333
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 37:
Line 37: +
→Out-of-date quotes
: The issue is not one of keeping up with the ''evidence'', but of keeping up with the prevailing opinions. Nobody has seen a dinosaur evolve into a bird, and nobody has produced a "finely-graded" (Darwin's words) sequence of fossils going from dinosaurs to birds. In other words, even if there really is one or more fossils of dinosaurs with feathers, dinosaurs with feathers are not birds, but dinosaurs with feathers.
: The issue is not one of keeping up with the ''evidence'', but of keeping up with the prevailing opinions. Nobody has seen a dinosaur evolve into a bird, and nobody has produced a "finely-graded" (Darwin's words) sequence of fossils going from dinosaurs to birds. In other words, even if there really is one or more fossils of dinosaurs with feathers, dinosaurs with feathers are not birds, but dinosaurs with feathers.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:58, 9 May 2008 (EDT)
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:58, 9 May 2008 (EDT)
::Sorry, Philip, but I must disagree. The quote from Mayr says "it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations" - and this is ridiculously out of date as a representation of evolutionary thinking. No evolutionary biologist's credulity is at all strained these days by the notion of random mutations leading to finely balanced systems. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:42, 9 May 2008 (EDT)