Secondary Addiction Part III: Ann Coulter on Evolution

Sorry - not true.

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.

Have We Been Sold a Bill of Goods About Feathered Dinosaurs and Bird Evolution? 10/10/2005

Most people remember the poignant moment at the end of Jurassic Park when the professor, on a flight away from his harrowing experiences on the island of dinosaurs run amok, sees a flock of modern birds and ponders their peaceful existence as descendants of the velociraptors and tyrannosaurs that nearly killed him and his friends. The story of birds evolving from dinosaurs has taken on the status of confirmed truth in the minds of many. This has been reinforced by repeated announcements of alleged “feathered dinosaur” fossils being uncovered in China. Yet Alan Feduccia, a paleontologist at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, has long contested this view. He and his colleagues have just come out swinging against his fellow evolutionists, accusing them of easy-believism and wish-fulfillment in spite of the evidence. According the U of NC press release:

“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 isn’t 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?”
Although Feduccia believes birds and dinosaurs had a common reptilian ancestor, he argued, “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.” His team, using powerful microscopes, compared the skin of reptiles, the effects of skin decomposition, and the alleged “protofeathers” on fossils.
Here are some of the reasons in the press release for doubting the dino-to-bird evolution story:

Resemblance only: “They found that fossilized patterns that resemble feathers somewhat also occur in fossils known not to be closely related to birds and hence are far more likely to be skin-related tissues....”
Taxonomy confusion: “Much of the confusion arose from the fact that in China in the same area, two sets of fossils were found. Some of these had true feathers and were indeed birds known as ‘microraptors,’ while others did not and should not be considered birds at all.”
Preservation bias: Because collagen has low solubility in water and is tough, “we would expect it to be preserved occasionally from flayed skin during the fossilization process,” Feduccia said.
Wanting to believe: The strongest case for feathered dinosaurs was Sinosauropteryx, found in 1996, which sported a coat of “dino-fuzz.” Some concluded this fuzz provided insulation and pointed to the possibility dinosaurs were warm-blooded. Major journals presented Sinosauropteryx as definitive evidence for feathered dinosaurs, complete with artist renditions of colorful feathery coats on the creatures. “Yet no one ever bothered to provide evidence -- either structural or biological -- that these structures had anything to do with feathers,” said Feduccia. “In our new work, we show that these and other filamentous structures were not protofeathers, but rather the remains of collagenous fiber meshworks that reinforced the skin.”
Fumble fingers: The most critical link between dinosaurs and birds, according to Feduccia, has been the three-fingered hand pattern. Dinosaurs used digits 1, 2, and 3, but the team found that developing bird wings in the embryo derive from digits 2, 3 and 4. “To change so radically during evolution would be highly unlikely,” the article states.
Back to the future: The earliest known birds predate the feathered dinosaurs.
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.
“That’s 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 himself had studied Archaeopteryx in detail. “He determined its flying ability by observing that the fossil’s feathers had leading edges significantly shorter than their trailing edges, which is characteristic of all modern flying birds.”

With all these evidences against bird-from-dinosaur evolution, why would the story take hold so deeply in the popular mind and in scientific circles? Feduccia argues that the promoters simply wanted to believe it. In a ruthless attack, he claimed that the desire to believe and promote this story indicates a serious collapse of credibility in the field of paleontology:

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.
“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.”

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.

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?

More peanut gallery ankle-biting.

I sympathize … it must be really irritating being told by the kiddies that you’re 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 you’re trying to insult. Here are the questions in order from your post 124:

What year was that written?
Before he said this?:
Out of curiosity, what "out-of-context" quote did wbmstr24 "mine?"

Question three was answered in Ichy’s post 104, the very one to which you were replying. Here it is again, this time in bold:

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."
-- from Feduccia's "Origin and Evolution of Birds", Chapter 1 page 1.
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?

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.)

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

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?:

“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
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:

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)

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

You’ve never responded to the facts presented to you. Your questions have been answered, sometimes before you actually asked them. All you’ve done in response is whine about personal insults and supply an abundant crop of them yourself.

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.

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

Question three was answered in Ichy’s post 104

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.

You are obviously no Christian because the latter are humble and do not engage in prevarications -- neither of which describes you.

Hey!

Gumlegs: Question three was answered in Ichy’s post 104

No it was not. Please provide the specific quote that wbmstr24 "mined."

wbmstr24’s 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 didn’t actually provide the out-of-context quote him/her/itself, you may have it: it wasn’t 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 that’s 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 you’re 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 UNC’s 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.

it wasn’t a quote, it was a rephrasing of someone else's distortion, misrepresentation, or misunderstanding

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?

cool, chickens can grow teeth.

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?

It appeared that in post #124, there were several sections of a larger article--the sections with highlighting appeared to be the ones quoted by the other poster. If I read Ichneumon's post correctly, he is saying that the sections are either "out of context" or are contradicted/superceded by other writings by the author.

Cheers!

na, just shows teeth are part of chickens genetic programming that can be activated if the right switch is activated. pretty ingenious if you ask me.

just shows teeth are part of chickens genetic programming that can be activated if the right switch is activated.

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.