CrackerJax
New Member
We'll just stop with your first 4 words.
Hah!!
You admit it freely!!
Are you following me? I'm starting to freak a bit....
out.
Hah!!
You admit it freely!!
Are you following me? I'm starting to freak a bit....
out.
Creation Vs. Evolution
- Thread starter matthew
- Start date
misshestermoffitt
New Member
as a matter of fact I am following you, there's some toilet paper stuck to your shoe dragging behind you, I was trying to step on it so it'll come off..............
Jonus
Well-Known Member
yizzle ma jizzle e x to the a c and tizzleWow, the exact same logic? I had no idea.....
out.
Seamaiden
Well-Known Member
This may irk some folks, possibly even piss 'em off, but there is a HELL of a lot of wrongness going around in this thread with specific regard to the science. Let's get going.
The reason Homo floresiensis was named that is because it was found on the island of Flores in Indonesia (I know this without looking at the Wiki, but I bet ya it says the same thing). Your tip off is the "ensis" portion of the specie taxonomy. No one can say that it evolved after H. sapiens, in fact, it's thought by many to be a relative of H. erectus, at the very least. It closely resembles earlier Australophithecines.
How on earth did you get the rest? The flower eating being its primary diet and the basis of the nomenclature, that H. sapiens sapiens (maybe you're thinking of H. heidelbergensis, or Archaic H. sapiens) is an early modern human, etcetera? For instance, your statement that H. floresiensis evolved as a pre-modern human during the very time of the advent of modern humans.. where did you get that? There's nothing in the extremely limited fossil record that says anything other than we're (somewhat) certain that by about 12,000 years ago the species had died out, again, only according to the fossil record. Considering that there is still debate as to its origins, it seems that there is still a good possibility that this little hominid may reach back to H. erectus times (about 1,000,000 years ago), and possibly even earlier.
I've found some shots of the good skull, and I have yet to see anything of the dentition that would bring one to believe that H. floresiensis was limited to flower-eating. I have also yet to read anything from those in the field that this anyone believes this to be the case. How did you reach this conclusion, when we have the (now extinct, contemporary pygmy elephant) Stegodon bones with cut marks on them excavated in situ in the same cave in the SAME STRATA as H. florensiensis? Who did that? The elephants? I think that it may be a safe guess that H. floresiensis did that. To what end? To get at the flowers in the elephants' stomachs? Something tells me no (that would be my stomach). Something tells me it is more likely than not that, just as hominids and most all other primates do and have done, this little guy was omnivorous. A quote from an article I'm linking at bottom:
This is a FANTASTIC magazine, the only subscription I've kept up despite my tightening economic belt (the list of those eliminated includes SciAm and Discover):
http://archaeology.org/ <--- I get the hardcopy, but they have lots of stuffs on the site, too.
And, for everyone's reading enjoyment, the mag's article on H. florensiensis.
http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/flores/
I've got to say, if you're going to make statements as though they are fact, could you please make the effort to check your own sources first?
Jonus.. I have yet to see anyone in the field make those assertions!
The reason Homo floresiensis was named that is because it was found on the island of Flores in Indonesia (I know this without looking at the Wiki, but I bet ya it says the same thing). Your tip off is the "ensis" portion of the specie taxonomy. No one can say that it evolved after H. sapiens, in fact, it's thought by many to be a relative of H. erectus, at the very least. It closely resembles earlier Australophithecines.
How on earth did you get the rest? The flower eating being its primary diet and the basis of the nomenclature, that H. sapiens sapiens (maybe you're thinking of H. heidelbergensis, or Archaic H. sapiens) is an early modern human, etcetera? For instance, your statement that H. floresiensis evolved as a pre-modern human during the very time of the advent of modern humans.. where did you get that? There's nothing in the extremely limited fossil record that says anything other than we're (somewhat) certain that by about 12,000 years ago the species had died out, again, only according to the fossil record. Considering that there is still debate as to its origins, it seems that there is still a good possibility that this little hominid may reach back to H. erectus times (about 1,000,000 years ago), and possibly even earlier.
I've found some shots of the good skull, and I have yet to see anything of the dentition that would bring one to believe that H. floresiensis was limited to flower-eating. I have also yet to read anything from those in the field that this anyone believes this to be the case. How did you reach this conclusion, when we have the (now extinct, contemporary pygmy elephant) Stegodon bones with cut marks on them excavated in situ in the same cave in the SAME STRATA as H. florensiensis? Who did that? The elephants? I think that it may be a safe guess that H. floresiensis did that. To what end? To get at the flowers in the elephants' stomachs? Something tells me no (that would be my stomach). Something tells me it is more likely than not that, just as hominids and most all other primates do and have done, this little guy was omnivorous. A quote from an article I'm linking at bottom:
Wouldn't you think that if they made spear points they're using them to stick something, something alive and animal? It's highly unlikely that they're using them to stick potatoes.
This is a FANTASTIC magazine, the only subscription I've kept up despite my tightening economic belt (the list of those eliminated includes SciAm and Discover):
http://archaeology.org/ <--- I get the hardcopy, but they have lots of stuffs on the site, too.
And, for everyone's reading enjoyment, the mag's article on H. florensiensis.http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/flores/
I've got to say, if you're going to make statements as though they are fact, could you please make the effort to check your own sources first?
You know I love you, but that's incorrect. All species have evolved to fit particular ecological niches, thusly, are specialized. Some are more specialized than others, but this does not mean they can not or will not evolve any further.
That's not quite how evolution works. Evolution occurs with the random mutations of genes. Some of these mutations work great for the current organism's circumstances. Other genes spell the demise of some. Those that survive, obviously, pass on those successful mutations. However, there is nothing reasoned or purposeful about evolution (or punctuated equilibrium). In other words, it is ENTIRELY accidental and does not come about because it's "needed".
My own jury is still out on that. So, I may disagree. I think it's just as likely that it was disease. Why didn't the buffalo die out at the same time as other North American mega-fauna? Cougar? Modern wolves? How come mammoths in Siberia, which had been populated before N.A., also died out around the same time? There was a lot of upheaval on earth at that time, not to mention that not all diseases leave their traces behind.I think man has something to do with woolies going bye bye, don't you?
out.
Hand Banana
Well-Known Member
Big rep seamaiden! The definitive post on evolution!
misshestermoffitt
New Member
This what I mean by specialization ---->
Species go extinct primarily because they are unable to adapt to a changing environment. Animals with specialized food or habitat requirements, such as the giant panda (which feeds almost exclusively on bamboo), are particularly susceptible to environmental changes. Generalist species that feed on many types of food and live in a variety of settings are much more able to survive in a changing environment. For example, raccoons are common city dwellers, where they forage from trash cans instead of from streams. In addition, species with long generation times that produce few offspring are often vulnerable to extinction. If a population of animals is very small, it is subject to extinction from a variety of factors, such as disturbances and diseases.
Sometimes climate change comes too rapidly for animals and plants to have time to adapt and evolve. Not all evolution is accidental, sometimes it comes from a need for change. ----->
A second major extinction event occurred during the Eocene-Oligocene period, 30 to 35 million years ago. This extinction was the result of global cooling due to changes in ocean current patterns. Prior to this period modern families of mammals comprised only about 15 percent of the mammalian fauna; after cooling modern mammals made up more than 50 percent of the fauna at the family level.
http://www.biologyreference.com/Ep-Fl/Extinction.html
Species go extinct primarily because they are unable to adapt to a changing environment. Animals with specialized food or habitat requirements, such as the giant panda (which feeds almost exclusively on bamboo), are particularly susceptible to environmental changes. Generalist species that feed on many types of food and live in a variety of settings are much more able to survive in a changing environment. For example, raccoons are common city dwellers, where they forage from trash cans instead of from streams. In addition, species with long generation times that produce few offspring are often vulnerable to extinction. If a population of animals is very small, it is subject to extinction from a variety of factors, such as disturbances and diseases.
Sometimes climate change comes too rapidly for animals and plants to have time to adapt and evolve. Not all evolution is accidental, sometimes it comes from a need for change. ----->
A second major extinction event occurred during the Eocene-Oligocene period, 30 to 35 million years ago. This extinction was the result of global cooling due to changes in ocean current patterns. Prior to this period modern families of mammals comprised only about 15 percent of the mammalian fauna; after cooling modern mammals made up more than 50 percent of the fauna at the family level.
http://www.biologyreference.com/Ep-Fl/Extinction.html
CrackerJax
New Member
Well, I still think man has "something" to do with the woolies extinction. I will not attest to the primary cause, since I am not qualified to do so (but this is virtual, go ahead).
Each species would have to be studied on its own as to the MANY and VARIED winnowing out processes at play in extinction. Certainly man's ability to winnow in not in question is it?
Man is the fire keeper and has hence given us weed. Man is good.
out.
Each species would have to be studied on its own as to the MANY and VARIED winnowing out processes at play in extinction. Certainly man's ability to winnow in not in question is it?
Man is the fire keeper and has hence given us weed. Man is good.
out.
Jonus
Well-Known Member
It came from an article in the vegetarian journal, by Stanley Garn, Professor of Nutrition and Anthropology, and William Leonard, Assistant Professor of Human Biology:
"These people of Upper Pleistocene, and later those of the mesolithic, were our immediate ancestors, no longer hunters exclusively and with whole-grain products and a variable amount of roots, fruits, leafy vegetables and nuts in their diet. We must grant them a mixed diet, with animal fat providing a smaller proportion of their food energy than was probably true for the Neanderthals."
Also Flores is famous for two things, gigantism and dwarfism. On Flores you had the giant rat, the giant lizard, the dwarf elephant and the afore mentioned dwarf homo Floresiensis.
The suggestion is that the combination of the lack of available protein coupled with the heavy wear and tare on the molars of the specimens found, is consistent with the small development in stature or several species on the Island, and along with the fact that the Floresiensis had fire to cook with, discards the premise tha the wear and tare came from eating raw foods and poorly prepared foods, but rather points to an eventual diet of roots and fauna.
This is consistant with the gradual change in molar wear and tare on humans who were introduced into new isolated by the sea, environments such as the Maori from New Zealand who also cooked with fire on hearths and in ground ovens, who also went through a period of hunting easy accessible meat, instead of the Stegodon, theirs was the Moa or Dinomis robustus and ground dwelling birds. After a recession in the availability of those sources of protein due to extinction of those species, you see the same wear on the molars from a change in diet to eating roots and other harsh foods.
In my post I said that, 'H.Floresiensis evolved after homo sapiens sapiens', which they did. Homo Sapien Sapiens lived from about 250,000 years ago till today, the Homo Floresiensis live from about 100,000 years ago till 12,000 years ago.
<SNIFF> I love you guys... <Wipes tear>
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
Your critical thinking skills are as anemic as your blood.
Hypocrite. LOL! Obviously, you don't know the definition of the word. If I were a hypocrite, I would condemn people for eating meat while eating meat myself. Or more to the point, I would grouse about leather, pet food, and glue when I use them myself.
Next you'll be saying my tofu dogs make me a hypocrite because they resemble your processed penis, brain, lip, and asshole dogs.
The context of this discussion is evolution and diet. Leather, pet food, and glue are irrelevant to my diet.
And childish? I received a rep from you that was the War and Peace of childish rants. Hester funny! And, my folks are very proud of me. As I am sure Otis the town drunk is proud of you.
You uber-defensive meaties read like pop-up books. My diet is not an indictment of your diet. The truth is I could care less what you eat. How many times should I repeat that before it penetrates your precious big brain? It's called free will. Conversely, I will not be shouted down by a nattering fishwife, who is somehow threatened by my diet, either.
misshestermoffitt
New Member
It was not the war and peace of anything, nor was it a rant, it just stated that I'm surprised that my diet makes your penis shrivel up.
Stop acting like I said stuff I didn't, As if I wrote a book, liar !!!
Your the one bitching about meat eating. I was just pointing out that animal use extends far beyond what we eat. "Oh, don't eat meat it's mean, but it's ok to have a closet full of LEATHER baseball gloves".
It sounds to me like your POV is that it's ok to kill animals for anything else, as long as we throw the meat away, talk about a waste.
Stop acting like I said stuff I didn't, As if I wrote a book, liar !!!
Your the one bitching about meat eating. I was just pointing out that animal use extends far beyond what we eat. "Oh, don't eat meat it's mean, but it's ok to have a closet full of LEATHER baseball gloves".
It sounds to me like your POV is that it's ok to kill animals for anything else, as long as we throw the meat away, talk about a waste.
CrackerJax
New Member
So the next logical question is why is it any better to kill plants than animals?
There is no higher ground.....
out.
There is no higher ground.....
out.
Stoney McFried
Well-Known Member
Because flora is delicious with fauna.
So the next logical question is why is it any better to kill plants than animals?
There is no higher ground.....
out.
CrackerJax
New Member
At least cows can run away
Can you imagine if the farmer fires up his thresher and the wheat field skidaddles!!
out.
Can you imagine if the farmer fires up his thresher and the wheat field skidaddles!!
out.
Stoney McFried
Well-Known Member
I would ask that that farmer share some of his LSD with me.
At least cows can run away
Can you imagine if the farmer fires up his thresher and the wheat field skidaddles!!
out.
CrackerJax
New Member
WANTED:
Wheat field of approximately 50 acres in size heading due west from farmer Smith's field in Muckawhacka, Kansas.
DO NOT TRY AND APPREHEND!
The wheat is chaffed and dangerous. The sight of milk or lunchmeats will drive the crop into a frenzy so use caution!
out.
Wheat field of approximately 50 acres in size heading due west from farmer Smith's field in Muckawhacka, Kansas.
DO NOT TRY AND APPREHEND!
The wheat is chaffed and dangerous. The sight of milk or lunchmeats will drive the crop into a frenzy so use caution!
out.
misshestermoffitt
New Member
Whew, it's heading west, I'm east of Kansas, I can sleep good tonight !!!
CrackerJax
New Member
This just in........ (beep beep ticka ticka ticka)
Update....
BIG LETTTERS STARTLE STONER!!
out.