Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part Three

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Honey, I shrunk the Dino and they became birds.

Read this - does it sound plausible? 😀

How Dinosaurs Shrank and Became Birds

www.scientificamerican.com

How Dinosaurs Shrank and Became Birds

Modern birds appeared to emerge in a snap of evolutionary time. But new research illuminates the long series of evolutionary changes that made the transformation possible
www.scientificamerican.com www.scientificamerican.com
 
Then we see science claiming archaeopteryx became flightless. That would be called loss of function.
 
Richard Dawkins Dumps the Fossil Record

The dumping of the Archaeopteryx as a missing link between birds and reptiles by palaeontologists during the late twentieth century, however, was gaining solid support. According to Larry Martin, an American vertebrate paleontologist and curator of the Natural History Museum and Biodiversity Research Center at the University of Kansas, the

“Archaeopteryx is not ancestral of any group of modern birds.”

http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2013/05/richard-dawkins-dumps-the-fossil-record/
 
Bird-from-dinosaur theory of evolution challenged: Was it the other way around?

A new study provides yet more evidence that birds did not descend from ground-dwelling theropod dinosaurs, experts say, and continues to challenge decades of accepted theories about the evolution of flight.

“Pesky new fossils…sharply at odds with conventional wisdom never seem to cease popping up,” Ruben wrote in his PNAS commentary. “Given the vagaries of the fossil record, current notions of near resolution of many of the most basic questions about long-extinct forms should probably be regarded with caution.”

www.sciencedaily.com

Bird-from-dinosaur theory of evolution challenged: Was it the other way around?

A new study provides yet more evidence that birds did not descend from ground-dwelling theropod dinosaurs, experts say, and continues to challenge decades of accepted theories about the evolution of flight.
www.sciencedaily.com
 
Last edited:
Glark said:
the fact there are Professors of Biology who reject the “information” that all life evolved from microbes proves that that information is irrelevant and useless to real-world biology.
Click to expand...
So a handful of scientists rejecting a theory makes it blanketly useless to all of biology and for all scientists? How do you figure? Your mind closed, you lose.

You or other people coming to a premature conclusion about evolution’s usefulness does nothing to affect the real world usefulness of the theory, and does not hamper actual biologists from using it as the foundation for their research.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
Richard Dawkins Dumps the Fossil Record

The dumping of the Archaeopteryx as a missing link between birds and reptiles by palaeontologists during the late twentieth century, however, was gaining solid support. According to Larry Martin, an American vertebrate paleontologist and curator of the Natural History Museum and Biodiversity Research Center at the University of Kansas, the

“Archaeopteryx is not ancestral of any group of modern birds.”
Code: 
  Richard William Nelson – 18 May 13
Richard Dawkins Dumps the Fossil Record - Richard William Nelson

The dumping of the fossil record by one of Darwin’s last remaining hard core advocates, signals the end of the Darwinism era.
Click to expand...
Interesting article, but if his claim is correct, then though useful, the fossil record is not necessary to prove evolution true.

It would be easier to read that article uncritically if it wasn’t on a site entirely biased in the direction of anti-evolution.
 
anon65111186 said:
You or other people coming to a premature conclusion about evolution’s usefulness does nothing to affect the real world usefulness of the theory, and does not hamper actual biologists from using it as the foundation for their research.
Click to expand...
I must have missed the post, or perhaps the argument was dismissed. At any rate, no practical value comes to mind other than as the current mythos that brings secular society together in a shared vision of who we are, our purpose and destiny. Obviously, the underlying science has its many applications, but brought together under the umbrella of the evolutionary story line, its usefullnes is solely sociological, psychological and spiritual - what we are doing here.
 
Last edited:
Fake articles like this must include things like “must have” and “maybe” as part of the story. Wishful thinking is not science.
 
Okay, you don’t want to believe me, so why don’t you write to those evo-infidel Professors of Biology I mentioned and ask them if one needs to accept microbe-man evolution to be a competent biologist? I love to hear their answers!
You or other people coming to a premature conclusion about evolution’s usefulness does nothing to affect the real world usefulness of the theory, and does not hamper actual biologists from using it as the foundation for their research.
Click to expand...
And what practical use is this “research”? Coming up with more untestable theories (stories) about how whales (or whatever) evolved isn’t a use - it’s just paper science. Name one example of applied science that depends on the theory that life on earth evolved from microbes - and I will eat my hat!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top