A bat or pteridactyl wing which performs perfectly well to allow the
possessors to fly.
>
>If birds descended from dinosaurs then presumably there were dinosaurs
>which had the same "lung criteria, osteological criteria such as hollow
>bones, a furcula" and "beaks".
>
>How do you distinguish birds from dinosaurs if you don't regard feathers
>as being the defining characteristic of birds?
There are lots of skeletal differences. Some dinosaurs may have had
feathers. This is similar to the platypus, a mammal having a duck-bill,
which is an otherwise avian trait.
>>SJ>Your "attack-is-the-best-defense" strategy is noted.
>
>GM>Stephen, you always misunderstand this and then react this way.
>
>It is no misunderstanding. It is a common feature of your posts that when
>you get in a difficult position, you counter-attack as a way of changing the
>subject.
Now it is your turn to charge that I ignored the above, which is what I am
going to do.
>
>GM>This is a matter of noting that there are things that don't fit the
progressive
>>creation position.
>
>There are "things that don't fit" *your straw-man version of "the progressive
>creation position"!
Can you tell me one test, one observation which distinguishes evolution
from progressive creation? And I am going to restrict you to the modern
punctuated form of evolution. Don't give me gradualism, because most
modern evolutionists are less constrained by Darwinian gradualism than you
want them to be. Corballis gives you your criticism of Darwinian gradualism:
"As we have seen, however, modern evolutionary theory has largely dispensed
with Darwinian gradualism. Changes can be sudden, punctuate,
dramatic."~Michael C. Corballis, The Lopsided Ape, (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1991), p. 161
So, is there one single observation which can distinguish punctuated
evolution from punctuated progressive creation?
>GM>There is nothing wrong in noting that. Quit taking things so personally.
>>They are not meant personally. All I am doing (or want to do)is discussing
>>ideas.
>
>Sorry Glen, but in view of the constant stream of ad hominems from
>you over the last 2-3 years, I cannot accept that "They are not meant
>personally". Stop making the ad hominems and I will start believing
>that "They are not meant personally".
Stephen, I will ignore this also rather than risk being charged with ad
hominizing.
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm