Posted on 05/18/2008 8:47:24 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Well duh. We both go where the food and water is. You will also find other animals living in similar and neighboring environments as humans for largely the same reasons - though once we became hunters and defenders with weapons we presumably began to move in on the other animals' turfs... who also lived near water.
No, we don't.
How would they have any clue about "environments"?
Seeds, pollen grains and other plant remnants. It ain't rocket science. ;^)
Among the fossils the scientists reported bringing back were the bones of whales and other marine animals found at altitudes of more than 5,000 feet. When these animals died from 15 million to 20 million years ago,...
I guess your exceptional scientific education didn't include higher mathematics so you can't appreciate the difference between the number ten thousand and fifteen million. LOLOL
What??? Another shake up of the proven beyond a shadow of doubt theory of human evolution.
A rearrangement of a detail, and it doesn't look like a very large rearrangement. Don't get your hopes up.
I wonder if the I.D. proponents changed their theories every other day, what would the evolutionist say?
If ID changed when needed it would be more like science. It's inability to change is a hallmark of religious dogma, and the opposite of science.
Didn't you get the memo?
You're supposed to pretend ID is science and that the designer is unknown; could be aliens, could be anything.
I can just picture it...
Q. What's harder than getting a pregnant Brontosaurus into the ark?A. Getting a Brontosaurus pregnant in the ark!
(Noah! Make them stop. I'm getting seasick!)
Commas matter, Sherlock. I wasn't suggesting that mountains rose from the sea in the past 10,000 years. Tell me do you think the mountains rose from the sea before or after we evolved from whatever we supposedly evolved from; and do you think any of these guys have any clues about what the climates were like when this supposed evolution occurred? That's what the issue is that I raised, but you would rather blow smoke, wouldn't you?
ML/NJ
Yes? Please name a few that are less ridiculous than the salamader.
“There are several ring species, but the most famous example is the herring gull. In Britain, these are white. They breed with the herring gulls of eastern America, which are also white. American herring gulls breed with those of Alaska, and Alaskan ones breed with those of Siberia. But as you go to Alaska and Siberia, you find that herring gulls are getting smaller, and picking up some black markings. And when you get all the way back to Britain, they have become Lesser Black-Backed Gulls.
So, the situation is that there is a big circle around the world. As you travel this circle, you find a series of gull populations, each of which interbreeds with the populations to each side. But in Britain, the two ends of the circle are two different species of bird. The two ends do not interbreed: they think that they are two different species.
There are other examples. There is a bird species which rings the Tibetan plateau. At one point north of the plateau, the two ends of the ring do not interbreed.
The most-studied American example is a salamander:
Moritz C., C.J. Schneider, and D.B. Wake. 1992. Evolutionary relationships within the Ensatina eschscholtzii complex confirm the ring species interpretation. Syst. Biol. 41(3):273-291.
There are seven recognized subspecies of this salamander, arranged around the central valley of California. At the southern end, the coastal and inland populations do not interbreed.
The explanation for all this is straightforward. Two species are the same if there is “significant” gene flow between them. But there is no sharp dividing line between “significant” and “insignificant”.”
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/ring_species.html
Good Post Award goes to you. 8-)
Good Grief!!
Are there any “evolutionists” capable of recognizing adaptations WITHIN a species as being quite different from “EVOLVING” from one species to another?
Note: To potential responders:
The former DOES NOT prove the later!!!
Are there any "creationists" who can specify a mechanism forbidding micro-evolution from continuing to macro-evolution?
Being that adaptations are happening all the time in any population, and that they are occurring literally in many directions at once guided only by responses to various environmental and cultural pressures, and that those adaptations have been occurring for billions of years, why do creationists claim that adaptations go so far and suddenly stop? Please show me the mechanism that requires adaptations to stop at a certain point.
You clearly are unwilling or unable to understand. In a ring species you are actually seeing the process of speciation in progress. To complete the process, all we need is a selection event like a localized outbreak of disease, a natural disaster like a meteor strike or volcanic eruption, or even the introduction of a new predator, that breaks the continuum anywhere between the two ends.
You would then have two distinct species, not a ring species.
I see. I’m glad your scientific learning isn’t impaired by your clumsy grasp of English. You of course weren’t trying to blow any smoke and obscure your meaning by including remarks about the climate in the same sentence as meaningless remarks about mountains and seas? I didn’t say anything about man evolving from anything. It would be ridiculous to apply a timeline to an unexpressed thought. Of course the fossils of manlike creatures are well known to be dated as living much after most current mountain ranges were formed though we know for a fact that some ranges are growing at this moment so before or after is a relative point. Anyone with a half decent knowledge of scientific findings would know that. I already succinctly and accurately described how the regional climate could be determined for a given period. You must have missed that in your struggle to think of a wisecrack.
“Are there any “creationists” who can specify a mechanism forbidding micro-evolution from continuing to macro-evolution?”
Yes!
Sex!
Each species reproduces it’s own kind.
Redheads conceiving blonds is NOT “a new species”.
The idea that mutations occur at the same time, in sufficient numbers to sustain the mutation is unscientific.
Especially since few mutations are “improvements”, likely to enhance the chance for survival. Additionally, these mutations are not likely to be dominant, so the potential for successful transition is minute.
“You would then have two distinct species, not a ring species.”
As evidenced by.....????
Yes, they can deduce much about climate from the flora and fauna fossilized in the same strata. Tropical plants imply tropical climate for example.
Your understanding of the process of descent with modification is flawed. Please take a few minutes to study the way things actually work and try again.
I am typing as slow as I can.
Herring Gulls and Lesser Black-Backed Gulls in England do not interbreed. In England they are already separate species. They are facinating because the intermediate genetic variants still exist outside of England. These are the intermediate forms that Creationists always say do not exist. If you eliminate enough of the intermediate population through a selection event, say glaciation, you end up with a breeding population of Herring Gulls and a breeding popoulation of black-backed gulls, two different species. One species becomes two.
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.