Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Undermining long-held paradigms
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 91 of 124 (346248)
09-03-2006 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by kuresu
09-03-2006 1:35 PM


plant and insect recovery not linked
More evidence of ecological adaptation to extinction ...
From http://astrobiology.arc.nasa.gov/
Reweaving the Food Web (click to read article)
quote:
Summary (Aug 27, 2006): The recovery of biodiversity after the end-Cretaceous mass extinction was much more chaotic than previously thought, according to paleontologists. New fossil evidence shows that at certain times and places, plant and insect diversity were severely out of balance, not linked as they are today.
"The K-T caused major extinction among North American plants and insects. The Western Interior U.S. was a dead zone for plants and plant-insect food webs," said Dr. Peter Wilf, assistant professor of geosciences and the David and Lucile Packard Fellow. "We know that right after the extinction, for 800,000 years, there was very low insect predation and plant diversity. We know that 9 million years afterwards, there was renewed diversity in both plants and insects. What happened in the 8 million years in between?
This decoupling of producer and consumer diversity after mass extinction is a new pattern for the fossil record that researchers can now test for its generality.
"Temporally and geographically isolated occurrences of severely unbalanced food webs may be a widespread feature of ecological recovery from mass extinction, resulting from instability, incumbency and opportunism in drastically simplified ecological landscapes," say the authors.
Notice the words "a new pattern" and "test for its generality" -- there are those basic scientific concepts again: finding new patterns and testing their generality ... theory.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by kuresu, posted 09-03-2006 1:35 PM kuresu has not replied

  
Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 3216 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 92 of 124 (346259)
09-03-2006 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Quetzal
09-03-2006 9:13 AM


Re: Mesozoic mammals
Hi Quetzal,
yeah it's been a while. Several promotions and then moving to a new job kind of stole all my time. I have actually been trying to find time to catch up with my reading as I have to get invloved with the local and county school system as the creationits are trying AGAIN to get their ID pap into the schools. As for time to post we will see, my standard work week now is ~70 hours per week with a 20 hour weekly commute. Kind of cuts time for other things. Thanks for the ref. I will try to give it a read when I get the chance. I recently read a different book more on the ID topic, "Creationisms Trojan Horse", a good read but off topic.
The FACT that proto-mammals are present in Perman era strata should be enough to dampen the persistent creationist claim that the rapdidty (rapid, yeah right, >10 million years is SOOOOO fast :rolleyes of mammalian radiation after the KT invalidates evolution but I guess that the data can be ignored when convenient.
Funny thing is that prior to Darwins theories most christians considered the order of the strata as currently understood to be correct (just take a look at the numbers of clergy that worked as part-time geologists back in pre-Victorian and Victorian times), guess that the implications once coupled with Natural Selection caused many to change their minds.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Quetzal, posted 09-03-2006 9:13 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 93 of 124 (346378)
09-04-2006 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Hyroglyphx
09-03-2006 10:38 AM


Paradigms are the Topic
nemesis_juggernaut writes:
Instead, they have to tell me all about their "proof," and how its a "fact" that this or that happened. Suddenly, fact becomes factoid. As a defense, they tout the much coveted line, "We accomodate our beliefs as new evidence sufaces." Then what you stated prior was not a fact, right? Don't call it a fact unless its a fact. This is really the purpose of my post. To show how theory and fact become convergent prematurely.
I think you're drifting way off-topic. This thread is about long-held paradigms. If you believe there are people touting evolutionary scenarios as facts then that would be an interesting topic for a new thread, but it isn't the topic of this thread. Facts are not a paradigm. Reconstructions of natural history based upon evidence are not paradigms.
The theory of evolution is a paradigm. Everything you've said in this thread is completely consistent with the theory of evolution. New evidence is interpreted within the same evolutionary paradigm as old evidence, a strong indicator of how powerful and encompassing it is. Only if new evidence were incompatible with evolutionary theory could it have the potential for undermining it.
To put a finer point on it, interpreting the evidence as indicating that all mammals in the Mesozoic were no larger than 4-5 inches is not a paradigm. It is a reconstruction of natural history based upon evidence interpreted with the evolutionary paradigm. When new evidence is discovered that changes our reconstruction of natural history, it has no impact on the interpretative framework.
In other words, your approach in this thread is off-target. If you want to undermine a paradigm then you have to find evidence that contradicts it. You don't topple a tree by pulling off the leaves.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-03-2006 10:38 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-04-2006 11:49 AM Percy has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 124 (346419)
09-04-2006 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Dr Adequate
09-02-2006 12:25 AM


