptive evidence of types changing over time in sequence. (depending merely on how you explain the fossil bed)

It is NOT empirical evidence for the supposed means for this change. It provides no real additional knowledge of how the supposedly powerful all-darwinian mechanisms work (i.e. create new complex organs and organisms)

... but it IS good prima facie confirming evidence that a lineage of ordered life appeared.


So far I agree, such sequence was established before Darwinian theory. Darwinian theory gives a mechanism that explained what we see, and is reliant upon ‘old earth’ being correct.




A lineage of life along predictable grounds is certainly very consistent with a darwinian view of ancestral relations between organisms over time

.... and you would snicker if anyone suggested that it is consistent with a view that "dogs walked with trilobites" all created on the same day.

But ... believe it or not ... read on


(1) the examples you cite are not anywhere as strong as they appear to the darwinist mindset

Ah, the self-delusion of the already faithful mindset that automatically sees any physically analogous resemblance as a good candidate for a literal ancestral relationship.

A mindset that spontaneously draws dotted lines -- extrapolation -- between living types ... even when lacking visible fossil evidence of such a transition no matter how major... somehow without seeing any possible technical encumberances to ANY dotted line needed to fill the linkage putatively filled by viable living forms.


I think the examples I provided are on solid ground, and will need a very good theory indeed to usurp them. If you are relying on a ‘scientific blinkered attitude’ as your argument then I would counter that it is so far justified. The remedy is simple however present a better argument that incorporates all the current evidence.


(2) the strata of species is also evidence that could be offered as consistent with many non-darwinian explanations... just wait and see


First lets see what the examples show us.

(I sincerely thank you for sparing me one example ... the defunct eohippus-to-equine line... because I expect greater things from you.)

Note all examples conveniently are vertebrates, and in fact are part of the classic lineage models that get trotted out as "proof" of amazing powers to create wings, eyes, new reproductive schemes, new body structures, etc...

But look closer.

(1) The Dog. The dog is not a product of natural selection - but merely guided intelligent human selection.

Guided breeding accelerates and directs changes.

Yet ... Intensive dog breeding over thousands of years has yielded only dogs. In fact it has yielded dogs that are biologically capable of breeding with wolves in vitro at least.

From one species vantage point (see Mayr), the dog breeds are selections of wolf variances. It is not yet a non-wolf.


You know the example I used need not have been the Wolf/Dog, the observations of sequence hold true for what ever examples are used. No matter the dog was bread ‘artificially’ if one were to use the fossil evidence as a guide you would never find a dog fossil in lower strata than the fist appearance of wolves. So in that respect it is still consistent with Darwinian theory. You may disagree about the mechanism, but that is a different argument. The strata does not disprove Darwinian theory it confirms it (falsifiable), yet there is ample opportunity for it to do so if one is postulating a 6 day creation, that is the critical point.





Is this the best proof that undirected darwinian evolution is capable of amazing powers to create wings, eyes, new reproductive schemes, new body structures, new animal families, plants, first cells etc?

A balanced observer ... beyond Dover city limits ... would have to leave the courtroom howling if the judge decided to make such a conclusion on this "evidence".

And what if a fluke fossilized ancient mutant wolf looked like a Samoyed and preceeded most wolves in the fossil column??.

Would that falsify a darwinian prediction?

Naaaaaaaaaah.


The fossil record does not it’s self provide a mechanism of how, it is the evidence with which that mechanism (evolution or creationism) must be tested against.


Re wolf/Samoyed - well such is the confidence in evolution that predictions such as these are made “for now and all time you wont find a Samoyed, in lower strata than the earliest wolf”. That I think you can agree is a very bold predictive quality of evolution, and it hold true for any species well enough defined.


I challenge the claim that darwinists would "cry uncle" and admit such evidence as falsifying darwinism.

No, they would "cry wolf" (pun intended). They would simple say "it was a precursor on a lineage that didnt bush out" or some such twaddle.

They would even emphasize that the wolf and dog are one species and these variances are to be EXPECTED since variance is a established part of evolution (as is stasis ...the "evil twin" of variation ... together they can be made to explain anything).
HA. It is so unfalsifiable.

The diagrams would change.

The fairy tale would go on undisturbed.

Nothing here falsifies Darwinism.

(2) The Human Lineage example. <snip>


I submit that a human found in the jaws of a t-rex would lead to no other possibility. Evolution would not lend it’s self to such a situation, another mechanism must be at work.




Just like the "jurassic beaver" (110 million years off the scale!)


Nope, there is nothing about this creature that falsifies evolution it is a very typical mammal of it’s era, e.g. small and rat like.

Minor revision where various species fit into the great scheme of things is to be expected, but that revision is limited by very real limits on how far you can go back in time. You seem to think that a new species some how qualifies, it does not.




(3) Blue Whale before Basilosaurus

I love this example. It has already gone through the shuffle.

You see, mammals would have to be descended from ONE specific Therapsida reptile lineage to account for all the common characteristics of mammals arising from common descent....

Base on darwinian logic NO OTHER POSSIBILITY can be admitted, such as "cluster descent in various changeover species with common parallel development of new characteristics"... nor any life force / form archetype explanations.

Multiple Reptiles that are not yet mammalian and somehow independently develop all mammalian characteristics in parallel ... that is simply NOT Darwin. It is not even Lysenko!

So what was the one "changeover" species from which all mammals descended...?

None named. Can't even say that the changeover species and lineage was originally was land or aquatic based.


Question back to you - what does it matter (to evolution) if the common ancestor is not known. I say it make no difference at all. Again you seem to think that this ignorance is proof against evolution, it is not, you still won’t find a Blue Whale lower in the strata than a Basilosaurus, ask yourself why not. Then try to explain why ignorance of the common ancestor is important in this issue.



Let me pause for your answer before going on the what the "fossil placement" evidence really proves.


You have not made your argument, the thrust of your claim is that ignorance of the common ancestor (or that ignorance about a specific linage) somehow disproves evolution, your grasping at straws, to make your argument you must show how this gap in our knowledge falsifies evolution.

#16 Guest_George R_*

Guest_George R_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 March 2006 - 05:26 PM

chance - sorry - no matter how you paint the Dog/Wolf example .. it fails to fall under the category of "natural selection" ... so it shows nothing about natural selection.

And you are right to substitute the T-rex jaw with the human inside as a better example of an out-of-sequence find.

Maybe that would be accepted as a falsification ... or maybe somebody would have an ad hoc explanation for it too.

And don't get all that happy about NOT finding specific evidence. That is NOT the same as confirmation.

Of course, we have never found a canary in the jaws of a Siberian Tiger either, and expect that they live concurrently. ... but why huddle over this example ... it is an "argument from ignorance" just because we havn't see one.

QUOTE(George R @ Mar 25 2006, 11:04 AM)



(3) Blue Whale before Basilosaurus

I love this example. It has already gone through the shuffle.

You see, mammals would have to be descended from ONE specific Therapsida reptile lineage to account for all the common characteristics of mammals arising from common descent....

Base on darwinian logic NO OTHER POSSIBILITY can be admitted, such as "cluster descent in various changeover species with common parallel development of new characteristics"... nor any life force / form archetype explanations.

Multiple Reptiles that are not yet mammalian and somehow independently develop all mammalian characteristics in parallel ... that is simply NOT Darwin. It is not even Lysenko!

So what was the one "changeover" species from which all mammals descended...?

None named. Can't even say that the changeover species and lineage was originally was land or aquatic based.






Question back to you - what does it matter (to evolution) if the common ancestor is not known. I say it make no difference at all. Again you seem to think that this ignorance is proof against evolution, it is not, you still won’t find a Blue Whale lower in the strata than a Basilosaurus, ask yourself why not. Then try to explain why ignorance of the common ancestor is important in this issue.



My line of reasoning has nothing to do with an "argument from ignorance". Of course evolution is not "disproved" because somebody fails to name a specific example of lineage.

If fails because somebody DOES name a specific example ... and it is a misfit for all other mammals. NOW somebody has some 'splaimning to do .. and show how this can be ....

My point here has to do with the failure for people like yourself to challenge the flawed pro-evolution explanations when you see them.

In fact, the lack of a single path betwen reptile and mammals need not be the mess it is.

It's just when you choose one path (e.g. with basilosaur) and don't realize that you've created an impossibility for all the other mammals to squeeze into the gene pool with Basilosaurus.,

It matters because it is anti-Darwin to postulate that there are two paths from reptile to mammals.

If I leave Basilkosaurus in the path (because it is a supposed whale-ancestor) then I must either

(a) find a way to fit all other reptile-to-mammals on that same path

--- can this be done? did the rest evolve their legs back on and then become mammals?

(:) posit a new theory that mammalian features were hidden in many reptiles (Basilosaurus included) and they really developed as mammals secretly eons before

© posit a new theory that many separate paths of ancestors took the leap from reptile to mammal independemntly and they were all miraculously gained mammalian attributes independently (maybe a parasite did it!)

OR

(d) just admit ... we don't know .. and that trying to "explain" whale evolution using a reptile with non-mammalian but proto-whale appendages is just a bad guess that we had better let "sink"... It will never fly!

#17 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 27 March 2006 - 07:30 PM

chance - sorry - no matter how you paint the Dog/Wolf example .. it fails to fall under the category of "natural selection" ... so it shows nothing about natural selection.


Dog/Wolf is not important to my argument, happy to drop this example.

And you are right to substitute the T-rex jaw with the human inside as a better example of an out-of-sequence find.

Maybe that would be accepted as a falsification ... or maybe somebody would have an ad hoc explanation for it too.


It would be interesting to see some one attempt to wriggle out of it :)

And don't get all that happy about NOT finding specific evidence. That is NOT the same as confirmation.

Of course, we have never found a canary in the jaws of a Siberian Tiger either, and expect that they live concurrently. ... but why huddle over this example ... it is an "argument from ignorance" just because we havn't see one.


I’m not resting my hat on such picturesque examples, any out of place fossil will do, there is a multitude to choose from, e.g. any modern mammal like human, elephant, giraffe, dog, cat, etc found in or lower that the Mesozoic will do. Likewise any backboned animal in the protozoic, to give you an idea of what is meant by ‘out of place’.




chance> Question back to you - what does it matter (to evolution) if the common ancestor is not known. I say it make no difference at all. Again you seem to think that this ignorance is proof against evolution, it is not, you still won’t find a Blue Whale lower in the strata than a Basilosaurus, ask yourself why not. Then try to explain why ignorance of the common ancestor is important in this issue.


George R> My line of reasoning has nothing to do with an "argument from ignorance". Of course evolution is not "disproved" because somebody fails to name a specific example of lineage.


OK, perhaps I have misunderstood your argument.


If fails because somebody DOES name a specific example ... and it is a misfit for all other mammals. NOW somebody has some 'splaimning to do .. and show how this can be ....


If I understand you correctly you mean the Jurassic beaver is somehow not representative of the mammals of the time. To answer this I will need to know what you think is wrong with ‘Jurassic beaver’.


My point here has to do with the failure for people like yourself to challenge the flawed pro-evolution explanations when you see them.


I am trying to understand what you see as ‘the flaw’ with respect to the Jurassic beaver (or similar finds), you quoted earlier “it fails because somebody does name…..” but I don’t understand what you mean by this, what is it that somebody has named?



In fact, the lack of a single path betwen reptile and mammals need not be the mess it is.

It's just when you choose one path (e.g. with basilosaur) and don't realize that you've created an impossibility for all the other mammals to squeeze into the gene pool with Basilosaurus.,

It matters because it is anti-Darwin to postulate that there are two paths from reptile to mammals.

If I leave Basilkosaurus in the path (because it is a supposed whale-ancestor) then I must either

(a) find a way to fit all other reptile-to-mammals on that same path

--- can this be done? did the rest evolve their legs back on and then become mammals?

( posit a new theory that mammalian features were hidden in many reptiles (Basilosaurus included) and they really developed as mammals secretly eons before




This is very confusing “single path between reptile and mammal, two paths from reptile to mammals” I don’t even recall making such claims, and what this has to do with Basilosaurus I am a loss to understand. All I did was use Basilosaurus like the Wolf/Dog example, again that specific example it is not central to the argument, of out of place fossils.

posit a new theory that many separate paths of ancestors took the leap from reptile to mammal independemntly and they were all miraculously gained mammalian attributes independently (maybe a parasite did it!)

OR

(d) just admit ... we don't know .. and that trying to "explain" whale evolution using a reptile with non-mammalian but proto-whale appendages is just a bad guess that we had better let "sink"... It will never fly!


Again this is very confusing. I’m going to take a stab in the dark here at why I think you are confused re Basilosaurus, and whales (apologies if my presumption is wrong). Basilosaurus is a whale and not a reptile, the rather unfortunate naming was a result of misidentification of the fist fossil when it was thought to be a type of swimming reptile, subsequent better fossils disproved this. Not sure why Basilosaurus was never renamed to something more appropriate, perhaps it a reminder to all future palaeontologist to be meticulous.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users