Notices
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 166 of 166
Like Tree43Likes

Thread: Why aren't there half-human-apes living amongst us (or as fossils)if evolution did happen?

  1. #101  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    My view is that our ancestors first developed alternative ways of staying warm, like fire, shelters, and clothing. With fur being less important, they evolved to enjoy the benefits of better cooling, and easier parasite control.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    908
    LOL5.JPGLOL1.JPGLOL2.JPGLOL3.JPG
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Practically it is mainly because we have different numbers of chromosomes (48 vs 46).


    and what causes the different number of chromozones as generations passed?
    does the bottom two salamanders in the video have same number of chromozones?
    Please view this from 5:04 to 5:30
    Last edited by RamenNoodles; April 15th, 2013 at 06:59 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    If thy right nipple offend thee, pluck it off! Goes for the other, too!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    908
    I know evolution is gradual process that takes hundreds, if not thousands of generations.

    What i am asking is: What is the exact difference that makes individual unable to breed with another?
    If you say chromozones, then why can downsyndrome men be fathering?
    Is it all to do with the number of chromozones a generation has? or what?
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    If thy right nipple offend thee, pluck it off! Goes for the other, too!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    908
    gunna read up more on ring species
    Last edited by RamenNoodles; June 24th, 2013 at 12:40 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    If thy right nipple offend thee, pluck it off! Goes for the other, too!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,502
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    I know evolution is gradual process that takes hundreds, if not thousands of generations.
    If you check the link I gave you in the starfish thread, there are examples where we have seen new species arise in a few years or even a single generation. I think it also gives some answers to the "how can the number of chromosomes change" question.

    What i am asking is: What is the exact difference that makes individual unable to breed with another?
    That sounds like a question for a biologist. But I doubt there is a single, simple answer. For example, different species can cross-breed (and it happens in the wild). I assume there multiple reasons why it is usually either not possible or not successful.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,502
    And, just to add more confusion, I am pretty certain that it is possible for there to be two individuals in a species who cannot have viable offspring with each other, even though they could both successfully have offspring with others.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    I am pretty certain that it is possible for there to be two individuals in a species who cannot have viable offspring with each other, even though they could both successfully have offspring with others.
    Yep.
    Me and my brother for instance.
    We couldn't produce offspring, but I bet we'd be able to with most women...

    (I'll get my coat.)
    Strange likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,502
    You know that's not what I meant.
    RamenNoodles likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    There are some blood type combinations in human couples that makes breeding dangerous if not impossible. Something about a man with rh+ and woman with rh- blood type cannot have children or something like that. I tried looking it up but I must not know the terms. I'm sure someone here knows what I am referring to. I'll keep trying to figure it out.

    edit:
    It never fails if I post in exasperation that I could not find what I was looking for, then I immediately find it after posting. But this is what I was referring to.

    Rh Blood Types and it is even from a reliable source..... I think.
    Dywyddyr likes this.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    908
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    different species can cross-breed
    Then what difference do "species" have in the term creationists puts it?
    What if hell is their claim?


    http://creation.com/birds-of-a-feather-don-t-breed-together
    http://www.movetoassurance.com/mta-blog/2011/07/02/268/

    although the claim from 2nd link seems be wrong, due to the reply in that blog by Thor123422
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    If thy right nipple offend thee, pluck it off! Goes for the other, too!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,502
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    different species can cross-breed
    Then what difference do "species" have in the term creationists puts it?
    Don't ask me. I know almost nothing about creationism (which is already too much). I assume they make up or cherry pick definitions to support a conclusion they have already reached.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    Forum Professor Zwirko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    55° N, 3° W
    Posts
    1,082
    Some creationists use the bizarre Baraminology system: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baraminology.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #113  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Oh dear. I'd heard of it somewhere or other.

    What people will do when they have to make up something to substitute for something they don't like, eh?
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwirko View Post
    Some creationists use the bizarre Baraminology system: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baraminology.
    Interesting.
    I wonder how they manage to "explain" centaurs, satyrs and most of the the rest of the Narnian ecosystem with that...
    seagypsy likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    908
    i've seen creation websites that talk about Birds of a feather don't breed together
    This sort of variation does not add any new information. On the contrary, it is genetically downhill. It involves a reduction of the information in each of the descendant populations compared to the ancestral one.
    how correct is this statement?
    which parts are right?
    which parts are wrong?
    how accurate is your claim that it is wrong?
    thanks!
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    If thy right nipple offend thee, pluck it off! Goes for the other, too!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Genetically downhill?

    The only marker of genetic success is further successful reproduction.

    There is no 'downhill' or 'uphill'. There can be problems for some species that finish up in a very restricted ecological niche - which makes them more vulnerable to changing circumstances than other species with a more varied genetic composition/ dietary requirements / more resistance to heat or cold / higher reproduction rate or whatever. Doesn't stop any such species from lasting for thousands or millions of years - they simply benefit from their particular ecological niche remaining stable or expanding rather than contracting or disappearing entirely.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #117  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    908
    What about the part of
    does not add any new information............. It involves a reduction of the information in each of the descendant populations compared to the ancestral one.
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    If thy right nipple offend thee, pluck it off! Goes for the other, too!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #118  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    What about it? I can't see that it makes much sense. We're talking about ring species here. So the species expands its range in two directions. For no particular reason, one lot's progeny has a longer tail after x generations, the others get slightly longer legs over the same number of generations. While the original progenitors continue with tails and legs much the same as before. And all of them, at this stage, can still reproduce with any of the others if the chance arises.

    What's been lost? Where's this "reduction of the information" referred to? All I can see is that some genes are favoured over others, they were all there to start with. And they continue to be. Eventually - after many, many generations some descendants in a couple of lines of descent will finish up unable to reproduce with some, or even most, of the other lines of descent. I still can't see where anything's been lost. We now have 6, 8 or 10 species where before there was only one. And most of them can mate with most of the others should the need ever arise.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #119  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,527
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post



    Maybe i should try to convert my pastor into aethism.
    but i probably need more research too!
    Not atheism, any normal variety of mainstream Christianity will do. None of the major Christian denominations in Europe has any problem with evolution, or with the broader scientific account of the the origin of the Earth and the universe. To say that one can't be a Christian without embracing all this creationist hogwash is just nonsense.
    PhDemon likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #120  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post

    Not atheism, any normal variety of mainstream Christianity will do. None of the major Christian denominations in Europe has any problem with evolution, or with the broader scientific account of the the origin of the Earth and the universe. To say that one can't be a Christian without embracing all this creationist hogwash is just nonsense.
    You may be surprised how many acting pastors are secretly atheists themselves.

    The Clergy Project - Home Page
    Last edited by seagypsy; May 23rd, 2013 at 09:08 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #121  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    Maybe i should try to convert my pastor into aethism.but i probably need more research too!
    Not atheism, any normal variety of mainstream Christianity will do. None of the major Christian denominations in Europe has any problem with evolution, or with the broader scientific account of the the origin of the Earth and the universe. To say that one can't be a Christian without embracing all this creationist hogwash is just nonsense.
    I've heard rumours about a fringe faction of christian literalists in Singapore who subscribe to and are misinforming their fellows that creationism is a core aspect of christianity in general. In some online spheres I've surveyed, their message seems to be gaining some foothold with the less educated members (younger and older ones alike) of the various christian denominations. Most of what they preach online have been met with strong resistence and rebuttal from non-christians and christians who are well studied in the respective fields of science; ranging from students to working professionals. Their usual tactics include misinforming the public about geology, cosmology, biology (specifically evolution), radiometric dating, etc. Pretty much everything that can be thrown out of a creationist handbook without explicitly saying or hinting that the other religions and religious beliefs "got it wrong; except us", because there are strict laws that frowns on inflaming religious (dis)harmony in my country.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #122  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Not atheism, any normal variety of mainstream Christianity will do. None of the major Christian denominations in Europe has any problem with evolution, or with the broader scientific account of the the origin of the Earth and the universe. To say that one can't be a Christian without embracing all this creationist hogwash is just nonsense.
    I've heard rumours about a fringe faction of christian literalists in Singapore who subscribe to and are misinforming their fellows that creationism is a core aspect of christianity in general. In some online spheres I've surveyed, their message seems to be gaining some foothold with the less educated members (younger and older ones alike) of the various christian denominations. Most of what they preach online have been met with strong resistence and rebuttal from non-christians and christians who are well studied in the respective fields of science; ranging from students to working professionals. Their usual tactics include misinforming the public about geology, cosmology, biology (specifically evolution), radiometric dating, etc. Pretty much everything that can be thrown out of a creationist handbook without explicitly saying or hinting that the other religions and religious beliefs "got it wrong; except us", because there are strict laws that frowns on inflaming religious (dis)harmony in my country.
    Growing up in a small baptist town here in the USA, our church told us that creationism was a fundamental belief of Christianity. And considering the creation story of Genesis, I have a hard time conceiving that it isn't. That doesn't mean that many people who call themselves Christians are not willing to accept scientific discovery. Many just simply alter their belief system to state that the bible isn't the literal truth but intended as a spiritual guide. But I'm not not aware of any passage in the bible that states the "word of god" is not literal truth or that it is merely a fable intended to guide one in their own personal understanding of god.

