Full story: http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/08/health/dinosaur-tail-trapped-in-amber-trnd/index.html
I’d love proponents of both evolution and ID to tell me how their theories predicted this, along with supporting documentation from before the discovery. Thanks!
How stupid is that? Did Apple computers quit being Apples because they began to use Intel processors?
Basically, you’re taking the facts that point to evolution and trying to turn them into definitions that God can’t violate because… Well, because why?
And who gives a damn if birds and bats aren’t separated by certain characters anyhow (and what if mammals had feathers but lactated while birds still did not? They could still be classified by that characteristic)? It’s inevitable that they are separated like that if known evolutionary processes were responsible for birds and mammals, but it’s hardly a requirement of, well, anything else. Why shouldn’t I have bird vision and bird lungs, both of which are better than ours? Why shouldn’t birds have mammalian ossicles, maybe lactation in some instances?
Glen Davidson
This from the person who wrote that feathers evolved for flight, and that feathers also evolved for insulation.
From the perspective of evolutionary theory, this is of course, pure nonsense.
Let’s try this another way since you all are apparently having difficulty.
Let’s say God made a bat that was exactly like a bird how would you know it is a bat and not a bird?
peace
The only thing that this thread demonstrates is that trying to have a rational discussion with evolution deniers is like trying to teach a pig to sing: it’s a waste of time and it annoys the pig.
If you feel like wasting your time like that, feel free — we all have our hobbies — but it’s past time to give up on trying to have a reasonable discussion with these people.
Didn’t someone mention that humans use feathers for insulation?
Apple computers are not defined by the absence of Intel processors.
Mammals are defined (partially) by the absence of feathers
No I’m taking logic to be universal and universally binding .
That fact does not point to evolution in fact it’s evidence against evolution
anyone who wants to know the difference between birds and bats
except you know……… logic
peace
And yet we do. So our ancestors had feathers.
You’re so talented at bullshitting. Impressive. This is what you said:
So, again, I never heard of such a power. Can you understand that at all? I thought it was very clear, after all, I quoted that very same crap of yours in my answer.
I spent the bandwidth because you asked “what of value does NS do?” I just clarified that I don’t think in those terms. How could I have guessed that would be so offensive to you?
Chocolate.
Yes, it would be nice if you’d learned logic in school.
Glen Davidson
It depends. There are some differences among the anti-evo crowd here, but I’d agree that this discussion turned out pretty surreal.
Who decides what meaning is assigned to a word?
I’ve been planning on discussing Trump instead.
That brings out rational discussion on both sides.
Glen Davidson
Are there any evolution deniers participating in this thread??
I would say trying to have a rational discussion with a strawman of your own imagination is like trying to teach a pig to sing
😉
peace
I inherited a down featherbed too! We must share a common ancestor!
Not really, because the pig doesn’t learn to sing because singing is really beyond its physical and mental abilities.
Creationists/IDists are interesting in the variety of ways that they find to rationalize their intransigence and ignorance.
Glen Davidson
God knows the meanings of words. We try and discover the meanings of words.
No one decides the meanings of words.
Words simply have meanings
peace
Not offensive in the least,
just unnecessary and superfluous
😉
peace
I got mine by horizontal transfer.
It was clear just incorrect.
NS is purported to have the power to remove unnecessary and superfluous features. You were wrong in implying that it was not.
peace
😀
Fascinating ! You just earned an entry in my “Philosophy Notes” file. I just need to decide whether to file it under Reification, or Mind Projection Fallacy.
Trying to have a rational conversation with people that still believe CNN is a credible news source and that China is a credible source for grand fossil discoveries is like trying to …
Sure there are. You. Evolution as taught in universities does not involve gods. You however cannot talk about evolution without mentioning god. Therefore what you call “evolution” is not what is taught as evolution and hence you deny evolution and replace it with a version of your own making.
Has no one ever mentioned this to you before?
Fer instance:
Please find me a reference to that specific “fact” in a reputable biology textbook.
In that however, you are perfectly correct. It is literally pointless, as evidenced by many years worth of “discussions” on this site alone, that you cannot be taught anything at all. There are plenty of people with demonstrable understanding and insight here, textbook authors, teachers and scientists. And yet you know better then literally all of them about literally everything.
Is the designer limited in his choices , even if fur is better must use feathers because he previously designed birds to have feathers?
Depends on the design criteria, if fur is superior in other animals , designers often borrow for diverse sources to mix and match. I do agree if economy is important to the designer reusing makes sense, though with a designer which can create an Universe fur on a bird seems doable with little effort
peace
Do you have a list of fake stories that CNN have published? Sourced and evidenced?
So you believe this to be a fake? Why, other then your own desire for it to be? Irony much?
Hi Mindpowers! Is that a flyby to commit the genetic fallacy (Can you fault the article itself?) or are you here to tell us the ID narrative. Read the OP and give it your best shot.
Shakespeare did.
It certainly brings out phoodoo’s rationality. I can’t say the same for the others.
Yes, it’s certainly true that non-human animals cannot fall prey to ideology. I was discussing this problem with a friend of mine last night: non-human animals will continually update their mental representations of their local situations as necessary for adjusting actions to novel or routine stimuli, so they are dynamically but closely coupled to their situations.
Whereas in humans, it’s precisely because intersubjective exchanges make possible stable mental contents — that is, concepts — that we can construct culturally scaffolded “worlds” that we can also get ensnared in epistemic bubbles of various kinds: ideologies, tribalisms, myths, ethnonationalisms, prejudices, etc.
It’s funny, but I guess you must believe that someone faked this then put it out for sale for pennies on the off chance that this would happen. Somehow that’s more believable a story to you then it being real, after experts have given their validation?
If you take a few minutes to read about how fake fossils are made: https://www.paleodirect.com/fake-chinese-fossils-fossil-forgery-from-china/
I’m sure you’ll agree what we have here is nothing like any of those? And those are seen to be fake very quickly once examined by experts. And those are sold for $ instead of dirt cheap on the street.
One wonders what is at stake such that WJM’s entire worldview rests on dinosaurs not being related to birds. Is it that it was mentioned as an OP at TSZ and therefore it is automatically incorrect. We should post a “WJM is correct about everything he says” OP then, watch his head explode.
As an aside I’d be interested in Mindpower’s thoughts on CNN’s credibility vs. His own. Which as withdrawn a greater percentage of their public output?
And lo, the designers repented of the evil they had done, in giving feathers to bats for insulation, and took those feathers and replaced them with hair, and gave the feathers to dinosaurs, so that their lineage might.remain instead of being wiped out.
Seems as reasonable to me as any of the other guff you lot believe.
Mung,
That may well be the official ID line. I LOLed when you brought up god from the get-go.
And the bats demanded an accounting from the designers. They spoke passionately of their plans for the feathers, that they might in the future make use of them to fly. The designers though, remained resolute, and explained the great evil in giving feathers to the bats rather than hair, because bats do not have feathers, they have hair, and they were bats, after all.
But after having heard the plea of the bats, and hearing of the good they had planned to do with their feathers, which had been taken from them, the designers promised the bats that they would work out a solution to let the bats fly without feathers.
The bats were pleased and departed, rejoicing.
In the next episode, read about how the bats were given the ability to fly and about how the designers removed any evidence from the fossil record that bats were ever unable to fly.
Says who???
The most that could be said was that Shakespeare coined a term and it meant something to him at that time.
Once he communicated that term to someone else it’s meaning was no longer his personal property
peace
I say. Checkmate.
Oh, please. So where do new words come from? You realize that we both understand the words we are using individually to mean more or less the same things right? It’s just the combinations of words that form concepts that you struggle with, right? As otherwise communication would be impossible. Shakespeare invented words that we still use today to mean the things he meant when they were invented. I’m not sure why this is so difficult.
Did anybody feel the breeze as those goalposts got shifted?
Here’s a list of words that Shakespeare invented and I’m sure you’ll agree that for the most part they mean to everyone that knows them what he intended.
I know communication is difficult, but you are adding your confusing “species” ideas into language and just ending up with an addiction to flawed and worthless thinking.
Just put your head in a hat and I think we can claim the messiah has returned! Thank Trump for his actions!
That’s right. And that does not negate the fact that he invented the word and it’s meaning. Man, what’s up with you?
Tell me FMM, are there words that god invented that we’ll never use? What proportion of all the words that exist in your gods mind will the human race use?
They use fiberglass too.
Tell us about Pizzagate again.
CNN, or China?
Glen Davidson
I don’t know?
I don’t know? I don’t know how many angels can dance on the head of a pin either
More importantly what possible difference does it make?
What? He did not invent a meaning?
Inventing a meaning is a category error like squaring a circle.
At most the word meant something to him when he first conceived it and no other human knew what the meaning was.
Peace
😉
I always love it when folks reveal their ultimate authority is simply a subjective opinion .
Now the question becomes—— why should anyone else care what you say???
peace
Just as yours is, whatever you might believe.
Exactly so. And so I ask you, what traction are your ideas regarding species having with biologists? What traction are your ideas regarding design getting with Intelligent Design supporters? In other words, who is listening to you?
And given your ultimate authority is the creator of the universe(s) if nobody is listening to you, what does that say?
It’s odd that somehow you know that words have certain characteristics
And yet when we ask for more details, suddenly more questions are stupid.
The difference it makes is that one day you might realise there is no actual difference between the two things. You might as well just say that there are an infinity of words that god knows. That’s as evidenced as your claim that god knows the meaning of words and we try to discover the meanings of words. I.E. That words have an existence outside humanity.
The possible difference it makes is that one day someone might hit upon the combination of words that makes you think that “hey, how can I say that one thing and then say I don’t know about the other when both are things I can’t possibly know in the first place”.
And then after your de-programming we can have a good old chuckle about it together when the next fundie swaggers up full of arrogance and revealed knowledge.
Noted you don’t deny your version of “evolution” is not the same as that which is taught at reputable educational institutions FMM. Don’t want to go there eh, irony too strong is it?
… have a rational discussion with people who believe in objective morality, pizzagate, global conspiracies, that KairosFocus makes any sense, and who believe that Trump is doing a good job.
He made up the meaning of checkmate.
Fiberglass evolved for insulation.
It also evolved for aircraft, boats, automobiles, bath tubs and enclosures, swimming pools, hot tubs, septic tanks, water tanks, roofing, pipes, cladding, casts, surfboards, and external door skins. Talk about convergence!
Rather, talk about innovations that upon invention simultaneously cross “species” lines that we see in human endeavours but never in nature.