Speciation

[newhope101]

Yes different teeth does not make an animal a different kind. This argument is mute. It is your convoluted theories that make a mess of something fairly easy to see.

Exactly and this guy



Predates miacis at 65my.


Miacis around 60my

So all the evo theorising is rubbish

Have a go at this Auto.

While your at it speak to 'Ardi not being in the human line at all' info I posted.

You have real problems.

As posted in my reply to Auto anyone with background cn take these stupid models and assumption re the molecular clock and play around to get whatever you need.
http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/dnamutationrates.html

Now you've got deer like creatures that look like deers meant to be the link between whales and who knows what because of some similairy in teeth and the ear. This is desperation if ever I have seen it. How about thinking it is a variety of deer? Dogs come with and without tails. Oh no, that would be way to parsinomous/most obvious uncomplicated explanation for you lot. But no...it becomes an evolutionary mud fest.

Wake up. Evolutionary theory and the fluff extrapolated from micro speciation to macro is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on humanity.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

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

Now that's kind of childish and an immature way to respond.....WOW!!!!

 

[Amill]

I have posted info that shows cat fossils were around before miacis. I see you haven't had much to say about that.

She did respond to it lol...

So Huran Yahya can make a bald easily refuted claim and you will blindly declare him valid.... even though he never says how he gets his dates?

I give the actual date, easy to find... it's right there in the wiki for example, and I know how much you love wiki... and I'm the one who has to do your fact checking for you?

from your beloved wiki:
Brown Bear - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can you provide a source for the 74mya date? Or is it going to remain a bald faced assertion with no basis in fact?

as for the creodont nonsense: http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...m/113418-creationist-model-5.html#post2418406
It would be helpful if you didn't use a picture from a species 35mya and claim it was 65mya. It's one of first things they say about that drawing after all.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

All you have shown Newhope, is that you have no understanding of the critters you have been making claims about or morphology in general. Nor do you have any interest in an honest discussion about it.

If you had a shred of it you would at least have the decency to stop saying your creodont "cat" is older than miacids as I've repeatedly shown that it isn't.

The fact you blindly refuse to even admit to this mundane error is the best evidence of this.

wa:do

 

[David69]

Not really... the living hippopotami species are the closest living cousins to the living cetaceans.

Near as we can tell from the evidence, they share a last common ancestor somewhere between the Anthracotheriidsand the Palaeochoerids.

wa:do

not sure what you mean. cetaceans, whales are part of the group! so hippos are from the group as a whole instead of just the whale?

 

[newhope101]

I've heard of Huran Yahya (*Real Name* Adnan Oktar) Adnan Oktar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, but didn't really know anything about him. Basically he's a nobody. He's a book writer and lecturer with a spotty criminal background. The worse part about it is....he holds no degrees in the relevant fields in which he chooses to criticize.....Is this what creationist are doing now? What "fossil museum"...? It's a friggin' website of pictures and diatribes about how evolution is so wrong...while attempting to promote books..... Come on newhope...you can do better than this. At least "Wilson" put up creationist who's also a scientist.....then you turn around and promote this con artist...WOW..!!!!

I've already been there and have nothing left to prove. I have made the point that many credentialed researchers think TOE is a joke. John Sandford is one of them and has had papers accepted and used to be an evolutionist himslef. He saw the light it seems.

Again I say you can set up your models to say whatever you like, and so can creationist. It is not evidence. But to find a cat dated prior to the ancestor it was meant to evolve from...well that's your problem. Birds the same hence the dino to bird refute by your own researchers. You've got evo researchers questioning Ardi, you've got ape fossils at 15mya that predate the human/chimp split at 5-8mya, where knucklewalking was meant to have evolved independently after the split.

Balarney, and the stuff of fairytales and no more robust than you assert creation science is. The only difference being more people have been sucked into your theology.

Seriously, you should not blame anyone for making fun of it.

 

[LuisDantas]

I've already been there and have nothing left to prove. I have made the point that many credentialed researchers think TOE is a joke.

You have made the claim. Not the point, not by a long shot.

Heck, half the time the very sources that you present directly challenge your claims. And you apparently fail both to realize that and to recognize that your bluffs are being called.

 

[Autodidact]

Fossil evidence shows that the various kinds have been found fully identifiable as the kinds still in existence today. There are no transitional fossils. They have been made up and sketched to fit in with TOE and its' presumptions.

So your assertion is that paleontologists "made up" the thousands of transitional fossils in museums today? Seriously? Did they "make up" this one:

And this one:

and this one:

and this:

and this:

Well, I could go on and on. You get the idea. Did paleontologists just make all these up?

 

[Amill]

Now you've got deer like creatures that look like deers meant to be the link between whales and who knows what because of some similairy in teeth and the ear. This is desperation if ever I have seen it. How about thinking it is a variety of deer? Dogs come with and without tails. Oh no, that would be way to parsinomous/most obvious uncomplicated explanation for you lot. But no...it becomes an evolutionary mud fest.

Lol. You're trying to take a shot at people for "assuming" ancestry based on similarities yet at the same time you are trying to make out animals like this Hyaenodon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia as "cats"

 

[Autodidact]

Have a go at this Auto.

While your at it speak to 'Ardi not being in the human line at all' info I posted.

You have real problems.

I don't believe I've ever made any claim at all about Ardi. Perhaps you're confusing me with science?

As posted in my reply to Auto anyone with background cn take these stupid models and assumption re the molecular clock and play around to get whatever you need.
DNA Mutation Rates and Evolution

so basically all paleontologists are a bunch of dishonest idiots who take stupid models and make assumptions and play around? Have you studied much paleonotology, newhope? Why do you have such contempt for science?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I've already been there and have nothing left to prove. I have made the point that many credentialed researchers think TOE is a joke. John Sandford is one of them and has had papers accepted and used to be an evolutionist himslef. He saw the light it seems.

Again I say you can set up your models to say whatever you like, and so can creationist. It is not evidence. But to find a cat dated prior to the ancestor it was meant to evolve from...well that's your problem. Birds the same hence the dino to bird refute by your own researchers. You've got evo researchers questioning Ardi, you've got ape fossils at 15mya that predate the human/chimp split at 5-8mya, where knucklewalking was meant to have evolved independently after the split.

Balarney, and the stuff of fairytales and no more robust than you assert creation science is. The only difference being more people have been sucked into your theology.

Seriously, you should not blame anyone for making fun of it.

The point, which you seemed to miss here, is you link us to a fundamentalist who is unqualified in ANY of these fields. You use this person and yet...his very own pride and joy (Atlas of Creation) is incorrect on many, many levels. Using Huran Yahya does not help your case. It actually makes it worse than what it already is.

 

[Autodidact]

I've already been there and have nothing left to prove. I have made the point that many credentialed researchers think TOE is a joke. John Sandford is one of them and has had papers accepted and used to be an evolutionist himslef. He saw the light it seems.

That's interesting. What percentage of Biologists would you say reject the Theory of Evolution?

 

[painted wolf]

not sure what you mean. cetaceans, whales are part of the group! so hippos are from the group as a whole instead of just the whale?

Cetaceans are whales/dolphins.... Hippos are not cetaceans.

Cetaceans and hippos are together part of a groups called Cetancodonta or "Whippomorpha" if you feel like being cute. Which is part of the more inclusive group of even toed ungulates, the Cetartiodactyla.

hope this helps.

wa:do

 

[newhope101]

All you have shown Newhope, is that you have no understanding of the critters you have been making claims about or morphology in general. Nor do you have any interest in an honest discussion about it.

If you had a shred of it you would at least have the decency to stop saying your creodont "cat" is older than miacids as I've repeatedly shown that it isn't.

The fact you blindly refuse to even admit to this mundane error is the best evidence of this.

wa:do

Creodonta, order of extinct carnivorous mammals first found as fossils in North American deposits of the Paleocene Epoch (65.5 million to 55.8 million years ago). The last creodont, Dissopsalis carnifex, became extinct about 9 million years ago, giving the group a more than 50-million-year history.
Creodonta (fossil mammal order) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia





Miacis is an extinct genus of mammals that appeared in the late Paleocene (ca. 60-55 million years ago) and are mammals of the family Miacidae, superfamily Miacoidea. They are representative of the group of early carnivores that were the ancestors of the modern Order Carnivora, although only the species Miacis cognitus is a true carnivoran.[vague] Thus, Miacis may be considered the genus of carnivorous mammals that gave rise to all modern Carnivora.

PW..it is as I say. Regardless miacis is not going to morph into creodonta in 5my or so, lovey. It took how many millions of years for humans to loose their fur and grow a brain. It took 3my to get from Lucy to us, or so your researchers alledge.

It's just a variety of cat PW, with the reconstruction done to suit your nonsense. We all know about neaderthal ape man.

 

[painted wolf]

Sarkastodon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Apparently "cat" means anything Newhope wants it too... even extremely large bear-like creatures that are very un-cat-like. And "predates" actually means "comes 30 million years after".

And no one but you suggested that creodonts evolved from miacids. Nice strawman to add to the list.

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

I'm confused, newhope. You say (I think) that speciation happens, but is confined to something called a "kind." Then you deny that there are any transitional fossils, which there would be, if speciation happens. So you're contradicting yourself. Can you clear that up? Thanks.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Sarkastodon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Apparently "cat" means anything Newhope wants it too... even extremely large bear-like creatures that are very un-cat-like. And "predates" actually means "comes 30 million years after".

And no one but you suggested that creodonts evolved from miacids. Nice strawman to add to the list.

wa:do

I think she mixing up Sarkastodon with Petriofelis. Maybe it's because the pretty drawings make them look similar...even though they weren't.....

 

[newhope101]

PW apparently you lot can make any creature into what you want it to be. Have you retracted your dating refute and turned to desperation as an alternative.

Auto..you simply have no idea...if you have not picked up that a wolf can become a dog as a creationist idea ie speciation, then why bother saying anything to you at all.

Dirty Penguin..after how neanaderthal was represented not that long ago, now being placed with homo sapiens by some, I'd be skeptical of any representation an evo offers as evidence. Parsimony tends to indicate if it looks like a cat it likely is. Not rocket science! Just the reasonings of a stable, functioning reasoning mind.

Coelacanth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Zanzibar Fishermen Catch Ancient Fish

Here's is a story of the death of another famous missing link Coelacanth......I wonder what on earth replaced it...and what of the death of tiktaalic with older tetrapod footprints found with it. Again I say you should not be surprised by skepticism.

 

[Jose Fly]

NewHope,

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

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

 

[painted wolf]

I think she mixing up Sarkastodon with Petriofelis. Maybe it's because the pretty drawings make them look similar...even though they weren't.....

That would be a perfectly reasonable mistake to make... easy enough to admit, I should think.

But even Patriofelis is only 45mya and still very un-cat in many ways. Certainly enough to exclude it from "cat kind" unless one has lots of wiggle room between "kinds".

Regardless, the fact that there has been a staunch refusal to admit a mistake, coupled with the repetition of said mistake despite it's being shown numerous times makes me wonder if it is indeed a "mistake".

How many times can a mistake be repeated despite having been shown otherwise before it becomes something other than a mistake?

wa:do