RE: Evolution/Creation debate

RE: Evolution/Creation debate (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Tkman117 -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/10/2014 11:06:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen So you're basing the claims of extraordinary anatomy on what? Is this your way of admitting that you had no basis for your bald claim that they're Homo Sapiens? [:D] K. What evidence is there that they aren't homo sapiens? I would like to see that evidence, or if you have already posted it, could you please reference the post #?

Tkman117 -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/10/2014 11:15:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles Since there have basically been no Creationists defending Creationism it has been interesting to watch "Evolutionists" playing "whack-a-mole" with each other in this thread. If you can't even agree with each other on what the "fact" of Evolution involves, how to do expect those "ignorant Bible thumpers" to understand, let a lone believe the "fact" of Evolution. Oh, by the way, perhaps one of you could explain for me how honey bees "evolved". ;-) The fact that evolution occurs is as assured as is the fact that there is an atmosphere around this earth. But there are people who think certain parts of evolution (genetic mutation, natural selection, etc.) hold more influence over the process than others. The evidence and conclusions are largely undisputed, but the mechanisms and the degree of power they have are what's in question. It's like I say that Natural selection is more dominant in the process of evolution, holding 70% of the changes that happen, while Mutations hold only 30 (not actual numbers, just using an example). Someone else could think the opposite, and at this moment we're not entirely sure what it is. That's the beauty of science, we have questions and we test it to derive the answers. Will we ever know for sure? Maybe, maybe not, because Science is never 100% correct, there is always room for improvement and change given sufficient evidence. The fact that evolution and it's methods for which it occurs happen at all is not what's in question, it's how effective they are and how they play into evolution as a whole. To answer your bee question I got a couple links if you'd like to read them: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061209083342.htm http://www.bibba.com/origins_milner.php http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bee#Evolution

DomKen -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/10/2014 11:20:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen So you're basing the claims of extraordinary anatomy on what? Is this your way of admitting that you had no basis for your bald claim that they're Homo Sapiens? [:D] No. It is my way of trying to get you to present some source of the nonsense so I can pin it down as the nonsense it is.

DomKen -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/10/2014 11:26:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: Polyploidy is a case, possiby the only case, where speciation occurs in one generation. Multiplying the number of chromosomes makes the new specie's gene pool incompatible with old population's. I asked you for an example of evolution/speciation occurring now. You gave me the polyploidy primrose discovered by DeVries in 1886. Granted that polyploidy is common among plants and they can thrive because they self-pollinate and the difference in chromosome numbers makes them incompatible for sexual reproduction. I grant you it is a new species. But you really have to stretch definitions to call polyploidy mutation a form of natural selection. Genetic drift is an obvious fact. As I understand you, genetic drift over time will cause the emergence of a new species. Or did cause the emergence of a new species. There is no bright line, you say. My question is then how do you know when a new species has demarked from its ancestor? Humans share almost 99% of chimpanzee genes. Evidence they shared a common ancestor. But how are they biologically different species? Intuitively we know. But by what definition or marker of the term 'species?' That is what I am trying to nail down here. I hope my question is clear. Those are difficult questions. Are dogs, wolves and coyotes separate species? They are all completely interfertile though in general they do not voluntarily interbreed. Basically species is a human concept and it does not map clearly onto organisms. We'll never really know at what point our ancient ancestors were so different from us that we would be infertile with them.

jlf1961 -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/10/2014 11:32:14 AM)
First there were no hominids that evolved on the North or South American continents. First the Clovis culture used tools similar to those used in western Europe. Indicating that the Clovis culture migrated along the ice shelf during an ice age to the north American continent. The Clovis culture died out completely, indications are that a large continent impacting asteroid impacted the laurentide ice sheet. Then in a later migration, peoples originating in the Mongolian region of Asia crossed the Barents land bridge and migrated down to the south American continent. Regardless of what the "ancient alien" theorist would have you believe, the elongated skulls found in south America are homo sapiens, there was no increase in brain capacity, the cranial volume remains the same as a normal homo sapiens, it was just a body modification custom of some cultures.

Kirata -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/10/2014 11:36:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 What evidence is there that they aren't homo sapiens? I would like to see that evidence, or if you have already posted it, could you please reference the post #? The major differences are that these people had a larger cranial vault, i.e., a bigger brain, and their skulls lack the characteristic sagittal suture, exhibiting instead only a single parietal plate (last image). [image]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_O0ch3ABb3L4/S1S_XRF_x3I/AAAAAAAAARQ/qfOk2713jg4/s400/paracas+cranial+deformation.jpg[/image][image]http://api.ning.com/files/7l33hFydjUCbBlrJUntZNtc32oZ7uiVgOZzQhLF-Rw4yhYvfptFPV6wpzY3PRDJgMCMJ9NO5ztX2-PlZOrKg*gK045lQrR/Skull061113bX.jpg[/image] [image]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/tx52d45d90.jpg[/image] [image]http://thegreaterpicture.com/images/alien-skull2.jpg[/image] K.

DomKen -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/10/2014 11:42:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 What evidence is there that they aren't homo sapiens? I would like to see that evidence, or if you have already posted it, could you please reference the post #? The major differences are that these people had a larger cranial vault, i.e., a bigger brain, and their skulls lack the characteristic sagittal suture, exhibiting instead only a single parietal plate (last image). You do realize you can see it quite clearly in the first 2 images?

Kirata -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/10/2014 11:45:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen You do realize you can see it quite clearly in the first 2 images? I think what can be seen most clearly is not in the pictures. [:)] K.

DomKen -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/10/2014 11:49:19 AM)
Isn't it odd how such a remarkable and unique diagnostic feature is not shown clearly in any image?

Kirata -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/10/2014 11:52:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Isn't it odd how such a remarkable and unique diagnostic feature is not shown clearly in any image? LOL ...you owe me a keyboard! K.

DomKen -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/10/2014 11:53:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Isn't it odd how such a remarkable and unique diagnostic feature is not shown clearly in any image? LOL ...you owe me a keyboard! K. So you've got nothing. How usual.

Tkman117 -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/10/2014 12:15:26 PM)
The act of elongating one's skull is something that humans have done in the past, just because they appear to not look human does not make them non human. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_cranial_deformation

Milesnmiles -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/10/2014 12:27:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 To answer your bee question I got a couple links if you'd like to read them: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061209083342.htm http://www.bibba.com/origins_milner.php http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bee#Evolution Those do say that honey bees "evolved" and from what they probably "evolved". But don't seem to answer the question of how they "evolved", care to try again? ;-)

DomKen -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/10/2014 12:30:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 To answer your bee question I got a couple links if you'd like to read them: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061209083342.htm http://www.bibba.com/origins_milner.php http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bee#Evolution Those do say that honey bees "evolved" and from what they probably "evolved". But don't seem to answer the question of how they "evolved", care to try again? ;-) ? Your question was answered or is not specific enough to be answered.

Milesnmiles -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/10/2014 12:41:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 To answer your bee question I got a couple links if you'd like to read them: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061209083342.htm http://www.bibba.com/origins_milner.php http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bee#Evolution Those do say that honey bees "evolved" and from what they probably "evolved". But don't seem to answer the question of how they "evolved", care to try again? ;-) ? Your question was answered or is not specific enough to be answered. I did not ask if it happened, I asked how it happened, is that so hard for you to understand? Tkman117 gave three sources that said "it happened" but nothing that told how it happened? I'm was hoping that someone here was actually knowledgeable enough about the workings of Evolution, to answer a simple question but I guess not. ;-)

DomKen -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/10/2014 12:44:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 To answer your bee question I got a couple links if you'd like to read them: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061209083342.htm http://www.bibba.com/origins_milner.php http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bee#Evolution Those do say that honey bees "evolved" and from what they probably "evolved". But don't seem to answer the question of how they "evolved", care to try again? ;-) ? Your question was answered or is not specific enough to be answered. I did not ask if it happened, I asked how it happened, is that so hard for you to understand? Tkman117 gave three sources that said "it happened" but nothing that told how it happened? I'm was hoping that someone here was actually knowledgeable enough about the workings of Evolution, to answer a simple question but I guess not. ;-) What do you mean by how? A population of social wasps became specialized for feeding on flowers?

Tkman117 -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/10/2014 12:52:20 PM)
They evolved the way all other species did. There was an empty niche in the ecosystem (flowering plants) and the bees (once wasps) filled it, they evolved together to maximize their needs, the flowers needed pollinators and the bees needed food. It's pretty much a symbiotic relationship.

GotSteel -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/10/2014 12:55:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Those are difficult questions. Are dogs, wolves and coyotes separate species? They are all completely interfertile though in general they do not voluntarily interbreed. Basically species is a human concept and it does not map clearly onto organisms. We'll never really know at what point our ancient ancestors were so different from us that we would be infertile with them. This is the point I've been making for a while now. Taking an analog process and labeling it as discrete groups is useful but one can't expect reality to have those perfectly neat right angle lines. I think the issue some people have with evolution is a matter of not seeing the forest for the trees.

Kirata -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/10/2014 1:00:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 The act of elongating one's skull is something that humans have done in the past, just because they appear to not look human does not make them non human. I'm aware of that, but head binding and cradle boarding do not change the volume of the cranial vault, they only change its shape, and they fail to explain the lack of a sagittal suture. In other words, no cigar. K.

Kirata -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/10/2014 1:02:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Isn't it odd how such a remarkable and unique diagnostic feature is not shown clearly in any image? LOL ...you owe me a keyboard! So you've got nothing. How usual. Oh please, stop. I had one spare keyboard, but I don't have another! K.

Page: << < prev 10 11 [12] 13 14 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875