Another theory that must be rejected by conservatives

[Pandora]

Better think again, and prepare for a very cold winter.

What do you mean about the cold? I have heard the same thing the other guy posted about the solar min being over and we are in for a solar max.

Why do you think it will be a cold winter?

 

[palerider]

No, they are interesting in the fact that it is a mammal that lays eggs, has a poison gland, has a bill instead of a mouth. Clearly a different species than other mammals/marsupials. Could it be evolution at work?

To say that it is evolution at work is to make an assumption based on a belief rather than any actual supporting evidence.

But, do not respond to the dinosaur that had feathers what ever you do.

I am not sure what response you think I should make. It is a fossil, but as best as I can tell, any assumptions about it are exactly that, assumptions and any belief that it represents anything more than an interesting fossil, is based on a belief in evolution, not any actual fact or hard evidence.

You gave no specific reference to your dinosaur, but I am assuming that you are talking about this one:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7736120/

The article presents the information as if it were known, supported fact. I did some further research on the animal and could find no hard data to support the claims made in the story. Perhaps you can point me in the right directon or answer a couple of questions yourself since you seem to be up on the discovery.

Can you describe to me the method by which it was factually determined who this dinosaur's ancestors were and who its decendent's were and are?

Can you describe the method by which it was determined that it is fact that its ancestors were meat eaters and that its decendents became vegetarians?

It is a rather large assumption to assume that all animals with flat teeth are vegetarians and all animals with sharp teeth are carnivores. The tendency may lean in that direction, but it is unscientific to make the assumption. Based on that sort of thinking, what do you suppose a paleontologist might make of a set of gorilla dentition? Based on that logic, the gorilla must be a fierce carnivore.

Since they can't say who the fossil's ancestors were, and who its decendents were, I might ask why they assume that it was evolving from a carnivore into a vegetarian rather than from a vegetarian into a carnivore? Based on the actual evidence, why might one direction be favored over the other?

If you are interested in fact, then the fact is that the story that arose from the fossil is just that. A story.

 

[palerider]

We have posted no evidence at all that you accept, that is true. Now, what evidence is there that your idea is correct?

I never claimed my "ideas" were correct. In fact, I clearly stated that my ideas were nothing more than that, ideas. Interesting that both you and your pal have simply assumed that I am arguing from a position of personal belief even though you have no idea what my personal beliefs are.

 

[palerider]

So you say.

Since you have no evidence to the contrary, I may say.

Every species is transitional. Every animal is transitory, as well, as it moves from place to place.

I used the word correctly. Why don't you just admit that you were mistaken. I gave you examples of the use of the word transitory from credible sources as applied to fossils. If you didn't notice, here they are again.

http://news.discovery.com/earth/punc...uff-works.html

CLIP: "That would help explain the lack of transitory fossil samples."

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&...sil"&f=false

CLIP:Moreover, there has not been discovered a single transitory fossil that is able to confirm an accurate or a proven transfer of a basic body structure by evolution from a lower species to a more advanced species

If you would like something a bit more scholarly, here, from American Antrhopologist:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/aa.1916.18.4.02a00200/abstract

As to every species being transitional. Prove it. Dr. Patterson of the British Museum of Natural History disagrees with you. Can you provide any evidence that proves him wrong when he says:

’I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.
Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History

 

[palerider]

What do you mean about the cold? I have heard the same thing the other guy posted about the solar min being over and we are in for a solar max.

Why do you think it will be a cold winter?

The other guy only reads what he believes will support his position which is political rather than scientific. Myself, I read everything and weigh one against the other. When solar physicists are warning that we are heading for a cooling period and climate scientists say we are heading for warming, I tend to put more creedence in the solar physicists as they have not been thoroughly discredited and found to be fabricating data in order to garner grant money.

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/09/say-goodbye-to-sunspots.html

http://wbztv.com/curious/solar.min.sunrise.2.979838.html

There is plenty of information out there pointing towards a rather long cooling period. One doesn't have to look too hard to find it. Since it doesn't fit the agenda though, one must actually look. It won't be thrust into your face like claims of warming or any claim that man is doing anything.

 

[orogenicman]

You are a member in good standing of the church of AGW. You clearly worhip at the altar and have a very strong faith.

The laws of thermodynamics call for more entropy, not less.

The second law only works in a closed system. As has been pointed out many times, the Earth is not a closed system. Now, you can't argue that it is a closed system to make a case against AGW and then make the opposite case against the theory of evolution. That would be dumb.

 

[orogenicman]

Shuck and jive. Bob and weave. And still no hard observed evidence to support your claim.

Yes there is, paleride. To say otherwise is rather dumb.

 

[orogenicman]

Actually, you have no idea what I believe. I have never stated what I believe. One more statement that you can not support. Thinking isn't your best thing, is it? It seems that you operate entirely on one assumption after another.

So now you are backpedalling on your ET seeds the Earth move? Why am I not surprised?

 

[orogenicman]

Once more, you simply assume that a trial can define what is and isn't. I quite a few athiests who don't buy evolution but have no problem with ID. More claims that you can't support. Do you ever make a claim that you can?

And you assume that it cannot. Read the transcript (if you dare). An do you insist on lying about what atheists believe? Does that help you to sleep better at night?

 

[orogenicman]

I showed you examples of the word transitory in use, and provided you a definition. Sorry your vocabulary is so limited.


And again, it is a nice story to tell yourself that every species is in transition, and every fossil is transitory, but alas, that simply isn't the case.

We're still waiting for you to show us how the word transitory is used in relation to fossils or even living species, as opposed to the word "transitional".

Every species has variation. Not all individuals are alike. In fact, most individuals show a range of variation. Over time, due to mutations and environmental changes, those variations can and do lead to new species. And so every species is transitional to another species. Human beings are transitional. You want them to be static, and I have to ask why that is. Species that don't adapt usually go extinct. Do you want humans to go extinct? Is this the underlying motivation for your denial? Or are you still covering up the fact that you lied about being a biochemist?

 

[orogenicman]

Better think again, and prepare for a very cold winter.

So you are going to deny the photograph that is presented clearly for all to see? What real scientist ignores the nose hanging straight off their face?

Here is today's photo of the sun taken by SOHO:

Oh look, it still has sunspots.

 

[orogenicman]

Actually, you have not posted even the first bit of evidence to support your claims but I suppose if your faith is strong enough, you can convince yourself that anything constitutes evidence.

 

[orogenicman]

I have to ask why you guys are showing the platypus? Are you trying to suggest that they are a transitory form between bird and mammal? Doesn't your theory say that birds evolved from reptiles? By your own theory, no "half bird half mammal" could represent an intermediate form no matter how transitional it looks.

The platypus is an example of a transitional species. If it were not, it wouldn't have ALL the features predicted for a transitional species by the theory of evolution. The platypus is an evolutionary offshoot that goes back to the time when mamals evolved from a common ancestor of reptiles and birds, because it has traits of all three. A more clear example you will not find, Mr. biochemist.

 

[orogenicman]

To say that it is evolution at work is to make an assumption based on a belief rather than any actual supporting evidence.



I am not sure what response you think I should make. It is a fossil, but as best as I can tell, any assumptions about it are exactly that, assumptions and any belief that it represents anything more than an interesting fossil, is based on a belief in evolution, not any actual fact or hard evidence.

You gave no specific reference to your dinosaur, but I am assuming that you are talking about this one:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7736120/

The article presents the information as if it were known, supported fact. I did some further research on the animal and could find no hard data to support the claims made in the story. Perhaps you can point me in the right directon or answer a couple of questions yourself since you seem to be up on the discovery.

Can you describe to me the method by which it was factually determined who this dinosaur's ancestors were and who its decendent's were and are?

Can you describe the method by which it was determined that it is fact that its ancestors were meat eaters and that its decendents became vegetarians?

It is a rather large assumption to assume that all animals with flat teeth are vegetarians and all animals with sharp teeth are carnivores. The tendency may lean in that direction, but it is unscientific to make the assumption. Based on that sort of thinking, what do you suppose a paleontologist might make of a set of gorilla dentition? Based on that logic, the gorilla must be a fierce carnivore.

Since they can't say who the fossil's ancestors were, and who its decendents were, I might ask why they assume that it was evolving from a carnivore into a vegetarian rather than from a vegetarian into a carnivore? Based on the actual evidence, why might one direction be favored over the other?

If you are interested in fact, then the fact is that the story that arose from the fossil is just that. A story.

You did research on this animal? You did no such thing. All you've done about is to present strawman arguments.

http://geology.utah.gov/utahgeo/dinofossil/falcarius/index.htm

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1096-3642.2009.00464.x/abstract

 

[orogenicman]

I never claimed my "ideas" were correct. In fact, I clearly stated that my ideas were nothing more than that, ideas. Interesting that both you and your pal have simply assumed that I am arguing from a position of personal belief even though you have no idea what my personal beliefs are.

Well, dude, it was your argument, was it not? It was what you proposed was "better" than the theory of evolution, which is the current paradigm. So where is your evidence, Mr. biochemist?