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 Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4
#8797 08/31/06 07:16 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
"then enlighten me ... PLEASE.
or do you choose to just harp about things.
never delivering any sort of evidence."

You want the 2 second version. Actual science, as opposed to the comic-book version you ascribe to, takes effort to understand. I told you what to read. Don't be an intellectual coward. Go read the book. It's short. It's to the point.

'The primary reason people reject evolution is because what they do "know" about it amounts to barbershop gossip.'

Notice my use of the quotes, clearly indicating that what they "know" about it is actually false.

There is no proof of creation. There is no scientific evidence of creation. There is plenty of scientific evidence for evolution. Pull your head out and read an actual science book.

.
#8798 08/31/06 07:29 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Notice my use of the quotes, clearly indicating that what they "know" about it is actually false.
then show them some truth.

Quote:

There is no proof of creation. There is no scientific evidence of creation. There is plenty of scientific evidence for evolution. Pull your head out and read an actual science book.
where is the plenty of scientific evidence you speak of for evolution?

maybe you should pull your head out of the sand
just because your head is in the darkness does not mean that you are safe.
you just wont be able to see the lion when he comes for supper.



3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
#8799 08/31/06 07:33 PM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Paul,

It is clear to anyone with an interest in biology that you don't understand the theory of evolution. Why do you insist on arguing about a subject that you KNOW you don't know anything about?


When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
--S. Lewis
#8800 08/31/06 07:40 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
It is clear to anyone with an interest in biology that you don't understand the theory of evolution. Why do you insist on arguing about a subject that you KNOW you don't know anything about?
I do understand it.
it states primarily that creatures change over time.

I only ask for a simple picture of a changed creature.

If that is asking too much from the entire scientific community then that tells me that there is none.

I suppose you KNOW something about this.

so why dont you show me one.
surely you have seen at least 1 picture of a evolution changed creature.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
#8801 08/31/06 07:43 PM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Any creature you can name is a creature whose form was changed by evolution from ancestral forms.

Populations evolve, individuals do not.


When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
--S. Lewis
#8802 08/31/06 08:03 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Any creature you can name is a creature whose form was changed by evolution from ancestral forms.

Populations evolve, individuals do not.
hey how many skelletons of ancient creatures are there in museums today as we speak.

so you should have absolutely no problem in finding a set of bones that show an evolutionary change.

CORRECT?

DONT TELL ME HOW STUPID I AM SHOW ME HOW SMART YOU ARE


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
#8803 08/31/06 08:10 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Quote:
Originally posted by paul:
Quote:
It is clear to anyone with an interest in biology that you don't understand the theory of evolution. Why do you insist on arguing about a subject that you KNOW you don't know anything about?
I do understand it.
it states primarily that creatures change over time.

I only ask for a simple picture of a changed creature.

If that is asking too much from the entire scientific community then that tells me that there is none.

I suppose you KNOW something about this.

so why dont you show me one.
surely you have seen at least 1 picture of a evolution changed creature.
sorry but this is proof that you dont understand anything about evolution. it takes thousands of generations to make a distinguisable change. in order to prove that change to the acceptance of some one like you. they would have to have every single skeleton from one to the next. that is not ever going to happen.

So if this is the only proof that you will accept, then take your selfproven delusions of winning and find someone else to argue with.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#8804 08/31/06 09:27 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
"I do understand it. it states primarily that creatures change over time."

No it doesn't. It says that populations change over time. MOREOVER, it gives mechanisms by which this change could occur.


"I only ask for a simple picture of a changed creature."
What you ask for is stupid. The question is ambiguous.


"If that is asking too much from the entire scientific community then that tells me that there is none."
You have been given information. You refuse to do your homework, because it is easier for you to remain an ignoramous than it is to do an honest day's homework on the subject.

"I suppose you KNOW something about this."
I have studied evolution for some time. My very first post on the internet, about 26 or 27 years ago now, was on the subject. I have read many books, articles, and debates. I have discussed my ideas with practicing biologists. I have some knowledge, although I am not an expert.

"so why dont you show me one."
I did one better. I told you how you could show one to yourself - look in the mirror.

