quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill scott

(bill) Why can't any of you just give me some locations to some TF displays. Stop reaching in your bag of tricks and spouting off 50 different links to cyberspace and just speak for yourself. If you are up with all your distraction links you can just respond in your own word with a summoned up version and the whole thread will roll smoother.

---

quote:

---

The diversity of Eocene cetaceans can be summarized into six families that together document the transition from land to water. Their phylogenetic relations are uncontroversial (Luo 1998, Thewissen 1998, O'Leary and Uhen 1999): Pakicetids form the base group and may include some, but not all, descendants (i.e., they may be paraphyletic), followed by ambulocetids and then remingtonocetids. The next cluster is paraphyletic and is classified as protocetids. The youngest and most derived Eocene cetaceans are basilosaurids and dorudontids, the latter of which are the sister group to the modern suborders, mysticetes and odontocetes.

Pakicetid cetaceans are the most primitive and oldest cetaceans. They are about 50 million years old and only found in Pakistan and India (Figure 1) . Some features of the pakicetid skull (Figure 2a) suggest an amphibious lifestyle; the eyes, for instance, are on top of the skull. The teeth suggest that they ate hard food and were carnivores. Pakicetids were small, varying from fox to wolf size, but no skeleton is known for them.

Ambulocetid cetaceans are slightly younger and more derived than pakicetid cetaceans. They were also much larger, similar in size to large sea lions. A nearly complete skeleton for Ambulocetus (Figure 3) shows that the animal had a large head, long muscular body, and a long tail. Its limbs were short but the feet long. In overall body shape, Ambulocetus looked somewhat like a crocodile, although its hind limbs and feet were considerably longer. It may have lived as an ambush predator of fish in shallow water. Ambulocetids lived in coastal environments such as bays and estuaries approximately 49 million years ago (mya) and are known only from India and Pakistan.

Remingtonocetid cetaceans (Figure 4) are more derived than pakicetids and ambulocetids in the shape of the teeth and the reduction of the limbs. They are only found in near-shore marine deposits of South Asia. Partial skeletons for remingtonocetids indicate that they had long snouts and small eyes (Figure 2b) . Their (middle) ear was large, suggesting that they used hearing to detect prey (as do modern odontocetes). Known remingtonocetids had large and powerful tails and vertebral columns and relatively short legs, which were weight bearing. In this sense, they looked like long-snouted crocodiles. Remingtonocetids probably lived between 49 mya and 43 mya. They vary greatly in size; the smallest (Kutchicetus) are similar in size to Pakicetus, whereas the largest may have been as large as Ambulocetus.

Protocetids (Figure 5) are known from near-shore marine deposits, and they are the oldest cetaceans to have spread across the world. Several partial skeletons are known (e.g., Rodhocetus and Georgiacetus); they indicate that the limbs were short and not weight bearing in several taxa, implying that land locomotion was slow and cumbersome. These cetaceans may have lived like seals, spending most of their active time in the water but hauling ashore occasionally. Their eyes are large and oriented laterally, unlike remingtonocetids, but similar to dorudontids and basilosaurids. Most protocetids are relatively large, similar to small modern dolphins. The oldest protocetids are approximately 46 million years old; the youngest may be 39 million years old.

Basilosauridae and Dorudontidae reached their highest diversity in the late middle Eocene, around 35 mya. Skeletons of these animals (Figure 6) are unlike those of the other Eocene cetaceans in that they are immediately recognizable as cetaceans. As in modern cetaceans, basilosaurids and dorudontids have a streamlined form, short neck, forelimbs shaped like flippers, and strongly reduced hind limbs. Basilosaurids had long, snakelike bodies, around 20 m long, whereas dorudontids were dolphinlike in body shape and size. Both families are found in shallow marine environments.

---

quote:

---

Panderichthys is a widely recognized transitional form in tetrapod evolution (you know, one of those transitional fossils we're so often told don't exist). A description of a specimen with a well-preserved pelvic girdle has just been described in Nature, and it tells us some more about the history of tetrapod locomotion.

Panderichthys is an interesting animal—it definitely looks more like a fish than a salamander, but its fins are stout and bony, and other characteristics of its skeleton clearly ally it with the tetrapods.

---

quote:

---

Bill Scott to Tommy:
I say their are no transtionial speices found in the
fossil record and I point to the FAKE dinasour bird
that was attempted to be passed off as one as proof
that they are still looking for their transtionial fossil.

---

quote:

---

Tommy replies:
Sigh. As I explained in a previous email, no "evolutionist" was fooled by it. If you remember, I sent you a copy of the National Geographic article that described the entire history of the Archaeoraptor debacle in detail.

A Chinese farmer uncovered several fossil fragments in his garden and, using a homemade paste, glued the slab of the tail to the lower portion of the specimen''s body, and then glued in broken pieces of its missing legs and feet.

An amateur fossil collector named Stephen Czerkas bought the fossil from a dealer on the Chinese black market for $80,000. Czerkas then took the specimen to the University of Texas'' High-Resolution X-ray CT Facility where Professor Timothy Rowe scanned the fossil and found 88 suspicious "breaks" with unmatched pieces crudely pasted together. Rowe declared the fossil to be a fake.

Next, Kevin Aulenback, a fossil technician at the Tyrrell Museum in Alberta, Canada, prepped the specimen by microscopically cleaning the bones and removing the surrounding dirt. Aulenback said that the fossil was a composite of more than five animals and sent a warning to Phillip Currie, his colleague who was then on an expedition in the Gobi desert.

Undeterred, Stephen Czerkas, the AMATEUR collector, wrote his own paper about the fossil specimen and attached Christopher Sloan''s name to it (an art editor for National Geographic), Phillip Currie''s name (who only glanced at the specimen) and the Chinese paleontologist Xu Xing, who never even SAW the Archaeoraptor skeleton.

Czerkas sent his paper to two prestigious peer-reviewed journals, "Science" and "Nature."

But guess what? Both journals rejected his manuscript outright.

Finally, he sent his article to Bill Allen, the editor at National Geographic. National Geographic published the second-rate article written by an AMATEUR fossil collector with NO formal scientific training.

And Bill Allen got burned. Evolution escaped unscathed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starman

Science Magazine : Breakthrough of the Year 2005.
Article & Video.

---

quote:

---

WASHINGTON (AFP) - New breakthroughs in the workings of Darwinist evolution, in flu genes, in chimpanzees and in stickleback fish led the top ten discoveries in the science world in 2005, according to a US magazine.
ADVERTISEMENT

In a year in which scientists and religious groups fought furiously over a pseudo-scientific challenge to accepted explanations of evolution, the weekly magazine Science chose to lead its top ten with discoveries that "piled up new insights about evolution at the genetic level and the birth of species."

The breakthroughs included "information that could help us lead healthier lives in the future."

The magazine's top ten list came out two days after a US court ruled that it was unconstitutional for a Pennsylvania school to teach the 'intelligent design' concept as an alternative to Darwin's theory of natural selection as the driving force of evolution.

...

"Evolution has been the foundation and guiding theory of biology ever since Darwin gave the theory its proper scientific debut in 1859," Science said.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by filthy

<snippage of much tedious bullshit, both Bill's and mine>

quote:

---

(bill) I kid you not. Why is it so hard to believe?You said it yourself. That random mutations program for a resaon. And the reason you gave was survival. It takes forethought and predetermanation to program in antisapation of future events such as what would it take to survie? Random chance i.e. random mutations can not reason" for a "reason" It takes logic, forethought, predetermantion etc... etc... to program for a reason. Random mutations do not reason.
They have no logic. And the evolutionists claim that they program by default is a stretch to say the least.

And you are a quote miner as well, eh, a clumsey one. I did not say that mutations could reason. I said that species survival was the blind reason for evolution.

(bill) It takes reason to have a reason.

Bolded quote: And I have shown you fossils demonstrating demonstrating species in transition. If you want to see an exibit, go to a museum on your own dime. I doubt that you'll understand what you are looking at, but what the hell. Go anyway. It'll distract your mind from the Voices.

(bill) Ok?

You have still avoided question #2 except to refer me to your blither about #1. That is not acceptable. For either query, comes to that. But I think I know why. In the dank void you use to reason with, there is nothing to be found, right?

I'm interested if your contention that evolution claims a lizard might give birth to a bird. This is a straw man right out of the idiot Hovind's playbook. I think I'll shoot it down.

(bill) I am not aware of this KH you speak of.

Birds are decended from theropod dinosaurs, not lizards. Further, it implies that a bird hatched from a reptile egg, and that is utter garbage. Because individuals do not evolve, you see. Only populations evolve and they do it over great periods of time. Educate yourself! You haven't the least conception of what you are trying to discuss.

(bill) Oh realax. Lizzard is slang for Dino and you know that. Lizzard/dino whatever who cares? It did not turn into a bird and the NG peice demonstrates that they are still looking for the first rock to say so.



2. With what would you replace evolution in the schools?
(bill) P.E. or study hall.


1. What is your version of reality, if any.
(bill) Macro TOE being void in the place where it should be most abundant.

regards Bill

---

Ok, again in a little more detail: Mutations have no conciousness; no awarness. They simply happen for good or ill, or no real effect at all. Every creature in existence has mutations, including thee and me. Most are are of no concern but some few are bad. The populations carrying these fail to propagate as often as they might and, if the mutation is not countered by another or others, the population will ultimatly die out. This does not mean that the species will expire; merely that segment of it.

Beneficial mutations, on the other hand, those that help the animal be slightly faster, digest better, endure climate changes, and so forth, will untimatly result in a population that thrives, barring natural catastrophy, of course. Again, this does not guarentee that the species will benefit, only that part of it that has the mutation(s). All of this takes a lot of time. So much in fact, that macroevolution is not really observable except in organisms that have a very rapid generation turnover. But given enough time and you end up with a new species, which is the agreed line between micro and macro (I'm of the opinion that it's all the same, damned, old evolution -- only a matter of degree. How many micros does it take to make a macro?). As can be seen, evolution works best in isolated, pocket populations.

The Galapagos and Aldabra islands nicely showcase this. The marine iguana is still an iguana, but it is like no other in the world and it traces it's roots to a mainland species. Given more time in the isolation of the Galapagos Archapelego, what might it eventually become? I don't know nor can even hazzard a guess. Heh, but it will still be, well, a reptile...

PE and study hall, hah? C'mon now. We both know that those are the two biggest wastes of time ever put into schools. I used to avoid both, the one because they wouldn't let me read what I wanted, and the other because I ain't all that sporty.

So allow me to rephrase that: in science class, what would you replace it with? Sorry I wasn't more explicit before.

Never heard of Hovind? I thought everybody knew of 'Dr. Dino.' I don't feel up to it at the moment, but if asked tomorrow, I will write a hopefully brief, but probably not, screed concerning one of the more outrageous of the young earth creationists. This guy is an embarrassment even to AiG and ICR. And that, my friend, is an embarrassment.

One of Kent's favorite, straw-man blathers is: "You can't get a croc from a rock!" This is true, you indeed, can't. But you can get a rock from a croc. I've done it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill Scott...

(bill) Here is where we disagree. I believe blind/random mutations create no new information or incredible damaging information. I do not believe that they create vast codes of program designed with reason for a reason. Let me explain. You and Tommy both say that natural selection programs for death and other factors and reason is prolongation of the species. I say wrong because it requires reason to have a reason.

---

quote:

---

(bill) So all this time and all this change would have laid down billions of dead creatures which should have produced millions of TF. But we have none. NG trying to scoop TF dino/chicken demonstrates they are still looking for the holy grail TF. So where are they? They should be stuffed to the rafters in NHM around the world. That is why macro TOE is so unbelievable. The evidence does not show it.

---

quote:

---

(bill) It doesn't create new species. I am sorry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill scott
(bill) I agree on no real affect and ill but disagree on good. No “consciousness;” no “awareness” creates dis-information. Every time

---

quote:

---

In 1964, Finnish cross-country skier Eero Mantyranta was suspected of blood doping after winning two gold medals because he had so many red blood cells in his system. Three decades later, he was cleared when researchers found that he and many of his family members have a genetic mutation that increases their red-blood-cell count by 20 per cent.

---

quote:

---

(bill) So all this time and all this change would have laid down billions of dead creatures which should have produced millions of TF. But we have none. NG trying to scoop TF dino/chicken demonstrates they are still looking for the holy grail TF. So where are they? They should be stuffed to the rafters in NHM around the world. That is why macro TOE is so unbelievable. The evidence does not show it.

---

quote:

---

(I'm of the opinion that it's all the same, damned, old evolution -- only a matter of degree. How many micros does it take to make a macro?). As can be seen, evolution works best in isolated, pocket populations.
(bill) It doesn't create new species. I am sorry.

---

quote:

---

PE and study hall, hah? C'mon now. We both know that those are the two biggest wastes of time ever put into schools. I used to avoid both, the one because they wouldn't let me read what I wanted, and the other because I ain't

quote:

---

Bill:
NG trying to scoop TF dino/chicken demonstrates they are still looking for the holy grail TF.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill scott:

Ok, again in a little more detail: Mutations have no conciousness; no awarness.
(bill) I agree.



They simply happen for good or ill, or no real effect at all.
(bill) I agree on no real affect and ill but disagree on good. No “consciousness;” no “awareness” creates dis-information. Every time

...

I believe blind/random mutations create no new information or incredible damaging information.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill scott
...it requires reason to have a reason.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dv82matt

Bill, the core of your argument appears to be this:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill scott
...it requires reason to have a reason.

---

This is a crucial point. Closely examining this phrase, "It requires reason to have a reason." reveals that the word "reason" is being used in two different ways. In "It requires reason...", "reason" is being used to mean "cognition", "intelligence" or "consciousness", but in "...to have a reason." the word "reason" is used to mean "cause". Restating the phrase to make this distinction clear we get:

It requires cognition, intelligence or consciousness to have a cause.

Would you care to defend this clarified statement or are you prepared to admit that it is false?

---