Ask me anything about the science of Evolution :)

[sayak83]

It is an excellent museum, however good specimens often remain in working labs. Ring the museum--I know if I do, I will be less than trusted, and ask re: percentages. Or you see more at these resources:

https://www.quora.com/When-you-see-...ld-are-they-real-bones-held-together-by-wires

Which exhibits in a museum are genuine?

As I said earlier, most of the collections in the museum are carefully stored in cabinets and you will have get permission to access them. Access is available if you become part of a paleontology group, or through other organizations. Here are the links to over 4.75 million fossil specimens kept in the American Museum alone.
Collections

 

[BilliardsBall]

Its silly to expect actual bones openly in exhibit. They are too valuable and fragile. However, become a part of an amateur paleontology group and reserve a private visit to the backroom lockers. There you would see the actual bones kept in storage.

I agree and already said so. Thanks.

 

[sayak83]

I agree and already said so. Thanks.

Cool. I missed it. The link will be useful however if you want to research more. Ancient life is fascinating.

 

[BilliardsBall]

As I said earlier, most of the collections in the museum are carefully stored in cabinets and you will have get permission to access them. Access is available if you become part of a paleontology group, or through other organizations. Here are the links to over 4.75 million fossil specimens kept in the American Museum alone.
Collections

I'm aware and I agree. Should disclaimers be posted in museums? How about when evidence for the original fossil(s) is scant, so that a whole skeleton goes to a museum when the original is a few bones, and a "careful reconstruction" is Created? How about when "scientists" draw webbing and feathers and other flights of fancy on their "depictions" that children see in museums as Missing Links?

Do I have a right to be righteously ticked off about ambulocetus being shown with webbed hind limbs?

 

[sayak83]

I'm aware and I agree. Should disclaimers be posted in museums? How about when evidence for the original fossil(s) is scant, so that a whole skeleton goes to a museum when the original is a few bones, and a "careful reconstruction" is Created? How about when "scientists" draw webbing and feathers and other flights of fancy on their "depictions" that children see in museums as Missing Links?

Do I have a right to be righteously ticked off about ambulocetus being shown with webbed hind limbs?

Not really. Everybody knows that scientists only find bones. Webbed feet is a reasonable inference based on aquatic adaptations found in ambulocetus skeletons. If you go to a museum and take a guided tour, or ask any of the museum staff, they will openly say that skin, tissue etc. are speculative reconstructions. So will any dino book.

Its not true that skeletons are displayed when very few bones are recovered. Does not happen.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I'm aware and I agree. Should disclaimers be posted in museums? How about when evidence for the original fossil(s) is scant, so that a whole skeleton goes to a museum when the original is a few bones, and a "careful reconstruction" is Created? How about when "scientists" draw webbing and feathers and other flights of fancy on their "depictions" that children see in museums as Missing Links?

Do I have a right to be righteously ticked off about ambulocetus being shown with webbed hind limbs?

Do we have a right to be righteously ticked off that you ignore the transitional features found in the bones we do have?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm aware and I agree. Should disclaimers be posted in museums? How about when evidence for the original fossil(s) is scant, so that a whole skeleton goes to a museum when the original is a few bones, and a "careful reconstruction" is Created? How about when "scientists" draw webbing and feathers and other flights of fancy on their "depictions" that children see in museums as Missing Links?

Do I have a right to be righteously ticked off about ambulocetus being shown with webbed hind limbs?

Do you seriously think that a skeleton cannot be properly reconstructed by matching bones between finds? Perhaps you should look into the science that you are attacking before you make claims that you cannot support.

Australopithecus afarensis has been fully reconstructed with bones from over 300 individuals. When specific bones overlap between collections they can be added together. With hundreds of samples that allows a lot of cross checking.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Do we have a right to be righteously ticked off that you ignore the transitional features found in the bones we do have?

Please illustrate here:

1. Fossil transitional feature A

2. " " B

3. " " C

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Please illustrate here:

1. Fossil transitional feature A

2. " " B

3. " " C

 

[BilliardsBall]

Transition: The act of metamorphosis, an intermediate state.

Transition: (in evolutionary biology) Find two similar species than tell stories until we see a sudden change between two complete, whole species, aka evolutiondidit

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Transition: The act of metamorphosis, an intermediate state.

Transition: (in evolutionary biology) Find two similar species than tell stories until we see a sudden change between two complete, whole species, aka evolutiondidit

Actual definition for transitional fossil in biology:

"A fossil that has a mixture of features from two divergent taxa."

For example, a species that has an ape-like skull and a human-like pelvis is a transitional fossil because it has a mixture of features of apes and humans. This is an objective observation that makes no assumptions about common ancestry or evolution. It simply looks at the features and sees if they are shared with any other species groups. What you fail to understand is that a transitional fossil could actually disprove the theory of evolution, and I will explain why.

These objective facts found in fossils can then be used to test the theory of evolution. This is because the theory of evolution predicts which mixtures of features there should have been in the past and which mixtures of features should NOT have existed in the past. For example, the theory of evolution predicts that there should have been species in the past who had a mixture of reptile and mammal features. The same theory also predicts that there should NOT have been species that had a mixture of mammal and bird features in the past. Each and every fossil we find is used to test these predictions, and evolution has passed this test with flying colors. Every fossil we have found supports the theory of evolution because they fall into the predicted pattern of a nested hierarchy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Transition: The act of metamorphosis, an intermediate state.

Transition: (in evolutionary biology) Find two similar species than tell stories until we see a sudden change between two complete, whole species, aka evolutiondidit

Please, you know that this is not true. If you do not understand the proper thing to do is to ask for clarification. As it is you merely look like a liar when you make such a post and I am sure that you do not want people to think that of you.

 

[Nigel Hoath]

Interested in any thoughts. First from the Beeb on isolated lakes found in Canada (and other places).

Europa-like lakes found in Canada

“The study's authors suggest the lakes may have been sealed off from surrounding environments for up to 120,000 years.”

"The probability of life to exist in these systems is high, though the modelled temperatures might suggest that the biological activity would be severely limited due to the low temperature," Dr Alison Murray of Nevada's Desert Research Institute told BBC News.”


If these salty lakes, with a max temperature of -10.5C, contain life, presumably we would expect a very slow evolutionary process. I’m assuming in such a static environment suffering few external interferences (perhaps very slow changes in the magnetic field, slight variation in temperature) that the results of evolution would tend towards a consistent result and, taken to an extreme, might the evolutionary process have in effect terminated (i.e, be in a repeating small loop)..

Does that seem logical? (And hope it makes sense.)

 

[Audie]

I'm aware and I agree. Should disclaimers be posted in museums? How about when evidence for the original fossil(s) is scant, so that a whole skeleton goes to a museum when the original is a few bones, and a "careful reconstruction" is Created? How about when "scientists" draw webbing and feathers and other flights of fancy on their "depictions" that children see in museums as Missing Links?

Do I have a right to be righteously ticked off about ambulocetus being shown with webbed hind limbs?

I am utterly enraged with righteous indignstion that these
"religious" people make these statues and drawings of
"Mary" and "Jesus" as if they had the least clue how
they looked!!!

Worse; they force millions of innocent
children to hear and believe these ridiculous
and utterly false stories like the flood
or Red Sea crossing?

Fancuful illustrations and movies abound.

Disclaimers? Ha. For centuries it was believe,
or die.

Your "what about whole skeleton based on
a few bones " is as fanciful as a drawing
of animals two by two going up into
the ark.

People lacking anything real do tend to
make things up.

 

[Audie]

Transition: The act of metamorphosis, an intermediate state.

Transition: (in evolutionary biology) Find two similar species than tell stories until we see a sudden change between two complete, whole species, aka evolutiondidit

Shouldnt you put in a disclaimer before you
make things up and present them as legit?

Like say, when you claimed there was a scandal?

You can do it like this:

"Disclaimer -
The following statements are based on no
known facts and are entirely the product
of my own imagination"

 

[Audie]

As I said earlier, most of the collections in the museum are carefully stored in cabinets and you will have get permission to access them. Access is available if you become part of a paleontology group, or through other organizations. Here are the links to over 4.75 million fossil specimens kept in the American Museum alone.
Collections

Museums are intended to interest and inform the public.

A strange creo- belief is that their purpose is to deceive.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Actual definition for transitional fossil in biology:

"A fossil that has a mixture of features from two divergent taxa."

For example, a species that has an ape-like skull and a human-like pelvis is a transitional fossil because it has a mixture of features of apes and humans. This is an objective observation that makes no assumptions about common ancestry or evolution. It simply looks at the features and sees if they are shared with any other species groups. What you fail to understand is that a transitional fossil could actually disprove the theory of evolution, and I will explain why.

These objective facts found in fossils can then be used to test the theory of evolution. This is because the theory of evolution predicts which mixtures of features there should have been in the past and which mixtures of features should NOT have existed in the past. For example, the theory of evolution predicts that there should have been species in the past who had a mixture of reptile and mammal features. The same theory also predicts that there should NOT have been species that had a mixture of mammal and bird features in the past. Each and every fossil we find is used to test these predictions, and evolution has passed this test with flying colors. Every fossil we have found supports the theory of evolution because they fall into the predicted pattern of a nested hierarchy.

You can't POSSIBLY be referring to the tree that is now a web and which web is constantly debated? It's storytelling to say what you just said regarding what should have been and should not have been!

 

[BilliardsBall]

Please, you know that this is not true. If you do not understand the proper thing to do is to ask for clarification. As it is you merely look like a liar when you make such a post and I am sure that you do not want people to think that of you.

This line of "argument" is not an argument at all, and evolutiondidit storytelling is yet to explain how fully formed species suddenly appear in the fossil record ALWAYS, with NO exceptions.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You can't POSSIBLY be referring to the tree that is now a web and which web is constantly debated? It's storytelling to say what you just said regarding what should have been and should not have been!

You can't just dismiss any explanation people present to you as "storytelling". Clearly you are extremely close-minded on this subject.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

This line of "argument" is not an argument at all, and evolutiondidit storytelling is yet to explain how fully formed species suddenly appear in the fossil record ALWAYS, with NO exceptions.

Now you're just outright lying. Nothing appears "suddenly" in the fossil record - we consistently find physiological ancestors and descendant to the fossils we find.