Do I detect a hint of sarcasm there Jim?
I have basically dropped out of these threads because trying to discuss the science of evolution with a 'The-Bible-is-100%-literally-true-young-earth-creationist" is an excercise in futility.
So read my tagline - its my ' message' to you.
Oh, and if you want to learn about my faith, do take the time to read my homepage.
Rokke, I believe you and I had an entirely pleasant exchange of emails some years ago wherein you educated me about the fact that TWA 800 was in fact not shot down, which I respected immensely and which changed my view of the incident. That is something that you clearly had both the background and the logical reasoning in to demonstrate to my satisfaction.
OTOH, your comment earlier lacked that same kind of logical analysis. I will only second the suggestion of another poster that you read the actual Scientific American (see earlier post) article if you'd like to discuss it. This article has had some very interesting commentary on it on the Dinosaur Mailing List to which I belong (though I am there mostly to learn from the paleontologists who discuss the latest developments in the filed). The link to the Archives of the mailing list is below - you can read the posts without having to join the list - but be forewarned if you do join - discussion of 'Creation Science' is off-limits. Its a serious scientific list, not a forum for verbal donnybrooks like FR. ;>).
Here is the link to the archives of the DML (the past week has seen a LOT of discussion of this article.)
http://dml.cmnh.org/
Really? As I stated at the very start of my very first comment on this thread, I have zero interest in an evolution/creationism debate. No offense, but I am certain I could not care less about what any Freeper thinks regarding evolution or creation. You can scan my entire posting record and note that I have never participated in any of the countless "debates" on this site on that topic. Instead, my comments were directed specifically at what I read in this AP article. Let me offer some highlights here...
"This allows you to get the chance to say, 'Wait, they really are related because their sequences are related.' We didn't get enough sequences to definitively say that, but what sequences we got support that idea."
" it "changes the idea that birds and dinosaurs are related from a hypothesis to a theory."
"Three matched chickens, two matched several species including chickens, one matched a protein from a newt and the other from a frog."
So this AP article describes research that looked at seven fragments of protein and determined three matched chickens, two matched "several species" (ducks, whales, naked mole rats?!!?), one matched newts and one matched frogs. Short of them being all living creatures (assumed considering they are studying collagen) that is about as conclusive as grabbing seven items at random from a supermarket, discovering four contain chicken and declaring the supermarket is a chicken ranch. Even the scientist quoted in the article states they don't have enough data to definitively say anything. And this stunning breakthrough has raised the level of their work from hypothesis to theory. Which prompts one of the more ridiculous phrases I've read in a long time..."This allows you to get the chance to say...".
Soooo, I highlight in my first post that this absolute non-conclusion could hardly be more broad. For that comment I am labeled "a mouth breather", called "scarey", and accused of being afraid of scientific research. This, presumably from someone who considers himself well educated in these matters. I respond to that person and you accuse me of not understanding "scientific text" and being an unsafe pilot. And now you are lecturing me on "logical analysis"?!!?
If this thread was the result of someone posting an article from Scientific American, your comments might have some merit. But it isn't. If my comments were a statement for or against evolution or creationism, your comments might have some merit. But they weren't. Instead, your comments, and several others on this thread smack of a defensive knee jerk reaction related to a topic I clearly stated I had no interest in.
I'll read the link you sent me out of personal interest. But my comments regarding THIS article on THIS thread stand as posted.