Origin of the species, where do you stand?

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

Quote

Quote

....Comedy my idea with the post sparky

Oh believe me champ, it was funny in a very different way than what you intended.

Soorry bro ...Put on some clothes then will ya

What the... How did you know I was typing naked?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Quote

Where do you get that Bats are rodents, educate yourself a little please

With the evolutionary theory, I won't have to worry about it. They will all trade places eventually.

there's that strawman again!
"How about a little fire, scarecrow??"

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Squeak 17]

Quote

Quote

Where do you get that Bats are rodents, educate yourself a little please

With the evolutionary theory, I won't have to worry about it. They will all trade places eventually.

Please go play somewhere else the grown ups are trying to discuss things here that are apparently above you

You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?

[billvon 2,990]

>Since they are both rodents, at what point do we begin to call them bats?

Never. They'd be a new species.

>According to Billvon's line of thinking, what did bats do before they
> could fly? Let me quess. They were tree rats. What did the tree rats do
>before they had the claws to be able to grip the bark of a tree?

>If you continue to reverse this thinking, eventually there are just globs
>of tissue that is prey for anything that comes along. Their only chance
>of survival is to breed in astounding numbers.

Nope. Back when we are all just "globs of tissue" there WERE no predators - just globs of tissue. The first glob that had teeth had a huge competitve advantage, so it did well.

>But wait a minute. That would require a reproductive system that has to
>work perfectly from the formation of this particular creature.

Nope. The first organisms reproduced by fission; no reproductive system at all. Fission evolved to budding (which is fission into the original and a very small new organism) to haploid budding (which is defective fission) to sexual reproduction.

>Every living thing on the earth has to have the ability to reproduce itself
>within its lifecycle. Otherwise, it is doomed to live only one generation.

Correct.

>Insects deteriorate extremely fast when left to the elements, yet we
>find layer upon layer of perfectly preserved imprints, all in the same
>location.

Only in anoxic areas (like the bottom of a swamp; no oxygen to allow decomposition) and in things like amber, which preserves whatever is trapped inside.

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

As I said in an earlier post, a majority of the fossils that we find were laid down in a few catastrophic volcanic upheavals.

Large dinosaur skeletons are found virtually intact. This eliminates a natural death with the possibility of the bones being carried away by another animal, or eventually deteriorating, and returning to the earth.

Um, I'm not sure which dinosaurs you've been digging up, but I've worked on about ten digs, and we've NEVER, not even once, found a skeleton that could be called "virtually intact". More often, we find pieces here and there, sometimes half a skeleton if we're really lucky. The finds you hear about, like "Sue" are really, really rare. That's why they make the news.

[Squeak 17]

Quote

>Since they are both rodents, at what point do we begin to call them bats?

Never. They'd be a new species.

>.

This implies you agree that they are both rodents...they are not they are difffernet ORDERS, let alone Family Genus and species.
They have toatally different ancestra; liniages.

You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?

[Amazon 7]

Evolution.. its so easy.. even a caveman can do it....




( Squeak I dont think you have Geico Insurance down under.. but its an ad campaign.. sorta funny)

http://www.awfulcommercials.com/archives/2005/12/04/geico-cavemen/

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

What about the concept that creation is god and continues to be, the philisophical view

Good question. I've viewed God as a verb for many years now, as opposed to a noun. The discussions that happen here invariably view God as a noun, and IMO that's where the problems start. I actually tried to put my view to paper (...it wasn't easy). Here's the URL. If you have any feedback on it, I'd appreciate it.

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2412384;search_string=1st%20Law%20Of%20Thermo;#2412384

We are all engines of karma

[billvon 2,990]

>This implies you agree that they are both rodents...

Uh, no. I'm just saying that the former squirrels would speciate into a new species. Call em "bat winged flying squirrels" or whatever.

[pajarito 0]

Forum rules #1? Just curious.

Where do you get that Bats are rodents, educate yourself a little please

I supose to some people ignorance actualy IS bliss

And…

Please go play somewhere else the grown ups are trying to discuss things here that are apparently above you

[billvon 2,990]

>the grown ups are trying to discuss things here that are apparently above you

Cut it out, Squeak. Your one warning.

[kallend 2,026]

What do YOU believe the age of the Earth to be?

Do YOU believe that different geological strata were laid down at different times?

Do YOU believe all species (including humans) were "designed" simultaneously, xor did this "designer" keep coming back with new and better ones as the old ones became extinct?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Do YOU believe all species (including humans) were "designed" simultaneously, xor did this "designer" keep coming back with new and better ones as the old ones became extinct?

Everything was created according to its kind with the capacity for variation within limits. Speciation driven by Natural Selection occurs resulting in the wide variety of species that we have today. Species can interbreed. (e.g. Donkeys, horses, zebras readily hybridize and originally descended from an equine kind.) Sterilization in offspring such as with the mule does not indicate evolution. It indicates variation within a kind where DNA copying error has occured making reproduction less likely (there have been rare examples where mules have reproduced). Natural Selection makes it where some species die out and others survive to reproduce and further speciate. Those species with variation, however, are still members of an original kind.

[billvon 2,990]

>Species can interbreed. (e.g. Donkeys, horses, zebras readily
>hybridize and originally descended from an equine kind.)

No they can't - that's sort of the definition of species. Birds cannot breed with reptiles. Small donkeys cannot interbreed with goats, even though their DNA is somewhat similar. Donkeys cannot _successfully_ interbreed with horses; their offspring are sterile. (Their DNA is very, very similar, but not identical - and they can't produce fertile offspring.)

Here's a simple question for you. You have claimed that nothing out there can possibly produce new DNA; it can only re-arrange old DNA. You admit that zebras, horses and donkeys are descendents of one original "kind" of equine.

Donkeys have 62 chromosomes, horses have 64. Where did the new genetic material come from?

[pajarito 0]

Quote

No they can't - that's sort of the definition of species. Birds cannot breed with reptiles. Small donkeys cannot interbreed with goats, even though their DNA is somewhat similar. Donkeys cannot _successfully_ interbreed with horses; their offspring are sterile. (Their DNA is very, very similar, but not identical - and they can't produce fertile offspring.)

I'm not saying species of birds can interbreed with species of reptiles Bill. Donkeys do successfully interbreed with Horses. It produces a Mule. As stated before, the fact that their offspring are sterile indicates a loss of information.

Quote

Here's a simple question for you. You have claimed that nothing out there can possibly produce new DNA; it can only re-arrange old DNA. You admit that zebras, horses and donkeys are descendents of one original "kind" of equine.

Donkeys have 62 chromosomes, horses have 64. Where did the new genetic material come from?

Loss of information. The mule has 63. Both the horse & donkey descended from an original kind. Copying error over time produced what we have today. The mule may have one more chromosome than the donkey but not more than what they both originally descended from.

Added: By the way, I did not say "nothing out there can possibly produce new DNA." New DNA is made every time it's copied in reproduction. However, that is still just modification of existing information.

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Quote

Do YOU believe all species (including humans) were "designed" simultaneously, xor did this "designer" keep coming back with new and better ones as the old ones became extinct?

Everything was created according to its kind with the capacity for variation within limits. Speciation driven by Natural Selection occurs resulting in the wide variety of species that we have today. Species can interbreed. (e.g. Donkeys, horses, zebras readily hybridize and originally descended from an equine kind.) Sterilization in offspring such as with the mule does not indicate evolution. It indicates variation within a kind where DNA copying error has occured making reproduction less likely (there have been rare examples where mules have reproduced). Natural Selection makes it where some species die out and others survive to reproduce and further speciate. Those species with variation, however, are still members of an original kind.

You didn't answer the questions. Do you believe the "kinds" (odd choice of word, but I'll go along) were all created simultaneously, xor at different times, by "The Designer"?

How old do you believe the Earth to be?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,990]

>Loss of information.

Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes; chimpanzees have 24. (Other than that, our genomes are nearly identical.) What information did we "lose?"

"Loss of information" cannot account for a zebra's stripes. That's NEW information in its genome. It got there via the same mechanisms that you agree with:

1) A small change in its genome (by what you call "copying error" or "variations within a kind") produces a slightly stripey animal.

2) That animal survives slightly better than its brethren.

3) The change is then passed on and amplified.

And again, that's all evolution is. New information is added to a genome every time a new one is created. Kids have different color hair, or different sized legs, than their parents. Puppies are not all identical to their parents. Each spider is slightly different from _its_ parents. That's new information, and it doesn't matter if you think it's unimportant, or within a kind, or within a species, or within a genus. It's still new. And if it helps the animal survive, it gets passed on.

Also, there are no artificial limits to this process. No force stops a proto-bat species from lengthening its fingers any more to give it longer wings. No natural law becomes outraged and says "Mammals are not supposed to fly!" Evolution just keeps chugging along, producing flying squirrels, bats and (eventually) humans, who have found other ways to fly.

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Forum rules #1? Just curious.

Where do you get that Bats are rodents, educate yourself a little please

I supose to some people ignorance actualy IS bliss

And…

Please go play somewhere else the grown ups are trying to discuss things here that are apparently above you

Whom are you? The PA police? You ought to get youself a Tasar and go to work for the UCLA PD

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[Royd 0]

Quote

Forum rules #1? Just curious.

Where do you get that Bats are rodents, educate yourself a little please

I supose to some people ignorance actualy IS bliss

And…

Please go play somewhere else the grown ups are trying to discuss things here that are apparently above you

I'm such a Neanderthal that I didn't even notice.

[Royd 0]

Quote

Evolution just keeps chugging along, producing flying squirrels, bats and (eventually) humans, who have found other ways to fly.

Wait a minute, weren't you dogging my analogy about humans eventually gaining the ability to fly? Come on, man.

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Quote

Evolution just keeps chugging along, producing flying squirrels, bats and (eventually) humans, who have found other ways to fly.

Wait a minute, weren't you dogging my analogy about humans eventually gaining the ability to fly? Come on, man.

And you and paj keep dodging very simple questions about your beliefs:

Do you believe species were all created simultaneously, xor at different times, by "The Designer"?

How old do you believe the Earth to be?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Royd 0]

Quote

Um, I'm not sure which dinosaurs you've been digging up, but I've worked on about ten digs, and we've NEVER, not even once, found a skeleton that could be called "virtually intact". More often, we find pieces here and there, sometimes half a skeleton if we're really lucky. The finds you hear about, like "Sue" are really, really rare. That's why they make the news.

So where do all of these complete skeletons that we see in museums come from? Another" We think this is what it looked like" fraud perpetuated upon the unknowing public.

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Quote

Um, I'm not sure which dinosaurs you've been digging up, but I've worked on about ten digs, and we've NEVER, not even once, found a skeleton that could be called "virtually intact". More often, we find pieces here and there, sometimes half a skeleton if we're really lucky. The finds you hear about, like "Sue" are really, really rare. That's why they make the news.

So where do all of these complete skeletons that we see in museums come from? Another" We think this is what it looked like" fraud perpetuated upon the unknowing public.

You know, if you find a right femur but the left one is missing, you don't need to be a genius to figure out what the left one looked like.

If you find three incomplete skeletons, one with missing arms, the next with no ribs and another with no tail, you don't have to be a genius to figure out what the whole thing looked like.

In every museum I've been in (and that's a LOT) the bones are VERY CLEARLY labelled as to whether they are originals or models. How can it be a "fraud" if they state very clearly what they have done?


So, do you believe "the Designer" created all species simultaneously, xor did she wait until her failures became extinct, and then she came back with some better designs?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,990]

>weren't you dogging my analogy about humans eventually gaining
>the ability to fly? Come on, man.

No, I was saying that man wasn't going to sprout wings one day. Instead, we just send a check to the inestimable Jari Kuosma and he sends us a set of nylon wings.

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

Quote

Um, I'm not sure which dinosaurs you've been digging up, but I've worked on about ten digs, and we've NEVER, not even once, found a skeleton that could be called "virtually intact". More often, we find pieces here and there, sometimes half a skeleton if we're really lucky. The finds you hear about, like "Sue" are really, really rare. That's why they make the news.

So where do all of these complete skeletons that we see in museums come from? Another" We think this is what it looked like" fraud perpetuated upon the unknowing public.

Like Kallend said... the skeletons you see in museums are usually many dinosaurs of the same species put together, and quite often, the real bones are not the ones on display, simply because the real bones are too fragile and can't be put into a full skeleton display like that.

Many paleontologists, including the ones I've worked with, believe that even when museums label things properly (and they usually do... people just don't read them) bones shouldn't be put into different skeletons to make complete ones, primarily for the exact reason illustrated by you: people get fooled into thinking that the skeletons come out of the ground that way.

From an article about the Smithsonian's Triceratops exhibit:

"The bones in the original 1905 Triceratops mount were not from just one individual, but rather the mount was a composite of the bones of at least ten different animals... There still is no known complete skeleton of Triceratops anywhere."

you can read the rest of the article here, if you like: http://www.mnh.si.edu/highlight/triceratops/