Penn and Teller on Creationism

[Quasmo]

Cant I believe in both?

 

[KCfromNC]

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: KCfromNC
I'm not sure where you got that from what I wrote. I was simply pointing out that bringing an ad-hoc magical creator into the picture had nothing to do with science and certainly isn't "implied" by the evidence.

To answer your point, in the end, it's not a matter of faith and belief but evidence and reasonable explanation for observations. In science nothing can be proven with mathematical certainty, but that doesn't mean you can just make up any answer you like. Some really are better than others.

I agree with your statement except that G-d or an Ultimate being cannot be proven either way. It is the nature of the concept of G-d. Unless he shows up and reveals himself, there is no way to conclusively prove that G-d does or does not exist. It is a matter of belief then. That is what I am saying which follows what you are saying, just stated in a different manner.

Look, some people postulate that there had to be a beginning to all of this culminating in a Creator, some people don't. How can this be proven unless that Creator reveals himself? Both are rational trains of thought. One is just based on historical events that defy natural occurrances as we understand them currently, the other gives no beginning and does not postulate a beginning.

First off, nothing in science, or life in general, is proven with the kind of certainty you're requiring here. But just because there's not 100% conclusive proof one way or the other doesn't mean you just give up your hands and guess. This is especially true here, where one side has a theory which explains the current evidence and has made successful predictions, and another which doesn't explain anything and retreats to "but you can't absolutely disprove it (since we've intentionally made it vague enough to be unfalsifiable)" at the first sign of a challenge. The choice between the two is not a simple matter of belief.

There is no comparison between the two. It's not a strength of creationism that it can't possibly ever be disproved - it means that it has no explanatory power at all. This weakness makes it far less reasonable than any naturalistic theory about origins, simply because a scientific theory will actually try to explain something (no matter how incomplete or unlikely the explanation). Giving up and running to the mystical non-answer is a cop out.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Ulfwald
Maybe when God said Let there be light, that was a metaphor for the big bang. And when Adam and eve first ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge, that is when we first became self aware and self conscience as well, I honestly believe that God created us all through evolution.

I can go along with that as long as God is a metaphor for the unknown.

 

[KCfromNC]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Turn it around. Evolution can explain everything too. Random spontaneous benefitial genetic mutations......sounds an awful lot like a miracle to me.

So what you're saying is the since the theory of evolution predicts and explains things that are observed in nature and in the lab (e.g. beneficial mutations), it's a miracle. I kind of agree, but not in the supernatural sense of a miracle. Were you trying to be sarcastic?

Anyway, here's a few things that evolution can't explain :

1. Species reappearing spontaneously at several widely-spaced intervals in the fossil record.
2. If the tree of life branched out, reconverged, and branched again several times. I.e. if multiple species combined into one, sharing traits from each.
3. If non-coding DNA showed a different set of relationships than coding DNA or expressed traits.

None of these are actually observed, of course, but it's a lie to say that the theory of evolution could explain every possible observation. That's what makes it science, unlike creationism's "god did it".

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: Quasmo
Cant I believe in both?

How can you believe in Genesis (which is the basis of most of these arguments) and then believe in something that explains life without Genesis? I guess it depends on how flexible you are with respect to what you take from the Bible. There are plenty of people that pick and choose what to believe.

Of course, there are theists that will say, "evolution is just the means by which God accomplished the task" or something similar. You're perfectly free to believe that too if you wish.

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: Inspector Jihad

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Again evolution is based on random genetic mutation....so why does the progression from raptor to finch look so orderly? Sure it makes sense logically. So does creationism.

BTW, Hero, this statement in bold is not true. Just letting you know. Only mutations in gametic cells get passed on. And also, because of genetic variation of gametes and natural selection for traits in an indivdual. It is not tied to mutation. This is not the X-Men. There is not a mutation gene. You need to read up on genetics to understand this.

Yes it is. Everything else involved in the processes of evolution are not species altering....they merely work to adjust a species dominant traits. Evolution purports that a fish turns into a cow. That's unsupported by all the many processes of evolution (I hesitate to call it the kitchen sink approach) except genetic mutation.

learn about evolution and biology before typing yet another worthless post.

Hi Hero,
If you wish, I can explain the idea of evolution in detail. Natural selection is based on breeding and animals naturally choosing mates more qualified for certain environments.

Let suppose that we as humans has an abundant supply of land and food and that we have no naturally occuring predators. From a woman's point of view then, the male who is the largest or the smartest (the ones suited to survive better) would be the ones that the women all seem to want.

Now let's assume that something changes. We now have a foreign predator that hunts humans but only on a certain continent (let's say Australia). The larger humans seem to be killed off easier because they are easier to spot. Not only that but people with larger ears seem to be able to sense when the predators are near and can therefore escape easier.

Over time, factors such as death of the larger humans as well as breeding selection (choosing people who are small and have big ears because they are considered more attractive now), will slowly change the overall population to have large ears and be predisposed to smallness. Now lets say the environment of the continent adapts again to an environment where the only food source is underwater. Eventually the population of the continent will slowly shift to being more predisposed for traits that lend themselves to hunting for food underwater. (the traits can be anything). Over long periods of time, this isolated group will change so much gentically that they will not be able to reproduce with humans from nonisolated groups in which the environment did not change.

Sure some mutations lead to adaptations favorable to the population, but this is only a small portion of the theory of evolution. Most of the change comes from favoring certain traits from a varying population (i.e. - every human is different in some specific way <we are all created special> and some people are more adapted to certain environments than others) Evolution is more based on natural selection (natures ability to weed out organisms not adapted to changing environments). Of course, I am simplifying the theory a lot, but as you can see large scale mutation doesn't necessarily have to occur for evolution to occur. You can think of it this way -- G-d made life adaptable to the environment. In prokaryotes though, mutation is a key component to adaptation, but that is because prokaryotes are asexual, for the most part (if you take out congugation and sex phili).

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: DaShen

If you are going to state whether genetic tests like Southern blot is used and is observable, then you must show that. It is observable and a good use of science, but it is only observable becuase of actual experiments that show speciation and the close tie between it and genetics (i.e. - mustard seed - other types of vegetation). You skipped this and went straight to saying that it is observable just because. That leaves a hole in your argument which any fundie will jump on to.

As for fossil evidence, it is not observable in the sense of experimentation. That is my point. Strata and the relative age of different strata is directly observable because it can be experimented by using half-lives of radiological elements. Fossils and their close ties cannot be directly experimentally to be tied. If I was to use phenotypic relations as a means to show evolution, I could point out the duck and platypus as being directly related (reptilian/avian vs. mammalian). Granted, this is what was used to figure out clades before genetics, but again it could not be directly observed through experiment. That is why "missing link" arguments were so prevalent before genetic testing came into the picture. That is my point. It is not "observable" in the sense of science, but it can be used as evidence when an experiment is done that proves it is directly linked to the experiment. Now it is widely accepted that fossils show a progression because evolution is a scientific theory that is widely accepted. You can use fossils as evidence of evolution, but again "observable" in the sense of scientific experimentation it is not.

Also, Geo minor here, so yes I love fossils and sed rocks. And yes, Geology is a science. Again a semantics thing. You can observe the progression of fossils by strata and come to the conclusion that there is a progression (evolution), but is this "observable" through experimentation by fossils? No. Is the same thing "observable" through life currently right now through experimentation? Yes, yes it is. That is why no real dispute between fossil evidence and linking is made, because observable experiments of actual organisms have been shown.

I think we're simply talking past eachother. What I mean to say is that by observing homologous structures in the fossil evidence, and likewise by observing genetic relationships in the genomes, we are observing the common ancestry of the organisms. It's the same as saying I can observe that two people are the parents of their child by running a DNA test.

I don't understand how you are using "observable" in such a way that does not qualify fossil and genetic evidence as observations of common ancestry.

Likewise, I regard the fossil discovery as experimentation itself, because each discovery is a means by which the hypotheses are tested. That's what experiments are, after all. It seems that you don't, but again I don't understand how you are using "experiment" in such a way that fossil discovery doesn't qualify.

