"Debate" (sort of): The Origin and Evolution of Whales

[benthemiester]

ben wrote:
It simply means that fossil wise we don't have as much information regarding Hippo evolution as we do regading whale evolution, because unlike whale evolution there is a high potential gap (virtually every 'stage' in whale evolution is documented in high detail).

Please tell me, when did I write this statement above?


You are also trying to shuffle the quotes around, which is typical of your MO. My actual response to the book you cited called, Major Transitions in Vertebrate Evolution, was that I didn't own the book, and if you could please cite the part of the book that pertained to specific questions. No matter how you wish to reshuffle my quotes, thats what I said in response to that specific citation,

You seem to have an even bigger problem when discussing the finer details of phylogeny and how these creatures are related. This is all relevant and pertinent in this land to sea whale hypothesis. These relationships are discussed in the literature, as are the problems also, including the ones you have failed to adress. Why you should have a problem with what the science literature finds relavent enough to write papers on, is beyond me. If you want to pretend that phylogenetic tree building is only relevant as long as it doesn't adress the harder questions, then quite frankly that is no surprise to me. I am not going to adress the personel insults because they are irrelevant to the topic and unimportant to me, besides, you and I know you were caught lying. As for your own citations, they also speaks of the lack of consensus in many areas and don't adress the specific conflicts cited earlier between those of paleontologist and molecular biologist.


You can keep you word games.
You said that I should have learned the difference between the words "accuracy" and "precision" in high school. Maybe now that you are barely out of high school, we can learn together. Below is a definition of the words accuracy and precision. I suggest you read them carefully ......

accuracy |ˈakyərəsē|
noun ( pl. -cies)
the quality or state of being correct or precise : we have confidence in the accuracy of the statistics.
"¢ the ability to perform a task with precision : she hit the ball with great accuracy.
"¢ Compare with precision .


precision |priˈsi zh ən|
noun
the quality, condition, or fact of being exact and accurate : the deal was planned and executed with military precision.
"¢ [as adj. ] marked by or adapted for accuracy and exactness : a precision instrument.
"¢ technical refinement in a measurement, calculation, or specification, esp. as represented by the number of digits given : this has brought an unprecedented degree of precision to the business of dating rocks | a precision of six decimal figures. Compare with accuracy .


I said that homology means similar, not Identical, and you said, it means neither.
Another definition below"¦..

homology |hōˈmälÉ™jÄ“; hÉ™-|
noun
the quality or condition of being homologous.
"¢ Biology similarity in sequence of a protein or nucleic acid between organisms of the same or different species.



Maybe it is better that you end this and arbitrarily claim victory. We havent even got into the problems with population genetics and low population density, as well as many other finer details that have yet to be spoken of. I can handle being criticized, and even called names, but one thing that I would hate to have happen to me, is to get caught with my pants down, and have to publicly retract a whole week of bullshit because I was caught lying after stubbornly making up bullshit excuses to make a bullshit point that was logically indefensible from the beginning.

 

[ProcInc]

Again Ben, you're own lack of understanding on the language of science and the fact that it corerects itself has led you to make serious errors again. This time you are trying to use a dictionary as an authority on scientific terminology, despite the fact that this is notoriously absurd since most dictionaries confuse colloquial and scientific meanings for the same word.

ben wrote:
It simply means that fossil wise we don't have as much information regarding Hippo evolution as we do regading whale evolution, because unlike whale evolution there is a high potential gap (virtually every 'stage' in whale evolution is documented in high detail).

Please tell me, when did I write this statement above?

You didn't, I did (I have since edited). your name was put in the quotation box however the preceding sentence introducing the quote indicated that this was something I pointed out earlier. Which I had done.

You are also trying to shuffle the quotes around, which is typical of your MO. My actual response to the book you cited called, Major Transitions in Vertebrate Evolution, was that I didn't own the book, and if you could please cite the part of the book that pertained to specific questions. No matter how you wish to reshuffle my quotes, thats what I said in response to that specific citation,

You're request is specifically what I answered, and I have since answered it several times with many citations including ones you attempted to misconstrue into supporting your claims.

You're request was specifically what was the resolution to the issue with morphological and molecular data apparently not supporting each other. The answer was that further paleontological work on more complete fossils (especialyl Rhodocetus) revealed that the morphological evidence ended up supporting the molecular data.

I also further pointed out that there has been no new data reviving the conflict since 2003 when is was reported (and I have quoted) that the morphological, molecular and stratigraphic data are in harmony.

I responded speficially to this from the beginning and you have denied I have ever since. Even though I did so so clearly that others are able to identify and quote directly exactly what I said and how it directly answers the challenge.

You seem to have an even bigger problem when discussing the finer details of phylogeny and how these creatures are related.

When it comes to establishing the relationship between the species we have the DNA of (Hippos, whales etc) we can conclusively arrange them in phylogenetic order without an issue and the morphological evidence supports this too.

However, when it comes to species we do not have the DNA of such as the acanthrotheres, mesonychids etc where they fit within the established lines is a matter of identifying by morphological synapomorphies.

If this was arbitrary as you claim there wouldn't be a problem and people could simple arrange according to preference however comparative anatomy is a strict and detailed science which sadly you have no knowledge of but the arrogance to make a judgement on.

So the issue of acanthrotheres and hippos and their placement together has only the morphological is whether the ancestry is collateral (counsins, uncles) or Direct (Hippos are the direct descendents of ancathrotheres). Neither jeopardises the fact that whales and hippos are related in the literal sense of the word and both are irrelevent to the fact of whale evolution from (unspecified) land mammals in which the evidence is found in whales themselves and their more definiteively determinable ancestors.

Why you should have a problem with what the science literature finds relavent enough to write papers on, is beyond me.

Really? That concept is beyond you?

besides, you and I know you were caught lying.

But I wasn't. I made an error in failing to notice that the artistic reconstruction of Pakicetus was based on the scientific reconstruction but that wasn't a lie.

In fact you lied in claiming that Pakicetus was marked as transitional because it was thought to be aquatic despite the fact I listed the reasons Pakicetus was transitional before you stated this

I apologised for making a sincere minor error that none of my evidence depended on (I always used the accurate reconstruction in my evidence) and you lied about how that error was used not only by me but by the scientific community at large.

You accused a prediction made by a PhD was purposely dishonest and by extension insulted the National Centre for Science Education and the educated in general:

Those stupid people with their PHD's. She probably smokes pot too. lol

When I asked you to apologise for this did you apologise for this dishonesty the same way I apologised for my error? No. You have since ignored it and have tried to call me a liar since.

It is difficult to judge your character as having any kind of honour after this (especially since you went so far as to call PhDs stupid and accused one of being a drug addict) and it certainly solidifies the general assertion that not far under any person who opposed evolution to a high enough degree, there is a fundamentally bad person

You can keep you word games.
You said that I should have learned the difference between the words "accuracy" and "precision" in high school. Maybe now that you are barely out of high school, we can learn together. Below is a definition of the words accuracy and precision. I suggest you read them carefully ......

accuracy |ˈakyərəsē|
noun ( pl. -cies)
the quality or state of being correct or precise : we have confidence in the accuracy of the statistics.
"¢ the ability to perform a task with precision : she hit the ball with great accuracy.
"¢ Compare with precision .


precision |priˈsi zh ən|
noun
the quality, condition, or fact of being exact and accurate : the deal was planned and executed with military precision.
"¢ [as adj. ] marked by or adapted for accuracy and exactness : a precision instrument.
"¢ technical refinement in a measurement, calculation, or specification, esp. as represented by the number of digits given : this has brought an unprecedented degree of precision to the business of dating rocks | a precision of six decimal figures. Compare with accuracy .

Above was a colliquial and incomplete definition of either

A primer to, say, Stage 1 chemistry details how they are different and how it often occurs that (especially experiments in) science can have features that are accurate/ not precise, precise/ not accurate as well as both and neither accirding to strict definitions relevent to the field.

Because whale evolution deals with such a historical and forensic aspect this is to do with what we know and by extension what we know about the details.

For instance we have proven genetically beind any reasonable doubt that whales and hippos are related, how they are related with all of the intermediate and contemporary species we find around the time can not be precisely determined.

So, for instance this phylogenetic tree is entirely accurate:

But it leaves out extinct related species because there is no precise way to determine what is on the line as a paraphyletic ancestor or what is simply a transitional but monophyletic sidegroup.

The way that this order is objectively resolved and by extension the way the "harder" details have yet to be specifically resolved are both dependent on the testable framework of evolutionary theory.


If we were to do, say, what creationists do and start from scratch with the species presumed "unrelated" as seperate creations then we still have all the problems but with no way of resolving it and a whole other barrage of more serious problems created by all of this data indicating evolution and the conscious effort to ignore/ deny it.

Its simply a rule in every walk of live that the more detailed we explore something the harder the exploration becomes. To say this is a weakness of a specific science, let alone science itself, and to propose that the science which is working out the details should be discarded because it hasn't yet (let alone replacing it with somethign that doesn't work) is the single worse thing you cuold possibly do in regard to the situation.

I said that homology means similar, not Identical, and you said, it means neither.
Another definition below"¦..

homology |hōˈmälÉ™jÄ“; hÉ™-|
noun
the quality or condition of being homologous.
"¢ Biology similarity in sequence of a protein or nucleic acid between organisms of the same or different species.

Do you think that an undetailed and erroneous dictionary definition is enough to undermine a 200 year old reliable science?

To say that I got "caught with my pants down" on "lying" has itself become another specific lie to add to the combined history on the matter in antievolution. To use it as a tool to ignore and obfuscate against my evidence (long since buried behind all of this pointless rhetoric irrelevent to the topic)


I am curious as to your "evidence" regarding population genetics and population density in regards to evidence against the topic that whales could not have descended from land species.

I hope also that you can answer the important questions I asked in regard to my evidence

1. Why do whales have a complete gene toolkit for making legs which need to be secondarily switched off in development? (Except when the gene fails to switch off and the whale makes legs anyway)

2. Do you disagree that Pakicetus was a terrestrial mammal that swam and hunted in water and that I have always stated this was the case?

3. Do you accept that science is a self correcting process or insist that its mistakes are permanent?

4. Is the complete scientific agreement over the evolution of whales from land mammals from at least 1928 a sign of scientific incompetence or is it more likely that the flavour of the denialists indicate the opposite?

5. Where is your purported problem in the fossil sequence? Since you claimed there was and cited the erroneous representation of Pakicetus despite the fact I presented emperically recognisable sequences featuring the real Pakicetus reconstruction?

6. How unforgivably dishonest is it for some (unspecified) museum or indeed anybody to confuse this reasonably accurate scientific reconstruction based on a reasonable prediction:

with this reconstruction based on the newly available data?

7. Considering all the data that has been discovered, how come there hasn't been anything even close to a reasonable alternative hypothesis to the evolution of whales?

8. What can you say is a fact (not an argument or arbitrarily deemed unsatisfactory amount of data on a specific detail etc) that specifically deals with the evidence pertaining to whales descending from mammals

 

[benthemiester]

I read your response, but if you admit I didn't right that text, then why did you post it under"¦.. ben wrote this?
That makes absolutely no sense.

Here is a another definition of the word homology which I maintain means similarity and you say doesn't.

"¢ Earth-Science-Online-Dictionary
"¢
"¢ Homology (anthropology), analogy between human beliefs, practices or artifacts owing to genetic or historical connections
"¢ Homology (biology), similarities between the anatomy, nucleic or amino acid sequences / structures in organisms owing to shared
"¢

So the museums and the dictionaries that don't agree with you are wrong? Thats what I meant by saying nothing can contradict you, because you always come up with some silly excuse to try to squirm out of it.

You continue to maintain that you have answered my specific questions, yet you have provided nothing. I in fact have posted more of what was said in your citations than you did. Your own citations contradict you concerning conflicting data on relationships among different disciplines. You keep repeating the mantra that you have answered these questions and this mantra seems to be your evidence. You say it is a matter of identifying by morphological synapomorphies. Well I have showed you the initial problems, first with dental morphology being incorrect, and then with problems with associating relationships between acanthrotheres and hippos, which are as you say, related to whales through a common unknown ancestor.

In the paper I cited "Molecular Evidence for the Origin of Whales" Who do you side with? The paleontologist which rely on these same morphological synapomorphies, or the molecular evidence? The article says "¦"Despite the agreement of the results drawn of molecular studies performed on cetacean DNA, certain aspects of the origin of whales remain under dispute. Paleontologists maintain that whales should not be classified as artiodactyls and warn against drawing conclusions about the nature of whale ancestors" END


When I say keep it simple, I meant, please give clear answer, stop playing word games, and answer the freaking questions. You have not provided data that resolves these conflicting views. As for making errors, they are as harmless as misspelling a word, but you continued to stick to that error in spite of not only its logical fallacy, but also based only on your stubbornness and willful ignorance, which is the same as lying. You were adamant that the scientific community had nothing to do with it, and it was all the fault of the artist, and you continued to maintain this, and you still would if I had not contacted Gingerich himself which proved you were lying.
This is what you do. It is a part of your persona, and you continue to use deceptive measure to try to make your case. You didn't apologize to me, you apologized to your peers, and in went into damage control and tried to make it seem as though it was my fault for pressuring you on these so called tedious questions, and basically said, if it will shut me up you will admit to it. I don't care about that anymore. If you cant answer or refuse to respond to the more relevant questions, then that means you have no answers. Just keep saying you have already answered them. I'm sure if you continue to do that, in time you will come to believe it yourself.

You say I should apologize to these artist, but If anything, I helped clear the names of these same artists who you tried to blame and make look ignorant, and said publicly, they should have done their homework and done a better job of research. You got some nerve mate.
You and I both know that the Dreyer statement was a sarcastic response to your implications that the artists involved were to stupid to draw the correct interpretation.
You are a very deceptive twister of information. I don't think I will ever get a straight answer out of you. There are many honest evolutionist out there who have some great things to say. I have personally learned from many. Unfortunately you don't happen to be one of them. You are a lock step yes man who refuses to think critically concerning this hypothesis. Do me a favor, resolve this question I have repeatedly cited in this article above called "Molecular Evidence for the Origin of Whales" and I will be glad to try to respond to your questions. I think they are fair questions, but you have yet to answer my own questions which are equally fair.
I will not respond to number 6, because it is an inaccurate statement and not a question.

 

[ProcInc]

but if you admit I didn't right that text, then why did you post it under"¦.. ben wrote this?
That makes absolutely no sense.

It was merely a typo. Didn't you read the immediately preceding clause in which I introduced the clause by pointing out what I said?

It would only have made sense if I had made it anyway because I was the one trying to explain to you the difference between collateral ancestry and direct ancestry. This difference is the issue with determining relationships between extinct species. What isn't the issue is determining they are related

Here is a another definition of the word homology which I maintain means similarity and you say doesn't.

"¢ Earth-Science-Online-Dictionary
"¢
"¢ Homology (anthropology), analogy between human beliefs, practices or artifacts owing to genetic or historical connections
"¢ Homology (biology), similarities between the anatomy, nucleic or amino acid sequences / structures in organisms owing to shared
"¢

I almost fell into the trap of blame these resources for your mistakes.

If you remember I gave at least two detailed sources explaining exactly what homology is you seem to have all but ignored it.

(you left out the last word making the definition: structures in organisms owing to shared ancestry but I assume that was a copy error)

As the slides I showed earlier indicated as well as the captions, the similarity ambiguously alluded to here does not mean any old similarity but specific similarity in underlying structure. As it can clearly be demonstrated the closer related two species are the more actual similarity is contained therein, I should have made this more clear.

After all, a closer inspection of the kangaroo, wolf and Tassie Tiger reveals that the two marsupials are more objectively similar while the wolf is an outlier in which despite fitting the same niche as the wolf, it has innumerably more differences.

You can't deny this since the differences are listed clearly and carry over to the same comparison with a third marsupial.

So when I said homology doesn't mean similarity I should have protected against your efforts to misinterpret me by elaborating that it doesn't mean the simplistic version of similarity that you are trying to use.

In short you are merely using the equivocation fallacy.

So the museums and the dictionaries that don't agree with you are wrong? Thats what I meant by saying nothing can contradict you,

This is weird since you agree that museums can be wrong, in fact you go so far as to accuse them of lying for the sake of indoctrination (really?)

As for the dictionaries, when it comes to using colloquial terms vs scientific terms dictionaries can be notoriously misused by unscupulous individuals (For instance think of the term 'theory'). Before you attempted to misappropriate the term yourself I had already given you two links explaining the science of comparative anatomy as well as the Dover Slides which alone defused your erroneous opinion that the science was arbitrary.

You continue to maintain that you have answered my specific questions, yet you have provided nothing. I in fact have posted more of what was said in your citations than you did. Your own citations contradict you concerning conflicting data on relationships among different disciplines. You keep repeating the mantra that you have answered these questions and this mantra seems to be your evidence. You say it is a matter of identifying by morphological synapomorphies. Well I have showed you the initial problems, first with dental morphology being incorrect, and then with problems with associating relationships between acanthrotheres and hippos, which are as you say, related to whales through a common unknown ancestor.

Its funny that you keep accusing me of sharing nothing but opinion but then come out with opinions that are demonstrably wrong. It can't really be a mantra since every time you (ironically) repeat the mantra that your challenges stand unresponded I respond from a different angle in a futile attempt to be clearer to a creationist that simply doesn't want to understand..

In the paper I cited "Molecular Evidence for the Origin of Whales" Who do you side with? The paleontologist which rely on these same morphological synapomorphies, or the molecular evidence? The article says "¦"Despite the agreement of the results drawn of molecular studies performed on cetacean DNA, certain aspects of the origin of whales remain under dispute. Paleontologists maintain that whales should not be classified as artiodactyls and warn against drawing conclusions about the nature of whale ancestors" END

This is obviously outdated (You should have dated it too) since paleontologists are in agreement now that Whales are indeed artiodactyls or an immediate sister group to the artiodactyls. I guess the short answer is I side with the most updated and accurate evidence.

You can go back through old papers in any subjects and find different paradigms and arguments since refuted. It is outright dishonest to use them as a reflection of the current attitude.

I also gave a challenge as a response. Find an example post dating 2005 in which a paleontologist argues in contrast to the molecular evidence

When I say keep it simple, I meant, please give clear answer, stop playing word games, and answer the freaking questions.

I already did that. When I get asked for the fifth etc time I tend to lose interest ingoing into detail. All of my original responses are archived.

You have not provided data that resolves these conflicting views.

Yes I have, remember the artiodactylian ankle bone discovered in cetaceans such as Rhodocetus? Remember the evidence demonstrating the similarity in tooth structure to be an error based on convergent lifestyle?

As for making errors, they are as harmless as misspelling a word, but you continued to stick to that error in spite of not only its logical fallacy, but also based only on your stubbornness and willful ignorance, which is the same as lying.

Projection.

You were adamant that the scientific community had nothing to do with it, and it was all the fault of the artist, and you continued to maintain this, and you still would if I had not contacted Gingerich himself which proved you were lying.

Originally I pointed out that this was an artistic reconstruction of no scientific value (Which was true)

However, eventually you started to claim utter falsehoods such as the transitional nature of Pakicetus being based off the lifestyle it was reconstructed as living in the drawing as well as features such as the migrated nasal aperture (Which were utterly false)

You then took it further and accused the scientists of lying and conspiring with museums to brainwash kids into believing Pakicetus was transitional (which is strange since I was able to describe the transitional status of Pakicetus based on its accurate form)

It was an error (and a comparatively/absolutely minor one) to say that the scientists had no part in the artistic rendering (the three words I remember being used was a very mild "under my supervision"). But the fact still remains that it was of no scientific value and hardly worth apologising for.

I certainly didn't owe your apology since it was your lies pertaining to the motivation and use of the drawing that drew me into the other extreme. Yet you feel it justified to refer to me as a liar and don't believe for a second that you have been dishonest regarding this situation.

Nobody agrees with you on that sentiment.

tried to make it seem as though it was my fault for pressuring you on these so called tedious questions, and basically said, if it will shut me up you will admit to it. I don't care about that anymore. If you cant answer or refuse to respond to the more relevant questions, then that means you have no answers. Just keep saying you have already answered them. I'm sure if you continue to do that, in time you will come to believe it yourself.

Did I not point out from the beginning how pointless an angle it was to argue from? Not only can I say I already argued them but I can prove it. Your pointless blocks of text like this, your last message I am now responding to are doing their duty in burying the responses and evidence I gave but anybody can go back and find my exact and detailed answers. They have even copied them in their entirety for repost to show that they actually do exist.

In fact the opposite to your claim is happening. You want to repeatedly claim I haven't on the off chance that perhaps I believe it. I even stated in the peanut gallery after the exact response was quoted to prove it existed that I almost believed I was losing my mind in that you were so adamant I didn't upload something that I could so vividly remember uploading.

You say I should apologize to these artist, but If anything, I helped clear the names of these same artists who you tried to blame and make look ignorant, and said publicly, they should have done their homework and done a better job of research. You got some nerve mate.

Clear their names? I said the beginning that the errors were of no direct fault of the artist since what was found of the fossil was not sufficient for an accurate reconstruction. I even pointed out that Janet Dreyer's reconstruction indeed was accurate (and compared it with the completely accurate skull resonstruction to demonstrate it)

Funny how you can claim to have attempted to cleat the names of these artists and scientists (Whom I maintained made an honest an provisional error) by claiming they were deliberately dishonest.

You and I both know that the Dreyer statement was a sarcastic response to your implications that the artists involved were to stupid to draw the correct interpretation.

Oh really? it seemed more like a malicious jibe at those more educated than you. Your description of the NCSE seems to support that interpretation too. Either way it was done in poor taste and does indeed warrant an apology.

Alternatively this could simply be an example of Poe's Law. In which your "sarcastic statement" is geniunely indistinguishable form the kind of hate-driven diatribe you are likely to direct at scientists.

As for my implication that the artists were "too stupid to draw the correct interpretation" how do you take the fact I used Dreyer's reconstruction as an exampel of an accurate scientific reconstruction and take it to mean that?

Do me a favor, resolve this question I have repeatedly cited in this article above called "Molecular Evidence for the Origin of Whales"

I have done this once again earlier in the message. Or you can check out the post I made several days back which is also available quoted in full in the peanut gallery.

The answer is that the issue regarding the morphological and molecular harmony was resolved by the discovery of reliable morphological synapomorphies that concurred with the molecular data. The morphological data that created the issue (the teeth having similar shape and wear patterns to mesonychids) was an error based on the paradigm that carnivourous artiodactyls were unknown at the time of the discovery and so teeth adapted for meat (specifically fish) did not inspire consideration of a link to artiodactyls.

