Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

My candidate for"first true burd" is this Jeholornis a turkey sized relatively toothless beaked "birdy" (who had definite birdy feet) . He was from the lower K of N China (part of the Jhol fauna I mentioned above)
His artwork is probably a bit doctored up by some eager graphic srtist but the features are pretty reasonable.
Jeholornis was one of the first "toothless" beaked dino-birds .

I don't know, I just like to watch all the paleos argue with each other

Quahog says:

No. Probably not. Not like a huge hollow earth....Now, THAT was a hoax.

Can you publish this in a textbook or in a scientific article, or perhaps you think because it is in electronic form it is temporarily and everything goes.
For the idiots who are not well aware, many of the electronic records outperform in existence a lot of of the texts, printed on paper.


We are talking about evolutionists as if you are empowered to represent them and to talk on their behalf. Why don't you ask some of them - what they are thinking on the issue, for this is one of their claims: with every day and in any way the newly species converted from the older and extinct ones, become better and better. How much better are some of the present day species (in terms of history record of survival) in comparison to the dinos, for example.
The dinosaurs have had six rows of teeth, replacing the old and worn out ones during their lifetime. We have only two rows (by birth).
Now you have to prove that having two rows of teeth rather than six is 'much better'.


You don't have a definition of super species in the first place - to pronounce whether they are to be proven or not ... let alone ever or never.


So it is stochastics ... with propapility of 10 to the power of minus 24 or s.th.

Why don't you read for a while some literature of the opponents to the evolution: http://www.biblelife.org/evolution.htm

Where do you see the dino here - in the branches of the DNA sequence for that species and its cousins, for example. This is simply a birth with claws to attach to the rocks and/or trees (to fight against predators, or to stay stable against the wind, or whatever).
- Where is the dino-predecessor, with the stub wings for that species?
- How would the 'intermediate' species fly, for example ... with rudimentary wing stubs?
- How has that species 'guessed' to loose some of its weight (as a dino) in order to start taking off from the ground (as a birth)?
- How much is the difference in the weight of the 'last dino' and the 'first bird' in your mind-blowing examples ... and what about the differences in the DNA sequences? ... etc.

Let me guess, you have researched...nothing

I think you are being blinded by now accepting only what DNA represents, especially since no DNA could possibly be extracted from fossils older than say 500000 years (we include osteocalcin as a "pot cursor).
There are about 30 unique features that anatomically separate reptiles (or dinosaurs) and birds. The dromaeosaurs ere dinosaurs by definition and archaeopteryx, while it had reptilian features (21 of the 30 plus), It had recently been reclassified as a reptile because the fact was that dromaeosaurs and "archeopterans" and several other lines of dinosaurs (like raptors) , did have feathers and non saurischian keel bones.

Youre arguing that a classification was wrong even though ALL classification is a construct for scientific convenience.

Maybe we should have an Olympics. Most journals are on line as well. The publication of papaers for a journal STILL requires the substantial time for QA and peer review and editorial comment before publication. Scientific journals ARE NOT self published. If a journal IS self published, it usually is a candidate for follow-up recant.

And fodder for Quahog's lunacy.

selection is NOT stochastic. Because its adaptive in most cases and is opportunistic in ALL cases.
natural selection is made of two parts
1 The genome is multi varied and genetic variability is most likely a random occurrence.

2 The SELECTIOn part is that the proper genomic complement will be "Selected" (meaning it wont be gone extinct) and will be adapted to the new environmental conditions or niche opportunity.

Yes, both natural and human 'contamination' of the environment will affect any living organism. Some may survive through change or die from the 'toxic' environment.

So , in effect, those that wish it to be "Random walk" can consider the part that genetic variability cannot be predicted, whereas Adaptational changes can be .

"red Queen" adaptational changes are ones in which a prey animal is "selected for" being fatser at running away from the predators an then the predators are also selected "or" by being able to catch the prey .
Yet, some animals show incomplete "Red Queen" adaptation. EG, the cheetah is able to run very fast but for very short times (like 15 seconds or less). Because its mitochondria aren't able to sustain the huge demand for oxygen that flat out running demands.

I find the pronghorn antelope (which is actually a sort of goat) to be interesting in that regard. Out of twelve original species, five survived into historical times. Their incredible running abilities were derived from the need to elude a cheetah-like species which once roamed the plains of North America. They can hit 55 miles per hour in the first half mile of a spring. Their saving grace, though, was the ability to sustain high speeds for much longer than any predator. I believe i am correct in saying that they are the fasted mammal in North America. Their evolutionary adaption was the ability to expand the windpipe to take in far more air that similar-sized animals, and to process oxygen far more efficiently than other animals.

That's the thing. It is still an antelope!!!

What else do you expect it to be?

EXACTLY!!!!


you probably don't get it. Nevermind,

I understand it completely; but you questioned it. That's the reason for my challenge.

No, with al due respect. You don't understand at all.

Tell me why?

Set wrote,

500 000 is not too little period of time - where are your DNA evidences for the branches in the taxonomy?


Do you have anything else besides the '30 unique features ...' ?


I am not claiming exactly that, but the taxonomy is designed for the sake of providing 'fake evidences' for the purposes of the evolution theory and the evolution on its part is absolutely orthogonal to any science & theory, actually it is driving in a parallel universe.
- Where will you classify the Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster in your taxonomy ... ah, I forgot also Varan de Comodo with the six delay death bite poisons?
- How can you select a cat by selectively breeding dogs?
- How many DNAs have you changed into new species by your GMO practices, for example?
- New variations of the species are possible, but how many species can you name that have been developed by science, so far?
- Can you produce a left-hand protein as found in human and animals, and why is that so?
- Why don't the Eskimos have fur?
- How many monkeys do you have that can type poetry on a typewriter - if they stay typing stochastics for pretty long time?
- Can you explain how exactly the pretty long time theory not only becomes (somehow) law in biology, but also becomes proven, repeatable law in physics ... and starts making the impossible things possible? Where else have you observed or can you apply that 'proven law'?
- If life can occur everywhere throughout the Universe by evolution from whatever, why don't we have any radio & X-ray signals from the aliens out there ... from the 100 BN galaxies, evolving concurrently with the Earth as a result of the omnipresent operation of the Big Bang 'theory'?
- Can you give an example of some quantum encryption communication in light signals ... from the aliens?
- Why don't you found any traces of life on Mars?
No stochastics - no evolution, it's all about game over.

why? you are not able to get it.