Posted on 02/28/2013 11:45:33 AM PST by EveningStar
An ancient sea predator had a spiraling whorl of teeth that acted as a lethal slicing tool, according to new scans of a mysterious fossil.
Helicoprion was a bizarre creature that went extinct some 225 million years ago.
(Excerpt) Read more at livescience.com ...
How did Noah get it on the Ark?
Ping.
I’m really glad I live today, when humans are at the top of the food chain.
“.....went extinct some 225 million years ago.”
I think it was because of the funny looking jaw.
Toothy Spiral Jaw Gave Ancient Sea Predator an Edge
...went extinct some 225 million years ago.
I’m having a hard time reconciling those two statements.
How did Noah get it on the Ark?
Why would a FISH that lives IN WATER, need to get on a BOAT that goes ABOVE water??????
Maybe Noah also gave fish bycycles to ride around on the poop deck of the U.S.S. Ark.....
Now there's a critter with terminal underbite! He's desperately in need of some chinodontic equipment!
I’m really glad I live today, when humans are at the top of the food chain.
99% of species have gone extinct. If if got near to the top of the food chain and held on for a respectable span, it can be counted as a success. The analogy is a bull rider. An eight second ride is pretty darn good.
Fonzie wouldn’t have survived jumping that sumbitch.
My thoughts exactly. In fact, to take it a step farther ... if evolution “works”, then first you have to reconcile how the mutation occurred in the first place. Supposedly this mutation made life better for progeny, yet they went extinct. If life was getting tougher generation by generation, per evolution, this should have bred OUT of the species. To reach a point of collapse of ANY species is an argument of failure for evolution. I love how this article ends by saying how this awesome killing machine probably lived on squid .... and that makes sense ... there would be NO leverage on a jaw like that to rip or tear anything of substance ... in fact it would be just the opposite. Take on anything with a thick skin and it could snap your jaw off if it swam away.
Filleted and on Ice.
Only some places and times.
Wouldn’t have made it a day past 230 million without the ol’ Makita Mouth.
...went extinct some 225 million years ago.
I’m having a hard time reconciling those two statements.
Toothy spiral jaws aren't very effective against comet impacts.
Perhaps it went extinct because the jaw DID NOT give it an advantage.
If mutations occur and some result in positive adaptations for a species, then it is logical that other mutations cause negatives for a species.
I’m of the school of thinking that believes giraffes did not get taller at 1mm every 1000 years in order to better survive. They got taller and found a way to deal with it, that did not result in the end of the species.
The problem with evolutionary biologists is that they first reject a creator and then to decide that all evolutionary changes must have some “devine” purpose. They can’t have it both ways.
Evolution by mutation isn’t perfection by design, its happy accidents and getting by with what you got.
99% of all species ever discovered are currently extinct. It doesn't mean that they were failures, or failures waiting to happen. Some existed and dominated their niche for millions of years.
“The only known fossils of this animal are the teeth, which were arranged in a fantastic “tooth-whorl” strongly reminiscent of a circular saw. It was not until the discovery of the skull of a related genus of shark, Ornithoprion, that it was realized that the tooth-whorl was in the lower jaw.”
So, once again, these are just-so stories from the evolutionists, assembled out of 1% evidence and 99% imagination.
Of course a trait can be beneficial in some environments, and harmful in others.
One may also recall the fat years and the lean years from Pharoh’s dream in Genesis: During the fat years, all the mutations can survive, and life prospers, a trait that out breeds the competition provides an advantage. A trait that outbreeds the competition may have an opportunity to get more mutations: (1000 animals will see more mutations than 5 animals).
During the lean years, many die. Animals with packages of mutations or that can not adapt their behaviors to live do not survive, or perhaps even die out without issue.
Of course that requires believing in occasional global warming without insisting that humanity causes it. Since weather is chaotic and can bifurcate at any time, that is reasonable from this side of the keyboard.
Or G-d might have buried fossils in the ground to fool us, as a cunning ploy to guide us to oil deposits.
So a cockroach should be at the top of the food chain.?
Nope. Read what I wrote. One criterion is that the species get to or near the top of the food chain. I’ve never seen any evidence that the cockroach brought down a smilodon.
|
|
|
| GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach | |
|
|
Thanks colorado tanker. |
|
|
|
|
You missed the point. If mutations occur because of a particular tendency to mutate, then a species will develop traits that are harmful in all environments.
You appear to be hooked on the "all evolution must be good" kool-aide.
There is no evidence that mutations survive because they are beneficial, there is only the fact that mutations survive because they aren't bad enough to terminate the species.
You should question more of what you have accepted as fact.
I return to the giraffe. There are no short species of giraffe, despite an abundance of ground level food that has kept numerous other competing species around during the same period of time that the giraffe mutated. There are tons of negatives to the giraffe's structure. So why would we think it evolved in order to survive? Far more logical to conclude that it evolved due to a one-way tendency of a given gene to mutate, and the species has survived inspite of the mutation, not because of it.
How is stating that some mutations are harmful a way of saying that all mutations are good?
Of course there is a short species of giraffe. It is not called a giraffe. It is called an Okapi. Both giraffes and Okapis descended from a common ancestor.
A trait that is helpful in one environment may be bad in another. Barriers are very important to understanding evolution, as they permit different living things to interact with their different environment, to change gene frequencies. When barriers change, the opportunities and pressures on species change.
Creationists demand not only special creation of each species but also special delivery to an environment where that species can survive/thrive. By contrast, evolutionist have studied the effect of barriers, or lack of same. Darwin in particular wrote many papers that combined laboratory (or bathtub!!!) study of plant/seed viability, ocean currents as a means of transport, to predict limits of species extent. Then the predicted species extent was compared with traveling botanist’s reports. That combines to a fair approximation of a controlled experiment.
cockroaches probably feasted when a similodon broke its jaw and starved....
All life is grass.
Scavenging is not predation. Cockroaches were never apex predators. This isn’t difficult.
I object to what always appears to be self-fulfilling theories in evolution, e.g.
1. The angler fish evolved a long probe from its head to dangle as bait, with a bit of bio-illumination for good measure.
2. The proof is that the angler fish appears to use the body part as bait and the angler fish isn’t extinct.
Forget the logic behind trying to justify the benefit of such an appendage in its early stages before it was long or bio-illuminate.
The claims made in evolutionary science seem a lot like those made with global warming, where the assertions of causality can take either side of the coin, and are always correct based on the premise that they cannot be proved to be false, e.g.
-If a bird is brightly colored, it is because the bright colors give it an advantage in mating, but if a bird has dull earth tones, it is because those colors camouflage the bird from predators. The proof is that both types exist; producing enough offspring and evading enough predators.
-Tree sloths evolved to be very slow to conserve energy and not attract predators, while monkeys are quick and nimble to evade predators. The proof is that they both exist despite having predators.
I’ve always laughed at archeologists that find a handful of items and immediately begin to fabricate an entire civilization complete with beliefs, motivation, and folklore. Its complete fiction that cannot be proven to be untrue, thus one must accept the experts’ assertions. Questioning the archeologist’s assertions doesn’t mean that I reject that the underlying artifacts actually exist, I just don’t accept the following conjecture as fact.
Biologists should cease trying to ascribe specific reasons for specific evolution when there is no proof (like this article). In all likelihood, some changes (such as height or color) probably are attributed to better surviving changes in the environment, while other changes are likely a genetic quirk that the species manages to use or tolerate. Or there is some genetic mechanism, yet undetermined, that guides mutation.
There are some species, such as the phasmids, that defy mathematical plausibility, falling into the “a trillion monkeys with a trillion typewriters” arena. Even an atheist should have a lot of doubt that such things are purely the result of chance, 400 million years just isn’t enough time. It’s like seeing someone get a straight flush ten times in one night and not questioning how the cards are being shuffled.
Biologists should be open to the possibility that something besides random mutation is at work. In fact, the implausibility of the math should be pushing them to look for it. Just as the implausibility that tadpoles sprang from mud led to further inquiry.
Scientists that refuse to acknowledge incredibly implausible probabilities are no more believable than people who insist that the fossil record isn’t real.
scavenging is not predation, but one can get a bunch of calories from it.
Any particular morphology would be exceedingly unlikely, when seen from the point of view of its predecessors.
But any particular morphology can be seen to be a very likely ancestor, when seen from the point of view of modern man with experience of the species that evolved from that particular morphology.
Yogi Berra said “Predicting is hard, especially about the future.”
Yes but the discussion began about the role of apex predator and scavengers never get that title
I’m certain that if we found a perfectly shaped, full size sailing ship, made from a single piece of quartz, on the moon, that no scientist would conclude it resulted form a series of random events over billions of years.
Yet, the argument that it was just a mathematical oddity, would be the same as what you just presented, i.e. It only seems impossibly complex, because you are looking at the end result.
You demonstrate an enormous amount of faith.
T-Rex did a bunch of scavenging.
if...
Mutations can be random, survival of the fit is less random.
Berra Yogi said...”The past is hard to predict.”
Berra Yogi said...”The past is hard to predict.”
Unproven supposition
Mutations may not be as random as you think, if a gene is predisposed to mutate in a certain way. In fact, we already know this to be the case with certain genes.
Such a mutation could in fact be far more impactful on the gene pool, even if having a net negative impact on survival, than other mutations that provide minute positive impacts on survival. All that is required is that the math be weighted in that mutations favor. If the mutation is a 1/10,000 chance, but only causes 1/100,000 individuals to fail, then it will continue and increase. Scientists shouldn't preclude that every change is an adaptive necessity for survival.
I saw a youtube video of a wild goat of some type. It had unbelievably long horns and was using the tip of its horn to scratch its butt over its back. A handy use of the horns no doubt, but would you conclude that those monstrously long horns were a survival adaptation that came about out of a usefullness for butt scratching? I would not. Yet, biologists would happily conclude that they know the precise purpose that the long horns were evolutionarily adapted for. Perhaps that purpose is no different from the butt scratching, i.e. the goat developed progressively longer horns and found a few good uses for them.
My daughter wrote a paper a few years ago on Z DNA. Genes aren’t necessarily sequential sets of nucleotides.
Probability of survival depends on environment, which changes,
Is that what they think it looked like? Wow!
That biologist would conclude that is an unproven supposition. Further, it is so broad and wrong that it is a strawman you constructed for the purpose of pushing it over.
Glad you don't want to talk about giraffes any more.
You are confused. The fact that such things are unproven supposition, was my thesis, not a strawman for some other argument. The other points I made were examples of why such suppositions should not be presented nor accepted as facts.
What do you have against giraffes?
Your certainty of unknowns, obstinance, and hostility are exactly the nonscientific traits that I'm warning against.
Your assertion that biologists would make such an assertion is unproven.
Your assertion that there is no giraffe with shorter necks is false, as okapi is of the same order.
Your assertion that biologists would make such an assertion is unproven.
Your assertion that there is no giraffe with shorter necks is false, as okapi is of the same order.
I concede the short giraffe. As it was a hastey example, it is hardly a pivotal matter. Some giraffe got taller, some didn't, both survived. Sort of negates the supposed advantages of either. See the total supposition works both ways, and is just as scientific.
You are truly stating that biologists don't make assertions about "why" animals developed certain traits? I guess you've never read a textbook or watched a nature documentary. Again, obstinance raises its ugly head.
If only academia were half as scientific as you claim...
Lets review: Variances arise within a species. During fat times, all survive, so combinations of multiple mutations are possible. Genetic variations are base 4 digital and quantum.
During lean times, natural selection gives some species an advantage. Barriers permit some populations to evolve separately from others, even when they may be initially the same populations. For the Giraffe, the longer neck may have permitted expansion to forested areas.
For Humans the difference between 44 chromosomes for other great apes, and 43 chromosomes for Humans constitutes a significant barrier. Barriers can be geographical, chemical, or biological.
Most biologists say things like “may have permitted”. Journalists and even text book writers sometimes drop the weak suppositions. I would suggest that Science is something done in the field, or at universities (or institutions like the Page Museum, close to where I live). Education is something that is done in schools, with a text book. Propaganda is something that is done openly with a microphone, or silently with the censor’s pen or delete key.
Change "say" to "should say" and that was my entire point. I did not say all biologists are going crazy with suppositions.
Variances arise within a species. During fat times, all survive, so combinations of multiple mutations are possible...During lean times, natural selection gives some species an advantage. Barriers permit some populations to evolve separately from others, even when they may be initially the same populations.
I'm seeing no difference here from what I stated, other than that I hypothesized that some variations may be predisposed to occur in certain species. Those variations might or might not help survival.
It is hard to suppose how the Panda's restricted diet and less than efficient reproduction was ever a plus for survival, yet it is what it is, i.e. it survived. It might be rational to presume that bamboo was plentiful enough, and the reproduction plentiful enough, versus thinking about the Panda having any sort of advantage.
Imagine how tough it would be to be a predator who ate Pandas.
The Lodka Volterra equations relate predator-prey numbers (I used to be a programmer for Dr. Schaefer at Univ of Ariz).
First, there are never enough to support mutations that make predation on Pandas easier. Second, if such a mutation occurred, it would die out after Panda numbers got small.
What else eats bamboo? Little competition could be an advantage, bamboo grows quickly, and the sedentary nature and stored energy permits the Panda to survive periodic reductions in bamboo availability. It is doubtless a vulnerability. A bamboo killing fungus would probably kill the panda too.
By comparison, consider the hoofed rat (aka whitetail deer). It overbreeds, and then starves absent predation. Hunting rules change to adapt to wide variation in its numbers, in an attempt to reduce mass starvation incidents.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.