Would a living Dinosaur disprove Evolution?

[Papa Lazarou]

These guys definitely think so.

What is the Truth about Dinosaurs? - Creation Tod…: http://youtu.be/SIBzNz8KZdo

 

[Silk]

No, it wouldn't.

 

[Triggaaar]

No.

 

[Goldstone1976]

Well, there are some species that are believed not to have changed that much for millions of years, judging by comparing living examples with those in the fossil record. Ceolacanths and crocodiles to give just two examples. I'm not sure that folk believe that their existence disproves evolution - other than religious fundamentalists, of course.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

If you've got some free time, watch the video with a cup of tea (or coffee). They seem very confident in their assertions.

 

[Silk]

If you've got some free time, watch the video with a cup of tea (or coffee). They seem very confident in their assertions.

Really. The argument that it would disprove evolution seems to depend on the idea that in order for evolution to be true, ALL species MUST evolve. But evolutionary theory makes no such assertion. I doubt I'd waste my time listening to these bozos, however "confident" they are.

 

[Norman Potting]

Well, there are some species that are believed not to have changed that much for millions of years, judging by comparing living examples with those in the fossil record. Ceolacanths and crocodiles to give just two examples. I'm not sure that folk believe that their existence disproves evolution - other than religious fundamentalists, of course.

Presumably the environment in which they live is relatively stable so there would have been no need for them to evolve?

 

[Goldstone1976]

Presumably the environment in which they live is relatively stable so there would have been no need for them to evolve?

I'm not an expert in the field, but that would make sense. From a layman's perspective, that explanation would certainly work for ceolacanths, being deep ocean fish. It works perhaps less well for crocodiles?

 

[Papa Lazarou]

Really. The argument that it would disprove evolution seems to depend on the idea that in order for evolution to be true, ALL species MUST evolve. But evolutionary theory makes no such assertion. I doubt I'd waste my time listening to these bozos, however "confident" they are.

What astounds me is that in the US, and to an extent the UK too, people are lobbying and at times winning the right to teach this stuff in schools.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

I'm not an expert in the field, but that would make sense. From a layman's perspective, that explanation would certainly work for ceolacanths, being deep ocean fish. It works perhaps less well for crocodiles?

And if, however unlikely, there were some dinosaurs still living in the jungles of The Congo, I assume the same would apply there also.

 

[Goldstone1976]

And if, however unlikely, there were some dinosaurs still living in the jungles of The Congo, I assume the same would apply there also.

You are trying really hard to get me to watch the video, aren't you?

Hypothetically, I would say that it's even harder to explain that scenario than the crocodile one in terms of a non-changing environment. Deep sea fish? Yep, perhaps the environment hasn't changed that much. Nile crocodile? Hmmmm, surely it has. Tropical rainforest? Got to have changed dramatically - not least the geographic locations of them, meaning that if creatures have lived for millions of years unchanged, they'd have had to go on some pretty meaty migrations.

Anyway, I would assert that there are no dinosaurs (in the commonly accepted meaning of the word) living today in the Congo. Obviously, some might visit the Congo - Tony Pulis on holiday, for example.

 

[Codner pharmaceuticals]

No but anyone who found a plant, fish or insect alive would become a Nobel prize winner.

 

[Gullflyinghigh]

No more than a monkey would do. So no.

 

[CheeseRolls]

I'm not an expert in the field, but that would make sense. From a layman's perspective, that explanation would certainly work for ceolacanths, being deep ocean fish. It works perhaps less well for crocodiles?

Crocodiles live relatively long lives, with very high rates of infant mortality. It is perfectly possible that evolution is happening but not on a scale compatible with the human timeframe.

 

[Goldstone1976]

Crocodiles live relatively long lives, with very high rates of infant mortality. It is perfectly possible that evolution is happening but not on a scale compatible with the human timeframe.

Yes, that's true, and might be a partial explanation. However, the same can be said for lots of other species too. For examples, sea-based turtles. As far as I know, no-one is saying that they are fundamentally unchanged for millions of years, as they do for crocodiles.

To be clear, I don't want anyone thinking I don't believe in evolution! I do.

 

[MattBackHome]

No it obviously wouldn't.

 

[Albumen]

Here's a dinosaur. It evolved.

 

[Albumen]

You disprove a theory. Once it's a fact you can't disprove it. Evolution is a fact, no longer a theory.

 

[Trufflehound]

Here's a dinosaur. It evolved.

My first thoughts exactly.

 

[KZNSeagull]

Crocodiles live relatively long lives, with very high rates of infant mortality. It is perfectly possible that evolution is happening but not on a scale compatible with the human timeframe.

My mediocre knowledge of evolution is that things evolve to adapt to their environment. Crocs are highly evolved already and are perfectly adapted to their environment, so do not need to evolve much. If their environment changes, they will start to evolve faster.