Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How did the Aborigines get to Australia?
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 9 of 226 (645812)
12-30-2011 9:38 AM


About boats...
I was assuming Portillo meant that when humans repopulated Australia they would have brought their favorite marsupials with them. But I guess he could instead be thinking that they reached Australia the same way islands can become populated by immigrant species that arrive via floating vegetation.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-30-2011 1:57 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


(2)
Message 16 of 226 (645854)
12-30-2011 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Dr Adequate
12-30-2011 1:57 PM


Re: About boats...
Well, there go the "humans brought them" and driftwood possibilities. It almost makes wombats canoeing across the ocean sound reasonable.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-30-2011 1:57 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 73 of 226 (647778)
01-11-2012 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Granny Magda
01-11-2012 9:08 AM


Re: Public vs Scientific Controversy
Granny Magda writes:
Not really. I am proposing that marsupials reached Australia by migrating across continents that have long since fragmented. You seem to think that they were dropped off in a boat or something. I still think that we're very far apart.
I've been assuming the Australian marsupials have always been native to Australia. Wither Australia went, so went they.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Granny Magda, posted 01-11-2012 9:08 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Granny Magda, posted 01-11-2012 9:52 AM Percy has replied
 Message 76 by caffeine, posted 01-11-2012 10:17 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 75 of 226 (647787)
01-11-2012 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Granny Magda
01-11-2012 9:52 AM


Re: Public vs Scientific Controversy
Hi Granny!
China! I didn't know that. Went to Wikipedia, it says my assumption was wrong. I assumed marsupials were already on the Australian continent when it split off, but the Wikipedia article on marsupials says they migrated through Antarctica to reach Australia after it had already split off, possibly rafting across what was then a narrow gap.
Tying this in to the topic, the fossil evidence for this migration is about 50 million years old, as is the geological evidence placing Antarctica and Australia in close proximity. Evidence for a migration from the Middle East to Australia around 5000 years hasn't been discovered yet. Neither have we found any historical drawing or rendering or mention of creatures as unusual as kangaroos.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Granny Magda, posted 01-11-2012 9:52 AM Granny Magda has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


(1)
Message 88 of 226 (648104)
01-13-2012 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Chuck77
01-13-2012 6:50 AM


Chuck77 writes:
It's pretty simple. After the flood the continents split and whatever animals where on certain continents ended up there. Easy.
Does it bother you at all that there's no evidence that anything like this ever happened in recent geological times?
Evolutionist can't buy that but can buy everything poofed into existance by accident accompanied by chance and evolved into the miraculous life we see today, but can't buy this.
Science "buys" what the evidence indicates. Your description of what science "buys" is a recognizable parody of what the evidence actually indicates, and what the evidence indicates is what science actually "buys".
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Chuck77, posted 01-13-2012 6:50 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


(2)
Message 91 of 226 (648281)
01-14-2012 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Granny Magda
01-14-2012 7:22 AM


Re: Chuck's CMI Lies
Granny Magda writes:
Evidence for the ark?
Maybe for this discussion we should just take the ark as a given.
Chuck hasn't made any claims that are physically impossible. Animals do migrate, land bridges such as in the Bering Straight did exist when the oceans were lower. What I think we hope Chuck will come to understand is that there is no evidence that what he proposes ever existed or happened within the last few thousand years.
Chuck doesn't seem to understand the necessity to have evidence standing behind ideas. When your teenager comes home late he doesn't make up a story about being kidnapped by elves, he makes up a story that could actually happen, but the fact that it could have actually happened doesn't mean that it did happen. This is what creationists like Chuck don't seem to understand. Developing a hypothesis that isn't physically impossible is the easy part, anyone can do it. Developing a hypothesis actually supported by evidence is the hard part.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Granny Magda, posted 01-14-2012 7:22 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Granny Magda, posted 01-14-2012 8:13 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 93 of 226 (648291)
01-14-2012 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Granny Magda
01-14-2012 8:13 AM


Re: Chuck's CMI Lies
Granny Magda writes:
That's a pretty big given! I'm not sure I'm that giving a person.
Maybe I could have better said, "Maybe this discussion shouldn't focus much attention on issues regarding the ark since it's not the topic. There are plenty of threads already about the ark."
To Australia? To Antarctica? Those are some mighty impressive bridges.
Right, but at least Chuck wasn't throwing out some fanciful idea relying on magic. There is such a thing as land bridges. Land bridges do exist. The key question is whether there is any evidence for recent land bridges where Chuck needs them. At least Chuck hasn't proposed anything that is impossible.
The key question is what evidence Chuck has that causes him to propose that marsupials migrated to Australia around 5000 years ago. We already know the answer to this question, but I'm not sure Chuck has considered it yet, mainly because he's not accustomed to seeking evidence for beliefs whose origin was religion rather than science.
While many people have no problem maintaining different scientific and religious beliefs, in the evangelical world there is only one set of beliefs. Chuck has many things that he believes are true, and some of them come from science and have evidence, and some of them come from religion and don't have evidence. The problem for Chuck is that he doesn't know which of his beliefs are science and which are religion, and so he thinks they must all have evidence. He hasn't yet explored whether some of his most fundamental beliefs about the world have evidence. He might not know the evidence himself, but he's sure the evidence is out there somewhere, and as is also clear, he's highly suspicious of us and thinks we are ignoring the evidence that he's sure is out there.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Granny Magda, posted 01-14-2012 8:13 AM Granny Magda has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by NoNukes, posted 01-14-2012 12:08 PM Percy has replied
 Message 101 by Chuck77, posted 01-15-2012 12:59 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 95 of 226 (648315)
01-14-2012 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by NoNukes
01-14-2012 12:08 PM


Re: Chuck's CMI Lies
If the goal is to convince Chuck or any creationist, then I don't think that's going to happen. It's just human nature. You'll never convince believers in alien abductions or ghosts or Bigfoot or the flood or whatever that there's no such thing. People believe weird things. Doesn't matter why, they just do.
But what you *can* do is ask them to produce their evidence. And they'll be able to produce some, be it mysterious and almost alien metallic objects or ghostly images or tufts of hair from a large mammal or seashells on mountain tops, but evidence like this has already been found wholly unpersuasive, and none of these wacky ideas have found much traction within science. Getting creationists to struggle with producing evidence and, when they have some, interpret it properly is all that need be done.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by NoNukes, posted 01-14-2012 12:08 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by NoNukes, posted 01-14-2012 1:19 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


(2)
Message 126 of 226 (648388)
01-15-2012 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Chuck77
01-15-2012 12:59 AM


Re: Chuck's CMI Lies
Chuck77 writes:
If it's possible why is it not an acceptable alternative?
In 1600 or 1700 maybe it would have been an acceptable possibility scientifically, but the evidence available today doesn't seem to allow your alternative. Evidence is the key issue regarding any alternatives, as it is for all issues in all the science threads. This is rule 4 from theForum Guidelines:
  1. Points should be supported with evidence and reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.
You've described your hypothesis, and now you're being asked what evidence convinced you it was viable.
Of course I have no evidence for land bridges 5000 yrs ago...
A question you might ask yourself is why you have fixed upon and are arguing for a hypothesis that has no evidence. You're not being asked, "Can you describe a scenario for how the marsupials reached Australia that isn't physically impossible?" You're being asked, "Do you have a scenario for how the marsupials reached Australia that has some supporting evidence?"
...but it's not such a terrible stretch considering what damage the flood caused and the aftermath of it all.
It's not such a "terrible stretch" for someone completely ignorant of the available evidence.
Do you know what's on the sea floor between Asia and Australia? Millions of years of accumulation of ocean sediments. A land bridge destroyed 4350 years ago would have only 4350 years of accumulated ocean sediments. The land bridge's former location would stand out prominently for both the debris field and the lack of accumulated sediments.
AbE: Here's a link to a Google Map showing the undersea terrain. See if you can find the remains of your landbridge:
Now that you've actually seen what the region looks like, maybe you'd like to modify your proposal? Perhaps they migrated across islands and rafted between?
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Add link to map.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Chuck77, posted 01-15-2012 12:59 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


(1)
Message 141 of 226 (652646)
02-15-2012 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by Portillo
02-15-2012 3:55 AM


Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions
Portillo writes:
Fossils are found in sedimentary rock which is formed by flowing water.
Fossils *are* found in sedimentary rock, but sedimentary rock is not formed by flowing water. Flowing water can be a source of sedimentary particles (through erosion) and a form of transport for those sedimentary particles, but the tiny particulate matter from which sedimentary rock forms only falls out of suspension in quiet water.
95% of the fossil record are marine inverbrates.
This is because land, being higher, tends to erode at the hands of the elements. The products of erosion from the land are carried by wind, rain, streams and rivers to the lowest points where they are deposited, which is usually, but not always, in quiet streams, rivers, ponds, lakes, seas and oceans.
Sediments can accumulate on relatively flat land areas that drain to still lower areas (if they didn't drain then they'd become lakes) or that are very dry (deserts), but this is much less common and explains why marine fossils are much more common.
Still, we do find a fair number of fossils of ancient land creatures in what were low lying and coastal regions, but we find almost no sedimentary rock and therefore no fossils from upland and highland regions because they are always areas of net erosion.
Fossils are buried in mass sediments that sometimes cover several American states!
You're not specific, but if you're referring to the states in the Colorado area, much of this region lay beneath a quiet sea for millions of years. It also spent some millions of years above sea level. The Grand Canyon contains a record of much of the geologic history of this region, showing when it was beneath a sea, and even when parts of it were coastal regions and how those coastal regions moved back and forth across the landscape as the region rose and fell. It also shows when an area was under a quiet sea, or was only some miles off a coast. And it shows when the region was above sea level, though these layers are more rare and typically not complete since land is often an area of net erosion.
What kind of streams are we talking about? Sounds like a catastrophic extinction with lots of water.
Sediments would remain suspended in active flood waters. A flood would jumble everything up instead of producing a progression of gradual change.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Portillo, posted 02-15-2012 3:55 AM Portillo has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 151 of 226 (652806)
02-16-2012 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by Chuck77
02-16-2012 2:37 AM


Re: Sedimentology, Something Else You Don't Know About
Chuck77 writes:
Wrong concerning who? We have sources that say different. Maybe it is you who are wrong? Hmmmmm...
This thread is your opportunity to present evidence and argument for your position.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Chuck77, posted 02-16-2012 2:37 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


(2)
Message 195 of 226 (672349)
09-07-2012 7:57 AM


Why Kangaroos and Wallabies didn't need a land bridge
I'm sure a brief summary has already been presented to Portillo, but I'll just say it again.
Kangaroos and wallabies did not arrive in Australia at anything remotely near the same time as the aborigines. At around 50,000 years ago, the aborigines are relatively recent arrivals to Australia. We know this because of the archaeological record. They obviously arrived at a time when Australia was geographically isolated from other continents, and it is assumed they used boats for at least part of their migration route.
Kangaroos and wallabies are indigenous to Australia. We know this because of the paleontological record. Their evolutionary ancestors were already in Australia when it separated from Asia around 5 million years ago. They didn't have to cross a land bridge to get to Australia because they were already there.
Prior to 5 million years ago Australia was joined to Asia. The remote ancestors of kangaroos and wallabies could roam freely throughout Asia and Australia because they were a single continent. Modern maps of the region between Asia and Australia bear no resemblance to what it looked like while they were joined.
--Percy

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


(2)
Message 202 of 226 (672531)
09-09-2012 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by Portillo
09-09-2012 3:02 AM


Dating is not the Topic
Hi Portillo,
Your reply to Coyote was incorrect. The correct reply would have been, "A discussion of dating would be off-topic in this thread. I would love to discuss my many dating misunderstandings, misapprehensions and mistakes with you in another thread, but this thread is about how kangaroos, wallabies and aborigines got to Australia."
You then would have followed that message with replies to people who had actually posted about the topic.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Portillo, posted 09-09-2012 3:02 AM Portillo has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 210 of 226 (673194)
09-16-2012 7:11 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by Portillo
09-16-2012 1:20 AM


Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions, round 2
Portillo in part writes:
So alot of the strata, fossils, and geological features could have formed very quickly rather than gradually over millions of years.
It would be fascinating to reply to all you say, but it doesn't appear to have anything to do with how aborigines, kangaroos and wallabies got to Australia. Geology doesn't exclude the possibility of suddenly-formed layers, but it does include the ability to examine and study the layers to determine how and when they formed, and it says many geological layers and the fossils contained within are millions and in some cases billions of years old.
So if geologists are wrong about the layers they've studied then our picture of natural history is wrong in momentous ways that dwarf into insignificance the issue of migration times and methods of ancient marsupials. The fundamental issue you want to be discussing, and that you are discussing, is geological processes and dating methods, but this is the wrong thread for that. If you propose a new thread over at Proposed New Topics I will review it in my moderator role as quickly as I can.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Portillo, posted 09-16-2012 1:20 AM Portillo has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024