14 May 2008, 2:48 pm
Ragtime wrote:
Just because I'm not following your particular line of reasoning?
Get ready to dismiss virtually everyone on the planet,
if they must either follow your exact way of thinking or be wrong.
Get ready to dismiss virtually everyone on the planet,
if they must either follow your exact way of thinking or be wrong.
Well, if only one line of reasoning is correct, and I believe I have that line of reasoning, then dismissing others or scoring them on their similarity to my line of reasoning does not seem wrong. If I though my line of reasoning were not right, then I would seek to refine my line of reasoning, and if I thought there was no right line of reasoning, then there is no reason to discuss reasonings anyway. Really though, his concern on your line of reasoning, does not seem invalid as you are shifting from what is the actual issue involved to something that should not be a part of the discussion.
Quote:
I wish we could!
If only people would agree to basic, widespread, and obvious facts,
we could actually been to make progress.
But as it is, neither you nor anyone else appears to be listening.
And I've made it SO, SO simple, and yet seemingly all of you
still will not admit to simple logic, let alone basic premises and occurances.
So, I'm basically done with this thread.
I don't talk to deaf people, and I don't make slides for blind people.
If only people would agree to basic, widespread, and obvious facts,
we could actually been to make progress.
But as it is, neither you nor anyone else appears to be listening.
And I've made it SO, SO simple, and yet seemingly all of you
still will not admit to simple logic, let alone basic premises and occurances.
So, I'm basically done with this thread.
I don't talk to deaf people, and I don't make slides for blind people.
We could make so much progress, but as it is, one dummy is screwing everything up by making stupid utterances, and then complaining about everyone else rejecting them and trying to hammer down on the real issues. Frankly, the issue isn't simple logic, but wrong logic. We use it correctly, you seem to use your head as a hat rack though.
Well, it is a good thing you don't talk to deaf people or make slides for blind people, as a blind and deaf person, you have problems talking and making slides to begin with!
14 May 2008, 2:53 pm
Sedaka wrote:
Odin wrote:
Paleontology is like Archeology. If one thinks that evolution over geological time scales isn't science because it "can't be tested in the lab" one would have to logically say the same thing of historical facts of cultural change and migrations based on archeology. Studying the evolutionary relationships of life in earth using fossil evidence is little different epistemologically from studying the evolution of human societies using archaeological artifacts.
And Evolution does make predictions that can be tested. In the early 90s an increasing number of paleontologists hypothesized that bird-like theropod dinosaurs, such as dromeosaurs ("raptors") should have feathers. Sure enough, in the late 90s at a fossil site in China we started finding feathered dinosaurs. These fossils also shows how feathers evolved. "Raptors" and related groups have full-blown quill-type feathers while compsagnathids, basal tyrannosaurs, and other less bird-like dinosaurs had only downy protofeathers.
And Evolution does make predictions that can be tested. In the early 90s an increasing number of paleontologists hypothesized that bird-like theropod dinosaurs, such as dromeosaurs ("raptors") should have feathers. Sure enough, in the late 90s at a fossil site in China we started finding feathered dinosaurs. These fossils also shows how feathers evolved. "Raptors" and related groups have full-blown quill-type feathers while compsagnathids, basal tyrannosaurs, and other less bird-like dinosaurs had only downy protofeathers.
to be fair... several of these dino with feather fossils are fakes. i can't say all... but there are some.
As Far as I know there were no fakes, though there was one that could be considered a "partial fake," that is, the "Archeoraptor" debacle, somebody mixed together pterosaur remains with remains of what we now know to be those of a small dromeosaur called Microraptor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microraptor
Quote:
Like Archaeopteryx, Microraptor provides important evidence about the evolutionary relationship between birds and dinosaurs. Microraptor had long pennaceous feathers that form wing-like surfaces on the arms and tail but also, surprisingly, on the legs. This led Xu (2003) to describe it as a "four winged dinosaur", and to speculate that it may have glided using all four limbs for lift.
Quote:
The naming of Microraptor is controversial, because of the unusual circumstances of its first description. The first specimen to be described was part of a chimeric specimen — a patchwork of unrelated feathered dinosaur species assembled from multiple specimens in China and smuggled to the USA for sale. After the forgery was revealed by Xu Xing of Beijing's Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Storrs L. Olson, curator of birds in the National Museum of Natural History of the Smithsonian Institution, published a description of the tail in an obscure journal, giving it the name Archaeoraptor liaoningensis in an attempt to remove the name from the paleornithological record by assigning it to the part least likely to be a bird.[6] However, Xu had discovered the remainder of the specimen from which the tail had been taken and published a description of it later that year, giving it the name Microraptor zhaoianus.[7]
14 May 2008, 5:15 pm
Speckles wrote:
Quatermass wrote:
I hope you're being satirical, because otherwise, I am living nowhere.
Obviously you're in on it
.Bite me. Lemme put it this way, I spend a few morning swearing at too-noisy cockatoos. Not pets.
Plus, I'm freezing my arse off at the moment. But you lot are in the middle of spring. Nothing like freezing my arse off to make me evolve thicker fur, if you'd believe an idiot like Trofim Lysenko.
14 May 2008, 5:35 pm
Quatermass wrote:
Speckles wrote:
Quatermass wrote:
I hope you're being satirical, because otherwise, I am living nowhere.
Obviously you're in on it
.Bite me. Lemme put it this way, I spend a few morning swearing at too-noisy cockatoos. Not pets.
Plus, I'm freezing my arse off at the moment. But you lot are in the middle of spring. Nothing like freezing my arse off to make me evolve thicker fur, if you'd believe an idiot like Trofim Lysenko.
Hey Quatermass, if you didn't notice, its satire.
techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,693
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi
14 May 2008, 5:37 pm
15 May 2008, 4:02 am
15 May 2008, 5:03 am
15 May 2008, 5:35 am
15 May 2008, 9:07 am
Ragtime wrote:
So it's an elective, but it's required. Could one of you be a little more clear, please?
Could one of you be a little more clear, please?"Evolution" as a standalone course, as in a course devoted entirely to the theory, is an elective.
However, in general biology (the introductory survey course taught to students in the biological sciences, typically during their first year) evolution is touched upon along with other subjects. You need to have a rudimentary understanding of evolution to make sense of much else in biology. In general bio, it's taught among a plethora of other things. It's not that difficult to understand, for example, you can learn about Shakespeare in an introductory English class, without the class being devoted entirely to Shakespeare.
But to answer the original question, Evolution is the underlying theory of biological diversity, so you need to grasp it to move on. Or, like me, you can just enjoy gaining knowledge for the sake of it.
15 May 2008, 10:12 pm
Ragtime wrote:
If only people would agree to basic, widespread, and obvious facts,
we could actually been to make progress.
But as it is, neither you nor anyone else appears to be listening.
And I've made it SO, SO simple, and yet seemingly all of you
still will not admit to simple logic, let alone basic premises and occurances.
So, I'm basically done with this thread.
I don't talk to deaf people, and I don't make slides for blind people.
That's the pot calling the kettle black.
We've run over your dogma, and you won't concede defeat.
16 May 2008, 5:47 am
techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,693
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi
16 May 2008, 6:53 am
Quatermass wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
If only people would agree to basic, widespread, and obvious facts,
we could actually been to make progress.
But as it is, neither you nor anyone else appears to be listening.
And I've made it SO, SO simple, and yet seemingly all of you
still will not admit to simple logic, let alone basic premises and occurances.
So, I'm basically done with this thread.
I don't talk to deaf people, and I don't make slides for blind people.
That's the pot calling the kettle black.
We've run over your dogma, and you won't concede defeat.
Yeah, the trouble is if someone wants to really push an argument about something, anything, they need to explain themselves well and have a working argument. When someone pushes more the fact that they're right just because the other side is wrong - its a situation where everyone else asks themselves "Ok, so if you asked a question or started a debate but weren't willing to answer our thoughts with anything substantive, why did you bring it up in the first place?". Other than on a pure emotional level (disliking a view, unwillingness to change, attacking it just to make yourself feel better) it really makes no sense.
16 May 2008, 7:55 am
techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,693
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi
16 May 2008, 4:23 pm
17 May 2008, 4:30 am
18 May 2008, 1:51 am
