What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Where does everyone stand in regards to...

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #621
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]homo erectus is clearly a hominoid and far more closely related to us than to the transitional form between the human and ape groups....
ok fine, maybe not homo erectus but- http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC050.html

about cambrian explosion-"Complex life forms appear suddenly in the Cambrian Explosion, with no ancestral fossils. " http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html
No fossils have been found transitional between invertebrates and vertebrates. - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC211.html
 
  • #622
http://www.sjchurchofchrist.org/junkdna.shtml
theres an article on it.

If creationism were to be true, everything would be well and organized in the living world. If we researched any genome of any species of anything living, we would find everything to be coding DNA... why would god put something there that wasn't necessary?
 
  • #623
[b said:
Quote[/b] (TheAlphaWolf @ Jan. 08 2005,4:03)].
there are even transitional species between vertebrates and invertebrates. lancets (is that right?) are one. They don't have a true backbone but instead have a notochord (darn... I'm bringing up OLD stuff from biology... are the names right?)
and humans ARE apes. so of course there's not going to be anything from apes to humans because humans are apes! LOL
smile_n_32.gif

no seriously... as it has been adressed before, there's controversy if homo erectus is human or not so how more intermediate CAN you get?[/QUOTE]
where is this controversy?  i have never heard anyone in anthropology call homo erectus human, they are called human ancestors but never just plain humans.  This also begs the question of what makes us human. Im not saying your wrong i would just like to read it and check out the persons qualification to make that statement.

and let me quickly explain punctuated evolution because im not sure anyone here knows what it is or is explaining it right cause you are confusing me and i have studied the theory.  the way it would work is this, a new nitch opens up and existing animals move into it, then as they occupy this nitch they evolve to better suit being in that nitch, they do not evolve then occupy the nitch like some are making it seem.  The reason this is punctuated is because one spieces will suddenly become several to occupy the open nitches.  of course its is more complicated than this but its the theory in a nutshell
 
  • #624
[b said:
Quote[/b] (ktulu @ Jan. 08 2005,1:38)]and let me quickly explain punctuated evolution because im not sure anyone here knows what it is or is explaining it right cause you are confusing me and i have studied the theory. the way it would work is this, a new nitch opens up and existing animals move into it, then as they occupy this nitch they evolve to better suit being in that nitch, they do not evolve then occupy the nitch like some are making it seem. The reason this is punctuated is because one spieces will suddenly become several to occupy the open nitches. of course its is more complicated than this but its the theory in a nutshell
thats a part of the theory in a nutsell
confused.gif
 
  • #625
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Amateur_Expert @ Jan. 08 2005,7:49)]
[b said:
Quote[/b] (ktulu @ Jan. 08 2005,1:38)]and let me quickly explain punctuated evolution because im not sure anyone here knows what it is or is explaining it right cause you are confusing me and i have studied the theory.  the way it would work is this, a new nitch opens up and existing animals move into it, then as they occupy this nitch they evolve to better suit being in that nitch, they do not evolve then occupy the nitch like some are making it seem.  The reason this is punctuated is because one spieces will suddenly become several to occupy the open nitches.  of course its is more complicated than this but its the theory in a nutshell
thats a part of the theory in a nutsell
confused.gif
true but thats basicly what sets punctuated apart from normal evolution.
 
  • #626
Punctuated equilibrium (not evolution) relies on reproductive isolation. If organisms exploiting a new niche continue to reproduce with the overall population, rapid speciation isn't going to happen.
 
  • #627
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]where is this controversy? i have never heard anyone in anthropology call homo erectus human, they are called human ancestors but never just plain humans. This also begs the question of what makes us human.
finch asked that...I got confused. It's not homo erectus.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]ok fine, maybe not homo erectus but- http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC050.html

about cambrian explosion-"Complex life forms appear suddenly in the Cambrian Explosion, with no ancestral fossils. " http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html
No fossils have been found transitional between invertebrates and vertebrates. - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC211.html
and speaking of finch, I know what you mean by sexual selection!
You mean like peakocks or that deer thing with GIANT antlers?
I don't really know what to say about it... but here it goes just for the sake of saying it :p
first of all why it doesn't agree with creationism. Peacock tails are more of a burden (same as the giant antlers, there's a male fly with unmatched wings of different sizes, flies with antlers, etc) so why would god do that? That's not very fair now is it?
Evolutionists believe that such things evolve for one of two reasons. One is that females choose males with characteristics that slow them down and stuff because it shows that they are healthy/strong/etc enough to be carrying such burdens, and another is that since other females like those things, you choose males that would have offspring with traits that females will find attractive and so your genes would be passed down even more.
 
  • #628
[b said:
Quote[/b] (herenorthere @ Jan. 08 2005,3:53)]Punctuated equilibrium (not evolution) relies on reproductive isolation.  If organisms exploiting a new niche continue to reproduce with the overall population, rapid speciation isn't going to happen.
Punctuated equilibrium, thats what its called, sorry couldnt remember teh equilibrium part.

The reproductive isolation is one of the major problems with the theory since often times the new speices is found with its parent speices which makes one ask the question of why they did not interbreed.

Also if the organisms continue to reproduce with the overall population no speciation will occur unless the entire species evlolves.
 
  • #629
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]that's because scientifically the great flood is IMPOSSIBLE. You can only believe the great flood if you believe that god twisted natural laws.

Well duh God twisted natural laws - otherwise we wouldn't be talking about creationism at all. God made rain fall from the sky and come out of the ground in large enough quantities to cover the earth. I'm quite aware of the fact that this did not happen naturally.

As for the population factor, yes, I know natural disasters and wars and all that wipe out huge numbers of people. If we had a population growth of only 0.2% a year, after 10,000 years, the population would grow from 2 to 951141889. That's almost a billion from just two people with a very high mortality rate.

It's not just Christians who beleive in the Flood. Almost every single culture in the world has stories of a great flood that covered the earth. Coincidence?

Peter
 
  • #630
it doent have to have to be the males body

In the polygymous bowerbirds, the male constructs and decorates a bower or grass, ferns, orchids, or sticks, an there he calls and displays to attract and impress a female. In some adult males the plumage is colorfull, but in others it is uniformaly dull like that of the females; males with colourfull plumage build simple bowers, wheras unadorned males build complex ones. This clearly indicates that bowerbirds represent a transfer from sexual attraction from the males apperence to the structures and decorations.
images


Males go so far as to steal decorations from eachother. females choose to mate with males with the larger, bettor decorated bowers.
images


By looking at the types of bowers and the species that builds them one can imply wich may have started first and wichone has evolved the latest. The bower types are court, mat, maypole, and avenue.

Simpleist is the court type, built by the colorfull the tooth-billd bowerbird, and is simply a cleard patch of forest decorated with upturned fresh leaves.

(y'alll like this one) The mat type is built only by the rare Archbold's bowerbird, a large black bird of highland new guinea, witch accumulates a mat of fern fronds on the forest floor decorated with snail shells, beetle wing cases, fingus, charcoal, and other such items, and drapes orchid stems (often flowering) and -rarely- nepanthese stems on the perches above.

The maypole is a hollow stick structure built around one or several sapling stems and decorated with flowers and moss, constructed by the five gardener bowerbirds.

The rest make avaue bowers, simple or conplex structures of verticle stick walls standing on the ground
 
  • #631
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Almost every single culture in the world has stories of a great flood that covered the earth.  Coincidence?

actualy, more like 5, and almost every single culture has taales of disasters. floods are one of them. Not many intact cultures -ones untouched my missonarys and not converted to christanity- have tales of a great flood that wiped out everything ( exeptions are myas, aztecs & messopitamians). if they did often it was to destroy unsatisfctory creations, like the aztecs story that the gods destroyed the clay people with a flood because they did not make satisfactory offerings.

every single culture also has histories and tales of violence (anthropologists know of no culture that is completely peacful and does not have wars atleast rarely) and not one have females acheived as much political say in affairs as men. Coincidence, or is this a leftover behavioral trate from our ancestors?
 
  • #632
OMFG, will you guys take a break?!
I cant participate here anymore because I dont have time to read 4 pages that appear in this thread every day!
 
  • #633
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]The reproductive isolation is one of the major problems with the theory since often times the new speices is found with its parent speices which makes one ask the question of why they did not interbreed.
it may have to do with habits. If one is nocturnal and the other is diurnal then they're not going to interbreed.
Dogs and coyotes can interbreed (as can dogs and wolves... can dogs and coyotes interbreed??) but they usually don't because they breed at different times of year. If they DO mate and have offspring, the babies are born in the wrong time of year and they usually die.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Well duh God twisted natural laws - otherwise we wouldn't be talking about creationism at all. God made rain fall from the sky and come out of the ground in large enough quantities to cover the earth. I'm quite aware of the fact that this did not happen naturally.
ok good... but then don't use the flood in a scientific debate against evolution. (I forgot if you used it or if I was responding to the site... which isn't very scientific :p)
[b said:
Quote[/b] ] If we had a population growth of only 0.2% a year, after 10,000 years, the population would grow from 2 to 951141889. That's almost a billion from just two people with a very high mortality rate.
It's not just Christians who beleive in the Flood. Almost every single culture in the world has stories of a great flood that covered the earth. Coincidence?
no it's no coincidence. Religions adopt previous beliefs into their beliefs to make their beliefs more credible to people. and it's not almost every single culture. I dont remember hearing of native americans or mayans or asians having flood stories... i'm sure the cultures with flood stories are all connected somehow aren't they?
again, you are making your calculations as if they were constant. When do they have children? There are way too many variables to make the calculations as simple as you're making them. It depends when they start having children, how many of those children have children, natural disasters, etc......
for example... the toba catastrophe. Previously to that there were millions of humans but then a supervolcano erupted and killed off many of them to only leave a couple thousand humans. Ice ages also greately reduced human populations...
you're just saying it as if population growth was constant. It is not.

remember: it's not as simple as that!
 
  • #634
freak out! obviously this was gonna be a hot topic
 
  • #635
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Not many intact cultures -ones untouched my missonarys and not converted to christanity- have tales of a great flood that wiped out everything ( exeptions are myas, aztecs & messopitamians).
they did? cool. I don't know when but the mayans and others did have contact with the egyptians and stuff. There's evidence for it... I believe they traded coffee? or some drug? I don't know...
 
  • #636
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Finch @ Jan. 08 2005,12:55)]freak out! obviously this was gonna be a hot topic
If you notice, only you, Amateur Expert, Alpha Wolf and Rubra are participating.
ktulu makes a post every few pages, and thats it.
No one has time for it anymore.
 
  • #637
one species of coffee, the most commonly drank, is from the african rainforests

hey alpha why havent u responded to my pms?
 
  • #638
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]hey alpha why havent u responded to my pms?
too much to do! I've been very very busy :p
I still haven't finished mike king's notes, I have to write at least three pages for homework, I have to respond here, people are talking to me in AIM, etc... I am writing a response but just wait a sec :p
(and it doesn't help that my mom is watching TV and I can't concentrate!!!)
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]one species of coffee, the most commonly drank, is from the african rainforests
well I forgot what it was but it wasn't found in egypt.
besides there's more evidence... like pyramids. the mayans made pyramids, chinese made pyramids, egyptians made pyramids, many cultures made pyramids. coincidence? Maybe we should all make pyramids right? It's not just flood stories that cultures have in common, and that doesn't prove a thing or makes your argument any better that they do.
 
  • #639
Man,
You guys found a way to reword a Religion topic................AGAIN!

The real fact is: We don't know!
Why?: Cause we weren't around yet. (humans in general)

It's obvious that natural disasters take place. Floods or whatever make no preference to science or religion. Now, if it rained brimstone and fire, I'd say that counts; otherwise.

smile_m_32.gif

Joe
 
  • #640
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]actualy, more like 5, and almost every single culture has taales of disasters. floods are one of them. Not many intact cultures -ones untouched my missonarys and not converted to christanity- have tales of a great flood that wiped out everything ( exeptions are myas, aztecs & messopitamians). if they did often it was to destroy unsatisfctory creations, like the aztecs story that the gods destroyed the clay people with a flood because they did not make satisfactory offerings.

every single culture also has histories and tales of violence (anthropologists know of no culture that is completely peacful and does not have wars atleast rarely) and not one have females acheived as much political say in affairs as men. Coincidence, or is this a leftover behavioral trate from our ancestors?

I don't know what history curriculum your school uses - probably one that will ever admit anything that might disprove evolution. I have done my research when I say that pretty much every culture (and almost every religion for that matter) has tales of a great flood that wiped out all but a few people.

As for females not achieving the political power of men, I agree with you. Coincidence, no. Behavioral trate, no. It was part of the curse put on Eve and all womankind after she sinned.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]ok good... but then don't use the flood in a scientific debate against evolution. (I forgot if you used it or if I was responding to the site... which isn't very scientific :p)

The fact that it happened supernaturally does not retract from its factor in showing that there is a reason for the extinction of many animals, and for scientists claim that all people are descended from one pair.

Alpha, if you do not accept my figure of 0.2% population growth per year, what do you suggest? That is a tiny number. That means that for every five hundred people, one is added each year. Even with natural disasters and disease and all that, that is a small number. Sure may not be that constant, but that could still be a viable average.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Previously to that there were millions of humans but then a supervolcano erupted and killed off many of them to only leave a couple thousand humans. Ice ages also greately reduced human populations...

So why aren't we finding millions of human fossils created at several distinct periods in history?

Peter
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top