Joman said:
Hey
isnt hairless simian is an example of why evolution isnt true.
If hair was an advantage
when did it become
not an advantage?
I propose fur it is an advantage to almost all creatures in dense or cold enviroments
except man.
Yet, it isnt important to the creature that just happens to know how to make clothing to protect itself from natures wildness.
Do you think that hairlessness evolved after man became civilized?
Sometime between being smart enough to make clothes
and being able to tell your kids about the old days?
I digress.
I can answer without being a smart-aleck.
There is no data on the reasons why we lost our ape-hair (or why our ape cousins grew hair). We can only suppose. One supposition is that it became disadvantageous under warm climates. Another is that we covered ourselves up with animal skins and fur for warmth, then lost the hair because our women thought it was more attractive without. Whatever the reason, man's radiation into Asia and Europe (and colder climates) came relatively recently, and would not have been possible without clothes and fire.
Joman said:
Yes.
Have you ever wondered why it starts to sound appealing as an explaination?
Now you know.
I have no idea what you're saying. No, I have never wondered
'why it starts to sound appealing as an explanation'.
I asked you if you'd ever heard of PE. You answered yes. OK. So you know that evolution can take place in small populations on the fringes of an ecological niche or when geographically isolated.
Joman said:
What were the majority of enormous numbers of fossils trapped by?
Flood water and earth?
You need to ask how fossils are formed, and yet you argue with evolution? If you don't know how fossils form, on what scientific basis can you argue evolution?
Joman said:
Therefore, the layers of strata cannot be used to accurately measure time.
Layers of strata? Did you know that 'stratum' means layer?
I never said anything to suggest that '
the layers of strata cannot be used to accurately measure time'. You concluded this for no reason.
But, I would agree that your Timex is more precise than geological strata. As long as it still works. And I know it won't work millions of years from now, so I'll trust the geological chronology.
Joman said:
On what basis do you propose that the probability is that most evolution took place in small
peripheral
isolated populations?
I did not author the theory. And it's on the basis that some transitionals are missing from the fossil record.
Joman said:
Is your definition of dominant: nontransitional creatures?
No. As the context suggested, I use the ecological definition of 'dominance'.
Joman said:
If in a popuation of monkeys a mutation caused a monkey to be born without hair it would be out numbered. Mendels laws reveal that an acquired trait isnt passed down to the next generation. But, lets say this bald monkey was chosen as a good mate (which is very unlikely since even monkeys would recognize that it was a freak). Would the offspring be hairless? Well....................may
be. (for the sake of giving hairless monkey
uh
evolution
a chance).
On what basis would a bald monkey become dominant over a hairy one?
This makes apparent a lack of understanding of basic population genetics.
Did you know that albinos are much more prevalent in Southwestern Native American populations? Because they couldn't go out hunting in the sun, they stayed home, where the women were. This example shows that, although a reason for monkeys becoming bald might escape you, hairless monkeys may one day dominate their ecosystems nevertheless.
And being hairless by birth is not an example of an 'acquired trait'. The Lamarckian ideas about acquired traits has been relegated to the dustbin of scientific history. There is no need to revive them now.
To answer your question, use your imagination: A hairless monkey might be shunned and the genetic basis for it might die away. On the other hand, just like Navajo albinos, they might thrive. And no one said that monkeys would become hairless because one was born with a genetic defect. The hairlessness might be gradual. And it might be sexually selected.
The gene for it might be recessive, just like the sickle cell anemia gene, in which case it might be propagated throughout a population and only occasionally show up as a phenotype. The shunned monkeys, like our lepers, might naturally group together to form a sub-population (on the fringe or in a different locale) that interbreeds and then evolves separately.
Joman said:
Which is a very telling remark against any evolution.
Which is why fish didnt, dont and wont evolve into land creatures since they dominated their enviroment and still do. And, they have no need for lungs
nor parathyroid glands.
And, its a good reason for evolutionism to claim that evidence is impossible to come by in this present era, since Hey! Theres no longer a need to evolve as long as we all live at peace with one another in our own suitable habitats where we (all us species) all affect some measure of dominance.
Statis over a period of time, as far as fossils are concerned, occurs a lot. That's the fact. Statis, as measured by the fossil record, does not mean an absence of genetic change, but an absence of apparent phenotypic change in the general population. Which only makes sense. If all your phenotypic upstarts fail to compete successfully with the mainstream population, the mainstream population stays dominant, evolving slowly. Then one day, the mainstream population, just like the Roman empire, loses ground to an upstart.
As far as the fish are concerned, consider this: fish do well in an ecological niche. Which means there is marginally little food for increased populations, or few opportunities for reproduction for increased populations. Some individual fish look elsewhere for food (or for a place to lay eggs) and find it on the banks of the water body or in a neighbouring water body, holding their breath to squirm over there, like catfish do.
Joman said:
Wait a minute
there wouldnt be an upstart species until there was a lack of dominance (for whatever reason).
You misunderstand ecological competition. An upstart species might have a slightly different food source, might become scavengers or looters, might look for food at different times of the day (or night), might spawn early so that their eggs hatch early in order to dominate the food-getting by young or to avoid predators, might resist cold (or warmth, or differing oxygen levels, or different pH) better and find food at different levels, might be able to get food later into the winter, might tolerate a change in climate (or in pH, or in oxygen levels, or a disease, or in predator populations) better.
There is no need for an upstart species to 'muscle in' on the dominant species' niche. Just like new consumer brands, sometimes it's easier to create a new niche.
Joman said:
An aeon equals approximately how much depth of non-continuous strata?
Joman.
About 15 cubits.
