Peanut Gallary for “’Debate’ (sort of): The Origin..."

[he_who_is_nobody]

I am creating this thread for the onlookers of "'Debate' (sort of): The Origin and Evolution of Whales" will be able to comment without interrupting the "debate".

I believe there is no doubt that I have established the fact that Pakicetus was originally put forth as an aquatic creature, even though you at first denied that it was.

True, you have established that Pakicetus was thought to be an aquatic creature. No one is arguing against that. However, nowhere has Proclne claimed it was not an aquatic creature:

-Pakicetids (Water tolerant land dwellers)
-Ambulocetids (Water comepent land dwellers)
-Kutchicetids (Amphibious whale-like 'land' mammals)
-Remingnocetids (increasingly whale-like amphibious mammal)
-Rhodocetids (Land tolerant aquatic mammals)
-Maiacetids (aquatic mammals with Land tolerance and birthing)

I cited the original reconstruction of skull as proof, as well as drawings and articles in the Journal of Geological Science Education. I even cited article from writer of the Smithsonian institute who stated in 2008, and even today, the reconstructed incorrect skull is still represented in many publications an museums. He emailed me after I contacted him, and he reconfirmed what he said in article. You then went on to imply that it was irrelevant because this happened thirty years ago, which by the way, is when the original case was made for it being transitional, which simply means, you missed the whole point.

Again, this was irrelevant because:

Is your argument still Pakicetus drawing 1983 wrong=whale evolution wrong?

What theory are you accusing me of still "clinging to" in spite of the evidence?

Since the evidence clearly supports the evolution of whales I must be "clinging" to something else. Furthermore, as the argument you are trying to make is that the 1983 reconstruction of Pakicetus was inaccurate you must be trying to accuse me of clinging to the original reconstruction.

The point being, that it was considered transitional because it was thought to be aquatic, and could possibly hear under water based on its ear structure, and thats what was expected of a transitional.

Wrong again:

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).

So the "assumptions" of the paleoartist's (though not the paleontologist's who had made a more technical reconstruction for their 1983 paper) reconstruction were well founded and after the later discoveries allowed for a far more accurate reconstruction the transitional status of Pakicetus was even more striking, not discredited.

Now that we know it was a terrestrial mammal, and was not adapted for hearing under water, you still claim that this is what is expected. That is what I meant by a broad goal post. We cant let the facts get in the way of the theory can we?

It appears obvious to anyone that would read the "debate" that you are completely unaware of the facts behind Pakicetus and whale evolution. Arguing ad nauseam does not make a strong case.

And please, I thought it was a typo at first and ignored it but you do it it consistently so:

your=belonging to you (eg. this is your fork, your dinner is done)

you're= you are (eg. you're going to the movies? I bet you're going to enjoy it!)

Please correct this.

This is coming from someone that knows English is his worse subject.

Neither of you have had particularly stunning grammar or spelling in this "debate". I think this is very petty of you to point this out.

Stick to the facts.

 

[Memeticemetic]

Meh. I don't see much discussion happening about this mockery of a debate. I see benthemiester has, yet again, simply reasserted his original claim without even addressing any of the rebuttals or criticisms. I admire ProcInc's tenacity for continuing to try to explain things to him but ben seems simply dead set on not understanding what he's being told.

 

[ProcInc]

Is there any greater an effort I can make to lead the debate away from less of a mockery?

And yes the your/you're thing was petty but it's (it is) one of my pet hates and it was really beginning to get on my nerves. I can deal with typos and hastily written grammar but it became clear he didn't know the rule after so long.

 

[Duvelthehobbit666]

Is there any greater an effort I can make to lead the debate away from less of a mockery?

And yes the your/you're thing was petty but it's (it is) one of my pet hates and it was really beginning to get on my nerves. I can deal with typos and hastily written grammar but it became clear he didn't know the rule after so long.

The best way would be to ask a moderator to limit the posting to only you and benthemiester.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Is there any greater an effort I can make to lead the debate away from less of a mockery?

You are doing fine. The only reason this "debate" is a mockery is because you are having it with a creationist.

All you have to do is keep your cool and let the evidence speak for itself.

 

[ProcInc]

I initially gave Ben the option to make it a formal debate but he has evaded the option. I'm ot sure he is even aware of what the topic is at this point. He seems very confused.

If we can actually make some progress beyond this silly Pakicetus thing I will revive the option.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I just have to point out a few things.

If this is true, then why was Pakicetus considered a transitional fossil, when the nasal aperture was placed farther back and not in the front. It seems to me, 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. Please explain. I would love to hear this. Your responses can be very entertaining sometimes.

It seems you left out the whole quotation.

Argument ad nauseam. This was answered on the 14th.

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).

So the "assumptions" of the paleoartist's (though not the paleontologist's who had made a more technical reconstruction for their 1983 paper) reconstruction were well founded and after the later discoveries allowed for a far more accurate reconstruction the transitional status of Pakicetus was even more striking, not discredited.

Janet Dryer is also a member of the NSCE and a scientist with a PHD in molecular biology as well as an artist. Those stupid people with their PHD's. She probably smokes pot too. lol

Your a funny guy. SImple adorable.

Argument from authority. Just because someone has a PhD, does not mean they are qualified to do everything. As you even admitted, Dr. Janet Dryer is a molecular biologist, which means she has no formal training in anatomy.

You implied that the record has been since been set straight, but according to ucmp.berkeley.
Pakicetus (right) is a Middle Eocenearchaeocete from the Kuldana Formation of Pakistan; it is currently the earliest known well-preserved cetacean, and the archaeocete features are clearly visible in this replica skull from UCMP's collections. Pakicetus is so far known only from its skull, but recent finds in Pakistan have produced other whale species that show very primitive characters in both the skull and the rest of the skeleton. These animals had relatively well developed limbs, but were aquatic. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/cetacea/cetacean.html

It is still using outdated information.

Quote mine. Let us see what was actually said.

Pakicetus (right) is a Middle Eocene archaeocete from the Kuldana Formation of Pakistan; it is currently the earliest known well-preserved cetacean, and the archaeocete features are clearly visible in this replica skull from UCMP's collections. Pakicetus is so far known only from its skull, but recent finds in Pakistan have produced other whale species that show very primitive characters in both the skull and the rest of the skeleton. These animals had relatively well developed limbs, but were aquatic. Rodhocetus, a recently discovered archaeocete from Pakistan, was a few million years younger than Packicetus. Rodhocetus had well-developed hind limbs (although only the thighbone, or femur, has been preserved), but unlike land mammals, Rodhocetus did not have its vertebrae in the pelvic region fused together into a sacrum. Early whales such as Rodhocetus show many similarities with an early group of land mammals known as mesonychids, which are also close to the root of the hoofed mammals. In fact, some fossil teeth that were once identified as mesonychids are now known to have come from archaeocetes.

One of the worse things a creationist can do is site their sources, it makes it easy to debunk their claims. As anyone can see, they are talking about Creatures that came after Pakicetus, such as Rodhocetus. This means that you are incorrect about Berkeley using out dated information.

In addition, remember, quote mining is a form of lying and I remember someone saying some pretty harsh words about lying earlier.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Ben, Janet Dreyer (not Dryer) reproduced THIS drawing originally from Gingerich:

That is the accurate drawing, I already covered this:

The inaccurate artwork on the front cover of science was drawn by Karen Klitz

I do believe benthemiester is referring to Dr. Janet Dreyer's drawing. The reason being he has already cited this blog post, "Photo of the Day #128: An outdated Pakicetus skull" where the author points out how the original drawing was off.

While still not entirely complete, the newer skull material shows that the reconstruction pictured above is incorrect on a number of points, the most easily-recognizable difference being that the old reconstruction has the nasal apeture placed too-far back. The position of the eyes between the old & new reconstructions has also changed, and the newer skull shows the presence of a sagittal crest lacking in the older reconstruction.

Brian Switek is correct about the nasal aperture being placed to far back. It turns out it should be two to three centimeters forward from where it is placed in the original 1983 reconstruction. It also appears he is correct about the eyes. They look like they should be at the top of the head and not the side. However, I do not understand why Switek claims that the sagittal crest was lacking in the old reconstruction. That part of the skull was based on the actual fossil and anyone can plainly see from the 1983 article that the sagittal crest is present.

