[_ Old Earth _] Darwin was right about pigeons

[Barbarian]

Charles Darwin, based on his theory and on anatomical data, argued that all pigeons are descended from the rock dove. Many objected to this, even some modern biologists. However:

The study, published online today in Science1, gives insight into the genetics of both 'fancy' domestic breeds and plain street pigeons and supports their common origin from the wild rock dove (Columba livia). "We go from having virtually no genetic or genomic resources available for the pigeon to being able to map regions associated with particular traits,” says team member Michael Shapiro, a biologist at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City.


All in the family

The Utah team, along with Jun Wang and colleagues at BGI-Shenzhen in China and scientists at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark, sequenced a complete 'reference' genome from a breed called the Danish tumbler. The researchers also sequenced the genomes of 36 different fancy breeds and of two feral birds from different regions of the US.

The study fills in knowledge about the relationships between breeds, many of which are centuries old with origins in the Middle East. Darwin argued that all domestic pigeon breeds descended from the wild rock dove. Shapiro says this study puts data behind that argument, as all the breeds sequenced are more similar genetically to one another than to another, closely related, species of pigeon, C. rupestris.
http://www.nature.com/news/pigeon-dna-proves-darwin-right-1.12334

 

[brother Paul]

All this PROVES is what the Bible implies....that from a limited number of basic pairs we derive all the present VARIETY...if the conclusion of this article is to be assumed to be correct then they have proven the Bible's 2000 year old claim to be true, that's all, and if Darwin agreed on this point good for him....

 

[Barbarian]

All this PROVES is what the Bible implies....

That evolutionary theory accurately predicts descent? No, I don't think so. While the Bible is completely compatible with evolutionary theory, I wouldn't go so far as to say it endorsed Darwin's discovery, any more than I'd say it endorsed molecular biology.

 

[brother Paul]

No, what I said was in this case Darwins discovery endorsed what we already knew. Not the other way around. To me it would be like saying all apes came from a common set(s) of apes. What it does not show from Darwins cache is that pigeons came from say....reptiles!

 

[Barbarian]

No, what I said was in this case Darwins discovery endorsed what we already knew. Not the other way around. To me it would be like saying all apes came from a common set(s) of apes. What it does not show from Darwins cache is that pigeons came from say....reptiles!

Actually, in my youth, creationists denied that any species came from any other. Only after a great deal of evidence made it completely foolish to deny Darwin's findings, did creationist organizations put out the word that speciation "wasn't really evolution."

The evidence for birds from reptiles is now equally compelling, as you know. Almost all the structures formerly considered only to be found in birds, have been found in dinosaurs. There is no essential difference between them, now, no demarcation that clearly separates one from the others. Huxley's prediction, based on a single anatomical fact, has been repeatedly verified by new evidence. Would you like to see some of it?

 

[brother Paul]

No that was just a difference in definition of the word "species". A species to them was/is the difference between a cat and a dog (hence two different species) where today it has been redefined to include variations of the same creature (as in different kinds of cats). They never doubted that within a given type (say sharks) that there would be variations, just that (for ex.) an octopus and a shell fish are forever distinct. But because the post-Darwin Darwinians insist one kind of creature actually became other distinct kinds (as in fish to amphibian to reptile to bird/mammal, etc.,) they would have to disagree (as would I even at this time).

And if the Arche is evidence, than it is apparent from the observable and demonstrable that this unique "dinosaur" evolved from birds and not the other way around (though I highly doubt that as well)....

 

[Barbarian]

No that was just a difference in definition of the word "species".

As you know, that's a major problem for creationism. If creationism were true, there would be very distinct boundaries between species. But, as Darwin wrote, evolution would mean that there would be no such boundaries, and the term would be almost impossible to precisely define. And that is the case.

A species to them was/is the difference between a cat and a dog (hence two different species)

The problem with that, is there are intermediate forms between dogs and cats.

Carnivorans apparently evolved in North America out of members of the family Miacidae (miacids) about 42 million years ago.[1] They soon split into cat-like and dog-like forms (Feliformia and Caniformia).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivora

where today it has been redefined to include variations of the same creature (as in different kinds of cats). They never doubted that within a given type (say sharks) that there would be variations, just that (for ex.) an octopus and a shell fish are forever distinct.

No, that's wrong. For example, gastropods are transitional between cephalopods and other mollusks.

But because the post-Darwin Darwinians insist one kind of creature actually became other distinct kinds (as in fish to amphibian

So here's an organism. It has internal nares, internal gills, a membranous tail, and a lateral line system for detecting vibrations, all found only in fish. It also has functional legs. So what is it?

reptile to bird/

As you saw earlier, there is no clear division between dinosaurs and birds. We now have all degrees of transitions between the two.

And if the Arche is evidence, than it is apparent from the observable and demonstrable that this unique "dinosaur" evolved from birds

Not very likely, given that Proarchaeopteryx, a slightly more primitive form, is clearly a dinosaur. Not to mention that few if any birds existed at the time the specimen of Archaeopteryx we found, existed. Since it's very fragile, and rarely fossilized, we don't have a good idea how old the species is. You're back to "if I'm alive, my uncle must be dead."

 

[brother Paul]

You're back to "if I'm alive, my uncle must be dead."

Not even close....even though you were once again misdirecting, clearly, since there were already birds AND dinosaurs, and then there was the somewhat questionable Arche....the observable demonstrable reality demands that IF one came from another THEN Arche evolved FROM birds or a particular dinosaur but...

the conclusion that ARCHE shows or even supports that "birds" evolved from "dinosaurs" is illogical and an assumption based irrational conclusion...but sadly SOME scientists make this error in reasoning because they have been convinced first that the hypothesis must be true...therefore any discovery MUST BE interpreted to demonstrate this even when it does not.

