Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The funny thing is I have seen several evolutionists on this forum insist that there is a "magical barrier" blocking minor trait convergences and reversals. The reason they have to contradict themselves like this is to make phylogenetic analysis seem more reliable.
"Change over time" is called evolution.
Conclusion: "Evolution" is a completely useless descriptor. It is actually one of the most ambiguously useless terms in all of science. But that is no surprise as evolution theory has always relied upon extreme equivocation.
This particular problem just simply does not exist outside of certain breeds of dinosaur. The misclassification was made due to a very specific issue with frilled dinosaurs. It by no means implicates the entire rest of the fossil record.
Why don't you?
You seem interested in knowing these things, why not go out and do a little bit of research? However, a big hint is that this sort of major change to skull structure over time is exceedingly rare among all known species, essentially being shared by certain breeds of dinosaur and certain breeds of bird.
There's no logical reason to assume that this problem actually extends past the very specific group of dinosaurs in question.
Are you going to do this every time it turns out you misquoted a scientist? Like, Hans Thewissen, who apparently disagrees quite firmly with you on whales. Is he now just "toeing the line"? At what point will you simply admit that these people do not agree with you?
No, it is often ambiguous when used by creationists. It is fairly obvious what is meant when people that understand the theory of evolution discuss it. You are trying to create a false barrier where none exists. That may be why it seems ambiguous to you. The problem is not in the use of the term by scientists, the problem lies in your inability to understand. Sadly your inability is in all likelihood self imposed.
That was not my definition, that was your strawman. It is one description of what evolution is. You keep trying to make strawman arguments. I am merely pointing out your errors.Amazing... so you don't feel that "change over time" is an ambiguous definition. Why am I not surprised...
That can be explained. I will be glad to do so once you either show us this magical barrier or admit that there is no such thing.
The last page where claims were made about who said what while we all ignore what the video actually said??Uh... What? Did you miss the last page?
Can the "DNA code barrier" be demonstrated to exist? Also, "random gene shuffling" is not the only thing that happens in mutation. Either way, you're simply wrong. We have observed speciation on numerous occasions.
No need for that. An observation of life will tell you that evolution is inevitable.
Observation of life shows Kind after Kind - with merely different varieties and breeds of that same Kind.No need for that. An observation of life will tell you that evolution is inevitable.
You cannot even properly defined kind, but that is what evolution predicts too. You simply have the wrong definition.Observation of life shows Kind after Kind - with merely different varieties and breeds of that same Kind.
The last page where claims were made about who said what while we all ignore what the video actually said??
Yes, indeed!I just noticed myself. Good to see them.
Atheos, how can you deny the implications such a discovery has across the entire fossil record? Especially reptilian/diapsid orders that seem to be the most prone to this phenomena. As I mentioned before, the classification problem is not only limited to animals found in different life-cycle stages, but the effects of plasticity on the same species living in significantly different environments. (another quality that reptiles are known to exhibit)
The implications are obvious. Major portions of taxonomy are probably in serious error. I'm sure that you of all people understand this.
The silence from the evolutionary community is deafening. We are always told that major scientific upsets are welcomed by scientists, but in reality that isn't true. If certain problems are considered too inconvenient to the current order of things, they will be ignored. We are witnessing that first-hand.
The reason for this is that the evolutionary community knows it is political suicide to admit how much of their classification system could very well be completely wrong. It will lend an unacceptable level of comfort to the ideological enemy. (Creationists or ID proponents) Thus the true and obvious scientific implications simply cannot be discussed. That is the reality of the academic world. Protection of the applecart.
One wonders how Mr. Horner has concluded that this is "just a dinosaur problem". After all, Evolutionists didn't think the problem even existed in dinosaurs before someone bothered to look.
Only an extremely limited sample of dinosaurs was even checked. Horner even admitted in the presentation that we don't know how widespread the problem may be because most people in possession of dinosaur samples don't bother to check.
For example, how does Mr. Horner know what extinct synapsid body-plans look like during different stages of growth? Any ideas? Could you ask him?
Okay, just for arguments sake, (even though logic says otherwise) lets say the problem is only constrained to dinosaurs. Even if that's the case, it still represents a major upset in biological classification. Dinosaurs are a huge group of animals. (Not to mention it transgresses into sacrosanct territory concerning dino-bird evolution models.) So even with just dinosaurs, my original point stands and I believe evolutionists know it would be a public-relations nightmare to admit it publicly. Again, instead of getting excited about a major scientific upset in their way of understanding, (like we're always told scientists are so eager to do) they are quietly sweeping the problem under the rug lest it disturb the applecart.
I'm amazed that Horner could be so flippant about it but I bet its because he knows the wrath that will come down on him if he disturbs that hornet's nest. Either way, kudos to him for shedding some light on the problem.
I would be curious what Atheos' thoughts are on the subject.
By the way, Thewissen has already admitted on the other video that the ambulocetus ear morphology is ambiguous.
Jonah, yes, the interviews for those were interesting, I said all those things, but the questions were oddly phrased and thus my answers not straightforward and for the videos they were put together in an interesting way. I tried to have some fun putting a fitting answer together, and made a youtube video myself:
That video does not engage the misleading videos directly, but I did try to address all the points in the original videos
J. G. M. 'Hans' Thewissen, Ph. D.
Ingalls-Brown Professor of Anatomy
Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology
Northeast Ohio Medical University
It is basically just a lump only loosely resembling and lacking the clear distinctions found in whale-like ear characteristics. And as far as I can tell he is pretty much basing his case around that trait. At least that's all he ever talks about.
The last page where claims were made about who said what while we all ignore what the video actually said??
"In practice, even strong adherents of the BSC use phenetic similarities and discontinuities for delimiting species. If the organisms are phenotypically similar, they are considered conspecific until a reproductive barrier is demonstrated."
EDIT: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspecific
So yes, we'll quote your own source and definitely say a DNA code barrier is demonstrated to exist - not can be.
So you are quite aware - or should be - of that reproductive barrier that can not be crossed in which delineates a species or Kind. All others if geographically separated are infraspecific taxa, subspecies, varieties, sub-varieties, breeds, or formae.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
"Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into "infraspecific taxa" such as subspecies (and in botany other taxa are used, such as varieties, subvarieties, and formae)."
I know random gene shuffling is not the only thing that happens. Most times nothing happens - the DNA repair mechanism successfully purges the error. The other billion times it hurts or kills the host. One accidentally may benefit the host. But the new code is simply transcribed from the old code. Nothing that did not already exist within the genome was added. No new species ever arises. But you can dream all you like and pretend otherwise.
You cannot even properly defined kind, but that is what evolution predicts too. You simply have the wrong definition.
Tell you what, Justa - why don't you actually post what Horner says that backs up your claim. The EXACT quote.
I do not deny the impact of such research. The thing is, this is not Jack Horner announcing that he has discovered that different ontogenetic stages have been misidentified as different dinosaur species. Paleontologists understand (and have for a long time) the possibility of different ontogenetic stages or intraspacific variability being mistaken for taxonomic diversity. Dr. Horner is outlining a number of instances of this. Your post makes it sound like you think (correct me if I'm wrong) that Horner has only recently informed the paleontological community that this sort of error could occur and therefore we must question every fossil-based conclusion about evolution because who knows how many fossil taxa are valid. This is absurd because whatever you mean by " the silence from the evolutionary community is deafening", you're clearly not talking about the paleontological community. Simply typing "dinosaur ontogeny" into Google Scholar will furnish you with far more papers than you'd care to even read the titles of. I'd also challenge you to provide any evidence that Horner's work is being ignored. It is certainly being critiqued by other paleontologists, as it should. It also has mnay who are more convinced. That's how science works.
In other words, the field of paleontology has not, as you seem to imagine, been caught flat-footed by the possibility that intraspecific variation could be confused for more species diversity. There is no justification for your assumption that the entire fossil record is too full of invalid taxa to be useful in making evolutionary conclusions.
And your conspiracy theory about the suppression of this sort of research by the academic community is demonstrably false, so perhaps you should refrain from making that claim in the future.
Here - listen to it yourself:
Show me where he doesn't do away with 2 of every species found except the Triceratops in which he does away with one.
Show me where the bones did not show the distinctive growth we know occurs as animals age - bones your experts never bothered to cut up before and study them. Is Strawmen all you got, really? You haven't even watched it so have no idea what it says to start with.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?