|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
 Posted - 04/18/2006 : 10:25:40 [Permalink]
|
Filthy, I live up on a small farm in the hills of upstate NY and I'm teased at work that my neck of the woods is hillbilly country. So... when I saw your picture of the Carcharodon megalodon tooth, I found my self repeating the most often heard hillbilly 'pick up' line, which is, "nice tooth".
yuk ayuk ayuk.
That really is an impressive tooth. |
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 04/18/2006 : 12:08:16 [Permalink]
|
It was An amazing and fearsome animal, the apex predator of the seas of it's times; no doubt about it. These teeth are fairly common fossils, although few are as nice as the one shown. Back in the early '50s, I traded an old, single-shot .22 rifle for one and gave it to my mother to use as a paper weight on her desk. My brother, he of the high school diploma, has it on his desk today.
It is a pity that elsamobranchs fossilize so poorly. A megalodon skeleton display would be as impressive as any dinosaur, at least to the blood-thirsty among us.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 04/19/2006 : 06:11:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
Sorry Bill, but it certainly was not fully a bird. The claim has ben made many times and it is a reflection of creationist tunnel vision that they are still blathering about it.
quote:
(bill) This dude is no creationist and even he can fully admit that the critter is a bird.
Dr. Alan Feduccia, professor and former head of biology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and the author of the encyclopedic The Origin and Evolution of Birds (1999).
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."
Archaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms by V. Morell, Science 259(5096):764–65, 5 February 1993.
And:
"Archaeopteryx probably cannot tell us much about the early origins of feathers and flight in true protobirds because Archaeopteryx was, in a modern sense, a bird."
Science 259:790-793 (1993).
http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/archaeopteryx.htm
A bird with teeth and a reptilian tail? How very interesting! And what does the gentleman have to say about Microraptor and all of the other, feathered fossils, hmmm?
quote:
One of the most outspoken critics of dinosaur to bird evolution is Dr. Alan Feduccia, professor and former head of biology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and the author of the encyclopedic The Origin and Evolution of Birds (1999).
Feduccia is a sincere evolutionist, and believes that the common ancestor of both ancient and modern bird orders was a small, ground-dwelling reptile that took to the trees for hiding, sleeping, or nesting. When it comes to Archae, however, he believes it was just one of nature's experiments. One of his most well-known quotes (and perhaps the most despised among many evolutionists) was that made in February of 1993.
This argument and others similar have been going on for a long time. Simply scientists disagreeing, and that is what makes science great. When a consensus is finally reached, it is most likely correct.
Microraptor gui
quote:
Microraptor, the most primitive dromaeosaur, is also the most birdlike; specimens have been found with undisputed feathers on their wings, legs, and tail (Hwang et al. 2002; Xu et al. 2003). Sinornithosaurus also was covered with a variety of feathers and had a skull more birdlike than later dromaeosaurs (Xu, Wang, and Wu 1999; Xu and Wu 2001; Xu et al. 2001).
The link will show a few more.
quote:
A bird with teeth and a reptilian tail? How very interesting! And what does the gentleman have to say about Microraptor and all of the other, feathered fossils, hmmm?
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 04/19/2006 : 06:56:01 [Permalink]
|
This thread is about transitional fossils of which Microraptor is one among a pretty fair number of proto-birds with more being found.
quote:
(bill) Right. Many scientists, including those who support evolution, have out right rejected the notion that Archaeopteryx was a dino-bird, yet you stil hold it up as gospel truth evidence for the dino-bird, in spite of peer review and rejection...
I have already commented on this and see no reason to do it again.
Piltdown Man
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 04/19/2006 : 07:58:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
This thread is about transitional fossils of which Microraptor is one among a pretty fair number of proto-birds with more being found.
quote:
(bill) Right. Many scientists, including those who support evolution, have out right rejected the notion that Archaeopteryx was a dino-bird, yet you stil hold it up as gospel truth evidence for the dino-bird, in spite of peer review and rejection...
I have already commented on this and see no reason to do it again.
Piltdown Man
quote:
This thread is about transitional fossils of which Microraptor is one among a pretty fair number of proto-birds with more being found.
