| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Ishtar
|
|
 |
|
|
Maybe a warthog diet is a better comparison than a walrus
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
Possibly... but warthogs are omnivorous and consume large amounts of vegetable matter.
No cat alive today could digest such a diet... so in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume Smilodon couldn't either.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DPCrisp
In: Bedfordshire
|
|
|
|
| I would like to hear more of Dan's thoughts on the matter. |
I don't have any further thoughts on the matter: sabre-tooths have forward-and-down horns or tusks that were clearly not used for what they say they were for. That leaves the way open for them to conform to the "rule" for aquatic tusks. They don't have the shell-crushing molars of an elephant, so they'd need a soft-bodied diet. Termite hills are promising... though that doesn't preclude the fangs from having an aquatic origin.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
|
We've touched on the subject of gene transfer between species, via viruses and such like... but this guy preferred to try the direct route.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Chad wrote: | | We've touched on the subject of gene transfer between species, via viruses and such like... but this guy preferred to try the direct route. |
That's actually a method I have given some thought to. Why does it happen? Is it just an error in reproductive behavior? Or is it meant to happen? If it is meant to happen, why?
My thinking is that nature employs inter-species mating for a purpose but the purpose isn't gene "transfer". It is communication. However, what is communicated informs reproduction.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
|
Does this sort of intercourse go on between consenting adults in the wild... or is it just another example of retained juvenile behaviour in domesticates?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Chad wrote: | | Does this sort of intercourse go on between consenting adults in the wild... or is it just another example of retained juvenile behaviour in domesticates? |
Another question I considered. No answer.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
|
Is it relevant that children are sexually experimental with no expectation of reproduction?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
|
That was my thought.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
|
The studies we would conduct if only we had a budget.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
|
This direct mode of gene transfer probably goes a long way towards explaining why certain populations (in particular the Welsh and Australians) have an average intelligence quotient which closely approximates to that of the local sheep population.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grant
|
|
|
|
| The studies we would conduct if only we had a budget. |
My mind is boggling
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DPCrisp
In: Bedfordshire
|
|
|
|
I can't remember the details now, but I heard about someone on telly with extremely long fingernails -- one of those Hindu guys, maybe -- who said they had feeling in their nails.
I wonder whether the fibrous nature of nails means nerves can (actually or effectively) extend into them from the nail bed.
Reminds me of rhinos, whose forward horns are a candidtate for my aquatic origin 'rule'. Upward horns are bony, innit, with just a keratinous covering, while the rhino horn is famously "solid hair" (arising from the sensitive end of its head). (And their nakedness, at least, is another factor in the aquatic origin hypothesis.)
'Course, some sensitivity in a food dibber-or-stirrer would be a good thing and I postulate that forward-or-down horns are either hairy or toothy (and that sensitivity of nails/horns is improved if they're kept wet).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This question occurred to me after reading something that Mick wrote in his book (somewhat of a non sequitur I admit; my mind did wander a bit).
We are told that Darwinism is "only a theory" by people who obviously think this is a bad thing, and happily accept that this is so. Proper theories however are falsifiable - it would be possible to do an experiment or envisage a finding that would prove them false.
If we find a new species today which doesn't fit the known tree, then the tendency is to create a new branch from the closest bit of that tree.
I suppose if one could disprove natural selection then the origin of species would also fall on its head somewhat - and that is something we can test via the black/white moths thing - but if we found a case where the white moths did better on black wood we would probably assume that this gave the moth an evolutionary advantage we hadn't detected.
(Apologies if this has been asked elsewhere; I did do a quick search before posting).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| This question occurred to me after reading something that Mick wrote in his book (somewhat of a non sequitur I admit; my mind did wander a bit). |
This is better than another reader who claimed that he read the first thirty pages non-stop standing up but then put it down and never read another word! However, meanwhile, welcome aboard and stay more focused in future.
| We are told that Darwinism is "only a theory" by people who obviously think this is a bad thing, and happily accept that this is so. |
We have to be careful here. Creationists say "It's just a theory" because they want to put it on all-fours with Creationism which is also 'just a theory' (even though Creationists don't actually think Creationism is a theory!) Orthodox biologists do not treat Darwinism as a theory even though they know technically (and are trained to reply) that it is. They regard it as a self-evident truth based on copious evidence. We of course say it's just a theory and mean it.
| Proper theories however are falsifiable - it would be possible to do an experiment or envisage a finding that would prove them false. |
No, this 'falsifiable' business is a red herring. Mounds of theories aren't falsifiable. It is just something modish people say. Can anyone come up with a theory that was actually found to be falsifiable?
| If we find a new species today which doesn't fit the known tree, then the tendency is to create a new branch from the closest bit of that tree. |
This is what I say in THOBR. It isn't a tendency, it is a necessity, surely? It is the same mechanism that is used in Ptolomeic Astrophysics.
| I suppose if one could disprove natural selection then the origin of species would also fall on its head somewhat - and that is something we can test via the black/white moths thing - |
No, that's the problem. Most of us here believe in some-kind-of-evolution because the fossil evidence says that species change over time but it is natural selection that is the problem. Everybody (including you it seems) have been so brainwashed by Darwinism that they assume evolution equals natural selection. We say (or at any rate, I say) that natural selection is actually a rather poor mechanism for prompting species-change. I am a neo-Larmarkian.
| but if we found a case where the white moths did better on black wood we would probably assume that this gave the moth an evolutionary advantage we hadn't detected. |
That is the way they always proceed. If it works, it's a triumph for the system, if it doesn't work, (altogether now!) more research is needed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
