Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 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?
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(20)
Message 11 of 226 (645826)
12-30-2011 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Percy
12-30-2011 9:38 AM


Re: About boats...
I was assuming Portillo meant that when humans repopulated Australia they would have brought their favorite marsupials with them.
Well, some problems:
(1) There is evidence of marsupials in Australia before humans.
(2) How did they manage that without leaving one single marsupial behind in Eurasia?
(3) Why did they have this big fetish for marsupials, and bring along all the kangaroos and wallabies and potoroos and wombats and bandicoots and Tasmanian devils and koalas and marsupial moles and ten different kinds of betong, rather than spoil their record by bringing along something useful like a sheep? What was going through their heads ... "No, sheep won't work in Australia, let's have another thing with a pouch." And let's not forget all the extinct mammals, like Diprotodon, a wombaty thing the size of a rhinoceros which they apparently thought would be useful for some reason.
(4) It is extremely unlikely that their "favorite marsupials" would have included the Tasmanian devil, an animal which Wikipedia describes as noted for its "pungent odor, extremely loud and disturbing screech [...] and ferocity"; and downright unthinkable that anyone would want to share a boat or a continent with a nine-foot tall carnivorous kangaroo (now mercifully extinct).
(5) And that's just the mammals, let's not forget the snakes and the spiders. Apparently they thought no continent would be complete without the addition of the most venomous species on earth.
(6) I can't find a shred of evidence that the Australian aborigines ever had any form of transport larger than a dugout canoe. This would present them with severe difficulties in transporting all this stuff.
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.
One would again have to ask --- why all the marsupials? We can at least imagine the first settlers being perversely selective in this way, but how could one attribute it to mere chance? And, again, one would have to ask how come no marsupials were left behind. Somehow this floating vegetation managed to separate out all the marsupials from the placental mammals, which would be an act of exceptional acumen for driftwood, which is not usually noted for its intelligence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Percy, posted 12-30-2011 9:38 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Trixie, posted 12-30-2011 2:18 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 16 by Percy, posted 12-30-2011 4:41 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 45 by saab93f, posted 01-04-2012 4:02 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 23 of 226 (645963)
01-01-2012 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Portillo
01-01-2012 12:52 AM


Re: Biogeography
That's not a wallaby, it's an early marsupial which looked something like this ...
Try again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Portillo, posted 01-01-2012 12:52 AM Portillo has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 25 of 226 (645968)
01-01-2012 1:12 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Portillo
01-01-2012 12:42 AM


Australia was once connected to Asia!
Yes. It was. This fact fits in nicely with real biogeography, but it's no help to you.
If you wish to suggest that the Australian fauna crossed a land bridge from Asia to Australia after the flood, then you have to explain (a) why no placental mammals went with them (b) why all the Australian fauna ended up in Australia, not even leaving any bones behind them.
Some animals have migrated to other countries using rafts and floating islands.
Same objection applies.
Lack of fossils documenting the migration of marsupials doesnt mean it didnt happen.
It is kinda suggestive, though, don't you think?
Evolution actually demands that marsupials lived in other parts of the world.
Marsupials, yes. The modern and specifically Australian fauna, no.
Many animals are not documented in the fossil record ...
Yes, but those are small soft-bodied phyla. Can you point out to us one single mammalian family with no representatives in the fossil record?
Did you know that millions of buffalos roamed the western praires and barely left a shred of fossil evidence that they existed?
I do not "know" that because it isn't true.
Did you know that the Indian Ocean tsunami destroyed the lives of 250 million people in 17 countries and barely any animals were killed?
I very much doubt that, but if you think about it, even if it was true it would have no relevance unless you were adducing it as evidence that all mammals are immortal.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Portillo, posted 01-01-2012 12:42 AM Portillo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 01-02-2012 8:46 AM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 55 by caffeine, posted 01-04-2012 10:52 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 35 of 226 (646056)
01-02-2012 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by RAZD
01-02-2012 8:46 AM


Re: Gondwanaland, Wallace and biogeography
ZD writes:
I beg to differ.
GM writes:
There was no direct link between what we now call Asia and what we now call Australia, but there was, at one point, an more-or-less overland connection, via Gondwana. The marsupials took the looooong way around.
I stand corrected, I shouldn't have agreed that there was a land bridge, just an overland route. Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 01-02-2012 8:46 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 56 of 226 (646423)
01-04-2012 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by caffeine
01-04-2012 10:52 AM


Re: Australian placentals
Just a small correction, but some placentals did go to Australia. Whilst there are no big placentals knocking about, Australia has a rich collection of native rodents and bats. Collectively, they make up more than a quarter of the species of native Australian mammal.
I was aware of the bats, but presumed that they flew, rather than crossing a land bridge; I was also aware of the rodents, but had the impression that they were all descendants of hitch-hikers, in which I now think myself to be wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by caffeine, posted 01-04-2012 10:52 AM caffeine has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 69 of 226 (647743)
01-11-2012 4:32 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Portillo
01-11-2012 3:57 AM


Re: Public vs Scientific Controversy
Why then do people prefer to chat here rather than on an evolution forum? Seems like there would be alot less stress in your life if you didnt have to deal with creation. Unless of course this place is a creationist rehabilitation center.
You think creationists wouldn't turn up on an "evolution forum"?
It seems like there is an agreement that the marsupials got to Australia from other countries.
There is an agreement among scientists that the marsupials found in Australia today are indigenous to Australia and were never anywhere else.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Portillo, posted 01-11-2012 3:57 AM Portillo has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 78 of 226 (648077)
01-13-2012 5:46 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Portillo
01-13-2012 3:58 AM


Re: Public vs Scientific Controversy
One misconception is that the only people who doubt evolution are fundies from Alabama. Research shows that there is skepticism in other countries.
404
http://www.swissinfo.ch/...knuckles_accepting_evolution.html
Page Not Found - Boston.com
Russia: Creationism Finds Support Among Young
And according to research done by Barnum et al, there's one born every minute!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Portillo, posted 01-13-2012 3:58 AM Portillo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Chuck77, posted 01-13-2012 6:02 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 81 of 226 (648088)
01-13-2012 6:20 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Chuck77
01-13-2012 6:02 AM


Re: Public vs Scientific Controversy
Opps. Nice rebuttle. Insults as usual. Doesn't cut it Doc. You really are sloppy here. Stick to the political threads.
Thanks for showing me how debate should be done with your insightful discussion of Australian fauna personal attack.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Chuck77, posted 01-13-2012 6:02 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 83 of 226 (648096)
01-13-2012 7:19 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Chuck77
01-13-2012 6:50 AM


It's pretty simple. After the flood the continents split and whatever animals where on certain continents ended up there. Easy.
So, first all the kangaroos and wallabies and poteroos and thylacines and Tasmanian devils and wombats and koalas migrated to Australia without leaving a single one behind ... or any bones ... en route between Mount Ararat and Australia as evidence, and then the process of continental drift managed to occur squeezed into the space of a few thousand years again without leaving any actual evidence that this was the case?
Evolutionist can't buy that but can buy everything poofed into existance by accident accompanied by chance ...
Stick to telling us what you think, you're much more likely to be right about what your own opinions are.

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

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 98 of 226 (648346)
01-14-2012 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by dwise1
01-14-2012 6:36 PM


Re: Chuck's CMI Lies
I concur, though I would have started with "huh?". Creationist migration scenarios make absolutely no sense, even if we ignore the fact that with so many species pared down to such incredibly small initial populations, it would have taken very few acts of predation (hey, carnivores have to eat too) to have brought nearly all prey species to extinction.
Well that's why Australia doesn't have any goberoos, rumbats, or marsupial unicorns. They were all eaten by the last marsupial bear, which then broke its neck pursuing the last worraburra.
You see how perfectly it all fits together?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by dwise1, posted 01-14-2012 6:36 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 144 of 226 (652765)
02-16-2012 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by Portillo
02-15-2012 3:55 AM


Sedimentology, Something Else You Don't Know About
Fossils are found in sedimentary rock which is formed by flowing water ...
... with just a few exceptions, such as glacial till, aeolian sediment, volcanic ash, nearshore sediments, coal, siliceous ooze, calcareous ooze, pelagic clay, evaporites ...
Tell me something. It is clear that you have never studied geology. And you must know that you have never studied geology. In which case why do you not draw the obvious corrolaries that (a) you don't know anything about it and (b) you should therefore not presume to go around lecturing other people on it?
95% of the fossil record are marine inverbrates.
You figure that these sea-creatures drowned in a flood?
Is that the usual effect floods have?
Fossils are buried in mass sediments that sometimes cover several American states! What kind of streams are we talking about?
Obviously when a kind of sediment covers several American states, we're not talking about streams. We're talking either about deserts, seas, or major volcanic eruptions, depending on the type of the sediment. The Navajo sandstone, for example, extends over 400,000 square kilometers of northern Arizona, northwest Colorado, Nevada, and Utah. Analysis of its sedimentary structure shows that it's a former desert.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Portillo, posted 02-15-2012 3:55 AM Portillo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Portillo, posted 02-16-2012 1:07 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 148 of 226 (652778)
02-16-2012 2:52 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by Chuck77
02-16-2012 2:37 AM


Re: Sedimentology, Something Else You Don't Know About
Wrong concerning who? We have sources that say different. Maybe it is you who are wrong?
Well, not in this case, at least. We can see sediment being deposited. It is not exclusively deposited in "streams" of "flowing water". Any "source" that says that it is is lying or bonkers.

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

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 157 of 226 (669449)
07-30-2012 5:52 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by Portillo
07-30-2012 4:03 AM


Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions
Evidence for the flood is seen in the fossils. Thats how fossils are made, with water and sediment. Trillions of beautifully preserved fossils, all over the world. Why are fossils evidence of flooding? Because they were buried so rapidly, that they couldnt oxidize, decay or be destroyed by predators.
Fossils with soft-tissue preservation are in fact extremely rare. Intact skeletons not dismembered by predators or scavengers are also rather rare. Decay and dismemberment is in fact the usual fate of fossils. So how about you come up with an explanation for the fossil record that actually exists?
The neat fossil record chart that is seen in textbooks doesnt actually exist anywhere on the planet. You find polystrate fossils on every continent. You find horseshoe crabs, shrimps and clams at the top of mountains. Bottom dwelling animals at 20,000 feet about sea level. In Cumberland Bone Cave, you find massive graveyards of animals from the tropics and artics. Climate animals like bats, reptiles, birds, mastodons and mammals. From land to sea animals, the tropics and artics, all together and buried.
You seem unaware both of the nature of the fossil record and of what geologists say about it.
Good question. If there was a global flood, why dont we find fossils mixed up, such as humans, horses and cows at the bottom? The question is though, do humans, horses and cows live at the bottom of the ocean? What you would expect to find is fossils buried in their habitat, although you do find marine fossils on continents. When a catastrophe such as a tornado, earthquake, or flood happens, who knows first, the animals or people? The animals usually know whats coming, so they get out of there.
You still don't seem to have explained the Law of Faunal Succession. Try harder.
Why, for example, do we never see a dinosaur and a modern mammal in the same stratum?
During the Indian Ocean Tsunami, even though the lives of 250,000 people were destroyed, few animals were killed.
Evidence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Portillo, posted 07-30-2012 4:03 AM Portillo has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 165 of 226 (669855)
08-04-2012 1:52 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by Portillo
08-04-2012 12:48 AM


Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions
How long do fossils take to form? They are entombed by a catastrophe very rapidly, so they dont have a chance to decay or be eaten by scavengers.
See my previous post.
Most fossils have decayed and been dismembered by scavengers.
This, for example, is Lucy:
Why do I mention her? Because this is the single most intact Australopithecus ever found. It took three weeks for the fossil hunters to find all the pieces they did. Don't they just wish she'd been buried by a single sudden event! But she wasn't. None of them were.
As WP says:
As the team analyzed the fossil further, they calculated that an amazing 40% of a hominid skeleton had been recovered, an astounding feat of anthropology. Usually, only fossil fragments are discovered; rarely are skulls or ribs found intact.
Got that? It's an astounding feat of anthropology to find as much as 40% of a skeleton. This would not be the case if fossils were always, or usually, "entombed by a catastrophe very rapidly".
If your going to explain an event in the past, you have to invoke a cause which is known to produce the effect in question. What is the effect that causes mass death and fossilization?
In every single recorded case, not a global flood.
Hello?
The mountains were underwater during the flood. How did these fossils get thousands of feet above sea level? They didnt climb up the mountain and bury themselves. They were smashed and entombed, under the ocean in mud, and pushed up after the flood. After the flood, the mountains went up and the basins went down.
Well, either that or the mountains formed without a magic flood happening first.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Portillo, posted 08-04-2012 12:48 AM Portillo has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 170 of 226 (669875)
08-04-2012 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Granny Magda
08-04-2012 10:21 AM


Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions
Why do we only see trilobites from the Cambrian to the end of the Permian? Why no later? Why do we never see them fossilised together with crabs or lobsters, when they would have shared the same habitat?
There were malacostracans in the Cambrian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Granny Magda, posted 08-04-2012 10:21 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Granny Magda, posted 08-04-2012 9:06 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024