Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,820 Year: 3,077/9,624 Month: 922/1,588 Week: 105/223 Day: 3/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   evolution and the extinction of dinos
jar
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 31 of 93 (607643)
03-05-2011 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Buzsaw
03-05-2011 3:42 PM


Re: Ice Age Speculation & Conjecture
Buzsaw writes:
jar writes:
Are you actually going to present some evidence in this case?
No. Mine would require empirical evidence, whereas yours does not.
So you have no evidence.
Thought so.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Buzsaw, posted 03-05-2011 3:42 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Buzsaw, posted 03-05-2011 4:12 PM jar has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 93 (607649)
03-05-2011 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by jar
03-05-2011 3:56 PM


Re: Ice Age Speculation & Conjecture
jar writes:
Buzsaw writes:
jar writes:
Are you actually going to present some evidence in this case?
No. Mine would require empirical evidence, whereas yours does not.
So you have no evidence.
Thought so.
You're words; not mine. No evidence which creationists have ever presented has been acknowledged. Therefore, as I said, "no, I will not be repeating evidence.
Conjecture about an asteroid can be interpreted as supportive to the cause of the flood which implicates the demise of the dinos, which was implicated in the Genesis curse of the serpent/reptile kind.
I don't think that debating it would be in line with this thread. It has been discussed/debated in past threads so there's no need to repeat it all here.
I see no more conjecture in that hypothesis, supported by other Biblical data than I am reading here and have read in other threads about the demise of the dinos. Of course you and your friends will see it differently. That is to be expected.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by jar, posted 03-05-2011 3:56 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by jar, posted 03-05-2011 4:45 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 33 of 93 (607650)
03-05-2011 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Buzsaw
03-05-2011 3:42 PM


Re: Ice Age Speculation & Conjecture
Evidence for ice ages
Geological evidence for ice ages comes in various forms, including rock scouring and scratching, glacial moraines, drumlins, valley cutting, and the deposition of till or tillites and glacial erratics. Successive glaciations tend to distort and erase the geological evidence, making it difficult to interpret. Furthermore, this evidence was difficult to date exactly; early theories assumed that the glacials were short compared to the long interglacials. The advent of sediment and ice cores revealed the true situation: glacials are long, interglacials short. It took some time for the current theory to be worked out.
The chemical evidence mainly consists of variations in the ratios of isotopes in fossils present in sediments and sedimentary rocks and ocean sediment cores. For the most recent glacial periods ice cores provide climate proxies from their ice, and atmospheric samples from included bubbles of air. Because water containing heavier isotopes has a higher heat of evaporation, its proportion decreases with colder conditions. This allows a temperature record to be constructed. However, this evidence can be confounded by other factors recorded by isotope ratios.
The paleontological evidence consists of changes in the geographical distribution of fossils. During a glacial period cold-adapted organisms spread into lower latitudes, and organisms that prefer warmer conditions become extinct or are squeezed into lower latitudes. This evidence is also difficult to interpret because it requires (1) sequences of sediments covering a long period of time, over a wide range of latitudes and which are easily correlated; (2) ancient organisms which survive for several million years without change and whose temperature preferences are easily diagnosed; and (3) the finding of the relevant fossils.
Despite the difficulties, analyses of ice core and ocean sediment coreshas shown periods of glacials and interglacials over the past few million years. These also confirm the linkage between ice ages and continental crust phenomena such as glacial moraines, drumlins, and glacial erratics. Hence the continental crust phenomena are accepted as good evidence of earlier ice ages when they are found in layers created much earlier than the time range for which ice cores and ocean sediment cores are available.
Ice age - Wikipedia
Typical example of a valley formed by flowing water or a river valley.
Typical example of a valley formed by a glacier
notice the diference between the 2 one is V shaped and one is U shaped, now there is more evidence then just the shape of the vally to determine it was made by a glacier forgot some of it cause i learned this 15 years ago in primary school around the age of 10. And if you ever to happen to visit a country that still has some glaciers you can go and have a look at how they look like and you can see that they are making U shaped vallies.
And nowhere in the world rivers make those kind of vallies they make V shaped vallies.
So in one swoop i provided you whit evidence for ice ages and evidence that rivers cannot make and do not make U shaped valleys. Ergo ice ages happened and the flood could not have produced the valley features we see today.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Buzsaw, posted 03-05-2011 3:42 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 34 of 93 (607653)
03-05-2011 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Buzsaw
03-05-2011 4:12 PM


Re: Ice Age Speculation & Conjecture
Buzsaw writes:
jar writes:
Buzsaw writes:
jar writes:
Are you actually going to present some evidence in this case?
No. Mine would require empirical evidence, whereas yours does not.
So you have no evidence.
Thought so.
You're words; not mine. No evidence which creationists have ever presented has been acknowledged. Therefore, as I said, "no, I will not be repeating evidence.
Conjecture about an asteroid can be interpreted as supportive to the cause of the flood which implicates the demise of the dinos, which was implicated in the Genesis curse of the serpent/reptile kind.
No Buz, it can't. First the Biblical Flood has been refuted, it never happened. Claiming it happened is simply repeating falsehoods.
Second, an asteroid strike cannot be interpreted as supportive of the Biblical Flood because the myth tells us how that happened; it says it rained.
Third, there is nothing in the Genesis 2&3 curse of the serpent that can in anyway be connected to dinosaurs.
Fourth, there is NO connection to be found anywhere between the myth found in Genesis 2&3 and teh myth of the Biblical Flood.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Buzsaw, posted 03-05-2011 4:12 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 93 (607654)
03-05-2011 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Buzsaw
03-05-2011 3:35 PM


Re: Ice Age Speculation & Conjecture
You are playing silly word games. Empirical evidence is the only kind of evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Buzsaw, posted 03-05-2011 3:35 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Buzsaw, posted 03-05-2011 6:50 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 93 (607663)
03-05-2011 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by NoNukes
03-05-2011 5:16 PM


Re: Ice Age Speculation & Conjecture
NoNukes writes:
You are playing silly word games. Empirical evidence is the only kind of evidence.
So as not to lead off topic, please go to Message 4 for a response.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by NoNukes, posted 03-05-2011 5:16 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Admin, posted 03-09-2011 9:00 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4369 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 37 of 93 (607966)
03-08-2011 4:57 AM


Its been a great gain for YEC creationism to have the impact thing arive to explain the great fauna/flora change in the world suddenly.
this creationist sees the k-t line as the flood line.
so what did for us is to demonstrate a instant die off and a dramatic and different recovery in a point in history.
We simply say this was the biblical flood.
A great die off and different recovery in fauna/flora.
The impact is simply misunderstood as to when it happened.

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by frako, posted 03-08-2011 6:18 AM Robert Byers has replied
 Message 40 by jar, posted 03-08-2011 8:54 AM Robert Byers has replied
 Message 44 by Coyote, posted 03-08-2011 10:19 AM Robert Byers has replied
 Message 49 by fearandloathing, posted 03-09-2011 10:26 AM Robert Byers has replied
 Message 62 by bluescat48, posted 03-11-2011 1:42 AM Robert Byers has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 38 of 93 (607972)
03-08-2011 6:18 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Robert Byers
03-08-2011 4:57 AM


so um how do creationist explain that no bunny rabbits are found before the boundry, or dogs, cows, human,.....
If your "theory" was right then we should find fossils of those animals beneath the boundary
how do creationists explain the lack of evidence for a young earth and tones of evidence for an old earth
how do creationist explain the lack of evidence for a global flood and tones of evidence to suport the statment that there was no global flood.
Al you creos have is your bronze age myths from a book writen by goat herders, and sometimes you distort the facts so much that i dare call you liars.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Robert Byers, posted 03-08-2011 4:57 AM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Robert Byers, posted 03-10-2011 2:15 AM frako has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 39 of 93 (607984)
03-08-2011 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by jar
03-04-2011 9:52 AM


Re: The fossil record
jar writes:
Peter writes:
Dr Adequate writes:
So can a species still be transitional even if it doesn't have an ancestral relationship to another species?
This is exactly why I avoid using the word "transitional". Even if something was direct ancestor, we'd probably never actually know. And most of them probably aren't, because the odds aren't in our favor there.
So we are really talking about species which show a potential for being intermediary, but are not necessarily direct decendants/antecedants?
Not actually a potential, more a fact. They do show traits that are intermediary.
I'm still a bit confused by this ... 'intermediary' or 'transitional' without being directly related ... is that what is considered the situation?
Surely the only way 'transitionals' represent evidence for evolution is if they ARE related in the antecedent/descendent sense?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by jar, posted 03-04-2011 9:52 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by jar, posted 03-08-2011 9:07 AM Peter has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 40 of 93 (607985)
03-08-2011 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Robert Byers
03-08-2011 4:57 AM


Robert Byers writes:
Its been a great gain for YEC creationism to have the impact thing arive to explain the great fauna/flora change in the world suddenly.
this creationist sees the k-t line as the flood line.
so what did for us is to demonstrate a instant die off and a dramatic and different recovery in a point in history.
We simply say this was the biblical flood.
A great die off and different recovery in fauna/flora.
The impact is simply misunderstood as to when it happened.
Please explain how a flood can put down a layer high in Iridium.
You are free of course, to continue to claim all the false nonsense you want.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Robert Byers, posted 03-08-2011 4:57 AM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Robert Byers, posted 03-10-2011 2:25 AM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 41 of 93 (607988)
03-08-2011 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Peter
03-08-2011 8:52 AM


Re: The fossil record
Peter writes:
I'm still a bit confused by this ... 'intermediary' or 'transitional' without being directly related ... is that what is considered the situation?
Surely the only way 'transitionals' represent evidence for evolution is if they ARE related in the antecedent/descendent sense?
Huh?
Sorry but that just sounds like word salad.
Transitional means showing intermediary traits.
Honestly, there is no need for any additional evidence FOR evolution, Evolution is as close to being proven as any science will ever be.
What transitional fossils help us understand are the details, the minutia.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Peter, posted 03-08-2011 8:52 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Peter, posted 03-08-2011 9:20 AM jar has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 42 of 93 (607992)
03-08-2011 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by jar
03-08-2011 9:07 AM


Re: The fossil record
jar writes:
Peter writes:
I'm still a bit confused by this ... 'intermediary' or 'transitional' without being directly related ... is that what is considered the situation?
Surely the only way 'transitionals' represent evidence for evolution is if they ARE related in the antecedent/descendent sense?
Huh?
Sorry but that just sounds like word salad.
Transitional means showing intermediary traits.
Honestly, there is no need for any additional evidence FOR evolution, Evolution is as close to being proven as any science will ever be.
What transitional fossils help us understand are the details, the minutia.
Sorry, it's probably because I'm a little confused.
What evidence (of anything related to evolution) do transitionals represent if they are NOT related in a pre-post sense?
Just on a side note: I didn't think we proove stuff at all in science -- I thought the aim was to not be able to refute it(?)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by jar, posted 03-08-2011 9:07 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by jar, posted 03-08-2011 9:50 AM Peter has replied
 Message 45 by Blue Jay, posted 03-08-2011 11:55 AM Peter has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 43 of 93 (608001)
03-08-2011 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Peter
03-08-2011 9:20 AM


Re: The fossil record
Peter writes:
jar writes:
Peter writes:
I'm still a bit confused by this ... 'intermediary' or 'transitional' without being directly related ... is that what is considered the situation?
Surely the only way 'transitionals' represent evidence for evolution is if they ARE related in the antecedent/descendent sense?
Huh?
Sorry but that just sounds like word salad.
Transitional means showing intermediary traits.
Honestly, there is no need for any additional evidence FOR evolution, Evolution is as close to being proven as any science will ever be.
What transitional fossils help us understand are the details, the minutia.
Sorry, it's probably because I'm a little confused.
What evidence (of anything related to evolution) do transitionals represent if they are NOT related in a pre-post sense?
Just on a side note: I didn't think we proove stuff at all in science -- I thought the aim was to not be able to refute it(?)
Read what I wrote. I said "Honestly, there is no need for any additional evidence FOR evolution, Evolution is as close to being proven as any science will ever be."
If you want to play silly word games do so with someone else. I left the kindergarten playground long ago.
Next you seem to be playing yet another word game.
"antecedent/descendent" and "pre-post" are not synonymous.
Transitional characteristics are import in understanding the details of evolution. A good example is the mammalian middle ear. Recent discoveries of a small chipmunk (I've always loved the little striped things) like critter that lived around 120 million years ago gave us some exciting information. Now mammals weren't something new 120 million years ago, they had already been around almost that long before. But this little chipmunk size critter had a strange but well preserved middle ear. That's unusual because little bones like those in the middle ear don't often get preserved.
Now Mao (I call him Mao even though his real name is Maotherium asiaticus) had a relatively primitive middle ear, partly reptilian, partly mammalian. We know that there were earlier mammals with a more mammalian middle ear. We don't know (and really don't much care) whether Mao was a direct ancestor of any living species.
So what did we learn? We learned that the evolution of the mammalian middle ear was not a straight line affair, that there were either several different branches, multiple examples of the trait evolving or the trait evolving and regressing.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Peter, posted 03-08-2011 9:20 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Peter, posted 03-09-2011 8:57 AM jar has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2107 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 44 of 93 (608010)
03-08-2011 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Robert Byers
03-08-2011 4:57 AM


Dating
Its been a great gain for YEC creationism to have the impact thing arive to explain the great fauna/flora change in the world suddenly.
this creationist sees the k-t line as the flood line.
so what did for us is to demonstrate a instant die off and a dramatic and different recovery in a point in history.
We simply say this was the biblical flood.
A great die off and different recovery in fauna/flora.
The impact is simply misunderstood as to when it happened.
The global flood is placed about 4,350 years ago.
The k-t boundary is about 65.5 million years ago.
Scientists would be embarrassed to make a mistake of that magnitude.
How can you justify supporting such a massive error?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Robert Byers, posted 03-08-2011 4:57 AM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Robert Byers, posted 03-10-2011 2:26 AM Coyote has replied

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


(1)
Message 45 of 93 (608040)
03-08-2011 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Peter
03-08-2011 9:20 AM


Re: The fossil record
Hi, Peter.
Peter writes:
What evidence (of anything related to evolution) do transitionals represent if they are NOT related in a pre-post sense?
They are related, but not necessarily as direct descendants.
Let's play with a hypothetical scenario.
Let's say we have a handful of fossils from millions and millions of years ago.
And, let's say that these fossils represent three species of animals that belong in the same genus.
And, let's say that we can tell, from their characteristics, that they are related to mammals.
However, they are so similar to one another, that it isn't clear which (if any) of the three species is an actual ancestor of mammals.
Also, we don't have any fossils that can link mammals to any particular one of these three species.
And, we don't have any other fossils of organisms that might be a better fit for the ancestor of mammals.
What steps can we take to determine which (if any) of these three species is the actual, lineal ancestor of mammals?
I don't think there is much we can do about it, other than to keep looking for other fossils that might shed light on the issue. So, in the absence of good evidence either way, we conclude for each of these three species that they either are the actual, direct ancestors of mammals, or they are sufficiently closely related to the actual, direct ancestors of mammals to be used as approximate surrogates for the ancestors in demonstrating the evolution of the mammal lineage.
For the sake of propriety, paleontologists have made it a habit to assume that any transitional fossil is just a surrogate, rather than the actual ancestor, because this is a less extreme claim.
So, to answer your question directly, yes, "transitional form" does bear a connotation of direct relationships. However, sometimes scientists are forced to approximate these direct relationships using surrogate species that are closely related to the direct ancestors, and these are also "transitional forms."
Edited by Bluejay, : Shortened by removing a major redundancy

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Peter, posted 03-08-2011 9:20 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Peter, posted 03-09-2011 8:46 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