Evolution is a fact. The "theory" of evolution is an explaination to describe the mechanism of how the observed fact of evolution works.
It doesn't. Your conception of evolutionary theory seems to be leading you into repeated error, indicating that it is somehow badly confused. Where are you getting your understanding of "evolution" from? If we have some idea of your sources we can perhaps figure out what's wrong and set it right.
Given the evidence available, it would probably be fair to say that evolution can be falsified in the same way that gravity can be falsified. It's mathematical and biological law, now.
No. It would be exceedingly easy to fasify evolution if it was not true. All you have to do is find a modern mammal in a dinosaur dig. That is never seen though because those mammals had not yet evolved.
Precisely. That kind of over-the-top evidence would be a start. But it would need unassailable proof in context of reality.
I believe that mammals are a very old lineage that might predate the dinosaurs, depending on how fossil ancestors are classified. But they definitely coexisted with the dinosaurs during the period of dinosaur dominance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_mammals Of course these weren't modern mammals. They seem to have mostly been opossum-like things. The platypus-like monotremes were very early, and there were mammals resembling mice and even badgers.
Hah. That's true, mammal-like reptiles and mammals themselves were all over the dinosaur era. I suppose he means if you found a modern badger in a dinosaur fossil find.
Mammals generate internal body heat, while reptiles and dinosaurs use supplemental solar and external heating to warm their bodies. In both cases, the heating helps drive the reaction kinetics in their cells. The small size of the early mammals suggests their internal heating mechanism, burned a lot of calories, due to high constant reaction rates. The dinosaurs, were more cyclic, in terms of heating and reaction kinetics; going from warmed up super eater, to cooled down napper, causing weight gain. Mammal physiology evolved ways to control their reaction kinetics, so they could grow. Dinosaurs went the other way, allowing better reaction kinetics, even at lower temperatures. This made them get smaller.
I can see that, because that is the compromise bridge to the warm blooded critters. Reaction kinetics with enzymes increase up to a certain temperature, and then they will decrease as temperature gets too high. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Since life began in the sea, where the temperature is cool to moderate, the earliest enzymes of life would be more like enzyme A or even to the left of this. These critters will not take too kindly to getting too warm and could swim deeper to cool off. The cold blooded land critters would rich in enzymes near A, and they would become inhibited with to much external or internal heating. The jungle canopy helped out. What had to happen first, for the bridge to mammal, is are more enzyme states between A and B. These don't mind the heat and allows life to leave the canopy. If I was designing these new enzymes, you need reduced material in the core, with maybe sulfur crosslinks, to keep it was heat fluffing in warm water.
Are you sure you know what you are talking about? According to your own pseudo-scientific pet theory, mammals evolved during the Triassic, and developed alongside the dinosaurs.
There is a bit of a difference between rodent like mammals in the Triassic and dino's in the middle ages.
Yes. Are you seriously calling the scientific theory of evolution pseudo-science. That is kind of a stupid thing to say. I know, that is why I said a MODERN mammal found with the dinosaurs. Understand?
You did explicitly say that, which apparently even I missed. Anti-evolutionism relies on these opportunistic miscomprehensions and deliberate misinterpretations. Like its hypothesis, it is a magic act - but the banal, sideshow hokum kind.
As a matter of fact, the existence of mammals and reptiles over nearly the entirety of the dinosaur 'reign' that Origin mentions above has a much greater relevance. A common anti-evolutionary refrain is the false dilemma as to why we still have reptiles/chimps/apes when we also have mammals/birds/humans. Surely, is the pretense, if we still have the one form, evolution simply cannot be so - because, of course, evolution 'raises up' all members of given taxonomic group at the same rate, together, en masse, successionally. No? No. We have, right there, in hand, evidence of long, contemporary evolution of mammals and reptiles, followed by eventual replacement of reptiles as the 'top taxon' on Earth by mammals. For hundreds of millions of years. No ordinal and ubiquitous replacement of forms: just (mammalian) persistence, followed by radiative evolution and subsequent niche dominance. Why were there early mammals and dinosaurs together on Earth all that time? One should have eliminated the other! But no: because both forms worked in the roles into which they evolved, and changed as circumstance and opportunity allowed. Why are there still chimps? Well, why were there still dinosaurs when a perfectly viable rat-sized dinosaur was available?... for hundreds of millions of years. Edit: As a note, I'd be interested to see what natural systems (as in: our systems) the anti-evolutionists could propose that would, indeed, raise up all members of a species simultaneously so that one should expect no chimps when we have humans, nor dinosaurs when we have mammals as well, nor reptiles when we have birds. Pray tell: what theory, proposed by whom and when, posits such a massive, universal and complete change?
