But let's look at a counter-example:
How is it that both of these creatures are birds?
Posted on 03/08/2016 10:19:08 AM PST by JimSEA
I have made many a cladogram.
Do you know how to read?
Sorry for the sarcasm, it’s tiresome getting odd answers to a simple question asked about the study and associated theory in question.
Have you ever taken a biology class at a university?
Of what use were grossly malformed fins for millions of years, before turning into legs? Were they just flopping around in the shallows mating only with other malformed fish? Wouldn’t this situation equate to being very unfit from an evolutionary standpoint, entirely too exposed to prey, being neither able to swim or walk effectively?
But let's look at a counter-example:
How is it that both of these creatures are birds?
Not for me, it wasn't.
Indeed I do know how to read. I also know how not to be an asshole. As to your question, I have not only taken biology at a university, I have taught biology at a university. Have you?
Indeed I have.
I am not so sure you do not know how to be an a-—, though, don’t pat yourself on the back.
As you are so educated, answer the question (or at least address it) as to what differences in genomic structures do they expect based upon their “findings [that] challenge some long-standing assumptions about evolution” in contrast to what would be expected under the “long standing assumptions?”
I did say sorry for the sarcasm.
Quotes from the article:
1. It is generally expected that when organisms evolve new features — or ‘key innovations’ — that enable them to exploit new environments, the rate of evolution and diversification will speed up. This is believed to have happened with the evolution of birds from dinosaurs and, most iconically of all, in the transition from finned aquatic fish to limbed tetrapods.(long held assumption)
2. Our work challenges this received wisdom, and shows that, at least in the case of the evolution of early tetrapods, key innovations did not quickly lead to greater anatomical variety. (Challenge to long held assumptions).
Reading is your friend. Some of my earlier responses presupposed that the article had been read. That assumption sent me down the garden path of distinguishing between genetic conclusion and the study of comparative morphology.
Still does not answer my question.
Why is it so hard?
What predictions that are testable can be made that will confirm or deny their “challenge to long held assumptions”?
Eg what should we expect to see in comparative tetrapod genomics and tetrapod fish comparisons that we would not see if the “long held assumptions” were correct?
They sure as hell don’t need or use them.
What had been expected if the “long held assumptions” were correct is more rapid structural diversification among organisms colonizing new environments than would be found among organisms that remained in the original environments. The prediction that is testable is that the colonizers’ evolutionary change will be more pronounced, while this paper indicates the similarities in change between the two groups.
Your argument here raises two questions:
Is paleontology "hard science"?
Definition of "soft science":
Definition of "hard science":
Chemistry, biology, physics and astronomy are here listed as "hard science" and all provide evidence confirming evolution theory.
Evolutionary biology is sometimes called "soft", but that was in the days before detailed DNA analysis began upsetting the old order of biological classifications & relationships.
Paleontology itself is not found listed in either "hard" or "soft" category.
Bottom line: it's not clear if the pejorative term "soft science" is anything more than a polite way of saying: I disagree with your conclusions, so I'll call you "soft", pal.
Were dinosaurs reptiles?
Until Bob Bakker in the late 60s, dinosaurs were thought to be cold-blooded like reptiles.
Today dinosaurs are classified along with birds and reptiles among the archeosaurs a clade-order in the class Reptilia.
But where, exactly, they belong is still unclear.
When & how, did ancestors of dinosaurs split from those of birds or mammals, is not fully known.
But the real question here is whether that term "soft science" is simply euphemism for "inaccurate guess-work", and if so, then the biological classification system has gone from "soft" to harder & harder over many years, as more and more hard data (i.e., DNA comparisons) came into the picture.
Archeosaurs include two main sub-clades, "Pseudosuchia, which includes crocodilians and their extinct relatives, and Ornithosuchia, which includes birds and their extinct relatives (such as non-avian dinosaurs and pterosaurs)":
Examples of Archeosaur Ornithosuchians (Avemetatarsalia) and Pseudosuchians:
As with many anti-evos, your arguments quickly degenerate into red herrings, straw men and ad hominems.
So, FRiend, that makes you a graduate from which school?
Thanks. As always, you are far better at explaining and supporting science than I am. My understandings are far more of a “home brew”. I am, as always, an elderly ex miner with an interest in geology and related life sciences.
Simply, bone marrow cross sections of dinosaur bones show that the animals were warm blooded. This evidence was always available to see.
We had to do this for a section of a biology class. I accidentally killed all of my group’s fruit flies so I can personally vouch for dead fruit flies during study of them. To make up the credit I donated a beef heart for dissection.
Politely but firmly: evolution certainly does exist as a scientific theory whose ideas and predictions are confirmed daily by physical evidence and workers in many "hard science" fields.
Science, per se, does not use the term "proof" regarding hypotheses such as evolution.
The correct term is "confirmed", and evolution is classified as "theory" precisely because it has been innumerable times confirmed.
However, evolution theory is precisely equivalent to the forensic science by which our law enforcement proves and convicts criminals of crimes -- crimes which were not seen and so cannot be reproduced.
As with forensic science, evolution science looks at the evidence, down to the molecular & DNA levels, to theorize "beyond a reasonable doubt" about the events which produced it.
To claim otherwise is not correct.
afsnco: "Problem is, throwing a bunch of chemicals together and expecting them to form into the most “simple” (stupendously complex) single-celled organism is utterly laughable."
But of course, no scientist claims such a thing.
What has been demonstrated in labs is the ability of organic chemistry, under certain conditions, to self organize and begin to "complexify".
Yes, that's a far cry from "life in a test tube", but it shows that certain essential steps could happen in nature.
afsnco: ""And, instead of adding new information, mutation always reduces information, and usually makes the organism less viable. "
That is factually inaccurate, as demonstrated by certain mutations amongst human beings -- i.e., recent adaptations for high altitude living in the Himalayas and Andes, also DNA changes to protect against malaria.
Of course, your "tell" here is the weasel-word "usually", which is correct, but occasional beneficial mutations are accepted by natural selection and drive evolution, both short-term and long-term.
afsnco: "I’m sure any of the many creation scientists would love to be published in secular publications."
By US law, there's no such thing as a "creation scientist", since creationism is religion, not science.
But any creationists who wishes to do valid science is certainly welcome to submit their works for peer-review.
But in fact there are many examples of "intermediate species" not capable of full flight, but enjoying the benefits of partial flight.
From flying squirrels & flying fishes to flying frogs, snakes, insects & even flying squids & lemurs, which sometimes take to the air, the benefits of partial flight, are clearly demonstrated in nature, today.
Secret Agent Man: "Takes more faith to believe evolution than creation..."
Most Christians believe that God created evolution to accomplish His Plan and Purposes.
Then you have many years of hands-on experience using the same hard-science understandings that underpin evolution theory.
JimSEA: "you are far better at explaining and supporting science than I am."
Believe it or not, I learn something new with almost every post.
That's what makes this so fun & interesting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.