Creationist/Woo Split From Nature Paper Thread

[Onyx8]

How many hoax fossils have you come up with so far?

[Jerome Da Gnome]

Nice thread title.

Good luck with that.

[Jerome Da Gnome]

What we are doing here is to examine the claim concerning DNA showing the transitional dino-birds. We started with the fossils, when that fell on its face with the initiation being a hoax, the claim was made fossils were not needed, DNA could be used.

We are talking about science. An examination of the data so as to determine the validity of a theory.


^^^ good to know the above is considered "woo" by the moderators.

I will just stick to the mafia, thanks.

[SkyMutt]

. . . We started with the fossils, when that fell on its face with the initiation being a hoax, the claim was made fossils were not needed, DNA could be used.

Yes, your argument fell on its face, because the fabricated Archaeoraptor liaoningensis was not the first feathered dinosaur reported from the Liaoning Province, Sinosauropteryx was. Caudipteryx was found the same year as Archaeoraptor liaoningensis was patched together, in the Liaoning Province as well. You promptly stopped bleating about how the hoax fossil Archaeoraptor liaoningensis is what caused people to look in the Liaoning Province when I provided the facts above, but now seem to have forgotten all about that. By the way, both Sinosauropteryx and Caudipteryx were feathered dinosaurs.

Sinosauropteryx is the first dinosaur fossil ever found that showed evidence of having feathers .It has been called one of the most exciting scientific discoveries in decades. This animal was not a bird, but rather a theropod dinosaur.

This Chinese fossil clearly shows defined feathers around much of this little dinosaur! It was a small, swift hunter that could not fly, but it seems to demonstrate that dinosaurs were beginning to look and act more like birds. It is a very important fossil for a number of reasons. First, and perhaps most importantly, it is a critical piece of evidence supporting the argument that birds descended from dinosaurs. Additionally, depending on its exact classification, it shows that at least some non-avian coelurosaurs were feathered.

Caudipteryx was a turkey-sized dinosaur. It had short forelimbs, large eyes and long, sharp, spiked teeth. Quick and agile, it had long slender legs. The most prominent feature of Caudipteryx had to be its tail, which was covered with 6-inch-long tail feathers. The feather fossils show bands of dark and light that may have been color, giving us an idea of how Caudipteryx looked. It was unable to fly. Some of the evolutionary advantages feathers may have provided to a flightless animal may include the ability to control body heat, some protection from teeth and claws, camouflage and identification. Since Caudipteryx lived in a wetland area, it is easy to imagine it wading into shallow water on its long legs to spear small fish and amphibians with its long sharp teeth.

[source]

[Jerome Da Gnome]

Evolution is based in inherited traits, your 'ability to falsify' argument is finding non-iherited traits.

That is one part of the ways in which evolution, the whole fucking shebang, could be falsified. Yes, this single potential demonstration could falsify all of evolutionary theory. Micro and macroevolution, common descent, all of it.

Just in the small chance you are reading and trying to learn..

It couldn't be falsified in that way because evolution theory does not need one single initiation of life. There could be two or more initiations, thus there could be multiple examples of evolution which do not intersect.



Btw, the initiation of life is not evolution theory. To use that as an example of falsifying evolution would mean evolution is dependent upon abiogenesis. It is not.

[Sendraks]

Btw, the initiation of life is not evolution theory.

We know. You're hardly presenting any new information here or demonstrating any great wisdom by doing so.

[Fenrir]

Evolution is based in inherited traits, your 'ability to falsify' argument is finding non-iherited traits.

That is one part of the ways in which evolution, the whole fucking shebang, could be falsified. Yes, this single potential demonstration could falsify all of evolutionary theory. Micro and macroevolution, common descent, all of it.

Just in the small chance you are reading and trying to learn..

It couldn't be falsified in that way because evolution theory does not need one single initiation of life. There could be two or more initiations, thus there could be multiple examples of evolution which do not intersect.

Quite correct, however there is the small problem that what evidence there is point strongly towards a single common ancestor.

No, don't argue about it here, if you object take it up with Douglas Theobald. Read and understand this first though:

A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry

Douglas L. Theobald

Nature
465,219–222

[Rumraket]

Evolution is based in inherited traits, your 'ability to falsify' argument is finding non-iherited traits.

That is one part of the ways in which evolution, the whole fucking shebang, could be falsified. Yes, this single potential demonstration could falsify all of evolutionary theory. Micro and macroevolution, common descent, all of it.

Just in the small chance you are reading and trying to learn..

It couldn't be falsified in that way because evolution theory does not need one single initiation of life. There could be two or more initiations, thus there could be multiple examples of evolution which do not intersect.

I'm not talking about falsifying common descent i the part you quote, I'm talking about falsifying the possibility of an evolutionary process.

If traits could not be inherited, or altered through mutation, then that would destroy evolution. It is absolutely critically dependent on the ability for organisms to pass on their traits to their off spring, and it is obviously necessary for there to be a mechanism of change(mutations), otherwise organisms would simply be static and unchanging, i.e. not evolving.

Btw, the initiation of life is not evolution theory. To use that as an example of falsifying evolution would mean evolution is dependent upon abiogenesis. It is not.

Jerome, where have I spoken about the origin of life as a means of falsifying the process of evolution? Nowhere have I done that.

Multiple origins would falsify universal common descent, not that the evolutionary process can and does operate. In order to falsify the process, you would need to show what I said right here above: that there is no way the mechanism of inheritance could lead to change. This could be done either by showing that mutations do not work, or do not even happen, or that they were always and only somatic mutations and not passed on through the germline.

But they do happen in the germline, they do work. So evolution is not falsified, but it is falsifiable.

And you know that it is, because you yourself are arguing that if it could be shown that the evidence for evolution is fraudulent, then it would obviosly also be falsified. Otherwise you would not be making that argument.

You would do well to be honest and mature, and maybe gain some respect even from people with whom you disagree, to concede the point that yes, evolution is falsifiable, and then just move on.

[Rumraket]

Spending a lot of time looking for reasons not to talk about the science, and you don't understand copyright law.

Hell, you even snipped the part where the site says this: "may be downloaded, printed, linked to, and/or redistributed for noncommercial, course teaching purposes only provided such materials are not altered or modified in any way and provided credit to the relevant site and an indication of the URL where the material appears are included."

Which is in compliance with copyright law, and certainly not against the rules of the forum.

Did you stop reading when you thought you had a reason not to present the science, or did you snip it intentionally?

You can test me by simply registrering and reading the paper.

You're the one who stays away from it, not me. You have an interest in showing that I'm wrong, it would (if you are correct and I'm intentionally snipping something) be trivial for you to show it, by simply registering and reading the full paper. Then you could copy-paste here the thing you think alters my conclusions.

Why don't you simply do it? You think a government kill-team will be sent to your address if they log your IP?

[Rumraket]

If you could show that all the genetic evidence was made up, as in a gigantic hoax, or statistical anomaly, it would also be falsified. Before the advent of DNA, if you could show that all fossils ever, or at least a signficant majority of them were fakes, you would also have falsified it. You must agree, since that is what you attempted to argue when you said the theory is falsely propped up with fake fossils. That must mean you think fossils, if they are not what they are taken to be, can actually falsify the theory.

Guy, that sort of 'falsification' is not falsification according to how science works.

Yes it is, it absolutely corresponds.

Since what we take to be evidence that evolution happened is genetic and morphological, among other things, if it was shown that this evidence was fabricated, then obviously we would no longer have any evidence, and so no reason to think the theory was true. So there, that would be it, evolution falsified.

Aliens seeded the earth, or goddidit, are also falsifiable by that standard.

Yes, of course they are. If there was direct, concrete evidenec that aliens or god seeded the earth, and it was subsequently shown that that evidence was faked, then those would be falsified too. Still perfectly scientific.

You seem to misunderstand what falsification is. You are confused about what falsification means. It does not mean "has been shown to be false". It means "can be shown to be false".

You don't seem to understand the term. Nor do you understand your own argument. Fake fossils can not falsify evolution, as you fully know, fake fossils exist, you will not now admit that the theory is falsified.

Because it takes more than one, obviously. You would have to show that a significant majority of them were fakes, not just a single one, because we have millions of them.

Suppose we have videotape of a murder taking place and we submit it to an investigation. The tape is evidence that the murder took place. Upon investigation we find that the tape is made up of 50.000 individual frames of pictures, but on closer examination, 5 frames have been fabricated and interted in the tape. In the total video, man is seen stabbing another multiple times. But in the 5 fabricated frames, he makes an additional stab.

Would those 5 frames falsify the hypothesis that the man killed the other one by stabbing him? No. Then what would falsify the tape, as evidence of murder? Well, if all the 50.000 frames turned out to be faked too, that would falsify it. Or maybe not even all of them, if every single frame where the man is actually stabbing were fake, and we only have frames left where we see the man entering and leaving the scene of the supposed crime, then we would no longer have evidence of murder either.

Principle of Falsification:

Being unrestricted, scientific theories cannot be verified by any possible accumulation of observational evidence. The formation of hypothesis is a creative process of the imagination and is not a passive reaction to observed regularities. A scientific test consists in a persevering search for negative, falsifying instances. If a hypothesis survives continuing and serious attempts to falsify it, then it has ``proved its mettle'' and can be provisionally accepted, but it can never be established conclusively. Later corroboration generates a series of hypothesis into a scientific theory.
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/p ... ation.html

Now that you have been educated as to what scientific falsification is, could you present something that fits the parameter?

Thank you Jerome but I obviously already knew, and it was obviously you who didn't. As I just demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt.

[Rumraket]

The ultimate problem is you now sorta' think the paper doesn't say what you claimed it said, so you don't want that false claim exposed.

Prove it.

[Rumraket]

What you did right there, not addressing the topic, addressing a poster with name-calling, that is trolling.

What we are doing here is to examine the claim concerning DNA showing the transitional dino-birds. We started with the fossils, when that fell on its face with the initiation being a hoax

Why did you ignore the posts where it was shown that genuine transitional fossil finds predates the discovery of the hoax? You have not even responded to those posts.

When you ignore posts it does not mean the case presented "fell on it's face". In point of fact it seems a lot more likely that your ability to defend your position is what fell on it's face.

the claim was made fossils were not needed, DNA could be used.

We are talking about science. An examination of the data so as to determine the validity of a theory.

So do it, examine the data like I did. I'm not required to do your work for you. If I can register on sciencemag and read their papers, so can you.

Just so you know, the rest of the paper is about the methodology used to extract protein sequences from 68 million year old dinosaur bones. It would be so easy for you to show if I'm wrong. What keeps you from doing that? It's certianly not me or any one here. You can, in point of fact, simply register and log in and read the paper for yourself. What keeps you from doing that?

[Shrunk]

So Jerome Da Gnome's a creationist. Well, knock me over with a feather.

[Oldskeptic]

What we are doing here is to examine the claim concerning DNA showing the transitional dino-birds.

It doesn't show transition it shows relatedness.

We started with the fossils, when that fell on its face with the initiation being a hoax, the claim was made fossils were not needed, DNA could be used.

Hardly the initiation. The first feathered dinosaur fossils were discovered in the 1860's. And Archaeoraptor liaoningensis was not a hoax, it was a fraud put together by illegal fossil hunters to make more money. The fossil hunters knew what the scientists where looking for so they put something like it together. No experts were fooled by the fraud, and it was never purported be anything other than a fraud by qualified researchers.

All that said, the front half and the back half of the fraud, though they didn't belong to the same animal, are separately evidence of the evolution of birds from dinosaur ancestors. The front half being a fossil from around 120mya of an early bird with theropod like teeth. The back half, the feathered tail, being an older fossil of small raptor.

We are talking about science. An examination of the data so as to determine the validity of a theory.

Yes, and the preponderance of the evidence says that birds are descended from theropods. Morphology comparing theropod fossils to modern birds, fossils of theropods with feathers, early birds with theropod teeth, then throw in the phylogenetics that confirmed a prediction that the the DNA of the fossils and that of modern birds would be similar enough establish the relationship.

Something that has been missed in this by you is that if there hadn't been those similarities in the DNAs the whole birds from dinosaur hypothesis would have been falsified and a new path of avian evolution would have to be looked for.

[Macdoc]

Interesting you should accept a far from filled in thesis on dinos to birds and don't accept perhaps the most vetted bit of science ever.....couldn't be political ....nah...

[Oldskeptic]

Interesting you should accept a far from filled in thesis on dinos to birds and don't accept perhaps the most vetted bit of science ever.....couldn't be political ....nah...

Are you really that fucking juvenile?

If you have a problem with my not accepting your coal is murder campaign then take it to the right thread.