Posted on 10/08/2006 7:58:20 AM PDT by aculeus
Nah. It was environmentalists who wanted everyone to go to the new smaller hybrid camel instead of those big water guzzlers. Seriously though, this is kind of a cool discovery. They've found the remains of buffalo the size of elephants here in the US.
Here's a nice web page with transitions among vertebrates. It's no good for crustaceans, starfish, jellyfish, etc., but if you're wondering about anything from fish up, this is a good starting point.
So in Part 1 among other topics you have transitions within fish, then fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, and a long section with the reptile-mammal transition. Part 2 has a number of parallel sections dealing with the subsequent radiation of and transitions among mammals. I won't recapitulate all the species you go through reading that.
In the section on artiodactyls, you get this entry.
Camels:The important thing being that you're wrong about there being no antecedents. You didn't check to see if your statement was true, nor will you now admit that the evidence presented counts in any way. However, these species existed in the order cited and show a progressively camel-like nature until we have camels. IOW, what you said is simply wrong.
- Diacodexis (early Eocene, see above)
- Homacodon & other dichobunids (mid-Eocene) -- Similar to Diacodexis but with some advances; probably close to the ancestry of the rest of the artiodactyls.
- Poebrodon (late Eocene) -- First primitive camelid. Like other late Eocene artiodactyls, it had developed crescent-shaped grinding ridges on the cheek teeth. A small, short-necked, four-toed animal with little hooves on each toe.
- Poebrotherium (mid-Oligocene) -- A taller camelid with fused arm & leg bones, and missing toes 1, 4, and 5. Longer neck, though still much shorter than modern camels. Had hooves. From here the camel lineage developed pads in place of hooves on the feet, reverted to digitigrade posture, and began pacing instead of trotting, as shown by Miocene fossil footprints. This camel lineage goes through Protomeryx (early Miocene) and Procamelus (Miocene). The llamas split off here (Lama). The main camel lineage continued through Pliauchenia (Pliocene) and finally, in the late Pliocene, Camelus, the modern camels.
All of the species listed are real fossil animals described in the scientific literature. Let's do one just for an example. You Google Poebrodon. You get 263 web hits. Yes, it's an early camelid.
They shouldn't exist. You said they didn't.
........................
Lakh
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from Lahk)
A lakh (Devanagari: लाख, Urdu: ᘪ, Bengali: লাখ, Tamil : இலட்சம்) also spelled lac, lacs, lacks, laksha, or lectcham (in Tamil) is a unit in the Indian numbering system, widely used both in official and other contexts in Bangladesh, India, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, and Pakistan. One lakh is equal to a hundred thousand (105). A hundred lakhs make a crore or ten million.
This system of measurement also introduces separators into numbers in a place that is different from what is common outside India. For example, 3 million (30 lakh) would be written as 30,00,000 instead of 3,000,000.
.........................
So methinks the big camel is only 100 thousand years old, not one million.
Oh yeah sure, smartypants. But did it have any soft tissue? ;)
See #44. Not a million years.
And so you did. I was familiar with lakh and crore — “Lack of Clues as Miscreant Absconds with Lakh of Rupees” — but unaware of the separator placement.
Leni
BZZZZT! "What is useless gobbledygook?" Alex!
But when you put down others you show more about your character than their intelligence.
Some people want to destroy science and science education in favor of a literal interpretation of Bronze Age traditions, however unworkable. Others want to prevent that from happening. Others yet are concerned with preventing any adverse consequences to the first bunch.
> It's the stupidest religion ever conceived by man.
Naw, that would be physics. Or mathematics. They, like Darwinism, are stupid religions because they have forgotten to include the most basic elements or religion: nothing supernatural, nothing to worship, a reliance upon evidence and logic and testability of predictions. As religion goes... that's *stupid.*
Yes, they are reliable. Every species is out there in the primary literature and described just as T.O. cites it as being described.
yeah, just what i thought, easier to post an anti christian, creation link, then to produce the evidence...
A cowardly and dishonest performance. You have been given the evidence you said didn't exist. Deal with it.
3.5 billion years? I thought it was 2.7 billion years. Wait, no, maybe it's 14.6 billion years. Hm. Come to think of it, how about 5.9 billion years? Hm. Maybe 20.6 billion years will give you enough time to believe the fairy tale that a frog can become a prince.
3.5 billion years. Yeah, right.
"But when you put down others you show more about your character than their intelligence."
Case in point:
BZZZZT! "What is useless gobbledygook?" Alex!
Thank you for your quick verification.
Science doesn't need defense. Science isn't a religion (Or shouldn't be) Science doesn't explain everything either. Science describes what it can and has a method to do so. But it doesn't cover everything. So how about the nature of time, God and Plato's Cave? Want another shot at it?
There's a question about what gets taught in science class. That is, should it be what science tells us, or what screeching antiscience Witch Doctors tell us? There actually is something at stake here.
And no, your nothing-means-anything obfuscations do not deserve serious attention.
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.