Why ... (2)

[Oncedeceived]

What does that have to do with how scientists refining theories?

Well for an example, Dr. Feduccia, I am sure you have heard of him; he has disagreed with the dino/bird evolutionary path. He is not a creationist, however he is labeled as such just because he disagrees with the findings. He has been slammed by the scientific community due to his stance. That to me is not what science is about. It is about taking those arguments and varying opinions and doing the science to show it.

It seems that too often, if someone in the scientific community disagrees with the consensus it can be deadly for their careers.

 

[lasthero]

He is not a creationist, however he is labeled as such just because he disagrees with the findings.

Who's labeled him as a creationist?

He has been slammed by the scientific community due to his stance.

It's not just because of his stance - there are reasons for it.

Dinosaurs of a Feather | Dinosaur Tracking

 

[lasthero]

Also, here's a very nice video on Dr. Feduccia that explains some of the problems with his research clearly.

Debunking Dr. Alan Feduccia - YouTube

I don't claim to be an expert in this field, but it seems that other scientists pan him not simply because of his stance, but the lack of authenticity in his stance.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Who's labeled him as a creationist?

I am sorry I looked for the article and I can't find it.

It's not just because of his stance - there are reasons for it.

Dinosaurs of a Feather | Dinosaur Tracking

I didn't read that book so I can't say what the contents included. I have read some articles that seemed backed with some good science from him that made sense to me. Tree down evolution seems much more likely to me than earth up evolution. I know that one of the fossils they found from Germany, I can't remember the name of it but I think it started with a j...jav something maybe? Anyway, the fossil had scales and it was one of the dinosaurs that was suppose to have feathers. He also made some good points that the forgery of Archaerapter and the China fossil trade. Just some points in his favor I think.

 

[lasthero]

Tree down evolution seems much more likely to me than earth up evolution.

Why?

He also made some good points that the forgery of Archaerapter and the China fossil trade.

What points are there to make? Archeoraptor was never widely taken in by the scientific community, there was skepticism about it from the beginning, and scientists were the one who exposed it for what it was in the end. What does that have to do with the evolution of birds on the whole? What does one fraud - and an unsuccessful fraud, at that - have to do with anything?

 

[Loudmouth]

Well for an example, Dr. Feduccia, I am sure you have heard of him; he has disagreed with the dino/bird evolutionary path. He is not a creationist, however he is labeled as such just because he disagrees with the findings. He has been slammed by the scientific community due to his stance. That to me is not what science is about. It is about taking those arguments and varying opinions and doing the science to show it.

Dr. Feduccia is slammed because he continues on with his conclusions even though the evidence has proven him wrong. There are scientists in every generation that make this mistake. Another example is Fred Hoyle who denied Big Bang theory his whole career, coming up with completely ludicrous theories to fill its place such as quasi-steady state cosmology that has matter just appearing continually everywhere in the universe in order to keep it from hitting entropy death. In every generation you will have scientists whose ego is more important than the science.

It seems that too often, if someone in the scientific community disagrees with the consensus it can be deadly for their careers.

Then you haven't studied up much on the history of science. Just a short list of those scientists who disagreed with the consensus:

1. Darwin
2. Einstein
3. Galileo
4. Lemaitre
5. Barry J. Marshall and J. Robin Warren, went against the scientific consensus and showed that H. pylori was a causitive agent of ulcers

I could keep going. The most cherished scientists of all time are those that went against the consensus. The ones that have problems with their careers are the ones that insist on being wrong.

 

[Oncedeceived]

So you want huge change in a short time? Why are you creating such arbitrarily high standards?

High standards in what way? If fossil evidence has dramatic body changes I just would like to see something like that in this type of time frame. I am looking for something as dramatic as the whale evolution. Anything with four legs losing their hind or front legs, hooves replaced by webbed feet. That sort of thing.

Large morphological evolution.

A wild banana - compare it to the domesticated version.

Wikipedia has a list of key events in the evolution of life on Earth. Scroll to the bottom for those that meet your criteria. Five million years ago, we see sloths and hippopotami. Four million years ago we get elephants, giraffes, zebras, lions, rhinos, and gazelles. 2.5 million years ago we get Smilodon.[/quote]

 

[Loudmouth]

Who's labeled him as a creationist?

I am sorry I looked for the article and I can't find it.




I didn't read that book so I can't say what the contents included. I have read some articles that seemed backed with some good science from him that made sense to me. Tree down evolution seems much more likely to me than earth up evolution. I know that one of the fossils they found from Germany, I can't remember the name of it but I think it started with a j...jav something maybe? Anyway, the fossil had scales and it was one of the dinosaurs that was suppose to have feathers. He also made some good points that the forgery of Archaerapter and the China fossil trade. Just some points in his favor I think.

With all of the very real transitional fossils coming out of China, it is quite obvious that the transitionals are found in the theropod dinosaur lineage contrary to Feduccia's claim.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Since when have supernatural deities ever been an angle?

I was referring to scientific angles within the scientific arena.

When a forensic scientist looks at a crime scene do they have to consider the angle that Leprechauns planted the evidence? Does the forensic scientist have to consider that God may have planted the suspect's DNA at the crime scene? If not, why do we have to consider that same angle here?

You misunderstood what I was saying.

More to the point, what other angle predicts that we should see the emergence of modern human features in less derived apes over a 5 million year period? What other angle predicts that we should see a nested hierarchy, and only a nested hierarchy? What other angle predicts that ERV's should fall into three independent yet consilient phylogenies for loci, LTR divergence, and overall sequence divergence? What other angle predicts that we should share more DNA with chimps than with orangutans?

I see that you base almost your entire position on the nested hierarchy which with new discoveries put into question many of the phylogeny in the present nests. One of the problems facing the system is when considering horizontal transfer, is the evolution due to a common ancestry or is it the direct result of horizontal transfer? Right now there is no accurate way to determine that.

There is a reason that evolution is accepted by biologists. Only evolution can explain why we see the things we see in biology, and no other observations. Evolution is like finding the suspect's fingerprints, DNA, shoe prints, tire prints, and fibers on and around a murder victim. You want to tell us to ignore all of that evidence because God could have just made it look that way. Sorry, but that makes no sense. It looks like evolution occurred because evolution occurred. It is that simple.

I never implied it didn't.

 

[Oncedeceived]

With all of the very real transitional fossils coming out of China, it is quite obvious that the transitionals are found in the theropod dinosaur lineage contrary to Feduccia's claim.

Well that certainly could be true, but how do you know that they are real? China always takes the fossils back to China, from what I understand.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Oncedeceived,

I am still curious as to why separately created kinds that do not share common ancestry would necessarily fall into a nested hierarchy.

I never claimed that separately created kinds do not share common ancestry.

 

[lasthero]

Well that certainly could be true, but how do you know that they are real? China always takes the fossils back to China, from what I understand.

From whence does this understanding come?

 

[Loudmouth]

I never claimed that separately created kinds do not share common ancestry.

By the very definition, separately created kinds do not share a common ancestor. If they share a common ancestor then they are not separately created kinds.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well that certainly could be true, but how do you know that they are real? China always takes the fossils back to China, from what I understand.

The same way that we know that fingerprints and DNA evidence at crime scenes are real.

BTW, the Archaeoraptor fake was sniffed out by real scientists before it ever went into print in Nat Geo. The scientists warned them that it appeared to be an amalgam of different fossils, but Nat Geo ignored the experts and published it as a real fossil anyway. Fake fossils will and have been found out.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why?

It would take such little evolutionary steps. Something small and light that begins to jump from tree to tree, then the ability to glide and then to fly. Seems more efficient that trying it from the ground up. Don't you think?



What points are there to make? Archeoraptor was never widely taken in by the scientific community, there was skepticism about it from the beginning, and scientists were the one who exposed it for what it was in the end. What does that have to do with the evolution of birds on the whole? What does one fraud - and an unsuccessful fraud, at that - have to do with anything?

It was a point he made?

 

[Oncedeceived]

By the very definition, separately created kinds do not share a common ancestor. If they share a common ancestor then they are not separately created kinds.

Why?

 

[lasthero]

It was a point he made?

A point towards what?

 

[Oncedeceived]

From whence does this understanding come?

Is that not true?

 

[lasthero]

Is that not true?

It's your claim, you tell me. I've never heard of that. Even were it true, there are archeologists in China, even famous ones, so...

 

[lasthero]

At any rate, we're getting somewhat off topic - the bottom line is that Feduccia isn't panned because of his conclusions, but the methods with what he's reaching these conclusions. They're unscientific. To take one example, his claim that birds just evolved dinosaur-like traits and only happen to look like dinosaurs by convergent evolution. That's completely unfalsifiable - there's no way to prove that argument wrong.