-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Speciation
- Thread starter lunakilo
- Start date
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Anthropologically Neanderthal really didn't seem to fit with H.Sapiens considering both seem to have existed together during a particular time period. Now, genetically, we know Neanderthals and H.Sapiens are related (see. Neanderthal genome project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). How does your bible address this considering creationist teach that their god formed man "fully formed"......
Last edited:
Let me see if I got that straight: you distrust science because it revises its findings and corrects its mistakes whenever possible.
And you prefer to use "parsimony", which sounds suspiciously like avoiding learning what evidence there is and what it may indicate, to declare that all cats are similar if they look alike, no further research needed.
So you are in essence declaring that you don't care to learn from the many sources of biological and geological evidence available, because you would rather seek refuge in the certainty that speciation only occurs within those ill-defined "kinds" than learn about what actually happens. Is that correct?
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
No... You have yet to provide any evidence that the fossils in question were actually dated.
This looks like a cat... is it also a cat?
This looks like a dog... is it also a dog?
This looks like a raccoon... is it also a raccoon?
How does your reasoning deal with these? How do you explain them away?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth
Clearly you understand as much about evolution now, as you did when you started.
wa:do
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
You're right. I have no idea why you agree that speciation happens, but deny that transitional fossils exist. Can you explain that apparent contradiction? Thanks.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Is that what you call, parsimony?newhope said:
Something like this:
Cat?
What about this:
cat?
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Meh... I think she has shown she has no desire for honest discussion. I'm not really interested in playing silly games endlessly.And yet you people continue to engage him.
This latest reminder is enough for me for a while.
wa:do
Top one is a Fossa, Autodidact, which is usually pronounced 'foosa' for some reason. It's a a carnivore found on Madagascar. Not a cat, a euplerid.
Second one is a thylacene (sp?), a recently extinct (hence the photo) marsupial "wolf" from Oz.. As a marsupial it's not closely related to dogs. Mice, whales and humans are more closely related to dogs than this thing is.
The last one's a raccoon dog, which really is a canid, as the name suggests. They're from East Asia, but they're starting to spread into Europe -- as are some escaped real raccoons, as well.
Second one is a thylacene (sp?), a recently extinct (hence the photo) marsupial "wolf" from Oz.. As a marsupial it's not closely related to dogs. Mice, whales and humans are more closely related to dogs than this thing is.
The last one's a raccoon dog, which really is a canid, as the name suggests. They're from East Asia, but they're starting to spread into Europe -- as are some escaped real raccoons, as well.
Last edited by a moderator:
Gunfingers
Happiness Incarnate
And they're adorable! I want one!
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
B-but, it LOOKS like a cat, and newhope says that parsimony tells us that if it looks like a cat, it probably is. Could she possibly be mistaken?!?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
To go back to your earlier point, Lanakilo, I believe you're asking whether there is evidence to support a single tree of life, in which all living things are descended from a single common ancestor, as contrasted with an orchard, in which living things do change over time, but only within separate lines, called "kinds."
I would like to point out a few things. First, this model basically accepts everything in ToE, except the number of original ancestors. Nevertheless, its proponents rail against every aspect of ToE, and assert that the evidence does not support it, fundamentally contradicting themselves. For example, creationists will assert that mutations cannot create new information, or as newhope has done here, that there are no transitional fossils. If either of these things were true, this hypoethesis would have to be false.
Second, this idea assumes, at its beginning, an event of magic poofing that violates every rule of physics you can think of.
But crucially, and bearing in mind it accepts the mechanism of ToE--descent with modification plus natural selection--it asserts that there is some limit that magically makes variation stop at an imaginary line, the "kind" line. However, if you really understand the mechanism that causes descent with modification, then you realize that there cannot be any such artificial line. It is in the nature of DNA to mutate during reproduction, and no mechanism that prevents this from happening.
One other note: since creationists do not subscribe to the scientific method, they have no way to reach consensus on this or anything else. For example, in this thread, some creationists (newhope) assert that speciation happens, while others (rusra) deny it. They cannot reach agreement on the most fundamental questions their hypothesis addresses.
I would like to point out a few things. First, this model basically accepts everything in ToE, except the number of original ancestors. Nevertheless, its proponents rail against every aspect of ToE, and assert that the evidence does not support it, fundamentally contradicting themselves. For example, creationists will assert that mutations cannot create new information, or as newhope has done here, that there are no transitional fossils. If either of these things were true, this hypoethesis would have to be false.
Second, this idea assumes, at its beginning, an event of magic poofing that violates every rule of physics you can think of.
But crucially, and bearing in mind it accepts the mechanism of ToE--descent with modification plus natural selection--it asserts that there is some limit that magically makes variation stop at an imaginary line, the "kind" line. However, if you really understand the mechanism that causes descent with modification, then you realize that there cannot be any such artificial line. It is in the nature of DNA to mutate during reproduction, and no mechanism that prevents this from happening.
One other note: since creationists do not subscribe to the scientific method, they have no way to reach consensus on this or anything else. For example, in this thread, some creationists (newhope) assert that speciation happens, while others (rusra) deny it. They cannot reach agreement on the most fundamental questions their hypothesis addresses.
newhope101
Active Member
What we all need to note is that you do not have DNA from these ancient species
Creodonta
Smilodon
***** Cat
Miacis the ancestor of cats.
THE CAT IN HISTORY
No one knows exactly when or how the cat first appeared on Earth. Most investigators agree, however, that the cat's most ancient ancestor probably was a weasellike animal called Miacis, which lived about 40 million or 50 million years ago.
Miacis is believed by many to be the common ancestor of all land-dwelling carnivores, including dogs as well as cats. But apparently the cats existed for millions of years before the first dogs. Perhaps best-known of the prehistoric cats is Smilodon, the saber-toothed cat sometimes called a tiger. This formidable animal hunted throughout much of the world but became extinct long ago.
Information and facts on the history of the cat
Of course you have all missed the best laugh of it all. This weasel like or deer like or Marten like creature, miacis, actually looks like a cat. The funny thing is cats existed before dogs.
I am not the one hung up on morphology you lot are. I already know a cat kind is not going to evolve past looking like a cat. You can post all the silly pictures and woffle on, but miacic looks like a cat, regardless. Perhaps miacis is the ancestor of cats because he is a variety of cat. Simple. No need for trying to show how it morphed into everythig else.
The miacids are divided into two groups: the miacines, with a full complement of molars, and the viverravines with a reduced number of molars and more specialized carnassials. These dental differences resemble the difference between Caniforms (with more teeth) and Feliforms (with fewer teeth) but this may not mean evolutionary lineages. It was thought that Viverravidae was basal to the Feliforms. However, recent studies suggest this is not the case (Wesley-Hunt and John J. Flynn 2005).[5]
In the Middle Eocene (about 40 mya) the miacids started to branch into two distinct groups of the order Carnivora: the Feliforms and Caniforms. The miacid precursors to the Feliforms remained forest-dwelling, arboreal or semi-arboreal ambush hunters, while the Caniform precursors were more mobile, opportunistic hunters. While it is clear the first Feliforms appeared at this time, there is no clear common ancestor of the Feliform families in the fossil records. As forest dwellers, the early Feliforms were subject to more rapid decomposition in the absence of sedimentary materials, resulting in large gaps in the fossil records.
Feliformia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It is evolutionists desperation to suggest this miacis creature looks more like a weasel or deer or a mulitude of descriptors except the one it actaully looks like, a fur ball of a cat. What are these researchers sniffing as they go about their work. So blinded by bull wollup they are unable to see the most simplest and obvious of explanations.
You evos have to come up with a multitude of species crap to buttt cover the fact that the evidence shows evolution from one kind to another is false so you have invented this "There are four geographic modes of speciation in nature, based on the extent to which speciating populations are geographically isolated from one another: allopatric, peripatric, parapatric, and sympatric. Speciation via polyploidization, Speciation via hybrid formation, Reinforcement (Wallace effect), Hybrid speciation, Gene transposition as a cause, Interspersed repeats".
and..Human speciation
Humans have genetic similarities with chimpanzees and gorillas, suggesting common ancestors. Analysis of genetic drift and recombination using a Markov model suggests humans and chimpanzees speciated apart 4.1 million years ago.[34]:rainbow1:
...While Ardi, is 4.4myo ..making Ardi an ape, not a human. Yes I know you can put up this and that. So what? It's as clear as mud......only funnier!
Oh wait.....that's right...if miacis is a cat, let alone creodonta, all this evolutionary myth starts to fall apart. So now we see why these researchers ignore the obvious. I can see it. It is about time you lot did as well.
Look we can go around in circles forever. :sleep:This nonsense is not robust and anyone that has not been sucked into it yet should pat themselves on the back!
What a mess!!!!! I think the poor creodonta has been left right out. It is a cat, dated earlier than miacis at 65myo. So are the others just cats, demonstrating that God made the cat kind and you have found evidence of it. Even if it was around the same time they are dated, your hypothesis is a nonsense.
Last edited:
lunakilo
Well-Known Member
I replied in the thread on a creationist-model
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
What we all need to note is that you do not have DNA from these ancient species
Creodonta
Smilodon
***** Cat
Miacis the ancestor of cats.
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).
Trying to classify animals as "kinds" has got you all screwed up. Creodonta is an ORDER not a particular species. If your argument originally started off comparing cats to Patriofelis (See: Patriofelis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) it would have made a little more sense but you keep putting up the picture a particular species and insisting that the name of the "order" is the name of the species....and it's NOT......
Gunfingers
Happiness Incarnate
Sarkastodon and Patriofelis are both members of the order Creodonta. Creodonta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
She seems to be operating off of old data, since according to Wikipedia Creodonts were, at one point, thought to be ancestors of modern cats. Newhope thinks that once something has been hypothesized we have to stick with that hypothesis forever or else throw out all of evolution.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
I didn't say anything about ancient species, well, other than the Tasmanian wolf, which is fairly recently extinct. But the fossa is alive and well, you can go take your own DNA sample, and looks remarkably like a cat, so I guess it is...despite being more of a mongoose, really. But I guess in the creationist taxonomy it would be a cat, because it looks like one?
Yeah, those stupid scientists with all their sciencey science stuff. They're so retarded. Why do they even bother? All they have to do is look at it, for heaven's sake.
[/quote]