|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,386 Year: 3,643/9,624 Month: 514/974 Week: 127/276 Day: 1/23 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What drove bird evolution? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Pushing fluids through valves is tricky business and they are specifically designed, or designed not, to allow certain quantities of throughput. Jydraulics is a funny business; buit it would not suprise me at all if a birds rate of fluid flow through the heart was high enouigh to require special engineering. To assert a valve is designed for a high throuput sounds valid to me. But none of this implies intelligent design, IMO.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mespo Member (Idle past 2905 days) Posts: 158 From: Mesopotamia, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Redwolf writes: I never said chickens couldn't fly; I said, they couldn't fly DECENTLY. They can't fly terribly far, terribly high, or terribly fast. You don't see them 500' overhead the way you do normal birds.Ducks for instance are ballpark for the same size as chickens, and fly perfectly well because their wings are the right size for ducks. If there were anything to evolution, chickens would regain the ability to fly as well as ducks fly. There isn't, and they don't There is no human record saying that chickens were ever good flyers. They were domesticated from Thailand many thousands of years ago and spread from there. (Why did the chicken cross the road?) If you check your geography of that area you'll find much of Thailand was (is?) dense tropical jungle. Strong, fast flying birds don't do well in dense vegetation. Chickens, on the other hand have strong legs that enable them to run fast through dense undergrowth to flee predators with flying as a secondary strategy. Those legs and claws will also be used to attack your face if cornered. Cockfight anyone? And chickens don't migrate, so they have no need for a strong flying ability. Ducks on the otherhand are migratory, but they can't run for beans. Strong flight characteristics are essential for survival as well as their swimming abilities. And just what the heck is a "normal bird"? I guess humming birds aren't normal 'cause they can fly backwards. And road runners aren't normal 'cause they don't have to fly to get away from Wile E. Coyote (*beep beep*). (:raig
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
The original discovery involved several tens of thousands of the things; nobody ever did that much work on the off chance that gringos might be willing to buy all of them, i.e. on pure speculation. Are you kidding? The guy who spearheaded the operation says that it was his village's cottage industry. Moreover, read the story of their "discovery":
quote: from Page not found | Skeptical Inquirer So, in fact your claim is quite incorrect; they did know that at least one gullible gringo (besides yourself) wanted them and would pay for them. It wasn't simply speculation; it was their direct observation. The stones have never been dated so it's impossible to say when they were carved. Moreover, the pictures on them are not accurate depictions of dinosaurs, generally, but rather about what you'd expect if the only dinosaur you ever saw was on TV or in a kid's book:
quote: Carving one of those things would take weeks and God knows what it would take to carve one and then try to make it appear ancient as they all do. But here's the thing - none of the Ica stones are carved:
quote: There's certainly nothing difficult about using sandpaper and other tools to grind off a layer of soft oxidation. As for the appearance of "ancient age":
quote: So, in other words, the source of the stones' apparent age, much like the rest of your claims and your general behavior on this board, is chicken shit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
redwolf Member (Idle past 5811 days) Posts: 185 From: alexandria va usa Joined: |
The debunking debunked:
http://members.cox.net/...book-disputing_the_hoax_claims.htm I mean, I've posted this here before. To go on claiming that these stones are forgeries is basically dishonest.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
redwolf Member (Idle past 5811 days) Posts: 185 From: alexandria va usa Joined: |
CSICOP debunked (exposed as an ideologically committed witch-hunt organization) by one of its founding members:
Starbaby
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: |
And what does this have to do with the particular issue? If the Mars effect hasn't been dealt with correctly does that say that the issue here hasn't?
It does, of course (if true), cast some doubt on all proclamations from the source but it doesn't, by itself, prove anything about this one. Examine the particular case and deal with it. Do not go off on tangents.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
redwolf Member (Idle past 5811 days) Posts: 185 From: alexandria va usa Joined: |
>And what does this have to do with the particular issue?
It has to do with the squished frog citing CSICOP sources as proof that the Ica stones are forgeries. That's the post above my two.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: |
But the article you posted is talking about the Mars effect. If the Mars affect debunking was done poorly that does mean you have to check the information the CSICOP gives you more carefully.
However, you have to do that anyway. In this case you have to review the information given on this topic. What is wrong with it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
NosyNed, that is all off topic of bird evolution. All of you get back on topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1524 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
LOL. I think that the whole topic has been exhausted.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
This simply isn't a substantial refutation. The stones aren't carved, they're graved. Graving is a simple matter and it certainly wouldn't have taken an entire villiage "23 years" to engrave all these stones, particularly with modern tools and sandpaper, the marks of which were found on the stones.
Your article substantiates the stones in absolutely no tangible way. That they are forgeries is the inescapable conclusion of anyone with sense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
CSICOP debunked What on Earth would that have to do with anything? Maybe you didn't read the bibliography at the bottom of the article:
quote: These are the sources you must address, not CSICOP.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1364 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
The original discovery involved several tens of thousands of the things; nobody ever did that much work on the off chance that gringos might be willing to buy all of them, i.e. on pure speculation they were apparently quite a hit with the tourists, and ica stones became a very profitable business.
Carving one of those things would take weeks and God knows what it would take to carve one and then try to make it appear ancient as they all do. they don't appear ancient. the carvings aren't worn at all, and the surface of the rocks aren't chipped at all. they also contain dated -- not accurate -- depictions of dinosaurs that never lived in the area. triceratops, for instance, was a popular dinosaur in magazines, but never lived in south america.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1364 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
To most people it looks like a sauropod dinosaur. The web site also links to other images of known dinosaur types, such as the sauropod dinosaur at the state park in Utah: well, it doesn't look like a sauropod to me. they didn't stand that way, heads raised and dragging tails. they balanced head and neck against the tail, and both remained more or less straight out from the body. in other words, whoever drew it didn't see a dinosaur, but saw a 19th century misrepresentation of one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
redwolf Member (Idle past 5811 days) Posts: 185 From: alexandria va usa Joined: |
quote: A book on Indian rock art sold at the Utah State Park park visitors center notes:
quote: There were two basic types of sauropods, i.e. brachiosaurids and the diplidocids. Simply from the bone structure, the former appear to have held their necks and heads upwards, the later outwards. In our gravity, of course, neither would be possible. A sauropod holding his head upward would be impossible because of the blood pressure requirements to get blood to a brain 40' above its heart and holding his neck outwards would be impossible because it would involve hundreds of thousands of foot pounds of torque.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024