Let me remind the lurkers that you are waving your alleged inability to get evolutionary arguments as a wave-away for post 661 by Ichneumon. Your introductory statement: "Ichneumons stunning post on transitionals is deeply flawed."
Out of all that post, you have myopically focussed upon the supposed deep flaw represented by Caudipteryx being later than Archaeopteryx, together with Feduccia's rather eccentric theories.
Your concerns on that point have been addressed directly. You don't have a valid point. But even if the anomaly was real, it wouldn't explain anything about why we have parallel evidence for reptiles becoming mammals, or land animals becoming whales, or fish eventually becoming elephants, and why molecular evidence points to the same phylogenetic relationships we get from morphology and the fossil record. The inadequacy of your mumbles in the post to which I responded needs no further comment from me.
One last point on the lameness of citing Feduccia.
Quotations and Misquotations: Why What Antievolutionists Quote is Not Valid Evidence Against EvolutionPicking and choosing authorities
In advertisements for movies, it is usually taken for granted that the studios only quote positive reviews. This kind of Madison Avenue tactic is not a legitimate means of establishing the nature of reality. One cannot just pick the expert whose opinion is convenient for the point one is trying to make while ignoring credible expert opinion to the contrary. This is especially the case when the quoted authority is in the minority among his fellow experts. There might be a very good reason why the authority's views are in the minority. If a writer argues by hand-picking only the experts convenient to him, then that writer has committed the "argument from authority" fallacy. Antievolutionists do this routinely.
- Alan Feduccia who opposes the idea that birds are descended from dinosaurs and instead argues that birds are descended from non-dinosaur archosaurs (a taxon that includes dinosaurs) is often quoted by evolution deniers. Feduccia is a qualified scientist and should not be just dismissed, but his views are in an extreme minority within the scientific community. It is simply bad reasoning for the evolution deniers to use Feduccia's writing disagreeing with conventional ideas of bird evolution while ignoring the many experts that disagree with him.
"Is Archaeopteryx a 'missing link'?"1 quotes Feduccia on Archaeopteryx:
Was Archaeopteryx a feathered dinosaur? Dr. Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an evolutionist himself, said: "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."
Notice the author is citing Feduccia's conclusion, and not his evidence. There is no mention that that his opinion is a minority opinion. Feduccia's peers in the field of bird evolution are "authorities" too. In short this creationist is saying that Feduccia is an authority and that he says that birds are not descended from dinosaurs, therefore birds are not descended from dinosaurs. It is a classic "argument from authority." It is also very inconsistent. Feduccia also says that evolution occurs, so if this argument is to be followed to its logical conclusion, this creationist must accept the evolution of birds from non-birds! One could also cite many more authorities that say birds are descended from theropod dinosaurs. This is why one should not pick and choose authorities. If Feduccia does turn out to be correct and his views become established within the scientific community, then the evolution deniers will probably become fond of quoting what Kevin Padian and other proponents of birds being descended from dinosaurs had to say about Feduccia's views.
I certainly do. Here's the problem once again for the lurkers. Ichemeuon posted a looong post showing what he called transitional fossils showing dinosaurs turning into birds. The problem though is that at least two very prominent avian evolutionary experts disagree with the fossils sequence...and in a signficant way.
VadeRetro et al dismiss this disagreement as not important. They essentially are calling these experts eccentric nut cases. Here is a biography of one of those "nuts" from the university he works at:
Biographical Sketch
Alan Feduccia is S. K. Heninger Professor at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. He is an evolutionary biologist interested in vertebrate evolution, especially the origin of birds from reptiles, the origin of avian flight, and Tertiary adaptive radiation.
Feduccia took his B.S. in Zoology from L.S.U., and Masters and Ph.D. from the University of Michigan. He lectured at Michigan and then taught at S.M.U. for two years before joining the University of North Carolina faculty in 1971. Feduccia's research has taken him on numerous expeditions to Central and South America and Africa. He is the author of more than 125 scientific publications dealing primarily with the evolution of birds and other vertebrates, embryology, comparative morphology, and evolutionary systematics. His publications include some ten books (including editions & translations), and five monographs, including the internationally acclaimed and award-winning, The Age of Birds, Harvard University Press (1980), which appeared in Japanese, German and paperback editions. Reviewer comments included: "a revelation of clarity and synthesis...Feduccia--himself a leading anatomist--has brought together startling new evidence on the reptilian-avian relationship... science writing at its best," and in 1993 the book was termed "definitive" by the New York Times.
His popular books include Catesby's Birds of Colonial America (U.N.C. Press, 1985), and Birds of Colonial Williamsburg (Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 1989), illustrated with 70 watercolors by famed bird artist Douglas Pratt. His new book The Origin and Evolution of Birds was the lead science book for Yale University Press for the fall of 1996, and winner of the 1996 Scholarly and Professional Publishing Award of the Association of American Publishers. Feduccia has recently published cover articles in Science and Naturwissenschaften, and the former was listed in Discover Magazine's top 50 news stories of 1993, and in Science News' science news of the year.
He has lately been interviewed on numberous radio and television shows, including frequent appareances on National Public Radio, BBC, and Voice of America. He has appeared recently on the Australian television show Quantum, ABCTV (1995), the McNeil/Lehrer Report (1995 and 1997), the Japanese television series "Planet of Life", Japan Broadcasting Corporation (NHK), Science and Technology Satelite News, (February 1996), NBC Radio News, CBS Radio News, NPR Morning Edition, ABC Radio News, Australia (1997), ABC Discovery News (April 1998) and the Discovery Channel's If Dinosaurs Could Fly (February 1998). He is an invitee to "Renaissance Weekend."
Now obviously he is not a nut. So why do Vade and others have to characterize him as such? Well, simply put because there is no way to prove him wrong. Why? Because evolution isn't like math, chemistry, physics or anything else most rational people consider to be science. Evolutionary study dealing with "transitional" fossils is all a matter of opinion. That's right, opinion.
Think about it: if a mathematical experts disagrees with math he isn't given the time of day. You are either right or wrong. Same with physics, biology and chemistry. Our technology operates as it does because all of these disciplines have methods in which the theories can be verified and tested. Fossil study does not. Actually dating the fossils isn't or can't be done with any degree of accuracy. Think about it: if it could be done then there would be no debate about transitionals. None. They could prove that the fossils in question are X number of years old and Dr. Alan Feduccia would have to concede the point. But they can't.
Since they can't prove the age, they have to do the only thing next: call those who disagree nutcases. It's the old Clinton nuts and sluts strategy. Evolutionists who disagree with orthodoxy are called nuts. People who disagree with evolution are called sluts.
That's why these threads get contentious and why they exist. Think about it. If someone came and started a math thread and stated that they didn't believe that 2+2=4 then the thread would quickly die because THERE IS NO DEBATE. It's a fact, easily proven. Evolution isn't like that. Smart people disagree and can disagree and nobody can prove them wrong. Oh they'll yell and scream that all the experts agree and anyone who doesn't agree with the experts is whacked. But ask yourself, why do they bother? If it's so evident there would be no debate. They could state their case and it would be crystal clear, just as 2+2 is to most 4th graders.