Evolutionary news

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 9:18 am

arch said:

now that i know you are culturally illiterate i can ignore you. per your train of thought in another thread.

This is the kind of thing I was talking about. It's un-called for and unfair. Stop it!

Tech · Post by **Tech** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 9:39 am

Frank
I believe that one was aimed at OAS
Who has left the board

Donna · Post by **Donna** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 11:39 am

You wrote
How close is that to Dayton? There'd be a certain irony to exhibiting her in the court house!

I think that would be great! I just hope it makes it to the Dallas-Ft. Worth area. Wish they had posted a list of the cities where they will have the exhibit.
Donna

Post by **Minimalist** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 11:43 am

Tech wrote:Frank
I believe that one was aimed at OAS
Who has left the board

And that's a damn shame!

Post by **Minimalist** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:09 pm

Hmmm....

Interesting.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20060923/ ... wingstofly

"This paper puts forward some of the strongest evidence yet that birds descended from arboreal parachuters and gliders, similar to flying squirrels," said study author Nick Longrich, a doctoral student a the University of Calgary in Canada.

The missing link

Archaeopteryx was a crow-sized animal that lived about 150 million years ago and which looked like a cross between a bird and a dinosaur. It had feathers and a wishbone like birds but also reptilian features like a long bony tail, claws and teeth.

When the first Archaeopteryx fossil was discovered in 1861, it caused a sensation because it was the kind of transitional animal that the British naturalist Charles Darwin predicted in his theory of evolution only a few years earlier.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:19 pm

And that's a damn shame!

but not unexpected
personally i think you don't have to be mad to post here but it helps
I know I am

Post by **Minimalist** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 9:42 pm

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/sci ... 726096.ece

He had found the partial skeleton of an adult female from 3.2m years earlier. Nicknamed Lucy after a Beatles song, she was the oldest hominin ever found at the time. Lucy was the first to be identified as Australopithecus afarensis, a missing link between apes and humans.

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 12:01 am

Tech wrote:Frank
I believe that one was aimed at OAS
Who has left the board

I don't care who it was aimed at. It was wrong and childish and it better stop.

john · Post by **john** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 12:03 am

Frank Harrist wrote:
Tech wrote:Frank
I believe that one was aimed at OAS
Who has left the board
I don't care who it was aimed at. It was wrong and childish and it better stop.

ARCHAEOLOGICA.TROLL.COM

I'M GONE

JOHN

Starflower · Post by **Starflower** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 9:57 pm

Found this tidbit and thought it deserved to be here. Listen to the bit about the asparagus, it's fascinating.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=6105541

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 11:32 am

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses. In evolutionary debates one is apt to hear evolution roughly parceled between the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution. What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993).

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:50 pm

So-called species can interbreed within respective syngameons of animals, such as that leopards and tigers can interbreed to produce offspring, this is natural selection within syngameons, it is not tree shrews morphing into leopards, as min and the other Darwinites would have us believe.

Evolution per se (natural selection within syngameons) is proven science, while Darwininan evolution is a baseless theory which has no explanatory power in the real world, it's not even a theory, it rightly should be considered merely a hypothesis, and an obvioulsy bad one at that.

oldarchystudent · Post by **oldarchystudent** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:54 pm

Minimalist wrote:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Somewhat related to this whole discussion on a grand scale:

http://www.handprint.com/PS/GEO/geoevo.html

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 2:40 pm

The talk origins link says that a major tenet of Darwinism is the concept of "Universal Common Descent," that goo morphed into all living organisms, and talk origins is honest enough to call their notion of Universal Common Descent to be merely a hypothesis, so the cornerstone of Darwinism is just a hypothesis, wow, even talk origins gets that part of it right.

oldarchystudent · Post by **oldarchystudent** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 3:14 pm

Minimalist wrote:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Interesting article - thanks for posting!