@T.j_Runyon, I don’t want to start a new tangent and thread but someday when you have time, I’d be fascinated to learn more about what your multi-disciplinary path of coursework to becoming a paleontologist involves (in light of your particular specializations.) No doubt countless science PhDs are multi-disciplinary but I’m especially curious about what paleontologists have to master nowadays. I know only a little about paleontology and even I can think of at least a half dozen fields that you must have to master like the back of your hand. The mind boggles.
The comparative anatomy and taxonomy courses alone must take many years.
I’d love to discuss this. First, I have switched to anthropology. Emphasis on bioarchaeology. Why did I do this? My first love is history. I initially wanted to be a classicist. But then I discovered I’m good with bones. There are biographies in bones and I’m pretty darn good at reading them. So I turned to science. Initially focusing on Eocene Whales and Mosasaurs. I eventually wanted to work on Tyrannosaurs. But then my love for history reignited and I become more interested in the human story. So naturally bioarchaeology was the perfect way to bring those together. Bioarchaeology and paleobiology are very similar. Up to now I have had more training in paleontology than bioarchaeology. Especially in the lab. First and foremost you have to know your earth sciences (this is true of archaeology as well. Geoarchaeological studies etc. @swamidass place of employment is known for their geoarchaeological work ) taphonomy. Then lots and lots of anatomy. Comparative. Osteological studies (my current focus is on human osteology and comparative osteology. This will help me to be able to tell animal and human bone fragments apart found at archaeological sites.) Then you have to learn paleopathology to determine the health of the specimen (what I will do my Ph.D. In hopefully). Cladistics. I mean it goes on and on. It is very interdisciplinary. I love that. That’s another reason I chose archaeological science. You do chemistry, anatomy, molecular biology, biophysics, proteomics, genetics, evolutionary biology. I have so many interests so it’s really a great fit for me.
The best part about paleontology is when you uncover a bone you are the first person in the history of the universe to ever see that animal. It gives me chills every time.
And the first time I handled human remains was an emotional experience. The hands. The hands got me. I thought to myself the things those hands may have done. Held a child. Caressed a lover’s face. Built a shelter. Held a loved ones hand. I think the best part about being human is we tell stories. Stories have always put a sense of wonder in my life. And everyone has a story and their story deserves to be told.
You are right George.
That’s why scientists don’t consider God did it as a theory… Even those like @swamidass who believe it wouldn’t call it a scientific theory. Let me elaborate on the point that I am making.
In the 1800s Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation and gave an axiom that life arises from life. Common descent is ultimately an extension of that axiom… That life arises from life via reproduction. You cannot falsify it as long as we rely on natural causes.
The only thing that would falsify common descent is special creation and that is outside science.
I think you struggle with keeping your definitions aligned:
God-Guided Evolution, by definition, cannot be a scientific theory; it is a metaphysical stance on science.
The same is true for Special Creation; it is a metaphysical position.
Peaceful Science is the first combination in this generation of both Evolution AND Special Creation… where both is God Guided.
Your usual complaint about Special Creation being the only thing to falsify God-Guided Speciation isn’t even applicable within the context of Peaceful Science since it embraces both metaphysical positions at once.
Again, @Ashwin_s, who do you think this applies to? Peaceful Science avoids this cul de sac by allowing for Special Creation of Adam and Eve … and allowing for God-guided speciation.
It is completely in your power to stop confusing things by saying anybody here asserts that it IS a scientific theory. It CANNOT be a scientific theory. In this, you and I are in complete agreement.
Where we disagree is that you insist that there is no way to describe the idea that God can use natural processes to engage the Cosmos.
This is patently false:
God can use miracles OR evaporation to create rain.
And God can use special creation OR natural selection to create species.
When you are at Peaceful Science, the moderators will be watching closely that you are disputing what Peaceful Science is asserting… not what other groups are asserting.
Because of the broad range of subtleties involved in Peaceful Science… if you are allowed to confuse things by implying positions we don’t touch… we’ll never get anywhere.
So please confine your comments to the THEOLOGICAL implications of Creation and Evolution. We discuss science… but we also acknowledge that science alone is insufficient to explain Creation and Speciation.
Well, I hope you come to see the semantic distinctions: as soon as a scenario includes God’s participation… it’s no longer SCIENCE… but a theological position ABOUT SCIENCE.
Did some further reading on the subject of the placenta. AGauger seems to have a point about convergent evolution.
“The ancestral state reconstructions demonstrate both clade-specific patterns of placentation and specific cases of convergent evolution within individual eutherian clades.”
@Ashwin_s is an amateur linguist of sorts. He presumes to assault the idea of God-led evolution by saying it is bad science.
So before you get baited into the wrong direction, @t.j_runyon, it is important to realize that the phrase God-led Evolution is NOT a scientific statement on theology… it is a theological statement on science. So, by definition, a theological description of science MUST be a bad description of science!
If you struggle with this distinction, let me or @swamidass know!
Depending on how you define common ancestry. Almost everyone believes that common ancestry has occurred the question is how much and is it defined as occurring naturally from decent and natural variation only.