Would a living Dinosaur disprove Evolution?

[CheeseRolls]

Yes, that's true, and might be a partial explanation. However, the same can be said for lots of other species too. For examples, sea-based turtles. As far as I know, no-one is saying that they are fundamentally unchanged for millions of years, as they do for crocodiles.

To be clear, I don't want anyone thinking I don't believe in evolution! I do.

Okay accepted it is a partial explanation. Evolution is based on random mutation and if you accept that, then the mutation needs to coincide with a favourable change in the environment or habitat, for a new strain to evolve. So whilst Sea Turtles may share many of the characteristics of the crocodile in terms of longevity and infant mortality, their environment is much more diverse, given the vast distances they are known to travel. The evidence for evolution also focuses on the development of the hard shell. Clearly without this defence sea turtles were vulnerable to predators in a way that ancient crocodiles were not.

 

[symyjym]

What a couple of plonkers, I love the way they say that carbon dating is flawed, then laugh, and move on quickly.

Viruses v antibiotics prove evolution in its simplest form.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

What a couple of plonkers, I love the way they say that carbon dating is flawed, then laugh, and move on quickly.

Viruses v antibiotics prove evolution in its simplest form.

I'm glad you took the time to watch the video, as it's breathtaking in how they make sweeping statements like that without anything to support them.

 

[CheeseRolls]

I'm glad you took the time to watch the video, as it's breathtaking in how they make sweeping statements like that without anything to support them.

How does that differ from NSC ?

 

[symyjym]

I'm glad you took the time to watch the video, as it's breathtaking in how they make sweeping statements like that without anything to support them.

Don't give me too much credit, I only lasted 5 mins and didn't make it past their dragon theory

 

[spring hall convert]

"Why is it that creationists all look so unevolved?"

Or words to that effect - B. Hicks.

 

[Buzzer]

You disprove a theory. Once it's a fact you can't disprove it. Evolution is a fact, no longer a theory.

I don't think it is a fact. It's a pretty sound theory and has yet to be disproved and in all probability it never will but to say it's a fact because it hasn't been disproven? I'm not sure that's good science.

 

[Buzzer]

Of course these guys are talking nonsense and anyone with a basic school knowledge of science can find holes in their arguments. As others have said, some species haven't evolved in millions of years and you also need to take into account how dinosaurs were wiped out and the latest theories don't seem to suggest that it was evolution. And I guess you could add to that what is and isn't a dinosaur? Are crocodiles? In short, even discovering a T-Rex would not disprove evolution.

I guess what irks me is that it only takes a few fundamentalists with an agenda and poor analytical skills and then all of religion is under attack but the science that a lot of people put their faith in never gets such scrutiny or scorn. Consider this article by Amir Aczel, a very well respected physicist and writer. He's written about the way that a lot of scientists get away with pseudophysics unchallenged especially when writing about popular science.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amir-aczel/pseudophysics-the-new-high-priesthood_b_5340183.html

He's blown out of the water a lot of assertions from authors of best-selling science books where they make all sorts of extraordinary and untested claims, yet the general public don't use this bad science to beat the whole scientific community with and deny everything it holds dear.To paraphrase Papa Lazarou, the articles make equally sweeping statements without anything to support them. Exactly the same as the creationists. EXACTLY the same.

Funnily enough, I'm re-reading Hawking's A Brief History Of Time and there's a couple of points that he makes that are relevant to this thread. The first is where he talks about trying to reconcile quantum mechanics and relativity. The two are incompatible but for the vast majority of cases they work so we're happy to accept these theories. I guess that was my point with my previous reply to Albumen.

The other thing that piqued my interest with Hawking is where he writes "An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on where he might have carried out his job". Hawking is clever enough to know that his atheism is a belief and that his and others' work doesn't prove or disprove intelligent design. And that article that I linked to also states that contrary to popular belief, scientists do NOT know where the universe came from.

Every leading theoretical physicist I have posed this question to, including the American Nobel Prize winner Steven Weinberg and the Dutch Nobel Laureate Gerard 't Hooft, have told me definitively that we have no idea where our universe came from

 

[Trufflehound]

I don't think it is a fact. It's a pretty sound theory and has yet to be disproved and in all probability it never will but to say it's a fact because it hasn't been disproven? I'm not sure that's good science.

It is good science according to the US National Academy of Sciences:

"In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions."

Source: http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

 

[Westdene Seagull]

I had to give up after about 6 minutes I'm afraid. What a load of shite.

 

[Mellotron]

Ignore.

 

[jgmcdee]

Funnily enough, I'm re-reading Hawking's A Brief History Of Time and there's a couple of points that he makes that are relevant to this thread. The first is where he talks about trying to reconcile quantum mechanics and relativity. The two are incompatible but for the vast majority of cases they work so we're happy to accept these theories.

Incompatible yes, but that's due to completeness rather than correctness. Relativity and quantum physics cover different areas of physics. Extrapolating one in to the other's realm doesn't work, no, but that doesn't make either theory either wrong or useless.

Special relativity is a good example of a theory which virtually no-one has any need of. Unless you find yourself travelling at a significant fraction of the speed of light then Newton's laws work perfectly well for you, and unless you're working in (very) high speed communications, (very) high precision instruments or space then relativity is to all intents and purposes an unnecessary complication.

 

[jgmcdee]

At least they are admitting the dinosaurs existed now, but it's very strange how they are twisting this admission to support their fantastical views.

Not strange at all; their argument is evolving.

 

[Seagull27]

It is good science according to the US National Academy of Sciences:

"In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions."

Source: http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

Their explanation of a theory earlier on in the article seems more relevant:

"In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence."

As a scientific theory, the theory of evolution is an explanation for a collection of observations and facts. Not the everyday use of the word theory. So I'm not entirely sure why they then go on to say evolution is a "fact" - it's not, it's a collection of facts and evidence pointing towards a probable explanation.

 

[Buzzer]

It is good science according to the US National Academy of Sciences:

"In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions."

Source: http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

I stand corrected then, thanks for the link. I would say in my defence that they have qualified the definition and far be it for me to call the NAS wrong but it seems odd that they (almost) categorically state something as fact. Dangerous even. I've done a quick google and see that there are plenty of respected, mainstream scientists who argue that it's both fact AND theory. Others such as Karl Popper (who Hawking quotes in his book) believed it was a theory and that was what I was going on.

 

[Trufflehound]

I've done a quick google and see that there are plenty of respected, mainstream scientists who argue that it's both fact AND theory.

If you read the whole of that link, you'll find the NAS say that as well.

There isn't any conflict in their (or my) mind that suggests they have to be separate things. A theory doesn't cease being a theory just because it turns out to be correct.

It remains (and will always remain) the "theory of evolution". It just happens that it is also now - in the mind of most rational scientists at any rate - accepted fact.

 

[Dan Aitch]

There are a number of confused theories in this thread's title/question. For example, what do dinosaurs have to do with evolution?

Dinosaurs were wiped out by a meteor that caused the earth to cool, and therefore made it unsustainable for a cold-blooded species to exist for very long. The bible writes about this (i.e. it supports the creationists' arguments) in Jurassica 2:18 where it states "And lo, Tyrannosaur did smite down Diplodocus just before the sky went black and it got bloody cold. Tyrannosaur went for a lie-down and even when summoned to 'take up they palm leaves and walk' by Jeebus, remained frozen to the ground."

As far as evolution is concerned (also remaining consistent with the theories of the creationists), this too is covered by the bible. Chapter 9 Verse 12 of Metamorphosis states "Although thou must not lie with a man or an ass, thou shalt refuse to lie about thy fast-vanishing tail, thy opposable digit and thy ability to make fire when rubbing a stick as if thy aroused member".

The bible is very clear that although wholly jeebus was only human, his dad was incapable of making mistakes. Therefore the omission from the bible (or the 'word of the outlawed' as I like to think of it) of all reference to evolution, dinosaurs and acceptable homosexuality is entirely the fault of the idiots who wrote it - i.e. the creationists who, by the very construction of these videos, prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are desperately in need of an evolutionary development where belief in fairies and deities becomes absent from our values and our psyches.

And there endeth the lessening.

 

[TheJasperCo]

Here's a dinosaur. It evolved.

That's true as well.

 

[Bold Seagull]

There are a number of confused theories in this thread's title/question. For example, what do dinosaurs have to do with evolution?

Dinosaurs were wiped out by a meteor that caused the earth to cool, and therefore made it unsustainable for a cold-blooded species to exist for very long. The bible writes about this (i.e. it supports the creationists' arguments) in Jurassica 2:18 where it states "And lo, Tyrannosaur did smite down Diplodocus just before the sky went black and it got bloody cold. Tyrannosaur went for a lie-down and even when summoned to 'take up they palm leaves and walk' by Jeebus, remained frozen to the ground."

As far as evolution is concerned (also remaining consistent with the theories of the creationists), this too is covered by the bible. Chapter 9 Verse 12 of Metamorphosis states "Although thou must not lie with a man or an ass, thou shalt refuse to lie about thy fast-vanishing tail, thy opposable digit and thy ability to make fire when rubbing a stick as if thy aroused member".

The bible is very clear that although wholly jeebus was only human, his dad was incapable of making mistakes. Therefore the omission from the bible (or the 'word of the outlawed' as I like to think of it) of all reference to evolution, dinosaurs and acceptable homosexuality is entirely the fault of the idiots who wrote it - i.e. the creationists who, by the very construction of these videos, prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are desperately in need of an evolutionary development where belief in fairies and deities becomes absent from our values and our psyches.

And there endeth the lessening.

 

[Albumen]

I don't think it is a fact. It's a pretty sound theory and has yet to be disproved and in all probability it never will but to say it's a fact because it hasn't been disproven? I'm not sure that's good science.

The data is fact. The theory is 99% proven. That's enough fact for me. And I have a BSc (Hons)!