|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: lion vs tiger | |||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Big_Al35 writes: Wow..a lion to tiger in 4 million years and chimpanzee to human in 7 million years. Something doesn't seem to add up. Again, you are factually wrong and misrepresenting what was said. No one said anything about "chimpanzee to human". The modern chimpanzee is 7 million years evolved from the critter at the human-chimp split. The modern human is 7 million years evolved from the critter at the human-chimp split. The modern lion is 4 million years evolved from the critter at the lion-tiger split. The modern tiger is 4 million years evolved from the critter at the lion tiger split. What doesn't add up? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9197 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
Still no source for your 15 million year comment?
Color me surprised. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2504 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
dronester writes: It is on my bucket list to see a tiger in the wild. I have friends who have lived in India who want to plan a Ranthambore National Park India safari some day. Is that the park where you saw the tigers? Any further suggestion or advise you could give? We did go into Ranthambore once, but just for one morning, and didn't see any tiger. The longer time you can give it, the better the chance (to state the obvious). It was at Khana, in central India (Madhya Pradesh) that we saw several, but that was over a 4/5 day period going into the park every morning and evening. Very early mornings are the best bet. The nice thing about it was that, in a very large area with about 100 tiger at the top of the food chain, there's a lot of other wild life about, so even without the cats, it's well worth it. Take a good pair of binoculars. More important than a camera, for me, and there are plenty of exotic birds. The peacocks were displaying while we were there, which was thoughtful of them! It was nearly 20 years ago, so I hope it's not too crowded now. Good memories!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4217 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Wow..a lion to tiger in 4 million years and chimpanzee to human in 7 million years. Something doesn't seem to add up. The only thing that doesn't add up is your sentence. Lions did not become tigers they evolved from a common ancestor, Humans did not evolve from chimps, they have a common ancestor. (note) try reading The Ancestor's Tale, by Richard Dawkins As for whether it is 4 million or 7 million or 50 million matters not. Evolution follows no time table. Edited by bluescat48, : missing "i" Edited by bluescat48, : dis for did There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Big_Al35 Member (Idle past 827 days) Posts: 389 Joined: |
bluescat48 writes: The only thing that doesn't add up is your sentence. We have already established that lions and tigers are almost indistinguishable in terms of bones etc in the modern age. A common ancestor would therefore also be almost indistinguishable from the modern cats. Identifying fossils for a common ancestor would therefore be a fruitless/worthless task. They both share the genus Felidae - Panthera (leo and tigris). Humans on the other hand have the genus Hominidae - Homo - Sapien while chimpanzees have the genus Hominidae - Hominini - Pan. Therefore we do not share the genus Homo with any living creature. Therefore there is a world of difference between humans and chimpanzees. However, if you were to discover certain bones of a chimpanzee they might be indistinguishable from a small child or an adult human. Finding a common ancestor therefore would be a fruitless task. As evidenced by Nebraska man, Peking man, Piltdown man etc.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
You understand that the only part of our binomial classification system that can even maybe be said to physically exist in nature is the "species", right? That genus and up is basically arbitrary bookkeeping?
Try not to fall into species essentialism. Chimpanzees aren't in the genus Pan because they contain some essential Pan quality; they're in Pan because that's where some biologists decided to put them. (There is, in fact, a pretty good argument to be made for reclassifying them as Homo troglodytes.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
We have already established that lions and tigers are almost indistinguishable in terms of bones etc in the modern age. Not really, you claimed this was the case but you didn't provide any evidence to support that claim. In contrast here is a blog post showing several differences between lion and tiger skulls.
However, if you were to discover certain bones of a chimpanzee they might be indistinguishable from a small child or an adult human. Finding a common ancestor therefore would be a fruitless task. This makes no sense. The fact that a partial incomplete specimen can be misclassified doesn't provide the least bit of justification for the claim that looking for remains that resemble a plausible common ancestor would be fruitless. After all, we don't want to find partial inconclusive remains.
As evidenced by Nebraska man, Peking man, Piltdown man etc. I don't see how those examples evidence any such thing. 1 hoax 1 misidentified tooth and 1 hominid fossil don't seem to suggest that looking for a species resembling a plausible common ancestor is fruitless. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Big_Al35 Member (Idle past 827 days) Posts: 389 Joined: |
Wounded King writes: Not really, you claimed this was the case but you didn't provide any evidence to support that claim. In contrast here is a blog post showing several differences between lion and tiger skulls. Ok here is one link from potentially many that supports my claim that the differences are hard to distinguish.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9197 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
Big Al's reference states this.
ABE Quote fixed by edit quote: Wk's reference states this.
quote: One is an unevidenced assertion, the other is referenced evidence. I wonder who I am going to believe. I truly find it amazing(not really) that BigAl uses an unevidenced assertion as evidence for his unevidenced assertion. Edited by Theodoric, : wrong quote pasted Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
I assume the quote should have been ...
The skeleton of the lion and tiger are so alike that without the skin it is almost impossible to tell them apart, presenting even the best experts with a great challenge. ... did you forget to press ctrl-c after selecting the text? I do that all the time, especially since I switched from routinely using linux to using windows. As an aside a paper available on Scribd, here, gives a more sophisticated multivariable morphometric approach which they claim can distinguish tiger and lion skulls 100% of the time. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Big_Al35 Member (Idle past 827 days) Posts: 389 Joined: |
I didn’t really distinguish between someone who converted to atheism vs one who never was religious to begin with. HUH! Sorry, I don't know what you are banging on about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Big_Al35 Member (Idle past 827 days) Posts: 389 Joined: |
Wounded King writes: As an aside a paper available on Scribd, here, gives a more sophisticated multivariable morphometric approach which they claim can distinguish tiger and lion skulls 100% of the time. I think I might have seen this already. Still there is enough room for doubt. It would be interesting to see if they can tell a tigon or a liger skull apart from the parent species.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2322 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Big_Al35 writes:
He made a mistake, the quote should have been:
HUH! Sorry, I don't know what you are banging on about. Big_Al35 writes: The skeleton of the lion and tiger are so alike that without the skin it is almost impossible to tell them apart, presenting even the best experts with a great challenge. I think he wanted to point out that that is all your quote says about it, while wounded king's quote is far more detailed. Which makes him believe WK's source, and not yours.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9197 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
oops wrong paste.
here is the correct.
The skeleton of the lion and tiger are so alike that without the skin it is almost impossible to tell them apart, presenting even the best experts with a great challenge. I will fix original post too Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pandion Member (Idle past 3028 days) Posts: 166 From: Houston Joined: |
So, let me offer another example. Brown bears and Polar bears.
They are obviously different in appearance, but more than that, there are many other differences. Polar bears have webbed feet. Polar bears have colorless fur (not white) that transmits light (and heat) to the (black) skin. Polar bears have a double coat of fur, long hair and a short, dense interior coat that is essentially, water proof, much like a duck. It is laden with oils from the skin that makes it waterproof. Polar bears lack the dished face of brown bears. Polar bears have hind legs that are proportionally longer than those of brown bears. Polar bears are generally larger than brown bears. Polar bears have smaller ears. Only Kodiak bears rival the size of Polar bears, and yet, on average, Kodiak bears are smaller. These species are distinguishable from the skeleton alone. And yet, Brown bears and Polar bears are interfertile. And, as I understand, so are the hybrids with each other and both parent species. So the two interfertile species are distinguishable by outward appearance as well as skeletal structure. Moreover, they have been distinguished by genetic analysis, except for the Brown bears of the ABC islands. In appearance, these bears are indistinguishable from any other Brown bear. Genetically, they are indistinguishable from Polar bears.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024