Now that IS the fact....

 

[Barbarian]

And if the Arche is evidence, than it is apparent from the observable and demonstrable that this unique "dinosaur" evolved from birds

Barbarian observes:
You're back to "if I'm alive, my uncle must be dead." If the line that led to birds diverged into two groups, one like Archaeopteryx and one more like modern birds, then "you" (modern birds) could exist while "your uncle" (Archaeopteryx) was still around. I don't know how to make it more simple. I hope you're beginning to understand.

Not even close....

Meh...

even though you were once again misdirecting, clearly, since there were already birds AND dinosaurs,

Actually, birds only appeared toward the end of the time dinosaurs were on Earth. I though you knew. And of course, the "bird" from Texas has yet to be confirmed as a bird, because it's missing a lot of parts, some of which are critical in making that determination. It could be yet another feathered dinosaur.

Think about it. Sometimes, if you've been so directed one way, it's difficult to see things, even when they show you something else.

 

[brother Paul]

Yes reptiles existed on earth BEFORE there were avians....again that does not NECESSITATE that one became the other. That is just one way of interpreting the evidence.

 

[Barbarian]

Yes reptiles existed on earth BEFORE there were avians....again that does not NECESSITATE that one became the other.

If it were just that, it wouldn't. However, as you learned, the evidence from many sources makes it so certain that almost all scientists have concluded that it's a fact. Even those who are skeptical, are merely saying that dinosaurs and birds have a common thecodont ancestor.

That is just one way of interpreting the evidence.

As you see, the evidence is compelling. Even when they found a little organic material in a dinosaur fossil, it turned out to be closer to that of birds than it was to that of other reptiles. As you also learned, the distinguishing "avian" characteristics are almost all found in dinosaurs before there were birds.

 

[brother Paul]

Too often today, the way science works is that the theory sometimes determines the data sought, and thus determines the interpretation. The theoretical framework then becomes as important as the facts. Now there is nothing wrong with using ones theoretical model or hypothesis as an inspiration for research. This is in fact a major impetus for many questions that inspire research.

In some cases however, the theory actually somewhat creates the interpretation. This is NOT good science. As it turns out, in many cases, one can have the same evidence fit successfully into different interpretations but for this one must be able to step outside their own theoretical box and this is very difficult. Differing interpretations can still be consistent and both can be seen as true. What your model is can affect your interpretation. Most scientists however do strive to reduce this effect as much as possible. So this is something we must be careful of.

Helen Longino (March 1979), in her Philosophy of Science, Vol. 46. pp. 37–42 warns us about how a researcher’s assumptions (also pre-held beliefs) about the relationship between observations and a hypothesis can and does affect even whether that person takes the observation of parts or data from their findings as evidence. When this occurs (and it does very often) important perspective becomes limited and information indicating contrariety can be overlooked or ignored. But in truth this could have influenced the final conclusion. Good science includes all such data and objective scientists report it and even record their failures. This is very important because even the small discrepancies can prove a theory wrong, if included and not discarded or ignored, by establishing facts that are inconsistent with the theory. When people are pushing the theory over the evidence they may make efforts to discredited “the person” rather than their point or alternate explanation. Thus the legitimate questions they posit are explained away rather than explored.

 

[Barbarian]

Too often today, the way science works is that the theory sometimes determines the data sought, and thus determines the interpretation.

It always works that way with ID/creationism:

Because creationists and IDers are locked into a conclusion from the start, they have to find a way to revise the facts to fit their preconceived ideas.

Good science includes all such data and objective scientists report it and even record their failures.

Hence, the many problems with creationist attempts to do science. Here's an example, Barry Setterfield's attempt to show that the speed of light has been decaying:

Seems kinda to make sense: Based on his table of historic measurements, it's gotten about 0.5% slower since the very first attempts to measure it only about 340 years ago. And, you can fit a decay function to it, or an exponential sinusoidal decay function which is what he did. The nature of any decay function is that the decay is slower as you go forward in time, and it's much faster as you go farther back. This is all based on his table.


As you might have suspected, this is called cherry-picking. As in, choosing the data that fits his pre-conceived notion or the story that he wants to tell. For example, there are at least two estimates of the speed of light that were done between his first two - the ones in 1675 and 1728. Christiaan Huygens, a very famous Dutch astronomer, estimated it at 26% slower than the current value. Sir Isaac Newton in 1704 estimated it as about 5-15% slower than the current value. Or there's an 1849 measurement that was faster than the 1675 measurement, and an 1862 one that's slower than today's value. Yet, Setterfield just picked the 1675, 1728, and then goes right to 1871. Why didn't Setterfield include those other ones.?
http://podcast.sjrdesign.net/shownotes_081.php

This is very important because even the small discrepancies can prove a theory wrong, if included and not discarded or ignored, by establishing facts that are inconsistent with the theory. When people are pushing the theory over the evidence they may make efforts to discredited “the person” rather than their point or alternate explanation. Thus the legitimate questions they posit are explained away rather than explored.

For example, there has been no explanation for Setterfield's picking only the examples that support his beliefs.

 

[brother Paul]

Much truth...it is a disappointment wherever I find it...I guess I do not think in belongs in science (they should always remain objective) or Christianity (where truth is supposed to be important but some make effort to misrepresent facts). The sad testimony of a fallen humanity I suppose...