JDL Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 I don't know why you care where the garden is, but since you asked, it's on the other side of the house. Given the preceding exchange, I was teeing up a straight line for you. No worries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 Yes Jodie thanks for that, but do they have the changes of that jellyfish into another or something else? Not to my knowledge. The thing about fossils is that it is not so important anymore to have Step 1, Step 2, Step 3 since the genome project came into being the last two decades. They can tell what was related to what through the DNA. A crocodile is closer to a chicken on the family tree than a snake is, and it is my understanding that the chicken is descended from TRex, which explains the popularity of **** fighting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 Thanks. Interesting. How big do you think they were, and were you close enough to feel any heat or hear any sound? The one in the first picture appeared to be about the size of a basketball, & the other one may have been a little larger. They were too far away to feel heat from them if there was any. No. I've never heard sounds from any of them, but one night a few weeks ago, I saw two of them just after hearing two low, rumbling booms. I heard the sounds & was looking to see if I could see anything, & these two bright orange/red balls were floating along just above the treetops. They were to the southwest of the ones that I got the pictures of, in a direction where there are no houses for several miles. I couldn't tell exactly where they were, but I think they may have been as much as a quarter mile away & considerably larger than the white ones. I know of three other people, (one is a member here), who have BF activity on their property, & also see these balls of light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 No, not at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 I guess what I'm asking is, we seem to many fossils of the same animals. None though of that animal in transition. Why? archeopteryx is an intermediate between small bipedal dinosaurs and birds. homo erectus is intermediate between australopitheus and modern humans. There are intermediates of all degrees between one generation and the next but they do not all fossilize. No one particular fossil is going to be the quintessential moment of transition from one species to the next but will be somewhere along the transition. species evolve slowly in small degrees at a time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wudewasa Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 I was wondering how many of you in this forum believe that there is a Bigfoot/UFO connection? aliensquatch.bmp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 aliensquatch.bmp I love this pic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 Fossils: what I tried to say above it that many species came and went and we have not yet found any fossils of them. There may be some, but we only found what we happened to have found. As to intermediate, evolving forms, usually evolution is quick enough that you will probably not find much in the fossil record, which is a geologic time record, over millions of years. And until we know what bigfoot actually IS, we cannot find it in the record....it might be there, might be X or Y, but until we know what modern bigfoot is like, it doesn't matter about any fossils. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 (edited) archeopteryx is an intermediate between small bipedal dinosaurs and birds.Is there proof of this somewhere?homo erectus is intermediate between australopitheus and modern humans.Proof on this too There are intermediates of all degrees between one generation and the next but they do not all fossilize. No one particular fossil is going to be the quintessential moment of transition from one species to the next but will be somewhere along the transition. species evolve slowly in small degrees at a time. I guess this is what I'm getting at. We seem to have the beginning and the end and no inbetween. So is evolution a belief or is it scientific fact. Seems like science assumes alot, cause it sounds right. I'm sure that I'm wrong, I can't imagine science would guess on matters of such importance. They are very lacking in Precambrian fossils and it isn't exactly clear how jellyfish evolved. They have the anatomy that placed them as more primitive than all the animals that made up the Cambrian explosion. Science previously assumed that they were the intermediate species between sponges and later animals with more complex symmetry. Their DNA shows that they might in fact be evolved from more advanced animals that regressed to a more primitive form. They didn't necessarily evolve into the animals of the Cambrian explosion. They were part of it. They evolved a form that just didn't use the more complex symmetry of most of the other animals. The genes that control those body parts in the later bilaterally symmetrical animals are remarkably well preserved. The Hox genes apparently allowed the Cambrian explosion. It was a template for further evolution. Unfortunately, that leaves a bit of a gap in the fossil record if jellyfish were actually evolved from one of those lineages. The main point of that is that jellyfish probably didn't evolve into anything. They and all the other animals of the Cambrian explosion evolved from some type of worm. They have worm fossils back almost to the time of the snowball earth. Thanks Bob. I guess what I'm saying is why don't we have just one fossil of T Rex evolving into the chicken I just ate tonight. There should be many more fossils of that transformation than what we have, why? Edited December 30, 2011 by will Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 Evolution is a theory in flux. It will always change as new information is added, but there are some parts of it that are fact as evidenced by DNA studies. I would suggest that you read the original research on all of it, both DNA research and evolutionary theory, rather than relying on someone else, be that a preacher, teacher, or pop author, to interpret the information for you, then draw your own conclusions. Either you understand more than you let on or you know so little you can't understand the basic explanations we have given you. Go study a little and then come back and ask your questions when you are ready to listen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 Evolution is a theory in flux. It will always change as new information is added, but there are some parts of it that are fact as evidenced by DNA studies. I would suggest that you read the original research on all of it, both DNA research and evolutionary theory, rather than relying on someone else, be that a preacher, teacher, or pop author, to interpret the information for you, then draw your own conclusions. Either you understand more than you let on or you know so little you can't understand the basic explanations we have given you. Go study a little and then come back and ask your questions when you are ready to listen. Thanks Jodie I agree with the theory being in flux. Are you sure the basics are understandable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 Well the DNA stuff is for me, just start at the beginning and then take it in stages. Then when you read the research on DNA you will be able to follow what has been done. Evolutionary theory is pretty straight forward, but it is always being revised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
See-Te-Cah NC Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 (edited) Thanks Jodie I agree with the theory being in flux. Are you sure the basics are understandable? Will, I have intentionally stayed out of this discussion until now. I have my opinions on Evolution and they're not popular here sometimes. Whenever you hold a view that differs from the consensus view of the day, or question an accepted view, you are fighting a losing battle. And if you hold a religious viewpoint you're at a bit of a disadvantage because religion is taboo on here. So... What's the real truth in my opinion? Allow me to share: Evolution - The accepted view of the day. Always in flux and takes millions - if not billions - of years to occur. This view is taught in all publicly-funded schools and universities, so it is taught as fact by those that have themselves been taught that view. As a matter of fact, another view cannot be taught because if it is it is considered religion, which the government claims is unconstitutional (in the US, anyway). The fossil record is the basis of evidence for this view, yet it is admittedly inadequate to provide all of the answers. We will never know if a animal can evolve into a more suitable creature (like exchanging front legs or arms for wings) or completely evolving into a completely different life form (such as from cold-blooded to warm-blooded) because we, as humans, have yet to live the required amount of time to actually observe this change. Mutations? Yes. Adaptations? Sure. Variation of existing species? Certainly. Yet we can't observe some of the major claims as they occur. Creationism - Was the accepted view of its day. Claims that all was created by a deity. This view states that all was created in a fully-developed state and that all was created in a short period of time. Is not taught in public schools or universities. The fossil record is used as evidence of a great cataclysm and as evidence of a deity’s intervention as creator. Many hold to this view, yet the evidence for this view is based on ancient texts and cannot be scientifically proven. We will never actually have the proof of this view until the deity responsible for this creation makes itself known, which has already been thousands of years... and counting. Some evidence put forward is questionable (as all evidence should be) and some beliefs are unfounded and unprovable (the earth is 6,000 years old, for example). We are also unable to observe examples replicating the claims of those holding this view. Intelligent Design - A view that holds to the belief that our universe and all life in it are far too complex and ordered to have occurred at random. This designer, regardless of what it is called, is a master of science and all of its laws. Many proponents of ID are admittedly Creationists while others are not. Those that hold this view may indeed believe much of what evolutionists believe (such as the earth being billions of years old), although they attribute all of it to a designer instead of random events or a religious deity per se. There is no means to test or observe this view until and unless the designer reveals itself or we discover its existence though scientific discovery. Evolutionists believe what they have learned, just as Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents do. The fact is that none of the above can be proven without question, nor can many of the claims of each be tested or substantiated by the scientific community. We can't observe conclusive proof in any of these views, so we have to put faith in the view we ascribe to, which is a belief. A belief is based on an individual's interpretation of evidence they're presented and the faith that they have in that interpreted evidence. None of the views discussed have been proven, yet all of them have proponents that believe them to be true. My advice to you - not that you asked for it - is to just know what you know, believe what you believe and don't concern yourself with what others think of you for the point of view you decide to hold. The consensus view of the day is Evolution. I suggest to all Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents that they disprove Evolution with their own evidence, which can be a ground-shaking discovery or by chipping away at the consensus view a little at a time. If any of these views cannot hold up to the scrutiny of the others, then that viewpoint will have to change. There is nothing wrong with asking questions about Evolution. It is a good thing to learn about no matter what view you hold. Edited December 31, 2011 by See-Te-Cah NC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 Do you feel any kinship to great apes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
See-Te-Cah NC Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 Do you feel any kinship to great apes? Are you asking me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts