Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-20-2019 3:48 AM
18 online now:
AZPaul3, Faith, PaulK (3 members, 15 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,211 Year: 9,247/19,786 Month: 1,669/2,119 Week: 429/576 Day: 24/80 Hour: 5/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
9101112
13
14Next
Author Topic:   Transitional fossils and quote mining
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 271 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


(1)
Message 181 of 210 (532596)
10-24-2009 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by Arphy
10-24-2009 2:51 AM


Sure you can use this argument to try and harmonise evidence with the evolutionary view but it is not direct evidence for evolution.
Anyway even this does not work in this case, so the researchers reassigned the Jehol Group (rock where fossils were found) from the jurassic to the early Cretaceous because of the birds present. i.e. this was not done because there was any evidence placing it there but rather because it did not fit the evolutionary story and therefore had to be changed.

Hmm... source please?

Also, could you explain that to He, Wang, Zhou, Wang, Boven, Shi and Zhu so that they can avoid embarassing themselves by actually radiodating it rather than partaking of the evil evolution-atheist alliance conspiracy?


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 186 by Arphy, posted 10-25-2009 5:25 AM Dr Jack has responded

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2599 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 182 of 210 (532616)
10-25-2009 3:06 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by Granny Magda
10-24-2009 6:23 AM


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.

I guess from here we could cross over to irriducible complexity. Surely there would have to be similtaneous changes in other features that compensate for the changes in a feature so that the new feature would remain functional. How does this work? In fact the point would surely be to have a new feature that has a new function, which just makes things even weirder.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Granny Magda, posted 10-24-2009 6:23 AM Granny Magda has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Percy, posted 10-25-2009 5:09 AM Arphy has not yet responded

    
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2599 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 183 of 210 (532618)
10-25-2009 4:38 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by Dr Jack
10-24-2009 6:32 AM


Re: Fedducia remains not a credible source
In other words, Fedducia's table of comparison is based on the wrong theropods!
Really? More please, could you extend your quote a bit.

We have already found teeth like those of Archaeopteryx in theropods and those teeth are found in the group closest to Archaeopteryx which also share other anatomical features with Archaeopteryx including feathers.
Really? let's see.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Dr Jack, posted 10-24-2009 6:32 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18484
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 184 of 210 (532619)
10-25-2009 5:09 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by Arphy
10-25-2009 3:06 AM


Arphy writes:

I guess from here we could cross over to irriducible complexity.

I don't see the connection.

Surely there would have to be similtaneous changes in other features that compensate for the changes in a feature so that the new feature would remain functional.

If you do actually mean "simultaneous changes in features" then of course this is possible. For example, in some cases of small stature children are given HGH (Human Growth Hormone), and this causes an overall change of stature that results in simultaneous changes to many features. Arm and leg bones get longer, the joints get larger, the feet and hands grow, the cartilage in the joints expands to cover the larger joint, tendons get longer and stronger, the body trunk gets longer, blood vessels get larger and longer to allow a greater flow of blood, muscles grow to supply the larger body size, and so forth. A single point mutation could cause a change in HGH levels during childhood and so affect a wide range of features simultaneously.

Another example is the not uncommon chromosomal mutation that causes Down Syndrome, bringing with it a whole host of simultaneous morphological changes, including brain function.

I provide these examples to show how one causative change can affect multiple features simultaneously that still manage to fit together into a living organism.

But if you instead mean simultaneous genetic changes causing sudden and coordinated changes in more than one feature, then this is very unlikely. Mutations are random and uncoordinated with one another, so the odds that one random mutation affecting one feature would occur at the same time as another random mutation affecting a compensating feature is so unlikely as to not be worth considering.

In fact the point would surely be to have a new feature that has a new function, which just makes things even weirder.

This leaves open the possibility that you believe that morphological features can arise suddenly in a single generation by way of a coordinated set of mutations. But mutations are random, and such coordination between random mutations is, again, so unlikely as to not be worth considering. Sudden appearance of new features isn't the way evolution is thought to work. Evolutionary change is believed to be very gradual, like the minute changes in the beaks of finches recorded in the Galapagos in response to occasional climate fluctuations. The theory of evolution was developed out of observations of what we see happening in the real world of what we can see of what has happened in the past, and we see no evidence of sudden appearance of new features, except on the scale of geological time, i.e., over millions of years.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Arphy, posted 10-25-2009 3:06 AM Arphy has not yet responded

    
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2599 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 185 of 210 (532620)
10-25-2009 5:14 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by Percy
10-24-2009 8:37 AM


You're getting your information from a website (http://creation.com) that is making up things whole and lying to you, for example:
please show how it is a lie.

Holy fakery, Batman, fossil flimflam! There's no shortage of creationist websites out there willing and able to engage in mudslinging at wholly innocent scientific endeavors. As Feduccia himself says in the same Discover magazine interview that your Creation Ministries website references:

What does this have anything to do whether or not birds have evolved from dinosaurs or not?
For you interest you can read this once again:
Postscript: Feduccia v Creationists
Evidently some evolutionists have ‘got to’ Feduccia for the fact that creationists have cited his damaging arguments against dino-bird evolution. Discover therefore tried to close the ranks by asking a leading question.3 So we had better head this off at the pass in case skeptics spout all this as ‘evidence’ for their paranoia about creationists ‘misquoting’. This and Feduccia’s response is indented, and my point-by-point response is interspersed.
Discover: Creationists have used the bird-dinosaur dispute to cast doubt on evolution entirely.
A misrepresentation when it comes to Feduccia’s work. Rather, blame the evolutionists, e.g. the Skeptics at the Australian Museum, for using the dino-to-bird ‘evidence’ as ‘proof’ of evolution and against creation. It is perfectly in order to cite Feduccia’s severe criticisms as evidence against this specific evolutionary argument; after all, there can be no doubt that he is a world-class expert on fossil birds.

Also, Feduccia used dissimilarities in the development of bird and dino digits to argue strongly against the dino-to-bird theory. So it was totally legitimate to apply the same logic to the development of amphibian and amniote digits to argue against a far-bigger–picture aspect of evolution, i.e. that amniotes descended from amphibians—see Ostrich eggs break dino-to-bird theory.

Discover: How do you feel about that?
A tug at the heartstrings.

Feduccia: Creationists are going to distort whatever arguments come up, …
He should grace us all with a specific example, rather than an assertion.

…and they’ve put me in company with luminaries like Stephen Jay Gould, so it doesn’t bother me a bit.
Once again, see what we actually say about the late Dr Gould (Did Creationists ‘hijack’ Gould’s ideas?). Our main point is, there are a number of creationist alternatives consistent with both the Bible and available evidence, while the supporters of various evolutionary camps score mortal blows against the other camp. E.g. supporters of ‘jerky’ evolution (saltationism and its relative, punctuated equilibria) point out that the fossil record does not show gradualism, and that the hypothetical transitional forms would be disadvantageous. But supporters of gradual evolution point out that large, information-increasing changes are so improbable that one would need to invoke a secular miracle. Creationists agree with both: punctuational evolution can’t happen, and gradual evolution can’t happen—in fact, particles-to-people evolution can’t happen at all!

The same logic applies to the dinosaur-bird debate. It is perfectly in order for creationists to cite Feduccia’s devastating criticism against the idea that birds evolved ‘ground up’ from running dinosaurs (the cursorial theory). But the dino-to-bird advocates counter with equally powerful arguments against Feduccia’s ‘trees-down’ (arboreal) theory. The evidence indicates that the critics are both right—birds did not evolve either from running dinos or from tree-living mini-crocodiles. In fact, birds did not evolve from non-birds at all! This is consistent with the Biblical account that distinct kinds of birds were created on Day 5, while land animals were created on Day 6 (Gen. 1:20–25)

Note, we always make it very clear that Gould and Feduccia are evolutionists, and explain what they believe. E.g. my book Refuting Evolution has a chapter on birds which includes Feduccia’s support of the arboreal theory of bird evolution. It is also perfectly appropriate to quote them as ‘hostile witnesses’ who can’t be accused of believing what they do because of any creationist bias. However, to many evolutionists, a creationist quoting an evolutionist presenting evidence against a specific evolutionary ‘proof’ is ‘out of context’ by definition, because the person quoted still believes in evolution!

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.
Once again, when dino-to-bird dogmatists claim that Archaeopteryx is a feathered dinosaur, it is perfectly legitimate to cite Feduccia’s comment that this is ‘paleobabble’ because ‘Archie’ was clearly a ‘perching bird’.9 See also An anatomist talks about Archaeopteryx.

These creationists are confusing an argument about minor details of evolution with the indisputable fact of evolution:…
This is double talk, and merely closing ranks against creationists. This is the old trick of claiming ‘there is no doubt that evolution occurred; the only disagreement is about the mechanism.’

But modern evolutionary theory is all about providing a plausible mechanism for explaining life’s complexity without God. If the disputes undermine favoured mechanisms, then the materialist apologetic crumbles. The supporters of various evolutionary camps score mortal blows against the mechanisms proposed by rival camps, as shown above, so it’s perfectly reasonable for creationists to point this out.

…Animals and plants have been changing.
This is a classic equivocation or ‘bait-n-switch’. Of course, we have long pointed out that we don’t deny that things change (the Bible even predicts this); rather, we point out that evolution ‘from goo to you via the zoo’ requires changes which increase genetic information in the biosphere. See Definitions as slippery as eels. But in Feduccia’s case, it’s not likely to be conscious deception, but merely ignorance of what creationists actually say, because he’s never been an aggressive anti-creationist to my knowledge.

The corn in Mexico, originally the size of the head of a wheat plant, has no resemblance to modern-day corn. If that’s not evolution in action, I do not know what is.
Wow, so the best proof of goo-to-you evolution he can come up with is corn turning into corn?! But he has yet to prove that this is an increase in information, which would be required to turn scales into feathers or a reptile lung into a bird lung (something Feduccia never explains in his encyclopaedic book The Origin and Evolution of Birds10). Rather, this is yet another example of sorting or loss of previously-existing genetic information—this sort of change is in the opposite direction from evolution (see The evolution train’s a-comin’).

Note also a common phenomenon. An evolutionist who is an expert in one field thinks that the best evidence for evolution is in a totally different field, in which he does not speak as an authority. For example, a palaeontologist says, ‘The fossil record shows that most creatures appear fully formed, and an extreme rarity of transitional forms. But the embryologists have shown that early embryos look alike, which proves evolution.’ But an embryologist says, ‘Richardson showed that Haeckel faked the drawings purporting to show embryonic similarity. But the molecular biologists have shown that the similarity of DNA points to evolution from a common ancestor’. However, the molecular biologist says, ‘There are huge differences in DNA sequences; contradictory phylogenies; and intricate biological machinery, e.g. the rotary motors of the bacterial flagellum and F1-ATPase. But the paleontologists have shown that the fossils show an evolutionary sequence.’

Earlier in the dialogue, Feduccia stated:

The difference between feathers and scales is very, very small. You can transform bird scutes [the scales on bird feet] into feathers with the application of bone morphogenic protein.
This totally misses the point that the cells from which scutes are formed have the genetic information for feathers already present, but turned off. Somehow the chemical induced the genes coding for feathers to switch back on. Feduccia’s ‘evidence’ offers not the slightest support for the idea that the genetic information for feathers arose where none previously existed. It would be a totally different matter if bone morphogenic protein could transform scales into feathers on a reptile, which has no genetic information for feathers! Feduccia’s claim parallels an earlier misinformed claim that retinoic acid (vitamin A) could turn scales into feathers. See Putting Feathers on Reptiles and The strange recurring case of the feathered reptile for further explanation, and for electron micrographs showing the immense differences between feathers and scales. Also, feather proteins (ö-keratins) are biochemically different from skin and scale proteins (á-keratins).11

http://creation.com/new-four-winged-feathered-dinosaur

Whatever level you examine in the geologic record you'll find a fossil record of life that differs from life at lower and higher levels.
So what? This is not proof for evolution.

The deeper you dig down through geologic layers the more different that life is from today.
ummm... Stasis. But yes it is different, again is this proof of evolution as opposed to biblical creationism. Um, no.

Piecing all that randomly and serendipitously preserved evidence from all the eras back together into a single consistent evolutionary narrative probably isn't possible.
Sure.

There's still disagreement about how many people shot JFK, so naturally there's disagreements and contradictions concerning the order of events millions of years ago. That's just reality.
That's right "we don't know how but it is a fact that evolution has occured from 'simple' organisms to the range of 'complex' organisms we have today"

But creationists have chosen the correct strategy of making up false criticisms of legitimate science,
umm.. what are you refering to here. It was Feduccia who was criticising the prevailing theory of bird origins.

because focusing on the evidence for their own ideas only reveals that there isn't any.
Rubbish

If current scientific theories about geologic and evolutionary history are incorrect, they at least have a great deal of evidence supporting them and cannot be replaced by cockamamie ideas for which there is no evidence at all.
Percy, i am disappointed. I didn't think that you would resort to these types of arguments.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Percy, posted 10-24-2009 8:37 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by cavediver, posted 10-25-2009 5:28 AM Arphy has not yet responded
 Message 188 by Percy, posted 10-25-2009 5:45 AM Arphy has responded

    
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2599 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 186 of 210 (532621)
10-25-2009 5:25 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by Dr Jack
10-24-2009 1:53 PM


Hmm... source please?
http://creation.com/...mitarian-re-dating-of-the-jehol-group

I know they radiodated it. My argument is with the revisions.
Note the first sentence in the article you cite.

The timing of the Jiufotang Formation remains speculative despite recent progress in the study of the Jehol Biota.
(emphasise added)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Dr Jack, posted 10-24-2009 1:53 PM Dr Jack has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Dr Jack, posted 10-25-2009 3:34 PM Arphy has responded

    
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1810 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(1)
Message 187 of 210 (532622)
10-25-2009 5:28 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by Arphy
10-25-2009 5:14 AM


Percy writes:

If current scientific theories about geologic and evolutionary history are incorrect, they at least have a great deal of evidence supporting them and cannot be replaced by cockamamie ideas for which there is no evidence at all.

Percy, i am disappointed. I didn't think that you would resort to these types of arguments.

As you should be. It is clear as daylight that if the poor deluded scientists are arguing amongst themselves about the internal workings of their theory, this proves that Tinkerbell the skyfairy poofed everything into existence 600 years ago. Sorry, I meant Yahweh the skyfairy and 6000 years ago - I always confuse them

Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Arphy, posted 10-25-2009 5:14 AM Arphy has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18484
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 188 of 210 (532623)
10-25-2009 5:45 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by Arphy
10-25-2009 5:14 AM


Hi Arphy,

After posting and rereading that Message 179 I pretty much figured that it probably wouldn't succeed in getting my intended point across, and this seems to be the case. I probably didn't stress the important point enough, which is that you're taking your information from creationist websites that fill you full of false information, and for some unfathomable reason you're giving credence to the nonsense.

It's ironic that in reply to Feduccia's complaint of creationist distortions that you produce a lengthy creationist dissection and distortion of Feduccia's complaint (e.g., "Evidently some evolutionists have ‘got to’ Feduccia..."). Feduccia is an evolutionary scientist who accepts evolution. He believes in a different evolutionary pathway for birds than other evolutionary scientists, but he still believes birds are a product of evolution, just as he believes all life now on the planet is a product of evolution. No amount of creationist lying and distortion is going to change that.

Because you agree with the creationist position you're leaving aside the critical faculties that would normally alert you that you're being manipulated. The approach you're falling victim to can be used with anything, for example, "Evidently House Democrats have gotten to Nancy Pelosi..." You probably don't even know who Nancy Pelosi is (Speaker of the House, the senior leadership position in the US House of Representatives), but you can tell right away that this is a reference to some kind of behind the scenes skulduggery. As soon as you see phrases of this style alarm bells should go off in your head and you should run for the hills instead of cutting and pasting them into your posts.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Arphy, posted 10-25-2009 5:14 AM Arphy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Arphy, posted 10-25-2009 3:07 PM Percy has responded

    
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2599 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 189 of 210 (532673)
10-25-2009 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Percy
10-25-2009 5:45 AM


Feduccia is an evolutionary scientist who accepts evolution.
Have I or CMI or any other creationist said any different?

He believes in a different evolutionary pathway for birds than other evolutionary scientists, but he still believes birds are a product of evolution, just as he believes all life now on the planet is a product of evolution.
Yes, I agree and so does CMI.

No amount of creationist lying and distortion is going to change that.
I really don't know what you are going on about, we are neither lying nor distorting. My big quote has a few paragraphs that deals with this please read it again, I'll even post it again below:
…and they’ve put me in company with luminaries like Stephen Jay Gould, so it doesn’t bother me a bit.
Once again, see what we actually say about the late Dr Gould (Did Creationists ‘hijack’ Gould’s ideas?). Our main point is, there are a number of creationist alternatives consistent with both the Bible and available evidence, while the supporters of various evolutionary camps score mortal blows against the other camp. E.g. supporters of ‘jerky’ evolution (saltationism and its relative, punctuated equilibria) point out that the fossil record does not show gradualism, and that the hypothetical transitional forms would be disadvantageous. But supporters of gradual evolution point out that large, information-increasing changes are so improbable that one would need to invoke a secular miracle. Creationists agree with both: punctuational evolution can’t happen, and gradual evolution can’t happen—in fact, particles-to-people evolution can’t happen at all!

The same logic applies to the dinosaur-bird debate. It is perfectly in order for creationists to cite Feduccia’s devastating criticism against the idea that birds evolved ‘ground up’ from running dinosaurs (the cursorial theory). But the dino-to-bird advocates counter with equally powerful arguments against Feduccia’s ‘trees-down’ (arboreal) theory. The evidence indicates that the critics are both right—birds did not evolve either from running dinos or from tree-living mini-crocodiles. In fact, birds did not evolve from non-birds at all! This is consistent with the Biblical account that distinct kinds of birds were created on Day 5, while land animals were created on Day 6 (Gen. 1:20–25)

Note, we always make it very clear that Gould and Feduccia are evolutionists, and explain what they believe. E.g. my book Refuting Evolution has a chapter on birds which includes Feduccia’s support of the arboreal theory of bird evolution. It is also perfectly appropriate to quote them as ‘hostile witnesses’ who can’t be accused of believing what they do because of any creationist bias. However, to many evolutionists, a creationist quoting an evolutionist presenting evidence against a specific evolutionary ‘proof’ is ‘out of context’ by definition, because the person quoted still believes in evolution!

Your message 184 was much better and will try to reply sometime, but got to dash at the moment.

Edited by Arphy, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Percy, posted 10-25-2009 5:45 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by bluescat48, posted 10-25-2009 3:28 PM Arphy has responded
 Message 191 by Granny Magda, posted 10-25-2009 3:34 PM Arphy has not yet responded
 Message 193 by Percy, posted 10-25-2009 3:38 PM Arphy has responded

    
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2356 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


(1)
Message 190 of 210 (532674)
10-25-2009 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by Arphy
10-25-2009 3:07 PM


You seem to have fallen into the creationist idea that if there is a conflict between scientific theories then all are wrong and creation wins. Thais the main problem with creation vs. science (I say science because this deals with all science not just evolution). Creationists never state why creation is right just that, if science can't show that their theories are not 100% right, then they are 100% wrong. Debunking science does not make creation correct. The only way in which creation would be accepted is the event that creationists could come up with a valid source of evidence showing that creation is right regardless of whether it debunks evolution or not. Just because scientists disagree as to how evolution works does not make it wrong. That is what science is, the search for truth. If a theory is debunked, it is debunked by a more valid theory not just tossed aside.
Whether birds evolved from dinosaurs or not has no bearing on the validity of evolution, just on the validity of that part.

Edited by bluescat48, : typo


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 189 by Arphy, posted 10-25-2009 3:07 PM Arphy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Arphy, posted 10-26-2009 12:22 AM bluescat48 has responded

    
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 57 days)
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

    
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 271 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


(1)
Message 192 of 210 (532677)
10-25-2009 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by Arphy
10-25-2009 5:25 AM


I know they radiodated it. My argument is with the revisions.

Which revisions, by whom? And when?

Note the first sentence in the article you cite.
The timing of the Jiufotang Formation remains speculative despite recent progress in the study of the Jehol Biota.
(emphasise added)

And? What exactly is your point here?

They're setting the scene in that sentence. Telling you why their work is important. At no point in the paper do they make any indication that the organisms present have been used to redate the formations; instead, they refer directly to radiodating.

This does not support your quoted source.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Arphy, posted 10-25-2009 5:25 AM Arphy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Arphy, posted 10-25-2009 11:20 PM Dr Jack has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18484
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 193 of 210 (532678)
10-25-2009 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by Arphy
10-25-2009 3:07 PM


Arphy writes:

Feduccia is an evolutionary scientist who accepts evolution.
Have I or CMI or any other creationist said any different?

Yes, of course you've said different. First you push the view that Feduccia is way out of the evolutionary mainstream, then when someone quotes Feduccia himself rejecting that view you present another quote that near the beginning says, "Evidently some evolutionists have ‘got to’ Feduccia..."

The entire premise on which your argument is based is faulty. In essence you're arguing that when scientists disagree that the true answer is contained in stories from the Bible. Why not stories from the Koran or the Hindu sacred texts or the texts of other religions? Why is it not that where the various religions disagree that the correct answer is found in science? Naturally there is no merit at all in approaches like these to increasing our knowledge because accepting answers by default is the opposite of basing answers on evidence.

There is no shortage of scientific disagreements, especially at the leading edge of scientific investigation. As scientists gather more and more evidence typically the disputes are settled one way or the other, though some issues can rattle on for years of contention. All disagreement means is that there is insufficient evidence to settle the issue. Insufficient evidence, incomplete evidence, gaps in our knowledge, definitely do not mean that we should accept an answer with no evidence.

Apparently you've become convinced that the answers of fundamentalist Christianity apply wherever scientists disagree (and even in a great many places where they don't, though that's not the topic of this thread). That's why I concluded Message 179 by talking about the importance of evidence. The views of both Feduccia and his detractors are supported by evidence, but if neither is right that doesn't mean that an answer from the Bible with no evidence at all suddenly wins. With no evidence, it is still in last place.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Typos.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Arphy, posted 10-25-2009 3:07 PM Arphy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Arphy, posted 10-26-2009 1:02 AM Percy has responded

    
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 864 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 194 of 210 (532703)
10-25-2009 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Granny Magda
10-25-2009 3:34 PM


Buzzwordland
Hi, Granny.

Granny Magda writes:

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.

Actually, Feduccia's position is a little confusing at times. Some arguments sound like he thinks birds evolved from stem Saurischians (sister to theropods), and some sound like he thinks birds evolved from stem archosaurs (sister to all dinosauria.

In the stem-archosaur argument, he proposes that they evolved from something related to Euparkeria, which is sometimes restored as sort of a "mini-crocodile." Granted, it's a little oblique, but it's not a complete lie. So, I don't think those CMI statements are actually wrong, per se: it's just an unfair, inaccurate usage of something for the sake of rhetorical points.

-----

Honestly, I think creationists live in a place called "Buzzwordland," where your arguments are automatically validated when a specific buzzword or "buzzphrase" is spoken by somebody involved in the debate. If you say the word, "works," you're automatically a dishonest, anti-biblical heretic. If you say, "X is a bird," then you have just disproven all of ToE and atheism. And, context certainly doesn't matter, either: you could say it in the Abstract, Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results or Discussion secion; in the grant proposal, the first draft of your manuscript, your casual blog, or in a misquote by the news media... any of these still counts.

Edited by Bluejay, : Restructuring of first sentence.

Edited by Bluejay, : No reason given.


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

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Granny Magda, posted 10-25-2009 3:34 PM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Granny Magda, posted 10-25-2009 9:53 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 57 days)
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

    
RewPrev1
...
9101112
13
14Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019