Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-17-2019 6:57 PM
23 online now:
JonF, ringo, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (3 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Happy Birthday: lopezeast0211
Post Volume:
Total: 856,887 Year: 11,923/19,786 Month: 1,704/2,641 Week: 213/708 Day: 40/40 Hour: 9/13


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3Next
Author Topic:   Evolution vs. Creation Interpretations (Jazzns, nemesis_juggernaut) (NOW OPEN TO ALL)
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 28 of 77 (364914)
11-20-2006 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Hyroglyphx
11-13-2006 12:52 PM


Request intent to continue
Hey NJ,

Again no rush, I just want a quick indicator to know if you intend to continue.


Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-13-2006 12:52 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-21-2006 6:38 PM Jazzns has responded

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 30 of 77 (365230)
11-21-2006 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Hyroglyphx
11-21-2006 6:38 PM


Re: Request intent to continue
That is great NJ. I don't mean for this to be any kind of commitment nor to take away from any other discussions you would rather have. I think it is perfectly reasonable to temporarily table this discussion when other interesting threads come up.

Perhaps as a rule of thumb, we should simply acknowledge when we are going to be unable to reply right away just so we don't leave the other person hanging. I am sure that I will need to do this at some point too.

Good contributions to the UCLA thread by the way. I was nice to have someone with your expertise involved in the discussion.


Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-21-2006 6:38 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-21-2006 7:11 PM Jazzns has not yet responded

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 33 of 77 (365426)
11-22-2006 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Hyroglyphx
11-22-2006 12:34 PM


Re: Part II
Excellent job NJ.

I am going to take some time on a response to condense things a bit.

I just have one question. IS there going to be a part III addressing the remainder of that post? If so, could you please let me know at what point you stopped in your response?

If I get some time I will work on the periodically over the holiday weekend. I figure there is still some catchup needed anyway since I already replied to your part I. I also want to see about sorting out the distinct points rather than doing the whole quote->reply->quote->reply thing.


Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-22-2006 12:34 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-22-2006 5:13 PM Jazzns has responded

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 35 of 77 (366038)
11-26-2006 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Hyroglyphx
11-22-2006 5:13 PM


Re: Part II
The holiday weekend was a bit busier than I thought. I have an outline for a reply and I just need to fill in some details. I want to have it done this week.

Happy Thanksgiving by the way!

Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.


Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-22-2006 5:13 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 36 of 77 (366681)
11-28-2006 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Hyroglyphx
11-22-2006 12:34 PM


Understanding Birds and Evolution

How traits arise

Before I get into this in depth, I wanted to point out the following:

My "sprouting" is just hyperbole for effect. Of course I don't believe that if evolution works in this way.

First of all, my amazement at your previous statement was not due to you saying that something "sprouted". I was amazed that you mentioned "stump-like appendages". That is not hyperbole not matter how much you claim otherwise. If you really did know that wings came from arms then why did you say that they came from "stump-like appendages"? I can see only a few options, either you really didn't know or you did know and yet choose to deliberately mischaracterize the situation hoping that I wouldn't notice or that I would stumble. Either situation is very bad for you. Perhaps there is an alternative I am not considering? Moving on.

This section is the about the point in our previous discussion about how things evolve. You presented the following:

I want to know what prompted all of these wonderful contrivances far in advance of them having any conceivable relevance to its survival. What kind of mutation is necessary to begin to form wings that is so effective in the wild, that nature actually selects it?
...
I didn't say or even imply that their wings came out of nowhere. I realize that if it evolved, it evolved from the forelimbs of some distant ancestor. I want to know what kind of mutations cause this. I also want to know why it happened. I also want to know how developing the wing over hundreds of years didn't impede the creature, unless of course you think that one day, wings inexplicably appeared fully formed.

I will continue to use bird evolution as our example. The first thing you have to understand is that the ancestors of birds did not start evolving wings at some point. Evolution does not have intent at all. The second thing to note is that flying as a 'relevance to its survival' was not present at the time the structures that ended up as wings were beginning to form. Both of these points underlie what has obviously become a profound misunderstanding of how evolution is proposed to work. I hope you can see that or if you don't you take note of these words to at least be open to the possibility that you have some fatal misunderstanding of how evolution works.

You completely disregarded my explanation of how it is possible that these features evolved in birds in my previous post. Instead you changed the conversation to a discussion about intermediates. For reference, your reply to my explanation about the origins of feathers and flight was:

The intricacies of ornithology do nothing to explain why systematic gaps are missing in between dinosaurs and birds.

What was under discussion was not intermediates but rather the topic YOU brought up which is "what prompted all of these wonderful contrivances...". What is going to be hard to do in this discussion is to try to not shift the particular topic especially when it is a topic that you initiated. What I want to talk about in this section is the specific EXAMPLE of the evolution of bird wings as how certain traits can arise. This is in CONTRAST to a discussion about whether the fossil record adequately shows bird evolution. I am interested in discussing that too, but not inline with this discussion about the origin of traits. Please help me try to focus this conversation.

Now, we know that if evolution is true that the end result of this particular trait is the bird wing used for flying. What I would like to do is go over a proposed evolutionary path for the wing.

First therapod dinosaurs evolve feathers. This is evidenced by the many non-avian therapod dinosaurs that have been found with feathers. The feathers range from down like to more structured feathers of today’s birds. The reason for feathers is what was listed in my previous post. We can speculate that feathers performed for dinosaurs similar functions that they perform for birds today. In modern birds, when feathers are not used for flying they are also used for warmth, sexual and predatory displays, and balance. Feathers on therapods also gives weight to the theory that dinosaurs were endothermic which I will also discuss later.

As therapods evolved they obtained longer and longer arms for grasping prey. The feathers on their arms and legs also became more birdlike in a number of species. One particular species called microraptor even had fully developed flight feathers although it probably could only glide. Most of these feathered therapods were small, quick, and agile. They were also probably very good jumpers since their talons were suited for killing prey. A long feathered arm would be a powerful advantage for both balance and speed.

Once you get to archy the rest is just perfection of the rudimentary flight mechanisms. Most creationists consider archy a bird anyway so this should not be surprising. As wing-arms became primarily used for flight instead of grasping, claws became vestigial as is evidenced by birds with these vestigial features today. Some modern birds still use a claw such as the hoatzin which only has a claw in its youth to grab onto trees.

The important thing to digest about that is simply that a wing was never the GOAL. When the first therapod started out the changes it underwent made it more efficient at what it does in its environment. Wings were therefore an indirect result of these creatures expanding into a different habitat where some of their previous features could be co-opted for other uses which in this case was gliding and then flying.

If you want to see more details about bird evolution then I would suggest checking out these two sites in detail.

http://www.dinosaur-world.com/feathered_dinosaurs/0-feathered_dinosaurs.htm
http://www.geologyrocks.co.uk/tut.php?id=13

Good site but some of the links are unfortunatly broken:
http://hometown.aol.com/darwinpage/dinobirds.htm

So to address your questions:

Relevance to survival - This relevance changes with every new adaptation and environmental change. If you started with therapods and made flying relevant to its survival then they would all die. The relevance you speak of is comparable to the change in selection pressures over time. As the pressures change, the relevance changes and evolution proceeds in a different direction that it had been going in before. That is what creates diversity. That is why the therapods range from archy to t-rex. The difference in relevance and the change in relevance resulted in the diversity of that group of creatures.

Mutations Necessary For Wings - The mutations necessary for wings are the accumulation of the mutations necessary for all the various precursors of wings. Feathers (for a different purpose), longer arms, aerodynamics for running and/or gliding, and finally flight. Neither of these steps is outside the realm of "microevolution" at each transition. It is only when we step back and look at the sequence that we can see how drastic the change is from beginning to end. Let me ask you this, at which step do you deny that it is impossible for mutation to cause such a change. Do you deny that mutations can cause arms to grow longer? Do you deny that mutations can alter the symmetry of a feather?

How did developing wings over the years not impede the creature? - The very existence of this question is at the heart of your profound misunderstanding of how evolution works. The steps toward a wing did not impede the creature because wings were not the goal. Wings are simply where the course of evolution proceeded. It is not as if anything less than a wing was a detriment to these animals. In order for evolution to work, each step in the chain must be an improvement to the survivability of the animal AT THAT MOMENT; not at some future unknown need. For example, therapods didn't start evolving longer arms so that one day they could become a wing, they did so because it had an immediate benefit for catching prey. It just so happens that longer arms have a secondary benefit of stability control when you are running and jumping especially in an arboreal environment. This is even more true when you happen to have feathers with a primary purpose of warmth and sexual displays.

Let me ask you a few questions to try to direct this discussion. Do you believe that archy is a bird or a therapod? Why do you believe this? What makes you think that it is NOT also the other?



The fossil record as evidence for evolution

Jazzns, in order for a saurian and and avian to share lineage there had to have been numerous, successive, slight gradations over time. 1. We should expect to see these gradations somewhere in the fossil record. They are nowhere to be found.
...
My "sprouting" is just hyperbole for effect. Of course I don't believe that if evolution works in this way. But I have to ask if certain evolutionists do. Where are the intermediates? Why do we have no intermediaries? Why do we have dinosaurs, then archaeopteryx, then birds? Surely you could recognize that hundreds of intermediary species must have existed during this time... Where are they?

In short, you are INSISTING that for evolution to be true we must find a host of intermediate forms in the fossil record. By pointing out that the fossil record does not meet YOUR STANDARD for the number of required intermediates that therefore evolution is false. There is a number of problems with this.

1. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Quite simply, we know AND WE EXPECT the fossil record to be vastly incomplete at the level of species to species intermediates. This is especially true for land vertebrates that only fossilize in very specific conditions. As I have said before, the evidence for evolution does not rely upon the fossil record. The prediction is that the fossil record should match the primary evidence for evolution which is nested hierarchies. Missing transitionals do not remove the fact that forms like archy DO fit into those hierarchies.

2. Evolution is not required to meet your standard of evidence to be considered true. You may have a standard that for you to believe in evolution you have to see every single individual along an evolutionary chain. The validity of the theory does not stand or fall based upon your needs. If you are not convinced given the evidence we do have, then it is up to you to explain why the standard should be higher. Simply stating that there, "should be more intermediates" without any reasoning why the existing ones are insufficient is not enough. This should also be tempered considering that is seems you don't know what all the evidence is to begin with. This leads into my last point on this sub-topic.

3. How much have you actually looked into fossil intermediates? Have you seen the avian intermediates other than archy? Have you seen the transition sequence that gave rise to the mammalian inner ear? I find that many times when creationists come in here claiming that the lack of intermediates is a problem have never bothered to actually go look for them. This is not to say that you haven't but when you make comments like, "dinosaurs, then archaeopteryx, then birds" it comes across as thought you believe that that’s all there is.



Well formed intermediates

Do you understand what I'm getting at? In order for a dinosaur to develop into a bird, the shape of the wing and the feathers and all the little, intricate things about birds surely must have developed slowly over time. That means, while we have a prototype avian, he was not fully formed. How can you possibly explain that this creature was so successful while going through these bizarre morphisms, that it actually aided him as opposed to hindering him?
...
They are nowhere to be found. Everything we have is in full formation. But surely you would agree that unless these changes occurred over time, there should be some evidence of it, unless you you ascribe to a Hopeful Monster. 2. If you believe these morphological changes occurred very quickly, not leaving many signs of gradation, then you must believe in punctuated equilibrium. But either way, you are going to have, at some point, an animal in what Darwin referred to as, 'confusion,' while these gradations were occurring. Now, what possibly could have enhanced its survival "while" the saurian was developing into the avian? There must have been numerous generations that did not have fully formed wings or forelimbs. What an awkward morphology. How did it survive, much less, be superior?

I would first of all like to point out that Darwin is not the authority on evolution. It has been over 100 years since Origins and we have a MUCH better picture of evolution including the mechanism which was absent from Darwin's time. What Darwin thought there "should be" has been supplanted by what "is".

Some of this was addressed in the first section but I want to go into more depth now. The thing to notice is that if evolution did require these "freak" forms then it would be invalidated by internal contradiction. There is no way that natural selection is going to select for a creature "in confusion". I bolded a statement in section one that I want to re-emphasize. Each step in an evolutionary sequence MUST be an improvement to the survivability of the creature as it pertains to reproduction. Notice that this DOES NOT mean that the creature has to get "better" in some subjective fashion. In fact, there are many cases where some changes might be considered "worse" in terms of survivability but are actually "better" when it comes to reproduction. The peacock is a good example of this. One might consider an eagle "better" at surviving than a peacock but the peacock species survived because the emphasis was on attracting mates rather than being a better predator.

While the above is a flaw in your argument, it is not the main flaw. The primary problem is that simply you are viewing evolution with only the beginning and end in mind. In the case of bird evolution you see a therapod and a bird and imagine some kind of freak half-winged chimera that would have to be in-between the two. What you fail to see is that "freak half-winged chimera" is archy! Archy is not as well adapted as non-avian therapods to using its forelimbs for grasping. It is not as well adapted as modern birds are to flying. It very literally has half a wing. The problem you have is that you believe a half a wing to be useless. For archy, it worked perfectly well for gliding and potentially weak powered flight. Was archy "in confusion"? Obviously no but that does not change its status as a transitional. The small feathered therapods that came before archy where equally not "in confusion". They were simply exploiting a different niche than some of the other larger therapods. T-Rex was not objectively "better" than micro-raptor. They simply were a few variations apart to exploit different environments.

Thus I would like to highlight one of your last statement one more time:

There must have been numerous generations that did not have fully formed wings or forelimbs.

This is false. Not only are you not the arbiter of what "must have been", such a statement does not even make any sense. Each generation from raptors to birds MUST have had fully formed forelimbs. If you don't recognize by this statement that you are persisting with an INCREDIBLY IGNORANT view of how evolution actually works then I have no idea how else to point it out to you. A half a wing is not a busted wing from some creationist imagination. A half a wing is simply a forelimb that while still being used for its original purpose of grasping has other properties that allow the creature to generate lift. Essentially, archy's wings.



Arguing About Evolution

In order for this conversation to PROGRESS rather than just CONTINUE (like I hope it will) there is one thing that has to be made clear. In order for you to dispute the theory of evolution you must be prepared to demonstrate that you actually understand the concepts you are trying to refute. Your previous characterization of what we "should expect" transitional forms to look like is the latest blunder of a number that have been pointed out so far that inhibits your ability to provide REAL criticisms. No one and no theory suggests the things you are proclaiming so what you are doing is actually attacking an idea that no one believes in. My first task HAS TO BE to convince you of this or else we are going to debate back and forth in circles where I talk about evolution and you talk about the distorted nemesis_juggernaut version of evolution that you got somewhere. It will be apples vs oranges and this conversation will eventually end like all the other tired EvC ping pong matches.

The theory of evolution is what it is. I am not going to try to spell it out in any more depth than what I get to in each of our sub-topics. I consider it your responsibility to come to this discussion prepared. If you think the theory of evolution SHOULD actually describe broken transitional forms, should be primarily based on the fossil record, or should use some other mechanisms than morphology and genetics to create nested hierarchies, then it is your job to show me that this version of the theory of evolution is what we need to be debating. Until then I am going to debate THE theory of evolution, the one that is the most parsimonious explanation for the nested hierarchies and the objective criteria in which they are built, the fossil record as it is given the fossils we HAVE found, and the concepts of mutation and natural selection that define how and what transitionals should look like.



Identifying environments based on fossil morphology and depositional environment

Jazzns previously writes:

Why would it 'awkwardly' change? This view is the hopeful monster straw man of evolution. We already know that they took to the trees. In an arboreal existence, gliding is a potential advantage especially if you already have structures that you can co-opt to help you glide better.

How do you 'know' this?

Jazzns previously writes:

are you saying that if we find a fossil of something with fins that we cannot assume that it lived in water? What if I find some fish bones in a depositional environment that indicates a coastal formation? Then is my conclusion that it lived in shallow as opposed to deep water some fanciful scenario that will invade the textbooks and warp some impressionable minds?

This is what I'm saying. When imagination meets speculation, fiction becomes fact rather quickly. Could I assume that flying fish shared ancestry from a bird. Perhaps the flying fish is the progenitor of a bird, or perhaps some bird that took to the ocean is the progenitor of the flying fish. Or is it most reasonable that flying fish simply learned to beat its fins for short bursts of flight and that it happens to aide them in evasion of predators?

I feel that you didn't properly reply to my question about the fish fossils. This latest comment of yours actually lets me reply in a way that is the most on topic to this point.

Of course this is just a silly example that you proposed but it makes a very good point. The reason why your idea of birds evolving from flying fish is not considered is that it contradicts the evidence. This is an example of what I mean when I said that creationists ignore evidence which mainstream science does not. Quite simply, the flying fish origin of birds is NOT the best explanation given ALL the evidence. That is why the therapod origin of birds is not just imaginative speculation. It is the best explanation for the evidence we currently have. That is all that science can claim.

That aside, you didn't actually answer my question about how we can tell the environment a creature lived in based on its fossil. Forget about flying fish for a moment. What happens if I find a fish fossil in a limestone deposit that is indicative of an ancient coral reef? Is it wild imagination to assume that that species of fish lived in shallow marine waters or is it simply the best explanation of the evidence?

I meant that original example to be an obvious rebuke of your claim that we cannot determine the environment a creature lived in based on morphology and deposition. In the simple fish example, the fact that it is a fish puts us in water and the fact of the depositional environment puts us in shallow water. IN the case of archy, first and foremost its morphology suggests that it was better adapted to tree life than land life. IIRC it has perching feet rather than running feet. Also, the rock that the fossils are found in suggests an environment of an anoxic lake such as a swamp.

Parts of animal morphology also eliminate some environments. Obviously archy would not be well adapted to a desert or a plain. The best explanation of ALL THE EVIDENCE surrounding the archy fossils is that it was a tree dwelling, gliding, therapod.



Side Issues

But this is really a side issue. You do realize that avian are endothermic and saurian are exothermic, right? You realize that the cardiovascular, pulmonary, integumentary, etcetera, systems are completely different right? So, imagine all of these morphologies taking place. That's insurmountable for you or anyone else to casually brush off as inconsequential. These are the finer aspects that evolutionists neglect. But the devil is in the details, Jazzns. And from where I'm standing, its condemnable.

No one is brushing off these specifics as inconsequential. The problem is that even if there was some very unique morphological difference between the two any theory of their origins would STILL have to explain the similarities! That is what I mean AGAIN when I say that the best explanation is the one that takes into account all of the evidence. There is nothing about bird morphology that I know of or have ever heard of that is so drastic that it does not correlate to some aspect of therapod morphology. Examining some of these can be challenging since soft parts such as the circulatory and respiratory systems don't fossilize. We have to infer based on skeletal morphology how these systems worked in therapods. Is there some particularly devilish detail you would like to discuss?

In particular, I wanted to talk a little bit more about the endothermic and exothermic issue. There is a number of physical traits that suggest that dinosaurs in general and especially therapods were endothermic. The one trait that stands out the most is the fact that many therapods had feathers. Insulation is a primary trait of endotherms and the proto feathers seen in the earliest specimens are akin to the down covering in juvenile birds today which are solely used for warmth. Other evidences among many others for endothermy in therapods include speed and the size of the chest cavity. Where creatures need to have sustained speed in locomotion they are almost always endotherms. Endotherms also require vastly robust circulatory and respirator systems which in general requires a larger proportion of the body dedicated to the chest cavity. Both of these traits are true for therapods among others.

Reference:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A590294

The other thing of note is that endothermy is not some magical barrier that is difficult for an evolving animal to cross. Mammals did it, even some insects and marine animals are endothermic. In fact, there is some evidence to suggest that crocs used to be endothermic and re-evolved to be exothermic!

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/153728/generating_heat_the_evolution_of_endothermy/

Overall, it is by no means a fact or even undisputed that therapods were endothermic, but the current best explanation of ALL the evidence is that they were endothermic along with all other dinosaurs.

An eminent ornithologist who specializes in therapod evolution states,

"When we see actual feathers preserved on specimens, we need to carefully determine if we are looking at secondarily flightless birds that have retained feathers and only superficially resemble dinosaurs, or if the specimens are in fact related to dinosaurs. That's a difficult issue to deal with right now, given the existence of fake fossils... It is biophysically impossible to evolve flight from such large bipeds with foreshortened limbs and heavy, balancing tails. In my opinion, the therapod origin of birds will be the greatest embarrassment of paleontology in the 20th century." - Alan Feduccia

This quote deserved some attention. I would first like to point out that this is an argument from authority and thus is a logical fallacy. Just because someone has a 'D' and 'R' in front of their name does not make them automatically right.

Second, Alan Feduccia is a proponent of alternate hypothesis concerning the evolution of birds but HE STILL BELIEVES THAT BIRDS EVOLVED! In particular, he still believes that birds evolved from raptor like dinosaurs, just not the same ones that the mainstream community does. This is called the Thecodontia theory of bird origins.

From http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Thecodont :

The principal difficulty with "Thecodontia" is that it is diagnosed by the same characters which define Archosauria (non sensu Gauthier) and is thus a redundant term, as noted by Gauthier (1986). Consequently, a "thecodont origin" of birds is simply to say that birds are derived from somewhere within Archosauria.

His primary objection seems to be that the three digits on a bird and therapod claw are not analogous. Looking at an ostrich embryo develop you can watch it gain all 5 digits and then loose digits 1 and 5. One might ask why a three fingered animal needs to grow 5 digits as an embryo just to reabsorb 2 of them before it is born (silly design) but that is a separate topic. Therapods though supposedly have digits 1, 2, and 3 instead making it unlikely that they gained digit 4 just to loose digit 1 before they became birds. This idea has been rejected because the proposed digits that are conserved in therapods are developmentally unlikely to have occurred due to the evidence we have for digit formation of all other vertebrates. In all other cases, your thumb and pinkie (digits 1 & 5) are the last to form and are the ones that are dropped in all other circumstances. In fact, digit 1 (thumb) is the last and digit 4 (ring) is the primary digit. It is highly unlikely that any evolutionary development would favor the loss of digit 4 to digit 1 and in fact that is exactly what we see in extant species that loose digits. It is likely then that the therapod digits were misidentified which seems to be the case. A good treatment of this issue is given here.

http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/digit_numbering_and_limb_development/

Third, Alan Feduccia is in the vast minority of people who believe in alternatives to the therapod origin of birds. This is not to say that automatically makes him wrong, just that you are quoting from someone who has had their ideas rejected by the scientific community.



Housekeeping

There is a lot of info here and it sounds like we are both men with busy lives. I would just ask that you poke in periodically while you are working on a reply to let me know that we are still going. If it is not too annoying for you, I'll go ahead and bump this thread occasionally if I haven't heard from you in a week or so. I am certainly more pleased with my post that I took a week to write than I am of any that I write on the spot. In the spirit of "less is more" I just fear that this very interesting and very lively conversation might get lost in the hustle and bustle that is EvC.

Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.


Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-22-2006 12:34 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-01-2006 2:46 PM Jazzns has responded
 Message 44 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-13-2007 1:23 AM Jazzns has responded

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 37 of 77 (366904)
11-29-2006 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Hyroglyphx
11-22-2006 5:13 PM


Bump for NJ
Just wanted to check and see if you saw my latest reply.


Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-22-2006 5:13 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 39 of 77 (367309)
12-01-2006 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Hyroglyphx
12-01-2006 2:46 PM


Re: Understanding Birds and Evolution
Rather than reply to this by itself, I want to wait until you have commented on the section in my last post about fully formed intermediates and the fossil record. Your primary concerns about avian evolution seem to hinge around this concept that intermedates should be "in confusion" and that we MUST see gradation in the fossil record. I dealt with both of these issues already in the remainder of that post so I would like to see what you think about those rather than simply reiterating what I said there.

Given your current understand of evolution, I would say that your skepticism is valid. The reason that your argument is flawed though is because your current understanding of evolution is flawed. I hope that the remainder of my previous posts helps remedy this condition.


Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-01-2006 2:46 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 40 of 77 (371407)
12-21-2006 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Hyroglyphx
12-01-2006 2:46 PM


Bump for NJ
Please look at my second to last message. I feel that my best rebut to your last post is contained in the parts of my most recent substantial reply you have yet to respond to.

Are you still interested in continuing?


Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-01-2006 2:46 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 41 of 77 (375729)
01-09-2007 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Hyroglyphx
12-01-2006 2:46 PM


NJ or anyone else want to continue?
I spent too much time invested in this thread to see it go to waste. If NJ does not respond to this, is there anyone else who wants to take over?

I would ask that admins not reprimand anyone who wants to post here expressing interest in continuing.

If no one responds then perhaps we can simply open it up to the rest of the forum?


Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-01-2006 2:46 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by RickJB, posted 01-09-2007 4:30 PM Jazzns has responded

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 43 of 77 (375748)
01-09-2007 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by RickJB
01-09-2007 4:30 PM


Re: NJ or anyone else want to continue?
I did actually mention the Lucy knee situation here:

Message 14

Thanks for the vote of confidence. Hopefully someone will feel ambitious enough to take up the slack. I really thought this thread was going in a neat direction.


Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by RickJB, posted 01-09-2007 4:30 PM RickJB has not yet responded

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 48 of 77 (376723)
01-13-2007 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Adminnemooseus
01-13-2007 4:00 AM


Re: By agreement of the two original debaters, this topic is now open to all
If I could get 1 reply in after a day or two and then we can move this thread out of GD?


Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Adminnemooseus, posted 01-13-2007 4:00 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 53 of 77 (377096)
01-15-2007 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Hyroglyphx
01-13-2007 1:23 AM


What have we learned about these so called alternative interpretations?
I would like to start this final reply before we move this into the general forums with a very simple observation. Through many posts with a lot of argument, not one time did you ever support your original claim that prompted me to challenge you to this Great Debate. Moreover, not only did you not support your position, you completely contradicted it by claiming that the facts rather than the interpretations are the items in dispute. Let’s recall:

I don't know whether or not Zebras have been found in arctic regions. That really wasn't the point. The point is, if you have a tangible piece of evidence, i.e. a fossil, how two or more groups interpret the evidence is at the heart of the issue. I'm merely distinguishing the difference between evidence and the interpretation of the evidence.

Let’s use an example that we do know of. Tropical plants have been found on Spitsbergen island, which is well into the arctic circle. Now, do we interpret that evidence to mean that earth was once wholly tropical or is that interpreted as that region was once closer to the equator and drifted from continental shifting? This is what I mean by interpreting the evidence. We are all looking at the same piece of evidence, (tropical plants in an arctic region), but clearly there are varying opinions on how and why that piece of evidence exists in that region.

Your entire position can probably be summed in the succinct quote from you:

This is another example of interpreting the evidence differently. Both groups are looking at the same fossils, they are simply interpreting the evidence differently.

There is a large assumption hidden in such a bold claim. That assumption is that the facts between evos and creos are agreed upon and it is merely the interpretations that differ. You then proceed to argue for 50 posts worth against those very facts. I didn't win this debate, you lost it the moment you blatantly contradicted yourself. I even tried very hard to steer this discussion back towards the issue of interpretations yet in the end it was painfully obvious that your disagreement with evolution does not rest upon a valid reinterpretation of the facts but of a denial of the facts themselves. In the extreme cases, you actually believe directly in falsehoods and lies propagated by dishonest creationist organizations. To bring up objectively false denials of fact in one instant completely destroyed your claims to alternative interpretations.

There are a number of items in your most recent reply that I would like to post as examples of how the facts have been misconstrued and at the end talk about the conclusions we can draw from this debate about facts versus interpretations.


Recanting on previously agreed upon points

You replied to me as such:

Jazzns previously writes:

This is especially true for land vertebrates that only fossilize in very specific conditions. As I have said before, the evidence for evolution does not rely upon the fossil record. The prediction is that the fossil record should match the primary evidence for evolution which is nested hierarchies. Missing transitionals do not remove the fact that forms like archy DO fit into those hierarchies.

These hierarchies are completely subjective as it draws parallels that only superficialliy seem to match.

YET in a previous post you made it perfectly clear that you understand these hierarchies to NOT be completely subjective:


Homologous features, especially down to the genetic level, would be a very impressive case in defense of common ancestry. Assuming that genes with similar sequences would be unlikely to originate independently via random mutations or whatever, your retroviral insertion would indicate ancestry. All subsequent phylogenetic features that appear similar could be considered cladistic evidence. There's only one problem I can see currently. The fact that homeotic sequences are universal asks a simple question. If the hypothesis of common ancestry could be falsified by the discovery of the same retrovirus at the same locus in two species that do not share a common ancestry, then the entire argument is incorrect. And that would place this argument onto a lengthy list of alleged markers. Since I don't know of any studies that have found such homogenous sequences at specific loci or transposons, I can't testify to it. I will say that this is the best argument in defense of macroevolution by far.

This is pure insanity in argument! You cannot at one point use a fact as a basis for argument and then in another circumstance deny that same fact! This kind of behavior completely eliminates any claim you could make to understanding what it means for something to be subjective versus objective. This is compounded by the fact that you not one single time gave evidence to support the claim that these hierarchies could be built in a different way which would give credence to your claims that they are subjective. It is yet ANOTHER bare assertion in a long and seemingly unending stream of assertions. Have you ever heard of the Gish Gallop?


Moving the goalposts

Jazzns previously writes:

How much have you actually looked into fossil intermediates?

I keep up with the latest arguments added by TalkOrigins and Ed Babinski and whatnot for this very reason. What's the latest one? Oh, right, the Dolphin with legs...

We were discussing fossil intermediates and you bring up atavisms. These are two very different things yet you either are deliberately changing the subject to avoid having to address my points or you cannot tell the difference between a fossil and an atavism.

There are numerous other examples of this in the rest of your posting history that everyone else can examine for themselves.

1. You changed the subject away from the claim that there are evolutionary influences in geology to a discussion of fossil intermediates. (Message 10)
2. You brought up the issue of dogmatism in a discussion where you were challenged to defend your view about interpretations (also in Message 10)
3. When talking about what is expected to observe evolution you brought up the false claim that the Lucy transitional is a fraud. This is presumably because I talked about a Lucy to Human transition as an example of the degree of macro evolutionary change. Nonetheless it was a blatant moving of goalposts. (Message 14)
4. When discussing how geography influences evolution to allow both the evolved and ancestral population to co-exist you used that as an opportunity to simply announce your denial of human evolution and change the subject to doubt how scientists can known anything about an animal from its fossil. (Message 19)
5. When discussing observing macroevolution I brought up the point that we have only really been paying attention for a few centuries. You said:

150 years of anthropology, archeology, and biology should yield some proof, no? Those are seconds in evolutionary time but aeons of time to dig up some legitimate, tangible proof of evolution.

Which is a very different question than the one of observed macroevolution! (Message 21)
6. When again talking about geography and ecological niches you challenged the sufficiency of known selection pressures to cause what you seem to consider "drastic" evolutionary change. (also in Message 21)
7. I even caught you in a goalpost shift here:

Jazzns writes:

NJ writes:

Jazzns writes:

The evidence can tell us that the environments that an evolved and ancestor species occupied was different or not. For living organism we can visually inspect when they diverge that the environments are different. We can also examine that a particular species does or does not have traits that are advantageous in the environment. Why you think we cannot know these things is beyond incredulous.

You know, more could be stated about what's missing from the hominid record...

Right there! You are shifting the goalposts! I was refuting your claim that we somehow cannot know what environment a creature was better adapted for by its fossil. Please NJ don't do this!

(again in Message 21)

8. Instead of engaging my point about creationist ad-hoc reasoning, you attack my example regarding the Coconino sandstone by talking about seashells on top of mountains. Later on you bring up cave formations and supposed evidence of fast petrifaction with no support. (Message 25)

9. When trying to discuss the how traits arise, using birds as an example, you completely changed the topic again to intermediates. (Message 32)

Even though I very much enjoyed engaging you in each and every point you brought up, I believe it is important for both you and the audience to always remember both the tactic and the number of items you left on the table by changing the subject.


Debating specific points

Jazzns previously writes:

The validity of the theory does not stand or fall based upon your needs. If you are not convinced given the evidence we do have, then it is up to you to explain why the standard should be higher.

If evolution were introduced into criminal court, the prosecuting attorneys would rip it to shreds for relying far too much on circumstantial evidence.

My reply is discussing specifically the standards of evidence required for something to be called the best current explanation. Your rebuttal is essentially a glib remark. In this situation, you are only being argumentative and nothing else. There is no substance to your response. This is the equivalent of saying, "Nuh-Uh".

Jazzns previously writes:

I would first of all like to point out that Darwin is not the authority on evolution.

That's because science is tentative. The half life of "fact" in science lasts about 5 years on average.

This is hard because this falls into the category of both moving the goalposts and not debating specific points. Your reply in no way takes into account the context of our previous discussion. Recall, you had mentioned Darwin's concept of animals in confusion. I made my comment with regards to that context to point out that you were arguing from authority. Moreover, you are even arguing from an authority from whom you give no credence!

What then does this reply do to counter the point that I made regarding how we don't consider Darwin's opinions to be gospel. Darwin thought that animals should be in confusion. Darwin was wrong. Your reply says nothing to discount that simply point.

Beyond that, your reply is nothing but a bare assertion that is utterly and totally wrong.


What is fact?

As I mentioned before, this debate changed from a discussion about interpretation to a discussion of the validity of the evidence. Once that happened, you implicitly conceded your position that creationists merely interpret the evidence differently. In reality, creationists have their own "evidence" that they very much would like everyone else to accept. They also primarily attack sources of evidence that mainstream science uses it to come to conclusions. They are also well known for ignoring evidence as your readily demonstrated in the content of your debate.

I will go though the examples here but it is worthwhile to point out that in the end reality wins. You comment about the half life of fact in science is testament to your profound and fundamental misunderstanding of what it means for something to be a fact versus a theory. A fact is something that is not up for debate. A fact may be incomplete. A fact may lead to an invalid theory if it is sufficiently complex but in the end, the facts don't change.

The ratios of parent to daughter isotope in a rock don't change their values because it is a Christian geologists who measures them versus a hindu or atheist geologist. Genetic markers in the genome of extant species don't become more or less similar because the person looking at them believes in a personal God. Yet Biblical Creationists would have us believe that some of these things are not actually true. They will CLAIM that cladograms are subjective yet never prove that by creating an alternative cladogram. They will CLAIM that radiometric dating is biased or circular yet never even enter the arena of evidence for correlative and collaborating dating. They will claim that the intricacies of the geologic column can be explained by a global flood but remain silent on the issues of fossil strain, phenocrysts, evaporites, erosional horizons, and any number of ACTUAL FACTS that bring their pretend and made up facts into disrepute. In the worse case, biblical creationists will lie.

Lucy is hardly a worthy example. First of all, she's an extremely incomplete skeleton, secondly, they aren't sure she was in fact female, thirdly, the bones were not found in one location but over a mile stretch. That's quite an amazing feat how bones were dispersed like that.

This is a lie. Not to say that it is your lie NJ but is a lie none the less. You are a repeating a LIE that was told to you that you believe was a fact.

Creationists have been making the claim that Donald Johanson found the knee joint of "Lucy," a 40%-complete skeleton of the species Australopithecus afarensis, in a location "Sixty to seventy meters lower in the strata and two to three kilometers away" (Willis 1987). They have sometimes gone on to add the claim that "Only under questioning did [Johanson] admit that the knee was found over a mile from Lucy. To the best of our knowledge this admission has not appeared in print!" (Willis 1987; emphasis in original; Also see Brown 1989a, p. 44) The claim is used by creationists to show that (a) evolutionists are dishonest and (b) "Lucy" did not walk upright. It successfully shows neither of these things, because it is false. (Even if it were true, it would not demonstrate (b), for reasons given in Lippard (1989-90)--the knee joint is not the only evidence of bipedality in A. afarensis.)

The claim is not only false, it is clearly shown to be false in Johanson's published writings about "Lucy" (e.g., Johanson and Edey 1981, ch. 7-8) and it has been pointed out repeatedly to its proponents that it is false. Despite this, none of the major proponents of the claim has publicly retracted it. One major proponent has privately agreed that it is false, and a few creationists have agreed to stop repeating it. One minor proponent made a public retraction.

From: A Case Study in Creationists' Willingness to Admit their Errors

Not only is the lie evident in the reporting of the find, it can be seen by direct inspection.

The fossils constituting the find named "Lucy" does not contain a knee joint!!!
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/lucy.html

The rest of the Case Study articles goes on the explain how for 18 creationists who have been known to make this claims only 3 have retracted it when shown how blatant an obvious the error is. The attempts to get retractions are documented at that link. Therefore the creationists continuing to make this claim are very simply ... lying.

In the best case, creationists simply ignore the evidence that they find too inconvenient to address. One that is apparent in your reply NJ is this:

Especially when considering that the majority of theropods stood well over 10 feet tall, while Archy is about the size of a chicken. Kind of strange that a megalithic-sized creature could, by happenstance, produce such diminutive progeny. I realize that some classified theropods are of small stature, but we see those earlier in geologic record.

The FACT is that there is known to be a VAST diversity of not only therapod dinosaurs but FEATHERED therapod dinosaurs that range from 16 inches to 20 feet tall many of which are about the size of a chicken or a turkey. In FACT I both described, and provided reference to these very interesting FACTS in Message 36. I'll repost the link here:

http://www.dinosaur-world.com/feathered_dinosaurs/0-feathered_dinosaurs.htm

Here we can see you have no qualms of making up your own facts. Had you bothered to check up on your claim about the "majority of therapod dinosaurs" or when in the geologic record they appear you would have found out that both of your claims are false. To say that differently, the things you are claiming are FACTS are NOT FACTS.

It is plain to see that such a personal distortion is what makes you say things like:

Jazzns, really.... Come on. Its very simple. For a forelimb in a distant relative to become a fully functional wing in a preceding generation, there surely would have to have been innumerable gradations in between.

To say such a thing REQUIRES that you be ignorant of the evidence at the feathered dinosaur link. Either that or a propensity to be deceptive but I prefer not to examine that possibility.

The other MAJOR flaw in the argument from many creationists including you NJ is the complete inability to metabolize ACTUAL facts for what they are. There are two clear examples of this in this debate one previously and one in you last post.

Creationists will often point to the FACT of the existence of the Coelecanth as something meaningful against evolution. The biggest flaw in their argument has to do with a fathomless misunderstand of the actual Theory of Evolution but this is not the most obvious flaw. The most obvious flaw is that creationists FAIL systematically to take things that are fact into consideration alongside the entire rest of the body of evidence. The existence of a "living fossil" has to be taken alongside the facts of other extant fishlike amphibians, fossil evidence of lobe finned intermediates such as Tiktaalik and Gogonasus, and the genetic and morphological cladograms that can be objectively created for these excluding genetics for those that are living-impaired.

Taking all of those facts into account TOGETHER basically forces any sane person to essentially come to the same conclusion that the Theory of Evolution already provides. When species evolve, the ancestral species does not necessarily go away. That is why even though there are humans and birds, we still have bacteria and fungus. Even though humans share a common ancestor with apes, there are still other apes around. Even though my neighbors cute pet Chihuahua evolved from wolves, there are still wolves around. It makes so much common sense that it is hard to imagine why NJ and I spent the number of posts that we did on this issue. I believe, and the record seems to indicate, that this is because creationists like NJ choose to ignore facts.

The other example I would like to use is similar but this time with regards to the pterosaurs :

I'm curious to know where to place pterosaurs in the evolution of theropods and avian.
...
But where does it leave Pterosaurs which are said to have existed in the late Triassic period? It seems that flight has come about much longer than avian have been around, according to evolution. I'm curious to gather your input.

The reason why I wanted to point this out separately from the Coelecanth even though it is based on the same fallacy that extant species preclude each other is that this is an example where creationists make up rules about reality for which they can use real FACTS to try to prove their case. NJ you brought up Pterosaurs because you believe in a rule that if there is already flying creatures then more flying creatures cannot evolve. If this rule were true then that would be a serious problem if birds are meant to have evolved during the time when Pterosaurs were everywhere. It is fortunate that in the real world such a rule would require more than just your say so to mean anything. The existence of a creature in a niche does not automatically prevent another creature from also inhabiting that niche. If this were true then there would be only 1 kind of hoved herding grass eater and 1 kind of catlike predator in the savannah. The oceans would be filled with 1 kind of fish and 1 kind of whale.

Other examples of creationists performing this same trick can be seen in the of repeated "no new information", "soft sediment" idea of explaining geologic deformation, and polystrate fossils. There are many more but those are just the ones that come to mind. All require creationists inventing "rules" about the real world for which the actual facts are supposed to break thereby proving their associated theories to be incorrect.

The last thing I would like to point out is how creationists will both accept and deny the same fact at the same time. In fact, the most recent example of this coming from you is in the statement you made about Pterosaurs. Your argument is predicated on the fact that pterosaurs and the precursor to birds lived at the same time in the late Jurassic. Yet at a different place at a different time you argue directly against the tools and methodology that scientists use to even make the distinction of the geologic ages such that those two species could even be considered to exist during the same geologic age!


Failure to Engage the Evidence

After previously discussion radiometric dating you failed to respond to my most recent points about the isochron method. You then later announce:

The fact is, radiometric dating is a good tool to start with. However, there is sufficient evidence to show that it is replete with error and that empirically knowing which dates are true and which are erroneous is difficult. Therefore, questioning the reliability is not out of the question.

You completely disregarded my previous rebuttal and unabashedly restated your position as if the fact that you abandoned that line of argument in the face of actual evidence to the contrary didn't matter.

You completely failed to respond to my points about rock formations that cannot in an circumstances form quickly.

You completely failed to respond to my points about rock and fossil strain.

You completely failed to respond to my source for feathered therapods.

Add to this all the times mentioned above where you changed the subject. You left a HOST of issues on the table that you either did not want to or could not deal with.

Conclusion

Biblical Creationists operate with a different set of "facts" that do not correspond in any objective way to reality. In the extreme of cases the facts are outright lies and distortions with the intent to deceive people who are ignorant of or incapable of examining the body of evidence that would bring such malicious tactics to light. In the most innocent of cases, what is actually a fact is simply unknown due to lack of knowledge such as what actually constitutes the fossil record or what actually is involved in the creation of nested hierarchies. In the end though this does not excuse the biblical creationists from their fallacy of their arguments based on these denial or fabrication of fact. They should not be given a handicap in the controversy regarding these fallacies and when they simply "machine-gun" them out in attempt to avoid having to support them AS facts they should be challenged at every step at the granularity of each claim to said fact.

If creationists want to claim that Creation Science is merely a different interpretation of the already accepted facts, the first step would be to demonstrate that they actually accept those facts.

Denial is not a different interpretation.

Invention of false facts is not a different interpretation.

Believing that the world must conform to the mythos described by a fundamentalist interpretation of a multi-millennia old book is not a different interpretation.


Admins, do with this thread what you want to. It seems as though everyone was okay with leaving it here in GD yet opening it to everyone. As far as I am concerned the GD is over an anyone should be allowed to post here. If that means that this need to exist in “Is It Science?” then please move it.

For everyone else who might be responding in this thread. PLEASE take in to consideration the original OP about alternative interpretations. I know very well that this topic was sidetracked into discussion about evidence rather than interpretation and that was allowed on purpose. Nothing showed the failure of the claim of alternative interpretations better than having my opponent time and time again demonstrate that his beef was with the evidence instead.


Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-13-2007 1:23 AM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Jazzns, posted 01-17-2007 4:40 PM Jazzns has not yet responded
 Message 60 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-23-2007 2:38 PM Jazzns has responded
 Message 66 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-28-2007 1:02 PM Jazzns has responded

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 54 of 77 (377106)
01-15-2007 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by arachnophilia
01-14-2007 9:21 PM


Re: theropods, birds, and pterosaurs
i've never heard of dobson, but if anyone could be considered the "laughing stock of paleontology" it's alan feduccia. i'm serious -- go find a paleontology newsgroup, mention his name, and watch yourself get laughed off the board. he's a nut, a crackpot, and someone who knows absolutely nothing about biology outside of birds, and next to nothing about paleontology. paleontolgists like to say to him "that's great; you study birds. so do i. in fact, i study everything you study, plus an additional 120 million years worth of information."

That is besides the fact that feduccia still recognizes that birds evolved from thecodontia. So NJ is using the authority of someone who is simply arguing that birds evolved differently, not that they didn't evolve.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by arachnophilia, posted 01-14-2007 9:21 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by arachnophilia, posted 01-15-2007 4:21 AM Jazzns has not yet responded

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 56 of 77 (377605)
01-17-2007 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Jazzns
01-15-2007 1:46 AM


Re: What have we learned about these so called alternative interpretations?
What is to be the disposition of this thread. Is it going to remain in GD yet simply be open to everyone or should it be moved to Is it Science?


Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Jazzns, posted 01-15-2007 1:46 AM Jazzns has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by arachnophilia, posted 01-17-2007 4:45 PM Jazzns has responded

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 58 of 77 (377612)
01-17-2007 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by arachnophilia
01-17-2007 4:45 PM


Re: What have we learned about these so called alternative interpretations?
I know that NJ is not alone in this opinion. Faith among others in the past expressed the same opinion that the differences are all just a matter of interpretation.

Being that NJ has an obvious misunderstanding of what a FACT even is it seems a bit unfair that some of his creationist counterparts have not taken this opportunity to jump in and set the record straight.


Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by arachnophilia, posted 01-17-2007 4:45 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by arachnophilia, posted 01-17-2007 5:16 PM Jazzns has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
3Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019