Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win.
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(1)
Message 392 of 2887 (775997)
01-07-2016 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 390 by Tangle
01-07-2016 6:00 AM


Hi, Tangle.
Tangle writes:
It would be great for both science and religion to find good evidence for giants. Science has nothing against giants except it hasn't found them. If and when it does, they'll be part of our Paleontological history, put in all the books and the finder will be world famous.
So let's see it.
Boom. Giant. Robert Wadlow: the tallest man in recorded history, at almost 9 ft tall. Of course, he couldn't lift or move giant boulders either, on account of joint problems caused by the mechanical stresses of his enormous size, so I doubt he would have been much use to the Russians, the ancient Egyptians or the builders of Sacsayhuaman.
Still... giant.

-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*
*Yeah, it's real
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 390 by Tangle, posted 01-07-2016 6:00 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 393 by Tangle, posted 01-07-2016 3:12 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 395 of 2887 (776021)
01-07-2016 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 393 by Tangle
01-07-2016 3:12 PM


Hi Tangle.
This sort of 'giant' isn't unprecedented: more than a dozen cases of people over 8 ft (244 cm) tall are known (here is a list of them).
Here is a verified 8-foot-tall skeleton from late 16th-century Germany. Not exactly a 'fossil,' but it's from a time period that most Americans don't know much about, so it might as well be a fossil, as far as they're concerned.
And, here is an example of a giant who married another giant, and gave birth to a (stillborn) giant baby. So, maybe gigantism can be hereditary, and there is a hypothetically viable evolutionary pathway for the emergence of giant humans.
So, the idea that there could have been a tribe of 8-foot giants in the past isn't completely unreasonable. What exactly that would prove with regards to evolution-denial is unclear, however.
And, of course, the idea that there were people big enough to carry the stones of Sacsayhuaman in their arms is unreasonable.

-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*
*Yeah, it's real
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 393 by Tangle, posted 01-07-2016 3:12 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 396 by Tangle, posted 01-07-2016 5:52 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 398 of 2887 (776079)
01-08-2016 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 396 by Tangle
01-07-2016 5:52 PM


Hi, Tangle.
Tangle writes:
Oh sure there are tall people like there are small people. But we know the standard deviation from the norm of H. sapiens and the outliers. I think most people when speaking of giants really require something beyond the extremes of what we already know and require that to be a norm within this new species.
Wadlow is at least 10-12 standard deviations from the mean. That's a pretty unheard-of outlier.
My reason for bringing this up was to make sure we're all aware of the extent of the real evidence for giants, so you wouldn't get caught in a situation where it looks like you're backpedaling or changing the goalposts.
My point is that it isn't completely inconceivable that some type of 'giant' existed at one time in the Earth. The biblical giants, like Goliath and Og, where usually described as fitting within the 9-12-foot range, which, while beyond anything we've ever observed, are not beyond the reach of honest mistake or 'fish story' exaggeration. The worth1000 and other such internet-meme giant photos are clearly stupid.
-----
To Percy:
Percy writes:
I can't find the message now, but wasn't an image of the excavation of a giant human skeleton part of Al's evidence for giant humans?
Big Al mentioned the internet photos in Message 275. I was trying to think a bit broader than just Big Al's claim though.

-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*
*Yeah, it's real
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 396 by Tangle, posted 01-07-2016 5:52 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 401 by Tangle, posted 01-09-2016 5:00 AM Blue Jay has not replied
 Message 404 by Big_Al35, posted 01-09-2016 5:08 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 418 of 2887 (776251)
01-10-2016 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 416 by ringo
01-10-2016 2:34 PM


Hi, Ringo.
ringo writes:
Another pertinent question would be, "Why do you think photographs of (purported) fossils have any relevance?" If the fossils exist, show us the fossils; let us examine them - figure out how old they are, etc. All photographs, whether genuine or fake, are second-rate evidence. Show us the real thing.
I don't know about you, but personally, I think I'm better at identifying fake photographs than I am at identifying fake fossils; so I'm not at all confident that showing me the fossils would be a viable route toward progress.

-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*
*Yeah, it's real
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 416 by ringo, posted 01-10-2016 2:34 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 422 by ringo, posted 01-11-2016 10:36 AM Blue Jay has seen this message but 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