New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: John Woodgate on 17 Aug 2006 05:56 In message <1155807189.100776.134130(a)74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>, dated Thu, 17 Aug 2006, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org writes >There are certainly dogs that don't weigh more than a few kilograms Only human-bred. But it's beside the point; there is sufficient fossil evidence that whales and seals DID evolve from dog-like creatures, whatever size they were. But that was long after the KT even, 65 million years ago. AT THAT time, the mammals appeared, until very recently, not to have been larger than Morganucodon, but recent evidence of a somewhat larger mammal has been reported. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk 2006 is YMMVI- Your mileage may vary immensely. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK
From: bill.sloman on 17 Aug 2006 06:23 John Larkin wrote: > On 16 Aug 2006 07:50:29 -0700, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: > > > > >John Larkin wrote: > >> On 15 Aug 2006 20:10:25 -0700, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: > >> > >> >What survivors? Asteroid impacts that have had the same sort of > >> >consequences tend to kill off all the big, slow-breeding land animals - > >> >everything heavier than a few kilograms. > >> > > >> >It takes a few million years before the small, fast-breeding stuff > >> >evolves variants to fiill all the empty niches. > >> > >> So whales and elephants evolved from mice, in a few million years? I > >> never knew that! > > > >Good thing too. It isn't true. For whales > > > >"The short answer is that the best available evidence is that whales > >evolved > >from a terrestrial ancestor that resembled a wolf or hyaena, only with > >its > >five toes ending in small hooves rather than claws. This ancestral > >species > >belonged to a group called the mesonychids, or was closely related to > >them." > > > >For elephants > > > >"Subclass Eutheria > >Among the orders emanating from the subclass Eutheria are three that > >are closely related. > > > >Order Hyracoidea: > >Modern descendants are the hyraxes. African rodent-like animals the > >size of rabbits. > > > >Order Sirenia: > >Modern descendants are manatees and dugongs (sea cows). Seal-like > >mammals living entirely in water. > > > >Order Proboscidea: > >The order of modern elephants" > > > >So it would seem the both evolved from something closer in size to a > >rabbit than a mouse, > > > >The mouse is a relatively small rodent, so no more closely related to > >elephants or whales than we are (and more closely related to us than > >either). > > > >http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0040111 > > > > But, I quote, > > >> >What survivors? Asteroid impacts that have had the same sort of > >> >consequences tend to kill off all the big, slow-breeding land animals - > >> >everything heavier than a few kilograms. > >> > >> >It takes a few million years before the small, fast-breeding stuff > >> >evolves variants to fiill all the empty niches. > >> You are confused. A mouse weighs some 20 to 40 grams. http://sitemaker.umich.edu/dtburke/files/bodysize_aging.pdf#search=%22mouse%20weight%20evolutionary%20history%20-creation%20-creationist%20weight%22 A rabbit can weigh anything from one to seven kilograms, and represents precisely the size of animal that I had in mind. Since they appeared as a separate group only 55 million years ago, rabbits themselves aren't ancestral to anything interesting, any more than mice are. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: bill.sloman on 17 Aug 2006 06:40 John Larkin wrote: > On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 17:20:10 +0100, John Woodgate > <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > >In message <63g6e2hsub8jhcp0mht8aqsqprupgheu8l(a)4ax.com>, dated Wed, 16 > >Aug 2006, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> > >writes > > > >>But asteroids killed off all the things like dogs. Sloman told me so. > > > >One of you has the timing wrong. When the asteroid did for the dinos, > >the mammals were still Morganucodon types. They didn't get bigger until > >after the dinos had gone and the climate had recovered. > > Right. In "a few million years." Maximally 10 million. The first creatures that re-occupied the large-animal and the acquatic=animal ecological niches weren't all that well adapted to thse niches, but adaptive radiation into enmpty niches is a lot faster than the susequent adaption to produce a creature that is optimally adapted to the niche. Granting that the whale seems to be related to the hippopotamus http://www.answers.com/topic/hippopotamuses-hippopotamidae-biological-family and you may be able get a feel for the difference that being optimally adapted can make. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: bill.sloman on 17 Aug 2006 06:59 John Larkin wrote: > On 16 Aug 2006 04:45:08 -0700, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: > > > > >John Larkin wrote: > >> On 15 Aug 2006 01:48:35 -0700, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: > >> > >> > >> >Look at what Dubya - and his enthusiastic supporters in ENRON - have > >> >done to the U.S. before you restrict that problem to Third World > >> >governments. > >> > >> I wonder why the principals of Enron are enthusiastic supporters of W. > >> Perhaps they enjoy prison? > > > >"Have done" refers to the past. The unpricipled principals of Eron were > >enthusiastic supporters of Dubya in Texas and equally enthusiastic > >about his bid for the presidency. > > They donated to both parties, and were pretty chummy with Bubba, too. > They went wild while Clinton "it's the economy, stupid" was in charge, > and are going to prison while Bush is in charge. Twist that as you > please. The BBC obituary for Kenneth Lay does have him playing golf with Bill Clinton, but suggests that he was much closer to Dubya. That Enron had to go bankrupt before anybody noticed - or at least was willing to notice -that they were crooks, does say something about the U.S. supervision of its markets. and the influence of the Republican-dominated legislature under Clinton. No need for me to twist anything there, even if I was willing to. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: John Woodgate on 17 Aug 2006 06:48
In message <1155810229.105929.283230(a)75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, dated Thu, 17 Aug 2006, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org writes >A rabbit can weigh anything from one to seven kilograms, Dutch Giants. >and represents precisely the size of animal that I had in mind. Since >they appeared as a separate group only 55 million years ago, rabbits >themselves aren't ancestral to anything interesting, any more than mice >are. Oryctolagus is not the rodent of choice to take over when we have become extinct. The Sciuridae have arms and hands, and need only to evolve opposable thumbs... (;-) -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk 2006 is YMMVI- Your mileage may vary immensely. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK |