Sorry but I sort of conceded that one. I don’t particularly want to (theologically) but it is not a battle I think is worth fighting. I choose my differences claims for maximum effect not 2%.
In terms of the grand scheme of things the difference between apes and homo is minor and could be counted as evolutionary. But, before the ape? That becomes a little more interesting. Why havent other mammals been able to develop cognition in the same manner? If the Dinosaurs were so dominant why are they portrayed as basically dumb? Why is there not a reptile that is the equivalent in development as even an ape let alone a human?
And, of course there is the development of the mammal as a whole. Via monotremes and marsupials? I think you will find that itis only really the “invention” of the womb that this progession really shows. The basic metabolism is already mammalian. And limbs were supposed to have come from fish so the Duck Bill is a regression or diversion in that respect
The more you look into it, the less likely any sort of progression becomes. You get certain types which diversify but almost no idea of a path from further back. The Mudskipper is still a fish even if it pokes it’s nose out of the water from time to time. And then you have things like whales that, by evolution devolve from limbs back to fins? A repeat of the Ichtheosaur?
I hate the “God of the Gaps” and it has basically been dismissed but if you remove the ancestral kick completely and let God create basic types to diversify and Evolve?
Nah, it will never catch on in the scientific world at least.
(Smiles sweetly)
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.
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.
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
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
333
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.
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.
1 Like
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
336
I used to scare the… liver out of the kids by hopping up on to the sofa arm and hissing with clawed arms.
