The paths further back have been proposed (notice I didn’t say proved) but again you just don’t accept it.
Which are really God of the Shrinking Gaps arguments.
Then you are arguing metaphysics and not science.
Of course, it isn’t a scientific argument.
Whale forelimbs still exhibit the bone structure typical of mammalian tetrapods. Most of the bones should be familiar from basic first aid.
Your dispute seems to be based on your own incredulity, and little else.
You can say it all you want, but it isn’t true.
Why?
Then you haven’t looked at a single peer reviewed paper on DNA functionality in the last 40 years. One of the most used tools for discovering function in DNA is sequence conservation, and that tool is based on evolution.
And science rules KO?
Used to be religion but people caught on that they weren’t telling the whole truth. Eventually science will get the same
Richard
Well actually there are rules the define the scientific method so those rules do KO your argument by analogy. So it is science rules for the KO. (sorry for the pun)
Hoo boy. Here we get into the “Grades are useful” vs. “Clades are the only usable group” mess among taxonomists. Cladistically birds fall within Dinosauria, because some non-avian dinosaurs are closer to modern birds (e.g. Troodon) than others (e.g. Ornithimimus). However, if one defines “dinosaur” more like “something with diagnostic characters of Dinosauria, but not one capable of powered flight, or descended from something capable of powered flight”, then modern birds are not dinosaurs, and “dinosaur” refers to a grade. Grades may be quite useful, especially for paleontology, when in some cases the group wasn’t yet a grade.
Bacteria were very successful earlier on, and still are. Do they have advanced mental abilities? It would seem that dominance does not necessarily indicate intelligence.
More generally, “Why has __ not happened” tends not to be very scientifically informative, unless our models expect it to have happened (e.g. matter-antimatter cancellation). If that it hasn’t is known, we can work with that. Why is frequently all but impossible to answer scientifically in any ultimate way.
I’m trying to get my head around the idea that theoretical physicists and theoretical biologists aren’t used to thinking abstractly… Nope, can’t do it.
As defined by Richard thinking abstractly = reasoning by analog. Got to get your definitions straight.
You haven’t seen the 6 Jurassic Park movies?
So I’ve gathered.
I haven’t seen all 6 but wasn’t the Velociraptor an invention for the story?
(that was the joke in Vicar of Dibley)
I had heard that someone had found a fossil of one and couldn’t believe it.
Richard
If they exist I have never had a discourse with one. Perhaps they don’t exist?
Or perhaps they don’t use analogies.
Whatever. In all my time discussing Evolution with scientific minds I have never met one who could follow an analogy. And that includes here.
That is my empirical evidence for the theory I propose.
Richard
Nothing else. Unfortunately in good company. The roadside of science is littered with incredulous wrecks, like Hoyle, Dyson, Polkinghorne, Davies, Margulis (a mere contrarian and most relevant). As is the verge of philosophy. Flew’s octogenarian epiphany. Platinga and the egregious Craig go progressively more off road. Off a cliff in the latter case.
No it is a real thing. Not from the Jurassic but the Late Cretaceous.
Velociraptor was substantially smaller, and less scaly, and less able to turn doorknobs, than depicted. It was actually closer to the size of a large male wild turkey, with more neck and tail. Also, it lived during the Campanian, Djadochta Formation - Wikipedia.
I used to scare the… liver out of the kids by hopping up on to the sofa arm and hissing with clawed arms.
It was also covered in feathers. But Hollywood…
Your mistake lies in believing that when you’re reasoning by analogy you’re reasoning abstractly. That’s not what analogies do. Analogies are useful for explaining concepts (including abstract ones) to those unfamiliar with them, particularly for those who are not comfortable reasoning about abstractions. (I use them for understanding things, but I tend to be pretty concrete in my thinking.) They can also be of some help in formulating hypotheses about how something unfamiliar might work. They’re just about useless, however, for actually establishing anything new, since you have to know how accurate the analogy is to know whether conclusions drawn from it are valid, and to do that you have to already understand the thing being analogized.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.
