New Dinosaur Species Found in India

AP ^ | August 13, 2003 | RAMOLA TALWAR BADAM

[Lurking Libertarian]

2001?

[Ichneumon]

The poster affectionately known as Mr. LLLICHY wrote: Guinea pigs are not primates.

That's a repeat -- I don't recall that anyone has claimed that they are. That seems rather a gratuitous thing to announce twice.

gra·tu·i·tous    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (gr-t-ts, -ty-)
adj.

1. Given or granted without return or recompense; unearned.
2. Given or received without cost or obligation; free.
3. Unnecessary or unwarranted; unjustified: gratuitous criticism.

---

[From Latin grtutus. See g^wer-² in Indo-European Roots.]

---

Your attention please: Cars are not waffles. Repeat, cars are not waffles. Further bulletins as events warrant.

[LLLICHY:] 20,000,000 plus 50,000,000 is 70,000,000 years not 50,000,000. Neither is it 100,000,000 years,

Finally, something I hope everyone can agree on. And cars *still* aren't waffles, in case anyone was concerned.

[LLLICHY:] but it is a long time for a segment of DNA to go with absolutely no mutations when right next door(less than 9 bases) there are multiple hits including on animals with a conserved gene.(and of course the noteworthy primate deletion).

"Long" in what sense, I wonder.

It is not a "long time" for an arbitrary segment (of unspecified shortness) of DNA to remain unaltered by a mutation which has become fixed in the population. Statistically, given the known rate of neutral mutation fixation, it's just about the right amount of time.

Furthermore, it looks as if someone is forgetting that the rate of fixation is not the same thing as the rate of mutation. That "segment" of DNA may well have undergone an uncorrected mutation once or more in the past in that lineage (in fact, it can be shown to be likely) only to have neutral drift wash it back out (which is much more likely than fixation for neutral mutations), resulting in no net change and someone gasping over the unremarkable fact that not *all* DNA in a pseudogene has managed to fix to a different basepair.

Oddly enough, not all U-238 atoms have decayed yet either, even though the one only 9 atoms over may have. *gasp*.

[Junior]

Placemarker.

[DittoJed2]

First, I didn't post the article. I defended its rights to be heard. Second, I think you need to go back to your cave until you can learn to dialogue with more civility. You are just shooting off your mouth and hollaring at folks without knowing what it is you are criticizing.

[DittoJed2]

Some fish are kinds. If they can produce offspring together, they are kinds. If they can't, they aren't. There is a limit as to how much interbreeding can be allowed.

[DittoJed2]

I have no idea what mechanism just as scientists have no idea what mechanism limits genetic mutations today. Theologically, God built things so that they would stay confined to a certain amount of change, no more. It's called order, and he really did not appreciate when man would lie with some other species (as in the imaginary part ape-man).

[Ichneumon]

Some fish are kinds. If they can produce offspring together, they are kinds. If they can't, they aren't.

Then how do you explain ring species?

[balrog666]

First, I didn't post the article. I defended its rights to be heard. Second, I think you need to go back to your cave until you can learn to dialogue with more civility. You are just shooting off your mouth and hollaring at folks without knowing what it is you are criticizing.

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA! You are the one needing a cave, troll!

I understand exactly what I post. You, on the other hand, have already demonstrated that you have no interest in a discussion, debate, or dialogue; that you don't understand the posts you link; can't defend them; and don't really seem to know why you post them. You can't understand the replies you engender or why nobody cares that you post the same rebutted link time after time.

You may enjoy living in ignorance but I think you just need to get a life.

[DittoJed2]

I believe your assessment of Behe is correct. He sees nature as something more than random chance and postulates that it appears to have a design to it. I believe he probably leans towards theistic evolution. It doesn't mean he doesn't have something valuable to say if he isn't a YEC any more than it doesn't mean that biologists who are evolutionists can't say meaningful things either. I just wish the same professional courtesy were afforded to YEC scientists.

[Ichneumon]

I have no idea what mechanism

And yet you claim there *is* one. What specific evidence do you have for that?

just as scientists have no idea what mechanism limits genetic mutations today.

You are mistaken. Scientists do know what "mechanism[s] limits genetic mutations". They also know that there is no mechanism which prevents mutations from accumulating beyond a certain "limit".

[Ichneumon]

While you have some valid points, I think the nature of your presentation has escalated into the territory of being abusive.

[Ichneumon]

I made no claims for accuracy, just a desire that someone not just dismiss something based on what someone else's paper said at some time past.