Look, I pointed out the fake dino-bird in NG's magazine in which you come back with Archaeopteryx of which I point out is just a bird and I offer peer review that agrees with me. You then drop Archaeopteryx and jump to Microraptor. Fine, we can talk about Microraptor if your done with Archaeopteryx:
The new fossil is 20 million years younger than Archaeopteryx
Research shows that hoatzin, a bird species still living today, also has claws on its wings in its juvenile form. And Archaeopteryx was not the only "bird with teeth," as other bird species from past ages represented in the fossil record also had teeth.
Archaeopteryx demonstrates one key fact: Birds existed 150 million years ago. They were already able to fly. If the evolutionists want to come up with some "ancestors of birds," these creatures must be older than 150 million years.
Obviously, it is sheer nonsense to present a bird "as the ancestor of primitive birds" when there were birds flying in the sky 20 million years before this creature even existed.
Evolutionists always try to cover up this glaring contradiction. The same cover-up efforts can already be seen in the news reports about the Microraptor gui fossil. All the evolutionist newspapers and magazines touting this fossil as a 130-million-year-old "primitive bird" never bother to mention that Archaeopteryx was able to glide flawlessly in the sky some 20 million years before that.
This has been noted by Professor Alan Feduccia, too. In a recent corresponce, he writes:
"I am not yet convinced that the creature has four wings; we could be looking at misplaced wing feathers, and it is difficult to interpret. Too, the characters that link this animal to dromaeosaurs are very tenuous. Certainly the tail is quite different from known dromaeosaurs, and the claw is not a sickle claw, but only slightly enlarged. Also, the pubis is more birdlike. Perhaps we are not looking at flying dromaeosaurs, but a remnant of the early avian radiation... some 20-30 million years beyond Archaeopteryx."
http://theunjustmedia.com/Darwinism%20Refuted/Articles/The%20latest%20Dino%20Bird%20Hype%20and%20the%20facts.htm
quote:
I have already commented on this and see no reason to do it again.
Yes, you rejected your peer review rejection and continue to promote Archaeopteryx as a dino-bird... |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/19/2006 : 08:14:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
Dr. Alan Feduccia, professor and former head of biology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and the author of the encyclopedic The Origin and Evolution of Birds (1999).
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."
Archaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms by V. Morell, Science 259(5096):764–65, 5 February 1993.
Yes, but: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.
- Quotations and Misquotations It's pretty clear what you're doing, Bill. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 04/19/2006 : 08:33:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
Dr. Alan Feduccia, professor and former head of biology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and the author of the encyclopedic The Origin and Evolution of Birds (1999).
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."
Archaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms by V. Morell, Science 259(5096):764–65, 5 February 1993.
Yes, but: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.
- Quotations and Misquotations It's pretty clear what you're doing, Bill.
(bill) Yes, I am offering you and/or Fility information that demonstrates that not all evolutionists have rubber stamped the bird as a dino-bird. I quoted more then just Feduccia. Here are a few more again:
We are not even authorized to consider the exceptional case of archaeopteryx as a true link. By link, we mean a necessary stage of transition between classes such as reptiles and birds, or between smaller groups. An animal displaying characteristics belonging to two different groups cannot be treated as a true link as long as the intermediary stages have not been found, and as long as the mechanisms of transition remain unknown." evolutionist Pierre Lecomte du Nouy:
Human Destiny (New York: Longmaus, Green and Co., |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/19/2006 : 09:32:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
Yes, I am offering you and/or Fility information that demonstrates that not all evolutionists have rubber stamped the bird as a dino-bird.
Name a single evolutionary biologist who has "rubber stamped" Archaeopteryx as a "dino-bird." I only see them acknowledging that Archaeopteryx represents a transition between dinosaurs and birds. Both you and the creationist literature you're citing fail to make such distinctions, even to the point of denying what the word "transition" means in the realm of evolution.
quote:
I quoted more then just Feduccia. Here are a few more again:
And the more you quote, the more you prove my point: you're simply ignoring what scientists mean by the word "transitional," and instead substituting your own definition in its place, just like you've done before with other terms and subjects. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 04/19/2006 : 10:29:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
Yes, I am offering you and/or Fility information that demonstrates that not all evolutionists have rubber stamped the bird as a dino-bird.
