CreationWiki Dinobird FAIL

[benthemiester]

That trains never late. I new it was a matter of time. You then send me book titles on prokaryotes. Do you think the bacterial flagellem is a part of a prokaryote life form? What the hell are they teaching you?

[TheProf1988]

At the end of the day, benthemiester, you either understand the evolution of birds (and evolution in general), or you do not.

In your case, sadly, it is the latter. Now if you don't mind, I would like to get back to my cladistic analysis of the dinosaur-to-bird transition for my Evolution and Phylogeny lectures. I have no more time to educate you, and I won't let albukhshi waste any more of his precious time mopping up your sick.

[benthemiester]

albukhshi quit the school your going to or get your money back your getting gypt.

[benthemiester]

For generations we were told that we were 99% percent similar to chimps. We never included non coding regions, they were thought to be junk. We now know what ID theorist have been saying all along is true, and that it has purpose and is not junk. We have since found these regions to be extremely vital in gene regulation. Now when we compare genomes with apes, its less than 75 percent similar. I believe a fly is 68 percent similar to us. The theory is falling apart and no one even knows it.

[Albukhshi]

Cont.

7) about junk DNA: nobody said they were totally useless. "Junk DNA" simply refers to DNA that:

a) has been switched off. (this is what you seem to call "useless" when "citing" scientists.

b)DNA whose function is unknown, since the effect of changing them is difficult to detect, or the gene was not studied.

if anything, that adds to the evolutionary theory, as mutations have clearly occured that switched off genes no longer needed, or are even disadvantageous.

[benthemiester]

Would you like me to cite the work. I'm not sure you will understand with out a minimal biology back ground, but if you like I can substantiate my claims and cite studies.

Your citing 1980s beliefs. they are non coding regions. Do you know what transcription and revers transcription means and how it applies to subject being discussed? Because just by listening to you, you seem to be repeating something that you don't quite fully understand.

[Albukhshi]

1) I am a paleontology student. I fully understand biology, including DNA andd tRNA (transcription RNA). evidently more than you do.

2) you are a fucking liar- you have to be, as I did give you the papers to look up. all, or most of my sources are from the early to late 2000's, when evo-devo was at its hight. the others are from the 90's but still current.

3) yes I know what transcription and reverse transcription is (read point 1). what the fuck does that do to disprove evo?

[Albukhshi]

8) now for sources to what I say:

a-Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo and the Making of the Animal Kingdom. Norton.

evo devo used to show an ancestral trait (helping ADD to evolution's credibility):

The Development of Archosaurian First-Generation Teeth in a Chicken Mutant;

Matthew P. Harris, Sean M. Hasso1, Mark W.J. Ferguson2 and John F. Fallon

c- Evo-Devo of amniote integuments and appendages; ping wu et. al (character limit prevents naming all)

[Albukhshi]

9) lastly:

if you want to honestly learn the "truth", don't waste your time here. actually go and learn the stuff properly, instead of arguing and making an ignorant ass of yourself. you and I have better things to do.

until then, the sources please? I want to know what scientist you were talking about in regards to bird evo, what is the articles' name for that one scientist you mention, and evidence for that Chimp/human deal. once you do so, THEN go and do the first part.

[TheProf1988]

We ARE 99% similar to chimps, and no, the theory of evolution is NOT falling apart.

ID is NOT a scientific hypothesis, but is in fact a religion (creationism).

[Albukhshi]

I asked for his source. he has't presented any. and you should see what he said about my sources; the main ones were from after 2000, with one before hand (1990's), and he said they were all from the 80's.

I can safely conclude that methmeister is full of shit.

[Albukhshi]

this I'll have to see. I suggest you hurry.

but I must say: your impeturbability is amazing, even when caught lying. I'm at a lost as to calling it greatness or stupidity.

"pasted with out giving date, scientist, and research "

that IS citing: in a science paper, you give the names, the title, and year of the paper, as well as the journal of publication (if possible). I cannot give a direct link, as YT automatically deletes even disguised links. just fucking google it.

[benthemiester]

Junk' DNA now looks like powerful regulator, researcher finds

April 23, 2007

Large swaths of garbled human DNA once dismissed as junk appear to contain some valuable sections, according to a new study by researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine and the University of California-Santa Cruz. The scientists propose that this redeemed DNA plays a role in controlling when genes turn on and off.

[Albukhshi]

and yes, I gave the fucking papers' names. you're the one who has to lie through your teeth.

in fact, show ALL comments, and start checking. all the papers are delivered by name, date, title, and if possible, journal. and as I said, I can't give even a disguised link, as YT deletes it.

[Albukhshi]

and I'm reading the paper: I can safely conclude that you fail. period.

why? let me correct you: the paper said that, in effect, more DNA code in an organism was being transcribed than previously thought, and that some "junk DNA" was not junk DNA.

it has NOTHING to do with the validity of evolution. NOTHING. all it does is correct a flawed understanding of GENETICS. and in fact, it didn't even say that junk DNA didn't exist-just that there wasn't as much of it as previously thought.

cont.

[benthemiester]

I gave you a study by your own fellow evolutionist concerning junk DNA. You skipped through it to find what you wanted to here and ignored the rest. I am fully aware of what the term MAY BE means, are you? I don't dispute micro evolutionary change which fits the definition of evolution defined as change through time, no one does,....

[Albukhshi]

I did read the whole thing, and summed it up for you. then I gave the part that dealt with its implications on evolution.

and in fact, I have saved it.

"CONT.... I believe in natural selection. What I dispute is molecule to man evolution and the limitations of natural selection to provide macro"

that's because man didn't just evolve from molecules. there is something in the middle known as abiogenesis, and 3GA.

and if you DO accept antural selection, why argue with me? we both agree then

[benthemiester]

DNA is living and its a molecule, again another subject changer still waiting for you to cite what you claimed.

The first proto cells are made of nutrients and molecules according to the hypothesis of abiogenesis. I was referring to chemical evolution, your just playing dumb now because you cant cite evidence. I take it even further, I dispute the most simple primordial cell evolving on a macro scale. I wont respond anymore until you back up your claim like I did.

[Albukhshi]

so, happy now? I gave you the sources, which for some reason didn't stick, and when you accused me of lying, I gave the sources, the background sources, some extra stuff, most of which I read (remember, I'm a science student), and etc.

careful what you wish for. it migh very well, turn out badly for ye.

[Albukhshi]

oh, and here is a gem you "skipped":

"In past work, Bejerano and his co-workers had identified a handful of transposons that seemed to regulate nearby genes. However, it wasn't clear how common the phenomenon might be. "Now we've shown that transposons may be a major vehicle for EVoLUTIONARY NOVELTY," he said.

(bolded so you won't miss it)

feel free to see it yourself. the very thing you say disproves evolution, in fact, turns out to ADD more to it, by suggesting another vehicle for evo

[benthemiester]

CONT.... I believe in natural selection. What I dispute is molecule to man evolution and the limitations of natural selection to provide macro evolutionary change. I have cited evidence from the National Academy and others, now show me your study from the 90s or after 2000 that disputes this. Were in 2010 right now.

[Albukhshi]

cont.

look, when wanting to "own" someone (yeah, I read the comment you deleted), make sure your target isn't a pack of paleontology students, or scientists.

you are honestly making me laugh too hard. any harder and I'll rupture an artery.

you ARE the weakest link.

[benthemiester]

I deleted thread because I accidentally threaded the same thing twice. Please post it, lets see you support this lie.

[Albukhshi]

and for some reason, the papers I cited aren't here any more.

1) The Development of Archosaurian First-Generation Teeth in a Chicken Mutant (2006)

Matthew P. Harris1, 3, , , Sean M. Hasso1, Mark W.J. Ferguson2 and John F. Fallon1, ,

2) Evo-Devo of amniote integuments and appendages (2004)

PING WU1, LIANHAI HOU2, MAKSIM PLIKUS1, MICHAEL HUGHES1, JEFFREY SCEHNET1,

SANONG SUKSAWEANG1, RANDALL B. WIDELITZ1, TING-XIN JIANG1 and CHENG-MING CHUONG*,1

cont.

[benthemiester]

No I'm pretty sure your not laughing.... That's what they all say. Great subject changer though. Your hopping all over the place aren't you. What happened? couldn't find conflicting study with current one given.

[Albukhshi]

oh, and the rest is by PM. its quite an army. I read most of them, but I'm sure the rest just adds to what I say.

and:

"No I'm pretty sure your not laughing"

I'm not lying-I really am laughing uncontrollably. I find you to be a joke, not worth my time. but mistakes and factual errors need correcting, so as to warn the masses.

[Albukhshi]

now I admit that it will be a handful googling, looking up, understanding, and tying all this together. but I hope that by reading them all (which should tak a year or two-I have 6, since 13), you will understand how Miller and his friends figured out flagellum evo. and the two I gave on top? to prove that you are wrong about evo-devo putting holes in the current model.

I suggest that you learn to be a scientist, or capeable of it, before telling a junior science student what is and isn't.

[benthemiester]

U were never able to dispute the study I cited concerning DNA, then you sent me a paper that I told you I've already read. The paper you gave speaks of the vagueness an problematic factors in Brownian model. It then goes on to propose a different model. To propose! Do u know what a proposition is? If this is so easy, why hasn't these 6 transitions been demonstrate empirically? Please tell me were is the empirical lab work? A proposition means nothing unless you can prove it.

[Albukhshi]

I never disputed the study, because the study did not disprove anything. I disputed your interpretation.

"Do u know what a proposition is"

yes, I do. and so long as he provides evidence, there is no problem-just as you say. he did, though of course its not perfect, science, as I said earlier, is not perfect, and inevitably there will have to be improvements.

and you mean to tell me you read ALL or most of the 2-300 sources I gave you? if so...

[benthemiester]

So now your sending millions of names and books with no context and that's supposed to be proof did I do that to you. What the hell does Aristotle have to do with this subject? because he had a rudimentary understanding of biology? Now I'm not laughing, more like a chuckle. No I lied....I'm laughing.

[Albukhshi]

yes, there is a context. read the begining: one PM addresses Abiogenesis, by providing as many sources I know as possible; the other, with all the sources I know-and Dr.Miller knows, on flagellum evo.

you have a problem? again, don't comment back. you're wasting your time. If I cannot provoke you to go through what I did, then there is no use arguing.

[Albukhshi]

and Aristotle is a source, as some of the understanding, and background information to the research, was provided by him.

when doing research, cite ALL sources-even background ones like him. yes, Aristotle is outdated, but he provides context to the current understanding of science-including chemical evolution.

if some medieval scholar had a part in your paper-cite him. period.

[benthemiester]

Why did you send me a description of books on Theophrastus ancient philosophy, is this what you call contemporary science. Que pobrecito mijo.

[Albukhshi]

didn't I tell you why? its background information that gives coontext to the throry in question.

as I said, if you do not like the thuroughness of the research, fuck off, and don't comment back.

[benthemiester]

coontext to the throry ...Ok buddy.

[Albukhshi]

ok, so I misspelled problem. I'll be more careful, for you, pasha.

[Albukhshi]

also, I forgot:

Imust point out that getting riled up over my thuroughness will cause stress, which will give that bacterium a chance to work on you, giving you horrible ulcers and gastral infections. believe, my suggestion is for your good.

[benthemiester]

Not sure if you got message but will send the rest in your box file is to large.

[benthemiester]

We ARE 99% similar to chimps, Only when we use a small part of DNA around 2 to 5 percent. When we include entire genome including non encoding regions the differential is less than 75 percent. I will ask you the same, would you like me to cite study? I ask the other guy who didn't cite study he only copy and pasted with out giving date, scientist, and research work. He never responded accept to say I didn't cite, because he didn't answer, but I will to shut him up, and same goes for you.

[benthemiester]

I have the Dover transcripts on my old computer. Scientific theories are not decided by judicial activism. New theories sometimes require decades. For Mendel it took fifty years. Lamarckian principles are being incorporated into evo devo barely now, after almost two hundred years.

[Albukhshi]

if its filled with all these quilifiers, then good. its how sciences HAS to work. scientists aren't gods, and no scientific fact is 100% accurate; only 95-99.9 (like evo). the only ones I read without them are shitty ones, like Rubin et al 1997(believe me, it IS shit).

also, I did not recommend the dover papers as "judicial activism supporting evo". I want you to read what the scientists themselves said. I don't care what the judge said, regardless of how right HE was. only the scientists.

[benthemiester]

What does philosophy have to do with citing the work you speak of. You said his irreducible complex bacterial flagellum model was debunked, cite the work. We don't have a supportive fossil record volumes have been written I can cite many examples from even secular scientist. We don't have a cohesive phylogenetic tree that works with anything other than closely related creatures. Even the Evo Devos are skeptical of natural selection. Do u know what evo devo is?

[Albukhshi]

1) Wong, Tim; Amidi, Arezou; Dodds, Alexandra; Siddiqi, Sara; Wang, Jing; Yep, Tracy; Tamang, Dorjee G.; Saier, Milton H. (2007).

that's one source for flagella. google it.

2)what philosophy? I only explained the methodology of science, and why it means scientists MUST use qualifiers.

3) I know what evo devo is: however, people who specialize in it are NOT skeptical of evolution. they are skeptical of natural selection and mutation being the ONLY drivers of developement.

cont.

[benthemiester]

Did I say evo devos are skeptical of evolution? Dont make things up. Evo Devo stands for evolutionary development. Why did you give me a bunch of names? Cite your source, by source I mean empirical study that debunks irreducibly complexity in BF model are you talking about Brownian) space? I really think your posing on this one.

[Albukhshi]

LULZ:

"We don't have a cohesive phylogenetic tree that works with anything other than closely related creatures. Even the Evo Devos are skeptical of natural selection. Do u know what evo devo is? "

does that answer the q? I swear by God that that is the full quote, in full context. type that in your finding box, and see where it goes to. it won't be me. it'll be YOU!

oh, and show ALL comments

the names are the names of two MORE papers, that show that that statement is full of shit.

[Albukhshi]

so, let's be honest with ourselves: you aren't open minded, you aren't interested in debating this, you have rejected me and my friend's papers/sources a priori, deriding them as "judicial activism" or "1980's papers" (even though ALL my sources are from the 90's and 2000's, especially the latter), and you misquoted me, and lied about what you said, and was caught doing so..

[Albukhshi]

cont.

4)where the hell did I say that the understanding of evo has not changed? I DID say It has been added to. let me quote it:

"for a theory to survive this long, this well, and THIS IMPROVED." I'm not skpeaking urdu to you.

so yes, epigenetics, evo devo, and all you speak of ADD to the theory. they are like dimond cutters, polishing a gem. and far from evidence of evolution's "falsehood", its evidence that scientists can add, and revise work, as I said.

cont.

[benthemiester]

if anything, that adds to the evolutionary theory, as mutations have clearly occured that switched off genes no longer needed, or are even disadvantageous.

So you think there no longer needed and disadvantageous?

[Albukhshi]

I said EITHER uneeded, or disadvantageous.you are clearly lying, an misrepresenting me. hell, you even have the part of the quote to prove it.

but yes, some ARE disadvantageous, even marginally so.

teeth, for example, are disadvantageous to birds. modern birds need to lighten up every bone in the body-jaws included, to reach full proficiency in flight.

there is a reason why the toothless birds have long died out, while beaked ones still exist..

[Albukhshi]

now, do me a favor: don't patronize me by claiming I'm ignorant of basic biology, and cite the papers.

you asked for me to cite mine, I did. now, I expect you to reciprocate.

[Albukhshi]

cont. science is not an easy field; a lot is in flux, with ideas, even evo, being tested continuously. for a theory to survive this long, this well, and this improved only ADDS to the credibility of the theory. from here, the existance of qualifiers only reminds us that science, while indeed accurate, can never be absolute "truth". it is always advancing.

which seems to be your problem: you seem to require 100% accuracy, when only a 99.9 can be achieved at best. that's not how science works.

[benthemiester]

Are you aware that the theory is being reformulated as we speak. Epigenics plasticity, and self organizing models are replacing the modern synthesis of Natural selection as the dominant force, as we speak. For years they have been telling us 99%. Now Francis Collins says we know only a small fraction and have to rethink every thing we thought we knew about the genome. Encode changed everything get a subscription to the Journal Nature. Biology was supposed to be the strong suite. What happened?

[benthemiester]

Don't worry you wont have me to kick around anymore. You really showed me. If you ever want to get serious and admit the great difficulties with this scenario including biology, you got my number. In all honesty, at least your a good sport and didn't give a philosophical response I appreciate your passion we have to agree to disagree.

[benthemiester]

Are u trying to tell me that theropods became arboreal, and this is how they learned how to fly? are you serious man? We can debate whether ancient birds were tree dwellers, but I was speaking of the selective pressure for flight from a morphology of a theropod dinosaur. You, or know one else can offer a plausible scenario. Theropods are not built for climbing trees and you misrepresent protoavis as being written off by the entire paleontological community. One book is not proof of statement.

[TheProf1988]

There is no debate as to whether theropods became arboreal, we can show through functional anatomy that some most certainly were. To my mind, the arboreal origin of flight is far more plausible than the cursorial.

Protoavis is not an early bird and not a dinosaur, it is most likely either a basal archosaur or a fossil chimera. No serious research into the orgin of birds gives credence to protavis, it is a red herring, nothing more.

[benthemiester]

Fair enough. That's your belief, and I'm sure the belief of others. Ok, it climbs a tree like arboreal apes do, and then what? Give me a plausible scenario. Keep in mind the smallest theropods were about three feet long and according to the experts, they were the fast running cursorial creatures? So we have to think of trees with some very strong branches to hold the non cursorial arboreal ones, that your referring to. So please explain there evolution to flight.

[TheProf1988]

I have no beliefs. Non about evolution, non about dinosaurs nor anything. I know that all organisms have evolved from common ancestors, but I don't know what precise mechanisms by which this occurred. All I can do is point to functional anatomy as an indicator.

The smallest therapods were less that one foot long, as evidenced by archaeopteryx. Three foot long theropods would have had no problem in climbing trees, as six foot tall humans don't.

cont...

[TheProf1988]

The hyperextendible claws on archaeopterygiformes and deinonychosaurus are suggestive of facultating arboreal climing, as is the reverse hallux. Also other adaptations like hyperextended finger in archaeopteryx and epidendrosaurus suggest a grasping nature.

The feathers that are a primitive condition of the therapoda were co-opted for another use, insulation against falling and facilitating gliding.

cont...

[TheProf1988]

All tree living organisms run the risk of falling. Most birds and dinosaurs would have been small and light enough not be hurt by this, especially if they landed on foliage and because they have cushioning feathers. However, the dinosaurs with the largest surface area could fall much slower and run a smaller risk of breaking bones. The large surface area is of course, plumage feathers.

[benthemiester]

It seems to me that arboreal adapted animals should be better at being arboreal than falling at such a rate as to cause anything meaning full to happen, and according to your scenario, they already have feathers. Evolution didn't make them better climbers, it made them better fallers, and this is the selective pressure you speak of. Got it, why didn't you just say so earlier, its all so clear to me now?!!!!

[Albukhshi]

cont.

you can look up the kitzmiller v. Dover documents on wikipedia. the website gives links to pdf's of the transcripts.

now if you will excuse me, I have to continue work on uniforms. Richard wants new plates, and I must do.

[TheProf1988]

From there it is a simple progression from a tetrapteryx gliding stage (seen in microraptor) to a primitive powered flight condition (archaeopteryx) to an advanced flying condition (birds).

If you want a more detailed explanation that I can possibly write here then I suggest you readthe book I recommended or another similar book

If you wish to laugh at the simplicity of my explanation then simply leave , I do not have time to write an essay for you here on youtube, this is an outline only

[benthemiester]

No offense, but I think I've think I've heard enough, besides if its the same guy who wrote the book on Pterosaurs, I've already read his work, smart guy, with a great imagination. Before I kill any more brain cells, I would urge you to read the serious biochemical challenge put forth by Demski, Behe and others to your view, I would urge you to look at the difference between theropod lungs and avian lung and the kind of trans genetic mutation scenarios & bio complexity involved. G Information.

[TheProf1988]

Demski and Behe have no scientific hypothesis. Their pseudoscientific postulations mean nothing to the world of palaeontology.

There is no difference between avian and theropod lungs. Air sacs and through-air systems are primitive within theropoda.

[Albukhshi]

who? such a scientist whose ONLY speculation is an affront to science.

such a man, if you aren't lying, is on the same level as Behe and Dembsky, the people you cite, who I DID read. now those ARE works of imagination, as all they do is say *switches to pussy baby voice*: "we can't explain this with modern science, so God/IDdidit" *unswitches*

mind you, I'm speaking as a theist who, unlike you or they, doesn't shove God round like a ramrod. I have more respect for him and science.

[benthemiester]

ID is not based on our ignorance its based on thing we know and current modern data. In most fields of science if something cant be quantified or is unknown, then it is a hypothesis. In the case of evolution, the theory is excepted as fact before it can be quantified. Behe and Dembski speak of biochemical challenges. Russel Doolittle tried to publicly humiliate Behe but misread a study and ended up publicly humiliating himself, and this is the world leading expert on the blood clouting system.

[Albukhshi]

". Behe and Dembski speak of biochemical challenges. "

yes, ones they never saw the solution of. there are indeed papers out there that CLEARLY show how things that they mentioned (e.g flagella), evolved. bloodclotting is one of them.

and having read, and watched reconstructions of the Dover trial, its clear that there was no misrepresentation. when Behe made his "point", he was promptly piled with dozens of books and journals, all about Flagella evo.

cont.

[benthemiester]

there are indeed papers out there that CLEARLY show how things that they mentioned (e.g flagella), evolved. bloodclotting is one of them.

I'm willing to keep an open mind if the studies are based on fact. I have a debate downloaded on my computer of encounter with Behe and one of the leading experts on the bacterial flagella and the leading expert didn't do to well at the end of debate Behe won many in the crowed over. They were 90 percent biology majors. Sure, cite study Ill check it out.

[benthemiester]

If your speaking of the debate over the type 2 secretion system as ancestral, I have already read it. It was filled with words like might, maybe, perhaps, and the author was never able to demonstrate claims in laboratory or in any other conditions, but had a lot of conjecture and insults attached. If you know of another please let me know.

[Albukhshi]

cont:

ok, the last part didn't stick. stupid YT filter.

type "bloodclotting evolution" exactly as you see it here, and the very first article will be a detailed explanation, complete with references at the bottom.

you see, Behe didn't do his work. and having seen the Dover trial transcripts, its clear tha Behe wasn't misrepresented. when he'd explained his belief regarding flagella and bloodclotting, he was piled with dozens of articles on that, which he promptly dissmissed without reading.

[benthemiester]

This is ridicules man, that is not what they mean by being found in the wrong order. You lost me there bud, however, I do agree that we use the imagination of our minds to fill in the gap, on this we are in agreement. Theropods jumped up in the air every day, for millions of years, and then they just evolved wings. Great narrative.

[TheProf1988]

Fossils can't be found in the ''wrong order'', there is no order that they should be found in. We find what we find and that is it. The fossil record is so poor that we are lucky to have the ones that we do have.

At the end of the day, you either understand that flying birds are descended from non-flying reptiles or you don't (in which case you are simply ignorant).

[benthemiester]

I can cite a leading expert who says your wrong, and one who has many supporters. Can you tell me what kind of selective pressure would have caused these heavy boned creatures to gain the ability for flight? I would love to hear it. One scientist said that they learned how to fly by grabbing there pray, and this somehow exercised there arms. If you regard my skepticism as ignorance, then sure why not? sign me up.

[TheProf1988]

I can cite the entire vertebrate palaeontological community who successfully counteract the fringe hypotheses put forth by Alan Fedducia, Larry Martin, John Ruben and Steven Czerkas (among others).

The clade from which birds arose is called the coelurosauria, which means hollow tails. In fact, most of the bones of coelurosaurs are light, strong and hollow- just like modern birds.

[benthemiester]

U cannot speak for, or cite the entire palaeontological community, & even then, you cant conveniently leave these men and others out of the equation, as if there not part of the scientific community. Your speaking to an adult, not a child. Its akin to saying you can speak for all for all cosmologist, or any other field. A popular hypothesis that gets repeated over and over, is not proof of anything. Protoavis shows up during time period when theropods are just getting starting. Makes no sense.

[TheProf1988]

I never said that I could speak for the entire palaeontological community, but I *can* cite them. The strict consensus is that birds are a modified subset of a group of feathered and sometimes arboreal dinosaurs called maniraptorans. The strict consensus is that dinosaurs are not extinct, but that thye are currently in their heyday. As to your age and my own, they are irrelevent.

Oh, and btw, Protoavis is not a bird, not a theropod and not even a dinosaur.

[TheProf1988]

The exact method by which flight evolved was almost certainly arboreal. Near-birds like archaeopteryx, velociraptor and epidendrosaurus all have arboreal adaptation like the hyperextendable second toe that was probably used for climing trees.

Other dinobirds like microraptor and anchiornis have further birdlike adaptations, four wings. Early fliers seemed to have needed four basic wings instead of the two advanced one sof modern birds. This is of course oversimplified, but 500 characters ...

[benthemiester]

You're misrepresenting the consensus! Almost every major journal and encyclopedia refers to the taxon protoavis, as problematic and controversial. Would you like proof? I find you're statement willfully misleading, and quite frankly, very sad. Unfortunate, it is this type of grandstanding which can influence and mislead the more gullible. Science is no respecter of democracy, or even majority consensus, which you still haven't been able to demonstrate.

[TheProf1988]

I am not misrepresenting the consensus. We're back to the statement; at the end of the day you are either familiar with the literature surrounding the origin of birds (me) or you are ignorant (you).

All of the charcteristics of birds can be shown to have arisen stochastically within theropoda. I recommend the book; Archaeopteryx The Icon of Evolution by Peter Wellnhofer. It is a 2009 book so it is thoroughly up to date.

[flips300021]

Ok. And last, but I certainly hope, not least. I finally got to the first of your video's, I'guess i'm a tad like you in that respect...I like to work backwards and dig deeper. If you'll pardon the analogy! Keep em coming Prof. Oh, and the bullying! I think has paid off. You will rightly have earned the title in the not too distant future young sir!. You will go far. Plenty of time.

[mrhyde2121]

cool video, i was really hoping evolution would be unanimously excepted by now but those damn creationists wont let go of their fairy tails. i use to want to be a paleontologist but didn't get into university :(

[TheProf1988]

Not really! This is my first video when I didn't have any confidence or skills at putting them together. Some of my recent ones are alright though.

Hey, I sent you a friend invite. I tried to send you a PM but you have friend lock enabled, I think you might find my PM quite interesting.

[mrhyde2121]

yer i have the friends lock on because i kept getting spammed with annoying crap and ironically once someone who wanted to show me the ways of Jesus lol.

[TheProf1988]

Thanks for the sub!

[TheProf1988]

If anyone watches this can they please tell me how to get the audio and video to sync up?

It is in sync on the original webcam recording, just not after to YouTube upload.

[PachucoDesigns]

Well, which program are you using? I don't know the technical ins and outs of it very well, but adobe aftereffects is very good at aligning audio with video in a simplistic and understandable fashion before rendering. You might try that if you haven't yet.

Good job, by the way. Nice refutation.

[TheProf1988]

Thanks! I could have done better though.

Thanks for the advice, I have found that if I run the raw webcam recoding through Windows Movie Maker it sorts the problem out.

im going to re-upload this video with proper audio.

[Albukhshi]

you seem to kill your braincells the same way I do :D

I gather you're stydying paleobiology as well?

[TheProf1988]

Yeah, BSc HONS Palaeobiology & Evolution at the University of Portsmouth.

I see you have some interesting videos debunking creationism. I will check them out soon, I have a copy of that Atlas of Creation by Harun Yahya!

[Albukhshi]

you do?

DVD, book, or internet files? I get the scraps from the internet. I'm overdue on the next one, because I have three options: 1) his article on Ida 2)the hypocracy of him mocking people when he wrote another article saying its a sin and 3) another dinosaur one.

but thanks for checking them out-I need constructive criticism. I'm tired of belonging to a people who have fallen behind-700 years ago we were so ahead

:(

and good luck with the course-It'll be a fun one.

[TheProf1988]

You know those two huge volumes he sent out, the red and the green ones?

They are called ''Atlas of Creation'' and he sent 10000 copies out FREE to educational institutions and academics across the world.

my friends mother works in a school and they got a copy, im holding it for him at the moment. my lecturer got one also XD

on a side note, the year that my course was initiated, a creation museum opened up in town to combat us!!!

[Albukhshi]

yeah, I know of them. He advertises is on his website, and present excerpts in his website, everytime I go in. sucks that you/your friend have to go through the trouble of getting his shit. and NEVER use the word "educate" in reference to a creatard. he's out to un-educate us all, regardless of race, color, or creed.

they have that creationist museum shit in Europe? I thought the middle east or more often, America, gets this stuff.

well, I guess I need to get a video out soon.