Re: Crocs
Personally, I have no idea. But perhaps you could enlighten me. What is the Creation Science explanation of why (non-avian) dinosaurs are extinct and crocodiles are not?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-02-2006 12:25 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by kuresu, posted 09-04-2006 3:56 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 124 (346423)
09-04-2006 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Percy
09-04-2006 8:43 AM


Re: Paradigms are the Topic
I think you're drifting way off-topic... In other words, your approach in this thread is off-target. If you want to undermine a paradigm then you have to find evidence that contradicts it. You don't topple a tree by pulling off the leaves.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Percy, posted 09-04-2006 8:43 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by ringo, posted 09-04-2006 2:36 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 99 by Percy, posted 09-04-2006 5:02 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 96 of 124 (346465)
09-04-2006 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Hyroglyphx
09-04-2006 11:49 AM


Re: Paradigms are the Topic
nemeisi_juggernaut writes:
What I really wanted to get at was little things add up over time to create a much larger discrepency within the theory.
That seems to be your major misunderstanding.
Little things don't "add up over time" to become big discrepancies. The little things cause little corrections which prevent big discrepancies.
When you drive down the highway, you're constantly making little course corrections to stay on the road. But those course corrections don't add up to drive you further and further off course. They keep you on course.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-04-2006 11:49 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2512 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 97 of 124 (346480)
09-04-2006 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Hyroglyphx
09-04-2006 11:41 AM


Re: Crocs
if this meteor wiped out all of the dinosaurs
false. birds are still around--the avian dinosaurs.
Archer already explained how crocs could survive. frogs use similar methods.
I don't know how old the Komodo is, but don't you think it could have evolved after?
also, reptiles are not part of the dinosaur set. the name is a misnomer, because the first fossils were thought to be reptiles, based off of faulty reconstructions.
dinosaurs evolved from reptiles, not the other way around.
And I think DrA was asking you for the creationist answer, not evolution's answer. maybe later I'll get some time to do some extensive research and provide to you.

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-04-2006 11:41 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 124 (346492)
09-04-2006 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Archer Opteryx
09-02-2006 12:29 AM


Re: K-T Event
A look at winter temperatures near the Great Lakes (Copper Harbor, Michigan, say, on Lake Superior) and further away (Minneapolis, Minnesota) on any given day shows this. The temperatures near the lake drop to freezing but do not keep dropping so far below. No one in Copper Harbor is going to break out the suntan lotion in January, of course. But the difference in temperature is one that could make all the difference in survival.
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.
You have an asteroid impact that swathes the earth in darkness and near freezing temperatures for six months. That shuts down a lot of photosynthesis and wipes out food chains in both the sea and land. That kind of catastrophe would run up the food chain in no time. The largest animals that require the largest quantities of food would be doomed. So out go the pterosaurs, the mosasoars, ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, and non-avian dinosaurs along with the largest species of fish and reptiles.
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.
Smaller animals that eat far less have an advantage. Avian dinosaurs (birds), with their insulating feathers, have an advantage in riding it out. Animals that can burrow or hibernate have an advantage. This is what crocodiles and turtles do, of course. They make burrows and hibernate through dry seasons.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Archer Opteryx, posted 09-02-2006 12:29 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by ringo, posted 09-04-2006 5:05 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 101 by Percy, posted 09-04-2006 5:06 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 102 by kuresu, posted 09-04-2006 5:19 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 103 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-04-2006 9:53 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 99 of 124 (346500)
09-04-2006 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Hyroglyphx
09-04-2006 11:49 AM


Re: Paradigms are the Topic
nemesis_juggernaut writes:
Your candor always wins me over so I will try not to continue in this vein.
So you say. Then you continued "in this vein," just as before:
What I really wanted to get at was little things add up over time to create a much larger discrepancy within the theory.
But you weren't finding discrepancies within theory. You were finding changes in reconstructions of natural history in an evolutionary context that were driven by new evidence. The data both before and after the new discovery were completely consistent with evolutionary theory. Your use of words like discrepancy is just plain wrong. If your every post contains this basic error, how are you ever going to convince anyone. Doesn't it make sense to you that in order to persuade people that you at least have to say things that aren't obviously false?
I'd like to see this thread actually address the topic at some point and discuss the undermining of long-held paradigms. Criticizing evolution for new-found evidence of the evolutionary history of mammals during the Mesozoic is as dumb as criticizing physics for discovering new particles. Your approach couldn't be more misplaced, and I wish we could actually address the topic at some point so we wouldn't have to go on and on and on about your persistent misunderstanding of theory versus the application of 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 tentative term in biology. I think it should be used wisely. That goes for myself in whatever I refer to as fact.
Please take it to the right thread.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-04-2006 11:49 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-05-2006 6:49 AM Percy has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 100 of 124 (346501)
09-04-2006 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Hyroglyphx
09-04-2006 4:43 PM


Re: K-T Event
nemesis_juggernaut writes:
This seems completely irrational to expect a crocodile or a turtle to have survived such extremes.
Around here it's -20 to -30 degrees Celsius all winter and the turtles seem to survive.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-04-2006 4:43 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 101 of 124 (346503)
09-04-2006 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Hyroglyphx
09-04-2006 4:43 PM


Re: K-T Event
Hi, NJ, same comment. Challenges to interpretations of evidence within the evolutionary paradigm are not the same as challenges to the paradigm itself. You need to find evidence that contradicts the paradigm. All you're doing is arguing details of interpretation.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-04-2006 4:43 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2512 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 102 of 124 (346504)
09-04-2006 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Hyroglyphx
09-04-2006 4:43 PM


Re: K-T Event
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
patently false. the coldest place on the earth is at antarctica.
also, all the dinosaurs did not die simlultaneously. thirdly, the temperature dropped, yes, but to the level of at most, a severe winter.
now then, tell me this. Reptiles and amphibians are found just about everywhere on earth, except ireland (snakes) and antarctica. and anyplace above roughly 10,000 feet. we find salamnders in new england. even snakes in new england. On my IB biology exam this previous spring, we had to examine a problem involving (snakes?) migrating from islands to the mainland--dealing with the great lakes.
also, the garter snake in new england (or it's canada) have a tendency to hibernate in caves--in the thousands.
as to the evolutionary history, Archer can possibly help you with that--but you have to accept that there are transitional fossils do exist, and that we have many transitionals.

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-04-2006 4:43 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 103 of 124 (346560)
09-04-2006 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Hyroglyphx
09-04-2006 4:43 PM


Re: K-T Event
Name me an avian dinosaur that links birds to both reptiles and amphibians...
"Name me a cheesecake that links birds to both wheelbarrows and the number 9."
An avian dinosaur (or "bird") is not a link between amphibians and birds, nor between reptiles and birds. There are, however, many fossils forms linking non-avian dinosaurs to mnodern birds, which is the line of descent which is actually claimed.
This is the apparent paradox of creationism --- that you guys manage to be obsessed with scientific subjects which you are also not interested in, and fixated on aspects of biology which you can't be bothered to learn the first thing about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-04-2006 4:43 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 124 (346614)
09-05-2006 6:49 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Percy
09-04-2006 5:02 PM


Re: Paradigms are the Topic
So you say. Then you continued "in this vein," just as before
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, : typo
Edited 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 message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Percy, posted 09-04-2006 5:02 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Percy, posted 09-05-2006 9:28 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 105 of 124 (346634)
09-05-2006 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Hyroglyphx
09-05-2006 6:49 AM


Re: Paradigms are the Topic
nemesis_juggernaut writes:
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?
Good point. Since I'm participating in this thread I'm trying to resist the temptation of posting in Admin mode. I'm posting in this thread as Percy, and you're the only one replying to me. If anyone else had replied to me about mammal evolution and such I would have responded in the same way I've been responding to you.
nemesis_juggernaut writes:
Let me ask you, what can I respond to at this point?
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.
In case an example from another field helps, theories in physics form a paradigm. The specifics of how the asteroid belt might have formed is not.
The other mistake you're making is criticizing science for interpreting new evidence within the existing paradigm. It would make as much sense to criticize the science of archeology every time they uncover new artifacts that force them to revise their thinking about some historical period. Or to criticize physics every time a new particle is discovered that causes them to revise theory. Or to criticize religion every time another ancient document is discovered that causes revisions to ecclesiastical history. Finding new evidence is a good thing, not a bad thing.
Of course, it does sometimes happen that new evidence is inconsistent with or even contradicts the existing paradigm. It happened in geology when Wegener began calling attention to evidence that contradicted the then view that continental positions were static.
If you're going to seriously question long held paradigms like the theory of evolution then you need evidence that contradicts it. What everyone has been trying to explain to you is that new evidence that causes us to change our view of mammal evolution does not contradict the theory of evolution. The old evidence indicated one story of mammal evolution, but when augmented with the new evidence it indicates another story. But both stories are evolutionary stories. There's nothing in either one that contradicts evolution. And as said before, this new evidence and revised analysis is a good thing, a very, very, very good thing, because our knowledge has increased and the accuracy of our interpretation of natural history has improved.
In other words, you're still seeking evidence that might undermine long held paradigms, including evolution. What I keep trying to point out is that no evidence of paradigm undermining has yet been introduced in this thread.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-05-2006 6:49 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-05-2006 11:55 AM Percy 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