Did Reptiles Evolve?

[Greg1234]

may have been mentioned already.

But majority of snakes are venemous, and none/few are poisenous, there is a difference. recently been found out that majority of snakes are venemous, and ironicly so are a large chunk of the lizards that snakes are believed to have evolved from. So pretty neat dicovery last few years that coincides with evolution hyphothesized tree of life.

Oh ok.Did you know that some planes (not all) have a ram air turbine (RAT) that looks like a little prop?

But we already know that the mechanism responsible for airplane adaptation cannot take a prop to a jet so... we're good.

 

[SkyWriting]

may have been mentioned already.

But majority of snakes are venemous, and none/few are poisenous, there is a difference. recently been found out that majority of snakes are venemous, and ironicly so are a large chunk of the lizards that snakes are believed to have evolved from. So pretty neat dicovery last few years that coincides with evolution hyphothesized tree of life.

I hypothesize that lizards came from plants. Pretty neat.
Venomous Plants - MavicaNET

But they do have legs....so maybe spiders.
15 Poisonous Spiders you need to know

Snakes swim, so there's that...
Venomous Fish Outnumber Snakes | LiveScience

They may have come from jellyfish a well. A parallel evolution thing...
Highly-venomous jelly fish closer to British waters as global warming causes biggest shift of marine life in two million years | Mail Online

 

[SkyWriting]

I think there is room for evolution and religion.

There is. God Created animals with an enormous amount of adaptability so that our ecosystem would survive tremendous environmental stress. Plus Adam had to name all the kinds of animals. The animals have diversified greatly from that time. But all the "natural" ability to adapt was engineered in from the start.

Intelligent designs don't come from up from dirt on their own.

 

[DrkSdBls]

But we already know that the mechanism responsible for airplane adaptation cannot take a prop to a jet so... we're good.

And just what Mechanism is that exactly?

 

[Tabletform]

There is. God Created animals with an enormous amount of adaptability so that our ecosystem would survive tremendous environmental stress. Plus Adam had to name all the kinds of animals. The animals have diversified greatly from that time. But all the "natural" ability to adapt was engineered in from the start.

Intelligent designs don't come from up from dirt on their own.

"And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air, and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field."

Where does it say that "God Created animals with an enormous amount of adaptability so that our ecosystem would survive tremendous environmental stress" or "all the "natural" ability to adapt was engineered in from the start"?
you are making this up and trying to add it to scripture because the original is not good enough for you.

Who wrote the names down? and please notice that nowhere does the text mention "Kinds" so Adam had to sit and think of names for tens of thousands of animals without even the benefit of knowing the environment in which the animals lived.
Added to that is the fact that as many animals have gone extinct as are alive today.

To try and read Genesis literally you must first become a f...

 

[Greg1234]

And just what Mechanism is that exactly?

The landing lights turn off/on
Undercarriage down/up
Flaps extended/stowed
Cabin pressure above/under 10000ft
spoilers up/down
System failures
Deployment of RAT

 

[USincognito]

There is. God Created animals with an enormous amount of adaptability so that our ecosystem would survive tremendous environmental stress.

So what's the mechanism that limits adaptability?

Plus Adam had to name all the kinds of animals. The animals have diversified greatly from that time.

Kinds is a worthless term and it's not scientific.

But all the "natural" ability to adapt was engineered in from the start.

Evidence of this "genetic front loading" or limits on adaptability?

 

[DrkSdBls]

The landing lights turn off/on
Undercarriage down/up
Flaps extended/stowed
Cabin pressure above/under 10000ft
spoilers up/down
System failures
Deployment of RAT

You do realize, these are not Mechanisms of "Airplane Adaptation" but rather Elements of Design Function. For each of these to be "Mechanisms of Airplane Adaptation" Planes would have to have been Designed to Build and Redesign and improve upon their own Design with each Generation. What you're Claiming requires Airplanes to be Self Propagating Artificial Life forms.

Show me such a Plane that can Build another Plane and then we'll talk. Otherwise, your Assertion is Worthless.

 

[AV1611VET]

Bumped from Post 74:

There is no single list called "The Scientific Method." It is a myth.


The rules of a science-fair typically require that students follow THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, or in other words, hypothesis-experiment-conclusion. The students must propose a hypothesis and test it by experiment. This supposedly is the "Scientific Method" used by all scientists. Supposedly, if you don't follow the rigidly defined "Scientific Method" listed in K-6 textbooks, then you're not doing science. (Some science fairs even ban astronomy and paleontology projects. After all, where's the "experiment" in these?)

Unfortunately this is wrong, and there is no single "Scientific Method" as such. Scientists don't follow a rigid procedure-list called "The Scientific Method" in their daily work. The procedure-list is a myth spread by K-6 texts. It is an extremely widespread myth, and even some scientists have been taken in by it, but this doesn't make it any more real. "The Scientific Method" is part of school and school books, and is not how science in general is done. Real scientists use a large variety of methods (perhaps call them methods of science rather than "The Scientific Method.") Hypothesis / experiment / conclusion is one of these, and it's very important in experimental science such as physics and chemistry, but it's certainly not the only method. It would be a mistake to elevate it above all others. We shouldn't force children to memorize any such procedure list. And we shouldn't use it to exclude certain types of projects from science fairs! If "The Scientific Method" listed in a grade school textbook proves that Astronomy is not a science, then it's the textbook which is wrong, not Astronomy.

"Ask a scientist what he conceives the scientific method to be and he adopts an expression that is at once solemn and shifty-eyed: solemn, because he feels he ought to declare an opinion; shifty-eyed because he is wondering how to conceal the fact that he has no opinion to declare." - Sir Peter Medawar
​

There are many parts of science that cannot easily be forced into the mold of "hypothesis-experiment-conclusion." Astronomy is not an experimental science, and Paleontologists don't perform Paleontology experiments... so is it not proper Science if you study stars or classify extinct creatures?


Or, if a scientist has a good idea for designing a brand new kind of measurement instrument (e.g. Newton and the reflecting telescope) ...that certainly is "doing science." Humphrey Davy says "Nothing tends so much to the advancement of knowledge as the application of a new instrument." But where is The Hypothesis? Where is The Experiment? The Atomic Force Microscope (STM/AFM) revolutionized science. Yet if a student invented the very first reflector telescope or the very first AFM, wouldn't such a device be rejected from many school science fairs? After all, it's not an experiment, and the lists called "Scientific Method" say nothing about exploratory observation. Some science teachers would reject the STM as science; calling it 'mere engineering,' yet like the Newtonian reflector, the tunneling microscope is a revolution that opened up an entire new branch of science. Since it's instrument-inventing, not hypothesis-testing, should we exclude it as science? Were the creators of the STM not doing science when they came up with that device? In defining Science, the Nobel prize committee disagrees with the science teachers and science fair judges. The researchers who created the STM won the 1986 Nobel prize in physics. I'd say that if someone wins a Nobel prize in physics, it's a good bet that their work qualifies as "science."

Forcing kids to follow a caricature of scientific research distorts science, and it really isn't necessary in the first place.

Another example: great discoveries often come about when scientists notice anomalies. They see something inexplicable during older research, and that triggers some new research. Or sometimes they notice something weird out in Nature; something not covered by modern theory. Isaac Asimov said it well:

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny...' "
​

This suggests that lots of important science comes NOT from proposing hypotheses or even from performing experiments, but instead comes from unguided observation and curiosity-driven exploration: from sniffing about while learning to see what nobody else can see. Scientific discovery comes from something resembling "informed messing around," or unguided play. Yet the "Scientific Method" listed in textbooks says nothing about this, their lists start out with "form a hypothesis." As a result, educators treat science as deadly serious business, and "messing around" is sometimes dealt with harshly.

 

[pgp_protector]

 

[JustMeSee]

Second time for the same thread. His arsenal is lame.