Why do we know that birds are living dinosaurs?
Evaluation of reasoning in anti-evolutionist treatise
MARTIN NEUKAMM & ANDREAS BEYER
(Translated from the original German by the authors)
https://www.ag-evolutionsbiologie.net/pdf/2023/evolution-why-birds-are-living-dinosaurs.pdf
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 12:02:26 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
Why do we know that birds are living dinosaurs?HUH??? the whole article is devoted to refuting creationist arguments.
Evaluation of reasoning in anti-evolutionist treatise
Did you have another senior moment?
This is not to say the article is free of flaws. [Big understatement here]
MARTIN NEUKAMM & ANDREAS BEYER
(Translated from the original German by the authors)
https://www.ag-evolutionsbiologie.net/pdf/2023/evolution-why-birds-are-living-dinosaurs.pdfEXCERPT:
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 (cf. PRUM 2003; SMITH et al. 2015; RAUHUT & FOTH 2020).
END OF EXCERPT
Relying on PRUM to distinguish ideological from scientific reasons is like relying on Lysenko to do the same. Prum lambasted Feduccia
for having "abandoned science" by refusing to stick his neck out
and hypothesize some group of archosauria as the sister group of birds.
Richard Dawkins was recently lambasted as having "abandoned science"
for much weightier reasons. As an atheist like Dawkins and a leftist
like the lambasters, you may well have conflicted feelings about this. Do you?
Another one-sided passage seems to be where you got the subtitle for this thread.
EXCERPT 2. . In
In fact, the skeleton of Archaeopteryx is so strikingly similar to that of the predatory dinosaur Compsognathus that two apparently featherless specimens of the proto-bird were mistaken for this non-avian theropod for decades (SHIPMAN 1999, pp. 43 ff.).
END OF EXCERPT
On the other hand, another specimen was mistaken for a species of the decidedly non-dinosaurian *Pterodactylus*.
Fortunately, John Ostrom had enough prestige to get the rule "type specimen describer
gets to name the species" overturned in this case.
There is much more I could say about the article, but I have an awful lot on my plate, so I'll save it for another day (maybe week).
Peter NyikosIf you would do as much as read the first page of the article, you might understand the "anti-evolutionist" reference.
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
https://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 12:02:26 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
Why do we know that birds are living dinosaurs?
Evaluation of reasoning in anti-evolutionist treatise
HUH??? the whole article is devoted to refuting creationist arguments.
Did you have another senior moment?
This is not to say the article is free of flaws. [Big understatement here]
MARTIN NEUKAMM & ANDREAS BEYER
(Translated from the original German by the authors)
https://www.ag-evolutionsbiologie.net/pdf/2023/evolution-why-birds-are-living-dinosaurs.pdf
EXCERPT:
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 (cf. PRUM 2003; SMITH et al. 2015; RAUHUT & FOTH 2020).
END OF EXCERPT
Relying on PRUM to distinguish ideological from scientific reasons is like relying on Lysenko to do the same. Prum lambasted Feduccia
for having "abandoned science" by refusing to stick his neck out
and hypothesize some group of archosauria as the sister group of birds.
Richard Dawkins was recently lambasted as having "abandoned science"
for much weightier reasons. As an atheist like Dawkins and a leftist
like the lambasters, you may well have conflicted feelings about this. Do you?
Another one-sided passage seems to be where you got the subtitle for this thread.
EXCERPT 2. . In
In fact, the skeleton of Archaeopteryx is so strikingly similar to that of the predatory dinosaur Compsognathus that two apparently featherless specimens of the proto-bird were mistaken for this non-avian theropod for decades (SHIPMAN 1999, pp. 43 ff.).
END OF EXCERPT
On the other hand, another specimen was mistaken for a species of the decidedly non-dinosaurian *Pterodactylus*.
Fortunately, John Ostrom had enough prestige to get the rule "type specimen describer
gets to name the species" overturned in this case.
There is much more I could say about the article, but I have an awful lot on my plate, so I'll save it for another day (maybe week).
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 2:43:13 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 12:02:26 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
Why do we know that birds are living dinosaurs?
Evaluation of reasoning in anti-evolutionist treatise
HUH??? the whole article is devoted to refuting creationist arguments.
Did you have another senior moment?
This is not to say the article is free of flaws. [Big understatement here]
MARTIN NEUKAMM & ANDREAS BEYER
(Translated from the original German by the authors)
https://www.ag-evolutionsbiologie.net/pdf/2023/evolution-why-birds-are-living-dinosaurs.pdfEXCERPT:
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 (cf. PRUM 2003; SMITH et al. 2015; RAUHUT & FOTH 2020).
END OF EXCERPT
Relying on PRUM to distinguish ideological from scientific reasons is like relying on Lysenko to do the same. Prum lambasted Feduccia
for having "abandoned science" by refusing to stick his neck out
and hypothesize some group of archosauria as the sister group of birds.
Richard Dawkins was recently lambasted as having "abandoned science"
for much weightier reasons. As an atheist like Dawkins and a leftist
like the lambasters, you may well have conflicted feelings about this. Do you?
).Another one-sided passage seems to be where you got the subtitle for this thread.
EXCERPT 2. . In
In fact, the skeleton of Archaeopteryx is so strikingly similar to that of the predatory dinosaur Compsognathus that two apparently featherless specimens of the proto-bird were mistaken for this non-avian theropod for decades (SHIPMAN 1999, pp. 43 ff.
END OF EXCERPT
On the other hand, another specimen was mistaken for a species of the decidedly non-dinosaurian *Pterodactylus*.
Fortunately, John Ostrom had enough prestige to get the rule "type specimen describer
gets to name the species" overturned in this case.
There is much more I could say about the article, but I have an awful lot on
my plate, so I'll save it for another day (maybe week).
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
https://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
If you would do as much as read the first page of the article, you might understand the "anti-evolutionist" reference.
You're coming across in these recent threads about birds as Feduccia's bulldog.
Is that really your intent?
Why not look at the paper in Nature?
CNN is hardly the place to be arguing about a very partial fossil.
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:26:58 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 2:43:13 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote: >>> On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 12:02:26 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>
Why do we know that birds are living dinosaurs?
Evaluation of reasoning in anti-evolutionist treatise
HUH??? the whole article is devoted to refuting creationist arguments.
Did you have another senior moment?
Answer: no, John just didn't think about the ambiguity inherent in the phrase,
"in anti-evolutionist treatise."
).This is not to say the article is free of flaws. [Big understatement here] >>>> MARTIN NEUKAMM & ANDREAS BEYER
EXCERPT:
(Translated from the original German by the authors)
https://www.ag-evolutionsbiologie.net/pdf/2023/evolution-why-birds-are-living-dinosaurs.pdf
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 (cf. PRUM 2003; SMITH et al. 2015; RAUHUT & FOTH 2020).
END OF EXCERPT
Relying on PRUM to distinguish ideological from scientific reasons is like >>> relying on Lysenko to do the same. Prum lambasted Feduccia
for having "abandoned science" by refusing to stick his neck out
and hypothesize some group of archosauria as the sister group of birds.
Richard Dawkins was recently lambasted as having "abandoned science"
for much weightier reasons. As an atheist like Dawkins and a leftist
like the lambasters, you may well have conflicted feelings about this. Do you?
Another one-sided passage seems to be where you got the subtitle for this thread.
EXCERPT 2. . In
In fact, the skeleton of Archaeopteryx is so strikingly similar to that of the predatory dinosaur Compsognathus that two apparently featherless specimens of the proto-bird were mistaken for this non-avian theropod for decades (SHIPMAN 1999, pp. 43 ff.
END OF EXCERPT
On the other hand, another specimen was mistaken for a species of the decidedly non-dinosaurian *Pterodactylus*.
Fortunately, John Ostrom had enough prestige to get the rule "type specimen describer
gets to name the species" overturned in this case.
There is much more I could say about the article, but I have an awful lot on
my plate, so I'll save it for another day (maybe week).
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
https://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
If you would do as much as read the first page of the article, you might understand the "anti-evolutionist" reference.
There is no anti-evolutionist treatise mentioned on the first page.
On the second page, Junker (2022) gets mentioned, but there is nothing anti-evolutionst in the quote from him, unless you want to libel Feduccia as "anti-evolutionist".
What he says used to be settled science about pterosaurs: those hairlike growths are not hair;
nor are they feathers. It was only when their morphology was closely studied that
"they are feathers" became the new orthodoxy.
It is only on p.7 that we get an inkling of why John used the word "treatise".
Did you happen to read that far, by the way?
You're coming across in these recent threads about birds as Feduccia's bulldog.
Watch your language. Neither you nor John have argued against a single thing I wrote.
Is that really your intent?
Is it really your intent to substitute personal attacks for reasoned argument?
I've caught you twice this year posting loaded questions. Here's what became of one of them:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:26:58 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 2:43:13 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote: >>> On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 12:02:26 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>
Why do we know that birds are living dinosaurs?
Evaluation of reasoning in anti-evolutionist treatise
HUH??? the whole article is devoted to refuting creationist arguments.
Did you have another senior moment?
Answer: no, John just didn't think about the ambiguity inherent in the phrase,
"in anti-evolutionist treatise."
).
This is not to say the article is free of flaws. [Big understatement here] >>>> MARTIN NEUKAMM & ANDREAS BEYER
EXCERPT:
(Translated from the original German by the authors)
https://www.ag-evolutionsbiologie.net/pdf/2023/evolution-why-birds-are-living-dinosaurs.pdf
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 (cf. PRUM 2003; SMITH et al. 2015; RAUHUT & FOTH 2020).
END OF EXCERPT
Relying on PRUM to distinguish ideological from scientific reasons is like >>> relying on Lysenko to do the same. Prum lambasted Feduccia
for having "abandoned science" by refusing to stick his neck out
and hypothesize some group of archosauria as the sister group of birds.
Richard Dawkins was recently lambasted as having "abandoned science"
for much weightier reasons. As an atheist like Dawkins and a leftist
like the lambasters, you may well have conflicted feelings about this. Do you?
Another one-sided passage seems to be where you got the subtitle for this thread.
EXCERPT 2. . In
In fact, the skeleton of Archaeopteryx is so strikingly similar to that of the predatory dinosaur Compsognathus that two apparently featherless specimens of the proto-bird were mistaken for this non-avian theropod for decades (SHIPMAN 1999, pp. 43 ff.
END OF EXCERPT
On the other hand, another specimen was mistaken for a species of the decidedly non-dinosaurian *Pterodactylus*.
Fortunately, John Ostrom had enough prestige to get the rule "type specimen describer
gets to name the species" overturned in this case.
There is much more I could say about the article, but I have an awful lot on
my plate, so I'll save it for another day (maybe week).
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
https://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
If you would do as much as read the first page of the article, you might understand the "anti-evolutionist" reference.
There is no anti-evolutionist treatise mentioned on the first page.
On the second page, Junker (2022) gets mentioned, but there is nothing anti-evolutionst in the quote from him, unless you want to libel Feduccia as "anti-evolutionist".
What he says used to be settled science about pterosaurs: those hairlike growths are not hair;
nor are they feathers. It was only when their morphology was closely studied that
"they are feathers" became the new orthodoxy.
It is only on p.7 that we get an inkling of why John used the word "treatise".
Did you happen to read that far, by the way?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 302 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 100:48:42 |
| Calls: | 6,767 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 12,295 |
| Messages: | 5,376,432 |
| Posted today: | 1 |