125 Million-Year old Dinosaur feathers remarkably similar to modern bird feathers

[Occams Barber]

All my life I've bought into the stereotype that Australian men are a rugged, manly breed. Now I'm picturing you prancing around wearing a feather boa. Crocodile Dundee would be ashamed.

Ahhh - but you're forgetting the Sydney Gay Mardi Gras, Dame Edna Everidge, Priscilla Queen of the Desert and any movie by Baz Luhrmann- these are all Australian stereotypes.

We can happily wear a feather boa AND wrestle crocodiles.

OB

 

[partinobodycular]

Scientists are actually rethinking their presuppositions of evolution.

But it still comes down to survival of the fittest. That part isn't about to change. What may need a rethink however is whether there is more than just random mutations at play here. For example, can traits acquired during one generation be passed on to proceeding generations? Evidence suggests that indeed this may be possible.

But this doesn't equate to "Aha evolution was wrong", it simply means that 'descent with modifications' may be more involved than mere random chance. It would mean that the environment can play a role not only by selecting the survivor, but by altering some of their epigenetic traits as well. This wouldn't make the argument for evolution weaker, it would make it a heck of a lot stronger.

Acquired Traits Can Be Inherited via Small RNAs

 

[sjastro]

Ahhh - but you're forgetting the Sydney Gay Mardi Gras, Dame Edna Everidge, Priscilla Queen of the Desert and any movie by Baz Luhrmann- these are all Australian stereotypes.

We can happily wear a feather boa AND wrestle crocodiles.

OB

How could you have forgotten Sir Les Patterson?

 

[Occams Barber]

How could you have forgotten Sir Les Patterson?

Easily

OB

 

[Occams Barber]

I know a chemical biologist (who believes in evolution) who believes that evolution needs a real face lift. His name is Dr. Sy Garte in case you want to ask him yourself.

What's your point Jesse? No science is absolutely fixed. Most sciences could benefit from a degree of revision and rethinking. This doesn't mean that they are essentially wrong, although it can happen.

In my time I've seen Steady State replaced by Big Bang Theory.

Evolution is perhaps the most critically analysed of all scientific Theories. It will change at the fringes as new things are learned but it is extremely unlikely that the underlying principles will be disproven. The evidence for Evolution is immense and growing.

Creationists tend to see disagreement within a scientific field (particularly Evolution) as a sign of weakness when the real strength of science is to adapt to new information or in some cases (like Big Bang) to throw it out and start again.

OB

 

[All Becomes New]

But it still comes down to survival of the fittest.

Which is a silly theory. Evolutionists would have us believe that the earth is hostile to life and the only way that life gets more complex is through this hostility.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Which is a silly theory. Evolutionists would have us believe that the earth is hostile to life and the only way that life gets more complex is through this hostility.

And comments like that show that you don't really know what you're talking about.
'Survival of the fittest' does not mean 'nature red in tooth and claw'. 'Survival of the fittest' just means 'that which is able to survive in its environment to pass their genetics to the next generation'.

It's only a fool who thinks with the antiquated Victorian mindset of the phrase.

 

[Occams Barber]

Which is a silly theory. Evolutionists would have us believe that the earth is hostile to life and the only way that life gets more complex is through this hostility.

After decades of talking with Creationists I've found that a common thread is an appalling lack of knowledge and understanding of Evolution.

Evolution is not about complexity or hostility.

In simple terms, the evolutionary 'winners' are those who have the most offspring. Fungi and moulds are one of the more successful life forms, but they are (in relative terms) simple. Arguably ants or rats are more 'successful' than humans because there are more of them. Evolutionary success is not measured by the acquisition of human-like characteristics or 'complexity'.

In Evolutionary terms "He/she who has the most kids wins". If a mutation results in a trait which increases the likelihood of producing viable offspring, then that trait will be inherited by those offspring and passed on to succeeding generations.

If the trait has the effect of reducing the chances of offspring, then it's possible that extinction will occur. Probably 99% of all species have gone extinct since life began.

OB

 

[All Becomes New]

After decades of talking with Creationists I've found that a common thread is an appalling lack of knowledge and understanding of Evolution.

Evolution is not about complexity or hostility.

In simple terms, the evolutionary 'winners' are those who have the most offspring. Fungi and moulds are one of the more successful life forms, but they are (in relative terms) simple. Arguably ants or rats are more 'successful' than humans because there are more of them. Evolutionary success is not measured by the acquisition of human-like characteristics or 'complexity'.

In Evolutionary terms "He/she who has the most kids wins". If a mutation results in a trait which increases the likelihood of producing viable offspring, then that trait will be inherited by those offspring and passed on to succeeding generations.

If the trait has the effect of reducing the chances of offspring, then it's possible that extinction will occur. Probably 99% of all species have gone extinct since life began.

OB

In other words, there is nothing special about humans in an evolutionary worldview.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

In other words, there is nothing special about humans in an evolutionary worldview.

In a simply reductionist view of biology, yes.

In others... no, not at all.

You're a very rude person.

 

[All Becomes New]

You're a very rude person.

I'm what naturalism deserves.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm what naturalism deserves.

Yet not what a Christian should be.

You also really do not have a clue what you're talking about, so you being 'what naturalism deserves' really rings hollow.

 

[All Becomes New]

Yet not what a Christian should be.

You also really do not have a clue what you're talking about, so you being 'what naturalism deserves' really rings hollow.

I'm more of a Christian than most who wear the label.

I don't really care about being educated in evolution. Not my problem.

 

[partinobodycular]

Evolutionists would have us believe that the earth is hostile to life and the only way that life gets more complex is through this hostility.

Or one could look at it completely differently, that evolution is an ever vigilant designer, constantly remolding its creation to be in ever perfect harmony with its surroundings. Not even God could do any better. We know... because He tried, and failed, instead leaving it to evolution to do what He couldn't.

And you're missing the point, it's not that things die, it's that even in spite of all that the world can bring to bear against them... things survive. Life goes on, and we persevere. And that my friend is absolutely amazing.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm more of a Christian than most who wear the label.

And that is not a claim for you to make. And I think it might be against forum rules too.

I don't really care about being educated in evolution. Not my problem.

Then any commentary you have on evolution is worthless then. Thanks for admitting it.

 

[All Becomes New]

And that is not a claim for you to make. And I think it might be against forum rules too.

Stop looking for reasons to hate me.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Stop looking for reasons to hate me.

I don't hate you. I just find you rude.

 

[All Becomes New]

I don't hate you. I just find you rude.

I don't recall insulting anyone.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I don't recall insulting anyone.

You don't have to insult anyone to be rude.

But taking information that is presented clearly and simply to explain why you're wrong, then twisting it to say something that was not said, is rude.

 

[All Becomes New]

You don't have to insult anyone to be rude.

But taking information that is presented clearly and simply to explain why you're wrong, then twisting it to say something that was not said, is rude.

What did I twist based on what was said?