A creationist model

[Jose Fly]

This'll be interesting. NewHope has told me that she is not at all dishonest and does not ignore questions put to her. Now PW has just asked some very specific questions that are fundamental to NewHope's position.

Can't wait to see what happens next.

 

[lunakilo]

Sorry I can't help myself... I'm looking to get my higher degrees in paleontology.

If you tried hard enough, you could do whatever you wanted... but it would it be supportable by the evidence?

Well since you are the one getting a higher degrees in paleontology, I was hoping you would tell me.

 

[painted wolf]

Well since you are the one getting a higher degrees in paleontology, I was hoping you would tell me.

You seemed a bit put out by purely paleontological discussions, but fair enough.

We will never have fossils for ever species that ever lived... that is an unfortunate truth. (unfortunate because we loose a taste of the wonderful variety of species that were once here.)

However, the fossil "gaps" are filling in quite nicely in many areas.

The problem with the following idea about the fossil record:

dog ........ weasel
.|.............|
.|.............|
.|.............|
.|.............|
.|.............|
early dog .. early weasel (undiscovered)

is that you are ignoring all the lovely stuff below it.
It isn't simply this either:

dog ..... weasel
.|..........|
.\........../
..\......../
...\....../
....\..../
.....\../
early dog/weasel

Because there is a great variety of early carnivorians that are below that line.

It also ignores genetic and molecular evidence, but that is another lengthy discussion. Not that this isn't lengthy.

This is where Newhopes cut-n-paste diatribes on Miacids become more relevant.
Now you have a third "Kind" that is found in stratigraphic layers older than the "dog and weasel kinds" but disappear from the fossil record shortly after the "dog/weasels" appear.

Now to be perfectly honest and upfront... Miacids are considered a paraphyletic in much the same way as "reptiles" are. Sadly there are way more fossils than there are people who study them and an updated revision of the group is (as far as I know) on the back burner.

However, we can still see some very important things going on in this group of critters without knowing the finer details of how the various sub-groups in Miacidae fit together.

For example: You can trace the development of the "carnivore" tooth the Carnassal through the Miacids. Early miacids have more and simpler molars than later ones who eventually develop the true "carnivore" dentition with a distinct, if simple, carnassal tooth.
One of these groups with carnassals, the Viverravidae, starts to loose molar teeth and become more and more "cat-like" (a group uniting living cats and civits)

You also see the development of that carnivore auditory bulla begining here. All modern carnivores share a rough auditory bulla type not seen in non-carnivores. (this is further developed as I stated earlier into bulla more specific to certain lineages within carnivora.
here is a paper discussing this:
http://mypage.iu.edu/~pdpolly/Papers/Polly et al, 2006, Viverravus.pdf

Basically to sum up... you can draw the lines any way you want.... but to do so, you have to ignore so much evidence (like whole swaths of the fossil record) that it's IMHO silly.
Thus far I have found the majority of people drawing straight lines of lineage for "kinds" are looking only at modern species and ignoring or dismissing the fossil evidence all together.

Not just in terms of morphology but time as well.

wa:do

 

[newhope101]

Paintedwolf quote"The details of the palate, teeth, sinus, auditory bulla and other features of the skull alone distinguish them.

Modern Canids are united by having specific features of these skull elements not found in any other groups. Lets take one example... the auditory bulla:

In modern canids the auditory bulla is distinct in being inflated larger than typical for other mammals, being divided by low bony septum and having the internal carotid artery partially also enclosed in the same type of bone. Or maybe Hesperocyon has a bulla like its true decendant, the civet. You can give as many species names as you wish but it appears they are the same kind.

You can see in the fossil record the development of this type of auditory bulla from the basal condition in carnivorans. The genus Hesperocyon for example has these features... clearly making it a "dog". However not as well developed as later "dogs" (not as swollen for example). It also lacks other modern features, like having all five toes in contact with the ground and feet that indicate that it wasn't fully ditigrade." That's because it is not an ancestral dog and looks more like a civet









Hesperocyon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hesperocyon. Estimated weight 1.73 kilos.

The Canidae subfamily Hesperocyoninae probably arose out of Hesperocyon to become the first of the three great dogs groups: Hesperocyoninae (~40-30 Ma), Borophaginae (~36-2 Ma), and the Caninae lineage that led to present-day Canidae, inclusive of modern-day wolves, foxes, coyotes, jackals and dogs (Canis familiaris). At least twenty eight known species of Hesperocyoninae evolved out of Hesperocyon, including Ectopocynus (32-19 mya), Osbornodon (32-18 mya), Paraenhydrocyon (20-25 mya), and Mesocyon-Enhydrocyon (31-15 mya).[4][2]

Now lets have a look at a Civet




Civet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The common name is used for a variety of carnivorous mammalian species, mostly of the family Viverridae (although it resembles the other civets, the African Palm Civet (Nandinia binotata) is genetically distinct and belongs in its own monotypic family, Nandiniidae).
In 2005, the World Wide Fund for Nature released photos taken by a night time camera trap of an unknown carnivore (nicknamed the cat-fox) on Borneo. Scientists debate whether this animal is a new species of civet, or a known, but rare, species (such as Hose's Palm Civet, previously thought to be extinct).

Your researchers say Hesperocyon was civet like. I'll tell you likely why...because it is likely just a civet ancestor, and has nothing to do with dogs, and 'PROBABLY' is straw grabbing in desperation. It appears that the civet is a kind, and the fossil and genetically biased research still supports that theory better than yours.

PW, I know you have a plethora of theories to propose for anything, including dog/wolf ancestry. What you do not have is convincing evidence to support your theories. So basically you have simply highlighted another 'probably' that has a more parsinomous explanation.

 

[painted wolf]

Paintedwolf quote"The details of the palate, teeth, sinus, auditory bulla and other features of the skull alone distinguish them.

Modern Canids are united by having specific features of these skull elements not found in any other groups. Lets take one example... the auditory bulla:

In modern canids the auditory bulla is distinct in being inflated larger than typical for other mammals, being divided by low bony septum and having the internal carotid artery partially also enclosed in the same type of bone. Or maybe Hesperocyon has a bulla like its true decendant, the civet. You can give as many species names as you wish but it appears they are the same kind.

Except as I just told you it doesn't. It has a canid bulla while Civits have a "felid" bulla.. That is they have a fully double cambered bulla. Which is one of many features that unite civits with cats closer to each other than to other carnivores.

You can see in the fossil record the development of this type of auditory bulla from the basal condition in carnivorans. The genus Hesperocyon for example has these features... clearly making it a "dog". However not as well developed as later "dogs" (not as swollen for example). It also lacks other modern features, like having all five toes in contact with the ground and feet that indicate that it wasn't fully ditigrade." That's because it is not an ancestral dog and looks more like a civet

You are providing a good example of what I said. You are ignoring or dismissing the actual evidence in favor of making an assumption on what "looks good" to you.

The Canidae subfamily Hesperocyoninae probably arose out of Hesperocyon to become the first of the three great dogs groups: Hesperocyoninae (~40-30 Ma), Borophaginae (~36-2 Ma), and the

Caninae lineage that led to present-day Canidae, inclusive of modern-day wolves, foxes, coyotes, jackals and dogs (Canis familiaris). At least twenty eight known species of Hesperocyoninae evolved out of Hesperocyon, including Ectopocynus (32-19 mya), Osbornodon (32-18 mya), Paraenhydrocyon (20-25 mya), and Mesocyon-Enhydrocyon (31-15 mya).[4][2]

You notice the use of probably refers not to the ancestry of dogs but to Hesperocyon being the most basal of the Hesperocynae. Again, you are jumping to a conclusion rather than actually considering what is being said.

Now lets have a look at a Civet

Civet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The common name is used for a variety of carnivorous mammalian species, mostly of the family Viverridae (although it resembles the other civets, the African Palm Civet (Nandinia binotata) is genetically distinct and belongs in its own monotypic family, Nandiniidae).
In 2005, the World Wide Fund for Nature released photos taken by a night time camera trap of an unknown carnivore (nicknamed the cat-fox) on Borneo. Scientists debate whether this animal is a new species of civet, or a known, but rare, species (such as Hose's Palm Civet, previously thought to be extinct).

Civits are very cool critters and retain a basal carnivoran body plan while still having advanced in many unique ways from their ancestors, including retractable (or partially retractible) claws like cats.

Your researchers say Hesperocyon was civet like. I'll tell you likely why...because it is likely just a civet ancestor, and has nothing to do with dogs, and 'PROBABLY' is straw grabbing in desperation. It appears that the civet is a kind, and the fossil and genetically biased research still supports that theory better than yours.

Except that to go from "civit like" to "civit ancestor" is to ignore much of it's morphology from it's dentition to it's auditory bulla and to explain why they are those of canids rather than civits. As well as ignoring the actual fossil civits from the time. Civits don't appear ex nihlo in the fossil record either.

PW, I know you have a plethora of theories to propose for anything, including dog/wolf ancestry. What you do not have is convincing evidence to support your theories

. So basically you have simply highlighted another 'probably' that has a more parsinomous explanation.

Not a plethora... there is really only one theory. Perhaps plenty of hypotheses on minor details but only one theory.

wa:do

 

[lunakilo]

Paintedwolf quote"The details of the palate, teeth, sinus, auditory bulla and other features of the skull alone distinguish them.

Modern Canids are united by having specific features of these skull elements not found in any other groups. Lets take one example... the auditory bulla:

In modern canids the auditory bulla is distinct in being inflated larger than typical for other mammals, being divided by low bony septum and having the internal carotid artery partially also enclosed in the same type of bone. Or maybe Hesperocyon has a bulla like its true decendant, the civet. You can give as many species names as you wish but it appears they are the same kind.

You can see in the fossil record the development of this type of auditory bulla from the basal condition in carnivorans. The genus Hesperocyon for example has these features... clearly making it a "dog". However not as well developed as later "dogs" (not as swollen for example). It also lacks other modern features, like having all five toes in contact with the ground and feet that indicate that it wasn't fully ditigrade." That's because it is not an ancestral dog and looks more like a civet









Hesperocyon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hesperocyon. Estimated weight 1.73 kilos.

The Canidae subfamily Hesperocyoninae probably arose out of Hesperocyon to become the first of the three great dogs groups: Hesperocyoninae (~40-30 Ma), Borophaginae (~36-2 Ma), and the Caninae lineage that led to present-day Canidae, inclusive of modern-day wolves, foxes, coyotes, jackals and dogs (Canis familiaris). At least twenty eight known species of Hesperocyoninae evolved out of Hesperocyon, including Ectopocynus (32-19 mya), Osbornodon (32-18 mya), Paraenhydrocyon (20-25 mya), and Mesocyon-Enhydrocyon (31-15 mya).[4][2]

Now lets have a look at a Civet




Civet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The common name is used for a variety of carnivorous mammalian species, mostly of the family Viverridae (although it resembles the other civets, the African Palm Civet (Nandinia binotata) is genetically distinct and belongs in its own monotypic family, Nandiniidae).
In 2005, the World Wide Fund for Nature released photos taken by a night time camera trap of an unknown carnivore (nicknamed the cat-fox) on Borneo. Scientists debate whether this animal is a new species of civet, or a known, but rare, species (such as Hose's Palm Civet, previously thought to be extinct).

Your researchers say Hesperocyon was civet like. I'll tell you likely why...because it is likely just a civet ancestor, and has nothing to do with dogs, and 'PROBABLY' is straw grabbing in desperation. It appears that the civet is a kind, and the fossil and genetically biased research still supports that theory better than yours.

PW, I know you have a plethora of theories to propose for anything, including dog/wolf ancestry. What you do not have is convincing evidence to support your theories. So basically you have simply highlighted another 'probably' that has a more parsinomous explanation.

newhope101,which part of this post is quote, which part is your opinion, and which part is reference?

I cannot read your posts newhope101.

Could you PLEASE seperate quotes from what you write yourself?

 

[Jose Fly]

Um...NewHope, you assured me you don't intentionally ignore questions posed to you. I believe Painted Wolf asked you a series of specific questions, a few of which I personally would like to see you answer:

What would a "partially formed" "dog kind" be exactly?

What is "dog kind" and how do we tell what is and what is not "dog kind"?

What is "fully formed"? What would a not "fully formed" dog look like?

 

[newhope101]

Um...NewHope, you assured me you don't intentionally ignore questions posed to you. I believe Painted Wolf asked you a series of specific questions, a few of which I personally would like to see you answer:

What would a "partially formed" "dog kind" be exactly? This is a good question if kinds actually changed. So evos are the one that need to explain that as I think it is a ridiculous claim. Quite clearly a dog is a dog, a bear looks like a bear and a civet looks like civet. They have 4 legs, fur, eyes etc. Their ancestors will look much the same. It is evolutionists that find bones and try to make common ancestors out of them

What is "dog kind" and how do we tell what is and what is not "dog kind"?
Amphicyonidae†
Canidae
Hemicyonidae†
Ursidae
Ailuridae
Enaliarctidae†
Odobenidae
Otariidae
Phocidae
Mephitidae
Mustelidae
Procyonidae


The dog kind. Canidae. This is what the dog kind looks like as oppposed to.......

The bear kind Ursidae

Ailuridae, the pandas, I think these are the bear kind, maybe God made variations, However I am happy to class them as a kind untill more clarity is gained.
The most recent molecular-systematic DNA research places the Red Panda into its own independent family Ailuridae. Ailuridae are in turn part of a trichotomy within the broad superfamily Musteloidea (Flynn et al., 2001) that also includes the Mephitidae + Mustelidae (skunks + weasels) and the Procyonidae (raccoons); but it is not a bear (Ursidae).[5]
Ailuridae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The skunk kind

The weasel kind, inludes otters Mustelidae

Procyonidae the racoons and ringtails etc.
There is considerable uncertainty over the correct classification of several members. The Red Panda was previously classified in this family, but now experts[who?] classify it in its own family the Ailuridae. The status of the various olingos is disputed: they may all be better regarded as subspecies of Bassaricyon gabbii.
Procyonidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The suborder is Caniformia. Caniformia has families. The families appear to be kinds. You should know about homoplasy. The traits used to bring these species under this suborder used to be a top idea. Now you have no basis to suggest that these are related simply because of traits. The hippo shares more traits with a pig, yet the phlogeny puts the hippo closer to the whale. Hence arguments about bullas and teeth etc are mute. Teeth and jawline are responsive to diet not necessarily ancestry. Yet you continue to argue bullas and traits. Rubbish.
What is "fully formed"? What would a not "fully formed" dog look like?
This is your madness to explain. I am quite clear that a bear or civet does not look like a dog just because they have 4 legs and fur. Neither does a bear look like a civet any more than a chimp looks like a human. I am not confused. Your researchers are the ones trying to come up with this nonsense

The ancestor to carnivora (as if meat eating arose once)is suposed to be Miacis

Miacis is an extinct genus of mammals that appeared in the late Paleocene (ca. 60-55 million years ago) and are mammals of the family Miacidae, superfamily Miacoidea. They are representative of the group of early carnivores that were the ancestors of the modern Order Carnivora, although only the species Miacis cognitus is a true carnivoran.[vague] Thus, Miacis may be considered the genus of carnivorous mammals that gave rise to all modern Carnivora.
Miacis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Miacis is also meant to be the ancestor of cats
The Domestication of Cats | My Cat Your Cat


Miacis

We all know how robust your resonctructions are, eg neanderthal.

Your evolutionists have made up this story. Who knows what this creature truly looked like and if it was reconstructed with science or bias, like the skulls in my other post.

Miacis did not leave decendants apparently. How convenient again for you.
Facts about Miacis: ancestry of dogs, as discussed in dog (mammal): Ancestry: -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

All miacis appears to be just a cat to be honest as it could climb trees. ,,but who knows, your researchers have been wrong about this kind of thing many times before. They will say it is like whatever is supposed to be there according to you TOE, with no basis in what it really appears to be. As I said its reconstruction is unlikely to be a true representation of what it actually looked like. For example you have only recently discovered that some dinos have feathers, neanderthal is human, and humans were never knuckle walkers, and perhaps birds did not evolve from dinos afterall.

What you have is evidence of kinds being found formed as they are today, the rest of the evidence that is meant to show ancestry is vague and theoretical, changeable and fallable.

The point being there are no internmediates at all. What you have found are clearly recogniseable kinds that remain today or went extinct as exampled in the families these kinds have been classified in.

Your probablies and maybe's are a wish list with no foundation whatsoever.

 

[newhope101]

This analysis is the fifth time that early carnivore postcrania have been carefully described in detail. Adding the information from this long-neglected fossil to the previously known data, though, does point researchers into new directions. An analysis of 99 traits among 29 fossils and 15 living taxa resulted in a new evolutionary tree that shows that 'M.' uintensis is distantly related to the type specimens from the Miacis genus, suggesting that an extensive revision of the current understanding of the evolutionary relationships among early carnivore fossils may be needed. But more significantly, the structure of the evolutionary tree suggests that adaptations to terrestrial or semi-terrestrial locomotion were more common than previously suspected in early fossil carnivores, preceding the split between the two major groups of living Carnivora, the Caniformia (a group that includes dogs, weasels, bears, seals and their relatives) and Feliformia (cats, hyenas, mongooses and civets).
Fossil shelved for a century reworks carnivore family tree: Limbs changes understanding of early carnivore locomotion

More than a hundred years after its discovery, the limbs and vertebrae of a fossil have been pulled off the shelf at the American Museum of Natural History to revise the view of early carnivore lifestyles. Carnivores - currently a diverse group of mostly meat-eating mammals like bears, cats, raccoons, seals, and hyenas - had been considered arboreal in their early evolutionary history. But now that the skeleton of 'Miacis' uintensis has been unpacked from its matrix of sandstone, it is clear that some early carnivores were built to walk on the ground at least part of the time. The new research is published this month in the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology.

'Carnivores are highly varied today, and they were also very diverse in the past,' says lead author Michelle Spaulding, a doctoral candidate at Columbia University and the Museum. 'Examination of this fossil tells us that they were not all sitting in trees, looking down. 'M.' uintensis did not have a lot of adaptations for an arboreal lifestyle.'
'It is typically thought that the miacoids of the Eocene - the basal fossil relatives of modern Carnivora that root the family tree - were arboreal,' concurs co-author John Flynn, Frick Curator of Fossil Mammals at the Museum. 'But we now are beginning to see that there was a greater diversity of locomotor styles in early carnivores.'
http://www.sciencecentric.com/news/09122343-fossil-shelved-century-reworks-carnivore-family-tree.html


Truly...you evos have no basis to refute any creation model. These probably's and maybe's and confusion will never amount to evidence, no matter how many times you put it up it can change tomorrow. Why use it? Why back it? Answer: Because this is the best you can do.

Kinds are found much the same in the fossil record as they are today if they have survived till today. Researchers attempts to turn clearly dilineated kinds into mongrels will continue to end in controversy as you are looking for evidence that does not really exist and must be fabricated.

 

[painted wolf]

How does the fact that one of the 20 or so species in the genus Miacis was less arboreal than other species in the genus disprove evolution?

Kinds are found much the same in the fossil record as they are today if they have survived till today. Researchers attempts to turn clearly dilineated kinds into mongrels will continue to end in controversy as you are looking for evidence that does not really exist and must be fabricated.

Only if you don't bother to actually examine at the fossils. like calling Hesperocyon a civit.

wa:do

ps... carnivora doesn't mean meat eating evolved only once, just that modern mammals of the order carnivora share a common ancestry and specifically the carnivoran dentition. For example, they all have a carnassal tooth for shearing meat. Lots of non-carnivora mammal eat meat. Even cows will eat meat from time to time.
Indeed the largest land based meat eating mammal aren't carnivorans but Mesonychids, who had hooves.

 

[Jose Fly]

NewHope,

This is a good question if kinds actually changed. So evos are the one that need to explain that as I think it is a ridiculous claim.

Um...you were the one who referred to "kinds fully formed", so I think it falls on you to tell us what you mean by that.

The families appear to be kinds.

Now earlier, you were chastising scientists for using words like "probably" and "likely", yet here you say taxonomic families "appear to be kinds". Does family = kind or not?

This is your madness to explain.

Again, you're the one who used the term "fully formed", thus it does not fall upon us to define the term. You used it, you tell us what you meant.

 

[camanintx]

Truly...you evos have no basis to refute any creation model.

You mean other than the abject failure to show any evidence for a creator?

 

[lunakilo]

You seemed a bit put out by purely paleontological discussions, but fair enough.

Not at all.

My annoyance with the fossil record was due to the fact that what I remember about the fossil record dosn'r really fit well with the lines I drew in the picture and which I am trying to see if can make sense at all.

Basically to sum up... you can draw the lines any way you want.... but to do so, you have to ignore so much evidence (like whole swaths of the fossil record) that it's IMHO silly.
Thus far I have found the majority of people drawing straight lines of lineage for "kinds" are looking only at modern species and ignoring or dismissing the fossil evidence all together.

Do you know of any site which has "the fossil record for dummies"?
If I am going to see if I can draw lines and not a tree from the dots, it would help to actually have the dots handy.

Mostly I am interested in an overview which tells me which type of fossils are found in which layers, just as relevant which fossils are not found in certain layers.

 

[Krok]

Hallo Lunakilo

Start at Fossil Record. They're pretty good. Also have a look at references in the article on the fossil record on Wiki. As I'm not a paleontologist (I'm probably a prime example of somebody needing references on fossils for dummies), I refer to these sights quite often.

Also have a look at Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ. It's really good.

I don't think many people realise that we've found literally millions of fossils and that they all fit into the arrangement I wrote about in my second post in this thread. As the old saying goes: find a rabbit fossil in the Pre-Cambrian and you will falsify evolution.

YEC's and other evolution-deniers are out to try and do this by combing scientific articles on fossils (and calling this behaviour "research" by "scientists") for their quote-mines. Nobody's succeeded as of yet. They don't realise that falsifying the Theory of Evolution does not automatically provide evidence for creation, though. At the moment there is no evidence for a six-day creation less than 10 000 years ago. That's been proved impossible in hundreds of ways.

 

[Itinerant Lurker]

Do you know of any site which has "the fossil record for dummies"?
If I am going to see if I can draw lines and not a tree from the dots, it would help to actually have the dots handy.

Try googling the Law of Fossil Succession.




Lurker

 

[painted wolf]

Not at all.

My annoyance with the fossil record was due to the fact that what I remember about the fossil record dosn'r really fit well with the lines I drew in the picture and which I am trying to see if can make sense at all.

As long as I'm not boring you with long rants.

Do you know of any site which has "the fossil record for dummies"?
If I am going to see if I can draw lines and not a tree from the dots, it would help to actually have the dots handy.

Not a comprehensive one.... but these should help you some.

Still being worked on, but when they have info on what unites a group it's an excellent resource. (check out the fish and early tetrapods!)
Tree of Life Web Project
Great list of species and where they fit in the evolutionary tree, check here for taxa names
Mikko's Phylogeny Archive
Once you have a taxa names you can look it up here for more information. No pretty pictures but it has a good list of taxa that is always being added to.
It will list the chronology and place of each taxa you look up.
The Paleobiology Database

This one is also worth a look... more user/laymen friendly but not quite as comprehensive. North America only. *Actually this one may end up being more what you want.
The Paleontology Portal: Home

Mostly I am interested in an overview which tells me which type of fossils are found in which layers, just as relevant which fossils are not found in certain layers.

Absolutely... and in the most basic sense Wiki can even help in a pinch. You wont get any real detail (it's a mediocre source at best) but it can provide a jumping off point to find more detail elsewhere.

If I had time and programming skills, I'd love to do a comprehensive site with all the information in one place. Alas, I haven't the mad skillz nor the time.

wa:do

 

[newhope101]

NewHope,


Um...you were the one who referred to "kinds fully formed", so I think it falls on you to tell us what you mean by that.
That means you found fossils that look like bears because they are bears, etc. Fully formed means looking much like they do today.

Now earlier, you were chastising scientists for using words like "probably" and "likely", yet here you say taxonomic families "appear to be kinds". Does family = kind or not?
Exactly. TOE is no more robust that creation science. Both remain theoretical. Except for one thing. Your genomics shows no kind alive today is decendant from any other kind alive today. Humans did not decent from todays species of chimps and todays felids did not give rise to the wolf. Hence the need for a common ancestor. The common ancestor is theoretical and based on biased modelling. Therefore this is where your evidence for creation is refuted with theoretical myth.

Again, you're the one who used the term "fully formed", thus it does not fall upon us to define the term. You used it, you tell us what you meant.It means the obvious to anyone not a looser and wanting to harp on asides rather than redress the body of the argument put forth. Miacis looks like a cat, and not the ancestor of every carnivore. To suggest that meat eating evolved once is ridiculous in light of todays evidence and homoplasy. Anyway bears are not true carnivores and your carvivore taxon is nonsense, made up to fit in with evo theory.
Carnivore

You demanded answers to PW questions. I answered them. What do I get back from you.nothing but this rubbish that gives no refute to my evidence just a valueless time waster of a reply.

Thylacosmilus atrox and Mesotherium
Thylacosmilus ("pouch sabre") was a genus of sabre-toothed metatherian predators that first appeared during the Miocene. Remains of the animal have been found in parts of South America, primarily Argentina. Though Thylacosmilus is one of several predatory mammal genera typically called "sabre-toothed cats", it was not a felid but a sparassodont, a group closely related to marsupials, and only superficially resembled other sabre-toothed mammals due to convergent evolution.
Thylacosmilus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


These above are supposedly related to marsupials are they? What makes your researchers say that? Do they have any DNA from these fossils? NO. Rather this myth is invented using models to align with TOE.


Reconstruction of Megantereon

The first felids supposedly arose 25mya


This is Sarkastodon dated 55 to 35mya from the order Creodonta and did not disappear untill 8mya.

Creodonts were traditionally considered ancestors to Carnivora, but are now considered to have shared a common ancestor further back - possibly a Cimolesta such as Cimolestes.
Creodonta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This creature is a cat. Why? Because it looks like one and any fool can see it.

All this babble about common ancestors more recent or futher back is hogwash invented to align with your other nonsense.

What you have, theory aside, is fossil evidence that cats were around 55mya.

Even Proailuris has been classified as a cat

Proailurnus, a likely ancestor of Pseudaelurus which lived 20-10 million years ago, probably gave rise to the major felid lines, including the extinct machairodontines and the extant felines and pantherines, although the phylogeny of the cats is still not precisely known.[4]
Proailurus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Then there is evidence that a leopard can't change its' spots
Understanding why leopards can't change their spots

.....and evidence that evolution in fact did not change colouring to suit the environment as per TOE.
Why the leopard got its spots

"Although a clear link between environment and patterning was established, the study also highlighted some anomalies. For example, cheetahs have evolved or retained spotted patterns despite a strong preference for open habitats, while a number of cats, such as the bay cat and the flat-headed cat, have plain coats despite a preference for closed environments. Why this should be remains unclear."

Yet you continue to alledge kinds change so dramatically.

What appears to be the fact is that there is fossil evidence that the cat kind was created fully formed as an identifiable cat kind. God created a variety of cats that have remained much the same since their creation.

It takes convoluted theoretical assertions and complicated biased models, to change evidence for creation into an evolutionary conundrum. The evidence, however, supports the creation of kinds into their identifiable forms that exist today. All you have to refute is theoretical, debated, assertions from an over active imagination and desperation to consolidate a theory in crisis.

BTW Lunakilo I tried to keep my words in plain font and extracts in slant. Cheers!

 

[Jose Fly]

NewHope,

Fully formed means looking much like they do today.

So then a fossil of a specimen that doesn't look much like something that exists today would be partially formed? So much of the Ediacaran specimens, or early Cambrian are all partially formed?

Exactly. TOE is no more robust that creation science.

So you admit that you're guilty of the same faults that you chastise scientists for? And you didn't answer: Does kind = family? Yes or no.

 

[painted wolf]

Why do the earliest bears not look like modern bears then?

from your beloved wiki:

The earliest members of Ursidae belong to the extinct subfamily Amphicynodontinae, including Parictis (late Eocene to early middle Miocene, 38-18 million years (Ma) ago) and the slightly younger Allocyon (early Oligocene, 34-30 Ma), both from North America. These animals looked very different from today's bears, being small and raccoon-like in overall appearance, and a diet perhaps more similar to that of a badger.

Bear - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or does "fully formed" mean "looks like I want it to"?

Essentially your argument as given above... is that you don't actually care what the evidence is, you just want to look at pictures and make guesses.

As for Thylacosmilus there are lots of features that make it not a felid. From the closed eye sockets, constantly growing oddly rooted canines, lack of incisors, no carnassal teeth (only found in placental carnivorans), no saggital crest and lack of other key muscle attachments found in felids.... and this is just in the skull. The rest of the body is not felid, but shows features uniting it with marsupials. Especially the limbs and feet. They have semi-opposable thumbs and plantigrade feet for example. Overall the body looks more like the Thylacene than a cat... that is, more "dog like" than "cat like".

There is no need to twist any evidence to show Thylacosmilus isn't a cat, nor is it a felid, nor is it a carnivoran.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

ps... so would this be a "partially formed" bird then?

wa:do