Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Just ONE question on evolution

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


Well that skull that you are showing was found without a brow bone, so no one knows for sure what the brow would have looked like if they had found it. IMO




posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by stereologist
The three skulls in the OP I realized were all the same skull. They turn out ot be the skull of the individual named "Lucy". You can find the skull part way down the page and if you look at the link to the image you see it is named:
australopithecus / lucy recontructed skull.jpg
The skull is 3 images of the species Australopithecus afarensis.

www.columbia.edu...

Australopithecus afarensis lived from approximately 4.1 to 2.7 million years ago in northeastern Africa.


The image in the OP lists the times for A. afarensis from 1 to 3 million years ago, which is incorrect.

Since this is obviously a hoax image do you mind me asking where this came from? Did you make this image?


LOL How come everyone is missing what I wrote in the three teeny-tiny paragraphs of the OP? I wrote: In the image below, there are three skulls of Australopithecus afarensis ***(that I manipulated)***. To explain what I expected to see in the process of evolution.


You also claim not to "get" evolution, so what you expect, is not necessarily what you get



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 05:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerjThat's a very good point. Problem is, we are all still categorized as Homo Sapiens. What I gather from the comments in this thread, whenever our primitive ancestors evolved even in the slightest, they were re-categorized and re-named.

How does that matter? Speciation is a human term, not something evolution made up.

It is absolutely possible for two phenotypically very similar species not to produce offspring, while it may also be possible for two phenotypically distant species to produce offspring. We base the term of speciation on the ability to successfully produce offspring between two individuals.


Originally posted by jiggerj
LOL How come everyone is missing what I wrote in the three teeny-tiny paragraphs of the OP? I wrote: In the image below, there are three skulls of Australopithecus afarensis ***(that I manipulated)***. To explain what I expected to see in the process of evolution.

Yeah, that is surprising.. If a quick mashup with a white pen in Paint makes people believe something is real, it is no wonder we have so many people on ATS that will believe anything they see..



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 06:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thain Esh Kelch

Originally posted by jiggerjThat's a very good point. Problem is, we are all still categorized as Homo Sapiens. What I gather from the comments in this thread, whenever our primitive ancestors evolved even in the slightest, they were re-categorized and re-named.

How does that matter? Speciation is a human term, not something evolution made up.


It only matters because re-naming a species when it changes slightly makes it confusing for ME. Hopefully, I'm not alone in this. Evolutionists can't say, "This is a skull from one species, and this other skull is from the exact same species, only it evolved a less bony brow after a million years." Nooo, they have to give the evolved species a totally different name.



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by Thain Esh Kelch

Originally posted by jiggerjThat's a very good point. Problem is, we are all still categorized as Homo Sapiens. What I gather from the comments in this thread, whenever our primitive ancestors evolved even in the slightest, they were re-categorized and re-named.

How does that matter? Speciation is a human term, not something evolution made up.


It only matters because re-naming a species when it changes slightly makes it confusing for ME. Hopefully, I'm not alone in this. Evolutionists can't say, "This is a skull from one species, and this other skull is from the exact same species, only it evolved a less bony brow after a million years." Nooo, they have to give the evolved species a totally different name.

They do it to be able to distinguish between different individuals. If you don't like species, then stay with Genus or even family if it makes it easier for you. Just because you have trouble wrapping your thoughts around the concept of speciation, doesn't mean evolution is false.



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thain Esh Kelch

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by Thain Esh Kelch

Originally posted by jiggerjThat's a very good point. Problem is, we are all still categorized as Homo Sapiens. What I gather from the comments in this thread, whenever our primitive ancestors evolved even in the slightest, they were re-categorized and re-named.

How does that matter? Speciation is a human term, not something evolution made up.


It only matters because re-naming a species when it changes slightly makes it confusing for ME. Hopefully, I'm not alone in this. Evolutionists can't say, "This is a skull from one species, and this other skull is from the exact same species, only it evolved a less bony brow after a million years." Nooo, they have to give the evolved species a totally different name.

They do it to be able to distinguish between different individuals. If you don't like species, then stay with Genus or even family if it makes it easier for you. Just because you have trouble wrapping your thoughts around the concept of speciation, doesn't mean evolution is false.


You do know that I never claimed evolution to be false, right? Just that I didn't understand it. The idea of thinking in terms of family is good one. Thanks for that.



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 



It only matters because re-naming a species when it changes slightly makes it confusing for ME. Hopefully, I'm not alone in this. Evolutionists can't say, "This is a skull from one species, and this other skull is from the exact same species, only it evolved a less bony brow after a million years." Nooo, they have to give the evolved species a totally different name.


The problem all along is that you have stated that you do not see how paleontologists assign specie names. There are problems in doing that since the entire organism is not available, only a fossil. Different fossil are assigned names because they are seen to be different. A leaf may be assigned a name and a tree bar assigned a name. Maybe the two are never connected and continue to have different names. Are they from the same organism? May not be able to tell.

The hominid line is even harder to interpret since there are few specimens available.



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by jiggerj
 



It only matters because re-naming a species when it changes slightly makes it confusing for ME. Hopefully, I'm not alone in this. Evolutionists can't say, "This is a skull from one species, and this other skull is from the exact same species, only it evolved a less bony brow after a million years." Nooo, they have to give the evolved species a totally different name.


The problem all along is that you have stated that you do not see how paleontologists assign specie names. There are problems in doing that since the entire organism is not available, only a fossil. Different fossil are assigned names because they are seen to be different. A leaf may be assigned a name and a tree bar assigned a name. Maybe the two are never connected and continue to have different names. Are they from the same organism? May not be able to tell.

The hominid line is even harder to interpret since there are few specimens available.


I don't remember the exact wording, but wasn't this Darwin's fear? That if enough remains couldn't be found then his theory shouldn't be taken seriously? I don't remember. What WAS Darwin's fear?



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 

I admire your attitude most of the time, but now you're just being obstreperous. If you want to know what Darwin said, read The Origin of Species and The Descent of Man. We did; why shouldn't you? They're both pretty easy reading, apart from that bit in The Origin about finches.

Come back when you've finished both books, and I and some others on this thread will be only too pleased to answer any questions that you have. This game of pat-a-cake grows tiring.



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj
You do know that I never claimed evolution to be false, right? Just that I didn't understand it. The idea of thinking in terms of family is good one. Thanks for that.

You are right, false was not the wrong word - But you still got my point!



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


I don't recall, but there are many fossil lines that are very well established. One of the best sequences is the reptile to mammal evolution. That is so well established that it is hard to identify if the intermediate forms are reptile or mammal. Another well established sequence is whales. That was poorly understood 50 years ago.



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by jiggerj
 



It only matters because re-naming a species when it changes slightly makes it confusing for ME. Hopefully, I'm not alone in this. Evolutionists can't say, "This is a skull from one species, and this other skull is from the exact same species, only it evolved a less bony brow after a million years." Nooo, they have to give the evolved species a totally different name.


The problem all along is that you have stated that you do not see how paleontologists assign specie names. There are problems in doing that since the entire organism is not available, only a fossil. Different fossil are assigned names because they are seen to be different. A leaf may be assigned a name and a tree bar assigned a name. Maybe the two are never connected and continue to have different names. Are they from the same organism? May not be able to tell.

The hominid line is even harder to interpret since there are few specimens available.


I don't remember the exact wording, but wasn't this Darwin's fear? That if enough remains couldn't be found then his theory shouldn't be taken seriously? I don't remember. What WAS Darwin's fear?


Part of the problem is people fixate on Darwin. He was there at the start of the idea of Evolution, but it has progressed. Darwin did not know about genetics (for example) and we understand evolution MUCH better thanks to that are of knowledge.



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by jiggerj
 

I admire your attitude most of the time, but now you're just being obstreperous. If you want to know what Darwin said, read The Origin of Species and The Descent of Man. We did; why shouldn't you? They're both pretty easy reading, apart from that bit in The Origin about finches.

Come back when you've finished both books, and I and some others on this thread will be only too pleased to answer any questions that you have. This game of pat-a-cake grows tiring.


And another ignorant moron pops up.
Why do you come here to ATS?
Is it to learn?
NO! If you wanted to learn, you would open a book, take a course, or go to a website that offers a specific subject.

You come here to CHAAAAAAAT! What part of Chat Forum don't you get??
If you don't like the topic, DON'T RESPOND!!



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   
If you keep saying, "new species" you end up with many of them, this number will then be taken as evidence by those that support speciation...it is happening and this is how it is done.

I thought that these lineages from one species to another, supported by fossils, where collected from allover the globe...this definitely seems to be the case.

If a place exists with many examples of fossils that can be pieced together to form a coherent evolutionary path from species to species to genus, I will happily read about it.

I still find it hard to believe that the `species barrier` can be broken by every species, (living or dead) on this planet, and I find it hard to believe that we have all come from a `common ancestor`...but hey, thats just me.



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by amazing
But here's the real question.

If not Evolution, what do we have? What is the competing theory?

Creationism? Could be but, that's really too broad a term. Even an evolutionist could say well God created the universe and we evolved according to that Creation. You can't just say, that evolution is wrong without offering a competing theory or offering a change to the theory.


i think you can say "it is wrong" if the theory is full of holes.

evolve means to unfold. what unfolds must first be folded in.
if the one indivisable god created us it holds that all the laws governing evolution and environment and all that effects us are all in place in the beginning and all is predictable as a destiny.
without the mind to observe this phenomena is anything really happening at all?

imho, there is no answer because the question cannot be put.



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by orangutang
 


Really? Which god is this? I'm aware of several


Ok so your reply appears to imply that you think evolution is a "wrong" (rather than incomplete) theory? If so how do you feel about gravitational forces then?



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


And another ignorant moron pops up.

Now, now, there's no need to put yourself down. I wouldn't call you a moron. Frivolous and trivially argumentative, perhaps, but that is true of a lot of children. Usually, they grow out of it.


Why do you come here to ATS? Is it to learn? NO! If you wanted to learn, you would open a book, take a course, or go to a website that offers a specific subject.

One asks questions, usually, because one wishes to learn something. You nearly always start threads by asking questions, so one naturally assumes you wish for answers. Interesting to find that you apparently have some other motivation.


If you don't like the topic, DON'T RESPOND!!

That's pretty ungrateful, considering how helpful I have been in this and so many of your other threads. But have it your own way.


It is not I who seek the young fool;
The young fool seeks me.
At the first oracle I inform him.
If he asks two or three times, it is importunity.
If he importunes, I give him no information.

– I Ching, Hex. IV



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax


If you don't like the topic, DON'T RESPOND!!

That's pretty ungrateful, considering how helpful I have been in this and so many of your other threads. But have it your own way.



How old are you? Being a counselor on a suicide hotline is being helpful. You coming here with the specific intention of imparting your great wisdom is nothing short of arrogant. Here's a hint: When you see a group of people chatting at a party, and when you walk over, they migrate away from you, it means you SUCK at conversations. Now, like the party, I'm walking away.



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by ironbutterflyrusted
If a place exists with many examples of fossils that can be pieced together to form a coherent evolutionary path from species to species to genus, I will happily read about it.

One of the best described evolutionary transition overview is of horses. Try do a bit of google on that subject, it is quite amazing how many details we have of it.



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 03:39 AM
link   
reply to post by orangutang
 




evolve means to unfold.


No it doesn't.

It means "to change over time". Period.





new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join