Originally posted by Jorge

You need work on your reading comprehension skills. My post contained much more than a merely "you're wrong, I'm right" reply. You just need to pay more attention.

O.K. let's see the original quote:

Originally posted by Jorge

¹I watched the 7-minute 'Whale Evolution' video. ²At the end I was laughing (almost hysterically) and ³wondering how otherwise intelligent, "educated" folk can swallow such ⁴obvious pseudo-science.

⁵I find it very hard to believe (but I guess I must) that people like you, O-Mudd and others find "believable" that a wolf-like creature became a whale ⁶based on such meager evidence. ⁷Faith is indeed powerful.

⁸Speaking about "the sheer creative power of evolution" (those were the actual words used!), the narrator of the video said, "It is amazing that ..." Yes, I totally agree, "truly amazing!!!"

Jorge

So is there more here than “you’re wrong, I’m right”?

1. This says that he watched a video entitled ‘Whale Evolution’.
2. This say he found the video funny and he was laughing by the end of it.
3. By the end he was thinking how intelligent people could think what the video presented was true.
4. Here he calls the video “pseudo-science”.
5. Here he states that he finds it hard to believe that people could think that a “wolf-like” creature could become a whale.
6. Here he states that #5 is based on little evidence.
7. Here he states that faith is a powerful thing.
8. Here he states (using quotes from the video that he thinks the “creative power of evolution” is “truly amazing”.

While there is more here than ‘I’m right and you are wrong’ (which is implied only) there isn’t much substance at all.

#3-#7 do say a little something but #3 and #5 say the same thing; ‘I can’t believe people can think this’. The only reason given for #3 and #5 is #6; that there is little evidence for #3 and #5. But no discussion of the evidence is forthcoming, only an assertion that what is there is “meager”. So no substance for #3, #5, and #6 just assertions.

In #4 Jorge asserts that what the video presents to be pseudo-science. He gives no evidence for of why he considers this to be pseudo-science (unless the #6, “meager evidence” itself is the evidence, which is an assertion itself). I assume that pseudo-science is the same or similar to what Jorge calls “science-falsely-so-called” (SFSC) but he has never provided an explanation/definition for why he calls certain things SFSC either so we end up with just a simple assertion.

Lastly #7 says faith is a powerful thing. That is nice, but the only evidence given to support that the video relies on faith is that there is #6’s “meager evidence”. But no supporting evidence is given for that. So all we have again is assertion.

The other points just; confirm he watched the video, says he laughed, and says that the creative power of evolution is amazing (a sarcastic comment).

So what we have is a bunch of assertions supported by assertions. No evidence is supplied. So the original comment that Jorge’s post is little more than “You are wrong and I am right” while being technically false (there are more words to his post than that) hits the mark pretty spot on in its assuming lack of real content and evidence in Jorge’s post.

Even Jorge’s second post on this topic (#33) is mostly devoid of substance. The first part just says that rogue06 needs to read better. The second part is just a sarcastic comment about the “sheer creative power of evolution”. The last part just asserts, again, that the video is pseudo-science and that it is “ 'ideological indoctrination'” Again, no supporting evidence.


So both of Jorge's posts, while more than a "you are wrong I am right" statements, are filled with assertions and no substance.

Jorge you seem to be obsessed with the fact that the video I linked to is meant for school-age children and hence is relatvely simplistic nature in its presentation. You therefore, of course, prefer to characterize this as "propaganda." OK then, if you prefer a more sophisticated discussion on transitionals I suggest you try this link.
Resource of the American Scientific Affiliation: Taxonomy, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record by Keith B. Miller
Instead of just harping on about how this 7 minute video was over-simplistic ("propaganda" to you ) and didn't seem to contain an in depth discussion of everything you wanted to see covered, how about instead dealing with some of the points I raised? Such as your complaint about Oxi's A-B-C model being nothing more than a strawman argument since whale evolution involved much more than just the "breathing holes" moving. After all, this was an issue that you specifically asked me to address. I think your decision to concentrate on this one facet rather than with the overall picture clearly indicates that deep down you are fully aware that the evidence for whale evolution has become very robust and you would prefer not to get into it.

The evolution of mammals from reptiles has been extremely well documented. Between the Permian and Triassic eras some reptiles began evolving through many transitional stages into what would become the earliest true mammals. Many of these intermediaries of more and more mammal-like reptiles (including Sphenacodon, Biarmosuchia, Procynosuchus, Thrinaxodon, Probainognathus, Diarthrognathus, Morganucodon & Hadrocodium) are preserved in the fossil record allowing us to see the step-by-step processes that evolution followed. We can see how the five piece reptilian jaw evolved into the mammalian jaw which has only one bone; and how the location of the jaw joint changed to accommodate it. Even more astonishing is that we can trace the development of the mammalian middle ear from the single straight bone of reptiles to the three bone set-up (hammer, anvil & stirrup) that mammals posses.
These fossils document this transitional jaw-ear arrangement . And to be clear, the sequence shows transitional stages in other features as well, including changes over time in skull, vertebrae, ribs and toes.

Here is a good place to start for more information.

Well I've posted several examples of transitionals but haven't got much response so let's try this. Here is a web site that compares ape and homind skulls. I'll check back after noon to see if it stirred any interest.

Originally posted by TheGreenMan

O.K. let's see the original quote:

So is there more here than “you’re wrong, I’m right”?

1. This says that he watched a video entitled ‘Whale Evolution’.
2. This say he found the video funny and he was laughing by the end of it.
3. By the end he was thinking how intelligent people could think what the video presented was true.
4. Here he calls the video “pseudo-science”.
5. Here he states that he finds it hard to believe that people could think that a “wolf-like” creature could become a whale.
6. Here he states that #5 is based on little evidence.
7. Here he states that faith is a powerful thing.
8. Here he states (using quotes from the video that he thinks the “creative power of evolution” is “truly amazing”.

While there is more here than ‘I’m right and you are wrong’ (which is implied only) there isn’t much substance at all.

#3-#7 do say a little something but #3 and #5 say the same thing; ‘I can’t believe people can think this’. The only reason given for #3 and #5 is #6; that there is little evidence for #3 and #5. But no discussion of the evidence is forthcoming, only an assertion that what is there is “meager”. So no substance for #3, #5, and #6 just assertions.

In #4 Jorge asserts that what the video presents to be pseudo-science. He gives no evidence for of why he considers this to be pseudo-science (unless the #6, “meager evidence” itself is the evidence, which is an assertion itself). I assume that pseudo-science is the same or similar to what Jorge calls “science-falsely-so-called” (SFSC) but he has never provided an explanation/definition for why he calls certain things SFSC either so we end up with just a simple assertion.

Lastly #7 says faith is a powerful thing. That is nice, but the only evidence given to support that the video relies on faith is that there is #6’s “meager evidence”. But no supporting evidence is given for that. So all we have again is assertion.

The other points just; confirm he watched the video, says he laughed, and says that the creative power of evolution is amazing (a sarcastic comment).

So what we have is a bunch of assertions supported by assertions. No evidence is supplied. So the original comment that Jorge’s post is little more than “You are wrong and I am right” while being technically false (there are more words to his post than that) hits the mark pretty spot on in its assuming lack of real content and evidence in Jorge’s post.

Even Jorge’s second post on this topic (#33) is mostly devoid of substance. The first part just says that rogue06 needs to read better. The second part is just a sarcastic comment about the “sheer creative power of evolution”. The last part just asserts, again, that the video is pseudo-science and that it is “ 'ideological indoctrination'” Again, no supporting evidence.


So both of Jorge's posts, while more than a "you are wrong I am right" statements, are filled with assertions and no substance.

I think it is the case that Jorge just "doesn't get it".

