What's new
By:

Evolution discussion

carolinajazz said:
...so your saying that the idea that some dinosaurs had color and others did not.....can be determined by well-researched, well-tested "theories"....even though all we have are bones and NOT skin samples from eons of elapsed time? Why not just say "I'm guessing" this may have been the case!
Click to expand...

Where we have no evidence for dinosaur skin color, we have no theories on dinosaur skin color. Artist's renditions are not theories.
 
One Brow said:
Can you provide evidence, or even a quote, that a mushroom and a cat are of a different kind? Maybe birds and pear trees are of the same kind. So, all of evolution may have happened just as in MET, and the "kind" barrier was not broken. Perhaps there are only three kinds on all of the earth, and two are unicellular.
Click to expand...

....brow, have you been drinking Wild Turkey 101??? Your comparisons and illustrations as noted above are pathetically flawed and way out of touch with reality as well as scientific facts! How many years of college did it take them to brainwash you into such foolishness??? Had to be more than 1!
 
One Brow said:
Where we have no evidence for dinosaur skin color, we have no theories on dinosaur skin color. Artist's renditions are not theories.
Click to expand...

...but then you make a lot of sense with this statement! I'm trying to figure you out! Are you an evolutionist....or do you believe in creation? (Not a "creationist" that believes the earth and everything on it was created in six 24 hour days!)
 
One Brow said:
Theories are not guesses. They are well-researched, well-tested, and productive of new ideas.
Click to expand...

One Brow, it's frustrating trying to discuss science and the scientific process with people like Carolina Jazz and Pearl Watson whose comments evidence no understanding of either.

Anyone who says that theories are mere 'guesses' demonstrates by this statement alone his/her complete ignorance of the topic. Theories are not guesses but are derived carefully and systematically via evidence building, inductive reasoning, and so forth. A good scientific theory has a great deal of work and thinking behind it.

Another comment that demonstrates ignorance is the statement that theories never become facts. Umm, I suppose people have heard of 'empirical observations/testing.'

I'll tell you what science is not and that's replacing actual science with political ideology and requiring the former to conform to the latter.

Honestly, CJ and Pearl, every time you open your mouth, so to speak, all you do is demonstrate your ignorance on this topic. Please stop. You're embarrassing yourselves, more than usual, which is saying a lot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MVP
carolinajazz said:
....brow, have you been drinking Wild Turkey 101??? Your comparisons and illustrations as noted above are pathetically flawed and way out of touch with reality as well as scientific facts! How many years of college did it take them to brainwash you into such foolishness??? Had to be more than 1!
Click to expand...

So, you have no evidence, and not even a Bible quote, that mushrooms and cats are of different kinds, and rather than admit it, you decided to try to sling aspersions. Thank you for the conversation.
 
carolinajazz said:
...but then you make a lot of sense with this statement! I'm trying to figure you out! Are you an evolutionist....or do you believe in creation? (Not a "creationist" that believes the earth and everything on it was created in six 24 hour days!)
Click to expand...

I'm a freethinker. I accept evolution because that's where all the evidence lies. If you find significant, genuine, testable evidence against MET (Modern Evolutionary Theory), I'll drop MET in favor of whatever the other evidence indicates. I also don't confuse evidence with imagination. Found pigments are evidence, artist's drawings are not.
 
jimmy eat jazz said:
Anyone who says that theories are mere 'guesses' demonstrates by this statement alone his/her complete ignorance of the topic. Theories are not guesses but are derived carefully and systematically via evidence building, inductive reasoning, and so forth. A good scientific theory has a great deal of work and thinking behind it.
Click to expand...

I try to keep in min that, while we know how "theory" is used in science, it's used very differently murder mystery novels and TV crime shows. The confusion is natural.

jimmy eat jazz said:
Another comment that demonstrates ignorance is the statement that theories never become facts. Umm, I suppose people have heard of 'empirical observations/testing.'
Click to expand...

Theories don't become fact in the same way trees don't become leaves. Theories contain facts, but also contain relationships, laws, explanations, etc. If you are moving from less certainty to more certainty, you move from observation to fact, and from hypothesis to theory.
 
AKMVP said:
No, they are not. Dinosaurs like microraptors had feathers as well and it is well documented and proven.

...so your saying that Dinosaurs had feathers similar to the bird feathers we have in evidence today, that enabled them to fly to and fro......then disappeared off the surface of the earth.......then reemerged again after millions of years of trial and error in which hundreds of thousands of failed attempts finally resulted in the marvel of natural engineering and intricacy of design that allows this structural marvel to fly, migrate and reproduce and this is "well documented" in the fossil record? REFERENCES please!

Every single organ is amazingly complex. That's what billions of years of evolution do.

......well, if billions of years of evolution can result in the amazing complexity's of every single organ...then give us the explanation of how it happen! You don't expect us to believe or except your theories just because you came up with the "unique" explanation that "this is what billions of years of evolution does"
Click to expand...

By the way, wasn't Archeopteryx the great "link" discovered that proved birds came from reptiles? Or have they found other "little Archy's" more suitable for flying scattered all over the fossil record since Archeopteryx, with it's feeble powers of flight, was unable to cope with a gust of wind and fell into the shallow waters below and drowned? Certainly, the fossil record should be "loaded" with all of these intermediate stages of half-scaled, half-feathered critters who would have been falling out of the sky like bricks!
 
jimmy eat jazz said:
One Brow, it's frustrating trying to discuss science and the scientific process with people like Carolina Jazz and Pearl Watson whose comments evidence no understanding of either.

Anyone who says that theories are mere 'guesses' demonstrates by this statement alone his/her complete ignorance of the topic. Theories are not guesses but are derived carefully and systematically via evidence building, inductive reasoning, and so forth. A good scientific theory has a great deal of work and thinking behind it.

Honestly, CJ and Pearl, every time you open your mouth, so to speak, all you do is demonstrate your ignorance on this topic. Please stop. You're embarrassing yourselves, more than usual, which is saying a lot.
Click to expand...

......are you trying to tell me that ALL scientists, paleontologist's, biologist, etc NEVER say that what they have stated or surmise is "educated guess" work? How about "assume?" Do they use that word? How about "judicious speculation?" I can't speak for Watson, who may be a "creationist" (one who believes that each creative day was 24 literal hrs) but I am well versed on the subject of the animal kingdom and have no problem discussing the intricate design and amazing life forms of the hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of species of life on earth, each one having its own special story! Frankly, if anyone is embarrassing himself you might want to look into the mirror! You believe in a "theory" that, although accepted by millions even billions, has been proved or plausibly explained by NO ONE! "This is what happens over billions of years" IS NOT an explanation! If evolution happened......then tells us HOW it happened with "bee's and beehives" with "Woodpeckers" or with "the Archer fish!" Or how about an easy one.....the "Duck billed Platypus!" Here's a critter that lays eggs....then suckles it's young, like mammals! It looks part duck....part otter....part beaver! Yet, the platypus is fully developed, perfectly formed, and completely "adapted" to his environment! What kind of ridiculous picture would an evolutionist conjure up if a platypus had been discovered as a fossil form of life? So give us a "good scientific theory with a great deal of work and thinking behind it!" We're waiting!
 
One Brow said:
So, you have no evidence, and not even a Bible quote, that mushrooms and cats are of different kinds, and rather than admit it, you decided to try to sling aspersions. Thank you for the conversation.
Click to expand...

.....I know you don't imbibe in wild turkey 101, my bad! However, to question that there is no "evidence" that mushrooms and cats are of different "kinds" is ludicrous to the highest degree! Even basic "101" biology explains the difference between vegetation and mammals!
 
carolinajazz said:
By the way, wasn't Archeopteryx the great "link" discovered that proved birds came from reptiles? Or have they found other "little Archy's" more suitable for flying scattered all over the fossil record since Archeopteryx, with it's feeble powers of flight, was unable to cope with a gust of wind and fell into the shallow waters below and drowned? Certainly, the fossil record should be "loaded" with all of these intermediate stages of half-scaled, half-feathered critters who would have been falling out of the sky like bricks!
Click to expand...

That's the difference from books written thousands of years ago and scientific theory. One is unquestionable and accepted by delusional people like you who believe that some time ago humans lived 900 years. The other is always updated and changing based on new scientific discoveries and better understanding how things happened. So you did not know that Archeopteryx has been classified as dinosaur? Read about it my friend, read and you will find amazing things science discovered and learned since Archeopteryx. Learning begins where you do not know the answer. "God's will" is not the answer FYI.
 
carolinajazz said:
...... Or how about an easy one.....the "Duck billed Platypus!" Here's a critter that lays eggs....then suckles it's young, like mammals! It looks part duck....part otter....part beaver! Yet, the platypus is fully developed, perfectly formed, and completely "adapted" to his environment! What kind of ridiculous picture would an evolutionist conjure up if a platypus had been discovered as a fossil form of life? So give us a "good scientific theory with a great deal of work and thinking behind it!" We're waiting!
Click to expand...

Bingo! You just described creature which has reptile, bird and mammal features ( even if it is classified as primitive mammal in subgroup of monotremes)! So let me ask why do we need to look for missing links between animal classes in fossil records if we have perfect example in Australia?
 
carolinajazz said:
......are you trying to tell me that ALL scientists, paleontologist's, biologist, etc NEVER say that what they have stated or surmise is "educated guess" work? How about "assume?" Do they use that word? How about "judicious speculation?"
Click to expand...

Actually, I've seen similar wording regularly in scientific papers. Scientists have no problem with speculations labeled as speculations. However, speculations and educated guesses are not theories.

carolinajazz said:
If evolution happened......then tells us HOW it happened with "bee's and beehives" with "Woodpeckers" or with "the Archer fish!" Or how about an easy one.....the "Duck billed Platypus!"
Click to expand...

You say that as if this has not been done. Work has been done, and is being done, on the various protein changes that come from different genetic codes, how they have made changes in the growth of organisms, on the interactions between these changes, on how some changes are selected for, on the passing of information between unrelated species, and many, many more. Any individual scientist might spend an entire career on a small subset of one of those topics, such as studying Hox genes in zebra fish. If care to really dig into it, the work is there.

carolinajazz said:
Yet, the platypus is fully developed, perfectly formed, and completely "adapted" to his environment! What kind of ridiculous picture would an evolutionist conjure up if a platypus had been discovered as a fossil form of life?
Click to expand...

The picture of a creature fully developed, fully formed, and well-adapted to their environment. Populations that produce offspring which are undeveloped, unformed, or maladapted don't leave enough progeny to have a significant chance of being fossilized. Evolution predicts that the typical creature in any particular population will be fully developed, fully formed, and well-adapted.
 
carolinajazz said:
However, to question that there is no "evidence" that mushrooms and cats are of different "kinds" is ludicrous to the highest degree! Even basic "101" biology explains the difference between vegetation and mammals!
Click to expand...

Basic Biology 101 also knows that there is a difference between dogs and wolves, or cats and lions, or dung beetles and bombardier beetles, yet you lump those pairs into single kinds. Sneering is not evidence. What's your evidence that cats and mushrooms are different kinds?
 
carolinajazz said:
Or have they found other "little Archy's" more suitable for flying scattered all over the fossil record since Archeopteryx, with it's feeble powers of flight, was unable to cope with a gust of wind and fell into the shallow waters below and drowned?
Click to expand...

1) Yes, there are several protobirds that have been discovered.
2) Even a small ability to glide, or leap high, can be a survival advantage (e.g., flying squirrels). The ability to fly didn't need to spring into being overnight.
 
carolinajazz said:
......are you trying to tell me that ALL scientists, paleontologist's, biologist, etc NEVER say that what they have stated or surmise is "educated guess" work? How about "assume?" Do they use that word? How about "judicious speculation?" I can't speak for Watson, who may be a "creationist" (one who believes that each creative day was 24 literal hrs) but I am well versed on the subject of the animal kingdom and have no problem discussing the intricate design and amazing life forms of the hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of species of life on earth, each one having its own special story! Frankly, if anyone is embarrassing himself you might want to look into the mirror! You believe in a "theory" that, although accepted by millions even billions, has been proved or plausibly explained by NO ONE! "This is what happens over billions of years" IS NOT an explanation! If evolution happened......then tells us HOW it happened with "bee's and beehives" with "Woodpeckers" or with "the Archer fish!" Or how about an easy one.....the "Duck billed Platypus!" Here's a critter that lays eggs....then suckles it's young, like mammals! It looks part duck....part otter....part beaver! Yet, the platypus is fully developed, perfectly formed, and completely "adapted" to his environment! What kind of ridiculous picture would an evolutionist conjure up if a platypus had been discovered as a fossil form of life? So give us a "good scientific theory with a great deal of work and thinking behind it!" We're waiting!
Click to expand...

Scientists make all sorts of claims, say all sorts of things, they are individuals like you and not immune to biases, narrow mindedness, etc. BUT we were not talking about the personality of individual scientists but how science operates and what role 'theories' play in this process. Your statements clearly demonstrate you don't understand what a theory is, how they are derived, and what role they play in the scientific process. You are as unenlightened about science as you are about race. Again, really, you ought to shut up and quit making a fool of yourself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top