Re: Invulnerable logic [Was:Re: How Our Brains Ignore Unpleasant

On Jan 15, 10:51 am, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Jan 15, 9:26 am, Evopeach <keaton1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Jan 15, 5:41 am, Jim Willemin <jim***willemin@hot***mail.com>
wrote:

Evopeach <keaton1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote innews:cdb20d51-fcad-40d8-8da2-1994beefe2d3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

On Jan 14, 7:42 pm, Jim Willemin <jim***willemin@hot***mail.com>
wrote:
Evopeach <keaton1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote
innews:e0ac52da-be78-4859-a3d8-b8c8f1d3a774

@k39g2000hsf.googlegroups.c

om:

On Jan 14, 6:17 pm, Jim Willemin <jim***willemin@hot***mail.com>
wrote:
Evopeach <keaton1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote
innews:e6dac223-3b4c-45ac-9f3c-

b3aa3115e...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

m:

On Jan 14, 11:20 am, John Harshman
<jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<snip>

A transitional fossil is one that shows a state intermediate
between two other groups, and that thus tells us about the
nature of the transition. That's all. Archaeopteryx is an
excellent transitional form, which is why it gets mentioned so
often.

IN other words I'll examine, reason, and not accept dogma.

That's an excellent idea. But I have not observed any signs in
you of either of the first two.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The latest fossils clearly illustrate it was a fully capable
flying bird and that's all there is to it.

um - last I looked birds didn't have jaws full of teeth, nor yet
long bony tails..  and I believe Archaeopteryx is missing a few
features that birds have nowadays - e.g. a keeled sternum.  I
agree that Archaeopteryx had feathers, and probably flew, but it
sure wasn't a modern bird.  In fact, it was sort of
transitional...  But of course, I defer to your expertise in
paleontology - that was one of your degrees, right?  - Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_2_08.html
It is true that Archaeopteryx had claws on its wings and teeth in
its mouth, but these traits do not imply that the creature bore any
kind of relationship to reptiles. Besides, two bird species living
today, the touraco and the hoatzin, have claws which allow them to
hold onto branches. These creatures are fully birds, with no
reptilian characteristics. That is why it is completely groundless
to assert that Archaeopteryx is a transitional form just because of
the claws on its wings.

Huh.  I didn't mention the claws.  What about the long, bony tail and
jaws ( not a beak) full of teeth?  With those features, whatever else
it may be, Archaeopteryx doesn't look like a bird.  I believe there
are also some issues with its toes that make it different from birds.

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3535272.stm

"We were fully expecting to find a dinosaur like brain," Dr Milner
told BBC News Online. "Instead, it was completely bird-like."

The computer-generated image revealed that the anatomy of the brain
corresponded very closely with that of modern flying birds.

It revealed well-developed semicircular canals in the inner ear,
which are used for balance, and enlarged optic lobes for vision.
Both essential features for efficient flight.

"The brain scan basically showed that the Archaeopteryx had all of
the structures that allow birds to fly," added Dr Milner.

Fairly conclusive

The findings present fairly conclusive evidence that Archaeopteryx
was once airborne, according to the lead researcher.

Dr Milner commented: "This all suggests that the development of the
bird brain goes hand in hand with that of the physical structures,
e.g. the wings, that allow it to fly.

"In fact, the brain is so bird-like, that the flying process must
have evolved much sooner than anyone thought."

OK, a bird-like brain in a body that is not that of a bird (at least
as we know birds).  This occurring in a critter that lived before
what we call modern birds appeared, and after a time in which there
were no bird-like critters at all.  Seems to me to be transitional,
though again, since you assert so positively and categorically that
it isn't, and since your resume shows your expertise is so clearly in
paleontology and taxonomy, perhaps I should ask you just why you say
it is a bird, and not a flying, feathered theropod, just so I can be
clear on the subject.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Because there are no flying feathered theropods, just birds , extinct
birds, extant birds, and extinct dinos.

oh, NOW I get it - Archaeopteryx is not transitional between birds and
theropod dinosaurs because they are different baramins, and therefore
transitional species cannot exist, regardless of what appears at first
glance to be a pretty good example of just such a transitional species.

Given that you appear to be convinced of the validity of the baramin
concept, to the point of putting some really ridiculous interpretations
on evidence, here is a question:  what sort of observation would you
consider to be a valid counterexample to the baramin concept?

A duck having sex with a wren.

And it's the evidence from the finds and not my interpretation that
matters, I just report the facts and watch your team shrivel, blather,
blubber, foam at the mouth, and retreat to their little dogma book.

But you see, it IS the interpretation that matters.  You appear to see
something that had feathers and flew,and based on that you call it a
bird, period,  Others see something that had feathers and flew, and had
jaws full of teeth, and a long bony tail, and a hyperextensive second
toe, and free digits in the forelimbs, and call it a creature
transitional between dinosaurs and birds.  You interpret the
transitional aspects as insignificant, based on your committment to
baraminology, whereas others interpret the same features as highly
significant, based on a committment to evolution.  It seems to me that
the more unique features one needs to ignore in order to make one's
interpretation of the data consistent with one's preferred model of
reality the less likely it is that said model is a valid one, but that
is a purely personal take on things.  - Hide quoted text -

It seems to me that birds with feathers are warm blooded mammalians,

Now that's a novel taxonomy. Would you care to back this up with some
biology? Perhaps you could deal with the minor issue of the fact that
fur is found in one group while feathers are in the other, and there's
no overlap at all?  After that little issue, can you deal with the
lactation thingie- you know, boobs? Then please move on to the 2-bone/
3-bone middle ear thingy.  Thanks.

things that fly adroitly, as is now totally conceded, are most likely
to have avian lungs not dino lungs.

What kind of lungs do penguins have? Ostriches? Kiwis? Rheas? Are
ostriches and ospreys in different baramins now?

Ever consider the requirements of
changing a reptile lung and respiratory system into a bird's? I mean
incrementally, one protein at a time by RM and NS and environmental
induced expression.

It's a heck of a lot easier than changing feathers into hair.

But maybe you have a different answer to the old joke, "How do you get
down off an elephant?"

It's as much the type of feature as the number.

Evopeach! Get down off that petard! Darn kids these days...

Are there any meat eating birds today?

I'm sure if you apply yourself, you can answer that question
independently.

Chris





- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So I take that as you have no concept as to how a dinosaur evolved
avian lungs from reptilian lungs..that's what I thought.

If you think yelling off topic is effective why don't you just make
farting noises.

.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast