Another theory that must be rejected by conservatives

[orogenicman]

Actually, you have not posted even the first bit of evidence to support your claims but I suppose if your faith is strong enough, you can convince yourself that anything constitutes evidence.

Denial - not a river in Egypt.

 

[orogenicman]

"To say that it is evolution at work is to make an assumption based on a belief rather
than any actual supporting evidence."

I have already asked you to explain the platypus without using the theoryu of evolution. Well? What's your explanation? Was it a joke played on us mortal humans by the gods, a practical joke by ET to confuse us? Does god have a fossil factory that he uses to make and plant fossils all over the world to make it appear that the Earth is old when it isn't? And if that is the case, where is this fossil factory, and what does his practical joke say about his being an allgedly humane, understanding, and compassionate god?

 

[orogenicman]

"It is a fossil, but as best as I can tell, any assumptions about it are exactly that, assumptions and any belief that it represents anything more than an interesting fossil, is based on a belief in evolution, not any actual fact or hard evidence."

Yeah, what an interesting fossil, eh?

 

[orogenicman]

Here is the evidence you are seeking on the fossil dinosaur from the MSNBC story:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7038/abs/nature03468.html

 

[orogenicman]

I never claimed my "ideas" were correct. In fact, I clearly stated that my ideas were nothing more than that, ideas. Interesting that both you and your pal have simply assumed that I am arguing from a position of personal belief even though you have no idea what my personal beliefs are.

We can only go on what you have posted here, PR. IF you make a counter claim to evolution that ET is responsible, we can only believe, based on your posts, that you actually believe it, since it has been the argument you've been making. If you are now recanting that claim, that's fine. But be a man and admit it, and then tell us what you ACTUALLY believe.

 

[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

Unbeleivable. Even after I posted the letter from Dr. Patterson himself stating that what creationists are claiming about what he has said is a lie, you continue usng that very lie to make your case? And we should believe that you have any credibiity on the matter? Why?

 

[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.

So when I post a photo of yesteday's SOHO image of the sun which shows definitively that the sunspot cycle has commenced, that is a political statement, and not a scientific one?

 

[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.

Umm, so before, you claimed that the sunspots caused the maunder minimum and because we were in a deep sunspot hiatus, that that meant that we are in for global cooling, and now deny that that is your claim, then what, exactly is your claim, since obviously the sunspot cycle has commenced, and we are seeing record drought in many places across the country?

 

[orogenicman]

And still no actual evidence. YAAAAWWWWWNNNNN.

And deinal is STILL not a river in Egypt.

 

[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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platypus#Evolution

The Platypus and other monotremes were very poorly understood and some of the 19th century myths that grew up around them—for example, that the monotremes were "inferior" or quasi-reptilian—still endure.[51] In 1947, William King Gregory theorised that placental mammals and marsupials may have diverged earlier and a subsequent branching divided the monotremes and marsupials, but later research and fossil discoveries have suggested this is incorrect.[51][52] In fact, modern monotremes are the survivors of an early branching of the mammal tree, and a later branching is thought to have led to the marsupial and placental groups.[51][53] Molecular clock and fossil dating suggest platypuses split from echidnas around 19–48 million years ago.[54]

The oldest discovered fossil of the modern Platypus dates back to about 100,000 years ago, during the Quaternary period. The extinct monotremes Teinolophos and Steropodon were closely related to the modern Platypus.[52] The fossilised Steropodon was discovered in New South Wales and is composed of an opalised lower jawbone with three molar teeth (whereas the adult contemporary Platypus is toothless). The molar teeth were initially thought to be tribosphenic, which would have supported a variation of Gregory's theory, but later research has suggested that, while they have three cusps, they evolved under a separate process.[16] The fossil is thought to be about 110 million years old, which means that the Platypus-like animal was alive during the Cretaceous period, making it the oldest mammal fossil found in Australia. Monotrematum sudamericanum, another fossil relative of the Platypus, has been found in Argentina, indicating that monotremes were present in the supercontinent of Gondwana when the continents of South America and Australia were joined via Antarctica (up to about 167 million years ago).[16][56]

Because of the early divergence from the therian mammals and the low numbers of extant monotreme species, the Platypus is a frequent subject of research in evolutionary biology. In 2004, researchers at the Australian National University discovered the Platypus has ten sex chromosomes, compared with two (XY) in most other mammals (for instance, a male Platypus is always XYXYXYXYXY),[57] although, given the XY designation of mammals, the sex chromosomes of the Platypus are more similar to the ZZ/ZW sex chromosomes found in birds.[58] The Platypus genome also has both reptilian and mammalian genes associated with egg fertilisation.[59] Since the Platypus lacks the mammalian sex-determining gene SRY, the mechanism of sex determination remains unknown.[60] A draft version of the Platypus genome sequence was published in Nature on 8 May 2008, revealing both reptilian and mammalian elements, as well as two genes found previously only in birds, amphibians, and fish. More than 80% of the Platypus' genes are common to the other mammals whose genomes have been sequenced.[59]

 

[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?

All of 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.

So what you are saying is that when you throw out an argument to counter the theory of evolution, you don't actually believe what you are claiming and are just throwing it out there for the sake of argument whether or not you have any evidence in its support. Got 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?

Bandwagon? Oh, you mean the physical evidence I presented of sunspots currently on the sun that have prenumbrae, the prenumbrae you say should not be there? What have you been smoking, dude?

When the winter comes and it is cold my explanation will be that it's almost always cold in the winter where I live. That happens when you live on a planet with a variable axial tilt of some 23 degrees.

 

[orogenicman]

So you have decended to nothing more than ad hominems. Predictable.

I asked if any of the fossils had DNA. We both know that they didn't so any story about the fossils that involves DNA is just a story. Sorry that you aren't able to differentiate between science and stories.

Neanderthal fossils have been shown to contain DNA, and it has been sequenced. Any questions?

 

[orogenicman]

Entire fossil beds full of dinosaurs with feathers. What exactly does that prove with regard to the story built up in an attempt to explain the fossils themselves, and their ancestors and decendents?

What is your explanation for the existence of a fossil bed full of feathered dinosaurs?