Cool paper showing more intermediate features in early Protocetids:
As a confirmed cladist, I object to your thread title. Also as a grammar Nazi, I object to the absence of an apostrophe.
I’m at work hiding my phone from my boss. Get over it.
What title would you prefer @John_Harshman
They are not evidence of intermediate steps. Even if such steps happened one would never know these stages went to others. instead they only would show a spectrum of diversity.
I do agree marine mammals are land mammals originally but not by evolutionary steps.
They are the super unique case for creatures showing evidence of having changed one bodyplan to another. If evolutionism was true this would be very unlikely. in fact leggy whales is kick to the head of evolutionism if one thinks about it.
@Robert_Byers1 are you EASL?
Why, of course “More evidence that whales are artiodactyls”.
Cetaceans actually have the same body plan as other artiodactyls, with some minor changes in implementation details that make their body more suitable for aquatic life.
The word artiodactyls is just a human classification invention. its not real. Marine mammals have bodyplan changes enough to justify a change. Yes it could not be that much from land critters.
Of course the word artiodactyls is a human classification invention—as are all such words. Humans invent labels in order to refer to them in efficient ways.
Yes, words are real—as are the animals they label.
They classify based on grouping traits and all this from centuries old ideas. The modern times should be improving on this but it moves in too small, even obscure, circles to change accurately.
Linnaeus classified in this manner. Modern biologists use genomics as well as characters to create a classification hierarchy. You should read about it; you’d learn a lot.
The modern community of biologists does not rely on Linnaeus’ methodology. If you would actually study the field of biology rather than relying on not-always-accurate apologetics ministries, you would realize this.
Why not study biology as taught in university departments so you can make well-informed judgments, Robert? I’m sure that folks here would be willing to recommend some resources if you’re willing to learn.
They classify based on shared derived characteristics.
By my math, 1966 wasn’t 100’s of years ago.
its still just grouping traits however , claims, of shared derived. Its all splitting and lumping biology based on looks. everything is based on this. Then genes had to be brought in but they still must obey primitive ideas of grouping traits.
0Its just refining the same old idea. Sure it is.
There is no something wrong with it but they simply did a poor job of it. Grouping irrelevant traits together to make lineages.
You seem completely disinterested in learning the research methodology of biology and the evidence that has been gathered. How are we supposed to have a meaningful conversation, Robert?
I am amused that you used the words “meaningful conversation” and “Robert” in close proximity.
If evolution is true, what should the pattern of shared features look like?
Shouldn’t we see shared features within a lineage?
Accusation is not indictment. We have meaningful conversation when both converse as opposed to , in a silly way, accuse because of continued disagreement.
Just make a better intellectual case. i don’t complain about you out loud.
Its not true. what we observe in traits is better explained by options other then common descent.
yEs everybody must group traits. yet it should be the main ones.
If a creature has thousands of anatomical twists and turns that make it look like anothyer creature, who also has thousands of same twists/turns, THEN we should group them together as the same creature or in a kind. the minor details of reproduction should not separate those two creatures. this is the error right now if them denying a marsupial wolf is just another dumb wolf.
they instead group it in a marsupial group based on trivial few points of reproductive inclinations.