Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
03-24-2003, 09:59 PM | #721 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Memphis, TN
Posts: 6,004
|
Quote:
I have learnt that... no wait, thats not it... |
|
03-26-2003, 05:45 PM | #722 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Just another hick from the sticks.
Posts: 1,108
|
Quote:
doov |
|
03-27-2003, 08:20 AM | #723 |
Regular Member
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Western U.S.A.
Posts: 293
|
650,000 posts just to get to "infinite regression"?
Oy... |
03-30-2003, 08:35 PM | #724 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: SC
Posts: 5,908
|
Quote:
No, since we know that Homo "erectus" is actually Homo sapiens (remember the Kow Swamp fossils article?), there is a huge difference especially in the key area of avg brain size between homo sapiens and Australopithicines. And the so-called transitional "whale" is plainly 100% whale with rear claspers. And I have already dealt with the other transitions you mention earlier in this thread. Quote:
|
||
03-30-2003, 11:17 PM | #725 |
Contributor
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Lebanon, OR, USA
Posts: 16,829
|
Ed:
No, since we know that Homo "erectus" is actually Homo sapiens (remember the Kow Swamp fossils article?), I don't see how the Kow Swamp fossils imply that Homo erectus == Homo sapiens. Try looking at the Turkana Boy some time -- his skull is too different from present-day human skulls (no chin, prominent brow ridges, low forehead). Furthermore, Homo erectus never made tools as fancy as even the earliest Homo sapiens has made. H. erectus made Acheulian-style handaxes and other tools for nearly the whole existence of the species, from ~1.8 m years to ~400,000 years, while even the earliest H. sapiens tools show regional variation. Also H. erectus did not have much of an artistic muse -- there are no cave paintings that can reasonably be attributed to H. erectus. there is a huge difference especially in the key area of avg brain size between homo sapiens and Australopithicines. Such species as H. erectus and H. habilis nicely bridge the gap. And I think that Ed is working from the work of creationist Lubenow; that would seem apparent from this discussion of Homo erectus. However, other creationists disagree, as this creationist-evaluation-comparison page shows. And the so-called transitional "whale" is plainly 100% whale with rear claspers. How so? Ambulocetus and the like have rather big "claspers". |
03-31-2003, 02:02 AM | #726 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 5,815
|
Ed:
Ambulocetus was basically the mammalian eqivalent of a crocodile. From here: Quote:
|
|
04-02-2003, 08:09 PM | #727 | |||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: SC
Posts: 5,908
|
Quote:
Hello Nightshade. No, it is called rational explanation of the gaps argument. Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
04-03-2003, 03:13 AM | #728 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 5,815
|
Quote:
And, yes, their legs gradually become fins in later forms: you obviously know this already, because you mentioned whales with "grippers". So you're lying again. |
|
04-03-2003, 03:56 AM | #729 |
Contributor
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Alibi: ego ipse hinc extermino
Posts: 12,591
|
Ambulocetus natans:
And it having hooves is relevant to where it lived, how? Please explain, then, why the (not closely related) dugongs and manatees have toenails. I suggest you look into these buggers’ ears. (I’d tell you about them now, but, typically, I took my copy of Carroll’s Patterns and Processes home yesterday after using it on the BBC’s forum ) DT (Edited for stupid tyop) |
04-03-2003, 04:43 AM | #730 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Just another hick from the sticks.
Posts: 1,108
|
Quote:
Surely, bro, you can do better than this. As for whale evolution, it is well documented. I'd put up a link or two, but I think they've already in this thread.... somewhere..... in the rambling, bewildering streams and sloughs of our conversations. (sigh) doov |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|