Titans 127 the Usual Suspects: Archaeoraptor & Archaeopteryx & Luskin's 800 + papers 43 скачать в хорошем качестве

Titans 127 the Usual Suspects: Archaeoraptor & Archaeopteryx & Luskin's 800 + papers 43

Evolution Hour 409 S&T launch off with the obligatory Archaeoraptor, though conveniently leaving out that the chimeric fossil was partly Microraptor (which they discuss later without making the connection either). The speed with which the hoax was detected was left out too, instead relishing bird-dino skeptic Storrs Olson’s grumps. Next in their queue is Archaeopteryx, which argument runs not unlike other Feduccia channelers over in ID: it’s just a bird (‘it did not have intermediate features; rather it was a mosaic”), or not a direct ancestor otherwise, and dates before the supposed theropod ancestors, none of which is quite accurate, as Jackson Wheat and I took pains to document in Vol 1 of “Rocks Were There.” Even they sort of know the facts, glibly writing “Too many other birds and bird-like fossils have been discovered that ‘predate’ it.” Lopsided sources that can be slid to this narrative: Feduccia 1993 (abstract https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/s..., Videler et al 2004 https://www.researchgate.net/publicat... (this was a stretch, as S&T were interpolating flight features for Archaeopteryx just from Feducca’s perching issue, as the Videler paper made no mention of fossil forms), The only one reflective of another side is Kundrat et al 2019 on a new Archaeopteryx specimen varying from the Solnhofen ones https://www.researchgate.net/publicat... the paper specifically indicating the gradual acquisition of more bird-like traits among them, details of which S&T did not explore. Part 2. The Luskin list for this week, a 2017 trio: Collings & Anderson https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles... is about methylation, with nothing salient on junk DNA topic. Krufczik et al https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles... does definitely discuss ALUs, outlining how to detect them to investigate how they relate to chromatin structure, as does Qin & Zhang https://journals.plos.org/plosone/art... on alternative splicing, where a small percentage do show ALU elements. Neither claim how many of them would be doing stuff in total. Thanks to all your help, I’m doing my part on the science defense front, having written THE coverage of how antievolutionists ignore the reptile-mammal transition macroevolution evidence https://www.amazon.com/dp/1540736296/... which paleontologist Christine Janis described in her Amazon review as “an incredible tour de force” And now the new https://www.amazon.com/Rocks-Were-The... with Jackson Wheat puts the Source Methods scalpel to use carving YEC to pieces. We’ll have Volume 2 out in due course. Source Methods works as a debate approach too. For example, catch my 2018 debate with Kent Hovind    • Is Young Earth Creationism True? Kent Hovi...   Draw freely on all the work assembled at TIP “Troubles in Paradise: The Methodology of Creationism” www.tortucan.wordpress.com share the pdfs freely. You can become an “Evolution Hour” Patron   / downardtip