James's theory on dinosaurs

  • 1811 Replies
  • 379664 Views
?

sillyrob

  • Official Member
  • 3771
  • Punk rawk.
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #960 on: November 12, 2010, 06:51:34 PM »
Actually Kira-SY, is commonly know that birds are more direct desendents of dinosaurs than crocodiles.

?

Kira-SY

  • 1139
  • Ja pierdole!
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #961 on: November 13, 2010, 04:51:16 AM »
Aye aye, I know, but those are the dinos that evolved, Crocodiles didn't.
Signature under building process, our apologies for the inconveniences

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #962 on: November 13, 2010, 06:45:48 AM »
Aye aye, I know, but those are the dinos that evolved, Crocodiles didn't.

They did too.

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #963 on: November 13, 2010, 10:44:17 AM »
Aye aye, I know, but those are the dinos that evolved, Crocodiles didn't.

Sure they did. Are you suggesting that the exact same species of crocodile lives today as did millions of years ago?

Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #964 on: November 13, 2010, 10:52:04 AM »
Aye aye, I know, but those are the dinos that evolved, Crocodiles didn't.

Sure they did. Are you suggesting that the exact same species of crocodile lives today as did millions of years ago?
Please provide evidence to support your outlandish claim. Surely you haven't personally attempted to interbred every single crocodile of millions of years ago with every live crocodile. (I only make this claim based on your challenge about asking everyone whether they believe that the Earth is round before saying that the majority believe it so.)
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #965 on: November 13, 2010, 12:24:36 PM »
(I only make this claim based on your challenge about asking everyone whether they believe that the Earth is round before saying that the majority believe it so.)

I challenged his claim because in many third world countries, many people are such horrid conditions, i seriously doubt they have considered the shape of the Earth, or have any clue why it should be a certain shape.

They have other things that they are thinking about, like, where their next meal is going to come from, or how not tot get shot be the local warlord. I seriously doubt many of these people have even considered the shape of the Earth, so to say the majority of the world thinks a certain way is ludicrous when part of the world doesn't even get the luxury to sit around and thing about such things.
« Last Edit: November 13, 2010, 12:48:12 PM by EnglshGentleman »

?

Kira-SY

  • 1139
  • Ja pierdole!
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #966 on: November 13, 2010, 12:35:08 PM »
This website explains very well what I meant, if you want to go to the Sharks and Crocodiles directly, it's right after the last image:

http://hubpages.com/hub/Some-Organisms-do-not-Evolve-into-more-Complex-Forms
Signature under building process, our apologies for the inconveniences

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #967 on: November 13, 2010, 02:30:50 PM »
This website explains very well what I meant, if you want to go to the Sharks and Crocodiles directly, it's right after the last image:

http://hubpages.com/hub/Some-Organisms-do-not-Evolve-into-more-Complex-Forms

Wow. Whoever made that page got their understanding of evolution from pokemon I'm guessing.

Complex is a relative term, any change in an organism to better survive in its new environment, (even if it is a tiny change like the shape of blood cells) changes the organism. Is it now more complex? Who knows. Is it evolving? Yes.

While it is possible for an organism to exist for millions of years without building up mutations in its genome, it is so unlikely odds are that it would not happen in this universe.

All organisms evolve.

?

Kira-SY

  • 1139
  • Ja pierdole!
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #968 on: November 13, 2010, 03:29:29 PM »
I see your point. Thanks.
Signature under building process, our apologies for the inconveniences

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #969 on: November 13, 2010, 03:51:55 PM »
While it is possible for an organism to exist for millions of years without building up mutations in its genome, it is so unlikely odds are that it would not happen in this universe.

Mutating /= evolving.

Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #970 on: November 13, 2010, 03:57:13 PM »
This website explains very well what I meant, if you want to go to the Sharks and Crocodiles directly, it's right after the last image:

http://hubpages.com/hub/Some-Organisms-do-not-Evolve-into-more-Complex-Forms

Wow. Whoever made that page got their understanding of evolution from pokemon I'm guessing.

Complex is a relative term, any change in an organism to better survive in its new environment, (even if it is a tiny change like the shape of blood cells) changes the organism. Is it now more complex? Who knows. Is it evolving? Yes.

While it is possible for an organism to exist for millions of years without building up mutations in its genome, it is so unlikely odds are that it would not happen in this universe.

All organisms evolve.
False. There are terminal species in many places in Evolution, for example.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42535
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #971 on: November 13, 2010, 06:32:04 PM »
While it is possible for an organism to exist for millions of years without building up mutations in its genome, it is so unlikely odds are that it would not happen in this universe.

Mutating /= evolving.

Actually, it is (or can be).  Although relatively uncommon, occasionally mutations will produce a competitive advantage in an organism.  The ability for humans to digest lactose in cow's milk is an example of such a mutation.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #972 on: November 14, 2010, 10:23:59 AM »
While it is possible for an organism to exist for millions of years without building up mutations in its genome, it is so unlikely odds are that it would not happen in this universe.

Mutating /= evolving.

if it is passed on it does.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #973 on: November 14, 2010, 10:25:16 AM »
This website explains very well what I meant, if you want to go to the Sharks and Crocodiles directly, it's right after the last image:

http://hubpages.com/hub/Some-Organisms-do-not-Evolve-into-more-Complex-Forms

Wow. Whoever made that page got their understanding of evolution from pokemon I'm guessing.

Complex is a relative term, any change in an organism to better survive in its new environment, (even if it is a tiny change like the shape of blood cells) changes the organism. Is it now more complex? Who knows. Is it evolving? Yes.

While it is possible for an organism to exist for millions of years without building up mutations in its genome, it is so unlikely odds are that it would not happen in this universe.

All organisms evolve.
False. There are terminal species in many places in Evolution, for example.

Lol, a terminal species?

An extinct species perhaps, but all extant species build up mutations and change with time. Even if the phenotype changes are not obvious.

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #974 on: November 14, 2010, 10:28:49 AM »
While it is possible for an organism to exist for millions of years without building up mutations in its genome, it is so unlikely odds are that it would not happen in this universe.

Mutating /= evolving.

if it is passed on it does.

Conditional is not equivalence.

Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #975 on: November 14, 2010, 10:30:56 AM »
This website explains very well what I meant, if you want to go to the Sharks and Crocodiles directly, it's right after the last image:

http://hubpages.com/hub/Some-Organisms-do-not-Evolve-into-more-Complex-Forms

Wow. Whoever made that page got their understanding of evolution from pokemon I'm guessing.

Complex is a relative term, any change in an organism to better survive in its new environment, (even if it is a tiny change like the shape of blood cells) changes the organism. Is it now more complex? Who knows. Is it evolving? Yes.

While it is possible for an organism to exist for millions of years without building up mutations in its genome, it is so unlikely odds are that it would not happen in this universe.

All organisms evolve.
False. There are terminal species in many places in Evolution, for example.

Lol, a terminal species?

An extinct species perhaps, but all extant species build up mutations and change with time. Even if the phenotype changes are not obvious.
<sigh> Why do I even try to educate so many? Did you even try to learn what a terminal species is?

Reference: terminal species usage,
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #976 on: November 14, 2010, 11:05:33 AM »
Since the book you quoted did not use it in any meaningful context, and I do not remember this term, I'd appreciate it if you'd enlighten me on species that do not evolve.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #977 on: November 14, 2010, 12:50:59 PM »
This website explains very well what I meant, if you want to go to the Sharks and Crocodiles directly, it's right after the last image:

http://hubpages.com/hub/Some-Organisms-do-not-Evolve-into-more-Complex-Forms

Wow. Whoever made that page got their understanding of evolution from pokemon I'm guessing.

Complex is a relative term, any change in an organism to better survive in its new environment, (even if it is a tiny change like the shape of blood cells) changes the organism. Is it now more complex? Who knows. Is it evolving? Yes.

While it is possible for an organism to exist for millions of years without building up mutations in its genome, it is so unlikely odds are that it would not happen in this universe.

All organisms evolve.
False. There are terminal species in many places in Evolution, for example.

Lol, a terminal species?

An extinct species perhaps, but all extant species build up mutations and change with time. Even if the phenotype changes are not obvious.
<sigh> Why do I even try to educate so many? Did you even try to learn what a terminal species is?

