• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged Bigfoot follies

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Shrike said:
To build more explicitly on WP's excellent point regarding the extinction of Tyrannosaurs, who gets to decide when that questioning has been sufficient to make a conclusion? Do I get to do that and consider myself a euskeptic or do I need to keep questioning until Mulder or DWA or Huntster are satisfied that I've fully explored this to avoid being labeled a pseudoskeptic?
Click to expand...

I look to the scientific community for guidance on how far questioning goes, but even they don't always get it right, you know that. Do you think Mulder, Hunster, or DWA really understand the concept of skepticism? I don't, they operate under their own logical fallacies. Not that my opinion counts for anything, but I always considered you to be a true skeptic.
 
The scientific community is unequivocal on these two points, Jodie: Tyrannosaurs are extinct and there is no such thing as bigfoot.

It's nice that you consider my skepticism to be in some way "truer" than others', but the only reason you think so is that I would spend time engaging directly with the 'footers and I was usually polite to them when I did so. The content of my questions and statements, however, was no different than that of any other hardened scofftic-denialists.
 
T-rexes were not the ancestors of chickens. Birds were already around this rotating ball of boredon back when rexes roamed over it.

T-rexes were part of a large group of animals composed by lots of different genus and species. Some of them, a long, long time before rexes appeared evolved and became what we call birds.
 
Jodie said:
Because they are speaking in a lay person's terms. Technically they aren't extinct, they evolved to be chickens. Every time you order KFC you are eating a TRex descendent.
Click to expand...


Not true in the slightest.
Tyrannosauroids are on a phylogenetic branch that is several steps removed from avian ancestors. They are at best distant cousins to birds.
uvu3edap.jpg

Tyrannosaurs rex and tyrannosauroids are 100% extinct.
 
Last edited:
So we don't need to worry about Whooping Cranes becoming extinct, because there are other cranes still here that evolved from the same lineage. I gotta tell you, Jodie, the "layman" class is too advanced for you.
 
Jodie said:
No, I'm not wrong but feel free to disagree with me. By the way, I love your posts, they always crack me up regardless. :)
Click to expand...
Others have already pointed out that Tyrannosaurs are not the ancestors of chickens.

You were also wrong when you said that when scientists are using extinction/extinct they are speaking in layperson's terms. No they are not. Extinction is an important scientific concept, fact and term. Non-scientists generally use the term and concept in the same way that scientists do.
 
Thing is, T-Rex existed, chickens still do, but footie isn't, and never was.
 
The Shrike said:
The scientific community is unequivocal on these two points, Jodie: Tyrannosaurs are extinct and there is no such thing as bigfoot.

It's nice that you consider my skepticism to be in some way "truer" than others', but the only reason you think so is that I would spend time engaging directly with the 'footers and I was usually polite to them when I did so. The content of my questions and statements, however, was no different than that of any other hardened scofftic-denialists.
Click to expand...

Science never claims to have the final answer for anything, it's just the best conclusion you can achieve based on current evidence available at that moment, it isn't a static process, and it isn't unequivocal. I remember you stating this numerous times on both forums in the past and that your opinion would change if definitive proof was ever offered. In your case, you are no longer visiting the BFF to belabor an argument that will most likely remain an exercise in futility for all eternity.

IMO, there is no difference in the behavior of a "believer" versus a "non-believer" pushing their own specific agenda, it works both ways. It is the act of of frequenting both forums and repeating the same argument year after after year, to no avail, in a hateful manner that does make the "non-believer" a scofftic-denialist and the "believer" as one pushing a pseudo scientific agenda. In either case, neither wants to admit that there is a chance for error, which makes either view point a matter of belief.
 
William Parcher said:
Others have already pointed out that Tyrannosaurs are not the ancestors of chickens.

You were also wrong when you said that when scientists are using extinction/extinct they are speaking in layperson's terms. No they are not. Extinction is an important scientific concept, fact and term. Non-scientists generally use the term and concept in the same way that scientists do.
Click to expand...

http://www.livescience.com/1410-rex-related-chickens.html

A comparison by Asara's team of the amino-acid sequence from the T. rex collagen to a database of existing sequences from modern species showed it shared a remarkable similarity to that of chickens.

This finding supports the idea that chickens and T. rex share an evolutionary link and bolsters previous research showing that birds evolved from dinosaurs and that birds are living dinosaurs.

A species is extinct when the last existing member dies. I believe, based on what I've read of the research, that chickens are related, if not descended from TRex. At any rate, the genetic connection lives on in birds, which is a speciation event several times over since TRex walked the earth.TRex in it's prehistoric form no longer exists, so that form is extinct, but his genetic legacy lives on in chickens. We could get into a long drawn out debate on where one species begins and ends in relation to the application of an artificial classification system that is also constantly changing.
 
Tricky said:
So we don't need to worry about Whooping Cranes becoming extinct, because there are other cranes still here that evolved from the same lineage. I gotta tell you, Jodie, the "layman" class is too advanced for you.
Click to expand...

Only in how it relates to our well being and that of other animals, extinction is a natural process, and humans are a part of that process. Losing one crane wouldn't worry me if there are others that can fill that niche. Nothing ever really ends if you look at it from a genetic viewpoint, it just changes into something else over time. What we call extinction is a label that we use to explain why a form of animal doesn't exist anymore. When we exterminate enough species we might actually trigger a mass extinction event of the majority of life on earth, including ourselves. We may well be on our way to that end already, however, something will survive to evolve after we are long gone. Life goes on in one way or the other.
 
Intellectually cowardly wishy-washy apologetics is many times more hollow and harmful then just being wrong.

At least being wrong is helpful is some way.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom