On the road to extinction [Evolution & Creationism in Kansas]

And then there's that lung problem.

"In the case of birds, the major bronchi break down into tiny tubes which permeate the lung tissue. These so-called parabronchi eventually join up together again, forming a true circulatory system so that air flows in one direction through the lungs. ...[T]he structure of the lung in birds and the overall functioning of the respiratory system is quite unique. No lung in any other vertebrate species is known which in any way approaches the avian system. Moreover, it is identical in all essential details in birds as diverse as humming birds, ostriches and hawks."

*Michael Denton, A Theory in Crisis, Adler & Adler, 1986, pp. 210-211.

(ii) The rarity in theropods of the semilunate wrist bone, known in only four species (including Deinonychus).

Deinonychus IS a dinosaur, you know. How does this stuff help you pretend that this

is this?

Do you see part 15 on the bottom picture? Part of the hip, it's a slender bone curving strongly backward. That corresponds to a straigher bone which points forward on Archy. In fact, Archy's pelvis is pure theropod dinosaur and nothing but. So is his tail. So are his unfused hand bones. So are his toothy jaws with no bill. His sternum, while it would apparently do in a pinch, is little if any evolved toward flight.

Again, you show up on these threads chanting that A is B, just an ordinary B, and there are no transitionals. Thread after thread, no matter what we say. No matter what we show you. Trolling for suckers.

So, does a bat have lungs like that, a bird's flow-through lungs, or do a bat's lungs resemble those of a pronghorn antelope? I mean, what does a bat look more like? Obviously its functional requirements for its notably energetic flight must require a pretty hefty oxygen uptake.

I still to this day have never actually checked, and yet I feel that the theory of evolution tells me the answer. Intelligent Design says the Designer could have done any damn thing He wanted. Well, THAT's useful!

I feel that I know. I'd bet anything, in fact. No thanks to ID. That's the difference between a science that tells you something and a covers-all-bases useless pretender.

Thread after thread, no matter what we say. No matter what we show you.

I'm listening, Vade, I just remain unconvinced. Believe it or not I value what you say and file it away. I am just looking at all the information and forming an opinion.

I have to get back to work, but I will leave for now with this quote from one of your own:

"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."

*Dr. Alan Feduccia, professor and former head of biology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and the author of the encyclopedic The Origin and Evolution of Birds (1999).

Just a bird, Vade. Just a bird. :)

Just a bird, Vade. Just a bird. :)

Brazen. Just brazen.

Just a placemarker.

Brazen placemarker.

No one ever gets back to me on this one placemarker.

You're apparently mistaking the 'dinosaur origin' hypothesis, which has been controversial (though it is looking better and better) with the 'reptile origin' vhypothsis, which is uncontroversial. You do understnad that dinosaurs were only a subset of all reptiles present in the early Mosozoic?

I'm a fan of Feduccia, and refer constantly to his Origin of Evolution of Birds; but he is a controversialist, and here is arguing against the dinosaur origin, not the reptile origin of birds.

Une autre placemarker.

Who was doing the designing? How do we investigate the designer?

Must these questions be answered when something that is ‘designed’ is put in front of you before you will accept the fact that it was designed?

And most of all, since there's absolutely nothing in the data that suggests design, why?

Well, we can go back and forth on this but let’s just get to the point. Biological science ‘currently’ will not allow teleology – no matter what – end of story.

But wait, in all fairness I will admit that this also happens with those who don’t accept purely natural causes for biology. IOW, I see dogma on both sides. But ‘must’ teleology and non-teleology ‘always’ be an either / or situation? We know that both existed in science in the very recent past and for the most part functioned fine together when in a check and balance situation.

The current ‘check and balance system’ we have on this forum is nothing but name-calling; creationist, atheist, etc… IOW, teleology vs. non-teleology.

Hey, I enjoy a good debate - but entering a debate merely for an opportunity to call someone an idiot is not debating. (And I am by no means claiming to be snowy white – nor am I accusing you)

Anyway, if you can get past the title of this article (well, maybe a little more than the title) it ‘actually’ says what I am ‘trying’ to say…

+2 Mace of Pig-Ignorance Placemarker

+1 Bugsprayer of Holy water Placemarker.

With patented Anti-Troll technology!

Must these questions be answered when something that is ‘designed’ is put in front of you before you will accept the fact that it was designed?

Depends. If the bases spelled out 'Kilroy was here' in some code, I'd look for Kilroy. If they merely showed some degree of order, I'd discount design; order is something that arises, spontaneously, in hundreds of clearly random environments.

It's not a bad point that science did co-exist with religion for quite a while, but I'd submit that that was possible because science hadn't gotten to the point of treading on religion's toes, and vice-versa. As long as science didn't have a plausible theory of the origin of species, the Genesis account didn't pose a problem. As long as we couldn't in a meaningful way speculate where it all came from, the creator God was the only game in town. And conversely, organized religion didn't immediately object when science started coming up with ages of the world that were vastly greater than 6000 years - possibly because much of the work was done in countries where Catholicism or liberal Protestantism held sway; the Church, at least since that unfortunate Galileo incident, has been fairly open about scientific inquiry.

I think the problem now is we're getting quite close to the point where science could provide a consistent account of everything, from the moment of creation to the present day. Physics will tell us how it all began, biology will fill in the few remaining gaps in evolution, chemistry will tell us how life first arose, and neuroscience will provide a predictive model for human thought and behavior. Signs of God's presence in the Universe, miracles and so on, will be more and more discredited. We may be several decades from some of these, but we can at least see forward to their arrival. This squeezes God as creator back to the entity that set up the initial conditions and flicked a switch, or maybe eliminates God the creator entirely, if the initial conditions are found to be inevitable. And the religious concepts of man in God's image and man as immortal soul are surely threatened if we show cognitive function to be a predictable result pf physics and chemistry. If we're thinking, choosing machines, and we're in God's image, what is God? There's still room for a pantheistic god perhaps, a mystical god that imbues anything, but the God as personal entity looks very threatened. Religion would then be relegated to the role of purveyor of moral precepts, and have to abjure any epistemological or metaphysical role entirely.

I see this conflict as inevitable. Others don't; there are quite a few people on FR trying valiantly to find a niche for supernatural entities in quantum mechanics and in long-range forces. Good luck to them: I think they're sincere, and I understand their anxieties about a 'clockwork universe'. I just see no evidence - nada - that the endeavor holds any promise.

You may write this off as the prejudice of an agnostic naturalist, if you like, but that's not the position I started from; I had excellent training in Catholic doctrine. It is the position I find myself increasingly persuaded by. In my opinion, what we should be going about now is finding practical non-theistic substitutes for the valuable institutions and ideas over which religion once held full sway.

Anyway, if you can get past the title of this article (well, maybe a little more than the title) it ‘actually’ says what I am ‘trying’ to say…

Unfortunately, it says nothing. But perhaps that is what you are trying to say.

I had excellent training in Catholic doctrine. It is the position I find myself increasingly persuaded by.

Strange. You and the Pope are identical on this. Why the differnce in your outlook?

differnce = difference.

I think the problem now is we're getting quite close to the point where science could provide a consistent account of everything, from the moment of creation to the present day. Physics will tell us how it all began, biology will fill in the few remaining gaps in evolution, chemistry will tell us how life first arose, and neuroscience will provide a predictive model for human thought and behavior. Signs of God's presence in the Universe, miracles and so on, will be more and more discredited. We may be several decades from some of these, but we can at least see forward to their arrival. This squeezes God as creator back to the entity that set up the initial conditions and flicked a switch, or maybe eliminates God the creator entirely, if the initial conditions are found to be inevitable. And the religious concepts of man in God's image and man as immortal soul are surely threatened if we show cognitive function to be a predictable result pf physics and chemistry. If we're thinking, choosing machines, and we're in God's image, what is God? There's still room for a pantheistic god perhaps, a mystical god that imbues anything, but the God as personal entity looks very threatened. Religion would then be relegated to the role of purveyor of moral precepts, and have to abjure any epistemological or metaphysical role entirely.

Nice post. Well said. Bravo.