Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Miles]

.

Came across this little gem a bit ago and thought I'd share.




Thoughts?

.

[The Barbarian]

Exactly. Beaks, feathers, talons, two legs, wings. Those are the main identifiers of "birds".

There were dinosaurs with all these features. Not one avian apomorphic character there. Microraptor had all these.

Well, it was either a dinosaur with feathers or a full-blown bird with teeth. It can't be both and it certainly isn't proof of a transitional specimen from one to the other.

Either way, a dinosaur...or a bird. Take your pick.

As your fellow YE creationist, Dr.Kurt Wise says, "very strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory." He still doesn't accept the idea, but he's honest enough to admit the fact.

[The Barbarian]

Um, that is what YOU think. That is what EVOLUTIONISTS think. That is not what I think. That is not what Kent Hovind think. That is not what Kevin Ham think.

What people who don't know anything about the subject think, isn't of much significance. Edit: I believe that's "Kenneth Ham."

That is not what Johnathan Wells think.

But then he admits that his cult leader told him to "destroy evolution", so that matters. Edit: He's a disciple of Rev. Myung Son Moon of the Unification Church who regards himself as an improvement on Jesus Christ.

That is not what members of BAND (Birds Are Not Dinosaurs) think.

They think that both dinosaurs and birds evolved from thecodonts. Is that what you think?

[The Barbarian]

From a post on another board I made years ago...

Al Feduccia sing dis song;
doo da, doo da
"Compsognathus' tail is long"
oh, doo da day

Feduccia says "It just won't fly"
doo da, doo da
"Archie's different, I don't know why."
oh, doo da day

"Dino forelegs short,
Archie forelegs long.
What's this allometry stuff?
I know it must be wrong."

[The Barbarian]

There were dinosaurs with all these features. Not one avian apomorphic character there. Microraptor had all these.

I had to Google that...and definitely looks like a bird to me.

Not even close.

No avian keel breastbone. No avian ribs. No avian tail. No beak. Teeth. Dinosaur forelegs, not bird wings. Unfused spine. But it has feathers. So did many other dinosaurs.

But what do I know...

Not much about bird or dinosaur anatomy, it seems.

only evolutionists are allowed to determine what is what

Knowing what one is talking about is a definite advantage, yes.

Every animal is a distinct separate creature.

Sure, but there are levels to this. A wolf and a coyote are "distinct and separate creatures", but when compared to a giraffe, they may as well be identical twins.

That's exactly how scientists work. A bird and a dinosaur are "distinct and separate creatures", but when compared to a lizard,they may as well be identical twins.

Clearly a reptile. Lots of reptile apomorphic characters. No avian ones, though.

(Suggestion that scientists might think a fossil platypus was a transitional between a duck and a beaver)

Nope. The platypus bill is soft and broad, unlike that of a duck, which is hard, keratinized, and narrow.
Not remotely like that of a duck.

Who said it has to be a modern day duck?

No fossil ducks like that, either. Sorry.

Nice try...but if you do a Google search of "ducks bill", you will find ducks of whose bills more closely resembles that of the platypus' bill, as opposed to the one you selectively chosen here.

Nope. Not one remotely like the mouth of a platypus:
https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=variet ... &ia=images

I suppose it's why you didn't show us any of them. That is creationism for you, though...all kinds of deception and trickery.

And the vast number of skeletal differences would quickly make it clear that it wasn't even a eutherian, much less a beaver. But it would clearly indicate that it was a mammal.

The fact that it is "evolving" would make up for the differences.

Nope.

Shoulder girdle, for example. It has the complex reptilian form, but otherwise mammalian. Pretty much a tip-off that it's a monotreme.

Its called "change within time". That is the holy grail of evolution, right?

Like most people who think they hate evolution, you don't know what it is.

What, my scenarios has no evidence to support it, and it is just me making it up as I go along? Sounds kind of familiar, doesn't it?

That's pretty much standard creationism.

You're still confusing homologous structures with analogous structures.

If the entire theory is false

If pigs could fly...

does it matter?

Yep. Reality matters.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Maybe we need to approach this differently. What exactly constitutes a 'bird' in your eyes? Does it have to have feathers? A beak? Talons? Please tell us what makes a bird a bird since you seem to know how to classify things at the 'kind' level - which I assume is what you are attempting to do.

Exactly. Beaks, feathers, talons, two legs, wings. Those are the main identifiers of "birds".

Given that we are obviously just spinning our wheels here, I'm glad you answered the above as that is what I primarily wanted to get from you.

So, according to you, the following are NOT birds:

No wings
The now extinct Moa: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moa

Only vestigial wings
Kiwi: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiwi_(bird)

Four legs
A chick born (from a 2 legged bird) with 4 legs: https://metro.co.uk/2017/03/25/chick-bo ... l-6533423/

If this one evolves any more, will likely fall off your list:

Almost no legs/talons
A Swift: https://www.rspb.org.uk/birds-and-wildl ... ked%20tail.

The point being, your definition of the "bird" kind is so hand wavy and loose as to be practically useless. How is it that some birds or bird species lack your main identifiers? Since birds give birth to birds, from your definition we have birds eventually giving birth to non birds somehow. That's what happens when science is thrown out the window and the old "eyeball" test comes into play.

First off, the Moa looks like a large, super-size version of an ostrich....and if the ostrich can have wings, not fly, and still be a bird, then so can the Moa.

So, if you are off with the first one (Moa), I won't even consider the rest.

[We_Are_VENOM]

As your fellow YE creationist, Dr.Kurt Wise says, "very strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory." He still doesn't accept the idea, but he's honest enough to admit the fact.

Well, it sure is good that I can disagree with other Christians and still feel comfortable in my Christianity.

[We_Are_VENOM]

What people who don't know anything about the subject think, isn't of much significance. Edit: I believe that's "Kenneth Ham."

Yeah, him too.

That is not what Johnathan Wells think.

But then he admits that his cult leader told him to "destroy evolution", so that matters.

Naturalists "call" upon Richard Dawkins to "destroy" religion, so that matters.

Edit: He's a disciple of Rev. Myung Son Moon of the Unification Church who regards himself as an improvement on Jesus Christ.

I wasn't aware of that, but I don't follow him like that...only to the extent of "destroying" evolution.

They think that both dinosaurs and birds evolved from thecodonts. Is that what you think?

No, I haven't looked into any of that...I looked just as far as being able to tell you folks that not all scientists agree with the reptile-bird thing.

[The Barbarian]

Naturalists "call" upon Richard Dawkins to "destroy" religion, so that matters.

Too bad for them, then. They sound no better than Jonathan Wells.

Regarding "BAND" (Feduccia, et al)
They think that both dinosaurs and birds evolved from thecodonts. Is that what you think?

No, I haven't looked into any of that...I looked just as far as being able to tell you folks that not all scientists agree with the reptile-bird thing.

Actually those guys do agree with birds evolving from reptiles. Thought you knew.

The Pseudosuchian thecodont hypothesis suggests that birds evolved roughly 230 million years ago (early to mid Triassic period) from small arboreal thecodonts. Thecodonts are reptiles from the Mesozoic that have teeth in sockets and an opening on each side of the skull in front of the eye socket (Feduccia 2001a).
https://www.purplemartin.org/uploads/me ... in-352.pdf

[The Barbarian]

As your fellow YE creationist, Dr.Kurt Wise says, "very strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory." He still doesn't accept the idea, but he's honest enough to admit the fact.

Well, it sure is good that I can disagree with other Christians and still feel comfortable in my Christianity.

And fortunately, you can reject evolution and still be saved. God doesn't care what you think of evolution.

But knowing what one is talking about matters, if you want the truth. Wise actually knows about these things. He's not alone among YE creationists admitting the fact.

[benchwarmer]

First off, the Moa looks like a large, super-size version of an ostrich....and if the ostrich can have wings, not fly, and still be a bird, then so can the Moa.

So, if you are off with the first one (Moa), I won't even consider the rest.

You are completely missing the point. The Moa has NO wings. So according to YOU, it's not a bird. Unless of course you wish to update your "bird" kind definition which seems to be nothing more than an on-the-fly (nice pun huh?) whatever suits you at the moment definition.

Surely the proponents of biblical "kind" classification have some clear definitions of each "kind" don't they? Something that actually holds together under some scrutiny? Your definition already fell apart.