IC & the Cambrian Explosion for Ahmad...cont..

Dear Mark,What paradigm are we going to subject it to? Is there pure objectivity involved? Anyway, I will have an objective look.
So, show me the money,Best wishes,
Peter

Mark, as I said, I will have an objective look,Peter

Yeah, I went over to the Autralian Museum in Sydney to have a look at the chinese dinosaurs exhibition (the real thing, not the replica's, including the alleged birdlike transition forms). It was a lot of fun. More about this later.best wishes,
peter

Hi Judge,Did you notice that two (out of 5) of them don't even have feathers?Best wishes,
Peter

No Edge, they also has some fully developed birds, including the Archeopteryx lithographica, Sinorsis sinensis, and Confuciusornis sanctus. Very nice fully developed birds.Bestwishes,
Peter

Hi mark,MP: Archaeopteryx is a reptile!PB: Yeah, and my dog is a reptile too!Listen, Mark, by now you should be able to understand that I do NOT believe a single word of evolutinism from microbe to man.It is never observed storytelling for the gullible. Major actors in the play: Richard Dawkins, Bob Bakker, and the major part of science fiction writers.Best wishes,
Peter

Dear Edge and mark,YOU are the gullible, NOT me.Best wishes,
Peter"If they're hungry feed them bugger and they will eat it"From BBB

Dear Edge,Pondering the Archeaoptehryx being a reptile. A transition form somewnere between reptile/dinosaur and bird?Based on what I wonder?According to histon H2 analysis my wife could be a fish or a bird.Stil I know she is a human MPG. That is all there is MPGs.Taxonomy is human subjectivity.Furthermore, over the past couple of centuries 3 (or 4) Archaeopteryx have been found.All, Archaeopteryx lithographica.Why, I wonder, did we find 4 Archaeopteryx lithographica?Wy didn't we find the 'Archaeopteryx pseudornis', the Archaeopteryx ornis, and the Archaeopteryx euornis. Than you would have had a compelling case for evolutionism. Now you have nothing, except the Archaeopteryx (MPG).Best wishes,
Peter

Dear mark,MP: What about Archaeopterix bavarica does that count (Wellnhofer 1993)? Well, that's that cleared up, Peter agrees we have a compelling case for evolution. And you are conveniently forgetting the other feathered transitionals, Sinosauropteryx, Caudipteryx, Protoarchaopteryx et al. Plus the dromaeosaurs like Deinonychus & "Fuzzy-raptor" with their "unbranched integumentary structures" & "perfectly preserved downy feathers".PB: The A bavarica is simply a specimen that demonstrates more details than the other specimen. Or as stated by the German expert Dr Milner (http://141.84.51.10/palaeo_de/Archaeo/darchae3.htm):"Das Exemplar von Archaeopteryx bavarica ist einzigartig.PB A unique specimen...Es zeigt anatomische Merkmale ...,PB: ...with anatomical characteristics...die bei den anderen Exemplaren nicht beobachtbar sindPB: ...not visable in other specimen....und die entscheidend sind fr unser Verstndnis des Ursprungs und der Evolution der Vgel.PB: ...and decisive for our understanding of the origin and evolution of birds (Evo blahblah).Es ist sehr gut erhalten und hat Ausstellungsqualitt.PB: It is very well preserved and of exposition quality.So, nothing new, no transtion form or other species of Archaeopteryx. It is just another Archaeopteryx (MPG).Best wishes,
Peter

Dear friends,Point is that I already knew that Archaeopteryx is currently classified as bird (from Dr Walter Boles).Best wishes,
Peter

Hi Edge,For commited cladists birds are dinosaurs.Best wishes,
Peter

Dear Edge,quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For commited cladists birds are dinosaurs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------E: For committed creationists, it is simply impossible for archaeopteryx to be a transitional.PB: Archaeopteryx is simply another MPG. As mentioned, from ToE I would have expected the A. Pseudornis, A. ornis and the A. euornis. From the fossils found it is claer that functional DNA elements/sequences -although plastic- don't change over time since the fossils are dated between 130 and 140 My BP (10exp7 generations), and therefore it is in acord with GUToB rule 1.: And for committed geologists, well, we're just committed...PB: Seeya mate
Peter

According to Tsjok:"ToE doesn't predict progression from simple to complex.It only concludes that the things we observe ( the fossils / the
actual biodiversity etc ... ) are the actual SURVIVORS ---> those who posses ( at this moment ) the ( potential )possibilities to produce progenitures which will be (eventually ) fertile ( succesfull ) in the future "PB:
So, according to ToE "The the organisms that we observe are the survivors".In other words 'the living creatures are alive'.Brilliant observation!! (Talking about pleonasms)Do we really have to take a theory that does these kind of predictions serious?Best wishes,
Peter[This message has been edited by peter borger, 02-06-2003]

dear Edge,quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, over the past couple of centuries 3 (or 4) Archaeopteryx have been found.
All, Archaeopteryx lithographica.Why, I wonder, did we find 4 Archaeopteryx lithographica?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Edge: Well, gee, I wonder why we find only find carbon-based life forms (since you like simplistic arguments). Maybe they are just fakes. Typical of creationists, you would rather try to make up a story that focusses more on what is not known that what IS known, and at the same time ignoring some important information that is also known.PB: Off on a tangent, here? Why can't evolutionists never give specific answers to specific questions? The question is why did we find 4 A. lithographica? Similarly, why do paleontologists always find T rex? And never a slightly different one, ie transitionform to ... yeah what? It is against odds. Against science.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wy didn't we find the 'Archaeopteryx pseudornis', the Archaeopteryx ornis, and the Archaeopteryx euornis. Than you would have had a compelling case for evolutionism. Now you have nothing, except the Archaeopteryx (MPG).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Edge: As well as other lines of evidence including other transitional fossils and known ages for them.PB: Other lines of evidence? Other TFs? Known ages? Elaborate a bit please.Edge: Now, I understand that to an absolutist, this would never do, but the rest of us believe...PB: and that's all it is: a believe (Disperse the meme!). Glad you concur.Edge: ...that it is desirable and possible to create a workable explanation until we get more data to the contrary.PB: As demonsrated, the hypothesis is NOT workable on the molecular level. So, the hypothesis is wrong.Best wishes,
Peter

Well, some content was probably lost in trying (unsuccessfully) to help you understand the concept......explain the concept...Peter