Peaceful coexistence between scientists and theologians

[PLC1]

I did not say that the species did not evolve.

I said that it has not been demonstrated that they evolved in the way that standard evolutionary theory would suppose they would.

Without support for one particular theory the standard operating procedure for scientists is to generate a list of hypotheses and test each one. Instead what is happening in evolutionary circles is that they are becoming more vehement that they are right and they are searching, a priori, for support for the theory that is less supported by the facts than others.

There are some hypotheses and questions that are being explored, such as the gene sharing between different species I mentioned above. Right now, that idea is not generally accepted, but who knows? Once additional facts come to light, it may be. The hypothesis that dinosaurs evolved into birds was once pretty far out of the mainstream, but no more.

The general idea that life evolved from simpler forms to more complex ones, and that it branched out into different orders, genus, and species, however, remains without serious challenge except from the religious point of view.

 

[Dr.Who]

There are some hypotheses and questions that are being explored, such as the gene sharing between different species I mentioned above. Right now, that idea is not generally accepted, but who knows? Once additional facts come to light, it may be. The hypothesis that dinosaurs evolved into birds was once pretty far out of the mainstream, but no more.

The general idea that life evolved from simpler forms to more complex ones, and that it branched out into different orders, genus, and species, however, remains without serious challenge except from the religious point of view.

The idea of donisaurs evolving into birds should cause lots of people to serious challenge the evolutionary mainstream.

Think about it. Mainstream thought is that species evolve slowly over long periods of time due to random mutations, survival of the fittest, and environmental pressures.

How many species of dinosaurs were there? How many species of birds are there?

Think about birds for a moment. In all other examples of species when they have a lot in common, like feathers, they are assumed to have evolved from a common ancestor.

But if many species of dinosaurs evolved into many species of birds then we are to believe that the common features of birds are all inherited from many diverse species of ancestors. If in any way all those species of dinossuars could have evolved into many species of birds all sharing so much in common then we can never again assume that a species with common features evolved from common ancestors.

If one wants to say that birds evolved from one species of dinosaur then they can test that theory some day.

But to say that dinosaurS evolved into birds tests the limits of probability.

 

[PLC1]

The idea of donisaurs evolving into birds should cause lots of people to serious challenge the evolutionary mainstream.

Think about it. Mainstream thought is that species evolve slowly over long periods of time due to random mutations, survival of the fittest, and environmental pressures.

How many species of dinosaurs were there? How many species of birds are there?

Think about birds for a moment. In all other examples of species when they have a lot in common, like feathers, they are assumed to have evolved from a common ancestor.

But if many species of dinosaurs evolved into many species of birds then we are to believe that the common features of birds are all inherited from many diverse species of ancestors. If in any way all those species of dinossuars could have evolved into many species of birds all sharing so much in common then we can never again assume that a species with common features evolved from common ancestors.

If one wants to say that birds evolved from one species of dinosaur then they can test that theory some day.

But to say that dinosaurS evolved into birds tests the limits of probability.

It doesn't mean that robins can be traced back to a particular species of dinosaur, and ducks another. It means that the feathered dinosaurs became more and more birdlike, then began to speciate into the many types of birds we see today.

 

[Dr.Who]

It doesn't mean that robins can be traced back to a particular species of dinosaur, and ducks another. It means that the feathered dinosaurs became more and more birdlike, then began to speciate into the many types of birds we see today.

The likelihood of robins coming from one dino and ducks coming from another independently and both having many charactistics in common, all as a result of chance mutations, would be more than twice as improbably as only one of those events occuring. If three species of dinos evolved into three species of birds then it would be many times as improbable, etc.

But in most other instances of evolutionary theories all birds wold be assumed to have evolved from one common ancestor. Meaning that only one dino could have been that common ancestor. If birds are shown to be the result of convergent evolution that calls into question every single example of common ancstry based on morphology.

The two main possibilities are that all birds are alike due to convergent evolution - in which case there is no mechanism to explain the EXTREME (even by evolutionary standards) unlikilhood that this would have ben due to chance or they are descended from a common ancestor in which case all we can really say is that one dino is that ancestor.

As it stands multiple dinosaurs have been found with feather-like apparati making the common ancestor theory less popular.

 

[PLC1]

The likelihood of robins coming from one dino and ducks coming from another independently and both having many charactistics in common, all as a result of chance mutations, would be more than twice as improbably as only one of those events occuring. If three species of dinos evolved into three species of birds then it would be many times as improbable, etc.

But in most other instances of evolutionary theories all birds wold be assumed to have evolved from one common ancestor. Meaning that only one dino could have been that common ancestor. If birds are shown to be the result of convergent evolution that calls into question every single example of common ancstry based on morphology.

The two main possibilities are that all birds are alike due to convergent evolution - in which case there is no mechanism to explain the EXTREME (even by evolutionary standards) unlikilhood that this would have ben due to chance or they are descended from a common ancestor in which case all we can really say is that one dino is that ancestor.

As it stands multiple dinosaurs have been found with feather-like apparati making the common ancestor theory less popular.

I can't think right offhand of any examples of convergent evolution. Evolution results in a diverse population, in other words, speciation.

Still, the dinos were most likely no less diverse than modern birds. It's quite possible that more than one species of dinosaur actually evolved feathers and gradually became more and more birdlike. Whether the hypothesis involves one particular species of dinosaur having been the ancestor of birds, while all the rest simply died out, I'm not sure.

 

[Dr.Who]

I can't think right offhand of any examples of convergent evolution. Evolution results in a diverse population, in other words, speciation.

Still, the dinos were most likely no less diverse than modern birds. It's quite possible that more than one species of dinosaur actually evolved feathers and gradually became more and more birdlike. Whether the hypothesis involves one particular species of dinosaur having been the ancestor of birds, while all the rest simply died out, I'm not sure.

AGreed.

Do we also both see that there are only the two choices right now? Convergent evolution at astronomical odds or that one species of dino was the ancestor (in which case it is silly to say that dinoS were the ancestor). Do we also agree that if convergent evolution had taken place on such a wide scale it shoulc cause us to question all alleged cases of evolution in which one ancestor is assumed?

 

[PLC1]

AGreed.

Do we also both see that there are only the two choices right now? Convergent evolution at astronomical odds or that one species of dino was the ancestor (in which case it is silly to say that dinoS were the ancestor). Do we also agree that if convergent evolution had taken place on such a wide scale it shoulc cause us to question all alleged cases of evolution in which one ancestor is assumed?

Yes, pretty much. It is possible that a couple of species of dinos were the ancestors of birds, but it is not possible that all of the different species of dinosaurs evolved into the species of birds we see today. I don't think any of the paleontologists are saying that. I haven't heard any evolutionary biologists say that convergent evolution has taken place, either.

 

[Dr.Who]

Yes, pretty much. It is possible that a couple of species of dinos were the ancestors of birds, but it is not possible that all of the different species of dinosaurs evolved into the species of birds we see today. I don't think any of the paleontologists are saying that. I haven't heard any evolutionary biologists say that convergent evolution has taken place, either.

Right. What we all see in the papers and in popular media is that birds came from dinos. What is written about in more scholarly journals is that one dino and one very closely related dino were the ancestors of one bird that then speciated. The popular dialogue needs to become more accurate and say that birds evolved from a dino. Which of course means that the statement can no longer be used as an explanation of where the dinos went.

 

[PLC1]

Right. What we all see in the papers and in popular media is that birds came from dinos. What is written about in more scholarly journals is that one dino and one very closely related dino were the ancestors of one bird that then speciated. The popular dialogue needs to become more accurate and say that birds evolved from a dino. Which of course means that the statement can no longer be used as an explanation of where the dinos went.

We know where they went. They went extinct, that's where. Most likely, the asteroid hitting the Gulf of Mexico hypothesis is correct.

 

[Dr.Who]

We know where they went. They went extinct, that's where. Most likely, the asteroid hitting the Gulf of Mexico hypothesis is correct.

If it evolved into something else is it extinct?

 

[PLC1]

If it evolved into something else is it extinct?

The species that didn't evolve are gone, kaput. The ones that did are still extinct, yes, but they gave rise to something else before bowing out.

Astralopithicus is extinct, but its descendents still carry on.

 

[Dr.Who]

The species that didn't evolve are gone, kaput. The ones that did are still extinct, yes, but they gave rise to something else before bowing out.

Astralopithicus is extinct, but its descendents still carry on.

Yes of course! Works for me. Thanks.

 

[Dr.Who]

We know where they went. They went extinct, that's where. Most likely, the asteroid hitting the Gulf of Mexico hypothesis is correct.

I don't think we are in a position to be ascribing likelihood to any of the theories at this time. is there something wrong with saying we don't know?

 

[PLC1]

I don't think we are in a position to be ascribing likelihood to any of the theories at this time. is there something wrong with saying we don't know?

Well, we don't know for sure, which is why I said "most likely." There is that crater in the Gulf of Mexico, and the layer of ash that dates back to the presumed end of the dinosaurs.

But, that is not conclusive. It could have been something else. There is an hypothesis that diseases were the cause, probably diseases spread by mosquitoes.

That one hasn't been proven either. The asteroid hypothesis has more evidence for it.

Then, there is the creationist theory:



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

 

[Dr.Who]

Well, we don't know for sure, which is why I said "most likely." There is that crater in the Gulf of Mexico, and the layer of ash that dates back to the presumed end of the dinosaurs.

But, that is not conclusive. It could have been something else. There is an hypothesis that diseases were the cause, probably diseases spread by mosquitoes.

That one hasn't been proven either. The asteroid hypothesis has more evidence for it.

You and I must use the words "probably" differently. If I said something were probably caused by something else I would be saying that there is a greater chance that it was than it wasn't.

But you have said that the meteor was probably the reason the dinos went extinct and also said that it was probably mosquitoes. I don't see how both could probably be the answer.