Re: Bird Evolution and Creationism+

On Sun, 10 Mar 2024 22:14:34 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:

On 3/10/24 3:28 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:

On 10/9/23 10:25 AM, Ron Dean wrote:

jillery wrote:

Someone posted the following link in another froup.  However it has
significant relevance to multiple threads and topics in T.O., and so I
post it here:
>
<https://www.ag-evolutionsbiologie.net/pdf/2023/evolution-why-birds-are-living-dinosaurs.pdf>
>
<https://tinyurl.com/ycy26b6w>
>
 From the introduction:
******************************
Thus, birds are members of the dinosaur subgroup Theropoda
(carnivorous bipeds), of the theropod subgroup Coelurosauria
(hollow-tailed lizards), and of the coelurosaur subgroup Maniraptora
(“hand snatchers”). 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
>
[...]
>
The knowledge that modern birds (crown group birds) differ from early
theropods only by graded similarities has always been a thorn in the
side of religious evolution deniers (creationists).

 >
The fact is, intelligent design is distinct from biblical creationism!
 >
It's possible to disagree with evolution on scientific grounds rather
than
based on a religious paradigm? Maybe, but not without a penalty.
https://www.discovery.org/a/2845/
>
  It simply does not

fit well into the mould of genealogically separated lineages or “basic
kinds” of life originated by supernatural acts of divine creation.
Instead, graded similarities between seemingly fundamentally different
groups of animals fulfill a central expectation of the theory of
evolution. Hence, it is no surprise that since the discovery of the
famous proto-bird Archaeopteryx, creationists have been running up
against the theropod affiliation of birds.
*******************************

>
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/jun/28/do-we-need-a-new-theory-of-evolution
>

To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
>

 
In a subthread, Ron denies posting the last link given above, in a post
which my browser says was made by Ron.  I also checked Jillery's post
which it is a reply to, and the theguardian.com link is not in that post.
 

It has from time to time been proposed that more than one person is
posting from Ron's address. Maybe that's it.

That would be the most charitable explanation.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge