Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Could newly hatched pterosaurs fly?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email
IMAGE
The image shows a flock Pterodaustro guinazui/Dr Mark Witton

This story, from last July, is said to be trending at Eurelert:

In the study, published in Scientific Reports, the researchers modelled the flying abilities of hatchlings using previously obtained wing measurements from four established hatchling and embryo fossils from two pterosaur species, Pterodaustro guinazui and Sinopterus dongi. They also compared these wing measurements with those of adults from the same species and compared the strength of the humerus bone, which forms part of the wing, of three hatchlings with those of 22 adult pterosaurs.

Study co-author Dr Mark Witton from the University of Portsmouth said: “Although we’ve known about pterosaurs for over two centuries, we’ve only had fossils of their embryos and hatchlings since 2004. We’re still trying to understand the early stages of life in these animals. One discussion has centred around whether pterosaurs could fly as hatchlings or, like the vast majority of birds and bats, they had to grow a little before they could take wing.

“We found that these tiny animals – with 25 cm wingspans and bodies that could neatly fit in your hand – were very strong, capable fliers. Their bones were strong enough to sustain flapping and take-off, and their wings were ideally shaped for powered (as opposed to gliding) flight. However, they would not have flown exactly like their parents simply because they were so much smaller: flight capabilities are strongly influenced by size and mass, and so pterosaur hatchlings, being hundreds of times smaller than their parents, were likely slower, more agile fliers than the wide-ranging, but less manoeuvrable adults.”

University of Portsmouth, “Newly-hatched pterosaurs may have been able to fly” at Eurekalert (July 22, 2021)

The big mystery isn’t why early, easy escape would be an advantage but why birds and bats never found a way to do it. But we shall see.

The paper is open access.

Comments
Darwinists try to pretend as if their illegitimate use of teleological, (design based), language is no big deal, but as the following 2020 article pointed out, “teleological concepts cannot be abstracted away from biological explanations without loss of meaning and explanatory power, life is inherently teleological.”
Metaphor and Meaning in the Teleological Language of Biology Annie L. Crawford – August 2020 Abstract: Excerpt: However, most discussions regarding the legitimacy of teleological language in biology fail to consider the nature of language itself. Since conceptual language is intrinsically metaphorical, teleological language can be dismissed as decorative if and only if it can be replaced with alternative metaphors without loss of essential meaning. I conclude that, since teleological concepts cannot be abstracted away from biological explanations without loss of meaning and explanatory power, life is inherently teleological. https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/biologists-cant-stop-using-purpose-driven-language-because-life-really-is-designed/
Moreover, to add insult to injury, the language that can be, somewhat easily, stripped away from biological research papers without negatively effecting the actual research of the papers, is the 'narrative gloss' of evolution itself. As the late Philip Skell pointed out, “In the peer-reviewed literature, the word “evolution” often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for “evolution” some other word – “Buddhism,” “Aztec cosmology,” or even “creationism.” I found that the substitution never touched the paper’s core.”
“In the peer-reviewed literature, the word “evolution” often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for “evolution” some other word – “Buddhism,” “Aztec cosmology,” or even “creationism.” I found that the substitution never touched the paper’s core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology.,,, Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology.” – Philip S. Skell – (the late) Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. – Why Do We Invoke Darwin? – 2005
And as Evolutionary biologist Robert Reid himself honestly admitted, “Indeed the language of neo-Darwinism is so careless that the words ‘divine plan’ can be substituted for ‘selection pressure’ in any popular work in the biological literature without the slightest disruption in the logical flow of argument.”
Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection Has Left a Legacy of Confusion over Biological Adaptation Brian Miller – September 20, 2021 Excerpt: Evolutionary biologist Robert Reid stated: “Indeed the language of neo-Darwinism is so careless that the words ‘divine plan’ can be substituted for ‘selection pressure’ in any popular work in the biological literature without the slightest disruption in the logical flow of argument.” Robert Reid, Biological Emergences: Evolution by Natural Experiment, PP. 37-38 (2009) To fully comprehend the critique, one simply needs to imagine attempting to craft an evolutionary barometer that measures the selection pressure driving one organism to transform into something different (e.g., fish into an amphibian). The fact that no such instrument could be constructed highlights the fictitious nature of such mystical forces. https://evolutionnews.org/2021/09/darwins-theory-of-natural-selection-has-left-a-legacy-of-confusion-over-biological-adaptation/
In fact, in the following article it was found that, when removing the ‘narrative gloss' of Darwinian evolution from peer-reviewed papers, “the science not only survived, but proved healthier and more useful.”
No Harm, No Foul — What If Darwinism Were Excised from Biology? – December 4, 2019 Excerpt: If Darwinism is as essential to biology as Richard Dawkins or Jerry Coyne argues, then removing evolutionary words and concepts, (“Darwin-ectomy”), should make research incomprehensible. If, on the other hand, Darwinism is more of a “narrative gloss” applied to the conclusions after the scientific work is done, as the late Philip Skell observed, then biology would survive the operation just fine. It might even be healthier, slimmed down after disposing of unnecessary philosophical baggage.,,, So, here are three papers in America’s premier science journal that appear at first glance to need Darwinism, use Darwinism, support Darwinism, and thereby impart useful scientific knowledge. After subjecting them to Darwin-ectomies, though, the science not only survived, but proved healthier and more useful. https://evolutionnews.org/2019/12/no-harm-no-foul-what-if-darwinism-were-excised-from-biology/
Thus, the superficial and unnecessary 'narrative gloss' of evolution actually obscures the actual science of biological research papers instead of enhancing our understanding of biology. Thus in conclusion, teleological, i.e. designed based, language is found to be irreducibly essential for doing biological research, whereas ‘evolutionary language’ is found to be a superficial ‘narrative gloss’ that can be somewhat easily jettisoned from the papers. Moreover, the use of evolutionary language actually obscures the actual research of the papers instead of enhancing it. In summary, the very words that Biologists themselves are forced to use when they are doing, and/or describing, their biological research falsifies 'unguided' Darwinian evolution and proves that life is inherently teleological, (i.e. Intelligently Designed), in its foundational nature.
Matthew 12:37 for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”
Of supplemental note:
1. Darwin’s theory holds mutations to the genome to be random. The vast majority of mutations to the genome are not random but are now found to be ‘directed’. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/asked-at-reason-magazine-how-much-science-research-is-fraudulent/#comment-734315 A Tour Of Directed Mutations - November 23, 2021 - johnnyb https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-tour-of-directed-mutations/
bornagain77
December 30, 2021
December
12
Dec
30
30
2021
03:06 AM
3
03
06
AM
PDT
JVL at 42 to Jerry:
",,, one of the basic pillars of evolutionary theory is that it is unguided. You think the unguided thesis is just a claim (therefore NOT science) which means you really haven’t understood all the evolution books and textbooks you claim to have read."
Apparently JVL thinks that the 'unguided' part of evolution is what, in and of itself, makes evolution a science and ID not a science. Yet, contrary to what JVL believes, it is precisely the 'unguided' part of evolution, in and of itself, that prevents evolution from ever being a hard and testable science in the first place. As Wolfgang ("not even wrong") Pauli put it, "While they (evolutionary biologists) pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational,’ they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.’”
Pauli’s ideas on mind and matter in the context of contemporary science – Harald Atmanspacher Excerpt: “In discussions with biologists I met large difficulties when they apply the concept of ‘natural selection’ in a rather wide field, without being able to estimate the probability of the occurrence in a empirically given time of just those events, which have been important for the biological evolution. Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity they have then an easy game, apparently to avoid the concept of purposesiveness. While they pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational,’ they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.’” Wolfgang Pauli (pp. 27-28) https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/234f/4989e039089fed5ac47c7d1a19b656c602e2.pdf
And as Murray Eden of MIT put it in a paper entitled “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory”,,,, “the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.”
“It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.” Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109. https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~christos/evol/compevol_files/Wistar-Eden-1.pdf per wikipedia - Murray Eden (August 17, 1920 – August 9, 2020), was an American physical chemist and[1][2] academic. He was a professor in electrical engineering,[3] a lecturer, a visiting professor and adjunct professor at institutions including at MIT and NIH.[4]
Thus directly contrary to what JVL erroneously believes about the unguided 'randomness postulate' of evolution supposedly making evolution a scientific theory and making ID a unscientific theory, it is precisely the unguided 'randomness postulate', in and of itself, that makes evolution a unscientific theory and, by default, makes ID a scientific theory. To prove this point, the very words that biologists are forced to use when they are doing their research falsifies the primary unguided randomness postulate of Darwinian evolution. Specifically, biologists, when they are doing their research, are constantly forced to use words that directly imply teleology.
teleology, (from Greek telos, “end,” and logos, “reason”), explanation by reference to some purpose, end, goal, or function. https://www.britannica.com/topic/teleology teleological – adjective exhibiting or relating to design or purpose especially in nature https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/teleological
The renowned J.B.S. Haldane himself admitted as much, “Teleology is like a mistress to the biologist; he dare not be seen with her in public but cannot live without her.”
“Teleology is like a mistress to the biologist; he dare not be seen with her in public but cannot live without her.” J. B. S. Haldane
As Denis Noble, Emeritus Professor of the University of Oxford, states, “it is virtually impossible to speak of living beings for any length of time without using teleological and normative language”.
“the most striking thing about living things, in comparison with non-living systems, is their teleological organization—meaning the way in which all of the local physical and chemical interactions cohere in such a way as to maintain the overall system in existence. Moreover, it is virtually impossible to speak of living beings for any length of time without using teleological and normative language—words like “goal,” “purpose,” “meaning,” “correct/incorrect,” “success/failure,” etc.” – Denis Noble – Emeritus Professor of Cardiovascular Physiology in the Department of Physiology, Anatomy, and Genetics of the Medical Sciences Division of the University of Oxford. http://www.thebestschools.org/dialogues/evolution-denis-noble-interview/
This working biologist agrees with Noble and states, “in our work, we biologists use words that imply intentionality, functionality, strategy, and design in biology–we simply cannot avoid them.”
Life, Purpose, Mind: Where the Machine Metaphor Fails – Ann Gauger – June 2011 Excerpt: I’m a working biologist, on bacterial regulation (transcription and translation and protein stability) through signalling molecules, ,,, I can confirm the following points as realities: we lack adequate conceptual categories for what we are seeing in the biological world; with many additional genomes sequenced annually, we have much more data than we know what to do with (and making sense of it has become the current challenge); cells are staggeringly chock full of sophisticated technologies, which are exquisitely integrated; life is not dominated by a single technology, but rather a composite of many; and yet life is more than the sum of its parts; in our work, we biologists use words that imply intentionality, functionality, strategy, and design in biology–we simply cannot avoid them. Furthermore, I suggest that to maintain that all of biology is solely a product of selection and genetic decay and time requires a metaphysical conviction that isn’t troubled by the evidence. Alternatively, it could be the view of someone who is unfamiliar with the evidence, for one reason or another. But for those who will consider the evidence that is so obvious throughout biology, I suggest it’s high time we moved on. – Matthew http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/life_purpose_mind_where_the_ma046991.html#comment-8858161
To drive this point home, in the following article Stephen Talbott challenges Darwinists to, “pose a single topic for biological research, doing so in language that avoids all implication of agency, cognition, and purposiveness, (i.e. teleology)”,,, "this cannot be done",,,
