The Aerodynamic Origin of Bird Flight

[iNow]

Thank you to both posters. However I was not addresing the creatures place.

I was pointing out the most pregnant fact here. The lack of the scientific method being used to draw conclusions. With that also two gangs of evolutionists attacking each other as not doing science while both claiming to do it. They questioned each others motives and how these motives were making them wrong. Their conclusions were not testable and so both sides stayed stubborn in their positions. As a creationist I always find this in evolution. Guessing masquerading as science. When two or more groups disagree the reality of this guessing is revealed. This nova episode is case in point. In fact its amazing that evolutionists making the show don't realize the blunder.

Robert Byers

 

 

And what about peer review, and rejection of hypotheses (because, that's what they are, not guesses) once those hypotheses are proven false?

 

You're equivocating, and to suggest that paleoarcheology and evolutionary biology are the same as creationism is rubbish.

 

Instead of making broad sweeping accusations and waving your hands about, why don't you tell us precisely where they were wrong in this one example, and then go on to prove how one scientist using methods which you've arbitrarily deemed unscientific disproves the plethora of other work being done by other people who are not using the same methods you've labelled faulty.

 

God of the gaps limits your god. The gaps keep getting filled, making him smaller and less important. You also disrespect your god's greatness by challenging the actual methods by which these changes occur. Science does not stand in conflict with spirituality, it is a wonderful source of it. But, when you ignore evidence which conflicts with what you've been taught, despite the accuracy and replicability of that evidence, then you are no longer a rational thinker, you are no longer seeking progress or a greater connection with your creator. This is how the universe works. Why wouldn't you try to understand it better to improve that connection you feel with your own personal spiritual authority?

 

 

It seems that your word of god as taught to you by your religious leaders and experiences actually limits progress. I saw a user on another forum post this proof recently which is internally consistent, valid, and actually quite simple:

 

1) progress involves change

2) authoritative texts do not change

3) if one awards ultimate authority to that which doesn't change' date=' any change that threatens that authority, for example debunking of flood myths, must be rejected on the grounds of insufficient authority. By definition, scriptural religions are antagonistic to progress.[/quote']

 

Why are you actively trying to limit progress to fit within your narrow world-view?

[Mr Skeptic]

Thank you to both posters. However I was not addresing the creatures place.

I was pointing out the most pregnant fact here. The lack of the scientific method being used to draw conclusions. With that also two gangs of evolutionists attacking each other as not doing science while both claiming to do it. They questioned each others motives and how these motives were making them wrong. Their conclusions were not testable and so both sides stayed stubborn in their positions. As a creationist I always find this in evolution. Guessing masquerading as science. When two or more groups disagree the reality of this guessing is revealed. This nova episode is case in point. In fact its amazing that evolutionists making the show don't realize the blunder.

Robert Byers

 

What I found to be more convincing than fossils (as they seemed a bit arbitrary in their comparisons), was direct knowledge of DNA. This is a rather new field, and it compares DNA (which you can consider to be numbers in base 4). There is little room for bias errors here, and it does support evolution.

[CDarwin]

What I found to be more convincing than fossils (as they seemed a bit arbitrary in their comparisons), was direct knowledge of DNA. This is a rather new field, and it compares DNA (which you can consider to be numbers in base 4). There is little room for bias errors here, and it does support evolution.

 

The methodology that compares DNA is the exact same as is used to compare binary anatomical characteristics on fossils.

[Edtharan]

The lack of the scientific method being used to draw conclusions.

Dispute, and argument are necessary for the scientific method. The scientific method works because one Scientis proposes an explaination of a regular phenomina and other try to disprove that explaination (please note that I am deliberately avoiding the term "Theory" as many non scientists do not use the word in the same way that scientists do - "theory" is a technical term in science and does not mean "a guess").

 

You are at once criticising scientists becauase they are engaging in this aspect of the scientific method (and calling it unscientific), and then simultainiously claiming that they should better follow the scientific method.

 

It is a bit like saying: "I want you to walk, but you can't move your feet."

 

You are saying: "I want you to use the scientific method, but you can't attempt to disprove someone else's therory."

 

Science works like this:

One scientist says: "I think it works this way" and another scientist saying "I think it works this other way". they they get together and argue about it and build an experiemnt that can see which scientist is more correct.

 

Debate and argument is essential!

 

Their conclusions were not testable and so both sides stayed stubborn in their positions.

Yes, sometimes conclusions are not directly or immediately testable. So scientists will discuss and argue about the toipc looking for mistakes in the other's explainations (theory). They will analyse not only the conclusions, but the data and observations that the scientists used to reach those conclusions. They will also look for bias in the scientists (it is not an attempt to discredit the scientist, but an attempt to eliminate wishfull thinking and other common errors). FOr this you claim that they are questioning the other's motives, and not following the scientific method.

 

Well, in absences of being able to have a direct and immediate experiment to test a theory, this is the only method open to them. However, what can happen is that in the future experiments able to test the theory become available (due to advances in technology - due to science and the scientific method) and then the issue can be resolved.

 

But do not mistake the (sometimes passionate) debate and disagreement as the scientist not using the scientific method.

 

Let me say again: The scientific method uses debate and disagreement to aid its advancement. So if scientists are in disagreement, then you can rest assured that science is being done.

[Robert Byers]

Edtharan:

I feel my analysis is accurate. They did attack each others abilities and "Science" doing. In fact they were clear that the other group was not doing science and ws wrong in its conclusions.

The scientific method is a method. Its not just about disagreements and questioning. Both parties indicated that the conclusions were not based on science but on what evolution is always based on. Drawing conclusions from limited data. As you said there was no testing and so I say no science. So their conclusions are not scientific although they are presented to a audience that they are doing science .

This nova episode showed the real substance of origin subjects. They are scholary, researched, and require thinking but they are NOT and can NOT claim the prestige and confidence of SCIENCE for their conclusions.

Robert Byers

[Edtharan]

I feel my analysis is accurate. They did attack each others abilities and "Science" doing. In fact they were clear that the other group was not doing science and ws wrong in its conclusions.

Maybe you conclusions are correct for the TV show, but remember that TV show was heavily edited to make it entertaining. Their first concerns were not scientific accuracy (or even the accuracy of the scientists behaviours). Their first concerns were to make the show entertaining.

 

Conflict is entertaining. It is at the core of all drama.

 

Basing your oppinions of evolution on the presentation of a TV show is very likely to steer you completely wrong.

 

It is quite likely that the producers of the TV show exagerated the conflict and presented it like they were really having a go at each other.

 

Remember, Nova is a TV show primarily in the business of Entertainment (if they can get some educational things in there then that is a bonus).

 

But lets look at this in a different light:

 

Some people who believe that the bible should be taken litterally, and ther are some people who, although they believe just as strongly in God, believe the Bible is alergorical.

 

There can be some fierce debates over this (wars were actually fought over this exact issue).

 

So because of this, does this mean that the Bible must be false?

 

This is the conclusion you are reaching about Evolution. Just because ther is doem debate over it, does this mean that it must therefore be wrong?

 

You will note that the scientists are debating, not over whether Evolution exists, but how it applied in that circumstance.

 

They are debating over two different methods that birds could have evolved from dinosaurs. However, for either method to apply Evolution must exist. Either way you cut it all those scietist agree that birds evolved from Dinosaurs. It is only exactly how it happened that is in dispute, not the fact that it happened.

 

The scientific method is a method. Its not just about disagreements and questioning. Both parties indicated that the conclusions were not based on science but on what evolution is always based on. Drawing conclusions from limited data. As you said there was no testing and so I say no science. So their conclusions are not scientific although they are presented to a audience that they are doing science .

I will admit that I haven't seen the episode of Nova that you are talking about (or at least I don't remember seeing it). But I do know of both sides of that debate (the "ground-up" or "tree-down" origin of flight).

 

The really important thing you need to know is that both could have happened. There could (and most likely) were several species of dinosaur that were evolving feathers (not for flight but for other reasons) and both groups could ahve come to flight in their own way. Which one survived to become birds we might never know, but both are possible and both could have happened at the same time. If they had occurred at the saem time, then there will be confusion in the fossils because there will be fossils that support both options.

 

The only way to resolve it would be if there was some structure that was unique to one species (specifically the one that evolved into birds) that still remains in birds today.

 

This is called "Parallel Evolution" and is a well documented phenomina (not only that it was predicted and then confirmed by observation).

 

It is hard to do an experiemnt with evolution. Evolution requiers random mutations (along with non random selection). This makes it practically impossible to repeat an observation (that one creature can evolve into another).

 

However!

 

You can look at an organism and compare it to another and then try to work out what an organism that could be a common decendant to them might look like (remember those random mutations, they mean we can't always be exactly sure of the fine details). However, when the fossil record turns up something that is like a common ancestor, then it supports the "theory" that both organisms share a common ancestor.

 

This theory is not a geuss. It is a conclusion reached by looking at closely related organisms (one that we know have decened from each other like dogs and wolves), and detailed studdies of their anatomies.

 

It also look at observations on how fossils change over time. Sure looking back at Dinosaur fossils this way has a lot of gaps and so is not very useful for this baseline observation and data. However, there are fossils that are much more recent and are complete enough for us to use to track changes over time.

 

The Horse is one, so are Whales, Manatees, and a host of other recent fossils. Form these we can get a sense of how animals can change due to mutations. More recently genetics has given us a better insight into how mutations effect organisms and to what extent these could show up in the fossil record.

 

Putting all this together there is only one inescapable conclusion: Evolution happens. Even if we disagree on the finer points.

 

So is evolution based on "Drawing conclusions from limited data." Yes, in the broard sense, but (and it is a big one) by rejecting claims that do not fit what is known and analysing the claims and data presented we can reduce the margin of error significally. Also as time goes on we are filling in these gaps and they are confirming much of what was hypothesised.

 

Evolution as it stands today is not complete. But it matches all the data, so it is the best we have. Any future theory must explain what evolution explains, so that future theory will likely just be a refinement of evolutionary theory (and still probably called evolutionary theory).

 

As you said there was no testing and so I say no science.

Science is not just "Testing". Testing is just the stage when you try to disprove an existing theory. Peer review is actually a form of "Testing". If you have made a mistiake in your logic, then peer review will test that you have all your logic correct.

 

Part of Testing is working out what experiment to do. SO here we have two different Theories about the origin of Bird flight: Ground Up or Tree Down.

 

The discussion that are being engaged in at the moment (including what that Nova program was supposedly documenting) is what indicators will we find that support either theory.

 

Yes, there has been no testing, but if testing had been done then we would not have this disagreement over the two theories, we would know which one didn't match the data.

 

What you are seeing is Science in action! . Yes! Believe it or not, science is not an instaintainious process. It takes time and sometimes it take a lot of time. In the case of fossils we have to wait untill someone finds one, so it can take a long time and may neveer be resolved at all in the case that no fossil is ever found that conclusivly answers the question. this is why such debates and disagreements are needed. The force the other parties to search for as many things as possible that will either confirm or disprove their theory or the other scientists.

 

They are scholary, researched, and require thinking but they are NOT and can NOT claim the prestige and confidence of SCIENCE for their conclusions.

Hang on, did I understand this correctly? Are you saying that the people on this Nova program were not scientists? And are you claiming that because these non scientists were not doing science, then this disproves evolution?

[iNow]

I will admit that I haven't seen the episode of Nova that you are talking about (or at least I don't remember seeing it).

 

I shared it in post #19, and it's available for free online here if you'd like to check it out:

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/microraptor/program.html

[CDarwin]

Edtharan:

I feel my analysis is accurate. They did attack each others abilities and "Science" doing. In fact they were clear that the other group was not doing science and ws wrong in its conclusions.

The scientific method is a method. Its not just about disagreements and questioning. Both parties indicated that the conclusions were not based on science but on what evolution is always based on. Drawing conclusions from limited data. As you said there was no testing and so I say no science. So their conclusions are not scientific although they are presented to a audience that they are doing science .

This nova episode showed the real substance of origin subjects. They are scholary, researched, and require thinking but they are NOT and can NOT claim the prestige and confidence of SCIENCE for their conclusions.

Robert Byers

 

No one is trying to tell you that every scientist is always right. No one is trying to tell you that every scientist always does good science. If you ask three random paleontologists how birds evolved you might well get three different answers, because A) reasonable people can disagree about some interpretations of the evidence, but B) some scientists are just stubborn and don't want to change their pet theories.

 

But if you ask those three scientists if birds evolved at all, you'll get a resounding yes. Just because the fossil record can be a little fuzzy in the details doesn't mean that the scientific community has been systematically missing the big picture for the past 150 years. You can can claim that with the highest confidence of any scientific pronouncement.

 

And just to address your apparent beleif that there is no testing in paleontology: Paleontologists test their hypotheses much like astronomers test their hypotheses, observation. Just as you can't recreate a astronomical event in a lab, you can't recreate vertebrate evolution, but that doesn't mean you can't make predictions which can then be tested by the discovery and analysis of fossils (as well as other things, but fossils mainly for our purposes here).

[Edtharan]

I shared it in post #19, and it's available for free online here if you'd like to check it out:

It is free for people in America only. As I am in Australia I can't watch it (or at least that is what the web site says).

[iNow]

It is free for people in America only. As I am in Australia I can't watch it (or at least that is what the web site says).

 

No freakin' way!

 

 

Try this then:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-404729062613200911&q=intelligent+design+on+trial+nova&total=33&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

 

 

Oops... that was the wrong one. Turns out all I can get you is a preview right now:

[crasch]

I don't know about you guys, but I thought the show was an example of the scientific method in use (even though it is not outstanding example).

 

They collected data and shared it

debated why the organism would have developed feathers on its legs,

tested several hypothesis what benefit the feathers on its legs would provide in which configuration

tested them out and collected more empirical data which they also shared.

concluded, after another debate, the hypothesis that best fits their observations.

 

Lather, rinse, repeat and post their findings to the scientific community for peer review and even more debate.

 

It may only show one cycle of the scientific method, but you know they will repeat it. It may not be a scientific theory due to having just the initial amount of testing of such a hypothesis and peer review, but it is the scientific method at work. All the basic step were shown.

Edited March 21, 2009 by crasch