Group
On Mon, 17 Aug 1998 06:17:45 -0500, Glenn R. Morton wrote:
>DH>And the same with feathers, if they are only understandably useful as
>>perfectly formed structures, then doesn't the idea that they formed
>>slowly strange, in that they must have been advantageous at each stage?
>>If we can't imagine how that would happen, isn't that a problem in
>>evolution?
GM>I would suggest that you take a look at an article I have on my web
>page
>
>http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/longisq.htm
See my critique of Glenn's web page below.
GM>While this pathway to feathers is controversial, it is a possible
>evolutionary pathway to feathers that anti-evolutionists NEVER mention.
Glenn here continues with his program of destructively criticising Christian
apologists who do not believe in evolution:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, 27 May 1998 21:50:01 -0500, Glenn R. Morton wrote:
>SJ>For the record, unless I indicate otherwise, when I say that Glenn
>>destructively criticises Christian apologists, I mean he destructively
>>criticises their *positions*, not their persons.
GM>We might actually be making progress here. I would absolutely plead
>guilty to this. In fact I would proudly plead guilty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed, as I have pointed out to Glenn on at least one occasion, it is not
even true that "anti-evolutionists NEVER mention this "possible
evolutionary pathway to feathers. Gish (at least) *has* referred to an
article that Glenn cites which mentions Longisquama as a "possible
evolutionary pathway to feathers":
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sat, 09 May 1998 21:14:51 +0800 Stephen Jones wrote:
SJ>Gish in fact *does* refer indirectly to to Maderson's article in American
>Naturalist containing Longisquama, but based on Maderson's own
>admission that it was only an *attempt* to explain how a reptile scale
>*might* have given rise to a proto-feather, Gish no doubt concluded that
>there was not even a case to answer:
>
>"P. F. A Maderson has also suggested a scenario for the origin of
>feathers from reptilian scales. He is frank enough to admit, however,
>that:
>
>`I emphasize that this model only attempts to explain how an
>archosaurian scale might have given rise to a proto-feather. The end
>product as shown in figure 1d resembles a feather in the usual sense of
>the word only in that it is a highly specialized keratinous integumentary
>appendage. We cannot as yet offer any plausible explanation for the
>origin of the unique shaft; barbs, and barbules without which modern
>feathers would have neither aerodynamic nor insulatory function.
>(P.F.A Maderson, The American Naturalist 146:427 (1972)), in Gish
>D.T., "Evolution: The Fossils Still Say NO!," 1995, p136)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite me bringing this to Glenn's attention on 9 May 1998, as at 27
August 1998, nearly *four months* later, Glenn still has this erroneous
claim in his web page. So much for Glenn's "Christian Accountabilty" for
the truth!
Furthermore, Glenn's claim that "this pathway to feathers is controversial"
is an *understatement*, to say the least. One of Glenn's references says that
"Longisquama is a poor-quality fossill" and "lacks other characters...that
would ally it with birds":
"...LONGISQUAMA IS A POOR-QUALITY FOSSIL, and the
interpretation of single elements is controversial. LONGISQUAMA
LACKS OTHER CHARACTERS- present in non-avian Maniraptora-
THAT WOULD ALLY IT WITH BIRDS. Single features do not overturn
a hypothesis that is strongly supported by a plethora of character
evidence." (Norell M.A., et. al., reply to Feduccia A. & Martin L.D.,
"Theropod- bird link reconsidered," Nature, Vol. 391, 19 February 1998,
p754. My emphasis.)
The fact is that Longisquama is not a major theory in bird evolution being
rarely mentioned in the scientific literature. For example, Scientific
American in February 1998 had a major article on "The Origin of Birds and
their Flight" and it does not even mention Longisquama. Interestingly,
Glenn just ignores that article in his web page. It seems that Glenn's idea of
"Christian Accountability" only applies to "Christian anti-evolutionary
apologists", not to Glenn himself!
In addition, Longisquama is not even mentioned in Colbert's and Carroll's
Vertebrate Paleontologies. Gish has mentioned it, but even if he didn't there
there is no reason why other creationists should mention it. It is a distinctly
*minor* theory of bird evolution. Indeed, if creationists attacked the
Longisquama protofeather theory they would probably be ridiculed by
evolutionists for using a `straw-man' argument! Heads evolution wins- tails
creation loses!
Here is my critique of Glenn's web page (as at 27 August 1998) at http:
//www.isource.net/~grmorton/longisq.htm. I have prefaced Glenn's words
with GM> and > for clarity.
