08-07-2012, 02:33 PM | #51 | |||
Archbishop of Banterbury
|
Quote:
My point was - leaving biology aside, from a purely physics standpoint, these structures have a similar design, shape and function to wings, but the flying squirrel lacks the necessary "wing" surface area and strength to support its mass. They are, in the essential aspects, the same as the "half-formed wings" you earlier claimed "would pose a serious survival risk to the creature" - and they don't seem to be doing to flying squirrel any harm. Quote:
__________________
Quote:
Last edited by Concept; 08-07-2012 at 02:43 PM. |
|||
08-07-2012, 03:10 PM | #52 | |||||
Banned
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
That doesn't fit all that well with Survival of the Fittest. I'll get back to the "random" point in a future post. Quote:
Also, they are not, in the essential aspects, the same as the half-formed wing I claimed, because, a half-formed wing on a Raptor would be detrimental to it's survival, while the "skin" on a Flying Squirrel, is part of it's only survival mechanism. Quote:
My Hypothesis is, all the DNA sequences of Life, have existed together since the dawn of life on earth, which is not as old as we are told. During their tenture, these life forms have varied slightly, within their DNA origins, for good and for ill, and others have become extinct due to certain conditions and circumstances. |
|||||
08-07-2012, 03:13 PM | #53 |
Not sure if gone...
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Or just lurking.
Posts: 2,709
|
Can you offer any substantive scientific proof for why your theory is right, unownmew? It must be pretty compelling for you to believe it rather than a widely accepted scientific fact.
|
08-07-2012, 03:26 PM | #54 |
Double Dragon
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,776
|
Also, you say "not as old as we are told." What gives you reason to believe this?
__________________
|
08-07-2012, 03:27 PM | #55 | ||
Banned
|
Exhibit 2
The Odds of Evolution:
Quote:
Quote:
Interestingly enough, The Theory of Evolution is completely at odds with Environmentalism and Global Warming Activists. Environmentalism advocates intentionally leaving species alone so they do not go extinct, and Global Warming says humanity is creating a serious climate problem, and yet, Darwinism says each creature must adapt or die. If Humanity's "exploitation" of the environment, and "Extreme warming of the planet" is problematic, then the creatures should evolve under the duress, just like they have in every other catastrophic extinction event. And yet they apparently do not, despite our encroachment. |
||
08-07-2012, 03:34 PM | #56 | ||
Banned
|
Quote:
As for proof, I have an "alternate interpretation of the Observations in the Fossil Record," various Religious Texts, as well as very heavy reasons to disbelieve "Macroevolution." Quote:
Some that, while not exactly related specifically to Evolution, completely blow out of the water traditionally held scientific beliefs, requiring new theories in many places. Last edited by unownmew; 08-07-2012 at 03:36 PM. |
||
08-07-2012, 03:37 PM | #57 | ||||
Archbishop of Banterbury
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
So how old do you think life is, and what scientific evidence do you have on the age front? Also your explanation was a bit rambly - are you saying that all modern "species", broadly defined (elephants, tigers, humans, etc) existed alongside dinosaurs and whatever other extinct beasties I can think of? And if not, what are you saying?
__________________
Quote:
|
||||
08-07-2012, 03:37 PM | #58 | |
beebooboobopbooboobop
|
Quote:
What part of "evolution is a gradual process that takes millions of years" don't you understand?
__________________
|
|
08-07-2012, 03:45 PM | #59 | ||
Primordial Fishbeast
|
Quote:
Quote:
Their lungs are very primitive because they first appeared about 400 million years ago and haven't needed to adapt. They move slowly and don't need to breathe as much as land-based organisms, so their lung doesn't need to be as efficient as those with alveoli. I know that the Austrailian Lungfish can breathe in water just fine, but the African and South American species can't. They do drown if they can't access air to breathe. Regarding Coelcanth and 'not needing to evolve' - there are hundreds of species that haven't changed in millions of years. The basic shark design has been consistant for around 400 million years, crocodiles similar to those today appears around 200 million years ago. Hell, bats almost as sophisticated as modern ones (bar sonar abilities) were flying around 50 mya. Evolution has a very 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' attitude. My above point stands - evolution is random. If something can be improved upon, it will be, not through choice, but because it's more successful. |
||
08-07-2012, 03:46 PM | #60 |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
Quit.
Wasting. Your. Time. On. Obvious. Troll.
__________________
|
08-07-2012, 03:50 PM | #61 |
Primordial Fishbeast
|
Shhh Talon this is the most use I've had out of my degree in the last two years ;;
|
08-07-2012, 05:59 PM | #62 | ||||||
Banned
|
Talon, if I was really a troll, don't you think I would be messing in other topics, spending as little time as I can on replies (generally just to fire off more platitudes and hot buttons than serious discussion), and giving a general disregard to the forum rules? I'm using the Debate forum for what it's intended for, and just because you disagree with my position does not make me a troll.
Actually, comments like yours right there are more "trollish" than mine, as mine are at least on topic. But of course you have me on ignore, so I'm just wasting my breath. But if I'm on your ignore, why aren't you just ignoring me already? -.- Quote:
Like fish with arms (this would be greatly helpful to survival no?) Flying Stingrays Snails with spiked shells Fish and reptiles with hollow bones like birds Birds with Raptor Claws Snakes with limbs etc. Why aren't there? Also, refer to my post about the likelyhood of Evolution. Quote:
Why it would it be detrimental? If a reptile uses it's fore legs for something other than walking, it would definitely use it's claws, probably for holding and maneuvering food. Evolving into partial wings, the reptile no longer has it's claws, and still can't fly. It has lost overall functionality, and gained nothing in return, hence a net detriment. I suppose we could argue whether the "partial wing" actually loses the claw, or the claw disappears after the wing is fully evolved instead, causing no fewer problems, or whether the claw was really all that useful to begin with, but... moot point. The key point is the concept, losing something useful, while not yet gaining something to replace it. Other problems with Reptiles to birds: Assuming as we are, that evolution is random, there is no guarantee that an evolution from reptile legs to bird legs would occur at an "ideal" time during the evolutionary process. Such mutation could well occur far before the reptile evolved hollow bones or a smaller body (thus being light enough for it's new skinny weak legs to hold the body), or after the animal has evolved it's wings to have need of the small, thin branch grasping feet. Not to mention I don't even know what you would have to do to the DNA to even start such a drastic change in anatomy from fleshy, leather-skin-covered legs (bending in one direction, allowing for easy walking) of a reptile, to the weak, thin, flesh-bare, skinless talons (bent in the complete opposite direction, allowing for easy perching and roosting, but horrible for ground travel), of a bird. If it was really survival of the fittest, it's far more likely we'd have ended up with chicken-sized carnivorous, feathered reptiles that can fly, run, and walk, than the small little harmless birds we have today. Quote:
Quote:
As to the first, if I take into account Personal Religious beliefs (such as the Earth and everything in it being created in 7 of God's days and plants being created on the 3rd day, and that a single Day of God is equal to about 1000 years), I think, life is maybe around 11,000 years old at it's very earliest. 7000-8000 years old since Humanity's presence. Regarding my proof, nothing so far outside of Religious Text, The age of the earth is not something I've actually looked into studying yet, I've simply assumed it since it fit with what I knew already. But such an argument regarding Earth's age may crop up later in further evidence I bring to the table. Quote:
Neat, I wasn't aware of that. Cool. Quote:
|
||||||
08-08-2012, 09:32 AM | #65 |
Double Dragon
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,776
|
Cartilidge =/= hollow bones, Rangeet. Saying that now before UM picks you apart.
__________________
|
08-08-2012, 10:14 AM | #67 |
Double Dragon
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,776
|
Ah, my mistake. Sorry bout that.
__________________
|
08-08-2012, 01:16 PM | #68 | |
Banned
|
If you address anything, address this:
Quote:
|
|
08-08-2012, 09:30 PM | #69 | ||
Problematic Fave
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
|
I'm going to point out the Fatal Flaws in each argument listed here and explain a bit more if necessary.
Quote:
It is impossible to read the fossil record like an autobiography. It will not tell you everything the dinosaur ate, nor will it tell you what color the animal was, or where it went at different times of the year, or how it behaved when confronted with a predator or with prey. We have very educated guesses, and we have examples based on animals still existing, but we cannot know the exact ecology of the system. And getting more finely to the point, we don't have all the fossils. Some beasts weren't fossilized at all, or were lost to time, or are still embedded deep in the earth somewhere. So, to combine both points, we have snapshots of various periods in various creatures' life. Let's say we took a bunch of snapshots at the moment of death of every creature on the planet, doing different things in different places. Then, we scattered them to the bottom of the ocean and sent a submersible down with no windows to pick up all the photos that survived. Let's say it through some miracle managed to pick up 10,000 photos, with about 1/4 of all species represented, most of these vertebrates. And let's say you tried to figure out what life was like for all these species. It's difficult, isn't it? Who eats what? Are they intelligent? Why are those primates in all different colors? Now make it even harder for yourself and dig up complete skeletons of extinct creatures and try to piece together what life must have been like for them. Sure, we have clues in animals that exist today, but that doesn't make our job any easier and we have maybe eighteen to twenty of the pieces in a fifty-piece puzzle. So it would be pretty easy to see a new creature in the fossil record and go "zomg that creature appeared out of NOWHERE OH SWEET JESUS IT'S CREATIONISM AT IT'S FINEST." And any scientists who claim they know everything about dinosaurs and ancient or extinct creatures are either the proud owners of a time machine and the Fountain of Youth and have an iq of 300 or batshit insane. Because this ignorance works both ways. But hope remains, for the information touted as reliable can reasonably be used as fact (which prehistoric beasties are carnivores and which ones are herbivores, for example). Quote:
And if two species are split in half due to some ecological circumstance, they have been proven to develop differently. For instance, two fish separated by a change in water level in a lake may have a common ancestor, but they are different species entirely and followed the fast track to being different colors, different shapes, and different sizes. And no, simple variation between individuals of a given species is definitely out of the question because the individuals involved cannot produce viable offspring. They're entirely different now in the sense that a lion and tiger are entirely different, or a horse and a donkey. Sure, they can make a baby together, but the baby can't make more babies so it all ends there. Oh dear, I've been typing too much. I hope that explained at least something and made sense on some level.
__________________
|
||
08-09-2012, 10:00 AM | #70 | ||||
Banned
|
Quote:
It was asking you, the evolutionist, to explain, how, if evolution truly is as random as claimed, How, do you explain Plants evolving first, and then animals? If the animals evolved before the plants, there would be no food for the animals to eat, and then they would die out, and the "Chances" of another evolution event would have to be reset, requiring another "Millions of years." And, if plants evolved first, how do you explain herbivores and carnivores evolving at essentially the same time? If the herbivores evolved without carnivores, the herbivores would have no check, and would quickly eat the plants out of existence, then dieing out, and requiring another evolution event requring another millions of years. If the Carnivores evolved before the herbivores there would be no food to begin with and the evolution would cease before it began, requiring another evolution event lasting millions of years. The question is, How then do you explain this inherent, necessary, mutual evolution of all higher forms of life at essentially the same time? Because evolution can NOT occur out of order, or it fails. And yet the chances of it occurring in the first place, never mind In order, are well beyond reason: Quote:
Quote:
As for likely hood, I'd say it's far more likely than the odds of life occurring in the first place (see above quote). Quote:
Last edited by unownmew; 08-09-2012 at 10:05 AM. |
||||
08-09-2012, 09:15 PM | #71 |
Fog Badge
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
|
Why is this a thread.
This is stupid. Why is this even being debated. I mean holy fuck, how can people still not accept evolution?
__________________
|
08-09-2012, 11:39 PM | #72 |
「Killer Queen No Prog」
|
They think that every animal has been here for the same amount time and the Earth is only, like, 4000 years old despite having fossils dating back far longer than that.
|
08-10-2012, 08:45 PM | #73 |
The Path of Now & Forever
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,304
|
Why I closed the thread (at least for now):
Firstly, it's clearly targeted at unownmew and his creationist beliefs. It's not a debate, it's an outright attack on him. Secondly, it's not a debate when it's neither side is willing to accept the other side might be correct and possibly convinced. unownmew shows no signs of accepting Evolution as scientific fact and the rest of you aren't accepting Creationism as any sort of fact. Thirdly, most of you do not carry a scientific degree or specialize in evolution. I don't expect any of you will be able to give him such absolute facts that he will turn around and agree with anything. |
Lower Navigation | ||||||
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|