Have fun reading!!!

Early Skeleton Evolution (http://news.aol.com/article/early-skeleton-evolution/490119?icid=main|main|dl1|link7|http%3A%2F%2Fnews. aol.com%2Farticle%2Fearly-skeleton-evolution%2F490119)

Looks "exactly" like the remains of the Prairie Dog I found out in my field last week, and I bet it's only about 47 days old. Hmmmmm...I should have taken a picture of it, then I could have had an unvieling right here in OKC.

If you don't understand something you need to go to the original source and do your research. Most movies, etc. are only made from that person's point of view. You can't depend on second hand information.

Looks "exactly" like the remains of the Prairie Dog I found out in my field last week, and I bet it's only about 47 days old. Hmmmmm...I should have taken a picture of it, then I could have had an unvieling right here in OKC.

Ah yes, you have completely discredited this information. Thank you for your informed and expert input.

Frankly, I am amazed at how they can say that lil critter is 47 million years old.

Shoot, I dunno. To me, it's the same as Astronomers venturing out into space with their telescopes searching for when and where the Universe began.

I am absolutely facinated and in complete awe by the pictures from Hubble.

But, I am just as facinated and in complete awe when a baby is born.

Just makes me appreciate The Creator that much more.

Frankly, I am amazed at how they can say that lil critter is 47 million years old.

Are you suggesting that the claim (of the age of the fossil) cannot be substantiated?

Are you suggesting that the claim (of the age of the fossil) cannot be
substantiated?

I'm not sure about Possumfritter, but I'm certain. The fossil record absolutely
and unequivocally knocks the "wishful thinking of evolution" out of the park.

As a scientist I can't accept evolution as a viable alternative to whatever.

I've said this before, I'm not an adherent of Intelligent Design. It's simply a
fact that the theory of evolution cannot be proven. That is an absolute fact.

I love absolutes, because I'm a scientist AND a physicist.

I'm not sure about Possumfritter, but I'm certain. The fossil record absolutely
and unequivocally knocks the "wishful thinking of evolution" out of the park.

As a scientist I can't accept evolution as a viable alternative to whatever.

I've said this before, I'm not an adherent of Intelligent Design. It's simply a
fact that the theory of evolution cannot be proven. That is an absolute fact.

I love absolutes, because I'm a scientist AND a physicist.

Who was talking about a fossil record?

There are thousands of biologists, physicists and such who would absolutely disagree with your assertion.

I find this thread to be a mirror of most threads that occur on the political board - the progressives side with prevailing science, fundamental conservatives side against.

When you transfer the idea of evolution over to business and economical systems you have a lively debate using many Darwinian words such "survival of the fittest" or "companies best suited to adapt survive."

In that case, one might call General Motors a dinosaur, being slow to adapt, wedded to the status quo, unwilling to change its systems.

It's only natural that those who lean hard right would reject evolution. To accept evolution means giving up some power and long held beliefs. This type of siding extends to almost any debate issue.

I'm not sure about Possumfritter, but I'm certain. The fossil record absolutely
and unequivocally knocks the "wishful thinking of evolution" out of the park.

As a scientist I can't accept evolution as a viable alternative to whatever.

I've said this before, I'm not an adherent of Intelligent Design. It's simply a
fact that the theory of evolution cannot be proven. That is an absolute fact.

I love absolutes, because I'm a scientist AND a physicist.

I love absolutes as well, while we are at it...

The Theory of Gravity cannot be proven, so it should not be polluting our children's minds.

The Theory of Relativity cannot be proven, so it also, should not be taught in schools.

I'm not sure about Possumfritter, but I'm certain. The fossil record absolutely
and unequivocally knocks the "wishful thinking of evolution" out of the park.

As a scientist I can't accept evolution as a viable alternative to whatever.

I've said this before, I'm not an adherent of Intelligent Design. It's simply a
fact that the theory of evolution cannot be proven. That is an absolute fact.

I love absolutes, because I'm a scientist AND a physicist.

Biological sciences deal with complex organic organisms, complex biochemical machines, and interactions with the environment that these organisms live in. Very rarely in other sciences do we deal with absolutes. Freud, Jung, and other psychologists made significant contributions to psychology yet their theories are not 'absolute'. Pharmaceutical sciences is not an 'exact' science but significant discoveries for human health are still made.

I love complexities, because I'm a scientist AND a biologist.

I find this thread to be a mirror of most threads that occur on the political
board - the progressives side with prevailing science, fundamental
conservatives side against.

This thing about being progressive is misleading. You can be driving north
on I-35 to Wichita, miss the turn off and continue progressing north on
I-35. You'll never reach Wichita until you come to the fact that progressing
north isn't the right thing to do.

This thing about being progressive is misleading. You can be driving north
on I-35 to Wichita, miss the turn off and continue progressing north on
I-35. You'll never reach Wichita until you come to the fact that progressing
north isn't the right thing to do.

That's not being progressive! That's staying the course! I'm already on it, so I'll keep going!

Progressing means changing your course in light of new information. I haven't changed my course since evidence suggests I'm on the right track. If I find evidence that disproves evolution, I'll change!

That's not being progressive! That's staying the course! I'm already on it, so I'll keep going!

Progressing means changing your course in light of new information. I haven't changed my course since evidence suggests I'm on the right track. If I find evidence that disproves evolution, I'll change!

NO! Science is absolutely about absolutes. No new information can be true because a retired science teacher declares it so.

I had a biology teacher in High School who taught us that Penthouse didn't excite him but he could still remember the flash of Blaze Starr's thigh he saw when he was in the Navy and the sight made him go, and I quote, "BOING!"

I'm certain that this was true and because it has been established that all high school science teachers are the arbiters of "de truth" that settles it.

NO! Science is absolutely about absolutes. No new information can be true because a retired science teacher declares it so.

I had a biology teacher in High School who taught us that Penthouse didn't excite him but he could still remember the flash of Blaze Starr's thigh he saw when he was in the Navy and the sight made him go, and I quote, "BOING!"

I'm certain that this was true and because it has been established that all high school science teachers are the arbiters of "de truth" that settles it.

Blaze Starr would make Huey long.

Sorry, couldn't resist. I don't know what happened to me. I used to wake up at the crack of Dawn....


but it pi$$ed off Tony Orlando

I find this thread to be a mirror of most threads that occur on the political board - the progressives side with prevailing science, fundamental conservatives side against.


I dont see that all. The side on the political board who fancies themselves as progressives are just as bound by dogma and fundamentalism as the conservatives. The "progressives" believe in their ideology no matter how wrong the evidence shows their beliefs to be.

The fundamental trait of liberalism, in it's traditional sense, is that no matter what stance you hold on any given issue you understand that your stance may change according to the available evidence. We do not see this trait in the modern liberal, those "progressives" on our political board included. Whether the topic is gun control, affirmative action, anthropogenic global warming, or matters of economics.... the stance of the board "progressives" adheres to strict dogmatic ideology, unflinching in the face of damning evidence.

The modern liberal is just as much a zealous religious fundamentalist as the right-leaning bible-thumper they continually deride for the same quality.

While we are on the topic, while observing this behavior from a largely neutral viewpoint, I have also noticed that the "progressives" are far more shrill and fanatical about their beliefs (however they are formed) on the political than the conservatives. The "progressives" are almost without fail the quicker to anger, become frustrated, jump to conclusions about other posters, and delve into insults and personal attacks when the facts of the debate do not support their position.

Wonderful explanation! Wonder how things get extinct? It works just as well for Ford, Chevy and Chrysler. Nobody has a problem with Henry Ford starting with the automobile.

I dont see that all. The side on the political board who fancies themselves as progressives are just as bound by dogma and fundamentalism as the conservatives. The "progressives" believe in their ideology no matter how wrong the evidence shows their beliefs to be.

The fundamental trait of liberalism, in it's traditional sense, is that no matter what stance you hold on any given issue you understand that your stance may change according to the available evidence. We do not see this trait in the modern liberal, those "progressives" on our political board included. Whether the topic is gun control, affirmative action, anthropogenic global warming, or matters of economics.... the stance of the board "progressives" adheres to strict dogmatic ideology, unflinching in the face of damning evidence.

The modern liberal is just as much a zealous religious fundamentalist as the right-leaning bible-thumper they continually deride for the same quality.

While we are on the topic, while observing this behavior from a largely neutral viewpoint, I have also noticed that the "progressives" are far more shrill and fanatical about their beliefs (however they are formed) on the political than the conservatives. The "progressives" are almost without fail the quicker to anger, become frustrated, jump to conclusions about other posters, and delve into insults and personal attacks when the facts of the debate do not support their position.

Thank you, Caboose. One reason why conservatives are more calm could be that you can't measure faith. There is the Security in the Believer which will only be measured when the end comes.

I dont see that all. The side on the political board who fancies themselves as progressives are just as bound by dogma and fundamentalism as the conservatives. The "progressives" believe in their ideology no matter how wrong the evidence shows their beliefs to be.

The fundamental trait of liberalism, in it's traditional sense, is that no matter what stance you hold on any given issue you understand that your stance may change according to the available evidence. We do not see this trait in the modern liberal, those "progressives" on our political board included. Whether the topic is gun control, affirmative action, anthropogenic global warming, or matters of economics.... the stance of the board "progressives" adheres to strict dogmatic ideology, unflinching in the face of damning evidence.

The modern liberal is just as much a zealous religious fundamentalist as the right-leaning bible-thumper they continually deride for the same quality.

While we are on the topic, while observing this behavior from a largely neutral viewpoint, I have also noticed that the "progressives" are far more shrill and fanatical about their beliefs (however they are formed) on the political than the conservatives. The "progressives" are almost without fail the quicker to anger, become frustrated, jump to conclusions about other posters, and delve into insults and personal attacks when the facts of the debate do not support their position.

Good comeback, I like that.

But really, do you consider HSC-Sooner to be shrill? He comes on this thread as a scientist and he freely admits to no absolutes, that evidence changes all the time and he is willing to accept these changes. And from time to time he explains how bio-science works and how conclusions are reached.

Compare that to Prune's posts which do represent a bit of logic but it's all circular. It comes down to "I believe what I believe because that is what I have always believed" and then he adds "no matter what evidence you present you can't shake my beliefs."

By the way, the definitions and the arguments of how servs and libs differ are always interesting. Years ago at Jokers Comedy Club I opened for Pat Paulsen, who ran for president every four years and had a fairly long, pretty funny routine on the differences between servs and libs.

Good comeback, I like that.

But really, do you consider HSC-Sooner to be shrill? He comes on this thread as a scientist and he freely admits to no absolutes, that evidence changes all the time and he is willing to accept these changes. And from time to time he explains how bio-science works and how conclusions are reached.

Compare that to Prune's posts which do represent a bit of logic but it's all circular. It comes down to "I believe what I believe because that is what I have always believed" and then he adds "no matter what evidence you present you can't shake my beliefs."

By the way, the definitions and the arguments of how servs and libs differ are always interesting. Years ago at Jokers Comedy Club I opened for Pat Paulsen, who ran for president every four years and had a fairly long, pretty funny routine on the differences between servs and libs.

I didn't mention any names. I am just talking about in general.

If you take the topic of evolution the science is firmly on the side of those you are identifying as the progressives. I think it is because of that fact that the discussions remain largely civil. A conservative posts why he thinks it is wrong or questions it, and the "progressives", with science on their side, calmly and rationally explains why the serv is incorrect...in a college professor sort of way.

Contrast that to discussions on say... anthropogenic global warming. Here the science is not on the side of the "progressives". When a conservative posts why he thinks they or wrong, or a rather neutral party expresses skepticism... oh damn.. watch the vitriol from the "progressives" boil over. The "progressive" has already made up his mind, by Gaea, and no amount of science is going to change it. Not only that, anyone who questions the authority of the fictional consensus is a shill for big oil or a stupid redneck.

Pay close attention to the tone of debate by the "progressives" when the science (or evidence) is on their side, and when it isn't. In the latter the "progressives" revert into the very thing the deride the conservatives for being - religious fundies relying on circular logic to defend their belief in something that is not supported by the evidence.

Neither side has a monopoly on the truth. Both resort to circular logic when their views conflict with reality. The only difference I see is that the "progressives" become far more hateful and intolerant when doing so.

I guess in short, on THIS issue (evolution) the "progressives" do have the science/evidence on their side, as you pointed out, while the conservatives blindly oppose science/evidence. But you attempted to project that as a truth that extends to all other topics as well. That is simply not true. There are countless matters in which the science/evidence is on the sides of the conservatives, while the "progressives" blindly oppose it due to their dogmatic ideology.

Compare that to Prune's posts which do represent a bit of logic but it's all
circular. It comes down to "I believe what I believe because that is what I
have always believed" and then he adds "no matter what evidence you
present you can't shake my beliefs."

I guess my being a former science teacher doesn't get to come into play
because I disagree with someone you agree with. As far as the rest of
your post, you are absolutely wrong. I base my decisions on facts.

Nobody on this forum has shown any proof of evolution from species to
species. Zip. Nada. Zero.

I guess my being a former science teacher doesn't get to come into play
because I disagree with someone you agree with. As far as the rest of
your post, you are absolutely wrong. I base my decisions on facts.

Nobody on this forum has shown any proof of evolution from species to
species. Zip. Nada. Zero.

What is the proven theory of life origins that you believe in?

What is the proven theory of life origins that you believe in?

???

That evolution hasn't been proven. Every species is of it's own.

???

That evolution hasn't been proven. Every species is of it's own.

Do you really have no idea what a Scientific theory is?

As I said before, Gravity is an unproven theory, relativity is a theory. None of them have been proven, there is a great deal of evidence for them, but none of them have been /proven/ as you love to point out about the theory of Evolution.

By your very own logic, since they aren't proven, shall we not teach them in school?

???

That evolution hasn't been proven. Every species is of it's own.

You have proof that every species is "of it's own"?

As I said before, Gravity is an unproven theory, relativity is a theory. None of
them have been proven, there is a great deal of evidence for them, but none
of them have been /proven/ as you love to point out about the theory of
Evolution.


The operative words are "as I said before". You're wrong on both
accounts.

Gravity is proven everyday. Throw something up and it comes down. Step
on a scales. This and Einstein's theory of the speed of gravity has been
proven using the theory of Relativity.

The Theory of Relativity has been proven by scientists at the Centre for
Theoretical Physics in France. It was also published in the journal Science
on November 20, 2008.

Welcome to the 21st Century and thank you for making my point.

Perhaps you should subscribe to some science journals instead of relying
upon the Internet rumor mill.

Of course there is gravity! How stupid can a person be to say it's not proven?!

The operative words are "as I said before". You're wrong on both
accounts.

Gravity is proven everyday. Throw something up and it comes down. Step
on a scales. This and Einstein's theory of the speed of gravity has been
proven using the theory of Relativity.

The Theory of Relativity has been proven by scientists at the Centre for
Theoretical Physics in France. It was also published in the journal Science
on November 20, 2008.

Welcome to the 21st Century and thank you for making my point.

Perhaps you should subscribe to some science journals instead of relying
upon the Internet rumor mill.

This is completely false, Throw something up and it comes down, that is call demonstrating gravity. Not proving it.

The Centre for Theoretical Physics in France once more, demonstrates Relativity, not proves it.

Through history, both of these theories have been revised over and over again. That is what a scientific Theory is, by definition, they are unproven. In order to prove something, you must prove that no other theory could possibly be true. We all understand that when I drop something, it falls. But to prove /why/ it works is different then demonstrating it working.

The operative words are "as I said before". You're wrong on both
accounts.

Gravity is proven everyday. Throw something up and it comes down. Step
on a scales. This and Einstein's theory of the speed of gravity has been
proven using the theory of Relativity.

The Theory of Relativity has been proven by scientists at the Centre for
Theoretical Physics in France. It was also published in the journal Science
on November 20, 2008.

Welcome to the 21st Century and thank you for making my point.

Perhaps you should subscribe to some science journals instead of relying
upon the Internet rumor mill.

You can say everyday that the theory of evolution is "proven". Bacteria evolve with antibiotic resistance. New strains of influenza appear each year. We breed new crop plants or domesticate new animals. It's the same as the theory of gravity or theory of relativity. I'm sure that humans, over time, will observe gradual changes in species around us.

Each time someone measures gravity by throwing an object and recording the results, you're adding a data point. It's a single data point that supports the millions if not billions of data points used to argue for the theory of gravity. However, despite billions or trillions of data points...it's still just a theory.

There is no threshold for science to prove that a theory is a law. The same works for evolution. We can measure genetic change, we can catalog millions of species, sequence thousands of species, dig up fossils, etc. But no matter what, we can't outright say "evolution is LAW". It's a theory that's testable and so far withstood many experiments. And you have to remember in science, theories are one of the most highly regarded system of rigorous testing.

Theories in science when applied to normal life are practically laws.

quote: There is no 'proof' or absolute 'truth' in science. The closest we get are facts, which are indisputable observations. Note, however, if you define proof as arriving at a logical conclusion, based on the evidence, then there is 'proof' in science. I work under the definition that to prove something implies it can never be wrong, which is different. If you're asked to define hypothesis, theory, and law, keep in mind the definitions of proof and of these words can vary slightly depending on the scientific discipline. What is important is to realize they don't all mean the same thing and cannot be used interchangeably.

Welcome to the 21st Century and thank you for making my point.

Perhaps you should subscribe to some science journals instead of relying
upon the Internet rumor mill.

If you're referring to the research journal Science, there are thousands of articles published in that journal on the veracity of evolution.

Science/AAAS | Science Magazine: Sign In (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/323/5915/737)

Science/AAAS | Science Magazine: Sign In (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/323/5915/746)

Also, I found a very interesting article in Science that you may want to read, Prunepicker. It's called Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science

Abstract:

Resistance to certain scientific ideas derives in large part from assumptions and biases that can be demonstrated experimentally in young children and that may persist into adulthood. In particular, both adults and children resist acquiring scientific information that clashes with common-sense intuitions about the physical and psychological domains. Additionally, when learning information from other people, both adults and children are sensitive to the trustworthiness of the source of that information. Resistance to science, then, is particularly exaggerated in societies where nonscientific ideologies have the advantages of being both grounded in common sense and transmitted by trustworthy sources.

Science/AAAS | Science Magazine: Sign In (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/316/5827/996)

Oh yeah, I guess you should register or sign in if you want to read the articles. I believe registration is free. I'm on a university network so I'm automatically signed in.

I didn't mention any names. I am just talking about in general.

If you take the topic of evolution the science is firmly on the side of those you are identifying as the progressives. I think it is because of that fact that the discussions remain largely civil. A conservative posts why he thinks it is wrong or questions it, and the "progressives", with science on their side, calmly and rationally explains why the serv is incorrect...in a college professor sort of way.

Contrast that to discussions on say... anthropogenic global warming. Here the science is not on the side of the "progressives". When a conservative posts why he thinks they or wrong, or a rather neutral party expresses skepticism... oh damn.. watch the vitriol from the "progressives" boil over. The "progressive" has already made up his mind, by Gaea, and no amount of science is going to change it. Not only that, anyone who questions the authority of the fictional consensus is a shill for big oil or a stupid redneck.

Pay close attention to the tone of debate by the "progressives" when the science (or evidence) is on their side, and when it isn't. In the latter the "progressives" revert into the very thing the deride the conservatives for being - religious fundies relying on circular logic to defend their belief in something that is not supported by the evidence.

Neither side has a monopoly on the truth. Both resort to circular logic when their views conflict with reality. The only difference I see is that the "progressives" become far more hateful and intolerant when doing so.

I guess in short, on THIS issue (evolution) the "progressives" do have the science/evidence on their side, as you pointed out, while the conservatives blindly oppose science/evidence. But you attempted to project that as a truth that extends to all other topics as well. That is simply not true. There are countless matters in which the science/evidence is on the sides of the conservatives, while the "progressives" blindly oppose it due to their dogmatic ideology.

I will concede your point and pretty much everything mentioned in the highlighted section. I'd like to hear more about the "countless matters" where the science stacks up on the sides of the conservatives... and I'm saying this with an open mind. Perhaps it should be in a different thread, maybe on the political board.

I checked on Prunes education. He graduated college in 1913. That explains a LOT to me. :Smiley247 :Smiley259

The Centre for Theoretical Physics in France once more, demonstrates
Relativity, not proves it.

You don't know what you're talking about. Come back when you graduate
6th grade.

Good grief.

If you're referring to the research journal Science, there are thousands of articles published in that journal on the veracity of evolution.

Science/AAAS | Science Magazine: Sign In (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/323/5915/737)

Science/AAAS | Science Magazine: Sign In (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/323/5915/746)

Also, I found a very interesting article in Science that you may want to read, Prunepicker. It's called Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science

Abstract:

Resistance to certain scientific ideas derives in large part from assumptions and biases that can be demonstrated experimentally in young children and that may persist into adulthood. In particular, both adults and children resist acquiring scientific information that clashes with common-sense intuitions about the physical and psychological domains. Additionally, when learning information from other people, both adults and children are sensitive to the trustworthiness of the source of that information. Resistance to science, then, is particularly exaggerated in societies where nonscientific ideologies have the advantages of being both grounded in common sense and transmitted by trustworthy sources.

Science/AAAS | Science Magazine: Sign In (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/316/5827/996)

Oh yeah, I guess you should register or sign in if you want to read the articles. I believe registration is free. I'm on a university network so I'm automatically signed in.

HSC,

If you want us to read these articles you may have to download and link it up. As they are, you must either be a Science magazine subscriber or pay a $ 15 per article fee.

If you're referring to the research journal Science, there are thousands of
articles published in that journal on the veracity of evolution.

Veracity in that they came to some idea, but not of a species evolving into
another species. They are articles which have huge gaps, especially when
it comes to changing into a different species. Extrapolation must be used
to come to a conclusion. While this is a method of science, while awaiting
further evidence to fill the gaps, it only guesses what happened.

When I see evidence of a species evolving into another species THEN and
only then will I accept evolution.

Evolution is not adapting. Evolution is evolving into something completely
different, i.e. lizards becoming birds, etc...

If you answered this, Prune, I missed it. But somewhere back there somene asked....I don't remember exactly how he worded it, but basically: Where do you believe all these distinct species came from?

It's simply a
fact that the theory of evolution cannot be proven. That is an absolute fact.


So, on what basis can you make such a claim? How do you know that evolution cannot be "proven?" Evolution has yet to be proven wrong and as a purported scientist, you should understand that theories are supported by evidence or proven incorrect by evidence to the contrary. Do you have some evidence that you'd like to present which negates evolution? Because from your earlier posts, it seems that all you can claim against evolution is a lack of evidence--which, I suppose, you're entitled to do. (Though, as a physicist and a chemist myself, I must question your ability to make sound judgments on the adequacy of current evidence to support the theory.)

Nevertheless, a lack of evidence is NOT grounds to claim that "evolution is a farce" or that "there's no way evolution could ever be proven." Before you bother responding with another one of your generic and vague statements that simply reek of horrible misunderstanding of evolution in general (e.g, buying into the false dichotomy of "micro" and "macro" evolution), let me give you a little hint: rehashing sayings like


As far as I'm concerned the fossil record holds the absolute fact that
incremental mutations, which must take place, have not, and I dare say will
not be found.

and


If I've said it once I've said it a million times. IF
there is evolution from chimpanzees and humans then there will be a fossil
record.

doesn't cut it because as I pointed out above, you're citing a lack of evidence rather than proof to the contrary. Also, I couldn't help but notice that


Extrapolation must be used
to come to a conclusion. While this is a method of science, while awaiting
further evidence to fill the gaps, it only guesses what happened.

contradicts nicely with your earlier statement of


they're adding to the information with "fill in the blank" extrapolation. That's not scientific.

So, Prunepicker, I ask: what is science to you? Theories that don't conflict with your religious views? Finally--don't dodge my question--how can you possibly say, particularly in light of your hysterical reference to "absolutes," that evolution can NEVER be "proven?"

As a side note, it's quite humorous how you've oh-but-so-casually pointed to your "optical physics" background and former employment as a science teacher (quote: "don't you know I'm a former science teacher?") as if to validate your credibility--yet, you have repeatedly demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works, and I'm not the first to point it out. Perhaps this is a side effect of your opposition to evolution being rooted in religion, not science (noting your blog, here).

Bottom line: you have no idea what you're talking about, and it shows in each and every one of your posts. With the remarkable idiocy you've demonstrated in this thread, and the kind of posts you make in other areas of this forum (cf. the political section: you're like a broken record about how "BO stinks"), it pains me to hear you've had the responsibility of teaching others about science.

Prune, even if you deny it, I'll bet you are a fan of Harold Slusher. You deny Creationism because it is just way cooler to claim otherwise. You mentioned Ridgecrest on another thread... that's a clue. Really..it is OK to be a Creationist. Being a musician makes you cool enough... you don't need to be a physicist, too. Don't hog all the good stuff.

No. I'm saying that evolution has yet to be proven. Intelligent design has
more going for it than evolution, i.e, there isn't any proof of one speicies
evolving into another. Not that it's right, it's just that evolution hasn't been
proven and ID has more going for it. I'm not giving an answer to anything. I
simply don't have a reason to believe that evolution has ever happened or
is happening.

Michael Behe. (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2230)

I accept his philosophy.

You keep saying your not a supporter of ID, your not a supporter of ID. Yet the only thing you have actually supported on this thread has been ID. If, as you say, you are not a supporter of ID, why do you support it? And if, as you say, you are not a supporter of ID, what do you suggest we teach in schools?

Do you have some evidence that you'd like to present
which negates evolution?

The fossil record. There isn't a single shred of evidence that shows a link
from species to species. I know that this overwhelming evidence must be
hard for you to take.

I noticed that you're a very angry person.

"because I'm a scientist AND a physicist"
This is going to be my new catchphrase.

The fossil record. There isn't a single shred of evidence that shows a link
from species to species.

It's remarkable, Prunepicker, how you can't seem to comprehend the concept that a lack of evidence doesn't prove a theory wrong. That's how science works, and with this reply I find it even more unfortunate that you've ever been deemed qualified to teach it to others.

So, I'll say it one more time for you—pay close attention: by citing a lack of evidence you're not proving evolution wrong. It's one thing to say "I don't accept evolution as a theory because I believe there's incomplete evidence." It's something entirely different to say "evolution is wrong, can never be 'proven,' and isn't scientific." Since you're ostensibly preaching the latter, I ask you, yet again--prove it! (I realize this is an exercise in futility, since you can't--so, just admit that you can't and refine your stance on evolution to what I have written above. I'm making it easy for you.)


I know that this overwhelming evidence must be
hard for you to take.

That isn't overwhelming evidence for anything, other than that you lack any sort of reading comprehension ability and that you can't seem to grasp the notion of theories and evidence in science. I note, here, your convenient oversight in addressing how you contradicted yourself above.


I noticed that you're a very angry person.

You'll have to excuse my low tolerance for utter stupidity, compounded by your multiple references to a questionable scientific and teaching background as leverage in your pathetically meager attempts to undermine evolution.

The fossil record. There isn't a single shred of evidence that shows a link
from species to species. I know that this overwhelming evidence must be
hard for you to take.

I noticed that you're a very angry person.

Prune. From your comments I find it hard to believe you have ever been a science teacher. You seem to not understand the fundamentals of how the Scientific Method works.

