Bird Evolution and Creationism+

[jillery]

Someone posted the following link in another froup. However it has
significant relevance to multiple threads and topics in T.O., and so I
post it here:

<https://www.ag-evolutionsbiologie.net/pdf/2023/evolution-why-birds-are-living-dinosaurs.pdf>

<https://tinyurl.com/ycy26b6w>

From the introduction:
******************************
Thus, birds are members of the dinosaur subgroup Theropoda
(carnivorous bipeds), of the theropod subgroup Coelurosauria
(hollow-tailed lizards), and of the coelurosaur subgroup Maniraptora
(“hand snatchers”). Today, only a very few dinosaur specialists and
paleornithologists dispute this finding, and the few who do so seem to
have ideological rather than scientific reasons

[...]

The knowledge that modern birds (crown group birds) differ from early
theropods only by graded similarities has always been a thorn in the
side of religious evolution deniers (creationists). It simply does not
fit well into the mould of genealogically separated lineages or “basic
kinds” of life originated by supernatural acts of divine creation.
Instead, graded similarities between seemingly fundamentally different
groups of animals fulfill a central expectation of the theory of
evolution. Hence, it is no surprise that since the discovery of the
famous proto-bird Archaeopteryx, creationists have been running up
against the theropod affiliation of birds.
*******************************

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

[Ron Dean]

jillery wrote:
> Someone posted the following link in another froup. However it has
> significant relevance to multiple threads and topics in T.O., and so I
> post it here:
>
> <https://www.ag-evolutionsbiologie.net/pdf/2023/evolution-why-birds-are-living-dinosaurs.pdf>
>
> <https://tinyurl.com/ycy26b6w>
>
> From the introduction:
> ******************************
> Thus, birds are members of the dinosaur subgroup Theropoda
> (carnivorous bipeds), of the theropod subgroup Coelurosauria
> (hollow-tailed lizards), and of the coelurosaur subgroup Maniraptora
> (“hand snatchers”). Today, only a very few dinosaur specialists and
> paleornithologists dispute this finding, and the few who do so seem to
> have ideological rather than scientific reasons
>
> [...]
>
> The knowledge that modern birds (crown group birds) differ from early
> theropods only by graded similarities has always been a thorn in the
> side of religious evolution deniers (creationists).
>

The fact is, intelligent design is distinct from biblical creationism!
>
It's possible to disagree with evolution on scientific grounds rather than
based on a religious paradigm? Maybe, but not without a penalty.
https://www.discovery.org/a/2845/

It simply does not
> fit well into the mould of genealogically separated lineages or “basic
> kinds” of life originated by supernatural acts of divine creation.
> Instead, graded similarities between seemingly fundamentally different
> groups of animals fulfill a central expectation of the theory of
> evolution. Hence, it is no surprise that since the discovery of the
> famous proto-bird Archaeopteryx, creationists have been running up
> against the theropod affiliation of birds.
> *******************************

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/jun/28/do-we-need-a-new-theory-of-evolution

[broger...@gmail.com]

On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 1:26:03 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
> jillery wrote:
> > Someone posted the following link in another froup. However it has
> > significant relevance to multiple threads and topics in T.O., and so I
> > post it here:
> >
> > <https://www.ag-evolutionsbiologie.net/pdf/2023/evolution-why-birds-are-living-dinosaurs.pdf>
> >
> > <https://tinyurl.com/ycy26b6w>
> >
> > From the introduction:
> > ******************************
> > Thus, birds are members of the dinosaur subgroup Theropoda
> > (carnivorous bipeds), of the theropod subgroup Coelurosauria
> > (hollow-tailed lizards), and of the coelurosaur subgroup Maniraptora
> > (“hand snatchers”). Today, only a very few dinosaur specialists and
> > paleornithologists dispute this finding, and the few who do so seem to
> > have ideological rather than scientific reasons
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > The knowledge that modern birds (crown group birds) differ from early
> > theropods only by graded similarities has always been a thorn in the
> > side of religious evolution deniers (creationists).
> >
> The fact is, intelligent design is distinct from biblical creationism!
> >
> It's possible to disagree with evolution on scientific grounds rather than
> based on a religious paradigm? Maybe, but not without a penalty.
> https://www.discovery.org/a/2845/

