-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What does the fossil record say?
- Thread starter Youtellme
- Start date
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Yes, researchers are too blind and drunk on TOE to see it.
Examples Cats. God made a cat kind. He may have made one breeding pair or hundreds. They may have been identical, they may have been varied.
The fossil record shows miacis, that looks more like a cat than a weasel. The cat similarity is obvious. You use it as some mid species when it is not. Miacis is a cat, and you have found fossils of other cats. Miacis is not a mid species it is one of the older fossils you have found of the kind 'cat'.
Miacis
Where has it been stated that Miacis was anything other than "cat like"?
You have no idea what Neanderthal is. Not only does Anthropology show they existed during a point alongside H. erectus but the evidence shows both hominids mated. Their DNA as well as ours are virtually identical which suggest we are related. So Is Neanderthal and H. erectus in the "human kind" or some other "kind"?
newhope101
Active Member
A poster made the statement Wilsoncole was the only creationists left here, so I popped in a comment.
After my making comments re miaicis and Indohyus the crap response I get is you agreeing with me on the my main points then disputing the aside which is not up for debate. You are classic. The Neanderthal debate, BTW, should not be a sticking point for anyone here.
Hence why no one bothers, apart from Wilsoncole, to stay here.
I spent more of my time here providing education to idiots. Neanderthal was illustrated as a chimp man not too long ago. Now he is depicted as Homo Sapiens Neanderthalis in some literature. Anyone with an ounce of brain function or retentive memory should be well aware of this...it is not a point to debate.
Even today there is huge debate about neanderthals place in human ancestry. Again regardless of what research you back, the debate is there, still arguing how much, if any, contribution was made and if the muliregional or out of Africa model applies. Again this is not a point to debate other than by the disasterously stupid and uneducated. Untill Neanderthal yeilded DNA he was an ape man. The point was that if your researchers are confused about recent Neanderthal fossils, that have yeilded DNA, they have no hope in best guessing anything millions of years old with no DNA.
That point remains, dear.......
Fossils Rekindle Neanderthal Debate
The Neanderthal Debate - essay, analysis 112278
Neanderthal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://culturesocietypraxis.org/index.php/csp/article/viewFile/131/99
Regardless, thankyou for agreeing with me on miacis. Hence you have a fossil record of varieties of cats and deer being found, with no intermediates at all. This is evidence that kinds were created as kinds.
Last edited:
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Way to be dishonest, newhope.
newhope101
Active Member
Immortal flame..why am I dishonest? Dirty Penguin challenged ..."who says miacis is not a cat". That comment to me suggests DP agrees with me in saying miacis is nothing more than just a cat.
I am right. You are not. Boofheaded asides are a waste of time.
Let's see what DP has to say. I am sure he is old enough to fend for himself.
I am right. You are not. Boofheaded asides are a waste of time.
Let's see what DP has to say. I am sure he is old enough to fend for himself.
newhope101
Active Member
Wrong..you have no idea how Adam atom came to be, as far as your science knows Adam atom just poofed into existence.
As for Eve evolution.. Eve has died many deaths Additionally with all the current work being done exposing horizontal gene transfer in all organisms, I think presumptive best guessing is the best you can produce as evidence for anything, including fossils.
Apologetics Press - How Many Times does "Mitochondrial Eve" have to Die?
Human Genetic Diversity and Diversification of Genetic Traits | Learn Science at Scitable
Rediscovering Biology - Online Textbook: Unit 9 Human Evolution
ANTHROPOLOGY: ON NEANDERTHAL MITOCHONDRIAL DNA
The Mitochondrial Eve and the Clock Vrsus Homo erectus: Is there a Creationary model that would allow the data to fit together? MHRC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateral_gene_transfer
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
No, they didn't. They said:
"Where has it been stated that Miacis was anything other than "cat like"? "
Do you understand the difference between saying something is a cat and saying something is "cat like"?
I'm sure he is. I'm just calling you out for your dishonesty.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Don't take the (question) as an endorsement for your position or that I'm agreeing with you. You've been going on about the Miacis. "Cat like" does not mean in the strict sense that it (IS) a cat. Some weasels are "cat like" but they aren't cats.
You don't know that you don't know. Even though the Panda appears to be a herbivore it's been known to eat fish, eggs and insects. This hardly qualifies it as a strict herbivore.
If you don't believe a branch of hominid has gotten the final say so by scientist then why do you keep bringing it up? What I find so funny is you can't even tell us why the Neanderthal is there if your god created man "fully formed". You called it a "beast" and yet...morphologically and genomically they are almost identical to H. Sapiens. Neanderthal and H. Sapiens, at some point, lived during the same time and the research suggest they mated. Since you can't accept these facts, as they refute your creation claim, you are faced with no other choice but to deny the evidence and call them "beast".
