Dinosaurs after the flood

[rkonfire]

Dragons are very rare in the first place nowadays, but there is sightings of "monsters" still alive today. For example, if I were you, I would read up on the Lochness Monster, Ogopogo, and Muambi (sp?). There are more but I can't think of their names at the moment. In fact, just a couple years ago, here in Alaska, an overly large sized "bird", as it was referred to in the newspaper, was claimed by more than one eye witness person as some type of dinosaur, not a bird.

However, I've got some questions for you.
-Did you come from a rock?
-Have we witnessed, or can prove, that a dog can produce a non-dog?
-Are all the planets spinning in the same direction?
-Does disorder produce order? Karl Marx?

Truth is, if you think evolution hasn't been falsified, you are dreaming. And if you don't think you're dreaming and still stand firm unto your beliefs, take it to the next step. Go to Kent Hovind's site and collect your $250,000. On top of that, answering my questions would help your cause, as well.

 

[AlaskanDan]

No physical evidence has been carried out of the jungle, there is such little contact in those jungles, that stories only come out by the word of mouth, i suggest you try to answer rk's questions before you think that evolution is sheer fact.

 

[notto]

Dragons are very rare in the first place nowadays, but there is sightings of "monsters" still alive today. For example, if I were you, I would read up on the Lochness Monster, Ogopogo, and Muambi (sp?). There are more but I can't think of their names at the moment. In fact, just a couple years ago, here in Alaska, an overly large sized "bird", as it was referred to in the newspaper, was claimed by more than one eye witness person as some type of dinosaur, not a bird.

However, I've got some questions for you.
-Did you come from a rock?
-Have we witnessed, or can prove, that a dog can produce a non-dog?
-Are all the planets spinning in the same direction?
-Does disorder produce order? Karl Marx?

Truth is, if you think evolution hasn't been falsified, you are dreaming. And if you don't think you're dreaming and still stand firm unto your beliefs, take it to the next step. Go to Kent Hovind's site and collect your $250,000. On top of that, answering my questions would help your cause, as well.

No
Evolution does not say that a dog will produce a non-dog. Where do you think dogs came from?
No
Yes

What do any of these questions have to do with evolution or biology?

 

[notto]

No physical evidence has been carried out of the jungle, there is such little contact in those jungles, that stories only come out by the word of mouth, i suggest you try to answer rk's questions before you think that evolution is sheer fact.

Do you accept their stories about their Gods or their other mythology as fact? Why or why not?

 

[AlaskanDan]

evolution is the gradual change from one indidual to a different individual of a different species...therefor a dog should be able produce a non-dog. For the plantes question, look at some physics, you will understand. And for the rock...well that is just spontaneous generation How do you explain instincts? Anyways, its my bed time. Have fun. Go for the $250,000!!!

 

[rkonfire]

Notto, evolution states that you came from a rock. That a dog and the banana are linked because of this explosion. Apparently, you don't know what you believe. Disorder creates order, lol! I bet your bed made itself this morning. I bet your house made itself one day. If this "disorder to order" is scientific, then you should be able to explain my last two sentences. Heck, if it were true then you should be able to explain my last three sentences. Notto, you can believe what you want, that's perfectly fine. However, to call the Evolution Theory "unfalsifiable" and scientific is someone who's brainwashed, or someone who is "willingly ignorant."

 

[seangoh]

But due to their abnormally small nostrils, and the lack of oxygen for their small nostrils and small lungs, they eventually couldnt handle the environment after the flood.

I've watched kent hovind's seminars online regarding the dinosaurs already. I don't remember him saying they had small nostrils and as a result they couldn't adapt to the environment.
Anyway i found his seminars interesting in terms of the content but i just can't stand his arrogance sometimes. ....but that's not going to stop me watching it..like he said..we gotta eat the meat and spit out the bones.

 

[notto]

Notto, evolution states that you came from a rock. That a dog and the banana are linked because of this explosion. Apparently, you don't know what you believe. Disorder creates order, lol! I bet your bed made itself this morning. I bet your house made itself one day. If this "disorder to order" is scientific, then you should be able to explain my last two sentences. Heck, if it were true then you should be able to explain my last three sentences. Notto, you can believe what you want, that's perfectly fine. However, to call the Evolution Theory "unfalsifiable" and scientific is someone who's brainwashed, or someone who is "willingly ignorant."

Evolution is certainly falsifiable, I never said it wasn't. It has not been falsified yet even with many attemps over 200 years.

What explosion are you talking about? Where does evolution say I came from a rock? You know little about science and are truley willifully ignorant with regards to these issues.

A strawman will not overthrow the theory of evolution. Only science will do that. Your statements contain no real science.

Does a snowflake show order? Why or why not?

How about a water molecule? Why or why not?

Can you show me specifically where evolution says we come from a rock? What source? What biologist wrote it? Was it peer reviewed and published?

You need to back away from Hovind. His is filling you up with misinformation, lies, and propoganda.

You as well are free to believe whatever you want. Just don't suggest that science backs it up. It doesn't.

Where did dogs come from? Are they related to wolves? How about foxes and coyotes? Were they all on the ark as one kind or were they each brought on on their own? (Careful with the answer unless you know the Chromosome count of each).

 

[lucaspa]

God only sent to the ark the animals that He wanted saved. Dinosaurs were not made by God so He didn't need to put them in the ark. Besides, I thought the dinosaurs were extinct by the time Adam & Eve were created. God destroyed them in the ice age.

What Ice Age before Adam and Eve were created? According to literalists, Adam and Eve were created on day 6. Where was there time for an Ice Age?

You didn't read the Genesis passage carefully, did you?
"In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah’s wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark; 14They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort. 15And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life. " Gen 5:13-15

Dinos were beasts, and it says "every beast". Are you saying the Bible is lying here?

 

[lucaspa]

Notto, evolution states that you came from a rock.

No, it doesn't. Not even with the fallacy of including abiogenesis with evolution does anyone say we came from a rock.

That a dog and the banana are linked because of this explosion.

What explosion? Dogs and bananas share a common ancestor. WAY, WAY back in history.

Disorder creates order, lol! I bet your bed made itself this morning. I bet your house made itself one day. If this "disorder to order" is scientific, then you should be able to explain my last two sentences.

OK, I will. You eat food, right? That food is turned into energy. But only some of the energy is used to clean your room or build a house. The rest comes off as heat. If you either clean or build long enough or fast enough, you will sweat trying to get rid of the excess heat. Right? Well, that heat is disordered. Very disordered. The disorder of the heat you give off is greater than the order you get from cleaning your room or building your house. So, if we look at you, the waste heat, and the room, the total amount of disorder has increased. The increase in order in the cleaned room is the result of more disorder in the waste heat you gave off.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that the entropy (what you mistakenly call "disorder") of a system and its surroundings will increase. However, as long as the increase in entropy in the surroundings is greater than the decrease in entropy of the system, SLOT is not violated.

However, to call the Evolution Theory "unfalsifiable" and scientific is someone who's brainwashed, or someone who is "willingly ignorant."

Evolution is falsifiable. As Notto says, it just hasn't been falsified despite all our efforts to do so. It is scientific because it can be tested against the physical universe.

Evolution is not atheism. It does not deny the existence of God. It's simply that God created by evolution.

 

[notto]

evolution is the gradual change from one indidual to a different individual of a different species

This is not the correct definition of evolution and whoever you got it from is either ignorant or misleading you.

Populations evolve, not individuals. Evolution never says that a dog will produce anything other than a slightly different dog.

Over time, these differences can lead to speciation if the population is separated, divided, or acted on by environmental pressure.

AlaskanDan, you have been presenting a mixed batch of incorrect information, falshoods that you picked up somewhere, outdated information, etc. I would encourage you to either ask questions about something if you need more information or read up on the topics before you discuss them (preferrably from more than one source so you can cross check the information). We can't really have a decent discussion if most of the time is spent correcting the bad information you try to use to make points in the discussion.

So far off the top of my head:
1) The rate of slowdown of the earth you gave was incorrect
2) The comment about mammoth c14 dating was false
3) The incorrect (and a misunderstanding) of what evolution actually says (you are using a strawman that does NOT relate to the what is actually studied in biology)

You might take this as an indication that you need to scrutinize your sources a little bit and try to verify some of the information.

You apply heavy scrutiny to mainstream science yet you seem to be accepting your sources word on it, even when it has been shown that wherever you are getting your information from is misleading you.

 

[lucaspa]

evolution is the gradual change from one indidual to a different individual of a different species.

Just a little bit of thought should show you this is wrong. An individual is born, lives, and dies. It remains a member of that species all its life.

What evolution says is that the population (of individuals) changes over the course of generations until that population is different from the original.

therefor a dog should be able produce a non-dog.

It's happened. Our language hasn't caught up to the change yet. However, the genetics indicates that "dogs" are not one species, but four.
3. C Vila` , P Savolainen, JE. Maldonado, IR. Amorim, JE. Rice, RL. Honeycutt, KA. Crandall, JLundeberg, RK. Wayne, Multiple and Ancient Origins of the Domestic Dog Science 276: 1687-1689, 13 JUNE 1997. Dogs no longer one species but 4 according to the genetics. http://www.idir.net/~wolf2dog/wayne1.htm

well that is just spontaneous generation

No, it's not. Spontaneous generation stated that complex organisms came from decaying food or plant material.
But for getting life from non-life, start here and we can discuss it in more detail:
http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/
http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html

How do you explain instincts?

Natural selection. Behavior has genetic components. Anything with a genetic component can be designed by natural selection.

Go for the $250,000!!!

Hovind stacked the deck and defined evolution as atheism.
1. Evolution isn't atheism.
2. Atheism can't be proved. (as opposed to evolution, which can be)

Therefore Hovind rigged the game to make sure his money is safe.

 

[AlaskanDan]

Ah, try for the money anyways...but seriously...if you have a group of dogs...like a species, and you keep going through the generations, and such. They will eventually have more chromosomes, is our goal to have as many chromosomes as possible...i just dont understand how a population can have a change, does all the population, or just a few? I just cant seem to grasp the actualy concept of a species changing.

 

[notto]

Ah, try for the money anyways...but seriously...if you have a group of dogs...like a species, and you keep going through the generations, and such. They will eventually have more chromosomes, is our goal to have as many chromosomes as possible...i just dont understand how a population can have a change, does all the population, or just a few? I just cant seem to grasp the actualy concept of a species changing.

Evolution is about populations.

In every population, there are variations, just look around.

For example, in a population of horses, some will have a wider toe spread than others (due to natural mutations and combinations that occur).

If the horses who have a wider foot spread are better and outrunning predators, more horses with a wider foot spread will survive to breed.

Assuming that the mutation that causes a wider foot spread is genetic, they will pass it on to their offspring.

Overtime, more horses with the wider footspread will be born, and over time, the entire population of horses will have the wider footspread.

A good example of this type of evolution in action is currenty occuring within elephant populations.

Due to a mutation, some elephants are born without tusks.

Currently there is selection happening in the elephant populations, hunters are killing elephants with tusks.

Therefore, more tuskless elephants are living long enough to breed and to pass this trait on to their kin.

Overtime, the ratio of tuskless elephants in the population is increasing.

Overtime, if the selective pressure continues (poaching), and the trait is genetic and dominant in mating, the entire population could end up tuskless because not enough tusked elephants are breeding.

Repeat these type of mutation/selection events over and over, and a population evolves. This is what we find in the fossil record. Populations changing over time.

This is evolution.

http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/fossil_groups.html

As for chromosomes, they can increase or decrease. Humans have one fewer pair of chromosomes then the other apes but they have one pair that looks suspiciously like a fused pair in the apes (which is evidence of common decent).

Plant hybrids often increase (or decrease) chromosome number.

There is no 'goal' to evolution and chromosome number doesn't tell us much accept that the chromosomes themselves can be compaired and common traits can be found. This data often matches with the hierarchy we see over time in the fossil record.

 

[AlaskanDan]

I see what youa re saying, but the wider spread just produces horses with wider spreads, then another trait is passed on, so forth. But for a trait like that, there should be all kinds of animanl inbetween the other, shoulding there...like... (just using for an example, i dont believe this is true) like, a horse-like animal...say it was the "common ancestor" for the horses/zebra, etc. and the giraffe, wouldnt there be an intermediate giraffe found? and wouldnt there be a lot more funky animals? Wouldnt there be many more intermediate fossils found? They have found plenty of dinosaurs, what about dino-dogs? Once again, I still just cant grasp the concept of one species transforming because it would seem that there would be a lot more transition fossils in there.

 

[notto]

I see what youa re saying, but the wider spread just produces horses with wider spreads, then another trait is passed on, so forth. But for a trait like that, there should be all kinds of animanl inbetween the other, shoulding there...like... (just using for an example, i dont believe this is true) like, a horse-like animal...say it was the "common ancestor" for the horses/zebra, etc. and the giraffe, wouldnt there be an intermediate giraffe found? and wouldnt there be a lot more funky animals? Wouldnt there be many more intermediate fossils found? They have found plenty of dinosaurs, what about dino-dogs? Once again, I still just cant grasp the concept of one species transforming because it would seem that there would be a lot more transition fossils in there.

Fossilization is a rare event. You can't expect every single step to be recorded. Also, these type of events can happen quickly. For instance, in the elephant example I gave you, the tuskless elephant could happen in as a few thousand years if the selection continues. There would be few fossils formed from animals during that time.

What the fossil record does show us is a few snapshots on the way over long spans of time. This is all we can expect because of the nature of fossilization and the record.

We have found transitional such as that between bird-dino, suggesting that the transition took a bit of time and was a slow one.

Would you consider a three toed animal the size of a large dog a 'horse'? If not, then you have seen evidence of one animal transforming into another type of animal in the fossil record.

 

[AlaskanDan]

maybe a pony? i dont know...but like you said about the elephants, the elephant is still an elephant, there is natural selection at work, i agree, but there isnt a new kind of animal that is real similar to an elephant

 

[notto]

maybe a pony? i dont know...but like you said about the elephants, the elephant is still an elephant, there is natural selection at work, i agree, but there isnt a new kind of animal that is real similar to an elephant

Define 'elephant'.

Define 'horse'.

These are just our names for what we see now, they have no bearing on evolution. We can always say that an 'elephant is still and elephant'.

What if selection comes along that favors an elephant with a smaller trunk and over time the trunk (and the tusks) disappear. Would you still consider it an 'elephant'?

If we found one of the ancestors of our current one-toed horse alive today (with its three toes), we would not consider it a horse, it would be a new kind of animal that is really similar to a 'horse'. Why do you consider a 'pony' a 'horse'? Why isn't it a 'new kind of animal really similar to a horse'?

If we found one of the feathed dinosaurs alive today (that could not fly and that had TEETH), would we consider it a 'bird' simply because it had feathers?

The idea of 'kinds' has no bearing in discussion of evolution because it can't be defined in such a way that we can say what is one kind and what is another and then test it.

All animals, both over time, and alive today, show variation and graduation between species.

Speciation has been observed (and, as has been shown here, there may even already be 4 separate species of 'dogs')

 

[AlaskanDan]

The real question remains, say the elephant looses its tusk...adaptation. But...it still has the same number of chromosomes in every cell...where does that change? I see where you are getting at...but...that 3 toed "horse ancestor", it went extinct...obviously, maybe it walked with the dinosaurs and was an animal that had no bearing on today...just an animal that didnt fit. How could you analyze the similarities of that horse-like animal w/o being able to use dna and chromosome count?

 

[notto]

The real question remains, say the elephant looses its tusk...adaptation. But...it still has the same number of chromosomes in every cell...where does that change? I see where you are getting at...but...that 3 toed "horse ancestor", it went extinct...obviously, maybe it walked with the dinosaurs and was an animal that had no bearing on today...just an animal that didnt fit. How could you analyze the similarities of that horse-like animal w/o being able to use dna and chromosome count?

I'm not really sure what you are asking here.

Horse, zebras, and donkeys all have different chromosome counts today. We can look at the fossil record, and their current genetics and put together two separate histories, that coincidentally, match fairly well with each other and with what evolution would predict.

The 3 toed ancestor did go extinct but the population it came from did not, it evolved into what we call horses today.

Just like the feathered dinosaurs we find went extinct, but their population did not and most likely evolved into what we call 'birds' today.

I mentioned the ape/human chromosome comparison earlier. This is strong evidence that apes and humans share a common anscestor and that at some point the chromosome numbers changed due to fusion. This is one piece of evidence that supports a common ancestor and it fits well with 2 other pieces of evidence - retrovirial insertions (common mutations across species) and the fossil record of skulls we can find when arranged by age.

Skull comparison of human ancestors
http://www.evcforum.net/RefLib/EvidencesMacroevolution1.html

Human/Ape Chromosome comparison
http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/Human_Ape_chromosomes.htm