Microraptor has feathers and hollow bones. Microraptor does not have a beak, a rigid skeleton to provide firm attachments for powerful flight muscles, a streamlined body, wings as seen in birds, nor an enlarged breastbone called a sternum for flight muscle attachment. T. rex has hollow bones.
How do you explain this?
What is there to eplain. You have less than half a bird in one place and a T-Rex that isn’t going to join them in any shape or form!
Parrallel evolution is one answer.(Or haven’t you heard of that!)
You are reaching is another
You can’t just assemble the parts from 8 different dinosaurs They have to be able to combine and unless fertilisation of eggs has changed drastically there are only two parents not 8.
Understand your own system and stop flanneliing
Riichard
So how do you explain this? If bird flight is irreducible how is it that these irreducible parts can be adaptations all on their own without the others? Don’t I need ALL of those adaptations together in order for them to function?
Wrong deffinition of irreducible.
The final product need all parts to work. That function is irreducible not the parts that make it up.
A petrol engine might be cnsidered irreducible but the individual parts are interchangeable or usable elsewhere. I think you need to review what ICs are and stop reinventing them so that you can “cheat”.
Regardless you still have to assemble it! And there is no reason on God’s earth for it to happen unless someone somewhere knew it would work! The probablilities are off the scale, and then some! ToE does not have that intelligence or design capability.
Richard
You’re looking down the wrong end of the telescope.
Microraptor didn’t have all the parts, and it worked.
None of us “ignore that stage”. We see that you are trying to criticize science without understanding it and without being willing to engage the science – no different from trying to criticize the work of a mechanic without talking about mechanics.
Maybe you should propose some other possibilities to consider – and show how they impact the science.
Mathematically and biologically, no – the evolutionary process accounts for birds quite well.
You just don’t want to accept that you don’t know enough to be commenting on the subject.
It could not fly
And you are deluding yourselves. Anything not to confront the criticism. Just dismiss it it.
You don’t listen . See above
Mathematics is irrelevant. Other than the fact that the probabilities are off the chart. But statistics can be fallacious. Birds eist. But that does not mean you know how they were created.
As for the Biology. I know more than you credit me for, just not the modern genetics and recent fossil finds.
Just keep thinking I know nothing. It saves us both a lot of effort.
If you truly understood both the physiology and mechanics of Avian flight you would be less critical and more humble.
If that is the level of your arguments expect me to ignore them.
Richard
So what happened? Non/un-scientifically? Unknowingly? Unknowledgably? Unwarrentedly? Unjustifiably?
That is not the point.
I am ot saying i do know, I am just saying that they do not.
Richard
That’s a matter of non-epistemological belief. We have epistemological belief thAT we do.
Belief one way or the other is irrelevant. The fact is that they d not have the information to make the assertions they do.
Just because viruses and bacteria were invisible to the people of Biblical times does not mean that disease was actaully caused by evil spirits and sin.
IOW just because they cannot see an alternative answer does not mean it doesn’t exist, or that the one they have is correct.
RIchard
Not to you in your alternative non-knowledge, non-informational, non-evidence based belief they don’t. To us in our knowledge, information, evidence based belief, we do. And you don’t. You will claim otherwise because you have non-consilient, non-consensual definitions of knowledge, information, evidence. Fine. I have no problem with that whatsoever. You are quite normal, in statistical terms.
A much more flowery and veiled insult but insulting my knowledge and reasoning nonetheless.
Fair enough. Nothing changes around here.
Richard
It can’t Richard. It’s no insult that your knowledge is unique to you, that it is warranted and justified and true to you, it’s just not so to the consiliently, consensually, knowledgable (I can’t abide a superfluous mute ‘ee’, can you?). To knowledge workers. To the disciplines, the disciplined, the learned of science and philosophy. It’s knowledge in the Jungian sense. Fine.
So what fills that vacuum of ignorance? What explanation for birds? You don’t have to have one. It’s alright. You can naysay only from your impenetrable fear and anger. Which can be outflanked obviously. You are not one dimensional after all.
[We cannot recognize each other’s knowledge as knowledge, Richard. But autumn is the most beautiful season].
Would you care to share the details of how you know that?
AFAICT there is no consensus among the palaeontologists who have examined the specimens and conducted experiments as to whether Microraptor could manage powered flight, or only gliding flight. Maybe there’s more recent research that I’m unaware of and haven’t found. Or maybe, just maybe, your insight may resolve a still unanswered question.
There’s also the issue of whether gliding flight - which Microraptor certainly could have managed - qualifies as flight. If it doesn’t, then the evolution of flight only requires the transition from gliding to powered flight, which is a much smaller jump[1]. If gliding does qualify as flight, then you are simply wrong. Which raises the possibility that you’re just pulling ‘facts’ from the same dark recesses that led to you claiming that population genetics didn’t apply to solitary creatures and that random mating implies promiscuity, and you don’t really haven’t the faintest idea about whether Microraptor could fly.
I strongly suspect that you are parading your argnorance[2] as usual, that you don’t actually have the faintest idea whether or not Microraptor could fly, or even how we could tell whether or not it could fly.
Feel free to show otherwise. You might even achieve some palaeontological recognition - if you aren’t being a blatherskite as usual.
Added:
In this case, you are saying that you do know something.
Richard has an impenetrable, untransferable way of knowing Roy. Apart from to the vast majority who go ‘Yeahhhhh’.
This looks like another example of you pulling ‘facts’ from your dark recesses.
I would be extremely surprised if you even knew what the relevant probabilities were, let alone how to calculate them or what the results are.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.