Name a single evolutionary biologist who has "rubber stamped" Archaeopteryx as a "dino-bird." I only see them acknowledging that Archaeopteryx represents a transition between dinosaurs and birds. Both you and the creationist literature you're citing fail to make such distinctions, even to the point of denying what the word "transition" means in the realm of evolution.
quote:
I quoted more then just Feduccia. Here are a few more again:
And the more you quote, the more you prove my point: you're simply ignoring what scientists mean by the word "transitional," and instead substituting your own definition in its place, just like you've done before with other terms and subjects.
quote:
Name a single evolutionary biologist who has "rubber stamped" Archaeopteryx as a "dino-bird." I only see them acknowledging that Archaeopteryx represents a transition between dinosaurs and birds.
(bill) Come on, Dave. Dino-bird is just a slang term used to represent the dino to bird transition. Hence dino hyphen bird. I am not implying a 1/2 bird and 1/2 dino creature no matter how bad you misinterpret what I said or say.
quote:
Both you and the creationist literature you're citing fail to make such distinctions,
(bill) I have not offered you any creation literature. I offered you quotes from evolutionists who fully reject Archaeopteryx and Microraptor as a dino-bird transition. I may have pulled some of the quotes from a creation website but so what? The quotes I offered were all from evolutionists in their own words. Not to hard to misquote "It is a bird, a perching bird."
quote:
And the more you quote, the more you prove my point: you're simply ignoring what scientists mean by the word "transitional," and instead substituting your own definition in its place, just like you've done before with other terms and subjects.
(bill) Whatever, Dave. Filthy clamed the thing was an example of transition from dino to a bird. I said it was fully bird and offered quotes from four different evolutionists who agreed with me that it was fully bird. Just because you don't like what these evolutionists have to say that is not my problem, Dave...
"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." Alan Feduccia
Translation: Archaeopteryx is a bird.
<http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/archaeopteryx.htm>
"Archaeopteryx probably cannot tell us much about |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/19/2006 : 11:15:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
Come on, Dave. Dino-bird is just a slang term used to represent the dino to bird transition. Hence dino hyphen bird. I am not implying a 1/2 bird and 1/2 dino creature no matter how bad you misinterpret what I said or say.
Come on, Bill, show me evidence that any evolutionary biologists have "rubber stamped" Archaeopteryx as anything, which was my point.quote:
I have not offered you any creation literature. I offered you quotes from evolutionists who fully reject Archaeopteryx and Microraptor as a dino-bird transition.
The only ones who seem to be rejecting it as a transitional fossil are Feduccia and Martin, and I provided evidence that Feduccia is widely considered to be wrong.quote:
I may have pulled some of the quotes from a creation website but so what? The quotes I offered were all from evolutionists in their own words. Not to hard to misquote "It is a bird, a perching bird."
Your sources have pulled many of the quotes out of context, and you're butchering them further by redefining the words in the quotes.quote:
Whatever, Dave.
Yeah, that's a good attitude to have in a discussion of scientific points.quote:
Filthy clamed the thing was an example of transition from dino to a bird. I said it was fully bird and offered quotes from four different evolutionists who agreed with me that it was fully bird. Just because you don't like what these evolutionists have to say that is not my problem, Dave...
Only Feduccia and Martin agree with you, the other two depend upon your prejudices and mistranslations:quote:
"We are not even authorized to consider the exceptional case of archaeopteryx as a true link. By link, we mean a necessary stage of transition between classes such as reptiles and birds, or between smaller groups. An animal displaying characteristics belonging to two different groups cannot be treated as a true link as long as the intermediary stages have not been found, and as long as the mechanisms of transition remain unknown."
evolutionist Pierre Lecomte du Nouy:
Translation: Archaeopteryx is not a transition between dino and bird.
Your translation is only valid if "true link" and "transitional" are synonyms, but they are not. While all "true links" will be transitional, not all transitional are "true links."
"True links" are a subset of transitionals, the two are not the same.quote:
Heiser Pough and McFarland in their text Vertebrate Life.
"No intermediate fossils link Archaeopteryx with any of the groups from which it might have evolved."
Translation: We see no evidence for Archaeopteryx as being a transition between dino and bird.
That translation completely ignores the meaning of the term "transitional," and has the same problem as the prior quote.
But, of course, all this is beside the point. For every single scientist you can find saying that Archaeopteryx is not a transitional, we can find ten or hundreds scientists stating that it is. Should we consider "the Earth is roughly spherical" to be not fact because there are a handful of nutjob scientists who think it to be flat? Of course not. So, just because two scientists reject Archaeopteryx as transitional doesn't mean that it's not a transitional fossil.
And this isn't actually an argument from popularity. I have yet to see any of the reasoning behind why these two people reject the consensus. All you've quoted is their conclusions, so I (and more importantly you) have got no clue as to what line of reasoning they took to reach the conclusions they did. If their logic and/or science is wrong, then their conclusions will likely be wrong, too. But you don't know, because you don't care. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 04/19/2006 : 12:57:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
Come on, Dave. Dino-bird is just a slang term used to represent the dino to bird transition. Hence dino hyphen bird. I am not implying a 1/2 bird and 1/2 dino creature no matter how bad you misinterpret what I said or say.
Come on, Bill, show me evidence that any evolutionary biologists have "rubber stamped" Archaeopteryx as anything, which was my point.quote:
I have not offered you any creation literature. I offered you quotes from evolutionists who fully reject Archaeopteryx and Microraptor as a dino-bird transition.
The only ones who seem to be rejecting it as a transitional fossil are Feduccia and Martin, and I provided evidence that Feduccia is widely considered to be wrong.quote:
I may have pulled some of the quotes from a creation website but so what? The quotes I offered were all from evolutionists in their own words. Not to hard to misquote "It is a bird, a perching bird."
Your sources have pulled many of the quotes out of context, and you're butchering them further by redefining the words in the quotes.quote:
Whatever, Dave.
Yeah, that's a good attitude to have in a discussion of scientific points.quote:
Filthy clamed the thing was an example of transition from dino to a bird. I said it was fully bird and offered quotes from four different evolutionists who agreed with me that it was fully bird. Just because you don't like what these evolutionists have to say that is not my problem, Dave...
Only Feduccia and Martin agree with you, the other two depend upon your prejudices and mistranslations:quote:
"We are not even authorized to consider the exceptional case of archaeopteryx as a true link. By link, we mean a necessary stage of transition between classes such as reptiles and birds, or between smaller groups. An animal displaying characteristics belonging to two different groups cannot be treated as a true link as long as the intermediary stages have not been found, and as long as the mechanisms of transition remain unknown."
evolutionist Pierre Lecomte du Nouy:
Translation: Archaeopteryx is not a transition between dino and bird.
Your translation is only valid if "true link" and "transitional" are synonyms, but they are not. While all "true links" will be transitional, not all transitional are "true links."
"True links" are a subset of transitionals, the two are not the same.quote:
Heiser Pough and McFarland in their text Vertebrate Life.
"No intermediate fossils link Archaeopteryx with any of the groups from which it might have evolved."
Translation: We see no evidence for Archaeopteryx as being a transition between dino and bird.
That translation completely ignores the meaning of the term "transitional," and has the same problem as the prior quote.
But, of course, all this is beside the point. For every single scientist you can find saying that Archaeopteryx is not a transitional, we can find ten or hundreds scientists stating that it is. Should we consider "the Earth is roughly spherical" to be not fact because there are a handful of nutjob scientists who think it to be flat? Of course not. So, just because two scientists reject Archaeopteryx as transitional doesn't mean that it's not a transitional fossil.
And this isn't actually an argument from popularity. I have yet to see any of the reasoning behind why these two people reject the consensus. All you've quoted is their conclusions, so I (and more importantly you) have got no clue as to what line of reasoning they took to reach the conclusions they did. If their logic and/or science is wrong, then their conclusions will likely be wrong, too. But you don't know, because you don't care.
quote:
The only ones who seem to be rejecting it as a transitional fossil are Feduccia and Martin, and I provided evidence that Feduccia is widely considered to be wrong.
(bill) Many many scientists have rejected Archaeopteryx as a dino-bird true link. You will reject their conclusion simply because they are creationists. I have listed four evolutionists who reject Archaeopteryx, as well, as a true link between dino and bird. I found many more but that was just what I put on the post. Why should I put any more up at this point? You will just say they are wrong because they did not tow the line on your version of evolution.
quote:
Your sources have pulled many of the quotes out of context, and you're butchering them further by redefining the words in the quotes.
(bill) That is your way of dismissing the quotes made by evolutionists with whom you may disagree. Again, not very easy to misquote or take out of context "it's a bird, a perching bird"
quote:
quote:
Whatever, Dave.
Yeah, that's a good attitude to have in a discussion of scientific points.
(bill) This from the fellow who rebuffs entire posts with "liar".
quote:
Only Feduccia and Martin agree with you, the other two depend upon your prejudices and mistranslations:
(bill) Says you, Dave.
quote:
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 04/19/2006 13:11:19 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/19/2006 : 13:32:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
Many many scientists have rejected Archaeopteryx as a dino-bird true link. You will reject their conclusion simply because they are creationists.
No, I'd probably reject their conclusions because they probably won't be paleo-ornithologists.quote:
I have listed four evolutionists who reject Archaeopteryx, as well, as a true link between dino and bird.
So what? Archaeopteryx wasn't presented as a "true link," but as a transitional fossil. Don't shift the goalposts.quote:
I found many more but that was just what I put on the post. Why should I put any more up at this point? You will just say they are wrong because they did not tow the line on your version of evolution.
When did I ever reject anyone's claims only because they're not part of the consensus?quote:
That is your way of dismissing the quotes made by evolutionists with whom you may disagree.
No, it's a perfectly valid way of rebutting your argument that since some scientists disagree with the consensus, it should be ignored entirely.quote:
Again, not very easy to misquote or take out of context "it's a bird, a perching bird"
Who said it was?quote:
This from the fellow who rebuffs entire posts with "liar".
When have I ever done only that?quote:
Fine Dave. Rather then get into a silly word game with you I will just edit the quote: Translation: Archaeopteryx is not a true link between dino and bird.
No, you've now shifted the goalposts. filthy claimed Archaeopteryx as a transitional fossil, not as a "true link." If you don't like the definitions the scientists use, then you prove my point.quote:
Fine Dave. Rather then get into a silly word game with you I will just edit the quote: Translation: Archaeopteryx is not a true link between dino and bird.
As above. Shifting the goalposts won't work here.quote:
I was only listing evolutionary based scientists and I could have listed more of them to go on top of all the creation based scientists who do reject Archaeopteryx as a dino-bird true link.
Archaeopteryx isn't a "true link" between dinosaurs and birds, so who cares that you can come up with more quotes regarding what is the consensus?quote:
Of course bombarding you with scientists, evolutionary and creationary, who reject Archaeopteryx would just be considered, by you, as an argument from popularity so why bother?
Hey, if you could show, with hard data, that more scientists in appropriate fields reject the notion that Archaeopteryx is a transitional fossil, it would make me question whether the consensus on that subject really exists.quote:
I can list way more then two evolutionary scientists who dismiss Archaeopteryx as a true link between bird and dino and have done so on this page, not to mention the creation based scientists who reject the true link notion. Of course this would just be considered, by you, as an argument from popularity so why bother?
No, the "true link" issue is just an attempt by you to change the subject so you won't have to support your previous assertions.quote:
Oh of course not since it is you who is now making the argument.
Why is it that you reject the reasoning as I explained it?quote:
You did not read the links I provided did you, Dave? Both went into detail on how and why Archaeopteryx was rejected as a true link between dino and bird.
No, I want to know exactly why Feduccia and Martin rejected the idea that Archaeopteryx represents a transition between dinosaurs and birds. The Web pages you've offered don't go into much detail on their lines of reasoning, but instead only present the glossiest of overviews. I can't learn anything from them about the scientists' actual thinking. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ghost_Skeptic
SFN Regular
Canada
510 Posts |
Posted - 04/20/2006 : 01:35:59 [Permalink]
|
My favourite example of a transitional fossil is Tiktaalik roseae form the late Devonian since it is a late stage in the transition of vertebrates from the water onto land. This was discovered on Ellesmere Island in the Candian Arctic. They were looking in tis location because it was a shallow water environment in the era where they expected to find such a transitional fossil. It is the closest thing so far to a tetrapod that is still a fish. 
MP3 Audio file describing transitional features (CBC Quirks and Quarks Interview with Ted Daeschler)
Diagrams of transition from fins to limbs
Academy of Natural Sciences Press Release as a Word Document
CBC Science News Article
Trogdor, I hope you are not so sad now. 
|
"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. / You can send a kid to college but you can't make him think." - B.B. King
History is made by stupid people - The Arrogant Worms
"The greater the ignorance the greater the dogmatism." - William Osler
"Religion is the natural home of the psychopath" - Pat Condell
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" - Thomas Jefferson |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 04/20/2006 : 05:32:18 [Permalink]
|
Archaeoraptor, an icon of obfuscation. 
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 04/20/2006 : 10:48:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
[quote]No, the "true link" issue is just an attempt by you to change the subject so you won't have to support your previous assertions.
Now Dave I agree, if we both do not hold the same meaning or definition for transitional fossil then the waters get muddied. After doing a little checking I will say that you were right. I was not using TF and true link with the commonly accepted meanings. Sorry for the confusion. I see your point and I think I understand the difference now when referring to a true link or a TF. Here is what you wrote:
In reality, transitional fossils such as Archaeopteryx aren't a demonstration of a species-to-species transition, but of transitions at a much higher level. We've got evidence that there were dinosaurs, and we've got evidence of living birds, and all that Archaeopteryx represents is an animal somewhere in between.
I agree (this was the definition I was always referring to for TF) and this will be my meaning behind TF from here on out.
By link, we mean a necessary stage of transition between classes such as reptiles and birds, or between smaller groups. An animal displaying characteristics belonging to two different groups cannot be treated as a true link as long as the intermediary stages have not been found, and as long as the mechanisms of transition remain unknown.
This would be acceptable for true link, yes?
I guess this raises another question for me. If the only requirement for a fossil to be considered a TF is for the piece to display the characteristics of two different known groups, such as bird and dino, then could not many fossils be considered TF, but yet that does not mean that they suggest a link between the two groups? A theoretical example would be if someone found the fossil of a bat, and had never seen or heard of bats before, would/could this be considered a TF by that person? It would have similar characteristics of bird and mammal. So now do they start to investigate the possibility of mammals turning into birds or birds turning into mammals? A dolphin would be another one that comes to mind. The thing looks and acts mostly like a fish yet it is 100% mammal.
This brings me to another question. I cited this quote, out of context the first time I now know (thank you for your understanding):
"We are not even authorized to consider the exceptional case of archaeopteryx as a true link. By link, we mean a necessary stage of transition between classes such as reptiles and birds, or between smaller groups. An animal displaying characteristics belonging to two different groups cannot be treated as a true link as long as the intermediary stages have not been found, and as long as the mechanisms of transition remain unknown." evolutionist Pierre Lecomte du Nouy
Now if this dude says there are no intermediary links found to demonstrate that archaeopteryx is a true link then what other evidence will/would the evolutionist point to in order to make the case that archaeopteryx is strong evidence for a dino to bird transition. I mean yes, we have the fossil itself, which appears to have dino-bird characteristics, but so would a bat fossil (have two characteristics), if we found one of those. What makes the evolutionist think this is not just another critter such as a bat, which has characteristics of two different groups (bird and mammal), but in reality is fully mammal?
Many have concluded, including evolutionist, that this is fully bird. Other then a fossil, that appears to show some characteristics seen in dinos and birds, and in light of the fact that no true link has been established, on what bases do evolutionists claim that this is a display of dino to bird transition and not just a bird that might have had some characteristics that look dinoistic? Or do the evolutionists hold dino to bird transition just as theory for the current moment? Thank you for your time.
This might be a little off topic but I was interested in your takes on it. I don't have the original link but I read not to long ago about the worry of pseudo fossil factories popping up in China and selling forged fossils to the masses of outside influences for a nice little profit on each fossil. Have you heard anything on this and can we really be living in the "photo shop" era of fossils? |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
