One Question for Evo-Bashers

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
PB: I like to see the transition forms between phyla and between classes.

---

American Scientific AffiliationIt doesn't take much effort to find this stuff on the web.

quote:

---

and thus erosion discriminates, or the process of fossilisation disciminates.

---

Well, PB, the latter is certainly true but not in the way you seem to think. Different animals have different chances of becoming fossils, depending upon where they live and how they are made. No one will debate this. Erosion even discriminates in a sense, I guess, as little tiny bits are more vulnerable to it than are larger fossils. Still, this isn't what you seem to mean. You have a catch phrase and you sticking to it.

quote:

---

PB: Yes, it would be great that for once evolutionists came forward with mono-interpretable data.

---

That is a devastating criticism, PB. "The evolutionists can't produce a better fossil record THAN THE ONE WE HAVE." LOL....... Do you listen to yourself?

quote:

---

PB: Because of the lack of transtions between the phyla. As mentioned above.

---

And as mentioned above, the lack is in your data.

quote:

---

PB: So, now you are going to tell me that the same biochemistry including the genetic code evolved from scratch more than once?

---

Nope. I am thinking about very early forms of replicating molecules, not about complex life like bacteria. It is silly to think that one replicating molecule evolved. The same processes that create one would likely create hundreds or thousands. Eventually, some group of these molecules get the upper hand and kill the process of genesis.

quote:

---

PB: Yes, John, of about 1000 T. rexes only 1 (likely much less) fossilised. Same holds for the other species.

---

But you didn't explain why you contradicted yourself?

quote:

---

PB: According to me 'science' means 'knowledge', not 'inference' or 'extrapolation'. I could be wrong however.

---

I hate to break it to you, PB, but knowledge is all inference and extrapolation. There is no way around it.

quote:

---

PB: Not only sounding smart, I am smart.

---

Perhaps, but you also have some serious tunnel vision.

quote:

---

However, the terms are not equal, and certainly not interchangable.

---

That is a nice reassertion of the assertion I addressed in the last post. Perchance you would tell us what the difference is?

quote:

---

PB: This can easily be checked at the genomic level. It has been demonstrated that all males have a common ancestor, and all females have a common ancestor. Around 50-150 Kya. There it ends.

---

I followed this debate on the forum. You have no case. This has been adequately explained to you.

quote:

---

Molecular biology demonstrates that the current ideas of paleontology and geology could be wrong.

---

Molecular BIOLOGY demonstrates that GEOLOGY is wrong? LOLMolecular biology is a good tool for analyzing relationships among organisms. Despite your assertions, this does not destroy paleontology.

quote:

---

I wouldn't be surprised, since it has become clear that hypothesis/theories are usually 'wrong'.

---

So YOURS is wrong too then? Come on PB, this is childish.

quote:

---

PB: No, you infer it from your data. My data show otherwise.

---

You don't have data, PB. At least, you have none that you have revealed here.

quote:

---

Can the ratio explain the universe? I guess not.

---

What???? What ratio explaining what about the universe?

quote:

---

PB: You know what I mean. I take this as a non-answer.

---

No, I don't. I take this as an admission that you have no argument.

quote:

---

PB: So what?

---

Hello? We are talking about the fossil record!!!!

quote:

---

PB: It could indeed be subject to selection.

---

Then you admit that morphology indeed does have something to do with evolution. You contradict yourself again.

quote:

---

Selection against to prevent degeneration of the gene pool.

---

Then you must assume a 'perfect' gene pool at the start of a species' existence. Where is your evidence for this 'perfect' gene pool? There isn't any such evidence. You assume a phantasm. What evidence we have is for a whole bunch of screwy gene pools.

quote:

---

See the GUToB at least is explanatory in such matters. (see what it holds with respect to selection in my thread mol gen proof for the MPG).

---

I followed that thread as well. You are profoundly unconvincing.

quote:

---

PB: What data are in accord with evolutionism? Not the contemporary biology data, I'm afraid.

---

Sorry, but conventional biologists weigh in against you at about 10,000 to 1.

quote:

---

Probably your interpretation of the fossil record.

