Whale Evolution: A Fluke Or A Tale?

[The Barbarian]

Let's see... "unlike any cetacean" is not the same as "unlike any other cetacean".

And notice that he doesn't say that Pakicetus is not like any other cetacean, he merely observes that the external ear is not like any other cetacean.

By saying "any other cetacean, he's telling you that Pakicetus is a cetacean. How can a cetacean be a cetacean if some part of it is "unlike any other cetacean"?

Well, that applies to narwhals (long, spiral tooth) Basilosaurus (tiny hind legs which "lock" as though used for mating), etc. Are they then not whales because they have characteristics "unlike any other cetacean"?

I think you're busted, weat.

[weat]

I wrote, "Simply put, if all life forms appear-as this trilobite example-as the same type from their first appearance in the fossil record, evolution is dead. ”

Barbarian wrote, "But, as you learned earlier, that's not the case. We have a variety of "trilobite-like" organisms, from Spriggina in the Ediacaran fauna, to the Nariaoids, to the Agnostids, none of which are considered by all experts to be "real" trilobites, since each group is missing some of the characteristics of trilobites.
On the other hand, few think Spriggina is a trilobite, some think Nariaoids are trilobites, and perhaps most think that Agnostids are trilobites. The Redlichiidae are the first group that has universal acceptance as trilobites. Each is a bit more "trilobitish" than the previous one. Not surprisingly, they appear before more advanced trilobites."

But as my documented source at http://www.peripatus.gen.nz/Taxa/Art...ta/TriOri.html suggests, "The big problem with the earliest known trilobites, is that they are trilobites. That is to say, their earliest representatives are distinctly and emphatically trilobites, and they do not look like anything else. They provide few clues to which other arthropod groups may be their close relatives, or to their origins."

So, according to my documented source, trilobites have always been trilobites. There is no evolutionary line to explain what they evolved from. No creationist disputes that there can be a variety of trilobites as creationists fully accept variation within types of life forms. The problem is, there is obviously a limit to the degree of change that a life form can undergo.

I wrote, "Reaching for an argument!? Pakicetus was not whale-like. It was "unlike any cetacean,' according to Thewissen. ”

Barbarian, "He said it was unlike any other cetacean in some respects, but it has the sigmoid bone in the ear that only whales have. And the incus turns out to have the same twist found in all whales, but to a lesser degree than modern ones. It appeared to be a primitive whale, but not a particularly interesting one. Then they found the rest of the skeleton."

No, he said it was "unlike any other cetacean," period.

I wrote, "Evolution depends on the faith of its adherents. ”

Barbarian, "There's a way to test that. As a scientist to defend the idea that Pakicetus is a whale. If he starts citing evidence, that's what his opinion is based on. You already know the outcome, don't you? So does everyone else here. So let's put that foolishness aside."

Evolutionists needed an ancestor to whales and there are few choices. A few skull fragments and a lot of imagination and Pakicetus became that ancestor although the discovery of postcranial fossils proved that Pakicetus was just a land creature.

I wrote, "It cannot be observed; ”

Barbarian, "Macroevolution has been directly observed. Students in college actually set up experiments and study it."

Such as.

I wrote, "Would anyone honestly suggest that evolutionists do not hold to the theory of evolution with ardor and faith? ”

Barbarian, "Since it depends on evidence, it cannot be based in faith. This is the primary difference between science and creationism."

Much of that evidence is more supportive of a creation model than of the evolution model.

I wrote, “It appears, according to evolutionists, AFTER several other types of trilobites appear and does not provide any help for the first appearance of trilobites. ” ”

Barbarian observes:
Actually it does. It is more primitive than any true trilobite known. In fact, if it lacked one more feature, it wouldn't be a trilobite at all. The fact that Narioia happens to have survived after more advanced trilobites appeared is not a problem for science.

My documented source disagrees with you. I quote, "The big problem with the earliest known trilobites, is that they are trilobites."

I wrote, "Despite the fact that Naraoia appears initially AFTER more evolved appearing trilobites, you still insist on referring to it as ancestral to the other trilobites. ”

Aniso, "Wrong. You assume much. Barbarian is saying that the presence of more primitive forms indicates that similar forms might have been the predecessors of trilobites at an earlier time.

I wrote, “But you must have faith that the "simpler" forms evolved into the "more evolved" forms."

Barbarian, "Nope. You need evidence. Analysis of the characteristics of the primitve "trilobite-like" organisms shows a gradual increase in the "trilobitish" features. In fact, the earliest trilobite that is generally agreed to be one, is a Redlichiid, the least evolved of them all."

That is only true if you fabricate the order and ignore when each trilobite actually appeared. Remember, Naraoia appeared BEFORE supposedly more evolved Trilobites appeared. But, in any case, a variety of trilobites does not prove that single-celled life forms can turn eventually into fish and finally people!

"In all major lineages, the earliest known members had already achieved the basic body plan of their living descendants. They differed in details, but most can be readily allied with their modern descendants . . . . Few fossils are yet known of plausible intermediates between the invertebrate phyla, and there is no evidence for the gradual evolution of the major features by whih the individual phyla or classes are characterized."
(Robert Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997, pp. 4) ”

Barbarian, "Let's test that assertion. Arthropods are thought to be evolved from annelids. Weat, here's your chance; tell me what you think an intermediate between an annelid and an arthropod might be like."

According to Biologist Robert Carroll, who certainly has more knowledge than I on this subject, "In all major lineages, the earliest known members had already achieved the basic body plan of their living descendants." Barbarian, you need to try to refute an expert, not myself.

I wrote, "So Naraoia may not even be a trilobite? ”

Aniso, "Something tells me you are staking the deck here. You want a precursor to trilobites, but it must be a trilobite!"

I wrote, “ Aniso, trilobites have always been trilobites. No evolution. ”

Barbarian, "So why don't all the people who study trilobites agree that Naraiids and Agnostids are trilobites? If you were right, there should be a nice, neat division between trilobites and other organisms. And yet there are these "half-trilobites" and "quarter-trilobites" and so on. How does creationism explain such intermediate forms?"

