• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Does believing in Evolution say a lot about you

Status
Not open for further replies.
Here is a paper suggesting why their is little morphological differences between living and extinct monotremes. Read below for the authors conclusions.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2234122/#!po=39.4737


Monotremes have left only a meager fossil record, but what is known at present is consistent with the view that soon after their divergence, in or before the Early Cretaceous, monotremes settled into rates of molecular and morphological evolution and speciation far slower than in the living clades of therian mammals. Even the monotreme metabolic rates and ventilation rates are much slower than in therian mammals of similar body mass, and their body temperature is lower as well (81). In what measure and to what degree these various rates are coupled or were independently evolving phenomena remains to be determined.
 
One Thousand Words said:
The oldest fossils of the modern platypus are only 100 000 yr old. The extinct monotremes Teinolophos and Steropodon were closely related to the modern platypus are thought to have existed 100million years ago, but they are both different species to today's platypus. They are believed to be two of the oldest mammals discovered.
Click to expand...

You really should get a life and give it up with all the sock-puppet accounts, brah
 
OK, my abstract was from national geographic on same study.
I really hope you know this is how they recreate so many many many animals they say are millions of years old. With one jaw or piece of skull. If you question ( which you should) a fossil in national geographic, you will have to take that up with them.
Hoaxes do happen. That's why fly by night theories caution me. But I have no proof to discredit study.
Just that it is hard to say it if the similarities are a little more than meets the eye,
They ain't that far off from what we have today after millions of years
remember we changed from monkey like creature in less than 200 thousand supposedly.
Dont forget scientist round the globe are supporting major flood scenario.
That's why we find seas shells on every major mountain top.
Google seashells on Mt Everest
Highest peak on earth
Kilimanjaro too, 2nd highest
At everest they are so many locals sell for souvenirs
edit:
Sorry left out that if flood is true it explains explosion of Cambrian explosion too as well as a bunch of other stuff if interested
 
Last edited:
I didnt see your link to Nat Geo (gotta work and sleep:) ) but yes it is referring to the same study.

What about my comment about platypus to echidna? You are saying the platypus did not change but if the ancestors of modern platypus are 100 million or so years old, and echidnas diverged maybe 30 million or so from those ancestors, is this not change?
 
http://www.detectingdesign.com/fossilrecord.html

Here's a link you can read for shits and giggles if nothing else
First one I found, there are much better ones that get more in depth
thanks for taking time to research link you provided
I admire an evolutionist willing to at least keep an eye on the theory to make sure it holds up to their smell test
nite nite
 
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation

I admire a young earth creationist willing to read and acknowledge (and try to understand) information that is contrary to their beliefs.

The arguments put forward in that link are tired old myths that were debunked decades ago.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Two rather long lists of creationist bullshit being debunked.

As with conspiracy theories, your site contains misinformation, data taken out of context, a lack of comprehension about what it is they are talking about and more lies, lies and lies.

If you bother looking (you wont) the second link specifically addresses the global flood and many more of your child like questions / assumptions.
 
Last edited:
perpetualdawn said:
Evolution is no more a matter of faith than the earth being round or gravity existing. What a weird question. Do you believe that the earth is round (spheroid)?
Click to expand...

Those are all matters of faith. :) Nothing is absolute, and honestly, just believing that what you experience is "real" - takes a good bit of faith.
 
Also, I believe that many of you are confusing "fact" with "true". Facts are based on probability; not guarantee.
 
fact
fakt/Submit
noun
a thing that is known or proved to be true.
=
 
Last edited:
And meth is using the term faith here to mean this:

"strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof."

Minus the religion part..
 
rickolasnice said:
fact
fakt/Submit
noun
a thing that is known or proved to be true.
=
Click to expand...

You just gave me the colloquial definition of "fact".

scientific fact
noun
any observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true; any scientific observation that has not been refuted.

Hence "accepted".
 
What one did I intend to use?

And what one did I use wrongly?

I said evolution is a fact and for all intents and purposes; the theory of evolution is also a fact.

I explained the difference a few pages back.
 
rickolasnice said:
What one did I intend to use?

And what one did I use wrongly?

I said evolution is a fact and for all intents and purposes; the theory of evolution is also a fact.

I explained the difference a few pages back.
Click to expand...

I was under the impression that you were replying to my post about fact and truth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top