100 things which evolutionites hate

@Setanta,

Hes interested in te entire Mammuthus primogenius and any of the ubspecies like M.mammut or M Wrangelli.
The ioation nd ultimate fate of the entire genus can be tracked pretty much as a related event.
or example, the "swimming mammoths" of the Santa Brbar channel ilands and the Wrangell island mammoths all descended from a primgenius or a separate middle Pleistocene species.
As far as I know the last of the mammoths was a wooly spcies from SIberia , Wrangel Island, the Santa Barabara channel Islands which were all in the 3-4000 BC range. Wrangel and Santa Barbara mammoths qere "midgets" due to island effects. Columbian mammoths all disappeared as a group from predation by early humahs and the earliest deposits of the "Head Smashed IN" "Bufflo jump" put them back at around earliest of "Folsom times"

Mastodons were a separate genus and occurred as woodland , diminutive high browsers that are regularly found as late fossils of vernal pool and limestone karst ponds all over East and S paets of N AMerica. .

1 Reply

@farmerman,

As far as the various species of the short face bear

Quote:

Arctodus

, I don't have much knowledge without referring to the "treatise" (And that aint on the web ). All I recall is hearing a discussion once about their feeding habits. They were very big and could intimidate just about any other carnivore.
It could run fast but other bears could run faster, and other species of NA bears hd a foot bone arrangement that allowed them to turn on a dime, whereas short facers did NOT-- so running down and KEEPING small prey was not a competitive advantage given to the short faced bear (poor baby)
The last thing I know is that the species was a kleptoparasite, dealing with lions and dire wolves (but not other bears) So short faced bears most likely went away with the dire wolf and smilodon.

1 Reply

What date is he ascribing as the most recent survival of wooly Mammoth (same question applies to the wooly rhinoceros)?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

I have read (and can't give you a citation) that the short-faced bear went away because it could not compete with brown bears and black bears.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Lotsa specimens were predated and many were not. (Fossilization in forest and savannah and prairie environments are not great and mot elephant fossils are in areas of vernal pools, swamps, ice pools, and areas of loess and other wind deposits (like dune fields).

The Kamchatka mammoth specimens were mostly environmental kills where a mammoth got stuck in an ice pool (many specimens were just young mammoths)
The Channel Island Mammoths is a story of human predation. In this case the mammoths swam to the Channel Islands and set up shop and began evolving into these "Snack sized" mammoths. Humans arrived to the Channel Islands many tens of thousands of years later and quickly iped m out. Mot of the specimens of channel Iland Mammoths hve tool marks on them. Although several were found along shore lines cliff deposits as the seas rose

0 Replies

@Setanta,

The date he has as latest is about 3750 BC from Kamchtka.(I know he got that one from the Nat Geographic explorers association.
I don't think he has any rhino data (Hes a specialist and I don't think hes been a wooly rhino guy)

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

I have read (and can't give you a citation) that the short-faced bear went away because it could not compete with brown bears and black bears.

That's reasonable and fits well with the " anklebones" story The short faced bear couldn't dodge and weave and had a disadvantage in prey catching against the other omnivorous bears (BTW, the short face bear may not have been an obligate omnivore, so it could have been trapped at being only a carnivore) Later bears of Ursus genera are all pretty much omnivores (except for polar bears and their name Ursus maritimus , says a lot about diet. Of course they all eat garbage now.

ASIDE---.Seems that so many animals had these limiting foot structures and the only genus it benefitted was the kangaroo clan (they have developed an ankle bone "lock" that enables their ankles to only flex fore and aft, that helps them hop.

0 Replies

Evolution via natural selection is not something to be believed in. It's something to learn about, like special and general relativities, quantum electrodynamics, astronomy or meteorology. There's the hypothesis and the observational data. Just study and understand, don't believe.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

the "done in by human predation" theory is certainly given a lot more credence when we see these paleolithic homesites in Siberia.

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQIAAzDt_UNru-CbGUkDhUFTBG8mDTVDpdy6b0oDFL-BPWCVkGx

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

Cuvier and Geoffrey were debating several decades before Darwin. They are irrelecant. Their points of view are irrelevant and were based on very primitive knowledge of natural history. Evoluti0on as a science starts with Darwin, and does not consider organisms superior or inferior. You're simply wrong, Carlos.

Darwin's ideas came from his grandfather, who was also a fanatic of the idea that the current species are descendants of worse, simpler and inferior species.

Actually, Darwin never wrote any theory, but was the follower of the already existing theory of evolution thought by many, including Geoffroy.

Your statement that the theory of evolution "as a science" started with Darwin, is an insult to all the scientists and thinkers of the years preceding Darwin. You are arguing with your statement that Geofrrey, Buffon, Cuvier, Lamark, and others, debated the theory of evolution as what?

The poor understanding of the process of life on earth because ignorance of the undisputed path which is decay in everything existing in the universe, is what gave birth to the fallacy of the theory of evolution.

In other words, the theory of evolution is an obsolete theory, and currently there are lots of ignorant who still are not aware of it.

3 Replies

@carloslebaron,

Drwin's grandfather had published "ZOONOMIA" which was a lyrical bunch of poems concerning life. He stated several lines about the "passing of the germ cells and nuclei" among the many species so they may appear similar.
Crediting him with the concept of the theory of evolution( and ntural selection in particular) Is just dum headed.
Aristotle coined the term "Atom" does that mean he gets credit for the atomic theory.

PS, what was the word that Erasmus use to describe what you credit as a "theory"

You are apparently unaware of the scope of Darwin work and the
efforts used to conduct experimentation in the areas of artificial selection (all without the benefit of genetics or a good sense of the fossil record).

Erqmu Darin wrote poetry, Charles Darwin produced a scientific theory.
ALSO-in the second and subsequent 4 editions of "The ORIGIN OF SPECIES..." Charles Darwin credited approximately 35 persons who had even a remote thought or had done work on anything that could vaguely be associated with "Transmutation of species"

So the outcome of your post is , most all of us aren't hearing anything new from you BUT, in fact, we can state emphatically that your understandings of the thoughts of Darwins predecessors is quite frought with error.
Gungasnake has been trying to push this line for several years now. So really he SHOULD get all the credit. SAme thoughts , different day.

PS, "Geoffrey" is his middle name. Im sure you didn't know him well enough to call him a pet name.

1 Reply

@carloslebaron,

Quote:

, the theory of evolution is an obsolete theory, and currently there are lots of ignorant who still are not aware of it.

And you've replaced it with what? Curious minds want to know

1 Reply

@carloslebaron,

Id recommend that you get a copy of Peckhams "Variorum Text" of theOrigin of Species... It details, edition by edition, the changes tht Darwin mde and the aditionl people he gve credit to (whether he was right or wrong) as the editions got to 6.
He credited Aristotle for having the thought when actually Aristotle had posed the question of "transmutation" as a"fools argument" to discuss the concept of atoms as the "Indivisible nuclei" of nature.

Id also recommend Desmond and Moore's really great work on Darwin
"Darwin...the Life of a Tormented Evolutionist". It has a number of the tired old arguments that you and others have presented as if they were "new thinking" (Darwins failure to acknowledge in the firt edition was because he was plagiarizing---His thoughts on deth nd heaven--- His recognition that his family's health issues may have been due to close breeding---his foes in science---- his dealings with Wallace--- etc etc

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Actually were all wrong about ST Hillaire. His middle name was actually GeoffROY

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

You are apparently unaware of the scope of Darwin work and the
efforts used to conduct experimentation in the areas of artificial selection (all without the benefit of genetics or a good sense of the fossil record).

BUT, this is exactly the point, that Darwin's ideas are also included in the fallacy of worse, simpler, and inferior into better, more complex and superior.

Just read his book The Origin of Species

Quote:

As natural selection acts solely by accumulating(1) slight, successive, favorable (2&3) variations; it can only produce no great or sudden modification; it can act only by very short and slow steps Recapitulation and Conclusion.

The same doo doo than Geoffroy, from simpler to more complex (1) from worse to better (2) and from inferior to superior (3).

And you know by fact that such is not what is observed in Species.

For this reason, evolutionists had no other choice BUT to change 99% of the original theory and keep the titles "evolution", "natural selection", etc.

The invention of the "Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution" was completely opposite to the description of Natural Selection given by Darwin. The new ideology was to declare "changes" instead of accumulation and successive and favorable variations.

Face it, Darwin had the same wrong learning (read ignorance) than his former predecessors with respect of the process of life on earth.

Did you read the first post in this thread where between the 93 points, it is mentioned the horse as being more simpler that the ancient Hipparion?

Well, I am the one who first noticed it and made the comparison of the physical and functional characteristics in 1999.

Since then, in several places I wrote this comparison, and today others are using it because it is a verifiable fact. The horse is not an example of evolution BUT an example of degenerate steps throughout generations.

PS. My mistake, and is not Geoffrey but Geoffroy Saint Hilaire.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89tienne_Geoffroy_Saint-Hilaire

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

And you've replaced it with what? Curious minds want to know

In 1999 I did not replace the fallacy of evolution with another theory.

The theory of evolution was just discarded, and to understand the process of life on earth, the process is just RECYCLING.

THE RECYCLING PROCESS OF LIFE ON EARTH.

A process that can be applied to the entire universe as well.

This process is a fact, not so a theorist approach.

Learn it, live it, love it: THE RECYCLING PROCESS OF LIFE ON EARTH.

2 Replies

@carloslebaron,

GeoffROY St Hillaire really did NOT develop any theory except in sense that it was a "Hypothesis" without substance. He "believed" in a "Saltation means of transmutation " here entire orders could develop from previous orders. However, he was NOT a subscriber to common descent.
A theory in science is a lot more substantive than collection of "ideas" with no means of testing or providing evidence.

That was ST Hillaires hypotheses.

The theory of natural selection, like all theories passes the two prt test in that
1ALl facts support the theory
and
2No fcts refute it.

St Hillaires hypothesis , which has a basis of saltation and no common ancestry at its source , has not been supported in evidence (Punctuted Equilibrium, though not a "saltation" hypothesis, has been shown to be basis-free" wrt evidence from Gould nd Eldgredge' own field sites from which they derived their hypothesis. St Hillaire had not done NYWHERE near the amount of work that Gould and Eldredge had done in his own pronouncement.

The

One thing that Darwin did, after his 2nd edition of the "Origins...",he acknowledged all those who had developed "trnsmutationl ideas" prior to his ownw ork. Darwin acknowledged these workers and then calmly dismissed most by showing qhere he was different.
Darwin had differences with Etienne Geoffroy ST Hillaire in the Saltation and "no common descent: res , but he also AGREED with Isidore.G St Hillaire about the correlation of homologous structures and also with Etienne G t Hillaire on homologous part (but with different aspects of descent with modification).

So your point seems to me to only reside with a concern that Darwin make( proper citation of sources for work done by others. I never declined that aspect ,(nor has he when Hooker reminded Darwin that such citations were "missing" from his first edition) but Ive never declined either, to "throw off' the mass of work and the resulting theory of natural selection which is solely the product of Darwin mind. (It appears that most all of the attempted belittling of Darwins work seems to fit as a cornerstone of the religious Fundamentalists who merely wish to to argue that Evolution by naturl selection is invalid).
Each month , new data and evidence appears that supports the general theory and nothing shows up to even begin to support anything else.

Hwen it comes down to it, Darwin probably owes more for the structure of his theory to one R E Grant, yet Darwin fails to acknowledge Grant's ideas

The really interesting development of the Origin, as a SET of books, not just one, can be really seen in Morris PEckham's Variorum text which lays out all the modifications to the "Origins..."" that Darwin made within each edition, an which defined each edition as the book grew by almost one hundred pages

1 Reply

@carloslebaron,

I assume then, that you have nothing to do with the sciences. Especially biological research. (DISCARDING, even a theory unpopular to you, without considering the interlacing of the various disciplines and the facts underlying their evidence, is more an act of vandalism than a carefully considered scientific conclusion).
Well, you have no guards looking over you so you can "believe" whatever you wish. I suppose that you only have to modify your conclusions as more facts counter to them appear in the research literature.
Unless of course, you are Girogio Tsoukalos , who believes (without any defendable evidence) that everything on earth is a function of alien intervention.

Quote:

This process is a fact, not so a theorist approach.

Seems you don't have a firm handle on the word "theory" either

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

GeoffROY St Hillaire really did NOT develop any theory except in sense that it was a "Hypothesis" without substance. He "believed" in a "Saltation means of transmutation " here entire orders could develop from previous orders. However, he was NOT a subscriber to common descent.
A theory in science is a lot more substantive than collection of "ideas" with no means of testing or providing evidence.

Your source is correct about transmutations, BUT lets see first what Cuvier discussed with Lamarck, and later we return to the discussion of Cuvier with Geoffroy.

To the ones who are not familiar with Lamarck, the following link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism

Lets check the discussion between Cuvier and Lamarck.

Quote:

Lamarck:Why limit yourself to four? You might just as well assume dozens of plans and acts of creation. The result would be inextricable confunsion. To be quite frank, I should prefer the evolution theory.(a)

Cuvier:Species are immutable! There is not such thing as evolution, there can't be! How would the accidental play of evolution produce that significant mutual relationship between the parts of the body? All the phenomena of nature are arranged in accordance with the laws of logic. Anyone with eyes in his head can see the four plans of creation identified by me staring him in the face.

Lamarck: Anyone with eyes in his head.

Lamarck can't respond to Cuvier's challenge in this one.

And now lets go back to Cuvier and Geoffroy.

You said that there was not an evolution theory but a hypothesis, however, Lamarck has already titled it as "the evolution theory" (a)

Quote:

Cuvier: Each of William Smith's layers corresponds to a geological period. Fossils are found in each of them which do not occur in the others. The layers do not overlap. One can even, as Smith has pointed out, use these fossils as guides to identify the separate geological periods.

Geoffroy: Obviously. And geology will be befitted by the fact. I still don't understand why that should be an argument against the evolution of the species.

Cuvier: You really don't understand? Each epoch has its own animals and plants. They arise with it and perish with it. Catastrophes obliterate. Nature creates anew, in accordance whit those four plans that are clearly recognizable in all periods.

Geoffroy: Well, how did it happen, then, that the inferior types of plants and animals appeared on the earth first and the most highly organized, including man, came last? There were not four plans of creation, but only a single general plan, in accordance with which animate beings had gradually evolve from lower to higher forms throughout successive floods and geological periods.

Cuvier:And what proves the existence of such a general plan?

Geoffroy:I do the same as you do. I compare. But while you deduce differences from your comparison I deduce similarities. If I may cite a few examples, gills, for instance, resemble lungs and may be their forerunners. A bird's wing resembles the leg of a reptile and may have evolved from it.

Cuvier: We need not discuss this matter, I am a natural scientist, not a natural philosopoher. And my intention is to remain a natural scientist.

Geoffroy: I suppose you don't yet know, that your friend and spokesman Lamarck thinks exactly the same I do?

Enough.

The evolution theory is well defined as such by Lamarck.

Geoffroy thoughts were "exactly the same as Lamarck's" about the evolution theory.

Geoffroy thoughts were that the current species come from worse, simpler and inferior species.

This is why this theory, already in existence long before Darwin, was named "the evolution theory".

It wasn't a hypothesis, it was an established theory long before Darwin.

The whole theory of evolution is based in wrong learning (read: ignorance.)

1 Reply

@carloslebaron,

why do you use Lamarck as some kind of benchmark? Drwin dismisses him in his brief dicussions of "adaptive resemblances" (sort of the first shot at "inheritance of acquired characteristics"
St Hillaire (E.) had barely considered mechanisms and conditions from which the concept pf transmutation could proceed. Darwin tied his theory to the simple concepts
1Characteristics are heritable by small increments
2There is hyperfecundity but limited resources
3All this occurs over marginless time

Lamark has renewed interest as epigenetic effects and their heritability are planned for experimentation, the hypotheses of St Hillaire are not, the concept of "attainment of perfection through an organisms "kind" is pretty much merely a dismissable concept. Common descent is easily emonstrable through studies of such things as island biogeography, genetic drift, or "ring species" or allopatric speciation etc.

As I said, believe what you will but if you choose to adapt a field of experimental biology, youll smack up against the facts of evolution.

Posting "whatif" arguments among scientists of the ENlightenment is kind of pointless, especially since most all had views that were acknowledged (when they survived), but mostly were fairly lame assertions that have since been dismissed (Eg "Catastrophist" thinking is universally debunked now that the sciences of geology have been able to construct a fairly exact timeline of earth processes since the Cryogenian)

1 Reply

100 things which evolutionites hate

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know