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.

Tags: classification, dinosaur

Views: 303

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion



Jim Brenneman said:
Robert, Please, what is a "kind?"
Well the bible doesn't say. God wouldn't say about such a complex subject.
Evolutionists always ask me what is a kind.
The bible says there is kinds.
So its up investigation to explore how much can one put into a kind of biology.
No assumptions to start off.
We see a strange world of creatures. We know the fall changed everything. We know the ark confirm kinds boundaries.
So why not put same looking creatures into the same kind. Ignoring minor details of separation.
My big thing is that marsupials are in fact just placentals.
There are marsupial wolves, cats,  bears, mice etc
Yet in fact they are the same ones as elsewhere now or in the past.
Upon entering some lands after the flood they adapted a different reproductive mode. probably just to speed things up as God commanded them to fill the earth.

So Robert here has revealed that the basic biblical description of "kind" and its meaning is irrelevant to the things he insists on and is sure of., and what we all "know." The "Bible doesn't say," "God wouldn't say," and its a "complex subject."

"no assumptions to start off," but there is so much that Robert "is sure of" so much he "insists on." And then he says, "So why not put same looking creatures into the same kind?" WHAT IS THIS, but an assumption, and a definition of "kind" that is no where found in our holy Scriptures?



Jim Brenneman said:

So Robert here has revealed that the basic biblical description of "kind" and its meaning is irrelevant to the things he insists on and is sure of., and what we all "know." The "Bible doesn't say," "God wouldn't say," and its a "complex subject."

"no assumptions to start off," but there is so much that Robert "is sure of" so much he "insists on." And then he says, "So why not put same looking creatures into the same kind?" WHAT IS THIS, but an assumption, and a definition of "kind" that is no where found in our holy Scriptures?

 

Kind is all that is found in the bible.

its up to investigation to discover what it is.

 My investigation makes it conclusive to me that kinds are very flexible and in no way was there the "species' we now know or know in the fossil record looking this way in the creation week or on the ark.

Its unreasonable, fossil record against it, and not needed.

again the great clue is the snake.

It lost its legs but remained in kind. A great difference in its looks and its life.

further the snakes today are squeezers or spitters . All sorts of colours and stance Some glide some swim. some lay eggs and some birth live.

I say all snakes are from the KIND that was cursed.

I don't see how one can avoid the diversity from the original single kind. including mechanism.

further I think all snakes come from a pair on the Ark.

So diversity was crazy fast after the flood.

The snake is one of the few creatures mentioned early in the bible.

it is a great case study for creationism in figuring out what kinds can be.

Why not?

 

Sorry for interrupting, but it seems that the most interesting angle of this story has been missed out on. That isn't whether or not Plesiosaurus is still a reptile - it obviously still is - but what this tells us about its behaviour. As has already been pointed out, there is precedent for live birth amongst reptiles - in particular those living in the sea. The Icthyosaurus, an sea-reptile from the same period has been famously "caught in the act" of giving birth to live young.

The only reason this wasn't already expected to occur in Plesiosaurs as well is because, unlike the Icthyosaurs, they seemed to retain the ability to go onto land; possessing turtle like fins. Thus, like sea turtles, they could've buried their eggs on beaches. However, with that called into question, perhaps one should also question the long held assumption that Plesiosaurs hauled themselves up onto land, akin to a massive prehistoric sea turtle. 

Robert asked a question:

The snake is one of the few creatures mentioned early in the bible.

it is a great case study for creationism in figuring out what kinds can be.

Why not?

It could be an example of what is POSSIBLE, but the Bible declares the alteration of the serpent to be a very specific exception to the norm. That is one reason "why not."

There is nothing said of similar remarkable modification in any other creature or kind. Furthermore the Bible does not require or assert that the serpent is A SINGLE KIND. There very well could be many kinds of snakes/serpents (constrictors, vipers, asps, cobra-kinds, etc.). Further the Bible does not insist that all creature that crawl on their bellies are necessarily descended from this serpent.

Kinds in the biblical scheme of things are creatures that are capable of interbreeding among themselves.

Adam J. Benton.

First dinosaurs were not reptiles and these sea creatures are not either. 

The mistake made is to group minor details together and then say this a a group.

these sea creatures simply had some like details to creatures called reptiles however they were just kinds of creatures and any detail was a coincedence. 

I see no reason to see them as reptiles.

I see no such division in the world as reptiles.

platypus lay egges just because its a useful thing for them.

Some snakes don't lay legs.

Classifications systems today are rooted in evolutionary presumptions.

Even if evolution came a wee bit later.

Thats why so much stuff about birds being dinos and so on.

Its all on sinking sand.

 



Jim Brenneman said:

Robert asked a question:

The snake is one of the few creatures mentioned early in the bible.

it is a great case study for creationism in figuring out what kinds can be.

Why not?

It could be an example of what is POSSIBLE, but the Bible declares the alteration of the serpent to be a very specific exception to the norm. That is one reason "why not."

There is nothing said of similar remarkable modification in any other creature or kind. Furthermore the Bible does not require or assert that the serpent is A SINGLE KIND. There very well could be many kinds of snakes/serpents (constrictors, vipers, asps, cobra-kinds, etc.). Further the Bible does not insist that all creature that crawl on their bellies are necessarily descended from this serpent.

Kinds in the biblical scheme of things are creatures that are capable of interbreeding among themselves.

 

Well I contend interbreeding is irrelevant to classification  except those who breed.

kind can include non breeding types due to changes upon separation upon a cursed world.

 

Yes its possible that the example of the snake is the great example.

The bible does not say anything about any other creature.

The only reason the snake is mentioned is because of its being a part of the story. its not a biological point although a biological point is revealed.

In fact the curse changed all creatures . Turtles got a shell, t-rex got its teeth and snakes, some , got poison etc.

Creationism should embrace massive post fall change and ability to change as needed.

 

If there were many kinds of snakes then why is the word SNAKE used to describe them.

Are you saying one kind of snake was cursed to crawl on the ground only? Then why do the others crawl with like morphology?

I say its impossible, or almost, to see snakes as anything but a single kind from a single heritage of being directly cursed with eating the dust.

Indeed the bible expects the readers to look upon the snakes they know as the cursed snakes.

Not ones in the amazon! Or figuring out if this snake was the kind cursed or akind that also crawls in the dust for other reasons.

I say how do you score this!

Were all snake kinds cursed or just one kind? If all kinds then where is this implied in the bible? Is it to be understood that all kinds of "snakes' were cursed?

Is it not simply to be understood snakes are just one kind. The snake kind.

So a great example does God allow man to make flexible boundaries for how kinds can diversify and yet be within kind.

A great gain for creationism in dealing with classification issues and a great gain for the truth of the natural world.

Remember all the different types of snakes.

I say all from a pair off the ark.

Its makes everything easier for us to allow kind to be very inclusive.

Why burden noah ?

Robert. Funnily enough the Linnean taxonomy which classifies these creatures as reptiles was thought up by a creationist and is based off the idea that species are in immutable kinds. And it does categorise these creatures as reptiles - reptiles being a vague kind, defined simply as those aminotes which are not mammals or birds. Since these are aminotes, yet not mammals or birds they are de facto reptiles, evolution or not.

I feel like Robert is on a completely different topic than me. I feel like he is not understanding much of what is being discussed here. He seems to use the English language in a unique way that makes continued efforts at communication with him futile.

Was just the one serpent that spoke to Eve placed under the curse? Or were all other snakes living on the earth also subject to the same curse? Even if the one that addressed Eve was the only one affected, does that mean that miraculously and instantaneously its legs disappeared? Or did it just begin from that point on to crawl on its belly? All of the descendents of the creature used by Satan in the temptation never again walked on four legs. And no, the Bible does not INSIST as Robert does, that ALL SNAKES, SERPENTS, ASPS, ADDERS, VIPERS, and CONSTRICTORS were or are all the same biblical kind. Similarity in morphology does not establish sameness of Kind. Interbreeding capability or history is the determinative criterion.

Oh, and in response to Adam, who said:

reptiles being a vague kind

It would be better to use some word other than "Kind" to refer to Reptiles, since Reptiles as a class probably represent numerous kinds and variations of kinds, just as there are many kinds of Mammals and many kinds of birds. Reptile is a larger category than "kind," and I think the same is the case with "SNAKES," and their various sub-categories.

Many lizards give live young, SHort hOrned lizards for one, also I believe in my reading of the platypus it is unusual as it is actually genetically categorized as mammal, reptile, and bird, if I remember right.  It is not one thing......Some geckos have live young.  Since it is a water type animal having live young fits within its own kind or type...LIke a shark or other water type animal.....


Lou Hamby said:
Many lizards give live young, SHort hOrned lizards for one, also I believe in my reading of the platypus it is unusual as it is actually genetically categorized as mammal, reptile, and bird, if I remember right.  It is not one thing......Some geckos have live young.  Since it is a water type animal having live young fits within its own kind or type...LIke a shark or other water type animal.....
yes reproduction is varied amongst many living creatures and who knows how many  extinct ones.
Therfore  classifying creatures by such a minor thing has been a great error.
I insist marsupials are just placentals and so eliminating any problem with post flood migration from the ark .
Many creationists struggle to explain why JUST marsupials in australia and not others and no marsupials in africa etc but the others.
No problem if one ignores minor details as pouches. 
Likewise the platypus is probably just a dull otter who adapted to some need in its migration to that area. no big deal and a waste of human thought to see it as a intermediate evolutionary stage between reptiles and mammals.
there are no mammals or reptiles but only kinds that like needs produce like replys in biology.
i am certain marine 'mammals" are just creatures off the ark who adapted to empty post flood seas.
Depending on the critter they are of existing or extinct kinds from off the ark.
It seems a clear and welcome point to me for a hundred reasons.
Classification is open to new ideas as long as based on biblical boundaries.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Resources

follow us on Twitter

© 2014   Created by Creation Conversations.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service