Onyx wrote: sysiphus wrote: Onyx wrote:
Kerdy wrote:Before they were big and then they...no after they were big and developed into...wait, before and after they...crud, I don't know. They keep freakin changing it.
You are a poster child for the Dunning Kruger effect. Not only do you not understand evolution as it relates to dinosaurs, you seem to lack even enough understanding of science to recognize that scientists have a superior working knowledge of evolution to you.
And that, therefore, a mere layman could never understand the hidden secrets of Science? Sounds like mysticism.
No, that's pretty much the opposite of what I'm saying. Kerdy is way smart enough to get a good grasp of the evolution. I have a couple of books I could recommend which I think Kerdy would easily grasp and they would increase his sense of wonder at the natural world.
The trouble is that rather than learn about it, he thinks he can see flaws in it because
his knowledge of it is so meager that he lacks even the knowledge to assess his own ignorance of the field.
Evolution is fact. We have long known that both birds and mammals evolved from reptiles.
The point that has recently come into the public knowledge is that the reptiles from which birds evolved may have been from within the group of reptiles we call dinosaurs. I don't know what level of proof exists for this. As Kerdy suggests, it is subject to revision, because people continue to learn. However the knowledge that birds evolved from some form of reptile is so well established that we describe it as a "fact". The phenomenon we observe here of Christians mocking this sort of science is a discredit to Christianity, and speaks poorly of any genuine desire to seek truth.
I am perfectly open to hear what anyone says about their theories. However, I have a question about cross-species evolution that no one has been able to answer for me, and it has kept me dubious. I'm perfectly open to an answer if you have it, though.
During a lecture on chromosomes, my Biology teacher mentioned that in cases of chromosomal aneuploidy, such as Down Syndrome, the individual affected is unable to reproduce. I may just not be understanding the issue fully, but my question to him was: if aneuploidy renders an organism unable to reproduce, how then was any organism able to evolve from one species to another. I mean, in order for cross species evolution to work, two creatures of the opposite sex would have to not only by chance develop the same mutations, but then somehow manage to successfully reproduce, which according to what we learned is impossible. Is that a valid argument, or am I barking up an empty tree? I'm sure I don't fully understand what I'm talking about, but my teacher's response was, "these are just random chance events." that answer left me less than satisfied.
An alligator has 32 chromosomes and a chicken has 78. That's a big difference.
Or, how could 2 individuals of the opposite sex and species develop the right reproductive organs that would match up so they could produce offpsring?
Not to mention the second law of thermodynamics, that all systems tend toward entropy. Or the incredibly complex human eye, missing any of its individual components would not function at all. (Yes I know, irreducible complexity is not the strongest ground to stand on) But how was the eye able to evolve when, by natural selection, the incomplete and therefore useless organ should have been discarded many times over. You've probably heard all of these multiple times over. But I would love to hear what you have to say about them. I'm here with open ears, and an open mind. Be aware, mind you, that I am not talking about evolution within species. That is obviously taking place all the time, hence the pigmentless, blind, cave dwelling fish and frogs.