Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8984 total)
45 online now:
PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (2 members, 43 visitors)
Newest Member: Jerry Johnson
Post Volume: Total: 877,697 Year: 9,445/23,288 Month: 460/1,544 Week: 174/561 Day: 0/14 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Undermining long-held paradigms
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16111
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 46 of 124 (345916)
09-02-2006 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Hyroglyphx
09-01-2006 11:43 PM


Re: Herbivores
The Mesozoic and upper Creataceous should have had very small mammals that were herbovires, but now we have dog-sized carnivorous mammals.

"Should", according to what? Not the theory of evolution, which makes no such prediction.

Not according to the history of evolution: as has been pointed out to you, science has long known of mammals of this size from this period.

"Dog-sized"? The article says the size of a cat, which is much more precise. Dogs come in all sorts of sizes. I begin to see how creationist nonsense is born.

And ... herbivores? Herbivores? Are you under some sort of religious vow to be wrong about everything? The small early mammals were mainly insectivores. I'm not sure that any early mammal herbivores are known (someone please correct me if I'm wrong).

It is interesting in this connection to note that modern mammals classed as insectivores, such as shrews, will in fact kill and eat small reptiles.

---

Still no word about your slanders over the peppered moth, et cetera, I see. You'll find the word "integrity" in any good dictionary, and the words THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS in any Bible.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-01-2006 11:43 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Admin, posted 09-02-2006 10:11 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16111
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 47 of 124 (345919)
09-02-2006 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Hyroglyphx
09-01-2006 11:43 PM


Crocs
I mean, why and how did Crocs, Alligators, and their direct progeny survive the extinction if all large reptiles succombed to the elements?

Personally, I have no idea. But perhaps you could enlighten me. What is the Creation Science explanation of why (non-avian) dinosaurs are extinct and crocodiles are not?

Cheers.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-01-2006 11:43 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Archer Opteryx, posted 09-02-2006 2:36 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded
 Message 94 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-04-2006 11:41 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 2149 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 48 of 124 (345922)
09-02-2006 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by kuresu
09-02-2006 12:00 AM


K-T Event
kuresu:

I'm not sure about the crocs, but I think the reason they wre able to survive was this.

They are true reptiles, and they lived in the water.
as true, cold blooded reptiles, they can often go for a year without eating if they've eaten a good sized meal.

Being in the water conveyed an advantage to surviving the k-t extinction event, but I'm not sure what exactly. possibly the water was warmer. I know the water has to help somewhere--reason being--less life was destroyed in water than on land.

Here's some conjecture from a non-specialist who just reads a lot.

I think the effect you are talking about, kuresu, has to do with the way bodies of water can ameliorate the extremes of hot and cold temperatures. Everyone knows it's cooler on a beach or on a lake in summer than it is further inland. But bodies of water also curtail the extremes of cold temperatures in winter, even if their surfaces are frozen.

A look at winter temperatures near the Great Lakes (Copper Harbor, Michigan, say, on Lake Superior) and further away (Minneapolis, Minnesota) on any given day shows this. The temperatures near the lake drop to freezing but do not keep dropping so far below. No one in Copper Harbor is going to break out the suntan lotion in January, of course. But the difference in temperature is one that could make all the difference in survival.

You have an asteroid impact that swathes the earth in darkness and near freezing temperatures for six months. That shuts down a lot of photosynthesis and wipes out food chains in both the sea and land. That kind of catastrophe would run up the food chain in no time.

The largest animals that require the largest quantities of food would be doomed. So out go the pterosaurs, the mosasoars, ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, and non-avian dinosaurs along with the largest species of fish and reptiles.

Smaller animals that eat far less have an advantage. Avian dinosaurs (birds), with their insulating feathers, have an advantage in riding it out. Animals that can burrow or hibernate have an advantage. This is what crocodiles and turtles do, of course. They make burrows and hibernate through dry seasons.

Small mammals would make it because they could burrow and perhaps hibernate. Many of them had been burrowing anyway to stay away from the big guys. But as omnivores they could also eat. Hard times favor the generalist. And they would have plenty in the 'fridge to nibble on: frozen dinosaur carcasses all over the landscape.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by kuresu, posted 09-02-2006 12:00 AM kuresu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by kuresu, posted 09-02-2006 1:29 AM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded
 Message 98 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-04-2006 4:43 PM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 1064 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 49 of 124 (345936)
09-02-2006 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Archer Opteryx
09-02-2006 12:29 AM


Re: K-T Event
that makes sense. I figured it was something close to this, but I just didn't know how to put it--lack of more precise knowledge I'd say.

One other thing I would include that would help the crocs is that of thier low metabolism. they only have to eat once a year in extreme times. So a good chunk of them could survive the freezing period, and also have access to all that rotting flesh. that's the other reason that the reptiles survived.

Even if the non-avian dinosaurs were cold-blooded, living on land screwed them. And if warm--blooded, they're screwed yet again because the large ones especially would need plenty of food every couple of days, I'd say. My personal guess is that the last of the non avian dinos to die out were the smaller ones--like the comps (or whatever was about their size at that time)


All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Archer Opteryx, posted 09-02-2006 12:29 AM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 6026
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 50 of 124 (345940)
09-02-2006 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Quetzal
09-01-2006 12:01 PM


Re: Tempest in a Teaspoon
Did you even read the article you linked to? The "dinosaur" was five inches long. The mammal was the size of a cat.

Yes. And did you not get the memo that mammals were supposed to be no more than 5 inches and herbivores?

Paleontologists have long expressed the opinion that Laurasian mammals in the Cretaceous were both carnivorous and up to the size of cats (see, for example, Arundelconodon).

Why only Laurasian as opposed Gondwanan as well? During the Cretaceous period, most of Pangea was still supposed to be well intact intead of separating into the two supercontinents. According to the theory it wasn't until the late Mesozoic era that plates would have shifted in such a way as to form two distinct continents.

Not only doesn't the article support any kind of "undermining [of] long-held paradigms", but it doesn't even support what you seem to be claiming for the find itself. Be careful, you're starting to "randman-ize" your arguments - which up to this point, while being mostly wrong, have been at least well thought out.

Well, I'd sure hate to diminish my well-liked but mostly wrong stature here on EvC. How do I sound like Randman? I really don't see much of him so I don't know what his arguments entail. Does he have piss-poor arguments or something?


“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." —G. K. Chesterton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Quetzal, posted 09-01-2006 12:01 PM Quetzal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by kuresu, posted 09-02-2006 1:53 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 52 by kuresu, posted 09-02-2006 1:58 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 53 by Archer Opteryx, posted 09-02-2006 2:30 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 55 by anglagard, posted 09-02-2006 2:43 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 56 by Lithodid-Man, posted 09-02-2006 5:14 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 57 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-02-2006 8:11 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 75 by Quetzal, posted 09-02-2006 1:44 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 1064 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 51 of 124 (345945)
09-02-2006 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Hyroglyphx
09-02-2006 1:37 AM


Re: Tempest in a Teaspoon
randman, if I may, doesn't have piss-poor arguments.
If you want a good example, check of the woese's progenote hypothesis thread.

He uses evidence for common ancestry as evidence against common ancestry.
He claims that, when Woese is stating that he doesn't see how a genote ancestor can be the ancestor of the bacteria, eukarya, and archae, but that a progenote can be, that woese is actually saying that there is no common ancestor. or something to that effect.

It's actually a little bit like Heropton (Ray). Ray loves to make the claim that if you disagree with him on something then he is clearly right. Of course, this means that if you agree with him, is he wrong? To him, no. He's still right. How Rand and him are alike is in using opposites--evidence for something is actually against something, or disagreement proves rightness, and agreement proves rightness.

Anywho, using evidence to support your claims (which doesn't actually support your claims) is using Rand's tactic. that's all.

oh, and in that sense his arguments are piss-poor. If only he could use the correct evidence to support his claims at times.


All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-02-2006 1:37 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 1064 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 52 of 124 (345949)
09-02-2006 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Hyroglyphx
09-02-2006 1:37 AM


Re: Tempest in a Teaspoon
nemesis writes:

During the Cretaceous period, most of Pangea was still supposed to be well intact intead of separating into the two supercontinents. According to the theory it wasn't until the late Mesozoic era that plates would have shifted in such a way as to form two distinct continents.

wiki writes:

Pangaea is believed to have broken up about 180 million years ago (mya) in the Jurassic Period, first into two supercontinents (Gondwana to the south and Laurasia to the north), thereafter into the continents as we understand them today.

apparently you're going to be able to keep that "wel-liked, but mostly wrong" stature;)

I'm sure you know this, but the mesozoic has three periods, in order from oldest to youngest:triassic, jurassic, cretaceous. So, Laurasia and Gondwanaland were separate by the late cretaceous.


All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-02-2006 1:37 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 2149 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 53 of 124 (345950)
09-02-2006 2:30 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Hyroglyphx
09-02-2006 1:37 AM


Re: Tempest in a Teaspoon
NJ writes;

Yes. And did you not get the memo that mammals were supposed to be no more than 5 inches and herbivores?

You're making this up. Show me the memo.

I've read nothing that sets limits on how big mammals could grow during the Mesozoic. All I've read are generalizations that, based on the evidence gathered to date, they tended to be rather small. The new find does nothing to contradict this. It adds an interesting new wrinkle, but an animal that is the size of a cat as opposed to the size of a shrew is no monster--not at a time when critters the size of a double-length truck are walking around.

And Mesozoic mammals tended to be omnivores, not herbivores.

Another blown tire for the juggernaut. What's next? The transmission?

Edited by Archer Opterix, : Quote box code.


Archer

All species are transitional.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-02-2006 1:37 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 2149 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 54 of 124 (345952)
09-02-2006 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Dr Adequate
09-02-2006 12:25 AM


Re: extinctions
Dr Adequate:

What is the Creation Science explanation of why (non-avian) dinosaurs are extinct and crocodiles are not?

I'd like to hear that, too.

While you're at it, go for the gold.

Please tell us why elephants are still around and camarosaurs are not.

And why whales and dolphins are still around and mosasaurs and ichthyosaurs are not.

Edited by Archer Opterix, : Format code.


Archer

All species are transitional.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-02-2006 12:25 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2227
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 55 of 124 (345954)
09-02-2006 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Hyroglyphx
09-02-2006 1:37 AM


Re: Tempest in a Teaspoon
Nemesis_Juggernaut reveals:

Well, I'd sure hate to diminish my well-liked but mostly wrong stature here on EvC.

Well, I guess I need to take your posts a lot less seriously. :laugh:

Hope you don't mind that I will still challenge what you assert if I believe it is wrong. However, given this admission, I think I will do so with less venom. :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-02-2006 1:37 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 1482 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 56 of 124 (345967)
09-02-2006 5:14 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Hyroglyphx
09-02-2006 1:37 AM


Re: Tempest in a Teaspoon
Did you even read the article you linked to? The "dinosaur" was five inches long. The mammal was the size of a cat.

Yes. And did you not get the memo that mammals were supposed to be no more than 5 inches and herbivores?

Supposed to be by what standard? Forum rules prevent me from writing what I want at this point. I have in front of me right now the book:

Mesozoic Mammals - The First Two-Thirds of Mammalian History, eds Lilligraven JA, Kielan-Jaworowka Z, and Clemens WA. Berkeley, University of California Press 1979.

In this are described 130 genera of Mesozoic mammals, spanning the Triassic to the end of the Cretaceous. I am going to bet that the diversity of Mesozoic mammals hasn't decreased in the last 25 years.

I cannot find a reference to a single herbivore in that entire book. So NJ, where do we undermine this paradigm? Where were mammals only 5 inches long and herbivores? Several of the Jurassic triconodonts were 2-3 kg (read cat-sized). It has been shown to you over and over that this 'dog-sized' predator wasn't and even if so means nothing. Mammals are known to have evolved pretty much around the same time as dinosaurs. There is no 'time line' problem.


Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-02-2006 1:37 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-02-2006 8:28 AM Lithodid-Man has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16111
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 57 of 124 (345978)
09-02-2006 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Hyroglyphx
09-02-2006 1:37 AM


Re: Tempest in a Teaspoon
Yes. And did you not get the memo that mammals were supposed to be no more than 5 inches and herbivores?

No. Because this is a stupid lie and has nothing to do with real paleontology.

You have been informed on this thread, again and again, that early mammals were more than "five inches long". This is well known to real scientists. When you recite bizarre lies about this fact, everyone reading this thread knows that you are not telling the truth.

As for your drivel about "herbivores", you are sitting right there at a computer connected to the internet. It would have taken you five seconds to learn that the early mammals were insectivores. But you couldn't be bothered. OK, you're incredibly lazy. You couldn't be bothered.

So someone who could be bothered (me) informed you that the early mammals were insectivores.

And you continue to pretend that they were herbivores.

You are now deliberately lying to someone who knows this to be the case.

If the ninth commandment means nothing to you, it may have some significance to the other readers of this thread. When you lie and lie and lie and know that you are lying, don't you realize how this discredits creationism? Couldn't you build your case on something --- anything --- which is not known to be a halfwitted lie?

No, you can't. Because creationism itself is a halfwitted lie.

Don't you people have a shred of a conscience?

---

I note that you have still not apologized for spreading your foul lies with respect to the peppered moth, et cetera.

Do you have no decency?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-02-2006 1:37 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16111
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 58 of 124 (345981)
09-02-2006 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Lithodid-Man
09-02-2006 5:14 AM


Re: Tempest in a Teaspoon
Supposed to be by what standard? Forum rules prevent me from writing what I want at this point.

Well, I hope I pass.

NJ has been informed that science says that early small mammals were insectivores. When he pretends that conventional wisdom is that they were herbivores, when he knows this to be false, he is lying.

It may be insulting to point this out, but it is also a fact.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Lithodid-Man, posted 09-02-2006 5:14 AM Lithodid-Man has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19844
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 59 of 124 (345986)
09-02-2006 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by anglagard
09-01-2006 9:09 AM


Re: Another Untrue Assertion
anglagard writes:

Read in its entirety, it sure looks to me that NJ {in the role of speaking for virtually all evolutionary biologists} is denying the coexistance of (non-avian) dinosaurs and mammals as in the phrase "should have ever been contemporaneous with dinosaurs."

I just started reading this thread, and I think several people made the same interpretation you did. I don't know if NJ has chimed in yet as to what he really meant, I'm still in mid-thread, but I agree with WJ that though not unambiguously expressed, what NJ was trying to say was that evolutionists believe that small mammals eeking out an existence were contemporaneous with dinosaurs.

A couple other people misread fascial in NJ's post as facial.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by anglagard, posted 09-01-2006 9:09 AM anglagard has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19844
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 60 of 124 (345988)
09-02-2006 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Hyroglyphx
09-01-2006 11:34 AM


Re: Another Untrue Assertion
Hi NJ,

I think you're confusing the theory of evolution with evolutionary scenarios. How the dinosaurs became extinct and mammals came to dominate the earth is not evolutionary theory. It's just an interpretation of the evidence in an evolutionary context in order to construct scenarios of what might have happened. These scenarios will change as new evidence is found, as better analytical techniques are developed, and as better scenarios of what happened are constructed. But how the mammals replaced dinosaurs is not evolutionary theory. It's a reconstruction of past events made by interpreting evidence in an evolutionary context.

Dog-sized mammals are said not to have been on earth in the early Cretaceous Period, right?

{AbE: The following paragraph was written under the assumption that NJ was correct about dog-sized mammals being found. After reading the rest of the the thread it appears this has been cast into doubt.}

Evolutionary theory doesn't say anything about what fossils still lie undiscovered. Until recently there was no evidence of dog-sized mammals. This new find is completely consistent with evolutionary theory, but it is brand new information and completely unexpected given that up until now only fossils of small mammals had ever been found from this period.

And this is claimed to be known empirically through radiometric dating, right. So obviously somebody is seriously wrong. And if anyone wants to scoff at millions of years of discrepancies is more than welcome, but I see it a serious deficiency, especially when their entire credibility is on the line.

There were no millions of years of discrepancies. No one ever said, "This dog-like mammal never existed millions of years before such-and-such a date." The dog-like mammal is a new discovery, so there could never have been any prior statements about when it lived.

When evolutionists construct scenarios based upon available evidence, it will always be the case that the scenarios will change as new evidence is discovered. Since paleontologists haven't all closed up their digs, packed up their bags and gone home, we can expect that new discoveries will continue to roll in. Some discoveries will be about periods for which we already have well developed scenarios, and so the potential strongly exists that new evidence will change our understanding and interpretation of these periods.

This isn't just true of the dinosaur/mammal transition but of all evolutionary scenarios. The descent of man is a good example. Every discovery brings about revisions in our view of hominid evolution.

The important point to take from what I'm saying is that evolutionary theory is one thing, interpretations of evidence in an evolutionary context is another. Discoveries that force changes in evolutionary theory are momentous (but good). Discoveries that force us to revise evolutionary scenarios of things like the dinosaur/mammal transition are mundane, completely expected, and happen all the time.

--Percy.

Edited by Percy, : Insert a comment.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-01-2006 11:34 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020