ID not required

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dawgbitten

Maybe you lost me with the 1-2-3 "if then" equation. Are you wanting to know how two of these species came to be found in the same area, yet one may be the precursor species? Or maybe a more simpler question: Why do we still have monkeys if humans supposedly came from them?

Let me offer my theory with the given evidence: The child died in a flood and she was one of a more advanced species of Lucy. Lucy was found in the same area, yet one was not as advanced as the other. It could very well be possible that each of these species inhabited two very different environments on either side of a river. One on the flood plain which possibly led to her death by drowning in a flood. While Lucy may have lived on the bluff side hilly landscape of the river (think Vicksburg, MS). I remember reading in a HS textbook of how two different squirrels were two different species now due to the Grand Canyon and how the two had evolved over time into two different squirrels.

The African rift is one theory as to why climates changed and moved monkeys out of trees and into newly formed savannas. They had to learn to walk to be able to see predators above the high grasses. Yet monkeys stayed monkeys on the land where the jungles stayed jungles.

---

Let me explain what I mean using a suggested tree of human evolution found at this website: http://www.amonline.net.au/human_evolution/tree.htm

Consider Homo ergaster. Homo ergaster is the precusor to both Homo erectus and Homo heidelbergensis. However, before Homo erectus or Homo heidelbergensis could have come about, Homo ergaster would have had to have evolved into them. Namely, if Homo ergaster and Homo heidelbergensis were considered to have lived in the same time period, then they could not have lived in the same living environment. A separation, a couple of which you have enumerated as being viable options, could result in their being of the same time period. However, more likely is the case that both Homo erectus and Homo heidelbergensis would evolved around the same "time" in the sense that one would be the direct descendent in the same environment of Homo ergaster and the other would be a derivative based in a different living environment.

The dating for Homo heidelbergensis ranges from 600,000 to 250,000 years ago, which doesn't compare to the 195,000 date given in the article.... so I'm not really sure how "modern man" and his precursor would have co-existed. However, the only scenario for this type of situation would be that a subset of Homo heidelbergensis would have moved to a different environment, evolved into modern man, while another subset did not move and evolve, staying roughly the same (such that we would classify them as the same: Homo heidelbergensis). Then, they could co-exist in the same time period but clearly would not have evolved in the same living environment. To claim both the same living environment and time period seems in direct violation of natural selection.

As such, the article seems relatively vague on the topic and to some degree misleading, especially in representing the position of evolution, IMO.

Daniel

the simple reason that a species cannot coexist with its predecessor in the same environment is the fact that there would never be the separation required to prevent interbreeding and allow a new separate species to evolve. either the entire group must evolve together, or a sub-group must separate to evolve differently. that is the only way it could logically work out.

Exactly. And yet, the article posted said that modern man and his precursors existed side by side. This isn't much of a feat, IMO, unless they coexisted in the same environment. There's bound to be some overlap in time, as there's not going to all of a sudden be a jump from precursor to modern man. So.... what exactly was the point that the article was trying to make again Dawgbitten?

Daniel

I gave you my theory based on modern day observations. What else do you want?

Well, for starters, you could just tell me that I'm right. :D :D

I think that modern day observations are very important, but taking those observations and comparing them to current theory is just as important as well. I don't see how the statement "modern man and his precursors existed side by side," a statement based on modern day observations, supports some of the premises of evolution, which is a modern day theory. That's all.

Daniel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DRay563

Well, for starters, you could just tell me that I'm right. :D :D

I think that modern day observations are very important, but taking those observations and comparing them to current theory is just as important as well. I don't see how the statement "modern man and his precursors existed side by side," a statement based on modern day observations, supports some of the premises of evolution, which is a modern day theory. That's all.

Daniel

---

Of course it supports the premises of evolution. The Earth is a very large planet and it is easy for a particular group of animals to evolve separately in isolation and then move to an area where some of its earlier forms are still living. There is no problem.

Salty, did you read my previous posts? If you have group 1 that splits into two groups and they each evolve separately, you will have groups 2 and 2a, where 2 is the group that evolved elsewhere and 2a is the group that evolved in the habitat that group 1 lived in. For group 2a to exist, group 1 must have died out because group 2a is an evolutionary result of group 1, such that group 1 is inferior to group 2a in the same environment. If, therefore, group 2 moves back, they would not encounter group 1 (their predecessor) but group 2a, which is a co-evolutionary group and not their predecessor.

The only way your theory will work is to assume that group 1 doesn't evolve over the course of time that group 2 does evolve, but this is denying the dynamics of evolution and assuming a static mode of existence. While this can potentially be seen in some modes of living (like micro, as some of the TB cells found in ancient Egyptian tombs were identical to modern day TB cells, no reference, remembering it from a video I watched 4 years ago), I wouldn't think it a plausible assumption given creatures of a macro scale. So your premise is based on an assumption that I wouldn't think would line up with reality; therefore, your conclusion is questionable at best, if not in error.

Daniel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DRay563

Salty, did you read my previous posts? If you have group 1 that splits into two groups and they each evolve separately, you will have groups 2 and 2a, where 2 is the group that evolved elsewhere and 2a is the group that evolved in the habitat that group 1 lived in. For group 2a to exist, group 1 must have died out because group 2a is an evolutionary result of group 1, such that group 1 is inferior to group 2a in the same environment. If, therefore, group 2 moves back, they would not encounter group 1 (their predecessor) but group 2a, which is a co-evolutionary group and not their predecessor.

The only way your theory will work is to assume that group 1 doesn't evolve over the course of time that group 2 does evolve, but this is denying the dynamics of evolution and assuming a static mode of existence. While this can potentially be seen in some modes of living (like micro, as some of the TB cells found in ancient Egyptian tombs were identical to modern day TB cells, no reference, remembering it from a video I watched 4 years ago), I wouldn't think it a plausible assumption given creatures of a macro scale. So your premise is based on an assumption that I wouldn't think would line up with reality; therefore, your conclusion is questionable at best, if not in error.

Daniel

---

....and, even then it does not support darwinian evolution. you can only explain it away as "fitting" the evolutionary model, however loosely. what it does support is the idea that "2a" did not evolve from "1."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DRay563

Salty, did you read my previous posts? If you have group 1 that splits into two groups and they each evolve separately, you will have groups 2 and 2a, where 2 is the group that evolved elsewhere and 2a is the group that evolved in the habitat that group 1 lived in. For group 2a to exist, group 1 must have died out because group 2a is an evolutionary result of group 1, such that group 1 is inferior to group 2a in the same environment. If, therefore, group 2 moves back, they would not encounter group 1 (their predecessor) but group 2a, which is a co-evolutionary group and not their predecessor.

The only way your theory will work is to assume that group 1 doesn't evolve over the course of time that group 2 does evolve, but this is denying the dynamics of evolution and assuming a static mode of existence. While this can potentially be seen in some modes of living (like micro, as some of the TB cells found in ancient Egyptian tombs were identical to modern day TB cells, no reference, remembering it from a video I watched 4 years ago), I wouldn't think it a plausible assumption given creatures of a macro scale. So your premise is based on an assumption that I wouldn't think would line up with reality; therefore, your conclusion is questionable at best, if not in error.

Daniel

---

How much has the animal Homo Sapiens evolved in the last 180,000 years?

In short, evolution is not a planned occurrance. Some sharks have not changed very much over the millions of years that they first appearred. I remember reading somewhere that most evolutionary changes take place suddenly and quickly and that animals can remain the same if their environment doesn't change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

How much has the animal Homo Sapiens evolved in the last 180,000 years?

---

Homo sapiens are a very poor example to try and prove your point. Intelligence is the counter to evolution. We are de-evolving in fact. Take for instance, eyesight. More and more people are requiring glasses these days because we are compensating for poor eyesight by "fixing" it. There is no such concession in the evolutionary chain where intelligence doesn't come into play. As such, animals that are born with poor eyesight die easier and are less likely to pass on that trait. We as humans, though, have circumvented the problem and allow people with poor eyesight to pass on that trait, thus breeding more poor eyesight. It's the same thing with genetic diseases, chronic illnesses, STDs, etc. Any medical problem that would kill and we let live so that it can be passed on is the slow and eventual process of de-evolving ourselves.

However, even more so, one could argue that our technological reformation is a form of evolution. It would be constraining to say that evolution must be biological in nature, when clearly the modes of evolution (or the contra to evolution) can be encouraged or discouraged via technology. So, I would argue that we've evolved greatly just within the past century.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

In short, evolution is not a planned occurrance. Some sharks have not changed very much over the millions of years that they first appearred. I remember reading somewhere that most evolutionary changes take place suddenly and quickly and that animals can remain the same if their environment doesn't change.

---

I wish that Salty would repeat what he just said to show that he actually confirms this. Evolution can happen quickly. Most people seem to think that evolution happens over millenia, but that is not necessarily true. There are several important aspects to this. You cannot argue, then, that certain things of the world couldn't have evolved in a short amount of time. Take for instance, the diversity in dogs happened over a century. In fact, evolution is more likely to happen under certain conditions, like when the sun's magnet field is quiescent. There have been times when we've been subject to severe radiation, as a planet, because the sun's magnet field just seemed to take a break. I think times like those are breeding grounds for evolution and change such that science can't predict. It makes it very simple, IMO, for the creationist to allow for evolution and diversity while still sticking to the whole "God created it not so long ago" bit.

However, I would find it odd, myself, if a creature could live statically without any change what-so-ever. It's bound to change to some degree, just by the nature of life. It's food becomes scarce, it either has to adapt to a new food, new environment to find the same food, etc. Changes in climate and/or temperature require that certain traits die out and others flourish. It just doesn't make sense, to me, for a creature type to be able to live statically given the dynamics of evolution. But, if it can be proven, I will go with it the best I can.

Daniel

Perfect for this thread. Sit back turn it up and enjoy. It's very short.

The Watchmaker

http://www.kids4truth.com/watchmaker/watch.html

2006 Darwin Awards

It's that time again... The Darwin Awards are finally out, the annual honor given to the persons who did the gene pool the biggest service by killing themselves in the most extraordinarily stupid way. Last year's winner was the fellow who was killed by a Coke machine which toppled over on top of him as he was attempting to tip a free soda out. This year's winner was a real rocket scientist... Really!

And the nominees were:

Semifinalist #1
A young Canadian man, searching for a way of getting drunk cheaply, because he had no money with which to buy alcohol, mixed gasoline with milk. Not surprisingly, this concoction made him ill, and he vomited into the fireplace in his house. This resulting explosion and fire burned his house down, killing both him and his sister.

Semifinalist #2
Three Brazilian men were flying in a light aircraft at low altitude when another plane approached. It appears that they decided to moon the occupants of the other plane, but lost control of their own aircraft and crashed. They were all found dead in the wreckage with their pants around their ankles.

Semifinalist #3
A 22-year-old Reston , VA , man was found dead after he tried to use octopus straps to bungee jump off a 70-foot rail road trestle. Fairfax County police said Eric Barcia, a fast food worker, taped a bunch of these straps together, wrapped an end around one foot, anchored the other end to the trestle at Lake Accotink Park, jumped, and hit the pavement. Warren Carmichael, a police spokesman, said investigators think Barcia was alone because his car was found nearby. "The length of the cord that he had assembled was greater than the distance between the trestle and the ground," Carmichael said. Police say the apparent cause of death was "Major trauma."

Semifinalist #4
A man in Alabama died from rattlesnake bites. It seems that he and a friend were playing a game of catch, using the rattlesnake as a ball. The friend - no doubt a future Darwin Awards candidate - was hospitalized.

Semifinalist #5
Employees in a medium-sized warehouse in west Texas noticed the smell of a gas leak. Sensibly, management evacuated the building extinguishing all potential sources of ignition; lights, power, etc. After the building had been evacuated, two technicians from the gas company were dispatched. Upon entering the building, they found they had difficulty navigating in the dark. To their frustration, none of the lights worked. Witnesses later described the sight of one of the technicians reaching into his pocket and retrieving an object that resembled a cigarette lighter. Upon operation of the lighter-like object, the gas in the warehouse exploded, sending pieces of it up to three miles away. Nothing was found of the technicians, but the lighter was virtually untouched by the explosion. The technician suspected of causing the blast had never been thought of as ''bright'' by his peers.

Now ladies and gentleman, the winner of this year's Darwin Award:

The Arizona Highway Patrol came upon a pile of smoldering metal embedded in the side of a cliff rising above the road at the apex of a curve. The wreckage resembled the site of an airplane crash, but it was a car. The type of car was unidentifiable at the scene. Police investigators finally pieced together the mystery. An amateur rocket scientist had somehow gotten hold of a JATO unit (Jet Assisted Take Off, actually a solid fuel rocket) that is used to give heavy military transport planes an extra "push" for taking off from short airfields. He had driven his Chevy Impala out into the desert and found a long, straight stretch of road. He attached the JATO unit to the car, jumped in, got up some speed, and fired off the JATO! The facts as best as could be determined are that the operator of the 1967 Impala hit the JATO ignition at a distance of approximately 3.0 miles from the crash site. This was established by the scorched and melted asphalt at that location. The JATO, if operating properly, would have reached maximum thrust within 5 seconds, causing the Chevy to reach speeds well in excess of 350 mph and continuing at full power for an additional 20-25 seconds. The driver, and soon to be pilot, would have experienced G-forces usually reserved for dog fighting F-14 jocks under full afterburners, causing him to become irrelevant for the remainder of the event. However, the automobile remained on the straight highway for about 2.5 miles (15-20 seconds) before the driver applied and completely melted the brakes, blowing the tires and leaving thick rubber marks on the road surface, then becoming airborne for an additional 1.4 miles and impacting the cliff face at a height of 125 feet leaving a blackened crater 3 feet deep in the rock. Most of the driver's remains were not recoverable. However, small fragments of bone, teeth, and hair were extracted from the crater, and fingernail and bone shards were removed from a piece of debris believed to be a portion of the steering wheel.

Epilogue: It has been calculated that this moron attained a ground speed of approximately 420-mph, though much of his voyage was not on the ground.

PETERSBURG, Kentucky (Reuters) - Ken Ham's sprawling creation museum isn't even open yet, but an expansion is already underway in the state-of-the art lobby, where grunting dinosaurs and animatronic humans coexist in a Biblical paradise.

A crush of media attention and packed preview sessions have convinced Ham that nearly half a million people a year will come to Kentucky to see his Biblically correct version of history.
"I think we'll be surprised at how many people come," Ham said as he dodged dozens of designers working to finish exhibits in time for the May 28 opening.
The $27 million project, which also includes a planetarium, a special-effects theater, nature trails and a small lake, is privately funded by people who believe the Bible's first book, Genesis, is literally true.
For them, a museum showing Christian schoolchildren and skeptics alike how the earth, animals, dinosaurs and humans were created in a six-day period about 6,000 years ago -- not over millions of years, as evolutionary science says -- is long overdue.
While foreign media and science critics have mostly come to snigger at exhibits explaining how baby dinosaurs fit on Noah's Ark and Cain married his sister to people the earth, museum spokesman and vice-president Mark Looy said the coverage has done nothing but drum up more interest.
"Mocking publicity is free publicity," Looy said. Besides, U.S. media have been more respectful, mindful perhaps of a 2006 Gallup Poll showing almost half of Americans believe that humans did not evolve, but were created by God in their present form within the last 10,000 years.
Looy said supporters of the museum include evangelical Christians, Orthodox Jews and conservative Catholics, as well as the local Republican congressman, Geoff Davis (news, bio, voting record), and his family, who have toured the site.
FROM 'JAWS' TO EDEN
While the debate between creationists and mainstream scientists has bubbled up periodically in U.S. schools since before the Scopes "monkey trial" in nearby Tennessee 80 years ago, courts have repeatedly ruled that teaching religious theory in public schools is unconstitutional.
Ham, an Australian who moved to America 20 years ago, believes creationists could have presented a better case at the Scopes trail if they'd been better educated -- but he's not among those pushing for creation to be taught in school.
Rather than force skeptical teachers to debate creation, Ham wants kids to come to his museum, where impassioned experts can make their case that apparently ancient fossils and the Grand Canyon were created just a few thousand years ago in a great flood.
"It's not hitting them over the head with a Bible, it's just teaching that we can defend what it says," he said.
Ham, who also runs a Christian broadcasting and publishing venture, said the museum's Hollywood-quality exhibits set the project apart from the many quirky Creation museums sprinkled across America.
The museum's team of Christian designers include theme park art director Patrick Marsh, who designed the "Jaws" and "King Kong" attractions at Universal Studios in Florida, as well as dozens of young artists whose conviction drives their work.
"I think it shows (nonbelievers) the other side of things," said Carolyn Manto, 27, pausing in her work painting Ice Age figures for a display about caves in France.
"I don't think it's going to be forcing any viewpoint on them, but challenging them to think critically about their evolutionary views," said Manto, who studied classical sculpture before joining the museum.

Still, Looy is upfront about the museum's mission: to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ with nonbelievers.
"I think a lot of people are going to come out of curiosity ... and we're going to present the Gospel. This is going to be an evangelistic center," Looy said. A chaplain has been hired for museum-goers in need of spiritual guidance.
The museum's rural location near the border of Kentucky, Ohio and Indiana places it well within America's mostly conservative and Christian heartland. But the setting has another strategic purpose: two-thirds of Americans are within a day's drive of the site, and Cincinnati's international airport is minutes away.
The project has not been without opposition. Zoning battles with environmentalists and groups opposed to the museum's message have delayed construction and the museum's opening day has been delayed repeatedly. The museum has hired extra security and explosives-sniffing dogs to counter anonymous threats of damage to the building. "We've had some opposition," Looy said.

So, DB, the big question is: are you going to visit the place?

You can stay in my guest room DB!