    It seems religion today is open to interpretation to the point that there are very few binding beliefs that hold a religious community together. Members within a single church will argue and debate what their faith means to them even though they all claim to follow the same teachings.

    Religion is a custom tailored set of beliefs that an individual adopts and adapts to satisfy their own psychological needs, in my opinion.
    Last edited by seagypsy; May 23rd, 2013 at 09:08 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #123  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,502
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    What about the part of
    does not add any new information............. It involves a reduction of the information in each of the descendant populations compared to the ancestral one.
    This is either a grossly ignorant or grossly dishonest statement. There are several mechanisms for new information to be created in (or added to) the genome.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #124  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,527
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    Maybe i should try to convert my pastor into aethism.but i probably need more research too!
    Not atheism, any normal variety of mainstream Christianity will do. None of the major Christian denominations in Europe has any problem with evolution, or with the broader scientific account of the the origin of the Earth and the universe. To say that one can't be a Christian without embracing all this creationist hogwash is just nonsense.
    I've heard rumours about a fringe faction of christian literalists in Singapore who subscribe to and are misinforming their fellows that creationism is a core aspect of christianity in general. In some online spheres I've surveyed, their message seems to be gaining some foothold with the less educated members (younger and older ones alike) of the various christian denominations. Most of what they preach online have been met with strong resistence and rebuttal from non-christians and christians who are well studied in the respective fields of science; ranging from students to working professionals. Their usual tactics include misinforming the public about geology, cosmology, biology (specifically evolution), radiometric dating, etc. Pretty much everything that can be thrown out of a creationist handbook without explicitly saying or hinting that the other religions and religious beliefs "got it wrong; except us", because there are strict laws that frowns on inflaming religious (dis)harmony in my country.
    Growing up in a small baptist town here in the USA, our church told us that creationism was a fundamental belief of Christianity. And considering the creation story of Genesis, I have a hard time conceiving that it isn't. That doesn't mean that many people who call themselves Christians are not willing to accept scientific discovery. Many just simply alter their belief system to state that the bible isn't the literal truth but intended as a spiritual guide. But I'm not not aware of any passage in the bible that states the "word of god" is not literal truth or that it is merely a fable intended to guide one in their own personal understanding of god.

    It seems religion today is open to interpretation to the point that there are very few binding beliefs that hold a religious community together. Members within a single church will argue and debate what their faith means to them even though they all claim to follow the same teachings.

    Religion is a custom tailored set of beliefs that an individual adopts and adapts to satisfy their own psychological needs, in my opinion.
    Your perspective reflects your experience of course. But Creationism is largely a feature of modern US Protestant churches in the Bible Belt. The Catholic, Anglican, Episcopalian and Presbyterian churches have ALL been able to accept without much difficulty the sciences of geology and evolutionary biology. Evolution was mainstream in the Church of England by the end of the c.19th, and I have read lectures given in Rome by Cardinal Wiseman, accommodating Catholic teaching to the new discoveries in geology (about the age of the Earth and so on), from the 1840s, well before "Origin of Species" was published! As a matter of fact, the story of Genesis has been recognised as allegorical for over a thousand years. But of course you are right that argument and debate has been part of theology since the dawn of religion. This comes across very strongly in Dairmid MacCulloch's "History of Christianity", which I read last year and can thoroughly recommend.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #125  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    But I'm not not aware of any passage in the bible that states the "word of god" is not literal truth or that it is merely a fable intended to guide one in their own personal understanding of god.
    There was no need for such a statement when most people who were able to read were more interested in the poetic or story telling features of written material.

    The idea that written material can be only either a mini-encyclopaedia or an instruction manual is very modern.
    exchemist likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #126  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    But I'm not not aware of any passage in the bible that states the "word of god" is not literal truth or that it is merely a fable intended to guide one in their own personal understanding of god.
    There was no need for such a statement when most people who were able to read were more interested in the poetic or story telling features of written material.

    The idea that written material can be only either a mini-encyclopaedia or an instruction manual is very modern.
    Good point. These days it really does depend on who you ask, whether or not the bible is the literal truth or fables. As doggedly as one can defend faith one can discredit it, depending on how a particular believer defines it.

    I think it is a conflict that will never resolve itself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #127  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    I know evolution is gradual process that takes hundreds, if not thousands of generations.

    What i am asking is: What is the exact difference that makes individual unable to breed with another?
    If you say chromozones, then why can downsyndrome men be fathering?
    Is it all to do with the number of chromozones a generation has? or what?
    There is no "exact" difference...there area number of reasons for categorizing groups of animals into different species and how it relates to breeding including:

    behavior, such as species A doesn't do the right mating dance to attract species B

    physical barriers (no opportunity), species A lives on the other side of the mountain from species B

    timing, species A is receptive to mate at different times from species B

    physical, species A can't physically mate with species B (e.g. elephant and a mouse)

    gamete incompatibility, even if artificially bred, fertilization doesn't happen.

    zygote/offspring non-viability, fertilization happens but never the zygote doesn't mature.

    offspring infertility (sometimes taking a couple generations).
    --
    And just for fun, consider that there are additional details within those reasons for separation--for example a female lynx and male bobcat (same Genus and relatively recent separation can successfully breed a litter with fertile female hybrids (this sometimes happens naturally where they have some geographic overlap...male hybrids cubs are sterile).
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; May 21st, 2013 at 03:12 PM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #128  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    I thought isolation is only critical in slit path evolution(ancestor splits into chimps, and humans)?
    How does it play a role in the evolution of the whole human race?

    thinking of it its wierd thinking how you describe it as "entire human race is isolated"
    human race is isolated from?

    "the human race is isolated from nothing" makes no sense... to me

    Isolation by way of not being able to breed? What you have here is the answer to both your questions.

    1) - Why aren't the transitional organisms still with us?

    Answer: - Because once the group split into two groups that couldn't mate, all the organisms that could mate with group #1 or group #2 got absorbed into group #1 or group #2. Look at humanity today. Do you not see lots of variation? Tall, Short? Slim, Fat? Bald, Hairy? Traces of neanderthal DNA are still present in the population today, but not a lot of it because most of it bred out over time.

    There are no more "purebred" neanderthals, because the random likelihood of every neanderthal parent choosing to mate with another neanderthal (instead of a homo-sapien) over thousands of generations is very poor. Invariably everyone has mixed ancestry. Pure genetic lineage is very hard to maintain when you have so many mating options.

    2) - How does genetic isolation drive evolution?

    Answer: -Without isolation, the previous set of genes are continually getting mixed back in to the population. Suppose a population exclusively composed of tall people gets together. Nearly all of their kids will be tall. (I know height is not 100% genetic, but it makes for a good visualization.) If short people show up and mate with the tall offspring, then the population's average height will move back toward the average height.
    RamenNoodles likes this.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #129  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    6
    Evolution, by the very blunt instrument of death, comes to the fore when the environment changes. At that point, those members of the species with the capacity to survive or even thrive in those changed circumstances will succeed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #130  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    908
    Are there and know two similar species who weren't unable to interbreed at first, then after a few generations, able to interbreed again?
    as in, known, confirmed cases.
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    If thy right nipple offend thee, pluck it off! Goes for the other, too!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #131  
    Forum Sophomore laza's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Serbia, Belgrade
    Posts
    116
    Sounds impossible to me
    "There is grandeur in this view of life,from so simple beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”
    Charles Darwin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #132  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    344
    Please move this to Pseudoscience. It doesn't belong here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #133  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    I disagree, its not pseudoscience, and actual science is being discusses, with novel questions being answered
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #134  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    344
    Ok. I'm ambivalent on this anyway. Just my personal opinion based on the OP's question.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #135  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    *cough*...well in Northern Cali, we rather believe in "Big Foot", as do the Indian tribes. Scientific? I would say possibly not....never proven or disproven that I remember.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #136  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    *cough*...well in Northern Cali, we rather believe in "Big Foot", as do the Indian tribes. Scientific? I would say possibly not....never proven or disproven that I remember.
    Fully accepted by the biology community to be myth. The population dynamics alone are enough to say its not a real creature.
    mikepotter84 likes this.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #137  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by RamenNoodles View Post
    If there is no stress on the ability to survive, do we still evolve?


    Happened to notice this question from earlier in the thread. If there were no stress, then the species in question would over populate until there was a stress again.

    Or a better way to say it is, when there is no stress, the species tends toward whichever members have the most kids, because they're still the ones having the most surviving offspring.

    Remember, it's not survival. It's having surviving offspring. If there's no pressure by way of death, there's still pressure by way of competing to have the most life.

    Quote Originally Posted by RamenNoodles View Post
    Are there and know two similar species who weren't unable to interbreed at first, then after a few generations, able to interbreed again?
    as in, known, confirmed cases.
    I'm pretty sure it would take a lot more than just a few generations.

    Interesting question, though. I don't know if any populations have been observed to diverge that far. Maybe someone should try creating a dog breed that can't breed with other dogs.

    I guess a chihuahua would have a hard time breeding with a great pyrenee, but that's for practical reasons, not so genetic reasons.

    I've been able to find one article on it, but it's only a partial case where litter size was diminished. The dogs still bred somewhat.

    http://sciencenetlinks.com/science-n...es/dog-breeds/
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #138  
    Forum Professor Zwirko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    55° N, 3° W
    Posts
    1,082
    re: no stress

    Don't forget drift. Gene flow too. Always happening, can't be stopped. Evolution never stops.
    Last edited by Zwirko; June 28th, 2013 at 04:30 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #139  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    *cough*...well in Northern Cali, we rather believe in "Big Foot", as do the Indian tribes. Scientific? I would say possibly not....never proven or disproven that I remember.
    Fully accepted by the biology community to be myth. The population dynamics alone are enough to say its not a real creature.
    You are possibly and most likely utterly correct, but it is rather fun to wonder, isn't it? *smile* Imagination begets creativity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #140  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    908
    Quote Originally Posted by RamenNoodles View Post
    Are there and know two similar species who weren't unable to interbreed at first, then after a few generations, able to interbreed again?
    as in, known, confirmed cases.
    When i say similar species, i also meant including speciated species that came from the same ancestor.
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    If thy right nipple offend thee, pluck it off! Goes for the other, too!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #141  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwirko View Post
    re: no stress

    Don't forget drift. Gene flow too. Always happening, can't be stopped. Evolution never stops.
    THANK YA GEEZUS!! ....though sometimes when I see young people with their undisciplined brat children I wonder....or when I am at a table in a restaurant and a tourist is next to me with her husband, their child and their nanny, and the waitress says..."and you, young man what would you like to drink with your breakfast?" The child looks bewildered and his mother looks at the nanny and says, "What does he drink with his breakfast food?" When I observe stuff like that..I am AFRAID of where evolution is going!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #142  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    Quote Originally Posted by RamenNoodles View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RamenNoodles View Post
    Are there and know two similar species who weren't unable to interbreed at first, then after a few generations, able to interbreed again?
    as in, known, confirmed cases.
    When i say similar species, i also meant including speciated species that came from the same ancestor.
    I am very relieved to hear that! heavens..and still laughing at your moniker, I think some folks have inter-breeded far too long!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #143  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    when I am at a table in a restaurant and a tourist is next to me with her husband, their child and their nanny, and the waitress says..."and you, young man what would you like to drink with your breakfast?" The child looks bewildered and his mother looks at the nanny and says, "What does he drink with his breakfast food?" When I observe stuff like that..I am AFRAID of where evolution is going!
    And yet, when this sort of behaviour was followed by the ruling classes in Britain we ruled a global Empire. When we stopped doing it the Empire was lost.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #144  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    908
    huh i dont get what you guys are saying.........
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    If thy right nipple offend thee, pluck it off! Goes for the other, too!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #145  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    when I am at a table in a restaurant and a tourist is next to me with her husband, their child and their nanny, and the waitress says..."and you, young man what would you like to drink with your breakfast?" The child looks bewildered and his mother looks at the nanny and says, "What does he drink with his breakfast food?" When I observe stuff like that..I am AFRAID of where evolution is going!
    And yet, when this sort of behaviour was followed by the ruling classes in Britain we ruled a global Empire. When we stopped doing it the Empire was lost.
    Which Empire? T The USA is not Britain...nor has ever been in behavior, frankly, so what is your point?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #146  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    Quote Originally Posted by RamenNoodles View Post
    huh i dont get what you guys are saying.........
    Chuckle....dang honey too many Ramen Noodles!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #147  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    when I am at a table in a restaurant and a tourist is next to me with her husband, their child and their nanny, and the waitress says..."and you, young man what would you like to drink with your breakfast?" The child looks bewildered and his mother looks at the nanny and says, "What does he drink with his breakfast food?" When I observe stuff like that..I am AFRAID of where evolution is going!
    And yet, when this sort of behaviour was followed by the ruling classes in Britain we ruled a global Empire. When we stopped doing it the Empire was lost.
    Which Empire? T The USA is not Britain...nor has ever been in behavior, frankly, so what is your point?
    You appear to have clear opinions upon what constitutes 'good' behaviour and what might be considered lamentable. The sketch you provide is dismissive of a particular kind of parenting. I have simply noted that this style of parenting correlates with the success of the British Empire.

    I am gently querying your apparent conviction that such behaviour is automatically undesirable.

    As to which Empire, this is implicit in the phrase "...in Britain we ruled a global Empire". It's a fair bet I wasn't referring to the Roman Empire, or the Mutapa.

    Since your phrase "...where evolution is going." implicitly deals with homo sapiens, then why would the nationality of the practitioners of a specific behaviour have any relevance?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #148  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    "empires" have a life expectancy too.

    Sooner or later, ours will fall too
    (we killed the "evil empire" by making them outspend their resources------now, we seem to be doing the same)
    RamenNoodles likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #149  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    when I am at a table in a restaurant and a tourist is next to me with her husband, their child and their nanny, and the waitress says..."and you, young man what would you like to drink with your breakfast?" The child looks bewildered and his mother looks at the nanny and says, "What does he drink with his breakfast food?" When I observe stuff like that..I am AFRAID of where evolution is going!
    And yet, when this sort of behaviour was followed by the ruling classes in Britain we ruled a global Empire. When we stopped doing it the Empire was lost.
    Which Empire? T The USA is not Britain...nor has ever been in behavior, frankly, so what is your point?
    You appear to have clear opinions upon what constitutes 'good' behaviour and what might be considered lamentable. The sketch you provide is dismissive of a particular kind of parenting. I have simply noted that this style of parenting correlates with the success of the British Empire.

    I am gently querying your apparent conviction that such behaviour is automatically undesirable.

    As to which Empire, this is implicit in the phrase "...in Britain we ruled a global Empire". It's a fair bet I wasn't referring to the Roman Empire, or the Mutapa.

    Since your phrase "...where evolution is going." implicitly deals with homo sapiens, then why would the nationality of the practitioners of a specific behaviour have any relevance?
    My children never had a nanny. *S*....but if they had, I'd have known WHAT they had for BREAKFAST and every little thing they put in their mouths! They are my children. Undesirable behavior to me is children running around a restaurant or any other establishment not intended for that purpose. Again, this is of my own opinion. At the age of 4 and 2, I could take my children to an upscale restaurant and have them sit and they were never allowed to "run around". I am rather chuckling as to the "Empire" comment...no disrespect intended. I would ascertain that you were referring to the British Empire. *S*""QUOTE"Since your phrase "...where evolution is going." implicitly deals with homo sapiens, then why would the nationality of the practitioners of a specific behaviour have any relevance, Point well taken. Mea culpa
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #150  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwirko View Post
    re: no stress

    Don't forget drift. Gene flow too. Always happening, can't be stopped. Evolution never stops.
    The problem with trying to attribute anything to drift is the environment is constantly changing. So anything that seems uncaused on first examination could easily turn out to be a response to changing pressures on closer examination. Also we don't always know what useful function something has or doesn't have.

    Why do people from Northern Europe often have blue and/or green eyes? Can't see any identifiable use for it. Social uses may exist perhaps.

    Certainly if those people migrate to another environment, carrying their genes with them, there will be changes in selection pressure applied to it.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #151  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    908
    i wanted to ask about: post #73 in
    http://www.thescienceforum.com/trash-can/35039-does-science-support-noahs-flood-event-bible.html

    Since its closed, i hope to ask here with a reply, thanks xD

    Could i have some websites showing that
    fossils are found in an ordered procession from most archaic to most advanced corresponding to age of the sediments they are in.
    . cant find it here https://www.google.com/search?q=sediments+archaic+complex+life+form&oq=se diments+archaic+complex+life+form&aqs=chrome.0.57j 62l2.6898j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    If thy right nipple offend thee, pluck it off! Goes for the other, too!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #152  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    One of the major reasons for that is that there is WAY too much to try to get into one image.
    Here is a very simplified version of the arthropod evolutionary tree with time at the bottom. Is this what you are looking for?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #153  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    908
    no, i wanted to find
    fossils are found in......
    you said there are fossils are found in an ordered procession from most archaic to most advanced corresponding to age of the sediments they are in.

    could i have a website with evidence, picture of sedimented layers with
    fossils found in an ordered procession from most archaic to most advanced corresponding to age of the sediments they are in?
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    If thy right nipple offend thee, pluck it off! Goes for the other, too!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #154  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by RamenNoodles View Post
    could i have a website with evidence, picture of sedimented layers with fossils found in an ordered procession from most archaic to most advanced corresponding to age of the sediments they are in?
    If you are after a real photograph showing fossil after fossil in a specific location by going deeper; much like a cross-section of a sandwich, I do not think there is one as far as I know (and I do know very little to be honest). But if you are after something like the following, perhaps others might be able to point you to a better or more suitable one.

    1. http://www.dmp.wa.gov.au/images/Fig-...sil-record.jpg (I've decided to not embed this image due to its large dimensions).

    or,

    2.


    Edits: Ryan, I'm not sure if anyone has pointed you to this website. The last portion (Bracketing the fossils) of that page helps entry level students understand how we determine the estimated age of fossils. Do understand that not all fossils of varying age are found in a single "photo-friendly" dig site.
    Last edited by scoobydoo1; July 7th, 2013 at 09:39 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #155  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Quote Originally Posted by RamenNoodles View Post
    no, i wanted to find
    fossils are found in......
    you said there are fossils are found in an ordered procession from most archaic to most advanced corresponding to age of the sediments they are in.

    could i have a website with evidence, picture of sedimented layers with
    fossils found in an ordered procession from most archaic to most advanced corresponding to age of the sediments they are in?
    As scooby has said, there are not photographs that show that. This is because that is not how fossils are found and the geologic strata are not all nicely lined up in one single cliff somewhere with the index fossils popping out of it. There are hundreds of thousands of papers, however describing fossils and building and overall image of the progression of simpler forms to modern forms as the strata the fossils are in gets younger.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #156  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    I really do not like being called a fossil.

    But question....when you find like fossils in shells, or rocks and such things.....what is the name for that......
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #157  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Umm, Im not sure what you are asking to be honest.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #158  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Umm, Im not sure what you are asking to be honest.
    How can I explain this in lay terms. OK...I have found rocks...with fossil "imprints" in them....as in they have some kind of creature in them...we find them in the PNW (the southern like in Cali end) from time to time. It is apparent that it was a small "creature" I wish I had a picture.....it would make this easier for you to surmise what I am speaking of. Maybe when I get back to my Mainland home in the next week......Aloha..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #159  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Umm, Im not sure what you are asking to be honest.
    How can I explain this in lay terms. OK...I have found rocks...with fossil "imprints" in them....as in they have some kind of creature in them...we find them in the PNW (the southern like in Cali end) from time to time. It is apparent that it was a small "creature" I wish I had a picture.....it would make this easier for you to surmise what I am speaking of. Maybe when I get back to my Mainland home in the next week......Aloha..
    Are you asking about identification of the specific fossils you have??
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #160  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    908
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    There are hundreds of thousands of papers, however describing fossils and building and overall image of the progression of simpler forms to modern forms as the strata the fossils are in gets younger.
    may i have a link to access some of these documentations?
    it would be helpful.
    thanks in advance
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    If thy right nipple offend thee, pluck it off! Goes for the other, too!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #161  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    I suggest you obtain a copy of this book:

    Simon Winchester "The Map that Changed the World" Penguin Books 2001 ISBN: 0-670-88407-3

    Therein you will find an unfolding description of how William Smith, canal builder, recognised a progressive change in the fossils to be found as one moved from west to east across England. This eastward progression also represented an upward movement in the rock sequence, as the rocks dip towards the east.


    For soomething a little meatier you could try this: http://www.biologia.uni.opole.pl/bib...ykova_2011.pdf

    It is typical of the sort of research paper that is among the hundreds of thousands referred to by Paleoichneum. It may not make much sense to you, but I draw your attention to figure 2. I think that may be the sort of thing you are looking for.
    Last edited by John Galt; July 8th, 2013 at 07:32 AM. Reason: Add further reference
    KALSTER likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #162  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,527
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    I suggest you obtain a copy of this book:

    Simon Winchester "The Map that Changed the World" Penguin Books 2001 ISBN: 0-670-88407-3

    Therein you will find an unfolding description of how William Smith, canal builder, recognised a progressive change in the fossils to be found as one moved from west to east across England. This eastward progression also represented an upward movement in the rock sequence, as the rocks dip towards the east.



    Seconded!

    I've also read this, very well written, in an approachable style.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #163  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    john has listed several good papers, and many more can be found on google scholar.

    Here are more- JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie Abies milleri - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

    Raman, are you interested in the actual progression, or dubious that it has happened?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #164  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Umm, Im not sure what you are asking to be honest.
    How can I explain this in lay terms. OK...I have found rocks...with fossil "imprints" in them....as in they have some kind of creature in them...we find them in the PNW (the southern like in Cali end) from time to time. It is apparent that it was a small "creature" I wish I had a picture.....it would make this easier for you to surmise what I am speaking of. Maybe when I get back to my Mainland home in the next week......Aloha..
    Are you asking about identification of the specific fossils you have??
    No, but thank you for asking. I was just wanting what those would be called in more LAYMAN terms. Mahalo.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #165  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    The laymans term is fossil or impression. Depending on the specimen there are a number of technical terms that may be used to specify the type of fossil and preservation.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #166  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    The laymans term is fossil or impression. Depending on the specimen there are a number of technical terms that may be used to specify the type of fossil and preservation.
    Manalo nui loa for your information. I appreciate it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 197
    Last Post: May 15th, 2013, 03:52 PM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: February 14th, 2013, 07:00 AM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: January 4th, 2013, 01:35 AM
  4. Replies: 4
    Last Post: April 21st, 2009, 11:20 AM
  5. Human Evolution
    By GordonP in forum Biology
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: July 9th, 2006, 10:13 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •