- Status
Y
You
Guest
What did I say?
L
Lui
Guest
Why don’t you just post a link to a geology website(should be easy because according to you it’s a common geological fact) that claims that all parts of the earth were once covered by water. It would be much easier:thumbsup:Dont’t you remember what I said about England? Now move on to your next region.
Y
You
Guest
The land that eventually would produce Mt. Shasta along with many other volcanoes was under water, the same as everywhere else at one point or another.
Here, knock yourself out, not literally though: water, water, everywhere.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Would you agree that all beliefs, thoughts, emotions, intuitions, inspirations, choices and decisions have been ultimately caused by neuronal activity?
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Emergent phenomena cannot simply be reduced to neuronal activity.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
You stated in post # 1654 that “every bit of land on earths globe was covered by water at some stage or another. That is modern geological fact.”
This is flat-out false. I’ve spent a lot of time on Mt. Shasta, Haleakala, at Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, and on numerous other volcanoes. All of this is geologically new land, never covered with water, utterly devoid of marine fossils.
Sorry to break the news to you.
StAnastasia
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Mt. Shasta in northern California began to form around 593,000 years ago, at least 585,000 years before the legendary zoological outing of “Noah.” Shasta has never been covered with water other than rain and snow. There are no marine fossils within 8,000 vertical feet of its 14,179 foot summit.
E
epiphany08
Guest
I have a question for those whom are well versed in science and evolution.
Why is it that according to science, this planet that we currently co-habit has been around for several billion years with the earliest intelligent species, mammals and dinosaurs having had existence 250M years ago while we, human kind, have really only been around for a much shorter time and am able to learn, grow, adapt, and flourish so much quicker within our short time span. Dinosaurs enjoyed 200M years of evolution. How many years of evolution have human kind enjoyed? Why is it that having evolved for 200M years, they were still unable to operate as intelligently as we do today. What causes these discrepancies? If you say environment then please explain.
Assuming I acknowledge evolution in terms of how most scientists think of it and that is that we were derived from the ape family and the ape family was derived from another family and so forth. What led to the evolution of dinosaurs, which species in particular? How did small organisms, scorpians, beetles,and other species during that timeframe develop into something 1000000X bigger with no fossil of anything inbetween to justify such an evolution. Not considering the short time frame this was done. By what standard is a organism considered to be related to another organism in terms of species, class, group, family, etc. DNA? Similar attributes? Has the human DNA evolved since first documenting it?
What classifies having evolved vs. adapting. Everything adapts to fit the current needs but will it eventually evolve into something else entirely? The constant use of our brains and the minimal requirement for handy work may adapt us into a body structure with less muscle tone and a bigger cranium. When has a organism completely “evolved” into a different organism altogether. Grasshoppers & locusts are similar yet have difference. Why classify them in the same group, based on what? Do they have a common ancestor? How is it known that it is a common ancestor? DNA, similar attributes, or maybe just because it was a earlier version so we assume it must be a earlier ancestor?
Excuse my ignorance of the subject, my goal is to try and understand, not to prove a point on which I have limited knowledge on.
Why is it that according to science, this planet that we currently co-habit has been around for several billion years with the earliest intelligent species, mammals and dinosaurs having had existence 250M years ago while we, human kind, have really only been around for a much shorter time and am able to learn, grow, adapt, and flourish so much quicker within our short time span. Dinosaurs enjoyed 200M years of evolution. How many years of evolution have human kind enjoyed? Why is it that having evolved for 200M years, they were still unable to operate as intelligently as we do today. What causes these discrepancies? If you say environment then please explain.
Assuming I acknowledge evolution in terms of how most scientists think of it and that is that we were derived from the ape family and the ape family was derived from another family and so forth. What led to the evolution of dinosaurs, which species in particular? How did small organisms, scorpians, beetles,and other species during that timeframe develop into something 1000000X bigger with no fossil of anything inbetween to justify such an evolution. Not considering the short time frame this was done. By what standard is a organism considered to be related to another organism in terms of species, class, group, family, etc. DNA? Similar attributes? Has the human DNA evolved since first documenting it?
What classifies having evolved vs. adapting. Everything adapts to fit the current needs but will it eventually evolve into something else entirely? The constant use of our brains and the minimal requirement for handy work may adapt us into a body structure with less muscle tone and a bigger cranium. When has a organism completely “evolved” into a different organism altogether. Grasshoppers & locusts are similar yet have difference. Why classify them in the same group, based on what? Do they have a common ancestor? How is it known that it is a common ancestor? DNA, similar attributes, or maybe just because it was a earlier version so we assume it must be a earlier ancestor?
Excuse my ignorance of the subject, my goal is to try and understand, not to prove a point on which I have limited knowledge on.
Y
You
Guest
Thats a silly thing to say. My house was never covered by the sea, nor was my dog, if I had one. Nor was my tuff sculpture from Sicily. Before any of your volcanoes existed the very same land they were to emerge on later was under the sea.
Y
You
Guest
During the Ordovician period all of North-West, West and Southern North America was covered by a shallow sea, it covered most of the continent, depositing limestones, shales, and sandstones.
T
tonyrey
Guest
I
inocente
Guest
One of my more geekish hobbies is googling sentences, as it sometimes finds truly amazing coincidences.
or:
I
inocente
Guest
What other factors do you think should be included?
Y
You
Guest
I do not know what you are talking about. I quoted geology of north america from public, freely available geology related websites. You find this information anywhere, as I keep telling you all. They were tailored and expanded on to suit St. A’s specific question about a particular volcanic mountain range. None have anything to do with www.irc.org. The first time I heard of that website was from St. A and yourself. Please stop trying to associate me with websites I have never heard of. If only Lui, St.A and yourself would do the googling research yourselves into geology you could answer your own questions. All of this information is freely available to the public in any geology book, as I keep saying.
Y
You
Guest
That is actually the link I directed St.A to to help her with her volcano issues.
[water, water, everywhere](Originally at http://www.paleoportal.org/index.php...d&period_id=15)
You are trying to make it sound like I am using geology web resources, Innocent. Oh my Gog! :whacky:
I
inocente
Guest
It was you who said you quoted from websites, as per:
No one would associate you with websites you don’t quote if you linked the ones you do quote. In any event when quoting from a website it’s always worth including the link – it avoids any charge of plagiarism, lets readers read more if they wish, and many websites, even free sites, are copyrighted and their terms of fair use normally require an acknowledgement of authorship. You might not worry about legalities but there will be a member of staff at CAF who does.
You still haven’t said why you brought up any of this “when it rains things get wet” business in the first place. We all got taught the geology at school, we don’t need to research it, we don’t need any questions answered, we know the stuff and have done for years. It is an ex-parrot. 'E’s passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E’s expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E’s a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn’t nailed 'im to the perch 'e’d be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E’s off the twig! 'E’s kicked the bucket, 'e’s shuffled off ‘is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin’ choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!! – Dead Parrot Sketch, Monty Python - mtholyoke.edu/~ebarnes/python/dead-parrot.htm
G
grannymh
Guest
I am not “well versed” in science and evolution. So I will answer from what I have learned about science and evolution since landing on CAF.
The discrepancies reside in the nature of each individual species.
From this point on, one has to separate human nature from the ordinary plan of evolution. This is because human nature in itself unites *both *the material world *and *the spiritual world. Scientists examine the material world which includes anatomies.
Catholicism examines the whole person.
The idea of direct descent by family has been expanded by using a broader classification (cladistics). This diagrams the development of species from common ancestors. Common ancestors diverged into different lines of species which again diverged or branched into further individual species. As to where dinosaurs fit in, you can check this website.
evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php
They didn’t. The theory is that the distinctions between various groups of vertebrates, for example, developed early in the game thus creating separate populations and a variety of lines leading to various groupings of species. See link above. Again, remember that our total human nature falls outside of science per se.
The standard for relationships is based on genetic similarities. Obviously, vertebrates, human anatomy included, will have genetic similarities. Obviously, the similarities stop at the material anatomy. In order to understand human nature, one has to accept the concept of the spiritual principle known as the soul.
This is a constant debate among scientists. Essentially, one needs to study the individual species.
The debate is between macro evolution and micro evolution. Human beings, because the spiritual soul does not evolve but is directly created by God, are outside of this debate.
The use of human intellective power and will places the human species outside of the confines of materialism. The link above determines common ancestors based on genetic similarities. Please note that there are 20,000 to 25,000 genes in the human person. Obviously, there is a lot more to the human person than similar bones.
It is most important to understand that science is in the material realm. As such, scientists are free to explore the makeup of anatomies including human anatomies.
As such, science has benefited society in many ways. Science and scientists deserve sincere respect.
It is also important to understand that human nature includes the spiritual soul – we are in the image of God in that we have the capability to share eternally in God’s life.
Catholicism, as founded by Jesus Christ, True God and True Man, is the ultimate guide for understanding the whole person.
Note: this link evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01
given by Rossum is part of the link I gave.
R
rossum
Guest
What do you mean by “human kind”? Genus Homo first appeared about 2.4 million years ago, and includes a number of different species. Our particular species, Homo sapiens appeared about 200,000 years ago. Dinosaurs are a much larger group with over 1,000 different species of non-avian dinosaurs and 9,000 species of birds (birds are dinosaurs) known. You are not comparing like with like. “Dinosaur” is very roughly comparable with “Placental Mammal”
Birds are certainly able to operate intelligently, some crows have even been seen to make tools. While not as intelligent as humans, they certainly exhibit intelligence. Birds can (usually) fly better than we can, they have specialised in flight rather than on a large brain.
A large brain comes at a cost - our brain takes a lot of energy to run. If that cost justifies itself in terms of offspring then the cost is paid. If the cost is not justified then those genes disappear from the population’s gene pool. Different organisms specialise in different things. Sharks are far more effective underwater then we are.
You need to study evolution more closely. Scorpions and beetles are arthopods. Dinosaurs and mammals are tetrapods. Tetrapods derived from amphibians, such as Tiktaalik and Acanthostega. They tended to be about three feet long. We have good fossil records leading from early amphibians to both Dinosaurs and Mammals. Search for Synapsids (mammalian ancestors) and Diapsids (Dinosaur ancestors).
When Linnaeus started work in the Eighteenth centuy, all there was to go on was appearance. Once DNA was discovered, then that was used as well. One of the indications that the tree we have is correct is that the old Linnaean tree matches the DNA tree to within twelve decimal places.
Yes, given that no child is ever genetically identical to its parents. Traits like HIV-resistance are increasing in the population. There has been no significant recent change though.
Adaptation is something individuals do. If you swim every day, then you personally will get better at swimming. Evolution is something populations do. Individuals don’t evolve, only populations evolve.
Both grasshoppers and locusts are insects, so both go back to the common ancestor of all insects. Within the insects, they are obviously more similar to each other than they are to, say, beetles or fleas. Hence we classify them together in the family Acrididae. There will also be a common ancestor for that family, which is not shared with the beetles. Biological classifications try to follow lines of ancestry, where possible.
A good introductory reference is Evolution 101.
rossum
- Status