The ‘Mental Cell’: Let’s Loosen Up Biological Thinking! – Stephen L. Talbott – September 9, 2014 Excerpt: Many biologists are content to dismiss the problem with hand-waving: “When we wield the language of agency, we are speaking metaphorically, and we could just as well, if less conveniently, abandon the metaphors”. Yet no scientist or philosopher has shown how this shift of language could be effected. And the fact of the matter is just obvious: the biologist who is not investigating how the organism achieves something in a well-directed way is not yet doing biology, as opposed to physics or chemistry. Is this in turn just hand-waving? Let the reader inclined to think so take up a challenge: pose a single topic for biological research, doing so in language that avoids all implication of agency, cognition, and purposiveness 1. One reason this cannot be done is clear enough: molecular biology — the discipline that was finally going to reduce life unreservedly to mindless mechanism — is now posing its own severe challenges. In this era of Big Data, the message from every side concerns previously unimagined complexity, incessant cross-talk and intertwining pathways, wildly unexpected genomic performances, dynamic conformational changes involving proteins and their cooperative or antagonistic binding partners, pervasive multifunctionality, intricately directed behavior somehow arising from the interaction of countless players in interpenetrating networks, and opposite effects by the same molecules in slightly different contexts. The picture at the molecular level begins to look as lively and organic — and thoughtful — as life itself. http://natureinstitute.org/txt/st/org/comm/ar/2014/mental_cell_23.htm
bornagain77
December 30, 2021
December
12
Dec
30
30
2021
03:06 AM
3
03
06
AM
PDT
E.O. Wilson, a Pioneer of Evolutionary Biology, Dies at 92 - Dec. 27, 2021 https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/27/science/eo-wilson-dead.htmlbornagain77
December 30, 2021
December
12
Dec
30
30
2021
01:39 AM
1
01
39
AM
PDT
JVL:
what exactly is the disagreement between Dawkins and Wilson
you keep asking the same question over and over ... I see that BA77 already answered it, but PLEASE, explain to me, how IS THIS QUESTION IMPORTANT ???? Wilson clearly stated, that he can't have any disagreement with Dawkins because Dawkins is "A JOURNALIST" and he (Wilson) can have disagreement only with SCIENTISTS :)))))))))) IT MADE MY DAY :)))) So what do you think, why is that ? and, the "JOURNALIST"-DAWKINS accuses "Darwin of 21st Century"(Wilson) of writing " pages of perverse misunderstandings of evolutionary theory, " PAGES of misunderstandings !!!! A TOP DARWINIST ALLEGEDLY WROTE PAGES OF PERVERSE MISUNDERSTANDING OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY :)))) SO WHO ON EARTH UNDERSTANDS IT ????? IT SEEMS, THAT JOURNALIST DAWKINS IS THE ONLY BLESSED :)))))) So i really don't understand why do you still repeat the same very unimportant questions .... As BA77 pointed out "leading Darwinists themselves can’t even agree on the primary mechanism of evolution" THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT ... AND OTHER VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION IS - WHY IS THAT ?martin_r
December 30, 2021
December
12
Dec
30
30
2021
01:38 AM
1
01
38
AM
PDT
Jerry: You never answer questions and then you make believe you have. You just criticize. Perhaps you'd like to try and answer some questions yourself instead of just ignoring them. OR you could mature up and just admit you can't. Or did you think I didn't notice that you never answered the question regarding the disagreement between Dr Wilson and Dr Dawkins? But you've read lots of books about evolution? And then you tried to imply that ID was 99.9999% in agreement with science when one of the basic pillars of evolutionary theory is that it is unguided. You think the unguided thesis is just a claim (therefore NOT science) which means you really haven't understood all the evolution books and textbooks you claim to have read. BUT you still think you understand the science better than all those who have spent years and years and years studying it. Gee Asuaber, does that count as persistent obtuseness? :-)JVL
December 30, 2021
December
12
Dec
30
30
2021
12:53 AM
12
12
53
AM
PDT
Asauber: Persistent Obtuseness is trolling, too. hahahahhahahahahah. Since when is disagreeing with someone obtuseness? Oh, unless you're so sure you're right that anyone who disagrees with you must be stupid. Is that it?JVL
December 30, 2021
December
12
Dec
30
30
2021
12:45 AM
12
12
45
AM
PDT
Bornagain77: Well JVL, if you have not noticed, I hold that all forms of Darwinian evolution fail to qualify as hard and testable sciences in the first place. I know what you think but I engaged with someone else about a particular question when you chose to stick your oar in on a different issue.JVL
December 30, 2021
December
12
Dec
30
30
2021
12:43 AM
12
12
43
AM
PDT
read the last sentence. It’s apparent that you are either not reading or ignoring certain comments. Instead of whining that your questions are being ignored, pay better attention.
You gotta be kidding. Your last line says absolutely nothing relevant about the Evolution debate. To use it as a response is a joke. You never answer questions and then you make believe you have. You just criticize.jerry
December 29, 2021
December
12
Dec
29
29
2021
05:19 PM
5
05
19
PM
PDT
Jerry, Martin_r, et al. Go back to my comment #16 and read the last sentence. It’s apparent that you are either not reading or ignoring certain comments. Instead of whining that your questions are being ignored, pay better attention.chuckdarwin
December 29, 2021
December
12
Dec
29
29
2021
05:10 PM
5
05
10
PM
PDT
JVL, Persistent Obtuseness is trolling, too. Andrewasauber
December 29, 2021
December
12
Dec
29
29
2021
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT
"do you agree or disagree with Dr Wilson’s view" Well JVL, if you have not noticed, I hold that all forms of Darwinian evolution fail to qualify as hard and testable sciences in the first place. I know that is a minor detail for you that you desperately want to overlook. But perhaps you can see how others might see how that 'minor detail' would be a intractable problem for Darwin's theory?
Top Ten Questions and Objections to ‘Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics’ – Robert J. Marks II – June 12, 2017 Excerpt: “There exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Hard sciences are built on foundations of mathematics or definitive simulations. Examples include electromagnetics, Newtonian mechanics, geophysics, relativity, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, optics, and many areas in biology. Those hoping to establish Darwinian evolution as a hard science with a model have either failed or inadvertently cheated. These models contain guidance mechanisms to land the airplane squarely on the target runway despite stochastic wind gusts. Not only can the guiding assistance be specifically identified in each proposed evolution model, its contribution to the success can be measured, in bits, as active information.,,,”,,, “there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,,” https://evolutionnews.org/2017/06/top-ten-questions-and-objections-to-introduction-to-evolutionary-informatics/ Robert Jackson Marks II is an American electrical engineer. His contributions include the Zhao-Atlas-Marks (ZAM) time-frequency distribution in the field of signal processing,[1] the Cheung–Marks theorem[2] in Shannon sampling theory and the Papoulis-Marks-Cheung (PMC) approach in multidimensional sampling.[3] He was instrumental in the defining of the field of computational intelligence and co-edited the first book using computational intelligence in the title.[4][5] – per wikipedia
bornagain77
December 29, 2021
December
12
Dec
29
29
2021
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT
Bornagain77: JVL, yes let’s let the record stand that when E.O. abandoned kin selection, after championing it for decades, and went for a more ‘orthodox’ approach to evolution, that he was rebuked by 140 leading biologists in Nature Well, finally someone tried to actually do some work and figure out what the disagreement was about. See, that wasn't hard was it? So, do you agree or disagree with Dr Wilson's view? Of all which underscores the main point that, since leading Darwinists themselves can’t even agree on the primary mechanism of evolution, then Darwinian evolution fails to qualify as a hard and testable science in the first place. They all agree that it's unguided though don't they? Which kind of selection do you think is the primary influence and why?JVL
December 29, 2021
December
12
Dec
29
29
2021
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT
JVL, yes let's let the record stand that when E.O. Wilson abandoned kin selection, after championing it for decades, and went for a more 'orthodox' approach to evolution, that he was rebuked by 140 leading biologists in Nature
bornagain77 - Oct, 2021 An interesting thing about E.O. Wilson, the supposed “Darwin of the 21st century”, 140 leading biologists signed a letter to Nature attacking Wilson’s 2010 strictly Darwin model. Alan Grafen, a theoretical biologist from the University of Oxford, even called Wilson’s ‘Darwin only’ model, “unscholarly,” “transparently wrong,” and “misguided.” https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/bad-timing-or-just-plain-tone-deaf-reuters-puffs-modern-day-darwin-e-o-wilson/#comment-739330
