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 4 of 4 1 2 3 4
#8817 09/01/06 05:05 PM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Quote:
Originally posted by paul:
I think I will check the different ice ages to see if any changes might have been a result of environmental adaptations.
Uh, evolutionary changes ARE results of environmental adaptations, usually.


When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
--S. Lewis
.
#8818 09/01/06 06:06 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
I don't know what you are attempting to demonstrate with your analysis. Temperature variation is well-recognized as a factor in selection.
5 Million Years of Sediment Change


if you will notice the verry first skull (b) dates back to 2.6 million years ago.

now if you will compare the differences between the skulls (h) and (b).

according to the data from the above chart there
was a extremely slow but steady climate change from apx 3 million years ago to apx 1.7 million years ago.

aproximately the same dates as the two
skulls (b) and (h).

as referenced before in earlier post the changing of temperatures can cause the changing of bone structure as you have admited and as others have also admitted.

I have referenced this using the hominid skulls.
and using the various temperature charts.

I have shown the differences between skulls (j) and (n).
and have given a plausible reason for the changes.

and have shown how man has changed over the years due to climatic changes , if you would notice the differences by comparason to skulls (b) and (h) you will find that there is not much difference other than the jutting of the jaw in skull (b)

if you will look at the skull (L) you will see that the jaw has lowered and begining to jutt out as in (b) which has a more definite jutting.

it is my opinion that man has not yet found the first mans bones and that evolution is nothing but environment adaptations.

and that when man finds the first mans bones he will find something that looks very much like the skull (n).

and he will find that apes and chimps are the result of environmental adaptations in humans
not the result of evolution of man from nothing.

he will find that we are their ancestors.
not we theirs.

he will not find any older skulls or bones
of man prior to this point.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
#8819 09/01/06 06:10 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
"It is in my opinion that the changes to mens skulls were due to the colder climate."

You've taken for granted that they are all "men."

What you've described is a putative factor in evolution. You haven't refuted evolution.

#8820 09/02/06 03:36 AM
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 106
E
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
E
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 106
Quote:
Originally posted by TheFallibleFiend:
You've taken for granted that they are all "men."
To be fair TFF, in its original old english sense the term 'man' or 'men' is generic and refers to both sexes of human (see... even that word has it in it). It's use is therefore a linguistic hangover rather than a misogynistic overtone.


Eduardo
Resistance is futile. Capacitance is efficacious.
There are 10 types of people in the world... Those who understand binary, and those who don't.
#8821 09/02/06 06:53 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
"To be fair TFF, in its original old english sense the term 'man' or 'men' is generic and refers to both sexes of human (see... even that word has it in it). It's use is therefore a linguistic hangover rather than a misogynistic overtone."

You've mistaken my point. I was ambiguous. Let me restate it:

"You've (he's) taken for granted that they were all human beings."

Page 4 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