GM>Half-evolved Feathers and Christian Accountability
>
> By G. R. Morton
It is a recurring theme of Glenn's posts that Christians who criticise
evolution (ie. creationists) are automatically lacking "Christian
Accountability". This implies that Glenn is a competent judge (not to
mention jury and executioner) of other Christians "accountability".
Attempts to ascertain Glenn's `qualifications' to be such a judge have not
met with success:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Thu, 28 May 1998 21:03:31 -0500, Glenn R. Morton wrote:
GM>Now get your nose out of my personal business! I find your repeated
>demands on this particular issue to be rude, annoying, unchristian, unloving,
>judgmental, pridefully pharisaic, and holier than thou. Are you going to
>look down your nose at me if I am not as good as you think you, yourself
>are? You have NO right to judge me in this fashion. Who do you think you
>are, God? I am a servant of God and am responsible to Him. I don't have to
>answer to you for my relationship with my God. That is between Him and
>me. With that, keep your nose to yourself!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This "Christian Accountability" them is part of Glenn's `quisling' strategy to
smooth the way for an evolutionist takeover of Christian apologetics by
destroying creationists' arguments against evolution. One tactic in this
strategy is to cast doubt on the honesty and integrity of critics of evolution.
To this end Glenn portray those who do not accept evolution as morally or
intellectually deficient in some way, so that their arguments against
evolution can be safely ignored..
In this, of course, Glenn is at one with atheistic evolutionists, who routinely
portray creationists as either intellectually, morally or even psychologically
deficient. For example, atheist Australian geology professor Ian Plimer has
written an anti-creationist book titled, "Telling Lies for God" whose title
speaks for itself. Atheist Richard Dawkins has said that: "...if you meet
somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant,
stupid or insane (or wicked...)" (Dawkins R., "New York Times, Review of
Johanson D. & Edey M., "Blueprints", 1989, in Johnson P.E., "Darwin on
Trial", 1993, p9). Professor Garrett Hardin even warned that "anyone who
does not honor Darwin `inevitably attracts the speculative psychiatric eye
to himself,'" (Hardin G., "Nature and Man's Fate", 1961, p216, in Macbeth
N., "Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason," 1971, p136).
This really is a tacit admission that evolution cannot stand on the merits of
its arguments *alone*, but must seek to eliminate its rivals by other means.
GM>Copyright 1998 G.R. Morton. This may be freely distributed so long
as no monetary charge or alteration to the text is made.
>
>http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/longisq.htm
>
>Introduction
>
>This is a study in accountability. When should a Christian apologist be
>held accountable for the knowing about something that impacts what they
>are teaching. James 3:1 (NIV) states:
>
>"Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because
>you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly."
See above. This is a constant theme in Glenn's anti-creationist polemic (or
naturalistic evolutionist apologetic). Glenn first sets up a high standard (in
the past he has used the title of Oswald Chamber's book, "My Utmost for
His Highest"), for creationists to meet. Significantly, as this post
demonstrates, Glenn does not apply this standard to his own arguments.
Next Glenn finds some instance (real or imaginary) where creationists have
allegedly fallen short. In this he sometimes has to scrape the bottom of the
barrel to find fault.
Then Glenn judges the creationists whole position (and by implication all
other creationists positions) based on this real or imaginary example guilty
of lacking in accountabilty (or whatever moral or mental defect Glenn has
decided to charge them with).
But Glenn has repeatedly shown he is *not* accountable to anyone or
anything (not even the truth). He regularly slants things, leaves out
countervailing evidence, and does not correct outright untruths, as this post
e above example shows.
>GM>While we all make mistakes, there does come a time when our
>failure to know and teach observational fact becomes evidence of a less
>than rigorous approach to apologetics.
Translation: All Christian apologists who don't accept Glenn's views on
fully naturalistic evolution are dishonest and not to be trusted!
The fact is that Glenn himself espouses a 5.5 mya Mediterranean Flood
theory that entails Adam and Noah being Australopithecines (which means
`southen ape') or Homo habilis/erectus (despite the discoverer of a major
Homo erectus skeleton saying that Homo erectus was could not speak and
was not human). This view is so far from "observational fact" of either
science or theology that it indeed is prime "evidence of a less than rigorous
approach to apologetics" on the part of *Glenn*.
>GM>What I am going to show is that
>Christian anti-evolutionary apologists have for almost 30 years have
>ignored and not mentioned
This claim cannot even be true in principle, unless Glenn has a complete
record of what *every* "Christian anti-evolutionary apologists" has written
over the last "30 years".
