We’ve known for about twenty years that maternal substances in the egg can influence how chicks develop, but the common assumption is that they are a means by which mothers manipulate their offspring in a way that suits the mother more than the chick.
What we’ve shown is the reverse: these substances are actually there to suit the chick. If we muck up the message in the egg experimentally, it is the chick that is penalized directly rather than the mother.
So let’s see, a whole bunch of mutations created birds and a whole bunch of mutations created eggs (not sure which came first, but evolutionists have that all figured out), and then a bunch of mutations created the capability to insert messages into eggs. That didn’t help, but a another bunch of mutations created the capability to interpret those messages and, Eureka!, evolution did it again. That’s just good solid scientific research.
Perhaps you should mutate yourself over to a pharmacy and get some meds...
ReplyDeleteHawks:
ReplyDelete"Perhaps you should mutate yourself over to a pharmacy and get some meds... "
=====
Perhaps you could give him your Campus connection for the recreational drugs you and your Frats Boys used in College when you should have spent time actually studying as opposed to reinacting "Animal House" every other night ???
Eocene,
ReplyDeleteCH's critics cause CH no harm. They are just more proof of evolutionary delusional thinking, confirming CH's point of this blog. Notice the total lack of information in the criticisms these days. CH is doing an excellent job don't you think?
.
Cornelius - Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you've forgotten to include an actual point in your post.
ReplyDeleteThe mocking tone you adopt makes it sound like you think you're being satirical. But really, what are you satirizing exactly? You're sounding more and more like an angry drunk shouting arguments against people, and about issues, which exist totally in his own mind. It might be time to take a deep breath, calm down, and see if your opponents are actually saying what you think they're saying. Because if they're not, then... *hic*...
Peter Wadeck said...
ReplyDeleteNotice the total lack of information in the criticisms these days.
What I notice is the total lack of information from CH or you or any of the other Idiots on the details of your claimed Intelligent Design Creationism. All you do is whine because science can't provide every last detail, but you clowns can't provide ANY details on your ideas. Not a single one.
Go on Mr. Science Credentials, give us some details, ANY details about how IDC was done. Describe the steps, ANY steps. Tell us when the design/creation was done, and where, and the mechanisms used, and how the raw materials were gathered, and who the designer(s) were.
CH is doing an excellent job don't you think?
He's doing an excellent job making Creationists look like blithering fools, yes.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRe above, pushed publish button by mistake.
ReplyDeleteDr. Hunter says:
...(not sure which came first, but evolutionists have that all figured out)...
Had to be the egg, didn't it? Birds evolved from feathered theropod ancestors that also nested and laid eggs. The fossil and DNA evidence for this particular bit of relatedness is somewhat more convincing than Creationist wishful thinking.
Alan Fox:
ReplyDelete"Had to be the egg, didn't it? Birds evolved from feathered theropod ancestors that also nested and laid eggs. The fossil and DNA evidence for this particular bit of relatedness is somewhat more convincing than Creationist wishful thinking."
====
Yeah, wasn't that a great movie "The Land Before Time" so accurate and realistic ???
Ritchie:
ReplyDelete"The mocking tone you adopt makes it sound like you think you're being satirical."
====
So let's see now. If Cornelius Hunter offered mocking sarcastic tones for Evolutionism, he'd be considered a hero ??? Add some foul language, personal vulgar insults or jihadist attacks against someone's person and he'd almost be considered a genius like "Your All IDiots"-Larry Moron, "Honey I Shrunk The Kids"-Jerry Coyne or "If There Were A God He Wouldn't Have Done It That Way"-PZ Meyers ???
----
Ritchie:
"You're sounding more and more like an angry drunk shouting arguments against people, and about issues, which exist totally in his own mind."
====
You're talking to Cornelius, not Pedant!
----
Ritchie:
"It might be time to take a deep breath, calm down, and see if your opponents are actually saying what you think they're saying."
====
But the opponants never actually address the issues Cornelius points out in the literature which are nothing more than Faith Statement Storytelling being propagated as factual evidence. Using dirty filthy personal attacks and calling Cornelius names is not responding to the articles he pointed out. But of course you never once booksmith your own kind do you ???
Eocene said...
ReplyDeleteYeah, wasn't that a great movie "The Land Before Time" so accurate and realistic ???
So that's where you get your Creationist scientific 'knowledge' from. Not surprising from an illiterate goober like you who thinks The Flintstones was a documentary.
You have any details about IDC you want to share with the class? Any at all? When was the design done, and where, and by what mechanisms?
Why do all you IDiots go dumb (in every sense of the word) when asked for details?
Eocene:
ReplyDeleteYeah, wasn't that a great movie "The Land Before Time" so accurate and realistic ???
What Thorton said!
Is there an alternative explanation for fossil and DNA evidence. Or do you just reject the evidence out of hand and not look for explanations?
Ritchie:
ReplyDeleteCornelius - Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you've forgotten to include an actual point in your post.
My guess is the point lies in the word "message." We all know that the only possible source of a "message" is intelligence.
So it's blooming obvious that those scientists that think an egg can contain a "message" don't know what they're talking about.
Slam dunk.
Hunter:
ReplyDelete... a bunch of mutations created the capability to insert messages into eggs.
They call it the fortune cookie hypothesis.
Eocene -
ReplyDeleteI'd be more than happy to discuss information and arguments Cornelius provides.
But he doesn't. He has a bit of interesting scientific research (done by SCIENTISTS or EVOLUTIONISTS as Cornelius might call them) and then a bit of what he thinks is a cutting satire but is in fact toothless rambling barely rooted in reality.
I'M the one asking for evidence. That way we have something to discuss other than personal remarks. It's so much better that way, wouldn't you say?
What I find particular odd here is how Cornelius keeps making "evolution didn't expect X so it's been falsified" posts dispute having failed to address the obvious criticism as to their relevance. Does he really think so little of his target audience?
ReplyDeleteEven more odd is that everyone in the choir keeps cheering him on. Does no one take their own argument seriously?
Furthermore, his satire is yet another example of where Cornelius *first* frames observations by placing them in a design explanatory framework *before* extrapolating them. We do not think that evolution intentionally created a signaling system, then got around to creating a receiving system to match. Rather, such a system eventually formed that ended up mutually intreating with each other in a beneficial way.
For all we know, the signaling functionality in question could have been implemented in some different way in chickens, in which Cornelius would have again make essentially the same satire assuming that's what evolution planned instead. In fact, unless it's something highly specific to chickens, this signaling system *is* implemented in different ways in different species because not all species lay eggs.
To contrast, Cornelius is claiming evolutionary theory frames observations *after* they are made in the light of Theological Naturalism. Making observations isn't the problem, we're just ignoring them.
However, I'd again ask Cornelius to disclose how it's even possible to extrapolate observations without first putting them into an explanatory framework?
Speaking of chickens, Bertrand Russell illustrated this point well.
A flock of anthropomorphic chickens has observed the farmer feeding them every day like clockwork since they were chicks. As such, they conclude the farmer will continue to feed them. One day the farmer starts feeding them even more corn that usual. This observation further reinforces their conclusion they will continue to be fed. However, not long after, the farmer puts them in cages and sends them off to slaughter. In other words, you cannot justify conclusions using past experience.
However, if you're not careful you'll miss (or knowingly accept) a more fundamental misconception illustrated in this story. Specifically, that it's even possible extrapolate observations without first placing them in a explanatory framework. Before these chickens could have induced a false prediction, they must first had in mind a false explanation of the farmers behavior, such as thinking he had benevolent feelings towards chickens. However, had the chickens guessed a different explanation, such as the farmer was fattening them up for slaughter, they would have extrapolated observations of his actions differently. In other words, how we form predictions depends on our underlying explanation. According to the benevolent-farmer theory, observations of being fed even more corn suggested the chickens were more likely to continue being fed, while the fattening-up theory suggested this same observation was an omen of imminent slaughter.
I'd gladly discuss the merits of different frameworks first being used to extrapolate observations. In fact, I've attempted several times to start the conversation many times.
But before this could happen, Cornelius would have to concede this actually occurs in the first place, or explain how he's somehow managed to avoid it.
Alan:
ReplyDeleteI understand that there is some controversy concerning whether birds are descended from theropods. They have different growth patterns, and they run differently.
nat -
ReplyDeleteIt's true that the bird-from-dinosaurs theory has been challenged constantly. However, as more and more evidence is amassed which supports it, the more credibility and acceptance it gains (the very nature of the scientific method).
Very recently indeed there were fossils unearthed in China which for many were the 'missing piece of the puzzle':
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/today/tomfeilden/2009/09/its_official_birds_are_descend.html
I'm not sure what you mean in stating they 'have different growth patterns and they run differently...'
natschuster said...
ReplyDeleteI understand that there is some controversy concerning whether birds are descended from theropods. They have different growth patterns, and they run differently.
There is no controversy over the fact that modern birds are closely related to the theropod dinosaurs. The only question is when the evolutionary split occurred, and if modern birds are direct descendants of extinct theropods or just close cousins.
Bird Theropod Phylogeny
Eocene:
ReplyDeletePerhaps you could give him your Campus connection for the recreational drugs you and your Frats Boys used in College when you should have spent time actually studying as opposed to reinacting "Animal House" every other night ???
This stuff is gold Eocene. Here's my favorite:
Otter: But you can't hold evolution responsible for the behavior of a few, sick twisted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame science? And if science is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you, Greg - isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America.
According to these guys:
ReplyDeletehttp://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009Natur.461..640H
anchiornis was a troodont, which means it wasn't an actual bird ancestor.
And birds hold their thighs close to their abdomens, because they need to support their air sacks. Theropods, it seems, moved their thighs when they ran.
Birds grow very quickly. This shows up in the bones. Dinosaurs grow slower.
ReplyDeleteThis finding calls into question whether archaeopteryx was a bird ancestor:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v475/n7357/full/nature10288.html
Nat,
ReplyDeleteHow does the paper you just linked to conflict with ....
Thorton: There is no controversy over the fact that modern birds are closely related to the theropod dinosaurs. The only question is when the evolutionary split occurred, and if modern birds are direct descendants of extinct theropods or just close cousins.
Please be specific.
Actually, Thorton is wrong. Birds certainly are theropods, the question is what is their place within theropod phylogeny. That should be clear for nat if he read the paper comprehensively.
ReplyDeleteFrom the abstract:
This find further demonstrates that many features formerly regarded as being diagnostic of Avialae, including long and robust forelimbs, actually characterize the more inclusive group Paraves (composed of the avialans and the deinonychosaurs). Notably, adding the new taxon into a comprehensive phylogenetic analysis shifts Archaeopteryx to the Deinonychosauria
Which means that Archaeopteryx is more closely related to Velocriptor than to modern birds. But that clade is still sister to modern birds, so the last common ancestor of Velociraptor and modern birds was more bird-like than velociraptor-like.
This finding calls into question whether archaeopteryx was a bird ancestor
No [post-Hennigian] palaeontologist says Archaeopteryx was a bird ancestor. Cladistic analysis indicates sister-group relationships. It cannot identify ancestors.
Thorton the closet IDiot:
ReplyDelete"You have any details about IDC you want to share with the class? Any at all? When was the design done, and where, and by what mechanisms?"
====
Has nothing of it's own worth beyond insults and vulgar humor, so "BURDEN SHIFT"
Classic!
Thorton the Closet IDiot:
ReplyDelete"There is no controversy over the fact that modern birds are closely related to the theropod dinosaurs. The only question is when the evolutionary split occurred, and if modern birds are direct descendants of extinct theropods or just close cousins."
'Bird Theropod Phylogeny'
======
LMAO!!!!
Get a load of the Dr Seus Cat'N the Hat style of explanations given in Thorton's link along with the animated cartoony chart loaded with religious imagination only a Soothsaying Shamman could invent for the regular Saturday Night Kampfire Fable recitation.
"Recent study on primitive modern birds suggests wings evolved first to aid young (and small adults) in Wing-Assisted Incline Running: using their wings to generate traction to help them run up sides of trees, cliffs, etc. Later modifications allowed true flight. If true, this behavior was probably present in all small maniraptorans, and not just birds."
Primitive Modern Birds ???
They used Orville and Wilber Wright Hang Gliding sports to fine tune their technique ???
This book deserves to be thrown out in the dust bin where other Kindergarden rejected trash like "Heather Has Two Mommies" and Daddy's Room Mate" were already given a proper tho unceremonious burial. Of course it did accomplish it's mission. Deflect from the OP.
Wow, how desparate it that ???
Eocene the self-loathing gay man said...
ReplyDeleteThis book deserves to be thrown out in the dust bin where other Kindergarden rejected trash like "Heather Has Two Mommies" and Daddy's Room Mate" were already given a proper tho unceremonious burial. Of course it did accomplish it's mission. Deflect from the OP.
Wow Eocene, do you think you can get over your obsession with human sexuality for even one thread?
You really need to quit fighting it and deal with your personal gender issues.
Why do you think Eocene moved to Sweden in the first place? I'm sure all those big blond Nordic men have nothing to with it...
ReplyDeleteThorton:
ReplyDelete"You really need to quit fighting it and deal with your personal gender issues."
Troy:
"Why do you think Eocene moved to Sweden in the first place? I'm sure all those big blond Nordic men have nothing to with it... "
====
With the recent changes in New York's marriage laws, I wish you both the best on your future relations with each other.
-----
Natchuster:
"I understand that there is some controversy concerning whether birds are descended from theropods. They have different growth patterns, and they run differently."
====
Well, since this OP has already been effectively derailed as purposed, here are some credible links which fly in the face of that cheesy website link that Thorton gave in an attempt to prop up the Orthodox Church views of "Birds from Dinosaurs" Evolutionary Dogma found in most evolutionary unholy scriptural texts. This first one is from June 8th, 2009 by Oregon State University.
Discovery raises new doubts about dinosaur-bird links
Notice the very second paragraph above. I also love the terminology of "evolving evidence" which is truly the only thing that evolves when it comes to this pseudo-science.
"The conclusions add to other evolving evidence that may finally force many paleontologists to reconsider their long-held belief that modern birds are the direct descendants of ancient, meat-eating dinosaurs, OSU researchers say."
----
Here's another link dealing with the internal differences between the two. This is also from Oregon State University in 2009.
Cardio-Pulmonary Anatomy in Theropod Dinosaurs:
Implications From Extant Archosaurs
----
Here is yet another update from February 8th, 2010 from OSU.
Study challenges bird-from-dinosaur theory of evolution – was it the other way around?
While I find the links interesting, it also becomes clear that while they condemn the flawed Thortonian/Troyist Orthodox beliefs, they also attempt to be kind to the Evolutionary Dogma itself. For example, "birds and dinosaurs must have evolved parallel to each other". After all, it is mandated as a FACT. In most ALL of these papers it seems the mere act of boldened brazened statement making giving Evolution the credit is all that is necessary. One does not have to prove a damn thing in order to receive funding for further pet research other than the usual incense burning in the alter before the image of the Bearded Buddha.
Eocene said...
ReplyDeleteThorton; ""There is no controversy over the fact that modern birds are closely related to the theropod dinosaurs. The only question is when the evolutionary split occurred, and if modern birds are direct descendants of extinct theropods or just close cousins."
Eocene: "The conclusions add to other evolving evidence that may finally force many paleontologists to reconsider their long-held belief that modern birds are the direct descendants of ancient, meat-eating dinosaurs, OSU researchers say."
Great own goal there Eocene. How's your estrogen therapy coming?
Thorton:
ReplyDelete"Great own goal there Eocene. How's your estrogen therapy coming?"
====
You're the one with gender identity crisis, you tell us. I don't imagine life is easy for someone with genetic material donated from Penn Jillette and Rosy O'Donnell. LOL what a buffoon.
Eocene:
ReplyDeleteWith the recent changes in New York's marriage laws, I wish you both the best on your future relations with each other.
Like you, I already live in a god-forsaken country with legal same-sex marriage. But it's not as bad here as in Sweden, where even the Church of Sweden allowed its priests to wed same-sex couples.
Makes your blood boil doesn't it?
Heh heh
Troy:
ReplyDelete"Like you, I already live in a god-forsaken country with legal same-sex marriage. But it's not as bad here as in Sweden, where even the Church of Sweden allowed its priests to wed same-sex couples."
====
Isn't every country left to their own independent devices and God foresaken mess ??? I see no superiority of one over the other. Each has it's own unique deficiencies and failures.
----
Troy:
"Makes your blood boil doesn't it?"
====
You'd love to believe that, but frankly I couldn't care less if every nation on the planet passed such regulations. It's simply none of my business, but I do enjoy seeing failure after failure in recent global events. Keep watching BBC/CNN there Troy and keep on pimping whatever worldview tickles your fancy. The toilette is about ready to flush before it overflows.
Eocene:
ReplyDeleteI do enjoy seeing failure after failure in recent global events. Keep watching BBC/CNN there Troy and keep on pimping whatever worldview tickles your fancy. The toilette is about ready to flush before it overflows.
Good for you! Please give my best regards to Jeebus when he beams you up. You know, if you pray hard enough, you might even get a window seat, so you can have a better view of the bloodshed. I'll try and waive before I'll be smitten.
Troylent Green:
ReplyDeleteGood for you! Please give my best regards to Jeebus when he beams you up. You know, if you pray hard enough, you might even get a window seat, so you can have a better view of the bloodshed. I'll try and waive before I'll be smitten."
=====
Go for it Troy, keep pimping. Lot's important meetings and political obligations for propping up a dogma. What a waste of science. When you could be helping researchers like Theo Colborn and others who are pointing out the gross abuse and misúse of science as opposed to incense burning before the alter of the Beard. I'm sure Theo Colborn is considered nothing more than a heretic in your eyes and that of the religious Orthodoxy anyway.