Speciation

[David M]

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:

You really should learn to read and comprehend, PD never said that Patriofelis was bear-like, in fact he implied it was somewhat cat-like.

He said Sarkastodon was bear-like.

Different animals Newhope.

 

[McBell]

You really should learn to read and comprehend, PD never said that Patriofelis was bear-like, in fact he implied it was somewhat cat-like.

He said Sarkastodon was bear-like.

Different animals Newhope.

Hey, you should stop confusing her with facts.

 

[Autodidact]

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.

Now follow me closely here because you may have trouble with this concept. You contradicted yourself. You say a kind is equivalent to a family, but these two species aren't even in the same order.

 

[Autodidact]

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.

Wow, you are the queen of citing support that actually proves what you're arguing against. See up there where it says, "a distinction is sometimes made in science (which is where we are) between theories and hypotheses? Get that? A distinction is made. They're different. A theory, as your cite says, a theory is an explanation of a group of empirical observations. It differs from a hypothesis in being supported. The ToE is supported by evidence; your hypothesis is not. That's the relevant difference.

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.

Yes, it is. In fact, it's one of the greatest achievements in all of science. Think about it.

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.

And since that's the only thing we're debating, every time you make the point that they disagree, your post fails to support your assertion, and in fact supports ToE.

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.[/quote] You just got done agreeing that's it's not debated. It's agreed on. Or so you say.

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.

are you serious? You're trying to assert that a marsupial belongs to the genus canus? Seriously? You crack me up. That's almost as good as Paluxy footprints.

Like I said, God does not need to pay attention to your convoluted classifications.

Or to put it differently, the evidence fails to support your system.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

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:

I don't normally like to call people...."liars"....so I'll just say that you're "mistaken"...

I never said Miacis was a bear or bear like. I said Sarkastodon from the "Order Creodonta" was bear like. I displayed a skull and the Sarkastodon drawing of the skull from wiki and they are virtually the same. You were unable to answer what the skull was.

 

[Jose Fly]

You know NewHope, earlier you assured me that you don't ignore questions. Yet I've asked you these two very simple questions several times over the last week or so, and somehow you keep missing them. Now DP may not like to call people liars, but I'm wondering if you even know the difference between the truth and a lie. It seems like most fundamentalists, anything that reinforces your beliefs is the "truth" and anything that goes against them is a "lie".

Of course, you could go a long way in proving me wrong by simply making a good faith effort to answer some questions and engage in objective discussion. But to be honest, I don't think you're at all capable of anything even close to that. I may as well try and have an objective discussion with a fundamentalist Muslim on different ways to cook pork.

 

[Tiberius]

If you agree that speciation happens, then the simplest interpretation of that data I can come up with is something like this:

But can you really disprove that the following picture is right?

Yes.

For simplicity's ake, I'll refer to the species as the colour.

All life on the top tree evolved from Brown. Since Green diverged and became speciated, it would have started out with many traits that brown had. Green could have kept several of these traits to the present day.

Some time later, Red branches off Brown. Red would also have traits from brown which could also include any new traits that Brown had evolved since Green split off.

So we can look at reality. if the top tree is the correct one, both green and Green will display traits that brown also has. But Green will only display the oldest traits, because it wasn't able to get any of the traits that Brown evolved after Green split off. Red, however, could display each of the traits that Green has, and a few more, because Red could have picked up some traits that came along after Green branched off.

This is impossible according to the lower diagram.

So, we can investigate reality. if we find different groups of animals that share common traits like this (such as rabbits and dolphins both feeding their young with milk), we can conclude that they evolved from a common ancestor.

 

[lunakilo]

So, we can investigate reality. if we find different groups of animals that share common traits like this (such as rabbits and dolphins both feeding their young with milk), we can conclude that they evolved from a common ancestor.

And since both bats, birds and butterflies can fly, they must then share a common ancestor?

Maybe you should explain what you mean by 'trait'.

You could have a case where green could fly, and so could yellow, but Green couldn't.
I believe that is called parallel evolution.

 

[painted wolf]

And since both bats, birds and butterflies can fly, they must then share a common ancestor?

Maybe you should explain what you mean by 'trait'.

You could have a case where green could fly, and so could yellow, but Green couldn't.
I believe that is called parallel evolution.

This is another one of those cases where morphology is useful. Green and Yellow may both fly, but they would have to do it in slightly different ways.

Such as bats, birds and butterflies. Each has a morphologically unique answer to the question of how to get into and stay in, the air. But each of those answers also shows what group of non-flying ancestors they are related to.
Mammals, archosaurs and insects respectively.

wa:do

 

[newhope101]

I don't normally like to call people...."liars"....so I'll just say that you're "mistaken"...

I never said Miacis was a bear or bear like. I said Sarkastodon from the "Order Creodonta" was bear like. I displayed a skull and the Sarkastodon drawing of the skull from wiki and they are virtually the same. You were unable to answer what the skull was. What skull? and what do your researchers think of it. I cannot see any skull you requested information about. Regardless your scientisdts cannot even agree if Ardi is in the himan line, whether or not birds evolved from dono's for sure, whether or not neanderthal is any ones ancestor for sure nor how much of a contribution they made and you think that if I cannot answer some question you pose then your point is made. It won't be. This is a laughable strategy. Much to say that if I ask you any question you or your scientists cannot answer with certaintly then all of TOE is crap. I'll buy that. What you simply need to do is post convincing evidence of any carnivores ancestry. Go........

So if you are saying Sarkastodon and creodonta are the same kind then we agree. Your boofhead sketch artists have sketched them looking like cats. Why so? Could it be that this is all they have to go on? We vall know in reality they could look absolutely nothing like any sketch. Your sketches change like the wind to suit whatever you need any fossil to look like. eg neanderthal. It is all biased crap and even with the biased slant you STILL have no convincing evidence that cats, dogs, bears or any other carnivore (or pretend carnivore, eg panda) evolved from any other creature that was not their kind.

Wow, so many here calling me a liar. Too bad none of you can come up with any appropriate evidence.

You have zilch evidence of anything that is intermediate. Every fossil described anywhere I have looked speaks to animals that resemble a kind here today.

What on earth does a dog like bear look like for heavens sake? What crap have these researchers spun you that could suck you in so easly. Why? Because they have 4 legs and a head? Because they have eyes? Or because you need it to look like this for your nonsense to work?

This is the crap from Wiki re Caniformia....

The caniforms first appeared as tree-climbing, marten-like carnivores in the Paleocene (65–55 million years ago). Miacis was probably an early caniform. Like many other early carnivorans, it was well suited for an arboreal climbing lifestyle with needle sharp claws, and had limbs and joints that resemble those of modern carnivorans. Miacis was probably a very agile forest dweller that preyed upon smaller animals, such as small mammals, reptiles and birds, and might also have eaten eggs and fruits, making Miacis an omnivore.

This is your evidence? It looks like desperate guess work because it is desperate guess work. You found Parictis for example, a bear, and nothing but probably to illustrate what dog'bear it arose from.

Show me examples of anything you uphold as evidence of cat, dog, bear ancestry. There is none past probably...and even probably ensues with misrepresented fossil reconstruction and misrepresented sketches just like Neanderthal. This is what I call a wish list.


Borophaginae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Creodonta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
First Felids
First Felids
Parictis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Cephalogale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Caniformia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


What you have found is miacis. This poor little sucker, though said to be of great diversity has not one shred of evidence of ancestry from anything else. It is a cat, always was a cat, and left decendants that were also cats. There were varieties of cats created and you have found their fossils eg crodonta, the miacis pictured. Simple (Species of miacis: M. parvivorus - M. australis - M. cognitus - M. deutschi - M. exiguus - M. gracilis - M. hargeri - M. hookwayi - M. latidens - M. latouri - M. medius - M. petilus - M. rosei - M. sylvestris - M. washakius - M. winkleri)..No evidence...None, zilch, squat. The literature sticks a miacis picture up as evidence of the representaion of a thing that leads to all carnivores and it is nonsense. There are heaps of 'em and you have only wish lists that speak to any of these creatures not being the kinds that God created.

What you evolutionists, on the back of your researchers,have done is invented a myth that is meant to deceive the community with misrepresentations and lies. Then you have the backbone to have a shot at me. Evolutionary researchers should be sued for this bull****e they put forward as evidence. Then with great nerve alledge it is solid evidence of some kind.

What you have is evidence of kinds arising in the fossil record and a record of how kinds adapted and varied, always remaining identifiable as the kind they were created. It is your fantasy, a great imagination along with the biased sketch artists that is the real evidence for evolution.

 

[Amill]

Wow, so many here calling me a liar. Too bad none of you can come up with any appropriate evidence.

What DP originally said:

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).

What you've been saying that he said:

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:

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.

Is this not dishonesty? Or just an extreme error on your part?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

What skull? and what do your researchers think of it. I cannot see any skull you requested information about.

Right here...

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2422088-post189.html

whether or not neanderthal is any ones ancestor for sure

Sure they know.

Neanderthal genome project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Study: Neanderthal DNA Lives On in Modern Humans - TIME
Neanderthals, Humans Interbred

Your bible displays man as being created fully formed and you've stated that Neanderthal were "beast" (your word, not mine).....but the problem you're going to have to reconcile is why the researcher found Neanderthal DNA markers with modern day H. Sapien. Is Neanderthal of the same "kind" as H. Sapien seeing as though it appears to meet your definition of "kind"?

So if you are saying Sarkastodon and creodonta are the same kind then we agree.

No we don't. Your persistence to group animals as "kinds" is what is confusing you and your inability to understand how and where animals are placed in current taxonomic structures. Sarkastodon and Creodonta are not two separate species of animals. Sarkastodon is from the "Order of Creodonta". An order represents multiple species. Creodonta isn't an animal.

Fraternal Order of Police is not a police officer rather it represents various police officers throughout the country. An "order" represents the collective body of......

Your boofhead sketch artists have sketched them looking like cats. Why so? Could it be that this is all they have to go on? We vall know in reality they could look absolutely nothing like any sketch. Your sketches change like the wind to suit whatever you need any fossil to look like.

So what???? You're the ONLY one here that looked at the sketch instead of understanding the data listed and YOU ran with the pretty picture saying....(well it looks like a cat so it must be a cat)...even though the information listed says it was "bear like". You catch so much flak because you rely heavily on Wikipedia and it is an editable medium. Not all the information listed is always correct. The colored drawing was done by an artist.....but it truly does help if you look beyond that for additional information. This is why I listed a picture of a skull as well as the Sarkastodon skull drawing. I know what the skull is as well as how it morphologically relates to the Sarkastodon skull. You don't. You assume it to be a cat.

eg neanderthal. It is all biased crap and even with the biased slant you STILL have no convincing evidence that cats, dogs, bears or any other carnivore (or pretend carnivore, eg panda) evolved from any other creature that was not their kind.

Once again....you just like to hear yourself rant. I've already dealt with Neanderthal, which you haven't a clue about and it seriously challenges your creation hypothesis as well as your definition of "kinds", and as far as Pandas, it is widely known, at least by those that pay attention, that they are not strictly herbivores and have been known to eat fish. Taking that fact into consideration placed them in the order of Creodonta.

Wow, so many here calling me a liar. Too bad none of you can come up with any appropriate evidence.

You said that I called Miacis (bear like). I never did. Either you were lying or you were mistaken. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and said you were mistaken. Others here felt as though you were being dishonest.

You have zilch evidence of anything that is intermediate. Every fossil described anywhere I have looked speaks to animals that resemble a kind here today.

So you're basing your evidence on looks....right?

So what you're now saying is these two are related and the Neanderthal IS NOT a ("beast")...Which one is it? You can't have it both ways here.

 

[newhope101]

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

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

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






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.



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.....




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")
So what you've done is crashed a variety of species into one lot and called it Creodonta. Then.... said that they are all transitional forms. That is not evidence.
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

Sabre tooth tiger


Bob cat skull




Black bear skull


Grizzly bear skull



I'd say with homoplasy your researchers have no clue. I's say your fossil skull is a variety of cat also.

I'd also say that there were just bears, cats and dogs there all at the same time.
Besides the picture in Wiki has all the hallmarks of a cat. That is the way it has been represented. Are now saying that there were no cat like creatures in the creodonta class? They are supposedly extinct. ..and so...what ..cat like traits arose again out of some miacis species did they? Convergent evolution. How convenient!
Creodonta: Facts, Discussion Forum, and Encyclopedia Article

This is why you need all the crap definitions of speciation sideways this way and that way...then of course there is homoplasy that stuffs you lot up all over again.

What are you trying to prove? Cat skulls come in a variety of styles as do bears. Do you think that every individual of any species all ahve exactly the same skull? Here's a clue. NO. Just like humans have very different skull shapes and jaw lines and brow features.

Yep the skull you posted is just another cat your researchers say went extinct because they did not know what else to do or say about it, it appears! There is no gradual evolution at all. Indeed punctuated equilibrium illustrates that kinds arise in various strata because their fossils were fortunate enough to survive. Your connections are best guesses that are biased. Your researchers could 'prove' humans evolved from turtles if they wanted to.

Similarly miacis is a group of species, the cat kind being the only sketch offered, and it is just a cat. I suppose there is a miacis that is a bear and a miacis that is a dog (was it boforage or something that supposedly went extinct). What you have are examples of the various initial kinds created by God, that your evolutionists have transformed into an evolutionary mystery by clumping them together and saying they are intermediates. They are not.

And still you have not shown anything that looks like evidence for the ancestry of cats, dogs or bears..........

 

[painted wolf]

What are the "hallmarks of a cat" that the Sarkastodon skull shows?

Perhaps you can provide a list of traits only found in "cat kind"?

wa:do

 

[McBell]

What are the "hallmarks of a cat" that the Sarkastodon skull shows?

Perhaps you can provide a list of traits only found in "cat kind"?

wa:do

I don't know...
Seems it is contingent on her finding a website she can copy/paste from.....

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I's say your fossil skull is a variety of cat also.

Oh but it's not. You're digging such a hole for yourself. See, if your researchers came across that skull they would just say it was of a cat.....This is why I posted it. I posted it to prove a point. A point I've been expressing all along and that is......YOU haven't a clue if you're going to continue to lump animals in the "Kind" category. That skull, morphologically, is consistent with the skull of the Sarkastodon.

Besides the picture in Wiki has all the hallmarks of a cat.

How would you know? You don't even know what the skull I presented is. You classify it into your "kind" group as a cat...and it's not even close to being a cat....

That is the way it has been represented.

Please remember that the pretty picture you base your classification off was from an Artist...yet the information from the researchers informs you that the animal, Sarkastodon, was "bear like". I went as far to show you another artist's rendering....but all that aside.....the skull of the Sarkastodon is consistent with bear and not cat.

Are now saying that there were no cat like creatures in the creodonta class?

No because I never said that nor did I ever suggest it. Why are you asking such a nonsensical question considering I posted info on Patriofelis from the order (Creodonta).

This is why you need all the crap definitions of speciation sideways this way and that way...then of course there is homoplasy that stuffs you lot up all over again.

Don't be upset because you don't understand. I'd say you just need to educate yourself and stop trying to classify everything as "kind" because it's obviously not working for you.

Yep the skull you posted is just another cat your researchers say went extinct because they did not know what else to do or say about it, it appears! There is no gradual evolution at all.

:biglaugh:EPIC FAIL....

It's not a cat. It's a skull of a Short Faced Bear.
The image was pulled from here (12.18.2009 - Study shows loss of 15-42 percent of mammals in North America).

Additional info can be found here.
Arctodus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Let me repeat that.....It's the skull of a bear......

So much for the (it looks like a cat so it must be a cat)

 

[McBell]

:biglaugh:EPIC FAIL....

It's not a cat. It's a skull of a Short Faced Bear.
The image was pulled from here (12.18.2009 - Study shows loss of 15-42 percent of mammals in North America).

Additional info can be found here.
Arctodus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Let me repeat that.....It's the skull of a bear......

So much for the (it looks like a cat so it must be a cat)

Ouch.
that's gotta hurt.
Well, hurt someone who is not in such a state of denial...

 

[PhAA]

A little advice for the people doubting the evidences of speciation, try going to school. Try, at least primary school.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

A little advice for the people doubting the evidences of speciation, try going to school. Try, at least primary school.

Education for some on this subject is definitely the key but there are some very highly educated people, even in the field of biology, who still doubt speciation or common ancestry. Fortunately they're in the minority and seem to pander to like minded creationist.....

 

[painted wolf]

So bears are clearly bears except for the largest bear of them all... who is clearly a cat. :biglaugh:

And the panda.... who is an "herbivore" and therefore can't possibly be a member of a group that eats meat.

Who needs morphology? It's obviously a useless realm of knowledge when you have "common sense".

wa:do