PDA

View Full Version : The Amazing Shape-Shifting Dinosaurs.



Truculent Sheep
30th July 10, 10:28 PM
Dinosaurs are amazing. If you don't like them then you are not fit to live amongst your fellow man. In related news, what we thought were several species could in fact have been one at varying stages of its life:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727713.500-morphosaurs-how-shapeshifting-dinosaurs-deceived-us.html

Morph-osaurs: How shape-shifting dinosaurs deceived us

28 July 2010
New Scientist


DINOSAURS were shape-shifters. Their skulls underwent extreme changes throughout their lives, growing larger, sprouting horns then reabsorbing them, and changing shape so radically that different stages look to us like different species.

This discovery comes from a study of the iconic dinosaur triceratops and its close relative torosaurus. Their skulls are markedly different but are actually from the very same species, argue John Scannella and Jack Horner at the Museum of the Rockies in Bozeman, Montana.

Triceratops had three facial horns and a short, thick neck-frill with a saw-toothed edge. Torosaurus also had three horns, though at different angles, and a much longer, thinner, smooth-edged frill with two large holes in it. So it's not surprising that Othniel Marsh, who discovered both in the late 1800s, considered them to be separate species.

Now Scannella and Horner say that triceratops is merely the juvenile form of torosaurus. As the animal aged, its horns changed shape and orientation and its frill became longer, thinner and less jagged. Finally it became fenestrated, producing the classic torosaurus form (see diagram, right).

This extreme shape-shifting was possible because the bone tissue in the frill and horns stayed immature, spongy and riddled with blood vessels, never fully hardening into solid bone as happens in most animals during early adulthood. The only modern animal known to do anything similar is the cassowary, descended from the dinosaurs, which develops a large spongy crest when its skull is about 80 per cent fully grown.

Shape-shifting continued throughout these dinosaurs' lives, Scannella says. "Even in the most mature specimens that we've examined, there is evidence that the skull was still undergoing dramatic changes at the time of death."

Even in the most mature skulls, there is evidence that they were undergoing dramatic changes
Scannella and Horner examined 29 triceratops skulls and nine torosaurus skulls, mostly from the late-Cretaceous Hell Creek formation in Montana. The triceratops skulls were between 0.5 and 2 metres long. By counting growth lines in the bones, not unlike tree rings, they have shown clearly that the skulls come from animals of different ages, from juveniles to young adults. Torosaurus fossils are much rarer, 2 to 3 metres long and, crucially, only adult specimens have ever been found.

The duo say there is a clear transition from triceratops into torosaurus as the animals grow older. For example, the oldest specimens of triceratops show a marked thinning of the bone where torosaurus has holes, suggesting they are in the process of becoming fenestrated (Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, vol 30, p 1157).

The finding has implications for the supposed defensive function of the triceratops' frill. "If I was a triceratops I wouldn't want anything too damaging to happen to my frill, as it had numerous large blood vessels running over the surface," says Scannella. "I don't imagine holding up a thin bony shield that can gush blood would be a very effective means of defence."

Instead it is likely that the headgear was a display to signal an individual's maturity to other members of the species. Differences between the sexes is another possibility but less likely, says Scannella.

It was already known that triceratops skulls changed throughout their development, but not that the final result was a torosaurus. Torosaurus will now be abolished as a species and specimens reassigned to Triceratops, says Horner.

Triceratops isn't the only shape-shifter. Last year, Horner and Mark Goodwin of the University of California, Berkeley, claimed something similar for another iconic Hell Creek dinosaur, the dome-headed pachycephalosaurus, perhaps best known for headbutting jeeps in Jurassic Park 2.

Two similar dinosaurs, classified as Dracorex and Stygimoloch, are also known from Hell Creek. Horner and Goodwin say that they are not separate species but juveniles of pachycephalosaurus (PLoS One, vol 4, p e7676). If so, this is an even more extreme case of shape-shifting than triceratops, with the animal growing horns and then re-absorbing them into its skull as it ages (see diagram).

Horner says this makes it unlikely that pachycephalosaurus engaged in headbutting as it, too, retained spongy, immature bone throughout adulthood. As with the frill of triceratops, its dome was probably used for display.

On top of that, a dinosaur called Nanotyrannus has been tentatively reclassified as a juvenile form of Tyrannosaurus rex.

Taken together, the "loss" of four species from the Hell Creek formation reveals that the dinosaurs that lived there up until 65 million years ago were not as diverse as previously thought. Triceratops and torosaurus have long been regarded as the last survivors of the horned dinosaurs, a large group that appeared in the Jurassic and reached its heyday about 80 million years ago. Now it seems that only one species made it through to the end of the Cretaceous. This could be evidence to support a disputed theory that dinosaur diversity was in decline long before an asteroid impact wiped them out.

Both Scannella and Horner say it is possible that other dinosaur species from Hell Creek will turn out to be juvenile forms, and add that the same thing is probably true of dinosaurs from other locations and times. "Juvenile dinosaurs were not just miniature versions of adults - they looked very different and could easily be mistaken for distinct species," says Scannella.

The idea that dinosaurs' skulls changed radically as they aged was first proposed in the 1970s, but it was difficult to test because dinosaur remains are usually so scarce and so it never gained wide acceptance.

Scannella and Horner were able to make a strong case because triceratops is not scarce. "It is hard to walk out into the Hell Creek formation and not stumble upon a triceratops weathering out of a hillside," says Scannella. In the past decade, 47 complete or partial skulls have been found there.

"The work is startling, not least because triceratops and torosaurus have been so heavily studied for over 100 years," says Mike Benton, a vertebrate palaeontologist at the University of Bristol, UK. "To suggest they are different growth stages of one form is a remarkable observation, and may well prove highly controversial, but the case is persuasive. It has always been difficult to distinguish the two."

Goodwin says the recent work is convincing and will mark a major shift in the field: palaeontologists must now factor in extreme changes in skull shape or risk misunderstanding evolutionary relationships and overestimating dinosaur diversity. Ignore physical development in dinosaur palaeontology "at your peril", he warns.

Ragout
30th July 10, 11:38 PM
That is a lot of reading... Is it anything like Jurrasic Park? If so, then I am all for it.

WarPhalange
30th July 10, 11:40 PM
That is a lot of reading... Is it anything like Jurrasic Park? If so, then I am all for it.

This.

Ajamil
31st July 10, 12:33 AM
But it's interesting reading. What's with you people?

SFGOON
31st July 10, 01:52 AM
They're called....

DINOBOTS

They were commissioned by Optimus Prime to battle the EVIL Constructocons.

fes_fsa
31st July 10, 02:51 AM
nothing in this thread is true, cuz jesus.

Hedgehogey
31st July 10, 03:59 AM
I was always under the impression that Horner was a relatively well respected scientist. I remember reading his kid's dinosaur books as, well, a kid.

But this seems like a bit of wag the dog. He's positing sexual selection to support his theory, but the problem is, the traits he's positing are contrasurvival (note: this is probably not a word).

Now popular evolutionary science is full of these kinds of stories: organisms develop large, contrasurvival displays. Usually it's to illustrate a little story about "evolving oneself into a corner". The Irish Elk is the most frequent victim of this.

ICY
31st July 10, 04:24 AM
The thinning of the oldest triceratops' frills in the areas where the torosaurus had no bone seems kind of convincing to me...why would it be wearing thin there, specifically? There seems to be a pattern. Not claiming to really know what I'm talking about, but it seems to make sense.

I wish I had time to just study the history of evolution forever. I never get sick of learning how life came to be the way it is. I wouldn't want to write essays (until I had something really profound to say...which would probably be close to the end of my life if I started now) or take exams, I would just like to attend lectures, read books about it and watch documentaries, etc...fuck that would be awesome.

Steve
31st July 10, 04:55 AM
It's the same thing with us and archaeology "yo, I found the remains of a boat so these dudes must have built it this way" (marine archaeology, look up George Bass, but could be put towards all types).

We really don't know what animals looked like, let alone what we looked like, or built, and our reasonings from thousands of years ago.

I'm starting to think we should just be interested in digging up shit just for the artistic or practical value, instead of some bullshit cultural value.

ICY
31st July 10, 05:11 AM
What is the practical value of digging things up? Besides mining and drilling for oil, I mean? None?

How do you seperate art and culture?

Steve
31st July 10, 05:20 AM
Art is something inspiring that is from any culture. Everything else are things that could be disgusting/awesome/whatever, but just remind a person strongly of their roots (cultural).

There really is no practical value of digging shit up, outside of monetary gain, I have to agree with you on that.

Kiko
31st July 10, 05:28 AM
And it's still ART MONTH, and this is a dinosaur thread and I've seen at least 2 posts saying there's too much to read on only one cup of coffee, so....

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_D_Z-D2tzi14/S3btwm92RiI/AAAAAAAABq8/B9fD9hUJrg0/s640/tyrannowhorusrex.png
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_D_Z-D2tzi14/S3bzemuc-PI/AAAAAAAABs0/yf1bDJ9cd0g/s400/triceratopless.png
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_D_Z-D2tzi14/S3bwPDAsRfI/AAAAAAAABsM/17dbtp-K590/s320/velociraper.png

ICY
31st July 10, 05:28 AM
So...art is...something that is considered inspiring...to...who...? I mean, I'm sure almost anything is inspiring to whoever digs it up.

To ME, fossils are inspiring...any greater degree of understanding of how I came to be is very interesting to me. I want to know. I can't explain why, but I do.

How humanity came to be...that's even more interesting. There is no value in it beyond emotional satisfaction, yet, but eventually, the better we understand evolution, the better we'll be able to genetically engineer super-soldiers and intelligent slave species and...nevermind.

ICY
31st July 10, 05:29 AM
Kiko...slap yourself for me. Please.

Kiko
31st July 10, 05:31 AM
How about I go read one of your "guess what happened to me now?" threads instead. It'll hurt more.

Steve
31st July 10, 05:41 AM
How humanity came to be...that's even more interesting. There is no value in it beyond emotional satisfaction, yet, but eventually, the better we understand evolution, the better we'll be able to genetically engineer super-soldiers and intelligent slave species and...nevermind.

That is exactly my point: George found an amazing sunken ship and hypothesized how it was built a certain way. Turns out he was wrong after he consulted a friend that actually built boats (and for fucks sake, i can't find the NPR story where he talks about how archaeologists are basically talking out of their asses because they really don't know).

I don't want to rely on a past that is built by those that don't know any real life facts, that's all I'm saying.

Steve
31st July 10, 05:44 AM
How about I go read one of your "guess what happened to me now?" threads instead. It'll hurt more.

Hell, the after shock of that post hurt me.

ICY
31st July 10, 05:56 AM
Fair trade, I guess.

Steve, I agree...but I think that the fossil record, while it will always be flawed is a FUCK OF A LOT better than things like "God farted on some dirt and a man materialized".

Shotgun Christening
31st July 10, 07:57 AM
I love arcaheology and history in general. My wife says that stuff is boring, I guess cuz evulushun.

She asks me how we could have evolved from a one celled organism. I tell her the same way God created himself, got bored and decided to create us only to lay down obscure rules and then abandon us.

Good times at my house.

Steve
31st July 10, 08:24 AM
I actually don't believe in evolution. Survival of the fittest, yes.

Shotgun Christening
31st July 10, 09:01 AM
I actually don't believe in evolution. Survival of the fittest, yes.


Agreed but we didnt start off as "people" of even homonids.

WarPhalange
31st July 10, 01:31 PM
I actually don't believe in evolution.

This is like saying "I actually don't believe in plate tectonics/germs/quantum mechanics". It's fine if you don't, but it doesn't change the fact that it's true.

Ajamil
31st July 10, 01:56 PM
Depends on what specifically he doesn't believe about evolution. It could be like saying I actually don't believe in the atom as modeled by Jospeh Thomson.

Steve
31st July 10, 03:35 PM
This is like saying "I actually don't believe in plate tectonics/germs/quantum mechanics". It's fine if you don't, but it doesn't change the fact that it's true.

Bullshit. I've felt an earthquake and I have had a cold, but theories are just theories.

ICY
31st July 10, 03:41 PM
Steve, I can't say I was ever liking you, but I was beginning to find you tolerable. At this point, I'm back in the hate camp. Unless you're trolling. And if you are, it's a very, very gay troll.

Just a theory? Are you that fucking stupid?

WarPhalange
31st July 10, 03:50 PM
Bullshit. I've felt an earthquake and I have had a cold, but theories are just theories.

1) You can't tell that the earthquake was caused by plate tectonics. It could have been your mom going for a walk.

2) You can't tell that germs gave you the cold. It could have been your mom going for a walk again.

g7Ctl9nzEqs

Steve
31st July 10, 03:53 PM
Steve, I can't say I was ever liking you, but I was beginning to find you tolerable. At this point, I'm back in the hate camp. Unless you're trolling. And if you are, it's a very, very gay troll.

Just a theory? Are you that fucking stupid?


ICY, let's get the gay love out of the way: I actually also find you tolerable (that is a good word choice) when you aren't just calling myself and everyone a faggot. But if you are still stuck in that phase where you know everything (like Poop Loops, see the above post), that isn't my problem.

Get over yourself and your force fed science (I should just call it media, because that is what it is, feeding everyone unproven facts as actual facts) and think about the proven science that has been able to be duplicated over and over. That is what science is, right?

I more than welcome you to believe that you came from a slimy amoeba that didn't like the toxic water it was living in. It hasn't been proven and so I'd rather believe that we didn't.

Kiko
31st July 10, 03:57 PM
PL, you apologize to Steve's Mom RIGHT NOW!

I do happen to accept evolution as a theory, but you know if someone doesn't, it isn't necessarily because they're creationist, is it?

Steve
31st July 10, 04:01 PM
Again, Kiko wins.

Conde Koma
31st July 10, 04:03 PM
Well, short of time travel, how exactly do you prove history?

A: with a shit ton of evidence. which is what biology has been gathering for the last couple centuries.

are we seriously having this conversation? i mean, AGCC is one thing, because it's still not fully understood, but motherfucking evolution? really?

WarPhalange
31st July 10, 04:05 PM
PL, you apologize to Steve's Mom RIGHT NOW!

I do happen to accept evolution as a theory, but you know if someone doesn't, it isn't necessarily because they're creationist, is it?

I know. I just posted that video because it has good explanations of how science works and how scientists view "theories".

Steve: if evolution were not true, there would never be any new strains of viruses and diseases. Bananas would still be inedible and you wouldn't have hybrid fruit like apple pears or mango nectarines. You wouldn't have all the breeds of dogs that we currently have.

These things are FACTS. People made this happen. We've documented it, how new breeds of dog are made, how new plants are made, etc. Evolution just works slower because it doesn't have as strong a selective mechanism for reproduction.

ICY
31st July 10, 04:06 PM
No, Steve, I'm not in that phase anymore...but I do consider evolution to be a solid theory based on the research I've done on taxonomy, genetics, and the fossil record. I'm going to guess I've done more research than you have. I think I've probably spent 200~ hours on it. I still don't think I understand it that well, but I think I grasp the basic idea now and it makes sense to me.

Empirical review is the best we've got, and this theory has been harshly scrutinized for well over a century. People far smarter than you have tried to find a meaningful flaw in it. They can't.

Kiko, I don't mean to imply Steve is a creationist and I don't care if he is. Creationism is not the problem. Ignoring the overwhelming weight of the available evidence is the problem. I don't have a problem with creationism AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T DENY REALITY.

Kiko
31st July 10, 04:06 PM
*taps foot at PL*

Steve
31st July 10, 04:07 PM
Well, short of time travel, how exactly do you prove history?

A: with a shit ton of evidence. which is what biology has been gathering for the last couple centuries.

are we seriously having this conversation? i mean, AGCC is one thing, because it's still not fully understood, but motherfucking evolution? really?

I'm not sure what you are getting at here, as I stated, I believe in survival of the fittest, it's just the whole changing from one species to a "better" one that I don't follow (as the op is addressing).

Steve
31st July 10, 04:14 PM
No, Steve, I'm not in that phase anymore...but I do consider evolution to be a solid theory based on the research I've done on taxonomy, genetics, and the fossil record. I'm going to guess I've done more research than you have. I think I've probably spent 200~ hours on it. I still don't think I understand it that well, but I think I grasp the basic idea now and it makes sense to me.

Empirical review is the best we've got, and this theory has been harshly scrutinized for well over a century. People far smarter than you have tried to find a meaningful flaw in it. They can't.

THIS^ is exactly my point, yet again, if we are "smart" enough to not find any flaws in the theory we should be smart enough to be able to point out some real life ACTUAL evolution happening right now in the world.

Or did evolution just stop now that humans thought of it? We've been talking about it for well over a hundred years yet we have never actually seen a species "evolve."

Steve
31st July 10, 04:17 PM
I know. I just posted that video because it has good explanations of how science works and how scientists view "theories".

Steve: if evolution were not true, there would never be any new strains of viruses and diseases. Bananas would still be inedible and you wouldn't have hybrid fruit like apple pears or mango nectarines. You wouldn't have all the breeds of dogs that we currently have.

These things are FACTS. People made this happen. We've documented it, how new breeds of dog are made, how new plants are made, etc. Evolution just works slower because it doesn't have as strong a selective mechanism for reproduction.

They are still dogs, Poop Loops. Your point is like saying Halle Berry is proof of evolution.