In any even, this claim is simply false. As I have pointed out to Glenn
previously, Gish at least mentions it. It can be seen that Glenn himself has
"ignored and not mentioned" counter-evidence to his own claims.
>GM>the possible half-evolved feather found in the 30 years
>fossil record.
And what exactly *is* a "possible half-evolved feather"? Because reptile
scales and birds feathers are both made out of the same substance keratin,
evolutionists only have to point to the most feather-like scale they can find,
and by definition, it is a "possible half-evolved feather"! But there are
*huge* differences between a reptile's scale and a bird's feather. It's like
saying that a wafer of silicon is a half-evolved microprocessor!
>GM>Not only is this a transitional form between scales and
>feathers
It is only "a transitional form between scales and feathers" *if* Glenn can
show that Longisquama's long scales actually *were* part of a developing
series between reptile scales and bird feathers. Just mere superficial
similarities independently derived (analogy) does not qualify as a
similarities due to genetic relationship (homology). What du Nouy wrote
regarding the reptile-bird transition applies here:
"In spite of the fact that it is undeniably related to the two classes of
reptiles and birds (a relation which the anatomy and physiology of actually
living specimens demonstrates), we are not even authorized to consider the
exceptional case of the Archaeopteryx as a true link. By link, we mean a
necessary stage of transition between classes such as reptiles and birds, or
between smaller groups. An animal displaying characters belonging to two
different groups CANNOT BE TREATED AS A TRUE LINK AS LONG
AS THE INTERMEDIARY STAGES HAVE NOT BEEN FOUND, AND
AS LONG AS THE MECHANISMS OF TRANSITION REMAIN
UNKNOWN." (du Nouy L., "Human Destiny," Longmans, Green & Co:
New York, 1947, pp71-72. Emphasis mine.)
The fact is there is *no* evidence of any "intermediary stages" on either
side of Longisquama and there is no plausible and detailed "mechanisms of
transition" to explain how Longisquama's scales, step-by-step, became
feathers.
[continued]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ senojes@hotmail.com
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--_=_=_=IMA.BOUNDARY.HTML_4820800=_=_=_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Group
On Mon, 17 Aug 1998 06:17:45 -0500, Glenn R. Morton wrote:
>DH>And the same with feathers, if they are only understandably useful as
>>perfectly formed structures, then doesn't the idea that they formed
>>slowly strange, in that they must have been advantageous at each stage?
>>If we can't imagine how that would happen, isn't that a problem in
>>evolution?
GM>I would suggest that you take a look at an article I have on my web
>page
>
>http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/longisq.htm
See my critique of Glenn's web page below.
GM>While this pathway to feathers is controversial, it is a possible
>evolutionary pathway to feathers that anti-evolutionists NEVER mention.
Glenn here continues with his program of destructively criticising Christian
apologists who do not believe in evolution:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, 27 May 1998 21:50:01 -0500, Glenn R. Morton wrote:
>SJ>For the record, unless I indicate otherwise, when I say that Glenn
>>destructively criticises Christian apologists, I mean he destructively
>>criticises their *positions*, not their persons.
GM>We might actually be making progress here. I would absolutely plead
>guilty to this. In fact I would proudly plead guilty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed, as I have pointed out to Glenn on at least one occasion, it is not
even true that "anti-evolutionists NEVER mention this "possible
evolutionary pathway to feathers. Gish (at least) *has* referred to an
article that Glenn cites which mentions Longisquama as a "possible
evolutionary pathway to feathers":
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sat, 09 May 1998 21:14:51 +0800 Stephen Jones wrote:
SJ>Gish in fact *does* refer indirectly to to Maderson's article in American
>Naturalist containing Longisquama, but based on Maderson's own
>admission that it was only an *attempt* to explain how a reptile scale
>*might* have given rise to a proto-feather, Gish no doubt concluded that
>there was not even a case to answer:
>
>"P. F. A Maderson has also suggested a scenario for the origin of
>feathers from reptilian scales. He is frank enough to admit, however,
>that:
>
>`I emphasize that this model only attempts to explain how an
>archosaurian scale might have given rise to a proto-feather. The end
>product as shown in figure 1d resembles a feather in the usual sense of
>the word only in that it is a highly specialized keratinous integumentary
>appendage. We cannot as yet offer any plausible explanation for the
>origin of the unique shaft; barbs, and barbules without which modern
>feathers would have neither aerodynamic nor insulatory function.
