A'isha
Miss Schoolteacher
That went right over your head, didn't it?
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
That went right over your head, didn't it?
The point is anyone can line up some nice photos of shared features and claim an evolutionary line since many features are shared. Evos choose to focus on this feature or that but you could create any number of similar just-so stories with other features.
If common descent were true, mosasaurs are as likely a candidate as the current evo scenario. In fact, much more likely. But adherence to solid evidence, imo, is not a hallmark of evo science in these areas.
The funny thing is that if evos change their tune on how whales evolved, you guys will insist there is all this solid evidence showing the new theory. It won't ever occur to you that your claims of solid evidence for the old narrative must have been wrong; that the evidence was not that solid, and you will repeat this same process over and over again.
If common descent were true, mosasaurs are as likely a candidate as the current evo scenario. In fact, much more likely. But adherence to solid evidence, imo, is not a hallmark of evo science in these areas.
The funny thing is that if evos change their tune on how whales evolved, you guys will insist there is all this solid evidence showing the new theory. It won't ever occur to you that your claims of solid evidence for the old narrative must have been wrong; that the evidence was not that solid, and you will repeat this same process over and over again.
Last edited:
Wowbagger
The Infinitely Prolonged
In other words, evos conduct science!
I fail to see how this is a point in your favor.
A'isha
Miss Schoolteacher
So, to sum up, some guy with a website about his, ah..."revolutionary theory" of evolution, shows small skeletal diagrams from 1936 and 1898 side-by-side as part of his claims that mammalian whales evolved from reptilian mosasaurs, therefore everything modern peer-reviewed papers say about whale evolution is totally wrong. Oh, and the fact that science is self-correcting and builds on new evidence as it's discovered means that evolution is wrong too.
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
Once more, your admitted lack of understanding the science of evolution does not constitute valid criticism of it or support for the notion that evolution is a hoax.
Typical fallacious view of taxonomy. Taxonomy is not "anything goes"--it's actually a very rigorous field, one which requires a great deal of background knowledge to do adequately. It's VASTLY more complex than simply lining up photos and saying "Those show an evolutionary relationship". Taxonomists look at all sorts of morophologic information (when better isn't available), on scales ranging form the whole organism to individual bones. For example, Tyrannasoroids are characterized by a pinched metatarsle. You can't even see the metacarples in those pictures (randman is assuming we'll accept that taxonomists work only with gross morphology).
Moreover, there are traits and then there are traits. Taxonomists look at traits which are inherited--things which, at least presumably, are genetic. A lot of gross morphology is like that, yeah, and the debate as to what is gets pretty hot in paleontology, but what paleontologists, at least, look for is shared derived traits, which really can only be caused by shared ancestry. And before anyone says it, this isn't circular--the theoritcal framework was developed first, and THEN scientists started applying it. It's no more circular a line of reasoning than using Newtonian physics to fire test equipment into space.
Because we look at more than just gross anatomy. We obsess over details.
ETA: One answer is the ear structure and skull morpholoy. Reptiles have distinct skull features that mammals lack, and vice versa. There's also bone microstructure to consider. To a trained eye, the things actually look quite different--it's only someone who's never studied the things that can pretend to not see the gross differences.
Last edited:
So you can't answer and won't even take the time to look it up.
A'isha
Miss Schoolteacher
Cladistic analysis. Cetaceans are mammals. Mosasaurs are not. Mosasaurs did not evolve into whales - they have a much, much different set of related descendants.
Mammals evolved from mammal-like reptiles, which were terrestrial (and which, with the exception of the mammals, died out pretty close to the P/T boundary).
As for why they couldn't evolve again, it's because the odds of two independant lineages evolving that many shared traits is astronomically bad, AND we have a huge (tens of millions of years) stratigraphic gap between the marine reptiles and marine mammals, AND we have direct paleontological evidence that cetaceans evolved from terrestrial mammals, and a number of other lines of evidence I don't remember offhand.
A'isha
Miss Schoolteacher
If you don't even know that, how can you expect to understand either whale or mosasaurid/snake evolution?
Because the things that mammals evolved from (and that mosasauroids evolved from) were long since extinct by the time whales appeared.
You know, for a guy mocking the "gaps" in the mammalian fossil record leading to whales, it's pretty odd for you to wonder why there was no big giant leap from Upper Cretaceous reptilians to modern mammals in the whale lineage.
Last edited:
caniswalensis
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2010
- Messages
- 2,561
I would say that it could, but you need evidence if you are going to make that claim. (I realize you are not doing so)
My understanding is that it is the comparative morphology of the fossil bones that seperates the cetacian line from marine reptiles.
I believe it is particularly the jawbone & the earbones that allow these fossils to be lined up as they are and traced back to their land dwelling ancestors.
The Jaw & earbones are unique in small ways from other terrestrial mammels and from reptiles as a whole. These small unique features, maintained down through the different species, allow paleontologists to say with cerainty that we are looking at an evolutionary development from land back to the sea.
These are the most obvious traits, but there's a whole slew of others. For examle, development of the sinuses--we can trace when echolocation started in some lineages by looking at symetrical/asymetrical nostrals (asymetrical ones look really weird to me), there's changes in dentation, etc. Again, there's also bone microstructure to consider--mammals and reptiles simply build our bones differently. Mammals have more highly developed tooth differentiation than reptiles. The list goes on and on.
My point is the choice of picking which features to emphasize is largely arbitrary. Moreover, the questions are rhetorical (for ANT). There really is no reason to think if mammals onced evolve on land, that they could not have evolved in water except for the evidence they may not have evolved at all 
Comparative morphology is much stronger for mosasaurs. It is just the assumption by evos that mammals could only have evolved once that causes the strained effort to look elsewhere, and it is the assumption of common descent via ND mechanisms that control evo thought in the first place.
The evidence is not there. But I will make a prediction which I hope some here will remember when it comes true. Eventually evos will say mosasaurs are ancestral to whales, and they will insist with the same dogmatism they do now about creatures like Pakicetus. The reason is the evidence they trumpet now is very weak with strong inconsistencies, and they will once again modify their narrative.
If they didn't overstate and oversell the current narrative, then this would be much ado about nothing, but it's precisely the strong tendency to skew what the data says and does not say with dogmatism that has been the hallmark of evo theory since it's inception.
Comparative morphology is much stronger for mosasaurs. It is just the assumption by evos that mammals could only have evolved once that causes the strained effort to look elsewhere, and it is the assumption of common descent via ND mechanisms that control evo thought in the first place.
The evidence is not there. But I will make a prediction which I hope some here will remember when it comes true. Eventually evos will say mosasaurs are ancestral to whales, and they will insist with the same dogmatism they do now about creatures like Pakicetus. The reason is the evidence they trumpet now is very weak with strong inconsistencies, and they will once again modify their narrative.
If they didn't overstate and oversell the current narrative, then this would be much ado about nothing, but it's precisely the strong tendency to skew what the data says and does not say with dogmatism that has been the hallmark of evo theory since it's inception.
Almo
Masterblazer
Masses of comments of yours have marked you as someone who really is just clinging to some form of Creationism. The only benefit I see from people like Wowbagger continuing this discussion is that it is public; others can see the arguments and judge for themselves what makes sense.
A'isha
Miss Schoolteacher
Maybe among your fellow IDers and Creationists. Not among actual evolutionary scientists.
Of course they are. You've already made up your mind, and aren't gonna let a little thing like actual scientific evidence sway you.
There really is no reason to think if mammals once evolve on land, that they could not evolve in water except for the evidence they may not have evolved at all
This is just a slightly-less (though only slightly) ridiculous version of your "why didn't bacteria evolve into whales?" nonsense from back in March.
Really? What peer-reviewed study shows this? Does it use as many points of comparison as the paper I cited above?
You got that backwards, actually. It's a close reading of fossil and other evidence that led to the theory of common descent.
I'm not sure there even exists an adequate response to this.
But you forget that marsupial wolves and placental wolves and other pairs share equally strong similar traits. So there is no reason to assume a shared trait is necessarily indicative of a common ancestor passing that trait on. This is an important thing to realize when it comes to Pakicetus and many claims by evos. The creature is more like a wolf and not like a whale at all. There are only some small changes in the aural cavity which has caused evos to proclaim it ancestral to whales.
But we see similar traits emerging and disappearing all the time without any hint of evolutionary relationships between the 2. I think someone here posted a pic of a fish once that looked like it had human teeth. Evolutionists without having evidence to back them up insist all the time that some small trait indicates a creature was ancestral to another despite the fact we know such similar traits emerge or were created or were designed or micoevolved all the time without common ancestry being the factor.
Evos call it convergent evolution or parallel evolution, etc,......though that too is just an assumption.
If evolution of mammalian features is beneficial, why in the world would evos argue it would only happen once?
Think about this. Evos argue placental and marsupial pairs evolved similar features independently, but then assume mammals could not also evolve independently.
Why?
No real reason.
Think about this. Evos argue placental and marsupial pairs evolved similar features independently, but then assume mammals could not also evolve independently.
Why?
No real reason.