Ancient Life

I was just trolling ya. But yeah, everything is entropy except for biological life.
To violate entropy requires too much intelligent design. Like what Elon wants to do on Mars. If his plan doesn’t work out in the long run, some future scientist a billion years from now will land on Mars and write a paper on the evolution of the Starship. They will probably find earlier fossils of Rover, Curiosity, etc. to prove the theory.

As far as those finch beaks, why wouldn’t an intelligent designer put regulatory gene structures into animals so they could cope with predictable environmental changes and different locations? You know, epigenetics. But it’s a bit much to expect it to turn into a whale though. Too many architectural changes and unique proteins needed for that. Might as well start with something closer.

Oh ****, I can already hear guys down the hall bleating about the crappy human eye design and I’ll have to explain all over again why all physical designs are compromises. Math people have it all over us materialists, proof is so easy for them.

you should write that for ONION SCIENCE, a testament to the good REv Paley.

Using evolution in its full meaning does nOT preclude considering human invention and improvement on stuff that Rev Paley would recognize. What we should NOT adopt however, is the concept of natural selection or genetic drift or gene flow (which sounds like a contrived term on its own)

Paley's crap always amused the hell out of me. Cicero. well over 2000 years ago, wrote: When you see a sundial or a water-clock, you see that it tells the time by design and not by chance. How then can you imagine that the universe as a whole is devoid of purpose and intelligence, when it embraces everything, including these artifacts themselves and their artificers? This tells us several things, not explicitly, but implicitly. As this came from Cicero's On the Nature of the Gods, it tells us that doubt or indifference to the idea of gods was common enough to lead Cicero to an attempt at refutation. It also tells us that the teleological argument is very old. It dates back, in fact, at least 2500 years. It may be older, but if so, we have no record. It also tells us that theistic systems did not command an authority sufficient to drive skeptics underground (it would be necessary for murderously fanatical religionists such as the christians for that).

Any way you look at it, though, the teleological argument is a bankrupt idea. It does not rely on demonstrable evidence, but simply on "look around you, who created this?" This is the naïve assumption of primitives who themselves make things, and therefore assume that "someone" made everything around them.

What a buncha maroons.

What!? You're 'underground' now? As I look around in the A2K universe, you guys have fully emerged from your caves. Open your eyes man, you’re bloody popular!

And who is this 'Paley' guy? You better not be smearing me again via association. I told you, this is all between me an you.

Reverend Paley, in early 1800's stated probably the most compelling argument for "Intelligent Design" without mentioning a supernatural being (although left to the reader the assumption was fairly clear that this was where he was going)

Early Earth was covered in a global ocean and had no mountains

Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2130266-early-earth-was-covered-in-a-global-ocean-and-had-no-mountains/#ixzz6GPNAKL4u

Watch it Ed, that sounds a bit Biblical. You don’t want to go put'n ideas in folks head.

Well good for Paley. I been trying to separate ID from theology since I got here.

I get the same treatment you say Paley got. They say it’s got the unmistakable scent of divinity all over it. Maybe, but That’s just a bonus, no charge for the aroma therapy. Or, you can hold your nose while discussing I D. No offense taken.

'The Weirdest Fossil I’ve Ever Been Lucky Enough to Study': Skull Found in Amber Reveals Tiny Toothed Bird

https://gizmodo.com/the-weirdest-fossil-i-ve-ever-been-lucky-enough-to-stud-1842263885

And yes, unlike birds living today, many birds from the Mesozoic had teeth.

https://www.inverse.com/science/oldest-ever-bird-fossil-discovery-explains-how-they-outlived-dinosaurs
We aren't sure how it might have tasted, but a fossil bird paleontologists are dubbing the "Wonderchicken" has earned the distinction of being the earliest example of modern birds known to science.

Fossil of 67m-year-old raptor dinosaur found in New Mexico

more...

Look at that! I can see them evolve into ducks and chickens right before my eyes!

Stupidity also evolved.

How ya doin Edgar?
Has the CV affected your life as little as mine? Ancient Life is great when you’re up here ain’t it.

Birds evolved in the late JURASSIC, By the end of the CRETACEOUS we already see that , as a bio CLASS had broken into more than half of the 33 orders we see today . These specis are now classed as a member of Maniraptora , sort of "Stem birds" . New thinking is that the maniraptora evolved from reptiles and included the Dromeosaurs.
The stem birds included some "Dinosaur like two leggers" most with feathers . There were four classes of early fossil birds well before these specimens were found. These guys were probably part of the Paleognathids lines. Weve got about 4 or 5 different species of early birds already existing in the late Jurassic , all of these were like Archeopteryx lithographa. The important thing is that many "stem"species didnt go extinct after a new class appeared, they hung around for tens of millions of years in many cases.(why, is another BS session)

We use to think that mammals were all descendants of stuff like Mormoops or Dimetrodon when it appears that they too were a "stem genera"
Basically, cutting to the bottom line birds evolved WITH dinosaurs, probably not from them.

Thats really what the fossil record shows us and newspapers get it fucked up all the time (I hate science reporters-we should give all science reporting to the sports reporters, who worry about FACTS first and they make up a pretty good story ONLY AFTER THE FACTS ARE IN.) ( Science reporters IMHO do just the opposite.)

BUT anyway- when a new phyla appears we normally first see a "bunching up "of species that could serve as models of intermediaries when , in rality, evolution is a complex reaction more like a BEEF STEW than just a broth. Natural selection, mutation, genetic drift, and adaptive radiation seem to be an interwoven bunch of methods by which species can transfer their "Specie-hood" around. Really, the big news today IMHO, is the modes of transfer of genetic material (and whether evolution even first needs genetic modification ) DOes it follow Lynn Margulis rule of genetic transfer at the microbiome level only, is it a mixed bag, or is it only adaptive (Of which Richard Dawkins seems to be the most vocal ).

I like the news that comes with the fossil record. Fossils are, to me, a TOOL with which we can focus in on searches for specific resources, and here we have a new one. a fossil species that had a wide range and a short time in existence is the BEST at using to quickly ate and place ourselves into a specific environment. The rest i a philosophical/religious argument and is important mostly to people who arent in the field of endeavor.

Jasinski is also the head paleo curator at the Pa STate Museum. Hes always on th road tween Philly and Harrisburg. He wa going to met with us two weeks ago but some other piece of genetic material got in the way. Hes found some really neat fossil fish in the upper Devonian of N Pa .

Yes, of course the stories and 'artists impressions' in the media are rediculous from a scientifically enlightened POV. But they serve an important function for the masses. We must prepare their minds so that the stories of small land mammals turning into whales, etc. will not sound so absurd to their uneducated minds. By this method, We inoculate them against the pernicious deceit of theological belief.

'Screwtape' was a really good book weren’t it.

yes it was. SO now youve elevated evolution to mortal sin territory?

BTW, you realize that the only one who misrepresented bird evolution was you. Jasinski clearly states that these were dinosaurs , and in no way an ancestor of any bird.

Come on farmer, you know they mostly only look at the pictures. Sometimes even the headline. But mostly they just parrot things their preferred 'expert' or collage prof. said.

As for 'sin', I already defined it as 'denial of reality'.

Ive always wondered and you successfully keep ducking, On what basis do you deny evolution?? I dont mean theistic ID driven, youll NEVER come up with any evidence with that one.

SCience makes us reserve our opinions until the evidence is in. You seem to operate on another , and totally different "Basis of fact", the basis of which appears to be embracing a "studied ignorance".
You try to use isolated facts to underpin your beliefs but fail to even understand the connected line of facts.

Your ridicule of whale evolution for one, Youve got a rather imperfect understanding of the interconnectedness of its fossil record but that doesnt stop you.


"looking at pictures" usually leads to questions and questions often lead to better understanding . Face it, youd just rather our kids be taught complete hokum and fairy tales . All sciences are interconnected in that they should all eschew fairy tales and legends as bases of fact. .