• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

For scientists who accept evolution

stamenflicker said:
Person X: Birds came from reptiles.
Person Y: How can we be sure?
X: Cause we found this feather.
Y: How do you know its a feather?
Click to expand...

X: Because it is. Are you sure you're looking at it? You seem to have your eyes closed and your fingers in your ears.
 
Taffer said:
Another thing I'd like to add (and correct me if I'm wrong), birds evolved from dinosaurs, not reptiles.
Click to expand...

OK. All dinosaurs are reptiles, but not all reptiles are dinosaurs.

What I think you may have picked up is an argument from the anti birds-from-dinos brigade, of whom Alan Feduccia is one, who say loudly that birds did not come from dinosaurs, but then go a bit quiet when it is pointed out that the corollary required is that birds must have come from some other branch of the reptile family. What they don't have is very strong evidence in favour of what that ancestral line might have been and as far as I can tell their comments are usually confined to chipping in from the sidelines with irrefutable arguments, which have all been refuted, about how birds "can't" have evolved from dinosaurs: like, you'll never find a feather on a dinosaur, if it has feathers it's a bird.

Everyone is then left to wonder at the similarity of this supposedly conventional scientist's use of a tactic we see so widely deployed by the Creationist crowd.

I've seen Feduccia cited by Creationists as someone who believes in evolution and isn't it wonderful how he adds support to their views, but I remember all the way back to a BBC Horizon programme on this subject a few years ago before I had really looked at this subject. I came away confused by my inability to summarise exactly what he was saying was true, though I was fairly clear on what he was saying was not true. So, I read the programme's transcript and was none the wiser. Subsequently I have come to realise the the failing was not mine, but that the lack of clear message derives from using these contrarian tactics and leads me to wonder at their motivation.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the reply, BSM, but I was actually speaking from something I read a while back that suggested that dinosaurs were not reptiles at all, and were warm blooded. That's why I added the "correct me if I'm wrong here" bit. ;)
 
stamenflicker said:
This doesn't dispute evolution outright, how could it? Evolution happened and is happening. What it does show is the non-chalance of a form of science that often claims its radical empiricism is above repute. A good scientist welcomes these sorts of challenges if in fact truth is what they are after.

Person X: Birds came from reptiles.
Person Y: How can we be sure?
X: Cause we found this feather.
Y: How do you know its a feather?
Click to expand...

And here's where it falls down.

We know it's a feather 'cause we looked at it. And it looks like a feather, and not like a scale. (Feathers, are, well, feathery -- scales are scaly.) When the fossill of Archaeopteryx
was discovered, it really put the cat among the pigeons precisely because scales and feathers look so different. The fossilized skeleton was "obviously" reptilian -- it had teeth, a reptilian breastbone, a long lizard-like tail, and so forth -- but was surrounded with what were obviously the prints of feathers, even under extremely high magnification.


Y: What if birds didn't come from reptiles?
Click to expand...

If birds didn't come from reptiles, where did this feathered lizard originate?


Y: Why do I have to provide an alternate theory if there is demonstrable evidence that yours may be flawed?
Click to expand...

You haven't demonstrated evidence. You've simply asked questions, and rather naive ones at that.

Y: But I actually did a scientific experiment on your "feathers."
Click to expand...

Really? what was that experiment? What did you do? What were the results? Has anyone else been able to confirm your results? Did you show your results to anyone else for evaluation?

Y: So what is the standard for falsification?
Click to expand...

Talk to hammy -- we've got at least four different ways to falsify it, including one he himself stumbled over.


Y: I'm just asking a question about your theory.
Click to expand...

Yes. And you're not listening to the answers. Are you hoping that if you ask the question
enough times, you'll get a different answer -- one that you like?
 
stamenflicker said:
Strawman X: Birds came from reptiles.
Person Y: How can we be sure?
X: Cause we found this feather.
Y: How do you know its a feather?
X: Cause birds came from reptiles you stupid fundie.
Y: What if birds didn't come from reptiles?
X: The theory is clear: birds came from reptiles. Are you suggesting an alternate theory? Maybe goddidit?
Y: Why do I have to provide an alternate theory if there is demonstrable evidence that yours may be flawed?
X: Because trying to poke holes in my theory isn't science.
Y: But I actually did a scientific experiment on your "feathers."
X: You started prodding at TOE and you offered no viable alternative.
Y: So an alternate theory is a prerequiste to poking at the theory?
X: There is no alternate theory.
Y: So what is the standard for falsification?
X: We'll let you know when we find one, in the meantime Darwinists can tweak the theory.
Y: You mean move the goalposts?
X: No I mean we can tweak it based on evidence we uncover.
Y: You mean like dino-feathers?
X: The absence of feathers on these creatures is speculative.
Y: So is presence of feathers.
X: But birds came from reptiles, TOE all but demands it.
Y: What if TOE is wrong?
X: Do you have an alternate theory? If not go read your science book you stupid fundie.
Y: I'm just asking a question about your theory.
X: We'll ask the questions, we'll provide the answers, and we'll do the tweaking. Thanks for playing.

Flick
Click to expand...
Layman X: Birds came from dinosaurs.
Stamenflicker Y: How can we be sure?
X: Cause we found this feather.
Y: How do you know its a feather?
X: Based on the evidence, the likelihood is high.
Y: What if birds didn't come from reptiles?
X: They appear to have evolved from dinosaurs.
Y: Why do I have to provide an alternate theory if there is demonstrable evidence that yours may be flawed?
X: You don't, but gaps aren't flaws (and since so much of the evidence you present comes from groups with unscientific agendas, I am curious if you share their agendas)
Y: But I actually did a scientific experiment on your "feathers."
X: It will have to be vetted against the existing body of evidence and independently replicated.
Y: So an alternate theory is a prerequiste to poking at the theory?
X: No, but again, I'm curious if you have an alternate agenda, since you seem to ignore the overwhelming body of evidence in support of evolution.
Y: So what is the standard for falsification?
X: Several are listed above. Thus far, none have been met.
Y: You mean move the goalposts?
X: The goal is to accurately model the history of the planet's biodiversity. You don't get that right on a first pass.
Y: You mean like dino-feathers?
X: The absence of feathers on these creatures is unconfirmed.
Y: So is presence of feathers.
X: The weight of evidence leans towards the presence of.
Y: What if TOE is wrong?
X: Then it's wrong.
Y: I'm just asking a question about your theory.
X: Ask away.
 
stamenflicker said:
If anything it all, it does appear to demonstrate the possibility of scientists "observing" what they want to observe in the fossil record without thoroughly thinking it through or applying their interpretation of the data to experimental scrutiny.
Click to expand...

This happens from time to time. Real scientists publish their contrary opinions in scientific journals with evidence and answer to criticism. If the contrary hypothesis is right, it will be accepted as more evidence comes in.

(N.B. ID folks don't do any of this. hammy also does not do this.)

In fact, the dinosaur -> bird hypothesis was the outsider 10-15 years ago. I remember Robert Bakker's passionate defense of the idea. It was a major inspiration for my future in science.

Converging evidence seems to indicate this hypothesis is true. That these few scientists disagree with the mainstream is natural and expected in science, but I don't think these particular scientists are likely to be vindicated. Burying a dead animal does not a re-arranged phylogenetic tree make.

But even if it is accepted, we're only changing the root of the phylogenetic tree. We're not denying that these creatures are evolutionarily related and shared a common ancestor.

Code: 
           x
            \
             dinosaurs
                   \
                   birds

becomes

                  x
                 / \
        dinosaurs   birds
 
Last edited:
drkitten said:
We know it's a feather 'cause we looked at it. And it looks like a feather, and not like a scale. (Feathers, are, well, feathery -- scales are scaly.) When the fossill of Archaeopteryx
was discovered, it really put the cat among the pigeons precisely because scales and feathers look so different. The fossilized skeleton was "obviously" reptilian -- it had teeth, a reptilian breastbone, a long lizard-like tail, and so forth -- but was surrounded with what were obviously the prints of feathers, even under extremely high magnification.

Really? what was that experiment? What did you do? What were the results? Has anyone else been able to confirm your results? Did you show your results to anyone else for evaluation?
Click to expand...

Did you read Hammy's cbs link before posting this? I was only spinning off a list of hypotheticals from that.

C. Stew,

Y: But I actually did a scientific experiment on your "feathers."
X: It will have to be vetted against the existing body of evidence and independently replicated.
Y: So an alternate theory is a prerequiste to poking at the theory?
X: No, but again, I'm curious if you have an alternate agenda, since you seem to ignore the overwhelming body of evidence in support of evolution.
Click to expand...

Y: But I actually did a scientific experiment on your "feathers."
X: It will have to be vetted against the existing body of evidence and independently replicated.
Y: What independent replication did you do prior to declaring them feathers?
X: They looked like feathers and we expected them to be feathers. This is a predictive science and the theory predicted we'd find them.
Y: Do I need an alternate theory before I start looking or can I look at your feathers and seek an independent replication of your prediction?
X: You don't need an alternate theory, I'm curious if you have an alternate agenda, since you seem to ignore the overwhelming body of evidence in support of evolution.
Y: I'm not ignoring any body of evidence, merely looking at a find that you have unambiguously held up as part of that body of evidence.
X: Test away.
Y: The results are back, it seems as though there is another way to generate the observation of "feathers."
X: You need to compare this to the body of evidence and infer a logical conclusion about your find.
Y: You mean the body of evidence that says these are feathers?
X: Yes, that body of evidence.

Flick
 
Anyone want to go back and point out flaws in hammegk's article? Might as well do it before he comes back and adds further distractions.
 
stamenflicker said:
Did you read Hammy's cbs link before posting this? I was only spinning off a list of hypotheticals from that.

C. Stew,



Y: But I actually did a scientific experiment on your "feathers."
X: It will have to be vetted against the existing body of evidence and independently replicated.
Y: What independent replication did you do prior to declaring them feathers?
X: They looked like feathers and we expected them to be feathers. This is a predictive science and the theory predicted we'd find them.
Y: Do I need an alternate theory before I start looking or can I look at your feathers and seek an independent replication of your prediction?
X: You don't need an alternate theory, I'm curious if you have an alternate agenda, since you seem to ignore the overwhelming body of evidence in support of evolution.
Y: I'm not ignoring any body of evidence, merely looking at a find that you have unambiguously held up as part of that body of evidence.
X: Test away.
Y: The results are back, it seems as though there is another way to generate the observation of "feathers."
X: You need to compare this to the body of evidence and infer a logical conclusion about your find.
Y: You mean the body of evidence that says these are feathers?
X: Yes, that body of evidence.

Flick
Click to expand...
Straw man!!! Arrrgh!!!
 
drkitten said:
Free translation: you're making ◊◊◊◊ up without regard to the evidence.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I wasn't explicit enough when I asked if you had read the article. My mistake. Here ya go: "Read the article."

Don't waste my time with "hypotheticals." Give me data.
Click to expand...

Free translation: Don't link to data that questions my assumptions. Go out and find some that verifies it.

You might find this link helpful:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical

Flick
 
chipmunk stew said:
Straw man!!! Arrrgh!!!
Click to expand...

Do they really not notice or do they just hope we won't notice when they walk their crooked line?

It's the same old questions. Do they not understand? Do they not want to understand? Do they not want to admit they understand?
 
Guys. Focus. Article.

EDIT: Added link. Would like this to be debunked before our efforts to destroy all the easily spotted fallacies are interpreted as evasion (again.)
 
Last edited:
Well, the objections brought up, particularly the morphology of the bones, are compelling. Read this again: "'All the bones that I've looked at of the more lightly built theropods are indistinguishable @1/8in internal structure @3/8 from those of birds,' Rensberger said. 'And that's a completely unique situation among all vertebrates. It's a strong indication of a very close relationship between birds and theropods.'" (Emphasis mine.) Now that's compelling evidence.
 
stamenflicker said:
Perhaps I wasn't explicit enough when I asked if you had read the article. My mistake. Here ya go: "Read the article."

I read it.

It has no argument, no data, and no relevance.

Start by considering why a question about whether Sinapteryx has "protofeathers" is orthogonal to the question of whether Archeopteryx has "feathers."

Then come back when you have data, instead of making ◊◊◊◊ up.
Click to expand...
 
Hmm.

Where do you now preach that Deinychus, Comsognathus, Caudipteryx, Sinosauropteryx, Sinornithosaurus, and Protoarchaeopteryx, & Archaeopteyrx fit?

Do the textbook publishers & school districts a favor and fight like the dickens to keep it x-dino-bird instead of x-dino & x-bird, although I'd hate to see you you lose some of your favorite intermediate forms.

In any case, just revise the just-so-story to fit the facts.
 
Since my position has always been that intermediate forms are wished-for rather than demonstrated by the fossil record, makes no difference to me that one of the all time favorites may be scientifically demonstrated not to be one.
Click to expand...

Say hammegk, why should we care about your uninformed view about the fossil record, such as it always has been? Please be specific.

Also, as a previous poster suggested, please peruse the TalkOrigins Speciation Faq, specifically section 2; before you invent your own species definition(s). The species concept is surely interesting and not entirely straightforward, but don´t just take my word for it.
 
Pastor Bentonit said:
Also, as a previous poster suggested, please peruse the TalkOrigins Speciation Faq, specifically section 2; before you invent your own species definition(s). The species concept is surely interesting and not entirely straightforward, but don´t just take my word for it.
Click to expand...
Do I smell socks?

I suspect I've read, and reread, talkorigins more than most who recommend it to me.

And I agree, if the "species concept" was not definable at will to suit, The Theory would have even greater problems. It is unfortunate that all the morphology based butterfly collections were basically done prior to dna analysis, and that at the highest level interbreeding was used as a classifiable point. Changes in dna should offer more rigor, and be actually defensible by science. It's also unfortunate that most of us can tell a dog (call it what you will, it isn't a cat) from a cat without help from science.

And even staying dna level classification, still no good answer.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=15752428&dopt=Citation
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom