On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 05:41:18 -0400, Pastor Dave
_gmail.com> wrote in
4ax.com> :
>On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:07:22 -0400, Augray
>
spake thusly:
>>>On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 06:50:29 -0400, Pastor Dave
>>
_gmail.com> wrote in
>>4ax.com> :
>>>>>On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 00:12:49 -0400, Augray
>>>
spake thusly:
>>>>>>>>>In this instance, it's possibly because this is the third time I've
>>>>>>caught him lying about Feduccia.
>>>>>
>>>>>I haven't lied about him at all.
>>>>
>>>>Yeah, you have.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> He said what I quoted.
>>>>
>>>>Did I say otherwise?
>>>
>>>Then I have not lied about him.
>>
>>Yes, you did. You said that Archaeopteryx "is nothing
>>but a perching bird",
>
>Yes, I said that. So what? That is not a lie about what
>Feduccia said,
But Feduccia didn't say that Archaeopteryx "is *nothing* but a
perching bird"
>who did say the following things...
>
>“It’s biophysically impossible to evolve flight from such
> large bipeds with foreshortened forelimbs and heavy,
> balancing tails.” - Alan Feduccia
Yet he gives no reasons for this claim, and unsurprisingly, the
evidence contradicts him, since theropods generally show an *increase*
if forelimb size over time. See:
Senter, P. and J. M. Parrish. 2006. Forelimb function in the theropod
dinosaur _Carnotaurus sastrei_, and its behavioral implications.
PaleoBios 26(3):7-17.
>“Archaeopteryx was clearly a well developed bird,
> with true feathers.” - Alan Feduccia
Where did he write that?
>“Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into
> an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But itÂ’s not.
> It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of
> ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.”
>
>Do you get that?!? P-A-L-E-O-B-A-B-B-L-E is what
>he called your "opinion"!
And regarding your position, he says that "Creationists are going to
distort whatever arguments come up..."
Did you get that? You've D-I-S-T-O-R-T-E-D the arguments!
See? I can wield a quote too.
As for the claim that it's "paleobabble", here are the traits that
dinosaurs and Archaeopteryx have in common, but which aren't possessed
by living birds:
- Unfused bones in the skull.
- Teeth.
- Nasal opening at end of snout.
- Articular surfaces of the neck vertebrae are not saddle-shaped.
- Coracoid was not strut-like.
- Position of acrocoracohumeral ligament.
- No triosseal canal.
- Ulnare not V-shaped.
- Metacarpals not fused into a carpometacarpus.
- Three claws on forelimb.
- Couldn't raise forelimb above the horizonal.
- Unfused thoracic vertebrae.
- Gastralia.
- Only five or fewer vertebrae.
- Pubic bones not fused to illium or ischium.
- Pubic bones fused distally.
- Fibula reached the ankle.
- Calcaneum and astragalus not fused to each other or tibia.
- Fifth metatarsal present.
- Four toes on foot.
- No pygostyle.
And here are a list of features shared by theropod dinosaurs and
living birds:
- Postfrontal absent.
- Quadrate head laterally exposed.
- Temporal musculature extended anteriorly onto skull roof.
- Epipophyses on cervical vertebrae.
- long bones are hollow.
- Deltopectoral crest distally projected.
- Three fingers on hand.
- Perforate acetabulum.
- Preacetabular part of ilium enlarged and extending far forward of
the acetabulum
- Presence of a proximal anterior (lesser) trochanter on the femur.
- Ascending process on the astragalus.
- Metatarsals narrow and elongate
- bipedal
And in all but the most primitive theropods, the first metatarsal does
not originate from the ankle.
Now, I don't expect you to actually acknowledge any of this, and
you'll probably snip it out of your reply (assuming you don't run
away), but it should be obvious that these lists of shared traits show
that it's more than "paleobabble". Refute them if you can.
>And in another message, you said that you ridicule me
>because of what I say about the opinions of other people,
>thereby admitting it is just opinion and not proof
There was no such admission. I was simply pointing out that Feduccia's
claim that Archaeopteryx was a perching bird was an *opinion*, since
new evidence contradicts him. Let me know if you'd like to discuss
*that*.
>and
>furthermore, here you are, trying to make me out to
>be a liar, because I said that it is nothing but a perching
>bird!
No, you said that *Feduccia* thinks that it's nothing but a perching
bird. That was the lie. I know that *you* think it was "nothing but a
perching bird", but you can't seem to justify that without dragging
Feduccia into the discussion. But you have no choice, because you know
nothing about its anatomy.
>Now given what this expert said, my "opinion"
>is justified!
Even though he disagrees with you? Feduccia obviously thinks that
Archaeopteryx was a transitional form. Will you admit that? Or will
you lie about it again?
And as for Feduccia being an expert, you only claim that when you
agree with him. When you don't, his expertise goes out the window.
>But here you try to ridicule it and yet,
>claim that your "opinion" that it proves macroevolution,
No, the *evidence* proves macroevolution, evidence that you ignore.
>which a fossils of a single creature cannot possibly do,
>is somehow undeniable proof of macroevolution!
Yet I gave you a list of creatures that you snipped away. But here is
again: Euparkeria, Scleromochlus, Lagerpeton, Marasuchus, Eoraptor,
Coelophysis, Sinosauropteryx, Dilong, Caudipteryx, Protarchaeopteryx,
Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Shenzhouraptor, Jeholornis,
Jixiangornis, Sapeornis, Sinornis, Liaoningornis, Yixianornis,
Yanornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis.
>Now where is the proof of macroevolution?!
Look up.
>You joined
>into a discussion in which the claim of macroevolution
>was responded to and proof was required. Yet all we
>have seen from you, is claims and attacks on me, just
>as I said would happen. And that is why I ridicule
>your "opinions", because you claim they are proof!
Here's a list of traits demonstrating the transitional nature of
Archaeopteryx. Which of them is "opinion"?:
- Unfused bones in the skull
- Teeth
- No beak.
- Nasal opening at end of snout.
- Articular surfaces of the neck vertebrae are not saddle-shaped.
- Coracoid was not strut-like
- No ossified sternum.
- Acrocoracohumeral ligament situated as in crocodiles.
- No triosseal canal.
- Ulnare not V-shaped.
- Metacarpals not fused into a carpometacarpus.
- Three claws on wing.
- No alula.
- Couldn't raise wing above the horizonal.
- Unfused thoracic vertebrae.
- Gastralia.
- Only five sacral vertebrae.
- Pubic bones not fused to ilium or ischium.
- Pubic bones fused distally.
- Fibula reached the ankle.
- Calcaneum and astragalus not fused to each other or tibia.
- Fifth metatarsal present.
- No pygostyle
Which of the above is opinion?
>YOU LIE! You keep claiming that you have proved
>macroevolution, in one message after another,
>pretending that pointing to one creature somehow
>proves that it evolved from an entirely different
>creature, dinosaurs, when one of the experts says...
>
>“It’s biophysically impossible to evolve flight from such
> large bipeds with foreshortened forelimbs and heavy,
> balancing tails.” - Alan Feduccia
Yet the same expert says that "Archaeopteryx is half reptile and half
bird any way you cut the deck, and so it is a Rosetta stone for
evolution, whether it is related to dinosaurs or not." Why do you
dispute this?
As for Feduccia's supposed "biophysical impossibility", see:
Senter, P. and J. M. Parrish. 2006. Forelimb function in the theropod
dinosaur _Carnotaurus sastrei_, and its behavioral implications.
PaleoBios 26(3):7-17.
>Now how does YOUR CLAIM equal PROOF of macroevolution?!
I rely on the evidence.
>>>I also stated what it is.
>>
>>No, you stated what you *wanted* it to be, and even though you cite
>>Feduccia as an expert, you disagree with him.
>
>No stupid, I do not disagree with him on that bird.
Let's get serious. You *do* disagree with him. Or are you claiming
that you agree with these statements?:
There are no skeletal features of _Archaeopteryx_, except the
furcula, that are not also found in Jurassic reptiles.
- Feduccia, A. 1980. The Age of Birds. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Harvard University Press, pg. 24.
Or:
[Archaeopteryx is] a bird that has anatomical features of a
reptile, feathers, and a long, lizard-like tail.
- Feduccia, A. 1996. The Origin and Evolution of Birds. New
Haven: Yale university Press, pg. 29.
Or;
...the ancient anisodactyl foot was less efficient anatomically
than the foot of modern birds, and the [perching toe] of
_Archaeopteryx_ was slightly elevated above the plane of the
anterior toes and decidedly shorter.
- Feduccia, A. 1996. The Origin and Evolution of Birds. New
Haven: Yale university Press, pg. 13.
Or:
   _Archaeopteryx_, not far removed structurally from reptilian
  anatomy, is from the late Jurassic, 140 million years ago.
   - Feduccia, A. 1980. The Age of Birds. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Harvard University Press. pg. 35
Or:
   Most likely, _Archaeopteryx_ used the claws of the manus [wing]
   for clinging to branches because it had not yet achieved the
   balance that is characteristic of modern birds.
   - Feduccia, A. 1993. Evidence from Claw Geometry Indicating
Arboreal Habits of _Archaeopteryx_. Science 259:790-792.
>And furthermore, "stating what you want it to be"
>is what you have been doing!
No, I haven't. I've listed some of the anatomical features that
demonstrate its transitional nature, features that you ignore, and
will no doubt continue to ignore.
>>>"It's a perching bird, period!"
>>
>>Another distortion.
>>
>> The Berlin _Archaeopteryx_ may well be the most important natural
>> history specimen in existence, comparable perhaps in scientific
>> and even monetary value to the Rosetta stone.
>> - Feduccia, A. 1996. The Origin and Evolution of Birds. New
>> Haven: Yale University Press, pg. 29.
>>
>>He obviously thinks that it's much more than "...a perching bird,
>>period!"
>
>The quote does not say, "archaeopteryx evolved
>from dinosaurs".
Archaeopteryx is half reptile and half bird any way you cut the
deck, and so it is a Rosetta stone for evolution, whether it is
related to dinosaurs or not.
- Alan Feduccia, quoted in Svitil, K. A. 2003. Plucking Apart the
Dino-Birds. Discover 24(2):16.
>Now where is the proof of macroevolution?! You joined
>into a discussion in which the claim of macroevolution
>was responded to and proof was required. Yet all we
>have seen from you, is claims
Feduccia's your favorite expert. Why don't you believe him?
>and attacks on me,
If you consider it an attack when I point out your lies, the obvious
solution is to not lie.
>just
>as I said would happen.
So, you knew beforehand that you'd lie? I'm not surprised.
>And that is why I ridicule
>your "opinions", because you claim they are proof!
>YOU LIE! You keep claiming that you have proved
>macroevolution, in one message after another,
>pretending that pointing to one creature somehow
>proves that it evolved from an entirely different
>creature, dinosaurs, when one of the experts says...
>
>“It’s biophysically impossible to evolve flight from such
> large bipeds with foreshortened forelimbs and heavy,
> balancing tails.” - Alan Feduccia
>
>Now how does YOUR CLAIM equal PROOF of macroevolution?!
How does Feduccia's claim prove otherwise?
>>>"I believe in evolution!"
>>
>>Based on evidence:
>>
>> Archaeopteryx is half reptile and half bird any way you cut the
>> deck, and so it is a Rosetta stone for evolution, whether it is
>> related to dinosaurs or not. These creationists are confusing an
>> argument about minor details of evolution with the indisputable
>> fact of evolution: Animals and plants have been changing.
>
>Prove it.
Aren't you the one who said that Feduccia "is an expert in the fields
required"? Why do you expect proof here, and not when Feduccia says
that Archaeopteryx was a perching bird? Why the double standard?
>A claim is not proof. Once again, you idiot
>evolutionists think that a claim is proof and yet,
>reject any claims made to the contrary of what you
>want to believe.
Aren't you doing exactly that when you cite Feduccia as saying that
It's biophysically impossible to evolve flight from such
large bipeds with foreshortened forelimbs and heavy, balancing
tails.
Why is it alright when *you* make a claim? Why do *you* "think that a
claim is proof and yet, reject any claims made to the contrary of what
you want to believe"? Why the double standard? Why not address the
evidence?
>I quote in response to you idiots quoting and then
>you try to make it a war of quotes.
Then stop quoting, and deal with the anatomy of Archaeopteryx. Oh,
that's right, you don't *know* the anatomy, so you *have* to fall back
on quotes.
>What you are doing, has nothing to do with macroevolution.
Macroevolution predicts intermediate forms, and intermediate forms are
found:
Had the Solenhofen quarries been commissioned — by august command
— to turn out a strange being a la Darwin — it could not have
executed the behest more handsomely — than in the Archeopteryx.
- Hugh Falconer, 1863
Archaeopteryx has been recognized as an intermediate form for 145
years.
>It has to do with proving that someone contradicted
>themselves.
Feduccia has contradicted himself, but not in regards to the quotes
supplied so far. The problem is that you don't understand what he's
saying, and you've never read anything by Feduccia that wasn't
filtered through a creationist website.
>>>"Okay guys, the second statement cancels out
>>> the first one, alright?"
>>
>>More like "Pastor Dave takes Feduccia's words out of context".
>
>More like get a time line.
Okay, you've *always* taken Feduccia's words out of context.
>>>Thank you for proving my point! With evolutionists,
>>>it's never "here's the proof". It's always, "Why isn't
>>>it proof?".
>>
>>In that case, Archaeopteryx is proof of evolution. Game over.
>
>One creature does not prove macroevolution, just because
>evolutionists claim it does!
How about these ones that you snipped out?: Euparkeria, Scleromochlus,
Lagerpeton, Marasuchus, Eoraptor, Coelophysis, Sinosauropteryx,
Dilong, Caudipteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx,
Rahonavis, Shenzhouraptor, Jeholornis, Jixiangornis, Sapeornis,
Sinornis, Liaoningornis, Yixianornis, Yanornis, Apsaravis,
Ichthyornis.
>You are not this stupid, yet you pretend to be and
>think it somehow makes you look smart, to claim
>that pointing at one fossil proves macroevolution!
Yet I list 23, and it's still not good enough.
>The bottom line is, as I originally stated time and time
>again, claims do NOT prove macroevolution!
What about anatomy?
>You could
>have 4 million quotes and it doesn't make a bit of difference!
Then why did you quote Feduccia in the first place? Why do you
introduce more quotes above? Because it's obvious that you think
quotes *do* make a difference. So stop being a hypocrite.
>Atheists deny God and yet, they are in such a severe
>minority so as not to even be worth counting, yet they
>claim they're right! And these ideas are from atheistic
>world views! So now what?
Evolution is not an atheistic worldview.
>The bottom line is, that the ONLY thing that can prove
>macroevolution, is a chain of fossils, evolving from one
>kind to another, period and you cannot provide that
>and you know that!
Euparkeria, Scleromochlus, Lagerpeton, Marasuchus, Eoraptor,
Coelophysis, Sinosauropteryx, Dilong, Caudipteryx, Protarchaeopteryx,
Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Shenzhouraptor, Jeholornis,
Jixiangornis, Sapeornis, Sinornis, Liaoningornis, Yixianornis,
Yanornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis.
Does that prove macroevolution? I'm betting "no". So why did you ask
for a chain of fossils?
>Therefore, you cannot prove
>macroevolution and you know that and yet, you keep
>lying, not only claiming that you can, but that you have!
There's a chain of fossils up above. Don't blame me if you ignore the
evidence.
>And yet the debate goes on,
There is no debate in the biological community about evolution.
>which proves you haven't
>and yet, you somehow think that to continue making
>these claims makes you look bright!
And lying about Feduccia makes you look brighter?
>Had macroevolution been proved, the fossils that prove
>the evolution of one kind to another would have been
>laid out and the debate would be over.
The debate *is* over. Wake up and smell the coffee.
>And we wouldn't
>see evolutionists having an orgasm every time they think
>a link has been found, since they wouldn't need any,
>since they would have proved their claims.
And as I said before, you obviously don't find an increase in
knowledge to be exciting. If everyone were like you. we'd still be
living in caves, because no one would be interested in learning
anything. You're no Columbus.
>Pointing at two creatures and claiming that one evolved
>from the other, because of certain similarities, does not
>prove evolution and a common designer can easily be
>inferred from said "evidence".
And what about the purported designs that work against each other?
>Or do you think that
>manufacturers of cars, for example, should redesign
>every component of a vehicle, if they have trucks and
>cars and vans? Should wheels not be round on all of
>them? Should doors not be doors on the van?
Then why did your designer design wings on four separate occasions?
Why wasn't the first design good enough? Why does the designer throw
in useless features?
>But
>then how would you claim they "evolved"?
Cars don't reproduce, and we can find factories that make them. Hence,
it's pretty obvious that they didn't evolve.
> The bottom
>line is, you demand that every single piece and part
>and every bit of genetic code be completely and radically
>different, for you to believe in a designer and that is
>completely ridiculous! Commonalities are evidence
>of a designer, not evolution!
Yet these commonalities show a definite pattern that is predicted by
evolution. If you can point me to something that doesn't fit into that
pattern, let me know.
>But the burden of proof here is on YOU! YOU claim
>that macroevolution is "science"
And your expert Feduccia agrees.
>and that it has been
>proved and not only that, but that it has been proved
>BY YOU!
No, it was proven by scientists over a hundred years ago. Don't blame
me if you can't keep up.
>And what was your "proof"? You pointed to archaeopteryx,
>as if that alone is proof!
No, there's a lot more than Archaeopteryx, but Archaeopteryx is pretty
convincing.
>Oh, wait, scratch that! You
>claimed before that, that you had proved it! And what
>was your "proof" then? Hmmm... no fossils presented,
>which means that you claimed that your claim is proof!
What about Euparkeria, Scleromochlus, Lagerpeton, Marasuchus,
Eoraptor, Coelophysis, Sinosauropteryx, Dilong, Caudipteryx,
Protarchaeopteryx, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis,
Shenzhouraptor, Jeholornis, Jixiangornis, Sapeornis, Sinornis,
Liaoningornis, Yixianornis, Yanornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis.
So much for "no fossils presented".
>Bawahahaha!!!
Is Pastor Dave losing it? Tune in next week!