---

See above.

quote:

---

Fossils are not very informative with respect to biological evolution, since they are extinct and can not be subjected to genetic analysis.

---

Sadly, most cannot be subjected to genetic analysis, but the claim that fossils are not informative is silly.

quote:

---

The ancient DNA sequences that could be isolated and have been studies defy evolutionary dogma's (As discussed in other threads).

---

You really shouldn't reference threads in which your ideas were shown to be wrong.

quote:

---

PB: Till approx 50-150 Kya for humans. Other organisms unknown.

---

Your interpretation of the data is wrong.

quote:

---

PB: Where exactly do we observe the gaps? All major transition forms?

---

Nope. Not really. For one, an incomplete fossil record will give this illusion. Secondly, rapid change -- over millions of years instead of hundreds of million-- will further skew this illusion.

quote:

---

PB: A theory also has to predict. With respect to biological observations evolutionism is usually wrong. (For instance in the case of genetic redundancies)

---

With respect, only in your head. If this were the case, the ToE would be discarded.

quote:

---

PB: He's a paleontologist.

---

And a Prof. of Zoology. Not to mention that there is a considerable amount of biology in paleontology. I call you on your unethical attempt to discredit an opponent.

quote:

---

PB: Where?

---

This part:

quote:

---

PB: Everything is possible, I see. Tell me, you fill the tank every now and than? And you decide to drive slow or fast, or the road?

---

Again, you miss the point. PE and gradual evolution are not diametrically opposed. You can't drive fast and slow at the same time in the same car on the same road. But you can drive either fast or slow, and you can change speed.
[b]American Scientific Affiliation[/url]It doesn't take much effort to find this stuff on the web.

quote:

---

and thus erosion discriminates, or the process of fossilisation disciminates.

---

Well, PB, the latter is certainly true but not in the way you seem to think. Different animals have different chances of becoming fossils, depending upon where they live and how they are made. No one will debate this. Erosion even discriminates in a sense, I guess, as little tiny bits are more vulnerable to it than are larger fossils. Still, this isn't what you seem to mean. You have a catch phrase and you sticking to it.

quote:

---

PB: Yes, it would be great that for once evolutionists came forward with mono-interpretable data.

---

That is a devastating criticism, PB. "The evolutionists can't produce a better fossil record THAN THE ONE WE HAVE." LOL....... Do you listen to yourself?

quote:

---

PB: Because of the lack of transtions between the phyla. As mentioned above.

---

And as mentioned above, the lack is in your data.

quote:

---

PB: So, now you are going to tell me that the same biochemistry including the genetic code evolved from scratch more than once?

---

Nope. I am thinking about very early forms of replicating molecules, not about complex life like bacteria. It is silly to think that one replicating molecule evolved. The same processes that create one would likely create hundreds or thousands. Eventually, some group of these molecules get the upper hand and kill the process of genesis.

quote:

---

PB: Yes, John, of about 1000 T. rexes only 1 (likely much less) fossilised. Same holds for the other species.

---

But you didn't explain why you contradicted yourself?

quote:

---

PB: According to me 'science' means 'knowledge', not 'inference' or 'extrapolation'. I could be wrong however.

---

I hate to break it to you, PB, but knowledge is all inference and extrapolation. There is no way around it.

quote:

---

PB: Not only sounding smart, I am smart.

---

Perhaps, but you also have some serious tunnel vision.

quote:

---

However, the terms are not equal, and certainly not interchangable.

---

That is a nice reassertion of the assertion I addressed in the last post. Perchance you would tell us what the difference is?

quote:

---

PB: This can easily be checked at the genomic level. It has been demonstrated that all males have a common ancestor, and all females have a common ancestor. Around 50-150 Kya. There it ends.

---

I followed this debate on the forum. You have no case. This has been adequately explained to you.

quote:

---

Molecular biology demonstrates that the current ideas of paleontology and geology could be wrong.

---

Molecular BIOLOGY demonstrates that GEOLOGY is wrong? LOLMolecular biology is a good tool for analyzing relationships among organisms. Despite your assertions, this does not destroy paleontology.

quote:

---

I wouldn't be surprised, since it has become clear that hypothesis/theories are usually 'wrong'.

---

So YOURS is wrong too then? Come on PB, this is childish.

quote:

---

PB: No, you infer it from your data. My data show otherwise.

---

You don't have data, PB. At least, you have none that you have revealed here.

quote:

---

Can the ratio explain the universe? I guess not.

---

What???? What ratio explaining what about the universe?

quote:

---

PB: You know what I mean. I take this as a non-answer.

---

No, I don't. I take this as an admission that you have no argument.

quote:

---

PB: So what?

---

Hello? We are talking about the fossil record!!!!

quote:

---

PB: It could indeed be subject to selection.

---

Then you admit that morphology indeed does have something to do with evolution. You contradict yourself again.

quote:

---

Selection against to prevent degeneration of the gene pool.

---

Then you must assume a 'perfect' gene pool at the start of a species' existence. Where is your evidence for this 'perfect' gene pool? There isn't any such evidence. You assume a phantasm. What evidence we have is for a whole bunch of screwy gene pools.

quote:

---

See the GUToB at least is explanatory in such matters. (see what it holds with respect to selection in my thread mol gen proof for the MPG).

---

I followed that thread as well. You are profoundly unconvincing.

quote:

---

PB: What data are in accord with evolutionism? Not the contemporary biology data, I'm afraid.

---

Sorry, but conventional biologists weigh in against you at about 10,000 to 1.

quote:

---

Probably your interpretation of the fossil record.

---

See above.

quote:

---

Fossils are not very informative with respect to biological evolution, since they are extinct and can not be subjected to genetic analysis.

---

Sadly, most cannot be subjected to genetic analysis, but the claim that fossils are not informative is silly.

quote:

---

The ancient DNA sequences that could be isolated and have been studies defy evolutionary dogma's (As discussed in other threads).

---

You really shouldn't reference threads in which your ideas were shown to be wrong.

quote:

---

PB: Till approx 50-150 Kya for humans. Other organisms unknown.

---

Your interpretation of the data is wrong.

quote:

---

PB: Where exactly do we observe the gaps? All major transition forms?

---

Nope. Not really. For one, an incomplete fossil record will give this illusion. Secondly, rapid change -- over millions of years instead of hundreds of million-- will further skew this illusion.

quote:

---

PB: A theory also has to predict. With respect to biological observations evolutionism is usually wrong. (For instance in the case of genetic redundancies)

---

With respect, only in your head. If this were the case, the ToE would be discarded.

quote:

---

PB: He's a paleontologist.

---

And a Prof. of Zoology. Not to mention that there is a considerable amount of biology in paleontology. I call you on your unethical attempt to discredit an opponent.

quote:

---

PB: Where?

---

This part:

quote:

---

PB: Everything is possible, I see. Tell me, you fill the tank every now and than? And you decide to drive slow or fast, or the road?

---

Again, you miss the point. PE and gradual evolution are not diametrically opposed. You can't drive fast and slow at the same time in the same car on the same road. But you can drive either fast or slow, and you can change speed.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 12-22-2002]

Dear John,quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by peter borger:
PB: I like to see the transition forms between phyla and between classes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------American Scientific AffiliationJ: It doesn't take much effort to find this stuff on the web.PB: I checked it out. It only shows a trilobite. Transitionform of what phyla is a trilobite exactly?quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and thus erosion discriminates, or the process of fossilisation disciminates.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: Well, PB, the latter is certainly true but not in the way you seem to think. Different animals have different chances of becoming fossils, depending upon where they live and how they are made. No one will debate this. Erosion even discriminates in a sense, I guess, as little tiny bits are more vulnerable to it than are larger fossils. Still, this isn't what you seem to mean. You have a catch phrase and you sticking to it.PB: Are you going to claim that all transitionforms were softbodied? Nothing left over?quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: Yes, it would be great that for once evolutionists came forward with mono-interpretable data.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: That is a devastating criticism, PB. "The evolutionists can't produce a better fossil record THAN THE ONE WE HAVE." LOL....... Do you listen to yourself?PB: I am here to obliterate evolutionism. Didn't get it yet? Talking about producing fossils. Maybe it is time for another hoax.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: Because of the lack of transtions between the phyla. As mentioned above.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: And as mentioned above, the lack is in your data.PB: Your data only show a trilobite.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: So, now you are going to tell me that the same biochemistry including the genetic code evolved from scratch more than once?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: Nope. I am thinking about very early forms of replicating molecules, not about complex life like bacteria. It is silly to think that one replicating molecule evolved.PB: Silly? How silly? As silly as the guys (alchemists) in the lab trying to make replicators and than try to make me believe the are on their way to making life? It is clear that these guys don't know what life is.J:The same processes that create one would likely create hundreds or thousands. Eventually, some group of these molecules get the upper hand and kill the process of genesis.PB: Talking about creation here? What do you mean by a creating process? Besides, how you sescribe it still is only one time. More importantly, what you describe is selection of the best replicator (=evolution). Now, Mammuthus, Schrafinator, et al, will have to severely object to your proposal.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: Yes, John, of about 1000 T. rexes only 1 (likely much less) fossilised. Same holds for the other species.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: But you didn't explain why you contradicted yourself?PB: I don't see a contradiction.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: According to me 'science' means 'knowledge', not 'inference' or 'extrapolation'. I could be wrong however.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: I hate to break it to you, PB, but knowledge is all inference and extrapolation. There is no way around it.PB: This is a phylisophical one. However, if we don't have knowledge but only inference and extrapolation how can we KNOW about evolution? It is your inference isn't it?quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: Not only sounding smart, I am smart.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: Perhaps, but you also have some serious tunnel vision.PB: I am a skeptic. I mean a real one. I used to be agnostic and sceptic. Now I am only a skeptic. I don't believe anything I didn't experience myself.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, the terms are not equal, and certainly not interchangable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: That is a nice reassertion of the assertion I addressed in the last post. Perchance you would tell us what the difference is?PB: You already gave the subtle differences.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: This can easily be checked at the genomic level. It has been demonstrated that all males have a common ancestor, and all females have a common ancestor. Around 50-150 Kya. There it ends.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: I followed this debate on the forum. You have no case. This has been adequately explained to you.PB: It is not my vision. It is an accepted vision of science that all man have a common ancestor around 50Kya and mtDNA Eve should also sound familiar. I gave all necessary publications. It is a huge evolutinary problem that can be solved only by infering non-random mutations. I actually pointed out where these non-random mutaions are in the ZFY region. Maybe Dr Page has an evolutionary solution. I am still waiting for his reply, though.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Molecular biology demonstrates that the current ideas of paleontology and geology could be wrong.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: Molecular BIOLOGY demonstrates that GEOLOGY is wrong? LOL
Molecular biology is a good tool for analyzing relationships among organisms. Despite your assertions, this does not destroy paleontology.PB: The first thing that had to be revised in paleontology was the alleged multiregion origin of Homo sapiens after genetic analysis of 'all' human subpopulations. Not knowing that is not having knowledge on the topic you discuss.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wouldn't be surprised, since it has become clear that hypothesis/theories are usually 'wrong'.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: So YOURS is wrong too then? Come on PB, this is childish.PB: Probably it is not complete. Childish? Why?quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: No, you infer it from your data. My data show otherwise.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: You don't have data, PB. At least, you have none that you have revealed here.PB: The usual denial. I have revealed at least 10 examples, and discussed them in detail. I also provided the references. Actually, I recently mailed them to you. No response though.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can the ratio explain the universe? I guess not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: What???? What ratio explaining what about the universe?PB: Rephrase: Can your ratio explain the universe?quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: You know what I mean. I take this as a non-answer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: No, I don't. I take this as an admission that you have no argument.PB: I meant that I was still waiting for the first transition form between phyla to occur in the fossil record.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: So what?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: Hello? We are talking about the fossil record!!!!PB: And how it is related to evolutionism. Your statement didn't do that. It was about measuring bones or something like that. My butcher around the corner sometimes measures bones too. Also phycicians measure bones. They infer size/growth patterns from it, not evolution.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: It could indeed be subject to selection.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: Then you admit that morphology indeed does have something to do with evolution. You contradict yourself again.PB: You did a course selective reading/copying, I presume. If you really had read my mailings you would have recognised the GUToB in my response.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Selection against to prevent degeneration of the gene pool.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: Then you must assume a 'perfect' gene pool at the start of a species' existence. Where is your evidence for this 'perfect' gene pool? There isn't any such evidence. You assume a phantasm. What evidence we have is for a whole bunch of screwy gene pools.PB: I assume a multipurpose genome. It is still present in the wollemi pine. And probably in other -not yet studied- organisms too. The stone corals comprise one DNA exchanging species.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See the GUToB at least is explanatory in such matters. (see what it holds with respect to selection in my thread mol gen proof for the MPG).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: I followed that thread as well. You are profoundly unconvincing.PB: Maybe you should read my mails unbiased. Free from your a priori 'knowledge'.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: What data are in accord with evolutionism? Not the contemporary biology data, I'm afraid.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: Sorry, but conventional biologists weigh in against you at about 10,000 to 1.PB: You mean orthodox evolutionary biologists. As mailed to you before, there is something going on in biology land (see my refernces to you in the mail you didn't respond to).quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Probably your interpretation of the fossil record.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: See above.PB: Biologist concerned with fossils? Since when are fossils life? I presume you mean paleontologists?quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fossils are not very informative with respect to biological evolution, since they are extinct and can not be subjected to genetic analysis.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: Sadly, most cannot be subjected to genetic analysis, but the claim that fossils are not informative is silly.PB: They do not give information with respect to evolution. Although you will 'conclude' it, I guess.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ancient DNA sequences that could be isolated and have been studies defy evolutionary dogma's (As discussed in other threads).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: You really shouldn't reference threads in which your ideas were shown to be wrong.PB: Not 'shown wrong', it was attempted to give it an evolutionary interpretation. Listen, John, I am not stupid. I know what I see and I know where evolutionism cannot hold.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: Till approx 50-150 Kya for humans. Other organisms unknown.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: Your interpretation of the data is wrong.PB: Get familiar with the topic. It is accepted science.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: Where exactly do we observe the gaps? All major transition forms?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: Nope. Not really. For one, an incomplete fossil record will give this illusion. Secondly, rapid change -- over millions of years instead of hundreds of million-- will further skew this illusion.PB: You still don't get the point. I am the first to admit that the record is incomplete. What puzzles me is the absence of ALL major transition forms. So, rapid change will do the trick? How rapid is rapid? 10, 100, 1000, 10000 generation? Less? More?quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: A theory also has to predict. With respect to biological observations evolutionism is usually wrong. (For instance in the case of genetic redundancies)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: With respect, only in your head. If this were the case, the ToE would be discarded.PB: Plenty of scientist already did that. As an irrelevant non-explaining hypothesis. I am one of them.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: He's a paleontologist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------And a Prof. of Zoology. Not to mention that there is a considerable amount of biology in paleontology. I call you on your unethical attempt to discredit an opponent.PB: These guys have been educated without mol biol in these disciplines. As demonstrated before in my thread about Dawkins, who is also a zoologist. He didn't even know --provable-- the most elementary stuff about DNA.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: Where?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: This part:He never gave me the impression that he was aware of the underlying molecular biology of the hypothesis of evolution.PB: And that's true. However, I like you to refer to a quote of mine that you makes me remind of him.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: Everything is possible, I see. Tell me, you fill the tank every now and than? And you decide to drive slow or fast, or the road?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: Again, you miss the point. PE and gradual evolution are not diametrically opposed. You can't drive fast and slow at the same time in the same car on the same road. But you can drive either fast or slow, and you can change speed.PB: What determines fast or slow? What is the driver in evolutionism?Best wishes,
Peter[This message has been edited by peter borger, 12-22-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

Well that is where you have to step out of the ideal and into the practical. Not all things that die fossilize. If it doesn't fossilize we don't dig it up. Thus, the fossil record is imperfect. We don't get the whole spectrum, but only bits and pieces of it. There is nothing anyone can do about this.

​

---

That is just a bit too conveeeeeeeeeeenient. Try this, the fossil record IS complete enough that there should easily be loads of fossils ranging from, say, 100% reptile, to 95% reptile 5% bird, 90% reptile 10% bird, etc. until we reach 100% bird 0% reptile. We should be able to have many displays like this in the museums, where people could see the gradual changes as one species changed to another...and then the case would be closed...but that's not what we have, why? because "unfortunately" the record isn't complete. Sorry, no sell.2ndly, if we start discussing fossilization, everybody agrees that it does not happen with the processes we currently have (ie. 2.4" sedimentation a year). It requires rapid burial away from destructive agents, which very much lends evidence to a global flood.Regards,
S

Sonnike,

quote:

---

Originally posted by sonnikke:
That is just a bit too conveeeeeeeeeeenient. Try this, the fossil record IS complete enough that there should easily be loads of fossils ranging from, say, 100% reptile, to 95% reptile 5% bird, 90% reptile 10% bird, etc. until we reach 100% bird 0% reptile.

---

Really, & how did you quantify that?

quote:

---

2ndly, if we start discussing fossilization, everybody agrees that it does not happen with the processes we currently have (ie. 2.4" sedimentation a year). It requires rapid burial away from destructive agents, which very much lends evidence to a global flood.

---

Then everything should be buried & fossilised as if a global flood happened, shouldn’t it? Why hasn’t it, then? Why are there transitional fossils at all? Why are there transitional sequences found in ascending order? How could that happen in a flood?Why do you interpret local catastrophe as global, when the same aged rocks elsewhere don't show the same evidence of "catastrophe"?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-23-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by sonnikke:
1)....Try this, the fossil record IS complete enough that there should easily be loads of fossils ranging from, say, 100% reptile, to 95% reptile 5% bird, 90% reptile 10% bird, etc. until we reach 100% bird 0% reptile....

​

2)....if we start discussing fossilization, everybody agrees that it does not happen with the processes we currently have (ie. 2.4" sedimentation a year). It requires rapid burial away from destructive agents, which very much lends evidence to a global flood.

​

Regards,
S

---

1)Ever hear of dinosaurs? They ain`t reptiles and they ain`t avians yet they contain features from both groups...2)Sure it could, all it needs is a landslide, earthquake the specimin to fall into a deep bog etc just like it always did, it doesn`t now nor ever needed a world wide flood of uncertain provenance....

Joz,Quick correction, the dinosaurs were reptiles.Series Amniota, Class Reptilia, Subdivision Ornithodira, Superorder Dinosauria.It would be more accurate to say that the birds appear to have evolved from therapod dinosaurs, since Archaeopteryx (among others) share many synapomorhies (shared derived traits) with birds & dinosaurs. And before any creationist wants to jump in with Protoavis as a rebuttle, it shared NO synapomorphies with dinosaurs, is known from an incomplete skeleton (sans feathers) that many palaeontologists believe represents two different organisms anyway, one of which is a crocodiomorph type archosaur.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-23-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by sonnikke:
That is just a bit too conveeeeeeeeeeenient.

---

Actually it is just common sense that we can't dig up what isn't in the ground.

quote:

---

Try this, the fossil record IS complete enough that there should easily be loads of fossils ranging from, say, 100% reptile, to 95% reptile 5% bird, 90% reptile 10% bird, etc. until we reach 100% bird 0% reptile.

---

Animals don't morph from one form to another like Transformers©. You can't take an ancestral species and a modern species and average them to get the in-betweens. So finding your percentage this and percentage that is silly. Think about this (purely hypothetical): imagine a mouse and then imagine that selection favors longer legs. Eventually, you end up with a tiny rabbit. Then selection favors size, so it grows to the size of a cat, then a large dog, then a kangaroo. At which point is it half-mouse and half-kangaroo-like-thing?

quote:

---

We should be able to have many displays like this in the museums, where people could see the gradual changes as one species changed to another...and then the case would be closed...but that's not what we have, why?

---

You need to visit more museums. This sort of sequence has been worked out for some animal lineages-- horses and whales are two examples that came up on this board not too long ago.

quote:

---

because "unfortunately" the record isn't complete. Sorry, no sell.

---

You can reconstruct descent from the fossil records, but you won't find what you are asking to find. That is the point. I suspect that nothing short of a representative of every generation from bacteria to humans will convince you that there is such a relationship.

quote:

---

2ndly, if we start discussing fossilization, everybody agrees that it does not happen with the processes we currently have (ie. 2.4" sedimentation a year).

---

Everybody agrees? Who exactly is everybody?

quote:

---

It requires rapid burial away from destructive agents, which very much lends evidence to a global flood.

---

Every year hundreds of rivers overflow their banks and dump many feet of sediment, locally, in the process. This is a natural current process. This is not a global flood by any stretch. And it is one of many processes going on today that can bury things rapidly. Volcanoes are another example.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

edited due to duplication[This message has been edited by John, 12-24-2002]

edited due to duplication[This message has been edited by John, 12-24-2002]

edited due to duplication[This message has been edited by John, 12-24-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

Animals don't morph from one form to another like Transformers©. You can't take an ancestral species and a modern species and average them to get the in-betweens. So finding your percentage this and percentage that is silly. Think about this (purely hypothetical): imagine a mouse and then imagine that selection favors longer legs. Eventually, you end up with a tiny rabbit. Then selection favors size, so it grows to the size of a cat, then a large dog, then a kangaroo. At which point is it half-mouse and half-kangaroo-like-thing?

---

There's your key..."imagination"...it is only in the imaginary fantasy world that a mouse would become a rabbit....if you don't have step by step gradual changes, it undermines your whole theory.Regards,
S

quote:

---

There's your key..."imagination"...it is only in the imaginary fantasy world that a mouse would become a rabbit....if you don't have step by step gradual changes, it undermines your whole theory.

---

But you don't have to imagine this sort of thing - you can go to museums (or at least go to the paleontological literature) and see for yourself where exactly this sort of thing has happened: from lobe-finned fish to tetrapods, from "reptile-like" tetrapods to "mammal-like" ones, from quadrupedal amphibious mammals to whales, from Hyracotherium to a huge variety of mostly extinct horses... and that's just a few of the vertabrates. And these all happened in our real world - no fantasy involved.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mark24:
[B]Joz,Quick correction, the dinosaurs were reptiles.Series Amniota, Class Reptilia, Subdivision Ornithodira, Superorder Dinosauria.
_____________________________________________________________It is interesting to consider that, among noted paleontologists, there is some discussion as to the possibility that dinosaurs were warm blooded. If so, we will need to rethink our definitions of their classification.Having said that, these names are only a means by which we try to group organisms. It is only useful for cataloging. There are many animals that do not fit neatly into any one group but are placed somewhere because they have to go SOMEWHERE!In addition to my earlier post that all fossils are transitional, I offer three living transitional species: penguins (whose feathers blend into something very much like scales on the back side of the wing), duck-billed platypus (lays eggs, has mammary glands, and a beak), and the polar bear (obviously a regular bear physiologically, but behaviorally very much the aquatic mammel, i.e. earth to sea, bottle-nosed dolphin?).Can anyone solve the riddle of this mneumonic?
King Phillip Sent Charlie Out For Greek SandwhichesHave fun.
-Shiloh

Shiloh,

quote:

---

It is interesting to consider that, among noted paleontologists, there is some discussion as to the possibility that dinosaurs were warm blooded. If so, we will need to rethink our definitions of their classification.

---

Why can't their be endotherm members of the reptilian class?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Why can't their be endotherm members of the reptilian class?

---

As I understand it, the newer classifications with a cladistic leaning don't view Reptilia as a valid classification anyway. Crocodiles and pigeons are apparently more closely related than either is to cobras, and we mammals share a common ancestor with all three of them.