Evolution a hoax?

[Dinwar]

But you forget that marsupial wolves and placental wolves and other pairs share equally strong similar traits.

This is a lie. You are obsessed with gross morphology--which necessarily is going to be similar between any two vertebrates, because, well, THEY'RE VERTEBRATE--to the exclusion of actual useful morphologic traits. Have you even read a paper on morphology? I seriously doubt it--they're very long, very technical, and very, very boring (unless you need the information), precisely because they focus on the aspects you reject AND they provide the reasons why some traits were chosen and others ignored.

 

[randman]

hey dinwar, remember I can't see your posts so you are kind of wasting time.

 

[Wowbagger]

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.

Remember that "beneficial" depends on the current state of the fitness landscape, which also includes competition with other species.

It is possible that a new wave mammal-like animals could emerge from another lineage (perhaps some modern reptiles?), but if that happens, they would compete with mammals already there, who have the upper hand in the land.

Placental and marsupial animals evolved independently because they were sufficiently isolated from each other, when they emerged.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

This is a lie. You are obsessed with gross morphology--which necessarily is going to be similar between any two vertebrates, because, well, THEY'RE VERTEBRATE--to the exclusion of actual useful morphologic traits. Have you even read a paper on morphology? I seriously doubt it--they're very long, very technical, and very, very boring (unless you need the information), precisely because they focus on the aspects you reject AND they provide the reasons why some traits were chosen and others ignored.

There you are, Randman.

 

[A'isha]

hey dinwar, remember I can't see your posts so you are kind of wasting time.

Allow me to paraphrase and summarize the essence of his posts: "Your questions show how little you understand either evolutionary theory or comparative morphology."

 

[Almo]

hey dinwar, remember I can't see your posts so you are kind of wasting time.

He's not wasting time. I read his rebuttals of your arguments, and they solidify my opinion that you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about when it comes to evolution.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

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.

You neglect to mention that there is also DNA evidence of lineage.

 

[randman]

Remember that "beneficial" depends on the current state of the fitness landscape, which also includes competition with other species.

It is possible that a new wave mammal-like animals could emerge from another lineage (perhaps some modern reptiles?), but if that happens, they would compete with mammals already there, who have the upper hand in the land.

Placental and marsupial animals evolved independently because they were sufficiently isolated from each other, when they emerged.

But there were no mammals in the ocean. Clearly the fitness landscape was suitable for mammals or there wouldn't be mammals there.

Thing is one can imagine any just-so story.

Also, don't you think aquatic mammals and land mammals would have been "sufficiently isolated from each other"?

 

[randman]

You neglect to mention that there is also DNA evidence of lineage.

Really? Have you looked at the evidence closely, not just part of it?

 

[excaza]

hey dinwar, remember I can't see your posts so you are kind of wasting time.

Ignoring arguments does not invalidate them.

 

[randman]

There you are, Randman.

So just as I expected, mere verbiage devoid of any actual data analysis, which is why he is on ignore.

 

[excaza]

Really? Have you looked at the evidence closely, not just part of it?

This is an extraordinarily strange request, coming from you.

 

[caniswalensis]

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.

No, I don't think I frgot that. I am talking about morphology of the bones themselves. not the larger evolutionary traits.

Tiny distinctive markings that allow the Pakicetus ear bone to be identified as the ancestrial earbbone of the cetatians. It is a similar, but unique earbone to othe wolf-like mammals. Only Pakicetus had it then, only cetacians have it now. And it is in every fossil cetacian as well, but nowhere else.

 

[randman]

Ignoring arguments does not invalidate them.

what arguments? Blanket smears are not arguments. For example, the link I provided shows an immense level of similarity beyond simply being vertebrates. Look at the skull comparisons as an example.

But Dinwar likely didn't even read it and maybe is incapable of understanding it.

 

[randman]

No, I don't think I frgot that. I am talking about morphology of the bones themselves. not the larger evolutionary traits.

Tiny distinctive markings that allow the Pakicetus ear bone to be identified as the ancestrial earbbone of the cetatians. It is a similar, but unique earbone to othe wolf-like mammals. Only Pakicetus had it then, only cetacians have it now. And it is in every fossil cetacian as well, but nowhere else.

Really? You honestly believe it is found nowhere else? If I can show it is found elsewhere, will you change your mind? on anything?

 

[Dinwar]

I'm not sure there even exists an adequate response to this.

There's only one: Telling the offender to stop pretending to know things they obviously haven't studied. I think I'm on his Ignore list, though. :/

 

[Wowbagger]

But there were no mammals in the ocean. Clearly the fitness landscape was suitable for mammals or there wouldn't be mammals there.

Thing is one can imagine any just-so story.

Also, don't you think aquatic mammals and land mammals would have been "sufficiently isolated from each other"?

I think you got something a little backwards, here.

There might have been too much competition from species on the land. So, some mammals adapted their survival strategies towards the sea. There were no other large ocean species to compete with those mammals.

So, as their strategies became more "optimized" for their new niche, they became more and more like whales.

This isn't a just-so story. This is exactly the pattern we find in the fossil record.

And, we can see the same thing happening again, but in a different way, with animals like the hippo.

 

[caniswalensis]

Really? You honestly believe it is found nowhere else? If I can show it is found elsewhere, will you change your mind? on anything?

I will have to admit I am personally wrong about the unique morphology of cetacian earbones.

I am not sure that falsifies all of evolution though.

You will get the satisfaction of seeing me yelp like a pup and run away with my tail betwwen my legs, at least.

 

[Dinwar]

hey dinwar, remember I can't see your posts so you are kind of wasting time.

Nope. I'm letting everyone else here know just how stupid randman's posts are. Not ignorant--it's not that he simply doesn't know these things--but STUPID, as in "actively refusing to believe things, and avoiding such knowledge". Such as the difference between gross morphology and actual taxonomic analysis.

So just as I expected, mere verbiage devoid of any actual data analysis, which is why he is on ignore.

Read Life of the Past, and Briging Fossils to Life. Those provide more than adequate counter-arguments to anything randman has posted on paleontology. As an aside, the reason I stopped giving randman references is because when ANTpogo did, randman simply refused to believe them. He's not an honest person.

 

[A'isha]

what arguments? Blanket smears are not arguments. For example, the link I provided shows an immense level of similarity beyond simply being vertebrates. Look at the skull comparisons as an example.

What link? The macroevolution.net link?

Because if so, that's a pretty blatant lie. It has only a single, small, comparative skull comparison, using drawings from 1898 and 1904!