I wasn't being malicious, possibly mistaken but not malicious. I am sincerely sorry that offended you but it is how I interpreted "credibility wanes with dates before that", "that" being pre 2000 BCE. Perhaps I misinterpreted so please clear this up and reveal just how old you suppose Earth is and possibly add why you think credibility wanes before "that".

As I stated, I don't believe you want to hear the evidence so it is on you to look it up, not me to offer up a sacrificial animal. I frankly don't care much from what lineage reptiles evolved. I only care about the process which is all around us and going that far back is for the experts in that field and zealots mistakenly seeking to disprove the whole. In my estimation you don't actually care about the evidence of the evolution of reptiles since I take it you imagine if you can poke a hole in one branch the whole "tree" comes tumbling down. Sorry... it does not.

In fact it is very similar to the data from JWST that is causing scientists to adjust their models of galaxy evolution. The date at which complexity occurred has to be moved back but in no way does Big Bang depend on that any more than discovering an adjustment of leap years was necessary to the Julian Calendar resulting in the Gregorian Calendar. It didn't disprove years, months or seasons, let alone Time itself.

So, to clarify, you've identified that different animals release and fertilise eggs at different stages.

And you're suggesting this to be evidence against the process of evolution?

The amphibians/Reptiles thing is a road block to evolution, one of many. You're not looking for evidence that doesn't exist, which is why I picked it. Yet it is taught as fact. In post #69 you said
I think I've done that.

EDIT: Post #68, actually.

Saw that thread on /.

I recently found out that one of the undergrads who was in the engineering labs I managed back in the day was recognized by our alma mater for the outstanding work she did after graduation, part of which was being a member of the JWST engineering team. (No. I do not know what work she was directly involved in. We haven't spoken in 43 years. :^) )

Now about that Big Bang... It is still just a theory. But a lot of theory and observation seems to back it up. So far.

What don't you grasp about how scientific conclusions progress that leads you to assert such nonsense? In this case exactly how do you imagine that how the specifics of how one species evolved or not negates the entire process? The evolution of reptiles from amphibians is NOT taught as fact. It is taught as currently the best explanation based on actual evidence. It is expected gaps will be filled over time and the theory's minor specifics refined and improved. The whole is not in question.

You continually engage in this crap of denying the whole based on any gap you imagine. This entire thread which you characterized as concern with Science was in fact to take a manufactured view of a minor adjustment into a sweeping negation of the whole. I repeat, scientists are not in a panic (they are actually elated) and Big Bang Theory is in no danger, and certainly not from anything JWST is likely to observe.

Regarding Evolution, reptiles and birthing mechanics, there are extant lizards right now in 2022 that are transitioning from egg delivery to live birth, sometimes both exist in the same "litter". There is a reason that religious fundamentalists equate Evolution with only Darwin despite the fact that modern Theory of Evolution recognizes some six (6) different means of evolutionary forces, not just the one (1) of Natural Selection. If as it seems, your goal is to disprove modern Evolution Theory, your task is vastly larger than you imagine.

It seems rather plausible that your sole interest in Science, is to disprove it in the misguided interest of proving 2000+ year old superstition (as if one follows the other) because that feels comfortable to you. I don't attempt to deny you that right nor that comfort, but I will always respond to you and anyone else with such illogical, agenda-driven methods to display the hypocrisy and ignorance of those tactics. Progress is the OPPOSITE of maintaining status quo. You apparently want to go back to "that Ol' Time Religion" from 2000 years ago, a civilization that if you succeed would surely kill you, everyone and everything you love, within a few months... but then that's OK with you since you imagine we are in End Days right now, can do nothing about it, and possibly glad for it.

This has damn' all to do with the JWST but you might be interested to know that not all amphibians use external fertilisation. That's just the way frogs and toads do it; the female lays her eggs and the male, riding on her back, fertilises them as they are laid. But newts and salamanders dance an elaborate pas de deux (the steps are species-specific so as to prevent accidental mis-mating), at the height of which the male passes over a sperm packet in a "cloacal kiss". The female absorbs the sperm and then goes away to lay her eggs. It's more or less similar to what you find in some reptiles and birds, only they have developed a bigger egg with a hard shell that can be laid on land.

As to reptiles bearing live young, most of our British reptiles do that! Grass snakes lay eggs but adders, common lizards and slow worms are all viviparous.

I don't grasp how people purporting to offer a believeable account of the origin of mankind can include fictional steps in the process. If you have to resort to fictional or inexplicable steps, your hypothesis is false. Your tone certainly changes when you try to assert logic while lacking it.

Besides, hazel is right, this is way off the posted topic. Let's try to stay on it.

The above emphasized portion quoting your words, business_kid, is exactly the point in this thread and pretty much all your posts in LQN General. You view the reptile evolution process as critical just as you view early complexity of galactic evolution as critical to Big Bang. This is simply not so. Most of Science is not based on "Proofs". Proofs only exist in Mathematics exactly because math is based on abstract identity, boiled down to essentials like Identity as in "1 == 1". That, as one basic example, is a never changing, always true statement. It is an axiom.

The natural sciences are based on evidence, repeatable, objective, falsifiable evidence, with the ones left standing after long battles as the current winner, with full knowledge and expectation that our short lifetimes combined with technological progress will very likely alter those conclusions, refine and improve as time and new observations occur and enter the field.

There are many conclusions that have won each battle for so long, through so many advances, with no credible contenders they have earned extreme reliability, but even the highest probability is not the same as Proof. This IS the human condition. We are not Divine, cannot know much at all as certain for all time, everywhere exactly because we exist for miniscule time on a podunk planet in a rather ordinary solar system in an ordinary galaxy. In short, we don't get Ultimate Certainty.

We just get good odds and progression. Some items in a progression are essential. Keystones sometimes exist (but not always) where removing one stone causes the entire edifice to collapse. Most "stones" are not Keystones. Removing one at some specific times does not cause collapse, though they may have had somewhat more importance early in the progression.

There are jokes about the Butterfly Effect, characterized as the beating of a single butterfly's wings could conceivably be an essential component that ultimately resulted in a hurricane.. or not. Jokes such as "We found the butterfly and killed it! No more hurricanes!!!" Surely it is humorous but it is also an important observation about progressions. It is wiser to realize the difference between the abstract "butterfly" and identifying the culprit.

More directly On topic, if there were zero consequences to ever occur from such as JWST, there would be no value to JWST. We never would have designed, built and launched it. Scientists wouldn't literally spend many decades of their lives digesting it's data. It is EXPECTED to change our views but it is highly unlikely to trash Big Bang. However if some incredible surprise did that, so what? Big Bang is a scientific theory, the current winner of a series of prize fights, NOT a belief system.

All of those posters here who conflate Science with just another belief system are mistaken but view it so, much like the Hammer/Nail syllogism. I prefer characterizing that syllogism in reverse to how most do by noting that "If all one has is Nails, everything starts to look like a Hammer". For me this is recursive because I have actually tried to pound in a nail with the handle of a screwdriver or the business end of pliers. I have also pounded in screws with a hammer, but only slender sharp things look like nails. Any massive object can double as a hammer, with varying effectiveness of course.

The point of the syllogism doesn't depend on that as it is a statement about perception and "making do" with what you have on hand. We don't often get anything close to certainty but we can strive to get closer to essences while "making do" IF our standards are stringent and precise. That's the best we can hope for. Assuming causal connections that don't apply is like dancing for rain. It's not stringent, nor precise, and certainly not causal.

What little I have read of your rant looks insulting. You agressively sought an example from me. I prefixed it with this remark in post#69
You have been trying to pick trouble with me but I'm not starting. I really don't care what you think about evolution. Instead of answering my point about Amphibians and Reptiles which you cannot, you mount an attack on the way I form my views. It does nothing to detract from the fact that some of what is called science should not be so called. You asked for an example and I gave you one. But I'm still not starting.

You still don't get it, business_kid, that I am not trying to denigrate you as a person. I am attacking your methodology because the whole of Evolution in no way depends on whether we have one species ancestry exactly correct. That, Sir, is a non sequitur. You want certainties and I'm sorry but you can't have them, nobody can. All we get are good odds IF we are precise and diligent.

Right, sir. Try stepping from the roof of one skyscraper to the roof of another of equal height. There's just one awkward step we don't know about yet, but that's no obstacle to Scientific progress .

That's the kind of intellectual leap you are making in obedience to your Scientific "high priests", and I am refusing to do so. I prefer to base my faith on a book that can predict events a generation ahead; Some are predicted hundreds of years ahead; Some are predict thousands of years ahead, like the global warming now destroying this planet, among many others. And none of these are likely or inevitable events - quite the contrary in fact.

You keep your head cool, forget about me, keep watching your youtube videos, because the cerebal cement is firmly set in your case. I'll keep appreciating the knowledge and insight that I have and remain grateful to my Creator for it.

One theory just kick starting another. Being a uneducated scooter tramp.
I'll leave God out of my post.

https://www.livescience.com/17454-st...-big-bang.html

Can you demonstrate even the faintest manner that in what Universe skyscrapers, which by definition stand apart, joined only at the ground, has any similarity whatsoever to a linear progression remotely similar to DNA/RNA that makes that a valid analogy instead of yet another non sequitur? Check your premises, right?

I have to agree with what I gather is rokytnji's point, that I have some trouble with the label "String Theory" as actually a theory instead of "String Hypotheses". We are by no means alone in this view. I do understand enough about string theory proponents' position that 1) the math works quite well and 2) many hard discoveries have been preceded by solid mathematical explanations and predictions, and 3) no competing hypothesis comes anywhere near the consistency and precision at describing and predicting how Quantum Mechanics and Relativity might be shown to be compatible, so it is testable "in principle". I still find it to be mislabeled. I think it should be viewed and labeled as a particularly elegant hypothesis that has the potential to be falsified some day in the future.

It also appears there are problems with that view since, if that time does ever come when technology advances to where strings are observed and measured, that would possibly signal a major "feather in the cap" of Mathematics alone elevated to the level of experiment. I doubt that would be a good thing. Thankfully it is also highly doubtful that many scientists will ever accept that as principle . There is a big difference between "sometimes reliable" and "always reliable". I'll stick with stodgy old "always" thank you very much.

Happy Birthday, JWST! Launched Christmas Day, 2021! To toot my own horn: I worked on JWST for 12 years and was working at the JWST Mission Ops in Baltimore on launch day.