No. Nobody in intelligent design acts like a scientist. They claim to have evidence for an Intelligent Designer responsible for the values of the fundamental constants of nature, the origin of life, the origin of a whole bunch of complex biological systems, the origin of metazoan body plans, and many other things. That would be fantastically interesting. Any scientist who thought they had evidence for such a thing would immediately start trying to make models of what the designer is like, try to come up with predictions based on those characteristics of the designer, and think up experiments to test the models. Instead, once they say they think an Intelligent Designer was involved in anything, they simply stop, and say, we cannot know anything about the Intelligent Designer. That's not what an actual scientist, particularly a scientist who thought they had solid scientific evidence that evolution was false and intelligent design was true would do. The behavior of IDists makes it absolutely clear that they are not approaching the question scientifically. And the overwhelming majority will admit to their religious motivations, at least when not talking in mixed company.

[John Harshman]

Nothing to do with ID, and nothing to do with bird evolution. But other
than that, it's a collection of mostly crackpots.

[jillery]

On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 13:25:09 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:

>jillery wrote:
>> Someone posted the following link in another froup. However it has
>> significant relevance to multiple threads and topics in T.O., and so I
>> post it here:
>>
>> <https://www.ag-evolutionsbiologie.net/pdf/2023/evolution-why-birds-are-living-dinosaurs.pdf>
>>
>> <https://tinyurl.com/ycy26b6w>
>>
>> From the introduction:
>> ******************************
>> Thus, birds are members of the dinosaur subgroup Theropoda
>> (carnivorous bipeds), of the theropod subgroup Coelurosauria
>> (hollow-tailed lizards), and of the coelurosaur subgroup Maniraptora
>> (“hand snatchers”). Today, only a very few dinosaur specialists and
>> paleornithologists dispute this finding, and the few who do so seem to
>> have ideological rather than scientific reasons
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> The knowledge that modern birds (crown group birds) differ from early
>> theropods only by graded similarities has always been a thorn in the

>> side of religious evolution deniers (creationists). It simply does not

>> fit well into the mould of genealogically separated lineages or “basic
>> kinds” of life originated by supernatural acts of divine creation.
>> Instead, graded similarities between seemingly fundamentally different
>> groups of animals fulfill a central expectation of the theory of
>> evolution. Hence, it is no surprise that since the discovery of the
>> famous proto-bird Archaeopteryx, creationists have been running up
>> against the theropod affiliation of birds.
>> *******************************

>The fact is, intelligent design is distinct from biblical creationism!
> >
>It's possible to disagree with evolution on scientific grounds rather than
>based on a religious paradigm? Maybe, but not without a penalty.
>https://www.discovery.org/a/2845/

From your cited link above:
*********************************
The theory proposes that many of the most intricate features of the
natural world (like the amazing molecular machines within the cell)
are best explained as the product of an intelligent cause rather than
an undirected process like natural selection.
**********************************

It may be theoretically possible to discuss ID scientifically, but I
know of no one who does, including your favorite William Dembski.
Without a *description* of its presumptive designer's abilities, the
above proposal would be a religious assertion without basis, not a
scientific one.

Also from your cited link:
**********************************
At George Mason University in Virginia, biology professor Caroline
Crocker was banned earlier this year from teaching about intelligent
design in her classes.
**********************************

The comment above is yet another baseless claim, and is almost
certainly an outright lie:
<https://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-04-23/#part3>
************************************
Although in interviews and trailers for Expelled Dr. Crocker and her
documentary host Ben Stein repeatedly claim she “lost her job,” the
facts show that, less dramatically, her contracts at both GMU and NVCC
were allowed to continue through their natural terms and were simply
not renewed.

[...]

The actual contents of the lecture described in the Washington Post
article — by her own admission the same material she had previously
taught at GMU — sound like a compendium of discredited arguments from
bad Creationist literature. Crocker “told the students there were two
kinds of evolution: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution
is … quite different from macroevolution. No one has ever seen a dog
turn into a cat in a laboratory.”
*************************************

Ms Crocker is a manufactured martyr. Her lectures taught neither
evolution nor ID scientifically.


