Give up with analogies. You have no idea.
Richard
Events in the past leave evidence in the present. Evolution is no different.
2 Likes
For someone who claims to understand Evolution you clearly do not understand the dynamics and mechanics involved.
Richard
What dynamics and mechanics are you talking about?
1 Like
Adam, a little bit of advice here. Scientific theories are not refuted by swear words. They are only refuted by contradictory evidence, reported and interpreted in strict accordance with the rules of accurate and honest weights and measurements.
Sure, if you feel that people are failing to grasp just how out of touch with reality the theory youâre challenging actually is, and if all else has failed, then a word of a four letter nature may help you to get your point across. But you do need to make sure that youâre backing up your assertions with evidence and sound reasoning anyway, and that youâre responding to what the theory actually says in reality and not your own garbled misunderstanding of it. Because otherwise youâll just end up sounding like Beavis and Butt Head.
1 Like
The scope of the process of change. What it can achieve. There is abaolutely no evidence to suggest that it can do anything more than modify. Yet you ae convinced it can speciateâŚ
And you appear to have no idea what speciation involves.
Birds from dinosaurs!
What is the average size of a dinosaur? What is the average size of a bird?
There was no need to produce a flying creature. Pteradactyle was more than adequate.
And feathers? Oh yes, they were originally for display!
Give me a break!
Richard
Perhaps some time we might discuss distibution. The other so called great apes are only found in Asia and Africa. Primitive humans were found in the Americas and, more significantly Australasia where Evolution forgot to develop placental mammals. The largest true mammal in Australia is a rodent, except for the Aborigines. And there are also native New Zealanders.
And, of course, the precious 2% difference in DNA masks the fact that it represents over 300 strands of DNA.
Richard
In terms of median size? Iâd guess (with huge margins of error) about 50 kg and 500 g respectively.
But pterosaurs donât work as well as a design in very cold or very densely forested environments, so there were open niches. And dense forests are the current best guess for the types of habitats that very early birds inhabited.
What about that is not reasonable?
Elongated scales that can be manipulated for display become lighter and more elongate, allowing for easier manipulation and more impressive displays; they continue shifting in form towards something vaguely feather-like. This extra surface area proves to promote a weak ability to glide in jumping between tree branches. Improved gliding ability is then selected for to increase ability to go between trees, and this continues to increase until partially-powered flight is possible, and eventually, fully-powered flight.
Thatâs what speciation is, modification of ancestral species.
Yes, birds are modified dinosaurs.
There were dinosaurs well below the average size. Also, birds are dinosaurs in the same way that humans are mammals.
Assertion without evidence. Bats and birds both exist side by side.
Thatâs it? Just flat denial?
You havenât presented a shred of evidence for anything you are claiming. It appears you are the one who doesnât understand the dynamics or mechanics of evolution. You just make empty assertions as if that is somehow convincing. On the other side of the coin, there are many transitional fossils between non-avian dinosaurs and birds such as Archaeopteryx, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, and Caudipteryx.
4 Likes
Temperature regulation isnât a thing?
1 Like
It is not the primary function of feathers. t is a convenient secondary effect at best. Birds could not fly without feathers regardless of whether bats can.
All have functioning wings, and a full coat of feathers. And are massive in comparison to most birds. You really are stretching to try and get a humming bird out of an Archaeopterix.
And that is the problem with TOE. it just ignores the sheer dynamics of change. âIt had millions of years!â Somethings are still impossible no matter how long you have.
And I shouldnât have to. You donât need proof to know that a brick will sink not float.
Some things are just plain implausible. And producing a sparrow from a dinosaur is one of them. Not only the sizes, but the bone structures, muscular and energy systems, not to mention feather again.
not modification. Completely rewriting from the base up.
I think not.
Richard
It is if you are a chick. The effectiveness of feathers is such that it is hard to beat for light weight and warmth, which is why down jackets are popular, especially with hikers. It also makes sense that feathers for warmth would develop first as these need not be as particular as specialized feathers for flight.
2 Likes
Given that speciation only requires modification of two populations in different directions, Iâm not sure of what fundamental difference there could be between modification and speciation.
But how do we know that the brick is made of something with a density greater than that of water until we weigh it and measure its volume?
Archaeopteryx has dinosaur features not found in any living bird, so how is it not transitional?
Also, I listed 4 species. Here is Sinosauropteryx.
Functioning wings?
WHAT DYNAMICS???
You proclaiming something is impossible is not dynamics. Itâs just a bare assertion. You need something more than âBecause I say soâ.
What complete rewrites? Show me a genome from a species that is a complete rewrite.
2 Likes
That is not the point. Evolution cannot build, or develop in terms of a goal or end product. A Feather is âdesignedâ for assisting flight. It is beyond unique in terms of structure and design. The fact that downey feathers make excellent insulation is a âhappy happenstanceâ. In terms of fluke, the chances of making one are about as good as a bunch of monkeys with typewriters producing Shakepeare.
I didnât realise you needed a partial abottomy to be an Evolutionary Scientist. It seems common sense and credulity are not allowed.
The whole point here is not whether âRichard say soâ but applying values that you would automatically use in any field of endeavourâŚ
London sprawls, there is no internal structure in terms of where anything is placed, as such you could say it evolved. However, if you look at Engliish ânew Townsâ lie Milton Keynes or the Center of New York with its 1st, 2nd and 3rd avenue etc, there can be no doubt that they were designed. You do not need the exact history. it is just obvious. Why canât you apply such logic to aspects of Nature? Water is just unbelievable. 2 gas molecules that form a liquid. that is the basis of all life: A fluke? And a feather runs a very close second. It is so perfect it could no possibly be the result of random change. Incredulity? Perhaps it is something you have forgotten or maybe never had.
It is your choice only to believe what you can see or prove. That colours everything and amounts to blinkers, because it denies you the wonder of the unknown or unbelievable/unprovable.
Richard
Because they are virtually never as neat and tidy as a grid layout townâ
There a lot of chaotic (random a la dice rolls or weather) variation is this gene, whereas if it were the result of direct design (as opposed to scientifically undetectable guidance), one would expect much more uniformity towards an optimal protein choice.
1 Like
Sure, but the means of an immediate utility such as warmth, can become the basis of a further utility such as flight.
Basel feathers are found on earlier terrestrial none avian dinosaurs as an end in themselves.
2 Likes
In science they arenât allowed. We have science for the very reason that human common sense and credulity are very fallible. We donât accept or reject theories based on common sense or credulity. We use EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE AND HYPOTHESIS TESTING.
Because anatomy is not a city. That should be obvious.
You chide others for using analogies, and yet here you are using analogies. Go figure.
Arguments based on incredulity are a logical fallacy. Perhaps you have never heard that?
What, like leprechauns and unicorns?
1 Like
No.
that is your choice, but you cannot enforce it.
Yes, I am skilled in them. it is part of my skill set for preaching. (If that is considered boasting, then so be it). But there is not only an art to them, there is also an underpinned understanding of what you are describing.
My criticism of proponents of ToE has always been that they lack a true understanding of the dynamics involved. And your query
just underlines it. It is as if we are not speaking the same language (another analogy)
I now how a petrol engine works but I am not a mechanic and have no idea how to fix one. It is the difference between a basic knowledge and understanding. (wisdom) I always liked the quote
Knowledge tells us a tomato is a fruit
Wisdom tells us not to put it in a fruit salad.
You understand the basic mechanics of Evolution, but you do not seem to understand the dynamics. And the fact that you do not (seem to) understand what I mean, is confirmation.
Richard
You are right. You are free to keep making all of the bare assertions you want.
However, if you want your ideas to be taken seriously by scientists then there needs to be some evidence behind them.
The only dynamics you have pointed to is your credulity. I donât see how that can be called âdynamicsâ. I also fail to see why any scientist needs to consider your credulity when constructing a theory. You are free to your opinions, but science needs more than opinions.
I understand it just fine. By âdynamicsâ you mean what you will or will not accept based on your intuition and little else.
1 Like