budlover13
King Tut
Ad Hominem. There are more eloquent ways to express the exact same opinion.
Read this thread. The whole thread.
https://www.rollitup.org/toke-n-talk/428887-petition-change-insult-rule-malicious.html
Why Is The Bible So Revered As The "Word of GOD"?
- Thread starter RyanTheRhino
- Start date
- Status
Read this thread. The whole thread.
https://www.rollitup.org/toke-n-talk/428887-petition-change-insult-rule-malicious.html
BrotherBuz
Active Member
Dodging, running, you don't know what you believe-talking in circles again.
budlover13
King Tut
Actually, it is call analytical, logical, critical thinking.
KlosetKing
Well-Known Member
I also asked you this, as well as why some of them were banned from the bible, and you have yet to answer. How do you respond instead?
And im the dodger? LOL.He' just running and dodging-very typical of of klosetking-runs in his family.
KlosetKing
Well-Known Member
Lol. Even more quality debate! His post was garbage, as pointed out by other people already. No game-over dude, just bad grammar and poor writing style.
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
Dude, why do you insist on claiming everyone is dodging and running when you have failed to answer about 90% of the questions posed to you in response to your posts?
You are the King of avoidance. I guess this it what the psychologists call transference.
budlover13
King Tut
Red Herring. When you hold an untestable, unprovable opinion and are entering debate, it is SOMETIMES effective short-term to change the topic. Concruent with his circular logic.
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
It's more than a red herring when he continually accuses others of what he does himself. The fact is that neither KK, gingawarrior, or I have avoided any of his claims and have taken them head-on. He, OTOH, has avoided just about every post that gives evidence that he is full wrong and refuses to even acknowledge those. He acts exactly like a troll, yet I think he actually believes his own delusions.
BrotherBuz
Active Member
^^^ You obviously don't have a concept of transitional links. As I said before, I'm not talking about fully developed skulls; instead small graduations in skeletal formation is the definition of transitions - do you get it?
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
This is ridiculous. I have a very good concept of what a transitional link is. It appears that you do not.
Did you read the FAQ or watch the videos? They do show gradual changes of skeletal features from one species to the next. For example, the reptile-mammal transitions show a steady movement of the bones of the jaw become the inner ear. Interestingly, we see the basal form of the reptiles and mammals, the early synapsids transition into both the diapsid reptiles and the therapsids which include mammals. We have fossils from not only all of the branches but also the earlier parent forms.
Why exactly would fully developed skulls not fit the definition of intermediates? Each animal must have a skull and it better be fully formed if it was to live. There are many bones in the skull, it isn't just a big single bone. There are significant differences (as well as similarities) in the skulls of animals that allow us to categorize them taxonomically, even if we don't have the whole skeleton.
It is the combination of similarities along with the differences that define a transition. It is not up to you to provide the definition of transitional forms, it is up to the biologists. However, I am curious what you think would be a good example of a transitional form. Pick any transition you like, fish to amphibian, reptile to bird, reptile to mammal, land mammal to whale, or whatever, and explain what exactly what you think would be a defining characteristic of a transitional form. If you are unable to even provide a clear example, how would you know when you come across one? If you watched the videos, you would have seen examples of transitionals that were predicted to be part of the fossil record and then later examples were found, confirming the links between two different clades.
Do you get it?
BrotherBuz
Active Member
^^^ Show me a transitioning amphibian pelvis bone, since it’s needed for being upright. As I said before, I'm not talking about fully developed skulls or skeletons; instead small graduations in skeletal formation are what we are looking for.
KlosetKing
Well-Known Member
Exactly. you dont want hard evidence that shows the transition in thousands of species across the entire board of organisms. You want small, almost impossible to find details of things that for all intents and purposes would not have continued because they did not help, or even hindered, the lifeform. Therefore there wouldnt have been very many 'transitional fossils' (at least your definition) to find.
In 2004, three American palaeontologists, Neil Shubin, Edward Daeschler and Farish Jenkins, came across a group of Tikataalik roseae fossils.
Tikataalik roseae is a ‗transition species‘ between primitive fish and the earliest amphibians, which lived in the Devonian period. Jenny Clack (another palaeontologist who specializes in fish evolution) said, ―the fossil combines features of fish and tetrapods such that it fits perfectly between the two.
There are plenty others, that describe how fish transitioned to apmhibians, and how amhibians became landwalkers. There are so many obvious links you want to block it out, and you choose specific examples to defend your case (such as the pelvis).
What is even funnier about it, is how you use the same tactic to defend your book. Choosing one small example and claiming it represents cohesiveness (reference earlier debate about 'Sphere').
mccumcumber
Well-Known Member
Ah I thought this thread died sorry.
To clarify. I'm pretty sure archaeologists dug this up (and by pretty sure I mean 100% positive) and the soil that the dug up around dated back to 25000 BCE.
To clarify. I'm pretty sure archaeologists dug this up (and by pretty sure I mean 100% positive) and the soil that the dug up around dated back to 25000 BCE.
KlosetKing
Well-Known Member
Seeing as how there is already evidence of housing and tools around that time, your number is far off. For it to be a fossil of relative age it would have to be around 300m years old.
If you can find a link to an article or something that mentions that fossil though, please do provide it. But remember we are trying to keep this factual, and leave out the anecdotes. As far as i can tell, your statement is as inaccurate as his are.
mccumcumber
Well-Known Member
I never said it was a fosil so I don't know where you going with this.
It was an art piece that was made in 25000 BCE
Brother Buzz said that there was no evidence of humans 5000 years ago, I begged to differ.
It was an art piece that was made in 25000 BCE
Brother Buzz said that there was no evidence of humans 5000 years ago, I begged to differ.
KlosetKing
Well-Known Member
My apologies, I thought you were referring to the 'pelvis' that he was asking for.
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
What exactly do you think the amphibian transitioned into? Humans are the first animal with a pelvis for walking upright. Amphibians are basal to reptiles. Here's some of the transitions from amphibian to reptiles--
The major functional difference between the ancient, large amphibians and the first little reptiles is the amniotic egg. Additional differences include stronger legs and girdles, different vertebrae, and stronger jaw muscles. For more info, see Carroll (198
and Gauthier et al. (in Benton, 198 - Proterogyrinus or another early anthracosaur (late Mississippian) -- Classic labyrinthodont-amphibian skull and teeth, but with reptilian vertebrae, pelvis, humerus, and digits. Still has fish skull hinge. Amphibian ankle. 5-toed hand and a 2-3-4-5-3 (almost reptilian) phalangeal count.
- Limnoscelis, Tseajaia (late Carboniferous) -- Amphibians apparently derived from the early anthracosaurs, but with additional reptilian features: structure of braincase, reptilian jaw muscle, expanded neural arches.
- Solenodonsaurus (mid-Pennsylvanian) -- An incomplete fossil, apparently between the anthracosaurs and the cotylosaurs. Loss of palatal fangs, loss of lateral line on head, etc. Still just a single sacral vertebra, though.
- Hylonomus, Paleothyris (early Pennsylvanian) -- These are protorothyrids, very early cotylosaurs (primitive reptiles). They were quite little, lizard-sized animals with amphibian-like skulls (amphibian pineal opening, dermal bone, etc.), shoulder, pelvis, & limbs, and intermediate teeth and vertebrae. Rest of skeleton reptilian, with reptilian jaw muscle, no palatal fangs, and spool-shaped vertebral centra. Probably no eardrum yet. Many of these new "reptilian" features are also seen in little amphibians (which also sometimes have direct-developing eggs laid on land), so perhaps these features just came along with the small body size of the first reptiles.
ChubbySoap
Well-Known Member
Hynerpeton have more advanced legs and pelvic girdle than Ichthyostega as well.... (Carroll, 1996, p. 19) The coronoid fangs are not present. It lacked internal gills (Daeschler et al, 1994, p 641). The shape of the pectoral girdle implies both an aquatic and a terrestrial lifestyle. Hard to miss really...
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
This is the part that you haven't made clear. What kind of transition do you think doesn't have a fully developed skeleton besides invertebrates? Small changes are exactly what we are showing you. It appears you expect partially formed parts or something. Your posts indicate that you don't understand what qualifies for a transitional form, which is anything intermediate between two clades, i.e. have characteristics of more than one.
BrotherBuz
Active Member
^^^ Actually, your dodging and running again, which is typical of you. You said that you would provide, so where is it? lol lol
- Status