It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Reconciling Creationism with Evolution: both are correct...

page: 19
10
<< 16  17  18   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2019 @ 06:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Observationalist

If you dig through the research literature, you'll find that there are many examples of whale transitional fossils.
Articles like the one below and the ones posted above are summaries of the discoveries. The samples themselves are housed in universities and museums.

The evolution of whales
evolution.berkeley.edu...



Hippos are large and aquatic, like whales, but the two groups evolved those features separately from each other. We know this because the ancient relatives of hippos called anthracotheres (not shown here) were not large or aquatic. Nor were the ancient relatives of whales that you see pictured on this tree — such as Pakicetus. Hippos likely evolved from a group of anthracotheres about 15 million years ago, the first whales evolved over 50 million years ago, and the ancestor of both these groups was terrestrial.

These first whales, such as Pakicetus, were typical land animals. They had long skulls and large carnivorous teeth. From the outside, they don't look much like whales at all. However, their skulls — particularly in the ear region, which is surrounded by a bony wall — strongly resemble those of living whales and are unlike those of any other mammal. Often, seemingly minor features provide critical evidence to link animals that are highly specialized for their lifestyles (such as whales) with their less extreme-looking relatives.




posted on Mar, 26 2019 @ 06:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Observationalist

Here's an example of a research paper where real samples where discovered in India. The paper discusses how this discovery fits in with the evolution of whales. Unless you're in the profession or research the literature yourself, you're not going to come across this type of detailed information in your daily newspaper. So yes, transitional fossils do exist and there are enough of them to say that statistically they validate the evolution of whales.

A new Eocene archaeocete (Mammalia, Cetacea) from India and the time of origin of whales

www.pnas.org...




We report here a new pakicetid archaeocete from marine strata of the middle Subathu Formation of India. The new pakicetid was found about 100 m lower stratigraphically and 3.5 million years older geologically than the Kuldana–Kalakot-equivalent upper Subathu red bed interval producing Pakicetus elsewhere. This not only extends the fossil record of Cetacea back in time, but also reinforces the idea that whales originated on the margin of Tethys and corroborates interpretation of pakicetids as an initial amphibious stage of cetacean evolution entering Tethys to feed on fish.





edit on 26-3-2019 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2019 @ 09:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Observationalist

Here's an example of a research paper where real samples where discovered in India. The paper discusses how this discovery fits in with the evolution of whales. Unless you're in the profession or research the literature yourself, you're not going to come across this type of detailed information in your daily newspaper. So yes, transitional fossils do exist and there are enough of them to say that statistically they validate the evolution of whales.

A new Eocene archaeocete (Mammalia, Cetacea) from India and the time of origin of whales

www.pnas.org...




We report here a new pakicetid archaeocete from marine strata of the middle Subathu Formation of India. The new pakicetid was found about 100 m lower stratigraphically and 3.5 million years older geologically than the Kuldana–Kalakot-equivalent upper Subathu red bed interval producing Pakicetus elsewhere. This not only extends the fossil record of Cetacea back in time, but also reinforces the idea that whales originated on the margin of Tethys and corroborates interpretation of pakicetids as an initial amphibious stage of cetacean evolution entering Tethys to feed on fish.






Am i missing something? There is only a drawing of a fragment of jaw bone. How can they even identify that as a missing link or new species?????

You see, this is an appeal to authority. You don't actually point to the evidence (because there is none in this case) and say why it proves your point, you point to the opinions of authority who are trying to make money and therefore need grants so they have a tendency to exaggerate their findings.

They didn't even post a picture of the bone fragment they found. How do they suppose this is a transition fossil? They assume evolution is true, and attempt to match all observed findings into that dogma. It is backwards science. It is no shock, they need grant money and therefore need to follow suite. But again, your blind belief in these authorities is astounding, and it is fallacious.


originally posted by: Phantom423
So yes, transitional fossils do exist and there are enough of them to say that statistically they validate the evolution of whales.


Show me a complete pakicetid fossil and then we can debate whether or not it is a missing link. I'll save you time, there is no such thing. It is purely in the imagination of those who wish to extrapolate data to try to fit an out-dated theory

edit on 26-3-2019 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 05:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Observationalist

Here's an example of a research paper where real samples where discovered in India. The paper discusses how this discovery fits in with the evolution of whales. Unless you're in the profession or research the literature yourself, you're not going to come across this type of detailed information in your daily newspaper. So yes, transitional fossils do exist and there are enough of them to say that statistically they validate the evolution of whales.

A new Eocene archaeocete (Mammalia, Cetacea) from India and the time of origin of whales

www.pnas.org...




We report here a new pakicetid archaeocete from marine strata of the middle Subathu Formation of India. The new pakicetid was found about 100 m lower stratigraphically and 3.5 million years older geologically than the Kuldana–Kalakot-equivalent upper Subathu red bed interval producing Pakicetus elsewhere. This not only extends the fossil record of Cetacea back in time, but also reinforces the idea that whales originated on the margin of Tethys and corroborates interpretation of pakicetids as an initial amphibious stage of cetacean evolution entering Tethys to feed on fish.






Am i missing something? There is only a drawing of a fragment of jaw bone. How can they even identify that as a missing link or new species?????

You see, this is an appeal to authority. You don't actually point to the evidence (because there is none in this case) and say why it proves your point, you point to the opinions of authority who are trying to make money and therefore need grants so they have a tendency to exaggerate their findings.

They didn't even post a picture of the bone fragment they found. How do they suppose this is a transition fossil? They assume evolution is true, and attempt to match all observed findings into that dogma. It is backwards science. It is no shock, they need grant money and therefore need to follow suite. But again, your blind belief in these authorities is astounding, and it is fallacious.


originally posted by: Phantom423
So yes, transitional fossils do exist and there are enough of them to say that statistically they validate the evolution of whales.


Show me a complete pakicetid fossil and then we can debate whether or not it is a missing link. I'll save you time, there is no such thing. It is purely in the imagination of those who wish to extrapolate data to try to fit an out-dated theory


You do realize that complaining is not the same as refuting evidence?



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 07:22 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Fabulous analysis, Coop. Nobel Prize for that one.



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 07:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Fabulous analysis, Coop. Nobel Prize for that one.


You can tell cooperton didn't even read the article or study the methods used to derive the information. You can't say that's not good enough when you don't address a single point in the actual material provided. Just duck and swerve.

As for "appeal to authority"


Gingerich P D, Wells N A, Russell D E, Shah S M I(1983) Science 220:403–406.Abstract/FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar
Kumar K, Sahni A(1985) J Vert Paleontol 5:153–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Thewissen J G M, Hussain S T(1993) Nature (London) 361:444–445, pmid:8429882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

↵ Sahni A, Jolly A(1993) Kaupia, Darmstädter Beiträge zur Naturgeschichte, Darmstadt 3:209–222.Google Scholar

↵ Srivastava R, Kumar K(1996) Palaeogeog Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol 122:185–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

↵ Zhou X, Zhai R, Gingerich P D, Chen L(1995) J Vert Paleontol 15:387–400.Google Scholar

↵ Thewissen J G M, Hussain S T(1998) Bull Carnegie Mus Nat Hist 34:220–238.Google Scholar

↵ Gingerich P D, Russell D E(1990) Cont Mus Paleontol Univ Mich 28:1–20.Google Scholar

↵ Mathur N S(1978) Recent Res Geol 5:96–112.Google Scholar

↵ Berggren W A, Kent D V, Aubry M-P, Hardenbol J ABerggren W A, Kent D V, Swisher C C, Aubry M-P(1995) in Geochronology, Time Scales, and Global Stratigraphic Correlations: A Unified Temporal Framework for an Historical Geology, eds Berggren W A, Kent D V, Aubry M-P, Hardenbol J A(Soc. Econ. Geol. Mineral. Tulsa, OK) , Special Vol. 54, pp. 129–212.Google Scholar

↵ Graciansky P-C d, Hardenbol J A, Jacquin T, Vail P R, Farley M BHardenbol J A, Thierry J, Farley M B, Jacquin T, Graciansky P-C d, Vail P R(1999) in Sequence Stratigraphy of European Basins, eds Graciansky P-C d, Hardenbol J A, Jacquin T, Vail P R, Farley M B(Soc. Econ. Paleontol. Mineral. Special Publication), , in press.Google Scholar
↵ Serra-Kiel J, Hottinger L, Caus E, Drobne K, Ferràndez C, Jauhri A K, Less G, Pavlovec R, Pignatti J S J M, Schaub H, et al.(1998) Bull Soc Géol Fr 169:281–299.AbstractGoogle Scholar

↵ Weiss W(1993) Zitteliana (Munich) 20:223–252.Google Scholar

↵ Dehm R, Oettingen-Spielberg T z(1958) Abhandlungen der Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Klasse, München, Neue Folge 91:1–54.Google Scholar

↵ Thewissen J G M, Madar S I, Hussain S T(1996) Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg, Frankfurt am Main 191:1–86.Google Scholar

↵ West R M(1980) J Paleontol 54:508–533.AbstractGoogle Scholar

↵ Gingerich P D, Russell D E(1981) Cont Mus Paleontol Univ Mich 25:235–246.Google Scholar

↵ Wells N A(1983) Special Publication of the International Association of Sedimentologists 6:393–403.Google Scholar

↵ Vail P R, Hardenbol J A(1979) Oceanus 22:71–79.Google Scholar

↵ Haq B u, Hardenbol J A, Vail P R(1987) Science 235:1156–1167.Abstract/FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar

↵ Latif M A(1970c) Jahrbuch der Geologischen Bundesanstalt, Sonderband, Wien 15:63–66.Google Scholar

↵ Yoshida N, Miyazaki N(1991) J Geophys Res 96:815–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

↵ Barrick R E, Fischer A G, Kolodny Y, Luz B, Bohaska D J(1992) Palaios 7:521–531.Abstract/FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar

↵ Thewissen J G M, Roe L J, O’Neil J R, Hussain S T, Sahni A, Bajpai S(1996) Nature (London) 381:379–380, pmid:8632793.Google Scholar

↵ Fricke H C, Clyde W C, O’Neil J R, Gingerich P D(1998) Earth Planet Sci Lett 160:193–208.Google Scholar

↵ Van Valen L M(1966) Bull Am Mus Nat Hist 132:1–126.Google Scholar

↵ Szalay F S, Gould S J(1966) Bull Am Mus Nat Hist 132:127–174.Google Scholar

↵ Strauss D J, Sadler P M(1989) Math Geol 21:411–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards A W F(1992) Likelihood, Expanded Edition (Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore), pp 1–275.Google Scholar

↵ Gingerich P D, Uhen M D(1998) Palaeontologia Electronica 1(2) 1–45, [www-odp.tamu.edu...]. www-odp.tamu.edu... Scholar

↵ Hedges S B, Parker P H, Sibley C G, Kumar S(1996) Nature (London) 381:226–229, pmid:8622763.


a reply to: cooperton

These are the credentialed experts involved in the study of that whale bone fragment and its contribution to evolution research. Feel free to explain why these authorities are not reliable sources. Please address specific points and demonstrate actual errors in their work.
edit on 27-3-2019 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 09:49 AM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

It's the standard cut-and-paste response. He has his list handy when he needs a reply! Has posted the same answer about 100 times.

Hopeless.




top topics



 
10
<< 16  17  18   >>

log in

join