Dinosaurs after the flood

[AirPo]

Who are you talking to?

If you are talking to me, all I'm doing is asking you to put your money where your mouth is so-to-speak.

Oh give him a break. At least he was respecting his elder, (he called you sir.)

 

[Meatros]

Oh give him a break. At least he was respecting his elder, (he called you sir.)

Oh dear...I can't believe I'm an elder now...Time certainly does fly....


Can someone fetch my walking stick?

 

[Phred]

I would but the dinosaur... err... dragon ate it.

 

[ifriit]

Would do we know that? I mean, with the exception of some animals, most male reproductive organs are made up only of soft tissues.

I agree with the euphemism translation, what with the tail and the stones with wrapped sinews seem to suggest something.

Hm, good point. According to what I've been able to find (primarily here), it appears the dinosaurs likely did have penises, though they were probably concealed until copulation, but their gonads were most likely completely concealed.

So it seems that my initial statement was incorrect, but it is highly unlikely that the description in Job could be of dinosaurian genitalia.

 

[Sheseala]

Heh, I found that same link after I posted.

 

[KleinerApfel]

Jet Black, you asked about therapsids.
The therapsids shared some characteristics with mammals and some with reptiles. For evolution between these to be shown, we need to see them at either end of the process, (from reptile to mammal or vice-versa), with gradual alterations occuring all the way through. Any alteration must confer benefit to the existing creature, or at least not reduce the effectiveness of existing features, to protect the creature and enable it to pass traits on to offspring. Any detrimental changes, or only part-formed changes, may prove fatal and prevent further generations inheriting them. This has not been observed.
All that we have is a variety of well designed animals showing no need for changes anyway.

 

[Kellentia]

I think this site would interest you alot.

http://christiananswers.net//dinosaurs/home.html

it says everything

 

[Jet Black]

that is a joke, right?

 

[Jet Black]

For evolution between these to be shown, we need to see them at either end of the process, (from reptile to mammal or vice-versa), with gradual alterations occuring all the way through.

and we do.

Any alteration must confer benefit to the existing creature, or at least not reduce the effectiveness of existing features, to protect the creature and enable it to pass traits on to offspring.

and they did

This has not been observed.

it has.

All that we have is a variety of well designed animals showing no need for changes anyway.

nothing "needs" to change. however those at the fitter end of their spectrum will survive, and the weaker ones die off. so there is change if there is selective pressure. (the selective pressure can effectively be between members of the same group too)

 

[KleinerApfel]

Ishmael Borg wrote:
"Both of your examples are incorrect. Modern coelocanths and crocodiles are not even of the same species as the fossil specimens from millions of years ago. Evolution has occurred in both examples to arrive at the modern species."

Having done a little further investigation, it appears my opinion is upheld scientifically. Crocodiles and coelocanths living today are representatives of their respective fossil cousins. Changes are within their species, not one thing becoming another, so no problem to creation science.

 

[Jet Black]

one thing becoming another? are you saying that speciation does not occur?

 

[KleinerApfel]

Jet Black, I disagree - the changes you imply have not been proven. Changes within species are minimal compared to those claimed for the progression of simple creatures to more complex. Where does the new information for that come from? You can only modify what is aready present, either overtly or hidden as in recessive genes. We only need to look at all the breeds of dog with their great variety in size, shape etc. to see that varity within a kind has taken place, and still does. But they're still dogs, and they will never become anything in future but more dogs.

 

[MartinM]

Having done a little further investigation, it appears my opinion is upheld scientifically. Crocodiles and coelocanths living today are representatives of their respective fossil cousins. Changes are within their species, not one thing becoming another, so no problem to creation science.

Totally false. Neither of the two living Coelacanth species are found anywhere in the fossil record, nor any member of their genus, nor of their family. The Coelacanths found in the fossil record are of the same suborder - that's as close as it gets.

And incidentally, if as you suggest speciation is a problem to creation science, then creation science is in serious trouble, since speciation is frequentl observed and well documented.

 

[MartinM]

Where does the new information for that come from? You can only modify what is aready present, either overtly or hidden as in recessive genes

Take an information set {A}. Duplicate it to get A+A. Modify one set to get A+B. Voila, new information through modification.

 

[KleinerApfel]

MartinM - it's still a fish then, and a coelocanth at that. Hasn't become a different animal altogether. I admit I'm unsure what a species is and what a genus is etc., but you get the idea - dogs breed more dogs, which may differ somewhat from each other, coelocanths breed more coelocanths, not salmon or pike.
Modification implies something being there first. You can't just invent all the information required for new features to develop. We do see mutation, but this is loss or distortion, not brand new information, and gives all sorts of problema and disease, not improvement. Beneficial adaptations are present in previous populations in latent form.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Jet Black, you asked about therapsids.
The therapsids shared some characteristics with mammals and some with reptiles. For evolution between these to be shown, we need to see them at either end of the process, (from reptile to mammal or vice-versa), with gradual alterations occuring all the way through. Any alteration must confer benefit to the existing creature, or at least not reduce the effectiveness of existing features, to protect the creature and enable it to pass traits on to offspring. Any detrimental changes, or only part-formed changes, may prove fatal and prevent further generations inheriting them. This has not been observed.
All that we have is a variety of well designed animals showing no need for changes anyway.

I guess the Therapsids were "designed" to convince paleontologists that they were an evolutionary link between mammals and reptiles. They were also careful to get themselves buried by the flood only in layers that we identify as Permian and Triassic to make the illusion more convincing and then they went extinct immediately after comming off the ark. I guess they weren't so well designed after all.

Last year I visited the Berlin Museum of Natural History (to see the famous Berlin Specimen of Archaeopteryx) and also saw some Therapsid fossils that were from animals that must have been designed for just this deceptive purpose. They sure looked like an evolutionary links between reptiles and mammals to me. I wonder why the designer did that?

Here is bit on Therapsids by Lenny Flank.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/therapsd.htm

The frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Ishmael Borg]

Ishmael Borg wrote:
"Both of your examples are incorrect. Modern coelocanths and crocodiles are not even of the same species as the fossil specimens from millions of years ago. Evolution has occurred in both examples to arrive at the modern species."

Having done a little further investigation, it appears my opinion is upheld scientifically. Crocodiles and coelocanths living today are representatives of their respective fossil cousins. Changes are within their species, not one thing becoming another, so no problem to creation science.

You are wrong. Your opinion is just that, an opinion... a wrong opinion. Nothing "upholds" it scientifically, or otherwise.

Your ideas about species are wrong too. Do some more investigation. Try to research the conclusions of experts in the fields you pretend to know something about. You won't find them at AIG, or CSE, or IRC, etc., so save yourself some time, and don't bother looking there.

 

[Jet Black]

MartinM - it's still a fish then, and a coelocanth at that. Hasn't become a different animal altogether. I admit I'm unsure what a species is and what a genus is etc., but you get the idea - dogs breed more dogs, which may differ somewhat from each other, coelocanths breed more coelocanths, not salmon or pike.

But when is a fish not a fish? Remember that evolutionary changes are gradual, evolutionists are not saltationists, we don't expect fish to give birth to rats or anything silly like that. You mention Dogs breeding dogs, but there is a whole lineage of fossils leading back from dogs, right through to primitive carnivores such as the mesonyx. Many many species which are increasingly canine, though perhaps with their own perculiar adaptations to their lifetimes. Dogs give birth to things with derived characters from Dogs, just as all organisms do and have done. We see increasing derivation of characters through the fossil record leading to modern day animals.

Modification implies something being there first. You can't just invent all the information required for new features to develop. We do see mutation, but this is loss or distortion, not brand new information, and gives all sorts of problema and disease, not improvement. Beneficial adaptations are present in previous populations in latent form.

right, and what is there? embryological development! small changes in embryological development can lead to much more significant changes later on. One prime example of this is neogeny, in which foetal charateristics are retained in the adult. Humans are a prime example of this, we have several neogenic traits that exist in ape foetuses, such as the orientation of our spine leading into skull, limb ratios and so on.

Onto loss: the vast majority ofbeneficial mutations do not involve loss. They involve extra layers of instructions leading to a change. The much publicised "flzy losing it's wings" or "whale losing it's legs" are prime examples of this, in which extra genes interfere with the growth of a feature.

Finally: what is information? Remember that genes code for proteins, which interact with other proteins and chemicals within the cell, or perhaps on the cell wall. All information is in a biological sense, is realated to this. an increase in information can only really be seen as an increase in the number of genes, or the number of alleles of a gene, and both of these can and have been seen in a variety of organisms. We have watched the emergence of entirely novel metabolic pathways, which are entirely detrimental to an organism outside the new environment that it has found itself in. These are prime examples of information increase - since the total sum of genes for that species has increased.

 

[ottoguitar]

Of course you can't actually see evolution happening. It is a very long process, compared to which the entire existence of man is but a blink of an eye.

As to evolution currently occurring, without an end result it would not be obvious anyhow. Everything is constantly evolving, the pace is simply not percieved over a timespan of thousands of years.

If you want to see something that appears to be in a transitional state of evolution, see the ceolacanth.

Well, you can see evolution happening, just not in the sense of macro-evolution. Micro-evolution on the other hand is readily observable. These tiny little evolutionary steps, over the course of a long period of time, would add up to macro-evolution, no?

 

[True_Blue]

You guys seem pretty far off topic, though to respond to the point of penises (funny!), the book of Job describes tails like "cedar trees." The only animal in history with any body part like a cedar tree (INCLUDING PENISES!!) is an apatosaurus-like dinosaur. And me, of course!

But to answer the original question about what happened to the dinosaurs after the Flood, it might have been a number of things. First, there were only a few of them to start off with. Then they would have had to survive an ice age or two with all the volcanic ash in the air from the post-flood geologic disturbances. Then they would have had to find enough vegetation to feed an enormous appetite, and I don't think the post-flood environment was too conducive for that. Then they would have had to survive hunting expeditions. Perhaps Nimrod, who was a "great hunter," hunted dinosaurs. Yep, don't think dinosaurs had much of a chance.