When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Where Fellowship and Camaraderie lives: that place where the CPS membership values fun and good fellowship as the cement of the community
Post Reply
User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 18863
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by wosbald » Thu May 17, 2018 6:40 am

+JMJ+
Thunktank wrote:
Wed May 16, 2018 11:18 pm
[…]

This is where the rubber hits the road. Seriously, if your doctrine doesn’t allow for the evolution of man, it’s time to evolve your doctrine. 8)
I've been quietly watching this threadImage, and I can go along with most of what's recently been said, even most of what has been said from both "sides". Good points all around, one might say.

But it's not at all clear how I, as a Catholic, could go along with this, at least, given the face-value of what is written.

Does this "evolution of man" mean that there a "quasi-Man"? A sort of "lesser Man"? One with an inchoate Spirit or Nous? "Neither fish nor fowl", as they say, being not quite animal, yet not quite Imago Dei?




"In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph." - Our Lady of Fatima

User avatar
tuttle
Theology Room Mod
Theology Room Mod
Posts: 12643
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by tuttle » Thu May 17, 2018 8:10 am

infidel wrote:
Wed May 16, 2018 10:21 am
tuttle wrote:
Tue May 15, 2018 6:44 pm
That's fair. I, admittedly, am not working on the same assumption. Though I do think of "Dinosaur" broadly, as I do "Primate", I don't think of it as say, "mammal" and definitely don't include birds under that umbrella (just as I wouldn't include Man under the Primate category). That's not to say I don't see what you're saying. I do, but I wasn't thinking that way in my previous comments.
1
Ultimately this is what burns the biscuits of creationists so much. We are supposed to be the pinnacle of God's special creation, uniquely imbued with His image out of all the things he made, formed from the clay by the master artist himself. The suggestion that we came from, that we in some essential way still are "primates" is therefore highly offensive. There's some kind of crisis of worldview involved in accepting evolution if you come from a religious upbringing. I went through it myself a long time ago. If the Creationist narrative is wrong, as it clearly is in the most literal sense, then probably the rest of what I was taught in church is wrong too. That's a heavy thing to wrestle with and it's no surprise to me that most people knee jerk one way or the other.
tuttle wrote:
Tue May 15, 2018 6:44 pm
Certainly not holding my breath! I'm convinced that there is no evidence that an evolutionist cannot cram into the evolutionist narrative. It's a thing of beauty really. Nothing can disprove the theory because the narrative doesn't allow any room for other opinions. Neither does creationism, mind you. That's the advantage (and if you're wrong, the curse) of having a really good narrative.
2
Ok, but why is evolution such a good narrative? What does it tell us? What does Creationism tell us? They don't have to be mutually exclusive. IMO a more beautiful picture emerges when you find a way to hold on to them both.
Sorry, I was out yesterday and am just now coming around to this, though I think the thread has evolved nicely.

1
First, when we're talking about Primates and Mammals, etc, we're really just talking about labels we've invented in order to aid our understanding of life. Theologically, of course, naming is our right as image bearers, so that's kind of funny in this context. And of course there is a crisis of worldview in accepting evolution. Understatement of the thread! But the flip side is true as well. A worldview crisis occurs from someone shifting from the evolutionist narrative to the creationist narrative. It's a crazy change from one to the other regardless of what side you're on.

Back to naming though. I can go along with the scientific categories until I've seen them influenced so far by the evolutionist narrative where I reach a point of disagreement. Mammals, Reptiles, Amphibians, and all of the subcategories within, are just ways to organize thought, and aid in our understanding of everything. Saying a human is a mammal aids in our understanding. Saying a human is a primate is rejected by the creationist, not because it's seen as an offensive slander, but because it conflicts with our understanding of what humanity is. If you and me, baby, ain't nothing but mammals then everything is up for grabs.

But to keep on topic, Dinosaurs are Reptiles and not Birds. To blur the distinction, at this point with the evidence we have on hand, is to decrease our understanding rather than enhance it.

2
Evolution is a good narrative because it has the form of godliness while denying (or ignoring) its power. The Evolutionist narrative ultimately has to be taken on faith. It has it's own internal logic that works within its system, and even corrects itself by way of itself. One of the most interesting things I've seen lately is the treatment by 'orthodox' Evolutionists of the 'unorthodox' Evolutionists, the unorthodox of course don't believe themselves to be unorthodox but they've been slandered, smeared, and derided, given a place alongside the abhorrent Creationists, whenever they are found outside of the popular narrative. The popular narrative now being that dinosaurs evolved into birds, the orthodox go for the kill when there is a disagreement or pushback from within the evolutionist camp. Bullying, slander, and blackballing people within their own camp. This isn't how science should work.

I know a number of people (most by reputation/association) who hold to some form of Creation/Evolution blend, typically catch-alled as theistic evolution, and never once would I question their commitment to Christ or their salvation and I typically learn much and am edified by them, so I'm under no illusion that people cannot hold the two in one hand. I do think, personally, that people who hold to that will wind up dropping one or the other at some point, even if they do pick it up again. It's certainly a tightrope walk. I've witnessed people holding onto both and then leaving the faith altogether.**

**And I feel I ought to say that my main opposition to evolution isn't because it can lead people away from the faith (as much as any Christian wouldn't want to see that), but that I don't believe it is true. If my biggest fear was that people might leave the faith, I'd be dropping, not just creationism, but the resurrection like it's hot. Some churches do just that.
"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

User avatar
Thunktank
Terminal Lance. Perpetual Sea Lawyer. Unicorn Aficionado
Terminal Lance.  Perpetual Sea Lawyer. Unicorn Aficionado
Posts: 21449
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: North Texas

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by Thunktank » Thu May 17, 2018 10:32 am

wosbald wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 6:40 am
+JMJ+
Thunktank wrote:
Wed May 16, 2018 11:18 pm
[…]

This is where the rubber hits the road. Seriously, if your doctrine doesn’t allow for the evolution of man, it’s time to evolve your doctrine. 8)
I've been quietly watching this threadImage, and I can go along with most of what's recently been said, even most of what has been said from both "sides". Good points all around, one might say.

But it's not at all clear how I, as a Catholic, could go along with this, at least, given the face-value of what is written.

Does this "evolution of man" mean that there a "quasi-Man"? A sort of "lesser Man"? One with an inchoate Spirit or Nous? "Neither fish nor fowl", as they say, being not quite animal, yet not quite Imago Dei?
Understandably you read too far into my quip. It could appear that I’m dragging evolution into the dogmatic traditions. In fact, I was merely suggesting that if one’s docrines about, for example, inherency of scripture inclines them to reject the science behind evolution dogmatically, then they need to readjust their doctrine. This of course assumes that such a person has had ample opportunity to know the basics of science enough to make such a claim to begin with.

You are asking a question science and evolution cannot answer. You are asking the question, “What is human.” The evolutionary answer to that question is quite different from the Catholic answer because the Catholic answer delves into questions beyond the materialist/physicalist limitations of science.

My personal thoughts concerning the question you raised is that there cannot be a partial evolved human. At some point, I believe, Adam and Eve became the first to be enlightened by the breath of God to full and complete humanity. How this happened exactly we can only know through the traditions of scripture which spoke of it in terms known by Moses and his people that continue through Catholic tradition to this day, but do not translate to modern science and histical facts. Before Adam, there most certainly was a creature not yet breathed into human being, a creature that evolved from yet other creatures who were made from the “dust of the earth” eons ago.

I believe it is important that Christians today accept science as a type of revelation about creation and its origins. We should not offend the creator by denying the created. Reason has brought us to a place where much can be known via science.
Last edited by Thunktank on Thu May 17, 2018 10:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
infidel
kthxbai
kthxbai
Posts: 6483
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 6:00 pm

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by infidel » Thu May 17, 2018 10:42 am

tuttle wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 8:10 am
First, when we're talking about Primates and Mammals, etc, we're really just talking about labels we've invented in order to aid our understanding of life. Theologically, of course, naming is our right as image bearers, so that's kind of funny in this context.
Yes! Classifying and categorizing to aid our understanding. The other animals don't care what we call them, and God knows each of his creations in a way we never will, so this is all just for our own benefit.
tuttle wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 8:10 am
And of course there is a crisis of worldview in accepting evolution. Understatement of the thread! But the flip side is true as well. A worldview crisis occurs from someone shifting from the evolutionist narrative to the creationist narrative. It's a crazy change from one to the other regardless of what side you're on.
Perhaps, but it's different. I can hold on to the fundamentals of evolutionism while coming to accept the fundamentals of Christianity. It doesn't necessarily work the other way around.
tuttle wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 8:10 am
Back to naming though. I can go along with the scientific categories until I've seen them influenced so far by the evolutionist narrative where I reach a point of disagreement. Mammals, Reptiles, Amphibians, and all of the subcategories within, are just ways to organize thought, and aid in our understanding of everything. Saying a human is a mammal aids in our understanding. Saying a human is a primate is rejected by the creationist, not because it's seen as an offensive slander, but because it conflicts with our understanding of what humanity is. If you and me, baby, ain't nothing but mammals then everything is up for grabs.
This is where your logic completely falls apart. If you refuse to place humans in the primate subcategory then under what reasons would you classify us in the mammal supercategory? All the categories, seriously ALL of them, are nested in a hierarchy. Like with like, or if you prefer kind with kind. Even before Darwin the classification schemes implied evolution. Darwin was merely the one who pointed it out and gave it a name.
tuttle wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 8:10 am
But to keep on topic, Dinosaurs are Reptiles and not Birds.
Dinosaurs are many things, including birds.
tuttle wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 8:10 am
To blur the distinction, at this point with the evidence we have on hand,
The "distinction" is arbitrary and has changed based on our increased understanding.
tuttle wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 8:10 am
is to decrease our understanding rather than enhance it.
That is a judgement call based on your opinion and nothing else.
tuttle wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 8:10 am
Evolution is a good narrative because it has the form of godliness while denying (or ignoring) its power.
This makes no sense. It's a good narrative first of all because it makes sense of all biological diversity using a small number of simple principles.
tuttle wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 8:10 am
The Evolutionist narrative ultimately has to be taken on faith. It has it's own internal logic that works within its system, and even corrects itself by way of itself.
Yes, ok, there are a couple of things taken on faith, or as axiomatic. They are the same things taken on faith by all of science. Specifically the universality of the laws of nature through space and time. We can see evolution happening now on very small scale, so we accept that it has always happened. Combined with the scraps of evidence we find in the geological record we infer a great deal of the missing information. New information can prompt reevaluation of the inferred parts, such as re-classifying birds in the dinosaur family. Yes, this is "taken on faith", the way anything inferred from evidence is taken on faith because you didn't actually see it happen, but it's qualitatively different than believing in six literal days of creation because an ancient manuscript describes it that way.
tuttle wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 8:10 am
One of the most interesting things I've seen lately is the treatment by 'orthodox' Evolutionists of the 'unorthodox' Evolutionists, ... This isn't how science should work.
No, but it is how humans work. And it should be noted that not everyone who dissents to the current paradigm has a valid case. There will always be cranks and crackpots on the fringes.
Inadvertently emboldening the cause of naïve Evolutionism since 2016.

"Who the hell ponders placentas? Dude, you're a freak of nature." - DepartedLight

"One man's saint is another man's infidel." - hugodrax

"Total. Freaking. Win." - Skip

User avatar
tuttle
Theology Room Mod
Theology Room Mod
Posts: 12643
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by tuttle » Thu May 17, 2018 12:44 pm

infidel wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 10:42 am
tuttle wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 8:10 am
First, when we're talking about Primates and Mammals, etc, we're really just talking about labels we've invented in order to aid our understanding of life. Theologically, of course, naming is our right as image bearers, so that's kind of funny in this context.
Yes! Classifying and categorizing to aid our understanding. The other animals don't care what we call them, and God knows each of his creations in a way we never will, so this is all just for our own benefit.
:thumbsup:
infidel wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 10:42 am
tuttle wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 8:10 am
And of course there is a crisis of worldview in accepting evolution. Understatement of the thread! But the flip side is true as well. A worldview crisis occurs from someone shifting from the evolutionist narrative to the creationist narrative. It's a crazy change from one to the other regardless of what side you're on.
Perhaps, but it's different. I can hold on to the fundamentals of evolutionism while coming to accept the fundamentals of Christianity. It doesn't necessarily work the other way around.
Maybe and maybe not I guess. Maybe both of us are overplaying our hand? But it's just a quibble, we can let this pass.
infidel wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 10:42 am
tuttle wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 8:10 am
Back to naming though. I can go along with the scientific categories until I've seen them influenced so far by the evolutionist narrative where I reach a point of disagreement. Mammals, Reptiles, Amphibians, and all of the subcategories within, are just ways to organize thought, and aid in our understanding of everything. Saying a human is a mammal aids in our understanding. Saying a human is a primate is rejected by the creationist, not because it's seen as an offensive slander, but because it conflicts with our understanding of what humanity is. If you and me, baby, ain't nothing but mammals then everything is up for grabs.
This is where your logic completely falls apart. If you refuse to place humans in the primate subcategory then under what reasons would you classify us in the mammal supercategory? All the categories, seriously ALL of them, are nested in a hierarchy. Like with like, or if you prefer kind with kind. Even before Darwin the classification schemes implied evolution. Darwin was merely the one who pointed it out and gave it a name.
I don't think this is where my logic falls apart, as much as it reveals I don't play by the evolutionist's rules ergo the evolutionist's logic. Classifying a human as a "mammal" is accurate insofar as it describes the same features shared by what we recognize as other 'mammals' but it simultaneously transcends the classification 'mammal' when used in order to justify its evolutionary track record from primate mammals. That logic falls apart only within evolution, and it's one of the reasons I don't trust evolution to correct itself. It can only confirm that which conforms to its own narrative.
infidel wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 10:42 am
tuttle wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 8:10 am
But to keep on topic, Dinosaurs are Reptiles and not Birds.
Dinosaurs are many things, including birds.
Can we start a list? Dinosaurs are 1) reptiles, 2) birds, 3) what else? It might be conceivable to imagine all dinosaurs as Birds or all dinosaurs as Reptiles, but it can't be both. For as much to do as there has been about feathers (fuzz) and how that plays into the evolutionary tale of dinos to birds, there's a heaping heck of a lot more to it than that. We're talking the entire change from one species into another and all of the 'transitional' fossils being produced aren't as cut and dry as they are presented to be, especially if the only features the fossil reveals is fuzz and a similar leg bone.
infidel wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 10:42 am
tuttle wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 8:10 am
To blur the distinction, at this point with the evidence we have on hand,
The "distinction" is arbitrary and has changed based on our increased understanding.
tuttle wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 8:10 am
is to decrease our understanding rather than enhance it.
That is a judgement call based on your opinion and nothing else.
I'll grant you that the distinction is arbitrary, but my point about blurring is that it blurs that which we already know as definable. Reptiles are reptiles, birds are birds. A hazy Repto-bird is not a distinct category, but a purposeful blurring of the two in order to justify a theory that can't stand up to more solid definitions.
infidel wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 10:42 am
tuttle wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 8:10 am
Evolution is a good narrative because it has the form of godliness while denying (or ignoring) its power.
This makes no sense. It's a good narrative first of all because it makes sense of all biological diversity using a small number of simple principles.
It's good because it is self-contained and doesn't allow anything to influence it. It's nice and tidy and astonishingly adaptable. Very attractive. In that way it is 'good', but it's limitations, the thing which makes it 'good' is the very thing that cuts it off from ever being able to wrap its arms around the fullness of truth.
infidel wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 10:42 am
tuttle wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 8:10 am
The Evolutionist narrative ultimately has to be taken on faith. It has it's own internal logic that works within its system, and even corrects itself by way of itself.
Yes, ok, there are a couple of things taken on faith, or as axiomatic. They are the same things taken on faith by all of science. Specifically the universality of the laws of nature through space and time. We can see evolution happening now on very small scale, so we accept that it has always happened. Combined with the scraps of evidence we find in the geological record we infer a great deal of the missing information. New information can prompt reevaluation of the inferred parts, such as re-classifying birds in the dinosaur family. Yes, this is "taken on faith", the way anything inferred from evidence is taken on faith because you didn't actually see it happen, but it's qualitatively different than believing in six literal days of creation because an ancient manuscript describes it that way.
But because it is based on faith, it must conform to the narrative. If that narrative disallows certain truths, even (especially) metaphysical truths, then it runs the (enormous) risk of limiting itself to death or flat out missing the mark. We can observe and interpret all the live long day, but if a major piece of evidence is unobservable (or unallowable because of our limits) then the possibility exists that our conclusions could be wrong. Like a detective that has gathered and interpreted every possible observable clue, but disallows the testimony of someone who claimed to be knowledgeable of the crime because it doesn't conform to his already created narrative. Both have a story based on the same evidence and both come to different conclusions based on their knowledge. But if the detective and the legal system thinks the eyewitness is a kook (because their system doesn't allow them to consider his testimony as valid to begin with), they'll stick with their story and their well reasoned evidence. But what if the claimed eyewitness is actually correct, even if he is a kook? If that's the case, the system is a bad one because at the end of the day, they were wrong.
infidel wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 10:42 am
tuttle wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 8:10 am
One of the most interesting things I've seen lately is the treatment by 'orthodox' Evolutionists of the 'unorthodox' Evolutionists, ... This isn't how science should work.
No, but it is how humans work. And it should be noted that not everyone who dissents to the current paradigm has a valid case. There will always be cranks and crackpots on the fringes.
There will always be cranks and crackpots in the thick of it as well. It's how humans work. But if evolution were really about science then any theory, however cranked or crackpotted, ought to be met with the same tools to see if it stands or falls. My point is that dismissal of this kind of degree reveals that whatever is outside of the narrative is automatically worthy of derision and the label of crackpot.
"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

User avatar
Thunktank
Terminal Lance. Perpetual Sea Lawyer. Unicorn Aficionado
Terminal Lance.  Perpetual Sea Lawyer. Unicorn Aficionado
Posts: 21449
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: North Texas

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by Thunktank » Thu May 17, 2018 1:42 pm

There is no such thing as "faith" in science. There are well reasoned assumptions made, yes. Those assumptions can be held for a long time, especially when evidence continues to support them time and time again.

Christians really need to find the right place to enter science. It really should be involved where it is applied. We may even use it in our own philosophies and theologies as philosophy and theology, but not the other way around.

Yes, this is a change from what used to happen. Theology and metaphysics where science. Things change for good reason.

User avatar
infidel
kthxbai
kthxbai
Posts: 6483
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 6:00 pm

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by infidel » Thu May 17, 2018 1:56 pm

tuttle wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 12:44 pm
infidel wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 10:42 am
tuttle wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 8:10 am
Back to naming though. I can go along with the scientific categories until I've seen them influenced so far by the evolutionist narrative where I reach a point of disagreement. Mammals, Reptiles, Amphibians, and all of the subcategories within, are just ways to organize thought, and aid in our understanding of everything. Saying a human is a mammal aids in our understanding. Saying a human is a primate is rejected by the creationist, not because it's seen as an offensive slander, but because it conflicts with our understanding of what humanity is. If you and me, baby, ain't nothing but mammals then everything is up for grabs.
This is where your logic completely falls apart. If you refuse to place humans in the primate subcategory then under what reasons would you classify us in the mammal supercategory? All the categories, seriously ALL of them, are nested in a hierarchy. Like with like, or if you prefer kind with kind. Even before Darwin the classification schemes implied evolution. Darwin was merely the one who pointed it out and gave it a name.
I don't think this is where my logic falls apart, as much as it reveals I don't play by the evolutionist's rules ergo the evolutionist's logic. Classifying a human as a "mammal" is accurate insofar as it describes the same features shared by what we recognize as other 'mammals' but it simultaneously transcends the classification 'mammal' when used in order to justify its evolutionary track record from primate mammals. That logic falls apart only within evolution, and it's one of the reasons I don't trust evolution to correct itself. It can only confirm that which conforms to its own narrative.
I'm not following you. Nobody classified humans as primates simply to promote the idea of evolution. All classifications were historically made based on physical similarities and are now augmented by genetic data where it is available and by the principles of evolution where it isn't.

You should read over the Reptile article at Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptile It goes over some of the history of classifications and how they've changed over time as we've learned more, like how amphibians were once included but now they are not. As we learn more, the classifications are adjusted. Now that evolution is generally accepted as fact, the classifications are starting to conform to the principles of common descent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cladistics). This is a great quote:
Mammals are a clade, and therefore the cladists are happy to acknowledge the traditional taxon Mammalia; and birds, too, are a clade, universally ascribed to the formal taxon Aves. Mammalia and Aves are, in fact, subclades within the grand clade of the Amniota. But the traditional class Reptilia is not a clade. It is just a section of the clade Amniota: the section that is left after the Mammalia and Aves have been hived off. It cannot be defined by synapomorphies, as is the proper way. Instead, it is defined by a combination of the features it has and the features it lacks: reptiles are the amniotes that lack fur or feathers. At best, the cladists suggest, we could say that the traditional Reptilia are 'non-avian, non-mammalian amniotes'.
What we traditionally have called "Reptiles" is no longer a very useful term in biology. We know now, thanks to genetics, that the crocodilians are more closely related to the birds than they are to lizards and snakes despite the physical similarities.
tuttle wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 12:44 pm
infidel wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 10:42 am
tuttle wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 8:10 am
But to keep on topic, Dinosaurs are Reptiles and not Birds.
Dinosaurs are many things, including birds.
Can we start a list? Dinosaurs are 1) reptiles, 2) birds, 3) what else? It might be conceivable to imagine all dinosaurs as Birds or all dinosaurs as Reptiles, but it can't be both.
You're confusing supersets and subsets.

This is what I meant by "many things":

Image

You have no problem lumping together groups as distinct as raptors, brachiosaurs, triceratops, stegosaurus, and t.rex as "dinosaurs", but throw birds into that mix and your head explodes.
tuttle wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 12:44 pm
For as much to do as there has been about feathers (fuzz) and how that plays into the evolutionary tale of dinos to birds, there's a heaping heck of a lot more to it than that. We're talking the entire change from one species into another and all of the 'transitional' fossils being produced aren't as cut and dry as they are presented to be, especially if the only features the fossil reveals is fuzz and a similar leg bone.
Yes, yes, [jazzhands]macroevolution[/jazzhands]
tuttle wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 12:44 pm
infidel wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 10:42 am
tuttle wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 8:10 am
To blur the distinction, at this point with the evidence we have on hand,
The "distinction" is arbitrary and has changed based on our increased understanding.
tuttle wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 8:10 am
is to decrease our understanding rather than enhance it.
That is a judgement call based on your opinion and nothing else.
I'll grant you that the distinction is arbitrary, but my point about blurring is that it blurs that which we already know as definable. Reptiles are reptiles, birds are birds. A hazy Repto-bird is not a distinct category, but a purposeful blurring of the two in order to justify a theory that can't stand up to more solid definitions.
The point here is that what you have rigidly defined as "reptile" is no longer so meaningful, see above. You are simply wrong here. The theory stands up perfectly well by all definitions and is showing how previous definitions are untenable and is therefore rewriting what you thought was "defined".
tuttle wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 12:44 pm
infidel wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 10:42 am
tuttle wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 8:10 am
Evolution is a good narrative because it has the form of godliness while denying (or ignoring) its power.
This makes no sense. It's a good narrative first of all because it makes sense of all biological diversity using a small number of simple principles.
It's good because it is self-contained and doesn't allow anything to influence it. It's nice and tidy and astonishingly adaptable. Very attractive. In that way it is 'good', but it's limitations, the thing which makes it 'good' is the very thing that cuts it off from ever being able to wrap its arms around the fullness of truth.
What does fullness of truth have to do with anything? This is a theory specific to the mechanisms of biology. It's not a religion.
tuttle wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 12:44 pm
infidel wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 10:42 am
tuttle wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 8:10 am
The Evolutionist narrative ultimately has to be taken on faith. It has it's own internal logic that works within its system, and even corrects itself by way of itself.
Yes, ok, there are a couple of things taken on faith, or as axiomatic. They are the same things taken on faith by all of science. Specifically the universality of the laws of nature through space and time. We can see evolution happening now on very small scale, so we accept that it has always happened. Combined with the scraps of evidence we find in the geological record we infer a great deal of the missing information. New information can prompt reevaluation of the inferred parts, such as re-classifying birds in the dinosaur family. Yes, this is "taken on faith", the way anything inferred from evidence is taken on faith because you didn't actually see it happen, but it's qualitatively different than believing in six literal days of creation because an ancient manuscript describes it that way.
But because it is based on faith, it must conform to the narrative. If that narrative disallows certain truths, even (especially) metaphysical truths, then it runs the (enormous) risk of limiting itself to death or flat out missing the mark. We can observe and interpret all the live long day, but if a major piece of evidence is unobservable (or unallowable because of our limits) then the possibility exists that our conclusions could be wrong. Like a detective that has gathered and interpreted every possible observable clue, but disallows the testimony of someone who claimed to be knowledgeable of the crime because it doesn't conform to his already created narrative. Both have a story based on the same evidence and both come to different conclusions based on their knowledge. But if the detective and the legal system thinks the eyewitness is a kook (because their system doesn't allow them to consider his testimony as valid to begin with), they'll stick with their story and their well reasoned evidence. But what if the claimed eyewitness is actually correct, even if he is a kook? If that's the case, the system is a bad one because at the end of the day, they were wrong.
So are you claiming the author of Genesis 1 is the kook eyewitness or what? Either way this is a terrible analogy and doesn't do anything for your case. Most hypotheses or theories are eventually "wrong" in an ultimate sense. Geocentrism works until it doesn't. Newtonian gravitation works until it doesn't. General relativity works until it doesn't. These are all right and wrong at different scales. You are demanding an ultimate "fullness of truth" and I'm just talking biology. Your kook eyewitness's story has to not only provide new information but also account for all the other information too.
tuttle wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 12:44 pm
infidel wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 10:42 am
tuttle wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 8:10 am
One of the most interesting things I've seen lately is the treatment by 'orthodox' Evolutionists of the 'unorthodox' Evolutionists, ... This isn't how science should work.
No, but it is how humans work. And it should be noted that not everyone who dissents to the current paradigm has a valid case. There will always be cranks and crackpots on the fringes.
There will always be cranks and crackpots in the thick of it as well. It's how humans work. But if evolution were really about science then any theory, however cranked or crackpotted, ought to be met with the same tools to see if it stands or falls. My point is that dismissal of this kind of degree reveals that whatever is outside of the narrative is automatically worthy of derision and the label of crackpot.
Oh I get it now. You demand that scientists should feed every troll that comes along in the name of intellectual honesty or academic rigor. That's simply not practical. You yourself don't give every idea that comes along the same level of consideration. Some things fail the "smell test" from the start. If they actually have any merit they'll stick around and eventually pass the smell test and then other tests and eventually find their way into the light. Whether or not an idea is "automatically" worthy of derision and/or labeling as crackpot depends on several factors. I personally think you are overstating this.
Inadvertently emboldening the cause of naïve Evolutionism since 2016.

"Who the hell ponders placentas? Dude, you're a freak of nature." - DepartedLight

"One man's saint is another man's infidel." - hugodrax

"Total. Freaking. Win." - Skip

User avatar
tuttle
Theology Room Mod
Theology Room Mod
Posts: 12643
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by tuttle » Fri May 18, 2018 9:17 am

infidel wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 1:56 pm
tuttle wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 12:44 pm
infidel wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 10:42 am
tuttle wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 8:10 am
Back to naming though. I can go along with the scientific categories until I've seen them influenced so far by the evolutionist narrative where I reach a point of disagreement. Mammals, Reptiles, Amphibians, and all of the subcategories within, are just ways to organize thought, and aid in our understanding of everything. Saying a human is a mammal aids in our understanding. Saying a human is a primate is rejected by the creationist, not because it's seen as an offensive slander, but because it conflicts with our understanding of what humanity is. If you and me, baby, ain't nothing but mammals then everything is up for grabs.
This is where your logic completely falls apart. If you refuse to place humans in the primate subcategory then under what reasons would you classify us in the mammal supercategory? All the categories, seriously ALL of them, are nested in a hierarchy. Like with like, or if you prefer kind with kind. Even before Darwin the classification schemes implied evolution. Darwin was merely the one who pointed it out and gave it a name.
I don't think this is where my logic falls apart, as much as it reveals I don't play by the evolutionist's rules ergo the evolutionist's logic. Classifying a human as a "mammal" is accurate insofar as it describes the same features shared by what we recognize as other 'mammals' but it simultaneously transcends the classification 'mammal' when used in order to justify its evolutionary track record from primate mammals. That logic falls apart only within evolution, and it's one of the reasons I don't trust evolution to correct itself. It can only confirm that which conforms to its own narrative.
I'm not following you. Nobody classified humans as primates simply to promote the idea of evolution. All classifications were historically made based on physical similarities and are now augmented by genetic data where it is available and by the principles of evolution where it isn't.

You should read over the Reptile article at Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptile It goes over some of the history of classifications and how they've changed over time as we've learned more, like how amphibians were once included but now they are not. As we learn more, the classifications are adjusted. Now that evolution is generally accepted as fact, the classifications are starting to conform to the principles of common descent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cladistics). This is a great quote:
Mammals are a clade, and therefore the cladists are happy to acknowledge the traditional taxon Mammalia; and birds, too, are a clade, universally ascribed to the formal taxon Aves. Mammalia and Aves are, in fact, subclades within the grand clade of the Amniota. But the traditional class Reptilia is not a clade. It is just a section of the clade Amniota: the section that is left after the Mammalia and Aves have been hived off. It cannot be defined by synapomorphies, as is the proper way. Instead, it is defined by a combination of the features it has and the features it lacks: reptiles are the amniotes that lack fur or feathers. At best, the cladists suggest, we could say that the traditional Reptilia are 'non-avian, non-mammalian amniotes'.
What we traditionally have called "Reptiles" is no longer a very useful term in biology. We know now, thanks to genetics, that the crocodilians are more closely related to the birds than they are to lizards and snakes despite the physical similarities.
You said: "Now that evolution is generally accepted as fact, the classifications are starting to conform to the principles of common descent"
I'd said: "It [evolution] can only confirm that which conforms to its own narrative."

I see no difference still. Just further confirmation of my description of why things change.

Cladistics is a method that seems to have developed post-Darwin. But cladistics might be a perfect example of disagreement between, not just with creationists, but with other evolutionists. In my (admittedly scant and casual) research, whenever I seem to come across an evolutionist who disagrees that birds came from dinosaurs, they tend to point to a heavy reliance on cladistics. Here's some good stuff from a dinosaur expert, an evolutionist, and I believe (according to wikipedia) a proponent of the idea that birds descended from dinosaurs (though they don't source it) about the problem cladistics causes with this whole debate (source):
Cladistics is based on a Popperian philosophy that emphasizes the hypothetical nature of all knowledge. Such a philosophy seems more suitable for analyzing idealized characters unrooted in time or space rather than real objects. A philosophy of critical realism seems more congenial for analysis of evolutionary biological individuals having a real history. Cladistics uses parsimony as a first principle, which may be rejected on the grounds that nature is prodigal in every regard. Parsimony based on morphology suffices only when there are no other data sets to consider. Cladistics systematically excludes data from stratigraphy, embryology, ecology, and biogeography that could otherwise be employed to bring maximum evolutionary coherence to biological data. Darwin would have convinced no one if he had been so restrictive in his theory of evolution.

.....

In any case, the point is clear that the conclusion that a bird is a dinosaur is not a fact of nature but literally an artifact of the cladistic system.

Given that an important function of classification is communication, a major shortcoming of the practice of cladistics is communication. For example, the word dinosaur was not previously problematic—it was universally understood. Within cladistics it has now been redefined to include birds (holophyly), and then a new and cumbersome phrase, non-avian dinosaur, has been substituted. This is not progress; this is semantic obfuscation not enlightened communication.

.....

As a method, cladistic analysis may be a defensible way to start provided the investigator realizes the limitations of the method and is prepared to be self-critical about the results.
The entire paper is pretty interesting, but these quotes give a little taste. It also reveals what we're disagreeing about here is more about methods and terms than it is about evolution/creation. But I bring this up in order to show that there is real pushback among evolutionists, and once the accepted narrative is considered orthodox or when something becomes 'generally accepted as fact' (among a certain group), no voice, however reasonable, that disagrees with the status quo, will be allowed.

The above quotes indicate to me, not only the flaw of overreliance on the method itself, but what the author of the paper calls 'a major shortcoming of the practice of cladistics is communication'. He calls it a major shortcoming, but I call it a major advantage. What it really is, is propaganda. And when you have a bunch of experts running around spouting propaganda with willing media outlets ready to sensationalize it even further, you're not in the science business but in marketing (or worse, but I'll give em the benefit of the doubt). Now, I'm calling it propaganda because I'm on the outside looking in. When you're on the inside it doesn't look like propaganda at all. It's pure, unadulterated (maybe slightly exaggerated, but for the cause) truth.

I kept getting pulled away while writing the above...I may or may not have drifted from the point...

infidel wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 10:42 am
tuttle wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 12:44 pm
infidel wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 10:42 am
tuttle wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 8:10 am
But to keep on topic, Dinosaurs are Reptiles and not Birds.
Dinosaurs are many things, including birds.
Can we start a list? Dinosaurs are 1) reptiles, 2) birds, 3) what else? It might be conceivable to imagine all dinosaurs as Birds or all dinosaurs as Reptiles, but it can't be both.
You're confusing supersets and subsets.

This is what I meant by "many things":

Image

You have no problem lumping together groups as distinct as raptors, brachiosaurs, triceratops, stegosaurus, and t.rex as "dinosaurs", but throw birds into that mix and your head explodes.
I didn't realize you meant 'dinosaurs are many things' as in T.Rex, Triceratops, Stegosaurus, etc. Gotcha now.

infidel wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 10:42 am
tuttle wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 12:44 pm
For as much to do as there has been about feathers (fuzz) and how that plays into the evolutionary tale of dinos to birds, there's a heaping heck of a lot more to it than that. We're talking the entire change from one species into another and all of the 'transitional' fossils being produced aren't as cut and dry as they are presented to be, especially if the only features the fossil reveals is fuzz and a similar leg bone.
Yes, yes, [jazzhands]macroevolution[/jazzhands]
You missed what I was getting at but points for making me laugh! I get that macroevolution is the 'more to it than that', but my point was that there are no cut and dry fossils that are truly transitional as advertised.

infidel wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 10:42 am
tuttle wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 12:44 pm
infidel wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 10:42 am
tuttle wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 8:10 am
Evolution is a good narrative because it has the form of godliness while denying (or ignoring) its power.
This makes no sense. It's a good narrative first of all because it makes sense of all biological diversity using a small number of simple principles.
It's good because it is self-contained and doesn't allow anything to influence it. It's nice and tidy and astonishingly adaptable. Very attractive. In that way it is 'good', but it's limitations, the thing which makes it 'good' is the very thing that cuts it off from ever being able to wrap its arms around the fullness of truth.
What does fullness of truth have to do with anything? This is a theory specific to the mechanisms of biology. It's not a religion.
tuttle wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 12:44 pm
infidel wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 10:42 am
tuttle wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 8:10 am
The Evolutionist narrative ultimately has to be taken on faith. It has it's own internal logic that works within its system, and even corrects itself by way of itself.
Yes, ok, there are a couple of things taken on faith, or as axiomatic. They are the same things taken on faith by all of science. Specifically the universality of the laws of nature through space and time. We can see evolution happening now on very small scale, so we accept that it has always happened. Combined with the scraps of evidence we find in the geological record we infer a great deal of the missing information. New information can prompt reevaluation of the inferred parts, such as re-classifying birds in the dinosaur family. Yes, this is "taken on faith", the way anything inferred from evidence is taken on faith because you didn't actually see it happen, but it's qualitatively different than believing in six literal days of creation because an ancient manuscript describes it that way.
But because it is based on faith, it must conform to the narrative. If that narrative disallows certain truths, even (especially) metaphysical truths, then it runs the (enormous) risk of limiting itself to death or flat out missing the mark. We can observe and interpret all the live long day, but if a major piece of evidence is unobservable (or unallowable because of our limits) then the possibility exists that our conclusions could be wrong. Like a detective that has gathered and interpreted every possible observable clue, but disallows the testimony of someone who claimed to be knowledgeable of the crime because it doesn't conform to his already created narrative. Both have a story based on the same evidence and both come to different conclusions based on their knowledge. But if the detective and the legal system thinks the eyewitness is a kook (because their system doesn't allow them to consider his testimony as valid to begin with), they'll stick with their story and their well reasoned evidence. But what if the claimed eyewitness is actually correct, even if he is a kook? If that's the case, the system is a bad one because at the end of the day, they were wrong.
So are you claiming the author of Genesis 1 is the kook eyewitness or what? Either way this is a terrible analogy and doesn't do anything for your case. Most hypotheses or theories are eventually "wrong" in an ultimate sense. Geocentrism works until it doesn't. Newtonian gravitation works until it doesn't. General relativity works until it doesn't. These are all right and wrong at different scales. You are demanding an ultimate "fullness of truth" and I'm just talking biology. Your kook eyewitness's story has to not only provide new information but also account for all the other information too.
I think it's a decent analogy. Could use some sprucing up, but it makes the point that it's ridiculous when a detective willfully ignores information. Are you saying that Evolution works until it doesn't? I can get on board with that kind of evolution. In fact, I am. I'm with evolution when it's right and not with it when it's wrong.

By fullness of truth, I'm talking about reality. If there is a God and he created something, and we want to investigate it, we are cutting ourselves off from the fullness of the truth/reality that there is to be discovered if we begin with the premise (or if we, by our deductions/interpretations conclude) that there is no special creative act that took place. Especially if that God gave us a little insight as to why he created, and even a little bit of how he created. There is nothing wrong with using the scientific method or allowing evolution as a theory to aid in understanding, but left on their own, if there is a God, you must be aware that they are limited and can only tell you a particular story that doesn't take into consideration that which is outside of both theory and method.

infidel wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 10:42 am
tuttle wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 12:44 pm
infidel wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 10:42 am
tuttle wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 8:10 am
One of the most interesting things I've seen lately is the treatment by 'orthodox' Evolutionists of the 'unorthodox' Evolutionists, ... This isn't how science should work.
No, but it is how humans work. And it should be noted that not everyone who dissents to the current paradigm has a valid case. There will always be cranks and crackpots on the fringes.
There will always be cranks and crackpots in the thick of it as well. It's how humans work. But if evolution were really about science then any theory, however cranked or crackpotted, ought to be met with the same tools to see if it stands or falls. My point is that dismissal of this kind of degree reveals that whatever is outside of the narrative is automatically worthy of derision and the label of crackpot.
Oh I get it now. You demand that scientists should feed every troll that comes along in the name of intellectual honesty or academic rigor. That's simply not practical. You yourself don't give every idea that comes along the same level of consideration. Some things fail the "smell test" from the start. If they actually have any merit they'll stick around and eventually pass the smell test and then other tests and eventually find their way into the light. Whether or not an idea is "automatically" worthy of derision and/or labeling as crackpot depends on several factors. I personally think you are overstating this.
Do you think an evolutionist who writes a paper, using the same legitimate skills and methods as any other scientist, but reaches a conclusion/opinion/theory than that which has been vehemently defended as the orthodox view (like dinos to birds) is a troll? I'm not talking about ThirdEagle challenging Richard Dawkins to a debate.

Look at Mary Schweitzer, the scientist who discovered protein fragments in a T. Rex fossil. She and her team have done all the work, have revealed how they've done the work, have replicated it, written about it and defended it, even has a bit of positive notoriety within the community, and yet she's still considered suspect, not because her work doesn't meet legitimate standards, or because she's some troll, but because her discovery goes against the popular narrative. 10 years on, despite the remaining skepticism, she has gained some well earned respect and credibility, but think if she made this discovery in a different context. What if she was a creationist? What if she wasn't even a scientist? What if she wasn't connected to Jack Horner? Even with her very friendly environment and even when she tries to fit her findings in with the narrative, she has had to deal with "vitriolic" criticism and for a decade. You're going to tell me someone outside of that amicable environment, without a big name paleontologist to back them, or someone who doesn't subscribe to evolution, that they aren't going to be mocked, derided, called every name in the book in order to shut them up? Are they going to be invited to all the conferences? Have papers published in respectable journals, etc? No. Way. Even if their science all checks out, like Schweitzer, there are going to be vitriolic skeptics seeking to mock and destroy because it goes against the narrative.
"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

User avatar
UncleBob
CPS Theological Dogmatician
CPS Theological Dogmatician
Posts: 33997
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by UncleBob » Fri May 18, 2018 9:32 am

Every fossil is a transitional form: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_t ... onal_forms
"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." - Robert A. Heinlein

"Many of the points here, taken to their logical conclusions, don't hold up to logic; they're simply Godded-up ways of saying "I don't like that." - Skip

"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." -Mark Twain

User avatar
infidel
kthxbai
kthxbai
Posts: 6483
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 6:00 pm

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by infidel » Fri May 18, 2018 10:21 am

tuttle wrote:
Fri May 18, 2018 9:17 am
infidel wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 10:42 am
Yes, yes, [jazzhands]macroevolution[/jazzhands]
You missed what I was getting at but points for making me laugh! I get that macroevolution is the 'more to it than that', but my point was that there are no cut and dry fossils that are truly transitional as advertised.
Disagreeing on terms again. You say there are NO transitional fossils, I say that ALL fossils are transitional.
tuttle wrote:
Fri May 18, 2018 9:17 am
I'm with evolution when it's right and not with it when it's wrong.
Isn't that convenient? :-P
tuttle wrote:
Fri May 18, 2018 9:17 am
By fullness of truth, I'm talking about reality. If there is a God and he created something, and we want to investigate it, we are cutting ourselves off from the fullness of the truth/reality that there is to be discovered if we begin with the premise (or if we, by our deductions/interpretations conclude) that there is no special creative act that took place. Especially if that God gave us a little insight as to why he created, and even a little bit of how he created. There is nothing wrong with using the scientific method or allowing evolution as a theory to aid in understanding, but left on their own, if there is a God, you must be aware that they are limited and can only tell you a particular story that doesn't take into consideration that which is outside of both theory and method.
Well, ok, but you have to understand that scientific inquiry must exclude random/special supernatural causes by definition.
tuttle wrote:
Fri May 18, 2018 9:17 am
Look at Mary Schweitzer, the scientist who discovered protein fragments in a T. Rex fossil. She and her team have done all the work, have revealed how they've done the work, have replicated it, written about it and defended it, even has a bit of positive notoriety within the community, and yet she's still considered suspect, not because her work doesn't meet legitimate standards, or because she's some troll, but because her discovery goes against the popular narrative. 10 years on, despite the remaining skepticism, she has gained some well earned respect and credibility, but think if she made this discovery in a different context. What if she was a creationist? What if she wasn't even a scientist? What if she wasn't connected to Jack Horner? Even with her very friendly environment and even when she tries to fit her findings in with the narrative, she has had to deal with "vitriolic" criticism and for a decade. You're going to tell me someone outside of that amicable environment, without a big name paleontologist to back them, or someone who doesn't subscribe to evolution, that they aren't going to be mocked, derided, called every name in the book in order to shut them up? Are they going to be invited to all the conferences? Have papers published in respectable journals, etc? No. Way. Even if their science all checks out, like Schweitzer, there are going to be vitriolic skeptics seeking to mock and destroy because it goes against the narrative.
Read your link again. Her work is treated suspiciously because nobody else has been able to replicate it, not (merely) because it goes against the dogma. She may very well be right and seems to have put a lot of effort into demonstrating that she is right, but until someone else is able to get the same results you can't legitimately say her science "checks out". I'm not saying the opposition to her conclusions isn't overly harsh or possibly triggered by her creationist past or even her gender, but what you're reading as dogmatic rejection of a heretic is just how the process works. If you're going to overturn the conventional wisdom you need a pretty solid case and from the quick read of it she doesn't have a solid enough case yet. Are her critics holding the bar higher for her than for others? I don't know, perhaps they are. Perhaps what she is claiming is so radical that it deserves a higher bar. I wish her well.
TFA wrote:"I want them to be right," says Matthew Collins, a leading paleoproteomics researcher at the University of York in the United Kingdom. "It's great work. I just can't replicate it."

Others are harsher, and suggest that Schweitzer's protein pieces come from bacteria or contaminants. "It's problematic that no other lab has been able to replicate Mary Schweitzer's work," says Jakob Vinther, a paleontologist at the University of Bristol in the United Kingdom, who's tried to do so. "The idiom that exceptional claims require exceptional evidence remains," adds Michael Buckley, a paleontologist at the University of Manchester, also in the United Kingdom.
Also note that if she turns out to be right it's just more evidence that birds are dinosaurs :-D
TFA wrote:The sequences resembled those of today's birds, supporting the wealth of fossil evidence that birds descend from extinct dinosaurs.

... the sequences showed the purported hadrosaur collagen was more closely related to T. rex and birds than to modern reptiles.
:thumbsup:
Inadvertently emboldening the cause of naïve Evolutionism since 2016.

"Who the hell ponders placentas? Dude, you're a freak of nature." - DepartedLight

"One man's saint is another man's infidel." - hugodrax

"Total. Freaking. Win." - Skip

User avatar
tuttle
Theology Room Mod
Theology Room Mod
Posts: 12643
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by tuttle » Fri May 18, 2018 11:20 am

infidel wrote:
Fri May 18, 2018 10:21 am
tuttle wrote:
Fri May 18, 2018 9:17 am
infidel wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 10:42 am
Yes, yes, [jazzhands]macroevolution[/jazzhands]
You missed what I was getting at but points for making me laugh! I get that macroevolution is the 'more to it than that', but my point was that there are no cut and dry fossils that are truly transitional as advertised.
Disagreeing on terms again. You say there are NO transitional fossils, I say that ALL fossils are transitional.
If all fossils are transitional then is there no such thing as a transitional fossil? :lol:
infidel wrote:
Fri May 18, 2018 10:21 am
tuttle wrote:
Fri May 18, 2018 9:17 am
I'm with evolution when it's right and not with it when it's wrong.
Isn't that convenient? :-P
As convenient as cramming evolution and creation together? That'd be convenient. But I'm talking about observable facts like micro-evolution within a species. I know we've had this conversation before though. Microevolution is macroevolution or whatever. I disagree.
infidel wrote:
Fri May 18, 2018 10:21 am
tuttle wrote:
Fri May 18, 2018 9:17 am
By fullness of truth, I'm talking about reality. If there is a God and he created something, and we want to investigate it, we are cutting ourselves off from the fullness of the truth/reality that there is to be discovered if we begin with the premise (or if we, by our deductions/interpretations conclude) that there is no special creative act that took place. Especially if that God gave us a little insight as to why he created, and even a little bit of how he created. There is nothing wrong with using the scientific method or allowing evolution as a theory to aid in understanding, but left on their own, if there is a God, you must be aware that they are limited and can only tell you a particular story that doesn't take into consideration that which is outside of both theory and method.
Well, ok, but you have to understand that scientific inquiry must exclude random/special supernatural causes by definition.
Well of course! And I do! And I'm saying that taken on it's own, it's a flaw if you're using it to see and understand the full picture. That's why I think it's a mistake for some creationists to try to compete in interpreting evidence for creation using the same limited methods as the evolutionists. It would be like trying to take the wine Jesus made and breaking it down to determine it was created only mere moments ago from water. There would be no observable or scientific way to prove it. His miracle was so good and perfect that he actually created real aged wine that no amount of scientific inquiry could convince someone who wasn't there what just happened.
infidel wrote:
Fri May 18, 2018 10:21 am
tuttle wrote:
Fri May 18, 2018 9:17 am
Look at Mary Schweitzer, the scientist who discovered protein fragments in a T. Rex fossil. She and her team have done all the work, have revealed how they've done the work, have replicated it, written about it and defended it, even has a bit of positive notoriety within the community, and yet she's still considered suspect, not because her work doesn't meet legitimate standards, or because she's some troll, but because her discovery goes against the popular narrative. 10 years on, despite the remaining skepticism, she has gained some well earned respect and credibility, but think if she made this discovery in a different context. What if she was a creationist? What if she wasn't even a scientist? What if she wasn't connected to Jack Horner? Even with her very friendly environment and even when she tries to fit her findings in with the narrative, she has had to deal with "vitriolic" criticism and for a decade. You're going to tell me someone outside of that amicable environment, without a big name paleontologist to back them, or someone who doesn't subscribe to evolution, that they aren't going to be mocked, derided, called every name in the book in order to shut them up? Are they going to be invited to all the conferences? Have papers published in respectable journals, etc? No. Way. Even if their science all checks out, like Schweitzer, there are going to be vitriolic skeptics seeking to mock and destroy because it goes against the narrative.
Read your link again. Her work is treated suspiciously because nobody else has been able to replicate it, not (merely) because it goes against the dogma. She may very well be right and seems to have put a lot of effort into demonstrating that she is right, but until someone else is able to get the same results you can't legitimately say her science "checks out". I'm not saying the opposition to her conclusions isn't overly harsh or possibly triggered by her creationist past or even her gender, but what you're reading as dogmatic rejection of a heretic is just how the process works. If you're going to overturn the conventional wisdom you need a pretty solid case and from the quick read of it she doesn't have a solid enough case yet. Are her critics holding the bar higher for her than for others? I don't know, perhaps they are. Perhaps what she is claiming is so radical that it deserves a higher bar. I wish her well.
TFA wrote:"I want them to be right," says Matthew Collins, a leading paleoproteomics researcher at the University of York in the United Kingdom. "It's great work. I just can't replicate it."

Others are harsher, and suggest that Schweitzer's protein pieces come from bacteria or contaminants. "It's problematic that no other lab has been able to replicate Mary Schweitzer's work," says Jakob Vinther, a paleontologist at the University of Bristol in the United Kingdom, who's tried to do so. "The idiom that exceptional claims require exceptional evidence remains," adds Michael Buckley, a paleontologist at the University of Manchester, also in the United Kingdom.
Also note that if she turns out to be right it's just more evidence that birds are dinosaurs :-D
TFA wrote:The sequences resembled those of today's birds, supporting the wealth of fossil evidence that birds descend from extinct dinosaurs.

... the sequences showed the purported hadrosaur collagen was more closely related to T. rex and birds than to modern reptiles.
:thumbsup:
I brought her up not because the scientific community thinks she's a heretic, but that she's in the most favorable position imaginable and she's almost treated like a heretic. The only reason anyone has given her any time of day is because of her favorable position. Outside of the camp she'd be a kook without a chance to even have her work considered by other labs.

And do you really think an article and other evolutionary scientists are going to say, "Yeah, she's treated like this because her discovery throws a monkey wrench into our evolutionary narrative"?

And as to her genetic link between T. Rex and birds, the sequence similarity was 58%. Did you know humans and chickens are 60% genetically similar?
"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

User avatar
UncleBob
CPS Theological Dogmatician
CPS Theological Dogmatician
Posts: 33997
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by UncleBob » Fri May 18, 2018 12:11 pm

Did you know humans and chickens are 60% genetically similar?
LOL! And why is that?
► Show Spoiler
"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." - Robert A. Heinlein

"Many of the points here, taken to their logical conclusions, don't hold up to logic; they're simply Godded-up ways of saying "I don't like that." - Skip

"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." -Mark Twain

User avatar
infidel
kthxbai
kthxbai
Posts: 6483
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 6:00 pm

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by infidel » Fri May 18, 2018 12:22 pm

tuttle wrote:
Fri May 18, 2018 11:20 am
If all fossils are transitional then is there no such thing as a transitional fossil? :lol:
In a way, yes. "Transitional fossil" is almost always a creationist rhetorical game that has no resolution.
tuttle wrote:
Fri May 18, 2018 11:20 am
I know we've had this conversation before though. Microevolution is macroevolution or whatever. I disagree.
I love you anyways.
tuttle wrote:
Fri May 18, 2018 11:20 am
And do you really think an article and other evolutionary scientists are going to say, "Yeah, she's treated like this because her discovery throws a monkey wrench into our evolutionary narrative"?
But it doesn't throw any monkey wrenches into any evolutionary narrative. At most is shows our understanding of fossilization is incomplete. It opens up new possibilities of inquiry that will further enhance and refine the "narrative". We know through various lines of inquiry that the Earth is billions of years old and that life has evolved over most of that time. Discovering actual soft tissues from dinosaur fossils would be huge, but it doesn't overthrow the narrative. The one guy quoted even hopes it turns out to be true! This is not the monkey wrench you're looking for.
tuttle wrote:
Fri May 18, 2018 11:20 am
And as to her genetic link between T. Rex and birds, the sequence similarity was 58%. Did you know humans and chickens are 60% genetically similar?
We're all amniotic tetrapods, after all.
Inadvertently emboldening the cause of naïve Evolutionism since 2016.

"Who the hell ponders placentas? Dude, you're a freak of nature." - DepartedLight

"One man's saint is another man's infidel." - hugodrax

"Total. Freaking. Win." - Skip

User avatar
tuttle
Theology Room Mod
Theology Room Mod
Posts: 12643
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by tuttle » Fri May 18, 2018 12:50 pm

infidel wrote:
Fri May 18, 2018 12:22 pm
tuttle wrote:
Fri May 18, 2018 11:20 am
And do you really think an article and other evolutionary scientists are going to say, "Yeah, she's treated like this because her discovery throws a monkey wrench into our evolutionary narrative"?
But it doesn't throw any monkey wrenches into any evolutionary narrative. At most is shows our understanding of fossilization is incomplete. It opens up new possibilities of inquiry that will further enhance and refine the "narrative". We know through various lines of inquiry that the Earth is billions of years old and that life has evolved over most of that time. Discovering actual soft tissues from dinosaur fossils would be huge, but it doesn't overthrow the narrative. The one guy quoted even hopes it turns out to be true! This is not the monkey wrench you're looking for.
Ah, but it does...and it doesn't. Remember a while back when I said that nothing can overturn evolution? Within the evolutionary time scale its impossible for proteins to have survived for that long. That's the initial, "Oh, no this is wrong" and "It can't be" that occurs even among the people like Schweitzer who discovered it. Because it doesn't fit the narrative. But because everything can be shoehorned in to fit the narrative, this doesn't pose as a problem or dilemma for evolutionists...so long as everyone eventually gets on board with it. If there is a genuine rift, the narrative will still press on, but someone will be the loser. And typically (as has been shown in the past) the losers will be castigated as being thorns in the evolutionist's flesh for lending "credence" to creation wackos.
infidel wrote:
Fri May 18, 2018 12:22 pm
tuttle wrote:
Fri May 18, 2018 11:20 am
And as to her genetic link between T. Rex and birds, the sequence similarity was 58%. Did you know humans and chickens are 60% genetically similar?
We're all amniotic tetrapods, after all.
Genes are like a recipe. God is a good and creative chef, utilizing all he needed to create to the fullest.
"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

User avatar
infidel
kthxbai
kthxbai
Posts: 6483
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 6:00 pm

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by infidel » Fri May 18, 2018 2:16 pm

tuttle wrote:
Fri May 18, 2018 12:50 pm
infidel wrote:
Fri May 18, 2018 12:22 pm
tuttle wrote:
Fri May 18, 2018 11:20 am
And do you really think an article and other evolutionary scientists are going to say, "Yeah, she's treated like this because her discovery throws a monkey wrench into our evolutionary narrative"?
But it doesn't throw any monkey wrenches into any evolutionary narrative. At most is shows our understanding of fossilization is incomplete. It opens up new possibilities of inquiry that will further enhance and refine the "narrative". We know through various lines of inquiry that the Earth is billions of years old and that life has evolved over most of that time. Discovering actual soft tissues from dinosaur fossils would be huge, but it doesn't overthrow the narrative. The one guy quoted even hopes it turns out to be true! This is not the monkey wrench you're looking for.
Ah, but it does...and it doesn't. Remember a while back when I said that nothing can overturn evolution? Within the evolutionary time scale its impossible for proteins to have survived for that long. That's the initial, "Oh, no this is wrong" and "It can't be" that occurs even among the people like Schweitzer who discovered it. Because it doesn't fit the narrative. But because everything can be shoehorned in to fit the narrative, this doesn't pose as a problem or dilemma for evolutionists...so long as everyone eventually gets on board with it. If there is a genuine rift, the narrative will still press on, but someone will be the loser. And typically (as has been shown in the past) the losers will be castigated as being thorns in the evolutionist's flesh for lending "credence" to creation wackos.
OH! I think I figured out why you look at this in such conspiratorial terms. If we currently understand that soft tissues cannot survive millions of years of fossilization and then someone finds some soft tissues in a fossil there are three possibilities: A) the soft tissues are not from the fossil, i.e. external contamination; B) it actually IS possible for soft tissues to survive through some mechanism we don't yet understand; or C) the fossils are actually much younger than believed.

The fact that none of the scientists involved even consider C is what bothers you so much. That's why this discovery will be "shoehorned" into the narrative and why you think nothing can ever overturn evolution. I finally understand what you've been trying to say all this time. You're still wrong, of course, but at least I hear you now :-D
Inadvertently emboldening the cause of naïve Evolutionism since 2016.

"Who the hell ponders placentas? Dude, you're a freak of nature." - DepartedLight

"One man's saint is another man's infidel." - hugodrax

"Total. Freaking. Win." - Skip

User avatar
infidel
kthxbai
kthxbai
Posts: 6483
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 6:00 pm

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by infidel » Fri May 18, 2018 4:03 pm

tuttle wrote:
Fri May 18, 2018 11:20 am
I brought her up not because the scientific community thinks she's a heretic, but that she's in the most favorable position imaginable and she's almost treated like a heretic. The only reason anyone has given her any time of day is because of her favorable position. Outside of the camp she'd be a kook without a chance to even have her work considered by other labs.
I still think you're overplaying her story. She's mentioned in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil without any indication of controversy, FWIW.

An interesting overview of the whole saga: https://letterstocreationists.wordpress ... ft-tissue/
Inadvertently emboldening the cause of naïve Evolutionism since 2016.

"Who the hell ponders placentas? Dude, you're a freak of nature." - DepartedLight

"One man's saint is another man's infidel." - hugodrax

"Total. Freaking. Win." - Skip

User avatar
infidel
kthxbai
kthxbai
Posts: 6483
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 6:00 pm

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by infidel » Fri May 18, 2018 4:33 pm

infidel wrote:
Fri May 18, 2018 2:16 pm
OH! I think I figured out why you look at this in such conspiratorial terms. If we currently understand that soft tissues cannot survive millions of years of fossilization and then someone finds some soft tissues in a fossil there are three possibilities: A) the soft tissues are not from the fossil, i.e. external contamination; B) it actually IS possible for soft tissues to survive through some mechanism we don't yet understand; or C) the fossils are actually much younger than believed.

The fact that none of the scientists involved even consider C is what bothers you so much. That's why this discovery will be "shoehorned" into the narrative and why you think nothing can ever overturn evolution. I finally understand what you've been trying to say all this time. You're still wrong, of course, but at least I hear you now :-D
Reading more about this issue has confirmed my suspicions, at least with YECs in general if not you specifically. It's almost as if everything you've said about evolutionists actually applies more to the YECs: Cherrypicking data, shoehorning it into their narrative, ridiculing heretics, refusing to entertain alternatives that fall outside the narrative, a narrative which can never be disproven, etc. Food for thought.
Inadvertently emboldening the cause of naïve Evolutionism since 2016.

"Who the hell ponders placentas? Dude, you're a freak of nature." - DepartedLight

"One man's saint is another man's infidel." - hugodrax

"Total. Freaking. Win." - Skip

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 18863
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by wosbald » Fri May 18, 2018 5:37 pm

+JMJ+
infidel wrote:
Fri May 18, 2018 4:33 pm
… It's almost as if everything you've said about evolutionists actually applies more to the YECs: Cherrypicking data, shoehorning it into their narrative, ridiculing heretics, refusing to entertain alternatives that fall outside the narrative, a narrative which can never be disproven, etc. …
Image




"In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph." - Our Lady of Fatima

User avatar
tuttle
Theology Room Mod
Theology Room Mod
Posts: 12643
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by tuttle » Mon May 21, 2018 8:55 am

infidel wrote:
Fri May 18, 2018 2:16 pm
OH! I think I figured out why you look at this in such conspiratorial terms. If we currently understand that soft tissues cannot survive millions of years of fossilization and then someone finds some soft tissues in a fossil there are three possibilities: A) the soft tissues are not from the fossil, i.e. external contamination; B) it actually IS possible for soft tissues to survive through some mechanism we don't yet understand; or C) the fossils are actually much younger than believed.

The fact that none of the scientists involved even consider C is what bothers you so much. That's why this discovery will be "shoehorned" into the narrative and why you think nothing can ever overturn evolution. I finally understand what you've been trying to say all this time. You're still wrong, of course, but at least I hear you now :-D
Yep. Sorry for being unclear. Your assessment is more or less correct. Evolution disallows C as a consideration. If they were at all to consider option C, it would be a direct challenge to the entire paradigm of evolution. Therefore they are restricted to A & B, which is exactly the two paths that are being taken. My thought is this: Consider, just for a moment, that the tissue found actually does mean that the fossils are younger (the realm of thousands, even tens of thousands of years old vs 65-125 million years old). If that's actually the case, then what kind of impact would that make on other observations/experiments/etc that scientists will make from here on out? This is the kind of thing I'm talking about when I ponder if they cut themselves off from what really happened. Instead of considering the implications of what might lead to an astounding scientific breakthrough (because surely, a timescale adjustment would revolutionize how science is done), they'll never allow any evidence to be interpreted outside of their narrative. (I feel like I could have written that clearer, but I'm still sleepy...)
infidel wrote:
Fri May 18, 2018 4:33 pm
Reading more about this issue has confirmed my suspicions, at least with YECs in general if not you specifically. It's almost as if everything you've said about evolutionists actually applies more to the YECs: Cherrypicking data, shoehorning it into their narrative, ridiculing heretics, refusing to entertain alternatives that fall outside the narrative, a narrative which can never be disproven, etc. Food for thought.
In a real sense, yes it does apply to both! I even said as much somewhere wayback in a thread that both evolution and creation have a 'meta' narrative which must be accepted before one can interpret the evidence. Each will interpret the evidence based on what they believe about their narrative. I do think it is a flaw within evolutionism when the evolutionist denies/doesn't recognize that they are interpreting their data according to their meta narrative. It doesn't mean they are bad scientists, even if I think they've interpreted something wrong. But it also means, deep down, there is an agenda (agenda's aren't necessarily bad things. You can easily see that creationists have an agenda because you're on the outside of creationism. Same from my angle. I use words like propaganda because it's easy for me to see it.)

I use terms like shoe-horning as an outsider looking in. Of course evolutionists don't think they are shoehorning things to fit their narrative. But I can see why evolutionists think creationists are cherry picking and shoehorning. It's two combating narratives.
"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

User avatar
infidel
kthxbai
kthxbai
Posts: 6483
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 6:00 pm

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by infidel » Mon May 21, 2018 11:09 am

tuttle wrote:
Mon May 21, 2018 8:55 am
Yep. Sorry for being unclear. Your assessment is more or less correct. Evolution disallows C as a consideration. If they were at all to consider option C, it would be a direct challenge to the entire paradigm of evolution. Therefore they are restricted to A & B, which is exactly the two paths that are being taken. My thought is this: Consider, just for a moment, that the tissue found actually does mean that the fossils are younger (the realm of thousands, even tens of thousands of years old vs 65-125 million years old). If that's actually the case, then what kind of impact would that make on other observations/experiments/etc that scientists will make from here on out? This is the kind of thing I'm talking about when I ponder if they cut themselves off from what really happened. Instead of considering the implications of what might lead to an astounding scientific breakthrough (because surely, a timescale adjustment would revolutionize how science is done), they'll never allow any evidence to be interpreted outside of their narrative.
It's like this... Geologists have established the age of the various layers of the Earth to very high degrees of certainty using a variety of radiometric dating processes. In particular, the K-T boundary (or whatever it's called now) is known to be ~63 million years old. T Rex fossils are always found below that layer so we know they must be older than that layer. Entertaining option C doesn't just mean shortening the timespan of Evolution but overturning everything we know about the physics of radioactive decay and geologic processes. So let's expand on our options a little:

A) the soft tissues are not from the fossil, i.e. external contamination;
B) it actually IS possible for soft tissues to survive through some mechanism we don't yet understand
C) the fossils are actually much younger than believed and everything we know about radioactive decay and geology is wrong

Now it's easy to see, from a purely scientific POV, why most critics default to A, some are coming around to B, and nobody seriously considers C.

YECs, on the other hand, swap options B and C. C is easy for you to accept. It fits your "narrative" and you have no problem throwing out all of geology and radioactive physics if necessary. So we have two narratives. And two conclusions. Science dismisses the YE conclusion because it would require dismissing all of the physical evidence for the old Earth, and YEC dismisses the old Earth conclusion because it would require dismissing a literal reading of ancient scriptures.

All of the scientific disciplines converge on the same narrative. Seriously, ALL of them. Cosmology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, geology, etc etc everything we have learned about the physical universe supports the "narrative" that it is 13+ billion years old, the Solar system formed ~4.5 billion years ago, life started in the simplest forms 3+ billion years ago and has evolved over that time into the diversity we see today. Your side has a few pages of ancient myths and a handful of cherrypicked controversies.
Inadvertently emboldening the cause of naïve Evolutionism since 2016.

"Who the hell ponders placentas? Dude, you're a freak of nature." - DepartedLight

"One man's saint is another man's infidel." - hugodrax

"Total. Freaking. Win." - Skip

Post Reply