Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8942 total)
29 online now:
DrJones*, Guido Arbia, jar, Theodoric (4 members, 25 visitors)
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,832 Year: 18,868/19,786 Month: 1,288/1,705 Week: 94/446 Day: 94/64 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Transitional fossils and quote mining
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 177 of 210 (532568)
10-24-2009 6:23 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Arphy
10-24-2009 2:51 AM


Hi Arphy,

I don't really think there is much left to say in this thread. You have pretty much backed away from the Feduccia quote and I have accepted that Patterson has made anti-evolution comments. There is nothing on-topic left.

However, I have to reply to your citation about Archaeopteryx teeth. Your source is very interesting and one could use it to argue that Archy was not descended from theropods, but that isn't what you said, now is it?

Arphy writes:

Also teeth was an important feature of Archaeopteryx but firstly they were not reptilian teeth

Your source (the link no longer works BTW) categorically does not state that Archaeopteryx's teeth were not like those of reptiles.

It is to be expected that there should be changes in dentition. The creature is a toothed bird. Whatever its ancestry, it is going to have undergone some serious changes.

ok, so Why, according to evolution are there no 'halfway features' that are "on their way" to becoming functional?

Because natural selection can't select for something that may be useful in another million years. It can only work with what it has to hand. Each stage must be functional, at least at the level of gross morphology.

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 176 by Arphy, posted 10-24-2009 2:51 AM Arphy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Arphy, posted 10-25-2009 3:06 AM Granny Magda has not yet responded

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


(1)
Message 191 of 210 (532676)
10-25-2009 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by Arphy
10-25-2009 3:07 PM


Unbelievable Arphy.

The inacccuracies in that article have been hashed out, on these very pages, about twenty times. I'm amazed that you are still defending it.

Let's take a quick look at some distortions;

CMI writes:

Also, Feduccia used dissimilarities in the development of bird and dino digits to argue strongly against the dino-to-bird theory.

Horse shit.

As has already been demonstrated, Feduccia does not argue against "dino-to-bird". His opinion is that birds are descended from dinosaurs. He just thinks that they are descended from a different kind of dinosaur to most other experts. Have you forgotten everything that has been said here?

Differences in expert opinion over which exact group of dinosaurs no more cast doubt upon "dino-to-bird" than differences in opinion over the details of Christ's teachings (faith versus works for example) prove that Jesus did not exist. Yet the CMI article uses this blatant distortion again and again. Let's take another appalling distortion;

CMI writes:

The evidence indicates that the critics are both right—birds did not evolve either from running dinos or from tree-living mini-crocodiles.

What utter mendacity! No-one, not Feduccia, not evolutionists, NO-ONE, is claiming that birds descended from "mini-crocodiles" or anything even remotely as stupid. How can anyone write such drivel? I can think of only two explanations; a) the author was a drooling imbecile or b) the author is lying. Either way, it is good reason to distrust the source.

Why you continue to defend an article that contains such nonsense is beyond me.

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 189 by Arphy, posted 10-25-2009 3:07 PM Arphy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Blue Jay, posted 10-25-2009 9:03 PM Granny Magda has responded

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


Message 195 of 210 (532708)
10-25-2009 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Blue Jay
10-25-2009 9:03 PM


Re: Buzzwordland
Hi Bluejay,

Okay, point taken. However, even if the archosaur version is correct, Euparkia is no crocodilian and no-one is suggesting that birds are descended from crocodiians. The use of the term "mini-crocodile" is more than inexact, it is deliberately chosen to invoke ridicule. It is a derogatory phrase similar to "goo-to-you" or "molecules-to-man", a standard creationist tactic. It is, as you say, a buzzword.

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 194 by Blue Jay, posted 10-25-2009 9:03 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

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


Message 206 of 210 (532760)
10-26-2009 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by Arphy
10-26-2009 4:38 AM


Re: How Arphy Stays On Topic: Yet another example of quote mining
Wha...?

So they finally found a dating method that also agrees with their biostratigraphic evidence

This is exactly why people get frustrated with creationist rhetoric. "Finally" very clearly implies that a number of dating methods were tried and that they failed to agree with the stratigraphy. Otherwise, why write "finally"?

There is no excuse for writing this unless one had evidence that several other dating methods were tried and fell flat. Do you have any such evidence Arphy? Of course not. You just threw it in as a rhetorical flourish. In effect however, it is an essentially dishonest attempt to cast false doubt upon the painstaking work of professional scientists, without actually addressing what they have to say or why they are saying it. As such, it's typical creationist fare.

As an aside, I's love to see you present the positive evidence for creationism, because I've never seen any. I always assumed that the way creo sites are obsessed with making impotent attacks on the ToE meant that you guys had no positive evidence and were incapable of making a positive argument. Perhaps you'll prove me wrong.

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 203 by Arphy, posted 10-26-2009 4:38 AM Arphy has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019