• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

For scientists who accept evolution

hammegk said:
The discipline of evolutionary biology today resembles astrophysics when Galileo was attempting to explain the planetary orbits and the oceanic tides but lacked the concept of the force of gravity. His observations were accurate enough, but explanations awaited an Isaac Newton.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Not so. Evolution does have an equivalent to the concept of the force of gravity, and has had for quite some time. It's a concept called natural selection.
 
Science is not decided by consensus.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. Science, in theory, is decided by the evidence. But the decision as to whether the evidence supports a hypothesis is based on the judgement of the scientific community. Only when a majority within the relevant field are convinced that the evidence supports the hypothesis can it be considered as "true". So consensus within the scientific community is relevant in deciding questions of science.

On the other hand, consensus on the part of a school board, law judges, or the general public is not relevant since these groups are not really qualified to make judgements about the question.
 
Mojo said:
Not so. Evolution does have an equivalent to the concept of the force of gravity, and has had for quite some time. It's a concept called natural selection.
Click to expand...

Interesting

Perhaps then, you could describe for me, what specific event or events does natural selection explain, that isn't already explained by mutation, drift, recombination, and heredity.
 
csense said:
Interesting

Perhaps then, you could describe for me, what specific event or events does natural selection explain, that isn't already explained by mutation, drift, recombination, and heredity.
Click to expand...
It provides a mechanism for species adapting to their environment. Random mutation etc. without some sort of force or attractor will not accomplish this.
 
Last edited:
After each link, I've provided a bit of the commentary therein:

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/saurischia/dromaeosauridae.html

Dromaeosaurs constitute a small clade of theropod dinosaurs which exhibit some highly derived characteristics that they all share, especially modifications of the forelimb allowing for a flexible seizing function (which is thought to have been modified to create the bird "flight stroke"). According to current thinking, birds are hypothesized to have shared a common ancestor with the dromaeosaurs sometime in the Jurassic period; Dromaeosauridae is thus termed the sister group of the clade Aves (which includes all birds). It may even be that the ancestry of birds lies within this group, which would make them dromaeosaurs too, but this is not at all established.

Deinonychus antirrhopus: Arguably the most important dinosaur fossil ever discovered, Dr. J.H. Ostrom's (of Yale University) 1969 and 1976 descriptions of Deinonychus ("terrible claw") were a major contributor to the re-evaluation of dinosaur activity levels. Ostrom saw the strikingly specialized adaptations present in Deinonychus and proposed that this was no "sluggish lizard", but an active, agile predator that used all four limbs and its jaws to subdue prey. He also saw similarities between it and modern birds, and has today continued to be a leading proponent for the dromaeosaurian kinship with birds. One of his outstanding students, Dr. R.T. Bakker, went on to become the most ardent supporter of Ostrom's ideas, and has been one of the most controversial figures in paleontology; making great strides to revitalize the study of dinosaurs and stimulating conversation among such researchers. Deinonychus also has been found as fossils in small groups which seem to have been killed while attacking Tenontosaurus tilletti, a larger ornithischian dinosaur. This is considered possible evidence of pack-oriented predatory behavior; leading to speculation that these dinosaurs were fairly intelligent, social animals as well.
Click to expand...

http://town.morrison.co.us/mnhm/Exhibits/Archae.html

science knows of only eight specimens and one feather of Archaeopteryx. (The feather was discovered in 1860, see photo at right.) Its history is colorful -- one of confirmation, misidentification, and debate.

Compsognathus -- a small meat-eating dinosaur that lived along side of Archaeopteryx. Only one specimen of this species has ever been found.
Click to expand...


http://www.peripatus.gen.nz/Paleontology/OriBir.html

The small theropod dinosaur, Compsognathus, has also been recovered from the Solnhofen. This fossil record presents difficult problems for advocates of the theropod hypothesis: birds (specifically Archaeopteryx) are supposed to be most closely related to the dromaeosaurids, which do not appear in the fossil record until Albian times (mid Cretaceous, about 110 Ma). Yet Compsognathus, which is believed to have diverged from the theropod lineage long before the evolution of the dromaeosaurids, occurs alongside Archaeopteryx 40 million years earlier. At present, only the vagaries of the fossil reord can be invoked to ‘explain’ the stratigraphic disjunction; our present understanding is unsatisfactory.

Here again, though, it is the age of the fossils which presents the greatest theoretical difficulties because, Sinosauropteryx being the earliest of them, all of the so-called "feathered dinosaur" discoveries post-date Archaeopteryx by tens of Ma. The only possible relevance their supposed feathered condition can have is as a candidate derived character (a synapomorphy or symplesiomorphy) shared with birds. Neither interpretation lends more than circumstantial support to the theropod hypothesis, nor sheds any light on the development of feathers, or birds themselves, for that matter

"The association of the hairlike structures of small theropod dinosaurs with feather origins is based on three known theropods, including Sinosauropteryx, Beipiaosaurus, and Sinornithosaurus (Chen et al. 1998; Xu, Tang & Wang 1999; Xu, Wang & Wu 1999), yet there is no convincing evidence that they are branched. More work needs to be done to reveal their implications for the evolution of the origin of feathers in birds. The recent discoveries of true avian feathers in Caudipteryx and Protarchaeopteryx have been regarded by many as the strong evidence for the presence of feathered dinosaurs (Ji et al. 1998; Zhou & Wang 2000); however, some believe that Caudipteryx could be a secondarily flightless bird, and therefore the feathers in Caudipteryx were also secondarily reduced (Feduccia 1999; Jones et al. 2000). ... [It is] uncertain whether the feathers in Caudipteryx were independently developed or were the primitive type of feathers defining birds and their immediate ancestors" (Zhang & Zhou 2000, p. 1957).
Click to expand...

As is the norm, things are "uncertain", "speculative", "hypotheses" until they reach the popular press, at which point all the "maybes" offer definite and incontrovertible proof. They do prove scientists are are human as the rest of humanity, and grind their own axes for all they are worth.
 
Now could we have something relevant to the question of whether the fossils are intermediate forms?

I'm waiting.
 
Perhaps others who are not as brain-washed as you may find at least parts of the articles relevant.

Too bad your whole house of cards would collapse if evolutionists admited "There are no incontrovertibly intermediate forms in the fossil record. And even you admit the dino-bird evidence is the best you've got to offer.
 
hammegk said:
Compsognathus -- a small meat-eating dinosaur that lived along side of Archaeopteryx. Only one specimen of this species has ever been found.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Why do you think this is significant? If one specimen has been found, that is just as much evidence for it having existed as 100 specimens. Either it existed or it didn't.
 
Mojo said:
It provides a mechanism for species adapting to their environment. Random mutation etc. without some sort of force or attractor will not accomplish this.
Click to expand...

I appreciate the response, but what you're describing here is an abductive inference, not an empirical event, which this mechanism must necessarily describe. If it doesn't, then it doesn't belong in a scientific theory. It's that simple.

Oddly enough, I've asked this question at various times, in different forums, and I have yet to receive a satisfactory answer.
 
csense said:
Interesting

Perhaps then, you could describe for me, what specific event or events does natural selection explain, that isn't already explained by mutation, drift, recombination, and heredity.
Click to expand...
It's not an event, as such, but: the observation that not every conceivable or even logically plausible variation exists.

Mutation, genetic drift, and recombination should all act on average to increase the diversity of living forms. Natural selection explains how and why the total possibility space is whittled down to the world we perceive around us.
 
Dr Adequate said:
He gave me a link to a bunch of people whose mission, did they know it, is to make Christianity look silly.
Click to expand...

You're right. Not only is it bad science, but it's bad theology. They attempt to support their faith with their scientific "theory" and to that extent they make their faith contingent upon the success of that theory. Even if the theory was a good one this is bad religious doctrine, but given that the theory is a bad one they are left trying to defend the indefnsible and making themselves a laughing stock or undermining their own faith by questioning something they have come to rely on.

Religion survived the discovery that the Earth was not the centre of the Universe. It will survive evoution without the aid of these yo-yos. What may not survive is their narrow view of it.
 
Mojo said:
Er, no. He just said that it was the one he'd like to discuss.
Click to expand...
Yeah, you're right. He probably picked the poorest example he could think of.

May I also say, a whale is a whale.
 
Awww, I thought you were partial to ambulocetus natans ...

http://www.studyworksonline.com/cda/content/article/0,,NAV4-42_SAR1472,00.shtml

Of course, any hypothesis that's based on fossils that are tens of millions of years old is bound to have problems.
Click to expand...
Not by the time it's reported in the popular press.

The similarity in cetacean and mesonychian cranial and dental morphology becomes a question. Was this the result of convergent evolution or was it a feature that was shared by a very early common ancestor to the three groups (cetaceans, mesonychians, and artiodactyls) but was lost in later artiodactyls? Also, the DNA analysis favors a sister-group relationship between whales and hippos but, morphologically, hippos are closer to artiodactyls than whales. Therefore, the relationship between whales and hippos remains unclear.
Click to expand...
Other than as some would have it, amb. is a super-defined intermediate form ... er, convergent evolutiuon, maybe, er ....

The answers will likely come from as-yet-undiscovered fossil finds.
Click to expand...
And in the long run, we will both be dead .... ;)

[/quote]
 
Your statement that "a whale is a whale" has no bearing on whether it evolved via natural selection, was designed by god or aliens, or simply popped into existence as a result of careless use of the infinite improbability drive without proper programming. It's essentially meaningless.
 
Mojo said:
Your statement that "a whale is a whale" has no bearing on whether it evolved via natural selection, was designed by god or aliens, or simply popped into existence as a result of careless use of the infinite improbability drive without proper programming. It's essentially meaningless.
Click to expand...

By responding to hammegk's statements about whales, you are letting him change the subject.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom