Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8803 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-23-2017 5:13 PM
421 online now:
DrJones*, frako, Larni, PaulK (4 members, 417 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 822,904 Year: 27,510/21,208 Month: 1,423/1,714 Week: 266/365 Day: 35/73 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Make Your Own Conclusion Based on the Evidence at Hand
frako
Member
Posts: 2715
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 1 of 7 (592701)
11-21-2010 9:52 AM


Based on the evidence at hand make your own logical conclusion to what was/is happening here.

No Thrinaxodon fossil dates older than the oldest Ericiolacerta fossil.

No megazostrodon fossil dates older than the oldest Thrinaxodon fossil.

No Crusafontia fossil dates older than the oldest megazostrodon fossil.

No Plesiadapis fossil dates older than the oldest Crusafontia fossil.

No aegyptopithecus fossil dates older than the oldest Plesiadapis fossil

No pierolapithecus catalaunicus fossil dates older than the oldest aegyptopithecus fossil

No sahelanthropus tchadensis fossil dates older than the oldest pierolapithecus catalaunicus fossil.

No Australopithecus anamensis fossil dates older than the oldest pierolapithecus catalaunicus fossil.

No australopithecus afarensis fossil dates older than the oldest Australopithecus anamensis fossil.

No homo habilis fossil dates older than the oldest australopithecus afarensis fossil.

No homo ergaster dates older than the oldest homo habilis fossil.

No homo erectus fossil dates older than the oldest homo ergaster fossil.

No homo sapiens idaltu fossil dates older than the oldest homo erectus fossil.

No human bones ever found date older than the oldest homo sapiens idaltu fossil.

Using the evidence at hand and some logic what would your conclusion be as to what was happening.

Edited by AdminPD, : Body of Post

Edited by frako, : No reason given.

Edited by frako, : No reason given.

Edited by frako, : No reason given.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Replaced images with thumbnail images (click on to get full size).


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Iblis, posted 11-21-2010 7:58 PM frako has not yet responded
 Message 4 by Adminnemooseus, posted 11-22-2010 12:34 AM frako has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12535
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 2 of 7 (592721)
11-21-2010 2:17 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Make Your Own Conclusion Based on the Evidence at Hand thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 1488 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 3 of 7 (592762)
11-21-2010 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by frako
11-21-2010 9:52 AM


huh
Off the top of my head, there's a problem there between the one labeled Crusafontia and the one labeled Plesiadapis. The first is barely a lemur, while the other is already a monkey. Be prepared to explain this gap.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by frako, posted 11-21-2010 9:52 AM frako has not yet responded

Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3830
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 4 of 7 (592788)
11-22-2010 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by frako
11-21-2010 9:52 AM


Proposed topic not suitable for promotion (but it did get promoted)

No Thrinaxodon fossils date older than the oldest Ericiolacerta fossil.

I have an idea of what you were trying to do here but at the minimum I think you blotched some of your wordings. In the above quoted you seem to be saying the oldest Thrinaxodon fossil is the same age as the oldest Ericiolacerta fossil. I don't think this is what you were trying to say. I'm guessing you intended:

All Thrinaxodon fossils date older than the oldest Ericiolacerta fossil".

And etc.

The rest of message 1 is just further examples of the same muddled thought process and/or blotched wordings. Seemingly, you think that the oldest examples of all the listed species are the same age.

Please further expound on what you were trying to say in the above quoted and/or what the intended point was to be.

Adminnemooseus

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : I thought I had fixed that before submitting.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by frako, posted 11-21-2010 9:52 AM frako has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Iblis, posted 11-22-2010 12:56 AM Adminnemooseus has responded

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 1488 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 5 of 7 (592791)
11-22-2010 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Adminnemooseus
11-22-2010 12:34 AM


Chronological Nesting
adMinnieMouse writes:

I have an idea of what you were trying to do here but at the minimum I think you blotched some of your wordings. In the above quoted you seem to be saying the oldest Thrinaxodon fossil is the same age as the oldest Ericiolacerta fossil. I don't think this is what you were trying to say. I'm guessing you intended:

All Thrinaxodon fossils date older than the oldest Ericiolacerta fossil".

I may not be understanding your post or frako's (I may be a moron, but I tend to doubt it.) So far as I can tell, the top aminal is intended to be Eric and the second one is Thrina. None of the samples of Thrina we have are older than the earliest sample of the more primitive Eric. The third dude, who is even more lemurian and less ratty, is Megaz. No Megaz is older than the oldest Thrina. And so on down through monkeys and apes, to us. All the critters are nested chronologically, such that the rats appear to be growing hands, losing their tails, standing up, grabbing tools, building computers, and calling each other asshats, in that specific order.

Edited by Iblis, : ouroboros


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Adminnemooseus, posted 11-22-2010 12:34 AM Adminnemooseus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Adminnemooseus, posted 11-22-2010 1:06 AM Iblis has not yet responded

Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3830
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 6 of 7 (592793)
11-22-2010 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Iblis
11-22-2010 12:56 AM


Back to the Proposed New Topics phase for this one
Due to his crappy presentation, I don't know which name goes with which picture.

I do think you are in line with what Frako was TRYING to express.

But we need to let Frako straighten out his mess before we proceed further.

Ah, hell - I'm going to send this back to the PNT forum to let him fix things there.

Adminnemooseus

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Change subtitle.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Change last sentence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Iblis, posted 11-22-2010 12:56 AM Iblis has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3830
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 7 of 7 (592796)
11-22-2010 1:12 AM


Thread Copied to Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied to the Make Your Own Conclusion Based on the Evidence at Hand thread in the Proposed New Topics forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.
  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017