PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Archaeopteryx
       More disnosaur than bird

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And brave Doctor Lester ran away....
Quote from derwood at 11:39 AM on October 18, 2009 :
Hi 'Lester',

I think it is so cute how you ignore my posts when they are substantive and refute something you've overconfidently asserted...

Quote from Lester10 at 03:40 AM on October 11, 2009 :

skeleton almost identical to that of some theropod dinosaur


Extremely debatable comment –far from convincing.


Well, let's debate it.  You claimed anatomical knowledge, I believe.  Let's have at it.



jaw with teeth


Do you have jaws with teeth? If so, does that mean that you are a dinosaur or just related to them OR could it be part of your design because you also need to eat?

No humans - indeed, no mammals, are contemporaneous.

Other ancient birds had teeth.


Such as?
The teeth of meat eating dinosaurs are different to the teeth of archaeopteryx.

So you admit that dinosaurs ate meat?

Similarities are circumstantial and inconclusive.

Not when taken in their proper context (i.e., their temporal relationship).

long bony tail


Meat eating dinosaurs had tails 4-5 feet long covered with scales; Archae had a tail 4-5 inches long and covered with feathers. Is that close enough for you?

Birds do not have bony tails.


If ostriches have long necks, does that make them closely related to giraffes? Or is it just a unique design feature of that animal?

When the creationist starts hurling silly rhetoric like this, you know they're out of their depth.


claws


So do bats have claws on their wings, so did pterosaurs have claws on their wings, so do ostriches, hoatzins and touracos have claws on their wings.

Bats are mammals.  

feathers (asymetrical feathers, at that)  - there is still debate whether the creature could actually fly.


All other birds with assymetrical feathers can fly. Most likely Archeopteryx could fly well. The only thing that would stop it from flying well is the evolutionist’s belief that it was ancient and thus closer to something non-flying. That’s not objective.


What is objective is the fact that Archaeopteryx had a keel-less sternum, meaning that it could not have possessed flight muscles of sufficient size (and therefore strength) to allow flight.

Even ostriches, which do not fly, have a broad, keeled sternum:



And even pigeons have a pronounced keel:




Surely an anatomist like you knows where the sternum is, right?  And the significance of the size of points of muscle attachment?

The question to ask ourselves is does Archie provide clues as to how scales evolved into feathers or legs into wings?
No.


Modern birds still have scales (look at their legs).  As for limbs to wings, yes, since Archie's wings are 'half-way' from limbs to true wings.  Many dinosaurs appear to have had feathers, so feather evolution is not a question that Archie must answer.
Further, I see the use of the feather 'problem' as merely a tool YECs use to dodge the facts.  That we do not have the answer to one question does not logically mean that we should forget the answers provided for dozens of other questions.  If that were so, we should, logically, dismiss the bible since there are a number of 'unanswered questions' about the events described therein.  My bet is that the bible doesn't have to live up to the same critera you demand of other 'beliefs'.


Or is it more likely a mosaic of complete traits?
Yes.

What are the intermediates, do you think, of the scale to feather transition?  What is a 'complete' trait?
Are the limbs of a dwarf not 'complete'?

When we find wings on fossils, we find completely developed, fully functional wings.

How do you know they were 'fully functional'?
Have you done analyses on reconstructed Archie wings?  How did Archie sustain flight with such puny pecs?







-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 08:43 AM on October 22, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
And that's the only explanation you have for explaining common characteristics in organisms???  That simple minded belief allows you to ignore all of biology????
Well when you consider how often homologous structures are apparently unrelated (as evidenced in so-called convergent evolution),
Lester, that was nonsense. If you're talking about homologous structures, don't mention convergent evolution. It can be confusing to a creationist who never understood the Theory of Evolution, but you need to understand that you never understood it.

Since in your view different species are unrelated, convergence and homology are pretty much the same to you. To us they're not. And it's very important. It's not just about what we call them. It's about the facts behind the names.

You treat them like they are the same thing. That shows your ignorance on the matter you're trying to discuss. Admit it.

Never mind if you don't believe it. They issue here is that you never understood it. And it's not even difficult to understand. You just don't care. You care about your eternal soul, and pretend to care about these things.
Not cool, man.

Later the tooth is discovered to be identical to that of a peccary (an extinct pig)
Extinct? Are you sure? Doesn't it sound like quite an ordinary name for an extinct creature?

It's not a fake. Trust me.

*-+-*-+-*-+-*-+-*-+-*-+-*-+-*

anti-evolutionist
thank you orion for answering Lester10 question.
I was worried the evo's where just going to just to avoid the question and only post long, off topic, trivial quotes from other threads.


Your honor, thi's off topic go's to show the general ignoran's of the defendant's.

skeleton similar to some theropod dinosaurs - see picture below
no objection.
From you.
Even the smartest creationists (you're not one of them, and they are not very bright anyway) disagree on complex issues like this.
jaw with teeth
also true. except you forgot to mention that modern birds also have recessive genes for the construction of teeth.
We know that. And it supports our position, and not yours.
Are you an evolutionist in disguise, trying to make creationists look worse?
because that is how it was created. it was designed with its odd combination of reptilian and bird characteristics.
You can always say "Yahweh made it just like that". So why do you people ask for transitionals? That same argument can be made about any creature we show you.

If your Bible said that in the past creatures didn't grow but were created one by one, you'd say that the small ones were created small. You would ask for a transitional between a baby and an adult, and when shown a kid you'd say that Yahweh created it like that.

Why waste our time?
is this the proof you want to use that the Platypus evolved?
Read this and let's ban the word "proof" from scientific debate.
Demon38 claims (as do all evolutionists that agree with him)
D'oh.
that this is more proof of evolution.
Press ctrl+f, write 'proof' and find who wrote it.

But...
the existence of one such creature is not proof of evolution.
No. And there will never be a proof.
You don't know what you're talking about, you don't know the first thing about science, and you don't come here with a learning disposition.
yes it fits into evolutions predictions. no question about that. but it is not enough.
And why do you think it fits? How do we do it? Are we magicians? Is the Devil on our side? IS YAHWEH ON OUR SIDE? What supernatural power could conjure the fossils that we predict?
For you it must be like we accidentally read Yahweh's mind, but are unaware of it.
but odd combinations of characteristics are found all over the animal kingdom, with specific animals having characeristics usually only found in animals of a different kind. making Archaeopteryx less special (but not less interesting)
We know what combinations we'll find.

We know what combinations we WON'T find.


What we find doesn't surprise us because we know what to expect (and fossils don't contradict our expectations).
What we find doesn't surprise you because you're clueless (and fossils don't contradict your lack of a clue).

and other animals made from an odd combination of features: Jerboa, Pangolin, Okapi, Bongo, platypus, frilled necked lizard, Anemone
We can put them in the phylogenetic tree quite easily. Similarities are explained either by convergent evolution, or by relatedness, or both. And yet there's no middle ground between those two.
evolution has made its predictions within the framework of its theory. it has found some extinct animal fossils that fit its predictions.
And in the right places and strata, yes. Now go find me a unicorn and a giant, please. Anywhere. We won't even demand that they be in the right places or strata.
now what needs to happen is for evolution to prove that the above mentioned fossils are actually "transitional species" (as evolution claims) and not just "interesting animals" (as creationists claim).
The first claim is a scientific one. The second one is not. Can you tell?
and evolution needs to find evidence of transitional species for other peculiar animals.
Evolution doesn't need anything. It has been around for several million years before we showed up.
and the whole while making a clear distinction between what has been 'proven' and what is still only 'predicted'
Your lack of scientific understanding prevents you from realizing the importance of predictions (and the fact that there's no such a thing as a 'scientific proof').

explain to us exactly how the existence of Archeopteryx, platypus etc  contradict evolutionary theory ...
they do not 'contradict evolutionary' per se,
Ok, you've impressed me. My bet would have been that you'd write "per say".
evolution needs to find evidence that their unusual characteristics are a result of evolution and are not just there 'by design'
You say "evolution" instead of "the theory of evolution".

The ToE predicts something concrete. We go and find it. That's evidence for evolution. You don't know what you're asking.
We don't need to disprove creationism.

the theory of evolution is constantly in need of redefining as new evidence is found that is contradictory to the current theory.
Care to give us examples?
We use the ToE to make our imaginative stories. They do change as new evidence is discovered. The ToE undergoes very little change.
at the same time, there is no reason for you not to say that "the current evidence gives credence to the prediction that transitional species existed"
just so long as you are aware that the current lack of damning evidence does not make your predictions true. only plausible
And yours isn't.
Who's talking about truth and proof?
Right. Only you.

Lester
Niles Eldredge and Stephen J Gould had to come up with their ‘punctuated equilibrium’ model. That was their excuse for why the fossil record fits the creationist framework and not theirs.
You don't have a framework.
"Anything we find is fine" is not a framework. It's nothing.

And punctuated equilibrium is not an excuse. No more than Einstein's 'excuse' for why the speed of light doesn't depend on the speed of the source.

Other atheist evolutionists continue to live in denial and refuse to see what is incredibly obvious to everybody else
Wrong. You're forgetting the theist evolutionists. And the deist ones.
I got you! ;)
–there are large gaps in the fossil record, there are large gaps in living systems. These large systematic gaps are the basis of the classification systems that exist.
Gaps between what, may i ask? 'Between different species on the same evolutionary line' would be the reasonable answer, but since you don't hold a reasonable position i don't know what you might mean.
If gradualism were true,
Define 'gradualism'.
If you mean 'a constant rate of change', it's a strawman.
it would be very difficult to classify anything.
Why?
‘Transitionals’ are very hard to come by and very suspect in all cases. There are not nearly enough of them to warrant optimism on the part of the evolutionist.
Your recognition of their existence is more than enough.
They have to imagine that their god ‘evolution’ conspired to keep transitional forms hidden.
Since you can't define 'transitional' my guess is that you don't know what you're talking about.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 4:33 PM on October 22, 2009 | IP
Galileo

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Transitional form between Archaeopteryx (they could have chosen something easier to spell) and modern birds - Gansus

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFOuOM7TWoA&feature=sub


-------
Hallowed are the Invisible Pink Unicorns
 


Posts: 160 | Posted: 08:11 AM on October 23, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Excellent vid, Galileo! Thanks!

Actually i'm watching the first part. I have some ideas on how the winged insects evolved. Today i'll find out if scientists agree, or if my ideas are ridiculous. :P



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:46 PM on October 23, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Since in your view different species are unrelated, convergence and homology are pretty much the same to you. To us they're not. And it's very important. It's not just about what we call them. It's about the facts behind the names.

You treat them like they are the same thing. That shows your ignorance on the matter you're trying to discuss. Admit it.


No, Wisp I understand quite well how it is supposed to be understood in principle, what I don’t understand is how you can believe it. You’re saying a lot of nothing here and I have no idea what you are trying to get at.

They issue here is that you never understood it. And it's not even difficult to understand.


OHHHH! I see!You understand it because you understand difficult things….but I don’t understand it because I don’t believe it –I get it –thanks! Seems to me you’ve cracked that mental barrier that us creationists just can’t seem to crack

You care about your eternal soul, and pretend to care about these things.
Not cool, man.


No Wisp, not cool to be you – this is not about anyone’s eternal soul, it’s about the truth and the bullshit (evolution) and that’s all it is about.

From you.
Even the smartest creationists (you're not one of them, and they are not very bright anyway) disagree on complex issues like this.


‘Complex’ is a word evos usually reserve for something evolutionists believe and creationists can’t believe that anyone can believe…if you know what I mean?

So why do you people ask for transitionals? That same argument can be made about any creature we show you.


Just give us a general picture of gradualism and we’ll get over it.

You don't know what you're talking about, you don't know the first thing about science, and you don't come here with a learning disposition.


You’re not being technical enough A-E, that means you’re disqualified from using even your logic anywhere near this argument. Quickly slot A-E into the stupids section and he won’t even argue because he isn’t even around to do that (but I think you know that.) You’re sounding pompous like Derwood, Wisp, have you learned that from him –you shouldn’t, it’s real obnoxious. I’m going to save a whole bunch of stock evo insults to use on my answers in future – I’ll give the appropriate clever dick credit when I copy their comments so that nobody thinks I’m plagiarizing or anything.

And why do you think it fits? How do we do it? Are we magicians? Is the Devil on our side? IS YAHWEH ON OUR SIDE? What supernatural power could conjure the fossils that we predict?


You believe it thus you see it. Like the range of human and ape skulls –if you don’t believe that macroevolution happened, you’d classify them as ape or human –if you do believe it, some of the intermediate sizes or shapes in the range become ‘transitionals!’

We know what combinations we'll find.


Whoa, cheating! Can’t tell much about an extinct fish’s swimming habits from those old bones you know. Did you notice this is a ‘drawing’? Could your vast imaginative capacity possibly be part of the mirage? So putting it’s little fin gently into the sand in that suggestive fashion (with gentle smile on face) does not mean that it actually started walking out of the water at any point or mutating randomly to produce legs. They made the same mistake with the coelocanth you know; it is called wishful thinking and it happens when you need a transitional between a fish and an amphibian and you just can’t find one. So it works like this: you get an old extinct fish bone, examine it carefully and declare that it used to venture beyond the confines of its watery habitat with its nearly-legs (that aren’t) and hey presto! You have a transitional!! More than that, it was just the one you were looking for! Little bit of serious luck don’t you think????
By the way since when could a wishfully thinking fish produce legs by random mutation just because it reached the water’s edge (or didn’t). I know, I need more imagination –but it’s hard, it’s really hard!!

You see, since he’s living there on the edge, his random mutation in his reproductive cells might just as well turn those pre-leg fins into real legs as any other random effect. It’s amazing how random mutations could detect that need! I’ve said this before but I’ll repeat, it sounds almost Lamarckian the way you people think!  







-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 03:15 AM on October 24, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
And that's the only explanation you have for explaining common characteristics in organisms???  That simple minded belief allows you to ignore all of biology????
Well when you consider how often homologous structures are apparently unrelated (as evidenced in so-called convergent evolution),
Lester, that was nonsense. If you're talking about homologous structures, don't mention convergent evolution. It can be confusing to a creationist who never understood the Theory of Evolution, but you need to understand that you never understood it.

Since in your view different species are unrelated, convergence and homology are pretty much the same to you. To us they're not. And it's very important. It's not just about what we call them. It's about the facts behind the names.
No, Wisp I understand quite well how it is supposed to be understood in principle, what I don’t understand is how you can believe it. You’re saying a lot of nothing here and I have no idea what you are trying to get at.
Lester, your lie is very obvious. You mentioned convergent evolution as an example that 'often homologous structures are apparently unrelated'. So there. You didn't understand what you were saying. Perhaps now you do, since i've informed you and it's not difficult to understand.
They issue here is that you never understood it. And it's not even difficult to understand.
OHHHH! I see!You understand it because you understand difficult things….but I don’t understand it because I don’t believe it –I get it –thanks! Seems to me you’ve cracked that mental barrier that us creationists just can’t seem to crack
No. The issue isn't me. It's you. In spite of demonstrating that you don't, you insist that you understand what you're talking about.
You care about your eternal soul, and pretend to care about these things.
Not cool, man.
No Wisp, not cool to be you
Don't be childish.
this is not about anyone’s eternal soul, it’s about the truth and the bullshit (evolution) and that’s all it is about.
Not when we're talking science. If during such a discussion you mention 'truth', you're out of line, sir. If you don't like science there's nothing to do. Go seek the truth.
From you.
Even the smartest creationists (you're not one of them, and they are not very bright anyway) disagree on complex issues like this.
‘Complex’ is a word evos usually reserve for something evolutionists believe and creationists can’t believe that anyone can believe…if you know what I mean?
Hey! Answer all that was addressed to you before you start answering what was addressed to someone else!

These things you ignored:

Other atheist evolutionists continue to live in denial and refuse to see what is incredibly obvious to everybody else
Wrong. You're forgetting the theist evolutionists. And the deist ones.
I got you! ;)
I did get you. You were ignoring Fencer's existence.
Also this:
If gradualism were true,
Define 'gradualism'.
If you mean 'a constant rate of change', it's a strawman.
it would be very difficult to classify anything.
Why?

Also this:
They have to imagine that their god ‘evolution’ conspired to keep transitional forms hidden.
Since you can't define 'transitional' my guess is that you don't know what you're talking about.


You also ignored the living peccary;

So why do you people ask for transitionals? That same argument can be made about any creature we show you.
Just give us a general picture of gradualism and we’ll get over it.
No you wouldn't. Anyway, so far you haven't been able to define 'gradualism'. My bet is that, again, you don't know what you're talking about.
And if you do, and you mean 'a constant rate of change', then you should know that it's a strawman.
And if you do, and are also aware of it's being a strawman, you're a bad loser.

You’re sounding pompous like Derwood, Wisp, have you learned that from him –you shouldn’t, it’s real obnoxious.
I know, i know... You're right... But it's difficult. I feel that you don't respect this discussion. You must be aware of the fallacies you indulge in... We've told you what those are, and you keep doing it... It's either dishonest or dumb. I rather think it's dishonest. And i won't judge you (hard), but i won't like it either.
I think that's more obnoxious than pompousness. you can have great discussions with honest and smart pompous jerks. A discussion with a dishonest-but-otherwise-saintly-guy with an emotional commitment to a dogma is bad.

And why do you think it fits? How do we do it? Are we magicians? Is the Devil on our side? IS YAHWEH ON OUR SIDE? What supernatural power could conjure the fossils that we predict?
You believe it thus you see it.
So you don't see this?:

It's like a fish with no bones, jaws, scales...
What does it take for you to see?
Like the range of human and ape skulls –if you don’t believe that macroevolution happened, you’d classify them as ape or human
And if that position is wrong you get this:

–if you do believe it, some of the intermediate sizes or shapes in the range become ‘transitionals!’
Feathers and teeth and claws and a tail... Spinal chord but no bones or jaw... How convenient our findings seem to be.

We know what combinations we'll find.
Whoa, cheating! Can’t tell much about an extinct fish’s swimming habits from those old bones you know.
I know that you're wrong. You're using your ignorance as evidence for everyone's ignorance.
People do know stuff you don't.
Did you notice this is a ‘drawing’? Could your vast imaginative capacity possibly be part of the mirage?
I don't think so...
So putting it’s little fin gently into the sand in that suggestive fashion (with gentle smile on face) does not mean that it actually started walking out of the water at any point or mutating randomly to produce legs.
No, it doesn't mean that necessarily. It only means that we were right in our prediction. That its structure fits the expectations. Right between fish and reptile.

By the way since when could a wishfully thinking fish produce legs by random mutation just because it reached the water’s edge (or didn’t). I know, I need more imagination –but it’s hard, it’s really hard!!
If there was a real question there, it passed me by.

You see, since he’s living there on the edge, his random mutation in his reproductive cells might just as well turn those pre-leg fins into real legs as any other random effect.
It's ok not to understand Evolution. What's not ok is to 'parade your ignorance'. Who said that? One of the new users... It was a cool phrase.

It’s amazing how random mutations could detect that need!
To those who don't understand Evolution, yes, it is.
I’ve said this before but I’ll repeat, it sounds almost Lamarckian the way you people think!
Differential survival rates. That does the trick. No Lamarckism.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 05:06 AM on October 24, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 03:15 AM on October 24, 2009 :
You’re sounding pompous like Derwood, Wisp, have you learned that from him –you shouldn’t, it’s real obnoxious.


Funny - so it is "pompous" to ask a fellow PhD to discuss things at a doctoral level.  It is "pompous" to ask a PhD-holding scientist like you to define your terms such that you cannot weasel your way out of a sticky spot.

Amazing...


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:44 AM on October 24, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


And brave Doctor Lester keeps running away, but calls me 'pompous' .  Hmmm...

Methinks the YEC prostests too much...
Quote from derwood at 11:39 AM on October 18, 2009 :
Hi 'Lester',

I think it is so cute how you ignore my posts when they are substantive and refute something you've overconfidently asserted...

Quote from Lester10 at 03:40 AM on October 11, 2009 :

skeleton almost identical to that of some theropod dinosaur


Extremely debatable comment –far from convincing.


Well, let's debate it.  You claimed anatomical knowledge, I believe.  Let's have at it.



jaw with teeth


Do you have jaws with teeth? If so, does that mean that you are a dinosaur or just related to them OR could it be part of your design because you also need to eat?

No humans - indeed, no mammals, are contemporaneous.

Other ancient birds had teeth.


Such as?
The teeth of meat eating dinosaurs are different to the teeth of archaeopteryx.

So you admit that dinosaurs ate meat?

Similarities are circumstantial and inconclusive.

Not when taken in their proper context (i.e., their temporal relationship).

long bony tail


Meat eating dinosaurs had tails 4-5 feet long covered with scales; Archae had a tail 4-5 inches long and covered with feathers. Is that close enough for you?

Birds do not have bony tails.


If ostriches have long necks, does that make them closely related to giraffes? Or is it just a unique design feature of that animal?

When the creationist starts hurling silly rhetoric like this, you know they're out of their depth.


claws


So do bats have claws on their wings, so did pterosaurs have claws on their wings, so do ostriches, hoatzins and touracos have claws on their wings.

Bats are mammals.  

feathers (asymetrical feathers, at that)  - there is still debate whether the creature could actually fly.


All other birds with assymetrical feathers can fly. Most likely Archeopteryx could fly well. The only thing that would stop it from flying well is the evolutionist’s belief that it was ancient and thus closer to something non-flying. That’s not objective.


What is objective is the fact that Archaeopteryx had a keel-less sternum, meaning that it could not have possessed flight muscles of sufficient size (and therefore strength) to allow flight.

Even ostriches, which do not fly, have a broad, keeled sternum:



And even pigeons have a pronounced keel:




Surely an anatomist like you knows where the sternum is, right?  And the significance of the size of points of muscle attachment?

The question to ask ourselves is does Archie provide clues as to how scales evolved into feathers or legs into wings?
No.


Modern birds still have scales (look at their legs).  As for limbs to wings, yes, since Archie's wings are 'half-way' from limbs to true wings.  Many dinosaurs appear to have had feathers, so feather evolution is not a question that Archie must answer.
Further, I see the use of the feather 'problem' as merely a tool YECs use to dodge the facts.  That we do not have the answer to one question does not logically mean that we should forget the answers provided for dozens of other questions.  If that were so, we should, logically, dismiss the bible since there are a number of 'unanswered questions' about the events described therein.  My bet is that the bible doesn't have to live up to the same critera you demand of other 'beliefs'.


Or is it more likely a mosaic of complete traits?
Yes.

What are the intermediates, do you think, of the scale to feather transition?  What is a 'complete' trait?
Are the limbs of a dwarf not 'complete'?

When we find wings on fossils, we find completely developed, fully functional wings.

How do you know they were 'fully functional'?
Have you done analyses on reconstructed Archie wings?  How did Archie sustain flight with such puny pecs?






-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:49 AM on October 24, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from derwood at 10:44 AM on October 24, 2009 :
Quote from Lester10 at 03:15 AM on October 24, 2009 :
You’re sounding pompous like Derwood, Wisp, have you learned that from him –you shouldn’t, it’s real obnoxious.


Funny - so it is "pompous" to ask a fellow PhD to discuss things at a doctoral level.  It is "pompous" to ask a PhD-holding scientist like you to define your terms such that you cannot weasel your way out of a sticky spot.

Amazing...



For heavens sake, it's clear Lester doesn't have a PhD in anything, certainly not in any field of science.  Not from an accredited university, anyway.  Any bright high school kid know more about science than he does.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:56 PM on October 24, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Do you know Fred Hoyle? The one with the Boeing 747 and the tornado.

He was a smart ID proponent.

No, it's not an oxymoron. Such things can happen. You just need a pride or a faith even bigger than your brain.
Sadly, Hoyle was just too full of himself.

Awards

   * Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society (1968)
   * Bruce Medal (1970)
   * Henry Norris Russell Lectureship (1971)
   * Royal Medal (1974)
   * Klumpke-Roberts Award of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific (1977)
   * Balzan Prize for Astrophysics: evolution of stars (1994, with Martin Schwarzschild)
   * Crafoord Prize from the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, with Edwin Salpeter (1997)

Named after him

   * Asteroid 8077 Hoyle
   * Janibacter hoylei, species of bacteria discovered by ISRO scientists.

He was a cosmologist. He collaborated with steady state models of the Universe (they turned out to be wrong, but such is Science).

Hoyle
Would you not say to yourself, "Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule." Of course you would . . . A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.


In a classical abuse of statistics Hoyle calculated that the chance of obtaining the required set of enzymes for even the simplest living cell was one in 1040,000. Since the number of atoms in the known universe is infinitesimally tiny by comparison (1080), he argued that even a whole universe full of primordial soup would grant little chance to evolutionary processes. He claimed:
The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.


He was a fierce anti-darwinian.
Hoyle
If one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure or order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of...
But he didn't believe in the Bible version either. His faith wasn't THAT big.

Instead he believed in some weird form of panspermia. He believed that Evolution was guided through viral infections (insertions?) that arrived from the outer space in meteorites.
I take the view that all the genes that we have were already here, and the event that added them to the Earth was 570 million years ago. You know, the beginning of the Cambrian, that great event. And that everything that we have subsequently used has been simply a question of permuting and combining what came in at that time. That's the only way I can see, that I'm comfortable with the logic.


I'm bringing this up because he hated the Archaeopteryx. He thought that it wasn't an intermediate.

He didn't stop there. He said it was FORGERY!

According to Hoyle the fabricators of Archaeopteryx took the fossil of a Compsognathus, made a paste of limestone and glue, spread it around the arms and tail, and then made impressions in this paste, while still wet, using modern feathers.
He didn't want to believe in Evolution, but his brain didn't allow him to ignore the fact that it was a dino, so he attacked the feathers.

Poor Hoyle...

Compare the skeletons:


Frederick Hoyle blamed the palaeontologist Richard Owen for the supposed hoax.

Here's the thing:Owen was a bitter opponent of Darwinism!
Hoyle therefore supposed that Owen had intended the hoax to deceive enthusiastic evolutionists, whose credulity he would then expose: and that then, for some mysterious reason, he changed his mind about revealing the hoax. Most creationists who've borrowed Hoyle's ideas have abandoned this bit of the conspiracy theory, and preferred to say it was a bird.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 1:06 PM on November 16, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 1:06 PM on November 16, 2009 :

I'm bringing this up because he hated the Archaeopteryx. He thought that it wasn't an intermediate.

He didn't stop there. He said it was FORGERY!

According to Hoyle the fabricators of Archaeopteryx took the fossil of a Compsognathus, made a paste of limestone and glue, spread it around the arms and tail, and then made impressions in this paste, while still wet, using modern feathers.
He didn't want to believe in Evolution, but his brain didn't allow him to ignore the fact that it was a dino, so he attacked the feathers.

Poor Hoyle...


Which was really, really stupid on Hoyle's part, since he teamed up with a known creationist (Spetner - who, like Hoyle, has no training in biology)  and apparently forgot that there are actually 8 Archie specimens.  Even if the ONE they claimed was a hoax had really been a hoax, what of the other 7?

So impressive was Holye and Spetner's (and Hoyle's panspermia partner, I can't remember his name) crack analysis that Science and Nature fought over the right to publish it.

No, wait - it actually ended up getting published in some 3rd-rate British photography magazine...


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 7:23 PM on November 16, 2009 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.