Evolution - A serious question.

[One Brow]

They don't have a "concept" of the first bird?

Correct.

Well they certainly have a "concept" of our supposed first ape like ancestor.

Incorrect. They have a concept of ancestral populations that became increasingly ape-like over time, but there was no first ape.

An analogy: who was the first person to speak French, and to whom did he speak it?

There has to be a first bird in evolution

why?

and there also has to be a bird-like ancestor before that and so on and so forth back to the first single celled organism in the pool of goo...if the random mutation is incremental.

The fact that mutation/selection/etc. is incremental is the reason why there is no first bird. The idea of a first bird is a creationist notion, not an evolutioary notion.

Or does some non-flying animal suddenly pop out wings and feathers, webbed feet, and the ability to make nests?

The animal you described would have been a first bird, which doesn't exist in evolutionary theory.

 

[One Brow]

Archaeopteryx.

What sort of explanation do you want for Archaeopteryx, and why did you connect it with the idea of a first bird?

I have to laugh with Millsapa on this one.

I recommend it. It's much easier on you that way.

 

[Scat]

What sort of explanation do you want for Archaeopteryx, and why did you connect it with the idea of a first bird?

It has often been referred to as the first bird.

 

[Scat]

I recommend it. It's much easier on you that way.

For the record we are laughing at you.

 

[moevillini]

Trout, you might be better off going to Amazon.com and buying yourself a copy...

https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Dummies-Greg-Krukonis-PhD/dp/0470117737


(no, I'm not saying you're a dummy or anything like that at all, even though some of these resposnes may have you scratching your head...)

 

[Jazz Spazz]

If Einstein were a philosopher of science, or a philosopher of mathematics, or even a mathematician, he would have some authority on the status of mathematics as a science. Since he was a physicist, he doesn't have mush authority on this particular topic.

So far, your book has all depth and subtlety of "Green Eggs and Ham".

LoL!!!!

I have to laugh with Millsapa on this one.

I'm with Sapa and Scat on this one. To discount Einstein in the area of mathematics is even worse than your discounting the genius that is "Green Eggs and Ham". If you were one millionth the mathematician Einstein was, then you would be smarter in math than most of the "Mathematicians" today. Sadly you are not.

Scat was LOL'ing because of the absurdity of you stating Einstein has no grounds to talk about mathematics. You are not stupid, but what you said was pure idiocy.

 

[PearlWatson]

Incorrect. They have a concept of ancestral populations that became increasingly ape-like over time, but there was no first ape.

An analogy: who was the first person to speak French, and to whom did he speak it?

Okay so it's a concept of "ancestral populations." Doesn't sound too scientific either way.

I'll have to dismiss your argument from analogy because you dismissed mine.

Argument from analogy.

 

[One Brow]

It has often been referred to as the first bird.

It is probably the earliest fossil we know of that has certain features we associate with birds. To refer to it as the "first bird" for that reason would almost certainly be incorrect, even if a first bird would have existed.

 

[One Brow]

For the record we are laughing at you.

You think I didn't know that? I would never recommend laughing at Einstein (well, rarely).

 

[One Brow]

I'm with Sapa and Scat on this one. To discount Einstein in the area of mathematics ...

Einstein's application of mathematics was brilliant, and I certainly don't think I could surpass him in that. However, there are differences between the applicaitons of mathematics and the creation of mathematics. Einstein didn't create any new mathematical concepts, construct any new mathematical proofs, or found any new mathematical genres. He took existing mathematicals concepts and applied them to physics in a brilliant fashion. He should be recognized for his genius appropriately.

If you were one millionth the mathematician Einstein was, then you would be smarter in math than most of the "Mathematicians" today. Sadly you are not.

You can state this authoritatively because you have an advanced degree in mathematics? Mathematical philosophy? You've done research in mathematics? I went to graduate school, got an MA in mathematics, and took classes from and with many mathematicians whose mathematical work was certainly within a league or two of Einstein's mathematical work, occasionally superior. We studied GR as a part of the work on Riemannian manifolds in a class entitled Geometry.

Scat was LOL'ing because of the absurdity of you stating Einstein has no grounds to talk about mathematics. You are not stupid, but what you said was pure idiocy.

I absolutely encourage you to keep on laughing. It's much easier than the alternative.

 

[One Brow]

Okay so it's a concept of "ancestral populations." Doesn't sound too scientific either way.

You think there is such a thing as a scientific non-concept? What would that be?

I'll have to dismiss your argument from analogy because you dismissed mine.

If I had made an argument from analogy, you would have been correct to dimiss it. However, what I offered was an illustration by analogy. I expect yo to dismiss it nonetheless, but you show no interest in actually learning this, but I did want toclarify that.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

You can state this authoritatively because you have an advanced degree in mathematics? Mathematical philosophy? You've done research in mathematics? I went to graduate school, got an MA in mathematics, and took classes from and with many mathematicians whose mathematical work was certainly within a league or two of Einstein's mathematical work, occasionally superior. We studied GR as a part of the work on Riemannian manifolds in a class entitled Geometry.

Are you Jacob Barnett?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1369595/Jacob-Barnett-12-higher-IQ-Einstein-develops-theory-relativity.html

 

[PearlWatson]

you show no interest in actually learning this

That must be why I keep asking questions about "this," but the responses have done nothing to convince me that "this" is anything other than absurd "concept" speculation with no empirical evidence to back it up.

 

[moevillini]

Are you Jacob Barnett?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1369595/Jacob-Barnett-12-higher-IQ-Einstein-develops-theory-relativity.html

that'd be a real trick, since OB is a father of five kids!!!

But we do need to find a way to sign this kid up and get him involved here:

According to his parents Jake has trouble sleeping at night as he constantly sees numbers in his head.

But far from complaining, Jake has turned the sleepless nights to his advantage - debunking the big bang theory.

Read more: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...develops-theory-relativity.html#ixzz1RSIwaOJh

who knows what other theories he may feel like debunking

 

[TroutBum]

I absolutely encourage you to keep on laughing. It's much easier than the alternative.

Well, that's pretty damn harsh right there. If I could +8 you again, I would.

 

[One Brow]

Are you Jacob Barnett?

No.

 

[One Brow]

That must be why I keep asking questions about "this," but the responses have done nothing to convince me that "this" is anything other than absurd "concept" speculation with no empirical evidence to back it up.

Responses are guided in part by expectations toward that response. In particular, when it is pointed out that there is no Hopeless Monster in evolution by different posters in different ways, and you keep coming back to that idea, people feel it's not worth an investment of time to get really serious.

This is especially true given the wealth of evidence presented at sites like talkorigins.org, including page after page of details on empical evidence. I think it's rude to paste in pages of copied text/pictures, personally. I also think that if I provide links, you'll ignore them. have you read any of the links provided so far? Which ones?

 

[billyshelby]

I like the way this thread turned out. The pseudo intellectuals got weeded out fast, the militantly blinded endure unbelievable shelling to put their points up on a tee, and the 3 people who actually know anything keep wacking those points out of the park. Carry on.

 

[TroutBum]

I like the way this thread turned out. The pseudo intellectuals got weeded out fast, the militantly blinded endure unbelievable shelling to put their points up on a tee, and the 3 people who actually know anything keep wacking those points out of the park. Carry on.

It's way too technical for me and my uber-high school education, but thanks to google, I am sort-of keeping up. (but not really)

 

[The-Joker]

I like the way this thread turned out. The pseudo intellectuals got weeded out fast, the militantly blinded endure unbelievable shelling to put their points up on a tee, and the 3 people who actually know anything keep wacking those points out of the park. Carry on.

I'll have you know I don't know anything...

Unless I'm one of the militantly blinded, then carry on.