Adam And The Apes

[thesometimesaint]

Do they adapt? or do they just move somewhere else?  Most animals I know migrate to regions they like - they control their own environment, and change their environment, rather than letting the environment change them.

Some define life as merely "that which is acted upon", while others define life as something that is able to "act" (rather than just react).  I believe in life that is able to act - whose attributes are not just a result of environment (can you say someone will never amount to anything because of the environment they grew up in?), not just a result of DNA (it's racist to suggest that who someone is is the color of their skin, or anything else defined by their DNA).  We are more than our environment, we are more than our DNA - we seek for more than mere survival (the rocks survive, and do not evolve to do so) we seek eternal progression.  

 

 

What are you talking about? When was the last time you saw a Spider Monkey happily swimming in the Arctic Ocean eating fish, or Walrus frolicking through the trees eating bananas along the Amazon?

 

No scientist I know thinks that life is merely that which is acted upon. Every living thing acts and reacts to its environment. Take away our technology and we're just as subject to our environment as the lowly Amoeba is of its.

 

Evolution really doesn't concern itself the religoi-sociopolitical machinations of  idiots and bigots who put spiritual or intellectual conclusions based on skin color and/or personal wealth.  DNA in humans is like the engine in an automobile. Without it you don't get very far, and even if it did. It still has to be hooked up to something.

[bcuzbcuz]

Ultimately there are rocks that we look at and make the mental connection between the shape of the rocks and the shape of what we call "bones", and then we make up an explanation about how bones become rocks.

 

Then we arrange what we think we know about "bones" into what we think is some kind of order, and call all that "species".  Then we take all that and try to make up some explanation for how it all got that way.

 

That's scientific belief and how it works.  If you want to call that "true" I have no problem with that as long as we know what is "really" going on.

 

 

 

How right you would be, if we were only talking about a few scattered, oddly shaped, bones. You talk about explanations that are made up, of rocks that somehow give vague impressions of looking like bones. How wrong you are.

 

If you look at the bone structure of any human leg, the femur, tibia, fibula and metatarsal bones, you'll see they're all are easily distinguished. CSI investigators would have untold difficulty identifying bones if a tiny bone from a finger could be mistaken as the femur from an extremely small human. Or if a metatarsal bone from a Stegosaurus could be mistaken for the femur of an oddly shaped human. 

 

Museums around the world have literally millions of fossilized bones from dinosaurs, and countless hundreds of thousands more bones are in the possession of anonymous  persons. I have a small collection myself. You, or others here on this board, probably have fossilized dinosaur bones at home, as well. But a femur looks like a femur, and cannot be mistaken as a tibia. The "rocks and shapes" you describe are not merely figments of overactive imaginations, creating fantastical dragons, but are very clearly distinguishable by their form. Very precise forms. 

 

But of course, it we were only talking bones, I guess someone could argue that fossils aren't real, But there's so much more than just bones. Footprints, skin prints, feather prints, whole skeletons of dinosaurs, whole skeletons of fish, whole imprints of insects, wings and all, teeth, pollen, seeds and, of course, even scat. I think it takes a bigger imagination to deny what has been found than to see what has been found and keeping one's eyes wide open. 

 

But then again, I don't know what reality you're living in.

Edited January 26, 2014 by bcuzbcuz

[bcuzbcuz]

Right off I see the archaeopteryx which has had some very highly critical arguments against it being a transitional fossil between dinosaurs and birds. First you have the hoax stories and then you have scientists who say it was actually a true bird with flight feathers and not a transitional fossil at all. This is supposed to be the Rosetta stone fro evolutionists and yet they can't even determine if it is a hoax, a transitional, or just a more fully developed bird of flight.

 

You're probably aware that the archaeopteryx you mention is far from the only example of feathered dinosaurs. There are currently close to two dozen feathered dinosaur fossils that have been uncovered, feathers, bones and all. 

 

The only hoax that has actually been shown to be a hoax, regarding the archaeopteryx, is the hoax hoisted by Hoyle and Watkins. Read the discussion, both pros and cons on:

 http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC351.html

[Helen47]

Dr Francis Collins on evolution

 

""It is certainly true in the United States that there is an uneasiness about certain aspects of science, particularly evolution, because it conflicts, in some people's minds, with their sense of how we all came to be," Collins said. "But you know, if you are a believer in God, it's hard to imagine that God would somehow put this incontrovertible evidence in front of us about our relationship to other living organisms and expect us to disbelieve it. I mean, that doesn't make sense at all. So as soon as you kind of get over the anxiety about the whole thing, it actually adds to your sense of awe about this amazing universe that we live in, it doesn't subtract from it at all."

 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/25/francis-collins-davos_n_4635338.html?utm_hp_ref=religion&ir=Religion

[changed]

 

No scientist I know thinks that life is merely that which is acted upon. Every living thing acts

There are some who believe true free will does not exist, that everything we do can be traced back - not to our own will, but to some outside cause.  Science revolves around reactions - cause and effect.  I have listened to many who claim our actions are caused entirely by nature/nurture/DNA/environment, rather than looking at the third option - that we can cause our own actions, regardless of nature/nurture/DNA/environment.  Yes, things like racism and classism are looked down on because everyone knows that who we are is not a result of our DNA - not a result of who our parents are, or the neighborhood we grew up in - to suggest that we are products of mere nature/nurture - AKA DNA/neighborhood is insulting and degrading to what life really is.  It's not about who our parents are (do you hold the same religious beliefs as your parents?  I don't), it's not about where you grew up (Can you say that everyone who grew up in __________ are __________ (selfish, loving, honest, or cruel)?  No.  It's not about where you grew up, it's not about your DNA - it's about your spirit, about your intelligence, your conscience, mind, thoughts, character, personality - call it what you want, but there is more to us than DNA/environment, and more to us than robots reacting to an environment.    

[Rob Osborn]

You're probably aware that the archaeopteryx you mention is far from the only example of feathered dinosaurs. There are currently close to two dozen feathered dinosaur fossils that have been uncovered, feathers, bones and all. 

 

The only hoax that has actually been shown to be a hoax, regarding the archaeopteryx, is the hoax hoisted by Hoyle and Watkins. Read the discussion, both pros and cons on:

 http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC351.html

The big question yet to be solved is actually how dinosaurs evolved into full flight birds. Archaepteryx is not the answer to this mystery. They still cant figure out if it was a bird or a dinosaur

[katherine the great]

Do they adapt? or do they just move somewhere else?  Most animals I know migrate to regions they like - they control their own environment, and change their environment, rather than letting the environment change them.

Some define life as merely "that which is acted upon", while others define life as something that is able to "act" (rather than just react).  I believe in life that is able to act - whose attributes are not just a result of environment (can you say someone will never amount to anything because of the environment they grew up in?), not just a result of DNA (it's racist to suggest that who someone is is the color of their skin, or anything else defined by their DNA).  We are more than our environment, we are more than our DNA - we seek for more than mere survival (the rocks survive, and do not evolve to do so) we seek eternal progression.  

 

Moving somewhere else IS a type of adaptation.  If an organism doesn't have the wherewithal to move to greener pastures and it stays in an environment it is not fit for, it is eliminated through natural selection.  If it has the mechanisms that drive it to move, and it finds an environment it can survive in then it is selected for.  Scientists recognize that most humans are impacted by their own reasoning abilities and that we do not always act on instinct alone.  Our higher reasoning skills are why we are so successful as a species.  We most certainly did not come this far on our good looks alone.  Those higher reasoning skills are given to us through genetics--we inherited them from our ancestors.

[katherine the great]

There are some who believe true free will does not exist, that everything we do can be traced back - not to our own will, but to some outside cause.  Science revolves around reactions - cause and effect.  I have listened to many who claim our actions are caused entirely by nature/nurture/DNA/environment, rather than looking at the third option - that we can cause our own actions, regardless of nature/nurture/DNA/environment.  Yes, things like racism and classism are looked down on because everyone knows that who we are is not a result of our DNA - not a result of who our parents are, or the neighborhood we grew up in - to suggest that we are products of mere nature/nurture - AKA DNA/neighborhood is insulting and degrading to what life really is.  It's not about who our parents are (do you hold the same religious beliefs as your parents?  I don't), it's not about where you grew up (Can you say that everyone who grew up in __________ are __________ (selfish, loving, honest, or cruel)?  No.  It's not about where you grew up, it's not about your DNA - it's about your spirit, about your intelligence, your conscience, mind, thoughts, character, personality - call it what you want, but there is more to us than DNA/environment, and more to us than robots reacting to an environment.    

