2
2shelbys
Guest
So you think that Americans and Europeans are different species? Even better, you think that you and your parents are different species? Talk about a bad argument! You should be embarassed by that analogy.
- Status
R
rossum
Guest
My apologies for not making myself clearer. I am not saying that Americans and Europeans are different species. All I am saying is that there are Americans who are descended from Europeans living at the same time as Europeans.
Your original claim in post #16 said:
It seems to me that you are saying here that it is “impossible” for an ancestor and a descendant to be alive at the same time. That is obviously incorrect as my examples were intended to show.
Remember that individuals do not evolve, it is populations which evolve. It is perfectly possible for part of an ancestor population to evolve into a new species while another part does not evolve. This is analogous to some Europeans moving to America and having American descendants, while others stayed in Europe and had European descendants. There is no problem for evolution in having both ancestor and descendant species around at the same time. Whatever source you used for your original statement was incorrect.
I also note that you have not responded to my pointing out the error in your source about the origin of “major body plans” in the Cambrian Explosion. I strongly suggest that you find a more reliable source.
rossum
Z
zian
Guest
A) I do not “believe” in evolution. I accept evolution as the best concept to explain how things have come to be. If a better explanation comes along (care to give me one??), I’ll be happy to work with that theory instead.
B) There are uncertainties and lack of agreement in all of the sciences. Even mathematics requires that you accept certain postulates as given, otherwise there is nothing that anyone can ever agree on.
C) Evolution is not the changing of one species into another. Evolution is the creation of new species from certain members of populations by adaptation. Please provide me with your references that say that evolution demands that an entire species must turn into another species so that they can be examined.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
BTW, those “supporting bones” that evolutionists say are vestigial hip bones in whales?
They occasionally have legs attached to them.
talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html
(you’ll have to scroll down a bit, but they have pictures of the bones)
They occasionally have legs attached to them.
talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html
(you’ll have to scroll down a bit, but they have pictures of the bones)
P
PhilVaz
Guest
PhilVaz: << Why do we find a quite complete set of dinosaur (reptile)-to-bird transitional fossils with no morphological gaps? >>
Shelby: << We do not. >>
Dinosaur (Reptile)-to-Bird transitional fossils with no morphological gaps: represented by Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx (picture left), Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba, among others
From the book Dinosaurs of the Air: The Evolution and Loss of Flight in Dinosaurs and Birds by Gregory Paul (John Hopkins Univ Press, 2002) :
“One of the wonderful coincidences of science is that immediately after Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species, his famous explication of the mechanism behind evolution, dramatic support for his hypothesis appeared in Bavaria. In 1860, a feather and, in 1861, the skeleton of a Mesozoic vertebrate obviously intermediate in form between modern birds and their reptilian ancestors were uncovered in lithographic slate quarries. This vertebrate was, of course, the urvogel (original bird) Archaeopteryx. As our knowledge of fossil birds has expanded in the subsequent fourteen decades, the question of how birds arose has become ever more fascinating. Most paleontologists now agree that birds – always popular with the public – happily happen to be the direct descendents of the best-liked group of extinct creatures, the dinosaurs. Of course, public opinion has no relevance to scientific debate, but the broad appeal of a dinosaur-bird link vexes the shrinking minority of researchers who dispute the link…That birds descended from predatory dinosaurs has become far and away the majority view expressed in many additional studies…From China has come the feathered dinosaurs Sinosauropteryx, Caudipteryx, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, and Microraptor as well as many hundreds of specimens of the bird Confuciusornis…the fossils are coming so fast that it was hard to keep up with the new data during preparation of this book…” (Gregory Paul, Dinosaurs of the Air, page 1, 11, 15)
PhilVaz: << Why do we have an exquisite series of fossils for the reptile-to-mammal intermediates? >>
Shelby: << Again, we do not. Unless you consider the term “exquisite” to mean “incomplete”. >>
Reptile-to-Mammal intermediates, ranging from the pelycosauria, therapsida, cynodonta, up to primitive mammalia: Paleothyris, Protoclepsydrops, Clepsydrops, Archaeothyris, Varanops, Haptodus, Dimetrodon, Sphenacodon, Biarmosuchia, Procynosuchus, Dvinia, Permocynodon, Thrinaxodon, Cynognathus, Diademodon, Probelesodon, Probainognathus, Exaeretodon, Oligokyphus, Kayentatherium, Pachygenelus, Diarthrognathus, Adelobasileus, Sinoconodon, Kuehneotherium, Eozostrodon, Morganucodon, Haldanodon, Peramus, Endotherium, Kielantherium, Aegialodon, Steropodon, Vincelestes, Pariadens, Kennalestes, Asioryctes, Cimolestes, Procerberus, Gypsonictops.