The sheer amount of literature detailing the harmony between these subjects is impossible to ignore as well as the total absence of this issue being revived by new incompatable data.

In short, you have taken a saga of science correcting itself and consequently strengthening an already undeniable scientific model and left out the bit when it corrected itself.

I have answered your questions. The fact I can do that must be confusing for you since you believe that science is so incompetent that it can't answer anything.

Your next question should be dedicated to answering my questions and not regaling in misrepresented events by which to judge my character.

I expect eight quote boxes containing the questions each followed by an answer with at least some scientific weight to them.

Also I believe you wanted to bring up an issue regarding population genetics? Yet you didn't. You wrote a lot without saying anything, you could have devoted at least some of the time and effort to following up on this claim

 

[benthemiester]

Once I pushed you on the way the artist interpretation was used you finally said this"¦..

"The artist (who wasn't a scientist but an artist) obviously didn't take the article's details or the sketch into account. On account of this a drawing based on the artist's limited understanding featured on the cover, contradicting what the scientists had already worked out"


and you go on to make up a story line and say this also......


"Now, this was a mistake (obviously of no fault of the scientists) and in no way discrediting of the reality of the transitional nature of Pakicetus"

"Although the drawing was not accurate nor endorsed by the scientific community, the popular media loved it and other reproductions were based off the artistic drawing and not Gingerich's (the guy who showed why it was transitional in the first place) predictions. Not because there is some kind of "conspiracy determined to brainwash kids into becoming darwinists" but simply a lack of research on their part"


You also challenged me to find an example from at least 2005 in which paleontologist argue in contrast to the molecular evidence.
I accept your challenge. The study below goes into great detail concerning the conflicting data between the disciplines already cited, and discusses the problems with many different alternative hypothesis that try to resolve these conflicting opinions. It also mentions disagreement with your citation, and goes on to say this"¦"¦ "It disagrees with Geisler and Uhen (33), "who obtained a clade (Hippopotamidae, Cetacea) that excludes all other artiodactyls. In fact, the latter result is not strongly consistent with paleontological data"

You can read the study in greater detail, and I think any one else who does, will have to come to the conclusion that the questions I asked which you continue to repeat were already answered, have in fact not been answered, and even more questions and conflicting data between these different disciplines are cited. You finally realized since you didn't have an answer, you decided to counter by challenging me to find conflicting data on any study as recent as 2005. Again here it is.

Evolution
The position of Hippopotamidae within Cetartiodactyla
Jean-Renaud Boisserie," "¡,§ Fabrice Lihoreau,"¡,¶ and Michel Brunet"¡

Journal List > Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A > v.102(5); Feb 1, 2005
"¢ Formats: Abstract | Full Text | PDF (348K)

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 February 1; 102(5): 1537-1541.
Published online 2005 January 26. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0409518102.
PMCID: PMC547867
Copyright ,© 2005, The National Academy of Sciences


My point is, in terms of relationships based on the empirical evidence we do or dont have, concerning Pakicetus, whales, & hippos which are all mentioned in citation given, are completely relevant concerning this hypothesis, and how much confidence these scientist truly have in them based on the scientific literature, as opposed to what major museums, science magazines, teaching journals, and sometimes even popular British professors with quaint English accents tell us.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

It never ceases to amaze me how ignorant some people can be in public.

The study below goes into great detail concerning the conflicting data between the disciplines already cited, and discusses the problems with many different alternative hypothesis that try to resolve these conflicting opinions

Benthemiester, did you even read your own citation or did you eagerly parrot this claim from some creationist propaganda mill? Anyone that reads your citation can plainly see that what you are claiming is false (besides being irrelevant to this discussion).

ProcInc has maintained from the beginning that hippos are the closes living relative to whales. ProcInc has also maintained that if we factor in extinct relatives, hippos and whales might not be exclusively a sister taxa. Your citation is exploring this problem. Allow me to demonstrate:

et al.[/i] (2005)"]However, the discovery of Pakistani early
cetaceans recently brought some conclusive anatomical support
to the clade Cetartiodactyla (29). Indeed, the astragali of these
fossil forms exhibit a distal trochlea, seen until now as an
unequivocal synapomorphy uniting all artiodactyls and absent in
mesonychians. As a consequence, the debate is now ready to
refocus on the relationships within the Cetartiodactyla. Morphologists
have already offered a variety of hypotheses, cetaceans
alternatively being assumed to be the sister group of all
artiodactyls (30, 31), of the ''anthracotherioids'' (29, 32), of the
Hippopotamidae (33), of the entelodonts (figure 2a in ref. 28),
or of the ruminants (figure 2b in ref. 28).

This was in the introduction. To be even clearer, the introduction also says this:

et al.[/i] (2005)"]Therefore, the present morphological
analysis aims to clarify the phylogenetic position of the Hippopotamidae
among artiodactyls.

If they are trying to clarify hippos among artiodactyls, they must be taking for granted that hippos are artiodactyls.

Now, if we look at their cladogram (as well as the body of the article), it supports exactly what ProcInc has been saying. Their cladogram places Hippos within Anthracotheres (an extinct clade) which make up a sister grouping with Archaeocetes (which gave rise to modern whales). Thus, hippos are the closes living relative to whales.

I maintain that the worse thing a creationist can ever do is cite their sources. This allows people to expose their ignorance and falsehoods with ease. In most cases, such as this one, it also demonstrates their poor reading comprehension skills.

 

[benthemiester]

It never ceases to amaze me how ignorant some people can be in public.

The study below goes into great detail concerning the conflicting data between the disciplines already cited, and discusses the problems with many different alternative hypothesis that try to resolve these conflicting opinions

Benthemiester, did you even read your own citation or did you eagerly parrot this claim from some creationist propaganda mill? Anyone that reads your citation can plainly see that what you are claiming is false (besides being irrelevant to this discussion).

ProcInc has maintained from the beginning that hippos are the closes living relative to whales. ProcInc has also maintained that if we factor in extinct relatives, hippos and whales might not be exclusively a sister taxa. Your citation is exploring this problem. Allow me to demonstrate:

et al.[/i] (2005)"]However, the discovery of Pakistani early
cetaceans recently brought some conclusive anatomical support
to the clade Cetartiodactyla (29). Indeed, the astragali of these
fossil forms exhibit a distal trochlea, seen until now as an
unequivocal synapomorphy uniting all artiodactyls and absent in
mesonychians. As a consequence, the debate is now ready to
refocus on the relationships within the Cetartiodactyla. Morphologists
have already offered a variety of hypotheses, cetaceans
alternatively being assumed to be the sister group of all
artiodactyls (30, 31), of the ''anthracotherioids'' (29, 32), of the
Hippopotamidae (33), of the entelodonts (figure 2a in ref. 28),
or of the ruminants (figure 2b in ref. 28).

This was in the introduction. To be even clearer, the introduction also says this:

et al.[/i] (2005)"]Therefore, the present morphological
analysis aims to clarify the phylogenetic position of the Hippopotamidae
among artiodactyls.

If they are trying to clarify hippos among artiodactyls, they must be taking for granted that hippos are artiodactyls.

Now, if we look at their cladogram (as well as the body of the article), it supports exactly what ProcInc has been saying. Their cladogram places Hippos within Anthracotheres (an extinct clade) which make up a sister grouping with Archaeocetes (which gave rise to modern whales). Thus, hippos are the closes living relative to whales.

I maintain that the worse thing a creationist can ever do is cite their sources. This allows people to expose their ignorance and falsehoods with ease. In most cases, such as this one, it also demonstrates their poor reading comprehension skills.

I strongly suggest you read the rest of the study. Shortly after your first cited paragraph, it goes on to say that paleontologist are still divided. The article goes on to speak of many different propositions and alternative hypothesis concerning relationships, and speaks of some of the logistical problems associated with them. The paragraph says.....
"However, the discovery of Pakistani early cetaceans recently brought some conclusive anatomical support to the clade Cetartiodactyla" (which is a fairly new made up hypothetical term and classification) and does not mean that paleontologist are on the same page. You are reading more into the context than what is being said, and shortly after your first cited paragraph, it goes on to say that paleontologist are still divided. As for your other cited paragraph. Of course they're trying to resolve these issues, thats a given. Your reading only what you want to read and ignoring the rest. One queen of denial is enough. No holding hands please Procinc is a big boy.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I strongly suggest you read the rest of the study.

I read the whole article; it is only four pages long. In fact, I will link the article to this thread (it is open source), that way anyone can read it and see for him or herself that you do not know a thing about what you are talking about.

Shortly after your first cited paragraph, it goes on to say that paleontologist are still divided. The article goes on to speak of many different propositions and alternative hypothesis concerning relationships, and speaks of some of the logistical problems associated with them. .

Correct, they are still divided on the relationship of hippos to their extinct relatives. Nowhere in that article does it discuss a disagreement of the relationship between whales and hippos. In fact, as I pointed out and you conveniently forgot to comment on, the article provides a cladogram (figure 2) in which, based on morphological characteristics, the authors conclude that whales and hippos are a sister taxa. I thought the point of citing this article was to demonstrate that there was a disagreement between morphological and genetic evidence?

ProcInc ask for a paper that disputed the accepted relationship between whales and hippos. You provided this article, which supports that relationship, and the authors come to that conclusion using morphological traits. Therefore, it appears we have another example of you shooting yourself in the foot. Perhaps you need to take the time to read the whole article.

The alternative hypotheses concerning relationships that you speak of are talking about hippos relationships with other extinct organisms, not whales.

The paragraph says.... "However, the discovery of Pakistani early cetaceans recently brought some conclusive anatomical support to the clade Cetartiodactyla" (which is a fairly new made up hypothetical term and classification) and does not mean that paleontologist are on the same page.

You whine and whine about how ProcInc never cites his sources and only provides opinions (a demonstrably wrong claim) yet you seem to provide no citations for the claim of Cetartiodactyla being a fairly new and made up hypothetical term and classification. What a double standard you have.

You are reading more into the context than what is being said, and shortly after your first cited paragraph, it goes on to say that paleontologist are still divided.

Really now? What am I reading into the statement that is not already there? Again, the statement is "However, the discovery of Pakistani early cetaceans recently brought some conclusive anatomical support to the clade Cetartiodactyla"¦" I guess the only thing I have to say is work on your reading comprehension skills.

Furthermore, I have already explained to you how the divisions between the paleontologists is not about the relationship between whales and hippos (again the article does a fine job showing that relationship). The division is between the relationship of hippos and other extinct animals; again, this is something ProcInc pointed out earlier.

 

[RedYellow]

I think Ben is practicing the sort of Intelligent Design debate tactic wherein one strongly avoids taking a solid alternative position and instead focuses on attacking evolution as an explanation for the evidence. He then looks for any small error at all in the opponent's position and just focuses on that as a distraction technique, drawing out pages of argument over a completely irrelevant detail to the debate in order to avoid the overall body of evidence. He also can't learn to use the quote function to save his life, and needlessly draws attention to obvious and honest mistakes made by his opponent .

 

[ProcInc]

@redyellow, the method is not unlike agnotology.

I will edit this post to include a response to ben but am limited by the capabilities of my mobile (cell) at the moment.

The next seven hours are devoted to the real world however...

Once I pushed you on the way the artist interpretation was used you finally said this"¦..

"The artist (who wasn't a scientist but an artist) obviously didn't take the article's details or the sketch into account. On account of this a drawing based on the artist's limited understanding featured on the cover, contradicting what the scientists had already worked out"


and you go on to make up a story line and say this also......


"Now, this was a mistake (obviously of no fault of the scientists) and in no way discrediting of the reality of the transitional nature of Pakicetus"

"Although the drawing was not accurate nor endorsed by the scientific community, the popular media loved it and other reproductions were based off the artistic drawing and not Gingerich's (the guy who showed why it was transitional in the first place) predictions. Not because there is some kind of "conspiracy determined to brainwash kids into becoming darwinists" but simply a lack of research on their part"

I'm glad you put it all together at once since it shows exactly how minor my error was.

The error I made was not realising that the artistic reconstruction was approved by Philip Gingerich...and that's it

nothing else in any of those statements is false and every one of the accusations you made regarding them still were false

You claimed

1. That Pakicetus was considered transitional because of features in the reconstruction, not only that but the assumption that Pakicetus could hear well underwater when in fact it was reported from the beginning that Pakicetus lacked specialised underwater hearing:

The point being, that it was considered transitional because it was thought to be aquatic

2. That the scientists/artists lied and or made the reconstruction in order to "make a case" for Pakicetus



3. That the reconstruction being initially inaccurate constitutes a "problem with the transitional sequence"

We seem to have certain problems with this supposed whale transition sequence, which is rarely mentioned. For example, the initial Pakicetus skull that was discovered, was fragmented. The majority of the the skull itself had to be reconstructed based on nothing more than assumptions. We now know based on subsequent fossils that the reconstruction of this skull was incorrect on a number of points

4. That I was (or should be?) trying to make a case of the transitional reality of Pakicetus based on the incorrect reconstruction

I noticed how you ignored the fact the new evidence overturned many of the original assumption of pakicetus, and your using the terrestrial drawing of it. Why is it that? Why not use the aquatic drawing also?.........

if your going to make a case for it being transitional, then it would be pretty lame to disqualify pakicetus by placing its blow hole in a place that wouldn't make much sense if your trying to prove your case.

(seriously, what was that about?)

All dead wrong and tantamount to your argument in oppose to my error which was inconsequntial to my initial point which nipped your objection in the bud despite your subsequent argument ad nauseum:

I need to make something absolutely clear here.

Pakicetus' significance as a transitional fossil was determined BEFORE ANY artist construction of their interpretation of what the fossil might look like. The study of the fossil and the evidence of the evolution of whales in no way USED the pictures as evidence, instead the paleoartists took the evidence they had and filled in the blanks with artistic licence. No serious scientist ever pointed at a picture and said "look how transitional it is". Inachus and Pakicetus in general is a transitional fossil in spite of what any paleoartist does or doesn't say. It may or may not look like what the artist reconstructed, but the intermediate morphology in the actual fossil is undeniable

And yet you tried to cover up your total lack of justification to deny the evolution of whales outside of your own silly general objections to a science you don't understand by trying to call me a liar? That's low, now show some evidence!

1. Pakicetus is a terrestrial animal that lived and hunted near water as well as a diagnistically determinable cetacean.

2. Pakicetus is a transitional form between artiodactyls and whales.

3. The reconstruction was not deliberately inaccurate

You also challenged me to find an example from at least 2005 in which paleontologist argue in contrast to the molecular evidence

.

Yes, and you couldn't have failed at that in a more deliciously ironic way but I was beaten to the punch of demonstating why.

My point is, in terms of relationships based on the empirical evidence we do or dont have, concerning Pakicetus, whales, & hippos which are all mentioned in citation given, are completely relevant concerning this hypothesis, and how much confidence these scientist truly have in them based on the scientific literature, as opposed to what major museums, science magazines, teaching journals, and sometimes even popular British professors with quaint English accents tell us.

