News:

Welcome to the new Sinister Design forums!

Main Menu

What's your religion?

Started by Cypher, August 23, 2010, 11:36:26 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

bugfartboy

As would I. And as to how the current human reproduction system formed: isn't asexual reproduction easier than what is set up now? What would cause an organism to change so that its ability to survive was diminished? With the current system you need two organisms to make another. With asexual reproduction you need only one. Bacteria do it. Why would that change?

ArtDrake

Buggy, read a scholarly arcticle; I'm not explaining this one... again.

yogc elf, the species Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba is as close as we've got to a common ancestor with Pan troglodytes. It has many chimp-like characteristics, and wasn't fully bipedal.

The Holy namelesskitty

Quote from: Bugfartboy on November 30, 2010, 10:04:41 PM
As would I. And as to how the current human reproduction system formed: isn't asexual reproduction easier than what is set up now? What would cause an organism to change so that its ability to survive was diminished? With the current system you need two organisms to make another. With asexual reproduction you need only one. Bacteria do it. Why would that change?

Size is a major deciding factor in the fight for survival, it probably comes right after conscious thought, but then multicellular organisms cannot simply divide, therefore developed the need for sexual reproduction.
THE CAT IS BACK!!!!!!1!!!

my telepath LP :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuA3DfguEic



bugfartboy

But how would that cell know that size is better for survival? Look at the ameba. When will it decide that it's time to grow? And another thing, how did the same species end up on different sides of the world? Don't tell me. The chimp de-evolved into a bird, flew to an island, and then re-evolved into a chimp. Is that what you imply?

ArtDrake

No. It's called migration. Remember how it took millions of years to evolve into a human from an ape-like ancestor? It only takes thousands to move it all over. And in most places, the species are not the same. In Australia, you have marsupials, and the only marsupial here is the opossum.

The Holy namelesskitty

What do you mean know it? Usually it starts out with a parasite then the parasite and the host form a mutual relationship between parasite and host, eventually connecting more and becoming more specialized, eventually those cells cannot live without each other and eventually join genetic codes thus creating a multicellular organism. No knowledge required.
THE CAT IS BACK!!!!!!1!!!

my telepath LP :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuA3DfguEic



Steel Ersatz Man

Quote from: Bugfartboy on December 01, 2010, 09:43:26 PM
But how would that cell know that size is better for survival? Look at the ameba. When will it decide that it's time to grow? And another thing, how did the same species end up on different sides of the world? Don't tell me. The chimp de-evolved into a bird, flew to an island, and then re-evolved into a chimp. Is that what you imply?

There's also the fact that the lands are breaking apart and moving. (It used to be all one land called Pangea and, yes, this HAS been proven by fossils being at the east edge of one country and the west edge of another even though there's about 1000 miles of sea between them.)
We are the steel alliance. None shall take our hill!

cyso

Quote from: Duckling on December 01, 2010, 06:24:46 PM
yogc elf, the species Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba is as close as we've got to a common ancestor with Pan troglodytes. It has many chimp-like characteristics, and wasn't fully bipedal.
How exactly do scientist determine that a species is an ancestor to humans? By looks? Guessing? Similar bone structure?
...For I am his, and he is mine, bought by the precious blood of Christ.

Anyone want to find the rest of the words?

ArtDrake

Measurements of homologous structures, and comparison determines order of ancestry. Location of find and theorized migration patterns may determine age, and carbon-dating finds the age accurate to within a hundred years or so.

bugfartboy

If I remember correctly from my World Geography class, doesn't the object bing carbon dated need to be at least 600 years old?

ArtDrake

No. 600 years easy, 150 years if you've got good equipment, which the people doing radioactive carbon dating have.

And I'm saying accurate to within 100 years, out of millions.

bugfartboy

Alright. Answer me this. Have you found a fish person or a tapeworm person?

ArtDrake

No, why? And may I ask if this pertains to Darwinism? Because nothing in his theory would suggest that.

We (scientists) have found a creature that is mostly like a fish; however, it has appendage-like nubs. The Uranium-dating process tells us that it was alive at around the right time to have been the evolutionary "missing link" between fishes and amphibians.

bugfartboy


cyso

Quote from: Duckling on December 07, 2010, 03:06:34 PM
Measurements of homologous structures, and comparison determines order of ancestry. Location of find and theorized migration patterns may determine age, and carbon-dating finds the age accurate to within a hundred years or so.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but to determine homologous structures, you basically look at the structure and see if it looks alike. And to carbon date a fossil, doesn't it need to be found in igneous rock?
...For I am his, and he is mine, bought by the precious blood of Christ.

Anyone want to find the rest of the words?