PhilVaz: << Why do we have many land-mammal to whale intermediates? >>
Shelby: << As I already stated we do not. This claim is based on completely un-scientific conjecture. >>
Yes, you cited an article by Answers In Genesis. I cited material from TalkOrigins. The way to resolve this is by finding the original articles by Thewissen and Gingerich describing the specimans. They are the experts on the subject, not Ken Ham or whoever from Answers In Genesis you would cite.
This article is quite convincing to me for land-mammal to whale evolution. It covers nine lines of evidence: paleontological, morphological, molecular-biological, vestigial, embryological, geochemical, paleoenvironmental, paleobiogeographical, and chronological.
shelby: << Snakes are always described as having vestigial legs and yet there is not one fossil snake with legs… >>
BTW, there is a fossil snake with legs on the cover of this book: Darwinism Defeated? The Johnson-Lamoureux Debate on Biological Origins, which is another book I recommend to you. That makes 4 books now you absolutely must read.
Five if you count Cardinal Ratzinger’s commentary on Genesis.
Phil P
Shelby: << We do not. >>
Dinosaur (Reptile)-to-Bird transitional fossils with no morphological gaps: represented by Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx (picture left), Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba, among others
From the book Dinosaurs of the Air: The Evolution and Loss of Flight in Dinosaurs and Birds by Gregory Paul (John Hopkins Univ Press, 2002) :
“One of the wonderful coincidences of science is that immediately after Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species, his famous explication of the mechanism behind evolution, dramatic support for his hypothesis appeared in Bavaria. In 1860, a feather and, in 1861, the skeleton of a Mesozoic vertebrate obviously intermediate in form between modern birds and their reptilian ancestors were uncovered in lithographic slate quarries. This vertebrate was, of course, the urvogel (original bird) Archaeopteryx. As our knowledge of fossil birds has expanded in the subsequent fourteen decades, the question of how birds arose has become ever more fascinating. Most paleontologists now agree that birds – always popular with the public – happily happen to be the direct descendents of the best-liked group of extinct creatures, the dinosaurs. Of course, public opinion has no relevance to scientific debate, but the broad appeal of a dinosaur-bird link vexes the shrinking minority of researchers who dispute the link…That birds descended from predatory dinosaurs has become far and away the majority view expressed in many additional studies…From China has come the feathered dinosaurs Sinosauropteryx, Caudipteryx, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, and Microraptor as well as many hundreds of specimens of the bird Confuciusornis…the fossils are coming so fast that it was hard to keep up with the new data during preparation of this book…” (Gregory Paul, Dinosaurs of the Air, page 1, 11, 15)
PhilVaz: << Why do we have an exquisite series of fossils for the reptile-to-mammal intermediates? >>
Shelby: << Again, we do not. Unless you consider the term “exquisite” to mean “incomplete”. >>
Reptile-to-Mammal intermediates, ranging from the pelycosauria, therapsida, cynodonta, up to primitive mammalia: Paleothyris, Protoclepsydrops, Clepsydrops, Archaeothyris, Varanops, Haptodus, Dimetrodon, Sphenacodon, Biarmosuchia, Procynosuchus, Dvinia, Permocynodon, Thrinaxodon, Cynognathus, Diademodon, Probelesodon, Probainognathus, Exaeretodon, Oligokyphus, Kayentatherium, Pachygenelus, Diarthrognathus, Adelobasileus, Sinoconodon, Kuehneotherium, Eozostrodon, Morganucodon, Haldanodon, Peramus, Endotherium, Kielantherium, Aegialodon, Steropodon, Vincelestes, Pariadens, Kennalestes, Asioryctes, Cimolestes, Procerberus, Gypsonictops.
PhilVaz: << Why do we have many land-mammal to whale intermediates? >>
Shelby: << As I already stated we do not. This claim is based on completely un-scientific conjecture. >>
Yes, you cited an article by Answers In Genesis. I cited material from TalkOrigins. The way to resolve this is by finding the original articles by Thewissen and Gingerich describing the specimans. They are the experts on the subject, not Ken Ham or whoever from Answers In Genesis you would cite.
This article is quite convincing to me for land-mammal to whale evolution. It covers nine lines of evidence: paleontological, morphological, molecular-biological, vestigial, embryological, geochemical, paleoenvironmental, paleobiogeographical, and chronological.
shelby: << Snakes are always described as having vestigial legs and yet there is not one fossil snake with legs… >>
BTW, there is a fossil snake with legs on the cover of this book: Darwinism Defeated? The Johnson-Lamoureux Debate on Biological Origins, which is another book I recommend to you. That makes 4 books now you absolutely must read.
Five if you count Cardinal Ratzinger’s commentary on Genesis.Phil P
P
PhilVaz
Guest
BTW Shelby, you do not give your sources. I provide all the sources I am using here and here. I have personally either bought or checked out the books listed on these pages.
The Age of the Earth from 4004 BC to AD 2002 edited by C.L.E. Lewis and S.J. Knell (Geological Society Special Publication No 190, 2001)
The Age of the Earth by G. Brent Dalrymple (Stanford University Press, 1991)
Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution by Robert Carroll (W.H. Freeman, 1988), covers vertebrate evolution including the many transitionals between reptiles and mammals.
On the Origin of Phyla by James W. Valentine (Univ of Chicago Press, 2004), covers pre-Cambrian to Cambrian evolution
Gaining Ground: The Origin and Early Evolution of Tetrapods by Jennifer Clack (Indiana Univ Press, 2002), covers fish to amphibian evolution.
Dinosaurs of the Air: The Evolution and Loss of Flight in Dinosaurs and Birds by Gregory Paul (John Hopkins Univ Press, 2002), covers dinosaur (reptile) to bird evolution.
It looks like you are simply copying from Answers In Genesis or TrueOrigin or other creationist web sites. You do not provide the scientific sources you base your anti-evolution opinions on. You also did not respond to the fact that I’ve cited books by Christian authors (including the current Pope) who firmly accept evolution, and who provide the exact same evidence I’ve provided.
Phil P
The Age of the Earth from 4004 BC to AD 2002 edited by C.L.E. Lewis and S.J. Knell (Geological Society Special Publication No 190, 2001)
The Age of the Earth by G. Brent Dalrymple (Stanford University Press, 1991)
Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution by Robert Carroll (W.H. Freeman, 1988), covers vertebrate evolution including the many transitionals between reptiles and mammals.
On the Origin of Phyla by James W. Valentine (Univ of Chicago Press, 2004), covers pre-Cambrian to Cambrian evolution
Gaining Ground: The Origin and Early Evolution of Tetrapods by Jennifer Clack (Indiana Univ Press, 2002), covers fish to amphibian evolution.
Dinosaurs of the Air: The Evolution and Loss of Flight in Dinosaurs and Birds by Gregory Paul (John Hopkins Univ Press, 2002), covers dinosaur (reptile) to bird evolution.
It looks like you are simply copying from Answers In Genesis or TrueOrigin or other creationist web sites. You do not provide the scientific sources you base your anti-evolution opinions on. You also did not respond to the fact that I’ve cited books by Christian authors (including the current Pope) who firmly accept evolution, and who provide the exact same evidence I’ve provided.
Phil P
P
PhilVaz
Guest
Shelby << You may refuse to face the fact that Ambulocetus (and several other links in your “walking whale” chain) are complete fabrications based on a handful of bones admittedly found in separate locations but your refusal to face the facts does not alter the facts. >>
Your “facts” are very fallible. I’ve already posted a picture of Ambulocetus above, based on the bones we do have. Here is another:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
This image of Ambulcetus natans, the “walking whale that swims” is based on the bones that do exist. Note the presence of a pelvic region, including spine and leg bones which were all omitted from the Answers in Genesis article.
Here is a letter from J.G.M. (Hans) Thewissen himself, the discoverer of Ambulocetus.
==========
From: J. G. M. Thewissen
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004
Re: Question on Ambulocetus Discovery
The specimen was dug up in two phases, results from the first were published in 1994, results from the second in 1996. In 1994, we described some vertebrae, most leg bones, but no pelvis. In 1996, we described many more vertebrae, as well as the pelvis. So inferences about the spine in 1994 were based on the vertebrae we had then. The figure we published in 1994 shows, in stippling, what was known and not-known for the specimen at that time. So there is really no reason why anyone should be misled (as long as they take the trouble to go back to the original publication).
The reason for the delay between the two publications sounds like somewhat from a police movie. We tried to go back and collect the rest of the specimen before the publication in 1994. However, the region had turned in a haven for outlaws. On the day that we were going to start to work there, a man had been kidnapped and a large number of policemen was stopped along the road there to confront the kidnappers. They told us to keep on driving and not stop on that road where the action was happening. At that point, I decided that there was no point waiting to collect more material, because it was not obvious that we would ever be allowed (able) to go back to the site.
Hans Thewissen
==========
According to National Geographic, November 2001, the article “The Evolution of Whales” Professor Hans Thewissen is quoted as saying: “With long hind legs and hands, but the teeth and ears of a more modern whale, this animal was on the fence between land and sea.” In a May 1994 issue of National Geographic, it reports the find of Ambulocetus in a former inland sea of Pakistan. Thewissen dubbed the ancient whale fossil Ambulocetus natans for “swimming, walking whale.” A January 1994 article appeared in the journal Science: Thewissen J.G.M., Hussain S.T., Arif M. “Fossil evidence for the origin of aquatic locomotion in Archaeocete whales.” Science 1994, 263: 210-2.
I would believe him before I would accept anything from Answers in Genesis, TrueOrigin, or any of a hundred creationist sites. Now I’ll have to find his original articles in Nature, Science, National Geographic, etc on the walking whales. If you want, I’ll mail them to you.
Phil P
Your “facts” are very fallible. I’ve already posted a picture of Ambulocetus above, based on the bones we do have. Here is another:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
This image of Ambulcetus natans, the “walking whale that swims” is based on the bones that do exist. Note the presence of a pelvic region, including spine and leg bones which were all omitted from the Answers in Genesis article.
Here is a letter from J.G.M. (Hans) Thewissen himself, the discoverer of Ambulocetus.
==========
From: J. G. M. Thewissen
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004
Re: Question on Ambulocetus Discovery
The specimen was dug up in two phases, results from the first were published in 1994, results from the second in 1996. In 1994, we described some vertebrae, most leg bones, but no pelvis. In 1996, we described many more vertebrae, as well as the pelvis. So inferences about the spine in 1994 were based on the vertebrae we had then. The figure we published in 1994 shows, in stippling, what was known and not-known for the specimen at that time. So there is really no reason why anyone should be misled (as long as they take the trouble to go back to the original publication).
The reason for the delay between the two publications sounds like somewhat from a police movie. We tried to go back and collect the rest of the specimen before the publication in 1994. However, the region had turned in a haven for outlaws. On the day that we were going to start to work there, a man had been kidnapped and a large number of policemen was stopped along the road there to confront the kidnappers. They told us to keep on driving and not stop on that road where the action was happening. At that point, I decided that there was no point waiting to collect more material, because it was not obvious that we would ever be allowed (able) to go back to the site.
Hans Thewissen
==========
According to National Geographic, November 2001, the article “The Evolution of Whales” Professor Hans Thewissen is quoted as saying: “With long hind legs and hands, but the teeth and ears of a more modern whale, this animal was on the fence between land and sea.” In a May 1994 issue of National Geographic, it reports the find of Ambulocetus in a former inland sea of Pakistan. Thewissen dubbed the ancient whale fossil Ambulocetus natans for “swimming, walking whale.” A January 1994 article appeared in the journal Science: Thewissen J.G.M., Hussain S.T., Arif M. “Fossil evidence for the origin of aquatic locomotion in Archaeocete whales.” Science 1994, 263: 210-2.
I would believe him before I would accept anything from Answers in Genesis, TrueOrigin, or any of a hundred creationist sites. Now I’ll have to find his original articles in Nature, Science, National Geographic, etc on the walking whales. If you want, I’ll mail them to you.
Phil P
- Status