Rabbits in the Precambrian

[laconicstudent]

Can we please ignore his antics and get back on topic?

Pre-cambrian fossils?

Here: Citation Results : Nature.com

Can lunatics please stop claiming that there aren't pre-cambrian fossils now? Google Scholar ftw.

It would certainly be nice if Creationists would try using it before claiming "Evidence for [insert well-documented science here] doesn't exist"

 

[Wedjat]

Um, not sure what you're getting at, no-one said there were no Precambrian fossils. I said rabbit fossils in the Precambrian would be something to falsify evolution, then asked if there was anything that creationists could think of that would falsify creationism.

So yeah, could we please get back on topic?

 

[Wedjat]

If AV considers his own loss of faith evidence against creationism so be it, but does anyone have any actual evidence that could arise that would, at the very least in your mind, falsify creationism.

 

[catzrfluffy]

I posted a list of potential falsifications for evolutionary theory in this thread earlier this year.

- a shrimp with a backbone.
- A crow with wings and arms.
- A mammal with a chitinous exoskeleton

Pangolin Armadillo

- An iguana with mammary glands
- A fish with fur

haha LOL The Fur-Bearing Trout

- A bat with feathers
- A rose with melanocytes

Melanin can be found in plants
Black, Brown, Red-Brown pigments : Colour and Life (under 'melanins from plants')
but maybe that's not quite the same

- A starfish with a notochord
- Starfish with a brain.

If it had one, wouldn't it no longer be a starfish?

- An axolotl with radial symmetry (sic)

(just had to post one, they are weeeeird, yet strangely cute)

- Pollen in Cambrian strata.

saltrange

- Fossil rabbit in Permian strata.
- Fossil T-Rex in Ordovician strata.
- Fossil chicken in Jurassic strata.

Do dinosaurs count? They're sort of like chickens

- Humans with chitinous exoskeletons.

Lol - Rent Your Own HAL Exoskeleton For The Low, Low Price of $1000! - Exoskeleton - Gizmodo

- Clams with legs*
- Whales with gills.
- Viviparous snakes with placentas.

Boa Constrictor
Green Anaconda
Snake - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

- Blind cave fish that can see in the infrared and evolved an organ on their head to paint their dark environment.

Not a cave fish but Animals and Colour Vision, Fish some can see in infrared.
I found this, nothing to do with anything, just its a fish with a transparent head and its eyes are actually inside its transparent head!:
YouTube - Fish With Transparent Head Filmed
crazy

- Orthologous ERVS in orangutans and chimps but not in humans or gorillas.
- An orthologous ERV in humans and gorillas but not in chimps.

any good? No missing link ever found, page 1

- No explanation for difference in Chromosome numbers between humans and chimps.

 

[Wedjat]

Pangolin

Armadillo

Do you know what an exoskeleton is?

haha LOL The Fur-Bearing Trout

I think you know this, but just in case... The website is "The Museum of Hoaxes"

saltrange

Age of layer in a lot of question, even whether is is sedimentary or not. Many concluded that it was Tertiary, perhaps intrusive.
Close, but not quite.

any good? No missing link ever found, page 1

Nope, 'fraid not.

As for the snakes, I'm not sure why that's on the list.

In short, you seem to have done a lot of research trying to find things to falsify evolution (without success), but have you gotten anything done looking into abiogenesis for yourself? Did you check out exploring origins?

 

[laconicstudent]

I thought the "saltrange" paper might actually be legit until I read this:

" One possible outcome of this reevaluation could be the abandonment of the Darwinian evolutionary hypothesis in favor of a model for life's origin and development drawn from the Vedic and Puranic texts."

 

[catzrfluffy]

Do you know what an exoskeleton is?

yes.
NSiS: Florida Wildlife - Armadillos
WikiAnswers - What mammal has an exoskeleton

I think you know this, but just in case... The website is "The Museum of Hoaxes"

note "haha LOL".

 

[Wedjat]

Wiki answers clearly doesn't know the difference between an exoskeleton and natural armor either.
We'll clear it up. An exoskeleton is a the skeleton, the thing that supports all the squishy bits of an animal, on the outside, thus "exo". Crabs have an exoskeleton because their their hard outer shell doubles as the thing that actually supports all their innards.
An armadillo does not. It's skeleton is on the inside. The outer "shell" does not support anything, it is for protection only. It is not an exoskeleton as it is not a skeleton.

[Edit] Have you checked out Exploring Origins yet?

 

[Alunyel]

Not just mammals with exoskeletons. Any living thing that's not an arthropod with an exoskeleton would suffice.

Armadillos have internal skeletal systems, their armour is not a skeletal system.

 

[USincognito]

Catzr you certainly are a refreshing participant here. Thank you again.

Pangolin
Armadillo

As has been noted, they have armor (formed of skin and hair in the case of the Pangolin {ooops, just checked - keratin, which makes our nails and claws}), not exoskeletons and they're also not made of Chitin (which I misspelled in my list).

