The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Three: The Return of the KOing!

[Eran of Arcadia]

Anymore takers for my quiz back in post 539? Maybe some creationists wanna join in?

Remember, just pm me your guesses and I'll post the right answers here later.

Do I get a prize if I am right? A cookie or something?

 

[ironduck]

You get a gummy bear, but no shipping included..

 

[civ2]

ironduck
Congratulations with the 600 post!

Eran
They can reconstruct faces ONLY because they had many REAL faces to study BEFORE that.
And you speak of a newly found unique bones.
OK - term what do YOU mean by a dino. (I mean it - explain.)
Name the difference between those rats and those bacteria?
If a rat can digest it why can't bacteria?
A funny question:
If YOU state that bacteria evolved during some century - why then couldn't the entire varety of species emerge during some 5-6k years?
No big difference.
You say what you want - and that's how you get your wanted result.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Rats and bacteria have vastly different digestive setups. That of a bacterium is very simple (compared to a rat's) and entirely chemical.

Dinosaurs had a particular type of hip and jawbone. That is how they are distinguished. Crocodiles, for instance, have legs that sprawl out, leading to a different hip, whereas those of dinosaurs didn't. Dinosaurs aren't just defined as "any reptile that is extinct", and even if you don't realize this, or refuse to acknowledge it, it is still true. A more exact definition can be found here.

Vertebrate skulls are similar enough that if we know how one animal's skull relates to its face, we can extrapolate for other animals. That is how it works.

And mutations require millions of years to accumulate. They won't add up that quickly in 5 or 6 thousand years - there are human populations (such as Australian Aborigines) that were isolated for 30,00 years at least, and they can still produce offspring with any other population. Bacteria can speciate within that time because their generations are much shorter but it takes much longer to get the diversity we have now. The longer the time period, the more mutations can accumulate. So 6,000 years will get you two similar species of bacteria from one parent species, but it took 3 billion years to get all the types of bacteria we have now (as well as the plants, animals, and fungi, which are a small offshoot of the bacteria).

 

[The Last Conformist]

And about "dino" - I often get a funny argument that "those were not dinos".
I (and 99.9999999999% of people) refer to all pre-historic reptiles as dinos regardless whether it is accurate or not.

Actually, practically nobody does that - only a few select groups of extinct reptiles, chiefly the ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, pelycosaurs, and pterosaurs, are commonly mislabeled as dinsosaurs. I defy you to find anyone refering to Haasiophis as a dinosaur.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

[facetious]Besides, to be really pedantic, for there to be a segment equalling 99.9999999999% of the population requires a population of 1 trillion.[/facetious]

 

[The Last Conformist]

I hate American trillions. They're so effin' small.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I hate American trillions. They're so effin' small.

Well, what do you call it? That would be one of your "billions", right, but with a world population of 6 "millards" or whatever the duck you call them?

At any rate, it requires a population of 10^12 humans for every 1 who knows what a dinosaur is. I am such a pedant.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Well, what do you call it? That would be one of your "billions", right, but with a world population of 6 "millards" or whatever the duck you call them?

"Milliards", but yes. Our trillions are 10^18.

 

[civ2]

Eran
[ quick post.]

TLC
Wha???
10^6=million
10^9=billion/milliard
10^12=trillion
10^15=quadrillion
10^18=quintillion(?)
etc.

TLC
OK - done with dinos.
But I never meant crocs were dinos - I meant that "any extinct reptile that has no direct descendants ("scientifically") that can be found nowadays" is a dino.
Actually dinosaur is not a strictly scientific name.
Oh - enough of it ok.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

No, dinosaur is a scientific name that is sometimes misused by non-scientists, but to actual paleontologists it means something specific. They are related to crocodiles - they are part of a large group known as "archosaurs". Today the only survivors of that group are crocodiles and birds, crocodiles thus being more closely related to birds than to snakes or lizards.

 

[civ2]

Eran
I see.
Thanks.

 

[The Last Conformist]

But I never meant crocs were dinos - I meant that "any extinct reptile that has no direct descendants ("scientifically") that can be found nowadays" is a dino.

Too bad you didn't say that then.

Now, find me an instance of someone calling Clevosaurus a dinosaur. Or just admit your claim was wrong.

 

[Birdjaguar]

If YOU state that bacteria evolved during some century - why then couldn't the entire varety of species emerge during some 5-6k years?
No big difference.

Part of the problem is generation length. In 100 years you can have thousands of generations of bacteria and only six or seven generations of humans. So in 5000 years you may have only 300 generations of people or other long lived animals. 300 generations is not enough time to see evolutionary change. You can see changes produced by natural selection, but you won't see much on the evolutionary scale. Time is the biggest factor in evolution. If you cannot accept that it takes 10s and 100s of millions of years for new species to take take shape, then you will never grasp how it works.

Human evolution from the break with apes is about 5 million years. If we average a generation at 20 years, then 5 million years produced about 250,000 generations. Over that time, natural selection and gene mutation shaped a very primitive hominid into a fully human figure.

Using the same assumptions, the world has seen a mere 100 generations since 1 AD.

If you cannot get past the time issue (the world is hundreds of millions of years old) you will never understand evolution.

Perf, how would you classify the six fingeredness seen among those of scandinavian descent in your part of the world?

 

[Birdjaguar]

No, dinosaur is a scientific name that is sometimes misused by non-scientists, but to actual paleontologists it means something specific. They are related to crocodiles - they are part of a large group known as "archosaurs". Today the only survivors of that group are crocodiles and birds, crocodiles thus being more closely related to birds than to snakes or lizards.

Birds are the direct descendants of one group of theropod dinosaurs.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Birds are the direct descendants of one group of theropod dinosaurs.

Yes, I knew that; are they considered archosaurs, though, or just the descendants of archosaurs? I have heard the former used. I have also read that "reptile" is not a cladisticly useful term as it requires excluding certain reptilian descendants. Of course, the same could be said for amphibians or fish.

 

[civ2]

TLC
You're number 1 by posts on the Civfanatics!!!
(And I'm 1190+. )

OK guys I think I'm going to bed soon.
Possibly see ya tomorrow.

Moderator Action: Warned for spam. Please stick to the subject at hand. - The Yankee
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[The Last Conformist]

Yes, I knew that; are they considered archosaurs, though, or just the descendants of archosaurs? I have heard the former used. I have also read that "reptile" is not a cladisticly useful term as it requires excluding certain reptilian descendants. Of course, the same could be said for amphibians or fish.

Birds are generally considered archosaurs (and dinosaurs) today. The label "amphibian" is now mostly restricted to the "crown group" amphibians (frogs, toads, salamanders, and caecilians), which constitute a clade, with the various prehistoric "amphibians" that are basal to corwn amphibians and amniotes are refered to as "stem tetrapods" or the like. "Fish" is essentially abandoned as a formal term.

 

[nihilistic]

Part of the problem is generation length. In 100 years you can have thousands of generations of bacteria and only six or seven generations of humans.

Should be tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands. Bacteria reproductive cycles range from a few minutes to a few hours.

Which is why:

So 6,000 years will get you two similar species of bacteria from one parent species,

You won't need 6000 years.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

You won't need 6000 years.

Not for bacteria, no. I've wondered: how many generations back do we need for our species? Or our genus, family, order, etc.? In other words, how many generations need to pass for a new species of bacteria?