Jump to content


The Curious Case Of The Toothed Chicken


  • Please log in to reply
106 replies to this topic

#61 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 17 February 2010 - 04:34 AM

Ron, a platypus is essentially half-reptile half mammal its so bizarre!! It lays eggs!!! If that isnt a transitional form what is?


It belongs in a rare group of animals known as "monotremes". And as Sisyfos pointed out in post #59, It shows no evidence of evolution other than variation and no known transitional species leading up to it.

I know, im speaking figuratively. It lays eggs!!! There couldnt be more of a clue of its reptilian past.


It was never in the lineage with birds,but it does have genes previously only found in birds and fish. It sounds more like a designer using specific genes for specific functions.

The DNA revealed both reptilian and mammalian elements, as well as two genes found previously only in birds, amphibians and fish.


http://www.nature.com › Journal home › Archive › Article






Enjoy.

#62 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 17 February 2010 - 05:10 AM

Ron, a platypus is essentially half-reptile half mammal its so bizarre!! It lays eggs!!! If that isnt a transitional form what is?

View Post


:D I can't even believe you made that statement B)

That was a good one McStone!

Anyway, as I said "What is simply amazing here is the fact that the platypus remains a platypus, the beetle remains a beetle etc…" There is absolutely no evidence that a platypus has ever been anything but a platypus!

#63 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 17 February 2010 - 05:41 AM

Posted Image
AAAARRRRRRRRR!!!! Chickenzilla!!!










Sorry, I couldn't resist B)

#64 Sisyfos

Sisyfos

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 92 posts
  • Age: 37
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sweden

Posted 17 February 2010 - 05:57 AM

It belongs in a rare group of animals known as "monotremes". And as Sisyfos pointed out in post #59, It shows no evidence of evolution other than variation and no known transitional species leading up to it.

View Post

Um, nope that was not what I pointed out. The wiki quote suggests that the platypus is at least 100000 years old. Other closely species have been found fossilised and are now extinct. There are platypus-like fossils from the cretatious era. This implies that there has been evolution of the platypus-like animals living in the cretatious era into the now-living platypuses, found within the last 100000 years. What I suggested and which is a highly speculative suggestion is that the platypus is not a transitional species but is a well adapted species in tune with the environment it habitats.

The evidence for evolution is the difference in speciation occuring during all the time since the cretatious era. At some points the equilibrium is punctuated and the animal evolves. Exactly how and why we cannot say since the fossil record has not enough resolution.

#65 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 17 February 2010 - 06:46 AM

Um, nope that was not what I pointed out. The wiki quote suggests that the platypus is at least 100000 years old.

View Post


Mere opinion...

#66 Guest_Darkness45_*

Guest_Darkness45_*
  • Guests

Posted 17 February 2010 - 08:22 AM

Mere opinion...

View Post


I could very well say that because two entities of matter attract each other, it suggests gravitation, but I doubt you would call that an opinion, even if I was wrong.

#67 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 17 February 2010 - 09:45 AM

I could very well say that because two entities of matter attract each other, it suggests gravitation, but I doubt you would call that an opinion, even if I was wrong.

View Post


No, because that can be empirically proven, and is therefore not mere opinion.

#68 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 17 February 2010 - 05:47 PM

It belongs in a rare group of animals known as "monotremes". And as Sisyfos pointed out in post #59, It shows no evidence of evolution other than variation and no known transitional species leading up to it.

Um, nope that was not what I pointed out.


Sorry, I should have said "This is all there is evidence of,but it must be evolution anyway".





Enjoy.

#69 Guest_McStone_*

Guest_McStone_*
  • Guests

Posted 18 February 2010 - 02:23 AM

I can't even believe you made that statement


Again, i was speaking figuratively Ron. Im well aware that the platypus is a mammal. But a very ancient mammal at that. It lays eggs.

What, in gods name, was the big guy thinking when he made it?

"I know... im going to really get them going with this one. This beast will be a mammal, but - and heres the joke - its going to, lay eggs".

and to top it off

"Lets make sure that, after the flood, Noah drops off mr and mrs platypus, and all the other monotremes and marsupials, in one place, geographically isolated from their placental brethrin."

Of course!!! what could make more sense?

Here we have distinct, genetically and geographically isolated clades of mammals, and how can we explain it?

Well....Noah kinda just took a wrong turn in the pacific and landed in australiasia.

Does YEC have an admittedly less cynical version of historical events?

#70 Sisyfos

Sisyfos

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 92 posts
  • Age: 37
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sweden

Posted 18 February 2010 - 03:11 AM

Sorry, I should have said "This is all there is evidence of,but it must be evolution anyway".
Enjoy.

View Post

Wow, am I treading toes here?

The article states that there are fossils of platypuslike creatures found dating way back. From that time there are no fossils of the platypus. However there are platypus fossils dating from around 100000 years ago.

This empirical evidence ONLY suggest that there in the past were platypuslike animals which now are extinct AND that at that time there were no platypuses. The latter conclusion is HIGHLY speculative since there is no direct proof only in a sense a lack of proof.

Choice 1: Either there were platypuses before 100000 and back to cretatious times but not in the fossil record. (i.e. what shows up in the fossil record is ONLY a fraction of the species that ever wandered the earth, including the "transitional forms".
Choice 2: IF the suggestion put forward is accepted (i.e. that an platypuslike animal was living in the past and is now extinct and that during a large period of its early timespan there were no platypuses), this can support or refute evolution. I think it is supportive and I can give you the reasons if you wish. If you find it refuting I would like to hear your arguments to support that OPINION.

#71 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Sparks, Nv

Posted 18 February 2010 - 04:26 AM

Here we have distinct, genetically and geographically isolated clades of mammals, and how can we explain it?

View Post

The tower of Babel occurs about 100 years post flood. Not much time for populations of organisms to experience much microevolution. Australia would have been formed during the flood. Organisms there post flood, concurrent with the dispersement of humanity, would be isolated. Platypus fits post flood population expectations.

Does that fit the requirement of a "prediction" (as in making predictions from a theory) via the flood as a mechanism? If there are more organsims unique to Australia, does that reinforce the argument?

#72 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 18 February 2010 - 05:53 AM

Hi Sisyfos,

The article states that there are fossils of platypuslike creatures found dating way back. From that time there are no fossils of the platypus. However there are platypus fossils dating from around 100000 years ago.


I guess a dingo is a dog-like creature to make it sound like evolution where there is no evidence of evoluition. :lol:

This empirical evidence ONLY suggest that there in the past were platypuslike animals which now are extinct AND that at that time there were no platypuses.

Choice 1: Either there were platypuses before 100000 and back to cretatious times but not in the fossil record. (i.e. what shows up in the fossil record is ONLY a fraction of the species that ever wandered the earth, including the "transitional forms".


Choice 2: It was a platypus,but someone is in denial. Almost all families and orders were larger in the past,so finding a larger species of platypus in the fossil record is'nt suprising to creationists. It's the evolutionists that has to make up stories as to why the fossils don't show evolution nor do they ever evolve from smaller ancestors.

Your also making up stories about the fossil record being incomplete. It is known to be 80-90% complete in most cases.

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=50256




Enjoy.

#73 Sisyfos

Sisyfos

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 92 posts
  • Age: 37
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sweden

Posted 18 February 2010 - 08:11 AM

Hi Sisyfos,
I guess a dingo is a dog-like creature to make it sound like evolution where there is no evidence of evoluition. :lol:
Choice 2: It was a platypus,but someone is in denial. Almost all families and orders were larger in the past,so finding a larger species of platypus in the fossil record is'nt suprising to creationists. It's the evolutionists that has to make up stories as to why the fossils don't show evolution nor do they ever evolve from smaller ancestors.

Your also making up stories about the fossil record being incomplete. It is known to be 80-90% complete in most cases.

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=50256
Enjoy.

View Post

I was to fast on that "choice 1 thingy above. It should have had an alternative aswell. either: "what I wrote above" or: the "old" platypus-like animal turned inte the "modern" one.
Since you say that you think the Steropodon, with its three lower jaw teeht was a platypus, I guess your answer is the or. it changed over time.

I'm unsure in what sense you use the terms larger or smaller here.

#74 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 18 February 2010 - 08:15 AM

Again, i was speaking figuratively Ron. Im well aware that the platypus is a mammal. But a very ancient mammal at that. It lays eggs.

View Post


Again, I say “so what?” The platypus lays eggs… It has never been proven to do anything else. And, as far as being ancient mammal? That is speculation…

What, in Gods name, was the big guy thinking when he made it?

View Post

We can always ask Him when the time comes

"I know... im going to really get them going with this one. This beast will be a mammal, but - and heres the joke - its going to, lay eggs". 

View Post


Once more, I say “so what?” The beast will be the beast. And whether or not it propagates is (again) pure speculation.

and to top it off

"Lets make sure that, after the flood, Noah drops off mr and mrs platypus, and all the other monotremes and marsupials, in one place, geographically isolated from their placental brethrin."

View Post


It matters not where Noah dropped Mr. and Mrs. Platypus, neither of us was on hand to support or refute how it happened, therefore anything we say outside of that experience (in a snide manner or no) is pure speculation.

Of course!!! what could make more sense?

View Post

Of course the person who doesn’t want it to make sense, will not allow it to make sense.

Here we have distinct, genetically and geographically isolated clades of mammals, and how can we explain it?

View Post

Not having been around to empirically support or refute what or how these things happened, presuppositionalist opinion (even given in elitist mannerisms) is nothing more than that, opinion…


Well....Noah kinda just took a wrong turn in the pacific and landed in australiasia.

View Post


Well, you kind of took a wrong turn in your presuppositive argument.

Does YEC have an admittedly less cynical version of historical events?

View Post


Does atheism have other than an unsupported and less faith based belief system for their evolutionary religion system?

#75 Sisyfos

Sisyfos

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 92 posts
  • Age: 37
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sweden

Posted 18 February 2010 - 08:51 AM

Does atheism have other than an unsupported and less faith based belief system for their evolutionary religion system?

View Post

Yes, I guess, having a hard time parsing that question...

However, atheism cannot do anything. It is abelief system. An abstract object.

Atheist, in general, have a less faith based world view (than what you imply), in which evolution fits nicely. This view is supported by pragmatical conclusions based on empirical observations of reality.

The view is basically that what we see in nature is natural and not supernatural. Is nature wondrous and amazing and worth praise? Of course, but what does that mean?

#76 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 18 February 2010 - 10:02 AM

Yes, I guess, having a hard time parsing that question...

However, atheism cannot do anything. It is abelief system. An abstract object.

Atheist, in general, have a less faith based world view (than what you imply), in which evolution fits nicely. This view is supported by pragmatical conclusions based on empirical observations of reality.

The view is basically that what we see in nature is natural and not supernatural. Is nature wondrous and amazing and worth praise? Of course, but what does that mean?

View Post


So, in other words no?

#77 M T RIVERS

M T RIVERS

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 73 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Mineral Wells, WV

Posted 18 February 2010 - 06:44 PM

This view is supported by pragmatical conclusions based on empirical observations of reality

How can you have empirical observations of reality of something you have never seen. No one has ever seen one kind transform into an other kind.

#78 Sisyfos

Sisyfos

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 92 posts
  • Age: 37
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sweden

Posted 19 February 2010 - 02:07 AM

How can you have empirical observations of reality of something you have never seen.  No one has ever seen one kind transform into an other kind.

View Post

I don't, I make pragmatical conclusions based on the empirical evidence of reality.
God as an explanation does not work for me, evolution does.

To Ron: No. (BTW, your question seems to miss a comma.)

#79 Sisyfos

Sisyfos

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 92 posts
  • Age: 37
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sweden

Posted 19 February 2010 - 02:14 AM

How can you have empirical observations of reality of something you have never seen.  No one has ever seen one kind transform into an other kind.

View Post

And noone ever will. The definition of kind is a religious one and not a scientific one. By definition "kinds" do not transform into other kinds. The question is are the definition of kinds by any means useful or practical in describing reality? I.e. is is consistent with the empirical evidence? If you answer yes, I would like to know first, the full definition of a "KIND" and second, how this is consistent with the empirical evidence found in reality.

#80 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 19 February 2010 - 05:05 AM

To Ron: No. (BTW, your question seems to miss a comma.)

View Post


No... The statement was in the form of a question, not a rhetorical device.

So, is your "no" in answer to my questioning of your statement. Or was it a no to my no?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users