Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Neanderthals
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 3 of 159 (1298)
12-26-2001 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by RetroCrono
12-26-2001 10:29 AM


"Wow, I'm doubtful you speak for any real evolutionist there. Since when could two different species successfully mate? "
There is evidence that there was neanderthal/human interbreeding. Some Europeans do have neanderthal adaptions such as heavy bone structure. This evidence isn't particularly conclusive IMO.
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by RetroCrono, posted 12-26-2001 10:29 AM RetroCrono has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by maxm007, posted 12-26-2001 12:59 PM mark24 has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 10 of 159 (53178)
09-01-2003 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by rabair
09-01-2003 1:54 AM


Re: Where are they now?
Rabair,
We didn't evolve from extant monkeys. The great apes & old world monkeys share a common ancestor, in the meantime there have been a lot of casualties, but the species that survived to the present day are OWM & great apes.
Mark
[This message has been edited by mark24, 09-01-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by rabair, posted 09-01-2003 1:54 AM rabair has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 24 of 159 (53293)
09-01-2003 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by crashfrog
09-01-2003 6:08 PM


Re: evidence?
Hi Crash,
Strictly speaking, not everything is lost when an organism dies that lacks language, information wise. Chimps learn from their parents various techniques that they pass on to their children, the stick-in-an-ant-nest, for one.
Mark
------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by crashfrog, posted 09-01-2003 6:08 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by crashfrog, posted 09-01-2003 6:58 PM mark24 has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 67 of 159 (53680)
09-03-2003 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by rabair
09-03-2003 2:07 AM


Plesiosaur? Shark?
rabair,
For your edification.
http://members.aol.com/paluxy2/plesios.htm
"Figure 4. Basking shark and "pseudoplesiosaur"
A. Basking shark in closed-mouth profile.
B. Basking shark while feeding.
C. Decomposed basking shark presenting a plesiosaur-like shape. Scale bar shows that a 10 meter basking shark carcass with tail lost would have essentially the same body proportions as those indicated in the Zuiyo carcass (Figure 2). The carcass head and neck combined were measured at 1.95 m long and the tail 2.0 m, making the unmeasured torso (mid section) 6.05 m by calculation."
-- Gross amino acid analysis of the carcass samples gave results that closely matched elastoidin from a known basking shark. Elastoidin is a collagenous protein known only from sharks and rays (not reptiles or even other fish). The match was especially impressive when known basking shark elastoidin was treated with an antiseptic sodium hypochlorite (NaClO) solution, as were the Zuiyo-maru samples (Obata and Tomoda 1978, p 52; Omura, Mochizuki, and Kamiya 1978, p 58). The correspondence was virtually identical on all 20 amino acids tested (Table 1). In discussing this "striking similarity," Kimura, Fujii, and others (1978, p 72) noted that a statistical test called the "difference index (DI)" gave the extremely low value of .95 indicating a tight match. They also noted that the high tryosine content (43 and 41 residues for the samples) is especially characteristic of shark elastoidin as compared with other collagens, which typically have 5 or less residues. ceratotrichia."
-- Electron micrographs of the tissue showed numerous parallel protofibrils, along with a particular banding pattern that is characteristic of shark elastoidin. Micrographs also revealed a major periodic striation pattern of 450-500 angstroms, which is shorter than typical collagens, but which was previously observed in basking shark elastoidin (Kimura, Fujii, and others 1978).
-- Earlier gas chromatography analysis on the horny fibers gave results consistent with shark tissue (Sasaki 1978)
It looks like rotting shark, it is chemically & anatomically consistent with being a rotting shark. Why would you think it is anything but a rotting shark? Have you seen a decayiong plesiopsaur to compare it with?
Mark
------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by rabair, posted 09-03-2003 2:07 AM rabair has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 74 of 159 (53742)
09-03-2003 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by rabair
09-03-2003 3:53 PM


Re: real but not fact.... what are you children.
rabair,
rabair writes:
However, you make the claim that DNA tests were done to prove this... But I don't see that anywhere nor have I even once.
Not DNA, as far as I'm aware, those techniques weren't available then, but amino acid analysis was. It's shark elastoidin protein.
rabair writes:
And if they do, then you all jump to another explanation. More and more guessing.
No guessing, a conclusion based on evidence.
rabair writes:
Then your friend goes on to mention some bologna about amino acids, but doesn't point out the rest of the findings.... The scientist giving these findings also finds them to be inconclusive,
I BEG your pardon?
The match was especially impressive when known basking shark elastoidin was treated with an antiseptic sodium hypochlorite (NaClO) solution, as were the Zuiyo-maru samples (Obata and Tomoda 1978, p 52; Omura, Mochizuki, and Kamiya 1978, p 58). The correspondence was virtually identical on all 20 amino acids tested (Table 1). In discussing this "striking similarity," Kimura, Fujii, and others (1978, p 72) noted that a statistical test called the "difference index (DI)" gave the extremely low value of .95 indicating a tight match.
Did you read, "the match was especially impressive", "virtually identical", "striking similarity", & "tight match"? Does that sound like the scientists in question found the results inconclusive?
rabair writes:
but I guess we'll take this other guys word for it because he read it on a biased web site somewhere
That quotes impartial findings. Are your sources impartial?
rabair writes:
so he's much more of an expert than the scientists who actually studied it.
No, I'm taking my lead from the scientists, you aren't. Why?
rabair writes:
Not to mention the carcass's defined spinal column, lack of a dorsal fin, and it's not like it juste had a skull... It has a small HEAD. An actual head, not just a skull that could compare with a shark.
There was evidence of a dorsal fin.
One of the photos (Figure 1c) shows an apparent dorsal fin, as illustrated in Figures 5). Dorsal fins are possessed by most fish including sharks, but are thought to have been lacking in plesiosaurs.
Figure 5. Interpretive drawing of the photograph in Figure 1c. A. Myocommata. B. Right fore limb. C. Cranuim D. Dorsal fin. Compare to Figure 1c.
-- As seen in the photos, the anterior fins appears to be articulated at a right angle to the shoulder, consistent with sharks but not plesiosaurs (Obata and Tomoda 1978, p 46); Hasegawa and Uyeno 1978, p 65). The pectoral girdle is visible between the front fins in Figures 1a and 1b, and appears broken but is shark-like in shape (Compagno 1997; Phelps 1997; Roesch 1997).
Note that the head is pointing away from you (above), & the fin appears awfully close to the spinal column, rather than the pectoral lower quarter consistent with the position of the head.
In this photo, for comparison, both pectoral fins are visible, the dorsal fin isn't, 'cos it's round the back. Also the lowest part of the dorsal fin in the first photo is about as low as the head, the fin in the second photo is much lower indicating it is indeed a separate fin, both pecs are visible, meaning we have a third fin at the back.
Not that we know plesiousaurs never had a dorsal fin, of course, but I digress.
Again, I take my lead from the experts who know how sharks decay. If you think they are wrong, lets have your evidence. For your edification:
When the basking shark decays, the jaws and loosely attached gill arches often fall away first, leaving the appearance of a long neck and small head (see Figure 4). All or part of the tail (especially the lower half which lacks vertebral support) and/or the dorsal fin may also slough away before the better supported pectoral and pelvic fins, creating a form that superficially resembles a plesiosaur (Huevelmans 1968; Burton & Burton 1969; Cohen 1982; Bright 1989 Ellis 1989).
That's five separate studies showing the same thing.
rabair writes:
If it were infact a basking shark.... Would your experts not have just compared the bones and said, there it is, it's a shark? Why wasn't that done to prove you right.
They would of if the carcass wasn't thrown back.
Yano also removed 42 pieces of "horny fiber" from an anterior fin, in hopes of aiding future identification efforts. The creature was then released over the side and sank back into its watery grave. All of this took place within about an hour (Koster 1977).
rabair writes:
Not to mention... because it's amino acids "match" that of a shark, who's to say they don't match that of a Plesiosaur? Have you tested another Plesiosaur to find out. Again, you "Conclude", when infact you haven't proven.
Here's a question for you. A carcass was discovered that was 33 feet long, the length of a particular species of basking shark, found in in those waters. It's decay pattern is consistent with it being a shark. The tissue samples show a protein found only in sharks, & heavily lean to a basking shark origin. The number of cervical vertebrae, ~7, is consistent with it being a shark. Plesiosaurs have many more. Fin rays were evident. Fin rays are only found on fish, plesiousaurs have bony phalanges similar to whales. The ribs were 16" long, too short for ANY marine animal that size, living or dead, except sharks.
What is the likeliest explanation, the carcass was a shark, probably a basking shark, or a marine reptile not seen for 65 million years?
Mark
------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by rabair, posted 09-03-2003 3:53 PM rabair has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Zhimbo, posted 09-03-2003 6:13 PM mark24 has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 81 of 159 (53768)
09-03-2003 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by rabair
09-03-2003 7:36 PM


Re: okay okay
rabair
But it's cool, don't worry about acknowledging the full findings of scientists who studied the tissue, etc.... Don't worry about that, no one needs to know that. Just tell everyone the only way you can explain it is a basking shark, that'll be a lot easier.
Are you illiterate?
The tissue samples showed on more than one level that the carcass was a shark. Where, WHERE, do analyses based on the tissue samples say anything else?
They threw the fucker overboard coz it was a worthless smelly shark carcass.
You are an expert in advocacy, you really should consider politics where your rhetoric can reign supreme. Unfortunately, this is science, & it is evidence based, & not rabairs-incredulity-in-the-face-of-evidence-based. You haven't made a single rebuttle based on the scientific findings of experts & well established techniques, do you wonder why no one is taking you seriously? The ENTIRE body of evidence, even the photographs, point to a shark carcass. Upon close examination, there isn't a single fact that would lead anyone to conclude a plesiousaur had been discovered.
I ask again:
"Here's a question for you. A carcass was discovered that was 33 feet long, the length of a particular species of basking shark, found in in those waters. It's decay pattern is consistent with it being a shark. The tissue samples show a protein found only in sharks, & heavily lean to a basking shark origin. The number of cervical vertebrae, ~7, is consistent with it being a shark. Plesiosaurs have many more. Fin rays were evident. Fin rays are only found on fish, plesiousaurs have bony phalanges similar to whales. The ribs were 16" long, too short for ANY marine animal that size, living or dead, except sharks.
What is the likeliest explanation, the carcass was a shark, probably a basking shark, or a marine reptile not seen for 65 million years?"
In other words, what evidence makes you think a plesiosaur carcass was discovered rather than a shark. In case I'm not being clear, produce evidence that a plesiosaur carcass was discovered that is better than the multiple lines of evidence pointing to a shark carcass. We both know you can't, so why are you still claiming it's a plesiosaur? The fact is, you are claiming something that is contradicted by LOT's of evidence, & I'm left asking myself why.
Mark
------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by rabair, posted 09-03-2003 7:36 PM rabair has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by rabair, posted 09-03-2003 8:33 PM mark24 has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 84 of 159 (53777)
09-03-2003 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by rabair
09-03-2003 8:33 PM


Re: okay okay
rabair,
Listen... You're clearly angry...I can't keep coming on and having people pick and choose things I say, and lie and spin them, and outright make things up, it's just becoming such a huge waste.
I'm angry? Did you read your last but one post?
Regardless. What is frustrating for me, is that you have ignored the same request twice, the exercise of which forces you to critically analyse the evidence. You have failed to refute any of the experts findings, all of which, without exception, point to the carcass being a shark.
I'll ask again:
"Here's a question for you. A carcass was discovered that was 33 feet long, the length of a particular species of basking shark, found in in those waters. It's decay pattern is consistent with it being a shark. The tissue samples show a protein found only in sharks, & heavily lean to a basking shark origin. The number of cervical vertebrae, ~7, is consistent with it being a shark. Plesiosaurs have many more. Fin rays were evident. Fin rays are only found on fish, plesiousaurs have bony phalanges similar to whales. The ribs were 16" long, too short for ANY marine animal that size, living or dead, except sharks.
What is the likeliest explanation, the carcass was a shark, probably a basking shark, or a marine reptile not seen for 65 million years?"
I can't keep coming on and having people pick and choose things I say
Spurious objection. The point is you cannot refute any of the evidence, nor can you present any of your own, yet you refuse to accept the intellectual consequences of this - changing your mind, God forbid.
I started off with someone using their whole post to call me basically a christian bible based idiot, when I'd never even mentioned anything religion or christian related.
Tell them that, I'm only interested in what you can logically rationalise. I never called you a "christian bible based idiot". Don't post to them, if that's the case.
You people just lash out instead of really answering questions posed, so I'm done.
I think you'll find I have gone to far more trouble finding information & answering questions than you, why is that you are "done", & not me?
In fact, & I stand to be corrected, you haven't answered one of my questions.
And by the way Mark24, did I ever claim that it was a Plesiosaur...
Actually irrelevant. The subsequent discussion was about the evidential relative merits of the plesiosaur/basking shark cases. What you were claiming that it more closely resembled a plesiosaur than a shark & that this in some way presented a problem:
rabair writes:
Have you heard of that very seemingly Plesiosaur carcass that japanese fishermen caught off of New Zealand? It doesn't get addressed by those believing in evolution, because it's contradictory to the evolutionary "science." I mean, it was a carcass, not bones... It hadn't been dead for that long... Certainly not millions of years, not by a long shot. And if you're a true evolutionist, I'm sure you'll try to say it's a basking shark, but those who've seen it and if you yourself look at the pictures, it's pretty clear that it bears an incredible resemblance to the Plesiosaur, and not nearly as much to a basking shark.
The ball is in your court, & you can't complain of how I would react to you presenting evidence because you have yet to start.
Mark
------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by rabair, posted 09-03-2003 8:33 PM rabair has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024