Read my response from another post. I explain myself a littel better. It is more of a logic thing than anything else.

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: dirtboy
Oh zimtroll, I got your duck fossil article that you are so desperate for.

Dinosaur-Era Birds Surprisingly Ducklike, Fossils Suggest

Maybe you and your highly intelligent friends can explain to me why you didn't know this, and how it is you claim birds evolved from dinosaurs if there were ducks already there. Whoops...

I love this, "It may have looked like a duck and acted like a duck, but Gansus was no duck."

Sounds like a duck to me.

It is very possible and likely that birds and dinosaurs lived for a while during the same period of time. That does not invalidate birds from evolving from dinosaurs.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: Inspector Jihad

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Again evolution is based on random genetic mutation....so why does the progression from raptor to finch look so orderly? Sure it makes sense logically. So does creationism.

BTW, Hero, this statement in bold is not true. Just letting you know. Only mutations in gametic cells get passed on. And also, because of genetic variation of gametes and natural selection for traits in an indivdual. It is not tied to mutation. This is not the X-Men. There is not a mutation gene. You need to read up on genetics to understand this.

Yes it is. Everything else involved in the processes of evolution are not species altering....they merely work to adjust a species dominant traits. Evolution purports that a fish turns into a cow. That's unsupported by all the many processes of evolution (I hesitate to call it the kitchen sink approach) except genetic mutation.

learn about evolution and biology before typing yet another worthless post.

Hi Hero,
If you wish, I can explain the idea of evolution in detail. Natural selection is based on breeding and animals naturally choosing mates more qualified for certain environments.

Let suppose that we as humans has an abundant supply of land and food and that we have no naturally occuring predators. From a woman's point of view then, the male who is the largest or the smartest (the ones suited to survive better) would be the ones that the women all seem to want.

Now let's assume that something changes. We now have a foreign predator that hunts humans but only on a certain continent (let's say Australia). The larger humans seem to be killed off easier because they are easier to spot. Not only that but people with larger ears seem to be able to sense when the predators are near and can therefore escape easier.

Over time, factors such as death of the larger humans as well as breeding selection (choosing people who are small and have big ears because they are considered more attractive now), will slowly change the overall population to have large ears and be predisposed to smallness. Now lets say the environment of the continent adapts again to an environment where the only food source is underwater. Eventually the population of the continent will slowly shift to being more predisposed for traits that lend themselves to hunting for food underwater. (the traits can be anything). Over long periods of time, this isolated group will change so much gentically that they will not be able to reproduce with humans from nonisolated groups in which the environment did not change.

Sure some mutations lead to adaptations favorable to the population, but this is only a small portion of the theory of evolution. Most of the change comes from favoring certain traits from a varying population (i.e. - every human is different in some specific way <we are all created special> and some people are more adapted to certain environments than others) Evolution is more based on natural selection (natures ability to weed out organisms not adapted to changing environments). Of course, I am simplifying the theory a lot, but as you can see large scale mutation doesn't necessarily have to occur for evolution to occur. You can think of it this way -- G-d made life adaptable to the environment. In prokaryotes though, mutation is a key component to adaptation, but that is because prokaryotes are asexual, for the most part (if you take out congugation and sex phili).

That was a nice effort, but you'd probably be better off just linking somewhere else. It's too hard to try and distill the idea of natural selection into a single post, and people will now try and pick apart what you've said and create another argument about it.

Anyway, most of what you're talking about is sexual selection. I think the more demonstrative form is ecological selection, which you do talk about to some degree. I'd suggest people go here to learn the basics of evolution and natural selection in its various forms.

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: dirtboy
Oh zimtroll, I got your duck fossil article that you are so desperate for.

Dinosaur-Era Birds Surprisingly Ducklike, Fossils Suggest

Maybe you and your highly intelligent friends can explain to me why you didn't know this, and how it is you claim birds evolved from dinosaurs if there were ducks already there. Whoops...

I love this, "It may have looked like a duck and acted like a duck, but Gansus was no duck."

Sounds like a duck to me.

