mjordan2nd said:
Nobody claims Lucy was human. She is widely believed to be an ancestor of the genus homo, which includes humans. She (the species) is possibly where, or near where the split between other great apes and the genus homo occurred.
I have never heard about only "one tooth" being similar to a human tooth on Lucy. The structure of her teeth in general, though, was closer to that of humans than that of other modern primates. Your claim that her skeleton looked like a monkey's skeleton, therefore she can't be an ancestor to humans is misplaced. Lucy is thought to be an ancestor of humans because of striking similarities in parts of her anatomy. For instance, her knees indicated she was a biped and her pelvis was similar to that of human females.
Dogs are closely related to what? Other dogs? Of course. If you're implying humans, than they are closely related. More closely related than fish.
|
I heard it somewhere...
mjordan2nd said:
|
Scientists are people. Of course some will exaggerate. Something esoteric in the scientific community can easily be exaggerated, as we saw with the Korean scientist who claimed to have cloned a human. That said, Lucy is not at all esoteric. It would be very difficult to exaggerate anything based on her, as anyone who did so would be sharply rebuked by the rest of the scientific community.
|
What does cloning a human have to do with Lucy... Lucy is clearly a monkey yet people tie it to us...
mjordan2nd said:
|
Right, but not necessarily to all the relevant content of my posts. You tend to ignore many things.
|
Like what?
mjordan2nd said:
|
I suppose this can be taken as an example of an adaptation. Not really sure, though.
|
If you cant see that, then you have no idea what you are talking about...
mjordan2nd said:
|
This is not simple adaptation. An organism adapts. A species evolves due to heritable genes. The frogs evolved due to natural selection and now the entire species will have changed to green frogs.
|
I guess you did not see the brackets at the end of my sentence... I put what the example was at the end...
mjordan2nd said:
DNA does not dictate the process of evolution. Genetic variation is not encoded in DNA, therefore evolution stays localized to a population.
Once again, I'd like to point out that modern monkeys are not the same monkeys you would have found 3 million years ago. Monkeys have also evolved to come to be in their present state. This doesn't mean that an entire species has to speciate, though. It can, and usually is still limited to a population.
Perhaps an example would help elucidate the concept. Lets create a hypothetical species of birds called species X. I'm not dealing with the topic of abiogenesis right now, so the origin of species X itself is irrelevant to this example. We are only focusing on how X might speciate. Let us assume that the males of species X fight to win a harem. Only by winning a harem can a male have the chance to reproduce. Let us also assume that species X is split into four populations, A, B, C and D. What happens if one male in population A has a mutant gene that causes the individual to develop twice the muscle as an ordinary bird of species X? This male clearly has an advantage when it comes to reproduction. Its offspring that possess that particular allele will also have an advantage when it comes to reproduction. Gradually, this allele will spread throughout population A, and the evolutionary trend will be towards more muscle. Now, this is of course a very simple example, and we are not considering other factors that could affect the outcome, but in this case these birds will start spending more and more time on the ground since they need to expend more energy to carry around their increasinly massive bodies. Eventually, if the trend continues, these birds will lose the ability of flight altogether. Their wings will then become vestigial, and a hindrance to have to lug around. The birds who have a gene for smaller wings will then be rewarded for not having to put up with as large of a hindrance (perhaps finding it easier to find food, perhaps being more agile in a fight), until the wings on these birds disappear altogether. In the process of these mutations, the DNA of population A has changed too much to produce viable offspring with any of the other populations of species X. Population A has speciated, and is now species Y.
|
DNA evidence would show some form of connection between everything, I mean we did evolve from the same spot....
mjordan2nd said:
|
Tar is not an antibiotic. Antibiotics also do not kill every single-celled organism.
|
All right, I will get away from the tar.... for now....
mjordan2nd said:
Once again, the Miller-Urey experiment was not a replica of early earth. It did, however, prove that amino acids could form spontaneously. If the building blocks for life could form spontaneously, it is a strong indication that life could also form sponataneously.
The electrodes used in the Miller-Urey experiment simply act as a reducing agent. They do not need to strike any specific spot.
|
Well, the major difference between early earth and the experiment is that the spark was continuous in the experiment... I really doubt that lightining would ever do that....
mjordan2nd said:
|
I have a very hard time believing that. Citation, please. Epicack is not the name of a medicine according to google.
|
It is the name of a medicine that makes you throwup...
mjordan2nd said:
|
Yes, I believe that the dissociation of a hydrocarbon chain would be an endogenic reaction, however that is not a problem in the actual environment. Aside from lightning, there is a big, glowing, massive ball radiating energy down on the earth at all times. One of the major critiques of the Miller-Urey experiment is that due to recent evidence people think that they may have actually used too much electricity in their experiment.
|
It would take alot longer than for the sun's light to do anything useful...
mjordan2nd said:
|
You actually never stated whether or not you agree that speciation has occurred. You implied that you didn't, but I'm not really sure. Earlier in this thread you stated that you believed in common descent.
|
I said it with the frog example!
mjordan2nd said:
|
Actually, via radiometric dating, and verification with molecular evidence to relationships between parent and descendent, a lot can be learned about the evolution of a species.
|
They tested radiometric dating, it does not accuratly date...
mjordan2nd said:
|
Well, clearly you're a man of God. Tell him to do it for you. Perhaps if you pray hard enough, he will.
|
I would but God finished creation on the seventh day...
mjordan2nd said:
|
Exactly. That would be what the definition of transitional is. It will still resemble it's parent. What were you expecting, 6-foot wings sticking out of a squirrel?
|
No, that is genetically similar, they are not relatives...
mjordan2nd said:
|
Frogs developing bad legs in contaminated water is not an example of evolution. Not all mutations are beneficial, of course. Negative mutations are severely reprimanded by natural selection, which is why only the beneficial mutations (in most cases) are passed on.
|
Any mutation is a form of evolution... if the animal survives long enough to mate, it will pass its traits on...
mjordan2nd said:
|
Yes, but apparently you were too dense to get it the first time around so I felt compelled to reiterate my sentiments.
|
You just don't like my answers....
mjordan2nd said:
*Sigh*
I hate it when people start linking to sites when arguing something without actually paraphrasing what the site has to say. Why? Because this leaves a myriad of possibilities. One, the author of the post may have no idea what the page he is linking to is talking about. Two, the author will then try to argue those points without understanding them. Three, because the content of those links is already there, the author really has to do no work to post it to back his content. I on the other hand, have to reply to what your pages say. If this is how it's going to be, you can't reasonably expect me to respond on a daily basis anymore, simply because I have a lot more stuff I need to say. However, that page is bogus for the most part.
|
Diddn't exactly plan it, but it was a great web site...
mjordan2nd said:
|
Yet again, many people who argue against evolution cite a �missing link,� fossilized evidence which should be a requirement of proof according to some creationists, in the lineage of the human race. I have heard this argument many times. I find it somewhat ironic that though many people will use this as a key point to their argument, this missing link remains esoteric in the sense that no one seems to know exactly what, when, or where this missing link is. This is a moot argument, however. If a missing link exists, it does not refute the theory of evolution. Evolution does not entail a direct fossilized record from ancestor to descendant. Fossilized evidence is contingent on the geological forces of the earth, and is coincidental when found. It supports the theory of evolution. Fossilized evidence is not a requirement for ascertaining the theory�s validity.
|
well if there is no missing link there is no transition between anything....
mjordan2nd said:
|
Not true. The earth's magnetic field is known to fluctuate in intensity, and has actually reversed polarity multiple times. The intensity of the field showed no variation for centuries. The change in the field intensity is a relatively recent phenomenon, and perhaps indicative of an upcoming reversal in polarity. The magnetic field does not show exponential decay in the form that the above quote insinuates. Yes, exponential equation can fit the decay in magnetic intensity, but an exponential equation can be modified to fit any set of points. Barnes also relied on an antiquated model of the earth's interior, causing faulty conclusions.
|
He was talking about the improbibility of the decaying magnetic field, not the other way around...
mjordan2nd said:
Flood myths are common because floods are common. This does not in any way insinuate a global flood. Though there are many myths about floods, they differe significantly in detail. If they were stories about the same flood, we would expect similar characteristics. The biblical flood myth has parallels only to myths from the same region, because most likely they do have a common source.
What about the sedimentary layering leads them to believe there was a global flood?
|
Well... he said that there is sedimentary deposits in places where it just does not flood...
mjordan2nd said:
|
Absolutely. We now have the ability to find evidence for such a flood if it occurred. No hard evidence has been found.
|
Well, sedimentary deposits are found on every continent, but I don't think it floods every where....
mjordan2nd said:
|
This assumes that the growth-rate has been constant, which is a false assumption. The growth rate between 1000 and 1800 was .1227%. Also, using this model you would see unreasonable populations for historical events. There would not be enough people to fight historical wars, for instance.
|
Well, what could have stopped the population growth? Flood? What?
mjordan2nd said:
|
Polonium is a product from the alpha decay of radon. Radon, being a gas, can pass through small cracks in the granite.
|
Granites are formed of an aggregate of crystals which are molded together without any space between them or which enclose one another. No way gas could seep into the rock and stick around...