Another theory that must be rejected by conservatives

[orogenicman]

Since you have no evidence to the contrary, I may say.

Every species is transitional. Every animal is transitory, as well, as it moves from place to place.

I used the word correctly. Why don't you just admit that you were mistaken. I gave you examples of the use of the word transitory from credible sources as applied to fossils. If you didn't notice, here they are again.

http://news.discovery.com/earth/punc...uff-works.html

CLIP: "That would help explain the lack of transitory fossil samples."

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&...sil"&f=false

CLIP:Moreover, there has not been discovered a single transitory fossil that is able to confirm an accurate or a proven transfer of a basic body structure by evolution from a lower species to a more advanced species

If you would like something a bit more scholarly, here, from American Antrhopologist:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/aa.1916.18.4.02a00200/abstract

As to every species being transitional. Prove it. Dr. Patterson of the British Museum of Natural History disagrees with you. Can you provide any evidence that proves him wrong when he says:

’I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.
Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History

Well, your first link it broken. Not sure I understand what the second link was supposed to show, but the third link is to "The Turquois. A Study of its History, Mineralogy, Geology, Ethnology, Archeology, Mythology, Folklore, and Technology. Joseph E. Pogue. I fail to see the relevant of turquoise to the issue we are discussing. By the way, there certainly are ways to put hypotheses to the test. I'll leave it as an experiment for you to try to figure out how that is done, Mr. I'm a biochemist.

 

[orogenicman]

The other guy only reads what he believes will support his position which is political rather than scientific. Myself, I read everything and weigh one against the other. When solar physicists are warning that we are heading for a cooling period and climate scientists say we are heading for warming, I tend to put more creedence in the solar physicists as they have not been thoroughly discredited and found to be fabricating data in order to garner grant money.

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/09/say-goodbye-to-sunspots.html

http://wbztv.com/curious/solar.min.sunrise.2.979838.html

There is plenty of information out there pointing towards a rather long cooling period. One doesn't have to look too hard to find it. Since it doesn't fit the agenda though, one must actually look. It won't be thrust into your face like claims of warming or any claim that man is doing anything.

From your first link:

"The phenomenon has happened before. Sunspots disappeared almost entirely between 1645 and 1715 during a period called the Maunder Minimum, which coincided with decades of lower-than-normal temperatures in Europe nicknamed the Little Ice Age. But Livingston cautions that the zero-sunspot prediction could be premature. "It may not happen," he says. "Only the passage of time will tell whether the solar cycle will pick up." Still, he adds, there's no doubt that sunspots "are not very healthy right now." Instead of the robust spots surrounded by halolike zones called penumbrae, as seen during the last solar maximum (photo), most of the current crop looks "rather peaked," with few or no penumbrae."

The fact is that sunspot activity has picked up, and has been very active all summer long.

And oh look, here is a sunspot on the sun today that is, surprise surprise, surrounded by a prenumbrae:

 

[palerider]

So you are going to deny the photograph that is presented clearly for all to see? What real scientist ignores the nose hanging straight off their face?

Here is today's photo of the sun taken by SOHO:

Oh look, it still has sunspots.

I saw the photo and had you read any of the information I gave you, you would know that according to solar physicists, sunspots aren't everything.

 

[palerider]

And still no actual evidence. YAAAAWWWWWNNNNN.

 

[palerider]

The platypus is an example of a transitional species. If it were not, it wouldn't have ALL the features predicted for a transitional species by the theory of evolution. The platypus is an evolutionary offshoot that goes back to the time when mamals evolved from a common ancestor of reptiles and birds, because it has traits of all three. A more clear example you will not find, Mr. biochemist.

Transition from what to what?

And still waiting for some proof of your claim that they all evolved from some common ancestor. I understand that you believe what you claim, what you don't understand is that there is no proof for what you claim. It is a story, nothing more.

 

[palerider]

You did research on this animal? You did no such thing. All you've done about is to present strawman arguments.

http://geology.utah.gov/utahgeo/dinofossil/falcarius/index.htm

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1096-3642.2009.00464.x/abstract

Of course I did. As a matter of fact, I had already read both your references. Tell me, which part do you believe describes anything approaching proof that would answer either of the questions I asked?

 

[palerider]

Well, dude, it was your argument, was it not? It was what you proposed was "better" than the theory of evolution, which is the current paradigm. So where is your evidence, Mr. biochemist?

I beleive I stated quite clearly that I wasn't offering up the idea as an alternative and I didn't offer it up as what I believe. I simply offered up an idea. You and PLC1 have proved that you don't actually read for comprehension. You read in an attempt to find something to glom onto whether it be factual or not.

As to evidence? That rests on your shoulders as it is you who is making claims.

 

[palerider]

And oh look, here is a sunspot on the sun today that is, surprise surprise, surrounded by a prenumbrae:

Hey, jump on every bandwagon that comes buy. It appears as if that is your MO. When this winter proves very cold and lingering, what will be your explanation considering that you have a photo of a sunspot and increasing atmospheric CO2 as evidence that very cold, lingering winters can't happen?

 

[GenSeneca]

When this winter proves very cold and lingering, what will be your explanation considering that you have a photo of a sunspot and increasing atmospheric CO2 as evidence that very cold, lingering winters can't happen?

It's Bush's fault...

 

[orogenicman]

I saw the photo and had you read any of the information I gave you, you would know that according to solar physicists, sunspots aren't everything.

No, they are just locations on the sun where magnetic field lines erupt (and are usually larger than the Earth), and cause CME, and other phenomenon which can affect the Earth.

 

[orogenicman]

And still no actual evidence. YAAAAWWWWWNNNNN.

When you are in denial, you don't need no stinking evidence, right? How convenient for you.

 

[orogenicman]

Transition from what to what?

And still waiting for some proof of your claim that they all evolved from some common ancestor. I understand that you believe what you claim, what you don't understand is that there is no proof for what you claim. It is a story, nothing more.

Mr., ahem, biochemist. In all the time you were going to school to get your degree in, ahem, biochemistry, did you ever bother to crack open one of those textbooks that contained required reading. Several in particularly would have been quite useful - the ones on genetics. Don't suppose you read those, huh? Against your religion, and all that sort of thing, eh?

 

[orogenicman]

Of course I did. As a matter of fact, I had already read both your references. Tell me, which part do you believe describes anything approaching proof that would answer either of the questions I asked?

Well dude, the proof is that there are entire fossil beds full of dinosaurs with feathers, a not a single fossil bed that provides a shred of evidence that indicates that "ET did it".

 

[orogenicman]

I beleive I stated quite clearly that I wasn't offering up the idea as an alternative and I didn't offer it up as what I believe. I simply offered up an idea. You and PLC1 have proved that you don't actually read for comprehension. You read in an attempt to find something to glom onto whether it be factual or not.

As to evidence? That rests on your shoulders as it is you who is making claims.

If it wasn't your idea, and you don't believe it, why bring it up? I know there are people out there in the wilds who believe that the Earth is hollow. That doesn't mean that I need to even consider using it in any rational discussion of how the Earth was formed. Get it?

 

[orogenicman]

Hey, jump on every bandwagon that comes buy. It appears as if that is your MO. When this winter proves very cold and lingering, what will be your explanation considering that you have a photo of a sunspot and increasing atmospheric CO2 as evidence that very cold, lingering winters can't happen?

If the winter does prove to be very cold in your area, but not elsewhere, you'll have to explain how the local weather patterns are related to global climate. Once you do that, then you can explain how their idea that the sunspots that are, despite their arguments to the contrary, actually appearing and have prenumbrae surrounding them, fits in with their hypothesis that no sunspots and no prenummbrae will result in the coming winter being cold. The fact is that the solar minimum is over, and the people at SOHO and elsewhere are actually expecting a rather active solar maximum, and are predicting a record outbreak of C to X-class CMEs, which, by the way, cannot occur in the absence of sunspots.