>https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/jun/28/do-we-need-a-new-theory-of-evolution

Scientific criticism of ToE is not the same thing as support for ID.
Even if ToE was shown to be scientifically inaccurate to any degree,
that would say nothing about the veracity of ID. This is the kind of
false dichotomy which shows cdesign proponentsists don't argue
intelligently about ID.

--

[Ron Dean]

I disagree! It's entirely possible to recognize design without knowing
anything about
the designer. How many people watch TV knowing nothing about the
designer or
about how a TV works. Archeologist frequently dig up objects recognizing
design,
but without knowing who or for what purpose. So, one might say we know
it was
a human, but that's besides the point, design often is recognized by out
of place
instances, straight lines and impossible natural formations.

That's not what an actual scientist, particularly a scientist who
thought they had solid scientific evidence that evolution was false and
intelligent design was true would do. The behavior of IDists makes it
absolutely clear that they are not approaching the question
scientifically. And the overwhelming majority will admit to their
religious motivations, at least when not talking in mixed company.
>

There are those who have religious motivations, but there are also
people with anti-
religious motivations. I think this describes quite a few evolutionist.
And in both
cases their paradigm take precedence, predominance and priority over
opinion,
evidence and facts.

[Ron Dean]

I did not make any association between the article and ID. What do you know
about the credentials of any of these people or the finer points of
their problems
with modern evolution? Does biases play any part?

[broger...@gmail.com]

I know you disagree. A scientist, however, would not stop at the conclusion that there was an unspecified designer, an actual ID scientist, would do what scientists do, ask questions about the designer, make models of the designer based on existing evidence, think up experiments to test the models. The fact that none of the alleged "ID scientists" actually do any of those things is the clearest indication that they are not treating ID as science.

>How many people watch TV knowing nothing about the
> designer or
> about how a TV works.

Most people who watch TV are aware that TVs are designed and built by human beings. Do you have doubts about the supernatural origin of television?

>Archeologist frequently dig up objects recognizing
> design,
> but without knowing who or for what purpose. So, one might say we know
> it was
> a human, but that's besides the point, design often is recognized by out
> of place
> instances, straight lines and impossible natural formations.

But archaeologists do not throw up their hands and stop there, because they are actual scientists. They try to find out about the purpose or the people who made the stuff.

> That's not what an actual scientist, particularly a scientist who
> thought they had solid scientific evidence that evolution was false and
> intelligent design was true would do. The behavior of IDists makes it
> absolutely clear that they are not approaching the question
> scientifically. And the overwhelming majority will admit to their
> religious motivations, at least when not talking in mixed company.
> >
> There are those who have religious motivations, but there are also
> people with anti-
> religious motivations. I think this describes quite a few evolutionist.

You are simply wrong about that. Biologists, as a rule, do not go about their work thinking about how they can disprove God. They are curious about how the world works and like to figure things out. Some of them don't think about God at all; some believe in God, the majority don't, but that is irrelevant to their motivation to figure things out about biology.

> And in both
> cases their paradigm take precedence, predominance and priority over
> opinion,
> evidence and facts.

Many people are actually willing to change their minds based upon evidence. For example, if you had positive evidence of an intelligent designer (as opposed to poorly thought out critiques of the ToE) lots of scientists would be interested.

[John Harshman]

Then what was your purpose in posting the link? Credentials are
meaningless, and I know quite a bit about the finer points of their
problems. Does biases pay any part in what?

[Mark Isaak]

It is possible, but far from easy, to recognize design without first
knowing anything about the designer. However, you need to answer the
question, "How do you do that?" Appealing to archaeologists doesn't
work, because archaeologists already know about the designers.
Unexpected formations don't work, because we often find natural
explanations for them later, and we may well do so again with the next one.

So how does one recognize design by a completely unknown designer? I
can think of two ways. 1: Find models and preliminary sketches which
have no other function but being preliminary. 2: Learn about the
designer. Do you know another way?

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell