Well, you have made a number of comments that sounded like you were disparaging the work of evolutionary biologists. For example,
[In response to the statement that humans share a common ancestor with other primates]
From an earlier thread:
‘Why is it that every Evolutionist seems to have forgotten all they ever knew about physiology and / or Ecology?
I guess if you are desperate enough you will find your “Missing” pieces."’
So, could you clarify what you mean? These are bedrock conclusions of evolutionary biology:
All animals share a common ancestor.
The differences between animal species are the result of accumulated mutations since that common ancestor.
Do you think those conclusions are the result of sound scientific practice or not?
That can never be proven. It is the precept of Macro-Evolution and the goal.
Regardless of the methodology or genuine intent. All evolutionary investigations are geared to this result and as such show a clear bias as opposed to open-minded inquiry.
If this is an open criticism of the scientific method, so be it.
Thank you. Being critical of science because you don’t think it can arrive at the truth in some area and being critical of evolutionary biologists because you think they’re bad scientists are very different stances.
Science is not about proof. It is about what is reasonable to believe given the objective evidence – those written procedures which give the same result no matter what you want or believe. And so even though it is no more proven than your religious stuff, it nevertheless has epistemological superiority over your religious stuff because those written procedure provide a reasonable expectation that others should agree. But you are right in that people don’t have to be reasonable. They can believe the earth is flat and/or was created 6-10 thousand years ago, despite the evidence to the contrary… because there is no “proof.”
The familiar mantra of crackpots and pseudoscience.
ID is not taken seriously. it is treated as a Christian criticism to be dismissed or refuted.
Likewise irreducible systems.
“Gaps” are treated as an insult or a speculative objection. They are dismissed with the answer “time can do it”. There is no attempt to even consider why such an answer is unreasonable.
Any query about specific progressions is fobbed off with a couple of fossils that may show some sort of transition. There is never a full answer (even for ape to man)
The “conclusion” is biased. (Because you cannot conceive an alternative.)
Your last bastion is to claim that the argument is not scientific
(And/or the proposer is not qualified)
In miracles where he violates the laws of nature, they would be disrespectful. But why did he have to to create what we see today? Your incredulity is what is inferring miracles where they don’t belong.
I not only believe in miracles I I have both witnessed and performed them (by God’s power). This is not about my incredulity. It is about your view of God.
You did not tell me what you saw?
God is here? or God is nowhere?
I know which I believe. Your posts would indicate an opposite view.
Being open minded does not require biologists to start every day in a state of amnesia, just that they follow the evidence. Of course scientists inform their ongoing investigations with the state of established knowledge.
Tell me. Would the presence of feathers on the dinosaur fossils have been identified as such if they were not being actively looked for?
otherwise they would probably have been dismissed as stray blades of grass or some other erroneous intrusion. But they wanted to find feathers. And they found them.
That is incorrect…science is a tool from which intelligent minds make interpretations and develop theories explaining the data…it (science)does not do the interpreting.
That is why two individuals see the world differently…each has their own processing capabilities for the same information.
NASA says the following about science…“Science is curiosity in thoughtful action”
It is true that some people talk about evolution as if it were a sort of creator-god. Ironically, this misconception seems to come from how anti-evolutionists describe it, though it also comes from T.V. shows such as X-Men and Star Trek which both treat evolution as a process of inevitable ascent from microbes to super-intelligent energy beings that rule the universe. Although some people do attach religious or spiritual significance to biological evolution, including some Christians that believe in evolution like Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, the theory of evolution itself is simply an explanation for how organisms change over time. The theory of biological evolution is no more religious by itself than the theory of gravity. I should also point out that we do have evidence of macro-evolution. We cannot observe avian dinosaurs ( a.k.a., birds), for example, evolving out of non-avian dinosaurs directly. The process is just too slow, but evolution predicts that if they did, we would find transitional forms in the fossil record, which we do. That is what makes a theory scientific. It can be make predictions which can confirmed or disproven by evidence.
Data is evidence, and evidence is not neutral. It supports one position to the detriment of the other. In the face of incontrovertible evidence that the world is ancient, a conclusion of a young earth requires not creationist lenses, but creationist blinders.
There are claims of non-avian dinosaurs with feathers that I, for one, dispute…
And there is Archaeopteryx (and maybe a few similar)
But there is no creature covered in feathers without wings. (wings without feathers are not considered part of the progression)
And fossils cannot chart the progress of internal organs or mechanisms.
The data does not exist., so you assume. (but that is not a scientific word)
Bird systems are not irreducible inasmuch as you can build up any or all of them. But as a complete coherent system? That would be harder to demonstrate. (The structure of feathers aside)
I am sorry, but the claims of evolutionary evidence are exaggerated to the point of hyperbolism.
The most damming evidence is the lack of feathers in any modern reptile or affiliate. If feathers were ever an advantage outside flight then they would have persisted. (Ostriches etc are birds and considered evolved)
They have bird-style melanin preserved. They have the branching structure of feathers.
I did not set out to find specimens showing a complete intergradation through time between Pelycidion matthewsi and Pelycidion megalomastoma, but I did. Fossils of particular morphologies aren’t normally found because people decided to find them. Sometimes they will pick a field because of the potential for finding something in a gap, but there has to be good reason for it to go it the gap in question.
Microraptor, Zhenyuanlong, Sinornithosaurus, Velociraptor, etc. don’t have feathers? They have feather attachment points like those of modern birds and the structures surrounding their bodies (when preserved) have exactly the same branching pattern as bird feathers do. Also, this is tantamount to saying that systematic paleontologists are clueless about their research field and brainwashed to see what they are supposed to see.
They can, but they so rarely do that we can’t get much data from it.
The same way that Paraceratheriids couldn’t have had a build reminiscent of giraffes because no modern Perissodactls do? The same way that Rauisuchids couldn’t have been fully terrestrial because no modern crocodilians are? The same way that Santeevoluta couldn’t have had an enormous parietal shield like a Titanostrombus (probably a synonym of something like Aliger, but I haven’t worked much on strombidae) goliath because no modern volutids do? Just because something was once an advantage doesn’t mean it is now (like myriapods being 3 meters long–they wouldn’t be able to breathe these days). The niches once occupied by a members of a group may be occupied by others. Or a major extinction event could have wiped out all members of a group with a distinctive morphology that hasn’t reappeared there. Or a combination of the above.