Intelligent Design; Does Modern Genetic Research Mean Darwin's THEORY of Evolution Belongs In The..

reply to post by Phage


Chemistry has everything to do with evolution. And not just the evolution of living things. As the universe has gone theough several different stages in its cooling process, matter itself reacts differently than it did in the very beginning. Life as we understand it on this planet could never have developed anywhere in the universe within the first billion years. Perhaps something could have, but not what we think of today as life. Evolution itself is a chemical process. All matter is a product of chemistry. Chemistry follows a set of rules that we are trying to understand. Life is a natural product of chemistry. There fore all events are natural events. No such thing as super natural. Because as soon as something supernatural reacts with anything in our universe it would then be considered a natural event. So para and super are misnomers.

reply to post by Woodcarver

Understood.
I meant that I was talking more about the origin of life than evolution.

reply to post by Woodcarver

You may not be aware of the hoax involved with this subject. Dinosaurs have not been shown to have feathers, only birds.

reply to post by Jim Scott


Oh my goodness. Go back and read the last two pages of posts please. I dont have the patience to repost everything another ten times.

reply to post by Jim Scott


There are two types of dinosaurs. Avian and non avian. There are thousands of fossils of dinosaurs with feathers.

reply to post by Jim Scott

Are you sure?
www.pnas.org...

reply to post by Jim Scott


Craig venter has literally found the genes which continue the development of scales into feathers. This is a proven fact.

reply to post by Phage


Life is a natural outcome based on what we know of chemistry. If the right conditions are met of course.

What are the right conditions? Idk? Much smarter people than me are working on this though and i have every reason to believe they will figure it out.

reply to post by Phage

www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...
According to Berkeley they are unresolved at this time. In other words, they appear to be birds.

reply to post by Jim Scott


Hoax indeed. Did god put those bones there to test our faith.
A-holes are always doing things like that i hear.

reply to post by Woodcarver


Wasn't Craig Venter the scientist that made gene mapping cheap or something to that effect I think I read something about him awhile ago. I know he wrote a paper about gene mapping I had to read it for a class in school quite a long time ago.

reply to post by Jim Scott

The article is not about coelurosaurs. It is about megalosaurs...with feathers.

Here we report an exceptionally preserved skeleton of a juvenile megalosauroid, Sciurumimus albersdoerferi n. gen., n. sp., from the Late Jurassic of Germany, which preserves a filamentous plumage at the tail base and on parts of the body.

www.pnas.org...

But coelurosaurs are not birds either. Your source:

Coelurosauria is defined as the clade containing all theropods more closely related to birds than to carnosaurs.

www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...

Phage
reply to post by Jim Scott

 

The article is not about coelurosaurs. It is about megalosaurs...with feathers.

Here we report an exceptionally preserved skeleton of a juvenile megalosauroid, Sciurumimus albersdoerferi n. gen., n. sp., from the Late Jurassic of Germany, which preserves a filamentous plumage at the tail base and on parts of the body.

www.pnas.org...

Why does it say in the article you linked "helps close the gap" and not "closes the gap" in regards to their direct evidence? I do not know what all the dinosaurs are or what they look like or anything like that so I kind of read the word without meaning but caught that a little odd, what does that mean?

Sciurumimus albersdoerferi represents the phylogenetically most basal theropod that preserves direct evidence for feathers and helps close the gap between feathers reported in coelurosaurian theropods and filaments in ornithischian dinosaurs, further supporting the homology of these structures.

Jim Scott
If you are a Christian, you cannot believe in evolution. A god who decides the fate of man by survival of the fittest, adaptation, and natural selection would be a cruel god indeed. Evolution is the religion of the atheists.

edit on 12/29/2013 by Jim Scott because: added

I am quite certain you do not get to choose what Christians believe. Just because you can not accept both does not mean that everyone else can not either... (or do you assume that all Christians must take a literal view of the Old Testament [which is an equally incorrect assumption].)

reply to post by Jim Scott


Your post is about a particular theropod which is right on the cusp of being categorized between birdlike animals and other coelurosaurs. ( which include tyranosaurus rex and velocoraptor ) it never says its a bird. Birds are now recognized as avian reptiles. A lot has happened since you were in school.

reply to post by Brotherman

Think of it as a one of the "missing links" that those who question evolution say don't exist.
The thing is "missing link" is a meaningless term when there is an ongoing progression.

reply to post by Phage

Looks a lot like hair to me, probably related to the sort of growth on rhino horns, modified. www.wired.com...-465781
I am not a paleontologist, however. I would need to look much deeper in to the subject before ruling out any possibilities.
Also, we have no basis of knowing about it as either being born fully formed in this condition, or in its being able to reproduce.

reply to post by Jim Scott

I would need to look much deeper in to the subject before ruling out any possibilities.

Ok. Go get that degree then rebut the paper.
That's what peer review is all about.

reply to post by Phage


So in other words this is what is more or less considered an example of a transitional species?

reply to post by Phage

I would take a more practical approach: refer to papers by other scientists who have the degrees necessary to see if they support or deny the evidence. No need to be flippant.