However, I have to once again point out that the white lines in the original 1983 paper carry no weight except for as a prediction for what the fossil should look like. It seems that they were able to reconstruct a fairly accurate skull based on fragments. Look at the newer, more complete skull compared to the 1983 one.

It was not far off. Again, this is why people go to school and study anatomy.

 

[Duvelthehobbit666]

Why hasn't this been shown?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

PROCINC I suggest you read this thread very closely because I will demonstrate how you have lied to me and in front of all your counterparts . You cannot claim ignorance as a defense anymore. I just received an email reply from Gingrich, and I will post it at the bottom of the thread.

Very bold claim. Let us see if you can back it up.

Again you contradict yourself in above statement by saying, it was already considered a transition, even when the nasal aperture was thought to be farther back than up in front .

This is pathetic. Benthemiester, it was never thought to be transitional because of the nasal aperture. It was thought to be transitional based on:

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).

So the "assumptions" of the paleoartist's (though not the paleontologist's who had made a more technical reconstruction for their 1983 paper) reconstruction were well founded and after the later discoveries allowed for a far more accurate reconstruction the transitional status of Pakicetus was even more striking, not discredited.

And again, the artist was PHD scientist Janet Dreyer.

Again, the drawing made in Gingerich et al. (1983) was only meant to be a prediction of what the rest of the skull should look like. As I have already explained they were not to far off.

The aquatic drawings of Pakicetus diving for fish, which were featured in journals, popular science magazines and even museum exhibits, were drawn by Karen Klitz.
I sent an email to Gingrich and tried to set the record straight and here is his reply.
I have even left in my real name and email.

Again, Karen Klitz drawing was never used as evidence of anything. It does not matter how much you try to dress this up. It does not matter if in 1983 Gingerich thought Pakicetus looked like that. It seemed to be his opinion and never used as evidence.

Yes Karen Klitz painted the Science cover working under my supervision. P.

I think this makes my point, and demonstrates your lack of intellectual honesty on this matter. Remember I use this tone only because of the tone you set at the beginning.

Your point was to demonstrate, in front of all his counterparts that ProcInc was lying. What you have shown is that ProcInc was incorrect in assuming that Gingerich had no hand in the Klitz drawing. That is very different from what you set out to do.

There are a lot nicer ways of calling someone dishonest, but again you set the tone. On the brighter side, which is the side I would really like to take, but still not sure, is it could just be your lack of knowledge on the way the real world of science works. Its not always so squeaky clean and proper.

The arrogance of this statement is stunning. You seem unwilling to move forward from this one claim. You are correct, as it appears. Gingerich had a hand in the creation of the Klitz drawing. However, that drawing was never meant to be evidence, making this a moot point. Please move on and address some of the points ProcInc has made.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

This is pathetic.

Lets analyze this so called logic of yours. Yes, the skull that Dawkins is using in the video cited which you can find her at, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o92x6AvxCFg&feature=email&email=comment_reply_received is indeed the correct skull, there is no doubt about it, however this substantiates my point all the more, because if you look closely at the diagram that represents the way Pakicetus looked in real life/its morphology, you will see that he is using the aquatic representation of Pakicetus swimming with webbed feet. Its one thing to claim ignorance based on an inaccurate skull and limited evidence, but there is no excuse when you have all the evidence yet still attempt to deceive people. You and I both agreed it was a terrestrial animal, and so do other scientist.

Science is not based on pictures and drawings. The evidence for Pakicetus being transitional is based on the actual fossil and has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions.

Furthermore, ProcInc has maintained from the beginning that Pakicetus was a terrestrial creature, at least as terrestrial as a tapir.

You see, unlike you, I don't just make a personal statement, and then put (Gingerich 83 at the end of it, as to qualify my personnel opinion.

Citing a claim with a relevant reference is far from qualifying an opinion. Placing the name of the author(s) and date of the publication at the end of a sentence is a common way of citing sources. Have you ever read a scientific paper/book before?

As for your citation Geisler, J.H. and Uhen, M.D. (2005). "Phylogenetic relationships of extinct cetartiodactyls: results of simultaneous analyses of molecular, morphological, and stratigraphic data". Journal of Mammalian Evolution
This speaks nothing of the conflicting data between paleontologist and molecular biologist which I have already cited and which you have failed to address.

Yes, ProcInc did address this:

RESPONSE TO POST TWO

.

another demonstration of molecular evidence not correlating to dental characteristics/ homology.

This is just entirely wrong, so much I don't know where to start. The morphology and genetics don't contradict each other. I stated only a few lines ago how the basal mesonychids and artiodactyls resemble each other morphologically and this is confirmed though genetic sequencing.

Because of the similarity it took genetic sequencing to realise which of the two groups was ancestral (especially since mesonychids like indohyus were showing Pakicetus-like adaptions to water).

Also in order to use this argument you would need to accept that genetic evidence reveals that whales and hippopotami are related beyond reasonable doubt. That's interesting...

In other words basal mesonychids, artiodactyls and whales all had dentition that resembled each other (they are all closely related genetically and share a common ungulate ancestor) and we only had genetic sequences available for artiodactyls (i.e. Hippos) and whales so the precise layout was previously unknown to an accurate degree:

(i.e. were artiodactyls or mesonychids the outgroup?)

However, the evidence (the evidence being a strong transitional sequence that you are forced to deny in order to maintain your assertions anyway) for the correct link came from the transition evidence in the ankle bones:

Of a recently discovered species (Rodhocetus balochistanensis), the ankle bones were recovered, further strengthening the already well-founded link to artiodactyls, and weakening the link to mesonychids.

(Image contains the ankle bones of Rodhocetus balochistanensis, Antilocapra americana and Artiocetus clavis)

Work on your reading comprehension.

It is you who has tried to manipulate the evidence. Dawkins is a very intelligent man. He knows that if he were to use this diagram in one of his books, he would be crucified, maybe by even some of his own. He knows he can get away with it in simple youtube videos and claim it was the only chart around at the time or some other BS.

What evidence is being manipulated? In addition, again, diagrams are not scientific evidence; the evidence has already been pointed out to you numerous times as to why Pakicetus is transitional. Please get your head out of the sand and get over this molehill.

 

[ProcInc]

I thought I was getting Alzheimer's and only thought I uploaded all this information. Ben seemed so sure I didn't.

Good to know that I haven't gone insane just yet.

though If this "debate" goes on much longer I may well do

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Good to know that I haven't gone insane just yet.

though If this "debate" goes on much longer I may well do

Argumentum ad nauseam will do that to you. In order to keep your sanity you should just quote yourself back at him. There is no point in rewriting everything over again, not when the information is already posted.

By the way, you need to fix your last post.

 

[ProcInc]

Fixed. Thankyou

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

The drawing shows Pakicetus with webbed feet swimming. He says that Pakicetus in what he calls gradually loosing hind legs. He could have pointed to Ambulcetus which still had powerful legs for moving on land, but none the less he includes Pakiceus with its webbed feet drawn in.

I wonder what benthemiester's opinion is about Ursus maritimus.

Powerful legs for walking on land.

Yet webbed feet for swimming.

This seems to be an animal benthemiester would argue could not exist based on all his objections about Pakicetus (e.g. webbed feet and able to walk on land).

Another big deception is that we were told for years that our DNA is 98% the same as apes, yet based on newer data, and when we count in factors that were unknown, ignored or once thought to be useless junk, we find that the differential is around 70%.

I find it hilarious that you make such a big deal about citing sources yet provide nothing to support this one. The reason I think you did not cite anything is because you already tried this claim here and were called out on it and shown why you were wrong.

It is amazing how you will still cling to this as evidence even after it was demonstrated to be wrong months ago.

ProcInc, in my opinion, I think you need to start listing your citations at the end of your posts. There is nothing wrong with your in text citations, but you need something like a MLA citation system at the end of each post. It does not have to be that special.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I have pointed out in past conversations that there are many problems with evolutionary homology and inference, and I can show more if you like.
You keep saying that the molecular data and the fossil data confirm the same results. I have shown documentation that disputes this. You have said that this conflict has been resolved, and then try to qualify your statement by giving a name and a year, as if thats all thats needed. Anyone can do that. Why dont you do what I do, and actually print what is being said. Instead you give statements based on your own un proved opinion. Please tell me how and why this evidence was cleared up. Show me in writing as to how everyone is on the same page and in agreement. You said this was the most confirmed theory in science, and the whale hypothesis had a stunning degree of accuracy. You couldn't answer the harder questions concerning relation to hippos, or the logistic problems that come with it. You just have faith that a long time ago an unknown common ancestor existed. You then made up your mind and said to yourself, well if the fossil evidence isn't need for me to prove my case for this relationship, and since I don't have any evidence for man and his supposed common ancestor with apes, then Ill use that lack of evidence as evidence also, and Ill use it in analogy. So now when Ben ask for the evidence. Your response will be,...... theres tons of evidence, you just hate science.

Simon says, Simon didn't say, is a popular game among children in the US. If you go here, there is a ten year old little girl that will show you how to play it. One of the benefits is that it helps with listening skills and simple logic. I suggest you take a look. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyX2lvRPqIA
I was hoping that when we got into this debate you would offer more than just your opinions.
There is also another alternative, which really is related to my alternative, and one which you have not entertained, and that is, for all we know these creatures could be nothing more than just an unrelated extinct group of animals. As I pointed out before, the anatomical similarities were known about the Twolf and the American wolf for a long time, and they were much more closer in resemblance, yet unrelated. In that case they were considered analogous, or a result of convergent evolution or similarities based on superficial appearance. What evidence do you have that this is not the case with this sequence? Opinions are OK as long as you can back them up with data. Show me where in the literature is this competing hypothesis considered, or if it even exist? and if not, then tell me why it does not? Shouldn't there be competing hypothesis?

I believe most of this post belongs on "The stupidest thing a creationist has ever said to you" thread. Since it was addressed to ProcInc, I will leave it to him to post it if he wants.

 

[ProcInc]

Ben' s comments are public domain for anybody to post as examples of creationist incompetence.

I posted my most recent response before reading your suggestion regarding full citations but will ensure from this point I will cite in full.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

It appears that ProcInc is victorious. ProcInc set out to explain how whales were descendant from land animals. Judging from the last couple comments benthemiester has left, it seems he accepts that they are descended from land animals and is now asking for the common ancestor. He is also obfuscating about different subjects.

Congratulations ProcInc

Homology means similar not identical. The Kangaroo skull looks even less related to the Twolf than A wolf.

It still amazes me how willfully ignorant some people can be. I also find it ironic that this opinion comes after a paragraph about him wining that ProcInc needs to "stop giving his opinion" and "provide evidence".

The skull images and accompanying article ProcInc provided show exactly why thylacines have homological structures with other marsupials (even ones as far removed as the Virginia possum) and not with wolves. Benthemiester, you are correct, at a glance someone could confuse a thylacine skull with a wolf skull. I would even grant you that most nonprofessionals would mistake the skulls. It is a good thing people learn about anatomy when they go to school, is it not?

However, how are you able to argue against the evidence? The images, and accompanying text, wonderfully dispels your ignorance by explaining the shared derived traits between the marsupial skulls that are not found in a wolf skull. The accompanying article even goes into more detail about how, even though a thylacine skull looks like a wolf skull; the bones that make up the skulls are shaped differently.

To cling onto your beliefs even after being shown why your belief was wrong only exposes your disinterest in correcting your mistakes. It seems you would rather live with your ignorance and never question it.

 

[kenandkids]

I'm thinking that some sort of award for patience and/or extraordinary boredom needs to be designed... and then awarded to procinc. This ben fellow is just entirely too thick. He makes a claim, backs up from the claim, focuses on unrelated details, calls procinc names, pretends that no data is presented, goes back to making a claim this time related to his previous infatuation with unrelated details, etc..

I'm fairly certain his own side wouldn't want him debating for them, and that's saying something!

 

[fightofthejellyfish]

Homology means similar not identical. The Kangaroo skull looks even less related to the Twolf than A wolf.

It still amazes me how willfully ignorant some people can be. I also find it ironic that this opinion comes after a paragraph about him wining that ProcInc needs to "stop giving his opinion" and "provide evidence".

What's even more amazing is that in his last post he copy-pastes an article discussing "homology versus convergence" and doesn't recognise that he's just undermined his own assertion.

Before that, he pasted from a wikipedia article that states:

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.

to back his assertion that fossil and molecular evidence are currently inconsistent.

Procinc should just sit back and let ben continue to refute his own arguments.