Amazing Animal Pictures
Jason Gastrich
on my site. Link: http://jcsm.org/SanDiegoZoo/
Next week, if we get a sunny day, I'll be visiting either the SD Wild Animal
Park or Sea World, taking 100-200 more pictures, and making them available
on the web. I'm going to both parks eventually, but which animals would you
prefer to see online, next?
Regards,
Jason Gastrich
--
--------
Jesus Christ Saves Ministries
http://www.jcsm.org
Over 80,000 web pages!
John 8:36 reads, "Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free
indeed."
Galatians 5:1 reads, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ
has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage."
ICQ#: 20731140 . AIM: MrJasonGastrich . YIM: Jesus_Saved_Jason
Richard Smol
> As you probably know, I have over 300 animal pictures from the San Diego Zoo
> on my site. Link: http://jcsm.org/SanDiegoZoo/
>
> Next week, if we get a sunny day, I'll be visiting either the SD Wild Animal
> Park or Sea World, taking 100-200 more pictures, and making them available
> on the web. I'm going to both parks eventually, but which animals would you
> prefer to see online, next?
Don't give up your day job as a con man, since your photographic
skills are mediocre at best.
RS
Klaus Hellnick
> As you probably know, I have over 300 animal pictures from the San Diego Zoo
> on my site. Link: http://jcsm.org/SanDiegoZoo/
>
> Next week, if we get a sunny day, I'll be visiting either the SD Wild Animal
> Park or Sea World, taking 100-200 more pictures, and making them available
> on the web. I'm going to both parks eventually, but which animals would you
> prefer to see online, next?
>
> Regards,
> Jason Gastrich
>
How about a roundworm, arrow worm, amphioxis, hagfish, and spiney dogfish?
Klaus
Cheezits
> Jason Gastrich wrote:
[etc.]
>> I'm going to both parks eventually, but
>> which animals would you prefer to see online, next?
>
> dogfish? Klaus
Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!
I'd prefer a coral reef, but they probably don't have one.
Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
Seppo Pietikainen
> As you probably know, I have over 300 animal pictures from the San Diego Zoo
> on my site. Link: http://jcsm.org/SanDiegoZoo/
>
> Next week, if we get a sunny day, I'll be visiting either the SD Wild Animal
> Park or Sea World, taking 100-200 more pictures, and making them available
> on the web. I'm going to both parks eventually, but which animals would you
> prefer to see online, next?
>
> Regards,
> Jason Gastrich
>
Try to get some from unicorns, satyrs, leviathans and behemoths.
Seppo P.
David
> As you probably know, I have over 300 animal pictures from the San
Diego Zoo
> on my site. Link: http://jcsm.org/SanDiegoZoo/
>
> Next week, if we get a sunny day, I'll be visiting either the SD Wild
Animal
> Park or Sea World, taking 100-200 more pictures, and making them
available
> on the web. I'm going to both parks eventually, but which animals
would you
> prefer to see online, next?
Oh, and a savior.
Preferably one that's ALIVE...
David
Jason Gastrich wrote:
> As you probably know, I have over 300 animal pictures from the San
Diego Zoo
> on my site. Link: http://jcsm.org/SanDiegoZoo/
>
> Next week, if we get a sunny day, I'll be visiting either the SD Wild
Animal
> Park or Sea World, taking 100-200 more pictures, and making them
available
> on the web. I'm going to both parks eventually, but which animals
would you
> prefer to see online, next?
An honest evangelist?
John H
"Seppo Pietikainen" <s.piet...@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
news:37p9gsF...@individual.net...
The story was, Noah's kids couldn't round them up, that's why they're not
around anymore.
john
Dan Luke
"Richard Smol" wrote:
> Don't give up your day job as a con man...
Hee-hee!
Good one.
Kevin Anthoney
> As you probably know, I have over 300 animal pictures from the San Diego
> Zoo
> on my site. Link: http://jcsm.org/SanDiegoZoo/
>
> Next week, if we get a sunny day, I'll be visiting either the SD Wild
> Animal Park or Sea World, taking 100-200 more pictures, and making them
> available
> on the web. I'm going to both parks eventually, but which animals would
> you prefer to see online, next?
>
Isn't evolution wonderful?
> Regards,
> Jason Gastrich
>
--
Kevin Anthoney
kanthoney[a]dsl.pipex.com
Lt. Kizhe Catson
> Klaus Hellnick <khellS...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>Jason Gastrich wrote:
>
> [etc.]
>
>>>I'm going to both parks eventually, but
>>>which animals would you prefer to see online, next?