It is very possible and likely that birds and dinosaurs lived for a while during the same period of time. That does not invalidate birds from evolving from dinosaurs.

Birds evolved from one dinosaur species. It wasn't a case of all dinosaurs evolving into all birds. So it would have been impossible for birds and dinosaurs to not coexist.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: ultimatebob

Originally posted by: Codewiz

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
I agree. I don't want creationism taught in schools and I believe in it. I also don't want evolution taught in schools. Origin theory has nothing to do with a student's grasp of real science its a way for the liberal agenda to force our kids to NOT believe in God as much as creationism is forcing them TO believe in God. I guess you hypocrites can't see that though, huh?

Too bad the foundations of Biology are in Evolution. Last time I checked Biology is taught in school so you have to teach the foundations of biology and that is what? DING DING DING

EVOLUTION.

Astronomy is also pretty much impossible to teach without accepting Evolution as well.

If you're looking for an amusing read, try reading a Science text book from an evangelical Christian school. It won't take long, since it's a LOT shorter

I can imagine how the book reads:
The Earth orbits the sun NOW, because God wants it to.
A duck lays eggs because it is a bird and God wants all birds to lay eggs.
Mammals all bare live young because God wants them to.
We still can't explain the Platypus.

 

[Quasmo]

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: Quasmo
Cant I believe in both?

How can you believe in Genesis (which is the basis of most of these arguments) and then believe in something that explains life without Genesis? I guess it depends on how flexible you are with respect to what you take from the Bible. There are plenty of people that pick and choose what to believe.

Of course, there are theists that will say, "evolution is just the means by which God accomplished the task" or something similar. You're perfectly free to believe that too if you wish.

I believe that some things in the Bible (alot of the old testament) are sort of stories or fables that are there to guide you, they have some relevance and historical fact, but they are not complete truth, considering it took almost 4000 years to get their stories written down, it is understandable that stories change. I believe that the new testament is a little bit more true to its path due to the fact that the stories weren't really passed down from generation.

I believe in the "story" that God created the universe, but that doesn't mean he didn't do it with the big bang. I mean it says 7 days, but how long was a day when the universe was created? Was it an Earth day? 1 day could be 1 billion years. Maybe we're comming to the 8th day where God decides to stop resting and fvcks some sh!t up?

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: Quasmo
Cant I believe in both?

How can you believe in Genesis (which is the basis of most of these arguments) and then believe in something that explains life without Genesis? I guess it depends on how flexible you are with respect to what you take from the Bible. There are plenty of people that pick and choose what to believe.

Of course, there are theists that will say, "evolution is just the means by which God accomplished the task" or something similar. You're perfectly free to believe that too if you wish.

Genesis is a depiction of the fall of man. Even St. Augustine, a person widely accepted as one of the forefront thinkers in Christian theology, warned Christians not to overanalyze the Genesis story, but to take the real message of the story, the fall of man, the redemption of sinners.

Also, Genesis is written in a manner in the original Hebrew in poem form. As in the first part of the Genesis story is written in a manner that lends itself to poetry in the Egyptian/Hebrew form. Not only that, if you follow early physics from the Big Bang theory, it follows pretty closely the first "day". Also, early Earth follows the second day somewhat closely. After that the Precambrian explosion, Devonian explosion... semes to loosely tie to many of the other days. Just letting you know.

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: Inspector Jihad

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Again evolution is based on random genetic mutation....so why does the progression from raptor to finch look so orderly? Sure it makes sense logically. So does creationism.

BTW, Hero, this statement in bold is not true. Just letting you know. Only mutations in gametic cells get passed on. And also, because of genetic variation of gametes and natural selection for traits in an indivdual. It is not tied to mutation. This is not the X-Men. There is not a mutation gene. You need to read up on genetics to understand this.

Yes it is. Everything else involved in the processes of evolution are not species altering....they merely work to adjust a species dominant traits. Evolution purports that a fish turns into a cow. That's unsupported by all the many processes of evolution (I hesitate to call it the kitchen sink approach) except genetic mutation.

learn about evolution and biology before typing yet another worthless post.

