|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Jim Bumble
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 10:37 am Post subject: Fishers Have Fingerprints |
 |
|
Fishers, probably the most arboreal members of Carnivora (or at least
the most arboreal of those with non-retractile claws), are also the
only known carnivore with fingerprints.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070523103830.htm
Koalas are highly arboreal marsupials which use their hands for
grasping branches. They have dermal ridges on their palms.
And the New World monkeys that use their prehensile tails for grasping
not only have fingerprints but tailprints as well.
http://ask.yahoo.com/20020315.html
So, is it seems that dermal ridges are common to mammals over a
certain size if those mammals are arboreal or had fairly recent
arboreal ancestors. Human beings are the only creatures that don't fit
this pattern, but this anomaly can be explained by the fact that God
designed our ancestors, such as Noah, to use tools. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
J.J. O'Shea
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 11:00 am Post subject: Re: Fishers Have Fingerprints |
|
|
On Mon, 28 May 2007 01:37:57 -0400, Jim Bumble wrote
(in article <6rnk53l80jviajvk0aum770riusof4m25m@4ax.com>):
| Quote: |
Fishers, probably the most arboreal members of Carnivora (or at least
the most arboreal of those with non-retractile claws), are also the
only known carnivore with fingerprints.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070523103830.htm
Koalas are highly arboreal marsupials which use their hands for
grasping branches. They have dermal ridges on their palms.
And the New World monkeys that use their prehensile tails for grasping
not only have fingerprints but tailprints as well.
http://ask.yahoo.com/20020315.html
So, is it seems that dermal ridges are common to mammals over a
certain size if those mammals are arboreal or had fairly recent
|
define 'fairly recent'. then state why you think that there are no human
ancestors in that range, and why anyone should care about your opinion.
| Quote: |
arboreal ancestors. Human beings are the only creatures that don't fit
this pattern, but this anomaly can be explained by the fact that God
designed our ancestors, such as Noah, to use tools.
|
Humans are apes. Humans, and most of our immediate ancestors, are plains
apes, not forest apes. There being a shortage of trees on the savannah,
plains apes tend to do other things. Like run. Nor are humans the only
ground-dwelling ape; gorillas also are non-arboreal... and have fingerprints.
And gorillas are _forest_ apes, not plains apes. Both gorillas and humans
have ancestors which were arboreal. Hint: as humans are related to gorillas,
some of the ancestors which were arboreal are the same for both species.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Bobby Bryant
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 11:01 am Post subject: Re: Fishers Have Fingerprints |
|
|
In article <6rnk53l80jviajvk0aum770riusof4m25m@4ax.com>,
Jim Bumble <jnb@corbat.com> writes:
| Quote: |
but this anomaly can be explained by the fact that God
|
Of course, you can "explain" anything by invoking a goddidit.
That's why it's useless as an explanation for anything.
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ron O
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 5:38 am Post subject: Re: Fishers Have Fingerprints |
|
|
On May 28, 10:55 am, Jim Bumble <j...@infinity.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
On 28 May 2007 08:47:23 -0700, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
On May 28, 9:56 am, Jim Bumble <j...@infinity.net> wrote:
On 28 May 2007 07:47:18 -0700, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
On May 28, 9:10 am, Jim Bumble <j...@infinity.net> wrote:
On 28 May 2007 06:54:02 -0700, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
On May 28, 8:06 am, Jim Bumble <j...@infinity.net> wrote:
On Mon, 28 May 2007 05:51:25 -0400, "J.J. O'Shea"
SNIP:
With a belief like that, you're
credibility is already shot, so there's no reason why I - who could be
the world's greatest scientist - should care about your opinions.
SNIP:
If you had just gone two more posts before writing this line I would
have given you twice the Loki points. As it is now, you only get 3
out of 10.
So you *assume* that the world's greatest scientist couldn't post to
usenet?
No, just that you wouldn't come close, and we also have a fellow
claiming to be some god posting a thread in TO. He doesn't come close
either, but he doesn't get loki points because he is just
incompetent. Incompetence that he demonstrated in multiple posts
before he made that claim. You haven't demonstrated insanity, yet
unless you are serious. With a tag like Jim Bumble there is still
doubt.
Now you insult my name. What's next - ethnic slurs?
No insult intended, just a statement of fact. It isn't a common name
and for someone that is claiming to be the greatest scientists in the
world it has obvious loki potential.
I only claimed that it is as reasonable for J.J. to *assume* I'm the
world's greatest scientist as for him to believe that slow running
apes could have survived on the African savannahs.
Ron Okimoto- Hide quoted text -
|
Your entire paragraph:
QUOTE:
You're so tangled up in your assumptions that you can't see the
contradictions in your claims. If our immediate ancestors were fast
running savannah apes, we would be built like ostriches or emus.
You're assuming that slow-footed apes could survive on a plain
infested with fast running predators. With a belief like that, you're
credibility is already shot, so there's no reason why I - who could
be
the world's greatest scientist - should care about your opinions.
END QUOTE:
If you stretch your imagination someone might get that once someone
told them that is what was meant, but a straight reading would be
interpreted as you claiming that you could be the world's greatest
scientist and that there is no reason for you to care about JJ's
opinion.
Keep posting if you want people to be able to determine if you are
serious or if you are just trolling. I can't tell, yet.
That is a very real problem with creationist posters, you can't tell
when they are for real unless they post over a long enough period that
they would be an insane troll to carry it on that long. How many sane
people could act like a moron for more than a couple of weeks if they
didn't have to?
Ron Okimoto |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Jim Bumble
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 10:05 am Post subject: Re: Fishers Have Fingerprints |
|
|
On 28 May 2007 17:38:29 -0700, Ron O <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
On May 28, 10:55 am, Jim Bumble <j...@infinity.net> wrote:
On 28 May 2007 08:47:23 -0700, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
On May 28, 9:56 am, Jim Bumble <j...@infinity.net> wrote:
On 28 May 2007 07:47:18 -0700, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
On May 28, 9:10 am, Jim Bumble <j...@infinity.net> wrote:
On 28 May 2007 06:54:02 -0700, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
On May 28, 8:06 am, Jim Bumble <j...@infinity.net> wrote:
On Mon, 28 May 2007 05:51:25 -0400, "J.J. O'Shea"
SNIP:
With a belief like that, you're
credibility is already shot, so there's no reason why I - who could be
the world's greatest scientist - should care about your opinions.
SNIP:
If you had just gone two more posts before writing this line I would
have given you twice the Loki points. As it is now, you only get 3
out of 10.
So you *assume* that the world's greatest scientist couldn't post to
usenet?
No, just that you wouldn't come close, and we also have a fellow
claiming to be some god posting a thread in TO. He doesn't come close
either, but he doesn't get loki points because he is just
incompetent. Incompetence that he demonstrated in multiple posts
before he made that claim. You haven't demonstrated insanity, yet
unless you are serious. With a tag like Jim Bumble there is still
doubt.
Now you insult my name. What's next - ethnic slurs?
No insult intended, just a statement of fact. It isn't a common name
and for someone that is claiming to be the greatest scientists in the
world it has obvious loki potential.
I only claimed that it is as reasonable for J.J. to *assume* I'm the
world's greatest scientist as for him to believe that slow running
apes could have survived on the African savannahs.
Ron Okimoto- Hide quoted text -
Your entire paragraph:
QUOTE:
You're so tangled up in your assumptions that you can't see the
contradictions in your claims. If our immediate ancestors were fast
running savannah apes, we would be built like ostriches or emus.
You're assuming that slow-footed apes could survive on a plain
infested with fast running predators. With a belief like that, you're
credibility is already shot, so there's no reason why I - who could
be
the world's greatest scientist - should care about your opinions.
END QUOTE:
If you stretch your imagination someone might get that once someone
told them that is what was meant, but a straight reading would be
interpreted as you claiming that you could be the world's greatest
scientist and that there is no reason for you to care about JJ's
opinion.
|
You have to read back a couple paragraphs in that post to get the
context of my dubious claim.
| Quote: |
Keep posting if you want people to be able to determine if you are
serious or if you are just trolling. I can't tell, yet.
|
It started innocently enough when I read the article on fisher
fingerprints and thought it highly coincidental that humans share the
feature of dermal ridges with arboreal mammals which need a non-slip
grasping ability. It's just one more line of evidence that we had
arboreal ancestors. I was thinking of using it on several young earth
creationists I know. But then it occurred to me that they could simply
claim that we inherited our dermal ridges from old Noah. So,
naturally, my next thought was to got on down to TO and post a parody
of this kind of thinking.
| Quote: |
That is a very real problem with creationist posters, you can't tell
when they are for real unless they post over a long enough period that
they would be an insane troll to carry it on that long. How many sane
people could act like a moron for more than a couple of weeks if they
didn't have to?
|
A couple of weeks would definitely be excessive, but for those of us
with personality disorders, there's a certain kind of morbid pleasure
in being able to act like an idiot for a short period and have
intelligent people respond seriously to one's idiocies. Thus my
innocent little parody developed into a Loki troll. If I were the
first person ever to pollute TO in this manner, I'd probably feel
guilty, but every time I've looked into this newsgroup there's one or
two idiots wasting people's time. Some of them may be serious, but
with characters like Average Joe and mccoy, how could you tell even
over a long period? They might just have deeper personality flaws than
the average troller. So I figure a parody or even deliberate trolling
didn't lower the general tone all that much. :)
>Ron Okimoto |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Cheezits
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 11:01 am Post subject: Re: Fishers Have Fingerprints |
|
|
Jim Bumble <jnb@infinity.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Mon, 28 May 2007 16:39:14 GMT, Cheezits <Cheezits32@hotmail.com
wrote:
Jim Bumble <jnb@infinity.net> wrote:
[etc.]
I wasn't trying for Loki points either. It was an honest parody not
intended to fool anyone.
I bet it won't be long before creationists start using your post as
evidence for creationism. :-D
Nah. Their own comedy material is much better than mine.
|
I dare you to run it by Conservapedia. <evil grin>
| Quote: |
Young
earthers tend to recycle the same old jokes, but what about Michael
Behe? The man's a genius like Jerry Seinfeld. He creates a show about
absolutely nothing and keeps it running for years.
|
I can't picture him having a sense of humor.
Sue
--
"You can't take something off the internet! It's like trying
to take the pee out of a swimming pool!" - "News Radio" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ron O
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 11:01 am Post subject: Re: Fishers Have Fingerprints |
|
|
On May 29, 11:06 am, Cemtech <c...@cox.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
In article <agol535iljtjjlqmf38j5sfvabopad5...@4ax.com>,
j...@infinity.net says...
On 28 May 2007 06:54:02 -0700, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
On May 28, 8:06 am, Jim Bumble <j...@infinity.net> wrote:
On Mon, 28 May 2007 05:51:25 -0400, "J.J. O'Shea"
SNIP:
With a belief like that, you're
credibility is already shot, so there's no reason why I - who could be
the world's greatest scientist - should care about your opinions.
SNIP:
If you had just gone two more posts before writing this line I would
have given you twice the Loki points. As it is now, you only get 3
out of 10.
So you *assume* that the world's greatest scientist couldn't post to
usenet?
Ron was kind. I'd only give 2 Loki points. You pretend to be too
delusional.
--
Creationist Math:
Solve x^2 + 2x - 15 = 0
A miracle happens!
X = 1
Creationist Trig: Draw curve then plot points- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
It has to be a relative floating scale. We just had Dale Kelly claim
to be a god. By comparison that lowers the bar for Loki points
because "delusional" has to be relative too.
Ron Okimoto |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
