Speciation

[newhope101]

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

My understanding of time scales is that your researchers have not got a clue about what strata is what.

What I do know is that a land creature morphed into a whale in the space of 8my which is rubbish.


I also found this

Hyaenodon
Tiger

..and we all know how diet and epigentics can affect DNA as well as morphology.

There creatures could just as easily be likened to kinds alive today. These are not intermediates but very simalar to the kinds around today. They can be sketchd up to look like anything your reseachers imagine.

Category:Fossil Creodonta - Wikimedia Commons

This link shows some creodonta fossils. How researchers came up with all the families and genus I have no idea, must be a good imagination, as usual.
PW is playing the misrepresentative goose by only putting up one fossil in relation to any of these groups as the individuals within them are wide and varied. Just from the fossils they have one can see this, let alone the ones they are imagining.

This is the kind of poor and lacking evidence all your theoreticals are based on, along with misrepresentations to bolster their claims.

An example is as close as humans. I say you have Turkana Boy, that is fully human. NONE of the other fossils older than Neanderthal are human, they are apes. Apes with reduced features like LLuc. Their teeth are no where near human, and neither are the skulls. Turkana Boy compared to other erectus or eragaster skulls illustrates the desperation of your researchers as rthey are clearly different kinds, and totally different species, not alike at all.

Lucy has gorilla morphology, chimp fingers, and pretend feet sketched in. Your researcher have found one bone, not with a fossil, that appears to be a modern human foot bone. You know what thye have found don't you. Evidence that humans were alive and well with Lucy. It appears oddly ridiculous to suggest a creature with hand still showing signs of arboreal life to be sketch with human feet that are of little use in the trees.

Ardi is being questioned as we speak by researchers that do not think she belongs in the human line. Ardi is also nothing more than some variety of ape, like Lluc.

So you reckon it took 8my or so to turn an ape into a human. From reading it appears the transition from land dweller to fully aquatic creature in whale ancestry took
around 8my, much the same time it took for 2 morphologically similar species to 'evolve', into different 'kinds'. Is this right? If so, it says it all!

 

[meogi]

My understanding of time scales is that your researchers have not got a clue about what strata is what.

Thanks, with that, I'm done with your incessant rambling. I still don't see why you don't just say you're young earth... and I guess I never will.

Have a good life

 

[painted wolf]

Not human?

Also, not human?

Also no human?

And the foot bones were found along with leg bones, other parts of the skeleton and a complete skull.
http://www.geo.uu.nl/Research/Paleomagnetism/publications/Partridge99.pdf

wa:do

 

[newhope101]

PW the only one of those skeletons that are human is the last one.

This one is the homonid from Sterfontein



Yes, he is human, and so is Peking man

Peking man

Steinheimensis is also a human. He resembes a modern Aboriginal

Aboriginal skull..Aboriginal people are fully human.

The fact that they have more ridging is environmental and genetic drift, not unlike chinese have different shaped eyes and are not a subspecies or another species or anything else, but just human. To even infer that this kind of ridging is less than human or some relic from the past is ridiculous and totally ignores the huge and tremendous variety in human skulls and morphology. This line presumes any similarity between apes and humans suggests close relatives.. Given an ape and human or so alike yet so very very different, it would be expected that some bits would look similar as there are only so many ways a structure can be created optimally. Yet a chimp today, quite clearly, is not human.,,hence the desperate need for these common ancestors some of which must be chimpy.

There are no subspecies in the human line really. It is silly to say any human is more or less human than any other. This comes about, I think, from the mess you have made with your species definitions.

So I do see humans that are fully human scattered around ina amongst apes.

In your photos (I do apologise my quote function does not always work), the top one has fangs, it is not human at all and far from it looking at the teeth and pronagnathism.

The middle one (brown) is not human either and far from it. It may be related to Lluc.

Also I have found Peking Man, China, is also very different than the apes put up around him.

This homo erectus, which ever one it is, is not human and th eone I refer to when I say that your researchers cannot tell the difference between a human and an ape.


Homo erectus Wiki.


This Wiki ape has the facial feature of reduced pronagnathism, illustrating he has flat faced morphology that has been around for 12my with Lluc. The rest of the skull is totally ape. There is no becoming human with this guy. He is an ape, fully an ape, and has ape features.

It really isn't that hard to tell, if one is actually looking for apes and humans instead of half breeds.

I still maintain that what you have found are either human or apes, and nothing at all in the middle. PW your post highlights the differences well. If these were meant to be perplexing examples they are not. Apes have no chins, humans do. Apes have far more ridging around the eyes than any human skull. Not all non-human primates have pronounced eye ridges anyway, such as the squirrel monkey and marmoset & vervet, which could have increased in size, as well. Your researchers are truly clutching at straws trying to make apes out of mankind.

 

[newhope101]

Thanks, with that, I'm done with your incessant rambling. I still don't see why you don't just say you're young earth... and I guess I never will.

Have a good life

Well good for you. Please do not feel obligated to explain your disappearance.

I have said I engraciate your dating methods, although I do not believe them, as that is a different topic which need not interfere with finding plenty of other stuff to illustrate your reserchers do not have a clue.


PS. Did you like the big head. What does it remind you of?

 

[painted wolf]

My top skull does not have "fangs"... the front teeth are missing, as you can see by the empty tooth sockets.

Your "aborigional" however is a Neanderthal,... I don't know where you got the idea it was an Australian.

These are actual Australian Natives as you can see it is not like a Neanderthal at all.

Humans actually vary little from one another, making trying to group them by "racial types" an archaic hold over from a dark racist past. Typology has been throughly discredited.

It's curious that you would use such a questionable practice while simultaneously decrying classifying people unfairly.

ps... I'm curious about something. According to you, having big brow ridges makes you an ape (unless it's a neanderthal) but brain size doesn't matter?

wa:do

 

[newhope101]

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

(7)

You know I know what a kind is..... and I do not have to supply an award winning definition either. It is enough to say I peg a kind to your miserably falable taxonomy at the family or sub family rank, which ever is the lower. For discussion purposes that's about as good as your species definition is, with all its exceptions and contradictions. My definition has one exception, as it is granted the human lineage is messed up the worst, so badly in fact, that it needs an exception to balance the biased classifications so heavily misrepresented. This discussion is an illustration of why.

Your memory mustn't be real good, or are you desperately seeking a thoery of everything now because you can see how silly your researchers are, especially when it comes to not being able to tell the difference between humans and apes.

Fortunately for me I am not the only one that thinks so. It just so happens that researchers that look down on anyone here as far as credentials go, agree with me.


"At the moment nearly every hominid find is placed under the "umbrella" of H erectus, but many researchers are unhappy about it.
"Palaeoanthropologists often have this assumption that every hominid found from that time period is a H. erectus," said Jeffery Schwartz, of the University of Pittsburgh, US. "They group hominids not on the basis of what they look like, but the time when they lived, which is totally unfounded.
"There is a tradition of confusing diversity with variation."

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Skull fuels Homo erectus debate

Just as I allege your researchers throw a bunch of anything in a group together and so do these researchers. The you call that evidence. The only difference is of course they all believe 'it all evolved', where as I just believe it is hilarious, seriously your fossils have been mispresented, and badly. We have award winning novelists with brains on 1000cc, size does not matter, in this case, anyway.

Further to that, my dear, it is as I allege in that there are many varieties of erectus, some of them clearly human; some of them clearly ape, nothing in the middle, and being apes decendant from other creatures that are only apes, like Lucy and Ardi, Lluc etc or whatever.

Does all this alone mean TOE is a myth and totally false? No

Does this mean that your scientists do not know what they are talking about in relation to human ancestry? Yes.

Does it mean you have no evidence for ancestry from ape to human? Yes.

Does it mean you have found supportive evidence of apes being created to be apes, then later humans being created that are just humans? Yes

.

 

[LuisDantas]

You know I know what a kind is..... and I do not have to supply an award winning definition either.

Of course not. One that is not trampled over by facts and yet at the same time makes some sort of biological definition will do aplenty.

On second thought, that would be an award (and front page news) winning definition, wouldn't it?

It is enough to say I peg a kind to your miserably falable taxonomy at the family or sub family rank, which ever is the lower.

Do you believe in the tale of Noah's Ark? Because if you do, then he must have built a very impressive vessel indeed. One that is not at all "miserably falable" when it comes to carrying capacity, to say nothing of diversity of ecosystems.

To carry a fertile sample of every biological family in existence (and many extinct), even if we magically brush aside considerations about genetic pool, would be quite a feat for today's naval engineers, let alone those from a time when even steel would be a marvel to behold.

For discussion purposes that's about as good as your species definition is, with all its exceptions and contradictions.

Sure. All it takes is forgetting about those pesky facts. Why choose reality over fiction anyway?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Ok ..let's get to the bottom of this. You have these classes that contain many different kinds. You may pull up whatever fossil is convenient to your cause. Ican do the same. GET IT? That's the fun behind this crazy theoretical science.

Take a look at this

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!

We appear to be onto to humans now!

You're jumping to another species again. You said Pakicetus and the Coyote were the same "kind" (dog...basically) and this could not be further from the truth. You now want to jump to a different animal......Is it that hard to stay on track or is it every time I refute your silly arguments you're going to bring up another species you haven't a clue about?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

You lot have spend the last 40 pages going on and on and on and on and on about how these classifications like miacis and pakicetus are a plethora of species. The you have the ordacity to paste up one of heaps as a refute to me. Well let me tell you, you will have to get up much earlier in the morning to beat me with nonsense like that.

Here are more pretty pictures of miacis


Miacis


Dinictus


miacis


Miacis


Miacis


Miacis

What you have are good examples of the cat and the possum kind. It is not I that am a desperate liar and concealer, and misrepresenter of the truth here. It is simplistic you!

So wait a minute.....Are you suggesting that "cats" and "possums" are related (kinds)??

 

[Dirty Penguin]

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......

​

Wait a minute here.......Didn't you just say a few pages ago that this creature was ("dog kind")......??????

 

[Dirty Penguin]

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.

And this is why we laugh at creationist. Cats are predators and may have very few enemies that prey on them....so it's no wonder why they, amongst a few other animals, are at the (top) of the food chain.

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

And your supposed researchers still look to ours in order to establish a basis for their misconceptions. They have no idea where certain animals should be placed so they lump them into "kinds"...which really doesn't explain much and is one of the reasons why (true biologist) don't use such a useless classification.

 

[Autodidact]

My understanding of time scales is that your researchers have not got a clue about what strata is what.

Because a couple months of poking around on Google enabled you to know better than all the Geologists in the world. On account of scientists being idiots.

What I do know is that a land creature morphed into a whale in the space of 8my which is rubbish.

How do you know?

btw, where are you getting 8 my? My Googling finds more like 30 my.

 

[Autodidact]

You know I know what a kind is..... and I do not have to supply an award winning definition either. It is enough to say I peg a kind to your miserably falable taxonomy at the family or sub family rank, which ever is the lower.
.

That's what I thought you said. Yet you classify a placental mammal and a marsupial in the same kind, which doesn't meet your definition at all. Earlier, you classified creatures as being the same kind, although they were not in the same family at all. You seemed to say that any two creatures who look vaguely alike, such as miacids and cats, which do not belong to the same family, are nevertheless the same kind. You quoted an idiot who classified all bacteria as a single kind, although they encompass an entire domain, containing thousands of different families.

The reason that creationists can't define kind, is that as soon as they do, which I give you credit for attempting, they find their entire scheme falls apart and becomes inconsistent. Which is exactly what happened to you.

 

[newhope101]

Of course not. One that is not trampled over by facts and yet at the same time makes some sort of biological definition will do aplenty.
You lot always go on about this definition of kind. What you fail to understand is that a definition for someone is what it is. If you proffered a species is categorsited by its toenails, then that is what it is. How it works, is another matter. This is one of the evos failing war crys. Regardless of a creationists ability to define or not define Kind. The notion of the creation of many kinds and varieties within kinds, should not be hard for a 10yo to imagine. You lot get so hypocritically caught up in using not having the naswer to every question perfectly sorted as ssome sort of really useless and stupid refute. Your researchers have more questions than answers and this does not deter you from paying homage to your theory.
On second thought, that would be an award (and front page news) winning definition, wouldn't it?

In case you missed it in the years you have been on here, even your own reseaarchers have had a gut full of your species definition.

One hundred and thirty-six years since .On the Origin of Species ...., biologists might be expected to have an accepted theory of speciation. Instead, there is, if anything, more disagreement about speciation than ever before. Even more surprisingly, 60 years after the .biological species concept., in which species were considered to be reproductive communities isolated from other such communities, we still do not all accept a common definition of what a species is. And yet, if speciation is to be any different from ordinary evolution, we must have a clear definition of species. The emerging solution to the species problem is an updated, genetic version of Darwin’s own definition. This definition is both useful and already being used in taxonomy, in biodiversity studies and in evolution.​

[FONT=BookAntiqua,Italic]
[FONT=BookAntiqua,Italic]Preprint. Printed version published in Trends in Ecology and Evolution 10: 294-299 (7 July 1995)[/FONT]
[/FONT]http://www.ucl.ac.uk/taxome/jim/pap/mallet95tree.preprint.pdf

Here is some more LD

It is surprisingly difficult to define the word "species" in a way that applies to all naturally occurring organisms, and the debate among biologists about how to define "species" and how to identify actual species is called the species problem. Over two dozen distinct definitions of "species" are in use amongst biologists.[6]

Species - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
How many species concepts are there? | Science | guardian.co.uk

Louis Dantas look below at this passage, then read the link.

Are we there yet? Almost. Some people think that there are no species. Moreover, they wrongly think this view is a consequence of evolution and that Darwin himself denied there were any. Now what Darwin thought 150 years ago is of no real consequence to modern biology, but he didn't think species were unreal constructs; he thought there was no single set of properties species had to have. He was not a taxonomic essentialist. But neither is it the case that species are unreal because they shade into each other. In modern philosophy, there is an ongoing debate over whether one can have vague and fuzzy sets or kinds, but for science we need only a little logic and metaphysics: If we can identify mountains, rivers, and organisms, we can identify species, and they will tend to have a "family resemblance" (Wittgenstein's most apt phrase in this context). What is a species among primates will tend to be like species in all other close relatives. What is a species among lizards will (usually) be like what a species is in close relatives (some lizards are parthenogens; and have no males, where their nearest relatives are sexual, but in that case they are like their sexual cousins ecologically and morphologically;
How many species concepts are there? | Science | guardian.co.uk

In this article, more and more do evolutionists be looking for 'KINDS" as opposed to clades, which has already replaced Linnaeus taxonomy, but has problems inherent also.

Do you believe in the tale of Noah's Ark? Because if you do, then he must have built a very impressive vessel indeed. One that is not at all "miserably falable" when it comes to carrying capacity, to say nothing of diversity of ecosystems.

How boring and presumptive many of you are, let alone hypocritical. How many major world catastrophes and bottlenecks do your researchers require to explain what they see? So we are all supposed to swallow that multiple times. Your genomic data, biased and such that it is, points to common ancestors, anyway. That is the myth you need to explain what you see in DNA. It would have been better for evos if the genome showed signs of some cohorts around. It doesn't.

" Mitochondrial Eve is estimated to have lived about 140,000 years ago. Y-chromosomal Adam is estimated to have lived around 60,000 years ago. The MRCA of humans alive today would therefore need to have lived more recently than either."[3] (Wiki)

I personally believe in a mega flood, and likely covered much of Europe and Asia, but did not destroy all life. Furthermore your crappy bottlenecks and common ancestor woffle support my theory just as well as it does yours or YECS. YECS also have fancy models based on assumptions that give the YEC dates, just like yours.

To carry a fertile sample of every biological family in existence (and many extinct), even if we magically brush aside considerations about genetic pool, would be quite a feat for today's naval engineers, let alone those from a time when even steel would be a marvel to behold.

The excuses are irrelevant. Your own researchers indicate problems with your species definition. You appear to be the only one that is unable to see it. A definition is a definition. You do not have to accept it nor like it ...as if !!!!!


Sure. All it takes is forgetting about those pesky facts. Why choose reality over fiction anyway? Just one pesky fact is that your researchers can't tell the difference betweeen an ape and a human, it is much worse than just a crap definition

The best point to take away from all this woffle of yours is that only a hypocrite would request a better standard of definition than they themselves can supply.

:drool:

 

[McBell]

The best point to take away from all this woffle of yours is that only a hypocrite would request a better standard of definition than they themselves can supply.

:drool:

roflmao

Is that all the better you can do?
Hells bells, now even your insults are becoming boring.

 

[newhope101]

So wait a minute.....Are you suggesting that "cats" and "possums" are related (kinds)??

the last time I played my definition of kind I was instantly alerted to the cognitive challenges and deficits apparent in some evos.

To answer your question go to possums and cats and look at hoe they are arranged in families and or sub families.

Where my definition states to use the lower class then what you do is exactly what I say. If there is a subfamily then you use that. If there is no sub family then you use that.

So I'll help you..

Felidae has 4 subfamilies. So what should you do DP? That's right these are likely the 4 kinds that God made, 2 supposedly extinct. (but we all know about coelcanth the living, dead mid species). Now God may have made one breeding pair or hundreds. They may have been all exactly the same or varied. These are the questions your researchers will not answer for me as they are asking the wrong questions.

Possums"Phalangeriformes", have 2 superfamilies and 6 families within. I see no
sub families. Hence, you use the family here to illustrate what I see as a kind.

Thankfully your new hippo/whale crap kept these two separate, at family rank, for now.

It does not have to be perfect to be usefull, just like 'species' is not perfect but usefull to
describe variations within kind.

If you want to run this for another 20 pages poking holes in it you already know what I'll do back.


I've played this family/subfamily definition out before and it works well. A kind is obviously the progeny of the initial creation by God, and their decendents as well.

So now that I have assisted you DP, you should be able to apply my definition with ease and come up with
some cunning plan to foil me, and waste pages trying to illustrate my definition really is no better than your definition of species..

....and I do not care to outdo yours, I just like to show up chumps and hypocrites

 

[McBell]

....and I do not care to outdo yours, I just like to show up chumps and hypocrites

Really?
So when are you going to start?

 

[painted wolf]

So why isn't Miacidae a "kind"?

wa:do

 

[McBell]

So why isn't Miacidae a "kind"?

wa:do

I don't know.
Though I have wondered if ants and aunts are the same kind...