In case you missed the news earlier this week, there's some pretty strong evidence that the plesiosaur gave birth to live young, rather than laying eggs.  This could potentially move the aquatic dinosaur out of the "reptile" category, a classification into which she has always snugly fit.

Views: 445

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Well, there are several living reptiles that have live young (including rattlesnakes), so I don't think that would be enough by itself to change the classification of the plesiosaur.  Still, I think we might should be cautious about declaring dinosaurs and similar extinct animals to be undoubtedly reptilian.  After all, it is pretty widely believed that the pterosaurs had hair.
You know, I'm ashamed to admit this, but I had no idea that rattlesnakes gave birth to live young . . . just goes to show one should make sure one knows what he or she is talking about before making sweeping generalizations!

Based on the fact that many dinosaurs apparently lived in polar regions some assume they must be warm blooded. This of course does not account for the possibility that there was a time when polar regions were not frigid, but temperate.

However, even aside from this environmental factor, there has been much buzz that some or many dinosaurs could have been warm-blooded.

If only lizard experts who frequent this forum could lend their expertise and consider their scientific evidence in the light of straightforward biblical revelation. Where are the lines of demarcation between reptile kinds, between snake serpent kinds? Are all Boas the same kind? Are all cobra-like venomous snakes the same kind? I should think all rattlers are the same kind, but how about cottonmouths and copperheads, even though they don't have rattles. Remember biblical kinds are not distinguished by appearance or their environmental home, but by the capacity to interbreed.

A recurring question is whether various forms of paleocreatures are actually variations of the same kind. The same question arises with current animal population. For instance, are Timber Rattlers and Diamondbacks actually the same kind?

Here is the abstract I found, of a paper on North American Snakes:

Abstract.
Snakes have rarely been examined as examples of intrabaraminic variation due to the relative obscurity of knowledge regarding the subject of these secretive animals as well as the relative newness of the breeding of snakes. North American species of snakes of the genera Lampropeltis, Pituophis, and Elaphe, while classified in separate genera may actually be more closely related than evolutionary biology predicts. This study examined intergeneric and interspecific hybridization of several species of colubrid snakes through the use of both natural breeding methods and scent disguise to fool the different species to interbreed. Eleven different species of three different genera were used in this experiment. Results of the crosses were as expected to resemble midpoints of color and pattern between the parental species. Banding patterns appeared to be dominant over blotches and stripes. The most interesting finding was that the amelanistic varieties of the California kingsnake, L. g. californiae, and the corn snake, E. g. guttata are apparently allelic forms of amelanism regardless of the fact that these snakes are members of different genera. When the two genera were crossed this albinism appeared in the F1 generation. All types of the hybrids produced were viable and fertile. As such, they are most likely examples of intrabaraminic diversity of created "kinds" rather than evolutionary speciation. This paper adds viability, homologous genes, and pigment variations to the list of character space criteria for recognizing baramins.

This is the paper:

10. Fankhauser, G; C******, KB. 2008.

Snake hybridization: a case for intrabaraminic diversity
ICC6 :117-132. CELD ID 22744.

Yes some snakes bear young live or by eggs.

Its no big deal to snakes. Although people might try to classify them on this minor point. Likewise marsupials should not be classified on minor reproductive details or the platypus.

i'm sure all snakes are from a single pair off the ark. Post flood diversity was fantastic and a lesson.

Breeding abilities are irrelevant to classification. surely case in point here.

 

there were no polar regions in a pre flood world as it was a single land mass and not like today.

 

its an old idea and wrong to believe there were dinosaurs. iN fact these creatures were just kinds.

They were not reptiles and neither were there reptiles swimming the seas.

in fact there are no such things as reptiles. Remember creationists ONLY KINDS. NO groups. 

its evolution that teaches reptiles are from a common origin.

As knowledge increases the idea of seeing these old creatures as reptiles just because of minor points will disappear.

breeding or tempature control are simply like responces to like problems from unrelated creatures.

its was a strange idea of the past to imagine an age of reptiles.

it suited their ideas of evolution from primitive to advanced.

creationists must oppose these classification systems.

if there are just kinds then there could not be bigger groups. 

The bird group is special because they fly. thats the unique feature.

 

Robert continues to make assertions about what he "insists upon," and what he is "sure of." And then the categorical declarations about habitat preferences of pre-flood animals, and assurances of certainty about which animals now living were all the same kind on the ark, with NO BASIS OFFERED for his loony assertions. I don't mean to be harsh here, but that is the fact of the matter. So, pretty much the only recourse left is just to read through his posts and scour for one or two points with some merit and just ignoring the rest.

Now he has announced that the new policy is "ONLY KINDS" and no other groups, no such things as reptiles and mammals. To all visitors and persons whom might visit this forum, I APOLOGIZE for these absurdities. Interestingly after announcing "NO groups," he yields to recognizing a particular group.

The abstract reflects what I have suspected for a while.  The branching of a baramin is a product of loss of genetic information as population groups get isolated.  Take two specimens from divergent population groups and interbreed them and you get something closer to the trunk of the baramin tree.
Sort of embraces the ideas the distant branches of the same original baramin, may now no longer be able to interbreed, but still they originate from the same kind and this would be evidenced by genetics, right?

Correct.  The, donkey for example, has become so isolated that when it breeds with the horse it produces sterile offspring.

It is also interesting to note that isolated branches stop adapting or changing.  That is because they don't have enough genetic material left.

 

 

I do agree with Robert about considering the platypus.  It lays eggs but it is still a mammal.  It would not surprise me if some reptiles had live births.  But if we consider kinds, we do have to consider, can plesiosaur breed with other reptiles?  If so, then it is still a reptile.  And seriously, is there any way for scientists to know one way or another if plesiosaur had live babies or laid eggs?  They can't observe it, so it's mere speculation wither P-saur is a whale or a dino.


Meghan Smith said:
I do agree with Robert about considering the platypus.  It lays eggs but it is still a mammal.  It would not surprise me if some reptiles had live births.  But if we consider kinds, we do have to consider, can plesiosaur breed with other reptiles?  If so, then it is still a reptile.  And seriously, is there any way for scientists to know one way or another if plesiosaur had live babies or laid eggs?  They can't observe it, so it's mere speculation wither P-saur is a whale or a dino.
I say there is no such divisions in Gods creation of mammals and reptiles and dinosaurs etc.
This was a error of the past. they just dumbly noted some like attributes and put them into groups.
i say there are only kinds as the bible says.
the bible mentions birds but it was the kinds within that group.
Yet the birds are not biologically related.
They were created in the creation week unrelated.
one might say they simply have like attributes for like needs.
therefore the platypus is not a mammal or reptile but rather it disproves the old groups.
The platypus is probably just some dumb otter. its egg laying was a minor adaptation.
It shows that classifying creatures by reproduction tactics is wrong.
likewise some snakes birth by eggs or by live baby snakes.
It means nothing to a snake. its still a snake.
Lots of creatures simply have tactics of heating suitable to them.
yet they are unrelated.
Yet men call them reptiles as if they were a group with important connections.
Why would creationism ever believe there are mammals or reptiles if we believe there were kinds in creation week?
Why not just say like responce for like need.
Robert, Please, what is a "kind?"

Reply to Discussion

RSS

About CC

Connecting Christians who believe in Biblical Creation — discussing beliefs, sharing ideas, and recommending evolution-free resources. Please keep all posts relevant to the topics of this community.

Rules of Engagement
Zero Tolerance Policy
Statement of Faith
Creation Terms
FAQ

Homeschool Curriculum

Members

Creation Conversations 2018

What's new @ CC for 2018? 

Creation networking and much more in store for Creation Conversation Members. You'll not want to miss this new year!

© 2019   Created by Creation Conversations.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service