archive-org.com » ORG » B » BIOLOGY-ONLINE.ORG

Total: 791

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • Biology-Online • View topic - Irrefutable Facts Against Evolution
    only in biology but also in chemistry and other sciences I m just curious where is the level of education so bad And I thought that the education in Czech Rep is already so bad I know it makes no sense to reply to you since you will not accept any new data but for the case someone else would read it here are some comments 1 You re wrong that there is no fusion in nature just look into stars The heavier atoms are formed in supernovas And BTW big bang has nothing to do with this 2 where did you get that 3 7 millions of people on Earth Even Czech Republic has more citizens 4 this one again 5 what exactly is the reason why membrane could not be first How does it work in bacteria 6 this one is nice 7 the same as 5 nearly impossible that s all what you can say Reply with quote Tomn Tomn Posts 99 Joined Wed Oct 05 2011 2 13 am Tue Oct 11 2011 8 20 pm canalon 1 It has everything to do with it There have to be atoms before there can be a chemical revolution The big bang nor evolution offers plausible theories for this 2 If there are studies that you know about which disagree I would appreciate if you could name them or the scientists instead of just saying that there are experiments that disagree 3 Yes people mate with people they are related to We call it kissing cousins In Europe they are called bloods Also i know that humans do not mate by binary fission None of this is shocking to me What exactly are you trying to say Again population statistics is a science not conjecture 1 growth every 82 years 1 3 dies and if you being with 2 modern humans from 41 000 years ago evolution sais the modern human appeared 40 000 years ago this obviously means they are using todays system of mating which is procreation through sexual intercourse then you will end up with 2x10 89 in todays population Thats 2 with 89 zeros behind it Todays population has only 7 digits There is not enough space on earth for this many bodies I would say show me the facts or the science but there is only one science of population statistics and evolution is impossible because it contradicts that science 4 The tracks are human The site admits that here are toe marks and a cup in the heel like human footprint should be There are human footprints in that area Also evolution sais that dinosaurs existed 230 mill to 65 mill years ago Therefore these prints should be under the ground Just the very fact that these prints are on the surfact disproves evolution 5 It seems this is a fact you cannot get around 6 There is no no 6 is there funny 7 I said However if you do have observed facts that contradict what is above please elaborate on these facts Instead I received a smart remark Both of use are still left with the fact that evolution occurs over millions of years How can the cell adapt to something with bile production that kills it instantly The answer to this is that it is impossible Acid works instantly to burn through the body if it is not contained in the stomach Early stomachs could not have developed with the issue of obtaining stomach acid 8 Ah but you see it is How does one event in evolution influences another If one organism was unable to obtain stomach acid how does this affect the next organism Its not like they connect telepathically and exchange why they were not able to do so Genetics in one organism are isolated from the next organism and they do not communicate and help correct each other Where there is a difficulty such as the lysosome and the stomach acid all organisms are affected by this The individual must evolve to pass on a gene with a complete digestive system The collective of early organisms do not evolve in close proximity and thus effect each other s ability to overcome these difficulties Obviously the individual cannot spontaneously evolve this because stomach acid if not contained burns through the body Evolution is a mass of conjectures not observed facts or events You obviously conjecture that evolution is an interconnected event because it favors your theory This statistic is fact It shows that the possibility of cell development by random unorchestrated chemical revolution is so low that its practically impossible So instead of showing an experiment where this was replicated or presenting solid facts which show that it is possible you call the statistic meaningless Reply with quote Tomn Tomn Posts 99 Joined Wed Oct 05 2011 2 13 am Re Irrefutable Facts Against Evolution Tue Oct 11 2011 9 01 pm JackBean 1 In reference to the stars this is true Let me rephrase this nuclear fusion does not occur naturally on Earth Also to canalon you obviously could not face the fact and conjecture your way around it This fact does not allow carbon and other elements to form Therefore you simply state that this is off subject 2 I read it 2 years ago on http www biologynews net The study was published in a prominent science journal in England I forgot the name and simpy retained the fact ofthe age of the sun I have searched for it again