Yowiehunters Forum

David Brenton wrote:

DILLIGAF wrote:Pls... lets not go down the theory of evolution path... its a battle evolutionists will never win....

I assume that if evolutionary theory (look up the definition of a scientific theory) isn't what you favour, what is?

I often see creationists use similar language. Lets just consider a couple of points.
1) The evidence that evolution by natural selection is what has shaped life is vast. Fossils, DNA, comparative anatomy, actual observation and measurement (bacteria), embryology etc, etc.
2) The evidence of creation, or intelligent design (creation in a cheap suit) Nil.

If it was a battle, it would be like a blind crippled puppy versus the entire US military complex. Needless to say, the puppy would have do do something quite special to win. Thus far, it hasn't, nor does it have the capacity to do so.

GlennO87 wrote:We did not come from apes. Learn that pretty quick.

This is correct. We did not. We are apes.
Hominidae to be precise, The great apes. Which consists of chimpanzees, bonobos ,orangutans, gorillas, and humans, which all share common ancestry.

Let see.... for a start explain to the vast forum on the reason for the lack of intermediary fossils which IF they existed would back the evolution theory, I remember at Seaworld the tour guide told us that deer's thru the evolutionary process over 100,000 over years turned into dolphins..I was the only in the group to laughed, she asked why I Laughed, I responded with where the intermediary fossils that showed this, because their would thousands upon thousands stuffed fossils out there, she then with a red face siad let's move people on and totally ignored my question, why because she didnt have the answer and neither will you.....

I'm really interested in these sightings. They are so close to my patch. The Providence Portal encounter is only 35K as the crow flys from one of my areas. An area that saw an encounter from a car-camper, on I think his third night, who had set up camp in a seldom used ACT walking trail car park. He then moved 10 kms away for the next night where he was approached again. He left the area immediately. This was in an October so usually no snow then. The only thing keeping me out of the area at the moment is the periodic snow because the ACT Gov shuts down the territories access roads when there is snow (Nanny State). I have to admit manning a Flir at 2am in minus 7 Celsius is not so comfortable. Roughly the same sort of altitude and landscape and yes infested with deer. As for skinning a deer, something obviously so powerful could probably treat the process like it was a rabbit. I don't think it is beyond the realm of possibility. Fascinating.

DILLIGAF wrote:.... for a start explain to the vast forum on the reason for the lack of intermediary fossils which IF they existed would back the evolution theory

You mean like the more than 6000 fossils mentioned here?

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils

Used to build up through the 'intermediate' species to us, at the top of the primate tree:

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-family-tree

forestguy wrote:

DILLIGAF wrote:.... for a start explain to the vast forum on the reason for the lack of intermediary fossils which IF they existed would back the evolution theory

You mean like the more than 6000 fossils mentioned here?

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils

Used to build up through the 'intermediate' species to us, at the top of the primate tree:

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-family-tree

FG so you believe over the course of lets says 200,000yrs through some form of pure chance of natural selection we humans climbed down from trees invented the wheel while at the same time our brains somehow got bigger by themselves we shed our fur coats for bare skin, our vocal chords changed by pure chance etc... so the idea of 6000 fossils is missing a few extra zero's, the fossil records are seriously miss under estimated if that a fact, I could easily give you information on animals, insects, plants that had to perfect 1st time or they would have never existed even us, we had to be perfect 1st time or we would not be here..... if that's what you have for me try something better FG

Dilli,


Again so you think we came from what or originated how ?


A.

DILLIGAF wrote:

David Brenton wrote:

DILLIGAF wrote:Pls... lets not go down the theory of evolution path... its a battle evolutionists will never win....

I assume that if evolutionary theory (look up the definition of a scientific theory) isn't what you favour, what is?

I often see creationists use similar language. Lets just consider a couple of points.
1) The evidence that evolution by natural selection is what has shaped life is vast. Fossils, DNA, comparative anatomy, actual observation and measurement (bacteria), embryology etc, etc.
2) The evidence of creation, or intelligent design (creation in a cheap suit) Nil.

If it was a battle, it would be like a blind crippled puppy versus the entire US military complex. Needless to say, the puppy would have do do something quite special to win. Thus far, it hasn't, nor does it have the capacity to do so.

GlennO87 wrote:We did not come from apes. Learn that pretty quick.

This is correct. We did not. We are apes.
Hominidae to be precise, The great apes. Which consists of chimpanzees, bonobos ,orangutans, gorillas, and humans, which all share common ancestry.

Let see.... for a start explain to the vast forum on the reason for the lack of intermediary fossils which IF they existed would back the evolution theory, I remember at Seaworld the tour guide told us that deer's thru the evolutionary process over 100,000 over years turned into dolphins..I was the only in the group to laughed, she asked why I Laughed, I responded with where the intermediary fossils that showed this, because their would thousands upon thousands stuffed fossils out there, she then with a red face siad let's move people on and totally ignored my question, why because she didnt have the answer and neither will you.....

If anyone tells you anything like "a deer turned into a dolphin" then you are correct to tell them they are mistaken.
Correct them by pointing out that if you go back far enough, deer and dolphin share a common ancestor. Indeed, humans deer, dolphin all share a common ancestor. We are all placental mammals. As would be deer skin wearing Yowie, should such an animal exist. Your tour guide was also way off in the 100,000 year time line as well. the period from the existence of the common deer/dolphin ancestor would be considerably longer. 10's of millions more than likely. 100K years is just a blink of an eye, evolutionary speaking, for such organisms.

DILLIGAF wrote: FG so you believe over the course of lets says 200,000yrs through some form of pure chance of natural selection we humans climbed down from trees invented the wheel while at the same time our brains somehow got bigger by themselves we shed our fur coats for bare skin, our vocal chords changed by pure chance etc...

No... I think that over 6 million years +/- we did those things. Did you actually look at the links I posted?

And no, not through "pure chance of natural selection" - for starters, your sentence doesn't make sense - pure chance is more like the opposite of natural selection, not the mechanism - what do you think 'selection' means?

DILLIGAF wrote:I could easily give you information on animals, insects, plants that had to perfect 1st time or they would have never existed even us, we had to be perfect 1st time or we would not be here.....

I don't know what you mean by this, but by all means, show me the info you mean.

Also, I never said the fossil record is complete, it's not.

So who or what was the catalyst in the "6 million" yrs it took to get it right...So there was no outside help to make the mental and physical systems perfect for us to function properly, so our primate ancestors said to themselves this isn't working back to the drawing board on every screw up.. I'm laughing while typing this...because for everything to function on this planet it had to perfect first time.
Glen087 is 100% correct we don't and never have descended from primates, we are out on our own, we humans are the superior life form on this plane....

DILLIGAF wrote:we humans are the superior life form on this plane....

That is debatable when you look at the behaviour of some. I'll take dolphins over some humans I've encountered any day.

DILLIGAF wrote:So who or what was the catalyst in the "6 million" yrs it took to get it right...

Morning Dilli,

According to evolutionary theory, the hereditability of genetic traits, favouring the survival of the fittest, through means of natural selection.

Breeding throws out a mutation from time to time - successful/useful/helpful one's prosper; deleterious one's die.

DILLIGAF wrote:So there was no outside help to make the mental and physical systems perfect for us to function properly, so our primate ancestors said to themselves this isn't working back to the drawing board on every screw up..

I suppose it depends on how far back you want to go - first life recorded was around 4.5 billion years ago (single celled prokaryote, found in Greenland I think), or what seems to be the link btw finned fish and amphibians - Tiktaalik - fossil found in 2004 (?) on Ellesmere Island by Neil Shubin.

If you want to skip ahead, have a look at that primate-hominid family tree in the second link I gave you on the weekend - plenty of dead-ends on that tree. It's not a case of "back to the drawing board", it's more like half the family turned left, half turned right - left was a dead-end, but right kept on going a bit further, repeated, repeated...

The 'outside help' is what I mentioned above - the survival of better adapted individuals and their ongoing reproductive success.

DILLIGAF wrote:I'm laughing while typing this...because for everything to function on this planet it had to perfect first time.

Again, I'm not too sure what you mean by this. As I mentioned, even in our family tree there's a lot of evolutionary-speaking "dead-ends" - beyond that, it's estimated that 99.9% of species that have ever lived on Earth are now extinct.

DILLIGAF wrote:Glen087 is 100% correct we don't and never have descended from primates, we are out on our own, we humans are the superior life form on this plane....

I'm not sure about superior, but I'd certainly agree that we're dominant.

As to the primate bit, I'll leave that up to you, but if you want to do some reading on comparison's between the human and chimp genome's there's some info here:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 04072.html

Bit of a coincidence that we share so much genetic info without being related, but, each to their own.

Cheers,
FG

Good day,


What do you mean outside help ? Religion, or aliens.

Cheers

A.

DILLIGAF, in order to successfully criticise something, you need a reasonable understanding of what it is you are criticising.
Nothing personal, but it is quite evident that you are somewhat sketchy on whaT evolution is, and how it works.

Here are a couple of links to some good resources. I urge you to have a look.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/e ... ntro.shtml
http://animals.about.com/od/evolution/ss/evolution.htm

David,
My 1st question for you is:Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the Genome?(example: improves it or makes it better).
2.Which came first? Time, Space, Matter or energy?
Also an answer for the explanation of....
Common usage of the word "evolution" is the idea that living things in our world have come into being through unguided naturalistic processes starting from a primeval mass of subatomic particles and radiation, over approximately 20 billion years.
A more precise understanding of the above statement divides the "atoms to people" transition into four realms:

1.Cosmology is the branch of astronomy which deals with the origin and formation of the general structure of the universe.
2.Abiogenesis refers to first life - the production of living organisms from inanimate matter.
3.Micro-evolution or speciation refers to populational and species change through time. There are many published examples of speciation, if by the development of a new "species" we mean the development of a new population of individuals which will not breed with the original population to produce fertile offspring. Micro-evolution is a scientific fact which no one, including creationists, dispute.
4.Macro-evolution or general evolution refers the progression to more complex forms of life. The mechanisms of macro-evolution, including whether or not micro-evolution over a long enough time leads to macro-evolution, can be regarded as a "research topic"
The popular mechanisms for explaining micro-evolution are "mutation" and "natural selection".

Mutations are "mistakes" introduced into the genetic material used for reproduction, which can occur for example as a result of exposure to radiation. Naturally occurring mutations are very rare, and it is acknowledged that of those that do occur, almost all have a negative effect (in fact, some creationists argue there is not a single known case of a truly positive mutation, one having no negative side-effects). The occasional positive mutation, giving some benefit to the organism, provides the "new material" for natural selection to operate on.

Natural selection is based on the observation that there is variation among individuals in a population. Natural selection states that those individuals which posses some advantage in the environment (such as being a faster runner) are more likely to leave more offspring, thereby increasing the probability of passing the advantage on to future generations. Natural selection is what "retains" the occasional positive mutation and causes the population to "advance" is some way. Creationists note that this mechanism can only "select" among already existing traits - it cannot create something new.

DILLIGAF, I somehow think that you are not the author of that last post.
if you could rephrase the questions off your own bat instead of copy/pasting, I will be more inclined to indulge you, or at least foot note the original authors

This image might help you get started.
.

David Brenton wrote:DILLIGAF, I somehow think that you are not the author of that last post.
if you could rephrase the questions off your own bat instead of copy/pasting, I will be more inclined to indulge you, or at least foot note the original authors

This image might help you get started.
.

Hello David,
Your quoted as saying, "if you could rephrase the questions off your own bat instead of copy/pasting, I will be more inclined to indulge you," end quote, why do I need to rephrase anything David the questions are pretty straight forward.
Either you can answer them or you can not?
Also I didn't realize it was a requirement to give who originally said what or when, do you have issues with what I put forward?

Goodluck

I can answer them just fine, but there is a problem.
They are not yours. These are standard creationist questions that have been answered multiple times, even the ones that have no relationship to evolution.

That you choose this respond indicates that you haven't attempted to understand how evolution works. You don't have to accept it, just understand it. It actually isn't that hard.
I have a good understanding of the creationist model. I don't accept it, but I understand it.

Have a look at the linked resources. You might well find your own answers
If you still have issues, ask away, but in your own words. Don't just parrot from creationist sources.


I note that you haven't answered Ants question.
If not evolution, what?

DILLIGAF, as I am at home with the flu today, and have time to burn, I will indulge you and address the questions you copy/pasted.

1)Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the Genome?(example: improves it or makes it better).

Yes. Apart from the obvious ones that you see every day because you walk on two legs, have a large brain, have blood that clots and an immune system, there is one specific example I will site.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... e-lab.html

2)Which came first? Time, Space, Matter or energy?

This question is relevant to cosmology. It has nothing to do with evolution.

3) Also an answer for the explanation of....
Common usage of the word "evolution" is the idea that living things in our world have come into being through unguided naturalistic processes starting from a primeval mass of subatomic particles and radiation, over approximately 20 billion years.

a) Again, I suggest you attempt to grasp the basics of what the TOE is. It is "unguided" in the scene that there is no need or evidence for a guiding hand. Environmental pressures select the organisms that have the attributes to survive them. A brown hare in the Arctic is going to get eaten because it is visible. The white ones are more likely to survive and breed, thus passing on the white fur gene. As for the rest of that somewhat muddled statement/question, again you-sorry- they have ventured outside the theory of evolution into abiogenesis and cosmology.

b) The universe is not that old, as discussed elsewhere. Who ever wrote that original time frame is not keeping abreast of current science.

He has gone so you wasted your time.

Did you know that the velocity of light C is not a constant but has been decreasing. I read a very detailed and comprehensively written paper by two Adelaide Uni academics many years ago wherein ALL of the physical and chemical constants measurements made over modern times were examined. They were divided into two groups - those that depend on C and those that don't. All of the ones that depend on C have been decreasing, while those that do not have remained fixed in value, allowing for experimental error in both cases. The slowing down of C and the dependent "constants" has not been linear which raises the possibility of some sort of exponential decay as the curve plotting seemed to show.

One of the implications is that the rate of radioactive decay, which also depends on the value of C, has been decreasing over time. And one implication of that is radioactive decay as used to measure the age of rocks would suggest that the rocks are not as old as we now calculate them. Interesting trivia. Unfortunately there is no way to go back in time to determine C then. There is one uranium deposit in South Africa which shows extraordinary signs of extreme heating from decay and a less than normal ratio of some isotopes that all can only be explained by that deposit decaying faster than we experience now. I can't recall all the other strange astronomical phenomena they examined as well that fitted the data but it impressed me at the time.

The point is that some absolutes of science are not that absolute after all, so we need to allow for that when we debate interesting theories. The same process has to be considered when we discuss the notion of time over the history of the Universe. Bottom line is we do not know as much as we think we do and the age of the Earth may not be as old as we commonly state . We exist in a world of theories and even some laws fail under certain conditions like event horizons. Thought I would stir up your day, flu and all.

I recall a hubub a while ago with the speed of light slowing hypothesis. It seems to have gone a bit quiet of late. I am guessing the academics you refer to might be Setterfield and Norman, who co authored a paper in 87. I believe there was some tieup with Flinders Uni in Adelaide.

Its worth noting that Setterfield is a young earth creationist. I get the feeling that his hypothesis doesn't hold much sway in the cosmological and astronomical community.

andrew wrote:He has gone so you wasted your time.......................... Thought I would stir up your day, flu and all.

What happened? Did he get banned? I cant click his name.
Thanks for stirring up my day! Nothing wrong with interesting discussion.

David Brenton wrote:I recall a hubub a while ago with the speed of light slowing hypothesis. It seems to have gone a bit quiet of late. I am guessing the academics you refer to might be Setterfield and Norman, who co authored a paper in 87. I believe there was some tieup with Flinders Uni in Adelaide.

Its worth noting that Setterfield is a young earth creationist. I get the feeling that his hypothesis doesn't hold much sway in the cosmological and astronomical community.

Banned - yes.

Correct with the names. It was twenty years ago. Hypothesis aside, neither I nor my learned collegues at the time could fault the mathematics or the statisical analysis. Where it all goes wobbly for me was the extrapolation curve back in time, with which I was never comfortable. Then again I have never been comfortable with much in the evolution theories of the last 30 or so years either. Problem is that we are still missing much of the required evidence. For me the biggest dilemma is the extremely high probability required for large changes at the molecular biological level. Evolution does occur, but the current theories lack substance and leave too many unanswered questions. I believe nothing good comes from a debate between the two extreme sides so I am fence sitting until much more evidence is on the table. I no longer allow myself to get swept along by any popularist theories that have gaping holes. We just do not know enough. Maybe when we have the full genome and gene switching codes for thousands of animals and dna yielding fossils and the computer processing tools to process the data for evolving patterns we might just be able to glimpse the myriad mechanisms that drive change. That is a long way off into the future I suspect. For now we are like babes in the woods but few will admit it. Hence my feeling about concentrating on discovery and ignoring the illusory and briefly transient theories that just largely distract us from the big task, which is the accumulation of knowledge. Maybe in another 50 or 100 years we will begin to have a handle on this.

