Teachers take a stand against anti-evolution teaching order

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Now, an apple, a knife and sex organs can all serve a purpose

Together?

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
If you all had clarified terms from the get-go, this whole frickin' retarded conversation wouldn't have happened, you know. This is a prime example of 'Poly intellectual masterbation at its finest.

Let's use these terms:

Function
Intent
Purpose

Let's NOT use them interchangeably.

Does any object have an intent/purpose, or are those words reserved for actions only?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by St Leo

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
If you all had clarified terms from the get-go, this whole frickin' retarded conversation wouldn't have happened, you know. This is a prime example of 'Poly intellectual masterbation at its finest.

Let's use these terms:

Function
Intent
Purpose

Let's NOT use them interchangeably.

Does any object have an intent/purpose, or are those words reserved for actions only?

No objects have intent, as something has to be conscious to have intent. A rock can't intend to do anything.

Purpose is a different beast entirely. But nothing has a purpose without intent.

[St Leo]

Uh, by objects, I meant physical entities. Can a porpoise have a purpose? Can a human have a purpose?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by St Leo
Uh, by objects, I meant physical entities. Can a porpoise have a purpose? Can a human have a purpose?

Humans, certainly. But the thing is that is a subjective thing. My purpose is to live an enjoyable life. Someone else may have a purpose to make more money.

As for other conscious animals, it's really impossible to say without being them. Since human consciousness is just an advanced form of animal consciousness, it's possible that the more intelligent animals might have purposes to their existences. But that's for them to know, not us.

So purpose is a subjective thing based on the intent of the being. We have purposes, because we have intent to do things. Apples don't have purposes, as they don't have intent. They have function.

Apples can serve the purpose of being food for us, but that's not the same as possessing a purpose.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

Huh? I assume you're referring to the mammals with dinosaur bones in their stomachs. As was mentioned over and over in that thread, this is in no way an affront to the scientific merit of paleontology. Indeed, if it weren't for the scientific merit of it, the paper wouldn't have gotten published in the first place.

We have one fossil of one mammal with one small dinosaur in its belly and paleontology is rocked (no pun intended) by the discovery! How pathetic. Is there any evidence to support the existing theory that mammals were only prey for dinosaurs? No! It's an assumption based on relative sizes. Why is it so surprising to find a large-dog sized mammal that has eaten a small dinosaur? It seems very likely to me that small carnivorous mammals living in those times preyed upon anything they could catch, just as modern mammals do.

Hopefully its not another chinese hoax (like the missing-link between birds and reptiles).

You seem to be suggesting that new information that requires modification of existing theories is somehow a challenge to scientific merit... truly bizarre!

I'm suggesting nothing of the sort. I expect changes to hypothesis that hit closer and closer to the 'truth' as the evidence mounts not repeated wholesale reversals of established 'theory'.

[Arrian]

Be fair: the "rocking of the community" and all that is mostly journalistic hype. The media writes all sorts of bull****.

Take the launch of NASA's comet probe. The headline I saw was "NASA launches comet-busting probe." Sounds exciting, right? Except it's hyped BS. The probe is designed to impact the comet and study its insides... but not to "bust" it.

I strongly suspect that any "rocking" of the paleontological community has been overblown.

-Arrian

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Arrian
Be fair: the "rocking of the community" and all that is mostly journalistic hype. The media writes all sorts of bull****.

I strongly suspect that any "rocking" of the paleontological community has been overblown.

-Arrian

OK

Heres the abstract from the article in Nature

"Mesozoic mammals are commonly portrayed as shrew- or rat-sized animals that were mainly insectivorous, probably nocturnal and lived in the shadow of dinosaurs. The largest known Mesozoic mammal represented by substantially complete remains is Repenomamus robustus, a triconodont mammal from the Lower Cretaceous of Liaoning, China. An adult individual of R. robustus was the size of a Virginia opossum. Here we report a new species of the genus, represented by a skeleton with most of the skull and postcranium preserved in articulation. The new species is 50% larger than R. robustus in skull length. In addition, stomach contents associated with a skeleton of R. robustus reveal remains of a juvenile Psittacosaurus, a ceratopsian dinosaur. Our discoveries constitute the first direct evidence that some triconodont mammals were carnivorous and fed on small vertebrates, including young dinosaurs, and also show that Mesozoic mammals had a much greater range of body sizes than previously known. We suggest that Mesozoic mammals occupied diverse niches and that some large mammals probably competed with dinosaurs for food and territory."

[Last Conformist]

That doesn't sound exactly like an earth-shattering discovery to me ...

Interesting yes, and rewriting a bit of the palaeontological account, but hardly a scientific revolution.

[Arrian]

Exactly. But that's boring, of course. So the media has to spruce it up a bit.

Scientists are certainly not immune to hype, either. I get warm fuzzies when I see some nerdy researcher wax poetic about how his/her research will "revolutionize" our understanding of... whatever. But deep down I know said nerdy researcher is most likely exaggerating.

-Arrian

[Odin]

Originally posted by SpencerH .

Hopefully its not another chinese hoax (like the missing-link between birds and reptiles). .

Only ONE was fake, the rest are perfectly authentic.

There was a ID person on the BBC last night (We get the BBC on NPR at night) making all sorts of stupid claims, like saying cell structure can't be explained by evolution, and when the journalist asked him to elaborate he completely ducked the question.

I WANT EVIDICE FROM YOU CREATIONIST FOOLS, NOT BS.



SpencerH, most Mesozoic mammals WERE shrew to rat size, and hence too small to eat dino hatchlings, there were a few, like this one, that were larger, but they were rare. This does suprise me that this was a triconodont (a member of the group of mostly tiny Mesozoic mammals ancestral to living mammals, both Therians* and Monotremes), most of the larger Mesozoic mammals were members of the 2 more primitive (and now extinct) branches of true mammals, Multituberculates and Docodonts.

*Therians = Marsupials and Placentals

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Odin


Only ONE was fake, the rest are perfectly authentic.

Oh good. That does settle the issue then.

There was a ID person on the BBC last night (We get the BBC on NPR at night) making all sorts of stupid claims, like saying cell structure can't be explained by evolution, and when the journalist asked him to elaborate he completely ducked the question.

I WANT EVIDICE FROM YOU CREATIONIST FOOLS, NOT BS.

I dont think there are any creationists here. Lets not entice them.

SpencerH, most Mesozoic mammals WERE shrew to rat size, and hence too small to eat dino hatchlings, there were a few, like this one, that were larger, but they were rare. This does suprise me that this was a triconodont (a member of the group of mostly tiny Mesozoic mammals ancestral to living mammals, both Therians* and Monotremes), most of the larger Mesozoic mammals were members of the 2 more primitive (and now extinct) branches of true mammals, Multituberculates and Docodonts.

*Therians = Marsupials and Placentals

What you mean is no-one has found a fossil of a larger mammal until now. Maybe next week there will be an even larger mammal discovered and the week after that and the week after that. Its the nature of paleontology.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by SpencerH

What you mean is no-one has found a fossil of a larger mammal until now. Maybe next week there will be an even larger mammal discovered and the week after that and the week after that. Its the nature of paleontology.

Maybe. Note, however, that bigger animals are tendentially better representated in the fossile record, so if we've got plenty of fossiles of small ones and only one or so big ones, it fairly strongly suggests most were indeed small.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

Maybe. Note, however, that bigger animals are tendentially better representated in the fossile record, so if we've got plenty of fossiles of small ones and only one or so big ones, it fairly strongly suggests most were indeed small.

Sounds reasonable but given the bajillions of critters that have existed and the numbers of fossils I'd say that the population sample is rather small.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by SpencerH
We have one fossil of one mammal with one small dinosaur in its belly and paleontology is rocked (no pun intended) by the discovery! How pathetic.

This is a gross exaggeration of the effect of the discovery. You seem prone to making these hyperbolic claims.

Paleontology hasn't been "rocked" by this discovery. It is certainly an exciting and unexpected find, but it no way shakes or undermines the science involved. It's new evidence that requires a modification to an existing hypothesis. This happens in science all the time, doesn't it? Isn't that the very nature of science?

I will add that this issue is pretty minor wrt paleontology as a whole. Hypotheses about the specific nature of early mammals isn't exactly the only thing paleontology has going for it, you know.

Is there any evidence to support the existing theory that mammals were only prey for dinosaurs? No! It's an assumption based on relative sizes.

There was no evidence supporting otherwise. It wasn't a "theory" that mammals were such--you're again conflating theory with hypothesis. It was hypothesized, based on the evidence at hand, that mammals were confined in the early mesozoic era to very small rodents. Why should scientists assume larger carniverous ones existed then when there wasn't any evidence supporting them?

Oy, first you claim there's not enough evidence to support things, now you're whining that they didn't assume something even though there was no evidence for it. Will you make up your mind?

Why is it so surprising to find a large-dog sized mammal that has eaten a small dinosaur? It seems very likely to me that small carnivorous mammals living in those times preyed upon anything they could catch, just as modern mammals do.

There wasn't any evidence to support it until now, so why should they just assume so? Do you have any evidence that the above scenario had been completely ruled out of possibility by the paleontological community? It was the prevailing thought, but no one would have said it was impossible.

Hopefully its not another chinese hoax (like the missing-link between birds and reptiles).

Unlikely, since, as the article mentions, it has been 2 years since discovery and has been vetted to different experts who achieved a consensus.

I'll note that paleontology has been quite adept at weeding out hoaxes, as the Chinese bird-reptile fossil incident shows. In fact, despite Creationists pointing to such hoaxes as a sign of the weakness of the science, they are in fact a sign of its strength, since it was paleontology that determined they were hoaxes in the first place.

I'm suggesting nothing of the sort. I expect changes to hypothesis that hit closer and closer to the 'truth' as the evidence mounts not repeated wholesale reversals of established 'theory'.

And, as I mentioned, this has not amounted in any such reversal of any theory, merely the revision of hypothesis. You again exaggerate and engage in unfounded hyperbole. Perhaps you could write for the AP, for your grasp of the situation seems akin to the reporters. It certain is indicative that you don't know much about paleontology.