[Dolorous Menhir]

So am I in the wrong to suggest a progression from jumping to gliding to flying?

[Cause]

@D Man: I just reduced the complexity for the sake of the quick point.

@DM: Seems logical. You have a wing span and that lets you guide. One day the animal starts flapping that wingspan and you get flight.

[D Man]

Dolorous Menhir;129143 said:

So am I in the wrong to suggest a progression from jumping to gliding to flying?

No, you're right

They arent the same thing, but its a natural progression in avionics.

Jumping with assisted 'thrust' from drag
-
Climbing something and gliding down (this is what archeopterix did)
-
Flying.

You just need something that can go from creating drag to creating lift. Feathers. Even shaped feathers just create drag. Make the back shorter than the front and they create lift. Each proggression would have been for the benefit of improved control in gliding until the point where the lift generated and control was greater than the weight of the bird.

The key mutaition is feathers and their changing uses: Isulation --> drag --> lift without much actual physical change in them.

[fan_83]

the funny thing is that creationists and evolution opponents all agree that microevolution that is eovlution among the bacterium and other small changes among the non human organism takes place and yet they can't see mto extrapolate the fact that long periods of micro evolution makes up macro evolution..

they seem to think that jsut because human doesn;t suffer from evolution makes evolution invalid when the truth is that our modern medicine and our social attitude destroys our evolution attempts..

shouldn;t the evolution amongst the strains of bacteria is proof that eolution can and does take place?
aren;t they the perfect substitute as they have a short lifespan?

[The Rope]

Will you accept any evidence that evolution is false? Even if it was presented in a scientific manner, if it was achieved with scientific method? Honestly? If there was a scientific experiment done perfectly that not only disproved evolution, but showed strong evidence for creation, would you still dismiss it as "the ramblings of a creationist afraid of a world without god"?
I would like to hear the answer from everyone involved in this discussion. If you will just ignore the question - that is the most definite answer you can give as to your objectivity.

[Cause]

The Rope;129236 said:

Will you accept any evidence that evolution is false? Even if it was presented in a scientific manner, if it was achieved with scientific method? Honestly?

I would accept it and would find it fascinating. A new theory would be created a new understadning. Science cant care less about one theory, it cares about improving our understanding of our world.

Will you accept that scienctists know what they are doing. That no such experiments has been done and that evolution remains a viable theory and one supported by several pieces of evidence?

Quote

If there was a scientific experiment done perfectly that not only disproved evolution, but showed strong evidence for creation, would you still dismiss it as "the ramblings of a creationist afraid of a world without god"?
I would like to hear the answer from everyone involved in this discussion. If you will just ignore the question - that is the most definite answer you can give as to your objectivity.

Im pleased you asked this question. I was going to ask if during the debate any of you , I will label you the anti-evolution lobby, have stopped and said these guys seems to have some good points? We have had a counter for your evry claim we have pointed out long lists of supporting evidences. We have fixed misconceptions you have about carbon dating what a theory is what vestigial organs really mean.

Is it possible that evolution is right?

[D Man]

The Rope;129236 said:

Will you accept any evidence that evolution is false? Even if it was presented in a scientific manner, if it was achieved with scientific method? Honestly? If there was a scientific experiment done perfectly that not only disproved evolution, but showed strong evidence for creation, would you still dismiss it as "the ramblings of a creationist afraid of a world without god"?
I would like to hear the answer from everyone involved in this discussion. If you will just ignore the question - that is the most definite answer you can give as to your objectivity.

If evolution was proven wrong, I'd accept it.

Hasnt happened though. And as postherds sig says "I suppose apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility doesnt merit equal time in physics classrooms".

[cauthon]

Any ideas on how to construct experiments that might disprove it?

[Cause]

cauthon;129357 said:

Any ideas on how to construct experiments that might disprove it?

I think at best new evidence will force the theory to be revised but to destroy it completly I dont see how.

[Hume]

I thought this study might be interesting..

Quote

'Supermountain' explains Earth's animal evolution

23 October 2006
A text version of the Gondwanan supermountain diagram is also available

Australian scientists have discovered evidence of an ancient 8000-kilometre-long supermountain range that may explain the beginnings of animal life on Earth.

Lead researcher Dr Rick Squire, from Monash's School of Geosciences, estimates that the range of peaks as high as the Himalayas developed between 650 and 500 million years ago during a dynamic period in Earth's history when several large continents collided with each other to form the supercontinent Gondwana.

The Gondwanan supermountain straddled the prehistoric landmass that eventually broke apart into the continents of Australia, New Zealand, Antarctica, South America, Africa, India and Arabia.

Dr Squire said the erosion of the supermountain resulted in enormous volumes of sand, silt and mud washing down a series of huge rivers and being deposited in oceans at the margins of the supercontinent.

"The huge rivers draining the supermountain provided a dramatic flux in nutrients, which supported a bloom of primitive life, and that provided the huge source of food necessary to trigger the sudden appearance of animals on Earth between about 580 and 520 million years ago," Dr Squire said.

Dr Squire and his team collected sandstone samples from around Victoria, including the Stawell gold mine, that contained many different minerals including zircon, which can be dated using a spectrometer.

"Remarkably, the ages of the zircons in the different samples were all very similar and closely matched results from other sandstone samples collected from other continents that once formed Gondwana," he said. "The similarities in age suggest a similar source, and the most likely candidate was the supermountain.

"The sandstones can be found everywhere in Australia, from Kalbarri on the western tip of Western Australia to the large rocky road cuttings north of Sydney near the Hawkesbury River. The Victorian Parliament building is made from Grampians Sandstone that was originally sourced from the supermountain, and the big gold deposits at Bendigo, Ballarat and Stawell all formed in sandstones that came from the same geological phenomenon," he said.

from here...http://www.monash.ed...line/story/1056

[stone monkey]

If evolution is correct (As I would hazard it is. In the main, we don't and may never have all the particulars down) then it's probably impossible to construct an experiment that disproves it, without resorting to fraud.

The problem with the fundamentalist and ID (although the two are probably interchangable) attitude to science is that they're perfectly willing to attempt to use the language, it's just that they use it badly because they don't understand the scientific method.

[D Man]

cauthon;129357 said:

Any ideas on how to construct experiments that might disprove it?

How to go about trying to do so?

Ask any creationist. Thats whats going for attempted disproof.

What would? finding rabbit in the phanerozoic, say.

[Dolorous Menhir]

cauthon;129357 said:

Any ideas on how to construct experiments that might disprove it?

Well, if you consult the book of Genesis, it clearly states that God made the Earth and all the animals (and Adam & Eve) in six days.

So evolution can't possibly be true.

[Tes'thesula]

Well crap

Here's me being a monkey sodomising atheist, based off my belief in evolution of course, and it turns out I was wrong all along.

Hellfire beckons

[Cause]

Its seduction tricked all of tes'thesula.

[The Rope]

Dolorous Menhir;129489 said:

Well, if you consult the book of Genesis, it clearly states that God made the Earth and all the animals (and Adam & Eve) in six days.

So evolution can't possibly be true.

Its already been explained that the days aren't necessarily literal 24 hour days - did you just ignore that?


[quote name='potsherds]I can't answer this question with a 'yes' or 'no'' date=' since this question is not a valid one. There can be no scientific experiment that would in any way show 'evidence' for creationism/ID, since, as has been said dozens of times in this thread, creationism/ID is in no way science, and cannot be supported nor disproved by science.[QUOTE'] I'll take that as a "no." Apparently the scientific method is actually "if there's no blatantly obvious evidence or experiment i can find that can prove it, I'm not even going to consider it."

Prove to me in scientific language and with scientific method that Creation is not science. So far all I've got is the same kind of ramblings creationist/ID's use - "I say so, because I believe it, Because someone else told me, so therefore it MUST be true!"

I've looked at your 'evidence' - it hasn't made any definite proof.