>(P.F.A Maderson, The American Naturalist 146:427 (1972)), in Gish
>D.T., "Evolution: The Fossils Still Say NO!," 1995, p136)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite me bringing this to Glenn's attention on 9 May 1998, as at 27
August 1998, nearly *four months* later, Glenn still has this erroneous
claim in his web page. So much for Glenn's "Christian Accountabilty" for
the truth!
Furthermore, Glenn's claim that "this pathway to feathers is controversial"
is an *understatement*, to say the least. One of Glenn's references says that
"Longisquama is a poor-quality fossill" and "lacks other characters...that
would ally it with birds":
"...LONGISQUAMA IS A POOR-QUALITY FOSSIL, and the
interpretation of single elements is controversial. LONGISQUAMA
LACKS OTHER CHARACTERS- present in non-avian Maniraptora-
THAT WOULD ALLY IT WITH BIRDS. Single features do not overturn
a hypothesis that is strongly supported by a plethora of character
evidence." (Norell M.A., et. al., reply to Feduccia A. & Martin L.D.,
"Theropod- bird link reconsidered," Nature, Vol. 391, 19 February 1998,
p754. My emphasis.)
The fact is that Longisquama is not a major theory in bird evolution being
rarely mentioned in the scientific literature. For example, Scientific
American in February 1998 had a major article on "The Origin of Birds and
their Flight" and it does not even mention Longisquama. Interestingly,
Glenn just ignores that article in his web page. It seems that Glenn's idea of
"Christian Accountability" only applies to "Christian anti-evolutionary
apologists", not to Glenn himself!
In addition, Longisquama is not even mentioned in Colbert's and Carroll's
Vertebrate Paleontologies. Gish has mentioned it, but even if he didn't there
there is no reason why other creationists should mention it. It is a distinctly
*minor* theory of bird evolution. Indeed, if creationists attacked the
Longisquama protofeather theory they would probably be ridiculed by
evolutionists for using a `straw-man' argument! Heads evolution wins- tails
creation loses!
Here is my critique of Glenn's web page (as at 27 August 1998) at http:
//www.isource.net/~grmorton/longisq.htm. I have prefaced Glenn's words
with GM> and > for clarity.
GM>Half-evolved Feathers and Christian Accountability
>
> By G. R. Morton
It is a recurring theme of Glenn's posts that Christians who criticise
evolution (ie. creationists) are automatically lacking "Christian
Accountability". This implies that Glenn is a competent judge (not to
mention jury and executioner) of other Christians "accountability".
Attempts to ascertain Glenn's `qualifications' to be such a judge have not
met with success:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Thu, 28 May 1998 21:03:31 -0500, Glenn R. Morton wrote:
GM>Now get your nose out of my personal business! I find your repeated
>demands on this particular issue to be rude, annoying, unchristian, unloving,
>judgmental, pridefully pharisaic, and holier than thou. Are you going to
>look down your nose at me if I am not as good as you think you, yourself
>are? You have NO right to judge me in this fashion. Who do you think you
>are, God? I am a servant of God and am responsible to Him. I don't have to
>answer to you for my relationship with my God. That is between Him and
>me. With that, keep your nose to yourself!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This "Christian Accountability" them is part of Glenn's `quisling' strategy to
smooth the way for an evolutionist takeover of Christian apologetics by
destroying creationists' arguments against evolution. One tactic in this
strategy is to cast doubt on the honesty and integrity of critics of evolution.
To this end Glenn portray those who do not accept evolution as morally or
intellectually deficient in some way, so that their arguments against
evolution can be safely ignored..
In this, of course, Glenn is at one with atheistic evolutionists, who routinely
portray creationists as either intellectually, morally or even psychologically
deficient. For example, atheist Australian geology professor Ian Plimer has
written an anti-creationist book titled, "Telling Lies for God" whose title
speaks for itself. Atheist Richard Dawkins has said that: "...if you meet
somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant,
stupid or insane (or wicked...)" (Dawkins R., "New York Times, Review of
Johanson D. & Edey M., "Blueprints", 1989, in Johnson P.E., "Darwin on
Trial", 1993, p9). Professor Garrett Hardin even warned that "anyone who
does not honor Darwin `inevitably attracts the speculative psychiatric eye
to himself,'" (Hardin G., "Nature and Man's Fate", 1961, p216, in Macbeth
N., "Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason," 1971, p136).
This really is a tacit admission that evolution cannot stand on the merits of
its arguments *alone*, but must seek to eliminate its rivals by other means.
GM>Copyright 1998 G.R. Morton. This may be freely distributed so long
as no monetary charge or alteration to the text is made.
>
>http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/longisq.htm
>
>Introduction
>
>This is a study in accountability. When should a Christian apologist be
>held accountable for the knowing about something that impacts what they
>are teaching. James 3:1 (NIV) states:
>
>"Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because
>you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly."
See above. This is a constant theme in Glenn's anti-creationist polemic (or
naturalistic evolutionist apologetic). Glenn first sets up a high standard (in
the past he has used the title of Oswald Chamber's book, "My Utmost for
His Highest"), for creationists to meet. Significantly, as this post
demonstrates, Glenn does not apply this standard to his own arguments.
Next Glenn finds some instance (real or imaginary) where creationists have
allegedly fallen short. In this he sometimes has to scrape the bottom of the
barrel to find fault.
Then Glenn judges the creationists whole position (and by implication all
other creationists positions) based on this real or imaginary example guilty
of lacking in accountabilty (or whatever moral or mental defect Glenn has
decided to charge them with).
But Glenn has repeatedly shown he is *not* accountable to anyone or
anything (not even the truth). He regularly slants things, leaves out
countervailing evidence, and does not correct outright untruths, as this post
e above example shows.
>GM>While we all make mistakes, there does come a time when our
>failure to know and teach observational fact becomes evidence of a less
>than rigorous approach to apologetics.
Translation: All Christian apologists who don't accept Glenn's views on
fully naturalistic evolution are dishonest and not to be trusted!
The fact is that Glenn himself espouses a 5.5 mya Mediterranean Flood
theory that entails Adam and Noah being Australopithecines (which means
`southen ape') or Homo habilis/erectus (despite the discoverer of a major
Homo erectus skeleton saying that Homo erectus was could not speak and
was not human). This view is so far from "observational fact" of either
science or theology that it indeed is prime "evidence of a less than rigorous
approach to apologetics" on the part of *Glenn*.
>GM>What I am going to show is that
>Christian anti-evolutionary apologists have for almost 30 years have
>ignored and not mentioned
This claim cannot even be true in principle, unless Glenn has a complete
record of what *every* "Christian anti-evolutionary apologists" has written
over the last "30 years".
In any even, this claim is simply false. As I have pointed out to Glenn
previously, Gish at least mentions it. It can be seen that Glenn himself has
"ignored and not mentioned" counter-evidence to his own claims.
>GM>the possible half-evolved feather found in the 30 years
>fossil record.
And what exactly *is* a "possible half-evolved feather"? Because reptile
scales and birds feathers are both made out of the same substance keratin,
evolutionists only have to point to the most feather-like scale they can find,
and by definition, it is a "possible half-evolved feather"! But there are
*huge* differences between a reptile's scale and a bird's feather. It's like
saying that a wafer of silicon is a half-evolved microprocessor!
>GM>Not only is this a transitional form between scales and
>feathers
It is only "a transitional form between scales and feathers" *if* Glenn can
show that Longisquama's long scales actually *were* part of a developing
series between reptile scales and bird feathers. Just mere superficial
similarities independently derived (analogy) does not qualify as a
similarities due to genetic relationship (homology). What du Nouy wrote
regarding the reptile-bird transition applies here:
"In spite of the fact that it is undeniably related to the two classes of
reptiles and birds (a relation which the anatomy and physiology of actually
living specimens demonstrates), we are not even authorized to consider the
exceptional case of the Archaeopteryx as a true link. By link, we mean a
necessary stage of transition between classes such as reptiles and birds, or
between smaller groups. An animal displaying characters belonging to two
different groups CANNOT BE TREATED AS A TRUE LINK AS LONG
AS THE INTERMEDIARY STAGES HAVE NOT BEEN FOUND, AND
AS LONG AS THE MECHANISMS OF TRANSITION REMAIN
UNKNOWN." (du Nouy L., "Human Destiny," Longmans, Green & Co:
New York, 1947, pp71-72. Emphasis mine.)
The fact is there is *no* evidence of any "intermediary stages" on either
side of Longisquama and there is no plausible and detailed "mechanisms of
transition" to explain how Longisquama's scales, step-by-step, became
feathers.
[continued]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ senojes@hotmail.com
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
----------------------------------------------------------------------_=_=_=IMA.BOUNDARY.HTML_4820800=_=_=_--