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 ...
But then again we know how much you evo's like to call everyone liars, so I am sure the lurkers take what you say with a grain of salt.
our manners are exemplary compared to the standards set by the creationists.
You forgot the sarcasm tag.
The theory that birds are the equivalent of living dinosaurs and that dinosaurs were feathered is so full of holes that the creationists have jumped all over it, using the evolutionary nonsense of dinosaurian science as evidence against the theory of evolution, he said. To paraphrase one such individual, This isnt science . . . This is comic relief. (Emphasis added in all quotes.)Feduccia has published 150 papers and six major books, including one The Age of Birds (Harvard, 1980) and The Origin and Evolution of Birds (Yale, 1996). He and his colleagues have published these attacks on bird-from-dinosaur evolution in the Journal of Morphology. His views were also reported by EurekAlert that asked, Did feathered dinosaurs exist?
Also, the current feathered dinosaurs theory makes little sense time-wise either because it holds that all stages of feather evolution and bird ancestry occurred some 125 million years ago in the early Cretaceous fossils unearthed in China.Feduccia himself had studied Archaeopteryx in detail. He determined its flying ability by observing that the fossils feathers had leading edges significantly shorter than their trailing edges, which is characteristic of all modern flying birds.
Thats some 25 million years after the time of Archaeopteryx, which already was a bird in the modern sense, he said. Superficially bird-like dinosaurs occurred some 25 million to 80 million years after the earliest known bird, which is 150 million years old.
Feduccia said the publication and promotion of feathered dinosaurs by the popular press and by prestigious journals and magazines, including National Geographic, Nature and Science, have made it difficult for opposing views to get a proper hearing.So what does Feduccia himself believe about the evolution of birds? It is now clear that the origin of birds is a much more complicated question than has been previously thought, he said.
With the advent of feathered dinosaurs, we are truly witnessing the beginnings of the meltdown of the field of paleontology, he said. Just as the discovery a four-chambered heart in a dinosaur described in 2000 in an article in Science turned out to be an artifact, feathered dinosaurs too have become part of the fantasia of this field. Much of this is part of the delusional fantasy of the world of dinosaurs, the wishful hope that one can finally study dinosaurs at the backyard bird feeder.
Is it possible that the leading scientific journals in the world, including Nature and Science both of which highlighted artwork of feathered dinosaurs on their covers were capable of falling for and promoting a delusional fantasy? Does this mean that major museums, like the Natural History Museum of Washington DC and many others, with their Birds are Dinosaurs displays, are promoting falsehoods based on flawed evidence? Does this mean the traveling museum exhibit of feathered dinosaurs is a fraud? Is it possible that evolutionary paleontology is imploding from the credibility gap caused by this lapse of rigor? Does this raise the possibility that Darwinists are wrong about other claims? You heard it right here from an evolutionist chagrined at the fact that these wishful hopes touted as fact have given ammunition to the creationists. We hope you enjoyed the comic relief. Relief from comedy posing as science would be better.
Project: Print out copies of this press release and take them to your nearby natural history museum docent staff (see 09/22/2005 story).From here:
Have We Been Sold a Bill of Goods About Feathered Dinosaurs and Bird Evolution?
I sympathize it must be really irritating being told by the kiddies that youre not paying attention.
I simply asked Ichy a question. Now run along and troll for someone else to argue with.
You asked him several questions; try to be more precise when youre trying to insult. Here are the questions in order from your post 124:
What year was that written?Question three was answered in Ichys post 104, the very one to which you were replying. Here it is again, this time in bold:Before he said this?:
Out of curiosity, what "out-of-context" quote did wbmstr24 "mine?"
wrong answer, because it had some of these characteristics doesnt make it a former or partial dino of any kind, there are birds today who have teeth too, big deal....Try reading the article, son, then get back to us when you have some actual knowledge to base your wild guesses on.
we all have heard feduccia, even he knows it was a bird, and never was anything other than a bird....
Gosh, really? Let's see what Feduccia actually said about Archaeopteryx, instead of what the out-of-context quote-mining creationists try to make it sound like he said, shall we?
