Skip to comments.
Petite skull reopens human ancestry debate
New Scientist ^
| 7/1/04
| Will Knight
Posted on 07/02/2004 7:55:48 AM PDT by Michael_Michaelangelo
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120, 121 next last
To: sawmill trash
But how do you come up with all that without either evidence of it or Faith ?
101
posted on
07/03/2004 6:53:10 PM PDT
by
sawmill trash
(NADER !!! NADER !!! NADER !!! NADER !!! NADER !!! NADER !!! NADER !!! NADER !!!)
To: sawmill trash
I just figure that with all the fossils that are scattered all over the world there would be some evidence of evolution if it were true, yet all that is ever found is species of one type or another. What might be found that you would regard as evidence of evolution?
102
posted on
07/03/2004 7:05:16 PM PDT
by
PatrickHenry
(Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
To: Michael_Michaelangelo
103
posted on
07/03/2004 7:08:02 PM PDT
by
VOA
To: Dimensio
How about the fact that there's no defined process for "biological devolution" or "biological de-evolution"?It's EXACTLY the same 'process' of Evolution.
Namely: "Any random change that enhances more offspring will most likely be kept by the organism."
Therefore the converse MUST be true as well; don't you think?
104
posted on
07/03/2004 8:41:17 PM PDT
by
Elsie
(There is nothing you can't achieve if you are willing to give other people the credit...)
To: Elsie
Is this a good example of "E" theory??
The Basic Process of Evolution The basic theory of evolution is surprisingly simple. It has three essential parts:
- It is possible for the DNA of an organism to occasionally change, or mutate. A mutation changes the DNA of an organism in a way that affects its offspring, either immediately or several generations down the line.
- The change brought about by a mutation is either beneficial, harmful or neutral. If the change is harmful, then it is unlikely that the offspring will survive to reproduce, so the mutation dies out and goes nowhere. If the change is beneficial, then it is likely that the offspring will do better than other offspring and so will reproduce more. Through reproduction, the beneficial mutation spreads. The process of culling bad mutations and spreading good mutations is called natural selection.
- As mutations occur and spread over long periods of time, they cause new species to form. Over the course of many millions of years, the processes of mutation and natural selection have created every species of life that we see in the world today, from the simplest bacteria to humans and everything in between.
Billions of years ago, according to the theory of evolution, chemicals randomly organized themselves into a self-replicating molecule. This spark of life was the seed of every living thing we see today (as well as those we no longer see, like dinosaurs). That simplest life form, through the processes of mutation and natural selection, has been shaped into every living species on the planet. In the book "The Dragons of Eden," Carl Sagan summarized the theory of evolution in this way:
Accidentally useful mutations provide the working material for biological evolution -- as, for example, a mutation for melanin in certain moths, which changes their color from white to black. Such moths commonly rest on English birch trees, where their white coloration provides protective camouflage. Under these conditions, the melanin mutation is not an advantage -- the dark moths are starkly visible and are eaten by birds; the mutation is selected against. But when the Industrial Revolution began to cover the birch bark with soot, the situation was reversed, and only moths with the melanin mutation survived. Then the mutation was selected for, and, in time, almost all of the moths are dark, passing this inheritable change on to future generations. There are still occasional reverse mutations eliminating the melanin adaptation, which would be useful for the moths were English industrial pollution to be controlled. Note that in all this interaction between mutation and natural selection, no moth is making a conscious effort to adapt to a changed environment. The process is random and statistical.
Can such a simple theory explain all of life as we know it today? Let's start by understanding how life works and then look at some examples. CONTINUE---> |
105
posted on
07/03/2004 9:02:23 PM PDT
by
Elsie
(There is nothing you can't achieve if you are willing to give other people the credit...)
To: nmh
The truth is humans ALWAYS walked on two feet...
Really?? And where did you get that truth? I am more convinced than ever that people like you once crept on their belly like a reptile. And I am also convinced that you also have a "petite" scull size, which encases your equally petite brain.
To: Elsie
Except that evolution works across populations. If the changes in the populations result in fewer offspring surviving to reproduce, then it's not going to go anywhere.
107
posted on
07/04/2004 12:56:44 AM PDT
by
Dimensio
(Join the Monthly Internet Flash Mob: http://tinyurl.com/3xj9m)
To: Elsie
That is not a good example of evolution theory, as it claims that the ultimate origins of life are part of the theory. This is not the case.
A letter to the site maintainers is in order.
108
posted on
07/04/2004 12:58:53 AM PDT
by
Dimensio
(Join the Monthly Internet Flash Mob: http://tinyurl.com/3xj9m)
To: sawmill trash
I just figure that with all the fossils that are scattered all over the world there would be some evidence of evolution if it were true, yet all that is ever found is species of one type or another.
Are you suggesting that evolution predicts that there will be creatures that aren't of any species at all?
109
posted on
07/04/2004 12:59:42 AM PDT
by
Dimensio
(Join the Monthly Internet Flash Mob: http://tinyurl.com/3xj9m)
To: sawmill trash
I just figure that with all the fossils that are scattered all over the world there would be some evidence of evolution if it were true, yet all that is ever found is species of one type or another.
All the fossils that are scattered all over the world?
There arent that many, but the ones that have been found do show a progression from type to type.
In the words of Stephen Jay Gould:
Every time a new fossil is found which fills in a gap in the sequence we have found a "missing link"--but one can always insist on more and more links. This is a variation on one of the Greek philosopher Xeno's paradoxes, who said that no matter how precisely you measure the position of an arrow in flight, between one point and another you can always imagine another intermediate point. Scientists don't use the term "missing link." This is a bit of biased vocabulary from the 19th century used by opponents of evolutionary theory who trusted that scientists would fail to find enough links in the chain of evidence to link us with our prehuman ancestors. In the sense that there can never be a wholly unbroken chain, they are right; but in the sense that we have lots more links now, and the evidence overwhelmingly favors the evolution of apes and hominids from a common ancestor, they have been outdated by science.
110
posted on
07/04/2004 3:25:25 AM PDT
by
R. Scott
(Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink.)
To: sawmill trash
yet all that is ever found is species of one type or another.
Heres a simpler explanation -
Suppose we have the fossils of an early hominid, species X. We have another, later species, Z. Another is discovered from the time period between them. It has half the features of X and half the features of Z.
Is neither species X or Z. It is a newly discovered species - Y.
111
posted on
07/04/2004 3:58:26 AM PDT
by
R. Scott
(Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink.)
To: Dimensio
Other than that slight detail, how is it?
112
posted on
07/04/2004 4:17:42 AM PDT
by
Elsie
(There is nothing you can't achieve if you are willing to give other people the credit...)
To: Dimensio
If the changes in the populations result in fewer offspring surviving to reproduce, then it's not going to go anywhere.
What do you mean by this?
Could you consider it smaller 'market share'?
So you've got thousands of buffalo, not millions, roaming the plains: what's wrong with that?
113
posted on
07/04/2004 4:25:08 AM PDT
by
Elsie
(There is nothing you can't achieve if you are willing to give other people the credit...)
To: R. Scott
So if someone sees X, Y and Z and therefore assumes that some process cased X to morph to Y, and then Y to Z?
TO --> TO -->
114
posted on
07/04/2004 4:43:22 AM PDT
by
Elsie
(There is nothing you can't achieve if you are willing to give other people the credit...)
To: Elsie
Yes, and you illustrated it nicely.
God allowed evolution to work - in the case of living things though genetics, in the case of machines through man. The process is similar. That which works is kept and improved on, that which doesnt work falls by the wayside.
115
posted on
07/04/2004 6:58:08 AM PDT
by
R. Scott
(Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink.)
To: sawmill trash
I just figure that with all the fossils that are scattered all over the world there would be some evidence of evolution if it were true, yet all that is ever found is species of one type or another. Any fossil find will sooner or later be assigned to a species. That this happens does not change that many fossils form seemingly obvious (except to creationists) transitional sequences. Creationism builds its "science" upon not seeing, upon ignoring away the obvious. That's not really very useful.
116
posted on
07/04/2004 8:44:19 AM PDT
by
VadeRetro
(You don't just bat those big liquid eyes and I start noticing how lovely you are. Hah!)
To: VadeRetro
Creationism builds its "science" upon not seeing, upon ignoring away the obvious. The OJ jury saw no evidence of Simson's guilt. Sure, there was some of his blood at the crime scene, and some of the victims' blood on his clothes at his house, but that's not evidence of anything. It's just blood!
117
posted on
07/04/2004 8:52:31 AM PDT
by
PatrickHenry
(Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
To: ExtremeUnction
And I am also convinced that you also have a "petite" scull size, which encases your equally petite brain. Oh my, nice job on "scull"
You creationists are always good for a laugh, at least you got over the notion of burning witches.
To: Elsie
No. The objects in the photographs do not make imperfect copies of themselves.
119
posted on
07/04/2004 9:55:07 AM PDT
by
Dimensio
(Join the Monthly Internet Flash Mob: http://tinyurl.com/3xj9m)
To: Elsie
I seem recall that ALL of the fishy stuff that was BEFORE mammals seems to have devolved away If by "de-evolved", you mean that certain traits that our ancestor species had have been replaced with other traits, then I guess you're right.
120
posted on
07/04/2004 11:31:44 AM PDT
by
Modernman
("I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as members" -Groucho Marx)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120, 121 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson