Evolution vs creation - let's give up on sounding educated!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chuck
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
PhilVaz:
There you go again Vindex, sounding educated! 😛

What we need is something simpler, like this

Phil P
Click to expand...
It was just a nice little conversation about troodont braincase morphology.

Vindex Urvogel
 
40.png
kwitz:
Vindex-

You win (I think). Are you argueing for or against evolution?🙂 and I actually pretend I know a bit about science.

Kris
Click to expand...
Evolution, bien sur.

Vindex Urvogel
 
Actually, I did know that. But it was hard to take an arguement seriously about a “troodont”. I can hardly wait to read the installment about Confuciusornis sanctus!!

Kris
 
40.png
kwitz:
Actually, I did know that. But it was hard to take an arguement seriously about a “troodont”. I can hardly wait to read the installment about Confuciusornis sanctus!!

Kris
Click to expand...
Why is that? Magnanimity asked for a demonstration of a transitional fossil, and thus I provided one. This required a detailed look at the morphology if I was to take Magnanimity’s request seriously, and as I wished to, I provided a detailed look at the morphology of the troodonitd braincase.

Vindex Urvogel
 
I just thought the name “troodont” sounded funny. While I’m sure it’s a real creature - you gotta admit it sounds like it could be a sci fi cartoon alien name. I read (and understood!) enough to understand the science was real. You definitely provided a specific example of a transitional fossil.

Kris
 
Vindex Urvogel:
Why is that? Magnanimity asked for a demonstration of a transitional fossil, and thus I provided one. This required a detailed look at the morphology if I was to take Magnanimity’s request seriously, and as I wished to, I provided a detailed look at the morphology of the troodonitd braincase.

Vindex Urvogel
Click to expand...
Is that pronounced Tro-o-dont? Also, I am not up to date on the literature. Are the Thecodonts still showing less evidence for bird origins than the Therapods?
 
40.png
Booger:
Is that pronounced Tro-o-dont? Also, I am not up to date on the literature. Are the Thecodonts still showing less evidence for bird origins than the Therapods?
Click to expand...
“Thecodontia” is a paraphyletic hodgepodge of basal archosaurs that don’t fit within Avesuchia (=Archosauria *sensu *Gauthier, 1986). The grade is defined by the same characters which delineate Archosauria itself (*non sensu *Gauthier, 1986) and thus when one says that birds are derived from “thecodonts” all one is really saying is that they are derived from archosaurs, which was already agreed upon. The majority of the evidence strongly suggests that Aves is nested within Theropoda at some level. There are some interesting data which might dispute this conclusion, but it has yet to be systematically quantified or dealt with in any explicitly phylogenetic framework. Until that time, it is not easy to really examine it with respect to the theropod origin of birds. As for troodonts, yes, that’s the way it’s pronounced 😉

Vindex Urvogel
 
To Booger and the evolutionary THEORISTS:

Explain this: THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS, which basically means that natural processes always tend toward disorder and the simple will never produce the more complex. (Johnson, “The Death of Evolution”, p.21-22.)

How can you honestly believe a theory which flies in the face of an established LAW that is indisputable?

“If your theory is found to be against the Second Law of Thermodynamics I can give you no hope.” -Sir Arthur Eddington, Astronomer.
 
40.png
matthewa:
To Booger and the evolutionary THEORISTS:

Explain this: THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS, which basically means that natural processes always tend toward disorder and the simple will never produce the more complex. (Johnson, “The Death of Evolution”, p.21-22.)

How can you honestly believe a theory which flies in the face of an established LAW that is indisputable?

“If your theory is found to be against the Second Law of Thermodynamics I can give you no hope.” -Sir Arthur Eddington, Astronomer.
Click to expand...
talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#thermo
 
Vindex Urvogel said:
“Thecodontia” is a paraphyletic hodgepodge of basal archosaurs that don’t fit within Avesuchia (=Archosauria *sensu *Gauthier, 1986). The grade is defined by the same characters which delineate Archosauria itself (*non sensu *Gauthier, 1986) and thus when one says that birds are derived from “thecodonts” all one is really saying is that they are derived from archosaurs, which was already agreed upon. The majority of the evidence strongly suggests that Aves is nested within Theropoda at some level. There are some interesting data which might dispute this conclusion, but it has yet to be systematically quantified or dealt with in any explicitly phylogenetic framework. Until that time, it is not easy to really examine it with respect to the theropod origin of birds. As for troodonts, yes, that’s the way it’s pronounced 😉

Vindex Urvogel
Click to expand...

Sorry, I meant a Thecodont ancestor rather than Thecodonts plural. Are you a zoologist? You seem very knowledgeable of vertebrate evolution.
 
Again, I encourage anybody that has doubts about evolution (or anything that you learned from a creationist) to explore the Talks Origins talkorigins.org/ website to answer any questions. It is written so that anybody can understand it and is very easy to navigate. Please give it a look.
 
matt << How can you honestly believe a theory which flies in the face of an established LAW that is indisputable? >>

Now you be honest, you’ve never read a single book defending evolution, right? The “Death of Evolution” doesn’t sound like an objective book to me. Stick with Tan Books for orthodox Catholic theology, but not for science.

This reminds me of the Fundamentalist Protestant starting with an objection from Jack Chick comic books and asking, “how can you honestly worship Mary which flies in the face of the Ten Commandments…”

Please, check TalkOrigins before posting, then make your objection to evolution 😃

FAQs on the 2nd Law of Thermo

Phil P
 
40.png
PhilVaz:
Vindex << Magnanimity asked for a demonstration of a transitional fossil >>

I like the whales with legs myself, easier to understand. 😃
Click to expand...
In a way, however, I rather prefer Pakicetus. The auditory bulla is massive and formed exclusively of the ectotympanic, as in all other archaic whales. But at the same time modifications for directional hearing underwater and protection of the inner ear from water pressure as seen in advanced whales, are absent. E.g., the auditory bullae are not isolated by sinus systems as in modern whales, but rather are still attached to the squamosal, basioccipital, and paroccipital in Pakicetus. *Pakicetus *also displays a marked fossa for the tensor tympani, indicating that this animal retained a functional tympanic membrane, which is lost in modern whales. These data indicate that in addition to say, Troodon, or Ambulocetus, *Pakicetus *is an ideal transitional.

Vindex Urvogel
 
40.png
Booger:
Sorry, I meant a Thecodont ancestor rather than Thecodonts plural. Are you a zoologist? You seem very knowledgeable of vertebrate evolution.
Click to expand...
I’m a student in the Biology program at the State Univeristy of New York, and am a research assistant in Dr. F. James’ program on archosaur and avian phylogenetics at FSU, so I have had the privilege of seeing and handling a number of the specimens I have mentioned.

Vindex Urvogel
 
Vindex Urvogel:
I’m a student in the Biology program at the State Univeristy of New York, and am a research assistant in Dr. F. James’ program on archosaur and avian phylogenetics at FSU, so I have had the privilege of seeing and handling a number of the specimens I have mentioned.

Vindex Urvogel
Click to expand...
BS or MS?
 
Chuck,

Evoutions major problem is it only attempts to tell you a small part of the story. It only tries (although quite miserably) to tell you how. A good jounalist can tell you that you need to also ask, why, when, where, and whom. Evolution does not even attempt these questions. Creatiion answers all of them, with much scientific evidence to back them up.

When explaining the difference to our Junior High Youth Group, I show them pictures of several vintage Ford Mustangs. After examining these vairous and diverse automobiles, I ask them to tell me if the 1966 Mustange came fromthe 1965 Mustang. Of course they anser no since cars cannot reproduce themselves. I engage them in discussion, and they themselve come to the realization and conclusion that they both came from the same factory, and likely the same factory workers. Then I make the parallel with man and ape - they both came from the same factory and not one from the other. They will have a difficult time logically undoing creation after this excercise.
 
Knight for Life:
Chuck,

Evoutions major problem is it only attempts to tell you a small part of the story. It only tries (although quite miserably) to tell you how. A good jounalist can tell you that you need to also ask, why, when, where, and whom. Evolution does not even attempt these questions. Creatiion answers all of them, with much scientific evidence to back them up.
Click to expand...
Evolutionary biology omits explanations or hypotheses about the origin of life, because the manner in which life originated is irrelevant. You claim that it fails to incorporate and explain the pertinent data concerning the diversity of life and the origin of morphological novelties and advance “creation” as an alternative. If you could explicitly enumerate this hypothesis such that it meets the Popperian falsification criterion, including an elaboration of its testable predictions, I would be most appreciative. Furthermore, coul you explicitly list the scientific evidence in favor of this hypothesis which you mention.

Vindex Urvogel
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top