[quote]anonym wrote:
borrek wrote:
Just curious, but how would feathers on a non-flying dinosaur make it any more fit to survive than non-flying dinosaurs without feathers?
Insulation (both the animal and its eggs), communication (defensive/sexual), water repellency, camouflage… I’ve read buoyancy mentioned, as well, in addition to physical defense.[/quote]
i agree, feathers probably evolved into a flight tool long after they evolved for more basic needs.
[quote]anonym wrote:
Vegita wrote:
borrek wrote:
Just curious, but how would feathers on a non-flying dinosaur make it any more fit to survive than non-flying dinosaurs without feathers?
Dude seriously? Have you ever taken a biology class? Did you seriously just go to that place where the only advantage feathers give birds is it lets them fly?
V
This is how you choose to respond to respectfully worded questions? Really??
There’s nothing wrong with not knowing something and seeking answers from people more knowledgeable than yourself. He wasn’t trying to be a smartass about it, and he posed it nicely enough.[/quote]
Well said.
I agree with what the others have said as far as insulation purposes. Maybe this was a response to a change in climate (natural or disaster)?
[quote]on edge wrote:
anonym wrote:
borrek wrote:
Just curious, but how would feathers on a non-flying dinosaur make it any more fit to survive than non-flying dinosaurs without feathers?
Insulation (both the animal and its eggs), communication (defensive/sexual), water repellency, camouflage… I’ve read buoyancy mentioned, as well, in addition to physical defense.
i agree, feathers probably evolved into a flight tool long after they evolved for more basic needs.[/quote]
To be clear, feathers are not a requirement for flight. See “Pteranodon” or “rhamphorhynchus” or, more recently, “bat”.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
borrek wrote:
Just curious, but how would feathers on a non-flying dinosaur make it any more fit to survive than non-flying dinosaurs without feathers?
Dude seriously? Have you ever taken a biology class? Did you seriously just go to that place where the only advantage feathers give birds is it lets them fly?
V[/quote]
I was majoring in marine biology before I changed to engineering, so yes, I have taken a biology class or two. I asked the question expecting answers along the lines that anonym gave in order to open up discussion. I think it’s more fun to have a back and forth instead of a wall of text wherein I jerk off about how flippin’ smart I am.
I believe in evolution, but I think many people take a too simplistic approach to the theory. One can list a dozen benefits to feathers as they relate to birds, but bear in mind that the first feathered creatures didn’t come out of the egg fully plumed. The truth is that the speed of evolution dictates generations and generations of creatures with an amount of feathers that would certainly not promote flight, nor were thick enough for insulative effects, etc. Further, feathers are arguably the most complex hairlike structures and their main beneficial properties come from their complexity. How did feathers themselves make it through the natural selection process, when it is likely that their primordial states offered little to no benefit?
Well, oftentimes even a “little” benefit can mean the difference between life and death for some animals.
I can’t say for sure how (in)significant the first stubs of feathers (or pre-feathers) were, but nevertheless they managed to make it onto both birds and dinosaurs alike. Shit, for all I know they may have been of no benefit at the very outside (but with no such disadvantage that they exacerbated the difficulty of survival).
I also can’t say for sure how long it took them to evolve, but rapid spurts of minor physical changes are not entirely unheard of. For example, *there have been lizards that have developed cecal valves in response to an island transplant that left them forced to subsist on a largely vegetarian diet (cecal valves slow the passage of food and allow fermentation by bacteria). That particular feature occurs in less than 1% of all known reptiles and has never been reported in lizards from the original island. Of course, this may have been a genetically dormant trait from ancestral species (oh noez, that evilution!!1)… I can’t be bothered to hit up Google right now, unfortunately. But anyhow, this is not to say they sprouted feathers as we know them in such a short time, but perhaps they managed to come across some form of them (however minor) that DID confer a survival advantage in some fashion?
Just spitballin’, here. I unfortunately can’t give this too much thought until the end of the week (I’ve got four tests Tues - Fri). Hopefully, someone who knows more than I will jump in here before then, because ‘God’ knows I’m no real authority on the subject.
*(Lizards Undergo Rapid Evolution After Introduction To A New Home)
edit: or, as Varq put it in the CvE thread: they probably just prayed to God for some. 
[quote]anonym wrote:
Vegita wrote:
borrek wrote:
Just curious, but how would feathers on a non-flying dinosaur make it any more fit to survive than non-flying dinosaurs without feathers?
Dude seriously? Have you ever taken a biology class? Did you seriously just go to that place where the only advantage feathers give birds is it lets them fly?
V
This is how you choose to respond to respectfully worded questions? Really??
There’s nothing wrong with not knowing something and seeking answers from people more knowledgeable than yourself. He wasn’t trying to be a smartass about it, and he posed it nicely enough.[/quote]
Sometimes when someone who we consider to be at least “smart” asks a really dumb question, it is a bait and switch or some other tactic than really not knowing the answer. I’m going to go out on a limb and say that Borrek could have taken 2 minutes and all by himslef thought of at least 5 other benefits to having feathers than making flight easier or possible. In this case it looks as if he was just trying to stir up a debate. Besides sarcastic humor is my thing, so I’m real sorry if i got your feathers ruffled.
V
[quote]Vegita wrote:
Besides sarcastic humor is my thing, so I’m real sorry if i got your feathers ruffled.
V[/quote]
I see what you did there; well played.
Though I actually wouldn’t mind discussing evolution… but another CvE thread would be pretty lame. If the last one proved anything at all, it’s that creationists can’t have a debate without avoiding issues, dismissing points without providing evidence, relying more on one-liners than actual information, and posting walls of text when they finally run out of ways to defend their position (which they do by altering the user name of their opponent in a way that they feel is clever).
It’s not worth the time.
[quote]anonym wrote:
Vegita wrote:
Besides sarcastic humor is my thing, so I’m real sorry if i got your feathers ruffled.
V
I see what you did there; well played.
Though I actually wouldn’t mind discussing evolution… but another CvE thread would be pretty lame. If the last one proved anything at all, it’s that creationists can’t have a debate without avoiding issues, dismissing points without providing evidence, relying more on one-liners than actual information, and posting walls of text when they finally run out of ways to defend their position (which they do by altering the user name of their opponent in a way that they feel is clever).
It’s not worth the time.[/quote]
same could be said of those supporting evolutionist theory or modeling,
the data and evidence does not only necessarily supor one model but always gets pushed in such a way. Like I in my faith, most are just to faithful to admit it.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
same could be said of those supporting evolutionist theory or modeling,
the data and evidence does not only necessarily supor one model but always gets pushed in such a way. Like I in my faith, most are just to faithful to admit it. [/quote]
My guess is that you didn’t read the last CvE thread. Hell, even right off the bat creationists showed a distinct misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is and couldn’t differentiate between “Darwinism” and modern evolutionary theory… how can we honestly be expected to take them seriously in a debate when they don’t get these basic concepts?
I’m no expert on evolution by any stretch, but even with my rudimentary education on the subject I can look back on that thread and see exactly what was going on. It’s not ‘faith’ that allows me to interpret the outcome in such a way - it is common sense.
[quote]anonym wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
same could be said of those supporting evolutionist theory or modeling,
the data and evidence does not only necessarily supor one model but always gets pushed in such a way. Like I in my faith, most are just to faithful to admit it.
My guess is that you didn’t read the last CvE thread. Hell, even right off the bat creationists showed a distinct misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is and couldn’t differentiate between “Darwinism” and modern evolutionary theory… how can we honestly be expected to take them seriously in a debate when they don’t get these basic concepts?
I’m no expert on evolution by any stretch, but even with my rudimentary education on the subject I can look back on that thread and see exactly what was going on. It’s not ‘faith’ that allows me to interpret the outcome in such a way - it is common sense.[/quote]
I would disagree, I get sick of arguing this though. I hate hearing christians trying to use science to defend their belief in GOD and sounding completely idiotic. But I also hate scientist not completely undrstanding the underlying recombinant genetics they are talking about occuring in complex organisms trying to explain different models of evolution and how fossils support it.
I agree all life on this planet has a common underlying model and these models help us predict behavior, response, biochemical processes.
But I would wager I could look at the same observable facts and support a different conclusion. Not to mention we need to get into age of the planet, complex mathematical functions requiring iterative integrations, which inherently means multiple outcomes.
How about we just keep studying observable relationships and not try to argue personal beliefs.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
I love how the resident “scientists” think “Evolution” and “God” are mutually exclusive.
Well, evolution and the Biblical-literalist conception of God clearly are mutually exclusive. Of course, evolution and some conception of a deity are not mutually exclusive, but then again most theists who engage in this sort of debate don’t give those conceptions any lip.
So, what was the point again?
The judeo-christian God is not mutually exclusive from evolution. the literal 7 day creation act maybe sure. I don’t see how evolution would affect God’s character qualities as the tradition explains them except that instance.[/quote]
Evolution and pretty much any “traditional” conception of God are mutually exclusive.
And the fact is, most people who say they do, actually don’t believe in or understand evolution. Most people buy into something more similar to Intelligent Design, i.e. they accept the look of evolution, but don’t buy into understand the mechanism. Evolution has no end-point, no culmination, and no perfection. Even to say one species is more evolved than another is to misuse and misunderstand the language. According to Evolution Theory man holds no special place in the universe. This is pretty uncomfortable, since nearly every religion has God relating to man in some special way, when according to Evolution theory, we’re here as a result environment and chance.
Sure there can still be God, but once you want him to have a plan for us, to have made us what we are special, you’re into Intelligent design, and out of evolution and science.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
anonym wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
same could be said of those supporting evolutionist theory or modeling,
the data and evidence does not only necessarily supor one model but always gets pushed in such a way. Like I in my faith, most are just to faithful to admit it.
My guess is that you didn’t read the last CvE thread. Hell, even right off the bat creationists showed a distinct misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is and couldn’t differentiate between “Darwinism” and modern evolutionary theory… how can we honestly be expected to take them seriously in a debate when they don’t get these basic concepts?
I’m no expert on evolution by any stretch, but even with my rudimentary education on the subject I can look back on that thread and see exactly what was going on. It’s not ‘faith’ that allows me to interpret the outcome in such a way - it is common sense.
I would disagree, I get sick of arguing this though. I hate hearing christians trying to use science to defend their belief in GOD and sounding completely idiotic. But I also hate scientist not completely undrstanding the underlying recombinant genetics they are talking about occuring in complex organisms trying to explain different models of evolution and how fossils support it.
I agree all life on this planet has a common underlying model and these models help us predict behavior, response, biochemical processes.
But I would wager I could look at the same observable facts and support a different conclusion. Not to mention we need to get into age of the planet, complex mathematical functions requiring iterative integrations, which inherently means multiple outcomes.
How about we just keep studying observable relationships and not try to argue personal beliefs.
[/quote]
A lot of this is to do with the low standards of science teaching. The teacher either doesn’t understand the material well enough themselves to explain it well or they understand it but are not able to put it across in an engaging manner.
People who really understand the material and are engaging and explain things well are making their money presenting shows on the discovery channel or writing popular science books.
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
I love how the resident “scientists” think “Evolution” and “God” are mutually exclusive.
Well, evolution and the Biblical-literalist conception of God clearly are mutually exclusive. Of course, evolution and some conception of a deity are not mutually exclusive, but then again most theists who engage in this sort of debate don’t give those conceptions any lip.
So, what was the point again?
The judeo-christian God is not mutually exclusive from evolution. the literal 7 day creation act maybe sure. I don’t see how evolution would affect God’s character qualities as the tradition explains them except that instance.
Evolution and pretty much any “traditional” conception of God are mutually exclusive.
And the fact is, most people who say they do, actually don’t believe in or understand evolution. Most people buy into something more similar to Intelligent Design, i.e. they accept the look of evolution, but don’t buy into understand the mechanism. Evolution has no end-point, no culmination, and no perfection. Even to say one species is more evolved than another is to misuse and misunderstand the language. According to Evolution Theory man holds no special place in the universe. This is pretty uncomfortable, since nearly every religion has God relating to man in some special way, when according to Evolution theory, we’re here as a result environment and chance.
Sure there can still be God, but once you want him to have a plan for us, to have made us what we are special, you’re into Intelligent design, and out of evolution and science.[/quote]
I beleive in evolution, and yet I still think we are special on the evolutional scale of things. Basically, we are a product of millions of years of change forcing life to adapt. And what has resulted is a species that itself is HIGHLY adaptable to change. Life has been searching for a way to deal with change since the time the first cell met it’s first challenge. Throughout lifes history on this planet, many physical changes dealt with a specific set of changes that needed to be addressed. And the so far ultimate culmination of life was to adapt into an organism who itself could adapt very quickly to outside stimulus. Even the thought of the human species setting off on a huge mothership that can indefinately sustain life to avoid the certain albeit very distant future of our planet and our solar system proves just how special we actually are.
V
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
But I would wager I could look at the same observable facts and support a different conclusion. Not to mention we need to get into age of the planet, complex mathematical functions requiring iterative integrations, which inherently means multiple outcomes.
[/quote]
What the hell are you talking about? I know exactly how one goes about the computations for radiometric dating and there are no “multiple outcomes”. The margin of error is in the measurement, not somehow in the mathematics. Besides, iterated integrations no more mean “multiple outcomes” than single integrations do. The only error inherent in integration is the error from initial conditions, and in the case of radiometric dating we know the initial conditions–for example, we know the naturally occurring ratios of the atoms we’re measuring. The decay constants are, well, constants!, and our knowledge of the exponential decay law is not only backed up by huge amounts of experimental testing but is predicted by one of the most successful scientific theories of all time–quantum mechanics. In any case, if there is one bit of the whole creation vs. evolution debate which is unquestionable, it’s the validity of our radiometric dating methods.
[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
But I would wager I could look at the same observable facts and support a different conclusion. Not to mention we need to get into age of the planet, complex mathematical functions requiring iterative integrations, which inherently means multiple outcomes.
What the hell are you talking about? I know exactly how one goes about the computations for radiometric dating and there are no “multiple outcomes”. The margin of error is in the measurement, not somehow in the mathematics.[/quote]
It iseth as he sayeth.
Theyz be simple logarithmic functions. edit: Well not really but I do not know how you call that when you logarythatmatize two sides of an equation.
Behold ze power of ze equation:
Say c14 has a half life of 5600 years, how old is something with 7% of all c14 left?
N0 �· 0, 07 = N0 �· e^0,000123776�·t
ln 0, 07 = â??0, 000123776 �· t
t = 21484, 4 years
Exactly one outcome and basic high school math.
[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
But I would wager I could look at the same observable facts and support a different conclusion. Not to mention we need to get into age of the planet, complex mathematical functions requiring iterative integrations, which inherently means multiple outcomes.