Of all which underscores the main point that, since leading Darwinists themselves can't even agree on the primary mechanism of evolution, then Darwinian evolution fails to qualify as a hard and testable science in the first place.bornagain77
December 29, 2021
December
12
Dec
29
29
2021
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT
Jerry: A claim is not a finding. It’s a claim without supporting evidence. If there is, present it. I’ve read text books on evolutionary theory. I never saw any evidence and in the 16 years of this blog no one has presented any. Be the first. I guess you have reading comprehension issues then since it's an issue that is always and clearly brought up and discussed. Pretending something doesn't exist is equivalent to sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting 'LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU'. And just as silly. Do you really expect people to take you seriously when you can't even address one of the base-lane, basic premises of evolutionary theory? You’re the one pushing it. Explain it. Go read a book and pay attention. I'm not obligated to spell everything out for you in grade school language. OH, plus . . . you haven't figured out what was the disagreement between Dr Dawkins and Dr Wilson. So you don't really know the implications of the disagreement. Do you? No, you do not. Why not take it up with the person who mentioned it. I did. You stepped in all full of bluster and thinking you're going to slam down this evo twit with your brilliant counter argument. Maybe you should have just stayed out of the discussion.JVL
December 29, 2021
December
12
Dec
29
29
2021
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT
Bornagain77: Avoiding the topic,, Ha, Ha Ha, You and Seversky are the reigning kings of ignoring any and all topics that falsifies Darwinian evolution. You couldn't answer the question: what was the disagreement between Dr Dawkins and Dr Wilson. Let the record stand.JVL
December 29, 2021
December
12
Dec
29
29
2021
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT
You can’t make this up folks. I can see the headlines: ID Proponent Ignorant of Basic Evolutionary Theory, Claims to be Unaware of Core Claim.
A claim is not a finding. It’s a claim without supporting evidence. If there is, present it. I’ve read text books on evolutionary theory. I never saw any evidence and in the 16 years of this blog no one has presented any. Be the first.
You’re sure because . . . well, you just know things. Lovely
You’re the one pushing it. Explain it.jerry
December 29, 2021
December
12
Dec
29
29
2021
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT
Avoiding the topic,, Ha, Ha Ha, You and Seversky are the reigning kings of ignoring any and all topics that falsify Darwinian evolution.bornagain77
December 29, 2021
December
12
Dec
29
29
2021
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT
Jerry: hat’s not a finding in any study I’m aware of. It’s just speculation or the fallacy of begging the question. So you are completely ignorant of every evolutionary textbook, every major article written about evolution, one of the base premises of the theory. You can't make this up folks. I can see the headlines: ID Proponent Ignorant of Basic Evolutionary Theory, Claims to be Unaware of Core Claim. Trying to hand-wave an issue aside isn't going to get you anywhere except derision from biologists. You'd do better actually addressing the science than thinking you're very clever and have found a terribly clever talking point the 'evos' can't address. No one cares. Does it mean anything. If you don’t know why should anyone care? I love it. You don't actually understand what Dr Dawkins and Dr Wilson disagreed about but you're sure it means the whole idea is bogus. You're sure because . . . well, you just know things. Lovely. I do happen to know and I'm loving watching you duck and dodge and avoid the question. It just shows how little you understand about evolutionary theory. But you're sure it's wrong. Wonderful.JVL
December 29, 2021
December
12
Dec
29
29
2021
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT
That evolution is unguided!!
That’s not a finding in any study I’m aware of. It’s just speculation on the part of some people or the fallacy of begging the question.
Or are you all just going to run away and hide?
No one cares. Does it mean anything? If you don’t know why should anyone care? Why not take it up with the person who mentioned it.jerry
December 29, 2021
December
12
Dec
29
29
2021
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT
Bornagain77: If it is all the same with you JVL, let’s first deal with the fact that Darwinian evolution fails to qualify as a real and testable ‘hard’ science in the first place. Everything else is moot after we establish that fact. I completely understand why you wouldn't be able to answer the question I posed: what exactly was the disagreement between Dr Wilson and Dr Dawkins. Firstly you couldn't possibly be bothered to find out. Secondly you don't understand the disagreement. Thirdly you are only able to respond to questions you have built up a library of mined quotes that you can use. Fourth you are afraid to respond to something which might lead to you failing. Bornagain77 has already avoided the question and tried to move to a different topic. So, that's one down. Can anyone from the ID side actually respond to the question: what exactly was the disagreement between Dr Dawkins and Dr Wilson? Or are you all just going to run away and hide?JVL
December 29, 2021
December
12
Dec
29
29
2021
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT
If it is all the same with you JVL, let's first deal with the fact that Darwinian evolution fails to qualify as a real and testable 'hard' science in the first place. Everything else is moot after we establish that fact.
Top Ten Questions and Objections to ‘Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics’ – Robert J. Marks II – June 12, 2017 Excerpt: “There exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Hard sciences are built on foundations of mathematics or definitive simulations. Examples include electromagnetics, Newtonian mechanics, geophysics, relativity, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, optics, and many areas in biology. Those hoping to establish Darwinian evolution as a hard science with a model have either failed or inadvertently cheated. These models contain guidance mechanisms to land the airplane squarely on the target runway despite stochastic wind gusts. Not only can the guiding assistance be specifically identified in each proposed evolution model, its contribution to the success can be measured, in bits, as active information.,,,”,,, “there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,,” https://evolutionnews.org/2017/06/top-ten-questions-and-objections-to-introduction-to-evolutionary-informatics/ Robert Jackson Marks II is an American electrical engineer. His contributions include the Zhao-Atlas-Marks (ZAM) time-frequency distribution in the field of signal processing,[1] the Cheung–Marks theorem[2] in Shannon sampling theory and the Papoulis-Marks-Cheung (PMC) approach in multidimensional sampling.[3] He was instrumental in the defining of the field of computational intelligence and co-edited the first book using computational intelligence in the title.[4][5] - per wikipedia
bornagain77
December 29, 2021
December
12
Dec
29
29
2021
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT
Bornagain77: Oh Goody, JVL wants to talk about the supposed ‘science’ of Darwinian evolution. Since you seemed to have not been paying attention: I am asking a specific question: what exactly were Dr Dawkins and Dr Wilson disagreeing about. Let's deal with that issue first shall we.JVL
December 29, 2021
December
12
Dec
29
29
2021
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT
Jerry: What finding does ID not accept? That evolution is unguided!!JVL
December 29, 2021
December
12
Dec
29
29
2021
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT
Oh Goody, JVL wants to talk about the supposed 'science' of Darwinian evolution. Perhaps JVL can entertain with the exact demarcation criteria by which Darwinian evolution can be described as being 'scientific',
“nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific”. - Imre Lakatos “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research programme.” Karl Popper, Unended Quest (Glasgow: Fontana, Collins. 1976), p.151. (Predictably) Popper was attacked by the Darwinian Gestapo for these criticisms. So Popper, in approx 1978 for the most part, took his criticisms of Darwinism back. But when John Horgan interviewed Popper in 1992, Horgan noted that Popper “blurted out that he still found Darwin’s theory dissatisfying. “One ought to look for alternatives!” Popper exclaimed, banging his kitchen table.” Dubitable Darwin? Why Some Smart, Nonreligious People Doubt the Theory of Evolution – John Horgan – July 6, 2010 Excerpt: Early in his career, the philosopher Karl Popper ,, called evolution via natural selection “almost a tautology” and “not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program.” Attacked for these criticisms, Popper took them back (in approx 1978). But when I interviewed him in 1992, he blurted out that he still found Darwin’s theory dissatisfying. “One ought to look for alternatives!” Popper exclaimed, banging his kitchen table. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/dubitable-darwin-why-some-smart-nonreligious-people-doubt-the-theory-of-evolution/ Likewise, Tom Bethell also interviewed Karl Popper after the Darwinian backlash and Popper once again reiterated his claim that Darwinism was not a testable scientific theory. Tom Bethell on Karl Popper’s rejection of Darwinian Evolution as a testable scientific theory – 5:54 minute mark https://youtu.be/MLdZzf8HoUU?t=352 Popper’s Shifting Appraisal of Evolutionary Theory – Mehmet Elgin and Elliott Sober – Feb 2017 Excerpt: Karl Popper argued in 1974 that evolutionary theory contains no testable laws and is therefore a metaphysical research program. Four years later, he said that he had changed his mind. Here we seek to understand Popper’s initial position and his subsequent retraction. We argue, contrary to Popper’s own assessment, that he (Popper) did not change his mind at all about the substance of his original claim. We also explore how Popper’s views have ramifications for contemporary discussion of the nature of laws and the structure of evolutionary theory. http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/691119 And Popper had every right to bang his kitchen table. When it comes to Popper’s criteria of falsification, Darwinists simply refuse to adhere to the criteria of empirical falsification (as other theories of science, such as Quantum Mechanics, General Relativity, and even Intelligent Design, all adhere to the criteria of empirical falsification.) As Stanford Professor Paul Ehrlich noted, “Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus “outside empirical science” “Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus “outside empirical science” but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets.” – Ehrlich, Paul and L.C. Birch (1967), “Evolutionary History and Population Biology,” Nature, 214:349-352, April 22, p. 352 https://afdave.wordpress.com/more-useful-quotes-for-creationists/
bornagain77
December 29, 2021
December
12
Dec
29
29
2021
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT
Excepting unguided evolution which accounts for more than 0.0001%
What finding does ID not accept? I don’t know of any. For example, it completely accepts the fossil record. It accepts all the findings of Darwin.jerry
December 29, 2021
December
12
Dec
29
29
2021
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT
Asuaber: This is Chuckie’s justification for trolling. I'm happy to get back to the science. Can you explain what it was exactly that Dr Dawkins and Dr Wilson disagreed upon? Let's have a reasoned discussion about that.JVL
December 29, 2021
December
12
Dec
29
29
2021
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT
Jerry: If this true then why does ID accept 99.9999% of the findings of science. Excepting unguided evolution which accounts for more than 0.0001% Oh, by the way, no one has answered the query about what exactly Dr Dawkins and Dr Wilson disagreed about. Why is that? Isn’t it ironic in that it is mainstream science that does not accept its own findings while ID does? Mainstream science does accept unguided evolution but, sometimes, disagrees on some of the finer points. Separate question: have you ever backed up anything you said? I think it's time for you to answer some questions.JVL
December 29, 2021
December
12
Dec
29
29
2021
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT
Trolls generally don't contribute substantive comments. You need to read my original comment where I challenged the OP's characterization of bird and bat evolution vis a vis that of Pterosaurs as "mysterious." It is not mysterious, there is a simple explanation via natural selection which the OP chose to ignore, thus demonstrating my comments regarding the purpose of this blog....chuckdarwin
December 29, 2021
December
12
Dec
29
29
2021
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT
"The purpose of this blog has never been reasoned discussion" This is Chuckie's justification for trolling. Andrewasauber
December 29, 2021
December
12
Dec
29
29
2021
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT
The purpose of this blog has never been reasoned discussion of evolution, cosmology, or any other area of science, rather, it is to trash mainstream science
If this true then why does ID accept 99.9999% of the findings of science. If you disagree, then be be specific in what ID does not accept. Isn’t it ironic in that it is mainstream science that does not accept its own findings while ID does? Separate question: have you ever backed up anything you said?jerry
December 29, 2021
December
12
Dec
29
29
2021
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply