G
Glark
Guest
How many cultures feature stories about evolution?
Incidentally, if humans have been around for at hundreds of thousands of years, how come the Americas weren’t discovered by Europeans until only about 500 years ago?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Incidentally, if humans have been around for at hundreds of thousands of years, how come the Americas weren’t discovered by Europeans until only about 500 years ago?
G
Glark
Guest
How do we know dinosaurs even laid eggs? Giant birds could have laid them instead. And there are fossils of dinosaurs in the process of giving birth to live young.
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
Right. It’s only a matter of time before scientists admit that what they thought were fossils of dinosaurs with feathers are actually fossils of large birds with feathers. Another evo-myth bites the dust.There are pictures of fossils, and detailed analyses, all over the internet
The problem with relying on wishful thinking in science it that it can ultimately prove embarrassing.
Last edited:
B
benjamin1973
Guest
God could have made a force field to protect them. He could have just teleported them forward in time. He could have given them the ability to breathe empty space for a year. OR, since it was only disobedient humans he was punishing, he could have just caused the bad ones to instantly drop dead, saving the animals the hassle of having to bob around in a life raft for twelve months.
But nope. He talked some guy into building a really big boat, and marching animals in pairs into it-- even animals from across the globe which wouldn’t have had the means of locomotion to get to the ark. And then He made Noah roll d20 to see how strongly his Psionic powers would affect the animals on the ark.
Yeah. That makes a lot more sense than Noah’s Ark being an allegory for God’s power and the value of faith.
But nope. He talked some guy into building a really big boat, and marching animals in pairs into it-- even animals from across the globe which wouldn’t have had the means of locomotion to get to the ark. And then He made Noah roll d20 to see how strongly his Psionic powers would affect the animals on the ark.
Yeah. That makes a lot more sense than Noah’s Ark being an allegory for God’s power and the value of faith.
Last edited:
B
benjamin1973
Guest
Large dinosaur-shaped birds with 4 legs. Yeah, that’s probably it.
B
benjamin1973
Guest
You really need to learn how google works.
B
benjamin1973
Guest
Are you even serious? There were vikings in North America over a thousand years ago. There are Chinese maps with depictions of North America. And there were PEOPLE LIVING HERE.
G
Glark
Guest
I think you missed the point.
E
ericc
Guest
It is obvious that this mechanism was designed to enable laws of nature to operate. It allows organisms to react to external stimuli such as radiation, chemicals, heat, oxygen etc. Organisms were designed to have some capability to accommodate such stimuli somewhat either by moving away/towards a unfav/fav stimuli. Nature itself produces random variations of organisms which nature will weed out those not suited to its environment.If evolution was designed it has purpose and has foresight.
R
rossum
Guest
They have live young, not lay eggs. They feed their young on milk, which birds cannot. They have mammalian lungs rather than the more efficient avian lungs. They grow fur, not feathers. They grow teeth, which modern birds do not.What do bats do differently than birds?
Did I really need to explain that to you? Is your knowledge of biology so lacking?
rossum
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Not much there then… Still.
Edwest: I appreciate your own words, at reasonable length, for a change. And it’s not too late for you to express some thoughts of your own instead of lobbing huge chunks of literature which you don’t really understand, hoping that we evolutionists won’t look at it. Now that I’ve pointed out that your last lump didn’t support your beliefs at all, you’re sifting through it like a child with a fruit cake, putting all the orange peel to the side of your plate because you don’t like orange. This bit I like, that bit I disagree with, and so on. Unfortunately science doesn’t work like that. It s a coherent, comprehensive, unity. Goodness knows why you chose camels. Was to claim that that author was correct that Camels first appeared in North America, but wrong that it was 44 million years ago, correct that they migrated over the world, but wrong that this took 10 million years? If so, you should have explained that. If not, then you should explain now. You might also have explained the grounds for your selection.
Edwest: I appreciate your own words, at reasonable length, for a change. And it’s not too late for you to express some thoughts of your own instead of lobbing huge chunks of literature which you don’t really understand, hoping that we evolutionists won’t look at it. Now that I’ve pointed out that your last lump didn’t support your beliefs at all, you’re sifting through it like a child with a fruit cake, putting all the orange peel to the side of your plate because you don’t like orange. This bit I like, that bit I disagree with, and so on. Unfortunately science doesn’t work like that. It s a coherent, comprehensive, unity. Goodness knows why you chose camels. Was to claim that that author was correct that Camels first appeared in North America, but wrong that it was 44 million years ago, correct that they migrated over the world, but wrong that this took 10 million years? If so, you should have explained that. If not, then you should explain now. You might also have explained the grounds for your selection.
Bless you, and him! Luckily the last few popes have been well-advised and well aware of the pernicious effect of Creationism, and have indeed tried to get that counter-productive teaching tossed out.In that case, you’d better inform the Pope of this, so he can get that counter-productive teaching tossed out.
R
rossum
Guest
Then you should know that Gould’s quote about the “trade secret” was about the lack of transitionals between species. There is no lack between larger groups. By taking the quote out of its context your sources are effectively lying by omission.I’m aware of the quote you provided, but it doesn’t explain why Gould said the lack of transitionals is “the trade secret of paleontology.”
Is it true to say that the Bible denies the existence of God? How about if I quote the Bible: “There is no God”? That is a correct quote from the Bible; is it true to quote that short piece out of its context?
Gould says that transitionals between larger groups are common. It is false to imply that he said that all types of transitional are rare. One type of transitional is rare, other types are not. Why do you think that such an obviously false statement will convince anyone? Why do you trust websites that give out such false statements?
Do you really think that making false statements is the way to advance Christianity? I am not a Christian; what sort of example are you showing me as to how Christians behave?
rossum
B
benjamin1973
Guest
Your point seems to be that the chronology of discover means something. But your chronology is horribly wrong.
E
ericc
Guest
I have been trying to find out what he meant by this. Did he provide any data to support this assertion? When he says larger groups, what did he mean exactly? Any examples of such transitionals between the “larger groups”?Gould says that transitionals between larger groups are common.
From what I have gathered, there is hardly any evidence of proving transitionals i.e. shown to have descended from an ancestor. Intermediates is more of an art form of placing fossils between Fossil A and Fossil B based upon some sort of classification. For the punctuated equilibrium he was proposing, I think he would find it extraordinarily difficult to prove transitionals i.e. descendancy even among the “larger groups”.
Last edited:
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Consider the bird, a feathered creature which flies, and the reptile, a scaly creature that walks. The bird is apparently descended from the reptile, and there are literally thousands of fossils of animals that appear to span the gamut of reptiles with short stubby feathers, perhaps for insulation, to reptiles/birds with wings used, in flapping, to help them flee along the ground or break their fall from jumping off trees, to reptiles/birds who could fly short distances, to birds with claws on their wings. They are arranged in a dozen or so groups, divided into hundreds of species, the most reptilian being the Anchiornithidae and the most birdlike maybe Limenavis patagonica or something similar. Arranged in terms of broad morphological similarity, the evolution of birds from reptiles over 70 or 80 million years looks continuous and unbroken. This was well known to Gould and is well known to modern palaeontologists. In detail, however, the various families/species of these extinct reptile/birds tend to have features of one kind or another which not only distinguishes them as a group, but which makes them difficult to relate immediately to preceding or succeeding groups. That was what Gould (and Patterson) were referring to when they deplored the lack of ‘transitional’ fossils. They knew that a direct ‘line of succession’ from one species to another hadn’t been found, and accounted for it by noticing, as I mentioned above, that ‘boundary’ environments are much smaller than the wider environments on either side, both in space and time. Hence the suggestion of ‘punctuated equilibrium’. Like uncles and cousins in a family graveyard, all the extinct species are clearly related to each other, but we may never be able to work out exactly how.
Now I know that honesty in evolutionists is likely, indeed almost certain, to be distorted into some kind of admission of disbelief by their creationist opponents, but I’ll press on. You see, there is a sense, at the fossil species level, in which a creationist philosophy fits the evidence as well as an evolutionary one. (Ooh look! I can see Glark tucking in his napkin and sharpening his knife and fork, while buffalo takes the top off the ketchup bottle and edwest uncorks the wine) However, as I never tire of explaining, a scientific theory is a coherent and comprehensive explanation of all the evidence and at larger group level (genus/family) the creationist theory is seen to be wholly lacking in explanatory intelligence. For this reason, creationism is rejected as a better explanation for the progression of life than evolution.
Now I know that honesty in evolutionists is likely, indeed almost certain, to be distorted into some kind of admission of disbelief by their creationist opponents, but I’ll press on. You see, there is a sense, at the fossil species level, in which a creationist philosophy fits the evidence as well as an evolutionary one. (Ooh look! I can see Glark tucking in his napkin and sharpening his knife and fork, while buffalo takes the top off the ketchup bottle and edwest uncorks the wine) However, as I never tire of explaining, a scientific theory is a coherent and comprehensive explanation of all the evidence and at larger group level (genus/family) the creationist theory is seen to be wholly lacking in explanatory intelligence. For this reason, creationism is rejected as a better explanation for the progression of life than evolution.
Last edited:
R
Richca
Guest
The same goes for the earth’s vegetation and all the varieties of plant and tree species. We need not imagine that when God said on the third day of creation “Let the earth put forth vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, upon the earth,” that God created a single blade of grass or a single oak tree on a little plot of the earth and from there the grass and oak trees spread across the face of the earth. Most likely and reasonably so, when God said “Let the earth put forth vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, upon the earth,” God created many blades of grass, oak trees, and many each of the other plant kinds scattered over the face of the earth and from this original creation the enormous and beautiful variety of plant kinds or species propagate as we observe now.As far as the propagation of even specific kinds of animals such as the African lions or horses or the Jaguars of the Americas, christians need not believe according to Holy Scripture that God followed the same plan for the propagation of such animals as His plan for the propagation of humans from a single couple. For example, we need not necessarily believe that God created only a single pair of African lions from which propagated the rest of African lions. He may have created a 100 pairs of lions and the same can be said for the rest of the species of animals.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
Yes, really think deeply about this. Why on earth would God do it that way? You can ask Him when you see Him next.God could have made a force field to protect them. He could have just teleported them forward in time. He could have given them the ability to breathe empty space for a year. OR, since it was only disobedient humans he was punishing, he could have just caused the bad ones to instantly drop dead, saving the animals the hassle of having to bob around in a life raft for twelve months.
But nope. He talked some guy into building a really big boat, and marching animals in pairs into it-- even animals from across the globe which wouldn’t have had the means of locomotion to get to the ark. And then He made Noah roll d20 to see how strongly his Psionic powers would affect the animals on the ark.
Yeah. That makes a lot more sense than Noah’s Ark being an allegory for God’s power and the value of faith.
On the other hand, why make up a story like that for allegory?
R
rossum
Guest
The classic example is Archaeopteryx, which is transitional between land dinosaurs and birds:I have been trying to find out what he meant by this. Did he provide any data to support this assertion? When he says larger groups, what did he mean exactly? Any examples of such transitionals between the “larger groups”?
Code:
Feathers Flight Bony Tail Teeth
-------- ------ --------- ------
Dinosaurs No No Yes Yes : Stegosaurus
Feathered Dinos Yes No Yes Yes : Jinfengopteryx
Archaeopteryx Yes Yes Yes Yes : Archaeopteryx
Early Birds Yes Yes No Yes : Ichthyornis
Modern Birds Yes Yes No No : CorvidaeHowever, Archaeopterys is an excellent example of a transitional between larger groups. In this case between Theropod dinosaurs and the Aves (birds). A transitional fossil contains a mix of characteristics from the earlier group and from the later group, which Archaeopteryx does: flight is characteristic of birds, while teeth and a bony tail are characteristic of dinosaurs.
Archaeopteryx has all three…
For other examples have a look at the descent of whales and dolphins, with transitionals like Pakicetus, Ambulocetus and Basilosaurus. Again we do not have a complete species-to-species transitional sequence, but we do have transitionals between larger groups.
rossum
B
buffalo
Guest
Archaeopteryx’s Evolutionary Humiliation Continues
Now Archaeopteryx is sinking back into the crowd of primitive birds and feathered dinosaurs. As Ed Yong has ably explained, a fresh wave of fossils are coming to light. They reinforce the argument that paleontologists have agreed on for a couple decades now: birds evolved from a lineage of dinosaurs called theropods. But it’s less clear now how exactly Archaeopteryx fits into that evolution. It might still be closely related to the ancestors of living birds, or there might be non-flying theropods that were more closely related. Combine this with the recent discoveries of heavily feathered dinosaurs–feathered down to their feet, in fact–and the possibility emerges that dinosaurs evolved into flyers more than once. We look up in the sky today and see the results of only one of those transitions.
Today comes a new study that gives Archaeopteryx a further push back into the crowd. A team of researchers at the American Museum of Natural History and the University of Texas have taken a look at Archaeopteryx‘s brain, and it’s pretty unexceptional.
Scientists have long known that the brains of living birds are quite exceptional. Compared to reptiles, birds have brains that are huge in proportion to their body. “Hyperinflated” is the word that scientists like to use to describe them.
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/07/31/archeopteryxs-evolutionary-humuliation-continues/
Now Archaeopteryx is sinking back into the crowd of primitive birds and feathered dinosaurs. As Ed Yong has ably explained, a fresh wave of fossils are coming to light. They reinforce the argument that paleontologists have agreed on for a couple decades now: birds evolved from a lineage of dinosaurs called theropods. But it’s less clear now how exactly Archaeopteryx fits into that evolution. It might still be closely related to the ancestors of living birds, or there might be non-flying theropods that were more closely related. Combine this with the recent discoveries of heavily feathered dinosaurs–feathered down to their feet, in fact–and the possibility emerges that dinosaurs evolved into flyers more than once. We look up in the sky today and see the results of only one of those transitions.
Today comes a new study that gives Archaeopteryx a further push back into the crowd. A team of researchers at the American Museum of Natural History and the University of Texas have taken a look at Archaeopteryx‘s brain, and it’s pretty unexceptional.
Scientists have long known that the brains of living birds are quite exceptional. Compared to reptiles, birds have brains that are huge in proportion to their body. “Hyperinflated” is the word that scientists like to use to describe them.
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/07/31/archeopteryxs-evolutionary-humuliation-continues/
B
buffalo
Guest
Archaeopteryx no longer first bird
Mounting evidence shows famous fossil more closely related to Velociraptor.
The first Archaeopteryx specimen was discovered in 1861, just a few years after the publication of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species. Its combination of lizard-like and avian features made it the ideal ‘missing link’ with which to demonstrate evolution from non-avian dinosaurs to birds. But the latest rearrangement knocks it from its position as the earliest bird. “I think Archaeopteryx 's placement was the result of both history and relatively poor sampling at the dinosaur–bird transition,” explains Xu.
Even so, he acknowledges that the move is bold. “Because it has held the position as the most primitive bird for such a long time, I am kind of nervous about presenting this result,” says Xu. But immediate responses from others in the field suggest that the decision will be widely embraced.
" Archaeopteryx was a bird because it had feathers and nothing else had them. But then other animals started being found that had wishbones, three-fingered hands and feathers. Heck, even T. rex had a wishbone. So one by one we’ve learned Archaeopteryx 's uniquely avian traits weren’t so unique. The writing was really on the wall," says Lawrence Witmer, a palaeontologist at Ohio University in Athens.
https://www.nature.com/news/2011/110727/full/news.2011.443.html
Mounting evidence shows famous fossil more closely related to Velociraptor.
The first Archaeopteryx specimen was discovered in 1861, just a few years after the publication of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species. Its combination of lizard-like and avian features made it the ideal ‘missing link’ with which to demonstrate evolution from non-avian dinosaurs to birds. But the latest rearrangement knocks it from its position as the earliest bird. “I think Archaeopteryx 's placement was the result of both history and relatively poor sampling at the dinosaur–bird transition,” explains Xu.
Even so, he acknowledges that the move is bold. “Because it has held the position as the most primitive bird for such a long time, I am kind of nervous about presenting this result,” says Xu. But immediate responses from others in the field suggest that the decision will be widely embraced.
" Archaeopteryx was a bird because it had feathers and nothing else had them. But then other animals started being found that had wishbones, three-fingered hands and feathers. Heck, even T. rex had a wishbone. So one by one we’ve learned Archaeopteryx 's uniquely avian traits weren’t so unique. The writing was really on the wall," says Lawrence Witmer, a palaeontologist at Ohio University in Athens.
https://www.nature.com/news/2011/110727/full/news.2011.443.html
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.