Reference: terminal species usage,

lol, nice fail Clocktower.  Now perhaps you could actually provide a link that explains what a "terminal species" is, because that one provides absolutely no relevant information, and a google search seems to come up empty in terms of actually providing a definition of the term.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #978 on: November 14, 2010, 12:58:42 PM »
This website explains very well what I meant, if you want to go to the Sharks and Crocodiles directly, it's right after the last image:

http://hubpages.com/hub/Some-Organisms-do-not-Evolve-into-more-Complex-Forms

Wow. Whoever made that page got their understanding of evolution from pokemon I'm guessing.

Complex is a relative term, any change in an organism to better survive in its new environment, (even if it is a tiny change like the shape of blood cells) changes the organism. Is it now more complex? Who knows. Is it evolving? Yes.

While it is possible for an organism to exist for millions of years without building up mutations in its genome, it is so unlikely odds are that it would not happen in this universe.

All organisms evolve.
False. There are terminal species in many places in Evolution, for example.

Lol, a terminal species?

An extinct species perhaps, but all extant species build up mutations and change with time. Even if the phenotype changes are not obvious.
<sigh> Why do I even try to educate so many? Did you even try to learn what a terminal species is?

Reference: terminal species usage,

lol, nice fail Clocktower.  Now perhaps you could actually provide a link that explains what a "terminal species" is, because that one provides absolutely no relevant information, and a google search seems to come up empty in terms of actually providing a definition of the term.
Since you know how to use Google, I'll leave it to you to educate yourself. Did you remember to put "terminal species" in quotes in the Google search parameters? Enjoy your journey of discovery.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #979 on: November 14, 2010, 01:23:48 PM »
This website explains very well what I meant, if you want to go to the Sharks and Crocodiles directly, it's right after the last image:

http://hubpages.com/hub/Some-Organisms-do-not-Evolve-into-more-Complex-Forms

Wow. Whoever made that page got their understanding of evolution from pokemon I'm guessing.

Complex is a relative term, any change in an organism to better survive in its new environment, (even if it is a tiny change like the shape of blood cells) changes the organism. Is it now more complex? Who knows. Is it evolving? Yes.

While it is possible for an organism to exist for millions of years without building up mutations in its genome, it is so unlikely odds are that it would not happen in this universe.

All organisms evolve.
False. There are terminal species in many places in Evolution, for example.

Lol, a terminal species?

An extinct species perhaps, but all extant species build up mutations and change with time. Even if the phenotype changes are not obvious.
<sigh> Why do I even try to educate so many? Did you even try to learn what a terminal species is?

Reference: terminal species usage,

lol, nice fail Clocktower.  Now perhaps you could actually provide a link that explains what a "terminal species" is, because that one provides absolutely no relevant information, and a google search seems to come up empty in terms of actually providing a definition of the term.
Since you know how to use Google, I'll leave it to you to educate yourself. Did you remember to put "terminal species" in quotes in the Google search parameters? Enjoy your journey of discovery.

I tried this and got nothing.  :(  Surely you're not implying that you can't back your own point up; that's such an important thing to you!
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #980 on: November 14, 2010, 01:31:16 PM »
I tried this and got nothing.  :(  Surely you're not implying that you can't back your own point up; that's such an important thing to you!
Nope. Your failure here is your own alone.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #981 on: November 14, 2010, 01:38:35 PM »
I tried this and got nothing.  :(  Surely you're not implying that you can't back your own point up; that's such an important thing to you!
Nope. Your failure here is your own alone.

You've always been the first to demand proof and references for what other people have said in the debate.  Don't you realize how hypocritical you're being right now?
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #982 on: November 14, 2010, 01:44:41 PM »
I tried this and got nothing.  :(  Surely you're not implying that you can't back your own point up; that's such an important thing to you!
Nope. Your failure here is your own alone.

You've always been the first to demand proof and references for what other people have said in the debate.  Don't you realize how hypocritical you're being right now?
False. I'm not always first. That I won't hold your hand this time reflects only that I'm bored with you and your laziness. I just Googled >"Terminal species" definition taxonomy< and received 990 hits. Now can you manage?
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #983 on: November 14, 2010, 01:50:27 PM »
I tried this and got nothing.  :(  Surely you're not implying that you can't back your own point up; that's such an important thing to you!
Nope. Your failure here is your own alone.

You've always been the first to demand proof and references for what other people have said in the debate.  Don't you realize how hypocritical you're being right now?
False. I'm not always first. That I won't hold your hand this time reflects only that I'm bored with you and your laziness. I just Googled >"Terminal species" definition taxonomy< and received 990 hits. Now can you manage?

Fine, continue to be a hypocrite, and we will just ignore you.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #984 on: November 14, 2010, 01:52:43 PM »
I tried this and got nothing.  :(  Surely you're not implying that you can't back your own point up; that's such an important thing to you!
Nope. Your failure here is your own alone.

You've always been the first to demand proof and references for what other people have said in the debate.  Don't you realize how hypocritical you're being right now?
False. I'm not always first. That I won't hold your hand this time reflects only that I'm bored with you and your laziness. I just Googled >"Terminal species" definition taxonomy< and received 990 hits. Now can you manage?

Fine, continue to be a hypocrite, and we will just ignore you.
I point you to 990 hits, and you still complain. I guess you're already ignoring me. How sad. You might have actually learned something about Evolution.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #985 on: November 14, 2010, 02:14:31 PM »
I tried this and got nothing.  :(  Surely you're not implying that you can't back your own point up; that's such an important thing to you!
Nope. Your failure here is your own alone.

You've always been the first to demand proof and references for what other people have said in the debate.  Don't you realize how hypocritical you're being right now?
False. I'm not always first. That I won't hold your hand this time reflects only that I'm bored with you and your laziness. I just Googled >"Terminal species" definition taxonomy< and received 990 hits. Now can you manage?

Fine, continue to be a hypocrite, and we will just ignore you.
I point you to 990 hits, and you still complain. I guess you're already ignoring me. How sad. You might have actually learned something about Evolution.

Just show me which one I can link to that will show me the definition of terminal species.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42535
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #986 on: November 14, 2010, 02:15:45 PM »
I tried this and got nothing.  :(  Surely you're not implying that you can't back your own point up; that's such an important thing to you!
Nope. Your failure here is your own alone.

You've always been the first to demand proof and references for what other people have said in the debate.  Don't you realize how hypocritical you're being right now?
False. I'm not always first. That I won't hold your hand this time reflects only that I'm bored with you and your laziness. I just Googled >"Terminal species" definition taxonomy< and received 990 hits. Now can you manage?

Fine, continue to be a hypocrite, and we will just ignore you.
I point you to 990 hits, and you still complain. I guess you're already ignoring me. How sad. You might have actually learned something about Evolution.

Just show me which one I can link to that will show me the definition of terminal species.

Sorry Roundy, but I'm going to have to go with ClockTower on this one.
http://books.google.com/books?id=lzXiyPbJ594C&lpg=PA126&ots=JhKFFxMO-n&dq=%22terminal%20species%22&pg=PA126#v=onepage&q=%22terminal%20species%22&f=false
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #987 on: November 14, 2010, 02:25:25 PM »

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #988 on: November 14, 2010, 02:48:24 PM »
I tried this and got nothing.  :(  Surely you're not implying that you can't back your own point up; that's such an important thing to you!
Nope. Your failure here is your own alone.

You've always been the first to demand proof and references for what other people have said in the debate.  Don't you realize how hypocritical you're being right now?
False. I'm not always first. That I won't hold your hand this time reflects only that I'm bored with you and your laziness. I just Googled >"Terminal species" definition taxonomy< and received 990 hits. Now can you manage?

Fine, continue to be a hypocrite, and we will just ignore you.
I point you to 990 hits, and you still complain. I guess you're already ignoring me. How sad. You might have actually learned something about Evolution.

Just show me which one I can link to that will show me the definition of terminal species.

Sorry Roundy, but I'm going to have to go with ClockTower on this one.
http://books.google.com/books?id=lzXiyPbJ594C&lpg=PA126&ots=JhKFFxMO-n&dq=%22terminal%20species%22&pg=PA126#v=onepage&q=%22terminal%20species%22&f=false

markjo, I'm sorry, but fail.  That link has nothing to do with evolution.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #989 on: November 14, 2010, 04:22:41 PM »
There are families of organisms and even genus that have remained almost unchanged for hundreds of millions of years.
Case in point, Limulidae, the horseshoe crabs