Evolution: ask your questions here

[painted wolf]

Yawn... repost....again...

So what part of the "this study is full of gaping flaws" discussion did you miss?

1) Their estimates are based on out of date cherry picked data from the beginning of the last century. Data not even based on complete fossils.
2) Their estimates ignore the most avian dinosaurs, skewing their data.
3) Their estimates ignore even the obvious early birds like Archy... totally ruining any objectivity in the data.
4) this study ignores the evidence that Alligators and other Crocodilians have bird like breathing not lizard like breathing. That is they have uni-directional airflow not tidal airflow.
5) This study ignores the evidence that even non-avian dinosaurs have air sacs like birds.... a feature not found in any other animal group.

I could go on but these five issues make this study extremely flawed and not really worthwhile to support your point.

By the way... I've actually read this paper, not just a news article on it.

Also, your footprints are interesting, but ultimately useless. There were lots of critters running around, how do you know they aren't from a dinosaur? Dinosaurs leave bird like prints after all.

Without offering a viable non-dinosaur alternative to origin of birds, your points are essentially useless.

Where are your Triassic/Permian/Silurian/Carboniferous/Cambrian fossil birds?

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

Autodidact Quote:
It's really a pretty simple concept. Are you unable to understand, or unwilling?
Well if it is so simple explain it.

I did. I don't know how to make it any simpler for you. It's hard to explain things to people who don't want to understand them.

It makes no difference to the Theory of Evolution whether birds evolved from dinosaurs or not. ToE does not rest on the specific evolutionary pathway of birds. It rests on literal mountains of evidence, and if there were no such thing as birds or dinosaurs, it would still be correct.

I know it makes no difference to you, uou will believe what you are told without even understanding it, yet you and PW portray yourselves to be biologists.

I am not a Biologist and don't pretend to be one.
I accept the current thinking in science in general. You call that "believing what I'm told." I call it accepting science.

So if you are invested in a particular hypothesis regarding bird evolution, I suggest you start a thread to discuss it. Neither I nor painted wolf is wedded to any particular hypothesis, which in any even has no bearing on the subject here.
Why should I. This is an "ask a biologist" thread and I have found a question you and PW are unable to speak to.

You are not asking, you're arguing, and your argument is flawed. You are arguing that if there is not current consensus on the evolutionary pathway of birds, then ToE is incorrect. This is wrong. ToE does not rest on any particular evolutionary pathway; it's exactly the other way round. Regardless of how birds evolved, ToE is correct. The fact that we aren't yet sure how birds evolved, does nothing to disprove ToE. As I say, this is a simple concept, and if you can't grasp it, then chances are you are never going to.

I'll say it again another way. If you are unable to defend the bird from dino ancestry that you shove in our faces as irrefuteble evidence for evolution then you should understand why it is regarded as evidence.

I have never claimed that the dino-bird ancestry is evidence for anything.

You should be so convinced of arch and his mates that you can instantly refute any other assertation to the contrary.

I have no position on the issue.

Again, you seem to not grasp what science is or how it works. I would explain it to you again, but I think the problem here is not so much stupidity as stubborness. That is, I think you are actively resisting grasping these simple concepts. I'm pretty patient, but I've lost patience with trying to get these elementary ideas across to you.

Also, if you buy the Paluxy footprints, you're obviously beyond hope.

Another thing creationists seem either unable or unwilling to learn is the quote function. Would you like a lesson, or do you prefer to annoy everyone here by doing it wrong?

 

[newhope101]

I did. I don't know how to make it any simpler for you. It's hard to explain things to people who don't want to understand them.
I am not a Biologist and don't pretend to be one. Well you set up an ask the biologist thread although PW already had one
I accept the current thinking in science in general. You call that "believing what I'm told." I call it accepting science. You are not asking, you're arguing, and your argument is flawed. You are arguing that if there is not current consensus on the evolutionary pathway of birds, then ToE is incorrect. This is wrong. No, I am saying that this shows that your irrefuteable evidence of the day can turn into manure tomorrow.ToE does not rest on any particular evolutionary pathway; it's exactly the other way round. Regardless of how birds evolved, ToE is correct. I have always maintained that you will follow the faith regardless of robust evidence or not. . The fact that we aren't yet sure how birds evolved, does nothing to disprove ToE. As I say, this is a simple concept, and if you can't grasp it, then chances are you are never going to. I have never claimed that the dino-bird ancestry is evidence for anything.
I have no position on the issue. Of course you do not. One may assert that from here on any evidence you produce that is theoretical may just as likely be crap.

Again, you seem to not grasp what science is or how it works. I would explain it to you again, but I think the problem here is not so much stupidity as stubborness. That is, I think you are actively resisting grasping these simple concepts. I'm pretty patient, but I've lost patience with trying to get these elementary ideas across to you. I'm stil reeling from your tiktaalic episode

Also, if you buy the Paluxy footprints, you're obviously beyond hope.
Your researchers refute each other. Of course they will refute anything that challenges the status quo.
Another thing creationists seem either unable or unwilling to learn is the quote function. Would you like a lesson, or do you prefer to annoy everyone here by doing it wrong?I don't do it to annoy it doesn't work sometimes. Annoying you is just an additional plus!

Henry Schaefer, a well credentialed scientist, regardless of whether or not he is a Nobel Prize winner has this to say.

Henry "Fritz" Schaefer of the University of Georgia, commented on the need to encourage debate on Darwin's theory of evolution. "Some defenders of Darwinism," says Schaefer, "embrace standards of evidence for evolution that as scientists they would never accept in other circumstances." Schaefer was on the roster of signers of the statement, termed "A Scientific Dissent on Darwinism."

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/scientists/

 

[painted wolf]

That's nice. Would you let a Podiatrist remove a brain tumor?

wa:do

 

[Oneatatime]

It would be nice if people sourced these quotes properly rather than just copy and pasting from creationist websites and linking said website. In the absence of a source we have no reason to believe that these people actually said what Newhope101 claims they have said and if they did say these things we do not know what context they were said in. Without this information the quotes are largely meaningless and open to misintrepretation which is usually the intention of creationists.

These quotes and the rest of the creationist material has already been dealt with.

 

[Autodidact]

Henry Schaefer, a well credentialed scientist, regardless of whether or not he is a Nobel Prize winner has this to say.

Henry "Fritz" Schaefer of the University of Georgia, commented on the need to encourage debate on Darwin's theory of evolution. "Some defenders of Darwinism," says Schaefer, "embrace standards of evidence for evolution that as scientists they would never accept in other circumstances." Schaefer was on the roster of signers of the statement, termed "A Scientific Dissent on Darwinism."

Dissent From Darwin Blog

Henry Schaeffer, the chemist? How would he know?

Funny thing, the quote function works for everyone else. Kind of like the Theory of Evolution.

Well, now that you've made it clear your goal is to annoy me, I think I'll take a break from talking to you. Thanks for the laughs.