Team Work

[Nymphalidae]

Since you may not have easy access to the book references I posted earlier, here is the Tree of Life site.

http://tolweb.org/tree?group=arthropoda

http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Hexapoda&contgroup=Arthropoda

These phylogenies are up to date. Why? Because they separate Collembola out of the Insecta, which is a recent development.

 

[Nymphalidae]

here is what NCBI has to say on the matter:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonom...=Undef&id=6656&lvl=3&keep=1&srchmode=1&unlock

Arthropoda
-- Chelicerata (chelicerates)
--- Arachnida
---- Acari (mites and ticks)
---- Amblypygi (whip spiders)
---- Araneae (spiders)
---- Opiliones (harvestmen)
---- Palpigradi (microwhip scorpions)
---- Pseudoscorpiones (false scorpions)
---- Ricinulei (hooded tickspiders)
---- Scorpiones (scorpions)
---- Solifugae (sun spiders)
---- Uropygi (whip scorpions)
--- Merostomata (horseshoe crabs)
---- Xiphosura
--- Pycnogonida (sea spiders)
---- Ammotheidae
---- Austrodecidae
---- Callipallenidae
---- Colossendeidae
---- Endeidae
---- Nymphonidae
---- Phoxichilidiidae
---- Pycnogonidae
---- Tanystylidae
-- Mandibulata (mandibulates)
--- Myriapoda (myriapods)
---- Chilopoda (centipedes)
---- Diplopoda (millipedes)
---- Pauropoda
---- Symphyla
--- Pancrustacea
---- Crustacea (crustaceans)
---- Hexapoda (insects)

 

[""]

You think that because you can google a few websites that you're an expert and are entitled to treat me like an idiot child. Do you really believe me to be ignorant of the things you are posting? Do you really believe that because you have done 15 minutes of research on the internet that you are capable of instructing anyone on this subject?

Please do not transfer your own feelings of inadequacy, if that is what you are indeed feeling, onto me. I'm not treating you like an idiot child. I'm explaining to you that there are no absolutes for this particular topic.

I did not have to google anything to share my own personal knowledge with you. Now I realize, you said this in an attempt to insult me, but really, aren't you above ad hominem's? I see you as an intelligent woman, and I give you credit for that. Why make yourself appear less by lashing out like you've been betrayed or something.


As I told you before, I have known all along, and could have pointed out to you that arthropod systematics is a debatable issue among scientists, and that there is no widespread agreement on classes. I didn't want to do so. You'd have taken it as instruction from me, and probably would have felt offended. Furthermore, it would have ended with you taking the opinion that one of us was wrong and one of us was right. I don't want to do that to you. I don't want you to feel that I'm telling you that you're ignorant or poorly educated. It's not you. It's a long standing difference of opinion, regarding arthropod systematics, between those who study the field. So please, stop personalizing.

Most of the things you're studying, I've studied. I'm not throwing anything in your face. I'm trying to be gracious, and extend a hand to you, so that you understand there are no absolutes when it comes to arthropod systematics.


The two links you have given to me above are from the tree of life web project Nym. It's just another website, with another opinion.

The links I've given to you, are from the Museum of Paleontology, University of California, Berkeley, I only gave them to you because I knew you wouldn't take my word alone.



Again, I encourage you to ask your instructor/teacher about arthropod systematics and why there are different opinions among scientists on this topic. I am certain that your instructor would be happy to discuss it with you. It's common knowledge, and really it's just a preference of instruction. The University of California, Berkeley, happened to teach the one that I learned from. Now, while it may be true that they will change their opinion (and others may to) this doesn't take away from the idea that as of now, none of them are perfectly true.


This has been what I was leading up to all along, as I said in my last post. Science doesn't hold all of the answers nym.


We're finished with this subject. I'm not here to make you look foolish. I admire your desire to study and learn in these area's. We need more women in all fields of science.


Let go of the anger. There is none on my end.
Go in peace, not animosity.

 

[skinner]

I agree with you on this. Some foxes do bear a greater resemblance to cats, and others do not. Actually there are a host of sites on the web that talk about that. They break it down and discuss a separation of the fox line, some where back in time, that caused them to look and act different from one another, though they are all still called foxes. Foxes are fascinating creatures. .

Yeah, I've been fascinated with them for a whole lot of years. Ever watch the reds hunting? It's a blast. Sorry if we're derailing the thread, but I get tired of debating sometimes.

Coyotes on the other hand I could do without. When I was visiting a family friend a year ago, she let her little dog outside and the coyotes got it. They batted it around like a toy. So sad. I don't care for coyotes, though I'm sure they are just as fascinating to some people.

As far as I'm concerned, we could do without them. They are hard on the wildlife. The only good thing I've heard yet is that they might be thinning the nuiscence goose population a bit.
When you consider that they are basicly 40-50 pound wild dogs (here in the east) that kill whatever they can catch-well it's a poor trade off for the other wildlife. Up until the 1980's they were very rare here. Definately have had a bad effect on the fox population. We can shoot 'em year around, but they are here to stay, I'm afraid.
Ok, I'm done rambling, ya'll can go back to your debate.

 

[""]

Sorry if we're derailing the thread, but I get tired of debating sometimes.

We're not actually. The thread was derailed with the arthropod discussion between nym and I.

I think it's time to move on.

The only good thing I've heard yet is that they might be thinning the nuiscence goose population a bit.

Awwww, you think geese are a nuisance? I love geese. I see a lot of them, ducks too. They like our little pond.

Oh and to answer your q about the hunting red fox. No I have never seen them hunting, except on animal planet. I suppose that doesn't count. They have really pretty tails, the red ones.

 

[Phred]

A global flood simply didn't happen. There is no evidence that it did and scads of evidence that it did NOT. See here. The boat couldn't have been built with the technology of the time nor would it have been seaworthy. All the animals and the food to keep them alive would NOT fit into the ark, even if it was the size of a 747. To depend upon evolution to take the "kinds" and then turn them into the creatures we see today all while claiming "evolution is false" is dishonest at best. Further, claiming that aquatic animals could have just survived without being on the ark is nonsense. Salinity is a huge variable and most aquatic creatures cannot survive a change in it.

There's much more. The global flood is refuted point by point. To me however, the best evidence against a global flood is that the people who rely upon geology to make their living don't even bother to consider "flood geology". They find oil and minerals using science, not a fable.

.
​

 

[""]

Did to. 1. 2.
and a suggested reading: The Genesis Flood by Dr. John C. Whitcomb & Henry M. Morris

& also The World That Perished by Dr. John C. Whitcomb
Whitcombs credentials (as I assumed you would make reference to them)


Education

Princeton University, 1948 — B.A. degree, majoring in ancient and European history.

Grace Theological Seminary, 1951 — B.D. degree (high honors), 1953 — Th.M. degree, 1957 — Th.D. degree

Honors/Awards/Associations

Dr Whitcomb graduated with honors from Princeton University in 1948.
He graduated from Grace Theological Seminary in 1951 with high honors

Publications

He authored a defence of the Book of Daniel entitled, Darius the Mede (1959); coauthored with Dr Henry M. Morris a defense of the universality of the Flood entitled, The Genesis Flood (36th printing, 1992); contributed to the commentaries on Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther in the Wycliffe Bible Commentary (1962); published charts on Old Testament chronology (over 300,000 in print); coauthored with Dr Donald DeYoung a book entitled, The Moon: Its Creation, Form and Significance (1978); in 1979 authored Esther: The Triumph of God’s Sovereignty, in 1985 a commentary on Daniel (both by Moody Press); and The Early Earth: An Introduction to Biblical Creationism (1986), The World That Perished: An Introduction to Biblical Catastrophism (1988), coauthored with Dr John Davis a volume entitled, Israel: A Commentary on Joshua–2 Kings (combined paper edition, 1989), all three books by Baker Book House. He has also produced sixteen audio cassette albums and eighteen video tapes.

 

[Nymphalidae]

Education

Princeton University, 1948 — B.A. degree, majoring in ancient and European history.

Grace Theological Seminary, 1951 — B.D. degree (high honors), 1953 — Th.M. degree, 1957 — Th.D. degree

These are excellent credentials - if you want to be a historian or theologian. What I don't understand is why they qualify him to study geology, paleontology, etc. Of course, I could be wrong.

Anyway, I want to apologize for sounding mean earlier.

 

[""]

These are excellent credentials - if you want to be a historian or theologian. What I don't understand is why they qualify him to study geology, paleontology, etc. Of course, I could be wrong.

He's qualified to discuss many things, but he is specifically qualified to discuss anything that involves the biblical history, theology, etc. Noah's Ark was a part of that. I would imagine that his reason for bringing Henry M. Morris in, as a co-author, was to have somebody who was more experienced in the geology.

Anyway, I want to apologize for sounding mean earlier.

Apology accepted. I apologize also, for anything I may have done that caused you to feel offended. It wasn't my intention.

 

[skinner]

A global flood simply didn't happen. There is no evidence that it did and scads of evidence that it did NOT. See here. The boat couldn't have been built with the technology of the time nor would it have been seaworthy. All the animals and the food to keep them alive would NOT fit into the ark, even if it was the size of a 747. To depend upon evolution to take the "kinds" and then turn them into the creatures we see today all while claiming "evolution is false" is dishonest at best. Further, claiming that aquatic animals could have just survived without being on the ark is nonsense. Salinity is a huge variable and most aquatic creatures cannot survive a change in it.

There's much more. The global flood is refuted point by point. To me however, the best evidence against a global flood is that the people who rely upon geology to make their living don't even bother to consider "flood geology". They find oil and minerals using science, not a fable.

.


​

You go ahead and believe that life came from a speck and the speck came from nothing, and I'll believe my "fables" Ok?

 

[Phred]

You go ahead and believe that life came from a speck and the speck came from nothing, and I'll believe my "fables" Ok?

No, not ok. We're not talking about the origin of life. We were talking about the fable suggesting a global flood. No such thing occurred and your ducking the issue doesn't change it.

Second, your strawman about the origin of life is foolish. I've never said that's what I believe, nor would it be what a scientist believes. It's just a strawman you've created to make your belief look rational. Not even a nice try.

Lastly, I think you'd best take a deep breath and realize something. Let's say you're right, there's a diety who is responsible for the creation of the universe and all life within including us. What makes more sense, to study the DIRECT creation of this deity and trust what we find or to believe a book written by men that contradicts what we see in the direct creation?

If you want to be ignorant, I hope you find great satisfaction in doing so.

.
​

 

[ThatRobGuy]

No, not ok. We're not talking about the origin of life. We were talking about the fable suggesting a global flood. No such thing occurred and your ducking the issue doesn't change it.

Second, your strawman about the origin of life is foolish. I've never said that's what I believe, nor would it be what a scientist believes. It's just a strawman you've created to make your belief look rational. Not even a nice try.

Lastly, I think you'd best take a deep breath and realize something. Let's say you're right, there's a diety who is responsible for the creation of the universe and all life within including us. What makes more sense, to study the DIRECT creation of this deity and trust what we find or to believe a book written by men that contradicts what we see in the direct creation?

If you want to be ignorant, I hope you find great satisfaction in doing so.

.
​

Agreed.

People watch the TLC special with Ron Wyatt or go to the ICR website and immediately believe what they see. Ron Wyatt was proved to be fraudelent many times, and the ICR, even though they're trying to do good, are still a little lop-sided in their research. They use science backwards....Instead of finding evidence and then writing theories....the have pre-conceived theories, and then they go out and look for ONLY evidence that supports it (or discredits ideas that don't fall in line with theirs). If people want to believe in the global flood that's fine...everyone has to reach the age of reason at their own pace.