Freethought & Rationalism Archive

KC · 04-03-2003, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SULPHUR
I think the poor little animals would upset at being called mammals. They are monotremes,egg laying but suckle their young

Duck-billed, egg-laying, web-footed. Duck-kind, definitely.

KC

charlie d · 04-03-2003, 12:16 PM

Mageth:
those dragonflies are pretty amazing. Are they sure they are not closely related, somehow? If not, is there any idea what the selective pressure may be for the convergence of the wing pattern?

Mageth · 04-03-2003, 12:28 PM

See here for more about the two dragonflies, which are not especially closely related.

Doubting Didymus · 04-03-2003, 02:11 PM

I do wish we had someone here willing to defend the biblical kind idea. This is a great conversation, but it would be an even better debate.

Godless Dave · 04-03-2003, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus
I do wish we had someone here willing to defend the biblical kind idea. This is a great conversation, but it would be an even better debate.

But therein lies the problem. They don't want to debate. They want to convince. The whole idea of "debate" is foreign to them. In their strange world, a person in authority says something, and you believe it without question.

Duvenoy · 04-03-2003, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Darwin's Terrier
Get the url of a picture, the actual url not that of the page it's on. In Windows, right-click and pick 'properties'. Copy it.

Just stick it in between the tags {img} and {/img}, with no spaces, and [ ] brackets in place of curlies.

Et voila!

Yeah, did know that, but hadn't given it much thought. So it'll be the male echidna only that has the non-functional spur then. <-- evolutionary prediction

Nah. Kind is a genus or family, not such a large grouping as class. Too much microevolution, y'see.

Sorry, too lazy to look it up. Please do tell!

DT

Humm. Surinams. Here�s a good article by a dedicated amature.

These are wonderful animals. My brother kept a couple in an aquariun for most of his college years.

Quote:

Introduction
The Surinam toad, or pipa toad (Pipa pipa), is a highly aquatic frog native to northern South America, widely described in the scientific literature because of its remarkable reproductive habits. Although it is an amenable captive whose requirements are easily met, it seems to be relatively uncommon in North American collections, unlike the related African clawed frog (Xenopus laevis) and dwarf water frog (Hymenochirus curtipes), which are widely kept by aquarists. Pipa pipa and related species have historically been more widely kept in Europe than the United States.
Information on the captive care of this species is somewhat lacking and, when available, often incomplete or inconsistent. This article is intended to encapsulate the author's experiences keeping and breeding Surinam toads over a period of approximately ten years; it is not a technical paper and has no authority except the author's own experience.

http://people.qualcomm.com/ntenny/pipa-article.html

For more on one of the world�s oddest amphibians, do a google on Pipa.

doov

Duvenoy · 04-03-2003, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Godless Dave
But therein lies the problem. They don't want to debate. They want to convince. The whole idea of "debate" is foreign to them. In their strange world, a person in authority says something, and you believe it without question.

Hmph. They don't want to debate it simply because thay can't define a 'kind' any better than we can.

I too, would like to see a serious conversation on this topic.

doov

Minnesota · 04-03-2003, 03:50 PM

SULPHER

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the poor little animals would upset at being called mammals. They are monotremes,egg laying but suckle their young
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That momotremes are something other than mammals is a common misunderstanding. Mammals are a group of animals comprised of three distinct forms:

Eutherians or placentals
Metatherians or marsupials
Ornithodelphians or monotremes

The label "mammal" indicates these animals all share a very important feature: mammary glands. Unlike the placentals and marsupials that use nipples to deliver their milk, the monotremes simply secrete milk from modified sweat glands onto their belly fur from where their young lap it up.

So, monotremes should no more be upset at being called a mammal than should placentals or marsupials.

Viti · 04-03-2003, 04:09 PM

Anybody gutsy enough and with good writing skills willing to approach these guys http://crossspot.net/objective/baraminology.html about a debate?

Doubting Didymus · 04-03-2003, 04:23 PM

Quote:

As you can see, the Evolutionist canard that Creation Systematics is based on an undefined term is entirely false. In this short article alone, we have defined seven terms that Creationist Scientists use to classify organisms according to the Biblically sound Creation model.

Oooo. SEVEN whole terms! Someone point me to a glossary.

I'm not even certain that that site is serious, but their definition of kind is the simple one: a kind is a group of animals with common ancestry traced back to a single couple on the ark.

This theory neccessarily concedes ALL the major features of the evolutionary theory: speciation, variation, benificial mutations and MASSIVE morphological change. This definition allows for, nay, demands, more evolution than any evolutionist is prepared to accept.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-03-2003, 12:16 PM	#52
charlie d Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: here and there Posts: 56	Mageth: those dragonflies are pretty amazing. Are they sure they are not closely related, somehow? If not, is there any idea what the selective pressure may be for the convergence of the wing pattern?

04-03-2003, 12:28 PM	#53
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	See here for more about the two dragonflies, which are not especially closely related.

04-03-2003, 02:11 PM	#54
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	I do wish we had someone here willing to defend the biblical kind idea. This is a great conversation, but it would be an even better debate.

04-03-2003, 03:50 PM	#58
Minnesota Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Minnesota Posts: 172	SULPHER quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think the poor little animals would upset at being called mammals. They are monotremes,egg laying but suckle their young -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That momotremes are something other than mammals is a common misunderstanding. Mammals are a group of animals comprised of three distinct forms: Eutherians or placentals Metatherians or marsupials Ornithodelphians or monotremes The label "mammal" indicates these animals all share a very important feature: mammary glands. Unlike the placentals and marsupials that use nipples to deliver their milk, the monotremes simply secrete milk from modified sweat glands onto their belly fur from where their young lap it up. So, monotremes should no more be upset at being called a mammal than should placentals or marsupials.

04-03-2003, 04:09 PM	#59
Viti Contributor Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Down South Posts: 12,879	Anybody gutsy enough and with good writing skills willing to approach these guys http://crossspot.net/objective/baraminology.html about a debate?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.