On Thu, 30 Apr 1998 22:20:36 -0500, Glenn R. Morton wrote:
[...]
>SJ>Thanks for this qualified admission that you were wrong". I now take
>>it that you *do* claim that "Longisquama was an intermediate between
>>birds and reptiles"?
GM>Personally, I haven't made up my mind. My issue is that there IS a
>structure which appears to be a half-evolved feather. I don't care whether
>the feather was going onto a dinosaur or onto a bird. It is the feather I
>find interesting.
I would put the emphasis differently: "there is a structure which APPEARS to
be a half-evolved feather"!
>>>SJ>then you cite "evidence that dinosaurs had feathers independently
>>>>of flight"! Which is it to be?
>>GM>Dinosaurs can have feathers which are not related to flight.
>SJ>If a "Dinosaurs can have feathers" and not be a bird, then what
>>exactly *is* a bird?
GM>a lot more than a feather. A feather is part of it but only part of it.
>There are lung criteria, osteological criteria such as hollow bones, a
>furcula, wings, beaks etc.
What is a "wing" without a feather?
If birds descended from dinosaurs then presumably there were dinosaurs
which had the same "lung criteria, osteological criteria such as hollow
bones, a furcula" and "beaks".
How do you distinguish birds from dinosaurs if you don't regard feathers
as being the defining characteristic of birds?
>>GM>After all, if progressive creation is correct, then the feathers
>>>of the ostrich, who can't fly were created by God but never designed
>>>to fly.
>SJ>Your "attack-is-the-best-defense" strategy is noted.
GM>Stephen, you always misunderstand this and then react this way.
It is no misunderstanding. It is a common feature of your posts that when
you get in a difficult position, you counter-attack as a way of changing the
subject.
GM>This is a matter of noting that there are things that don't fit the progressive
>creation position.
There are "things that don't fit" *your straw-man version of "the progressive
creation position"!
GM>There is nothing wrong in noting that. Quit taking things so personally.
>They are not meant personally. All I am doing (or want to do)is discussing
>ideas.
Sorry Glen, but in view of the constant stream of ad hominems from
you over the last 2-3 years, I cannot accept that "They are not meant
personally". Stop making the ad hominems and I will start believing
that "They are not meant personally".
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------