Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Undermining long-held paradigms
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 18 of 124 (345685)
09-01-2006 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Hyroglyphx
09-01-2006 1:46 AM


Science reinventing itself is good!
I didn't think the argument was going to make or break the entire theory of evolution, its just one more clue to build a case against and demonstrates that much of the theory has to keep reinventing itself.
A religion that keeps reinventing itself may be suspect.
A scientific theorey that keeps reinventing itself is a wonderful thing. The whole point of good theories is that they get adjusted when new evidence comes into play.
The interesting thing about the mammal find is that in no way does it actually change the ToE.[/b]
What it DOES change is the picture we have about the evolution of mammals. Mammals are only one kind of creature that has been evolving since the dinosaurs. Now we have a better picture of exactly how mammals evolved.
NJ, how do you think this find alters the Theory rather than simply our understanding of mammal evolution?

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 11 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-01-2006 1:46 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-01-2006 8:45 PM Jazzns has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 19 of 124 (345688)
09-01-2006 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Hyroglyphx
09-01-2006 1:46 AM


K/T
Here's the assertion:
1. It was an asteroid that caused the extinction of the dinosaur. Its not a terrible guesstimate, but lets not get carried away and call it facvt when its far from anything factual at this point.
Unfortunatly for you there is no assertion going on. We found the impact craters. We have found the iridium layer. We can model the effects of the impact given the EVIDENCE of the impact.
Others on this thread have iterated the specifics nicely enough. The only thing I would like to add is that after looking at some more evidence the thoughts are slightly changing (Oh no science must be broken!!) on the extinction of the dinosaurs. We start seeing a decline in dinosaur population before the K/T impact that correlates with changes in the Earth's environment. The K/T impact was probably just the finishing move on the dinosaurs as they were already headed for extinction.
The other evidence about impacts in general is that they don't all correlate to extinction events. The K/T impact was rather large though and it is hard to imagine that it had no effect given the environmental impacts that would have occurred. The direction of the concensus now is that multiple effects over time contributed to the K/T extinction for which the impact was just the last asteroid that broke the dino's back.

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 11 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-01-2006 1:46 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 79 of 124 (346085)
09-02-2006 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Hyroglyphx
09-01-2006 8:45 PM


Re: Science reinventing itself is good!
You seemed to only answer my post halfway. You even included my last question to you without quotes and you didn't respond to it.
Jazzns previously writes:
NJ, how do you think this find alters the Theory rather than simply our understanding of mammal evolution?
But what if the evidence doen't improve on it, but rather bring parts of it into disrepute?
Neither of the pieces of evience you posted brings the Theory of Evolution into disrepute. You are very obviously confusing an instantiation of the theory with the theory itself. While the mammalian find may cause us to toss out some of what we thought the history of mammals was like, the overarching theory itself is not hampered.
And if those proponents just change times that are supposed to have been based on empirical testing, then what is that saying about the validity of that testing, the validity of the experimentors?
The parts of mammalian history that were theorized before were based on the evidence we had at the time. It was a complete theory given the evidence. Now there is new evidence that adds more information. This does not mean that our previous explanation of mammalian history was faulty. It simply means that it was incomplete.
Newton's theories were not invalid because he didn't include relativity. In fact they are correct for a single frame of reference. Now we know more so we have a better understanding of how the laws of motion and forces work. We don't chide Newton for not being complete because that knowledge was the foundation that eventually became the new best explanation that we have. Even now we think there might be something missing that relativity cannot explain.
Isn't giving an opponent of theirs more ammunition to believe that those who swore, hand to Origins, that they were right all along end up being proven false?
Maybe you can produce for us where anyone has said that the previous understanding of the evolution of mammals was "evo gospel". Scientists fight about paradigms all the time but the evidence always wins.
A century ago it was considered rediculous that the continents might be moving. The evidence won and changed our knowledge.
Recently it was considered rediculous that the Earth might have ever been frozen from the poles to the equator. The evidence won and we changed our knowledge.
Some things even went back and forth like the cause of the extinction of the dinosaurs. It was volcanoes, then it was an impact, now we have evidence that the impact caused the volcanoes, then we have even more evidence of other impacts and their effect, then we have computer modeling of what an impact would do, then we have other palentological evidence of a decline in Mezozoic mega-fauna even BEFORE the impact and the volcanoes.
Science is self correcting. No one who can claim to be a scientist SHOULD ever say that what we know now is 100% correct. Everything is open to be falsified and corrected when new evidence comes to light.
Now we know there were bigger mammals in the age of the dinosaur. This REALLY isn't that big of a paradigm shift. All this evidence does is help complete our picture of mammal evolution.
I would like for you to answer the question at the begginging of this post, the one you forgot about. As a hint, answering it properly requires that you are capable of distinguishing between the ToE and a particular instantiation of the theory, in this case early mammalian evolution.

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 39 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-01-2006 8:45 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024