Speciation

[newhope101]

Paintedwolf quote:So bears are clearly bears except for the largest bear of them all... who is clearly a cat. :biglaugh:
No just to be clear a bear is a bear and always has been. The variety of cats have remained cats. The trees down re carnivore is in dispute kinda like the current bird debarkle. When are you lot going to fess up to not having any clue as to what you are talking about, much the same as your bipedalism in Homo is also now equally crap science and fantasy to suit the flavour of the month.

Carnivore Fossils - Crystalinks

And the panda.... who is an "herbivore" and therefore can't possibly be a member of a group that eats meat.:no:
This is your mess to sort out as if meat eating only arose once. As you are aware it is not only mammals that are meat eaters. What a stupid taxon to come up with in the first place.
Who needs morphology? It's obviously a useless realm of knowledge when you have "common sense". :cover:


I agree there is no common sense in evolutionary science. If it looks like a deer but can't be a deer because they will kill your TOE, then it must be an intermediate eg Indohyus. One of the miacis and creodonta fossils looks just like a cat but cannot be a cat because TOE prescribes a cat could not have evolved yet so it once again MUST be an intermediate. What is this based on PW? Answer: Morphology and desperation in the face of homoplasy.:thud:

So this is your mess to resolve with all your various speciation crap. What a fairytale! I on the other hand do not have this dilemma. As far as I am concerned your researchers appear to have found fossils that resemble the kinds alive today and I do not need to invent your common ancestor nonsense and convoluted hypothesis and parralell allotropic etc and every other myriad of types of speciation to explain it. The simplest answer is often found to be the right answer (parsinomy), in which case evolutionists will loose EVERY time. :clap

 

[painted wolf]

Once again... carnivore is not a taxon.
I know basic vocabulary has been an issue in the past, but this isn't a difficult concept.

If you can't tell the difference between a cat and a bear, how can you be expected to define any "kind"...

You can say a "bear is a bear and always has been" but you have shown you don't actually know what a bear (or a cat for that matter) is. Otherwise you would not have insisted it was a cat.

wa:do

ps... you are also demonstrating you have no grasp of what parsimony means and are simply using it as your latest buzz-word.

 

[Autodidact]

Paintedwolf quote:So bears are clearly bears except for the largest bear of them all... who is clearly a cat. :biglaugh:
No just to be clear a bear is a bear and always has been. The variety of cats have remained cats. The trees down re carnivore is in dispute kinda like the current bird debarkle. When are you lot going to fess up to not having any clue as to what you are talking about, much the same as your bipedalism in Homo is also now equally crap science and fantasy to suit the flavour of the month.

As soon as you demonstrate that science doesn't work.

I agree there is no common sense in evolutionary science. If it looks like a deer but can't be a deer because they will kill your TOE, then it must be an intermediate eg Indohyus.

Or possibly because its DNA and fossils indicate that it has non-deer traits.

One of the miacis and creodonta fossils looks just like a cat but cannot be a cat because TOE prescribes a cat could not have evolved yet so it once again MUST be an intermediate. What is this based on PW? Answer: Morphology and desperation in the face of homoplasy.:thud:

Or maybe because it doesn't meet the definition of a cat?

So this is your mess to resolve with all your various speciation crap. What a fairytale! I on the other hand do not have this dilemma. As far as I am concerned your researchers appear to have found fossils that resemble the kinds alive today and I do not need to invent your common ancestor nonsense and convoluted hypothesis and parralell allotropic etc and every other myriad of types of speciation to explain it. The simplest answer is often found to be the right answer (parsinomy), in which case evolutionists will loose EVERY time. :clap

So who needs all this stupid science stuff? Just look at it and take a guess and that's good enough for me! And miacid is a cat, and the Paluxy footprints are real!

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Paintedwolf quote:So bears are clearly bears except for the largest bear of them all... who is clearly a cat. :biglaugh:
No just to be clear a bear is a bear and always has been. The variety of cats have remained cats. The trees down re carnivore is in dispute

Only in dispute by those ignorant of the facts.

Carnivore Fossils - Crystalinks

And the panda.... who is an "herbivore" and therefore can't possibly be a member of a group that eats meat.:no:
This is your mess to sort out as if meat eating only arose once. As you are aware it is not only mammals that are meat eaters. What a stupid taxon to come up with in the first place.

And a Panda doesn't qualify as a strict carnivore nor is it a "strict" herbivore. It's placed in the order of Carnivora for good reasons. Anatomically and genetically it has what it needs to be able to eat and digest meat. Additionally, it is common knowledge, something you're lacking.......on the subject, that pandas will eat meat (i.e. mice, birds and fish).

(the rest of your post was snipped due to ranting).......

 

[meogi]

How many tree kinds are there?

Same as:

Same as:

Same as:

Same as:

Same as:

And I had uploaded a leafy tree with pine cone type buds (that were seed deliverers) but they seem to have been deleted off the site.

Flower bearing, fruit bearing, deciduous, conifers, etc. All the same 'kind'? Or multiple 'kinds'? And most importantly, WHY?

Figure I'd try posting newhope style for once.

 

[newhope101]

Oh Dirty Penguin you have lost your challenge.and some people here are real boofheads.

What so you mean "a panda doesn't qualify as a strict Panda"? Many of your carnivore classification are not strict carnivores. The classification is strictly crap and presumptious.

Got nothing to say about Lluc hey? How usual is this? All these fossils you find that you say are representative of the procession to mankind are just as likely to be decendants of Lluc or an ape that is similar. There are also flat faced monkeys.

How easily your researchers stated "Oh this thing ain't human". Why? Because it would throw all your TOE woffle out the window. If it had of been dated earlier it too would be some irrefuteable evidence for human ancestry.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090120144508.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091119101034.htm

Your researchers still cannot tell the difference beween an ape an a human, let alone anything else. You have all been fooled and poisoned like spoon fed babies.

As for Painted Wolf...it is not I that is unable to tell the difference between between a bear and a cat. Your scientists should have diddled the sketch a bit more like they do most eg neanderthal, and made their miacis sketch and creodonta, look more bear like or whatever you lot reckon they are meant to be by your presumptions.....

You have no intermediates. What you have found are representations of the kinds that are here today, cats, bears and dogs etc.

Researchers should be sued for the misrepresetations they make, ignoring the obvious in their desperation to find intermediates.



The same for whale ancestry. Every specimen you lot put up as an intermediate is not an intermediate at all. They are platypus, deer etc that have been scetched up to suit. Your researchers have no idea what flesh would like on fossils and ape man neanderthal is an example of the huge presumptions you lot make..


Autodidact....don't confuse real science with theoretical nonsense. But yes, your TOE is about as robust as the invention of dimensions to satisfy the singularity. In the here and now what your researchers say is that a human is not directly decendent from any species alive today, including chimps. Hence a common ancestor is required and this is theoretical as well as fancifull rubbish from the desperate.

No challenge here today just someone wanting to talk about trees because you have lost the battle with animals.

 

[Autodidact]

Researchers should be sued for the misrepresetations they make, ignoring the obvious in their desperation to find intermediates.

So true. Not only are scientists idiots, they're also crooks. For some reason, they're hugely invested in fooling people into believing the world is different than it actually is. The moral is--don't believe anything a scientist tells you.

The world probably really is flat, and the sun circles over it every day.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Oh Dirty Penguin you have lost your challenge.and some people here are real boofheads.

What so you mean "a panda doesn't qualify as a strict Panda"? Many of your carnivore classification are not strict carnivores. The classification is strictly crap and presumptious.

So.... you now resort to name calling?.....How mature....!!!....

Look, Pandas are Pandas. I never said they weren't. Get it right next time. Pandas are (*primarily*) herbivore. We both agree on this. What you and I don't agree on is why they are placed in the "Order" of "Carnivora". I understand why they are there. Your problem is you can't refute the science that places them there. While, YES, they are "primarily herbivores"..they still have the teeth, anatomy and genes to eat as well as digest meat. We know this to be an OBSERVABLE, and TESTABLE fact. Pandas eating meat is not in dispute amongst zoologist and biologist. The reasons I listed above is more than enough to put them in that "Order".....I can't help it if your too thick headed to understand that.

Got nothing to say about Lluc hey? How usual is this? All these fossils you find that you say are representative of the procession to mankind are just as likely to be decendants of Lluc or an ape that is similar. There are also flat faced monkeys.

Just like a creationist to to move on to setup the next straw-man argument...... No one here is even arguing for or against Lluc. These are creationist tactics of deflection. Do you even understand what the article is saying? No one said Lluc was a direct decedent of homo rather there are some morphological similarities. The investigation is still ongoing.....WOW!!.....your ignorance never ceases to amaze me.

How does H. Neanderthalus fit into the creation model?

Were they Adam and Eve?

Where does H. Sapein fit into the creation model considering we know H. Neanderthalus and H. Sapien are two hominids with separate distinguishable characteristics and morphology that existed around the same time...not to mention H. Sapien and Neanderthal are separated by 202 genomic base pairs?

If Neanderthal is human, as you admit, wouldn't this make Neanderthal a different species?

This can't simply be chalked up to "kind variation" considering you deny H. Sapien and Chimpanzee relationship even though the genome supports ancestry there as well.

If Neanderthal, considering the genetic differences and similarities, make it a separate species of "human" then this refutes your definition of "kind".....

 

[Skwim]

Oh Dirty Penguin you have lost your challenge.and some people here are real boofheads.

What so you mean "a panda doesn't qualify as a strict Panda"? Many of your carnivore classification are not strict carnivores. The classification is strictly crap and presumptious.

Once again your ignorance floats to the surface. The order Carnivora doesn't signify those that strictly eat meat, but those that can eat meat. Brown bears, which are members of the order "derive up to 90% of their dietary food energy from vegetable matter. And tigers will occasionally eat vegetation for dietary fiber, the fruit of the Slow match Tree being favored."*

Carnivora ≠ eat only meat
Carnivora = can eat meat

Please repeat after me: "Carnivores can, can, can, can, can, can, can, can, can, can, can, can, can, can, can, can, can, can, can, can, can, can, can, can, can, can, can, can, can, can, can, can, eat meat."



*Wikipedia

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Once again your ignorance floats to the surface. The order Carnivora doesn't signify those that strictly eat meat, but those that can eat meat. Brown bears, which are members of the order "derive up to 90% of their dietary food energy from vegetable matter. And tigers will occasionally eat vegetation for dietary fiber, the fruit of the Slow match Tree being favored."*

Carnivora ≠ eat only meat
Carnivora = can eat meat

Please repeat after me: "Carnivores can, can, can, can, can, can, can, can, can, can, can, can, can, can, can, can, can, can, can, can, can, can, can, can, can, can, can, can, can, can, can, can, eat meat."



*Wikipedia

:clap.....exactly!!!

 

[newhope101]

Dirty Penguin I said "Some are boofheads". If you see yourself wearing the hat then you may wear it. Serves you right for taking up an aside to an argument.

Still I see no refute to me just worthless opinions. Lluc demonstrates that this nonsense about reduced facial morphology is the same crap you lot tried to pull of with bipedalism being a solely human trait, which Ardi threw into the great garbage bin of irrefuteable evidence past that turned out to be....crap!!!!

I understand that your researcherrs are smitten with TOE, so I think they are genuinely fooled also. They wouldn't see evidence for creation if it jumped out of the petrie dish and slapped them in the face.

There is nothing thick about my head dear. I can see the crazy models that you lot use to make out ancestry. It is complicated rubbish and that is why it changes all the time.

You do not have any evidence for your ancestries at all. You have turned the poor little Indohyus into a intermediate and it is not, just like the rest. It is just a deer. You say it has some aquatic features that illustrates the procession from land back to see. Of course it has aquatic features. Mouse deer dive underwater to escape prey. Fortunately for them they did not poof into whales.Humans can swim and have similar brain spindles to whales so their is a connection that has nothing to do with ancestry. Your researchers have made up a stack of speciation theories to explain why that does not mean that a whale is a close ancestor. Convergent evolution, etc, what rubbish! TOE is held together with sticky tape.

You lot have nothing at all that resembles evidence of intermediates or speciation from one kind to another.

...and still no irrefuteable evidence just useless opinions.

I can still make the early morning Gym class, seeing as you are all getting so boring. See ya tomorrow.

 

[Autodidact]

Dirty Penguin I said "Some are boofheads". If you see yourself wearing the hat then you may wear it. Serves you right for taking up an aside to an argument.

So apparently you are only insulting "some." Personal insults are the refuge of those without an argument. Please try to focus on the issues, rather than merely calling other people names, and there will be no need to ask the mods to intervene.

Still I see no refute to me just worthless opinions. Lluc demonstrates that this nonsense about reduced facial morphology is the same crap you lot tried to pull of with bipedalism being a solely human trait, which Ardi threw into the great garbage bin of irrefuteable evidence past that turned out to be....crap!!!!

I guess this is what we call a Gish gallop? When you're caught in an error, just move on to the next thing?

I understand that your researcherrs are smitten with TOE, so I think they are genuinely fooled also. They wouldn't see evidence for creation if it jumped out of the petrie dish and slapped them in the face.

I know, it's like I said. Scientists are all idiots who can't research their way out of a paper bag. The scientific method doesn't work, and people can learn a lot more about nature by reading their Bibles.

There is nothing thick about my head dear. I can see the crazy models that you lot use to make out ancestry. It is complicated rubbish and that is why it changes all the time.

Because (for the thousandth time) that's what science does. I asked this before, and received no answer. Why do you refuse to grasp this kindergarten level fact about how science works?

You do not have any evidence for your ancestries at all.

Really? Like which?

You have turned the poor little Indohyus into a intermediate and it is not, just like the rest. It is just a deer.

I know, what's the problem with these boofheads? It looks exactly like the deer you see here in Colorado:

Here's one so you can see the obvious similarity:

For heaven's sake, they're almost identical, as any fool can see. The only difference is that it was about the size of a cat. It looks exactly like a modern deer.

You say it has some aquatic features that illustrates the procession from land back to see. Of course it has aquatic features. Mouse deer dive underwater to escape prey.

And that's why they all have whale-type ear holes in their skulls, and heaby bone-coverings. Oh wait, they don't, only indohypus does.

Fortunately for them they did not poof into whales.

Please quote anyone here besides you who asserts that evolution has anything to do with "poofing." Is it possibly that you still have no idea what ToE says?

Humans can swim and have similar brain spindles to whales so their is a connection that has nothing to do with ancestry. Your researchers have made up a stack of speciation theories to explain why that does not mean that a whale is a close ancestor. Convergent evolution, etc, what rubbish! TOE is held together with sticky tape.

It's like I say. Scientists = idiots and liars.

You lot have nothing at all that resembles evidence of intermediates or speciation from one kind to another.

Keep saying that, only louder. You may convince yourself.

I can still make the early morning Gym class, seeing as you are all getting so boring. See ya tomorrow.

The door is that way. Don't let it hit you on your way out.

 

[painted wolf]

Platypus? Deer? Really? :biglaugh:

Maybe one of them is actually a cat! :jiggy:

wa:do

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Still I see no refute to me just worthless opinions.

Pretty much every "argument" you raised has been refuted. No matter how many times you display your weak arguments...they've been shown to be wrong or just completely misunderstood by you but for some reason you perceive your ignorance as a victory over established facts. We call that...being delusional.

Lluc demonstrates that this nonsense about reduced facial morphology is the same crap you lot tried to pull of with bipedalism being a solely human trait, which Ardi threw into the great garbage bin of irrefuteable evidence past that turned out to be....crap!!!!

But see what you're doing? Why do you begin a debate about a totally different hominid and have all the facts put in your face showing how wrong you are and then instead of admitting you're wrong you move on to something completely different? Lluc is not even a problem in the grand scheme of things. You're raising a pointless argument because you don't seem to understand what the article you link to is actually saying.

I understand that your researcherrs are smitten with TOE, so I think they are genuinely fooled also.

Oh, I see.....so they're all dumb now...OK newhope......Maybe you and your researchers can actually put forth coherent charts as to where the species on the planet are supposed to be. Can you do it or are you going to keep griping about species vs "kinds".....because I've seen nothing, so far, that remotely challenges the current understanding of where species are supposed to be placed.

There is nothing thick about my head dear. I can see the crazy models that you lot use to make out ancestry. It is complicated rubbish and that is why it changes all the time.

Then maybe this isn't for you or just maybe...maybe...you need to get your education together...because this stuff is so easy to understand. I don't have any problem with it......

You do not have any evidence for your ancestries at all.

Had to stop you as you were starting up your rant again. If Neanderthal and H. Sapien are both human as you assert even though their genomes differ by 202 base pairs then would that make them two separate "kinds" of humans?

How does H. Neanderthalus fit into the creation model?

Were they Adam and Eve?

Where does H. Sapein fit into the creation model considering we know Neanderthal and H. Sapien are two hominids with separate morphological characteristics and both existed around the same time...?

If Neanderthal is human, as you admit, wouldn't this make Neanderthal a different species?

This can't simply be chalked up to "kind variation" considering you deny H. Sapien and Chimpanzee relationship even though the genome supports ancestry there as well.

If Neanderthal, considering the genetic differences and similarities, make it a separate species of "human" then this refutes your definition of "kind".....

 

[painted wolf]

Oh... for those that actually want to know about spindle neurons.... they appear to be associated with transmitting information rapidly across the brain.

We share them with great apes and all have them in the same region of the brain.

Cetaceans have them in a different part of the brain from humans.

Elephants have them also in a different part of the brain from humans.

In fact they may not be all that rare and may be common to a wide range of mammals... researchers are hoping to check out the brains of other animals like the Giraffe and the Hippo to see if they have them as well. Other species may just not have as many as the super social ones.

wa:do

 

[meogi]

newhope101, Nothing on the tree kind?

 

[Skwim]

newhope101, Nothing on the tree kind?

Creationists are still trying to deal with animal kinds. Once they get that sorted out I'm sure they'll be delighted to tell us how Noah got two of each kinds of plants aboard the ark and exactly what they were. Just hang on . . . . for a few more millennia.

 

[newhope101]

Here goes painted wolf trying to minimise your own evolutionary research with her own take. I do not know why any of you even listen to her.

"The discovery of spindle neurons in cetaceans is a stunning example of neuro-anatomical convergence between cetaceans and primates," says Lori Marino of Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, US. "The common ancestor of cetaceans and primates lived over 95 million years ago, and such a highly specific morphological similarity as the finding of spindle cells is clearly due to evolutionary convergence, not shared ancestry," she says.

"This is consistent with a growing body of evidence for parallels between cetaceans and primates in cognitive abilities, behaviour and social ecology."

However, many highly intelligent but smaller cetaceans examined by Hof and van der Gucht did not have the spindle cells. The explanation could be that these smaller cetaceans, including bottlenose dolphins, evolved different but equally complex alternatives to the spindle cells. "In this respect, it will be interesting to discover what mental capacities might distinguish humpback whales from dolphins," says Keith Kendrick of the Babraham Institute in Cambridge, UK.

Whales boast the brain cells that 'make us human' - life - 27 November 2006 - New Scientist

Another shocking and notable trait was the presence of spindle cells in the humpback's cortex, something not encountered anywhere else but in ape's and human's brain.

Whale Brain, Surprisingly Similar to Human Brain - Softpedia


So basically your researchers could find links beween anything really. Many creatures also have FOXP2, but necessarily the human version like Neanderthal, supposedly.

So the fact that humans can swim and have these similar spindles to whales means we are close ancestors does it? Of course it doesn't. Yet your reseachers continue to use these kinds of nonsensical comparisons to illustrate ancestry.

 

[painted wolf]

Yeah, Newhope it's not "my take" it's the facts.
Things have progressed since 2006... spindle neurons have been found in Bottle nosed, and Risso's dolpins, Fin, humpback, Sperm and Killer Whales. (killer whales btw, are just really large dolphins).
Total number and volume of Von Economo neurons in the cerebral cortex of cetaceans - Butti - 2009 - The Journal of Comparative Neurology - Wiley Online Library

And in Elephants
Von Economo Neurons in the Elephant Brain - Hakeem - 2008 - The Anatomical Record: Advances in Integrative Anatomy and Evolutionary Biology - Wiley Online Library

Do try to keep up.

The rest of your rant just shows how messed up your concept of evolution is... no one but you has proposed humans and whales as close ancestors based on a single and not very compelling trait. The only one using nonsensical comparisons is you.

wa:do

 

[McBell]

I am waiting for newhope to claim that oranges and orangutans are the same kind.
I mean, their names are so similar....