Ones that are composed decently, in good lighting. And reject anything
with glass-glare. Consider this constructive advice.
>>
>>How about a roundworm, arrow worm, amphioxis, hagfish, and spiney
>>dogfish? Klaus
>
>
> Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!
>
> I'd prefer a coral reef, but they probably don't have one.
I think Sea World may have some facsimile of one. But try the Birch
Aquarium at La Jolla instead -- unless they're too evilutionist for
Jason's tastes ;-).
>
> Sue
Jason Gastrich
> Cheezits wrote:
>> Klaus Hellnick <khellS...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Jason Gastrich wrote:
>>
>> [etc.]
>>
>>>> I'm going to both parks eventually, but
>>>> which animals would you prefer to see online, next?
>
> Ones that are composed decently, in good lighting. And reject
> anything with glass-glare. Consider this constructive advice.
I nicely asked the snakes to come out of their enclosures, but they wouldn't
listen.
>>> How about a roundworm, arrow worm, amphioxis, hagfish, and spiney
>>> dogfish? Klaus
>>
>>
>> Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!
>>
>> I'd prefer a coral reef, but they probably don't have one.
>
> I think Sea World may have some facsimile of one. But try the Birch
> Aquarium at La Jolla instead -- unless they're too evilutionist for
> Jason's tastes ;-).
I've never been to Birch. I have year passes for the other three
attractions, though.
JG
--
--------
Jesus Christ Saves Ministries
http://www.jcsm.org
Over 90,000 web pages!
David
> Lt. Kizhe Catson wrote:
> > Cheezits wrote:
> >> Klaus Hellnick <khellS...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Jason Gastrich wrote:
> >>
> >> [etc.]
> >>
> >>>> I'm going to both parks eventually, but
> >>>> which animals would you prefer to see online, next?
> >
> > Ones that are composed decently, in good lighting. And reject
> > anything with glass-glare. Consider this constructive advice.
>
> I nicely asked the snakes to come out of their enclosures, but they
wouldn't
> listen.
A talented and knowledgable photographer can deal with glass glare
without getting the animals out of their enclosures, Jason.
> >>> How about a roundworm, arrow worm, amphioxis, hagfish, and spiney
> >>> dogfish? Klaus
> >>
> >> Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!
> >>
> >> I'd prefer a coral reef, but they probably don't have one.
> >
> > I think Sea World may have some facsimile of one. But try the
Birch
> > Aquarium at La Jolla instead -- unless they're too evilutionist for
> > Jason's tastes ;-).
>
> I've never been to Birch. I have year passes for the other three
> attractions, though.
Not that this is any great accomplishment. The Zoo and Wild Animal
Park are combined when one becomes a member, for instance.
Chris Thompson
news:rYSRd.5643$VD5...@twister.socal.rr.com:
> Lt. Kizhe Catson wrote:
>> Cheezits wrote:
>>> Klaus Hellnick <khellS...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jason Gastrich wrote:
>>>
>>> [etc.]
>>>
>>>>> I'm going to both parks eventually, but
>>>>> which animals would you prefer to see online, next?
>>
>> Ones that are composed decently, in good lighting. And reject
>> anything with glass-glare. Consider this constructive advice.
>
> I nicely asked the snakes to come out of their enclosures, but they
> wouldn't listen.
>
But did they talk?
Pithecanthropus Erectus
>
>
> I nicely asked the snakes to come out of their enclosures, but they wouldn't
> listen.
>
>
You must first learn to be a parseltongue.
Second, be aware of angles and flash.
Third, no one cares about your pictures. Can you say "Home Slideshow?"
Yawn.
>
> JG
>
Richard Clayton
Unfortunately, the last one was spotted in 33 AD, and they're now
presumed extinct.
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"During wars laws are silent." -- Cicero
Jason Gastrich
Speak for yourself. The stats say otherwise.
I was just trying to be nice by asking which park people would prefer to see
next. If you have no preference, then avoid this thread.
Regards,
Jason
Richard Forrest
Jason Gastrich wrote:
> Pithecanthropus Erectus wrote:
> >> I nicely asked the snakes to come out of their enclosures, but
they
> >> wouldn't listen.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > You must first learn to be a parseltongue.
> > Second, be aware of angles and flash.
> > Third, no one cares about your pictures. Can you say "Home
> > Slideshow?"
> >
> > Yawn.
>
> Speak for yourself. The stats say otherwise.
>
> I was just trying to be nice by asking which park people would prefer
to see
> next. If you have no preference, then avoid this thread.
>
No Jason. You are trying to drive traffic to your site. It is a
marketting excercise. The fact that some people were duped into
visiting your site is the mark of your success at marketting, not your
profficiency as a photographer.
Ernest Major
<usene...@yahoo.com> writes
>
>Speak for yourself. The stats say otherwise.
>
waited so long as to look at even one image?
--
alias Ernest Major
David
> Pithecanthropus Erectus wrote:
> >> I nicely asked the snakes to come out of their enclosures, but
they
> >> wouldn't listen.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > You must first learn to be a parseltongue.
> > Second, be aware of angles and flash.
> > Third, no one cares about your pictures. Can you say "Home
> > Slideshow?"
> >
> > Yawn.
>
> Speak for yourself. The stats say otherwise.
Which, of course, is why you did it, Jason - to get a count and
increase traffic to your site.
Numbers are all you care about. God doesn't enter into it at all.
< snip >
David D.
Jason Gastrich wrote:
> Pithecanthropus Erectus wrote:
> >> I nicely asked the snakes to come out of their enclosures, but
they
> >> wouldn't listen.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > You must first learn to be a parseltongue.
> > Second, be aware of angles and flash.
> > Third, no one cares about your pictures. Can you say "Home
> > Slideshow?"
> >
> > Yawn.
>
> Speak for yourself. The stats say otherwise.
>
> I was just trying to be nice by asking which park people would prefer
to see
> next. If you have no preference, then avoid this thread.
How about some animal pictures from that rock church. I'd be interested
to see what types of animal visit such a watering hole.
David
> Pithecanthropus Erectus wrote:
> >> I nicely asked the snakes to come out of their enclosures, but
they
> >> wouldn't listen.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > You must first learn to be a parseltongue.
> > Second, be aware of angles and flash.
> > Third, no one cares about your pictures. Can you say "Home
> > Slideshow?"
> >
> > Yawn.
>
> Speak for yourself. The stats say otherwise.
By the way, Jason, what do the stats say?
< snip >
Gregory A Greenman
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, David <hdsien...@yahoo.com>
declared...
"Otherwise". I thought he was clear about that.
--
Greg
----
greg -at- spencersoft -dot- com
David
Oh, yes. Of course.
How many hits in an "otherwise," I wonder?
Richard Forrest
Ah yes, but it's the concept that one of those people hitting the site
will be inspired by the beauty of Jason's pictures to say "Yes! It's
clear to me now! Jason has shown that evolution is a sham! These images
say it all!" which drives our Jase. The links on every page to sites
selling things is entirely irrelevant. As is the money per
click-through he gets from the owners of those sites.
RF
Harlequin
news:Xns96035D108837ro...@207.69.189.191:
Why am I starting to think of a Harry Potter-esque scene? ;-)
--
Anti-spam: replace "usenet@sdc." with "harlequin2@"
"Creationists don't want equal time. They want all the time there is."
- Isaac Asimov
Chris Thompson
news:Xns9603853468E05u...@68.12.19.6:
> Chris Thompson <rockw...@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in
> news:Xns96035D108837ro...@207.69.189.191:
>
>> "Jason Gastrich" <usene...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:rYSRd.5643$VD5...@twister.socal.rr.com:
>>
>>> Lt. Kizhe Catson wrote:
>>>> Cheezits wrote:
>>>>> Klaus Hellnick <khellS...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jason Gastrich wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> [etc.]
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm going to both parks eventually, but
>>>>>>> which animals would you prefer to see online, next?
>>>>
>>>> Ones that are composed decently, in good lighting. And reject
>>>> anything with glass-glare. Consider this constructive advice.
>>>
>>> I nicely asked the snakes to come out of their enclosures, but they
>>> wouldn't listen.
>>>
>>
>> But did they talk?
>
> Why am I starting to think of a Harry Potter-esque scene? ;-)
>
Would Dr. Gastrich make a good Malfoy?
Ernest Major
<usene...@yahoo.com> writes
>As you probably know, I have over 300 animal pictures from the San Diego Zoo
>on my site. Link: http://jcsm.org/SanDiegoZoo/
>
>Next week, if we get a sunny day, I'll be visiting either the SD Wild Animal
>Park or Sea World, taking 100-200 more pictures, and making them available
>prefer to see online, next?
>
Unless you're willing to raise your game I think the WWW would be better
served by you not placing your photographs on your web site. Unless your
material adds to what's on the web it has a negative effect by
increasing the clutter, and reducing the ability to use search engines
to find the superior material. There's not much point just providing a
photograph if there's a better photograph elsewhere. (Or duplicating
public domain religious writings either.)
I'll pass over the matter of the quality of the photographs - I had only
looked at one - as this is not necessarily a killer point; if no good
photograph is available on the web, then a bad photograph is better than
nothing (at least that's my excuse).
You seem to have since dealt with the JPEG compression issue (unless I
was unlucky and had picked one that you had missed), and also changed to
progressive JPEGs. You could also specify the image sizes in the HTML,
so the browser don't need to recalculate the page layout, but if you
don't have a development tool that does this automatically it might be
easier to leave them, rather than run the risk of introducing errors
when entering them manually.
It would be nice if you were less heavy-handed on the advertisements.
It's not exactly subtle to have the same 24 advertisements on every
page; it's as if you don't expect your visitors to bother to visit more
than one page. Also, you would be more likely to get a positive response
if you'd eschew ridiculous levels of self-promotion, such as "Amazing
Animal Pictures".
The other problem is navigation. The pictures would be better listed in
alphabetical or taxonomic order (or both). You can get taxonomic data
from Tree of Life, or FishBase or GenBank Taxonomy, and no doubt other
places; if you're stuck someone here might hold their nose and help you
ought. And navigation from picture to picture, rather than having to go
back to the main list, would be better. It might be preferable to
incorporate all images for a LITU [1] on a single page. My main gallery
(nearly 1500 images from one plant family) is hand-coded, but it might
be more convenient to implement it in PHP or the like, particularly if
you wanted to avoid hardcoding adverts.
I had a look at the San Diego Zoo web site, and wasn't particularly
impressed; I would have expected better of an institution of its
prominence. (Compare http://www.chesterzoo.org). It seems to me that
there is scope for someone to produce a worthwhile site giving a guide
to the San Diego Zoo collections.
[1] Least Inclusive Taxonomic Unit; species, subspecies, variety or
whatever; cultivar for cultivated plants, breed for domesticated
animals.
--
alias Ernest Major
shane
> As you probably know, I have over 300 animal pictures from the San Diego Zoo
> on my site. Link: http://jcsm.org/SanDiegoZoo/
>
> Next week, if we get a sunny day, I'll be visiting either the SD Wild Animal
> Park or Sea World, taking 100-200 more pictures, and making them available
> on the web. I'm going to both parks eventually, but which animals would you
> prefer to see online, next?
>
> Regards,
> Jason Gastrich
>
Jason, again I will ask, please take note of the numbers of staff at
these places and if there are more than eight, let us know if that sits
well with you. Do you think zoo's and parks are wildly overstaffed if
they have significantly more than eight staff?
--
shane
(who grew up on farms and knows how much work is involved in looking
after animals)
The truth will set you free.
Dana Tweedy
"Chris Thompson" <rockw...@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96039C18F7C1Dro...@207.69.189.191...
snipp
>> Why am I starting to think of a Harry Potter-esque scene? ;-)
>>
>
> Would Dr. Gastrich make a good Malfoy?
No, he more reminds me of Gilderoy Lockhart.
DJT
>
Lt. Kizhe Catson
Well, I might be guilty of contributing a dozen (ie. one or two visits
to the page, ~dozen pix viewed) -- just to see what the photography was
like. I agree with a previosu poster: <yawn>.
-- Kizhe
Jason Gastrich
> Jason Gastrich wrote:
>
>> As you probably know, I have over 300 animal pictures from the San
>> Diego Zoo on my site. Link: http://jcsm.org/SanDiegoZoo/
>>
>> Next week, if we get a sunny day, I'll be visiting either the SD
>> Wild Animal Park or Sea World, taking 100-200 more pictures, and
>> making them available on the web. I'm going to both parks
>> eventually, but which animals would you prefer to see online, next?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jason Gastrich
>>
> Jason, again I will ask, please take note of the numbers of staff at
> these places and if there are more than eight, let us know if that
> sits well with you. Do you think zoo's and parks are wildly
> overstaffed if they have significantly more than eight staff?
If they simply had to tend to small pairs that were representative of the
animal kinds, eight people would be sufficient for a short period of time.
Mike Painter
> shane wrote:
>> Jason Gastrich wrote:
>>
>>> As you probably know, I have over 300 animal pictures from the San
>>> Diego Zoo on my site. Link: http://jcsm.org/SanDiegoZoo/
>>>
>>> Next week, if we get a sunny day, I'll be visiting either the SD
>>> Wild Animal Park or Sea World, taking 100-200 more pictures, and
>>> making them available on the web. I'm going to both parks
>>> eventually, but which animals would you prefer to see online, next?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Jason Gastrich
>>>
>> Jason, again I will ask, please take note of the numbers of staff at
>> these places and if there are more than eight, let us know if that
>> sits well with you. Do you think zoo's and parks are wildly
>> overstaffed if they have significantly more than eight staff?
>
> If they simply had to tend to small pairs that were representative of
> the animal kinds, eight people would be sufficient for a short period
> of time.
Please tell us what a kind is, how many there are and why nobody noticed the
change from a single "kind" to millions?
In particular are there fewer "kinds" than the animals at the Zoo?
How did the whales get on the ark?
Harlequin
I was thinking of Dudley Dursley and a plain of glass that just
disappeared.
Dana Tweedy
"Jason Gastrich" <usene...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:FRuSd.7734$VD5....@twister.socal.rr.com...
> shane wrote:
>> Jason Gastrich wrote:
>>
>>> As you probably know, I have over 300 animal pictures from the San
>>> Diego Zoo on my site. Link: http://jcsm.org/SanDiegoZoo/
>>>
>>> Next week, if we get a sunny day, I'll be visiting either the SD
>>> Wild Animal Park or Sea World, taking 100-200 more pictures, and
>>> making them available on the web. I'm going to both parks
>>> eventually, but which animals would you prefer to see online, next?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Jason Gastrich
>>>
>> Jason, again I will ask, please take note of the numbers of staff at
>> these places and if there are more than eight, let us know if that
>> sits well with you. Do you think zoo's and parks are wildly
>> overstaffed if they have significantly more than eight staff?
>
> If they simply had to tend to small pairs that were representative of the
> animal kinds, eight people would be sufficient for a short period of time.
"small pairs"? Of how many "kinds"? Considering there are several
million modern species, and many times more fossil species of animals, how
many "kinds" did Noah and his family have on the Ark?
If eight people had been able to "sufficiently" take care of these
"kinds",for more than one year, under extremely difficult conditions, then
those "kinds" must have undergone *extremely* rapid and extensive
macroevolution in a scale beyond what any evolutionary scientist would
accept. That is if you accept that all of this occured in only a few
thousand years.
Perhaps you'd like to reprhase your assertion above?
DJT
snip the advertising.
David
Jason GASTRICH?
Re-PHRASE something?
Oh, that's funny stuff, Dana!
Gregory A Greenman
Gastrich <usene...@yahoo.com> declared...
> shane wrote:
> > Jason Gastrich wrote:
> >
> >> As you probably know, I have over 300 animal pictures from the San
> >> Diego Zoo on my site. Link: http://jcsm.org/SanDiegoZoo/
> >>
> >> Next week, if we get a sunny day, I'll be visiting either the SD
> >> Wild Animal Park or Sea World, taking 100-200 more pictures, and
> >> making them available on the web. I'm going to both parks
> >> eventually, but which animals would you prefer to see online, next?
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Jason Gastrich
> >>
> > Jason, again I will ask, please take note of the numbers of staff at
> > these places and if there are more than eight, let us know if that
> > sits well with you. Do you think zoo's and parks are wildly
> > overstaffed if they have significantly more than eight staff?
>
> If they simply had to tend to small pairs that were representative of the
> animal kinds, eight people would be sufficient for a short period of time.
I find this interesting. Could you point out where I can find out
more about the tests and experiments that were performed to
verify your claim? Thanks.
Jason Gastrich
My claim regarding the distant past was simply made by logic.
You can read John Woodmorappe's book on the flood for scientific details.
It's called, "Noah's Ark: A Feasability Study."
<this is where atheists who have never read the book like to slam it>
David
I think he asked you, specifically, to explain.
You did start the ball rolling, Jason, with an assertion made by YOU,
not Woodmorappe.
> <this is where atheists who have never read the book like to slam it>
And many who have slam it, too.
Rightfully so.
I'm not an atheist. I've read it.
It's nonsense.
Discussion, Jason?
Dana Tweedy
snipping
> My claim regarding the distant past was simply made by logic.
>
> You can read John Woodmorappe's book on the flood for scientific details.
> It's called, "Noah's Ark: A Feasability Study."
>
> <this is where atheists who have never read the book like to slam it>
Jason, Glen Morton is not an atheist, and at one time was a YEC. Here's his
review of the book
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodmorappe-review.html
Care to discuss it?
DJT
David D.
> thousand years.
That's a very interesting point. So all the evidence suggests that
biblical literalists need to invoke a theory of evolution that is even
more unbelieveable (from their perspective) than the current theory.
Has any one seen how a fundamentalist respond to this point? I presume
they run for the hill without discussion. David
Richard Forrest
Don't be silly. Whales are of the fish kind, and they swam.
RF
Gregory A Greenman
IOW, you know of no experiments that support your claim. OTOH,
just by visiting the zoo, you do know that for a significantly
smaller number of animals the number of caretakers is
significantly higher than eight.
> You can read John Woodmorappe's book on the flood for scientific details.
> It's called, "Noah's Ark: A Feasability Study."
>
> <this is where atheists who have never read the book like to slam it>
I've read the rebuttal at Talk Origins several times. The book
sounds pretty silly. Nevertheless, if you send me a copy, I'll
read it.
shane
> shane wrote:
>
>>Jason Gastrich wrote:
>>
>>
>>>As you probably know, I have over 300 animal pictures from the San
>>>Diego Zoo on my site. Link: http://jcsm.org/SanDiegoZoo/
>>>
>>>Next week, if we get a sunny day, I'll be visiting either the SD
>>>Wild Animal Park or Sea World, taking 100-200 more pictures, and
>>>making them available on the web. I'm going to both parks
>>>eventually, but which animals would you prefer to see online, next?
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>Jason Gastrich
>>>
>>
>>Jason, again I will ask, please take note of the numbers of staff at
>>these places and if there are more than eight, let us know if that
>>sits well with you. Do you think zoo's and parks are wildly
>>overstaffed if they have significantly more than eight staff?
>
>
> If they simply had to tend to small pairs that were representative of the
> animal kinds, eight people would be sufficient for a short period of time.
>
> Regards,
> Jason
Jason, thanks for responding. Whilst i am not surprised at your claim, i
am disappointed in the lack of even emperical science in it. I grew up
on various cattle farms in Australia and have a reasonable idea of the
amount of work required to look after just one species of animal. I have
also read a number of books by the English author and animal collector
Gerald Durrel and his descriptions of expeditions to Africa in the
1950's and 60's to collect animals for English zoos. He generally, IIRC,
ran out of time for collecting once he was loking after pairs of 20-30
different species.
If by small you mean young, then this works against your conclusion, as
younger animals need a lot more attention than adult animals. I know
this from farm life and from my experience at the local wildlife shelter
where 20-30 animals (3-5 species) is about the limit for 4 very
dedicated people. Without falling back on Goddidit then it seems to me,
that eight is not enough, by a long long way.
A short period of time is fairly nebulous. Hours, yes they could. Days,
maybe, with some tolerance for some humgry, tired and dirty animals.
Weeks and months, I think not, not even with the most generous reduction
in the number of what we call species that 'kinds' actually represent.
Eight people covering 24 hours a day (2, 3, & 4 hourly feeds for young
animals), and looking after the numbers required.
I know it has been said before, but why do not some biblical literalists
do the experiment, it's real science, and can put the issue to rest once
and for all. However, I rather suspect i know the reason why not.
Without falling back on Goddidit then it seems to me, that eight is not
enough, by a long long way, and the empirical data available from the
whole feild of animal husbandry backs that conclusion.
--
shane
Pithecanthropus Erectus
Despite the extremely speedy evolution, all of the life that survived
the flood stayed "Within kind." Cats stayed cats (all 17 genera) and
canids remained canids. That's the beauty of the word "kind" - it
completely eliminates any sort of macro-evolution, but still allows for
micro-evolution.
Creationism is easy. They build their own strawmen for us.
David D.
Why would Jason ignore the above post. It has some excellent
suggestions for the creationist 'scientists' to prove that Noah et al.
could have cared for all these kinds.
Jason, why don't you get Ken Ham to try out this experiment at his
creationist museum. That will show all those atheists hoiw dumb they
are to question the inerrancy of the bible.
Uncle Davey
Użytkownik "David D." <da...@hotmail.com> napisał w wiadomości
news:1109087696....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
On the contrary, I, who believe this theory and who believe that the number
of species per genus has a negative correlation to the length of life and
that this correlation will plot back to the time of the Flood, prepared a
data input template called http://www.usenetposts.com/ProjectTenThousand.xls
and invited collaboration, and everyone else headed for the hills.
Uncle Davey
Richard Forrest
Davey, that's because scientists don't propose a hypothesis and expect
other people to prove it. If you want to test your idea, do it
yourself.
More to the point, until your idea is validated against sound data it
has no more weight than a puff of wind: anyone can come up with ten
good ideas before breakfast. That doesn't make any of them a sound
hypothesis.
Bearing in mind that your idea has no support by any scrap of evidence
from other studies, flies in the face of two centuries of scientific
research, and is formulated in a way which makes little sense in
biological terms, why should anyone waste their time on it.
An essential starting point would be to provide a valid definition for
genus, something that biologists have been unable to do. Then there's
the matter of establishing a date for the flood. As there is no
evidence whatsoever to support the idea of a global flood, it would be
rather difficult to date.
RF
Uncle Davey
Użytkownik "Richard Forrest" <ric...@plesiosaur.com> napisał w wiadomości
news:1109256351....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
I would have thought it was in everyone's interests to know if the
hypothesis is true or not.
> More to the point, until your idea is validated against sound data it
> has no more weight than a puff of wind: anyone can come up with ten
> good ideas before breakfast. That doesn't make any of them a sound
> hypothesis.
That's why I asked for help with the data.
> Bearing in mind that your idea has no support by any scrap of evidence
> from other studies, flies in the face of two centuries of scientific
> research, and is formulated in a way which makes little sense in
> biological terms, why should anyone waste their time on it.
If there is a way to formulate it more accurately, I'm open to suggestions.
> An essential starting point would be to provide a valid definition for
> genus, something that biologists have been unable to do. Then there's
> the matter of establishing a date for the flood. As there is no
> evidence whatsoever to support the idea of a global flood, it would be
> rather difficult to date.
>
> RF
>
So basically scientists don't even know what a genus is, all they know is my
idea of what a Kind might be is wrong.
OK. Let's try this:
Do you accept as an hypothesis that, given the assumption of even viable
mutational rate throughout all mammalian DNA, and given the second
assumption of even impact on all species of ecological change the
generational life of a species, defined as the average time elapsing between
the birth of a female and the birth of her median female offspring, is
negatively correlated to its speed of evolution?
Yes or no?
Uncle Davey
Richard Forrest
Why? The hypothesis is close to meaningless.
> > More to the point, until your idea is validated against sound data
it
> > has no more weight than a puff of wind: anyone can come up with ten
> > good ideas before breakfast. That doesn't make any of them a sound
> > hypothesis.
>
> That's why I asked for help with the data.
>
With respect, why should anyone waste their time gathering date to
support a meaningless hypothesis?
> > Bearing in mind that your idea has no support by any scrap of
evidence
> > from other studies, flies in the face of two centuries of
scientific
> > research, and is formulated in a way which makes little sense in
> > biological terms, why should anyone waste their time on it.
>
> If there is a way to formulate it more accurately, I'm open to
suggestions.
>
> > An essential starting point would be to provide a valid definition
for
> > genus, something that biologists have been unable to do. Then
there's
> > the matter of establishing a date for the flood. As there is no
> > evidence whatsoever to support the idea of a global flood, it would
be
> > rather difficult to date.
> >
> > RF
> >
>
> So basically scientists don't even know what a genus is, all they
know is my
> idea of what a Kind might be is wrong.
>
The reason why a genera and species are hard to define is that they are
the products of evolution, and therefore have boundaries which are
defined by pragmatic considerations rather than any identifiable
genetic or morphological separation. If, on the other hand, kinds are
separately created, they would be clearly definable entities. To argue
that kinds were created with all the appearance of a complex nested
hierarchy at a deep genetic level to give a false impression of shared
ancestry seem bizarre to put it mildly.
> OK. Let's try this:
>
> Do you accept as an hypothesis that, given the assumption of even
viable
> mutational rate throughout all mammalian DNA, and given the second
> assumption of even impact on all species of ecological change the
> generational life of a species, defined as the average time elapsing
between
> the birth of a female and the birth of her median female offspring,
is
> negatively correlated to its speed of evolution?
>
> Yes or no?
It's a totally riduculous proposition in that it makes assumptions
which we know are unfounded! *IF* I find a lamp in my cellar, and *IF*
I rub it and *IF* a magic genie appears who grants me three wishes,
I'll ask for Ł1,000,000 and give it to you. That's a valid
proposition. I wouldn't bank on receiving Ł1,000,000 though.
>
> Uncle Davey
RF
John Harshman
The rest of us already know that it's false, because there was no flood,
genera are not "kinds", the universe is billions of years old, and so
on. It's like being unwilling to conduct a scientific test of whether
the sun is a blob of yellow paint on the solid blue dome of the sky. How
much effort would *you* put into such a test?
>>More to the point, until your idea is validated against sound data it
>>has no more weight than a puff of wind: anyone can come up with ten
>>good ideas before breakfast. That doesn't make any of them a sound
>>hypothesis.
>
> That's why I asked for help with the data.
You were given several references at the time. Have you incorporated the
data from them?
>>Bearing in mind that your idea has no support by any scrap of evidence
>>from other studies, flies in the face of two centuries of scientific
>>research, and is formulated in a way which makes little sense in
>>biological terms, why should anyone waste their time on it.
>
> If there is a way to formulate it more accurately, I'm open to suggestions.
First you need to get rid of this "flood" theory, because that's
obviously contrary to fact. And you need to get rid of "genus", because
genera are arbitrary divisions of the tree of life. Your problem is that
what you really want to measure are kinds, and there is in reality no
such thing as a kind.
The real question is why you are proposing such a convoluted and
indirect test of a phenomenon that is easily falsified by much simpler
methods.
>>An essential starting point would be to provide a valid definition for
>>genus, something that biologists have been unable to do. Then there's
>>the matter of establishing a date for the flood. As there is no
>>evidence whatsoever to support the idea of a global flood, it would be
>>rather difficult to date.
>
>
> So basically scientists don't even know what a genus is, all they know is my
> idea of what a Kind might be is wrong.
We know what a genus is: it's an arbitrary rank descriptor attached to
some node on the tree of life (or, in many cases, to a collection of
species that somebody a long time ago thought were closely related).
That is, clades are real. We pick some out and call them genera, for no
particularly good reasons.
> OK. Let's try this:
>
> Do you accept as an hypothesis that, given the assumption of even viable
> mutational rate throughout all mammalian DNA, and given the second
> assumption of even impact on all species of ecological change the
> generational life of a species, defined as the average time elapsing between
> the birth of a female and the birth of her median female offspring, is
> negatively correlated to its speed of evolution?
>
> Yes or no?
I would agree if by "even mutational rate" you mean "even mutational
rate per generation". This follows directly if most mutations are
neutral, result from replication, and the number of germ line
replications per generation is also relatively constant. Of course,
another problem is that the rate of evolution has nothing directly to do
with speciation. You need some additional assumptions for that.
Of course to validate your assumptions you have to suppose that our
measurements of mutation rates are valid, which means that you also have
to accept other conclusions based that, including the fact that most
species did not experience an extreme bottleneck a few thousand years ago.
Ernest Major
writes
>
>I would have thought it was in everyone's interests to know if the
>hypothesis is true or not.
>
received in peer review last time you raised your hypothesis. As it
stands it remains poorly posed.
Apart from various methodological problems, and the choice of a
dangerous file format, there is the point that we expect diversity to be
negatively correlated with size, so, as size is correlated with
generation time, without correcting for this, you have no hope of a
meaningful result.
It's not clear to me why you have restricted your hypothesis test to a
single, taxonomically restricted, data set (mammals), rather than
including plants, insects, bacteria, etc, but if you want some data you
can get, FWIW, a list of all extant mammalian taxa (as per one source)
at <URL:http://nmnhgoph.si.edu/cgi-bin/wdb/msw/names/query/1>. More
detailed information on 631 species (probably including generation
times) (which should get you a reasonable proportion of genera) is
available at <URL:http://www.science.smith.edu/departments/Biology/VHAYS
SEN/msi/msi_intro.html>. These should keep you out of mischief for a
while.
--
alias Ernest Major
Uncle Davey
I won't give my tithe of it yet, then. Pity. I could do with nine hundred
thousand quid.
But why cannot you accept that given those assumptions, the underlying
hypothesis is true? What other parameters are missing?
Once we have gotten that far, ill-conceived genie analogies notwithstanding,
then we can look at the givens that are not really given and try to make
some corrective factor for them.
Or are you just going to be negatory?
Uncle Davey
josephus
Uncle Davey wrote:
Uncle Davey
In 1788 or so the people that disproved the flood were serious people
looking at at the evidence. There are no layers of sediment anywhere of
the kind you could get from a flood. Local is not world wide. The
people that published the denial of the premise were ministers in
Scotland trying to prove young earth.,.
Even so, less honest people assert it without any proof qualified for
geological science.
josephus
Uncle Davey
Użytkownik "Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> napisał w wiadomości
news:u6rnIMAn...@meden.demon.co.uk...
Thanks for that.
Uncle Davey
Andrew Arensburger
> "Seppo Pietikainen" <s.piet...@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
> news:37p9gsF...@individual.net...
>> Try to get some from unicorns, satyrs, leviathans and behemoths.
> The story was, Noah's kids couldn't round them up, that's why they're not
> around anymore.
Pity they weren't Roundup-ready.
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-...@umd.edu Office of Information Technology
I am not a number! I am a free NaN!