tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post1863859142724490006..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: New Scientist: Not so Simple—Bugs That Break all the RulesUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger178125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-77668045495168484802011-07-29T08:57:32.463-07:002011-07-29T08:57:32.463-07:00Nat,
Would they work well enough to survive in a ...Nat,<br /><br /><b>Would they work well enough to survive in a mesozoic jungle? And would they work well enough to out compete a proto-mammal with a ear closer to the reptilian condition?</b><br /><br /><br />Good question,what do you think? Are there pro to mammal fossils wIth reptilian <br />ear structure? Were they competing in same niche? Does even a rudimentary mammal structure offer some advantage,maybe a freq advantage?velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-59167325201530432522011-07-28T05:32:18.477-07:002011-07-28T05:32:18.477-07:00Vel:
Would they work well enough to survive in a ...Vel:<br /><br />Would they work well enough to survive in a mesozoic jungle? And would they work well enough to out compete a proto-mammal with a ear closer to the reptilian condition?natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-20079612487555596362011-07-27T19:53:31.179-07:002011-07-27T19:53:31.179-07:00badwiring said:
"The trouble is when we assu...badwiring said:<br /><br />"The trouble is when we assume a priori where the answer will be found and only look there. We can research for centuries looking for an undirected, purposeless cause that creates and modifies life. And with all the work being done, it will be found. But only if it exists. If it doesn't then it won't be found."<br /><br />As I asked you before, what scientific tests, experiments, and research do you propose to look for the answers? And what scientific tests, experiments, and research are you doing to find the answers? You've avoided those and my other questions. <br /><br />I'll add, what makes you think that all scientists are <i>looking</i> only for undirected causes? Did it ever occur to you that no matter what they look for or look at, they don't see your chosen god or any other god poofing things into existence? In other words, they follow the actual evidence and don't insert gods when there's no evidence of gods.<br /> <br />You, on the other hand, want them to assume your a priori belief that your chosen god poofed everything into existence and you want them to find proof of that even though neither you nor anyone else has ever proposed a coherent scientific way to find evidence or proof of your chosen god or any other god. <br /><br />Exactly what scientific test, experiment, and research do you propose to find and verify that your chosen god or any other god exists, and that it poofed everything into existence? Exactly how should science/scientists go about verifying intelligent design in nature? Be specific and detailed. <br /><br /><br />You also said; <br /><br />"There's no basis for the a priori assumption that no intelligence was involved, and the more we know the more reason we have to stop assuming it. But as long as we cling to that assumption we risk looking for our keys under the streetlight forever when they are really somewhere else.<br /><br />It's okay to look. It's not okay to decide in advance what you expect to find."<br /><br />Actually, there's no basis for the a priori assumption that intelligence was involved. You and your fellow religious zealots are the ones with the a priori assumption. You are the ones who have decided in advance what you expect to find, even though you haven't proposed any coherent scientific way to find it. <br /><br />Since you and your comrades have such a problem with science and evolutionary theory, why don't you all get out there and find actual evidence for your claims and then present it to science and the world? If your evidence is sound, science and the world will listen. What's stopping you? After all, you say you would prefer to do something more <i>productive</i> than arguing. Well, the whole of nature is out there just waiting for you and your comrades to explore it and answer all the questions that mankind has ever pondered. <br /><br />And since you and your comrades have all the appropriate scientific tests, experiments, and research ready to go, all you have to do is put them to work! You should have all the answers in no time! I'll look forward to your soon to be published papers that verify all of your claims. <br /><br />Oh, and speaking of "productive", how productive is it to spend a couple of dozen centuries (actually more) looking for answers in fairy tales? People have been making shit up and believing in it for a very long time and it's because they don't know anything about nature and reality, are afraid of nature and reality, and want to convince themselves that their fears and lack of knowledge are logical and righteous by conning other people into believing in the same crap.The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-32551464409733300212011-07-27T15:43:53.134-07:002011-07-27T15:43:53.134-07:00Sorry
The bones don't have to be perfect to w...Sorry<br /><br />The bones don't have to be perfect to work at some level.velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-48532109466006205172011-07-27T15:33:19.910-07:002011-07-27T15:33:19.910-07:00Nat,
But we know that people wih mishapen inner e...Nat,<br /><br /><b>But we know that people wih mishapen inner ear bones have significant hearing loss. Its considered a handicapping condition.</b><br /> <br />True enough , but can they hear at all? That is a real world example you have so assiduously been searching for, the bones don't have to perfect to work at some level. See you knew the answer all along.velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-10001440402273332342011-07-27T14:11:07.751-07:002011-07-27T14:11:07.751-07:00box of rocks schuster said...
