The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Three: The Return of the KOing!

[The Last Conformist]

Ambulocetus:

Sea otter:

I still want classical_hero to tell me what tell-tale terrestrial features Ambulocetus has that the sea otter lacks. I mean, it can't possibly be hard, since we know that the sea otter is aquatic and classical_hero tells us that Ambulocetus was clearly a land animal.

The backbone of the quadrupedal mammal Ambulocetus ends at the pelvis, and powerful rear legs then extend from it. This is typical land mammal anatomy. In whales, however, the backbone goes right down to the tail, and there is no pelvic bone at all.

I can imagine several interpretations of this statement. Unfortunately, they're all rather damning of the writer's intellectual integrety. Let's take stock:

i) The writer takes "backbone" to mean spinal column. As anyone can see from the picture they so thoughtfully provided, Ambulocetus's spinal column simply does not end at the pelvis.

ii) The writer takes "backbone" to refer to the thoracic and lumbar regions of the spinal column. By this definition, the backbone of a modern whale ends at the pelvic region in modern whales, just as among all other mammals - it does not continue to the end of the tail as the writer implies. Incidentally, modern whales have pelvic bones, albeit vestigial.

iii) The writer is using "backbone" in different senses when talking about Ambulocetus and modern whales. This would be pure dishonesty.

So, have I missed something? I'd like not having to conclude that the writer is a lying scumbag ...

 

[Souron]

@civ2
Would you at least be kind enough to answer my questions. I think understanding the scientific method is worth your time if you're going to go around claiming they're all lieing.

At the time of Megelan why was it rationalized that the world was round like an apple?

Do you believe me when I say "gravity is a constant force such that the speed of a falling object increases at a constant rate of about 10 meters per second"? Why/why not?

How do you judge an explanation of what happended somewhere where you were not present? How do you determine what really happened after hearing everybody's story?

I believe the last one is most relivant to the discussion of evolution though.

 

[carlosMM]

Carlos - is that first picture really bones found in the original rock? They look like they're in plaster, and they seem much too clean compared to the other bones in your pictures.

Yup, that one's real! It is in a hradly deformed little cemented sandstone, very soft, and it has not been decalcified, which is why it looks like it keeled over dead yesterday. But it is really 66 ma old - Brachylophosaurus canadensis, Judith River Formation, late Cretaceous, Montana.
lovely, ain't it?

 

[carlosMM]

They are many land animals with a similar propotion at this animal has. This is a quote taken from the article in question, where I got that picture from.

Oh, so please show some pics of land animals with 'similar proportions'.

Also, do i smell an argument from authority here? Who wrote that article, what are his or her credentials in the field, can he or she be shown to have investigated the fossil?????

IF you wnat, I could give pictures of other land animals that have a very similar skeleton structure to this creature.

Oh yes I wnat that

Clearly it walk on land and would have live on the land, not in the water.

Quite clearly: you know not what you are talking about

 

[carlosMM]

@ironduck: thank you for making that very important point with your quiz! Sadly, those who needed to have the point made to them, didn't listen

 

[ironduck]

Yup, that one's real! It is in a hradly deformed little cemented sandstone, very soft, and it has not been decalcified, which is why it looks like it keeled over dead yesterday. But it is really 66 ma old - Brachylophosaurus canadensis, Judith River Formation, late Cretaceous, Montana.
lovely, ain't it?

I thought it was a copy too.. is it fragile or can it be touched?

 

[ironduck]

@ironduck: thank you for making that very important point with your quiz! Sadly, those who needed to have the point made to them, didn't listen

Hey, why didn't you participate?

 

[carlosMM]

I thought it was a copy too.. is it fragile or can it be touched?

well, the bones cannot stand too much handling, but they are not crumbling ot the touch. As usual, they soak up thin glue like crazy, and then are very stable I handled them all, digitized most of the limb elements
Oh, maybe i should introduce you all to her: she's Roberta!

Hey, why didn't you participate?

I am a vertebrate paleontologist by profession. I took every course I could in vertebrate anatomy, I toured every museum I could. I have seen skeltons of ant eater, platypusses, armadillos, hedgehogs, gibbons - you name it, I have seen in.


It was a matter of going through my photos of the Berlin skelett collection to confirm my suspicion was right for the platy, and the sea otter was obvious from the skull - the drawing shows enough diagnostic characters for me to vaguely remeber the course 'Bestimmungübungen an Wirbeltieren' by E. Weber, Zoological Institute, Tübingen University, Tübingen, Germany, thank you

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Hey, you know perfection links threads 1 and 2 in the first page and this is thread three?

I just found thread zero or so.

newfangle and cgannon64 were on the first page, and they're still around. Perfection joined the thread later.

Interesting piece of history. Oh, and the thread length limit back then was supposedly 300 posts.

The Creationists were still going "Evolutionists tape together a human skull and a monkey skeleton, look at Piltdown man!" back then, too.

Sigh.

 

[ironduck]

well, the bones cannot stand too much handling, but they are not crumbling ot the touch. As usual, they soak up thin glue like crazy, and then are very stable I handled them all, digitized most of the limb elements

Cool! So how long will they last now if kept in museum conditions?

I have seen skeltons of ant eater, platypusses, armadillos, hedgehogs, gibbons - you name it, I have seen in.

And this was your chance to win a gummy bear! Finally you could make use of all those boring hours in company with German text books

 

[ironduck]

Wrong link there Erik..

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Wrong link there Erik..

Fixed. That was kind of embarassing.

Funny to see FL2 and Curt going at it again. Deja vu.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Hey, you know perfection links threads 1 and 2 in the first page and this is thread three?

I just found thread zero or so.

Found this gem by Zarn:

Besides, Catholics no longer think the pope is infailable. That died 100's of years ago.

I hope he's read up on the history of the ol' papal infallibility doctrine since ...

 

[Souron]

The Creationists were still going "Evolutionists tape together a human skull and a monkey skeleton, look at Piltdown man!" back then, too.

Sigh.

But you notice how the creationists keep changing but the evolutionists stay the same.

I wonder of there is a forum somewhere where the opposite is true.

 

[The Last Conformist]

But you notice how the creationists keep changing but the evolutionists stay the same.

I wonder of there is a forum somewhere where the opposite is true.

Try Uncommon Descent. They ban everyone who critiques Intelligent Design.

 

[Souron]

Try Uncommon Descent. They ban everyone who critiques Intelligent Design.

Do you have a link? Google only yealds an Uncommon Descent blog.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Do you have a link? Google only yealds an Uncommon Descent blog.

That's the one; you can post comments (but they'll be blocked if you contradict Dembski), so I thought it was close enough to a forum to pass.

(If you insist, I'll argue I took "forum" to be in the non-specific sense of "place of discourse". )

 

[Souron]

But with a blog it's more undestandable, you don't want to have an arguement in a blog, as it is an expression of opinion, not a venue to new infomation; you don't write in a blog to learn something new, whereas a forum is ment more conversation like interaction.

This is straying from the subject though.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Thing is, they pretend they're open for constructive criticism. But yes, this is drifting off-topic.

You could always try opening an evolution thread at Rapture Ready. You'll find no shortage of creationists, and I hear most "evolutionists" eventually leave the place in disgust.

 

[nihilistic]

Do you believe me when I say "gravity is a constant force such that the speed of a falling object increases at a constant rate of about 10 meters per second"? Why/why not?

Minor correction/clarification: "gravity at or near the sea level on earth".

I doubt civ2 knows enough physics to be able to screw around with the universal gravitation stuff, but still.