Scientist Says Ostrich Study Confirms Bird "Hands" Unlike Those Of Dinosaurs

University Of North Carolina At Chapel Hill (http://www.unc.edu/) via Science Daily Magazine ^ | Posted 8/15/2002 | Editorial Staff

[keithtoo]

Not a problem for the Evol-Doer Clergy. Evidence?...they dont need no stinkin' evidence!

When you have made it you life's work to invent postulations out of whole cloth, covering up this little road bump is a piece of cake.

'Let us prey.....on the gullible'

[f.Christian]

Whale wise---fish/schools...on the 'gullible'

[general_re]

Ah, there was a much longer thread on that, that I was thinking of - I couldn't recall where in the 1200+ posts that someone had said that. On that thread you refer to, I suppose one could reasonably infer that "The Shootist" is suggesting that those who refuse to accept the theory of evolution ought to be denied entrance to med school.

OTOH, I don't know if he/she has a Ph.D in chemistry...

[Alex Murphy]

Bump for later

[scripter]

Ping for later.

[PatrickHenry]

Darwin Central calling all sons of pond scum.

[Dimensio]

I like "Harvey Birdman: Attorney at Law"

[Dimensio]

Yet another set back for the improbable theory of creative causation... that's evolution for lay persons.

Well, I think that the creationist scientist who made the discovery put it better when he said...

Wait, the scientist who made the discovery isn't a creationist. He just think that the evolution of birds did not result from them splintering from dinosarus but from a much older common ancestor.

Guess this isn't a point for creationists after all. Whoops.

[VadeRetro]

A report on their investigations will appear online in the August issue of Naturwissenschaften ...

Old story. I was in threads on FR and jennyp's site at the time.

Apparent conflict. More data needed. Not much else to say.

[f.Christian]

To: Dimensio

As I see it, evolution is an ideological doctrine. If it were only a "scientific theory", it would have died a natural death 50 - 70 years ago; the evidence against it is too overwhelming and has been all along. The people defending it are doing so because they do not like the alternatives to an atheistic basis for science and do not like the logical implications of abandoning their atheistic paradigm and, in conducting themselves that way, they have achieved a degree of immunity to what most people call logic.

488 posted on 7/29/02 5:18 AM Pacific by medved

Great quote. Thanks for posting it.


294 posted on 10/18/02 11:59 AM Pacific by AnnaZ

[PoorMuttly]

Oh great. Now every morning I have to inspect my ostrich omlette for thumbs.

[AndrewC]

How do we know that the same thing didn't happened with the dinosaurs? I know we have some fossilized embryos and eggs, but if it took them this long to find the differences in ostrich embryo stages, how can they say that dinosaurs also didn't do this?

You are too logical. Of course, that is what one would think. The problem is, I believe, that the opposite was asserted prior to this. IOW what was assumed about dinosaur fingers cannot be true.

Bird metacarpal homology

Hinchliffe attempts to demonstrate, using two different lines of embryological evidence, that the digits of the avain carpometacarpus are II-III-IV, then proceeds to use this as evidence that birds are not derived dinosaurs.

The latter point strikes me as weak, since he is using embryological evidence to dispell the homologies posited by workers who are looking only at osteological evidence, while a priori accepting the homolgies these workers postulate for another group. On the other hand, part of the point of the paper is that homologies established on osteological evidence may be weaker than is often thought. In any case, if one were to accept Dr. Henchliffe's findings at face value, most parsimoniously it would simply cause us to reconsider the homologies of the theropod manus (translation: if birds' digits are II-III-IV, given the evidence, isn't it just a simpler conclusion that dinosaurs' digits were II-III-IV?).

The same would happen if, for instance, it was discovered that the little toe of the horse became the single hoof.

You should also understand that Dr. Alan Feduccia is a severe critic of the now orthodox bird-dino connection.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up!

[Condorman]

So this new finding runs counter to the current theory of bird evolution. Hmph! Some egghead (Ha!) will just propose a modification to fit the theory around these new observations.

And they call this science!?! A real scientist would just give up already.

[/Head-in-sand creationist mode]

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Is medved back from the grave??

Proof of Incompetent Design!!

[PatrickHenry]

It would seem that the ostritch joins the platypus in the creationists' quiver of arguments. Funny, why special creation for those two critters? Everything else seems to fit. There must be a Noah's Ark angle in here somewhere ...

[f.Christian]

As I see it, evolution is an evangelical doctrine!

[Lester Moore]

Does an ostriches embryonic pattern of development mirror its evolutionary cycle?

This was asserted for many years about humans, but has been proven false.

[gore3000]

Wait, the scientist who made the discovery isn't a creationist. He just think that the evolution of birds did not result from them splintering from dinosarus but from a much older common ancestor.

Guess this isn't a point for creationists after all. Whoops.

Funny way evos have of dismissing evidence. So long as someone does not accept it, it does not count. The point is that evolutionist assumptions keep being discredited. The missing links keep getting pushed back further and further because they keep getting disproved. In short, the links are never found, the evidence is not there, but anyone who does not believe in evolution is a fool! Seems evolutionists are just ideologues who refuse to face the facts.

[gore3000]

Apparent conflict. More data needed. Not much else to say.

To the ideologues of evolution it is always a matter of 'more data needed'. They have been saying that since Darwin. Actually the Evidence Disproving Evolution is already overwhelming and irrefutable.