Mike Pence: "Evolution is just a theory"

Creationist VP-elect of the USA

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

Re: Mike Pence: "Evolution is just a theory"

#121  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Aug 23, 2018 10:58 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
Wortfish wrote:Evolutionists disingenously like to claim that macroevolution just means speciation

How is that dishonest? That's literally just what practicing evolutionary biologists use the word to mean. You can't fault biologists for the poor education of creationists, and the creationist lies and misuse of well-defined technical terms.


If you define macroevolution as speciation, then all creationists are macro-evolutionists!

It's creationists that keep denying that if someone can take a step, they can never walk a mile.

Wortfish wrote: What macroevolution really means

No Wortfish your rectum is not a dictionary either.
Your straw-man definitions won't fly here.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31091
Age: 32
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Mike Pence: "Evolution is just a theory"

#122  Postby theropod » Aug 23, 2018 11:12 pm

I invite anyone seriously willing to discuss the “birds from dinosaurs” issue to look into a really old thread where I attempted to do so. Whether I made my case is another matter, which I leave to the reader.

Link

Of course, as I warned at the beginning of that post, the reading list is going to require about a month of your time, and if you want to have any meaningful input you will address this before posting something absolutely stupid. Consider the new evidence not mentioned in that post, because of sheer age, much more has been discovered since, and it would be foolish to make sweeping sssertions therein.

As Cali has quite correctly stated, there is far more than the fossil record which can be brought to bare in this matter. Birds are, in every sense of the word, highly drived maniraptoran theropod dinosaurs. So, the lie that evolution cannot produce “new” morphologies (kinds) is demonstrably just that. Birds arose from small agile dinosaurs, which then diversified into toothed birds, they then lost their teeth, diversified even further with some becoming secondarily flightless. The evidence is so staggeringly massive only ideologically driven denial stands in opposition.

RS
Sleeping in the hen house doesn't make you a chicken.
User avatar
theropod
RS Donator
 
Name: Roger
Posts: 7529
Age: 67
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Mike Pence: "Evolution is just a theory"

#123  Postby Fenrir » Aug 24, 2018 12:23 am

Wortfish wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:Oh, and meanwhile, how many of the 101 or so papers on observed instances of speciation in my current collection, do I have to bring here to nail this creationist lie?

Creationists accept speciation. In fact, their baraminology requires it. From a few created kinds rescued on the Ark, emerged all known species on earth. That is creationist dogma.


Its traditional!

Why didn't you say?

That's ok then, can't argue with tradition can we.

Funny kind of tradition though, beginning right about the time it was realised the unseaworthy barge portrayed in the bible couldn't possibly hold all the animals secular science had classified. That time was 1941 and the man was Frank Marsh, though it didn't catch on till the 90's. There's this thing called the internet, you should try it some time.

So much easier when your tribal taxonomy only held goats, rabbits, asses and pigeons. Fit them on any old coracle you could.
Religion: it only fails when you test it.-Thunderf00t.
User avatar
Fenrir
 
Posts: 3621
Male

Country: Australia
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (gs)
Print view this post

Re: Mike Pence: "Evolution is just a theory"

#124  Postby Calilasseia » Aug 24, 2018 1:12 am

Wortfish wrote:
Rachel Bronwyn wrote:If you study even a single semester of comparative vert anatomy, you're overwhelmed by the similarities between birds and reptiles. They're the same.

Calilasseia wrote:
What evolutionary biologists (which is the proper term for the people who spend decades studying the subject) actually postulate here, is that the same processes resulting in changes that don't involve the formation of new taxa, are also involved in changes that do produce new taxa.


That's really well put.


Birds have feathers, reptiles have scales.