According to the scientific literature, the relationship between Pakicetus, Hippos and whales has absolute confidence. You are referring to the confidence given to the relationship between Hippos and extinct species, which appears to be greater than that which you were and are trying to boast..

Also, the relationship between whales and hippos is relevent to the science of evolutionary theory in general (and by extension an understanding of biology) but it is not relevant to the topic of the long stagnated debate.

Besides, if you are trying to talk down whale evolution as a 'hypothesis' , remember that even if that were true there is still worse than a hypothesis. I.e. nothing; which of course is what you have.

That's why I won the debate (Not just according to my opinion nor the agreement of external observers but also the rules of debate which require staying on the subject and responding to/acknowledging points). You came into with nothing and exposed throroughly how your denial of evolution was entirely unjustified and a testament to how much of a clueless and uneducated fool you are.

P.S.

Remember that claim of yours that population genetics presents a problem for whale evolution? I'm curious as to when you intended to follow up on that:

Where did you get that absurd claim from anyway It wouldn't happen to be from this creationist presentation here would it?


Nah, I'm sure that's just a big coincidence, after all. You're not a creationist

 

[benthemiester]

You refuse to comment on citation and instead you resort to more hand waiving. The same kind of hand waiving Stewart Newman spoke of as mentioned in previous discussions. Richard Sternberg PhD is not a creationist, and not he is not even a proponent of ID. You would have known this with just a small amount of research. This seems to be a popular tactic among many who think like you do, which is to label anyone critical of the theory or of any popular hypothesis within the neo Darwinian synthesis as a nut case, who on his spare time jumps around to hillbilly music while handling rattles snakes. I think this says it all. It is to bad that you chose to ignore the harder questions or pretend that they are not relevant. The truth is, even if Sterneberg was even half as religious as was Newton, who believed in all kinds of different metaphysical constructs. including alchemy, sacred geometry, speculative freemasonry as well as Christianity, or if he believed in unicorns and leprechauns, my only concern would be, are his questions relevant, and not what his personel beliefs were.

Its to bad that you have chosen to cop out and acuse me of changing the subject when these questions are completely relavant to this subject. I would have loved to respond to your questions but why should I, and whats the use if you cant even grab the bull by the horns and give honest answers in response to my citations? I believe the the ten minute video is one of at least two that you might want to listen to. I would like to offer you a chalenge since you seem to have made these statements. Show me anytime he has referred to himself as a creationist or anytime in his lectures that he ever advocated creationism. Guilt by associating a common belief that the neo Darwinian synthesis is lacking and is limited in explaining life as we know it is not evidence, it is a cop out. Again Sterberg is not a creationist, and by publicly make the statement that he is, further proves that you are a liar.
If you cant even ger your facts straight and had to lie and make up stories concerning earlier authorized portrayal of Pakicetus and how it was all the medias fault, and as you have now also lied and made up stories concerning Sternerg, then I think that say's it all.
One consolation. You still have your choir to preach too. I'm sure your response will be something like...... according to your logic, he is a creationist.....and I'm the king of Spain. Yeah thats it.

 

[ProcInc]

"You refuse to comment on citation and instead you resort to more hand waiving."

"On citation"? I presume you meant the above the citation. Indeed I did comment on it by pointing out how much it was an embarrassment to you for failing to comprehend its content and posting something entirely supportive of my position believing it to be chronicling a current dispute between paleontologists and molecular biologists.

He_who_is_nobody already did such a good job pointing this out that I had nothing to add to it.

Richard Sternberg PhD is not a creationist, and not he is not even a proponent of ID. You would have known this with just a small amount of research.

Indeed so he says, but more than a small amount of research shows cracks in this reasoning.

For instance Sternberg for several years has sat on the Young Earth Creationist editorial board for the newsletter "Occasional Papers fo rthe Baraminology Study Group"

He also attended "Discontinuity: Understanding Biology in the light of creation", a creationist seminar held at "Cedarville University" in which he advocated process structualism (which ironically convetionally involves a non-darwinian model of common descent) but a strange version that is tied with Baraminology, pointing out also that some process structualists are striving to establish a "rational systematics""¦ that would reflect the 'Plan of Creation'." unsurprisingly making no effort whatsoever to distinguish himself from this group and lacking any kind of criticism to the choice of methodology and even terminolgy.

It's also worth brining up that he contributed a paper (a paper written specifcally for the Baraminology Study Group) to the conference "Discovering the Creator", a paper on...

wait for it....

WHALE EVOLUTION :shock:

Re your later challenge...how's that?

"This seems to be a popular tactic among many who think like you do, which is to label anyone critical of the theory or of any popular hypothesis within the neo Darwinian synthesis as a nut case, who on his spare time jumps around to hillbilly music while handling rattles snakes."

Not at all. Most of the time attempts surrounding the "criticism" of "neodarwinism" (When in fact it is the denial of evolution, or "molecules to man" as you call it even though that is one of two alternatives to evolution, the other being nothing to man) is very sophisticated and subversive, enough to dupe people with no formal education and an already present vested interest in denying evolutionary theory.

Certainly "Neo-Darwinism" is not considered sacrosanct, non-darwinian mechanisms are proposed, evaluated and accepted all the time, take Evo-Devo and Newman's Self-Organisation theory for instance. The only time is presents a problem is when the criticsms and propositions just aren't scientific.

I think this says it all. It is to bad that you chose to ignore the harder questions or pretend that they are not relevant.

But I acknowledged, addressed and answered all your questions as well as pointing out their irrelevency (for the expressed purpose of preemptively calling out against this accusation).

Others have expressedly identified exactly where I answered this. Somethign they could not do if they simply wanted to claim it because they supported my position and didn't answer the questions.

The truth is, even if Sterneberg was even half as religious as was Newton, who believed in all kinds of different metaphysical constructs. including alchemy, sacred geometry, speculative freemasonry as well as Christianity, or if he believed in unicorns and leprechauns, my only concern would be, are his questions relevant, and not what his personel beliefs were.

You appear to be under the impression that in order to be a creationist you must be expressedly religious..

I for instance acknowledge that you yourself are not religious (despite your attempts to describe bibloical archaeology as a successful science). It is easy to be a creationist or or general creckpot of any kind and not have an expressedly orthodox religious view behind it.

It helps but isn't mandatory, you yourself demonstrate that other catalysts can be an inflated ego or lack of education and or reading comprehension skills or merely a distrust of experts in fields you don't understand.

Its to bad that you have chosen to cop out and acuse me of changing the subject when these questions are completely relavant to this subject.

As I pointed out, although it is relevent to the subject of evolutionary biology in general it is not relevent to the topic that the evidence is incontrovertible that whales descended from land mammals.

If you had ever seriously debated before (Obviously your only experience is flame wars on Youtube) You would undertsand that a good debate topic does not presume anything or involve subtext you are expected to take aboard.

The confines of the topic technically allow for

-For the land mammals to be unrelated to every other species
-The land mammals to have appeared out of nowhere
-For the land mammals to be unspecified in every way
-For the descent to be any form of descent that isn't Darwinian, Neo-Darwinian or even according to the mechansms entailed within the truly modern theory of evolution

Just because it is a firmly established fact that whales share a common ancestor with hippopotami and evolved according to Neo-darwinian mechanisms as well as the various mechanisms covered in the Extended Synthesis (particularly Developmental Biology) doesn't mean they must be a part of the restricted topic. Obviously I wouldn't argue AGAINST these facts (as you foolishly do) but I or, if we had one, a moderator would have protected against diluting the debate with the meaningless techincalities.

I would have loved to respond to your questions but why should I

The actual question is how could you and its quite obvious that you can't. There isn't any reasonable answer to the questions pertaining to the evidence for whale evolution from land mammals that offers a reaonsable alternative (particularly question one)

and whats the use if you cant even grab the bull by the horns and give honest answers in response to my citations?

I have, what's more the way you asked that question implies I only had to do it once.

I believe the the ten minute video is one of at least two that you might want to listen to

I did but there isn't any argument behind it all, let alone any new evidence that discounts evolution. In fact the "lecture" appears to be somewhere between the argument from absurdity and the argument from incredulity.

It appears Sternberg is lying throughout it too because nobody who has studied Evolutionary Biology would misrepresent (or oversimplify at best) NeoDarwinian evolution (to say nothing of the more complex modern evolutionary theory) to such an extent outside of a vested interest in doing so.

. I would like to offer you a chalenge since you seem to have made these statements. Show me anytime he has referred to himself as a creationist or anytime in his lectures that he ever advocated creationism.

See above when I cover various of his affliations with Creatonist editorial boards and seminars.

Another angle to cover this challenge is to point out that you don't have to refer to creationism by name to advocate it, Take for example intelligent design proponents. The term intelligent design was expressedly invented for the purpose of advocting creationism with a different word!

So much has Intelligent Design been trounced in this same way that now the relabelling itself has been relabelled as "Sudden Emergence Theory".

Guilt by associating a common belief that the neo Darwinian synthesis is lacking and is limited in explaining life as we know it is not evidence

No, it is an argument accompanied by evidence.

Besides, "the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis is lacking" is old news. You can't seem to distinguish between somethign being incomplete and wrong.

After all the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis still includes every aspect of Neo Darwinian theory, it simply summarises the various extra mechanisms we have discovered which themselves

We can have a discussion on that instead of whale evolution if you like (I say instead of whale evolution despite the fact that conversation ended ages ago), I presume that through all your "interest" in the subject you actually own a copy of the book like I do.

You are still trying to mark me as a liar. I could go on about pots and kettles, splinters and planks and various forms of adhesive and vulcanised latex but through it all the only real result to take away from it is that Pakicetus is both accurately reconstructed and a transitional form in predicably diagnosed areas.

This was your one objection to the transitional sequence and it is no longer valid because we have had a good idea of Pakicetus' appearence for 11 years.

If you think there is too much...whatever surrounding Pakicetus then I refer back to when I offered that all reference to Pakicetus as a transitional form be (undeservedly) disallowed. There are still dozens of whale transitional forms which form a objectively identifiable transitional sequence.

One of the best being Protocetus, which, as I repeatly pointed out the happy irony of, actually resembles Karen Klitz's interpretation of Pakicetus. Except for the fact that Klitz's drawing was a competent swimmer but lived on land (much like Pakicetus) whereas Protocetus was at least predominantly aquatic

 

[fightofthejellyfish]

ben, please cite your sources. Please look up the definition of citation as opposed to quotation. Please use the quote function so that people can see what you are referring to.


You accuse someone else of Handwaving? How ironic.
Procinc has addressed every point you have brought up (at least when legible), and been forced to repeat them.

You on the other hand respond to this...

The fragmented skull (which I will henceforth refer to as inachus) was composed of a jaw fragment and the back of the skull including the all important ear bone.

TEETH

Inachus and indeed Pakicetus in general is slightly younger than sinonyx, a similar (and definitely terrestrial) mesonychid. Among the remains of inachus there was a good record of its teeth. The teeth were an explemplary transitional feature between Sinonyx and modern Odontoceti (or indeed later transitional forms which were undiscovered in 1981).

CRANIUM

Contrary to your claim, the scientific reconstruction of inachus did in fact include the sagittal crest ( see Gingerich et al 1983). A number of artistic reconstructions by non scientists may or may have left it out but since you give no examples what reason do we have to believe that?

The fact of the matter is that the elongated cranium of inachus/Pakicetus in general as well as the prescence of a prominent sagittal crest as well as lambdoidal crests. All of these are definitive and exclusive traits of whales.

EAR BONES

Though the cranium is indicitively 'Whalian' the ear bones are even more fascinating because they are a mosaic of whale-like and land-lubber traits. In others words perfectly intermediate.

At first the ear bones were so definitively whalelike that the obvious conclusion to draw from the data is that Pakicetus must have been well adapted to the water (remember this bit). However Gingerich also pointed out the lack of specialisation to an aquatic environment (hence the transitional nature of the fossil).

...with blow holes and reconstructions.

You've made it clear that you will never explicitly admit when you're wrong.

but one thing that I would hate to have happen to me, is to get caught with my pants down, and have to publicly retract a whole week of bullshit because I was caught lying

Shall we take your repeated refusal to address the actual points raised (i.e. teeth, cranium, ear bones) as an implicit admission that these were sufficient evidence to infer that pakicetus is ancestral to modern whales.

 

[benthemiester]

I think it is you who has cracks in his reasoning. I knew you would try to use guilt by association. First of all, Sternberg has been a friendly critic of the creationist group you mentioned, and has went on record as being skeptical of their views. Maybe the word friendly angers you. Secondly, you failed to mention that he has two PhDs. The first from 1995 in molecular evolution from Florida International University and that he did post-doctoral work between 1999 and 2001 at the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institution and obtained a 3 year appointment as an unpaid research collaborator at the NMNH. The only timed anyone complained was when he published a peer review paper that Meyer's wrote. Thirdly,You have not proven why his questions are irrelevant. Fourthly, Sternberg subscribes to process structuralism. Even you have admitted that this is what his belief is in. The only difference is, you use this quote below as means to try to prove your deception, which is a classical example of quote mining, which simply means quoting someone out of context"¦.

"Some structuralists are striving to establish a "rational systematics""¦ that would reflect the 'Plan of Creation'." Nowhere does he say that he is one of those people, and as I have said in the past, he remains skeptical.

Wikipedias definition of process structuralism"¦..
Biological or process structuralism is a school of biological thought that deals with the law-like behavior of the structure of organisms and how it can change.
Structuralists tend to emphasize that organisms are wholes, and therefore that change in one part must necessarily take into account the inter-connected nature of the entire organism. Whilst structuralists are not necessarily anti-Darwinian, the laws of biological structure are viewed as independent and ahistorical accounts that are not necessarily tied to any particular mechanism of change. A structuralist might thus hold that Darwinian natural selection might be the driving force behind how structures change, but nevertheless be committed to an extra layer of explanation of how particular structures come into being and are maintained.
Typical structuralist concerns might be self-organisation, the idea that complex structure emerges out of the dynamic interaction of molecules, without the resultant structure having necessarily been selected for in all its details. For example, the patterning of fingerprints or the stripes of zebras might emerge through simple rules of diffusion, and the resulting unique structure need not have been selected for in its finest details. Structuralists look for very general rules that govern organisms as a whole, and not just particular narratives that explain the origin or maintenance of particular structures. The interplay between structural laws and adaptation thus govern the degree to which an adaptationist account can fully explain why a particular organism looks as it does. END

As for the evolutionary biologist who attended the Altenberg summit and who have also questioned the limitations of the Darwinian synthesis, as well as proposing self organization models. Should we call these men creationist also? Remember, Newman even criticized the Dover trial and many of his own peers for hand waiving arguments and for telling people to believe thing that were simple not true, as documented in my video containing his interview. With great leaps of imagination and absolutely no evidence I could lie and try to make a case for them being closet case creationist also, but I would rather stick to the real world.

Many non creationist scholars who have been critical or skeptical of creationism, and have proposed their own theories, have also attended creationist debates, meetings and talk groups. That does not automatically qualify them as creationist. Should we apply this same standard of marginalizing someones scientific observation because they happen to be atheist? Maybe according to this logic we should only trust and take the words of the scientific interpretations of agnostics.

