The KT Boundary
All-Seeing-I
supposedly killed most all life. Not all, but most. Which effectively
halted some and slowed down any other evolutionary processes taking
place on the planet.
It is said billions of years is enough time for fish to mutate their
way into becoming man, but evolution actually only had 65 MY if much
of the life on earth was destroyed from 10 years of nuclear winter.
The vegetation was gone and much of the animal life.
Evolution needs the Dino's to go extinct. But if they did, then so did
most of the other mammals meaning evolution would have a new starting
point at 65my for the most part.
Not enough time for the fish to man theory.
If many of the Dino's and other mammals did survive then man walked
with Dino's which effectively shows much of evolutionary science to be
wrong.
The entire ToE is double talk.
alextangent
> The most interesting aspect about the KT Boundary is that it
> supposedly killed most all life. Not all, but most. Which effectively
> halted some and slowed down any other evolutionary processes taking
> place on the planet.
Nope. Given that it opened up a huge number of new niches, as well as
closing or reducing others, evolution just carried on its merry way.
Filling all the niches available with life.
>
> It is said billions of years is enough time for fish to mutate their
> way into becoming man, but evolution actually only had 65 MY if much
> of the life on earth was destroyed from 10 years of nuclear winter.
> The vegetation was gone and much of the animal life.
What fairy book did you get this nonsense from?
>
> Evolution needs the Dino's to go extinct. But if they did, then so did
> most of the other mammals meaning evolution would have a new starting
> point at 65my for the most part.
>
> Not enough time for the fish to man theory.
>
> If many of the Dino's and other mammals did survive then man walked
> with Dino's which effectively shows much of evolutionary science to be
> wrong.
Are you Barney Rubble? Saddled 'em up and ran Dino Rodeos, no doubt.
>
> The entire ToE is double talk.
>
Prior and post 65my, mammals were around. There are species that pass
right through the KT extinction; small, shrew like creatures.
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>The most interesting aspect about the KT Boundary is that it
>supposedly killed most all life. Not all, but most. Which effectively
>halted some and slowed down any other evolutionary processes taking
>place on the planet.
>
>It is said billions of years is enough time for fish to mutate their
>way into becoming man, but evolution actually only had 65 MY if much
>of the life on earth was destroyed from 10 years of nuclear winter.
>The vegetation was gone and much of the animal life.
>
>Evolution needs the Dino's to go extinct. But if they did, then so did
>most of the other mammals meaning evolution would have a new starting
>point at 65my for the most part.
>
>Not enough time for the fish to man theory
mammals already existed 65M years ago. we didnt have to evolve from
fish in that time. as you admit, some mammals survived.
again and again you prove that you're scientifically illiterate. you
proved your own argument is wrong...then you say it's right...
>
>If many of the Dino's and other mammals did survive then man walked
>with Dino's which effectively shows much of evolutionary science to be
>wrong.
humans didn't evolve from dinosaurs.
more proof that you're illiterate.
do you EVER say ANYTHING that makes sense?
Devils Advocaat
> The most interesting aspect about the KT Boundary is that it
> supposedly killed most all life.
Claiming that the KT boundary killed most of the extant life forms is
like saying that it was the expanding gases in the barrel of the gun
that killed Abraham Lincoln and not John Wilkes Booth, who took aim
and pulled the trigger.
> Not all, but most. Which effectively
> halted some and slowed down any other evolutionary processes taking
> place on the planet.
Why would the removal of most living organisms halt or slow down the
evolution of the surviving organisms?
>
> It is said billions of years is enough time for fish to mutate their
> way into becoming man, but evolution actually only had 65 MY if much
> of the life on earth was destroyed from 10 years of nuclear winter.
> The vegetation was gone and much of the animal life.
>
> Evolution needs the Dino's to go extinct. But if they did, then so did
> most of the other mammals meaning evolution would have a new starting
> point at 65my for the most part.
>
> Not enough time for the fish to man theory.
Wrong, the surviving organisms in question trace their lineage back to
before the KT boundary, your statement would only hold water if all
life had been wiped out and the whole process had to begin again.
>
> If many of the Dino's and other mammals did survive then man walked
> with Dino's which effectively shows much of evolutionary science to be
> wrong.
>
> The entire ToE is double talk.
And you have shown once again how entirely confused you seem to be on
the subject of evolutionary theory.
Boikat
> The most interesting aspect about the KT Boundary is that it
> supposedly killed most all life. Not all, but most. Which effectively
> halted some and slowed down any other evolutionary processes taking
> place on the planet.
Wrong, as usual. The KT event caused mass extinction, however, that
opened the various vacated environments to exploitation by other
species that did survive, resulting in an almost explosive
diversification of mammals, in particular.
>
> It is said billions of years is enough time for fish to mutate their
> way into becoming man,
No, only about 375 to 150 million years, not billions, you simple
minded moron.
> but evolution actually only had 65 MY if much
> of the life on earth was destroyed from 10 years of nuclear winter.
So what? Mammals had already evolved by them, so a large part of the
evolution from "fish to man" was already well under way.
> The vegetation was gone and much of the animal life.
The nice thing about begitation is that it rcovers quickly.
>
> Evolution needs the Dino's to go extinct. But if they did, then so did
> most of the other mammals meaning evolution would have a new starting
> point at 65my for the most part.
Wtong, as usual
>
> Not enough time for the fish to man theory.
But plenty of time for "tree shrew-like mammal" to man, imbicile.
>
> If many of the Dino's and other mammals did survive then man walked
> with Dino's which effectively shows much of evolutionary science to be
> wrong.
irds aside, that did not happen, moron. "The Flintstones" is not a
documentary.
>
> The entire ToE is double talk.
I can tell you were trying to think, again. You ended up looking
stupid, which is the usual result.
Boikat
Wombat
> The most interesting aspect about the KT Boundary is that it
> supposedly killed most all life. Not all, but most. Which effectively
> halted some and slowed down any other evolutionary processes taking
> place on the planet.
The boundary did not kill most life, numbskull. The event that caused
the boundary did that.
>
> It is said billions of years is enough time for fish to mutate their
> way into becoming man, but evolution actually only had 65 MY if much
> of the life on earth was destroyed from 10 years of nuclear winter.
> The vegetation was gone and much of the animal life.
Complete twaddle.
>
> Evolution needs the Dino's to go extinct. But if they did, then so did
> most of the other mammals meaning evolution would have a new starting
> point at 65my for the most part.
" Evolution needs the Dino's to go extinct"? Where did that specious
piece of nonsense come from? Some mammals (but not the trilobites)
made it through then radiated into all the mammals we see today.
>
> Not enough time for the fish to man theory.
Complete twaddle.
>
> If many of the Dino's and other mammals did survive then man walked
> with Dino's which effectively shows much of evolutionary science to be
> wrong.
Do you really believe The Flintstones is a documentary?
>
> The entire ToE is double talk.
Since ALL of the above is twaddle, simply wrong or your
misunderstanding of what happened your last sentence is also wrong.
Wombat
Eric Root
The plural of "dino" is "dinos." English never pluralizes with
apostrophes.
Eric Root
Ron O
> The most interesting aspect about the KT Boundary is that it
> supposedly killed most all life. Not all, but most. Which effectively
> halted some and slowed down any other evolutionary processes taking
> place on the planet.
This isn't the first mass extinction event, and mass extinction events
do not slow down evolution, they accelerate it. With the loss of
millions of species those niches (lifestyles and environments that
those extinct speces occupied) are now open for other lineages to
exploit. The dinos survived the Permian extinction that wiped out
more than 90% of the species on earth, and then the Dinos diversified
into the dominant terrestrial vertebrate. Mammals survived the KT
extinction and diversified into the dominant terrestrial vertebrate
taking over many of the niches left open by the demise of the dinos.
The mammals may have stayed small rodent like furry things if the
dinos hadn't bitten the dust. Just 15 million years after the dino
extinction the mammalian megafauna had evolved. You went from animals
about the size of large rats to 25 ton 32 foot high titanotheres in
just 15 million years, but mammals had evolved along side the dinos
for over a hundred million years and couldn't amount to much until the
door was open to them and they had no competition to expand into new
niches. Mammals were a second rate lifeform until the dinos bit the
dust.
>
> It is said billions of years is enough time for fish to mutate their
> way into becoming man, but evolution actually only had 65 MY if much
> of the life on earth was destroyed from 10 years of nuclear winter.
> The vegetation was gone and much of the animal life.
If the dinos hadn't bitten the dust, humans may never have evolved.
>
> Evolution needs the Dino's to go extinct. But if they did, then so did
> most of the other mammals meaning evolution would have a new starting
> point at 65my for the most part.
Guess what adman? We can tell that a lot of mammalian lineages were
lost with the dinos. The DNA of extant species tell us how few the
number of surviving lineages were. These survivors did diversify into
all the mammalian species you see today. Really, we can tell this by
the DNA. Multiple mammlian lineages survived the KT extinction.
These had diversified millions of years before the event and so were
distinct lineages before the event. Large numbers went extinct, but
enough survived to give us what we see today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous%E2%80%93Tertiary_extinction_event
QUOTE:
Mammals
All major Cretaceous mammalian lineages, including monotremes (egg-
laying mammals), multituberculates, marsupials and placentals,
dryolestoideans,[59] and gondwanatheres[60] survived the K�T event,
although they suffered losses. In particular, marsupials largely
disappeared from North America and the Asian deltatheroidans,
primitive relatives of extant marsupials, became extinct.[61] In the
Hell Creek beds of North America, at least half of the ten known
multituberculate species and all eleven marsupial species are not
found above the boundary.[56]
Mammalian species began diversifying approximately 30 million years
prior to the K�T boundary. Diversification of mammals stalled across
the boundary.[62] Current research indicates that mammals did not
explosively diversify across the K�T boundary, despite the environment
niches made available by the extinction of dinosaurs.[63] Several
mammalian orders have been interpreted as diversifying immediately
after the K�T boundary, including Chiroptera (bats) and
Cetartiodactyla (a diverse group that today includes whales and
dolphins and even-toed ungulates),[63] although recent research
concludes that only marsupial orders diversified after the K�T
boundary.[62]
K�T boundary mammalian species were generally small, comparable in
size to rats; this small size would have helped them to find shelter
in protected environments. In addition, it is postulated that some
early monotremes, marsupials, and placentals were semiaquatic or
burrowing, as there are multiple mammalian lineages with such habits
today. Any burrowing or semiaquatic mammal would have had additional
protection from K�T boundary environmental
END QUOTE:
>
> Not enough time for the fish to man theory.
Noah's ark believers like you have to claim that the millions of
extant species observed today had to evolve in less than 5 thousand
years from the few thousand that could be saved on the ark. Which is
less believable that all the extant mammals evolved from a few
thousand surviving speces (more than a pair of each survivors is
expected) 65 million years ago, or that they are all derived from a
few thousand suvivors (one pair of each in most cases) just a few
thousand years ago. Get the beam out of your eye and look at what you
believe and do the comparison.
>
> If many of the Dino's and other mammals did survive then man walked
> with Dino's which effectively shows much of evolutionary science to be
> wrong.
>
> The entire ToE is double talk.
You have it backwards. The YEC creationists claim that man walked
with dinos. Real science claimes that prosimians (before monkeys)
existed with dinos. The ape lineage didn't branch off from the
monkeys until around 40 million years ago. The human lineage did not
branch off from the other apes until 4-8 million years ago and the
genus Homo didn't exist until around 2 million years ago. Neandertals
branched off from the modern human lineage around half a million years
ago. Modern humans are all evolved from a relatively small population
of suvivors (a few thousand) within the last 100,000 years. We do not
know why this bottle neck occurred because other species like chimps,
dogs and cats etc. did not suffer such a decrease in population.
Humans almost went extinct while other species were doing fine. We
can tell all of this from the DNA, biology and the fossil record.
Where are you getting your information from? How can you cross check
your information?
Ron Okimoto
John Harshman
> The most interesting aspect about the KT Boundary is that it
> supposedly killed most all life. Not all, but most. Which effectively
> halted some and slowed down any other evolutionary processes taking
> place on the planet.
No, not even most. If you want "most", you need to go back to the
Permo-Triassic extinction.
> It is said billions of years is enough time for fish to mutate their
> way into becoming man, but evolution actually only had 65 MY if much
> of the life on earth was destroyed from 10 years of nuclear winter.
> The vegetation was gone and much of the animal life.
Not true. You don't need to go all the way back to fish. Many mammals
survived the K-T extinction, possibly including early primates,
depending on whether plesiadapids are primates.
> Evolution needs the Dino's to go extinct. But if they did, then so did
> most of the other mammals meaning evolution would have a new starting
> point at 65my for the most part.
>
> Not enough time for the fish to man theory.
Actually, it's apparent that, on land, large animals were preferentially
killed off. Most dinosaurs (other than birds) were big; most mammals
were small. So they survived at much higher rates.
> If many of the Dino's and other mammals did survive then man walked
> with Dino's which effectively shows much of evolutionary science to be
> wrong.
That doesn't follow either. Thanks for trying to devise a testable
hypothesis, but there are flaws in your logic. The K-T extinction was 65
million years ago. Depending on what you mean by "man", that's somewhere
between 5 million and 200,000 years ago. Plenty of room in between for
extinctions, even if some non-avian dinosaurs survived the K-T.
Nor would humans walking with dinosaurs show anything about evolution to
be wrong, except that some dinosaurs had survided longer than we
thought. Even if some dinosaur had survived to the present day (very
unlikely) that wouldn't cast doubt on evolution. Just another coelacanth
story, though it's easier to hide a deep-water fish for 65 million years
than it is to hide a large, terrestrial animal.
> The entire ToE is double talk.
You must think evolutionary biologists are all idiots. I'm an
evolutionary biologist. Do you think I'm an idiot?
John Harshman
> On Jan 2, 7:20 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>> The most interesting aspect about the KT Boundary is that it
>> supposedly killed most all life. Not all, but most. Which effectively
>> halted some and slowed down any other evolutionary processes taking
>> place on the planet.
>
> This isn't the first mass extinction event, and mass extinction events
> do not slow down evolution, they accelerate it. With the loss of
> millions of species those niches (lifestyles and environments that
> those extinct speces occupied) are now open for other lineages to
> exploit. The dinos survived the Permian extinction that wiped out
> more than 90% of the species on earth, and then the Dinos diversified
> into the dominant terrestrial vertebrate.
Well, they didn't survive the end-Permian as dinosaurs. Dinosaurs
evolved later. Nor did they become the dominant terrestrial vertebrates
until the Jurassic, so the end-Permian had nothing to do with that story.
> Mammals survived the KT
> extinction and diversified into the dominant terrestrial vertebrate
> taking over many of the niches left open by the demise of the dinos.
> The mammals may have stayed small rodent like furry things if the
> dinos hadn't bitten the dust. Just 15 million years after the dino
> extinction the mammalian megafauna had evolved. You went from animals
> about the size of large rats to 25 ton 32 foot high titanotheres in
> just 15 million years, but mammals had evolved along side the dinos
> for over a hundred million years and couldn't amount to much until the
> door was open to them and they had no competition to expand into new
> niches. Mammals were a second rate lifeform until the dinos bit the
> dust.
I will take only one issue with that. There were no mammalian megafaunas
before the K-T, but mammals were diverse and an important part of the
Late Cretaceous land fauna. And some of them were much bigger than
"small rodent like furry things". Look up, for example, Repenomammus.
But your point is valid that extinction can cause adaptive radiations,
and that recovery from mass extinctions is fairly rapid, in evolutionary
time.
>> It is said billions of years is enough time for fish to mutate their
>> way into becoming man, but evolution actually only had 65 MY if much
>> of the life on earth was destroyed from 10 years of nuclear winter.
>> The vegetation was gone and much of the animal life.
>
> If the dinos hadn't bitten the dust, humans may never have evolved.
>
>> Evolution needs the Dino's to go extinct. But if they did, then so did
>> most of the other mammals meaning evolution would have a new starting
>> point at 65my for the most part.
>
> Guess what adman? We can tell that a lot of mammalian lineages were
> lost with the dinos. The DNA of extant species tell us how few the
> number of surviving lineages were.
Actually, no. It tells us the minimum number of lineages surviving the
K-T (if we believe the calibration), but it can't tell us anything about
the maximum.
[snip actual information, which Madman will not read anyway]
Stephen Wolstenholme
wrote:
>If the dinos hadn't bitten the dust, humans may never have evolved.
It set the evolution of intelligence back by a few million years. If
humans had not evolved the galaxy would now be populated by
intelligent dinos arguing about evolution :)
Steve
--
Neural Planner Software Ltd www.NPSL1.com
Neural network applications, help and support.
Nomen Publicus
> The most interesting aspect about the KT Boundary is that it
> supposedly killed most all life. Not all, but most. Which effectively
> halted some and slowed down any other evolutionary processes taking
> place on the planet.
>
> It is said billions of years is enough time for fish to mutate their
> way into becoming man, but evolution actually only had 65 MY if much
> of the life on earth was destroyed from 10 years of nuclear winter.
> The vegetation was gone and much of the animal life.
Evolution was not reset to zero.
> Evolution needs the Dino's to go extinct. But if they did, then so did
> most of the other mammals meaning evolution would have a new starting
> point at 65my for the most part.
"Evolution" doesn't "need" anything.
Evolution was not reset to zero.
>
> Not enough time for the fish to man theory.
Not required.
Evolution was not reset to zero.
>
> If many of the Dino's and other mammals did survive then man walked
> with Dino's which effectively shows much of evolutionary science to be
> wrong.
Total rubbish.
> The entire ToE is double talk.
You wouldn't recognise ToE if it walked up and kicked you in the arse.
--
When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many
people suffer from a delusion it is called religion. -- Robert Pirsig
Frank J
> The most interesting aspect about the KT Boundary is that it
> supposedly killed most all life. Not all, but most. Which effectively
> halted some and slowed down any other evolutionary processes taking
> place on the planet.
>
> It is said billions of years is enough time for fish to mutate their
> way into becoming man, but evolution actually only had 65 MY if much
> of the life on earth was destroyed from 10 years of nuclear winter.
> The vegetation was gone and much of the animal life.
>
> Evolution needs the Dino's to go extinct. But if they did, then so did
> most of the other mammals meaning evolution would have a new starting
> point at 65my for the most part.
>
> Not enough time for the fish to man theory.
So a few days must not be enough time for a dust-to-man "theory"
either.
I hope that some of the other ~10 replies note that you have falsified
*creationism* and merely misrepresented evolution.
All-Seeing-I
> All-Seeing-I wrote:
> > The most interesting aspect about the KT Boundary is that it
> > supposedly killed most all life. Not all, but most. Which effectively
> > halted some and slowed down any other evolutionary processes taking
> > place on the planet.
>
> No, not even most. If you want "most", you need to go back to the
> Permo-Triassic extinction.
>
> > It is said billions of years is enough time for fish to mutate their
> > way into becoming man, but evolution actually only had 65 MY if much
> > of the life on earth was destroyed from 10 years of nuclear winter.
> > The vegetation was gone and much of the animal life.
>
> Not true. You don't need to go all the way back to fish. Many mammals
> survived the K-T extinction, possibly including early primates,
> depending on whether plesiadapids are primates.
>
> > Evolution needs the Dino's to go extinct. But if they did, then so did
> > most of the other mammals meaning evolution would have a new starting
> > point at 65my for the most part.
>
> > Not enough time for the fish to man theory.
>
> Actually, it's apparent that, on land, large animals were preferentially
> killed off. Most dinosaurs (other than birds) were big; most mammals
> were small. So they survived at much higher rates.
I would call " 70 percent of living species" killed off a high rate.
Plus Dinos feed on smaller prey. So the smaller creatures had to be
wiped out at a high rate as well.
Also. "It's not until 300,000 years later � and two feet higher � that
a sharp change in carbon isotopes and changes in microfossils signal
the massive K-T extinction event"
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20041115/dinokiller.html
So it may not have been the Asteroid that killed the Dono's anyway.
>
> > If many of the Dino's and other mammals did survive then man walked
> > with Dino's which effectively shows much of evolutionary science to be
> > wrong.
>
> That doesn't follow either. Thanks for trying to devise a testable
> hypothesis, but there are flaws in your logic. The K-T extinction was 65
> million years ago. Depending on what you mean by "man", that's somewhere
> between 5 million and 200,000 years ago. Plenty of room in between for
> extinctions, even if some non-avian dinosaurs survived the K-T.
How much time would be needed for the processes of evolution to change
a population of fish into a population of humans? Why would an
extinction like the KT not shorten the evolutionary process for the
remaining species? After all, their entire niche is now removed or
drastically changed. Which would allow the rise of new variations to
survive in the new niches. That becomes a new starting point for the
survivors and possible takes them in new evolutionary directions. If
fish were gradually evolving into land mammals that process was broken
by the extinction..
> Nor would humans walking with dinosaurs show anything about evolution to
> be wrong, except that some dinosaurs had survided longer than we
> thought. Even if some dinosaur had survived to the present day (very
> unlikely) that wouldn't cast doubt on evolution. Just another coelacanth
> story, though it's easier to hide a deep-water fish for 65 million years
> than it is to hide a large, terrestrial animal.
It could also mean the dating methods are inaccurate if man and dino
walked together. Which there are anecdotal evidence for that too BTW.
If the dating is wrong then the ToE could be wrong. It would only
shorten the time that is available for evolution to work it's (ahem)
"magic'
> > The entire ToE is double talk.
>
> You must think evolutionary biologists are all idiots. I'm an
> evolutionary biologist. Do you think I'm an idiot?
Not really. Why did you assume I thought evolutionary biologists are
idiots? I have repeatedly said I think evolution is valid. Except for
one segment that does not match any other process on the earth that we
can observe.
What is your religious orientation BTW? Or are you agnostic? Atheist?
Boikat
That does not follow, especialy since the top preditors were no longer
there to eat them, moron.
>
> Also. "It's not until 300,000 years later � and two feet higher � that
> a sharp change in carbon isotopes and changes in microfossils signal
> the massive K-T extinction event"
>
> http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20041115/dinokiller.html
>
> So it may not have been the Asteroid that killed the Dono's anyway.
>
It may have been a combination of the asteroid and the volcanism of
the Deccan traps. The ersults were the same, and irrelevent to you
imbacilic clims and non-sequitur conclusions.
>
>
> > > If many of the Dino's and other mammals did survive then man walked
> > > with Dino's which effectively shows much of evolutionary science to be
> > > wrong.
>
> > That doesn't follow either. Thanks for trying to devise a testable
> > hypothesis, but there are flaws in your logic. The K-T extinction was 65
> > million years ago. Depending on what you mean by "man", that's somewhere
> > between 5 million and 200,000 years ago. Plenty of room in between for
> > extinctions, even if some non-avian dinosaurs survived the K-T.
>
> How much time would be needed for the processes of evolution to change
> a population of fish into a population of humans?
The evidence is that it took about 374 million years. Not that
evidence means anything to you, since you have a visual imparement
that prevents you from reading abi=out the evidence when it's
presented.
> Why would an
> extinction like the KT not shorten the evolutionary process for the
> remaining species?
It did. It allowed for the relatively rapid post KT diversification
of mammals.
> After all, their entire niche is now removed or
> drastically changed. Which would allow the rise of new variations to
> survive in the new niches.
DUH!
> That becomes a new starting point for the
> survivors and possible takes them in new evolutionary directions.
Double-DUH!
> If
> fish were gradually evolving into land mammals that process was broken
> by the extinction..
Imbacile. It's already been pointed out that mammals had already
evolved by the time of the KY extinvtion event.
>
> > Nor would humans walking with dinosaurs show anything about evolution to
> > be wrong, except that some dinosaurs had survided longer than we
> > thought. Even if some dinosaur had survived to the present day (very
> > unlikely) that wouldn't cast doubt on evolution. Just another coelacanth
> > story, though it's easier to hide a deep-water fish for 65 million years
> > than it is to hide a large, terrestrial animal.
>
> It could also mean the dating methods are inaccurate if man and dino
> walked together.
Illiterate twit!
> Which there are anecdotal evidence for that too BTW.
Worthless claims do not count as evidence. You, yourself keep
bleeting about "limited human perception. But at the same time, it
seems the more outlandish they are, the more likely that you accept
them as "fact" without quetion. Not only are you n imbicile, you're
also a hypocrite.
>
> If the dating is wrong then the ToE could be wrong.
However, dating techniques have been tested, and retested, hundereds,
if not thousands of time, and been found to be statistially accurate
to within a very small percentile, in some cases, a fraction of a
percent, so you wihful thinking that the dating methdes "may be
flawed" is just that, *you widh*.
> It would only
> shorten the time that is available for evolution to work it's
Why not *lengthen*? Oh, right. That woud give evolution *more* time.
> (ahem) "magic'
It's only "magic" to you because the concept, therory and facts are
beyod your ability to comprehend. That's a problem for you, not the
ToE.
>
> > > The entire ToE is double talk.
>
> > You must think evolutionary biologists are all idiots. I'm an
> > evolutionary biologist. Do you think I'm an idiot?
>
> Not really. Why did you assume I thought evolutionary biologists are
> idiots?
Because you claim they don't know what they are doing
> I have repeatedly said I think evolution is valid. Except for
> one segment that does not match any other process on the earth that we
> can observe.
And what process would that be? Speciation? Evidence has already
been presented that shows that to be a fact. Your idiotic "one
species giving rise to a new species totally different from the parent
species"? It's been pointed outto you several times that a daughter
species will resemble it's parent species. Your idiotic "mating
games" with horses and ducks, man and chimp? The idiocy of that slaim
has also been pointed out to you. Your whinging about "fish to man?
Again, the line of evidence (observations supporting the claim) has
been pointed out to you several times. So, what "process" are you
claiming is not observed?
>
> What is your religious orientation BTW? Or are you agnostic? Atheist?-
His religious orientation is irrelavent.
You have 10 hours and 15 minutes to prove beyond a shadow of
reasonable doubt that I am RAM, or admit you made a false accusation,
take a 30 day self imposed break from T.O., of be seen as a ball-less
cretin (Though that's a given, already)
Boikat (not RAM)
All-Seeing-I
> On Jan 2, 7:20�am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > The most interesting aspect about the KT Boundary is that it
> > supposedly killed most all life. Not all, but most. Which effectively
> > halted some and slowed down any other evolutionary processes taking
> > place on the planet.
>
> This isn't the first mass extinction event, and mass extinction events
> millions of species those niches (lifestyles and environments that
> those extinct speces occupied) are now open for other lineages to
> more than 90% of the species on earth,
How did they survive? What did they eat with 90% of everything gone?
> and then the Dinos diversified
> into the dominant terrestrial vertebrate. �Mammals survived the KT
> extinction and diversified into the dominant terrestrial vertebrate
> taking over many of the niches left open by the demise of the dinos.
> The mammals may have stayed small rodent like furry things if the
> dinos hadn't bitten the dust. �Just 15 million years after the dino
> extinction the mammalian megafauna had evolved. �You went from animals
> about the size of large rats to 25 ton 32 foot high titanotheres in
> just 15 million years, but mammals had evolved along side the dinos
> for over a hundred million years and couldn't amount to much until the
> door was open to them and they had no competition to expand into new
> niches. �Mammals were a second rate lifeform until the dinos bit the
> dust.
>
>
>
> > It is said billions of years is enough time for fish to mutate their
> > way into becoming man, but evolution actually only had 65 MY if much
> > of the life on earth was destroyed from 10 years of nuclear winter.
> > The vegetation was gone and much of the animal life.
>
> If the dinos hadn't bitten the dust, humans may never have evolved.
>
>
>
> > Evolution needs the Dino's to go extinct. But if they did, then so did
> > most of the other mammals meaning evolution would have a new starting
> > point at 65my for the most part.
>
> Guess what adman? �We can tell that a lot of mammalian lineages were
> lost with the dinos. �The DNA of extant species tell us how few the
> number of surviving lineages were. �These survivors did diversify into
> all the mammalian species you see today. �Really, we can tell this by
> the DNA. �Multiple mammlian lineages survived the KT extinction.
> These had diversified millions of years before the event and so were
> distinct lineages before the event. �Large numbers went extinct, but
> enough survived to give us what we see today.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous%E2%80%93Tertiary_extinction_e...
> years from the few thousand that could be saved on the ark. �Which is
> less believable that all the extant mammals evolved from a few
> thousand surviving speces (more than a pair of each survivors is
> expected) 65 million years ago, or that they are all derived from a
> few thousand suvivors (one pair of each in most cases) just a few
> thousand years ago. �Get the beam out of your eye and look at what you
> believe and do the comparison.
I have done the comparisons. And stop using bible phrases to make your
points. It makes you appear to have an agenda and be unintelligent
because your biblical knowledge is quite limited, i assure you.
It is possible for life to have come back after the flood. The
biblical description is not scientific but it was not trying to be.
The flood story in the bible was just a reminder to the people of the
events that had taken place during the history of their family.
If you add up all of the legends, stories and traditions from around
the world, then there were many people that were warned ahead of time
about the impending flood. Obviously something was taking place on
earth and whom ever gave the warnings were able to estimate when the
disaster was going to take place.
Not all the animals went onto the ark. Only the ones that knelt down.
So we can assume other arrangements were made to protect them or the
animals were smart enough to get to higher ground that would not
flood.
But this is all besides the point. If there was a 90% extinction rate
then logic dictates the other 10% would die from lack of food if for
no other reason.
While extinctions may spur new variations for the new niches it also
has halted any evolution that was taking place prior to the
extinctions. Which also takes evolution of the species in new
directions.
My point is this: If evolution was interrupted then you have shortened
the time available for evolution to take place. If it took billions of
years to go from molecules to all this diversity then you shorten that
time frame with each extinction for some if not for all of the
species.
> > If many of the Dino's and other mammals did survive then man walked
> > with Dino's which effectively shows much of evolutionary science to be
> > wrong.
>
> > The entire ToE is double talk.
>
> You have it backwards. �The YEC creationists claim that man walked
> with dinos. �Real science claimes that prosimians (before monkeys)
> existed with dinos. �The ape lineage didn't branch off from the
> monkeys until around 40 million years ago. �The human lineage did not
> branch off from the other apes until 4-8 million years ago and the
> genus Homo didn't exist until around 2 million years ago. �Neandertals
> branched off from the modern human lineage around half a million years
> ago. �Modern humans are all evolved from a relatively small population
> of suvivors (a few thousand) within the last 100,000 years. �We do not
> know why this bottle neck occurred because other species like chimps,
> dogs and cats etc. did not suffer such a decrease in population.
> Humans almost went extinct while other species were doing fine. �We
> can tell all of this from the DNA, biology and the fossil record.
> Where are you getting your information from? �How can you cross check
> your information?
I could ask you the same.
many of your assertions are based on inferences
Well, the data could be wrong, misunderstood, misinterpreted,
incomplete and new data could surface.
>
> Ron Okimoto
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>On Jan 2, 9:19�am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> All-Seeing-I wrote:
>
>>
>> Not true. You don't need to go all the way back to fish. Many mammals
>> survived the K-T extinction, possibly including early primates,
>> depending on whether plesiadapids are primates.
>>
>> > Evolution needs the Dino's to go extinct. But if they did, then so did
>> > most of the other mammals meaning evolution would have a new starting
>> > point at 65my for the most part.
>>
>> > Not enough time for the fish to man theory.
>>
>> Actually, it's apparent that, on land, large animals were preferentially
>> killed off. Most dinosaurs (other than birds) were big; most mammals
>> were small. So they survived at much higher rates.
>
>I would call " 70 percent of living species" killed off a high rate.
>Plus Dinos feed on smaller prey. So the smaller creatures had to be
>wiped out at a high rate as well.
well no. and the reason is your faulty math. if most of the dinos were
dead then the mammals would survive at a HIGHER rate than they used to
rather than a LOWER rate.
>
>So it may not have been the Asteroid that killed the Dono's anyway.
that's possibly true.
>
>>
>> > If many of the Dino's and other mammals did survive then man walked
>> > with Dino's which effectively shows much of evolutionary science to be
>> > wrong.
which is nonsense. there are NO dino fossils after 65M yrs. there are
NO human fossils prior to about 200K years ago. the 2 groups are
mutually exclusive.
>>
>> That doesn't follow either. Thanks for trying to devise a testable
>> hypothesis, but there are flaws in your logic. The K-T extinction was 65
>> million years ago. Depending on what you mean by "man", that's somewhere
>> between 5 million and 200,000 years ago. Plenty of room in between for
>> extinctions, even if some non-avian dinosaurs survived the K-T.
>
>How much time would be needed for the processes of evolution to change
>a population of fish into a population of humans?
mammals survived the extinction so we didnt have to evolve from fish
>
>
>> Nor would humans walking with dinosaurs show anything about evolution to
>> be wrong, except that some dinosaurs had survided longer than we
>> thought. Even if some dinosaur had survived to the present day (very
>> unlikely) that wouldn't cast doubt on evolution. Just another coelacanth
>> story, though it's easier to hide a deep-water fish for 65 million years
>> than it is to hide a large, terrestrial animal.
>
>It could also mean the dating methods are inaccurate if man and dino
>walked together. Which there are anecdotal evidence for that too BTW.
no, there's not. if hiroshima happened, then our datin techniques are
accurate. your ghostbusters view of history is nonsense.
>
>If the dating is wrong then the ToE could be wrong. It would only
>shorten the time that is available for evolution to work it's (ahem)
>"magic'
the ToE was developed prior to, and without the help of, modern dating
techniques. and there's NO evidence at all of a problem with dating
techiques
there IS a problem with YOUR view of ancient texts. the data that
exists shows your view is fatally flawed
>
>> > The entire ToE is double talk.
>>
>> You must think evolutionary biologists are all idiots. I'm an
>> evolutionary biologist. Do you think I'm an idiot?
>
>Not really. Why did you assume I thought evolutionary biologists are
>idiots? I have repeatedly said I think evolution is valid. Except for
>one segment that does not match any other process on the earth that we
>can observe.
we can observe evolution
we can also observe that creationism is failure
All-Seeing-I
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>On Jan 2, 9:09�am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> Guess what adman? �We can tell that a lot of mammalian lineages were
>> lost with the dinos. �The DNA of extant species tell us how few the
>> number of surviving lineages were. �These survivors did diversify into
>> all the mammalian species you see today. �Really, we can tell this by
>> the DNA. �Multiple mammlian lineages survived the KT extinction.
>> These had diversified millions of years before the event and so were
>> distinct lineages before the event. �Large numbers went extinct, but
>> enough survived to give us what we see today.
>>
>>
>>
>> > Not enough time for the fish to man theory.
>>
>> Noah's ark believers like you have to claim that the millions of
>> extant species observed today had to evolve in less than 5 thousand
>> years from the few thousand that could be saved on the ark. �Which is
>> less believable that all the extant mammals evolved from a few
>> thousand surviving speces (more than a pair of each survivors is
>> expected) 65 million years ago, or that they are all derived from a
>> few thousand suvivors (one pair of each in most cases) just a few
>> thousand years ago. �Get the beam out of your eye and look at what you
>> believe and do the comparison.
>
>I have done the comparisons. And stop using bible phrases to make your
>points. It makes you appear to have an agenda and be unintelligent
>because your biblical knowledge is quite limited, i assure you.
>
>It is possible for life to have come back after the flood.
now let's see...he accuses someone else of having poor biblical
knowledge THEN states there was a flood. there is NO scientific
evidence for a flood and NO ONE observed a flood happen. noah didn't
exist and he didnt write about it if he did.
so ASI's knowledge of the bible is quite limited, i assure you
>
>If you add up all of the legends, stories and traditions from around
>the world, then there were many people that were warned ahead of time
>about the impending flood. Obviously something was taking place on
>earth and whom ever gave the warnings were able to estimate when the
>disaster was going to take place.
there's no proof in worldwide literature of a worldwide flood. and
it's physically impossible. do you know ANYTHING about thermodynamics?
>
>But this is all besides the point. If there was a 90% extinction rate
>then logic dictates the other 10% would die from lack of food if for
>no other reason.
uh, why? there's no proof their food sources went extinct. you
creationists have a habit of making LOTS of unsubstantiated claims.
>
>While extinctions may spur new variations for the new niches it also
>has halted any evolution that was taking place prior to the
>extinctions. Which also takes evolution of the species in new
>directions.
>
>My point is this: If evolution was interrupted then you have shortened
>the time available for evolution to take place. If it took billions of
>years to go from molecules to all this diversity then you shorten that
>time frame with each extinction for some if not for all of the
>species.
evolution wasn't 'interrupted' if some species survived. your
statement is incoherent. typical of a creationist
>
>Well, the data could be wrong, misunderstood, misinterpreted,
>incomplete and new data could surface.
>
and we can test your view of nature today.
there is no proof angels or demons exist. people claim they do...as
you admit they did claim they existed 2000 years ago
so where's your proof that they exist?
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Jan 2, 9:19�am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > All-Seeing-I wrote:
> > > The most interesting aspect about the KT Boundary is that it
> > > supposedly killed most all life. Not all, but most. Which effectively
> > > halted some and slowed down any other evolutionary processes taking
> > > place on the planet.
>
> > No, not even most. If you want "most", you need to go back to the
> > Permo-Triassic extinction.
>
> > > It is said billions of years is enough time for fish to mutate their
> > > way into becoming man, but evolution actually only had 65 MY if much
> > > of the life on earth was destroyed from 10 years of nuclear winter.
> > > The vegetation was gone and much of the animal life.
>
> > Not true. You don't need to go all the way back to fish. Many mammals
> > survived the K-T extinction, possibly including early primates,
> > depending on whether plesiadapids are primates.
>
> > > Evolution needs the Dino's to go extinct. But if they did, then so did
> > > most of the other mammals meaning evolution would have a new starting
> > > point at 65my for the most part.
>
> > > Not enough time for the fish to man theory.
>
> > Actually, it's apparent that, on land, large animals were preferentially
> > killed off. Most dinosaurs (other than birds) were big; most mammals
> > were small. So they survived at much higher rates.
>
> I would call " 70 percent of living species" killed off a high rate.
Quite so. It is.
> Plus Dinos feed on smaller prey. So the smaller creatures had to be
> wiped out at a high rate as well.
Excuse me? Are you claiming that if the predators are killed, the
animals they feed on will die too?
Perhaps you could provide a logical reason why that should be the
case.
>
> Also. "It's not until 300,000 years later � and two feet higher � that
> a sharp change in carbon isotopes and changes in microfossils signal
> the massive K-T extinction event"
>
> http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20041115/dinokiller.html
>
> So it may not have been the Asteroid that killed the Dono's anyway.
>
Quite so. That's why palaeontologists think that the massive volcanic
eruptions which created the Deccan Traps had already had already
driven many clades to extinction, and that the asteroid impact was the
icing on the cake, so to speak. Of course, being scientists they argue
like mad over the interpretation of the evidence, and set out to find
more evidence so that conflicting theories can be tested.
>
>
> > > If many of the Dino's and other mammals did survive then man walked
> > > with Dino's which effectively shows much of evolutionary science to be
> > > wrong.
>
> > That doesn't follow either. Thanks for trying to devise a testable
> > hypothesis, but there are flaws in your logic. The K-T extinction was 65
> > million years ago. Depending on what you mean by "man", that's somewhere
> > between 5 million and 200,000 years ago. Plenty of room in between for
> > extinctions, even if some non-avian dinosaurs survived the K-T.
>
> How much time would be needed for the processes of evolution to change
> a population of fish into a population of humans?
The evidence shows that it took about 400 million years. What
alternative, testable interpretation do *you* have for the evidence?
> Why would an
> extinction like the KT not shorten the evolutionary process for the
> remaining species?
That doesn't even make sense. How does one "shorten" the evolutionary
process?
> After all, their entire niche is now removed or
> drastically changed.
Quite so.
> Which would allow the rise of new variations to
> survive in the new niches.
Quite so Keep it up! You're doing well!
> That becomes a new starting point for the
> survivors and possible takes them in new evolutionary directions.
Quite so. Keep up the good work!
> If
> fish were gradually evolving into land mammals that process was broken
> by the extinction..
And...of dear. You come up with something stupid again.
Fish evolved into tetrapods about 400 milllion years ago, long before
the dinosaurs arrived on the scence, and long before the great Permo-
Triassic extinction. Dinosaurs are descendents of fish just as much as
mammals are.
>
> > Nor would humans walking with dinosaurs show anything about evolution to
> > be wrong, except that some dinosaurs had survided longer than we
> > thought. Even if some dinosaur had survived to the present day (very
> > unlikely) that wouldn't cast doubt on evolution. Just another coelacanth
> > story, though it's easier to hide a deep-water fish for 65 million years
> > than it is to hide a large, terrestrial animal.
>
> It could also mean the dating methods are inaccurate if man and dino
> walked together. Which there are anecdotal evidence for that too BTW.
There is "anecdotal evidence" of all sorts of things which don't
exist. Science has investigated many instances of anecdotal evidence
and found them to be unreliable. So have the courts - they won't
convict someone on the basis of anecdotal evidence..
As there is no hard evidence of man and dinosaurs walking together,
why should we accept anecdotal evidence?
>
> If the dating is wrong then the ToE could be wrong.
Well, no. Evolutionary theory is based primarily on studies of
*existing* populations of organisms. The fossil record, though
consistent with evolutionary theory, is not evidence for evolutionary
theory.
> It would only
> shorten the time that is available for evolution to work it's (ahem)
> "magic'
What scientist has ever claimed that evolution works by magic?
>
> > > The entire ToE is double talk.
>
> > You must think evolutionary biologists are all idiots. I'm an
> > evolutionary biologist. Do you think I'm an idiot?
>
> Not really. Why did you assume I thought evolutionary biologists are
> idiots?
Because you denigrate their expertise and prefer to rely on sources
which are demonstrably dishonest for information.
> I have repeatedly said I think evolution is valid.
...and then proceeded to demonstrate that you are profoundly ignorant
of the subject.
> Except for
> one segment that does not match any other process on the earth that we
> can observe.
Actually, you have dismissed out of hand virtually the whole of
evolutionary theory. If you had any real knowledge of evolutionary
theory and the evidence which supports it you'd realise that.
RF
Ron O
> Ron O wrote:
> > On Jan 2, 7:20 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> >> The most interesting aspect about the KT Boundary is that it
> >> supposedly killed most all life. Not all, but most. Which effectively
> >> halted some and slowed down any other evolutionary processes taking
> >> place on the planet.
>
> > This isn't the first mass extinction event, and mass extinction events
> > millions of species those niches (lifestyles and environments that
> > those extinct speces occupied) are now open for other lineages to
> > more than 90% of the species on earth, and then the Dinos diversified
> > into the dominant terrestrial vertebrate.
>
> Well, they didn't survive the end-Permian as dinosaurs. Dinosaurs
> evolved later. Nor did they become the dominant terrestrial vertebrates
> until the Jurassic, so the end-Permian had nothing to do with that story.
Yeah, well their lineage survived when over 90% of everything else
didn't.
>
> > Mammals survived the KT
> > extinction and diversified into the dominant terrestrial vertebrate
> > taking over many of the niches left open by the demise of the dinos.
> > The mammals may have stayed small rodent like furry things if the
> > dinos hadn't bitten the dust. 嚙皚ust 15 million years after the dino
> > extinction the mammalian megafauna had evolved. 嚙磐ou went from animals
> > about the size of large rats to 25 ton 32 foot high titanotheres in
> > just 15 million years, but mammals had evolved along side the dinos
> > for over a hundred million years and couldn't amount to much until the
> > door was open to them and they had no competition to expand into new
> > niches. 嚙瞎ammals were a second rate lifeform until the dinos bit the
> > dust.
>
> I will take only one issue with that. There were no mammalian megafaunas
> before the K-T, but mammals were diverse and an important part of the
> Late Cretaceous land fauna. And some of them were much bigger than
> "small rodent like furry things". Look up, for example, Repenomammus.
There was some big mammal like reptiles quite a while before that.
The accounts that I've read claim that no mammals bigger than a small
dog survived the extinction event.
>
> But your point is valid that extinction can cause adaptive radiations,
> and that recovery from mass extinctions is fairly rapid, in evolutionary
> time.
>
> >> It is said billions of years is enough time for fish to mutate their
> >> way into becoming man, but evolution actually only had 65 MY if much
> >> of the life on earth was destroyed from 10 years of nuclear winter.
> >> The vegetation was gone and much of the animal life.
>
> > If the dinos hadn't bitten the dust, humans may never have evolved.
>
> >> Evolution needs the Dino's to go extinct. But if they did, then so did
> >> most of the other mammals meaning evolution would have a new starting
> >> point at 65my for the most part.
>
> > Guess what adman? 嚙磕e can tell that a lot of mammalian lineages were
> > lost with the dinos. 嚙確he DNA of extant species tell us how few the
> > number of surviving lineages were.
>
> Actually, no. It tells us the minimum number of lineages surviving the
> K-T (if we believe the calibration), but it can't tell us anything about
> the maximum.
>
> [snip actual information, which Madman will not read anyway]
To be precise, but not really to the point.
Ron Okimoto
Dana Tweedy
> The most interesting aspect about the KT Boundary is that it
> supposedly killed most all life. Not all, but most. Which effectively
> halted some and slowed down any other evolutionary processes taking
> place on the planet.
Two major misconceptions here. The KT extinction didn't kill "most all
life" but about 70% of known species. Second, evolution is not
"progress", but just change.
>
> It is said billions of years is enough time for fish to mutate their
> way into becoming man,
Actually, it's more like 400 million years, and fish don't "mutate
themselves". Humans are not the pinnacle of evolution, and are not the
goal of evolution. They are just one end point on the tree of life.
> but evolution actually only had 65 MY if much
> of the life on earth was destroyed from 10 years of nuclear winter.
> The vegetation was gone and much of the animal life.
However nothing had to start from scratch. The mammal ancestors of
primates had already differentiated.
>
> Evolution needs the Dino's to go extinct.
Evolution didn't need for dinosaurs to go extinct. Humans are not the
goal of evolution. If the T/K extinction hadn't happened, life would
have gone on just as it always had.
> But if they did, then so did
> most of the other mammals meaning evolution would have a new starting
> point at 65my for the most part.
It's unknown exactly how many mammal species went extinct in the K/T
event. Those who survived were the basis for all the mammal species
alive today. There's no need to have a new "starting point".
>
> Not enough time for the fish to man theory.
Again, you are being silly here. By the time of the K/T extinction,
the vast majority of the "fish to man" sequence had already happened.
There was plenty of time available.
You seem to think that it's part of evolutionary theory that fish WILL
become humans, rather than the that's just the way things worked out.
Evolution doesn't predict that a population of fish will inevitably turn
into humans.
>
> If many of the Dino's and other mammals did survive then man walked
> with Dino's which effectively shows much of evolutionary science to be
> wrong.
No, evolution would explain the events quite well. The only difference
would be that humans wouldn't be here to examine the evidence, and draw
the conclusion that evolution happens.
>
> The entire ToE is double talk.
Because of your misunderstanding?
DJT
VoiceOfReason
All-Seeing-I wrote:
> The most interesting aspect about the KT Boundary is that it
> supposedly killed most all life. Not all, but most.
Wrong. The KT boundary didn't kill a single thing. The effects of
the bolide impact that caused the KT boundary likely killed off quite
a number of species.
> Which effectively
> halted some and slowed down any other evolutionary processes taking
> place on the planet.
WTF? If anything, following the KT event, surviving species would
have had more ecological niches to fill.
> It is said billions of years is enough time for fish to mutate their
> way into becoming man, but evolution actually only had 65 MY if much
> of the life on earth was destroyed from 10 years of nuclear winter.
Wrong. Man evolved from other mammals, which existed well before the
KT event.
> The vegetation was gone and much of the animal life.
Source for this claim that all the vegetation was gone?
> Evolution needs the Dino's to go extinct.
Wrong. Evolution doesn't "need" anything. The non-avian dinosaurs
went extinct; that's a simple fact.
> But if they did, then so did
> most of the other mammals meaning evolution would have a new starting
> point at 65my for the most part.
Absolutely wrong. Again, many mammals survived the KT extinction
event.
> Not enough time for the fish to man theory.
Wrong again. See above.
> If many of the Dino's and other mammals did survive then man walked
> with Dino's which effectively shows much of evolutionary science to be
> wrong.
Wrong again. Non-avian dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago.
Anatomically modern humans appeared 200,000 years ago. Do the math.
> The entire ToE is double talk.
Your ignorance of even the most basic science is pitiful to witness.
Dana Tweedy
> On Jan 2, 9:09 am, Ron O<rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Jan 2, 7:20 am, All-Seeing-I<allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The most interesting aspect about the KT Boundary is that it
>>> supposedly killed most all life. Not all, but most. Which effectively
>>> halted some and slowed down any other evolutionary processes taking
>>> place on the planet.
>>
>> This isn't the first mass extinction event, and mass extinction events
>> millions of species those niches (lifestyles and environments that
>> those extinct speces occupied) are now open for other lineages to
>> more than 90% of the species on earth,
>
> How did they survive? What did they eat with 90% of everything gone?
On the remains of what didn't, and the species that did survive.
snipping
>> Noah's ark believers like you have to claim that the millions of
>> extant species observed today had to evolve in less than 5 thousand
>> years from the few thousand that could be saved on the ark. Which is
>> less believable that all the extant mammals evolved from a few
>> thousand surviving speces (more than a pair of each survivors is
>> expected) 65 million years ago, or that they are all derived from a
>> few thousand suvivors (one pair of each in most cases) just a few
>> thousand years ago. Get the beam out of your eye and look at what you
>> believe and do the comparison.
>
> I have done the comparisons.
It's quite obvious you have not.
> And stop using bible phrases to make your
> points. It makes you appear to have an agenda and be unintelligent
> because your biblical knowledge is quite limited, i assure you.
Then why did you claim the Bible always takes precedence over modern
knowledge?
>
> It is possible for life to have come back after the flood. The
> biblical description is not scientific but it was not trying to be.
The Biblical "description" was not a description, but a legend invented
long after the supposed fact. There's no evidence there ever was a
global flood. The K/T extinction is known to have happened.
> The flood story in the bible was just a reminder to the people of the
> events that had taken place during the history of their family.
The flood story was just that, a story. The "events" of the flood did
not take place at all.
>
> If you add up all of the legends, stories and traditions from around
> the world, then there were many people that were warned ahead of time
> about the impending flood. Obviously something was taking place on
> earth and whom ever gave the warnings were able to estimate when the
> disaster was going to take place.
Undobutedly there were many floods that affected human cultures
throughout the world. There's not evidence that there was a single
global flood, however.
>
> Not all the animals went onto the ark. Only the ones that knelt down.
> So we can assume other arrangements were made to protect them or the
> animals were smart enough to get to higher ground that would not
> flood.
If they were smart enough to get to higher ground, why weren't they
smart enough to "kneel down"? Again, if there were "other
arrangements", why put Noah through all that to build an Ark in the
first place?
>
> But this is all besides the point. If there was a 90% extinction rate
> then logic dictates the other 10% would die from lack of food if for
> no other reason.
It's apparent that you know little about logic. There's no reason why
the remaining 10% would all die from lack of food.
>
> While extinctions may spur new variations for the new niches it also
> has halted any evolution that was taking place prior to the
> extinctions. Which also takes evolution of the species in new
> directions.
Extinction of particular lines doesn't stop evolution in other lines.
Why would taking evolution in "new directions" be a problem? Again,
evolution doesn't have goals, and it doesn't have foresight.
>
> My point is this: If evolution was interrupted then you have shortened
> the time available for evolution to take place.
Evolution wasn't shortened. Particular lines were stopped, but the
ones that survived kept all their history. Evolution doesn't re-start
when there is an extinction event. Again, remember, there isn't any
particular goal that evolution is trying for.
> If it took billions of
> years to go from molecules to all this diversity then you shorten that
> time frame with each extinction for some if not for all of the
> species.
You keep misunderstanding. Extinction events don't stop evolution.
They only stop individual species. Evolution goes on as long as there
are species existing.
>
>>> If many of the Dino's and other mammals did survive then man walked
>>> with Dino's which effectively shows much of evolutionary science to be
>>> wrong.
>>
>>> The entire ToE is double talk.
>>
>> You have it backwards. The YEC creationists claim that man walked
>> with dinos. Real science claimes that prosimians (before monkeys)
>> existed with dinos. The ape lineage didn't branch off from the
>> monkeys until around 40 million years ago. The human lineage did not
>> branch off from the other apes until 4-8 million years ago and the
>> genus Homo didn't exist until around 2 million years ago. Neandertals
>> branched off from the modern human lineage around half a million years
>> ago. Modern humans are all evolved from a relatively small population
>> of suvivors (a few thousand) within the last 100,000 years. We do not
>> know why this bottle neck occurred because other species like chimps,
>> dogs and cats etc. did not suffer such a decrease in population.
>> Humans almost went extinct while other species were doing fine. We
>> can tell all of this from the DNA, biology and the fossil record.
>> Where are you getting your information from? How can you cross check
>> your information?
>
> I could ask you the same.
If you did, you'd get answers. One can cross check the information that
supports evolution because there is evidence from many different lines.
As Ron pointed out just above, DNA, fossils, and biochemistry all
provide converging evidence that supports the conclusions.
Why don't you try to answer the question put to you?
>
> many of your assertions are based on inferences
All of science is based on inference. That's not a problem.
>
> Well, the data could be wrong, misunderstood, misinterpreted,
> incomplete and new data could surface.
Which is why information is checked, and cross checked. Your own
belief just rests on your own interpretation, which is much more likely
to be wrong. Worse, you don't have any way to determine if you are
right, or wrong.
DJT
Dan Listermann
"All-Seeing-I" <allse...@usa.com> wrote in message
news:48638bcc-e0de-4509...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 2, 9:09 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Jan 2, 7:20 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>
>> > The most interesting aspect about the KT Boundary is that it
>> > supposedly killed most all life. Not all, but most. Which effectively
>> > halted some and slowed down any other evolutionary processes taking
>> > place on the planet.
>>
>> This isn't the first mass extinction event, and mass extinction events
>> millions of species those niches (lifestyles and environments that
>> those extinct speces occupied) are now open for other lineages to
>> more than 90% of the species on earth,
>
> How did they survive? What did they eat with 90% of everything gone?
>
You don't think much, do you? How about the 10% remaining?
.
Dana Tweedy
Apparently you are seeing "YOO" everywhere. He must be getting to you.
DJT
Ron O
> On Jan 2, 9:09�am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 2, 7:20�am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > > The most interesting aspect about the KT Boundary is that it
> > > supposedly killed most all life. Not all, but most. Which effectively
> > > halted some and slowed down any other evolutionary processes taking
> > > place on the planet.
>
> > This isn't the first mass extinction event, and mass extinction events
> > millions of species those niches (lifestyles and environments that
> > those extinct speces occupied) are now open for other lineages to
> > more than 90% of the species on earth,
>
> How did they survive? What did they eat with 90% of everything gone?
What did the ark survivors eat? This extinction event may have
extended over a period of thousands of years. There may have been a
shortage of food or some other environmental calamity, but there
didn't have to be no food for anyone.
SNIP the material that all screeching denial didn't read anyway.
>
> > Noah's ark believers like you have to claim that the millions of
> > extant species observed today had to evolve in less than 5 thousand
> > years from the few thousand that could be saved on the ark. �Which is
> > less believable that all the extant mammals evolved from a few
> > thousand surviving speces (more than a pair of each survivors is
> > expected) 65 million years ago, or that they are all derived from a
> > few thousand suvivors (one pair of each in most cases) just a few
> > thousand years ago. �Get the beam out of your eye and look at what you
> > believe and do the comparison.
>
> I have done the comparisons. And stop using bible phrases to make your
> points. It makes you appear to have an agenda and be unintelligent
> because your biblical knowledge is quite limited, i assure you.
"By their fruit ye shall know them." Why are you such a bad fruit?
Posturing about Biblical knowledge is one of your most laughable
incompetent traits. What you have is a basket case interpretation of
the ancient texts. So you should get that beam out of your eye and
quite swatting at dust motes when your arguments are so bad that you
should be crying.
>
> It is possible for life to have come back after the flood. The
> biblical description is not scientific but it was not trying to be.
> The flood story in the bible was just a reminder to the people of the
> events that had taken place during the history of their family.
Demonstrate that it is possible for life to come back after the flood
and not diversify in 65 million years after the KT extinction. You
have to have fewer suviving species on the ark than likely survoved
the KT extinction. You only have a pair of most of the "kinds," while
the KT survivors likely had populations surviving with quite a bit of
genetic variation to start evolving rapidly. Not only that, but you
have a few centuries to get all your evolution done. It was all
pretty much complete and more than what we see today by recorded
history. There was likely only a few centuries to get all the
evolution done or the ancient people would have noted hundreds of new
species evolving every year. Just think, it likely started off slowly
(you have to produce the populations that are going to evolve and get
them back to the places where the evolution is going to take place)
and then the evolution of new species would have accelerated to some
ridiculous rate, and then it would all have to stop in time to not be
noticed by anyone that could write about it.
>
> If you add up all of the legends, stories and traditions from around
> the world, then there were many people that were warned ahead of time
> about the impending flood. Obviously something was taking place on
> earth and whom ever gave the warnings were able to estimate when the
> disaster was going to take place.
According to the ancient texts there was only one group to survive to
note the warning. You have to read the ancient texts with some
comprehension. All the suvivors with the breath of life were on the
ark.
>
> Not all the animals went onto the ark. Only the ones that knelt down.
> So we can assume other arrangements were made to protect them or the
> animals were smart enough to get to higher ground that would not
> flood.
Well most of what was living supposedly died in the flood, so what?
The only suvivors with the breath of life were on the ark. Fish don't
seem to count, but whales and manatees might have been on the ark.
>
> But this is all besides the point. If there was a 90% extinction rate
> then logic dictates the other 10% would die from lack of food if for
> no other reason.
Why? What if they ate the dead and scavenged the bones. You aren't
thinking of extinction the way that you should. On the ark the
populations were minimal and there is likely very little chance that
they would have survived after getting off the ark on a barren earth.
But the Permian extinction didn't have a barren earth as far as I
know. The climate and environment may have been pretty bad, so there
was niche reduction and many species had no place to make a living and
died out. A domino effect may have taken place when inter dependent
species started going. Generalists would be most likely to survive in
such an environment. If you were dependent on a certain type of fruit
tree for your survival and it went extinct you would likely go too.
Not all species would be affected the same way as in a world wide
flood that kills everything and covers the earth with miles of
sediment. Just look at the lifeforms that survive in the desert. The
number of species may be limited, but they do manage to survive in
those harsh conditions. On the other hand you have tropical
rainforests that are the most species rich environments on the
planet. If something happened to the rainforests most of the
terrestrial species on earth would likely go extinct.
>
> While extinctions may spur new variations for the new niches it also
> has halted any evolution that was taking place prior to the
> extinctions. Which also takes evolution of the species in new
> directions.
The lineages that go extinct can no longer evolve. The ones that are
left can take their place and evolution can accelerate for a period of
time when selection pressure is relaxed.