You are trying to simplify something that is extremely complex.  Do you expect scientific publications to factor in the spirit?  That will never happen because there is no scientific evidence for a spirit.  I personally believe we all have a spirit but I would never mention it in a scientific paper because it doesn't fall under the domain of science.  (and it would never be published.)  

[changed]

You are trying to simplify something that is extremely complex.  Do you expect scientific publications to factor in the spirit?  That will never happen because there is no scientific evidence for a spirit.  I personally believe we all have a spirit but I would never mention it in a scientific paper because it doesn't fall under the domain of science.  (and it would never be published.)  

There are the living, and the non-living sciences... two different disciplines because they are so different in nature.  Papers which try and explain why people act the way they do are often filled with subjective unverified speculations... and yes, everything does not fall under the domain of science - liberal arts exists because everything cannot be explained by science, and the liberal arts fields are valid, and worthy pursuits just as science is.  

Science can explain things that are acted upon... it doesn't do very well understanding and controlling the things that can act in and of themselves... that's where liberal arts comes into play.

Edited January 26, 2014 by changed

[Stone holm]

There are some who believe true free will does not exist, that everything we do can be traced back - not to our own will, but to some outside cause.  Science revolves around reactions - cause and effect.  I have listened to many who claim our actions are caused entirely by nature/nurture/DNA/environment, rather than looking at the third option - that we can cause our own actions, regardless of nature/nurture/DNA/environment.  Yes, things like racism and classism are looked down on because everyone knows that who we are is not a result of our DNA - not a result of who our parents are, or the neighborhood we grew up in - to suggest that we are products of mere nature/nurture - AKA DNA/neighborhood is insulting and degrading to what life really is.  It's not about who our parents are (do you hold the same religious beliefs as your parents?  I don't), it's not about where you grew up (Can you say that everyone who grew up in __________ are __________ (selfish, loving, honest, or cruel)?  No.  It's not about where you grew up, it's not about your DNA - it's about your spirit, about your intelligence, your conscience, mind, thoughts, character, personality - call it what you want, but there is more to us than DNA/environment, and more to us than robots reacting to an environment.

There are Calvinists lurking amongst us as well who believe God knows how each of us will end upend what choices we will make in advance.

[mfbukowski]

 

How right you would be, if we were only talking about a few scattered, oddly shaped, bones. You talk about explanations that are made up, of rocks that somehow give vague impressions of looking like bones. How wrong you are.

 

If you look at the bone structure of any human leg, the femur, tibia, fibula and metatarsal bones, you'll see they're all are easily distinguished. CSI investigators would have untold difficulty identifying bones if a tiny bone from a finger could be mistaken as the femur from an extremely small human. Or if a metatarsal bone from a Stegosaurus could be mistaken for the femur of an oddly shaped human. 

 

Museums around the world have literally millions of fossilized bones from dinosaurs, and countless hundreds of thousands more bones are in the possession of anonymous  persons. I have a small collection myself. You, or others here on this board, probably have fossilized dinosaur bones at home, as well. But a femur looks like a femur, and cannot be mistaken as a tibia. The "rocks and shapes" you describe are not merely figments of overactive imaginations, creating fantastical dragons, but are very clearly distinguishable by their form. Very precise forms. 

 

But of course, it we were only talking bones, I guess someone could argue that fossils aren't real, But there's so much more than just bones. Footprints, skin prints, feather prints, whole skeletons of dinosaurs, whole skeletons of fish, whole imprints of insects, wings and all, teeth, pollen, seeds and, of course, even scat. I think it takes a bigger imagination to deny what has been found than to see what has been found and keeping one's eyes wide open. 

 

But then again, I don't know what reality you're living in.

 

Yes I know all these things.  You just point out the validity of what I have said.

 

Who invented the concept of "tibia" in the first place?  Did the first person who found one call it a "tibia" and relate how it related to "metatarsals"?   Obviously not.  Did he know that a pig "tibia" should have the same name as a giraffe "tibia"?   When he ate an animal did he know we would have museums preserving his garbage and his obsidian arrowheads?

 

I am talking about the development of language, and all human knowledge, including the conceptual background of your precious tibias.  First was the observation that some funny rocks looked like leg parts, then all else followed conceptually.

 

Fortunately for you. you are the recipient of eons of human experience all preserved in our culture and languages.

 

THAT is your "reality" and you cannot even imagine how it came to be.

 

Those concepts are not out there laying around to be discovered.  It took eons of human knowledge to put it all together - essentially to invent it- and organize what was once what was matter unorganized.  The organization took place in human knowledge.  Species are not "out there" - the entire CONCEPT of "species" exists only culturally.

 

If they were "out there" we would have known all we now know thousands upon thousands of years ago.  We had to invent the terms and organize the regularities.

Edited January 27, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Freedom]

Science can explain things that are acted upon... it doesn't do very well understanding and controlling the things that can act in and of themselves... that's where liberal arts comes into play.

Uh, no. You are completely wrong here. Biology, for example, is the study of things that can act in and of themselves, as is psychology. Good grief. 

[mfbukowski]

There are Calvinists lurking amongst us as well who believe God knows how each of us will end upend what choices we will make in advance.

Why bother living then?  Did God create us as robots for his amusement?  What a silly idea!

[bcuzbcuz]

Yes I know all these things.  You just point out the validity of what I have said.

 

Who invented the concept of "tibia" in the first place?  Did the first person who found one call it a "tibia" and relate how it related to "metatarsals"?   Obviously not.  Did he know that a pig "tibia" should have the same name as a giraffe "tibia"?   When he ate an animal did he know we would have museums preserving his garbage and his obsidian arrowheads?

 

I am talking about the development of language, and all human knowledge, including the conceptual background of your precious tibias.  First was the observation that some funny rocks looked like leg parts, then all else followed conceptually.

 

Fortunately for you. you are the recipient of eons of human experience all preserved in our culture and languages.

 

THAT is your "reality" and you cannot even imagine how it came to be.

 

Those concepts are not out there laying around to be discovered.  It took eons of human knowledge to put it all together - essentially to invent it- and organize what was once what was matter unorganized.  The organization took place in human knowledge.  Species are not "out there" - the entire CONCEPT of "species" exists only culturally.

 

If they were "out there" we would have known all we now know thousands upon thousands of years ago.  We had to invent the terms and organize the regularities.

 

I agree. I obviously misunderstood the thrust of your post.

[bcuzbcuz]

The big question yet to be solved is actually how dinosaurs evolved into full flight birds. Archaepteryx is not the answer to this mystery. They still cant figure out if it was a bird or a dinosaur

 

And that is the point exactly, I couldn't have stated it better. The archaeopteryx displays the common bird breastbone, wishbone structure of birds, long, extended, broad wings, along with feathers and yet as a mature animal displays the sharp teeth in the jaws, three fingers with claws, a hyper extensible second toe and long, extended tail bones of the small dinosaurs. Bird? or dinosaur? or both? A truly transitional animal.

 

The different finds, a dozen from the same and similar pits, in 1861and up to present time, from northern European Bavaria have provided ample material to study. Now, from China, have come another dozen feathered dinosaurs of different species to add new details to the study. I get a boyish thrill every time a new find is announced. They're even conducting molecular cell spectrometry studies at Stanford, California, to see if the feathers have maintained feather coloration.

 

This is find no. 11 from Europe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Archaeopteryx_lithographica_-_11_specimen.jpg

 

It excites the imagination.

[changed]

Moving somewhere else IS a type of adaptation.  If an organism doesn't have the wherewithal to move to greener pastures and it stays in an environment it is not fit for, it is eliminated through natural selection.  If it has the mechanisms that drive it to move, and it finds an environment it can survive in then it is selected for.  Scientists recognize that most humans are impacted by their own reasoning abilities and that we do not always act on instinct alone.  Our higher reasoning skills are why we are so successful as a species.  We most certainly did not come this far on our good looks alone.  Those higher reasoning skills are given to us through genetics--we inherited them from our ancestors.

I don't think moving somewhere else is adapting - here is the definition of what adapting is:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adapt

 

adapt

 verb \ə-ˈdapt, a-\

: to change your behavior so that it is easier to live in a particular place or situation

 

and I do not believe that our higher reasoning skills are inherited - again, that comes back to racist ideologies, thinking that who someone is, and what they are capable of is dependent on their family tree = the color of their skin - the things DNA controls.  Our spirit controls who we are, not the color of our skin, not our DNA.  The skills we attain in this life are due to work/study - our own proactive will, not from what we are born with.  I'm  a teacher, and we discuss this every year at our in-service, one of the real issues with kids is a false perception that they cannot improve because they do not recognize their own responsibility in controlling their own fate - they use the excuse "this is just who I am, I'm stuck with myself and cannot change", that false idea that we are controlled by our DNA/environment/outward circumstances, that we cannot change ourself, is very destructive.   

 

 

There are Calvinists lurking amongst us as well who believe God knows how each of us will end upend what choices we will make in advance.

I'm a determinist myself, but am not a Calvanist in that I believe we "determine" our own actions, rather than God determining our actions.

 

 

Uh, no. You are completely wrong here. Biology, for example, is the study of things that can act in and of themselves, as is psychology. Good grief. 

We are made of of two parts - physical, and spiritual.  The physical side of us is created by stuff that is "acted upon" and can be studied and predicted through science.  There is another part though, our spirit, which cannot be predicted/classified/understood.  Biology is not the study of things that act in and of themselves, it is the study of how things react to external stimuli - as all of science is.  Biology cannot predict what the next hit song will be, or what actions someone will take in a certain scenario will be, it cannot predict things created by free will, it can only understand things that are dictated by natural laws.

[thesometimesaint]

There are some who believe true free will does not exist, that everything we do can be traced back - not to our own will, but to some outside cause.  Science revolves around reactions - cause and effect.  I have listened to many who claim our actions are caused entirely by nature/nurture/DNA/environment, rather than looking at the third option - that we can cause our own actions, regardless of nature/nurture/DNA/environment.  Yes, things like racism and classism are looked down on because everyone knows that who we are is not a result of our DNA - not a result of who our parents are, or the neighborhood we grew up in - to suggest that we are products of mere nature/nurture - AKA DNA/neighborhood is insulting and degrading to what life really is.  It's not about who our parents are (do you hold the same religious beliefs as your parents?  I don't), it's not about where you grew up (Can you say that everyone who grew up in __________ are __________ (selfish, loving, honest, or cruel)?  No.  It's not about where you grew up, it's not about your DNA - it's about your spirit, about your intelligence, your conscience, mind, thoughts, character, personality - call it what you want, but there is more to us than DNA/environment, and more to us than robots reacting to an environment.    

 

Irrelevant to evolution.

[thesometimesaint]

I don't think moving somewhere else is adapting - here is the definition of what adapting is:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adapt

 

adapt

 verb \ə-ˈdapt, a-\

: to change your behavior so that it is easier to live in a particular place or situation

 

and I do not believe that our higher reasoning skills are inherited - again, that comes back to racist ideologies, thinking that who someone is, and what they are capable of is dependent on their family tree = the color of their skin - the things DNA controls.  Our spirit controls who we are, not the color of our skin, not our DNA.  The skills we attain in this life are due to work/study - our own proactive will, not from what we are born with.  I'm  a teacher, and we discuss this every year at our in-service, one of the real issues with kids is a false perception that they cannot improve because they do not recognize their own responsibility in controlling their own fate - they use the excuse "this is just who I am, I'm stuck with myself and cannot change", that false idea that we are controlled by our DNA/environment/outward circumstances, that we cannot change ourself, is very destructive.   

 

 

I'm a determinist myself, but am not a Calvanist in that I believe we "determine" our own actions, rather than God determining our actions.

 

 

We are made of of two parts - physical, and spiritual.  The physical side of us is created by stuff that is "acted upon" and can be studied and predicted through science.  There is another part though, our spirit, which cannot be predicted/classified/understood.  Biology is not the study of things that act in and of themselves, it is the study of how things react to external stimuli - as all of science is.  Biology cannot predict what the next hit song will be, or what actions someone will take in a certain scenario will be, it cannot predict things created by free will, it can only understand things that are dictated by natural laws.

 

What about moving isn't adapting? . People whom live at higher altitudes have physically bigger hearts than their lowland cousins.

 

While there is regression to the mean in human intelligence, that takes many generations to accomplish. Further that has little to do with adaptability. IE; Put Einstein in the Outback of Australia, and he'd be worse off than the Aboriginal children.

 

Unfortunately if something can't be "predicted/classified/understood" there isn't much for science to work with.

 

I predict that if you were to walk up to a person whom had no knowledge of the law/lawyers and hit them. They'd run away, or hit you back, or ask you why you hit them. What they probably wouldn't do is sue you in court.

[changed]

Irrelevant to evolution.

Darwin believed free will was an illusion because of his take on evolution.... 

“…one doubts existence of free will every action determined by hereditary constitution, example of others or teaching of others. (…man…probably the only [animal] affected by various knowledge which is not heredetary & instinctive) & the others are learnt, what they teach by the same means & therefore properly no free will. [Emphasis added]

[changed]

What about moving isn't adapting? . People whom live at higher altitudes have physically bigger hearts than their lowland cousins.

 

While there is regression to the mean in human intelligence, that takes many generations to accomplish. Further that has little to do with adaptability. IE; Put Einstein in the Outback of Australia, and he'd be worse off than the Aboriginal children.

 

Unfortunately if something can't be "predicted/classified/understood" there isn't much for science to work with.

 

I predict that if you were to walk up to a person whom had no knowledge of the law/lawyers and hit them. They'd run away, or hit you back, or ask you why you hit them. What they probably wouldn't do is sue you in court.

A bird doesn't grow fat to adapt to winter conditions, it remains as it is, and migrates somewhere else.  If Einstein was brought up in the outback, I'm sure his spirit would learn and do well there too.  Yes, science can't work with a single entity all on it's own - relativity - you need two things for science to work, two things reacting to one another, interacting with one another... If you just have one thing - acting in and of itself, not reacting to a second object, not acting relative to anything else, just acting in and of itself, science cannot describe it.  That is why there are many things about ourselves that science cannot describe - we can do things, not because we were taught about them, or because we inherited info, but 100% from our own eternal mind/intelligence/spirit. 

[Rob Osborn]

I personally believe the spirit is the brain center or medium for how such a vast system of cells can communicate and build life together.

[thesometimesaint]

Darwin believed free will was an illusion because of his take on evolution.... 

“…one doubts existence of free will every action determined by hereditary constitution, example of others or teaching of others. (…man…probably the only [animal] affected by various knowledge which is not heredetary & instinctive) & the others are learnt, what they teach by the same means & therefore properly no free will. [Emphasis added]

 

Whatever Darwin's personal beliefs about "Free Will" they are irrelevant to evolution.

[thesometimesaint]

A bird doesn't grow fat to adapt to winter conditions, it remains as it is, and migrates somewhere else.  If Einstein was brought up in the outback, I'm sure his spirit would learn and do well there too.  Yes, science can't work with a single entity all on it's own - relativity - you need two things for science to work, two things reacting to one another, interacting with one another... If you just have one thing - acting in and of itself, not reacting to a second object, not acting relative to anything else, just acting in and of itself, science cannot describe it.  That is why there are many things about ourselves that science cannot describe - we can do things, not because we were taught about them, or because we inherited info, but 100% from our own eternal mind/intelligence/spirit. 

 

Actually birds do put on weight(get fat) before migrating to where more food is available. IE; Humming Birds

See http://www.learner.org/jnorth/tm/humm/pig_out_migra_prep.html

 

No Einstein would have done just about as well as the Aboriginal child.

 

I don't know what you mean by that. Please clarify.

 

That is purely a religious belief. IE; If you can't count past the whole number 10 it is highly unlikely you'll understand the concept of Pi.

Edited January 27, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[Nofear]

You are trying to simplify something that is extremely complex.  Do you expect scientific publications to factor in the spirit?  That will never happen because there is no scientific evidence for a spirit.  I personally believe we all have a spirit but I would never mention it in a scientific paper because it doesn't fall under the domain of science.  (and it would never be published.)  

Does not currently have scientific evidence (at least that we are aware of). One of the things about science is that we cannot scientifically observe that for which we do not have a theory or model. Outside of our scientific theories we simply see anomalies. So, until such time as we have a model for spirit matter it is quite impossible to explain our observations as being spirit matter.

 

PS: For my own part, I have yet to successfully describe a functioning model of how spirit matter would work. I can tell you quite a few things that won't work, however.

[mfbukowski]

Bird? or dinosaur? or both? A truly transitional animal.

Neither and both.  We haven't invented a name for it yet- but we will.  Just another step in our creation of what we call "science".

 

But make no mistake.  It IS our creation.