"Settled Science" on evolution gets handed another setback

[samurai7]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090609092055.htm

This is another example of why I take everything scientists say with a grain of salt. Everytime they say something is "settled science," watch out.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090609092055.htm

This is another reason I don't take one species evolving into another (like man from apes) very seriously. Every time they think they have us convinced, another monkey wrench gets thrown into the theory.

:)) :))

[Buffalo]

Wonderful thing about scientific research. There is no "settled science". And this does nothing to dispute evolution theory in general, just ads a piece of evidence in finding the evolutionary path of modern birds.

"It's really kind of amazing that after centuries of studying birds and flight we still didn't understand a basic aspect of bird biology," said John Ruben, an OSU professor of zoology. "This discovery probably means that birds evolved on a parallel path alongside dinosaurs, starting that process before most dinosaur species even existed."

[Czhorat]

I agree wholeheartedly with my friend from the distant north.

The neat thing about science is that it's based on the idea that we don't have all of the answers, but we can learn and increase our understanding.

Anyone who takes this as evidence against evolution has a poor understanding of science in general and evolution in particular.

[Marleysdaddy]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090609092055.htm

This is another example of why I take everything scientists say with a grain of salt. Everytime they say something is "settled science," watch out.


Fantastically interesting.

What you failed to provide, however, is any good scientist claiming that anything was "settled science" (and you won't be able to produce that, because it's an impossible request...any person who uses the phrase "settled science" is not a good scientist).


This is another reason I don't take one species evolving into another (like man from apes) very seriously.

To clarify, 'ape' isn't a species...it's a family, and humans are in that family (called Hominidae)

Finally, your title is misleading...everything in that article fits within the theory of evolution, so there is not a "setback"

There are some similarities between birds and dinosaurs, and it is possible, they said, that birds and dinosaurs may have shared a common ancestor, such as the small, reptilian "thecodonts," which may then have evolved on separate evolutionary paths into birds, crocodiles and dinosaurs. The lung structure and physiology of crocodiles, in fact, is much more similar to dinosaurs than it is to birds.

"We aren't suggesting that dinosaurs and birds may not have had a common ancestor somewhere in the distant past," Quick said. "That's quite possible and is routinely found in evolution. It just seems pretty clear now that birds were evolving all along on their own and did not descend directly from the theropod dinosaurs, which lived many millions of years later."

[BrittleBullet]

Finally, your title is misleading...everything in that article fits within the theory of evolution, so there is not a "setback"

And here I thought we'd finally be able to get Of Pandas and People into classrooms. :(

[StoneScratcher]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090609092055.htm

This is another example of why I take everything scientists say with a grain of salt. Everytime they say something is "settled science," watch out.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090609092055.htm

This is another reason I don't take one species evolving into another (like man from apes) very seriously. Every time they think they have us convinced, another monkey wrench gets thrown into the theory.

:)) :))

Maybe man evolved into apes and we're just seeing the back end of the beginning of man's end?

I know there's a butt joke in there somewhere I'm not trying to suggest.

[biggles53]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090609092055.htm

This is another example of why I take everything scientists say with a grain of salt. Everytime they say something is "settled science," watch out.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090609092055.htm

Samurai, far from being an example of "settled science" or a "setback", the article you reference is a PERFECT example of how science works! New knowledge replacing old, theories being refined in the light of new discoveries - sir, THAT IS SCIENCE!!

Tell me, would you regard Einstein's brilliant revelations as a "setback" to gravitational theory.....???

This is another reason I don't take one species evolving into another (like man from apes) very seriously. Every time they think they have us convinced, another monkey wrench gets thrown into the theory.

:)) :))

My friend Marleysdaddy has already pointed out your 'apes to man' error. However, in considering the likelihood that humans and other primates shared common ancestors, perhaps you can explain the evidence of retroviral insertions in the genomes of various primates, if this were NOT the case...!?

[CaptainPike]

Samurai, far from being an example of "settled science" or a "setback", the article you reference is a PERFECT example of how science works! New knowledge replacing old, theories being refined in the light of new discoveries - sir, THAT IS SCIENCE!!

Tell me, would you regard Einstein's brilliant revelations as a "setback" to gravitational theory.....???



My friend Marleysdaddy has already pointed out your 'apes to man' error. However, in considering the likelihood that humans and other primates shared common ancestors, perhaps you can explain the evidence of retroviral insertions in the genomes of various primates, if this were NOT the case...!?

With evolution being the crutch that so many atheists lean on, it's hard to take anything you say seriously.

[pinqy]

With evolution being the crutch that so many atheists lean on, it's hard to take anything you say seriously.
Except that not only atheists accept evolutionary theory. Yet only some sects of Christianity and Islam accept Creationism. Evolution isn't dependent on religous belief (or lack of), yet Creationism is.

[mobiusptc]

no scientist claim on anything as settle science, but it does not invalidate the research and testing. a scientific theory is light years different from the definition of a theory used in any other format.

[CaptainPike]

Except that not only atheists accept evolutionary theory. Yet only some sects of Christianity and Islam accept Creationism. Evolution isn't dependent on religous belief (or lack of), yet Creationism is.

A belief in intelligent design does not require a belief in any particular religion.

Not all atheists believe in evolution, but it's awfully strange that so many of them gravitate towards it like moths to a light.

[Chuangtzu]

Burning straw man doused. Well done, from Buf forward...

[biggles53]

With evolution being the crutch that so many atheists lean on, it's hard to take anything you say seriously.

Please, don't take ANYTHING I say seriously! Examine the evidence yourself!

[Kelzan]

Evolution is on solid ground, it is about as solid as it gets.
The article cast no doubt on evolution at all, just on the current theory that dinosaurs evolved into birds. Evolution as a science incorporates new data all the time. This will not be the last time something like this happens, new information and research sheds new light to existing science and sometimes theories are amended or tossed out altogether.

[CID_0687]

A belief in intelligent design does not require a belief in any particular religion.

Not all atheists believe in evolution, but it's awfully strange that so many of them gravitate towards it like moths to a light.

Now there is a fact that I can't argue about...

[pinqy]

A belief in intelligent design does not require a belief in any particular religion.Intelligent design is repackaged Creationism.

Not all atheists believe in evolution, but it's awfully strange that so many of them gravitate towards it like moths to a light.Why is it strange? Is it also strange that so many Catholics, Anglicans, Methodists, Lutherans etc also gravitate towards it?

[Samm]

Evolution is on solid ground, it is about as solid as it gets.
The article cast no doubt on evolution at all, just on the current theory that dinosaurs evolved into birds. Evolution as a science incorporates new data all the time. This will not be the last time something like this happens, new information and research sheds new light to existing science and sometimes theories are amended or tossed out altogether.

Correct. There is no scientific knowledge that is so absolute that it cannot be replaced with better data. That is the cornerstone of the Scientific Method.

[captusa]

I agree wholeheartedly with my friend from the distant north.

The neat thing about science is that it's based on the idea that we don't have all of the answers, but we can learn and increase our understanding.

Anyone who takes this as evidence against evolution has a poor understanding of science in general and evolution in particular.



Sorry for the correction BUT
Don't you mean 'Anyone who takes this as evidence against evolution has NO understanding of science in general and evolution in particular'?

[captusa]

Intelligent design is repackaged Creationism.
Not all atheists believe in evolution, but it's awfully strange that so many of them gravitate towards it like moths to a light.
Why is it strange? Is it also strange that so many Catholics, Anglicans, Methodists, Lutherans etc also gravitate towards it?


AND
Not all scientists believe in evolution (only 99+%)but it's awfully strange that so many of them gravitate towards it like moths to a light.

[captusa]

A belief in intelligent design does not require a belief in any particular religion.
But ID has been introduced as creationism repackaged(The Wedge Strategy).
If and when (and I'm not holding my breath) it ever developes from a mere conjecture to a hypothesis and then a theory it might be taken seriously.

Not all atheists believe in evolution, but it's awfully strange that so many of them gravitate towards it like moths to a light.


Not all atheists believe in evolution, but it's awfully strange that so many of them gravitate towards it like those enclosed in darkness gravitate towards a light.

Not all theists believe in evolution, but it's awfully strange that so many of them gravitate towards it like those enclosed in darkness gravitate towards a light .

[Kelzan]

Not all atheists believe in evolution, but it's awfully strange that so many of them gravitate towards it like those enclosed in darkness gravitate towards a light.

Most Atheists believe evolution because it is a natural explanation for why we are here backed up with facts.

[Marleysdaddy]

A belief in intelligent design does not require a belief in any particular religion.

Perhaps not...but if the designer is a supernatural entity, belief in ID does require belief in some sort of theism.

[ThrowCop]

Sounds like good science to me.

That is the way the Scientific Method works. New data, more accurate replaces old, less accurate data.

[Dr. Funkenstein]

Samurai, far from being an example of "settled science" or a "setback", the article you reference is a PERFECT example of how science works! New knowledge replacing old, theories being refined in the light of new discoveries - sir, THAT IS SCIENCE!!

Tell me, would you regard Einstein's brilliant revelations as a "setback" to gravitational theory.....???

Nothing really to add here, just that Sammy's a ma'am, not a sir

[Greyclouds]

Fantastically interesting.

What you failed to provide, however, is any good scientist claiming that anything was "settled science" (and you won't be able to produce that, because it's an impossible request...any person who uses the phrase "settled science" is not a good scientist).


To clarify, 'ape' isn't a species...it's a family, and humans are in that family (called Hominidae)

Finally, your title is misleading...everything in that article fits within the theory of evolution, so there is not a "setback"

Promptly and expertly handled :clap:


There is often a big gap of knowledge between the disciplines of science. This is a very good anecdote of this in practice:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VRT-48PV5SH-F&_user=669286&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000036298&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=669286&md5=4f419d09174831a5a3486a6483f9c18b

Basically, a group of entomologists were baffled that a population of stickbugs suddenly had individuals that grew wings! They believed that they had discovered such an astounding phenotypic trait as to rewrite the textbooks on the rapidity of genetic change!

When they presented their data to Geneticists and Evolutionary biologists, they got a bunch of snickers and incredulous looks. It turns out that if the entomologists kept current with scientific literature in Evolutionary Biology, and had actually looked at the genome sequence of the stickbug, they would realize that the genes involved in wing development were already in the genome of the bug, but were inactivated. Oops! It happens! That is why we have things like:

a. Peer-review
b. Multi-disciplinarian studies
c. Biological specialties