On Sat, 09 May 1998 09:56:36 -0500, Glenn R. Morton wrote:
>>>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.
>SJ>What is a "wing" without a feather?
GM>A bat or pteridactyl wing which performs perfectly well to allow the
>possessors to fly.
We are talking about *birds* wings, not bats (nor insects, or flying fish)!
>SJ>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?
SJ>There are lots of skeletal differences. Some dinosaurs may have had
>feathers.
Then why would they not be called birds?
SJ>This is similar to the platypus, a mammal having a duck-bill,
>which is an otherwise avian trait.
The point is that a "playpus...duck-bill" only superficially resembles
that of a real duck's bill. But you are talking about *real* fetahers on a
dinosaur, are you not?
>>>SJ>Your "attack-is-the-best-defense" strategy is noted.
>>GM>Stephen, you always misunderstand this and then react this way.
>SJ>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>Now it is your turn to charge that I ignored the above, which is what I am
>going to do.
That is also one of your defense strategies-anything but admit you were wrong!
>>GM>This is a matter of noting that there are things that don't fit the
>progressive creation position.
>SJ>There are "things that don't fit" *your straw-man version of "the progressive
>>creation position"!
GM>Can you tell me one test, one observation which distinguishes evolution
>from progressive creation?
Since I regard "progressive creation" as the genuine article and "evolution"
as a counterfeit, I ask you the same question:
"Can you tell me one test, one observation which distinguishes evolution
from progressive creation?"
GM>And I am going to restrict you to the modern punctuated form of evolution.
> Don't give me gradualism, because most modern evolutionists are less
>constrained by Darwinian gradualism than you want them to be. Corballis
>gives you your criticism of Darwinian gradualism:
>
>"As we have seen, however, modern evolutionary theory has largely dispensed
>with Darwinian gradualism. Changes can be sudden, punctuate,
>dramatic."~Michael C. Corballis, The Lopsided Ape, (Oxford: Oxford
>University Press, 1991), p. 161
>
>So, is there one single observation which can distinguish punctuated
>evolution from punctuated progressive creation?
This is your fundamental problem Glenn. You assume without question
that "evolution" is the default position and "progressive creation" has
to be proved. You, along with your theistic naturalistic colleagues have
never really understood that if Christianity is true, that there really is a God
who intervenes in history, then "progressive creation" is the default
position.
Even you don't really fully believe in evolution, because you claim
that Adam was created supernaturally from an ape by a chromosome
fusion. This is "progressive creation", not evolution.
If God could (and did) supernaturally intervene in an apes genome, to
make man, on what grounds do you deny that God could (and did)
supernaturally intervened in animal genomes further down the line?
So I ask you: "is there one single observation which can distinguish
punctuated evolution from punctuated progressive creation?"
>>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.
>SJ>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".
GM>Stephen, I will ignore this also rather than risk being charged with ad
>hominizing.
You *could* have promised to stop "ad hominizing"!
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)
--------------------------------------------------------------------