|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,784 Year: 4,041/9,624 Month: 912/974 Week: 239/286 Day: 46/109 Hour: 0/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Dinos and Men (How do we assess the claims of sources?) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5898 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
John Harshman claims that there were Eocene camelids, e.g. Poebrotherium. Arrrgh, you're right. I mis-spoke. I should have said "llamas didn't exist 35 mya", rather than Camelidae. The split between suborder Tylopoda and the rest of the Artiodactyls occurred around 35 mya. The first known llama-like critter, Hemiauchenia, doesn't appear in N. America until around 3 mya, and the first true llama appears in S. America around 2 mya. Poebrotherium is a very basal camelid that shows up around the Eocene-Oligocene boundary in N. America. Of course, the first "true camel" (Procamelus) doesn't show up until the Late Miocene, so there.
John comments "Well, even-toed ungulates did start out with five toes, as did all mammal groups. The earliest known artiodactyl, Diacodexis, has 5 toes on the front limbs and 4 on the rear." Right, artiodactyls are derived from condylarths which had five toes like everything else. However, all the Tylopoda are even toed, which means that a five-toed-llama would be unusual to say the least.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 194 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
An ancient Mayan relief sculpture of a bird resembling an Archaeoptryx has been found. Interestingly, AIG thinks it's a pterosaur. Can't be easy to identify it unambiguously! From http://groups-beta.google.com/...rigins/msg/344ab897e705c7cd:
quote: More to come ...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5059 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Thanks for showing me what I had wanted to be a professional of.
I do not think that is aeither, and looks ODDLY enough to me gestaltwise to reptiles that are between turtles and snakes to support the same.A baby PTerosaur I saw in the Clemson Museum looked more like this last than the first above and seemed more like a water creature to me. Could they have developed from water swiming babies to flying adults? The stone pic HOWEVER looks awfully familiar, not something I would expect. So authenticity is still and issue for me. I learned very quickly as a teenager to see herps NOT like they were displayed as but in actual photographs. Jurassic Park etc, I can hardly watch with out upchucking. I dont have a clear enough sense of these forms to really say but I wonder whether what are wings might not be bone also?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5898 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
If your correspondant has access to both the Colbert and Honore references, I'd be very interested in reading the full context. Although both references are fairly old, I'm curious as to what they based their contentions on.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 194 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Although both references are fairly old, I'm curious as to what they based their contentions on. Me, too. We'll see what transpires.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 194 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
At Extinct Llamas and Elephants - Village Pets there's a drawing of some pottery with a picure of a llama that might possibly have five toes, with the caption "Five-toed llamas millions of years out of place". In Re: Llamas and toes Emmanuelle Foster writes:
quote: {ellipsis in original - JonF} I'm almost speechless. Could the supposed pottery evidence really be nothing more than a drawing by a no-doubt charming young lady who's never seen anything relevant? I might try to confirm Emmanuelle's report. In Re: Llamas and toes "Augray" writes:
quote: {ellipsis in original - JonF} Hopefully more to come ...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5898 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Thanks Jon. Looks like we were on the right track. T'aint no such critter.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1370 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
The stone pic HOWEVER looks awfully familiar, not something I would expect. So authenticity is still and issue for me. of course the ica stone pics look familiar. we've all seen such pictures of dinosaurs, in old magazines and coloring books and such. but the one you posted is OBVIOUSLY a forgery. how do i know?1. it mixes time periods (triceratops = late cretaceous, stego/sauropods = jurassic) 2. bipedal dinosaurs did not (and COULD NOT) stand upright like that. however, i've seen dozens of books from years gone by with such depictions. it's quite obvious then that artist used one such book/magazine/whatever as a source, and not actual experience with the real animals. look at the cave painting at lascaeux. the animals may be stylized but it's pretty easy to tell (from both and archaeological and artist persepective) that the artists had experience with the animals and observed their actual biological forms. now look at the ica stones in comparison. heck, even jurassic park seems better. they look almost identical the blanket i slept under as a child, with big cartoon primary colored dinosaurs on it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: |
it mixes time periods The idea is that dinosaurs survived into modern times. This makes Jurasic and Cretaceous forms become contemporaneous.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tsig Member (Idle past 2935 days) Posts: 738 From: USA Joined: |
Why is it that creationist works, especially the small web sites but also the major organizations and published books, contain so many errors of fact? I think it's largely because they uncritically copy from each other so often, and sometimes "improve" the story a bit in the copying Copying with improvements, humm. Maybe you have just explained how we got the Bible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1370 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
The idea is that dinosaurs survived into modern times. This makes Jurasic and Cretaceous forms become contemporaneous. *sigh* yes, ned, but. but. oh nevermind.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5059 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Yes I somewhat entered this line of posting somewhat tongue in cheek. But I was impressed by the range of forms in the figurines. If man lived when the giant tail was all man inuited from the cold bloods we can not use our advanced emotive capability on looking at fur etc to bias the shapes our eyes might suggest to reason at. So I will indeed agree that even the forms of figurines are more likely fradulent if you can think in the same provision that the following looks just as specious
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-27-2005 13:03 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1370 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
looks like the work of madness to me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5059 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
OK but I will still continue to argue that Provine is an APOLOGIST for Sheppard.
SheppardNatural Selection and Heredity 1958p 113quote:And looking at the forms of the figurines even though made by an artists' imagination rather than direct perspective on nature was not as erroneous as Provine's reflection on the LACK OF USE of the Wright/Fisher tension which he SUBSEQUENTLY used to argue against the position of Johnson where the carrier of the characters if broad enough needs USE, the difference; not further historicize the biology, between molecular changes and speciation differences, as Gould went (out) with it. Provine Chapter headingsEarly Life and Eduation Castle East and Harvard Harvard USDA and Washington Path COefficients and Animal Breeding Chicago and Physiological Genetics Adaptation and Evolution Wright/Fisher and evo in nature Shifting Balance Wright/Dobshansky and GENETICS in Natural Pops Genetics of natural pop series 1940-1955 WisconSIN. by Univ of Chicago Press What we have in this post is qualitative description ->qualitative statement not Provine's 'turning a consequence' he attempts to maintain neutrally. He failed that as well as me. If he really thought he could go from history to present biology biology would have been better served if he tried to rework Sheppard's "carrier" in modern information technology rather
Sheppard "What is now abundantly clear is that quite small changes in a character can have very large advantages or disadvantages to their carrier, a fact which was not fully realised when Wright first put forward his theory of genetic drift."p113
than NOT DO THIS and go after Johnson instead with a faulty use of Kant's terriTORY after allowing me to be both a carrier in the flesh( attempting to carry ON a tradition Wright and I might have gotten pedegogically from Zeleny) and flunking me so to say. Some day I'll try to dig up the actual fossils that the figurines reminded me of so you can see what shape I actually was thinking of. Why do you think that Provine said that Johnson unlike Darwin would not be in the BOTTOM of the class at Harvard? If he remeberrred I was not graduated, that would be better, but it would be worse in his own bare language. He just wanted a justification for not going to Church on Sunday. So he got rid of dealing with "Mathematical speculations" of Sheppard(same page op cit) by trying to do science USING Mayr's insular comments on bean bags AND accosting Wright on the telephone with modern nonlinear/nonequilibrium thought that Wright never thought much of. And somehow the Cornell faculty accepted that this was biology rather than revisionist history, all at the same time that there are still some people hired by my Grandfather at SUNY Fredonia. My grandfather is well remembered in town as well as at school and he WAS part of the science that Sheppard used to argue against Wright on. There was too much preference for proper English rather than simple differences of anatomy and physiology. Whether the difference of Mayr's form of isolation and my congruence class of figures must be visually the same as in this thread is doubtful. I agree with you on that. Provine wrote that this tension had no effect in biology but in effect since he was the "expert" on it, he has prevented even the tracing back, of this intension (of mine) and probably others. The opposed views of creation and evolution are broad enough that it is maddening to see how narrow was the extreme proper characters subject the trait to. Current molecular work is proving that this information can come out of the lab as well as the field. That I do prefer it fielded is why I had an open mind on seeing something in the link that looked like it broadend the external exploration rather than internal hermenutic but that is my how I like to be classified subjectively only. This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-27-2005 12:56 AM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024