Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 76 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-19-2019 2:16 AM
21 online now:
DrJones*, GDR, PaulK, Tangle (4 members, 17 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Upcoming Birthdays: Percy
Post Volume:
Total: 851,600 Year: 6,637/19,786 Month: 1,178/1,581 Week: 0/393 Day: 0/30 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Transitional fossils and quote mining
Peepul
Member (Idle past 3152 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 30 of 210 (524269)
09-15-2009 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Coyote
09-15-2009 11:47 AM


Re: Apologetics
What's striking about Alan Feduccia is that he has written a book called 'The Origin and Evolution of Birds'

http:/.../the_origin_and_evolution_of_birds_tefno_54379.html

And yet, searching for his quote in post 1 of this thread throws up a whole series of creationist websites that use the quote to 'show' that there is no evidence that birds evolved from reptiles.

This is one of the worst examples I have seen of dishonest quote mining. These folks are supposed to be Christian!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Coyote, posted 09-15-2009 11:47 AM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Lithodid-Man, posted 09-15-2009 2:47 PM Peepul has not yet responded

    
Peepul
Member (Idle past 3152 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 79 of 210 (525047)
09-21-2009 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Arphy
09-21-2009 7:34 AM


Re: Lies, Damn Lies and Creationist Quote Mines
quote:
... the evolution of birds as basically fact when the debate still rages as to how and from where.

Because scientists are in no doubt that birds evolved. Even though there is some debate as to what what the ancestors of birds were, not a single one of the scientists involved is contending that they did not evolve. Scientists are (mostly) not trying to prove evolution is true. That game is over. The evidence is in.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Arphy, posted 09-21-2009 7:34 AM Arphy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by greyseal, posted 09-21-2009 11:21 AM Peepul has not yet responded

    
Peepul
Member (Idle past 3152 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


(1)
Message 156 of 210 (530396)
10-13-2009 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by Arphy
10-13-2009 6:13 AM


quote:
Transitional fossils: Now reading through the transcript Colin Patterson's speech, I think I begin to understand what is happening. As many of you have pointed in some cases there seem to be morphological features in some animals which when placed next to other animals with similar morphological features you could possibly create a line of animals where these features are arranged into progressive steps. However which features do you pick? The ones that fit the best story? One basic example might be that the common theory says that birds evolved from reptiles, but this is because certain features are picked. If we picked as a major feature warm-bloodedness as a feature the evolutionary tree would look quite different with birds evolving from mammals.

Arphy,

One of the things that proves common descent is real is that similar trees result when different sets of features are used - and by the way, sets of features are always used rather than single ones to avoid the kind of problems you describe above.

Note that the trees are not EXACTLY THE SAME when derived by different methods - however, statistical analysis can now show how significant the similarity is. And for evolutionary trees it's very significant (pace Mayr).

Statistically it is also now possible to detect objectively how strongly a 'tree' supports 'common descent'. Trees based on features of organisms show strong evidence of this, languages do also.

Edited by Peepul, : Add reference to Mayr


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Arphy, posted 10-13-2009 6:13 AM Arphy has not yet responded

    
Peepul
Member (Idle past 3152 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


(2)
Message 157 of 210 (530404)
10-13-2009 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by Arphy
10-13-2009 6:13 AM


quote:
They are also generally in accord with the Creation model. As I said this type of classification makes no claim about evolutionary paths. It groups organisms into morphological similarities.

Or genetic similarities, or both - but that's a side issue.

The main point is that the trees are not 'generally in accord with the creation model'. The evidence we have massively constrains the kind of creation that is permitted - to one that looks exactly like common descent.

What we explicitly do NOT see is a modular approach, where the same components are used across a wide variety of organisms in widely spread branches of the tree. Everything looks like it is derived from characters that belong to creatures further up the tree.

Why would a designer be constrained in this way? Why would a designer create something that looks exactly like common descent? Why would a good and moral designer create something that leads people who care about evidence to the wrong conclusions about the history of life?

The answer is they wouldn't, of course. Because there was no designer


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Arphy, posted 10-13-2009 6:13 AM Arphy has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019