Neanderthals

quote:

---

"Here's a question for you. A carcass was discovered that was 33 feet long, the length of a particular species of basking shark, found in in those waters. It's decay pattern is consistent with it being a shark. The tissue samples show a protein found only in sharks, & heavily lean to a basking shark origin. The number of cervical vertebrae, ~7, is consistent with it being a shark. Plesiosaurs have many more. Fin rays were evident. Fin rays are only found on fish, plesiousaurs have bony phalanges similar to whales. The ribs were 16" long, too short for ANY marine animal that size, living or dead, except sharks.

​

What is the likeliest explanation, the carcass was a shark, probably a basking shark, or a marine reptile not seen for 65 million years?"

---

Why do I quote this? Becuase it's too good to only be posted once!

Yes, I made an erroneous claim. I thought I had remembered DNA testing but I remembered wrong. Sorry to be misleading.On the other hand, protien analysis is as damning as DNA would have been. It's a basking shark because it has unique shark protiens.

I think you can. What possible interest would Japanese fishermen have in covering up evidence to "protect" evolution? What could possibly motivate them to do so?Furthermore, the fact that they threw it back - suggesting a lack of interest - is evidence against it being a marine reptile. I mean, we can assume fishermen have at least a passing familiarity with ocean life. If they thought the carcass was simply a rotting shark, isn't it reasonable to assume they know what they're talking about?If the fisherman had thought it was an important living fossil (well, not quite living), wouldn't they have kept it?

Okay Okay, you guys win, I'm done here. I guess I have no choice but to jump on board with you guys. I mean you guys are right, the fisherman woulnd't be interested in catching something that appears to be an unknown sea monster (whether it was or not).... The fisherman just worried about the fish... Not fame or rewards that or anything that would come with discovering something potentially huge... Nope, gotta get those fish, so you're right, it's logical that they dumped it over board. Especially because it was huge enough in Japan that they even put it on stamps and everything, but no a couple of fisherman didn't find it all that fascinated, they'd definitely throw it overboard, you're right. And I'm glad you point out that you can't compare the bones because they were thrown overboard, but you want to claim to know the munber of vertebrae, etc. etc. You're right, you know from a couple pictures "facts" on it's decay patterns and about tissue samples, of course. But it's cool, don't worry about acknowledging the full findings of scientists who studied the tissue, etc.... Don't worry about that, no one needs to know that. Just tell everyone the only way you can explain it is a basking shark, that'll be a lot easier. I mean, you know everything that happened millions of years ago, so why should this be any different. Whatever, you guys spin everything like a top and I don't have time to keep responding because there are like 5 of you and I just simply need to do more work than argue with you. I'm sure you guys will be happy congratulating each other. Drink that cool aid folks... Drink it up.

Yeah, I though Mark24's post was pretty much unanswerable myself!

rabair Are you illiterate?The tissue samples showed on more than one level that the carcass was a shark. Where, WHERE, do analyses based on the tissue samples say anything else?They threw the fucker overboard coz it was a worthless smelly shark carcass.You are an expert in advocacy, you really should consider politics where your rhetoric can reign supreme. Unfortunately, this is science, & it is evidence based, & not rabairs-incredulity-in-the-face-of-evidence-based. You haven't made a single rebuttle based on the scientific findings of experts & well established techniques, do you wonder why no one is taking you seriously? The ENTIRE body of evidence, even the photographs, point to a shark carcass. Upon close examination, there isn't a single fact that would lead anyone to conclude a plesiousaur had been discovered.I ask again:"Here's a question for you. A carcass was discovered that was 33 feet long, the length of a particular species of basking shark, found in in those waters. It's decay pattern is consistent with it being a shark. The tissue samples show a protein found only in sharks, & heavily lean to a basking shark origin. The number of cervical vertebrae, ~7, is consistent with it being a shark. Plesiosaurs have many more. Fin rays were evident. Fin rays are only found on fish, plesiousaurs have bony phalanges similar to whales. The ribs were 16" long, too short for ANY marine animal that size, living or dead, except sharks.What is the likeliest explanation, the carcass was a shark, probably a basking shark, or a marine reptile not seen for 65 million years?"In other words, what evidence makes you think a plesiosaur carcass was discovered rather than a shark. In case I'm not being clear, produce evidence that a plesiosaur carcass was discovered that is better than the multiple lines of evidence pointing to a shark carcass. We both know you can't, so why are you still claiming it's a plesiosaur? The fact is, you are claiming something that is contradicted by LOT's of evidence, & I'm left asking myself why.Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

Mark,
Listen... You're clearly angry... I don't know what posses you to fly off the handle in that last post if as you say that no one is taking me seriously. And if they aren't, then why didn't everyone just ignore me. Everytime I get on here there is someone else on your side trying to tell me I'm stupid. I spend so much time trying to argue stupid side things and mis-representations of what I said, I can't even get into the real issues half the time. I'm done posting here, and I know you think it's cuz you won... But again, I say, I just don't have time for this... I can't keep coming on and having people pick and choose things I say, and lie and spin them, and outright make things up, it's just becoming such a huge waste. I started off with someone using their whole post to call me basically a christian bible based idiot, when I'd never even mentioned anything religion or christian related. You people just lash out instead of really answering questions posed, so I'm done. And by the way Mark24, did I ever claim that it was a Plesiosaur... You people are so angry you like to put things on people that really aren't there. You wanna act like I've been just saying "Oh it's a Plesiosaur, it's defintely a Plesiosaur".... I've just wanted you to prove it wasn't, which from what I've read elsewhere isn't provable. I would like to show you numerous places where the evidence shows inconclusiveness, but I don't want to continue this debate because you people hardly ever want to stick to the issue. Believe me I want to, but every half hour I come on here and have 2 or 3 of you spouting off about me saying this or that, instead of getting to the issues. I'm not saying you never do, and that you don't have a right or some "evidence" to believe in, but it's few and far between when you like to bring it out. I'm out.....

So...how about answering the question that Mark asked, I repeated, then Mark repeated? Does it need to be posted a 4th time?

rabair, I'm angry? Did you read your last but one post?Regardless. What is frustrating for me, is that you have ignored the same request twice, the exercise of which forces you to critically analyse the evidence. You have failed to refute any of the experts findings, all of which, without exception, point to the carcass being a shark.I'll ask again:"Here's a question for you. A carcass was discovered that was 33 feet long, the length of a particular species of basking shark, found in in those waters. It's decay pattern is consistent with it being a shark. The tissue samples show a protein found only in sharks, & heavily lean to a basking shark origin. The number of cervical vertebrae, ~7, is consistent with it being a shark. Plesiosaurs have many more. Fin rays were evident. Fin rays are only found on fish, plesiousaurs have bony phalanges similar to whales. The ribs were 16" long, too short for ANY marine animal that size, living or dead, except sharks.What is the likeliest explanation, the carcass was a shark, probably a basking shark, or a marine reptile not seen for 65 million years?" Spurious objection. The point is you cannot refute any of the evidence, nor can you present any of your own, yet you refuse to accept the intellectual consequences of this - changing your mind, God forbid. Tell them that, I'm only interested in what you can logically rationalise. I never called you a "christian bible based idiot". Don't post to them, if that's the case. I think you'll find I have gone to far more trouble finding information & answering questions than you, why is that you are "done", & not me?In fact, & I stand to be corrected, you haven't answered one of my questions. Actually irrelevant. The subsequent discussion was about the evidential relative merits of the plesiosaur/basking shark cases. What you were claiming that it more closely resembled a plesiosaur than a shark & that this in some way presented a problem: The ball is in your court, & you can't complain of how I would react to you presenting evidence because you have yet to start.Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

you are aware if it was a Plesiosaur. It wouldn't disprove evolution right? it wouldn't even shake it a bit.....
anyway You are aware relatives of prehistoric animals live today? Crocs, fish, sharks etc....
Plesiosaur is actually a name Given to many Sea reptiles of the Mesozoic its not a specific Species like Tyrannosaurus or Spinosaurus...

'I don't know how much you may enjoy my posts to you, Mike'I like your posts also Schrafinator, I guess I was a bit quick to say we are the 'only ones' to enjoy each others posts.'Remember what I said about how you are special?'yes, likewise.lol.

If I am truely the sorce of your attitude AND I have hindered your search for answers (you have some good questions by the way), then I will not post anymore. I made the mistake of assumming (for which I apologized profusely) and again, I apologize. The last thing I want to do is piss off someone who is honestly seeking to learn. Christ, forgive me for lying! I am obviously illiterate and a bad poster. Yes, I guess I am a hypocrite and I will not be taken seriously which is why I am trying to gracefully bow out from posting again. I did wronfully assume and label you as a religious fanantic; I must have read your posts with that assumption in mind. It appears that I have a great deal of growing up to do. Yes, you made your point about absolutes. I am an uneducated idiot that thought absolutes only existed in math. Please try to understand that the context of that post was my poor attempt to explain (which you already know) that within science, absolutes are few and far between. But this is pointless.
I have learned a great deal from this forum; many people here have answered my questions, and I sincerly apologize if I have offended anyone as I have offended rabair. I never intended to come off as conscending or belittling; nor did ever intend to put someone else down regardless of their beliefs. I only hope that I haven't turned someone away from seeking knowledge on this forum. My apologies to the site admins and the others involved in making this a fair and equal site.
Rabair, if you are reading this, I really do hope that you will accept my apologies, and at the risk of causing someone to have an aneurysm, I will not post anymore. I don't think that I've contributed much to any of the conversations anyway.[This message has been edited by Pogo, 09-04-2003][This message has been edited by Pogo, 09-04-2003][This message has been edited by Pogo, 09-04-2003]

The last time any trace of the subject of this topic was detected was message 63.AM

Yeah, maybe it (the thread) should be closed, eh? It appears that Rabair is spreading the sunshine of his love elsewhere See Here.
You know, it seems like I tucked my tail and ran, but the truth is I really thought that I ticked him off; for that I felt pretty bad. But after reading every post that this person has made, it is clear that I was not at fault. Sure, I "accused" him of being a creationist (anti-evolutionist) and guess what? I was right! I was interested in knowing where he was comming from, because if he is denouncing the validity of primative man, then he must be able to at least defend what he does believe. And if you recall, I did not even get involved in the discussion until (post 52) after his question(s) was answered, from various people, taking great pains to be thorough and to the point. I made the judgment of assuming that he was a victim of Chick Tracks(I was)and or of Hovind....for which I apologized.
Anyway, I will be more careful the next time I post and more respectful.
Thanks!

"This sentence is language but not speech." Simply reading it makes it true.Say it aloud and it becomes a lie.H. erectus may have had the rudiments of language, but may have been unable to communicate via speech as we know it.At any rate, Neanderthals may not have disappeared if you understand the Multi-Regional Hypothesis.------------------
Bringer of fire, trickster, teacher.