Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Undermining long-held paradigms
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 106 of 124 (346656)
09-05-2006 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Percy
09-05-2006 9:28 AM


Re: Paradigms are the Topic
Not much, because your opening post contains a fundamental misunderstanding. The evolutionary history of mammals in the Mesozoic is not a paradigm. Here's the relevant American Heritage definition:
paradigm: A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them, especially in an intellectual discipline.
The theory of evolution is a paradigm. The specifics of mammal evolution is not.
This is a bit cryptic for me. On the one hand your sub-title is "Paradigms are the Topic," but on the other hand, you tell me that the specifics of mammal evolution doesn't factor in that....? How can you discuss theories and paradigms without discussing the intricacies of how a theory or paradigm develops in the first place? I gave a specific example of what I was talking about, and that example had to do with mammalian evolutionary theory being incorrectly percieved. I was sure to mention that something of that caliber really wasn't set out to do irreparable damage to the theory of evolution, however, many of these examples seem to add up. And the mood its creating amongst my detractors are that of credulity. I'm simply pointing this out. And the article concerning the mammal was just one instance as a segue.
I really don't know how to respond at this point. You're the boss and I won't lose sight of that. I will respect your rules whenever I can help it. So perhaps I should just let this one go and start a new topic.
Would you mind giving me some helpful hints on how broad or brief I can be on subject matter so that I can tailor my post accordingly? Thank you, Percy.

“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Percy, posted 09-05-2006 9:28 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by NosyNed, posted 09-05-2006 12:23 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 109 by RickJB, posted 09-05-2006 1:27 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 107 of 124 (346667)
09-05-2006 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Hyroglyphx
09-05-2006 11:55 AM


Paradigms isn't 20 cents
The theory of gravity is a paradigm as defined earlier.
If I don't know exactly where a base ball will land when homered it has no effect on the paradigm involved. If it never lands I have a problem with the paradigm and need to consider if there are additional things that need to be considered -- in this case that might be the relative density of air and the ball.
Evolutionary models tell us that mammals today had ancestors at the time of the dinosaurs. What size they were does not enter into the paradigm. It simply has no effect on evolutionary theory.
If we had NO trace of possible mammalian ancestors from times before the Cenozoic that would be an area of somewhat focussed research since it would be hard (impossible) to explain with the current paradigm. But even then there are other things that might be considered -- though I'm hard pressed to think of any(a hint of a paradigm changing fact).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-05-2006 11:55 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by PaulK, posted 09-05-2006 1:17 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 108 of 124 (346679)
09-05-2006 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by NosyNed
09-05-2006 12:23 PM


Re: Paradigms isn't 20 cents
I would add that evolutionary theory also tells us that the ancestral species would almost certainly have had relatives - very likely many relatives - with no modern descendants. Even if our ancestors at the time were small insectivores, they could easily have had larger relatives.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by NosyNed, posted 09-05-2006 12:23 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 109 of 124 (346681)
09-05-2006 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Hyroglyphx
09-05-2006 11:55 AM


Re: Paradigms are the Topic
nj writes:
I was sure to mention that something of that caliber really wasn't set out to do irreparable damage to the theory of evolution, however, many of these examples seem to add up. And the mood its creating amongst my detractors are that of credulity.
But the "examples" of which you speak (including your own in this thread) consist entirely of gross mischaracterisations based on scientific ignorance. They "add up" to nothing at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-05-2006 11:55 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-05-2006 1:54 PM RickJB has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 110 of 124 (346692)
09-05-2006 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by RickJB
09-05-2006 1:27 PM


Re: Paradigms are the Topic
But the "examples" of which you speak (including your own in this thread) consist entirely of gross mischaracterisations based on scientific ignorance. They "add up" to nothing at all.
Rick, even the writers of the article who take a very pro-evolution stance regarding biology stated that the recent discovery went against all of what bio's and anthro's previously believed. So if its based on scientific ignorance, then the ignorance isn't in my court.

