link to info ---Vostok ice core info
Posted on 05/21/2004 10:42:47 AM PDT by Truth666
Please, there must be some way of finishing off this flopping carcass of a thread. A head shot, perhaps.
But in any event, so long, and thanks for all the fish!
Yes, as everyone who understands evolution is well aware: Observed Instances of Speciation.
You say that "endemic" means "currently unable to survive elsewhere". Presumably this means they could not have come from elsewhere, but in order to say that, you have to ASSUME that the species haven't changed since the last ice age, which is what you are supposed to be showing.
You say that "from scratch" means "from apes", in the case of human evolution. But that gives very little hint of what that might mean in the case of the "endemic" coral, other than "from coral". Yes, I believe that the coral on the island in question DID evolve "from coral". In fact, it's a claim I dare to make. Does that help?
You say that in #127 you are questioning whether coral larvae could have journeyed to Lord Howe Island since the last ice age, and then specify that this be done "from scratch", which you then define as being restricted to the species that "survived the last ice age in Lord Howe". So what you're saying is that the species that survived the last ice age in Lord Howe could not have come to Lord Howe Island since the last ice age. FWIW, I agree.
More recent emphasis has shifted to determining the ultimate sources of larval input for the Flower Gardens. Since nearly all reef organisms have some form of larval planktonic stage, they have the potential for dispersal over vast distances (thousands of kilometers). More importantly, the Flower Gardens are isolated from other similar reef systems by more than 600 km of open water, with their nearest neighbors located north of Veracruz, Mexico to the southwest and the Yucatan peninsula to the southeast.
So much for the 550 km "problem". Move along, folks - nothing to see here.
please see what i will be answering Physician next on the same subject
"Ah, so this just ties into your fallacy that species are anything but human definition."
My fallacy, that is your definition.
"Based upon observable evidence, such as that which I explained to you."
Your evidence does not explain origination only explains what is know about species.
"We in the "flesh" can see in three dimensions, actually. And we can remember things fourth-dimensionally. Moreover, our perception of three-dimensional space allows us to extrapolate reliably about events that occured in the past."
I was describing what the naked eye can do. Now you have stumbled into the "fog" of evolution theory, memory and perception, no way to examine that evidence from rocks and fossils.
The status of what is found at this point in time does not change the origination of "flesh".
"What does this have to do with anything?"
Until that first "living" organism is located and examined as evidence, the best one can do is to take what is available and "guess" what the data means as to the origination. It has everything to do with the veracity of a fact based theory, one that just keeps evolving to make darn sure that it can claim there was no Creator, especially one who still exists and is in control. The origin of "life" is what evolution is suppose to explain.
"No, observing things now does not change what happened in the past. No one has claimed this."
This is not true, everytime time there is a "new" discovery the E's never use it to give credit to the possibility of a Creator, rather it is used to disprove a Creator.
Evolution does not explain the "spirit" body.
No, it doesn't. It also doesn't explain gravitational attraction. That doesn't make it false either. And, unlike the "spirit body", gravitational attraction can actually be demonstrated to exist with some degree of certainty.
Finally something we agree upon. Interesting that gravity, what do you suppose it will take to explain that "law". Actually if the E's had any understanding in the "spirit body", they would then have the missing links they keep looking for in the physical flesh body. But that understanding comes from the Creator and since they refuse to accept a Creator won't be given that data.
"In other words, you reject evolution because you don't like the consequences -- a logical fallacy. Moreover, the "consequences" that you don't like are utterly bogus, not actual consequences of the theory of evolution but rather your hopelessly wrong idea of what evolution is."
I reject evolution not only because of what is the consequences, but because it is not true. Evolution is a religion, void of a Creator, who is in control of all things, from the Beginning (whenever that was) this earth age (time) and that age (time) to come. By the way I do not believe this earth is 6,000 years old the evidence disproves that story.
link to info ---Vostok ice core info
No Ice Age or Howe. But there's de Vries and Primroses! What more could you ask for? :)
So many questions. How did this coral get where it is? Is God personally populating North Sea oil rigs with deep-sea corals for some reason? What about this guy, who described how corals could readily propagate across many thousands of miles of open ocean?
actually aftre reading post #151 I don't have much more to add ... maybe when I see at least one photo documenting that evolution ...
The question about "how did coral propagate across many thousands of miles of open ocean?" is indeed interesting. But it questions theory of evolution itself, independently from ice age theory.
So why isn't that sufficient to explain the coral on Lord Howe Island?
coral doens't interbreed - not a good startpoint for theories on evolution during the last 10,000 years ...
There are some nice articles here:
http://www.ramsdale.org/
Look under "General Research", then "Genetics and Geneology" - there are a number of papers there that may interest you.
What does that mean? That two different species don't produce viable offspring? Or that they don't reproduce sexually?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.