• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Evolution answers

Dinwar said:
Brown gobie and zebra muscles, too.
Click to expand...

The list is quite long...

Rabbit

Rats

in the UK - a couple of high profile ones are Signal Crayfish and Grey Squirrels (and now Black Squirrels)

The Rabbit is so long-established that most people probably don't think of them as non-native most of the time.
 
jimbob said:
The Rabbit is so long-established that most people probably don't think of them as non-native most of the time.
Click to expand...

One of my favorite questions to ask biologists is "At what point do we consider a species native?" The dingo is technically an invasive species--however, the ecosystem seems to have adjusted to its presence such that removing it would cause significant ecological perturbations. Other examples exist as well (I know honeybees are a North American example). It's a real gray area in biology.
 
Dinwar said:
One of my favorite questions to ask biologists is "At what point do we consider a species native?" The dingo is technically an invasive species--however, the ecosystem seems to have adjusted to its presence such that removing it would cause significant ecological perturbations. Other examples exist as well (I know honeybees are a North American example). It's a real gray area in biology.
Click to expand...

Humans in America and Polynesia are far more recent than the dingo - I'd forgotten that one.
 
justintime said:
But that was not the point I raised. I said:

"It was reasoned if 2 dropouts can design a computer surely even chimpanzees can master it. It turned out a humbling experience for college students competing with chimps in the experiment."
Click to expand...

And, that is still not true. Two dropouts did not design a computer. The only designer was Wozniak.
 
justintime said:
If scientists cannot be certain about Neanderthals who lived and went extinct some 45,000 years ago. How can they be certain of anything going beyond that time?
Click to expand...
No fossils of Neanderthals younger than ~45,000 years ago means that they went extinct ~45,000 years ago.
Why they went extinct is an interesting if irrelevant question.

We have traces of Neanderthal genes in only non-African human genome because they interbreed with non-Africans. This is not unexpected given that they lived in Europe, not Africa.

Scientists toss around numbers like millions and millions of years because the evidence is that evolutionary development takes place within those periods (and other periods, e.g. years for bacteria).
 
justintime said:
In fact early neanderthal fossils were mistakenly identified as an ape and the belief held for a over a 100 years till it was discovered the specimens bones were badly diseased and deformed, that is was actually human and not an ape and the records corrected....
Click to expand...
As far as I know this is wrong, justintime. Can you back it up to some citations to the scientific literature?

Neanderthal - Dicovery
The type specimen, dubbed Neanderthal 1, consisted of a skull cap, two femora, three bones from the right arm, two from the left arm, part of the left ilium, fragments of a scapula, and ribs. The workers who recovered this material originally thought it to be the remains of a bear. They gave the material to amateur naturalist Johann Carl Fuhlrott, who turned the fossils over to anatomist Hermann Schaaffhausen. The discovery was jointly announced in 1857
Click to expand...
 
justintime said:
Scientists are in a habit always trying to prove things with things that do not exist or are missing. Missing links (evolution), missing Neanderthals, missing mass(dark matter) , missing knowledge, missing definition etc.
Click to expand...
That is wrong, justintime.
Science is never "proven" - what happens is that evidence is gathered for and against theories until the theory is either accepted or rejected.
Missing links are not evidence for evolution. The fossils that we have found are evidence for evolution.
There are no missing Neanderthals, just Neanderthals that we have found. Unless this is the trivial fact the most Neanderthals did not fossilize.

One bit of evidence for dark matter is that bodies move as if there was non-light emitting (dark) mass (matter). This matter is not missing because we have detected it (see my signature) :eek:!
 
Last edited:
ApolloGnomon said:
They have. You haven't studied it. I have, at an actual university not at googleversity.
Click to expand...

I have to confess that I'm guilty of the same thing, in that I'm using this forum and the Internet as learning tools on the subjects of evolution, anthropology, and paleontology, instead of studying them at a university the way some here have done. I've never been on a real scientific expedition, nor published a scientific paper, and I'm not currently reading any books on the topic. At most, I've taken a course on Ecology. The reason is simple, I'm focusing my studies on a number of other topics right now and this is more of a hobby or side interest. That said, I've been following this conversation very closely because I find it informative and interesting. As I tell my friends, to visit JREF is to learn something new every day. For instance, I previously did not know there was evidence that Neanderthals had interbred with CroMagnons.

I still care about this topic, because knowing where we came from is often the best way to determine where we're going. I believe science is the best method to find the answers we seek. Also, I feel creationists are misguided and that their ignorance should be addressed and corrected wherever possible.

Carry on, you have my support.
 
Reality Check said:
Scientists toss around numbers like millions and millions of years because the evidence is that evolutionary development takes place within those periods (and other periods, e.g. years for bacteria).
Click to expand...

Well, that and radiometric dating, thermoluminescence dating, straigraphic dating, sedimentation rates, and a whole bunch of other lines of reasoning.

Or, the short version: because it's right.
 
There are probably many ways to access good material, but if you have a Mac or an iPad or iPhone, iTunes U has dozens of courses on Evolution, from general treatments to specific areas (Kin Selection, Evidence of Evolution, Genetic Drift, and so on).

A valuable and probably underused and underappreciated resource.
 
justintime said:
But you are looking at a short period in human, evolutionary history. When viewed against long term demographic changes the extent of European influence is drastically shrinking. They will once again become a minority absorbed by the natives of countries they once occupied.
Click to expand...

No. Wrong again.
 
John Jones said:
Do you have a point?
Click to expand...

We need to go back to post #743, to form a judgement if justintime was making a point or not, because you only cut out a part of what he said, which i dont think is fair, when talking about points being made...imo.
I found that post and read his answer in regard to someone elses comment about Mongols, and cant see really what the problem is, actually.
 
Dinwar said:
The dingo is technically an invasive species--however, the ecosystem seems to have adjusted to its presence such that removing it would cause significant ecological perturbations.
Click to expand...


Could that be partly because it occupies the ecological niche previously occupied by thylacines? Possibly from which it had displaced thylacines?
 
I don't know exactly why, but this whole conversation with Justintime is beginning to remind me of that NFL Play60 TV commercial, with Cam Newton and "Nate":
Nate: Hey, Cam, thanks a lot for coming to my school today.
Cam: No problem, Nate.
Nate: I promise to exercise and eat right.
Cam: Don’t forget 60 minutes of Play a day, right?
Nate: And I’ll grow up to be big and strong like you?
Cam: Absolutely.
Nate: And play in the NFL?
Cam: Yes, sir.
Nate: And be drafted #1?
Cam: Maybe...
Nate: And become the starting quarterback of the Panthers?
Cam: Ok...
Nate: You can be my back up?
Cam: Excuse me?
Nate: And make Panthers fans forget about you?
Cam: What?
Nate: And become your mom's favorite player?
Cam: Whoa...!
Click to expand...

Justin thinks waaay too much of himself and his ability to play on the same field as Dinwar, JayUtah, Apollo G, and others here. I mean, at least Nate has the excuse for his fantasy of actually being about six years old; I have to wonder what Justin's excuse is for his.

(And, Justin...please don't tell us you're just loosening your arm)
 
Last edited:
Mojo said:
Could that be partly because it occupies the ecological niche previously occupied by thylacines? Possibly from which it had displaced thylacines?
Click to expand...
That's true of many invasive species, and part of the point various people are trying to make regarding the difference between an invasive species and an occupying group of the same species.
 
Mojo said:
Could that be partly because it occupies the ecological niche previously occupied by thylacines? Possibly from which it had displaced thylacines?
Click to expand...

That's defnitely part of it. Though you don't necessarily have to occupy a pre-existing niche--nightcrawlers in North America are an example of a species that invaded, but didn't mess things up too badly (North American worms are a different species, but since the two don't compete too much they get along just fine). Giant ground sloths are another example. When they came up during the Great American Interchange they were technically an invasive species (well, a series of them). The ecosystem adapted to them pretty easily. There a major factor was ecological space--there were far more predators at that time than today, so there were fewer herbivores and therefore enough resources to handle a few invasive species.
 
Iamme said:
We need to go back to post #743, to form a judgement if justintime was making a point or not, because you only cut out a part of what he said, which i dont think is fair, when talking about points being made...imo.
I found that post and read his answer in regard to someone elses comment about Mongols, and cant see really what the problem is, actually.
Click to expand...


I didn't want to give JiT's opinions provocations any more publicity than the minimum necessary to establish context.

I indicated that I had omitted some of his eloquence with the ellipsis in brackets thusly: "[. . .]"

His posts have long demonstrated a disdain for facts or even fundamental honesty, to put it as delicately as I can.

It is of no concern to me that you think I have quoted him unfairly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom