Religions > Atheism > TOBS: Yet another Budikkka hole: the Reptile/Mammal Colossal Hole
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"jabriol" |
| Date: |
21 Sep 2003 12:33:27 PM |
| Object: |
TOBS: Yet another Budikkka hole: the Reptile/Mammal Colossal Hole |
Major differences leave a wide gulf between reptiles and mammals. The very
name "mammal" points up one big difference: the existence of mammary glands
that give milk for the young, which are born alive. Theodosius Dobzhansky
suggested that these milk glands "may be modified sweat glands." But
reptiles do not even have sweat glands. Moreover, sweat glands give off
waste products, not food. And unlike baby reptiles, the mammalian young have
both the instincts and the muscles to suck the milk from their mother.
Mammals have other features, also, that are not found in reptiles.
Mammalian mothers have highly complex placentas for the nourishment and
development of their unborn young. Reptiles do not. There is no diaphragm in
reptiles, but mammals have a diaphragm that separates the thorax from the
abdomen. The organ of Corti in the ears of mammals is not found in reptilian
ears. This tiny complex organ has 20,000 rods and 30,000 nerve endings.
Mammals maintain a constant body temperature, whereas reptiles do not.
Mammals also have three bones in their ears, while reptiles have only one.
Where did the two "extras" come from? Evolutionary theory attempts to
explain it as follows: Reptiles have at least four bones in the lower jaw,
whereas mammals have only one; so, when reptiles became mammals there was
supposedly a reshuffling of bones; some from the reptile's lower jaw moved
to the mammal's middle ear to make the three bones there and, in the
process, left only one for the mammal's lower jaw. However, the problem with
this line of reasoning is that there is no fossil evidence whatsoever to
support it. It is merely wishful conjecture.
Another problem involving bones: Reptilian legs are anchored at the side of
the body so that the belly is on or very near the ground. But in mammals the
legs are under the body and raise it off the ground. Regarding this
difference, Dobzhansky commented: "This change, minor though it may seem,
has necessitated widespread alterations of the skeleton and the
musculature." He then acknowledged another major difference between
reptiles and mammals: "Mammals have greatly elaborated their teeth. Instead
of the simple peg-like teeth of the reptile, there is a great variety of
mammalian teeth adapted for nipping, grasping, piercing, cutting, pounding,
or grinding food."
One last item: When the amphibian supposedly evolved into a reptile, the
wastes eliminated were noted to have changed from urea to uric acid. But
when the reptile became a mammal there was a reversal. Mammals went back to
the amphibian way, eliminating wastes as urea. In effect, evolution went
backward-something that theoretically it is not supposed to do.
.
|
|
| User: "Frank Reichenbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Yet another Budikkka hole: the Reptile/Mammal Colossal Hole |
21 Sep 2003 06:41:16 PM |
|
|
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message
news:Hhlbb.4750717$cI2.671387@news.easynews.com...
<snip nonsense>
Mammals also have three bones in their ears, while reptiles have only one.
Where did the two "extras" come from?
Weren't they made from one of Adam's ribs?
Frank
<snip more ridiculous nonsense>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Yet another Budikkka hole: the Reptile/Mammal Colossal Hole |
21 Sep 2003 06:44:50 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 16:41:16 -0700, "Frank Reichenbacher"
<frank@bio-con.com> wrote:
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message
news:Hhlbb.4750717$cI2.671387@news.easynews.com...
<snip nonsense>
Mammals also have three bones in their ears, while reptiles have only one.
Where did the two "extras" come from?
Weren't they made from one of Adam's ribs?
Were they spare ribs?
.
|
|
|
| User: "windsong" |
|
| Title: Re: Yet another Budikkka hole: the Reptile/Mammal Colossal Hole |
21 Sep 2003 07:11:32 PM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:dpdsmv8ee87ecqj7s72nrepfi41snelll0@4ax.com...
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message
Mammals also have three bones in their ears, while reptiles have only
one.
Where did the two "extras" come from?
=============
Weren't they made from one of Adam's ribs?
Were they spare ribs?
===========================
Yum! Yum! Spareribs, with BBQ sauce on 'em! Can't beat 'em with a stick.
:-)~ Juicy, tender, flavorful....
--
Iris Gardenz......
The JWs keep saying it (Armageddon) is imminent, just a matter of time, only
a matter of
weeks or months from the predicted date.... 1874(+40), 1878(+40), 1910,
1914, 1915, 1916, 1917, 1918, 1922, 1925, 1940, 1945, 1975, 1999/2000...
(PB)
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "~ *{. *|..|* .}* ~" |
|
| Title: Re: Yet another Budikkka hole: the Reptile/Mammal Colossal Hole |
21 Sep 2003 06:38:06 PM |
|
|
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message
news:Hhlbb.4750717$cI2.671387@news.easynews.com...
Major differences leave a wide gulf between reptiles and mammals. The
very
name "mammal" points up one big difference: the existence of mammary
glands
that give milk for the young, which are born alive. = SNIP!
====================
Oh wow! We're all convinced,.... evolution never happened. It was a
MAGICAL creation after all. Now step aside as we all trample each other in
our frantic rush into your Kingdom Hells of the Jehovah's Witlesses
screaming for a babble,..er,... bible study!
--
Anna DeBannana
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent
force for atheism ever conceived." -= Isaac Asimov =-
===========================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: Yet another Budikkka hole: the Reptile/Mammal Colossal Hole |
22 Sep 2003 04:46:13 PM |
|
|
"~ *{. *|..|* .}* ~" <NothingHonest@Watchertowerland.net> wrote in message
news:ewqbb.2229$A51.2107@fe05.atl2.webusenet.com...
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message
news:Hhlbb.4750717$cI2.671387@news.easynews.com...
Major differences leave a wide gulf between reptiles and mammals. The
very
name "mammal" points up one big difference: the existence of mammary
glands
that give milk for the young, which are born alive. = SNIP!
====================
Oh wow! We're all convinced,.... evolution never happened. It was a
MAGICAL creation after all. Now step aside as we all trample each other
in
our frantic rush into your Kingdom Hells of the Jehovah's Witlesses
screaming for a babble,..er,... bible study!
--
Actually Carol, you are right.. a given first,
right now in in Nicaragua JW's "fear"going door to door... everyone wants a
bib le study, however you reply as always have nothing to do with the thread
at hand...
.
|
|
|
| User: "~* ME *~" |
|
| Title: Re: Yet another Budikkka hole: the Reptile/Mammal Colossal Hole |
22 Sep 2003 05:03:28 PM |
|
|
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message
news:F4Kbb.4816750$mA4.678752@news.easynews.com...
====================
Oh wow! We're all convinced,.... evolution never happened. It was a
MAGICAL creation after all. Now step aside as we all trample each other
in
our frantic rush into your Kingdom Hells of the Jehovah's Witlesses
screaming for a babble,..er,... bible study!
==============================
Actually Carol, you are right.. a given first,
right now in in Nicaragua JW's "fear"going door to door... everyone wants
a
bib le study, however you reply as always have nothing to do with the
thread
at hand...
** They should be afraid. Anyone who goes door to door uninvited and
unwanted telling people their religion is the "***** of Babylon" can get you
killed in some places. To add insult to injury they also tell people that
only THEY, the JWs, are god's chosen people. Everyone else is birdfeed and
dogmeat.
Let them put an add in the paper and wait for the suckers/victims to come to
them for the Witchtower "studies."
As usual you wouldn't recognize a post in a thread if you fall over one....
--
Ronnie & Bonnie.....
Just more loving kindness from God...
"Therefore fathers shall eat their sons in the midst of you and
sons shall eat their fathers...I will send famine and wild beasts
against you and they shall rob you of your children; pestilence and
blood shall pass through you; and I will bring a sword upon you. I,
the Lord, have spoken." Ezekiel 5:10, 5:17
<> ~~~ ><> ~~~ ><> ~~~ ><> ~~~ ><> ~~~ ><> ~~~ ><> ~~~
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: Yet another Budikkka hole: the Reptile/Mammal Colossal Hole |
01 Oct 2003 03:52:22 AM |
|
|
Still waiting for a list of these colossal holes, Jabriol. Been
waiting since late August. Not holding my breath.
