Monday, July 17, 2006

Birds from Dinosaurs?

Why not princes from frogs while we're at it? Oh, I forgot, that IS evolution in a nut shell.

Man, the prince, evolved very slowly from the lowly amphibian. That solves it. No need for magic wands or a kiss from a beautiful princess! How convenient. The result is the same, just add time - lots and lots of indifferent, ever moving time.

Baloney eh! A faery tale for grown-ups is what one scientist called Darwinism. Birds from dinos? Eagles from T-Rex? Walt Disney here we come!

Dr. Alan Feduccia speaks on the problems with the evolution of birds from theropods as being incompatible with the evidence:
"Although the digital mismatch between birds and dinosaurs is anatomically the most serious problem, other versions of frame-shift hypotheses will be needed to explain such problems as the transformation of teeth and tooth replacement, the transformation of a dinosaurian septate, hepatic-piston breathing system to a bird flow-through lung, the complete abandonment of a balanced seesaw body plan to the avian model, and the reelongation of already foreshortened forelimbs, to mention a few. Perhaps the greatest form of special pleading will be necessary to explain how flight could have originated from the ground up; our present knowledge indicates that there are two requisites for flight origin: small size and high places. Also, it must be explained why these superficially birdlike theropods only occur in the fossil record 30 to 80 million years after the appearance of the earliest known bird, which is already well developed, and why Triassic theropods are devoid of birdlike features.
Question: Where did birds get the knowledge of flight from? Did some of them just keep on tryin' and dyin' in the attempt until they figured they had to develop lighter bodies with hollow bones, feathered members that fit with Bernoulli's principle? "O look guys, I can flap these things attached to my body and when I do I get off the ground, now if only I could figure out how to orient myself in the 3D space up there without crashing and killin' myself." Darwinistic scenarios are ever and always too simple - read childish - to be viable.

One is, once again, hopelessly lost at any attempt to explain this through macro-evolutionary means (random mutations + selection) Imaginations over what you can only presume and assume may have happened will not do as they do not constitute "real science". But then, speculation, assumption and presumption are key words to evo theory and have been since the beginning as Darwin admitted.

Alan Feduccia again:
"Despite the popularity of the dinosaurian origin of birds, many ornithologists and physiologists, in particular, have had tremendous difficulty with the theory (8, 10, 11) because of a huge and growing body of contrary evidence and the fact that a ground-up origin of avian flight is considered a near biophysical impossibility (12). Aside from criticism concerning the cursorial origin of avian flight, there are problems related to the geologic, temporal occurrence of putative dinosaurian ancestors, which occur some 30 to 80 million years after the appearance of the earliest known bird Archaeopteryx, and these forms become more and more superficially birdlike as one approaches the latest Cretaceous. There is also the fact that virtually all of the anatomical features used to ally birds and dinosaurs have been disputed."
Let's look, once again, at the fallacies of evolutionary thinking.

The whole theory is based upon a suite of logical fallacies to start with, and that ALONE should be sufficient for having it thrown out.
Here's what it sounds like:

"like this, therefore from this" ;
"before this ,therefore because of this" ;
"like this therefore related to this"

These statements all contain a logical fallacy. It's usually called assuming or affirming the consequent and also incurs an undistributed middle fallacy not to mention a blatant post hoc ergo prompter hoc fallacy - look 'em up con and make the comparisons, it's as plain as vanilla icecream.

Isaac Asimov once said,
"Creationists make it sound as though a theory is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night."
And surely many theories were dreamt up just that way! Should we thus believe that all theories, according to this quaint little phrase, are therefore the pure truth?? A simple Yes or No please. Obviously no sane person would say that all theories are true. Some are, some aren't. Macro-evo theory ain't!

"like this therefore from this" = affirming the consequent & post hoc
"before this therefore from this" = post hoc ergo procter hoc

Any theory that relies on these logical fallacies as arguments is worthless from the start.
Evo theory uses several all in one pass and all in the very foundations.

"primates have similar anatomy to humans therefore humans must have descended from primates"
Assuming (or affirming) the consequent - the conclusion is gratuitous and many other conclusions could be offered with equal weight. Such a statement assumes the validity of the theory in it's premises. Not nice at all.
The conclusion is assumed by taking it for granted that the theory in question is indeed true: "if primates and humans have similar anatomy and genetic traits then the latter must come from the former"
That is an exact definition of affirming the consequent - if A therefore B. B therefore A.
an undistributed middle: two separate categories are said to be connected because they share a common property

How much clearer can one get?! The standard neo-Darwinian theory, in it's definitions or premises, commits several logical fallacies. This would never pass a court of law (with a smart judge). It gets by very easily in modern "science falsely so called" (1 tim. 6:20), especially biology. Sad.