T
Techno2000
Guest
How do you put a round pearl in a square hole ?buffalo:
Matthew 7:6
- Status
B
benjamin1973
Guest
Nope.
By protecting them from the consequences of environmental pressures, you are interfering with the process of natural selection. You are creating a kind of welfare state for dinosaurs-- doesnât matter what you do, you are getting a free ride anyway.
Random mutations propagate only if they provide an advantage in reproductive fitness.
By protecting them from the consequences of environmental pressures, you are interfering with the process of natural selection. You are creating a kind of welfare state for dinosaurs-- doesnât matter what you do, you are getting a free ride anyway.
Random mutations propagate only if they provide an advantage in reproductive fitness.
Last edited:
B
benjamin1973
Guest
Yep.
Since you are ensuring the animalsâ survival, the only mutations that might take hold would be those affecting mating-- instincts to select for certain features, an increased sex drive, reduced gestation period, increased number of offspring per litter, etc.
It seems highly unlikely that your dinosaurs would adapt the ability to fly.
Since you are ensuring the animalsâ survival, the only mutations that might take hold would be those affecting mating-- instincts to select for certain features, an increased sex drive, reduced gestation period, increased number of offspring per litter, etc.
It seems highly unlikely that your dinosaurs would adapt the ability to fly.
Last edited:
T
Techno2000
Guest
How did a few feathers poking through the dinosaurs scales serve as a survival advantage ?
A
Aloysium
Guest
Can you define the mechanism at a genomic level for this? What do you understand to be happening?
T
Techno2000
Guest
Natural selection doesnât work in real world of survival, it takes too long.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
Adaptation:
Mice change their appearance as a result of frequent exposure to humans
Mice change their appearance as a result of frequent exposure to humans
Mice change their appearance as a result of frequent exposure to humans
Many tame domesticated animals have a different appearance compared to their relatives in the wild, for example white patches in their fur or shorter snouts. Researchers have now for the first time shown that wild house mice develop the same visible changes -- without selection, as a result of...
www.sciencedaily.com
E
edwest211
Guest
You see, it was all carefully not planned and⌠you know, just add the magic words: environmental pressures and other stuff and⌠poof⌠you get feathers. Wait a minute. That doesnât sound even remotely right.
T
Techno2000
Guest
What purpose would there be for a alligator to start sprouting feathers ?
E
edwest211
Guest
I have seen too much evidence that storytelling, presented as likely or even factual, does fool some people into thinking itâs possible. What purpose could there be for all this storytelling that claims to explain something, followed by a lot of maybes?
T
Techno2000
Guest
And they think weâre the stupid ones.
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
A question, followed by a statement. But the statement hinges on the answer to the question, to which you donât know the answer, so you donât know if the statement is true. Unfortunately this is typical of the creationist approach to evolution. It stems not from a spirit of inquiry, but from an inherently closed mind. Having already decided the âtruthâ (âIt canât be doneâ), there is an inbuilt resistance to any answer that does not concur with it.
The original question is sensible, except that feathers do not appear fully formed from reptilian skin. Whereas ânormalâ archaic reptilian skin folded into flat scales, a mutation resulting in tubular scales appears to have spread through one population of reptiles about 200 million years ago. No doubt there were both advantages and disadvantages to this mutation, but eventually the advantages outweighed the disadvantages and the feathers developed further. The crucial factor seems to have been temperature related, in that tubular (feather) scales trap more air than flat ones. The heat generated by the internal organs was better retained by the insulating layer of air, enabling these creatures to feed and forage for longer in the day than their flat-scaled relatives, leading to greater reproductive success.
Again, this is an example of the statement coming before the investigation. What claims are outrageous? and what makes them so? None of them are verifiable (âproofâ creeping in againâŚ), but there is no necessity to verify them. All we want to do is to provide a coherent explanation for observed phenomena, and so far, we have. The tree of life is such an explanation. It is validated not by âproofâ (eurgh!), but by how well it fits the observations. Being un-unverifiable, or highly speculative, is no barrier to it being true.
Creationist hypotheses are also speculative, and also unverifiable. However, they do not fit observed phenomena at all well.
Last edited:
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Although thermoregulation could perhaps confer a reproductive advantage to alligators, observations of reptiles, birds and their fossils does not support the speculation that the alligator branch of the archaic reptiles either sprouted feathers or evolved into birds.
R
ratio1
Guest
Is there a possible experiment that one could design and practically perform, that would definitively convince you whether evolution theory is true or false?
If there is one, letâs do it!
If there isnât, then what you believe in is unfalsifiable?
If there is one, letâs do it!
If there isnât, then what you believe in is unfalsifiable?
T
Techno2000
Guest
You took that literally, it was just an analogy to point out the absurdity of this Theory.Techno2000:
Although thermoregulation could perhaps confer a reproductive advantage to alligators, observations of reptiles, birds and their fossils does not support the speculation that the alligator branch of the archaic reptiles either sprouted feathers or evolved into birds.
T
Techno2000
Guest
How do you know what happen 200 million years ago ?
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
No, it wasnât. it was an attempt to create an absurd straw man, so that by pointing out the absurdity of the straw man, you could hope to get people to believe that the actual target of your opposition was absurd. It failed.
Fossils.
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
I am already convinced that evolution is the way God produced and developed all life, so do not need convincing it is true. However, I could be persuaded it was false if anybody could find evidence that fruit trees preceded marine life on the earth, or that any organic life on earth preceded the creation of the sun and moon. I could also be persuaded if anyone could demonstrate that some animal or plant was spontaneously created ex nihilo. Perhaps we could use an empty zoo for the purpose.
However, I think I detect a note of ignorance in your question, in that you appear to think that falsifiability must involve a practical exercise. This is untrue. Just as the evidence for a scientific theory does not have to be produced in a laboratory, so it need not require falsification in a laboratory. Any observation that does not fit the theory will do.
Last edited:
B
brian_custer
Guest
is that an âabraham lincolnâ rose?
my favorite smelling rose is the âdouble delightâ
my favorite smelling rose is the âdouble delightâ
Tell you something was present.
They do not tell you how.
- Status