Unbelievable!!! Mk II

[phank]

They've gone extinct many times in the ANE Genesis timeframe too. Dodo*, passenger pigeon, Pyrenean ibex, Thylacine, o-o, Steller's sea cow, quagga, moa, elephant bird, Yangtze River dolphin, bluebuck, and many others for which I might have to think awhile.

Roy

*excepting Jorge

Here's another cut:

http://www.ask.com/wiki/Timeline_of_...apn&ap=ask.com


If we're interested in VERY recent history, here's the list:

2000s
2000 - "Celia," the last Pyrenean Ibex dies under a fallen tree. The reasons for its extinction are still being debated. However in 2009 it was cloned back into existence but died 7 minutes later due to defects in the lungs, making it extinct once again.
2003 - The last individual from the St. Helena Olive, which was grown in cultivation, dies off. The last plant in the wild had disappeared in 1994.
2006 - A technologically sophisticated survey of the Yangtze River failed to find specimens of the Baiji Dolphin, prompting scientists to declare it functionally extinct.[19]
2008 - The Liverpool Pigeon (Caloenas maculata) is thought to have become extinct.

2010s
2010 - The Alaotra Grebe (Tachybaptus rufolavatus) is declared extinct.
2011 - The Eastern Cougar was declared extinct.[20]
2011 - The Western Black Rhinoceros was declared extinct.[21]
2012 - The Japanese River Otter (Lutra lutra whiteneyi) has been declared extinct by the country’s Ministry of the Environment, after not being seen for more than 30 years.
2012 - "Lonesome George," the last known specimen of the Pinta Island Tortoise died on 10 June 2012.
2013 - The Cape Verde Giant Skink, is declared extinct.
2013 - The Formosan clouded leopard, previously endemic to the island of Taiwan, is officially declared extinct.[22]
2013 - The Scioto madtom, a species of fish is declared extinct.

[klaus54]

When it comes to creationist geology, YECs are great uniformitarian thinkers.

Except when it comes to Siccar Point -- that confuses the Dickens out of 'em.

Uniformitarianism can bite them in the behind sometimes.

But they don't care.

The Noah d'Ark story and My First Picture Bible trumps all.

Obviously.

Just ask JordanFluss,

It's "history" after all.

Oh, and lots of other stuff.

K54

CU_SiccarPoint.jpg

[rwatts]

would they have to be T-Rex.
I was under the impression that if a species left descendants of any type, then it technically never went extinct (IOW, speciation instead of extinction):

"Over geological time, a species can have one of two fates -- it can continue, and occasionally divide so as to produce other species, or it can become extinct." Colorado Univ Biology lecture notes 5: species
http://virtuallaboratory.colorado.ed...opic1E_Evo.htm

Well if that's how you interpret it then technically, almost nothing goes extinct. Eukaryotes still live (we are eukaryotes).

So JR, if you can show me a T_Rex living on some remote, unexplored plateau then I am all eyes.

And if you believe in such Deep Time, ...

We do have evidence for it, based on things that are seen.

... and Natural Selection-Evolution, ...

Dr Sarfati "believes" in it. Do you know who he is?

... the T-Rex or birds could one or the other be ancestral/descendant, no way of knowing which came first:

IN SEARCH OF DEEP TIME Henry Gee ISBN 068485421X
p 147-148 (context cladistics diagrams)
"Such a diagram could be drawn for any pair of organisms, living or extinct. It could apply to two fossil fishes, a and b. Confronted with these two fossils, one might speculate that a (which is geologically the older of the two) is ancestral to b. Broadly, we might say that the species to which a belongs (let us call this species A) is ancestral to the species to which b belongs (let this be species B). We could never know this to be true. Why? First, because fossils are not found with their pedigrees; second, because there is at least one other alternative. That is, it is also possible that species B is ancestral to species A.
How can this be, if fossil a is older than fossil b? It is conceivable that species B could have evolved first. Species A could have evolved from a small population of B, but the main population of B continued alongside A. Given the incompleteness of the fossil record, it is possible that fossil a could be a very early example of species A, and that fossil b is a late example of species B, younger than a. To say then, that a is ancestral to b might be wrong, but we can never prove the second scenario, either.
*that was an oldie, the last time I cited Gee's book (same pages), Sylas gave me points for actually reading it (during the old TWEB)

Yes that is always a possibility I suppose.

But then there is a point at which the argument becomes ridiculous.

Let's face it, if you believe in time and sexual reproduction then Gee's argument, taken on face value, would mean that you could never empirically determine who was ancestral - Adam and Eve, or your great great grandparents.

So do you think you might be missing something? Here you go:-

"Campbell, Anthony (September 2011). "Book review: In Search of Deep Time". "Henry Gee, who is now Senior Editor of Nature, was a witness of this turmoil because he was working at the museum as a student in the 1970s, when he got to know the chief actors in the drama. He remains convinced that the science of cladistics is a vital intellectual tool for our understanding of what he calls Deep Time, to distinguish it from ordinary historical time, which he sees as being qualitatively as well as quantitatively different."

....oh, and BTW, where is this 'creationist resistance to extinction' business coming from??

???

It's resistance to natural selection.

Did you not read the link I provided to an article by Dr Sarfati at CMI?

Nevertheless you did write in a previous post:-

"what if there aren't enough variations to keep up with a sudden population killing environment"

- and I simply pointed out the obvious - "extinction happens".

Maybe you don't remember, (speaking of the old TWEB) , I was the one arguing against A. afarensis (Donald Johanson's "Lucy" hominids) being our ancestor, I argued that it was some species that went EXTINCT as a "side-branch", therefore not on any line leading to us.

See above.

later I may have been vindicated according to the discoverers of Orrorin tugenensis which supposedly knocked off the whole Australopithecus genera from modern human ancestor consideration
....then Sahelanthropus tchadensis discovery about the time the scientists began to reconsider whether or not Orrorin tugenensis was worth keeping in the ancestor box, since it was only a few teeth and bone scraps

.....heh heh, yeah o-well whatever.

?

[rwatts]

I will not waste more of my time re-stating what I have done so countless times before. SUMMARY: there is evolution and then there is Evolution. The former is science, the latter is part of a religion. You can figure out the rest (but you won't since that wouldn't serve your agenda).

Jorge

Potentially you could be a good runner Jorge, but I suspect that you are even too old for that. So all you have left is ranting and irrelevancy.

You are fun to parody however.

... there is evolution and then there is Evolution.

Well that's nice. Given that there is so much about macroevolution that is based on repeated testing and empirical evidence, and there is so much about microevolution that is unknown and unobserved, and given that "same data different interpretation" can be wheeled out in both cases, then which one is the big "E" and which one is the little "e"?

[Jorge]

Potentially you could be a good runner Jorge, but I suspect that you are even too old for that. So all you have left is ranting and irrelevancy.

You are fun to parody however.



Well that's nice. Given that there is so much about macroevolution that is based on repeated testing and empirical evidence, and there is so much about microevolution that is unknown and unobserved, and given that "same data different interpretation" can be wheeled out in both cases, then which one is the big "E" and which one is the little "e"?

To say that you are wrong and lost would be giving you far too much credit.
Your consolation prize is that you have lots of little friends to keep you company.
You know, folks like Rogue06, O-Mudd, Beagle Boy, Roy, Santa Klaus and others.
Whatever else may happen, you should never experience loneliness so be happy!

Jorge

[oxmixmudd]

To say that you are wrong and lost would be giving you far too much credit.
Your consolation prize is that you have lots of little friends to keep you company.
You know, folks like Rogue06, O-Mudd, Beagle Boy, Roy, Santa Klaus and others.
Whatever else may happen, you should never experience loneliness so be happy!

Jorge

Yet another fact filled post by Jorge to add to his thousands of similarly fact filled posts.

So Jorge, where is this mysterious barrier that keeps 1+1+1+ ..... + 1 from equaling 1000?

IOW: What keeps the numerous small changes we can OBSERVE and catalogue, which we have OBSERVED become arger and somewhat significant changes (though at a lower frequency - e.g. nylonase) from becoming changes large enough to account for the history we OBSERVE in the fossil record and the correlations we observe in the Genome of life on the planet?


Jim

[rogue06]

So Jorge, where is this mysterious barrier that keeps 1+1+1+ ..... + 1 from equaling 1000?

As we well know 1+1=2 but the wild notion that 1+1+1+ ..... + 1 could equal a thousand is nonsense. The former is observed MICROmathematics whereas the latter is assumed MACROmathematics. The difference is obvious. We have math with a small "m" and Math with a capital "M" which transforms it into a religion.

Anyone who does not acknowledge this blatant truth is either on drugs/drunk/dumb/deceived/deranged... or some other d-word that means they refuse to see the brilliance of this argument.

Need even more proof, Proof, PROOF? We have math with a small "m" (legitimate MICROmathematics) and Math with a capital "M" (MACROmathematics or mathematics so-called) which transforms it into a religion.

There. I repeated myself so I fully corroborated what I initially said. I'm right and you're wrong, Wrong, WRONG. So there.

[klaus54]

To say that you are wrong and lost would be giving you far too much credit.
Your consolation prize is that you have lots of little friends to keep you company.
You know, folks like Rogue06, O-Mudd, Beagle Boy, Roy, Santa Klaus and others.
Whatever else may happen, you should never experience loneliness so be happy!

Jorge

If you're FOUND, I'm glad to be LOST.

But I still love God and can sing Baptist hymns are tear up with the best of 'em.

Think about that.

K54

[klaus54]

As we well know 1+1=2 but the wild notion that 1+1+1+ ..... + 1 could equal a thousand is nonsense. The former is observed MICROmathematics whereas the latter is assumed MACROmathematics. The difference is obvious. We have math with a small "m" and Math with a capital "M" which transforms it into a religion.

Anyone who does not acknowledge this blatant truth is either on drugs/drunk/dumb/deceived/deranged... or some other d-word that means they refuse to see the brilliance of this argument.

Need even more proof, Proof, PROOF? We have math with a small "m" (legitimate MICROmathematics) and Math with a capital "M" (MACROmathematics or mathematics so-called) which transforms it into a religion.

There. I repeated myself so I fully corroborated what I initially said. I'm right and you're wrong, Wrong, WRONG. So there.

And don't get me going about Aleph-Null.

K54

Aleph0.svg.jpg

[rwatts]

To say that you are wrong and lost would be giving you far too much credit.
Your consolation prize is that you have lots of little friends to keep you company.
You know, folks like Rogue06, O-Mudd, Beagle Boy, Roy, Santa Klaus and others.
Whatever else may happen, you should never experience loneliness so be happy!

Jorge

We all note that you couldn't even raise a comment on this part of a very short post:-

Given that there is so much about macroevolution that is based on repeated testing and empirical evidence, and there is so much about microevolution that is unknown and unobserved, and given that "same data different interpretation" can be wheeled out in both cases, then which one is the big "E" and which one is the little "e"?

You've had to carry your stinging bottom out on a tray every time we've discussed it Jorge. Even on that point, you are unable to mount a coherent, reasoned, evidence based argument.

Those essays I wrote, on the bird/dinosaur tail transition and denovo genes, all you could offer was a short rant, before running off.

Besides it's nice to have friends who are Christians as it is to have friends who are non Christian. None of them are runners, and so I can be sure that they will stick around.

[rwatts]

Except when it comes to Siccar Point -- that confuses the Dickens out of 'em.

Uniformitarianism can bite them in the behind sometimes.

But they don't care.

The Noah d'Ark story and My First Picture Bible trumps all.

Obviously.

Just ask JordanFluss,

It's "history" after all.

Oh, and lots of other stuff.

K54

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2316[/ATTACH]

Yummy. A picture of a chocolate flake wafer bar.

[klaus54]

Yummy. A picture of a chocolate flake wafer bar.

CU_SiccarPoint.jpg

[rwatts]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2323[/ATTACH]

Any news on how Jorge is holding up under the strain of a creation scientist telling him not to be afraid of natural selection?


( I still reckon that picture is of a chocolate bar. We have 'em here in Oz, called "Flake":-

http://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgu...NsXCigKkm4GYDQ

- and when they get a bit crumbly inside the wriapping, they look just like that.)

[klaus54]

Any news on how Jorge is holding up under the strain of a creation scientist telling him not to be afraid of natural selection?


( I still reckon that picture is of a chocolate bar. We have 'em here in Oz, called "Flake":-

http://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgu...NsXCigKkm4GYDQ

- and when they get a bit crumbly inside the wriapping, they look just like that.)

Well, I am rather a "flake", but I do wonder how Jor and JR would explain this formation.

A work of the Devil perhaps?

K54