At best, all you can do is accuse Sternberg of is being open minded, and you have no more evidence to prove that he is a creationist than you do to prove the late former atheist Anthony Flew, or current atheists Professor Thomas Nagel, Professor of Philosophy at New York University or Dr. Bradley Monton. University of Colorado are or were also creationist. These men also believe that ID is a viable alternative theory, even if they are not ID proponents themselves.
i know that this is completely off topic but I had to correct you and your flawed logic. You have failed to prove he is creationist. I wish you wouldn't lie so much, because it has taken up so much time, when we could have been discussing more relevant topics. Again, his questions concerning this hypothesis are completely fair and relevant.
The fact that these questions raise points that are difficult for this hypothesis and rarely or never mentioned in the literature, is the part that you dont like, because with all the cheerleading and grandstanding going on, these relevant questions have never even entered your mind.

 

[benthemiester]

fightofthejellyfish Thanks for reminding me that Procnic said


"Inachus and indeed Pakicetus in general is slightly younger than sinonyx, a similar (and definitely terrestrial) mesonychid. Among the remains of inachus there was a good record of its teeth. The teeth were an explemplary transitional feature between Sinonyx and modern Odontoceti (or indeed later transitional forms which were undiscovered in 1981)"

a similar (and definitely terrestrial) mesonychid a similar (and definitely terrestrial) mesonychid a similar (and definitely terrestrial) mesonychid

Wikipedia.......
Mesonychids possess unusual triangular molar teeth that are similar to those of Cetacea (whales and dolphins), especially those of the archaeocetids, as well as having similar skull anatomies and other morphologic traits. For this reason, scientists had long believed that mesonychids were the direct ancestor of Cetacea, but the discovery of well preserved hind limbs of archaic cetaceans as well as more recent phylogenetic analyses[3][4][5] now indicates that cetaceans are more closely related to hippopotamids and other artiodactyls than they are to mesonychids, and this result is consistent with many molecular studies.[6] Most paleontologists now doubt the idea that whales are descended from mesonychids, and instead suggest that whales are either descended from or share a common ancestor with the anthracotheres, the semi-aquatic ancestors of hippos.[7] However, the close grouping of whales with hippopotami in cladistic analyses only surfaces upon deletion of Andrewsarchus, which has often been included within the mesonychids.[8][9] One possible conclusion is that Andrewsarchus is not a mesonychid, but rather closely allied with hippopotamids. The current uncertainty may in part reflect the fragmentary nature of the remains of some crucial fossil taxa, such as Andrewsarchus.[8]

Again thanks fightofthejellyfish for reminding me of pronics inconsistencies. I appreciate the help.

 

[benthemiester]

FIGHTOFTHEJELLYFISH Thanks for pointing out another lie that I happened to catch below.......


"The fact of the matter is that the elongated cranium of inachus/Pakicetus in general as well as the prescence of a prominent sagittal crest as well as lambdoidal crests. All of these are definitive and exclusive traits of whales."


These traits are not exclusive to whales, and many animals have prominent sagittal and lambdoidal crest. Please keep them coming fightofthejellyfish, with all that is written I sometime lose track of all the BS.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

FIGHTOFTHEJELLYFISH Thanks for pointing out another lie that I happened to catch below.......


"The fact of the matter is that the elongated cranium of inachus/Pakicetus in general as well as the prescence of a prominent sagittal crest as well as lambdoidal crests. All of these are definitive and exclusive traits of whales."


These traits are not exclusive to whales, and many animals have prominent sagittal and lambdoidal crest. Please keep them coming fightofthejellyfish, with all that is written I sometime lose track of all the BS.

It does not seem possible that anyone can be this obtuse.

Are you ever going to address my comments on your citation? Or was fightofthejellyfish correct to point this out:

You've made it clear that you will never explicitly admit when you're wrong.

but one thing that I would hate to have happen to me, is to get caught with my pants down, and have to publicly retract a whole week of bullshit because I was caught lying

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Since I am bored. I was waiting to do this when you responded, but it seems you will not. You would rather obfuscate.

"It disagrees with Geisler and Uhen (33), "who obtained a clade (Hippopotamidae, Cetacea) that excludes all other artiodactyls. In fact, the latter result is not strongly consistent with paleontological data"

Benthemiester offers this quote from the article "The position of Hippopotamidae within Cetartiodactyla" as evidence that there is a dispute between paleontologists and molecular biologists about whale evolution. However, let us look at the quote in full.

Although the main focus of this study was the immediate
relationships of the Hippopotamidae, the inclusion of two
archaeocetes in the analysis constituted an attempt to verify the
position of Cetacea within artiodactyls. The obtained clade
[archaeocetes, (Anthracotheriidae, Hippopotamidae)], even
though it is weakly supported (Fig. 2), is congruent with molecular
data linking modern whales and hippos. This result also
provides a broader morphological support to previous suggestions
of a close relation between anthracotheres, hippos, and
cetaceans (11, 29, 35, 64). It disagrees with Geisler and Uhen
(33), who obtained a clade (Hippopotamidae, Cetacea) that
excludes all other artiodactyls. In fact, the latter result is not
strongly consistent with paleontological data. Indeed, the time
gap between the earliest hippos (at most 15.7 million years,
according to ref. 65) and the oldest known cetaceans (53.5
million years, ref. 66) implies that, during its first 35-40 million
years, the hippo lineage failed to leave any fossil record. On the
contrary, the phylogenetic hypothesis advocated here dramatically
reduces this gap to12 million years (35) because the oldest
known anthracotheriids are from the upper middle Eocene from
southeastern Asia (67). In fact, according to several authors (58,
68, 69, 70), the Helohyidae could be the sister group of the
Anthracotheriidae. Given that Helohyus was found in northern
America in the lower middle Eocene (69), the time discrepancy
between the oldest cetaceans and this potential oldest known
representative of the hippo-anthracotheriid lineage could be no
more than 3 million years.

I have underlined the part benthemiester quoted.

As anyone can plainly see, this paper is not disputing the relationship of whales and hippos. This paper is discussing the relationship between hippos and other extinct creatures. The disagreement between Boisserie et al. and Geisler & Uhen is not about the hippos' relationship with whales, but the hippos' relationship with extinct fauna. Geisler & Uhen believe that whales and hippos form a sister clade excluding the extinct fauna while Boisserie et al. believe that hippos form a monophyletic group within the Anthracotheres, which is a sister taxa to whales (figure 2 of the paper).

I believe this could be an example of quote mining from benthemiester, because it is obvious that benthemiester needed to read that paragraph, pick out two lines from it and try to spin it in away to make it appear that Boisserie et al. were disagreeing with Geisler & Uhen about the relationship between whales and hippos.

Again, no one can be this obtuse.

 

[kenandkids]

Again, no one can be this obtuse.

I'm fairly certain that we have had numerous examples that people CAN be this obtuse.

 

[fightofthejellyfish]

benthemiester,

I am not particularly knowledgeable on comparative mammalian anatomy, but then I'm not trying to claim I know better than the people who are. People who's findings have been presented in many of the studies referenced.

I was simply pointing out the irony of your choice of the phrase Handwaving. It is even funnier now that you choose to continue to avoid addressing the point, instead desperately trying to find any flaw in your opponents wording. This is not the action of a man with a case to make.

Clearly, it would seem, we can take it as an implicit admission that the features of pakicetus are positively indicative of whale ancestry. Otherwise you would make the case as to why they are not.

Now I wouldn't want you to run away because you're being ganged up on, so unless you address me directly I'll reserve my comments for the peanut gallery.