Dinos and Birds Closer then Ever?

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

Perhaps you don't know what "circular reasoning" is.

After all, if you suppose it's just a bird (or dinosaur), you might find that there are not dinosaur (or bird) features. And that would confirm your hypothesis.

On the other hand, if there a considerable number of each, it would invalidate your hypothesis.

Want to try? If you don't, I'll just list the differences and similarities myself. Let's give it a shot.

"The prime difficulty with the use of presumed ancestral-descendant sequences to express phylogeny [evolutionary ancestry] is that biostratigraphic [fossils-in-strata] data are often used in conjunction with morphology [outward appearance] in the initial evaluation of relationships, which leads to obvious circularity [circular reasoning]." —*B. Schaeffer, *M.K. Hecht and *N. Eldredge, "Phylogeny and Paleontology, "Ch. 2 in Evolutionary Biology, Vol. 6 (edited by Dobzhansky, Hecht and Steere) 1972, p. 39.

http://www.arn.org/idfaq/What%20about%2 ... mology.htm

According to the contemporary definition, a homology is something like a “family resemblance.” It's a similarity that indicates two or more organisms are related to each other—that they share a common ancestor.

The authors of Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences explain it like this: “[T]he skeletons of humans, mice, and bats are strikingly similar, despite the different ways of life of these animals and the diversity of environments in which they flourish. The correspondence of these animals, bone by bone, can be observed in every part of the body, including the limbs; yet a person writes, a mouse runs, and a bat flies with structures built of bones that are different in detail but similar in general structure and relation to each other.”[1]

Scientists, they add, have concluded that such structures “are best explained by common descent.”[2]

Homologies differ from similarities that are not acquired from a common ancestor. Thus, the eyes of humans and octopi are very similar, but scientists do not think their common ancestor had such an eye. Such similarities are called analogies.

But using the contemporary definition of homology as evidence for common ancestry is circular reasoning. How do you know that two organisms share a common ancestor? Because they have features that are homologous. But how do you know the structures are homologous? Because the two organisms share a common ancestor.

Leaving aside the problem of circularity, it is far from clear that similarities, as such, are best explained by common descent. If we knew there were a mechanism that could produce humans, mice and bats from a common ancestor, that claim would be plausible. But the mechanism is the very thing in question.

In the absence of a mechanism, the fact of similarity does not compel a Darwinian explanation. After all, we see similarities between different kinds of cars, but we don't conclude that one descended from another.

Moreover, biologists knew about homologous similarities well before Darwin published his theory, yet the great majority concluded that they resulted from a common design rather than common descent.[3]

Don't dance with me pinkie, I understand what circular reasoning is. I know almost all flaws of reasoning, as I have seen them used or used them myself, only to have one of these mods point it out.

[Yehren]

Perhaps you don't know what "circular reasoning" is.

After all, if you suppose it's just a bird (or dinosaur), you might find that there are not dinosaur (or bird) features. And that would confirm your hypothesis.

On the other hand, if there a considerable number of each, it would invalidate your hypothesis.

Want to try? If you don't, I'll just list the differences and similarities myself. Let's give it a shot.

(creationist misconceptions about homologies)

Don't dance with me pinkie,

Aww... him cute when him angry....

I understand what circular reasoning is.

Apparently, you don't. It's assuming what you intended to prove. The assertion is that Archaeopteryx has a mixture of dinosaur and avian characteristics. To test that, we have to do an inspection.

Let's take a look at the evidence, now.



Birdlike features:
Somewhat birdlike feet, but somewhat dinosauran as well.
Partially fused digits of hand
Furcula (wishbone) but some small dinosaurs had them, too
Feathers

Dinosaur features:
Pelvis
Ribs
Flexible spine
skull
teeth
tail
ankles
teeth
sternum

As you see, very transitional. In fact, the earliest specimens found, not having feather impressions, were classified as reptiles.

I know almost all flaws of reasoning,

And you're very good at using them. But the scientific method requires the testing of an assertion, by looking at the evidence. It works very well, no matter what you think of it.

And since it does work, scientists (being very pragmatic) don't give a flip what any jackleg philosopher thinks about it.

Here's another way to test your idea:



Which (if any) of these hands are from dinosaurs, and which (if any) are from birds?

I'll tell you next post

[Kurieuo]

Recommended reading: Demise of the "Birds are Dinosaurs" Theory (http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/dinobird.html)

Kurieuo

[Jbuza]

LOL! Look the bird and the dinosour appear to have come from the same factory. Good God look they even have eyes
and legs both. What does all this mean? I am scared this has changed everything.
MY Lord look you even put fingures on both of them.

[Yehren]

Right off the top, there's an error in your link. While theropod dinosaurs are indeed almost certainly the ancestors of birds, there is a small, but still possible chance that both dinosaurs and birds had a common thecodont ancestor.

This is the argument of ornithologist Alan Feduccia, citing thecodonts which have what appear to be primitive feathers, and the still-unclear reduction of digits in dinosaurs and birds.

The second major goof is the assertion that reptile breath by means of a diaphragm. Among reptiles, only crocodilians have a true diaphragm.

Then there's this one:

"In contrast, the pelvic bones of the theropod dinosaurs look nothing like that of either modern birds or Archaeopteryx, but look very similar to that of modern reptiles, such as the crocodile.

Here's the hip of the theropod dinosaur Dienonychus:


Here's the hip of Archaeopteryx:


Here's the hip of a crow:


All from the excellent site: //www.dinosauria.com/jdp/buckna/two.htm

You can see a crocodilian pelvis here:


Note that unlike any of the others, the pubis is projected forward, and is detached; it is not at all like those of the theropod dinosaurs. Which is what you would expect; Archie, theropods, and modern birds are a clade, with croccodilians are an outgroup.

There's a lot more. Do you want to see more?

[Jbuza]

All is lost. All is lost. Save yourselves. Head to higher ground. Dinosours and Brids have similarities. This is tragedy.


This is proof of nothing. How does this show that evolution actually ever took place.

[Yehren]

Nope. Just one more bit of evidence for God's creation.

His way. Not ours.

The important thing to remember is that the linked article has a lot of just plain wrong assertions. Be careful.

BTW, would you like to take a shot at telling me which of those hands are the hands of birds, and which are the hands of dinosaurs?