It would have been nice to know. I wonder if we ever will. This is the question here: would we even find such tools though? We have a hard time picking out simple stone palm-axes from a mere 50 thousand years ago - would we find or recognize something like that 65 million years gone? Even serious primeval constructions - ziggurats, pyramids... other... ancient geometric thingies... would have crumbled to dust. Vulcanism, subsidence, general decay. What would their tools look like? What if they only worked in perishable materials? Maybe they really only liked wood or something, if they ever got to that point. God, I do wish we could though. Surely, with 12 million years or more in which to work, something would have happened? Or maybe the existence of fifty-foot landsharks with tiny arms inhibits village construction and maintenace, or something. Maybe skeletons is all we'll ever get, if we get anything.
Comment to the above "intelligent dinos" thing: the main argument against the possibility, to me, would seem to be the obvious one - that we haven't found any such dinos. Going by our experience, a really intelligent, dominant species would spread all over the goddamn place in a short time, so that they'd be global very quickly, maybe a hundred thousand years or so, or faster for therapods probably. Surely then, we should find them. Then again, they wouldn't have long persistence: just that short hundred thousand years. So, one would have to hit the right geological 'window' to detect them. In the final analysis, they're probably very unlikely. Maybe therapods just didn't 'have it' at that point to generate anything quite like us.
If the brains of therapods were as efficient as the brains of birds -in which some of the larger parrots and corvids seem to approach the more intelligent mammals using a fraction of the processing hardware - we could be looking at chimp level intelligence in the fossils we have. It's possible that the next step, to the early stages of the expensive tool-making brain, simply didn't pay off in a world of such huge and capable predators. Dinos grew very, very rapidly for a reason - and long childhoods seem to be a prerequisite for intelligence, in the few examples we have. Would early hominids have been able to travel at all, let alone carry tools etc, in a world of tyrannosaurs and the like?
Define modern? My point is, animals change, and we all know it. If you want a modern mammal found with the dinosaurs, it cannot be found by definition, and you know it. The very definition of modern precludes it. After all, if it was found with the dinosaurs, it is not modern, but ancient. So, as I always say, it is not possible to falsify evolution. Every criteria you keep raising either already happened and were explained away or cannot happen by definition.
Total unmitigated bullshit! http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution/falsifiable.php Is evolution falsifiable? Return to main evolution page David H. Bailey 1 Jan 2015 (c) 2015 Both creationist and intelligent design writers have asserted that evolution is at best a poor scientific theory, because it is not "falsifiable," which in the parlance of scientific philosophy means that the theory is too flexible -- no test could be devised that decisively rejects its key tenets. Creationist Ken Ham, for instance, has argued that theories such as evolution and the big bang cannot be tested, because no scientists were present to directly observe whether or not the conjectured events really took place [Ham2011]. Similarly, creationist Henry Morris has asserted that virtually any observation of the natural world could, with some adjustment, be accommodated within the overall evolutionary framework, and thus evolution is not worthy to be termed a solid scientific theory [Morris2000, pg. 6-7]. So does evolution really qualify as a first-rate scientific theory, or not? First of all, it should be noted that even some of Charles Darwin's original assertions have been falsified. For instance, he believed that organisms could acquire traits during a single lifespan and transmit these traits to offspring. But modern genetics has concluded otherwise -- acquired traits, with rare exceptions, are notpassed on to offspring. The current evolutionary paradigm, often termed the "modern synthesis," reflects this conclusion. Karl Popper, who more than any other scientific philosopher promoted falsifiability, initially regarded Darwinian evolution as only a metaphysical research program, because it was too difficult to test. Most of the claims by creationists and others regarding falsifiability derive from these comments by Popper. But subsequently Popper reversed his position, saying, "I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection, and I am glad to have the opportunity to make a recantation." [Popper1978]. In any event, there are numerous ways in which evolutionary theory can be tested and, if found wanting, would have to be rejected. Here are just a few: Charles Darwin himself proposed a rather strong test of evolution: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." [Darwin1859, pg. 175]. This is the basis of claims by various intelligent design writers that various biological structures, such as the vertebrate immune system or the bacterial flagellum, are "irreducibly complex" -- they consist of multiple components that could not develop in the absence of the others. However, these structures have been exhaustively studied in the scientific literature, and scientists have demonstrated entirely plausible evolutionary pathways. See Complexity. Famed biologist J. B. S. Haldane, when asked what evidence could disprove evolution, mentioned "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian era" [Ridley2004, pg. 66]. This is because mammals, according to current scientific analysis, did not emerge until approximately 40 million years ago, whereas the Precambrian era is prior to approximately 570 million years, when only the most primitive organisms existed on earth. Biologists had long conjectured that human chromosome number two was the result of a fusion of two corresponding chromosomes in most other primates. If DNA analysis of these chromosomes had shown that this was not the case, then modern evolutionary theory would indeed be drawn into question. This "fusion hypothesis" was indeed confirmed, rather dramatically, in 1993 (and further in 2005), by the identification of the exact point of fusion. For additional details see DNA. Modern DNA sequencing technology has provided a rigorous test of evolution, far beyond the wildest dreams of Charles Darwin. In particular, comparison of DNA sequences between organisms can be used as a measure of relatedness, and can further be used to actually construct the most likely "family tree" hierarchical relationship between a set of organisms. Such analyses have been done, and the results so far dramatically confirm the family tree that had been earlier constructed solely based on comparisons of body structure and biochemistry. For additional details see DNA. In a similar vein, some creationists claim that natural selection, meaning "survival of the fittest" is tautological, since "fitness" is nothing more than the ability to survive and reproduce. Actually, Darwin did not coin this phrase -- this was done by Herbert Spencer in 1864 -- but in any event it is not used very often in the evolutionary biology literature. A more careful definition of "fitness" is possessing certain traits that make survival and reproduction more likely in a given environment. Fitness alone does not ensure survival. Summary Evolution, when viewed in the modern context of a huge volume of convincing empirical data, entirely qualifies as a rigorously testable theory. And in fact it has survived decades of withering testing. This is precisely why evolution is taken so seriously as the governing paradigm of modern biology. It should also be pointed out that strict adherence to "falsifiability" is not an accurate description of the process of modern science. For one thing, major theories are seldom falsified by a single experimental result. There are always questions regarding the underlying experimental design, measurement procedures, and data analysis techniques, as well as questions of whether the underlying theories have been properly applied. For example, if we were to strictly apply Popper's principle, Copernicus' heliocentric theory was falsified from the start and should not have been further considered, because it could not predict planetary motions as accurately as the traditional Ptolemaic system. It only after Kepler modified the theory to include elliptical orbits with time-varying speeds, and when Newton showed that this behavior could be mathematically derived from his laws of motion, that it gained widespread acceptance. It must also be kept in mind that in most cases, "falsified" theories continue to be extremely accurate models of reality within appropriate domains. Even today, over 100 years after Newton's mechanics and Maxwell's electromagnetic equations were "falsified," they remain the basis of almost all practical engineering and scientific computations, giving results virtually indistinguishable from those of more advanced theories in all but highly exotic circumstances. """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/07/09/what-would-disprove-evolution/ And finally....... British biologist D.M.S. Watson said in Nature back in 1929: “The theory of evolution itself, a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/03/how-to-disprove.html
A horsy. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Two of the aforesaid "horsies" He means that if you found a modern horse skeleton mixed in sediment alongside dinosaur bones, that would be a serious refutation of descent with modification. It's possible, just not terribly likely, much like gravity. The finding of a modern horse skeleton in the belly of a fossilized T. rex would certainly be a serious blow. If animals have not changed with descent, such confoundments (perhaps not such stark ones) should be in evidence. It isn't the definition, but the science used to derive the definition, that's important.
No, if it is radiocarbon dated to 100 years ago, then it is not ancient, it is modern. Of course it is. Find an example of an organism that, in a single generation, made a step change into a completely different organism without any inheritance of previous structures or genome. Voila! Evolution is disproved.
Looks like lots of people are coming to agree with me: Return of Kings "Evolution is like a buggy software program that needs constant patching as more “testing” reveals its obvious flaws. Instead of just doing away with the theory, scientists will create all sort of monstrous octopus legs and attach them to the theory, creating exceptions that even Darwin himself couldn’t have imagined." "Say you encounter an article that says the following: “Men who go off to war have more children than men who don’t.” Evolution would describe this by saying that women want to reproduce with men who are most fit and strong and better able to defend the tribe. But let’s flip it and say “Men who don’t go off to war have more children than men who do.” Evolution can describe this too!(...) If evolution can be used to explain both sides of the coin, which is often does, it’s not a scientific theory but a rationalization theory that justifies any and all human behavior as somehow fitting the theory. In other words, the theory is like playdough that can fit in any situation (...) What’s convenient for evolutionists is that none of their assertions can be proven, meaning that evolution is not more than one step above astrology in terms of describing or predicting human behavior. It’s gibberish." So funny. Even RooshV is now using the same arguments I told you. Evolutionists are the only ones that can't see it.
At best you are just highly confused and blinded by your agenda, at worst you are a deliberate troll out to create whatever disruption you can in a science forum. Evolution is one scientific theory that is certain.....Abiogenesis is the reasonable and logical default position for the emergence of life.
http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/five-proofs-evolution Five Proofs of Evolution In this article, we look at five simple examples which support the Theory of Evolution. by Richard Peacock Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!1. The universal genetic code. All cells on Earth, from our white blood cells, to simple bacteria, to cells in the leaves of trees, are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth. This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended. 2. The fossil record. The fossil record shows that the simplest fossils will be found in the oldest rocks, and it can also show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another. Please watch this video for an excellent demonstration of fossils transitioning from simple life to complex vertebrates. 3. Genetic commonalities. Human beings have approximately 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats (source), 80% with cows (source), 75% with mice (source), and so on. This does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we shared a common ancestor in the past. And the amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged. 4. Common traits in embryos. Humans, dogs, snakes, fish, monkeys, eels (and many more life forms) are all considered "chordates" because we belong to the phylum Chordata. One of the features of this phylum is that, as embryos, all these life forms have gill slits, tails, and specific anatomical structures involving the spine. For humans (and other non-fish) the gill slits reform into the bones of the ear and jaw at a later stage in development. But, initially, all chordate embryos strongly resemble each other. In fact, pig embryos are often dissected in biology classes because of how similar they look to human embryos. These common characteristics could only be possible if all members of the phylum Chordatadescended from a common ancestor. 5. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Bacteria colonies can only build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution. It is important to note that in every colony of bacteria, there are a tiny few individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics. This is because of the random nature of mutations. When an antibiotic is applied, the initial innoculation will kill most bacteria, leaving behind only those few cells which happen to have the mutations necessary to resist the antibiotics. In subsequent generations, the resistant bacteria reproduce, forming a new colony where every member is resistant to the antibiotic. This is natural selection in action. The antibiotic is "selecting" for organisms which are resistant, and killing any that are not. References: National Geographic - Gene Study Wikipedia - Chordate
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/
That quickly comes apart, 'cause you can't argue that men who don’t go off to war have more children than men who do, 'cause that's not supported by observation. Young males killing other young males are exactly the ones, the fertile females end up having the children with. Which is a behavioral trait we share with chimps, our closest cousin. This is why the likes of ISIL has such an easy time recruiting, 'cause as long as they win and end up dominating the other males around them, there are girls waiting to reward them for butchering those other males, which is exactly what they were looking for going on a killing spree in the first place. Even if those females wake up from their hormonal high afterwards and regret it all (and then they're already knocked up, aren't they?). Otherwise, the likes of Charles Manson and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev wouldn't be solicited in prison. Human females don't want Nelson Mandela when they're ovulating, they want Robert Mugabe. If males want to get laid, all they have to do is dominate the other males; how is immaterial. Human mating behavior is the cause of all human war, entropy and corruption, this is why the mightiest of empires always collapse from within — in the fight for the fertile females.
I have to agree with you on this. Additionally, evolution is useless for predicting the speed of an object dropped from a height or predicting if the flow of water through a pipe is turbulent or laminar. What the theory of evolution is excels at though is describing the development and diversification of life on earth.
