Speciation

[newhope101]

Reminds of . . .

​

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

 

[newhope101]

Human kind?

My how far we have come from Adam.

wa:do

and you keep posting something you think is great evidence. It is theoretical nonsence. With homoplasy you will be chasing your tail forever. Everytime some poor ape takes on a new adaptation you lot try to make it part human. You are desperate for evidence and basically any twoddle will do.

Listen your researchers have no idea if Ardi was an ape or a human.
Ardi may be more ape than human : Nature News

When you biologists are smart enough to be able to tell the difference we'll talk.

The evidence I put up relating to fossils still stands and you will need more that your crown and empty words to refute me or Harun for that matter.

 

[painted wolf]

and you keep posting something you think is great evidence. It is theoretical nonsence. With homoplasy you will be chasing your tail forever. Everytime some poor ape takes on a new adaptation you lot try to make it part human. You are desperate for evidence and basically any twoddle will do.

Listen your researchers have no idea if Ardi was an ape or a human.
Ardi may be more ape than human : Nature News

When you biologists are smart enough to be able to tell the difference we'll talk.

The evidence I put up relating to fossils still stands and you will need more that your crown and empty words to refute me or Harun for that matter.

but you just said that only humans can make fire... and then said that H.erectus made fire.

Are you now saying that H.erectus isn't human and didn't make fire?

What does Ardi have to do with this?

And no... your evidence on fossils doesn't stand. It's been shown to be false here and the other thread you posted it.

wa:do

 

[newhope101]

Listen Paintedwolf I for one am not interested in your word. They are meaningless as you have often misrepresented info previously.

Post some links to back up your woffle which you post multiple times making it poly woffle.

I am replying to previous posts when I claimed that fire making and control was a complex task



Despite the biased representations you lot put to this ape head, and despite its jaw line that is only evidence of diet, not ancestry eg Lluc, will not be able to perform firelighting and control. They didn't have matches nor lighters. It is quite complex to negotiate the use of flint or stick rubbing. If there was any firlighting going on at the time of erectus then it was a human that lit it, not this beast you try to make human.

Furthermore in reply to your prized Ardi crap, Ardi illustrates that knucklewalking developed indepentently. Hence humans do not have knucklewalking ancestry.

Too bad for you that apes ranging from 5 to 10 million years have been found that once again predate the chimp/human split.

Now watch your researcher scurry off and change the split date to suit. It was once 4mya then 5 then 6, now depending on whom you wish to beieve it has been pushed back to 8mya and still apes were around before this.

The geological formations in this part of the country offer enormous potential for discovering early apes, ranging in age from 5 million to 18 million years old. Long before humans and their ancestors migrated from Africa, Turkey was the route for apes spreading from Africa to colonize Europe or Asia.
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100707/full/466176a.html



So pasting up Ardi as some sort of evolutionary hero evidence is only highlighting you and your researchers truly have no idea nor evidence more robust than a wish list.

 

[newhope101]

This topic is on speciation. Rather than reply to every individual reply let me some up by saying the following:

Gould proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium specifically because the fossil evdence did not demonstrate gradual speciation. There are long periods of stasis of anywhere from 1 to 4 million years. So without anything else your fosils show new forms appearing in the record with presumptions of ancestry. Auto...go look it up before you start to squark again. I am not going to spoon feed you basic info you should know about.

Even this theory of PE only speaks to the evidence that researchers allow to be seen. They hide evidence that is obviously contradictory. You can show that animals can adapt and change a little and you can give those adaptations a new species name. The notion that leads a land animal to become a whale or seal, chimp to human is theorised. Then you provide flawed data to back it up eg miasis is the ancestor of all cats and what ever else, when you clearly have evidence that this is not the case hence need to come up with all sorts of nonsense and different types of speciation to explain it. eg allopatric, peripatric, parapatric, and sympatric.
Speciation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cats were around long before miacis at 65mya,

Evolution of Wild Cats - Genetic Time Line
Creodonta (fossil mammal order) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

Further more to that there is fossil evidence of hyena skull dated to 78mya
::: FOSSIL-MUSEUM.com :::

Seals at 84mya
::: FOSSIL-MUSEUM.com :::

Grey fox 78mya
::: FOSSIL-MUSEUM.com :::

Red fox 67mya
::: FOSSIL-MUSEUM.com :::

Civet 39mya
::: FOSSIL-MUSEUM.com :::

Red wolf 51mya
::: FOSSIL-MUSEUM.com :::

Wolverine 62mya
::: FOSSIL-MUSEUM.com :::

Brown bear 74mya
::: FOSSIL-MUSEUM.com :::

You are all being deceived and I feel so sorry for you all. Many of you are hard liners and nothing will ever change your minds. If God himself appeared to you and told you He created lifeforms as they are you still would not believe it.


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.

Cryptic species shows that identical kinds cannot interbreed and there is good reason for the creator creating them with this limitation. An example may be birds adapted to feed on certain food and aclimatised to a certain environment. If two species from very different habitats interbreed the progeny will not have all the adaptations required for the habitat it has been born into. It would only be an advantage at a time of extreme environmental change where a misfit may have a lucky advantage. God was very wise to put limitations between some kinds and sometimes between the same kind.

I'm sure some of you will come up with refutes and I can refute the refute until you refute the refute of the refute. It is endless. Suffice to say the longer I play on RF the more convinced I am of the creation and like you, you will not refute me sufficiently to change that base, regardless of not having an answer to every question.

Seriously, your concept of speciation being the mechanism that drives one kind to evolve into another kind is flawed and based on inacurate fossil evidence, as demonstrated with a range of fossil evidence that predates the supposed/presumed common ancestors..and there are plenty more........

Refute this with evidence and do please keep personal opinion and polywoffle out of it.

 

[painted wolf]

Listen Paintedwolf I for one am not interested in your word. They are meaningless as you have often misrepresented info previously.

Post some links to back up your woffle which you post multiple times making it poly woffle.

I am replying to previous posts when I claimed that fire making and control was a complex task



Despite the biased representations you lot put to this ape head, and despite its jaw line that is only evidence of diet, not ancestry eg Lluc, will not be able to perform firelighting and control. They didn't have matches nor lighters. It is quite complex to negotiate the use of flint or stick rubbing. If there was any firlighting going on at the time of erectus then it was a human that lit it, not this beast you try to make human.

Furthermore in reply to your prized Ardi crap, Ardi illustrates that knucklewalking developed indepentently. Hence humans do not have knucklewalking ancestry.

Too bad for you that apes ranging from 5 to 10 million years have been found that once again predate the chimp/human split.

Now watch your researcher scurry off and change the split date to suit. It was once 4mya then 5 then 6, now depending on whom you wish to beieve it has been pushed back to 8mya and still apes were around before this.

The geological formations in this part of the country offer enormous potential for discovering early apes, ranging in age from 5 million to 18 million years old. Long before humans and their ancestors migrated from Africa, Turkey was the route for apes spreading from Africa to colonize Europe or Asia.
Palaeoanthropology: Disputed ground : Nature News



So pasting up Ardi as some sort of evolutionary hero evidence is only highlighting you and your researchers truly have no idea nor evidence more robust than a wish list.

So you are saying that H.erectus was just hanging around human camps then ?

wa:do

 

[Jose Fly]

So again NewHope, is H. erectus in the "human kind" or some other "kind"?

 

[painted wolf]

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:

. The oldest fossils occur in China from about 0.5 million years ago. They entered Europe about 250,000 years ago, and North Africa shortly after.

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

 

[David M]

Fossil evidence shows that the various kinds have been found fully identifiable as the kinds still in existence today

Really?

Please point out the examples of extant trilobite kind, or Sauropod Kind.

Because your claim is so manifestly stupid an 8 year old would not make it.

 

[newhope101]

Paintedwolf you have not refuted any of my examples at all. All you have done is quoted common knowledge. The examples I put up are in a museum. Some articles are quoted in nature. You stated previously one of them was dated earlier. Where is that evidence? To quote the rhetoric your researchers admit to is not a refute.

What do other researchers have to say of the fossils I quoted. I expect they ignore them, or say something about the strata an unheaval or who knows what. I'd like to see what they have come up with.

There are plenty of examples that I quoted and only one has to be correct. Miacis was another example and your birds have a problem to. There's plenty.

So lets talk about the hippo to whale thing that is being challenged already. Remember the days of bla bla bla. Apparently this little dear is now the irrefuteable evidence for whale to land mammal ancestry. Hoooplaaa I know you are immediately convinced. Yes:yes:.


Let's zero in on one the lovely Indohyus.



I threw in a Mousedeer just to make it interesting for creationists??????????

The indohyus is the poor creature that is blamed for the rise of who knows what maybe deer and whales. (OMG I love this. It's so funny)...anyway.,,now although DNA puts hippo and whale as the closest relatives the morph points to a deer.. It is now a sister species to ancient whales or something. God only can keep up with what you lot go on about. It's no wonder so many of you are not up to date with the latest.:help:

'For years, the hippo has been the leading candidate for the closest land relative because of its similar DNA and whalelike features. So some scientists were skeptical of the new hypothesis by an Ohio anatomy professor whose work was being published Thursday in the journal Nature'.)(
Whales may have come from deerlike animal - Technology & science - Science - msnbc.com

This Indohyus to whale tayle of course is based on SIMILARITIES in the teeth and something in the ear. OMG..seriously. I just can't stop laughing. THIS..THIS is what you class as a transitional fossil. The one before and after looking totally disimilar, and this little creature looks just like a variety of deer hooves and all. How about that for a novel idea???

You know I reckon whales evolved from humans or maybe humans evolved from whales. Why do you ask? Because......
Whales boast the brain cells that 'make us human'

They were touted as the brain cells that set humans and the other great apes apart from all other mammals. Now it has been discovered that some whales also have spindle neurons - specialised brain cells that are involved in processing emotions and helping us interact socially.
Whales boast the brain cells that 'make us human' - life - 27 November 2006 - New Scientist

This is how silly your assertions are anyway. Speciation is limited, your connections incredible, and a your genomics are starting to look quite ridiculous.:candle:

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Paintedwolf you have not refuted any of my examples at all. All you have done is quoted common knowledge. The examples I put up are in a museum. Some articles are quoted in nature. You stated previously one of them was dated earlier. Where is that evidence? To quote the rhetoric your researchers admit to is not a refute.

What do other researchers have to say of the fossils I quoted. I expect they ignore them, or say something about the strata an unheaval or who knows what. I'd like to see what they have come up with.

There are plenty of examples that I quoted and only one has to be correct. Miacis was another example and your birds have a problem to. There's plenty.

So lets talk about the hippo to whale thing that is being challenged already. Remember the days of bla bla bla. Apparently this little dear is now the irrefuteable evidence for whale to land mammal ancestry. Hoooplaaa I know you are immediately convinced. Yes:yes:.


Let's zero in on one the lovely Indohyus.



I threw in a Mousedeer just to make it interesting for creationists??????????

The indohyus is the poor creature that is blamed for the rise of who knows what maybe deer and whales. (OMG I love this. It's so funny)...anyway.,,now although DNA puts hippo and whale as the closest relatives the morph points to a deer.. It is now a sister species to ancient whales or something. God only can keep up with what you lot go on about. It's no wonder so many of you are not up to date with the latest.:help:

'For years, the hippo has been the leading candidate for the closest land relative because of its similar DNA and whalelike features. So some scientists were skeptical of the new hypothesis by an Ohio anatomy professor whose work was being published Thursday in the journal Nature'.)(
Whales may have come from deerlike animal - Technology & science - Science - msnbc.com

This Indohyus to whale tayle of course is based on SIMILARITIES in the teeth and something in the ear. OMG..seriously. I just can't stop laughing. THIS..THIS is what you class as a transitional fossil. The one before and after looking totally disimilar, and this little creature looks just like a variety of deer hooves and all. How about that for a novel idea???

You know I reckon whales evolved from humans or maybe humans evolved from whales. Why do you ask? Because......
Whales boast the brain cells that 'make us human'

They were touted as the brain cells that set humans and the other great apes apart from all other mammals. Now it has been discovered that some whales also have spindle neurons - specialised brain cells that are involved in processing emotions and helping us interact socially.
Whales boast the brain cells that 'make us human' - life - 27 November 2006 - New Scientist

This is how silly your assertions are anyway. Speciation is limited, your connections incredible, and a your genomics are starting to look quite ridiculous.:candle:

opcorn:

 

[painted wolf]

What museum?
Where is it located?
Who collected the specimens.... where when and how were they dated?

Just so you know H.Y is known for grabbing pictures off the internet (without attribution: aka stealing them) and then claiming they are things they really aren't. The best example was his taking pictures of hand tied fishing lures and claiming they were living examples of fossil species.

Unless you can provide the relevant information on the fossils in question how do I know they aren't more stolen pictures with lies attached to them?

This is why you have to choose your sources carefully.

As for Indohyus.... it takes a lot more evolution to turn it into a chevrotain than it does a whale. They have never been proposed as the ancestors of deer...Add to that the fact we have fossil chevrotains from the same time period and your position looks even sillier.
You really need to stop inventing "Kinds" based on pictures (however pretty they are) from wikipedia.

wa:do

 

[Dirty Penguin]

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..!!!!

 

[Autodidact]

Because I do something you do not do...that is read about the topic I am talking about. Unlike you, that just likes to waste time asking for evidence that any half wit debating here should already know.

Rather than boasting about your expertise, what I was looking for was the evidence you're basing your statement on. I realize that to you, asking for evidence is a waste of time, but to those of us who use a scientific approach, it's how we evaluate whether a statement is factual.

Your statement was:

This Homo erectus, fires or no fires, did not evolve into a reasoning human being in 1.3 million years.

