Fish finger fossils show the beginnings of hands

[crossnote]

Yes.

Such as?

 

[SkyWriting]

It's a good thing that Nature uses peer reviewers and editors to hold authors to all the relevant facts in the discipline, and not to some cherry-picked subset that supports a pet theory. And that the scientific community at large does the same on a larger scale.

You mean Nature Magazine I guess. Because peer review is not natural.
It's not even an obvious solution. But certainly not part of nature.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I didn't realize gravity was the topic, or are you claiming gravity also evolved?

Gravity is a fact. There is a theory of gravity to explain it.
Evolution is a fact. There is a theory of evolution to explain it.

We often talk about the "theory of X" as "X" to save time. So there is nothing at all strange about evolution being both a fact and a theory. The same is true of gravity.

 

[essentialsaltes]

You mean Nature Magazine I guess.

That is where this study was published.

 

[SkyWriting]

Yes, but some beliefs are confirmed by observation and testing and some are not. Creationist sites go so far as to have their workers swear not to use the scientific method. To date the scientific method supports only evolution. Creation "scientists" are too afraid to even form a properly testable hypothesis. As a result they no longer can claim to be scientists, at least when dealing with evolution.

When you have no viable argument, then attack an imaginary enemy
to try an make them look weaker than you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Where did I admit evolution as a fact. I may have used the term facetiously.

Once again, you moved the goalposts to a different topic that does not affect the original topic. That is the same as admitting that you were wrong about the previous topic.

You moved the goalposts to abiogenesis. Evolution deals with life after it arrived, whether by abiogenesis, being planted by aliens, or magically poofed into existence by a god.

You should be trying to learn the basics so that you can understand why evolution is both a fact and a theory. Just like gravity.

 

[crossnote]

Moving the goal posts is a way of admitting that you lost the argument. You have now moved the goalposts to abiogenesis. As has been pointed out by several the theory of evolution tells us what happened after abiogenesis.

I wasn't moving goal posts. I am seeking out the logical/illogical foundation of evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When you have no viable argument, then attack an imaginary enemy
to try an make them look weaker than you.

I am not attacking an imaginary enemy. I can support my claims. What part of my post did you not understand?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I wasn't moving goal posts. I am seeking out the logical/illogical foundation of evolution.

It is not abiogenesis. Your logical skills are failing. It is based upon observing the endless evidence that supports the theory. But then I am willing to bet that you do not understand the concept of evidence either. I have yet to meet a creationist that does.

EDIT: And yes, even though you do not realize it you did move the goalposts.

 

[SkyWriting]

It's a good thing that Nature uses peer reviewers and editors to hold authors to all the relevant facts in the discipline, and not to some cherry-picked subset that supports a pet theory. And that the scientific community at large does the same on a larger scale.

So would you say that peer review is by a diverse set of philosophers?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Such as?

Experimental Evolution.

Experimental evolution is the use of laboratory experiments or controlled field manipulations to explore evolutionary dynamics.

I would point in particular to Lenski's experiment with E. coli, where the evolution of the ability to grow aerobically on citrate was enabled by multiple mutations, directly conflicting with the claims of many anti-evolutionists that such a thing is impossible.

 

[SkyWriting]

I am not attacking an imaginary enemy. I can support my claims. What part of my post did you not understand?

You were going on about some "Creationist" group that nobody mentioned and it filled most of your post. I don't understand what drove you off into a sermon.
27 minutes ago#35

And there you go again.
1 minute ago#53
There has been no mention of creationism. Only from your
imaginary battle.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So would you say that peer review is by a diverse set of philosophers?

Peer review is usually done by experts in the field. Peer review only guarantees that no basic errors have been made. The problem is that creationists cannot even get over that relatively low hurdle. Peer review is the starting area of new ideas. Many of them are later shown to be wrong. But an idea has to be amazingly bad if it cannot even get past peer review. That is why creationists have made their own fake "peer review' It is of such low quality that high school students are often able to refute creationist "peer reviewed" articles.

 

[essentialsaltes]

So would you say that peer review is by a diverse set of philosophers?

Nature is a science magazine. The authors are scientists, as are their peers (by definition).

I find your comment strange. It is like asking whether a cookbook was reviewed by a diverse set of lawyers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You were going on about some "Creationist" group that nobody mentioned and it filled most of your post. I don't understand what drove you off into a sermon.

Your excessive sensitivity betrays you.

When constantly dealing with science deniers one sometimes needs just a little offense to keep them on the straight and narrow.

 

[crossnote]

It is not abiogenesis. Your logical skills are failing. It is based upon observing the endless evidence that supports the theory. But then I am willing to bet that you do not understand the concept of evidence either. I have yet to meet a creationist that does.

EDIT: And yes, even though you do not realize it you did move the goalposts.

So we went from genes to DNA and I had asked about the evolution of both. How is that moving the goal posts? I was at least consistent in my questioning. When it couldn't be answered someone switched from answering to accusing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So we went from genes to DNA and I had asked about the evolution of both. How is that moving the goal posts? I was at least consistent in my questioning. When it couldn't be answered someone switched from answering to accusing.

But you are back to the realm of abiogenesis. That is moving the goalposts. Now I could correct some of the errors that you made in even this short little post. Once again, evolution deals with life after abiogenesis.

You are not lying, your lack of knowledge is what makes you unable to see how you moved the goalposts.

But here is a freebie. RNA was probably first, in fact almost certainly first. It can form on its own and self replicate. After that genes would have probably have been the next step and lastly DNA. DNA is not needed for genes even today. There are viruses that are RNA based, not DNA based.

 

[SkyWriting]

Your excessive sensitivity betrays you.When constantly dealing with science deniers one sometimes needs just a little offense to keep them on the straight and narrow.

Oh..."THEM" again.

 

[essentialsaltes]

So we went from genes to DNA and I had asked about the evolution of both. How is that moving the goal posts?

Because the biological theory of evolution is about the evolution of living things, not the evolution of stars or hairstyles or chemical compounds like DNA. We can talk intelligently about the evolution of hairstyles, but it has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Presumably the theory of evolution is the thing you have a problem with, so talking about things outside the scope of the theory of evolution is moving the goalposts.

 

[SkyWriting]

But you are back to the realm of abiogenesis. That is moving the goalposts. Now I could correct some of the errors that you made in even this short little post. Once again, evolution deals with life after abiogenesis.

You are not lying, your lack of knowledge is what makes you unable to see how you moved the goalposts.

But here is a freebie. RNA was probably first, in fact almost certainly first. It can form on its own and self replicate. After that genes would have probably have been the next step and lastly DNA. DNA is not needed for genes even today. There are viruses that are RNA based, not DNA based.

Why would any chemical want to self replicate?

That would go against entropy and the trend toward disorganization.