Taylor wrote:evolutionnews.org/2013/10/the_origin_of ... 77291.html
Just for the interest of it. here's an article from the Intelligence Design side of the debate as to avian flight. I don't think its a valid counter point but just interesting in how they form their anti-evolution argument.

It states early in this piece that: "Here's a chance to compare the scientific merits of the competing views." But nowhere in here is a competing view, only the same old argument for irreducible complexity, which is not a scientific theory at all. For example, here:

Here's the bottom line. You look at the anatomy of a bird, its behavior, its metabolism, the structure of its feathers, the structure of its muscles and so forth -- these are multiple independent points in a complex space, out of which flight emerges. And I think from a biological standpoint, to fly at all requires a cause that is able to visualize a distant functional endpoint, and bring together necessary to achieve that endpoint. Uniquely, and universally in our experience, only intelligence is capable of that kind of causal process.

This is the same argument used against eye evolution by the way. But the eye is not irreducibly complex. There are numerous examples in nature that show the stages that evolution could have taken, from very basic light sensitivity to full vision. I'm not sure we are able to document as clearly the progression of flight evolution, but clearly it did. Because flying critters exist. Unless you assume that an intelligent being conjured up a fully equipped bird at some point in the past. But if that's the case, we have heaps of evidence that show speciation in many other animals. So why single out birds except for the fact that the evidence is not yet glaringly obvious due to the incomplete nature of the fossil record.

So here follows the ID argument in a nutshell: 1) assumption of intelligent designer 2) Nothing will convince them otherwise. The ID article attempts to frame evolutionary theory as a fallacious argument, but this is disingenuous because the evidence already proves evolutionary theory. Based on this knowledge we can assume that flight evolution follows the same rules that other evolved systems, such as the eye, have followed.

The reason why we believe feathers preceded flight actually comes from the fossil record, and so scientists can only surmise there was some advantage to feathers before flight came along. The fossil record will either bear this out or not. The recent discovery of a feathered tail in amber is exciting because it provides yet another piece of the puzzle. And it also refutes one of the earlier theories about feathers. This is how science works. And, meanwhile, the ID community will pounce on areas where the evidence is fragmentary, always looking for their god of the gaps.

http://www.theverge.com/2016/12/8/13892 ... no-fossils

Great discussion of this book, guys. I actually was trying to find out whether Donald Prothero is related to Stephen Prothero, the very good religion writer (it seemed an uncommon name), but could find no link. You see how distracted I can be.

Geo; thanks for your breakdown of my linked article.

Irreducible Complexity has been one of those instances of confusion for me. I wasn't quite sure where the idea was heading or where it was coming from for that matter. I'm beginning to see though that it sets itself up for failure. Its claim requires unknown qualities as a foot in the door to not only confuse an unsuspecting public but to attempt some strange form of scientific skepticism. Behe uses bacteria as his milieu for IC in his book Darwin's Black Box. Evolutionary biologist such as Nick Lane are now demonstrating how Behe is wrong by showing how complex cells can evolve from deep-sea hydrothermal vents. I see now what is meant by an argument from ignorance, If something is unknown, undocumented, undiscovered, untested or a host of other un's... then there must have been a designer.( I haven't read The Blind Watchmaker, but it is my understanding that this is Dawkins argument from incredulity) Michael Behe has been known to be among the latest to push irreducible complexity as a proof of Intelligent Design.
Geo rightly points out how this same method of argument is applied toward the evolution of vision and bird flight. We can add whales to that list as well. Macro evolution being shown as not unprovable.

geo wrote:Speaking of feathered dinosaurs, did you guys see this? Wow, an actual bird ancestor tail. There are some amazing photographs here.http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016 ... retaceous/

The photo's are amazing. What I also found to be interesting was the number of times the national geographic article was mentioned on broadcast news. (CBS and my local news station). The rare nature of the discovery wasn't missed but the repercussions seemed to fly right over the heads of the journalist involved. Its amazing the fear or unwillingness on the part of media to question the veracity of religion when faced with such powerful evidence to the contrary. I mean, evolution every day smacks us in the face and yet there are deniers who persist.

DWill wrote:Great discussion of this book, guys. I actually was trying to find out whether Donald Prothero is related to Stephen Prothero, the very good religion writer (it seemed an uncommon name), but could find no link. You see how distracted I can be.

They must be different Protheros. I can find no connection either.

I did find an article about global climate change by Donald Prothero that covers a lot of the science. He takes a hard stance against deniers.

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-02-08/#feature

Taylor wrote:. . . Evolutionary biologist such as Nick Lane are now demonstrating how Behe is wrong by showing how complex cells can evolve from deep-sea hydrothermal vents. I see now what is meant by an argument from ignorance, If something is unknown, undocumented, undiscovered, untested or a host of other un's... then there must have been a designer.

Yes, I think the ID web site relies almost entirely on arguments from ignorance, which I suppose is really what irreducible complexity is all about. We simply can't see each and every step from feathers to flight. We have only uncovered a tiny fraction of bird ancestors that lived and died. And to understand each and every complex step that led to flight would require more fossil evidence. IDers love to find these pockets of uncertainty, but the case for birds having evolved from theropods is already very strong, And the evidence grows stronger with every new discovery, as is the recent case with the feathered tail in amber.

IDers will never be satisfied with evolution because they have already decided that an Intelligent Designer had to be involved. Thanks to Flann, we have seen an astonishing amount of denial with regard to whale evolution. The whale's vestigial hind legs alone only make sense from an evolutionary standpoint. They seem to have moved on from eye complexity to focus on whales and birds, but they've already lost these arguments as well.

And don't forget confirmation bias. https://www.verywell.com/what-is-a-conf ... as-2795024

geo wrote:

Taylor wrote:. . . Evolutionary biologist such as Nick Lane are now demonstrating how Behe is wrong by showing how complex cells can evolve from deep-sea hydrothermal vents. I see now what is meant by an argument from ignorance, If something is unknown, undocumented, undiscovered, untested or a host of other un's... then there must have been a designer.

Yes, I think the ID web site relies almost entirely on arguments from ignorance

Just to offer a small point here on this side point about ID, “relies” in this usage points to a deeper problem with the politics of Intelligent Design. The entire purpose of Intelligent Design is to give creationist Bible Believers an excuse to avoid encountering scientific evidence. Preachers want to be able to refer to such websites as evidence for faith, even though that claim is vacuous. The religious background here is that the claim of redemption through the Blood of Jesus only makes sense if the Fall from Grace of Adam was a real historical event. The two myths are closely intertwined in Paul’s Epistles as the foundation of such central concepts as heaven, salvation, damnation, grace and faith. YEC is necessary for the miraculous work of the cross in sending believers to heaven.

The arguments from irreducible complexity are farcical in scientific terms, but they entirely serve their religious purpose of protecting the flock from having their mythological faith challenged by facts.

ID web sites do not actually rely on their arguments from ignorance in regard to their real audience, the ignorant believers. These areguments are merely handwaving distractors. The real reliance of ID is on the mendacious unstated assumption that their arguments engage in intellectual debate, when they actually prevent such debate, and are just a smokescreen for mythological thinking.

I hope that makes some sense!

It seems we're at the end here. In summary, I think this book is one of the better ones I've read on the subject. It's well written and easy to understand. I liked the way the author set it up. He'd start out with a critical fossil, tell the story behind finding it, and then look at ones before and after it. I got a sense of what a long, complicated process evolution is.

This was my first book discussion in this forum and it was a pleasure. Thanks to geo our moderator, Taylor, DWill and Robert Tulip. How nice it was to have a discussion with intelligent people! I look forward to more on booktalk.org.

Thanks, djkirk, and thanks for your participation. I enjoyed this book too. I thought the early chapters were a little slow, but overall it was a memorable book. I also liked the way Prothero highlights the discovery of specific fossils and the discoverers. It really shows the human aspect of paleonotology.