Who needs Saturn?
Posted on 07/04/2002 9:49:26 PM PDT by Phil V.
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:40:29 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
A fossil previously mistaken for the remains of an extinct fish turns out to hold the earliest known creature to have emerged from the Earth's waters and walk on land some 350 million years ago.
This ancestor of every four-limbed, backboned animal living today -- the first creature clearly designed to walk on land, with forward-facing feet -- fills a major gap in the evidence for the evolution of vertebrates from sea to land, scientists say.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
LMAO! What we attempted to say was a circle was an ellipse with an eccentricity of 0. You got it exactly backwards! BTW take another look at post# 702. :-)
Hahahahaha :-)
I would expect to see more rather than less also. If the "environmental niches" were rigid and standard worldwide, then the explanation would sit better with me.
As it is, I cannot help but imagine emerging life having a significant effect on the environment and other emerging life. I would also expect to see the emergence highly localized and spreading gradually around the world, rather than exploding relatively all at the same time all around the world.
In order for that to make sense to me, the “environmental niches” would have to be quite rigid, uniform around the world, and the phenomenon that gives rise to a phyla the same everywhere at roughly the same time in the Cambrian period, which represents only about 1/100th of the total attributed elapsed time (as I understand it.)
Just my two cents…
At least, I know someone who should have paid closer attention ;)
Sayeth gore3000:
Astonishingly, this is not entirely accurate. For a recap of the "wildly elliptical" debate, you might wish to peruse the following post from this thread here. (Note that in the following I made 2 corrections from the original: one spelling, one factual. I also added links for easy naviagation.)
(Cue flashback/dream-sequence ripples)
Junior makes a general statement in post 283 about the planetary orbits:
...nearly circular orbits of the planets...
gore3000 unloads on Junior in post 472:
The orbits of the planets are wildly elliptical. Some of the planets [Note: plural] that we think of as nearer to the sun are at times further out than those we consider farther from the sun. You clearly do not know beans about astronomy.
RadioAstronomer posts a correction in post 486 (he shows his work for extra credit):
{orbit data snip} If you notice only two planets have a high eccentricity; Mercury and Pluto. Only one of them cross the mean distance of another planet from the Sun and that is Pluto and Neptune. Briefly Pluto is closer to the Sun than Neptune when [Pluto] is at perihelion.
The eccentricity of our planet's orbit is mild; aphelion and perihelion differ from the mean Sun-Earth distance by less than 2%. In fact, if you drew Earth's orbit on a sheet of paper it would be difficult to distinguish from a perfect circle and that is with e = 0.0167.
gore3000 publishes post 531 wherein he pitches a hissy fit about being corrected while simultaneously pretending that Junior started the whole thing:
All the orbits are elliptical as radio astronomer's post shows. As to how "wild" they are is pure semantics, sort of like the meaning of 'alone' (in a room, in a building, in a city, in a country, on earth, in the universe). I will not waste my time with such hair-splitting.
Would you like to apologize to Junior now or later for calling him a moron?
Flat.
Refute.
After all, you are clearly a monkey.
I'm going to refer to gore3000 as 'monkey-boy' from now on.
He's the best proof we have that evolution exists.
Who needs Saturn?
Noted. I should have been more careful when I was cut-n-pasting. I apologize for having misled anyone.
So, now "Christian = creationist." But we already have "There are no creationists." (Posted to me earlier on this thread by the same person.) So, it is now possible to construct a syllogism.
A christian is a creationist.Building upon our logical foundations, a corollary suggests itself:
There are no creationists.
Ergo, there are no christians.
There exist no christians.If this isn't right, where did I go wrong?
Gore3000 exists.
Ergo, gore3000 is not a christian.
I like it. Of course, I seem to recall that I built a syllogism about the non-omnipotence of God from G3K's pronouncements a while back - it was received...poorly ;)
How about this one?
No christians exist.
gore3000 is a christian.
Therefore, gore3000 does not exist.
I vote for that one...
Fred, if you're afraid you'll have to overlook it.
Besides you knew the job was dangerous when you took it.
He will drink his super sauce
And thrown the bad guys for a loss
And he will bring them in alive and kickin'.
[Bak bak bak bak]
There is one thing you should learn
When there is no one else to turn to
Call for Superchicken.
Call for Superchicken.
[Bakak!]
I just figured out what LBB meant. If you don't post the comment to gore3000 or myself, you shouldn't expect either of us to read it as I don't read every single post (can't speak for gore3000).
I found that site myself early this morning and have been reading it and others.
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.