Posted on 03/20/2009 8:09:11 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Not Stegosaurus though!
The people that ate, and also worshipped Stego carved their likeness on their temple columns in Burma.
“Why bother with the doctor when your expertise is so vast?”
Because doctors are nothing like evolutionists.
Doctors make observations and take actual data under controlled conditions.
If a doctor was like an evo, then he would look at one of your teeth and construct a facsimile of you as a fully developed human from that one tooth. Then he would make all sorts of assumptions based on his model of you, and finally conclude what your illness is even though he wasn’t able to take any actual data from the human model.
Yeah, that would work better, I’m sure.
So, though you probably have no training or field experience in paleontology, comparative anatomy, geology, molecular genetics, herpetology, etc., nor spent decades running computer simulations of bone-stress dynamics, comparing blood serums, performing neutron-activation analysis, etc. - because you can't make heads or tails of a fossil you once glanced at in a dog-eared magazine in your doctor's waiting room, you're as qualified as any expert to weigh in on the matter.
You know, I once overheard someone at a bus stop mumbling what I took to be a prayer / watched five minutes of a televangelist program / read an article in "Reader's Digest" about the Pope while sitting in the waiting room of a tattoo parlor, so now I know that transsubstantiation (as opposed to consubstantiation) is bunk / that the Council of Niceae was mistaken / that the Book of Mormon is a hoax.
Regards,
Because, surely, man & dinosaur must have co-existed.
“because you can’t make heads or tails of a fossil you once glanced at in a dog-eared magazine”
Uhm, I think the point was not whether she knew what the bone was but the fact that they had taken a small piece of bone and constructed a complete facsimile of what the animal looked like, it’s environment, what it hunted, its social groups, etc.
Nah, I’m sure this has never been done incorrectly in the past, has it? No, I can’t think of a single time where scientists have had egg on their face from making such ridiculous assumptions on a tiny piece of data . . . .
No, I’m sure that’s never happened.
:-) Have a nice day.
spam.
Well, I guess if that’s what you call an argument...
Thanks for the ping!
How does this statement comport with creationism?
I was just showin’ you the evidence for evolution.
Some people just can’t be pleased!
Remind me why this does not belong in religion section?
And it getting posted in news activism?
Too early, wait til lunch.
I didn’t realize that I had to “comport” with either view point. I thought the point of scientific inquiry is to gather data and analyze it. I try not to jump to conclusions when I am doing my scientific research, that way I allow for additional information to come in. I can tell you what my past data have shown me and what they lead me to believe will happen next, I have yet to see testability on either evolution or creation
Evolution and Christianity are perfectly compatible.
OK, I start with a single bacteria and plate it onto ten plates.
I then subject the ten plates to ten different selective pressures, high heat, low heat, nutrient deprivation, antibiotics, etc.
After numerous generations do you predict that...
a) there will be no change, thus no evolution
b) there will be random detrimental changes
or...
c) the heat treated population will be heat resistant, the cold treated population will be cold resistant, the antibiotic treated population will be antibiotic resistant, etc, etc.
Well, how is this not testing evolution?
What result would you predict?
...is to exclude supernatural explanations. You can't just say, “god did it”.
“The dark mutant found the blackened bark excellent camouflage and the birds missed them. “
They aren’t moths anymore?
“The house sparrow, introduced into North America in the middle of the 19th century has evolved into several distinct sub-species in only about 110 generations. “
They aren’t sparrows anymore?
How about showing where an organism actually became a different kind instead of a sub-species. That would prove macro-evolution instead of just adaptation.
I was attempeting to show that rapid change, although declared impossible by absolute creationists,has been observed in very recent history. If you want to get into greater detail we willneed to assure that we have common definitions and terms or we will end up talking in circles of denial.
Macroevolutionary research is based on phylogeny, the history of common descent among species. The formation of species and branching of evolutionary lineages mark the interface between macroevolution and microevolution, which addresses the dynamics of genetic variation within populations. Phylogenetic reconstruction, the developmental basis of evolutionary change, and long-term trends in patterns of speciation and extinction among lineages constitute major foci of macroevolutionary studies.
Phylogenetic reconstruction
Phylogenetic relationships are revealed by the sharing of evolutionarily derived characteristics among species, which provides evidence for common ancestry. Shared derived characteristics are termed synapomorphies, and are equated by many systematists with the older concept of homology. Characteristics of different organisms are homologous if they descend, with some modification, from an equivalent characteristic of their most recent common ancestor. Closely related species share more homologous characteristics than do species whose common ancestry is more distant. Species are grouped into clades according to patterns of shared homologies. The clades form a nested hierarchy in which large clades are subdivided into smaller, less inclusive ones, and are depicted by a branching diagram called a cladogram. A phylogenetic tree is a branching diagram, congruent with thecladogram, that represents real lineages of past evolutionary history.
A cladogram or phylogenetic tree is necessary for constructing a taxonomy, but theprinciples by which higher taxa are recognized remain controversial. The traditionalevolutionary taxonomy of G. G. Simpson recognizes higher taxa as units of adaptiveevolution called adaptive zones. Species of an adaptive zone share common ancestry, anddistinctive morphological or behavioral characteristics associated with use ofenvironmental resources. Higher taxa receive Linnean categorical ranks (genus, family,order, and so forth) reflecting the breadth and distinctness of their adaptive zones. All taxa must have a single evolutionary origin, which means that the taxon must include the most recent common ancestor of all included species. A taxon is monophyletic if it contains all descendants of the group's most recent common ancestor, or paraphyletic if some descendants of the group's most recent common ancestor are excluded because they have evolved a new adaptive zone. For example, evolutionary taxonomy of the anthropoid primates groups the orangutan, gorilla, and chimpanzee in the paraphyletic family Pongidae and the humans in the monophyletic family Hominidae. Although the humans and chimpanzees share more recent common ancestry than either does with the gorilla or orangutan, the chimpanzees are grouped with the latter species at the family level and the humans are placed in a different family because they are considered to have evolved a new adaptive zone. The Hominidae and Pongidae together form a monophyletic group at a higher level.See also Animal systematics.
Cladistic taxonomy or phylogenetic systematics accepts only monophyletic taxa because these alone are considered natural units of common descent. Linnean rankings are considered unimportant. Taxa recognized using both the Simpsonian and cladistic taxonomies are standardly used in macroevolutionary analyses of extinction and patterns of diversity through time. The Simpsonian versus cladistic taxonomies often lead to fundamentally different interpretations, however. For example, extinction of a paraphyletic group, such as dinosaurs, would be considered pseudoextinction by cladists because some descendants of the group's most recent common ancestor survive. Birds are living descendants of the most recent common ancestor of all dinosaurs. The dinosaurs as traditionally recognized, therefore, do not form a valid cladistic taxon.
If we can agree on the above, we can proceed with an intelligent discussion.
I predict that if you do what the NASA biologist did when they ran this so called evolutionary experiment that you will find things die off quite quickly unless humans intervene and change the experiment. Note that all you did was give me the parameters of the experiment NOT any of the resulting data or previous data that are necessary to make a suggestion as to what is likely to happen based on past experience. Either you do not understand the scientific method or you are being disingenuous
I predict that if you do what the NASA biologist did when they ran this so called evolutionary experiment that you will find things die off quite quickly unless humans intervene and change the experiment. Note that all you did was give me the parameters of the experiment NOT any of the resulting data or previous data that are necessary to make a suggestion as to what is likely to happen based on past experience. Either you do not understand the scientific method or you are being disingenuous
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.