Settled? Oh no no no, Robert. You are free to mount an actual challenge to any of it at any time. Produce scientific evidence, and show it to the world. Until someone does... we will proceed as if it is settled, given the mountains of mutually supportive theoretical and empirical evidence. Note the difference? Well, that's easy: you are under a misconception. There is no real, extant debate of whether or dinosaurs evolved into birds. And that is chiefly because it is accepted that birds ARE dinosaurs. There is no actual, current challenge to this. But, as always... you are free to present evidence.
Please, I've been debating this topic for over a decade and a half, with hundreds of opponents more challenging than you. To be sure; and if you could observe a fruit fly evolving into a housefly or whatever, you'd have an observation that is actually noteworthy... ...and you still wouldn't be within lightyears of proving humans evolved from any other species.
Well son, I just checked the scoreboard....and you are losing about a million to nothing. Evolution is still considered fact, and your denial would still get you an F on a 7th grade science quiz. Maybe you're not cut out for this. Another absurd request. Evolution doesn't happen with such purpose. If a species undergoes speciation, both species remain very similar to the ancestor, inside and out, for quite a long time. One would not have to watch a fruit fly evolve into something visually different in order to observe speciation. And the fact that humans evolved from other species has already been proven. It's as proven as the fact that the earth revolves about the sun. There is no competing explanation. There is no debate. There are only fringe naysayers and students forced to support evolution in projects as an exercise. Just as they do when learning geometry, or physics.
One strong bit of evidence for common descent between species (which logic itself leads inexorably to universal common descent, and so the evidence also supports that notion) is the body of work around pseudogenes. Pseudogenes are genes that don't work they way they were originally intended or at all. One may have undergone a mutation and no longer effectively codes for a protein. In related species, we can track these pseudogenes. All simians share a similar pseudogene re: Vitamin C processing not found in other mammals that branched off from simians.We can track about when the mutation happened, and match it up against our current taxonomy. Pseudogenes are especially effective at narrowing down times of divergence, as only a few need be studied between species. But they are rarified, by their very nature. But still ... we are so smart, we knew they would likely exist, and then we found them.
Of course it is, to the disgracefully credulous. That would mean the teacher is an idiot, obviously. That was no request, just a factual observation. And I neither said nor implied it does, obviously.
They can't even debate much less fairly. Not surprising they can't understand evolution. Still waiting on usban to debate branchial clefts much less all the other topics. This is an example of your retorts: Empty words, with no facts, evidence, or reason. I can only dismiss unevidenced assertions. If you have an 'idea' of the 'methods of evolution, then present them. Alluding to some mystical mechanism is not a scientific debate.
What's wrong with it? I'm not the author but it was reviewed, peer reviewed, and then published in a major journal.
You do not debate....you argue and dodge serious debate. I will now provide a real time example for all to see: Please provide your opposing explanation concerning the emergence of birds?
Lower concentration of oxygen in the sea. Your argument was that it can't be true because where is the consequential hydrogen. Primary school chemistry
They didn't "land in Europe". They would have followed the rivers or coastline where the most food is. Notice where all the rivers go? To the sea. Notice where the largest river in Africa flows? Towards Europe and Asia.
Of course you would not understand the point. Rather than waste any time going any further, perhaps set your position. How old do you think the Earth is? How long have humans been on Earth? Where did humans come from? Why are there black and white (and other shades ) humans? Where did the animals come from? Where do the fossils come from?
I don't give a diddly damn about birds, apologies for any inconvenience. Hell if I know. God. Hell if I know. God.
Perhaps you took that more serious than i had intended. I vaguely recall it so it was not very important. I would need to review what I said and what I was replying about. But now that you revived it, I shall review this for myself. Surface ocean waters generally have oxygen concentrations close to equilibrium with the Earth's atmosphere. ... Therefore, the concentration of oxygen in deep water is dependent on the amount of oxygen it had when it was at the surface minus depletion by deep sea organisms. Oxygen minimum zone - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_minimum_zone Cold water can hold more dissolved oxygen than warm water and fresh water can hold more dissolved oxygen than salt water. So the warmer and saltier the water, theless dissolved oxygen there can be. ... The oxygen found in the deeper water comes from mixing with surface water. Physical Properties: Water Chemistry: Oxygen, from Discovery of ... omp.gso.uri.edu/ompweb/doee/science/physical/choxy1.htm Perhaps this takes care of your lingering problem. I have no objections to what I found using google. Sorry it kept nagging at you. PS, I do not recall covering this when I studied Chemistry in college.
Something about those sort of posts makes it seem we have a personality clash going on. Is there a reason for this sort of dialogue?
Understood, but I have found one of the most effective means of eliminating the worm to be ridiculing it until it flees or is flushed down.
Not very important? It was the thread topic! You refused to believe that the oxygen concentration in sea water was reducing due to your insistence that there should be a corresponding increase in Hydrogen gas concentration even after several times being explained to you that dissolved oxygen is not oxygen in h2o. ~This is the part that is primary school chemistry. As for your cut & paste, not again! Anyway, that is in the past. You're welcome to re-address it if you like.
Do you think that the following - I don't give a diddly damn about birds, apologies for any inconvenience. Hell if I know. God. Hell if I know. God. is a good debating style in a science forum?
The difference in how he and you did it is you lashed out at him personally. He said how he felt. Not a thing about you.
I am not nearly as focused or interested in that as you appear to be. I get a kick how you try to paint me as sort of stupid. My insistence .... etc and etc.
Then there is always . . . . PROOF POSITIVE Atavisms happen! YOU do know what "atavism" is, don't YOU
Yes, like when you were born with a tail. But yes, you are correct....atavism is evidence for universal common descent.
