Why stevebee is wrong

stevebee92653 · **#3941** by **stevebee92653** » Feb 04, 2012 3:46 am

Spearthrower said:
You spend so much effort telling people what they believe without thinking, but so little actually offering anything of substance.

I do? Twenty vids and 40 pages of blog says your wrong. I know I know, not one of the vids and pages has substance, etc. etc. etc.

Spearthrower said:
To suggest one of those pathways you claim aren't there: a basic feather only need to be like a hair - a single filament, to have a function: insulation, display etc.

They only need to be a hair? Then you will call them feather precursors? Why? How do you know these things?

Spearthrower said:
The terrestrial birds extant today have feathers - why do they have them in your 'model'?

Because they're birds. Why else?

Spearthrower said:
Your question is known as a loaded question - it presupposes its own answer. How do you know that people here aren't interested in how beaks evolved?

People are not interested in any information that will damage their belief system. Jaws/teeth evolving to beaks will do damage to this belief system: evolution. No fossil evidence, just like every other bio-system in existence. Just like airfoil wings. And no feathers, so feather precursors have to be "found". Any ol' hair or microscopic piece of fuzz or hair will do just fine.

Spearthrower said:
How do you know that it hasn't already been studied? Why are beaks and teeth exclusive in your mind? Why couldn't the first beaks have included teeth? Why do some birds today (e.g. geese) still have teeth? How does that work in your 'model'?

I have two geese, and believe me, they don't have teeth. They have serrations on their beaks. Ouch! Better stick with chicken teeth. There is nothing TO study. That's how I know.

Spearthrower · **#3942** by **Spearthrower** » Feb 04, 2012 6:45 am

stevebee92653 wrote:
Spearthrower said:
You spend so much effort telling people what they believe without thinking, but so little actually offering anything of substance.

I do? Twenty vids and 40 pages of blog says your wrong. I know I know, not one of the vids and pages has substance, etc. etc. etc.

I am talking about here where you are allegedly entering into discussion. I've asked you a number of times to explain specifics with respect to your model, but it's never forthcoming. If you are going to maintain an argument here, is it too much to expect you to support it here? I don't plan to go and read your blog, or watch all your videos looking for something that you think supports your argument - if you make the point here, support it here.

stevebee92653 wrote:
Spearthrower said:
To suggest one of those pathways you claim aren't there: a basic feather only need to be like a hair - a single filament, to have a function: insulation, display etc.

They only need to be a hair? Then you will call them feather precursors? Why? How do you know these things?

We find integumentary structures in fish and reptiles, we find them as trace fossils in certain dinosaurs. We find pennaceous feather and plumaceous feather structures in dinosaurs. Where do I come by these things? The fossil record.

Again, how do you explain them?

stevebee92653 wrote:
Spearthrower said:
The terrestrial birds extant today have feathers - why do they have them in your 'model'?

Because they're birds. Why else?

But they don't fly - why do they need these feathers, Steve? It's integral to your previous claims. If they have feathers and don't fly, then what's your difficulty with feathers arising in a species that doesn't fly? Whatever function you assume they fulfill in modern flightless birds, they presumably could have fulfilled in previous species that couldn't fly.

stevebee92653 wrote:
Spearthrower said:
Your question is known as a loaded question - it presupposes its own answer. How do you know that people here aren't interested in how beaks evolved?

People are not interested in any information that will damage their belief system. Jaws/teeth evolving to beaks will do damage to this belief system: evolution. No fossil evidence, just like every other bio-system in existence. Just like airfoil wings. And no feathers, so feather precursors have to be "found". Any ol' hair or microscopic piece of fuzz or hair will do just fine.

You're just reiterating your preconceived judgment. I don't have a belief system. We're talking about science - it's based on evidence, not belief.

Again, you make stupid claims - of course there is evidence for beak evolution - again, we find reptiles and dinosaurs with beaks - some also kept their teeth. Beaks and teeth are not exclusive.

stevebee92653 wrote:
Spearthrower said:
How do you know that it hasn't already been studied? Why are beaks and teeth exclusive in your mind? Why couldn't the first beaks have included teeth? Why do some birds today (e.g. geese) still have teeth? How does that work in your 'model'?

I have two geese, and believe me, they don't have teeth. They have serrations on their beaks. Ouch! Better stick with chicken teeth. There is nothing TO study. That's how I know.

Of course they're not teeth like our teeth, no enamel etc. But they serve the same morphological function - to tear through their food source. But the point is that you are claiming an exclusivity between teeth and beaks that's not necessary. And this - why did they go to all the trouble of losing their teeth - these precursors to birds didn't need them any more for the type of diet they focused on. In much the same way as with blind tetras have lost their eyes - if it's not used, there's no selection pressure to keep a structure... further, manufacturing a body part has a cost both to produce it and to maintain it, plus the susceptibility to infection. Incidentally, these blind cave fish are the same species as their eyed counterparts outside of the caves they live in, and they can interbreed given favourable conditions.

Shrunk · **#3943** by **Shrunk** » Feb 04, 2012 1:22 pm

I'll just add that Steve's insistence on fossil evidence of the evolution of feathers is rather amusing, given that paleontologists have found examples of actual dinosaur feathers preserved in amber:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/earth ... 25579.html

bert · **#3944** by **bert** » Feb 04, 2012 3:27 pm

Just to help with DuckDuckGoing:
http://news.yahoo.com/feathers-amber-re ... 15314.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... s-alberta/

Bert

ADParker · **#3945** by **ADParker** » Feb 05, 2012 12:22 am

Oh come on! You think that finding actual dinosaur feathers preserved in amber is evidence that dinosaurs had feathers?! You Evolutionauts are SO gullible! :lol:

LucidFlight · **#3946** by **LucidFlight** » Feb 05, 2012 1:41 am

That amber was designed to LOOK like it has preserved feathers in it.

stevebee92653 · **#3947** by **stevebee92653** » Feb 05, 2012 2:48 am

LucidFlight wrote:That amber was designed to LOOK like it has preserved feathers in it.

Don't you just wonder how those feathers got into those tiny drops of amber? I bet some theropods were wandering by a tree, and lots of theropod feathers stuck! Oops! Sorry, I forgot. Evolutionauts don't wonder. They know.

ElDiablo · **#3948** by **ElDiablo** » Feb 05, 2012 4:00 am

You Evilutionauts don't even consider that maybe those feathers were part of the designer's assembly line. The feather line was about 100 yards from the teeth line which was about 100 yeards from the eye line.

ADParker · **#3949** by **ADParker** » Feb 05, 2012 4:08 am

stevebee92653 wrote:
Don't you just wonder how those feathers got into those tiny drops of amber? I bet some theropods were wandering by a tree, and lots of theropod feathers stuck! Oops! Sorry, I forgot. Evolutionauts don't wonder. They know.

Exactly! Isn't it far more plausible that some mysterious intelligence plucked those feathers from those dinosaurs and deliberately placed them in that amber? :roll:

Spearthrower · **#3950** by **Spearthrower** » Feb 05, 2012 4:21 am

stevebee92653 wrote:
LucidFlight wrote:That amber was designed to LOOK like it has preserved feathers in it.

Don't you just wonder how those feathers got into those tiny drops of amber? I bet some theropods were wandering by a tree, and lots of theropod feathers stuck! Oops! Sorry, I forgot. Evolutionauts don't wonder. They know.

Pathetic trolling, Steve.

The feathers could have got into the amber in many different ways, but it's clearly a red herring to focus on which particular manner... what's of relevance is that the feathers are preserved... something that clearly upsets your claims, so you ignore it and start yammering about 'evolutionauts' again. It's fucking transparent, don't you realise?

stevebee92653 · **#3951** by **stevebee92653** » Feb 05, 2012 10:35 pm

Spearthrower said:
But they don't fly - why do they need these feathers, Steve? It's integral to your previous claims. If they have feathers and don't fly, then what's your difficulty with feathers arising in a species that doesn't fly? Whatever function you assume they fulfill in modern flightless birds, they presumably could have fulfilled in previous species that couldn't fly.

Count up the modern non-bird aquatic and terrestrial species today that have feathers. Use that for a guide. Count up the reptiles that have feathers today. Use that answer to guide you through this task of figuring out if theropods had feathers. Use your logic and independent thought instead of what someone told you and wishful thinking.

Spearthrower said:
How do you know that people here aren't interested in how beaks evolved?

Your question says it all. "how beaks evolved" The presumption is that there is no question. You know they evolved, it's only how they evolved that you are concerned with. Me? I don't know how they got here at all. A more objective question is how beaks formed. There is no evidence that they evolved, and no logical pathway to their evolution. Do objective science first, the form a theory. Don't form a story first, then make theory off of the story. Just like airfoil wings, and little fuzzies in amber that are supposedly feathers. They could be fuzzies from a large insect. Much more likely than dinosaur feathers.

Spearthrower said:
How do you know that it hasn't already been studied? Why are beaks and teeth exclusive in your mind? Why couldn't the first beaks have included teeth? Why do some birds today (e.g. geese) still have teeth? How does that work in your 'model'?

Since there are no beaks with teeth today, and none in the fossil record, going with science and objectivity, it can be assumed that there are no beaks with teeth and no transitions. Is that a tough concept? And no evolution of jaws with padded double sliding double ball and socket joints and teeth to beaks. When you find some, THEN you have some evidence. But you won't. Not at this late date. But keep digging.
Did you know when you wrote this that geese don't have teeth? Is this evo-wishful thinking at it's best? Or a dishonest appraisal to promote your belief system? I'd say both.

Spearthrower said:
And this - why did they go to all the trouble of losing their teeth - these precursors to birds didn't need them any more for the type of diet they focused on.

Whatever you do Spearthrower, don't change your diet! Your kids or grand kids may start showing signs of beak evolution! So change of diet caused loss of jaws with padded double sliding double ball and socket joints and teeth? And why exactly would you believe that? Why? The notion is absurd, any way you look at it. And over the hundreds of thousands of years (or thousands) bird diet could have and probably did change numerous times. So the notion of jaws and teeth to beaks because of differing diet is absurd. But believed by you.

stevebee92653 · **#3952** by **stevebee92653** » Feb 05, 2012 10:37 pm

ADParker wrote::naughty2: Oh come on! You think that finding actual dinosaur feathers preserved in amber is evidence that dinosaurs had feathers?! You Evolutionauts are SO gullible!

Hey, just what I was going to say. How did you know?

stevebee92653 · **#3953** by **stevebee92653** » Feb 05, 2012 10:49 pm

Spearthrower said:
What's your explanation for the diversity of life Steve?

Don't know. Neither do you.

Spearthrower said:
How do you account for the fossil record in your model?

I can't. Neither can you since it's shown little change in species over hundreds of millions of years.

Spearthrower said:
How do you incorporate the findings of genetics in your model?

Genetics disproves evolution. DNA, the code cannot have formed through RM and NS or any other known real or imaginary scientific model.

Spearthrower said:
What are the answers to the question you pose to others?

Perhaps, maybe, might have, and could have. You accept those answers from ev-illusionists, so I hope you will accept them from me.

stevebee92653 · **#3954** by **stevebee92653** » Feb 05, 2012 10:59 pm

LucidFlight wrote:I forget now if Steve thinks other complex objects in the universe have been designed, e.g., planets, stars, and galaxies. Was the universe itself designed? How deep does the ID rabbit hole go?

Pretty damn deep. Think the carbon atom shows design? Or is the C atom a bland mushy piece of shit garbage nothing with no design. Do it's highly unusual characteristics make it ideal for a framework for life? Or is it just a piece of lucky ass shit that has no specific characteristics and no design whatsoever. How about water. Are the characteristics of water life promotional? Is there any other liquid that could take the place of water? Does the solid version float in liquid water or does it sink like all other solids in their liquid form. Is the ratio of gravity to the strong force (1:1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) amenable to life? Or is that ration just Dumb Luck? If the ratio was 5:1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 would life be possible? Is the......never mind.

stevebee92653 · **#3955** by **stevebee92653** » Feb 06, 2012 12:01 am

spitfire said:
May I also point out that we have documented organisms living on the planet right now that are in various stages of eye development as well?

Can you think of any reasons that this may be evidence against evolution? Who is WE? You and your family? Are all of these examples in your closet or something?

spitfire said:
But the reason evolutionary theory is so solid, so established, is because it is founded on the most basic principles of life that we can see and document every day.

WE can see it every day? Gosh. Where? Again, who is WE? You and your mother?

spitfire said:
So Steve, Question 1: Are traits, such as skin color, hair color, height, facial features, etc., inherited, or passed down, from parents to offspring?

Tough question!

spitfire said:
Question 2: Are genes passed on perfectly from one generation to the next?

You might want to spend a few minutes figuring out who you're talking to and their point of view before wasting your time on simplistic stuff like this. You said you did, but obviously you didn't.

spitfire said:
There will be more discussion after I receive an answer to these.

Oh goody! Actually your questions are nothing but projection, "groupthink", circular logic, sarcasm, and rhetoric.

spitfire said:
things that CAN be witnessed all around us.

Evolution can be? Wow. I can't wait to hear where? I'm so excited.

spitfire said:
The studies of evolution, biology, genetics, paleontology, and cosmology are all based upon verified, observational data, and the theories are developed to fit the current data. This is why theories change over time - because we discover new data and incorporate that into our scientific knowledge. If data is found that conflicts with a current established theory, then we are forced to alter the theory or develop a new one to incorporate the set of all data.

You mean Natural Selection changed with new information? And when DNA was discovered, and it was obvious that:

(1) DNA could not have possibly formed from changes in itself and Natural Selection. So Random Mutations was concocted as the inventor and developer of its own (DNA's) existence? Kind of like changes in a car being the inventor and builder of a car?

(2) changes in DNA couldn't possibly have concocted any bio-logical-system, Random Mutations was added to the theory in hopes that the gullible would fall for the fable? And they did fall for the fable? Because genetics kills evolution? Is that what you mean?

When you go out, do you see all of these wonders?
Just wondering.

Oldskeptic · **#3956** by **Oldskeptic** » Feb 06, 2012 12:02 am

Stevebee wrote:

Since there are no beaks with teeth today,and none in the fossil record, going with science and objectivity, it can be assumed that there are no beaks with teeth and no transitions.

Ichthyornis: A fossil bird with beak and teeth.

You've been shown fossils with beaks that have teeth by me in this post http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post1 ... l#p1187689

Why keep insisting that transitional fossils don't exist?

I understand that you would rather that transitional fossils didn't exist, but that doesn't make it so.

Is Ichthyornis a dinosaur with a beak or a bird with teeth?

This bird:

That has never flown or had ancestors that did, has feathers. It is a terrestrial animal with feathers. And guess what?

It is both a bird and a theropod dinosaur. All birds are.

Brunitski · **#3957** by **Brunitski** » Feb 06, 2012 12:33 am

stevebee wrote:Since there are no beaks with teeth today, and none in the fossil record, going with science and objectivity, it can be assumed that there are no beaks with teeth and no transitions.

Lies make baby jesus cry.

The extinct toothed bird Pelagornis Chilensis
source=Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology

halucigenia · **#3958** by **halucigenia** » Feb 06, 2012 12:51 am

stevebee92653 wrote:Pretty damn deep. Think the carbon atom shows design? Or is the C atom a bland mushy piece of shit garbage nothing with no design. Do it's highly unusual characteristics make it ideal for a framework for life? Or is it just a piece of lucky ass shit that has no specific characteristics and no design whatsoever. How about water. Are the characteristics of water life promotional? Is there any other liquid that could take the place of water? Does the solid version float in liquid water or does it sink like all other solids in their liquid form. Is the ratio of gravity to the strong force (1:1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) amenable to life? Or is that ration just Dumb Luck? If the ratio was 5:1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 would life be possible? Is the......never mind.

That's just puddle thinking Steve. :nono:

The hole was not designed to fit the puddle. The puddle fits the hole.
The conditions were not designed for life. Life fits the conditions.

ADParker · **#3959** by **ADParker** » Feb 06, 2012 1:18 am

stevebee92653 wrote:Count up the modern non-bird aquatic and terrestrial species today that have feathers. Use that for a guide.

So of the theropod dinosaurs that had feathers, only those that evolved into birds survived the extinction event marked by the K-T boundary.

stevebee92653 wrote:Count up the reptiles that have feathers today.

The reptiles of today are already known to have NOT evolved from theropod dinosaurs, Thus they should not be expected to have those features (feathers) found in those dinosaurs that were not their ancestors.

stevebee92653 wrote:Use that answer to guide you through this task of figuring out if theropods had feathers.

None of the above says ANYTHING about theropod dinosaurs having feathers or not. The discovery of fossil imprints and actual preserved theropod feathers proves that beyond reasonable doubt.

stevebee92653 wrote:Use your logic and independent thought instead of what someone told you and wishful thinking.

Done and done. The bullshit that stevebee92653 is just that; bullshit.

stevebee92653 wrote:
Your question says it all. "how beaks evolved" The presumption is that there is no question.

No reasonable question anyway. Evolutionary biology is far to established to seriously doubt that, without bloody good evidence to the contrary at least.

On the contrary YOUR quote mine says it all:
(My added resizing and underlining of words for emphasis.)

YOU asked:
"My question is why don't you wonder how jaws and teeth evolved into beaks. What were the steps?" (your first question failed to end is a question mark by the way

)

Spearthrower responded:
"How do you know that people here aren't interested in how beaks evolved?"
Directly responding to the exact question you asked; on HOW they evolved.

And now you rag on him for "his" choice of the word "how" when it was YOUR choice, not his! :naughty:

stevebee92653 wrote:You know they evolved, it's only how they evolved that you are concerned with. Me? I don't know how they got here at all.

Yet repeatedly assert that it couldn't have been through evolution (the progressive change in allele frequency) and that an "intelligence" somehow existing at the times these things appeared (including times prior to any known existence of anything capable of having such levels of intelligence) is somehow a viable explanation. :nono:

stevebee92653 wrote:A more objective question is how beaks formed.

Then instead of what you did ask:
'My question is why don't you wonder how jaws and teeth

evolved

into beaks."
should have been:
"My question is why don't you wonder how jaws and teeth formed into beaks."
But it wasn't was it. :nono:

So don't blame someone else for responding in kind you YOUR error! :naughty:

stevebee92653 wrote:There is no evidence that they evolved, and no logical pathway to their evolution.

So you have scoured ALL of the literature and discovered this have you? Somehow I doubt it, your track record suggests otherwise.

stevebee92653 wrote:Do objective science first, the form a theory. Don't form a story first, then make theory off of the story.

Good suggestion my Intelligent Design promoting friend. :naughty:

stevebee92653 wrote:Just like airfoil wings, and little fuzzies in amber that are supposedly feathers.

Oh, finally a response to those preserved feathers: Ignorance based denial.

stevebee92653 wrote:They could be fuzzies from a large insect. Much more likely than dinosaur feathers.

So we can dismiss them as such without even bothering to look beyond the few photographs you saw online, right stevebee92653? :nono:

Sceptical my aching arse.

stevebee92653 wrote:
[color=#0080FF]Since there are no beaks with teeth today,

You of course mean:
Except for those in geese, which do not have enamel, but do possess the genes that would have produced that enamel as well, except they are "broken" such that they are readily identifiable as formally "enamel producing" genes, of the same sort as their reptilian ancestor would have had. that are now non-functional (in any way.)And that the same genes are found in chickens, that have been found can be "turned" on by fixing the mutation that rendered them inactive, leading to the development of teeth in them as well. And that this experiment was done in the first place due to reports of "freak" chickens having teeth, from which the cliché "as rare as hens teeth" was most likely derived.
Right?

stevebee92653 wrote:and none in the fossil record, going with science and objectivity, it can be assumed that there are no beaks with teeth and no transitions. Is that a tough concept?

Tough? No. Profoundly flawed? Oh my yes!

Macroinvertebrate · **#3960** by **Macroinvertebrate** » Feb 06, 2012 1:21 am

Brunitski wrote:
stevebee wrote:Since there are no beaks with teeth today, and none in the fossil record, going with science and objectivity, it can be assumed that there are no beaks with teeth and no transitions.

Lies make baby jesus cry.

The extinct toothed bird Pelagornis Chilensis
source=Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology

Ouch! That's gotta hurt, Steve.

Why stevebee is wrong

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

Who is online