Skip to comments.
The Early Bird: Fossils Depict Aquatic Origins of Near-Modern Birds 115 Million Years Ago
University of Pennsylvania ^
| 15 June 2006
| Staff
Posted on 06/15/2006 11:39:26 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 181-191 next last
To: ahayes
"I think he thinks paleontologists work like Calvin where he and Hobbes put together a fossilized dinosaur out of plastic cups, plates, and utensils. Sure, they look like wings and feathers, but are they really? How can a bird with stone wings and feathers fly? It would be much too heavy. Sounds like a bad design to me.
61
posted on
06/15/2006 2:08:02 PM PDT
by
b_sharp
(There is always one more mess to clean up.)
To: CharlesWayneCT
"We do double-blind studies because researches know that, no matter how nobel their intentions, KNOWING what result they want, and having access to data that could allow them to manipulate the results, the results often end up manipulated even though they would swear they didn't do so. Not sure how we would go about doing a double blind study with fossils but if you say so...
I realize that wasn't your point, but it does illustrate the different validation demands inherent in the various fields of science. While there is a possibility of a single scientist finding what he wants to find rather than interpreting the data accurately, the fossils are there for all scientists to see. Unless you are positing a huge conspiracy the chance that an incorrect or horribly biased interpretation will survive the scrutiny of many scientists, some who are at loggerheads with each other, is pretty thin.
62
posted on
06/15/2006 2:16:36 PM PDT
by
b_sharp
(There is always one more mess to clean up.)
To: WKB
"IS HOW ANYBODY CAN BELIEVE THIS MESS Why? Because its not couched in absolute terms? Scientists aren't arrogant enough to assume they know everything and not all of us hinge our self image on rigidly held beliefs. Contrary to what you want to believe, life isn't about dichotomies.
63
posted on
06/15/2006 2:22:57 PM PDT
by
b_sharp
(There is always one more mess to clean up.)
To: b_sharp
If there were many skeptical scientists looking to see flaws in the logic of a particular piecing together of bone fragments, it would be a good thing.
You are correct you can't do double-blind studies, my point was that D-B studies are evidence that it is an accepted fact that even scientists will see what they are looking for. So in areas where you by nature are going to know what you are looking for, it takes a lot more skepticism and critical thinking.
It would be nice to see at least ONE scientist willing to hypothesize that this creature actually didn't have a skull, and see where it leads them.
Sure, it sounds stupid -- but to someone who is convinced of their position, many alternatives to what they think they see sound stupid.
In this sense, an evolutionist might argue that the politicized nature of the evolution debate makes it harder for real science becuase the scientists are afraid to ask too many skeptical questions since they fear the creationists will jump on those questions and use them to debunk evolution.
That is another danger that has to be dealt with -- the fear of aiding "the enemy" causing people to not question sufficiently.
To: b_sharp
Why? Because its not couched in absolute terms? Scientists aren't arrogant enough to assume they know everything and not all of us hinge our self image on rigidly held beliefs. Contrary to what you want to believe, life isn't about dichotomies.
Exactly the reply I expected. I just wondered how long it would take.You evos are SOOOOOOOOO predictable.
65
posted on
06/15/2006 2:26:40 PM PDT
by
WKB
(D.L. Moody "The Bible was not written for your information, but for your transformation")
To: VadeRetro
I'm always amazed at how weird real life can get.
66
posted on
06/15/2006 2:27:06 PM PDT
by
b_sharp
(There is always one more mess to clean up.)
To: Dimensio
Do you have an actual argument against the findings?No arguments against the findings...but I'm scratching my head over the conjecture regarding the findings.
67
posted on
06/15/2006 2:31:19 PM PDT
by
KMJames
(Hyperbole is killing us.)
To: WKB
"Exactly the reply I expected. I just wondered how long it would take.You evos are SOOOOOOOOO predictable." Congratulations. I take it this is the very first time you have ever been right.
Well keep at it, you never know, you just might be right again.
68
posted on
06/15/2006 2:31:23 PM PDT
by
b_sharp
(There is always one more mess to clean up.)
To: CharlesWayneCT
It would be nice to see at least ONE scientist willing to hypothesize that this creature actually didn't have a skull, and see where it leads them. Sure, it sounds stupid --
Boneheaded, actually...
69
posted on
06/15/2006 2:33:29 PM PDT
by
Coyoteman
(Stupidity is the only universal capital crime; the sentence is death--Heinlein)
To: b_sharp
I take it this is the very first time you have ever been right.
It's obvious you don't know me very well.
70
posted on
06/15/2006 2:34:05 PM PDT
by
WKB
(D.L. Moody "The Bible was not written for your information, but for your transformation")
To: RunningWolf
...However in this case a duck may truly be a duck, and it is only in the eyes of the evolutionist that it fills yet another 'gap'...Usually the "intermediates" possess transitional features that are only seen in the artist reconstructions.
In this case, we see a "not-quite-beak" that's supposed to look somewhat reptilian - never mind that there is absolutely no evidence of this soft tissue feature, as there is absolutely no head of the specimen.
71
posted on
06/15/2006 2:39:08 PM PDT
by
KMJames
(Hyperbole is killing us.)
To: Coyoteman
Boneheaded, actually... Why can't you scientists be more open-minded? Have you ever considered the possibility that these creatures lived within rocks? Just as they were found. Well, have you considered it? Huh? HUH!!! No, of course not. Because you're so biased in favor of your dogma! But we can see right through you. You're not fooling anyone. HAHAHAHAHA!!
</creationism mode>
72
posted on
06/15/2006 2:39:24 PM PDT
by
PatrickHenry
(Unresponsive to trolls, lunatics, fanatics, retards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
To: WKB
"It's obvious you don't know me very well." You are absolutely correct. That is in fact why I have to take your posts as they are presented.
You were so gleeful at having 'guessed' a response that is given quite frequently to that particular creationist canard that I had to infer that this was your first time.
73
posted on
06/15/2006 2:43:08 PM PDT
by
b_sharp
(There is always one more mess to clean up.)
To: PatrickHenry
Why can't you scientists be more open-minded? Have you ever considered the possibility that these creatures lived within rocks? Just as they were found. Well, have you considered it? Huh? HUH!!! No, of course not. Because you're so biased in favor of your dogma! But we can see right through you. You're not fooling anyone. HAHAHAHAHA!! /creationism mode
Glad you put the "/creationism mode" tag in. Sometimes these days its hard to tell the difference.
74
posted on
06/15/2006 2:43:28 PM PDT
by
Coyoteman
(Stupidity is the only universal capital crime; the sentence is death--Heinlein)
To: b_sharp
I said
"Exactly the reply I expected. I just wondered how long it would take.You evos are SOOOOOOOOO predictable."
You said
"You were so gleeful at having 'guessed' a response that is given quite frequently to that particular creationist canard that I had to infer that this was your first time."
"Expecting" something to happen is quite different from "guessing" something might happen.
75
posted on
06/15/2006 2:48:26 PM PDT
by
WKB
(D.L. Moody "The Bible was not written for your information, but for your transformation")
To: KMJames
Usually the "intermediates" possess transitional features that are only seen in the artist reconstructions
That is a good point.
Take the fish for instance with its unique physiology, bone structure (head gills and all) and then they have it as a amphibian to reptile (or is it now direct to amphibian and reptile) whatever.
In either scenario the leaps are quantum and beyond reasonable conjecture if you really get deep into it. I have been working on a few things. When I get it done and put up on image shack I will ping you in.
Take Care,
76
posted on
06/15/2006 2:50:18 PM PDT
by
RunningWolf
(2-1 Cav 1975)
To: KMJames
In this case, we see a "not-quite-beak" that's supposed to look somewhat reptilian - never mind that there is absolutely no evidence of this soft tissue feature, as there is absolutely no head of the specimen. Where do you see anything in the article about the beak on the missing head being "not quite?" Did the strawman put up a terrific fight?
A number of birds (ornithuromorphs like this find) from the late Cretaceous (Ichthyornis and Hesperornis for two) had teeth, so I'd incline to bet that this early Cretaceous version still had some chompers.
77
posted on
06/15/2006 3:09:21 PM PDT
by
VadeRetro
(Faster than a speeding building; able to leap tall bullets at a single bound!)
To: PatrickHenry
Why can't you scientists be more open-minded? Have you ever considered the possibility that these creatures lived within rocks? Just as they were found. Well, have you considered it? Huh? HUH!!! No, of course not. Because you're so biased in favor of your dogma! But we can see right through you. You're not fooling anyone. HAHAHAHAHA!!Couldn't have said it much better myself.
Why do you think this is anything other than a duck? Apparently, the allegation that it's a gabillion years old has no bearing on whether it can still be an extant species.
Did you see this earlier post: 11 million year old extinct animal alive and well...
78
posted on
06/15/2006 3:10:55 PM PDT
by
KMJames
(Hyperbole is killing us.)
To: VadeRetro
...so I'd incline to bet...Yes, of course. You would incline so...hmmm...I see. But what on God's green earth are you inclining on? Why not incline on the fact that the animal is so remarkably "like a duck" that it probably was a duck - in light of the fact that there is absolutely no reason to believe it wasn't a duck.
I just don't get you guys sometime.
79
posted on
06/15/2006 3:16:27 PM PDT
by
KMJames
(Hyperbole is killing us.)
To: KMJames
The Rock Rat is a living representative of a taxonomic FAMILY thought extinct. Learn what words mean.
There is nothing that says this can't happen.
80
posted on
06/15/2006 3:19:04 PM PDT
by
VadeRetro
(Faster than a speeding building; able to leap tall bullets at a single bound!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 181-191 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson