Barbarian explains:
Because it's a very foolish and harmful thing to add new doctrines to Christianity. It's not that you deny science; it's that you damage faith.
Evolution began about 3.5 billion years ago. The theory began in the 1800s, about a century before YE creationism was invented by the Seventh-Day Adventists. But of course Christian theologians such as St. Augustine knew that some sort of evolution had to be part of creation well over a thousand years ago.
You're begging the question, as usual. Try again.
If Augustine was a theologian. then his scientific opinion matters not at all. Try again.
Barbarian chuckles:
I know you want us to believe you, but the forum is littered with threads you started, and then abandoned as the facts accumulated against you.
As I said,it's the stupidity that I can't stand. And here comes some more:
Kohn. Anatomically and topologically, the bird lung is the same as a single alveolus. As you learned, you have the same sort of respiratory system as a secondary system in case of pulmonary obstruction. It's called "collateral ventilation." Birds have it an on a much larger scale, and in birds, it's become the primary means of ventilation.
I really wonder about the state your gray cells have reached: fried by this evolutionary garbage.
Tell me, is it too difficult for you to see, that if a bunch of balloons have pinpricks in them, that does not constitute a great hole in the bottom of the lung and a pipe leading to the outside, bypassing the balloons altogether.
Is that really too difficult for you to grasp? Now here's more nonsense:
That's what I've been trying to tell you. Collateral ventilation works in all vertebrates as the primary form works in birds. In such cases, the air leaves the alveolus through the pores of Kohn and in the case of pulmonary obstruction provide a secondary form of respiration.
The pores of Kohn are small communications between adjacent pulmonary alveoli and provide a collateral pathway for aeration.
http://radiopaedia.org/articles/pores-of-kohn
Your PAP-ERRR doesn't help at all, does it? Surely you know the meaning of COLLATERAL? In case you don't, here's the dictionary:
Situated or running side by side; parallel. 2. Coinciding in tendency or effect; concomitant or accompanying.
Notice? 'side by side, PARALLEL'. Unfortunately for you, the bird's system is EXACTLY OPPOSITE to every other vertebrate. That is not 'parallel' or running side by side.
Here's the fatal diagram again:
Where do you see anything that resembles COLLATERAL in those diagrams?
Really Barbarian. You claim to teach biology (I think?). Can't you grasp a simple sketch diagram? What else can I do to help your darkness and incomprehension? Not much, I fear, because my powers of English expression don't run to this monumental density.
Some reptiles. But...
A 33-foot long, carnivorous dinosaur that lived 85 million years ago had a breathing system similar to that used by modern birds, and researchers say the finding is further evidence of the evolutionary link between dinosaurs and birds. A fossil found in a riverbank in Argentina shows evidence of efficient air sacs that pumped air into the dinosaur’s lungs.
Lead researcher Paul Sereno named the new dinosaur Aerosteon riocoloradensis, which means “air bones from the Rio Colorado.” Instead of lungs that expand and contract, Sereno thinks this beast had air sacs that worked like a bellows, blowing air into the beast’s stiff lungs (?????), much like modern birds…. Most paleontologists believe birds evolved from small, feathered meat-eating dinosaurs, and the earliest known birds were strikingly similar to these dinosaurs [Reuters].
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/09/30/elephant-sized-dinosaur-had-bird-like-lungs/
Don't you get tired of these pathetic quotes? Can't you recognise pure wishful thinking when you hear it? No, if you can accept evolution I don't suppose you can. It goes with the territory.
The earliest known birds COULD FLY. Got that? Now where did they get that from? Oh yeah. From running along the ground waving their forelimbs in the air, and the wing blowing through the scales turned them into feathers over millions of years. Is that right?
And he obviously has never read Rubens on the subject of the lungs. Have you? No, I ddn't think so. Here you are: rattle those gray cells round in their cage and let some fresh air and information come in:
ScienceDaily (June 9, 2009) — Researchers at Oregon State University have made a fundamental new discovery about how birds breathe and have a lung capacity that allows for flight – and the finding means it's unlikely that birds descended from any known theropod dinosaurs.
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.
[...]
t's been known for decades that the femur, or thigh bone in birds is largely fixed and makes birds into "knee runners," unlike virtually all other land animals, the OSU experts say. What was just discovered, however, is that it's this fixed position of bird bones and musculature that keeps their air-sac lung from collapsing when the bird inhales.
[...]
However, every other animal that has walked on land, the scientists said, has a moveable thigh bone that is involved in their motion – including humans, elephants, dogs, lizards and – in the ancient past – dinosaurs.
[...]
The implication, the researchers said, is that birds almost certainly did not descend from theropod dinosaurs, such as tyrannosaurus or allosaurus. The findings add to a growing body of evidence in the past two decades that challenge some of the most widely-held beliefs about animal evolution.
"For one thing, birds are found earlier in the fossil record than the dinosaurs they are supposed to have descended from," Ruben said. "That's a pretty serious problem, and there are other inconsistencies with the bird-from-dinosaur theories.
"However, theropod dinosaurs had a moving femur and therefore could not have had a lung that worked like that in birds. Their abdominal air sac, if they had one, would have collapsed. That undercuts a critical piece of supporting evidence for the dinosaur-bird link.
Heh heh heh!
Apparently, some dinosaurs weren't as knowledgeable as you,...
Neither are you, and you should abandon this nonsensical theory. If you've got any sense, that is.
Just a bit more poison for your cup of bitterness:
Ruben noted the problem for the dino-bird theory in general: how would the ‘bellows’-style lungs of reptiles evolve gradually into avian lungs? The hypothetical intermediate stages could not conceivably function properly, meaning the poor animal would be unable to breathe. One of the first stages would be a poor creature with a diaphragmatic hernia (hole in the diaphragm), and natural selection would work against this. Ruben writes:
“The earliest stages in the derivation of the avian abdominal airsac system from a diaphragmatic-ventilating ancestor would have necessitated selection for a diaphragmatic hernia [i.e. hole] in taxa transitional between theropods and birds.
“Such a debilitating condition would have immediately compromised the entire pulmonary ventilatory apparatus and seems unlikely to have been of any selective advantage.”
Hmmm. Where do you go from there now?
Yeah!!!
There are various theories about how this happens. One theory is that there are geomagnetic and chemical cues which the salmon use to guide them back to their birthplace. The fish may be sensitive to the Earth's magnetic field, which could allow the fish to orient itself in the ocean, so it can navigate back to the estuary of its natal stream.[21]
Barbarian, please whip those lethargic gray cells into some kind of a crawl.
Think, man, think!
By the way, I was talking about the eels, not salmon -but you're still up the creek (I won't say which), without a paddle.
Here's this joker talking about eel's sense of smell. It must be a hell of a sense of smell - to be able to smell home from 3000 miles away: especially when the little fishy has never even BEEN HOME! IT'S A MIRACLE! Evolution? Pah.
Salmon have an strong sense of smell. Speculation about whether odours provide homing cues, go back to the 19th century.[22] In 1951, Hasler hypothesised that, once in vicinity of the estuary or entrance to its birth river, salmon may use chemical cues which they can smell, and which are unique to their natal stream, as a mechanism to home onto the entrance of the stream.[23] In 1978, Hasler and his students convincingly showed that the way salmon locate their home rivers with such precision was indeed because they could recognise its characteristic smell. They further demonstrated that the smell of their river becomes imprinted in salmon when they transform into smolts, just before they migrate out to sea.[20][24][25] Homecoming salmon can also recognise characteristic smells in tributary streams as they move up the main river.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salmon_run
Excuse me, I was talking about eels, whose parents die in the Sargasso Sea, and the young stll make their way home. That's the problem you have no hope of ever answering, and about the 20th reason why you should abandon evolution.
Here's another. Hassler and Co. now need to account for the way the salmon acquired the ability to become imprinted, to be able to smell in the first place, and why so many other fish can't do so, and yet survive very well notwithstanding.
Any ideas or P-A-P-E-RRRRR--S on the subject????
So we now know that salmon use smell to home in on their home river. And now, it appears that Salmon, like other migratory species, can orient in the Earth's magnetic field. What we don't yet know, is not proof or disproof of anything.
It's proof that the theory is incompetent, for one thing - and that it should be abandoned, for another.
And this magnetic field thing. Suppose you could identify magnetic fields. How would that get you home? If you didn't know where home was in the first place?
But that's the situation with the eels, Plovers and a thousand others beside. Evolution? Pah.
Surprise. You should know by now that bravado won't help you. And now that scientists are putting together the understanding of how migration works, ignorance turns out to be a bad place for you to hide.
Really? They are? You mean, they're patching together those mighty pieces of ignorance and producing a quilt to cover the naked ignorance of any of these major natural phenomena! Your emperor has no clothes, Barbarian, and I'm glad that at least you recognise that fact. Now take the next step.
Get those gray cells into action. Ask some questions - you know, I've never heard you question even one bit of this theory, or any of these papers which say clearly that they are puttiing forth guesses, hopes, and tripe? Why not? Haven't you got enough brain power to generate at least a couple of awkward questions?
How's that?
Turns out feathers are primarily for warmth and display. Only secondarily for flying. There were feathers millions of years before any organism used them to fly.
Again undiluted nonsense. Let me see if I can help you see this. You are saying that if I wrap my blanket round me for millions of years, it will become feathers and wings. That right?
And don't you know that down feathers don't bear any resemblance to flight feathers? You should, you know, as a Biology teacher. So if the feathers were primarily for warmth, then they must have been down feathers.
But a bird can't fly with down feathers. So what are we seeing here? Reptiles covered with down feathers, racing along the ground waving their forelimbs in the air, and the wind turns the down feathers into flight feathers, and the repbird takes off: and because it can't fly, it breaks its fool neck.
Ever seen the two kinds of feathers I'm talking about?
Down feather:
Flight feather:
See any difference? I doubt it. Those rose coloured glasses do distort things, I fear.
We see flight feathers on dinosaurs that could not possibly have flown. But they would have been quite useful (as they are today for ostriches) in providing lift and manuverability in running.
Here's more stupidity.
New long-term observations and airflow experiments withostriches now show these flightless birds can use their wings as advanced stabilizers.
http://www.livescience.com/6657-ostrich-wings-explain-mystery-flightless-dinosaurs.html
Are these jokers sufficiently stupid as not to ask the simple question: were the running dinosaurs falling all over the place BEFORE they 'evolved' these feathers? Is that why there are so many reptile fossils? They broke their necks trying to run without the feathers to stabilise them!
They couldn't balance! Har -de har!!!
And these are 'ADVANCED' stabilisers. Got that? Where are the primitive ones? Let me guess, no I won't. The whole thing is just too stupid for words, polite ones, that is.
And, as you learned, Lennox said that he saw evolution as Darwin did. He's on video saying so. No point in denying that, either.
Back to the lies I see. His PA stated quite clearly that he has serious questions about evolution. If he didn't, why was he debating with Dawkins?
