For the last time and I mean it. You think you are able to date sedimentary rock because the sample in question was radio-active. It had leached it from the surrounding environment.
Again, if you truly think that sedimentary rock can be independently dated, then you have a private knowledge that the world of science needs to hear. You are talking to me and that is the wrong person. You simply must get this private knowledge out so you can win awards for it. Go. Your prize awaits.
How is it possible for xenotime, an authogenic mineral formed on the surface of zircons, to “leach from the surrounding environment”? That makes no sense. Minerals don’t “leach”. The atoms that make them up might, but the mineral form in situ, and it’s the minerals that are being dated, not the atoms. Do you even know how radiometric dating works?
If there are awards, shouldn’t the people who published the various papers I have cited be the ones to win awards? This is not private knowledge at all.
It’s not private knowledge at all, since it has been published for all to see. Those in the world of science either already know about it, or know how to find out about it. There is no need to tell them.
There are dozens of examples of you ignoring evidence available on this forum, including one where you couldn’t even be bothered to scroll up to find a link, let alone open it. That you ignore evidence is obvious to everyone.
I suspect I have learnt more in the last ten minutes while looking for examples of dating sedimentary rocks than you have in your entire time here.
dont be sure about that. first: these bones can be a part of the whale reproductive system:
second: its also possible that whale has a vestigial flipper. so these Tbx4 genes for hind limb development are actually for flippers development. even sharks have some of these development genes (sth for instance). and yet sharks have no limbs but fins.
actually even that tree isnt realy a nested tree. as john pointed out earlier: “Birds, for example, do not have two post-orbital fenestrae, nor do most reptiles. Crocodiles and tuatara are in fact the only reptiles that retain both fenestrae. Nor do snakes and caecilians have four limbs”. i will also add that dolphin and human have almost no hair and even sharks might had a bony past:
This is why we use lots of characters, so the tree isn’t dependent on just one per branch. You are very selective in the parts of my posts you choose to read, believe, scorn, or ignore.
Sharks still have bones, since scales and teeth are a type of bone. No big surprise.
as i said earlier- we can explain it by design too:
but no one thought that shark is a degenerated bony fish.
Any idiot can make a data-free tree. That’s not how phylogenetics works.
What do you mean by “degenerated” and “bony fish”. Sharks belong to Osteichthyes.
indeed. but we know that a car and a truck are more similar to one another than to an airplane. thus its not realy a data-free tree but a tree that base on real shared traits.
from the article:
“Professor Long said it was traditionally thought that they were part of a primitive evolutionary pathway, and that bone in other fish was the more advanced condition. But a series of discoveries in recent years has suggested that sharks are “more evolutionarily derived”, and are likely to be descended from bony ancestors”
How many times have you been told that phylogenetics doesn’t work on simple similarity?
You will note there’s nothing about “degenerated” in that.
We do? There are multiple examples of vehicles with a mixture of car and airplane features:
OK. So you really don’t understand this subject at all. I thought, from the way you’ve been pontificating on it, that you did. Thanks for clarifying.
OK, now try test that hypothesized relationship the way it is in phylogenetics. Identify various traits and analyze them as synapomorphies, seeing if you can generate a phylogenetic signal.
For instance, where do rubber tires fit in that tree? Does if have an origin in one line, and then stay within that clade? Etc.
Or even turbo-fan engines, given that they’re found on airplanes and on ThrustSSC, a super-sonic jet car, but definitely not on the space shuttle, and probably not on any trucks.
Everyone (including you) knows that tree is just something you drew, and wasn’t based on data or real shared traits.
I want my super-sonic jet car.
Yes, “traditionally” it was thought that Sharks represented a lineage of fish that diverged prior to the evolution of bones in Osteichthyes, but evidence has been accumulating for decades, both in terms of fossil and molecular evidence that the common ancestor of “cartilaginous fish” and “bony fish” had a bony skeleton, and the cartilaginous fish (sharks) secondarily lost bone.
They belong to Chondrichthyes.
since vehicles have no DNA the only thing we can use is the level of similarity.
if sharks evolved from a bony fish then they are basically a degenerated bony fish.
im talking about the rule, and im not sure that this car is closer to an airplane than to other cars.
yep. i think so. i already did something similar with land vehicles:
You’re not sure? You will need to do better than that.
There are cars with mudflaps and vans and trucks with no mudflaps. There are vans with larger wheels than trucks. Your features don’t work.
