|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Genesis "kinds" may be Nested Hierarchies. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Thank you for that information. There are mescaline-producing plants in Peru. Anyways, Darwin was so out-of-it when he consumed too much hallucinogen, he couldn't remember which country he was in.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
RAZD writes:
You make a valid point - I'd forgotten about how Nebraska Man was invented on the basis of one pig's tooth. That episode demonstrated that the standards of evolution science are of the highest quality.
Teeth are very valuable evidence quote: wiki: Tienolophos: Teinolophos trusleri was a prehistoric species of monotreme, or egg-laying mammal. It is known from a lower jawbone found in Flat Rocks, Victoria, Australia. It lived during the Aptian age of the Lower Cretaceous. The holotype is a partial left dentary known as NMV P208231. An age of approximately 123 million years makes this the earliest known monotreme. The lower molar is broadly similar in morphology to the m2 of Steropodon. The trigonid is compressed and the talonid has no basin. The dentary is about one sixth the size of Steropodon's, and wear facets indicate an "orthal" occlusion with the upper molars. The construction of the lower jaw differs from existing monotremes. Among the contrasts are the condyle, which is well above the tooth row (instead of at about the same height); and the ascending ramus, which is also higher. Also different is that Teinolophos probably had a strong bite. A unique feature for known toothed monotremes is that the trigonid is tall, while the talonid is set much lower. This is more like the general mammalian arrangement. The molar is double-rooted, which is plesiomorphic when compared to ornithorhynchids, but is a shared characteristic with Steropodon and Kollikodon. Subsequent monotreme molars are multi-rooted. I knew that ... learnt it all in primary school.
The fossils show exactly the intermediate stages we would expect from evolution and stages that are illogical for any "special creation" concepts.
I take your point. If you took the skeletons of all creatures in the world today, you could line them up to form lots of imaginary "evolutionary sequences". All you need to "join the dots" is a bit of imagination. You can play the same meaningless game with fossils. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes: How is the observed phylogeny a myth? Not all ancestors are observed: "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." S. J. Gould, "Evolutions Erratic Pace", Natural History, vol. 86, (1987) p.14. "... does [the lack of fossil evidence] permit us to invent a tale of continuity in most or all cases? I submit, although it may only reflect my lack of imagination, that the answer is No" - S. J. Gould.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
jar writes: the Fact of Evolution It is a fact that all life on earth evolved from unicellular organisms?
Both the fact of Evolution as well as the fact that the Theory of Evolution is the only explanation that has ever been presented or tested are both supported by the majority of the recognized Christian faiths. Only the Christian Cult of Ignorance & Dishonesty deny those two facts. A million wrongs don't make a right.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
They have to arrive at a nested hierarchies otherwise evolution falls to pieces - and that would be like losing one's religion or getting kicked out of the cult.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Real trees have real branches - not assumed or imaginary ones.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes:
... that I'm stupid and ignorant?
You have yet to say a right thing about phylogenetics, so what does that tell you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
The rationale for arranging them in that order is to make it look like the general theory of evolution is true - as is the wont of atheist "scientists".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
The rationale for arranging them that way is to make the atheist arranger feel better about his quasi-religious belief in evolution. Never underestimate the power of self-delusion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
I can't produce any nested hiearchies at all coz there are too many gaps that can't be accounted for.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
You have barked up the wrong tree twice in this one post. Your first Gould quote has nothing to do with my Gould quote. Your second Gould quote refers to Yung Erfers - I is not a Yung Erfer, but an Old Erfer. (Yung Erfers hate my beliefs in an old earth and a previous creation and some or them might even want to kill me to death ... or at least torture me for several days.)
In short, your attempt to out-Gould-quote me, while admirable, has failed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
The Nebraska Man tooth was "severely weathered". In keeping with the highest standards of science, Nebraska Man was invented on the basis of one old weathered tooth.
... which reminds me ... Did you know that in 1872, an attempt was made to elect Charles Darwin to the Zoological section of the French Institute, but he was rejected - on account of the theories proposed in his books being seen as "not science, but a mass of assertions and absolutely gratuitous hypotheses, often evidently fallacious."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
quote: Er, yeah; that's ... deep. When you say, "wings are modified forelimbs", is that anything like how the wings on flying pigs are modified ribs? What I mean is, wings are not "modified forelimbs" anymore than Tooth fairies are modified butterflies. And do you realise that in order for a lizard to fly, it needs much going on than just the acquisition of wings? Have you ever considered the possibility that your forelimbs-to-wings theory is just a silly and childish story that has no basis in fact? Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Tangle writes:
My point is, not only was Nebraska Man fabricated on the basis of one tooth, that tooth was very weathered and thus hard to identify. Junk science built on junk evidence, in other words.
And your point is what?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
A cat fossil and a dog fossil could be imagined as transitional. Nothing to do with reality, however.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024