Conde Koma
31st July 10, 04:19 PM
I'm not sure what you are getting at here, as I stated, I believe in survival of the fittest, it's just the whole changing from one species to a "better" one that I don't follow (as the op is addressing).

That's not what evolution is. There is no "better", only what the current circumstances dictate is more "survivable."

Survival of the fittest (for the given circumstances right fucking now) over a period of forever = EVOLUTION


Someone was talking about the Irish Elk, and how it evolved itself into a corner, and this is a pretty good example. Also, any time you have an introduced species that totally outcompetes the native ones is an example of how the native species did the same (because there was no reason to evolve competitively against something that wasn't there, they got screwed over when the new species showed up). Also, anytime you have an arms race between two competing species, such as when a venomous snake and a venom-resistant rodent live in the same area, and continue to push each other into ridiculous amounts of toxin and toxin-resistance levels.

The OP isn't talking about evolving into a "better" species, only that what we thought of as two separate species were actually one and the same. Our understanding of why Triceratops evolved the way it did is limited, and based on false assumptions from when we first discovered it. We can be sure that the Triceratops was well-adapted (evolved, if you will) for its environment because it lived in that form for a long fucking time. This is how evolution works; either you survive or you don't. The good ones stick around until they aren't suited for the environment any more. Repeat ad nauseum.

Kiko
31st July 10, 04:20 PM
And many of the breeds we've helped to 'evolve' aren't really much better off than their original cousins. Evolution is something that comes about naturally, isn't it? Hybrids like those are for human convenience or amusement.

Kiko
31st July 10, 04:20 PM
Then again... Giraffes.

Conde Koma
31st July 10, 04:20 PM
THIS^ is exactly my point, yet again, if we are "smart" enough to not find any flaws in the theory we should be smart enough to be able to point out some real life ACTUAL evolution happening right now in the world.

Or did evolution just stop now that humans thought of it? We've been talking about it for well over a hundred years yet we have never actually seen a species "evolve."

evolution happens everyday, without fail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methicillin-resistant_Staphylococcus_aureus

ICY
31st July 10, 04:21 PM
It isn't about better, it's about different.

Kiko
31st July 10, 04:22 PM
In nature it's the better ones that survive, right? Difference for it's own sake isn't helpful in the wild, is it?

ICY
31st July 10, 04:25 PM
It's the ones that deal with some specific problem better, but the problems change constantly, and so a species that was better at the curveball thrown last pitch, and therefore didn't die, cannot necessarily deal with the fastball coming next.

Conde Koma
31st July 10, 04:25 PM
In nature it's the better ones that survive, right? Difference for it's own sake isn't helpful in the wild, is it?

This, with an addendum. Like I said before, it's not a situation of "better" or "worse" on an absolute scale. It's "better for now until it's not better any more." If a species sexually selects for "different for its own sake," then yes, that would be "better for now".

Kiko
31st July 10, 04:26 PM
So evolution anticipates? I thought it was more reactive.

^
this was more to ICY's post 43 above.

Steve
31st July 10, 04:26 PM
evolution happens everyday, without fail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methicillin-resistant_Staphylococcus_aureus

That example is like a human training MAs so that he can win his next fight after learning how he lost the one before it. It's not evolution, it's still a bacteria. It hasn't evolved into something similar to a human and never will.

Conde Koma
31st July 10, 04:31 PM
That example is like a human training MAs so that he can win his next fight after learning how he lost the one before it. It's not evolution, it's still a bacteria. It hasn't evolved into something similar to a human and never will.

Not at all. Bacteria is a class of lifeform, but you asked for the evolution of a new species, which is what MRSA is. It's not the same lifeform it was before.

But, if you want a bigger and more obvious case, look at dolphins and whales. Mammals evolved on land, away from water. Yet, some ancient mammals found their way back into the water for some selective advantage. Fast forward millions of years, and we get the dolphins we know and love.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans


You don't know that bacteria will never evolve into something complex and multicellular. Go back the tree of life far enough, and it all started with single-celled organisms, which eventually developed into colonial organisms, which eventually developed into true multi-cellular organisms, which eventually developed into us. How exactly do you think we got here from there?

WarPhalange
31st July 10, 04:31 PM
In nature it's the better ones that survive, right? Difference for it's own sake isn't helpful in the wild, is it?

If a given trait has no impact on survival of the given animal, then that trait can vary wildly. For humans right now, height isn't very relevant. That's why you get some people that are barely 5 feet tall and some that are over 6 feet tall. But the number of lungs a person is born with is the same for everybody. This makes sense. With one lung, you don't get as much air and you don't have a spare. With 3, they take up too much room. So since it DOES matter in this case, humans have limited this trait to its "optimal" amount for our given environment and bodies.

ICY
31st July 10, 04:32 PM
No, kiko, when a new problem arises, there will be some species who luck out, they happen to already exist and be able to deal with it. Like when food becomes scarce and the very small scavenger species survive because it just so happens they're good at that, but the bigger (and some would say, better) species all just fuckin die cause there's not enough food.

Conde Koma
31st July 10, 04:33 PM
So evolution anticipates? I thought it was more reactive.

^
this was more to ICY's post 43 above.

Gotcha, but I'll elaborate anyway. Any generation of offspring exists as a spread of genetic material. Some of it will work better, some of it will not. It's not anticipating, and it's not reacting. it's a game of chances and numbers. If some of the offspring are more suited to the environment, the chances of passing on their genes is exponentially increased. This isn't exactly "reactive" to the environment, but I suppose it could be interpreted that way.

WarPhalange
31st July 10, 04:34 PM
That example is like a human training MAs so that he can win his next fight after learning how he lost the one before it.

No, it's not. For one, the bacteria that "lost" to medication flat out died. They can't learn anymore. Secondly, the ones that didn't die already had resistance to the medication. You apply even stronger medication and even more bacteria will die. The ones that are left happened to be even more resistant. You let them reproduce and suddenly all the bacteria you have is resistant to medication.

Kiko
31st July 10, 04:37 PM
Reactive to a situation.. or a cycle, like availability of food or number of predators. Or with the giraffe, better food being higher up.

I could be wrong, but I understood much of evolution to be adaptation, not just random variations thrown at the wall and let's see what sticks better. Either could work, of course.

Conde Koma
31st July 10, 04:41 PM
Reactive to a situation.. or a cycle, like availability of food or number of predators. Or with the giraffe, better food being higher up.

I could be wrong, but I understood much of evolution to be adaptation, not just random variations thrown at the wall and let's see what sticks better. Either could work, of course.

adaptation would be there's some kind of choice going on. giraffes didn't one day look up and think, "damn, if only my neck were longer i'd be able to eat all that food!" Short giraffes must have already been eating, but the slightly taller giraffes were more fit because of slightly better access to food.

ICY
31st July 10, 04:51 PM
So, the main thrust here being, no matter HOW it happens, evolution happens. And Steve was just being a faggot.

Steve
31st July 10, 04:52 PM
Not at all. Bacteria is a class of lifeform, but you asked for the evolution of a new species, which is what MRSA is. It's not the same lifeform it was before.

But, if you want a bigger and more obvious case, look at dolphins and whales. Mammals evolved on land, away from water. Yet, some ancient mammals found their way back into the water for some selective advantage. Fast forward millions of years, and we get the dolphins we know and love.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans

An image from your link:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d1/Stamboom2.JPG/800px-Stamboom2.JPG

An image from the OP:

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2771/27713501.jpg

Hmmm, wow, they all kind of look similar, don't they? My point being is that, like George, it is made up fact. They don't really know what a mammal looked like 100,000 years ago, and you are thinking way to much of the human species to assume we are smart enough to know.

Do you actually think that a bunch of people got together to decide what dinosaurs looked like, like a UN council of sorts? It was more like one dude found some bones, decided what it looked like, and because he had a PhD, everyone said "yep, he's right."


You don't know that bacteria will never evolve into something complex and multicellular. Go back the tree of life far enough, and it all started with single-celled organisms, which eventually developed into colonial organisms, which eventually developed into true multi-cellular organisms, which eventually developed into us. How exactly do you think we got here from there?

No, you can't go back into the tree of life, we only have the fossil records (as ICY poionted out) to go on, but we still haven't found the "missing link."

Doesn't that bother you at all? The fact that the theory of evolution is still missing it's crowning jewel, the one thing that would make it fact? After all this time and after all these Wikipedia pages on, apparently, bullshit?

ICY
31st July 10, 04:58 PM
Wait...WHAT? WHAT MISSING LINK, FUCKWIT?

ICY
31st July 10, 05:00 PM
I apologize that I can no longer remain civil if you're going to mention a "missing link" because that's like inserting "Well, God says they're sodomites and they're abominations and we should stone them!" into a debate on gay marriage and thinking you're being reasonable. No. You're not. Fuck off if you're too ignorant for this discussion, or just read and learn, don't post.

Steve
31st July 10, 05:00 PM
LOL.

Steve
31st July 10, 05:02 PM
ICY, if you can't google "missing link" and "evolution" then I feel sorry for you.

HappyOldGuy
31st July 10, 05:05 PM
Steve, what is your theory for where species come from that you think is better than evolution?

Don't whine like a little bitch about holes i the fossil record, don't be a pretty pretty princess about missing links, state your theory that fits the evidence better.

Cause if you don't have a better one, then you believe in evolution the same way everybody else does, as the theory that best fits the available evidence, and any claims to the contrary are just some little drama whore/special snowflake cries for attention.

Truculent Sheep
31st July 10, 05:09 PM
More interestingly, it seems certain genes can be suppressed or activated by conditions before birth (like the mother's diet) and after too (certain diets benefit even those with genetic predispositions to disease). This may well tie in with our friend the Triceratops.

http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/News/Media-office/Press-releases/2010/WTX060168.htm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article3321748.ece
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=enriched-environments-memory

This doesn't mean that natural selection is in the bin though. By definition, you are passing on your genes if they are beneficial, but also if they don't get in the way at the time. The Dinosaurs, remember, were amazingly successful - their end was down to bad luck (in the shape of a comet and perhaps other environmental mishaps) rather than bad genes.

Meanwhile, Origin of Species is a seldom read, often misunderstood book that is much more nuanced than many give it credit for. Most paleoanthroplogists meanwhile tend to lie on the floor and weep with laughter whenever the 'missing link' is mentioned. Our 'ascent' was more an ongoing continuity than a set of great leaps.

Steve
31st July 10, 05:10 PM
Steve, what is your theory for where species come from that you think is better than evolution?

Don't whine like a little bitch about holes i the fossil record, don't be a pretty pretty princess about missing links, state your theory that fits the evidence better.

Cause if you don't have a better one, then you believe in evolution the same way everybody else does, as the theory that best fits the available evidence, and any claims to the contrary are just some little drama whore/special snowflake cries for attention.

Give me a better option that we evolved from just rocks on some shitty planet and we'll talk.

Kiko
31st July 10, 05:11 PM
Not just because it's Steve, it's quite ironic that someone doubts what isn't proven and usually, when the subject is religion, you all decide that's the way to go. Now when someone doubts theories from the scientific world, it's gotta be because they're in the same boat with the WBC?

You guys can do better.

ICY
31st July 10, 05:13 PM
The onus is on you, Steve.

ICY
31st July 10, 05:15 PM
Must be nice to sit on the high-horse for 20 seconds while there's a time-out in molestationgate, eh Kiko?

DAYoung
31st July 10, 05:16 PM
Do you actually think that a bunch of people got together to decide what dinosaurs looked like, like a UN council of sorts? It was more like one dude found some bones, decided what it looked like, and because he had a PhD, everyone said "yep, he's right."

Who is the 'everyone' here?

Steve
31st July 10, 05:19 PM
Who is the 'everyone' here?

The general populace, but mostly ICY, cause I'm annoyed at him right now.

Kiko
31st July 10, 05:20 PM
I'm just making an observation. Either you want to discuss a topic or you want to insult people because they don't agree with you.

HappyOldGuy
31st July 10, 05:23 PM
Not just because it's Steve, it's quite ironic that someone doubts what isn't proven and usually, when the subject is religion, you all decide that's the way to go. Now when someone doubts theories from the scientific world, it's gotta be because they're in the same boat with the WBC?

You guys can do better.
It's the way the game is played Kiko. Scientific theories aren't claims to absolute truth. They are claims about the best truth currently knowable. So if you don't have a competing theory, then you don't get to play.

The insults are just because I enjoy them.

DAYoung
31st July 10, 05:24 PM
The general populace, but mostly ICY, cause I'm annoyed at him right now.

So you think that the ideas we have of dinosaurs are chiefly passed one one man to the populace, without mediation by a broader population of scientific peers?

Steve
31st July 10, 05:25 PM
The onus is on you, Steve.

WTF? Do you even know what the word "onus" means? I've been stating that the onus is on everyone that believes in this theory the entire thread.

Have you any proof of the theory? I choose to not believe in anything that is not able to be scientifically proven. Seriously, you guys are the religious nuts, not I.

Kiko
31st July 10, 05:28 PM
It's the way the game is played Kiko. Scientific theories aren't claims to absolute truth. They are claims about the best truth currently knowable. So if you don't have a competing theory, then you don't get to play.

The insults are just because I enjoy them.

Meh.

This is why I'd rather stay in CTC more often. Education and or marketing doesn't usually work with a negative approach.

ICY
31st July 10, 05:28 PM
Do you actually think that a bunch of people got together to decide what dinosaurs looked like, like a UN council of sorts?

Yes. That happens all the time. It's called empirical review. Fuck.


WTF? Do you even know what the word "onus" means? I've been stating that the onus is on everyone that believes in this theory the entire thread.

I understand that, but you're the one propounding nonsense...so I place it on you...so do most of us here...so, yeah. We win.

HappyOldGuy
31st July 10, 05:29 PM
Meh.

This is why I'd rather stay in CTC more often. Education and or marketing doesn't usually work with a negative approach.

I don't get paid, called professor, or offered sexual favors for good grades.

Why should I educate people?

Steve
31st July 10, 05:31 PM
So you think that the ideas we have of dinosaurs are chiefly passed one one man to the populace, without mediation by a broader population of scientific peers?

Actually, in the field of archaeology/anthropology/paleontology, I am exactly saying that (and I obviously know you are a PhD).

Something like "Look I found a bone that no one has seen before, therefore it is this part of this animal" etc etc.

Kiko
31st July 10, 05:35 PM
I don't get paid, called professor, or offered sexual favors for good grades.

Why should I educate people?

So it's all about "I'm right, you're wrong" with a side of "I got facts and you got nothin', you (fill in the insult of your choice"?

I thought part of these debates was maybe to convince the other person to think differently. Seems that you HAVE educated me, Professor HOG. Thank you.

Steve
31st July 10, 05:36 PM
btw, I win the thread. I actually got ICY to neg rep me. I've been trying for ages.

No, this doesn't change my opinion on the matter.

HappyOldGuy
31st July 10, 05:38 PM
So it's all about "I'm right, you're wrong" with a side of "I got facts and you got nothin', you (fill in the insult of your choice"?

I thought part of these debates was maybe to convince the other person to think differently. Seems that you HAVE educated me, Professor HOG. Thank you.

You're not passing right now, but we can talk about it in my office.

Steve
31st July 10, 05:49 PM
The fact of the matter is that no one here is going to change my opinion on the subject of evolution. If you want to live your life with a fantasy of being some sort of ape, go for it, I won't hold anything against you. If you want to think that I'm stupid because I won't believe in anything that can't be scientifically proven, without a doubt, so be it.

HappyOldGuy
31st July 10, 05:52 PM
We're laughing at you because you apparently have no fucking clue what it means for something to be scientifically proven.

Plus some people thought you were smarter than that.

Steve
31st July 10, 05:58 PM
We're laughing at you because you apparently have no fucking clue what it means for something to be scientifically proven.

Plus some people thought you were smarter than that.

*sigh*

Okay, post how we evolved.

With scientific studies that empirically say that we evolved the way you are going to post your reply.

I want a reason for evolution to be taught in schools (and get rid of all the other bullshit) so I can vote for it because it is fact.

WarPhalange
31st July 10, 06:02 PM
We're laughing at you because you apparently have no fucking clue what it means for something to be scientifically proven.

And also because it has been scientifically proven.

Look at how these people were able to come up with something resembling a dog from a fox within 40 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_domestic_dog#Experimental_evidence

HappyOldGuy
31st July 10, 06:03 PM
*sigh*

Okay, post how we evolved.

With scientific studies that empirically say that we evolved the way you are going to post your reply.

I want a reason for evolution to be taught in schools (and get rid of all the other bullshit) so I can vote for it because it is fact.

http://heth.bio.ed.ac.uk/teaching/phylogenetics/Bayesian_Workshop/PDFs/Hasegawa%20et%20al%20J%20Mol%20Evol%201985.pdf
http://www.math.auckland.ac.nz/~bryant/Biosci743/papers/Vigilant91.pdf
http://homes.bio.psu.edu/people/faculty/Nei/Lab/1993-tamura-nei.pdf

Steve
31st July 10, 06:05 PM
It's still a Canine, moron.

God, how thick are you people?

JingMerchant!
31st July 10, 06:17 PM
Steve, when you say you don't believe in evolution, do you mean the theory of evolution or evolution?

DAYoung
31st July 10, 06:18 PM
Actually, in the field of archaeology/anthropology/paleontology, I am exactly saying that (and I obviously know you are a PhD).

Something like "Look I found a bone that no one has seen before, therefore it is this part of this animal" etc etc.

Can you give me examples of scientists announcing results without peer collaboration and review, and having their results accepted uncritically by laymen?

Steve
31st July 10, 06:21 PM
http://heth.bio.ed.ac.uk/teaching/phylogenetics/Bayesian_Workshop/PDFs/Hasegawa%20et%20al%20J%20Mol%20Evol%201985.pdf
http://www.math.auckland.ac.nz/~bryant/Biosci743/papers/Vigilant91.pdf
http://homes.bio.psu.edu/people/faculty/Nei/Lab/1993-tamura-nei.pdf

I'll counter with this. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article6417499.ece)

Why aren't we considering breeding apes to help the medical industry for transplants?

I've been there, I have seen apes with their brain exposed with sockets in them for who knows what (worked for the UW medical center a number of years ago), they are only used as fodder.

HappyOldGuy
31st July 10, 06:23 PM
Why aren't we considering breeding apes to help the medical industry for transplants?

Cause they are fucking expensive to raise.

Steve
31st July 10, 06:24 PM
Can you give me examples of scientists announcing results without peer collaboration and review, and having their results accepted uncritically by laymen?

Obviously, I can't. I am talking more about how the general populace makes up 99% vs the people that make the announcements of "fact." And going by what I learned from George, the smart people can be wrong.

Hence my needing of empirical proof.

Conde Koma
31st July 10, 06:26 PM
I said it before, what would constitute scientific "proof" in your eyes, Steve? Scientific review and the fossil record isn't doing it for you, and as far as I know none of us have access to a time machine. What would the kind of "empirical proof" you're suggesting require?

Steve
31st July 10, 06:26 PM
Cause they are fucking expensive to raise.

This is bullshit, do you think it was a farm pig that the experiments were done on?

It was some lab pig, just like any ape.

Steve
31st July 10, 06:30 PM
I said it before, what would constitute scientific "proof" in your eyes, Steve? Scientific review and the fossil record isn't doing it for you, and as far as I know none of us have access to a time machine. What would the kind of "empirical proof" you're suggesting require?

If you have to ask the question...

Seriously. The definition of the word "empirical" should be enough.

Can you show me something evolving into...

nvm.

You guys obviously think that humans are just animals, that must be it.

Conde Koma
31st July 10, 06:32 PM
Evolution is the process of one species evolving into another. MRSA is real empirical proof of that. But you rejected this because, what, it didn't evolve into something multicellular? That process would take millions of years, and like I said, impossible to observe given the level of technology.

What else do you want? What do you mean by empirical evidence of evolution?

HappyOldGuy
31st July 10, 06:33 PM
This is bullshit, do you think it was a farm pig that the experiments were done on?

It was some lab pig, just like any ape.

The easiest way to deal with immune-system rejection of xenotransplants would be to sidestep them-to use organs from the animal that is the closest possible to human beings. That, of course, is the chimpanzee, whose genome is more than 98 percent identical with the human genome.

But chimpanzees are an endangered species. They are costly to raise, and they grow slowly to adulthood. Chimpanzees may also harbor unknown viruses that do them no harm but that might cause devastating diseases in humans-diseases that might be transmitted to other people. For example, researchers have strong evidence that HIV crossed into humans from chimps during the first half of this century. The term for such a species leap is zoonosis, and the term that is becoming accepted for an animal-to-human leap because of a xenotransplant is, naturally, xenozoonosis.


http://science.education.nih.gov/snapshots.nsf/story?openform&rtn~xenotransplantsritn

JingMerchant!
31st July 10, 06:39 PM
Because, I think a clear definition of what we mean by 'Evolution' at this point...

Conde Koma
31st July 10, 06:42 PM
"Evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations."

"the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms"

Steve
31st July 10, 06:48 PM
For example, researchers have strong evidence that HIV crossed into humans from chimps during the first half of this century. The term for such a species leap is zoonosis, and the term that is becoming accepted for an animal-to-human leap because of a xenotransplant is, naturally, xenozoonosis.

"Animal-to-human."

We are different. Your post points it out empirically.

HappyOldGuy
31st July 10, 06:53 PM
"Animal-to-human."

We are different. Your post points it out empirically.

That's not even worth dignifying. Especially not when the term in question applies regardless of the species. You didn't even read properly.

Steve
31st July 10, 06:56 PM
HOG, I know you are as stubborn as ICY, it's okay.

HappyOldGuy
31st July 10, 06:59 PM
HOG, I know you are as stubborn as ICY, it's okay.

I am much more stubborn than ICY, but if someone makes a valid point I acknowledge it.

Don't hold your breath.

DAYoung
31st July 10, 07:00 PM
Obviously, I can't. I am talking more about how the general populace makes up 99% vs the people that make the announcements of "fact." And going by what I learned from George, the smart people can be wrong.

Sorry, I don't understand. Can you rephrase this?

DAYoung
31st July 10, 07:04 PM
And Steve, can you sum up your understanding of what's meant by 'evolution'?

Thanks.

Steve
31st July 10, 07:15 PM
Sorry, I don't understand. Can you rephrase this?

Sure.

The vast majority of things that are presented as "fact" are presented by a number of people that hob knob together. When was the last time that some schmo showed up and make an assertion that was immediately up for consideration by "experts?"

I'm just talking about the fields that I have already mentioned. George Bass, the founder of marine archaeology, made a mistake (and spoke about it in detail). I'm not going to believe anything anymore unless I've seen it myself.

Steve
31st July 10, 07:26 PM
And Steve, can you sum up your understanding of what's meant by 'evolution'?

Thanks.

I'm not actually sure what you want me to say.

Maybe I should start with the raping and killing of people.

If there is evolution, why are we behaving like the animals we claim to come from (or worse, why are we now behaving as human animals)?

DAYoung
31st July 10, 07:31 PM
I'm not going to believe anything anymore unless I've seen it myself.

You must be joking.

DAYoung
31st July 10, 07:32 PM
I'm not actually sure what you want me to say.

I mean: when folks talk about 'evolution', what do you think they mean?

I don't mean 'progress', or 'civilization', and the like. I mean 'evolution', post-Darwin and neo-Darwinian synthesis.

What do they mean?

Steve
31st July 10, 07:33 PM
You must be joking.

As a philosopher, you must know my meaning.

Steve
31st July 10, 07:42 PM
I mean: when folks talk about 'evolution', what do you think they mean?

I don't mean 'progress', or 'civilization', and the like. I mean 'evolution', post-Darwin and neo-Darwinian synthesis.

What do they mean?

Et tu, Brute?

I am really tired of people asking me what I believe vs actually posting things that were attempts to change my mind.

But if you are really asking me what I would think real evolution would be... we would go back, devolve (such a crappy word). Forget all this technology.

DAYoung
31st July 10, 07:44 PM
As a philosopher, you must know my meaning.

I seriously don't.

DAYoung
31st July 10, 07:46 PM
Et tu, Brute?

I am really tired of people asking me what I believe vs actually posting things that were attempts to change my mind.

I'm asking you, because I don't know what you think. That's why I usually ask: it makes conversation more productive when we have some idea of what the interlocutor thinks.

Conde Koma
31st July 10, 08:12 PM
I'm asking you, because I don't know what you think. That's why I usually ask: it makes conversation more productive when we have some idea of what the interlocutor thinks.


This goes double for me. It's really hard to have a debate when the other side doesn't have a clearly defined position. You say you don't believe in evolution, but you don't clarify what you mean by "evolution," since it doesn't seem to line up with the commonly accepted definitions held by the other people here.

I'm pretty sure you've never seen a lot of things, but you take them as real anyway. If you want to go down the route of Absolute Skepticism, you'd have to start by explaining why we aren't brains in jars or that the universe wasn't created five minutes ago. Heck, I could postulate that we live on a Flat Earth, since I've never seen the Earth as round with my own eyes.

ICY
31st July 10, 08:35 PM
Stop feeding the troll.

DAYoung
31st July 10, 08:37 PM
Stop feeding the troll.

Here, have a Tim-Tam.

Steve
31st July 10, 08:41 PM
I really don't know what you are asking since it has already been stated what evolution is in this thread. I just don't believe in it.

Conde Koma
31st July 10, 08:44 PM
And for the situation regarding MRSA? Because that's a pretty clear case of

"the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms"

or

"the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations"

So what's there not to believe?

Steve
31st July 10, 08:48 PM
And for the situation regarding MRSA? Because that's a pretty clear case of

"the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms"

or

"the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations"

So what's there not to believe?

What did it evolve into? Another bacteria?

Conde Koma
31st July 10, 08:49 PM
Yes. And it's still evolving.

do you not consider this to be a case of evolution? if so, please explain why.

Steve
31st July 10, 08:54 PM
Yes. And it's still evolving.

do you not consider this to be a case of evolution? if so, please explain why.

As I have previously stated, I believe in survival of the fittest, not evolution. If you can't put the idea of believing one thing but not the other out of your head you and I will never come to an agreement.

When you can show me something that isn't purely formed out of mutation on the molecular level, I might change my mind.

DAYoung
31st July 10, 09:02 PM
I really don't know what you are asking since it has already been stated what evolution is in this thread. I just don't believe in it.

For the purposes of discussion, it's very helpful to know what you mean.

It's not enough to say 'what they said'. You need to put it into your words, so we have your personal view.

I'm surprised you're refusing to do it.

WarPhalange
31st July 10, 09:02 PM
As I have previously stated, I believe in survival of the fittest

Okay. So how hard is it to imagine that the definition of "fittest" for a given situation gradually changes and so too then does the animal?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudskipper

Steve
31st July 10, 09:19 PM
For the purposes of discussion, it's very helpful to know what you mean.

It's not enough to say 'what they said'. You need to put it into your words, so we have your personal view.

I'm surprised you're refusing to do it.

?

Okay, I'll post it simply: evolution is where a living thing changes into some other living thing.

Humans are the top of the food chain, they have been for some time. If you think that we got here by luck, by evolution, well... I have my doubts.

Steve
31st July 10, 09:24 PM
Okay. So how hard is it to imagine that the definition of "fittest" for a given situation gradually changes and so too then does the animal?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudskipper

How many times do I have to say this: were you there, or anyone you know, to see the evolution of it?

My god, it's called a theory but treated as fact. Poop Loops, how many theories do you study or teach that aren't questioned daily? Why is one theory out of that realm?

Conde Koma
31st July 10, 09:35 PM
When you can show me something that isn't purely formed out of mutation on the molecular level, I might change my mind.

"Survival of the fittest given the current circumstances" is the mechanism by which evolution takes place. "Living thing changes into some other living thing" is an incredibly vague statement with no validity.

Your definition of "evolution" is flawed, which is why we have this disagreement. Your idea of evolution sounds like we magically were apes one day and became humans the next, which is folly. That "mutation on the molecular level" over millions of years is what creates the descent of species that you see today. If you want to observe this in action on a species to species scale, this is impossible. What we have is a solid foundation of evidence (the fossil record, genetic histories, etc), which you seem to reject for some reason.

Also, you should know that the scientific definition of "a theory" is much different than the way you are using it.

DAYoung
31st July 10, 09:37 PM
?

Okay, I'll post it simply: evolution is where a living thing changes into some other living thing.

OK. So when we talk about the theory of evolution, this is what you think we mean?

Steve
31st July 10, 09:45 PM
OK. So when we talk about the theory of evolution, this is what you think we mean?

Who is "we?"

If you mean to say that we evolved from some sort of single celled animal to become a human (forgetting the idea of where that single celled animal spawned from), then yes.

Steve
31st July 10, 09:51 PM
Also, you should know that the scientific definition of "a theory" is much different than the way you are using it.

I actually realize that but it is irrelevant, a theory still isn't proven. It's more appropriate to use the philosophical term in this new found discussion anyway.

Conde Koma
31st July 10, 09:56 PM
I actually realize that but it is irrelevant, a theory still isn't proven. It's more appropriate to use the philosophical term in this new found discussion anyway.

I don't see how. A scientific theory is backed up by quantifiable evidence and models, which a philosophical theory is not. This is very relevant, since gravity is also technically a scientific theory.


If you mean to say that we evolved from some sort of single celled animal to become a human (forgetting the idea of where that single celled animal spawned from), then yes.

The origin of all life is related, but not particularly relevant to the discussion of evolution on a whole. We could have been dropped off by an alien mothership billions of years ago, and it still wouldn't make a difference of whether or not we evolved from that.


What are your qualms with the scientific literature, exactly? HOG posted a few papers with empirical evidence concerning our evolution from a common ancestor, have you read those?

Steve
31st July 10, 10:11 PM
I don't see how. A scientific theory is backed up by quantifiable evidence and models, which a philosophical theory is not. This is very relevant, since gravity is also technically a scientific theory.



The origin of all life is related, but not particularly relevant to the discussion of evolution on a whole. We could have been dropped off by an alien mothership billions of years ago, and it still wouldn't make a difference of whether or not we evolved from that.


What are your qualms with the scientific literature, exactly? HOG posted a few papers with empirical evidence concerning our evolution from a common ancestor, have you read those?

I have glanced through them.


our evolution from a common ancestor

Ding ding ding! The missing link that scared ICY away: Where is it?

Don't post links to PDFs or Wiki, post the common ancestor. I want to go and see it, like literally travel there and see it.

Ajamil
31st July 10, 10:15 PM
Bullshit. I've felt an earthquake and I have had a cold, but theories are just theories.We've seen a species go from one to another.


I'm not sure what you are getting at here, as I stated, I believe in survival of the fittest, it's just the whole changing from one species to a "better" one that I don't follow (as the op is addressing). How does "fittest" not equal better? Are you saying that each life form or mutation is semantically a different soecies?" As in there are no actual species at all - just millions of different living creatures?

And many of the breeds we've helped to 'evolve' aren't really much better off than their original cousins. Evolution is something that comes about naturally, isn't it? Hybrids like those are for human convenience or amusement. "Natural" evolution means the filter of what survives and what doesn't it whether it survives to reproduce. When humans are the selective filter (i.e. hunting badgers, or being big, or having spotty coats, or liking water, or being loyal, etc.) they might not be as likely to survive without the human support. They become symbiotic, or domesticated.

In nature it's the better ones that survive, right? Difference for it's own sake isn't helpful in the wild, is it? Survivable difference means an untapped resource/some other niche that the species can exploit.

So evolution anticipates? I thought it was more reactive.

^
this was more to ICY's post 43 above.The process of evolution is mutation - that is essentially random. The filter is not random, and that's what "fittest" is all about. So the evolutionary "line" moves randomly, but always in the general direction of "survives till replicated."

adaptation would be there's some kind of choice going on. giraffes didn't one day look up and think, "damn, if only my neck were longer i'd be able to eat all that food!" Short giraffes must have already been eating, but the slightly taller giraffes were more fit because of slightly better access to food. And trees that were too tall to eat were the ones that had babies, thus tallness became a trait of survives - thus why there are tall trees in the savanna.

No, you can't go back into the tree of life, we only have the fossil records (as ICY poionted out) to go on, but we still haven't found the "missing link."No. We have isolated a bacterial species, limited their food resource, and fully documented when they evolved to adapt to a new food source. We have held and controlled quite nicely a species evolutionary path.


"missing link."Ahh - troll. Carry on.

The onus is on you, Steve. Wat. You have posited evolution. Steve said, "I doubt." How is the onus on him? He's agreed with the evidence - survival of the fittest - but not the theory modeling it - evolution.

Hence my needing of empirical proof. Can you give an example of something you would consider empirical proof of evolution?

"Animal-to-human."

We are different. Your post points it out empirically.That's a semantic argument, and there's always semantics when you're around.

As I have previously stated, I believe in survival of the fittest, not evolution. If you can't put the idea of believing one thing but not the other out of your head you and I will never come to an agreement.

When you can show me something that isn't purely formed out of mutation on the molecular level, I might change my mind.Do you mean something molecular-based that doesn't replicate better than any other replicating bunch of molecules and the came about through a process of random mutation and a filter of best replicator?

Humans are the top of the food chain, they have been for some time. If you think that we got here by luck, by evolution, well... I have my doubts.Evolution is not simply luck.

If you mean to say that we evolved from some sort of single celled animal to become a human (forgetting the idea of where that single celled animal spawned from), then yes.Could you see - instead of a sort of line graph - a model that was circular? Representing at the center an original replicator (perhaps several, like multiples rocks thrown in a pond) that each time it turned into two (or some process of replicating) had the opportunity to survive?

Conde Koma
31st July 10, 10:16 PM
Ding ding ding! The missing link that scared ICY away: Where is it?

Don't post links to PDFs or Wiki, post the common ancestor. I want to go and see it, like literally travel there and see it.

What qualifies as a common ancestor? We have early hominids like Lucy and non-human relatives like Neanderthals, are those what you mean? If you're asking to see a living and breathing common ancestor, this is impossible because we lack time travel. Is that what you're asking for?

Steve
31st July 10, 10:18 PM
What qualifies as a common ancestor? We have early hominids like Lucy and non-human relatives like Neanderthals, are those what you mean? If you're asking to see a living and breathing common ancestor, this is impossible because we lack time travel. Is that what you're asking for?

That is exactly what I'm asking for. Just admit it, you can't prove evolution.

Conde Koma
31st July 10, 10:20 PM
By that logic, we can't prove that you were born, either. Or prove anything that happened in the past, because we can't travel that way in time. Any and all evidence you have of the past could be forged.

I think this qualifies as trolling then?

Steve
31st July 10, 10:27 PM
You can't win the argument so I'm trolling, is that how it goes?

I'm not trolling and I have no idea how this thread got into such a big deal because as an adult, I don't believe in evolution.

All I said was that evolution is a theory because it hasn't been proven. Give me a break.

Ajamil
31st July 10, 10:28 PM
We have that in bacteria, but it can't be empirically proven in larger life forms. Why do you think length of time affects how the process works/worked? Or who the process works on?

Conde Koma
31st July 10, 10:55 PM
You can't win the argument so I'm trolling, is that how it goes?

I'm not trolling and I have no idea how this thread got into such a big deal because as an adult, I don't believe in evolution.

All I said was that evolution is a theory because it hasn't been proven. Give me a break.


you're no longer arguing on any basis of reasoning, you're arguing from dogmatic skepticism. because you can't see it right in front of you, you think it can't be proven. whether this is how you are with everything or if this is some kind of high-brow philosophical gesture i have no idea, but in my opinion it's pretty fucking stupid.

your concept of "proof" is pretty different from everyone else's. like i said, going by your logic, nothing that's happened can be "proven." We've proven evolution works using controlled lab conditions, computer models, and observations in the real empirical world. yet your proof is only satisfied by time travel? give me a break.

Steve
31st July 10, 11:01 PM
If you are correct, write a text book so I can sell it to some elementary schools. Are you really this daft? You may believe it but I don't, when you have actual proof that isn't some micro bugs turning into some other micro bugs (or anything that just doesn't turn into a buffer version of itself), then you will have a point that will sway me.

Though I do think Halle is pretty hot.

Conde Koma
31st July 10, 11:03 PM
why is microbugs turning into other microbugs unacceptable to you?

Steve
31st July 10, 11:05 PM
I don't like bugs...?

EDIT: you may have not known this, I was an Orkin Man for a short time (truth).

Conde Koma
31st July 10, 11:07 PM
by your own definition (living things turning into other living things), evolution of bacteria qualifies as acceptable empirical proof. if time travel is the only thing you'll accept however, then you're no longer arguing from a basis in sound reasoning.

Steve
31st July 10, 11:12 PM
by your own definition (living things turning into other living things), evolution of bacteria qualifies as acceptable empirical proof. if time travel is the only thing you'll accept however, then you're no longer arguing from a basis in sound reasoning.

My definition was for DAYoung's benifit, I agree with your idea of evolution.

Conde Koma
31st July 10, 11:22 PM
even better then. the observation of bacterial evolution under both controlled and real-world situations should still qualify for meeting your burden of proof.

DAYoung
31st July 10, 11:29 PM
A scientific theory is backed up by quantifiable evidence and models, which a philosophical theory is not.

It depends on the field you're talking about. Aesthetics and ethics, sure - they don't always use scientific evidence (though they can). But many scholars in metaphysics and history and philosophy of science do.

Steve
31st July 10, 11:32 PM
even better then. the observation of bacterial evolution under both controlled and real-world situations should still qualify for meeting your burden of proof.

I know it boggles your mind, but it doesn't.

I know I'm going to hate this but I really do wish Cullion was here. He at least could formulate some argument that would be at most slightly convincing.

Conde Koma
31st July 10, 11:36 PM
and i ask again, WHY does it not meet your burden of proof? does anything short of time travel meet it?

Steve
31st July 10, 11:37 PM
*facepalm*

Does anything short of time travel prove it?

Conde Koma
31st July 10, 11:42 PM
well, to me and what i assume is the overwhelming majority of the scientific community, yes. to you and my impression of religious fundamentalists (not saying the two groups are the same), it seems like no.

HappyOldGuy
31st July 10, 11:46 PM
*facepalm*

Does anything short of time travel prove it?

Yes.

To people who aren't morons.

Steve
31st July 10, 11:55 PM
Yes.

To people who aren't morons.

Morons are people that think a theory is truth when there is no actual proof (again, proof that we came from the dirt).

I prefer to stand on the side of proven science, and I guess I'm alone here since all I have gotten is flames.

Conde Koma
31st July 10, 11:59 PM
and you're ignoring the current provided proof because...?

you still haven't explained why experimental data, observed evidence, and current models don't fit your burden of proof. you just say that nothing short of time travel will. please explain what makes evolutionary biology's empirical proof worse than those provided by your "proven" sciences (a clarification of which would also be beneficial).

HappyOldGuy
1st August 10, 12:00 AM
Morons are people that think a theory is truth when there is no actual proof (again, proof that we came from the dirt).

I prefer to stand on the side of proven science, and I guess I'm alone here since all I have gotten is flames.

If you use the word science one more time I'm gonna start driving up the 5 with a copy of an intro to the scientific method book to place somewhere you won't want it.

This is a really pathetic troll.

DAYoung
1st August 10, 12:02 AM
*unsubscribe*

Steve
1st August 10, 12:06 AM
This is a really pathetic troll.

Come on now, we can't all be ICY, I didn't call anyone a faggot once.

HappyOldGuy
1st August 10, 12:09 AM
Come on now, we can't all be ICY, I didn't call anyone a faggot once.

He can pull off crazy way better.

You should talk to us about your gender reassignment.

Steve
1st August 10, 12:15 AM
:(

HappyOldGuy
1st August 10, 12:17 AM
Don't take that wrong, I think MJS is constructing a work of genius. I just hope he has plans to run it somewhere that can appreciate it.

Steve
1st August 10, 12:19 AM
And I did get ICY to neg rep me (my actual goal).

Steve
1st August 10, 12:21 AM
Don't take that wrong, I think MJS is constructing a work of genius. I just hope he has plans to run it somewhere that can appreciate it.

Ah, right.

*wink*

Steve
1st August 10, 12:35 AM
Dinosaurs are pretty cool, though.

WarPhalange
1st August 10, 12:49 AM
My god, it's called a theory but treated as fact.

Did you not watch the video I posted? You should. It would really enlighten you to the fact that scientific vocabulary has its own meanings that do not necessarily coincide with everyday meanings.

But let me give you a brief definition:

Fact: Something that has been observed and recorded. I cranked my amp up to 11, loudness went up to "face melt" volume.

Law: An observed phenomenon. Cranking up the amp causes more face melting.

Hypothesis: Something that can be falsified in order to shed light on your facts, e.g. "If loudness depends on amp setting, then cranking amp higher will give melt more faces". This also works for theories.

Theory: Why a phenomenon happens. This is the most important thing. Knowing that gravity attracts us to Earth is great and all, it lets us launch space shuttles and junk, but we don't know why gravity does that yet. If the above hypothesis was simply "Higher setting = more loudness", then it could be falsified by turning off the power. Suddenly you crank the amp and nothing happens. Then you can say something like "cranking the amp puts more electricity through the speakers, which ends up melting more faces". Until you find a way to disprove that, then you treat it as "fact". It fits all the current data so it's a valid explanation and there is no contradicting evidence. What more could you want?


Poop Loops, how many theories do you study or teach that aren't questioned daily? Why is one theory out of that realm?

Err... most of the theories I teach or learn about aren't questioned daily. All of quantum theory, for one. Electromagnetic theory. Statistical mechanics, which probability theory. Relativity. ALL of those are theories that NOT ONCE I have seen questioned in any of my classes. Why? Because theories aren't pulled out of someone's ass. They've already undergone YEARS of testing. Decades in all of these cases. The stuff I'm learning has been done a thousand times already, so there is no reason to doubt it. If a new theory were to come along, it would improve our current understanding, not totally redefine it.

Einstein didn't show that Newton was wrong, only that there are corrections to be made at speeds close to that of light.

But lets get back to "facts vs. theory".

Say I sit down with you and we watch 400 generations of monkeys slowly turning into some new type of flying mammal. What does that prove? Nothing. It's just a "fact". You saw what happened, but you have no fucking clue why. It could have been God, it could have been magical elves. All you saw was that it happened. Evolution explains why this happens, i.e. "survival of the fittest", etc.

We have evidence in fossil records, DNA lineages, and current observation of shit like bacteria or fish (They are getting smaller and smaller because people only catch the big ones. This means runts and ones that grow slower have a higher chance of survival.). There is no debate about it happening. The only thing is the details of how and why it happens.

Ajamil
1st August 10, 12:58 AM
So the theory of evolution is about why survival of the fittest happens. And you say that's where the debate and thus doubt is. And that's where Steve has proclaimed his doubt - not on survival of the fittest (facts), but the theory of evolution (why).

Conde Koma
1st August 10, 01:24 AM
But Steve has yet to clarify what he finds wrong with the current theory (the why of evolution). He's only said that he doesn't believe it, but offers no alternative and no points of contention with it, only that "it hasn't been proven."

Steve
1st August 10, 01:29 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v418/bawanaal/PicardDoubleFacepalm-1.jpg

WarPhalange
1st August 10, 01:30 AM
That's how we've been feeling for the past few pages, Steven.

Steve
1st August 10, 01:33 AM
I can't find a triple facepalm.

Conde Koma
1st August 10, 01:40 AM
your reasoning was to the effect of

"to satisfy my burden of proof, i must see the common ancestor of humanity and apes with my own two eyes. i want to travel somewhere and see it."


this is not explaining your points of contention with the theory of evolution. you can post pics of facepalms all you want, but you've yet to actually sit down and lay out your problems with it.

Steve
1st August 10, 01:42 AM
You're not actually reading the thread, are you?

Conde Koma
1st August 10, 01:53 AM
What qualifies as a common ancestor? We have early hominids like Lucy and non-human relatives like Neanderthals, are those what you mean? If you're asking to see a living and breathing common ancestor, this is impossible because we lack time travel. Is that what you're asking for?


That is exactly what I'm asking for. Just admit it, you can't prove evolution.

You said it. Unless you can point out where you outlined your specific problems with evolution? Because I'm sure if you actually did such a thing, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.

Conde Koma
1st August 10, 02:04 AM
okay, i gotta get up early tomorrow morning. please outline your specific problems and necessary burden of proof with evolution so we can have an intelligent debate. as i pointed out, so far the only thing i have you down for is

1.) You do not believe in evolution because it has not been "proven."
2.) Your necessary burden of proof would be to travel back in time and observe an early hominid, and then (I assume) jump forward in time to observe its progress towards Homo Sapiens as they exist today.

If you have any problems with the research literature, any experiments you feel were not conducted with the necessary scientific rigor, or other such issues with the way that evolutionary biology has arrived at its current state, please list them out in no uncertain terms.

If you have any realistic means of satisfying your burden of proof, please also list them in no uncertain terms.

I'm really doing everything I can to make this as easy as possible for you. If you can't meet these very simple requests, I think it's safe to say you're not being reasonable or logical about this in any way. If you have any problems with the requests listed, feel free to explain them and we can revisit them as necessary.

Steve
1st August 10, 02:20 AM
You're not actually reading the thread, are you?

LOL!

Come on, ICY was the first to realize.

WarPhalange
1st August 10, 02:27 AM
You're a shitty troll, Steve. Very shitty. You never really pushed anyone's buttons, just made them confused.

Steve
1st August 10, 02:32 AM
Who said a troll had to push any buttons? I got a neg from ICY and over 160 posts out of this.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
1st August 10, 06:08 AM
Don't take that wrong, I think MJS is constructing a work of genius. I just hope he has plans to run it somewhere that can appreciate it.

My penis is a work of genius? Yeah, alright.

Kiko
1st August 10, 06:15 AM
I can't find a triple facepalm.

That's why you have me around...

http://verydemotivational.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/129092786498235257.jpg

Nice to see this has become more civil, btw...well mostly.

Shotgun Christening
1st August 10, 06:29 AM
But Steve has yet to clarify what he finds wrong with the current theory (the why of evolution). He's only said that he doesn't believe it, but offers no alternative and no points of contention with it, only that "it hasn't been proven."

This is a classic sign of trolling. Learn it. Know it. Watch out for it.

He wasnt even trying hard or he would have posted ridiculous theories with just enough "fact" in them to make you start copy and pasting web sites countering his "facts".

This could have gone on for days if he wanted it to. I say well played Steve.

ICY
1st August 10, 06:49 AM
You guys suck at the internet.

And Steve...the neg rep was for trolling in poor taste, but you did have me for 3 posts.

ICY
1st August 10, 06:55 AM
I give it to you, though, Steve. You win. I was trolled. I actually got frustrated.

I would like you to ban me for a month, because this has made me realize I am spending too much time and energy thinking about forums. I've replaced my other vices (shitty relationships, junk food, and drugs) with this one. That is unacceptable.

Pull the trigger any time you're ready. I won't feel it. :P

Conde Koma
1st August 10, 09:12 PM
i kinda gathered he was trolling, but that doesn't make him any less stupid. i will say that i'm confused about why it's applauded and encouraged here; are you guys really that bored?

i really had a lot of respect for people here, thanks for disappointing.

HappyOldGuy
1st August 10, 09:46 PM
Noone is applauding.

Trolling can be an art, but this was finger painting.

But really, even though I mostly like the people here and I would actually go out of my way to help out most of them, it's an internet message board. You have to assume some sort of damage is required as an entry ticket.

You can punch me at the next inter-gym session if it'll make you feel better.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
1st August 10, 09:48 PM
Can you help me score some acid man?

HappyOldGuy
1st August 10, 09:51 PM
Can you help me score some acid man?

Not for decades, but if you go play your "transition" act on some macho shithole and post links, I'll do my best to find some.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
1st August 10, 09:53 PM
What, you mean Bullshido? Or you want me to get e-mails from craigslist guys? What's your angle?

HappyOldGuy
1st August 10, 09:59 PM
Bullshido would have worked before the tragic bow accident, but I'm challenging you to stretch yourself and really create a work of art. Find a place full of people who need their minds shook, make em like you, and take em to a scary dark place.

I know you have it in you. You have the skills. You need to find the desire.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
1st August 10, 10:01 PM
Do you have a target forum?

HappyOldGuy
1st August 10, 10:07 PM
Naah, I'm just encouraging you to stretch your wings. Plus I'm worried that this place is turning into the knights who troll lily, and I need some fresh lulz.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
1st August 10, 10:13 PM
Let's invade another forum.

Shotgun Christening
2nd August 10, 05:23 AM
i kinda gathered he was trolling, but that doesn't make him any less stupid.

How does that make him stupid?



i will say that i'm confused about why it's applauded and encouraged here; are you guys really that bored?

We still have good discussions but yeah, sometimes you get bored and you see if someone will bite.



i really had a lot of respect for people here, thanks for disappointing.

I hope this is a lame troll attempt. Its the internet, how can you have respect for someone you only know through a text based media?

Ajamil
2nd August 10, 02:57 PM
how can you have respect for someone you only know through a text based media?So you hold no respect for any historical authors?

Shotgun Christening
2nd August 10, 03:10 PM
So you hold no respect for any historical authors?

Why should I? Respect must mean something different to you.
Admiration may be what you are thinking of.

I admire MLK for what he did.

Ajamil
2nd August 10, 04:22 PM
Perhaps it does. What do you mean by respect?

Kiko
6th August 10, 01:10 PM
http://www.picturesofwalls.com/Database/Filestore/100_forget.jpg

Adouglasmhor
6th August 10, 02:46 PM
They are still dogs, Poop Loops. Your point is like saying Halle Berry is proof of evolution.


And their DNA is all wolf DNA. Are wolves Dogs?

Adouglasmhor
6th August 10, 02:56 PM
So evolution anticipates? I thought it was more reactive.

^
this was more to ICY's post 43 above.


It throws up random changes, some useless, some lethal like some genetic conditions and now and again ones that give a survival edge.

When the conditions that give a survival edge come up, the changes which work for that give the specimens that have it a better chance of surviving and breeding.

Traditional example the peppered moth (http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/Moths/moths.html)

Ajamil
6th August 10, 07:36 PM
Peppered moth was contested as fake (http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/photo_database/image/the_peppered_moth/), but I agree.

Three problems, though: (1) Kettlewell was responsible for nailing dead moths to the trees for the birds to feed on, (2) peppered moths rarely alight on tree trunks, and (3) birds don’t normally feed on months moths that are on the side of trees.

Truculent Sheep
6th August 10, 07:40 PM
Speaking of dogs 'n evolution:

aDmzzREXI_g

87wLscGT68k

Part of an excellent BBC 2 documentary you really need to see if you can.

Steve
7th August 10, 07:50 AM
i kinda gathered he was trolling, but that doesn't make him any less stupid. i will say that i'm confused about why it's applauded and encouraged here; are you guys really that bored?

i really had a lot of respect for people here, thanks for disappointing.

You really have no clue, do you?

Ajamil
7th August 10, 12:07 PM
I'm not certain about the necessity of dogs in herding. I'm not recollecting any mention of them in Vedic tales of cowherding. Do the African cowherd tribes use dogs? I have no problem seeing it for shepherds, though.

Cross-species communication is killer.

Truculent Sheep
7th August 10, 12:38 PM
They may not have been mentioned because they were so taken for granted at the time. Beowulf doesn't mention dogs much either, but they were a key part of Danish culture at the time, for example. Does anyone know what the archaeological record from that time suggests?

Kiko
9th August 10, 03:57 PM
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l6w60rRbZR1qzpwi0o1_500.jpg

Spade: The Real Snake
9th August 10, 04:11 PM
So what's all this here about dinosaurs here.

Spade: The Real Snake
9th August 10, 04:11 PM
Jurassic Park said they are like chickens or something.