Answering Dr. Dino: a handy reference

[InnerBrat]

end:

* Amphibians change to reptiles?

(Mike, pretend he means the emergence of the amniota from the lissamphibia)
When: The Carboniferous
Why: further exploitation of terrestrial environments, further independance on aquatic environments
How: increased lung effiency through minor changes in lung tissue, muscle differentiation, and a lightening of the ribs, and the laying down of a semi-waterproof amniotic covering around the egg. No major changes here.
(Pough, FH, Janis, CH and Heiser, JB; 1996; Vertebrate Life (5th ed)

* Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes,reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)

(Mike, what 'flying dinosaurs are you thinking of?)
When: Jurassic
Why: exploitation of a new niche (flight)
How: feathered dinosaur runs very fast, feathered dinosaur runs up trees, logs etc, fetahered dinosaur gains lift, feathered dinosaur exploits that lift, feathered dinosaur flies.
Seriously, the transition between dinosaurs and birds is so well documented now that it's not even certain where the taxonomic divide is!

* Whales evolve?

when: Eocene
why: exploitation of a marine niche.
how: reduction of limb and formation of a fluke
from what: artiodactyls

* bats evolve?

why: exploitation of an aerial niche
how: by supressing the genes that cause cell death between the digits
from what: flying lemurs or tree shrews

15. Which evolved first how, and how long, did it work without the others)?

It's called coevolution.

16. There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?

1. bollocks are there,
2. because it is.

17. How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?

Batesian Mimicry: A Batesian mimic is a palatable species copying the model's signal
Studies on Pailio memnon show that mimicry seems to have been built up through gradual accumulation of a number of genes thorugh selection towards a closer mimic of the model.
Müllerian Mimicry: A Müllerian mimic is an unpalatable species in itself
Suely it's obvious how this evolves? Rare morphs are eaten. Common morphs are selected for as predators learn that anything looking like this morph is unpalatable. (own degree course notes form a lecture course with Jim Mallett)

22. *What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?

Considering the many branches of Creationism, not to mention the infinite number of interpretaions of the relatively simple Bible (relative to the whole field of biology), Pot/Kettle/Black.

24. *Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?

That the transition from theropod dinosaurs to birds would be supprted by fossil finds.

Now i'll read the rest of this thread

[Darth Raptor]

Huh. I didn't know Archaeopteryx had been put into dromaeosauridae. Still, I don't think Archaeopteryx was a powered flyer, which is where most laymen would draw the "Definitely a bird" line. And I've found that when most people who aren't dinosaur nuts say "flying dinosaur", they mean pterosaurs. If I made a mistaken assumption, Mike, I apologize.

I don't think Archaeopteryx was much more than a glider either, but you have to remember it was Late Jurassic, and the begining of the trend.
Later, more advanced forms from the Cretaceous do posess the large keel that would be necessary for the flight muscles. The current definition of class Aves only works for modern zoology. It's practically useless in regards to the Mesozoic. I think the Archosauria should be a class seperate from Reptilia, and should include the current class Aves.

And yes, 'flying dinosaur' usually does mean pterosaur. But that misconception is older than the knowledge of actual flying dinosaurs.

He really buys into Mokélé-Mbebé and considers it proof that evolution is wrong? Jesus, no wonder even other Creationists think he's an embarassment.

Oh no! Don't scoff! He has evidence! The expedition photographed the animals in detail, but they accidently droped their camera into the swamp, ruining the pictures! Fortunately, they made a tape recording of the animal's call... No and it doesn't sound like a generic B-movie dragon roar! </extreme sarcasm>

[InnerBrat]

Um,, Archaeopteryx is by defnintion a bird.
The reason beign, the current definition of the class Aves is "Archaeopteryx and contemptory birds and the descendants thereof".

Anything more bird-like is a bird, anything less bird-like in a dinosaur. It's that arbitary.

[Shroom Man 777]

Who the heck is Doctor Dino?

Is he some dude with a book saying that some dinos survived, subscribes to the theory of T-rex being a scavenger, believes in that sh*t about that african dinosaur, lochness monster, various sea serpents, has a small book named "The Truth About Dinosaurs" and goes by the name of G. Thomas Sharp?

[Rye]

12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?

Mutation and selection obviously, we know this happens thanks to interesting little organisms like the nylon bug flavobacterium K172, an organism which feeds on NYLON, and only NYLON, a material that didn't even exist anywhere on earth till the 1930s! In addition there are organisms like MRSA, an organism in practically every hospital in the western world, that has evolved to become resistant to antibiotics that we have synthesised.

Now, there's a chance they read AiG too, and there's a supposed rebuttal to the nylon bug and it's gaining of genetic information, but i'm nice and found you the rebuttal to that here.

* Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)

To be honest, i don't know where and when, but i do know that they can. A multicellular form of the green alga, Chlorella vulgaris has been observed evolving in the lab from the unicellular form! And again, since i'm so nice, here's a link.

How did the intermediate forms live?

Well, since it's been observed that Irreducible complexity which is what Mr "I bum sheep" Hovind is trying to steal from Michael Behe can and does happen on it's own. Just because something is irreducibly complex now does not mean it always was, for instance, the above nylon bug.

* bats evolve?

A shew like creature, they even still share several traits with them.

* Eyes evolve?

Photoreceptive cells and millions of years of mutation and selection. As for when/where i couldn't tell you.

* DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?

It's thought RNA was around in the early earth(from precursor materials, thrown out by supernovae), and recently, humanity found an RNA type that actually does the chemistry necessary to start a DNA strand off, which revolutionised the abiogenesis world. More on abiogenesis here (where ribose comes from) and talkorigins

* The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?

See here.

* The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
* The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
* The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?

All your average irreducible complexity arguments. Easily refuted when you show him organisms that don't have them.

* The immune system or the need for it?

Why the need for it if evolution doesn't happen?

16. There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?

Cos it's the best one that has the most evidence, duh. Like round-earth theory is taught and not Flat Earth theory, which is too trying to be taught in schools.

17. How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?

Chance that was anything but blind. Natural selection was the unconscious designer.

18. When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.

Because those that do would breed better than competitive ones. Social animals exist all over nature, even ones between multiple species!

22. *What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?

the fact a creationist is asking this amuses.

24. *Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?

Vastly divergent taxa in the fossil record?

25. *What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen as becoming human?

Quoi?

26. *Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?

Didn't your God do that? What? He was already there? So he didn't come from anything, he came from nothing, gotcha.

1. Are you sure your answers are reasonable, right, and scientifically provable,

Scientifically inferrable, if you have evidence which contradicts these, please present it, and no the bible does not count.

or do you just believe that it may have happened the way you have answered? (Do these answers reflect your religion or your science?)

Science, obviously, i'll admit i'm wrong when contrary solid evidence is presented. Cos i'm you know...honest.

2. Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says, "God must have designed it"?

Less.

3. Is it possible that an unseen Creator designed this universe?

Possible, just not necessary and a bit childish imo.

If God is excluded at the beginning of the discussion by your definition of science, how could it be shown that He did create the universe if He did?

Show his existence, not his works which look precisely like he disguised them to be autonomous natural processes.

4. Is it wise and fair to present the theory of evolution to students as fact?

I love this quote... also from the National Academy of Science... for people who say "evolution is JUST a theory, not a law or a fact!"

"Laws are generalizations that describe phenomena, whereas theories explain phenomena. For example, the laws of thermodynamics describe what will happen under certain circumstances; thermodynamics theories explain why these events occur. Laws, like facts and theories, can change with better data. But theories do not develop into laws with the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the goal of science."

5. What is the end result of a belief in evolution (lifestyle, society, attitude about others, eternal destiny, etc.)?

People might cry because they're related to other animals. But then again, what is the end result of people who believe the Earth goes round the Sun?I'm fairly sure Hitler and Stalin believed that!

* It is all they have been taught.
* They like the freedom from God (no moral absolutes, etc.).

There is no actual morality in a sovereign based egalitarianist morality.

* They are bound to support the theory for fear of losing their job or status or grade point average.

Yes, that must be it, the evilutionist forces are there to make a mockery of all who disagree, they don't do it on their own, no....

* They are too proud to admit they are wrong.

* Evolution is the only philosophy that can be used to justify their political agenda.

The Shadows aren't real, kent.

7. Should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable, or inconclusive evidences to support the theory of evolution because we don’t have a suitable substitute (Piltdown man, recapitulation, archaeopteryx, Lucy, Java man, Neanderthal man, horse evolution, vestigial organs, etc.)?

It's interesting you mixed in real fossils with ones disproven via scientific method in there. You dishonest fuck.

8. Should parents be allowed to require that evolution not be taught as fact in their school system unless equal time is given to other theories of origins (like divine creation)?

No, because that's stupid, as it is fact, again, what about flat-earth creationists? They should get equal time too, right?

9. What are you risking if you are wrong? As one of my debate opponents said, "Either there is a God or there is not. Both possibilities are frightening."

A fucking ridiculous educational system where any bullshit is taught as long as some assmonkey thinks it should.

10. Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of creationism being presented in public schools? If we are not supposed to teach religion in schools, then why not get evolution out of the textbooks? It is just a religious worldview.

Evolution is not a religious worldview no, it's the description of natural processes. I'm afraid of cretinism being taught in schools because it's fucking stupid, most christians consider you whackos an embarassment and accept evolution. Time to just die and move on. I leave you with a quote:

"Today, at the dawn of the new century, nothing is more certain than that Darwinism has lost its prestige among men of science. It has seen its day and will soon be reckoned a thing of the past. A few decades hence when people will look back upon the history of the doctrine of Descent, they will confess that the years... were in many respects a time of carnival; and the enthusiasm which at that time took possession of the devotees of natural science will appear to them as the excitement attending some mad revel

[Rye]

Who the heck is Doctor Dino?

"Dr." Kent Hovind, a YEC that most creationists hate as being a liability to their side.

[Shroom Man 777]

Who the heck is Doctor Dino?

"Dr." Kent Hovind, a YEC that most creationists hate as being a liability to their side.

Oh.... okay. Thought he was the guy who lectured in our school once, I was wrong. Damn.

[Grand Moff Yenchin]

Talkorigins.org has set up a FAQ on Dr. Dino and his bullshit.

[Darth Raptor]

Um,, Archaeopteryx is by defnintion a bird.
The reason beign, the current definition of the class Aves is "Archaeopteryx and contemptory birds and the descendants thereof".

Anything more bird-like is a bird, anything less bird-like in a dinosaur. It's that arbitary.

Oops! You're right, that is indeed where they cut it off. That's what I get for going off of memory alone. Protarchaeopteryx is a maniraptor, as is Unenlagia and many other species that are so bird-like it's rediculous. Protarchaeopteryx couldn't fly, and isn't a direct ancestor to modern birds because it's Cretaceous, and birds had already split from dinosaurs by then.

Is he some dude with a book saying that some dinos survived, subscribes to the theory of T-rex being a scavenger, believes in that sh*t about that african dinosaur, lochness monster, various sea serpents, has a small book named "The Truth About Dinosaurs" and goes by the name of G. Thomas Sharp?

That's not him, but he firmly believes it. There's the usual stuff about the Lock Ness, and the sauropods in Africa. Some of the more interesting lies include:

Alexander the Great encountered a dinosaur.
There's a ceratosaurid attacking elephants and rhinos in Africa.
Dinosaurs are described in the Bible.
Native American cave paintings depicted dinosaurs.
A Japanese trawler caught a plesiosaur, but got rid of it because it stunk.
All that nonsense about dragons being real.
Marco Polo killed a Tanystropheus or something.

There's more, but that's all I can think of off the top of my head. And conspiracy nuts like this wonder why mainstream science doesn't take them seriously.

[Darth Wong]

"Dr. Dino" took "The Flintstones" a little too seriously when he was a child.

[Durandal]

This seems like a pretty good reference thread. I'll sticky it.

[Ted C]

Anyone got any improvements to suggest?

A few suggestions...

3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?

There are no “laws” of the universe; it simply does what it does in a consistent manner. What we call “laws” are scientific theories developed by scientists to explain and predict events in the universe.

4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?

Matter isn’t perfectly organized, so this is an irrational question.

5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

I hate to break the news to you, but adding energy to a system will disorganize it. If you add energy to a block of ice, it will melt, turning it from an organized crystalline structure into a chaotic body of liquid. Matter gets more organized when you remove energy (i.e., take heat out of the water to turn it into ice).

To answer the question, all the energy in the universe has always been part of it.

7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

The first replicating molecule didn’t need to “learn” to reproduce itself, it was simply a consequence of its chemical structure.

11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?

Quite frankly, no. The similarities in design cannot prove that different species have a common Creator because design similarity is also evidence for common ancestry. Evidence that supports two competing theories cannot prove either one over the other.

[Ted C]

Another no-brainer...

23. What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?

I would have said, “Show it to me.”

[Darth Raptor]

After a good three minute's browsing on his very own website I came across these little gems. I'm sure more profound stupidity can be found there but paleontology is my bag, and this stuff made me laugh out loud.

What Happened to the Dinosaurs?

Dig the phony plesiosaur glyph!

Pictures of Dinosaurs in the 20th Century

Contains photos of the alleged plesiosaur I was talking about. More smudgeshots of Nessie, and I guess someone's toy sea dragon was supposed to be convincing. I'm not even sure what the head-on-the-beach is supposed to be...

[InnerBrat]

The laughable thing about the Job argument is the obvious implication that fossils have only existed for the last 100 years.

"How does the author of Job know what a dinosaur looked like?"
how the smeg do we know what a dinosaur looked like?

[Grand Moff Yenchin]

I'm not even sure what the head-on-the-beach is supposed to be...

Some interesting analysis here.

Explanation in 10 seconds: Probably a beaked whale this time, not a basking shark.

[justifier]

After a good three minute's browsing on his very own website I came across these little gems. I'm sure more profound stupidity can be found there but paleontology is my bag, and this stuff made me laugh out loud.

What Happened to the Dinosaurs?

Dig the phony plesiosaur glyph!

Pictures of Dinosaurs in the 20th Century

Contains photos of the alleged plesiosaur I was talking about. More smudgeshots of Nessie, and I guess someone's toy sea dragon was supposed to be convincing. I'm not even sure what the head-on-the-beach is supposed to be...

[Dogbert]
It is my theory that every speices that ever existed is still around, some are just hiding
[/Dogbert]

[LMSx]

Unless you paraphrased the opening line, Mike, Dino also makes the mistake of confusing the origin of the universe with Evolution. All the dinosaur extinction and homo sapiens in the world won't answer questions of matter and energy.

[Andrew J.]

23. What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?

I would have said, "Oh, you have one of those fishes previously thought to be extinct, but had living specimens discovered sixteen years ago?"

The first living coelecanth identified by science was 66 years ago, in 1938. But heaven forbid he actually do a little reseach to find that out.

[DPDarkPrimus]

There are even, I believe, some vertebrates that can reproduce asexually, though I can't remember which ones they are.

A once read about a species of lizard that can reproduce asexually. If the females are infected with a certain bacterium, the eggs in their ovaries do not split; they all have the complete set of genes they need to be viable. The offspring of these lizards are exact clones of their mothers, of course, and can honestly be said to be products of virgin mothers.

Yes... I recall the article about salamander eggs... all they needed to start gestating was to be pricked with a needle, simulating penetration by a sperm.

[DPDarkPrimus]

After a good three minute's browsing on his very own website I came across these little gems. I'm sure more profound stupidity can be found there but paleontology is my bag, and this stuff made me laugh out loud.

What Happened to the Dinosaurs?

Dig the phony plesiosaur glyph!

Pictures of Dinosaurs in the 20th Century

Contains photos of the alleged plesiosaur I was talking about. More smudgeshots of Nessie, and I guess someone's toy sea dragon was supposed to be convincing. I'm not even sure what the head-on-the-beach is supposed to be...

Did you see what he said on his site?

Some have argued that this is a basking shark because the protein was 96% similar to shark protein. No one has ever seen plesiosaur protein to know what it should look like. Scores of vastly different animals have very similar proteins. This only proves a common designer for both.

[Zoink]

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?

The problem with that question is that we don't know the universe *must* come from something. The question is making an assumption and is wanting a clear answer based on that unfounded assumption.

The notion most people have with the big bang is that there was nothing except for time and this nothing (or whatever) twiddled its thumbs for an infinite number of years at which point it decided to spontaniously create the universe. Not surprisingly, wild assumptions are easy target for criticism.

Easy target unless of course the object is God; the fact that a being can have motives seems to satisfy people's desire for 'why' (heck, even the satisfaction somewhat naive as Mr. Wong pointed out in his response).

The first question to ask is "must the universe come from something?" or "did the universe come from something?" So far, we haven't seen that it must.

[Currald]

a good example of a mutation is Shaquille O'Neal

It is far more likely that Shaq's size is a result of variation than of mutation.

[Darth Wong]

a good example of a mutation is Shaquille O'Neal

It is far more likely that Shaq's size is a result of variation than of mutation.

Thank you for completely missing the whole point, which is that mutation and variation are basically the same thing.

[Currald]

To Darth Wong: (looks it up.) Well, shit. Sorry to have bothered you.

To the paleontologically inclined: Now, I'm not completely up to date on this, but don't dromaeosaurs have the big breastbone and folding arms unique to birds? Hasn't it been suggested that they are essentially "flightless birds?" Did they evolve from flying animals, or gliding animals?