Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-18-2019 1:21 PM
135 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,429 Year: 3,466/19,786 Month: 461/1,087 Week: 51/212 Day: 12/39 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
456
7
89Next
Author Topic:   Birds and Reptiles
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 135 (599080)
01-04-2011 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by arachnophilia
01-01-2011 11:34 PM


Re: running, and digits
arach...... writes:

so, this is a science forum, buz. we can't just assume things like the accuracy of the bible, or even that genesis is a record of anything. plus, dinosaurs lived in cold climates, too.

It's also an EvC (evolution vs creation debate board. Don't expect this creationist to buy into your ideological version of science.

arach....... writes:

it's nonsense, from "birds came first" ornithologists and crackpots. they assume that birds would have lost their digits symmetrically, and thus they cannot be homologous to the theropod hand, which is non-symmetric. this is obviously a bad assumption for a number of reasons:

the theropod hand is homologous to the avian carpometacarprus
hoatzin ontogeny recapitulates this particular development, and hoatzin are born with hands that have freely moving digits, claws, and are nearly exactly identical to a maniraptoran hand, except for some extra wrist bone fusing
there is a very strong and convincing history of the evolution of the carpometacarpus, with all kinds of transitional forms, that shows precisely which digit is which, all the way from herrerasaurs (with five digits) to theropods (generally with three) to birds (with essentially one).
there is an excellent rebuttal by greg paul, above, in post #64. it goes back this far because, remember, these "birds came first" crackpots deny that theropod are dinosaurs, not that birds are theropods.

By and large I don't see the problem as nonsensical, given the crackpots are bonafide scientists.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
Time Relates To What Is Temperal. What Is Eternal Is Timeless.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by arachnophilia, posted 01-01-2011 11:34 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Nuggin, posted 01-04-2011 8:57 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 93 by arachnophilia, posted 01-04-2011 8:58 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 565 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 92 of 135 (599083)
01-04-2011 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Buzsaw
01-04-2011 8:40 PM


Re: running, and digits
It's also an EvC (evolution vs creation debate board. Don't expect this creationist to buy into your ideological version of science.

The "ideology" of science is that reality is real. If you don't "buy into that", there's not really much to "debate" is there?

What possible debate can be had when one person insists that their own unsubstaniated fantasy is as valid as objective observation?

Could we debate whether or not giant Smurfs walk on the face of the moon? You argue that they don't using science, I'll argue that they do using my beliefs.

That's not debate. That's just one person being irrational.

By and large I don't see the problem as nonsensical, given the crackpots are bonafide scientists.

So, are you now consented that anyone who is a "bonafide scientist" is always right over someone who isn't?

What if two "bonafide scientists" disagree with one another?
What if one says X and 5 say Y?
What if one says X and 500 say Y?
What if one says X and 500,000 say Y?

How do you weigh the statements? Or is it just that if they agree with you they are right, no matter which website they downloaded their degree from?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Buzsaw, posted 01-04-2011 8:40 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by arachnophilia, posted 01-04-2011 9:07 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

    
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 50 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 93 of 135 (599084)
01-04-2011 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Buzsaw
01-04-2011 8:40 PM


Re: running, and digits
Buzsaw writes:

It's also an EvC (evolution vs creation debate board. Don't expect this creationist to buy into your ideological version of science.

my "ideological version of science" is called science. denial of evidence, hand waving, special pleading, and just plain willful ignorance is not.

By and large I don't see the problem as nonsensical, given the crackpots are bonafide scientists.

double standard, and a particularly insidious one at that. you have lots of problems accepting what every other scientist says. you only appeal to these crackpots because you think they are somehow arguing against evolution: they're not; just which particular path it took. and remember -- feduccia is an ornithologist. dinosaurs are not his field of study. he is not especially qualified to comment on paleontological concerns, like numbering in maniraptoran digits.

and these guys are not "bonafide" scientists, because they are committed to a particular point of view a priori, and attempt to reinterpret all evidence into fitting that view. they are then forced the discard the evidence that simply falsifies their views. this is not science -- but it sounds a lot like creationism, so i can see the appeal it has for you.

now, i have demonstrated several instances where these things have happened above. and, i have fully addressed precisely why this stuff is bunk, with quotes from actual bonafide scientists who are respected in their field. and with pictures that even you can see. i will now repost two of them, with a challenge.


"figure A"


"figure B"

i'm presenting you with these two pictures without labels. now, sure, you can go and cheat and look back a page or two. but your task is to number the digitals. you can do simply in text, ie: "A: 7,8,9. B:13,17,102" (those are obviously not the right numbers).


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Buzsaw, posted 01-04-2011 8:40 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 50 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 94 of 135 (599086)
01-04-2011 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Nuggin
01-04-2011 8:57 PM


appeal to the masses
Nuggin writes:

So, are you now consented that anyone who is a "bonafide scientist" is always right over someone who isn't?

What if two "bonafide scientists" disagree with one another?
What if one says X and 5 say Y?
What if one says X and 500 say Y?
What if one says X and 500,000 say Y?

How do you weigh the statements?

this, of course, is a basic logical fallacy. all it takes is one person doing science to disprove or substantially impact a standing theory. the problem is not that these are the minority, though considering that there's about a half-dozen of them total in a field of hundreds of thousands working paleontologists certainly doesn't make them look good. the problem is that they're not doing science.

in some respects, we might say that they are -- they're looking for falsifications of a standard theory. but they seem emotionally attached to that idea, and do not give it up or substantially alter it when they are shown wrong. and most of the actual scientific content is nonsensical (like the study that reportedly shows birds couldn't have evolved from birds) or just plain wrong -- and doesn't even generally say what they spout off in the media. sound like anyone else we know?

it's not that there's only a few of them. it's that they're cranks. it only takes one -- but that one has to right.

Or is it just that if they agree with you they are right, no matter which website they downloaded their degree from?

none of the cranks mentioned in this thread would agree with buz. they all accept evolution (that's macro-evolution for buz) as a fact, and are in fact arguing for a substantially large change in "kinds". none of them are creationists. they just use the same tactics.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Nuggin, posted 01-04-2011 8:57 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-04-2011 11:41 PM arachnophilia has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


(1)
Message 95 of 135 (599113)
01-04-2011 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by arachnophilia
01-04-2011 9:07 PM


Re: appeal to the masses
this, of course, is a basic logical fallacy.

It's a perfectly sensible reply to something which is itself an argument from authority.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by arachnophilia, posted 01-04-2011 9:07 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by arachnophilia, posted 01-05-2011 12:13 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 50 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 96 of 135 (599114)
01-05-2011 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Dr Adequate
01-04-2011 11:41 PM


Re: appeal to the masses
perhaps -- but so is pointing out that his appeal to authority is a double standard.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-04-2011 11:41 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-05-2011 1:14 AM arachnophilia has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


(1)
Message 97 of 135 (599117)
01-05-2011 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by arachnophilia
01-05-2011 12:13 AM


Re: appeal to the masses
perhaps -- but so is pointing out that his appeal to authority is a double standard.

Buzsaw appealed to authority. Nuggin pointed out what the authorities actually say.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by arachnophilia, posted 01-05-2011 12:13 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by arachnophilia, posted 01-05-2011 1:46 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 50 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 98 of 135 (599120)
01-05-2011 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Dr Adequate
01-05-2011 1:14 AM


Re: appeal to the masses
"his" being "buzsaw's" buz appealed (incredibly deviously and selectively) to authority. nuggin appealed to masses of authority. they're both fallacies.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-05-2011 1:14 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
fanlynne 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2819 days)
Posts: 3
Joined: 03-29-2011


Message 99 of 135 (610325)
03-29-2011 5:49 AM


It is important to recognize that classification is a tool invented by human beings, not imposed by nature. We found a way classifcation useful to describe related, but does not clearly define the boundaries of the nature of concern and help us. It just becomes more complicated as we find more fossils to fill the gaps in the records. So, archaeoptyrex a bird-like dinosaur or dinosaur-like bird? It certainly has some features we do not usually associate with modern birds. But it is certainly more like birds than we tend to think, as a dinosaur.

Edited by fanlynne, : No reason given.

Edited by Admin, : Update signature.


I'm a signature spammer, yes I am!
Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Tiel, posted 03-29-2011 7:39 AM fanlynne has not yet responded

    
Tiel
Junior Member (Idle past 2818 days)
Posts: 1
Joined: 03-29-2011


Message 100 of 135 (610335)
03-29-2011 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by fanlynne
03-29-2011 5:49 AM


fanlynne writes:

It is important to recognize that classification is a tool invented by human beings, not imposed by nature. We found a way classifcation useful to describe related, but does not clearly define the boundaries of the nature of concern and help us. It just becomes more complicated as we find more fossils to fill the gaps in the records. So, archaeoptyrex a bird-like dinosaur or dinosaur-like bird? It certainly has some features we do not usually associate with modern birds. But it is certainly more like birds than we tend to think, as a dinosaur.


Well I think some people will say that Archaeopteryx is just another feathered dinosaur like Anchiornis huxleyi, Velociraptor..... rather that a real bird.

"If Archaeopteryx were discovered today, I don't think you would call it a bird. You would call it a feathered dinosaur," says Carrano. It's still called the first bird, but more for historic reasons than because it is the oldest or best embodiment of birdlike traits.
Dinosaurs' Living Descendants

It's just depends where you put the limit between birds and no-avian theropods.

Velociraptor, Archaopteryx and a modern bird



Edited by Tiel, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by fanlynne, posted 03-29-2011 5:49 AM fanlynne has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by arachnophilia, posted 03-30-2011 12:00 AM Tiel has not yet responded

    
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2441 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 101 of 135 (610430)
03-29-2011 9:20 PM


Indeed as a poster said here its a great deal about the classification system. I a;ways find these corrupts interpretations.
For example I know placentals and marsupials are the same creatures with minor local area adaptations. A common theme in the fossil record also of segregating creatures on minor points in union that otherwise they would be in different groups.
Likewise i say there is no such divisions as mammals or reptiles. jUst kinds with like details for like needs.

The YEC can help here first by saying there are no dinosaur division or types of creatures. All there is IS kinds. What are called dinos are just some kinds of creatures with like details.
A t-rex is unrelated to a triceratops.
So these dinos with some bird bone likeness are simply creatures with the same needs as birds. Probably they need hollow bones to increase speed as birds need them to decrease weight. Yet its not a trail to identity.
Some of these dinos said alike to birds might just be big birds with some details needed by "dinos".
Again it comes down to classification systems and not actual biological evidence. Even if bones count as biology.


Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-30-2011 12:17 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded
 Message 104 by Dr Jack, posted 03-30-2011 9:29 AM Robert Byers has responded
 Message 105 by arachnophilia, posted 03-30-2011 11:47 AM Robert Byers has responded
 Message 106 by Dr Jack, posted 03-30-2011 11:52 AM Robert Byers has responded

    
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 50 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


(1)
Message 102 of 135 (610455)
03-30-2011 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Tiel
03-29-2011 7:39 AM


Tiel writes:

Well I think some people will say that Archaeopteryx is just another feathered dinosaur like Anchiornis huxleyi, Velociraptor..... rather that a real bird.

"If Archaeopteryx were discovered today, I don't think you would call it a bird. You would call it a feathered dinosaur," says Carrano. It's still called the first bird, but more for historic reasons than because it is the oldest or best embodiment of birdlike traits.
Dinosaurs' Living Descendants

It's just depends where you put the limit between birds and no-avian theropods.

there are, of course, substantial characters that group archaeopteryx with modern birds to the exclusion of other dromaeousaurids. they're just less that obvious -- and i like to play that up against the "it's just a bird!" creationist nonsense. clearly, it's a lot more than just a bird. it's a bird that's incredibly similar to non-avian dinosaurs.

but yes, the line is kind of arbitrary.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Tiel, posted 03-29-2011 7:39 AM Tiel has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


(1)
Message 103 of 135 (610457)
03-30-2011 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Robert Byers
03-29-2011 9:20 PM


For example I know placentals and marsupials are the same creatures with minor local area adaptations.

That's a funny use of the word "know".

The YEC can help here ...

That would be a first.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Robert Byers, posted 03-29-2011 9:20 PM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 178 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


(1)
Message 104 of 135 (610476)
03-30-2011 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Robert Byers
03-29-2011 9:20 PM


For example I know placentals and marsupials are the same creatures with minor local area adaptations.

I assume this is the same opinion you give at length in your essay Post-Flood Marsupial Migration Explained? In which you opine:

quote:
Science organizes them according to shared body structure attributes that they believe indicate a common origin for each group.

Why is it, do you think, that Johann Karl Wilhelm Illiger chose to classify Marsupials as an entirely separate group to placental mammals some forty eight years before the publication of The Origin of Species?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Robert Byers, posted 03-29-2011 9:20 PM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Robert Byers, posted 04-04-2011 3:44 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 50 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 105 of 135 (610494)
03-30-2011 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Robert Byers
03-29-2011 9:20 PM


redneck fail.
Robert Byers writes:

For example I know placentals and marsupials are the same creatures with minor local area adaptations.

psst. placentals and marsupials live side by same in the same area: north america. it has nothing to do with locations -- it's just that australia is one of thew few places large groups of marsupials survived extinction.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Robert Byers, posted 03-29-2011 9:20 PM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Robert Byers, posted 04-04-2011 3:46 AM arachnophilia has responded

  
Prev1
...
456
7
89Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019