 | | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) All I said was that it was a good example of how AFAIK there are no "transitional" fossils that aren't faked, even though there should theoretically be more transitional than normal. (...) Yet again, I remind you that what I'm asking for (...) (23 years ago, 5-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) Umm, Steve? You said:[...]what I'm asking for evidence of is the theory regarding evolution OF species from one to another Arnold said:[...]In fact, the entire fossil record of mammal-like reptils has a DENSE transitional field of species that (...) (23 years ago, 5-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) For anyone to give you that, you also need to "define" what a species is -- specifically, what criteria there are to decide where one species stops and the other starts. So much of your point depends on establishing a discrete categorization (...) (23 years ago, 5-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) Actually, while I'm not an expert on the issue, shouldn't there be more normal than transitional? As I understand the 'current' theory of evolution, mutations happen in 'spurts'-- hence there would be much more probability (assuming standard (...) (23 years ago, 5-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) I was going to post a reply to an argument last week concerning species concepts in the macro-evolution/creation debate, unfortunately other responsibilities got in the way. Thanks for bringing it up. As Sproaticus said, there are many, many (...) (23 years ago, 5-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
I promised I wouldn't re-enter this debate but... (...) I find it interesting that you do in fact find it extremely lucky. I also find it EXTREMELY convenient that vast majority of these (supposedly) few fossils just happen to be of non-extinct (...) (23 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) Bwahaha. The vast majority of fossils are of non extinct animals? Find me a live trilobite, will you? Trilobites are the most common fossil out there, which isn't too surprising since they apparently lived 300-600 million years ago and had (...) (23 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) ? Why's that? Should I instead expect to find at least one fossil from every living 'species' that ever existed on Earth? I don't. On what sort of basis would you assume otherwise? (...) ? Ok, 1st off, I dunno if that's true. There's certainly (...) (23 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) Mount Cadiz, southern California. An exposed abuttement of Cambrian and Precambrian rock. Zillions of Trilobites. Hip deep in them. Zillions may be an underestimate. Bruce (23 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) I gave a long list of fossils directly related to human evolution. No response from you. Please present your evidence that any or all are fake. Cite scientific sources, please. This is the third time I've asked. (...) There is ONLY evolution (...) (23 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) Morganucodon is no faked fossil. Yet it shows a perfect transitional stage of arrangement of mandibular bones and ossicles between the condition in modern mammals and reptils. The same transition occurs during the embryonic development of (...) (23 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) Um, well, let's see--the majority may be of animals of a similar *type* (e.g., "teleost fish" or "reptiles") but very, very few are of the same species (or even genus). The most common living fossils cited are the coelecanth (genus Latimera), (...) (23 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) Yup, been there, done that. I think it was for a class in stratigraphy many years ago. It was the quietest place I have ever experienced in my life. We weren't out there for the trilobites (and well noted about the Horseshoe crab), but you (...) (23 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) I could say that about the horseshoe crabs at Point Pleasant, NJ. Is the geographical distribution wide on those? Do you get them in California? (Or are you not there anymore?) One specimen of a trilobite really stands out. It's the one with a (...) (23 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) Hmmmm, are you allowed to pick them up and keep them, or is the area protected? If you can collect, I see a roadtrip in my near future. -- | Tom Stangl, iPlanet Web Server Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp | iPlanet Support - (...) (23 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) I haven't been there in a couple of decades, so I don't know what the policy is now. Certainly in the past you could collect them - it would be hard to enforce much in the middle of nowhere (don't take your low-slung sports car). Finding (...) (23 years ago, 7-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) Good point - Lack of common definitions is often a problem with these types of discussions. I'll admit right away that I'm not the one to do the defining - I chose Physics over Biology. Archeology isn't my area either, which is part of why I'm (...) (23 years ago, 7-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) For the 39th time. The fossil record seems to indicate that species appear, then disappear. Take trilobites, for example. Older ones are not as specially diverse as later ones. But after the Devonian extinction, they're all gone. Where did (...) (23 years ago, 7-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) Just a note: Trilobites as a group aren't gone after the Devonian. They take a major hit in the Devonian extinctions, but have a minor comeback, surviving until the Permian. However, that means it's a great example of evolution, extinction, (...) (23 years ago, 7-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) Actually it took me a day or two but I did happen to find a grip eventually: (URL) (...) I wish I had said that. (...) Where did you come up with this crazy ide that I'm out to control thoughts? I assure that was never my intent nor do I (...) (23 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) I think Larry has a problem with the truly "lost" people, mostly in the SouthEast US, who have decided they basically want the Bible taught in school in place of true scientifically based textbooks. Biblethumpers already pound the Bible into (...) (23 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Problems with Creationists' theory
|
|
I'll now go ahead and try to argue like Creationists do: Currently there are about 1.800.000.000 different species of living beings described. Do you seriously want to tell me that Noah had time enough to sample 1.100.000 insect species (wait a (...) (23 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Creationists' theory
|
|
Sorry, (...) should of course read as: 1.800.000 different species ... (23 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Stangl writes: <snipped explanation of why I'm so vehement in my disdain for bunkum of the Literal Creationist sort... thanks!> (...) Me too, sort of... (well, if there *was* a bejeezus in me he's gone now) :-) What I (...) (23 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Creationists' theory
|
|
(...) I'm not quite sure what you mean by this - because this sure does sound like an evolutionist's argument to me. Certainly you have hit on a point where "practically" speaking a creationist can't argue against the monstrosity of the event you (...) (23 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Creationists' theory
|
|
(...) Hah! Like that matters! Do you want to even TRY to calculate the sheer volume of 2.2MILLION insects, especially since then would have to be housed separately to avoid some eating others? Want to try to figure out the food requirements for (...) (23 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Creationists' theory
|
|
(...) "Riiighht. What's a cubit?" :) James (23 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Creationists' theory
|
|
(...) Okay now I'm REALLY questioning the credability of these numbers. Please give me an authoritative source on this. First you (inclusive of "the evolutionists in this discussion") say "1.800.000.000 species", then you correct yourself and say (...) (23 years ago, 10-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Creationists' theory
|
|
(...) I think you need to reread his original post: (...) Obvious typo, which he corrected, he added 3 too many zeros, he meant 1.8Million. But note the "different species OF LIVING BEINGS" (...) The LARGE majority of species on this planet are (...) (23 years ago, 10-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Creationists' theory
|
|
(...) I was so busy at work that I forgot one of the more obvious grevious errors with your speaker. He seems to think that Noah only needed to gather land dwelling animals, that the water dwelling ones just swam around happily....PAP. Have you ever (...) (23 years ago, 10-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Creationists' theory
|
|
(...) I don't even knwo why I bother since I could cite every source ont he subject known that explains this but here's another one just for the record: (URL) to answer your fish question from the next message: (URL) Kent Hovind also explains this (...) (23 years ago, 10-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Creationists' theory
|
|
(...) That's right. There are currently about 1.8 million species (plants and animals) described. Of course this is just an estimate - general textbooks vary in giving numbers from 1-2 million of DESCRIBED species, and estimates go even up to 8 (...) (23 years ago, 10-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
