| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
Posted on 04/04/2002 10:05:32 AM PST by Heartlander
You wish. No, it's more likely an unwillingness to accept things without (at least some sort of) proof.
Remember something about the gradual accumulation of small changes? Are you simply trying to say that it's not speciation (whatever that means in bacteria)?
But who's to say what's up the tree and what's down?
That "mamms on a T. rex" thing you clammed up on: the point was that things don't move down the tree or from branch to branch.
That's the theory and that's one of the problems I have with it. It seems arbitrary. Consider the article. It notes how some say Old World and New World bats evolved independently. Or consider Gore3Ks point that we don't really know for certain if the some of the dinosaurs low on the tree didn't have teats. If survivability were the goal why would we have even gone beyond bacteria or algae?
That's why evolution says there are things that should not be found. Three ear bones in a salamander. Human bones down among the trilobites. Lots of things, but it's getting pretty late for them to turn up.
Palentology has been around for about 200 or so years. Consider some of the archaeological discoveries that have recently been made. It was long thought that Troy was a myth.
No need for me to go clickin' and clackin'. It's over. Or it should be.
There is nothing delusional about the references I have listed. You may call me what you wish. I will continue to call you No-kin until the cows come home. Every moment that goes by is just so much more evidence of the fraud that No-kin is. You know the guy that nearly killed you--
It was No-Kin-To-Monkeys, of all people--I mean, look at that screenname--who took the challenge of trying to think like an evo and eventually lurched to the conclusion the evo way. It about killed both of us. Me, anyway.
Don't take it personally, No-Kin. If you only knew what ol' Vade's had to contend with in these threads, you'd better understand that he approaches each new creationist
I don't feel any hostility to you at all. On the contrary, your attitude on these threads has proven exemplary.
What's up your family tree and what's down? Can you inherit from your cousins? If you're modeling evolution, the tree is a real descent tree. If you're modeling anything else, it's just a coincidence the data fits evolution.
Then I take it you will be deleting the personal copies of extraneous material.
Let's not be too hasty.
[Clack!]
I wonder if any of his peers reviewed it?
The math would be wrong. Energy exists.
(me) It can't be created according to the First Law. (you) Hello?
OK, new energy can't be added to the system which we call "The Universe." Yet, energy does exists in "The Universe" and hence comes from somewhere.
Actually, I think I've seen physicist explain conservation laws as being the result of symmetry relationships. That's not the same as being able to recapitulate what he said. But why the First Law exists is a different subject from claiming that the great minds of physics are trying to beat the First Law. The little minds of charlatanry are trying to do that.
Fair enough. So you won't buy my perpetual motion machine?
You were groping me on the thread. I warned you, you groped on, I pushed the abuse button. Very simple. You then went whining to all your friends and relations. I received about 4 emails from different people: "What happened?" "What did you DO?" "Who are you? Are you impersonating someone?" and other silly tinfoil stuff.
Why would you grope me? Because I had told you in a freepmail as to not embarrass you for comments which indicated your confusion that I was a woman. Do you deny that you received such a freepmail from me? Do you deny that you used it against me on the thread?
Whiners receive lots of attention and scrutiny. If other threads of yours were pulled, my guess is you were harassing someone else.
Really? When? By whom? In what manner? What replaced it?
For the lowdown on Chuck Darwin, stupidest white man of all time and his BS theory, and on the continuing efforts of feebs like Steve Gould and Niles Eldredge to keep the charade going for another generation:
As to "what replaced it", you don't "replace" BS; you get rid of it.
Yes. In the absence of data, you're left to wonder. There's no fossil record and the two kinds of bats are very different under the skin. It's going be hard to say until there's more to go on. But that's not the case all over, just with bats.
Or consider Gore3Ks point that we don't really know for certain if the some of the dinosaurs low on the tree didn't have teats.
Very telling that you still don't get it. Dinosaurs are just one line of reptiles, a group within the diapsids (two extra skull holes), which include birds and true lizards.
Here's the problem: The ancestors of mammals branched off the reptilian trunk way far back before the diapsids, much less the dinos, were a distinct branch. That's what I mean when I say you don't inherit from your cousins. By the time the ancestors of mammals were becoming mammals, the dinos were on a very different branch. How do the mammaries get across the tree?
If survivability were the goal why would we have even gone beyond bacteria or algae?
The only goal is survivability right now. What works, works, but just for right now. Multicellularity can work better for some species, some times. We still have examples of animals like slime molds, Volvox, and others which are only barely or only part-time multicellular.
More than one thing can work at the same time. Being a cyanobacterium has worked continuously for a long time, but perhaps not everywhere at once. Just always somewhere.
But it's not a coincidence. The trees are based on the data.
You didn't follow that link's argument very well. Gravity is negative energy. Each body's gravity exactly cancels the energy of its mass. I believe the concept originated with John Archibald Wheeler's group back in the 1940s.
At any rate, the point is that the sum throughout the universe is zero, but locally there can and do exist positive amounts. Gravity is the balancing negative.
How can that be? Gravity is the work you have to do to haul masses apart. It's a work/energy deficit.
Drop an anvil down a dry well. You get seismic waves rippling away. You get sound. There's energy released, but that's only because there was energy stored in having the anvil up out of the well in the first place.
Want to do it again? You've got to do work amounting to the potential lost when you dropped the anvil down in there.
Evolution was built upon a fraction of the data we have now. For all that, yes, it remains the theory that the evidence built.
We have a thousand times the data that Darwin had and it all still fits the evolutionary pattern. That's no coincidence, either. It still looks like common descent because that's what it is.
I'm just being skeptical. Dinosaur skeletons appear to have more in common with birds and reptiles than mammals. Yet there are very, very few complete dinosaur skeletons. And it's from the skeletons where we get 99.9 percent of what know of dinosaurs. Did dinosaurs have fur?
Here's the problem: The ancestors of mammals branched off the reptilian trunk way far back before the diapsids, much less the dinos, were a distinct branch.
That's the theory.
That's what I mean when I say you don't inherit from your cousins. By the time the ancestors of mammals were becoming mammals, the dinos were on a very different branch. How do the mammaries get across the tree?
If mammaries developed for some reason for some species, why not for another. Why do some sharks lay eggs and others give birth live (albeit without nursing?)
The only goal is survivability right now. What works, works, but just for right now. Multicellularity can work better for some species, some times. We still have examples of animals like slime molds, Volvox, and others which are only barely or only part-time multicellular.
But algae and bacteria remain with us. And they can exists whereever more "advanced" lifeforms exists and in places they can't.
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.