It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

10 popular fallacies and misconceptions about evolution

page: 2
47
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 05:19 AM
link   
I have really enjoyed this post, fascinating reading, thank you all.




posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 06:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

1. There is no evidence for evolution


Krazy,

Are you at it again? Look at what I quoted. Why doesn't it say it the way everybody 'reads' it: There is no *proof* of evolution.


Why? Because then #1 has to fall off the list ... and the rest of the list is just irrelevant.

No one has *proof* of evolution. If they did the argument would be over. LOL



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 06:29 AM
link   
we've never seen one species change into another species. so how did all these tons of species get here? mutations within a species could be seen as adaptation. but we've never seen a bird turn into a mammal or even one bird become another species of bird. when is it going to happen then? let me guess. eventually? if that is your answer then we are still waiting to see if evolution happens. we already know adaptation happens. but the jury is still out on evolution.

kinda magical how whenever "evolution" happens, some of the members of the evolving species always stay behind, refusing to progress, so that we have all these species existing. all the way back to the beginning it seems we still have every single step along the way, other than extinct species that died out for one reason or another.

also kind of magical how all the species evolved in such a way to create a circle of life, so that one speciesIis dependant on another, and if one is removed, chaos ensues.

how did the circle of life survive so long without a FULL circle present at all times?
edit on 8/19/2014 by 3n19m470 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 06:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Snarl
There is also no proof for gravity, there is however plenty of evidence. Same for evolution.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 06:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Snarl
Double post


edit on 19-8-2014 by ScepticScot because: fat fingers



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 06:46 AM
link   
a reply to: OptimusSubprime
There is a certain irony that in a thread about misconceptions of evolution you have managed to post so many in one go.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 06:47 AM
link   
I'll try to make this short. I'm not a believer in "God" as an all-powerful entity that created life. And without a question...evolution is real. Things evolve and change as they progress through time.

However, I question what created life. I most likely believe (interesting huh?) that life was brought to Earth via comets, meteors or whatever brought water. Simple enough. Therefore we are all aliens


What drives me nuts though is this. A single cell life form existed at some point and didn't have eyes. Over time, it formed eyes and therefore could see. This was a benefit and evolution. But how did "evolution" know to produce an eye...or what an eye was...or what it was for? How did "evolution" create an eye that could see in our spectrum of light? In our atmosphere? How could "evolution", from all the different types of eyes that could be needed on different planets in the universe (eg. our eyes would be useless on an all dark planet) create the perfect eye for where we live?

I've read the science but I simply don't see (no pun intended...well...yes it was) how even over hundreds of millions of years, the eye evolved through the billions of different mutations it would take to get one that could see well. And that is only how to make the right eye. How about the design of that eye or the idea that it may even be needed? Another example...if we would do better in the future with a completely new organ that doesn't exist...lets say as complex as the eye...how long would our bodies need to create that new organ and how would our bodies know, first that we need it and second how to create it? Does our brain take care of all that subconsciously? Do we simply will it to happen...or...is there some force we don't know of that contributes.

Again...I have no horse in this race. But without an outside (eg. unknown to us) force to say "you need this" and "here is how to make it"...how does it occur?
edit on 8/19/2014 by WeAreAWAKE because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 06:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: OptimusSubprime
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I would take issue with your 6th point, that evolution has been observed. MICRO-evolution has indeed been observed, and this e-coli study is certainly an example of that. Also, what exactly is "long term"? No study observable by humans could ever be considered long term in relation to the supposed age of the Earth, and even more so when the supposed age of the universe is taken into account. There are 6 types of evolution that make up the Theory of Evolution, and they are as follows: Micro-evolution which is defined as the variation within kinds of species, Macro-evolution which is defined as the changing from one kind of species to another kind of species, Stellar and Planetary evolution which is defined as the origin of stars and planets, Organic evolution which is defined as the origin of life, Chemical evolution which is defined as the origin of higher elements from hydrogen, and Cosmic evolution which is defined as the origin of time, space, and matter by the Big Bang.

The ONLY one of these 6 types of evolution that has EVER been observed is Micro-evolution, and we have already covered that. The other 5 types HAVE NEVER been observed, and although they are widely accepted as "scientific", the Scientific Method has not been applied, nor can it be, therefore it is not science... it is pseudo-science.



Um... No that isn't true at all. The Theory of Evolution is ONLY about how life develops. I'd like a source that says that the Theory of Evolution includes those six points. The only points I will concede is Micro and Macro evolution, but those are just two sides to the same coin. Enough micro changes causes macro changes. There also isn't a set, defined point where micro evolution becomes macro evolution. It's a gradual process.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 06:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: guitarplayer
a reply to: Krazysh0t
How do you deal with the time period and mutation that has to occure to produce a human?



The same way I deal with the time period and mutation that has to occur to produce any other species on the planet. Humans aren't more evolved than any other organism on the planet. All organisms are equally evolved to fit their environment. Perhaps you'd like to explain why the human body is so inefficient at pretty much anything it does (except rational thinking), because evolution easily explains that.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 07:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

There is no idea in the human knowledge database that is 100% proven as true snarl. So no the argument wouldn't be over. But I worded it as such for a reason, and you pointed out why.

Though regardless of how you feel about those two words it certainly doesn't invalidate the rest of my thread because they certainly are things that Creationists either purposely or unintentionally misunderstand about evolution while trying to debate it. If you don't believe in evolution, fine, but if you are going to debate someone about it you HAVE to understand what evolution says and implies to properly debate it. Otherwise you look like an idiot. That's the point of the thread mate.
edit on 19-8-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 07:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
I'll try to make this short. I'm not a believer in "God" as an all-powerful entity that created life. And without a question...evolution is real. Things evolve and change as they progress through time.

However, I question what created life. I most likely believe (interesting huh?) that life was brought to Earth via comets, meteors or whatever brought water. Simple enough. Therefore we are all aliens


What drives me nuts though is this. A single cell life form existed at some point and didn't have eyes. Over time, it formed eyes and therefore could see. This was a benefit and evolution. But how did "evolution" know to produce an eye...or what an eye was...or what it was for? How did "evolution" create an eye that could see in our spectrum of light? In our atmosphere? How could "evolution", from all the different types of eyes that could be needed on different planets in the universe (eg. our eyes would be useless on an all dark planet) create the perfect eye for where we live?


It didn't know. The mutation just occurred and it happened to very beneficial to the survival of whatever species it first evolved on. Animals without eyesight quickly fell prey to the ones without it since they couldn't see their enemies approaching. This left just populations of animals with eyesight who passed this gene down to its ancestors who further evolved.


I've read the science but I simply don't see (no pun intended...well...yes it was) how even over hundreds of millions of years, the eye evolved through the billions of different mutations it would take to get one that could see well. And that is only how to make the right eye. How about the design of that eye or the idea that it may even be needed? Another example...if we would do better in the future with a completely new organ that doesn't exist...lets say as complex as the eye...how long would our bodies need to create that new organ and how would our bodies know, first that we need it and second how to create it? Does our brain take care of all that subconsciously? Do we simply will it to happen...or...is there some force we don't know of that contributes.


Evolution of the eye


The first fossils of eyes that have been found to date are from the lower Cambrian period (about 540 million years ago).[5] This period saw a burst of apparently rapid evolution, dubbed the "Cambrian explosion". One of the many hypotheses for "causes" of this diversification, the "Light Switch" theory of Andrew Parker, holds that the evolution of eyes initiated an arms race that led to a rapid spate of evolution.[6] Earlier than this, organisms may have had use for light sensitivity, but not for fast locomotion and navigation by vision.

It is difficult to estimate the rate of eye evolution because the fossil record, particularly of the Early Cambrian, is poor. Simple modelling, invoking small mutations exposed to natural selection, demonstrates that a primitive optical sense organ based upon efficient photopigments could evolve into a complex human-like eye in approximately 400,000 years.[7][note 1]



Again...I have no horse in this race. But without an outside (eg. unknown to us) force to say "you need this" and "here is how to make it"...how does it occur?


The problem is that you are looking at the finished product and trying to work your way back. When in reality you need to look at the starting materials and see all the failed results that mutated and died out. The species on the planet today are just the lucky lotto mutation winners of COUNTLESS amounts of mutations that failed to help the species survive or inhibited its survival. So while you are looking at a direct line of mutations, in reality its more like a shotgun blast at a paper 50 meters away and trying to get a few pieces of flak to hit the target.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 12:29 PM
link   
The Earth not being a closed system is precisely why one can't assume that evolution occurred the way it does, because evolution assumes that no outside forces or species is interfering on the Earth, or even plant evidence to fool people(which makes just as much sense as your argument because how does adding energy reverse entropy? Or are you going to tell me that cosmic rays are also intelligent? In other words, yes, something or someone(s) are interfering with the Earth, but it's not random energy reversing our entropy as the evolutionists think).

Also, differentiating between macro and micro-evolution is not a strawman. To do so is to ignore the details that fooled people so many times, for example, like associating the Age of the Earth to disproving God altogether. You could easily argue that micro-evolution leading to macro-evolution is a slippery slope.

But here's why one can't make the association: if you spray the Ebola virus on the entire world, 40% of the people's immune system will eventually develop the ability to fight it , does that mean they have evolved? Yes, but it's still only micro-evolution.

As long as the mechanism(DNA knowledge) is there, then the body WILL fight it(only within certain reasonable parameters of course, for example, if you pour acid on the bacterias or humans, then obviously, they can't fight
it. Well, actually, you can, but that requires even more special DNA knowledge, and let's just say, this is how the gods or Wolverine gets his healing power).

On the other hand, how does one explain the evolution of the wings, when we can't even fully even understand how airplanes work even now, and people have already pointed out the eyes(which basically involves reading "invisible frequencies and interacting with the Sun"(it would be no different than a radio gaining the ability to hear after sitting there for million of years really), and then you have to explain how the brain evolved, how the amoeba's DNA is so complex. Once again, where are the animals with 1/4th of a wing, 1/2 of a wing, etc. Where are the transitional fossils? How does it "know" to develop two wings, and not one wing on the side, on its back, etc.

Therefore, even if you can prove macro-evolution, you still can't rule out the fact that "the mechanism or DNA knowledge for micro/macro-evolution must be put there in the first place(and this is probably why the amoeba's DNA is so complex, it has all the instructions(albeit a primitive program or one with too many functions probably) or recipes for evolution to occur, so to speak. In order to disprove God or Intelligent Design altogether, you have to show how these features develop with no prior knowledge whatsoever. You can't just prove that it happened, but also explain how it happened.

Finally, did you know that if you unraveled the human DNA, it would be 8 times the distance from the Earth to the Sun? This to me, is a miracle in itself. So not only have our body learned how to store the history
of our evolution, it manages to do so in a way that basically takes up no space, right from the start. In truth, we're probably not even supposed to be able to see it, as they're just information or programming codes(the reason we're able to do so, IMO, is because it's left as a clue, and we can't learn about our origin otherwise).



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 12:49 PM
link   
Here are some more counter-arguments: if evolution is true, then how did prehistoric humans arrive on all of the islands or isolated bodies of water like the UK, some as long as 800,000 years ago? How did all the animals reach these bodies of water? If they evolved independently, then where are the transitional fossils or animals on these islands?

If it's proven that we didn't come from Africa, then who or what did we evolve from, as apes don't exist outside of Africa? Once again, who do Africans have more genetic diversity than Europeans and Asians, if we evolved from them?

How did all the animals get to all the continents? If we were to go with Pangea theory, then mammals did not appear until 60 million years ago, and most animals don't really migrate. How did the mammoth get to North America? Which animals evolve into the mammoth, are you telling me that you can't even find one fossil from an animal that is similar in size to the mammoth? I'm not sure, but I think most of the species that have gone extinct have been small rodent-like animals. They have not found anything that is close to resembling a transitional animal to the mammoth(or elephant). What animals are transitional to the brachiosaurus, the biggest of the dinosaurs?



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 01:06 PM
link   
So many fallacies and misconceptions in this post...


originally posted by: np6888
The Earth not being a closed system is precisely why one can't assume that evolution occurred the way it does, because evolution assumes that no outside forces or species is interfering on the Earth, or even plant evidence to fool people(which makes just as much sense as your argument because how does adding energy reverse entropy? Or are you going to tell me that cosmic rays are also intelligent? In other words, yes, something or someone(s) are interfering with the Earth, but it's not random energy reversing our entropy as the evolutionists think).


This literally makes zero sense. I'm not sure you understand how the Laws of Thermodynamics work, let alone the Second Law, after reading this paragraph.

Like this statement for one:
"which makes just as much sense as your argument because how does adding energy reverse entropy?"

I mean the whole POINT of entropy is that it is the leveling out of energy in a system over time to an equilibrium state. If you add more energy to the system, OBVIOUSLY it won't be in equilibrium anymore.


Also, differentiating between macro and micro-evolution is not a strawman. To do so is to ignore the details that fooled people so many times, for example, like associating the Age of the Earth to disproving God altogether. You could easily argue that micro-evolution leading to macro-evolution is a slippery slope.


Please do tell. How is microevolution leading to macroevolution a slippery slope?


But here's why one can't make the association: if you spray the Ebola virus on the entire world, 40% of the people's immune system will eventually develop the ability to fight it , does that mean they have evolved? Yes, but it's still only micro-evolution.


Ok so? That still doesn't prove that many micro mutations added up over a long period of time won't lead to macroevolution. In fact that is just one micro mutation not thousands if not millions of them.


As long as the mechanism(DNA knowledge) is there, then the body WILL fight it(only within certain reasonable parameters of course, for example, if you pour acid on the bacterias or humans, then obviously, they can't fight
it. Well, actually, you can, but that requires even more special DNA knowledge, and let's just say, this is how the gods or Wolverine gets his healing power).


This means nothing in the context of the discussion.


On the other hand, how does one explain the evolution of the wings, when we can't even fully even understand how airplanes work even now, and people have already pointed out the eyes(which basically involves reading "invisible frequencies and interacting with the Sun"(it would be no different than a radio gaining the ability to hear after sitting there for million of years really), and then you have to explain how the brain evolved, how the amoeba's DNA is so complex. Once again, where are the animals with 1/4th of a wing, 1/2 of a wing, etc. Where are the transitional fossils? How does it "know" to develop two wings, and not one wing on the side, on its back, etc.


Ok now you just proved you have zero understanding of how evolution works. First here:
THE EVOLUTION OF FLIGHT (a.k.a. HOW TO WING IT) - Click the links at the bottom of the page to learn more about how wings and flight evolved
Evolution of the eye

You know, I'm not going to post links to all these questions because they are all answered by science. You can easily google all those questions and find the answers for them, but you are pretending that they aren't answered or unknown because you don't want to look them up.

Though I will address your transitional fossil point. ALL fossils are transitional fossils. When you die and decompose to a skeleton, you will be a transitional fossil. The idea of the missing link is a fallacy created by Creationists because they seem to think there is a certain point in the past when we can pinpoint when an animal stops being species A and becomes species B. But that isn't the case. Evolution is a gradual process just like we can't look at a color scheme and tell when red stops being red and becomes blue.


Therefore, even if you can prove macro-evolution, you still can't rule out the fact that "the mechanism or DNA knowledge for micro/macro-evolution must be put there in the first place(and this is probably why the amoeba's DNA is so complex, it has all the instructions(albeit a primitive program or one with too many functions probably) or recipes for evolution to occur, so to speak. In order to disprove God or Intelligent Design altogether, you have to show how these features develop with no prior knowledge whatsoever. You can't just prove that it happened, but also explain how it happened.


How Could DNA Have Evolved?

ACTUALLY I don't have to prove a thing one way or the other about a guiding hand. First off, I never said in my OP if there is or isn't an intelligent designer guiding evolution. Evolution doesn't theorize one way or the other about the existence of God. God and evolution are currently allowed to coexist (though if science does get around to disproving god then we can revisit this conversation).


Finally, did you know that if you unraveled the human DNA, it would be 8 times the distance from the Earth to the Sun? This to me, is a miracle in itself. So not only have our body learned how to store the history
of our evolution, it manages to do so in a way that basically takes up no space, right from the start. In truth, we're probably not even supposed to be able to see it, as they're just information or programming codes(the reason we're able to do so, IMO, is because it's left as a clue, and we can't learn about our origin otherwise).


This is all hypothetical assumptions (except for the unraveled DNA part, but you need to multiply that distance by about 70).
edit on 19-8-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: guitarplayer

Are you aware of how often our DNA actually mutates every single day? For every cell in our body that turns over millions of times per day, there are hundred and thousands of DNA copying mistakes. Some are repaired by DNA repair mechanisms, some are silent mutations, some have negative outcomes.

Also, to the people that ask "Why havent we seen one species turn into another species?" These people clearly do not understand the time scale over which this change occurs.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: np6888
Here are some more counter-arguments: if evolution is true, then how did prehistoric humans arrive on all of the islands or isolated bodies of water like the UK, some as long as 800,000 years ago? How did all the animals reach these bodies of water? If they evolved independently, then where are the transitional fossils or animals on these islands?


Google is your friend. There are answers to all of these questions. And again every fossil is a transitional fossil.


If it's proven that we didn't come from Africa, then who or what did we evolve from, as apes don't exist outside of Africa? Once again, who do Africans have more genetic diversity than Europeans and Asians, if we evolved from them?


Who said that humans didn't come from Africa? The out of Africa theory is still pretty much the goto theory for explaining human habitation throughout the ages. The dates for certain migrations may need to be moved around or newer migrations we weren't aware may be added, but that doesn't mean humans didn't first evolve in Africa then migrate to the other continents.


How did all the animals get to all the continents? If we were to go with Pangea theory, then mammals did not appear until 60 million years ago, and most animals don't really migrate. How did the mammoth get to North America? Which animals evolve into the mammoth, are you telling me that you can't even find one fossil from an animal that is similar in size to the mammoth? I'm not sure, but I think most of the species that have gone extinct have been small rodent-like animals. They have not found anything that is close to resembling a transitional animal to the mammoth(or elephant). What animals are transitional to the brachiosaurus, the biggest of the dinosaurs?


What the heck? Are you just making things up now?
Mass extinctions


More than 99% of all species that have ever lived on Earth are now extinct. The vast majority (over 95%) died out because they couldn’t compete successfully for food or other resources. Or they failed to adapt to changes in their local environment over tens or even hundreds of millions of years.


I'm really getting tired of your questions about "How did such and such happen?" like asking that question suddenly means that we don't have an answer to that question. It's absurd. Seriously, I just googled evolution of mammoth and got the mammoth wiki page which had this section on it.

Mammoth (evolution)


The earliest known proboscideans, the clade which contains the elephants, existed about 55 million years ago around the Tethys Sea area. The closest relatives of the Proboscidea are the sirenians and the hyraxes. The family Elephantidae is known to have existed six million years ago in Africa, and includes the living elephants and the mammoths. Among many now extinct clades, the mastodon is only a distant relative of the mammoths, and part of the separate Mammutidae family which diverged 25 million years before the mammoths evolved.[3]


Just because YOU don't know the answer or want to know the answer doesn't mean that we haven't found these things out yet.
edit on 19-8-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You haven't proven anything. All you're doing is spouting cliche from an evolutionist's standpoint. You can't explain how adding energy will decrease entropy, i.e increase order and intelligence, and instead can only say it's not a closed system.

All fossils are transitional fossils are is another cliche. Even a quick wiki read tells you that out of a billion fossils, they haven't found a few more than a few transitional fossils, and they can't even be considered that.

As far as the rest of the stuff, show how the eyes evolve right from the start, what caused the cells to basically perfectly synchronize with the Sun and able to read all the frequencies around them(the equivalent would be you picking up the cellphone signals and knowing what it means yourself), prove how the amoeba gained and store all of this DNA when it basically has no brain, i.e no intelligence. To me, it makes a lot more sense that they were inscribed with intelligence(within their DNA) first, THEN evolve, well not really evolved, but programmed to be more efficient and interesting is more like it.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: np6888
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You haven't proven anything. All you're doing is spouting cliche from an evolutionist's standpoint. You can't explain how adding energy will decrease entropy, i.e increase order and intelligence, and instead can only say it's not a closed system.


What does entropy have to do with intelligence?

Entropy


In thermodynamics, entropy (usual symbol S) is a measure of the number of specific ways in which a thermodynamic system may be arranged, commonly understood as a measure of disorder. According to the second law of thermodynamics the entropy of an isolated system never decreases; such systems spontaneously evolve towards thermodynamic equilibrium, the configuration with maximum entropy. Systems which are not isolated may decrease in entropy. Since entropy is a state function, the change in the entropy of a system is the same for any process going from a given initial state to a given final state, whether the process is reversible or irreversible. However irreversible processes increase the combined entropy of the system and its environment.



All fossils are transitional fossils are is another cliche. Even a quick wiki read tells you that out of a billion fossils, they haven't found a few more than a few transitional fossils, and they can't even be considered that.


It isn't a cliche. It's true.
List of transitional fossils


Since all species will always be subject to natural selection, the very term "transitional fossil" is essentially a misconception


Yes there is a scientific use for the term transitional fossil, but you aren't using it correctly.


As far as the rest of the stuff, show how the eyes evolve right from the start, what caused the cells to basically perfectly synchronize with the Sun and able to read all the frequencies around them(the equivalent would be you picking up the cellphone signals and knowing what it means yourself), prove how the amoeba gained and store all of this DNA when it basically has no brain, i.e no intelligence. To me, it makes a lot more sense that they were inscribed with intelligence(within their DNA) first, THEN evolve, well not really evolved, but programmed to be more efficient and interesting is more like it.


The answer to all of those questions is mutations. One day the organism mutated a trait that was beneficial to it. It helped it survive better and it passed it down. What you are doing with that paragraph above is asking me to explain the evolutionary process several times over and over again with slightly different settings for each animal. It's redundant and a waste of time.

You clearly have no desire to actually want to learn about evolution. You just want to spout a bunch of misconceptions and pretend like you have an argument. Go study evolution and then come back and let's talk. Until then Google is your friend.
edit on 19-8-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: np6888
Here are some more counter-arguments: if evolution is true, then how did prehistoric humans arrive on all of the islands or isolated bodies of water like the UK, some as long as 800,000 years ago? How did all the animals reach these bodies of water? If they evolved independently, then where are the transitional fossils or animals on these islands?

In your example, Britain was not always an island. It used to be connected to continental Europe until around 7000 BPE by an area called Doggerland.
en.wikipedia.org...


If it's proven that we didn't come from Africa, then who or what did we evolve from, as apes don't exist outside of Africa?


Not true at all. Today we have Orangutan, one of the great apes, living in Asia. In the past there were Apes that lived in Europe that are now extinct such as Dryopithecus, and its larger descendant, Ouranopithecus. There isn't anything that suggests an origin outside of Africa. At least not at the present.



Once again, who do Africans have more genetic diversity than Europeans and Asians, if we evolved from them?

It's specifically Sub Saharan Africans like the Khoisan who show the largest amount of genetic diversity. It is BECAUSE we came from them and they have been evolving separately and at times in isolation from. the rest of humanity. The longer you're lineage has been around, the more mutations you will find in their genetic structure whereas the rest of humanity being slightly newer as we dispersed across the globe and adapted to various environmental niches are not goingtobe as diverse mostly because of a genetic bottleneck event that coincides with the Toba Eruption 74,000 BPE
en.wikipedia.org...



How did all the animals get to all the continents? If we were to go with Pangea theory, then mammals did not appear until 60 million years ago, and most animals don't really migrate.


But the first mammals actually appeared in the mid Triassic period(Triassic was from 250-200 MYA) and coexisted with the Dinosaurs, not 60 MYA after all Dinosaurs went extinct.


How did the mammoth get to North America?

the same way Clovis people did, they walked from Siberia. Animals DO migrate. Herbivores follow the food i.e. plant life , carnivores follow their food, i.e. the herbivores and Humans went back and forth across Berringia following prey as it migrated.


Which animals evolve into the mammoth, are you telling me that you can't even find one fossil from an animal that is similar in size to the mammoth? I'm not sure, but I think most of the species that have gone extinct have been small rodent-like animals.

They have not found anything that is close to resembling a transitional animal to the mammoth(or elephant).





What animals are transitional to the brachiosaurus, the biggest of the dinosaurs?


As huge as it was, Brachiosaurus was a relative lightweight compared to other sauropods and titanosaurs, including the South American Argentinosaurus and the North American Seismosaurus . Adult specimens of these gigantic dinosaurs may well have surpassed 100 tons in weight. As for what they evolved from, I can't say. The fossil record for the Brachiosaurid Genus is pretty slim with the only complete skull being foundin the late 80's. and there are so many sauropods I wouldn't be able to fit that amount of information into a small descriptor. I would recommend looking into the history and evolution of sauropods to learn more about them.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 04:17 PM
link   
“You read books and find statements that such and such a society or archeological site is (claimed to be) 20,000 years old. We learn rather abruptly that these numbers, these ancient ages, are not known (speculations and imaginative guesses); in fact, it is about the time of the First Dynasty in Egypt that the last (earliest) historical date of any any real certainty has been established.”
Willard Libby, Nobel Laureate for development of radiocarbon dating



www.icr.org...
"According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas."

youtube: Dinosaurs and Humans Co-existing? You Decide.
www.youtube.com...

youtube: The Case For A Creator With Lee Strobel
www.youtube.com...
The Fossil Record Speaks
www.youtube.com...
yt: Uranium Halos are Proof Noah Flood Laid the Sedimentary Layers, Dr. gentry
www.youtube.com...

youtube: The Resurrection Argument That Changed a Generation of Scholars - Gary Habermas at UCSB youtu.be...




top topics



 
47
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join