Evolution, Dinosaur to bird transitionary fossil discovered~

[Tikker]

It's pointless to try and discuss something like this

Any evidence will be dismissed outright by the religious, because it doesn't fall into their faith system


It's not what they believe, therefore isn't possible

[Lyion]

Its pointless to discuss this with people who hate physics and real science and solely want to piss off people of faith with ludicrous comments and silliness.

[KILL]

this guy agrees

[Arlos]

Someone educated in a Catholic school will have 10 times the knowledge, academic acumen, and overall education when compared to someone educated in public school.

Bullshit. Categorical, flat out, hip-deep, fetid, stinking, fly-infested steaming Bullshit. It's 100% dependent on the schools involved. Just take a look at, say, the Palo Alto school district in California, where the students regularly score in the top 1% of the state in the standardized tests, beating just about any catholic school you can mention. My little brother was sent to a catholic school (Woodside Priory), and learned no more science, math, etc. than I did at a public school, which by overall test scores was not at all in the Palo Alto school district's class.

Yes, my public school had some dipshit teachers, but so did the catholic school my brother went to. Yes, I'm sure some catholic high schools are excellent. There's 2 good ones right near me in the bay area (Serra and Bellarmine). Both, however, have been frequently out-scored by various top-flight public schools.

A question for the strict creationists:

Do you really believe that the world was created on October 23rd, 4004 BC as Bishop Ussher and Dr. John Lightfoot, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, and one of the most eminent Hebrew scholars of his time (1644) independantly calculated by studying scripture? (Lightfoot was actually a few years off from Ussher, but they're within 100 years of each other)

Also according to Ussher, "the ark touched down on Mt Ararat on 5 May 2348 BC". This seems reasonable if you accept the 4004 creation date, as generations needed to happen, and Noah needed to be born and live to be 600. There's just one small problem. We have Sumerian, Assyrian and Egyptian writings and records from that time. Hell, we have Sumerian clay tablet writings going back to 3100 BC. How do you explain this, when those civilizations should have been under water and completely wiped out, if the Flood happened?

How do you explain the genetic diversity of humanity showing no such bottleneck 5000 years ago? The sole evidence of a bottle neck is at least an order of magnitude earlier (about 70000 years, see: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2975862.stm) , and roughly corresponds to the date of a supervolcano (think Yellowstone) eruption, specifically Toba in Sumatra. Even then, the population was reduced to a few thousand, not less than a dozen. Explain?

That's a few questions to get you started

-Arlos

[Mop]

St Francis represent, and we pizzowed PA for serious.

[Tikker]

Its pointless to discuss this with people who hate physics and real science and solely want to piss off people of faith with ludicrous comments and silliness.

What are you talking about Lyion

The thing is Intelligent Design people have a belief based on faith. There is a reason we believe what we do. Scientists are supposed to be about science, but much about evolution has become just as much a faith based initiative as Islam or Christianity.

Humor me and explain what the reason is that you believe in Creationism

[Gidan]

So from what I understand, people agree wiht the idea of microevolution, however they dont agree with macro evolution. Why? because there is no proof of it correct?

Well here, what originally started this thread could be a very small bit of evidence of what could be macroevolution. And instantly it is dismissed. Thats seems to be a major problem. People want 100% proof in an instant while in reality, proof comes over time with a small discovery here and there. When all the evendence is put together you then have proof. The problem is that people dont allow the evedence to get put togehter becuase they try and view each individual piece as all the evidence then proclaim it not sufficient and dismiss it.

This disconver could very well be a small part in showing the existance of macroevolution.

[Tikker]

exactly GIdan

[Arlos]

That is also, of course, assuming that people ignore the writings someone posted in a previous thread, where many scientists studying evolution have said that Macro-evolution is a misnomer. That there's really no such thing, it's all a process of micro-evolution, just carried out on a very large scale for often a very long time.

Hell, if you want to see evolution in action, just go look at the cases of pygmy animals on islands, such as the pygmy mastodon skeletons found on some of the islands off the coast of Southern California. Not found anywhere on the mainland, just the islands, and you can look at the strata and see original full-sized mammoths from the time when the islands were accessible to large animals from the mainland, and progressively smaller and smaller versions as the islands got further and further away, until you get the full-fledged pygmy versions that died out at about the same time as the arrival of humanity and the end of the last ice age.

-Arlos

[Lyion]

Trying to suggest things is nice for ideas, but does not make for good science. That is the problem some of us have.

There are a lot of Biologists and many disagree about things.

There is a lot of content out there, and if the proof was there for speciation it would be a law given our ever growing complex knowledge of DNA. Given that, go do some research and see the huge, gaping holes we have within Speciation and macroevolution.

There is no proof we 'evolved' from a single cell organism, or from apes. They slap science on it due to micro changes observed and say so it is.

This has been beaten here to death. Do your own research and check out the actual 'facts'. You'll easily see they don't add up, and even Physics and Mathematics is against what they propose.

[Tikker]

so let's apply Lyion's logic to religion


Since more than one contradictory religion exists, God must therefore not exist

[Harrison]

I scored in the top 3% of the MA on all of my standardized tests, whoopty doo if a school scores top 1% of california.

That's like me going to new york and pwning up scores from the inner city retards.

[Mop]

the entire school averages in the top 1% not just a singular person... Most ca public and private hs's in that area have around 400 pppl per class (excluding PA high and Independent high that have upwards of 1200 pplz) Easy for 1 person to get top 1 % difficult to get the entire school to average it, year after year after year.

[Narrock]

Tikker's comprehension level is below average. That's not a put-down... just an observation. I don't know why you keep trying, Lyion. He'll never "get it."

[Arlos]

Except, Lyion, we can't get DNA from fossils, or certainly not more than tiny fragmentary pieces. This is why people have recently been so interested in finding another completely preserved Mammoth corpse frozen in the permafrost. The Jarkoff mammoth may qualify, but I'm not sure. Even then it may not be good enough, because tissues frozen in non-laboratory conditions tend to not preserve the DNA, as the water in the cells freezes often at varying rates, re-creating the soda can in the freezer effect within the cells, bursting the cell walls and nuclei, destroying any useable DNA.

As a result, we have been able to do no viable genetic studies comparing modern animals to extinct pre-historic ones. Finding viable, intact preserved DNA strands from extinct animals is, to some extent, the holy grail of many researchers.

I have looked at the evidence. And I'll just be polite and say I've come to a radically different conclusion than you have. Yes, the theory will continue to be refined and improved, that's how science works. That doesn't mean the basic predictions and explanations of the theory are inaccurate, however. For every "eminent biologist" you can trot out claiming that evolution is inaccurate, I am sure we could trot out half a dozen who claim otherwise. You believe what you believe, I simply believe that you're wrong, and that the evidence is on my side.

-Arlos

[Lyion]

Except, the evidence ISN'T, Arlos. What you are saying is a mischaracterization.

There are no true transitional fossils and if what has been proposed is true there should be billions.

You can BELIEVE macroevolution or speciation occured and you can even make a great logical guess about it. Again, it is not good science and almost all Biologists who are actual 'fair' scientists and not 'evolutionary evangelists' will agree.

The problem is the facts, and even the mathematics disagree with the macro claims. Unlike scientists on both sides of the arguement, math does not lie or mischaracterize.

[Arlos]

all Biologists who are actual 'fair' scientists and not 'evolutionary evangelists' will agree.

Ahhhh, see, there you go: You're selecting which group of people you want to listen to. Biologists who don't support your position are "evolutionary evangelists" and those who do are "'fair' scientists". Sorry to say, but I find that little different than Mindiaism, where anyone who disagrees with you is obviously a heretic, and anyone who supports your preconceived notion is speaking with the word of god, etc.

I have absolutely no problem with the idea that god or some diety caused human beings to come into existance, or that god created the earth and the universe, etc. There's nothing whatsoever with that that disagrees with scientific notions of evolution, etc. As I've said before, if you posit a omnipotent and omniscient diety, such a being could very well have created the universe with the Big Bang, with exactly the right conditions to one day cause the Sun to form, the Earth to form, and life to arise, eventually evolving into Us, his supposed grand design. What I have a problem with is ignoring scientific reality when it slaps you in the face.

-Arlos

[Rust]

Except, the evidence ISN'T, Arlos. What you are saying is a mischaracterization.

There are no true transitional fossils and if what has been proposed is true there should be billions.

You see, the problem here is there *are* lots of transitional fossils. So your argument is obviously based on redefining 'transitional fossil' to some odd meaning that only makes sense in your worldview, and one divorced from any normal usage in paleontology.

I mean, okay, by *your* 'personal' definition there probably are no 'true transtional fossils'. The issue being that paleontologists (who rather obviously know the fossil record better than you, by and large) don't agree with you, so you really need to make a good case why you're right and they're wrong. So far you've failed to do that. Just a lot of assertion so far.

--R.




--D.

[Lyion]

No, there aren't. Despite numerous links that suggest or correlate or attempt to say because of 'something we think' the simple truth is that there are no fossils of living things that are real transitional forms. Period. That is fact.

Given that Paleontologists do not agree with each other, and there are such a wide variance of 'opinion' and 'conjecture' on things, there is no need to prove them right or wrong as they have not proven anything themselves. In real science the onus of proof is generally on those makling the claims. I realise you don't actually espouse real science like those of us who studied primarily math and physics, but generally you need to 'prove' something before it requres disproof.

[Arlos]

Uh, Lyion, I was an Astrophysics major with a Math minor. Now I'm Computer Science, itself not exactly the fuzziest of disciplines.

-Arlos

[Gidan]

To say that there are fossiles isn't exactly true. In this very thread there could be proof of a transitional fossil.

And I hate to completely disagree with you but the whole basis of a theory is that you need to disproove it. By definition a theory can never be proven, it can only be supported or disprooven.

[Rust]

No, there aren't. Despite numerous links that suggest or correlate or attempt to say because of 'something we think' the simple truth is that there are no fossils of living things that are real transitional forms. Period. That is fact.

Given that Paleontologists do not agree with each other, and there are such a wide variance of 'opinion' and 'conjecture' on things, there is no need to prove them right or wrong as they have not proven anything themselves. In real science the onus of proof is generally on those makling the claims. I realise you don't actually espouse real science like those of us who studied primarily math and physics, but generally you need to 'prove' something before it requres disproof.

Like I said, you just don't like science, nor apparently do you understand it from your continuing comments about 'proof'. Go ahead and stick to your odd personal definitions for 'true transitional' and 'real science'. You'll continue to be ignored by the actual scientists working in the field, of course, but then, according to you they aren't doing 'real science' since they still foolishly claim there are transitional fossils even after your masterful sleight-of-hand redefinition of the term while they weren't looking...



--R.

[Lyion]

I respect the many works of those who seek 'truth' and have backgrounds that include math, physics, and biology. I also seek the truth.

I do not support those who are dogmatic and elitist such as yourself who probably have never actually taken an advanced mathematics course and yet claim to understand the origins of the universe. How typical.

The only masterful 'sleight-of-hand' is the huge amount of bullshit being called 'fact' by people such as yourself.

I'll add one more set of points then I'm done, since we've beat this to death. I'm sure you'll come back with tons of links that 'suggest' or 'indicate' things that while logical are merely more connections to microevolution.



Food for thought

"The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.

... Evolution, according to the Modern Synthesis, moves at a stately pace, with small changes accumulating over periods of many millions of years yielding a long heritage of steadily advancing lineages as revealed in the fossil record. However, the problem is that according to most paleontologists the principle feature of individual species within the fossil record is stasis, not change...

In a generous admission Francisco Ayala, a major figure in propounding the Modern Synthesis in the United States, said "We would not have predicted stasis from population genetics, but I am now convinced from what the paleontologists say that small changes do not accumulate."

* Lewin, R. (1980)
"Evolutionary Theory Under Fire"
Science, vol. 210, 21 November, p. 883

"Feathers are features unique to birds, and there are no known intermediate structures between reptilian scales and feathers. Notwithstanding speculations on the nature of the elongated scales found on such forms as Longisquama ... as being featherlike structures, there is simply no demonstrable evidence that they in fact are. They are very interesting, highly modified and elongated reptilian scales, and are not incipient feathers."

* Feduccia, Alan (1985)
"On Why Dinosaurs Lacked Feathers"
The Beginning of Birds
Eichstatt, West Germany: Jura Museum, p. 76

"The Modern Synthesis is a remarkable achievement. However, starting in the 1970s, many biologists began questioning its adequacy in explaining evolution. Genetics might be adequate for explaining microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern only the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest. As Goodwin (1995) points out, "the origin of species -- Darwin's problem -- remains unsolved."

* Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff (1996)
"Resynthesizing Evolutionary and Developmental Biology,"
Developmental Biology 173, Article No. 0032, 1996, p. 361

This theme is developed at much greater length, and with considerable insight, in Rudy Raff's new book, The Shape of Life: Genes, Development, and the Evolution of Animal Form, University of Chicago Press, 1996 (520 pages, $29.95 in paperback).

"The facts of microevolution do not suffice for an understanding of macroevolution."

* Goldschmidt, Richard B. (1940)
The Material Basis of Evolution
New Haven Connecticut: Yale University Press, p. 8

"We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It is time that we cry: 'The emperor has not clothes.'"

* K. Hsu (1986)
"Darwin's Three Mistakes"
Geology, vol. 14, p. 534
(K. Hsu is a geologist at the Geological Institute at Zurich.)

"Micro-evolution involves mainly changes within potentially continuous populations, and there is little doubt that its materials are those revealed by genetic experimentation. Macro-evolution involves the rise and divergence of discontinuous groups, and it is still debatable whether it differs in kind or only in degree from microevolution. If the two proved to be basically different, the innumerable studies of micro-evolution would become relatively unimportant and would have minor value in the study of evolution as a whole."

* Simpson G.G. (1949)
Tempo and Mode in Evolution, p97

"[T]he origin of no innovation of large evolutionary significance is known."

* R. Wesson (1991)
Beyond Natural Selection
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, p. 45


"[L]arge evolutionary innovations are not well understood. None has ever been observed, and we have no idea whether any may be in progress. There is no good fossil record of any."

* R. Wesson (1991)
Beyond Natural Selection
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, p. 206

[Tikker]

Tikker's comprehension level is below average. That's not a put-down... just an observation. I don't know why you keep trying, Lyion. He'll never "get it."

No Mindia, you've proved in many threads you're the clueless one

[Arlos]

Uh, Lyion, you're quoting stuff that, for the most part, is at LEAST 20 years old. The most recent stuff in there is almost a decade old. Think about how much science gets done in a YEAR, let alone a decade. You try and link a post with discussions of theories about stellar physics, say, or extra-solar planets that are 20 years old, and see how far you get in discussions with people doing the cutting-edge work here and now. I can't imagine it is ANY different for biology/paleontology.

Again, I stand by my assertion: You're pulling a Mindia here, in decrying anyone who doesn't support your position as being an "Evolutionary evangilist", and listening solely to people who already DO support your position, regardless of the evidence against you.

Yes, I've taken a shitload of higher physics and higher math. I must admit that Differential Equations and I didn't get along, but I passed it. I don't know what you majored in, but I was all but done with my coursework in the major towards the Astrophysics degree, so I suspect I have a fair bit more physics than you do. Going to insult my educational background as well, cause I'm with Rust on this.

-Arlos