Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There are snakes, turtles and lizards with two heads. An improvement? How could you tell? Do they have conflicts? Who knows? They're still reptiles.
The polyps remain just what they were intended to be - polyps. No new species!
When you can show me a polyp that has been transformed by mutations into a slug, then you would really have something.
Bunnyboy,
You are setting up and burning your strawman, again.
Evolution is a process that happens to SPECIES. What you are asking for is individuals.
It is like the easily observable shift in population of a forest, say from pine trees to maple trees and you are asking for a tree that is half maple and half pine. That is silly, since the process of tree shift does not require half of one species and half of another.
THE EXACT SAME WAY EVOLUTION DOES NOT REQUIRE HALF OF ONE SPECIES AND HALF OF ANOTHER.
Also the snake needs His legs like a breath of fresh air. Woops that's La Marke's theory for the same fact. I don't really believe this for needing, but I do believe it for Wishing the Promised. Does the promised become so by the "promised piece of Land"?
Lamark wasn't wrong. At least not in idea, but only in scale.
As a matter of fact we have found certain traits are inheritable without changing DNA. Leading to a whole field called epigenetics.
I read these reports when they first came out.
Nonsense! Neanderthals never existed!
"Why do scientists line up the fossils used in the “ape-to-man” chain according to brain size when it is known that brain size is not a reliable measure of intelligence? Are they forcing the evidence to fit their theory? And why are researchers constantly debating which fossils should be included in the human “family tree”? Could it be that the fossils they study are just what they appear to be, extinct forms of apes?
.
What, though, about the humanlike fossils of the so-called Neanderthals, often portrayed as proof that a type of ape-man existed? Researchers are beginning to alter their view of what these actually were. In 2009, Milford H. Wolpoff wrote in the AmericanJournalofPhysicalAnthropology that “Neandertals may have been a true human race.”
.
I bet the picture was reconstructed from a single upper canine tooth - right? Or, maybe, a finger-bone? Can scientists reliably reconstruct such features based on the fossilized remains that they find?
Answer: No. In 2003, forensics expert Carl N. Stephan, who works at the Department of Anatomical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Australia, wrote: "The faces of earlier human ancestors cannot be objectively constructed or tested." He says that attempts to do so based on modern apes "are likely to be heavily biased, grossly inaccurate, and invalid." His conclusion? "Any facial 'reconstructions' of earlier hominids are likely to be misleading."
Source : Science and Justice. Vol. 43. No. 4. (2003) section. Forensic Anthropology. "Anthropological Facial 'Reconstruction'-Recognizing the Fallacies, 'Unembracing' the Errors, and Realizing Method Limits," by C. N. Stcphan, p. 195.
...because if you blow up the picture you posted you can see that the stone does not touch the inside diameter of the can on all three points as you claim.
Oh....I'm still laughing at you pal.
Oh man, I just opened it in photoshop. You are completely correct.
Could it be that the duck man deliberately lied? Maybe god shrunk the rock right before he took the picture?
Last edited by lkb0714; 12-31-2011 at 12:12 PM..
Reason: Can never remember which yec I am dealing with. So sad.
...because if you blow up the picture you posted you can see that the stone does not touch the inside diameter of the can on all three points as you claim.
Oh....I'm still laughing at you pal.
You may be doing something wrong, I don't know. But something that you cant see, which may be the reason of your observation that has produced false results is the can has two inside diameters - one which is the top edge, and one which is the inside of the can which is just a little bigger. So maybe in the picture part of the rock is obscured because it's behind the lip, inside the can. It's the outer lip's inside diameter that perfectly fits the hearts three points. Using three fingers as I place the heart in the can, I position the heart inside the I/D of the lip and it's absolutely perfect! It couldn't be anymore perfect. Not only can I see the perfection, It's feel-able (able to feel) I could try and take the picture like that to prove it, not sure. Anyway, I'm done with talking about that. I really don't care if you believe me or not. That's fine.
You may be doing something wrong, I don't know. But something that you cant see, which may be the reason of your observation that has produced false results is the can has two inside diameters - one which is the top edge, and one which is the inside of the can which is just a little bigger. So maybe in the picture part of the rock is obscured because it's behind the lip, inside the can. It's the outer lip's inside diameter that perfectly fits the hearts three points. Using three fingers as I place the heart in the can, I position the heart inside the I/D of the lip and it's absolutely perfect! It couldn't be anymore perfect. Not only can I see the perfection, It's feel-able (able to feel) I could try and take the picture like that to prove it, not sure. Anyway, I'm done with talking about that. I really don't care if you believe me or not. That's fine.
Wilson, what part of "all species are transitional" did you not understand?
Very convenient - for the theorists.
This, however, suggests otherwise.
Do you know how old these ambers are?
Imagine that! Thousands of years with no physical changes from the bugs of today.
How come?
This, however, suggests otherwise.
Do you know how old these ambers are?
Imagine that! Thousands of years with no physical changes from the bugs of today.
How come?
(\__/)
( ‘ ‘ )
>(^)<
Wilson
1)Evolution often takes place over more than just thousands of years.
2)Bugs are pretty much super efficient animals. Evolutionarily, they are tough, tough animals. It isn't surprising to see a species of bug remain mostly unchanged over thousands of years, because they might not have been "need" for vast changes. If the bug is still the most fit specimen, it will survive as is.
Basically: Just because evolution is real doesn't mean that every species is going through it at the same rate. If a species is well suited for its environment, then the mutations that lead to evolution are rarely going to be advantageous enough to cause any real changes.
I read these reports when they first came out.
Nonsense! Neanderthals never existed!
"Why do scientists line up the fossils used in the “ape-to-man” chain according to brain size when it is known that brain size is not a reliable measure of intelligence? Are they forcing the evidence to fit their theory? And why are researchers constantly debating which fossils should be included in the human “family tree”? Could it be that the fossils they study are just what they appear to be, extinct forms of apes?
.
What, though, about the humanlike fossils of the so-called Neanderthals, often portrayed as proof that a type of ape-man existed? Researchers are beginning to alter their view of what these actually were. In 2009, Milford H. Wolpoff wrote in the AmericanJournalofPhysicalAnthropology that “Neandertals may have been a true human race.”
.
I bet the picture was reconstructed from a single upper canine tooth - right? Or, maybe, a finger-bone? Can scientists reliably reconstruct such features based on the fossilized remains that they find?
Answer: No. In 2003, forensics expert Carl N. Stephan, who works at the Department of Anatomical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Australia, wrote: "The faces of earlier human ancestors cannot be objectively constructed or tested." He says that attempts to do so based on modern apes "are likely to be heavily biased, grossly inaccurate, and invalid." His conclusion? "Any facial 'reconstructions' of earlier hominids are likely to be misleading."
Source : Science and Justice. Vol. 43. No. 4. (2003) section. Forensic Anthropology. "Anthropological Facial 'Reconstruction'-Recognizing the Fallacies, 'Unembracing' the Errors, and Realizing Method Limits," by C. N. Stcphan, p. 195.
(\__/)
( ‘ ‘ )
>(^)<
Wilson
None of that has anything to do with the DNA analysis I presented links to. And Wilson, you are one of the very few on the planet who believes that the Neanderthal never existed. Congratulations. But then, you haven't shown anyone here that you have any scientific expertize, so it really doesn't come as a surprise.
Very convenient - for the theorists.
This, however, suggests otherwise.
Do you know how old these ambers are?
Imagine that! Thousands of years with no physical changes from the bugs of today.
How come?
Are you actually suggesting that ancient species that still exist, like horseshoe crabs, disprove evolution?
How so?
Just because they didn't speciate doesn't mean they haven't EVOLVED (remembering that evolution is the change in allelic frequencies over time). Mosquitoes have existed virtually unchanged morphologically, for 150 millions years, that does not mean they have not EVOLVED.
Mosquitoes have evolved a very nifty trick indeed, they ability to withstand chemical treatments like DDT that used to kill them off to about 95% or so and now is less than 10% effective on some populations. That is classic natural selection right there.
And btw, the fact remains that there are morphologically distinct species found in amber.
“Cretaceous African life captured in amber,” by Alexander Schmidt, Vincent Perrichot, Matthias Svojtka, Ken Anderson, Kebede Belete, Robert Bussert, Heinrich Dörfelt, Saskia Jancke, BarbaraMohr, Eva Mohrmann, Paul C. Nascimbene, André Nel, Patricia Nel, Eugenio Ragazzi, Guido Roghi, Erin E. Saupe, Kerstin Schmidt, Harald Schneider, Paul A. Selden, and Norbert Vávra. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 107 No. 14, April 5, 2010.
To be sure amber has been one of the best methods by which we have learned about evolution. Insects are some of the best examples of convergent evolution we find. When the organisms they need to live off of do not speciate, neither do they.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