What the hell are you talking about? I know exactly how one goes about the computations for radiometric dating and there are no “multiple outcomes”. The margin of error is in the measurement, not somehow in the mathematics. Besides, iterated integrations no more mean “multiple outcomes” than single integrations do. The only error inherent in integration is the error from initial conditions, and in the case of radiometric dating we know the initial conditions–for example, we know the naturally occurring ratios of the atoms we’re measuring. The decay constants are, well, constants!, and our knowledge of the exponential decay law is not only backed up by huge amounts of experimental testing but is predicted by one of the most successful scientific theories of all time–quantum mechanics. In any case, if there is one bit of the whole creation vs. evolution debate which is unquestionable, it’s the validity of our radiometric dating methods. [/quote]
Not talking about radio decay, sorry from another argument with a co worker, he was discussing entropy theory of the universe. we went over the calcs but he was starting with parameters around what he expected/wanted to see. so I just showed him I could find answers that I expected/wanted to see as well.
[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
But I would wager I could look at the same observable facts and support a different conclusion. Not to mention we need to get into age of the planet, complex mathematical functions requiring iterative integrations, which inherently means multiple outcomes.
What the hell are you talking about? I know exactly how one goes about the computations for radiometric dating and there are no “multiple outcomes”. The margin of error is in the measurement, not somehow in the mathematics. Besides, iterated integrations no more mean “multiple outcomes” than single integrations do. The only error inherent in integration is the error from initial conditions, and in the case of radiometric dating we know the initial conditions–for example, we know the naturally occurring ratios of the atoms we’re measuring. The decay constants are, well, constants!, and our knowledge of the exponential decay law is not only backed up by huge amounts of experimental testing but is predicted by one of the most successful scientific theories of all time–quantum mechanics. In any case, if there is one bit of the whole creation vs. evolution debate which is unquestionable, it’s the validity of our radiometric dating methods. [/quote]
besides are you serious, you used the word error of method and exponential in the same argument.
search propogation of error, uncertainty measure. then actually determine the uncertainty in your measurements.
oh that’s right you would need a variance of measure and lowest determinable amount (given repeated measure and to what degree of certainty you want in your measure), but these trivial to real scientist.
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
According to Evolution Theory man holds no special place in the universe. This is pretty uncomfortable, since nearly every religion has God relating to man in some special way, when according to Evolution theory, we’re here as a result environment and chance.[/quote]
Completely false. The Theory of Evolution offers exactly zero opinion on “man’s place in the universe”. It is silent on the issue, because it has nothing to do with the theory or the science behind the inquiry.
Moreover, the Theory of Evolution does not lead to some conclusion that we are here as a result of “environment and chance”. Again, we may or may not be - the Theory of Evolution simply has no opinion on the matter.
For all the flak Biblical literalists/creationists get for shoddy reasoning and so forth, our resident “evolutionists” are not faring any better.
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
Sure there can still be God, but once you want him to have a plan for us, to have made us what we are special, you’re into Intelligent design, and out of evolution and science.[/quote]
Oh, and can’t leave this behind. Incorrect again.
Intelligent Design is not exclusive of science - it is an extrapolation from examination of science. Science is very much part of Intelligent Design - ID is a philosophical conclusion based on a review of science.
Can’t have ID without science. And no, science isn’t “out of” a Deity’s plan - it isn’t a rejection of a plan, or outside of it.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
Not talking about radio decay, sorry from another argument with a co worker, he was discussing entropy theory of the universe. we went over the calcs but he was starting with parameters around what he expected/wanted to see. so I just showed him I could find answers that I expected/wanted to see as well. [/quote]
This is so vague that I have no idea what you’re talking about. Two points though: (1) I’m not sure how you confuse radiometric dating–how old the Earth is–with entropy, but oh well, and (2) I’m highly doubtful that either of you two said anything meaningful about global entropy of the universe during some water cooler chat at the office. Discussing Boltzmann/Reichenbach branch theory were you?
Look, I’m not trying to be mean, but you’re attempts to persuade me that our most fundamental and well established theories of physics–thermodynamics and quantum mechanics–really aren’t as damaging to the creationist cause as they appear aren’t getting anywhere.
Perhaps if you could actually explain just what ‘calcs’ you were discussing with your co-worker and what parameters you were discussing I would be more receptive. Even a brief summary would do, I don’t need details.