I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution

[chair]

[/LIST]
Have fun playing your customary word games in your futile attempt to distract attention from the fact that you can't answer this elementary question.

We'll take up a collection to buy you a mirror. You are sorely in need of one.

 

[ok doser]

Thanks. So, despite your stuupidity ....

he used to be known around here as Mr. Pidd

 

[Stuu]

Thanks. So, despite your stuupidity in saying that non-mammals are ancestors of mammals, you nevertheless just admitted the truth that no mammal ever inherited fur or hair and milk glands from one or more non-mammals.

A more careful reader would not have made the mistake you have made.

I recommend paying more attention to the language used.

Stuart

 

[JudgeRightly]

i hope we get our smileys back soon

We're working out a few other kinks in the new system regarding infractions and bans. Those come first.

 

[ok doser]

We're working out a few other kinks in the new system regarding infractions and bans. Those come first.

: noid:

 

[Right Divider]

:dizzy: Chihuahuas are still wolves in the sense of they're members of Canis lupus. They're very strange and heavily modified wolves, but still wolves in a real sense. They're just some new version of a wolf.

That's how cladistics work. They never stop being connected to their ancestors. The essential characteristics are passed down. They may end up heavily modified but they're modifications of the original.

Reproducing after their kind, just like the Bible says.

The idea of a single common ancestor of all life is a myth.

 

[The Barbarian]

:dizzy: Chihuahuas are still wolves in the sense of they're members of Canis lupus. They're very strange and heavily modified wolves, but still wolves in a real sense. They're just some new version of a wolf.

That's how cladistics work. They never stop being connected to their ancestors. The essential characteristics are passed down. They may end up heavily modified but they're modifications of the original.

I think that many scientists just assume that people understand this. And clearly, some people don't. It was good that you said so. The rest of us should have.

 

[ok doser]

:dizzy: Chihuahuas are still wolves in the sense of they're members of Canis lupus. They're very strange and heavily modified wolves, but still wolves in a real sense. They're just some new version of a wolf.

That's how cladistics work. They never stop being connected to their ancestors. The essential characteristics are passed down. They may end up heavily modified but they're modifications of the original.

but still dogs

do we have a documented occurrence of dogs evolving into something else, something "not dog"?

 

[7djengo7]

:dizzy: Chihuahuas are still wolves in the sense of they're members of Canis lupus. They're very strange and heavily modified wolves, but still wolves in a real sense. They're just some new version of a wolf.

But you're not really stupid enough to say that Chihuahuas are wolves in the sense that wolves are wolves, are you?

Also, since you say that Chihuahuas are fish, would you like to tell me that Chihuahuas are "just some new version of a fish", and that Chihuahuas are "still fish in a real sense"?

That's how cladistics work.

Sorry, Professor, but the nonsense you call "cladistics" does not work--at least, being cognitively meaningless, it does not work in any sense in which something that is cognitively meaningful works.

They never stop being connected to their ancestors.

You say that wolves' ancestors are fish. So how, exactly, do wolves stay "connected to" the fish that you say are their ancestors--especially if the fish are dead and decomposed that you say are wolves' ancestors?

The essential characteristics are passed down. They may end up heavily modified but they're modifications of the original.

So, when you say that Chihuahuas are "heavily modified" limbless cold-blooded vertebrate animals with gills and fins and living wholly in water, you mean that Chihuahuas are limbed warm-blooded vertebrate animals without gills and fins and living wholly out of water.

Also, what (if anything) do you mean by your phrase, "the essential characteristics"? What would you say are "the essential characteristics" of a fish that you would say is a bear's ancestor?

 

[The Barbarian]

You don't have an animal that's a "non-mammal" giving birth to a mammal. Really if it's giving birth it's already a mammal, and a placental or marsupial mammal at that.

Instead there's a gradual transition from a group of amniotes some of which gain milk production, others gain hair and eventually one hits the combination of milk production and hair that we see in mammals like the Echidna and Platypus (Living egg laying mammals). Then some of those develop more advanced reproduction - leading to the marsupials whereas others develop full on live birth becoming the placental mammals. There would never be a perfect dividing line between mammal and non-mammal if you could see all the ancestors. Extinction actually makes our job easier because all of the intermediates are gone and when you compare a lizard and a rat, there's a clear difference between them. But both lizard and rat share some common characteristics due to shared ancestry.

Officially, mammals have their lower jaw joint at the dentary, and reptiles have the joint at the articular bone. Right at the transition, there are animals with both joints:

But there are plenty of situations in life where there are gradual transitions.

Yep. And since reptiles were already using the lower jaw to channel sound to the inner ear, the quadrate, articular, and angular only lost one function, while retaining the other, as the incus, malleus, and support for the tympanium.

At what point when building a bridge is something *a bridge* vs. an assemblage of parts?

Kind of an artificial distinction, isn't it?

 

[Right Divider]

Officially, mammals have their lower jaw joint at the dentary, and reptiles have the joint at the articular bone. Right at the transition, there are animals with both joints:

It's funny when you trot out your pretty pictures like they're a historically documented sequence of facts.

 

[7djengo7]

A more careful reader would not have made the mistake you have made.

I recommend paying more attention to the language used.

Stuart

Sorry for making the "mistake" (again) of asking you questions against which you must resort to stonewalling.

 

[7djengo7]

You don't have an animal that's a "non-mammal" giving birth to a mammal. Really if it's giving birth it's already a mammal, and a placental or marsupial mammal at that.

Why did you put quotes around the highlighted word? What are you trying to signify by putting those quotes around it?

Instead there's a gradual transition from a group of amniotes some of which gain milk production, others gain hair and eventually one hits the combination of milk production and hair that we see in mammals like the Echidna and Platypus (Living egg laying mammals).

These things you call "amniotes"...are they mammals, or are they non-mammals? Which are they?
Whatever is not a mammal is a non-mammal; whatever is not a non-mammal is a mammal. Together, mammal and non-mammal exhaust all categories.

And what (if anything) do you mean by your word, "gain", here? Do you mean that certain things inherited milk production, and that certain things inherited hair? If so, from what did the things that inherited milk production inherit milk production, and from what did the things that inherited hair inherit hair? Or, instead, are you using your word, "gain", here just as meaninglessly as you (by dint of your office as a Darwin cheerleader) use most of the other words in your Darwinism props bag, like "evolution", "evolve", "adapt", "select", "species", "population", "develop", and oh so many more?

Then some of those develop more advanced reproduction - leading to the marsupials whereas others develop full on live birth becoming the placental mammals.

These things you call "some of those"...are they mammals, or are they non-mammals? Which are they?
Whatever is not a mammal is a non-mammal; whatever is not a non-mammal is a mammal. Together, mammal and non-mammal exhaust all categories.

There would never be a perfect dividing line between mammal and non-mammal if you could see all the ancestors.

You've wasted your own (or, more likely, other people's) money on your PhD, which is worse than worthless, inasmuch as it has not only not prevented you from warring against logic, but also, obviously encourages you in that very war. Only an abject fool can say, as you've just said, that something is (or can be, or could have been, or was) NEITHER a mammal NOR a non-mammal. Together, mammal and non-mammal exhaust ALL categories. If this is not a mammal, then it's a non-mammal; if that is not a non-mammal, then it's a mammal. No exceptions to this, Professor. None.

Extinction actually makes our job easier because all of the intermediates are gone and when you compare a lizard and a rat, there's a clear difference between them. But both lizard and rat share some common characteristics due to shared ancestry.

To what (if anything) are you referring by your word, "immediates": mammals or non-mammals?

But there are plenty of situations in life where there are gradual transitions.

If you even imagine you can, please try to give an example or two of what (if anything) you are talking about, here.

At what point when building a bridge is something *a bridge* vs. an assemblage of parts?

By your word, "something", here, to what are you referring? To a bridge, or to a non-bridge?

Are you saying, "At what point is a bridge a bridge?", or are you saying, "At what point is a non-bridge a bridge?"

You will ALWAYS lose in your war against logic, Alate_One.

 

[7djengo7]

Kind of an artificial distinction, isn't it?

Why, The Barbarian, do you so despise logic? Why do you call logic "artificial"?

• Whatever is a bridge is not a non-bridge.
• Whatever is a non-bridge is not a bridge.

Why do you call these truths "artificial"? Whom would you say is the artificer of logic?

 

[7djengo7]

Officially, mammals have their lower jaw joint at the dentary, and reptiles have the joint at the articular bone.

Since you tell us that mammals ARE reptiles, you've just now handed to us that mammals "have their lower jaw joint at the dentary" AND "at the articular bone", you crazy troll.

 

[6days]

:dizzy: Chihuahuas are still wolves in the sense of they're members of Canis lupus. They're very strange and heavily modified wolves, but still wolves in a real sense. They're just some new version of a wolf.

That's how cladistics work. They never stop being connected to their ancestors. The essential characteristics are passed down. They may end up heavily modified but they're modifications of the original.

Chihuahuas are an excellent example of the biblical creation model. Selection and mutations causing a loss of genetic diversity,

 

[User Name]

Chihuahuas are an excellent example of the biblical creation model. Selection and mutations causing a loss of genetic diversity,

Chihuahuas, mutations and genetics are in the Bible?

 

[chair]

Chihuahuas are an excellent example of the biblical creation model. Selection and mutations causing a loss of genetic diversity,

Where do you see a loss of genetic diversity? In the fact that there are many different breeds of dogs, each with slightly different genes?

 

[Right Divider]

Where do you see a loss of genetic diversity? In the fact that there are many different breeds of dogs, each with slightly different genes?

Yes, each breed has significantly less generic diversity than their ancestors.

 

[7djengo7]

Chihuahuas, mutations and genetics are in the Bible?

Do you even mean something, here?

Are you asking whether the words, 'Chihuahuas', 'mutations', and 'genetics' can be read in the Bible?

What (if anything) do you imagine you mean?