Where are the dinosaurs?

[Gadarene]

But a catastrophe like a massive impact that causes world wide extinctions, is not a niche in equilibrium. Constant ice ages and warm periods is not equilibrium. You see my point is that if we grant deep time, we have to admit that the earths environment is in flux. That being said, crocodiles for instance should be vastly different now from the ones we find in the fossil record right? They'd probably need some major adaptations and changes in hundreds of millions of years, and we would expect them to look very different, yet they are nearly identical.

You're talking about the entire earth, not niches.

Whether or not crocodiles should be different or not depends on whether or not their niche changed.

You need to be more specific here, rather than simply taking a general case and using it to justify a specific claim.

 

[Metal Minister]

Nothing about this thread but I replied to your PM but it said I could not because you had too many stored messages and had exceeded your quota.

Opps! Sorry, ill fix that!

 

[Gadarene]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crocodile

"They first appeared during the Eocene epoch, about 55 million years ago."

Well, there's the answer - they appeared after the last extinction event.

 

[Metal Minister]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crocodile

"They first appeared during the Eocene epoch, about 55 million years ago."

Well, there's the answer - they appeared after the last extinction event.

So you're saying that in 55 million years, they've basically changed, not at all?

 

[Gadarene]

So you're saying that in 55 million years, they've basically changed, not at all?

No, I'm saying that your claim that a catastrophe occurred during the existence of crocodiles was incorrect.

From what we can tell, the crocodiles haven't changed in overall appearance at least. That doesn't mean there haven't been changes over time/niche, as the evolution section of the wiki link in my last post points out.

 

[Metal Minister]

No, I'm saying that your claim that a catastrophe occurred during the existence of crocodiles was incorrect.

From what we can tell, the crocodiles haven't changed in overall appearance at least.

That was more my point. One of the main driving forces of ToE is mutations right? Whether there are outside forces or not, mutations happen. Shouldn't we expect that after 55million years that the crocodile would have some significant differences from those found in the fossil record? And yet they are nearly identical. We see some animals that have obvious changes in a very short period of time, and yet some animals have very little changes over 55 millions years+ ?

 

[Gadarene]

That was more my point. One of the main driving forces of ToE is mutations right? Whether there are outside forces or not, mutations happen. Shouldn't we expect that after 55million years that the crocodile would have some significant differences from those found in the fossil record? And yet they are nearly identical. We see some animals that have obvious changes in a very short period of time, and yet some animals have very little changes over 55 millions years+ ?

Right. Why should selective pressure be the same in for all species in all niches? Evolution does not claim that it should.

But that's somewhat beside the point - there have been changes, which are referred to in the wiki link.

Morphology is not simply pointing at something vaguely crocodile shaped and saying "yup, crocodile!" Nor are the only evolutionary changes morphological ones.

 

[Metal Minister]

Right. Why should selective pressure be the same in for all species in all niches? Evolution does not claim that it should.

In addition, there have been changes, which are referred to in the wiki link.

Morphology is not simply pointing at something going crocodile shaped and saying "yup, crocodile!"

I'm having a very hard time with the shifty-ness that is ToE, that's for sure. In one instance it claims that all things change and accounts for major differences, but on the other side it also explains why some animals don't change...do you see why people have such a hard time swallowing this? It literally Morphs into whatever definition it needs to to explain things away...honestly, I have no problem with slight changes among crocodiles over any length of time, that makes sense. But I have a hard time with the idea that one animal can, in a manner of speaking, become a completely different type of animal in the same time frame as the crocodile didn't...oh well, tis a question for another day...g'night

 

[Gadarene]

I'm having a very hard time with the shifty-ness that is ToE, that's for sure.

People with a lack of understanding of something will often accuse others of deceit rather than admit their own ignorance, yes.

In one instance it claims that all things change and accounts for major differences, but on the other side it also explains why some animals don't change...do you see why people have such a hard time swallowing this?

It says that things evolve under a selection pressure.

Level of selection pressure may vary. ToE never claimed it was constant, that is your misapprehension. If there is less selection pressure (due to a well-optimised species in a stable environment, say, then there will be less overall change. This is entirely consistent with ToE. In one instance it claims that all things change and accounts for major differences, but

Even your statement "All things change" does not imply "all things will change by the same amount".

It literally Morphs into whatever definition it needs to to explain things away...honestly, I have no problem with slight changes among crocodiles over any length of time, that makes sense. But I have a hard time with the idea that one animal can, in a manner of speaking, become a completely different type of animal in the same time frame as the crocodile didn't...oh well, tis a question for another day...g'night

Yes, I can see why some things changing by different amounts in different environments would be a confusing idea. Why does an ice cube not melt in the freezer but it does on the counter-top? Thermodynamics is like so totes shifty

 

[Metal Minister]

People with a lack of understanding of something will often accuse deceit rather than admit ignorance.

It says that things evolve under a selection pressure.

Level of selection pressure may vary. ToE never claimed it was constant, that is your misapprehension. If there is less selection pressure (due to a well-optimised species in a stable environment, say, then there will be less overall change. This is entirely consistent with ToE. In one instance it claims that all things change and accounts for major differences, but

Even your statement "All things change" does not imply "all things will change by the same amount".

Yes, I can see why some things changing by different amounts in different environments would be a confusing idea. Why does an ice cube not melt in the freezer but it does on the counter-top? Thermodynamics is like so totes shifty

Well the condescension was completely uncalled for. I was just asking questions, and trying understand. As I admitted I was. I admitted I didn't understand, and you could've stopped when you finished the scientific points, but chose to take it to the insult...this is why there is so much animosity on these threads. People apparently feel the need to make things personal.

 

[Gadarene]

Well the condescension was completely uncalled for. I was just asking questions, and trying understand. As I admitted I was. I admitted I didn't understand, and you could've stopped when you finished the scientific points, but chose to take it to the insult...this is why there is so much animosity on these threads. People apparently feel the need to make things personal.

Right, and calling an entire theory shifty for feeble reasons was totally called for.

If your lack of understanding is the issue, then say that, don't call the idea shifty (because that implies something about the people defending it, and it's a tired, baseless accusation we often field).

QQ

 

[Metal Minister]

Right, and calling an entire theory shifty was totally called for.

QQ

So because I felt that the theory, which admittedly changes, and I admitted I was trying to understand, was shifty, that somehow grants you the right to be nasty and condescending? Is it any wonder there's an ignore option on this site? I had thought we were having a decent dialogue and could possibly find common ground...now I realize I was sorely mistaken.

 

[Gadarene]

So because I felt that the theory, which admittedly changes, and I admitted I was trying to understand

And when was that? You thought it changed in a particular way, which I refuted. And then you said nothing about your own understanding, but rather claimed the idea was shifty.

So forgive me if I'm not convinced by this display of apparent sincerity, because it suddenly came up after I criticised your calling the theory shifty.

was shifty, that somehow grants you the right to be nasty and condescending?

When you have presented no good reason for it, and when by implication it makes the same tired accusation at people who accept evolution that we always get - yes.

As far as I'm concerned, I countered your argument. If you want to cry off based on my tone after you said several baseless things, and then made a rather bad-faith statement based on those baseless claims (even after I showed them to be false), that's your concern.

Is it any wonder there's an ignore option on this site?

There are ignore functions on most message boards as standard.

But I'm sure the one on THIS board is the fault of those shifty evolutionists!

I had thought we were having a decent dialogue and could possibly find common ground...now I realize I was sorely mistaken.

We did have a decent dialogue. You made several incorrect statements, and I corrected them.

 

[Metal Minister]

And when was that? You thought it changed in a particular way, which I refuted. And then you said nothing about your own understanding, but rather claimed the idea was shifty.

So forgive me if I'm not convinced by this display of apparent sincerity, because it suddenly came up after I criticised your calling the theory shifty.

When you have presented no good reason for it, and when by implication it makes the same tired accusation at people who accept evolution that we always get - yes.

As far as I'm concerned, I countered your argument. If you want to cry off based on my tone after you said several baseless things, and then made a rather bad-faith statement based on those baseless claims (even after I showed them to be false), that's your concern.

There are ignore functions on most message boards as standard.

But I'm sure the one on THIS board is the fault of those shifty evolutionists!

We did have a decent dialogue. You made several incorrect statements, and I corrected them.

No, we didn't. Had we, this conversation wouldn't have ended like this. Darwin forbid someone questions the theory of evolution! Is it any wonder people dislike the idea of evolution? Perhaps because its strongest evangelists are down right nasty when you dare question any part of it. I was at all times sincere. Did you not notice that when you pointed out the first fossil record of the crocodile? Did I begin to insult you? No, I learned, but it still didn't answer my question. Had you stopped with the point about niches and such, we could've continued to have a very productive conversation, and I would have probably learned a great deal. Instead you took offense to someone feeling that your theory is a bit slippery and so went on the attack. Good day, God bless, I know now that asking questions and trying to understand apparently is unacceptable...

 

[Gadarene]

No, we didn't. Had we, this conversation wouldn't have ended like this. Darwin forbid someone questions the theory of evolution!

Questions are fine.

Questions where you ignore the answers and then call the theory you're still (apparently wilfully) misunderstanding shifty - that's not a sign of good faith.

Regardless, I'm happy to correct mistakes - whether or not you yourself actually accept the correction is secondary.

Is it any wonder people dislike the idea of evolution? Perhaps because its strongest evangelists are down right nasty when you dare question any part of it.

You were wrong. I corrected you. Then you decided that the problem was still the idea, and not your understanding of it, and you did so in a way that most people who defend evolution have to deal with time and time again.

I was at all times sincere. Did you not notice that when you pointed out the first fossil record of the crocodile?

I also noticed that after having your questions answered, you then still called the idea shifty.

So again, I'm not buying your claim of sincerity.

At the very least, if you want to be presumed sincere, then maybe extend that courtesy to others.

Did I begin to insult you? No, I learned, but it still didn't answer my question.

Why not? I responded to your example and showed how the "problem" you thought was there wasn't a problem.

When you then keep making out that it's still evolution with the problem, that screams "axe to grind", not "here to learn".

Had you stopped with the point about niches and such, we could've continued to have a very productive conversation, and I would have probably learned a great deal. Instead you took offense to someone feeling that your theory is a bit slippery and so went on the attack. Good day, God bless, I know now that asking questions and trying to understand apparently is unacceptable...

If you're that serious about learning and understanding, then why are you ragequitting the conversation?

You want mutual respect and a presumption of sincerity - great - so do I. So drop the claims of "shiftiness" immediately after you've had your own misunderstanding of the idea laid bare, because you sure as heck aren't presuming sincerity in the other direction.

 

[mzungu]

So because I felt that the theory, which admittedly changes, and I admitted I was trying to understand, was shifty, that somehow grants you the right to be nasty and condescending? Is it any wonder there's an ignore option on this site? I had thought we were having a decent dialogue and could possibly find common ground...now I realize I was sorely mistaken.

First of all, one cannot just feel that a theory is wrong. Any scientific theory is there to explain the empirical evidences and make predictions. The Theory of Evolution explains the overwhelming evidences and has made accurate predictions too.

Biological evolution is a process and as such the rate at which a life form changes depends on how well suited it is for its environment. Also any life form that has traits that give it a survival advantage does not feel the same pressure for change as the ones that have disadvantageous traits.

Sharks, Crocodiles, and other creatures that have changed little in millions of years have remained basically the same simply because their "design" is perfectly suited to even changing environments; Within limits of course.

All life forms evolve, and depending on the pressures for change imposed upon them also dictates the rate of change and whether it will become extinct or not.

Bamboo grows very fast while Oak trees very slowly. Just because one cannot see the daily growth of an oak tree does not mean it does not grow. Some bamboo species grow so fast that one can actually observe within hours the growth rate. Likewise with evolution; The rate of change is not the same throughout the life forms.

By the way my wife, has no wisdom teeth. This is a trait that is beneficial to her as we all know how wisdom teeth are something we can do without since our jaws have shrunk over time due to evolution. We eat much softer food than our ancestors did.

 

[rush1169]

By the way my wife, has no wisdom teeth. This is a trait that is beneficial to her as we all know how wisdom teeth are something we can do without since our jaws have shrunk over time due to evolution. We eat much softer food than our ancestors did.

What advantage do smaller jawed humans with no wisdom teeth have over larger jawed humans with wisdom teeth do you reckon?

 

[mzungu]

What advantage do smaller jawed humans with no wisdom teeth have over larger jawed humans with wisdom teeth do you reckon?

First of all humans all have smaller jaws than their prehistoric ancestors. This means that we have to compare like things. Wisdom teeth are more susceptible to decay! They also take up any slack between the teeth and thus allow bacteria to proliferate in the tight gap between the teeth. Teeth that have a wider gap between each other do not trap food particles that allow for bacterial growth that results in accelerated tooth decay! They [wisdom teeth] are a disadvantage to have with our presently small jaw.

Wisdom Teeth Removal | www.ctsmiles.com

 

[Gadarene]

What advantage do smaller jawed humans with no wisdom teeth have over larger jawed humans with wisdom teeth do you reckon?

Probably improvements in cooking made them increasingly redundant - a lack of dental treatments and their propensity for infection/malformation make them an increasing liability.

 

[rush1169]

First of all humans all have smaller jaws than their prehistoric ancestors.

A smaller jaw is the reason some people don't grow wisdom teeth?

Wisdom teeth are more susceptible to decay!

Susceptibility to decay is the reason some people don't grow wisdom teeth?

They [wisdom teeth] are a disadvantage to have with our presently small jaw.

I understand the apparent disadvantages, but how are these things causing the gene to disappear (or allele supress)? I don't see a reproductive disadvantage or an environmental disadvantage. An organism's discomfort also drives evolution?