- Joined
- November 23, 2008
- Messages
- 1,201
Well you have this atheist's respect for asking yourself the question of this thread, that is a pretty big step...
Thank you.
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2008
- Messages
- 1,201
Well you have this atheist's respect for asking yourself the question of this thread, that is a pretty big step...
Because the tree---the actual wooden trunk part that has rings--is a much younger and more transitory part of the root system and isn't itself that old. The root system is the organism being dated, which is why I said it was a bit of a misnomer. But I have no doubt that a root system could live for that long, especially in an isolated area with a cold dry climate, because it's much more protected from soil-borne rots and the dangers on the surface, and constantly regenerating.Fair enough. The more I know. But that tree from Sweden is a bit suss though, why not use dendrochronology to date it?
You think? IMO this is a bit different -- it's the same organism (the root system) growing a new organ (the visible tree), rather than an organisms begetting other organisms.
One of the things that occasionally keep me away at nights, though, is this question:
How old is an amoeba?
(things about early Mesopotamian myths)
You wouldn't happen to have any book tips on this stuff? I read Leonard Wooley's Excavations at Ur (Ur i Kaldéen in Swedish) about his archeological excavations at Ur in the early 20th century where, among other things, he found evidence of a great flood that had left everything but the highest points of the hills below water, as well as signs of a cultural shift around the same time (it's remarkable how much mere pottery tell). It was quite fascinating, but obviously rather limited in its scope as the history of the region is only portrayed to the extent that it could be connected to the findings at Ur so it left me hungry for more. Anything good on Mesopotamian history and myths up to the fall of Babylon to the Persians would be much appreciated.
Well, he got that part right, anyway.Humans cannot have possibly evolved fron apes, there is no scientific evidence....
Nope. That's not what I'm thinking and not what I said. If I'm mistaken, then quote me.Really? A gap in human evolution large enough that it is inconsistent with what we would expect to find statistically? That is what you are saying, right?
Again, quote me. You seem to have put me in the same category as bb, even after I joked about his post (I even winked and everything). Or that I'm throwing down some sort of challenge for you to fight. I accept evolution; I just don't get threatened by fair criticism of it.Enlighten me, Squeek or bb, when is this huge gap in human evolution? I am really curious -- never too late to learn.
[...]Quote me. You seem to have put me in the same category as bb, even after I joked about his post (I even winked and everything). Or that I'm throwing down some sort of challenge for you to fight. I accept evolution; I just don't get threatened by fair criticism of it.
You might want to read this article referenced in the argumentation thread, btw.
PS. This reminds me of how some people's belief in science is like other people's belief in religion.
As far as I can tell, the single most common mistake people make about the theory of evolution is thinking it suggests humans evolved from apes when it fact it suggests that they evolved from a common ancestor. I didn't think I needed to spell that out -- my mistake.That was just my problem, where is the fair criticism? There is plenty of evidence for human evolution from early primates, by the way, so by saying that "Well, he got that part right, anyway. " you put yourself in one boat with bb on that point at least, winking or not. Maybe it's a language barrier thing, but I cannot see how the statement can be negated by irony here. Tell me if I am wrong.
You added this part while I was responding, so I just now saw it. Well, you participated too, so I guess I can level the same criticism right back at you. But that would be stupid, wouldn't it?It amazes me how people can be stuck early in the last century when they are discussing evolution (to avoid confusion: I mean bb, and only judging from his last post here) and how some are absolutely immune to a reasonable argument (yeah, I mean you here, Squeek, because I know you participated in all the science vs. religion debates, and I don't want to belief that you just forgot about it all).
As far as I can tell, the single most common mistake people make about the theory of evolution is thinking it suggests humans evolved from apes when it fact it suggests that they evolved from a common ancestor. I didn't think I needed to spell that out -- my mistake.
I suppose if I saw it the way you just explained, I could now just as easily put you in the same boat as bb too. But why would I want to do that?
Wikipedia said:An ape is any member of the Hominoidea superfamily of primates.
You added this part while I was responding, so I just now saw it. Well, you participated too, so I guess I can level the same criticism right back at you. But that would be stupid, wouldn't it?
Read the article, and you'll understand (or not, I guess -- I did, anyway).
Thanks for explaining those differences to me, I suppose.
I'll make a deal with you. I'll stop implying you're stupid if you'll stop implying I'm a creationist and everything else you're wrongly assuming about me.