The literature on feather evolution is extensive. This literature includes documentation of discoveries of feathered non-Avialan Theropod dinosaurs. A sample paper is this one:

A Feathered Dinosaur Tail With Primitive Plumage Trapped In Mid-Cretaceous Amber by Lida Xing, Ryan C. McKellar, Xing Xu, Gang Li, Ming Bai, W. Scott Persons IV, Tetsuto Miyashita, Michael J. Benton, Jianping Zhang, Alexander P. Wolfe, Qiru Yi, Kuowei Tseng, Hao Ran and Philip J. Currie, Current Biology, 26: 1-9 (19th December 2016) [Full paper downloadable from here]

Xing et al, 2016 wrote:SUMMARY

In the two decades since the discovery of feathered dinosaurs [1–3], the range of plumage known from non-avialan theropods has expanded significantly, confirming several features predicted by developmentally informed models of feather evolution [4–10]. However, three-dimensional feather morphology and evolutionary patterns remain difficult to interpret, due to compression in sedimentary rocks [9, 11]. Recent discoveries in Cretaceous amber from Canada, France, Japan, Lebanon, Myanmar, and the United States [12–18] reveal much finer levels of structural detail, but taxonomic placement is uncertain because plumage is rarely associated with identifiable skeletal material [14]. Here we describe the feathered tail of a non-avialan theropod preserved in mid-Cretaceous (~99 Ma) amber from Kachin State, Myanmar [17], with plumage structure that directly informs the evolutionary developmental pathway of feathers. This specimen provides an opportunity to document pristine feathers in direct association with a putative juvenile coelurosaur, preserving fine morphological details, including the spatial arrangement of follicles and feathers on the body, and micrometer-scale features of the plumage. Many feathers exhibit a short, slender rachis with alternating barbs and a uniform series of contiguous barbules, supporting the developmental hypothesis that barbs already possessed barbules when they fused to form the rachis [19]. Beneath the feathers, carbonized soft tissues offer a glimpse of preservational potential and history for the inclusion; abundant Fe2+ suggests that vestiges of primary hemoglobin and ferritin remain trapped within the tail. The new finding highlights the unique preservation potential of amber for understanding the morphology and evolution of coelurosaurian integumentary structures.


Later on, the paper has this:

Xing et al, 2016 wrote:DIP-V-15103 is interpreted as a non-avialan coelurosaur tail: its vertebral profiles and estimated length rule out avebrevicaudan birds, oviraptorosaurs, and scansoriopterygians—lineages generally characterized by a short caudal series with subequal centra [25–27], with the exception of Epidendrosaurus. The branched feathers have a weak pennaceous arrangement of barbs consistent with non-avialan coelurosaurs, particularly paravians. Although the feathers are somewhat pennaceous, none of the observed osteological features preclude a compsognathid [28] affinity. The presence of pennaceous feathers in pairs down the length of the tail may point toward a source within Pennaraptora [9], placing a lower limit on the specimen’s phylogenetic position. However, the distribution and shape of the feathers only strongly supports placement crownward of basal coelurosaurs, such as tyrannosaurids and compsognathids. In terms of an upper limit, the specimen can be confidently excluded from Pygostylia; in addition, it can likely be excluded from the long-tailed birds, based on pronounced ventral grooves on the vertebral centra. Additional taxonomic assessment details are provided in the Supplemental Information.


Indeeed, a number of non-Avialan Theropods have now been found with feathers, including Scansoriopteryx, and the Tyrannosaurid Yutyrannus, the latter being a 9 metre long ground based predator. Oh wait, what did I just announce? Oh that's right, a 9 metre long Tyrannosaur with a manifestly feathered integument has been found. the paper documenting this find is this one:

A Gigantic Feathered Dinosaur From The Lower Cretaceous Of China by Xing Xu, Kebai Wang, Ke Zhang, Qingyu Ma, Lida Xing, Corwin Sullivan, Dongyu Hu, Shuqing Cheng & Shuo Wang, Nature, 484: 92-95 (5th April 2012) [Full paper downloadable from here]

Xu et al, 2012 wrote:Numerous feathered dinosaur specimens have recently been recovered from the Middle–Upper Jurassic and Lower Cretaceous deposits of northeastern China, but most of them represent small animals1. Here we report the discovery of a gigantic new basal tyrannosauroid, Yutyrannus huali gen. et sp. nov., based on three nearly complete skeletons representing two distinct ontogenetic stages from the Lower Cretaceous Yixian Formation of Liaoning Province, China. Y. huali shares some features, particularly of the cranium,with derived tyrannosauroids2,3, but is similar to other basal tyrannosauroids4–12 in possessing a three-fingered manus and a typical theropod pes. Morphometric analysis suggests that Y. huali differed from tyrannosaurids in its growth strategy13,14. Most significantly, Y. huali bears long filamentous feathers, thus providing direct evidence for the presence of extensively feathered gigantic dinosaurs and offering new insights into early feather evolution.


The modern molecular biological perspective is provided by papers such as this one:

Evo-Devo Of Feathers And Scales: Building Complex Epithelial Appendages by Cheng-Ming Chuong, Rajas Chodankar, Randall B Widelitz and Ting-Xin Jiang, Current Opinion in Genetics and Development, 10: 449-456 (2000) [Full paper downloadable from here]

Chuong et al, 2000 wrote:Introduction

The vertebrate body is covered by either scales, feathers or fur to provide warmth and protection. Comparing and contrasting the formation of these different integument appendages may provide insights into their common embryonic origin as well as evolutionary divergence. The reptile integument is mainly made of scales [1]. In birds, there are two major integument appendages: scales on the foot and feathers on most of the rest of the body [2••]. Scales provide protection and prevent water loss. The major innovation of the avian integument was the evolution of feathers, which provide novel functions such as insulation, display (communication), and flight. Chickens have three major types of scales, which are morphologically similar to reptile scales (Figure 1a,b [1,3]). Reticulate scales are found on the foot pad: they are radially symmetric and express α-keratin only. Scutate scales are large and rectangular and are the major type found on the anterior meta-tarsal shank and dorsal part of the toes. Scutella scales are distributed lateral to the scutate scales and are smaller in size but are also rectangular. Both scutate and scutella scales have anterior–posterior polarity, with an outer surface composed of β-keratin and an inner surface and a hinge region composed of α-keratin. Cell proliferation is distributed diffusely in scales [4•] without a localized growth zone (e.g. hair matrix or feather collar), dermal papillae, or follicular structures. Feathers are arranged in specific tracts over the body which are divided by apteric zones (regions without feathers [2••]). The base of each feather follicle contains protected tissues, permitting the epithelial–mesenchymal interactions (epidermal collar and dermal papillae) that provide a source for continuous feather elongation and molting. Epithelial and dermal sheaths lie along the exterior part of the feather, whereas pulp is found within the epithelial cylinder during development. A typical feather is composed of a rachis (primary shaft), barbs (secondary branches), and barbules (tertiary branches; Figure 1c). The variation in feather size, shape and texture is complex. With regard to size, feathers of the same bird are of different length and diameter, and often distributed in a gradient. For shape, types range from down feathers that are mainly radially symmetric (the rachis is either absent or very short) and contour feathers the symmetry of which is mainly bilateral. Flight feathers are bilaterally asymmetric (Figure 1c). For texture, feathers can either be fluffy or form a firm vane. The barbules can be bilaterally symmetric to each other and therefore fluffy (plumulaceous), or the distal barbule can form a hooklet enabling it to interweave with the proximal barbule of the next barb in a ‘velcro-like’ mechanism (pennaceous). The calamus is the region of a shaft without barbs. A feather can have different ratios of these structures, thus providing an enormous number of permutations of structural and functional variations [2••,5].

The feather is the most complex vertebrate integument appendage ever evolved. How is a flat piece of epidermis transformed into a three level branched structure? Here we present ten complexity levels of integument appendages that correspond to developmental stages of chicken skin and feather precursors recently identified in dinosaur/primitive bird fossils. Cellular and molecular events that convert one complexity level to the next are discussed, including those converting avian foot scales to feathers.


Page 451 of that paper has a table featuring the genes known to be implicated in different developmental processes, where known.

An interesting part of that paper is this (emphases in blue mine):

Chuong et al, 2000 wrote:Can scales be converted to feathers?

To explore the roles of the epidermis and dermis in appendage morphogenesis, skins from different sources were surgically separated into epidermis and dermis and then recombined for culture. Heterotopic recombinations between midventral apteric and dorsal feathered skin showed that either the presence or absence of feathers is dependent on the dermis [6••,7•]. Heterotopic recombination between feather and scale skin regions showed the same principle. The timing of target tissue competence, however, is another factor to consider. When epithelia of later stages were used, they were more committed and the possible resultant phenotype became more restricted. When leg dermis was recombined with wing epidermis, we expect to see scales form. However, feathers are frequently seen [6••] and this could be explained by the fact that the wing epidermis used is already committed to form feathers when the experiments were performed. Similarly, mesenchymal dental papilla can induce teeth from epidermis during the embryonic stage. However, the recombination between adult rat ear epidermis and dental papilla gave rise to the growth of an enlarged hair [39••]. This is because the embryonic epidermis is truly pluripotential and can form different kinds of epithelial appendages, whereas the potential of adult ear epidermis is restricted and it can only form the hair epithelial appendage. In heterospecific recombinations, the epidermis can respond to dermal messages, which appear to cross species without a problem, but can only make epithelial appendages permitted by its genetic code. Thus recombinants of lizard epidermis and chick dorsal dermis resulted in the growth of scale primordia (no feathers could form) arranged in the feather pattern [8] and recombinations of mouse epidermis and feather dermis produced hairs. How is the information for making feathers or scales in different regional domains stored within an individual organism? Can this regional specificity be perturbed? In nature, ptilopody (feathers on foot scales) exists in certain strains of chickens, suggesting that the presence of feathers on what is normally a scale-producing region is a heritable trait. This implies that there is a genetic basis determining the regional specificity of skin appendages in the bird. Certain concentrations of bromodeoxyuridine can produce a similar phenotype, suggesting changes in the gene-expression pattern [40]. Retinoic acid can cause feather formation on all the three types of foot scales, suggesting a chemical basis for the conversion [41••]. On the other hand, retinoic acid added to cultured feather explants converted feather buds into scale-like appendages [42]. Regional differences of the Hox expression pattern on chicken skin led us to propose that the skin Hox code is related to regional specificity of skin appendages [43•,44]. Retinoic acid indeed caused the expression pattern of Hox D13 in the foot to disappear, approximating it more to that of the feather dermis [44].

With the development of RCAS-mediated gene transduction, the ectopic expression of several genes was observed to produce interesting phenotypes when injected into the leg buds. A dominant negative form of the BMP receptor resulted in ptilopody of the scuta and scutella, but not reticulate scales [45••] —suggesting that BMP may be one of the suppressors of feather formation for the leg dermis. β-catenin is another important molecule that can cause the outgrowth of feathers from the scale epidermis [46••] and apteric skin [47•]. Analysis showed that, in each case, the scale epidermis became activated during the conversion to feathers, and the distribution of molecular markers such as SHH, NCAM and Tenascin-C were characteristic of feather buds. The ectopic feathers form follicle sheaths, dermal papillae and barb ridges [46••]. In mouse, LEF1, a β-catenin molecular partner, caused hair to grow out from the gum region [48], and β-catenin caused new hair formation [49••]. These results suggest that activation of the β-catenin pathway can activate the versatile appendage-forming potentials of epidermal cells. Notch and its ligands are known to be involved in cell-fate decisions and the misexpression of Delta-1 in the leg bud also caused feather- like outgrowths from scales [50].

