Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
33 online now:
DrJones*, PaulK, Pressie (3 members, 30 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Post Volume: Total: 863,468 Year: 18,504/19,786 Month: 924/1,705 Week: 176/518 Day: 0/50 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Transitional fossils and quote mining
Augray
Junior Member (Idle past 3588 days)
Posts: 9
From: Toronto, Canada
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 61 of 210 (524597)
09-17-2009 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Arphy
09-17-2009 6:11 AM


Re: Lies, Damn Lies and Creationist Quote Mines
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.

Sure you will. For instance, a soft, leatherly-shelled egg.

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.

That paper doesn't support your claims. It states that

The platypus genome, as well as the animal, is an amalgam of
ancestral reptilian and derived mammalian characteristics.

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

    
Augray
Junior Member (Idle past 3588 days)
Posts: 9
From: Toronto, Canada
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 62 of 210 (524600)
09-17-2009 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Granny Magda
09-17-2009 3:12 PM


Re: Lies, Damn Lies and Creationist Quote Mines
I do know that in his book entitled "Evolution" (bit of an odd title for someone who doesn't believe in evolution isn't it?) Patterson said "[The] "misprints" shared between species ... are (to me) incontrovertible evidence of common descent."

He also stated in that book that

There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs...

Edited by Augray, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Granny Magda, posted 09-17-2009 3:12 PM Granny Magda has not yet responded

    
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2717 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 63 of 210 (524802)
09-18-2009 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Granny Magda
09-17-2009 3:12 PM


Re: Lies, Damn Lies and Creationist Quote Mines
biology departments tend to hire off the street.

As in a lay person who has no understanding of biology?
Eye witnesses? that's your idea of evidence? Eye witness reports are notoriously unreliable.

Sure they can be, but a reliable eye witness is far better than "forensic evidence" .../dn16631-forensic-science-too-unreliable-says-report.html and even DNA evidence can go wrong at times.
since you seem to accept pretty much all of evolutionary theory.
This impression is given by the fact that the definition for evolution used on this forum is very broad and does not include pointing out that evolutionists believe that every living thing shares a commen ancestor. Discussions on this forum would often move along far better if evolutionists would focus on the part of evolution that differentiates it from the creationist model.
you'll find that Tiktaalik was discovered pretty much as I said it was; thanks to the predictive power of the theory of evolution.
This "predictive power" is not limited to an evolutionist worldview. It was found in a freshwater fish "graveyard" which again works well with the creationist model.

oops. Changed the question below so it reads better.
Do you think that expertise has value in forming conclusions? Yes.

Feduccia: His quotes which were against the ground dweller dino bird to bird theory is just "another feather in the cap" in what creationists are saying. Namely that there is great difficulty as to how Reptiles could evolve into birds. You (and others) seem so sure that the scientific community supports them in the dino to bird model and yet here is a nice open letter which shows that the layman's view of scientist's opinions is often very different from the actual experts (note letter is in full, no quote mining, and don't come back saying "It doesn't say they don't believe in evolution", I know, as I have said before,the underlying dogma is never challenged)

National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian Institution
Washington, D. C. 20560

1 November 1999

OPEN LETTER TO:

Dr. Peter Raven, Secretary
PRaven@nas.org
Committee for Research and Exploration
National Geographic Society
Washington, DC 20036

Dear Peter,

I thought that I should address to you the concerns expressed below because your committee is at least partly involved and because you are certainly now the most prominent scientist at the National Geographic Society.

With the publication of “Feathers for T. rex?” by Christopher P. Sloan in its November issue, National Geographic has reached an all-time low for engaging in sensationalistic, unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism. But at the same time the magazine may now claim to have taken its place in formal taxonomic literature.

Although it is possible that Mr. Czerkas “will later name” the specimen identified on page 100 as Archaeoraptor liaoningensis, there is no longer any need for him to do so.

Because this Latinized binomial has apparently not been published previously and has now appeared with a full-spread photograph of the specimen “accompanied by a description or definition that states in words characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon,” the name Archaeoraptor liaoningensis Sloan is now available for purposes of zoological nomenclature as of its appearance in National Geographic (International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, Article 13a, i). This is the worst nightmare of many zoologists---that their chance to name a new organism will be inadvertently scooped by some witless journalist. Clearly, National Geographic is not receiving competent consultation in certain scientific matters.

Sloan’s article explicitly states that the specimen in question is known to have been illegally exported and that “the Czerkases now plan to return it to China.” In Washington, in June of 1996, more than forty participants at the 4th International Meeting of the Society of Avian Paleontology and Evolution, held at the Smithsonian Institution, were signatories to a letter to the Director of the Chinese Academy of Sciences that deplored the illegal trade in fossils from China and encouraged the Chinese government to take further action to curb this exploitation.

There were a few fossil dealers at that meeting and they certainly got the message. Thus, at least since mid-1996 it can hardly have been a secret to anyone in the scientific community or the commercial fossil business that fossils from Liaoning offered for sale outside of China are contraband.

Most, if not all, major natural history museums in the United States have policies in effect that prohibit their staff from accepting any specimens that were not legally collected and exported from the country of origin. The National Geographic Society has not only supported research on such material, but has sensationalized, and is now exhibiting, an admittedly illicit specimen that would have been morally, administratively, and perhaps legally, off-limits to researchers in reputable scientific institutions.

Prior to the publication of the article “Dinosaurs Take Wing” in the July 1998 National Geographic, Lou Mazzatenta, the photographer for Sloan’s article, invited me to the National Geographic Society to review his photographs of Chinese fossils and to comment on the slant being given to the story. At that time, I tried to interject the fact that strongly supported alternative viewpoints existed to what National Geographic intended to present, but it eventually became clear to me that National Geographic was not interested in anything other than the prevailing dogma that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

Sloan’s article takes the prejudice to an entirely new level and consists in large part of unverifiable or undocumented information that “makes” the news rather than reporting it. His bald statement that “we can now say that birds are theropods just as confidently as we say that humans are mammals” is not even suggested as reflecting the views of a particular scientist or group of scientists, so that it figures as little more than editorial propagandizing. This melodramatic assertion had already been disproven by recent studies of embryology and comparative morphology, which, of course, are never mentioned.

More importantly, however, none of the structures illustrated in Sloan’s article that are claimed to be feathers have actually been proven to be feathers. Saying that they are is little more than wishful thinking that has been presented as fact. The statement on page 103 that “hollow, hairlike structures characterize protofeathers” is nonsense considering that protofeathers exist only as a theoretical construct, so that the internal structure of one is even more hypothetical.

The hype about feathered dinosaurs in the exhibit currently on display at the National Geographic Society is even worse, and makes the spurious claim that there is strong evidence that a wide variety of carnivorous dinosaurs had feathers. A model of the undisputed dinosaur Deinonychus and illustrations of baby tyrannosaurs are shown clad in feathers, all of which is simply imaginary and has no place outside of science fiction.

The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists acting in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the first casualties in their program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age---the paleontological equivalent of cold fusion. If Sloan’s article is not the crescendo of this fantasia, it is difficult to imagine to what heights it can next be taken. But it is certain that when the folly has run its course and has been fully exposed, National Geographic will unfortunately play a prominent but unenviable role in the book that summarizes the whole sorry episode.

Sincerely,

Storrs L. Olson
Curator of Birds
National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian Institution
Washington, DC 20560

Granny writes:
What you will not find is a derived bird trait in a platypus.

Arphy writes:
Tell me something new. you won't find a derived trait from reptiles either.

Yes you will.

I was speaking from a creationist point of view.

Platypus:
It's your theory, all i said was that there were avian features, whether derived or not, I didn't specify. And it does have avian features whether the evolutionary story puts these features as having evolved in reptiles who were the descendents of both the birds and platypuses or not does not really worry me. There are still enough problems for the evolutionary story with just looking at the mammal and reptile features

If this paper is supposed to deal a death blow to the ToE, it seems to have slipped past its authors.
No, It is in line with how evolutionists think, i.e. making up highly imaginative explanations to try to fit an animal into the ToE.

I have no idea do I? The full context isn't available to me.

ok, so you would have to buy it, but it is avaliable. Here http://www.arn.org/arnproducts/audios/c010.htm

What part of "the creationists are wrong" are you having trouble understanding?


What part of, He is desperatly backpeddaling to save his standing in the scientific community, don't you understand?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Granny Magda, posted 09-17-2009 3:12 PM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-18-2009 10:27 PM Arphy has responded
 Message 66 by Granny Magda, posted 09-19-2009 8:10 AM Arphy has responded
 Message 68 by Augray, posted 09-19-2009 2:45 PM Arphy has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.0


Message 64 of 210 (524804)
09-18-2009 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Arphy
09-18-2009 9:38 PM


Re: Lies, Damn Lies and Creationist Quote Mines
Sure they can be, but a reliable eye witness is far better than "forensic evidence"

And reliable forensic evidence is better than an eye-witness.

This has nothing to do with the relative merits of forensic evidence and eyewitnesses and everything to do with the meaning of the word "reliable".

This impression is given by the fact that the definition for evolution used on this forum is very broad ...

That's why we keep trying to narrow it down to what it actually means, despite the witless attempts of creationists to change the meaning of a well-defined scientific term.

This "predictive power" is not limited to an evolutionist worldview. It was found in a freshwater fish "graveyard" which again works well with the creationist model.

How does creationism predict the existence of fish-amphibian transitional forms? How does it predict the radiometric date of the rocks in which they will be found?

You (and others) seem so sure that the scientific community supports them in the dino to bird model and yet here is a nice open letter which shows that the layman's view of scientist's opinions is often very different from the actual experts ...

Olsen is not the scientific community. The scientific community does think that dinosaurs are ancestral to birds. That's what Olsen is so upset about.

Feduccia: His quotes which were against the ground dweller dino bird to bird theory is just "another feather in the cap" in what creationists are saying. Namely that there is great difficulty as to how Reptiles could evolve into birds.

Let's quote Feduccia again:

The creature thus memorialized was Archaeopteryx lithographica, and, though indisputably birdlike, it could with equal truth be called reptilian.... The Archaeopteryx fossil is, in fact, the most superb example of a specimen perfectly intermediate between two higher groups of living organisms--what has come to be called a "missing link," a Rosetta stone of evolution....

Please do feel free to wear this feather in your cap. It would look good just above the big letter D.

Platypus:
It's your theory, all i said was that there were avian features, whether derived or not, I didn't specify. And it does have avian features whether the evolutionary story puts these features as having evolved in reptiles who were the descendents of both the birds and platypuses or not does not really worry me. There are still enough problems for the evolutionary story with just looking at the mammal and reptile features

Summary: it doesn't matter that you were completely wrong, because you can always make more stuff up and supply no evidence for that, either.

No, It is in line with how evolutionists think, i.e. making up highly imaginative explanations to try to fit an animal into the ToE.

You do talk a lot of crap, don't you?

What part of, He is desperatly backpeddaling to save his standing in the scientific community, don't you understand?

The reason why you should tell such a blatant falsehood.

As has been shown, he named a number of species as intermediate forms in his book, the very same book that creationists are lying about. It is, therefore, not "backpedaling" for him to continue to assert what he has always asserted, namely that there are intermediate forms.

Let's hear it from Patterson, in his own words, in the very book that creationists are lying about:

"In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal, Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull. There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs (Fig. 45), and Ichthyostega, the late Devonian amphibian which links land vertebrates and the extinct choanate (having internal nostrils) fishes. . ."

How, then, can it be "backpedaling" for him to say that he thinks that there are intermediate forms? He said so in his book Evolution ... before creationists started pretending that he'd said that he didn't mention any such forms in that book because he couldn't think of any.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Arphy, posted 09-18-2009 9:38 PM Arphy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Arphy, posted 09-19-2009 6:42 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2717 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 65 of 210 (524814)
09-19-2009 6:42 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Dr Adequate
09-18-2009 10:27 PM


Re: Lies, Damn Lies and Creationist Quote Mines
The book "evolution" by colin patterson was written BEFORE his interaction with creationists and his lecture on "Evolutionism and Creationism". yes he certainly used to have the view as in your quote, however this changed as seen by the quotes i have supplied.

As for Olsen, is he really just a fringe scientist? He holds quite a high position at a reputable institute for being a fringe scientist, especially when his area of expertise is Birds.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-18-2009 10:27 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Augray, posted 09-19-2009 10:35 AM Arphy has not yet responded
 Message 90 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-22-2009 4:11 AM Arphy has responded

    
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 66 of 210 (524821)
09-19-2009 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Arphy
09-18-2009 9:38 PM


Re: Lies, Damn Lies and Creationist Quote Mines
Okay, first you're picking on a typo;

Granny writes:

biology departments tend to hire off the street.

As in a lay person who has no understanding of biology?

I think it's pretty clear that I omitted the word "not" there. It should read "biology departments tend not to hire off the street".

Remember, it was you who said that you believe doctors because of their "nice certificates" and because they were not hired at random. The same is true of biologists, as we both know perfectly well. So why the double standard?

Sure they can be, but a reliable eye witness is far better than "forensic evidence"

Let's not get side tracked. I'm just a little surprised that you cite eye witnesses as proof of the success of medical science, rather than, oh... I don't know... the reams of carefully compiled statistics on the improving health and life expectancy in countries with developed health care. Even when you agree with the science in question, your approach doesn't seem very scientific.

This impression is given by the fact that the definition for evolution used on this forum is very broadand does not include pointing out that evolutionists believe that every living thing shares a commen ancestor.

No, this impression is given by the fact that you have agreed with all the mechanisms of evolution. Let me be clear, if you accept random mutation, natural selection and genetic drift, you have accepted the theory of evolution. The only thing you reject are the theory’s implications, such as common ancestry between humans and apes, which is no more important to the ToE than common ancestry between gastropods and cephalopods; it just irks creationists that little bit more for some reason.

Discussions on this forum would often move along far better if evolutionists would focus on the part of evolution that differentiates it from the creationist model.

I would love to discuss that. Perhaps you will surprise us and be the first creationist to provide the mechanism that prevents the change accrued by random mutation, natural selection and genetic drift from accumulating beyond the arbitrary barrier you seem to imagine exists between species.

If you accept the mechanisms of evolution, what prevents those mechanisms from causing speciation?

This "predictive power" is not limited to an evolutionist worldview. It was found in a freshwater fish "graveyard" which again works well with the creationist model.

Now you are just making things up.

Tiktaalik is no mere freshwater fish. It combines fish and tetrapod traits exactly as predicted by the ToE. It was not discovered by creationists (since creationists have discovered sweet FA in decades). It was predicted, discovered and confirmed by evolutionary scientists.

So where is this “predictive power” of creationism? How did creationist “predict” Tiktaalik? When? Where? Show me the documentary evidence that creationists predicted this discovery. Because I tell you what, I can show you endless creo sources saying that transitional fossils would never be found.

Unbelievably, you seem to have mistaken Post Hoc reasoning for prediction. It’s no use fitting Tiktaalik into your word view after the fact and calling that a “prediction”. That is simply bullshit, and transparent bullshit at that. Try using flood theory to predict where fossils will be found, I dare you...

Re: your answers to my questions;
You say that expertise is valuable in forming opinions, that expertise improves the chances of being right and that experts are more likely to be right than laymen. Given this, I find it astonishing that you, a self-confessed layman, feel able to dismiss the consensus opinion of the vast majority of experts. Your answers imply that you are most likely wrong. You must have some truly compelling evidence to overcome this hurdle. Are you planning to share it with us at all?

Feduccia: His quotes which were against the ground dweller dino bird to bird theory is just "another feather in the cap" in what creationists are saying. Namely that there is great difficulty as to how Reptiles could evolve into birds.

Jesus Arphy, how dense can you be? It has already been made clear to you that Feduccia has never said that birds did not evolve from reptiles. He has said that birds did evolve from reptiles. This is only a feather in your cap if you regard blatant lies as being decorative.

You (and others) seem so sure that the scientific community supports them in the dino to bird model

That’s because the scientific community does support the “dino to bird model”, save for a few exceptions.

and yet here is a nice open letter which shows that the layman's view of scientist's opinions is often very different from the actual experts

Yeah sure. If the layman in question happened to be so amazingly stupid and ignorant as to imagine that science depends on a 100% consensus amongst all practising scientists worldwide, he would have a different opinion. But since no-one here is quite that dumb, your letter is irrelevant.

Olsen is entitled to his opinion. Most experts differ. To describe his minority opinion as the view of “the actual experts”, as though it represented mainstream scientific opinion, is another pathetic falsehood. It is the opinion of one expert. He is in a very small minority.

and don't come back saying "It doesn't say they don't believe in evolution", I know, as I have said before,the underlying dogma is never challenged

What, I shouldn’t point out the fact that the source who you are using in an attempt to discredit the theory of evolution believes in the theory of evolution? Why not? I can’t help but consider the fact that your source disagrees with you as evidence that your source disagrees with you. I’m funny like that. If you want to suggest that Olsen would like to challenge the “underlying dogma” of evolution, but is somehow held back from doing so please provide specific evidence to that effect. If not, man up and admit that you are citing people who disagree with your position.

