Learned and Adapted Behaviors

[nPeace]

I'm going back to S. Hawking's comment about the universe came about from NOTHING because of the "law of gravity." As I understand it, he first thought (declared evidently) that the universe was the "big bang" or something like that, then he changed his mind. Saying it came about from N-O-T-H-I-N-G via the LAW of gravity. Well, he's dead and gone now, maybe if he is resurrected he'll change his mind. I hope so.

Do you have a link to the comment you are referring to... I'll like to look at it, because it may be necessary to understand what he said in relation to how scientists understand their mechanism.

The Big Bang is considered to be an expansion from a point.
So scientists understanding of "nothing" may be different to our understanding of nothing and something.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Someone said here that wolves evolved into dogs. Are wolves still evolving insofar as you know?

Species change over time. The rate varies along with the alleles under selection and the selection pressure.

I don't know specifically the state of wolf evolution as it stands. An ancestral species (like the wolf) is not obligated to go extinct just because it was a step into a derived species (dogs). Neither does it mean it stops evolving.

Wolf populations have been highly impacted over the last 400 years in the US due to increasing decline in wolf populations due to human intervention.

I would say that it is still evolving.

 

[YoursTrue]

Species change over time. The rate varies along with the alleles under selection and the selection pressure.

I don't know specifically the state of wolf evolution as it stands. An ancestral species (like the wolf) is not obligated to go extinct just because it was a step into a derived species (dogs). Neither does it mean it stops evolving.

Wolf populations have been highly impacted over the last 400 years in the US due to increasing decline in wolf populations due to human intervention.

I would say that it is still evolving.

Any evolution noticed by observers? Dinosaurs are gone I doubt they evolved to wolves though. What do you think?

 

[YoursTrue]

Species change over time. The rate varies along with the alleles under selection and the selection pressure.

I don't know specifically the state of wolf evolution as it stands. An ancestral species (like the wolf) is not obligated to go extinct just because it was a step into a derived species (dogs). Neither does it mean it stops evolving.

Wolf populations have been highly impacted over the last 400 years in the US due to increasing decline in wolf populations due to human intervention.

I would say that it is still evolving.

Naturally it's not obligated to go into something else but then the question is, why isn't it still evolving? Fish supposedly evolved to be land rovers but I guess no one has seen fish that don't survive out of water become an organism that survives out of water.

 

[YoursTrue]

Do you have a link to the comment you are referring to... I'll like to look at it, because it may be necessary to understand what he said in relation to how scientists understand their mechanism.

The Big Bang is considered to be an expansion from a point.
So scientists understanding of "nothing" may be different to our understanding of nothing and something.

Yes, I have a link, I'll get back to this probably tomorrow it's past my bedtime now.

 

[YoursTrue]

Do you have a link to the comment you are referring to... I'll like to look at it, because it may be necessary to understand what he said in relation to how scientists understand their mechanism.

The Big Bang is considered to be an expansion from a point.
So scientists understanding of "nothing" may be different to our understanding of nothing and something.

According to what I have read, here is a reference to his viewpoint:
Stephen Hawking says universe not created by God | Stephen Hawking | The Guardian

 

[YoursTrue]

Do you have a link to the comment you are referring to... I'll like to look at it, because it may be necessary to understand what he said in relation to how scientists understand their mechanism.

The Big Bang is considered to be an expansion from a point.
So scientists understanding of "nothing" may be different to our understanding of nothing and something.

I can only guess that gravity is nothing? or maybe something, according to the new theory of S. Hawking's.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Naturally it's not obligated to go into something else but then the question is, why isn't it still evolving? Fish supposedly evolved to be land rovers but I guess no one has seen fish that don't survive out of water become an organism that survives out of water.

You and I have discussed this many times before and I know you have discussed it with many others. Do you not remember that or have you just dismissed it for other reasons?

I am aware of a number of fish species that can survive out of water for extensive periods of time. Again, all this has been discussed before.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Any evolution noticed by observers? Dinosaurs are gone I doubt they evolved to wolves though. What do you think?

Yet another question about information that has been previously supplied to you from numerous individuals citing even more numerous sources.

If you were in our shoes, wouldn't you start to have doubts about the sincerity of a person continually asking questions that were asked and answered as if they had not been?

I think that the information supporting evolution is now readily available through the internet to anyone that has a genuine interest in learning about the subject.

Google Scholar is a publicly available search engine that can return literally thousands and thousands of articles about evolution and the evidence showing that it did occur and continues to occur.

Wouldn't you wonder? Wouldn't you have doubts about the motives of people? Knowing the availability of such rich sources of valid information. Knowing that many have offered reasonable evidence that the repetition of "fish are still fish or dogs are still dogs" is meaningless.

I am having doubts arising from seeing this perpetuated.

 

[YoursTrue]

Species change over time. The rate varies along with the alleles under selection and the selection pressure.

I don't know specifically the state of wolf evolution as it stands. An ancestral species (like the wolf) is not obligated to go extinct just because it was a step into a derived species (dogs). Neither does it mean it stops evolving.

Wolf populations have been highly impacted over the last 400 years in the US due to increasing decline in wolf populations due to human intervention.

I would say that it is still evolving.

I'm not saying the dogs and wolves are not related somehow by biologic change. I am saying, however, that birds and wolves are very distant living beings and I mean they both breathe and walk. Snakes generally slither. Birds generally lay eggs, wolves do not. Is there any evidence that insects, for instance, evolved into more than insects? Maybe like dinosaurs? After all, some insects have wings and now some conclude dinosaurs evolved to flying little birds.

 

[YoursTrue]

You and I have discussed this many times before and I know you have discussed it with many others. Do you not remember that or have you just dismissed it for other reasons?

I am aware of a number of fish species that can survive out of water for extensive periods of time. Again, all this has been discussed before.

Yes, I realize that, but the fact that a number of fish species can survive out of water for a limited time does not demonstrate evolution. If it did, I think it would still be happening. Unless, of course, some say no that's not true. Or yes it is true.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yet another question about information that has been previously supplied to you from numerous individuals citing even more numerous sources.

If you were in our shoes, wouldn't you start to have doubts about the sincerity of a person continually asking questions that were asked and answered as if they had not been?

I think that the information supporting evolution is now readily available through the internet to anyone that has a genuine interest in learning about the subject.

Google Scholar is a publicly available search engine that can return literally thousands and thousands of articles about evolution and the evidence showing that it did occur and continues to occur.

Wouldn't you wonder? Wouldn't you have doubts about the motives of people? Knowing the availability of such rich sources of valid information. Knowing that many have offered reasonable evidence that the repetition of "fish are still fish or dogs are still dogs" is meaningless.

I am having doubts arising from seeing this perpetuated.

The problem is that fish are still fish, etc., and the observation of humans concerning the idea that fish evolved to landlubbers is not absolute by observation. It's like a scientist saying that the universe created itself. You may believe that; I no longer do. More than that, there is no evidence beyond speculation, even though some fish can flap around on land for a while. They go back to the water to live.

 

[David Davidovich]

Okay, pal. So, let's hear it about the dinosaurs.

(Genesis 1:20-25) 20 Then God said: “Let the waters swarm with living creatures, and let flying creatures fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.” 21 And God created the great sea creatures and all living creatures that move and swarm in the waters according to their kinds and every winged flying creature according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 With that God blessed them, saying: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the waters of the sea, and let the flying creatures become many in the earth.” 23 And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day. 24 Then God said: “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds, domestic animals and creeping animals and wild animals of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. 25 And God went on to make the wild animals of the earth according to their kinds and the domestic animals according to their kinds and all the creeping animals of the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

Birds
A thoughtful study of birds gives convincing proof of the Biblical teaching that they are of divine creation. While birds and reptiles are both oviparous, reptiles are cold-blooded. . .

Thank you, nPeace. Also, see my quote below.

Archaeopteryx, the first bird-like ancestor discovered, had teeth and a long tail, just like its much bigger cousin T. rex. But it also clearly had feathers and forelimbs that looked like wings.

It was also very likely to have been warm-blooded, says Dr Paul Willis, a palaeontologist with ABC's Catalyst program.

"What we can see in the fossil record is a number of bird-like theropods with hair-like structures and simple downy feathers. Being mostly small creatures [they must have generated their own body heat] and evolved hairs and feathers to help retain the body heat they generated," says Willis.

Warm-blooded reptiles
Animals have developed two ways to maintain their body heat. One method is to generate body heat using internal thermal regulation, these animals such as birds are endothermic. The other method is to take the heat from the environment and store it in their bodies, these animals, such as reptiles, are ectothermic.

But even though we think of them as 'cold-blooded', ectothermic animals can still have warm blood. And the bigger they are, the more likely they are to be able to maintain a warm body temperature.

click here: If birds descended from dinosaurs, why are they warm-blooded? › Ask an Expert (ABC Science)

often sluggish, whereas birds are warm-blooded and among the most active of all earth’s creatures; they also have an unusually rapid heartbeat.

After an explanation of a complicated fossil study, this next article quote goes on to explain the results:

WHAT DID THEY FIND? — The scientists discovered the metabolic rates of dinosaurs were generally high. "This new information regarding metabolic rates will drastically change how we interpret the biology and behavior of many of these extinct groups," O'Connor says.

There are two big groups of dinosaurs, the "bird-hipped" ornithischians, and the "lizard-hipped" saurischians. The bird-hipped dinosaurs included Triceratops, Stegosaurus, and Ankylosaurus. The lizard-hipped dinosaurs included theropods as well as the long-necked, long-tailed giant herbivores known as sauropods, such as the Brontosaurus.

The lizard-hipped dinosaurs were warm-blooded, with some possessing metabolic rates comparable to modern birds, much higher than mammals. Pterosaurs and plesiosaurs may also have been warm-blooded. To maintain their active metabolisms, Wiemann notes all these ancient creatures would likely have had to eat a lot.

The bird-hipped dinosaurs had low metabolic rates, ones comparable to those of cold-blooded modern animals. Like modern cold-blooded reptiles such as lizards and turtles, Wiemann suggests they may have basked in the sun and may have also had to migrate to warmer climates during the cold season. (Intriguingly, their ancestors likely possessed higher metabolic rates, suggesting that bird-hipped dinosaurs reduced their metabolisms over time.)

click here: Were dinosaurs warm or cold-blooded? Scientists might finally have an answer (inverse.com)

The evolutionary view that reptilian scales and front limbs eventually developed into feathered wings is both fanciful and baseless. The fossils of birds called by scientists Archaeopteryx (or, ancient wing) and Archaeornis (or, ancient bird), though showing teeth and a long vertebrated tail, also show that they were completely feathered, had feet equipped for perching, and had fully developed wings. No intermediate specimens, exhibiting scales developing into feathers or front legs into wings, exist to give any semblance of support to the evolution theory. As expressed by the apostle Paul, birds are of a distinct “flesh” from others of earth’s creatures. 1 Corinthians 15:39.

So, nPeace, tell me what kind of birds have teeth? Also, do you mind showing us the links to the articles for your quotes?

 

[YoursTrue]

Yet another question about information that has been previously supplied to you from numerous individuals citing even more numerous sources.

If you were in our shoes, wouldn't you start to have doubts about the sincerity of a person continually asking questions that were asked and answered as if they had not been?

I think that the information supporting evolution is now readily available through the internet to anyone that has a genuine interest in learning about the subject.

Google Scholar is a publicly available search engine that can return literally thousands and thousands of articles about evolution and the evidence showing that it did occur and continues to occur.

Wouldn't you wonder? Wouldn't you have doubts about the motives of people? Knowing the availability of such rich sources of valid information. Knowing that many have offered reasonable evidence that the repetition of "fish are still fish or dogs are still dogs" is meaningless.

I am having doubts arising from seeing this perpetuated.

The description of creation in the Bible is not detailed as to how God did it or how long it took to prepare the earth for mankind.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm not saying the dogs and wolves are not related somehow by biologic change.

The evidence supports the conclusion that dogs evolved from wolves.

I am saying, however, that birds and wolves are very distant living beings and I mean they both breathe and walk.

I don't know of anyone that would disagree with that very basic knowledge.

Snakes generally slither.

I would be hard pressed to imagine that anyone would disagree that snakes are leggless.

Birds generally lay eggs, wolves do not.

Birds reproduce by laying eggs, always. Female wolves produce eggs that are held internally and do not require a shell. Birds and mammals are two different classes of vertebrate animals that share a common ancestor well back into their evolutionary pasts.

Is there any evidence that insects, for instance, evolved into more than insects?

Insects evolved and diversified into numerous niches and are have the most number of recognized species of living things. No non-insect descendants have been discovered.

Maybe like dinosaurs?

It is that sort of question that raises flags. Insects are invertebrates and dinosaurs are extinct vertebrates. Both groups evolved along different lines of descent and I can imagine no one with a basic understanding of biology and zoology would consider insects to have been ancestral to vertebrate that could be obverved under contemporary conditions.

After all, some insects have wings and now some conclude dinosaurs evolved to flying little birds.

Wings, as a trait has evolved independently in a number of different groups. That two groups might share a functional trait does not immediately qualify as evidence of a close relationship. The developmental origin of wings in insects and birds and the structural source of the wings is entirely different between the two groups. Even among the dinosaurs and birds, flight evolved in the same structure along different lines of development.

The questions you pose and the claims you repeat against evidence do not reveal a basic knowledge of biology that is being employed to any level of distinction.

You should really take an actual biology course if you want to challenge biology with your ideological views. Much of what you state as the basis of your claims is unreliable, unrealistic and often entirely wrong.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, I realize that, but the fact that a number of fish species can survive out of water for a limited time does not demonstrate evolution. If it did, I think it would still be happening. Unless, of course, some say no that's not true. Or yes it is true.

That fish can evolve to exist out of water is evidence for evolution.

How do you know living things are not evolving at this moment. How is something that occurs over many, many, many lifetimes best observed by those that have only one?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The problem is that fish are still fish, etc., and the observation of humans concerning the idea that fish evolved to landlubbers is not absolute by observation. It's like a scientist saying that the universe created itself. You may believe that; I no longer do. More than that, there is no evidence beyond speculation, even though some fish can flap around on land for a while. They go back to the water to live.

It is not a problem for the explanations provided by the theory of evolution. It only seems to be a problem for some groups that cannot think outside the box of their obligate ideologies.

Once again, you have been taught numerous times on here that science is not about absolutes or proofs. But trying to nurture baseless claims on that diet is an exercise in ignorance and denial.

In discussions of biology and evolution, I do not care what scientists have said about the origin of the universe. It is not relevant to this or related discussions.

If there was nothing in science but speculation, we would not be having this discussion.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The description of creation in the Bible is not detailed as to how God did it or how long it took to prepare the earth for mankind.

That is correct, but it is not a relevant response to my post.

 

[YoursTrue]

That is correct, but it is not a relevant response to my post.

Yes, it is, because -- the Bible says God created the heavens and the earth. Evolutionists likely say either there is no God, or that a Creator is not needed. Furthermore, that leads me to a question -- if a person says he believes in God and evolution, how does God fit in to his belief?

 

[YoursTrue]

It is not a problem for the explanations provided by the theory of evolution. It only seems to be a problem for some groups that cannot think outside the box of their obligate ideologies.

Once again, you have been taught numerous times on here that science is not about absolutes or proofs. But trying to nurture baseless claims on that diet is an exercise in ignorance and denial.

In discussions of biology and evolution, I do not care what scientists have said about the origin of the universe. It is not relevant to this or related discussions.

If there was nothing in science but speculation, we would not be having this discussion.

(This is in reference to the theory of evolution) -- if the universe created itself, no God needed, then it stands to reason in my mind (not saying other peoples' minds) that living matter also created itself (no God needed). This is what many scientists who believe in the theory of evolution say. So perhaps the next logical question would be, if a person believes in God and also evolution, how does that work? Let me guess. They might think that (1) the universe just happened to come about one way or another, and (2) life began on the earth without a God necessary and developed over millions and millions of years to what we see now. But the question also really is, what about those who say they believe in God but maybe not the Bible, and/or they believe in the Bible but not everything.