There's plenty of evidence for evolution now. There's evidence for it in genetic sequences, related morphology between similar species, and more fossil evidence in favor of evolution. Since you quoted the journal Science as your source for scientific literature, a quick search on PubMed Home (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/) in that journal for evolution will reveal many papers that supports evolution.

Here's another prominent journal on lizard evolution: Rapid large-scale evolutionary divergence in morphology and performance associated with exploitation of a different dietary resource ? PNAS (http://www.pnas.org/content/105/12/4792.abstract)

@ Stan Silliman: I don't know of a way to save those papers and upload them online. I can e-mail them to anyone if they request.

You'll have to excuse my low tolerance for utter stupidity, compounded by
your multiple references to a questionable scientific and teaching background
as leverage in your pathetically meager attempts to undermine evolution.


Funny, I had the same thoughts about you.

Now, get off of your high horse and show us where a species has evolved
into another species.

There's plenty of evidence for evolution now. There's evidence for it in
genetic sequences, related morphology between similar species, and more
fossil evidence in favor of evolution. Since you quoted the journal Science as
your source for scientific literature, a quick search on PubMed Home (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/) in that
journal for evolution will reveal many papers that supports evolution.

As for the fossil evidence in favor of evolution there is nothing that provides
a concrete link. There's this species and that species but, and this is my
argument with the theory, there is nothing in between. It reminds me of
Nebraska man.

Yes, there are 1,000's of links supporting evolution.

Funny, I had the same thoughts about you.

Ah, how cute! The obligatory "no, you're stupid" response. I'm disappointed that you're putting up such a meager fight--instead of countering my points, you're emphatically reinforcing them. How convenient!


Now, get off of your high horse and show us where a species has evolved into another species.

Now, now, little Prunepicker...don't turn this around on me. I've asked you to show me something first, remember? I'm not going to restate it, so re-read post #222 (carefully, now!) and respond to my statement. Can you do that for me? C'mon, Prune, it's your chance to show OKCTalk that indeed, you are capable of basic reading comprehension skills! (As if it were any question, there's absolutely no chance you'll redeem yourself as a scientist on this forum, but this would be a small step in the right direction.)

Also, even though I'm playing in the muck with you now, I'm afraid relative to you, I'll always be on a high horse. Sorry, Prune.

Ah, how cute!

I read you post very carefully the first time. It's very clear that you don't
have anything. I understand. Nobody else does either. Everything you said
was the classic cop out.

I guess we'll just have to accept the fact that all you can do is demean and
belittle. You seem to be incapable of anything else.

If you answered this, Prune, I missed it. But somewhere back there somene asked....I don't remember exactly how he worded it, but basically: Where do you believe all these distinct species came from? Prune, please consider answering this.

Veracity in that they came to some idea, but not of a species evolving into
another species. They are articles which have huge gaps, especially when
it comes to changing into a different species. Extrapolation must be used
to come to a conclusion. While this is a method of science, while awaiting
further evidence to fill the gaps, it only guesses what happened.

When I see evidence of a species evolving into another species THEN and
only then will I accept evolution.

Evolution is not adapting. Evolution is evolving into something completely
different, i.e. lizards becoming birds, etc...

You've set a standard that may not be observable, asking for proof one distinct specie evolve into another, i.e. lizards into birds.

By that I take it you accept that one form of mammal can evolve into a similar but distinct other form of mammal. In other words wolves into dogs or apes into neanderthals, neanderthals into early humans, etc.

As far as a rodent forming into a bird, somewhere along the way bats sprung up. Was this by adaptation or was it sex between rats and birds?

[/B]

You've set a standard that may not be observable, asking for proof one distinct specie evolve into another, i.e. lizards into birds.

By that I take it you accept that one form of mammal can evolve into a similar but distinct other form of mammal. In other words wolves into dogs or apes into neanderthals, neanderthals into early humans, etc.

As far as a rodent forming into a bird, somewhere along the way bats sprung up. Was this by adaptation or was it sex between rats and birds?

No, no, no. Bats don't form from sex between rats and birds...either that or I missed the sarcasm.

Lizards won't turn into birds magically. The human system of classifying a group of animals as birds and another groups of animals as reptiles is all arbitrary if you think about it. ALL living things on this earth are related to each other somehow as we ALL share common ancestors.

Others share a more recent ancestor thus they share a lot of similar traits. So humans, since we like an ordered classification system, will group those similar trait organisms and call them the reptiles. Another group of animals with shared similar traits will be grouped in another system, birds. But no matter how you look at it, the definition of species is hard to classify scientifically.

Just like how planets are hard to classify (Pluto?). We can define the species limit as organisms that can't breed with each other but what about horses and donkeys? Or a female St. Bernard and a male chihuahua? So far, genetics have been the most solid system for classification of species. But there's still room for debate on what percentage similarity is needed to classify what's a species and what's not. A 1-5% difference seems to be general idea now.

What generates these genetic differences? Mutations and alleles (varying copies of the same gene). Did you know the average human contains 50-100 mutations? Most of these mutations are benign and are not visible (though some may manifest themselves as cancerous lesions). Your child will inherit you and your partner's mutations and have different ones themselves. Your child will also inherit you and your partner's alleles --> brown eyes? auburn hair? dark skin? etc.

These mutations and alleles can be sequenced with today's genetic laboratories. You can track alleles and mutations passed down from generation to generation. You can probably see physical characteristics of yourself in your parents and less so in your grandparents...and you lose similarity as you trace back your ancestors. You can trace the genetic characteristics as you go through your ancestral genetic sequences.

It's feasible to think that if you trace back thousands and thousands of ancestors, you'll find that you will resemble them less and less. It's all 'gradual' and you may find ancestors you may not even call human as you trace through millions of generation. The genetic sequences will also show these differences. The problem with this scenario is that we don't have everyone's genetic profile nor do we have all of our ancestors' genetic profiles. Plus this timescale will be on the order of thousands if not millions of years. Humans take many years to reach reproductive age to have offspring.

However, we can see this process dramatically increased in organisms that may only take 20 MINUTES to double. And we can sequence them too! Bacteria provide a prime model to show evolution on a scale that humans can observe. We see the rise of antibiotic resistant strains and the rise of bacteria that eat plastic and nylon (both are modern inventions).

'Species' arise all the time. If there is a niche or food source in the environment that has not been colonized, something will probably evolve to take advantage of it. They gain a food source and they reduce their competition, thus that population will be in an advantageous position. As long as this population stays isolated, enough genetic mutations and alleles will be concentrated and we will see genetic differences between this population and the parental population. Humans then come in, note the genetic differences, arbitrarily apply the different species label, and we call it a good day.

[/b]
You've set a standard that may not be observable, asking for proof one
distinct specie evolve into another, i.e. lizards into birds.

By that I take it you accept that one form of mammal can evolve into a
similar but distinct other form of mammal. In other words wolves into dogs
or apes into neanderthals, neanderthals into early humans, etc.

As far as a rodent forming into a bird, somewhere along the way bats
sprung up. Was this by adaptation or was it sex between rats and birds?


It should be clearly observable. Transitional forms should be as common as
separate and distinct forms if they truly evolved. There are zoologists
trying to conclude that lizards evolved into birds because they have some
similar attributes.

Dogs and wolves can reproduce. Chimps and humans can't. Rat's and birds
can't reproduce.

It should be clearly observable. Transitional forms should be as common as
separate and distinct forms if they truly evolved. There are zoologists
trying to conclude that lizards evolved into birds because they have some
similar attributes.

Dogs and wolves can reproduce. Chimps and humans can't. Rat's and birds
can't reproduce.

Lions and Tigers can reproduce, Chihuahua's and Great Dane's cannot.
Donkeys and Horses can reproduce, House cats and Bengal Cats can reproduce...

You claim there are no transitional forms, but that is just your opinion. If we were to find a fossil of a Chihuahua and a wolf, they would be called different species. But because we can see them alive and run DNA tests on them, we call them the same species.

Just because you don't want them to be fossils of transitional species, doesn't mean they aren't.

If you answered this, Prune, I missed it. But somewhere back there somene asked....I don't remember exactly how he worded it, but basically: Where do you believe all these distinct species came from?


Prune, please consider answering this.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess the response is the ultimate cop-out of "God"

I imagine that's the case, my good Lord.

It should be clearly observable. Transitional forms should be as common as
separate and distinct forms if they truly evolved. There are zoologists
trying to conclude that lizards evolved into birds because they have some
similar attributes.

Dogs and wolves can reproduce. Chimps and humans can't. Rat's and birds
can't reproduce.

Prune, you have a pretty poor understanding of how evolution works.

You still haven't answered my question. You don't "believe in" evolution because you don't have proof of it. So what is is the theory of life origin that you do believe in, presumably because you have proof of it?

There are a lot of misunderstandings when it comes to how natural selection works and how it fits in evolution. I found a great illustration that details the correct and incorrect way of viewing natural selection. You don't have to read the chunk of text that accompanies the picture but the diagram is easy enough to understand:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/upload/2009/06/sel_models.jpeg


A highly simplified depiction of natural selection (Correct) and a generalized illustration of various common misconceptions about the mechanism (Incorrect). Properly understood, natural selection occurs as follows: (A) A population of organisms exhibits variation in a particular trait that is relevant to survival in a given environment. In this diagram, darker coloration happens to be beneficial, but in another environment, the opposite could be true. As a result of their traits, not all individuals in Generation 1 survive equally well, meaning that only a non-random subsample ultimately will succeed in reproducing and passing on their traits (B). Note that no individual organisms in Generation 1 change, rather the proportion of individuals with different traits changes in the population. The individuals who survive from Generation 1 reproduce to produce Generation 2. (C) Because the trait in question is heritable, this second generation will (mostly) resemble the parent generation. However, mutations have also occurred, which are undirected (i.e., they occur at random in terms of the consequences of changing traits), leading to both lighter and darker offspring in Generation 2 as compared to their parents in Generation 1. In this environment, lighter mutants are less successful and darker mutants are more successful than the parental average. Once again, there is non-random survival among individuals in the population, with darker traits becoming disproportionately common due to the death of lighter individuals (D). This subset of Generation 2 proceeds to reproduce. Again, the traits of the survivors are passed on, but there is also undirected mutation leading to both deleterious and beneficial differences among the offspring (E). (F) This process of undirected mutation and natural selection (non-random differences in survival and reproductive success) occurs over many generations, each time leading to a concentration of the most beneficial traits in the next generation. By Generation N, the population is composed almost entirely of very dark individuals. The population can now be said to have become adapted to the environment in which darker traits are the most successful. This contrasts with the intuitive notion of adaptation held by most students and non-biologists. In the most common version, populations are seen as uniform, with variation being at most an anomalous deviation from the norm (X). It is assumed that all members within a single generation change in response to pressures imposed by the environment (Y). When these individuals reproduce, they are thought to pass on their acquired traits. Moreover, any changes that do occur due to mutation are imagined to be exclusively in the direction of improvement (Z). Studies have revealed that it can be very difficult for non-experts to abandon this intuitive interpretation in favor of a scientifically valid understanding of the mechanism. Diagrams based in part on Bishop and Anderson.

Springer Link Scientific e-Journal: 10.1007/s12052-009-0128-1 (http://www.springerlink.com/content/2331741806807x22/fulltext.html)

I'm only here to correct misunderstandings. I'm not here to take away your faith, that's the other misconception that I would like people to understand. Biologists are there to understand nature through a scientific process...biologists are not pushing evolution through to dethrone God and faith. BAD misunderstanding! There may be some scientists who fight back against religion but that's due to the encroachment of creationism/intelligent design/young earth geology in schools where those 'theories' should not even have a place!

I read you post very carefully the first time.

Then why, after two subsequent posts, didn't you actually address my questions?


It's very clear that you don't have anything.

I'm not the one who purports to "have anything." You are the one who needs to back up what you said earlier, since you claim evolution can never be proven. Yeah, I'm still waiting on you to show that you actually "have something" there.


I understand.

No, you clearly don't.


Nobody else does either.

HSC Sooner has been more than generous in sharing his knowledge on the matter. I'd say he "has something," and frankly, it's been entertaining to read your generic and predictable responses to his posts.


Everything I said was the classic cop out.

Seems a much more accurate statement, no? (What on earth am I "copping out" of, anyway?)


I guess we'll just have to accept the fact that all you can do is demean and belittle. You seem to be incapable of anything else.

Where you're concerned, absolutely. What, you think you deserve a fair and truly scientific debate on the matter? When you literally brag about how you're a "scientist" and a "physicist," yet make irrational arguments against evolution and demonstrate complete misunderstanding of the scientific method, you deserve scolding, not discussion. This is only augmented by the fact you're arguing from a religious standpoint--yet won't acknowledge it--along with your displays of unprecedented bitterness in the political forum.

All that considered, I realize you are far too effective at making yourself look stupid for me to be of much use in this thread. I'll be glad to bow out now, since I'm sure you'll continue your parade of idiocy regardless of how many people call you out; indeed, you are the trademark lunatic.

Prune, you have a pretty poor understanding of how evolution works.

You still haven't answered my question. You don't "believe in" evolution
because you don't have proof of it. So what is is the theory of life origin
that you do believe in, presumably because you have proof of it?

No, I have a very clear and educated understanding of how evolution
works. However, I refuse, because of the lack of evidence, to sit in the
box, like so many do, and not think outside of it.

The origin is beside the point.

If I say Xortrox from planet Woton then you'll start another argument
about origins and avoid facing the the fact that the evidence of evolution
is vague and requires "artists" to fill in the blanks, i.e. here's a species and
there's a species and nothing to connect them. Let's make up the rest.

If I say God then you'll start another argument about origins and avoid
facing the fact that the evidence of evolution is vague and requires
"artists" to fill in the blanks, i.e. here's a species and there's a species and
nothing to connect them. Let's make up the rest.

No links? Here's one:

Ancestor of T rex found in China | Evolution Diary (http://evolutiondiary.com/2009/04/25/ancestor-of-t-rex-found-in-china/)


Ancestor of T rex found in China
April 25th, 2009 · No Comments
Fossils found in China may give clues to the evolution of Tyrannosaurus rex.

Uncovered near the city of Jiayuguan, the fossil finds come from a novel tyrannosaur dubbed Xiongguanlong baimoensis.

The fossils date from the middle of the Cretaceous period, and may be a “missing link”, tying the familiar big T rex to its much smaller ancestors.

The fossils show early signs of the features that became pronounced with later tyrannosaurs.

Paleontological knowledge about the family of dinosaurs known as tyrannosaurs is based around two distinct groups of fossils from different parts of the Cretaceous period, which ran from approximately 145 to 65 million years ago.

One group dates from an early part of the period, the Barremian, and the other is from tens of millions of years later.

Physical form

Before now it has been hard for palaeontologists to trace the lineage from one group to the other.

“We’ve got a 40-50 million year gap in which we have very little fossil record,” said Peter Makovicky, associate curator at the Field Museum in Chicago, who helped to lead the US/Chinese team that uncovered the fossil.

But, he said, X baimoensis was a “nice link” between those two groups.

“We’re filling in that part of the fossil record,” he said.

Writing in the Royal Society’s journal Proceedings B, Dr Makovicky and colleagues suggest that X baimoensis is a “phylogenetic, morphological, and temporal link” between the two distinct groups of tyrannosaurs.

The fossil has some hallmarks of large tyrannosaurs such as a boxy skull, reinforced temple bones to support large jaw muscles, modified front nipping teeth and a stronger spine to support a large head.

But it also shows features absent from older tyrannosaurs, such as a long thin snout.

An adult would have stood about 1.5m tall at the hip and weighed about 270kg. By contrast, an adult T rex was about 4m tall at the hip and weighed more than 5 tonnes.

Wider net

The same edition of Proceedings B features papers about two other sets of dinosaur fossils.

One discovery was made in China by many of the palaeontologists who found the tyrannosaur. The samples found in the Yujingzi Basin came from a dinosaur that resembled the modern ostrich.

While many of these ornithomimosaurs have been found before, analysis of the bones of the new species, dubbed Beishanlong grandis, suggest it was one of the biggest.

The specimen found by the palaeontologists was thought to be 6m tall and weigh about 626kg.

Alongside in Proceedings B was work on the remains of a duck-billed dinosaur found in Uzbekistan called Levnesovia transoxiana.

Analysis of the fossils, by Hans-Dieter Sues of the Smithsonian in Washington and Alexander Averianov of the Russian Academy of Sciences, may shed light on the waves of expansion hadrosaurs undertook during the late Cretaceous.