Thorton:
F...<i>box of rocks schuster said...<br /><br /> Thorton:<br /><br /> Femurs still have to be within certain parameters, or they don't work well enough. The inner ear bones had to work well enough for a proto-mammal to, not only survive, but do a better job of surviving than the organisms with the transitional condition. </i><br /><br />Inner ear bones still have to be within certain parameters to work. All of the ones in that population had ears that worked 'good enough' in their environment, but some in that group still worked slightly better than others. That gave their owners a small but statistically better chance to survive. <b>On average</b> more 'better hearing' animals passed on their genes that the others. The net result over time was the mean value of the 'working group' parameters slowly shifted to the better hearing variety.<br /><br />That's evolution nat, like it or not.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-22736193648777890142011-07-27T13:55:28.244-07:002011-07-27T13:55:28.244-07:00badwiring said...
Thornton,
This is part...<i>badwiring said...<br /><br /> Thornton,<br /><br /> This is parting thought. I have other things to do.<br /><br /> T: So why aren't we all Olympic sprinters? Could it be a wide range of thighbone shapes still allow for a wide range of running/walking ability? Hearing, just like running/walking doesn't have to be perfect, it only needs to be good enough to still be useful.<br /><br /> We've spent how many posts discussing how the tiniest incremental change to hearing would be selected. Now, when it fits, you point out that as long as it's good enough, it gets selected. How convenient. It explains everything. Whatever exists was selected.</i><br /><br />Of course that's not what I said, or the context in which my statement was made. How Christian of you to lie and misrepresent my words.<br /><br /><i>You still don't get it with your bat article, just like with all the rest. It doesn't explain the changes. It also shows willful ignorance of the capacity for variation in living things.</i><br /><br />The common mammalian ancestor of bats and mice had the capacity to vary their morphology to produce two separate lineages, one capable of flight. That's what the evidence shows.<br /><br /><i>Look at dogs. The variations in the species would fill scientific journals if they occurred over time and fossilized. And yet they are all variations within a species. IOW, lots of shapes and sizes, but all dogs.</i><br /><br />Bats and mice are still mammals, still tetrapods, still vertebrates. It's all just variations within the phylum. That's what the evidence shows.<br /><br /><i>You see compatible evidence as confirmation, and you reject any and all incompatible evidence. And it's not my job to fix you.</i><br /><br />You haven't presented any incompatible evidence. You've made ignorance based assertions and hand waved away the supporting evidence you were shown.<br /><br /><i>And it's not my job to fix you.</i><br /><br />Seems your real job is defending your religion against imaginary threats. My job is to advance scientific knowledge. I don't need fixing, thank you, certainly not from a scientific nincompoop like you. <br /><br /><i>I'll do you one favor, though, by pointing out that you are one rude kneebiter. </i><br /><br />I follow the golden rule, and you get exactly the responses you earn. Try some honesty next time instead of blustering attacks on scientists based on your personal ignorance. You'd be amazed at the results.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-68786414360675874292011-07-27T13:29:12.616-07:002011-07-27T13:29:12.616-07:00Why wouldn't we be able to tell the difference...Why wouldn't we be able to tell the difference between a pigeon, and the real ancestor of birds?natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-5601016809617960282011-07-27T13:26:13.279-07:002011-07-27T13:26:13.279-07:00natschuster: Femurs still have to be within certai...<b>natschuster</b>: <i>Femurs still have to be within certain parameters, or they don't work well enough. </i><br /><br />That's right, but there is a wide variation in length, thickness, weight, and so on, and there are tradeoffs involved. A long slender femur may work in one situation, a short stout femur in another. <br /><br /><b>natschuster</b>: <i>The inner ear bones had to work well enough for a proto-mammal to, not only survive, but do a better job of surviving than the organisms with the transitional condition. </i><br /><br />That's right, but the transitionals only have to work somewhat better than what came before. <br /><br /><b>natschuster</b>: <i>Adn why do we have the archaeopteryx, and not the real ancestor of birds? Why do we have Titaalik, and not the real ancestor of tetrapods? And what about the real ancestor of mammals? </i><br /><br />We answered this. The direct ancestor and an organism that is closely related to that ancestor are hard to tell apart, of course. The closer the relationship, the more difficult it is to make the distinction. Even if you were looking right at the exact ancestor, it might be very difficult to know whether it was the ancestor, or just a close relative.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-35915619882909190352011-07-27T13:18:36.691-07:002011-07-27T13:18:36.691-07:00Thorton:
Femurs still have to be within certain p...Thorton:<br /><br />Femurs still have to be within certain parameters, or they don't work well enough. The inner ear bones had to work well enough for a proto-mammal to, not only survive, but do a better job of surviving than the organisms with the transitional condition. <br /><br />Adn why do we have the archaeopteryx, and not the real ancestor of birds? Why do we have Titaalik, and not the real ancestor of tetrapods? And what about the real ancestor of mammals?natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-29552245682322980432011-07-27T12:59:13.471-07:002011-07-27T12:59:13.471-07:00badwiring: We've spent how many posts discussi...<b>badwiring</b>: <i>We've spent how many posts discussing how the tiniest incremental change to hearing would be selected. Now, when it fits, you point out that as long as it's good enough, it gets selected. </i><br /><br />Your confusing two things. A wide variety of different shapes and configurations will work. But specific variations and the specific environment will determine whether there is selection for that trait. <br /><br /><b>badwiring</b>: <i>It also shows willful ignorance of the capacity for variation in living things. </i><br /><br />Quite the opposite. Natural variation is the source material for evolution. And dogs are an excellent example. Humans did the selecting, but the variation arose naturally.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-30620976555416430782011-07-27T12:49:37.077-07:002011-07-27T12:49:37.077-07:00Thornton,
This is parting thought. I have other t...Thornton,<br /><br />This is parting thought. I have other things to do.<br /><br /><i>So why aren't we all Olympic sprinters? Could it be a wide range of thighbone shapes still allow for a wide range of running/walking ability? Hearing, just like running/walking doesn't have to be perfect, it only needs to be good enough to still be useful.</i><br /><br />We've spent how many posts discussing how the tiniest incremental change to hearing would be selected. Now, when it fits, you point out that as long as it's good enough, it gets selected. How convenient. It explains everything. Whatever exists was selected.<br /><br />You still don't get it with your bat article, just like with all the rest. It doesn't explain the changes. It also shows willful ignorance of the capacity for variation in living things. Look at dogs. The variations in the species would fill scientific journals if they occurred over time and fossilized. And yet they are all variations within a species. IOW, lots of shapes and sizes, but all dogs.<br /><br />You see compatible evidence as confirmation, and you reject any and all incompatible evidence. And it's not my job to fix you.<br /><br />I'll do you one favor, though, by pointing out that you are one rude kneebiter. Yeah, I get a little testy, I admit. But I feel genuine pity for anyone who has to be around you on a daily basis, especially if they happen to disagree with you. Thank God that I can choose to end this.badwiringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02740046027647685999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-29764762709628728082011-07-27T12:41:23.253-07:002011-07-27T12:41:23.253-07:00natschuster: And why is it that they never find th...<b>natschuster</b>: <i>And why is it that they never find the actual ancestors in the fossil record, just things that have an ancestral condition. </i><br /><br />The direct ancestor and an organism that is closely related to that ancestor are hard to tell apart, of course. The closer the relationship, the more difficult it is to make the distinction. <br /><br /><b>natschuster</b>: <i>But we know that people wih mishapen inner ear bones have significant hearing loss. Its considered a handicapping condition. </i><br /><br />In some cases, they can only hear low-frequency sound without the high-frequencies. Like reptiles. <br /><br /><b>natschuster</b>:<i>To he best of my knowledge, dogs hear better than us because of differences in the cochlea, not the middle ear bones.</i><br /><br /><b>velikovskys</b>: <i>So we have a just so cochlea and we can still hear,maybe the middle ear bones would work the same.</i><br /><br />Don't forget the floppy ears!Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-9563491142006351772011-07-27T12:03:46.679-07:002011-07-27T12:03:46.679-07:00natschuster said...
But we know that people w...<i>natschuster said...<br /><br /> But we know that people wih mishapen inner ear bones have significant hearing loss. Its considered a handicapping condition.</i><br /><br />We know people with severely misshapen thigh bones can't run or walk. It's considered a handicapping condition.<br /><br />So why aren't we all Olympic sprinters? Could it be a wide range of thighbone shapes still allow for a wide range of running/walking ability? Hearing, just like running/walking doesn't have to be perfect, it only needs to be <b>good enough</b> to still be useful.<br /><br />Think for once nat. I know it's an unnatural act for you, but <b>think.</b>Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-10016064343594428432011-07-27T11:51:32.541-07:002011-07-27T11:51:32.541-07:00Vel:
But we know that people wih mishapen inner e...Vel:<br /><br />But we know that people wih mishapen inner ear bones have significant hearing loss. Its considered a handicapping condition.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-44161157022900793982011-07-27T11:48:45.554-07:002011-07-27T11:48:45.554-07:00Zachriel:
Yes, different people have different si...Zachriel:<br /><br />Yes, different people have different sized ear ossicles, but they all have to be within certain parameters, or they don't work.<br /><br />And why is it that they never find the actual ancestors in the fossil record, just things that have an ancestral condition.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-15371484562571181162011-07-27T11:44:16.403-07:002011-07-27T11:44:16.403-07:00Nat,
To he best of my knowledge, dogs hear better...Nat,<br /><br /><b>To he best of my knowledge, dogs hear better than us because of differences in the cochlea, not the middle ear bones.</b><br /><br />So we have a just so cochlea and we can still hear,maybe the middle ear bones would work the same.velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-31676223348176420262011-07-27T11:16:38.726-07:002011-07-27T11:16:38.726-07:00badwiring: How are these nested hierarchies define...<b>badwiring</b>: <i>How are these nested hierarchies defined? DNA produces any number of radically differing hierarchies. The prediction was that it would produce one. </i><br /><br />No. Most DNA strongly supports the canonical tree. It's only some genes which are anomalous, and some researchers have suggested that the root of the tree is more of a web, which still supports common descent. <br /><br /><b>badwiring</b>: <i>A reptile with birdlike characteristics was predicted, but not in a lineage between reptiles and birds? Who predicts an intermediate that's not an intermediate, and how does that make it an intermediate? </i><br /><br />A transitional is not necessarily ancestral, but exhibits inherited traits expected at or near the point of divergence. Intermediates can be more derived. <br /><br /><b>badwiring</b>: <i>I understand that when someone claims that they predicted a fossil in one lineage with embryos from another, something is suspect. </i><br /><br />Actually examination of embryos from both taxa, but what is "suspect"? You're not being clear. Either they predicted the fossil and its relative placement in the history of the transition, then found the fossil, or they didn't.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-60717107210777355612011-07-27T11:11:04.043-07:002011-07-27T11:11:04.043-07:00badwiring said...
Thornton:
Doing so all...<i>badwiring said...<br /><br /> Thornton:<br /><br /> Doing so allows us to highlight a key developmental genetic change and suggest evolutionary mechanisms underlying bat digit elongation<br /><br /> Is it news that a difference in protein expression would follow a genetic change? That seems fairly obvious.<br /> Did bats get their wings from a single genetic change?<br /> Most importantly, what caused the genetic change and how was it selected?<br /> I'm repeatedly accused of scoffing at 'overwhelming evidence.' Well, this is exactly the reason why.<br /> All the paper does is show that bats and rodents have different forelimbs due to different proteins due to different genes.<br /> Here's news: The difference between every single living thing and every other living thing is different proteins due to different genes.<br /> Pointing that out is not an explanation of how those different genes and proteins came about. That's the question, not the answer.</i><br /><br />It's really hard to have a conversation with someone as ignorant of basic scientific discovery as you. The bat paper above is not 'proof' of evolution all by itself. It's another piece that fits neatly into and is consilient with the big picture of <b>ALL</b> the evidence - the fossil record that shows when bats evolved, the other genetic and morphological evidence that shows bats and mice shared a common ancestor. It supplies one of those those nasty <b>DETAILS</b> that you are always whining about us not having, remember?<br /><br />I really shouldn't be surprised by your unscientific demand that every single paper show every single bit of evidence for evolution. That's a common strawman argument made by ignorant Creationists. Not honest, so ridiculous as to be laughable, but oh so common.<br /><br />For the lurkers, here is more evidence in the big pile for bat evolution: a 'transitional' bat that lived approx. 50MYA.<br /><br /><b><a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v451/n7180/full/nature06549.html" rel="nofollow">Primitive Early Eocene bat from Wyoming and the evolution of flight and echolocation</a><br />Simmons et al<br />Nature 451, 818-821 (14 February 2008)<br /><br />Abstract: Bats (Chiroptera) represent one of the largest and most diverse radiations of mammals, accounting for one-fifth of extant species1. Although recent studies unambiguously support bat monophyly2, 3, 4 and consensus is rapidly emerging about evolutionary relationships among extant lineages5, 6, 7, 8, the fossil record of bats extends over 50 million years, and early evolution of the group remains poorly understood5, 7, 8, 9. Here we describe a new bat from the Early Eocene Green River Formation of Wyoming, USA, with features that are more primitive than seen in any previously known bat. The evolutionary pathways that led to flapping flight and echolocation in bats have been in dispute7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and until now fossils have been of limited use in documenting transitions involved in this marked change in lifestyle. Phylogenetically informed comparisons of the new taxon with other bats and non-flying mammals reveal that critical morphological and functional changes evolved incrementally. Forelimb anatomy indicates that the new bat was capable of powered flight like other Eocene bats, but ear morphology suggests that it lacked their echolocation abilities, supporting a ‘flight first’ hypothesis for chiropteran evolution. The shape of the wings suggests that an undulating gliding–fluttering flight style may be primitive for bats, and the presence of a long calcar indicates that a broad tail membrane evolved early in Chiroptera, probably functioning as an additional airfoil rather than as a prey-capture device. Limb proportions and retention of claws on all digits indicate that the new bat may have been an agile climber that employed quadrupedal locomotion and under-branch hanging behaviour.</b><br /><br />Go ahead badwiring, get those arms flapping and hand wave away more evidence and details without bothering to read it.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-34674047816351356482011-07-27T11:10:54.474-07:002011-07-27T11:10:54.474-07:00Bad wiring:
So CH attempts to fill in the gaps in...Bad wiring:<br /><br /><b>So CH attempts to fill in the gaps in the theory to make it testable and you find fault with that? And if you don't fill in the gaps then someone else faults you for that. </b><br /> <br />Don't be so hard on yourself ,I'm sure you didn't mean to find fault with CH,you were just trying to dismiss Zach's argument . <br /> <br />It is not "not filling in the gaps " that someone might find fault with you, it is the shifting level of proof you seem to require. Proof on the other hand you don't require from ID. You stated a while back the there is an abundance of proof for design,got that handy?velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-86329645947137768562011-07-27T10:28:31.023-07:002011-07-27T10:28:31.023-07:00Zachriel,
How are these nested hierarchies define...Zachriel,<br /><br />How are these nested hierarchies defined? DNA produces any number of radically differing hierarchies. The prediction was that it would produce one.<br />The answer? Just come up with reasons why DNA would be randomly scattered across the animal and plant kingdoms. Look, everything swapped genes. Now the failed prediction is just a new set of buzzwords and more research grants.<br /><br />I have no doubt that if one experimented on rats by placing them outside of their environment that might adversely affect this survival. This would demonstrate that they are <i>suited</i> to their environment. To both explain it with adaptation and use it as evidence of adaption is circular.<br /><br />A reptile with birdlike characteristics was predicted, but not in a lineage between reptiles and birds? Who predicts an intermediate that's not an intermediate, and how does that make it an intermediate?<br /><br /><i>The homology of reptilian embryonic jaw bones to mammalian ossicles led to empirical predictions. Do you understand the scientific method?</i><br /><br />I understand that when someone claims that they predicted a fossil in one lineage with embryos from another, something is suspect. But it's not in your nature to suspect any evolutionary claims.badwiringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02740046027647685999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-78070653863141149672011-07-27T10:11:47.512-07:002011-07-27T10:11:47.512-07:00What do you mean by "simple" and "c...What do you mean by "simple" and "complex"? <br /><br />There is no reason to think that life today is comparable in complexity to early life. Moreover, no one knows what early cells looked like, other than that they were likely simpler than today's products of billions of years of evolution.K.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10222703055177237209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-23769265343463242152011-07-27T09:53:55.319-07:002011-07-27T09:53:55.319-07:00badwiring: That rats are suited to their environme...<b>badwiring</b>: <i>That rats are suited to their environment demonstrates that they were adapted to it. Circular.</i><br /><br />It wasn't circular, but a judgment. You are more than welcome to run the experiments yourself. <br /> <br /><b>badwiring</b>: <i>Then what is your basis for calling them 'intermediate characteristics?' Calling them intermediate assumes that there was a transition. Again, it's circular. </i><br /><br />They were predicted. <br /> <br /><b>badwiring</b>: <i>Homology does not indicate descent (and I am not ruling out descent.) But more importantly it does not explain itself. It does not explain the characteristics that define it.</i><br /><br />The homology of reptilian embryonic jaw bones to mammalian ossicles led to empirical predictions. Do you understand the scientific method? <br /><br /><b>badwiring</b>: <i>And rather than concluding that the lack of direct lineage is an unfortunate lack of substantiation, we are expected to have faith that there is line to which all the branches connect.</i><br /><br />They fit the expected nested hierarchy.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-24329533405074389482011-07-27T09:04:53.760-07:002011-07-27T09:04:53.760-07:00Rats are well-adapted to their own niche. An elong...<i>Rats are well-adapted to their own niche. An elongated phalanx would be a distinct disadvantage. </i><br /><br />That rats are suited to their environment demonstrates that they were adapted to it. Circular.<br /><br /><i>Rarely are fossils on a direct line. For instance, Archaeopteryx shows intermediate characteristics between dinosaurs and birds, but isn't on the direct line to modern birds.</i><br /><br />Then what is your basis for calling them 'intermediate characteristics?' Calling them intermediate assumes that there was a transition. Again, it's circular. <br /><br />Homology does not indicate descent (and I am not ruling out descent.) But more importantly it does not explain itself. It does not explain the characteristics that define it.<br /><br />And Liaoconodon's jaws and ears have nothing to do with those of any living mammals. By stating that fossils are rarely found in a straight line, you assume that they are found in lines, which again assumes the conclusion. And rather than concluding that the lack of direct lineage is an unfortunate lack of substantiation, we are expected to have faith that there is line to which all the branches connect.<br /><br />It's circular and biased from top to bottom.badwiringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02740046027647685999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-76782057734776929962011-07-27T08:51:13.481-07:002011-07-27T08:51:13.481-07:00Has it ever occurred to you that science is lookin...<i>Has it ever occurred to you that science is looking for the answers to all the questions of how everything, including genes and proteins, "came about" and that it takes time, money, and a lot of work? In the meantime, many questions have been answered.</i><br /><br />It's a bit like searching for buried treasure. You dig here, dig there, you do a lot of work. No one is denying that a lot of work is being done and money is being spent.<br /><br />The trouble is when we assume a priori where the answer will be found and only look there. We can research for centuries looking for an undirected, purposeless cause that creates and modifies life. And with all the work being done, it will be found. But only if it exists. If it doesn't then it won't be found.<br /><br />There's no basis for the a priori assumption that no intelligence was involved, and the more we know the more reason we have to stop assuming it. But as long as we cling to that assumption we risk looking for our keys under the streetlight forever when they are really somewhere else.<br /><br />It's okay to look. It's not okay to decide in advance what you expect to find.badwiringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02740046027647685999noreply@blogger.com