Very warm, no modern day trees, no ice, high seas

[westwall]

I have traits I share with my parents and my children so I'd say I am transitional (and I'm certainly an old fossil).


You keep injecting a supernatural undertone so I think it is a reasonable reaction.

No we aren't. These are scientific terms, and positions. There is not one iota of religion in anything we have presented you liar.

 

[ding]

I have traits I share with my parents and my children so I'd say I am transitional (and I'm certainly an old fossil).


You keep injecting a supernatural undertone so I think it is a reasonable reaction.

You are misusing the term transitional fossil.

Can you show me a post of mine where you believe I used supernatural undertones?

 

[alang1216]

Of course there were predator/prey relationships from the beginning. That is self evident. Stromatolites are the oldest fossils out there, and THEY are evidence of predator/prey relationships going back billions of years. The question is WHAT was the pressure that caused hard parts to arise simultaneously all over the world. THAT is the question.

No, the question is, did hard parts convey a competitive advantage to those creatures that had them? If you consider millions of years to be "simultaneously" then you might ask what was the pressure that caused humans to arise simultaneously all over the world?

 

[ding]

Ain't it the truth. The clown clearly knows NOTHING about the subject. We, OTOH do, and we are bringing up scientific questions, and observations, which he has no basic understanding of, so he immediately resorts to calling us religious (which I am not, I am an avowed agnostic) nutters.

HE is the one pursuing religion. Not us.

What a loser.

Yep. 100%.

Darwin got some things wrong. That I know the things he got wrong and can discuss the things he got wrong does not mean I am arguing for special creative acts of God. It means there are explanations out there that better match observations; specifically genetic transference and slight successive changes leading to speciation. He got those wrong. Unfortunately, like global warming, anyone who dares challenge any aspect of his theory get shouted down by people who behave more like religious fundamentalists who feel like their religion is being attacked.

 

[alang1216]

You are misusing the term transitional fossil.

Can you show me a post of mine where you believe I used supernatural undertones?

"nature is connected in ways we can't imagine let alone understand"

Maybe I misunderstood but that seemed to imply some mysticism.

 

[ding]

you might ask what was the pressure that caused humans to arise simultaneously all over the world?

Ummmm... most likely an en mass genetic mutation which led to an opposable thumb, which led to increased spatial awareness, which led to the use of tools, which led to the use of fire to cook food, which led to the ability to increase their caloric intake, which led to an increased brain size.

Of course the central nervous systems of ALL mammals have evolved to be larger over time so who really knows.

Or does this have too many supernatural undertones for you?

 

[ding]

"nature is connected in ways we can't imagine let alone understand"

Maybe I misunderstood but that seemed to imply some mysticism.

Does nature appear to be connected to you or disconnected?

 

[ding]

No we aren't. These are scientific terms, and positions. There is not one iota of religion in anything we have presented you liar.

I may be confusing you with someone else but I thought you were agnostic.

Which I will add if that is true you would be the only true agnostic on these forums. Many claim they are but few walk the walk. You strike me as someone who does. You remind me of my wife in that way. She doesn't go any further than she'll find out when she gets there or maybe not. But she is extremely tolerant of others and I like that about her. She's a contributor on TheNewsBlender. The people she works with are pre-dominantly Christian. She loves them and they love her. Who could ask for more?

 

[ding]

There are certain aspects of life that are artifacts of life and not consequences of evolution. For instance all life is programmed to survive. Survival is not a product of evolution. It is an artifact of life. A response to a stimuli.

 

[westwall]

No, the question is, did hard parts convey a competitive advantage to those creatures that had them? If you consider millions of years to be "simultaneously" then you might ask what was the pressure that caused humans to arise simultaneously all over the world?

Nope. The hard parts most definitely DID convey an advantage because the fossil record pretty much begins with them. Yet again you don't understand the basic fundamentals of evolution. No, the question is WHY did hard parts simultaneously develop all over the world. There is no factual evidence that shows how much time was involved. The fossil record isn't that accurate, so your claim that it was millions o years is not supportable.

It is likely, but not supportable. You see that's the difference between a scientist, and a non scientist. We admit when we don't know things. We WANT to know. That's why we ask the questions, but people like you jump to conclusions which are not supported and are invariably found to be in error further down the road.

 

[westwall]

"nature is connected in ways we can't imagine let alone understand"

Maybe I misunderstood but that seemed to imply some mysticism.

Why? How fucking stupid are you? We don't even know what gravity is you retard. We don't understand MOST aspects of the physical world.

 

[westwall]

I may be confusing you with someone else but I thought you were agnostic.

Which I will add if that is true you would be the only true agnostic on these forums. Many claim they are but few walk the walk. You strike me as someone who does. You remind me of my wife in that way. She doesn't go any further than she'll find out when she gets there or maybe not. But she is extremely tolerant of others and I like that about her. She's a contributor on TheNewsBlender. The people she works with are pre-dominantly Christian. She loves them and they love her. Who could ask for more?

Yes, I am a bonafide agnostic. I have no problem with religious people at all. They are merely seeking what I seek, just from a different angle. Radical atheists though, sheesh. I can't stand them.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The fossil record is actually very sparse. The Cambrian Period is the first time hard parts appear. Before that the world was populated by jellyfishes and other soft bodied critters that we have no fossil record of.

Figure out how and why critters developed hard shells (a miraculous happening) all over the world simultaneously, and you have an instant PhD.

Yes, I am a bonafide agnostic. I have no problem with religious people at all. They are merely seeking what I seek, just from a different angle. Radical atheists though, sheesh. I can't stand them.

What makes them "radical"? Or is this just a case of complaining about scary words...?

 

[ding]

What makes them "radical"? Or is this just a case of complaining about scary words...?

They condemn respect for people of faith. It's what you do on a daily basis... from behind the safety of your keyboard.

 

[ding]

alang1216

What Darwin Got Wrong - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Evolution: Library: What Darwin Didn't Know: Gregor Mendel and the Mechanism of Heredity

www.pbs.org

 

[alang1216]

Ummmm... most likely an en mass genetic mutation which led to an opposable thumb, which led to increased spatial awareness, which led to the use of tools, which led to the use of fire to cook food, which led to the ability to increase their caloric intake, which led to an increased brain size.

Of course the central nervous systems of ALL mammals have evolved to be larger over time so who really knows.

Or does this have too many supernatural undertones for you?

Not sure what an en mass genetic mutation is?

 

[alang1216]

Does nature appear to be connected to you or disconnected?

I don't think nature cares about me one way or the other.

 

[alang1216]

Nope. The hard parts most definitely DID convey an advantage because the fossil record pretty much begins with them. Yet again you don't understand the basic fundamentals of evolution. No, the question is WHY did hard parts simultaneously develop all over the world. There is no factual evidence that shows how much time was involved. The fossil record isn't that accurate, so your claim that it was millions o years is not supportable.

It is likely, but not supportable. You see that's the difference between a scientist, and a non scientist. We admit when we don't know things. We WANT to know. That's why we ask the questions, but people like you jump to conclusions which are not supported and are invariably found to be in error further down the road.

You say "There is no evidence that shows how much time was involved" but you also claim the hard parts developed simultaneously. If you are a scientist, please explain the apparent contradiction to this non-scientist.

 

[alang1216]

Why? How fucking stupid are you? We don't even know what gravity is you retard. We don't understand MOST aspects of the physical world.

I've conversed with ding before and I seem to recall a mystical theme in his posts.

 

[alang1216]

alang1216

What Darwin Got Wrong - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Evolution: Library: What Darwin Didn't Know: Gregor Mendel and the Mechanism of Heredity

www.pbs.org

Darwin got lots of stuff wrong, especially when he applied his theories to man's evolution. His initial work was a masterpiece but each one after was worse than the one before.