| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Doubts about evolution.
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Doubts about evolution.

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Author
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Sep 2014 at 03:36
Toyomotor. Dinosaurs are technically two legged  animals, like Tyrannosaur, for instance. Some large vegetarian species walk on four feet but you can see they have the frontal legs larger than the legs at the end. Dinosaurs have bird pelvis and several other bird like characteristics, including some feathered species. Lizards are reptiles, and not dinosaurs. And unlike the myth, it is very likely ancient dinosaurs resembled birds as much as reptiles. 

Now, birds are the closest relatives to dinosaurs that survived, and not crocodiles or lizards like you suspect. Mammals, on the other hand, comes from a different kind of large reptiles that weren't dinosaurs.

This is the family tree of dinasours. Notice that several  ancient large reptiles of the Jurasic aren't there. There aren't lizards, crocodiles and serpents either... but birds are in the picture.





A point of view from the antipodes
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4805
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Sep 2014 at 03:52
Pinguin: So where do lizards enter the picture?
I always though that they were of the Dinosaur family.
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Sep 2014 at 04:42
I think I'm starting to feel this thread again.  This isn't about doubting evolution at all but whether or not the truth we find out fits our original picture of evolution and hence we display "our own doubts".  I agree with toyomotor I doubt that lizards and dinosaurs didn't have common ancestors. 
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4805
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Sep 2014 at 07:51
The long held creationist theories have bitten the dust decades ago.
 
Imho, there is absolutely do doubt that evolution has taken place ever since the very first life form emerged from the primeval swamp. Every aspect of science appears to confirm this.
 
Those who doubt the evolution findings-note that I did not say theory, have the opportunity to prove their view- but I won't hold my breath.
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
Voltage View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 13 Mar 2013
Location: South Africa
Status: Offline
Points: 159
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Voltage Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Sep 2014 at 20:32
Pardon my saying so, but have they truly been brought down?

I also will ask a few questions, where are the much vaunted missing links? Is there not a reason their called "missing?"

With out these there is no proof of evolution.

As I recall science is "The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment:" (Oxford Dictionaries)

Give me an example, just one of a creature transforming itself into another kind.

I will boldly state that never has an experiment proved evolution, and I will risk more by saying one never will be. Name one, and give its credentials. It will not stand muster.

If I appear to be a rapid creationist, please forgive me. I am.

Voltage


Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Sep 2014 at 21:22
Rofl not again.

Look here.  Humans themselves are evolving.  They did a brain size scan of people 2000 years ago during the Roman times and discovered that on average they had a bigger brain/head size than of truly modern descendants.

https://sg.news.yahoo.com/modern-humans-smaller-brains-hunter-gatherer-forebears-081701611.html

Humans don't really know what they, I mean we, are evolving into.  Any book on cognition will tell you that intelligence itself is a mysterious thing.  Is it all contained within the brain or is some part of it intricately connected to outside?

For example the famous case of the Venn Diagram.  Did the Venn Diagram appear in the mind of man first or had it required being drawn out physically and slowly mastered and applied visually before there was such a concept within the mind?  It might thus appear that the more knowledge we allow to be taught in schools, via more extensive libraries and indexes, and through smart learning devices the further our heads would shrink, no longer necessitating as much brainpower to retreive trivial information to be memorized and processed but the quality of intelligence might actually increase.


Edited by literaryClarity - 15 Sep 2014 at 21:39
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Sep 2014 at 01:00
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Pinguin: So where do lizards enter the picture?
I always though that they were of the Dinosaur family.


Lizards, snakes and others belong to a different family of reptiles.
A point of view from the antipodes
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Sep 2014 at 01:06
Originally posted by literaryClarity literaryClarity wrote:

I think I'm starting to feel this thread again.  This isn't about doubting evolution at all but whether or not the truth we find out fits our original picture of evolution and hence we display "our own doubts".  I agree with toyomotor I doubt that lizards and dinosaurs didn't have common ancestors. 


First, Darwin explained evolution in terms of new variations and selection. That hasn't changed much. What has changed is that today we know DNA carry the information to generate a new being, and that the mutations of Darwin are actually changes in DNA.
What is being discussed today are technicalities about how a mutation impact in different regions of DNA. For instance, a mutation in the genes that control development can change completely a species perhaps in just a few generations.

And of course lizards and dinosaurs have common ancestors, but they are lines that diverge very early in the evolution of reptiles. Actually, it is not a joke to say a chicken is a closer relative to dinosaurs than a lizard.
A point of view from the antipodes
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Sep 2014 at 01:10
Originally posted by Voltage Voltage wrote:


Give me an example, just one of a creature transforming itself into another kind.


The proof of evolution is easy to see. Look the domestic dog or the domestic farm animals. They didn't exist just 10.000 years ago. For instance, a dalmatian or doberman dog are product of artificial selection. Also, most fruits and vegetables you eat that comes from farms are also product of artificial evolution. Plants like maize or wheat didn't exist 10.000 years ago either! Others like tomatoes and potatoes have evolved so much you wouldn't recognize them in nature.


A point of view from the antipodes
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Sep 2014 at 01:15
Originally posted by literaryClarity literaryClarity wrote:

Rofl not again.

Look here.  Humans themselves are evolving.  They did a brain size scan of people 2000 years ago during the Roman times and discovered that on average they had a bigger brain/head size than of truly modern descendants.

https://sg.news.yahoo.com/modern-humans-smaller-brains-hunter-gatherer-forebears-081701611.html

Humans don't really know what they, I mean we, are evolving into.  Any book on cognition will tell you that intelligence itself is a mysterious thing.  Is it all contained within the brain or is some part of it intricately connected to outside?

For example the famous case of the Venn Diagram.  Did the Venn Diagram appear in the mind of man first or had it required being drawn out physically and slowly mastered and applied visually before there was such a concept within the mind?  It might thus appear that the more knowledge we allow to be taught in schools, via more extensive libraries and indexes, and through smart learning devices the further our heads would shrink, no longer necessitating as much brainpower to retreive trivial information to be memorized and processed but the quality of intelligence might actually increase.


We shouldn't discount environmental influences in recent "evolutionary" impact on humans.
It is very well known evolution run faster in small populations. Human population today is so large, and reproduction is almost done at random, that I expect evolution is going at a very slow pace.

A point of view from the antipodes
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Sep 2014 at 01:58
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by literaryClarity literaryClarity wrote:

I think I'm starting to feel this thread again.  This isn't about doubting evolution at all but whether or not the truth we find out fits our original picture of evolution and hence we display "our own doubts".  I agree with toyomotor I doubt that lizards and dinosaurs didn't have common ancestors. 


First, Darwin explained evolution in terms of new variations and selection. That hasn't changed much. What has changed is that today we know DNA carry the information to generate a new being, and that the mutations of Darwin are actually changes in DNA.
What is being discussed today are technicalities about how a mutation impact in different regions of DNA. For instance, a mutation in the genes that control development can change completely a species perhaps in just a few generations.

And of course lizards and dinosaurs have common ancestors, but they are lines that diverge very early in the evolution of reptiles. Actually, it is not a joke to say a chicken is a closer relative to dinosaurs than a lizard.


What do you mean the genes that control development can change a species completely in a few generations?  I am thinking even a Chihuahua can still be bred with a pug and turn out okay as a mutt.  The Chihuahua certainly looks different from a cat but it would take more than a few generations to make it become looking like a cat I think.

A chicken is closer?  My that's a surprise.  I'm thinking we can probably use chickens to recreate dinosaurs then.
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Sep 2014 at 02:00
Double


Edited by literaryClarity - 16 Sep 2014 at 02:00
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4805
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Sep 2014 at 03:37
Originally posted by Voltage Voltage wrote:

Pardon my saying so, but have they truly been brought down?

I also will ask a few questions, where are the much vaunted missing links? Is there not a reason their called "missing?"

With out these there is no proof of evolution.

As I recall science is "The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment:" (Oxford Dictionaries)

Give me an example, just one of a creature transforming itself into another kind.

I will boldly state that never has an experiment proved evolution, and I will risk more by saying one never will be. Name one, and give its credentials. It will not stand muster.

If I appear to be a rapid creationist, please forgive me. I am.

Voltage



Your comments are disingenuous.

You completely miss what has been discussed in this thread. No one suggests that one creature evolves into another species. What has been put forward is that all species evolve and continue to do so.

Boldly stating rubbish, without first at least doing some research, makes your post irrelevant.
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Sep 2014 at 01:40
Originally posted by literaryClarity literaryClarity wrote:

 

What do you mean the genes that control development can change a species completely in a few generations?  I am thinking even a Chihuahua can still be bred with a pug and turn out okay as a mutt.  The Chihuahua certainly looks different from a cat but it would take more than a few generations to make it become looking like a cat I think.

A chicken is closer?  My that's a surprise.  I'm thinking we can probably use chickens to recreate dinosaurs then.

Actually, chickens have been used to study dinosaur walking.


Now, interbreeding is a relative thing. Lions and tigers interbreed easily and have fertile descendants. However, nobody would claim they belong to the same species. Speciation happens only when evolution accumulate so much that mixing is not feasible. That could take a lot more time and events than just what you get in 10.000 years of breeding.






Edited by pinguin - 17 Sep 2014 at 01:47
A point of view from the antipodes
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Sep 2014 at 03:03
Interesting.  It seems humans evolved from Synapsids (one holed) related to Dimetrodon.  Dinosaurs crocodiles and all other reptiles not to mention the chickens evolved from Diapsids (two holed).  The difference of having one or two holes in the head makes all the difference. Dimetrodon was the top predator of its time but became extinct before dinosaurs roamed the planet.


Edited by literaryClarity - 18 Sep 2014 at 03:05
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4805
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Sep 2014 at 04:01
I wonder why we're even having this conversation, the creationist theory was disproved decades ago, and the theory of evolution confirmed as fact.

That some, for whatever reason, believe that the earth is flat and it and all on it were created by a supreme being is to defy both science and logic.
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Sep 2014 at 04:29
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

I wonder why we're even having this conversation, the creationist theory was disproved decades ago, and the theory of evolution confirmed as fact.

That some, for whatever reason, believe that the earth is flat and it and all on it were created by a supreme being is to defy both science and logic.


Toyomotor. Just for playing the "devil advocate" I must remember you that, like any geographer knows, Earth is flat... locally.
A point of view from the antipodes
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Sep 2014 at 04:32
Originally posted by literaryClarity literaryClarity wrote:

Interesting.  It seems humans evolved from Synapsids (one holed) related to Dimetrodon.  Dinosaurs crocodiles and all other reptiles not to mention the chickens evolved from Diapsids (two holed).  The difference of having one or two holes in the head makes all the difference. Dimetrodon was the top predator of its time but became extinct before dinosaurs roamed the planet.


True. Dimetrodons were the first attempt of nature to provide reptiles with "warm blood", using those pretty modern solar panels those animals had in the back. Our line is related to those animals, no matter some humans still behave like dimetrodons. LOL


A point of view from the antipodes
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4805
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Sep 2014 at 04:34
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:


Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

I wonder why we're even having this conversation, the creationist theory was disproved decades ago, and the theory of evolution confirmed as fact.

That some, for whatever reason, believe that the earth is flat and it and all on it were created by a supreme being is to defy both science and logic.


Toyomotor. Just for playing the "devil advocate" I must remember you that, like any geographer knows, Earth is flat... locally.


Well, no, where I live is the foothills of Mount Wellington which overlooks Hobart, our State Capital city, so locally, it's hilly.:)
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Sep 2014 at 06:15
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

I wonder why we're even having this conversation
Here each participants can best answer for himself. Why do You participate?
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

 the creationist theory was disproved decades ago, and the theory of evolution confirmed as fact.

That some, for whatever reason, believe that the earth is flat and it and all on it were created by a supreme being is to defy both science and logic.
Take a look at the beginniong of the first post. There it is made clear the thread is not intended to be about "late creationism". If it is abouit any "ism" it is more about "neo-catastrophism" (not a word coined by me; I found it at wiki). I think there is much evidence that catastrophes of extreme proportions played a mnuch bigger part in the "history oi earth" - and of life upon earth - than at least fit well in with older versions of the theory of evolution, that indicated that gradual proces was all important. Catastrophes involving mass-extinctions can in a way be seen as a form of "natural selection" of a very extreme kind, that I will admit. But I think it is hardly comparable to the poroces of "breeding",that we often compare with nature. And one of my points is that many traits that under "normal" (non catastrophic) circumstances would be an advantage for organisms, may not necessarily be that under catastrophes, while I speculate that what we often see as less significant caracteristics may bedecissiver for survival.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4805
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Sep 2014 at 07:11
fantasus:

You're going round in circles trying to defend your post, which, I'm sorry to say, is ill founded and incorrect, factually.

As someone once said, "Evolution, it's here to stay."
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Sep 2014 at 08:17
I kind of understand what fantasus is saying now.  The fact of evolution is here to stay even though the story of evolution keeps on changing.  I have to add though that the idea stemming from Neo Catastrophism as it was coined doesn't alter the fundamental principle of evolution but simply adds another facet to the story of evolution I just mentioned.  The idea of catastrophe is going to be very subjective.  The presence of any condition which would knock any organism off its pedestle is to me a form of catastrophe.  This is not limited to firestorms but is inclusive of all earth terrain at all times.

A planetary scale famine, for example, may not necessarily be due to a comet falling but can be due to a virus which can bring about irreversible changes to some local food chain.  Slowly it can adversely affect another food chain in another place at another time.  In that case evolution will have worked well for the virus but painted a scenario of catastrophe for everything else.  The survivors would have to undergo a paradigm shift in dietary behavior, ultimately stimulated by the overall condition of the battered environment and causing changes to the reproductive outcomes of said organisms.
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Sep 2014 at 12:06
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

fantasus:

You're going round in circles trying to defend your post, which, I'm sorry to say, is ill founded and incorrect, factually.

As someone once said, "Evolution, it's here to stay."
What exactly is against the facts? There is evidence for big impacts and for great extinctions. Some says even there is a contemporary vawe of extinctions. And I suspect very much we have yet found "the top of the iceberg".
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4805
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Sep 2014 at 12:09
Sorry fantasus, you're in a world of your own.
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Sep 2014 at 13:26
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Sorry fantasus, you're in a world of your own.
What do You mean? Not that it is my idea there were mass extinctions, since that I have from publiced scientific sources (like the Scientific American and others). The same can be said for asteroid and comet impacts, since they are well known. So where exactly am I "in a world of my own"?
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4805
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Sep 2014 at 04:58
1. To start with, for doubting evolution;

2. By using cataclysmic events to subvert the evolution theory in favour of the creationist;

3. By stating the obvious, reversing your statements, and the trying to appear that you meant evolution all along;

4. By introducing factoids like ]QUOTE] Not that it is my idea there were mass extinctions, since that I have from publiced scientific sources (like the Scientific American and others). The same can be said for asteroid and comet impacts, since they are well known. So where exactly am I "in a world of my own"?{/QUOTE]

No-one has questioned the veracity of mass extinction by some species-it's fact and we all know it.

Cataclysmic events happened for sure, but the effects that they had or may have had on earth and its living organisms can only be suggested, not stated as fact.
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Sep 2014 at 07:01
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

1. To start with, for doubting evolution;

2. By using cataclysmic events to subvert the evolution theory in favour of the creationist;

3. By stating the obvious, reversing your statements, and the trying to appear that you meant evolution all along;

4. By introducing factoids like ]QUOTE] Not that it is my idea there were mass extinctions, since that I have from publiced scientific sources (like the Scientific American and others). The same can be said for asteroid and comet impacts, since they are well known. So where exactly am I "in a world of my own"?{/QUOTE]

No-one has questioned the veracity of mass extinction by some species-it's fact and we all know it.

Cataclysmic events happened for sure, but the effects that they had or may have had on earth and its living organisms can only be suggested, not stated as fact.
I doubt You have read my posts and really seen what I wrote. I have from the start repeatedly stated my views are not about "creationism". It all ends up with the word "doubts". Those doubts are about how it worked, not about suggesting appeared suddenly "out of the blue". If a discussion of any text, be it a post or any book or article, it is not enough to discuss any word in the headline or title, as it seems people do here. One shall be careful about how to understand  wording  in a title or a headline.
Example from a book I think I have never read in full: Richard Dawkins:The Selfish Gene.
Does not the usual meaning of "selfishness" in one or another way imply consciousness or even some sort of intelligence? But I doubt Dawkins meant genes, long chains of molecules, are "selfish" in that sense. So instead of saying "look, this man, Dawkins prove himself a fool by talking of intelligent molecules", I probably have to read some more to find out what to make of that word. I don´t think iot is to be taken in that literal sense.
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Sep 2014 at 07:45
With catastrophe in mind and very subjectively at that, we can discuss some events and how they play out.  The idea that organisms have to move around and find their best reproductive niche is not separate from catastrophism to say the least.  Catastrophism would certainly lend a hand however and be related.  The catastrophe itself is not itself the stimulus for evolution if it wipes everything out.  There has to be a certain degree of leniency.  Climate change for example and pollution is perhaps the major catastrophe for many marine animals at this stage.  Perhaps in the future their systems will have changed to become immune.  Stuff like Colony Collapse Disorder for bees are a catastrophe caused by using pesticides.  Perhaps in the future bees will be able to tolerate.
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Sep 2014 at 08:34
Originally posted by literaryClarity literaryClarity wrote:

With catastrophe in mind and very subjectively at that, we can discuss some events and how they play out.  The idea that organisms have to move around and find their best reproductive niche is not separate from catastrophism to say the least.  Catastrophism would certainly lend a hand however and be related.
 No objections here. On the other hand what was the best "reproductive niche" could be changed very much by a catastrophe, that may have eliminated a lot of niches as well as organisms.
And of course if any organism that filled a certain "niche" became extinct it became irrellevant how well adapted it was.
Originally posted by literaryClarity literaryClarity wrote:

  The catastrophe itself is not itself the stimulus for evolution if it wipes everything out.  
No catastrophes has so far "wiped everything out", since life is still present on earth. To say otherwise would be essentially to say life started several times over again, and I know about no scientist making such claims.
Originally posted by literaryClarity literaryClarity wrote:

There has to be a certain degree of leniency.  Climate change for example and pollution is perhaps the major catastrophe for many marine animals at this stage.  Perhaps in the future their systems will have changed to become immune.  Stuff like Colony Collapse Disorder for bees are a catastrophe caused by using pesticides.  Perhaps in the future bees will be able to tolerate.
 
I think there is some differences between the mass extinction of today (if we call it a mass extinction)
and earlier ones, since the contemporary one seems to be the result of human activity, while most earlier ones probably was the result of either geological or "cosmic" (impacts, perhaps nearby supernovae or changes in the solar climate or even yet unknown) factors.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Sep 2014 at 20:42
Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:


I think there is some differences between the mass extinction of today (if we call it a mass extinction)
and earlier ones, since the contemporary one seems to be the result of human activity, while most earlier ones probably was the result of either geological or "cosmic" (impacts, perhaps nearby supernovae or changes in the solar climate or even yet unknown) factors.


I don't agree, simply because there is lot of evidence of non-geological and non-cosmic catastrophes. Every time an advanced species, or group of species, invades the territory of a backwards group there is a wave of extinction. For instance, once marsupials lived all over the planet, but when euterians developed they drive marsupials to extinction all over the world, with the exception of Australia that had already separated from the rest of the world. Today few marsupials survive outside Australia, and the ones that survive in South America are pretty small rat-like animals.

The mass extinctions of today are caused by the same kind of phenomena that marsupials vs euterians. Today we have a smart species with a lot of power and with still too much population growth (in Africa, for example) that is wiping out the rest of the animals, competing for space and the resources of the planet. That's the thing, nothing else.

A point of view from the antipodes
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.093 seconds.