The Fur-Bearing Trout

You might enjoy this List of Cryptids

Melanin can be found in plants
Black, Brown, Red-Brown pigments : Colour and Life (under 'melanins from plants')
but maybe that's not quite the same

Yep. Melanin is found in almost all life. Melanocytes are only found in warm blooded animals.

If it had one, wouldn't it no longer be a starfish?

Nope. One of the things that makes a starfish a starfish is a decentralized nervous system

They have a simple radial nervous system that consists of a modified nerve net — interconnected neurons with no central brain (although some do possess ganglia.) Nerves radiate from central rings around the mouth into each arm; the branches of these nerves coordinate the movements of the organism.

(just had to post one, they are weeeeird, yet strangely cute)

Yep. A friend of mine in Australia had a pet one named Mr. Nacho.

saltrange

Michael Cremo is a well known crank. I wouldn't take his word if he said the Sun was going to rise tomorrow.

Do dinosaurs count? They're sort of like chickens

Birds are taxonomically dinosaurs, so all you have to do is find me a chicken in Jurassic strata and we're in business.

Boa Constrictor

Boas are oviparous, not viviparous and they don't have placentas. Try again.

I found this, nothing to do with anything, just its a fish with a transparent head and its eyes are actually inside its transparent head!:

The cave fish example is key because it shows an overadaptation that evolutionary theory doesn't predict rather than a vestigial selection response to an unnecessary organ. And I love that bubble headed fish. I remember when that video was first released. They're so weird and cute at the same time.

any good?

I didn't take the link because abovetopsecret is a conspiracy kook site, but I'm going to hazard a guess that they didn't have anything there about ERVs orthologous to humans and gorillas but not chimps.

 

[catzrfluffy]

An armadillo does not. It's skeleton is on the inside. The outer "shell" does not support anything, it is for protection only. It is not an exoskeleton as it is not a skeleton.

Armadillos have internal skeletal systems, their armour is not a skeletal system.

As has been noted, they have armor (formed of skin and hair in the case of the Pangolin {ooops, just checked - keratin, which makes our nails and claws}), not exoskeletons and they're also not made of Chitin (which I misspelled in my list).

The Armadillo's armour does count as an exoskeleton:
"The exo-skeleton includes the majority of the skull, but also osteoderms (bony plates in the skin), gastralia (abdominal ribs), and the clavicles (collar bone). Osteoderms have an unusual taxonomic distribution among modern tetrapods, being present in crocodylians and turtles, some lizards, a few species of frogs, and armadillos."The Palaeontological Association (PalAss) - PalAss Newsletter - Hall Lab Newsletter 59
also: ankylosaurs ANKYLOSAUR FOSSILS and placodermi Devonian Times - More about Placoderms have exoskeletons - not chitinous ones though.

Nope. One of the things that makes a starfish a starfish is a decentralized nervous system

Not just mammals with exoskeletons. Any living thing that's not an arthropod with an exoskeleton would suffice.

But aren't arthropods classified as arthropods by having an exoskeleton? So aren't all these questions just circular arguments?
Like asking,
Find me a winged animal without any wings.
Or find me a quadruped with seven legs.
Find me a spineless creature that has a vertebral column.
Find me a mammal that's not a mammal.

Any living thing with a chitinous exoskeleton that's not an arthropod?
Exoskeleton: Facts, Discussion Forum, and Encyclopedia Article
Fungi do, Fungi
Onychophora (velvet worms)
ONYCHOPHORA

Why does answering these questions challenge evolutionary theory? I don't get the connection.

Boas are oviparous, not viviparous and they don't have placentas. Try again.

snakes can be viviparous:
snake

The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition | 2008 | The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. Copyright 2008 Columbia University Press. (Hide copyright information)
"in a few there is true viviparity, or live birth, with the young nourished by means of a placenta rather than an egg."
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-snake.html

Have you checked out Exploring Origins yet?

will do so now...

 

[Alunyel]

But aren't arthropods classified as arthropods by having an exoskeleton?

Arthropods are defined by being invertebrates with an exoskeleton. Their bodies are also always made up of segments, each segment has evolved to carry out a specific task.

 

[catzrfluffy]

arthropod
(plural arthropods)
n
invertebrate animal: an invertebrate animal that has jointed limbs, a segmented body, and an exoskeleton made of chitin, e.g. an insect, arachnid, centipede, or crustacean.
Phylum: Arthropoda

[Late 19th century. < modern Latin Arthropoda < Greek arthron 'joint' (see arthro-) + pod- 'foot' (see -pod )]

-arthropod, , adj
-arthropodal, , adj
Encarta &#174; World English Dictionary &#169; & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

 

[SLP]

University of Chicago study overturns conventional theory in evolution

The first sentence of that article:

"New data suggest that the accumulation of genetic changes is not solely determined by natural selection."

Indicates the ignorance of the author writinng it. OLD data suggested that, going back to the early 1980s (and before) - in fact, the Neutral Theory was premised on this (in a sense).

Take home messages:

1. Do not accept press release titles as quality indicators of what is contained in the article
2. Do not assume that the journalist penning the press release understands what she/he is writing about in any depth (their job is to make 'exciting', readable pieces)
3. Do not assume that hyperbolic claims in such releases accurately reflect the status of the field

I did not check the others, but I have little reason to suspect anything different.

But, honest question, would scientists actually let someone with creationist views, or at least skeptical-about-evolution views, say anything in a scientific peer-reviewed journal? Or even just intelligent design views?

'Views' are really irrelevant, it is the quality of the data/evidence that matters. Peer reviewed journals are not clearinghouses for op-ed bits by public relations types trying to puish an agenda.

 

[SLP]

The Armadillo's armour does count as an exoskeleton:
"The exo-skeleton includes the majority of the skull, but also osteoderms (bony plates in the skin), gastralia (abdominal ribs), and the clavicles (collar bone). Osteoderms have an unusual taxonomic distribution among modern tetrapods, being present in crocodylians and turtles, some lizards, a few species of frogs, and armadillos."The Palaeontological Association (PalAss) - PalAss Newsletter - Hall Lab Newsletter 59
also: ankylosaurs ANKYLOSAUR FOSSILS and placodermi Devonian Times - More about Placoderms have exoskeletons - not chitinous ones though.

I am reminded here of an exchange I had with an IDcreationist several years ago. We were discussing (well, I was discussing, he was hurlig accusations and such) homologies as evidence for evolution, and he asked why spiders were not considered close relatives to mammals because they have femurs just like mammals do. I stated that spiders do not have femurs.
He did a 'gotcha' by showing a picture of a spider with its anatomy labelled, and sure enough, the proximal leg part of a spider is called a femur.

I explained that I was not an entomologist, so I did not know that spider proximal limb parts were called femurs, and I explained that a spider femur is homologous in name (and perhaps location, being the proximal rigid limb part) only, since it is not made of bone, is a true exoskeletal part, etc.
His response? Well, he gleefully rejoiced in my ignorance of spider anatomy (which he only knew from doing a google search for femur) and used it to proclaim the falsity of evolution.

Point being, while the dermal armor of an armadillo is described as exoskeletal, it is NOT the same thing as an arthropod exoskeleton and to make an issue out of it is little more than a distraction.

 

[SLP]

Then again, ToE is constantly undergoing revision with every new discovery on the fossil record. Yet this is not counted as falsifying the theory, but improving it.
Therefore, surely interpretation of the biblical creation is allowed to be improved?

Well, sure, but, science by its very nature is tentative and open to 'imporvement.' That is what it is all about.

The bible, on the other hand, is supposed to be the 100% true inierrant word of God.

Re-interpreting it, it seems to me, should be a no-no, for it certainly lays waste to the notion that the word is unchanging and true.

 

[catzrfluffy]

The first sentence of that article:

"New data suggest that the accumulation of genetic changes is not solely determined by natural selection."

Indicates the ignorance of the author writing it.

Doesn't sound that ignorant Department of Human Genetics | University of Chicago

Well, sure, but, science by its very nature is tentative and open to 'improvement.' That is what it is all about.

The bible, on the other hand, is supposed to be the 100% true inerrant word of God.

Re-interpreting it, it seems to me, should be a no-no, for it certainly lays waste to the notion that the word is unchanging and true.

I didn't mean change the biblical words, but change the physical theory of how it was done, the bible doesn't fill in every tiny technical detail.

 

[laconicstudent]

God... are you seriously trying to argue that Armadillos should be classified as arthropods based on its having an exoskeleton?

An arthropod has

1. an exoskeleton of chitin
2. a segmented body
3. jointed appendages


The Armadillo

1. Has an exoskeleton of BONE
2. DOES NOT have a segmented body

3. But it DOES have jointed limbs.

Unfortunately, the armadillo is a Vertebrate, which makes it a Chordate, as it possesses a notochord, a dorsal nerve cord, pharyngeal slits an endostyle and a post-anal tail.

(before you start complaining that there are chordates without tails, YES, Human embryos have tails)

I would beg you to please at least bother taking a biology class before you start trying to nitpick taxonomy. Its really easy to refute what you say. You clearly don't understand that while Armadillos could be considered Arthropods based on their exoskeleton, that only works if we IGNORE EVERYTHING ELSE. Such as their being vertebrates, having all the Chordate features, missing all the other characteristics of Arthropods....

 

[catzrfluffy]

I was not trying to argue that an armadillo was an arthropod. That wasn't the question, it was finding an example of a mammal with an exoskeleton.

 

[Wedjat]

Armadillo exoskeleton is in name only, just like the spider femur.