Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-24-2019 5:48 AM
21 online now:
PaulK, Tangle (2 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,136 Year: 5,173/19,786 Month: 1,295/873 Week: 191/460 Day: 7/29 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
456
...
14NextFF
Author Topic:   Transitional fossils and quote mining
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 1040 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 31 of 210 (524275)
09-15-2009 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Peepul
09-15-2009 1:16 PM


Re: Apologetics
peepul writes:

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

It is horribly dishonest, but I would argue that their Darwin quote mines are worse because of their intent. They are not just trying to show an 'evolutionist' admitting flaws in the theory but trying convince people that even the father of evolutionary biology was skeptical of his own theory.

And unfortunately being Christian doesn't seem to hinder this. I class the 'quote-miners' in different categories. The worst by far are the people who actually pour through the literature and take out the quotes. IMO, there ought to be a special place in hell for someone who deliberately refurbishes a sentence or paragraph to say the opposite of what the author intended.

The other categories are various level of ignorant. Some of these are completely unaware that quote mining is wrong, even when shown the original. They sincerely believe that their source for the quote is honest, and simply can not see where anything is wrong. Others will acknowledge that that example may have been misunderstood but will go to the next, relying on an infinite series of "Maybe that was a bad example but this evolutionist said ...."

I am not sure what the issue is. Part of it, imo, lies in the RWA work of Altemeyer, Winter, and others. Where there is a measurable inability to see contradiction when the conclusion is a presupposition. Another portion might be hiding from the terrible thought that there could be good Christians out there who have been defrauding them. Admitting your source is a fraud is admitting you are a sucker. And that begs the question of what else you might believe that is equally fraudulent.


Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Peepul, posted 09-15-2009 1:16 PM Peepul has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19818
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 32 of 210 (524332)
09-15-2009 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Perdition
09-14-2009 2:47 PM


Re: not just fundamentalists though ...
LOL - guess I'll have to fix that ... interesting slip.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Perdition, posted 09-14-2009 2:47 PM Perdition has not yet responded

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2542 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 33 of 210 (524361)
09-16-2009 7:32 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Granny Magda
09-14-2009 3:13 PM


Re: Lies, Damn Lies and Creationist Quote Mines
Do you not think that the wider store of knowledge increases the possibility of an expert being right? Do you think that experts have more or less chance of being correct about their own field of study than laymen? Do you think that expertise has absolutely no value in forming conclusions? If you were ill, would you get the opinion of a trained doctor? Or a florist or plumber? And if 99 doctors all told you the same thing, but one plumber told you something else, would you be tempted to believe the plumber?
We really do see the world differently. A doctor has tested evidence that his methods of helping solve an illness will work. That's why i would believe the doctor. When a biologist tells me that natural selection works and then shows me a study where it shows that this mechanism is occuring, I will believe the biologist. However when that biologists makes up imaginative stories about how this process can over millions of years completly change the descendents of the creature studied into something that no longer even remotely looks like the original creature. Then no there is no need for me to accept his speculations.
If a weather forecaster told you that it was probably going to rain tomorrow, would you demand evidence? Or would you simply assume that he probably knew what he was talking about?

Half the time they are wrong, at least the ones on NZ TV, but anyway. This is because they make speculations. Sure they have kept records (human records) and can see via satellite the movement of clouds (information from the present) and can also measure atmospheric pressure (information from the present)and know of various mechanisms that scientists have studied in the present. This allows them to make an informed speculation. However according to evolutionists there are no eye witnesses to most of earth history who can verify our speculations of the past. Therefore they remain speculations.
What you have not demonstrated is that Feduccia believes archaeopteryx to be anything other than an important transitional fossil. His opinions are of no aid to creationist arguments unless taken out of context.

Then why did he say the things he did? He knew that creationists would pounce on them (message 26).
Actually lets also bring in the quote supplied by Augray from Feduccia (message 26)
Creationists are going to distort whatever arguments come up, and they've put me in company with luminaries like Stephen Jay Gould, so it doesn't bother me a bit. Archaeopteryx is half reptile and half bird any way you cut the deck, and so it is a Rosetta stone for evolution, whether it is related to dinosaurs or not. These creationists are confusing an argument about minor details of evolution with the indisputable fact of evolution: Animals and plants have been changing.
- Alan Feduccia, quoted in Svitil, K. A. 2003. Plucking Apart the Dino-Birds. Discover 24(2):16.
His two quotes just don't make sense when put next to each other. first he says "Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it's not. It is a bird, a perching bird." and then he says "Archaeopteryx is half reptile and half bird any way you cut the deck". What the...?? Of course he may be of the opinion that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs but some other reptile, which i guess might accomadate the two quotes but that doesn't help you guys because you seem to suggest that you believe that birds did evolve from dinos. To cap it all off, he says "These creationists are confusing an argument about minor details of evolution with the indisputable fact of evolution: Animals and plants have been changing." Great, so evolution from goo-to-you-via-the-zoo is proven because "animals and plants have been changing". This is just a ridiculous defense.
The platypus contains no derived features of avians.

Bird-like features

vitellogenin egg-yolk protein (also found in fish)
two ZPAX genes (also found in amphibians and fish)
X chromosome similar to avian sex chromosome Z, but another chromosome is similar to the mouse X, and still another is similar to the human X
some bird-like microRNAs

This subtle difference is a clear attempt to disguise the rhetorical nature of the initial quote.

Eh? The point was to show that while it seems very incredibly Darwin still thought that naturalistic processes could still explain it. in other words, he had a belief that he would stick with dispite the initial absurdity this belief brings.
You also mention ICR

Please take the use of the quote in context! The author was saying that the eye is incredible, which even darwin agreed with. I don't think any creationist is going to suddenly go "oh, look, even Darwin didn't think his theory would work" from this quote as this quote doesn't say anything like that.

Colin Patterson:
Yes, he realises that he is losing face in front of the evolutionary community and desperatly backpedals.
"But my talk was addressed to professional systematists, and concerned systematics, nothing else." Again more backpedalling his talk was supposed to be on "Evolutionism and creationism"
taking this quote

"The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test."

he still seems to have a very different view of evolution then you guys. And no matter how you take it, this quote from the lecture is pretty damning
I’ve tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people: “Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that you think is true?” I tried that question on the geology staff in the Field Museum of Natural History, and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago … and all I got there was silence for a long time, and then eventually one person said: “Yes, I do know one thing. It ought not to be taught in high school.”
He certainly does make a fool of himself in front of creationists. So what, when we find out that evolutionists see faults in the evolution as well, we should pretend that we haven't heard, and not use this to support our position on the weakness of evolution as an explanatory philosophy? Tough luck. we will use the ammo created by evolutionists against them, and I think this is legitimate.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Granny Magda, posted 09-14-2009 3:13 PM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by bluescat48, posted 09-16-2009 8:02 AM Arphy has not yet responded
 Message 35 by Granny Magda, posted 09-16-2009 9:31 AM Arphy has responded
 Message 36 by Blue Jay, posted 09-16-2009 11:41 AM Arphy has not yet responded
 Message 37 by caffeine, posted 09-16-2009 12:03 PM Arphy has not yet responded
 Message 41 by greyseal, posted 09-17-2009 8:09 AM Arphy has not yet responded
 Message 47 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-17-2009 9:36 AM Arphy has not yet responded
 Message 52 by Augray, posted 09-17-2009 12:18 PM Arphy has not yet responded

    
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2299 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 34 of 210 (524362)
09-16-2009 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Arphy
09-16-2009 7:32 AM


Re: Lies, Damn Lies and Creationist Quote Mines
So what, when we find out that evolutionists see faults in the evolution as well, we should pretend that we haven't heard, and not use this to support our position on the weakness of evolution as an explanatory philosophy? Tough luck. we will use the ammo created by evolutionists against them, and I think this is legitimate.

Sure evolutionist find faults. That's science not dogma. If every evolutionists totally agreed with each other there would be no continuing research into it. It would stagnate the way creationism does,
treated as truth, with no evidence to back it up.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Arphy, posted 09-16-2009 7:32 AM Arphy has not yet responded

    
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 0 days)
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 35 of 210 (524376)
09-16-2009 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Arphy
09-16-2009 7:32 AM


Re: Lies, Damn Lies and Creationist Quote Mines
Hi Arphy. I see you chose to ignore most of my direct questions to you.

A doctor has tested evidence that his methods of helping solve an illness will work. That's why i would believe the doctor.

How do you know? Do you demand to see that evidence every time you are ill? Or do you just accept that the doctor's expertise is sufficient?

When a biologist tells me that natural selection works and then shows me a study where it shows that this mechanism is occuring, I will believe the biologist.

There are countless studies showing natural selection in action. Here is a page on one teams work on natural selection in Galapagos finches.

There is plenty of this kind of evidence, yet you still won't believe it. You seem to feel that you are qualified enough to dismiss it without even having examined it.

However when that biologists makes up imaginative stories about how this process can over millions of years completly change the descendents of the creature studied into something that no longer even remotely looks like the original creature. say somethng that disagrees with my narrow interpretation of the Bible. Then no there is no need for me to accept his speculations.

Fixed that for you.

Half the time they are wrong, at least the ones on NZ TV, but anyway. This is because they make speculations. Sure they have kept records (human records) and can see via satellite the movement of clouds (information from the present) and can also measure atmospheric pressure (information from the present)and know of various mechanisms that scientists have studied in the present. This allows them to make an informed speculation. However according to evolutionists there are no eye witnesses to most of earth history who can verify our speculations of the past. Therefore they remain speculations.

So you believe the forecasters (to whatever extent) because they show sucuess in making predictions? that's good, because the ToE is superb at making predictions.

Perhaps the best example is the discovery of Tiktaalik, the famous transitional fish/tetrapod. Scientists knew what they were looking for. They knew roughly when the ToE said that it should have lived. They knew what environment the ToE said it should have lived in. They knew what rocks, of what age and what origin where the most likely candidates. So they went to those rocks, in Greenland, and looked.

They found exactly what the ToE predicted; an animal with both fish and tetrapod traits. Its anatomy matched their predictions. The predictive power of the ToE was confirmed yet again.

That is just one example of the evidence that you deny exists. There are many more.

Before I move on, I would just like to try again to get you to answer a few direct questions.

Do you not think that the wider store of knowledge increases the possibility of an expert being right? Yes or no?

Do you think that experts have more or less chance of being correct about their own field of study than laymen? More or less?

Do you think that expertise has absolutely no value in forming conclusions? Yes or no?

Then why did he say the things he did? He knew that creationists would pounce on them

a) You misunderstod what he said; I have already demonstrated this. The contradiction exists only in your head.
b) Perhaps he felt as though he should be able to speak his mind at a professional conference without dishonest slimeballs hijacking his words.
c) What you are saying here is equivalent to "Hey, why do these shopkeepers leave stuff lying around on shelves anyway? Don't they know I'm just going to steal it?" Dishonest quote mining is not justified by the victim's failure to protect himself from it.

His two quotes just don't make sense when put next to each other. first he says "Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it's not. It is a bird, a perching bird." and then he says "Archaeopteryx is half reptile and half bird any way you cut the deck". What the...??

There is no contradiction. Birds are a subset of reptiles. If it's contradictions you're looking for, I recommend the Bible.

Note that however much you think there is a contradiction, Feduccia makes clear that he thinks your view is ridiculous. That makes any attempt on your part to use his views as ammunition inherently dishonest. He doesn't agree with you Arphy. How many times do you have to be told this before you stop trying to use him as an authority to back up your views?

To cap it all off, he says "These creationists are confusing an argument about minor details of evolution with the indisputable fact of evolution: Animals and plants have been changing." Great, so evolution from goo-to-you-via-the-zoo is proven because "animals and plants have been changing". This is just a ridiculous defense.

It's also not what he said... "Plants and animals are changing" is a conclusion, delivered in sound-bite form. It is not the evidence for the conclusion, nor was Feduccia claiming it was evidence, nor would anyone. You are now deliberately taking his words out of context yourself, instead of simply repeating what you were told on creation.com. You have moved from repeating lies to making up new ones. Classy.

Bird-like features

Arphy, please, stop humiliating yourself, it's just too painful to watch.

There are no derived traits of birds present in platypuses. There are basal traits, shared by marsupials, reptiles, amphibians and fish. Birds may also display these basal traits, since they are also descended from reptiles, amphibians and fish.

What you will not find is a derived bird trait in a platypus. You understand what that means right?

vitellogenin egg-yolk protein (also found in fish)

It's also found in fish. How does that make it bird-like? It sounds more fish-like to me, which is what we'd expect, since fish are distantly anscestral to marsupials.

two ZPAX genes (also found in amphibians and fish)

Amphibians and fish are both ancestral to birds and marsupials. These are basal traits.

X chromosome similar to avian sex chromosome Z, but another chromosome is similar to the mouse X, and still another is similar to the human X

Hey, you were the one who was so keen on evidence; how about you provide some? Do you have a source for this? Is it creation.com?

some bird-like microRNAs

Back that up please. How about you show me a credible source demonstrating that platypuses have derived avian traits...

You have demonstrated here that you don't understand what you're talking about. The shared traits you describe are basal features. They are evidence in favour of common ancestry and evolution, not evidence against. That fact that you are unable to tell the difference underlines just how poorly placed you are to criticise the experts you overrule out of hand. It is all very well to insist that you have evidence, but it won't do you any good if you don't understand the evidence.

The point was to show that while it seems very incredibly Darwin still thought that naturalistic processes could still explain it. in other words, he had a belief that he would stick with dispite the initial absurdity this belief brings.

Arphy, that is not a flaw. That is a positive quality, namely, the determination to look beyond superficiality. Superficial appearances are not reality. Superficially, the sun looks as though it is going round the Earth, but it's not. Let's just compare the messages of the two sources;

Darwin - "Superficially, evolution looks absurd, but it's not."

CMI - "Superficially, evolution looks ridiculous and it is!"

These two views are diametrically opposed. There is no way of parsing Darwin's statement into anything other than a rebuttal of the CMI position. CMI are still quite happy to use it though. I guess dishonesty and superficiality are fine with them.

Please take the use of the quote in context! The author was saying that the eye is incredible, which even darwin agreed with.

That's bloody rich, considering that there is no attempt in the ICR article to place the quote into its proper context. They could very easily have included the full quote, but they chose to clip it, leaving a distorted version.

Also, Darwin did not believe that the eye was incredible! You are falling hook. line and sinker for this lie, when the evidence against it is right in front of your eyes! It's like losing at three-card-monte with the cards face up!

Charles Darwin writes:

the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.

Okay? Do you get that? He didn't think the difficulties were real. He didn't think that the evolution of the eye was in any way incredible. Please stop lying about it. The truth is right in front of your eyes in black and white (well, blue and white...). You are fooling no-one except yourself.

You do the same with Patterson. Let me remind you what he said;

Colin Patterson writes:

the creationists' {interpretation} is false

How much more simple do I need to make this for you? He said your guys got it wrong. They misunderstood. None of what they are saying represents Patterson's true opinion, so their appeal to his authority, fallacious from the start, is false. He disagrees with you Arphy. How exactly do you manage to transform this, in your mind, from "the creationists are wrong" into "the creationists are right"?

So what, when we find out that evolutionists see faults in the evolution as well, we should pretend that we haven't heard, and not use this to support our position on the weakness of evolution as an explanatory philosophy? Tough luck. we will use the ammo created by evolutionists against them, and I think this is legitimate.

No, when you discover that you were so wrong about the interpretation of a comment (which you do not have the expertise to understand in the first place) that the author needs to specifically go on record to state that you are wrong, you should admit that you are wrong, rather than insist that you know what he meant to say better than he did himself.

Mutate and Survive


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Arphy, posted 09-16-2009 7:32 AM Arphy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Arphy, posted 09-17-2009 6:11 AM Granny Magda has responded

    
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 807 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 36 of 210 (524418)
09-16-2009 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Arphy
09-16-2009 7:32 AM


ZW vs XY and "Reptiles"
Hi, Arphy.

Arphy writes:

[The playpus has] X chromosome similar to avian sex chromosome Z, but another chromosome is similar to the mouse X, and still another is similar to the human X

It is similar in that the female is heterozygous (has two different types of chromosome) and the male is homozygous (has two of the same type) in that chromosome pair. What is interesting about this is that some lizards (e.g. monitors) and turtles also have heterozygous females. Curiously the Lepidoptera (moths and butterflies) also have heterozygous females.

It appears that the ZZ-ZW system is quite widespread across all animal groups. So, this trait is either an ancestral trait in animals, or a convergent trait (it appears idependently multiple times).

-----

Furthermore, I dislike the term "reptile," because it's a useless, vague term that doesn't really hold a lot of meaning. Basically, it refers to any amniote that isn't a bird or a mammal. That means that any trait that you call a "reptile" trait, is just an ancestral trait of amniotes, and we should expect to see these in some mammals if mammals evolved from reptiles.

In reality, there are at least three lineages of "reptiles": diapsids, synapsids and anapsids. The anapsids are extinct*. The diapsids include all the modern animals that we call "reptiles," plus the dinosaurs, pterosaurs and plesiosaurs (and some others). The synapsids include the mammals and the "reptiles" from which they evolved (most paleontologists now prefer to call these "stem-mammals," instead of "reptiles," because they share more in common with us than with classical "reptiles").

*Some people think turtles are anapsids, but this conflicts with a lot of recent molecular studies, that indicate that they are modified diapsids

In fact, we see that most (maybe even all) of the platypus's "reptilian" traits are actually also present in stem-mammals.

-----

So, technically speaking, your statement,

Arphy, Message 9, writes:

A platypus has features from mammals, reptiles, and birds!

...would be more appropriately stated:

Amended Arphy writes:

A platypus has features from mammals, stem-mammals and stem-animals!

...which hardly seems to conflict with the picture painted by the Theory of Evolution anymore.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Arphy, posted 09-16-2009 7:32 AM Arphy has not yet responded

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1624
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 37 of 210 (524419)
09-16-2009 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Arphy
09-16-2009 7:32 AM


What Feduccia Meant
Hello Arphy. I just wanted to quickly address these different comments from Feduccia, and what he was trying to say, as I think you've misunderstood them if you're still seeing a contradiction.

First we have this:

quote:
Archaeopteryx is half reptile and half bird any way you cut the deck

So, he is in agreement with every biologist in the world that Archaeoteryx is a transitional form between reptiles and birds. This is the common ground they were working from at the conference. But this isn't actually a very big common ground when it comes to discussing how Archaeoteryx behaved, or the specifics of its ancestry. Could it already fly, or were its wings used for some other purpose, for example? Did it behave like its coelurosaur ancestors and live as a ground-based predator, or had it developed another lifestyle? Is it actually evolved from a different reptile group than dinosaurs, meaning we shouldn't look to them for clues to its way of life? This is the context in which the next quote is meant:

quote:
Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it's not. It is a bird, a perching bird.

He's saying that Archaeopteryx did not live like a coelurosaur. It wasn't 'earth-bound' as some palaeontologists claim, meaning that it was capable of flight. He describes it as a perching bird, meaning it probably spent little time on the ground, perhaps catching its prey in the air and resting on tree branches.

Whichever side of this debate you fall on, however, it doesn't contradict the initial statement that Archaeopteryx is transitional between reptiles and birds. He just sees their ancestry in a different group of reptiles, and disagrees with the rest on how it lived.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Arphy, posted 09-16-2009 7:32 AM Arphy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-16-2009 12:11 PM caffeine has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5622
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 38 of 210 (524420)
09-16-2009 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by caffeine
09-16-2009 12:03 PM


Re: What Feduccia Meant
In other words he's been quotemined by certain creationists taking his quote out of context and distorting it.


"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams
This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by caffeine, posted 09-16-2009 12:03 PM caffeine has not yet responded

    
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2542 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 39 of 210 (524487)
09-17-2009 6:11 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Granny Magda
09-16-2009 9:31 AM


Re: Lies, Damn Lies and Creationist Quote Mines
Talk about quote mining! Throughout the replies to my post my words were taken out of context!!!!!
How do you know? Do you demand to see that evidence every time you are ill? Or do you just accept that the doctor's expertise is sufficient?

Because hopefully he has a nice certificate on the wall and I trust that no hospital/medical clinic would just hire someone off the street. I trust the doctors expertise because there are many eye-witnesses to his capabilities of healing people using medicine. These capabilities were learnt by the doctor because there is observable and repeatable evidence that these can help heal people.
There are countless studies showing natural selection in action. Here is a page on one teams work on natural selection in Galapagos finches.

There is plenty of this kind of evidence, yet you still won't believe it. You seem to feel that you are qualified enough to dismiss it without even having examined it.


What the..??? My statement clearly implies that i believe in natural selection, it is a VITAL part in creationist thought.
Scientists knew what they were looking for. They knew roughly when the ToE said that it should have lived. They knew what environment the ToE said it should have lived in. They knew what rocks, of what age and what origin where the most likely candidates. So they went to those rocks, in Greenland, and looked.
Back that up please.
To your 3 questions:
1. Yes
2. More
3. Yes
However just because an expert has a minority view compared to his fellow experts, doesn't make him wrong.

Feduccia:
Did you (and Caffeine) even read this:

me writes:

Of course he may be of the opinion that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs but some other reptile, which i guess might accomadate the two quotes but that doesn't help you guys because you seem to suggest that you believe that birds did evolve from dinos.


"Plants and animals changing": But in essence this is the cornerstone of evolution, isn't it?
What you will not find is a derived bird trait in a platypus.
Tell me something new. you won't find a derived trait from reptiles either.
Also yes I did get it from an article at creation.com, thank you. Here is original source "Genome consortium, Genome analysis of the platypus reveals unique signatures of evolution, Nature 453:175-183, 2008." So maybe you should stop embarrassing yourself and not be so quick to call me a liar, when you don't seem to know what you are talking about.
He didn't think that the evolution of the eye was in any way incredible.
Which i never said. Darwin believed that the eye was incredible (or whatever other word you want to use: Cool, Awesome, fantastic, pretty neat) not the way it evolved.
They could very easily have included the full quote, but they chose to clip it, leaving a distorted version.
there was no reason to. putting it in woludn't have added or taken away anything. again, we are not questioning that darwin believed it evolved, but rather that most people tend to think that our eyes are a very useful, and quite incredibly tool that we posess. If you happen to be of the opinion that eyes are a compltely useless feature then whatever, be my guest.

Colin Patterson
So you think that any of these quotes:

"But it's true that for the last eighteen months or so, I've been kicking around non-evolutionary or even anti-evolutionary ideas."

"Now, one of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, well, let's call it non-evolutionary, was last year I had a sudden realization. For over twenty years I had thought that I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up, and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it. That was quite a shock, to learn that one can be so misled for so long."

"So either there is something wrong with me, or there was something wrong with evolutionary theory. Naturally I know there's nothing wrong with me. So for the last few weeks, I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people. The question is this: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that you think is true?"

"Well, I'm not interested in the controversy over teaching in high school, and if any militant creationists have come here looking for political ammunition, I hope they'll be disappointed."

"I shall take the text of my sermon from this book, Gillespie's Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation....He takes it for granted that a rationalist view of nature has replaced an irrational one, and of course, I myself took that view, up until about eighteen months ago. And then I woke up and I realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way."

"Well, we're back to the question I've been putting to people, 'Is there one thing you can tell me about evolution?' And the absence of an answer seems to suggest that it is true, evolution does not convey any knowledge, or if so, I haven't yet heard it."

"Now I think many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here."

"So that's my first theme. That evolution and creationism seem to be showing remarkable parallels. They are increasingly hard to tell apart. And the second theme is that evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge, apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics."

from his lecture will say the complete opposite when heard in full context. Good luck with that.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Granny Magda, posted 09-16-2009 9:31 AM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by caffeine, posted 09-17-2009 6:56 AM Arphy has not yet responded
 Message 42 by greyseal, posted 09-17-2009 8:18 AM Arphy has not yet responded
 Message 43 by greyseal, posted 09-17-2009 8:28 AM Arphy has not yet responded
 Message 45 by greyseal, posted 09-17-2009 9:15 AM Arphy has not yet responded
 Message 51 by Coyote, posted 09-17-2009 10:36 AM Arphy has not yet responded
 Message 58 by Granny Magda, posted 09-17-2009 3:12 PM Arphy has responded
 Message 61 by Augray, posted 09-17-2009 5:35 PM Arphy has not yet responded

    
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1624
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 40 of 210 (524491)
09-17-2009 6:56 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Arphy
09-17-2009 6:11 AM


Re: Lies, Damn Lies and Creationist Quote Mines
Feduccia:
Did you (and Caffeine) even read this:
quote:
Of course he may be of the opinion that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs but some other reptile, which i guess might accomadate the two quotes but that doesn't help you guys because you seem to suggest that you believe that birds did evolve from dinos.

Oops. I did read this, but it somehow failed to register in my brain. Maybe this is the same psychological mechanism that allows for quote mining in the first place.

Given that the Archaeopteryx quote was being presented in a context where it purported to provide expert support for the view that it is not transitional between reptiles and birds.

Now, he wouldn't be much use if we were using his arguments to support the view that Archaeopteryx evolved from dinosaurs, but we weren't. We were simply pointing out you were incorrect to use it as support for this position:

"If, of course, it’s a true bird, it is not the half-way, half-reptile, half-bird like we've often heard."

Those who argued it was a true bird at the conference still considered it transitional between birds and reptiles.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Arphy, posted 09-17-2009 6:11 AM Arphy has not yet responded

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 1971 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 41 of 210 (524500)
09-17-2009 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Arphy
09-16-2009 7:32 AM


Re: Lies, Damn Lies and Creationist Quote Mines
When a biologist tells me that natural selection works and then shows me a study where it shows that this mechanism is occuring, I will believe the biologist. However when that biologists makes up imaginative stories about how this process can over millions of years completly change the descendents of the creature studied into something that no longer even remotely looks like the original creature. Then no there is no need for me to accept his speculations.

I think you've been shown those studies, BUT you don't like the answers, perhaps because their conclusions are, to you, too amazing.

Arphy, you aren't a biologist, but you're trying to say you know better than one. It is exactly like you wandering into open heart surgery and seeing a doctor on top of a patient punching him/her in the ribs...why do you think your automatic assumption of depraved battery is correct over the doctor's insistence that s/he had to do this to restart a heart?

arphy writes:

granny magda writes:

What you have not demonstrated is that Feduccia believes archaeopteryx to be anything other than an important transitional fossil. His opinions are of no aid to creationist arguments unless taken out of context.


Then why did he say the things he did? He knew that creationists would pounce on them (message 26).

I have to sheepishly appologize here - my original understanding of the situation was lacking.

Archaeopteryx, it appears, is a bird.

If, as you say, the majority of the conference (experts in their fields, every one) say it was a bird, then it was a bird.

but...it was not JUST a bird.

It is a transitional fossil, showing non-avian traits that it shared in common with other dinosaurs.

So it is a marvellous example confirming the theory of evolution.

And it's a dinosaur.

All of the previous is true - and yet you would say they contradict each other.

If you understand why they do not, you will understand better what Feduccia said and why.

derived traits over shared traits are, as Granny Magda said, entirely different. Please stay (haha) in context.

It also seems you are unaware that AiG, CRI and every other website of that ilk quote Darwin as saying that (and I'm paraphrasing from the parts they print) it is fantastic to assume the eye could have evolved by chance.

The problem is, as you should see if you read the whole quote in context he says "...but it isn't" - and then gives a thorough explanation of why.

How could that cut NOT be deliberate when it changes the entire meaning of the paragraph?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Arphy, posted 09-16-2009 7:32 AM Arphy has not yet responded

    
greyseal
Member (Idle past 1971 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 42 of 210 (524503)
09-17-2009 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Arphy
09-17-2009 6:11 AM


Re: Lies, Damn Lies and Creationist Quote Mines
Arphy writes:

Of course he may be of the opinion that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs but some other reptile, which i guess might accomadate the two quotes but that doesn't help you guys because you seem to suggest that you believe that birds did evolve from dinos.

Your point is meaningless - if Archaeopteryx evolved from dinosaurs, grew feathers and learned to fly, so much so that it lived in the air rather than ran on the ground, then dinosaurs could evolve into birds.

Whether Archaeopteryx evolved into all modern birds, one species or none, is irrelevant.

The fact is, one creature was caught between two worlds - why could it not happen again, especially since dinosaurs then and birds now share so much in common?

If Archy evolved from reptiles back when we think it did, then it must have been from dinosaurs - because they were ALL dinosaurs.

Edited by greyseal, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Arphy, posted 09-17-2009 6:11 AM Arphy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by NosyNed, posted 09-17-2009 8:57 AM greyseal has responded

    
greyseal
Member (Idle past 1971 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 43 of 210 (524508)
09-17-2009 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Arphy
09-17-2009 6:11 AM


Re: Lies, Damn Lies and Creationist Quote Mines
Arphy (regarding Darwin's eye quote) writes:

there was no reason to. putting it in woludn't have added or taken away anything. again, we are not questioning that darwin believed it evolved, but rather that most people tend to think that our eyes are a very useful, and quite incredibly tool that we posess. If you happen to be of the opinion that eyes are a compltely useless feature then whatever, be my guest.

Ok, this is the quote from AiG and the like:

quote:

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.

You know what that says to me, and to everyone else who reads it? That Darwin thought his own theory was "absurd in the highest possible degree".

The reason it is a quote mine, is because they deliberately omit the following:

quote:

Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.

So tell me again, why is the quote in it's massively foreshortened, clipped form correct, when it means precisely the opposite of what Darwin meant?

that quote is also excellent for dismissing the "evolution demands abiogenesis" bunk:

quote:
How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated

Edited by greyseal, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Arphy, posted 09-17-2009 6:11 AM Arphy has not yet responded

    
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8842
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 7.5


Message 44 of 210 (524513)
09-17-2009 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by greyseal
09-17-2009 8:18 AM


All dinosaurs
...because they were ALL dinosaurs.

This is not true.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by greyseal, posted 09-17-2009 8:18 AM greyseal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by greyseal, posted 09-17-2009 9:17 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 1971 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 45 of 210 (524516)
09-17-2009 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Arphy
09-17-2009 6:11 AM


Re: Lies, Damn Lies and Creationist Quote Mines
Colin Patterson
So you think that any of these quotes:

(quote from here )

from his lecture will say the complete opposite when heard in full context. Good luck with that.

actually, yes, it does reverse the opinion that your selected quotes give.

I would say it is obvious (especially when in concert with other letters he has written such as this one) that he is not a creationist.

For the sake of argument, specifically when addressing systematics, he played one in a lecture.

Bzzzt! Sorry, try again.

Edited by greyseal, : fixed the darn links.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Arphy, posted 09-17-2009 6:11 AM Arphy has not yet responded

    
Prev12
3
456
...
14NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019