The problem is we can't find any aquatic ocean attached environments where whales are not present so all the areas are represented. So there are not areas A and areas B for a wide difference in form. We may see some different whale and dolphin species, but the basic forms are present everywhere.So you don't have different areas.

That's incorrect. Ancient bison and Triceretops shared the same ecological nich. They roamed in large herds grazing on grasslands along with many other generations of sauropode that also filled the same niche.The way a Niche works is that only a few creatures get to fill it and compete for resources. You can't have dozens of dozens of species in the same area eating the same thing as all the other creatures do. You would have total breakdown.Check out Australia and the introduction of Rabits:
Rabbits in Australia - WikipediaWhen Rabbits were introduced to australia they totaly f*ked up the ecology:

quote:

---

The effect on the ecology of Australia was devastating. One eighth of all mammalian species in Australia are now extinct (rabbits are the most significant known factor), and the loss of plant species is unknown even at this time.

​

Huge areas of land in Australia have been cleared by tractors pulling chains in order to prepare the land for agricultural purposes. The rabbits easily thrived on the cleared land, and their population boomed.

​

Rabbits are also responsible for serious erosion problems as they eat native plants which would have retained soil. Some of this erosion may also be the result of settlers clearing much of Australia's land for farming and housing.

---

You can't just make a blanket statement that they "could all just live together", when all the evidence is that they couldn't. Ecosystems are very fragile and anything like the mass mingling of creatures you are suggesting would quickly upset it. This is irrelivant to the conversation as I have already conceeded to you that the ToE is a load of horse crap. Agreed, sure. No, I conseeded ToE. It's not part of the discussion. How else did they get there since we both agree that ToE didn't happen, and that new creatures are definetly comming about.your maxim: "if we don't see it in the fossil record at a given time, it probably wasn't there."So whats your alternative solution to this problem?This message has been edited by Yaro, 11-10-2005 04:15 PM

Feel free to take this over to the new topic, if it gets promoted. Yaro has asked that we 'take it outside' (so to speak).

OK, let's put this to the test. Deer also roam about, right? How about moose? cattle? horses? bear (though not just grasslands?, lions? elephants? sheep? etc,....Are you claiming that because bison lived in the North American grasslands that no other grazing species could co-exist on the same earth?I guess all the deer, catttle, sheep, moose, horses, elephants, giraffes, lions, etc,...don't exist.Nuff said on that point.On the other point, I specifically mentioned ID as seeming to be the most plausible alternative at present.

No, I am saying that Bison, triceretops, predecessors of triceretops, etc. All roamed the North american grassland. If they coexistd. All those species had to compeat for resources on the grassland.ABE: also keep in mind that there were similar numbers of bison and triceretops. So we are talking MASSIVE populations of grazers. If rabbits can erode australia, immagine what hords of giant grass eaters would do.You can apply similar scenarious to the other species you mentioned. And do read the article on australia and rabbits as it is highly relevant.Anyway, I thought we agreed that there were differenet groups of animals at different times. That was the "maxim" So lets adress the rest of my previous post.ABE: Explain what kind of ID, cuz there must have been new species comming into existance at different points in time as old species died off. If this is the case, what mechanism introduces the new species?This message has been edited by Yaro, 11-10-2005 04:26 PMThis message has been edited by Yaro, 11-10-2005 04:28 PM

Hi, WW, the trouble started when those predators ambled off the ark and started looking around for their first meals.

Not a completely fair comparison.The problem is not just that rabbits eat grass and other vegetation. The problem for Australia is the lack of natural enemies to control the rabbit population.

Alright, fair enugh.Although I ment it as a general example of how fragile ecosystems are and how easy they can be destabalized.If your gonna say all the animals coexisted at one point you are going to have to expline how HUGE groups of bison and HUGE groups of triceretops didn't eat the landscape dry.I mean, we are talking about a hebivore army here. Overgrazing happens all the time on farms, were talking overgrazing on a world wide scale here.I think you see where I'm going with this. It's clearly an impossibilty that all those crits coexisted. Randman has accepted that point, so I would like to move the discussion on as to what mechanisim brings about new critters every few thousand years or so.

*bump*

deer are eaten by mountain lions

Samuel, Beth, samyy, Mitt, susan, whoever you are, stop these annoying nonsense posts. We've been through this several times before. One more such post and we will ban this registration as well.

​

This message has been edited by AdminJar, 11-11-2005 11:25 AM

So?This message has been edited by Yaro, 11-11-2005 09:07 AM

bumpitty bump

The fact bison grazed the North American grassland does not negate the fact other creatures grazed other grasslands.Got it?In terms of explaining theoritical mechanisms for ID, I think we would have to get into physics and see what is physically possible, the nature of information specifically within QM and GR and physics in general, the entanglement phenomenon, etc,....I would be glad to get into all of that.Ned has threatened to ban me if I discuss these issues on the BiologicalEvo forum, but perhaps it is suffice to say, I believe modern physics indicates an ID mechanism present, and one that we ourselves may be able to harness and employ as well in direct engineering of reality.Unfortunately, there is a lot of contention about certain physics discoveries, especially once they are applied to ID.

Why don't you start the topic then, with your first post being your suggestion as to how those subjects could possibly suggest a mechanism for ID? I'd be curious to see what you come up with, not that I in any way see what you could be getting at.

I've posted about this in the past. You can look on some of the physics threads, or some old ID threads.Basically, Ned said he would ban me, and I've been banned before. So unfortunately, the topic is more or less off-limits for the EVC.I think there was someone else that listed some similar ideas on a Proposed topic, but the mods wouldn't take it up. A couple of us asked to have it released, but no luck.If you google "entanglement", you can find some references to experimenters that beleive that it can hold the key to explaining how life began. Not sure if that means ID, but it sort of seems in that direction.You may want to read up on some of John Wheeler's ideas. He argues that physical states do not exist as any one state until observed, and then definite form occurs. I think the best way to describe what physical things are is information which has the ability to and does manifest into a physical form. John Wheeler was and is a giant in the field of physics, now retired from teaching, but active still.This message has been edited by randman, 11-11-2005 02:10 PM