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.
Multiple lines of evidence supporting the same conclusions.If the dating methods are correct. If the guesses about what species they are are correct.
Not half and half but a common ancestor that underwent many, many, many short bursts of micro evolution over millions of years and ended in today's modern cats and dogs.But they are. Unless you can show me a half feline, half canine. Not speculation about one that existed millions of years ago.
You are correct. Do you know what DNA can reveal?Then it had DNA of both?
Not how it works.
We can't show you a half lion half mountain lion, but I doubt you disbelieve in the concept of "cats".
No, the common ancestor diverged in both directions.
We have transitional fossils of ancient creatures that featured rudimentary traits of both... but without the specialisations found in the modern varieties.
This is exactly supported by the genetic evidence of modern populations... the same type DNA tests that show paternity can be used to show that house cats are related to lions and more distantly related to dogs.
You already acknowledged that DNA changes... it's just a matter of building on the initial genetics in two separate ways.
He's an analogy: language.
If you sit down a modern English speaker and a modern German speaker with a 6th century Saxon warrior no one would be able to speak to each other... despite both English and German being derived from the older Germanic language.
I don't think anyone, theist or atheist, will be content with: "There is evidence for a god... but it's a Lovecraftian expression of existential insecurity."
They may be "guesses" to you, but they are "guesses" which align with a lot of evidence. Your "guesses" have no evidence at all.If the dating methods are correct. If the guesses about what species they are are correct.
Right. They have teeth and a couple ankle bones to go on. Supposedly 55 million years old. That's a lot of guesswork.Multiple lines of evidence supporting the same conclusions.
Calling it a guess is a lie.
Right. They have teeth and a couple ankle bones to go on. Supposedly 55 million years old. That's a lot of guesswork.
Estimated to have been close to a foot in length and about a kilogram (approximately 2 pounds) in weight, the scientists surmised that Dormaalocyon lived on a diet consisting of small prey, like insects and smaller mammals.
However, the scientists believe that the origin of carnivoraforms can be traced to an even more primitive group in an earlier era than Dormaalocyon’s - perhaps during the Paleocene, as previous studies suggest.
Notice all the guesswork? Now they will write out of conclusion that sounds like they're 100% sure.
Or not.
Our study shows that the carnivoraforms were very diversified at the earliest Eocene, which allows hypothesizing that they were probably already diversified during the latest Paleocene.”
It seems you are determined to have a loud voice .. yet you have nothing much to say there?Notice all the guesswork? Now they will write out of conclusion that sounds like they're 100% sure.
Or not.
Our study shows that the carnivoraforms were very diversified at the earliest Eocene, which allows hypothesizing that they were probably already diversified during the latest Paleocene.”
Right. They have teeth and a couple ankle bones to go on. Supposedly 55 million years old. That's a lot of guesswork.
Estimated to have been close to a foot in length and about a kilogram (approximately 2 pounds) in weight, the scientists surmised that Dormaalocyon lived on a diet consisting of small prey, like insects and smaller mammals.
However, the scientists believe that the origin of carnivoraforms can be traced to an even more primitive group in an earlier era than Dormaalocyon’s - perhaps during the Paleocene, as previous studies suggest.
Notice all the guesswork? Now they will write out of conclusion that sounds like they're 100% sure.
Or not.
Our study shows that the carnivoraforms were very diversified at the earliest Eocene, which allows hypothesizing that they were probably already diversified during the latest Paleocene.”
Right. They have teeth and a couple ankle bones to go on. Supposedly 55 million years old. That's a lot of guesswork.
Estimated to have been close to a foot in length and about a kilogram (approximately 2 pounds) in weight, the scientists surmised that Dormaalocyon lived on a diet consisting of small prey, like insects and smaller mammals.
However, the scientists believe that the origin of carnivoraforms can be traced to an even more primitive group in an earlier era than Dormaalocyon’s - perhaps during the Paleocene, as previous studies suggest.
Notice all the guesswork? Now they will write out of conclusion that sounds like they're 100% sure.
Or not.
Our study shows that the carnivoraforms were very diversified at the earliest Eocene, which allows hypothesizing that they were probably already diversified during the latest Paleocene.”
They may be "guesses" to you, but they are "guesses" which align with a lot of evidence. Your "guesses" have no evidence at all.
Estimated to have been close to a foot in length and about a kilogram (approximately 2 pounds) in weight, the scientists surmised that Dormaalocyon lived on a diet consisting of small prey, like insects and smaller mammals.
Who?
If you're talking about Fred Hoyle, he considered himself an atheist, and promoted panspermia as to how the earth was populated.
But I believe he coined the term in an attempt to be derisive.The Abbé Georges Lemaitre (1894-1966). However, the theory was developed in more detail by George Gamow (1904-1968), who was an agnostic, and by Steven Weinberg (born 1933), who is an atheist. All this shows is that Big Bang cosmology has nothing to say about the existence of God.
Fred Hoyle (1915-2001) did not support Big Bang cosmology; on the contrary, he was a lifelong supporter of the rival Steady State hypothesis.
The Abbé Georges Lemaitre (1894-1966). However, the theory was developed in more detail by George Gamow (1904-1968), who was an agnostic, and by Steven Weinberg (born 1933), who is an atheist. All this shows is that Big Bang cosmology has nothing to say about the existence of God.
Fred Hoyle (1915-2001) did not support Big Bang cosmology; on the contrary, he was a lifelong supporter of the rival Steady State hypothesis.
Popular science from yahoo perhaps.This is an example of an unattached participle. The sentence implies that the scientists were close to a foot long and weighed about a kilogram. It would have been better to write something like, 'Estimated to have been close to a foot in length .... , Dormaalocyon probably lived on a diet etc.'
I think Fred disliked the idea of fossil fuels (oil) too .. Something about 'a squashed fish ..' was coined by him, IIRC(?)Thanks Fred!
The 'facts' of science are simply our best measurements or observations and our best descriptions of phenomena. They are approximate and provisional; to expect otherwise is simply naive.Well it's doing a very poor job of it. Because every "fact" of science will most likely be modified or found false.
That's your opinion. Truth is a metaphysical abstraction with a number of meanings and interpretations, most commonly, 'correspondence with fact or reality'; but both fact and reality are epistemologically uncertain - and our perception of the world is open to interpretation.People need truth, not uncertainty.
The 'facts' of science are simply our best measurements or observations and our best descriptions of phenomena. They are approximate and provisional; to expect otherwise is simply naive.
That's your opinion. Truth is a metaphysical abstraction with a number of meanings and interpretations, most commonly, 'correspondence with fact or reality'; but both fact and reality are epistemologically uncertain - and our perception of the world is open to interpretation.
I think what people need is a reasonable degree of confidence in their understanding of the important aspects of their lives, in a world characterised by uncertainty.
Matter is just one form of the 'stuff' of the universe (currently thought to be quantum fields); I'm suggesting that the 'stuff' of the universe might be eternal, negating the need to imagine supernatural creation stories.So you are back to eternal matter. Only matter isn't eternal now, so you are supposing something outside of science.
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?