I was speaking from a creationist point of view.
Platypus:
It's your theory, all i said was that there were avian features, whether derived or not, I didn't specify. And it does have avian features whether the evolutionary story puts these features as having evolved in reptiles who were the descendents of both the birds and platypuses or not does not really worry me. There are still enough problems for the evolutionary story with just looking at the mammal and reptile features

Please explain then how creationists define “bird features”. Is it “Well it looks a bit like a bird...”? Again, man up and admit that you were mistaken. Platypus do not exhibit bird traits, they only superficially resemble birds.

BTW, reptiles are not descendants of birds or reptiles. I think you have that backwards. If you believe that there are specific problems with the evolution of mammals, start a thread and bring them up. We are not just going to take your word for it.

No, It is in line with how evolutionists think, i.e. making up highly imaginative explanations to try to fit an animal into the ToE.

Please specify which bit of the platypus paper you consider to be imaginary and why.

ok, so you would have to buy it, but it is avaliable.

Fat chance. If the creationist contingent truly cared about spreading reliable information, they could make the file available for free as an MP3, at no cost. They seem more interested in further lining their pockets.

What part of, He is desperatly backpeddaling to save his standing in the scientific community, don't you understand?

Oh, so he’s lying when he said you guys were wrong? Yeah, bring on the conspiracy theories. Just be sure to wear your tinfoil hat shiny side out.

The man has said you are wrong. Man up Arphy and admit that you were wrong. It will save you all this embarrassing and desperate flapping about.

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 63 by Arphy, posted 09-18-2009 9:38 PM Arphy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Arphy, posted 09-19-2009 11:20 PM Granny Magda has responded

    
Augray
Junior Member (Idle past 3588 days)
Posts: 9
From: Toronto, Canada
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 67 of 210 (524829)
09-19-2009 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Arphy
09-19-2009 6:42 AM


Re: Lies, Damn Lies and Creationist Quote Mines
The book "evolution" by colin patterson was written BEFORE his interaction with creationists and his lecture on "Evolutionism and Creationism". yes he certainly used to have the view as in your quote, however this changed as seen by the quotes i have supplied.

Yes, the Patterson book "Evolution" was indeed written before his "Evolutionism and Creationism" lecture, but the second revised edition of his book came out after that lecture, and it still contains this passage:

There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs...

And then there's this to consider.

As for Olsen, is he really just a fringe scientist? He holds quite a high position at a reputable institute for being a fringe scientist, especially when his area of expertise is Birds.

Olson's area of expertise is Cenozoic birds, and within that area he holds an enviable reputation. But as far as I'm aware, he's only had three papers on Mesozoic birds published out of roughly 200 in total. And in the case of his opposition to a dinosaurian origin of birds, he's simply wrong, and in another post, I'll explain why.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Arphy, posted 09-19-2009 6:42 AM Arphy has not yet responded

    
Augray
Junior Member (Idle past 3588 days)
Posts: 9
From: Toronto, Canada
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 68 of 210 (524841)
09-19-2009 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Arphy
09-18-2009 9:38 PM


Re: Lies, Damn Lies and Creationist Quote Mines
Feduccia: His quotes which were against the ground dweller dino bird to bird theory is just "another feather in the cap" in what creationists are saying. Namely that there is great difficulty as to how Reptiles could evolve into birds.

How can that be, when Feduccia has no problem with the idea that reptiles evolved into birds??? I mean, creationists are claiming the exact opposite of Feduccia's position, so how can they claim his quotes as "another feather in the cap"???

As to the purported "great difficulty", Feduccia has stated that

Without the presence of feathers, indeed, the bones of the early birds are impossible to separate from those of their reptilian ancestors.

- Feduccia, A. 1980. The Age of Birds. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, pg. 24.

So why is it a "great difficulty" to believe that reptiles evolved into birds? Feduccia certainly doesn't think it is.

You (and others) seem so sure that the scientific community supports them in the dino to bird model and yet here is a nice open letter which shows that the layman's view of scientist's opinions is often very different from the actual experts (note letter is in full, no quote mining, and don't come back saying "It doesn't say they don't believe in evolution", I know, as I have said before,the underlying dogma is never challenged)

Then why is it that I can cite twenty scientists who support the dinosaurian origin of birds for every one that you produce who is against it?

And now, to Olson's letter:


Dear Peter,

I thought that I should address to you the concerns expressed below because your committee is at least partly involved and because you are certainly now the most prominent scientist at the National Geographic Society.

With the publication of “Feathers for T. rex?” by Christopher P. Sloan in its November issue, National Geographic has reached an all-time low for engaging in sensationalistic, unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism. But at the same time the magazine may now claim to have taken its place in formal taxonomic literature.

Although it is possible that Mr. Czerkas “will later name” the specimen identified on page 100 as Archaeoraptor liaoningensis, there is no longer any need for him to do so.

Because this Latinized binomial has apparently not been published previously and has now appeared with a full-spread photograph of the specimen “accompanied by a description or definition that states in words characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon,” the name Archaeoraptor liaoningensis Sloan is now available for purposes of zoological nomenclature as of its appearance in National Geographic (International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, Article 13a, i). This is the worst nightmare of many zoologists---that their chance to name a new organism will be inadvertently scooped by some witless journalist. Clearly, National Geographic is not receiving competent consultation in certain scientific matters.

There's a lot of debate about this, especially since the specimen is now known to have been a forgery, consisting of two different and unrelated fossils artificially pieced together.

Sloan’s article explicitly states that the specimen in question is known to have been illegally exported and that "the Czerkases now plan to return it to China." In Washington, in June of 1996, more than forty participants at the 4th International Meeting of the Society of Avian Paleontology and Evolution, held at the Smithsonian Institution, were signatories to a letter to the Director of the Chinese Academy of Sciences that deplored the illegal trade in fossils from China and encouraged the Chinese government to take further action to curb this exploitation.

There were a few fossil dealers at that meeting and they certainly got the message. Thus, at least since mid-1996 it can hardly have been a secret to anyone in the scientific community or the commercial fossil business that fossils from Liaoning offered for sale outside of China are contraband.

Most, if not all, major natural history museums in the United States have policies in effect that prohibit their staff from accepting any specimens that were not legally collected and exported from the country of origin. The National Geographic Society has not only supported research on such material, but has sensationalized, and is now exhibiting, an admittedly illicit specimen that would have been morally, administratively, and perhaps legally, off-limits to researchers in reputable scientific institutions.

No disagreement here.

Prior to the publication of the article “Dinosaurs Take Wing” in the July 1998 National Geographic, Lou Mazzatenta, the photographer for Sloan’s article, invited me to the National Geographic Society to review his photographs of Chinese fossils and to comment on the slant being given to the story. At that time, I tried to interject the fact that strongly supported alternative viewpoints existed to what National Geographic intended to present, but it eventually became clear to me that National Geographic was not interested in anything other than the prevailing dogma that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

It's not "dogma" if it's got facts to support it. If Olson and Feduccia (and creationists) are unaware of those facts, or choose to ignore them, it's nobody else's problem. As I mentioned in message 52, I can go into extreme detail as to why Olson and Feduccia are wrong, and I've yet to hear any disagreements with my lists of common traits in message 28.

Sloan’s article takes the prejudice to an entirely new level and consists in large part of unverifiable or undocumented information that “makes” the news rather than reporting it. His bald statement that “we can now say that birds are theropods just as confidently as we say that humans are mammals” is not even suggested as reflecting the views of a particular scientist or group of scientists, so that it figures as little more than editorial propagandizing.

But it does reflect the views of a particular group of scientists. How can Olson imply that it doesn't?

This melodramatic assertion had already been disproven by recent studies of embryology and comparative morphology, which, of course, are never mentioned.

But since this letter was written, it's become obvious that comparative morphology is irrelevant to the question, since creatures that were once grouped with dinosaurs are now claimed to be birds. For instance, in 2002, Olson's colleague Feduccia captioned an illustration with the text:

tooth of cover theropod Microraptor showing the typical nonavian tooth morphology of dromaeosaurs;

- Feduccia, A. 2002. Birds are Dinosaurs: Simple Answer to a Complex Problem. The Auk 119(4):1187–1201.

Yet in 2005 he stated that:

...these microraptors are almost certainly remnants of the early avian radiation and are thus birds and not true theropod dinosaurs.

- Feduccia, A., T. Lingham-Soliar, & J. R. Hinchliffe. 2005. Do Feathered Dinosaurs Exist? Testing the Hypothesis on Neontological and Paleontological Evidence. Journal of Morphology 266(2):125–166.

and:


The microraptors of China are birds, regardless of their ancestry.

- Feduccia et al. 2005.

This should put to rest any claims that morphology is relevant to the question, at least for Feduccia.


More importantly, however, none of the structures illustrated in Sloan’s article that are claimed to be feathers have actually been proven to be feathers. Saying that they are is little more than wishful thinking that has been presented as fact. The statement on page 103 that “hollow, hairlike structures characterize protofeathers” is nonsense considering that protofeathers exist only as a theoretical construct, so that the internal structure of one is even more hypothetical.

Olson is completely ignoring the fact that the covering of a related dinosaur has been found to be chemically identical to feathers. This was known before he wrote his letter! See:

Schweitzer, M. H., J. A. Watt, R. Avci, L. Knapp, L. Chiappe, M. Norell, & M. Marshall. 1999. Beta-Keratin Specific Immunological Reactivity in Feather-Like Structures of the Cretaceous Alvarezsaurid, Shuvuuia deserti. Journal of Experimental Zoology. 285:146-157.

The hype about feathered dinosaurs in the exhibit currently on display at the National Geographic Society is even worse, and makes the spurious claim that there is strong evidence that a wide variety of carnivorous dinosaurs had feathers. A model of the undisputed dinosaur Deinonychus and illustrations of baby tyrannosaurs are shown clad in feathers, all of which is simply imaginary and has no place outside of science fiction.

But surprisingly, the "undisputed dinosaur Deinonychus" is now suspected to be a flightless bird by Feduccia, based on recent discoveries of dromaeosaurs (the group containing Deinonychus) with flight feathers. Similarly, a close relative of Tyrannosaurus was found with "protofeathers" after Olson wrote this.

The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists acting in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the first casualties in their program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age---the paleontological equivalent of cold fusion. If Sloan’s article is not the crescendo of this fantasia, it is difficult to imagine to what heights it can next be taken. But it is certain that when the folly has run its course and has been fully exposed, National Geographic will unfortunately play a prominent but unenviable role in the book that summarizes the whole sorry episode.

As noted previously, Feduccia now promotes the idea that certain groups of dinosaurs, specifically dromaeosaurs and oviraptors, are actually flightless birds, after years of criticizing the idea. The only "dogma" in play here is that of the Birds Are Not Dinosaurs sect (BAND), who have no problem reclassifying dinosaurs as birds based on a single character: the presence of feathers. Anything else is irrelevant to them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Arphy, posted 09-18-2009 9:38 PM Arphy has not yet responded

    
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2717 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 69 of 210 (524903)
09-19-2009 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Granny Magda
09-19-2009 8:10 AM


Re: Lies, Damn Lies and Creationist Quote Mines
Let me be clear, if you accept random mutation, natural selection and genetic drift, you have accepted the theory of evolution.

No. random mutation, natural selection and genetic drift are all directly observable phenomenons, i.e. facts, as far as i am aware a theory seeks to explain facts. ToE may try to use these mechanisms to support the theory but they are not the theory itself.

The only thing you reject are the theory’s implications, such as common ancestry between humans and apes, which is no more important to the ToE than common ancestry between gastropods and cephalopods;

hmm.. don't think this sentence makes sense. Read it again. Do you think common ancestry is important to the ToE or not?

I would love to discuss that.

Great, because your next two sentences show a lack of understanding of the Creation model.
There is no arbitrary barrier as such (well, maybe if a line becomes so genetically degraded that it can no longer reproduce, then that plant/animal becomes extinct) the point is that the view of the direction of change is in the opposite direction (e.g. see http://creation.com/mutations-are-evolutions-end and http://creation.com/the-evolution-trains-a-comin)
what prevents those mechanisms from causing speciation?
They don't prevent speciation, if by speciation you mean that descendents of of an organism differ greatly enough so that for practical purposes they are given different names.

Tiktaalik:
ok, creationists don't predict a certain type of animal, however certainly a large variety of animals, but where it was found fits in with flood theory. Also the "depth" (how "old) where these animals found fits in with flood theory. And again, I don't think that it is a transitional animal. Evolutionists have already embarassed themselves with the coelacanth first saying that its lobed fins were used for walking until a live coelacanth was found that showed that these fins were definatly used for swimming. note also the coelacanth is a good example that shows that just because a fossil is only found at one point in the fossil record it doesn't mean that it didn't live "before" or "after" this point.

If not, man up and admit that you are citing people who disagree with your position.
Again, just because I may disagree with a lot of what evolutionists say doesn't mean we can never agree on anything. Both Olsen (at least when the letter was written) and me both agree that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs, so what is wrong with me using his comments as support for this particular purpose. You do not agree with everything that a certain evolutionists says but when there is a topic that you do agree on, i am sure that you would also use his research/comments to support your position.

dismiss the consensus opinion of the vast majority of experts.
Ahh.. but not all experts, and that is the point. I believe the creationist experts are right as their arguments are far more logical and fit the facts better.

It has already been made clear to you that Feduccia has never said that birds did not evolve from reptiles. He has said that birds did evolve from reptiles.
I agree, however he did say that Archaeopteryx is not evidence for ground to tree evolution of birds (I think I am right in saying this, yes). This in turn limits your options of how this transition then occured. That is my point. Yes he may still believe in the link but as to how this change happened (what environmental pressures (natural selection, etc.) caused the transition from dinosaurs to feathered birds, i think this is still very much up for debate.

That’s because the scientific community does support the “dino to bird model”, save for a few exceptions.
Maybe, maybe not, where is your evidence for this. Are these exceptions, experts in that area?

they only superficially resemble birds.
Whatever, its your theory. again there are enough problems even if you take out the bird feature component.

I think you have that backwards
sorry, should have been "ancestor"

Please specify which bit of the platypus paper you consider to be imaginary and why.
The tree diagrams especially are imaginative.

They seem more interested in further lining their pockets.
Actually had another look and they actually only ask for a donation, maninly to cover the cost of shipping. So your assertion is wrong.
Colin Patterson: Again how can you take his comments which i quoted in message 39 any other way than their obvious meaning?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Granny Magda, posted 09-19-2009 8:10 AM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Blue Jay, posted 09-20-2009 1:20 AM Arphy has responded
 Message 71 by Granny Magda, posted 09-20-2009 1:15 PM Arphy has responded

    
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 982 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 70 of 210 (524906)
09-20-2009 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Arphy
09-19-2009 11:20 PM


Re: Lies, Damn Lies and Creationist Quote Mines
Hi, Arphy.

Arphy writes:

ToE may try to use these mechanisms [random mutation, natural selection and genetic drift] to support the theory but they are not the theory itself.

Yes, they are: a theory is comprised of a series of interconnected mechanisms that together explain a phenomenon.

-----

Arphy writes:

Granny Magda writes:

The only thing you reject are the theory’s implications, such as common ancestry between humans and apes, which is no more important to the ToE than common ancestry between gastropods and cephalopods;

hmm.. don't think this sentence makes sense. Read it again. Do you think common ancestry is important to the ToE or not?

No, Granny Magda does not think common ancestry is important the the ToE. Neither do I.

If life arose independently seventy-four times; or if God created a million "kinds" of organisms; or if new kinds of organisms are randomly farted out of a "Cosmic Anus," they could still evolve over time via mutation and natural selection.

You are confusing a scientific theory (ToE) with a worldview (philosophical naturalism) that usually includes ToE. That you want to call this worldview "evolutionism" does not mean it is the same thing as the Theory of Evolution.

-----

Arphy writes:

Both Olsen and me both agree that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs, so what is wrong with me using his comments as support for this particular purpose.

Nothing. As long as you are only using their arguments against the proposition that birds evolved from coelurosaurian dinosaurs. But, neither you nor any other creationist/IDist is using it in this fashion: you are using it to argue that evolution is itself false. This is what makes it quote-mining and intellectual dishonesty.

Another example would be if you were to quote the first two lines of my previous paragraph and use it to show that I condone your usage of Olsen's and Feduccia's quotes, when I obviously do no such thing (so don't do it).

Edited by Bluejay, : As it turns out, "itseld" is not a real word.


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

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Arphy, posted 09-19-2009 11:20 PM Arphy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Arphy, posted 09-21-2009 3:51 AM Blue Jay has responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 71 of 210 (524943)
09-20-2009 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Arphy
09-19-2009 11:20 PM


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

I believe Bluejay has dealt admirably with your first two points. I suggest that you listen to him. He is after all, a practising biologist, which by your own admission, makes him more likely to know what he's talking about than either you or I.

I'll go straight to this;

Great, because your next two sentences show a lack of understanding of the Creation model.

I love the way you say "the Creation model" as though there were a single coherent model out there which enjoyed consensus amongst creationists. There isn't, as can be deduced from Archangels little Neanderthals are apes/Neanderthals are humans problem in the "Evo Frauds" thread.

Multiple creos have multiple explanations. How am I supposed to know which flavour of error you prefer?

Your links; The first suggests that natural selection is incapable of acting upon mutations. That (apart from being nonsense and based upon a terrible misunderstanding of how mutations work) contradicts your position. So is your link right, or are you right? Does natural selection work or not?

See what I mean about multiple creationists having multiple versions of "the Creation Model"?

Your second link waffles on about "kinds". Needless to say, this is not a term scientists recognise. What does it mean exactly?

Perhaps you will surprise us and be the first creationist actually provide a working definition of "kind". But I doubt it.

They don't prevent speciation, if by speciation you mean that descendents of of an organism differ greatly enough so that for practical purposes they are given different names.

That's an workable working definition, if a little loose.

The thing is, that if you don't refute natural selection, random mutation, genetic drift and speciation, you really have accepted pretty much all the basics of the ToE. Why does CMI accept these phenomena? Because CMI know full well that they have been proved to so high a degree that refuting them is a waster of time. They are left to flail around with nonsensical quibbles like "kinds".

Tiktaalik:
ok, creationists don't predict a certain type of animal

No they din't. This is the point I am trying to make.

Evolutionary theory can help us predict where fossils will be found. Those predictions can be checked against reality and found to be reliable.

Creationism has never predicted any fossil. It has never demonstrated any kind of predictive power at all.

This should be a hint to you. If evolution is false, how come it is able to make accurate predictions that creationism can't?

but where it was found fits in with flood theory.

Hmm... Do you believe in a local flood Arphy? Or do you believe in a worldwide flood? Because it seems to me that the location that "fits with flood theory" on a worldwide flood basis would be... anywhere in the world.

Wow. hooray for the wondrous predictive power of creationism! It predicts that the evidence of a worldwide flood will be found... somewhere in the world! Amazing stuff there!

And again, I don't think that it is a transitional animal.

And those experts who have actually studied the fossil think that it is. As you have already admitted, they are more likely to know what they are talking about than you, especially since it seems like the first you knew about Tiktaalik was when I mentioned it the other day. Face facts, you know next to nothing about this fossil, yet, on the basis of this absolutely-no-significant-knowledge whatsoever, you feel able to dismiss it.

Evolutionists have already embarassed themselves with the coelacanth first saying that its lobed fins were used for walking until a live coelacanth was found that showed that these fins were definatly used for swimming.

Is this this best you can do? Point to an error made over fifty years ago? An error corrected, not by creationists, but by the scientists themselves? Science continually corrects its errors. Creationism does not.

Again, just because I may disagree with a lot of what evolutionists say doesn't mean we can never agree on anything. Both Olsen (at least when the letter was written) and me both agree that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs, so what is wrong with me using his comments as support for this particular purpose.

The problem is that you're not using it for that purpose. you are using it as a general argument against the ToE. Establishing that scientists disagree on one small aspect of natural history does not mean that the ToE is suddenly in question.

Ahh.. but not all experts, and that is the point. I believe the creationist experts are right as their arguments are far more logical and fit the facts better.

But you have already admitted that you know far fewer facts than the appropriate experts. Did you not consider the idea that you understand those facts incompletely or incorrectly? how would you know if you had?

I agree, however he did say that Archaeopteryx is not evidence for ground to tree evolution of birds (I think I am right in saying this, yes).

No you are not! That was never said, by Feduccia or anyone else. Feduccia was saying that Archaepoteryx was not ground dwelling. He was categorically not saying that archaeopteryx did not evolve from ground-dwelling reptiles. You just can't seem to stop misrepresenting him. I don't think you are necessarily doing it deliberately. I just think tat you don't understand what he's saying. I'm at a loss to explain it to you any clearer.

Feduccia believes that archaeopteryx was a flying, tree-dwelling animal, not an earthbound animal. Is that clear enough?

Maybe, maybe not, where is your evidence for this. Are these exceptions, experts in that area?

Just take a look at the attendees at the notorious archaeopteryx conference. The majority were quite clear that birds evolved from dinosaurs. It's the majority opinion. A quick look at Wikipedia is enough to confirm this;

quote:
Most paleontologists regard birds as the only clade of dinosaurs that survived the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event approximately 65.5 Ma.

Moreover, phylogenetic analysis places birds within the theropoda. Source

Whatever, its your theory. again there are enough problems even if you take out the bird feature component.

So even if your point is wrong, you're still right? How does that work?

You were just wrong Okay? Platypus do not have bird traits. They do however combine reptile and bird traits in a way that exactly agrees with the ancestry suggested by the ToE.

The tree diagrams especially are imaginative.

That's not an objection, that's just mud-slinging. If you have a specific criticism to make of the paper, please explain exactly what you think they have got wrong. Be specific. Why is it wrong?

Actually had another look and they actually only ask for a donation, maninly to cover the cost of shipping. So your assertion is wrong.

No, they are charging money for something that could easily be made available for nothing. Either they are on the take or they are astonishingly inept at the dissemination of information.

Colin Patterson: Again how can you take his comments which i quoted in message 39 any other way than their obvious meaning?

Which is? Do you take him to mean that his support of evolution before and after he made the comments was a lie? You are very quick to believe any of Patterson's comment that superficially appear to support your position. Why are you so keen to disbelieve him when he said this:

Colin Patterson writes:

the creationists' {interpretation} is false

Exactly why is that so hard for you to believe?

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 69 by Arphy, posted 09-19-2009 11:20 PM Arphy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by RAZD, posted 09-20-2009 2:14 PM Granny Magda has responded
 Message 76 by Arphy, posted 09-21-2009 7:34 AM Granny Magda has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20155
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 72 of 210 (524948)
09-20-2009 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Granny Magda
09-20-2009 1:15 PM


Coelacanths and tetrapod ancestry
Hi Granny Magda, a small correction:

Evolutionists have already embarassed themselves with the coelacanth first saying that its lobed fins were used for walking until a live coelacanth was found that showed that these fins were definatly used for swimming.

Is this this best you can do? Point to an error made over fifty years ago? An error corrected, not by creationists, but by the scientists themselves? Science continually corrects its errors. Creationism does not.

Actually Arphy's comment is false - evolutionists did not say that the lobbed fins were used for walking, instead what they did was recognize homologous formations in the bone structure of the fins that matches that found in tetrapods, thus it was evidence for possible common ancestry of tetrapods from lobbed fin fish, of which coelacanth was a likely (then) possibility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth#Natural_history

quote:
Natural History

They first appeared in the fossil record in the Middle Devonian.[4] Prehistoric species of coelacanth lived in many bodies of water in Late Paleozoic and Mesozoic times.

Coelacanths are lobe-finned fish with the pectoral and anal fins on fleshy stalks supported by bones, and the tail or caudal fin diphycercal (divided into three lobes), the middle one of which also includes a continuation of the notochord. Coelacanths have modified cosmoid scales, which are thinner than true cosmoid scales. Coelacanths also have a special electroreceptive device called a rostral organ in the front of the skull, which probably helps in prey detection. The small device also could help the balance of the fish, as echolocation could be a factor in the way this fish moves.


Other fish do not have the bone structure of lobbed fin fish, and thus are not homologous with tetrapods in that regard.

http://www.dinofish.com/

quote:
From the time of the first fossil coelacanth named in 1839 by Louis Agassiz, the fish was a curiosity because of its apparent "proto legs" and the protruding tab on its tail the posterior or epicaudal fin.

The most that was ever claimed was that it was possible that these fins could have been used in a walking style motion along the coean bottom, a mode of operation we see with several existing species of fish. Some modern fish have evolved the ability to pull themselves out of water using their lobbed fins, but this is not walking.

Also see the fishibian transitionals

quote:

Click to enlarge


Click to enlarge
Perhaps one of the most striking differences between fishes and amphibians — at least in the Devonian — was in the structure of the limbs. This makes sense because a fin used to paddle a neutrally-buoyant fish about in water is not capable of lifting and hauling this same fish about on dry land.

Note the homologies in the bone structure in the picture, homologies that also occur in coelacanths. Coelacanths are now regarded as cousins of the common ancestor to tetrapods.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Granny Magda, posted 09-20-2009 1:15 PM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Granny Magda, posted 09-20-2009 3:15 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 73 of 210 (524953)
09-20-2009 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by RAZD
09-20-2009 2:14 PM


Re: Coelacanths and tetrapod ancestry
Thanks for the clarification there RAZD. I should have spotted that.

Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by RAZD, posted 09-20-2009 2:14 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2717 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 74 of 210 (525007)
09-21-2009 3:51 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Blue Jay
09-20-2009 1:20 AM


Re: Lies, Damn Lies and Creationist Quote Mines
Yes, they are: a theory is comprised of a series of interconnected mechanisms that together explain a phenomenon.

And this phenomenon is?

You are confusing a scientific theory (ToE) with a worldview (philosophical naturalism) that usually includes ToE. That you want to call this worldview "evolutionism" does not mean it is the same thing as the Theory of Evolution.

Great, thank you, something i can work with. So YECs like me, and organisations like CMI, ICR, are actually YEC's as well as evolutionists by your definition of evolution. In this case maybe this forum should be called Philosophical naturalism Vs Creation.

Nothing. As long as you are only using their arguments against the proposition that birds evolved from coelurosaurian dinosaurs. But, neither you nor any other creationist/IDist is using it in this fashion: you are using it to argue that evolution is itself false.

Wrong. While many arguments that YECs make does devastate large areas of evolution, oops, I mean philosophical naturalism, sometimes we have to break it down into pieces and argue individual details which when added together is then able to show that philosophical naturalism is false. birds evolving from coelurosaurian dinosaurs is just a one of those detail.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Blue Jay, posted 09-20-2009 1:20 AM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Huntard, posted 09-21-2009 4:23 AM Arphy has responded
 Message 84 by Blue Jay, posted 09-21-2009 3:57 PM Arphy has not yet responded

    
Huntard
Member (Idle past 579 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 75 of 210 (525009)
09-21-2009 4:23 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Arphy
09-21-2009 3:51 AM


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

And this phenomenon is?


Evolution, the changes in hereditary material in populations over time.

Great, thank you, something i can work with. So YECs like me, and organisations like CMI, ICR, are actually YEC's as well as evolutionists by your definition of evolution. In this case maybe this forum should be called Philosophical naturalism Vs Creation.

First of all, if they accept mutation, natural selection and genetic drift, they accept all the supporting mechanisms of evolution. I however doubt they'll see it this way. I'd suggest asking them. Something like: "Hi, my name is Arphy, my question to you is if you accept the mechanisms of...." and see what answer you get from them.

Also, we're not the one confusing the term, the creationists are.


I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Arphy, posted 09-21-2009 3:51 AM Arphy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Arphy, posted 09-21-2009 7:45 AM Huntard 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