But can you imagine the size of the drum sticks?
5 Likes
Youâd need power tools to lift one!
1 Like
You should apply that logic to elephants, giraffes, hippos and rhinos too.
Remember that (i) they are mammals, so require more food than reptiles, (ii) young mammals canât survive without milk from their mothers, and (iii) water is needed as well as food.
I once compared zoo regulations for animal enclosures to the ark dimensions. IIRC there was enough space for all the giraffes, and half an elephant.
1 Like
âkinkajous and olingos are both almost entirely herbivorousâ
âSpectacled bears are typically >95% herbivorousâ
âBinturongs are primarily a frugivoreâ
âGolden, Asian, and brown palm civets are also largely or wholly frugivoresâ
(Reference)
You asked for examples of animals like giant pandas and human vegetarians, and thatâs what I gave you.
âThe Indian green frog is mostly herbivorousâ (ibid)
Itâs herbivorous when adult too. You should have checked.
Again, you asked for examples of animals that were similar to giant pandas. Why are you now trying to reject them?
Ok, letâs look closer.
Who thinks that?
âAlthough the pseudogenisation (conversion into a pseudogene) of the umami taste receptor in Ailuropoda coincides with the dietary switch to herbivory, it is likely a result of, and not the reason for, the dietary change.â (Reference)
This appears to be untrue. Iguanas are squamate reptiles, the majority of which are predators, as are the species most closely related to squamates (tuataras).
Parrotfishes are a tribe within the family Labridae (wrasses), most of which are predators, which lies within the ray-finned fish, most of which are predators, which lie within the bony fish, most of which are predators, which lie within Gnathostomata, the jawed fish, which also includes sharks.
For parrotfish not to be descended from predators, weâd need predation to have evolved independently in every offshoot from the parrotfish lineage except the one that led to parrotfish. Itâs far more likely that most o the parrotfish ancestors were predators and parrotfish evolved herbivory after they split from the rest of the wrasses. So unless you can come up with a series of non-predatory ancestors for parrotfish all the way back to the earliest jawed fish, I wonât believe you.
2 Likes
So you think my first conclusion that giant panda, iguanas, and parrot fish came from predators is correct in the bigger picture of things. The above was the result when I asked about the possibility of them hunting a prey species to extinction, and after saying there was no evidence of any such thing, they offered these alternative explanations.
And I did what EVERYONE should do, which is check things out for yourself and see what other opinions might be out there. You provided specific examples to look into which was very helpful. I think what we often find out is that the details can get pretty complicated.
The Indian green frog is difficult because results for many green frogs come up so I zeroed in on a particular scientific name: Euphlyctis hexadactylus, and it says the tadpoles eat decaying matter and algae, but then they are insectivores as juveniles, and while adults eat large amounts of leaves and flowers they also eat invertebrates.
I think thatâs correct, but you also said âthese might be considered as in transitionâ which I disagree with.
Asked who?
Who are âtheyâ?
So theyâre not carnivorous.
Insectivores are a type of carnivore. Insects and invertebrates are classified as animals and so anything which eats them is carnivorous.
But it would be correct for most of the above to say they are not carnivores and that they are herbivores since these terms are only concerned with what they primarily eat.
2 Likes
You neglected to answer this:
Asked who?
Who are âtheyâ?
True⌠and so I looked up your sources. The thing about Wikipedia and such online sources is that the answers you get often depend on the questions you ask. In your case it is a list of herbivorous animals. But herbivorous and carnivorous are not mutually exclusive. Not sure what the point was to compare such sources so I dropped it. Are you a biologist? I certainly am not.
the various layers are not problematic for the flood model as the model generally claims the geoloic column was part of that event. There is lots of evidence in the Grand Canyon cited in support of that viewâŚso im not sure where the agreement dilemma comes from?
Im not up with the apparent articles about YEC researchers disagreeing, you would need to point me in that direction so i can criticise why that may be the case. I am betting that its likely a journalistic straw plucking exercise at the hands of Biologos in order to attempt to beat up disagreement. I will reserve my final judgement until ive read that article you mention especially given there is no specific layer as far as i understand the Geology of the flood.
The cambrian explosion i think is the starting point that is agreed upon for rather obvious reasonsâŚbelow that layer there is largely nothing to look at!
The Precambrian fossil record is poorer than that of the succeeding Phanerozoic, and fossils from the Precambrian (e.g. stromatolites) are of limited biostratigraphic use.[4] This is because many Precambrian rocks have been heavily metamorphosed, obscuring their origins, while others have been destroyed by erosion, or remain deeply buried beneath Phanerozoic strata.
The thing is, Darwinian view of deep timeâŚif those assumptions looked at the biblical historical evidence and decided that time period assumptions were far shorter, then everything changes.
Which doesnât start until (arguably) Genesis 12.
1 Like
The model generally claims part of the geologic column was created by the flood. There is no agreement on which of the layers represents the flood.
Here it is The Defeat of Flood Geology by Flood Geology. Hope you are up on your geology.
2 Likes
You still havenât answered.
Who did you ask about the possibility of pandas hunting a prey species to extinction?
Who said there was no evidence of any such thing?
Who offered alternative explanations?
I would like to look up your sources, but you wonât say what they are.
I suspect your reluctance is because you asked ChatGPT or Grok or Copilot, and posted the result as if it was your own work.
That suspicion is reinforced by this:
Thatâs not how Wikipedia works.
If you are just regurgitating AI-generated text, thereâs no point in conversing with you. I can ask LLMs questions myself if I want to.
You didnât answer my question. Can we assume the answer is no?
So you just go directly to Wikipedia and parrot those answers only?
And yes it is how all search engines work, even the one in Wikipedia. For example⌠I didnât ask for other examples of those with predatory appearance and herbivore lifestyle without looking myself. But I guess I didnât ask the right question while you found those examples with a different question.
In fact⌠LOL the only exception is the AI, which does a bit more than that. It doesnât always do that part very well, but this is something which will improve over time. Improving over time is what the AIs specialize in.
If you are just regurgitating Wikipedia and you think this gives you sufficient authority that nobody should check out things for themselves then conversing with you is a joke. Do you have any education or expertise at all? If so I can simply ignore what you post outside of that. My education consists of two masters, one in physics and one in divinity so you can apply the same to me if you want. But I never simply regurgitate Wikipedia and certainly donât imagine its answers give me any authority in areas outside my expertise. In an internet search I look at many of the results. This is always better than simply spouting thing off the top of your head because human knowledge is always changing. The biggest advantage of education is not knowing all the answers but rather knowing what questions to ask.
Also you wouldnât look quite so foolish, if instead of getting huffy, you simply investigate asking more questions and thus add more information and details for people to consider. It is only natural and expected that first answers are lacking in precision. We start with gross generalizations and dive into the greater complexity from there. A willingness to learn is always more appreciated than authority, for all expertise is limited anyway.
In the light of your behaviour to me I would hope so.
Richard
Cannot be sure who you are addressing. LOL
The hope that we can learn to behave better is another reason a willingness to learn is so very appreciated.
Your learning has never been in doubt, but like @St.Roymond it is academic, which is fine in the secular world but holds less weight in Faith circles. However if @Roy has been just blagging it, he holds less qualifications than even me, so his derision is misplacedâŚ
As I explained elsewhere , even if ToE can trace its beginnings to the 18th century, most of that history was not available in the 70s when I was at College. It just wasnât that important. Much of the leaps forward were around the turn of the Millennium after which some of the more historic data also emerged. What with China and the mapping of DNA the amount of extra information is exponential. Yet despite all these new discoveries many of the basics havenât changed at all. and neither has has the criticisms either changed or been addressed effectively.
Richard
This time you did teach me a new word: âblagging.â Interesting. LOL
1 Like
so let me get this straightâŚ
your argument against the historical bible account of the flood is to use the claim âflood geologists are contradictory in their workâ?
Honestly bill, if that is your defense, then wtf are you defending there? You guys here donât even agree on most of your own beliefs on these forumsâŚi can use the exact same defense against you !
If all you are going to do is make the claim that because academics dissagree with each other, than all academia is nonsenseâŚyeah good luck with that one!
a criticisim in the article you referencedâŚit accepts that the majority of Flood Geologists still adhear to the 6000 year timeline (so im not sure where the dissagreement is there?)
By the 1990s, after much eldwork and theoretical study, most Flood geologists had conceded that mainstream stratigraphic principles are valid and had accepted the sequence of time periods in the geologic column, although most continue to maintain that those time periods together total little more than 6000 years (for example, Robinson 1996; Tyler and Cof n 2006; Whitmore and Garner 2008).
Here tis anotherâŚever heard of âGlacier Girlâ? Its one of a groupd of about 8 p38 lightning aircraft that crash landed on ice sheets in Greenland during WW2. Funny thing is, that aircraft and its sister ones were found at a depth of 80m (300feet) below the surface of the current icesheet surface levelâŚafter only 80 years! Not ideal for the Darwinian Evolutionary timeline which says that those aircraft cant have only been there since WW2!
Finally,
you are going from one extreme to another in your demands thereâŚyou are demanding âeither the timeline is millions of years or the entire geological column was laid down in a single 12month period and eventâ. Given so many flood geologists debate various dilemmas in the geologic column, surely you are not so stupid as to think that no debate should occur regarding the finer details of the event that are not intimately described in the Bible? Far out, there are how many Christian denominations world wide right nowâŚis Christianity false simply because there are too many churches with differing views on the finer points of Christian belief and doctrine?
Lets not also forget BillâŚ
The problem remains the same as its always beenâŚwe can trust the bible narrative because of its internal consistency and the alignment of that consistency with the historical record (largely eyewitness testimony btw).
If we choose the strip the parts out of the bible narrative that are inconvenient in that they do not align with Darwinianism, then those individuals who base their Christian beliefs on that nonsense are deluding themselvesâŚfor instance, there are some individuals on these forums who im certain do not believe that Moses was a real person or that the Exodus really happened nd they cite the lack of tangible evidence (scientific or otherwise) outside of the Bible for that view.
If there is no Moses, no Exodus, then there are no 10 commandments. If there are no 10 commandments, no Ark of the Covenant, the entire Old testament Sanctuary Service (particularly the Day of Atonement) is a complete phurphy.
If the Day of Atonement is a complete phurphy, then Christs death on the cross is pure fantacy and a mere mortal man died under the delusion that he could save humanity from its evils.
If Christ was a delusioned fool, then what of his followers who spent a generation after his death building a narrative around the Second Coming?
The WaldensesâŚthey were wiped out for a delusion of false prophecy!
That means every individual here on these forums who claims to be Christian is a naive idiot (me included!)
We are naive idiots because, if one remains Christian given the above conclusions, then one is only Christian in order to become a better person. Trouble is, the very narrative we then use to support that goal claims " works based salvation is impossible"âŚie we cant become better persons!