Denial of Evolution VII (2015)

[danshawen]

Helps to be specific, yes. Sorry. 2.8 million years is the current record for the oldest hominid fossil discovery (this month):

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/05/w...ry-fills-barren-evolutionary-period.html?_r=0

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...an-ancestor-discovered-earliest-relative.html

8 million years is the estimate of how long ago our ancestral line diverged from lower primates and apes eventually leading to the birthing of the man who became Bishop James Ussher whose work on the chronology of the New Testament is the stuff of YEC legend. Elevating him and his inspired calculation to more than a G-d, for YECs, or even all of science in the years since then. This calculation is more revered and adored than the subject of the first commandment, and this demonstrates there is no limit to the depths of human gullibility. Even before 8 million years ago, there were individuals who could not read, write, or produce much of a repertoire of vocalizations or think or model nature as deeply as ourselves, but were nonetheless much less gullible than your average YEC. All of this, an excuse not to be associated with certain of these ancestors who were as much one of G-d's creatures as they are.

 

[Saint]

humans began after the extinction of dinosaurs.

 

[GeoffP]

humans began after the extinction of dinosaurs.

Not unless you mean early mammals.

 

[Saint]

If dinosaurs survive, humans can't thrive.

 

[Walter L. Wagner]

If dinosaurs survive, humans can't thrive.

Correct. The demise of the dinosaurs allowed the mammals, which had been around for millions of years, to thrive in new niches, etc., including primate ancestors.

 

[danshawen]

Not the first extinction event, nor will it be the last.

 

[GeoffP]

True all that.

I suppose that whatever form emerged as the intelligent one, it was always going to be "us" - or at least it was always going to have hands and walk upright and not have a tail. Surely there must be constant ancestral pressures for such things. Slight variations would exist - hair pattern, stance, maybe even joint lengths, general metabolism, sensory variations. But the good news is, if ever you got out in space, you just might meet up with those green space-chicks after all. I'm sure Kirk would be thrilled.

 

[danshawen]

Not the first extinction level event on Earth, nor is it likely that it will be the last. No matter how big or strong or smart or even religious you think you are, there's 100 billion huge rocks out there, and one of those has all of our names and the names of our children's children written on it.

 

[GeoffP]

I'd like to see a bit more investment - which is to say, proper investment - in safeguarding the world against being hit by an asteroid. Sure, the risk is small. Quite small. Probably. We've had how many near misses in the last ten years? Forgive me, but that seems alarming, particularly against the risk of everything being dead.

It underscores the futility of the capitalist paradigm. All right, so we have a small risk of everything being dead. It's not big, but if it happens, everything is dead. Should we not, I don't know, get busy building more watcher facilities, or deep-space warning satellites, or space-nukes to fend off the threat? I expect some of those threats might be unstoppable, but I bet we'd all feel quite silly if we could have and didn't. So what's stopping us?

This is a piece of pressed cotton dyed with patterns of ink.

Step back again, and have a good look: This is a piece of pressed cotton dyed with patterns of ink. It is worth, in actual value, almost nothing. It has worth only by the worth we assign to it. And it is that discipline of pointless mental gymnastics that prevents us from doing anything. These pressed cotton fibres - or, worse, their electronic conceptuality - prevent us from keeping our species safe, or having decent healthcare worldwide, or properly feeding and clothing our populations. That's all. Just cotton fibres and leftover conventions of feudalism. And, when it all goes smack, that will be the reason why.

How much better we could do.

 

[Walter L. Wagner]

I'd like to see a bit more investment - which is to say, proper investment - in safeguarding the world against being hit by an asteroid. Sure, the risk is small. Quite small. Probably. We've had how many near misses in the last ten years? Forgive me, but that seems alarming, particularly against the risk of everything being dead.

Our ancestors survived just fine all previous asteroid impacts. Ergo, we are here. That's not to say it wasn't problematic for other species and their ancestors. So the risk of "everything" being dead from an asteroid seems very miniscule. Fossil fuel burning is a bigger worry. or the LHC.

 

[GeoffP]

Possibly. But what I'm implying, of course, is a big impact - something on the order of that which nearly wiped out the dinosaurs. As for fossil fuels - sure, it's serious, and certain. A few generations from now we might well be eating each other in the mountains.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Our ancestors survived just fine all previous asteroid impacts.

Actually, all of the large animal species were killed off in the last one. This allowed the small animals to restart evolution. They were the ones who were "our ancestors."

So the risk of "everything" being dead from an asteroid seems very miniscule.

A comparable asteroid would have the same effect today. Surely the surviving humans would fight over the pathetic food supply, and end up eating each other's corpses. If they were prepared for such an event, with bunkers that could support a few dozen people for a lifetime or two, and plenty of technology, they might be able to jump-start civilization again. But this would require killing off all the people outside the bunkers.

Fossil fuel burning is a bigger worry.

As I noted in another discussion, they're discovering that the melting arctic and antarctic ice is saturated with carbon. As it melts and vaporizes and releases it all into the atomosphere, the effects will be drastic.

 

[Walter L. Wagner]

Actually, all of the large animal species were killed off in the last one. This allowed the small animals to restart evolution. They were the ones who were "our ancestors."A comparable asteroid would have the same effect today. Surely the surviving humans would fight over the pathetic food supply, and end up eating each other's corpses. If they were prepared for such an event, with bunkers that could support a few dozen people for a lifetime or two, and plenty of technology, they might be able to jump-start civilization again. But this would require killing off all the people outside the bunkers.As I noted in another discussion, they're discovering that the melting arctic and antarctic ice is saturated with carbon. As it melts and vaporizes and releases it all into the atomosphere, the effects will be drastic.

Such a pessimist. Watching too many Mad Max movies no doubt. The surviving humans are currently fighting over pathetic food supplies, etc. in many parts of the world today.

But yes, it would cause lots of problems to have a huge hit - but it would not wipe out civilization - just change it.

And yes, apparently the large and small dinosaurs went extinct; whereas only the large mammals (if there were any - I'm not familiar with that field enough to know the largest ones) went extinct, and possibly some of the small ones.

This then allowed your beloved hippo ancestor, which was small, to become a hippo, while its cousin kept swimming beyond the lagoon. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Such a pessimist. Watching too many Mad Max movies no doubt. The surviving humans are currently fighting over pathetic food supplies, etc. in many parts of the world today.

So imagine what would happen if, say, 200 million people survived the collision, and there was only enough food for ten thousand.

But yes, it would cause lots of problems to have a huge hit - but it would not wipe out civilization - just change it.

It would not literally wipe out civilization because the basic definition of "civilization" is "the building of cities." There would surely be quite a few bunkers, deep in caves with lots of food and up-t0-date technology, which didn't take a direct hit so their occupants survived. We'd see the asteroid coming several years in advance, giving the rich and powerful plenty of time to prepare.

Nonetheless, it would wipe out more than 99% of the human race. And it would take several generations, perhaps several millennia, before the atmosphere cleared and the food supply recovered.

Does anybody have the info handy on how long it took the atmosphere to recover and the sun to be seen clearly, after that humongous asteroid hit?

And yes, apparently the large and small dinosaurs went extinct; whereas only the large mammals (if there were any - I'm not familiar with that field enough to know the largest ones) went extinct, and possibly some of the small ones.

There were no large mammals yet. I'm pretty sure there wasn't anything larger than a rat. The sudden disappearance of the predatory dinosaurs (remember, many of the larger species were herbivores, protected by their sheer bulk and defensive strength, like today's elephants) left the tiny mammals free to take over the world.

This then allowed your beloved hippo ancestor, which was small, to become a hippo, while its cousin kept swimming beyond the lagoon. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03

The asteroid collision that did away with the dinosaurs happened about 70MYA. The common ancestor of the cetaceans and hippos arose about 10M years later. One source says that the first cetaceans arose around 50MYA, although the true hippopotamus didn't really show up until around 15MYA.

 

[Walter L. Wagner]

The asteroid collision that did away with the dinosaurs happened about 70MYA. The common ancestor of the cetaceans and hippos arose about 10M years later. One source says that the first cetaceans arose around 50MYA, although the true hippopotamus didn't really show up until around 15MYA.

It's interesting to speculate that the rise of that last common ancestor, in only 10 my, was made possible by such destruction. One branch went after water plants; the other after water animals, as food sources. The carnivorous ones soon found a plentiful food source in the oceans, leaving the lagoons behind. It's interesting too where we find the fossils - high up on mountains lifted from the seas.

 

[Adrian Commander]

The rarity of fossilization and the inherent similarities strongly imply connections even across these short transitional gaps. Otherwise why such similarity? Why such genetic relatedness? Why the gross morphological similarity?

Related to the above, when we find the fossils occupying such gaps, will the new complaint be that we don't have the fossils from just before and just after the transitional fossil - newer, even smaller gaps? And then, when those are found, the ones just before and after them? And so on and so on, putting God in increasingly small spaces. Is this then your new 'god of the gaps'? Sounds schizophrenic, if you ask me.

Also, it sounds like the existence of any gap at all must mean that you, personally, cannot accept macroevolution. Perhaps it would only be acceptable to you if were able to find the exact immediate ancestor of each individual animal. After all, God could have operated there, too, couldn't he? They say He goeth like a thief in the night; but as I recall, you creationists aren't too keen on the idea of an animal rapidly changing.

You know, unless God did it. That's some magic box you've got there.

You seem to be getting confused between proof, theory and fact.
Evolution is a fact - it happens.
The "theory" part is about exactly how it happens - the precise details.

Homo Sapiens are clearly the missing link, between the apes and intelligent life.

 

[GeoffP]

Such pessimism. Look on the upside. Intelligence may never do better than us.

Oh. Oh, I see.

 

[billvon]

This is a piece of pressed cotton dyed with patterns of ink.

Step back again, and have a good look: This is a piece of pressed cotton dyed with patterns of ink. It is worth, in actual value, almost nothing. It has worth only by the worth we assign to it. And it is that discipline of pointless mental gymnastics that prevents us from doing anything. These pressed cotton fibres - or, worse, their electronic conceptuality - prevent us from keeping our species safe, or having decent healthcare worldwide, or properly feeding and clothing our populations.

It would be far more accurate to say that that piece of cotton (and indeed the concept of money in general) allows us to keep our species safe, to provide us healthcare, and to feed ourselves.

 

[GeoffP]

Or, not. It gives us reason to attack and exploit other members of our species, and provides superior resources for those with a lot of it. Worse, it enables them to develop more such power and advantage disproportionately depending on how much they have of it.

 

[billvon]

Or, not. It gives us reason to attack and exploit other members of our species

EVERYTHING - from the color of our skins to our religions to our flags to our heritage to our sexual mores to where we were born to our accent to our clothing - gives us reason to attack and exploit other members of our species. Money is hardly unique in that regard.

and provides superior resources for those with a lot of it.

It is a tool that provides superior resources for everyone.

Worse, it enables them to develop more such power and advantage disproportionately depending on how much they have of it.

And allows us to do things like go to the Moon, develop solar power, feed the hungry, cure the sick and protect children from disease.

Money is nothing more than a tool, a useful tool that allows us to trade our labor for other things we need. It is not inherently evil or good. Calling it evil would be like calling screwdrivers evil because they are sometimes used to stab people.