Brian Miller: Co-option and Irreducible Complexity

Design

(Timothy Horton) #341

You have zero reading comprehension. This is from the same article immediately before the paragraph you cited

" But not all scientists agree with the birds-from-dinosaurs link. Alan Feduccia, professor of biology at the University of North Carolina, is a noteable doubter.

He contends that Archaeopteryx wasn’t the ancestor of all birds, but just another of nature’s many experiments. He argues that a huge evolution of birds had been going on before Archaeopteryx, and that they evolved from four-legged forest reptiles.

In 1996 Feduccia investigated an intriguing bird that lived about 135 million years ago, just after Archaeopteryx. The bird, Liaoningornis, did not look like a dinosaur bird at all. It had a breastbone similar to modern birds, with massive flight muscles that enabled longer flights.

It was found alongside fossils of ancient birds not unlike Archaeopteryx. Feduccia believes that birds were very widespread by that date, occupying a variety of habitats. He believes most of them died out with the dinosaurs, about 65 million years ago"

The only thing different about Feduccia’s belief is birds split off the archosaur lineage before theropods, not later from theropods. Birds still existed 150 MYA, and 100 MYA, and 66 MYA right up to the time of the dinosaur extinction. Extant birds evolved from the bird lineages which survived the 66 MYA mass extinction event. Just as I’ve explained to you three times now.

Words mean something Greg. You need to read them in context to get the whole picture, not cherry pick snippets which fit your creationist beliefs.


(Greg) #342

You made an error to assume that i thought that this guy was pointing to a creationist model. He is an evolutionst thru and thru which means that i of course would assume that he would subscribe to a view that the modern bird evolution at 60 mya is connected to prior evolution before this which would have been tied into dino lineage etc. I believe you have completely mis understood my intentions on bringing it up. And it seems that your clinging to a naturalistic philosophy that you find such a prize in your life and perhaps livlihood has caused you to make a mountain out of a molehill. This gives me lost cause to even bring startling evidence of a 100,000,000 yr old modern bird to your attention as a potential reason to grow in understanding that might offer a path of enlightenment towards ultimate truth that may contradict your current held belief. This, again, is telling to me how both naturalists and creationists cling to a belief system and that naturalists are only faux in their objectiveness.


(Timothy Horton) #343

I was pointing to your lame error in claiming the article said birds only evolved after the dinosaurs died out. If you can’t read and parse simple English sentences like the ones I bolded above you’ll never cure your scientific ignorance.


(Greg) #344

I thought dinos extinction around 60 mya. You know better that i for sure because in my belief, this talk of millions of years speaks more like speculation than it does objective science. So according to your kind, this means that this guys theory on modern birds w feathers are arriving at the time that dinos go extinct and that the birds evolved via a different path than directly fr these dinos. (I realize it strange to say a timeframe on bird evolution when evolution is fluid from the day aliens planted a bacterium on earth billions of yrs ago to start the process from which flow every plant and animal on earth) I am already too wordy with my long replies, so sorry that the lack of detail in my post awhile ago confused.

But dont you find it interesting and maybe disrupting of many assumptions in the world of science that a bird encassed in amber with many of the traits of modern birds found at a supposed 100 mya mark?


(Timothy Horton) #345

The Chicxulub asteroid impact is dated 66.038 +/- 0.011MYA, usually rounded to 66 MYA or sometime 65 MYA.

Feduccia’s separate bird evolution idea was controversial 25 years ago but it has been conclusively disproven by recent finds in China.

It’s interesting but not unexpected at all since birds began evolving 50 MY before then. You also keep ignoring the fact this specimen had many features completely unlike modern birds.


#346

That is a bare assertion which needs evidence to back it up. What chlorophyll does is lower the activation energy of the reaction so that the rate of the reaction increases.

Even without the photosynthetic organism it is still possible for these reactions to occur, just at a much lower rate. There are many oxidized carbon compounds in decaying plant matter, but if that plant matter is buried and then heated it will drive off that oxygen and replace it with hydrogens and carbon-carbon bonds. We know this material as coal. So the same process is happening right now in the Earth, and it is due to heat energy.


#347

Radiometric dating is objective science, by every definition of the word. The measurement of radioactive decay, the observation of rocks as they form, the measurement of parent and daughter isotopes in the rock, and the measurement of the constancy of fundamental constants like radioactive decay across the universe are all empirical and objective measurements.


(Greg) #348

And recent lava rock formations sometime date millions of years old. I am blown away that someone literally placed +/- 0.011 mya after that date. The assumptions in place for dating methods of such events are just too many to justify this number. It takes just one single incorrect presumption to cause the theory to bounce off the atmosphere of truth for it to go careening into the space of nothing.


(Timothy Horton) #349

No, they don’t. Some dishonest YEC organizations take modern lava samples contaminated with known xenoliths (much older rock mixed with the newer lava) and use that to claim radiometric dating is bad. Science knows about and ignores such dishonest scoundrels.


(Timothy Horton) #350

Here you can read the about the research and results yourself, including how the error ranges were determined.

Time Scales of Critical Events Around the Cretaceous-Paleogene Boundary

Please let us know exactly where and how the science researches got the dates wrong. :slightly_smiling_face:


(Greg) #351

Tell me how you explain how modern birds at 100mya went extinct then reapeared again in almost same form.

Wanted to ask Timothy if you have any research by secular mainstream science on aging of rocks of known ages? You would think that the arrogance of +/-.01 million yrs statement would be undergird by the science of dating events we saw happening before our eyes. I sure have not found any resource myself…it is almost as if the faith from the church of darwin speaks louder than the desire to really be open to the possibilities INCLUDING the idea that we are more akin to a squirrel trying to find a place to store our acorns compared to the transcendence of a mighty God whose ways including creation are beyond figuring out.


(George) #352

@Greg
[My apologies for the typo.]

It is not a modern bird. It is believed to be a juvenile example of a bird with TEETH.

That is not modern. Please stop repeating erroneous statements.


(George) #353

@Greg
[@scd, sorry to get what greg does confused with what you do… its probably because you both do it]

Please retract this part of the statement!


#354

What 100mya old birds?

Here is one:

It is always interesting when the faithful try to insult others by claiming they have faith.

I would suggest reading the article I linked to in the quote above. It has the science you are looking for.


(Timothy Horton) #355

Sigh. The 100 MYA specimen found in amber wasn’t a modern bird.

" The unfortunate youngster belonged to a group of birds known as the ‘opposite birds’ that lived alongside the ancestors of modern birds and appear to have been more diverse and successful – until they died out with the dinosaurs 66 million years ago.

In appearance, opposite birds likely resembled modern birds, but they had a socket-and-ball joint in their shoulders where modern birds have a ball-and-socket joint – hence the name. They also had claws on their wings, and jaws and teeth rather than beaks – but at the time the hatchling lived, the ancestors of modern birds had not yet evolved beaks either."

Bird caught in amber 100 million years ago is best ever found


(Greg) #356

Thankyou for the challenge of researching about this…so apparently the bird caught in amber was partly dismembered so as to not know for sure what type of bird. That is besides the point. Interesting to look at what an opposite bird is more closely. This an interesting article i read: Archaeopteryx flew like a pheasant, say scientists - BBC News

According to this bbc article, the Archaeopteryx (opposite bird) had a beak w teeth, had wings similar to “modern” birds (i obviously believe this bird to be modern!) had hollow bones, and flew like a quail or pheasant. According to mainstream views, it lived 150 mya

You believe that this is an evolved dino. When i see feathers, wings, beak, ability to fly, i call that a bird kind from which all other bird species evolved and not a dino. You are bent to prove that universal common decent is true by forcing the bird kind as an evolved dino. I am bent on a creationist view that God created kinds that micro evolved. You believe that dinos happen across a prefect sequence of mutations selected for the evolution of flight (which is one of evolutions biggest challenges… explain why would a feathers and hollow bones on a grounded animal be advantageous) i believe that God created flying kinds that were designed w hollow bones, feathers and the rest suitable for flight. Oh how i know that it pains mainstream to hear someone suggest such insanity and blasphemy against the church of darwin.


(Timothy Horton) #357

Feathers evolved tens of millions of years before flight, either for insulation, display, or possibly both. Hollow bones helped the theropod dinosaurs run faster. It ain’t rocket science.

Greg there are literally thousands of easily accessible websites and published scientific papers on dino to bird evolution. Here are a few recent ones

Gradual Assembly of Avian Body Plan Culminated in Rapid Rates of Evolution across the Dinosaur-Bird Transition

The Origin and Diversification of Birds

It’s a fascinating topic being studied by thousands of paleontologists worldwide. Your attempts to hand-wave away the evidence will do nothing but give you sore wrists. :slightly_smiling_face:


(Greg) #358

(Timothy Horton) #359

You can lead a creationist to the evidence but you can’t make him think. :smile:


(Greg) #360

Well i went to my most trusted source Dr. Kurt Wise who made a statement on this via youtube and he agrees with you. He believes that if God is absent and all there is is the natural, the statement you make is 100% truth. Since Wise submits himself to a younger earth system of belief, the only explanation he has is that God exists and can either create the earth w the appearance of age or upon the judgment of the world by the flood where the laws of physics were altered by God in his demonstration of monumental wrath upon the earth.
So you may not buy this. I do. So we are different
You may trust science ( sciencism) I trust the power of a God who transcends the universe and who made the universe more than i do the picture the universe seems to suggest.