Indeed, science itself is the first to admit that it doesn't have all the answers, and that if necessary, it can change its opinion based on evidence.
Cant really say that about creation dogma.
The intersecting lines of evidence for the Theory of evolution pretty well nail it for the vast majority of the body of science. As I have described elsewhere, a theory is a high category. Gravity, etc are all described at theory level. I am not floating off my chair.
TOE certainly isn't illusory and briefly transient theory. It has withstood continuous assault from both within and without science, as it should be. Science needs to ask itself the hardest questions.

Might I ask where you see the lack of substance or gaping holes?
I have heard similar before when describing the fossil records. The "god of the gaps" argument.
Fossilization is a quite rare process, and subsequently finding them also less than common, yet there are more than enough transient specimens in the correct strata chronologically to draw a sound conclusion.

Right now, there is no alternative hypothesis that comes near to the level of quality of the evidence for the TOE.
Maybe there will in the future. No one will completely discount that.

David Brenton wrote:Might I ask where you see the lack of substance or gaping holes?
I have heard similar before when describing the fossil records. The "god of the gaps" argument.
Fossilization is a quite rare process, and subsequently finding them also less than common, yet there are more than enough transient specimens in the correct strata chronologically to draw a sound conclusion.

I'm not speaking for Andrew, but I personally am not sure I agree with you about the fossil record. I was talking to a molecular geneticist this week about some other issues and the fossil record was mentioned - in his words,, the fossil record is "distressingly sparse at best".

That said, I do accept the limits of fossilisation, and I've also always thought the idea of a 'missing link' fossil to be a bit odd - surely it just creates 2 more missing links on each side (albeit shorter links maybe...).

As for other concerns, although I love the Miller-Urey experiment, I'd be happier if we had some sort of compelling theory for abiogenesis - especially if it gave us a better idea of the LUCA.

David Brenton wrote:Indeed, science itself is the first to admit that it doesn't have all the answers, ...... Right now, there is no alternative hypothesis that comes near to the level of quality of the evidence for the TOE.
Maybe there will in the future. No one will completely discount that.

I would have thought my position was quite clear. I will not be drawn into a discourse about how good or bad the TOE is because, frankly, we have literally only scratched the surface of what needs to be known before we understand evolutionary processes.

Any science where we recognize that we know so little is, by dint of simple logic, going to have large gaping holes in the knowledge. It is axiomatic. Evolution by any accepted definition requires the creation of new dna. I have yet to see any examples where such new dna has been proved to have been created. I am not talking about repeats or variations due to transporons, but new dna by natural means.

This is not something which I care to debate. I simply acknowledge that those who think they have all the answers do not accept the enormity of what we have yet to learn. Seemingly, every day a new discovery seems to arise from genome research. Until we know it all then theories must change to incorporate new knowledge at an almost exponential rate. So yes, they will be transient theories at best. QED.

andrew wrote:
I would have thought my position was quite clear. I will not be drawn into a discourse about how good or bad the TOE is because, frankly, we have literally only scratched the surface of what needs to be known before we understand evolutionary processes.

I choose address your reply. You may or may not choose to be drawn into this discourse. It is however, good practice to at least try to give your position some substance. That is your decision entirely.
The Evolutionary process is understood quite well. I posted a few links to basic explanations of the process.

andrew wrote:Any science where we recognize that we know so little is, by dint of simple logic, going to have large gaping holes in the knowledge. It is axiomatic. Evolution by any accepted definition requires the creation of new DNA. I have yet to see any examples where such new DNA has been proved to have been created. I am not talking about repeats or variations due to transporons, but new DNA by natural means.

