the age of the earth

[SlyPokerDog]

Actually, not.

Dog breeds are primarily man-made:

Dogs have been selectively bred for thousands of years, sometimes by inbreeding dogs from the same ancestral lines, sometimes by mixing dogs from very different lines. The process continues today, resulting in a wide variety of breeds, hybrids and types of dog. Dogs are the only animal with such a wide variation in appearance without speciation, "from the Chihuahua to the Great Dane".

Maris61 should know, he's been breeding dogs since before Moses.

 

[magnifier661]

Actually, not.

Dog breeds are primarily man-made:

Dogs have been selectively bred for thousands of years, sometimes by inbreeding dogs from the same ancestral lines, sometimes by mixing dogs from very different lines. The process continues today, resulting in a wide variety of breeds, hybrids and types of dog. Dogs are the only animal with such a wide variation in appearance without speciation, "from the Chihuahua to the Great Dane".

That's a total contridiction! Asians, Africans, latins and Anglo Saxons are just examples of micro evolution and man has made them as well. Are you saying different races of humans are not classified in micro evolution?

 

[Denny Crane]

That's a total contridiction! Asians, Africans, latins and Anglo Saxons are just examples of micro evolution and man has made them as well. Are you saying different races of humans are not classified in micro evolution?

Wow.

Asians, Africans, Latins, and Anglo Saxons have nothing to do with macro or micro evolution. We're all 99.999999999999999999% the same, and we can all be traced back to a small number of common HUMAN ancestors.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Hey Mags, here is a link to what we were talking about on the phone - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaur

 

[tlongII]

Okay since it was only directed to tlong and seems to be ignored by the others; I don't know why. Here is is:

long said there is piles and piles of evidence to support evolution.

No there isn't. Stop using DOGMA in this thread. Show me a FishaDino fossil. How about a DinoRat? What about a ReptiPrimate? Then show me multiple samples. There are millions of fossil records and not a single shred of proof of mid evolution of species.

And let me add; science doesn't need one instance. It needs hundreds if not thousands out of the millions of fossils to prove to be irrefutable.

Dogma my ass. Apparently you ignore examples from the fossil record.

 

[magnifier661]

Wow.

Asians, Africans, Latins, and Anglo Saxons have nothing to do with macro or micro evolution. We're all 99.999999999999999999% the same, and we can all be traced back to a small number of common HUMAN ancestors.

Excuse me?

http://www.counter-currents.com/2010/10/macroevolution-microevolution-race/

http://www.understandingrace.org/resources/pdf/myth_reality/long.pdf

 

[Denny Crane]

Excuse me?

http://www.counter-currents.com/2010/10/macroevolution-microevolution-race/

http://www.understandingrace.org/resources/pdf/myth_reality/long.pdf

I read it. It's hogwash, and borderline racist.

 

[RR7]

I read it. It's hogwash, and borderline racist.

Well, on the same site, they also have this nice bit on MLK:

Well friends, he is not a legitimate reverend, he is not a bona fide PhD, and his name isn’t really “Martin Luther King, Jr.” What’s left? Just a sexual degenerate, an America-hating Communist, and a criminal betrayer of even the interests of his own people.

I'd maybe look elsewhere.

 

[RR7]

Wow, what a giant piece of trash mags. I hope you happened on that site accidentally, and aren't a frequent reader.

While it would be nice to know for sure whether a person was white or not simply by looking at or interacting with them—and often, of course, one does know—I’m certain whites can’t consistently discriminate accurately on this basis alone, especially as the racial situation continues to deteriorate. Walking down the street, strolling through a store, or watching movies or television, I often can’t tell the difference.

And, like the last three, I am convinced that Jews must be excluded from the “white” category. For the genocidal assault upon our race is primarily the consequence of post-WWII Jewish fanaticism, racism, ideology, and social power.

nice anti-semitic racist site you're using as a reference.

 

[Pokemanzdood]

No there isn't. Stop using DOGMA in this thread. Show me a FishaDino fossil. How about a DinoRat? What about a ReptiPrimate? Then show me multiple samples. There are millions of fossil records and not a single shred of proof of mid evolution of species.

There's no "fishadino" because the first creatures that made the transition to land were amphibians. It wasn't for a long time after that that the "dinosaur" came to be. And really, dinosaurs are a poor group, many things are lumped in with them that are not dinosaurs, this has happened because a lot of the early research done on them was done by geologists who know little to nothing about biology. There is no "dinorat" fossil because mammals rose from mammal like reptiles, this lineage predates the dinosaurs. This is the same reason there isn't a "reptiprimate". The primate group is relatively new, and it came from an existant mammal group not the mammal like reptiles. The fossil record we have is plenty good to validate evolution. We will never have the "day by day" record that creationists seem to think is needed. This is for several reasons, fossilization is a fairly rare occurance itself, add to that that some environments are just not conducive to fossilization. So there will be gaps, any good scientist will admit that.

 

[magnifier661]

There's no "fishadino" because the first creatures that made the transition to land were amphibians. It wasn't for a long time after that that the "dinosaur" came to be. And really, dinosaurs are a poor group, many things are lumped in with them that are not dinosaurs, this has happened because a lot of the early research done on them was done by geologists who know little to nothing about biology. There is no "dinorat" fossil because mammals rose from mammal like reptiles, this lineage predates the dinosaurs. This is the same reason there isn't a "reptiprimate". The primate group is relatively new, and it came from an existant mammal group not the mammal like reptiles. The fossil record we have is plenty good to validate evolution. We will never have the "day by day" record that creationists seem to think is needed. This is for several reasons, fossilization is a fairly rare occurance itself, add to that that some environments are just not conducive to fossilization. So there will be gaps, any good scientist will admit that.

You do know that was a figurative example. Basically the species was class and the transformation was theorized. So when the evolution took place, there had to be fossils of different classifications or maybe cousins of evolution. Basically the feline taking shape, or canines or whatever. All these possibilities and millions of fossils found yet only a very small sample size of anything resembling macro evolution.

 

[Pokemanzdood]

You do know that was a figurative example. Basically the species was class and the transformation was theorized. So when the evolution took place, there had to be fossils of different classifications or maybe cousins of evolution. Basically the feline taking shape, or canines or whatever. All these possibilities and millions of fossils found yet only a very small sample size of anything resembling macro evolution.

One of the best documented transitions we have is that of mammal like reptiles into mammals. You can trace the lineage by the fossils of skulls and jaws fairly easily. Mammals and mammal like reptiles are/were both synapsids (certain type of skull morphology). We (mammals) developed ears with a 3 bone setup, allowing us to hear better than reptiles, reptiles have a 1 bone setup yet the 2 extra bones that migrated to our ears can still be located in reptile jaws. I'm not the best at explaining these things so I apologize in advance if I make them extra confusing.

 

[magnifier661]

One of the best documented transitions we have is that of mammal like reptiles into mammals. You can trace the lineage by the fossils of skulls and jaws fairly easily. Mammals and mammal like reptiles are/were both synapsids (certain type of skull morphology). We (mammals) developed ears with a 3 bone setup, allowing us to hear better than reptiles, reptiles have a 1 bone setup yet the 2 extra bones that migrated to our ears can still be located in reptile jaws. I'm not the best at explaining these things so I apologize in advance if I make them extra confusing.

I am open to learn about this finding. Would you mind giving me the article?

 

[Pokemanzdood]

I am open to learn about this finding. Would you mind giving me the article?

I'll dig up some articles for ya, might take a bit, I've got access to academic journals through school so it might be hard to find scholarly articles open to the public.

 

[magnifier661]

I'll dig up some articles for ya, might take a bit, I've got access to academic journals through school so it might be hard to find scholarly articles open to the public.

No call out buddy. I will give you 100% attention and time to get it for me.

 

[Pokemanzdood]

I came up with a few, other than the last one they're dense and pretty long. None of it's very exciting so don't feel obligated to read them haha

http://www.eebweb.arizona.edu/Courses/Ecol485_585/Readings/Crompton_and_Parker_1978.pdf
This one's a little old but had some descriptions that I thought were fairly straight forward and easy to understand

http://www.yale.edu/ypmip/predation/Chapter_10.pdf
Newer, but doesn't focus much on the ear structures I was talking about. They mention it in the section titled "NON-MAMMALIAN
SYNAPSID PREDATORS:LONG-TERM TRENDS" And give the sources of that information in case you have access to those articles.

http://www.cdb.riken.jp/emo/pub/pdf/Takechi_10314.pdf
This last one is kind of a review of what we know.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fossil-reveals-ear-evolution-in-action
this one's not as scholarly but Is way shorter and a much easier read than the rest

 

[Denny Crane]

I read it. It's hogwash, and borderline racist.

I take back the "borderline" part.

I didn't bother to read all of it once I got the gist.

 

[magnifier661]

I take back the "borderline" part.

I didn't bother to read all of it once I got the gist.

I don't agree with it as a racist standard; but why does it hold exception? This is why I think evolution is dangerous. This is how someone can use evolution to brainwash people to racial genocide. Do you think race is an exception or maybe race blending will make the ultimate race? It's no different of a human eventually getting nba player tall because it gives them an evolutionary advantage.

People talk that religion is dangerous because there could be a religious prejudice to wipe out another religious belief. This same kind of thinking can be used for evolution. This becomes a very slippery slope. So what if the difference is .999999999999% difference. It's a difference and like many evolutionist believe; this is a gradual process. Meaning that difference being applied for hundreds of thousands of years can make a significant change with minor genetic mutations?

And forgive me if I sound racist. I am hardly that. Actually it's impossible for me to act like that because I would be considered a bastard to that standard either way. I am half Asian and white. But I'm not afraid to draft what micro evolution really is. If I'm wrong than please explane why. Do you really think humanity is done evolving? So if we are, then it tosses out everything about the term infinite beginning and infinite end. It also hypothetically could prove there is intelligent design. If we aren't don't evolving because our physical evolution cannot cease to evolve.

This is a touchy possibility and many naturalists do not want to explore this because of how sensitive it is.

 

[magnifier661]

I came up with a few, other than the last one they're dense and pretty long. None of it's very exciting so don't feel obligated to read them haha

http://www.eebweb.arizona.edu/Courses/Ecol485_585/Readings/Crompton_and_Parker_1978.pdf
This one's a little old but had some descriptions that I thought were fairly straight forward and easy to understand

http://www.yale.edu/ypmip/predation/Chapter_10.pdf
Newer, but doesn't focus much on the ear structures I was talking about. They mention it in the section titled "NON-MAMMALIAN
SYNAPSID PREDATORS:LONG-TERM TRENDS" And give the sources of that information in case you have access to those articles.

http://www.cdb.riken.jp/emo/pub/pdf/Takechi_10314.pdf
This last one is kind of a review of what we know.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fossil-reveals-ear-evolution-in-action
this one's not as scholarly but Is way shorter and a much easier read than the rest

Dude that's a lot of reading material. I will need some time to read all the material, so give me time to respond please. I will promise that I read all of it though and make comments on each article. I just may agree with them too. I just can't say one way or another. Fair?

 

[magnifier661]

I came up with a few, other than the last one they're dense and pretty long. None of it's very exciting so don't feel obligated to read them haha

http://www.eebweb.arizona.edu/Courses/Ecol485_585/Readings/Crompton_and_Parker_1978.pdf
This one's a little old but had some descriptions that I thought were fairly straight forward and easy to understand

http://www.yale.edu/ypmip/predation/Chapter_10.pdf
Newer, but doesn't focus much on the ear structures I was talking about. They mention it in the section titled "NON-MAMMALIAN
SYNAPSID PREDATORS:LONG-TERM TRENDS" And give the sources of that information in case you have access to those articles.

http://www.cdb.riken.jp/emo/pub/pdf/Takechi_10314.pdf
This last one is kind of a review of what we know.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fossil-reveals-ear-evolution-in-action
this one's not as scholarly but Is way shorter and a much easier read than the rest

Dude that's a lot of reading material. I will need some time to read all the material, so give me time to respond please. I will promise that I read all of it though and make comments on each article. I just may agree with them too. I just can't say one way or another. Fair?

 

[Denny Crane]

I don't agree with it as a racist standard; but why does it hold exception? This is why I think evolution is dangerous. This is how someone can use evolution to brainwash people to racial genocide. Do you think race is an exception or maybe race blending will make the ultimate race? It's no different of a human eventually getting nba player tall because it gives them an evolutionary advantage.

People talk that religion is dangerous because there could be a religious prejudice to wipe out another religious belief. This same kind of thinking can be used for evolution. This becomes a very slippery slope. So what if the difference is .999999999999% difference. It's a difference and like many evolutionist believe; this is a gradual process. Meaning that difference being applied for hundreds of thousands of years can make a significant change with minor genetic mutations?

And forgive me if I sound racist. I am hardly that. Actually it's impossible for me to act like that because I would be considered a bastard to that standard either way. I am half Asian and white. But I'm not afraid to draft what micro evolution really is. If I'm wrong than please explane why. Do you really think humanity is done evolving? So if we are, then it tosses out everything about the term infinite beginning and infinite end. It also hypothetically could prove there is intelligent design. If we aren't don't evolving because our physical evolution cannot cease to evolve.

This is a touchy possibility and many naturalists do not want to explore this because of how sensitive it is.

The links you had me read are racist. I am guessing you innocently googled and found them, as if they somehow prove some point you were trying to make. The differences between "races" of humans are so slight that the variation is less for humans than for other species. Far less. As far as I'm concerned, and the science strongly supports it, the only difference between people who look different is skin pigment or other incredibly minor differences.

Do I think Man is done evolving? Hardly. The issue is Man is intelligent and it becomes an interesting philosophical question of whether he is interfering with evolution or whether evolution must consider intelligence.

For example, we cross breed corn to achieve certain characteristics that benefit us. The corn likely would not have turned out like it does if left to its own. Is the corn better surviving because it's more appealing to us, or have we radically altered the evolutionary path so it's less relevant?

The same kind of thing affects Man himself. We breed selectively based upon what we deem choice characteristics, and so on.

 

[magnifier661]

The links you had me read are racist. I am guessing you innocently googled and found them, as if they somehow prove some point you were trying to make. The differences between "races" of humans are so slight that the variation is less for humans than for other species. Far less. As far as I'm concerned, and the science strongly supports it, the only difference between people who look different is skin pigment or other incredibly minor differences.

Do I think Man is done evolving? Hardly. The issue is Man is intelligent and it becomes an interesting philosophical question of whether he is interfering with evolution or whether evolution must consider intelligence.

For example, we cross breed corn to achieve certain characteristics that benefit us. The corn likely would not have turned out like it does if left to its own. Is the corn better surviving because it's more appealing to us, or have we radically altered the evolutionary path so it's less relevant?

The same kind of thing affects Man himself. We breed selectively based upon what we deem choice characteristics, and so on.

I like that response and it makes great sense. So are you saying the mind is evolving? Maybe physically, and sorry but this was the only word that made sense, "spiritually"? And this evolution, has designed us to actually defeat the actual boundaries of evolution? Be it designing or genetically altering food, environment and science itself?

 

[Denny Crane]

As I see it, the earth is 4.5B years old, life formed just a few hundred million years into that 4.5B, and evolution has been mostly doing its thing ever since.

There have always been external forces that have altered the path of evolution. There have been a number of natural disasters that caused near extinction of every species, a reset of sorts. The extinction of every single being of nearly every single species.

These disasters run the gamut from volcanoes to vast forest fires to asteroids hitting the earth.

There have been geological and chemical processes that had effect as well. Like plants and algae creating enough oxygen in the atmosphere to make it possible for life to take to land.

None of those things had any intelligent agent involved. It was pure luck, and destined to happen because of the sheer number of years involved and the way things like celestial mechanics work. Like, it's just a matter of time before the earth and some other celestial body end up in the same place at the same time.

Only Man has shown any ability to intelligently alter the progression of things. And in the 4.5B year scene of things, it's a very recent thing. Maybe for the past 1M years (note: far longer than 6,000!).

Wild goats on an island will eat every bit of vegetation until there's nothing left and they starve to death. Even primitive humans figured out agriculture and to plant crops, harvest them, and rotate planting in the fields. The goats is evolution at work.

Evolution does its thing still, as man cannot control or affect everything everywhere. We see flu viruses adapt to our vaccines - a mutation exactly described by evolution.

 

[magnifier661]

As I see it, the earth is 4.5B years old, life formed just a few hundred million years into that 4.5B, and evolution has been mostly doing its thing ever since.

There have always been external forces that have altered the path of evolution. There have been a number of natural disasters that caused near extinction of every species, a reset of sorts. The extinction of every single being of nearly every single species.

These disasters run the gamut from volcanoes to vast forest fires to asteroids hitting the earth.

There have been geological and chemical processes that had effect as well. Like plants and algae creating enough oxygen in the atmosphere to make it possible for life to take to land.

None of those things had any intelligent agent involved. It was pure luck, and destined to happen because of the sheer number of years involved and the way things like celestial mechanics work. Like, it's just a matter of time before the earth and some other celestial body end up in the same place at the same time.

Only Man has shown any ability to intelligently alter the progression of things. And in the 4.5B year scene of things, it's a very recent thing. Maybe for the past 1M years (note: far longer than 6,000!).

Wild goats on an island will eat every bit of vegetation until there's nothing left and they starve to death. Even primitive humans figured out agriculture and to plant crops, harvest them, and rotate planting in the fields. The goats is evolution at work.

Evolution does its thing still, as man cannot control or affect everything everywhere. We see flu viruses adapt to our vaccines - a mutation exactly described by evolution.

And like I posted above this; the next dimension of thinking is "man can alter evolution" and notice I even put your "note" in with this. I am asking the question, giving you the benefit of the doubt about evolution. I am not admitting I believe in it, nor am I admitting I disagree with the Earth being (6,000 years old). Nor am I admitting that maybe, just maybe, what was told to a people with no sense of science and time was much more important to them; could imagine that 6,000 years is a very fucking long time.

Try explaining physics to a sheep herder with no modern education. Hell try explaining how to fly to someone in the 17th century. But then look back at an artist like Da Vinci; designing possible flying apparatus. Regardless, science is a damn good tool to find truths. I will never discredit it.

What is really intriguing is our ability to make DNA or RNA; that is using life of course in modern science. Can you imagine in 50 years, how much more advanced we will become? Can we grow a new strand of breathing species? Have we already? Does that mean we can play God? Can we inject moral code into new babies or even "tigers" like the ones that evolutionists believe was passed through an evolutionary process? The only sad thing I feel about "Atheism" is eventually life ends. Eventually the universe will end. Eventually all of these studies and advancements will end. Everything that we see is beautiful will be nothing? That's too hard for me to accept. Maybe it's the romantic or artist in me.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

can a cloned human get to heaven? what about a half shark alligator half man?

if a modified human clone is 10% human can it still get to the great beyond?

 

[Denny Crane]

It's not clear that the universe ends. What is clear is that we are made of the products of the stars, and we will eventually be turned into the stuff of some new star.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

doesnt everything get sucked back up into another big bang eventually?

 

[magnifier661]

can a cloned human get to heaven? what about a half shark alligator half man?

if a modified human clone is 10% human can it still get to the great beyond?

I don't know because it hasn't happened yet. Do we even know if we clone a human they maybe without a soul. What if that cloned human didn't have humanistic behavior you and I or anyone else for that matter has? Could this be a way that we can prove we have a soul? Maybe we should try to clone a human and find out.

I'm open are you? How would you explain it if I'm right? What that toss out all those studies about morality being evolved through behavioral issues and passed through DNA. But I think the study would need to be on creating a human from nothing. Like not using existing DNA from a living man. You must make man out of nothing. That is atheism. There is no soul and life didn't exist from life, but from intimate objects that eventually became life.

It's that chicken before the egg thinking, if you know what I mean.

 

[magnifier661]

doesnt everything get sucked back up into another big bang eventually?

That isn't a popular belief.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

no, if we cloned you mags, and they were exactly like you and believed in jesus, would they go to heaven?