What YECs won't tell you is that fossil "gaps" are being filled all of the time. A partial list of some recent finds include: A 560 million-year-old Australian fossil may be the earliest recorded evidence of emerging vertebrate life. Eight fossils 515 million years old of
ancestors of ctenophores or combjellies found in China (subscription needed for entire story). The unearthing of salamander fossils in China that are 150 million years old (85 milion years older than any other fossil salamander),
filling an important gap in Amphibian evolution. The discovery of the earliest relative of the Triceratops, the housecat-sized Liaoceratops, from 128 to 145 million years ago, is over 20 million years older than the previous earliest known ancestor. The finding of Falcarius utahensis, a transitional form between the plant-eating dinosaurs known as Therizinosaurs and the carnivorous raptors they evolved from in Utah, U.S.A. In Queensland, Australia, the fossil of a 25 million year old
snake represents a transitional form from lizards. In the East African country of Eitrea, a pig-sized, tusked creature from 27 million years ago is the oldest known relative of Elephants, and the group from which elephants descended.
...But there are always those YEC nay-sayers who think that when a transitional fossil is found that plugs one gap two more "gaps" around that fossil are made.

Let's talk about recent developments in our understanding of
Crocodile Evolution

In 2004 the fossil of an ancestor of crocodilians was found in northwest China. It was a land-based 3' long creature called Junggarsuchus sloani, which lived from 230 million to 150 million years ago, and demonstrates that the croc's characteristic jaws evolved on dry land, and long before its "swim-tuned body." A year later an Australian researcher declared that after studying the hearts of crocodiles he believes that they evolved from 2-legged land-dwelling, warm-blooded creatures, which partially correlates with the Chinese discovery.
In 2000, 13 fossil crocs, ranging from 2 to 3' long, and dating back 112 million years were found in the Glen Rose formation, Texas. Some had a mixture of both primitive and modern traits (including a ball-and-socket type vertebrae associated with modern crocodiles). The ancestor of the first modern crocodile was discovered last year in Queensland, Australia. Isisfordia duncani lived about 95 to 98 milion years ago, about 20 million years before modern crocodiles. A little over a year earlier the fossil remais of a crocodile 40 million years old was found filling a gap in croc evolution that existed between 30 and 60 million years ago.

Here is a fairly good overview of our knowledge concerning crocodile evoution:
Crocodile history and its prehistoric roots, written in 2005 - though I admit I haven't read it entirely.

Archie isn't the only transitional dinosaur bird fossl that has been discovered. Besides a whole series of them coming out of China in recent years, there is also the Rahona of Madagascar, a contemporary of Archie and shared many simularities as well.
Another fascinating discovery that has been largely overlooked due to the hoopla surrounding the dino-birds is that several 110 million year old fossils depicting the ancestor of modern birds. The spectacularly well-preserved remains of Gansus yumenensis, a waterbird, was found in a lakebed in China. Previously, most of the ancestors of birds from the age of dinosaurs were members of groups that went extinct and therefore have no modern descendants, but Gansus is an ancestor of modern birds, so it's a link between primitive birds and today's birds. Gansus was approximately the size of a modern pigeon but more like loons or diving ducks. One of the fossils even has skin preserved between the toes, showing that it had webbed feet! The fact that Gansus was aquatic indicates that modern birds may have evolved from animals that originated in aquatic environments. Here's a link for more information: Bird fossil fills in a big missing link

In my OP I mentioned Tiktaalik roseae, the link between lobe-finned fish (sarcopterygians) such as Panderichthys, and the early limbed vertebrates (tetrapods) like Acanthostega and Ichthyostega. It was found on Ellesmore Island, Canada (about 600 miles from the North Pole) and its importance can hardly be overstated. Before finding Tiktaalik (name means "a large shallow-water fish" in Inuit language of Inuktitut) the link between lobe-finned fish and tetrapods was well-established, but the actual origin of some of the primary tetrapod features remained a mystery due to a lack of fossil material. For example, we pretty much knew that nature had been experimenting on the internal structure of the fins on some fish of the Middle Devonian, and that later would result in the evolution of the weight-bearing tetrapod limbs, but didn't have the fossil evidence to back it up. That all changed in 2006 when Tiktaalik was found. We had the first complete evidence of a creature that was on the verge of the transition from water to land! Tiktaalik had the more primitive lower jaw and palate, body scales and fin rays associated with a fish but it also had the shortened skull roof, mobile neck, modified ear, functioning wrist joint and ribs similar to tetrapods.
Here are a few good places to start if you're interested in this important link in Fish to Amphibian evolution. This one has a lot of great pictures and images of Tiktaalik, and of course there is Tiktaalik roseae: Home.

Originally posted by rogue06

In my OP I mentioned Tiktaalik roseae, the link between lobe-finned fish (sarcopterygians) such as Panderichthys, and the early limbed vertebrates (tetrapods) like Acanthostega and Ichthyostega. It was found on Ellesmore Island, Canada (about 600 miles from the North Pole) and its importance can hardly be overstated. Before finding Tiktaalik (name means "a large shallow-water fish" in Inuit language of Inuktitut) the link between lobe-finned fish and tetrapods was well-established, but the actual origin of some of the primary tetrapod features remained a mystery due to a lack of fossil material. For example, we pretty much knew that nature had been experimenting on the internal structure of the fins on some fish of the Middle Devonian, and that later would result in the evolution of the weight-bearing tetrapod limbs, but didn't have the fossil evidence to back it up. That all changed in 2006 when Tiktaalik was found. We had the first complete evidence of a creature that was on the verge of the transition from water to land! Tiktaalik had the more primitive lower jaw and palate, body scales and fin rays associated with a fish but it also had the shortened skull roof, mobile neck, modified ear, functioning wrist joint and ribs similar to tetrapods.
Here are a few good places to start if you're interested in this important link in Fish to Amphibian evolution. This one has a lot of great pictures and images of Tiktaalik, and of course there is Tiktaalik roseae: Home.

I am having a look at the report in Nature (Vol 440, 6-April-2006, pages 747-748) at the moment. In a review article, Per Erik Ahlberg and Jennifer Clack write:-

"So, if Tiktaalik is in effect a better preserved version of Elpistostege why is it important? First, it demonstrates the predictive capacity of palaeontology. The Nunavut field project had the express aim of finding an intermediate between Panderichthys and tetrapods, by searching in sediments from the post probable environment (rivers) and time (early Late Devonian). Second, Tiktaalik adds enormously to our understanding of the fish-tetrapod transition because of its position on the tree and the combination of characters it displays."
(The bolding is mine.)

The authors note that the new find is even transitional in such things as the ear:-

"Two aspects of Tiktaalik's anatomy relate to the origin of new structures in tetrapods: the ears and limbs. The tetrapod middle ear has arisen as a modification of the fish spiracle (a small gill slit) and hyomandibula (a bone supporting the gill cover). Panderichthys possesses a widened spiracle, interpreted as the intake for air or water, and a shortened hyomandibula. Tiktaalik shows an almost identical condition, but with an even wider spiracle, indicating that this morphology too in genuinely transitional."
(The bolding is mine.)

Yet again, for the billionth time, many YECs will put hands over eyes, fingers in ears and sing "La, la, la, la" to ensure that nothing is heard or seen.

Another site detailing many transitionals can be found at:-

http://www.devoniantimes.org/Order/re-tiktaalik.html

Originally posted by wattsr1

I am having a look at the report in Nature (Vol 440, 6-April-2006, pages 747-748) at the moment. In a review article, Per Erik Ahlberg and Jennifer Clack write:-

"So, if Tiktaalik is in effect a better preserved version of Elpistostege why is it important? First, it demonstrates the predictive capacity of palaeontology. The Nunavut field project had the express aim of finding an intermediate between Panderichthys and tetrapods, by searching in sediments from the post probable environment (rivers) and time (early Late Devonian). Second, Tiktaalik adds enormously to our understanding of the fish-tetrapod transition because of its position on the tree and the combination of characters it displays."
(The bolding is mine.)

The authors note that the new find is even transitional in such things as the ear:-

"Two aspects of Tiktaalik's anatomy relate to the origin of new structures in tetrapods: the ears and limbs. The tetrapod middle ear has arisen as a modification of the fish spiracle (a small gill slit) and hyomandibula (a bone supporting the gill cover). Panderichthys possesses a widened spiracle, interpreted as the intake for air or water, and a shortened hyomandibula. Tiktaalik shows an almost identical condition, but with an even wider spiracle, indicating that this morphology too in genuinely transitional."
(The bolding is mine.)

Yet again, for the billionth time, many YECs will put hands over eyes, fingers in ears and sing "La, la, la, la" to ensure that nothing is heard or seen.

Hi Wattsr1. Thanks alot for the additional material on Tiktaalik. I kind of breezed over the importance of its ears and am glad you brought them up. The hyomandibular bone clearly illustrates how it evolved in fish (where it helps articulate the jaw) to mammals (where it shrank and moved back into the skull and became the "stirrup" in the ear). In Tiktaalk it has shortened but hadn't moved back into the skull yet.

YECs don't want to discuss transitionals. They prefer to ignore threads lke this so they can continue to dismiss them with claims that they don't exist. End of Topic. Many think they are some sort of chimeras, literally half-this, half-that creatures like mythical mermaids. They won't be happy until we can produce a fossil of a part-fish/part-reptile in the process of giving birth to a part-mammal/part-bird Here IS an example of what some YECs seem to think a transitional looks like.

Gidday rogue06,

I often wonder if the reason YECs hang onto their notion of what transitionals must look like is because the failure of evolutionists to deliver such means that creationists can accuse evolutionists of lying. If they faced up to the reality of transitionals as evolutionists understand them, then those accusations could not be made.

By practicing deceit, creationists can accuse evolutionists of lying?

It is worth a thread starter.



Regards, Roland

Originally posted by wattsr1

Gidday rogue06,

I often wonder if the reason YECs hang onto their notion of what transitionals must look like is because the failure of evolutionists to deliver such means that creationists can accuse evolutionists of lying. If they faced up to the reality of transitionals as evolutionists understand them, then those accusations could not be made.

By practicing deceit, creationists can accuse evolutionists of lying?

It is worth a thread starter.

Regards, Roland

Yes it is and I'm going to link them:
Transitionals - the lie?

The mention of Tiktaalik's demonstrating a transition in the evolution of ears and hearing makes me think of my favorite transitional sequence - that of reptiles to mammals. I mentioned this one before (new lnks though) so I'll keep it short.

The transition from reptile to mammal is certainly the best documented transition between vertebrate classes. The fossil record clearly illustrates mammal's origin from reptile stock and allows us to trace the origin and radiation of mammals in substantial detail. While the species to species sequence remains unknown for now, the family sequence is quite complete. They range from the pelycosauria, therapsida, cynodonta and up to primitive mammals.
The fact is it is the presence of a dentary-squamosal jaw joint that is considered to be the defining characteristic of a mammal. Basically, reptiles have one bone in the middle ear (the stapes, which is a long straight rod) and several bones in the lower jaw whereas mammals have three bones (hammer, anvil and stirrup/stapes) in the middle ear and only one bone in the lower jaw. The primary transition of reptile to mammal involves the evolution of one type of jaw joint into another and the fossil record documents this in exceptional detail.


Here is a great source to start with as it is short and has great links:
www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC215.html
This one discusses the topic in detail and should satisfy those YECs with an allergy to TalkOrigins
www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_05.htm

Overshadowed by all the excitement over the discovery over Tiktaalik last year was an another important find in West Australia of a nearly complete fossil of an even older link between lobed fish and tetrapods –
Gogonasus. Known since 1985 from a few skulls,
Gogonasus is 380 million years old, 5 million years older than Tiktaalik, but possessed spiracles similar to Tiktaalik as well as having "muscular front fins with a well-formed humerus, ulna and radius - the same bones are found in the human arm."
Also significant is that this may mean tetrapods first developed in the Southern Hemisphere rather than in the north as previously thought.