Posted on 03/13/2002 4:47:26 AM PST by JediGirl
preview of my non political carreer--project--discovery--development(purely technical/social)!
This fly of evolution I am swatting is only a healthy diversion--hiatus--warm up!
I got the big gun/arm under wrap and key--on lots of ice!
preview of my non political carreer--project--discovery--development(purely technical/social)!
This fly of evolution I am swatting is only a healthy diversion--hiatus--warm up!
I got the big... gun/arm---under wrap and key--on lots of ice!
oops!
You seem to not understand the above. It is quite clear to me! He is saying that the evo scientists, living in ivory towers paid for by our tax dollars are prostituting science for the sake of a nice living. His version though is better than my translation, he manages to allude to Robin Hood making the point a bit more forcefully.
This is labelled as a "complete fossil" of Notharctus venticolus. Whether or not that means it has the ear bones, it certainly is more than a tooth.
Why do you assume that there is no context for a specimen like this? Why do you claim that nothing was based on anythting but teeth? Only the size estimates are based on teeth.
It looks like a lemur. It has differentiated teeth. It may well have the ear bones if "complete" means "complete." There's no real question it's a mammal.
What is your evidence that the terms micro-evolution or macro-evolution were used by Darwin or anyone else from that time? And while you are at it, you could give us your definitions of micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Then you could post evidence of why you think there is a barrier between them.
And you use teeth and only teeth to determine that event. Ergo, the teeth speciated.
From your citationA Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus.
The numbers at the bottom of the graph are computed values. Specifically, whenever a first lower molar tooth was found, its length and width were measured. The values plotted are the logarithm of the length times the width. The researcher reports reasonable evidence that this value correlates well with body size. He used this approach because there were a lot more teeth than anything else. (Teeth often fossilize.) By measuring just teeth, it was possible to have a lot more data points.
...
As you can see from the ranges, a larger sample would have been nice.
The article goes on to say "Gingerich has since extended this work, but the conclusion has not changed. ". Okay let's see the new evidence. Teeth don't convince me.
That common ancestor of chimps and man was an ape. Apes diverged from monkeys about 30 million years ago, IIRC. Your ancestor was on the "ape" branch.
You have said that DNA evidence eliminates hippos as any sort of relative of whales.
It is labelled as such but is not. It is honestly noted on the page.
(In fact, the pictured fossil is a descendant of Notharctus venticolus, but none of the differences are visible here.)
That's my distant cousin, VladimirHenry.
"How about intellectual floating tax/pay castles of the sheriff nottinhaves regarding clues--truth honesty!"
G3...
You seem to not understand the above. It is quite clear to me! He is saying that the evo scientists, living in ivory towers paid for by our tax dollars are prostituting science for the sake of a nice living. His version though is better than my translation, he manages to allude to Robin Hood making the point a bit more forcefully.
1683 posted on 3/24/02 9:49 AM Hawaii-Aleutian by gore3000
And that is only the sanitized version of what these monsters are doing through their frankenstein social engineering--religion practices..."let them eat cakers"!
the sheriff nottinhaves regarding clues--truth honesty and what they are teaching--practicing devoid of moralty--character--human consciousness!"
Just look at sheriff Janet bone in her nose reno!
We've had the visogoths--black trench coat mafia through Rome 20 x's for a hundred years and nobody notices anything?
I told you what the question marks mean on the figure. They refer to the "intergrading" of specimens between H. erectus and that species you can't see, archaic Homo sapiens. Some people, apparently Junior is one, prefer to start Homo sapiens 400,000 years ago and call the later emergence Homo sapiens sapiens. All of which was in the stuff you ignored when you just went back to one of the old threads and pulled out your own arguments.
Archaic Homo Sapiens, with the figure you posted and the framing narrative.
There are specimens all over the period where you allege a gap. I'm not going to fill up yet another thread with skulls.
Archaic Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals.
The surviving physical evidence, from skulls such as these, suggests that the transition from Homo erectus to Homo sapiens, the earliest forms of our own species, occurred approximately 300,000 to 400,000 years ago.From Here.
An overall hominid species timeline I posted to you before. No question marks on this one (but the intergrading is still there). This one uses the H. sapiens sapiens terminology. It's from here. Can you find for me the gap you're alleging in hominid ancestry?
Dishonest of you to pretend you can't see or understand or remember any of this. Your real hope by being born new on every thread is just to troll for idiots.
Then later, they genus-ated.
The teeth in question are stated to be the most common remnant of the lineage in question. The gore trick is to assume no one knows anything unstated. In this case, there's nothing but teeth anywhere and the whole animals is made up from the tooth.
Can this be substantiated? Where does the burden of proof lie? What is the wilder claim, that Gingerich fabricated an animal from a tooth or that Gingerich has evidence for the divergence of two later genera from an earlier species? Can you show that the two later genera are based on teeth alone?
Gingerich (summarized in 1977) traced two distinct species of lemur-like primates, Pelycodus frugivorus and P. jarrovii, back in time, and found that they converged on the earlier Pelycodus abditus "in size, mesostyle development, and every other character available for study, and there can be little doubt that each was derived from that species." Further work (Gingerich, 1980) in the same rich Wyoming fossil sites found species-to-species transitions for every step in the following lineage: Pelycodus ralstoni (54 Ma) to P. mckennai to P. trigonodus to P. abditus, which then forked into three branches. One became a new genus, Copelemur feretutus, and further changed into C. consortutus. The second branch became P. frugivorus. The third led to P. jarrovi, which changed into another new genus, Notharctus robinsoni, which itself split into at least two branches, N. tenebrosus, and N. pugnax (which then changed to N. robustior, 48 Ma), and possibly a third, Smilodectes mcgrewi (which then changed to S. gracilis). Note that this sequence covers at least three and possibly four genera, with a timespan of 6 million years.The Transitional Fossils FAQ. This would seem to be an expansion of Gingerich's earlier claims.
It lies with those establishing a claim. The claim is speciation. At this point only teeth are in evidence. Other people may accept that as sufficient, I don't. You can leave the evidence as it is and some will be convinced. They are not idiots or whatever but then neither are those that remain skeptical.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.