Strange they are so much better at remembering things then, isn't it?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/dec/04/animalbehaviour.evolution
Real Science Friday: Old Birds and Fish Fins
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
Strange they are so much better at remembering things then, isn't it?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/dec/04/animalbehaviour.evolution
Barbarian observes:
We have tails. They are just vestigial. Same bones, muscles, nerves, etc. as in primates that have prehensile/balancing tails.
That's what the coccyx is. All the stuff monkeys have, but smaller. Every now and then, we get a true tail in a human baby where something didn't slow down the growth well enough. And they surgically remove it.
Some apes may have a primitive Broca's area, but so far, no one's found one in monkeys.
Hence, not vestigial.
Hooves are something new, modified claws. So are nails.
Barbarian observes:
Nope. In fact, vestigial organs were one of the reasons evolutionary theory was first developed. You have it backwards. They were examined by people who didn't accept evolution, and were one of the reasons they came to realize evolution had happened. You might want to look up "homologous" to learn why this is so.
I just showed you that it wasn't. Vestigial organs were among the evidence that convinced scientists evolution was a fact. You have it backwards.
We have tails. They are just vestigial. Same bones, muscles, nerves, etc. as in primates that have prehensile/balancing tails.
That's what the coccyx is. All the stuff monkeys have, but smaller. Every now and then, we get a true tail in a human baby where something didn't slow down the growth well enough. And they surgically remove it.
Some apes may have a primitive Broca's area, but so far, no one's found one in monkeys.
Hence, not vestigial.
Hooves are something new, modified claws. So are nails.
Barbarian observes:
Nope. In fact, vestigial organs were one of the reasons evolutionary theory was first developed. You have it backwards. They were examined by people who didn't accept evolution, and were one of the reasons they came to realize evolution had happened. You might want to look up "homologous" to learn why this is so.
I just showed you that it wasn't. Vestigial organs were among the evidence that convinced scientists evolution was a fact. You have it backwards.
jeffblue101
New member
3 random chimps and only 2 university students could outperform 1 of the chimps?
What chance for 3 random humans?
there were six chimps. Only one showed any significant results. this monkey was 'trained' at "200 trials per day, 5 or 6 days a week, and began in 2005" also from the paper "In contrast, the human subjects received almost no practice of any sort" this paper showed that when humans are given some practice that they outperformed the chimp.
jeffblue101
New member
the coccyx is not a tail since Apes don't have tails.
according to evolutionary classification, do apes have tails Yes or No?
Is the broca's area still primitive in humans. nope, hence it should be consdiered vestigial since it lost its original function. Don't blame me, blame Darwin for coming up with a circular and meaningless classification.
nails are considered vestigial to the supposed primitive ancestors to humans
still the same old circular reasoning.
Barbarian observes:
That's what the coccyx is. All the stuff monkeys have, but smaller. Every now and then, we get a true tail in a human baby where something didn't slow down the growth well enough. And they surgically remove it. .
Jeff does a little circular reasoning:
Funny. You're assuming what you intend to prove. That's what circular reasoning is. Apes have vestigial tails. Same bones, same nerves, same muscles. Just smaller.
Vestigial tails. In utero, we have a longer one, with more bones. Most of these are usually absorbed and gone by the time we're born, but sometimes there is enough left to have a noticeable tail externally.
Barbarian observes:
Some apes may have a primitive Broca's area, but so far, no one's found one in monkeys.
The original function is speech production (and to a lesser degree, comprehension). No sign that it ever had a different one. Even the primitive area in apes is so; it activates when apes taught to sign are signing. And it's not in monkeys.
You inadvertently gave us a fine example of circular reasoning. I highlighted it in red for you. Read it and learn.
Barbarian observes:
Hooves are something new, modified claws. So are nails.
Nope. They had nails like ours.
Barbarian observes:
I just showed you that it wasn't. Vestigial organs were among the evidence that convinced scientists evolution was a fact. You have it backwards.
This is circular reasoning:
Remember, it's assuming what you propose to prove.
That's what the coccyx is. All the stuff monkeys have, but smaller. Every now and then, we get a true tail in a human baby where something didn't slow down the growth well enough. And they surgically remove it. .
Jeff does a little circular reasoning:
Funny. You're assuming what you intend to prove. That's what circular reasoning is. Apes have vestigial tails. Same bones, same nerves, same muscles. Just smaller.
Vestigial tails. In utero, we have a longer one, with more bones. Most of these are usually absorbed and gone by the time we're born, but sometimes there is enough left to have a noticeable tail externally.
Barbarian observes:
Some apes may have a primitive Broca's area, but so far, no one's found one in monkeys.
The original function is speech production (and to a lesser degree, comprehension). No sign that it ever had a different one. Even the primitive area in apes is so; it activates when apes taught to sign are signing. And it's not in monkeys.
You inadvertently gave us a fine example of circular reasoning. I highlighted it in red for you. Read it and learn.
Barbarian observes:
Hooves are something new, modified claws. So are nails.
Nope. They had nails like ours.
Barbarian observes:
I just showed you that it wasn't. Vestigial organs were among the evidence that convinced scientists evolution was a fact. You have it backwards.
This is circular reasoning:
Remember, it's assuming what you propose to prove.
Cricket
New member
Sure with substantial evidence, not bits and pieces cherry picked. Come up with an alternative theory---an explanation that fits all the evidence better. Get those creation scientists crakin' on that.
As Haldane remarked, a bunny in undisturbed Cambrian deposits would kill it.
A demonstration that natural selection does not tend to increase fitness would do it.
A demonstration that a feature in one organism arose for the sole benefit of a different species would do it.
Barbarian observes:
It seems it minimized drag, but now the evidence indicates that it works to sense the environment, to allow fish to swim more efficiently.
It might a little, but since it's reduced from the size in primitive teleosts, it would be less. But apparently it has a different function now. Hence vestigial.
Reduction in size, for one thing. It's smaller than it is in earlier fish.
Barbarian observes:
Again, the evidence is what matters, and I don't buy your postmodern idea that the truth is whatever you want to make of it.
Then it was probably not a good argument to advance here.
It seems it minimized drag, but now the evidence indicates that it works to sense the environment, to allow fish to swim more efficiently.
It might a little, but since it's reduced from the size in primitive teleosts, it would be less. But apparently it has a different function now. Hence vestigial.
Reduction in size, for one thing. It's smaller than it is in earlier fish.
Barbarian observes:
Again, the evidence is what matters, and I don't buy your postmodern idea that the truth is whatever you want to make of it.
Then it was probably not a good argument to advance here.
Cricket
New member
You might call this a nice little start.
tt
Again, get those creation science guys working on this. Lets see that Nobel!
Cricket
New member
Why not? do you expect all those nasty conspiratorial scientists who accept evolution as a starting point to do it?
On the other hand, it does not have to be a creationist. But what is the alternative theory that drives the research? ID is simply creationism all prettied up, but sure, those crackerjack science guys at the Discovery Institute could do lots of experiments. Perhaps they could, but they don't.
So what is the alternative theory? Give me one.
Cricket
New member
Then find someone who will do it. Contact your local university. Tell them about this flaw in evolutionary theory. Help write a grant proposal. Type up the report and submit to a peer reviewed journal. Let me know all the + results and I will join you on the trip to collect the Nobel. You and the people who did the work will be on the cover of every news magazine and be the most famous scientists in the world.
Please report back.
Cricket
New member
Then find someone who will do it. Contact your local university. Tell them about this flaw in evolutionary theory. Help write a grant proposal. Type up the report and submit to a peer reviewed journal. Let me know all the + results and I will join you on the trip to collect the Nobel. You and the people who did the work will be on the cover of every news magazine and be the most famous scientists in the world.
Please report back.
Cricket chirps:
I heard that one 25 years ago. And countless times since. Still waiting. The IDers have poured cash into an intelligent design lab. So far, no breakthroughs.
I think I know why.
Please report back.
Cricket chirps:
I heard that one 25 years ago. And countless times since. Still waiting. The IDers have poured cash into an intelligent design lab. So far, no breakthroughs.
I think I know why.
Please advise what labs and what scientists are doing this work. Thanks.