Mankind and dinosaur side by side ? ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by techristian:
I'm not sure how many toes were there, but I only SAW 4 toes. (but there was possibly another one next to the big toe) The size of foot and length of stride was consistent with an ERECT modern man just over 6 feet tall.

​

As to a spear in a dinosaur , try to catch one, on foot, running 30-70 miles per hour.

​

---

Are you sure something as large as Brachiosaurus, Diplodocus, Apatasaurus can run 30 mph? Let alone 70 mph.

quote:

---

Originally posted by techristian:

Now I have a few questions for you. Where are your transitional species ? Why are there still certain life forms unchanged when compared to fossils "millions of years old" ? When a new SPECIES is supposedly evolved, it must only mate within the species. WHO DOES THE FIRST ONE OF A SPECIES MATE WITH ? Once again where are your transitional species?

​

Dan
http://musicinit.com

​

---

1/ Stasis is not precluded in evolutionary theory. See Punctuated EQUILIBRIUM.2/ Transitional species. http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/ring_species.htmlThere are several ring species, but the most famous example is the herring gull. In Britain, these are white. They breed with the herring gulls of eastern America, which are also white. American herring gulls breed with those of Alaska, and Alaskan ones breed with those of Siberia. But as you go to Alaska and Siberia, you find that herring gulls are getting smaller, and picking up some black markings. And when you get all the way back to Britain, they have become Lesser Black-Backed Gulls.So, the situation is that there is a big circle around the world. As you travel this circle, you find a series of gull populations, each of which interbreeds with the populations to each side. But in Britain, the two ends of the circle are two different species of bird. The two ends do not interbreed: they think that they are two different species. http://www.tulane.edu/~guill/rassenkreis_module.htmlRing species (Rassenkreis, a group of races) are individual species which have a number of subspecies or races occurring in a circular or ring-shaped pattern. The subspecies at the ends of the ring act like good species and are morphologically quite distinct from one another. The subspecies in between the two extremes form an almost continuous set of intermediate forms. You can imagine that this phenomenon must give taxonomists fits--and especially anyone with a typological mind (tee hee!). How does one designate different species in the face of such a situation?An example of such a species is the plethodontid salamander Ensatina eschscholtzii of western North America. There are seven subspecies in the species. The blotched and unblotched forms at the southern end of the ring in southern California behave like separate species, but there are not any species borders between populations to the north. Wake and Yanev (1986, Evolution: 40: 702-715) studied allozyme variation within and among the subspecies of this ring species in an attempt to gain an understanding of the genetic differentiation in the species. They found considerable allozymic differentiation among populations; genetic distances (Nei's index of genetic distance, D) were greater than those between some other sympatric species of pletodontid salamanders in the region. So, as you can see, species origins are not like a car production line, where one make stops & another begins. When species evolve they do so as a POPULATION, with all (actually, most) members of that population able to interbreed with every other member of the opposite sex, the whole population moves adaptively as a body, so there is NO first member of a species as such. The longer they are separated from a parent population, the less likely they will be able to produce fertile offspring, even though they may still be able to mate with an intermediary population that is fertile to both.3/ The question no creationist ever answers. What would you accept as a transitional?Mark[edited to fix link]
[edited to add 3/]
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 04-10-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 04-12-2002]

Mister Pamboli,Great minds think alike You must've got yours in seconds before mine, sorry for the repetition.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by techristian:
But the bigger question is HOW DID YOUR GULLS GET WINGS or how did any bird get wings in the first place? If you believe in micro-evolution then the wings would have started out as CUMBERSOME stubs and then next move to LARGER USELESS wings before any bird could take flight. These cumbersome limbs would have made the creatures EASY PREY and hardly the "fittest" evolutionary creatures of the Darwinian model. If you believe in macro-evolution then the wings would appear all of a sudden COMPLETELY FUNCTIONAL. (getting close to creation here!)

​

Dan

​

http://musicinit.com

---

Where in the hell did the Gull come from?What about completely functional forelimbs that lent themselves to a few seconds gliding. This being selected for, ending up in flight?Since you ask "Where are your transitional species ?, I repeat, what would you accept as a transitional?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by techristian:
Now let's get back to the supposed "evolution" of bird wings. Suppose rather than the wings growing from STUBS, as I have implied before, the poor creature becomes CRIPPLED as its front paws/claws are HALF AND HALF, USELESS FOR RUNNING FROM PREDATORS, BUT NOT YET FULLY DEVELOPED FOR FLIGHT. Oh yes, this seems like a real FIT species! And according to Darwin this poor creature might be LIMPING around in this half crippled state for a MILLION YEARS OR MORE? Not plausible at all. Oh and while this "bird" is developing "wings" it will be simultaneously developing FEATHERS and A LIGHTER BONE STRUCTURE. All at the same time! I think it is more LOGICAL to believe CREATION.

​

Dan
http://musicinit.com/music.html

---

Tell you what, since I asked first, why don't you answer me, then I'll answer you, deal?Since you ask "Where are your transitional species ?, I repeat, what would you accept as a transitional?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Since you ask "Where are your transitional species ?, I repeat, what would you accept as a transitional?"
--I don't think the argument is rightly posed as 'where are the transitionals', but more it should be 'where is the transition'.

​

---

I never posed the question ""Where are your transitional species ?".I do ask what criteria creationists apply to potential transitionals to know that they don't exist. Because creationists DO "know" transitionals don't exist, just wondering how.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 04-14-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 04-14-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by techristian:
Ok here is your answer Mark.

​

First of all I won't accept one type of GULL and another type of GULL. THEY ARE BOTH GULLS FOR CRYING OUT LOUD !
Secondly I won't accept one type of SALAMANDER and another type of salamander. THEY ARE BOTH SALAMANDERS !
Third I would like to ask if breeding was even ATTEMPTED (in a labratory) between both creatures at both ends of the "ring".

​

I won't accept "Lucy". After watching that program I noticed many things that weren't quite right about the "skeleton" such as different color bones. (which would lead me to think that "Lucy" was actually a combination of the bones of more than one individual.) I wrote an entire paper on the "Lucy" program.

​

To answer you honestly, there have been so many SCAMS with "Pilt Down Man" and others that I would almost need a missing link to walk up to me and say "I am a missing link. Try to disprove it!" Even "carbon dating" has been disproved when a pig bone (buried only a few years earlier) was said to be "MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD"

​

Scientists already tried to make their own "missing link" when they transplanted a baboon heart into a baby.............................. and FAILED MISERABLY.

​

Now Mark please tell me what it would take to make you believe in a SUPREME CREATOR.

​

Dan
http://musicinit.com

​

---

I'll ask again, what would you accept as a transitional? Please note, I DID NOT ask what you wouldn't accept.If I could be cheeky, & add to that, what criteria would you apply to all fossils to determine whether they are transitional or not?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 04-15-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 04-15-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by techristian:
Ok here is your answer Mark.

​

First of all I won't accept one type of GULL and another type of GULL. THEY ARE BOTH GULLS FOR CRYING OUT LOUD !
Secondly I won't accept one type of SALAMANDER and another type of salamander. THEY ARE BOTH SALAMANDERS !
Third I would like to ask if breeding was even ATTEMPTED (in a labratory) between both creatures at both ends of the "ring".

​

I won't accept "Lucy". After watching that program I noticed many things that weren't quite right about the "skeleton" such as different color bones. (which would lead me to think that "Lucy" was actually a combination of the bones of more than one individual.) I wrote an entire paper on the "Lucy" program.

​

To answer you honestly, there have been so many SCAMS with "Pilt Down Man" and others that I would almost need a missing link to walk up to me and say "I am a missing link. Try to disprove it!" Even "carbon dating" has been disproved when a pig bone (buried only a few years earlier) was said to be "MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD"

​

Scientists already tried to make their own "missing link" when they transplanted a baboon heart into a baby.............................. and FAILED MISERABLY.

​

Now Mark please tell me what it would take to make you believe in a SUPREME CREATOR.

​

Dan
http://musicinit.com

​

---

Techristian,I would accept God coming down to earth, & performing miracles under lab conditions as evidence of a SUPREME CREATOR.I'll ask again, what would you accept as a transitional? Please note, I DID NOT ask what you wouldn't accept.If I could be cheeky, & add to that, what criteria would you apply to all fossils to determine whether they are transitional or not?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.