Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by BumFluff

  1. recently, can't remember what site I read it on, but there was an article concernign some recent findings about the evolution of eyes and some fossils they have discovered.
  2. I'd completely agree that clothing did have some sort of effect on ancient man to have lost their fur but I highly doubt it was the precursor to it. Most likely man began losing his fur, began moving northward where it is cooler and clothing use began to increase (or perhaps began spending most of their time in lakes and rivers to cool down?). However I personally believe that overheating of the body due to the change of environment in that area was the major change that lead to it. Actually they could all have occurred simultaneously. I think the question to ask at this point is 'why were
  3. Desertification has well been known to be occuring in Africa for some time. News Search for Desertification of Africa and recent evidence, though I can't recall where I read it, supports the theory that ancient man lived on the border between the jungle environment and the desert environment.
  4. I doubt that the wearing of clothing would be the only reason why man's ancestors lost their fur. I believe it has been stated earlier in this thread that the further north you go the more clothing people wear. Heck near the equator the woman and men are almost naked even today. Do you think that a animal covered in fur would even consider wearing some sort of coat? They would easily overheat.
  5. That's a good point. However regardless if we lost our hair because of AAH or we lost it due to cooling we would still need to carry the water with us or migrate to where the water was. That's why I think that our ancestors were nomadic. They scavenged and hunted for food, storing which they could, until they had to move on when the water sources began to dry up and the desert began to overtake them. Why would man have lost their hair because they were partly aquatic and what prompted them to become partly aquatic? Why would we have lost that aquatic ability? The only reasons I could think
  6. If they went through the same environmental evolutionary trends then yeah I think we do. I highly doubt that if an evolutionary change occurred in one small portion of a population that it wouldn't spread to other members of exactly the same population. I believe that is one of the foundations of the evolutionary theory. Therefore they must have been in different populations more likely in different types of environments.
  7. I'm trying to understand what theories could lead to man becoming bipedal and apes not to. Every theory I've read does in no way describe why one group became bipedal and the other didn't. One of the major contributing factors, in my opinion and as stated above, is that desertification at that time attributed to it significantly.
  8. And that is exactly what I said. But what environmental factors would cause one group to become bipedal while the other not to?
  9. You seem to be saying that bipedalism grew of chance. No I don't believe evolution has an all out purpose. Evolution doesn't work to achieve an ultimate goal. It works as with little evolutionary steps through sexual, natural or ecological selection. Bipedalism took a long time to occur, it didn't occur overnight. You misunderstand what I'm saying. What I am saying is that, because of the environmental impact, our ancestors needed to adapt to their surroundings which would eventually lead to bipedalism. Desertification of Africa didn't occur overnight. There wasn't some great God in the sky th
  10. I don't know why we continue to argue about this. I have stated that comparing mans ancestors of yesteryear, after the separation of man and apes, are in no means comparable to the apes of today. They went through different evolutionary trends. Which is pretty factual if we in fact did come from one common ancestor, as I believe. Stating that there is no way that ancient man would want to carry food to their place of residence because the apes of today don't is like saying all our mammalian ancestors must have run and jumped off cliffs to their deaths because lemurs do it today. I've also
  11. I completely agree that pre-human intelligence was, most likely, perfectly capable of making clothing. What do you think is more likely though: Prehistoric man began wearing clothing because they were cold and wanted to stay warm or prehistoric man began wearing clothing as a means of showing their rank in society much as Darwin's savages did. Do you think that clothing came before or after man became bipedal? And where does bipedalism fit into the evolution from ancestor to man? I think it comes from me surfing so many forums and arguing again and again why there are still monkey
  12. I am aware that he didn't say in his posts directly that we are descended from apes however it was what was implied than as is what you are implying now. I am not religious. I am aware that man and apes are of the same family. However continuing to say that 'man descended from apes' drives the theists to continue to ask the argument later in your post. I think it better to state 'Man and apes are descendants of the same ancestor' than say 'man descended from apes' because as long as we continue with this statement the longer the ignorance of the statement will continue to effect those that are
  13. I enjoy reading astronomy magazine and a few others. Basically if I see a science magazine at the store I'll usually get it regardless of what it's called. One website that I have not seen mentioned here yet is physorg.com Much the same as sciencedaily but with several different stories and different takes on those stories.
  14. We are not descended from apes. We descended from the same ancestor as apes have. (Which I am sure you are aware of since I have been reading this forum for quite some time now.) If the food sources were beginning to dry up due to desertification and less vegetation you don't think that early man, with his superior knowledge, would have stored some away to eat later much as mammals of lesser intelligence are doing even today? I'm aware the hairlessness part isn't knew. I actually have been reading many websites on this topic and the hairless loss due to cooling is the most accepted through
  15. I actually made a post on anopther site the other day dealing with this exact thing. I actually might have got the original idea from this website. Here it is: "I've recently been thinking about this a lot recently and have come up with a likely scenario that lead towards the separation from man and apes. Recent geological evidence has shown that millions of years ago Africa began turning from a lush jungle area to a desert climate through desertification and that areas between different jungle environments were separated by vast stretches of savanna. It is my belief (Although I'm fair
  16. Ceres was once known as a planet before they discovered that there was an asteroid belt. If we go by what you say Pluto should actually be the tenth planet and whatever planet this thread mentions should be the twelfth planet. Or maybe the thirteenth or fourteenth.
  17. It shows itself in the rock. Here is a link: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080529141404.htm
  18. I don't think when people say "information canot be destroyed" they were talking about information written on a piece of paper or something you thought about yesterday. I think what they are talking about is on the quantum level is it not? Regardless... everyone has a different belief in what ghosts are or what makes a ghost. One possibility I posted on another forum is perhaps all matter in a specific spot reacts to energy around it. If there is enough energy (I'm talking about the electric currents inside your brain when you think) that energy will flow and be stored in that particular f
  19. I found this section of your blurb eye opening: given the lattice of shroendingers cat
  20. I was looking for information regarding this subject after reading this post and came across this http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_matter.html which states that baryonic matter is very different than dark matter as dark matter is also known as non-baryonic matter.
  21. I've read that the water the was formerly on Mars had too much salinity to create life. Giving the amount of Salt in the water how low would the temperature have to fall in order for it to freeze? I know that salty water on Earth needs to fall far below the temperature of what normal unsalinated water would freeze at.
  22. Chances are if we find life in other Solar Systems those lives would have evolved independantly. The possibility that a living organism being transported from one planet in one solar system to another planet in another solarsytem is so remote I don't even have the words to describe how remote the chances are. It has absolutely nothing to do with how often a living microbe is transported via asteroid from a planet, it has more to do with the distance between the planets and how unlikely it is that an asteroid would travel millions of miles across space only to crash into another planet orbiting
  23. If clues of the existence of life on the bodies within our solar system that may be able to support it besides Earth, namely under the surface of Mars and under the ice sheets of Europa, are found to support or to once have supported life I'm fairly certain that there are quite a lot more possibilities of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. Until we discover what exactly makes a lifeform and under what specific conditions a lifeform can exist I think that anyone saying one way or the other is merely a guess. If life can form 4.5 billion years ago on Earth under those harsh conditions a
  24. The cyclic universe theory (big crunch) has continued to be updated as new discoveries are being made. Dark energy is thought by those that support this theory to be a type of energy that will eventually diminish and gravity will take over beginning the big crunch. Another theory, spelt something like ekpyrote, theorizes that two branes (part of string or M-theory) will eventually coalesce and the cyclic universe will begin over again.
  25. If the universe were 4d we could still see the 3d shape of the 4d object. Taking your example a 2d person would be able to see a 3d object along the plane on whnich it exists. As that 3d object moves through the plane the 2d vision of the object would change for the viewer until it completely evaporated. The evaporation for the 2d viewer would take place when the 3d object passes completely through the 2d plane.
  • 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.