Sue the T-Rex

[JonFromMinnesota]

Lucy herself is a contradiction.

She has a smaller skull, with bipedal hips.

To get around this contradiction, Lucyferans say she demonstrates bipedalism came before increase in brain size.

How is this a contradiction?

 

[HitchSlap]

What contradiction?

If you were a lucyferan, you wouldn't have to ask.

 

[loveofourlord]

Check out the pelvis shape:

Comparison:

why are we even talking about Lucy? She's one of a dozen or more of her species we found.

 

[Loudmouth]

why are we even talking about Lucy? She's one of a dozen or more of her species we found.

I believe she is still the most complete adult specimen, but I could be wrong.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I believe she is still the most complete adult specimen, but I could be wrong.

Yes they have 8 finds - most just a partial cranium or part of a jaw, a single foot bone, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_afarensis

But since of course they are actually merely different breeds of chimp, it doesn't really matter that they have scant fossil evidence. Just as we observe all life propagate - infraspecific taxa mates with infraspecific taxa producing infraspecific taxa - always within the species. Whether you choose to call that infraspecific taxa breeds, varieties, formae, subspecies, races, etc. etc.

It is the only time you have ever observed a change in the infraspecific taxa - when they mate with another infraspecific taxa and produce a third. Until then Asian will remain Asian. African will remain African. Husky will remain Husky and Mastiff will remain Mastiff. As T-Rex remained T-Rex and Triceratops remained Triceratops. They no more magically turned into another species than an Asian or African magically becomes an Afro-Asian, or a Husky or Mastiff becomes a Chinook.

There is no evolution by mutation of one creature turning into another - nor any links missing between one form and the next. All variation or visual change with the species is always produced by mating pairs of separate infraspecific taxa within that species.

EDIT:

There is no one magically becoming two (the fork in the tree we must pretend exists) - only two becoming one again when that DNA that was separated from the start is recombined.

 

[Loudmouth]

But since of course they are actually merely different breeds of chimp,

Where did you provide evidence of this?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Where did you provide evidence of this?

Where have you provided evidence they are not merely different breeds of chimp or human? Whichever stance you want to take. Besides your imagination? It's the only way you have ever observed change in the species. Or must we ignore that African mates with Asian and produces an Afro-Asian within the species so you are happy?

You have still refused to submit your link to the scientific definition of species I asked for weeks ago. Why are you avoiding this? I want to make you happy Loud, which is why we are going to use the "scientific" definition you provide.

Did you believe a closing post would get your Fairie Dust passed by?

 

[crjmurray]

Where did you provide evidence of this?

Blah blah blah dogs blah blah something vaguely racist about Asian people.

EDIT: Ahahahahaha holy crap I was right.

 

[Loudmouth]

Where have you provided evidence they are not breeds different breeds of chimp or human?

Your claim. Your burden of proof.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Blah blah blah dogs blah blah something vaguely racist about Asian people.

EDIT: Ahahahahaha holy crap I was right.

When did Asian mating with African become racist? Are you a racist person believing that other races mating is a bad thing? Probably from the sound of it, since you believe someone saying Asian and African mating is raciest. Would you feel better if I said Caucasian and Mexican instead?

Your claim. Your burden of proof.

You claimed months ago Darwin's Finches are separate species. Fulfill your prior burden and I will happily fulfill my later one. Or is it you can't and so wont provide that definition?

EDIT:

Besides - without that definition I can not prove mine - since any link I provide will be dismissed as not valid. So provide the link we are both going to use.

 

[crjmurray]

When did Asian mating with African become racist? Are you a racist person believing that other races mating is a bad thing? Probably from the sound of it, since you believe someone saying Asian and African mating is raciest. Would you feel better if I said Caucasian and Mexican instead?



You claimed months ago Darwin's Finches are separate species. Fulfill your prior burden and I will happily fulfill my later one. Or is it you can't and so wont provide that definition?

You're the one calling them "breeds". Implying "interbreeding".

 

[AV1611VET]

You're the one calling them "breeds". Implying "interbreeding".

Aren't they called "favoured races"?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You're the one calling them "breeds". Implying "interbreeding".

How do you figure that? The biological classification of breeds has nothing to do with that at all. Merely what we call infraspecific taxa of domestic animals instead of races as we do humans - when both mean the same thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breed

"that distinguish it from other organisms of the same species"

The truth is you just want an excuse to ignore the data and so tried a strawman.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(biology)

"of interbreeding individuals within the same species,"

Actually its you using race that implies interbreeding and therefore racism in your world. So argue against yourself.

 

[Loudmouth]

When did Asian mating with African become racist?

H. erectus is not an Asian or African H. sapiens.

You claimed months ago Darwin's Finches are separate species. Fulfill your prior burden and I will happily fulfill my later one. Or is it you can't and so wont provide that definition?

Already provided it several times. I define species by gene pool. If a significant amount of population specific mutations are able to accumulate, then they are separate species. I also stated quite clearly that incipient speciation can be reversed. I also stated that speciation is a spectrum of interbreeding, not a binary event.

Of course, you have ignored it every time I have defined it.

Now, prove that A. afarensis mated with chimps. Your claim, your burden of proof.

 

[crjmurray]

How do you figure that? The biological classification of breeds has nothing to do with that at all. Merely what we call infraspecific taxa of domestic animals instead of races as we do humans - when both mean the same thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breed

"that distinguish it from other organisms of the same species"

The truth is you just want an excuse to ignore the data and so tried a strawman.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(biology)

"of interbreeding individuals within the same species,"

Actually its you using race that implies interbreeding and therefore racism in your world. So argue against yourself.

That's fine. I'll sit over here and not be racist in a thread about dinosaurs.

 

[HitchSlap]

Aren't they called "favoured races"?

Nope.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

H. erectus is not an Asian or African H. sapiens.

I know, it's neither one of those, just as a Native American or Caucasian or European or whatever, isn't an Asian or African either - just another infraspecific taxa of the species. So being that all observation goes against your claims of separate species - why are you still attempting to spread that Fairie Dust?

Already provided it several times. I define species by gene pool. If a significant amount of population specific mutations are able to accumulate, then they are separate species. I also stated quite clearly that incipient speciation can be reversed. I also stated that speciation is a spectrum of interbreeding, not a binary event.

So in other words after you searched about 25 or 30 different scientific definitions of species you realized none of them agree with you.

Of course, you have ignored it every time I have defined it.

Because you still have not provided the "scientific definition" just your own personal opinion - which means nothing in a discourse on science. So what are you up to now, 32 links or so that all went against your claims - and so continue to avoid providing that scientific link?

Now, prove that A. afarensis mated with chimps. Your claim, your burden of proof.

I never claimed it mated with chimps. Husky mate with Husky until we force them to mate outside their infraspecific taxa or forced to by natural circumstances. So why would I think they mated with a chimp? That's your strawman.

Apparently you fail to realize still it takes two different infraspecific taxa to make a third - with the third being neither of the other two - nor does the third ever mate with the other two - unless circumstances force them to or suitable partners are not present. But the third always remains the same species.

That's fine. I'll sit over here and not be racist in a thread about dinosaurs.

Why? You'll just get those classifications wrong too and call different infraspecific taxa separate species. No worse - you'll call babies and adults of the same species different species... All because you refuse to apply what you observe in real life to that fossil record.

 

[crjmurray]

I know, it's neither one of those, just as a Native American or Caucasian or European or whatever, isn't an Asian or African either - just another infraspecific taxa of the species. So being that all observation goes against your claims of separate species - why are you still attempting to spread that Fairie Dust?



So in other words after you searched about 25 or 30 different scientific definitions of species you realized none of them agree with you.



Because you still have not provided the "scientific definition" just your own personal opinion - which means nothing in a discourse on science. So what are you up to now, 32 links or so that all went against your claims - and so continue to avoid providing that scientific link?



I never claimed it mated with chimps. Husky mate with Husky until we force them to mate outside their infraspecific taxa or forced to by natural circumstances. So why would I think they mated with a chimp? That's your strawman.

Apparently you fail to realize still it takes two different infraspecific taxa to make a third - with the third being neither of the other two - nor does the third ever mate with the other two - unless circumstances force them to or suitable partners are not present. But the third always remains the same species.






Why? You'll just get those classifications wrong too and call different infraspecific taxa separate species. No worse - you'll call babies and adults of the same species different species... All because you refuse to apply what you observe in real life to that fossil record.

Seeing as how between the two of us, I'm the only one that has actually corresponded with Jack Horner I think I understand his points better than you do. But by all means, contact Jack with your ideas and post his response here. We'd love to see it.

 

[Loudmouth]

I know, it's neither one of those, just as a Native American or Caucasian or European or whatever, isn't an Asian or African either -

Native Americans, Caucasians, and Europeans are all H. sapiens just as Africans and Asians are. H. erectus is not.

So being that all observation goes against your claims of separate species

All we have is your empty assertions that H. erectus is the same species as modern humans. You don't have any observations to back it.

So in other words after you searched about 25 or 30 different scientific definitions of species you realized none of them agree with you.

I just gave you the definition that I am using. That is what you asked for. Please stop ignoring it.

Because you still have not provided the "scientific definition" just your own personal opinion -

You asked for MY definition, and that is the definition I am using. If you want another scientist's definition, ask them.

. So what are you up to now, 32 links or so that all went against your claims - and so continue to avoid providing that scientific link?

Show me one link that goes against my claims.

I never claimed it mated with chimps. Husky mate with Husky until we force them to mate outside their infraspecific taxa or forced to by natural circumstances. So why would I think they mated with a chimp? That's your strawman.

Then what in the world are you talking about?

Apparently you fail to realize still it takes two different infraspecific taxa to make a third -

Two infraspecific taxa created from one ancestral population:

"Rhagoletis pomonella is a fly that is native to North America. Its normal host is the hawthorn tree. Sometime during the nineteenth century it began to infest apple trees. Since then it has begun to infest cherries, roses, pears and possibly other members of the rosaceae. Quite a bit of work has been done on the differences between flies infesting hawthorn and flies infesting apple. There appear to be differences in host preferences among populations. Offspring of females collected from on of these two hosts are more likely to select that host for oviposition (Prokopy et al. 1988). Genetic differences between flies on these two hosts have been found at 6 out of 13 allozyme loci (Feder et al. 1988, see also McPheron et al. 1988)."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Oh, look! They define speciation just like I do, by the accumulation of genetic divergence and separate gene pools. Two species from one ancestral species.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Where have you provided evidence they are not merely different breeds of chimp or human?

Why are the hip bones so different from chimps if they are just different breeds of chimp.
Do different breeds of dog have such a difference in their hip bones?

Did you believe a closing post would get your Fairie Dust passed by?

Now that sounds rather like flaming.