Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

@Herald,

First off VARANIDS or "Varan" is a sort of "Genus name". There are lots of Varans. The Komodo is V komodoensis.

Quote:

What 'good example' - you are denying that the Varan has complex poison at all?

Im not denying anything. Im unconvinced that science has even reached aconclusion on this issue. Some bacteriologists have identified "toxic flora" and others have identified toxicants.
Most of the water buffalo that are bitten aren't envenomated, they die from sepsis after they soak their wounds in feces laden water ponds (remember, the water buffalo is a recent immigrant to the islands, and they bring thir Asian habits.

Prhaps you missed it but the interesting fcts of the several species of varanids that lie in the islands and Australia, ALL LIE on the E side of WALLACES LINE.

2 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

Some variety of geese have slow acting toxin as well, so the obvious morphology is that they have evolved directly from the varans ... moreover the varans are reptiles and the geese are birds. One more evidence for the evolution mumbo jumbo.
FM, this morphology classification cannot be serious in any case scenario.

YOU ARE AS FULL OF **** AS A CHRISTMAS TURKEY.

I know one or two birds that are toxic TO EAT because they eat acid beetles or other insects that produce poisons. These toxins can build up in the birds skin. Our Eastern US Quaili can often do this from eating fire beetles. There are NO GEESE who deliver "poisonous bites" (or at least ones that veterinary science is aware).
You people are hilarious as to how you like to link up "lightning with lightning bugs".
Stop playing idiot for your religious beliefs, youre giving your mentors ajida and theyre probably giving themselves a palm slap to the head'OY, maybe we can send him back for some more training"

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Im not denying anything.

You are and even how. What is this saying:

farmerman wrote:

The main fact is that NOONE is scientifically sure that the V komodoensis and V Florensis have real venom or just bioactive proteins that actually aid in the sepsis that results from the bacteria present in the dragons mouth.

The Varan has no 6-poison venom complex, but rather 'bioactive proteins' (that can kill a buffalo?!). Yeah, right, the black Mamba also has some 'bioactive proteins'. Anyway.

further wrote:

Im unconvinced that science has even reached aconclusion on this issue.

What does that 'aconclusion' is supposed to mean - lack of conclusion or 'A' conclusion ... and BTW you have no powers to represent and to talk on behalf of all 'science' (all scientists).

further wrote:

Some bacteriologists have identified "toxic flora" and others have identified toxicants.

FM you are very good ... in designing new species of red herring.
Forget about that Varan - tell us about the Alligator: where are all that Neopterodactiles, Neopteranodons and octacopters ... or any other flying transmutants that should have developed and evolved in the past 65 million years from that fundamental evolutionary species? Do you have any examples - anything that might morphologically even resemble an example?

3 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

FM you are very good ... in designing new species of red herring.

Im not the one going around telling us bout geese packing venom. I think you are quite a fraud.

1 Reply

@Herald,

AS I SAID BEFORE, the
flying lizards of the suborder Pterosauria all went extinct in the late Cretaceous, and according to Dolo's LAW, they probably wouldn't have "re-evolved" out of unrelated stock (although a sort of CONVERGENT EVOLUTION has occurred.
Ever hear of the
DROMAEOSAURS?
These were feathered dinosaurs that we think gave rise to another Class Aves

Quote:

and BTW you have no powers to represent and to talk on behalf of all 'science' (all scientists).

True enough, but I do have powers of comprehension to REPORT what the scientific literature says what most science is thinking. I certainly font want to apper that Im putiing words into their mouths, quite the contrary

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQCc8HPXTqni8HCy9Q2sVRJZ8OI35l4OULN-eQegPEZbkFZ6onf

Heres an artistic reconstruction of a Dromaeosaur. It represents a whole batch of a new subclass of new animals that new fossils of which are being found in the Jurassic and Cretaceous beds of Liaoning China.

Remember that extinction is also a tool that has the result of "cleaning the plate" of a particular biological niche or biostratigraphic sequence.

0 Replies

@Herald,

I think that you are not being really scientific in your responses.(even though you wih to appear so)> You've already reached a conclusion about the Komodo dragon before all the scientific data and evidence hqs shown a clear conclusion (or at least a best answer).
Does the Komodo have rel venom?-the sacs that some biologist say are venom sacs, ARE NOT, (say others).
Bacterial flora are a reality in the Komodos mouth even though they have EXCELLENT dental habits.

MOST ALL of their victims die of SEPSIS not any kind of envenomation.

(I have to say Im learning lots about Komodos Ive never known before)
Ive known pretty much about their evolution from other genera of Varanids and their positioning within Wallaces Line (A really good evolutionary marker for biogeographical "clade assigning " of species).

However, I never realized there were so many toxicologists and varanid specialists just working on these guys alone. Go figure.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Oh BTW, tell me some more about these "venomous geese". Id love to her about such a firt. It has to have some sort of evolutionary significance if true. (Or not)

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Me too! His claims about venomous geese can't even be found on the internet.

This is the extent of what can be found from RealClearScience.

Quote:

Toxins: they're not just for snakes and spiders! While no bird currently known to science wields a venomous bite, a fair number do in fact release noxious poisons from their skin, making them dangerous to consume... including one species upon which humans have been precariously dining for centuries.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Im not the one going around telling us bout geese packing venom. I think you are quite a fraud.

Actually I am not obliged to fill in the gaps in your pseudo-scientific knowledge of the world - do we have one and the same Google search engine?
The African spur-winged goose has toxic saliva & the meat is poisonous to eat.
How does it happen that you always don't know, don't remember, haven't seen, can't find and haven't heard of the things that cannot be cherry-picked for, and stuck in support to, your mind-blowing theories.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Quote:

The African spur-winged goose has toxic saliva & the meat is poisonous to eat.

Where do you get the toxic saliva crap? transferring a poison from its food to its meat isn't the same as comparing it to a Komodo dragon (Which was your original point of discussion)
Gotcha , Are you a chronic liar or just an occasional one?. AS I SAID BEFORE. There Is no bird that carries a venomous bite or any venom (after all venom is usually just saliva in the vertebrates who have it). (With the exception of the two mammals) I also said that there were several species of bird who occasionally are toxic IF YOU INGEST THEIR MEAT because of the fact that they often feed on n poisonous insects. The African Spur wing is such a bird. see below from the Ornithological Record. (I was waiting for you to see whether youd admit you made a mistake or would jut keep trying to push your original lie)

Quote:

members of this species can sometimes be poisonous. But I don’t mean that they can inject venom with their wing-spurs, or anything like that. Rather, some populations (those in the Gambia) feed on a poisonous beetle (specifically, a member of the blister beetle group (Meloidae)), and then sequester the beetle’s poison into their own tissues (Bartram & Boland 2001). Blister beetles are well known for producing the toxin cantharidin, small amounts of which (as little as 10 milligrams) cause death in humans. The effect of cantharidin on the urinary tract (it results in swelling of the genitalia) means that people have been using it as an aphrodisiac for centuries; the Spanish fly Lytta vesicatori is a blister beetle. So the result of blister beetle ingestion by spur-winged geese is that their flesh is toxic. Eating one can – apparently – result in death (Wanless 2001) [Plectropterus in flight shown below].

2 Replies

@farmerman,

You should read the "Chemistry and Ecology of Toxic Birds" by Bartram and Boland (2001).
There are dozens of birds in the world that acquire toxins and sequester them within the skin and feathers of the birds. These toxins are acquired through the birds diet which, in the case of the Hooded Pitohui of New Guinea, is gotten from eating poisonous beetles and the skin deposition of the toxins (a type of Baratoxin , similar to the skin secretions of the Poison Dart frogs). Eating the pitohui , or even taking a bite, can cause death to the predator. NO MATTER, The point is, these things hve NOTHING in common with your Komodo dragon intoxication. In fact, it is the predators that suffer from eating these birds with toxic the skins. (Totally ass backwards from the Komodo, which is THE "ENVENOMATING" PREDATOR).

I wont end with an insult, I can see your red face from over here.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Are you a chronic liar or just an occasional one?. AS I SAID BEFORE. There Is no bird that carries a venomous bite or any venom (after all venom is usually just saliva in the vertebrates who have it).

http://mentalfloss.com/article/51743/4-poisonous-birds

RE: The Crocodiles
What happened with all that Pterodactyles and Pteranodones that should have evolved from the Crocodiles - in the past 228.7 million years of history record of the order? Only a few hybrid species, and nothing else (no wings, no flying varieties - nothing of the kind).
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/143679/crocodile/38424/Form-and-function#toc38425

Quote:

... Modern genetic studies of crocodilian DNA have been used to identify species differences and, in some cases, indicate natural hybridization.

Is that all that a history record of 228.7 million years of 'evolution' of the order can do: hybridization of the species?

2 Replies

@Herald,

You,

Quote:

Is that all that a history record of 228.7 million years of 'evolution' of the order can do: hybridization of the species?

You're so smart, we're all sure you can provide much more information than what has been determined through science. Please enlighten us with your smarts!

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

The point is, these things hve NOTHING in common with your Komodo dragon intoxication.

Exactly - birds do no originate so easily from reptiles, and the morphological characteristics are very often misleading, hence a large part of the taxonomy structure based on morphology might be fake ... to such extend that the very theory of evolution might be fake as well.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Quote:

What happened with all that Pterodactyles and Pteranodones that should have evolved from the Crocodiles

Besides being an abject liar, you also engge in mythology an try to pass it off. (Pteronadons etc didn't "evolve" from alligators or crocodiles, they were of two separate and distinct orders (with evolutionary path unique to each).

1 Reply

@Herald,

Quote:

Exactly - birds do no originate so easily from reptiles, and the morphological characteristics are very often misleading, hence a large part of the taxonomy structure based on morphology might be fake

so when I demonstrated that youre a liar, you change your story to try to make it sound like the "bite of a komodo" and the toxins in a bird's skin (from eating toxic beetles)
PROVE that evolution doesn't work.

Psst, youre gonna flunk basic logic, not to mention biology.

MAy I remind you that YOU are the one who tried to cme up with the story about the "relationship" between a Komodo dragons bite and "Poisonous saliva" or the goose (even your clipped article agrees with me)

Quote:

- birds do no originate so easily from reptiles

Did you come up with this all by yourself or did you need to look it up ?
Who said anything was "easy"? and what does "easy" even mean wrt evolution?

Youre quite hoot when you get wound up.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Pteronadons etc didn't "evolve" from alligators or crocodiles

I am not saying that the Pterodactyls and Pteranodons have evolved from the Crocodiles. You and your favorite theory claim that the birds have evolved from the reptiles. I was asking why there is no collateral evolution of some other flying animals from the 'evolutionary' existence of the Crocodiles - 228 million years is a lot of time, FM.

1 Reply

@Herald,

From berkeley.edu.

Quote:

Are Birds Really Dinosaurs?

Ask your average paleontologist who is familiar with the phylogeny of vertebrates and they will probably tell you that yes, birds (avians) are dinosaurs. Using proper terminology, birds are avian dinosaurs; other dinosaurs are non-avian dinosaurs, and (strange as it may sound) birds are technically considered reptiles. Overly technical? Just semantics? Perhaps, but still good science. In fact, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of birds being the descendants of a maniraptoran dinosaur, probably something similar (but not identical) to a small dromaeosaur. What is this evidence?

You can't keep denying science over your religious beliefs. It doesn't make any sense. You're battling science over mythology.

You can still be a good christian by accepting the fact that religion has a place in your life, but separate your religion from science. Many scientists are christians; they don't argue with the obvious facts of science, because they know it's a losing proposition.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

PROVE that evolution doesn't work.

You are talking as if you have proved already that the evolution is plausible, feasible and exists in the physical world ... and manipulate us by asking to prove whether it is working or not.

     - You have to prove at first that evolution is plausible - is not in contradiction with any of the known sciences, that the information code of the DNA sequences can appear out of stochastic processes?
     - You have to prove that evolution is feasible - you have to make in the lab at least one brand new species on the basis of your theory? (activation of a clade of a retro virus is not counted).
     - You have to prove that the process of evolutionary development is really existing in the physical world - this taxonomy based on morphology is highly disputable, why don't you try with some DNA cryptoanalysis?

... and hardly after that, and not before, you can ask whoever about proofs whether the evolution is currently (and has been in the past) in operation or not.

2 Replies

@Herald,

What I said to you was the following;

Quote:

so when I demonstrated that youre a liar, you change your story to try to make it sound like the "bite of a komodo" and the toxins in a bird's skin (from eating toxic beetles)
PROVE that evolution doesn't work.

In other words , to you, proof that something DOESNT WORK is simply gathered by pitting two unrelated and separately derived biological functions against each other.

THATS REALLY DIM. Perhaps you should just stay being a Creationist , youre unable to evaluate data of any kind

1 Reply

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know