Speciation

[Jose Fly]

NewHope,

Is H. erectus in the "human kind" or some other "kind"?

Have you actually read Eldredge and Gould's paper where they first proposed PE?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Sarkastodon and Patriofelis are both members of the order Creodonta. Creodonta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yep, I agree.

She seems to be operating off of old data, since according to Wikipedia Creodonts were, at one point, thought to be ancestors of modern cats. Newhope thinks that once something has been hypothesized we have to stick with that hypothesis forever or else throw out all of evolution.

Maybe but that's not how she expressed it. She presented it as Creodonta was a specie (kind) of cat. She didn't seem to think that Creodonta represents an array of species.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2421386-post174.html
"...... I think the poor creodonta has been left right out. It is a cat, dated earlier than miacis at 65myo. So are the others just cats, demonstrating that God made the cat kind and you have found evidence of it. Even if it was around the same time they are dated, your hypothesis is a nonsense."

Yea, this is what she said...making it appear as though Creodonta was an animal and not an "order" of specific species......Which confirms my assessment she really hasn't a clue as to what she's talking about.

 

[newhope101]

Dirty Penguin Quote"Let's stop you right here because it's already been mentioned you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The pretty picture at the top is NOT A CAT.....and "Creodonta" IS NOT an animal. The picture is from Wiki and it is of a Sarkasatodon and it is (BEAR LIKE) (See: Sarkastodon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

Trying to classify animals as "kinds" has got you all screwed up. Creodonta is an ORDER not a particular species. If your argument originally started off comparing cats to Patriofelis (See: Patriofelis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) it would have made a little more sense but you keep putting up the picture a particular species and insisting that the name of the "order" is the name of the species....and it's NOT......


Oh DP you should have shown us what Patriofelis looked like. So (bear like) you reckon...seriously. Oh yeah this looks like a bear...Daaahhhh:no:


Patriofelis


Creodonta


Bear like.

Are you trying to give me my first giggle for the weekend? You have been successful.

Wiki. The creodonts ranged across North America, Eurasia and Africa, in forms that resemble those of some modern carnivores. Amongst their number was Sarkastodon, one of the largest mammalian land predator of all time, weighing an estimated 800 kg[2]. Their dominance over the early Carnivora, known as miacids, began to wane after 35 million years ago. The creodonts survived until 8 million years ago; the last form, Dissopsalis, died out in Pakistan. Bears, cats, mustelids, hyenas, canids such as wolves and other Carnivora now occupy the former creodont niches.

It doesn't matter what you call these above. They are cats and they are most certainly not bear like. Do you see what this evo science has done to you DP? So brain washed are you that you can look a cat in the face and see a bear. It is truly mystical.

I tried to look for the ancestor of miacis. I found a blur really right back to mammalia. Do please post any representations of the ancestor of miacis. My bet is you will not find one..just a blur. This is likely why these above need to be bear like. They can't be simply cat like as they appear because it challenges many of your evolutionary presumptions. It is much the same for all your evolutionary relationships. I'll give you another example in whale evolution because this line makes me laugh the most. The hippo or deer or somethings transition back to the sea from whence they came!!!!.

I have already had a chat about the deer like ancestor of whales that looks like a deer because it is a deer. Then you have this guy below held up as some sort of mid species.


Ambulocetus natans - a primitive whale

While I was looking for a miacis ancestor in mammalia I found this guy below:


Castorocauda
Castorocauda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Castorcauda is dated to 110mya. A mammaliform you say. Nonsense.


Whale Wiki
All cetaceans, including whales, dolphins and porpoises, are descendants of land-living mammals of the Artiodactylorder (even-toed ungulates). Both descended from a common ancestor, the Indohyus (an extinct semi-aquatic deer-like ungulate) from which they split around 54 million years ago.[6][7] Primitive whales probably first took to the sea about 50 million years ago and became fully aquatic about 5-10 million years later.[8]


So you can call these creatures what you like. Your researchers have a vested interest in keeping TOE going. I do not. So the whale split around 54mya and you have Ambulocetus as the evidence. Well it appears one of his ancestors was around already before the split in Castorocauda, like 50my earlier. Truly mystical!

I just love this stuff..it is a laugh a minute.


The castorocauda and ambulocetis are the same kind, it appears. A kind that are likely a platypus ancestor. God only knows how misrepresented the representation is.

This is just another example of your researchers being happy to misrepresent anything to support TOE. Their problem is creationsists are not blind and all the mumbo jumbo is not convincing, even less so when you suggest cat like is bear like.



Indohyus


Chevrotain - Mouse Deer


So cats are cats, deer are deer, whales are whales and some kinds have gone extinct. Not having the answer to every question does not detract from this point.. God may have made one pair or many pairs of cats, deer, whales. They may have been identical or varied. This is what science needs to answer for me. How many kinds of cat, deer and whale did God create in the creation. Was it all in one day like the YEC's believe or was it staged? If your researchers were asking the right questions they may actually find some answers instead of more questions.

 

[McBell]

Auto go away. I am sick of reposting evidence that you will never understand.

Wow.
The irony is just so far off the scale as to be worthy of Guinness.

 

[newhope101]

Dirty Penguin Quote"Let's stop you right here because it's already been mentioned you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The pretty picture at the top is NOT A CAT.....and "Creodonta" IS NOT an animal. The picture is from Wiki and it is of a Sarkasatodon and it is (BEAR LIKE) (See: Sarkastodon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

Trying to classify animals as "kinds" has got you all screwed up. Creodonta is an ORDER not a particular species. If your argument originally started off comparing cats to Patriofelis (See: Patriofelis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) it would have made a little more sense but you keep putting up the picture a particular species and insisting that the name of the "order" is the name of the species....and it's NOT......


Oh DP you should have shown us what Patriofelis looked like. So (bear like) you reckon...seriously. Oh yeah this looks like a bear...Daaahhhh:no:


Patriofelis


Creodonta


Bear like.

Are you trying to give me my first giggle for the weekend? You have been successful.

Wiki. The creodonts ranged across North America, Eurasia and Africa, in forms that resemble those of some modern carnivores. Amongst their number was Sarkastodon, one of the largest mammalian land predator of all time, weighing an estimated 800 kg[2]. Their dominance over the early Carnivora, known as miacids, began to wane after 35 million years ago. The creodonts survived until 8 million years ago; the last form, Dissopsalis, died out in Pakistan. Bears, cats, mustelids, hyenas, canids such as wolves and other Carnivora now occupy the former creodont niches.

It doesn't matter what you call these above. They are cats and they are most certainly not bear like. Do you see what this evo science has done to you DP? So brain washed are you that you can look a cat in the face and see a bear. It is truly mystical.

I tried to look for the ancestor of miacis. I found a blur really right back to mammalia. Do please post any representations of the ancestor of miacis. My bet is you will not find one..just a blur. This is likely why these above need to be bear like. They can't be simply cat like as they appear because it challenges many of your evolutionary presumptions. It is much the same for all your evolutionary relationships. I'll give you another example in whale evolution because this line makes me laugh the most. The hippo or deer or somethings transition back to the sea from whence they came!!!!.

I have already had a chat about the deer like ancestor of whales that looks like a deer because it is a deer. Then you have this guy below held up as some sort of mid species.


Ambulocetus natans - a primitive whale

While I was looking for a miacis ancestor in mammalia I found this guy below:


Castorocauda
Castorocauda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Castorcauda is dated to 110mya. A mammaliform you say. Nonsense.


Whale Wiki
All cetaceans, including whales, dolphins and porpoises, are descendants of land-living mammals of the Artiodactylorder (even-toed ungulates). Both descended from a common ancestor, the Indohyus (an extinct semi-aquatic deer-like ungulate) from which they split around 54 million years ago.[6][7] Primitive whales probably first took to the sea about 50 million years ago and became fully aquatic about 5-10 million years later.[8]


So you can call these creatures what you like. Your researchers have a vested interest in keeping TOE going. I do not. So the whale split around 54mya and you have Ambulocetus as the evidence. Well it appears one of his ancestors was around already before the split in Castorocauda, like 50my earlier. Truly mystical!

I just love this stuff..it is a laugh a minute.


The castorocauda and ambulocetis are the same kind, it appears. A kind that are likely a platypus ancestor. God only knows how misrepresented the representation is.

This is just another example of your researchers being happy to misrepresent anything to support TOE. Their problem is creationsists are not blind and all the mumbo jumbo is not convincing, even less so when you suggest cat like is bear like.



Indohyus


Chevrotain - Mouse Deer


So cats are cats, deer are deer, whales are whales and some kinds have gone extinct. Not having the answer to every question does not detract from this point.. God may have made one pair or many pairs of cats, deer, whales. They may have been identical or varied. This is what science needs to answer for me. How many kinds of cat, deer and whale did God create in the creation. Was it all in one day like the YEC's believe or was it staged? If your researchers were asking the right questions they may actually find some answers instead of more questions.

Mestemia..I'll wait until DP gets back to me as he appears to be the only responder able to keep on track, with intelligent responses.

 

[Amill]

Dirty Penguin Quote"Let's stop you right here because it's already been mentioned you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The pretty picture at the top is NOT A CAT.....and "Creodonta" IS NOT an animal. The picture is from Wiki and it is of a Sarkasatodon and it is (BEAR LIKE) (See: Sarkastodon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

Trying to classify animals as "kinds" has got you all screwed up. Creodonta is an ORDER not a particular species. If your argument originally started off comparing cats to Patriofelis (See: Patriofelis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) it would have made a little more sense but you keep putting up the picture a particular species and insisting that the name of the "order" is the name of the species....and it's NOT......


Oh DP you should have shown us what Patriofelis looked like. So (bear like) you reckon...seriously. Oh yeah this looks like a bear...Daaahhhh:no:


Patriofelis


Creodonta

Are you purposely playing dumb? He never said Patriofelis was bear-like, he mentioned that Sarkasatodon(the bottom picture that was quoted) was described as that...because that was the picture you kept putting up as being a "cat". And you are still making the error of using Creodonta as if it's the name of a species, when it's obviously not. You never once used the picture of Patriofelis. Calling DP out for describing Patriofelis as bear-like when he obviously never did(re-read his paragraph) just makes you look even more desperate.

So you can call these creatures what you like. Your researchers have a vested interest in keeping TOE going. I do not. So the whale split around 54mya and you have Ambulocetus as the evidence. Well it appears one of his ancestors was around already before the split in Castorocauda, like 50my earlier. Truly mystical!

Why on earth do you think that whales are descended from Castorocauda?
Here's a quote from the WIKI PAGE YOU LINKED.

It has no known modern descendants

 

[Gunfingers]

I actually think Patriofelis looks more like a bear too. Look at its legs and paws. Those aren't very feline.

 

[McBell]

Mestemia..I'll wait until DP gets back to me as he appears to be the only responder able to keep on track, with intelligent responses.

Wow.
All the ego masturbation you engage in...

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Oh DP you should have shown us what Patriofelis looked like. So (bear like) you reckon...seriously. Oh yeah this looks like a bear...Daaahhhh:no:

Hahahahah..!!!!!......:biglaugh:

When did I ever say Patriofelis was ("bear like")....?????

I thought so....Never did....

Creodonta

You keep missing the point with your copy and paste work. The specie above is not Creodonta. It is from the "ORDER" Creodonta. The specie above is a Sarkastodon. Because you slavishly group them all as "kinds" you have no idea what you're talking about. There is no "ONE" animal named Creodonta.

Bear like.

No....It's a modern day bear. Nothing about this pic is (bear like). Although to the unlearned person one could look at this particular pic (just the head) and assume it was a dog but nothing about this animal says "bear like", cat or dog.....

Wiki. The creodonts ranged across North America, Eurasia and Africa, in forms that resemble those of some modern carnivores. Amongst their number was Sarkastodon, one of the largest mammalian land predator of all time, weighing an estimated 800 kg[2]. Their dominance over the early Carnivora, known as miacids, began to wane after 35 million years ago. The creodonts survived until 8 million years ago; the last form, Dissopsalis, died out in Pakistan. Bears, cats, mustelids, hyenas, canids such as wolves and other Carnivora now occupy the former creodont niches.

It doesn't matter what you call these above. They are cats and they are most certainly not bear like. Do you see what this evo science has done to you DP? So brain washed are you that you can look a cat in the face and see a bear. It is truly mystical.

And you're still assuming that Creodonta was one specific animal considering your very own info says.....("The creodonts ranged across North America, Eurasia and Africa, in forms that resemble those of some modern carnivores. Amongst their number was Sarkastodon")

This goes to show you haven't the faintest idea as to what you're talking about. Within the "ORDER" of Creodonta is a specie known as Sakastodon. If you truly believe the Sarkastodon to be a "cat" then what is this and where does this go?

Keep in mind that the one below is a Sarakastodon (Bear like creature) from wiki.
File:Sarkastodon scull AMNH.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I actually think Patriofelis looks more like a bear too. Look at its legs and paws. Those aren't very feline.

Keep in mind these are simply artist renditions. This is an artist rendeition of the Sarkastodon by some one named (Roman Uchytel - http://prehistoric.ucoz.ru/). To me this looks nothing like the stock wiki picture and looks nothing like a cat.


[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]

[/FONT]

 

[Valjean]

Why are we obsessing about outward appearances? Animals evolve to fit the ecological niches they inhabit. If the optimum form for niche X is mouselike, fishlike if wolflike that's the appearance you'd expect to find, regardless of what "kind" of ancestor led to it.

To determine ancestry you have to look deeper. You need to look at what structures were modified too achieve these shapes. Evolution doesn't create things de novo, it has to work with what it has.

 

[Valjean]

Keep in mind these are simply artist renditions. This is an artist rendeition of the Sarkastodon by some one named (Roman Uchytel - Доисторические животные - Prehistoric Fauna). To me this looks nothing like the stock wiki picture and looks nothing like a cat.


[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]

[/FONT]

A plantigrade cat?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

A plantigrade cat?

Or a bear like creature.....

I say that because Plantigrade would fit perfectly with bears or bear like mammals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantigrade

While Digitigrade would be something we see in cats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digitigrade

 

[Autodidact]

Why are we obsessing about outward appearances? Animals evolve to fit the ecological niches they inhabit. If the optimum form for niche X is mouselike, fishlike if wolflike that's the appearance you'd expect to find, regardless of what "kind" of ancestor led to it.

To determine ancestry you have to look deeper. You need to look at what structures were modified too achieve these shapes. Evolution doesn't create things de novo, it has to work with what it has.

So true. For example, this

is a lizard, not a snake. Its legs became vestigial because that morphology fit its ecological niche.

This

is not any kind of wolf, and is not closely related to wolves or any dog. It is a marsupial, more closely related to koala bears than dogs.

This

is not any kind of bat. It's a squirrel. While this

is not at all closely related to it. It's a sugar glider, which is a type of possum--another marsupial. It's more closely related to the wolf looking thing above than to the flying squirrel just above.

There's more to classifying animals than what they look like. A dolphin is not a fish, regardless of what it may look like.

 

[Valjean]

But...but.... Doesn't the BIBLE say they're fish?!

 

[newhope101]

Or a bear like creature.....

I say that because Plantigrade would fit perfectly with bears or bear like mammals.

Plantigrade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While Digitigrade would be something we see in cats.

Digitigrade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Homoplasy is possible anywhere in the body, and I reckon mutes any morphological similaities upheld as evidence of ancestry or relatedness.

Integration, heterochrony, and adaptation in pedal digits of syndactylous marsupials.(Research article) - BMC Evolutionary Biology | HighBeam Research

Using phylogenies to study convergence: The case of the ant-eating mammals | American Zoologist | Find Articles at BNET

PLoS Collections: Dynamic Locomotor Capabilities Revealed by Early Dinosaur Trackmakers from Southern Africa

Locomotion and posture from the common hominoid ancestor to fully modern hominins, with special reference to the last common panin/hominin ancestor - Crompton - 2008 - Journal of Anatomy - Wiley Online Library

What you need to remember is that theories are hypothesis of all sorts of data. On the one hand you can pull up research that attests DNA is more important than morphological features eg Hippo to whale, not pig. Then on the other hand you can pull up stuff about bullas and other anatomical or morphological traits like vestigial organs, bullas, ungulate toes etc. Behind this Homoplasy, lots of definitions of speciation (see Wiki speciation), research into genetic drift that suggests it is more luck than anything else that an organism has the trait that favours it during catastrophe and disasters. Then you have all the somatic changes like immunity, and changes in teeth due to environment and diet etc.

So basically you have something from every camp going and this is circular. Rather I suggest your researchers have more questions than answers.

I and other creationists may also have another hypothesis of the data. I have given examples over the last few pages of what I see as kinds appearing in the fossil record that have been misrepresented in some way by researchers. I do not have to have the answer to every question. I could reply to each post but of what good would it do. You have so many magical assumptions that you can pull a rabbit or anything out of a hat eg DNA, traits

I reckon what you call speciation and the research you speak to behind it, demonstrates regulation of gene expression. Hence a wolf can become a dog, the same kind, of one or many. variations of the dog/canine kind.

It appears to me there is some evidence of limitations to speciation that stop one kind changing into another eg land to sea.
　
After the DNA is transcribed and mRNA is formed, there must be some sort of regulation on how much the mRNA is translated into proteins. Cells do this by modulating the capping, splicing, addition of a Poly(A) Tail, the sequence-specific nuclear export rates, and, in several contexts, sequestration of the RNA transcript. These processes occur in eukaryotes but not in prokaryotes. This modulation is a result of a protein or transcript that, in turn, is regulated and may have an affinity for certain sequences.
Regulation of gene expression - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


So there over the last few pages , you have what I think and basically why. I don’t have to have an answer to every question as evolutionists most certainly don’t.

Whatever you put up can be refuted or challenged by a different hypothesis and then you can pull another paper out, then me too. Your researchers dispute each other, so ….it does not matter what you put up ultimately. Who knows if the most common thinking is the final word or not on any topic?; Who knows how distorted it is or if it will change tomorrow. Your researchers could ’prove/support’ the Teletubbies are ancestors to some creature if your researchers really wanted to. I am sure they must share something in common with some other kind. eg bipeds.

You have so many ideas about speciation but no evidence that any kind becomes another…just misrepresentations, lots of speciation definitions (Wiki Speciation), maybes and perhapses, luck, wish lists, ‘kinds’ that remain the same ‘kinds’ despite new species names for each variation, more luck and a whole heap of faith.
　
　

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Homoplasy is possible anywhere in the body, and I reckon mutes any morphological similaities upheld as evidence of ancestry or relatedness.

Integration, heterochrony, and adaptation in pedal digits of syndactylous marsupials.(Research article) - BMC Evolutionary Biology | HighBeam Research

Using phylogenies to study convergence: The case of the ant-eating mammals | American Zoologist | Find Articles at BNET

PLoS Collections: Dynamic Locomotor Capabilities Revealed by Early Dinosaur Trackmakers from Southern Africa

Locomotion and posture from the common hominoid ancestor to fully modern hominins, with special reference to the last common panin/hominin ancestor - Crompton - 2008 - Journal of Anatomy - Wiley Online Library

What you need to remember is that theories are hypothesis of all sorts of data. On the one hand you can pull up research that attests DNA is more important than morphological features eg Hippo to whale, not pig. Then on the other hand you can pull up stuff about bullas and other anatomical or morphological traits like vestigial organs, bullas, ungulate toes etc. Behind this Homoplasy, lots of definitions of speciation (see Wiki speciation), research into genetic drift that suggests it is more luck than anything else that an organism has the trait that favours it during catastrophe and disasters. Then you have all the somatic changes like immunity, and changes in teeth due to environment and diet etc.

So basically you have something from every camp going and this is circular. Rather I suggest your researchers have more questions than answers.

I and other creationists may also have another hypothesis of the data. I have given examples over the last few pages of what I see as kinds appearing in the fossil record that have been misrepresented in some way by researchers. I do not have to have the answer to every question. I could reply to each post but of what good would it do. You have so many magical assumptions that you can pull a rabbit or anything out of a hat eg DNA, traits

I reckon what you call speciation and the research you speak to behind it, demonstrates regulation of gene expression. Hence a wolf can become a dog, the same kind, of one or many. variations of the dog/canine kind.

It appears to me there is some evidence of limitations to speciation that stop one kind changing into another eg land to sea.
　
After the DNA is transcribed and mRNA is formed, there must be some sort of regulation on how much the mRNA is translated into proteins. Cells do this by modulating the capping, splicing, addition of a Poly(A) Tail, the sequence-specific nuclear export rates, and, in several contexts, sequestration of the RNA transcript. These processes occur in eukaryotes but not in prokaryotes. This modulation is a result of a protein or transcript that, in turn, is regulated and may have an affinity for certain sequences.
Regulation of gene expression - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


So there over the last few pages , you have what I think and basically why. I don’t have to have an answer to every question as evolutionists most certainly don’t.

Whatever you put up can be refuted or challenged by a different hypothesis and then you can pull another paper out, then me too. Your researchers dispute each other, so ….it does not matter what you put up ultimately. Who knows if the most common thinking is the final word or not on any topic?; Who knows how distorted it is or if it will change tomorrow. Your researchers could ’prove/support’ the Teletubbies are ancestors to some creature if your researchers really wanted to. I am sure they must share something in common with some other kind. eg bipeds.

You have so many ideas about speciation but no evidence that any kind becomes another…just misrepresentations, lots of speciation definitions (Wiki Speciation), maybes and perhapses, luck, wish lists, ‘kinds’ that remain the same ‘kinds’ despite new species names for each variation, more luck and a whole heap of faith.
　
　

What did I miss? What does any of this have to do with the fact that bears are Plantigrade and Cats are Digitigrade?...........

 

[Autodidact]

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-7580.2008.00870.x/full
What you need to remember is that theories are hypothesis of all sorts of data.

What you need to know is that this is not correct. Theories are not hypotheses.

On the one hand you can pull up research that attests DNA is more important than morphological features eg Hippo to whale, not pig. Then on the other hand you can pull up stuff about bullas and other anatomical or morphological traits like vestigial organs, bullas, ungulate toes etc. Behind this Homoplasy, lots of definitions of speciation (see Wiki speciation), research into genetic drift that suggests it is more luck than anything else that an organism has the trait that favours it during catastrophe and disasters. Then you have all the somatic changes like immunity, and changes in teeth due to environment and diet etc.

But what they all agree on is that ToE is correct. This is the simple, basic concept that you refuse to grasp.

So basically you have something from every camp going and this is circular.

No, you don't and it isn't. While there is disagreement on the details, all camps agree that ToE is correct. I think you've been told this around 100 times at this point. Why do you keep ignoring it?

Rather I suggest your researchers have more questions than answers.

Yes, that's pretty basic to how science works. Your preachers have answers, they're just wrong.

I and other creationists may also have another hypothesis of the data.

Yes, but it's been disproven. That's the difference.

I have given examples over the last few pages of what I see as kinds appearing in the fossil record that have been misrepresented in some way by researchers

Yes, you have, and you're wrong.

I do not have to have the answer to every question.

Because you're wrong.

I could reply to each post but of what good would it do.

None, since you're wrong.

You have so many magical assumptions that you can pull a rabbit or anything out of a hat eg DNA, traits

What magical assumptions might those be? Or would that just be another post you won't reply to, because what good would it do?

I reckon what you call speciation and the research you speak to behind it, demonstrates regulation of gene expression.

You reckon wrong.

Hence a wolf can become a dog, the same kind, of one or many. variations of the dog/canine kind.

It appears to me there is some evidence of limitations to speciation that stop one kind changing into another eg land to sea.

Really? What evidence? What could stop DNA from mutating?

So there over the last few pages , you have what I think and basically why. I don’t have to have an answer to every question as evolutionists most certainly don’t.

O.K. It just happens that you're mistaken.

Whatever you put up can be refuted or challenged by a different hypothesis and then you can pull another paper out, then me too.

But yours also support our position. Kind of a key difference.

Your researchers dispute each other, so ….it does not matter what you put up ultimately.

They dispute a lot of things, but not whether ToE is correct. That makes 101. I wonder if you will keep ignoring this key point?

Who knows if the most common thinking is the final word or not on any topic?;

It never is, in science.

Who knows how distorted it is or if it will change tomorrow. Your researchers could ’prove/support’ the Teletubbies are ancestors to some creature if your researchers really wanted to.

Once again you demonstrate your utter contempt for science, while pretending to do it. How is that working for you?

You have so many ideas about speciation but no evidence that any kind becomes another…just misrepresentations, lots of speciation definitions (Wiki Speciation), maybes and perhapses, luck, wish lists, ‘kinds’ that remain the same ‘kinds’ despite new species names for each variation, more luck and a whole heap of faith.

Kind of hard to say, if we don't know what a "kind" is.

 

[newhope101]

Dirty Penguin Quote "What did I miss? What does any of this have to do with the fact that bears are Plantigrade and Cats are Digitigrade?..........."

You spoke to Miacis being bear like, which I demonstrated was a nonsense they are cat like, then this woffle about bears and cats being digitigrade.

And then I reminded you that similarities mean zilch due to homoplasy and I gave links to demonstate. Are you up to speed now? :no:

Besides you haven't put up the ancestor of miacis that I suggested, was just a blur. Couldn't you find one? This happens with all the kinds.

The authors are skeptical about the interpretation of the discoveries and advocate a more nuanced approach to classifying the fossils. Wood and Harrison argue that it is naïve to assume that all fossils are the ancestors of creatures alive today and also note that shared morphology or homoplasy -- the same characteristics seen in species of different ancestry -- was not taken into account by the scientists who found and described the fossils. For example, the authors claim that for Ardipithecus to be a human ancestor, one must assume that homoplasy does not exist in our lineage, but is common in the lineages closest to ours. The authors suggest there are a number of potential interpretations of these fossils and that being a human ancestor is by no means the simplest, or most parsimonious explanation.
Fossils may look like human bones: Biological anthropologists question claims for human ancestry

See, link above. Your own researchers think alot of your classifications are crap. You do not need little old me to remind you!!!!!!

Auto...you are still going on about kinds that we have spoken about lots elsewhere. You know about my family, sub-family comparison. You behave like a 5yo with the retention of a 2yo. What make you think that because a tasmanian tiger is classified as a marsupial it means it cannot be a variety of the dog kind. That's your messy classifications that God does not abide by, nor should he.

The skulls of the thylacine (left) and the Timber Wolf, Canis lupus, are almost identical although the species are unrelated. Studies show the skull shape of the Red Fox, Vulpes vulpes, is even closer to that of the thylacine.[7]
Thylacine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Convergent evolution as well as your plethora of speciation types is an invention made to address what is found in the fossil record and why life did not evolve like you thought it did. Butt covering!
Besides asking questions hoping I cannot reply is a silly game a child would play. I do not have to have all the answers and you evos certainly do not.

 

[newhope101]

Auto Quote: What you need to know is that this is not correct. Theories are not hypotheses"

Here you go Auto..a free lesson. Cheers!!!

While theories in the arts and philosophy may address ideas and empirical phenomena which are not easily observable, in modern science the term "theory", or "scientific theory" is generally understood to refer to a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena, made in a way consistent with scientific method. Such theories are preferably described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand, verify, and challenge (or "falsify") it. In this modern scientific context the distinction between theory and practice corresponds roughly to the distinction between theoretical science and technology or applied science. A distinction is sometimes made in science between theories and hypotheses, which are theories that are not considered to have been satisfactorily tested or proven.

Auto Quote "But what they all agree on is that ToE is correct. This is the simple, basic concept that you refuse to grasp.":thud:

No you fail to grasp that I have repeatedly asserted that indeed this is about all your researchers agree on "everything evolved".. Great science.

Quote Auto:No, you don't and it isn't. While there is disagreement on the details, all camps agree that ToE is correct. I think you've been told this around 100 times at this point. Why do you keep ignoring it? :thud:

Again I say that's about the only thing they do agree on. Taking a creature like Indohyus, that looks like a deer and misrepresenting it as some whale ancestor, is a long shot from just a few details, as is a researcher saying many of your human ancestors are not ancestors at all, birds did not decend from dinos, Ardi is crap, LUCA is dead, miacis looks like a cat and is no intermediate anything more than an overactive imagination, Platypus ancestors held up as primitive whales....big difference lovey..

Auto quote:Yes, but it's been disproven. That's the difference.
:thud:
Rubbish..you can only put up debated theories mostly based on probablilities that change like the wind, as a refute to John Sanfords work on entropy.

Oh I 'm just bored with this Auto. This is like responding to a child. I can't bear it anymore. I'm going to watch TV.

Re Tasmanian Tiger I'll leave some info to ponder in refute to whatever crap you put up next in refute to the Tassy tiger being a dog.

The Water Opossum (Chironectes minimus), also locally known as the Yapok, is a marsupial of the family Didelphidae. It is the only member of its genus, Chironectes. This creature is found in the freshwater streams and lakes in Mexico, Central and South America to Argentina, and is the only living aquatic marsupial. It is also the only living marsupial in which both sexes have a pouch. The Thylacine, commonly referred to as the Tasmanian Tiger, also exhibited this trait, but is now believed to be extinct.
Water Opossum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The thylacine was one of only two marsupials to have a pouch in both sexes (the other being the water opossum). The male thylacine had a pouch that acted as a protective sheath, covering the male's external reproductive organs while he ran through thick brush.
Thylacine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Like I said, God does not need to pay attention to your convoluted classifications. Your own phyla are loaded with exceptions and contradictions. another eg Panda is not a carnivore........

..and you still have no evidence of speciation being sufficient mechanism to morph from an Indohyus to a whale, only misrepresented mythical creatures that could make teletubbies look like a human offshoot because that are bipeds......