|
| quote: | Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk::
My answer to archeopteryx and the very few meager examples evolution has put up about inter-species transition in the fossil record.
Source
The Fossil Record
In theory, according to Darwinian evolution, there should be a continuum of life all about us representing every conceivable kind of intermediate between various kinds. Indeed, if observations could produce such a continuum, the evidence for transitional development would be greatly strengthened. But as it is, nature is clumped in discrete blocks, discrete kinds, more like separate bushes with diversity than one continuous tree of life.
Evolutionists reply that the present state is due to widespread extinctions of the various intervening steps which connected the various kinds long ago. If so, should not these past forms be well represented in the fossil record?
But the fossil record does not show the millions of tiny transitional life forms which Darwin’s theory postulated must have existed. Darwin himself admitted "the case at present must remain inexplicable and may be truly argued as a valid argument against the views here entertained." (The Origin of Species, page 332, cited from Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, page 188.) He supposed another 100 years of digging would supply the gaps. It hasn’t. Evolutionists have searched diligently for the dramatic "missing links" between all the variety of basic kinds. In spite of the incredible effort, talent and money expended in this search, only a few examples of possible transition species can be identified.
The link between fish and amphibians had to be given up when its most hopeful example, the coelacanth, thought to be extinct for millions of years, was caught by fishermen in the Indian Ocean in 1938. This fish, which has skeletal "leg buds," turned out to be 100% fishlike in its internal soft tissue structures and has no amphibian tendencies in its behavior. There are no candidates to be found for the link between amphibians and reptiles.
The reptile-mammal link has one example of a fossilized creature that is essentially a reptile, but with a very mammal-like jaw structure, but no other similarities can be found.
The strongest "missing link" is the reptile-bird link. The famous Archeopteryx, a dinosaur flying reptile, may be considered a precursor to a bird, but no mechanism for the complex and extensive changes between Archeopteryx and modern birds have been found to be plausible.
But how many transition forms should we expect to find? "Of the 329 living families of terrestrial vertebrates 261 or 79.1% have been found as fossils and, when birds (which are poorly fossilized) are excluded, the percentage rises to 87.8%" (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, page 189). Would not this imply that a similar proportion of extinct transitions should be found?
As Darwin admitted, "That the geological record is imperfect all will admit; but that it is imperfect to the degree required by our theory, few will be inclined to admit." (The Origin of Species, page 464, from Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, page 191.)
The fact that the fossil record did not contain the anticipated multitudes of transitional life forms Darwin’s theory implied was to them evidence that the fossil record was incomplete. It was a bad excuse then. Now, after 139 years of digging have produced literally tons of fossil data with no substantial evidence of transitional forms, it is a disaster. Indeed, groups of organisms appear suddenly in the fossil record and are distinct from other groups from their earliest appearance. |
Well, first of all transitional fossils are just that, transitional. Evolution takes relatively quick jumps when the species need to adapt to different environments, so the transitional species last for a pretty short amount of time and their population groups are very small. Australopithecus population was estimated at only several hundred members. Secondly, there's a fuckin 100 million year in between those fossils and current living organisms, so how can you expect to find every single transitional fossil? There were probably millions of species we will never know about because there is no fossil record of them left anywhere in the world. Science and paleontology aren't omniscient. We can't find every single species member simply because most have been lost and eaten away. However, we did find archeopteryx and a few other semi-reptilian birds which don't fall into the creationism theory at all. Regardless of that, here's a list of transitional fossils posted earlier by Mr Opus:
| quote: |
Summary of the known vertebrate fossil record
(We start off with primitive jawless fish.)
Transition from primitive jawless fish to sharks, skates, and rays
•Late Silurian -- first little simple shark-like denticles.
•Early Devonian -- first recognizable shark teeth, clearly derived from scales.
GAP: Note that these first, very very old traces of shark-like animals are so fragmentary that we can't get much detailed information. So, we don't know which jawless fish was the actual ancestor of early sharks.
•Cladoselache (late Devonian) -- Magnificent early shark fossils, found in Cleveland roadcuts during the construction of the U.S. interstate highways. Probably not directly ancestral to sharks, but gives a remarkable picture of general early shark anatomy, down to the muscle fibers!
•Tristychius & similar hybodonts (early Mississippian) -- Primitive proto-sharks with broad-based but otherwise shark-like fins.
•Ctenacanthus & similar ctenacanthids (late Devonian) -- Primitive, slow sharks with broad-based shark-like fins & fin spines. Probably ancestral to all modern sharks, skates, and rays. Fragmentary fin spines (Triassic) -- from more advanced sharks.
•Paleospinax (early Jurassic) -- More advanced features such as detached upper jaw, but retains primitive ctenacanthid features such as two dorsal spines, primitive teeth, etc.
•Spathobatis (late Jurassic) -- First proto-ray.
•Protospinax (late Jurassic) -- A very early shark/skate. After this, first heterodonts, hexanchids, & nurse sharks appear (late Jurassic). Other shark groups date from the Cretaceous or Eocene. First true skates known from Upper Cretaceous.
A separate lineage leads from the ctenacanthids through Echinochimaera (late Mississippian) and Similihari (late Pennsylvanian) to the modern ratfish.
Transition from from primitive jawless fish to bony fish
•Upper Silurian -- first little scales found.
GAP: Once again, the first traces are so fragmentary that the actual ancestor can't be identified.
•Acanthodians(?) (Silurian) -- A puzzling group of spiny fish with similarities to early bony fish.
•Palaeoniscoids (e.g. Cheirolepis, Mimia; early Devonian) -- Primitive bony ray-finned fishes that gave rise to the vast majority of living fish. Heavy acanthodian-type scales, acanthodian-like skull, and big notochord.
•Canobius, Aeduella (Carboniferous) -- Later paleoniscoids with smaller, more advanced jaws.
•Parasemionotus (early Triassic) -- "Holostean" fish with modified cheeks but still many primitive features. Almost exactly intermediate between the late paleoniscoids & first teleosts. Note: most of these fish lived in seasonal rivers and had lungs. Repeat: lungs first evolved in fish.
•Oreochima & similar pholidophorids (late Triassic) -- The most primitive teleosts, with lighter scales (almost cycloid), partially ossified vertebrae, more advanced cheeks & jaws.
•Leptolepis & similar leptolepids (Jurassic) -- More advanced with fully ossified vertebrae & cycloid scales. The Jurassic leptolepids radiated into the modern teleosts (the massive, successful group of fishes that are almost totally dominant today). Lung transformed into swim bladder.
Eels & sardines date from the late Jurassic, salmonids from the Paleocene & Eocene, carp from the Cretaceous, and the great group of spiny teleosts from the Eocene. The first members of many of these families are known and are in the leptolepid family (note the inherent classification problem!).
Transition from primitive bony fish to amphibians
Few people realize that the fish-amphibian transition was not a transition from water to land. It was a transition from fins to feet that took place in the water. The very first amphibians seem to have developed legs and feet to scud around on the bottom in the water, as some modern fish do, not to walk on land (see Edwards, 1989). This aquatic-feet stage meant the fins didn't have to change very quickly, the weight-bearing limb musculature didn't have to be very well developed, and the axial musculature didn't have to change at all. Recently found fragmented fossils from the middle Upper Devonian, and new discoveries of late Upper Devonian feet (see below), support this idea of an "aquatic feet" stage. Eventually, of course, amphibians did move onto the land. This involved attaching the pelvis more firmly to the spine, and separating the shoulder from the skull. Lungs were not a problem, since lungs are an ancient fish trait and were present already.
•Paleoniscoids again (e.g. Cheirolepis) -- These ancient bony fish probably gave rise both to modern ray-finned fish (mentioned above), and also to the lobe-finned fish.
•Osteolepis (mid-Devonian) -- One of the earliest crossopterygian lobe-finned fishes, still sharing some characters with the lungfish (the other lobe-finned fishes). Had paired fins with a leg-like arrangement of major limb bones, capable of flexing at the "elbow", and had an early-amphibian-like skull and teeth.
•Eusthenopteron, Sterropterygion (mid-late Devonian) -- Early rhipidistian lobe-finned fish roughly intermediate between early crossopterygian fish and the earliest amphibians. Eusthenopteron is best known, from an unusually complete fossil first found in 1881. Skull very amphibian-like. Strong amphibian- like backbone. Fins very like early amphibian feet in the overall layout of the major bones, muscle attachments, and bone processes, with tetrapod-like tetrahedral humerus, and tetrapod-like elbow and knee joints. But there are no perceptible "toes", just a set of identical fin rays. Body & skull proportions rather fishlike.
•Panderichthys, Elpistostege (mid-late Devonian, about 370 Ma) -- These "panderichthyids" are very tetrapod-like lobe-finned fish. Unlike Eusthenopteron, these fish actually look like tetrapods in overall proportions (flattened bodies, dorsally placed orbits, frontal bones! in the skull, straight tails, etc.) and have remarkably foot-like fins.
•Fragmented limbs and teeth from the middle Late Devonian (about 370 Ma), possibly belonging to Obruchevichthys -- Discovered in 1991 in Scotland, these are the earliest known tetrapod remains. The humerus is mostly tetrapod-like but retains some fish features. The discoverer, Ahlberg (1991), said: "It [the humerus] is more tetrapod-like than any fish humerus, but lacks the characteristic early tetrapod 'L-shape'...this seems to be a primitive, fish-like character....although the tibia clearly belongs to a leg, the humerus differs enough from the early tetrapod pattern to make it uncertain whether the appendage carried digits or a fin. At first sight the combination of two such extremities in the same animal seems highly unlikely on functional grounds. If, however, tetrapod limbs evolved for aquatic rather than terrestrial locomotion, as recently suggested, such a morphology might be perfectly workable."
GAP: Ideally, of course, we want an entire skeleton from the middle Late Devonian, not just limb fragments. Nobody's found one yet.
•Hynerpeton, Acanthostega, and Ichthyostega (late Devonian) -- A little later, the fin-to-foot transition was almost complete, and we have a set of early tetrapod fossils that clearly did have feet. The most complete are Ichthyostega, Acanthostega gunnari, and the newly described Hynerpeton bassetti (Daeschler et al., 1994). (There are also other genera known from more fragmentary fossils.) Hynerpeton is the earliest of these three genera (365 Ma), but is more advanced in some ways; the other two genera retained more fish- like characters longer than the Hynerpeton lineage did.
•Labyrinthodonts (eg Pholidogaster, Pteroplax) (late Dev./early Miss.) -- These larger amphibians still have some icthyostegid fish features, such as skull bone patterns, labyrinthine tooth dentine, presence & pattern of large palatal tusks, the fish skull hinge, pieces of gill structure between cheek & shoulder, and the vertebral structure. But they have lost several other fish features: the fin rays in the tail are gone, the vertebrae are stronger and interlocking, the nasal passage for air intake is well defined, etc.
More info on those first known Late Devonian amphibians: Acanthostega gunnari was very fish-like, and recently Coates & Clack (1991) found that it still had internal gills! They said: "Acanthostega seems to have retained fish-like internal gills and an open opercular chamber for use in aquatic respiration, implying that the earliest tetrapods were not fully terrestrial....Retention of fish-like internal gills by a Devonian tetrapod blurs the traditional distinction between tetrapods and fishes...this adds further support to the suggestion that unique tetrapod characters such as limbs with digits evolved first for use in water rather than for walking on land." Acanthostega also had a remarkably fish-like shoulder and forelimb. Ichthyostega was also very fishlike, retaining a fish-like finned tail, permanent lateral line system, and notochord. Neither of these two animals could have survived long on land.
Coates & Clack (1990) also recently found the first really well- preserved feet, from Acanthostega (front foot found) and Ichthyostega (hind foot found). (Hynerpeton's feet are unknown.) The feet were much more fin-like than anyone expected. It had been assumed that they had five toes on each foot, as do all modern tetrapods. This was a puzzle since the fins of lobe-finned fishes don't seem to be built on a five-toed plan. It turns out that Acanthostega's front foot had eight toes, and Ichthyostega's hind foot had seven toes, giving both feet the look of a short, stout flipper with many "toe rays" similar to fin rays. All you have to do to a lobe- fin to make it into a many-toed foot like this is curl it, wrapping the fin rays forward around the end of the limb. In fact, this is exactly how feet develop in larval amphibians, from a curled limb bud. (Also see Gould's essay on this subject, "Eight Little Piggies".) Said the discoverers (Coates & Clack, 1990): "The morphology of the limbs of Acanthostega and Ichthyostega suggest an aquatic mode of life, compatible with a recent assessment of the fish-tetrapod transition. The dorsoventrally compressed lower leg bones of Ichthyostega strongly resemble those of a cetacean [whale] pectoral flipper. A peculiar, poorly ossified mass lies anteriorly adjacent to the digits, and appears to be reinforcement for the leading edge of this paddle-like limb." Coates & Clack also found that Acanthostega's front foot couldn't bend forward at the elbow, and thus couldn't be brought into a weight-bearing position. In other words this "foot" still functioned as a horizontal fin. Ichthyostega's hind foot may have functioned this way too, though its front feet could take weight. Functionally, these two animals were not fully amphibian; they lived in an in-between fish/amphibian niche, with their feet still partly functioning as fins. Though they are probably not ancestral to later tetrapods, Acanthostega & Ichthyostega certainly show that the transition from fish to amphibian is feasible!
Hynerpeton, in contrast, probably did not have internal gills and already had a well-developed shoulder girdle; it could elevate and retract its forelimb strongly, and it had strong muscles that attached the shoulder to the rest of the body (Daeschler et al., 1994). Hynerpeton's discoverers think that since it had the strongest limbs earliest on, it may be the actual ancestor of all subsequent terrestrial tetrapods, while Acanthostega and Ichthyostega may have been a side branch that stayed happily in a mostly-aquatic niche.
In summary, the very first amphibians (presently known only from fragments) were probably almost totally aquatic, had both lungs and internal gills throughout life, and scudded around underwater with flipper-like, many-toed feet that didn't carry much weight. Different lineages of amphibians began to bend either the hind feet or front feet forward so that the feet carried weight. One line (Hynerpeton) bore weight on all four feet, developed strong limb girdles and muscles, and quickly became more terrestrial.
Transitions among amphibians
•Temnospondyls, e.g Pholidogaster (Mississippian, about 330 Ma) -- A group of large labrinthodont amphibians, transitional between the early amphibians (the ichthyostegids, described above) and later amphibians such as rhachitomes and anthracosaurs. Probably also gave rise to modern amphibians (the Lissamphibia) via this chain of six temnospondyl genera , showing progressive modification of the palate, dentition, ear, and pectoral girdle, with steady reduction in body size (Milner, in Benton 1988). Notice, though, that the times are out of order, though they are all from the Pennsylvanian and early Permian. Either some of the "Permian" genera arose earlier, in the Pennsylvanian (quite likely), and/or some of these genera are "cousins", not direct ancestors (also quite likely).
Dendrerpeton acadianum (early Penn.) -- 4-toed hand, ribs straight, etc.
•Archegosaurus decheni (early Permian) -- Intertemporals lost, etc.
•Eryops megacephalus (late Penn.) -- Occipital condyle splitting in 2, etc.
•Trematops spp. (late Permian) -- Eardrum like modern amphibians, etc.
•Amphibamus lyelli (mid-Penn.) -- Double occipital condyles, ribs very small, etc.
•Doleserpeton annectens or perhaps Schoenfelderpeton (both early Permian) -- First pedicellate teeth! (a classic trait of modern amphibians) etc.
From there we jump to the Mesozoic:
•Triadobatrachus (early Triassic) -- a proto-frog, with a longer trunk and much less specialized hipbone, and a tail still present (but very short).
•Vieraella (early Jurassic) -- first known true frog.
•Karaurus (early Jurassic) -- first known salamander.
Finally, here's a recently found fossil:
•Unnamed proto-anthracosaur -- described by Bolt et al., 1988. This animal combines primitive features of palaeostegalians (e.g. temnospondyl-like vertebrae) with new anthracosaur-like features. Anthracosaurs were the group of large amphibians that are thought to have led, eventually, to the reptiles. Found in a new Lower Carboniferous site in Iowa, from about 320 Ma.
Transition from amphibians to amniotes (first reptiles)
The major functional difference between the ancient, large amphibians and the first little reptiles is the amniotic egg. Additional differences include stronger legs and girdles, different vertebrae, and stronger jaw muscles. For more info, see Carroll (1988) and Gauthier et al. (in Benton, 1988)
•Proterogyrinus or another early anthracosaur (late Mississippian) -- Classic labyrinthodont-amphibian skull and teeth, but with reptilian vertebrae, pelvis, humerus, and digits. Still has fish skull hinge. Amphibian ankle. 5-toed hand and a 2-3-4-5-3 (almost reptilian) phalangeal count.
•Limnoscelis, Tseajaia (late Carboniferous) -- Amphibians apparently derived from the early anthracosaurs, but with additional reptilian features: structure of braincase, reptilian jaw muscle, expanded neural arches.
•Solenodonsaurus (mid-Pennsylvanian) -- An incomplete fossil, apparently between the anthracosaurs and the cotylosaurs. Loss of palatal fangs, loss of lateral line on head, etc. Still just a single sacral vertebra, though.
•Hylonomus, Paleothyris (early Pennsylvanian) -- These are protorothyrids, very early cotylosaurs (primitive reptiles). They were quite little, lizard-sized animals with amphibian-like skulls (amphibian pineal opening, dermal bone, etc.), shoulder, pelvis, & limbs, and intermediate teeth and vertebrae. Rest of skeleton reptilian, with reptilian jaw muscle, no palatal fangs, and spool-shaped vertebral centra. Probably no eardrum yet. Many of these new "reptilian" features are also seen in little amphibians (which also sometimes have direct-developing eggs laid on land), so perhaps these features just came along with the small body size of the first reptiles.
The ancestral amphibians had a rather weak skull and paired "aortas" (systemic arches). The first reptiles immediately split into two major lines which modified these traits in different ways. One line developed an aorta on the right side and strengthened the skull by swinging the quadrate bone down and forward, resulting in an enormous otic notch (and allowed the later development of good hearing without much further modification). This group further split into three major groups, easily recognizable by the number of holes or "fenestrae" in the side of the skull: the anapsids (no fenestrae), which produced the turtles; the diapsids (two fenestrae), which produced the dinosaurs and birds; and an offshoot group, the eurapsids (two fenestrae fused into one), which produced the ichthyosaurs.
The other major line of reptiles developed an aorta on left side only, and strengthened the skull by moving the quadrate bone up and back, obliterating the otic notch (making involvement of the jaw essential in the later development of good hearing). They developed a single fenestra per side. This group was the synapsid reptiles. They took a radically different path than the other reptiles, involving homeothermy, a larger brain, better hearing and more efficient teeth. One group of synapsids called the "therapsids" took these changes particularly far, and apparently produced the mammals.
Some transitions among reptiles
I will review just a couple of the reptile phylogenies, since there are so many.... Early reptiles to turtles: (Also see Gaffney & Meylan, in Benton 1988)
•Captorhinus (early-mid Permain) -- Immediate descendent of the protorothryids.
Here we come to a controversy; there are two related groups of early anapsids, both descended from the captorhinids, that could have been ancestral to turtles. Reisz & Laurin (1991, 1993) believe the turtles descended from procolophonids, late Permian anapsids that had various turtle-like skull features. Others, particularly Lee (1993) think the turtle ancestors are pareiasaurs:
•Scutosaurus and other pareiasaurs (mid-Permian) -- Large bulky herbivorous reptiles with turtle-like skull features. Several genera had bony plates in the skin, possibly the first signs of a turtle shell.
•Deltavjatia vjatkensis (Permian) -- A recently discovered pareiasaur with numerous turtle-like skull features (e.g., a very high palate), limbs, and girdles, and lateral projections flaring out some of the vertebrae in a very shell-like way. (Lee, 1993)
•Proganochelys (late Triassic) -- a primitive turtle, with a fully turtle-like skull, beak, and shell, but with some primitive traits such as rows of little palatal teeth, a still-recognizable clavicle, a simple captorhinid-type jaw musculature, a primitive captorhinid- type ear, a non-retractable neck, etc..
•Recently discovered turtles from the early Jurassic, not yet described.
Mid-Jurassic turtles had already divided into the two main groups of modern turtles, the side-necked turtles and the arch-necked turtles. Obviously these two groups developed neck retraction separately, and came up with totally different solutions. In fact the first known arch-necked turtles, from the Late Jurassic, could not retract their necks, and only later did their descendents develop the archable neck. Early reptiles to diapsids: (see Evans, in Benton 1988, for more info)
•Hylonomus, Paleothyris (early Penn.) -- The primitive amniotes described above
•Petrolacosaurus, Araeoscelis (late Pennsylvanian) -- First known diapsids. Both temporal fenestra now present. No significant change in jaw muscles. Have Hylonomus-style teeth, with many small marginal teeth & two slightly larger canines. Still no eardrum.
•Apsisaurus (early Permian) -- A more typical diapsid. Lost canines. (Laurin, 1991)
GAP: no diapsid fossils from the mid-Permian.
•Claudiosaurus (late Permian) -- An early diapsid with several neodiapsid traits, but still had primitive cervical vertebrae & unossified sternum. probably close to the ancestry of all diapsides (the lizards & snakes & crocs & birds).
•Planocephalosaurus(early Triassic) -- Further along the line that produced the lizards and snakes. Loss of some skull bones, teeth, toe bones.
•Protorosaurus, Prolacerta (early Triassic) -- Possibly among the very first archosaurs, the line that produced dinos, crocs, and birds. May be "cousins" to the archosaurs, though.
•Proterosuchus (early Triassic) -- First known archosaur.
•Hyperodapedon, Trilophosaurus (late Triassic) -- Early archosaurs.
Some species-to-species transitions:
•De Ricqles (in Chaline, 1983) documents several possible cases of gradual evolution (also well as some lineages that showed abrupt appearance or stasis) among the early Permian reptile genera Captorhinus, Protocaptorhinus, Eocaptorhinus, and Romeria.
•Horner et al. (1992) recently found many excellent transitional dinosaur fossils from a site in Montana that was a coastal plain in the late Cretaceous. They include:
1.Many transitional ceratopsids between Styracosaurus and Pachyrhinosaurus
2.Many transitional lambeosaurids (50! specimens) between Lambeosaurus and Hypacrosaurus.
3.A transitional pachycephalosaurid between Stegoceras and Pachycephalosaurus
4.A transitional tyrannosaurid between Tyrannosaurus and Daspletosaurus.
All of these transitional animals lived during the same brief 500,000 years. Before this site was studied, these dinosaur groups were known from the much larger Judith River Formation, where the fossils showed 5 million years of evolutionary stasis, following by the apparently abrupt appearance of the new forms. It turns out that the sea level rose during that 500,000 years, temporarily burying the Judith River Formation under water, and forcing the dinosaur populations into smaller areas such as the site in Montana. While the populations were isolated in this smaller area, they underwent rapid evolution. When sea level fell again, the new forms spread out to the re-exposed Judith River landscape, thus appearing "suddenly" in the Judith River fossils, with the transitional fossils only existing in the Montana site. This is an excellent example of punctuated equilibrium (yes, 500,000 years is very brief and counts as a "punctuation"), and is a good example of why transitional fossils may only exist in a small area, with the new species appearing "suddenly" in other areas. (Horner et al., 1992) Also note the discovery of Ianthosaurus, a genus that links the two synapsid families Ophiacodontidae and Edaphosauridae. (see Carroll, 1988, p. 367) |
| quote: | | what else can they be?? to an evolutionist paleontologist, they would say it is one missing link between species. example: rat-like animal evolving into a pitbull. |
No a chiuaua isn't a rat like animal, the only thing comparable to a rat is its size. The fact that you wouldn't notice a significant difference between a rat and a chiuaua skeleton should not be extrapolated to the entire community of paleontologists. There are clear similarities between chiuaua skeletons and those of pitbulls. Their jaws are essentially the same, only the chiuauas are smaller. Rats on the other hand have a totally different bone structure.
| quote: | | where's the transitional fossils?? |
Well, you kinda answered the question you gave in the earlier article. There probably are a few transitional fossils of wolves turning into chiuauas, but considering it's hard to find transitional fossils of something that happened 5000 years ago, how can you expect that 2000 times older transitional fossils are commonplace?
| quote: | | oh, this new disvoery of the chihuahua skeleton looks kind of like a rat, and kind of like a pitbull. that will be the transitional missing link. how do u know if they can interbreed if both dogs are extinct?? (THEORETICALLY SPEAKING- I MADE AN EXAMPLE IN THE LAST POST) |
Again, you're assuming that average paleontologists have education of average high school kids which is not the case. The only resemblence chiuaua has with a rat is it's size, and size is not the thing that determines the relation between species. You can not always be 100% certain that two species can or can not interbreed, you can only determine whether there was a probability of them interbreeding or not. We can't be sure if humans and neanderthals could interbreed. But we can be sure that rats and chiuauas couldn't, even if they were extinct, because their jaws show that they're not from the same branch of mammals.
| quote: | | the fact that humans have been in control of the breeding of dogs means nothing. there are still different kinds of dogs, but they are still dogs. |
It does mean something because we developed odd looking species which would never occur in nature. Regardless of that, chiuauas and pitt buls are effectively not able to breed because of their size difference. If we would let them live for million years side by side, they would never interbreed and they would develop enough mutations to have their genes become incompatible.[/quote]
| quote: | | just like in nature, there are many kinds of birds, but they're still birds. |
Dogs are a same species. Birds aren't.
| quote: | | how will separation of two breeds for a long period of time, eventually produce two different species. where's the evidence? |
By neutral mutations of genes which make genetic codes incompatible. Take this for example:
| quote: |
In 1964 five or six individuals of the polychaete
worm, Nereis acuminata, were collected in Long Beach
Harbor, California. These were allowed to grow into a
population of thousands of individuals. Four pairs
from this population were transferred to the Woods
Hole Oceanographic Institute. For over 20 years these
worms were used as test organisms in environmental
toxicology. From 1986 to 1991 the Long Beach area was
searched for populations of the worm. Two populations,
P1 and P2, were found. Weinberg, et al. (1992)
performed tests on these two populations and the Woods
Hole population (WH) for both postmating and premating
isolation. To test for postmating isolation, they
looked at whether broods from crosses were
successfully reared. The results below give the
percentage of successful rearings for each group of
crosses.
WH X WH - 75%
P1 X P1 - 95%
P2 X P2 - 80%
P1 X P2 - 77%
WH X P1 - 0%
WH X P2 - 0%
They also found statistically significant premating
isolation between the WH population and the field
populations. Finally, the Woods Hole population showed
slightly different karyotypes from the field
populations.
Source: J. R. Weinberg et al. 1992. Evidence for rapid
speciation following a founder event in the
laboratory. Science 46(4):1214-1220.
|
| quote: | | where's the thousands, really millions of examples of these transitions?? all evolutionists have are few very questionable examples. mutations are normal, but they do not evolve. they degrade. show me one modern case in which a mutation was good. the mutations ive seen caused cancer, Multiple sclerosis, parkinsons, Muscular Distrophy, Spinal Ebifida, etc. |
Nylon eating bacteria? Dark moths in British industrial cities? T cell mutation that made some african prostitutes immune to HIV? Light skinned people in polar regions and dark skinned people living near equator?
| quote: | | several very questionable skeletons, some even using animal bones not even of an ape or a man. the lucy skeleton were bones spread out over a large area in an african plain, and using animal bones of other animals that werent man or ape. your right that bones rarely last long in nature, and therefore the evidence u can bring up is very few and far in between. |
No they're not man nor ape. They're in between. How can any other animal have a humanoid femur or a humanoid skull?
| quote: | | well, in creationism, the earth is not millions of years old, but less than 15,000. |
Ok, let's explain this again. Let's assume that the speed of light is constant. We see distant astronomical objects. We know their luminosity based on their spectral characteristic. Their luminosity is directly correlated to their size, so we can determine their distance. Considering that their light did reach us after travelling over billions of light years, we know that the universe is several billion years old. What if speed of light was not constant? If it was slower in the past, the universe would be even older. If the speed of light was higher in the past, as required by creationist theory, we would see only our local neighbourhood of stars, we would not even be able to observe the outer rims of our own galaxy. You see, if we suppose that light speed suddenly slowed down, that would mean that the old light from the stars hit the earth years ago, while the new one still hasn't come. So we would only be able to see an area around us that is visible in accordance to new speed of light, and that would be a sphere with a 15000 ly diameter. We obviously see more than that, so the assumption is false.
| quote: | | we did live with dinsaurs at one time. there are a few passages in the bible describing bohemoth's with tails as a large as a cedar tree, which is was an enormous tree that used to inhabit lebanon. |
Why does then the radiometric data show that humans and dinosaurs lived in totally different periods?
| quote: | | as i said, under a firmament, there is a great amounts of vegetation. the entire earth was full of vegetation. the dinosaurs had a great supply, and could prosper. but then the flood, firmament no longer there, and the post-flood world. barely any vegetation, it all has to grow back, and certainly wont grow back as it did before. dinosaurs needed very large amounts of food to survive, which they did not have, and so each dinosaur species became extinct, one by one. and so did many other species. with no more firmament acting as a greenhouse effect, the ice caps formed, it grew colder the higher up the latitudes u went. |
So what about small dinosaurs? They weren't all 20m high. There were many chicken sized ones.
| quote: | | where do u think the legends of giant flying birds in native america, the legends of so many dragons in china, the legends of the knight killing the dragon in his cave. where do u think these legends came from?? legends are made to explain something, some truth. so what were they trying to explain?? |
Are you saying that there was a period of time when the earth was populated with elves, fairies, dwarves, giants, unicorns, satyrs, fauns, minotaurs, and oh let's not forget, pagan gods?
| quote: | | it actually is written in scientific manner. it uses the pretenses of cause and effect which that diagram was illustrating. science is a study of the relationship between cause and effect. thats how we come about our laws of physics, chemistry, biology, and innumerable other fields of science. the article uses no verses from the bible, but using logic, reason, and evidence to support its case. |
No it is not written in a scientific manner and everyone who's past high school education sees that. It is written in a charlatanistic manner because it's primary claim is unfounded and all the claims made afterwards are based upon that primary claim.
| quote: | | How are the premises faulty?? All the evidence in nature points to intelligent design. An eye, for example, is a complex organ with interdependent, complex parts. If sightedness developed from unsightedness, how would the transitional forms be useful enough for the organism to survive? The question can rightly be asked, what good is 5% of an eye? The marvelously complex and specialized structures such as wings, lungs, hearts and brains are extremely difficult to explain. They point to design, design to purpose, and purpose to intelligence. |
Nice copy-paste from the previous article. Eyes originated as a light sensing mechanism. A change in light intensity meant danger. Some primitive animals still have that sort of "eyes". The animals didn't develop one complex part of the eye after the other.
| quote: | heh, dont put it off too long. that is best comprehensive, talk about all subjects link i can put forth.  |
It's not a single article, it's many links, that's why I'm lazy.
| quote: | | how could eve have children without adam?? so therefore, there was adam. dont tell me, our earliest ancestor was A-sexual. |
Again your level of education shines through. Mitochondrial DNA exists only in mitochondrial organelles of the cells that are designed to break down ATP and free radicals. It is not a part of our regular DNA. Mitochondria appeared in the earliest bacteria and were probably parasitic small bacteria which later adopted a symbiotic role. Only female egg cells contain mitochondria. That's why we inherit them only from our mothers. For all we know our one female common ancestor could have had 20 different sexual partners, we'd still have the same mDNA.
| quote: | | did u read the article on the firmament?? because the color of the water really wasnt the point. |
I reffered to the color of the firmament to explain the most likely origin of the myth.
| quote: | i just tried it, and it worked. but ill post the article then.
Source
A Firmament = A Great World!
There is vast Biblical and scientific evidence showing a primordial paradise. Legends and traditions record that some people did not experience helpless old age. The Sumerians and Egyptians record that there was no sin on the earth, the crocodile did not seize prey and the serpent did not bite. From China as well we find records that tell animals and birds were led about without restraint. (ICR, Impact 192) Could this have really happened? The Bible clearly says it did and science now seems to suggest the possibility.
One of the major reasons this paradise was in place may be due to the firmament created in the sky by God on the second day. "And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so" (Genesis 1:6-7). During creation there was both a vertical and horizontal separation of water. The "horizontal" separated the dry land from the water and the "vertical" separated water from water thus creating the firmament. Therefore we have an indication that water was involved in this canopy. We do not know for sure what it was made of but other possible clues come from the Hebrew word for firmament, raqiya (raw-kee'-ah). Raqiya means to flatten out and extend a solid vault or canopy. |
Hehe, rakija is schnapps in croatian 
| quote: | Another interesting thing about raqiya is that it also seems to refer to metal. For years Hebrew scholars have not known what to do with this definition of "firmament" so it has generally been accepted as just being a water vapor canopy. However, Josephus, a famous Jewish Historian records that the firmament was indeed crystalline (Josephus, Antiquities) as do other modern scholars. Now new scientific evidence also seems to support the idea of metal in the firmament as well.
An interesting characteristic of most metals is that they are clear in their pure form. In fact, when men went to the moon their visors on their helmets had a thin layer of pure, transparent, gold (National Geographic, Dec. 1969). Water is H2O, meaning two parts Hydrogen and one part Oxygen. When pure H2O is compressed in experiments done today, under extremely cold conditions the Oxygen appears bluish but the two parts of Hydrogen are crystallized. At first the crystals appear transparent (can see through) and later they become opaque (can't see through). Since raqiya means to flatten, or compress together and spread out, the water (H2O) may have reacted in a similar way as seen in the above experiment, creating a firmament with hydrogen crystals (Baugh, Symphony).
Taking this a step further, microscopic examination of this crystalline, metallic hydrogen shows that a vast majority is transparent, allowing light to shine through. However, also present in smaller amounts are areas of opaque metallic hydrogen that is super conductive (Popular Science, Oct. 1989, p 25). This is important for two reasons. First of all, light would shine through only those "veins" in the firmament which were transparent. But most importantly, the opaque, super conductive material would serve as a means to hold the firmament in place. Recent experiments of super conductive material resulted in mid air suspension of certain objects. Nasa showed a photograph of a man holding super conductive material between his fingers causing a magnet to be suspended above. This would work both upside down and right side up (NASA, 1988). Keeping in mind that the earth is like a great big magnet and the firmament perhaps having super conductive metallic hydrogen, the crystalline canopy would be held in place (Discover, March 1991).
Hydrogen when excited by energy glows pink. This could perhaps indicate why plants in the pre-Flood world grew much more abundantly than today (by hundreds of feet). This is not to say that the earth would appear pink but rather pink light would be given off. It would be similar to looking through a pair of pink sunglasses where the world does not appear pink but rather all colors appear more vividly. Research has shown that plants grow better in pink light which fits the firmament model exactly (Scientific American, April 1988, p.32). |
Hahahahaha, this is too much, you're totally breaking me. Yes, Thin metal layers can be made transparent if they're several microns thick, but a huge solid firmament around the Earth could not be transparent if it's made of metal, not to mention that it would immediatelly crumble under its own weight. And then the guy tries to explain it by superconductivity? Look, even if there was a very thick superconductive metal sphere around the Earth, Earth's magnetic field is not nearly strong enough to keep it floating around. And the temperature there is not cold enough to make the metal superconductive in the first place. Besides, if the metal was breached, you wouldn't get a huge flood, you'd get a huge meteor shower that would pretty much destroy the atmosphere.
Secondly, hydrogen doesn't glow pink, it glows at 656nm which is orange. And it grows when it's heated to several hundred or thousand degrees, not when it's at -150C. Now, the plant growth and light coloration may have a minor corelation, but it's measured in a few percentages.
| quote: | Still, yet another fascinating result of such a firmament is that it solves much of our problem with C-14 dating. C-14 comes from N-14 being bombarded by cosmic radiation. The firmament would have filtered out the harmful, short wave, radiation received from the sun and therefore C-14 could not be produced (even if canopy was just water vapor). This means that living organisms before the flood would have little or no C-14 in their bodies and therefore would appear extremely old according to the C-14 dating method despite their being young in age.
The filtering of this radiation is one of the causes for longevity of life in the pre-Flood world as well. Studies done to show the average age of people on a geographical basis, shows that people today, live shorter life spans nearer the equator (Brown, Secret, p.92). Also, it is a well known fact that the sun causes us to age much faster than normal. Recently on the Ophrah Winfrey show someone asked if there was anything to stop the aging process. The answer was that the best thing you could do was to never (summer or winter) go outside without sun screen on. The deadly, short waves of the sun are known to cause over 60 diseases today, all of which would be prevented by the firmament filtering out these rays. |
People in equatorial areas live shorter because those areas are generally poorer. People in Australia live longer than Eskimos although they get much more sunlight.
| quote: | Another beneficial effect of the firmament would be greater air pressure with higher oxygen (Higher oxygen without the higher air pressure would be toxic). Secular evidence from trapped air bubbles in fossilized amber shows that before the Flood we had roughly twice the atmospheric pressure and 30-35% oxygen (compared to the current 21%) (Science, Vol. 239, p. 1406). However, new evidence has caused creationists to feel this is too high because oxygen poisoning would result and therefore a better estimate may be from 23 to 25%.
Higher air pressure is also what we would expect to see with the firmament because all atmospheric gases, which NASA shows have escaped nearly 200 miles into outer space (as far as gravitational pull would allow) would have been compressed underneath this canopy (Baugh, Battle). Today, greater air pressure with higher oxygen is of great benefit to our bodies as we see from replication of such an atmosphere in hyperbaric chambers. A hyperbaric chamber is something that allows us to control the oxygen and air pressure in a controlled environment. Amazing things happen with hyperbaric oxygen treatment (HBO). Normally it takes from 7 to 21 days for an open wound to heal and 53 days to completely heal. However with HBO this healing time can on average be cut in half, depending on the severity and type of problem. (Fife, 1994). Dr. William Fife is head of the HBO lab at Texas A & M University where more research is done on this subject than any other non-government center. Some of the current research done at Texas A & M seems to suggest that HBO treatment may be able to cure Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Post Polio Syndrome and heal migraine headaches within 30 to 40 minutes. Other near miraculous healings of Gas Gangrene and ear drum problems, have been treated within one to two hours (Fife, 1995). In a few cases, people have showed near miraculous healing from arthritis and Carbon Monoxide Poisoning. It was reported that one man was brought into a hospital brain-dead as a direct result of Carbon Monoxide Poisoning. This man was an organ donor so doctors wanted to purify his organs. They wheeled him and his life support system into the chamber where three days later the organs were purified as the man walked out of the hospital completely recovered with complete memory (Baugh, Battle). |
Yes, wow, increased amounts of oxygen help heal diseases caused by a lack of oxygen and increased pressure helps prevent diseases of the body parts sensitive to pressure.
| quote: | | It has even been suggested that as a direct result of higher pressure and oxygen that mosquitoes would not even bite you before the Flood. Today, it is the female mosquito which bites in order to receive nutrients from the oxygen in your blood. However, in the pre-Flood atmosphere the higher oxygen content and air pressure would keep this annoying pest satisfied (Baugh, Symphony). Again this is something theorized about the unobserved past so we can not be sure but scientifically speaking, it would certainly be possible. |
Oh, no, here it goes again, hahahahahaha, feeding on oxygen only, hahaha!!!!
Look, oxygen is one of the necessary compounds needed for life, but it's not the only one. You do need to eat food, oxygen only helps you absorbing it. God that guy has biology/engeneering knowledge of a 5 year old.
| quote: | The amount of carbon dioxide in the air is much less today than during the pre-Flood era. It has been proposed that we had 8 times the amount we currently have today (from 0.026% to .25%) which again fits perfectly with the abundant vegetation of the Creation model (Discover, Dec. 1994, p.32).
The higher pressure and carbon dioxide content also explain why such lush, huge vegetation is seen in the fossil record. At K O University in Tokyo Japan, Dr. Kei Moris did some fascinating studies on a cherry tomato plant (The kind that get about 2-3 feet tall and live about 2-3 months with cherry size tomatoes). He wanted to maximize the potential of this tomato plants growth so he put it into a cylinder by which he could pump up the air pressure. Dr. Moris reasoned the plant would take in more carbon dioxide faster but inadvertently he was recreating a pre-flood atmosphere. Dr. Moris wanted to also rid the harmful rays of the sun so he brought sunlight to his basement through fiber optics, again inadvertently recreating the pre-Flood world. After two years had passed Kei Moris had a cherry tomato plant that stood over 14 feet tall, had 903 tomatoes that were baseball size (Brown, Secret,p 159). Today, this plant is still living after 14 years and is over 40 feet tall bearing 15,000 very large tomatoes (Baugh, Symphony). Being created as vegetarians (Genesis 1:29-30), this fits well into the "very good" world that God made. |
How are people created as vegetarians if our digestive system is incapable of consuming cellulose and our jaw structure is that of an omnivore?
| quote: | | Genesis 2:5 mentions that it did not rain until the time of the Flood and therefore natural streams watered the earth. With a firmament, a sub tropical climate would be expected all over the world because it would serve as a greenhouse, holding in the heat but not getting to hot. High and low air pressure systems would not form which would not allow clouds to form, which would not allow rain. This also explains why there was no rainbow before the Flood. |
Yes, maybe with a firmament several milimeters thick. Not with a firmament that had to be kilometers thick.
| quote: | | One final adjustment of our thinking about the pre-Flood world involves the electromagnetic field of the earth. Scientists have measured the electromagnetic field of the earths atmosphere for over a century and we now know that it has declined nearly 7% in only 130 years (McDonald). Not only does this present a healthier atmosphere in the past but a young one as well. According to this, if you would go back in time only 15 to 20,000 years ago, we would have the electromagnetic field of a neutron star and atoms could not hold together; the planet could not exist (Baugh, Symphony). Likewise, 2,000 years into the future, the field will cease and life will not be possible either (Nature, Vol. 278, 1987). |
Oh god, this is too much. The electromagnetic field of the earth is varying in intensity all the time. It has not linearly decreased in the last 130 years, and past records show that it has always had pretty large oscillations and even flipping upside-down. And the field is generated as a result of the earth core magnetism. Earth core has never been a fuckin neutron star and therefore the field has never been a fucking neutron star like field. Besides, let's add up the numbers here. 7% in 130 years. That means that in 15000 years, the field was several times stronger than it is now. That is not nearly the strenght of a neutron star magnetic field.
| quote: | | Further evidence shows that the electromagnetic field influences the body in incredible ways. In fact, it affects everything from molecules to man and without it, cells can not divide during the process of mitosis (Dubrov, p. 61). Evidence is also present showing that this much needed field was not only stronger in the past but may have even held steady before the Flood, thereby creating a better atmosphere. How and why could this be? Answer: the firmament held the energy in place (Baugh, Symphony). |
What, em field influences mitosis? Maybe a 20V/m field would have a minor effect, but normal Earth's magnetic field doesn't. Otherwise astronauts would die in a few months. And wait a second, the firmament held the energy in place? What, how? So if you put a metal ring around the magnet, it won't behave like a magnet on the outside??? Right, read some basic literature on magnetism and electricity.
| quote: | | My favorite example of the benefit of the higher electromagnet currents on our bodies has to deal with snakes. Today, if one is bit by a rattlesnake, a long process of treatment and pain is the outlook, unless you have a stun gun. Yes, a stun gun. I myself have one which delivers only 36,000 volts of D.C. current. If I was bit, I would take the stun gun and zap myself near the bite, again perpendicular to the first zap, and a third time just because it felt good. I probably would not even go to the hospital after this. New evidence is showing that electricity can be a cure for all kinds of venomous bites, including bees, spiders, mosquitoes and snakes. Snake venom is made up of mainly proteins and enzymes which are chemically bonded together and therefore make them impossible for your body to assimilate in any beneficial way. However, electricity breaks those bonds allowing your body to take in the protein and it turns out to be beneficial to you. So in the pre-Flood world, after the curse, if you were bit by a snake, it wouldn't affect you because of the higher electromagnetic field. Also, the wound from the bite would heal much faster because the higher oxygen and pressure would aid in the healing. |
Yes strong electric currents do alter protein structure, and that's why your skin gets burned when you stick a fork into a socket. But for that to take place the field has to be at least several hundred volts strong, and it would not only destroy harmful proteins, but it would burn every single fucking protein in your body. Basically this guy is saying that venomous bites by snakes were harmless because people constantly kept getting zapped with several thousand volts of electric current that destroyed venomous proteins. Try zapping yourself in the head with a stun gun and see if it makes you live longer.
| quote: | | The Brown Recluse Spider is one of the most dreadful of all spiders. When you get bit by a Brown Recluse it literally rots your flesh down to the bone. One 10 year old girl bit by a Brown Recluse Spider (Fiddle back) was zapped on top of the bite while being grounded underneath the bite (under the arm). In 24 hours, all was gone. In fact, the Oklahoma State Medical Journal recorded that from September of 1988 to September of 1989, 21 cases were confirmed where a Brown Recluse Spider bite had been "zapped" for treatment and all cases were cured within one treatment (Osborn, p.9). |
Yes, well, she could also have her arm cut off and the poison would be removed.
| quote: | Regarding snakes, Dr Ronald Guderian, a missionary doctor from Seattle has successfully treated more than 60 humans with snakebites by electric shock. Tests have shown that the enzymes in snake venom are destructive to human tissue but when these enzymes are first "zapped" and than put in test tubes with human flesh, they no longer destroy the tissue (Outdoor Life, June 1988, p.66-68).
One farmer was stung by a bee and was deathly allergic to bee stings so he began running to his house. On the way he felt his chest beginning to tighten. In his preoccupied state, he tripped over an electric fence. Need I say more? (Outdoor Life, July 88, p76). |
As above, high electricity changes the chemical balance of the body and destroys all the proteins, not just harmful one. So yes, if you zap yourself in a spot where the poison is taken in, you'll destroy it, but the voltage has to be high enough to cause a spark that will burn through the infected area.
| quote: | | Many other examples have been recorded showing us what a great world the pre-Flood world must have been. If the world was like this, how come we are just discovering this now? We aren't discovering it, rather rediscovering it today! Ancient batteries have been found in Egypt showing not only the intelligence of man but perhaps also past medical treatments. For years, scientists did not know what these batteries were used for but new findings show much historical evidence relating electric shock to medicine. Electric fish were used for medicinal purposes by the Greeks and Romans while bronze and iron needles with electrical devices have been found in Seleucia which may have been used for acupuncture (which was already a standard practice in China). The ancient Scribonius Largus wrote, "For any sort of foot gout, when the pain comes on it is good to put a living black torpedo fish under his feet while standing on the beach, not dry but one on which the sea washes, until he feels that his whole foot and ankle are numb up to the knees" (Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 16:2, p.12). All of this points to a forgotten age where memories of higher electric fields once aided in the fighting of diseases and other common ailments. |
As I said, electrical shocks can be used for medicine, but being shocked 24h/day will kill you very soon. Like saying that antibiotics cure diseases so if we eat one kg of penicillin a day we'll be in top condition. Yeah, for the morgue.
| quote: | | Combine all of the evidence above and we may have the answer to why not only plants were larger in the fossil record but animals as well. It appears nearly everything was better in the past. Dragon flies had wing spans up to 60 inches, cockroaches were a foot long, Bison stood 10 feet at the shoulders and the Saber tooth tiger stood 6 feet at the shoulders (Baugh, Battle). Meanwhile plants which are only 20 inches today were 120 feet as seen in the fossil record (Sounds like a cherry tomato plant doesn't it?). |
Yes, "evidence". And let's not forget that the largest animal that ever lived is a whale that appeared only a few million years ago. What caused a decline in the species size was ice age, not a lack of oxygen.
| quote: | u misunderstood. the firmament was held up because it wasnt close to the surface. i surrounded the earth, but was out in space. not very far out, but enough to be in space. but what kept it from venturing off into space, was the earth's gravity. the balance of the two held the firmament in place.
so gravity didnt hold it up. it captured it from going off into space. it wasnt unstable at all. it lasted for thousands of years(creationist timetable). which side of the firmament?? the firmament surrounded the earth. it was in the shape of a sphere. there was no side of the firmement. |
Yes, I did understand what you said, but what you don't realize is that such a system is extremely unstable and couldn't last for longer than a few hours.
| quote: | | the firmament was less than the several km thick u presumed, because there were great underground springs, that burst forth during the flood. take note, that when it rained for the first time, the firmament wasnt the only source. there was an immense supply of water deep underground, so take that in to account. |
So where did all the water go in the end? And please, let's remember for a second here that there is not a single material existing that could withstand its own pressure of a structure that large and not fall down to earth.
| quote: | those scientist may have some thing right, but their timetables are wrong. there is evidence of increased oxygen density.
Source is article above. |
What fascinates me is that the scientific research presented in the article refferes to different oxygen levels present millions of years ago, and not in the last few thousand years. The author conviniently left that out because those studies show that the oxygen level in the last several hundreds of thousands of years was pretty much the same. Anyway, here is the actual proposed theory:
http://www.independent-media.tv/ite...en_buildup.html
| quote: | | so, your right about oxygen generation in plants and algae. during the day, they made oxygen, and during the night carbon dioxide though not as much CO2 as O2. |
What? O2 is oxygen. They made it only during the day.
| quote: | | which is why scientists have found evidence for higher oxygen and carbon dioxide levels. the vegetation back then was so much that there was a huge amount of oxygen whether or not they made it at night. and with the high air pressure, the oxygen wouldnt be toxic. the evidence is in the fossil record. they've found evidence for vegetation in the sahara, and gobi deserts, the lush ancient forests of lebanon, etc. |
Again, the article talks about periods of history millions of years ago, not several thousand years ago.
| quote: | the increased amount a metal is due to the firmament falling. the following is from the article u presented called Stratigraphy of the Proterozoic Era. My rebuttal is below it.
"Several pieces of evidence -- the presence of iron oxides in paleosols (fossil soils), the appearance of "red beds" containing metal oxides, and others -- point to a fairly rapid increase in levels of oxygen in the atmosphere at about this time."
My rebuttal- Source is the Firmament Article above. |
Geez, the older soils had the same amount of metal in them, the difference was that they did not have any oxygen so they didn't have metal oxides. The firmament article suggests vice-versa.
| quote: | | how was it much harder to balance a diet. your thinking in today's terms. u have to think in the past's terms. the vegetation was enourmously abundant. there would be a lot more than just a few berries. |
Actually if we look at the vegetation from the dinosaur time period we will see that there are no fruits around whatsoever, only ferns.
| quote: | well, did u read this part, sorry i should have narrowed down this article to the topic at hand, but here it is.
Cain and the land of Nod
Some claim that the passage in Genesis 4:16–17 means that Cain went to the land of Nod and found a wife. Thus, they can conclude there must have been another race of people on the Earth, who were not descendants of Adam, who produced Cain’s wife.
‘And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bore Enoch: and he built a city, and he called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.’
From what has been stated previously, it is clear that all humans, Cain’s wife included, are descendants of Adam. However, this passage does not say that Cain went to the land of Nod and found a wife. John Calvin, commenting on these verses, states:
‘From the context we may gather that Cain, before he slew his brother, had married a wife; otherwise Moses would now have related something respecting his marriage.’13
Cain was married before he went to the land of Nod. He didn’t find a wife there, but ‘knew’ (had sexual relations with) his wife.14
Others have argued that because Cain built a ‘city’ in the land of Nod, there must have been a lot of people there. However, the Hebrew word translated as ‘city’ need not mean what we might imagine from the connotations of ‘city’ today. The word meant a ‘walled town’ or a protected encampment.15 Even a hundred people would be plenty for such a ‘city.’ Nevertheless, there could have been many descendants of Adam on the Earth by the time of Abel’s death (see below). |
Well, those things aren't mentioned in the bible. That's your construction.
| quote: | | today, it is the primary source. but in the pre-flood era, there was so much vegetation, that that vegetation was the primary source of oxygen. |
Look, if all the damn earth was covered in rainforests, the algae would still make more oxygen than all the other plants combined.
| quote: | | u have to clarify biblical times. biblical times spans all of time. from beginning to end. so which time are u talking about when peoples life expectancies were 20-30. true, there were times in which it was that, and certain people were prone to that life expectancy, like i said, desert people, nomad's, etc. |
15000-2000 years ago. Every research on excavated corpses shows that people lived on average 20-30 years.
| quote: | | true, ill concede to that, but cancer, and other mutations are still passed down heredically. |
Yes, but there's a difference between an inherent likelihood to get a cancer and getting a canc
___________________
1+1=10
|
