Sue the T-Rex

[Justatruthseeker]

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.

Oh, I understand his points quite well. They incorrectly classified 5 out of 12 of just the major dinosaurs in North America. You can try strawman to avoid this fact, if it makes you feel any better. This of course does not count all the minor species, nor all the infraspecific taxa that they have incorrectly classified as separate species.

You know of no other way life propagates except by infraspecific taxa (Asian/Husky) mating with other infraspecific taxa (African/Mastiff), producing other infraspecific taxa (Afro-Asian/Chinook) within the species. This is all you have ever observed at any time in the natural world. Yet consistently you refuse to apply this observation when it comes to classifying the fossil record.

And then being unable to support your Fairie Dust claims - you simply ignore the only thing anyone has ever observed. Typical evolutionist response. Refuse to correct their mistakes when they are right in front of your eyes. Whether it's dinosaur fossils and the science of bone growth or Interbreeding Finches mating and producing fertile offspring right in front of your eyes...

And then wonder why you can't be trusted. Not because you and they made a mistake - but because you refuse to correct them even when they are right in front of your eyes.

 

[crjmurray]

Oh, I understand his points quite well. They incorrectly classified 5 out of 12 of just the major dinosaurs in North America. You can try strawman to avoid this fact, if it makes you feel any better. This of course does not count all the minor species, nor all the infraspecific taxa that they have incorrectly classified as separate species.

You know of no other way life propagates except by infraspecific taxa (Asian/Husky) mating with other infraspecific taxa (African/Mastiff), producing other infraspecific taxa (Afro-Asian/Chinook) within the species. This is all you have ever observed at any time in the natural world. Yet consistently you refuse to apply this observation when it comes to classifying the fossil record.

And then being unable to support your Fairie Dust claims - you simply ignore the only thing anyone has ever observed. Typical evolutionist response. Refuse to correct their mistakes when they are right in front of your eyes. Whether it's dinosaur fossils and the science of bone growth or Interbreeding Finches mating and producing fertile offspring right in front of your eyes...

And then wonder why you can't be trusted. Not because you and they made a mistake - but because you refuse to correct them even when they are right in front of your eyes.

They incorrectly classified some triceratops. OOOOOOOOO! Big deal.

 

[Loudmouth]

You know of no other way life propagates except by infraspecific taxa (Asian/Husky) mating with other infraspecific taxa (African/Mastiff), producing other infraspecific taxa (Afro-Asian/Chinook) within the species.

I just showed you an example of isolated gene pools starting to diverge with none of your silly "breed mates".

"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

We also see continued divergence between the human and chimp genomes without any need for breed mates.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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

If you say so.

We come in all sorts of styles.

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.

More than you do, I have direct visual comparison with modern humans alive today - see above. We come in all different shapes and sizes.

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

Please provide the link to the scientific definition and I wont. So you are up to what now, 43 links where you couldn't find an actual scientific definition of species that fit into your Fairie Dust beliefs?

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

You best go back and reread - you misunderstood as usual - on purpose if you ask me (see, my opinion which you now claim is scientific) - I asked for the scientific definition you accept. When you get your opinion published I'll accept that, until then...

Well then - my definition says you are wrong - so I guess we are at a standstill and will need a tie-breaker.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/species

"Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species."

Guess you are out since you can't provide a scientific definition that supports your claim..

Show me one link that goes against my claims.

I've shown you 20 in the last 2 weeks - one is right above you - which leads to those incorrect classifications you can't get to fit your own science.

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.

Apparently you didn't read your own link.

"2.2 The Biological Species Concept
Over the last few decades the theoretically preeminent species definition has been the biological species concept (BSC). This concept defines a species as a reproductive community.

So we now know that those you quoted can not justify their claims with any science whatsoever. Just another mistake in classification right before your eyes you refuse to correct.

Anything else fails to meet the requirements of species - making it a useless designation of anything. Which is why the debates continue to this day.

"A discussion of speciation requires a definition of what constitutes a species. This is a topic of considerable debate within the biological community."

So since you have no agreed upon definition - all are useless to define anything and conflict. So now you relegate species to meaning nothing and everything - in your attempt to avoid the truth.

So according to your definition I mean opinion - Asian and African are separate species?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

They incorrectly classified some triceratops. OOOOOOOOO! Big deal.

Some? 5 out of 12 of just the Major ones of North America. And how will the numbers grow when we start to look at all the minor species as well? I know you want to believe classifying things wrong is of no importance - so why bother to classify things at all if it means so little? And bye bye went 5 evolutionary trees.

And the only reason you got 7 species right is because they kept one of the species by default - so you couldn't get those wrong. But every single other one was wrong. And 12 species dropped to 7. And he is only looking at bone growth for age. He has not even begun to consider what we observe in real life - that most of the others classified as separate species are merely infraspecific taxa. But evolutionists ignore the real world in favor of Fairie Dust - and even ignore their own preeminent biological definitions to keep that Fairie Dust alive.

 

[Loudmouth]

If you say so.

You said so. You cited a paper where three fossil specimens were correctly identified as H. erectus, in your own words. H. erectus is not H. sapiens.

We come in all sorts of styles.

Is this a fossil of a modern human?

Whatever you do, don't use any physical dissimilarities to proclaim that it isn't human. After all, you won't allow us to do it.

More than you do, I have direct visual comparison with modern humans alive today - see above. We come in all different shapes and sizes.

None of those shapes are H. erectus.

Please provide the link to the scientific definition and I wont. So you are up to what now, 43 links where you couldn't find an actual scientific definition of species that fit into your Fairie Dust beliefs?

I wrote out my definition for species. Please read it.

It also happens to be the same definition used in this peer reviewed paper:

"Based on new DNA sequence data of previously unsampled species, we provide an updated historical biogeographic hypothesis of Stenocercus. We infer phylogenetic relationships, estimate divergence times, and track ancestral distributions, asking whether cladogenetic events within the genus correlate to reported shifts in South American landscapes during the past 30millionyears, focusing in the open and drier areas."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26432394

Genetic divergence. That is how I define speciation.

I've shown you 20 in the last 2 weeks - one is right above you - which leads to those incorrect classifications you can't get to fit your own science.

How do you determine when a fossil is incorrectly classified?

"2.2 The Biological Species Concept
Over the last few decades the theoretically preeminent species definition has been the biological species concept (BSC). This concept defines a species as a reproductive community.

That's the definition I use. I have also stated over and over that speciation is not a binary event. It is a spectrum of interbreeding. Perhaps you will listen to what I am saying this time?

Anything else fails to meet the requirements of species - making it a useless designation of anything. Which is why the debates continue to this day.

Speciation isn't black and white. Because of evolution, there is lots of gray area between incipient speciation and complete speciation.

So according to your definition I mean opinion - Asian and African are separate species?

There is very little to no genetic divergence between Asian and African populations due to insufficient genetic barriers, so it doesn't meet my requirements.

 

[USincognito]

Sue is a beautiful T-Rex fossil, 90% complete, that was bought by chicago museum for $8.4 million in 1997. How much is Lucy and homo naledi at auction price?
Sue the t-rex is the real deal. Lucy & homo naledi is fake, man made garbage.

 

[UCDavis]

View attachment 164094

Chicago museum has a real T-Rex fossil(Sue the T-Rex). Wanna guess how many real missing link fossils that museum has? Zero Nada

 

[Jimmy D]

Chicago museum has a real T-Rex fossil(Sue the T-Rex). Wanna guess how many real missing link fossils that museum has? Zero Nada

'Missing links'? I'll guess none, they're like..... missing.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

Can anyone really state what configuration man was when he was created. The Bible is as vague on this as it is the length of time in which they were supposed to have happened.

This idea that human beings were instantly created the way they appear today is just as arrogant as painting Jesus and the disciples always as white men. God is infinitely patient and could very well have had the patience to create man as a single celled organism and waited to see which of these crawled itself up the evolutionary ladder to what we are today.

He could have very well started to Bible off after everything jelled and only told the story from the perspective of man, because man had proven himself the dominant species. To say that science is wrong because it doesn't reflect what is in the Bible is to say that a book on Geology is wrong because it's not referenced in a sociology book. How do we know god only told us what he thought pertinent to us and considered anything beyond that as immaterial to our own personal journey.

Science is not the enemy of theology. Those who are so arrogant that they instantly reject anything because it doesn't reflect their understanding of history are. History is replete with ideals that have been thought solid as stone and have since been debunked. God would have never given us curiosity if he didn't want us to use it and the Church has never had a good track record when it comes to anything that would jeopardize their credibility.

 

[AV1611VET]

Can anyone really state what configuration man was when he was created.

Yes:

1. body
2. soul
3. spirit
4. image of God
5. likeness of God

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

Yes:

1. body
2. soul
3. spirit
4. image of God
5. likeness of God

I'm speaking about the physical configuration of what was originally created. The image and the likeness could mean anything and the rest of that is an essense that even today doesn't manifest itself until personal cognizance has been achieved.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm speaking about the physical configuration of what was originally created.

I'm not sure what you're asking then.

If you want the physical configuration of what was created, look in the mirror.

Unless you're missing some OEM's, that's what we looked like when we were created.

 

[Loudmouth]

Chicago museum has a real T-Rex fossil(Sue the T-Rex). Wanna guess how many real missing link fossils that museum has? Zero Nada

The Smithsonian has a nice digital collection of the real found links if you are actually interested in the evidence.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/3d-collection/fossil

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

I'm not sure what you're asking then.

If you want the physical configuration of what was created, look in the mirror.

Unless you're missing some OEM's, that's what we looked like when we were created.

oem's?

 

[AV1611VET]

oem's?

Yes.

An arm, a leg, a kidney -- whatever.

In other words, if you look in the mirror, unless your missing an arm or an eye or a tooth or something, that's what Adam looked like.

 

[Oafman]

Yes.

An arm, a leg, a kidney -- whatever.

In other words, if you look in the mirror, unless your missing an arm or an eye or a tooth or something, that's what Adam looked like.

How about if I have a full complement of ribs?

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

Yes.

An arm, a leg, a kidney -- whatever.

In other words, if you look in the mirror, unless your missing an arm or an eye or a tooth or something, that's what Adam looked like.

Yes, but how do you know Adam actually looked like that when he was created.?

 

[AV1611VET]

How about if I have a full complement of ribs?

How 'bout it?

So did Adam, before God removed one.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, but how do you know Adam actually looked like that when he was created.?

2 Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

I assume Jesus Christ looked like a man with two arms and two legs.

Thus nothing appears to have changed since Adam was created.