New Dinosaur Species Found in India

AP ^ | August 13, 2003 | RAMOLA TALWAR BADAM

[DittoJed2]

What makes sense is that mutations tend to have their limits. You can make a wholphin through genetic manipulation but you can not make a "felineolphin" (I know that is an extreme but we are talking kind to kind here). Dogs are limited to mutations within the dog family. Cats within the cat family. Horses within the horse family. This is observable science.

Even if you may end up with some freakish specimin that looks like a sphinx (head of a human body of an animal) or something, getting that freak to procreate and spread the deformity throughout the species until it indeed takes off on its own is an entirely different thing. First, you'd have to get another specimin with the same genetics. Even with some intermarriage, the "blue people" of Appalachia stopped being blue and the mutant gene faded away. Second, You don't have a part ape mating with a human being I don't care what their visual similarities are. Talk about a problem worse than where Cain got his wife from! Ya'll propose that some human somewhere had offspring with a part-ape.

[balrog666]

Hey quite picking on her! Or as Bender might say:

* slap * bite * slap * my * slap * shiny * slap * metal * slap * ass * slap *

[VadeRetro]

Ya'll propose that some human somewhere had offspring with a part-ape.

Where did we-all do that? Part ape and part what? And when did we-all say that happened?

This isn't some kind of a strawman argument, is it? Not saying it is, but tell me it isn't!

[DittoJed2]

In layman's terms, a kind is that which produces offspring with itself. Regardless of the genetic similarities between a human and a chimp (which is a good example), you aren't going to have a human (this is gross) having sex with a chimp and have a huepansee. That is my definition of "kind". You may end up with a similar ancestor between a zebra and horse, possibly. Another example would be the bird-dinosaur theory. It is debated whether dinos were warm or cold blooded, which is an issue in itself, but lung structure of birds apparently negates the theory anyway. You aren't going to have lizards mating with birds and coming up with a transitional species.

[Alamo-Girl]

LOLOL! Thanks for the hugs! And here's hugs²⁵ to you!!!

As to the hidden message, DittoJed2 is doing a great job on the creationist message. I'm very confident that other creationist views are welcome!

Personally, I've contributed very little because my intelligent design views are not helpful to the discussion at hand. But if anyone wishes to engage a sidebar on that aspect, I'm happy to discuss it.

[general_re]

You Hawaiians talk funny. No doubt you mean "... what you done revealed here."

Actually, this may be the first effdot post ever that benefits from adding punctuation - I think it may be intended to be read as "if you wanted to have a shallow, one-sided debate by hypocrites, you have succeeded immensely via what you have done, revealed here".

Notice how the clarity is immensely improved by the addition of a few commas and a hyphen. I may have to bookmark this thread...

[f.Christian]

God does work in mysterious ways ... so does satan --- among the brethern too !

I miss als and gore3000 !

[Right Wing Professor]

If you are going to introduce individual persons as evidence, you have made the argument by definition ad hominem. If you claim X and Y are great scientists and support creationism, then the only reasonable rebuttal is 'X and Y are not great scientists'. I agree ad hominems are in general unacceptable, but if a positive ad hominem is introduced as evidence for a point, a negative ad hominem in rebuttal is only to be expected.

Regarding the individuals: Behe's Darwin's Black Box book is unconvincing and sloppy. However, I am familiar with his previous physical chemistry work on DNA, and it was scientifically rigorous. Damadian's 1972 patent does not include an NMR imager as it is understood by either the NMR or the more general imaging community.

[MEGoody]

"I'll tell you who the descendants are: the birds!"

So some believe.

[AndrewC]

Howdy pardner.

[DittoJed2]

It is not a misconception. In order to become two kinds of species that can not overlap, then new genetic information would have to be added to enough of one group to cause them to go off in an entirely different direction. You can't just have Norm's grandson getting a mutation, moving to Omaha and "eventually" starting a new colony that can't mate with Norm's other offspring at all. First, the grandson would have to have had one strong mutation to withstand the natural weeding out process. Also, mutations of this kind dont tend to affect an entire species and they don't make them turn into different kinds of animals. The dinosaur who runs around and gets "Frayed scales" may have messed up scales, but he doesn't get feathers, became a debatably warm-blooded creature, and take to flight.

Finally, the fossil record does not support what you are saying. The best you have is a few highly disputed examples of what you call transitional species based upon external similarities. I can see external similarities between a giraffe and a lot of long-necked dinosaurs, but that doesn't mean they had the same ancestor.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for your reply! Indeed, God does work in mysterious ways!

I don't know where gore3000 went. He usually has a number of links and excerpts to post on a thread like this which is hitting so many areas of science all at the same time.

[f.Christian]

The sock pop up puppets are relentless --- gremlins ... whack - whack - whack !

[Right Wing Professor]

The list admits to the possibility of being not 100% accurate.

In fact, it doesn't admit to being 10% accurate. If you post a list which includes the admission that some unknown fraction of the list may be bogus, what does that prove?

My wife happens to have served recently on an NSF panel with one member of the list, and attended grad. school in the institution at which he teaches. She says she has never heard of his being an evolution skeptic, and is extremely doubtful that he is.

[DittoJed2]

Another word - the word "could". It is a hypothesis. As I stated earlier, the Bible seems to indicate the continents were at one point closer together. Then the earth was broken up (during the time of Peleg). I reject the Pangea model because it has to shrink Africa and ignores other countries in central and south America. Because of erosion, shrinking Africa in the very beginning should result in an even smaller country today, not bigger.

[DittoJed2]

He said they would not have been "capable of comprehending". You can legitimately take that two ways, and leaning towards intelligence is the stronger case of the two.

[BMCDA]

ROFL!! Reminds be of your 'bin' theory ;)

[VadeRetro]

Actually, the *hugs* are the real message and the rest is just camouflage.

[BMCDA]

be = me

[DittoJed2]

There is no astounding discovery to rescue the YECs from this hopeless position. Something that overturns all of biology won't do it. Something that overturns all of astronomy won't do it. Something that revolutionizes cosmology won't do it. Something that revolutionizes geology won't do it.
The return of the Creator will do it.