Thompson boldly implied that Harshman proved that the Archeopteryx Wing was Nascent. Harshman should repost in a New Thread
T Pagano
(which no one seems to be able to find) he implied that Harshman had
proved that the Archeopteryx wing was nascent by detailing the
ancestral characteristics of the wing of _Archaeopteryx_.
Let's see the link to Harshman's post. Let's see if Thompson has
grown a pair.
Let's see Harshman repost this find in the new thread for all to see.
Some days I eat the bear and some days he eats me.
Regards,
T Pagano
Bruce Stephens
[...]
> Let's see the link to Harshman's post.
Here it is:
<http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/428bc9a92f934191>
You replied with what appears to be a cut and paste (which doesn't
address Archeopteryx wings):
<http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4a38b0b6ba897bc3>
Harshman replied, addressing (I think, I didn't check) all the points
from your cut and paste:
<http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/6020a0dd5c8efc18>
[...]
chris thompson
You *already replied* to John's rebuttal. Your reply was a slightly
altered (and unattributed- dare I say plagiarized?) copy and paste of
tripe from AIG. It was pathetic.
But I am now more worried about _you_ Tony. You seem to be
fragmenting, not to mention losing your short-term memory. When was
your last checkup?
Chris
Darwin123
> (which no one seems to be able to find) he implied that Harshman had
> proved that the Archeopteryx wing was nascent by detailing the
> ancestral characteristics of the wing of _Archaeopteryx_.
>
"nascent" would rely on pictures of the bones themselves. I do not
have the software necessary to post links to pictures. However, any
examination of the forelimbs of theropods, including the forelimbs of
Creteceous birds, would clearly indicate that there is no big gap
between wings and forelimbs. One could look at the forelimbs of birds
today and easily find plenty of homologies with forelimbs of reptiles.
This includes an entire range of functions. Birds use their forelimbs
for all sorts of things other than flight.
Small changes in structure and function clearly connect wings to
the forelimbs of birds. Of course, these changes are relative.
Clearly, a small set of changes could also make the wing of a bird
function like the forelimb of certain reptiles. This indeed seems to
have happened quite often.
Claiming that the forelimb is nascent to a wing is like claiming
that the earth goes around the sun in terms of absolute motion. The
term nascent is a lot like the term absolute. There can never be such
a thing as a "nascent structure" since changes are a matter of
perspective.
I recommend that anyone merely look at any book on comparative
anatomy which discusses the evolution of wings. They will see that
there are very small differences between the forelimbs of theropods
and the wings of birds. The variety within the wings of birds far
outspans the magnitude of difference between a typical wing and a
typical theropod forelimb. If one merely looks at a large variety of
forelimbs, one will note that there is no sharp difference between
them. A wing is a forelimb.
Archeopteryz has a forelimb that some would say clearly falls on
the wing side of the classification. None can say this is nascent
since wings are forelimbs, However, the anatomical range of theropod
limbs is actually very wide. The forelimb of an ostrich or the
forelimb of a penguin could not be wings in Pagano's magic world.
From the very day dinosaurs were discovered, a hundred years
before Ostram revisited the problem, there has been controversy over
whether dinosaurs were reptiles or birds. From the very first. There
difference between birds and dinosaurs were never compelling.
The decision of museums to portray dinosaurs as reptiles was made
in the 1930s. However, the controversy never went away. There has
always been doubt as to which dinosaurs were closer to: birds or
reptiles. The public has been only recently reexposed to the
controversy. There has been no doubt as to the fact that dinosaurs are
related to both reptiles and birds. In fact, crocodilians are more
closely related to birds than lizards.
The wing of birds developed during what would be called a period
of "stasis". The wings of birds did not arise suddenly, as there is an
entire spectrum of theropod forelimbs that coexist with the wings. The
forelimbs of some theropods start to look somewhat like "wings" well
before Archeopteryx.
Pagano likes attention. I think he would deserve it if he
would go so far as to describe the anatomy of a wing.
Pagano should try to describe the anatomy of both wings and
forelimbs, so that we may know the difference. If he doesn't know the
anatomy of these features, then he can't know whether one is nascent
to the other. He can if he wants describe the anatomy of a wing bone
by bone, and tell us how these structures are different from those of
a forelimb. Of course he can't, because the bone by bone structure of
a wing is the same as that of a forelimb. The only thing that is
different relates to relative proportions in size.
The words "nascent" and "transformative" constitute "wallpaper of
the mind".
raven1
wrote:
And in that particular thread, Harshman ate you, and shat the bones
out in the woods. The bones then got up, declared victory, and bravely
ran away, away...
T Pagano
<chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 2, 2:15 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>> In the same post he crowed about Dworetsky's proof of a moving earth
>> (which no one seems to be able to find) he implied that Harshman had
>> proved that the Archeopteryx wing was nascent by detailing the
>> ancestral characteristics of the wing of _Archaeopteryx_.
>>
>> Let's see the link to Harshman's post. Let's see if Thompson has
>> grown a pair.
>>
>> Let's see Harshman repost this find in the new thread for all to see.
>> Some days I eat the bear and some days he eats me.
>>
>> Regards,
>> T Pagano
>
>You *already replied* to John's rebuttal.
This is news to me. None of the Harshman posts to which I replied
detailed the characteristics of populations ancestral to the
Archeopteryx. In fact, I asked Harshman to identify the ancestral
populations to the Archeopteryx since most experts doubted that the
Archeopteryx is an intermediate with modern birds.
Where are the links to my post? Either my memory is going or Thompson
is engaging in (intentional??) misrepresentation. Post the link
Chris.
>Your reply was a slightly
>altered (and unattributed- dare I say plagiarized?) copy and paste of
>tripe from AIG. It was pathetic.
Notice that Thompson
1. doesn't provide the link to my post wherein I supposedly
plagiarize,
2. doesn't offer the link to the AIG site from which I supposedly
plagiarized,and
3. he doesn't offer the quotes from AIG from which I plagiarized.
>
>But I am now more worried about _you_ Tony. You seem to be
>fragmenting, not to mention losing your short-term memory. When was
>your last checkup?
>
>Chris
Notice that Thompson
1. doesn't provide the link to my post wherein I supposedly
plagiarize,
2. doesn't offer the link to the AIG site from which I supposedly
plagiarized,and
3. he doesn't offer the quotes from AIG from which I plagiarized.
Thompson has never recovered from being discredited with his vestigial
bat cheek teeth. I produced evidence with the appropriate link. Dare
I conclusde that Thompson has resorted to intentional
misrepresentation. This is a sad day indeed.
I never thought I'd see Thompson resort to these kind of
tactics---(intentional??) misrepresentations. That's okay; I've got
the high ground.
Regards,
T Pagano
chris thompson
> On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 12:08:48 -0700 (PDT), chris thompson
>
>
>
> <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Apr 2, 2:15 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> >> In the same post he crowed about Dworetsky's proof of a moving earth
> >> (which no one seems to be able to find) he implied that Harshman had
> >> proved that the Archeopteryx wing was nascent by detailing the
> >> ancestral characteristics of the wing of _Archaeopteryx_.
>
> >> Let's see the link to Harshman's post. Let's see if Thompson has
> >> grown a pair.
>
> >> Let's see Harshman repost this find in the new thread for all to see.
> >> Some days I eat the bear and some days he eats me.
>
> >> Regards,
> >> T Pagano
>
> >You *already replied* to John's rebuttal.
>
> This is news to me. None of the Harshman posts to which I replied
> detailed the characteristics of populations ancestral to the
> Archeopteryx. In fact, I asked Harshman to identify the ancestral
> populations to the Archeopteryx since most experts doubted that the
> Archeopteryx is an intermediate with modern birds.
First, you didn't ask for the ancestral populations of Archaeopteryx.
Your post, and John's reply, can be seen here:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/428bc9a92f934191?hl=en
Second, "most experts" do NOT doubt that Archaeopteryx is an
intermediate form. Only the cranks and crooks from AIG insist it is
not.
There's that short-term memory failure again, Tony. Please, get some
help.
>
> Where are the links to my post? Either my memory is going or Thompson
Your memory is going. I should not have to give you links to your own
posts. You can perhaps be forgiven for not wanting to look up other
people's posts (even if they ARE direct replies to your own posts) but
there's no excuse for not finding *your own* posts, even through
Google Groups.
> is engaging in (intentional??) misrepresentation. Post the link
I have the utmost and sincerest sympathy for people who appear to be
mentally ill. But there's only so much I can do. Find your own posts-
or follow the link I provided above. And this trolling for attention
is really, really not healthy.
Chris
Mike Dworetsky
> In the same post he crowed about Dworetsky's proof of a moving earth
> (which no one seems to be able to find) he implied that Harshman had
Actually, Tony, you seem to be the *only one* not able to find my post.
Everyone else has seen it, and I haven't seen anyone criticize it yet. All
you need are the same skills as everyone else on Usenet and talk.origins.
> proved that the Archeopteryx wing was nascent by detailing the
> ancestral characteristics of the wing of _Archaeopteryx_.
>
> Let's see the link to Harshman's post. Let's see if Thompson has
> grown a pair.
>
> Let's see Harshman repost this find in the new thread for all to see.
> Some days I eat the bear and some days he eats me.
>
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
T Pagano
In this post Harshman connects similarities between some purported
dino ancestors and the Archeopteryx with his faithful CONCEPTION of a
continuous, gradual, transformational process. The request was for
scientific evidence of continuity. Harshman only succeeded in
highlighting the unbridged gap between the two discontinuous fossil
entities (dino and archeopteryx). Yet Darwin set out a theory to
eliminate the discontinuous nature of Special Creation with a purely
naturalistic one which prohibits discontinuities.
The whole point of the thread identified above and all the other
related threads was for Harshman (or his cohorts) to produce physical
evidence of the continuity of biological prehistory. Harshman failed
to do this. Yet Elsberry proved in 2001 with his Pearson, et al.
report that the fossil record did sample at a sufficient rate to
capture fine graded changes. The fossil record captured numerous
examples (over 800 million years) of gradual and progressive changes
but NEVER gradual and transformational change.
Harshman and his merry band of atheists can do all the conceiving they
like. Conception is not scientific evidence. Lastly, in my reply to
Harshman I demonstrated that there is at least as much evidence that
the Archeopteryx is a fully formed mature (archaic) bird completely
discontinuous from both dinosaurs and modern birds. The picture is
not nearly as conclusive and unambiguous as Harshman lets on.
>
>Second, "most experts" do NOT doubt that Archaeopteryx is an
>intermediate form. Only the cranks and crooks from AIG insist it is
>not.
An honest appraisal is that the origin of modern birds (like every
other extant species) is contentious (at best). And there is at least
one fossil bird find which predates the archeopteryx which has largely
been disregarded since it contradicts the dino to bird transition.
snip
>> Chris.
>>
>> >Your reply was a slightly
>> >altered (and unattributed- dare I say plagiarized?) copy and paste of
>> >tripe from AIG. It was pathetic.
>>
>> Notice that Thompson
>> 1. doesn't provide the link to my post wherein I supposedly
>> plagiarize,
>> 2. doesn't offer the link to the AIG site from which I supposedly
>> plagiarized,and
>> 3. he doesn't offer the quotes from AIG from which I plagiarized.
>>
>>
>>
>> >But I am now more worried about _you_ Tony. You seem to be
>> >fragmenting, not to mention losing your short-term memory. When was
>> >your last checkup?
>>
>> >Chris
Notice that Thompson fails to substantiate his accusation that I
plagiarized. What a surprise.
Regards,
T Pagano
John Harshman
> In the same post he crowed about Dworetsky's proof of a moving earth
> (which no one seems to be able to find) he implied that Harshman had
> proved that the Archeopteryx wing was nascent by detailing the
> ancestral characteristics of the wing of _Archaeopteryx_.
>
> Let's see the link to Harshman's post. Let's see if Thompson has
> grown a pair.
Why not just reply to Harshman's post?
> Let's see Harshman repost this find in the new thread for all to see.
Why not just respond in the old thread instead of starting multiple new
threads? It's almost as if you're making excuses not to respond.
> Some days I eat the bear and some days he eats me.
Tony, you have never seen the outside of the bear. You spend all your
time on the inside.
As for nascent structures, I interpret that to mean structures that are
not in their fully derived form. For example, a theropod forelimb with
flight feathers, but otherwise unmodified, would be nascent compared to
a modern bird's wing, which is highly modified for efficient flight.
I've mentioned some of the modifications, which you characteristically
have ignored in favor of new threads to proclaim your victory.
John Harshman
> On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 12:08:48 -0700 (PDT), chris thompson
> <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Apr 2, 2:15 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>>> In the same post he crowed about Dworetsky's proof of a moving earth
>>> (which no one seems to be able to find) he implied that Harshman had
>>> proved that the Archeopteryx wing was nascent by detailing the
>>> ancestral characteristics of the wing of _Archaeopteryx_.
>>>
>>> Let's see the link to Harshman's post. Let's see if Thompson has
>>> grown a pair.
>>>
>>> Let's see Harshman repost this find in the new thread for all to see.
>>> Some days I eat the bear and some days he eats me.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> T Pagano
>> You *already replied* to John's rebuttal.
>
> This is news to me. None of the Harshman posts to which I replied
> detailed the characteristics of populations ancestral to the
> Archeopteryx.
One reason for that is that this is the first time you have expressed
that demand.
> In fact, I asked Harshman to identify the ancestral
> populations to the Archeopteryx since most experts doubted that the
> Archeopteryx is an intermediate with modern birds.
I don't recall such a request, but it would be meaningless anyway. We
can't identify ancestors or descendants. Microraptor gui is however a
fairly nice intermediate between Archaeopteryx and more primitive theropods.
> Where are the links to my post? Either my memory is going or Thompson
> is engaging in (intentional??) misrepresentation. Post the link
> Chris.
Your memory is convenient. You seem to forget all threads in which you
declare victory.
>> Your reply was a slightly
>> altered (and unattributed- dare I say plagiarized?) copy and paste of
>> tripe from AIG. It was pathetic.
>
> Notice that Thompson
> 1. doesn't provide the link to my post wherein I supposedly
> plagiarize,
> 2. doesn't offer the link to the AIG site from which I supposedly
> plagiarized,and
> 3. he doesn't offer the quotes from AIG from which I plagiarized.
Are you in fact claiming that you wrote that whole thing yourself
without reference to Duane Gish's nearly identical article? Are you
claiming, in fact, that this post doesn't exist?
John Harshman
No he doesn't. Read it again.
> The request was for
> scientific evidence of continuity.
No it wasn't. It was for evidence of a nascent structure. You really are
losing it.
> Harshman only succeeded in
> highlighting the unbridged gap between the two discontinuous fossil
> entities (dino and archeopteryx). Yet Darwin set out a theory to
> eliminate the discontinuous nature of Special Creation with a purely
> naturalistic one which prohibits discontinuities.
What unbridged gap? Every transitional fossil creates two gaps. How
about Microraptor? Velociraptor? Sinosauropteryx? Those would fill the
gap fairly well.
> The whole point of the thread identified above and all the other
> related threads was for Harshman (or his cohorts) to produce physical
> evidence of the continuity of biological prehistory.
And off go the goalposts. Where will they end up?
> Harshman failed
> to do this. Yet Elsberry proved in 2001 with his Pearson, et al.
> report that the fossil record did sample at a sufficient rate to
> capture fine graded changes. The fossil record captured numerous
> examples (over 800 million years) of gradual and progressive changes
> but NEVER gradual and transformational change.
Here, with what I hope is false naivety, you assume that the fossil
record is a uniform thing, and that what holds true for forams must also
hold true for birds. Archaeopteryx is known from a single area a few
miles across, and a single time-horizon. Half of all dinosaur genera are
known from a single specimen. We can hardly expect a continuous record
from anything so fragmentary.
And of course we don't know what you mean by "transformational". If it's
big change, we would expect it to take longer, in general, than smaller
changes, and correspondingly less likely to be preserved in detail. But
we can certainly find lots of intermediates. The transformation from
primitive theropod to modern bird took a good 150 million years or so,
and we're lucky to have a good record of it, though not a continuous
one. And hey, what's this "800 million years"? Don't you think the
fossil record is the result of a single flood?
> Harshman and his merry band of atheists can do all the conceiving they
> like. Conception is not scientific evidence. Lastly, in my reply to
> Harshman I demonstrated that there is at least as much evidence that
> the Archeopteryx is a fully formed mature (archaic) bird completely
> discontinuous from both dinosaurs and modern birds. The picture is
> not nearly as conclusive and unambiguous as Harshman lets on.
Could you define "mature" too? How can a fossil be both mature and
archaic? And of course a good intermediate should have a mix of
primitive, derived, and intermediate characters. You (or really Gish,
your source) listed a few of the derived ones and ignored all the
others. None of which has anything to do with the challenge, which was
to present a nascent structure.
Why is the wing of Archaeopteryx not a nascent structure?
>> Second, "most experts" do NOT doubt that Archaeopteryx is an
>> intermediate form. Only the cranks and crooks from AIG insist it is
>> not.
>
> An honest appraisal is that the origin of modern birds (like every
> other extant species) is contentious (at best). And there is at least
> one fossil bird find which predates the archeopteryx which has largely
> been disregarded since it contradicts the dino to bird transition.
No, it's not contentious. There are a few holdouts who claim that birds
aren't theropods, but they are increasingly marginalized, and for good
reason. Nor is there a fossil bird that predates Archaeopteryx. You're
probably thinking of Protoavis, but almost everyone agrees it isn't a
bird at all, or even a single animal, but a chimaera.
> Notice that Thompson fails to substantiate his accusation that I
> plagiarized. What a surprise.
Let's be clear on this. Are you claiming that your post wasn't taken
from Duane Gish, and that it's mere coincidence that your post so
closely resembles Gish's article?
T Pagano
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
snip
Your boys are on the run, as usual.
TomS And Friar Broccoli honestly admitted that there is no conclusive
evidence of a moving earth. Boikat discovered the same thing the hard
way. Frank J made bold claims about a moving earth and ran hard
without attempting a proof. Thompson made bold claims about a moving
Earth and now he and Dworetsky are in full retreat. They're
practically tripping over each other as they run.
It's amazing to watch (metaphorically of course) your atheist minions
dazed over the lies they were taught in school. When faced with
proving that the earth moves they don't have a clue. Yet I made it a
point to study the history of science in the matter and know the state
of the evidence. BTW where's Carlip? Apparently he didn't leave much
in the threads he populated with help for them. It's sad that the
educational system grossly misrepresents the state of our true
understanding.
And still not a single shred of evidence of naturalistic biological
continuity anywhere. When I hit Vreeland with the facts about the
fossil record he practically vanished. In fact as I conduct a casual
review of the history of science concerning bird evolution (which I'm
told is Harshman's specialty) the more I discover that there is as
much dispute among the profesionals about the Archeopteryx and bird
evolution from dinos as there is concerning gradualism between the
Gouldian and Dawkinsian camps. Yet the media always presents some
if-story as the gospel truth. It's just like Orwell's "1984."
Your boys think they're getting the truth while all they get is what
Big Brother wants them to get. Very sad.
Regards,
T Pagano
John Harshman
....and snips everything before "responding". I call it recognition that
he has no credible reply.
T Pagano
The next two of your boys scheduled to get smacked down: Thompson and
Dworetsky. If things go as planned (and sometimes they don't) I'm
going to get a two-fer. It's not going to be pretty.
Your boys are goin' down.
Regards,
T Pagano
raven1
wrote:
>On Sat, 02 Apr 2011 17:39:54 -0700, John Harshman
You somehow failed to address anything Harshman said. I presume this
was a simple oversight, and that you aren't bravely running away,
away.
John Harshman
[who cares?]
Mike Dworetsky
See:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/4a6adf6d19c271aa/801ba5704654c0ff
Everyone is fed up with your cheap tactics, Tony.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not....@address.net>:
<snip rambling Toniocy>
Still no definitions from Tony for "gradual, biological,
transformational continuity", or for evidence he'd accept
based on those definitions.
Still waiting...
Around two weeks now, and counting...
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "Mike Dworetsky"
<plati...@pants.btinternet.com>:
He'll ignore it, as he always ignores substantive responses.
T Pagano
Apparently Harshman cares 'cause he can't help but respond.
And this whole fiasco was not begun by me. It was started by Thompson
who stuck Dworetsky's neck out on the chopping block and then
scampered away.. If it weren't for Thompson's bold claim I would
never have known of Dworetsky's supposed proof of a moving earth.
It was Thompson who threw down the guantlet. And now he's gone and
Dworetsky is left holding the bag. Harshman surely remembers the last
time this happened. The last time Harshman was so worried about his
boys being out-classed (and plowed under) that he ran to UC Davis to
bring in Dr Steve Carlip (BA at Harvard, PhD at Univ of Texas, Post
Doc at Princeton). Yet for all of Dr Carlip's credentials he neither
proved that the Earth moved nor disproved the geocentricist model.
This is what Dworetsky is up against. Mind you it's quite possible
that he has presented a novel approach to the problem and a fresh
interpretation of the evidence. However, I won't know that until
after Day 7 has passed. And I have given him an out. All he has to
do is state clearly that he wishes to withdrawl the gauntlet thrown
down by Thompson and make further study.
Regards,
T Pagano
Friar Broccoli
T Pagano
<eli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/801ba5704654c0ff
It was Broccoli who admitted less that 2 months ago that he was unable
to find conclusive proof of a moving earth. This is an honest
appraisal of the evidence which hasn't changed since the late 1800s.
Nothing has changed.
If this link points to the supposed proof that Thompson crowed about
then there is nothing new. These issues were all addressed less than
12 months ago. And Dr Steve Carlip, wasn't able to offer conclusive
proof either. Dworetsky's evidence is neither conclusive proof that
the earth moves nor do they eliminate the geocentric model.
In any event this is Dworetsky's problem and not yours. He has 4 more
days to produce a post in a new thread presenting his "CONCLUSIVE"
proof of a moving earth. After that I'll do it for him. Finally the
fact that neither Dworetsky nor any of his atheist compatriots have
offered his "proof" in a new thread for all to see says all I need to
know.
Regards,
T Pagano
RAM
> On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 17:22:01 -0700 (PDT), Friar Broccoli
>
I see Prancing Pagano is back smelling up the place. Doing a victory
dance with not a foot to stand on.
"Proof" is for coins, math and whiskey and it is not part of the
sciences' vocabulary. Evidence, however, is and it is inductive and
you know for sure it is a "foundation built on sand." I think I
remember reading that ignorant statement somewhere. What a massive
bloviating fool you are.
What to try and explain what induction is again?
Yes I'm still laughing at you.
John Harshman
> On Sat, 02 Apr 2011 20:12:13 -0700, John Harshman
> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> T Pagano wrote:
>>
>> [who cares?]
>
> Apparently Harshman cares 'cause he can't help but respond.
I just like to change thread titles.
[snip empty boasting]
JTEM
T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> In the same post he crowed about Dworetsky's proof
> of a moving earth (which no one seems to be able to
> find) he implied that Harshman had proved that the
> Archeopteryx wing was nascent by detailing the
> ancestral characteristics of the wing of _Archaeopteryx_.
Interestingly enough, the wing was NOT the critical part
of flight. Nope. It was the wishbone, something that
Archaeopteryx technically has, but it's a very
primitive example. In other words, it's an example of
something that developed through evolutionary pressures
over the years.
Ilas
news:apagano-bi2fp6ddbg6ks...@4ax.com:
> Notice that Thompson fails to substantiate his accusation that I
> plagiarized. What a surprise.
What exactly would you call this, if not plagarism? From the post in
question (there's more, but this will do):
-----------
Pagano:
it has perching feet,
Gish:
It had perching feet
-----------
Pagano:
possessed the basic pattern and proportions of the avian wing with
modern-like feathers; the primary fearthers of non flying birds are
distinctly different. there is little reason to suppose that the
Archeopteryx was not capable of and engaged in powered flight.
Gish:
The primary feathers of non-flying birds are distinctly different from
those of flying birds. Archaeopteryx had the feathers of flying birds,
had the basic pattern and proportions of the avian wing, and an
especially robust furcula (wishbone). Furthermore, there was nothing in
the anatomy of Archaeopteryx that would have prevented it being a powered
flyer.
-----------
Pagano:
a robust furcula,
Gish:
an especially robust furcula
-----------
Pagano:
the quadrate of the Eichastatt specimen of the Archeopteryx was
double-headed and thus similar in condition to that of the modern
bird.
Gish:
the quadrate of the Eichstatt specimen of Archaepoteryx was double-headed
and thus similar to the condition of modern birds
-----------
Pagano:
it has been asserted that Archaeopteryx shares 21 specialized
characters with coelurosaurian dinosaurs. Research on various
anatomical features of Archaeopteryx in the last ten years or so,
however, has shown, in every case, that the characteristic in question
is bird-like, not reptile-like.
Gish:
It has been asserted that Archaeopteryx shares 21 specialized characters
with coelurosaurian dinosaurs.4 Research on various anatomical features
of Archaeopteryx in the last ten years or so, however, has shown, in
every case, that the characteristic in question is bird-like, not
reptile-like
-----------
Pagano:
it has been reasonably established that neither the teeth nor the
ankle of Archaeopteryx could have been derived from theropod
dinosaurs-the teeth being those typical of other (presumably later)
toothed birds, and the ankle bones showing no homology with those of
dinosaurs.
Gish:
L.D. Martin and co-workers have established that neither the teeth nor
the ankle of Archaeopteryx could have been derived from theropod
dinosaurs—the teeth being those typical of other (presumably later)
toothed birds, and the ankle bones showing no homology with those of
dinosaurs
RAM
> T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote innews:apagano-bi2fp6ddbg6ks...@4ax.com:
Pagano the Plagiarizer. What a sleazeball.
Classic obvious plagiarizing. My students got "F" for far less
plagiarizing than this.
What do you expect. It really reflects his dishonest TO persona.
Mark Isaak
>[haven't seen proof]
Pagano, the reason you cannot see the moving earth proof is because you
are running away from it in panic. You show your rank cowardice every
time you post and do not deal with it.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
chris thompson
When I was a freshman, a junior in my department who was caught
plagiarizing was told he could either change his major (to something
outside the School of Agriculture) or be expelled.
My first year as a teaching assistant, one of my teaching mentors
showed me a photocopy of a paper he had returned to the student. His
only comment was, "This was a GREAT paper! It was great when it was
first handed in two years ago, too. F." He had liked the paper so much
he kept a copy of it on file as a teaching aid.
Chris
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not....@address.net>:
>On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 17:22:01 -0700 (PDT), Friar Broccoli
><eli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/801ba5704654c0ff
This addressed your challenge in multiple ways, with
multiple areas of evidence.
>...Dworetsky's evidence is neither conclusive proof that
>the earth moves nor do they eliminate the geocentric model.
That is true *if and only if*, as Mike pointed out several
times, magic is involved. If only known and tested physics
is involved, they do indeed eliminate the geocentric model.
Your reliance on magic to support your contention is
amusing, but nothing more.
John Harshman
> On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 22:18:25 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not....@address.net>:
>
>> On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 17:22:01 -0700 (PDT), Friar Broccoli
>> <eli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/801ba5704654c0ff
>
> This addressed your challenge in multiple ways, with
> multiple areas of evidence.
>
>> ...Dworetsky's evidence is neither conclusive proof that
>> the earth moves nor do they eliminate the geocentric model.
>
> That is true *if and only if*, as Mike pointed out several
> times, magic is involved. If only known and tested physics
> is involved, they do indeed eliminate the geocentric model.
> Your reliance on magic to support your contention is
> amusing, but nothing more.
Tony never said he relies on magic. He just refuses to respond to the
evidence in any way. I presume it's because he would have to present his
model of stellar motion, and that model would be very bizarre and
obviously silly. But so far as he remains vague, he doesn't even have to
mention magic.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net>:
>Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 22:18:25 -0400, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not....@address.net>:
>>
>>> On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 17:22:01 -0700 (PDT), Friar Broccoli
>>> <eli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/801ba5704654c0ff
>>
>> This addressed your challenge in multiple ways, with
>> multiple areas of evidence.
>>
>>> ...Dworetsky's evidence is neither conclusive proof that
>>> the earth moves nor do they eliminate the geocentric model.
>>
>> That is true *if and only if*, as Mike pointed out several
>> times, magic is involved. If only known and tested physics
>> is involved, they do indeed eliminate the geocentric model.
>> Your reliance on magic to support your contention is
>> amusing, but nothing more.
>
>Tony never said he relies on magic.
Nope. Mike did, and I agree with him.
> He just refuses to respond to the
>evidence in any way. I presume it's because he would have to present his
>model of stellar motion, and that model would be very bizarre and
>obviously silly. But so far as he remains vague, he doesn't even have to
>mention magic.
Agreed, and I never said he made any mention of magic.
Magic, however, is the only possible answer unless known
physics is wrong.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
>On Sat, 02 Apr 2011 22:02:34 -0400, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not....@address.net>:
>
><snip rambling Toniocy>
>
>Still no definitions from Tony for "gradual, biological,
>transformational continuity", or for evidence he'd accept
>based on those definitions.
>
>Still waiting...
>
>Around two weeks now, and counting...
Three weeks...
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
>On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 14:16:32 -0700, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
>
>>On Sat, 02 Apr 2011 22:02:34 -0400, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not....@address.net>:
>>
>><snip rambling Toniocy>
>>
>>Still no definitions from Tony for "gradual, biological,
>>transformational continuity", or for evidence he'd accept
>>based on those definitions.
>>
>>Still waiting...
>>
>>Around two weeks now, and counting...
>
>Three weeks...
Four weeks (approximately)...