Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work? (SUM. MESSAGES ONLY)
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 46 of 396 (438069)
12-02-2007 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Beretta
12-02-2007 1:00 AM


Re: How Does ID Work?
As a simple example, imagine there's a cell component that evolution believes is vestigial because it doesn't appear to have a function.
ID doesn't come along and say "oh goddidit, leave the poor thing alone!" -they say, well since we believe that everything is made with a function -this may no longer have a function (due to mutation perhaps) but chances are, if it's there it has a function or at least it certainly did have in the past ...
I.e, they say that it's vestigial.
Evolutionary assumptions of the past made many vestigial organs out of things that do have functions
"Vestigial" doesn't mean having no function.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Beretta, posted 12-02-2007 1:00 AM Beretta has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by bluescat48, posted 12-02-2007 5:23 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 47 of 396 (438072)
12-02-2007 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Beretta
12-02-2007 8:45 AM


Re: How Does ID Work?
quote:
Ultimately what I'm saying is that different scientific possibilities result from different presuppositions if there's any truth in the non-reigning paradigm which I'm sure there is.
Then I suggest that you give an example where it does make a difference.
The ID movement itself seems to be rather short of examples. Probably because ID is not science. There is no real attempt to build a theory. ID includes everything from Young Earth Creationism up to Behe's idea of God as a genetic engineer who occasionally fiddles with the genome for reasons he can't figure out. There's very little reason to expect those two views to agree with each other in any detail.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Beretta, posted 12-02-2007 8:45 AM Beretta has not replied

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 48 of 396 (438075)
12-02-2007 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Dr Adequate
12-02-2007 5:03 PM


Re: How Does ID Work?
Wikipedia:Vestigial structures are often called vestigial organs, although many of them are not actually organs. These are typically in a degenerate, atrophied, or rudimentary condition,[1] and tend to be much more variable than similar parts. Although structures usually called "vestigial" are largely or entirely functionless, a vestigial structure may retain lesser functions or develop minor new ones.[2] However, care must be taken not to apply the lable of vestigiality to exaptations, in which a structure originally used for one purpose is modified for a new one. For example, the wings of penguin would not be vestigial, as they have been modified for a substantial new purpose (underwater locomotion), while those of an emu would be, as they have no major purpose anymore (not even for display as in ostriches).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-02-2007 5:03 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 49 of 396 (438076)
12-02-2007 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Beretta
12-02-2007 11:24 AM


Re: How Does ID Work?
Beretta writes:
I'm sure you must have heard of these things -what are your explanations?
Dude, you can find the 'explanations' for your list on this very site in the appropriate thread (which this is not).
Still waiting on a response to the OP.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Beretta, posted 12-02-2007 11:24 AM Beretta has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 50 of 396 (438079)
12-02-2007 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Beretta
12-02-2007 8:45 AM


Re: How Does ID Work? Presupposed Fantasy?
Ultimately what I'm saying is that different scientific possibilities result from different presuppositions if there's any truth in the non-reigning paradigm which I'm sure there is.
Science presupposes that there is a single objective reality.
The alternative is to suppose that there is no single objective reality, that nothing is real -- is this the ID position? Should that position be taught in science class?
Science presupposes that the objective evidence we observe\experience\witness truly represents that reality.
The alternative is to suppose that evidence is false -- is this the ID position? Should that position be taught in science class?
Science presupposes we need to test our concepts against the evidence of reality to weed out falsehood and fantasy.
The alternative is to suppose that we don't need to test concepts to weed out falsehood and fantasy -- is this the ID position? Should it be taught in school?
Science presupposes that any invalidated theories are false and no longer relevant to understanding reality.
The alternative is to suppose that we need to consider every theory that has ever been proposed as still possibly as true as any other -- is this the ID position? Should it be taught in school?
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : sp

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[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 37 by Beretta, posted 12-02-2007 8:45 AM Beretta has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-02-2007 6:27 PM RAZD has replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 51 of 396 (438090)
12-02-2007 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by RAZD
12-02-2007 5:42 PM


Re: How Does ID Work? Presupposed Fantasy?
Science presupposes that there is a single objective reality.
Absolutely correct.
The alternative is to suppose that there is no single objective reality, that nothing is real -- is this the ID position? Should that position be taught in science class?
It is the position of evolution that face value reality, that is, the appearance of design seen in nature and organisms do not correspond to the work of invisible Designer. This means that evolution BEGINS with anti-objective reality presupposition.
Since when does science deny its main tool (observation)?
Answer: only Darwinian "science" does. Darwinian science is Atheist ideology. It assumes, from the outset, that reality is tricking us.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by RAZD, posted 12-02-2007 5:42 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by crashfrog, posted 12-02-2007 6:34 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 53 by Granny Magda, posted 12-02-2007 7:02 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 55 by RAZD, posted 12-02-2007 8:47 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 56 by nator, posted 12-02-2007 9:52 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 61 by Beretta, posted 12-03-2007 9:51 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 52 of 396 (438094)
12-02-2007 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Cold Foreign Object
12-02-2007 6:27 PM


Re: How Does ID Work? Presupposed Fantasy?
Things don't look designed, though. I mean there's a hundred examples of "unintelligent design" just in the human body alone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-02-2007 6:27 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 53 of 396 (438098)
12-02-2007 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Cold Foreign Object
12-02-2007 6:27 PM


Re: How Does ID Work? Presupposed Fantasy?
To whom do organisms appear designed and what credence ought we grant them? Is it enough that something might look designed to a three-year-old? Or a lunatic? Someone completely ignorant of science? A religious fundamentalist looking for proof of god? Or a qualified scientist?
Claims of "atheist ideology" are just sour grapes from those who insist on clinging to an outmoded theory. There are Christian scientists out there, and many Christians accept the ToE. If your faith is to weak to withstand the ToE, that is not Darwin's fault.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-02-2007 6:27 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 54 of 396 (438116)
12-02-2007 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Beretta
12-02-2007 4:03 AM


Re: Well yes -what would we teach....???
Beretta writes:
JB1740 writes:
Archaeopteryx is the oldest (~153Ma) and most primitive bird currently known.
So are you saying that it is in fact a bird or do you say it is a feathered dinosaur, some kind of a missing link?
Examine the evidence. In the lecture notes from their two-model class at San Diego State University, Evolution vs Creation by Awbrey and Thwaites (A&T) (Aztec Lecture Notes, 1981, page 25), A&T compare 27 features of birds, Archaeopteryx, and Coelurosaurs:
In two features, all three groups were the same (eyes having sclerotic ring and scapulae having same shape).
In two other features, birds and Archaeopteryx were the same and different from Coelurosaurs (body covered with feathers and fused clavicles [wishbone]).
In 17 other features, Archaeopteryx is different from birds and the same as the coelurosaurs (femur, fibula, sternum, ribs, gastralia, cervical vertebra type, caudals, vertebral column, humerus, ulna, carpometacarpus, teeth, palate, snout (instead of a beak), occipital condyle and foramen magnum, anteorbital and external mandibular skull openings, and external nostril openings near the tip of the snout (instead of near the eyes).
In 6 other features, Archaeopteryx is intermediate between birds and Coelurosaurs; those features are:
- Metatarsals:
....Flying Birds -- Fused
....Archaeopteryx -- Partly fused
....Coelurosaurs -- Little fused
- Bones:
....Flying Birds --Hollow, pneumatic
....Archaeopteryx -- Hollow, not pneumatic
....Coelurosaurs -- Some hollow, not pneumatic
- Coracoids
....Flying Birds -- Long, narrower, free
....Archaeopteryx -- Wider, rounded, fused to scapula
....Coelurosaurs -- Widest, rounded, fused to scapula
- Pelvis
....Flying Birds -- Elements fused together and to vertebral column to form rigid synsacrum. Pubis rearward-projecting.
....Archaeopteryx -- Unfused, simple, triradiate. Pubis slightly forward-projecting
....Coelurosaurs -- As in Archaeopteryx, Pubis more forward-projecting
- Orbits
....Flying Birds -- Large, incompletely surrounded by bone
....Archaeopteryx -- Smaller. Bony surround complete (?)
....Coelurosaurs -- Smallest. Bony surround complete.
- Braincase:
....Flying Birds -- Greatly expanded, extensively fused
....Archaeopteryx -- Moderately expanded, fusion less complete
....Coelurosaurs -- Not expanded, not fused
So Archaeopteryx is 2-27ths bird (7.4%), 17-27ths coelurosaur (63%), and 6-27ths transisitional between the birds and coelurosaurs (22%). The two bird characterstics are used to classify it as "bird", but the evidence clearly shows that creationists' claims that it's "100% bird and nothing else" are clearly completely and utterly false.
Though Duane Gish's Acts and Facts article on Archaeopteryx was rather amusing. In most of it he reiterated their standard "it's 100% bird" claims, but then he mentions the accusations that the feathers are a forgery that were added to fossils of coleurosaurs (though I think he just said "dinosaur"; I'm not completely sure) and thus pronounced it to be 100% non-bird. He was trying to claim both positions in order to deny that it's transitional, when the fact that it can be either clearly shows it to be transitional.
BTW, that accusation proved to be baseless, as was verified by microscopic examination of the original fossil in question.
Along the same lines is an interesting page by Jim Foley in the Talk.Origins Fossil Hominids FAQ, "Comparison of all skulls" at Comparison of all skulls (link to the article on the home page, Fossil Hominids: the evidence for human evolution is called "Comparison of creationist opinions"). Creationists claim that the various hominid fossils are not at all transitional but rather are either "100% human" or "100% ape". So the author lists a number of hominid fossils treated in the creationist literature and whether the creationist classified it as human or ape. Now, if their basic claim were true, then it should be easy to tell a "100% human" fossil from a "100% ape", right? Well, not only could the creationists not agree with each other, but one creationist even change in his classification of the same fossil. Now, with a transitional fossil, we would clearly expect to have difficulty classifying it, which is what we see happening here.
The basis for creationists claiming that a fossil is "100% whatever" is that they employ selective blindness, concentrating only on the features they want to see and ignoring the rest. For example, I first saw creationists in action back in 1981 when a debate between a scientist and a creationist was televised on a show on Pat Robertson's CBN. I remember that the scientist showed several slides of
hominid fossils, such as knee joints (to show evidence of developing bi-pedalism). Then he showed slides of a human pelvis and chimpanzee pelvis side-by-side. First from the side, then from the top, he pointed out two sets of characteristics that clearly distinguish the one from the other (i.e. whether viewed from the side or from the top, the pelvis could be positively identified as human or chimpanzee). Next he showed both views of a hominid pelvis. From one view it was definitely ape, from the other it was definitely human; thus demonstrating it to be a intermediate form. The creationist then proclaimed the hominid pelvis to be 100% ape and not the least bit human by completely ignoring the human characteristic (even when reminded of it repeatedly by his opponent) and concentrating solely on the view that displayed the ape characteristic. Of course, the host declared this to be a creationist victory, which also taught me a lot about creationist honesty and concern for the truth.
BTW, as successful as that two-model class was, the university forced Awbrey and Thwaites to discontinue it. The Christian clubs on campus were all up in arms against it and repeatedly protested it and petitioned the administration to close it down. The class was truly two-model as Awbrey and Thwaites gave half the lectures and leading creationists from the Institute for Creation Research in neighboring Santee gave the other half. In fact, it was in one of those lectures that A&T demonstrated to Gish that his claim about the bombadier beetle was false; the two chemicals the beetle uses do not explode spontaneously when mixed together. A&T's experience with the class is that creationism does not fare well when the evidence is actually presented and examined and that is what rankled the campus Christian clubs so much. So while the creationists claim that they are being prevented from presenting their views and presenting the evidence, what really happened is that it was the creationists (the Christian students) who campaigned fiercely to prevent the creationist speakers (the very same ones whose claims they believed in) from presenting their views and to prevent the evidence from being presented and examined.
But back to the topic: you still have not addressed the question. ID wants to reform science to include supernaturalistic explanations. Just how do you propose that we test supernaturalistic explanations? Because if we are to be expected to use supernaturalistic explanations, then we will need to test them. Because if we are unable to test the hypotheses that we advance, then science will not work.
Employing ID's supernatural-based science would require us to test supernaturalistic hypotheses. How are we supposed to test those supernaturalistic hypotheses? Without the ability to test those supernaturalistic hypotheses, how could ID science possibly work?
Science works extremely well, but you want to replace it with ID. Haven't you, or any ID proponent for that matter, given any thought to how that replacement of yours would work? Or even whether it would work at all?

{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)
Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)
Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Beretta, posted 12-02-2007 4:03 AM Beretta has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by VirtuousGuile, posted 05-29-2008 2:51 AM dwise1 has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 55 of 396 (438118)
12-02-2007 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Cold Foreign Object
12-02-2007 6:27 PM


Re: How Does ID Work? Presupposed Fantasy?
Absolutely correct.
I noticed you did not answer the questions about what ID presupposes.
It is the position of evolution that face value reality, that is, the appearance of design seen in nature and organisms do not correspond to the work of invisible Designer. This means that evolution BEGINS with anti-objective reality presupposition.
Because evolution doesn't begin with a presupposition of an "invisible Designer" it is "anti-objective" ....
The position of evolution is that the fossils, field and lab studies and genetics are telling the truth when they show a development of apparent design over time. The position of evolution is that the fossils, field and lab studies and genetics are telling the truth when the evidence of increased complexity (= evidence of design) is entirely consistent with the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation -- especially when they see the same processes "undoing" apparent design on occasion as some organisms evolve into a simpler kind of life.
The position of evolution is that the fossils, field and lab studies and genetics are telling the truth when they show there is no design direction or purpose in the evolution of life on earth.
The position of evolution is that the fossils, field and lab studies and genetics are telling the truth when they come to the same conclusions from entirely different sources of information.
Ever figure out what Mayr really meant on evolution?
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : link

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

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-02-2007 6:27 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 56 of 396 (438128)
12-02-2007 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Cold Foreign Object
12-02-2007 6:27 PM


Re: How Does ID Work? Presupposed Fantasy?
What idiot designed the human skull to have a sharp ridge on the inside?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-02-2007 6:27 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 57 of 396 (438137)
12-02-2007 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Beretta
12-02-2007 11:24 AM


Re: How Does ID Work?
Vacate writes:
How many years would be nessesary before you would decide that your idea should be investigated for supporting evidence?
And your response was avoid Vacate's questions and start taking PRATT-falls yet again. I already told you: I have seen Chevy Chase and you are no Chevy Chase.
{In case they have escaped you this second time, the cultural references are to a past presidential campaign response to an opponent comparing himself to John F. Kennedy and to several Saturday Night Live skits in which Chevy Chase portrayed then-President Ford}
Instead of taking evasive PRATT-falls and dodging the questions, simply respond to them. Only change I recommend is that you respond honestly.
Beretta writes:
- the majority of us were evolutionists first and moved over.
Oh, you claim that you used to be an "evolutionist"? Care to define that term? Creationist toss it about without even thinking and yet refuse to offer a meaningful definition. Are you claiming to have studied evolution? Far too many other creationists have claimed to have been "evolutionists" and yet they also displayed incredibly abysmal ignorance of evolution and of science. I even corresponded with a creationist who claimed to be a scientist, but then when I asked for particular he became very evasive; as far as I could piece together, his claim was based on his having taken some science classes.
So just what are you basing your claim of having been an "evolutionist"? Whatever the hell that is supposed to be.
Beretta writes:
What about the extreme lack of transitional fossils?
200 times too little helium in the atmosphere
Helium in the wrong places
Spiral galaxies winding up
Great shortage of first and second stage supernova rings
Complete absence of third stage supernova rings
Population count
Short period of recorded history
Second law of thermodynamics
Trillions of stars but we can't see one forming
Earth's magnetic field decaying
Not nearly enough skeletons for numbers of generations that should have died
Everything has fully formed organs -where are the developing ones half formed?
The same idiotic PRATTS you guys have been regurgitating for decades. How old are you? Early 20's? Those PRATTs have been around and were refuted before you were even born. What is your Christian witness for having been fooled by them? That Christians are fools? How is that supposed to serve your god?
What happens when a creationist starts checking out your false claim about transitionals? As he starts researching for transitional fossils, he finds rooms full of journals documenting transitional fossils. That's what happened to Merle Hertzler, a creationist I had met on CompuServe and the only creationist there who tried to defend his position with honesty. He would actually research his claims and his opponents' responses. Within one year, he could no longer avoid the truth that creationism was a pack of lies, so he switched over to the evolution side. And he also left Christianity because it depended on such lies. At No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.geocities.com/questioningpage/Evolve2.html, starting with the 12th paragraph ("Years ago I was fighting the good fight of creation on the Internet."), he tells the story of discovering the truth about that creationist claim.
That "population count" claim is downright ludicrous. Henry Morris' population model is the simplest kind whose severe flaws are discussed in introductory treatments of the subject. It's called "The Bunny Blunder" (No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/bunny.html) because it shows that the world rabbit population began with two bunnies about 100 years ago, hence the world can be no older than 100 years. It also shows:
quote:
According to Morris' model, in 2500 BCE, the world population was 750 people, so there were only about 150 to 200 able-bodied males, all concentrated in Egypt, available to hew and haul the 2.3 million limestone blocks ranging in weight from 2 to 50 tons to build the Great Pyramid of Cheops. During the preceding 200 years, even fewer men built six neighboring pyramids and many other structures. Things were even more hectic back between 3800 BCE and 3600 BCE when the total world population of 10 - 20 people, including women and children, rushed madly back and forth between Crete and the Indus River Valley building and abandoning enough fortified cities and massive irrigation systems to have housed and fed millions. My father was right; we HAVE gotten soft!
Are those the PRATTs that you had fallen for? Boy, how embarrassing that must be for you.
Instead of taking those PRATT-falls, just answer the questions.
Like the OP.

{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)
Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)
Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Beretta, posted 12-02-2007 11:24 AM Beretta has not replied

JB1740
Member (Idle past 5944 days)
Posts: 132
From: Washington, DC, US
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 58 of 396 (438171)
12-03-2007 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Beretta
12-02-2007 4:03 AM


Re: Well yes -what would we teach....???
I wrote:
Archaeopteryx is the oldest (~153Ma) and most primitive bird currently known.
Beretta replied:
So are you saying that it is in fact a bird or do you say it is a feathered dinosaur, some kind of a missing link?
It's what I wrote before: the oldest and most primitive bird currently known. It's a bird.
Phylogenetically speaking, it's also a feathered dinosaur, but for this discussion that isn't really important. The statement "some kind of a missing link" doesn't really mean anything scientifically. We don't look for "missing links." To say that we do is just as much a myth (and is just as false) as saying that there are no transitional forms in the fossil record (which is just a blatantly false statement that mischaracterizes what we do). But with respect to Archaeopteryx itself, it's a bird.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Beretta, posted 12-02-2007 4:03 AM Beretta has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Percy, posted 12-03-2007 9:07 AM JB1740 has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 59 of 396 (438174)
12-03-2007 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by JB1740
12-03-2007 8:45 AM


Re: Well yes -what would we teach....???
JB1740 writes:
But with respect to Archaeopteryx itself, it's a bird.
How do you square this statement with the information provided by Dwise1 in Message 54?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by JB1740, posted 12-03-2007 8:45 AM JB1740 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by JB1740, posted 12-03-2007 9:38 AM Percy has replied

JB1740
Member (Idle past 5944 days)
Posts: 132
From: Washington, DC, US
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 60 of 396 (438180)
12-03-2007 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Percy
12-03-2007 9:07 AM


Re: Well yes -what would we teach....???
How do you square this statement with the information provided by Dwise1 in Message 54? --Percy
My statement doesn't really square with message 54, but that's because there are things in Message 54 that aren't congruent with the data. Just two examples, it stated that:
In two other features, birds and Archaeopteryx were the same and different from Coelurosaurs (body covered with feathers and fused clavicles [wishbone]).
but there are coelurosaurs that have both feathers and clavicles (just one genus as an example, the dromaeosaurid Velociraptor), so this statement is incorrect.
Also, message 54 states that Archaeopteryx is "different from birds and the same as the coelurosaurs" in possessing teeth. This statement is also incorrect. The simple fact that Archaeopteryx happens to possess teeth, a trait that all modern birds happen to lack, does not in and of itself mean that Archaeopteryx isn't a bird. There are other birds that have teeth, such as Hesperornis from the Late Cretaceous of North America. Conversely, there are other coelurosaurs that lack teeth, such as the recently described Giganotoraptor from the Late Cretaceous of China.
Numerous characters place Archaeopteryx within Avialae as a primitive bird. A statement along the lines of "taxon X is 15% bird and 10% dinosaur" doesn't make a lot of sense. That isn't how we do it.
Creationist claims that it's "100% bird and nothing else" ARE clearly completely and utterly false--but that's because they don't understand evolution (and biology, geology, physics, reason, etc.), NOT because Archaeopteryx isn't a bird. It is a basal ("primitive") bird? Yes, absolutely. Is it transitional between "dinosaurs" and "modern birds?" Yes. It is a "missing link?" I don't know what the hell that term is really supposed to mean, so I would refrain from using it. It is a phrase used by the media and it doesn't really help.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Percy, posted 12-03-2007 9:07 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Percy, posted 12-03-2007 11:54 AM JB1740 has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024