Hi Hero,
If you wish, I can explain the idea of evolution in detail. Natural selection is based on breeding and animals naturally choosing mates more qualified for certain environments.

Let suppose that we as humans has an abundant supply of land and food and that we have no naturally occuring predators. From a woman's point of view then, the male who is the largest or the smartest (the ones suited to survive better) would be the ones that the women all seem to want.

Now let's assume that something changes. We now have a foreign predator that hunts humans but only on a certain continent (let's say Australia). The larger humans seem to be killed off easier because they are easier to spot. Not only that but people with larger ears seem to be able to sense when the predators are near and can therefore escape easier.

Over time, factors such as death of the larger humans as well as breeding selection (choosing people who are small and have big ears because they are considered more attractive now), will slowly change the overall population to have large ears and be predisposed to smallness. Now lets say the environment of the continent adapts again to an environment where the only food source is underwater. Eventually the population of the continent will slowly shift to being more predisposed for traits that lend themselves to hunting for food underwater. (the traits can be anything). Over long periods of time, this isolated group will change so much gentically that they will not be able to reproduce with humans from nonisolated groups in which the environment did not change.

Sure some mutations lead to adaptations favorable to the population, but this is only a small portion of the theory of evolution. Most of the change comes from favoring certain traits from a varying population (i.e. - every human is different in some specific way <we are all created special> and some people are more adapted to certain environments than others) Evolution is more based on natural selection (natures ability to weed out organisms not adapted to changing environments). Of course, I am simplifying the theory a lot, but as you can see large scale mutation doesn't necessarily have to occur for evolution to occur. You can think of it this way -- G-d made life adaptable to the environment. In prokaryotes though, mutation is a key component to adaptation, but that is because prokaryotes are asexual, for the most part (if you take out congugation and sex phili).

That was a nice effort, but you'd probably be better off just linking somewhere else. It's too hard to try and distill the idea of natural selection into a single post, and people will now try and pick apart what you've said and create another argument about it.

Anyway, most of what you're talking about is sexual selection. I think the more demonstrative form is ecological selection, which you do talk about to some degree. I'd suggest people go here to learn the basics of evolution and natural selection in its various forms.

Sexual selection is one of the main factors in natural selection, but yes, it must begin with ecological/environmental selection/change. But I thought I pointed this out?

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: dirtboy
Oh zimtroll, I got your duck fossil article that you are so desperate for.

Dinosaur-Era Birds Surprisingly Ducklike, Fossils Suggest

Maybe you and your highly intelligent friends can explain to me why you didn't know this, and how it is you claim birds evolved from dinosaurs if there were ducks already there. Whoops...

I love this, "It may have looked like a duck and acted like a duck, but Gansus was no duck."

Sounds like a duck to me.

It is very possible and likely that birds and dinosaurs lived for a while during the same period of time. That does not invalidate birds from evolving from dinosaurs.

Birds evolved from one dinosaur species. It wasn't a case of all dinosaurs evolving into all birds. So it would have been impossible for birds and dinosaurs to not coexist.

BINGO!

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: GiLtY
I love how some of them keep saying that becoming a complex being by coincidence (e.g. human, etc) is impossible. One of the ladies in the clip even said it's probabilistically impossible. But she (and others who believe arguments along this line) neglected that there are TRILLIONS of stars out there, happening by chance here on earth doesn't seem so impossible after all.

-GiLtY

word of the day. can I use this if I want?

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: ultimatebob

Originally posted by: Codewiz

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
I agree. I don't want creationism taught in schools and I believe in it. I also don't want evolution taught in schools. Origin theory has nothing to do with a student's grasp of real science its a way for the liberal agenda to force our kids to NOT believe in God as much as creationism is forcing them TO believe in God. I guess you hypocrites can't see that though, huh?

Too bad the foundations of Biology are in Evolution. Last time I checked Biology is taught in school so you have to teach the foundations of biology and that is what? DING DING DING

EVOLUTION.

Astronomy is also pretty much impossible to teach without accepting Evolution as well.

If you're looking for an amusing read, try reading a Science text book from an evangelical Christian school. It won't take long, since it's a LOT shorter

I can imagine how the book reads:
The Earth orbits the sun NOW, because God wants it to.
A duck lays eggs because it is a bird and God wants all birds to lay eggs.
Mammals all bare live young because God wants them to.
We still can't explain the Platypus.

hehe spot on

Biology = Evolution. Impossible to distinguish the 2.

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: dirtboy
Oh zimtroll, I got your duck fossil article that you are so desperate for.

Dinosaur-Era Birds Surprisingly Ducklike, Fossils Suggest

Maybe you and your highly intelligent friends can explain to me why you didn't know this, and how it is you claim birds evolved from dinosaurs if there were ducks already there. Whoops...

I love this, "It may have looked like a duck and acted like a duck, but Gansus was no duck."

Sounds like a duck to me.

It is very possible and likely that birds and dinosaurs lived for a while during the same period of time. That does not invalidate birds from evolving from dinosaurs.

Birds evolved from one dinosaur species. It wasn't a case of all dinosaurs evolving into all birds. So it would have been impossible for birds and dinosaurs to not coexist.

BINGO!

That's amusing, cause if you all research into this topic, which none of you have, evolutionists rewrote history to say birds were around long before dinosaurs. I love how you all make convenient excuses to adjust your beliefs when a fully functional bird shows up in the fossil evidence when pages ago all of you agreed birds came from dinosaurs and then cited some dino-lizard-bird as evidence. How about some links validating your new claims and proof that this duck evolved from dinosaurs?? Hell, the author of the article, more educated that you all, doesn't make the claims you all are. Now that is funny.

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: zinfamous
archaeopteryx?

The dino> birds thing is pretty standard overall. The "debate" surrounding the notion of birds evolving from dinosaurs, as presented in Jurassic Park, is pretty much as valid as the "debate" involving evolution

I'm not sure if this is one of the manufactured fakes, however alot of fake creatures have been showing up from China with papers written on them, all of which are later determined to be fakes.

To this day nothing has been dug up showing the evolution of dinosaurs to birds, and as I said in a previous response, science recently dug up a duck fossil in a dinosaur bed, so they had to rewrite history to say that birds now came before dinosaurs.

Of course none of the highly educated evolutionist here know that, despite now repeated claims that it is obvious birds came from dinosaurs. LMAO.

Ummm.. Archaeopteryx is a well established type of dinosaur.

Reptile scales and bird feathers share very, very similar chemical structures.

You are incorrect, sir.

Again, no conclusive evidence supports this.

link? troll status stands until you have plausible data

Try google troll. Maybe you haven't evolved enough to use it yet.

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: dirtboy
Oh zimtroll, I got your duck fossil article that you are so desperate for.

Dinosaur-Era Birds Surprisingly Ducklike, Fossils Suggest

Maybe you and your highly intelligent friends can explain to me why you didn't know this, and how it is you claim birds evolved from dinosaurs if there were ducks already there. Whoops...

I love this, "It may have looked like a duck and acted like a duck, but Gansus was no duck."

Sounds like a duck to me.

It is very possible and likely that birds and dinosaurs lived for a while during the same period of time. That does not invalidate birds from evolving from dinosaurs.

Birds evolved from one dinosaur species. It wasn't a case of all dinosaurs evolving into all birds. So it would have been impossible for birds and dinosaurs to not coexist.

BINGO!

That's amusing, cause if you all research into this topic, which none of you have, evolutionists rewrote history to say birds were around long before dinosaurs. I love how you all make convenient excuses to adjust your beliefs when a fully functional bird shows up in the fossil evidence when pages ago all of you agreed birds came from dinosaurs and then cited some dino-lizard-bird as evidence. How about some links validating your new claims and proof that this duck evolved from dinosaurs?? Hell, the author of the article, more educated that you all, doesn't make the claims you all are. Now that is funny.

"The discovery supports the view that key characteristics of modern birds evolved quickly and early, long before the demise of the dinosaurs.

It is also indirect evidence that the common ancestor of all today's birds was, like Gansus, adapted to an aquatic lifestyle. "

Exactly from the article you linked? How is the author of the article not saying the same thing? :roll: reread the article.

**EDIT**
Rather, Clarke says, the findings illustrate that there was a wide range of bird types during the period that preceded the emergence of truly modern birds.

"The new findings contribute importantly to our understanding of the ecological diversity present in these close cousins of our existing birds," Clarke said. "They speak to the evolution of shape and form."

While the Gansus discoveries seem likely to fuel debate among paleontologists, experts agree that the excavation site may have even more to offer.

Luis Chiappe is a co-author of the Science paper and director of the Dinosaur Institute at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, California.

Chiappe says the potential of this and other fossil localities in Gansu Province is enormous.

"I expect that 'feathered dinosaurs' and other key fossils for understanding vertebrate evolution will be unearthed from this site in the near future," Chiappe said.

Also from the same article you just linked.

 

[thraashman]

Do people even begin to understand evolution? Just because species A evolved from species B does not mean species B completely disappeared in the process.

And people who don't believe in evolution never will. These are the same people believe in God and Jesus with ZERO proof, but are unwilling to examine even a small sample of the mountains of evidence for evolution.

 

[thraashman]

I'd also like to comment on how sad this video makes me because I went to college in Marietta, Georgia and it's just simply frightening to see this.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: dirtboy
Oh zimtroll, I got your duck fossil article that you are so desperate for.

Dinosaur-Era Birds Surprisingly Ducklike, Fossils Suggest

Maybe you and your highly intelligent friends can explain to me why you didn't know this, and how it is you claim birds evolved from dinosaurs if there were ducks already there. Whoops...

I love this, "It may have looked like a duck and acted like a duck, but Gansus was no duck."

Sounds like a duck to me.

It is very possible and likely that birds and dinosaurs lived for a while during the same period of time. That does not invalidate birds from evolving from dinosaurs.

Birds evolved from one dinosaur species. It wasn't a case of all dinosaurs evolving into all birds. So it would have been impossible for birds and dinosaurs to not coexist.

BINGO!

That's amusing, cause if you all research into this topic, which none of you have, evolutionists rewrote history to say birds were around long before dinosaurs. I love how you all make convenient excuses to adjust your beliefs when a fully functional bird shows up in the fossil evidence when pages ago all of you agreed birds came from dinosaurs and then cited some dino-lizard-bird as evidence. How about some links validating your new claims and proof that this duck evolved from dinosaurs?? Hell, the author of the article, more educated that you all, doesn't make the claims you all are. Now that is funny.

"The discovery supports the view that key characteristics of modern birds evolved quickly and early, long before the demise of the dinosaurs.

It is also indirect evidence that the common ancestor of all today's birds was, like Gansus, adapted to an aquatic lifestyle. "

Exactly from the article you linked? How is the author of the article not saying the same thing? :roll: reread the article.

**EDIT**
Rather, Clarke says, the findings illustrate that there was a wide range of bird types during the period that preceded the emergence of truly modern birds.

"The new findings contribute importantly to our understanding of the ecological diversity present in these close cousins of our existing birds," Clarke said. "They speak to the evolution of shape and form."

While the Gansus discoveries seem likely to fuel debate among paleontologists, experts agree that the excavation site may have even more to offer.

Luis Chiappe is a co-author of the Science paper and director of the Dinosaur Institute at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, California.

Chiappe says the potential of this and other fossil localities in Gansu Province is enormous.

"I expect that 'feathered dinosaurs' and other key fossils for understanding vertebrate evolution will be unearthed from this site in the near future," Chiappe said.

Also from the same article you just linked.

dirtboy doesn't read. it wasn't covered in his homeschooling, so I guess it's not his fault?

troll, troll, troll your boat....

 

[Dritnul]

Isn't Evolution now considered a paradigm (some thing that has sparked many other areas of research)

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Dritnul
Isn't Evolution now considered a paradigm (some thing that has sparked many other areas of research)

yes. but that doesn't matter...apparently.

actually, it really doesn't matter that so many people can't accept that, as such people aren't allowed to practice science. (weeded out in college). these people still remain blissfully ignorant of the research that went into the meds that they take.