Speciation

[horizon_mj1]

If you're referring to newhope's post, yes, they usually are. I've come to realize that red text inside a quote is her response to whatever the person quoted said, the quote (if any) is usually followed by a bunch of random statements/questions, then some copy/paste and a link (repeated), and followed by a question pertaining to said link(s) and sometimes an ad hominem.

Lol, o.k. maybe not that hard per say as the perception.

 

[meogi]

Your guess is as good as mine on that.

As she's stated before:

What I think is irrelevant, much the same as thinking about dark matter when you have no clue what it is..Hey!

 

[newhope101]

Obviously if it looks like a possum it belongs to the “possum kind”.

Yes, that simplistic style of common sense, as many here have indicated, is not relevent when discussing TOE. There is no common sense at all within TOE and your point is noted.

However what is relevant is that your researchers do not have a clue either, so it makes anything you say somewhat wobbly rather than backed by any solid foundation. The bigger point is that I have evidence of a cat, that has been scetched up to look like a cat by your own biased researchers. So you can argue untill the stars fall from the sky and you will never be able to show that Mesonyx is not a cat

Read this:
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).
Century-old 'Miacis' uintensis fossil reworks carnivore family tree | Science Codex


So basically your researchers have found that miacis was more terrestrial than thought and an externsive revision of miacis is required. This work is from December, 2009.

Read this:

The cats that we know today have a long history dating back millions of years. Paleontologists discovered evidence of a cat with a retractable claw, Miacis, who lived about 50 million years ago. Most scientists believe that the descendants of Miacis and other prehistoric cats divided into three separate groups nearly a million years ago; the big cats (lions and tigers), the cheetahs, and the small cats (ocelots, bobcats and lynxes).

The History of Cats


So you can woffle on to your hearts content and my hypothesis is just as robust as any of yours.

Cats have been around for over 55my and gave retained a similar shape, as have many other kinds from that date.

Here is Mesonyx, dated to 55mya....a cat, with paws. You can try to turn it into some mix of creatures and give it all the names you like and it will still be a kind of cat, much like those today.

It takes the imagination of the desperate to misrepresent fossils, perhaps unintentionally, to bolster their stance.

So much for all this woffle about speciation leading to different kinds, all the woffle about punctuated equilibrium, and Darwins woffle about evolution......

​

 

[Amill]

Yes, that simplistic style of common sense, as many here have indicated, is not relevent when discussing TOE. There is no common sense at all within TOE and your point is noted.

The problem with your subjective style of classification is that not everyone thinks the same thing or sees the same characteristics when they look at different objects or organisms, especially when we're dealing with artistic representations. Why are your guesses automatically correct? What makes your belief that an organism is a cat any better or more correct than someone's belief that it is a possum or that it's more dog like? ect. Until you come up with some sort of objective based classification of organisms you will continue to be laughed at. My belief is that you cannot objectively classify organisms without revealing that your claims don't hold water. So you stick with saying "it looks like a dog, therefore it is a dog". If I show you a dog that looks like a raccoon, does that make it a raccoon?

Btw that creature in your last post looks more like a dog than a cat lol. Even the article in wikipedia describes them as wolf like. THAT is why your style of classification is silly and doesn't work in any kind of scientific sense...

 

[meogi]

No response from newhope? WINNING!

 

[Autodidact]

Yes, that simplistic style of common sense, as many here have indicated, is not relevent when discussing TOE. There is no common sense at all within TOE and your point is noted.

science is a process of using a proven method to overcome our common sense. Common sense tells us that the world is flat, the moon is a small disk that travels above it, and so forth. Science demonstrates that our common sense is wrong.

Although I don't find magic poofing to be very sensible, myself.

 

[newhope101]

Amill Quote The problem with your subjective style of classification is that not everyone thinks the same thing or sees the same characteristics when they look at different objects or organisms, especially when we're dealing with artistic representations. Why are your guesses automatically correct? What makes your belief that an organism is a cat any better or more correct than someone's belief that it is a possum or that it's more dog like? ect.

My guesses or reason do not need to be the same as your researchers. The sketch work is based on fantasy in every sketch. It is only a representation of what any organism is expected to look like in evolutionary terms

There are 12 miacis listed. One of them is a cat, regardles of if the sketch I used is the correct one. You need to say that there were NO miacis that resembled a cat for you to refute me, adequately, rather than quibble details.

The cats that we know today have a long history dating back millions of years. Paleontologists discovered evidence of a cat with a retractable claw, Miacis, who lived about 50 million years ago.
The Cat eShack

The cats that we know today have a long history dating back millions of years. Paleontologists discovered evidence of a cat with a retractable claw, Miacis, who lived about 50 million years ago. Most scientists believe that the descendants of Miacis and other prehistoric cats divided into three separate groups nearly a million years ago; the big cats (lions and tigers), the cheetahs, and the small cats (ocelots, bobcats and lynxes).
The History of Cats​

If you totally disagree with the descriptors above or below, well, all I can say is welcome to evolutionary science............they all squabble about lots of things, so can you!

Amill Quote "Until you come up with some sort of objective based classification of organisms you will continue to be laughed at. My belief is that you cannot objectively classify organisms without revealing that your claims don't hold water. So you stick with saying "it looks like a dog, therefore it is a dog". If I show you a dog that looks like a raccoon, does that make it a raccoon?

I agree that common sense has no place in evolutionary theory. However your own researchers desribe cat like creatures with retractible claws etc.

35my

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Pseudaelurus[/FONT]
29mya



So where is the evolution and speciation. This kind has remained the same for 29my. Even at that my arguments stand well with kinds not undergoing change for huge period of time and much much longer that PE and it's 1-4my of theorised stasis, woffle.

There are also Nimravidae, 42mya, the false sabre tooth fossils, with only your evolutionary woffle to explain extinction or ancestry.


Amill Quote "Btw that creature in your last post looks more like a dog than a cat lol. Even the article in wikipedia describes them as wolf like. THAT is why your style of classification is silly and doesn't work in any kind of scientific sense...


Your sketchers are paid to reflect common thinking not the truth or common sense. Neanderthal was half an ape until about 10 years ago. Isn't your science wonderful. It continues to evolve itdelf and that is about all that is evolving around here.

You need to do better than that given your researchers cannot tell the difference between an ape and a human, eg Turkana Boy and the rest of the erectus apes along side him, Neanderthal the human, Ardi the ape, Lucy the gorilla.

BTW dogs do not climb trees.......

 

[painted wolf]

LoL... first Mesonyx is a dog now it's a cat! :biglaugh:

Post #330

About Mesonyx: 55-45mya

If you saw a picture of Mesonyx, you might be forgiven for thinking that it was ancestral to modern wolves and dogs: this Eocene mammal had a slender, quadrupedal build, with canine-like paws and a narrow snout (probably tipped by a wet, black nose). However, Mesonyx appeared way too early in evolutionary history to be directly related to dogs; rather, paleontologists speculate that it may have lain near the root of the evolutionary branch that led to whales (note its similarity to the land-dwelling whale ancestor Pakicetus). Mesonyx also played an important part in the discovery of another, bigger Eocene carnivore, the gigantic Andrewsarchus; this central Asian megafauna predator was reconstructed from a single, partial skull based on its presumed relationship to Mesonyx.

Mesonyx - Prehistoric Mammal Mesonyx Characteristics, Behavior and Habitat

Now you already know I think all this is crap and be be made to ahow whatever you want, like making whole representations that look convincing to the cause, made of a few scant bones. Got that? This can't be a dog only because they are not supposed to be there yet. Wooppie..great reason to poof them into something else with more convoluted theoretical science. This is not creationist stuff. This is from your evolutionary research that continues to refute itself.

However here you see one of your fictional drawings representing an animal that resembles a modern dog and has paws.

So will you let it go and just accept that you have many kinds represented in these groups and one of them is the DOG KIND. Stop refuting your own theoretical science!

Let's watch Newhope refute herself just a few posts later...

Post #366

Here is Mesonyx, dated to 55mya....a cat, with paws. You can try to turn it into some mix of creatures and give it all the names you like and it will still be a kind of cat, much like those today.

It takes the imagination of the desperate to misrepresent fossils, perhaps unintentionally, to bolster their stance.

Newhope... you are a perfect example of this in action! :jiggy:

Or maybe you'll change your mind again and insist it's actually a bear?

wa:do

ps... you made mt night!

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes, that simplistic style of common sense, as many here have indicated, is not relevent when discussing TOE. There is no common sense at all within TOE and your point is noted.

Choosing to ignore available knowledge in order to favor preconceptions leads one into those unhealthy paths, indeed.

I hope you recover. I really do.

 

[painted wolf]

BTW dogs do not climb trees.......

:cover:
[youtube]6ijOcRIT00A[/youtube]
YouTube - Lucy: The Tree Climbing Dog

The grey fox is also known as the "tree fox" you know.... because they spend a lot of time climbing up trees.

And your "Pseudaelurus" is actually an Ocelot.

wa:do

 

[meogi]

The grey fox is also known as the "tree fox" you know.... because they spend a lot of time climbing up trees.

Clearly, the fox kind.

You made my day as well, PW

 

[newhope101]

LoL... first Mesonyx is a dog now it's a cat! :biglaugh:

Post #330
Let's watch Newhope refute herself just a few posts later...

Post #366
Newhope... you are a perfect example of this in action! :jiggy:

Or maybe you'll change your mind again and insist it's actually a bear?
Too bad your researchers have no clue what any fossil is, really?
wa:do

ps... you made mt night!

Good to see you and others can crawl out of the woodwork to have a shot at me..and too bad your researchers make mistakes all the time. I do get confused over all the bull twaddle they carry on about and wading through the crap your researchers call evidence.

If this is partly arboreal then it is a cat. Why..... because dogs do not climb trees, just like hippopotamus do not breath out of a hole in their heads.

But it definitely had PAWS, something that you had to slant to your own version of hoof so that you and your researchers did not look so silly.:slap:

So were there cats in Oxyaenidae? Yes, at 65mya or so, cat like beasts that walked on their flat feet on PAWS.

Creodonts were traditionally considered ancestors to Carnivora, but are now considered to have shared a common ancestor further back - possibly a Cimolesta
Cimolesta

Cimolesta is an extinct order of mammals. A few experts place the pangolins within Cimolesta, though most other experts prefer to place the pangolins within their own order, Pholidota....
. Some researchers argue that the creodonts represent a group of mammals of diverse biological ancestry that resemble one another via convergent evolution

Creodonta: Facts, Discussion Forum, and Encyclopedia Article

I can see plenty of evidence of cats around over 50mya..and there is that convergent evolution again to sweep it all under the carpet.

This may be a miacis dog, just one of of 12-14 species.

We believe that the some of the early ancestors of the Gray Wolf were a group of generalized carnivores named the creodonts that first walked the northern hemisphere of the earth between 100 and 120 million years ago. About 55 million years ago, the creodonts gave rise to the carnassials, a group of wolf-like animals that had specialized jaws for eating meat. One member of this family, Miacis, is thought to be the ancestor for all present-day wolves, dogs, weasels, bears, and raccoons.

Gray Wolf Evolution

So it appears your cats gave birth to wolves. Well done!

You may crawl back into the woodwork now. :thud:


Regardless the cat kind has remained the same for over 35my..so much for your speciation crap. Shouldn't it have sprouted wings or something else by now and poofed into something else like a bat.

 

[meogi]

Shouldn't it have sprouted wings or something else by now and poofed into something else like a bat.

Still no response to my challenge?

 

[painted wolf]

It's sad you can't even admit to basic mistakes.

If this is partly arboreal then it is a cat. Why..... because dogs do not climb trees, just like hippopotamus do not breath out of a hole in their heads.

Dogs can and do climb trees
[youtube]6ijOcRIT00A[/youtube]
YouTube - Lucy: The Tree Climbing Dog

Hippos do "breath out of a hole in their head" they are called called a nostrils.

I don't think you could tell a paw from a hoof any more than you can decide if Mesonyx is a dog or a cat....

But I don't blame you, it must hard to keep track of all your own B.S.

wa:do

 

[newhope101]

Meogi..I have answered your questions a plenty. This is not a game of who can't answer what. Do not play that game with me as there is a shamefull amount of questions unanswered by your science.

Your researchers have misclassified and contaminated their work a plenty. There is plenty of bafoonary within the evolutionary family.

You have cats, dogs and bears unquestionably present over the past 35my. Where is your macroevolution? How convenient we don't see any of half somethings around today. Why hasn't a wild cat sprouted the beginnings of wings or something to escape prey in an ever decreasing habitat? No they have remained clearly cats, even by using your classifications.

So for 35my the only speciation that has occured in cats, dogs, panda, deer, is that they have stayed identifiably their own kind. Even cats that resemble dogs are still cats, aren't they? Or does that change what they are according to your woffle? I can play that silly game as well...and you do not get DNA from old fossils without contaminating the crap out of them

What makes you think if nothing has changed except for blueprint recycling and there are levels where species cease to adapt, for 35my that anything evolved significantly over the previous 35my or the 35 before that. There has been no more than epigenetic and adaptive changes. No sign of any morphs.

On another tac, You are also talking about an air breathing organism evolving into a fully aquatic creature over the space of around 8my. Yet for the past 35my or even less if you want to quibble, nothing has morphed or started sprouting part organs, or wings or anything.

...and I got lots of frubals too!!!!!! Thanks to those....

So all your colour changes and legs hanging of heads in drosophila is the best you have to support this TOE of yours. Speciation leading to macroevolution is the biggest joke played on you guys! Swallowed bowl and all.

So all these millions of years with no poofing really makes one wonder why on earth any of you believe any of this stuff.

 

[meogi]

Meogi..I have answered your questions a plenty.

No, you effectively dodged the important ones.

This is not a game of who can't answer what. Do not play that game with me as there is a shamefull amount of questions unanswered by your science.

My science, my researchers, my this, my that. Oooga booga, I'm out to get you! Why not try using "researchers" and "science" and stop attributing it to the person you're debating, it's very ad hominem.

You have cats, dogs and bears unquestionably present over the past 35my.

By you, perhaps.

Where is your macroevolution?

Inside the micro. Over generations and with environmental change.

How convenient we don't see any of half somethings around today.

Why would we see half-somethings today? We'd never see half-somethings anyway. It's not part of the idea, it's part of your skewed understanding.

Why hasn't a wild cat sprouted the beginnings of wings or something to escape prey in an ever decreasing habitat?

I'm not sure, I always did like the idea of a griffon. But really, it's because that sort of thing doesn't just happen and is not what evolutionary theory suggests.

No they have remained clearly cats, even by using your classifications.

Well of course they have... what do you expect cats reproducing to turn into? Oh, griffons, right. Evolution does not follow imaginary guidelines.

So for 35my the only speciation that has occured in cats, dogs, panda, deer, is that they have stayed identifiably their own kind.

Except when you misinterpret a cat and a dog, which highly suggests that you're not quite sure what kind is what and, simultaneously, supports the idea that they shared a common ancestor. Feel free to write it off as a mistake on your part, but it's pretty glaring and explains a lot about your understanding.

Even cats that resemble dogs are still cats, aren't they? Or does that change what they are according to your woffle?

I've never seen a cat that resembles a dog, only a fossil of bones that look like both.

I can play that silly game as well...and you do not get DNA from old fossils without contaminating the crap out of them

Sigh. You do not get DNA from fossils, period. They are made of rock.

What makes you think if nothing has changed except for blueprint recycling and there are levels where species cease to adapt, for 35my that anything evolved significantly over the previous 35my or the 35 before that.

The fossil record and its geologic distribution.

There has been no more than epigenetic and adaptive changes. No sign of any morphs.

Except in the fossils and their geologic distribution.

On another tac, You are also talking about an air breathing organism evolving into a fully aquatic creature over the space of around 8my.

You show no understanding of time-scales. That's a pretty important factor in my understanding of evolution and you refuse to even acknowledge it. My challenge to you was to just throw old earth out the window and go young earth, why don't you? (Hint: Answering this question will help me understand your understanding of time-scales.)

...and I got lots of frubals too!!!!!! Thanks to those....

Aww, you are winning!

So all your colour changes and legs hanging of heads in drosophila is the best you have to support this TOE of yours.

No, strawman, it isn't.

Speciation leading to macroevolution is the biggest joke played on you guys! Swallowed bowl and all.

Hmm. Got me there. I better go tithe.

So all these millions of years with no poofing really makes one wonder why on earth any of you believe any of this stuff.

Because poofing isn't what I believe. It's what you believe. Again, where are the Cambrian whales?

 

[newhope101]

Dear meogi

I went to have a look at what was what, and find some fossils

To may amazement the fossil record is worse than what I thought. You have a plethora of species invented on nothing more than shreds, so morophologically different.

Miacis has about 12-14 species. There is a near complete skeleton for one or so and the rest are made up from a few teeth and fragments.

Creodonta is worse with many more species families and genus. extinct of course according to the bright sparks that cannot tell an ape from a human. This undeniable evidence of yours is based on crap, I'm afraid. So ALL THE SCIENTIFIC WE KNOW IT ALL is basically no more than the machinations of a wish list, anyway. These are mostly made up from skulls, teeth and bits.

I don't need to explain anything else. I have research that illustrates the reuse of blueprints and limits to adaptation. It won't be long now before your house comes tumbling down.

With research indicating that adaption will cease despite the accumalation of mutations, I'd say that alone forbids the initial cells to have conatined the diversity to explain all life... or do you think a cell resembles a human also?

And still the fossil record with PE shows distinctly different types appearing, that I say are different kinds altogether. That is not the point. The point is we should have seen some pretty big changes over the past 1-4my. We haven't.

Speciation extrapolated accross to result in macroevolution is a fraud.


　

 

[painted wolf]

We have nearly complete or at least partial skeletons for the following species of Miacis

M. petilus
M. uintensis
M. cognitus
M. robustus
M. exiguus

For example this beauty:

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

If you don't know what a kind is, how can you tell whether any two creatures belong to the same one?

(7)

 

[meogi]

I don't need to explain anything else.

Keep dodging the point. What is your understanding of time-scales?