"The creature thus memorialized [in fossil form] was Archaeopteryx lithographica, and, though indisputably birdlike, it could with equal truth be called reptilian. The forearms that once held feathers ended in three fingers with sharp, recurved claws. The Archaeopteryx is, in fact, the most superb example of a specimen perfectly intermediate between two groups of living organisms -- what has come to be called a "missing link", a Rosetta stone of evolution."Here, have a look at the actual page: And if *that's* not enough, Feduccia repeats his position on page 29 as well: Gosh, now when Feduccia has made his opinion that Archaeopteryx is "perfectly intermediate" between reptiles and modern birds so clear, why would you want to grossly misrepresent his actual position to try to pretend that he supports your "it's just a plain bird, it's not an intermediate, nothing to see here, move along" BS? Do you think that dishonestly using Feduccia as a sock puppet for your own errors is going to make you look somehow more competent or honest? If so, you're sadly mistaken. Furthermore, you've given Feduccia grounds to sue you, because falsely putting such a grossly incompetent claim in his mouth could damage his professional reputation. Would you like to retract your horse crap now?
-- from Feduccia's "Origin and Evolution of Birds", Chapter 1 page 1.
104 posted on 07/27/2006 5:02:49 PM EDT by Ichneumon (Ignorance is curable, but the afflicted has to want to be cured.)
Junior then answered your other questions in post 132 (again, with answers now in bold so you have a better chance of spotting them:
What year was that written?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 its 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.
132 posted on 07/28/2006 6:56:26 AM EDT by Junior (Identical fecal matter, alternate diurnal period)
Youve never responded to the facts presented to you. Your questions have been answered, sometimes before you actually asked them. All youve done in response is whine about personal insults and supply an abundant crop of them yourself.
Oh, not everyone. However, I think we have established, with evidence, that you are a liar. And since you are brazenly trying to weasel out of this, it's also apparent that you are an unrepentant liar.
You are obviously no Christian because the latter are humble and do not engage in prevarications -- neither of which describes you.
Courtesy ping to 145.
So you accept Feduccia's theory?
FeducciaDidit placemark
No it was not. Please provide the specific quote that wbmstr24 "mined."
Junior then answered your other questions in post 132
No he did not. I asked what year the quote Ichy provided was written and if it was written prior to Feduccia claiming Archy was "...a bird, a perching bird"
I forgot nothing.
No it was not. Please provide the specific quote that wbmstr24 "mined."
wbmstr24s sentence, we all have heard feduccia, even he knows it was a bird, and never was anything other than a bird.... is a reference, most likely originating in a creationist quote mine of what Feduccia actually said. If you want a debating point because wbmstr24 didnt actually provide the out-of-context quote him/her/itself, you may have it: it wasnt a quote, it was a rephrasing of someone else's distortion, misrepresentation, or misunderstanding. Take you pick.
Gumlegs: Junior then answered your other questions in post 132
No he did not. I asked what year the quote Ichy provided was written and if it was written prior to Feduccia claiming Archy was "...a bird, a perching bird"
If thats what you meant, you should have made it clear in the original post. (The first edition of the book Ichy quoted was 1996, and the second was published in 1999. I'm not sure which edition Ichy used). Anyway, if youre so convinced that Feduccia has it correct (a distinct possibility, btw), then you must agree with this statement, from the same press release you found so compelling in your post 144:
"We all agree that birds and dinosaurs had some reptilian ancestors in common," said Feduccia, professor of biology in UNCs College of Arts and Sciences. "But to say dinosaurs were the ancestors of the modern birds we see flying around outside today because we would like them to be is a big mistake. [Bolding mine].
It's clear from of his writing of any vintage that Feduccia is debating details of exactly how evolution progressed, not whether it happened.
Keep quoting Feduccia. It's very amusing.
Thanks for your reply (without the insults). I'm glad someone understood what I was getting at. Wbmstr24 made a statement; it was not a "mined" quote.
Great. Now that you've gotten the answer you want, how about answering whether you agree with Feduccia?
Thank you for the link. It does appear to be a nice piece of evidence that birds evolved from toothed creatures, and that a single mutaiton can cuase major morphological changes, does it not?
Cheers!
In case toothed chickens were needed?
So where is the 'turn on the tabasco for the buffalo wings' genetic switch? That would be valuable and delicious.
do not know, not intelligent enough to program a chicken,
chickens that sweat tabasco? bet that would get many to thank God!!!
alternatively, that is some genetic engineering worthy of Government funding.
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.