THIS
IS
A
LIST
CONSISTING
OF
THE
WORDS
IN
THESE
TWO
SENTENCES.
GET
IT
NOW?
Now can you do it? I am not asking you to detail or define them or
provide evidence or justification, all I am asking you to do is list
the specific holes. You don't even have to number them. I understand
that it is kinda hard to number a list which contains no items.
Notes to help you out:
Comparisons of modern reptiles and modern birds are irrelevant, since
no evolutionists has ever claimed that either one descended from the
other one.
Blind assertions that there are no transitional forms do not work when
the talk.origins transitional FAQ has been repeatedly pointed out to
you, nor are your blind assertions that t.o. isn't peer-reviewed
relevant, for two reasons:
1. You have offered not a shred of peer-reviewed evidence to support
a single thing you have claimed and so are hypocritical to demand it.
2. The t.o. FAQ on transitionals contains over 70 references, many of
which **are** to science papers published in peer-reviewed
publications, so (as usual)
you are a liar for making the claim in the first place.
Poorly referenced or unreferenced allusions to creationist letters
that are published as a courtesy in New Scientist magazine are not the
same as a peer-reviewed paper published in a professional refereed
science journal.
Fifty year old arguments from incredulity don't count.
Moving the goal posts does not count.
Desperately snipping material that you cannot answer does not count.
Any response to this that does not include a **LIST** of these
colossal holes is a direct and public admission that there are no such
holes and you have lied about them for weeks. Have you grasped this?
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. DuFonet" |
|
| Title: Re: Yet another Budikkka hole: the Reptile/Mammal Colossal Hole |
22 Sep 2003 09:21:53 AM |
|
|
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message
news:Hhlbb.4750717$cI2.671387@news.easynews.com...
Major differences leave a wide gulf between reptiles and mammals. The
very
name "mammal" points up one big difference: the existence of mammary
glands
that give milk for the young, which are born alive. Theodosius Dobzhansky
suggested that these milk glands "may be modified sweat glands." But
reptiles do not even have sweat glands. Moreover, sweat glands give off
waste products, not food. And unlike baby reptiles, the mammalian young
have
both the instincts and the muscles to suck the milk from their mother.
Mammals have other features, also, that are not found in reptiles.
Mammalian mothers have highly complex placentas for the nourishment and
development of their unborn young. Reptiles do not. There is no diaphragm
in
reptiles, but mammals have a diaphragm that separates the thorax from the
abdomen. The organ of Corti in the ears of mammals is not found in
reptilian
ears. This tiny complex organ has 20,000 rods and 30,000 nerve endings.
Mammals maintain a constant body temperature, whereas reptiles do not.
Mammals also have three bones in their ears, while reptiles have only one.
Where did the two "extras" come from? Evolutionary theory attempts to
explain it as follows: Reptiles have at least four bones in the lower jaw,
whereas mammals have only one; so, when reptiles became mammals there was
supposedly a reshuffling of bones; some from the reptile's lower jaw moved
to the mammal's middle ear to make the three bones there and, in the
process, left only one for the mammal's lower jaw. However, the problem
with
this line of reasoning is that there is no fossil evidence whatsoever to
support it. It is merely wishful conjecture.
Another problem involving bones: Reptilian legs are anchored at the side
of
the body so that the belly is on or very near the ground. But in mammals
the
legs are under the body and raise it off the ground. Regarding this
difference, Dobzhansky commented: "This change, minor though it may seem,
has necessitated widespread alterations of the skeleton and the
musculature." He then acknowledged another major difference between
reptiles and mammals: "Mammals have greatly elaborated their teeth.
Instead
of the simple peg-like teeth of the reptile, there is a great variety of
mammalian teeth adapted for nipping, grasping, piercing, cutting,
pounding,
or grinding food."
One last item: When the amphibian supposedly evolved into a reptile, the
wastes eliminated were noted to have changed from urea to uric acid. But
when the reptile became a mammal there was a reversal. Mammals went back
to
the amphibian way, eliminating wastes as urea. In effect, evolution went
backward-something that theoretically it is not supposed to do.
Where is the evidince that the reptiles eveolved into mammals? The dinosuars
may not have been reptiles, and mammals were in existence during the time of
dinosualrs. Reptiles, including some snakes which have residual internal
legs, have legs extending sideways and mammals' and dinosaurs as well as
birds' legs go straight down.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JaBrIoL" |
|
| Title: Re: Yet another Budikkka hole: the Reptile/Mammal Colossal Hole |
22 Sep 2003 11:38:30 AM |
|
|
"Dr. DuFonet" <accordiondoc@mindsproing.cop> wrote in message news:<5ADbb.2383$gR1.1490@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message
news:Hhlbb.4750717$cI2.671387@news.easynews.com...
Major differences leave a wide gulf between reptiles and mammals. The
very
name "mammal" points up one big difference: the existence of mammary
glands
that give milk for the young, which are born alive. Theodosius Dobzhansky
suggested that these milk glands "may be modified sweat glands." But
reptiles do not even have sweat glands. Moreover, sweat glands give off
waste products, not food. And unlike baby reptiles, the mammalian young
have
both the instincts and the muscles to suck the milk from their mother.
Mammals have other features, also, that are not found in reptiles.
Mammalian mothers have highly complex placentas for the nourishment and
development of their unborn young. Reptiles do not. There is no diaphragm
in
reptiles, but mammals have a diaphragm that separates the thorax from the
abdomen. The organ of Corti in the ears of mammals is not found in
reptilian
ears. This tiny complex organ has 20,000 rods and 30,000 nerve endings.
Mammals maintain a constant body temperature, whereas reptiles do not.
Mammals also have three bones in their ears, while reptiles have only one.
Where did the two "extras" come from? Evolutionary theory attempts to
explain it as follows: Reptiles have at least four bones in the lower jaw,
whereas mammals have only one; so, when reptiles became mammals there was
supposedly a reshuffling of bones; some from the reptile's lower jaw moved
to the mammal's middle ear to make the three bones there and, in the
process, left only one for the mammal's lower jaw. However, the problem
with
this line of reasoning is that there is no fossil evidence whatsoever to
support it. It is merely wishful conjecture.
Another problem involving bones: Reptilian legs are anchored at the side
of
the body so that the belly is on or very near the ground. But in mammals
the
legs are under the body and raise it off the ground. Regarding this
difference, Dobzhansky commented: "This change, minor though it may seem,
has necessitated widespread alterations of the skeleton and the
musculature." He then acknowledged another major difference between
reptiles and mammals: "Mammals have greatly elaborated their teeth.
Instead
of the simple peg-like teeth of the reptile, there is a great variety of
mammalian teeth adapted for nipping, grasping, piercing, cutting,
pounding,
or grinding food."
One last item: When the amphibian supposedly evolved into a reptile, the
wastes eliminated were noted to have changed from urea to uric acid. But
when the reptile became a mammal there was a reversal. Mammals went back
to
the amphibian way, eliminating wastes as urea. In effect, evolution went
backward-something that theoretically it is not supposed to do.
Where is the evidince that the reptiles eveolved into mammals? The dinosuars
may not have been reptiles, and mammals were in existence during the time of
dinosualrs. Reptiles, including some snakes which have residual internal
legs, have legs extending sideways and mammals' and dinosaurs as well as
birds' legs go straight down.
theraspids anyone?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "JaBrIoL" |
|
| Title: Re: Yet another Budikkka hole: the Reptile/Mammal Colossal Hole |
22 Sep 2003 11:38:37 AM |
|
|
"Dr. DuFonet" <accordiondoc@mindsproing.cop> wrote in message news:<5ADbb.2383$gR1.1490@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message
news:Hhlbb.4750717$cI2.671387@news.easynews.com...
Major differences leave a wide gulf between reptiles and mammals. The
very
name "mammal" points up one big difference: the existence of mammary
glands
that give milk for the young, which are born alive. Theodosius Dobzhansky
suggested that these milk glands "may be modified sweat glands." But
reptiles do not even have sweat glands. Moreover, sweat glands give off
waste products, not food. And unlike baby reptiles, the mammalian young
have
both the instincts and the muscles to suck the milk from their mother.
Mammals have other features, also, that are not found in reptiles.
Mammalian mothers have highly complex placentas for the nourishment and
development of their unborn young. Reptiles do not. There is no diaphragm
in
reptiles, but mammals have a diaphragm that separates the thorax from the
abdomen. The organ of Corti in the ears of mammals is not found in
reptilian
ears. This tiny complex organ has 20,000 rods and 30,000 nerve endings.
Mammals maintain a constant body temperature, whereas reptiles do not.
Mammals also have three bones in their ears, while reptiles have only one.
Where did the two "extras" come from? Evolutionary theory attempts to
explain it as follows: Reptiles have at least four bones in the lower jaw,
whereas mammals have only one; so, when reptiles became mammals there was
supposedly a reshuffling of bones; some from the reptile's lower jaw moved
to the mammal's middle ear to make the three bones there and, in the
process, left only one for the mammal's lower jaw. However, the problem
with
this line of reasoning is that there is no fossil evidence whatsoever to
support it. It is merely wishful conjecture.
Another problem involving bones: Reptilian legs are anchored at the side
of
the body so that the belly is on or very near the ground. But in mammals
the
legs are under the body and raise it off the ground. Regarding this
difference, Dobzhansky commented: "This change, minor though it may seem,
has necessitated widespread alterations of the skeleton and the
musculature." He then acknowledged another major difference between
reptiles and mammals: "Mammals have greatly elaborated their teeth.
Instead
of the simple peg-like teeth of the reptile, there is a great variety of
mammalian teeth adapted for nipping, grasping, piercing, cutting,
pounding,
or grinding food."
One last item: When the amphibian supposedly evolved into a reptile, the
wastes eliminated were noted to have changed from urea to uric acid. But
when the reptile became a mammal there was a reversal. Mammals went back
to
the amphibian way, eliminating wastes as urea. In effect, evolution went
backward-something that theoretically it is not supposed to do.
Where is the evidince that the reptiles eveolved into mammals? The dinosuars
may not have been reptiles, and mammals were in existence during the time of
dinosualrs. Reptiles, including some snakes which have residual internal
legs, have legs extending sideways and mammals' and dinosaurs as well as
birds' legs go straight down.
theraspids anyone?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Patrick Alexander" |
|
| Title: Re: Yet another Budikkka hole: the Reptile/Mammal Colossal Hole |
22 Sep 2003 09:32:05 PM |
|
|
In sci.bio.herp Dr. DuFonet <accordiondoc@mindsproing.cop> wrote:
Where is the evidince that the reptiles eveolved into mammals?
This is jabriol. He doesn't do `evidence'.
Mammals are the sister taxon to Reptilia (in the broad sense, in
which it includes both dinosaurs and birds).
His idea that reptiles evolved from amphibians is also
incorrect--among living animals, amphibians are the sister taxon to the
amniotes.
If you want to know the actual state of modern taxonomy, I suggest
either using something like tolweb.org, or delving into the primary
literature.
He's also wrong when he says that evolutionary reversals aren't
supposed to happen. They're actually quite common, especially at the
genetic level.
The dinosuars
may not have been reptiles, and mammals were in existence during the time of
dinosualrs.
FWIW, whether or not dinosaurs are reptiles depends on who you
ask. Reptilia is in some amount of flux.
Patrick Alexander
.
|
|
|
| User: "JaBrIoL" |
|
| Title: Re: Yet another Budikkka hole: the Reptile/Mammal Colossal Hole |
23 Sep 2003 07:49:06 PM |
|
|
Patrick Alexander <paalexan@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message news:<bkobb5$vd4$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu>...
In sci.bio.herp Dr. DuFonet <accordiondoc@mindsproing.cop> wrote:
The dinosuars
may not have been reptiles, and mammals were in existence during the time of
dinosualrs.
FWIW, whether or not dinosaurs are reptiles depends on who you
ask. Reptilia is in some amount of flux.
Patrick Alexander
so once again, we can say, that defintion of what not or might be is
dependant on the science discpline at hand.
sound like a budikka colossal mhole to me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: Yet another Budikkka hole: the Reptile/Mammal Colossal Hole |
24 Sep 2003 05:06:42 AM |
|
|
(JaBrIoL) wrote in message news:<d222de3e.0309231649.5d106f48@posting.google.com>...
so once again, we can say, that defintion of what not or might be is
dependant on the science discpline at hand.
sound like a budikka colossal mhole to me.
Once again your demonstration of just how colossal the holes are in
your education and competence is staggering.
If evolution happened, you would expect that there would be
disagreement on just when a transitional species is in that grouping
or in this grouping or still somewhere in between. Fuzzy lines
between species that make them hard to categorise is to be expected,
as are disagreements about precise mechanisms or definitions. this
does nto eman evoltuion did not happen and does not constitute a
colossal hole,d espite your depserate need for ti to be otherwise.
Once again, let me ask you a question that you have in the past
avoided. When the World Trade Center towers were knocked down two
years ago, there was disagreement about the precise mechanism that
actually brought the main towers down. Does this mean they never fell
down? Answer the question.
So how can disagreements between evolutionists on the precise details
of how evolution happened constitute a "colossal hole"? Answer the
question.
Transitional species are to be expected and have been found in
abundance despite the limits of the fossil record. Genetic links
between species have been found.
Trying to blow off answering by pretending you have answered is
another of your patented evasion techniques which has been duly noted.
Trying to blow off the answer by demanding that others do your job for
you - a job that you have repeatedly failed to do is another of your
patented evasion techniques which has been duly noted.
Trying to evade dealing with me by posting what you claim to be
answers under my misspelled name in other news groups and then
demanding I search for them is another of your patented evasion
techniques which has been duly noted.
Trying to blow off answering by pretending you have answered when all
you have done is post a handful of topics that have nothing to do with
establishing a list of colossal holes is another of your patented
evasion techniques which has been duly noted.
For example, your claim that there are no transitionals has been
answered. The fact that you have evaded addressing that issue with a
flurry of straw men in that thread has been duly noted.
The fact that you have failed to address the evidence of transitionals
all over the fossil record - transitionals that have been reported in
peer-reviewed journals and summarised by Kathleen Hunt in the t.o.
archives with over 70 references to said papers - by the weasel excuse
that talk.origins is not a peer-reviewed source has been duly noted,
responded to, and dismissed.
For example, your claim that there are no reptile/dino-bird
transitional examples has been refuted by referencing the
archaeopteryx. You have repeatedly avoided dealing with that
particular example. Your incompetence, inability and cowardice have
been duly noted.
For example, your whiney-assed whimpering about peer-review has been
answered and dismissed. Your complete avoidance of pursuing that
topic has been duly noted.
Your continued evasions of repeated questions have been noted. I
repeat my instructions - also evaded by you - that I will answer your
strawman/evasion questions when you ANSWER THE ONE I ASKED FIRST which
was to provide **A LIST** of the supposed "colossal holes" in the
Theory of Evolution. I am not even asking for any details or
definitions any more, just a simple list.
You do know what **A LIST** is, don't you? Here is an example for the
cognitively challenged:
1. THIS
2. IS
3. A
4. NUMBERED
5. LIST
6. OF
7. THE
8. WORDS
9. IN
10. THESE
11. TWO
12. SENTENCES.
13. GET
14. IT
15. NOW?
When you can provide a list of these holes that you claim exist but
have so far comprehensively failed to demonstrate, then you will be in
a position to assert that there are holes, but until and unless you do
that, there are no holes. How can there be holes if you cannot even
list them?
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "JaBrIoL" |
|
| Title: Re: Yet another Budikkka hole: the Reptile/Mammal Colossal Hole |
24 Sep 2003 08:48:21 AM |
|
|
(Budikka) wrote in message news:<e1e30450.0309240206.e07bc58@posting.google.com>...
Jabriol@excite.com (JaBrIoL) wrote in message news:<d222de3e.0309231649.5d106f48@posting.google.com>...
so once again, we can say, that defintion of what not or might be is
dependant on the science discpline at hand.
sound like a budikka colossal mhole to me.
Once again your demonstration of just how colossal the holes are in
your education and competence is staggering.
sure.. sure..
Once again, let me ask you a question that you have in the past
avoided. When the World Trade Center towers were knocked down two
years ago, there was disagreement about the precise mechanism that
actually brought the main towers down. Does this mean they never fell
down? Answer the question.
actually no. more so the process can be duplicated..
next question?
Transitional species are to be expected and have been found in
abundance despite the limits of the fossil record. Genetic links
between species have been found.
Not true, assumption that they might be transsitional is another
remade Disney story, the fact is that nowhere in the fossil record are
found partially formed bones or organs that could be taken for the
beginning of a new feature. For instance, there are fossils of various
types of flying creatures—birds, bats, extinct pterodactyls. According
to evolutionary theory, they must have evolved from transitional
ancestors. But none of those transitional forms have been found. There
is not a hint of them. Are there any fossils of giraffes with necks
two thirds or three quarters as long as at present? Are there any
fossils of birds evolving a beak from a reptile jaw? Is there any
fossil evidence of fish developing an amphibian pelvis, or of fish
fins turning into amphibian legs, feet and toes? The fact is, looking
for such developing features in the fossil record has proved to be a
fruitless quest.
New Scientist noted that evolution "predicts that a complete fossil
record would consist of lineages of organisms showing gradual change
continuously over long periods of time." But it admitted:
"Unfortunately, the fossil record does not meet this expectation, for
individual species of fossils are rarely connected to one another by
known intermediate forms. . . . known fossil species do indeed appear
not to evolve even over millions of years." And geneticist Stebbins
writes: "No transitional forms are known between any of the major
phyla of animals or plants." He speaks of "the large gaps which exist
between many major categories of organisms." "In fact," The New
Evolutionary Timetable acknowledges, "the fossil record does not
convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.
Furthermore, species lasted for astoundingly long periods of time.".
This agrees with the extensive study made by the Geological Society
of London and the Palaeontological Association of England. Professor
of natural science John N. Moore reported on the results: "Some 120
scientists, all specialists, prepared 30 chapters in a monumental work
of over 800 pages to present the fossil record for plants and animals
divided into about 2,500 groups. . . . Each major form or kind of
plant and animal is shown to have a separate and distinct history from
all the other forms or kinds! Groups of both plants and animals appear
suddenly in the fossil record. . . . Whales, bats, horses, primates,
elephants, hares, squirrels, etc., all are as distinct at their first
appearance as they are now. There is not a trace of a common ancestor,
much less a link with any reptile, the supposed progenitor." Moore
added: "No transitional forms have been found in the fossil record
very probably because no transitional forms exist in fossil stage at
all. Very likely, transitions between animal kinds and/or transitions
between plant kinds have never occurred."
Thus, what was true in Darwin's day is just as true today. The
evidence of the fossil record is still as zoologist D'Arcy Thompson
said some years ago in his book On Growth and Form: "Darwinian
evolution has not taught us how birds descend from reptiles, mammals
from earlier quadrupeds, quadrupeds from fishes, nor vertebrates from
the invertebrate stock. . . . to seek for stepping-stones across the
gaps between is to seek in vain, for ever."
Snipped the usual non-informational rant................
of course we now await on your critique on "new scientist", they just
wrote an article, of how the assumption of the evolution of plants
is......wrong...
another one to throw into your "hole" basket..
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr DuFunny" |
|
| Title: Re: Yet another Budikkka hole: the Reptile/Mammal Colossal Hole |
26 Sep 2003 01:09:36 PM |
|
|
"JaBrIoL" <Jabriol@excite.com> wrote in message
news:d222de3e.0309240548.8e30dfd@posting.google.com...
budikka1@netscape.net (Budikka) wrote in message
news:<e1e30450.0309240206.e07bc58@posting.google.com>...
Jabriol@excite.com (JaBrIoL) wrote in message
news:<d222de3e.0309231649.5d106f48@posting.google.com>...
so once again, we can say, that defintion of what not or might be is
dependant on the science discpline at hand.
sound like a budikka colossal mhole to me.
Once again your demonstration of just how colossal the holes are in
your education and competence is staggering.
sure.. sure..
Once again, let me ask you a question that you have in the past
avoided. When the World Trade Center towers were knocked down two
years ago, there was disagreement about the precise mechanism that
actually brought the main towers down. Does this mean they never fell
down? Answer the question.
actually no. more so the process can be duplicated..
next question?
Transitional species are to be expected and have been found in
abundance despite the limits of the fossil record. Genetic links
between species have been found.
Not true, assumption that they might be transsitional is another
remade Disney story, the fact is that nowhere in the fossil record are
found partially formed bones or organs that could be taken for the
beginning of a new feature. For instance, there are fossils of various
types of flying creatures-birds, bats, extinct pterodactyls. According
to evolutionary theory, they must have evolved from transitional
ancestors. But none of those transitional forms have been found. There
is not a hint of them. Are there any fossils of giraffes with necks
two thirds or three quarters as long as at present? Are there any
fossils of birds evolving a beak from a reptile jaw? Is there any
fossil evidence of fish developing an amphibian pelvis, or of fish
fins turning into amphibian legs, feet and toes? The fact is, looking
for such developing features in the fossil record has proved to be a
fruitless quest.
How do you explain (away) the postulated Whale family tree, then? I.e.,
what about whales?
New Scientist noted that evolution "predicts that a complete fossil
record would consist of lineages of organisms showing gradual change
continuously over long periods of time." But it admitted:
"Unfortunately, the fossil record does not meet this expectation, for
individual species of fossils are rarely connected to one another by
known intermediate forms. . . . known fossil species do indeed appear
not to evolve even over millions of years." And geneticist Stebbins
writes: "No transitional forms are known between any of the major
phyla of animals or plants." He speaks of "the large gaps which exist
between many major categories of organisms." "In fact," The New
Evolutionary Timetable acknowledges, "the fossil record does not
convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.
Furthermore, species lasted for astoundingly long periods of time.".
*astoundingly long periods of time." The astoundingly long period of time
that fully formed species existed, compared with the relatively much
shorter period of time that transitional forms existed may account for the
fact that transitional forms are rare or not existant in the fossil record.
theoretically a new transitional species could form, which quickly through
natural selection within that same new species, optimized the phenotype in
such a short geological time span that the fossils of the transitional
ancestors within the species might be so rare it would be like looking for a
needle in a haystack.
This agrees with the extensive study made by the Geological Society
of London and the Palaeontological Association of England. Professor
of natural science John N. Moore reported on the results: "Some 120
scientists, all specialists, prepared 30 chapters in a monumental work
of over 800 pages to present the fossil record for plants and animals
divided into about 2,500 groups. . . . Each major form or kind of
plant and animal is shown to have a separate and distinct history from
all the other forms or kinds! Groups of both plants and animals appear
suddenly in the fossil record. . . . Whales, bats, horses, primates,
elephants, hares, squirrels, etc., all are as distinct at their first
appearance as they are now. There is not a trace of a common ancestor,
much less a link with any reptile, the supposed progenitor." Moore
added: "No transitional forms have been found in the fossil record
very probably because no transitional forms exist in fossil stage at
all. Very likely, transitions between animal kinds and/or transitions
between plant kinds have never occurred."
If this pasted quote postulates descent of mammals from reptiles, it must be
rather old.
Thus, what was true in Darwin's day is just as true today. The
evidence of the fossil record is still as zoologist D'Arcy Thompson
said some years ago in his book On Growth and Form: "Darwinian
evolution has not taught us how birds descend from reptiles, mammals
from earlier quadrupeds, quadrupeds from fishes, nor vertebrates from
the invertebrate stock. . . . to seek for stepping-stones across the
gaps between is to seek in vain, for ever."
Fish would not show transitional limbs, since at first, they would be
wiggling on fins through the mud. However, finns have the prototypical
structure to be able to evolve into feet, if evolution is a valid theory,
whioch i sat that it is. Once again, birds and mammals must not have evolved
from reptiles but from another group of creatures, perhaps therapsids as a
previous writer mentioned. The idea that reptiles were our ancestors came
about at a time when the fossil records were known collectively in much
less detail than now.
Snipped the usual non-informational rant................
of course we now await on your critique on "new scientist", they just
wrote an article, of how the assumption of the evolution of plants
is......wrong...
another one to throw into your "hole" basket..
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: Yet another Budikkka hole: the Reptile/Mammal Colossal Hole |
25 Sep 2003 08:17:10 PM |
|
|
(JaBrIoL) wrote in message news:<d222de3e.0309240548.8e30dfd@posting.google.com>...
Once again, let me ask you a question that you have in the past
avoided. When the World Trade Center towers were knocked down two
years ago, there was disagreement about the precise mechanism that
actually brought the main towers down. Does this mean they never fell
down? Answer the question.
actually no. more so the process can be duplicated.
Evolution has been demonstrated in the lab and observed in the wild.
QED. You lose. Deal with it loser.
Not true, assumption that they might be transsitional is another
remade Disney story, the fact is that nowhere in the fossil record are
found partially formed bones or organs that could be taken for the
beginning of a new feature.
I assume you don't mean that literally. If you do, you're a bigger
moron than I already know you to be.
Yes there are transitionals, and the literature is replete with them.
Read the talk origins archives for once - actually read them instead
of blindly trashing them. If you don't trust t.o., then buy a book.
There is a staggering number of them. Try "At the Water's Edge" by
Carl Zimmer, (The Free Press, 1998) for a thorough examination of the
transition of organisms from aquatic to terrestrial environments and
back again via whale evolution.
For instance, there are fossils of various
types of flying creatures?birds, bats, extinct pterodactyls. According
to evolutionary theory, they must have evolved from transitional
ancestors. But none of those transitional forms have been found.
Archaeopteryx - an example that I have given to you repeatedly and
that you have run from like a scared chicken. It has pretty much
fifty-fifty dino and bird features. What is that if not an example of
a transitional form?
Why do we have almost identical DNA to chimpanzees if we are not both
related to a common ancestor? Why is mouse DNA so close to ours if we
are not connected?
If we are not related to chimpanzees, how come our DNA is closer to
theirs than theirs is to any other of the great apes? How come our
DNA is closer to theirs than the red-eyed vireo's is to the white-eyed
vireo? How come our DNA is closer to theirs than the Indian
elephant's is to the African elephant's? How come our DNA is closer
to theirs than two camel species are to each other? You lose. Deal
with it Loser.
There
is not a hint of them. Are there any fossils of giraffes with necks
two thirds or three quarters as long as at present?
What is the okapi if not a transitional giraffe? Okapis are alive and
well today and are in the same family. You lose. Deal with it Loser.
Are there any
fossils of birds evolving a beak from a reptile jaw?
Please show me the quote from any evolutionist who made this specific
claim. Are you aware that jaw and beak are not equivalent? Are you
aware that reptiles have beaks of a fashion - for example, the
tortoise?
If you cannot show me the quote where an evolutionist made this
specific claim, then withdraw it because it is yet another big fat
Jabriol Lie(TM). No evolutionist ever said this. Do the world a
favor and get yourself a big fat clue. Jaw is bone, beak is keratin.
They're not the same. A beak would have developed from hardened skin,
not from bone. Now once again, where is your evidence than any
evolutionist ever made this specific claim?
On the other hand, have you never heard of dinosaurs having beaks?
Clearly not. Many of them did. Please do the world a favor and learn
what it is you're talking about before you open your clueless mouth.
Is there any
fossil evidence of fish developing an amphibian pelvis, or of fish
fins turning into amphibian legs, feet and toes?
Yes. Read Carl Zimmer's book.
The fact is, looking
for such developing features in the fossil record has proved to be a
fruitless quest.
Lie. As the Kathleen Hunt FAQ demonstrates. You know, the
transitional fossil FAQ that I have repeatedly advised you of - the
FAQ that has over 70 references supporting it, many of which are to
refereed science journals such as "Nature"?
New Scientist noted that evolution "predicts that a complete fossil
record would consist of lineages of organisms showing gradual change
continuously over long periods of time."
Please give a reference to this specific quote. Did New Scientist say
it, i.e. as an editorial, or was this yet another clueless Jabriol
example of an argument from incredulity opinion piece that happened to
be published in New Scientist, and which Jabriol is too clueless to
understand is not an example of a peer-reviewed paper supported by
solid evidence or deduction/theorising from evidence and published in
a professional science journal such as "Nature" or "Science"? Or
can't you tell the difference?
Evolution does not predict a complete fossil record. It does not
specifically predict a fossil record at all. It predicts that *if*
there is a fossil record *and* the record is reasonably complete,
there should be examples of transitioning organisms. Kathleen Hunts
FAQ lists scores of such examples, despite the incompleteness of the
record. You lose. Deal with it, Loser.
Darwin's theory was first published when there was essentially no
fossil record known. Since then, fossils have been recovered which
show a changing flora and fauna over extended periods of time just as
Darwin predicted.
Over the last four billion years, the flora and fauna have slowly
changed from extremely simple organims in the earliest record to very
complex life forms recently. Nothing that lives today existed in
those earliest rocks and very little that lived in the earliest times
still exists today. This is in complete accord with the Theory of
Evolution.
Please do list the next Jabriol Lie(TM) that you want exposed.
But it admitted:
"Unfortunately, the fossil record does not meet this expectation,
Who admitted? Once again, do not confuse the accepted scientific
position with the opinion of someone, even if it is published in a
science magazine.
for
individual species of fossils are rarely connected to one another by
known intermediate forms.
Note the key word "rarely" - this means that while transitional forms
are rare as is to be expected, given what we know of the way evolution
works, they **do** exist. Even your own quotation shows you to be a
liar.
You need to quit quoting from New Scientist. This makes twice that I
have demonstrated a quotation of yours shows you to be a liar.
known fossil species do indeed appear
not to evolve even over millions of years." And geneticist Stebbins
writes: "No transitional forms are known between any of the major
phyla of animals or plants." He speaks of "the large gaps which exist
between many major categories of organisms."
And the date of this unreferenced quote is?
"In fact," The New
Evolutionary Timetable acknowledges, "the fossil record does not
convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.
Furthermore, species lasted for astoundingly long periods of time.".
About a million years on average. This is not a problem for
evolution. It is to be expected. Once again, how old is this quote
of yours, and where is the reference to it? If you cannot supply it,
then this is yet another Jabriol lie.
This agrees with the extensive study made by the Geological Society
of London and the Palaeontological Association of England. Professor
of natural science John N. Moore reported on the results: "Some 120
scientists, all specialists, prepared 30 chapters in a monumental work
of over 800 pages to present the fossil record for plants and animals
divided into about 2,500 groups. . . . Each major form or kind of
plant and animal is shown to have a separate and distinct history from
all the other forms or kinds!
As far as I can tell, this is from a letter - **A LETTER** written
*to* New Scientist by Moore - a creationist. AND IT WAS OVER THIRTY
YEARS AGO. What a filthy, deceitful little cheap-***** liar you are
trying to pretend that New Scientists was saying this when it is just
the opposite - a letter written by a creationist. No wonder you don't
offer references, you worthless lying ***** rag.
And what is the problem with divergence of higher groups? Once a
higher group sets out on its evolutionary path, yes, it does diverge,
and no, there are no transitions between higher groups because higher
groups do not cross evolve you moron.
With the exception of examples of convergent evolution, **of course**
they're going to go on their separate paths. Otherwise there would be
no speciation and no opportunity for development into higher orders!
Do you think an elephant sprouts wings and transitions into a bird?
Get a clue! You are not going to see one higher order suddenly leap
into a transition to another higher order. Evolution doesn't work
that way. New orders start with new species, moron. The longer they
exist and flourish, the greater the divergence.
Groups of both plants and animals appear
suddenly in the fossil record. . . . Whales, bats, horses, primates,
elephants, hares, squirrels, etc.,
Funny how you list all the cuddly primates but ignore all the other
groups, isn't it? Whales do not appear suddenly, as Carl Zimmer's
nook demonstrates, there are many examples of transitional whales.
Neither do horses - there is a complete lineage of horses, as any high
school student knows. There are many examples of primates,
particularly between primates and humans. There are tons of elephants
- literally. Obviously you haven't read anything that shows the
evidence of evolution. All you have done is make up your tiny little
mind beforehand and then read only what you think supports your
clueless views.
Your entire armory seems to consist of ancient argument from
incredulity by creationists, who argue almost purely at modern
anatomical level. Evolution takes place at genetic level and started
a long, long time ago, before any mdoern species existed. I notice
you have carefully avoided dealing with genetic evidence.
all are as distinct at their first
appearance as they are now.
Lie. They are very different when they first appear. Which of the
mammals that you listed above looks precisely the same now as it did
when it first appeared in the fossil reocrd? Name it. Where were any
of the modern animals you listed in the Cambrian or the Permian or the
Jurassic?
Species change over time. They disappear and new, related species
start showing up around the same time. On occasions where the fossil
record is very good, the transition can be seen. This is entirely in
accord with evolution.
There is not a trace of a common ancestor,
much less a link with any reptile, the supposed progenitor."
Clearly from this quote you are quoting out of context. The writer is
talking about a specific instance and you are pretending it is
generalised over all of biology. Now once again, why not have the
honesty to reference this quote properly, so others can check up on
you - or are you too afraid your lie will be exposed, and we will all
see that this was a letter written by a creationist and had nothing to
do with peer-reviewed articles?
Moore
added: "No transitional forms have been found in the fossil record
very probably because no transitional forms exist in fossil stage at
all. Very likely, transitions between animal kinds and/or transitions
between plant kinds have never occurred."
Lie, as Kathleen Hunt';s FAQ, backed by over 70 references,
demonstrates conclusively.
Thus, what was true in Darwin's day is just as true today.
Lie. there was virtually no fossil record known in his time. Today
there are literally hundreds of examples of evolution to be found in
it. Again, what is the date of this quote that you are so carefully
hiding? Is it the creationist letter from 1970?
evidence of the fossil record is still as zoologist D'Arcy Thompson
said some years ago in his book On Growth and Form:
Some years ago? How many years ago? Is this the D'Arcy Thompson who
was born in 1860 and died in 1948? Once again you do not have the
courage to offer a complete reference. Some years ago? Try half a
century ago, you cheap piece of dogshit.
Snipped the usual non-informational rant................
Then I should snip the entireity of your every post, because all of
them are filled with incredulity argument and ancient creationist
trash.
of course we now await on your critique on "new scientist", they just
wrote an article, of how the assumption of the evolution of plants
is......wrong...
another one to throw into your "hole" basket..
Once again a non-informational rant since you offer not a shred of
reference or even a pretence of one.
When you have actual evidence instead of ancient, vague,
out-of-context argument from incredulity, do please try again and I
will be happy to slap you down as hard and effectively as I have been
doing recently (and by recently, I mean the last fifty days, not the
last fifty years as you do).
Now can we get back to this list of "colossal holes" - since the only
colossal hole you have effectively demonstrated is the fact that you
have failed to supply such a list despite endless demands for one.
Are you going to list these holes or are you going to actually shock
us all with newly evolved honesty and admit you cannot demonstrate
even a hole, let alone a "colossal" one?
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "JaBrIoL" |
|
| Title: Re: Yet another Budikkka hole: the Reptile/Mammal Colossal Hole |
26 Sep 2003 09:13:07 AM |
|
|
(Budikka) wrote in message news:<e1e30450.0309251717.7fe34532@posting.google.com>...
Jabriol@excite.com (JaBrIoL) wrote in message news:<d222de3e.0309240548.8e30dfd@posting.google.com>...
Once again, let me ask you a question that you have in the past
avoided. When the World Trade Center towers were knocked down two
years ago, there was disagreement about the precise mechanism that
actually brought the main towers down. Does this mean they never fell
down? Answer the question.
actually no. more so the process can be duplicated.
Evolution has been demonstrated in the lab and observed in the wild.
QED. You lose. Deal with it loser.
Not true, assumption that they might be transsitional is another
remade Disney story, the fact is that nowhere in the fossil record are
found partially formed bones or organs that could be taken for the
beginning of a new feature.
I assume you don't mean that literally. If you do, you're a bigger
moron than I already know you to be.
Yes there are transitionals, and the literature is replete with them.
Read the talk origins archives for once - actually read them instead
of blindly trashing them. If you don't trust t.o., then buy a book.
There is a staggering number of them. Try "At the Water's Edge" by
Carl Zimmer, (The Free Press, 1998) for a thorough examination of the
transition of organisms from aquatic to terrestrial environments and
back again via whale evolution.
For instance, there are fossils of various
types of flying creatures?birds, bats, extinct pterodactyls. According
to evolutionary theory, they must have evolved from transitional
ancestors. But none of those transitional forms have been found.
Archaeopteryx - an example that I have given to you repeatedly and
that you have run from like a scared chicken. It has pretty much
fifty-fifty dino and bird features. What is that if not an example of
a transitional form?
Archaeopteryx meanwhile continues to be the subject of serious
scholarship and causes dispute among scientists who do not question
its authenticity. In an article published in the Zoological Journal of
the Linnean Society in 1984 (Vol. 82, pp. 119-158) and called "The
avian relationship of Archaeopteryx and the origin of birds", R. A.
Thulborn argues that Archaeopteryx is not, in fact, a bird at all!
From careful morphological analysis of birds, dinosaurs, reptiles and
Archaeopteryx he concludes that Archaeopteryx is no more closely
related to birds than several types of theropod dinosaurs including
tyrannosaurids and ornithomimids. He argues that Archaeopteryx is not
an ancestral bird and transfers it to the dinosaur suborder Theropoda.
He believes that there may not, in fact, be any 'missing link' between
dinosaurs and birds to be discovered in the fossil record but that
birds may have arisen by means of a 'saltative' change between the two
groups. By this he means a sudden and abrupt evolutionary change
rather than the gradual and progressive kind advocated by Darwin.
Why do we have almost identical DNA to chimpanzees if we are not both
related to a common ancestor? Why is mouse DNA so close to ours if we
are not connected?
75% of our DNA is shared with a banana.. that makes you a fruit?
snip with the rest of asinine assumption in genetics...
so we all have the same build material.
so does a porcelain vase, with floor tiles...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: Yet another Budikkka hole: the Reptile/Mammal Colossal Hole |
27 Sep 2003 09:14:04 AM |
|
|
(JaBrIoL) wrote in message news:<d222de3e.0309260613.248058c2@posting.google.com>...
Archaeopteryx meanwhile continues to be the subject of serious
scholarship and causes dispute among scientists who do not question
its authenticity. In an article published in the Zoological Journal of
the Linnean Society in 1984 (Vol. 82, pp. 119-158)
Almost 20 years ago. Do you actually have anything recent or is your
entire set of arguments at least two decades out of date?
and called "The
avian relationship of Archaeopteryx and the origin of birds", R. A.
Thulborn argues that Archaeopteryx is not, in fact, a bird at all!
It was a fifty-fifty dino-bird mix. A transitional form. The very
thing that you have lied does not exist. That's the whole point about
it and what I have been repeatedly saying. When are you going to deal
with that instead of flapping your arms around like a startled bird?
When are you going to deal with the callenges that are presented to
you instead of throwing out straw men as fast as you can throw them
together? The archaeopteryx, regardless of what it was ancestral to,
was a fifty-fifty mix of dino and bird featues.
Answer these questions:
1. Do you deny that the archaopteryx is a 50-50 dino-bird mix?
2. If so what is your refutation?
3. If not, what has happened to your assertion that there are no
transitionals and that reptiles\dinos could not have evolved into
birds?
He believes that there may not, in fact, be any 'missing link' between
dinosaurs and birds to be discovered in the fossil record but that
birds may have arisen by means of a 'saltative' change between the two
groups. By this he means a sudden and abrupt evolutionary change
rather than the gradual and progressive kind advocated by Darwin.
So Jabriol finally admits to evolution. QED. You lose. Deal with it
Loser.
Why do we have almost identical DNA to chimpanzees if we are not both
related to a common ancestor? Why is mouse DNA so close to ours if we
are not connected?
75% of our DNA is shared with a banana.
Do you have a reference for this, or is this yet one more in a
tediously endless line of Jabriol Lies(TM)? **GIVE A REFERENCE** for
this or admit this is yet another lie. And answer the question intead
of throwing out yet more pathetically inadequate straw men in the
desperate hope that your absurd lies and cluelessness will be somehow
masked.
Do you deny that chimps are genetically closer to humans than they are
to other great apes?
snip with the rest of asinine assumption in genetics...
so we all have the same build material.
so does a porcelain vase, with floor tiles...
Right - a porcelain vase has the same DNA structure as a human. What
a completely fucked up Moron you are.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: Yet another Budikkka hole: the Reptile/Mammal Colossal Hole |
27 Sep 2003 03:09:57 PM |
|
|
"Budikka" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:e1e30450.0309270614.22aa796b@posting.google.com...
Jabriol@excite.com (JaBrIoL) wrote in message
news:<d222de3e.0309260613.248058c2@posting.google.com>...
Archaeopteryx meanwhile continues to be the subject of serious
scholarship and causes dispute among scientists who do not question
its authenticity. In an article published in the Zoological Journal of
the Linnean Society in 1984 (Vol. 82, pp. 119-158)
Almost 20 years ago. Do you actually have anything recent or is your
entire set of arguments at least two decades out of date?
yup.. but nothing has changed... doesnt evolution takes a loooooong time eh?
and called "The
avian relationship of Archaeopteryx and the origin of birds", R. A.
Thulborn argues that Archaeopteryx is not, in fact, a bird at all!
It was a fifty-fifty dino-bird mix. A transitional form.
nope it was a bird... it is called a bird,
and there is evidence that birds existed way before
http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/newsarch/2000/Jun00/birds.htm
CORVALLIS, Ore. - Scientists today announced the discovery of the oldest
animal ever known to have feathers, which may have been the ancestor of
birds but clearly was not a dinosaur - a discovery that calls into serious
question many theories about an evolutionary link between dinosaurs and
birds.
notice a non creationistn site.
if you were up to date.. I wouldnt have to snip the remaining repetive usual
banter.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zachriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Yet another Budikkka hole: the Reptile/Mammal Colossal Hole |
27 Sep 2003 06:49:06 PM |
|
|
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message
news:p8mdb.5084850$mA4.720710@news.easynews.com...
"Budikka" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:e1e30450.0309270614.22aa796b@posting.google.com...
Jabriol@excite.com (JaBrIoL) wrote in message
news:<d222de3e.0309260613.248058c2@posting.google.com>...
Archaeopteryx meanwhile continues to be the subject of serious
scholarship and causes dispute among scientists who do not question
its authenticity. In an article published in the Zoological Journal of
the Linnean Society in 1984 (Vol. 82, pp. 119-158)
Almost 20 years ago. Do you actually have anything recent or is your
entire set of arguments at least two decades out of date?
yup.. but nothing has changed... doesnt evolution takes a loooooong time
eh?
and called "The
avian relationship of Archaeopteryx and the origin of birds", R. A.
Thulborn argues that Archaeopteryx is not, in fact, a bird at all!
It was a fifty-fifty dino-bird mix. A transitional form.
nope it was a bird... it is called a bird,
and there is evidence that birds existed way before
http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/newsarch/2000/Jun00/birds.htm
CORVALLIS, Ore. - Scientists today announced the discovery of the oldest
animal ever known to have feathers, which may have been the ancestor of
birds but clearly was not a dinosaur - a discovery that calls into serious
question many theories about an evolutionary link between dinosaurs and
birds.
Yes. As usual, the true story is more complicated than it seems. We can
easily find intermediate forms in the fossil record, but exact
lines-of-descent can be difficult to determine. Modern genetics should soon
provide many answers.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: Yet another Budikkka hole: the Reptile/Mammal Colossal Hole |
28 Sep 2003 08:12:50 AM |
|
|
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:cmpdb.5390$Qv.1391926410@twister1.starband.net...
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message
news:p8mdb.5084850$mA4.720710@news.easynews.com...
"Budikka" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:e1e30450.0309270614.22aa796b@posting.google.com...
Jabriol@excite.com (JaBrIoL) wrote in message
news:<d222de3e.0309260613.248058c2@posting.google.com>...
Archaeopteryx meanwhile continues to be the subject of serious
scholarship and causes dispute among scientists who do not question
its authenticity. In an article published in the Zoological Journal
of
the Linnean Society in 1984 (Vol. 82, pp. 119-158)
Almost 20 years ago. Do you actually have anything recent or is your
entire set of arguments at least two decades out of date?
yup.. but nothing has changed... doesnt evolution takes a loooooong time
eh?
and called "The
avian relationship of Archaeopteryx and the origin of birds", R. A.
Thulborn argues that Archaeopteryx is not, in fact, a bird at all!
It was a fifty-fifty dino-bird mix. A transitional form.
nope it was a bird... it is called a bird,
and there is evidence that birds existed way before
http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/newsarch/2000/Jun00/birds.htm
CORVALLIS, Ore. - Scientists today announced the discovery of the oldest
animal ever known to have feathers, which may have been the ancestor of
birds but clearly was not a dinosaur - a discovery that calls into
serious
question many theories about an evolutionary link between dinosaurs and
birds.
Yes. As usual, the true story is more complicated than it seems. We can
easily find intermediate forms in the fossil record, but exact
lines-of-descent can be difficult to determine. Modern genetics should
soon
provide many answers.
well, that is my point... Budikka and many other's however ignore this.
truth is we can call anything a trasitional.... it a gap or hole, that needs
to be explored. but to teach this as concrete fact is moraly wrong.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zachriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Yet another Budikkka hole: the Reptile/Mammal Colossal Hole |
28 Sep 2003 08:26:43 AM |
|
|
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message
news:m7Bdb.1986637$Bf5.281385@news.easynews.com...
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:cmpdb.5390$Qv.1391926410@twister1.starband.net...
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message
news:p8mdb.5084850$mA4.720710@news.easynews.com...
"Budikka" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:e1e30450.0309270614.22aa796b@posting.google.com...
Jabriol@excite.com (JaBrIoL) wrote in message
news:<d222de3e.0309260613.248058c2@posting.google.com>...
Archaeopteryx meanwhile continues to be the subject of serious
scholarship and causes dispute among scientists who do not
question
its authenticity. In an article published in the Zoological
Journal
of
the Linnean Society in 1984 (Vol. 82, pp. 119-158)
Almost 20 years ago. Do you actually have anything recent or is
your
entire set of arguments at least two decades out of date?
yup.. but nothing has changed... doesnt evolution takes a loooooong
time
eh?
and called "The
avian relationship of Archaeopteryx and the origin of birds", R.
A.
Thulborn argues that Archaeopteryx is not, in fact, a bird at all!
It was a fifty-fifty dino-bird mix. A transitional form.
nope it was a bird... it is called a bird,
and there is evidence that birds existed way before
http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/newsarch/2000/Jun00/birds.htm
CORVALLIS, Ore. - Scientists today announced the discovery of the
oldest
animal ever known to have feathers, which may have been the ancestor
of
birds but clearly was not a dinosaur - a discovery that calls into
serious
question many theories about an evolutionary link between dinosaurs
and
birds.
Yes. As usual, the true story is more complicated than it seems. We can
easily find intermediate forms in the fossil record, but exact
lines-of-descent can be difficult to determine. Modern genetics should
soon
provide many answers.
well, that is my point... Budikka and many other's however ignore this.
truth is we can call anything a trasitional.... it a gap or hole, that
needs
to be explored. but to teach this as concrete fact is moraly wrong.
I already posted that you discovery has been refuted. But even if birds
evolved from a different branch of the reptilian tree than the therapods,
how would that change the fact that they evolved?
.
|
|
|
| User: "jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: Yet another Budikkka hole: the Reptile/Mammal Colossal Hole |
28 Sep 2003 09:11:43 AM |
|
|
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:JkBdb.14389$bq1.368350319@twister2.starband.net...
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message
news:m7Bdb.1986637$Bf5.281385@news.easynews.com...
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:cmpdb.5390$Qv.1391926410@twister1.starband.net...
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message
news:p8mdb.5084850$mA4.720710@news.easynews.com...
"Budikka" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:e1e30450.0309270614.22aa796b@posting.google.com...
Jabriol@excite.com (JaBrIoL) wrote in message
news:<d222de3e.0309260613.248058c2@posting.google.com>...
Archaeopteryx meanwhile continues to be the subject of serious
scholarship and causes dispute among scientists who do not
question
its authenticity. In an article published in the Zoological
Journal
of
the Linnean Society in 1984 (Vol. 82, pp. 119-158)
Almost 20 years ago. Do you actually have anything recent or is
your
entire set of arguments at least two decades out of date?
yup.. but nothing has changed... doesnt evolution takes a loooooong
time
eh?
and called "The
avian relationship of Archaeopteryx and the origin of birds", R.
A.
Thulborn argues that Archaeopteryx is not, in fact, a bird at
all!
It was a fifty-fifty dino-bird mix. A transitional form.
nope it was a bird... it is called a bird,
and there is evidence that birds existed way before
http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/newsarch/2000/Jun00/birds.htm
CORVALLIS, Ore. - Scientists today announced the discovery of the
oldest
animal ever known to have feathers, which may have been the ancestor
of
birds but clearly was not a dinosaur - a discovery that calls into
serious
question many theories about an evolutionary link between dinosaurs
and
birds.
Yes. As usual, the true story is more complicated than it seems. We
can
easily find intermediate forms in the fossil record, but exact
lines-of-descent can be difficult to determine. Modern genetics should
soon
provide many answers.
well, that is my point... Budikka and many other's however ignore this.
truth is we can call anything a trasitional.... it a gap or hole, that
needs
to be explored. but to teach this as concrete fact is moraly wrong.
I already posted that you discovery has been refuted. But even if birds
evolved from a different branch of the reptilian tree than the therapods,
how would that change the fact that they evolved?
Evolution as the origin of man is the main thread, but still what we see
here is layer upon layer of geological animal that existed, which are
similar, you must admit, that science might call them related, based on
their similiarity. the connecting dots to each is what goes missing.
We can use the term evolution to about everything, per today scientific
definition. Does this mean that one day Humans will not be humans anymore?
look at the problem of the whale evolution... it was speculated that they
came out of the water and return. then came along certain Mesonychids, and
one fossil in particular found in pakistan, because of this one fossil ear
contruction...
Voila!!!! the ancetor of big blue it is..
just like that! it is a big leap of faith here. in fact all evolution is s
faith oan the paleontology bible called fossils... no different than nutty
creationist intepretation of the 6 day quickie of genesis...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zachriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Yet another Budikkka hole: the Reptile/Mammal Colossal Hole |
28 Sep 2003 09:38:13 AM |
|
|
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message
news:z_Bdb.5128561$cI2.727227@news.easynews.com...
<snip>
look at the problem of the whale evolution... it was speculated that they
came out of the water and return. then came along certain Mesonychids, and
one fossil in particular found in pakistan, because of this one fossil ear
contruction...
Voila!!!! the ancetor of big blue it is..
just like that! it is a big leap of faith here. in fact all evolution is s
faith oan the paleontology bible called fossils... no different than nutty
creationist intepretation of the 6 day quickie of genesis...
Let us look at your denigration of extrapolating from fossil evidence.
Consider a single bone. A thigh-bone several feet in length, or a tooth
several inches in length. Are you claiming we can not make any
determinations about the organism from these single bones? And if we put
various ape teeth and human teeth and all the known teeth on a table, that
an expert is not capable of determining which is which?
.
|
|
|
| User: "jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: Yet another Budikkka hole: the Reptile/Mammal Colossal Hole |
28 Sep 2003 07:41:04 PM |
|
|
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:LnCdb.14401$BD1.369048610@twister2.starband.net...
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message
news:z_Bdb.5128561$cI2.727227@news.easynews.com...
<snip>
look at the problem of the whale evolution... it was speculated that
they
came out of the water and return. then came along certain Mesonychids,
and
one fossil in particular found in pakistan, because of this one fossil
ear
contruction...
Voila!!!! the ancetor of big blue it is..
just like that! it is a big leap of faith here. in fact all evolution is
s
faith oan the paleontology bible called fossils... no different than
nutty
creationist intepretation of the 6 day quickie of genesis...
Let us look at your denigration of extrapolating from fossil evidence.
Consider a single bone. A thigh-bone several feet in length, or a tooth
several inches in length. Are you claiming we can not make any
determinations about the organism from these single bones?
of course not.. what I am saying that to claim that said bone could be
ancestral to another lifeform based on its similiarity is a leap of faith.
it could be a totally different unrelated creature all together. Your
example of the neanderthal, it was once concieved that it was part of modern
man ancestor, now science claim, it is totally unrelated human species
parallel to modern man but not ascended from. this based on better and
careful study. And by anthropologist willing to accept that previous
conclusion were wrong.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zachriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Yet another Budikkka hole: the Reptile/Mammal Colossal Hole |
28 Sep 2003 07:54:49 PM |
|
|
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message
news:AcLdb.2010604$Bf5.284317@news.easynews.com...
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:LnCdb.14401$BD1.369048610@twister2.starband.net...
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message
news:z_Bdb.5128561$cI2.727227@news.easynews.com...
<snip>
look at the problem of the whale evolution... it was speculated that
they
came out of the water and return. then came along certain Mesonychids,
and
one fossil in particular found in pakistan, because of this one fossil
ear
contruction...
Voila!!!! the ancetor of big blue it is..
just like that! it is a big leap of faith here. in fact all evolution
is
s
faith oan the paleontology bible called fossils... no different than
nutty
creationist intepretation of the 6 day quickie of genesis...
Let us look at your denigration of extrapolating from fossil evidence.
Consider a single bone. A thigh-bone several feet in length, or a tooth
several inches in length. Are you claiming we can not make any
determinations about the organism from these single bones?
of course not.. what I am saying that to claim that said bone could be
ancestral to another lifeform based on its similiarity is a leap of faith.
Biologists don't make "leaps of faith", they study the evidence and draw
conclusions. Ancestry is not determined by similarity, but by homology.
it could be a totally different unrelated creature all together. Your
example of the neanderthal, it was once concieved that it was part of
modern
man ancestor, now science claim, it is totally unrelated human species
The phrase "totally unrelated" is deceptive and flatly false. Neanderthals
are very closely related to modern humans, though probably not ancestral.
Nevertheless, after having found enough specimens, scientists can determine
if a tooth is human or neanderthal -- your claim to the contrary not
withstanding.
parallel to modern man but not ascended from. this based on better and
careful study. And by anthropologist willing to accept that previous
conclusion were wrong.
.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
