Posted on 07/27/2006 8:12:50 AM PDT by Junior
Following her discussion of dinosaurs examined in Part II of this series, Coulter (2006, 219) ventured this:
For over a hundred years, evolutionists proudly pointed to the same sad birdlike animal, Archaeopteryx, as their lone transitional fossil linking dinosaurs and birds. Discovered a few years after Darwin published The Origin of Species, Archaeopteryx was instantly hailed as the transitional species that proved Darwin's theory. This unfortunate creature had wings, feathers, teeth, claws, and a long, bony tail. If it flew at all, it didn't fly very well. Alas, it is now agreed that poor Archaeopteryx is no relation of modern birds. It's just a dead end. It transitioned to nothing.
But could Archaeopteryx be our one example of bad mutations eliminated by natural selection? Archaeopteryx can't fill that role either, because it seems to have no predecessors. The fossils that look like Archaeopteryx lived millions of years after Archaeopteryx, and the fossils that preceded Archaeopteryx look nothing at all like it. The bizarre bird is just an odd creation that came out of nowhere and went nowhere, much like Air America Radio.
Where should one begin with this?
(Excerpt) Read more at talkreason.org ...
mergansers
ooops, mergansers teeth are not real teeth, just call teeth in some guides... oh well.
cool, chickens can grow teeth.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/02/060223083601.htm
What year was that written?
Before he said this?:
“Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur,” Feduccia says. “But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.”
Allan Feduccia, Professor of biology at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “Archaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms”, Science, Vol. 259, 5 February 1993, p. 764
Casey Luskin attended his lecture in 2004 and had this to say about Feduccia's main points:
*Archaeopteryx is a true bird.
*"Dinofuzz" is nothing more than collagenic fibers found on many other fossils.
*Today's highly touted "Feathered Dinosaurs" are a myth: some fossils (i.e. Caudipteryx) have flight-feathers but they aren't really dinos--they are secondarily flightless birds
*Birds have digits 2-3-4, and theropods have digits 1-2-3. This is powerful evidence that birds couldn't have evolved from theropod dinos. Also, the theropod --> bird hypothesis requires that birds evolved flight from the ground-up. If Caudipteryx has feathers but not for flight, Feduccia finds this explanation quite tenuous. Put simply, ground-up proponents say feathers were pre-adapted for flight but evolved originally for insulation. This is silly because feathers are perfectly suited for flight, and very energetically costly to produce. If insulation was all that was needed, hair would have done the job just fine and would NOT have been nearly so costly. It strains credibility to say feathers evolved for insulation. Feduccia prefers Microraptor as an ancestor of birds because he likes the trees-down hypothesis, not the ground-up hypothesis.
*If birds didn't come from theropods, this does leave a rather large time-gap where there is essentially no fossil documentation of exactly what sort of dinos or other reptiles from which birds would have evolved.
*(I personally hope people might consider "Option C,"--that perhaps birds did not evolve from dinosaurs or other reptiles.)
From here: http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1275
Out of curiosity, what "out-of-context" quote did wbmstr24 "mine?"
Eeeeeasy there, peanut gallery. You and your fellow evo's are being mighty rude to fellow FReepers lately.
Yup, the word forebore was in fact a transitional form, and thus the subject of much disputation.
Even now, gramaro-paleontologists are trying to decide which clade to place it in. Rumor has it that even Noam Chomsky is baffled.
(Ducking for cover, running for exit)
Cheers!
We were just discussing archaic language (the word "forebore").
By the way that acts as a great segue into the fact that I found your freeper name in a Sherlock Holmes story (The Adventure of the Crooked Man):
"It's a mongoose!" I cried.
"Well, some call them that, and some call them ichneumon," said the man.
Cheers!
They're not afraid of science or looking at and following the evidence where it leads, unlike all too many folks in other cateogories.
As punishment for that, I sentence you to read Earth in the Balance and also say "Embryonic Stem Cell Research" 10 times in a row, real fast!
Cheers!
Visit Ichneumon post #124 this thread.
I would've gone for "paleogrammarians."
Before he said this?:
Now it appears you are engaging in quote mining, too. But we've come to expect that level of dishonesty from you over the years. Talk Origins covers just this quote on their quote-mining page:“Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur,” Feduccia says. “But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.”
Allan Feduccia, Professor of biology at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “Archaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms”, Science, Vol. 259, 5 February 1993, p. 764
Picking 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.
So, you see, Feduccia is not disputing evolution at all, or even that Archaeopteryx is a transitional form. What he does dispute is whether Archaeopteryx descended from therapod dinosaurs (the prevailing paleontological view) or whether it descended from archosaurs (Feduccia's view).
Have no fear. You'll conveniently forget all about this by the next thread and will, once again, post the quote in the firm belief it bolsters your arguments.
I've visited it already and even replied to it! Maybe you can provide the quote wbmstr "mined."
Wow! Only two personal attacks in one reply. Well - maybe three. Way to restrain yourself!
My goodness, tallhappy. You do have a knack for putting your foot squarely in your mouth, don't you. It so happens that my Christian faith is an acutely serious part of my life (although now that I've been labeled "anti-Christian" by the perspicacious tallhappy, I suppose I'll just have to accept my fate as an infidel).
And what possessed you to attack my faith? We were, after all, sparring over your skills with the english language, hardly a natural segue to an imitation of Cotton Mather.
It's not a personal attack if it's true. You haven't apologized for lying yet, so I take it you think it's okay to bear false witness.
I didn't lie. I simply asked a question of Ichy. Now run along and go play with your cat or something.
Good work ignoring the substance of post 132.
I simply asked Ichy a question. Now run along and troll for someone else to argue with.
And, from your snide dismissal, I must've definitely hit a nerve.
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.