Because he is as clueless as you are....with his riding the coat tail of that one trick pony known as (Lonnig)....I've already dealt with Lonnig's lack of credibility to be taken serious by even his own colleagues...and the fact that he cites Behe on (IC) but disagrees with Common Ancestry..even though Behe does agree with Common Ancestry.
See above. You haven't a clue why animals are classified the way they are (i.e. holding to the misinformed notion that Pandas are strictly herbivores). Looks as though you need to "get an education"...
Sure it is. It's certainly one you can't answer......like... So Is Neanderthal and H. Erectus in the "human kind" or some other "kind"?
No DNA....?....
Neanderthal genome project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Study: Neanderthal DNA Lives On in Modern Humans - TIME
Neanderthals, Humans Interbred
Keep in mind this is the same "Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology"....where Wilson's precious Lonnig hails.
Not only is the DNA there and it's testable it shows that H. Sapiens interbred with Neanderthal. Now....either we're all the same "KIND" or we're two different "KINDS" (man and beast) that were perfectly capable of producing viable offspring (see genome project). Either way it's a conundrum for your hypothesis or definition of "Kinds" considering genomic information that should only exist in Neanderthals was discovered in modern day H. Sapiens.........:thud:
Last edited:
David M
Well-Known Member
Being dishonest in your defence against an accusation of dishonesty is somewhat silly Newhope.
What DP said was
He did not say what you have claimed here. Now you are quote-mining posters here.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Only if you redefine the word "cat" to include creatures which do not belong to the family Felidae.
newhope101
Active Member
Quote Dirty Penguin "Don't take the (question) as an endorsement for your position or that I'm agreeing with you. You've been going on about the Miacis. "Cat like" does not mean in the strict sense that it (IS) a cat. Some weasels are "cat like" but they aren't cats".
Whether you agree or not is not the point. Miacis looks like a cat and only the desperate need it too be anything other than a variety of cat.
AGAIN.....The obvious point being that only the desperate need to make something a mystery. Miacis looks like a cat because it is a cat. How about that for the most parsinomous explanation? Rather than having to come up with a plethora of different sorts of speciation eg sympatric, allopatric, peripatric, parapatric, adding on woffle about why genetic drift and luck, biased modelling, genetic bottlenecks,horizonatal gene transfer, homoplasy,and all the rest of it to explain why things just aint evolved quite the way they were expected to be.
Subtle shifts, not major sweeps, drove human evolution
Whether you agree or not is not the point. Miacis looks like a cat and only the desperate need it too be anything other than a variety of cat.
AGAIN.....The obvious point being that only the desperate need to make something a mystery. Miacis looks like a cat because it is a cat. How about that for the most parsinomous explanation? Rather than having to come up with a plethora of different sorts of speciation eg sympatric, allopatric, peripatric, parapatric, adding on woffle about why genetic drift and luck, biased modelling, genetic bottlenecks,horizonatal gene transfer, homoplasy,and all the rest of it to explain why things just aint evolved quite the way they were expected to be.
Subtle shifts, not major sweeps, drove human evolution
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Only if by "parsimonious" you mean "wrong."
Words have definitions. This creature does not meet the definition of a cat. Only the desperate would need to make it one to fit their belief system.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Oh, but it is the point because you quoted me as though I was agreeing with you....I'm confused as to how a "question" can be regarded as an agreement....
Now pay attention. Just because it is "cat like" does not mean it is strictly "a cat", especially if all you're going by is some rudimentary color drawing from wiki. If you truly believe Miacis is strictly a cat because it has "cat like" appearances then maybe you can kindly tell us what this is. Is it a cat or is it a dog?
Here's another picture of the same species of animal from the front. Does it look like a dog or a cat?
See, these aren't elementary school style cartoon drawings. This is an actual living animal and unless you are familiar with this particular species you won't know what it is. This is why...grouping animals as "kinds" is useless because if we apply your twisted logic to how we classify animals based on simply what they "look like" then this would be lost in the mix......Your camp has no idea where this would go. You have a chance now. Tell us. What is it? Is it a cat or a dog...and how do you know what it is or where it goes? Auto asked you about the creature and you went silent.
So basically you're ill-equipped to answer Neanderthal DNA which you've conveniently snipped out. You made the charge that there was no DNA and there is...and a researcher at the same institute as Lonnig is the one who tested it and published the findings.....
You're ill-equipped to truly discern herbivores from carnivores and why we classify them the way we do (e.g. Pandas).
You're ill-equipped to answer why H. Sapiens share some genomic information with Neanderthal, the ones you called "beast".
You're ill-equipped to answer why the research shows Neanderthal and H. Sapiens to have interbred....thus challenging your biblical creation account. This is why I say you don't know that you don't know.
When you're truly challenged you shift gears and put up straw-man arguments in a desperate attempt to shift the debate in a different direction so you don't have to answer what should be a simple question......
Is Neanderthal and H. Erectus in the "human kind" or some other "kind"?
Last edited:
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
I thought newhope was defining "kind" as (basically) "family," not "animals that look sort of like each other. Am I mistaken?
newhope101
Active Member
Oh, but it is the point because you quoted me as though I was agreeing with you....I'm confused as to how a "question" can be regarded as an agreement....
Now pay attention. Just because it is "cat like" does not mean it is strictly "a cat", especially if all you're going by is some rudimentary color drawing from wiki. If you truly believe Miacis is strictly a cat because it has "cat like" appearances then maybe you can kindly tell us what this is. Is it a cat or is it a dog? You miss the point I make which is your researcher have no idea really with homoplasy your scientists are best guessing at best. If a creationist finds a fossil that looks like a cat it would be placed within the cat kind. If an evolutionist finds a fossil that looks like a cat but it is dated to a time where cats are not supposed to have evolved yet then it becomes something else eg a miacis. You do not have to convince me that kinds may appear similar. There are dogs that look like pigs yet they are still dogs.
Here's another picture of the same species of animal from the front. Does it look like a dog or a cat? So what? You are talking about creatures with us today a long shot from classifying something millions of years old? This is a mute point you are wasting your time on.
See, these aren't elementary school style cartoon drawings. This is an actual living animal and unless you are familiar with this particular species you won't know what it is. This is why...grouping animals as "kinds" is useless because if we apply your twisted logic to how we classify animals based on simply what they "look like" then this would be lost in the mix......Your camp has no idea where this would go. You have a chance now. Tell us. What is it? Is it a cat or a dog...and how do you know what it is or where it goes? Auto asked you about the creature and you went silent. And yet your scientists can tell the difference so well can they? They can't even make up their minds if Ardi is in the human line or not. They represented neanderthal like an ape man until they got DNA to supposedly settle the matter and still they debate contributions if any. What are you trying to prove? You are providing convincing evidence as to how your scientists would also have no clue. You play this game. Your researchers have many unanswered questions. Does that make TOE crap. You say you have convincing evindence. I am looking at carnivores. I say you do not have any convincing evidence at all. Trying to find questions in the hope that I cannot answer does not illustrate convincing evidence of carnivore ancestry. It is just a desperate smoke screen for times you cannot supply the evidence requested that you alledge you have so much of. Where is it??????????????????
So basically you're ill-equipped to answer Neanderthal DNA which you've conveniently snipped out. You made the charge that there was no DNA and there is...and a researcher at the same institute as Lonnig is the one who tested it and published the findings..... I think you are ill equiped the differnce being I can prove it
In May 2010, the project released a draft of their report on the sequenced Neanderthal Genome. Contradicting the results discovered while examining mitochondrial DNA, they demonstrated a range of genetic contribution to non-African modern humans ranging from 1% to 4%. From their Homo sapiens samples in Eurasia (French, Han Chinese & Papuan) the authors state that it is likely that interbreeding occurred in the Levant before Homo sapiens migrated into Europe.[18] However, this finding is disputed because of the lack of archeological evidence supporting their statement. The fossil evidence does not place Neanderthals and modern humans in close proximity at this time and place.[19]
Neanderthal genome project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So you think this is settle do you? Well, I have news for you, lovey....
You're ill-equipped to truly discern herbivores from carnivores and why we classify them the way we do (e.g. Pandas).
Pandas are herbovores, and just another example of the contadictions in your taxonomy. I can read which appearently is a more advanced trait than you possess.
You're ill-equipped to answer why H. Sapiens share some genomic information with Neanderthal, the ones you called "beast".
You're ill-equipped to answer why the research shows Neanderthal and H. Sapiens to have interbred....thus challenging your biblical creation account. This is why I say you don't know that you don't know.
Neanderthal are now classified as homo sapiens in much literature. There is no problem with humans breeding with other humans which is all Neanderthal ever was. It most certainly does not destry the biblical creation account. What it did destroy is faith in your crap science and its ability to unbiased speak to any matter at all. Modern humans have been placed in Isreal 400,000ya, that's biblical support and alot less convoluted that your out of Africa crap
Was Israel the birthplace of modern humans?
When you're truly challenged you shift gears and put up straw-man arguments in a desperate attempt to shift the debate in a different direction so you don't have to answer what should be a simple question......
No this is what you do as evidenced by every aside and a plethora of non related questions or playing games, while not being able to provide the evidence I initially requested which was, what was the ancestor of miasis, the cat? When did it not look like a cat, given that many animals have 4 legs and a head?
Is Neanderthal and H. Erectus in the "human kind" or some other "kind"?
Erectus was not human, it is an ape, despite your attempts to humanise it.
Neither was homo habilis, nor florensiensis, despite any biased sketch work, nor are any of them apart from neanderthal that is now apparently human, .
What does the fossil evidence say... that cats were created as cats, dogs as dogs, bears as bears. This is what you have found.
So lets stop throwing up asides or playing let's see what ridiculous question I can't answer and post up some evidence that is actually convincing as to the ancestry of any carnivore. You say your evidence is solid..now let's see it......Go.........
Last edited:
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
I have to admit, I'm really enjoying the Panda argument. Lot's of lols.
opcorn:
wa:do
opcorn:wa:do
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
I have to admit, I'm really enjoying the Panda argument. Lot's of lols.
wa:do
And miacids are cats, and the Paluxy footprints are real.
newhope101
Active Member
Waitasec and Auto etc..... :foot: your response is what any creationist would expect.
Rather than trying to evaluate what my ability is to answer ever quandry in the world, why don't you try something novel like showing us all just what evidence there is for the ancestry of any carnivore. Ones that do not have likely or maybe etc would be a pleasant surprise.:yes:
It appears some of the fossil evidence has been classified as Miacis. There are many miacis species from what I have read. The only miacis picture or representation I see is a variety of cat, miacis. This is not convincing evidence of the dog ancestry as the next level of fossil evidence clearly represents the dog kind. Then you have fossils showing the first obviously bear kind.
What fossil evidence do you have to support the carnivore ancestry. Let's do this one, then we can look at another, maybe whales.
So if I was a nice little evolutionist and I said some idiot creationist asked for evidence of dog fossils that was not a dog but obviously something that did not resemble any of todays species of dog, cat or bear, what would you say? What fossil evidence do you actually have? Perhaps a tooth here, a jaw there...what?:sleep:
Is it more the fact that this ancestry simply must be this way for your models to work? That there must have been in existence at a certain time an arrray of various creatures, that you have lumped together, and called miacis that were the various ancestors of todays surviving carnavores? This is the presumption your researchers have made based on what? What makes you think that a bear-like creature was anything other than a bear? A cat like creature anything other than a cat? Then again you call a cat a martin like creature. Really anything that has 4 legs, fur and a head, COULD MAYBE PROBABLY OR LIKELY be anything!
MILLIONS OF YEARS FOR ONE SPECIES Theory is Wrong
Genome increase as a clock for the origin and evolution of life
Fossils may look like human bones: Biological anthropologists question claims for human ancestry
Homoplasy: A good thread to pull to understand the evolutionary ball of yarn
Your researchers really have no clue.
It is all biased best guessing and long wish lists when it comes to ancestry and relatedness.
Asides, waitasec, and stupid comments all the more convinces me that what you and your cohorts, call convincing evidence, is a wish list at best.:yes:
Show me some of this convincing evidence of yours relating to carnivores!
Rather than trying to evaluate what my ability is to answer ever quandry in the world, why don't you try something novel like showing us all just what evidence there is for the ancestry of any carnivore. Ones that do not have likely or maybe etc would be a pleasant surprise.:yes:
It appears some of the fossil evidence has been classified as Miacis. There are many miacis species from what I have read. The only miacis picture or representation I see is a variety of cat, miacis. This is not convincing evidence of the dog ancestry as the next level of fossil evidence clearly represents the dog kind. Then you have fossils showing the first obviously bear kind.
What fossil evidence do you have to support the carnivore ancestry. Let's do this one, then we can look at another, maybe whales.
So if I was a nice little evolutionist and I said some idiot creationist asked for evidence of dog fossils that was not a dog but obviously something that did not resemble any of todays species of dog, cat or bear, what would you say? What fossil evidence do you actually have? Perhaps a tooth here, a jaw there...what?:sleep:
Is it more the fact that this ancestry simply must be this way for your models to work? That there must have been in existence at a certain time an arrray of various creatures, that you have lumped together, and called miacis that were the various ancestors of todays surviving carnavores? This is the presumption your researchers have made based on what? What makes you think that a bear-like creature was anything other than a bear? A cat like creature anything other than a cat? Then again you call a cat a martin like creature. Really anything that has 4 legs, fur and a head, COULD MAYBE PROBABLY OR LIKELY be anything!
MILLIONS OF YEARS FOR ONE SPECIES Theory is Wrong
Genome increase as a clock for the origin and evolution of life
Fossils may look like human bones: Biological anthropologists question claims for human ancestry
Homoplasy: A good thread to pull to understand the evolutionary ball of yarn
Your researchers really have no clue.
It is all biased best guessing and long wish lists when it comes to ancestry and relatedness.Asides, waitasec, and stupid comments all the more convinces me that what you and your cohorts, call convincing evidence, is a wish list at best.:yes:
Show me some of this convincing evidence of yours relating to carnivores!
Last edited: