Ergaster

I've noticed that Per Ahlberg posts here on occasion. If he's around, he might be interested in this little tidbit from AiG:

<a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/1210_livoniana.asp" target="_blank">http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/1210_livoniana.asp</a>

Note the thorough understanding of cladistic methodology....

Deb

Coragyps

From Ergaster's link to AiG: Yeah, ....right.

randman

From same link,

"At the end, the programme says of Livoniana:

‘It also has one freakish feature: there are seven rows of teeth. It is unlike any other creature we know of. This suggests it must be one of the host of mutants that made this change, just one of which would eventually become our ancestor.’

But multiple rows of teeth are not unusual in fish. In a typical supermarket you can usually find fish with multiple rows of teeth. Two well-known fish with multiple rows of teeth are piranhas and sharks."

Duvenoy

Ergaster: "Note the thorough understanding of cladistic methodology...."

(chuckle) and the request for donations at the end.

d

Scotty

Those poor seven-rows-of-teeth piranha and sharks that we don't see today, having been killed by the flood.

Wait wait, we are talking multiple creations here right?

Or wait, it is one creation in the Cambrian, and they all just died out because it was basically an all-out war for space at that time? (actually, that is a new one in my mind, God just stuck everything on the planet at once and let them all fight to see who survived...hmmmm).

Wait, they were vegitarian piranha with 7 rows of teeth?

I get so confused.

So, what "animals" alive today do we see with 7 rows of teeth? I am very curious actually.

-Scott

Duvenoy

Scott: "So, what "animals" alive today do we see with 7 rows of teeth? I am very curious actually."
---------

I fear our friend might have beed a tad misleading, unintentionaly of course. It is true that sharks and piranha have multiple rows of teeth, but only one row is ever in actual use, with some exceptions - looking at it head on, the sand tiger looks like a roll of barbed wire. The rest are spares. These fish, and others, regulary shed their teeth. As one tooth wears or is lost, another moves up to take it's place. Thus, the most common shark fossils are teeth. Indeed, my greadkids spend much of their time at the beach looking for shark's teeth. They've found quite a few from a varity of species.

Many reptiles, too shed their teeth in the same way, crocodilians for example. The difference is that their spares are internal rather than showing behind the jaws.

Venomous snakes regularly shed their fangs. At the moment, I have a couple pounds of dried feces from a large Bitis hybrid (gabonica X nasicornis) and an African puff adder (Bitis arietans). I'm trying to bribe the grandthugs to liquify it in alcohol and sort through it for fangs. I can expect anywhere from one to three from each snake.

Most if not all lizards also shed teeth.

d

Scotty

You answered my question exactly as I expected. Since they give no examples of 7 rows of teeth animals, I figured none existed, and since the 7 rows of teeth (IIRC, I saw the show) weren't "replaced" as shark and piranha, the examples they give are misleading.
Just more indication of the dishonesty or misleading (maybe even to make themselves feel better about what they believe) information that is given out in the biblical lexicon.

Thank you.

-Scott

gallo

More from AIG:
Emphasis is mine.

Either Andrew Lamb or I is confused about what a pelvis is. Are my eyes deceiving me or do I see pelvic bones in both of these pictures. In the top left is Pakicetus. The bottom is Ambulocetus.

Duvenoy

If I were forced to make the call, I'd say Andy L. was a bit hazy in the skeletal anatomy dept.

I fail to understand why so many creationists propose such utter codswallop, knowing that it is not so. Do they think it'll not be looked up for conformation?

Probably not, at least by the audience they are trying to reach.

d

Tharmas

We went through this on these boards a few months ago. A shark is NOT a fish. No way no how. No matter whether you use traditional classification or cladistics, a dog is more closely related to a fish than is a shark.

But why let details like facts spoil a good argument?