Bible Discussion: Sudden Appearences

Sudden Appearences
Posts: 14

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)

IKnowHimDoYou
2004-01-14 11:54:16 EST
Sudden Appearences

"Each species of mammal-like reptile that has been found appears suddenly
in the fossil record and is not preceded by the species that is directly
ancestral to it. It disappears some time later, equally abruptly, without
leaving a directly decended species."
T.S. Kemp. "The Reptiles that Became Mammals," New Scientist, 92-583 Mar 4, 1982

Kemp is a specialist on "mammal-like reptiles and an avowed evolutionist.

If you think that there are transitional links extant showing the path of
evolution you would be mistaken. Even the experts on evolution say over
and over again they do not exist. This places the theroy of evolution in
the catagory of unfounded opinion-not reality.

Zachriel
2004-01-14 12:35:59 EST

"IKnowHimDoYou" <IKnowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:IKnowHim-1401040854160001@pm6-20.kalama.com...
> Sudden Appearences
>
> "Each species of mammal-like reptile that has been found appears suddenly
> in the fossil record and is not preceded by the species that is directly
> ancestral to it. It disappears some time later, equally abruptly, without
> leaving a directly decended species."
> T.S. Kemp. "The Reptiles that Became Mammals," New Scientist, 92-583 Mar
4, 1982
>
> Kemp is a specialist on "mammal-like reptiles and an avowed evolutionist.
>
> If you think that there are transitional links extant showing the path of
> evolution you would be mistaken. Even the experts on evolution say over
> and over again they do not exist. This places the theroy of evolution in
> the catagory of unfounded opinion-not reality.

Why would a single gap in our knowledge falsify the Theory of Evolution?
Just because we don't know everything doesn't mean we don't know anything.

The fossil record on the species level is necessarily rather spotty due to
the rarity of the process of fossilization. Nevertheless, paleontologists
have found ample fossil evidence of the transition from reptiles to mammals.

"The mammalian ear and jaw are instances in which paleontology and
comparative anatomy combine to show common ancestry through transitional
stages."
http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html




Adam Marczyk
2004-01-14 12:48:44 EST
IKnowHimDoYou <IKnowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:IKnowHim-1401040854160001@pm6-20.kalama.com...
> Sudden Appearences
>
> "Each species of mammal-like reptile that has been found appears
> suddenly in the fossil record and is not preceded by the species that is
> directly ancestral to it. It disappears some time later, equally
> abruptly, without leaving a directly decended species."
> T.S. Kemp. "The Reptiles that Became Mammals," New Scientist, 92-583 Mar
> 4, 1982

This is typical out-of-context quotation, of course.

http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie013.html

--
"We have loved the stars too fondly | a.a. #2001
to be fearful of the night." | http://www.ebonmusings.org
--Tombstone epitaph of | e-mail: ebonmuse!hotmail.com
two amateur astronomers, | ICQ: 8777843
quoted in Carl Sagan's _Cosmos_ | PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Pastor Dave
2004-01-14 13:03:30 EST
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 17:35:59 GMT, "Zachriel"
<*l@zachriel.com> spake thusly:

>
>"IKnowHimDoYou" <IKnowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
>news:IKnowHim-1401040854160001@pm6-20.kalama.com...
>> Sudden Appearences
>>
>> "Each species of mammal-like reptile that has been found appears suddenly
>> in the fossil record and is not preceded by the species that is directly
>> ancestral to it. It disappears some time later, equally abruptly, without
>> leaving a directly decended species."
>> T.S. Kemp. "The Reptiles that Became Mammals," New Scientist, 92-583 Mar
>4, 1982
>>
>> Kemp is a specialist on "mammal-like reptiles and an avowed evolutionist.
>>
>> If you think that there are transitional links extant showing the path of
>> evolution you would be mistaken. Even the experts on evolution say over
>> and over again they do not exist. This places the theroy of evolution in
>> the catagory of unfounded opinion-not reality.
>
>Why would a single gap in our knowledge falsify the Theory of Evolution?

A single gap? That's a misrepresentation.


--

Pastor Dave Raymond

"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16

http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/bryanp/Evolution/Gre.Sci..htm


Alberich
2004-01-14 13:22:55 EST
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 08:54:16 -0800, IKnowHim@leavingsoon.com
(IKnowHimDoYou) wrote:

>Sudden Appearences
>
>"Each species of mammal-like reptile that has been found appears suddenly
>in the fossil record and is not preceded by the species that is directly
>ancestral to it. It disappears some time later, equally abruptly, without
>leaving a directly decended species."
>T.S. Kemp. "The Reptiles that Became Mammals," New Scientist, 92-583 Mar 4, 1982
>
>Kemp is a specialist on "mammal-like reptiles and an avowed evolutionist.
>
>If you think that there are transitional links extant showing the path of
>evolution you would be mistaken. Even the experts on evolution say over
>and over again they do not exist. This places the theroy of evolution in
>the catagory of unfounded opinion-not reality.

Let me simply re-post something first put into talk.origins about four
years ago. (Apparently, that isn't enough time for a Creationist to
do his research.)

***

Okay. Your singling out of the reptile-mammal relationships is a
little
unfortunate since that particular transition happens to be
exceptionally
well-documented in the fossil record and well validated by genetic,
developmental, and morphological studies as well. Take, for example,
the
following fossil genera, going from the Permian clear to the
Cretaceous:
Paleothyris, Protoclepsydrops, Clepsydrops, Archaeothyris, Varanops,
Haptodus, Dimetrodon, Sphenacodon, Biarmosuchia, Procynosuchus,
Dvinia,
Thrinaxodon, Cynognathus, Diademodon, Probelesodon, Probainognathus,
Exaeretodon, Oligokyphus, Kayentatherium, Pachygenelus,
Diarthrognathus,
Adelobasileus, Sinoconodon, Kuehneotherium, Eozostrodon, Morganucodon,
Haldanodon, Peramus, Endotherium, Kielantherium, Aegialodon,
Vincelestes,
Kennalestes, Asioryctes, Cimolestes, Procerberus, and Gypsonictops -
you
remember these, they're all described in the standard texts and in the
t.o. transitions faq. Some more fossils have been described since the
faq
was last updated, but don't worry about those for now. And you
remember
how the fossils all occur in remarkable chronological-morphological
order,
using multiple independent dating methods, right? OK. Now, let's focus
on,
oh, the secondary palate, the maxilla, the lower jaw and the bones
around
the ear. (We'll put aside the gradual changes in tooth form &
replacement,
scapula, limb, pelvis, vertebrae, ribs, etc., just for now.) The
temporal
fenestra, as I'm sure you know, gradually enlarges, culminating with
complete exposure of the braincase dorsally and caudally - and of
course,
that parallels the remodeling of the synapsid reptile multiple jaw
muscles
for mammalian chewing. And of course, the development of the secondary
palate is also indisputable - I mean, just look at the little
protrusions
on the vomers in Biarmosuchia that then fuse in later genera to become
a
small bony palate that then extends further and further back. But to
me,
the most interesting story is the slow, gradual decrease in size of
the
articular and quadrate, and their eventual detachment and shift into
the
mammalian ear, as still occurs in mammalian embryos. Now, just look at
the
articular and quadrate in a crocodile and in a snapping turtle. You
see -
- oh, what's that?
- you don't know what a vomer is? or an articular or a quadrate?
- you've never examined the bones of a turtle's lower jaw?
- and you've never studied the anatomy of *any* of the above
fossils? Hmm, how odd. Really? Huh. From the way you were talking
about
reptiles and primates not showing any real relationship, it
seemed like you were implying that you knew something about vertebrate
biology. Well, why don't you start with these books and articles:

Benton, M.J. 1990. Vertebrate Palaeontology: biology and evolution.
Unwin Hyman, London.

Kemp, T.S. 1982. Mammal-like reptiles and the origin of mammals.
Academic Press, New York.

Kermack, D.M. & Kermack, K.A. 1984. The evolution of mammalian
characters. Croom Helm Kapitan Szabo Publishers, London.
(this is a great little book. Lay readers, start here.)

Rowe, T. 1988. Definition, diagnosis, and origin of Mammalia. J.
Vert. Paleont. 8(3): 241-264.

Szalay, F.S., M.J. Novacek, and M.C. McKenna. 1993. Mammal
Phylogeny,
vols 1 & 2. Springer-Verlag, New York.

Wible, J.R. 1991. Origin of Mammalia: the craniodental evidence
reexamined. J. Vert. Paleont. 11(1):1-28.

Plus you should *thoroughly* read any of the major books on vertebrate
biology or comparative vertebrate anatomy. There are five or six
available; really, any one will do to start with. You can usually
pick up
older editions cheaply at used book stores.

I can also post the brief summary descriptions of the fossils that I
wrote
up for the transitions faq, if you'd like. But be forewarned: it's
heavy
anatomy.

People who *have* studied the above fossils have concluded:
"When sampling artifact is removed and all available character data
analyzed [with computer phylogeny programs that do not assume anything
about occurrence or direction of evolution], a highly corroborated,
stable
phylogeny remains, which is largely consistent with the temporal
distributions of taxa recorded in the fossil record." (Rowe, quoted
in
Szalay et al. 1993)
and
"While living mammals are well separated from other groups of
animals
today, the fossil record clearly shows their origin from a reptilian
stock
and permits one to trace the origin and radiation of mammals in
considerable detail." - P.D. Gingerich, "Patterns of evolution in the
mammalian fossil record", from the 1977 book Patterns Of Evolution As
Illustrated By The Fossil Record (ed. A. Hallam), chapter 15, pp.
469-500.
Elsevier Scientific Pub. Co.

[Hint: In the future, don't pick the reptile-mammal transition to
argue
about. I used to recommend the reptile-bird transition to cheer up
depressed creationists, but gee, we've been finding more fossils from
that
transition recently too. There's some disagreement about turtle
origins,
though; maybe you could try those.]

Better luck next time,
Kathleen
just killing time until her lab volunteer arrives for the evening


Kathleen E. Hunt, Ph.D.
h*t@u.washington.edu
Woodland Park Zoo & University of Washington, Seattle

***

Alberich

Pastor Dave
2004-01-14 13:38:06 EST
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 18:22:55 GMT, Alberich
<*h@NoSpam.com> spake thusly:


>Okay. Your singling out of the reptile-mammal relationships is a
>little
>unfortunate since that particular transition happens to be
>exceptionally
>well-documented in the fossil record

Wrong.


>and well validated by genetic,
>developmental, and morphological studies as well. Take, for example,
>the
>following fossil genera, going from the Permian clear to the
>Cretaceous:
>Paleothyris, Protoclepsydrops, Clepsydrops, Archaeothyris, Varanops,
>Haptodus, Dimetrodon, Sphenacodon, Biarmosuchia, Procynosuchus,
>Dvinia,
>Thrinaxodon, Cynognathus, Diademodon, Probelesodon, Probainognathus,
>Exaeretodon, Oligokyphus, Kayentatherium, Pachygenelus,
>Diarthrognathus,
>Adelobasileus, Sinoconodon, Kuehneotherium, Eozostrodon, Morganucodon,
>Haldanodon, Peramus, Endotherium, Kielantherium, Aegialodon,
>Vincelestes,
>Kennalestes, Asioryctes, Cimolestes, Procerberus, and Gypsonictops -

http://genesismission.4t.com/transition/reptiles-mammals.htm


--

Pastor Dave Raymond

"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16

http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/bryanp/Evolution/Gre.Sci..htm


Elmer Bataitis
2004-01-14 16:42:02 EST
IKnowNothingDoYou wrote:

> Sudden Appearences
> "Each species of mammal-like reptile that has been found appears suddenly
> in the fossil record and is not preceded by the species that is directly
> ancestral to it. It disappears some time later, equally abruptly, without
> leaving a directly decended species."
> T.S. Kemp. "The Reptiles that Became Mammals," New Scientist, 92-583 Mar 4, 1982

Err, this is not what Kemp said. There was no period where you placed it
and he goes on at length about evolution: "Each species of mammal-like
reptile that has been found appears suddenly in the fossil record and is
not preceded by the species that is directly ancestral to it. It
disappears some time later, equally abruptly, without leaving a directly
decended species, although we usually find that it has been replaced by
some new, related species. The concept of punctuated equilibria - which
envisages evolutionary change occurring in a series of jumps, with
relatively little change between - was introduced in 1972 by Niles
Eldredge and Stepen Jay Gould, and accounts for this rather well.
According to this concept, intermediate stages between known species are
not found in the record because most evolutionary change occurs in very
small, geographically isolated parts of the main species population.
Such a peripheral isolate as it is termed can evolve very rapidly, for
three main reasons. It includes only a few individuals; it is isolated
from the main gene pool; and it inhabits an environment different from
that of the rest of the species. The large original population of the
species is at the same time highy susceptible to extinction; because its
population is large its potential rate of evolution is low and therefore
it cannot change quickly in response to a minor change in the
environment. In the course of time, such a species would become extinct
and its place in the habitat would be taken by a related species, newly
developed from one of the peripheral isolates. The fossil record shows
this as the sudden replacement of one species by another within a
lineage, rather than the gradual change of one species into another."

> Kemp is a specialist on "mammal-like reptiles and an avowed evolutionist.
> If you think that there are transitional links extant showing the path of
> evolution you would be mistaken.

Not true, as just a wee bit of reading from your source shows:

"Each of the three phases of synapsid evolution - pelycosaur, therapsid,
and cynodont - shows basically a similar evolutionary pattern..."

And even the subtitle belies this claim:

"Biologists have considered that the fossil record is too incomplete to
contribute in detail to theories of evolution. But the fossil record of
the mammal-like reptiles is certainly convincing - and if taken at its
face value it gives rise to some quite new evolutionary concepts."

And there is a great illustration on the transistions of mammal - like
reptiles over time on page 582.

> Even the experts on evolution say over
> and over again they do not exist.

What they say is that there is really no way to determine exactly what
was the ancestor species and the descendant species. You could only do
that if you had DNA to test. Fossils are usually rock.

> This places the theroy of evolution in
> the catagory of unfounded opinion-not reality.

Heritable genetic change in reproducing populations over time is a fact.

**********************************************************
Elmer Bataitis "Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!"
Planetech Services -Hobbes
585-442-2884
"Proudly wearing and displaying, as a badge of honor,
the straight jacket of conventional thought." - C.
Cagle
**********************************************************

Rogue
2004-01-14 18:42:28 EST
Alberich <Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote in message news:<g52b00dffb0dk0ggqq3g5d8ual1lf152sq@4ax.com>...
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 08:54:16 -0800, IKnowHim@leavingsoon.com

>YM1 (AKA IKnowHowToPlagiarizeOthers)
> >Sudden Appearences(sic)
<snipped intellectually dishonest quote that IDon'tKnowADamnedThing
posted without crediting the cretins at AiG>

> ALBERICH
> Let me simply re-post something first put into talk.origins about four
> years ago. (Apparently, that isn't enough time for a Creationist to
> do his research.)

JERRY
LOL. You are assuming that YM1 does research. This is a man who has
believes Abraham Lincoln was one of the Founding Fathers. He's
basically dumber than dirt and thinks that the rest of the world
around him is as dumb as he is, so he has to "preach" to us in the
newsgroup. He seems to think that this is his personal congregation
and no amount of heckling has made him realize otherwise. ;-)

Dave Oldridge
2004-01-14 19:01:33 EST
I*m@leavingsoon.com (IKnowHimDoYou) wrote in
news:IKnowHim-1401040854160001@pm6-20.kalama.com:

> Sudden Appearences
>
> "Each species of mammal-like reptile that has been found appears
> suddenly in the fossil record and is not preceded by the species that
> is directly ancestral to it. It disappears some time later, equally
> abruptly, without leaving a directly decended species."
> T.S. Kemp. "The Reptiles that Became Mammals," New Scientist, 92-583
> Mar 4, 1982
>
> Kemp is a specialist on "mammal-like reptiles and an avowed
> evolutionist.
>
> If you think that there are transitional links extant showing the path
> of evolution you would be mistaken. Even the experts on evolution say
> over and over again they do not exist. This places the theroy of
> evolution in the catagory of unfounded opinion-not reality.

Yep...the transition in the fossil record is not fine-grained at the
species level. So what? It's still difficult to tell where to draw the
line. It was ultimately drawn arbitrarily based on jaw-to-ear
transitions.

--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667

Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.

Mvillanu
2004-01-14 21:40:54 EST
r*9@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in message news:<6e14bcdc.0401141542.53207edb@posting.google.com>...
> Alberich <Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote in message news:<g52b00dffb0dk0ggqq3g5d8ual1lf152sq@4ax.com>...
> > On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 08:54:16 -0800, IKnowHim@leavingsoon.com
>
[snip]
>
> JERRY
> LOL. You are assuming that YM1 does research. This is a man who has
> believes Abraham Lincoln was one of the Founding Fathers.

If he wasn't a founding father then why is his face on Mount
Rushmore!?!?!?

And speaking of that...how could a natural rock formation like Mount
Rushmore bear such uncanny resemblances to the past presidents? Looks
like Design to me!
Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron