Punctuated Equilibrium

[ragarth]

no tests needed. anyways its snow here.
Fossilization just shows local areas suddenly overthrown in a big way.
No chaos is needed or desired. The flood pressure was fantastic. Not like a modern river. whole earth chunks were frozen in place.
The fossil record is as a creationist wants to find it. Whole areas frozen at once. I would add also before the flood there was different organization of fauna on earth. Not mingling like now.

You obviously have no clue what it is you're talking about, this is not at all what we see in the fossil record. The proof you cite for your claims is debunked by basic science class. Further, I offer you a chance to prove your claim, and you wave it off, this is a sign of a charlatan with no interest in real truth. Take a few real science classes at your local community college, learn the material, learn how science works, then make your claim.

This is the end of my discussion on the matter, I'm not in a mood right now to tolerate willful ignorance.

 

[Hespera]

RobertByers

no tests needed. anyways its snow here.
Fossilization just shows local areas suddenly overthrown in a big way.
No chaos is needed or desired. The flood pressure was fantastic. Not like a modern river. whole earth chunks were frozen in place.
The fossil record is as a creationist wants to find it. Whole areas frozen at once. I would add also before the flood there was different organization of fauna on earth. Not mingling like now
​

You obviously have no clue what it is you're talking about, this is not at all what we see in the fossil record. The proof you cite for your claims is debunked by basic science class. Further, I offer you a chance to prove your claim, and you wave it off, this is a sign of a charlatan with no interest in real truth. Take a few real science classes at your local community college, learn the material, learn how science works, then make your claim.

This is the end of my discussion on the matter, I'm not in a mood right now to tolerate willful ignorance.

This is like trying to have a debate about history with someone who
claims that Julius Caesar defeated Ho Chi Minh at the Alamo. Willful ignorance hardly begins to describe it.

As for classes though, they do have entrance requirements at even community colleges. Basic English, for example, is a requirement.
Anyway, what is the use if someone is going in with a hostile attitude that he is in the midst of liars and sinners

 

[Naraoia]

No. This p/tr line of yours is a error. its just different sorting actions during the great flood.. No clean above that line.
The k-t line is different. The fauna is the clue to its being the boundary. this because the mammal dominance is what we live in today.

Really.

Remember the map in the University of Bristol palaeofiles? (If you don't, click here) The one that shows localities that span the P/Tr boundary. You know, layer 1 is Permian, and layer 2 right on top of it is Triassic.

There is a globally consistent change of fauna over this boundary. And a massive one, too, with something like 95% of marine species disappearing (that's far more destruction than at the K/T), though I don't remember the number for land-dwelling creatures.

I beg you, explain what the "different sorting actions" would be that give the appearance of another mass extinction of completely different creatures from the ones that disappeared over the K/T boundary, replaced by completely different creatures from those that replaced the Late Cretaceous dinosaurs and ammonites and pterosaurs and all that.

Please tell me how the P/Tr boundary is not a "real" line.

I don't know why I'm arguing with you any more. You seem to either (1) not understand what people write or (2) just ignore it.

I kind of hope it's (1). At least that's an excuse.

 

[NailsII]

The fauna is the clue to its being the boundary. this because the mammal dominance is what we live in today.

Please explain how mammals dominate the world we live in today
The evidence suggests that mammals were incredibly scarce until the K/T boundary, but they still don't dominate nowadays - as previous posts have pointed out.

 

[Naraoia]

Please explain how mammals dominate the world we live in today

They are the only ones that can spray Raid on the rightful rulers

 

[ragarth]

They are the only ones that can spray Raid on the rightful rulers

Dinosaurs took pity upon the upcoming mammals and so made a pact amongst themselves not to harm their development. This is why dinosaurs live amongst us today in latex suits, disguised as humans.

 

[NailsII]

They are the only ones that can spray Raid on the rightful rulers

Nice one.

Dinosaurs took pity upon the upcoming mammals and so made a pact amongst themselves not to harm their development. This is why dinosaurs live amongst us today in latex suits, disguised as humans.

Ok, may I suggest you try taking the tablets again....

 

[ragarth]

Ok, may I suggest you try taking the tablets again....

You never read those books? Eric Garcia is a fun author. "Anonymous Rex"

 

[lucaspa]

Only if ALL the Jews were in Egypt.

Data, please?

I could offer one simple explanation, but I'm not sure you would agree with me.......

The simple (and correct) explanation is that we have 2 different creation stories from 2 different traditions.

 

[lucaspa]

Genetic change is still in its infancy. i see genetic change happening in sudden ways. So evolutions ideas on genetics mean nothing to me.

Genetics is separate from evolution. Right now, what we know of genetics is consistent with evolution. If your ideas on genetics is different from what we have data on, then you need to explain how the data is consistent with your ideas.

As it happens, small changes in DNA can have huge differences in the appearance of organisms. This is due to Hox genes -- genes that control development. Make small changes in them and due to the process of development, you can end up with a large physical change in the organism.

For instance, change just one base in the Ubx gene and you can make a millipede into a 6 legged animal (insect number of legs) or make an insect have thousands of legs:
1a. http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature716_fs.html Hox protein mutation and macroevolution of the insect body plan. Ronshaugen M, McGinnis N, McGinnis W. Nature 2002 Feb 21;415(6874):914-7

Or you can change the Manx gene in vertebrates and make a tail grow -- or lose a tail.

So yes there was great post flood rock creation in a small percentage of earth. in fact this creationist needs this to justify creatures being from the ark above the k-t line and to explain my ideas on same shaped creatures being the same despite present classification systems.

This is known as an ad hoc hypothesis to save your theory from falsification. You are admitting that the K-T line and "same shaped creatures being the same despite present classification systems" falsify your Flood hypothesis. So you invent the ad hoc hypothesis of post Flood strata formation.

What you must have now is an independent means to test the hypothesis. That is, a way independent of your hypothesis of the Flood.

 

[lucaspa]

No. This p/tr line of yours is a error. its just different sorting actions during the great flood..

That doesn't work. Many of the fauna at the Permian-Triassic boundary have the same size and hydrodynamic qualities of animals at the K-T boundary. For instance, there were medium sized dinos (like the raptors) that were the same size as the animals at the P-Tr. So they should have sorted to the same level. But they didn't. The larger dinos should have sunk quicker and been in the Permian, but they aren't there.

There is also a very clean faunal line at the Permian-Triassic boundary. The mammal-like reptiles go extinct and, in the Triassic, the dinos become the dominant fauna, holding the larger animal niches.

The k-t line is different. The fauna is the clue to its being the boundary. this because the mammal dominance is what we live in today.

But there were mammal-like reptiles in dominance before the P-Tr boundary and then dino dominance afterward. So it is very like the K-T boundary after all.

 

[lucaspa]

The fossil record is as a creationist wants to find it. Whole areas frozen at once.

Sorry, but that doesn't follow. According to Flood Geology and YEC, all the animals in the fossil record and the animals living now were all alive together before the Flood. Therefore we should find all the animals mixed together in the fossil strata as they all drowned within days of each other and then were buried. But we don't find that at all. Instead we find different animals confined to specific strata. Elephants and iguanodon were approximately the same size and lived in the same types of environment. Why don't we find elephant fossils next to iguanodon fossils in the same strata? We should if YEC and Flood Geology is correct.

I would add also before the flood there was different organization of fauna on earth. Not mingling like now.

That goes against creationism.

 

[lucaspa]

The evidence suggests that mammals were incredibly scarce until the K/T boundary, but they still don't dominate nowadays - as previous posts have pointed out.

It's not that mammals were "scarce" but that they were small in size and confined to a relatively few niches. When all those niches occupied by large animals opened up at the K-T boundary, then mammals could radiate into those niches. Thus mammals increased in both diversity and size.

 

[Hespera]

It's not that mammals were "scarce" but that they were small in size and confined to a relatively few niches. When all those niches occupied by large animals opened up at the K-T boundary, then mammals could radiate into those niches. Thus mammals increased in both diversity and size.

As did the birds! Some of them made a pretty good try at becoming T rex type animals.

Some of the remaining reptiles seem to have been re-evolving dinosaur type animals. There was a large terrestrial crocodile, there were purely aquatic marine crocodiles that had developed a lobed fin on the tail. There was a monitor lizard (think really big komodo dragon) that got to about 25 ft long.

if mammals had not ever appeared, we might well have some sort of big dinosaurs again.

 

[lucaspa]

As did the birds! Some of them made a pretty good try at becoming T rex type animals.

Well, not nearly so big. "Raptors" would be more accurate. BTW, it turns out that only a few species of birds from 2 families survived the K-T extinction. So it's not like "birds" survived as in all of them, but just a couple of species.

if mammals had not ever appeared, we might well have some sort of big dinosaurs again.

Mammals appeared before dinos. Remember, the dominant fauna in the Permian were mammal-like reptiles. The survivors of the P-Tr extinction evolved to be mammals in the early Triassic. It's just that the newly evolving dinos took over the large animal niches.

But yes, they type of homeothermy that dinos had would probably have evolved again if mammals and birds had not been around.

 

[Hespera]

Well, not nearly so big. "Raptors" would be more accurate. BTW, it turns out that only a few species of birds from 2 families survived the K-T extinction. So it's not like "birds" survived as in all of them, but just a couple of species.



Mammals appeared before dinos. Remember, the dominant fauna in the Permian were mammal-like reptiles. The survivors of the P-Tr extinction evolved to be mammals in the early Triassic. It's just that the newly evolving dinos took over the large animal niches.

But yes, they type of homeothermy that dinos had would probably have evolved again if mammals and birds had not been around.

True not so big, but who knows what they might have done given some time and motivation. I was just noticing how dinosaur like animals were reappearing after the Cretaceous.

No telling what the therapsids might have come up with by now if the Permian hadnt ended the way it did.

Of course small dinosaurs took over an awful lot of the small animal niches too.

i guess critters with mammal like characteristics would have come about one way or another so its a pointless "if" to wonder what would have happened if there were no mammals.

Anyhow....just sort of idle speculation.

 

[Naraoia]

As it happens, small changes in DNA can have huge differences in the appearance of organisms. This is due to Hox genes -- genes that control development. Make small changes in them and due to the process of development, you can end up with a large physical change in the organism.

The other good news is that a mutation affecting a Hox gene doesn't necessarily result in a freak, which decreases the need for hopeful monsters in large-scale evolution. I think Carroll's From DNA to Diversity (incredibly boring book but at least it's about good stuff ) has an example where differences in Ubx expression cause variation in the pattern of leg hairs in various Drosophila species, which really isn't anything dramatic. Ubx is a cool gene, isn't it?

There is also a very clean faunal line at the Permian-Triassic boundary. The mammal-like reptiles go extinct and, in the Triassic, the dinos become the dominant fauna, holding the larger animal niches.

Not until the Late Triassic, AFAIK. Dicynodonts and cynodonts were still pretty successful at the beginning of the Triassic, but archosaurs took over. I need to refresh my vertebrate palaeontology, though. It's been a while since I was into that stuff.

Well, not nearly so big. "Raptors" would be more accurate. BTW, it turns out that only a few species of birds from 2 families survived the K-T extinction. So it's not like "birds" survived as in all of them, but just a couple of species.

Can you give me a reference? I've heard that molecular evidence suggests a Late Cretaceous radiation for modern birds (meaning Neornithes), but I've also heard that the Late Cretaceous fossil record of modern birds is virtually non-existent. (Which means I have no idea what to think)

 

[Chalnoth]

I've heard that molecular evidence suggests a Late Cretaceous radiation for modern birds (meaning Neornithes), but I've also heard that the Late Cretaceous fossil record of modern birds is virtually non-existent.

Well, I'm pretty sure that fossils of modern birds aren't going to be found in the Late Cretaceous

Yeah, yeah, I know. You meant birds after the last common ancestor of all modern birds.

 

[Hespera]

What????? No turkeys in the Triassic? No caracara in the Carboniferous?
No KFC in the Cretaceous?? I want my money back!!!

 

[Naraoia]

Well, I'm pretty sure that fossils of modern birds aren't going to be found in the Late Cretaceous

Yeah, yeah, I know. You meant birds after the last common ancestor of all modern birds.