Evolution requires change to DNA. Mutation. Again, see one of the basic explanations of selection pressures.
In order to appreciate it, you need to consider just how deep time is.
Life has been about for around 3.8 billion years.
Consider that every year is a second. That is 120,418 years. The dinosaurs died out just two years ago. First hominid remains date back 10-11 months.

Evolution is a slow process. There are many blind alleys and dead ends. Genetic mutation mutation is completely random. A chemical event (nature is made of chemistry), ionizing radiation all can cause simple tramsposons copying error. It might have no, or perhaps it will. Perhaps it will take another 5 million years to turn that skin into a water tight organ. Completely hit and miss.

Consider a hypothetical annual atlas produced every year for the last 3.8 billion years. Pick any random 1000 consecutive years. Look at the first, then the last of the 1000. You will see no tangible difference. Pick two a million years apart. Things look slightly different. 100 million, considerably so.

Thus it is for the gradual change in DNA. The line between one species and another is grey. They don't suddenly "create new DNA" and become different species. There is no sudden line of demarcation when suddenly those born yesterday cannot produce viable offspring from those born today.

Every species is a transient species, technically. It is highly probable that in 5 million years (should we make it that far) humanity as it is now will not exist, but be something else. Who knows what selection pressures will shape that. Perhaps the octopi will have taken over.

andrew wrote:This is not something which I care to debate.

Again, that is your choice.

andrew wrote: I simply acknowledge that those who think they have all the answers do not accept the enormity of what we have yet to learn.

I fully agree. Anyone who states they have all the answers is clearly deluded.

As I stated previously science is not in this category. Far from it. Why would it bother continuing? Science fully understands the depth of its ignorance. Science is not afraid to say "I don't know".

andrew wrote: Seemingly, every day a new discovery seems to arise from genome research. Until we know it all then theories must change to incorporate new knowledge at an almost exponential rate. So yes, they will be transient theories at best. QED.

Again, we are in agreeance. The discoveries will bolster and strengthen TOE, or not. If the evidence suggests some other mechanism, then the application of scientific method using the null hypothesis will determine, or go towards determining what it might be, and there will be a few Nobel prizes handed out in this new field.

DILLIGAF wrote:
Let see.... for a start explain to the vast forum on the reason for the lack of intermediary fossils which IF they existed would back the evolution theory

Evolution is a continuous process. Every fossil is intermediary. Many of the fossils that creationist claim should be there ( such as the infamous "crocaduck" ) would actually disprove the currently accepted theory of evolution.

DILLIGAF wrote:I remember at Seaworld the tour guide told us that deer's thru the evolutionary process over 100,000 over years turned into dolphins..I was the only in the group to laughed, she asked why I Laughed, I responded with where the intermediary fossils that showed this, because their would thousands upon thousands stuffed fossils out there, she then with a red face siad let's move people on and totally ignored my question, why because she didnt have the answer and neither will you.....

Perhaps she was alluding to the evolution of Cetaceans. They did not evolve from modern deer, though it seems that they did evolve from an earlier terrestrial Ungulate and share a common ancestor with modern hoofed mammals. There are transitional fossils.

Life on this planet evolves, evolution is a fact. It would take very little to falsify the (scientific) theory of evolution. One fossil in the wrong layer would do it. Nothing has, so far. It's good to hold scientific theories up to scrutiny (if only creationists would do the same). So far it seems every relevant branch of science supports the theory of evolution, that all life on this planet evolved from a common ancestor.


http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakicetid

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ungulate

ps. It is thought that the transition from (already partly aquatic) terrestrial mammal, to an early form of whale, took around 15 million years. Not 100k years.

Larsons Theories

Great interest in these stories. When I hear of odd things happening, like wearing a deer skin,
my ears prick up, because it's something new.

What interests me most is communicating with yowies. I don't doubt at all that they are as intelligent as we are. Crows use tools, I'm sure they're very resourceful. When I hear of instances like these I see them as opportunities, and ask myself, what would i do in that situation?

Chasing them is useless. How do you interest them?

S

doesn't snow in many places in Oz. So not unusual that it would be rare to see a rare creature wearing a skin.

would not be unusual for some yowie tribes/individuals to learn how to use tools and others would not.

Some aborigine tribes lost the ability to make fire because they became so accustomed to storing embers in bansia cones (like a pocket ligter) and would often trade these banksia cones to each other when they went out.