“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by RickJB, posted 09-05-2006 1:27 PM RickJB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Jazzns, posted 09-05-2006 3:17 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 112 by Percy, posted 09-05-2006 3:17 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 115 by RickJB, posted 09-05-2006 6:24 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 111 of 124 (346711)
09-05-2006 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Hyroglyphx
09-05-2006 1:54 PM


Let me fix that sentence for you
Rick, even the writers of the article who take a very pro-evolution stance regarding biology stated that the recent discovery went against all of what bio's and anthro's previously believed.
Should be:
Rick, even the writers of the article who take a very pro-evolution stance regarding biology stated that the recent discovery went against all of what bio's and anthro's previously knew to be the best explanation for the paleo history of mammals given the evidence at the time.
So if its based on scientific ignorance, then the ignorance isn't in my court.
The ignorance being talked about here is not science being ignorant of mammalian evolution, but rather your ignorance of the ToE and how this particular evidence fits within the framework of the ToE. You just don't seem to be able to tell the difference between:
The theory of evolution which describes how heritability information combines with mutation and environmental selection to produce the diversity of life on earth.
with:
The particular evolutionary history of one kind of living thing, namely mammals, during the Mezozoic era.
The type of evidence in the second one there that would reflect badly on the first is is you turned up evidence that mammals in the mezozoic had feathers and flew. Simply finding a BIGGER mammal does not affect the first at all. The ToE is unchanged. The particular evolutionary history of mammals has been updated according to the latest evidence.
Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-05-2006 1:54 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 112 of 124 (346712)
09-05-2006 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Hyroglyphx
09-05-2006 1:54 PM


Re: Paradigms are the Topic
Hi Nemesis_Juggernaut,
I'm going to reply to both this and your previous Message 106 in this post. Addressing your most recent message first:
Rick, even the writers of the article who take a very pro-evolution stance regarding biology stated that the recent discovery went against all of what bio's and anthro's previously believed. So if its based on scientific ignorance, then the ignorance isn't in my court.
Good point! The article you referenced, Dinosaur Fossil Found in Mammal's Stomach, was written by Joseph B. Verrengia, an AP science writer. In the article he says:
"It contradicts conventional evolutionary theory that early mammals couldn't possibly attack and eat a dinosaur because they were timid, chipmunk-sized creatures that scurried in the looming shadow of the giant reptiles."
I guess one way to look at this is to say that Mr. Verrengia has expressed himself clearly in the layman's vernacular, but scientifically this is just plain wrong. There is no "evolutionary theory of mammalian origins". It would be like calling the heliocentric model of the solar system a theory. The laws of physics are the theory. The heliocentric model is just an interpretation of evidence based upon the laws of physics.
In the same way, views on mammalian origins are not theories. They are interpretations of evidence based upon the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is descent with modification with natural selection.
It is possible that Mr. Verrengia understands the difference, but that he also understands his intended audience. Another possibility it that he's just an articulate noodle-head - let's keep in mind that he's the one who described it as dog-sized (think of range of size from chihuahua to Great Dane to see how dumb this is). In any case, don't let Mr. Verrengia's misleading statements contribute to your own misunderstanding.
Now addressing your Message 106:
How can you discuss theories and paradigms without discussing the intricacies of how a theory or paradigm develops in the first place?
The theory of evolution is not based upon reconstructions of natural history, such as mammalian evolution. Think about this. Evolution is descent with modification combined with natural selection. It says nothing about the size of mammals in the Mesozoic. Our views on the size of mammals in the Mesozoic is based upon the evidence we dig from the ground. These views are not theories, they're just views. When we find new evidence these views will change. And unless we find something incredibly novel and inconsistent with all other evidence, such as Homo sapiens fossils from the Mesozoic, the potential for challenging evolutionary theory is vanishingly small.
I gave a specific example of what I was talking about, and that example had to do with mammalian evolutionary theory being incorrectly percieved.
I can only repeat what I've already said. There is no such thing as "mammalian evolutionary theory". There is only one evolutionary theory, and it unites all the various fields of biology.
I was sure to mention that something of that caliber really wasn't set out to do irreparable damage to the theory of evolution, however, many of these examples seem to add up.
How many Catholic priest child molesters do you think it will take to invalidate Christianity? The question doesn't even make sense, right?
Well, your view that examples of new evidence causing scientists to revise their reconstructions of natural history can somehow affect the validity of evolutionary theory is just as wrongheaded.
Let me try yet another example. Astronomers sight an asteroid in an orbit that crosses earth. They make some calculations and determine that it will never strike our planet. But then somebody does some more accurate observations and gains new and more accurate evidence of its path, and the calculations show that it will strike the earth, and so astronomers are forced to change their views. The threat of collision causes even more resources to be put on the problem, and they track the asteroid for a longer time period to get even more accurate orbital data and they find that they have to change their views again. This time they find that the asteroid will approach closer than the moon, but still miss the earth by over 100,000 miles.
Now, at any time during that description did you think that the laws of physics were being challenged? You never did, right?
So now let's look at mammalian evolution more closely. There was a time when we had no mammal fossils from the Mesozoic, so our view was that mammals originated sometime during the Mesozoic, since they certainly existed after the end of the Mesozoic, but we didn't know any details.
But then we found some mammal fossils from the Mesozoic. They were very small, the largest around 4-5 inches in length, so our view changed to be that mammals came into existence during the Mesozoic, but that they were very small nocturnal creatures.
Then we found some fossils of mammal predecessors at the end of the Paleozoic, the period before the Mesozoic, and so our view changed again so that that mammals evolved during the Paleozoic, and they remained small and nocturnal during the Mesozoic.
Then we found fossils of larger mammals from the Mesozoic, so our views changed again to include the larger mammals.
Do you see anything in this recitation of changing viewpoints that challenges the theory of descent with modification combined with natural selection? Hopefully the answer is no and that you now see what everyone else sees, that our reconstructions of natural history are reflections of the available evidence, and as the evidence improves so will those reconstructions.
It is important to remember that the theory of evolution never in any way developed out of our views of mammalian evolution. No one ever reasoned, "Well, let's see, mammals in the Mesozoic were small and nocturnal, and from this I conclude that life's diversity springs from descent with modification combined with natural selection." Since the theory of evolution was never dependent in any way upon the size of mammals in the Mesozoic, finding larger mammals did not present any problems to the theory.
So once again I tell you that evolution is a paradigm and mammalian evolution is not. If you want to undermine a paradigm, "a way of viewing reality," then you need evidence that contradicts it. All our views of mammalian evolution, including all the discarded views, are completely consistent with the theory of evolution. You cannot look to them for contradictions.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-05-2006 1:54 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-05-2006 5:08 PM Percy has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 113 of 124 (346751)
09-05-2006 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Percy
09-05-2006 3:17 PM


Re: Paradigms are the Topic
Good point! The article you referenced, Dinosaur Fossil Found in Mammal's Stomach, was written by Joseph B. Verrengia, an AP science writer. In the article he says:
"It contradicts conventional evolutionary theory that early mammals couldn't possibly attack and eat a dinosaur because they were timid, chipmunk-sized creatures that scurried in the looming shadow of the giant reptiles."
I guess one way to look at this is to say that Mr. Verrengia has expressed himself clearly in the layman's vernacular, but scientifically this is just plain wrong.
Percy, this is a lame excuse because just about everyone who uses these websites use them as a basis for evidence. In fact, the only reason I saw this LiveScience article was because Archer Opteryx had posted another article and I was surfing through their site. So, when are you call the credibility of Archer's article into question on those same merits? You and other pro-evo's have established yourselves as the supreme rule-maker's in debate and any dissenter must follow your rules of the game in order to play. This is ridiculous. If Verrengia is some lowly AP writer and not a scientist, then who gathered that information in the first place and granted the right to write up an article? If the actual 'scientists' had any objections to the article, surely that objection would have surfaced during the editing phase. So much for that argument.
It is possible that Mr. Verrengia understands the difference, but that he also understands his intended audience. Another possibility it that he's just an articulate noodle-head - let's keep in mind that he's the one who described it as dog-sized (think of range of size from chihuahua to Great Dane to see how dumb this is). In any case, don't let Mr. Verrengia's misleading statements contribute to your own misunderstanding.
With respects to "dog-sized" I will certainly lend that much as it poorly describes what dog-sized means to begin with. I was thinking similar notions as I read the article too. However, as I shared above Verrengia's understanding of the late Cretaceous period comes directly from the horses mouth's would it not? Verrangia must have been impressed upon that this was an unorthodxed discovery, challenging previously-held beliefs concerning the pace of mammalian evolution. And that's exactly why I chose this article, because its certainly true.
The theory of evolution is not based upon reconstructions of natural history, such as mammalian evolution. Think about this.
I have thought about it. And what you're doing in actuality is giving me more ammunition. If the ToE of evolution isn't really in the details, then its obviously lacking credible evidence to support such transformations. You are telling me that the ToE is still very much in the realm of theoretical biology and actual evidence is still wanting. I can't argue with you there.
Evolution is descent with modification combined with natural selection. It says nothing about the size of mammals in the Mesozoic.
What??? That's all they do on those Discovery specials. They just guess about things all day long. They make guesses on what a Dinosaur sounded like, they make assertions on what its temperment was like, what color it was, what it ate, what ate it, etc. They even go so far as to present these reconstructions on whether or not an animal rolls in dung to escape from predators. They offer no corroboration for how they could have possibly surmised such grandiose notions by looking at bones, they just say it anyway. All this dialogue they've imagined, including the sizes of mammals and they even give us theories on why they are so small. It sounds something like this, "Our distant ancestors, like this Megazostrodon, rummages across the floor of its burrow where he eats small pieces of grain that drops from the tops of trees into the hole. Outside the lair is an Velociraptor who hasn't eaten in days. Even a tiny morsel as a Megazostrodon would be welcome at this point"
How many Catholic priest child molesters do you think it will take to invalidate Christianity? The question doesn't even make sense, right?
No, because Christ is the measure of Christianity not Catholic priests. Evolution needs some creatures evolving to rescue it. That's the difference.
Let me try yet another example. Astronomers sight an asteroid in an orbit that crosses earth. They make some calculations and determine that it will never strike our planet. But then somebody does some more accurate observations and gains new and more accurate evidence of its path, and the calculations show that it will strike the earth, and so astronomers are forced to change their views.
That's fine. Like I've said before, I don't expect to see any field of science to ever plateau. New evidence is always welcomed. But I find it ironic that the evolutionary belief concerning mammalian evolution was a fact before and then new evidence surfaces that undermines the previous belief. All I said was 'fact' tends to be tentative. This is probably the most factual statement that could be made. Similar to the only thing constant is change itself. I'm really not sure why anyone is objecting to that notion.
Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typo

“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Percy, posted 09-05-2006 3:17 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Archer Opteryx, posted 09-05-2006 6:11 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 116 by fallacycop, posted 09-05-2006 6:55 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 117 by Percy, posted 09-05-2006 9:05 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 119 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 09-05-2006 10:48 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 120 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 09-05-2006 10:50 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 114 of 124 (346784)
09-05-2006 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Hyroglyphx
09-05-2006 5:08 PM


Re: Paradigms are the Topic
The discovery of any kind of mammal in the Mesozoic, as everyone has said, does not pose a challenge for evolutionary theory. The existence of Mesozoic mammals during that time has long been known because mammals evolved earlier.
Most terrestrial ecological niches for large creatures were occupied by non-avian dinosaurs in the Mesozoic. This makes the discovery of a Mesozoic mammal that even reaches the size or aggressiveness level of a housecat very rare. But regardless of how surprising the find or how journalism describes it, nothing about a Mesozoic mammal's size, in itself, challenges or overturns the theory of evolution. The ToE is a very big thing--a paradigm indeed--that already accounts for the existence of mammals at that time and leaves room for many possibilities about species variations. Discoveries can, and do, overturn prevalent ideas about how certain ecosystems worked. That's the exciting thing about this find. With each discovery come new insights and the picture comes into better focus.
I can see why, NJ, from your perpective, it seems science gets some special break. Science revises its ideas to accommodate evidence. It can say one thing yesterday, pull out the eraser today and revise, and say another thing tomorrow--and be a healthy, worthwhile project the whole time. It admits its picture is incomplete. Filling in that picture is a learning process. Therein lies the fun.
You are conditioned to value statements that remain the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Prooftexts reign; physical evidence is not needed. In that world, not having the right answer the first time is an indictment. It is the difference between a true religion and a false religion.
You keep trying to hold science to the dogmatic standard of the religious world you know. The effort fails, not only because you rarely understand the discoveries to begin with, but because you don't understand the nature of scientific knowledge.
Science is not religion. The two do not work the same way.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : Typo.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-05-2006 5:08 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 115 of 124 (346792)
09-05-2006 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Hyroglyphx
09-05-2006 1:54 PM


Re: Paradigms are the Topic
NJ writes:
Rick, even the writers of the article who take a very pro-evolution stance regarding biology stated that the recent discovery went against all of what bio's and anthro's previously believed. So if its based on scientific ignorance, then the ignorance isn't in my court.
Oh but it is! The strength of a given scientific theory lies in it's ability to adapt to new discoveries. Evolution, for example, has dove-tailed beautifully into recent discoveries in genetics. The theory is strengthened by corroborating evidence that Darwin could never have dreamt of.
Evolution doesn't argue that our picture of the past is complete - it most certainly isn't. The latest discoveries about early mammals fill gaps in our knowledge. Despite these gaps the paradigm of evolution is still upheld.
Consider this example. If I tip a cup of ballbearings to the ground we know that gravity acts upon them all. That is our paradigm. At the same time we might not know the specific path of each individual ballbearing through space. Though we lack this knowledge, it does not change the overall paradigm. Now, if we find evidence regarding the path of a given ballbearing is different from what we thought it to be, this is fine as long as its ultimate mode of behavior does not contradict our gravity paradigm.
A truly powerful theory is able to adapt to (and predict) new data. This is what so many YEC proponents fail to understand.
Any theory can be viewed as an incomplete jigsaw puzzle - we have enough pieces to know what the puzzle shows, but we still have gaps. If we find new pieces and can slot them into the puzzle, all well and good. If we find a piece that is clearly cut from a different jigsaw template them we have a problem. The mammalian discovery is a perfectly compatible puzzle-piece which can be slottled into the ToE.
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-05-2006 1:54 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5520 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 116 of 124 (346804)
09-05-2006 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Hyroglyphx
09-05-2006 5:08 PM


Re: Paradigms are the Topic
You seem to be hopelessly confused. Tell me just how does a new discovery in mammalian history undermines the theory of evolution? Read the last twenty posts again for a thorough and clear explanation of why that ain't so. Think about it. That is akin to saying that the recent demotion of Pluto from a planet to a planetoid in view of recent discoveries of other bodies in the Kuyper belt undermines the theory of gravity!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-05-2006 5:08 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 117 of 124 (346841)
09-05-2006 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Hyroglyphx
09-05-2006 5:08 PM


Re: Paradigms are the Topic
Hi NJ,
I'm happy to try to correct your misimpressions, but allow me to comment that if you're determined to hold on to them no matter what then I don't really think anything I can say will help. That said, I'll give this yet another shot. Just please keep in mind that no one is trying to play tricks on you. Theories do not become accepted through trickery and shell games and semantics. They have to establish a solid record of explaining existing evidence and predicting new evidence. If you'd like to understand why the theory of evolution is unaffected by the issues you're raising then we can explain it to you, but hearing and understanding the explanations is entirely up to you.
It must seem very sinister to you that there are what seem to you so many falsifying evidences against evolution, and yet scientists carry blithely on as if nothing is wrong with the theory. There are two ways you can think about this. You can believe that evolution is just a conspiracy of thousands and thousands of evil and dishonest scientists around the world who hold atheism as their god and evolution as their icon. Or you can take a more realistic approach that understands that scientists are no different than any other people, and that they have good reasons for accepting the theory of evolution. If you want to take the latter approach then we can help you understand how scientists think about the theory of evolution. If you're determined to believe there's something fishy going on then I don't think anything we say will change your mind.
About the Verrengia article, I have already explained at fair length how he misrepresents what comprises evolutionary theory. Scientists have no control over what popularizers write. I thought he wrote a very good article. But he's wrong when he implies that the theory of evolution has anything specific to say about mammalian evolution. The fact that this is so difficult to explain to you strongly implies that he made a wise choice to not draw a distinction between the theory of evolution and reconstructions of natural history. No matter when mammals larger than 4-5 inches first evolved, unless there's a significant discontinuity in descent, such as Homo sapiens in the Mesozoic, it's consistent with evolutionary theory.
I have thought about it. And what you're doing in actuality is giving me more ammunition. If the ToE of evolution isn't really in the details, then its obviously lacking credible evidence to support such transformations. You are telling me that the ToE is still very much in the realm of theoretical biology and actual evidence is still wanting. I can't argue with you there.
I appreciate that you have thought about it, but I think you need to think about it some more. When I said that the theory of evolution did not derive from reconstructions of natural history, I had in mind reconstructions like this one which are speculative. Verrengia makes this clear later in the article when he quite properly says, "Now, the discovery of larger mammals is reversing some of the speculation." This is an accurate assessment of the state of our views on mammal evolution in the Mesozoic: speculative. They are speculative because we know we don't have a very complete picture yet. The theory of evolution did not derive from speculative views on mammal evolution in the Mesozoic, and that's all I was saying. I definitely was not saying that evolution is unsupported by evidence. It is the mountains of evidence supporting evolution that makes this paradigm so hard to undermine. If you're unaware of this evidence, as now seems evident given what you've just said, then I guess I shouldn't be so surprised that you think finding a large mammal in the Mesozoic somehow threatens evolutionary theory. We can talk about the supporting evidence for evolution, though that would be a rather basic digression since the information is so widely available. Darwin did a pretty good job in Origins.
NJ writes:
Percy writes:
Evolution is descent with modification combined with natural selection. It says nothing about the size of mammals in the Mesozoic.
What??? That's all they do on those Discovery specials. They just guess about things all day long. They make guesses on what a Dinosaur sounded like, they make assertions on what its temperment was like, what color it was, what it ate, what ate it, etc...
When I said "evolution" I wasn't talking about the process of evolution, but the theory of evolution, as I was throughout my post. I consistently referred to examples of the process of evolution as reconstructions of natural history. The Discovery specials I've seen have been piss poor, I can't take most of them for more than a few minutes, so I can't say I've seen any Discovery specials about dinosaurs, but from what you say they are describing reconstructions of the evolutionary development of dinosaurs based upon available evidence. These reconstructions are *not* the theory of evolution. They are interpretations of evidence made within the framework of evolutionary theory, which is descent with modification combined with natural selection.
How many Catholic priest child molesters do you think it will take to invalidate Christianity? The question doesn't even make sense, right?
No, because Christ is the measure of Christianity not Catholic priests. Evolution needs some creatures evolving to rescue it. That's the difference.
Well, maybe not the best example for a non-Catholic. But evolution has evidence of much evolution supporting it. But that evidence doesn't include speculative scenarios about mammal evolution in the Mesozoic. I again refer you to Origins. Or if you you want some of the evidence for evolution presented here I guess we could do that if we can figure out how to keep it from getting ruled off-topic. My own feelings about discussing this evidence here is that it shouldn't be necessary. Your criticisms of evolution are uninformed, and in my view it is the responsibility of critics of integrity to properly inform themselves of the subject of their criticism. If you don't want to inform yourself of the evidence for evolution before criticizing it then that is a fault within yourself, not within evolution.
But I find it ironic that the evolutionary belief concerning mammalian evolution was a fact before and then new evidence surfaces that undermines the previous belief.
This is the kind of misunderstanding that we can help you out of, if you want to.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-05-2006 5:08 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by kuresu, posted 09-05-2006 9:12 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 122 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-06-2006 2:08 PM Percy has replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 118 of 124 (346846)
09-05-2006 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Percy
09-05-2006 9:05 PM


Re: Paradigms are the Topic
sorry to intrude, Percy, but is the email listed in your profile (non-admin profile) active?
If it is, I sent you an e-mail. if not, I need to resend the e-mail to an active account.
just figured that this would be a good way to get a hold of you.

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Percy, posted 09-05-2006 9:05 PM Percy has not replied

  
Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 3217 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 119 of 124 (346862)
09-05-2006 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Hyroglyphx
09-05-2006 5:08 PM


Re: Paradigms are the Topic
Re: Paradigms are the Topic
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good point! The article you referenced, Dinosaur Fossil Found in Mammal's Stomach, was written by Joseph B. Verrengia, an AP science writer. In the article he says:
"It contradicts conventional evolutionary theory that early mammals couldn't possibly attack and eat a dinosaur because they were timid, chipmunk-sized creatures that scurried in the looming shadow of the giant reptiles."
I guess one way to look at this is to say that Mr. Verrengia has expressed himself clearly in the layman's vernacular, but scientifically this is just plain wrong.
Percy, this is a lame excuse because just about everyone who uses these websites use them as a basis for evidence. In

Actually NM this is a very sound statement. I have had commentators from the "popular press" in several labs that I have been in over the years and they invariably foul things up in an attempt to make it comprehensible to the layman. The common concept is that mammels barely existed during dinosaur times and this is just plain false, from a scientific point of view.
What??? That's all they do on those Discovery specials. They just guess about things all day long. They make guesses on what a Dinosaur sounded like, they make assertions on what its temperment was like, what color it was, what it ate, what ate it, etc. They even go so far as to present these reconstructions on whether or not an animal rolls in dung to escape from predators.

I agree that many of these assertions by CINAMOTOGRAPHERS are in error, in fact I tell that to my daughter when she watches them (and now she thinks that her father is a stick-in-the-mud). So what. The bulk of data supporting evolution comes from scientists, not film makers. And the ideas of small mammels relative to dinosaurs does have one realistic basis, dino's filled the bulk of the demes.
As in your earlier goof with respect to the crater in Australia, you really need a better handle on the facts. I would recommend Science, Nature, and the Journal of Theoretical Biology over the Discovery Channel (althogh I do like them as well), but thats just me.

"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
and my family motto
Transfixus sed non mortis
Taz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-05-2006 5:08 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Quetzal, posted 09-06-2006 10:26 AM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has not replied

  
Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 3217 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 120 of 124 (346863)
09-05-2006 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Hyroglyphx
09-05-2006 5:08 PM


Re: Paradigms are the Topic
By the wy NM,
How DO you respond to the data on the Synapsids and proto-mammels from the Cambrian? It really is a growing field and directly impacts you assertion that this one event overthrows the established paradigm.

"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
and my family motto
Transfixus sed non mortis
Taz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-05-2006 5:08 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024