Evolutionary Scientists...Why can't we all just get along?

[hamashiachagape]

For many years, Creation Scientists have been pointing out some problems that Evolutionary advocates have had with one another about issues as simple as transitional fossils..and even the transitional phases between one type of species to another.

One issue of particular note is regarding the commonly utilized argument for Evolution..that birds evolved from reptiles.

Here is what we have going on. There are prominent scientists such as Richard Dawkins..and other leading advocates such as Eugenie Scott and company who promote that Archaeoraptorex was a transitional fossil between a reptile and a bird.

However, what we find of a world authority on birds, Alan Feduccia has to say appears to demonstrate something of a quite different nature. He is a world authority on birds from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He states on the Archaeoraptorex find, "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.

As most would probably guess however, Feduccia is an advocate of Evolution nonetheless, but his explanation contradicts the other body of Evolutionary beliefs. And we as Creation Scientists agree with both of them, neither one of their explanations is suitable.

What did Archaeoraptorex really look like?

A legitimate artist's reconstruction of Archaeopteryx, consistent with its known bird features.2
Refuting Evolution chapter 4: Bird evolution?

That looks like a bird to me. And there is no reason contrary to what you all will learn in a Biology class, to assume that birds reproduced to form anything other than birds. We would generally note that these are what we mean are Created Kinds..baramin in the Hebrew, but that is another issue which I'd love to talk about at a later time. Speciation after the ark will be necessary to explain as well in more depth on the created kinds .

Another example is Mononykus. Time magazine promoted it as being a bird without the slightest trace of feathers...however, later research indicated it was not a transitional. Protarchaeopteryx and Caudipteryx, which are claimed to be the first known origins of birds from dinosaurs also draw disagreement from Feduccia and also University of Kansas Paleontologist, Larry Martin.

Feduccia explains " ‘It's biophysically impossible to evolve flight from such large bipeds with foreshortened forelimbs and heavy, balancing tails,’ exactly the wrong anatomy for flight.15 " Larry Martin explains "‘You have to put this into perspective. To the people who wrote the paper, the chicken would be a feathered dinosaur.’13 " Dino to bird evolution simply makes no sense even from certain Evolutionary perspectives...leading us to question..what exactly is this "theory" of Evolution?

What I refer to it is a unsubstantiated conjecture.

 

[philadiddle]

Hey,

I'll get into the details of your post when I have some time tonight. For now I just want to through up a couple things for interests sake.

Several years ago the quiet thread was created which was a list of the posts that were quiet because people couldn't really refute them. Post #49 and #50 in that thread are on bird evolution and apply to your post.

http://www.christianforums.com/t1155768-2/#post24172651

Also, I made a post on Lucy as a transitional that you may be interested in participating in, since it has had no serious challenge to it yet.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7503000/#post55803154

Please note that in post #38 I have some more refined questions based on some of the responses.

I'll talk more about the details of your post when I log on later.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Hey,

I'll get into the details of your post when I have some time tonight. For now I just want to through up a couple things for interests sake.

Several years ago the quiet thread was created which was a list of the posts that were quiet because people couldn't really refute them. Post #49 and #50 in that thread are on bird evolution and apply to your post.

http://www.christianforums.com/t1155768-2/#post24172651

Also, I made a post on Lucy as a transitional that you may be interested in participating in, since it has had no serious challenge to it yet.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7503000/#post55803154

Please note that in post #38 I have some more refined questions based on some of the responses.

I'll talk more about the details of your post when I log on later.

Now on Lucy, this was claimed to be a transitional fossil, but Tel Aviv university has actually stated this should be " ‘placed as the beginning of the branch that evolved in parallel to ours.’...i.e. Lucy according to this Scientific research is not our direct ancestor.

As for the rest of the information, CMI has thoroughly debunked all of this. My posts are generalized explanations of some of what I've learned about evolution of flight, but more detail can be found at www.creationontheweb.org . What we need to remember is that Feduccia is not your country bumpkin on the topic too , he is rather a leading expert on birds. The person who attempts to address Answers in Genesis's argument also doesn't recognize that it is not claimed that Archaoraptorex is a forgery. A lot of this sadly is a strawman attack. However, archaeoraptor was a forgery and most Evolutionary advocates would admit this today (at least those honest) . I'd also love for this individual to go into how "irreducibly complex" components of systems actually evolved from something...the how is not explained at all there. We are to take this on faith? Anyways I will also have more information addressing the above information . One source for starters can be found here - http://creation.com/yet-another-flap-about-dino-to-bird-evolution Of importance regarding for instance the Microraptor citation "Gishlick said that a good candidate for Dial’s mechanism was Microraptor, which he claimed was ‘a feathered dinosaur the size of a pigeon that was chased enough to make it want to run up into the sky.’2 What he failed to mention is that the type specimen was actually half of the notorious fraud Archaeoraptor.3 This partial skeleton has digits that point to its being scansorial rather than cursorial, i.e. a climber rather than a runner.3"

 

[Greg1234]

I would use fossils just for outlining the occasions where "out of place" artifacts contradict Darwinism. But things like transitional fossils, phylogenetic analysis and other arguments from homology are used by Darwinists through claiming that the organisms presented are already the result of chance and necessity.

But that's just the problem. The debate is about who claims the fossils, not debating in recognition that you already posses the fossils. Hence it is through experimentation showing that chance mechanisms as adopted through the Darwinian philosophy are not viable and other indicators of intelligent methods of adaptation which actually makes the case.

If you were to come across a set of vehicles for example, you cannot use the similarities between a boat and a sea plane to prove that one turned into the other when all tests show that a boat cannot turn into a sea plane. But thats exactly what is done in Darwinism. So you will always find that the argument has this constant, incessantly annoying tug towards anatomical comparisons and the like because saying a boat and a sea plane have similarities is done through assuming that the evidence is already in favor of Darwinian genesis.

 

[hamashiachagape]

I would use fossils just for outlining the occasions where "out of place" artifacts contradict Darwinism. But things like transitional fossils, phylogenetic analysis and other arguments from homology are used by Darwinists through claiming that the organisms presented are already the result of chance and necessity.

But that's just the problem. The debate is about who claims the fossils, not debating in recognition that you already posses the fossils. Hence it is through experimentation showing that chance mechanisms as adopted through the Darwinian philosophy are not viable and other indicators of intelligent methods of adaptation which actually makes the case.

If you were to come across a set of vehicles for example, you cannot use the similarities between a boat and a sea plane to prove that one turned into the other when all tests show that a boat cannot turn into a sea plane. But thats exactly what is done in Darwinism. So you will always find that the argument has this constant, incessantly annoying tug towards anatomical comparisons and the like because saying a boat and a sea plane have similarities is done through assuming that the evidence is already in favor of Darwinian genesis.

Yes Darwin's theory is important to attack, but also worthy to note would be punctuated equilibrium from the Stephen Jay Gould variety . let us not forget it is not just Darwin we are at war with. Darwin basically just took a bunch of ideas and plagiarized from them (even from Creation Scientist, Edward Blythe on Natural Selection, Variation, Adaptaion and Speciation). We have plenty of examples that refute Evolution (natural selection + mutations = creative process)..and sometimes its a matter of the actual disagreement between the Scientists themselves. Its quite fascinating to see such disagreement amongst a group of people who proclaim to have the "facts" of the process of how life develops, and what it developed from. Meanwhile...God is chuckling in heaven.

Hey guys...has anybody bothered to try refuting William Paley's arguments? Just out of curiosity? For some odd reason...his name never gets brought up in these types of discussions...yet he is the most influential writer of Science on Natural Selection that I have ever come across (I mean this in a good way).

 

[BrendanMark]

None of the evidence about birds is inconsistent with standard evolutionary science.

From Bird-from-dinosaur theory of evolution challenged: Was it the other way around?

A new analysis was done of an unusual fossil specimen discovered in 2003 called "microraptor," in which three-dimensional models were used to study its possible flight potential, and it concluded this small, feathered species must have been a "glider" that came down from trees. The research is well done and consistent with a string of studies in recent years that pose increasing challenge to the birds-from-dinosaurs theory, said John Ruben, a professor of zoology at Oregon State University who authored a commentary in PNAS on the new research.

The weight of the evidence is now suggesting that not only did birds not descend from dinosaurs, Ruben said, but that some species now believed to be dinosaurs may have descended from birds.
"We're finally breaking out of the conventional wisdom of the last 20 years, which insisted that birds evolved from dinosaurs and that the debate is all over and done with," Ruben said. "This issue isn't resolved at all. There are just too many inconsistencies with the idea that birds had dinosaur ancestors, and this newest study adds to that."

Almost 20 years of research at OSU on the morphology of birds and dinosaurs, along with other studies and the newest PNAS research, Ruben said, are actually much more consistent with a different premise -- that birds may have had an ancient common ancestor with dinosaurs, but they evolved separately on their own path, and after millions of years of separate evolution birds also gave rise to the raptors. Small animals such as velociraptor that have generally been thought to be dinosaurs are more likely flightless birds, he said.

 

[hamashiachagape]

None of the evidence about birds is inconsistent with standard evolutionary science.

From Bird-from-dinosaur theory of evolution challenged: Was it the other way around?

A new analysis was done of an unusual fossil specimen discovered in 2003 called "microraptor," in which three-dimensional models were used to study its possible flight potential, and it concluded this small, feathered species must have been a "glider" that came down from trees. The research is well done and consistent with a string of studies in recent years that pose increasing challenge to the birds-from-dinosaurs theory, said John Ruben, a professor of zoology at Oregon State University who authored a commentary in PNAS on the new research.

The weight of the evidence is now suggesting that not only did birds not descend from dinosaurs, Ruben said, but that some species now believed to be dinosaurs may have descended from birds.
"We're finally breaking out of the conventional wisdom of the last 20 years, which insisted that birds evolved from dinosaurs and that the debate is all over and done with," Ruben said. "This issue isn't resolved at all. There are just too many inconsistencies with the idea that birds had dinosaur ancestors, and this newest study adds to that."

Almost 20 years of research at OSU on the morphology of birds and dinosaurs, along with other studies and the newest PNAS research, Ruben said, are actually much more consistent with a different premise -- that birds may have had an ancient common ancestor with dinosaurs, but they evolved separately on their own path, and after millions of years of separate evolution birds also gave rise to the raptors. Small animals such as velociraptor that have generally been thought to be dinosaurs are more likely flightless birds, he said.

They're still trying to use microraptor? If at first it completely fails..try try again? *happens to notice that Archaeoraptor was proven a fraud many years ago and that microraptor was a part of this fraudulent fossil* If only we had real evidence.

 

[BrendanMark]

No counter-argument, eh? Oh, well.

Logic and science emerge from the same source as theology: the defeat of Sophistry (Man is the measure of all things) by grounding reality in a Prime Mover, or God. The basic point is that reality is really out there, and we didn't put it there.

Atheist attempts to eliminate or undermine theology results, strangely, in the destruction of science. Reality disconnection ensues.

Creationist attempts to eliminate or undermine science results, strangely, in the destruction of theology. Reality disconnection ensues.

Why try to eliminate the monotheistic philosophical metaphysics that the West (and Christianity) has relied upon for centuries? Both Atheism and Creationism – and the ongoing debate – results in the return of Sophistry.

 

[hamashiachagape]

No counter-argument, eh? Oh, well.

Logic and science emerge from the same source as theology: the defeat of Sophistry (Man is the measure of all things) by grounding reality in a Prime Mover, or God. The basic point is that reality is really out there, and we didn't put it there.

Atheist attempts to eliminate or undermine theology results, strangely, in the destruction of science. Reality disconnection ensues.

Creationist attempts to eliminate or undermine science results, strangely, in the destruction of theology. Reality disconnection ensues.

Why try to eliminate the monotheistic philosophical metaphysics that the West (and Christianity) has relied upon for centuries? Both Atheism and Creationism – and the ongoing debate – results in the return of Sophistry.

When the whole premise is based around a fraud...then why do I need a counter argument?

Again: ""Gishlick said that a good candidate for Dial’s mechanism was Microraptor, which he claimed was ‘a feathered dinosaur the size of a pigeon that was chased enough to make it want to run up into the sky.’2 What he failed to mention is that the type specimen was actually half of the notorious fraud Archaeoraptor.3 This partial skeleton has digits that point to its being scansorial rather than cursorial, i.e. a climber rather than a runner.3" "

Not to mention after reading your article..it makes a speculation about a common ancestry..which is exactly what it needs to prove, and then provides no evidence for the common ancestry itself. It just asserts that "they went down their own Path." We of course disagree with the common ancestry and note that that is ad hoc, to the point of admission that they really don't have an explanation.

But the rest...doesn't that sound like a similar kind argument? Why yes it is. Its what we know as a bait and switch. Variation within a kind did take place..but there was no true evolution between a bird and a dinosaur. Why..we have no argument there at all .

Also John Ruben demonstrates my point, that there is so much disagreement in this matter that its impossible to build a coherent theory out of Evolution. Read his quote again. You need this in order for Evolution to have happened.

 

[sfs]

We can't just get along because creationists keep posting stuff like this:

Now on Lucy, this was claimed to be a transitional fossil, but Tel Aviv university has actually stated this should be " ‘placed as the beginning of the branch that evolved in parallel to ours.’...i.e. Lucy according to this Scientific research is not our direct ancestor.

Yes, Lucy is claimed to be a transitional fossil. That's because Lucy is a transitional fossil, transitional between later hominids and the ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. No one can say whether it was our direct ancestor or not. "Transitional" does not mean ancestral.

What we need to remember is that Feduccia is not your country bumpkin on the topic too , he is rather a leading expert on birds.

Actually, he's considered pretty much a crackpot on the subject now. In any case, what exactly is the point of bringing him up? The great majority of experts now believe that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs, while Feduccia believes they evolved from a closely related branch of reptiles. Scientists often disagree about stuff; that doesn't mean they're completely wrong about everything.

 

[hamashiachagape]

We can't just get along because creationists keep posting stuff like this:


Yes, Lucy is claimed to be a transitional fossil. That's because Lucy is a transitional fossil, transitional between later hominids and the ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. No one can say whether it was our direct ancestor or not. "Transitional" does not mean ancestral.

Actually, he's considered pretty much a crackpot on the subject now. In any case, what exactly is the point of bringing him up? The great majority of experts now believe that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs, while Feduccia believes they evolved from a closely related branch of reptiles. Scientists often disagree about stuff; that doesn't mean they're completely wrong about everything.

So Lucy is a transitional fossil because Lucy is a transitional fossil. Thats a convincing argument .

I'm aware of the arguments, but the point is there are two major groups of Scientists who disagree with one another on this subject. Larry Martin is a crackpot too? And another article posted from a gentleman attempting to prove Evolution which further demonstrates that this issue has not been resolved at all?

How do we then know Evolution is a fact?

 

[shernren]

Wait, are we talking about Archeoraptor, or about Archeopteryx? There is no "Archeoraptorex".

And where does Lucy come into all of this? Please stop confusing people. One fossil at a time, please.

 

[mark kennedy]

So Lucy is a transitional fossil because Lucy is a transitional fossil. Thats a convincing argument .

A transition from what to what, that's the real question.

I'm aware of the arguments, but the point is there are two major groups of Scientists who disagree with one another on this subject. Larry Martin is a crackpot too? And another article posted from a gentleman attempting to prove Evolution which further demonstrates that this issue has not been resolved at all?

How do we then know Evolution is a fact?

What I have noticed over the years is the fact that chimpanzees have virtually no ancestors represented in the fossil record. Some 6 million years and nothing but three teeth while hominids (human ancestors and dead ends) are represented by hundreds or more. I have the sneaking suspicion and deep skepticism that chimpanzee ancestors are being passed off as human ancestors.

"Lucy", an Australopithecine (southern ape) had a brain size of ~380–430 cm³, comparable to chimpanzee and about 1/3 the size of modern humans. a wrist-locking mechanism might suggest that they engaged in knuckle-walking, comparable to modern chimpanzees. Australopithecus afarensis

Lucy was only 1.1 m (3 ft 7 1⁄2 in) tall,[14] weighed 29 kg (64 lb) and looked somewhat like a Common Chimpanzee...The length ratio of her humerus to femur was 84.6% compared to 71.8% for modern humans and 97.8% for Common Chimpanzees... Lucy

This is a fairly interesting discussion of Lucy from Dr. David Menton (AIG)

Dr. David Menton (AiG)- "Lucy", She's No Lady Video by Darwin‘s Myth - Myspace Video

There are some pretty good illustrations indicating the shovel face of Lucy. She would have had a small brain size even by modern chimpanzee standards. The fact is that there are a number of supposed human ancestors or dead ends in the line leading to human but many of them are closer to chimpanzees. Lucy just happens to be one of them.

Headlines reading 'another chimpanzee fossil discovered' would not gain a lot of attention. If they bold type 'human ancestor found' it will be celebrated as a major discovery. That's why chimpanzee ancestors are all but absent in natural history museums.

I'm not making this stuff up, check it out for yourself.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[matthewgar]

For many years, Creation Scientists have been pointing out some problems that Evolutionary advocates have had with one another about issues as simple as transitional fossils..and even the transitional phases between one type of species to another.

One issue of particular note is regarding the commonly utilized argument for Evolution..that birds evolved from reptiles.

Here is what we have going on. There are prominent scientists such as Richard Dawkins..and other leading advocates such as Eugenie Scott and company who promote that Archaeoraptorex was a transitional fossil between a reptile and a bird.

However, what we find of a world authority on birds, Alan Feduccia has to say appears to demonstrate something of a quite different nature. He is a world authority on birds from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He states on the Archaeoraptorex find, "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.

As most would probably guess however, Feduccia is an advocate of Evolution nonetheless, but his explanation contradicts the other body of Evolutionary beliefs. And we as Creation Scientists agree with both of them, neither one of their explanations is suitable.

What did Archaeoraptorex really look like?

A legitimate artist's reconstruction of Archaeopteryx, consistent with its known bird features.2
Refuting Evolution chapter 4: Bird evolution?

That looks like a bird to me. And there is no reason contrary to what you all will learn in a Biology class, to assume that birds reproduced to form anything other than birds. We would generally note that these are what we mean are Created Kinds..baramin in the Hebrew, but that is another issue which I'd love to talk about at a later time. Speciation after the ark will be necessary to explain as well in more depth on the created kinds .

Another example is Mononykus. Time magazine promoted it as being a bird without the slightest trace of feathers...however, later research indicated it was not a transitional. Protarchaeopteryx and Caudipteryx, which are claimed to be the first known origins of birds from dinosaurs also draw disagreement from Feduccia and also University of Kansas Paleontologist, Larry Martin.

Feduccia explains " ‘It's biophysically impossible to evolve flight from such large bipeds with foreshortened forelimbs and heavy, balancing tails,’ exactly the wrong anatomy for flight.15 " Larry Martin explains "‘You have to put this into perspective. To the people who wrote the paper, the chicken would be a feathered dinosaur.’13 " Dino to bird evolution simply makes no sense even from certain Evolutionary perspectives...leading us to question..what exactly is this "theory" of Evolution?

What I refer to it is a unsubstantiated conjecture.

Ummmm Feduccia wants you to stop quote mining a 10 year old + quote 2-3 years BEFORE the majority of bird fossils were found, would you kindly update your lies to within the last decade, people take offense when people continue to quote stuff no longer relevant. GET WITH THE TIMES. Geezus...seriously do any creationists update their nonsense, the guy himself has stated he has since recnated those thoughts as it's too hard to ignore, some creationists have stated it can no longer be ignored. Not to mention he didn't deny evolution of birds, but he was questioning A) the origins, and B) wether it was a tree dwelling or ground dwelling. Seriously people....you can't quote a 10+ year old quote and treat it like it's still the same.

 

[matthewgar]

They're still trying to use microraptor? If at first it completely fails..try try again? *happens to notice that Archaeoraptor was proven a fraud many years ago and that microraptor was a part of this fraudulent fossil* If only we had real evidence.

Eh the fossil as real, it was two REAL fossils put together, the fact that they were made into a fake one, doesn't ignore that the two parts were 100% real fossils. It was just a fossil collector thinking a whole one be worth more then two broke ones.

 

[Mallon]

What about all the other very non-bird-like dinosaurs that also bear feathers, hamashiachagape? I'm talking about things like Dilong, Sinosauropteryx, and Beipiaosaurus. What's your take on them? Are they all "just birds", too? What's Fedduccia's take on them? Do you understand why Fedduccia rejects dino-bird evolution and the arguments that have been leveled against his position? You appear happy to accept Fedduccia's arguments, but completely unaware about the arguments that have been used to counter him.

 

[sfs]

So Lucy is a transitional fossil because Lucy is a transitional fossil. Thats a convincing argument .

Huh? I didn't make an argument. I just corrected your mistaken notion that to be a transitional, Lucy would also have to be our ancestor. Lucy is considered a transitional because her species retains some earlier features (e.g. small brain) while having some newly derived features that are characteristic of later hominids (e.g. bipedalism).

I'm aware of the arguments, but the point is there are two major groups of Scientists who disagree with one another on this subject. Larry Martin is a crackpot too?

On this subject, pretty much, yeah. Not crackpot in the sense of a raving lunatic, but most people in the field seem to think that he and Feduccia are really pushing or have passed the boundaries of responsible scientific conflict. It's not two major groups -- it's one small, highly vocal group, and everyone else.

And another article posted from a gentleman attempting to prove Evolution which further demonstrates that this issue has not been resolved at all?

What gentleman? If you're talking about me, I haven't made any attempt to prove evolution here, nor am I attempting to resolve the issue of the evolution of birds.

How do we then know Evolution is a fact?

By looking at the evidence, of course.

 

[mark kennedy]

Huh? I didn't make an argument. I just corrected your mistaken notion that to be a transitional, Lucy would also have to be our ancestor. Lucy is considered a transitional because her species retains some earlier features (e.g. small brain) while having some newly derived features that are characteristic of later hominids (e.g. bipedalism).

Lucy was a knuckle dragging ape with a brain size that was small even when comparing her to modern chimpanzees. Now if you take into account the early chimpanzees might have been more bipedal then modern ones she makes a great candidate for a chimpanzee fossil. Of course that is never going to be considered, never has been, never will be.

I mean when you actually look at the evidence she looks far more like a chimpanzee then a human.

 

[matthewgar]

Lucy was a knuckle dragging ape with a brain size that was small even when comparing her to modern chimpanzees. Now if you take into account the early chimpanzees might have been more bipedal then modern ones she makes a great candidate for a chimpanzee fossil. Of course that is never going to be considered, never has been, never will be.

I mean when you actually look at the evidence she looks far more like a chimpanzee then a human.

Well isn't that the point, she's closer to the ape ancestor then human, not quiet sure your point? Heh They have the knee and hip joints closer to humans.

 

[shernren]

Well isn't that the point, she's closer to the ape ancestor then human, not quiet sure your point? Heh They have the knee and hip joints closer to humans.

His point is that evolutionists are baaaaad people who hide evidence.

Sure, Lucy is closer to chimpanzees than to humans. However, there are two possible sequences in which this is true:

Chimpanzee -> Lucy -----> Human
or
Lucy -> Chimpanzee -----> Human

(Crudely. The more technical way to ask it is whether Lucy is the outgroup and chimps/humans are the closer relatives, or whether chimpanzees are the outgroup and Lucy/humans the closer relatives.)

You can see that in both of these scenarios, Lucy is indeed closer to chimps than to humans; however, only in the second scenario can Lucy be (semi-accurately) called a "chimpanzee ancestor". How can we differentiate them?

Easy: Which of these are humans closer to? If humans are closer to Lucy than to chimps, then Lucy is (roughly speaking) transitional; if humans are closer to chimps than to Lucy, then Lucy is better classified as a chimpanzee ancestor. And from mark's own pictures it is clear that humans are indeed closer to Lucy than to chimpanzees. Therefore, conventional paleontology's assessment is correct, mark notwithstanding.