"surely you have seen at least 1 picture of a evolution changed creature."
You don't have to see pictures. You can see the real thing. Look out your window - every plant and animal, all the people you see are products of evolution. Moreover, they are all related. As a friend of mine said to me once, they all share the fact that they had some common ancestor - far into the distant past.

I know that logic is mystery to you, as is evidence. That's why this is not sufficient for you. You are poorly educated. You have a comic-book understanding of science.

If you want to understand what you're talking about you have to do some real homework on the subject. Or you can continue to flaunt your abject ignorance.

#8805 08/31/06 09:55 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
You want pretty pictures rather than a bunch of confusing words. If you don't know how to use logic or think critically, pictures won't help you, but here's a few.

Pictures of fossils showing horse evolution:
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/vertpaleo/fhc/firstCM.htm

Interesting information on fossils including a sea cow and hominid skulls:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex2

There are also fossils showing the lineage from fish to land creatures, from reptiles to mammals, from reptiles to birds, from land mammals to cetaceans. You can find those yourself. Of course, you could have found these yourself, as well. But you are not sincere in your quest. You already know The Holy Truth. You don't need to think when you have your bible and your assiduous avoidance of logic to guide you.

You can view these carefully and read the text - carefully. But you really need to read Mayr's book, if you want to understand the subject. What you're doing is analogous to a spoilt 16 year old throwing a tantrum on the stupidity of higher math while steadfastly refusing to learn his times tables, or any of those silly old axioms.

#8806 08/31/06 10:07 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
"the drawing is a reconstruction made by several evolutionist in the area trying to deliver some type of proof of their theory."

That is false.

#8807 08/31/06 10:40 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
TheFallibleFiend :

thank you very much. I especially like the page
interesting skulls
Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls

I think I will check the different ice ages to see if any changes might have been a result of environmental adaptations.

as present day men who live in the northern states have developed larger chest.

the men to whom these skulls belonged to in these pictures may also have been subject to environmental surroundings that may have resulted in changes to their bone structure.


the skull (j) is in particular interest to me.
and (i) is also interesting.

I will get back to you on this.

and once again thanks.

I will say this I thought it interesting that the skull (n) is not tilted as the rest of the skulls in the image.

I will tilt the skull in a composit picture and upload it somewhere so that I may discuss the angle at which the skull was possitioned.
if the skulls were all in the same angle then their dental positions would not appear so different.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
#8808 08/31/06 11:02 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
You asked for pictures.

I'm guessing that the difference in tilt is apparent. The skulls seem to be positions in a way that the eyes are looking straight forward.

I don't think they're particularly good evidence myself, at least not without a lot of explanation.

This sort of evidence can best be evaluated by experts in things like hominid teeth and brain capacity that are not immediately obvious to a non-expert viewer.

#8809 09/01/06 12:04 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
I noticed a remarkable similarity to the skull (j)
to modern day man skull (n)
this skull (j) dates back to 70,000 years.

I have found evidence that this man was doomed him and most of all life on earth.

the yellowstone caldera ( national park ) erupted or should I say expolded apx 70,000 years ago.

following such an event there would be little food,
little heat , lots and lots of darkness and cold extreme cold.

because the dust from such an event would cause something similar to a nuclear winter only this explosion was an apx 28 by 47 mile caldera.
the dust would have thrown the earth into an ice age...
the skull (k) reflects this. 60,000 years ago
the skull (l) reflects this. 45,000 years ago
the skull (m) reflects signs of a warmer climate.
as in the skull (i) before Yellowstone.
YELLOWSTONE CALDERA

TFF: this is interesting and I appreciate the links to the skulls.

I will keep looking.
for now it seems that there was environmental adaptation involved.

Thanks again
-----------------------
10 - 14,000 years ago -- exxon drilling evidence of ice ages and rapid warming
-----------------------
Quote:
It would have been a long, cold trip to the beach some 18,000 to 21,000 years ago. The sea was 120 meters below its present level, partially due to the artificially high shore. This shoreline would have been near the edge of the continental shelf, around 120 miles farther out than it is today. Since then, the sea has been returning to pre-ice-age levels, all due to the melting of this most recent sheet. "That's what happens when you melt all that ice," says the Rutgers geologist. "It wasn't a linear melting. Rick Fairbanks [of Lamont] has shown it occurred in two major meltwater pulses, which resulted in large and rapid changes in sea level on the order of 30-40 meters in a thousand years [around 10 and 14,000 years ago]. There's melting of ice sheets still going on today."
around 10 - 14,000 years ago there was a large methane release that warmed the earth this rapid warming is reflected in the changes from
skull (m) to skull (n).

the skull becomes larger.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
#8810 09/01/06 01:18 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
heres a little more data about sea surface temps.
the chart does not go back to the 70,000 yr range
but does reflect the rise in temp apx 15,000 yrs ago
CHART

I will try to find a better chart tomorrow.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
#8811 09/01/06 02:27 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Quote:
Originally posted by paul:
the yellowstone caldera ( national park ) erupted or should I say expolded apx 70,000 years ago.
actually yellowstone has not erupted in 630000 years. you have the wrong super volcano. that one is in the south pacific. the temperature dropped about 3 degrees world wide, with the worse of it in the south pacific areas. the temperature warmed up over the following 5 years, then began a gradual increase.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#8812 09/01/06 12:25 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
I Suppose you know more than these people do.


TRY READING THIS TIME IT MAY HELP. ONLY DONT READ OUT OF CONTEXT
Quote:
Latest Eruptions: 70,000 years ago
Yellowstone Caldera
Location: Wyoming, Montana, Idaho
Latitude: 44.43 N
Longitude: 110.67 W
Height: 2,805 Meters
Type: Calderas
Number of eruptions in past 200 years: 0
-->>>((((( Latest Eruptions: 70,000 years ago ))))<<<---
Present thermal activity: Numerous hydrothermal activity
Remarks: Numerous hydrothermal explosions, geysers, geothermal activity; currently restless, shown by seismicity and ground deformation
_____________________________________________

dehammer:
I am begining to think that if I read something that you write , IT HAS NO VALUE.
_____________________________________________
At the heart of Yellowstone's past, present, and future lies volcanism. Catastrophic eruptions occurred here about 2 million years ago, then 1.2 million years ago, and then 600,000 years a go. The latest eruption spewed out nearly 240 cubic miles of debris.

An area the size of 240 miles by 1 mile by 1 mile thick was ejected when it exploded.
ABOUT MOUNT SAINT HELLENS VOLCANIC EJECTA
Quote:
The May 18 eruption ejected about 0.3 cubic mile of uncompacted ash, not counting an unknown but probably much smaller amount that was deposited in the, atmosphere or too diffuse to form measurable, deposits. This volume of ash is less than those of several earlier eruptions of Mount St. Helens and considerably less than the ejecta volumes of some historic eruptions elsewhere. The 1815 eruption of Tambora (Sumbawa, Indonesia) ejected about 30 to 80 times more ash than did Mount St. Helens in 1980. The 1815 Tambora eruption ranks as the largest known explosive eruption in historic times. But even the Tambora eruption pales by comparison with the gigantic pyroclastic eruptions from volcanic systems-such as Long Valley Caldera (California), Valles Caldera (New Mexico), and Yellowstone Caldera (Wyoming)- which, within about the last million years, produced ejecta volumes as much as 100 times greater.
Think of 100 Mount St Hellens erupting at the same time and same place


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
#8813 09/01/06 12:52 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
the one 70000 years ago was not an eruption it was a lava flow. there is a big difference between a lava flow and a super volcano eruption.

http://www.cheniere.org/misc/Eruptions%20that%20occurred%20at%20Yellowstone.htm

the discription you gave was of a super valcano eruption. And the timing of it was the one on lake toba 75000 years ago.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Toba

a normal eruption would not have caused a nuclear type winter. a super volcano eruption would. The last time yellowstone had that kind of an eruption was 630000 years ago. Toba was larger and did cause a nuclear winter type situation. when it erupted, there were only 1000 human female survivors world wide. The eruption of yellowstone during that time period was not of that calaper.

i might have been misstating that, not counting the lava flow since you were very obviously not talking about lava flows.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#8814 09/01/06 02:49 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
thank you dehammer:
I did not state the type of eruption that had occured at Yellow Stone only that it had occured and had ejected 240 cubic miles of debri.

the Toba eruption actually fits the bill better.
because it ejected apx 670 cubic miles of debri.

once again thank you.
and I retract some of my critisim.
LOL...

Quote:
The Toba eruption (the Toba event [1]) occurred at what is now Lake Toba about 71,500 ? 4000 years ago. It had an estimated Volcanic Explosivity Index of 8, making it the most recent supervolcano eruption and probably the largest volcanic eruption within the last two million years. Bill Rose and Craig Chesner of Michigan Technological University deduced that the total amount of erupted material was about 2800 cubic km (670 cubic miles) ? around 2000 km? of ignimbrite that flowed over the ground and around 800 km? that fell as ash, with the wind blowing most of it to the west. By contrast, the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens ejected around 1 cubic km of material, whilst the largest volcanic eruption in historic times, at Mount Tambora in 1815, emitted the equivalent of around 100 cubic kilometres of dense rock and created the "Year Without a Summer" as far away as North America.
here is a temperature fluctuation chart that shows evidence 70,000 yr ago of a sudden temperature drop.


the chart reflects the temperature drop at apx 70-75,000 years ago, which is about the time of the death of the person depicted in skull (j)

the chart also reflect the much colder temperature apx 60,000 years ago , which is about the time of the death of the person depicted in skull (k)

the skull (k) exibits a extreme change , it shows that the skull is lumpy and deformed , not smooth surfaced as in (i) and (m) and (n).
this lumpyness is most likely due the brain shrinking over time because of the colder temperatures it is exposed to.
the skull that houses the brain follows suit.

the skull (l) shows an extreme shrinkage and some smoothness as the skull has adatped to its colder environment.
this colder environment is reflected in the chart
at 45,000 years ago , and the earth is begining to warm again.

the skull (m) shows a smoothening of the surface and an enlargement of the brain cavity.
this is due to the warmer temperatures on the earth at apx 30,000 years ago.
this warmer time is reflected in the chart.

the skull (n) reflects a period of warming climate where the brain cavity increased in size
due to the warmer temperatures depicted on the chart.

skull (n) has not only recovered its appearance from 70,000 years ago but has grown a significantly larger brain cavity and its smoothness is greater than any previous skulls depicted.
this change is very evident on the temperature chart.

I presume that we are now in the warmest age ever recorded judgeing from this record of skulls in the range from skull (i) to skull (n).

I will look this up now to find out if I may be correct about this.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
#8815 09/01/06 03:23 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Greenland temperatures over the last 100,000 years

THE WEB PAGE



the chart depicts GREENLANDS temperatures.
and I was right we are in the warmest era in the last 100,000 years.

the same findings in my previous post is depicted in this chart.

It is in my opinion that the changes to mens skulls were due to the colder climate.
they may have even experienced an limited ability to perform some mental task due to the shrinking of the brain.
the brain would keep the most necessary parts active and it would shut down or incapicitate un-necessary mental functions other than those needed for survival.

in much the same way as a persons body functions are shut down while he is freezing or undergoing hypothermia.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
#8816 09/01/06 03:50 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
I don't know what you are attempting to demonstrate with your analysis. Temperature variation is well-recognized as a factor in selection.

There are many factors besides texture or even exterior size that go into determining taxonomy.

Things like ratio of sizes of different bones is important:
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/OH62.html

Things like brain size are important:
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/habdebate.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_brains.html

There are also genetic factors that need to be considered:
http://www.haverford.edu/KINSC/06Journal/nature04789.pdf#search=%22genetic%20evidence%20for%20complex%20speciation%20of%20humans%20and%20chimpanzees%22

Classification issues are compounded by the fact that the concept of species was developed prior to the concept of natural selection.

Linnaeus - the father of biological taxonomy, so to speak - was a creationist. Explanation:
Look at http://www.scienceagogo.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?/topic/1/331.html
and scroll down to my first post.
A shorter version at http://www.scienceagogo.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?/topic/2/95.html
scroll to my first post.

Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

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

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5