Originally posted by Proper KnobThe paper states that the purpose of the study was to answer two
Explain to me how the method used in the paper i listed above doesn't fit the 'scientific method'.
questions about penguins.
1. Where did penguins originate?
2. Why are such mobil birds restricted to the southern hemisphere?
The three hypothesis that were to be tested were as follows:
1. They arose in tropical - warm temperature waters.
2. They arose in species - diverse cool temperature regions.
3. They arose in Gondwanaland ~ 100 mya when it was further north.
They do some tests with penguin DNA, then using Bayesian inferences
of ancestral areas, they claim to show an Antarctic orgin is "highly likely".
And molecular dating "estimated" penguins originated about 71 million
years ago in Gondwanaland when it was further south and cooler.
Then they hypothesize that as Antarctica became ice-encrusted, modern
penguins expanded via the southern continents and reached cooler
tropical waters is the Galapagos ~4mya.
They say, "Flat priors were assumed for all parameters of the model."
As I said before, to assume makes an ass out of u an me.
It is my opinion that assumptions should not be used in the scientific
method if you want to prove an hypothesis.
They say the testing was evaluted using an "approximately unbiased"
test. It is my opinion that the scientific method should use an "unbiased"
test and not an "approximately unbiased" test.
They also say the use of "uncertainties" account for a source of error
in estimating where penguins originated.
So they where unable to really prove anything other than to make
another "hypothesis". The two questions remain unanswered.
Originally posted by RJHindsThank goodness you and you ilk are not scientists. If you were we'd still be living in caves going for a dump in the bushes.
The paper states that the purpose of the study was to answer two
questions about penguins.
1. Where did penguins originate?
2. Why are such mobil birds restricted to the southern hemisphere?
The three hypothesis that were to be tested were as follows:
1. They arose in tropical - warm temperature waters.
2. They arose in species - diverse cool tempera ...[text shortened]... other than to make
another "hypothesis". The two questions remain unanswered.
Originally posted by Proper KnobI have never heard the word "ilk" used here in the USA.
Should have read 'your ilk'.
But I looked it up in the dictionary and apparently you
mean what we here would say "your kind". So there
are others like me that should not ever be scientist or
otherwise we would still be going to find a bush to dump
our excrement behind. Is that correct?
Originally posted by Proper KnobI don't know where penguins came from, if there was a creature they evolved
An ostrich is a bird, it evolved from a bird that could fly the same as penguins. Penguins though have gone a stage further and adapted to life in the sea.
I see you haven't answered my question in the other thread, i'll put it here as it's more apt. You accept penguins evolved for life in the sea, yet don't accept mammals did. Explain the biological ...[text shortened]... walls and restrictions' as you call them that are in place in mammals yet not in penguins.
from, for all I know they have always been penguins, your the one that thinks
they came from something else as all things did. I believe that the basic kind
has remained intact with some small changes within it. These are things we
can see in the here and now, your belief system requires much more than that.
Kelly
Originally posted by Proper KnobWe let's see, some geneticist connects dots about creatures that supposedly
So how come penguins evolved for life in the sea yet mammals cannot. Why can one happen and not the other, what 'restrictions' are in place in mammals?
Also, do you think your 'guesswork' is on a par with geneticists work on evolution?
have been long dead according their thinking. Can I prove them right or wrong,
no, impossible. What I'm claiming is that kinds will adapt to their enviroment
in the here and now in small ways that give advantages to them without
turning them into something else, which we can see. So for my money I'll take
what I can see over what cannot be proven wrong.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayNo, they are not things we can see. You cannot see that the Penguin did not evolve from something else. You can personally experience no more generations of Penguin than I can. The only way you can look further back than the first time you saw a Penguin is through analysis of what is left behind by history, including written record, bones, fosils, genetic evidence etc. All these strongly indicate that the Penguin evolved from something else, none of it suggests that it remained more or less the same, so your claim that you can see in the here and now that the Penguin did not evolve from something else is not true.
These are things we can see in the here and now, your belief system requires much more than that.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayOn a thread not too long ago you accepted penguins evolved from a bird that could fly. Do you want me to dig it out?
I don't know where penguins came from, if there was a creature they evolved
from, for all I know they have always been penguins, your the one that thinks
they came from something else as all things did. I believe that the basic kind
has remained intact with some small changes within it. These are things we
can see in the here and now, your belief system requires much more than that.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayYou've avoided my question again.
We let's see, some geneticist connects dots about creatures that supposedly
have been long dead according their thinking. Can I prove them right or wrong,
no, impossible. What I'm claiming is that kinds will adapt to their enviroment
in the here and now in small ways that give advantages to them without
turning them into something else, which we can see. So for my money I'll take
what I can see over what cannot be proven wrong.
Kelly
You've said penguins evolved from a common ancestor that could fly, they now swim in the sea. You've also said that marine mammals didn't evolve from land based mammals.
Why can a penguin evolve for life in the sea yet mammals cannot?
Originally posted by RJHindsIt really doesn't matter.
I have never heard the word "ilk" used here in the USA.
But I looked it up in the dictionary and apparently you
mean what we here would say "your kind". So there
are others like me that should not ever be scientist or
otherwise we would still be going to find a bush to dump
our excrement behind. Is that correct?
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsFound it Thread 133220 page 9.
Dig it out please. I'm also interested if he really agreed that the
penguin evolved from a bird that could fly and what bird that is.
PK - I'm trying to ascertain what degree of evolution you think is possible. Do you accept that penguins derive from birds that could fly?
KJ - I don't know, maybe they did, never gave them much thought.
I imagine it'd be easier to lose an ability than to acquire one as unique as flight.
PK - Penguins were birds that could fly, they had to, because what's the point of a bird with a wing? Penguins have now evolved to the point where they can't fly, but have become specialised swimmers instead. Half their life is on land, the other in the sea. They've evolved from flying, to swimming.
KJ - Okay
And the conversation went on.........
