Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I'll bet you'd respect gravity if you went parachuting, wouldn't you?Faith deserves no respect - people deserve respect, and that should be earned.
And the paper I linked to shows you why the Y chromosome is different.
Here's a hint - why do you think it is called 'Y' as opposed to 'X'?
But humans have a non-functional gene, and so are unable to synthesis vitamin c using L-gulonolactone oxidase - but the remnant of the gene is still there,
Why?
So, a question mark has been raised over bird evolution due to new evidence. What to do?
Shall we throw away the baby with the bathwater?
This is how science works, a theory must explain all the facts.
If it doesn't, then the theory needs to be modified or replaced.
As new facts are uncovered, the theory will be checked again and again.
Personally, I wouldn't get too excited.
I would wait and see what happens.
Faith deserves no respect - people deserve respect, and that should be earned.
And the paper I linked to shows you why the Y chromosome is different.
Here's a hint - why do you think it is called 'Y' as opposed to 'X'?
But humans have a non-functional gene, and so are unable to synthesis vitamin c using L-gulonolactone oxidase - but the remnant of the gene is still there,
Why?
So, when science comes up with a result you don't like, it is because they fiddled the maths.
That is a real argument, isn't it?
But not all of it is research.
Most of it is opinion.
(Hint - research gets published for other scientists and interested parties to read, not posted on a personal website)
It doesn't support you at all.
Chimp and human genomes are 96% alike.
Yes, there are differences.
If there were no differences, then we would no tbe seperated by six million years from our last comon ancestor with chimps.
I don't know if you posted one earlier, but do you have a link to this 212 million year old bird footprint?
How have you discounted that it was a type of theropod dinosaur, which were present on this planet at that time?
And a human most closely resembles a chimpanzee - your point is?
Indohyus and mouse deer are both Artiodactyles....
there is also a major point you have missed - indohyus is extinct, and mouse deers "which are so alike" are not.
You have failed to address why this 'ancient mouse-deer' has the inner ear and bones density more like that of a cetacean than any other known line of animals - unlike the modern mouse-deer.
You have also failed to address the point I raised abut timescales- pinnipeds and cetaceans evolved at different times and in different parts of the world.
If A. natans is a seal ancestor, it is hopelesly anachronistic.
so you were wrong about bird evolution? I just want to hear it from your mouth.
Hi gradyll..
Yes their previous pradigm for bird evolution ....WAS WRONG....
Nails will call it something else. However, the fact is the previous theory of bird evolution is falsified and now they need a new one. This doesn't bother evos because they are very used to it. Evos call it science, unlike our description of supportive science which is meant to support the current paradigm rather than change it in knee jerk fashion.
I'd say new data supports the evolution of the theory of evolution, a theory in evolution itself, rather than supporting it.
Furthermore to that modern bird footprints have been found dated to 212mya...
i won't check your links, I will beieve you (cos a Christian would never lie, right?).
but the point is they didn't know it was wrong until you (creationist source) told them. That was the point I was making. So they should fess up and admit fault and move on. Easy right? Not.
I wouldn't do that if I were you.
The footprints are not "modern bird" as she claims. And it's hilarious watching Creationists try and use science.
- They reject the dating of 212 mya because they think the earth is only 6 kyo, but want to use the dating to support them.
- They claim nothing can be determined from fossilized bodies, and yet in this instance want to use trace fossils to make a definative statement that overturns evolution.
- They cite papers like this one, and a review of subsequent papers shows the classification of these footprints is still far from certain, which would result in a change in understanding how birds evolved and try to claim it would falsify bird evolution and evolution as a whole.
Here's some germane comments from a New Scientist news article:
Nonetheless, Melchor cautiously avoids saying birds made the prints. "These bird-like footprints can only be attributed to an unknown group of theropods showing some avian characteristics," he writes in the journal Nature.Even the paper's author, shortly after publication 10 years ago, wasn't claiming these are "modern bird footprints" nor claiming that they definatively were produced by "modern bird{s}".
Other bird specialists are intrigued but cautious, warning its hard to match footprints to their makers.
"I think it is pretty interesting but you can't necessarily assume that those are bird footprints," Luis Chiappe, curator of vertebrate paleontology at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, told New Scientist.
How ironic!
Ask Astrid the story behind this photo:
You are a champion of never supporting your view and can only ask more and more questions.
Creationists are well aware of these silly games you evos play. You do understand don't you, that I do not have to have the answers to every question anymore than you evos do.
You obvously cannot deal with the evidence and comparisons I have given so far because you do not refute me, you just keep asking more questions. Are you hoping that finally you may score a point?
Do you disagree with your evo researcher in suggesting indohyus looks like a mouse deer?
Well lets see what you want to know now. The good old involucrum. I'd say there are 2 possibilities in relation to the involucrum and a mouse deer ancestor or variation.
One would be that Indohyus was found in pieces and reseachers agree that Indohyus is a mosaic of possibly several species washed together. Therefore this fossil middle ear may not belong to indohyus at all. The fossil is not credible.
Secondly, perhaps the mouse deer ancestors were even more aquatic than today.
I support the first.
I am not the only person to alledge your comparisons are a sham. Many evo scientists also do not agree because DNA contradicts morphology.eg Kenneth Rose a professor of functional anatomy. Of course you evos can play with algorithms and get the results you want with a little tweaking and ignorance. Some budding head line seeking evo researcher will invent some algorithm to make the reqyured link, so don't worry too much.
In "The Scientific American", entitled "Closest Whale Cousin—A Fox-Size Deer?" I read that the actual evidentiary fossil was discovered 30 years ago in Kashmir, and was dated at least two million years younger than the earliest known cetacean fossils. Oops! The feature considered the link to cetaceans is “a thickened medial lip of its auditory bulla, the involucrum, a feature previously thought to be present exclusively in cetaceans.
Involucrum size varies among cetaceans, but the relative thickness of medial and lateral walls of the tympanic of Indohyus is clearly within the range of that of cetaceans and is well outside the range of other cetartiodactyls.” But through a thorough investigation of "involucrum", it is discovered that it can be formed in any creature through injury, disease, or at the time of death. In the real world of science, involucrum is defined as a sheath that covers or envelopes, especially one that forms around the sequestrum of new bone. A sequestrum being any fragment of bone or other dead tissue that has separated during necrosis, which is the localized death of cells or tissues through injury or disease.
So basically you evo have glued a bunch of bones together than could have been anything and unlikely to even be from the same species if intelligence is applied to the reasoning rather than desperation.
The story closes with this statement: "The new analysis does not yet unseat the hippo as cetaceans' kissing cousin, because it only takes into account anatomical features, not molecular ones, says Maureen O'Leary, a professor in the department of anatomical sciences at Stony Brook University on Long Island, N.Y. She says that her own categorization of artiodactyls supports the hippo as the closest relative to cetaceans, but notes that it did not include the features uncovered by the Ohio team."
More importantly Thewissen, himself sugggests that this mosaic is very similar to a mouse deer, but is a mosaic of creatures none the less. So again and for starters Indohyus reconstructions are not credible.
Secondly, there is more than one sort of indohyus, one with hooves and one with toes. Obviously something is very much amiss with this taxon much the same as many others where evos dump a host of totally different and unrelated species into one rank.
So evos are happy to hand wave away the incredible similarity of this mosaic to a mouse deer and hope that one or two pieces, that could belong to who knows what, poofs this little deer into an intermediate whale rather than a deer ancestor. That is my reply to you.
To me if something more closely resembles a deer then it most likely to be a variation of deer or deer ancestor. However, common sense has no place in evolutionary theory. As with the huge variations we see in seals, dogs and many species this creature is most similar to a little mouse deer.
I do not need intermediates. You do. I am therefore free to use the skill of observation rather than implore straw grabbing, desperation and wishful thinking to base my theoretical assertions on.
How ironic!
Ask Astrid the story behind this photo:
That's a laugh. We "evos" actually research and analyse what's going on, and critique claims. Let's see how good you are at critiquing a rebuttal.
Oh, and by the way, have you any answer for the rebuttal of Sanford's simulations?
More bluster. Fortunately after quite a bit of unsupported blustering in this post, you do eventually get to the point.
Two small species of artiodactyl skeleton viewed from a distance look similar. This is what we would expect from evolution. It doesn't argue against it. But look at the tail, it's significantly different. So we have two species of artiodactyl which have some similarities, but some differences. And this argues against evolution ..... how?
This is what I mean concerning the logic of your posts. You don't actually specify the logic by which your links and evidence are supposed to support your argument.
Which researchers? Do you have references or links? Here's a news report o a "treasure trove" of complete Indohyus fossils being found. BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Whale 'missing link' discovered
It's good that you've made a point here. Though, when I researched your claim, it appears to be false. There are complete Indohyus fossils. That's the normal to-ing and fro-ing of academic argument. Now, do you have evidence that these complete Indohyus fossils .... aren't?
Yes, occasionally DNA contradicts morphology. And evidence such as DNA sequencing allows us to refine and improve our DNA trees. That's how science works - as new evidence comes in, we can improve our theories. You consistently claim that this means that there is something "wrong" with science, but can you explain why refinement of theories counts against science when it's actually a vitally important part of what makes science as accurate as it is.
Indohyus dates from about 48 million years ago. The pakicetids were around about 53 million years ago. There is no "oops" here, because people aren't claiming that Indohyus was a direct ancestor of the whales. Look at the title of your reference, it says "Closest whale cousin". What does "cousin" mean? This is what I find so amazing about your posts, you post links where it is immediately obvious that your links and evidence don't support your argument. You haven't even stopped to think about what "cousin" means before claiming "oops".
Your own reference describes Indohyus as a "sister group" to whales. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v450/n7173/full/nature06343.html Do you know what "sister group" means? It doesn't mean that anyone is claiming that Indohyus is an ancestor of whales, but is a descendent from a common ancestor of both Indohyus and whales. No "oops", but still Indohyus gives us clues about what that common ancestor would be like.
What it means is that Indohyus is a common descendent of the creatures that evolved into whales. And like looking at modern amphibians gives us clues about how water living fish evolved into land living reptiles, and also how currently living lancelets give clues as to how invertebrates evolved into vertebrates, Indohyus gives us clues about how the whales arose from land animals. That species and the fossils found aren't the ancestors of whales, because whales existed by that time. But nobody is claiming that they evolved into whales. So you are trying to create a "mistake" where absolutely none was made.
The Scientific American article that you reference is very short, and gives few details. I can't access the Nature article in the weekend, but reports on it call the skeleton "exceptionally complete". Do you have links or evidence that this skeleton was a hodge-podge, possibly of different species? You claim it, but where is the evidence?
yes, but this is much less of a problem if you actually have a "treasure trove" of complete Indohyus skeletons. Which we have. Then we can look to see if the morphology is consistent across different individuals, or not.
Later on you say:
Erm, no, we have a "treasure trove" of complete skeletons. For one species that gives us some clues about whale evolution, but is clearly not on the evolutionary path to whales.
Which no-one is disputing. So, why did you post a picture of Indohyus in your post? How does it argue against evolution? How does the hippo being whales closest living relative have relevance to you posting some pictures and noting that Indohyus skeletons look a bit like mouse deer skeletons?
You complain that I have "questions". But that's because you post fragments of argument, but don't actually post a proper argument. Therefore we need to ask questions to find out what on earth it is that you are actually thinking so that we can address the issue.
Personally, looking through your post, I think you have a very confused view of the modern theory of how whales evolved and the physical evidence for that theory. And because your own understanding is "a mess" you're claiming that the theory of whale evolution is a mess.
Actually we have a "treasure trove" of complete skeletons. And no-one is "waving away" the similarity to the mouse deer. Which is hardly incredible. Even from a distance such as in your photo, you can see that the tail and skull is quite different. A closer examination, as in the scientific literature, shows that there are quite a few whale-like characteristics. I.e. we've found an intermediate form between land-living ungulates and whales. And this argues against evolution ..... how?
Indohyus has some similarities to deer, and some similarities to whales. Common sense would suggest that it has some relation to both. Evolutionists do not suggest that all creatures are directly related to each other by ascent or descent. In fact most are "cousins".
You posted a very interesting intermediate which has some ungulate characteristics, and some whale characteristics, and some adaptations for aquatic habitat. Thank you for posting this interesting evidence that supports the theory of evolution.
Now can you explain why you post evidence in support of evolution, then intersperse anti-evolution blustering?
The story behind the photo is this.
I was demonstrating how all of Lucy's (afarensis) humanity is debated by several well credentialed evolutionary researchers. I was running into him "Lucy and all her humanity" is a figment of evos imagination, basically.
So I quoted Wiki which quoted Dawkins.
USincognito said he was Dawkins mate was given this book by Dawkins and that he should know what Dawkins said in it and posted a photo of him and Dawkins. I suggested that the photo may be fake because Wiki has no reason to lie but USincognito does.
USincognito had a shot at wiki and stated that Dawkins did not support Lucy being a chimp ancestor in his book An Ancestors Tale. He ran it into me me for weeks as my misrepresenting Dawkins, not knowing what I was saying and Wiki being wrong. He also posted a trophy for me, the picture above to show it is him and that I am always wrong.
Well, as the story goes, I got sick of it so I looked up a free copy of An Ancestors Tale. Low and behold, there it was where Dawkins did indeed support research that suggests Lucy is a chimpanzee ancestor; with no humanity in her, I might add. So USincognito had to suck it up.
Of course after this USincognito went into denial, had a little tanty, and put me on his ignore list.
Hence USincognito does not respond to me because I wooped him!
You would have to be aware of gravity, otherwise it could seriously lead to your downfall.....I'll bet you'd respect gravity if you went parachuting, wouldn't you?
I am a former soldier, and I don't respect the uniform - I respect the person in it.I'll bet you'd respect that uniform if you were in the service? or maybe not?
You might, I don't.As they say, you salute the uniform, not the person in it.
Everything in this post is a lie.
I might have you on ignore, but that doesn't mean I don't check when I think you're lying about me or others.
Hey AnotherAtheist and you evos. I have a question for you.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?