Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 76 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-23-2019 5:12 AM
24 online now:
Pressie (1 member, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Post Volume:
Total: 851,885 Year: 6,921/19,786 Month: 1,462/1,581 Week: 284/393 Day: 8/99 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   scientific end of evolution theory (2)
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 214 (15075)
08-09-2002 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by peter borger
08-09-2002 3:09 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by peter borger:

Firstly, there is NO junk DNA. This oldfashioned opinion is (going to be) demonstrated to be completely wrong, although it is still claimed by evolutionists as proof for evolution [have a look at the TALK-origin site, or read the "selfish gene" (Dawkins, who else. But what does he know about genes? He is a zoologist). It is a completely outdated view on DNA].
Secondly, I am not the one in big problems. That is the theory of evolution.

Best wishes,
Peter[/B][/QUOTE]

Say, PB, if you think that there's no such thing as junk DNA (or I prefer Syamsu neutral 'self-sustaining' DNA ) then what are they?

Some say that from 3 million base pairs of human DNA, only 3% (correct me) can be considered real coding & functioning genes. And there are genomes bigger than humans': the lungfish had 800 million (correct me again if my estimates are wrong) and I suspect that their functional genes are juts about the same number as ours.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by peter borger, posted 08-09-2002 3:09 AM peter borger has not yet responded

Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 214 (15468)
08-15-2002 4:26 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by peter borger
08-14-2002 11:06 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by peter borger:
I say (pb)
Junk DNA is an abused word that is eagerly spelled out by evolutionists. The layman who hears this on the TV/internet is completely overwhelmed by so much non-sense. It is misleading.
Similarly. The hoax around this socalled 7 million years missing link in the lineage of great apes. I've seen the skull (and with me the complete earth has seen it) on three different channels. All it is is a female gorilla. I didn't see it on TV that is was a female gorilla, I had to find out in the science section of a paper. I call this misleading of the public. Propaganda!

[/B][/QUOTE]

Mr. Borger, it seems that you just invited somebody else in. You were talking about 'Toumai', Sahelanthropus, the 7 million years man? Try have a look at the original paper here

'Sahelanthropus is distinguished as a hominid...from Gorilla by smaller size, a narrower and less prognathic lower face, no supratoral sulcus, and smaller canines and lower-cusped cheek teeth;'

Not a gorilla. Precursor maybe, but more inclined towards the human lineage. Check its skull, bottom-view. You'll see a large oval foramen magnum positioned quite anteriorly.

or (shameless self-promotion) my response to another creationist's (Harun Yahya) article, claiming that Toumai messes up with the 'evolutionary sequence'. Have a look!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by peter borger, posted 08-14-2002 11:06 PM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by peter borger, posted 08-21-2002 9:25 PM Andya Primanda has responded

Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 214 (15894)
08-22-2002 3:03 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by peter borger
08-21-2002 9:25 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear AP,

There is no scientific consensus about the skull. Besides it is n=1. A bit premature to do such farreaching conclusions, don't you think?
Peter


I agree. It shouldn't be considered a gorilla this early. I am sure you've checked the skull pictures and see its foramen magnum position. Anybody calling it a gorilla must be thinking that gorillas are bipedal and erect.

Lets hope that Mr. Brunet and his team would find more Sahelanthropus fossils; then we can do some more discussion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by peter borger, posted 08-21-2002 9:25 PM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by peter borger, posted 08-22-2002 3:27 AM Andya Primanda has responded

Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 101 of 214 (15898)
08-22-2002 6:02 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by peter borger
08-22-2002 3:27 AM


check this out


(sorry for the crappy resolution; i'll fix the picture soon)

The foramen magnum (marked red) under the gorilla skull, which walk quadrupedally, is rounded and positioned posteriorly; while Australopithecus and Homo, which is bipedal, has an oval foramen magnum near the center of their skull base. This is the indirect clue to how Sahelanthropus may have walked.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by peter borger, posted 08-22-2002 3:27 AM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by peter borger, posted 08-22-2002 8:49 PM Andya Primanda has not yet responded

Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 110 of 214 (15987)
08-23-2002 6:04 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by John
08-22-2002 10:59 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Theories based on indirect shouldn't have to be bad, although I prefer to have them confirmed several times. gravity has been confirmed over and over. It has also not been falsified, so there is no doubt about it (although the mechanism is still not yet clear).

So if we stack up lots of evidence then you'll accept it? The cranium is not the only portion of anatomy that can suggest bipedalism. Hip structure, knee structure, back structure, foot structure all work as well. Want I should look all of this up for you?

quote:
Not so for 'science' based on n=1. Conclusions drawn from n=1 are usually found to be wrong.

n=1 ?????


I don't think peter's interested, but I am. Anyway, Sahelanthropus' foramen magnum position is the same as australopiths' F.m., and australopiths (Australopithecus, Paranthropus) are clearly bipedal. We know that there are more than one australopith fossil available for theories to be based on, So the theory that Sahelanthropus might be bipedal is not based on just one evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by John, posted 08-22-2002 10:59 PM John has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019