It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in evolution debate

[KAB]

MikeF wrote:

<quoted text>
"...which may be beginning to affect the reproductive ability of bulls"
Kind of shoots your Noah's Clan theory in the foot, huh?

P.S., Has the population been at least doubling every hundred years?

[MikeF]

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>
"May be". That means may not be? Hey, they're not dead yet!
It seems you shot from the hip. You may want to check your own foot!

It was your link, bucko. And it is counter to your claims. So suck it up.

[MAAT]

MazHere wrote:

<quoted text>
Yep. This is another example of the ignorance that substantiates evolutionists are actually the publishing clueless.

Devolution is not part of some creo paradigm. Of your set it is.
It's an allready old dutch theory, that overlaps evolution and agrees with it on a lot of points.(We allready discussed that months ago. And short at that, as in old news. Not taking progress into account )
Putting people as/on the pinacle of evolution or creation is showing a lack of understanding for the way eco-systems operate and more simply...take away the bacteria and you will drop dead on the spot.

[MikeF]

MazHere wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks for demonstrating what an ignorant ass looks like.

You're welcome. But I don't really believe that's your picture anyway.

MazHere wrote:

I have backed up my assertions...

You have not. I have challenged your assertions (and they are no more than that) several times and you've run away rather than replying.

MazHere wrote:

Now, tell me why much the same reptillisn traits in cetacia make Ichy a reptile but cetacean are placental mammal?. If you don't know find. One actually needs some research skills to tow a debate otherwise you are just a time waster, like you!

Asked and answered. Ignoring the information provided just makes you out to be a fraud.

And, by the way, the earth was not formed before the sun.

[MAAT]

MazHere wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks for demonstrating what an ignorant ass looks like. I have backed up my assertions and I am now awaiting some signs of this reasoning ability mankind is meant to have that you are not demonstrating.
Well with enough whipping you finally had a go for once. Good! Ok ... "HAD two pairs of limbs" does not distinguish Ichthyosaurus from cetacia because whales are supposedly tetrapods and also come from 4 limbed tetrapods. So this does not appear to be a reptilian trait anymore than cetacean have 4 'legs'. As for digit like bones in flippers I am not sure what they are talking about. Is it not the digits in whale flippers that evos are always going on about. Cetaceans (whales, dolphins, and porpoises) have a soft tissue flipper that encases most of the forelimb, and elongated digits with an increased number of phalanges (hyperphalangy). http://www.ncbi.nl m.nih.gov/pubmed/1 7516431 The shoulder blades do appear to be different to current cetaceans from a quick look but the resulting pectoral arch resembles much that of the mammalian orni-thorhynchus. Ichthyosaurus are varied and some have a single temporal fenestra like mammals and cetacean does. The pair of fenestra are a reptilian hallmark but a single one is not. http://hydrodictyo n.eeb.uconn.edu/pe ople/schwenk/3254_ Lab9-10_Artio_Peri sso_etc07.pdf These traits do not appear to make Ichthyosaurus any more reptilian than and any other cetacean. Given warm bloodedness, live birth, blow hole, dorsel fin, looks like a porpoise etc I don't think Ichthyosaurus is any more reptilian than cetacean. Can you or some evo please further clarify why these traits are seen as identifying these many varieties of Ichthyosaurus as being all reptilian as opposed to some being mammalian which some certainly appear to be?(8 hrs ago | post #106951)
Now, tell me why much the same reptillisn traits in cetacia make Ichy a reptile but cetacean are placental mammal?. If you don't know find. One actually needs some research skills to tow a debate otherwise you are just a time waster, like you!

Well, by the way you reason you have clearly stumbled uopon a concestor.
Congratulations!

[MAAT]

Does ths article state that the human genome is irrevocably down the drain, Mazhere?
What is the gain for humans?
What is it ofset to?

Abstract
Although sequences containing regulatory elements located close to protein-coding genes are often only weakly conserved during evolution, comparisons of rodent genomes have implied that these sequences are subject to some selective constraints. Evolutionary conservation is particularly apparent upstream of coding sequences and in first introns, regions that are enriched for regulatory elements. By comparing the human and chimpanzee genomes, we show here that there is almost no evidence for conservation in these regions in hominids. Furthermore, we show that gene expression is diverging more rapidly in hominids than in murids per unit of neutral sequence divergence. By combining data on polymorphism levels in human noncoding DNA and the corresponding human–chimpanzee divergence, we show that the proportion of adaptive substitutions in these regions in hominids is very low. It therefore seems likely that the lack of conservation and increased rate of gene expression divergence are caused by a reduction in the effectiveness of natural selection against deleterious mutations because of the low effective population sizes of hominids. This has resulted in the accumulation of a large number of deleterious mutations in sequences containing gene control elements and hence a widespread degradation of the genome during the evolution of humans and chimpanzees.

Citation: Keightley PD, Lercher MJ, Eyre-Walker A (2005) Evidence for Widespread Degradation of Gene Control Regions in Hominid Genomes. PLoS Biol 3(2): e42. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.00300 42

---
reading is a skill.

[MAAT]

We are mutating.
Nothing to do with the fall, but simple observable evolution.

[MazHere]

MAAT wrote:

Tone, tone , tone. Give the mouth a piece of soap, FFS.
quote:
We are not talking about dating, although we already have over the past weeks and Kong dropped out and the rest tuned to evotards and I could get no more sense out of what was left eg samuim146, inconsistent decay rates etc. We are not talking about God or abiogenesis.
>>>>...We are talking about what CAN be scientifically demonstrated with some hint of credibility.
end quote.
Well we ARE TALKING ABOUT WHAT CAN BE SCIENTIFICALLY DEMONSTRATED WITH HIGH CREDIBILITY.
What you are on about i something entirely different like red herrings and strawmen to disguise your ignorance.
quote:
We are doing cetacea. I am presenting my evidence to support my claim that the fossil evidence better supports a creationist paradigm than an evolutionary one.
end quote.
You would first have to establish the or even a creationist paradigm.(do the tohu and the bohu establish a creo-paradigm...me thinks not.)
You even stated some pages back that you saw two options -misunderstanding physics- of which you liked the god option best.
You continue to rant and i would not be the only one that wonders how much of that quasi-scientific quote-mining you actually understand!
'Dating and doing whales.':-o
So you know zilch about dating methods and how to interprete the results. Nor as i saw about the reasons for the way results are presented as they are.
(mind i'm reading allready two days after some absense.)
I suggest you 'do' the whales in your sparetime.
The discussion is getting silly.
Some people here do not have to proof their bona fides anymore when it comes to being knowledgable and well versed in the scientific method. Kong would be one of those.

So I take it you have no idea how to defend Ichy as being a reptile? GREAT, then go to the back of the class. You prefer to be the mad woman jumping all over the place in a delusional state of confused evasion. Yes I have done lots of research into dating methods and I know what contamination and an inconsistent deacay rate means. Do you?

I have done the whales in my spare time and found Basilosaurus dated to 49mya while Indohyus is dated to 48mya. I also found previous empirical evidence re the timing of 15 million years is now supported by the 'empirical' evidence of 4 million years. Futher more to that I provided links to the information....DNA contradicts morphology pig/hippo/whale, Indohyus is just like a variety of modern day mouse deer, ambulocetus natans looks like a variety of sea lion, there is one deteriorated specimen of a middle ear that was not colocated with an indohyus fossil, and that ain't all the warts on your whales!!!!!

Now either accept that the evo line up of Pakecetus, Indohyus, ambulocetus natans, basilosaurus are a misrepresentation of the fossil record or articulate why you think they are convincing.

The last time some evo tried to defend this mess they soon dissappeared. I suggest none of these have anything to do with true cetaceans. They are a bunch of fossils not even related at the family rank.

So you're welcome to defend your own line up. That is fair. Off you go. But don't offer 'they said so' and take off, because that is when I see you lot as scared little defiant children.

I suggest your whale line up is a misrepresentation for the reasons outlined above. Evos are good at buzzing like flies but really can't stay focused on any point to its conclusion. I can understand why!

However you still need to refute Ichy being a mammal dated to 245mya by clarifying the reptilian traits as being unique to it and not cetacea. There is overwhelming evidence of cetacean traits, the best being a blow hole.

[DanFromSmithvill e]

MazHere wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you still choking on your rock critters, you hero?
I have shown that the so called reptilian traits of Ichthyosaurus are ficticious and no more reptilian than other cetaceans. The idea is to respond with scientific data like Kong has been and you tried once until you turned to jelly.
Why fall to pieces now you lot? Must be because you are all apes without the ability to make meaning of the world. Evos are a better demonstration of devolution than any fossil.

You have shown that? Really? Where did you do this? Fantasy Land?

No my idea is to give you back scientific data, sarcasm, humor, parody and jovial disdain. All the things the nonsense you bring to the table deserves. In other words, I don't take what you say seriously at all. No reasonable person could.

I can understand a person taking a certain position, but you take a position and spend an inordinate amount of time looking like a bumbling clown trying to defend it with balloon juice, ignorance and nonsense.

I accept the evidence that supports the classification of ichthyosaurs as reptiles. I have seen nothing that causes me to doubt that evidence and I have seen no evidence that indicates that they are not reptiles. All you have done is make a statement and supported it with a couple of pieces of evidence that are not strong enough to consider reclassifying the group. This tells me that you are, willfully or naturally, ignorant of science in general, biology, taxonomy, reptiles and cetaceans.

All your bluster, misinformation and repeating the lie will not change that. It makes me wonder what you hope to gain. I can't imagine you just one day decided I am going to start posting on Topix and I am going to do my best to look like a fool doing it. Because that is exactly what you are accomplishing. As long as you continue this tactic, I will continue to dismiss your ideas and treat you with all the flipant humor you deserve. If you were serious, others might be willing to listen, but since you don't listen and don't view the entire exchange seriously, I won't either.

Would you like more egg for your face madame?

[MazHere]

MAAT wrote:

Tone, tone , tone. Give the mouth a piece of soap, FFS.
quote:
We are not talking about dating, although we already have over the past weeks and Kong dropped out and the rest tuned to evotards and I could get no more sense out of what was left eg samuim146, inconsistent decay rates etc. We are not talking about God or abiogenesis.
>>>>...We are talking about what CAN be scientifically demonstrated with some hint of credibility.
end quote.
Well we ARE TALKING ABOUT WHAT CAN BE SCIENTIFICALLY DEMONSTRATED WITH HIGH CREDIBILITY.
What you are on about i something entirely different like red herrings and strawmen to disguise your ignorance.
quote:
We are doing cetacea. I am presenting my evidence to support my claim that the fossil evidence better supports a creationist paradigm than an evolutionary one.
end quote.
You would first have to establish the or even a creationist paradigm.(do the tohu and the bohu establish a creo-paradigm...me thinks not.)
You even stated some pages back that you saw two options -misunderstanding physics- of which you liked the god option best.
You continue to rant and i would not be the only one that wonders how much of that quasi-scientific quote-mining you actually understand!
'Dating and doing whales.':-o
So you know zilch about dating methods and how to interprete the results. Nor as i saw about the reasons for the way results are presented as they are.
(mind i'm reading allready two days after some absense.)
I suggest you 'do' the whales in your sparetime.
The discussion is getting silly.
Some people here do not have to proof their bona fides anymore when it comes to being knowledgable and well versed in the scientific method. Kong would be one of those.

So I take it you have no idea how to defend Ichy as being a reptile, I take it? You prefer to be the mad woman jumping all over the place in a delusional state of confused evasion. Yes I have done lots of research into dating methods and I know what contamination and an inconsistent deacay rate means. Do you?

I have done the whales in my spare time and found Basilosaurus dated to 49mya while Indohyus is dated to 48mya. I also found previous empirical evidence re the timing of 15 million years is now supported by the 'empirical' evidence of 4 million years. Futher more to that I provided links to the information....DNA contradicts morphology pig/hippo/whale, Indohyus is just like a variety of modern day mouse deer, ambulocetus natans looks like a variety of sea lion, there is one deteriorated specimen of a middle ear that was not colocated with an indohyus fossil, and that ain't all the warts on your whales!!!!!

Now either accept that the evo line up of Pakecetus, Indohyus, ambulocetus natans, basilosaurus are a misrepresentation of the fossil record or articulate why you think they are convincing.

The last time some evo tried to defend this mess they soon dissappeared. I suggest none of these have anything to do with true cetaceans. They are a bunch of fossils not even related at the family rank.

So you're welcome to defend your own line up. That is fair. Off you go. But don't offer 'they said so' and take off, because that is when I see you lot as scared little defiant children.

I suggest your whale line up is a misrepresentation for the reasons outlined above. Evos are good at buzzing like flies but really can't stay focused on any point to its conclusion. I can understand why!