Sites in Europe and Asia seem to indicate controlled use of fire by H. erectus, some dating back 1.5 million years ago. A presentation at the Paleoanthropology Society annual meeting in Montreal, Canada in March 2004 stated that there is evidence for controlled fires in excavations in northern Israel from about 690,000 to 790,000 years ago. A site called Terra Amata, located on the French Riviera, which lies on an ancient beach, seems to have been occupied by H. erectus; it contains the earliest evidence of controlled fire, dated at around 300,000 years BC. Excavations dating from approximately 790,000 years ago in Israel suggest that H. erectus not only controlled fire but could light fires.[25] Despite these examples, some scholars continue to assert that the controlled use of fire was not typical of H. erectus, but only of later species of Homo, such as H. heidelbergensis, H. neanderthalensis, and H. sapiens).
Homo erectus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This does not seem to have any relevance to your statement. (as usual.) On what evidence do you make your statement that Homo erectus did not evolve into a reasoning human being in 1.3 million years?

 

[Autodidact]

This topic is on speciation. Rather than reply to every individual reply let me some up by saying the following:

Gould proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium specifically because the fossil evdence did not demonstrate gradual speciation. There are long periods of stasis of anywhere from 1 to 4 million years.

Exactly. Isn't science great?

Even this theory of PE only speaks to the evidence that researchers allow to be seen. They hide evidence that is obviously contradictory. .

Please provide evidence to support this outrageous claim.
btw, how do they do that exactly. Like, do they kill the paleontologists who want to go out and look at fossils? Or what?

 

[David69]

the hippo is suposed to evolved from a whale!

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Just so you know H.Y is known for grabbing pictures off the internet (without attribution: aka stealing them) and then claiming they are things they really aren't. The best example was his taking pictures of hand tied fishing lures and claiming they were living examples of fossil species.

Case in point.......

[youtube]FPxGDXSJZfc[/youtube]
YouTube - Richard Dawkins debunks "Atlas Of Creation" by Harun Yahya (1/4)

[youtube]uyzPpJazwY8[/youtube]
YouTube - Richard Dawkins debunks "Atlas Of Creation" by Harun Yahya (2/4)

"This man doesn't know anything about Zoology, he doesn't know anything about Biology, he knows nothing about the Evolution he's attempting to refute. He is a complete and utter ignoramus."

-Richard Dawkins (video 2 above)

 

[Autodidact]

Despite the biased representations you lot put to this ape head, and despite its jaw line that is only evidence of diet, not ancestry eg Lluc, will not be able to perform firelighting and control. They didn't have matches nor lighters. It is quite complex to negotiate the use of flint or stick rubbing. If there was any firlighting going on at the time of erectus then it was a human that lit it, not this beast you try to make human.

You're asserting that Homo erectus could not have made fire? But the quote you provided says they did. Your quote said the opposite of what you're asserting. Very odd and confusing.

 

[newhope101]

What museum?
Where is it located?
Who collected the specimens.... where when and how were they dated?

Just so you know H.Y is known for grabbing pictures off the internet (without attribution: aka stealing them) and then claiming they are things they really aren't. The best example was his taking pictures of hand tied fishing lures and claiming they were living examples of fossil species.
Just like you reckon a couple of similarities in two species illustrated evolutionary relations. Bullocks!
Unless you can provide the relevant information on the fossils in question how do I know they aren't more stolen pictures with lies attached to them?
How do you know they are not?
This is why you have to choose your sources carefully.
Not really PW. After all evolutionists can make uo the most incredible stories that conflict with each other. Who are you to edjudicate that one body of research is any better than another? It is the blind leading the blind.

I can show that mtEve is 6,000yo using your convoluted nonsense of computer modelling. You have no basis but maybe and perhaps to refute anything anyone puts up.
DNA Mutation Rates and Evolution
If only lay people knew what is involved and the related guesswork and presumptions enlisted to arrive at the dates that suit evolution.
As for Indohyus.... it takes a lot more evolution to turn it into a chevrotain than it does a whale. They have never been proposed as the ancestors of deer...Add to that the fact we have fossil chevrotains from the same time period and your position looks even sillier.

Well whales have humans an whales have big brains with similarities. This is the basis of much of your evidence. The of course there are the contradictions like hippo whale are closer genetically, not a deer. The point is it is nonsense to take a couple of similarities and make a connection particularly in light of homoplasy. It's guesswork on your part and means nothing to anyone other than those desperately seeking to be degenerate apes.
You really need to stop inventing "Kinds" based on pictures (however pretty they are) from wikipedia.

wa:do

I have posted info that shows cat fossils were around before miacis. I see you haven't had much to say about that. Also I provided evidence that apes fossils have been dated prior to chimp/human split. Go figure out why you only speak to some of my evidence and not the best.

It is incredible of your researcherd to claim a couple of similarities are proof of evo relationships. They are not,

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

 

[painted wolf]

the hippo is suposed to evolved from a whale!

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