Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Apparently, archaeopteryx has been restored as “first bird” again. Maybe.

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Here.:

“Archaeopteryx lost its exalted place in bird evolution,” says Lee.

But, this new evolutionary tree presented a problem because it placed archaeopteryx in a group of dinosaurs that either didn’t fly at all or glided in a way that was not bird-like.

Lee says, it meant that bird flight most probably evolved more than once and archaeopteryx possibly evolved flight independently of birds in a case of what’s called “convergent evolution”.

As far as evolutionary theory goes, such scenarios are not particularly elegant. So Lee carried out a new analysis of the data to see what he could find.

He found a way to jam it in, to be Darwinian, not convergent. If anyone believes it.

Comments
ScottAndrews2
With regard to those research papers – yes, I have read some of them, and before you even mentioned them.
Liar. You claimed such papers with evidence didn't even exist until I showed them to you.
To read an abstract and determine what the authors do or do not intend to explain is not quote-mining.
Cutting one out of context sentence out of one paper the way you did is quote-mining. It's a standard sleazy Creationist technique.
I’m certain that I’ve given far more thought to this “evidence” than you have.
You mean you prayed every night that the evidence would just go away.
I don’t believe that you read any of it. I am able to explain to exactly why these papers do not say what you hope they do. Not that they are incorrect, but that they don’t even address the subjects at all, which in turn is why I don’t think you’ve read any of them.
You've yet to address any of the technical details in the papers except to go "NUH UN!"
I’ve also asked you to explain, in your own words, exactly what you think any one of these papers explains. That’s a simple test to determine whether you have read or understand any of it. I’ve suggested that repeatedly and you have declined.
Another blatant lie. I did so right here. You cowardly refused to discuss the evidence. Here's the paper yet again in case you grow a pair: Speciation through sensory drive in cichlid fish
So as far as I can tell, you’re just here to sling mud. You post a bunch of links without any evidence of understanding them, I tell you exactly why they are irrelevant, and you return a post or two later telling me that I ignore evidence, don’t know what I believe, reside in a gutter, etc.
I'm here to correct the lies and bullshit you're slinging. The lurkers can see who's willing to discuss and who's running away.
You’re not exhausting me. You don’t even raise my blood pressure. I’m just curious to see how long it takes you to overheat and burn up or just disappear. Or perhaps you’ll surprise everyone and express a coherent thought in your own words.
I'm sure you can keep up the lying for Jesus all day long. You seem to have lots of practice in it.GinoB
November 2, 2011
November
11
Nov
2
02
2011
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT
ps - the best exit strategy at this point is to offer one final glorious triumphant diatribe and declare that you no longer have time to waste with me, that I'm not worth it, etc. You're a hero, a rock star. Don't forget it.ScottAndrews2
November 2, 2011
November
11
Nov
2
02
2011
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT
Thank you, GinoB. In addition to your expertise in googling and pasting links to research papers, you are now qualified to tell me what I think and why. With regard to those research papers - yes, I have read some of them, and before you even mentioned them. To read an abstract and determine what the authors do or do not intend to explain is not quote-mining. It's the very purpose of those abstracts and introductions. That way, if the paper does not address a particular subject, we don't need to read the entire paper to determine that. I'm certain that I've given far more thought to this "evidence" than you have. I don't believe that you read any of it. I am able to explain to exactly why these papers do not say what you hope they do. Not that they are incorrect, but that they don't even address the subjects at all, which in turn is why I don't think you've read any of them. I've also asked you to explain, in your own words, exactly what you think any one of these papers explains. That's a simple test to determine whether you have read or understand any of it. I've suggested that repeatedly and you have declined. So as far as I can tell, you're just here to sling mud. You post a bunch of links without any evidence of understanding them, I tell you exactly why they are irrelevant, and you return a post or two later telling me that I ignore evidence, don't know what I believe, reside in a gutter, etc. You're not exhausting me. You don't even raise my blood pressure. I'm just curious to see how long it takes you to overheat and burn up or just disappear. Or perhaps you'll surprise everyone and express a coherent thought in your own words.ScottAndrews2
November 2, 2011
November
11
Nov
2
02
2011
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT
The pot calls the kettle black. "Black, damn you, black!"Upright BiPed
November 1, 2011
November
11
Nov
1
01
2011
10:01 PM
10
10
01
PM
PDT
I’ve had my beliefs my entire life...
That in itself should be cause for alarm.
The trouble with ID is that it goes to great lengths to scientifically demonstrate what has been obvious for centuries before something as preposterous as unintentional self-design ever caught on.
Great lengths? ID certainly has gone to great lengths. It's gone to great lengths to win public and legislative opinion. It's gone to great lengths to influence school boards. It's gone to great lengths to traverse the country in interminable debates while simultaneously asking "Why won't 'they' debate us?". It's gone to great lengths to demonize Charles Darwin as the true author of the Holocaust.... In fact the only place where ID hasn't gone to great lengths is the one area it so desperately seeks legitimacy; science.Fossfur
November 1, 2011
November
11
Nov
1
01
2011
09:15 PM
9
09
15
PM
PDT
ScottAndrews2
This is yet another excuse to avoid the actual science. Agree with it or disagree with it.
LOL! Says the guys who has avoided every last scientific paper presented to him, save one that he looked at just long enough to quote-mine.
The trouble with ID is that it goes to great lengths to scientifically demonstrate what has been obvious for centuries before something as preposterous as unintentional self-design ever caught on
The real trouble with ID is that it's a political movement pretending to be science with zero scientific evidence to support it, and so appeals only to those with a religious agenda to push.
As a rational thinker, I would reject darwinism if there were no ID and no Christianity. You are profoundly ignorant to think that my rejection of it requires any additional motivation.
100% pure unadulterated bullcrap. You attack the evolutionary sciences solely because you're a Biblical Creationist and your religious beliefs feel threatened, for no other reasons.GinoB
November 1, 2011
November
11
Nov
1
01
2011
08:48 PM
8
08
48
PM
PDT
Timbo, This is yet another excuse to avoid the actual science. Agree with it or disagree with it.
If it was established incontrovertibly that life arose through the purposeless interactions of molecules, then that would destroy the basis for your belief right?
If, if, if.
I agree with GinoB, I think you are being dishonest in the reasons for your objection to the science, and I think people should just be upfront about the influence of their religious beliefs on their support for ID.
I've had my beliefs my entire life, and I first heard of ID a few years ago. How arrogant of you to tell me why I believe what I do, and what it depends on. The trouble with ID is that it goes to great lengths to scientifically demonstrate what has been obvious for centuries before something as preposterous as unintentional self-design ever caught on. Why is that a problem? Because while reason is great for refuting unreasonable ideas, it is powerless against unreasonable people. Do you really think that before I even heard of Dembski or Wells that I was shaking in my Christian boots worrying that the next-gen Miller-Urey experiments might go somewhere or that anyone would offer a detailed, plausible account of any evolutionary change in evolutionary terms? As a rational thinker, I would reject darwinism if there were no ID and no Christianity. You are profoundly ignorant to think that my rejection of it requires any additional motivation. I could argue in turn that your blind acceptance of contrived what-if stories and creative narratives stems from your need to fit in with your peers and your fear of being the only one who doesn't see the emperor's clothes. There's abundant evidence that such factors can motivate a person to believe anything. But my position is strong enough that I don't need to bolster it with armchair psychoanalysis. And if you tell me that you accept yours purely on its scientific merits, it would be rather asinine of me to accuse you of dishonesty and tell you what you really think. Scroll up. If you want something to analyze, there are plenty of questions that GinoB thinks he has scratched the surface of. Perhaps you can do better.ScottAndrews2
November 1, 2011
November
11
Nov
1
01
2011
08:29 PM
8
08
29
PM
PDT
Sonfaro
The thing about both sides is, at bare minumum, their collective disagreements pale to what is agreed upoon. For ID, it’s that things that look to be designed should be investigated to see if they are.
If that were true the scientific community would have no beef with ID. They can investigate to their heart's content. But it's not true. The ID proponents are demanding equal time in public school science classes before they have a positive case, before they have done the work and gotten the results independently confirmed. That's why we get court battles like Kitzmiller v. Dover - the IDers trying to make a dishonest end run around accepted scientific methodology. That's why we get them spending millions of dollars on trash propaganda films like EXPELLED while spending virtually zero on real scientific research.
In other words, simply saying ‘you can be wrong’ is annoyingly obvious. Of course we ‘can’ be wrong. ANY belief/theory/idea CAN be wrong. The question is: is it? GinoB thinks IDers are
That is not my position. My position is that ID is an unverified hypothesis that doesn't deserve time in science classrooms unless and until it proves its mettle. ID needs to explain the data better than the current ToE if it wants to replace ToE. That means doing the hard work and coming up with positive results. It means answering the hard questions about the details - when was the design done, and where, and how, and who was the Designer. That won't get done with the laughably bad, meaningless, and completely subjective alphabet soup of IC, CSI, FSCI/O, dFSCI, FSPI, FIASCO.GinoB
November 1, 2011
November
11
Nov
1
01
2011
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PDT
ScottAndrews2: "ID provides almost no support for this belief system. I do not cite any scientific evidence whatsoever for my belief in God. And if I wanted to argue for God’s existence I wouldn’t start with ID." You are going to a lot of trouble to say there is no link between your creationist beliefs and your support for ID. but are you not being disingenuous? If you believe in a creationist god, then surely ID would provide support for that belief? If it was established incontrovertibly that life arose through the purposeless interactions of molecules, then that would destroy the basis for your belief right? I agree with GinoB, I think you are being dishonest in the reasons for your objection to the science, and I think people should just be upfront about the influence of their religious beliefs on their support for ID. The reality is that ID is needed to maintain an effective basis for creationist beliefs. Those beliefs cannot survive if there is no design in nature (or at least you would have to become a theistic evolutionist).Timbo
November 1, 2011
November
11
Nov
1
01
2011
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PDT
Hey NickMatzke_UD, Does this mean Duane Gish was right?julianbre
November 1, 2011
November
11
Nov
1
01
2011
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT
Please, elaborate on the "etc." I don't want to miss anything.ScottAndrews2
November 1, 2011
November
11
Nov
1
01
2011
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT
ScottAndrews2
(Dusting myself off as I rise from the gutter of hypocrisy, I think)
Now all you have to do is stop with the typical slimy Creationist tactics - arguing from ignorance, ignoring scientific data and claiming none exists, demanding infinite levels of detail but providing none yourself, arguing that since science doesn't know everything it must not know anything, quote-mining, etc - and you can engage in honest scientific discussions.GinoB
November 1, 2011
November
11
Nov
1
01
2011
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT
(Dusting myself off as I rise from the gutter of hypocrisy, I think) That's it? Really? Was it worth what you lowered yourself to in order to get that answer? I have a label or two I could put on you, but I'm quite certain you'd never admit to any of them. :)ScottAndrews2
November 1, 2011
November
11
Nov
1
01
2011
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT
ScottAndrews2
I’m going to see where this goes, just for the sheer heck of it, because clearly you’re building up to something. I give in. I want to know what it is.
It wasn't meant to go anywhere. I didn't start this sidebar, someone else did just to give me grief for referring to you as a Creationist. Now that you've finally admitted to actually being a Biblical Creationist and that I was correct, the matter has been put to rest.GinoB
November 1, 2011
November
11
Nov
1
01
2011
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT
Hey, Upright BiPed! I finally got round to responding to your Semiotic Argument for Design. Feel free to come over, or, if you respond here, perhaps you'd like to drop a link over there too. Cheers LizzieElizabeth Liddle
November 1, 2011
November
11
Nov
1
01
2011
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT
I'm going to see where this goes, just for the sheer heck of it, because clearly you're building up to something. I give in. I want to know what it is. Gino, I am a Christian. I believe that the God of the Bible created all life on earth. I believe that they were created according to "kinds," but I don't know specifically what those divisions were. ID provides almost no support for this belief system. I do not cite any scientific evidence whatsoever for my belief in God. And if I wanted to argue for God's existence I wouldn't start with ID. This had better be worth it. You must have some truly glorious rant planned for this moment. I am fixated. Commence, please.ScottAndrews2
November 1, 2011
November
11
Nov
1
01
2011
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT
(cough cough)Upright BiPed
November 1, 2011
November
11
Nov
1
01
2011
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT
Stu7
Uum Stephen C. Meyer admitted this on stage in a debate. It’s all in your head bud.
That's why I said virtually none, not all. Another guy who can't read for comprehension.
Oh ok, I get it now, your agenda has become clearer now. You’re right and everyone is simply lying. Good luck with that.
Of course I never said that either. Why can't you carry on an honest conversation?GinoB
November 1, 2011
November
11
Nov
1
01
2011
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT
I'm not angry at all. I just find blustering ignorance, hypocrisy, and denial of reality like you exhibit both fascinating and amusing. :) I'll note you're still not honest enough to tell us if you believe the Intelligent Designer is the Christian God who poofed species into existence as fully grown animals. Let me know if you ever grow the spine to discuss the details of those papers with mechanisms for evolution you claim don't exist.GinoB
November 1, 2011
November
11
Nov
1
01
2011
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT
Gino,
That’s what I find so comically ironic – virtually no ID supporter will admit it, especially the Biblical Creationists.
Uum Stephen C. Meyer admitted this on stage in a debate. It's all in your head bud.
You know the ID movement is just an attempt to promote Christian religious beliefs, I know it, the scientific community knows it. Pretty much everyone who has followed ID in the last decade knows it, especially after the ID debacle at Kitzmiller v. Dover. So why keep up the charade that it’s not about the Christian God?
Oh ok, I get it now, your agenda has become clearer now. You're right and everyone is simply lying. Good luck with that.Stu7
November 1, 2011
November
11
Nov
1
01
2011
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT
Sonfaro
To get people to admit they’re Christian? Again, huzzah, the majority of us are. What of it?
I'd just like to see more honesty in admitting that's the primary reason for the support of ID, not any scientific reasons. To the scientific community ID is nothing more than an updated version of 'scientific creationism'. An attempt to cherry-pick and spin scientific data to support a pre-decided conclusion. IDers can claim "ID is not about the Designer!" all they want, but reality is that's not the case.GinoB
November 1, 2011
November
11
Nov
1
01
2011
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT
GinoB, So far you've called me a liar, a hypocrite, a red-nosed clown, and told me that I'm a "gutter." You seem to be someone with anger issues who believes he has found a convenient place to unleash some frustration. Do you notice that even the die-hard evolutionists on this forum are steering clear of you? I'm afraid you will have to remain angry, because you have yet to post a substantial word. We're observing you out of curiosity, but it has nothing to do with any argument you've made. And every time I respond I just feel guilty. I really should stop.ScottAndrews2
November 1, 2011
November
11
Nov
1
01
2011
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT
Stu7
Of course they do. Whatever shape or form that “God” might take, unless of course they’re agnostic or adhere to an alternate “creation” – a necessary universe conceived through some “immanent principle or law in nature”.
That's what I find so comically ironic - virtually no ID supporter will admit it, especially the Biblical Creationists. You know the ID movement is just an attempt to promote Christian religious beliefs, I know it, the scientific community knows it. Pretty much everyone who has followed ID in the last decade knows it, especially after the ID debacle at Kitzmiller v. Dover. So why keep up the charade that it's not about the Christian God?
Unless you claim to know the mind of every supporter of ID you’re really just blowing smoke and making things up as it suits you.
LOL! I never claimed to know the mind of every IDer. But it is pretty easy to recognize when someone claims "ID is not about the Designer!" then cites Genesis as supporting evidence.GinoB
November 1, 2011
November
11
Nov
1
01
2011
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT
Not clear enough I'm afraid. I mean, what was the point of this? -"I understand that as a political tactic ID won’t identify the suspected Designer, I really do. But on a practical side, virtually every ID supporter (save a few) think’s it’s his God. Let’s see a show of hands: How many people here think the Intelligent Designer is NOT the Christian God?" To get people to admit they're Christian? Again, huzzah, the majority of us are. What of it?Sonfaro
November 1, 2011
November
11
Nov
1
01
2011
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT
Gino,
Er…I’ve been talking about one poster’s personal standpoint, a guy who has been quoting scripture at us, in referring to him as a Creationist. You haven’t understood the conversation at all, have you?
Not according to this:
My post wasn’t addressed to all IDers, just the ones who ARE Biblical Creationists but are too hypocritical to admit it.
That's plural.
I understand that as a political tactic ID won’t identify the suspected Designer, I really do. But on a practical side, virtually every ID supporter (save a few) think’s it’s his God.
Of course they do. Whatever shape or form that "God" might take, unless of course they're agnostic or adhere to an alternate "creation" - a necessary universe conceived through some "immanent principle or law in nature". Unless you claim to know the mind of every supporter of ID you're really just blowing smoke and making things up as it suits you. All evolutionists are atheists right? No. Care to respond to this: On a side-note; ex nihilo is an interesting choice of words, because if you build upon that – ex nihilo nihil fit – even a chance universe would, at some point, require a “poof” occurrence. The universe had a beginning, only nothing can come from nothing, so what but an outside force could have facilitated that event. One might postpone the inevitable by invoking the multiverse but a “first cause” or ex nihilo event is an inescapable consequence of our very existence. That would put you in the category of “creationist” too would it not..Stu7
November 1, 2011
November
11
Nov
1
01
2011
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT
Sonfaro
So basically Christian = creationist?
I already made it quite clear that is NOT my position. Can't anyone here read for comprehension? :)GinoB
November 1, 2011
November
11
Nov
1
01
2011
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT
The link is to the "New World Encyclopedia," which is an online encyclopedia created by the Unification church (or, as they're more commonly known, the Moonies). I don't think that qualifies as a reliable reference.pilkington
November 1, 2011
November
11
Nov
1
01
2011
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT
So basically Christian = creationist? Didn't you say that wasn't your stance? Or was that just you being nice to Theistic evolutionists? I can think of three posters here who disagree with the majority: Bruce David Alan And, If I remember right Joseph Of course Im leaving out a few more pantheists and jewish posters, and Im pretty sure there were some agnostics who were interested at one point. The majority on this site is Christian. Huzzah! Doesn't mean we're all 'creationist'... whatever that term means for you today.Sonfaro
November 1, 2011
November
11
Nov
1
01
2011
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT
Stu7
You just can’t help yourself can you. It’s only obvious that if someone is a Christian the designer would be the Christian God — from their own personal standpoint that is, as ID draws no conclusions as to the nature of the designer.
Er...I've been talking about one poster's personal standpoint, a guy who has been quoting scripture at us, in referring to him as a Creationist. You haven't understood the conversation at all, have you?
What you fail to comprehend is there are a broad range of people who contribute here on Uncommon Descent (and the ID community as a whole). These “hypocrites” you seek might very well exist, but you’re firing scattershot at all and sundry in the hopes of hitting some assumed target.
I understand that as a political tactic ID won't identify the suspected Designer, I really do. But on a practical side, virtually every ID supporter (save a few) think's it's his God. Let's see a show of hands: How many people here think the Intelligent Designer is NOT the Christian God?GinoB
November 1, 2011
November
11
Nov
1
01
2011
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT
Please: NWE, article on ID:
Intelligent design (ID) is the view that it is possible to infer from empirical evidence that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection" [1] Intelligent design cannot be inferred from complexity alone, since complex patterns often happen by chance. ID focuses on just those sorts of complex patterns that in human experience are produced by a mind that conceives and executes a plan. According to adherents, intelligent design can be detected in the natural laws and structure of the cosmos; it also can be detected in at least some features of living things. Greater clarity on the topic may be gained from a discussion of what ID is not considered to be by its leading theorists. Intelligent design generally is not defined the same as creationism, with proponents maintaining that ID relies on scientific evidence rather than on Scripture or religious doctrines. ID makes no claims about biblical chronology, and technically a person does not have to believe in God to infer intelligent design in nature. As a theory, ID also does not specify the identity or nature of the designer, so it is not the same as natural theology, which reasons from nature to the existence and attributes of God. ID does not claim that all species of living things were created in their present forms, and it does not claim to provide a complete account of the history of the universe or of living things. ID also is not considered by its theorists to be an "argument from ignorance"; that is, intelligent design is not to be inferred simply on the basis that the cause of something is unknown (any more than a person accused of willful intent can be convicted without evidence). According to various adherents, ID does not claim that design must be optimal; something may be intelligently designed even if it is flawed (as are many objects made by humans). ID may be considered to consist only of the minimal assertion that it is possible to infer from empirical evidence that some features of the natural world are best explained by an intelligent agent. It conflicts with views claiming that there is no real design in the cosmos (e.g., materialistic philosophy) or in living things (e.g., Darwinian evolution) or that design, though real, is undetectable (e.g., some forms of theistic evolution). Because of such conflicts, ID has generated considerable controversy.
Quite simple -- and quite coherent and strictly empirical in focus, so please stop playing at strawman- erecting and knocking- over. GEM of TKI PS: Check out the resources tab top of this and every UD page.kairosfocus
November 1, 2011
November
11
Nov
1
01
2011
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 6

Leave a Reply