>
> My point is this: If evolution was interrupted then you have shortened
> the time available for evolution to take place. If it took billions of
> years to go from molecules to all this diversity then you shorten that
> time frame with each extinction for some if not for all of the
> species.
You have no point because evolution doesn't stop. It does get
interupted, but often new things evolve that wouldn't have had the
chance if the status quo had been maintained. Mammals seem to be a
very good example of this. Get the beam out of your eye. You are
claiming that 65 million years is not enough while having to claim
that a few centuries is all you need for your massive amounts of
evolution to occur. The number of species surviving on the ark were
likely a lot fewer than the number of species that survived the KT
extinction event and those surviving species likely had populations
sizes larger than two to fuel future evolution.
>
> > > If many of the Dino's and other mammals did survive then man walked
> > > with Dino's which effectively shows much of evolutionary science to be
> > > wrong.
>
> > > The entire ToE is double talk.
>
> > You have it backwards. �The YEC creationists claim that man walked
> > with dinos. �Real science claimes that prosimians (before monkeys)
> > existed with dinos. �The ape lineage didn't branch off from the
> > monkeys until around 40 million years ago. �The human lineage did not
> > branch off from the other apes until 4-8 million years ago and the
> > genus Homo didn't exist until around 2 million years ago. �Neandertals
> > branched off from the modern human lineage around half a million years
> > ago. �Modern humans are all evolved from a relatively small population
> > of suvivors (a few thousand) within the last 100,000 years. �We do not
> > know why this bottle neck occurred because other species like chimps,
> > dogs and cats etc. did not suffer such a decrease in population.
> > Humans almost went extinct while other species were doing fine. �We
> > can tell all of this from the DNA, biology and the fossil record.
> > Where are you getting your information from? �How can you cross check
> > your information?
>
> I could ask you the same.
The same what? Read a science book. Read the web link that I put up
and follow the references.
>
> many of your assertions are based on inferences
Your assertions are based on fantasy. Just try to make them work and
still claim that 65 million years is not enough time to evolve what we
see today.
>
> Well, the data could be wrong, misunderstood, misinterpreted,
> incomplete and new data could surface.
Like your interpretation of the ancient texts might be as bogus as
everything that you have claimed in this post? Verify that you have
enough time to get all your evolution done if 65 million years is not
enough time to do even less.
Ron Okimoto
>
> > Ron Okimoto-
Dana Tweedy
> On Jan 2, 9:19 am, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
snip
>> Actually, it's apparent that, on land, large animals were preferentially
>> killed off. Most dinosaurs (other than birds) were big; most mammals
>> were small. So they survived at much higher rates.
>
> I would call " 70 percent of living species" killed off a high rate.
You seem to forget that most of the then existing mammal species were
among the 30% that survived.
> Plus Dinos feed on smaller prey. So the smaller creatures had to be
> wiped out at a high rate as well.
Some dinosaurs fed on "smaller prey", but others were herbivores. Why
would the smaller creatures have to be wiped out if their predators were
killed off?
>
> Also. "It's not until 300,000 years later � and two feet higher � that
> a sharp change in carbon isotopes and changes in microfossils signal
> the massive K-T extinction event"
>
> http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20041115/dinokiller.html
>
> So it may not have been the Asteroid that killed the Dono's anyway.
It may not have been an asteroid that caused the K/T extinction event,
but it's clear that something did. It may have been a combination of
vulcanism in the Deccan Traps, combined with the Chixalub impact, or
even something else entirely. The point is that there was some event
at the time which wiped out a large percentage of contemporary species.
>
>>
>>> If many of the Dino's and other mammals did survive then man walked
>>> with Dino's which effectively shows much of evolutionary science to be
>>> wrong.
>>
>> That doesn't follow either. Thanks for trying to devise a testable
>> hypothesis, but there are flaws in your logic. The K-T extinction was 65
>> million years ago. Depending on what you mean by "man", that's somewhere
>> between 5 million and 200,000 years ago. Plenty of room in between for
>> extinctions, even if some non-avian dinosaurs survived the K-T.
>
> How much time would be needed for the processes of evolution to change
> a population of fish into a population of humans?
It's unknown how long is needed. It's known that it took about 400
million years for the event to happen.
> Why would an
> extinction like the KT not shorten the evolutionary process for the
> remaining species?
Because the remaining species already had millions of years in their
past. The evolutionary process for those species continued unabated.
> After all, their entire niche is now removed or
> drastically changed.
Actually, their niche suddenly opened up, giving their descendants much
more latitude to occupy new niches.
> Which would allow the rise of new variations to
> survive in the new niches. That becomes a new starting point for the
> survivors and possible takes them in new evolutionary directions.
Which is exactly what happened. The new "starting point" doesn't
eliminate all the history that came before.
> If
> fish were gradually evolving into land mammals that process was broken
> by the extinction..
Why would that break the process? There were still advantages to
living on land, and the organisms that evolved to live on land still
were adapted to live there.
>
>
>> Nor would humans walking with dinosaurs show anything about evolution to
>> be wrong, except that some dinosaurs had survided longer than we
>> thought. Even if some dinosaur had survived to the present day (very
>> unlikely) that wouldn't cast doubt on evolution. Just another coelacanth
>> story, though it's easier to hide a deep-water fish for 65 million years
>> than it is to hide a large, terrestrial animal.
>
> It could also mean the dating methods are inaccurate if man and dino
> walked together. Which there are anecdotal evidence for that too BTW.
There's no reason to assume the dating methods are inaccurate. If some
dinosaurs survived the K/T extinction (like the birds did), that
wouldn't make the dating methods wrong. Anecdotal evidence of
dinosaurs living with humans is highly suspsct, and totally unsupported.
>
> If the dating is wrong then the ToE could be wrong.
If red were green, then golf courses are wrong to charge greens fees.
The dating methods aren't wrong.
> It would only
> shorten the time that is available for evolution to work it's (ahem)
> "magic'
Again, why bother with "ifs" when there is no reason to? Also,
evolution is not magic.
>
>>> The entire ToE is double talk.
>>
>> You must think evolutionary biologists are all idiots. I'm an
>> evolutionary biologist. Do you think I'm an idiot?
>
> Not really. Why did you assume I thought evolutionary biologists are
> idiots?
Because you are calling them idiots, in almost so many words. Why do
you think that biologists accept evolution unanimously?
I have repeatedly said I think evolution is valid. Except for
> one segment that does not match any other process on the earth that we
> can observe.
Above you just said that "the entire TOE is double talk". Now you say
you think evolution is valid. Please pick one. Also, ALL of
evolutionary theory matches what processes that can be observed.
>
> What is your religious orientation BTW? Or are you agnostic? Atheist?
Why would it matter to the fact of evolution??
DJT
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by All-Seeing-I
<allse...@usa.com>:
>The most interesting aspect about the KT Boundary is that it
>supposedly killed most all life. Not all, but most.
OK, given a liberal value for "most", and with the proviso
that representatives of most groups survived.
> Which effectively
>halted some and slowed down any other evolutionary processes taking
>place on the planet.
Whoops! That's exactly backward; when multiple niches open
due to the removal of their former inhabitants the pace of
evolution is almost certain to accelerate, not slow down.
>It is said billions of years is enough time for fish to mutate their
>way into becoming man, but evolution actually only had 65 MY if much
>of the life on earth was destroyed from 10 years of nuclear winter.
>The vegetation was gone and much of the animal life.
See above, and do a bit of research; representatives of most
groups survived, both plants and animals.
>Evolution needs the Dino's to go extinct.
Why? Do you imagine that "evolution" is a sentient process
with a goal?
> But if they did, then so did
>most of the other mammals meaning evolution would have a new starting
>point at 65my for the most part.
Wrong again, and not only by asserting that dinosaurs were
mammals ("...most of the *other* mammals..."). Were they
closely related to trilobites?
>Not enough time for the fish to man theory.
>
>If many of the Dino's and other mammals
So it wasn't just poor grammar skills; you believe that
dinos were mammals? Hoo, boy...
> did survive then man walked
>with Dino's which effectively shows much of evolutionary science to be
>wrong.
This is not right. It's not even wrong.
>The entire ToE is double talk.
Well, ordinarily I'd agree that you're the master of
doubletalk. But the above shows even the master is only
trying to bait the group.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
John Harshman
> On Jan 2, 9:09 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Jan 2, 7:20 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The most interesting aspect about the KT Boundary is that it
>>> supposedly killed most all life. Not all, but most. Which effectively
>>> halted some and slowed down any other evolutionary processes taking
>>> place on the planet.
>> This isn't the first mass extinction event, and mass extinction events
>> millions of species those niches (lifestyles and environments that
>> those extinct speces occupied) are now open for other lineages to
>> more than 90% of the species on earth,
>
> How did they survive? What did they eat with 90% of everything gone?
That should be obvious. They ate some of the 10% that wasn't gone. By
the way, what did the animals fresh off the ark eat?
[snip remaining hopeless nonsense]
John Harshman
> On Jan 2, 9:28 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Ron O wrote:
>>> On Jan 2, 7:20 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>>> The most interesting aspect about the KT Boundary is that it
>>>> supposedly killed most all life. Not all, but most. Which effectively
>>>> halted some and slowed down any other evolutionary processes taking
>>>> place on the planet.
>>> This isn't the first mass extinction event, and mass extinction events
>>> millions of species those niches (lifestyles and environments that
>>> those extinct speces occupied) are now open for other lineages to
>>> more than 90% of the species on earth, and then the Dinos diversified
>>> into the dominant terrestrial vertebrate.
>> Well, they didn't survive the end-Permian as dinosaurs. Dinosaurs
>> evolved later. Nor did they become the dominant terrestrial vertebrates
>> until the Jurassic, so the end-Permian had nothing to do with that story.
>
> Yeah, well their lineage survived when over 90% of everything else
> didn't.
But it wasn't the dinosaur lineage. It was some kind of more general
archosaur lineage, from which the dinosaurs and much else descended. By
the way, the 90% figure is for genera of marine invertebrates; I'm not
sure there's a good estimate on the percentage of land vertebrates.
>>> Mammals survived the KT
>>> extinction and diversified into the dominant terrestrial vertebrate
>>> taking over many of the niches left open by the demise of the dinos.
>>> The mammals may have stayed small rodent like furry things if the
>>> dinos hadn't bitten the dust. Just 15 million years after the dino
>>> extinction the mammalian megafauna had evolved. You went from animals
>>> about the size of large rats to 25 ton 32 foot high titanotheres in
>>> just 15 million years, but mammals had evolved along side the dinos
>>> for over a hundred million years and couldn't amount to much until the
>>> door was open to them and they had no competition to expand into new
>>> niches. Mammals were a second rate lifeform until the dinos bit the
>>> dust.
>> I will take only one issue with that. There were no mammalian megafaunas
>> before the K-T, but mammals were diverse and an important part of the
>> Late Cretaceous land fauna. And some of them were much bigger than
>> "small rodent like furry things". Look up, for example, Repenomammus.
>
> There was some big mammal like reptiles quite a while before that.
> The accounts that I've read claim that no mammals bigger than a small
> dog survived the extinction event.
Again, you need to check Repenomamus (sorry for the misspelling
originally). Your accounts are out of date.
>> But your point is valid that extinction can cause adaptive radiations,
>> and that recovery from mass extinctions is fairly rapid, in evolutionary
>> time.
>>
>>>> It is said billions of years is enough time for fish to mutate their
>>>> way into becoming man, but evolution actually only had 65 MY if much
>>>> of the life on earth was destroyed from 10 years of nuclear winter.
>>>> The vegetation was gone and much of the animal life.
>>> If the dinos hadn't bitten the dust, humans may never have evolved.
>>>> Evolution needs the Dino's to go extinct. But if they did, then so did
>>>> most of the other mammals meaning evolution would have a new starting
>>>> point at 65my for the most part.
>>> Guess what adman? We can tell that a lot of mammalian lineages were
>>> lost with the dinos. The DNA of extant species tell us how few the
>>> number of surviving lineages were.
>> Actually, no. It tells us the minimum number of lineages surviving the
>> K-T (if we believe the calibration), but it can't tell us anything about
>> the maximum.
>>
>> [snip actual information, which Madman will not read anyway]
>
> To be precise, but not really to the point.
Was there something missing from that sentence, like an independent clause?
John Harshman
That doesn't make any sense. If dinosaurs fed on small prey, and were
wiped out, that would cause less death of small prey, not more.
> Also. "It's not until 300,000 years later � and two feet higher � that
> a sharp change in carbon isotopes and changes in microfossils signal
> the massive K-T extinction event"
> http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20041115/dinokiller.html
>
> So it may not have been the Asteroid that killed the Dono's anyway.
Little press releases aren't much better than creationist web sites.
Keller's work is controversial. At any rate, the cause of the extinction
isn't relevant to this particular discussion.
>>> If many of the Dino's and other mammals did survive then man walked
>>> with Dino's which effectively shows much of evolutionary science to be
>>> wrong.
>> That doesn't follow either. Thanks for trying to devise a testable
>> hypothesis, but there are flaws in your logic. The K-T extinction was 65
>> million years ago. Depending on what you mean by "man", that's somewhere
>> between 5 million and 200,000 years ago. Plenty of room in between for
>> extinctions, even if some non-avian dinosaurs survived the K-T.
>
> How much time would be needed for the processes of evolution to change
> a population of fish into a population of humans?
Meaningless question. It assumes that evolution has a particular goal,
i.e. of turning fish into humans, and in as little time as possible. The
only thing we know is how long it did take. There's no reason to suppose
that, given another shot, that humans would ever arise. There's no
strong reason even to suppose that any intelligent life would arise.
> Why would an
> extinction like the KT not shorten the evolutionary process for the
> remaining species? After all, their entire niche is now removed or
> drastically changed. Which would allow the rise of new variations to
> survive in the new niches. That becomes a new starting point for the
> survivors and possible takes them in new evolutionary directions. If
> fish were gradually evolving into land mammals that process was broken
> by the extinction..
You contradict yourself. First you say evolution would be speeded up,
then you say it would be stopped. Now there are reasons to suppose that
there is a burst of adaptive radiations after any mass extinction, due
as you say to the opening up of many formerly occupied niches. Of
course, by the time of the K-T extinction, land mammals had already
existed for around 150 million years.
>> Nor would humans walking with dinosaurs show anything about evolution to
>> be wrong, except that some dinosaurs had survided longer than we
>> thought. Even if some dinosaur had survived to the present day (very
>> unlikely) that wouldn't cast doubt on evolution. Just another coelacanth
>> story, though it's easier to hide a deep-water fish for 65 million years
>> than it is to hide a large, terrestrial animal.
>
> It could also mean the dating methods are inaccurate if man and dino
> walked together. Which there are anecdotal evidence for that too BTW.
There is no anecdotal evidence for any such thing. Nor would discovery
of a late dinosaur mean that dating methods were inaccurate.
> If the dating is wrong then the ToE could be wrong. It would only
> shorten the time that is available for evolution to work it's (ahem)
> "magic'
The dating isn't wrong, and you have advanced no reasons to suppose it
is. I can see why you mistrust inference, since your ability to make
inferences from data is so poor.
>>> The entire ToE is double talk.
>> You must think evolutionary biologists are all idiots. I'm an
>> evolutionary biologist. Do you think I'm an idiot?
>
> Not really. Why did you assume I thought evolutionary biologists are
> idiots?
Because only idiots would spend their careers on a subject which is
entirely double talk.
> I have repeatedly said I think evolution is valid. Except for
> one segment that does not match any other process on the earth that we
> can observe.
You said "The entire ToE is double talk." What exactly did you mean by
that?
> What is your religious orientation BTW? Or are you agnostic? Atheist?
The latter. Why?
All-Seeing-I
What ever they were eating when they were on the ark,
>
> [snip remaining hopeless nonsense]- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
John Harshman
> On Jan 2, 2:49 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> All-Seeing-I wrote:
>>> On Jan 2, 9:09 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> On Jan 2, 7:20 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>>>> The most interesting aspect about the KT Boundary is that it
>>>>> supposedly killed most all life. Not all, but most. Which effectively
>>>>> halted some and slowed down any other evolutionary processes taking
>>>>> place on the planet.
>>>> This isn't the first mass extinction event, and mass extinction events
>>>> do not slow down evolution, they accelerate it. With the loss of
>>>> millions of species those niches (lifestyles and environments that
>>>> those extinct speces occupied) are now open for other lineages to
>>>> exploit. The dinos survived the Permian extinction that wiped out
>>>> more than 90% of the species on earth,
>>> How did they survive? What did they eat with 90% of everything gone?
>> That should be obvious. They ate some of the 10% that wasn't gone. By
>> the way, what did the animals fresh off the ark eat?
>
> What ever they were eating when they were on the ark,
You mean that Noah continued to feed them indefinitely, until a large
ecosystem had been rebuilt?
But never mind, you have already shown that you don't believe the ark
story to be literal truth, but to have been garbled to an unknown degree.
Burkhard
Why, the dinosaurs of course, that's why they are extinct now. Honestly
John sometimes I wonder if you can think for yourself! You see, before
corruption said in, all animals (and even the plants) were healthy,
strong carnivores. But the earth got corrupted and after the flood, they
slowly lost their ability to eat digest meat, resulting in the
degenerative softy-veggies we get today. Directly after landing, most of
them would still have been able to digest meat, and there is a lot of
eating on a Giraffatitan - have you never noticed that all these
dinosaur bones are picked clean?
PS: did tyou know that carbniverous comes actually from Hebrew ca-rat
(cut) and ne-vey-lah (carcass), literally: cut me that carcass?
Boikat
Where did Noak keep all the food?
You have a bit less than 3 1/2 hours to prove beyond reasonable doubt
that I am RAM, Monnnkeey-boy.
Boikat
Ron O
> Ron O wrote:
> > On Jan 2, 9:28 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> Ron O wrote:
> >>> On Jan 2, 7:20 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> >>>> The most interesting aspect about the KT Boundary is that it
> >>>> supposedly killed most all life. Not all, but most. Which effectively
> >>>> halted some and slowed down any other evolutionary processes taking
> >>>> place on the planet.
> >>> This isn't the first mass extinction event, and mass extinction events
> >>> millions of species those niches (lifestyles and environments that
> >>> those extinct speces occupied) are now open for other lineages to
> >>> more than 90% of the species on earth, and then the Dinos diversified
> >>> into the dominant terrestrial vertebrate.
> >> Well, they didn't survive the end-Permian as dinosaurs. Dinosaurs
> >> evolved later. Nor did they become the dominant terrestrial vertebrates
> >> until the Jurassic, so the end-Permian had nothing to do with that story.
>
> > Yeah, well their lineage survived when over 90% of everything else
> > didn't.
>
> But it wasn't the dinosaur lineage. It was some kind of more general
> archosaur lineage, from which the dinosaurs and much else descended. By
> the way, the 90% figure is for genera of marine invertebrates; I'm not
> sure there's a good estimate on the percentage of land vertebrates.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> Mammals survived the KT
> >>> extinction and diversified into the dominant terrestrial vertebrate
> >>> taking over many of the niches left open by the demise of the dinos.
> >>> The mammals may have stayed small rodent like furry things if the
> >>> extinction the mammalian megafauna had evolved. 嚙磐ou went from animals
> >>> about the size of large rats to 25 ton 32 foot high titanotheres in
> >>> just 15 million years, but mammals had evolved along side the dinos
> >>> for over a hundred million years and couldn't amount to much until the
> >>> door was open to them and they had no competition to expand into new
> >>> dust.
> >> I will take only one issue with that. There were no mammalian megafaunas
> >> before the K-T, but mammals were diverse and an important part of the
> >> Late Cretaceous land fauna. And some of them were much bigger than
> >> "small rodent like furry things". Look up, for example, Repenomammus.
>
> > There was some big mammal like reptiles quite a while before that.
> > The accounts that I've read claim that no mammals bigger than a small
> > dog survived the extinction event.
>
> Again, you need to check Repenomamus (sorry for the misspelling
> originally). Your accounts are out of date.
It says that it was the size of a small dog, largest around 14 kg
(around 30 lbs.).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repenomamus
Maybe it is an example of "the size of a fox terrier," where everyone
claims "small dog" when they mean up to 30 lbs which would almost be a
medium sized dog. 30 lbs would be larger than a fox terrier, but
smaller than a beagle.
Ron Okimoto
>
> >> But your point is valid that extinction can cause adaptive radiations,
> >> and that recovery from mass extinctions is fairly rapid, in evolutionary
> >> time.
>
> >>>> It is said billions of years is enough time for fish to mutate their
> >>>> way into becoming man, but evolution actually only had 65 MY if much
> >>>> of the life on earth was destroyed from 10 years of nuclear winter.
> >>>> The vegetation was gone and much of the animal life.
> >>> If the dinos hadn't bitten the dust, humans may never have evolved.
> >>>> Evolution needs the Dino's to go extinct. But if they did, then so did
> >>>> most of the other mammals meaning evolution would have a new starting
> >>>> point at 65my for the most part.
> >>> Guess what adman? 嚙磕e can tell that a lot of mammalian lineages were
> >>> lost with the dinos. 嚙確he DNA of extant species tell us how few the
> >>> number of surviving lineages were.
> >> Actually, no. It tells us the minimum number of lineages surviving the
> >> K-T (if we believe the calibration), but it can't tell us anything about
> >> the maximum.
>
> >> [snip actual information, which Madman will not read anyway]
>
> > To be precise, but not really to the point.
>
> Was there something missing from that sentence, like an independent clause?-
John Harshman
> On Jan 2, 2:46 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Ron O wrote:
>>> On Jan 2, 9:28 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> Ron O wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 2, 7:20 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>>>>> The most interesting aspect about the KT Boundary is that it
>>>>>> supposedly killed most all life. Not all, but most. Which effectively
>>>>>> halted some and slowed down any other evolutionary processes taking
>>>>>> place on the planet.
>>>>> This isn't the first mass extinction event, and mass extinction events
>>>>> millions of species those niches (lifestyles and environments that
>>>>> those extinct speces occupied) are now open for other lineages to
>>>>> more than 90% of the species on earth, and then the Dinos diversified
>>>>> into the dominant terrestrial vertebrate.
>>>> Well, they didn't survive the end-Permian as dinosaurs. Dinosaurs
>>>> evolved later. Nor did they become the dominant terrestrial vertebrates
>>>> until the Jurassic, so the end-Permian had nothing to do with that story.
>>> Yeah, well their lineage survived when over 90% of everything else
>>> didn't.
>> But it wasn't the dinosaur lineage. It was some kind of more general
>> archosaur lineage, from which the dinosaurs and much else descended. By
>> the way, the 90% figure is for genera of marine invertebrates; I'm not
>> sure there's a good estimate on the percentage of land vertebrates.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> Mammals survived the KT
>>>>> extinction and diversified into the dominant terrestrial vertebrate
>>>>> taking over many of the niches left open by the demise of the dinos.
>>>>> The mammals may have stayed small rodent like furry things if the
>>>>> extinction the mammalian megafauna had evolved. You went from animals
>>>>> about the size of large rats to 25 ton 32 foot high titanotheres in
>>>>> just 15 million years, but mammals had evolved along side the dinos
>>>>> for over a hundred million years and couldn't amount to much until the
>>>>> door was open to them and they had no competition to expand into new
>>>>> dust.
>>>> I will take only one issue with that. There were no mammalian megafaunas
>>>> before the K-T, but mammals were diverse and an important part of the
>>>> Late Cretaceous land fauna. And some of them were much bigger than
>>>> "small rodent like furry things". Look up, for example, Repenomammus.
>>> There was some big mammal like reptiles quite a while before that.
>>> The accounts that I've read claim that no mammals bigger than a small
>>> dog survived the extinction event.
>> Again, you need to check Repenomamus (sorry for the misspelling
>> originally). Your accounts are out of date.
>
> It says that it was the size of a small dog, largest around 14 kg
> (around 30 lbs.).
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repenomamus
>
> Maybe it is an example of "the size of a fox terrier," where everyone
> claims "small dog" when they mean up to 30 lbs which would almost be a
> medium sized dog. 30 lbs would be larger than a fox terrier, but
> smaller than a beagle.
There are others that might have been larger. And of course nothing
large may have survived the extinction event. My point is that mammals
were not all rat-sized in the Cretaceous.
>>>> But your point is valid that extinction can cause adaptive radiations,
>>>> and that recovery from mass extinctions is fairly rapid, in evolutionary
>>>> time.
>>>>>> It is said billions of years is enough time for fish to mutate their
>>>>>> way into becoming man, but evolution actually only had 65 MY if much
>>>>>> of the life on earth was destroyed from 10 years of nuclear winter.
>>>>>> The vegetation was gone and much of the animal life.
>>>>> If the dinos hadn't bitten the dust, humans may never have evolved.
>>>>>> Evolution needs the Dino's to go extinct. But if they did, then so did
>>>>>> most of the other mammals meaning evolution would have a new starting
>>>>>> point at 65my for the most part.
>>>>> Guess what adman? We can tell that a lot of mammalian lineages were
>>>>> lost with the dinos. The DNA of extant species tell us how few the
John Harshman
> John Harshman wrote:
>> All-Seeing-I wrote:
>>> On Jan 2, 9:09 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> On Jan 2, 7:20 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The most interesting aspect about the KT Boundary is that it
>>>>> supposedly killed most all life. Not all, but most. Which effectively
>>>>> halted some and slowed down any other evolutionary processes taking
>>>>> place on the planet.
>>>> This isn't the first mass extinction event, and mass extinction events
>>>> do not slow down evolution, they accelerate it. With the loss of
>>>> millions of species those niches (lifestyles and environments that
>>>> those extinct speces occupied) are now open for other lineages to
>>>> exploit. The dinos survived the Permian extinction that wiped out
>>>> more than 90% of the species on earth,
>>>
>>> How did they survive? What did they eat with 90% of everything gone?
>>
>> That should be obvious. They ate some of the 10% that wasn't gone. By
>> the way, what did the animals fresh off the ark eat?
>>
>
> Why, the dinosaurs of course, that's why they are extinct now.
I assume that was a joke, because you don't have anything sensible to say.
> Honestly
> John sometimes I wonder if you can think for yourself! You see, before
> corruption said in, all animals (and even the plants) were healthy,
> strong carnivores.
Really? That's the opposite of your previous claims, isn't it? I thought
the animals were all herbivores.
> But the earth got corrupted and after the flood, they
> slowly lost their ability to eat digest meat, resulting in the
> degenerative softy-veggies we get today. Directly after landing, most of
> them would still have been able to digest meat, and there is a lot of
> eating on a Giraffatitan - have you never noticed that all these
> dinosaur bones are picked clean?
I assume that's another joke. Do you intend a serious reply at any point.
> PS: did tyou know that carbniverous comes actually from Hebrew ca-rat
> (cut) and ne-vey-lah (carcass), literally: cut me that carcass?
Another joke?
Cory Albrecht
> The most interesting aspect about the KT Boundary is that it
> supposedly killed most all life. Not all, but most. Which effectively
Bzzt! Wrong. The K-T boundary is not what did the killing. It was caused
by the same thing which cause the killing. Thanks for showing yet again
just how ignorant you are of science.
> halted some and slowed down any other evolutionary processes taking
> place on the planet.
Says who evolution slowed down or halted? Cite.
>
> It is said billions of years is enough time for fish to mutate their
> way into becoming man, but evolution actually only had 65 MY if much
As you said above, not all life was destroyed, therefore there was
actually much more than 65 million years.
> of the life on earth was destroyed from 10 years of nuclear winter.
> The vegetation was gone and much of the animal life.
No, moron, it also had the hundreds of millions of years before that
time, too.
>
> Evolution needs the Dino's to go extinct. But if they did, then so did
No, Evolution does not "need" dinosaurs to go extinct. That dinosaurs
died out, and did so tens of millions of years ago is incontrovertable
fact, and evolutionary theory has to built wit that fact in mind.
The implication you make that dinosaurs going extinct a long time ago
was made up to support evolution is nothing but a lie.
> most of the other mammals meaning evolution would have a new starting
> point at 65my for the most part.
Except that not everything did go extinct, so your "new starting point"
is nothing but a fallacy.
>
> Not enough time for the fish to man theory.
Except in that 65 million years it's not going from fish to man, but
from small mammal to human.
>
> If many of the Dino's and other mammals did survive then man walked
Except the only dinosaurs that survived were birds...
> with Dino's which effectively shows much of evolutionary science to be
> wrong.
....so your assertion is invalid.
> The entire ToE is double talk.
Yet some how you can never show how.
Mark Evans
> The most interesting aspect about the KT Boundary is that it
> supposedly killed most all life. Not all, but most. Which effectively
> place on the planet.
>
> way into becoming man, but evolution actually only had 65 MY if much
> The vegetation was gone and much of the animal life.
>
> point at 65my for the most part.
>
>
> wrong.
>
Lloyd, it is you that is double talking. The KT boundary did not kill
anything, it marks an extinction event but is not the event itself.
Evolution did not "need" the dinos to go extinct. Evolution does not
need anything. And having the majority of critters go extinct does
not mean starting over, it means working with what survived. The fish
was way in the past of the survivors.
Lloyd, you are showing increased signs of mental instability. Next
thing you will be denying who you are.
Mark Evans
Ron O
> Ron O wrote:
> > On Jan 2, 2:46 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> Ron O wrote:
> >>> On Jan 2, 9:28 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>> Ron O wrote:
> >>>>> On Jan 2, 7:20 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> The most interesting aspect about the KT Boundary is that it
> >>>>>> supposedly killed most all life. Not all, but most. Which effectively
> >>>>>> halted some and slowed down any other evolutionary processes taking
> >>>>>> place on the planet.
> >>>>> This isn't the first mass extinction event, and mass extinction events
> >>>>> millions of species those niches (lifestyles and environments that
> >>>>> those extinct speces occupied) are now open for other lineages to
> >>>>> more than 90% of the species on earth, and then the Dinos diversified
> >>>>> into the dominant terrestrial vertebrate.
> >>>> Well, they didn't survive the end-Permian as dinosaurs. Dinosaurs
> >>>> evolved later. Nor did they become the dominant terrestrial vertebrates
> >>>> until the Jurassic, so the end-Permian had nothing to do with that story.
> >>> Yeah, well their lineage survived when over 90% of everything else
> >>> didn't.
> >> But it wasn't the dinosaur lineage. It was some kind of more general
> >> archosaur lineage, from which the dinosaurs and much else descended. By
> >> the way, the 90% figure is for genera of marine invertebrates; I'm not
> >> sure there's a good estimate on the percentage of land vertebrates.
>
> >>>>> Mammals survived the KT
> >>>>> extinction and diversified into the dominant terrestrial vertebrate
> >>>>> taking over many of the niches left open by the demise of the dinos.
> >>>>> The mammals may have stayed small rodent like furry things if the
> >>>>> extinction the mammalian megafauna had evolved. �ｿｽYou went from animals
> >>>>> about the size of large rats to 25 ton 32 foot high titanotheres in
> >>>>> just 15 million years, but mammals had evolved along side the dinos
> >>>>> for over a hundred million years and couldn't amount to much until the
> >>>>> door was open to them and they had no competition to expand into new
> >>>>> dust.
> >>>> I will take only one issue with that. There were no mammalian megafaunas
> >>>> before the K-T, but mammals were diverse and an important part of the
> >>>> Late Cretaceous land fauna. And some of them were much bigger than
> >>>> "small rodent like furry things". Look up, for example, Repenomammus.
> >>> There was some big mammal like reptiles quite a while before that.
> >>> The accounts that I've read claim that no mammals bigger than a small
> >>> dog survived the extinction event.
> >> Again, you need to check Repenomamus (sorry for the misspelling
> >> originally). Your accounts are out of date.
>
> > It says that it was the size of a small dog, largest around 14 kg
> > (around 30 lbs.).
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repenomamus
>
> > Maybe it is an example of "the size of a fox terrier," where everyone
> > claims "small dog" when they mean up to 30 lbs which would almost be a
> > smaller than a beagle.
>
> There are others that might have been larger. And of course nothing
> large may have survived the extinction event. My point is that mammals
> were not all rat-sized in the Cretaceous.
>
>
Beats me why you would bother to nitpick, here. I never said all, and
it is common knowledge that most of the mammals were rodent sized, at
least, you always see rat sized mammals in the descriptions.
Ron Okimoto
SNIP:
John Harshman
> On Jan 2, 8:40 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Ron O wrote:
>>> On Jan 2, 2:46 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> Ron O wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 2, 9:28 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Ron O wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jan 2, 7:20 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> The most interesting aspect about the KT Boundary is that it
>>>>>>>> supposedly killed most all life. Not all, but most. Which effectively
>>>>>>>> halted some and slowed down any other evolutionary processes taking
>>>>>>>> place on the planet.
>>>>>>> This isn't the first mass extinction event, and mass extinction events
>>>>>>> millions of species those niches (lifestyles and environments that
>>>>>>> those extinct speces occupied) are now open for other lineages to
>>>>>>> more than 90% of the species on earth, and then the Dinos diversified
>>>>>>> into the dominant terrestrial vertebrate.
>>>>>> Well, they didn't survive the end-Permian as dinosaurs. Dinosaurs
>>>>>> evolved later. Nor did they become the dominant terrestrial vertebrates
>>>>>> until the Jurassic, so the end-Permian had nothing to do with that story.
>>>>> Yeah, well their lineage survived when over 90% of everything else
>>>>> didn't.
>>>> But it wasn't the dinosaur lineage. It was some kind of more general
>>>> archosaur lineage, from which the dinosaurs and much else descended. By
>>>> the way, the 90% figure is for genera of marine invertebrates; I'm not
>>>> sure there's a good estimate on the percentage of land vertebrates.
>>>>>>> Mammals survived the KT
>>>>>>> extinction and diversified into the dominant terrestrial vertebrate
>>>>>>> taking over many of the niches left open by the demise of the dinos.
>>>>>>> The mammals may have stayed small rodent like furry things if the
>>>>>>> extinction the mammalian megafauna had evolved. You went from animals
>>>>>>> about the size of large rats to 25 ton 32 foot high titanotheres in
>>>>>>> just 15 million years, but mammals had evolved along side the dinos
>>>>>>> for over a hundred million years and couldn't amount to much until the
>>>>>>> door was open to them and they had no competition to expand into new
>>>>>>> dust.
>>>>>> I will take only one issue with that. There were no mammalian megafaunas
>>>>>> before the K-T, but mammals were diverse and an important part of the
>>>>>> Late Cretaceous land fauna. And some of them were much bigger than
>>>>>> "small rodent like furry things". Look up, for example, Repenomammus.
>>>>> There was some big mammal like reptiles quite a while before that.
>>>>> The accounts that I've read claim that no mammals bigger than a small
>>>>> dog survived the extinction event.
>>>> Again, you need to check Repenomamus (sorry for the misspelling
>>>> originally). Your accounts are out of date.
>>> It says that it was the size of a small dog, largest around 14 kg
>>> (around 30 lbs.).
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repenomamus
>>> Maybe it is an example of "the size of a fox terrier," where everyone
>>> claims "small dog" when they mean up to 30 lbs which would almost be a
>>> smaller than a beagle.
>> There are others that might have been larger. And of course nothing
>> large may have survived the extinction event. My point is that mammals
>> were not all rat-sized in the Cretaceous.
>
> Beats me why you would bother to nitpick, here. I never said all, and
> it is common knowledge that most of the mammals were rodent sized, at
> least, you always see rat sized mammals in the descriptions.
Most of the mammals now are rodent-sized too.
Kermit
> On Jan 2, 9:09�am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 2, 7:20�am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > > The most interesting aspect about the KT Boundary is that it
> > > supposedly killed most all life. Not all, but most. Which effectively
> > > halted some and slowed down any other evolutionary processes taking
> > > place on the planet.
>
> > This isn't the first mass extinction event, and mass extinction events
> > millions of species those niches (lifestyles and environments that
> > those extinct speces occupied) are now open for other lineages to
> > more than 90% of the species on earth,
>
>
>
>
> > extinction and diversified into the dominant terrestrial vertebrate
> > taking over many of the niches left open by the demise of the dinos.
> > The mammals may have stayed small rodent like furry things if the
> > extinction the mammalian megafauna had evolved. �You went from animals
> > about the size of large rats to 25 ton 32 foot high titanotheres in
> > just 15 million years, but mammals had evolved along side the dinos
> > for over a hundred million years and couldn't amount to much until the
> > door was open to them and they had no competition to expand into new
> > dust.
>
> > > It is said billions of years is enough time for fish to mutate their
> > > way into becoming man, but evolution actually only had 65 MY if much
> > > of the life on earth was destroyed from 10 years of nuclear winter.
> > > The vegetation was gone and much of the animal life.
>
>
> > > most of the other mammals meaning evolution would have a new starting
> > > point at 65my for the most part.
>
> > lost with the dinos. �The DNA of extant species tell us how few the
> > number of surviving lineages were. �These survivors did diversify into
> > all the mammalian species you see today. �Really, we can tell this by
> > the DNA. �Multiple mammlian lineages survived the KT extinction.
> > These had diversified millions of years before the event and so were
> > enough survived to give us what we see today.
>
>
> > QUOTE:
> > Mammals
> > All major Cretaceous mammalian lineages, including monotremes (egg-
> > laying mammals), multituberculates, marsupials and placentals,
> > dryolestoideans,[59] and gondwanatheres[60] survived the K�T event,
> > although they suffered losses. In particular, marsupials largely
> > disappeared from North America and the Asian deltatheroidans,
> > primitive relatives of extant marsupials, became extinct.[61] In the
> > Hell Creek beds of North America, at least half of the ten known
> > multituberculate species and all eleven marsupial species are not
> > found above the boundary.[56]
>
> > Mammalian species began diversifying approximately 30 million years
> > prior to the K�T boundary. Diversification of mammals stalled across
> > the boundary.[62] Current research indicates that mammals did not
> > explosively diversify across the K�T boundary, despite the environment
> > niches made available by the extinction of dinosaurs.[63] Several
> > mammalian orders have been interpreted as diversifying immediately
> > after the K�T boundary, including Chiroptera (bats) and
> > Cetartiodactyla (a diverse group that today includes whales and
> > dolphins and even-toed ungulates),[63] although recent research
> > concludes that only marsupial orders diversified after the K�T
> > boundary.[62]
>
> > K�T boundary mammalian species were generally small, comparable in
> > size to rats; this small size would have helped them to find shelter
> > in protected environments. In addition, it is postulated that some
> > early monotremes, marsupials, and placentals were semiaquatic or
> > burrowing, as there are multiple mammalian lineages with such habits
> > today. Any burrowing or semiaquatic mammal would have had additional
> > protection from K�T boundary environmental
> > END QUOTE:
>
> > > Not enough time for the fish to man theory.
>
> > extant species observed today had to evolve in less than 5 thousand
> > less believable that all the extant mammals evolved from a few
> > thousand surviving speces (more than a pair of each survivors is
> > expected) 65 million years ago, or that they are all derived from a
> > few thousand suvivors (one pair of each in most cases) just a few
> > believe and do the comparison.
>
> I have done the comparisons. And stop using bible phrases to make your
> points. It makes you appear to have an agenda and be unintelligent
> because your biblical knowledge is quite limited, i assure you.
You didn't understand what he said?
Biblical phrases and myths permeate the Western culture. So do Greek
myths and Shakespeare. I don't ahve to be a Shakespearean scholar to
reference "A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying
nothing".
>
> It is possible for life to have come back after the flood.
Actually it wouldn't have been. Aside from all the impossibilities of
the Flood, and the evidence indicating that it never happened, there
would have been no vegetation left growing, and damn few species taht
could have been soaked in salt water for a year and bounce back. What
would the lions have eaten while the sheep were reproducing? What did
the pandas, koalas, and anteaters eat?
And as Ron points out, you are postulating evolution after the Flood
far faster than genetics shows it could have happened.
> The
> biblical description is not scientific but it was not trying to be.
> The flood story in the bible was just a reminder to the people of the
> events that had taken place during the history of their family.
A reminder, I suppose, because Yahweh committed dozens of major
miralces to cover up the fact that he did it. Why?
>
> If you add up all of the legends, stories and traditions from around
> the world, then there were many people that were warned ahead of time
> about the impending flood.
Only if you add them up selectively, and ignore most of the content of
the various myths. Not to mention their records, buildings, artifacts,
and remains. Neither humans nor any other animal species show a
rebounding from a bottleneck ten thousand years ago.
> Obviously something was taking place on
> earth and whom ever gave the warnings were able to estimate when the
> disaster was going to take place.
>
> Not all the animals went onto the ark. Only the ones that knelt down.
> So we can assume other arrangements were made to protect them or the
> animals were smart enough to get to higher ground that would not
> flood.
Like the clams on Mount Everest.
>
> But this is all besides the point. If there was a 90% extinction rate
> then logic dictates the other 10% would die from lack of food if for
> no other reason.
Why? They'd only need 10% as much food! Of course the die off of
certain species didn't always match the needs of other species; some
died because they lst their food supply. Look at what *did survive:
1. Animals with slow metabolisms, like (some) crocodilians.
2. Small animals, that didn't need large amounts of food (how many
small carnivores could a dead apatosaurus feed?
3. Omnivores which could scrounge off anything they could find.
4. Small, flying dinosaurs, which could fly about and find resources
more easily (birds).
>
> While extinctions may spur new variations for the new niches it also
> has halted any evolution that was taking place prior to the
> extinctions. Which also takes evolution of the species in new
> directions.
What? Evolution proceeds all the time. If anything, new niches meant
new opportunities. Not that the survivors knew this.
>
> My point is this: If evolution was interrupted
It wasn't.
> then you have shortened
> the time available for evolution to take place.
Evolution happens with every generation.
> If it took billions of
> years to go from molecules to all this diversity then you shorten that
> time frame with each extinction for some if not for all of the
> species.
Shorten what time frame? Evolution doesn't have a purpose.
>
>
>
> > > If many of the Dino's and other mammals did survive then man walked
> > > with Dino's which effectively shows much of evolutionary science to be
> > > wrong.
>
> > > The entire ToE is double talk.
>
> > You have it backwards. �The YEC creationists claim that man walked
> > with dinos. �Real science claimes that prosimians (before monkeys)
> > existed with dinos. �The ape lineage didn't branch off from the
> > monkeys until around 40 million years ago. �The human lineage did not
> > branch off from the other apes until 4-8 million years ago and the
> > genus Homo didn't exist until around 2 million years ago. �Neandertals
> > branched off from the modern human lineage around half a million years
> > ago. �Modern humans are all evolved from a relatively small population
> > of suvivors (a few thousand) within the last 100,000 years. �We do not
> > know why this bottle neck occurred because other species like chimps,
> > dogs and cats etc. did not suffer such a decrease in population.
> > Humans almost went extinct while other species were doing fine. �We
> > can tell all of this from the DNA, biology and the fossil record.
> > Where are you getting your information from? �How can you cross check
> > your information?
>
> I could ask you the same.
You could ask, but what's the point? We've given you evidence, posted
links, explained the processes to you. You ignore them.
>
> many of your assertions are based on inferences
Yes. Inferences.that make flu vaccines, for instance. Or the the
computer you are using now to read this. Or the Hubble Space
telescope, or the antibiotics that saved my daughter's life, or allows
GPS devices to work. Inferences based on verifiable data, not fairy
tales.
>
> Well, the data could be wrong, misunderstood, misinterpreted,
> incomplete and new data could surface.
Yes, that's why we verify it. That's why the observations must be, and
are, repeated. And the models are testable. That's why science works,
and magic doesn't.
That's why Creationists want the respectability of science, but you
will never have it. You are not willing to pay the price.
>
>
>
> > Ron Okimoto
Kermit
Christopher Denney
> Ron O wrote:
> > On Jan 2, 8:40 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> Ron O wrote:
> >>> On Jan 2, 2:46 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>> Ron O wrote:
> >>>>> On Jan 2, 9:28 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> Ron O wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jan 2, 7:20 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> The most interesting aspect about the KT Boundary is that it
> >>>>>>>> supposedly killed most all life. Not all, but most. Which effectively
> >>>>>>>> halted some and slowed down any other evolutionary processes taking
> >>>>>>>> place on the planet.
> >>>>>>> This isn't the first mass extinction event, and mass extinction events
> >>>>>>> millions of species those niches (lifestyles and environments that
> >>>>>>> those extinct speces occupied) are now open for other lineages to
> >>>>>>> more than 90% of the species on earth, and then the Dinos diversified
> >>>>>>> into the dominant terrestrial vertebrate.
> >>>>>> Well, they didn't survive the end-Permian as dinosaurs. Dinosaurs
> >>>>>> evolved later. Nor did they become the dominant terrestrial vertebrates
> >>>>>> until the Jurassic, so the end-Permian had nothing to do with that story.
> >>>>> Yeah, well their lineage survived when over 90% of everything else
> >>>>> didn't.
> >>>> But it wasn't the dinosaur lineage. It was some kind of more general
> >>>> archosaur lineage, from which the dinosaurs and much else descended. By
> >>>> the way, the 90% figure is for genera of marine invertebrates; I'm not
> >>>> sure there's a good estimate on the percentage of land vertebrates.
> >>>>>>> Mammals survived the KT
> >>>>>>> extinction and diversified into the dominant terrestrial vertebrate
> >>>>>>> taking over many of the niches left open by the demise of the dinos.
> >>>>>>> The mammals may have stayed small rodent like furry things if the
> >>>>>>> extinction the mammalian megafauna had evolved. �ｿｽYou went from animals
> >>>>>>> about the size of large rats to 25 ton 32 foot high titanotheres in
> >>>>>>> just 15 million years, but mammals had evolved along side the dinos
> >>>>>>> for over a hundred million years and couldn't amount to much until the
> >>>>>>> door was open to them and they had no competition to expand into new
> >>>>>>> dust.
> >>>>>> I will take only one issue with that. There were no mammalian megafaunas
> >>>>>> before the K-T, but mammals were diverse and an important part of the
> >>>>>> Late Cretaceous land fauna. And some of them were much bigger than
> >>>>>> "small rodent like furry things". Look up, for example, Repenomammus.
> >>>>> There was some big mammal like reptiles quite a while before that.
> >>>>> The accounts that I've read claim that no mammals bigger than a small
> >>>>> dog survived the extinction event.
> >>>> Again, you need to check Repenomamus (sorry for the misspelling
> >>>> originally). Your accounts are out of date.
> >>> It says that it was the size of a small dog, largest around 14 kg
> >>> (around 30 lbs.).
> >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repenomamus
> >>> Maybe it is an example of "the size of a fox terrier," where everyone
> >>> claims "small dog" when they mean up to 30 lbs which would almost be a
> >>> smaller than a beagle.
> >> There are others that might have been larger. And of course nothing
> >> large may have survived the extinction event. My point is that mammals
> >> were not all rat-sized in the Cretaceous.
>
> > it is common knowledge that most of the mammals were rodent sized, at
> > least, you always see rat sized mammals in the descriptions.
>
> Most of the mammals now are rodent-sized too.
And some rodents get pretty freaking huge too. :)
Burkhard
John, that's me, Burkhard, doing an adman impersonation, not adman
himself - does this answer your question? ;o)
John Harshman
Burkhard
Ach, you just have to watch out for the message ID and nym ;o)
Caranx latus
> On 3 Jan, 15:18, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
<snip>
>>>>> PS: did tyou know that carbniverous comes actually from Hebrew ca-rat
>>>>> (cut) and ne-vey-lah (carcass), literally: cut me that carcass?
>>>> Another joke?
>>> John, that's me, Burkhard, doing an adman impersonation, not adman
>>> himself - does this answer your question? ;o)
>> Please don't do that.
>
> Ach, you just have to watch out for the message ID and nym ;o)
Perhaps what John meant was that if you keep it up, your brain will get
stuck like that. Then where will you be?
el cid
Not just to spoil your fun and all, you do generate enough
content to be granted multiple dispensations, but there are
a few posters --- John Harshman among them, who respond with
little to no concern about the name of the person they respond
to. Some small consideration may reveal that to be a good thing.
Ron O
> Ron O wrote:
> > On Jan 2, 8:40 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> Ron O wrote:
> >>> On Jan 2, 2:46 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>> Ron O wrote:
> >>>>> On Jan 2, 9:28 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> Ron O wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jan 2, 7:20 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> The most interesting aspect about the KT Boundary is that it
> >>>>>>>> supposedly killed most all life. Not all, but most. Which effectively
> >>>>>>>> halted some and slowed down any other evolutionary processes taking
> >>>>>>>> place on the planet.
> >>>>>>> This isn't the first mass extinction event, and mass extinction events
> >>>>>>> millions of species those niches (lifestyles and environments that
> >>>>>>> those extinct speces occupied) are now open for other lineages to
> >>>>>>> more than 90% of the species on earth, and then the Dinos diversified
> >>>>>>> into the dominant terrestrial vertebrate.
> >>>>>> Well, they didn't survive the end-Permian as dinosaurs. Dinosaurs
> >>>>>> evolved later. Nor did they become the dominant terrestrial vertebrates
> >>>>>> until the Jurassic, so the end-Permian had nothing to do with that story.
> >>>>> Yeah, well their lineage survived when over 90% of everything else
> >>>>> didn't.
> >>>> But it wasn't the dinosaur lineage. It was some kind of more general
> >>>> archosaur lineage, from which the dinosaurs and much else descended. By
> >>>> the way, the 90% figure is for genera of marine invertebrates; I'm not
> >>>> sure there's a good estimate on the percentage of land vertebrates.
> >>>>>>> Mammals survived the KT
> >>>>>>> extinction and diversified into the dominant terrestrial vertebrate
> >>>>>>> taking over many of the niches left open by the demise of the dinos.
> >>>>>>> The mammals may have stayed small rodent like furry things if the
> >>>>>>> extinction the mammalian megafauna had evolved. �ｿｽYou went from animals
> >>>>>>> about the size of large rats to 25 ton 32 foot high titanotheres in
> >>>>>>> just 15 million years, but mammals had evolved along side the dinos
> >>>>>>> for over a hundred million years and couldn't amount to much until the
> >>>>>>> door was open to them and they had no competition to expand into new
> >>>>>>> dust.
> >>>>>> I will take only one issue with that. There were no mammalian megafaunas
> >>>>>> before the K-T, but mammals were diverse and an important part of the
> >>>>>> Late Cretaceous land fauna. And some of them were much bigger than
> >>>>>> "small rodent like furry things". Look up, for example, Repenomammus.
> >>>>> There was some big mammal like reptiles quite a while before that.
> >>>>> The accounts that I've read claim that no mammals bigger than a small
> >>>>> dog survived the extinction event.
> >>>> Again, you need to check Repenomamus (sorry for the misspelling
> >>>> originally). Your accounts are out of date.
> >>> It says that it was the size of a small dog, largest around 14 kg
> >>> (around 30 lbs.).
> >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repenomamus
> >>> Maybe it is an example of "the size of a fox terrier," where everyone
> >>> claims "small dog" when they mean up to 30 lbs which would almost be a
> >>> smaller than a beagle.
> >> There are others that might have been larger. And of course nothing
> >> large may have survived the extinction event. My point is that mammals
> >> were not all rat-sized in the Cretaceous.
>
> > it is common knowledge that most of the mammals were rodent sized, at
> > least, you always see rat sized mammals in the descriptions.
>
Most of the mammals were rodent sized when 25 ton titanotheres shook
the earth. I think that you lose the message if you nitpick about
this when today mammals include the largest animals that have ever
existed (Blue Whales), while the period of time we were talking about
the largest mammals seem to be about 30 lbs. Sort of misses the point
of the intent of the statement.
The popular writers should likely use size ranges to go along with
"most" to satisfy the nitpickers.
Ron Okimoto
Ron O
wrote:
> On Jan 2, 10:25 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ron O wrote:
> > > On Jan 2, 8:40 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > >> Ron O wrote:
> > >>> On Jan 2, 2:46 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > >>>> Ron O wrote:
> > >>>>> On Jan 2, 9:28 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > >>>>>> Ron O wrote:
> > >>>>>>> On Jan 2, 7:20 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> The most interesting aspect about the KT Boundary is that it
> > >>>>>>>> supposedly killed most all life. Not all, but most. Which effectively
> > >>>>>>>> halted some and slowed down any other evolutionary processes taking
> > >>>>>>>> place on the planet.
> > >>>>>>> This isn't the first mass extinction event, and mass extinction events
> > >>>>>>> millions of species those niches (lifestyles and environments that
> > >>>>>>> those extinct speces occupied) are now open for other lineages to
> > >>>>>>> more than 90% of the species on earth, and then the Dinos diversified
> > >>>>>>> into the dominant terrestrial vertebrate.
> > >>>>>> Well, they didn't survive the end-Permian as dinosaurs. Dinosaurs
> > >>>>>> evolved later. Nor did they become the dominant terrestrial vertebrates
> > >>>>>> until the Jurassic, so the end-Permian had nothing to do with that story.
> > >>>>> Yeah, well their lineage survived when over 90% of everything else
> > >>>>> didn't.
> > >>>> But it wasn't the dinosaur lineage. It was some kind of more general
> > >>>> archosaur lineage, from which the dinosaurs and much else descended. By
> > >>>> the way, the 90% figure is for genera of marine invertebrates; I'm not
> > >>>> sure there's a good estimate on the percentage of land vertebrates.
> > >>>>>>> Mammals survived the KT
> > >>>>>>> extinction and diversified into the dominant terrestrial vertebrate
> > >>>>>>> taking over many of the niches left open by the demise of the dinos.
> > >>>>>>> The mammals may have stayed small rodent like furry things if the
> > >>>>>>> extinction the mammalian megafauna had evolved. You went from animals
> > >>>>>>> about the size of large rats to 25 ton 32 foot high titanotheres in
> > >>>>>>> just 15 million years, but mammals had evolved along side the dinos
> > >>>>>>> for over a hundred million years and couldn't amount to much until the
> > >>>>>>> door was open to them and they had no competition to expand into new
> > >>>>>>> dust.
> > >>>>>> I will take only one issue with that. There were no mammalian megafaunas
> > >>>>>> before the K-T, but mammals were diverse and an important part of the
> > >>>>>> Late Cretaceous land fauna. And some of them were much bigger than
> > >>>>>> "small rodent like furry things". Look up, for example, Repenomammus.
> > >>>>> There was some big mammal like reptiles quite a while before that.
> > >>>>> The accounts that I've read claim that no mammals bigger than a small
> > >>>>> dog survived the extinction event.
> > >>>> Again, you need to check Repenomamus (sorry for the misspelling
> > >>>> originally). Your accounts are out of date.
> > >>> It says that it was the size of a small dog, largest around 14 kg
> > >>> (around 30 lbs.).
> > >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repenomamus
> > >>> Maybe it is an example of "the size of a fox terrier," where everyone
> > >>> claims "small dog" when they mean up to 30 lbs which would almost be a
> > >>> smaller than a beagle.
> > >> There are others that might have been larger. And of course nothing
> > >> large may have survived the extinction event. My point is that mammals
> > >> were not all rat-sized in the Cretaceous.
>
> > > it is common knowledge that most of the mammals were rodent sized, at
> > > least, you always see rat sized mammals in the descriptions.
>
> > Most of the mammals now are rodent-sized too.
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capybara
They claim that one got to 105 kg, but the usual range is up to 65
kg. It was likely the sumo wrestler of capybaras.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coypu
Nutria fur coats should come back into style and give people reasons
to irradicate the pests. Only 5-9 kg, but there are a lot of them in
parts of North America, now.
Ron Okimoto
Burkhard
Ah, as an orthodox Pratchettist and conversant with the doctrine of
borrowing and its dangers, I can see that! The consequences would be
too awful to contemplate.
Burkhard
Indeed, and in more than one way - at least he thought he replied to
adman, it would have been much more embarrassing for me had he seen it
was my post, and nonetheless had felt the need to ask if I'm
joking :o)
heekster
Rodents ranged in size from the Pygmy Jerboa to this rat:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/01/photogalleries/rodent-pictures/index.html
The largest living rodent is the South American capybara, which the
Catholic Church classified as a fish in the 16th century.
"Rodent-sized" is a fairly meaningless term, unless you are referring
to the range of rodent sizes.
teresita
> All-Seeing-I wrote:
>
>> On Jan 2, 2:49 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>> By the way, what did the animals fresh off the ark eat?
>>
>> What ever they were eating when they were on the ark,
>
> You mean that Noah continued to feed them indefinitely, until a large
> ecosystem had been rebuilt?
>
O ye of little faith! This is a very disingenuous objection from the no-
Godders when the youngest Christian child among us could recall from
Sunday School the historical event when God provided manna from heaven to
feed the Israelites in the desert for forty years. Did not Jesus say,
"Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor
gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them." ?
--
Teresita
Ernest Major
<d0acd2cb-6a63-464f...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, Ron
O <roki...@cox.net> writes
>On Jan 3, 1:41�am, Christopher Denney <christopher.den...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>> On Jan 2, 10:25 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Ron O wrote:
>> > > On Jan 2, 8:40 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> > >> Ron O wrote:
>> > >>> On Jan 2, 2:46 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> > >>>> Ron O wrote:
>> > >>>>> On Jan 2, 9:28 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> > >>>>>> Ron O wrote:
>> > >>>>>>> On Jan 2, 7:20 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>> > >>>>>>>> The most interesting aspect about the KT Boundary is that it
>> > >>>>>>>> supposedly killed most all life. Not all, but most. Which
>> > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>processes taking
>> > >>>>>>>> place on the planet.
>> > >>>>>>> This isn't the first mass extinction event, and mass
>> > >>>>>>>extinction events
>> > >>>>>>> do not slow down evolution, they accelerate it. With the loss of
>> > >>>>>>> millions of species those niches (lifestyles and environments that
>> > >>>>>>> those extinct speces occupied) are now open for other lineages to
>> > >>>>>>> exploit. The dinos survived the Permian extinction that wiped out
>> > >>>>>>> more than 90% of the species on earth, and then the Dinos
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>> Well, they didn't survive the end-Permian as dinosaurs. Dinosaurs
>> > >>>>>> evolved later. Nor did they become the dominant terrestrial
>> > >>>>>>vertebrates
>> > >>>>>> until the Jurassic, so the end-Permian had nothing to do
>> > >>>>>>with that story.
>> > >>>>> Yeah, well their lineage survived when over 90% of everything else
>> > >>>>> didn't.
>> > >>>> But it wasn't the dinosaur lineage. It was some kind of more general
>> > >>>> archosaur lineage, from which the dinosaurs and much else
>> > >>>>descended. By
>> > >>>> the way, the 90% figure is for genera of marine invertebrates; I'm not
>> > >>>> sure there's a good estimate on the percentage of land vertebrates.
>> > >>>>>>> Mammals survived the KT
>> > >>>>>>> extinction and diversified into the dominant terrestrial vertebrate
>> > >>>>>>> taking over many of the niches left open by the demise of
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>> dinos hadn't bitten the dust. Just 15 million years after the dino
>> > >>>>>>> extinction the mammalian megafauna had evolved. You went
>> > >>>>>>>from animals
>> > >>>>>>> about the size of large rats to 25 ton 32 foot high titanotheres in
>> > >>>>>>> just 15 million years, but mammals had evolved along side the dinos
>> > >>>>>>> for over a hundred million years and couldn't amount to
>> > >>>>>>>much until the
>> > >>>>>>> door was open to them and they had no competition to expand
>> > >>>>>>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephoartigasia
Estimated to reach 1,000kg.
Phoberomys pattersoni is in the 500kg range. Castoroides is "only" in
the 100kg range.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coypu
>
>Nutria fur coats should come back into style and give people reasons
>to irradicate the pests. Only 5-9 kg, but there are a lot of them in
>parts of North America, now.
>
>Ron Okimoto
>
--
alias Ernest Major
John Harshman
> On Jan 3, 12:25 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Ron O wrote:
>>> On Jan 2, 8:40 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> Ron O wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 2, 2:46 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Ron O wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jan 2, 9:28 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ron O wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Jan 2, 7:20 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> The most interesting aspect about the KT Boundary is that it
>>>>>>>>>> supposedly killed most all life. Not all, but most. Which effectively
>>>>>>>>>> halted some and slowed down any other evolutionary processes taking
>>>>>>>>>> place on the planet.
>>>>>>>>> This isn't the first mass extinction event, and mass extinction events
>>>>>>>>> millions of species those niches (lifestyles and environments that
>>>>>>>>> those extinct speces occupied) are now open for other lineages to
>>>>>>>>> more than 90% of the species on earth, and then the Dinos diversified
>>>>>>>>> into the dominant terrestrial vertebrate.
>>>>>>>> Well, they didn't survive the end-Permian as dinosaurs. Dinosaurs
>>>>>>>> evolved later. Nor did they become the dominant terrestrial vertebrates
>>>>>>>> until the Jurassic, so the end-Permian had nothing to do with that story.
>>>>>>> Yeah, well their lineage survived when over 90% of everything else
>>>>>>> didn't.
>>>>>> But it wasn't the dinosaur lineage. It was some kind of more general
>>>>>> archosaur lineage, from which the dinosaurs and much else descended. By
>>>>>> the way, the 90% figure is for genera of marine invertebrates; I'm not
>>>>>> sure there's a good estimate on the percentage of land vertebrates.
>>>>>>>>> Mammals survived the KT
>>>>>>>>> extinction and diversified into the dominant terrestrial vertebrate
>>>>>>>>> taking over many of the niches left open by the demise of the dinos.
>>>>>>>>> The mammals may have stayed small rodent like furry things if the
>>>>>>>>> extinction the mammalian megafauna had evolved. You went from animals
>>>>>>>>> about the size of large rats to 25 ton 32 foot high titanotheres in
>>>>>>>>> just 15 million years, but mammals had evolved along side the dinos
>>>>>>>>> for over a hundred million years and couldn't amount to much until the
>>>>>>>>> door was open to them and they had no competition to expand into new
>>>>>>>>> dust.
>>>>>>>> I will take only one issue with that. There were no mammalian megafaunas
>>>>>>>> before the K-T, but mammals were diverse and an important part of the
>>>>>>>> Late Cretaceous land fauna. And some of them were much bigger than
>>>>>>>> "small rodent like furry things". Look up, for example, Repenomammus.
>>>>>>> There was some big mammal like reptiles quite a while before that.
>>>>>>> The accounts that I've read claim that no mammals bigger than a small
>>>>>>> dog survived the extinction event.
>>>>>> Again, you need to check Repenomamus (sorry for the misspelling
>>>>>> originally). Your accounts are out of date.
>>>>> It says that it was the size of a small dog, largest around 14 kg
>>>>> (around 30 lbs.).
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repenomamus
>>>>> Maybe it is an example of "the size of a fox terrier," where everyone
>>>>> claims "small dog" when they mean up to 30 lbs which would almost be a
>>>>> smaller than a beagle.
>>>> There are others that might have been larger. And of course nothing
>>>> large may have survived the extinction event. My point is that mammals
>>>> were not all rat-sized in the Cretaceous.
>>> it is common knowledge that most of the mammals were rodent sized, at
>>> least, you always see rat sized mammals in the descriptions.
>> Most of the mammals now are rodent-sized too.-
>
> Most of the mammals were rodent sized when 25 ton titanotheres shook
> the earth. I think that you lose the message if you nitpick about
> this when today mammals include the largest animals that have ever
> existed (Blue Whales), while the period of time we were talking about
> the largest mammals seem to be about 30 lbs. Sort of misses the point
> of the intent of the statement.
What was the point of the intent of the statement?
John Harshman
ecosystem. Manna is a possible solution, but I count every additional
necessary miracle to make the flood work as a victory.
If we're filling up on miracles, why couldn't god just make all the bad
people go poof without causing all that collateral damage?
John Harshman
John Harshman
things with serious intent, and freely indulge in self-contradiction.
And Madman sometimes says silly things he doesn't mean, in the bargain.
That's why you have to ask if he's joking.
Nym probably is the only way to distinguish parody.
Ron O
> In message
> <d0acd2cb-6a63-464f-8701-f7ec537aa...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, Ron
> O <rokim...@cox.net> writes
>
> - Show quoted text -
What predator would select such a large aquatic grazer. About the
biggest thing that I recall was that big terror bird, but I can't
remember if it was late Pliestocene.
Ron Okimoto
Ron O
That the mammals that we were talking about were on the small side.
What do you think the intent of the statement was?
>
>
>
> > The popular writers should likely use size ranges to go along with
> > "most" to satisfy the nitpickers.
>
> > Ron Okimoto-
Ernest Major
<b3f15d56-d820-4e86...@22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com>, Ron
O <roki...@cox.net> writes
>> >> > >>>>>>>
>>
>> >> > >>>>>>> into the dominant terrestrial vertebrate.
>> >> > >>>>>> Well, they didn't survive the end-Permian as dinosaurs. Dinosaurs
>> >> > >>>>>> evolved later. Nor did they become the dominant terrestrial
>> >> > >>>>>>vertebrates
>> >> > >>>>>> until the Jurassic, so the end-Permian had nothing to do
>> >> > >>>>>>with that story.
>> >> > >>>>> Yeah, well their lineage survived when over 90% of everything else
>> >> > >>>>> didn't.
>> >> > >>>> But it wasn't the dinosaur lineage. It was some kind of
>> >> > >>>> archosaur lineage, from which the dinosaurs and much else
>> >> > >>>>descended. By
>> >> > >>>> the way, the 90% figure is for genera of marine
>> >> > >>>>invertebrates; I'm not
>> >> > >>>> sure there's a good estimate on the percentage of land vertebrates.
>> >> > >>>>>>> Mammals survived the KT
>> >> > >>>>>>> extinction and diversified into the dominant terrestrial
>> >> > >>>>>>>vertebrate
>> >> > >>>>>>> taking over many of the niches left open by the demise of
>>
>> >> > >>>>>>> The mammals may have stayed small rodent like furry
>> >> > >>>>>>>
>> >> > >>>>>>> extinction the mammalian megafauna had evolved. You went
>> >> > >>>>>>>from animals
>> >> > >>>>>>> about the size of large rats to 25 ton 32 foot high
>> >> > >>>>>>>titanotheres in
>> >> > >>>>>>> just 15 million years, but mammals had evolved along
>> >> > >>>>>>>
>> >> > >>>>>>>much until the
>> >> > >>>>>>> door was open to them and they had no competition to expand
>>
>> >> > >>>>>>> niches. Mammals were a second rate lifeform until the
>> >> > >>>>>>>
>> >> > >>>>>> I will take only one issue with that. There were no
>> >> > >>>>>>mammalian megafaunas
>> >> > >>>>>> before the K-T, but mammals were diverse and an important
>> >> > >>>>>>part of the
>> >> > >>>>>> Late Cretaceous land fauna. And some of them were much
>> >> > >>>>>>
>> >> > >>>>>>Repenomammus.
>> >> > >>>>> There was some big mammal like reptiles quite a while before that.
>> >> > >>>>> The accounts that I've read claim that no mammals bigger
>> >> > >>>>>
>> >> > >>>> Again, you need to check Repenomamus (sorry for the misspelling
>> >> > >>>> originally). Your accounts are out of date.
>> >> > >>> It says that it was the size of a small dog, largest around 14 kg
>> >> > >>> (around 30 lbs.).
>> >> > >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repenomamus
>> >> > >>> Maybe it is an example of "the size of a fox terrier," where
>> >> > >>>everyone
>> >> > >>> claims "small dog" when they mean up to 30 lbs which would
>> >> > >>>almost be a
>> >> > >>> medium sized dog. 30 lbs would be larger than a fox terrier, but
>> >> > >>> smaller than a beagle.
>> >> > >> There are others that might have been larger. And of course nothing
>> >> > >> large may have survived the extinction event. My point is
Smilodon predated Josephoartigasia.
--
alias Ernest Major
John Harshman
I wanted to take issue with "small rodent like furry things", "couldn't
amount to much", and "second rate lifeform". Mammals were indeed quite
diverse during the Cretaceous, occupied many more varied niches than you
implied, and were an important part of the fauna. Their only lack was
entry into the megafauna. Much as I like archosaurs, I think synapsids
are fine too, and there's no need to put them down.
Ron O
This is just weird. "Put them down?" It was a size description not a
lifestyle description. I think that I was making the point that
mammals went from the KT survivors to 25 ton titanotheres in around 15
million years. Are you talking about some other post?
Ron Okimoto
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by teresita <rub...@newsguy.com>:
Thanks; I now have an image in my head of an old man with a
long white beard, wearing a robe and sitting on a park bench
with a bag of popcorn.
A hint, Sparky: "Your heavenly Father feedeth them" doesn't
mean He does it personally; it's an allegory, like almost
all of the Bible.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
No response, Addled?
>On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 05:20:06 -0800 (PST), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by All-Seeing-I
><allse...@usa.com>:
>
>>The most interesting aspect about the KT Boundary is that it
>>supposedly killed most all life. Not all, but most.
>
>OK, given a liberal value for "most", and with the proviso
>that representatives of most groups survived.
>
>> Which effectively
>>halted some and slowed down any other evolutionary processes taking
>>place on the planet.
>
>Whoops! That's exactly backward; when multiple niches open
>due to the removal of their former inhabitants the pace of
>evolution is almost certain to accelerate, not slow down.
>
>>It is said billions of years is enough time for fish to mutate their
>>way into becoming man, but evolution actually only had 65 MY if much
>>of the life on earth was destroyed from 10 years of nuclear winter.
>>The vegetation was gone and much of the animal life.
>
>See above, and do a bit of research; representatives of most
>groups survived, both plants and animals.
>
>>Evolution needs the Dino's to go extinct.
>
>Why? Do you imagine that "evolution" is a sentient process
>with a goal?
>
>> But if they did, then so did
>>most of the other mammals meaning evolution would have a new starting
>>point at 65my for the most part.
>
>Wrong again, and not only by asserting that dinosaurs were
>mammals ("...most of the *other* mammals..."). Were they
>closely related to trilobites?
>
>>Not enough time for the fish to man theory.
>>
>>If many of the Dino's and other mammals
>
>So it wasn't just poor grammar skills; you believe that
>dinos were mammals? Hoo, boy...
>
>> did survive then man walked
>>with Dino's which effectively shows much of evolutionary science to be
>>wrong.
>
>This is not right. It's not even wrong.
>
>>The entire ToE is double talk.
>
>Well, ordinarily I'd agree that you're the master of
>doubletalk. But the above shows even the master is only
>trying to bait the group.
John Harshman
No.
Steven L.
news:1c0777d3-dde0-4cdc...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
> The most interesting aspect about the KT Boundary is that it
> supposedly killed most all life. Not all, but most. Which effectively
> halted some and slowed down any other evolutionary processes taking
> place on the planet.
>
> It is said billions of years is enough time for fish to mutate their
> way into becoming man, but evolution actually only had 65 MY if much
> of the life on earth was destroyed from 10 years of nuclear winter.
> The vegetation was gone and much of the animal life.
>
> Evolution needs the Dino's to go extinct. But if they did, then so did
> most of the other mammals meaning evolution would have a new starting
> point at 65my for the most part.
>
> Not enough time for the fish to man theory.
>
> If many of the Dino's and other mammals did survive then man walked
> with Dino's which effectively shows much of evolutionary science to be
> wrong.
OK, you finally lost me with this post. I don't understand what you're
saying here. Please explain.
--
--
Steven L.
sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the "NOSPAM" before sending to this email address.
Steven L.
> On Jan 2, 9:09�am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> > On Jan 2, 7:20�am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> >
> > > The most interesting aspect about the KT Boundary is that it
> > > supposedly killed most all life. Not all, but most. Which effectively
> > > halted some and slowed down any other evolutionary processes taking
> > > place on the planet.
> >
> > This isn't the first mass extinction event, and mass extinction events
> > do not slow down evolution, they accelerate it. �With the loss of
> > millions of species those niches (lifestyles and environments that
> > those extinct speces occupied) are now open for other lineages to
> > exploit. �The dinos survived the Permian extinction that wiped out
> > more than 90% of the species on earth,
>
> How did they survive? What did they eat with 90% of everything gone?
Manna from heaven?
Steven L.
news:EYidne8oE7C...@giganews.com:
But it's still true that, prior to the K-T extinction event, no
mammalian species was the top predator in any zoographic realm on earth.
Not even close. Even your Repenomamus probably ran like hell when
even a medium-sized dinosaur showed up.
I don't think it's the size, but who eats whom on the food chain that's
significant. Prior to the K-T extinction event, while some of the
larger mammals may have eaten dinosaur eggs, and even perhaps ate small
dinosaurs, the top predators all over this planet were reptiles back
then. That was true in all climates, and in the sea.
Mitchell Coffey
> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 22:25:13 -0800, John Harshman
>
>
>
> >Ron O wrote:
> >> On Jan 2, 8:40 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>> Ron O wrote:
> >>>> On Jan 2, 2:46 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>>> Ron O wrote:
> >>>>>> On Jan 2, 9:28 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Ron O wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Jan 2, 7:20 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> The most interesting aspect about the KT Boundary is that it
> >>>>>>>>> supposedly killed most all life. Not all, but most. Which effectively
> >>>>>>>>> halted some and slowed down any other evolutionary processes taking
> >>>>>>>>> place on the planet.
> >>>>>>>> This isn't the first mass extinction event, and mass extinction events
> >>>>>>>> millions of species those niches (lifestyles and environments that
> >>>>>>>> those extinct speces occupied) are now open for other lineages to
> >>>>>>>> more than 90% of the species on earth, and then the Dinos diversified
> >>>>>>>> into the dominant terrestrial vertebrate.
> >>>>>>> Well, they didn't survive the end-Permian as dinosaurs. Dinosaurs
> >>>>>>> evolved later. Nor did they become the dominant terrestrial vertebrates
> >>>>>>> until the Jurassic, so the end-Permian had nothing to do with that story.
> >>>>>> Yeah, well their lineage survived when over 90% of everything else
> >>>>>> didn't.
> >>>>> But it wasn't the dinosaur lineage. It was some kind of more general
> >>>>> archosaur lineage, from which the dinosaurs and much else descended. By
> >>>>> the way, the 90% figure is for genera of marine invertebrates; I'm not
> >>>>> sure there's a good estimate on the percentage of land vertebrates.
> >>>>>>>> Mammals survived the KT
> >>>>>>>> extinction and diversified into the dominant terrestrial vertebrate
> >>>>>>>> taking over many of the niches left open by the demise of the dinos.
> >>>>>>>> The mammals may have stayed small rodent like furry things if the
> >>>>>>>> extinction the mammalian megafauna had evolved. �ｿｽYou went from animals
> >>>>>>>> about the size of large rats to 25 ton 32 foot high titanotheres in
> >>>>>>>> just 15 million years, but mammals had evolved along side the dinos
> >>>>>>>> for over a hundred million years and couldn't amount to much until the
> >>>>>>>> door was open to them and they had no competition to expand into new
> >>>>>>>> dust.
> >>>>>>> I will take only one issue with that. There were no mammalian megafaunas
> >>>>>>> before the K-T, but mammals were diverse and an important part of the
> >>>>>>> Late Cretaceous land fauna. And some of them were much bigger than
> >>>>>>> "small rodent like furry things". Look up, for example, Repenomammus.
> >>>>>> There was some big mammal like reptiles quite a while before that.
> >>>>>> The accounts that I've read claim that no mammals bigger than a small
> >>>>>> dog survived the extinction event.
> >>>>> Again, you need to check Repenomamus (sorry for the misspelling
> >>>>> originally). Your accounts are out of date.
> >>>> It says that it was the size of a small dog, largest around 14 kg
> >>>> (around 30 lbs.).
> >>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repenomamus
> >>>> Maybe it is an example of "the size of a fox terrier," where everyone
> >>>> claims "small dog" when they mean up to 30 lbs which would almost be a
> >>>> smaller than a beagle.
> >>> There are others that might have been larger. And of course nothing
> >>> large may have survived the extinction event. My point is that mammals
> >>> were not all rat-sized in the Cretaceous.
>
> >> it is common knowledge that most of the mammals were rodent sized, at
> >> least, you always see rat sized mammals in the descriptions.
>
> >Most of the mammals now are rodent-sized too.
>
>
> The largest living rodent is the South American capybara, which the
> Catholic Church classified as a fish in the 16th century.
It is unclear if the Church really did, in the 16th c. or ever,
officially, but the Church in capybara-rich areas acts at least as if
it did. It wasn't a matter of biological ignorance, as humanitarian
and pragmatic concern. The notion was that the critter's semi-aquatic
life-style allowed the Church an out to declare the things "fish" so
they might be consumed during Lent by pious locals who might otherwise
starve or see their faith slip. Thus it might be said that, where the
Pope hold sway, the capybara is a fish, not by biological
misidentification, but by special dispensation, a cool concept.
Mitchell Coffey
John Wilkins
<0f56743c-d21d-471d...@u41g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
Christopher Denney <christoph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And some rodents get pretty freaking huge too. :)
>
Most mammals are rodents. Well, most mammal species are either rodents
(1 in 4), bats (1 in 5) or something else of smaller distribution...
I wonder who wins on population size...
John Harshman
Agreed. But the idea that top predators determine the dominant fauna is
the value judgment of a top predator.
Mike Lyle
> On Jan 3, 11:58 am, heekster <heeks...@ifiwxtc.net> wrote:
[...]
>> The largest living rodent is the South American capybara, which the
>> Catholic Church classified as a fish in the 16th century.
> [snip]
>
> It is unclear if the Church really did, in the 16th c. or ever,
> officially, but the Church in capybara-rich areas acts at least as if
> it did. It wasn't a matter of biological ignorance, as humanitarian
> and pragmatic concern. The notion was that the critter's semi-aquatic
> life-style allowed the Church an out to declare the things "fish" so
> they might be consumed during Lent by pious locals who might otherwise
> starve or see their faith slip. Thus it might be said that, where the
> Pope hold sway, the capybara is a fish, not by biological
> misidentification, but by special dispensation, a cool concept.
>
like? I've only ever heard of their being hunted for their tough
leather, so perhaps there was a penitential element in the consumption
of their flesh which fitted them for a Lenten regime.
--
Mike.
Mitchell Coffey
> In article
> <0f56743c-d21d-471d-85f4-04095ed82...@u41g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> Christopher Denney <christopher.den...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 2, 10:25 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > Ron O wrote:
> > > > On Jan 2, 8:40 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > >> Ron O wrote:
> > > >>> On Jan 2, 2:46 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > >>>> Ron O wrote:
> > > >>>>> On Jan 2, 9:28 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > >>>>>> Ron O wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> On Jan 2, 7:20 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>> The most interesting aspect about the KT Boundary is that it
> > > >>>>>>>> supposedly killed most all life. Not all, but most. Which
> > > >>>>>>>> effectively
> > > >>>>>>>> halted some and slowed down any other evolutionary processes taking
> > > >>>>>>>> place on the planet.
> > > >>>>>>> This isn't the first mass extinction event, and mass extinction
> > > >>>>>>> events
> > > >>>>>>> millions of species those niches (lifestyles and environments that
> > > >>>>>>> those extinct speces occupied) are now open for other lineages to
> > > >>>>>>> more than 90% of the species on earth, and then the Dinos
> > > >>>>>>> diversified
> > > >>>>>>> into the dominant terrestrial vertebrate.
> > > >>>>>> Well, they didn't survive the end-Permian as dinosaurs. Dinosaurs
> > > >>>>>> evolved later. Nor did they become the dominant terrestrial
> > > >>>>>> vertebrates
> > > >>>>>> until the Jurassic, so the end-Permian had nothing to do with that
> > > >>>>>> story.
> > > >>>>> Yeah, well their lineage survived when over 90% of everything else
> > > >>>>> didn't.
> > > >>>> But it wasn't the dinosaur lineage. It was some kind of more general
> > > >>>> archosaur lineage, from which the dinosaurs and much else descended. By
> > > >>>> the way, the 90% figure is for genera of marine invertebrates; I'm not
> > > >>>> sure there's a good estimate on the percentage of land vertebrates.
> > > >>>>>>> Mammals survived the KT
> > > >>>>>>> extinction and diversified into the dominant terrestrial vertebrate
> > > >>>>>>> taking over many of the niches left open by the demise of the dinos.
> > > >>>>>>> The mammals may have stayed small rodent like furry things if the
> > > >>>>>>> extinction the mammalian megafauna had evolved. You went from
> > > >>>>>>> animals
> > > >>>>>>> about the size of large rats to 25 ton 32 foot high titanotheres in
> > > >>>>>>> just 15 million years, but mammals had evolved along side the dinos
> > > >>>>>>> for over a hundred million years and couldn't amount to much until
> > > >>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>> door was open to them and they had no competition to expand into new
> > > >>>>>>> dust.
> > > >>>>>> I will take only one issue with that. There were no mammalian
> > > >>>>>> megafaunas
> > > >>>>>> before the K-T, but mammals were diverse and an important part of the
> > > >>>>>> Late Cretaceous land fauna. And some of them were much bigger than
> > > >>>>>> "small rodent like furry things". Look up, for example, Repenomammus.
> > > >>>>> There was some big mammal like reptiles quite a while before that.
> > > >>>>> The accounts that I've read claim that no mammals bigger than a small
> > > >>>>> dog survived the extinction event.
> > > >>>> Again, you need to check Repenomamus (sorry for the misspelling
> > > >>>> originally). Your accounts are out of date.
> > > >>> It says that it was the size of a small dog, largest around 14 kg
> > > >>> (around 30 lbs.).
> > > >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repenomamus
> > > >>> Maybe it is an example of "the size of a fox terrier," where everyone
> > > >>> claims "small dog" when they mean up to 30 lbs which would almost be a
> > > >>> smaller than a beagle.
> > > >> There are others that might have been larger. And of course nothing
> > > >> large may have survived the extinction event. My point is that mammals
> > > >> were not all rat-sized in the Cretaceous.
>
> > > > it is common knowledge that most of the mammals were rodent sized, at
> > > > least, you always see rat sized mammals in the descriptions.
>
> > > Most of the mammals now are rodent-sized too.
>
> > And some rodents get pretty freaking huge too. :)
>
> Most mammals are rodents. Well, most mammal species are either rodents
> (1 in 4), bats (1 in 5) or something else of smaller distribution...
Certainly gives one a more disturbing image of the interior of the Ark
than the usual peaceable kingdom business.
Mitchell
Mike Lyle
> Steven L. wrote:
[...]
>>
>> I don't think it's the size, but who eats whom on the food chain
>> that's significant. Prior to the K-T extinction event, while some
>> of the larger mammals may have eaten dinosaur eggs, and even perhaps
>> ate small dinosaurs, the top predators all over this planet were
>> reptiles back then. That was true in all climates, and in the sea.
>
> Agreed. But the idea that top predators determine the dominant fauna
> is the value judgment of a top predator.
And, from an ignorant layman's point of view at any rate, it seems to be
prey species which are "dominant" (whatever that may mean). Prey can
survive without predators, but predators can't survive without prey.
--
Mike.
Mike Lyle
[...on capybaras...]
>>
> Jesuiticalism at its niftiest. I wonder what these carpinchos taste
> like? I've only ever heard of their being hunted for their tough
> leather, so perhaps there was a penitential element in the consumption
> of their flesh which fitted them for a Lenten regime.
It actually seems meat is quite a treat. Wikip says: "The meat is said
to look and taste like pork.The Capybara meat is dried and salted, then
shredded and seasoned. Considered a delicacy, it is often served with
rice and plantains."
A late honorary uncle of mine shot them, but I never asked him about it.
Sad how many unrepeatable opportunities we miss.
--
Mike.
Dan Listermann
"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:WNudnb52JJCOo9zW...@earthlink.com...
.
Frank J
> "All-Seeing-I" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1c0777d3-dde0-4cdc...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > The most interesting aspect about the KT Boundary is that it
> > supposedly killed most all life. Not all, but most. Which effectively
> > halted some and slowed down any other evolutionary processes taking
> > place on the planet.
>
> > It is said billions of years is enough time for fish to mutate their
> > way into becoming man, but evolution actually only had 65 MY if much
> > of the life on earth was destroyed from 10 years of nuclear winter.
> > The vegetation was gone and much of the animal life.
>
> > Evolution needs the Dino's to go extinct. But if they did, then so did
> > most of the other mammals meaning evolution would have a new starting
> > point at 65my for the most part.
>
> > Not enough time for the fish to man theory.
>
> > If many of the Dino's and other mammals did survive then man walked
> > with Dino's which effectively shows much of evolutionary science to be
> > wrong.
>
> OK, you finally lost me with this post. �I don't understand what you're
> saying here. �Please explain.
Allow me. Remember when the bad guy who was shooting at Superman ran
out of bullets because they all bounced off Superman's chest, so he
threw the gun at Superman? That's [M]adman in a nutshell.
The big question is whethet he really is that bad guy, or an actor
trying to show how pathetic he is.
>
> --
> --
> Steven L.
> sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
> Remove the "NOSPAM" before sending to this email address.- Hide quoted text -
Boikat
> "All-Seeing-I" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1c0777d3-dde0-4cdc...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > The most interesting aspect about the KT Boundary is that it
> > supposedly killed most all life. Not all, but most. Which effectively
> > halted some and slowed down any other evolutionary processes taking
> > place on the planet.
>
> > It is said billions of years is enough time for fish to mutate their
> > way into becoming man, but evolution actually only had 65 MY if much
> > of the life on earth was destroyed from 10 years of nuclear winter.
> > The vegetation was gone and much of the animal life.
>
> > Evolution needs the Dino's to go extinct. But if they did, then so did
> > most of the other mammals meaning evolution would have a new starting
> > point at 65my for the most part.
>
> > Not enough time for the fish to man theory.
>
> > If many of the Dino's and other mammals did survive then man walked
> > with Dino's which effectively shows much of evolutionary science to be
> > wrong.
>
> OK, you finally lost me with this post. �I don't understand what you're
> saying here. �Please explain.
It's called "Gibberish". It's what happens when ASS-I tries to think,
then decides to put those thoughts into words.
Boikat
Mitchell Coffey
wrote:
> MitchellCoffeywrote:
> > On Jan 3, 11:58 am, heekster <heeks...@ifiwxtc.net> wrote:
> [...]
> >> The largest living rodent is the South American capybara, which the
> >> Catholic Church classified as a fish in the 16th century.
> > [snip]
>
> > It is unclear if the Church really did, in the 16th c. or ever,
> > officially, but the Church in capybara-rich areas acts at least as if
> > and pragmatic concern. 锟絋he notion was that the critter's semi-aquatic
> > life-style allowed the Church an out to declare the things "fish" so
> > they might be consumed during Lent by pious locals who might otherwise
> > Pope hold sway, the capybara is a fish, not by biological
> > misidentification, but by special dispensation, a cool concept.
>
> Jesuiticalism at its niftiest.
I know, you really gotta love that Church of Rome! I mean that
somewhat sincerely.
> I wonder what these carpinchos taste
> like? I've only ever heard of their being hunted for their tough
> leather, so perhaps there was a penitential element in the consumption
> of their flesh which fitted them for a Lenten regime.
According to Wikipedia their meat is considered a delicacy. I've
grown skeptical of this delicacy business, however. Seem every
intuitively revolting edible substance is said to be considered a
delicacy somewhere in which it is regionally available. Several
possible explanations exist for this phenomenon, beyond the it-really-
is-a-delicacy theory. These include: (1) Well, consider for a moment
what else they got to eat around there; (2) They tell visitors these
things because they wish to discourage this whole tourist business;
(3) Humor often doesn't translate between cultures; (4) the, for
instance, Capybara Ranchers Marketing Board hired a really good PR
firm.
Mitchell Coffey
Nick Keighley
weren't there mammals that ate dinosaurs? I thought I read about a
carnivore about the size of large dog/small pig that ate small
dinosaurs.
Nick Keighley
wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 07:09:12 -0800 (PST), Ron O <rokim...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> >If the dinos hadn't bitten the dust, humans may never have evolved.
>
> It set the evolution of intelligence back by a few million years. If
> humans had not evolved the galaxy would now be populated by
> intelligent dinos arguing about evolution :)
the K-T event saved the galaxy from star travelling veloceraptors! So
it *was* it just a freak event then?
Steven L.
news:9eb9fed0-8315-4cd4...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:
Ah, stream of consciousness.
--
--
Steven L.
sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Ye Old One
<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>The most interesting aspect about the KT Boundary is that it
>supposedly killed most all life. Not all, but most.
Not even most really.
>Which effectively
>halted some and slowed down any other evolutionary processes taking
>place on the planet.
Rubbish. In fact, quite the reverse.
>
>It is said billions of years is enough time for fish to mutate their
>way into becoming man,
Where did you get that idea from? try about 5-600 million years.
>but evolution actually only had 65 MY if much
>of the life on earth was destroyed from 10 years of nuclear winter.
>The vegetation was gone and much of the animal life.
No, though it is true that most of the large animals died.
>
>Evolution needs the Dino's to go extinct.
It does, to given an opening for the rise of the mammals.
> But if they did, then so did
>most of the other mammals
No, many survived and prospered.
> meaning evolution would have a new starting
>point at 65my for the most part.
>
>Not enough time for the fish to man theory.
The fossil record proves you wrong.
>
>If many of the Dino's and other mammals did survive then man walked
>with Dino's which effectively shows much of evolutionary science to be
>wrong.
No, it just shows you are wrong - as usual.
>
>The entire ToE is double talk.
Time to face up to at least these two examples of your past stupid
claims.
1) That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
[Message-ID: <e3xDk.44738$De7....@bignews7.bellsouth.net>]
2) That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
[Message-ID: <3Olyk.31543$Ep1....@bignews2.bellsouth.net>]
Now, all you have to do is justify them, with evidence of course, or
finally admit you were a fool to make them.
Or are you just going to go on being a cowardly lying troll?
--
Bob.
When D-G made Madman out of clay he forgot to magic the brain. I think
that explains everything.
Ye Old One
<redd...@bresnan.net> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On 1/2/10 9:28 AM, All-Seeing-I wrote:
>> On Jan 2, 9:19 am, Nomen Publicus<zzas...@buffy.sighup.org.uk> wrote:
>>> All-Seeing-I<allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>>> The most interesting aspect about the KT Boundary is that it
>>>> supposedly killed most all life. Not all, but most. Which effectively
>>>> halted some and slowed down any other evolutionary processes taking
>>>> place on the planet.
>>>
>>>> It is said billions of years is enough time for fish to mutate their
>>>> way into becoming man, but evolution actually only had 65 MY if much
>>>> of the life on earth was destroyed from 10 years of nuclear winter.
>>>> The vegetation was gone and much of the animal life.
>>>
>>> Evolution was not reset to zero.
>>>
>>>> Evolution needs the Dino's to go extinct. But if they did, then so did
>>>> most of the other mammals meaning evolution would have a new starting
>>>> point at 65my for the most part.
>>>
>>> "Evolution" doesn't "need" anything.
>>> Evolution was not reset to zero.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Not enough time for the fish to man theory.
>>>
>>> Not required.
>>> Evolution was not reset to zero.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> If many of the Dino's and other mammals did survive then man walked
>>>> with Dino's which effectively shows much of evolutionary science to be
>>>> wrong.
>>>
>>> Total rubbish.
>>>
>>>> The entire ToE is double talk.
>>>
>>> You wouldn't recognise ToE if it walked up and kicked you in the arse.
>>>
>>> --
>>> When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many
>>> people suffer from a delusion it is called religion. -- Robert Pirsig
>>
>> oh lookie here . It's YOO
>>
>>
>
>Apparently you are seeing "YOO" everywhere. He must be getting to you.
>
>DJT
I am trying :)
--
Bob.
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "Jonathan v.d. Sluis"
<nos...@nospam.nl>:
>Devils Advocaat <mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in news:d5f9c0ef-3f62-4f57-
>bca7-ac4...@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On 2 Jan, 13:20, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>> The most interesting aspect about the KT Boundary is that it
>>> supposedly killed most all life.
>>
>> Claiming that the KT boundary killed most of the extant life forms is
>> like saying that it was the expanding gases in the barrel of the gun
>> that killed Abraham Lincoln and not John Wilkes Booth, who took aim
>> and pulled the trigger.
>
>Actually, it's more like saying the year 1865 killed Lincoln.
But most of us have learned to translate Addled into
semi-rational English. We snicker a lot, but we know what he
means. Usually.
Nick Keighley
> On Jan 2, 9:19�am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > All-Seeing-I wrote:
<snip>
> > > Evolution needs the Dino's to go extinct.
evolution doesn't have "needs"
> > > But if they did, then so did
> > > most of the other mammals meaning evolution would have a new starting
> > > point at 65my for the most part.
sorry, "But if [the Dino's [sic] went extinct] then so did most of the
other mammals".
You think mammals are dinosaurs? You do know "most of" is different
from "all of". People then had 65My to evolve from the surviving
mammals
> > > Not enough time for the fish to man theory.
>
> > Actually, it's apparent that, on land, large animals were preferentially
> > killed off. Most dinosaurs (other than birds) were big; most mammals
> > were small. So they survived at much higher rates.
>
> I would call " 70 percent of living species" killed off a high rate.
> Plus Dinos feed on smaller prey. So the smaller creatures had to be
> wiped out at a high rate as well.
others have commented on this. If wolves eat rabbits and someone
shoots all the wolves is this good or bad from the rabbits point of
view?
<snip>
> > > If many of the Dino's and other mammals did survive then man walked
> > > with Dino's which effectively shows much of evolutionary science to be
> > > wrong.
"other surviving mammals" doesn't include man. Do you think peopel
witnessed the KT event?
<snip>
> How much time would be needed for the processes of evolution to change
> a population of fish into a population of humans?
strawman argument. You need to ask "how long would it take a
population of late cretatceous mammals to evolve into humns"
> Why would an
> extinction like the KT not shorten the evolutionary process for the
> remaining species?
er, it probably would as the rate of evolution would increse. Did you
mean "shorten"? Or do you think each species has some "evolutionary
lifetime" that is then cut short by the KT event. I species
statistically tend to have lifetimes but they don't come with a built
in clock.
Post KT some things were bad. Fire, bad weather, loss of vegetation
lots of dead dinosaurs. Some things were good. No predators (well a
lot less), lots of dead dinosaurs hence lots of food (for bacteria,
fungi and insects if no one else was going to eat it). Once the
weather cleared up the vegetation probably went ape shit. Large
herbivores gone and lots of yummy nitrates and phosphates lying
around.
> After all, their entire niche is now removed or
> drastically changed.
new niches everywhere. Bunny like things freed from large predatores.
Fox like things to eat the exploding bunny population with no big
competetors. Plant life freed from having to grow/reproduce faster
than a dino herbivore can eat you (shame about the fertiliser).
> Which would allow the rise of new variations to
> survive in the new niches. That becomes a new starting point for the
> survivors and possible takes them in new evolutionary directions.
yes
> If
> fish were gradually evolving into land mammals that process was broken
> by the extinction..
the land mammals were still there. You don't think evolution had a
*plan* do you that the KT event messed up? It's not like a human
engineering project.
We almost certainly wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the KT event.
> > Nor would humans walking with dinosaurs show anything about evolution to
> > be wrong, except that some dinosaurs had survided longer than we
> > thought. Even if some dinosaur had survived to the present day (very
> > unlikely) that wouldn't cast doubt on evolution. Just another coelacanth
> > story, though it's easier to hide a deep-water fish for 65 million years
> > than it is to hide a large, terrestrial animal.
>
> It could also mean the dating methods are inaccurate if man and dino
> walked together. Which there are anecdotal evidence for that too BTW.
"anecdotal"? You mean you've been told by someone that their cousin
knew someone who walked with a dinosaur?
> If the dating is wrong then the ToE could be wrong.
not on the broad picture. The time separation is VAST.
> It would only
> shorten the time that is available for evolution to work it's (ahem)
> "magic'
>
> > > The entire ToE is double talk.
>
> > You must think evolutionary biologists are all idiots. I'm an
> > evolutionary biologist. Do you think I'm an idiot?
>
> Not really. Why did you assume I thought evolutionary biologists are
> idiots? I have repeatedly said I think evolution is valid. Except for
> one segment that does not match any other process on the earth that we
> can observe.
? do tell? KT isn't the only mass extinction.
> What is your religious orientation BTW? Or are you agnostic? Atheist?
evolutionary biologist came all shapes and sizes. Though creationists
are probably pretty rare (my cousin studied her MA in biology at the
same time as one)
John Harshman
That's Repenomamus, mentioned several times above. And it is indeed the
biggest known Cretaceous mammal.
heekster
<mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Mike Lyle wrote:
>[...on capybaras...]
>>>
>> Jesuiticalism at its niftiest. I wonder what these carpinchos taste
>> like? I've only ever heard of their being hunted for their tough
>> leather, so perhaps there was a penitential element in the consumption
>> of their flesh which fitted them for a Lenten regime.
>
>It actually seems meat is quite a treat. Wikip says: "The meat is said
>to look and taste like pork.The Capybara meat is dried and salted, then
>shredded and seasoned. Considered a delicacy, it is often served with
>rice and plantains."
>
Hugo Chavez likes it. Seems fitting in view of the fact that
capybaras are autocoprophagous.
Baron Bodissey
> Remove the "NOSPAM" before sending to this email address.
More like stream of unconsciousness.
Baron Bodissey
When science is on the march, nothing stands in its way.
� Amazon Women on the Moon
Walter Bushell
John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> I wanted to take issue with "small rodent like furry things", "couldn't
> amount to much", and "second rate lifeform". Mammals were indeed quite
> diverse during the Cretaceous, occupied many more varied niches than you
> implied, and were an important part of the fauna. Their only lack was
> entry into the megafauna. Much as I like archosaurs, I think synapsids
> are fine too, and there's no need to put them down.
When you dog gets sufficiently old, it's a mercy to put that synapsid
down.
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
Walter Bushell
<742b691d-cb5a-4f0a...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Nick Keighley <nick_keigh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> weren't there mammals that ate dinosaurs? I thought I read about a
> carnivore about the size of large dog/small pig that ate small
> dinosaurs.
And, of course, mammals that ate dino eggs.
Walter Bushell
"Mike Lyle" <mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Actually prey cannot survive without predators. It has been observed,
for example on islands where there are no predators on deer, the deer
have a population explosion; eat everything; and starve.
Paul J Gans
Deer are Wall Street Bankers? Who'da thunk it!
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Dan Listermann
"Walter Bushell" <pr...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:proto-78D4C9....@news.panix.com...
.
John Wilkins
<gan...@panix.com> wrote:
Nonononono! Wall Street Bankers are Deer.