markearthling

Interested to know what others think about this.

Swansont and others Perhaps my wording above was not well structured/couched. It is obvious that people are making the assumption that I am saying that scientific theory is simply based on unsubstantiated ideas (as I am assured above that this is never the case). Usually ideas will lead to research and hopefully the right results which may lead to new theories. The debate is whether all theories are actually fully correct (factual ?). I still do not agree that all evolutionary theory is necessarily correct and fully factual. As to whether evolution has been observed is still open to debate. But please do not lose patience with me on this as I am still doing my research. So as such I do not yet agree that "evolution the process" is actually fully real fact. ( still examining the literature and there is a lot so New Rome will not be built in one day). People usually start with ideas (perhaps original or based on the work of others); example : like einstein did when he was developing his theories. Many areas of einsteins relativity theory are being proved out in the areas of physics/cosmology these days. There are other areas which are still subject to many debates. Most ideas are initially unsubstantiated until they are tested out. Are we saying that nothing unsubstantiated ever slips through the net ? (our scientific system never slips up and everything is observed, tested, repeated and peer reviewed perfectly ?). Until I do further research it will not become clear to me that there is NOTHING unsubstantiated in/about the set of evolutionary theories we now today in our modern culture seem to so readily accept. The following information from wikipedia I think properly elucidates the definition of the word theory and deals with the scientific definition which people here have expounded above. It may not be perfect but I can see no major problem with this (perhaps others can see what I can't). I understand there are some who don't consider Wikipedia as a reliable source of information ( there may be better sources and as such I welcome others pointing these out). I have referred to wikipedia many times on many different subjects and have found in general that the information there is usually reliable, comprehensive and can be corroborated from other sources ( others may have had a different experience here and if this is the case I would like to hear about it ). The definition of the word theory below from a Collins dictionary seems to cover the science definition as discussed above by others here. BUT I understand that people here will not hold with the statement "to speculate (about)" in the definition. This Collins dictionary is a bit long in the tooth but I thought the definition was worth including here anyway. From Wikipedia While theories in the arts and philosophy may address ideas and empirical phenomena which are not easily observable, in modern science the term "theory", or "scientific theory" is generally understood to refer to a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena, made in a way consistent with scientific method. Such theories are preferably described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand, verify, and challenge (or "falsify") it. In this modern scientific context the distinction between theory and practice corresponds roughly to the distinction between theoretical science and technology or applied science. A common distinction made in science is between theories and hypotheses, with the former being considered as satisfactorily tested or proven and the latter used to denote conjectures or proposed descriptions or models which have not yet been tested or proven to the same standard. From a Collins dictionary Theory A supposition to account for something; a system of rules and principles and reasoning Etc as distinguished from practice – theoretical, theoretically, theorist, theorise : To form a theory or theories ; to speculate (about). Back to the grind stone (much reading to do) and other things.

Moontanman Read the first part above of what I said about the definition of what a theory is. I did not just say that theories are ONLY unsubstantiated ideas. Theories describe how something or a system works. Is that OK ? Then I also mentioned unsubstantiated ideas. You have heard of these right ? I do understand what you are talking about and I do think you are right.

Moontanman I did not intentionally "Quote Mine" you as you said and I did not intend to quote you out of context. It was simply an attempt (perhaps a weak one) at some humour. I understand that you went on to explain that it is possible that a change in the level of volcanism may have had nothing to do with the development of the snowball earth scenario and that there may have been other reasons. I understood your context in your original quote when I first read it. I had no intention to dishonestly misrepresent what you said. You are misreading my actions/intent above. I was only trying to be funny when I was talking to Ophiolite. Please understand this. You have already been very helpfull to me so why would I try to do that to you ? Also, surely personal beliefs should not come into this discussion. We all have them. I am sure you are an objective and sensible person and will consider what I have said.

Edtharan I liked the way you presented your information above. I have read it fully but need to study it a bit more to absorb some of your bat statistics regarding flight. I will look into the evolution of cats and bats and some other things. I am actually in the process of going through many of the resources shared by those above. I am gratefull other contributors above took the time to share these links with me. I have actually done more reading on the subject of evolution than many people here know or understand, enough to understand things like natural selection, mutation ( chemical/carcinogen, radiation, enzymatic copying errors ), speciation and quite a few other concepts ( have you heard of neural darwinism ?). I have seen the geologic column which is quoted and presented in many places on the web which gives one a time frame for what was happening evolution wise on the earth in different periods over time. I was having a discussion with Ophiolite the other day and he mentioned that Quote from Ophiolite The Earth is approximately 4.54 billion years old. The Late Heavy Bombardment Phase ended about 3.8 billion years ago. The first reasonable evidence of life is dated around 3.5 billion years, allowing 300 million years for life to arise. End Quote So it seems that from the initial formation of the earth 4.5 million years ago (which I was already aware of) roughly 1 billion years elapsed before the first forms of life that we are aware of arose. I do actually understand how evolutionary theory states how life forms have changed because of natural selection, mutation and speciation (I don't fully understand this concept but I am looking into it. I think Dawkins says in one of his books ( Blind Watchmaker ) that generally speciation occurs in a geographically isolated location where a subset of a major established population of individuals splits off and travels to this new isolated location where the gene pool diversifies ( specialises ?) and adapts to the environment of the new location and so a new species can be formed in isolation from the originating population. I comprehend what you are saying about hair length etc and wind resistance reduction/ fall injury advantage in cats. It is still not clear to me that this confers enough advantage to guarantee ( ahigher probability ) that more animals survive a fall because of hair length and the other variables you mentioned. I will look into it and get back to you on this. Cats seem uncanny in their ability to mostly always land upright when they fall. But I understand you are saying that this ability must have evolved/changed like the other things you mentioned above. Again I need to look further into this. Quote from Edtharan above Over time, there has been a definite chain of advantages that would allow natural variations in skin length, bone length and hair length and patterns to allow a tree living mammal that hunts insects to develop wings and flight with flapping. You might think of this as "just a yarn", but the variations that have been described would not be objectionable to any biologist (or anyone with even basic knowledge of biology).and are all known to occur naturally in mammals, including bats themselves. End Quote I must admit when I first read some of Richard Dawkins works that his arguments didn't seem that water tight but now I will give them a second viewing and find out what his arguments are based on. I understand that the above variations you quote could have changed over time but of course to most biologists ( who are also evolutionists ) these findings will be appealing. And I am not trying to insult/defame any biologist or other scientist who uses the correct scientific methods (about which I also know some things and will learn more). Don't get me wrong. I am willing to study the scientific literature and this may change my mind about many things (who knows ?). I am working on it. On the subject of bat evolution. Are you saying that bats before they developed their proto wings were ground or tree dwelling creatures ? If they as yet had no wings and dwelled in the trees then perhaps this was where their food source was ? Would it make any sense that a ground dwelling creature could develop proto wings and garner some advantage from this ( again possibly food source ) ? They crawled up there again. I will concede that perhaps proto wings in bats could develop as you say above. Again I have to look further into bat evolution. Then there are other things like bat radar and turtles that can navigate by the earths magnetic field and birds which probably do the same and the list goes on ( and so the mind simply boggles and is awestruck at all this complexity, but I digress). Regarding the subject of strawmen, if I was/have been doing this here or above it was unintentional (see your quote below). Could you give me an example of where I have done this (from this thread) or just give me an example of what you are talking about ? Quote from Edtharan First of all, you create strawmen not based on scientific literature (which was pointed out does exist for your question, you just didn't seem to read it) and then shoot down that strawman (which is what the strawman argument is about). When it was pointed out your concept of evolution is wrong, you proceeded to reject both the attempt to correct your misrepresentation and the literature that was pointed out to help you understand it and get the right concept of evolution. So, first step. Learn what the real theory of evolution is, and leave your strawman version alone. End Quote And yes I need to learn how your quote facility works. In the syntax below do I need to include the surrounding square brackets ? [ quote name = "name" text /quote ] Is there also a snippet function which works like copy and paste ? I was a programmer for many years from the 1980s and am familiar with many languages. I would be interested to get a copy of your evolution program ( can we organise this ? ). I think I could get my head around it even if the language is new to me as with most languages many of the principles are similar across languages/packages ( instructions, syntax and capabilities do vary ) and I have had to teach myself new languages in the past. Will leave it with you. Thanks for your enlightening discourse above. Arete and anyone else who cares to comment On arguments from incredulity. Am I wrong to be amazed and awestruck by the awesome and complex chemical structure and functions of life ? Don't most people feel this way when they are confronted with the truth currently known about life ? Incredulity is part of the wonder of life, being alive and experience of life fully. I do of course realise that it is not a valid reason to base an argument on. Mooeypoo You make some good points above. Your argument is quite logical and I am willing to concede that wings could have developed this way which is of course as per the above discussions only one way flight must have arisen in the past out of many paths to flight in many different creatures. But I must admit that given my current knowledge I must delve further into this to be fully convinced. ( am working on it). Thanks again for your input. Capnreffsmat I understand what you are saying above that creatures with proto wings don't necessarily have any flight behaviours yet and maybe their proto wings will confer other advantages on the individual. As to your other statment above and the/my perception of a contradiction in what you said Quote from Capnrefsmat Their wings would not cause them to fall and damage themselves, as they would not be functional enough to fly under their own power. End Quote I think I confused this as I thought on the one hand you were saying proto wings would not cause them to fall and be damaged because their proto wings would not be functional enough to fly which didn't make sense to me and seemed to not be logical. I now know (I hope) what you were saying. They had proto wings which they were not yet using to try to fly (they had not yet evo;ved any of those behaviours). I think I am pretty clear on all you said now. Thanks.

Ophiolite Good to have you back. On the drop stone issue I do admit that there is much I do not know regarding this subject and much I have yet to learn. So yes my interpretations could be way out. I am busy currently taking up your challenge from our previous discussions. I have been quoted many online resources from many helpfull people here such as yourself. I have started to go through it and it will take some time but hopefully as I proceed my input here will become more relevant and more focussed. At no time were my intentions to insult yourself or anyone else here and I am not into playing games with people. The bottom line for me is getting at and identifying scientific truth. If anything I said before seemed insulting or was upsetting then I simply say it was unintentional and I fully apologise. However, I am a curious person and have a questioning mind and I will pursue my goal until I find the right solution. I was a computer programmer/technician and general IT worker for many years from the early 80s, left the industry for a few years then retrained in 2000 in all things PCs (hardware/software/OS/NOS etc), Internet and networking and now two of my major interests include the communications and electronics fields ( an interest from my lower school days ). You may be aware that computer programming is as exacting a field that there is and I understand there are many fields like this. If a microprocessor/computer executable file (the binary code that processor chips execute at the low level) is wrong or currupted by just one binary bit then the program will generally crash at the point where the bad instruction is located or this malfunction could flow onto making the program crash at another place in the code for other reasons I will not go into here. The magnetic bits encoded on the tracks, sectors and platters of fixed hard disk drives are also corrupted occasionally for many reasons and sometimes by bad computer code and this causes many crashes on Windows and other systems. So binary executable program files for computers must generally be perfect ( although programs will sometimes run even if corrupted and damage is not critical ) and one bad instruction can bring a system crashing down ( example : windows blue screen of death or Windows "An invalid instruction has been executed etc"). This is only one example where everything has to be just right with many technologies for things to work. So basically I am very fussy about getting things right and take pains to find the best solutions to problems. My previous work of decades has demanded that I be like this and I apply the same principles to many other areas of my life. On the subject of snowball earth again and the drop stones I recently saw the catastrophe program regarding snowball earth ( hosted by presenter Tony Robbins from UK and of Time Team fame [ do you remember the character of Baldrick which Tony played in the history/farce based Black Adder series from the past ?) on TV and that kicked this thread off as I was curious to learn more about the snowball earth idea from knowledgeable people like yourself. On the drop stones the program did mention that some of these were found in Australia ( eg desert in Flinders ranges ) and maybe a desert somewhere in the US and I'm sure that they mentioned other places where these things can be found ( and yes as you said above not necessarily in deserts and I understand that current climate is not relevant here ). They were the examples that were quoted in the program and that is why I quoted what I did above. Perhaps I did the wrong thing in doing that. In future I will do my best to research/investigate the available science literature available online before I come here and post. I normally do this for other things but in this case I didn't and this probably was the wrong thing to do. My actions caused a lot of unecessary misunderstanding ( too eager to pursue the questions at hand ). As regards to volcanism again I have a lot to learn. My intention above simply related to the fact that a question arose in my mind and that was "If volcanism has been ongoing since the earth formed then why would it just decrease from around 650 million years ago to the point that it could not counter some new major weathering process which tipped us into a snowball earth scenario. In fact if volcanism was still happening around the earth back then I can't see how the snowball earth scenario could start in the first place and continue for another 25 million years ?". People above have mentioned that volcanism is not constant, is variable over time and has periods of relative quiet. I can comprehend what these things mean generally speaking. But as Ophiolite has pointed out above I need to learn more from the literature before I pursue this subject any further. Quote from Montanman above No you are saying it could not have slowed down enough to cause snowball earth and you might be correct, End Quote Perhaps Montanman should not have encouraged me like that. So anyway I hope this is a new start and a step in the right direction anyway. Thanks for your honesty and direction. I will catch you later.

Montanman I understand that in general a theory describes how something or a system works. Theories may be correct or incorrect. They may accurately reflect the reality or they may simply be ideas and not facts ( unsubstantiated ideas in some cases). Many people think that evolutionary theory is all fact. I do not agree with this. Many of it's ideas are unsubstantiated. For example I have been told ( by Ophiolite here ) that speciation has been observed but I have not yet seen the evidence ( I have some research links on this I am looking at now). There are other evolutionary ideas I am also not sure about. Natural selection as far as I can see works fine and is demonstrated today ( and past observations ) in the wild/nature. When I have seen more hard evidence I may change my mind in a number of areas. On that last point you made above I agree that I was just stating the obvious. Thanks again for your help.

Capnrefsmat I agree with most of what you said above about proto wings. One thing I do have a little difficulty with is Quote Capnrefsmat Their wings would not cause them to fall and damage themselves, as they would not be functional enough to fly under their own power. End Quote There seems to be a contradiction here or maybe you meant "would cause them to fall". Thanks for the links by the way. Moontanman The heading of this thread is, "How did Flight evolve in the animal kingdom ?" and hence I am asking a general question i.e. I understand that flight has evolved several times and in different forms in many different animals. When I started the thread I presented some ideas/examples of my own to test these ideas etc against what others think on the subject. I wasn't just referring to evolution of flight in any particular animal. Towards the end of the Dr Dawkins material above he corroborates something I said at the beginning of this thread. There are obviously many animals involved and different paths to flight for each. I was simply curious about the various evolutionary processes involved. I understand natural selection and the various sources of mutation ( three I can think of at least ) of DNA but am not clear on how point mutations can be usefull in themselves or accumulate to build something usefull. Others above have stated that gliding wings evolved into flapping wings. I did not say that this is impossible merely that gliding wings and flapping wings have very different structure/form and function and that a lot has to change in the DNA for this to happen. It is also not clear that the development of dogs and horses is not the result of built in genetic variability as opposed to evolution and yes I know that natural selection is also involved, a concept I am happy with. Chemical resistance in bacteria is also due to genetic variability not evolution. But I digress as I am supposed to be discussing flight (my apology). People here may assume that I am dead against all evolutionary theory. Natural selection works fine as far as I can see but ideas like speciation etc., I have problems with. When I see more hard evidence I may change my mind, who knows. Thanks again for your input Montanman Mooeypoo If you are prepared to be positive then so will I be. Perhaps we got off to a bad start initially but people can always improve and get better.

Moontanman Check the other thread on evolution of flight. I was actually responding to negative things mooeypoo had said about me there not you. You have been very helpfull. Thanx. On what craztnutsx said above I think it is logical to say research can drive theory and theory can drive research. What we find/discover will either support or disprove our theories and if there is enough corroborated evidence this will eventually change our theories.

Capn Refsmat Did you notice above that mooeypoo accused me of intellectual dishonesty when I was simply attempting to discuss the subject of the thread ? This I take as a serious and unprovoked insult. Did you reprimand mooeypoo also about this ? All I am asking for is some balance in the equation ? You do have my undertaking that in future my posts will be positive and will not be insulting. Moontanman So far you have been very helpfull. Thank you for your efforts. I was actually responding to mooeypoo when I referred to things she had said above.

Thanks to HAL above for the links. Moontanman Should we really be using 9 letter words here ( excrement ) ? Hmmmm evolution now that could be another 9 letter word . I disagree about crazynutsx. We shouldn't judge him purely on his handle. He did make a valid point above, "Research should drive theory and not the other way round". If that is not logical and valid then I don't know what is. Thanks for your valid and usefull input on the subject.

Your responses are both childish and pitifull. Did you just read a few textbooks in high school and swallow evolution theory hook, line and sinker ? How much of the online ( or other ) peer reviewed literature have you read ? Do you question nothing ? Do you just accept everything you read that appeals to you ? I'm sorry but many people also have a purchase on what evolution theory says and they aren't scientists but they have every right to question and challenge your precious theory whether you like it or not. The way it works is we discuss the subject of the thread. That is the only reason I am here. If you are not prepared to do this then I will not waste any more of my time responding to your childish posts. Capn Refsmat Are you interested in openly discussing evolution theory or not ? Mooeypoo made little effort to absorb the contents of this thread and was both vague,childish and insulting in her responses as if I don't know how to use google and look up peer reviewed material. And so being officious we stamp our feet because someone doesn't agree with us and exercise our right to expunge a valid post. I simply repeat, many people are not scientists but they have every right to challenge the claims of evolution theory. I have been accused above of intellectual dishonesty but where is this actually coming from when people here simply don't want their precious theories questioned. If you can't handle the truth then go ahead and censor away.

mooeypoo Have you even bothered to read the above thread ? I will post my evidence if you are prepared to do the same. Have you heard of the concept of freedom of speech ? You will accomplish nothing by making your petty threats and yes I have read the rules. I simply disagree with you and you don't like it. Tough cheese. That's life. If you are not prepared to discuss the subject of this thread then please don't bother to respond to anymore of my posts. You don't seem to have any knowledge or much intellect at all. So far you have made many vague allusions and talked no science at all. So please don't waste my time and please keep your pseudo intellectual dishonesty to yourself. Your insults have no impact on me. Water off a ducks back.

moontanman Thanks for your thoughtfull responses above and the videos. On the subject of long term quiet periods of volcanism it seems hard to accept that this would go on for 25 million years though ? When I was referring to responding to challenges I was actually referring to a discussion I was having with Ophiolite over at Organic chemistry ( Radiometric dating now at earth sciences). But if you put any information my way I will do my best to review it.

npbreakthrough Quote im no big evolution fan myself, i find the mechanism of unguided chance mutation to simply be inadequate to explain the varieties of life and systems withing living creatures, End Quote At least you can see what I can. Science is not interested in theories that it is not interested in. But it is interested in evolution theory and noone has any right ( or the scientific creds or qualifications ) to challenge this set of theories or so it seems. This is not about the Supernatural. Noone is trying to prove that. Concepts of the supernatural are simply bogus and not real. This is about truth in whatever form we find it. This is about scientific technique, knowledge, findings, hard evidence and ultimately interpretation. Everything humans do is based on perception, intelligence, knowledge and the assumptions we make. If our assumptions are not rock solid then we will not interpret our science findings correctly and things will not work as we expect but that is not the important thing what is important is the truth we find not what we choose to invent or fabricate.

mooeypoo You are being vague and evasive again. What I suggest you do is read the thread. You are totally missing the point. So far all you have done is prattle on. You didn't answer my question about what you said above about evolutionary flaws in human bodily systems. Where is your evidence ? When I have mine together I will post it. You are not talking any science so far. Without evidence you are telling me bed time stories from Dr Dawkins and Co. ydoaPs Yes the guy will read it. Arete said above This is an argument from incredulity - and thus a logical fallacy. end quote Sounds like a quote from a proponent of one Richard Dawkins ( bed time stories Inc.). Is noone allowed to comment on the awesome chemical structure and complexity of life without being accused of being incredulous about something so amazing. I defy anyone not to be incredulous after they learn the current knowledge of what makes life tick. What has logic got to do with incredulity anyway ? I am simply not convinced that evolutionary theory as currently stated is correct in part or full. I have lots of reading to do but when I have seen enough hard evidence who knows I may change my mind. Until then it's nose to the grind stone.

Crazynutsx makes two good points above Quote from crazynutsx scientists pick and choose radiometric dates depending on what they want to fit with the geologic colum There theory drives their research when it should be research that drives their theory End Quote Research should be the thing that drives theory, not the other way round. The onus is on scientists to prove the above first statement is not reality. Again Mooeypoo makes her vague statements when she isn't prepared to present any evidence herself. Don't just blather on about pseudo science mooeypoo do some work yourself and present what evidence you have. Go ahead and surprise me.

Moontanman I am interested in anything you would like to put my way. Your effort will not be unrewarded. Contrary to what our vague Mooeypoo has said above I enjoy reading science literature or checking out any videos that you mentioned. So fire away my friend as we have some work to do. mooeypoo You seem to be quite vague in your approach to the subject. Have you even bothered to read the above thread before you come to your bizarre conclusions ? Where is your hard evidence from the scientific research literature with regard to what you said about residual evolution of flawed human bodily systems ? Or is your head just full of vague ideas and dreams ? If you are going to talk about it then put your money where your mouth is and do something about proving it or simply keep your pseudo scientific ideas to yourself.

Oh now I understand, you are the omniscient and omnipotent ones who have no need to demonstrate or present any real evidence regarding what you believe in. You are so in love with your precious theory of evolution and you are quite deluded by it. You can just sweep any logical argument under the carpet can't you. Present your evidence from the scientific literature or keep your psuedo science to yourself. Thanks for the link. My surprise hat is on. I hope it's not another bedtime story from our dear Dr Dawkins or one of his colleagues.

Noone here has presented any examples from the supposed literature which support their arguments. All I get is quotes from Richard Dawkins who tells a ripping yarn/story by the way. An explanation is not evidence from a scientific literature which is published based on actual research work. My mind is open and the only agenda here is getting at the truth. If we both climbed a tall tree and I had small winglike protuberances on my back and you didn't I am sure we would both likely die in a fall or both be seriously injured to the extent we could die later or not be healthy enough to maybe have kids later. To say that proto wings would save more animals from falls than not is simply a gross assumption. Where is the research which backs this assumption up ? And I am the one who is being illogical. Also noone bothered to respond to my question above regarding gliding and flapping wings. They are vastly different in form/structure and function and yet according to Richard Dawkins there is an evolutionary progression from gliding wing to flapping. I would also like to see the research whixch has been done on this one. It isn't real science until you can present conclusive evidence in the literature. So go ahead, surprise me.

I am not asking evolution to be logical. I am asking you to be logical. You say what if a food source is high up in trees. I say so what. This is not the case for all animals with or without proto wings. So what are you trying to say ? An animal with proto wings which falls and damages itself has no breeding advantage over a ground dwelling animal with no proto wings. That is what I am saying. Also one point mutation is not likely to confer any procreational advantage to a creature. If mutations were cumulative then something could change to benefit an individual but this is unlikely. If you have any links I would be happy to read the material.

If you have some links then fire away. On the one hand Moontana says Volcanism is not constant and you say it did not shut down for 25 million years (exactly what I am saying). If we are saying that volcanism is variable then all I am saying is that given volcanism may have been variable it was still ongoing 650 million years ago and as such I cannot see how this process would not have counteracted any weathering process that could start a snowball earth in the first place. You say I am playing games and erecting strawmen. I am simply trying to get some kind of conclusive response to the above. If you think I am game playing then you are missing the point. Check the other thread. I am totally open to your challenge.

mississippichem Thanks for your comments above. I will do some research and get back to you on that. Contrary to what swansont said above I don't need anyone to do my work for me. Any offers of help will always be viewed positively though.

Which of the following has more potential breeding ability : 1. A winged creature with proto wings which falls and damages itself. 2. A non winged creature on the ground which doesn't fall and injure itself. And you are saying the one with proto wings necessarily has some kind of advantage. This is not logical.