Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 217 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
welcome to the newly developing glaciation period.
by paul
10/24/19 03:23 PM
Potatoes on Mars
by paul
10/24/19 02:55 PM
Fishing , baiting the hook.
by paul
10/24/19 02:43 PM
F=mv ... mv=F
by paul
10/24/19 02:37 PM
Do we have a moderator?
by paul
10/23/19 12:30 AM
Is there anybody out there?
by paul
10/23/19 12:22 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
paul 13
Page 10 of 20 < 1 2 ... 8 9 10 11 12 ... 19 20 >
Topic Options
#29215 - 01/21/09 12:21 AM Re: Why doesn't America believe in evolution? [Re: TheFallibleFiend]
Ellis Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/08/07
Posts: 1490
Loc: Australia
FF wrote:
"Evolution is a fact and a body of theory for explaining those facts. The only debate about whether evolution occurs is in the popular culture. Among scientists the debate is strictly about how evolution does occur, not whether it occurs."

I agree wholeheartedly with this statement. However I think that the point addressed in the original question from DAM, and the questions I have asked earlier is why it should be that the debate is fierce and acrimonious in the US and amost non-existent elsewhere. It is a non-issue, and religious people read the Creation Myth in the bible is just that, whilst they are also able to believe, if they wish, that a supernatural entity made the universe. Why is this so? Why, for example, is so much time and intellectual energy in the US given to proving a proveable untruth, ie.that dinosaurs and humans co-existed? Why is denial so strong in the US?

Top
.
#29216 - 01/21/09 12:34 AM Re: Why doesn't America believe in evolution? [Re: Ellis]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4135
I wonder how the ancient cambodians were able to feed these large dinosaurs !!

http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/dino-cambodia/



how did they construct / lift these huge stone blocks and transport them such far distances?

were the aliens helping them , or were the stegasauruses involved?
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#29218 - 01/21/09 12:38 AM Re: Why doesn't America believe in evolution? [Re: Ellis]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
Paul,
You seem to be unaware that there is more than one set of prints found in the area of Paluxy - at different sites. Some of them are, as I mentioned, just dinosaur prints. However, you're completely right when you say that this print in the picture you gave us is not a dino print. It's also not a human print. It's a fraud. It's called the Burdick print and even most creationists think it's fishy. There is an analysis online, but I'm sure you don't have any interest in finding out what the actual scientists think. Real science is, like, you know, so boring and stuff.

But you don't really need to know real science. Have you ever played in the mud? I did it a lot when I was a kid. I used to walk barefoot for miles up the creek. Anyone with the slightest iota of experience doing this will recognize that real prints don't look like that.

Top
#29219 - 01/21/09 12:39 AM Re: Why doesn't America believe in evolution? [Re: Ellis]
Anonymous
Unregistered


Originally Posted By: Ellis
FF wrote:
"Evolution is a fact and a body of theory for explaining those facts. The only debate about whether evolution occurs is in the popular culture. Among scientists the debate is strictly about how evolution does occur, not whether it occurs."

I agree wholeheartedly with this statement. However I think that the point addressed in the original question from DAM, and the questions I have asked earlier is why it should be that the debate is fierce and acrimonious in the US and amost non-existent elsewhere. It is a non-issue, and religious people read the Creation Myth in the bible is just that, whilst they are also able to believe, if they wish, that a supernatural entity made the universe. Why is this so? Why, for example, is so much time and intellectual energy in the US given to proving a proveable untruth, ie.that dinosaurs and humans co-existed? Why is denial so strong in the US?


Freedom of Religion. When China turned the masses loose, the temples were packed. When Russia turned the masses loose, the cathedrals were jammed. Religion is hardwired, for whatever reason, and it ain't goin away anytime soon. And it doesn't matter what kind. Any kind will do. And arguing with idiots won't tell you a thing. Get used to it... until neuroscience figures it out. Then, who knows?

Top
#29220 - 01/21/09 12:40 AM Re: Why doesn't America believe in evolution? [Re: paul]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
Ancient Cambodians never saw a stegasaurus - and that carving is not of a stegasaurus. It's of a pig and it has markings around it - just like in other carvings on that wall - the ones that are outside of view. That one just happens to resemble a stegasaurus, because you don't see the surrounding stuff.

Top
#29221 - 01/21/09 12:42 AM Re: Why doesn't America believe in evolution? [Re: Anonymous]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
"until neuroscience figures it out. "
My youngest daughter says she wants to be either a neurosurgeon or a neuroscientist. I hope I live long enough that she can give me insight into the subject.

Top
#29222 - 01/21/09 12:49 AM Re: Why doesn't America believe in evolution? [Re: TheFallibleFiend]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4135
No I would like to see the analysis if you have the link please post it.

but please dont take the stegasaurus stuff serious , it was a joke.

also if you can find a splinter of support for evolution could you please post it also.

please include some pictures of the support as I have so that I may have the same advantage as you.

thanks in advance.

_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#29223 - 01/21/09 12:52 AM Re: Why doesn't America believe in evolution? [Re: TheFallibleFiend]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4135
Quote:
Paul,
You seem to be unaware that there is more than one set of prints found in the area of Paluxy


actually I believe they found 80 of the human like footprints , along with 400 dino prints.


normaly there should be several feet of separating sedimentation rock layers between the footprints due to the millions of years that passed between the setting of the footprints , however these are located on the same layer at the same time.

that is what is so evident about this evidence , and I strongly doubt that someone lifted the layers of limestone , forged the footprints and then replaced the layers of limestone without damaging it , just for a hoax.


_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#29224 - 01/21/09 01:20 AM Re: Why doesn't America believe in evolution? [Re: TheFallibleFiend]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4135
Quote:
and that carving is not of a stegasaurus. It's of a pig and it has markings around it


its not a pig , unless they had really long and fat tails when the carving was made.

get real.
cant you see that it has been reworked , the almost sandblasted look gives it away.

_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#29228 - 01/21/09 03:14 AM Re: Why doesn't America believe in evolution? [Re: paul]
Ellis Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/08/07
Posts: 1490
Loc: Australia
One of the Anon wrote:

"Religion is hardwired"

Yes I agree for the sake of argument-- but this 'hardwired' religion does not insist, in other countries, that the myth in the bible is the truth. People still believe that god made 'everything' but they are also able to accept Evolution as an explanation of the origin of life. Why is this so very much not so in the US? That was the original question asked here. I think it is an interesting one, and it is so far unanswered.

That stegasaurus/pig thing looks like a really bad (but very funny) fake!


Edited by Ellis (01/21/09 03:15 AM)
Edit Reason: spelling!

Top
#29233 - 01/21/09 03:18 PM Re: Why doesn't America believe in evolution? [Re: Ellis]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...

Glen Kuban is a biology teacher and Gregg Wilkerson is a PhD geologist who have followed the Paluxy prints for years and have written about the Burdick print here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/wilker5.html

(Unlike Baugh's fake credentials, both of these guys have real degrees from accredited schools that actually exist.)

You ask for a "splinter" of support for evolution - with pictures? There's plenty of real science material available on the net. I don't know what possible use it could be to you, if you dismiss it outright. As I mentioned previously, creationists demand an unreasonable standard of "proof" from evolution, but are completely gullible when it comes to "evidence" provided by creation "scientists" like Baugh, Gish, Morris, and Berlinski.


Here's some evidence:
DonExodus2 has a series of 4 or 5 videos called "irrefutable proof of evolution." (He's using the word "proof" in the legal sense, not the mathematical sense.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1fGkFuHIu0

But I would not start there. Before you examine what the evidence is for the science, it would be a good idea to understand what science is and what the theory of evolution is.

The best book I know of to explain evolution is "What Evolution Is" by Ernst Mayr. It discusses some small evidence for evolution, but that's really a side point. It's primary value is that it explains clearly what the theory actually is and what it predicts. Of course reading this book is not a cure all. I was arguing with a creationist a while back who was quoting the book to me, but who obviously hadn't read it very carefully. I know that scientists are like, you know, all arrogant and everything, and like, you know, creationists are filled with godly humility, but it would seriously help the argument, if, when they read something, they would actually make an effort to understand what is being said. Books require some effort.
Here's a weak attempt to explain evolution in a video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0_-zqHoub8
This is my attempt to answer "The Octamed Challenge" here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCumew-ifXE
He has a number of video responses.
If you're serious, you'll find a good book, though.
Here's a clarification of a simple point:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TOwPLP72bg
Another common creationist misrepresentation of science:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWMIkp8udPg
Creationists almost always assert that they 'HAVE DONE THEIR HOMEWORK' but even when they can recite factoids, every other sentence they utter betrays a profound lack of comprehension of what they're talking about.

Which leads naturally into the following: before trying to understand evolution, it might help to understand what science is. Creationists often tout some comic book presentation of science and then show how evolution fails to meet this comic book criteria they have laid out. One mantra is that science has to be observable, predictable or repeatable - which is almost right, but requires some elaboration for correct understanding. Another one that is just plain comical is that "Evolution is merely INFERENCE!"

Here's a blurb on the difference between law and theory:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Un-I0mRq8Dw

Here's a few vids on scientific method:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsSlj916GDU&feature=channel_page
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcavPAFiG14

A good thing to do is read a book like "Objective Knowledge" by Karl Popper. However, it's hard going.
I offer a brief synopsis here: http://geocities.com/elbillaf/read_001.html

Of course, to understand it requires a serious reading and not the usual activity that creationists identify with that name.

Top
#29234 - 01/21/09 04:50 PM Re: Why doesn't America believe in evolution? [Re: TheFallibleFiend]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4135
Before I am banned for responding in much the same manner as those of you who respond to my post , I will examine the evidence you have provided to me.

and thank you for posting some evidence.

I have just started reading the below evidence and in the first paragraph I found this

Quote:
The alleged subsurface pressure lines are actually algal structures which often truncate abruptly at the print depression, demonstrating that the print was carved.


how do you carve a rock , and leave subsurface lines of any type?

Quote:
Glen Kuban is a biology teacher and Gregg Wilkerson is a PhD geologist who have followed the Paluxy prints for years and have written about the Burdick print here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/wilker5.html


I will edit this reply as I read this document / evidence.

with an open yet inteligent mind.
but for now , hopefully you can tell us how the rock can have naturally occuring subsurface lines that line up precisely with the faked depressions that were actually carved.

further down I found this remarkable find.
Quote:
At least one man is known to have carved several "man tracks" in Glen Rose during the 1920's and 1930's. In 1970 a Glen Rose resident, Wayland Adams, stood before a group of creationists and described the technique his uncle George Adams used to carve such tracks. First, a suitable-sized stone slab would be found (preferably one that already had some depressions, to save carving time), and a shady spot under a tree would be selected as a workshop. Next, the footprint would be carved using hammer and chisel. A center punch was used to simulate raindrops, followed by an application of muriatic acid to dull the chisel and punch marks. For an aged appearance (p. 73) the slab would be covered with manure for a few days. Last, the edges of the slab were chipped to give the impression of a track chiseled from the riverbed (Morris, 1980, p. 111-12).



OK.. there was a man who admitted he carved some footprints ,
still there is NO WAY he could have carved the subsurface lines in the rock shown in the cross sectional images.

below is a cross sectional image of the rock just beneath the toes.



notice the image is from a bible web site and not from a
science web site , the science web sites (those who claim the footprints are faked )dont seem to have cross sectional views of the footprints , but I only browsed around for about 10 minutes to find a cross sectional view.

Im not trying to say that the science web sites are hiding evidence that might damage evolution , just that science is data gathering , not data dismissal.

and if that man claims that he carved the footprint that the above cross sectional image was taken from , then I personaly say HE lied... could science base such an important find on the story that one man tells when faced with such evidence as this?


which brings me to the next sentence in the first paragraph I mentioned earlier of the evidence.

Quote:
Moreover, the orientation of the algal structures indicates that the "up" direction of the print is the bottom of the rock bed, providing further evidence of carving.




algal structures are formed from algae that grows on water.

http://people.ku.edu/~stalder/KS-limestone.html

Quote:
Algal Limestone - Algae are primitive plants (most seaweeds and pond scums are algae). They may live in seawater or freshwater. Like all plants, they use carbon dioxide to manufacture food thus allowing for the participation of the calcium carbonate. The resulting limestone commonly takes on the form of algae or groups of algae and may form irregular shaped and banded structures.


may form irregular shaped and banded structures.

and in this case science would have us believe that algal structures just happened to form in amazing footprint shapes underneath the stone that was to be carved out millions of years later by a man who has admitted to it?

it is clear to see that this is caused from pressure in the soil and not by a carving instrument , I would love to see any scientist TODAY reproduce this type of substructure compaction in a piece of 100 million year old limestone.


So far the evidence has not held water , in my opinion.

.......................








_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#29236 - 01/21/09 05:57 PM Re: Why doesn't America believe in evolution? [Re: paul]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
"Im not trying to say that the science web sites are hiding evidence that might damage evolution , just that science is data gathering , not data dismissal."

A *huge* part of data gathering is figuring out what the real data is, figuring out what the outliers, whether they are part of the signal or part of the noise. This point has nothing to do with the evolution issue. Anyone who has ever done a substantial amount of experimentation knows that sometimes you get bad data. You don't just "ignore it," but you don't include it with your analysis either.

This issue is a little more broad. Since the evidence demonstrates that the Burdick track is a hoax, it's not just that the data is bad, but that it was intentionally fraudulent. Scientists "ignore" the Burdick print for the same reason that they "ignore" Piltdown, Ica figurines, . It's been refuted. But like all the other kooky crap that gets posted on the internet, creationists can't take "No" for an answer. They think real scientists have got nothing more important to do that spend their entire lives answering the same questions over and over.

Is the guy who made that site Dr. Patton? Is he another guy with fake scientist credentials from an unaccredited diploma mill.


Top
#29237 - 01/21/09 06:03 PM Re: Why doesn't America believe in evolution? [Re: TheFallibleFiend]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4135
Quote:
You don't just "ignore it," but you don't include it with your analysis either.


I guess thats what happened with the california gold mine finds.

anyway I will continue further down in the evidence you posted for me.

I am moving on to the...
Quote:
DonExodus2 has a series of 4 or 5 videos called "irrefutable proof of evolution." (He's using the word "proof" in the legal sense, not the mathematical sense.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1fGkFuHIu0


and the guy states these are the 4 irrefuteable facts that
cannot be explained away by creationism.

the 4 nails in the coffin ... so to speak !

brb.

the video disscusses the possibility of humans evolving from apes
of course.

it states that two of the ape chromosomes fussed into a single chromosome and we humans are the result , of course they overlooked the possibilities that one of our chromosomes could have just as easily split and formed two chromosomes and apes would be the result.

in nature I believe it is splits that are prevalent over fussions
not the backwards way evolutionist claim.
it is much more probable that apes evolved from humans and this was most likely due only to environmental reasons not selection.

so then it moves on to the viral dna , and uses the same location in each as proof , well it would be in the same spot in either case...

using a fussion is not PROOF because a split is also possible for the reason apes exist.

I cannot find the next video in the series can you post a link to it?

anyway these 3 nails dont hold the bucket that dont hold water.

if I can see the final video on sumation I can determine for myself if the final nail can hold the bucket.





_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#29238 - 01/21/09 06:57 PM Re: Why doesn't America believe in evolution? [Re: paul]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...

"and in this case science would have us believe that algal structures just happened to form in amazing footprint shapes"
That's not clear. One of the algal growths appears under a ridge between the toes, meaning if it were a "substrate pressure line" as Patton and Baugh propose, that oddly there is greater pressure between the toes than under the toes in that case. In another case it is under the toes. What is it that we infer from this?


"So far the evidence has not held water , in my opinion."
If you can't look at the print and tell it's a fake, I'm pretty sure that the analysis of actual scientists is not going to be very convincing to you. Your appraisal of the evidence is important to you. It's not the long pole in the tent for scientists.

You asked for the info. I gave it. I have no interest in debating the subject other than to post links to counter some of the more egregious creationist claims.

The thread title asks why Americans don't believe in evolution. The question is moot - evolution does not require belief, but it does engender tentative acceptance in those who understand the evidence.

Many of our citizens reject the opinions of scientists by holding the actual science they don't want to believe to an unattainable standard of "absolute proof." They accept largely uncritically the rantings of non-scientists like Baugh, Patton, and others.

Sagan pegged it when he suggested an epitaph for planet Earth:
"They accepted the products of science; they rejected its methods."

Americans are like radical Islamists in their efforts to protect the narrowest interpretation of their religion. The myriad ways that religion interfered with scientific progress extends far beyond the matter of Galileo. Daniel Boorstin, the former librarian of congress, wrote in his book, "The Discoverers"
"The greatest obstacle to discovering the shape of the earth, the continents and the ocean was not ignorance but the illusion of knowledge."

Apologetics was developed for the purpose of maintaining the illusion of knowledge. Americans uncritically spread and repeat this stuff like poison amongst themselves and take it for granted that it's either 1) a great mystery to scientists, or 2) a complex conspiracy by scientists to keep the truth hidden.

Anatole France said, "If 50 million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."



Top
#29239 - 01/21/09 07:05 PM Re: Why doesn't America believe in evolution? [Re: TheFallibleFiend]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4135
Quote:
One of the algal growths appears under a ridge between the toes, meaning if it were a "substrate pressure line" as Patton and Baugh propose, that oddly there is greater pressure between the toes than under the toes in that case. In another case it is under the toes. What is it that we infer from this?


could you provide direction to the area you are referencing
and colud you use the top cross sectional photo please?

ie 25% left to right , 50% down...


_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#29240 - 01/21/09 07:09 PM Re: Why doesn't America believe in evolution? [Re: TheFallibleFiend]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...

"anyway these 3 nails dont hold the bucket that dont hold water."
Thank you for your astute evaluation of the evidence. Actual scientists disagree. But they payed close attention to the evidence and the logic. The relation of humans to apes does not depend on fusion. Either fusion or fission would be consistent. The evidence favors fusion, but there's no sense arguing details. The point is that a prediction of Natural Selection is that such a relationship as this must exist. Had there been no relationship between the 2 ape chromosomes and the human chromosome then the theory of evolution would have been disproved.

"if I can see the final video on sumation I can determine for myself if the final nail can hold the bucket."
They're trivial to locate, if you were genuinely interested.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CvX_mD5weM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K11knFKqW4s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eblrphIwoJQ

Of course, there is always the creationist explanation - magic.


Top
#29241 - 01/21/09 07:10 PM Re: Why doesn't America believe in evolution? [Re: TheFallibleFiend]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
It's the image with the dark blue arrows on it - the rightmost arrow that points down to a "substrate pressure line."

Top
#29243 - 01/22/09 01:15 AM Re: Why doesn't America believe in evolution? [Re: TheFallibleFiend]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4135
Quote:
It's the image with the dark blue arrows on it - the rightmost arrow that points down to a "substrate pressure line."


from what I make of this point on the image , the area you are refering to is not compacted , and is between the two toes above it , and is more in an area of undisturbed soil.

the pressure that disturbed the soil underneath the toes in this cross section even reflects the amounts of pressure that someones toes would present to the soil , ie.. the larger or big toe is shown distributing more pressure than the smaller toes in a progressive fashion.

when you are walking your smaller toes do not press down as much as your big toe does.

to me this is more evidence that this particular cross section is not a carved fake.

I am sory I have taken so long today to reply to the links you posted for the remaining videos , they do show impresive evidence I must say , but there are things that occured in earths past that would have more impact on the development of the human skeletal system , due only to environmental exposure.

Im not going to pick at straws but I would like to point out a few things I found in the videos and comment on them.

in the videos he states that ativisms cannot occur from mamals to birds , nor from birds to mamals etc...

he states that for this reason that mamals cannot have bird parts
and that mamals can only have reptile parts , a platapus clearly has a duck like bill attached to its skull , and a duck type bill is from a bird.

a platapus is not a bird as it has no wings , and a duck is not a mamal as it has wings , so which is correct ?

or is this one case a freak of nature that evolution will allow?

shortly after this he states that we find whales with leggs but we dont find fish with leggs.

it so happens that there are several species of fish that WALK on land and BREATH air as they walk...

such as
snakehead fish

and

walking catfish

granted they dont have legs as we do but they walk just the same on their fins.

the important thing here is that they adapted due to their environment , they walk to water , although they are fish.

Im sure there are many other examples that could be found that would disprove what he says about ativisms.

what about an octupus , a butterfly , how many diverse species are there here on the earth , yet we seem to want to believe that we evolved from apes.

why couldnt we have evolved from the purple rinocerus?

why isnt there a similar species to humans?

why didnt the other animals learn to walk on two leggs?

why are we the only species that wears clothes?

what happened to evolution in all the other species?

those are a lot of questions you have already heard in the past
but lets think about time and the changes in geography that have occured in the past , and about climate changes , and about sea levels.

at or around the time of death of the oldest modern human skull found (apx 40,000 years old) the earth was in an ice age.

sea levels were far below what they are today even much further than you expect.

393 ft

if you will look at where most people live today you will find that they live close to the sea shore , and that all people in greenland live close to the sea shore , simply because all the ice.

where Im getting at with this , and I will have to finish tommorow is that the oldest skull found is just the newest oldest skull that could be found.

and that we cannot claim things such as evolution when we have not uncovered the oldest possible places and probable places of human existance.

Im tired I will finish tomorow OK

just posting these links for use tomorow.

skull

skulls and time lines

ice

jaw bone

gorilla 10 my

still editing this ok...

I have already done this in the past but I believe it was lost when the SAG server lost everything awhile back..
now there are a few additional points I would like to make so its for the best that the information was lost anyway.










_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#29244 - 01/22/09 02:49 AM Re: Why doesn't America believe in evolution? [Re: paul]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
Not sure if I'm going to respond to the rest of your message, since most of it conveys an implicit misunderstanding of evolution and you could pretty easily figure it out, if you wanted.

But I thought I would respond at least to the part about the platypus, since that information is really quite new and the lay reporting has been vague and misleading.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/...ent=channellink

Platypuses are not "part bird" at least not in the sense you imply. Although birds, reptiles and mammals all shared a common ancestor, we could think of the "duck bill" as being a case of convergent evolution. The bill superficially resembles that of a duck, but it's different material.

For reference, "convergent evolution" refers to a similar feature that evolves independently in different lines. Example: bats, birds, and some insects have wings, but they evolved them separately.

Top
Page 10 of 20 < 1 2 ... 8 9 10 11 12 ... 19 20 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.