Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
29 online now:
AZPaul3, PaulK, ssope, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat), vimesey (5 members, 24 visitors)
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Post Volume: Total: 863,624 Year: 18,660/19,786 Month: 1,080/1,705 Week: 332/518 Day: 8/88 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Transitional fossils and quote mining
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2719 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 6 of 210 (523891)
09-13-2009 7:14 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by greyseal
09-12-2009 6:38 AM


hi greyseal
The reason why I used that quote was because evolutionists like to use the authority game. I personally don't much like throwing round quotes from expert scientists simply for the reason that they are expert scientists (it doesn't mean they are right). However, as a creationist my arguments are often waved away with a "you're not an expert on that, therefore you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about". Therefore, we do use quotes by evolutionists who disagree with other evolutionists just to show that we are not alone on a particular issue such as Archaeopteryx and to turn an argument often used by evolutionists back at them.
As I said in my post about Feduccia, the opinion that Archaeopteryx is a bird was also the consensus opinion at the International Archaeopteryx Conference. So I don't think that it is a minority view.
Then at this conference it was "kind of interesting that they found it necessary to draft the following statement. ‘Conferees did agree unanimously to the declaration that organic evolution is a fundamental process of biology and we recognize the importance of the Archaeopteryx contribution to that problem.’ So you can see they were acutely aware that their deliberations might lead some to wonder whether, in fact, Archaeopteryx had anything to say about evolution, so they all did sign this. If, of course, it’s a true bird, it is not the half-way, half-reptile, half-bird like we've often heard." (http://creation.com/bird-evolution-flies-out-the-window)
This is the problem with evolutionists, the underlying dogma is never challenged when these things turn up. Evolutionists simply say that obviously they need to just keep looking more and then things will clear up eventually. However this doesn't mean that they remove previous examples of transitional fossils from science textbooks. They keep them there until they think they have found a better example.
Another thing about belief in evolution is that it sort of reminds me of the Israeli 6-day war where the opposing forces were all boasting to each other that they were doing great, whilst secretly knowing that things were not going so great for the army that they were leading but boasted anyway not wanting to be seen as the one who was "letting the team down".

The facts are that Archaeopteryx has:
* a long bony tail
* teeth
* claws
and other non-avian traits.

Even so, why should this mean that birds evolved from dinosaurs? You first assume evolution and then see if you can make it fit.

namely that with this single argument from authority (which is a poor argument to make) they hope to relegate archaeopteryx to "bird" status, and thus say "look, scientists think it's a bird, therefore it's a bird, therefore evolution doesn't happen".

Sure just because archaeopteryx may not be a transitional fossil it doesn't logically follow that therefore we should throw out evolution. However, if this sort of thing continues to happen with transitional fossils (which it has) then yes i think it is time that evolution went under review. The problem is however that nobody has come up with a better naturalistic (a necessity it seems) explanation. I do think that at first glance evolution does sound at least somewhat logical (animals change over generations, therefore this changes could grow quite large), however to say that therefore all animals orginated from a single celled organism is a very large imaginative jump.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by greyseal, posted 09-12-2009 6:38 AM greyseal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Granny Magda, posted 09-13-2009 9:17 AM Arphy has responded
 Message 8 by jacortina, posted 09-13-2009 9:34 AM Arphy has not yet responded
 Message 14 by greyseal, posted 09-14-2009 3:17 PM Arphy has not yet responded
 Message 26 by Augray, posted 09-15-2009 10:34 AM Arphy has not yet responded
 Message 28 by Augray, posted 09-15-2009 11:31 AM Arphy has not yet responded

    
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2719 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 9 of 210 (524015)
09-14-2009 6:41 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Granny Magda
09-13-2009 9:17 AM


If you regard the "authority game" as dishonest or irrelevant,
It is neither dishonest nor irrelevant, however just because you happen to be an expert it means that you have more knowledge of the field that you are studying not necessarily that you are correct in what you espouse.
It's more that you seem to be happy to hand wave away the opinions of genuine experts who do know what they are talking about.
Yes, opinions I am quite happy to wave away if i feel that these are not adequate, but evidence (the actual observations made by scientists) I don't wave away.
Feduccia is not one of your allies.

That's right he is an evolutionist. But this doesn't mean we have to disagree about everything.
However the statement "archaeopteryx is a dinosaur" is equally correct.

hmmm...note that at the Archy conference only a very small minority voted for Archy being a small, lightly built coelurosaurian dinosaur.
archaeopteryx to combine bird and reptile features.

Yes it may have reptile features however this doesn't prove evolution. It just means that it is an unusual bird. A platypus has features from mammals, reptiles, and birds!
me writes:

You first assume evolution and then see if you can make it fit.

Sorry not the best argument as creationists also have a presupposition yet it is "important to note that all reasoning really starts with presuppositions (axioms, i.e. certain things that are taken for granted without being able to prove them). And there’s nothing inappropriately “biased” about that, it’s inevitable, but the question is then whether the presupposition leads to conclusions which support it sufficiently to justify trusting it further, and so on." (http://creation.com/who-is-the-creator)

As your example of quote mining you had to use Kent Hovind. I don't really know too much about him and don't think I've read any of his articles. It seems from a quick search, that Kent doesn't necessarily have the same views on a number of topics as groups like CMI or ICR.

Probably the most used evolutionist quotes against transitional fossils are from Colin Patterson who was the senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History. His story from evolutionist to a "non-evolutionary" viewpoint is very interesting. Again, many evolutionists said that creationists were somehow misquoting him, however, as this article(http://c.../that-quoteabout-the-missing-transitional-fossils) shows, this is not the case.

Well good, because it is in fact not necessary to believe in a single origin of life to accept the general principles of evolution. The evidence is very much behind a single origin, but if you want to believe that some groups of organisms were created separately,
there is nothing in that belief that would stop them from being subject to random mutation and natural selection.

Hmm... really? So you are giving me the option of believeing that some organisms were created in what you believe to be a progression that has no need for a divine creation to intervene. Thanks, how accommodating. as you hopeful know by now, at least from this forum, creationists fully accept mutations and natural selection. However that these mechanisms can cause an increase in information (from simple to complex life forms) is the real issue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Granny Magda, posted 09-13-2009 9:17 AM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by AdminNosy, posted 09-14-2009 9:05 AM Arphy has not yet responded
 Message 12 by Granny Magda, posted 09-14-2009 3:13 PM Arphy has responded
 Message 17 by greyseal, posted 09-14-2009 3:34 PM Arphy has not yet responded

    
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2719 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


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


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

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

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

Bird-like features

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Granny Magda, posted 09-14-2009 3:13 PM Granny Magda has responded

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

    
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2719 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


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


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

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

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


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

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

me writes:

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


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

Colin Patterson
So you think that any of these quotes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Granny Magda, posted 09-16-2009 9:31 AM Granny Magda has responded

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

    
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2719 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

    
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2719 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

    
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2719 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

    
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2719 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

    
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2719 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 76 of 210 (525017)
09-21-2009 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Granny Magda
09-20-2009 1:15 PM


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

"the Creation model" as though there were a single coherent model out there which enjoyed consensus amongst creationists.

OK, maybe YECs is would have been a better word. As for a single coherent model philosophical naturalists aren't any better.

And everyone has somehow misunderstood what Archangel was saying (might comment on this if time allows)

The first suggests that natural selection is incapable of acting upon mutations.

Again completely wrong. Read it again. He says that natural selection is unable to stop the deteriation of our genome.

Your second link waffles on about "kinds".
I see you make no attempt to debate his main point, that "evolution" is going in the opposite way that philosophical naturalists want it to go.
As for kinds: A syngameon is probably the closest term that we have.
Definition: Syngameons are clusters that comprise several morphospecies, i.e., "the sum total of species or semispecies linked by frequent or occasional hybridization in nature".

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".

This is nonsense. These mechanisms are an important part of the YEC model, so yes why would we refute them.

Tiktaalik:
These sort of animals are arguments neither for nor against creation or philosophical naturalism. That is because in the YEC model we see animals as made out of "modules", this works similar to electronic equipment. There are many different types electronic equipment however there are many similarities between all of them. There are also parts that are shared in some equipment but not in others. Some parts are also only found in one type of equipment. These combinations of parts/modules can be arraged in various ways. Some equipment may combine many of the same parts while others will have somewhat unique combinations, (such as Archaeopteryx and Tiktaalik). So while we can't predict which modules have been used in which combinations, animals like Archaeopteryx and Tiktaalik are no surprise to us.

me writes:

but where it was found fits in with flood theory.


As in its comparative "depth" not the surface location. The researchers who found tiktaalik were also not able to predict its surface location. They found good places to look for fossils.
Yes i believe in a worldwide flood.

you are using it as a general argument against the ToE

No I'm not. as explained in response to bluejay.

But you have already admitted that you know far fewer facts than the appropriate experts.
If the researchers of tiktaalik are holding back information which would completly discredit what YEC scientists on whom i rely, are saying, then this is just dishonest.

Feduccia believes that archaeopteryx was a flying, tree-dwelling animal, not an earthbound animal. Is that clear enough?
Yip, but lets bring in the full interview that augray has quoted from a number of times. http://discovermagazine.com/2003/feb/breakdialogue which shows feduccia's position. And yet there are still (as your next paragraph states)many scientists who support the dino-bird theory. Why do the experts have such opposite opinions and yet you guys take the evolution of birds as basically fact when the debate still rages as to how and from where. Also for his comments about creationists at the end of the interview, there is an excellent response to this at the end of this (http://creation.com/new-four-winged-feathered-dinosaur) article. In fact i think it is a must read so will post it.
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

These simple mistakes by Feduccia once more illustrate the fact that even world-class experts are usually laymen outside their own field. So creationists have nothing to fear from them. Conversely, the major propagandists for evolution tend to be atheistic story-tellers like the eugenicist Richard Dawkins or ‘political animals’ like fellow atheistic anthropologist Eugenie Scott.

platypus:

magda in message 58 writes:

This is miRNA that would have been present in the most recent common ancestor of monotremes and birds, but has since been lost in placental mammals.

Just had another read of this. From an evolutionary viewpoint, I was not saying that platypus' evolved from birds. In a way they do have bird features, if the above is correct, they are just not derived features as you would say.

Tree diagrams:
I think we have enough topics already. But basically the trees are a visual representation of philosophical naturalism which as a YEC, I disagree with.

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.

You don't like the format? Well tough cookies, I think it is abit impractical as well, but hey, you can get it for free if you really want it.

the creationists' {interpretation} is false
What was the creationist interpretation anyway? Even with the rest of the quote added "... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test." I think this second part is just as damning as the first part. even theunissen's interpretation
What Patterson was saying to Sunderland was that, of the transitional forms that are known, he could not make a watertight argument for any being directly ancestral to living species groups.
is not very helpful in validating philisophical naturalism.

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 79 by Peepul, posted 09-21-2009 11:10 AM Arphy has not yet responded
 Message 85 by Granny Magda, posted 09-21-2009 5:41 PM Arphy has not yet responded
 Message 91 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-22-2009 5:48 AM Arphy has not yet responded

    
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2719 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 77 of 210 (525019)
09-21-2009 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Huntard
09-21-2009 4:23 AM


Re: Lies, Damn Lies and Creationist Quote Mines
I've already posted two articles that deal with mutations and natural selection. This from .../refutation-of-new-scientists-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions-modern-evolution
Genetic drift is a good way to drive devolution by eliminating genes by chance—even beneficial mutations. Most mutations have small effects and the rare beneficial ones will mostly give a small selective advantage. This is expressed by the selection coefficient s. If a mutation has s = 0.001 or 0.1%, a supposedly typical value, then the number of surviving offspring is 0.1% greater for organisms with the mutation than without it. But the smaller the selective advantage, the more likely that random effects (e.g. genetic drift) will eliminate it—its probability of survival is about 2s.3 So the above mutation has only one chance in 500 of surviving, even though it is beneficial.

Even if a beneficial mutation survives, for it to become fixed in a population (that is, all individuals have it, so it cannot be lost), the organisms not carrying it must be eliminated. This is the cost of substitution. This limits the amount of substitution which can occur in a given time. This is known as Haldane’s Dilemma,4 after J.B.S. Haldane, one of the world’s leading evolutionists (and a Stalin-supporting communist for a while). He wanted evolution to work, but couldn’t get around his dilemma.

Take a population of 100,000. If only a male and female pair have the new trait, natural selection must eliminate the other 99,998 and all their heirs. If there is perfect selection (s = 1), this can happen in one generation. But this means that for every new trait, 49,999 individuals must be eliminated without offspring. Then the population must be regenerated with these survivors.

Anyway, even if evolution happened at the maximum speed (s = 1) for 10 million years, how many traits could be substituted in a creature with human-like generation times of say 20 years? Only 500,000. This small number of nucleotides is only a small fraction of the forty or more 500-page books worth of information (120 million base pairs) which are needed to transform an ape into a man. And in real life, selection is far less intense, meaning that only about 1700 substitutions could occur.


You are right that YECs do see the direction of these mechanisms differently than evolutionist, (Doh!! Must stop doing that) I mean, Philosophical naturalists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Huntard, posted 09-21-2009 4:23 AM Huntard has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Coragyps, posted 09-21-2009 10:22 AM Arphy has not yet responded
 Message 80 by greyseal, posted 09-21-2009 11:17 AM Arphy has not yet responded
 Message 82 by caffeine, posted 09-21-2009 12:52 PM Arphy has not yet responded
 Message 83 by Percy, posted 09-21-2009 1:49 PM Arphy has not yet responded

    
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2719 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 86 of 210 (525133)
09-21-2009 9:28 PM


To my numerous opponents
Hi everybody.
Your replies have been most interesting, I feel we might be getting somewhere (hopefully), so lets have a look.

peepul in 79 writes:

Because scientists are in no doubt that birds evolved.

greyseal in 81 writes:

Scientists are not arguing over whether Archy evolved, but how and when.

And the winner is.....(drumroll)....

magda in 85 writes:

I consider it a fact that birds evolved. I consider that almost beyond dispute. I mean, they must have evolved from something, whether it was a dinosaur or some other reptile.


(I just love this part "I mean, they must have evolved from something")
And this is what creationists have been saying all along. Even if evolutionism (is that the correct term now, look, all i want is a term that you guys are happy with that describes the belief that all living things share a commen ancestor) doesn't know how, the underlying BELIEF or presupposition remains. And don't mistake this as me saying that because a detail is wrong therefore the core issue is wrong. It is the accumulation of details that will threaten the underlying belief, not a single detail. More on this later.

Now lets go to greyseal in Msg 80:

completely the opposite of what most YEC's will say, which is that ALL mutations are harmful
Read it again, it says "Genetic drift is a good way to drive devolution". The term devolution is used to show that creationists see evolution working in the opposite way that evolutionism does. A mutation can be both degenerative to the genome and beneficial.

Another one is that you never get just ONE mutation. You get many - 4, 5? 50? All happening at once.
Yip, and this makes the dilemma even worse.

Evolution is sslllooowwwww - I thought you knew this?
Hmm... again this makes the dilemma even worse still. Hence why evolutionism came up with puncuated equalibrium. To support this i will again put up the link to http://creation.com/mutations-are-evolutions-end the point is that the more time you add, or the longer you strech out the process the worse it becomes.

That is to say that humans are STILL apes
you may classify them this way, but that doesn't make it true.

Archy was both a dinosaur AND a bird.
Firstly you have just put a lable on something which doesn't really mean anything. The point is not what you name something (you can call it anything you like) but is there a "trail" left by evolutionism from theropod to bird. And on this point there are some notable experts in the evolutionary community who disagree with this.

caffeine writes:

their heirs do not all need to be eliminated. Some of them may mate with the mutated pair or their descendants; or their descendants may do so. This way, many of the descendants of individuals without the mutation may wind up possessing the mutation.

Again this takes time which is not helpful, as my link above supports.

percy writes:

Most mutations provide no detectable change at all, and those that do are usually minor mutations that provide a very slight advantage or disadvantage.

Yes!!

Over the course of generations natural selection gradually increases the representation of positive traits and decreases the representation of negative traits within the population
hmm... Over the course of generations natural selection gradually increases the representation of traits which allow the organism to become better adapted to its environment and decreases the representation of traits that hinder the organisms success in an environment, within the population

Bluejay
So you are saying that natural selection, genetic drift, etc are the hard core. Yet as I showed at the beginning of this post, this doesn't seem to be the case. The hard core seems to be that everything evolved from something else (except you might say possibly abiogenesis). This is the worldview. The mechanisms are then supposed to show how this worldview is viable. It doesn't make any sense to say that your worldview IS a collection of mechanisms. Evidence is used to support a worldview. Evidence is not a worldview.

By extension, what you are saying is that, if any two people disagree on soft-core issues, they must also disagree on hard-core issues.
Again you are putting words into mouths of creationists that we never said. PLEASE STOP doing that. I have never said that "if any two people disagree on soft-core issues, they must also disagree on hard-core issues". In fact i have now repeatedly said the complete opposite. i.e. that if two people disagree on asoft core issue, this DOES NOT mean that they will also disagree on a hard-core issue. I would also say that if two people agree on a soft-core issue this does not mean that they necessarily agree on hard-core issues. Hopefully i have made myself clear, so don't bring this sort of thing up again, OK?

But, I feel it certain that both Feduccia and Bluejay could abandon our respective views on Archaeopteryx without feeling that their hard core (i.e. the Theory of Evolution) would need to be discarded. In fact, Feduccia’s arguments against the mainstream view on Archaeopteryx would actually be completely invalidated if the Theory of Evolution were shown to be false, because his arguments are based on the Theory of Evolution.


Substitute "Evolutionism" for "theory of Evolution" and statements above are spot on.

because all of those views are built on the premise that birds evolved from something.
Again this is what i am saying. The "premise" is the worldview.

Thanks. Will deal with Magda's post later.


Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Granny Magda, posted 09-21-2009 9:57 PM Arphy has responded
 Message 88 by bluescat48, posted 09-21-2009 11:58 PM Arphy has not yet responded
 Message 89 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-22-2009 4:03 AM Arphy has responded
 Message 94 by Percy, posted 09-22-2009 7:18 AM Arphy has responded
 Message 97 by greyseal, posted 09-22-2009 7:28 AM Arphy has responded
 Message 105 by Blue Jay, posted 09-22-2009 12:20 PM Arphy has responded

    
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2719 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 92 of 210 (525179)
09-22-2009 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Granny Magda
09-21-2009 9:57 PM


Re: The Term Evolutionist
Hi Magda

Will reply to post 87 before 85.

Yay!! I won! Oh wait, that wasn't a compliment... Oh well.

Yeah, oh well, better luck next time

The general evidence for evolution is simply too compelling to dismiss.".
I do not doubt that you believe this. however my point is this you have a worldview that you say has very compelling evidence, in fact you think it is so compelling that you don't have any doubt about it at all, but i also say that i have a worldview which has very compelling evidence. So who is right? this is where debate comes in. While i may not be able to change your worldview, what i hope i can do is to firstly challenge many of the misconceptions about the YEC creation model, that seem to abound. 2nd, i hope to be able to show you that you can not dismiss a YEC, simply for being a YEC, but if you do dismiss me then it is because you think that YEC arguments are easily refuted.

Linnaeus: ok, even if linnaeus catagorizes humans like this, it still doesn't necessarily make it true.

In the context of debate sites such as EvC, we need a way to refer to the opposing sides. In this context, the term "evolutionist" seems fine to me. I have no objection to being so described.

Sweet, Thank you.

I can see you're pretty snowed under. Such is the eternal fate of the creationist who chooses to brave the slavering evolutionist hordes...
Hehehe ah well, that's the way it is, I guess I'll just have to deal with it.
Anyhoo lets get onto discussing post 85

Even amongst YECs (perhaps especially amongst YECs) there is still widespread failure to reach any kind of consensus.
Example?
Your scepticism on this issue is to be applauded, but you are mistaken. There is broad consensus on the major points of the ToE.
hmm...I guess it depends on what these major points are, but theories like gradualism, punctuated equalibrium, Evo Devo, all have their proponents which claim that their idea is the major force of how evolution works.

Do you understand the terminology you are using? Because I notice that you lifted your definition from the web.
Yes. What is wrong with using a definition from the web?

What syngameon is a horse in for instance? What else is in the same syngameon?
zebras, horses, and donkeys are all part of the "equine" syngameon or kind (http://creation.com/zenkey-zonkey-zebra-donkey). While there is still much work (testing animals for hybridization) that needs to be done to compile a complete list of syngameons plenty of work has been done in this area.

I hope you also realise that there is absolutely no way that you could fit all of those critters on his big boat. There must be millions of discrete inter-fertile groups in existence!
There is an excellent book which i am reading at the moment called Noah's Ark: A feasibility study, by John Woodmorapppe which deals with these "problems" The number of kinds needed to take on the Ark is estimated to be about 8000.

Because if you accept natural selection, random mutation and genetic drift, evolution (whether macro- or micro-) is inevitable.
Haven't you read my previous posts? these mechanisms cause "devolution" not evolution.

All the creatures we find with a mix of traits from different groups are combined in such a way as to be consistent with gradual change over time. Under creationism, there is no reason why the fossil record should present us with this smooth gradual change in species. Evolution explains this.
The "smooth gradual change" is only found in textbooks not in reality.

We never find a ancient Cambrian creature with the traits of a more modern Pleistocene creature. In your system, there is no reason why we wouldn't. Evolution explains this.
I'm guessing your talking about fossil succession. Here is a snipet from an article by John Woodmorappe
But what are the ramifications of fossils seeming to occur in multiple, different horizons in the earth’s rock strata? Is the succession of life-forms, over long periods of time, the only way to explain the succession of fossils in earth’s sedimentary rocks? Certainly not.

Creationists, including myself,1 have provided a variety of alternative explanations for fossil succession. These include such mechanisms as the sorting of organisms during the Flood, differential escape of organisms during the same, ecological zonation of life-forms in the antediluvian world (such that different life-forms in different strata reflect the serial burial of ecological life-zones during the Flood), and TABs (Tectonically-Associated Biological Provinces—wherein different life forms occur in successive horizons of rock as a reflection of successive crustal downwarp of different life-bearing biogeographic communities).

All of these mechanisms do away with the notion that horizons of fossils demand successive passages of time during which the organisms lived. In other words, they allow for there to have been only one set of mutually-contemporaneous living things on a young earth, instead of a repetitive replacement of living things over vast periods of time. Most of the earth’s sedimentary record is viewed as being deposited by the Noachian Deluge, and not over successive depositional events in analogues of modern sedimentary environments on an evolving earth....

The irony of the position taken by Cuvierists, neo-Cuvierists, and standard evolutionary-uniformitarians is the fact that fossil succession is a reality only to a limited extent. As we shall see, the Flood-related mechanisms discussed above need not have been overly efficient to account for only the limited degree of fossil succession that does exist. Successive episodes of time, however conceived, also are completely unnecessary to explain the limited degree of fossil succession.

When we consider the fact that fossil succession is limited in overall extent, it is another way of stating that there are many fossils which are found at many stratigraphic intervals. In fact, only a minority are confined to rocks attributed to only one geologic period.2

Since the early days of the acceptance of the standard geologic column, fossils have been turning up in ‘wrong’ places as more and more fossils have been collected, and this process continues to this very day.3,4,5 And even this does not include the numerous instances where fossils are supposed to be reworked from older strata, often with no independent supporting evidence.6

http://creation.com/the-fossil-record

We ever find a mammal with bird features. Under creationism, there is no reason why we wouldn't. Evolution explains this.
hmm.. you mean a mammal with feathers. Sure none have been found. Doesn't mean they didn't exist, And even if they never did exist how is this proof against creation?

Why is your own home country so full of species that exist nowhere else? There is no reason why a created world should be this way. Evolution on the other hand can explain it completely.
Firstly, it was a predator (more or less) free country. Secondly the animals that we see work well with flood theory, i.e. mainly birds, as they eventually flew there after the flood.

These "predictions" in no way prove the YEC model wrong.

They are not holding it back. It is already in the public domain.

Great! So then we don't have to worry about that. As I've said before Tiktaalik does not seem to be a transitional fossil (http://creation.com/tiktaalik-roseae-a-fishy-missing-link)

exactly how "flood theory" explains the position of Tiktaalik.

See J. Woodmorappe quote above.

in this message Message 73 and I don't see anything specific about you favouring one version of bird evolution over another. You are simply attempting to use it as one of a number of attacks on the general concept of transitional forms.
ehh...??? the only thing about birds in that post is
me writes:

Archaeopteryx: There is a quote in the article by Dr Alan Feduccia, an expert saying “Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.” This was also the conclusion reached at the International Archaeopteryx Conference in 1984

which in no way says anything against evolutionism or transitional forms in general. I was and am debating details. As i have said before, the culminative effect of refuting the details will show that evolution is false, not just a single detail.

You must understand that for those of us who value the scientific method, holding an opinion tentatively, with the possibility of later finding new information that would force a change of opinion, is seen as a good thing. My beliefs are not dogmatic (at least I strive to avoid such thinking). They are subject to constant comparison to evidence and possible re-evaluation. Until I see compelling evidence to the contrary, I am happy to accept the evidence I have seen and the consensus of the majority of experts.
Great I also see myself as valuing "the scientific method, holding an opinion tentatively, with the possibility of later finding new information that would force a change of opinion". In some of the details of YEC theory I also think that some of my beliefs are "subject to constant comparison to evidence and possible re-evaluation. Until I see compelling evidence to the contrary, I am happy to accept the evidence I have seen and the consensus of the majority of..." YEC experts.

I have read your cited article before. It makes a number of very bad arguments
What one, and, how so?

Damning to what exactly? Why?

If you can "not make a watertight argument for any (transitional forms) being directly ancestral to living species groups" then where is the clear progressive tree? If you can not say that "this evolved into that, which evolved into that..." then where is this "clear" progression of what evolved into what? Then the only thing linking them is a good story. And as patterson said "It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Granny Magda, posted 09-21-2009 9:57 PM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Granny Magda, posted 09-22-2009 10:53 PM Arphy has responded

    
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2719 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 93 of 210 (525181)
09-22-2009 6:50 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Dr Adequate
09-22-2009 4:03 AM


Re: To my numerous opponents
Oh look, a creationist dishonestly takes a quote out of context in a thread about creationists dishonestly taking quotes out of context.

Rubbish. The way I used the quote was to show that evolution is a belief, the last part of the quote "The general evidence for evolution is simply too compelling to dismiss" shows that Magda believes that there is evidence that supports his belief. Whether or not Magda thinks there is evidence for his belief is irrelevent as to the point I was making i.e. that he has a belief. The two are different topics. I have addressed this last sentence in my detailed reply to him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-22-2009 4:03 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-22-2009 7:26 AM Arphy has not yet responded

    
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2719 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 95 of 210 (525183)
09-22-2009 7:24 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Dr Adequate
09-22-2009 4:11 AM


Re: Lies, Damn Lies and Creationist Quote Mines
"You are right and the creationists are wrong"

So what did Mr Theunissen tell Patterson the creationist interpretation was. Or what was the belief of what the creationist interpretation was. In other words, what was the creationist interpretation, and was it different to Mr Theunissens interpretation?

This is the way CMI defended themselves:

[Theunissen] ...wrote to Patterson asking for clarification about the comments in Sunderland’s book. Patterson replied that the quote was accurate in its reproduction, but its interpretation was faulty because he had also written:

‘The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question.’1
Well, precisely. So why have evolutionist textbooks almost universally and dogmatically declared Archaeopteryx to be an obvious transitional form? But the issue goes deeper. Patterson’s ‘revision’ seemed to be claiming (or at least it was in the way the sceptic tried to highlight it) that all he meant with his original quote was that it is impossible to determine whether any ‘candidate’ fossils (ones that might have the appearance of transitional forms) actually were real transitional ones—not that there was a scarcity or absence of inbetween forms in the fossil record. In other words, they might look like missing links, but how can one know for sure?

However, to suggest that this was all he was saying is really impossible to square with the words of the quote itself. Note, for example, how Patterson referred to comments by Stephen J. Gould and ‘the American Museum people’ who are well-known to have specifically admitted the rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record. They actually proposed a theory of ‘evolution in jumps’4 to explain away the fact that links seemed to be absent.

Gould even said in another place that ‘The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches … in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the gradual transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed.”’5

So if one rereads the original Patterson quote above, it is clear that it is perfectly legitimate to use it to highlight this ‘extreme rarity of transitional forms’ in the fossil record. Otherwise, the reference to Gould is meaningless.

Note that Gould et al. were committed evolutionists; even interpreting the record through evolutionary eyes, they admitted that it was ‘extremely rare’ to find transitional forms, not that it was impossible in principle! Creationists would of course claim that there are none, except within a created kind. But even candidates for transitional forms are clearly so rare that Patterson was able to refer to Gould et al. as saying that there were (for all practical purposes) ‘no transitional fossils’. Yet a straightforward understanding of neo-Darwinism would suggest that there were many more transitional forms than the ‘end’ forms we see today. So one would expect ‘transitional’ fossils to dominate the record.

The context of Sunderland’s letter to Patterson also needs to be remembered. He was simply asking why Patterson didn’t show even one single picture of any proposed transitional form anywhere in his book. Patterson’s reply made it abundantly clear that if he did, it would be storytelling, not science! In fact, he went on to say in his original letter to Sunderland:

‘It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.’

http://c.../that-quoteabout-the-missing-transitional-fossils

Also the quote at the top of this post needs to be read IN CONTEXT with other sources that show pattersons position. I have ordered the transcript of his lecture so hopefully we can discuss it again in a few week's time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-22-2009 4:11 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-22-2009 7:35 AM Arphy has responded

    
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2719 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 99 of 210 (525188)
09-22-2009 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Percy
09-22-2009 7:18 AM


Re: To my numerous opponents
You mean like "evolutionism?"

ehh...????

as if this argument over details of the evolutionary history of birds called evolution itself into question.
See you did it again. Where did I say that?

Anything we come to accept about the history of life on Earth must be based upon evidence gathered from the real world. That's our worldview.

What the..?? Again, the things that you "come to accept about the history of life on Earth" (worldview) you think is "based upon evidence gathered from the real world". Again, I don't doubt you think there is good reason to accept your worldview. However the evidence is not the worldview. Evidence is used to support or refute a worldview.

Degenerative is not the same as disadvanntageous.

I think you need to explain why creationists believe that the combination of advantageous and disadvantageous mutations can only result in "devolution." Oh, and a definition of "devolution" would help, too. How can you tell when something is "devolving?"
Everything is always devolving. As my article clearly explains http://creation.com/mutations-are-evolutions-end. Our genomes are in a constant state of decay. This also answers your next and also last objection.

Then explain to us how scientists are wrong about the shared characteristics that cause them to classify humans, chimpanzees and gorillas as apes.
I'm not saying we don't have any shared characteristics. I'm not sure why scientists classify humans this way as there are many big differences between an ape and a human.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Percy, posted 09-22-2009 7:18 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-22-2009 10:48 AM Arphy has not yet responded
 Message 103 by greyseal, posted 09-22-2009 10:54 AM Arphy has responded
 Message 106 by Coyote, posted 09-22-2009 12:24 PM Arphy has not yet responded
 Message 107 by Percy, posted 09-22-2009 1:57 PM 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