Some things I just don't think most of you understand...

[Justatruthseeker]

don't really know why scientists believed in Piltdown for so long, but I can offer a few guesses, based on the circumstances at that time.

Because they wanted to believe. It supported their system of beliefs and so was never questioned. How easily people are fooled when they want to believe something - regardless of the evidence.

Just as you continue to support the incorrect classification of Darwin's Finches as separate species - even if you should know better. Because it is a fairy tale you want to believe in because it supports your system of belief concerning speciation - even if it never occurred.

 

[crjmurray]

No, I am saying if clocks tick faster as we go backwards in time - then both ice layering AND decay rates would be affected. You can not use how time progresses today to calculate how things occurred in the past - as the clocks rate is different. Stop avoiding the logical conclusion. If clocks tick faster in the past - then using slower clock rates to count ice rates deposited when time was faster would give you exponential errors - it would appear older than it is. As would decay rates be affected - as samples would appear older than they are - having decayed at a faster rate when time was faster.

Either relativity is wrong and clocks don't change as acceleration increases or they do. Since it is experimentally verified that they do change - then refusing to change the rate of your clocks as you calculate backwards in time is an error of colossal magnitude.




Don't complain to me - you were the one insisting they were reptiles - now suddenly you switch your stance because you don't want to discuss how lineages can't be the same for both at the same time?





Because you have the Opah classified incorrectly. Simple as that. But of course they are not going to correct their mistake in classification - we already know how they refuse to ever admit mistakes until forced to. Or do we need to discuss Darwin's Finches again? The prime claimed example of speciation that is the biggest lie ever told.

This clock thing gets funnier and funnier

 

[Aggie]

So how does that include birds? Birds are not turtles which came from reptiles. Crocs - nope. Snakes - nope. Lizards - again nope. And tuatara - just another repeat of a lizard - nope. So if dinosaur were reptiles - then they can not be the predecessor to birds. But dinosaurs are now believed to be warm blooded.

Justa, I'm not sure I understand what you're saying you believe about this. You say you don't think birds can be descended from reptiles, because birds are warm-blooded and reptiles aren't. But you also think dinosaurs were warm-blooded, the same as birds. Does that mean that based on metabolism, birds can be descended from dinosaurs?

You have yet to answer my question, always seek to divert. Not this time... If they were once believed to be cold-blooded with that respective genealogy - and now they are believed to be warm-blooded - how does one keep the same evolutionary tree as before? The two require different evolutionary pathways.

Something you might not be aware of is that historically, the theory that birds are descended from dinosaurs and the theory that dinosaurs were warm-blooded have gone together. From the 1920s until the 1960s, neither idea was widely-accepted. But both ideas gradually gained wide acceptance in the 1970s and 1980s, thanks to research by John Ostrom. As Lasthero pointed out, there's no hard line between cold-blooded and warm-blooded metabolism, so it's not impossible for a cold-blooded animal to gradually gain a warm-blooded metabolism. But in the case of dinosaurs, they actually weren't simultaneously widely-believed to be cold-blooded and to be ancestors of birds.

 

[lasthero]

No, I am saying if clocks tick faster as we go backwards in time - then both ice layering AND decay rates would be affected.

How do you figure that? You're making less sense than usual.

Don't complain to me - you were the one insisting they were reptiles - now suddenly you switch your stance because you don't want to discuss how lineages can't be the same for both at the same time?

I meant to say 'weren't'. Which you could've figured from the context, quite frankly.

Because you have the Opah classified incorrectly. Simple as that.

No, it's classified right. It's a fish. What else would be? An eggplant? A bee? Being warm blooded doesn't make it not a fish.