The creation model has no problem with a great variety of life forms and variation within life forms. But Agnostids are a puzzle because there is little available data on them. As such, they can not with certainty be used to prove a line of evolution.

I wrote, "Despite your point, many scientists still disagree on what Spriggina is, "Although it is true that one or two of the Ediacaran forms such as Spriggina (fig. 4A) and “Archaeaspis” fedonkini superficially resemble early trilobites, to date the detailed case for such an ancestry is far from compelling." From http://www.peripatus.gen.nz/Paleontology/MaiLinEvo.html ”

Barbarian, "One would expect the most primitive identifiable precursor to a trilobite to be debatable. If not, it would just be a trilobite. Your argument fails because you can't put a dividing line anywhere with any confidence."

True, but there is nothing resembling a line of evolution leading to trilobites. As my documented souce pointed out, "The big problem with the earliest known trilobites, is that they are trilobites."

I wrote, "According to microbiogist Dr. Arthur Chadwick, the trilobite, one of the earliest complex life forms, was composed of as complex molecular structures as exist today. That sounds like all the complexity was present when metoazoan life forms first appeared. Where did this evolution take place? ”

Barbarian, "I asked you once for some evidence for Doc Chadwick's assertion, and you declined to present any. That being so, is it hard to understand why it's not taken very seriously?"

Microbioligist Dr. Arthur Chadwick provided the evidence but you apparently failed to read it.

I wrote, "Whether is is Pakicetus or trilobites, evolution has to be believed by faith, not scientific data. ”

Barbarian, "Can't work that way. As you learned earlier, Thewisson classified Pakicetus as a whale because it had characteristics found only in whales. Evidence. Creationism depends on faith. Thewisson's conclusion depended on those little bones that told him it was a whale."

No, Thewissen said that Pakicetus was "unlike any other cetacean." Now how can it be like a whale in light of that fact? You believe that Pakicetus is an ancestor to whales primarily because you have faith in evolution and you know that there HAD to be an ancestor to whales.

I wrote, "Simply put, if all life forms appear-as this trilobite example-as the same type from their first appearance in the fossil record, evolution is dead. Whether one says that the trilobites did not evolve or that they have always been trilobites, the end result is the same. ”

Aniso, "This is getting silly. I have asked you to defend your point with a direct quote and you cannot do it. Can you tell us why a predecessor to trilobites should be a trilobite? It would seem logical to most people that it should be something a bit different. If you cannot understand this, we are wasting time here."

My documented source claims that trilobites have always been trilobites and that there is not convincing evidence that trilobites evolved from any known life form.

[aniso]

Today @ 12:41 AM post located here
weat:

So, according to my documented source, trilobites have always been trilobites.

And homo sapiens has always been HS. There was something else before that. I'm not sure why you have problems comprehending this.

There is no evolutionary line to explain what they evolved from.

No certain line, correct. But there are forms that suggest the strong possibility that a line exists.

No creationist disputes that there can be a variety of trilobites as creationists fully accept variation within types of life forms. The problem is, there is obviously a limit to the degree of change that a life form can undergo.

Not so obvious when you look at the fossil record. Do you have an explanation for it?

Evolutionists needed an ancestor to whales and there are few choices.

Not really. We don't NEED any such thing. THe fact that a species exists is just a bonus.

Barbarian observes:
Actually it does. It is more primitive than any true trilobite known. In fact, if it lacked one more feature, it wouldn't be a trilobite at all. The fact that Narioia happens to have survived after more advanced trilobites appeared is not a problem for science.

My documented source disagrees with you. I quote, "The big problem with the earliest known trilobites, is that they are trilobites."

You are not reading Barbarian. He says that a creature such as Naroia would be an ideal candidate for a precursor to trilobites. He is not saying that Naroia was in the actual line of descent.

I wrote, "Despite the fact that Naraoia appears initially AFTER more evolved appearing trilobites, you still insist on referring to it as ancestral to the other trilobites. ”

Aniso, "Wrong. You assume much. Barbarian is saying that the presence of more primitive forms indicates that similar forms might have been the predecessors of trilobites at an earlier time.

I wrote, “But you must have faith that the "simpler" forms evolved into the "more evolved" forms."

No. We can observe the general trend toward an increase in more complex life forms.

I wrote, “ Aniso, trilobites have always been trilobites. No evolution. ”

Sorry, it does not follow. You state a catchy tautology and then derive a conclusion that is totally unrelated. This is really getting tedious.

Barbarian, "One would expect the most primitive identifiable precursor to a trilobite to be debatable. If not, it would just be a trilobite. Your argument fails because you can't put a dividing line anywhere with any confidence."

True, but there is nothing resembling a line of evolution leading to trilobites.

And this means there is NOT a line? Sorry, it does not follow. B has given you a potential transitional fossil and you simply dismiss it.

As my documented souce pointed out, "The big problem with the earliest known trilobites, is that they are trilobites."

Yes, and the precursors were not...

My documented source claims that trilobites have always been trilobites and that there is not convincing evidence that trilobites evolved from any known life form.

Please provide a quote in which your expert says that trilobites did not have a precursor lineage. They will not say this because there is evidence to the contrary. Just because Chadwick is unconvinced of a specific detailed lineage, does not mean that trilobites did not evolve. Nor does it mean that a significant number or paleontologists think trilobites did not evolve. Logic is not on your side.

By the way, you have not provided similar evidence for your own origins of trilobites. What specific processes were involved in the creation of the first trilobite? What? No process? Then no creation!

[The Barbarian]

weat asserts:

Simply put, if all life forms appear-as this trilobite example-as the same type from their first appearance in the fossil record, evolution is dead. ”

Barbarian observes:
But, as you learned earlier, that's not the case. We have a variety of "trilobite-like" organisms, from Spriggina in the Ediacaran fauna, to the Nariaoids, to the Agnostids, none of which are considered by all experts to be "real" trilobites, since each group is missing some of the characteristics of trilobites.
On the other hand, few think Spriggina is a trilobite, some think Nariaoids are trilobites, and perhaps most think that Agnostids are trilobites. The Redlichiidae are the first group that has universal acceptance as trilobites. Each is a bit more "trilobitish" than the previous one. Not surprisingly, they appear before more advanced trilobites."

But as my documented source suggests, "The big problem with the earliest known trilobites, is that they are trilobites.

Facts trump opinions. Sorry. Fact is, we have creatures preceding those which are generally conceded to be trilobites, with varying numbers of scientists disagreeing on whether they are trilobites or near relatives of them.

I wrote, "Reaching for an argument!? Pakicetus was not whale-like. It was "unlike any cetacean,' according to Thewissen.

Barbarian observes:
He said it was unlike any other cetacean in some respects, but it has the sigmoid bone in the ear that only whales have. And the incus turns out to have the same twist found in all whales, but to a lesser degree than modern ones. It appeared to be a primitive whale, but not a particularly interesting one. Then they found the rest of the skeleton."

No, he said it was "unlike any other cetacean," period.

Wrong again. Not only did Thewission not say that it was "unlike any cetacean", he was referring only to the external ear. That was "unlike any other cetacean", showing that he clearly classified it as a whale.

Evolution depends on the faith of its adherents.

Barbarian observes:
There's a way to test that. As a scientist to defend the idea that Pakicetus is a whale. If he starts citing evidence, that's what his opinion is based on. You already know the outcome, don't you? So does everyone else here. So let's put that foolishness aside.

Evolutionists needed an ancestor to whales and there are few choices.

Used to be. There are quite a few candidates now. The order is still being sorted out, as new forms emerge, and we have more data. But Thewisson classified Pakicetus on the features of the skull, not from some "faith". Hence, your argument is invalidated that time. Try again.

A few skull fragments and a lot of imagination

Wrong again. Evidence. The incus and sigmoid bones immediately tip us off that it's a whale. Evidence, not imagination.

Pakicetus became that ancestor although the discovery of postcranial fossils proved that Pakicetus was just a land creature.

Precisely what evolutionary theory predicted. How about that? And we didn't even know it, at first.

Barbarian observes:
Macroevolution has been directly observed. Students in college actually set up experiments and study it.

Such as.

In just a few months, it is possible to produce enough evolution to get reproductive isolation. Which is what macroevolution is.

Would anyone honestly suggest that evolutionists do not hold to the theory of evolution with ardor and faith? ”

Barbarian observes:
Since it depends on evidence, it cannot be based in faith. This is the primary difference between science and creationism.

Much of that evidence is more supportive of a creation model than of the evolution model.

We know you want to believe it. But you dont' have anything to show us.

It appears, according to evolutionists, AFTER several other types of trilobites appear and does not provide any help for the first appearance of trilobites.

Barbarian observes:
Actually it does. It is more primitive than any true trilobite known. In fact, if it lacked one more feature, it wouldn't be a trilobite at all. The fact that Narioia happens to have survived after more advanced trilobites appeared is not a problem for science.

My documented source disagrees with you. I quote, "The big problem with the earliest known trilobites, is that they are trilobites.

Reality again. Opinions do very poorly against reality.

Despite the fact that Naraoia appears initially AFTER more evolved appearing trilobites, you still insist on referring to it as ancestral to the other trilobites.

Aniso, "Wrong. You assume much. Barbarian is saying that the presence of more primitive forms indicates that similar forms might have been the predecessors of trilobites at an earlier time.

But you must have faith that the "simpler" forms evolved into the "more evolved" forms.

Barbarian observes:
Nope. You need evidence. Analysis of the characteristics of the primitve "trilobite-like" organisms shows a gradual increase in the "trilobitish" features. In fact, the earliest trilobite that is generally agreed to be one, is a Redlichiid, the least evolved of them all.

That is only true if you fabricate the order and ignore when each trilobite actually appeared.

Nope. The earliest univesally-accepted trilobite is a Redlichiid, and simpler than the more evolved groups that show up later.

Remember, Naraoia appeared BEFORE supposedly more evolved Trilobites appeared.

Almost all of them. But some Redlichiids have been found before Naraoia. That old "if you are alive, your uncle has to be dead" stuff doesn't work very well for you.

(sound of goalposts being frantically repositioned)

But, in any case, a variety of trilobites does not prove that single-celled life forms can turn eventually into fish and finally people!

It just shows that evolution is a fact. We have abundant evidence that eukaryotes evolved by endosymbiosis from prokaryotes, and the evolution of chordates from another phylum has evidence as well. Would you like to learn about it?

In all major lineages, the earliest known members had already achieved the basic body plan of their living descendants. They differed in details, but most can be readily allied with their modern descendants . . . . Few fossils are yet known of plausible intermediates between the invertebrate phyla,

Would you classify onychophorans as annelids, or arthropods?

Would you classify Acanthostega as a fish or a tetrapod?

Why do chordates and echinoderm larva appear to be the same organism, even though they are in different phyla?

and there is no evidence for the gradual evolution of the major features by whih the individual phyla or classes are characterized

So, you're saying that legs just appear suddenly in the fossil record with no recognizable antecedents? Yes or no?

We have living organisms that are intermediate between vertebrate classes, even today. Would you like to learn about them?

Barbarian, observes:
Let's test that assertion. Arthropods are thought to be evolved from annelids. Weat, here's your chance; tell me what you think an intermediate between an annelid and an arthropod might be like."

(declines, citing lack of knowledge)

So, you don't really know if an intermediate exists or not, do you?
Are you beginning to get some feeling for the hazards of trying to argue by doctored "quotes"?

So Naraoia may not even be a trilobite?

Aniso, "Something tells me you are staking the deck here. You want a precursor to trilobites, but it must be a trilobite!"

Aniso, trilobites have always been trilobites. No evolution.

Barbarian, "So why don't all the people who study trilobites agree that Naraiids and Agnostids are trilobites? If you were right, there should be a nice, neat division between trilobites and other organisms. And yet there are these "half-trilobites" and "quarter-trilobites" and so on. How does creationism explain such intermediate forms?"

The creation model has no problem with a great variety of life forms and variation within life forms.

But it can't explain all those intermediate forms. Creationists just shrug and mutter "Godmustadunnit".

But Agnostids are a puzzle because there is little available data on them. As such, they can not with certainty be used to prove a line of evolution.

All they do is establish that intermediates between trilobites and other arthropods existed.

Despite your point, many scientists still disagree on what Spriggina is...

Yep. That's true of most intermediate forms.

Barbarian observes:
One would expect the most primitive identifiable precursor to a trilobite to be debatable. If not, it would just be a trilobite. Your argument fails because you can't put a dividing line anywhere with any confidence."

True,

And this is devastating to any creationist explanation.

but there is nothing resembling a line of evolution leading to trilobites.

Except all those "trilobitish" forms.

I wrote, "According to microbiogist Dr. Arthur Chadwick, the trilobite, one of the earliest complex life forms, was composed of as complex molecular structures as exist today. That sounds like all the complexity was present when metoazoan life forms first appeared. Where did this evolution take place?

Barbarian, "I asked you once for some evidence for Doc Chadwick's assertion, and you declined to present any. That being so, is it hard to understand why it's not taken very seriously?"

Microbioligist Dr. Arthur Chadwick provided the evidence but you apparently failed to read it.

Nope. Just an unsupported assertion.

Barbarian observes:
Can't work that way. As you learned earlier, Thewisson classified Pakicetus as a whale because it had characteristics found only in whales. Evidence. Creationism depends on faith. Thewisson's conclusion depended on those little bones that told him it was a whale.[/quote]

No, Thewissen said that Pakicetus was "unlike any other cetacean."

I see you re-inserted "other" you snipped out earlier. Good. That means that he knew it was a whale.

Now how can it be like a whale in light of that fact?

Keep in mind, it is what it is, regardless of what he thought it was. However, he clearly thought it was a whale and said so.

You believe that Pakicetus is an ancestor to whales primarily because you have faith in evolution and you know that there HAD to be an ancestor to whales.

Nope. It's those little bones we told you about earlier. Faith isn't part of it.

Simply put, if all life forms appear-as this trilobite example-as the same type from their first appearance in the fossil record, evolution is dead.

As you just learned, there were earlier "trilobitish" organisms, some of them sufficiently like trilobites that some (but not all or even most) scientists classify them as trilobites. So that isn't a realistic scenario you're posing.

Whether one says that the trilobites did not evolve or that they have always been trilobites, the end result is the same.

To be precise, the result is, the assertion is refuted by the evidence.

And even deleting key words from your "quotes" won't help.

[Roy]

Yesterday @ 11:49 PM post located here
weat:

Now Roy, you need to explain yourself to save face. You have suggested that I inaccurately referred to a statement of Thewissen when I noted that he said that Pakicetus was "unlike any cetacean." Thewissen's exact words were "Unlike any other cetacean."

Thewissen wrote "Unlike any other cetacean". You admit you quoted it as "Unlike any cetacean". You left out the word "other" and so your quote was inaccurate.

Roy, you have been proven wrong.

Hardly.

Roy

'Other' is the new 'Fnord'

[Roy]

Today @ 12:41 AM post located here
weat:

No, he said it was "unlike any other cetacean," period.

Apparently I was wrong - you aren't deleting inconvenient letters, you're changing inconvenient capitalization and punctuation. He actually said "Unlike any other cetacean," comma, and added a clause referring to the outer ear.

Microbioligist Dr. Arthur Chadwick provided the evidence but you apparently failed to read it.

I read it. Chadwick provided no evidence. His case for trilobite biochemistry being the same as that of modern forms was based entirely on an assumption that he later discarded. There was no evidence.

If you think there was, perhaps you could quote it.*

Roy

*With all the words present and the correct punctuation, please.

[weat]

I wrote, "Simply put, if all life forms appear-as this trilobite example-as the same type from their first appearance in the fossil record, evolution is dead. ” ”

Barbarian observes:
But, as you learned earlier, that's not the case. We have a variety of "trilobite-like" organisms, from Spriggina in the Ediacaran fauna, to the Nariaoids, to the Agnostids, none of which are considered by all experts to be "real" trilobites, since each group is missing some of the characteristics of trilobites.
On the other hand, few think Spriggina is a trilobite, some think Nariaoids are trilobites, and perhaps most think that Agnostids are trilobites. The Redlichiidae are the first group that has universal acceptance as trilobites. Each is a bit more "trilobitish" than the previous one. Not surprisingly, they appear before more advanced trilobites."

The inability to make certain determinations of what Spriggina or Nariaoids may be is largely due to the fact that there is scant data on these life forms. With such skimpy data, evolutionists can imagine whatever they desire but that is not very scientific.

I wrote, "But as my documented source suggests, "The big problem with the earliest known trilobites, is that they are trilobites. ”

Barbarian, "Facts trump opinions. Sorry. Fact is, we have creatures preceding those which are generally conceded to be trilobites, with varying numbers of scientists disagreeing on whether they are trilobites or near relatives of them. "

There is absolutely no proof whatsoever that any discovered life forms are predecessors to the trilobites.

I wrote, "Reaching for an argument!? Pakicetus was not whale-like. It was "unlike any cetacean,' according to Thewissen. ”

Barbarian observes:
He said it was unlike any other cetacean in some respects, but it has the sigmoid bone in the ear that only whales have. And the incus turns out to have the same twist found in all whales, but to a lesser degree than modern ones. It appeared to be a primitive whale, but not a particularly interesting one. Then they found the rest of the skeleton."

He said it was "unlike any other cetacean,' period. The only reason it was called a cetacean is because an evolutionist wanted it to be a cetacean. After all, it is "unlike any other cetacean."

I wrote, "Evolution depends on the faith of its adherents. ”

Barbarian observes:
There's a way to test that. As a scientist to defend the idea that Pakicetus is a whale. If he starts citing evidence, that's what his opinion is based on. You already know the outcome, don't you? So does everyone else here. So let's put that foolishness aside."

But we all have the same evidence. Depending on the bias of the researcher, the interpretation of that evidence will vary accordingly. As Ian Tattersall said, speaking of Neanderthal, the researcher could 'see' Neanderthal as being intelligent or dumb. It depended only on the bias of the scientist.

I wrote, "Evolutionists needed an ancestor to whales and there are few choices. ”

Barbarian, "Used to be. There are quite a few candidates now. The order is still being sorted out, as new forms emerge, and we have more data. But Thewisson classified Pakicetus on the features of the skull, not from some "faith". Hence, your argument is invalidated that time. Try again.

Thewisson took very skimpy cranial data and then evolutionists imagined this creature to be aquatic in nature. When postcranial fossils were found, they were proven wrong. But, despite the fact that Pakicetus is "unlike any other cetacean," it must be considered to be in the line of whale evolution. This, in spite of the evidence.

I wrote, "A few skull fragments and a lot of imagination ”

Barbarian, "Wrong again. Evidence. The incus and sigmoid bones immediately tip us off that it's a whale. Evidence, not imagination."

Wrong. Thewissen said, "The pakicetid middle ear was highly specialized and included pachy-osteosclerotic ossicles, an involucrum and a plate-like sigmoid process. These features have been interpreted as adaptations for underwater hearing, and it has been suggested that the presence of an involucrum facilitates underwater high-frequency transmission in modern odontocetes even though the involucrum is also present in low-frequency mysticetes. In the case of pakicetids, the absence of air sinuses insulating the ears, the firm fusion of the periotic to the surrounding bones, and the presence of a flat tympanic membrane suggest that reception of airborne sound is well developed, but are inconsistent with good underwater hearing."

"Inconsistent with good underwater hearing," seems to suggest that the ear is unlike the ear of a whale.

I wrote, "Pakicetus became that ancestor although the discovery of postcranial fossils proved that Pakicetus was just a land creature. ”

Barbarian, "Precisely what evolutionary theory predicted. How about that? And we didn't even know it, at first."

Sure, Barbarian. Pakicetus was pictured as a swimming creature complete with fin-like feet. The evolutionists had it ALL wrong.

Barbarian observes:
Macroevolution has been directly observed. Students in college actually set up experiments and study it.

I wrote, “ Such as. ”

Barbarian, "In just a few months, it is possible to produce enough evolution to get reproductive isolation. Which is what macroevolution is."

If you are suggesting that a new species proves evolution, then join the crowd. Such speciation is a critical component of the creation model.

I wrote, "Would anyone honestly suggest that evolutionists do not hold to the theory of evolution with ardor and faith? ” ”

Barbarian observes:
Since it depends on evidence, it cannot be based in faith. This is the primary difference between science and creationism.

I wrote, “ Much of that evidence is more supportive of a creation model than of the evolution model. ”

Barbarian, "We know you want to believe it. But you dont' have anything to show us."

Ah, yeah, sure. The typically suddenly occurring life forms which appear throughout the fossil record without ancestors don't support the creation model, now, do they!? Most fish types appear without ancestors. "Whatever ideas authorities may have on the subject, the lungfishes, like every other major group of fishes that I know,have their origins firmly based in nothing"
(E. White? in presidential address to Linnaean Society? quoted in W. R. Bird, _The Origin of Species Revisited_ [Nashville: Regency, 1991; originally published by Philosophical Library, 1987], 1: 62-63)

The same story with insect evolution. Insects seem to have just appeared largely as they are today-no evolution. "Interpretations of the fossil record must be made with great caution. For example, fossils used in evaluating the terrestrial/aquatic origin of insects were recently found to be not primitive insects at all, but merely fossilized segments of crustaceans! With so few insect fossils available and fossils absent from critical geologic periods, it is difficult to base evolutionary trends in any of the insect orders solely on the fossil record."
(Merrit, R.W. and K.W. Cummins. 1996. An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North America. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co., Dubuque, IA. 862 pp.; pg. 98)

More difficulty for the evolution model but an effect which perfectly fits the creation model. "Amphibians lay their eggs in water and the larvae undergo a complex metamorphosis before reaching the adult stage. Reptiles lay a hard shell-cased egg and the young are perfect replicas of adults ... [n]o explanation exists for how an amphibian could have developed a reptilian mode of reproduction"
(Darwin on Trial, Phillip E. Johnson, Intervarsity Press, 1993. Pg.
77, 81)

The bulk of evidence supports the creation model but you interpret ALL data from an evolutionary bias. Little wonder that the evidence as you perceive it supports evolution. It has to.

I wrote, "It appears, according to evolutionists, AFTER several other types of trilobites appear and does not provide any help for the first appearance of trilobites. ”

Barbarian observes:
Actually it does. It is more primitive than any true trilobite known. In fact, if it lacked one more feature, it wouldn't be a trilobite at all. The fact that Narioia happens to have survived after more advanced trilobites appeared is not a problem for science.

I wrote, “ My documented source disagrees with you. I quote, "The big problem with the earliest known trilobites, is that they are trilobites."

Barbarian, "Reality again. Opinions do very poorly against reality.

I wrote, “ Despite the fact that Naraoia appears initially AFTER more evolved appearing trilobites, you still insist on referring to it as ancestral to the other trilobites. "

Barbarian, :..The earliest univesally-accepted trilobite is a Redlichiid, and simpler than the more evolved groups that show up later.

I wrote, “ Remember, Naraoia appeared BEFORE supposedly more evolved Trilobites appeared. ”

Barbarian, "Almost all of them. But some Redlichiids have been found before Naraoia. That old "if you are alive, your uncle has to be dead" stuff doesn't work very well for you.
(sound of goalposts being frantically repositioned)

Redichiids are most definitely trilobites. So you agree. The first trilobites were trilobites.

I wrote, "But, in any case, a variety of trilobites does not prove that single-celled life forms can turn eventually into fish and finally people! ”

Barbarian, "It just shows that evolution is a fact. We have abundant evidence that eukaryotes evolved by endosymbiosis from prokaryotes, and the evolution of chordates from another phylum has evidence as well. Would you like to learn about it?"

Variation of life forms is a fact but evolution as we know it is far from being a fact. More like fantasy. Have you figured out how a single, complex cell is supposed to have just happened by chance? Molecular science has determined that a cell is incredibly complex. How did that occur by chance?

"In all major lineages, the earliest known members had already achieved the basic body plan of their living descendants. They differed in details, but most can be readily allied with their modern descendants . . . . Few fossils are yet known of plausible intermediates between the invertebrate phyla, ”

Barbarian, "Would you classify onychophorans as annelids, or arthropods? Would you classify Acanthostega as a fish or a tetrapod? Why do chordates and echinoderm larva appear to be the same organism, even though they are in different phyla?"

Biologist Robert Carroll again, "In all major lineages, the earliest known members had already achieved the basic body plan of their living descendants. They differed in details, but most can be readily allied with their modern descendants . . . . Few fossils are yet known of plausible intermediates between the invertebrate phyla, ”

Not clear who said this, "and there is no evidence for the gradual evolution of the major features by whih the individual phyla or classes are characterized."

Barbarian, "So, you're saying that legs just appear suddenly in the fossil record with no recognizable antecedents? Yes or no?"

I do not believe that any fish has been found with partial legs.

Barbarian, "We have living organisms that are intermediate between vertebrate classes, even today. Would you like to learn about them?"

I hope they are better example than that which you failed in attempting to prove trilobite evolution.

Barbarian, observes:
Let's test that assertion. Arthropods are thought to be evolved from annelids. Weat, here's your chance; tell me what you think an intermediate between an annelid and an arthropod might be like."
(declines, citing lack of knowledge)

Wrong, I responded with a quote from a scientist who seems to refute your argument. Here it is again, "In all major lineages, the earliest known members had already achieved the basic body plan of their living descendants. They differed in details, but most can be readily allied with their modern descendants . . . . Few fossils are yet known of plausible intermediates between the invertebrate phyla,"

Barbarian, "So, you don't really know if an intermediate exists or not, do you?
Are you beginning to get some feeling for the hazards of trying to argue by doctored "quotes"?

Not at all. You would imply that unless one is a paleontolgist, they cannot determine whether the fossil record is good or bad for evolution or creation. That is not true. After all, most scientists are not paleontologists and so do not have extensive knowledge of fossils. We all depend on the study of those who have spent years in research.

I wrote, "So Naraoia may not even be a trilobite? ”

Aniso, "Something tells me you are staking the deck here. You want a precursor to trilobites, but it must be a trilobite!"

I wrote, “ Aniso, trilobites have always been trilobites. No evolution. ”

Barbarian, "So why don't all the people who study trilobites agree that Naraiids and Agnostids are trilobites? If you were right, there should be a nice, neat division between trilobites and other organisms. And yet there are these "half-trilobites" and "quarter-trilobites" and so on. How does creationism explain such intermediate forms?"

They don't agree because the data is so skimpy. "Half-trilobite" and "quarter-trilobite" are simply your terms. They are irrelevant. The creaton model has no problem with a variety of life forms. Variation with a type of life form fits well in the creation model.

Barbarian, "But it can't explain all those intermediate forms. Creationists just shrug and mutter "Godmustadunnit".

There are few even possible intermediate throughout the fossil record. Most life forms appear distinct from their first appearance as pointed out by Gould, among others. But, you explain away those problems for evolution with "evolutionmustadunnit."

I wrote, "But Agnostids are a puzzle because there is little available data on them. As such, they can not with certainty be used to prove a line of evolution. ”

Barbarian, "All they do is establish that intermediates between trilobites and other arthropods existed."

Prove that assertion. You simply believe that. Does anyone else?
Do you propose that Agnostids, without eyes, evolved into trilobites with eyes? If so, where did that evolution take place? "Evolutionmustadunnit."

I wrote, "Despite your point, many scientists still disagree on what Spriggina is... ”

Barbarian, "Yep. That's true of most intermediate forms."

In the case of Spriggina, the problem is a lack of data.

Barbarian observes:
One would expect the most primitive identifiable precursor to a trilobite to be debatable. If not, it would just be a trilobite. Your argument fails because you can't put a dividing line anywhere with any confidence."

“ True, “ but there is nothing resembling a line of evolution leading to trilobites."

Barbarian, "Except all those "trilobitish" forms."

So you say but my documented source said, "The big problem with the earliest known trilobites, is that they are trilobites. That is to say, their earliest representatives are distinctly and emphatically trilobites, and they do not look like anything else. They provide few clues to which other arthropod groups may be their close relatives, or to their origins."

“ I wrote, "According to microbiogist Dr. Arthur Chadwick, the trilobite, one of the earliest complex life forms, was composed of as complex molecular structures as exist today. That sounds like all the complexity was present when metoazoan life forms first appeared. Where did this evolution take place?

Barbarian, "I asked you once for some evidence for Doc Chadwick's assertion, and you declined to present any. That being so, is it hard to understand why it's not taken very seriously?"

I wrote, “ Microbioligist Dr. Arthur Chadwick provided the evidence but you apparently failed to read it. "

Barbarian, "Nope. Just an unsupported assertion."

He made a very convincing argument that the trilobite must reasonably be assumed to have been composed of as complex molecular structures as exist in any life form today. Where did that molecular complexity evolve? Science doesn't have a clue.

I wrote, "Whether one says that the trilobites did not evolve or that they have always been trilobites, the end result is the same. ”

Barbarian, "To be precise, the result is, the assertion is refuted by the evidence. And even deleting key words from your "quotes" won't help. "

And you are refuted by published scientists who tend to carry a little more weight.

[Roy]

Today @ 05:24 AM post located here
weat:

I wrote, “ Microbioligist Dr. Arthur Chadwick provided the evidence but you apparently failed to read it. "

Barbarian, "Nope. Just an unsupported assertion."

He made a very convincing argument that the trilobite must reasonably be assumed to have been composed of as complex molecular structures as exist in any life form today.

If all he did was make an argument justifying an assumption, then he didn't provide any evidence, did he? So why did you say that he had? And why do you claim that his argument was convincing when you clearly don't know what it is?*

Roy

*Since you seem unable to either summarize it or cite it.

[The Barbarian]

weat writes:

Whether one says that the trilobites did not evolve or that they have always been trilobites, the end result is the same.

Barbarian observes:
To be precise, the result is, the assertion is refuted by the evidence. And even deleting key words from your "quotes" won't help.

And you are refuted by published scientists who tend to carry a little more weight.

Your guy is a microbiologist, whose opinion is not held by the scientists who study trilobites. As you learned, the people who actually know about them are not agreed on where to draw the line between "trilobite" and "almost trilobite". And their opinion tends to carry a little more weight.

You are perhaps disappointed by this realization. But reality is not obligated to meet anyone's hopes.

Likewise, Thewisson's classification of Pakicetus as a whale was based on whale-like characters of the skull. That's why he referred to it as a cetacean.

[weat]

weat:
"Now Roy, you need to explain yourself to save face. You have suggested that I inaccurately referred to a statement of Thewissen when I noted that he said that Pakicetus was "unlike any cetacean." Thewissen's exact words were "Unlike any other cetacean."

Roy wrote, "Thewissen wrote "Unlike any other cetacean". You admit you quoted it as "Unlike any cetacean". You left out the word "other" and so your quote was inaccurate.

So you cannot refute the arguments and you resort to a feeble attempt to nitpick the creationist? The ONLY cetacean like Pakicetus is Pakicetus! Pakicetus is obviously unlike any cetacean except itself! Most importantly, as I have included Thewissen's complete and accurate quote several times, your implication that I was being deceptive by leaving out a word when I stated his point in my own words is preposterous. If it will make you happy, I will be glad to always include "other" when I refer to Thewissen but that doesn't help evolution. Pakicetus is unlike any OTHER cetacean and was categorized as a cetacean primarily because an ancestor was needed.

I wrote, "Whether one says that the trilobites did not evolve or that they have always been trilobites, the end result is the same. ”

Barbarian observes:
To be precise, the result is, the assertion is refuted by the evidence. And even deleting key words from your "quotes" won't help.

I wrote, “ And you are refuted by published scientists who tend to carry a little more weight."
And may I add, the "deleting key words from your quotes" charge should be specific unless you resort to generalized accusations which are impossible to respond to.

Barbarian wrote, "Your guy is a microbiologist, whose opinion is not held by the scientists who study trilobites."

Prove your assertion. Chadwick is a microbioligst and should know as well or better than any scientist what we can suppose an ancient life form was composed of.

Barbarian wrote, "As you learned, the people who actually know about them are not agreed on where to draw the line between "trilobite" and "almost trilobite". And their opinion tends to carry a little more weight."

Where to draw the line as to what is or isn't a trilobite has nothing to do with the molecular structure of trilobites. My documented source points out, however, that trilobites have always been trilobites.

Barbarian wrote, "You are perhaps disappointed by this realization. But reality is not obligated to meet anyone's hopes."

I am not sure what I am supposed to be disappointed about. Trilobites appear without ancestors in the fossil record and with complexity which is supposed to have evolved in secret, apparently, and reasonably must be assumed to have been composed of molecular structures as complex as any in existence today. That sounds as if you should be disappointed as should all who accept naturalism as the cause of all life on earth.

Barbarian wrote, "Likewise, Thewisson's classification of Pakicetus as a whale was based on whale-like characters of the skull. That's why he referred to it as a cetacean."

And he referred to it as being "unlike any other cetacean." Anotherwords, it had characteristics unlike any known cetacean including ears unsuited for hearing underwater. It was given a name-Pakicetus-which means "whale from Pakistan" BEFORE it was determined to be a land creature with no suitability whatsoever for living in the sea. Pakicetus doesn't help evolution unless one has a very easily satisfied criteria.

[Roy]

Today @ 10:57 PM post located here
weat:

weat:
So you cannot refute the arguments and you resort to a feeble attempt to nitpick the creationist?

Your only argument about Pakicetus appears to be to repeat (some of) Thewissen's words out of context. Thus the only refutation needed is to point out the context - that the statement you keep quoting refers to Pakicetus's outer ear, and isn't relevant to the rest of it - not even the rest of the ear.

The ONLY cetacean like Pakicetus is Pakicetus! Pakicetus is obviously unlike any cetacean except itself! Most importantly, as I have included Thewissen's complete and accurate quote several times, your implication that I was being deceptive by leaving out a word when I stated his point in my own words is preposterous.

You didn't state his point in your own words, since (i) you used quote marks, and (ii) your point wasn't the same as his.

If it will make you happy, I will be glad to always include 'other' when I refer to Thewissen but that doesn't help evolution.

To make me happy? Not because it's correct?

Pakicetus is unlike any OTHER cetacean and was categorized as a cetacean primarily because an ancestor was needed.

AFAICT, Pakicetus was characterised as a cetacean because of the shape of the skull and the presence of the s-shaped bone Barbarian keeps referring to. You have produced nothing to show otherwise, and your claim that Pakicetus was said to be a cetacean because one was needed is laughable.

Have you managed to find Chadwick's argument yet?

Roy

[weat]

weat:
So you cannot refute the arguments and you resort to a feeble attempt to nitpick the creationist? ”

rthearle wrote, "Your only argument about Pakicetus appears to be to repeat (some of) Thewissen's words out of context. Thus the only refutation needed is to point out the context - that the statement you keep quoting refers to Pakicetus's outer ear, and isn't relevant to the rest of it - not even the rest of the ear."

YOUR only argument for claiming that Pakicetus was a whale ancestor is to suggest that some similarity in an inner earbone will suffice! Forget that the remainder of Pakicetus is different from a whale and even its outer ear is unlike a whales; you only reveal how little is required to convince you of evolution.

I wrote, "The ONLY cetacean like Pakicetus is Pakicetus! Pakicetus is obviously unlike any cetacean except itself! Most importantly, as I have included Thewissen's complete and accurate quote several times, your implication that I was being deceptive by leaving out a word when I stated his point in my own words is preposterous."
”

rthearle "You didn't state his point in your own words, since (i) you used quote marks, and (ii) your point wasn't the same as his."

I put quote marks around my words as I do yours and I believe my words were clearly indicated. You are desperately grasping for straws!

I wrote, "If it will make you happy, I will be glad to always include 'other' when I refer to Thewissen but that doesn't help evolution.”

rthearle, "To make me happy? Not because it's correct?"

It is correct to say that Pakicetus is unlike any cetacean, except itself! That is not good for your side but it does provide an example of how little is required to convince evolutionists of evolution.

I wrote, "Pakicetus is unlike any OTHER cetacean and was categorized as a cetacean primarily because an ancestor was needed.”

rthearle "AFAICT, Pakicetus was characterised as a cetacean because of the shape of the skull and the presence of the s-shaped bone Barbarian keeps referring to. You have produced nothing to show otherwise, and your claim that Pakicetus was said to be a cetacean because one was needed is laughable."

By your logic, then mesonychids should be considered to be ancestral to whales as there is some similarity in the teeth of these creatures to whale teeth. But Thewissen explains that similarity away, "Although there is a general resemblance of the teeth of archaeocetes [ancient whales] to those of mesonychids, such resemblance is sometimes overstated and evidently represents evolutionary convergence." So evolutionists arbitrarily decide what similarity is relevant! It is just whatever their theory needs, as I have been saying. Not very scientific.

rthearle, "Have you managed to find Chadwick's argument yet?"

You might try providing a scientific argument to the contrary. Dr. Chadwicks argument is difficult, I know, to argue against but just claiming that he has no argument is weak indeed. Representatives of almost all basic body types alive on earth today were alive around the time of the trilobites. Too, some trilobites had complex eyes and with the molecular similarity of modern life forms and the similarity of modern life forms with many which existed in the trilobites time, it is far-fetched to believe that the molecular level complexity was any less at that time. When do you suppose this complexity developed if it wasn't in existence at the time of the trilobites? Do you have a clue? Fish have been discovered in lower cambrian rock. Would you suggest that their molecular level structures were NOT similar to what we find today? The truth is that scientists are unlikely to challenge Chadwicks argument because it is so logically sound. And it presents yet another difficult obstacle for evolution to deal with.

[The Barbarian]

We keep coming back to the point. The people who actually study arthropods for a living, are not in agreement where to draw the line between "trilobite" and "almost trilobite". Given that your microbiologist is arguing against the consensus of people who actually know about such things, I'd say he was in over his head.

And since we can tell the difference between mesonychids and the genuine cetaceans by the structure of the head and ear, it appears that the evidence was what swayed Thewission.

[Bard]

After 132 posts, I am still waiting for some science. Ironically, the careful reader and thinker will note that many responders who are arguing contra my original post sure seem to agree with the central claim I made in that initial post, i.e., that there is no scientific case for Darwinian descent with modification in the fossil record. Apparently, they have not done me the service of reading my entire post. Or, perhaps they have not tried to understand what I wrote.

Now, weat has brought up a couple very interesting points that I would like to flesh out. First, weat says, “YOUR only argument for claiming that Pakicetus was a whale ancestor is to suggest that some similarity in an inner earbone will suffice! Forget that the remainder of Pakicetus is different from a whale and even its outer ear is unlike a whales; you only reveal how little is required to convince you of evolution.” Bingo, weat! You hit the nail on the head. “It looks like a whale in at least two ways (inner ear and appendicular appendages)” is about as strong as the argument gets. Do the Darwinists really think that this is tantamount to a scientific case? Come on! This is nothing more than very weak circumstantial evidence (which, I might note, I said was about as good as the evidence gets for alleged transitional fossils).

Second, weat says, “By your logic, then mesonychids should be considered to be ancestral to whales as there is some similarity in the teeth of these creatures to whale teeth. But Thewissen explains that similarity away, ‘Although there is a general resemblance of the teeth of archaeocetes [ancient whales] to those of mesonychids, such resemblance is sometimes overstated and evidently represents evolutionary convergence.’ So evolutionists arbitrarily decide what similarity is relevant! It is just whatever their theory needs, as I have been saying. Not very scientific.” Bingo again, weat! Kudo’s to you for fleshing out material relevant to the discussion, i.e., homology (lineal evolution) and convergence (parallel evolution).

Now, if someone thinks that Darwinian descent with modification has been scientifically demonstrated between Ambulocetus Natans and Basilosaurus, then how did Thewissen, et al, scientifically distinguish between homology and convergence in this particular case? This is a valid question that must be addressed before one can even begin to discuss the scientific verification of Darwinian descent with modification. Weat says this is an arbitrary distinction, not scientifically derived. Weat is absolutely correct!

The only other remarks on the evolution of whales worth noting on this thread are the vague comments such as, “it’s in the right place at the right time.” I will soon submit another post in which I will demonstrate the circular reasoning behind such uninformed statements.

Still waiting patiently,
Bard

[weat]

Barbarian, "We keep coming back to the point. The people who actually study arthropods for a living, are not in agreement where to draw the line between "trilobite" and "almost trilobite". Given that your microbiologist is arguing against the consensus of people who actually know about such things, I'd say he was in over his head."

In over his head!? First of all, I don't recall Dr. Chadwick postulating on possible trilobite ancestors. Chadwick pointed out, rather, that the trilobite must have been composed of the same complexity as are life forms today and he has overwhelming evidence on his side. After all, as I pointed out in my last post, representatives of most animal types which exist today were alive during the general time of the trilobites; what would one suggest that these life forms were composed of if not similar in complexity to todays life? Note too, that some trilobites had complex eyes. Where did these eyes evolve? Secondly, the inability of evolutionists to determine much at all about trilobite evolution is because there is scant evidence that trilobites were ever anything but trilobites. An "amost" trilobite was probably never a trilobite nor a trilobite ancestor.

Barbarian, "And since we can tell the difference between mesonychids and the genuine cetaceans by the structure of the head and ear, it appears that the evidence was what swayed Thewission."

According to Wong, the reason mesonychids were rejected as ancestral to whales was in the ankle bones, not the skull. I quote, ""What of the evidence that seemed to tie early whales to mesonychids? In light of the new ankle data, most workers now suspect that those similarities [between mesonychids and whales] probably reflect convergent evolution rather than shared ancestry and that mesonychids represent an evolutionary dead end" (Wong 2002: 79).
Again, the evolutionists simply claim that convergence explains away the same sort of similarity-scant, at that-which is used to claim that Pakicetus IS an ancestor! Maybe the slight similarities are due to design features instead of some obscure evolutionary association?