These results suggest that the determination of feathers, scales and other integument appendages is based on tissue interactions and involves morphogenesis and differentiation. Tilting the equilibrium among molecular pathways can lead to different morphological phenotypes. The next challenge is understand the molecular cascades that regulate the cellular events behind each morphogenetic process (Figure 2).


Oh wait, the paper's authors were able to conduct experiments in which different tissues could be directed to produce feathers or scales, depending upon the presence or absence of particular, well-defined signalling gene products. By the way, the genes in question are found right across vertebrate taxa, and indeed many of them appear in invertebrate taxa as well (β-catenin, bmp, wnt and fgf being products of entire gene families found in organisms ranging from Caenorhabditis elegans to humans).

Looks like once again, the scientists know more, as a consequence of their diligent research, than creationists can even fantasise about knowing.

Wortfish wrote:Birds are warm-blooded, reptiles are cold-blooded.


The literature on this topic is also pretty extensive. Plus, mammals are warm-blooded, yet a large body of evidence exists that mammals arose from reptilian ancestors. The requisite ancestors stretch back to the Late Permian, and thus the onset of mammal evolution pre-dates that of bird evolution by about 100 million years. Given that I have some JavaScript debugging to attend to, I'll save this for another time.

Wortfish wrote:Birds have lungs and femurs specialised for flight, reptiles do not.


The literature on this topic is also pretty extensive.

Plus, none of your simplistic attempts at "gotcha's" explains why, as I stated earlier, birds contain genes for Archosaurian teeth. Nor does it have any answer to those papers I provided above on feather evolution.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22129
Age: 59
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Mike Pence: "Evolution is just a theory"

#125  Postby Macdoc » Aug 24, 2018 3:42 am

Gotta love worts ...this or that stance..

Some of the giant reptiles that ruled the ocean food chain during the time of the dinosaurs may have been able to control their own body temperatures, a new study suggests in the June 11th issue of the journal Science. These reptiles probably had high metabolic rates, which helped them dive deep and swim fast over large distances to catch their prey.

Three large, extinct swimming reptiles, the ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs and mosasaurs, were the top ocean predators during the Mesozoic era, about 251 to 65 million years ago.

Most reptiles today are cold-blooded, meaning their body temperature is determined by how warm or cold their surroundings are. But, some of the modern ocean's top predators, tuna and swordfish, are “homeothermic” (aka warm-blooded), or able to keep their body temperatures at a constant temperature despite changing environmental conditions.

https://www.calacademy.org/explore-scie ... d-reptiles

The relation of dinosaurs to birds is obvious tho it took a while to establish the link....some even coexisted.



It was very cool when "dad" walked out of the rainforest when I had my camera at had.

Image

As virtually every school-aged child knows, birds are descended from dinosaurs. But holy toledo, does this newly discovered oviratporid ever look like a modern cassowary — right from the dramatic crest atop its head through to its long neck and ostrich-like shape. The paleontologists who discovered the dino are now studying modern cassowaries to get a better sense of its potential behaviour.

This newly-described oviratporid is called Corythoraptor jacobsi, and its fossilized remains — a beautifully preserved and practically complete skeleton — were uncovered near a train station in Ganzhou, Jiangxi Province, in southern China. The discovery of this new species shows that oviraptoridae — a group of bird-like, herbivorous and omnivorous dinosaurs — were among the most prolific and varied group of dinosaurs to live in the arid Ganzhou region during the Late Cretaceous period some 100 to 66 million years ago. The details of this finding were published today in Scientific Reports.


You should lose the skydaddy blinkers and get some understanding of this wonderful planet we evolved on....and the marvelous creatures we share it with now, and existed in the past. :coffee:
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
 
Posts: 17256
Age: 74
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Mike Pence: "Evolution is just a theory"

#126  Postby Calilasseia » Aug 24, 2018 4:25 am

In the meantime, with reference to this assertion:

Wortfish wrote:Evolutionists disingenously like to claim that macroevolution just means speciation.


I'd like to know precisely which observable interactions and phenomena are purportedly being "omitted" or "ignored" by evolutionary biologists with respect to the term "macroevolution". I suspect I won't see a straight answer to this, but who knows, for once I could be mistaken ...

Meanwhile:

Wortfish wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:Oh, and meanwhile, how many of the 101 or so papers on observed instances of speciation in my current collection, do I have to bring here to nail this creationist lie?


Creationists accept speciation.


Not all of them. I remember dealing over at TalkRational with one Ray Martinez, who asserted that species were fixed and immutable. Though I note with interest, that when pressed on the matter of what form this 'magic barrier' to speciation took, he was typically evasive in standard creationist manner. I also had much fun parading a range of fancy goldfish before him, in order to demonstrate that his "species are fixed and immutable" assertion was horseshit.

Wortfish wrote:In fact, their baraminology requires it.


Oh, you mean the made up shit they conjured up, to try and avoid having 2½ million species crowded into a wooden barge?

Wortfish wrote:From a few created kinds


Care to provide a definition of "created kinds"? Only I've yet to see a creationist who could do this successfully. For example, Jonathan Sarfati waded in on this one, with the following piece of hilarity:

Based on the Biblical criterion for kinds, creationists deduce that as long as two creatures can hybridize with true fertilization, the two creatures are (i.e. descended from) the same kind. Also, if two creatures can hybridize with the same third creature, they are all members of the same kind. The hybridization criterion is a valid operational definition, which could in principle enable researchers to list all the kinds. The implication is one-way—hybridization is evidence that they are the same kind, but it does not necessarily follow that if hybridization cannot occur then they are not members of the same kind (failure to hybridize could be due to degenerative mutations). After all, there are couples who can’t have children, and we don’t classify them as a different species, let alone a different kind.


So, Sarfati asserts above that [1] organisms that can interbreed are purportedly of the same "kind", but then goes on to assert that [2] er, organisms that can't interbreed could also be of the same "kind". Which leads most of us who paid attention in class, reaching for this image in response:

Image

Plus, what exactly is the "Biblical criterion for kinds" Sarfati asserts above to exist? Perhaps it's because this is yet more made up shit, that he made up the shit I quoted above for the shits and giggles. Ah, the fun of watching snake oil salemen turn themselves into human Klein bottles with their apologetic gymnastics.

Wortfish wrote:rescued on the Ark


Which was fiction. I'm aware of numerous reasons why the whole fairy story is precisely that.

Wortfish wrote:emerged all known species on earth. That is creationist dogma.


Well that's precisely the problem with creationism. It consists of the view that dogma dictates how reality behaves, regardless of how much reality pisses on said dogma.

Except that, oops, there isn't even a consensus among creationists on this matter. Different creationists have different dogmas. I've already introduced Ray Martinez above, who asserted that species were "fixed and immutable", an erroneous view of Linnaean taxonomy that died a death even before Darwin got underway.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22129
Age: 59
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Mike Pence: "Evolution is just a theory"

#127  Postby Wortfish » Sep 22, 2018 11:00 pm

Calilasseia wrote:In the meantime, with reference to this assertion:

Wortfish wrote:Evolutionists disingenously like to claim that macroevolution just means speciation.


I'd like to know precisely which observable interactions and phenomena are purportedly being "omitted" or "ignored" by evolutionary biologists with respect to the term "macroevolution". I suspect I won't see a straight answer to this, but who knows, for once I could be mistaken ...


Some evolutionary biologists claim microevolution means change within a species whereas macroevolution means change leading to a new species. But such a shallow and cautious definition would mean that nearly all creationists accept macroevolution. However, I think macroevolution really refers to the emergence of new families, orders and phyla as we look back in time.

Not all of them. I remember dealing over at TalkRational with one Ray Martinez, who asserted that species were fixed and immutable. Though I note with interest, that when pressed on the matter of what form this 'magic barrier' to speciation took, he was typically evasive in standard creationist manner. I also had much fun parading a range of fancy goldfish before him, in order to demonstrate that his "species are fixed and immutable" assertion was horseshit.


Ken Ham and AiG accept and embrace speciation.

Oh, you mean the made up shit they conjured up, to try and avoid having 2½ million species crowded into a wooden barge?


The "Kinds" diversified and speciated from a common ancestor of the particular kind. There was a dog-kind, cat-kind, worm-kind etc.

Care to provide a definition of "created kinds"? Only I've yet to see a creationist who could do this successfully. For example, Jonathan Sarfati waded in on this one, with the following piece of hilarity

Based on the Biblical criterion for kinds, creationists deduce that as long as two creatures can hybridize with true fertilization, the two creatures are (i.e. descended from) the same kind. Also, if two creatures can hybridize with the same third creature, they are all members of the same kind. The hybridization criterion is a valid operational definition, which could in principle enable researchers to list all the kinds. The implication is one-way—hybridization is evidence that they are the same kind, but it does not necessarily follow that if hybridization cannot occur then they are not members of the same kind (failure to hybridize could be due to degenerative mutations). After all, there are couples who can’t have children, and we don’t classify them as a different species, let alone a different kind.


So, Sarfati asserts above that [1] organisms that can interbreed are purportedly of the same "kind", but then goes on to assert that [2] er, organisms that can't interbreed could also be of the same "kind". Which leads most of us who paid attention in class, reaching for this image in response:


Zebras and horses are of the same "kind". It is possible for them to interbreed but not with sterile offspring.
User avatar
Wortfish
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 971

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Mike Pence: "Evolution is just a theory"

#128  Postby Cito di Pense » Sep 22, 2018 11:01 pm

Wortfish wrote:There was a dog-kind, cat-kind, worm-kind etc.


Don't forget about Poe-kind....

Watch out, though. You might end up in the Poe-house.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Al Forno, LLD,LDL,PPM
Posts: 29564
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Mike Pence: "Evolution is just a theory"

#129  Postby Wortfish » Sep 22, 2018 11:09 pm

Calilasseia wrote:
The literature on feather evolution is extensive. This literature includes documentation of discoveries of feathered non-Avialan Theropod dinosaurs.


Many specimens have been disputed on the grounds of not displaying true pennaceous feathers or being a flightless bird like the ostrich. It is likely that theropods had "bristles" as shown in the televised autopsy of a recently captured T-Rex:

Image

In any case, if feathers are structures useful for purposes other than flight, why do we not see reptiles with them today?
Last edited by Wortfish on Sep 22, 2018 11:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Wortfish
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 971

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Mike Pence: "Evolution is just a theory"

#130  Postby laklak » Sep 22, 2018 11:11 pm

Recently captured? What did I miss?
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark Twain
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
laklak
RS Donator
 
Name: Florida Man
Posts: 20878
Age: 67
Male

Country: The Great Satan
Swaziland (sz)
Print view this post

Re: Mike Pence: "Evolution is just a theory"

#131  Postby Wortfish » Sep 22, 2018 11:12 pm

laklak wrote:Recently captured? What did I miss?

That was what the show's producers tried to hoodwink us into believing. The "autopsy" wouldn't have made any sense otherwise.
User avatar
Wortfish
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 971

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Mike Pence: "Evolution is just a theory"

#132  Postby aban57 » Sep 22, 2018 11:12 pm

Wortfish wrote:the recent autopsy of a recently captured T-Rex


:lol: :lol: :lol:

It doesn't get more stupid than that :lol: They got it on a safari ?

You realize that Jurassic Park is fiction right ?
aban57
 
Name: Cindy
Posts: 7483
Age: 42
Female

Country: France
Belgium (be)
Print view this post

Re: Mike Pence: "Evolution is just a theory"

#133  Postby laklak » Sep 22, 2018 11:14 pm

Wortfish wrote:
laklak wrote:Recently captured? What did I miss?

That was what the show's producers tried to hoodwink us into believing. The "autopsy" wouldn't have made any sense otherwise.


What show? I need to watch it.
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark Twain
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
laklak
RS Donator
 
Name: Florida Man
Posts: 20878
Age: 67
Male

Country: The Great Satan
Swaziland (sz)
Print view this post

Re: Mike Pence: "Evolution is just a theory"

#134  Postby laklak » Sep 22, 2018 11:17 pm

Oh, did you mean the National Geographic special? The one where they showed you how they built the silicon T Rex and had 4 paleontologists perform an "autopsy"? Did you think they were trying to "hoodwink" you into believing it was real? Look, I like recovered Bigfoot massacre footage as much as the next guy, but when they tell you it's fake in the show it kind of spoils it, ya know?
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark Twain
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
laklak
RS Donator
 
Name: Florida Man
Posts: 20878
Age: 67
Male

Country: The Great Satan
Swaziland (sz)
Print view this post

Re: Mike Pence: "Evolution is just a theory"

#135  Postby Wortfish » Sep 22, 2018 11:26 pm

laklak wrote:Oh, did you mean the National Geographic special? The one where they showed you how they built the silicon T Rex and had 4 paleontologists perform an "autopsy"? Did you think they were trying to "hoodwink" you into believing it was real? Look, I like recovered Bigfoot massacre footage as much as the next guy, but when they tell you it's fake in the show it kind of spoils it, ya know?




Like I say, no feathers...just bristles.
User avatar
Wortfish
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 971

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Mike Pence: "Evolution is just a theory"

#136  Postby laklak » Sep 22, 2018 11:35 pm

Yeah that's the one. Here's how they built it, with lots of info on why they chose to represent it as they did, what they based their science on (a girl named Sue, as it turns out). Think of it like a biblical exegesis.



Here's one that blows the lid off that other evolutionist propaganda film, Jurassic World. FAKE NEWS.

A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark Twain
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
laklak
RS Donator
 
Name: Florida Man
Posts: 20878
Age: 67
Male

Country: The Great Satan
Swaziland (sz)
Print view this post

Re: Mike Pence: "Evolution is just a theory"

#137  Postby Wortfish » Sep 23, 2018 2:52 am

laklak wrote: Here's one that blows the lid off that other evolutionist propaganda film, Jurassic World. FAKE NEWS.


No feathers there either. The only connection made between T-Rex and birds is its gait (walked like a chicken).
User avatar
Wortfish
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 971

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Mike Pence: "Evolution is just a theory"

#138  Postby theropod » Sep 23, 2018 3:32 am

I challenge that assertion. Would you care to cite a reputable source that makes this claim? I think you are making up “just so” stories. Well, Wortfish, can you back you your statement, or are you trolling?

RS
Sleeping in the hen house doesn't make you a chicken.
User avatar
theropod
RS Donator
 
Name: Roger
Posts: 7529
Age: 67
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Mike Pence: "Evolution is just a theory"

#139  Postby Wortfish » Sep 23, 2018 1:28 pm

theropod wrote:I challenge that assertion. Would you care to cite a reputable source that makes this claim? I think you are making up “just so” stories. Well, Wortfish, can you back you your statement, or are you trolling?

RS


Why don't you watch the autopsy report? That is the seemingly only feature that the T-Rex has in common with the chicken. And while we are on the subject of dinosaurs and birds, please explain how cursorial theropods took to the air. In many images, we see theropods chasing dragon flies as part of the initial step towards becoming flighted animals:

Image

Another idea is that theropods used feathers to climb trees to avoid predators.
User avatar
Wortfish
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 971

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Mike Pence: "Evolution is just a theory"

#140  Postby laklak » Sep 23, 2018 1:32 pm

You do know why his screen name is theropod, dont you?
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark Twain
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
laklak
RS Donator
 
Name: Florida Man
Posts: 20878
Age: 67
Male

Country: The Great Satan
Swaziland (sz)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest