Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does evidence of transitional forms exist ? (Hominid and other)
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 40 of 301 (5341)
02-22-2002 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by mark24
02-22-2002 8:55 PM


quote:
Originally posted by mark24:
It wasn't disproven, it has been revised however. Hypohippus, Anchitherium, Archeohippus, Hippidium, & Hipparion (& related genera) are no longer inferred in the direct line of Hyracotherium-Equus lineage.
Why not try to explain the vestigial toes in ALL modern horse embryos, & occasionally, modern horses?
Mark

Not all modern horses born have vestigial extra toes, but they all have vestigial tarsal bones (splint bones) on the medial and lateral sides of the main lower leg bone (coffin bone).
They articulate at their tops with the knee joint, and are connected to the cannon bone below that with only soft tissue. (Why would a non-weightbearing bone need to articulate a joint?) The medial (inside) splint bones on the front legs are easily injured by blunt trauma; the other front hoof strikes the thin, sensitive bone and causes pain and inflammation which leads to partial calcification and fusion of the splint to the cannon. Concussion can also cause inflammation and may also lead to calcification. "Popped splints" are common in young horses, age 1-4.
Sometimes, the calcification in older horses wnds up being so extensive that it interferes with the tendons and ligaments in the leg, rendering the horse lame, and sometimes requiring sugical removal of the roughened splint bone.
Now, why would a creature which never had other toes, and was specially-designed, have all of this stuff in it's design, and also why would it be designed with this vulnerable weakness?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by mark24, posted 02-22-2002 8:55 PM mark24 has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 66 of 301 (6050)
03-03-2002 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by redstang281
02-28-2002 12:08 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Percipient: I think we're all still wondering why you persist in providing out-of-context quotes of evolutionists expressing beliefs they clearly do not hold. If they really believed what your quotes make them appear to be saying then Creationism must have replaced evolution long ago. But they don't and it hasn't.
I'm not sure how any of those quotes can be explained in any other context other than their obvious meanings.
Come ON, Redstang! Misquoting is a favorite tactic of Creationists to try to make Biologists and others seem as though they are saying one thing when they are actually saying another. Pretending that this doesn't happen, and that you have not perpetuated these misquotes, is kind of like the man who is discovered by his wife when in bed with his mistress who says, "This isn't what it looks like, dear!"
Examples of creationist misquoting in order to decieve:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/misquotes.html
"Robert Kofahl's Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter and Wallace Johnson's book Evolution? both use the following quote (Johnson only has the
second clause):
"Not many (if any) [fossil hominids] have held the stage for long; by now laymen could be forgiven for regarding each new arrival as no
less ephemeral than the weather forecast." (John Reader, Whatever happened to Zinjanthropus?, New Scientist, March 26 1981, p.805)
It sounds as if Reader is saying that most, if not all, fossil hominids have been discredited. But the previous sentence was:
"Australopithecus afarensis is the latest fossil hominid to be thrust before the public as the oldest evidence of mankind's existence.
Not many (if any) have held the stage for long; ..."
With the full context, it is clear that Reader was not saying that all fossil hominids have been debunked; he is referring only to their claimed status as the oldest evidence of human evolution. In fact, Reader's article explicitly says that H. erectus is still considered to be a human ancestor."
"David Menton, in The Scientific Evidence For the Origin of Man, writes about the fossil WT 15000 (the Turkana Boy) and says:
"He had a low forehead and pronounced brow ridges not unlike some races of modern man. Richard Leaky [sic] said that this boy would go unnoticed in a crowd today."
Don Patton uses a similar quote, saying that according to Richard Leakey:
"....he would probably go unnoticed in a crowd today."
What Leakey really said, in the November 1985 issue of National Geographic, was:
"Suitably clothed and with a cap to obscure his low forehead and beetle brow, he would probably go unnoticed in a crowd today."
Here are more links discussing Creationists' use of quotes and misquoting:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/#s2
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/
Why don't you read these pages and then come back with SPECIFICS to discuss?
quote:
Oh, and the reasons why creationism hasn't replaced evolutionISM could fill a book. I'm certain the largest reason is
because many people don't want there to be a God.
40% of scientists believe in God, which flies in the face of your claim scientists no wanting to believe in God.
You are also stuck in your exeedingly narrow view that one has to believe exactly as you do in order to believe in God. You know, I know it might be shocking and difficult for you to wrap your mind around this, but there are people, lots and lots of them, who believe in God who AREN'T Fundamentalist Christian.
quote:
Evolution provides them with an alternative.
Evolution has nothing to do with belief in God. Evolution has everything to do with explaining the diversity of life on the planet. If your particular narrow view of the Bible and of God can't handle what we find in nature, that is your problem, not science's.
quote:
As for christians who believe in evolution? Those are just people who have been indoctrinated into believe evolution is fact,
OK, how often do you question your beliefs? Rarely to never? Why do you believe what you do? Because you were taught to?
How often to scientists question and test their hypothese and theories? Every day. Why do they come to the conclusions they do? Because the evidence points them in these directions, which may change as new evidence is discovered.
Don't you see a difference here?
quote:
or people who believe God *has* to perform his work in a way that we can understand(evolution.) Neither of which is true.
Why couldn't God have worked through evolution?
Which is more likely; that which we can infer, predict and observe, or that which was written down in a religious book which we have not seen, can't predict or test, and do not infer and observe?
quote:
quote:You also have to answer a larger question. If evolutionists are really perpetuating the theory through a 150 year old conspiracy of lies and distortions, how do they agree on which made-up "story" is the one they'll all support?
They don't agree. Because of the lack of transitional fossils, some evolutionist believe in immediate evolution, ie "the first bird hatched from a reptilian egg."
No, they don't.
quote:
While others believe in slow progressive evolution while maintaining the belief that transitional fossils will be found. The quotes I have given cite examples of evolutionists actually looking
at the big picture.
What would you consider a transitional fossil? A creature with features of two different species, yet not clearly either one?
Please define what you would consier a transitional and then we can determine if they exist. We could use the definition that scientists use if you like.
quote:
quote:
One of the most important requirements in solving a mystery is establishing a motive, and so far you don't have one. No evolutionist thinks that accepting evolution will bring spiritual rewards in the afterlife, so that's not it.
Well if evolution is true it helps people think the bible is wrong, right? So that would mean liberation from biblical rules.
No, it would mean that Biblical claims about the NATURAL WORLD are wrong. The morality and life lessons in the Bible are not be affected by the ToE.
quote:
quote:
The reason there's such unanimity about evolution is because it has a factual foundation. Simply mining Creationist websites for quotes isn't going to change that.
It's ok to have a theory based on observed science. It's not ok to force it upon everyone when it's unsubstantiated.
We have never observed an electron, you know. Nobody, anywhere, has ever directly observed one. We know of them purely by inference. By your reasoning, it is not OK to force the existence of electrons on everyone.
Also, we have never seen gravity. We infer it's existence by observing it's effects. By your reasoning, we should not force the idea of gravity on anyone because we have never directly observed it.
We have never directly observed the core of the Earth, but know through inference what it is made of. Should we not teach people in science class what the core of the Earth is made from because we have never observed it?
------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."
-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by redstang281, posted 02-28-2002 12:08 PM redstang281 has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 67 of 301 (6051)
03-03-2002 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Jet
03-01-2002 6:33 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jet:
[b]
quote:
Originally posted by Punisher:
.......I do have a question. If a fish dwelling creature somehow developed a set of lungs over a long period of time; wouldn't he drown at some stage between a lack of gills and the prescence of lungs?
No, because the fish would have both gills and lungs at the same time.
One or the other would be selected for by the environment if the environment dictated that one or the other was a reproductive advantage. If having both is advantageous, and a niche was filled, the pressure of the environment isn't there to "pick" one over the other.
Ever heard of lungfish?
[QUOTE]If a rat starting growing wings from his front forelimbs; wouldn't he quickly be eaten or starve because of his inability to move with elongated yet useless front limbs/wings? My examples are simplified, I know.
quote:
You do not understand that intermediate structures are always functional. Everything is an intermediate structure, really.
For example, flying squirrels have a very basic wing, and are not compomised in their other movements. Bats have extremely specialized wings, yet are also able to climb.
quote:
Though you give simple examples and easy observations, no one bothered to respond to you query.
Sorry, I don't always get to every one.
quote:
There are a multiplicity of questions that arise on how particular species survived while they evolved, when their evolutionary traits would have left them very vulnerable to attack or would have resulted in their own destruction due to their not having all the necessary traits appear all at once in a single generation. These types of problems evolutionists prefer not to address. Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!
They are addressed. Just because you don't know about them makes no difference.
quote:
This is similar to the modern pens evolving from quill pens or other such examples to which it must be replied that inanimate objects, things that have no life, cannot evolve. Automobiles do not evolve because they are not alive. Unfortunately for the evolutionists, this presents them with a problem when evolution is traced back to the beginning. This is also why evolutionists must say that the study of evolution does not deal with how life began. If they attempted to deal with the origin of life from non-life, they could never use the "you're an ignorant liar" defense without including themselves in the "ignorant liars" category. This is why they must have their theory begin after life has already been established.
Wow.
So, is the study of aerodynamis similarly bereft of integrity because it does not attempt to explain where wind comes from?
[QUOTE]To go back to the beginning of life springing forth from non-life with no help from an Intelligent Designer who could set it in motion, brings them headlong into the titanium wall of uncalculable improbability if not complete and total impossibility.
Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!
[/b]
I seem to remember Larry asking you to do some statistics back on the Yahoo club. Perhaps you have completed your math and would like to show us all here what you have come up with?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Jet, posted 03-01-2002 6:33 PM Jet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Jet, posted 06-10-2002 8:13 AM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 69 of 301 (6128)
03-04-2002 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by redstang281
02-28-2002 1:29 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by redstang281:
[b][b] This website can answer your question.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4117.asp[/QUOTE]
This website is useless.
AiG has explicitly stated that any evidence which contradicts their own interpretation of the Bible will be ignored, so there is no reason to think that anything in AiG has any credibility at all, because it will resort to ignoring evidence it doesn't like.
Try again, this time with a secular source, please.
[QUOTE]Also here's some more information on horse "evolution."
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/textbook-fraud-dawn-horse-eohippus.htm
"The ancestral family tree of the horse is not what scientists have thought it to be. Prof. T.S. Westoll, Durham University geologist, told the British Association for the Advancement of Science at Edinburgh that the early classical evolutionary tree of the horse, beginning in the small dog-sized Eohippus and tracing directly to our present day Equinus, was all wrong."Science News Letter, August 25, 1951, p. 118.
"There was a time when the existing fossils of the horses seemed to indicate a straight-lined evolution from small to large, from dog-like to horse-like, from animals with simple grinding teeth to animals with complicated cusps of modern horses . . As more fossils were uncovered, the chain splayed out into the usual phylogenetic net, and it was all too apparent that evolution had not been in a straight line at all. Unfortunately, before the picture was completely clear, an exhibit of horses as an example . . had been set up at the American Museum of Natural History [in New York City], photographed, and much reproduced in elementary textbooks."Garrett Hardin, Nature and Man’s Fate (1960), pp. 225-226. (Those pictures are still being used in those textbooks.)
[This message has been edited by redstang281, 02-28-2002]
[/b][/QUOTE]
Wow, your most recent quote was from forty years ago. Don't you have anything more current?
IN addition, neither quote said that horses didn't evolve. They just said that the ordering was in error.
In fact, another quote from the same site states (emphasis added by me):
"When asked to provide evidence of long-term evolution, most scientists turn to the fossil record. Within this context, fossil horses are among the most frequently cited examples of evolution. The prominent Finnish paleontologist Bjorn Kurten wrote: 'One's mind inevitably turns to that inexhaustible textbook example, the horse sequence. This has been cited -- incorrectly more often than not -- as evidence for practically every evolutionary principle that has ever been coined.' This cautionary note notwithstanding, fossil horses do indeed provide compelling evidence in support of evolutionary theory." (The Fossil Record And Evolution: A Current Perspective, B. J. MacFadden Horses, Evol. Biol. ISBN: 22:131-158, 1988, p. 131)
"Because its complications are usually ignored by biology textbooks, creationists have claimed the horse story is no longer valid. However, the main features of the story have in fact stood the test of time...." (Futuyma, D.J. 1982. Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, p 85)
"All the morphological changes in the history of the Equidae can be accounted for by the neo-Darwinian theory of microevolution: genetic variation, natural selection, genetic drift, and speciation." (Futuyma, D.J. 1986. Evolutionary Biology, p 409)
"The fossil record [of horses] provides a lucid story of descent with change for nearly 50 million years, and we know much about the ancestors of modern horses."(Phylogeny of the family Equidae, R. L. Evander, 1989, p 125)
What you state isn't a devastating falsification of horse evolution. It is just an adjustment of our understanding of horse evolution in the light of new evidence.
Now, if they continue to put incorrect information in textbooks, then that needs to change.
Scientists used to construct dinosaur fossils like T.-Rex in a very upright posture. Now, because of a lot of research over a long time, we have started to reassemble the skeletons in a more perpendicular way because it makes more sense from a weighbearing and cocomotive sense. We adjusted and refined our understanding when evidence mounted which suggested that we do so. What is the problem?
Why do you require that scientists have perfect knowledge of everything all at once?
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-04-2002]
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-04-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by redstang281, posted 02-28-2002 1:29 PM redstang281 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Quetzal, posted 03-04-2002 4:15 PM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 79 of 301 (6379)
03-09-2002 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by TrueCreation
03-09-2002 1:26 AM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Sorry if I missed your earlier answer, the structures are clearly toes, they even have separate bones. Why would anything need to hold the leg in place? We don't have anything to stop our shins from "drifting off"."
--Do these two adjacent bones to the 'middle toe bone' have a scientific name or classification of some sort? It would help significantly so I could attain mor information on this vestige.

Hi TC,
Have a look at my message #40 in this thread.
I have a Bachelor's in Equestrian Studies so I have a lot of very good source material in my home library, and I can help you with anatomy and whatnot.
The common name for the vestigial tarsal bones are "splint" bones. The common name for the large tarsal bone which they flank is called the "cannon" bone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by TrueCreation, posted 03-09-2002 1:26 AM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by TrueCreation, posted 03-13-2002 10:16 PM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 83 of 301 (11250)
06-10-2002 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by TrueCreation
03-13-2002 10:16 PM


Sorry I didn't get to this way back in March, TC. I guess I just passed it by! Here goes.
quote:
Thanx for the names, I could readily find more information on these bones. AiG's explination is as follows:
quote:
In particular, the horse?s splint bones serve several important functions. They strengthen the leg and foot bones, very important because of the enormous stress that galloping puts on the legs.
No. they really don't strengthen the leg and foot bones.
Fist of all, the splint bones are nowhere near the foot bones and have no effect on them whatsoever. I have to say that this is a really bad mistake and displays either a severe lack of knowledge of equine anatomy, or they decided to throw "foot bones" in there to make their argument sound more impressive while banking on the fact that almost nobody is going to know better.
Second, they articulate with the knee joint but are attached to the rest of the cannon bone only by some connective tissue. They bear no weight.
quote:
They also provide attachment points for important muscles.
But why would this extra, troublesome (see below) bone be put there when it would be much simpler to just attach the tendon to the much-stronger cannon bone?
quote:
And they form a protective groove that houses the suspensory ligament, a vital elastic brace that supports the horse?s weight as it walks.
Huh? No, the splints don't form any such groove according to the Equine anatomy books I have! The splint bones are on medial and lateral sides of the cannon bone and the suspensory ligament runs between them, it's true, but the suspensory ligament, combined with the digital flexor tendon, is a rounded cord that runs down the back of the leg; it would have to be flatter and kind of wrap around the back of the cannon to come into contact with the splint bones. That's just reaching.
quote:
--Though I was rather confused when reading this:
http://www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/livestock/horses/facts/89-093.htm
quote:
"Splints" are the direct result of an injury to the periostium (tissue covering the bone) or an injury to the interosseous ligament (tissue tying the splint bone to the cannon bone). These injuries to the horse may be the result of direct trauma, such as a kick or a concussion type trauma resulting from jumping, running or working. As the horse matures, the interosseous ligament slowly calcifies, fusing the splint bones to the cannon bone, allowing it to better withstand the concussion type trauma of working and the horse is therefore less likely to develop "splints". Most often, the forelimbs are affected; rarely do "splints" occur in the hindlimbs.
"Splint" is a word tht means both the injury, as described above, and the bones themselves.
Splints (the injury) are quite common in young horses and are very painful until they calcify.
Oh, as for the splints being important structures, I have known at least two horses who have had such severe, jagged calcification on their splint bones that it began to irritate surrounding tendons, so the splint bones were removed. They are not "important" structures.
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 06-10-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by TrueCreation, posted 03-13-2002 10:16 PM TrueCreation has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 84 of 301 (11251)
06-10-2002 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Jet
06-10-2002 8:13 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Jet:
I found nothing of any real substance in your post so I feel it best to simply reply in this manner and agree to disagree.
Shalom
Jet

I guess you don't think that lungfish, which exist, are possible.
OK, I'll just be moving my chair a little farther away now...
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 06-10-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Jet, posted 06-10-2002 8:13 AM Jet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Jet, posted 06-11-2002 4:48 PM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 98 of 301 (11429)
06-12-2002 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Jet
06-11-2002 5:58 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jet:
[B]
***The fact is that the evidence is not "completely consistent with evolutionary theory" but is rather 100% consistant with creation by an Intelligent Creator.[/QUOTE]
All of the evidence is also consistent with the idea that the Universe was created 15 seconds ago, with all of our memories of past events intact.
What can you DO with the idea of the Intelligent Designer, other than be comforted by it? Can you make any testable predictions? No. Is it a falsifiable theory? No.
Is it a nice philosoph but not particularly useful if you want to figure out how nature works? YES.
quote:
If what you claim was true, this club would not exist. The fact that it does exist is proof that the TOE is not a satisfactory explanation for life on this planet.***
Actually, the fact that this club exists is evidence of the lack of good science education and critical thinking skills in the United States educational system, and also evidence that people would much rather feel comforted than think well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Jet, posted 06-11-2002 5:58 PM Jet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Jet, posted 06-17-2002 9:58 AM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 104 of 301 (11677)
06-16-2002 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Jet
06-16-2002 8:27 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jet:
[b]
quote:
Originally posted by edge:
I know of no evolutionists who disagree with this. Evolution is not intended to answer every question as some YECs seem to think it should. Are you saying then that science might be a better suited to answer some questions ... just maybe?
***Well, let me preface this reply by stating that I am NOT, repeat NOT a YEC. Having said that, and in response to you inquiry as to whether "science might be a better suited to answer some questions", my answer would be yes, with qualification. IMHO, when science is buttressed by theology, assuming that the theology is based solely upon the Holy Word of God, it is better suited to answer many of the difficult questions that we face when attempting to find the answers to the mysteries of the universe.***
Shalom
Jet

So, Jet, what help from "The holy word of God" do the people at NASA use to get all of those space shuttle missions going, or any of the other projects they have going on?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Jet, posted 06-16-2002 8:27 PM Jet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Jet, posted 06-17-2002 10:30 AM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 113 of 301 (11968)
06-22-2002 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Percy
06-17-2002 2:52 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Percipient:
Jet writes:

Really Schraf, sometimes you ask the most inane questions.
I think Schraf was seeking clarification on the meaning of this from you in Message 103:

IMHO, when science is buttressed by theology, assuming that the theology is based solely upon the Holy Word of God, it is better suited to answer many of the difficult questions that we face when attempting to find the answers to the mysteries of the universe.
Using current NASA projects as examples, how would a theological approach inform scientific exploration of questions concerning the origin of galaxies or the birth of stars?
--Percy

Thak you percy, for doing the work for me.
Gets tiring, you know?
:-)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Percy, posted 06-17-2002 2:52 PM Percy has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 115 of 301 (14318)
07-28-2002 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by ebabinski
07-26-2002 6:39 PM


quote:
I agree no "evolutionary journeys" appear to be going on today, those niches have been filled in both land and sea.
Actually, I would disagree.
There is a species of lizard which has adapted to swimming under water to feed on agae growing on the rocks close to shore.
There is also a couple (I think) species of bird which still flies but also spends time swimming under water chasing prey.
There is also the bacteria that digest nylon.
I would say that evolutionary journeys are still happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by ebabinski, posted 07-26-2002 6:39 PM ebabinski has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by ebabinski, posted 07-30-2002 3:20 PM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 181 of 301 (44672)
06-30-2003 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by Sharon357
06-29-2003 4:45 AM


Re: Cetacean - Whale Evolution by Ed Babinski
This, from Safarti:
quote:
So I hope you will understand that we can't possibly respond to all claims disseminated by every God-hater inhabiting the darker hovels of the Internet, especially when our site and books deal with the claims already.
This is how the famous Dr. Safarti acts in public? Wow, he isn't even pretending to behave professionaly, is he?
His comment about someone who disagrees with him being a "god-hater" is very telling. Also, it's clear that he is not, as a real scientist would be, interested in new evidence nor in discerning the truth about whales. He is, instead, interested in defending his preferred belief in spite of any contradictory evidence about whales which has come up. Very sad and very intellectually dishonest.
Keep going, you two. The fact that he got so very upset and attacked you means that you are on the right track.
Best of luck.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Sharon357, posted 06-29-2003 4:45 AM Sharon357 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by Sharon357, posted 12-03-2004 1:36 PM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 277 of 301 (334570)
07-23-2006 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by pop
07-23-2006 5:47 PM


Re: what do you say about australopithecus
Er, not sure what you are saying here.
Please elaborate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by pop, posted 07-23-2006 5:47 PM pop has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by pop, posted 07-23-2006 6:16 PM nator has replied
 Message 279 by pop, posted 07-23-2006 6:17 PM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 281 of 301 (334583)
07-23-2006 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by pop
07-23-2006 6:16 PM


Re: what do you say about australopithecus
quote:
I am saying that if australopithecus had an anatomical structure suitable for bipedal walking .
This is a sentence fragment.
You made an "if" statement. Now you need to complete the sentence with a "therefore" statement.
quote:
Give me one evidence that it was ancestor of man.
What kind of evidence would you expect an ancestor of Homo Sapiens Sapiens to have?
What kind of evidence would you accept?
Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by pop, posted 07-23-2006 6:16 PM pop has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by pop, posted 07-23-2006 6:34 PM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 285 of 301 (334592)
07-23-2006 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by pop
07-23-2006 6:34 PM


Re: what do you say about australopithecus
quote:
Are you teaching me rules.Hey you are
Well, if you want to communicate effectively, then writing in sentences that are understandable and complete might be a good place to start.
I don't understand what you are trying to ask or say.
quote:
escaping from the truth.I want an evidence proving australopithecus wasnot man ancestors.
Which species of A.?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by pop, posted 07-23-2006 6:34 PM pop has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by pop, posted 07-23-2006 6:54 PM nator 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