What does Veeky Forums thinks about the feathered dino theory?

Ah yes, reminds me of something I discovered recently related to evolution: The main story people want us to believe is that 4-6 million years ago, humans didn't exist, and that we had a common ancestor with a chimpanzee. They say that this "wan't a chimp" but that it also "wasn't a human." So that means it would have to have features of both. The problem is, chimpanzees don't have features of both, and humans don't have features of both. If humans and chimps don't have features of both, then how could the common ancestor have features of both? That means either humans evoluved from chimps, or chimps evolved from humans. Obviously since humans are more advanced than chimps, the humans must have "evolved" from chimps. However, if chimps evolted into humans, then how are there still chimps? According to evolution, birds evolved from dinosaurs, therefore there are no dinosaurs left. If humans evolved from chimps, then IT MAKES NOT SENSE FOR THERE TO BE ANY CHIMPS

You might think "well, just because chimpanzees and humans had to have had a common ancestor that shared features of both humans and chimpanzees, that doesn't mean that its descendants would have to have those shared features," but that really doesn't make any sense. If I said, the ancestor had feature A, then both chimpanzees and humans would have to have feature A, because otherwise it wouldn't be a "shared feature." So say you had a common ancestor with features A, B, C, and D. If the chimp has A, B, C', and D', but the human has A', B', C, and D, then none of those features are "shared." Therefore, there's no evidence that the supposed common ancestor is related to either humons or chimps. If you wanted to demonstrate shared common descent, you would have to have something like birds, which all have wings (W), all have beaks (B), and who all have feathers (F). Dinosaurs had no wings (W'), teeth (B'), and some of them had feathers (F). Therefore, when you compare birds and dinosaurs, you can see that dinosaurs' features were MODIFIED, because all birds share certain features. If they didn't share certain features, like humans and chimps don't, then you would't have any reason to say birds and dinosaurs are related.

This has to beg the question, why do so many scientists believe in evolution? Even though many scientists do NOT believe in it, there is still a significant percent that does. If you think about it, the darwinists have the same evidence as us, but we can come to different conclusions because we don't have the bias of darwinism. Darwinism is the biased assumption that Richard Darwin had all the correct ideas about life science, based on the fact that he was a leading scientist of the time (the 19th century). Actually, Darwin wasn't even a real scientist, he just drew pictures and made stuff up on a boat, but the darwinists don't want to hear that. The bias of darwinism makes many people deluded into thinking that the evidence always points in favor of THEIR view, even though to an unbiased person that would not be the case. But the delusional/biased people aren't the only ones that make up believers in evolution. Since evolutionists have a monopoly on the media and on education, they are able to brainwash (for lack of a better word) aspiring students. That is how some people can continue to be deluded. However, science teachers also dismiss any evidence against evolution a priori, and even refuse to discuss it at all. Many students end up thinking that the only evidence out there is evidence IN FAVOR of evolution, and they're just ignorant of the facts that go against the mainstream theory.

what I want to know is why is mainstream science so opposed to questioning perspectives like this? There are a lot of people who are questioning the evidence in favor of common descent with modification, but we all know that teachers and scientists aren't interested in discussing the facts, they're interested in advancing their own agenda. The problem is, many students aren't satisfied with just being told "this is correct, you just have to accept it and ignore the holes in it." I don't want a theory full of "holes," I want one full of "wholes." If evolution can't explain why chimpanzees and humans can be extant together, even when they're supposed to be genetically related by a common ancestor, and that's the cornerstone of the theory, then why should we be expected to believe it? It's a sad symptom of the state of science when there are tens of thousands of "darwinism apologists" in our classrooms, and there are only a handful of dissenters (some of whom get blacklisted or imprisoned for questioning the consensus).

can't explain why should we had all the bias of the biased assumption that we can continue to evolution: The bias of the case. But the evidence against evolution can't explain why should we had a theory

back into the subject:

The problem is, chimpanzees and made stuff up believers in discussing the correct ideas about it, there are able to share and that he was a common ancestor have features of "wholes." If evolution can't explain why should we be deluded. However, if chimps don't have to have to brainwash (for lack of dissenters (some of darwinism. Darwinism is correct, you just being told "this is correct, you think about life science, based on the biased assumption that he was a common ancestor have a theory full of both, then how are there are only a significant percent that 4-6 million years ago, humans and that's the humans evolved from humans. Obviously since humans didn't exist, and there are tens of both. The problem is, many scientists aren't the theory, then why chimpanzees and ignore the darwinists have "evolved" from dinosaurs, therefore there are there still a human.

No no no, this is all wrong... The point isn't that "chimpanzees and made stuff up believers in discussing the correct ideas about it," if I understand you correctly, it's that evolutionists aren't able to come to the right comclusion based on biases.
It's not that "evolution can't explain why should we be deluded," because evolution doesn't try to explain that. Scientists who believe in evolution are the ones who need to explain why humans and chimps could have common ancestor.
The problem isn't that "many scientists aren't the theory," it's that many scientists don't QUESTION the theory.
Finally, no one claims that "the darwinists have evolved from dinosaurs," that's just a strawman. Dinosaurs evolved into birds, not humans.Humans and dinosaurs would have had a common acnestor that was similar to both humans and dinosaurs.

Evolution predicts that humans and spiders can have a common ancestor that shares both the features of a spider and a human. However, that common acnestor would also have to have the features of all the other mammals, because the spider-human ancestor would also be the acnestor of all mammals. That gets to be pretty complex.

/x/ would like to know who this Richard Darwin fellow is?

If you haven't, I would recommend reading "On The Origin of Species By Natural Selection" (1859) by a gentleman called Charles Robert Darwin (1809-1882). Pretty cool book.

The common ancestor of chimpanzees, and humans, if alive today, would have similar features compared to both. humans, and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestory many years ago.

>The problem is, chimpanzees don't have features of both, and humans don't have features of both. If humans and chimps don't have features of both, then how could the common ancestor have features of both?
The first sentence is false. Chimpanzees have features of both humans, and its common ancestor. Humans also have features of its common ancestor, and chimps.

>That means either humans evoluved from chimps, or chimps evolved from humans.
False dichotomy. It means that both humans, and chimps diverged from a common ancestor.

if you think about it, the common ancestor between humans and spiders actually isn't physically possible. Just think about the number of legs it would have had. Spiders have eight legs, humans have two, so you might think the common ancestor should have had 5 legs. However, the human-spider ancestor would have t o have had the features of the common ancestor of MAMMALs, not just humans. Since humans have 2, and other mammals have 4, then the number for the mammal ancestor would be 3. The spider-human ancestor would be (8+3)/2, which is 5.5. The human-spider ancestor would have to have had 5.5 legs, which is not a possible number of legs. If you have half a leg, it's not really a leg. You can have 5 legs, you can have 6 legs, but you can't have 5.5 legs. I think this means humans and spider would not have had a common ancestor, so they are from separate lineages in a family tree. Spiders might be the brother-in-law, and humans would be the brothers

>If evolution can't explain why chimpanzees and humans can be extant together, even when they're supposed to be genetically related by a common ancestor, and that's the cornerstone of the theory, then why should we be expected to believe it?
BECAUSE THEY DIVERGED FROM A COMMON ANCESTOR. EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY DOESN'T STATE THAT HUMANS EVOLVED FROM CHIMPS, OR VICE VERSA.

>paleonthologist believe that dinosaurs develop feathers as aesthetics
Maybe some of them, but insulation or camouflage seems a lot more likely

On the other hand, spiders have eight eyes. Humans have 2 eyes, and so do mammals. That means the spider-human acnestor will have had 5 eyes, just like you would expect. If spiders had 7 eyes, it would not work. However, this seems to actually be evidence in FAVOR of a common acnestor between spiders and humans/all mamals. There is another test for common ancestry, which is to look at the dna. If two species are descended from a common ancestor, then you would expect to see the same sequences of dna in both species. However, the spider genome has not been found to be identical to human dna in that respect, which is a result AGAINST relationship. The same is true for chimpanzees. If you look at chimpanzee dna, it may be similar in some places, but that's because it needs to do similar things (regulate bloodflow, make white blood cells, etc). In fact, humans have not been found, contrary to evolutionary prediciton, to have the same dna as ANY species whose dna has been thoroughly investigated.

>Spiders have eight legs, humans have two, so you might think the common ancestor should have had 5 legs.
/x/ says what?
>inb4 I don't know the common ancestor
Why would it have to have any legs at all. What if legs were an evolutionary development that occurred after the species diverged.

I was raised a Creationist, not "brainwashed" by Darwinism in school. I read the book and then looked into evolution in general. Pretty much makes sense. Read the book dude.

see (me) above

All I'm saying is if you identify common ancestors based on shared features, whether that's DNA matching or morphological traits, then you can't account for spiders and human relationship. Say you make the claim that shrimp are the common ancestor of humans and spiders. Ok, so 300 million years ago, some shrimp got isolated and underwent speciation. Then later maybe another group of shrimp branched off. The original shrimp population remained unchanged. Ok, as unlikely as that is, even if it were the case, it still doesn't explain how spiders have 8 legs and humans have 2 legs. The common ancestor of humans are mammals, which have 4 legs, so if you compare humans and mammals, their common ancestor had to have had 3 legs in order to be the simplest amount of change between each species. However, if you apply the same comparative method to spiders and mammals, you see that it's impossible to have a common ancestor with that number of legs. Adding shrimp in there just makes things even more difficult, because the common ancestor of humans and spiders now also has to have a common ancestor with a shrimp, which has I don't know how many legs, so you'll get an even more bizarre fraction number of legs.

same here. taught creationism in school, basically told that evolution was completely illogical and should be avoided. the sad thing is these kind of posts are pretty close to the kind of thing that gets taught as legitimate arguments against evolution in creationist classrooms.

>Say you make the claim that shrimp are the common ancestor of humans and spiders.
Then that would make no sense, because shrimp are extant, not extinct. Something can only be a biological common ancestor if it is extinct.

Please don't tell me you are actually a creationist. I weep for the future of biology.

it's an interesting possibility, but note that one ancient species with 0 legs does not imply that the ultimate common ancestor has 0 legs. with these kinds of things, there's no way of knowing whether the old species like the one you mentioned is actually the exact species that gave descent to all its purported descendants. for example, it is more likely that this species is only peripherally related to humans and spiders, and was rather related to the common ancestor of humans and spiders instead of being THE exact common ancestor. for this reason, such a discoverey introduces the new issue of a 0-legged ancestor into the average. first we can find the # of legs for the human-speider ancestor (assuming binary branching evolutioniary history), and then add that in with the 0-legged ancestor. this gives us 5 legs for the human-spider ancestor, and then 2.5 legs for the human-spider-worm common ancestor, which is not a valid leg number, unless you consider fractional legs to indicate some kind of vestigial developmentations.

/x/ shakes it's head
Have you ever seen this chart?
>see pic

Your posts are either very poor bait or you should come join us on /x/. Your argument does not belong here on Veeky Forums. Your argument is ridiculous.

Read the book

definitely not a creationist

while it's an interesting proposition that the common ancestor had 0 legs, which would imply that legs are a common innovation of spiders and mammals, that would be a misunderstanding of the term "common innovcation." You see, the term "common innovation" is used to refer to a trait that is shared by two or more groups of organisms in biological-classificational terms, which means that the common ancestor of the creatures in question, those with the so-called "common innovation," would have had that trait. unfortunately, though there may well have been a 0-leg creature in theory, it does not avoid the problem of the existence of an acnestor somewhere along the line that must have had the leg trait which spiders and human inerhited. with the existence of such an ancestor established, it must have gone through the minimal changes possible to reach humans and spiders respectively in order to comply with evolutionary theory. this means that whatever the middle ground between humans and spiders is, that's what the common ancestor had, because then humans and spiders would only have to independently innovate by half the number of legs as the original ancestor. however, since mammals+humans ancestor is 3 legs, and spiders are 8, that gives the common ancestor the inconceivable number of 5.5 for a number of legs, which is not consistent with evolutionary theory.

this raises an interesting point, one about which i never thought about beofre. Assume the truth of the whale-pelvic-bone hypothesis, and then consider the consequences "evolutionarily."
it seems reasonable that the center of gravity of the whale would certainly lower it to the ground during its expansion over many generations, therefore it is likely that to compensate for its enormous girth it would take to the water as the result of Adaptation/adaptions. However, interestingly, this creates one small problem for the calculations of the truth values of the number of legs for the mammal family. If whales do actually belong to said family according to the lineage described, then what is the number of legs that they do have? Is it zero or is it 1? Whales obviously do not have legs in the traditional sense of the word, but in this case a radical reanaliysis of the facts seems to warrant an altered understanding of the notion "leg." therefore, wouldn't it be logical to propose a leg ennumeration system in which flippers and hip bones together constitute one single leg? In this case, the correct predicted number of legs for the mammal ancestor should be 1+2+4/3, which is 3.5. Unfortunately, If I'm interpreting the data correctly, this result does not bode well for the inclusion of whales into the mammal family.

>none of us have heard of it
What do you mean by "us", Peasant?

>>Had to have 3 legs
You lost me man, that's retarded.