Pope endorses evolution

[justaname]

Would you also agree that not all opinions are equally valid?


Do you know what derived characteristics are?


And maybe here we've identified one of the problems. There's lots of dinosaur specimens with feathers. There are so many now it's being discussed that within certain groups of dinos, maybe they all had feathers.

So clearly we see the problem. You thought the museums were deliberately lying, but it turns out they aren't and you just don't really know the subject matter. IOW, the problem isn't with the science, but with your understanding of it. That's why our first point is important...people who don't really know much about a subject probably shouldn't go around speaking authoritatively about it.


First, I did post a link to a description of the fossil record of an entire class of invertebrates. That record documents the evolution of new orders, genera, and species of invertebrates. As far as a specimen of a early vertebrate ancestor, the most famous specimen is Pikaia gracilens. As we'd expect with any transitional, scientists are still debating exactly how it should be classified.


Thanks!


Sorry, that doesn't make sense. "Living soul" is exactly what I've been saying all along.


We don't know. Is it that important to you that scripture tell you every detail about every person who lived at the time?


That's fine, but none of that is in scripture. All we know is that Cain found a wife. We are not told where she came from at all.

Maybe you should read this...
https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/feathers/did-all-dinosaurs-have-feathers/

The short of the story is bristles and scales are not feathers.

As to my statement...
You misinterpreted what I was conveying, yet my language is a bit vague. What is happening is dinosaurs are being depicted with feathers because of this finding of a supposed common ancestor. Maybe we should put feathers on the aquatic animals also!


But then again what do I know... probably I should just leave all this sophisticated discussion to you scientist types...I am just some backwoods Christian... :blink:

Oh here is a little insight on Pikaia gracilens...

Remember, it is presumed that Pikaia is a primitive chordate. Part of the problem for evolution has to do with Pikaia’s appearance in deposits that correspond to the mid-to-late Cambrian. Yet, in the Chengjian site—which corresponds to the beginning of the Cambrian—researchers have recovered a number of urochordate, hemichordate, cephalochordate, and agnathan specimens, all organisms that would be Pikaia’sevolutionary descendents. Instead of observing the sequential appearance of primitive chordates first, followed by more advanced chordates, the fossil record actually shows the simultaneous appearance of primitive and advanced chordates. This pattern is unexpected from an evolutionary perspective. (For a more detailed discussion please see “Chordate Fossils Foil Theory.”)

http://www.reasons.org/articles/pikaia-fossils-explode-the-evolutionary-paradigm

BTW...this speaks to your synapomorphy question...

 

[River Jordan]

Maybe you should read this...
https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/feathers/did-all-dinosaurs-have-feathers/

The short of the story is bristles and scales are not feathers.

First, notice how the goalposts have been moved here. You originally claimed that there was no evidence of dinosaurs with feathers and museums were misleading people by saying they existed. In response I expressed my surprise at your statement, noted that there are lots of dinosaurs with feathers, so much so that it's now being debated whether all dinosaurs had feathers. But now your response is to say this one specimen has "bristles and scales" and "not feathers". That's a different question than the original.

So now we have two questions:

1) Do any dinosaur fossils have feathers?

2) Does Kulindadromeus zabaikalicus have feathers?

As I said, the answer to #1 is unquestionably "yes". It's such a well-established fact, that to be honest with you, I think it takes a special kind of willful ignorance to deny it.

As far as #2, can you please explain why you think that specimen's downy, ribboned plumes are not primitive feathers? What exactly would you expect primitive feathers to look like?

What is happening is dinosaurs are being depicted with feathers because of this finding of a supposed common ancestor. Maybe we should put feathers on the aquatic animals also!

Um, no. Some dinosaurs are depicted as having feathers because we have fossils of them with feathers. Are you expecting paleontologists and museum directors to hide that fact?

But then again what do I know... probably I should just leave all this sophisticated discussion to you scientist types...I am just some backwoods Christian... :blink:

This is what really bugs me about this issue. Because of fundamentalist Christian denial of so much science, the stereotype has become the "backwoods Christian" as you say. That should bother us. I mean, how does it help our Great Commission if part of the package of salvation we're selling is "And you will be now thought of as a backwoods ignoramus"? Not many people are going to sign up for that. Yet here you are actually playing into that stereotype! Why?

Remember, it is presumed that Pikaia is a primitive chordate. Part of the problem for evolution has to do with Pikaia’s appearance in deposits that correspond to the mid-to-late Cambrian. Yet, in the Chengjian site—which corresponds to the beginning of the Cambrian—researchers have recovered a number of urochordate, hemichordate, cephalochordate, and agnathan specimens, all organisms that would be Pikaia’sevolutionary descendents. Instead of observing the sequential appearance of primitive chordates first, followed by more advanced chordates, the fossil record actually shows the simultaneous appearance of primitive and advanced chordates. This pattern is unexpected from an evolutionary perspective. (For a more detailed discussion please see “Chordate Fossils Foil Theory.”)

http://www.reasons.org/articles/pikaia-fossils-explode-the-evolutionary-paradigm

Again this reflects a level of ignorance on the part of creationists more than anything else. The basic premise underlying their argument is that ancestral species cannot co-exist with their descendants. Of course we know that's wrong. It's about as wrong as saying that since I'm descended from Germans, I can't co-exist alongside Germans.

BTW...this speaks to your synapomorphy question...

No, not really. So do you understand how classification of fossils is more than just "measuring and dating"?

 

[justaname]

The goal posts are the same...here is my original statement...
"They have dinosaurs with feathers on them when there is no scientific data in the fossil record showing feathers, unless you include that hoax of the dino-bird from China. Granted this is not in every case, yet again my questions go to the critical transitional species. Where are all the transitional invertebrates?"

Perhaps you missed the "Granted this is not every case" part...

Interestingly enough the feather idea falls into a matter of interpretation. From your POV there are lots of dinosaurs with feathers. From my POV there are zero to possibly a few with feathers.

My argument stands. Why are feathers being placed on dinosaurs when there are no feathers found on that particular species? My answer...to promote a specific worldview.

And yes the reasons article does speak to the derived characteristics theory. With all the organisms exploding on the scene simultaneously why assume the traits "passed on" from a common ancestor?

​Your assumption of the premise on the "reasons" article is incorrect...you could read the entire article and its sub-links to sharpen your evaluation.

 

[River Jordan]

They have dinosaurs with feathers on them when there is no scientific data in the fossil record showing feathers

What specifically are you talking about? Are you saying there are no dinos with feathers, or are you complaining about a specific display of a specific specimen? If it's the former, then we know that's wrong. If it's the latter, then please specify what specimen and museum you're talking about.

Interestingly enough the feather idea falls into a matter of interpretation. From your POV there are lots of dinosaurs with feathers. From my POV there are zero to possibly a few with feathers.

So what is your POV based on? Studying the specimens and analyses of them?

My argument stands. Why are feathers being placed on dinosaurs when there are no feathers found on that particular species? My answer...to promote a specific worldview.

You haven't shown where that's occurred. And what worldview do you think is being promoted?

And yes the reasons article does speak to the derived characteristics theory. With all the organisms exploding on the scene simultaneously why assume the traits "passed on" from a common ancestor?

They didn't "explode simultaneously". Someone isn't telling you the truth.

​

Your assumption of the premise on the "reasons" article is incorrect...you could read the entire article and its sub-links to sharpen your evaluation.

Here's a thought....why don't you explain what you think is compelling about the website? Because right now it looks to me like whenever I post something specific, you just Google it and post whatever creationist website turns up. I'm not here to play dueling websites. If you link to something, you should be prepared to discuss it.

I also noticed that you have left quite a few unanswered questions on the table.

Would you agree that not all opinions are equally valid?

Can you please explain why you think Kulindadromeus zabaikalicus' downy, ribboned plumes are not primitive feathers?

What exactly would you expect primitive feathers to look like?

Some dinosaurs are depicted as having feathers because we have fossils of them with feathers. Are you expecting paleontologists and museum directors to hide that fact?

Why are you promoting the stereotype of the backwards science-hating Christian?

So do you understand how classification of fossils is more than just "measuring and dating"?

 

[justaname]

Lets start here...
http://www.grpm.org/explore/exhibits-2/past-exhibits/dinosaurs-unearthed/

Show me in the fossil record where T-Rex had feathers...I believe an atheistic evolutionary worldview is being promoted.

Okay I can take your opinion in this matter of the organisms appearing on the scene...or I can look to other data that is presented... "in the Chengjian site—which corresponds to the beginning of the Cambrian-the fossil record actually shows the simultaneous appearance of primitive and advanced chordates."

I am not a paleotologist...are you? Thereby my POV is based on scientists' discoveries and interpretations, yet does that matter in this informal discussion? What is your POV based on?

Here is a thought, you could actually read what is being presented before formulating an opinion of it. I did present valid information concerning the website, yet you decided to formulate an entire opinion based on partial information...interesting...I thought you liked to look into all sides of a situation and properly weigh them unbiasedly.


I would say all opinions are worth hearing, their validity depends on their truth value.
I can say I am uncertain what Kulindadromeus zabaikalicus' downy, ribboned plumes are except bristles and scales.
​I don't know what primitive feathers look like, I have never seen any. I personally have no expectations.
​My promotion of the stereotype was sarcasm...I thought you could have read into that. Sorry for my assumptions.
Classification of fossils utilizes measuring and dating as the main vehicle of process.
Kulindadromeus fossils display an assortment of scales and bristles, all remarkably preserved in fine detail. There are large thin scales on its tail, medium-sized scales on the lower legs, and tiny scales over its hands and feet. There are also thin bristles of various sorts on the head and body and little groups of bristles each attached to a scale-like base on the arms and thighs.
The scales include hexagonal scales (<3.5 mm long) overlapping like roof tiles covering the lower tibia (shin bone), reported as “resembling the scutella in modern birds.”5 Tiny round non-overlapping scales (<1 mm) appear along the ankle, foot, wrist, and hand bones. Larger scales up to 20 mm long and 10 mm wide protected this dinosaur’s tail. Very thin (<100 µm) and slightly overlapping, they are arranged in five longitudinal rows, with the largest ones near the body.
The bristles include monofilaments scattered on the body and head, with the thinnest and shortest (0.15 mm diameter, 10–15 mm long) on the head and slightly larger bristles (0.2–0.3 mm diameter, 20–30 mm long) elsewhere. According to the researchers, these bristles resemble the monofilament “dino-fuzz”4 on the theropod Sinosauropteryx.5 Though National Geographic describes these randomly oriented bristles as “streamlining”6 the body, Godefroit’s team reports they have “no preferred orientation.”5
Located on the upper arms and thighs are tufts of fine, inch-long filaments. Each tuft consists of six or seven filaments connected to a little plate at the base. The little plates, which may be “modified scales,”5 are arranged in hexagonal patterns but are not contiguous with each other. There are no shafts, barbs, or barbules on these patterned tufts of bristles, but the authors liken them to the barbule-lacking down on some modern varieties of chickens,5 but down normally has some barbules and certainly has no basal plates like these. Near the knees are “ribbon-shaped elements . . . an arrangement that has never previously been reported and that could represent a third feather-like morphotype in Kulindadromeus,”5 the researchers suggest, but both the size and resolution of the images (Fig. G, H, and I) give no clear evidence for classifying these structures as feathers, such as barbs and barbules.
Kulindadromeus has bristles, not feathers. Nevertheless, coauthor Maria McNamara says, “These feathers are really very well preserved.”6 The researchers conclude “grouped filaments that we interpret as avianlike feathers”5 suggest “that all Dinosauria could have had feathers and that feathers arose for purposes of insulation and signaling and were only later co-opted for flight.”5

These scales around the lower leg (A) and tail (B and C) were preserved in remarkable detail on fossilized dinosaurs in Siberian Jurassic dinosaur graveyards. Such detail demands that these animals were quickly and catastrophically buried without time to decay. Image: P. Godefroit et al., “A Jurassic ornithischian dinosaur from Siberia with both feathers and scales,” Science 345 (25 July 2014): 451–455.

These filaments on the forelimb (in A, B, and C) and hindlimb (in D, E, and F) of Kulindadromeus fossils represent the most complex of the filaments on the fossils. These bristles are connected at the base to small plates arranged in a hexagonal pattern. There are no shafts, barbs, or barbules as would be expected if these were actually feathers. The basal plates may be a kind of scale, the researchers suggest. Image: P. Godefroit et al., “A Jurassic ornithischian dinosaur from Siberia with both feathers and scales,” Science 345 (25 July 2014): 451–455.

Godefroit’s team of paleontologists also noticed, higher up on the tibia from the other bristles, some “clusters of six or seven ribbon-shaped elements. . . . Each individual element is 15 to 20 mm long and 1.5 to 3 mm wide.”5 They admit that they do not know what these are, as “This is an arrangement that has never previously been reported.”5 Due to their bias that the bristles on this animal are feathers, or at least elements in the evolutionary history of feathers, they conclude that the ribbons “could represent a third featherlike morphotype in Kulindadromeus.”5 The size and lack of resolution of these fossilized ribbon structures are certainly not very convincing—and there is no mention of barbules or hooks on these structures in the literature; therefore it must be their feathery bias that prompts them to see these unique, unidentified, ribbon-shaped elements as feathers. Image: P. Godefroit et al., “A Jurassic ornithischian dinosaur from Siberia with both feathers and scales,” Science 345 (25 July 2014): 451–455.

 

[River Jordan]

Lets start here...
http://www.grpm.org/explore/exhibits-2/past-exhibits/dinosaurs-unearthed/

I think you misunderstood the point of that exhibit. They even say "Through a dynamic display of feathered animatronic dinosaurs and feathered fossils, guests were asked to challenge their understanding of how some of their favorite dinosaurs lived and looked during prehistoric times." So they're not putting that fuzzy t-rex up as "This what we know they looked like", but rather to do exactly what they said, i.e., get people to start thinking about their favorite dinosaurs in a different way. The web page also states...

"Guests saw first-hand the fossil evidence that led scientists to believe that dinosaurs are the ancestors of modern birds, not reptiles as previously thought. A Microraptor fossil was showcased at the exhibition representing not only one of the earliest discoveries of feathered dinosaurs but the ongoing research into the life history of this species. Paleontologists have discovered that feathers first served as a means of warmth or display for some dinosaur species and later evolved to the extent that flight was possible."

I'm curious...did you go see this exhibit?

I believe an atheistic evolutionary worldview is being promoted.

???????? There's not one mention of God, atheism, or anything like that at all. How do you get atheism out of that?

Okay I can take your opinion in this matter of the organisms appearing on the scene...or I can look to other data that is presented... "in the Chengjian site—which corresponds to the beginning of the Cambrian-the fossil record actually shows the simultaneous appearance of primitive and advanced chordates."

If you read that whole paragraph, they're making the exact fundamental error I described earlier...

"Yet, in the Chengjian site—which corresponds to the beginning of the Cambrian—researchers have recovered a number of urochordate, hemichordate, cephalochordate, and agnathan specimens, all organisms that would be Pikaia’s evolutionary descendents. Instead of observing the sequential appearance of primitive chordates first, followed by more advanced chordates, the fossil record actually shows the simultaneous appearance of primitive and advanced chordates. This pattern is unexpected from an evolutionary perspective."

Their objection is rooted in the misconception (that I've been pointing out to you) that ancestral species cannot co-exist with descendant species. That's what the whole "sequential appearance" part is about. So again, either RtB folks are rather ignorant about fundamental biology, or they are deliberately lying to you. Doesn't that bother you?

I am not a paleotologist...are you? Thereby my POV is based on scientists' discoveries and interpretations, yet does that matter in this informal discussion? What is your POV based on?

So if you're not a paleontologist, can you explain why you reject the conclusions of paleontologists? My POV is based on my time spent studying this subject and my professional experience. Now, I'm a biologist not a paleontologist, but I do know a bit about it and I feel comfortable in my ability to read, understand, and evaluate some of the things we're discussing. And in the end, I generally think the paleontologists know what they're doing.

Here is a thought, you could actually read what is being presented before formulating an opinion of it. I did present valid information concerning the website, yet you decided to formulate an entire opinion based on partial information...interesting...I thought you liked to look into all sides of a situation and properly weigh them unbiasedly.

See above. Their entire argument is based on ignorance or deliberate deception.

I would say all opinions are worth hearing, their validity depends on their truth value.

And how do you establish the truth value of different opinions?

I can say I am uncertain what Kulindadromeus zabaikalicus' downy, ribboned plumes are except bristles and scales.
​I don't know what primitive feathers look like, I have never seen any. I personally have no expectations.

So how do you know K. zabikalicus didn't have primitive feathers?

Classification of fossils utilizes measuring and dating as the main vehicle of process.

OK, thanks.

 

[justaname]

The latter attached portion of post #85 describes a lot about our supposedly feathered friend in question...BTW this was also posted in #81 but not extrapolated.

For the Grand Rapids exhibit I didn't see it personally yet I did see it promoted. I did not miss the point of the exhibit, yet I don't see any value in misrepresenting the fossil record in a scientific setting where children and less informed, impressional individuals, can be persuaded to believe something that has no credibility. I also would not expect any website, barring an open atheistic site, promoting an atheistic agenda.

I do not agree with your premise on the article summary. Never is it implied that co-existance is impossible only that evolution presupposes long time lapses between species yet the fossil record actually shows the simultaneous appearance of primitive and advanced chordates. This seems to refute the evolution theory. Again if you read the entire article along with the sub-articles more explanation and arguments are laid out.

As far as defining the truth value of opinions I guess that would depend on the philosophy I feel like using in any particular case...

As far as rejecting paleontologists, I do not reject them all nor all of their findings. I don't simply accept everything they promote either. Scientists or not they can and have been wrong. Even their own colleagues don't accept everything presented as you can see in post #85.

To the primitive feathers question I could argue you have never seen them either...at least on Kulindadromeus. That is what I was implying anyways...

 

[River Jordan]

The latter attached portion of post #85 describes a lot about our supposedly feathered friend in question...BTW this was also posted in #81 but not extrapolated.

Yes, I read the AiG web page when you linked to it. Do you have anything to add or comment, other than to just copy and paste it?

Right now, from where I sit it looks like what I described earlier, where you are just Googling what I mention and posting whatever creationist website your search turns up. Is that what you're doing?

For the Grand Rapids exhibit I didn't see it personally yet I did see it promoted.

So how do you know how the T-rex was described to the audience?

I did not miss the point of the exhibit, yet I don't see any value in misrepresenting the fossil record in a scientific setting where children and less informed, impressional individuals, can be persuaded to believe something that has no credibility.

Same thing...how do you know it was misrepresented? The web page was pretty clear that they were trying to get people to think differently about certain dinos, so how do you know they didn't go over all the reasons why paleontologists think all tyrannosaurids had feathers?

Looks to me like you're assuming an awful lot.

I also would not expect any website, barring an open atheistic site, promoting an atheistic agenda.

?????????????? I'm sorry, but you're not making any sense on this point. I don't understand what you think any of this has to do with promoting an atheistic worldview.

I do not agree with your premise on the article summary. Never is it implied that co-existance is impossible

Then you're not understanding the article.

"Instead of observing the sequential appearance of primitive chordates first, followed by more advanced chordates, the fossil record actually shows the simultaneous appearance of primitive and advanced chordates. This pattern is unexpected from an evolutionary perspective."

Can you explain for me why ancestors and their descendants can't appear together in the fossil record?

only that evolution presupposes long time lapses between species yet the fossil record actually shows the simultaneous appearance of primitive and advanced chordates. This seems to refute the evolution theory.

And I think we've identified yet another error from that article. Apparently they're assuming that the first known appearance of a species in the fossil record must represent it's first actual appearance on earth. So now we have two problems with RtB's article.

As far as defining the truth value of opinions I guess that would depend on the philosophy I feel like using in any particular case...

Really? So if a paleontologist tells you that a dino specimen had primitive feathers, and a creationist (who is not a paleontologist) makes a web page saying they didn't, you figure out who's telling you the truth based on philosophy?

As far as rejecting paleontologists, I do not reject them all nor all of their findings. I don't simply accept everything they promote either. Scientists or not they can and have been wrong. Even their own colleagues don't accept everything presented as you can see in post #85.

So on what basis do you decide what to accept or reject?

 

[justaname]

Yes, I read the AiG web page when you linked to it. Do you have anything to add or comment, other than to just copy and paste it?

I copied and pasted it because I didn't believe you actually read it based on the questions you were advancing.

Right now, from where I sit it looks like what I described earlier, where you are just Googling what I mention and posting whatever creationist website your search turns up. Is that what you're doing?

No. Yet I am not exhaustive in all knowledge and I do rely on experts in particular fields.

So how do you know how the T-rex was described to the audience?

How do you know there was a presentation made to the audience?

Same thing...how do you know it was misrepresented? The web page was pretty clear that they were trying to get people to think differently about certain dinos, so how do you know they didn't go over all the reasons why paleontologists think all tyrannosaurids had feathers?

Looks to me like you're assuming an awful lot.

Looks to me like you are doing the same.

?????????????? I'm sorry, but you're not making any sense on this point. I don't understand what you think any of this has to do with promoting an atheistic worldview.

I wouldn't expect you to understand, yet if you desire to further this question I suggest starting a different thread. My premise is rather lengthy and off topic really.

Then you're not understanding the article.

"Instead of observing the sequential appearance of primitive chordates first, followed by more advanced chordates, the fossil record actually shows the simultaneous appearance of primitive and advanced chordates. This pattern is unexpected from an evolutionary perspective."

Can you explain for me why ancestors and their descendants can't appear together in the fossil record?

Never said they couldn't, yet you are assuming ancestry.

And I think we've identified yet another error from that article. Apparently they're assuming that the first known appearance of a species in the fossil record must represent it's first actual appearance on earth. So now we have two problems with RtB's article.

Here you are assuming the primitive form exists outside its found record. You are simply assuming that it can be found at an earlier date when the scientific evidence does not represent that. Can you say faith based science?

Really? So if a paleontologist tells you that a dino specimen had primitive feathers, and a creationist (who is not a paleontologist) makes a web page saying they didn't, you figure out who's telling you the truth based on philosophy?

How do you know that there are no creationist paleontologists or that this person who formulated or even edited this blog are not educated in the field? You yourself claim to be a creationist biologist.

So on what basis do you decide what to accept or reject?

Every personal decision is based on the best evidence and interpretation given and my analysis of such. All logical and reasonable decisions are made within a value of faith; what I believe to be true. Even what we would call human observational evidence is subjective. (Kant) With that though objective truth does exist within the divine, yet I am not divine. I could expand on this further if you like...

 

[River Jordan]

I copied and pasted it because I didn't believe you actually read it based on the questions you were advancing.

Nope, I read it. You still haven't explained what you think primitive feathers would look like and why the structures on K. zabaikalicus aren't primitive feathers. AiG basically argues that they aren't because they don't have all the features of fully modern feathers. And that's particularly ironic, since with other evolutionary developments creationists usually demand to see a "half formed" wing, beak, or something. But now that we have feathers in a truly primitive state, suddenly they don't count because they're not fully modern!!

But that's the nature of creationism. It's a result of the approach AiG describes in their statement of faith...

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."

Since their belief is that evolutionary theory contradicts scripture, they have no choice but to argue against any and all data that supports it, even if (as above) doing so causes them to contradict themselves.

No. Yet I am not exhaustive in all knowledge and I do rely on experts in particular fields.

So you didn't do any sort of search for a creationist take on K. zabaikalicus?

How do you know there was a presentation made to the audience?

That's what it was, an interactive exhibit. The website you linked to said "Younger guests enjoyed hands-on learning with interactive stations that explore dinosaur sounds, anatomy and digestion, as well as fossil detective work. Two interactive consoles allowed guests to control animatronic dinosaur movement, exploring how scientists believe each dinosaur moved its limbs, eyes and mouth. The kids dig site was an entertaining way for amateur paleontologists to make their own fossil discoveries."

Looks to me like you are doing the same.

You didn't answer the question. How do you know it was misrepresented? The web page was pretty clear that they were trying to get people to think differently about certain dinos, so how do you know they didn't present all the reasons why paleontologists think all tyrannosaurids had feathers?

I wouldn't expect you to understand, yet if you desire to further this question I suggest starting a different thread. My premise is rather lengthy and off topic really.

You can do that if you like, but as it stands you've not given one reason why any of this anything at all to do with promoting atheism.

Never said they couldn't, yet you are assuming ancestry.

Here you are assuming the primitive form exists outside its found record. You are simply assuming that it can be found at an earlier date when the scientific evidence does not represent that. Can you say faith based science?

I didn't say either of those things. The evolutionary relationships between those organisms is still being analyzed and debated.

How do you know that there are no creationist paleontologists or that this person who formulated or even edited this blog are not educated in the field? You yourself claim to be a creationist biologist.

First, I never said there weren't any creationist paleontologists. But if there are any, they aren't doing anything in the scientific world. Second, all I had to do was check Dr. Mitchell's page at AiG to see....

"Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell received a bachelor of science in chemistry from Furman University in 1980, graduating summa cum laude. She graduated from Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville in 1984 and completed her residency in obstetrics and gynecology at Vanderbilt University Affiliated Hospitals in 1988. She earned board certification and fellowship in the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology."

So there you have it. The "expert" you're relying on to tell you about dinosaur fossils is a gynecologist.

Finally, I'm not a "creationist" in the common usage of the word (evolution denying).

Every personal decision is based on the best evidence and interpretation given and my analysis of such. All logical and reasonable decisions are made within a value of faith; what I believe to be true. Even what we would call human observational evidence is subjective. (Kant) With that though objective truth does exist within the divine, yet I am not divine. I could expand on this further if you like...

So specific to the issue of feathers on these specimens, can you explain how you came to the decision that they aren't feathers?

 

[heretoeternity]

Wow..pretty deep scientific discussion...but as Jesus said "God knows the hairs on our head" Luke 12 and Matthew 10.....
It all goes back to the genetic code, DNA strands that God, gave us upon conception..each one is a bit different...
The animals have their own genetic code to differentiate the specifies, completely different from the human DNA...
Genetic code and DNA does not "evolve", as it created and implanted by God Himself!

BTW..Please no follically challenged jokes..lol

 

[justaname]

My arguments never went against the structures on K. zabaikalicus being feathers, yet I did present evidence of a different interpretation of the structures. My argument has been against feathers being on T-Rex and other dinosaurs without feathers existent in the fossil record. This stated I am uncertain if they are or are not feathers. I would have to study the information further.

You should also look to where I posted the link describing these structures before you were specific in your questioning.

Again if a child goes to a science exhibit and sees feathers on T-Rex his/her impressionable mind is going to think "T-Rex had feathers!" when there is no fossil evidence for such a misleading notion. I know it was misrepresented because the fossil evidence speaks nothing to feathers yet there you have a feathered T-Rex. The evidence is in the display itself.

"Can you explain for me why ancestors and their descendants can't appear together in the fossil record?" (RJ quote)
Tell me this question does not assume ancestry.

"Apparently they're assuming that the first known appearance of a species in the fossil record must represent it's first actual appearance on earth." (RJ quote)
Tell me this statement is not loaded with the assumption that there is an earlier appearance on earth for the species.

I do not see all creationists as evolution denying, yet apparently your common usage does. So how would you describe or classify your philosophy of origins?

As to the expert Dr. Elizabeth... She does present the information well and in an understandable format. She is careful not to jump to any conclusions which I respect, conveying the information as it is.

Now that all the hoops you presented are settled lets get back to my initial statement....Where are all the valid and reasonable transitional species? Where is the solid evidence for me to believe in the evolutional theory? You say evolution happens all the time...Hundreds of thousands of fossils, dare I say hundreds of millions...all stemming from single celled organisms? Hard for me to believe...

Lets go back to my statement of implausibility... How many accidental mutations does it take to make a human? You are the biologist...how do we chemically achieve DNA and proteins?

 

[River Jordan]

It all goes back to the genetic code, DNA strands that God, gave us upon conception..each one is a bit different...
The animals have their own genetic code to differentiate the specifies, completely different from the human DNA...
Genetic code and DNA does not "evolve", as it created and implanted by God Himself!

Just so we're clear, you believe God gave every individual it's genome?

My arguments never went against the structures on K. zabaikalicus being feathers, yet I did present evidence of a different interpretation of the structures. My argument has been against feathers being on T-Rex and other dinosaurs without feathers existent in the fossil record. This stated I am uncertain if they are or are not feathers. I would have to study the information further.

The only "different interpretation" you presented was that of a gynecologist who signed an oath that prohibits her from acknowledging anything that might support evolution. I'm not sure what that was supposed to accomplish. But if now your position on K. zabaikalicus and its feathers is "I don't know" then I guess we can be done with that.

Again if a child goes to a science exhibit and sees feathers on T-Rex his/her impressionable mind is going to think "T-Rex had feathers!" when there is no fossil evidence for such a misleading notion. I know it was misrepresented because the fossil evidence speaks nothing to feathers yet there you have a feathered T-Rex. The evidence is in the display itself.

They specifically said on the website the exhibit walked visitors through the reasons why paleontologists think T-rex had feathers (mostly because all the other members of its family that we know of had feathers). But let's be honest here...does that bother you because you don't think its justified, or does it bother you because its supportive of the evolution of birds from dinos, which is something you cannot accept?

"Can you explain for me why ancestors and their descendants can't appear together in the fossil record?" (RJ quote)
Tell me this question does not assume ancestry.

"Apparently they're assuming that the first known appearance of a species in the fossil record must represent it's first actual appearance on earth." (RJ quote)
Tell me this statement is not loaded with the assumption that there is an earlier appearance on earth for the species.

I think you misunderstood the point. You asked about the evolution of vertebrates. I posted some of the fossil evidence. You responded by posting another copy and paste, this time from RtB, that argued on the basis that ancestors cannot co-exist with their descendants.

All I did was point out how that argument from RtB isn't valid. I never said that that's what actually is going on with those specimens. It may be or it may be something else...we don't know, and likely won't know until we find more specimens. But the fact remains, we have fossil specimens of primitive vertebrates in a geologic time when we would expect them, followed by an expansion of vertebrate species. That's the sort of pattern we would expect under evolutionary common descent. Now we have to keep looking and try and figure out exactly how it happened. That's how science works.

I do not see all creationists as evolution denying, yet apparently your common usage does. So how would you describe or classify your philosophy of origins?

If you go up to someone and say "I'm a creationist", most of the time they're going to figure you don't believe in evolution and instead believe in some sort of Biblically-based alternative. That doesn't apply to me. Probably the most familiar label for me would be theistic evolution.

As to the expert Dr. Elizabeth... She does present the information well and in an understandable format. She is careful not to jump to any conclusions which I respect, conveying the information as it is.

All I can say to that is, a gynecologist is AiG's "expert" on dinosaur fossils. That really speaks for itself.

Now that all the hoops you presented are settled lets get back to my initial statement....Where are all the valid and reasonable transitional species? Where is the solid evidence for me to believe in the evolutional theory? You say evolution happens all the time...Hundreds of thousands of fossils, dare I say hundreds of millions...all stemming from single celled organisms? Hard for me to believe...

Seriously? I posted a reference to the fossil record of the evolutionary history of an entire class of organisms, that includes the documented evolution of new orders, genera, and species.

Again, has it ever occurred to you that the problem here isn't with the science, but with your understanding of it?

Lets go back to my statement of implausibility... How many accidental mutations does it take to make a human? You are the biologist...how do we chemically achieve DNA and proteins?

Well now we're to the point so many of these discussions end up in. "Explain the entire evolutionary history of X to me!" I mean...really? You want me to estimate the genome of the last common ancestor of humans and chimps and then calculate the number of mutations to go from that to today's humans? Then when I've finished that, explain the origin of the first life? Gee...how 'bout when I'm done with that, I unite general relativity with quantum mechanics?

But I also notice the double standard here. From the creationist side you see a gynecologist musing on dinosaur feathers, and you just shrug like that's just fine. But when it comes to me, you expect me to fully answer and explain the entire evolutionary history of the hominids and then explain the origins of life on earth. See the double standard?

All I can say is, if you really are interested in those questions, you should take the time to study them from actual qualified scientists working on those things at actual scientific organizations (not gynecologists who've signed oaths promising to be as biased as necessary to maintain a religious belief). If you do that, I wish you well and I'd be glad to help you find good sources.

OTOH, if you're asking those things not because you're interested, but because you're trying to stump me, then please say so.

 

[aspen]

Our hearts are either being taught to love as we were created to love, resulting in perfection (sanctified for Heaven). Or we are left in our sin - tendency for selfishness, which leads to consuming, all incompassing self worship, resulting in an inability to see anyone but ourselves (sanctified for for Hell). I am surprised you are having such difficulty decoding this KingJ, with all your "anyone with half a brain can think logically" talk........

 

[justaname]

Just so we're clear, you believe God gave every individual it's genome?


The only "different interpretation" you presented was that of a gynecologist who signed an oath that prohibits her from acknowledging anything that might support evolution. I'm not sure what that was supposed to accomplish. But if now your position on K. zabaikalicus and its feathers is "I don't know" then I guess we can be done with that.

Here you have built a straw-man. The statement of faith says nothing about evolution, only adherence to scripture. Also here you have decided not to speak anything about the evidence provided only about the one providing it. We all know to you science has nothing to do with the facts of the presentation only the prestigiousness of the presenter...

They specifically said on the website the exhibit walked visitors through the reasons why paleontologists think T-rex had feathers (mostly because all the other members of its family that we know of had feathers). But let's be honest here...does that bother you because you don't think its justified, or does it bother you because its supportive of the evolution of birds from dinos, which is something you cannot accept?

Here my argument was laid out clearly. If evolution were true I still do not see any need for feathers on T-Rex when we have no evidence for it. It is teaching a misconception.

I think you misunderstood the point. You asked about the evolution of vertebrates. I posted some of the fossil evidence. You responded by posting another copy and paste, this time from RtB, that argued on the basis that ancestors cannot co-exist with their descendants.

You are blind to your own worldview. You still view these through ancestry. This is a complete distortion you have concocted because of your blindness. The author never made any such argument. Being these species are all in the same time period refutes any type of ancestry. Who is to say we can't find a more advanced species at an earlier date with no trace of the more primitive form? Your worldview is influencing your interpretation of the data.

All I did was point out how that argument from RtB isn't valid. I never said that that's what actually is going on with those specimens. It may be or it may be something else...we don't know, and likely won't know until we find more specimens. But the fact remains, we have fossil specimens of primitive vertebrates in a geologic time when we would expect them, followed by an expansion of vertebrate species. That's the sort of pattern we would expect under evolutionary common descent. Now we have to keep looking and try and figure out exactly how it happened. That's how science works.

Here you distort the data and continue your false accusation. We have fossil specimens of an invertebrate in a geologic timeline along with other vertebrate species in the same timeline. There is no "following" when they all appear in the fossil record at the same time.

If you go up to someone and say "I'm a creationist", most of the time they're going to figure you don't believe in evolution and instead believe in some sort of Biblically-based alternative. That doesn't apply to me. Probably the most familiar label for me would be theistic evolution.

All I can say to that is, a gynecologist is AiG's "expert" on dinosaur fossils. That really speaks for itself.

Lets stick with debating the data not the presenters. I mean really... I could return the banter...Are you a PHD or is it a Masters degree? Are you a biologist or a eighth grade biology teacher? Were you an "A" student or a "C" student?

I am interested in the data not the presenter...

Seriously? I posted a reference to the fossil record of the evolutionary history of an entire class of organisms, that includes the documented evolution of new orders, genera, and species.

Again, has it ever occurred to you that the problem here isn't with the science, but with your understanding of it?

I did read the reference and I am continuing to study about it. I would like more relevant information.

Well now we're to the point so many of these discussions end up in. "Explain the entire evolutionary history of X to me!" I mean...really? You want me to estimate the genome of the last common ancestor of humans and chimps and then calculate the number of mutations to go from that to today's humans? Then when I've finished that, explain the origin of the first life? Gee...how 'bout when I'm done with that, I unite general relativity with quantum mechanics?

Evolution is a science of origins, yet evolutionists can't explain the origin of life...interesting. How about a best guess for the accidental mutations from single cell to human...Do ya think we are in the millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions? I just trying to get at how many accidents needed to happen for me to be here.

But I also notice the double standard here. From the creationist side you see a gynecologist musing on dinosaur feathers, and you just shrug like that's just fine. But when it comes to me, you expect me to fully answer and explain the entire evolutionary history of the hominids and then explain the origins of life on earth. See the double standard?

All I can say is, if you really are interested in those questions, you should take the time to study them from actual qualified scientists working on those things at actual scientific organizations (not gynecologists who've signed oaths promising to be as biased as necessary to maintain a religious belief). If you do that, I wish you well and I'd be glad to help you find good sources.

OTOH, if you're asking those things not because you're interested, but because you're trying to stump me, then please say so.

I am not interested in playing stump RJ. I do look to the scientific community for their insight, yet I also see their worldview bias as they present data as shown within this thread from you. For me it is best to gain insight from multiple perspectives in order to properly evaluate what I deem as truth.

 

[KingJ]

Sorry, that doesn't make sense. "Living soul" is exactly what I've been saying all along.

Pleeease tell me that you understand that that verse I quoted would include monkeys as living souls.....can you really be so bad at english comprehension?

Our hearts are either being taught to love as we were created to love, resulting in perfection (sanctified for Heaven). Or we are left in our sin - tendency for selfishness, which leads to consuming, all incompassing self worship, resulting in an inability to see anyone but ourselves (sanctified for for Hell). I am surprised you are having such difficulty decoding this KingJ, with all your "anyone with half a brain can think logically" talk........

Rev 3:20 Here I am! I stand (not sleeping, not sitting) at the door and knock (not throwing stones from miles away). If anyone (anyone being...ANYONE... the good and the evil) hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me.

You have convinced yourself that some are sanctified for heaven and others for hell like a 5pt Calvinist who can't read past Rom 9. Let scripture speak for itself. Don't be putting words in God's mouth from YOUR opinion and assumptions. You CANNOT grasp the mechanics of God's brain, but you / we all can LOOK at the CROSS and grasp God DESERVES our BEST assumptions on the unknown.

ONLY the dead in sin are left alone in their sin. ALL the living have God and us. That is HaRdLy AlOnE wOuLdN't YoU sAy....

It is quite funny that you suggest I get this wrong considering all my ''half working brain quotes'''.. ^_^ .....when we only need half a working brain cell to grasp that we cannot fully grasp God's brain. ALL we can do is look at where the evidence points...and GUESS WHAT...it DOES NOT point where you suggest it does. You serve an evil God if you truly believe what you said. I don't serve an evil God. I would not serve an evil God. God knows this. Jonah knew this Jonah 4:2. David knew this. David said GIVE THANKS, because God is good Psalm 136:1. ALL Chrisians should grasp this Eph 3:18 may have power, together with all the Lord’s holy people, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ.

 

[aspen]

Sounds like you are denying the saving power of Christ. If you have a relationship with Him, you are saved or being saved depending on whether or not you embrace OSAS. If you do not have a relationship with Christ, you are not saved or being saved - this is Christianity 101, KingJ. I just used different terms to describe it - sorry that confused you. If Jesus stands at the door and knocks and you open it and invite him in - you are starting a relationship with Him - if you don't you are leaving Him in the cold and remaining in your sin. No need to start getting crazy and throwing around accusations about me claiming to "know the mind of God".....all I am doing is reading the Bible.

 

[River Jordan]

Here you have built a straw-man. The statement of faith says nothing about evolution, only adherence to scripture.

Apparently I'm more familiar with your source than you are. I'm surprised to see you so unaware of AiG's stance on evolution and even "billions of years" and how they believe both are directly contrary to scripture and undermine Christianity as a whole. I mean, it's the primary theme of their "Creation museum" in Kentucky!

So no straw man here.

Also here you have decided not to speak anything about the evidence provided only about the one providing it. We all know to you science has nothing to do with the facts of the presentation only the prestigiousness of the presenter...

I did address the argument the gynecologist at AiG put forth. Again, she argued that the structures on K. zabaikalicus aren't feathers because they don't have all the features of modern feathers. I pointed out how that's not only ignorant of the data (they are very nice primitive feathers) but is contradictory to arguments creationists make with other anatomical transitions (e.g., where is the half-formed wing, beak, etc.).

So in sum on this question, what I see is you were presented with some data that you weren't familiar with and didn't know how to respond to, so you did a search for something from creationists and posted it without checking to see if it was credible or came from a knowledgeable source. But now that the problems, both with the content and with the author, have been exposed you are backing away a bit and saying you only posted it "to show there are different interpretations" out there.

All I can say at this point is that there is lots of data supporting the evolutionary relatedness between birds and dinosaurs, including many, many fossil specimens of dinos with feathers. And your only response is to post a "different interpretation" of the fossils from a gynecologist who signed an oath promising that she will always interpret everything through a young-earth creationist viewpoint, no matter what.

If that's all you have, we can probably put this one to rest.

If evolution were true I still do not see any need for feathers on T-Rex when we have no evidence for it. It is teaching a misconception.

Well, that's your opinion. The people who actually work in the profession have a different view.

You are blind to your own worldview. You still view these through ancestry. This is a complete distortion you have concocted because of your blindness. The author never made any such argument. Being these species are all in the same time period refutes any type of ancestry.

Seriously? First you say the author never made the argument, and then you make the argument yourself!! Hilarious.

Who is to say we can't find a more advanced species at an earlier date with no trace of the more primitive form? Your worldview is influencing your interpretation of the data.

Well, when someone finds this more advanced species we can talk about it. But I have to say I find it incredibly hypocritical of you to grouse about anyone else's bias, when you rely on unqualified sources who declare up front that any and all data must conform to their religious beliefs. And you seem completely oblivious to it.

Here you distort the data and continue your false accusation. We have fossil specimens of an invertebrate in a geologic timeline along with other vertebrate species in the same timeline. There is no "following" when they all appear in the fossil record at the same time.

This is the problem with trying to discuss scientific data with someone who not only is ignorant of it, but has also decided what it must be and that it can't be any different. The "pattern" I was referring to is how in the Cambrian we see only a handful of very primitive vertebrates, some of which are extremely difficult to classify because they're so primitive, but as we move forward in time we see an expansion of vertebrate species. It's roughly represented in this diagram....

That's exactly the pattern we'd expect to see under evolutionary common ancestry.

Lets stick with debating the data not the presenters. I mean really... I could return the banter...Are you a PHD or is it a Masters degree? Are you a biologist or a eighth grade biology teacher? Were you an "A" student or a "C" student?

I am interested in the data not the presenter...

I'm interested in both. Why would AiG have a gynecologist comment on dinosaur fossils? Would you go to a paleontologist for a pap smear?

I did read the reference and I am continuing to study about it. I would like more relevant information.

Let me know when your studies have progressed and you're ready to discuss what you learned.

Evolution is a science of origins, yet evolutionists can't explain the origin of life...interesting. How about a best guess for the accidental mutations from single cell to human...Do ya think we are in the millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions? I just trying to get at how many accidents needed to happen for me to be here.

Again, if you're truly interested in such questions I suggest you take the time to study and learn the subject matter. That's not a problem, is it?

I am not interested in playing stump RJ. I do look to the scientific community for their insight, yet I also see their worldview bias as they present data as shown within this thread from you. For me it is best to gain insight from multiple perspectives in order to properly evaluate what I deem as truth.

Again it's incredibly hypocritical to wave away scientists as "biased" while at the same time citing unqualified creationists who sign oaths promising to always interpret data through young-earth creationism. Kinda clueless too.

Pleeease tell me that you understand that that verse I quoted would include monkeys as living souls.

Yeah, thanks for your input.

 

[KingJ]

Sounds like you are denying the saving power of Christ. If you have a relationship with Him, you are saved or being saved depending on whether or not you embrace OSAS. If you do not have a relationship with Christ, you are not saved or being saved - this is Christianity 101, KingJ. I just used different terms to describe it - sorry that confused you. If Jesus stands at the door and knocks and you open it and invite him in - you are starting a relationship with Him - if you don't you are leaving Him in the cold and remaining in your sin. No need to start getting crazy and throwing around accusations about me claiming to "know the mind of God".....all I am doing is reading the Bible.

Aspen, nobody is being sanctified for hell. What scripture says that? My bible says God is reaching out to everyone. Your statement implies God has given up on them. I guess it is just your wording. As I assume you are no a recent 5pt Calvinist .

Yeah, thanks for your input.

I am curious how you now justify your Christian belief mixed with evolution, now that your 'soul' assumption has fallen flat on its face?

 

[River Jordan]

I am curious how you now justify your Christian belief mixed with evolution, now that your 'soul' assumption has fallen flat on its face?

No it hasn't. And you're definitely not coming across as curious.