Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Post Reply
Page 3 of 8  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8 Next
Switch to Forum Live View And the devastating evidence keeps rolling in …
6 years ago  ::  Jun 04, 2012 - 3:45PM #21
Oncomintrain
Posts: 3,516

Jun 4, 2012 -- 2:18PM, Thetanager wrote:


But, taking only the evidence of this article, doesn't this evidence fit into each theory...convergent evolution, common ancestry, theistic evolution, 6 day creationism, intelligent (pixie) design?  I'm not seeing why this evidence does not fit all the above theories equally.





The difference between the value of the Theory of Evolution vs. Creationism/ID, etc. in this case is that the ToE provides an explanation for why we see specifically what we see.


Think of it this way: take the question "Why do bird skulls look like baby dinosaur skulls?"


Evolutionary science provides a specific answer: because birds are descended from dinosaurs, and their similarity to baby dinosaurs is a form of neoteny, a frequently observed phenomenon wherein the descendent adult retains the features of the ancestral juvenile.


Creationism can only say: because God decided to make it like that. Which isn't really an explanation at all, since that same claim could be made, no matter WHAT evidence was found.


Convergent evolution isn't a particularly strong explanation in this case, because other evidence and discoveries strongly support the claim that birds evolved from dinos (though the exact relationship between birds and dinos isn't 100% settled amongst scientists).


In terms of science, Theistic Evolution and (nontheistic) Evolution are functionally identical. And ID is mostly just a political smoke-screen for Creationism.

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Jun 04, 2012 - 3:46PM #22
d_p_m
Posts: 11,236

Oh, yes, and there was a travelling exhibit called Feathered Dinosaurs that was at our local museum for a while. If you ever get a chance to see it, don't miss the opportunity. It was fascinating, and very informative, with fossils spanning the better part of a hundred million years, showing the gradual evolution of birds, along with evidence on the featheredness of dinosaurs.

"If you aren't confused by quantum physics, you haven't really understood it."
― Niels Bohr

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."
-- Albert Einstein

"If one is going to engage with the primordial forces of darkness, one must expect a bit of social awkwardness."
-- Penny Dreadful, season one, episode two
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Jun 04, 2012 - 3:49PM #23
Oncomintrain
Posts: 3,516

Jun 4, 2012 -- 3:46PM, d_p_m wrote:


Oh, yes, and there was a travelling exhibit called Feathered Dinosaurs that was at our local museum for a while. If you ever get a chance to see it, don't miss the opportunity. It was fascinating, and very informative, with fossils spanning the better part of a hundred million years, showing the gradual evolution of birds, along with evidence on the featheredness of dinosaurs.





If that's the same set of dioramas that went through the AMNH a couple years back, it is a must-see. Beautiful, fascinating stuff.

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Jun 04, 2012 - 3:53PM #24
d_p_m
Posts: 11,236

Jun 4, 2012 -- 3:49PM, Oncomintrain wrote:


Jun 4, 2012 -- 3:46PM, d_p_m wrote:


Oh, yes, and there was a travelling exhibit called Feathered Dinosaurs that was at our local museum for a while. If you ever get a chance to see it, don't miss the opportunity. It was fascinating, and very informative, with fossils spanning the better part of a hundred million years, showing the gradual evolution of birds, along with evidence on the featheredness of dinosaurs.





If that's the same set of dioramas that went through the AMNH a couple years back, it is a must-see. Beautiful, fascinating stuff.




Could be. I saw it at the ROM. This is from their site:


"Organized by the Dinosaur Museum in Blanding, Utah and The Liaoning Fossil Administration Office in China, Feathered Dinosaurs and the Origin of Flight features rare, original fossils of primitive birds and newly-discovered four-winged flying dinosaurs. The fossils, excavated in Liaoning Province in northeastern China, reveal new information about the origins of flying reptiles and birds, and address some of the most controversial questions concerning the evolutionary relationship of birds and dinosaurs."

"If you aren't confused by quantum physics, you haven't really understood it."
― Niels Bohr

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."
-- Albert Einstein

"If one is going to engage with the primordial forces of darkness, one must expect a bit of social awkwardness."
-- Penny Dreadful, season one, episode two
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Jun 05, 2012 - 3:58PM #25
Thetanager
Posts: 1,903

My line of questioning was only meant to understand the impact of this article, if it really is swaying the case one way or the other.  It is consistent with evolution (and some other theories).  The title of this post made it seem like this article adds extra evidence for evolution against other views (not mainly evidence of inner coherency, which I think is it's extent).  The cases lay in other pieces of evidence/science/philosophical presuppositions, etc.  So, of course, just like every belief system, one piece of evidence does not prove it true or untrue.  Thank you everybody for sharing your thoughts and giving me a better picture of this and other things through this short conversation!

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Jun 05, 2012 - 4:26PM #26
amcolph
Posts: 20,246

Science is rather like putting together a jigsaw puzzle for which the top of the box has been lost.


As you put it together you will gradually begin to have an idea of what the picture is, but usually long before that you will know what it is not.


If you are constructing a border which shows trees and grass, for instance, you can be pretty sure in concluding that it is not a picture of a full-rigged ship at sea.


 

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Jun 05, 2012 - 6:39PM #27
rsielin
Posts: 4,997

Jun 5, 2012 -- 3:58PM, Thetanager wrote:

The title of this post made it seem like this article adds extra evidence for evolution against other views (not mainly evidence of inner coherency, which I think is it's extent).  


The article presents compelling peer reviewed evidence supporting the dinosaur to bird evolution hypothesis.  


It is a literary but accurate metaphor to say the evidence supporting evolution science "keeps rolling in" as this piece is just one of many research publications I have referenced here from the tens of thousands of research articles published annually in the professional science journals.


And it is true that modern science is devastating for creationists as they cannot reconcile the findings of modern science with their ideology without misrepresentation and fabrication. 


IMHO, the title is quite accurate. Maybe you could poke a hole in my thinking on this. I would be interested in what you say. 


Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Jun 05, 2012 - 7:22PM #28
Midutch
Posts: 5,975

Jun 5, 2012 -- 4:26PM, amcolph wrote:


Science is rather like putting together a jigsaw puzzle for which the top of the box has been lost.


As you put it together you will gradually begin to have an idea of what the picture is, but usually long before that you will know what it is not.


If you are constructing a border which shows trees and grass, for instance, you can be pretty sure in concluding that it is not a picture of a full-rigged ship at sea.


Bravo, Amcolph. Brilliant analogy.

"creationism" ... 2000+ years worth of ABYSMAL FAILURE ... and proud of it.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Jun 06, 2012 - 8:28PM #29
Thetanager
Posts: 1,903

Jun 5, 2012 -- 6:39PM, rsielin wrote:


IMHO, the title is quite accurate. Maybe you could poke a hole in my thinking on this. I would be interested in what you say. 




rsielin...to me to say that this particular piece of evidence (that birds and baby dinosaurs have similar skulls) is devastating to intelligent design or creationism is not quite accurate.  A creationist could say that God just designed this similarity...that evolutionists even agree that we have scientific evidence of similarities existing between different species with no immediate common ancestry that explains those similarities.  [New points, of course, can then be argued that other pieces of evolutionary theory show reason to believe in birds coming from dinosaurs, etc.]  Those worshipping the great pixie could say that the pixie made similar skull sizes for these creatures without the process of evolution.  Perhaps a case is then made from other evidences for evolution, but it just doesn't seem to be coming from the above evidence.


To me, you are coming at this article with the framework of evolution firmly established in your mind.  This similar skull size fits in nicely with that theory, confirming it as coherent.  But if Jimmy came to this article hypothetically with a blank slate and we say "See here, these birds have very similar skulls to baby dinosaurs.  What do you think the explanation is for this: evolution from dinosaur to birds or God created them with similar skulls?"  Jimmy would be just as justified (from this evidence alone) to say "I'm not sure.  Both logically fit."


Then, the task of the evolutionist or intelligent pixie worshipper or whomever is to bring in other evidence.  To show why one theory is better and the other theories are falsified by such evidence.  I don't think other views are falsified by the similar skull sizes.  So, to me, this is evidence confirming the evolutionary framework as still being a valid framework...not confirming evolution against intelligent pixies.  It's the other evidence that this matter falls upon to really sway opinion one way or the other.


Perhaps I'm still missing something that you all are saying here, though.

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Jun 06, 2012 - 9:26PM #30
rsielin
Posts: 4,997

Jun 6, 2012 -- 8:28PM, Thetanager wrote:

Perhaps I'm still missing something that you all are saying here, though.


Yes, you are missing something. You are approaching this as all creationists do; i.e., take each piece of evidence individually and isolated and then announce it is not convincing enough. That claim is merely a mechanism for denial.


I am coming at this with the framework of evolution firmly established not "in my mind" but firmly established in science.  This piece of evidence cannot rightfully be judged separately but must be judged with all the accumulated evidence. And that accumulated empirical evidence always without exception corroborates and confirms ToE as the most complete and compelling explanation. And it is that which is devastating for creationism. 


How many drops of water do you need before you recognize you have a lake?  Well, the drops of empirical evidence confirming evolution are astronomical. It can no longer be honestly be denied. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 3 of 8  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook