See who is a Creation Scientist

Bob

You asserting that the conference concluded something does not count as proof. You ignoring all the trait that it has in common with dinosaurs but not any birds does not help you either.

It lacks a beak! You claim a true bird that does not have a beak!

Just like the dinosaurs, its trunk vertebrae are not fused while in all birds they are fused.

Its pubic shaft is plate like just like the dromaeosaurs but unlike any bird.

Its head attaches to its neck in the rear just like the dinosuars but unlike any birds.

Its cervixal vertebrae are shaped just like those of the other archosaurs but unlike those of any bird.

It has a long tail with mostly free vertebrae just like in the reptiles while birds all have short, fused tails.

Its pelvic girdle is shaped just like the other archosaurs but completely unlike those of any bird.

Its sacrum consists of six vertebrae just like in the bird like dinosaurs while birds have 2 to 4 TIMES as many vertebrae in their sacrum.

Its nasal opening is in the same location as reptiles but not any birds.

Its fibula and tibia are of the same length just as in all reptiles but in birds the fibia is much shortened.

Why don't you make a case for microraptor being either a bird or a reptile for us. It had fully formed flight feathers.

*Sice you have not given any support for your assertion about the conference, I will repost one of my lines of support that show you to be wrong here. Take a look, again, at this list of paper presented at the conference. Remeber that this is a conference on archy and ask yourself if this sounds like the kind of papers that would be presented if they thought that archy was a mere bird completely unrelated to the reptiles.

They may all be found in The Beginnings of Birds. Proceedings of the International Archaeopteryx Conference Eichstätt, 1984. I am also only listing the first author.

Norberg, "Evolution of flight in birds: Aerodynamic, mechanical and ecological aspects."

Raath, "The theropod Syntarsus and its bearing on the origin of birds."

Schaller, "Wing evolution."

Peters, "Functional and Constructive Limitations in the Early Evolution of Birds."

Gauthier, "Phylogenetic, functional, and aerodynamic analyses of the origin of birds and their flight."

Bock, "The arboreal theory for the origin of birds."

Rayner, "Mechanical and ecological constraints on flight evolution."

Peters, "Constructional and Functional Preconditions for the Transition to Powered Flight."

Taquet, "Two new Jurassic specimens of coelurosaurs (Dinosauria)"

Rietschel, "Feathers and wings of Archaeopteryx , and the question of her flight ability."

Molnar, "Alternatives to Archaeopteryx; a Survey of Proposed Early or Ancestral Birds."

Now, do these really sound like the kinds of papers that would be presented at a conference where they decided that what we have is merely a unique bird and not any sort of transitional?

 

Another question for you. If all the links really do not exist, then why do we keep finding feathered dinosaurs? Are they really just large, flightless birds? I guess T-rex was not a dino afterall!

 

"Let me know when UTEOTW has carefully read every word. Until then, I will assume that his next claim never to have found any evidence supporting God's Word is bogus."

Bob

The good "doctor" provided his first link of people who "rejected" evolution and it was shown to be a list of people who either never heard of evolution or people who were actually old earth.

He then provided the second link. This is nothing but a list of other links. So I followed the first. In this one, AIG asserted that since non-limestone cave formations could be shown to grow quickly (they never really pointed out that they were talking about something different, the underheaded folks) and offered one limestone example that actually grew at the correct rate and said that therefore all those cave formations need not be that old. They tried to pull a fast one by equating things that are not equal.

Why should I go any farther? The links provided so far show that truth is not a goal, only propaganda!

 

YOu are never going to provide us a citation (you know, a reference) for your claim that the conference decided that archy was just a bird are you?

And no, Bob asserting that it is so does not make it so even if you quote yourself.

 

Uh - Bob - there's nothing contradictory in saying Archy is a true intermediate between modern birds and reptiles and also choosing to plug him in the lists of birds instead of the lists of reptiles for the sake of classification. After all, our classification schemes are symantecs. What matters is the reality behind the symantecs.

To say something more - that Archy isn't a transitional form because Archy is classified with the birds - requires you go back and dig up a reference from the people who determined the classification that actually suppports your position, above and beyond the mere classification part.

Your failure to understand this simple point simply continues to send the more thoughtful readers away from your point of view.

 

I'm back. We had a good conference. I got my talk over with the first day and was able to sit back and relax the rest of the week.

Now, where were we?

"Arhaeopteryx is admitted EVEN by evolutionists in their own conferences to be "a true bird". "

FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS DECENT IN DEBATING COULD YOU PLEASE RISE UP TO THE CHALLENGE AND FOR ONCE RESPOND TO THE REPEATED REQUESTS THAT YOU JUSTIFY THIS ASSERTION WITH SOME SHRED OF EVIDENCE. I HAVE ONLY BEEN ASKING SINCE YOU FIRST POSTED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Look above, AGAIN, at the list of paper from that very conference. It does not at all sound to me like a conference where they decided it was a true bird.

Have you ever attended a technical conference? If you have then you know this. If not, well I'll tell you. I have never been to a conference in all of my professional career where the participants decided the answer to any scientific question as a group. That is reason enough for me to doubt your claim even if that is only circumstantial. But that you are unable to justify your claim with any citation from the conference itself (or any other reference at all thus far!) is a strong factual blow against your claim.

"This causes UTEOTW to choke and sputter one obfuscation..."

From Merriam-Webster, the definition of your favorite word. "1 a : DARKEN b : to make obscure : 2 : CONFUSE."

I do not think that there is anything confusing about laying out a selected sample of the huge number of physical traits that show archy as related to both birds and reptiles. There is nothing confusing about presenting a list of papers that challenge your assertions about a conference.

You are the one practicing obfuscation in this matter. You make an obscure argument about archy being a true bird with nothing to back it up. You ignore the long list of physical traits that it shares with NO BIRD but with all the theropods. You continue to make assertions that you cannot support. In short, you arethe one making an obscure and confusing presentation to the reader.

"Did you look at the information I provided? I have quoted from scientists in known to me personnally AS WELL as those I listed here."

I don't care who you quote. Quoting does not really an argument make, much to the disappointment of many YEers. Make a factual case. You can quote all you want if that is your cup of tea, but when I use facts to show you why they are wrong, don't come crying to me. Besides, it seems that everytime we examine your quotes, they seem to be out of context. Anyone remember the horse quotes?

 

And, I have more bad news for you.

http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v431/n7010/abs/nature02898_fs.html&dynoptions=doi1097842186

One more piece of the puzzle linking birds and dinosaurs. This time a dino with birdlike behavior.

 

Bob

Maybe it would interest you to see some detailed examples of the similarity between archy and dinosaurs. Ostram looked closely at the hands of a dinosaur called Deinonychus antirrhopus and found them remarkably like archy. I think this is the right citation.

Ostrom, JH, "Osteology of Deinonychus antirrhopus, an unusual theropod from the Lower Cretaceous of Montana" Bulletin of the Peabody Museum of Natural History 1969 pp. 1-165.

Speaking of citations, do you yet have a citation from the Archaeopteryx conference that demonstrates your claims that they decided that it was just a unique bird and that it had no relation at all to any reptiles? I have been waiting for that one for a long time. I think what I have posted shows clearly that your claim is wrong, but I still would like for you to either provide a citation for your claim or admit there there is no such citation.

 

Bob

Another find for you.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3762626.stm

You will love this one. They found a fossil of a very early bird that had yet to hatch. More bad news for you.

First off, the bird was prococial. This means that its bones and such were nearly fully formed. This is different than most modern birds (though some are like this) but it is how the theropod babies were hatched. In addition, the feathers are well formed where modern birds are normally born without fully formed feathers. Maybe just a downy covering.

Sorry about that. Just more differences from ancient birds to modern birds and another similarity between ancient birds and theropods.

Oh, BTW, do you yet have a reference from the archy conference that backs up your claims? As long and confidently as you have been making the claim, I would have thought you could have easily produced such a reference. I mean, I would have thought you would have had such a reference before you made the claim. Where is it?

 

Sounds like somebody is plotting the curve with only hypothetical endpoints and not much data in between. Kind of like dating the rocks by the fossils therein and the fossils by the rocks thereof.

That ain't science folks--it is more wishful thinking from the "primordial ooze" and "Delusions From the H.M.S. Beagle--traversing the doldrums".

"In the beginning--God..."

Selah,

Bro James

 

If you have an accusation to make, then make it. Tell us where they are "plotting the curve with only hypothetical endpoints and not much data in between" and what specifically is wrong with the copnclusions being drawn and why.

"Kind of like dating the rocks by the fossils therein and the fossils by the rocks thereof."

Please tell us what you think are wrong with index fossils. When you constantly find certain fossils that are only found together in narrow groups and when the rocks in which they are found always date to the same age, it seems to me to be a reasonable conclusion to say that rocks that cannot be dated directly but that contain the same narrow mix of fossils that have been dated directly to the same age at other locations are likely the same age as the other locations. What specifically and factually do you find wrong with this?

That we have index fossils at all is a huge problem for YE. Most YE believe that all fossils were laid down at once in the flood. This would mean that all fossils should be more or less randomly mixed together and not found in distinct layers with a narrow slice of life in each layer.

Any factual problems? Any factual answers to the stated problems for YE?

 

Facts?

The "missing links" are still missing.

We have not a clue as to the mechanism of "that which is dead becoming alive". i.e. How did all that hydrogen, oxygen and carbon and other elements combine in the right proportion to become a living soul? Punctuated Equilibrium? A bionic bang? Where did the information come from??

God stills says He did it and He did it suddenly.

The answers to the above questions still come from above--He wrote it in The Book--yeah, the one which the scoffers have failed to disprove. It is still here--a witness to all unbelievers.

The truth is the truth whether we believe it or not.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

"Facts?"

Yes, facts. You made claims that there were problems with index fossils. I am looking for facts to back that up. Right now it is an unsubstantiated (and unsupportable I might add) assertion. I was also looking for facts surrounding your answer to the problems for YE that the existance of index fossils pose.

"Where did the information come from??"

Try reading through another thread starting here.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2807/8.html#000108

You will need to read through 2 - 3 pages of thread, but you will find documentation for several ways in which that information has been shown to arise. There are also discussions of genetic data which is completely incompatible with YE.

"The "missing links" are still missing."

Just one example for you now. Maybe more later depending on how you respond to this one.

The differences between mammals and reptiles are considerable. A chief difference is that reptiles have at least four jaw bones and one middle ear bone while mammals have one jaw bone and three middle ear bones. To make matters worse, two bones in the fetal reptile that turn into jaw bones turn into ear bones in developing mammals. Other key differences. Reptile have undifferentiated teeth while mammals have incisors, canines, premolars, and molars. Reptile teeth are continuously replaced, mammals teeth are replaced at most once. Reptile teeth only have a single root while mammal molars have two roots. Reptiles lack a diaphragm. Reptiles have their legs sprawled out to the sides while mammals have their legs underneath. The pelvis of a mammal is fused. They have different numbers of bones in their toes. Reptiles are cold blooded while mammals are warm blooded.

A list of transitional animals with limited comments (still long and still a cut and hatchet job but editted to reduce length):

Paleothyris - A reptile
Protoclepsydrops haplous
Clepsydrops
Archaeothyris - Showed a slight change in teeth
Varanops - Lower jaw shows first changes in jaw musculature...lower-limb musculature starts to change Too late to be a true ancestor, and must be a "cousin".
Haptodus - Teeth become size-differentiated, with biggest teeth in canine region and fewer teeth overall...Vertebrae parts & joints more mammalian.
Dimetrodon, Sphenacodon or a similar sphenacodont - More advanced pelycosaurs, clearly closely related to the first therapsids (next). Dimetrodon is almost definitely a "cousin" and not a direct ancestor... Teeth further differentiated, with small incisors, two huge deep- rooted upper canines on each side, followed by smaller cheek teeth, all replaced continuously. Fully reptilian jaw hinge. Lower jaw bone made of multiple bones & with first signs of a bony prong later involved in the eardrum..
Biarmosuchia - Upper jaw bone (maxillary) expanded to separate lacrymal from nasal bones, intermediate between early reptiles and later mammals. Canine teeth larger, dominating the dentition. Variable tooth replacement: some therocephalians (e.g Scylacosaurus) had just one canine, like mammals, and stopped replacing the canine after reaching adult size. Jaw hinge more mammalian in position and shape, jaw musculature stronger (especially the mammalian jaw muscle)...more mammalian femur & pelvis. The toes were approaching equal length, as in mammals, with #toe bones varying from reptilian to mammalian.
Procynosuchus - The first known cynodont -- a famous group of very mammal-like therapsid reptiles, sometimes considered to be the first mammals. Lower incisor teeth was reduced to four (per side), instead of the previous six (early mammals had three). Jaw hinge still reptilian. Scapula beginning to change shape. A diaphragm may have been present.
Dvinia - First signs of teeth that are more than simple stabbing points -- cheek teeth develop a tiny cusp. The dentary bone was now the major bone of the lower jaw. The other jaw bones that had been present in early reptiles were reduced to a complex of smaller bones near the jaw hinge.
Thrinaxodon - Functional division of teeth: incisors (four uppers and three lowers), canines, and then 7-9 cheek teeth with cusps for chewing. The cheek teeth were all alike, though (no premolars & molars), did not occlude together, were all single- rooted, and were replaced throughout life in alternate waves. First sign of the mammalian jaw hinge. Scapula shows development of a new mammalian shoulder muscle. All four legs fully upright, not sprawling. Number of toe bones is intermediate between reptile number and mammalian . The specialization of the lumbar area (e.g. reduction of ribs) is indicative of the presence of a diaphragm, needed for higher O2 intake and homeothermy. The eardrum had developed in the only place available for it -- the lower jaw, right near the jaw hinge, supported by a wide prong (reflected lamina) of the angular bone. Cynodonts developed quite loose quadrates and articulars that could vibrate freely for sound transmittal while still functioning as a jaw joint, strengthened by the mammalian jaw joint right next to it.
Cynognathus - Teeth differentiating further; rate of replacement reduced, with mammalian-style tooth roots (though single roots). TWO JAW JOINTS in place, mammalian and reptilian. Limbs were held under body. There is possible evidence for fur in fossil pawprints.
Diademodon - Mammalian toe bone numbers, with closely related species still showing variable numbers.
Probelesodon - Teeth double-rooted, as in mammals. Second jaw joint stronger. Hip & femur more mammalian.
Probainognathus - Additional cusps on cheek teeth. Still two jaw joints. Mammalian number of toe bones.
Exaeretodon - Mammalian jaw prong forms, related to eardrum support. Three incisors only (mammalian). More mammalian hip related to having limbs under the body. This is probably a "cousin" fossil not directly ancestral, as it has several new but non-mammalian teeth traits.
Oligokyphus, Kayentatherium - Alternate tooth replacement with double-rooted cheek teeth, but without mammalian-style tooth occlusion. Skeleton strikingly like egg- laying mammals (monotremes). Double jaw joint. Scapula is now substantially mammalian, and the forelimb is carried directly under the body. Various changes in the pelvis bones...this animal's limb musculature and locomotion were virtually fully mammalian. There is disagreement about whether the tritylodontids were ancestral to mammals or whether they are a specialized offshoot group not directly ancestral to mammals.
Pachygenelus, Diarthrognathus - Alternate replacement of mostly single- rooted teeth. This group also began to develop double tooth roots -- in Pachygenelus the single root of the cheek teeth begins to split in two at the base. Pachygenelus also has mammalian tooth enamel. Double jaw joint, with the second joint ...fully mammalian. Reptilian jaw joint still present but functioning almost entirely in hearing. Highly mobile, mammalian-style shoulder. These are probably "cousin" fossils, not directly ancestral.
Adelobasileus cromptoni - Currently the oldest known "mammal."
Sinoconodon - The next known very ancient proto-mammal. Mammalian jaw joint stronger. This final refinement of the joint automatically makes this animal a true "mammal". Reptilian jaw joint still present, though tiny.
Kuehneotherium - A slightly later proto-mammal, sometimes considered the first known pantothere (primitive placental-type mammal). Teeth and skull like a placental mammal. The three major cusps on the upper & lower molars were rotated to form interlocking shearing triangles as in the more advanced placental mammals & marsupials. Still has a double jaw joint, though.
Eozostrodon, Morganucodon, Haldanodon - Truly mammalian teeth: the cheek teeth were finally differentiated into simple premolars and more complex molars, and teeth were replaced only once. Tiny remnant of the reptilian jaw joint. Thought to be ancestral to all three groups of modern mammals -- monotremes, marsupials, and placentals.
Peramus - A "eupantothere" (more advanced placental-type mammal). The closest known relative of the placentals & marsupials.
Endotherium
Kielantherium and Aegialodon
Steropodon galmani - The first known definite monotreme.
Vincelestes neuquenianus - A probably-placental mammal with some marsupial traits.
Pariadens kirklandi - The first definite marsupial.
Kennalestes and Asioryctes - Canine now double rooted.
Cimolestes, Procerberus, Gypsonictops - Primitive North American placentals with same basic tooth pattern.

So we have a finely divided set of fossils going from purely reptile to purely mammal with intermediate features seen gradually changing throughout the sequence.

To read more see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html

and http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex2

The latter has drawings of the jaw in transistion to see what it looked like. The former has the full text of most of what I posted above.

Now, to what missing links were you referring?

 

Thank you for the www address--I had already spent a number of hours there.

I found a phrase there that fits this discussion very well: "a lot of morphological conundrum".(at a baud rate)parenthetical mine.

It is mostly a lot of supposition, artist's concepts, wishful thinking, down right fraud--see the work of Ernst Haekel(sic), Jena University.

I still want to know how "life came from dead stuff". What punctuated the equilibrium?

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Are you being serious or are you trying to yank my chain? It seems like the latter. You have yet to make any real objections.

You first stated that you have a problem with index fossils. I succinctly explained why I think there is not a problem with index fossils, why index fossils are actually a problems for YEers, and asked if you had any factual evidence to back up your assertions or to counter mine. Your response: "Facts?" And facts are still what I am looking for.

You made statement about supposed missing links. I gave you a very detailed set of links showing the evolution of mammals from reptiles to show that there many transitional fossils of which you may not be aware and asking that you inform me to what missing links you were referring. You neither told me such nor presented any factual (or otherwise) problems with my proposed transistional series. So, again, I am still waiting on those unfortunate facts.

You also asked about "information" so I directed you to an ongoing thread on that topic. Did you read it? Do you see where several methods of providing new information were given? Do you have any factual objections or statements to make on the subject? What about the things in the genetic code that are problems for YE? Retroviral inserts, psuedogenes, shared paralogs, etc.

So now we come to the latest post.

"I found a phrase there that fits this discussion very well: "a lot of morphological conundrum".(at a baud rate)parenthetical mine."

I am not quite sure what this sentence means. You seem to be trying to make a statement about some sort of conundrum. From where that phrase is used in the text, I must ask if you read on any farther? It was explained to you. The short version is something like this. The bones that make up the reptilian jaw make up the bones used for hearing in mammals. So how did those bones get from the jaw to the ear without some poor creature not having a jaw? This would be a major problem since such a creature would be unlikely to survive and therefore would not be selected to survive and reproduce. But the fossil record provides the answer. The short version is that Cynognathus has a double jaw, both the reptilian and mammal jaw at the same time. Once the mammalian jaw was in place, the reptilian bones were free to change into the ear bones without affecting the animal's ability to eat. There were drawings down below this that graphically illustrate the process as shown in the fossils.

"It is mostly a lot of supposition, artist's concepts, wishful thinking, down right fraud--see the work of Ernst Haekel(sic), Jena University."

You'll have to be more specific. Which parts do you find to be incorrect and why? We can discuss them, at great length, if you so desire. What exactly do Haeckel's drawings from the 1800's have to do with modern biology? Did you find Haeckel's drawings being used somewhere on the site to promote evolution? That is the implication of the way you phrased your statement. For that matter, do you have reason to suspect deliberate misrepresentations, not just that you think it is wrong, on anything you read at that site? Please bring it to my attention if you did.

BTW, we recently had a twenty page discussion on specific lies told by YE leaders promoting the false doctrine of a young earth. You might find it interesting. Notice this is not just where they are wrong. This is where the evidence, IMHO, shows deliberate and specific mistruths and misrepresentations.

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/28/2740.html?

"What punctuated the equilibrium?"

Change.

This is the kind of statement that makes me think you are pulling my chain.

Basically PE says that most change happens in geological short peiods of time (thousands to hundreds of thousands of years) with intervening periods of little change. During these periods of relative stasis, mutations are accumulating in the population. Most of these that accumulate are relatively neutral. The harmful ones are eliminated. Most of the ones that are postive are already in the population from when it adapted to its current niche, though some gradual change is possible. But when the conditions under which the population is living (climate change for instance, or new disease, or a better predator) then these formerly neutral mutations are judged by natural selection to see which allow the population to better cope with the new situation. New mutations are also being added to the population along the way, too.

"I still want to know how "life came from dead stuff". "

That is not evolution, that is abiogensis. There are no records from that time, so we may never know for sure. Does not matter to me. God obviously wanted life on this planet and I am sure He has the ability to make sure that would happen. But we can look at some of the aspects surrounding this issue if you wish. Life is chemistry, so when does a chemical process become life?

 

"We evolved, but we cannot know exactly how."

We seem to be dealing with the clash of three world views: 1. God did it suddenly; 2. God did it with an evolutionary spin with punctuated equilibrium(commonly called theistic evolution); and last but certainly not least: 3. Nature(there is no God in this one) used evolutionary processes such as natural selection, mutations, primordial ooze, comets, asteroids and other random processes.

How all this specialized existence we see in the present world came about by happenstance boogles the mind of this pea-brained homo sapien.

The scripture says God spoke and everything came into existence--kind of like a "femto second." The creation week could have been a creation second--to say it could have been a million years is completely contrary to the scripture--and history.

Resolving this matter is like trying to prove or disprove the "Primacy of Peter" without an agreed upon source of authority. Peter was either the first Pope or he was not--it cannot be both.

As long as we cannot agree that there is an infallible standard revealed from God, there really is no basis for discussion.

A day, week, month, a million years, a billion years,
--that is not enough time to evolve the DNA of the simplist creatures--statistically, the numbers are astronomical. Easier to get a Webster's Unabridged by exploding a print shop. Want to implode it? Go ahead. It probably will not work either.

To be continued,

Bro. James

[ October 27, 2004, 01:00 PM: Message edited by: Bro. James ]