|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Flood Geology: A Thread For Portillo | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2690 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
But is this kind of error (which I take on faith at this point btw) frequent or rare? How much information is sufficient to make an educated estimate? My guess is frequent. But I really don't know. I get the impression that a lot of conclusions about the past are based on flimsy evidence , but that's just an impression I am getting.
No, you first asserted that you had issues with dating methodology. This was the second time I suggested you should look at that thread and see what you can explain. Your previous response was to ask a question rather than to go to that thread. Fair enough, I guess I am getting more ready to tackle that thread as this one is drawing to a close (getting a bit repetitive here at the moment)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Ichthyosaurs aren't "very mammal like". They're plainly reptiles.
How about hiding in a landlocked sea? Suddenly in the Triassic you get ichthyosaurs , warm blooded dolphin looking air breathing, live young bearing "reptiles ... No, you don't. First you get ichthyopterygians, which unlike "dolphin looking" ichthyosaurs had no tail flukes and no dorsal fins, and otherwise look like ichthysosaurs. Problem solved.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Well, here' s apie chart for the human genome.
Now, one question we'd have to ask is, when people are counting the variants of a gene, are they including variants that only appear in the introns? This would make a difference, as you can see. Now if I remember rightly, the things we've been talking about on this thread involved variations in the actual proteins, so the answer might be no. I'm sure a geneticist will turn up soon and tell me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2690 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
Looking at some of my local (ie Australian) geology: In the mid Proterozoic rocks here I can only find fossils of stromatolites. Your claim seems to be that nearly all other genera existed but were somehow not fossilised. I move up the sequence a little to late Proterozoic, I'm still seeing stromatilites but I also see Ediacara. Nothing else. Above this is the Cambrian where I start seeing arthropods as well as stromatolites. Ediacaran fossils have also been reported in the Cambrian. However, no fossils of amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals etc. By the time we get to Ordovician rocks in eastern Australia we start seeing verterbrates - jawless fishes as well as arthropods, etc, etc. No marine mammals, no marine reptiles, no marine amphibians and no marine birds for some reason. I could go on, but you know the pattern. In every succeeding geological epoch we see, not just new species, but often new genera, plus nearly always examples of the pre existing genera. Isn't it a much more elegant solution to this observation to admit that the over time new species and genera are appearing rather than to try and come up with some convoluted theory that genera start coming out of hiding for no apparent reason? It might be worth having a look at the cognitive dissonance thread. Its nothing new I'm proposing. Just look at the sudden appearance of the ichthyosaur in the Triassic, this very mammal-like reptile has live young, and is warm blooded. How did it appear suddenly with no known transitional fossils? The sudden appearance of the wide variety of angiosperms is really hard to explain in evolutionary timeframes. Quite a few evolutionists have claimed they must have already been in existence before the PT boundary, but in rare enclaves, I'm not the first to theorize this concept. Martin, AC Weber etc etc are proponents of this idea from an evolutionary perspective. PERMIAN MONSOON EVOLUTION OF ANGIOSPERMS to FURNISH DECIDUOUS GLAZE ICE TREES Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
* coughs *
There are transitional fossils. I just told you about them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2690 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
Ichthyopterygia ("fish flippers") was a designation introduced by Sir Richard Owen in 1840 to designate the Jurassic ichthyosaurs that were known at the time, but the term is now used more often for both true Ichthyosauria and their more primitive early and middle Triassic ancestors.[1][2] Its not a forerunner to the ichthyosaur, ichthyopterygia is an ichthyosaur, sometimes referring to the earlier types. Where did these early Triassic creatures come from? They were warm blooded, had live young, pretty unique for the early Triassic, and just appeared without evidence of forerunners. Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Why did you post an unsourced quote that directly contradicted your claim ?
I suppose that it is at least a small advance, in that we can see immediately that you are wrong, rather than having to trawl through a paper trying to find the bit that you think supports your claims.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2690 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
Ichthyosaurs aren't "very mammal like". They're plainly reptiles. Wikipedia's definition of a reptile:
Traditionally, reptiles are members of the class Reptilia comprising the amniotes that are neither birds nor mammals.[1] (The amniotes are the vertebrates with eggs featuring an amnion, a double membrane that permits the embryo to breathe effectively on land.) Living reptiles can be distinguished from other tetrapods in that they are cold-blooded and bear scutes or scales. On the contrary these dolphin like Ichthyosaurs are warm blooded and have live young, not conforming to biological classification of reptiles at all. But of course we have to still call them reptiles because mammals did not arrive for millions of years. So even though this creature has suddenly developed the ability for live young, and is warm blooded, and we don't know where it came from, let's still call it a reptile so that we do not disturb the so-called phylogenetic tree. All hail the phylogenetic tree! It supercedes what's staring in our faces. Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2690 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
Why did you post an unsourced quote that directly contradicted your claim ? Ichthyopterygia - Wikipedia Its the wikipedia article, and it clearly says that Ichthyopterygia includes ichthyosaurs. To say that they were forerunners to ichthyosaurs when they included them, is incorrect. "Ichthyopterygia ("fish flippers") was a designation introduced by Sir Richard Owen in 1840 to designate the Jurassic ichthyosaurs that were known at the time, but the term is now used more often for both true Ichthyosauria and their more primitive early and middle Triassic ancestors.[1][2]" Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: You have a strange idea of what it means to clearly say something. Here's the quote again with the important part in bold
Ichthyopterygia ("fish flippers") was a designation introduced by Sir Richard Owen in 1840 to designate the Jurassic ichthyosaurs that were known at the time, but the term is now used more often for both true Ichthyosauria and their more primitive early and middle Triassic ancestors.[1][2] It clearly states that the term includes creatures which are NOT true ichthyosaurs, but are instead the "more primitive early and middle Triassic ancestors" of the true ichthyosaurs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Its not a forerunner to the ichthyosaur, ichthyopterygia is an ichthyosaur ... According to your own quote, the term ichthyopterygians can include both true ichthyosaurs and their primitive ancestors. The ones was referring you to were primitive, ancestral, and not true ichthyosaurs. Being primitive, they were intermediate between land reptiles and the dolphin-like forms. Land reptiles have no flippers, no tail flukes, and no dorsal fins, the intermediate forms have flippers but no tail flukes and no dorsal fins; the dolphin-like variety have flippers (the rear pair becoming increasingly rudimentary), dorsal fins, and tail flukes. So yeah, intermediate forms. 'Cos of their forms being intermediate. There are plenty of fore-runners. What we haven't found yet is a diapsid that comes just before the fully aquatic stage. It would be nice if we'd found everything, but to be sure, we haven't. But how do you deal with the difficulty of this supposed "sudden appearance"? Only it seems to be graver for your ideas than ours. We would expect the land-bound protoichthyosaurs to be confined to one place, since they were not yet fully marine (as turned out to be the case with whales when paleontologists finally found the fossils) and perhaps we haven't found the place yet. But according to you, all the ichthyosaurs, though perfectly capable of roaming the oceans, must instead have been concealed in an undiscovered location or locations until they came out to play in the Triassic --- which they did in order of how adapted they were to marine life, with the most poorly adapted coming out of hiding first. Are we meant to find your idea more plausible? Why? --- Viviparous reptiles include various skinks, chameleons, night lizards, boas, vipers, and garter snakes, so I don't know why you keep mentioning it as though it was surprising.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
On the contrary these dolphin like Ichthyosaurs are warm blooded and have live young, not conforming to biological classification of reptiles at all. Except that biologists, when they're classifying ichthyosaurs, biologically classify them as reptiles. Maybe they know slightly more about biological classification than you do. For example, they are surely aware that it is not part of the definition of a reptile that it does not bear live young. Whereas you do not. Nor would a biologist classify the leatherback turtle as a mammal (while all the other turtles would stay as reptiles) on the basis of its warm blood. Because that would be silly. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3742 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
mindspawn writes:
So - this skink is not a reptile as it gives birth to live young:
On the contrary these dolphin like Ichthyosaurs are warm blooded and have live young, not conforming to biological classification of reptiles at all. But this skink is a reptile as it lays eggs:
Well, I am glad we cleared that up."There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Yeah, they're completely diskinkt.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2690 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
Well, I am glad we cleared that up. Yeah the first one looks a lot like Dr A's monkey. clearly a mammal! (Panda if you reading this - its a joke
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024