Dinosaurs Evolved Into Birds!! Really??

[meccalli]

Although no evolutionist would accept it, its funny that Attenborough of all people would make such a heinous claim lol. As far as I know, the consensus on whether or not hangs on a string between biological scientists.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/09/s ... -evolving/

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Although no evolutionist would accept it, its funny that Attenborough of all people would make such a heinous claim lol. As far as I know, the consensus on whether or not hangs on a string between biological scientists.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/09/s ... -evolving/

that is the great thing about science!

it is tested and re-tested, put to trial, varying minds contest and collaborate with the ultimate goal of finding out how the natural world works. This scientific process has given us the medicine and technology that we have today.

Claims have to be peer reviewed and tested, evolutionary biologists draw conclusions only based on the facts that they find. And when ideas that were thought to be fact are disproven, it is now celebrated and broadcasted that we now understand more of the natural world.

[zoom rader]

Interesting chead, science always win over fables and tales.

[Habit7]

You sir might be the one how needs to read up. Scientific consensus (what you repeatedly appeal to) says human evolution has stopped. Your argument is not with me, it is with the consensus.

Furthermore your original post said nothing about mutations. I will allow you the grace to clarify yourself but please return to someone else next time before you scold them on the topic of evolution you clearly know so much about.

where is the proof of this consensus?

Post a link, a quote, something.

Well in searching for the best source I was able see arguments for and against like: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7132794.stm and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... ntist.html which shows we are arguing from both sides of the same coin. Nevertheless my point was not to rake the man over the coals for something we now see is inconclusive. It all comes down to whether you count observable adaptation as evolution. Or hope that these adaptations and mutations will redound to a next species à la Charles Darwin's hope of "civilized man." I think this NOVA article balances it best:

A GENERAL CONSENSUS
In the end, the answer to the question of whether we're still evolving seems to come down to a matter of degree. And when you look at it that way, most scientists seem to be in basic agreement. That is, few would claim we're not evolving at all. The genetic evidence for natural selection—at least for mutations of single or at most a few genes that confer some benefit and thereby spread through a population over time—is just too strong, and it's getting stronger all the time.
By the same token, few would say we're evolving enough to become, say, the bulbous-headed superhumans of sci-fi anytime soon. Or, for that matter, enough to differentiate into one or more new species of human. Even saying unequivocally whether any or all of us are getting smarter is impossible to say. As Pinker put it to me, "We're looking at a snapshot of ourselves, and we'd really have to run the movie for another few thousand years."
Few, it seems to me, could argue with that.
Peter Tyson is editor in chief of NOVA Online.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/ ... lving.html

[MG Man]

nothing there implies human evolution has stopped :-/

[Habit7]

Ok we'll let me simplify it for you. All say microevolution continues, some say macroevolution has stopped.

[Slartibartfast]

It basically saying there is no longer any stimuli for evolution to continue because we thwart death with modern medicine and science. We no longer need to evolve to survive. I think it makes sense.

In other words, we adapted our environment to us so much that we no longer need to adapt to our environment.

[MG Man]

Ok we'll let me simplify it for you. All say microevolution continues, some say macroevolution has stopped.

'some say'?
sounds like ah indian movie song

[Habit7]

I think you mixing it up with Kasamh Se, which I have heard is pretty good

[meccalli]

It basically saying there is no longer any stimuli for evolution to continue because we thwart death with modern medicine and science. We no longer need to evolve to survive. I think it makes sense.

In other words, we adapted our environment to us so much that we no longer need to adapt to our environment.

If scientists today can theorize what happened, they can surely see some way to replicate it. I always look at bacteria, if animals could evolve in a matter of a few thousand years in a couple generations, bacteria can chew generations out in a few days. put your theory to the test, recreate environmental pressure propositions that you sell as truth, that would drive these PERFECTLY suited organisms that were still around millions of years back then into something more complex, less suited and at a disadvantage- retrograde steps, makes no evolutionary sense for perfect organisms that can withstand nearly anything and survive to wan't to go in the direction of a complex animal that is so fragile and dependant on its environment. Bacteria live on almost any surface. They don’t have to waste costly metabolic resources to build specialized equipment for sexual reproduction because they divide by fission, often twice an hour in favourable conditions. They are observed with a fully-functioning suite of well-designed mechanisms that enable them to blanket the earth, grow and divide, adapt and survive. And yet the earth is populated by a variety of living things, including humans, who are supposedly the most evolved species.

Which is why I put forward that suggestion, if they can theorize it, surely they can replicate artificial evolutionary pressure on some rudimentary species of prokaryote or archaea and force out even a glimmer of a macroevolution type step in something that churns out thousands of generations in practically no time, compared to animals that science claims evolved through a few hundred generations. These supposed precursor organisms are found in the 'immaculate' fossil record just as they are today, perfect as ever. There would be no pressure on them to regress into a more environmentally dependent organism.

[Slartibartfast]

Very good points there Mecalli. I'm not aware of any research done in that area but I will be very interested to hear the results whether they were successful or not as well as what science has to say on why something that is already well adapted will continue to evolve.

[Habit7]

Actually evolutionists use bacteria as proof. They can show over time bacteria becoming "fitter" but again it all comes down to calling adaptation evolution and projecting that into the future...or just having faith.

[Slartibartfast]

Depends on the degree of adaptation and if the adaptations are passed on. For example, my hands could become hard and calloused over years of competitive masturbation. But the question is if my rock palms would pass on to my child or if he will get the soft hands that I was born with. Lol @ faith, classic theist troll for a reaction. Anyway that was dealt with already.

[meccalli]

Actually evolutionists use bacteria as proof. They can show over time bacteria becoming "fitter" but again it all comes down to calling adaptation evolution and projecting that into the future...or just having faith.

yeah, just fitter, never moving onto a completely different type of organism. Hardly proof of evolution. If i recall, they had some e coli replicating for several years now, in controlled conditions however.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

You sir might be the one how needs to read up. Scientific consensus (what you repeatedly appeal to) says human evolution has stopped. Your argument is not with me, it is with the consensus.

Furthermore your original post said nothing about mutations. I will allow you the grace to clarify yourself but please return to someone else next time before you scold them on the topic of evolution you clearly know so much about.

where is the proof of this consensus?

Post a link, a quote, something.

Well in searching for the best source I was able see arguments for and against like: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7132794.stm and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... ntist.html which shows we are arguing from both sides of the same coin. Nevertheless my point was not to rake the man over the coals for something we now see is inconclusive. It all comes down to whether you count observable adaptation as evolution. Or hope that these adaptations and mutations will redound to a next species à la Charles Darwin's hope of "civilized man." I think this NOVA article balances it best:

A GENERAL CONSENSUS
In the end, the answer to the question of whether we're still evolving seems to come down to a matter of degree. And when you look at it that way, most scientists seem to be in basic agreement. That is, few would claim we're not evolving at all. The genetic evidence for natural selection—at least for mutations of single or at most a few genes that confer some benefit and thereby spread through a population over time—is just too strong, and it's getting stronger all the time.
By the same token, few would say we're evolving enough to become, say, the bulbous-headed superhumans of sci-fi anytime soon. Or, for that matter, enough to differentiate into one or more new species of human. Even saying unequivocally whether any or all of us are getting smarter is impossible to say. As Pinker put it to me, "We're looking at a snapshot of ourselves, and we'd really have to run the movie for another few thousand years."
Few, it seems to me, could argue with that.
Peter Tyson is editor in chief of NOVA Online.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/ ... lving.html

seriously, bluefete referred to his stomach getting bigger as evolution and you are defending it.

secondly, of course evolution happens at different rates: some animals have evolved tremendously over millions of years, while other animals like sharks have not evolved as much. Do we say then sharks have stopped evolving? No!

In your quote above it says "few say", not most or all say. And so it does not make it inconclusive.

The point of science is to address various hypotheses and find out which one can become a scientific theory through testing. It is good that we have various points of view so we can test all.

You keep taking your preconceptions of absolutes and trying to apply it to science. Science does not work like that. Religion and creationism does.

I'll post it again

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Depends on the degree of adaptation and if the adaptations are passed on. For example, my hands could become hard and calloused over years of competitive masturbation. But the question is if my rock palms would pass on to my child or if he will get the soft hands that I was born with. Lol @ faith, classic theist troll for a reaction. Anyway that was dealt with already.

soft hands perhaps, but you getting hard hands from activity will not pass on to your child. For example if you get a cut or scar, it will NOT pass on to your offspring.

now if your unusually soft hands are a somatic mutation, then it will not be passed on to your offspring as the gene is not carried on in your seed. Germ line mutations however, do carry on in eggs and sperms and will be inherited by your offspring. The latter is a mechanism for evolution.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Actually evolutionists use bacteria as proof. They can show over time bacteria becoming "fitter" but again it all comes down to calling adaptation evolution and projecting that into the future...or just having faith.

yeah, just fitter, never moving onto a completely different type of organism. Hardly proof of evolution. If i recall, they had some e coli replicating for several years now, in controlled conditions however.

there is alot more proof than that.

it has nothing to do with faith.

[Habit7]

bluefete was asking a question, not writing an abstract for his thesis. If he doesn't understand, no need to flame him.

The "few say" are the persons holding the extremes of either argument while the most are those hold the middle ground.

My "preconception of absolutes" was just opposite of yours, there was a middle ground that none of us acknowledged, but somehow you only see your position as the only way, something I can identify with as a religious person

We been over the scientific method before but as good it is, and as much as I agree with it, it can only be applied to past events in a limited way. You should be pounding you fist less than any 'deluded' religious person. Yet you are pounding it harder and commanding others to read up more of your man made books...

Sir Francis Bacon - chief proponent of the scientific method

so what, I could meme too

[bluefete]

Back to Intelligent Design for a Moment: If there is no Creator, why would evolutionists use the term "design flaws" to talk about the human body? Evolution is no designer or creator. Not so you scientists on the forum?

Someone had posted a question about why the places of pleasure and other functions are so close together.



The Most Unfortunate Design Flaws in the Human Body


http://io9.com/the-most-unfortunate-des ... 1518242787

Sometimes evolution is stupid, and the human body is proof. Here are the most problematic physical and behavioral "scars of evolution" we humans have to deal with.

The human body is, in many respects, a resounding tribute to the adaptive powers of natural selection. We've evolved gloriously large, complex brains capable of abstract thought and foresight. We're bipedal, dextrous, and enjoy relatively long lives (lives that include a fairly generous fertility window), to list a few of the qualities that have allowed us to propagate and thrive across the planet.

But that doesn't mean we're perfect. Far from it, in fact. Not only did evolution create a species that's "good enough," it also produced some distinctly negative traits. Back in 1951, the biologist Wilton Krogman referred to these as the "scars of human evolution."

In some respects, these "scars" can be seen as vestigial traits, but that's not quite accurate. Rather, they're examples of the various trade-offs and side-effects of evolution. They're also not physical or psychological limitations per se (like our poor sense of smell or inability to grasp large numbers — those traits weren't adaptive in our recent evolutionary past). Also, I left out aging and age-related disorders; those aren't so much "flaws" of evolution as they're an indelible and insurmountable limitation of biological evolution. Lastly, I decided to include some characteristics that evolution designed rather poorly.
10 Vestigial Traits You Didn't Know You Had

Humans have an amazing knack for clinging to the past. We all have traits or behaviors that suited…Read more

Without further ado here are humanity's most unfortunate design flaws; please add any that you think I overlooked to the comments.
Physical Characteristics

The Dual Function of the Pharynx

This is one of the most problematic "features" of the human body — and the cause of innumerable deaths throughout human history. Like many other primates, we're forced to use the same anatomical structure for both ingestion and respiration. But when obstructed, airflow is blocked, which can lead to choking, and in some cases, death.

Our Inability to Biosynthesize Vitamin C

Vitamin C plays a crucial role as an anti-oxidant and in collagen synthesis. But certain animals, such as primates, guinea pigs, and some bats and birds, have completely lost the ability to synthesize this compound. So, when Vitamin C-rich food sources are scarce, such as fruits, we experience a weakened immune response — not to mention scurvy in extreme cases.
This is why scurvy is one of evolution's greatest mysteries

Scurvy used to be the scourge of the navy, killing sailors on long voyages. Now it's a blight…Read more

Also, because we can't make all the vitamins we need, we carry a host of deadly bacteria in our bowels, which produce them for us. But when this process is disrupted, like a hole in the intestine, it can flare into peritonitis.

The Awkward Wiring of the Male Urinary Tract

The urinary tract in males passes through — rather than being routed around — the prostate gland, which can swell and block urinary function.

The Close Proximity of our Genitals to our Rectum

Not only is this aesthetically displeasing, it's also unhygienic. Combined with our short urethras — especially in women — this leads to frequent urinary tract and bladder infections (UTIs) (remember, front to back, ladies). As the character Darald quipped in Forgetting Sarah Marshall, "Let me just say that if God was a city planner he would not put a playground next to a sewage system."

Our Multi-Function Genitals

Relatedly, our genitals are forced to perform multiple functions. While on the one hand it can be seen as conservation in design, it creates health problems. Again, it's unhygienic. For women, sexual intercourse pushes bacteria further into the urethra, leading to UTIs. Additionally, both men and women can contract UTIs from two sexually transmitted bacteria, chlamydia and mycoplasma. And of course, for women, this is also the part of the body where, in addition to sex and urination, newborn babies come out.

The Extremely Narrow Human Birth Canal

Speaking of which, human females have an unreasonably narrow birth canal, resulting in significantly increased risks to both mother and child during birth (not to mention prolonged labors and extreme levels of discomfort). In fact, death in childbirth used to be the leading cause of death for women during their reproductive years (our big, bulbous heads also has something to do with it). This is a consequence of our quick evolutionary leap from quadrupeds to bipeds, resulting in our narrow pelvis — the passage through which newborn babies pass.

Our Over-Loaded Lower Backs

This is also a consequence of our transition from four-legged to two-legged creatures. According to paleoanthropologist Bruce Latimer of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio,

When humans stood upright, they took a spine that had evolved to be stiff for climbing and moving in trees and rotated it 90 degrees, so it was vertical—a task Latimer compared to stacking 26 cups and saucers on top of each other (vertebrae and discs) and then, balancing a head on top. But so as not to obstruct the birth canal and to get the torso balanced above our feet, the spine has to curve inwards (lordosis), creating the hollow of our backs. That's why our spines are shaped like an "S." All that curving, with the weight of the head and stuff we carry stacked on top, creates pressure that causes back problems—especially if you play football, do gymnastics, or swim the butterfly stroke. In the United States alone, 700,000 people suffer vertebral fractures per year and back problems are the sixth leading human malady in the world. "If you take care of it, your spine will get you through to about 40 or 50," said Latimer. "After that, you're on your own."

Our Achy Knees

Again, an aftereffect of bipedalism. We have to distribute all our weight on just two limbs, which often leads to aches and pains. You can also add achy, or arthritic hips, to this list.
The Overly Complicated Human Foot

Anthropologist Jeremy DeSilva of Boston University put it this way:

Starting with the foot, DeSilva held up a cast with 26 bones and said: "You wouldn't design it out of 26 moving parts." Our feet have so many bones because our ape-like ancestors needed flexible feet to grasp branches. But as they moved out of the trees and began walking upright on the ground in the past 5 million years or so, the foot had to become more stable, and bit by bit, the big toe, which was no longer opposable, aligned itself with the other toes and our ancestors developed an arch to work as a shock absorber. "The foot was modified to remain rigid," said DeSilva. "A lot of BandAids were stuck on these bones." But the bottom line was that our foot still has a lot of room to twist inwards and outwards, and our arches collapse. This results in: ankle sprains, plantar fasciitis, Achilles tendonitis, shin splints, and broken ankles. These are not modern problems, due to stiletto heels; Fossils show broken ankles that have healed as far back as 3 million years ago.

A better design for upright walking and running, DeSilva said, would be a foot and ankle like an ostrich. An ostrich's ankle and lower leg bones are fused into a single structure, which puts a kick into their step—and their foot has only two toes that aid in running. "Why can't I have a foot like that?" asked DeSilva. One reason is that ostriches trace their upright locomotion back 230 million years to the age of dinosaurs, while our ancestors walked upright just 5 million years ago.

Our Inefficient Sinuses

Humans have several sinuses — air-filled cavities that help with drainage of mucus and fluid. But our maxillary sinuses, located on our cheekbone, drain upwards. This often leads to the build-up of fluids and mucus, which can cause an infection.

The "Blind Spot" in Our Eyes

Our so-called "blind spot" is the result of a quirk that happens during embryological development. To deal with this, we've had to evolve elaborate and costly perception-correcting mechanisms. Our very own Esther Inglis-Arkell describes it like this:
Why every human has a blind spot - and how to find yours

There are grizzled heroes and sleek assassins in movies who don't have metaphorical blind…Read more

Light gets into the eye by passing through the pupil. It hits the retina at the back of the eye. The retina is covered with light-sensing proteins. They relay what they sense to the optic nerve which carries the information back into the brain. The problem is, the optic nerve ends in the field of the retina itself. This is a little like having to plug the power cable for a TV directly into the screen. It creates a dark spot. Most of the time, the other eye will see what's happening in its partner's blind, but if the blind spots overlap while looking at a certain object, or if the person is only looking through one eye, the brain just fills in the spot looking at the surrounding picture.

A Single Set of Adult Teeth

This is where evolution got unreasonably cheap on us, providing humans with just one set of teeth for our entire adult lives. Once we hit 35, our teeth start to go — one of many signs that evolution primed us for reproduction, followed by a brief period of child-rearing, and pretty much nothing else (unless you subscribe to the grandmother hypothesis).
Computer simulation confirms it was grandma who gave us longer lifespans

Behavioural Characteristics

Our bodies need sugar, salt, and fat — just not in extreme quantities. But in a state of nature, these foods are often scarce or difficult to preserve. That's why we find these food unreasonably delicious and irresistible. It's our body's way of saying, "Yo, eat this stuff while you can, it's good for you." But most of us now live in a world of tremendous abundance, and we consume these foods in ridiculous quantities, leading to all sorts of modern health problems.
Why a healthy lifestyle could save your sanity


Tribalism

Humans have a kind of ingrained fear or distrust of the "out-group." It's a previously adaptive trait that binds small groups of individuals together and prevents them from wandering off or joining other groups. But it also leads to ethnocentrism and divisions between groups. Studies show that oxytocin, while strengthening feelings of trust between individuals, increases fear of "the other." This characteristic was obviously important back when we lived in family clans or tribal arrangements, but today it leads to all sorts of social problems, including racism, prejudice, and our inability to empathize with people we don't immediately know.

Any Number of Cognitive Biases

Many of our cognitive biases — annoying glitches in our thinking that cause us to make questionable decisions and reach erroneous conclusions — are a consequence of our limited intelligence and predisposed tendencies. Examples include the confirmation bias (we love to agree with people who agree with us), the gambler's fallacy (the tremendous weight we tend to put on previous events that aren't causal factors), our tendency to neglect or misjudge probability, and the status-quo bias (we often make choices that guarantee that things remain the same). Some of these are adaptive traits, but others are simply cognitive deficiencies.

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder

This is an example of how we've potentially pathologized a perfectly "normal" human psychological characteristic. Because ADHD appears to have a genetic component (it affects about 5% of school-aged children), questions have been raised about its prior role as a trait required for survival, namely its adaptive function in hunter, fighter, and wader theories. But today, we see it as something maladaptive — something that needs to be treated. Put another way, and like our penchant for sweet, salty, and fatty foods, it's a trait that's not so much nonoptimal as it's ill suited for present-day society.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

bluefete was asking a question, not writing an abstract for his thesis. If he doesn't understand, no need to flame him.

The "few say" are the persons holding the extremes of either argument while the most are those hold the middle ground.

My "preconception of absolutes" was just opposite of yours, there was a middle ground that none of us acknowledged, but somehow you only see your position as the only way, something I can identify with as a religious person

We been over the scientific method before but as good it is, and as much as I agree with it, it can only be applied to past events in a limited way. You should be pounding you fist less than any 'deluded' religious person. Yet you are pounding it harder and commanding others to read up more of your man made books...

Sir Francis Bacon - chief proponent of the scientific method

so what, I could meme too

I see you've run out of good arguments

using bluefete as a red herring isn't helping either

[bluefete]

So Duane, you really think that nothing in our existence was designed?

Not even yourself?

[Habit7]

I see you've run out of good arguments

using bluefete as a red herring isn't helping either

I accept the compliment that my arguments have been good...

but you brought up bluefete first ??:

[TRAE]

personally what everyone here is doing is basically rationalising within themselves and piecing together fragments of literature to support their belief...

[bluefete]

They left out "the appendix" as a design flaw!

Don't scientists say it has no purpose?

Maybe it is a relic to remind us of our caveman days.

[Slartibartfast]

Sometimes simple language is used so more people can grasp the concept.

[EFFECTIC DESIGNS]

They left out "the appendix" as a design flaw!

Don't scientists say it has no purpose?

Maybe it is a relic to remind us of our caveman days.

Appendix is possibly the worst thing you could have in your body it can easily kill you if you were to overeat and any sort of food was to fall in there and you don't have it treated in time would cause an infection and eventually burst and kill you!

Say man was created perfect right? then we would have no Appendix instead of having to get surgery just to remove it.

[The Price is not Tight]

this topic looks like vomit in the sink from this morning

[meccalli]

Huh? the appendix was always observed in koalas as being extremely long and functions as a replenishment housing for its myriad of gut fauna suited for its highly specific diet. The same has been found upon our own wherein it contains a storehouse of bacteria to maintain a proper balance of our digestive micro-organisms. I love how scientists like to throw out things for years at a time they can't explain only to backpedal, I mean 90% of our DNA is apparently junk..lol.

[bluefete]

Huh? the appendix was always observed in koalas as being extremely long and functions as a replenishment housing for its myriad of gut fauna suited for its highly specific diet. The same has been found upon our own wherein it contains a storehouse of bacteria to maintain a proper balance of our digestive micro-organisms. I love how scientists like to throw out things for years at a time they can't explain only to backpedal, I mean 90% of our DNA is apparently junk..lol.

Hope Effectic read this!

As a matter of fact, because its failure can kill a person, this shows how important it is to humans.

[God is Great]

Go preach to your weak hearts, nobody dont listen to a impsy troll like you