Jump to content

MrSandman

Senior Members
  • Posts

    263
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by MrSandman

  1. Didn't have time to read all the pages, but read a couple or so.

     

    2.2 The Biological Species Concept

    Over the last few decades the theoretically preeminent species definition has been the biological species concept (BSC). This concept defines a species as a reproductive community.

     

    They actual couldn't reproduce with the other similiar species???

     

    If that is true that is Macroevolution on a small scale that's is interesting.

     

    There is a difference between Macro and Micro and both should be used when talking about evolution. Micro is much more like adaptation then anything. Like the iguanas on the galapogos. They could still reproduce with other iguanas.

     

    His fossil accounts wasn't very good evidence in my opinion that's why I think a lot of scienctists try observe the current species.

  2. Fossils, are widely messed up. Several things can mix up the bones even change the chemical makeup of bones. There was perfect human foot prints were there was dinosaur tracks. Fossils are neat in all, but scientist keep making mistakes when uncovering the fossils. Lucy's knee cap was found over 2 kilometers away and in another strata layer. The never could get DNA out of it, so they're not sure if it is her knee.

    I got this on a blurp about what they hope to find the genes of.

     

     

    scientists are closing in on the complete gene sequence of the Neanderthal.

     

    December 2006

     

     

    There has been fish that supposibly lived millions of years ago that they discovered alive not too long ago. They're making lots of mistakes. There also natural disasters that can mix up the bones. There has been fossils of several animals that live today found that were supposibly millions of years old. Like the 3 foot wingspan dragon fly. The 8 foot beaver. Whose to say that a dinosaur even evolved into a mammal. There is too many missing links. The Nebraska Man, for example, was built of a single tooth found by a farmer. They even built him a wife. They later found that it was a tooth from a pig. I'm not saying your wrong; I'm just saying it isn't sound evidence.

  3. You said that it has to have an Iron core, so your still just saying they are related through a transitive property. Aluminum, is a metal that can have current, but isn't magnetic. Why is that? Severian, I didn't realize your exprience. Sorry, about the comment. I guess MrSandman inserted his foot into his mouth.

  4. When I mentioned Macroevolution as in a salamander changing to a fish. This will prob ably never be observed in our lifetime. We can't speed up time. it doesn't mean it's is false. They're still not sure if micro leads to macro. If you have a land animal slowly changing into a bird. You will have a stage when he can't run well or fly, so that means in between species are very septible to predators. that's probably why the start of certain species started when they were on the micro stage. My hypothesis is evolution slows down the farther you go into it. A bacteria will evolve millions of times faster than a human. The evidence of a total species (like land to flying) change is zero. However, I'm not saying it isn't possible. I'm just saying that not untill millions of years of recording will we actually see it. Actually, I could almost bet humans will never become a flying species. You have to start with the simplest form of something then move up.

  5. I like the analogy. Just, remember that's not saying I'm not always right. JK.Oh, about Severian. I think it would help to have the rank of education by the persons name.

    You should look at what I posted latter in the pole. Can you make it so my name says age sixteen on it.

  6. define evolution in your own words. 'cause I thought it was a theory that explains how life started. I'm a little ignorant, but I learn, so don't hold it against me. Are you 16? No. Wouldn't you hate to be held to everything from once your 16 on. There was huge confusion when you came down to it. Neither side was quite getting the other side. Cpt. Refrsmt sort of made me see it his way also.

  7. Ha, thanx, I always make stupid mistakes when posting. Tone is important, I'll remember that kind sir.

     

    I didn't mean to come across that way. Maybe I should change my signature to.

     

    I'm never mad at you, I'm just not good with tone when posting. I love science and want to know more.

     

    OK, say you have 3 electrons moving along the x axis at .1c, .2c, and .3c. From what perspective can you look at this and say there is no magnetic field?

     

    You talking to me?

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.