and have not been able to find it especially considering I forgot the name of the science journal and it was 2 years ago 3 Obviously I put 7 million instead of 6 9 billion Instead of focusing on the mistake I would appreciate if you could focus on the science of population statistics and the fact that evolution simply isnt viable considering the date oof our appearance The number again is 2x10 89 people after 41 000 years of procreation via sexual reproduction 1 growth rate and a 1 3 death every 82 years these numbers are derived from the proven observed science of population statistics 4 http www bible ca tracks tracks htm Keep in mind that you can put the general topic in google and many results appear which only deal with this subject Also canalon made the argument that these prints arent human even though there are toe marks and the cup of the heel is present However even if they are not toe marks and they are dinosaur footprints the very fact that dinosaur foot prints are on the surface shows that they existed recently Also they should be deep in the earth because of evolution s geological time scale These footprints disprove evolution 5 If the membrane comes first then the enzyme cannot enter into the membrane There is one very far out way this is possible and that is for the membrane to capture a part of the chemical sludge so that the enzymes may evolve within the membrane This is a far stretched impossibility Also the enzymes operate best at low pH The cell being that it evolved in the sea would have captured water which has a pH of 7 This would allow the enzymes to digest the membrane which is supposed to contain them Bacteria is a separate issue that I am not debating and must look into Right now I am presenting the modern day presence of lysosome which evolution cannot explain how it got into the cell or membrane 6 Again I messed up on the numbering funny 7 Again cells in the stomach are adapted to stomach acid through bile production How did a cell that would be instantly killed by stomach acid have a gradual genetic adaptation The cell would be dead before it can even begin to evolve 8 I think I need to iterate something the possibility is 1 in 104 478 296 This percentage possibility is 0 000000009 possibility There is a thing about probability if it is stretched to the point of 0 000000009 it is practically impossible 1 in 104 478 296 does not mean that 1 in every 104 478 296 events the cell will develop This means that for each event it has a 1 in 104 478 296 chance or a 0 0000000009 chance of evolving This makes the cell evolution practically impossible Reply with quote Tomn Tomn Posts 99 Joined Wed Oct 05 2011 2 13 am Tue Oct 11 2011 9 07 pm canalon Jackbean No 1 3 4 5 7 8 are facts that you simply cannot get around I am waiting for a response on number 2 5 7 are in you realm of conjecture and biological development Therefore for whatever problems arise in the development you simply conjecture around them instead of facing the stretched probability to the point of impossibility My point of possibility is made in 8 where the chance for each event which is individual is 1 in 104 478 296 or 0 000000009 This is again a statistic you cannot compensate for or conjecture around The science of population statistics dinosaur footprints on the surface the formation of elements with a atomic number of 2 or above the young age of the sun waiting for a response the practical impossibility of the random unorchestrated combination of chemicals that bring about life and the reversed rate of deterioration of the earth s magnetic field showing earth s young age unmentioned by either of you The cell probability earth s magnetic field population statistics is taken from http 184 154 224 5 creatio1 index ph view id 36 Obviously I had to get it from a creationist site because evolutionists would never talk about the earth s magnetic field on a website much less in person evolutionists tend to turn away when I mention the population statistics and magnetic field because it disproves the theory Reply with quote Tomn Tomn Posts 99 Joined Wed Oct 05 2011 2 13 am Wed Oct 12 2011 8 14 pm However if you are able to find evidence disproving these facts I would appreciate if you could present them Reply with quote JackBean JackBean Posts 5694 Joined Mon Sep 14 2009 7 12 pm Re Irrefutable Facts Against Evolution Thu Oct 13 2011 12 07 pm Tomn wrote 1 In reference to the stars this is true Let me rephrase this nuclear fusion does not occur naturally on Earth Also to canalon you obviously could not face the fact and conjecture your way around it This fact does not allow carbon and other elements to form Therefore you simply state that this is off subject You obviously don t know how planets formed Interesting that you care only about the carbon but other even heavier elements don t bother you Tomn wrote 2 I read it 2 years ago on http www biologynews net The study was published in a prominent science journal in England I forgot the name and simpy retained the fact ofthe age of the sun I have searched for it again and have not been able to find it especially considering I forgot the name of the science journal and it was 2 years ago I see So you want from us perfect citations about hings which are in every textbook but you cannot find single citation about such radical thing as sun being 40k years old Tomn wrote 3 Obviously I put 7 million instead of 6 9 billion Instead of focusing on the mistake I would appreciate if you could focus on the science of population statistics and the fact that evolution simply isnt viable considering the date oof our appearance The number again is 2x10 89 people after 41 000 years of procreation via sexual reproduction 1 growth rate and a 1 3 death every 82 years these numbers are derived from the proven observed science of population statistics As canalon told you we are not bacteria I don t understand much to your numbers in the first post However I would say the finnal number depends on the original population size Tomn wrote 4 http www bible ca tracks tracks htm Keep in mind that you can put the general topic in google and many results appear which only deal with this subject Also canalon made the argument that these prints arent human even though there are toe marks and the cup of the heel is present However even if they are not toe marks and they are dinosaur footprints the very fact that dinosaur foot prints are on the surface shows that they existed recently Also they should be deep in the earth because of evolution s geological time scale These footprints disprove evolution Your lack of knowledge is phenomenal Study geology first before you make such strong statements http www earthsci unimelb edu au Thom nge07 html http www geology ohio state edu vonf index html http tinyurl com geology pictures Tomn wrote 5 If the membrane comes first then the enzyme cannot enter into the membrane There is one very far out way this is possible and that is for the membrane to capture a part of the chemical sludge so that the enzymes may evolve within the membrane This is a far stretched impossibility Also the enzymes operate best at low pH The cell being that it evolved in the sea would have captured water which has a pH of 7 This would allow the enzymes to digest the membrane which is supposed to contain them Bacteria is a separate issue that I am not debating and must look into Right now I am presenting the modern day presence of lysosome which evolution cannot explain how it got into the cell or membrane Canalon was right you have no clue about protein trafficking and stuff Bacteria is much relevant because if they are ancestors of eukaryotes then you should look them up whether they have lysosome like organels Of course we know that bacteria do not have membrane bound organelles but their plasmamembrane makes infolding which may lead to membrane enclosed organelles Tomn wrote 8 I think I need to iterate something the possibility is 1 in 104 478 296 This percentage possibility is 0 000000009 possibility There is a thing about probability if it is stretched to the point of 0 000000009 it is practically impossible 1 in 104 478 296 does not mean that 1 in every 104 478 296 events the cell will develop This means that for each event it has a 1 in 104 478 296 chance or a 0 0000000009 chance of evolving This makes the cell evolution practically impossible At least I know now where you have this number from Just for curiosity how does 1 in 104 478 296 transform into 0 000000009 You think you say that something is practically impossible and that s enough for rejecting evolution but it s not You should consider although I know you won t there are usually millions of individuals of each species thus the chance is not that low Reply with quote TimTruett TimTruett Posts 1 Joined Fri Oct 14 2011 6 07 pm Re Irrefutable Facts Against Evolution Fri Oct 14 2011 6 29 pm 1 Nuclear fusion does occur in nature It happens at the center of any star The first stars contained only hydorogen and a little helium Nuclear fusion in stars builds up heavier elements Nuclear fusion has been directly studied in the laboratory so we understand it in great detail Large massive stars quickly fuse nuclei at a quick rate and relatively quickly will explode as a supernova The explosion does two things It generates elements heavier than iron and it disperses material out into the cosmos away from the supernova That is it puts heavy elements out into space Later other stars and planets will form from the interstellar gas that now has heavier elements in it Every atom of heavy elements such as carbon iron gold etc was formed either at the center of a star in its normal lifetime or in its explosion as a supernova Fred Hoyle worked this out in detail in the 1950s 2 Even the first estimates of the age of the Sun by Lord Kelvin in the 19th century before nuclear fusion was know gave an estimate bigger than 30000 years The Earth s magnetic field varies all the time You can t extraploate indefinitely from a short term trend The mechansim of the Earth s magnetic field is fairly well understood It has been investigated with numerical simulations on a computer and it has been investigated experimentally laboratory scale models 4 I have seen fossilized dinosaur footprints I have not seen any fossilized human footprints If you look at enough rocks or mud you can find any shape you want I saw a potato chip that looked exactly like Bob Hope There is a lava flow on Mars that looks like Kermit the frog That doesn t mean anything either This one is more interesting There is no unorchestrated assembly Calculating probablilities for unorchestraed assembly is meaningless because the assembly of atoms into molecules and molecules into larger systems happens according to the laws of physics and chemistry The configurations the atoms and molecules can take are highly constrained by the laws of nature Molecules don t form randonly They form as a result of the working out of the principles of chemistry Reply with quote Tomn Tomn Posts 99 Joined Wed Oct 05 2011 2 13 am Re Irrefutable Facts Against Evolution Fri Oct 14 2011 11 07 pm JackBean 1 I especially emphasize carbon because it is necessary to life However I did mention The science of population statistics dinosaur footprints on the surface the formation of elements with a atomic number

    Original URL path: http://www.biology-online.org/biology-forum/about22923.html (2016-02-17)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Biology-Online • View topic - Irrefutable Facts Against Evolution
    applying some calculations and tell you my results I think we will both find them interesting I think that the calculations will be very long and require explanation and could take on a conversation all its own I will post it in a new thread when I finish 3 I do not know about protein kinesis buddings of golgi apparatus and the issue of golgi transporting lysosomal enzymes I would appreciate if you could elaborate on this 4 The source for this statistic is http 184 154 224 5 creatio1 index ph view id 36 And his source is Mastropaolo Joseph Evolution Is Biologically Impossible Impact 317 El Cajon CA Institute For Creation Research 1999 p 4 Reply with quote Tomn Tomn Posts 99 Joined Wed Oct 05 2011 2 13 am Thu Oct 27 2011 10 44 pm I was hoping this page would generate more debate considering its provoking title Also I use simple facts that anyone can debate However it has been a week and these facts are still upheld I wish to have more debate in the subject Also I have not had any time in the recent days to perform those population statistics calculations However I have made some previous progress and I am continuing to work towards completing them Thank you Reply with quote Gavin Gavin Posts 108 Joined Sun Jun 14 2009 10 44 am Re Thu Oct 27 2011 11 36 pm Tomn wrote I was hoping this page would generate more debate considering its provoking title This is a science forum People come here to ask questions or to discuss scientific ideas We easily tire of trying to deal with unabashed ignorance and idolatry Sorry but we cannot take you seriously Reply with quote Tomn Tomn Posts 99 Joined Wed Oct 05 2011 2 13 am Fri Oct 28 2011 2 15 am Since this level that I am on is so full of unabashed ignorance and idolatry you pick the topic Pick the subject within evolution which shows proof for the theory post the thread and I will debate you there Reply with quote Gavin Gavin Posts 108 Joined Sun Jun 14 2009 10 44 am Re Irrefutable Facts Against Evolution Fri Oct 28 2011 2 24 am Tomm You cannot distinguish between fact and fiction do not listen to reason and have a closed mind These traits do not go far in science The internet has no lack of forums that would be a better fit for you This is a science forum and you are not a scientist and are not interested in science You do not belong here I don t want to be rude but if you think you can convince anyone that the presentation of your beliefs can refute the wealth of scientific evidence you are mistaken So please do yourself and us a favour and either acquire some education or take your beliefs elsewhere Reply with quote Tomn Tomn Posts 99 Joined Wed Oct

    Original URL path: http://www.biology-online.org/biology-forum/about22923-12.html (2016-02-17)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Biology-Online • View topic - Irrefutable Facts Against Evolution
    decline in earth s magnetic field strength etc They are commonly accepted facts and evolution does not line up with it and as a result it is disproven The thing about evolution is that it has to line up with every area of science it touches and it dos not thus it is not possible or viable Reply with quote Gavin Gavin Posts 108 Joined Sun Jun 14 2009 10 44 am Re Irrefutable Facts Against Evolution Sat Nov 05 2011 1 42 am Tomn wrote I dont understand OK I ll grant you that Reply with quote Tomn Tomn Posts 99 Joined Wed Oct 05 2011 2 13 am Sun Nov 06 2011 12 39 am When did I say that I did say Tomn wrote Its not that I dont understand nuclear fusion So you want to play the game that way Taking things out of context Wow Shows just what kind of person you are What gaul What lack of integrity Quit your childish games Debate and facts have place not incivility Debate or go home Reply with quote Gavin Gavin Posts 108 Joined Sun Jun 14 2009 10 44 am Re Irrefutable Facts Against Evolution Sun Nov 06 2011 12 53 am Debating with ignorant and closed minded creationists is futile Your facts are nonsense to educated people Have a look at http www youtube com watch v BS5vid4GkEY Part 1 of 37 and counting Reply with quote Tomn Tomn Posts 99 Joined Wed Oct 05 2011 2 13 am Sun Nov 06 2011 1 45 am Well in reference to that video 1 The first man is not even a scientist He is a man making a assumption He has no evidence of the 5 minute claim and he really should have look up other evidence for the flood such as the Austin Chalk You of all people who ignore facts 2 This young man instead of assuming that there is no water in our solar system other than Earth should have looked it up He would have easily found out that water was found on mars However he should have said that that water has been in a frozen state which is not enough for life to exist on mars Also he should have said that the temperature conditions on mars do not allow life to exist 3 Again with the water He should have looked it up 4 This man who narrates this video is simply making things technical Of course earths orbit is not a circle but an ellipse However this still does not refute the fact that we are in just the right place for liquid water to exist 5 The evolutionists narrator sais that the creationist failed to mention that 37 is the real distance that he is talking about 37 is 50 billion meters as stated in the movie Well keep in mind that 50 billion meters 80 million miles The creationists was not talking about moving earth back

    Original URL path: http://www.biology-online.org/biology-forum/about22923-24.html (2016-02-17)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Biology-Online • View topic - Irrefutable Facts Against Evolution
    addition to what Jackbean has already said First of all the distance between the Earth and Sun has been changing over time http answers yahoo com question index qid 20090331021903AAGTAqk Second of all to say that all conditions are perfect for life to exist on Earth is a selection bias If conditions were not so then either we wouldn t be around to make such a statement or life could have evolved to adapt to these conditions From wikipedia http en wikipedia org wiki Anthropic principle Critics argue in favor of a weak anthropic principle WAP similar to the one defined by Brandon Carter see variants which states that the universe s ostensible fine tuning is the result of selection bias i e in the long term only survivors can observe and report their location in time and space Reply with quote Ahsmeah Ahsmeah Posts 12 Joined Mon Jan 21 2013 10 50 pm Location United States TN Re Irrefutable Facts Against Evolution Mon Jan 21 2013 11 01 pm First I want to start off by reminding you that evolution and Darwinism are two different things even though Darwinism is based off of evolving It seemed to me when I was reading your replies that you may not remember that I also need to remind you that evolution is the conclusion of almost all scientific data and has basically been used to prove other theories wrong No evolution is not proven it is based on scientific research You cannot base a drawing on a tree and then say that the tree is proof that your drawing exists if you get my drift So technically Tomn your attempts to scientifically disprove evolution are in vain and I say that as a fellow christian Simply accept that the way to view evolution is as conclusion of data and not as a theory people may use to disprove your religion Thank you for fighting so hard but really you re just fighting in vain Must I remind you you re in a thread full of scientists teachers and experts You cannot disprove science with science Don t try it again alright The theory of evolution adapts it is not one solid theory It is based off of most likely thousands of other theories So even if you disprove a single theory you still have four thousand nine hundred and ninety nine more to go Sources No sources but look this information up yourself 14 year old kid Reply with quote Meranda Meranda Posts 2 Joined Sat Feb 22 2014 10 35 pm Re Irrefutable Facts Against Evolution Sat Feb 22 2014 10 43 pm Why Does Ancient Art Contain Depictions Of Flying Aircraft Helicopters And Dinosaurs http thetruthwins com archives why do dinosaurs Fact Check Did Bill Nye Tell A Huge Lie About The Fossil Layers http thetruthwins com archives fact c sil layers Does A Belief In Evolution Lead To Racism http thetruthwins com archives does a to racism 44 Reasons

    Original URL path: http://www.biology-online.org/biology-forum/about22923-36.html (2016-02-17)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Biology-Online • View topic - Irrefutable Facts Against Evolution
    that it same from nothing or that it appeared from nowhere Everything has a source Things dont appear from nothing explode and cause the universe to expand and heat then cool then randomly form the earth This in simple common sense terms is impossible God did not do it Gravity did it Gravity in something as massive as a star all of which are powered by nuclear fusion so I guess that is after all a natural process Tomn wrote 2 The Age of the Sun Russian Sun Study and Earth s Magnetic Field For the theory of evolution to be possible the sun had to have existed throughout the duration of the evolutionary time scale Life as we know it could not have developed or exist without the sun in tow A study was done on the sun by Russian scientists Based on the sun s rate of nuclear fusion the Russian scientists found the sun to be 10 000 30 000 years old Also supporting young age is the strength of the earth s magnetic field Scientists have found that the magnetic field is reducing in strength at a rapid rate with a half life of about 1 400 years If that rate is reversed the strength of the earth s magnetic field 20 000 years ago would be that of a magnetic star This supports Earth s young age as appose to evolution s over estimation Russian science is often wrong being more political than scientific but I would need an actual reference to such a claim to provide a detailed rebuttal The Earth s magnetic field does not decay along a half life curve as radioactive elements do It varies in complex and non periodic cyclical ways as we have demonstrated by sampling past magnetic fields as they were captured in the iron rich magma along the sides of mid ocean ridges as the sea floor has spread Tomn wrote 3 Population Statistics This science is above all the most convincing As you can see in the chart of population growth the human population stays relatividly stable until there is an excessive amount of exponential growth According to evolution humans appeared 200 000 years ago and the modern human 40 000 years ago The application of population growth rate has been estimated at 2 yet it has been shown to be 1 Every 82 years one third of the population is wiped out by disease war etc If these rules are applied over the course of 41 000 years according to the observed science of population statistics there would be 2x10 89 humans in existence today In other words 200000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 The current population is 6900000 There is not enough room on earth to hold this many bodies This is not conjecture This is a science of population statistics Evolution does not conform to this You have no understanding of population growth it is not a constant as you have modeled it so your rules are wrong There is a saying in science garbage in garbage out Tomn wrote 4 McFall Taylor Trail Footprints These two trails have both dinosaur and human foot prints For one dinosaurs are according to evolution millions of years old These fossils should be underground to coordinate with the evolutionary time scale However the very fact that these fossils are on the surface is cause for disproof Also there is one particular footprint which has a human footprint inside of a dinosaur footprint This shows that humans and dinosaurs existed recently and in the same period which evolution is quite contradictory to There are exposed outcroppings of rocks of almost every conceivable age somewhere on earth That is dependent upon the overlying rock and the weathering that it is exposed to There are no human footprints inside of dinosaur footprints except in the imaginations of some charlatans Tomn wrote 5 Lysosome Lysosome contain enzymes that are used to break down material and get it ready for disposal All of these enzymes work best at a low pH reducing the risk that these enzymes will digest the very cell they are contained in should they somehow escape from the lysosome Keep in mind that the pH of water from which all life spring from according to evolution has a pH of 7 The cell could not house these enzymes without the membrane The conundrum of getting the enzymes inside of the membrane or the membrane around the enzymes or the membrane evolving then the enzyme getting on the inside or the enzyme evolving then the membrane around it is a very far stretched possibility This is so far stretched that it is impossible If the enzymes develop before the membrane the membrane would be broken down by enzymes from the outside If the membrane evolves before the enzymes either the membrane is already closed and is consumed by the enzyme or the enzyme develops inside the membrane at which point would contain water instead of cell fluid The membrane at that point would be consumed from the inside out because of pH This is know as the argument from irreducible complexity and it has been debunked many many times with respect to many many structures Each time a door is slammed in the creationists face as it has been with respect to many structures and many metabolic pathways they attempt to open another one and the Evolutionists scurry about and slam it too and the process goes on and on But the truth is even if the Evolutionists can t for the moment explain something all that wins for the Creationists is the admission that the Evolutionists don t know yet It not until the Creationists commit the intellectual fraud of making an argument from ignorance that they can pretend to have taken some ground But the reality is that even if something cannot at this moment be perfectly explained that is not evidence that Goddidit That is only evidence that perhaps we

    Original URL path: http://www.biology-online.org/biology-forum/about22923-48.html (2016-02-17)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Biology-Online • View topic - Islands and Evolution
    in species is helped by reproductive isolation of groups Reply with quote alextemplet alextemplet Posts 5599 Joined Fri Dec 23 2005 4 50 pm Location South Louisiana aka Cajun Country Website Tue Apr 21 2009 6 21 pm In most cases island species have evolved from mainland species that adapted to the unique environment of the island Since the ancestral species usually still exists on the mainland researchers are provided with a rare opportunity to study how a living species adapts to a new environment This would not be possible if the ancestral species were not still extant in its original mainland habitat Reply with quote mcar mcar Posts 493 Joined Fri May 27 2005 8 58 am Location Pilipinas a k a Three Stars and a Sun 300 000 sq Km Thu Apr 23 2009 11 30 am That s also the very idea of Darwin s finches in Galapagos islands right Reply with quote skeptic skeptic Posts 119 Joined Tue Apr 14 2009 2 44 am Location New Zealand Re Islands and Evolution Tue Apr 28 2009 10 08 am Sometimes islands come in groups which permits you to see the way the same ancestor radiates into different forms under the different environmental conditions on different islands This was very true for the Galapagos and Darwin s finches Reply with quote HowarJK8 HowarJK8 Posts 1 Joined Mon Apr 13 2015 8 08 am Mon Apr 13 2015 8 11 am Just a small write up in this specific discussion board and I will help it become sticky to get a full week your microbiology media on the day time Go over with this place about20140 html NASA scientist can see a fresh strain of an known genus regarding microorganisms which is competent to make use of Arsenic as

    Original URL path: http://www.biology-online.org/biology-forum/about15750.html (2016-02-17)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Biology-Online • View topic - human brain size
    counterintuitive to me but I couldn t find any facts or arguments to prove the opposite Does anyone have an explanation for this Thanks in advance Reply with quote Semisane Semisane Posts 3 Joined Thu Dec 01 2011 12 34 pm Re human brain size Tue Mar 03 2015 9 51 am Livinus wrote Since around 30 000 years ago the human brain used to be bigger in size with Homo neanderthalensis having the biggest brain size Since then the average brain size has been a shrinking over the past 28 000 years a friend of mine claims that the potential intellectual capacities of mankind have gone down because there is a correlation between brain size and intelligence This seems very counterintuitive to me but I couldn t find any facts or arguments to prove the opposite Does anyone have an explanation for this Thanks in advance Size or volume of the brain is not necessarily the right indicator for intelligence One should really look at size volume compared to entire body size I could be mistaken but although Neanderthals might have a larger volume of brain I think the brain of Homo sapiens would have been larger proportionally to body size What is also very important is the amount of neural connections within the brain This might have be a lot higher in Homo sapiens as well compared to Homo neanderthalensis This is speculation really cause I do not know much about neanderthals but that might explain differences in intelligence if there were any After all it might not be lack of intelligence why Neanderthals died out No matter the two real indicators is the proportional size volume of the brain and the amount of neural connections within a brain that could tell you more about the possible level

    Original URL path: http://www.biology-online.org/biology-forum/about41535.html (2016-02-17)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Biology-Online • View topic - Locomotory Evolution
    much higher form which already existed in the radially symmetrical jelly fishes even before the bilaterians appeared Reply with quote Youngji Youngji Posts 4 Joined Sun Jan 11 2015 11 00 am Sun Feb 01 2015 12 36 pm There are advantages to both types of body symmetry a bilaterian fish enjoys much faster unidirectional movement compared to a jellyfish This could be advantages if the bilaterian is a predator or a prey for example in the cambrain explosion it is believed that predator prey coevolution drove much of the adaptive radiation that resulted in the emergence of a large number of species Predators which can move faster are able to more easily catch prey and prey which are faster can easily escape A second advantage to a bilaterian body plan other than the ability to be more active is that the sense organs and nervous system can be situated anteriorly This enables the organism to react more quickly to stimuli and as the head reason will be the first to experience a new environment think about a worm sticking its head out of the soil the organis is able to react more quickly Radially symmetrical bodies are much slower

    Original URL path: http://www.biology-online.org/biology-forum/about41374.html (2016-02-17)
    Open archived version from archive



  •