Undermining long-held paradigms

Fair enough. Perhaps the wording was a bit antagonistic. I don't think anyone can say with any semblance of veracity that these ages took place or what events took place during the timeframes. These are assumptions based on the manmade concept of classification and how what organism followed in a sequence of evolutionary events. This is partly why I object to most evo's saying that evolution does not have a direction of less complex to more complex. Of course that's what it implies, however tacitly they'd like to package it. I would say that it undermined a belief. I understood you, no worries.

---

“"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

Don't you think that's a pretty big discrepency? Why are there frogs? Why are there turtles? Why are there small lizards and huge Komodo Dragons? Aren't you curious why that is, if this meteor wiped out all of the dinosaurs, which literally means in Latin, Terrible Lizard? And if you haven't noticed, crocs and alligators inhabit tropical and subtropical regions. They probably wouldn't do so well in a tundra that could wipe out all of its cousins but for some reason not harm them. Amphibians and reptiles should have been wiped out along with the dinosaurs if this scenario is true.

---

“"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

Alright Percy. Your candor always wins me over so I will try not to continue in this vein. I took the wrong approach. As I've already stated, this argument was never designed to topple the tree alone. What I really wanted to get at was little things add up over time to create a much larger discrepency within the theory. What I really wanted to show was that people tout hard facts in 2003, or whatever, then in 2006 they end up being incorrect. "Fact" is often a tentaive term in biology. I think it should be used wisely. That goes for myself in whatever I refer to as fact.

---

“"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

I defy you to throw an alligator in lake Michigan during the winter and then tell me how its going to survive. It won't. If it was cold enough to kill every dinosaur on the planet, simultaneously, we are talking about temperatures nearing the coldest places we have on earth. This seems completely irrational to expect a crocodile or a turtle to have survived such extremes. Most of what you wrote sounds reasonable, however, crocodiles are said to have evolved 200 million years, and the K/T event was said to have happened 60-70 million years ago. Secondly, what piece of evidence do you have that crocodiles, ichthyosaurs, or any other reptile is from the same lineage as that of birds, especially 200 million years ago when Archaeopteryx was said to have evolved 150 million years ago. Turtles are said to have evolved 175 million years ago. Aside from which, amphibian were said to come about 345 million years. These dates and the supposed links are not adding up at all. Name me an avian dinosaur that links birds to both reptiles and amphibians and explain why they are linked. I would reconsider my position if a detailed exposition could be presented.

---

“"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

Alright then Percy, but will you at least make a concerted effort to chastize those who continue to travel in that direction instead of singling me out? I'm not responding to thin air and I'm beginning to wonder why I have to argue a certain way and speak only about certain things, but my counterparts are immune to the harangue. Let me ask you, what can I respond to at this point? Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typoEdited by nemesis_juggernaut, : No reason given.

---

“"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 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

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

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. 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. 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. 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" No, because Christ is the measure of Christianity not Catholic priests. Evolution needs some creatures evolving to rescue it. That's the difference. 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

The whole attitude of, "I'm right and you're wrong, but I can help you out of your ignorance," from some of the members on this forum is a bit condescending. I think what I've said is perfectly accurate. I said that a fossilized mammal was discovered with a small dinosaur inside the cavity of what was its stomach. I said that the discovery of the mammal in question changed the previous beliefs that mammals during the late Cretaceous period mammals were tiny, shrew-like herbivores. I went on to say that this discovery did not topple the theory of evolution because it doesn't. At most it brings into question the continuous ad hoc explanations that are far from empiricism. What I said was that this discovery, coupled with other discoveries, allude to previously believed facts concerning evolution were obviously false. Now, I've been scolded by numerous people that new evidence is never a problem, to which I wholeheartedly agreed. My point, the only point, was that had I argued in the past that large mammals lived contemporaneously with dinosaurs, I'd be scorned, mocked, and derided for being so ignorant by some of the more colorfully discourteous members of EvC. (You Percy, do not fit in that category. I meant what I said about your candor. It goes along way in here.) I also went on to say that new evidence is a always a good thing and that I never expect the sciences to plateau. Where in my assessment have said anything off-the-wall ridiculous or that I can't grasp what everyone is saying? I think I've ben very clear on the matter. I don't think anyone is tricking me. I think they have preconcieved notions and are led by those preconcieved notions. I believe that when ever certain evidence appears to contradict a previously held belief, they will try to assimilate that without throwing more crucial apsects into a tizzy. For instance, finding index fossils intermingled within the same strata that should be separate by millions of years by their accounts. As well, I questioned how certain reptiles that are supposed to have been alive during the reign of the dinosaurs managed to stave off total annihilation, such as Komodo Dragon's, Crocodiles, Alligators, amphibians of a wide assortment, etc. The emphatic response that I recieved was that avian-dinosaur were exempt from extinction because they were already evolving endothermic qualities, among other tenuous notions. I recieved the ad hoc explanation that crocodiles, plesiosaur, and ichythosaurs come from avian lineage and that part of their survivability can be attributed to them taking great care of their offsprings eggs. This doesn't quite add up because while crocs and gators make nests for their young to incubate, Ichthyosaurs don't lay eggs at all. We know empirically that they give live births. We don't know about Plesiosaur, but it wouldn't surprise me if certain guesstimates didn't find its way in the textbooks. Its these ad hoc, "it seems plausible so I'll just assert it," explanations that I'm objecting to. This is the heart of my entire argument on this particular thread. I don't object to new evidence, I welcome it. I object ad hoc explanations being presented as fact.Anyway, I think we've beat this argument into oblivion. We are just beginning to repeat ourselves. Thanks for taking the time to write it. You are a good writer and I appreciate the time you've taken in which to respond.

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt