| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"JaBrIoL" |
| Date: |
04 Nov 2003 09:07:44 AM |
| Object: |
TOBS: first homonid a mouse-lemur? |
One of these earliest mammals claimed to be in the line of man is a
small, rodentlike animal said to have lived about 70 million years
ago. In their book Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, Donald Johanson
and Maitland Edey wrote: "They were insect-eating quadrupeds about the
size and shape of squirrels." Richard Leakey called the mammal a
"rat-like primate." But is there any solid evidence that these tiny
animals were the ancestors of humans? No, instead only wishful
speculation. No transitional stages have ever linked them with
anything except what they were: small, rodentlike mammals.
.
|
|
| User: "Geoff Offermann" |
|
| Title: Re: first homonid a mouse-lemur? |
04 Nov 2003 10:49:50 AM |
|
|
"JaBrIoL" <Jabriol@excite.com> wrote in message
news:d222de3e.0311040707.4b224889@posting.google.com...
One of these earliest mammals claimed to be in the line of man is a
small, rodentlike animal said to have lived about 70 million years
ago. In their book Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, Donald Johanson
and Maitland Edey wrote: "They were insect-eating quadrupeds about the
size and shape of squirrels." Richard Leakey called the mammal a
"rat-like primate." But is there any solid evidence that these tiny
animals were the ancestors of humans? No, instead only wishful
speculation. No transitional stages have ever linked them with
anything except what they were: small, rodentlike mammals.
A. off topic for alt.atheism
B. multiple crossposts are uncool
C. what is TOBS?
D. all fossils are transitional, even if they are dead end transitions
E. your bar for solid evidence is higher than necessary
F. bye for now
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rv Cloim" |
|
| Title: Re: first homonid a mouse-lemur? |
04 Nov 2003 04:49:18 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 16:49:50 +0000, Geoff Offermann wrote:
"JaBrIoL" <Jabriol@excite.com> wrote in message
news:d222de3e.0311040707.4b224889@posting.google.com...
One of these earliest mammals claimed to be in the line of man is a
small, rodentlike animal said to have lived about 70 million years ago.
In their book Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, Donald Johanson and
Maitland Edey wrote: "They were insect-eating quadrupeds about the size
and shape of squirrels." Richard Leakey called the mammal a "rat-like
primate." But is there any solid evidence that these tiny animals were
the ancestors of humans? No, instead only wishful speculation. No
transitional stages have ever linked them with anything except what they
were: small, rodentlike mammals.
A. off topic for alt.atheism
He knows, but apparently doesn't care.
B. multiple crossposts are uncool
Jabriol disagrees.
I sometimes agree, and sometimes disagree. It depends upon the selection
of groups.
C. what is TOBS?
I'm guessing it means "Talk origins banned subject".
Jabriol thinks that he's been banned from t.o., despite the fact that he
can still post there as long as he doesn't include too many groups.
In other words, he's been 'banned' from t.o. because he refuses to
acknowledge point "B" above, and they have an auto-bot that prevents
threads containing multiple x-posts.
D. all fossils are transitional, even if they are dead end transitions
Indeed. Life is transitional.
E. your bar for solid evidence is higher than necessary
Except where his religion is concerned.
F. bye for now
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: first homonid a mouse-lemur? |
16 Nov 2003 08:35:47 PM |
|
|
(JaBrIoL) wrote in message news:<d222de3e.0311040707.4b224889@posting.google.com>
[Antonio Santana Standard Argument from Incredulity(TM) completely
deleted]
Here it is yet again. It hasn't gone away and it won't go away until
you address it:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2536501.stm
reveals that "...about 80% of genes in mice and men are like for like.
But if one considers just the different classes of genes - mice have
more genes involved in reproduction and smell, for example - then the
similarity rises to 99%."
So by this argument, we differ only 1% from mice. Now what were you
saying about how we couldn't have had a rodent-like ancestor because
they are so different from us?
It turns out that we have only 300 genes that mice do not and they
have only 300 that we do not. Why is that, if we were *designed* for
such different purposes?
According to creationists, the average gene has 100,000 base pairs.
Times 300 means that we have accumulated a *maximum* of 30 million
base pair differences since we split from our common ancestor with
mice - they accumulated their 300 gene changes and we accumulated
ours.
Now this is assuming the absolute worst case, that every single base
pair in every one of those 300 genes had to change in order for the
mouse ancestor to become human. Clearly this is an extreme, but I
will stay with it in order to give the creationist every advantage.
They desperately need it.
There were creatures not dissimilar to mice running around at least 60
million years ago. If we rough this out, we have to conclude that we
have added or mutated a base pair difference from our common mouse
ancestor every two years since then. I would be delighted if you, or
any creationist, can elucidate for me the mechanism which prevents
this, and also if you could determine whether this could be
interpreted as insurmountably rapid evolution.
I find it the height of hilarity that someone who would demand that
evolutionists scientifically demonstrate every single-step of the way
from a singularity to modern humans is nonetheless dogmatically
convinced that the myth-making scribbles of primitive scribes
thousands of years ago can be swallowed without question.
BTW, that freight train is still bearing down on you at full speed and
you are still standing in the middle of the track drooling. I know
you are too arrogant to listen and too stupid to learn, but, hey, get
off the track before it's too late.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Yang, What About Overrated White Athletes Like Jeremy Shockey?" |
|
| Title: 10 YO WA Girl Victim of the JW Pedophile Machine (Re: TOBS: first homonid a mouse-lemur?) |
04 Nov 2003 02:30:03 PM |
|
|
Former Church Leader Sentenced For Sexual Abuse
A former Spokane Valley church elder has been sentenced to 90 days in
jail for sexually molesting a girl in his congregation over eight
years.
Edward N. Davis, 40, was an elder at the Jehovah's Witness Opportunity
Kingdom Hall when the abuse occurred from the time the girl was 10
until she was 18.
The victim's family went to police after Davis returned to the church
six months after church elders agreed to ``disfellowship'' him for two
years.
Davis originally was charged with first-degree sexual misconduct and
stalking.
He pleaded guilty to second-degree sexual misconduct with a minor. In
addition to the jail time, he will be on probation for two years and
is required to register as a sex offender.
http://www.kxly.com/common/getStory.asp?id=31876
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Socerey Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec
The Bush 'balanced' budget: -525 billion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: -3 million jobs and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -381 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: first homonid a mouse-lemur? |
04 Nov 2003 05:23:41 PM |
|
|
In article <d222de3e.0311040707.4b224889@posting.google.com>,
Jabriol@excite.com says...
One of these earliest mammals claimed to be in the line of man is a
small, rodentlike animal said to have lived about 70 million years
Pleisoadapiforms have been rejected as a pre-hominoidal descendant some
time ago.
ago. In their book Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, Donald Johanson
and Maitland Edey wrote: "They were insect-eating quadrupeds about the
size and shape of squirrels."
You're quoting from a book written in 1981. Anthropology does make
progress, unlike the stone age nonsense of genesis.
Richard Leakey called the mammal a
"rat-like primate." But is there any solid evidence that these tiny
animals were the ancestors of humans?
You apparently don't know what the physical evidence was. Molar and
mandible shapes can tell us a lot about a species. This evidence
suggested that pleisadapiforms could have been distant relatives.
However, more recent evidence gives us a more accurate view.
No, instead only wishful
speculation.
Wrong. The evidence was interpreted objectively and reasonably. But
it was not complete enough to be certain and was acknowledged by many
scientists as such.
No transitional stages have ever linked them with
anything except what they were: small, rodentlike mammals.
You need to buy a clue. It's not necessary to link transitional
stages. A more complete anatomical record would be fine. In fact it
was fine to show that these were not ancestral.
--
_____________________________________________________
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: first homonid a mouse-lemur? |
04 Nov 2003 12:41:17 PM |
|
|
On 04 Nov 2003, (JaBrIoL) screwed up his face,
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:d222de3e.0311040707.4b224889@posting.google.com:
One of these earliest mammals claimed to be in the line of man is a
small, rodentlike animal said to have lived about 70 million years
ago. In their book Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, Donald Johanson
and Maitland Edey wrote: "They were insect-eating quadrupeds about the
size and shape of squirrels." Richard Leakey called the mammal a
"rat-like primate." But is there any solid evidence that these tiny
animals were the ancestors of humans? No, instead only wishful
speculation. No transitional stages have ever linked them with
anything except what they were: small, rodentlike mammals.
So, in order for a fossil to qualify as a "missing link", it must be
shown to be something *other* than what it is?
In other words, in order to prove that these small, rodentlike mammals
are a missing link, we'd have to prove that they are not small,
rodentlike mammals -- that these small, rodentlike mammals are indeed,
for example, huge, dragonlike snails?
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly
realized I was talking to myself!"
--Peter O'Toole.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rv Cloim" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: first homonid a mouse-lemur? |
04 Nov 2003 04:51:52 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 18:41:17 +0000, Mekkala wrote:
On 04 Nov 2003, (JaBrIoL) screwed up his face, groaned,
pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:d222de3e.0311040707.4b224889@posting.google.com:
One of these earliest mammals claimed to be in the line of man is a
small, rodentlike animal said to have lived about 70 million years ago.
In their book Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, Donald Johanson and
Maitland Edey wrote: "They were insect-eating quadrupeds about the size
and shape of squirrels." Richard Leakey called the mammal a "rat-like
primate." But is there any solid evidence that these tiny animals were
the ancestors of humans? No, instead only wishful speculation. No
transitional stages have ever linked them with anything except what they
were: small, rodentlike mammals.
So, in order for a fossil to qualify as a "missing link", it must be shown
to be something *other* than what it is?
In other words, in order to prove that these small, rodentlike mammals are
a missing link, we'd have to prove that they are not small, rodentlike
mammals -- that these small, rodentlike mammals are indeed, for example,
huge, dragonlike snails?
Don't be silly.
The fossilized remains of a lemur giving birth to a human would do.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: first homonid a mouse-lemur? |
05 Nov 2003 09:13:23 AM |
|
|
On 04 Nov 2003, "Rv Cloim" <cloim@propylaea.tor.org> screwed up his
face, groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:pan.2003.11.04.22.52.27.162873@propylaea.tor.org:
On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 18:41:17 +0000, Mekkala wrote:
On 04 Nov 2003, (JaBrIoL) screwed up his face,
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:d222de3e.0311040707.4b224889@posting.google.com:
One of these earliest mammals claimed to be in the line of man is a
small, rodentlike animal said to have lived about 70 million years
ago. In their book Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, Donald
Johanson and Maitland Edey wrote: "They were insect-eating
quadrupeds about the size and shape of squirrels." Richard Leakey
called the mammal a "rat-like primate." But is there any solid
evidence that these tiny animals were the ancestors of humans? No,
instead only wishful speculation. No transitional stages have ever
linked them with anything except what they were: small, rodentlike
mammals.
So, in order for a fossil to qualify as a "missing link", it must be
shown to be something *other* than what it is?
In other words, in order to prove that these small, rodentlike
mammals are a missing link, we'd have to prove that they are not
small, rodentlike mammals -- that these small, rodentlike mammals are
indeed, for example, huge, dragonlike snails?
Don't be silly.
The fossilized remains of a lemur giving birth to a human would do.
Ah. Well, why didn't you say so? That's perfectly reasonable, of
course! *rolls eyes*
:D
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly
realized I was talking to myself!"
--Peter O'Toole.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
