32
   

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

 
 
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Aug, 2014 12:06 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
On what basis do you arrive at this conclusion? Your opinion based on size is supposed to mean, what? Please!

First it is not 'my opinion', but assertion of the size and calculation of the mass, on the grounds of the T. Rex skeletons found ... by 'the telemetric guys' who can do this. If you intend to dispute that T.Rex has had that size and that weight - here is the moment.
Second, the claims in the thus quoted text herein above, are as I commented them:
'The present-day birds emerged from T.Rex as a result of an extinction event ... 2 million years after the extinction of the said Dino.' How does that happen?
Third, as FM explained to you in the quote above, it would be very difficult for your grand-grand ... grand father to evolve from its grand-grand .... grand children, for whom there isn't any possibility to have existed by that time.

cicerone imposter wrote:
Try this link on the evidence presented on the evolution of dinosaurs that evolved into birds.

'that evolved into birds' - you have fossil records of existence (at a given place, with a timestamp) - only this and nothing else. Where are your DNA, bone tissue samples and the other indisputable evidences for 'that evolved ... into whatever'.
O.K. Let me ask you s.th. If you remember the legend of Icarus (a young boy heavy no more than 70-80 kg), the son of the master craftsman Daedalus, attempting to escape from slavery from the island of Crete by means of the wings his father has made from thin animal membrane, covered with feathers tipped in wax ... and the results of 'the flight' ... also the experiments of Leonardo (the pilot guys being not heavier that 80 kg) can you design the wings (and the muscle power) that will take off from the ground a T.Rex ... with rudimentary wings, having metamorphosed from the front legs of the same species? What should be the area and the strength of the membrane of the wings to support 6.8 m tons T. Rex monster to hang up in the air.
Have you found among the fossils a pterodactyllian or pteranodonian monster with such wings ... and size of the body?
Or perhaps your theory is that T. Rex has somehow shrunk its body to the size of a bird able to fly ... which would be of no wonder, as a lot of things in the explanations of evolution are based on 'somehow'.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Aug, 2014 06:57 am
@Herald,
you seem like you are arguing with yourself. I fear that, with your ever declining radius or circularity, you will soon disappear up your own ass.
Happy Trails.
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Aug, 2014 07:22 am
@Herald,
Herald, maybe the problem is that English is your third language. Maybe the problem is that you just don't read carefully. The article does NOT say that birds descended from T. Rex. It says only that the two were from different lineages of the same family, NOT that one evolved from the other. Your argument is similar to saying that cats descended from whales simply because both are mammals.

Further, your time line is screwed/ The process of shrinking in the line that lead to birds took fifty million years, and archaeopteryx, the first bird, or birdlike reptile, or reptilelike bird, whichever (gee, a missing link) occcurred around 150 million years ago, well before the extrinction event, well before T. Rexs were wiped out (even though they were not in the line that led to birs, but rather in a completely separate line that got bigger. Both getting bigger and getting smaller are evolutionary strategies that can buy success in filling a different ecological niche, and both happern, but each has energy costs or gains which over millions of years (and meteor strikes) may prove not viable (or viable). Do try to read a little closer.
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Aug, 2014 07:32 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
you seem like you are arguing with yourself.

... or sooner with some evolutionary 'authors' on the net (and their 'super-intelligent' followers), who cannot stop publishing mumbo-jumbo of any kind. Anyway.
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Aug, 2014 08:06 am
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
Herald, maybe the problem is that English is your third language. Maybe the problem is that you just don't read carefully. The article does NOT say that birds descended from T. Rex.
     Some have third language, others have short memory - that is life.
Quote:
However, not all of the dinosaurs were killed by this impact — they became the birds that are now found on every continent on Earth.
"Birds are the only dinosaurs that are still alive today," said lead studyauthor Michael Lee, an evolutionary biologist at the South Australian Museum and the University of Adelaide in Australia.
Birds evolved from carnivorous dinosaurs known as theropods, which included giant predators such as Tyrannosaurus rex and talon-footed raptors such as Deinonychus.
     As a super-native speaker you cannot prove with 100% certainty that 'which included' concerns 'giant predators' rather than 'evolved from carnivorous dinosaurs'.
MontereyJack wrote:
... the first bird, or birdlike reptil ... occcurred around 150 million years ago, well before the extrinction event, well before T. Rexs were wiped out
     So, what are you trying to say: that T.Rex remained overland, and some tiny cousins of T.Rex have become 'birds evolved from carnivorous dinosaurs known as theropods, which included giant predators such as Tyrannosaurus rex'
Can you name a tiny 'carnivorous dinosaur known as Theropods' with suitable dimensions to become air traffic by taking off from the ground in the first place.
MontereyJack wrote:
... Do try to read a little closer.
     You too. Have you paid attention that the wing stubs on any reptile would be useless until being fully developed?
     Unless develops the power of the space shuttle T.Rex would be like a 'pinguin' with the rudimentary wings - neither reptile, nor a bird.
     Besides why should a top-design predator 'decide to become a bird', what would be the evolutionary advantage of all that?
     There is more. The Dinos have become extinct because of the acid rain that has 'wiped out' their eggs with mineral shells. What is the logic for a Dino with mineral shell eggs to become a bird ... with mineral shell eggs. How would it avoid the acid rain by becoming a bird laying the same type of eggs ... with mineral shell?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Aug, 2014 08:49 am
@Herald,
Quote:
cannot stop publishing mumbo-jumbo of any kind. Anyway.
The only pile of lis and mumbo jumbo in this entire thread has been from YOU.
You still don't "get it" even after both I and Monterey Jack have tried to beat it into your head that T rex didn't even evolve into being for at least 80 million years AFTER true birds showed up,yet you continue to rail some crazy argument that denies that fact.
I don't think that its language shortfall. I think you purposely avoid reading the facts that debunk your questions.
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Aug, 2014 09:35 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
I don't think that its language shortfall. I think you purposely avoid reading the facts that debunk your questions.
     What facts - you are not publishing any facts. Your fellow-evolutionist just publishes an 'author on the net' claiming some mind-blowing things and after that you both start blaming me that I am 'avoiding to read the facts'.
     FM, birds cannot evolve from reptiles that easy.
     1. All the reptiles are too heavy (including the bones, the muscles, etc.) to take off from the ground and to start flying.
In order to start flying one will need not only wing stubs on the belly, but also much lighter bones, different type of breast muscles, etc. Where are the evidences for such metamorphosis?
   2. I asked you whether should a top-design predator, heavy 6.8 metric tons, decide to become a bird? What is the 'evolutionary idea' of all that? Perhaps there is somebody here cherry picking the arguments, and I am afraid it is not me.
    3. Where are the DNA based & the protein based evidences that the Pterodactyls & the Pteranodons (and the remaining 30 species of genus Pterosaurs) are the real ancestors and are evolutionary ancestors at all (for they may be predecessors in a lot of other ways) of the present-day birds?
     4. Where are the evidences that the processes that have 'filed the teeth' of the birds are based exactly on evolution?
This masking of the genes is a nice try, but even more nicer it would be if you had explained the orthogenesis ... of the appearance of the DNA sequence of the mask, for example.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Aug, 2014 10:48 pm
@Herald,
They're not 'mind-blowing things.' They are the stuff of facts established from evidence that can now be translated to their meanings after all these millions of years through instruments now available.

Your mythological bible that you hold so dear is crumbling before your eyes, and you just don't want to admit it.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Aug, 2014 05:14 am
@Herald,
Quote:
Where are the DNA based & the protein based evidences that the Pterodactyls & the Pteranodons (and the remaining 30 species of genus Pterosaurs) are the real ancestors and are evolutionary ancestors at all (for they may be predecessors in a lot of other ways) of the present-day birds?


If you look at a birds anatomical structures its much more convinvcing evidence that they derived from the Dromaeosaurs than from the pterosaurs.The shoulder blades of the pterosaurs ,but not the Rhamphoryncosaurids were connected directly to their backbones and had no suspensor mechanisms like birds. ALSO, and the most important thing is that birds had already been evolving at the same time the pterosaurs showed up in the fossil record.
Remember, an easily considered "rule" is that , whenever two species show up contemporaneously in the fossil record, its hardly possible for one to be the "common ancestor " of the other).
As far as DNA, let me know where we can find DNA from a pterosaur?

0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Aug, 2014 09:49 am
Herald says:
Quote:
1. All the reptiles are too heavy (including the bones, the muscles, etc.) to take off from the ground and to start flying.
In order to start flying one will need not only wing stubs on the belly, but also much lighter bones, different type of breast muscles, etc. Where are the evidences for such metamorphosis?
2. I asked you whether should a top-design predator, heavy 6.8 metric tons, decide to become a bird? What is the 'evolutionary idea' of all that? Perhaps there is somebody here cherry picking the arguments, and I am afraid it is not me


Where on earth do you get these ideas?

Nothing EVER had "wing stubs on the belly" That is flatly absurd. Wings are very clearly adaptations of forelimbs. They were never "stubs". And they are attached at the analogue of shoulders, not "bellies". And if you will read the cite again, and do some research on theropods, you will note that IN FACT, in the line which became birds, they had over millions of years adaptations which got repurposed in proto- birds, including hollow bones, wishbones, and more efficient flow-through breathing adaptions, as well as feathers.

And 2. We keep telling you that birds DID NOT EVOLVE FROM T. REX, OR ONE OF THE LARGE PREDATORS. For one thing, their evolution PRE-DATED T. REX BY TENS OF MILLIONS OF YEARS. Theropods came in all sizes from the sub-pound ones on up. And your "top-design" predator lives a very precarious existence, evolutionarily-speaking, simply because it is at the top of the food chain. There are huge energy costs in developing a huge body. It takes a long time to grow up to be that big. It takes a huge amount of food, which takes continuous hunting to provide that much food to grow that big. It takes a large catchment area to get that food, And it is dependent on there being an adequate supply of prey to feed on, which any slight change in the environment can diminish below the amount needed to sustain that predator. Which probably explains why there was only one development that led to a T. Rex, and it hasn't happened again, since it seems to have been a fluke which didn't work out all that well in the long run. As the cite says, the line that led to birds continually got smaller in at least twelve stages over 50 million years, because smaller, nimbler predators (and not all of the theropods were predators, there were also herbivorous lines) have a much easier time feeding themselves to produce the next generation. And the next.

Do look up theropods in something like "Dinopedia"and notice how far you've strayed from the facts, Herald.
0 Replies
 
Romeo Fabulini
 
  0  
Reply Mon 4 Aug, 2014 11:22 am
Birds are descended from dinos because dinos were aerodynamically unsuited to fly, think power-to-weight ratio/ wing loading etc, and they ate too much, so a smaller neater job that could fly and need much less food was the obvious answer..Smile

"Sorry kiddo, you're on the way out"..
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/sub3/jes-dino.jpg
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Aug, 2014 08:26 am
@Romeo Fabulini,

IN DARWIN'S FOOTSTEPS

by Johnathan Weiner-(author of The Beak of The Finch)

Quote:
Charles Darwin spent only five weeks on the Galápagos Islands, and at first, the British biologists Peter and Rosemary Grant didn’t plan to stay very long either — a few years at most.

They landed in 1973 on the tiny uninhabited island of Daphne Major, the cinder cone of an extinct volcano. (Darwin himself never set foot there.) Daphne is as steep as a roof, with cliffs running all around the base, and just one small spot on the outer slope flat enough to pitch a tent.

Their goal, as they relate in their new book, “40 Years of Evolution,” was to study finches in the genus Geospiza — the birds that gave Darwin some of his first inklings of evolution by natural selection — and to try to reconstruct part of their evolutionary history. Instead, they made an amazing discovery.

After several years of meticulous measurements, the Grants and their students realized that the finches’ dimensions were changing before their eyes. Their beaks and bodies were evolving and adapting from year to year, sometimes slowly, sometimes strikingly, generation after generation. The researchers were watching evolution in real time, evolution in the flesh

Peter and Rosemary Grant on Daphne Major, capturing and measuring finches. Their work documented the evolution of finches in the genus Geospiza in real time.

Darwin never dreamed that was possible. In the first chapter of “On the Origin of Species,” he writes that while natural selection is at work everywhere and always, “we see nothing of these slow changes in progress, until the hand of time has marked the lapse of ages.”

The Grants discovered that Darwin’s process was more powerful than he thought. So they stayed on, and on. Daphne Major turned out to be a perfect theater for watching evolution in action — big enough to support many hundreds of finches, but small enough that the Grants and their students and assistants could band and recognize and measure almost every bird.

In researching my own book, “The Beak of the Finch,” I came to know the Grants well. When I first met them, more than two decades ago, they were in their 50s, cheerfully focused, understated, competent. They were also very fit, to use Darwin’s word. They had to be, to carry all their food and water up the cliff of the desert island.

They kept up their watch during years of downpours and years of drought — seasons of feast and famine for the finches. And Darwin’s process unfolded before their eyes in intense episodes that illustrated better than anything in the Origin the struggle for existence, and the ways that life adapts and emerges fitter from the struggle.

When I read “40 Years of Evolution,” I started near the end. I wanted to know more about the Grants’ latest discovery, which I wish I could have witnessed in person.

Its own origins date to 1981, when a strange finch landed on the island. He was a hybrid of the medium-beaked ground finch and the cactus finch. He had the sort of proportions that touch our protective feelings: a big head on a stout body. In other words, he was cute. They called him Big Bird.

Hybrids are not unknown among Darwin’s 13 species of finches, but they are rare. Because they evolved so recently, birds of these different species can mate but ordinarily choose not to. (Our own ancestors seem to have felt the same way about Neanderthals.)

Big Bird had a strange song that none of the finch watchers had ever heard. His feathers were a rich, extra-glossy black. He had more tricks in his repertory than his neighbors: He could crack the spiky, troublesome seeds of the Tribulus plant, normally the specialty of the big-beaked ground finch, as well as small seeds favored by the small-beaked ground finch. He could dine on the nectar, pollen and seeds of the cactus, which belongs to the cactus finch.
Big Bird mated with a medium-beak on Daphne. Their offspring sang the new song of Big Bird. And slowly, Big Bird became a patriarch. He lived 13 years, a long time for one of Darwin’s finches. His children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren all sang his song, and they were clannish. They roosted in hearing distance of one another on the slopes of Daphne Major. What’s more, they bred only among their kind, generation after generation.

Big Bird’s lineage has now lasted for 30 years and seven generations. The Grants are cautious about its prospects — “It is highly unlikely that we have witnessed the origin of a long-lasting species, but not impossible,” they write — but other scientists are buzzing.

“I think it’s fantastic, the most exciting research finding I’ve read in the last decade,” said Jonathan B. Losos, an evolutionary biologist at Harvard.

The Grants say that if the Big Birds are, in fact, a species, they would call them Geospiza strenuirostris, from the Latin word meaning strong, exceptionally vigorous and active.

But alas, there are rough times ahead in the Galápagos, as in every other place affected by global warming. In the coming decades, as the climate of these islands grows warmer and wetter, Daphne may lose its cactus. And Big Bird can’t live without cactus.

Even in 40 years, of course, you can’t expect to witness the whole story of evolution, which has been going on for nearly four billion. Still, it turns out that if you know what to look for, put yourself in the right place and keep your eyes open, you can see a lot. The Grants have won just about every award in their field, including the prestigious 2009 Kyoto Prize in Basic Science. (The Nobel Prizes don’t have a category for evolution.)

“The Grants’ work is possibly the most important research program in evolutionary biology in the last half-century,” Dr. Losos told me in an email. “It has reshaped both how we understand evolution and how we study it. Before their work, no one was trying to study evolution in action — now it seems that everyone is.”

And life on Daphne was kind to the Grants. They never seemed to age, although Peter’s beard grew almost as long and white as the celebrated beard of Darwin, whom he resembles somewhat. When they weren’t camped on Daphne, they analyzed their data at Princeton in adjoining offices with the door open between them. They write books and papers together, give lectures together, finish each other’s sentences.

There’s an old proverb, “Just sink one well deep enough.” For the Grants, Daphne Major has been a magic well. With their four decades of work on the island, they’ve made it a magnificent microcosm, a model of life on Earth. And with their long collaboration on Daphne and at Princeton (where they’re now emeritus professors), they make a model for how to live a happy life.
A few nights ago, I called the Grants at home in Princeton to talk about Big Bird. They sounded the same as ever, still fascinated by the finches and still finishing each other’s sentences. I asked when the significance of the story had dawned on them.

“Maybe in 2007, we really grasped what was going on,” Peter said.

“But it was a very gradual process,” Rosemary added. “No eureka moment.”

If they hadn’t stayed on, hadn’t kept watching all those years, they would never have witnessed this surprise ending. “But then,” Rosemary said, “you could almost say that anything we would see on Daphne, we didn’t expect.”

Rosemary does most of the talking on the phone these days; Peter had warned me in an email, “I am acoustically challenged.” He recently had a hip replacement, from which he is recovering nicely. They’re both 77. They can’t keep going back to Daphne year after year.

“But we’d like to monitor and see how our Big Birds are doing,” Rosemary said with a small laugh.

At the end of the last chapter of “40 Years of Evolution,” there’s a page with two photographs. One shows the Grants at work in the island’s only cave, where they did their cooking and stored their supplies. “A cave for cool reflection,” the caption says.

Under that is a little photograph of two brown boots, battle-scarred from all that hiking up and down on lava.

“Boots,” the caption says. “Finis.”


I cant imagine the Creationits even leaving their living rooms to try to find evidence one way or the other. Imagine ones career is just watching several birds in faraway desert Archipelago. Imagine if NOTHING was observable (scientists would still report it)
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Aug, 2014 11:40 am
@farmerman,
Good share, farmerman. Thanks. Creationists have a mental block about evolution that will never change. It's too bad, because the excitement about the Grant's findings on Daphne Major is about evidence and facts that supports Charles Darwin's "Evolution."

Also, I have seen articles that talks about 17 Darwin's finches. Maybe, with the Grant's findings, that number is 18.
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Aug, 2014 10:11 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
Good share, farmerman. Thanks. Creationists have a mental block about evolution that will never change.
... and so are the Evolutionists (have a mental block about ID that will never change).
     You don't have a single piece of verifiable, and even convincing evidence that evolution is plausible and exists at all in the real world.
     Let me ask you something - what are all those evolutionary reptiles doing during those millions years of evolution - without front legs (converted into wing stubs) and without fully developed wings (to take off from the ground) ... and with transitional muscles & bones - neither for walking nor for flying.
     If the crocodile haven't succeeded to become a bird for 238 million years how much is that period of transition ... and what will be the transitional species doing in that 300 million years of evolutionary metamorphosis from reptiles into birds ... and where are they - as fossils and as contemporary exemplars (having characteristics of different species)?
     If the evolution is happening as you and FM are presenting it to be, in the past 3.8 billion years of life on Earth there would have not remained any species at all - the flora & the fauna would look like the taxonomic chaos with the viruses - every strain is something different.
     BTW in the capacity of a person with mental unblocking as you present yourself to be, and who is supposed to consider objectively all possible scenarios what would you say about viruses driving the changes in the DNA sequences? The question then will be how have the viruses appeared ... and what/who is driving them? Nowadays the flue virus is circulating through birds and pigs and humans but what was it doing 'before that', and how have it appeared in the first place?
     What about the place? How many strains of whatever have you observed outside the biosphere of the Earth? Where is the stochastic distribution of life throughout the SS, the Milky Way and throughout the Universe in the general case? Where are they ... where are we?
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Aug, 2014 08:57 am
@Herald,
Quote:

If the crocodile haven't (sic) succeeded to become a bird for 238 million years(sic) how much is that period of transition ... and what will be the transitional species doing(sic) in that 300 million years of evolutionary metamorphosis from reptiles into birds ... and where are they - as fossils and as contemporary exemplars (having characteristics of different species)?



"Facts don't disappear because we choose to ignore them"
-Aldous Huxley
Quehoniaomath
 
  2  
Reply Wed 6 Aug, 2014 11:06 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
"Facts don't disappear because we choose to ignore them"
-Aldous Huxley


LOL you are doing a good job then!

LOL

cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Aug, 2014 11:13 am
@Quehoniaomath,
Laugh all you want! You wrote,
Quote:
LOL you are doing a good job then!


If you believe farmerman's opinions aren't based on facts, please prove them otherwise. This, I gotta see! LOL
Quehoniaomath
 
  2  
Reply Wed 6 Aug, 2014 11:19 am
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
If you believe farmerman's opinions aren't based on facts, please prove them otherwise. This, I gotta see! LOL



talking about circular! FUNNY!!!!
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Aug, 2014 11:51 am
@Quehoniaomath,
The only 'cirular' here is your opinions based on nothing concrete.
0 Replies
 
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Aug, 2014 12:58 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
If you believe farmerman's opinions aren't based on facts, please prove them otherwise.
     What facts? I haven't seen you and FM presenting any facts so far. You both are making some arbitrary quotes and are looking for some word or phrase to spit out some ad hominem. Where are the facts? The fossil evidences that you count as facts are evidencing timestamp and place of finding ... and nothing else.
 

Related Topics

Intelligent Design - Question by giujohn
What is Intelligent Design? - Discussion by RexRed
Do *ANY* creationists understand evolution? - Discussion by rosborne979
The Bed Bug/Parasite Plant Theory - Question by TeePee38
dna worlds - Discussion by Syamsu
DD VERSUS EVOLUTION - Discussion by Setanta
The Evil of god - Discussion by giujohn
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/07/2024 at 11:15:03