But what if that's the same thing their paper says today? The AiG release links to the papers themselves:

http://www.icr.org/research/icc03/pdf/Helium_ICC_7-22-03.pdf

http://www.icr.org/research/icc03/pdf/RATE_ICC_Baumgardner.pdf

These are exactly the papers we critiqued earlier. They have not been updated.

The Creationists may not have rebutted that paper, or they may have.

They haven't.

We haven't read their work.

We have.

So, to dismiss it outright is the epitomy of bias, exhibits bad faith, and is frankly arrogant.

You seem to be making some bad faith, biased presumptions there yourself.

These men are not just Joe Schmoe off the street without any kind of understanding of science at all.

Remember what I told you before about credentials?

They deserve to be heard.

They have been.

[DittoJed2]

First, I thank you for posting a definition of what I am supposed to not understand. What you posted is exactly what I understood evolution to be postulating. This version varies of course slightly with other versions of how evolution allegedly occurred, but I think this is a pretty good summation. Thank you again.

OK. Evolution (in biology) means that a population changes over time. This change happens during the reproduction process of the individuals this population consists of. So you get offspring that has a mix of its parents genetic material plus some mutations which always occur to some extent. Some of these new configurations can produce individuals that are better suited to their environment than their parents or their siblings, so they have higher chances to procreate and on average they also have more offspring.
Up to hear I agree.

Over time the genetic makeup of this population can change considerably.
I fall off track here. Significant mutations of the kind postulated by evolutionists are not seen. The genetic makeup of an ape does not eventually over any number of years make a man. The specific "this is a man" element is missing from his make up.

So if you had a specimen from the current population and one from the ancestor population and compared them, it can make sense to assign them to two different species.
Species, being a man-made classification.

Of course a population can also split up, and the two (or more) groups get reproductively isolated.
No matter what variation in human population you see, a pigmy is still as much of a man as a North American scientist. You are not going to get the kind of change you are reaching for.

This means that changes that arise in one group are no longer shared with the other group(s).
According to the hypothesis which said that they shared reproductive capability before.

Usually these subpopulations are exposed to different environmental conditions which means that natural selection affects them in different ways.

If they stay isolated long enough,
How long is 'long enough'?

it can happen that they changed so much that they don't recognize each other as potential mates. This can be nicely observed in ring species where the two populations at the end of the 'ring' don't recognize each other (here is a nice illustration of a warbler ring species).
Assuming they were genetically fit to reproduce with the comparison species to begin with.

[DittoJed2]

You are referring to an article on ICR's website from July, and one on Helium specifically. I'm not sure that this is what AIG is referring to. Not sure it's not either. They did not post the paper they are referring to online,just a summary on it. I know some of the PhDs involved in the Helium issue have posted rebuttals, but the latest rebuttal I have seen is from 2002. Still, with only a summary report, we really aren't certain that this is the same report as the July report (and it seems indeed odd that it would be since AIG trumpeted this as breaking brand new information). So, remaining cautiously skeptical would have been a better tact than to denounce a paper that you aren't 100% sure you have seen.

[DittoJed2]

$94! Sheesh!

[DittoJed2]

I want to know 1)where did those huge dinosaurs come from all the sudden, and 2) How come there is evidence of man all over the fossil record where he isn't supposed to exist (tools, bones, etc.,)

[DittoJed2]

I want to know 1)where did those huge dinosaurs come from all the sudden, and 2) How come there is evidence of man all over the fossil record where he isn't supposed to exist (tools, bones, etc.,)

[DittoJed2]

You read A paper. You don't know you read the one that AIG is talking about because they just announced this as breaking today. It may NOT be the same paper.

[DittoJed2]

I did read the article, did NOT assume that the scientists that were being referred to were giving up evolution, and still thought it was a very rational and reasonable assessment of what was said.

[DittoJed2]

That should have read "I read the post"

Furthermore, for some perspective check out this web page on The Imminent Demise of Evolution. Creationists have been continuously predicting that evolution was about to come crashing down any day now since 1840... That page contais quotes predicting the crash of evolution from 1840, 1850, 1878, 1895, 1903, 1904, 1905, 1912, 1922, 1929, 1935, 1940, 1961, 1963, 1970, 1975, 1976, 1980, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002. But surely, they're finally right *this* time, eh?
And "Creationists predicting the demise of evolution" proves what? I don't see how it gives perspective on anything other than to throw up a red herring and poison the well a bit about creationism. I think it was Voltaire who predicted the demise of Christianity some time ago too, but how is that relevant to either Enlightenment philosophy or to the validity of Christianity. It's irrelevant.