Posted on 01/27/2006 11:04:17 AM PST by Lindykim
Furthermore, he engages in the favorite creationist tactic of "quote-mining" and "expert shopping".
"Quote-mining" is hunting for quotes, usually out of context, in order to "prove" something by the simple tactic of "if I can find someone saying it, it must be true". Or even if the creationist can find a quote that *sounds* like what the creationist wants to "prove", even if that wasn't the author's original meaning. For countless examples, and an explanation of why "quote flinging" doesn't prove a damned thing, see: Quotations and Misquotations: Why What Antievolutionists Quote is Not Valid Evidence Against Evolution , and also: The Quote Mine Project: Or, Lies, Damned Lies and Quote Mines.
"Expert shopping" is where the creationist finds one alleged authority (even one of very questionable expertise or credentials) who agrees with him, or sounds like he does, and cites him as "the expert" in the field, whose conclusions ought not be questioned, while at the same time totally discounting the work of all other authorities (no matter how numerous, how expert, or even if they are the acknowledged top authorities in their field) as being "obviously" mistaken because they differ with the "unquestionable" conclusions of the creationist's handpicked "authority". The dishonesty of this technique should be obvious to all -- it's a variation on "I'll believe whatever I want to believe, and ignore the rest".
An example of the latter is the author's reliance upon Ruben, who made an offhand remark in a paper about another subject, and to the creationist author that makes him "the" authority on the topic of theropod/avian respiration, despite Ruben's conclusions being disputed by many other researchers.
A look at Ruben's full paper, in contrast with the creationist's quote from it, shows that Ruben's paper did not primarily concern when the avian-style lungs might have developed (or how), it covered when *endothermy* might have arisen. The remark on the rise of the avian-style lung was an offhand comment near the end of the paper, and rather an odd inclusion at that. The creationist took it to mean that Ruben was arguing that birds could not have arisen from theropod dinosaurs due to alleged incompatibilities in their respiratory systems, BUT in the context of the rest of Ruben's paper, the same argument could have been applied to claim that modern birds couldn't have arisen from early *birds* either, since Ruben had concluded that both groups (theropod dinosaurs *and* early birds) had diaphram-driven lungs. So the comment doesn't make much sense unless Ruben also wishes to argue that modern birds are unrelated to more primitive birds! And from the rest of his paper, it is quite clear that he does *not* believe that -- Ruben believes in evolution and common descent.
So the creationist was taking an offhand and apparently rather garbled comment, out of its context, and waving it around as "proof" of the conclusion he was trying to make, while *ignoring* all research results to the contrary. Not very honest, eh?
In any case, Ruben's comment appears to be mistaken, because it falsely presumes (and fails to even attempt to establish) that a diaphram can't co-exist with an avian-style respiratory system. It also incorrectly assumes that air flow to air sacs would have to take place *through* the diaphram, and yet it's well-known that air flow in birds includes vertebral diverticula -- in layman's terms, air tubes extend into and through the spinal column. It's entirely possible that airflow between abdominal air sacs and the thoracic lungs took place through the spine in birds' ancestors which still had a diaphram, thereby *bypassing* the diaphram instead of having to pass *through* it.
In any case, Ruben's conclusion that early birds and theropod dinosaurs did not have avian-style "pass through" respiration has been superseded by subsequent findings (which the creationist webpage has "forgotten" to update accordingly):
Basic avian pulmonary design and flow-through ventilation in non-avian theropod dinosaurs (2005)See also:Abstract: Birds are unique among living vertebrates in possessing pneumaticity of the postcranial skeleton, with invasion of bone by the pulmonary air-sac system. The avian respiratory system includes high-compliance air sacs that ventilate a dorsally fixed, non-expanding parabronchial lung. Caudally positioned abdominal and thoracic air sacs are critical components of the avian aspiration pump, facilitating flow-through ventilation of the lung and near-constant airflow during both inspiration and expiration, highlighting a design optimized for efficient gas exchange. Postcranial skeletal pneumaticity has also been reported in numerous extinct archosaurs including non-avian theropod dinosaurs and Archaeopteryx. However, the relationship between osseous pneumaticity and the evolution of the avian respiratory apparatus has long remained ambiguous. Here we report, on the basis of a comparative analysis of region-specific pneumaticity with extant birds, evidence for cervical and abdominal air-sac systems in non-avian theropods, along with thoracic skeletal prerequisites of an avian-style aspiration pump. The early acquisition of this system among theropods is demonstrated by examination of an exceptional new specimen of Majungatholus atopus, documenting these features in a taxon only distantly related to birds. Taken together, these specializations imply the existence of the basic avian pulmonary Bauplan in basal neotheropods, indicating that flow-through ventilation of the lung is not restricted to birds but is probably a general theropod characteristic.Vertebral pneumaticity, air sacs, and the physiology of sauropod dinosaurs (2003)Abstract: The vertebrae of sauropod dinosaurs are characterized by complex architecture involving laminae, fossae, and internal chambers of various shapes and sizes. These structures are interpreted as osteological correlates of a system of air sacs and pneumatic diverticula similar to that of birds. In extant birds, diverticula of the cervical air sacs pneumatize the cervical and anterior thoracic vertebrae. Diverticula of the abdominal air sacs pneumatize the posterior thoracic vertebrae and synsacrum later in ontogeny. This ontogenetic sequence in birds parallels the evolution of vertebral pneumaticity in sauropods. In basal sauropods, only the presacral vertebrae were pneumatized, presumably by diverticula of cervical air sacs similar to those of birds. The sacrum was also pneumatized in most neosauropods, and pneumatization of the proximal caudal vertebrae was achieved independently in Diplodocidae and Titanosauria. Pneumatization of the sacral and caudal vertebrae in neosauropods may indicate the presence of abdominal air sacs. Air sacs and skeletal pneumaticity probably facilitated the evolution of extremely long necks in some sauropod lineages by overcoming respiratory dead space and reducing mass. In addition, pulmonary air sacs may have conveyed to sauropods some of the respiratory and thermoregulatory advantages enjoyed by birds, a possibility that is consistent with the observed rapid growth rates of sauropods.
The Theropod Ancestry of Birds: New Evidence from the Late Cretaceous of Madagascar
Actually, no, but I note that you have not a single harsh word for all the over-the-top bashing of evolutionists, including the article which started this thread, accusing us of being tools of the devil...
Save your snotty comments for an audience which might actually not see your gross hypocrisy.
...like certain "Christians" who see nothing wrong with their own hypocrisy?
I was wondering that myself. Most of us aren't interested in screeds that grossly misrepresent science, and those who practice and support it.
The smell of pure manure is always powerful, especially when it's being flung at people.
Yes, I addressed this in a later post.
[It also incorrectly assumes that air flow to air sacs would have to take place *through* the diaphram, and yet it's well-known that air flow in birds includes vertebral diverticula -- in layman's terms, air tubes extend into and through the spinal column. It's entirely possible that airflow between abdominal air sacs and the thoracic lungs took place through the spine in birds' ancestors which still had a diaphram, thereby *bypassing* the diaphram instead of having to pass *through* it.]
I've always been fascinated with birds because of the amazing refinements in body design required by the energy demands of Aves. While their cardio-pulminary system IS amazing it's still perfectly understandable as an evolutionary adaptation of earlier, less complex systems.
I got the feeling while reading the linked article regarding the "impossibility" that bird's lungs could be derived from reptile's lungs that the author believes that a bird inhales through its mouth and exhales ...out of some other orifice. <?:^)
Thanks for the ping!
I'll wait to see if we get an answer.
[sound of crickets]
or should it be
[crickets roasting over an open fire]
This is a tremendous leap of faith (or counter-faith) on their part -- a leap that extinguishes all that is of utmost value to human kind, and what makes man distinctive.
Meanwhile, man stubbornly continues to be what he is: "psyche in soma," an embodied spiritual being.
The evos responses in this thread give evidence of the crippling effects of pride. For in essence, all of their arguments against the article and its author can be boiled down to this: "Rather than accept our Creator, we (evos) prefer to be soulless pointy-eared anthropoids---sans free will and conscience." And they seem to be oblivious to the entirety of implications contained within their "feely-chosen" position.
Ah well, Screwtape certainly knows his business, which is why he always holds his lures out to conceit.
moral absolutes ping?
Rationalize it how you may, it still boils down to this: "...we (evos) prefer to be soulless pointy-eared anthropoids---sans free will and conscience." A choice 'freely made' which of course starkly contradicts your 'creation story."
DISCUSSION ABOUT: "Screwtape's 'Age of Darwinian Scientism'"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To be included in or removed from the MORAL ABSOLUTES PINGLIST, please FreepMail either MillerCreek or wagglebee.
What drivel?
"A look at Ruben's full paper, in contrast with the creationist's quote from it, shows that Ruben's paper did not primarily concern when the avian-style lungs might have developed (or how), it covered when *endothermy* might have arisen."
So, clear it up for me. Are you saying that the dinosaurs were the ancestors of birds, or not? Or are you saying that the general theory of organic evolution is in such a state of flux that we just can't keep up with it?
LOLOL, Lindykim! So very true. And then they say this is "evolution." (Looks like "devolution" to me.)
Indeed, Screwtape knows exactly what he's doing. His most effective tactics always involve an appeal to conceit, pride, arrogance, narcissism.
Does your edition of The Screwtape Letters contain the appendix added around 1968, "Screwtape Proposes a Toast?" I highly recommend this particular reading to our evo friends.
But they will probably hold it in contempt anyway, as they do all aspects and insights of human culture that cannot be reduced to what they take to be The Scientific Method. Notwithstanding, they will have been warned.... And I guess maybe that's the best we can do; beyond that, all we can do is pray for their souls and hope they come to their senses in time.
Thanks so much for writing, Lindykim. And thanks again for your wonderful article.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.