However you still need to refute Ichy being a mammal dated to 245mya by clarifying the reptilian traits as being unique to it and not cetacea. There is overwhelming evidence of cetacean traits, the best being a blow hole.

[DanFromSmithvill e]

MikeF wrote:

<quoted text>
It was your link, bucko. And it is counter to your claims. So suck it up.

Is KAB doing that too? He must have learned from MazHere, the Queen of providing links that actually refute what she says. It does make it easier if they are going to cooperate like that.

[MikeF]

Here's the 'intellect' we're dealing with:

"Light years are the figment of scientists imagination. Indeed these bright sparks are no longer measuring the doppler effect in relation to red shift because doppler does not apply to expansion. It is meant to measure distance."

http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/christian...

[Subduction Zone]

Maz, if every single reptile ever found whether in the fossil record or alive today had a feature and if a fossil was found with that feature would you say it was a reptile or a mammal? Please note, no mammal alive or in the fossil record has been found to have this feature. Why would you say that animal was a mammal?

[KAB]

MikeF wrote:

<quoted text>
It was your link, bucko. And it is counter to your claims. So suck it up.

It would be unsupportive if they naturally became extinct. Maybe I'll keep my eye on 'em. Do you know what that means?

[MAAT]

MazHere wrote:

<quoted text>
So I take it you have no idea how to defend Ichy as being a reptile? GREAT, then go to the back of the class. You prefer to be the mad woman jumping all over the place in a delusional state of confused evasion. Yes I have done lots of research into dating methods and I know what contamination and an inconsistent deacay rate means. Do you?
I have done the whales in my spare time and found Basilosaurus dated to 49mya while Indohyus is dated to 48mya. I also found previous empirical evidence re the timing of 15 million years is now supported by the 'empirical' evidence of 4 million years. Futher more to that I provided links to the information....DNA contradicts morphology pig/hippo/whale, Indohyus is just like a variety of modern day mouse deer, ambulocetus natans looks like a variety of sea lion, there is one deteriorated specimen of a middle ear that was not colocated with an indohyus fossil, and that ain't all the warts on your whales!!!!!
Now either accept that the evo line up of Pakecetus, Indohyus, ambulocetus natans, basilosaurus are a misrepresentation of the fossil record or articulate why you think they are convincing.
The last time some evo tried to defend this mess they soon dissappeared. I suggest none of these have anything to do with true cetaceans. They are a bunch of fossils not even related at the family rank.
So you're welcome to defend your own line up. That is fair. Off you go. But don't offer 'they said so' and take off, because that is when I see you lot as scared little defiant children.
I suggest your whale line up is a misrepresentation for the reasons outlined above. Evos are good at buzzing like flies but really can't stay focused on any point to its conclusion. I can understand why!
However you still need to refute Ichy being a mammal dated to 245mya by clarifying the reptilian traits as being unique to it and not cetacea. There is overwhelming evidence of cetacean traits, the best being a blow hole.

I usually stick to the hominid family.
Since we allready have some great experts on the whales.
I would first have to read Kong.
You veer to allsides as if you had a couple of stubbies too many.

Could you first explain to me why a mammalian ichtyosaurus would be most unlikely.(it's not like we are overwhelmed with fossils)

[MazHere]

MAAT wrote:

Does ths article state that the human genome is irrevocably down the drain, Mazhere?
What is the gain for humans?
What is it ofset to?
Abstract
Although sequences containing regulatory elements located close to protein-coding genes are often only weakly conserved during evolution, comparisons of rodent genomes have implied that these sequences are subject to some selective constraints. Evolutionary conservation is particularly apparent upstream of coding sequences and in first introns, regions that are enriched for regulatory elements. By comparing the human and chimpanzee genomes, we show here that there is almost no evidence for conservation in these regions in hominids. Furthermore, we show that gene expression is diverging more rapidly in hominids than in murids per unit of neutral sequence divergence. By combining data on polymorphism levels in human noncoding DNA and the corresponding human–chimpanzee divergence, we show that the proportion of adaptive substitutions in these regions in hominids is very low. It therefore seems likely that the lack of conservation and increased rate of gene expression divergence are caused by a reduction in the effectiveness of natural selection against deleterious mutations because of the low effective population sizes of hominids. This has resulted in the accumulation of a large number of deleterious mutations in sequences containing gene control elements and hence a widespread degradation of the genome during the evolution of humans and chimpanzees.
Citation: Keightley PD, Lercher MJ, Eyre-Walker A (2005) Evidence for Widespread Degradation of Gene Control Regions in Hominid Genomes. PLoS Biol 3(2): e42. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.00300 42
---
reading is a skill.

Honey, I could have posted the abstract because I sourced the link. Clearly that link speaks to the accumulation of deleterious mutations because the effectiveness of natural selection has declined.

"likely that the lack of conservation and increased rate of gene expression divergence are caused by a reduction in the effectiveness of natural selection against deleterious mutations because of the low effective population sizes of hominids."

Did you notice the word LIKELY? In actual fact researchers have no idea what the population size was at any time in the ancient past. They use what suites them. So in the end this research provides data that the homonid genome is deteriorating through the accumulation of deleterious muations and they offer an evolutionary get out of a falsification for free card by offering a possible scenarion.

The problem is I have provided multiple examples of deteriorating genomes and I can provide a plethora more....

..... AND I was talking to KAB in support.

That is not my discussion. KAB can handle you lot running around like lunatics going from one topic to another and not concluding any point. Talk to him. He wraps you lot up in foil and bakes you very easily.

If you lot cannot offer a reply then I will take the point as being established. Placental mammals are dated to 245mya and falsify the current evolutionary mess that isn't evidence for anything, and provides support for Devonian cetaceans!

[MikeF]

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>
It would be unsupportive if they naturally became extinct. Maybe I'll keep my eye on 'em. Do you know what that means?

Now you seem to think inbreeding is a good thing. Well, you think genocide is a good thing so why not? Anything goes, eh Adolf?

[MazHere]

Subduction Zone wrote:

Maz, if every single reptile ever found whether in the fossil record or alive today had a feature and if a fossil was found with that feature would you say it was a reptile or a mammal? Please note, no mammal alive or in the fossil record has been found to have this feature. Why would you say that animal was a mammal?

You sound desperately confused! I can't even work out what you are talking about? Do you know? A blow hole is the signature of cetacea. I'd say that shared traits are a sign of the one designer particularly when evolutionists cannot get their fossil evidence for major morphological change to have some credibility.

Ichy is a mammal because it has the hallmark of cetacean mammals, a blow hole. That is accompanied by warm bloodedness and life birth and it looks like a dolphin. It does not have the hallmark of a reptile as stated because some Ichy varieties have a single fenetra found in cetacean mammals.

Now I have said that for about the 10th time. How about you take those evogoggles off and learn the art of reading and research and stop confusing yourself.

[MazHere]

MAAT wrote:

<quoted text>
I usually stick to the hominid family.
Since we allready have some great experts on the whales.
I would first have to read Kong.
You veer to allsides as if you had a couple of stubbies too many.
Could you first explain to me why a mammalian ichtyosaurus would be most unlikely.(it's not like we are overwhelmed with fossils)

This is veering to asides. I think ichy is a mammal and that is most likely. Are you a nut? I think Ichy being a reptile is MOST UNLIKELY for the reasons outlined many times.

Evo researchers say this is a reptile. Ichy is a plethora of different varieties of who knows what. Most are single fossils that say nothing.

Stephen Jay Gould expresses the wonder of it all:

"This sea-going reptile with terrestrial ancestors converged so strongly on fishes that it actually evolved a dorsal fin and tail in just the right place and with just the right hydrological design. The evolution of these forms was all the more remarkable because they evolved from nothing — the ancestral terrestrial reptile had no hump on its back or blade on its tail to act as a precursor."

You escape artists.......

Evos publish and therefore believe they exist, even though they have no idea what they are talking about!

[MAAT]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthyosaur
I think this answers most questions.

Convergent evolution...non-boney later-found appendix, sex determined viviparity...but nevertheless still classified as non-mammal.

So frankly it has no baring on the entire whale story.
---
Those kind of patronizing honeys make my skin crawl.

What the article states is that a different defence was found because genetic diversity did not offer a big enough pool to cover all eventualities. So instead of conserving certain traits a kind of wild recombining and adjusting developed.
The confusion arises because it willy-nilly uses hominid -homo sapiens the only representive left unless they also used neanderthal and denisovan genome-, homo-sapiens-chimpz and rodent research results.
Though f.i. chimpz and H.S. have markedly diverged in rate of genome characteristics production.

The article on the japanese research clarifies it by pointing out that mutation is on the rise.(and has been since we split from our last concestor.)