PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Transitional Fossils

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In another thread, the poster E-mc2 made the following statement:

"We have found bones in the dirt, yes.  But nothing that can be shown to be a "transitional form".  The ones that have been
claimed as such, most of them were frauds, the
rest were never made public because they weren't much to be seen. "


I say this is clearly wrong!  There are thousands of transitional fossils that mix characteristics, such as Archeaopteryx, which combines characteristics of dinosaurs and birds.  When the first Archeaopteryx fossil was found, it was thought to be a small therapod dinosaur because there were no feather imprints.  It has more dinosaur features than bird features, but because it has feathers and wings, it is classified as a bird.  Why do creationists deny the obvious, that this is transitional between dinosaurs and birds?  On what do they base this denial?  This is exactly the kind of transitional creature the theory of evolution predicts.  Looking at recent dinosaur fossil finds, it's transitional nature becomes even more apparent, we now know that there were true dinosaurs that had feathers.  The sequence is pretty clear, we have dinosaurs with no feathers, later we have feathered dinosaurs, then we have Archeaopteryx that had both dinosaur features and bird features, now we have birds.  So let's start with Archeaopteryx, give some evidence why it's NOT transitional...

Look at the sequence of hominid evolution displayed in their skulls from here:hominid skulls

Isn't it obvious these primitive ancestors of man were evolving?  Their skulls were getting larger.  
There are all kind of sequences of fossils illustrating evolution.  Look at those that show reptiles evolving into mammals.  For those who claim there are no transitional forms, please explain them to me, because it's obvious they evolved.

E-mc2 also makes the claim that "most" transitional fossils are frauds.  OK, out of the thousands of transitional fossils we have found, name 10 that have been frauds and fooled the scientific community for any length of time.  I know you'll mention 'Piltdown Man' and 'Archeaoraptor' but what else?  Genuine evolutionary biologists were the ones to expose these hoaxes, so they know the difference between a fake and the real thing.
My point is, the thousands of transitional fossils in existance have been examined repeatedly by the experts, how can E-mc2 (and other creationists) claim that most of these are frauds?  I'd like to see some evidence to back this claim up...

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 04:42 AM on February 9, 2004 | IP
E-mc2

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok, one at a time.  Lets discuss Archeaopteryx.

Heres a couple of cut-n-pastes:

X-Rays Expose Bird-Dino Fossil Fraud
ABC News March 28, 2001 Using high-powered X-rays that see through rock, scientists have unveiled how a fraudulent fossil purported to be a "missing link" between dinosaurs and birds was glued together from mortar and bits of fossil and stone.


Here is the ABC news article that reports the fraud.  Fraud!,

But even if it wasn't a fraud, it would only be a simple bird, claws on its wings (the ostrich and at least 12 other birds alive today) and teeth in its mouth...(all that means is that it had teeth in its mouth), and loosing teeth is losing, not gaining.  
Also, there were never any transitional organs found, for instance, a half scale and half feather.  Or a half leg/half wing.  What would that thing do anyway, couldn't run and couldn't fly.  It certainly wouldn't be the fittest.
By the way its survival of the fittest, not arrival of the fittest.


 


Posts: 53 | Posted: 1:48 PM on February 9, 2004 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok, one at a time.  Lets discuss Archeaopteryx.


That article is  not about Archaeopteryx.

When are you going to start?


 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 2:00 PM on February 9, 2004 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

To E-mc2  If you are stating that there have been no transitional fossils ever found then you are truly living in a fantasy world. By transitional fossils I assume you mean fossils that link between a period of change within a given species. While it is true that in many cases there are imperfect and often incomplete fossilized skeletal systems, but I think you gravely underestimate the modern scientist ant their ability to evaluate and date these specimens. From one little chunk of an elbow they can determine the time period, age, sex, size, and possibly the cause of death from a given hominid of any prehistoric period. Believe what you want but just remember that the science in your car, computer, mathematics, and medicine is all done by the same type of scientist. One who tries to find the truth through scientific means, not just a mere preacher who strives to fill his pockets.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 2:05 PM on February 9, 2004 | IP
E-mc2

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You are right, I see that now, its about Archaeoraptor. But I did discuss it by saying "But even if it wasn't a fraud, it would only be a simple bird, claws on its wings (the ostrich and at least 12 other birds alive today) and teeth in its mouth...(all that means is that it had teeth in its mouth), and loosing teeth is losing, not gaining.  
Also, there were never any transitional organs found, for instance, a half scale and half feather.  Or a half leg/half wing.  What would that thing do anyway, couldn't run and couldn't fly.  It certainly wouldn't be the fittest.
By the way its survival of the fittest, not arrival of the fittest."



But anyway, her's something from an evolutionist site:
 "Archaeopteryx is considered to be an important example of a missing link between two major classes of animals. It has been subjected to much controversy since its discovery over a century ago. Recently, a group of physicists challenged the authenticity of the plumage of Archaeopteryx. They suggested that feathers were artificially impressed on a thin layer of cement which was applied to the skeleton of a flying reptile. In response to the challenge, paleontologists from the British Museum (Natural History) conducted a series of tests on the holotype of Archaeopteryx. They found no evidence of a cement layer on the fossil. Nevertheless, the history associated with the two best Archaeopteryx fossils leaves some unanswered questions concerning their authenticity."



Its that last sentence about "unanswered questions concerning their authenticity".  

Unanswered, not evidence.  But even if the bird did exist, it wouldn't matter, as I said above.



Here are the records of the specimens that were found.

The "good" and "poor" gives the feather impressions.


Single feather 1861 H. von Meyer Good  

*Skeletons:        
   London 1861 H. von Meyer Good Complete

skeleton
   Berlin 1877 H. von Meyer Good Complete

skeleton
   Maxburg 1956 K. Fesefeldt Poor Poorly articulated and badly decomposed; Currently in private collection
 
Teyler 1970 J. H. Ostrom Poor Found in 1855 and described as a pterosaur by H. von Meyer in 1857
 
Eichstatt 1973 F. X. Mayr Poor Misidentified in 1951 as Compsognathus


Please notice that the only two "good" skeletons were found.  (that feather one, how can you tell a bird by a single feather)
The only two good skeletons were "found" by the same guy.  Strange huh?  Everybody is out there digging and one guy finds two of them 10 years apart in different countries.  Sounds fishy to me.  

Did Archeaopteryx have fraudulent feathers?


"To test the hypothesis that Archaeopteryx had fraudulent feathers, Watkins et al. (1985a,b,c) and Hoyle et al. (1985), photographed the London specimen. Photographs of feather impressions of the fossil on both the main slab and counterslab were compared. As summarized in Table 2 (tail and right wing) the two slabs do not appear to match (or be "mirror images"). Furthermore, a comparison of the present specimen with an 1863 drawing suggests an alteration has been made to the left wing of the specimen (Table 2). In 1863, the main slab and the counterslab could not have fitted together in this region."


Here is a quote from someone on a different forum...


Does Archae's ancestry stem from the Ornithopoda, Pseudosuchia, theropoda, or Sphenosuchidae groups? There is much discussion and debate on this, some circles feeling one or more of the groups have been scientifically eliminated long ago, while others still claim validity.
Also, if Archae is a transitional form, how is it that his feathers seem fully developed even though he shows no physical ability to take off from a standing start? In birds that we know, the flight muscles make up approx 36% of the bird's body weight. Supposedly, the theoretical absolute minimum required muscle mass for powered flight is 16% muscle mass. Archae shows evidence of only 9% pectoralis muscle mass. The only thing that I can seem to find in compelling agreement in regard to Archae's flight capabilities, is that he simply couldn't get off the ground. But again, how can we explain the fully formed feathers using the illumation of Theory of evolution? All of the information I quote is from non-creationist websites....






 


Posts: 53 | Posted: 2:24 PM on February 9, 2004 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:



You forgot the 1992 Solnhofen specimen, any comments on it?

But I did discuss it by saying "But even if it wasn't a fraud, it would only be a simple bird, claws on its wings (the ostrich and at least 12 other birds alive today) and teeth in its mouth...


What about the presence of gastralia?  Those are indicators of reptiles, not birds.  How does their presence indicate a "simple bird"?


 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 3:14 PM on February 9, 2004 | IP
E-mc2

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Gastralia?  Not even in the dictionary...but it's something about the position of ribs, right?  So
if Archeaoperyx exists, and it can be proven that he had these ribs, it would only prove that he had those ribs!  Do we see any transition of half one kind of rib and half of another kind?
 


Posts: 53 | Posted: 3:30 PM on February 9, 2004 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Maybe you need a better dictionary. :-)

GASTRALIA
(pronounced gas-TRAY-lee-ah) Gastralia (also called gastric ribs, abdominal ribs, or belly ribs) are hanging ribs in the belly area. These thin, fragile ribs were not attached to the backbone (like other ribs are) - they were attached to the skin in the belly area. Gastralia help protect and support the internal organs (like the lungs) in the middle area of the body. Many dinosaurs (like T. rex, Oviraptor, Gallimimus, and Diplodocus), plesiosaurs, and primitive birds (like Archaeopteryx) had gastralia. Some modern-day reptiles, like crocodiles, some lizards, and the tuatara, have gastralia.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 3:46 PM on February 9, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"But even if it wasn't a fraud, it would only be a simple bird, claws on its wings (the ostrich and at least 12 other birds alive today) and teeth in its mouth...(all that means is that it had teeth in its mouth), and loosing teeth is losing, not gaining."

Asimple bird?  Why would a simple bird have more dinosaur characteristics than bird characteristics?  As I said above, Archaeopteryx had more dinosaurian characteristics than bird characteristics.  I love the way you just sweep it's teeth under the rug, like it's no big deal.  What about all the other dinosaur characteristics, like Archaeopteryx didn't have a beak.  Hmmm, not only did it have teeth like dinosaurs, it didn't have a beak like birds.  It had unfused trunk region vetabrae like dinosaurs, birds have fused vertabrae.  They had pneumatic bones like therapod dinosaurs.  Archaeopteryx had a dinosaur brain, not a bird brain, this is shown by the skull structure.  Archaeopteryx skull attached to it's neck like a therapod dinosaur not like a birds.  Their cervical vertabrae were those of a therapod dinosaur, not a birds.  Archaeopteryx had a long bony tail, like a therapod dinosaur, birds do not.  Archaeopteryx had teeth like a therapod dinosaur, no bird does.  Archaeopteryx had dinosaurian ribs, unlike birds. You mentioned the wing claws, found this here:talkorigins

"Metacarpals (hand) free (except 3rd metacarpal), wrist hand joint flexible.
This is as in reptiles. In birds the metacarpals are fused together with the distal carpals in the carpo-metacarpus, wrist /hand fused. All modern birds have a carpo-metacarpus, all fossil birds have a carpo-metacarpus - except one (guess!) :-). However, the carpals of several coelurosaur dinosaur groups show a trend towards fusion, and in the Late Cretaceous form Avimimus, a true carpo- metacarpus is formed.

It has been suggested that the ostrich and/or other Ratites also possess unfused wrist/hand bones. This is not correct:

"The ostrich, emus, rheas, cassowaries and kiwis are often referred to together as the Ratites, though they may not be closely related to each other. They have tiny wings and cannot fly, but the bones of their hands are fused together in the same peculiar way as in flying birds, which suggest that they evolved from flying birds." (Alexander 1990, p. 435).
Claws on 3 unfused digits.
No modern adult bird has 3 claws, nor do they have unfused digits. The juvenile hoatzin and Touracos do have 2 claws but loose them as they grow, the ostrich appears to retain its 2 claws into adulthood, due to the early termination of development (see section on Ratites). In the case of the hoatzin it is thought that these claws allow the juvenile to climb. It had been claimed that since these birds do have claws, even in the juvenile stage, then the presence of claws cannot be used as a reptilian character. This is not so, however. In fact almost all birds exhibit claws, but in the embryonic stage and they are lost by the time the bird leaves the egg. In the case of the few which do retain claws into the juvenile stage, this is merely the extension of the condition into the post-embryonic stage. As McGowan (1984, p 123) says:
"In retaining a primitive reptilian feature which other birds lose just before leaving the egg [the hoatzin] is showing us its reptilian pedigree. Far from being evidence to the contrary, the hoatzin is additional evidence for the reptilian ancestry of birds."
So your assertion that modern birds wing claws and Archaeopteryx wing claws were the same is wrong, Archae had dinosaur like claws distinctly different from modern birds.
Archaeopteryx had a nasal opening like a dinosaur not like a birds.  It had equal length tibia and fibula like a dinosaur, birds have a longer tibia.
Let's talk about some of these characteristics, why would a bird have more dinosaur characteristics than bird characteristics?  your insistence that it was simply a bird (with teeth!) flies in the face of the facts.

"Did Archeaopteryx have fraudulent feathers?"

Here's what I found regarding this:Archaefeathers

"Siegfried Rietschel (1985), a taphonomist, also responded to the BJP forgery challenge. He stated that each of the known Archaeopteryx specimens demonstrates outlines of feathers, and that the Maxburg specimen has definite feather structures, complete with rachis and barbs. Rietschel indicated that the feather structures, regarded by BJP authors as feather impressions, are technically casts of feathers and are almost impossible to reproduce artificially.
   Recently, Charig et al. (1986) reported BMNH findings on their study of the holotype of Archaeopteryx. A vertical section through the main slab of the fossils reveals no discontinuity between the true limestone and the "supposed layer of cement" which overlies it. In addition, there is no discontinuity around the perimeter of the "cement" (outer layer), and there is a complete absence of air bubbles between the outer layer and the limestone. "Chewing gum" blobs are considered to be natural irregularities of the surface of the limestone, because an organic adhesive substance (such as gum arabic, etc.) would have deteriorated with the passage of time. Ultimately, conclusive evidence of authenticity on the plumage of Archaeopteryx is manifested by matching hairline cracks and dendrites on the feathered regions on both slabs of the fossil (see Figure 1)."
So the experts agree that the Archaeopteryx feathers are genuine.

"But again, how can we explain the fully formed feathers using the illumation of Theory of evolution? All of the information I quote is from non-creationist websites...."

How can we explain the feathers using the 'illumination' of the Theory of Evolution?  Recent finds of feathered dinosaurs answer that question.  From here:dinofeathers

"The exquisitely preserved remains of three different early Cretaceous dinosaurs, Sinosauropteryx, Caudipteryx, and Protarchaeopteryx, and one early bird, Confuciusornis, bear remnants of feathers—revolutionary new evidence that birds are descended from dinosaurs. "

So we see feathers evolved in true dinosaurs, up until the last 8 years or so feathers were considered characteristics only of birds.  New fossil evidence has shown this to be false, dinosaurs had feathers before birds.  This just further strengthens the claim that Archaeopteryx was indeed a transitional form.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 4:04 PM on February 9, 2004 | IP
E-mc2

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok, great.  You looked up links on the internet.
I can do the same and find support for my side.

Now, what if the features of this birdasaur were true, we have found one transitional form for the whole process?  But it isn't true.

You still haven't shown me anything about the animal that was half bird, half dinosaur.  No half-scale/ half-feathers.  No half-wing/ half-legs.  

Now you said that Archeaopteryx had more reptilian features than bird features, so here is my main question for you to answer:

Besides the feathers, what was bird-like on this creature?
 


Posts: 53 | Posted: 4:54 PM on February 9, 2004 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Besides the feathers, what was bird-like on this creature?

Hind limb claws adapted for perching i.e., opposable hallux
Hollow (pneumatic) bones
Pubis elongate and directed backward
Furcula from fused clavicle

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 5:52 PM on February 9, 2004 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The transitional argument is a waste of time since creationists will never accept a transition as a transition. Take E=mc2. Having realized that most features of Archaeopterix are birdlike, he discounts it having any reptile features....or insinuates that one feature is not sufficient for his definition of "transitional". When you point out there are more than one reptile features, that won't be enough either. Creationist then call for some sort of "half-feature" like a half-wing or half-feather. Which only demonstrates creationist's lack of understanding of evolution. The transitional debate..a complete circular dance and waste of time, because creationists fail to realize that every creature that ever lived was transitional.

Skwanderer
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 7:00 PM on February 9, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Ok, great.  You looked up links on the internet.
I can do the same and find support for my side."


No, you got it wrong again E-mc2, doesn't matter where I got this information, it is raw data, it is repeatable, observable, testable.  You can look at any reliable source and it will show the same structures.  Heck, you can study the fossils (OK, pictures of them) yourself and see these structures.  Provide a source that says these are not a mix of reptilian and avian characteristics...You still haven't supported your position that Archeaopteryx was not a clearly transitional fossil.

"Now, what if the features of this birdasaur were true, we have found one transitional form for the whole process?  But it isn't true."

Why aren't the features true?  You have been shown that Archaeopteryx had both dinosaur characteristics and avian characteristics, getting back to the original arguement, please show how this isn't transitional...

You keep making statements like this:
"You still haven't shown me anything about the animal that was half bird, half dinosaur.  No half-scale/ half-feathers.  No half-wing/ half-legs. "

Evolution doesn't produce the kinds of structures your implying it does.  Every part of Archaeopteryx was an advantage, it was selected for by the environment, we would never see a half formed structure that didn't initially give the organism a survival advantage.
And the fact that we've seen actual feathers on dinosaurs and possible feather/scale intermediates kind of kills the rest of your arguement.

"Besides the feathers, what was bird-like on this creature"

Guest showed you the list of bird characteristics.  So according to all the experts, Archaeopteryx did have both reptilian characteristics and avian characteristics.  This is exactly the kind of transitional animal the theory of Evolution predicts.  Why do you still say it isn't transitional and tell us how creation offers a better explaination...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:33 AM on February 10, 2004 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 12:33 AM on February 10, 2004 :
"Ok, great.  You looked up links on the internet.
I can do the same and find support for my side."




No, this is not the same.  Finding links and lining them up against each other is no different than determining the validity of science by opinion poll, because web links can be just that.  The difference between creation "science" links and scientific reference is...well...science.  

The evidence gathered through true scientific endevor adheres to the scientific method, consists of actual empirical evidence, is testable, observable, verifiable, falsifiable, and/or corroborated.  

The teachings of creationists about biology, regardless of how many links they may have (and they have a lot) does not consist of verifiable evidence that is corroborated by other evidence.  It is the cherrypicking of points of often misinterpreted data, the use of outdated quotes, ignoring moutninas of conflicting evidence, and the reliance  on repeating falsehoods for the sole purpose  of supporting a precopnception.  This is not science.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 1:22 PM on February 11, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Real quick, You attributed that quote to me, but it was really E-mc2 who said it.  I'm with you on this one!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 3:57 PM on February 11, 2004 | IP
E-mc2

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sorry guys, real busy lately, would love to discuss more,  maybe in a few weeks.

So go ahead, get the champagne and party poppers and celebrate....(how could you have any fun without me anyway?)  9Why did I say "sorry" up there?)


 


Posts: 53 | Posted: 7:34 PM on February 11, 2004 | IP
E-mc2

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok, have a little time...

Sorry, I initially said archeaopteryx was an ordinary bird, that was just what some people say.  What we are arguing about is NOT what we are looking at, we are only reading what other people wrote.

There are tons of opinions on what archeapteryx was.  It depends on whose side you're on.

One Creationist view is that it was an ordinary bird.  Heres are some more...

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-195.htm

Thats ICR's take on it...

These guys say it was a complete fraud, and this view is the most popular...there is a double strike on the feathers indicating it was made with a mold.   Complete forgery.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ19.html#1365100

Scientists all split on this subject, and no one can seem to prove anything.  And this is the only transitional form out there for dinos-to-birds?  If evolution were true, there would be tons.

Also, you still haven't shown me partly developed organs, like half-scale/half-feather.  "Archeaopteryx" had fully devoloped feathers but had no way of getting off the ground.  

Modern birds are found in "older" rocks (based on the evolutionists imaginary geologic column) and Archaeopteryx is moot.  Also, no fossil could ever count as evidence for evolution since it could never be proven the fossil had any offspring that lived let alone different offspring.

And about the teeth, you know, some reptiles have teeth, some don't.  Some mammals have teeth, some don't.  Some birds have teeth, some don't.  Some people have teeth, some don't!  

In conclusion, please don't talk about archeaopteryx as if you knew all about it.  You are only going by what others have said.  You can pull up any controversial subject and find arguments for both sides.  It may very well have been a forgery.  Maybe not, I don't know.  Niether do you.
 


Posts: 53 | Posted: 3:07 PM on February 14, 2004 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sorry, I initially said archeaopteryx was an ordinary bird, that was just what some people say.


Did you believe them simply because they were from a creationist source and you trusted them?

What we are arguing about is NOT what we are looking at, we are only reading what other people wrote.


Well, I've seen one of the fossils, and looking for fossils has been a hobby of mine since I was a young child.  Why do you think it is so difficult to come to a valid opinion?

One Creationist view is that it was an ordinary bird.  Heres are some more...


Do you still think that is a valid view?  Why or why not?   If someone publishes something so easily shown incorrect, how much trust should you place in their other statements?

These guys say it was a complete fraud, and this view is the most popular...there is a double strike on the feathers indicating it was made with a mold.   Complete forgery.


And you realize that it was carefully analysed and shown to be genuine fairly recently?

How about the specimen that was only recently dicovered?

Scientists all split on this subject, and no one can seem to prove anything.


I don't think so, what specifically are you saying?

And this is the only transitional form out there for dinos-to-birds?  If evolution were true, there would be tons.


There are:


In conclusion, please don't talk about archeaopteryx as if you knew all about it.  You are only going by what others have said.  You can pull up any controversial subject and find arguments for both sides.  It may very well have been a forgery.  Maybe not, I don't know.  Niether do you.


It boils down to how we learn to trust sources.  If you think you are getting good information from unreliable sources, you will find yourself proclaiming all sorts of nonsense you can't back up.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 6:10 PM on February 14, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Excellent post Apoapsis.  I really like the chart,
kind of kills E-mc2's claim that there is only one dino/bird transition!  
E-mc2, well, do you still claim that Archaeopteryx wasn't tranistional?  Is it just a bird?  How many birds do you know that don't have a beak?  And how many birds have teeth?  Your wavering back and forth on whether it's a bird or not is an indication that this is an obvious transitional animal.  You still haven't explained why it has more dinosaurian characteristics than bird characteristics...

"These guys say it was a complete fraud, and this view is the most popular...there is a double strike on the feathers indicating it was made with a mold.   Complete forgery."

Well those guys are completely wrong!  There is no real evidence that Archaeopteryx is a fraud.  From Answers in Genesis

"Both these expert scientists totally reject the charge of forgery. Dr Menton points out that the Archaeopteryx bones have tiny bumps where the feathers were attached to the bones by ligaments. This was unexpected, so impossible to attribute to a forgery. So it is simply wrong to say that the feathers are just imprints added to a dino skeleton."

So scientists are NOT split on this, the fossils of Archaeopteryx that have been studied exhaustively are not fakes, they are the genuine article.  You are lieing by saying that the scientific community is spilt on the authenticity of Archaeopteryx.

"Also, you still haven't shown me partly developed organs, like half-scale/half-feather.  "Archeaopteryx" had fully devoloped feathers but had no way of getting off the ground."

Why would we have to show you half scale/feathers when dinosaurs had already evolved feathers.  There was no need for birds to evolve feathers because their ancestor the dinosaur already had evolved them!

"Modern birds are found in "older" rocks (based on the evolutionists imaginary geologic column) and Archaeopteryx is moot.  Also, no fossil could ever count as evidence for evolution since it could never be proven the fossil had any offspring that lived let alone different offspring."

You still don't understand the Theory of Evolution!  Modern birds being found earlier than Archaeopteryx is questionable, but so what?  Science does not say Archaeopteryx is directly ancesteral to modern birds, only that it is a transitional form between dinosaurs and birds.  and that last statement is sheer bull pucky!  No fossil can be evidence for evolution?!?  You're an idiot!  Doesn't the fact that we have over 20 Archaeopteryx fossils count for any thing?  So you just dismiss all the relevent evidence because it goes against your faulty interpretation of the Bible?  The very fact that we have dinosaurs with no feathers, then feathered dinosaurs, then archaeopteryx that has feathers, dino traits and bird traits, and then true birds, doesn't show a progression to you?  "There are none so blind as those who willnot see...."

"And about the teeth, you know, some reptiles have teeth, some don't.  Some mammals have teeth, some don't.  Some birds have teeth, some don't.  Some people have teeth, some don't!"

What birds have teeth?  What birds don't have a beak?

"In conclusion, please don't talk about archeaopteryx as if you knew all about it.  You are only going by what others have said.  You can pull up any controversial subject and find arguments for both sides.  It may very well have been a forgery.  Maybe not, I don't know.  Niether do you. "

Don't hand me that crap!  The experts who study these fossils extensively have published their work, it has been peer reviewed by other experts who verify it.  So no, Archaeopteryx is not a forgery!  I've read a great deal about Archaeopteryx, but I've read what real paleantologists say about it, you get your info from creationists sources who do no real research, they reject anything that conflicts with their biased view, real science means nothing to them, and apparently, it means nothing to you!  Face it, you failed miserably in your desperate, pathetic attempt to show there are no transitional fossils.  And your last statement is your admission that you are just not up to the task!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:59 PM on February 14, 2004 | IP
E-mc2

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

To sceptic x, good one-liner post....

Did you believe them simply because they were from a creationist source and you trusted them?


Ok, I just stated that There are many different views, I don't know which to believe, because they are all opinions.  And by the way, you said
And you realize that it was carefully analysed and shown to be genuine fairly recently?

Do you trust that source?  "It was shown" by who?  Evolutionists I presume?  When Creationists and Evolutionists look at the same fossil, they will come up with two different conclucions based on thier bias.  Your pre-determined belief will determine how you interprete the facts.

As for your chart, can I see more of it?  I would like to see the source, and I would like to see what those "stars" mean.  (And the fine print also)  I can easily make a colorful chart that shows how the spoon evolved into the fork, but it doesn't prove anything.  And we still haven't addressed the forgery, why were there double-strikes?  Who knows.  Who cares.

All I know is there have been so many frauds (Lucy, nebraska man, piltdown man, Java man, Orce man, neanderthal man, archeaoraptor, horse evolution, Ernst Haekel's ebryology drawings, and hundreds more.)
Why should I believe that this one was not a fraud?

If you have time read the entire article <a href="http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr2001/r%26r0104a.htm">here</a>  Explaining all about archeaopterx.  Do I trust this source?  Well, its actually from over forty (40) sources, most of them evolutionist.

To sceptic y, You have no clue as to what kind of systems this animal had.  He may have had purple brains and pink feathers for all you know.   I will repeat, when we find a bone in the dirt, all we know is; it died.  We don't know if it had any kids.  We don't know when it lived.  (And why are modern birds found in "older" layers of rock, huh?)

Dr Menton points out that the Archaeopteryx bones have tiny bumps where the feathers were attached to the bones by ligaments.
 

He sees bumps and comes to what conclusions?  He comes to a conclusion based on his bias?

You are lieing by saying that the scientific community is spilt on the authenticity of Archaeopteryx.


Oh, so why is it so hotly debated in scientific comunities?

Well those guys are completely wrong!  There is no real evidence that Archaeopteryx is a fraud.


Evolutionists sure hope they're wrong.  And what about the double strike?

Why would we have to show you half scale/feathers when dinosaurs had already evolved feathers.  There was no need for birds to evolve feathers because their ancestor the dinosaur already had evolved them!


Ok, lets say dinos had feathers.  Why aren't there dinos with half scale half feathers?  Also, Archeaopteryx had fully devoloped feathers but had no way of getting off the ground.  



I've read what real paleantologists say about it, you get your info from creationists sources who do no real research


Oh, well excuse me.  I have time reading both creationist and evolutionist sites.  No real research?  AIG people travel all over the world and do full time research.

But here is the point:  You classify these people into two groups "paleantologists" and "creationists".  Fatal flaw.  There are "creationist paleantologists" and "evolutionist paleantologists".  You only hear about the evolutionist ones because that is all the media is willing to present.  There are more of them because in most universities you get kicked out for not believing evolution.

Its not paleantologists vs. creationists.  Its evolutionists vs. creationists.  They both interpret the facts based on their pre-determined bias.  And some evolutionists get into habits of saying that creationists do no research, don't know anything, "we're smart/ you're dumb" kind of thing.  

that last statement is sheer bull pucky!


You're an idiot!


Don't hand me that crap!


Thank you for stooping so low and revealing your true character.  My take is that when people start posting ad hominem/personal attacks on the other party, its a sign that they're out of arguments.


(Edited by E-mc2 2/16/2004 at 2:26 PM).
 


Posts: 53 | Posted: 2:23 PM on February 16, 2004 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok, I just stated that There are many different views, I don't know which to believe, because they are all opinions.


So how do you decide?  Obviously you have an opinion.

Do you trust that source?  "It was shown" by who?  Evolutionists I presume?


How about "creationist anatomist Dr David Menton", you should read the links provided to you.

Answers in Genesis will not stock any books that promote the Archaeopteryx hoax idea, at least not without a disclaimer, because it is the truth which shall set you free (cf. John 8:32), not error.

As for your chart, can I see more of it?  I would like to see the source, and I would like to see what those "stars" mean.


* Early Feathers
*** Modern Feathers

A ten minute web search will find you all of this and more, try searching on "dinosaur bird transition".

And we still haven't addressed the forgery, why were there double-strikes?


Take it up with AIG, I think you'll find they don't listen to those who try to correct errors on their site.

All I know is there have been so many frauds (Lucy, nebraska man, piltdown man, Java man, Orce man, neanderthal man, archeaoraptor, horse evolution, Ernst Haekel's ebryology drawings, and hundreds more.)


What's a fraud about Neandertal?  DNA shows that they were quite distinct from modern humans.

And I'm sure you can't come up with "hundreds more". Try coming up with even ten more.  

Ok, lets say dinos had feathers.  Why aren't there dinos with half scale half feathers?



Microraptor



(Edited by Apoapsis 2/16/2004 at 3:46 PM).

(Edited by Apoapsis 2/16/2004 at 3:47 PM).


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 3:43 PM on February 16, 2004 | IP
E-mc2

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A ten minute web search will find you all of this and more, try searching on "dinosaur bird transition".


Yep, like I said.  You can pull up evidence for any side you want.  Type in anything you want and someone will have "evidence" for it.  Yes, I've read lots of views from many sources.


As for neanderthal, different thread.  Another good topic, but I'm surprised that you still believe neanderthal was a ape-man.  Most evolutionists have abandoned it...again, would love to discuss.


And for microraptor, its strange that he came from China, same place as archeaopterx.

http://www.harunyahya.com/mediawatch_dino_bird.html

"In China, the fossil trade has become big business.  These fossil forgeries have been sold on the black market for years now, for huge sums of money.  Anyone who can produce a good fake stands to profit."

from a couple of sources...
And I still don't see half scale half feather.


 


Posts: 53 | Posted: 5:44 PM on February 16, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Do you trust that source?  "It was shown" by who?  Evolutionists I presume?  When Creationists and Evolutionists look at the same fossil, they will come up with two different conclucions based on thier bias.  Your pre-determined belief will determine how you interprete the facts."

You still don't understand the scientific method and the concept of peer review!  Science tries to eliminate the bias of individuals by having many different experts review the evidence.  Scientists look at evidence and scientific papers with an eye to falsify them.  They want to tear them apart, show the flaws.  They don't sit there and say "hmmm, this is obviously a fake, but it supports evolution, so I'll verify it!"  It just doesn't happen.  How do I know this?  Well you mention past hoaxes like Piltdown man and Archaeoraptor.  These were exposed by real scientists, not creationists.  They had no qualms about exposing them, they didn't cover them up to support evolution, their bias didn't prevent them from presenting the truth.   Now if real scientists are willing to expose these hoaxes, why would they support others?
It they're good enough to spot these mistakes, then they are good enough to spot the real thing.  

"All I know is there have been so many frauds (Lucy, nebraska man, piltdown man, Java man, Orce man, neanderthal man, archeaoraptor, horse evolution, Ernst Haekel's ebryology drawings, and hundreds more.)
Why should I believe that this one was not a fraud?"


First off, how was Lucy a fraud?  How is Neanderthal man a fraud, how are the fossils that illustrate horse evolution a fraud?  You can't make these untrue statements and expect us to believe them.  Lucy is not a fraud, Neanderthal man is not a fraud, the fossils for horse evolution are not frauds.  And of course, the others you mentioned were exposed by real scientists using the scinetific method, not by creationists.

"To sceptic y, You have no clue as to what kind of systems this animal had.  He may have had purple brains and pink feathers for all you know.   I will repeat, when we find a bone in the dirt, all we know is; it died.  We don't know if it had any kids.  We don't know when it lived.  (And why are modern birds found in "older" layers of rock, huh?)"

Wrong again, a great deal can be discerned from skeletal remains.  We can learn a great deal about an organism besides "it died", Archaeopteryx for instance, we know it had feathers and a blend of dinosaurian and avian characteristics.  You still haven't explained why this is so.  And the fact that we have found numerous Archaeopteryx fossils is conclusive evidence that there existed a reproducing population.  And with all our advanced dating techniques, we do have a good idea of when it lived.  Show me  a source that says modern birds have been found in older strata of rocks and even if they were you don't explain how this affects Archaeopteryx' status as a transitional fossil....guess you can't.  

"He sees bumps and comes to what conclusions?  He comes to a conclusion based on his bias"

Don't be ridiculous!  He comes to these conclusions by comparing those fossilized bones with similar modern structures!  No bias involved, simple comparative anatomy.

"Oh, so why is it so hotly debated in scientific comunities?"

It's not hotly contested, and the evidence you presented is almost twenty years out of date!

"Evolutionists sure hope they're wrong.  And what about the double strike?"

Your "experts" were examining poor photos of these fossils when they made their analysis, leading to wrong conclusions.  From here:
doublestrike

"v) The apparent "double strike phenomenon" was claimed to indicate that the same feather was printed twice in a slightly displaced position and was thus indicative of a forgery (Watkins et al. 1985a).
The reproduction of a double impression would be harder to forge that a simple single impression, thus making it unlikely that a forger would attempt such a double impression. Besides, it is also observed on the Berlin specimen and has recently been much more convincingly explained as representing two overlapping feathers (Rietschel 1985)."

The concensus of the scientific world is that it is not a forgery, no hotly contested debate exists except where creationists are concerned and the only reason they debate this is because the facts refute their erroneous worldview.

"Ok, lets say dinos had feathers.  Why aren't there dinos with half scale half feathers?  Also, Archeaopteryx had fully devoloped feathers but had no way of getting off the ground."

But there are dinos with what appear to be proto feathers!  From here:earlyfeathers

"Sinosauropteryx retains several primitive features—such as very short arms—indicating that it is the least bird-like of the theropod dinosaurs preserved in this ancient Chinese lake bed. Nevertheless, its body is already covered with downy plumes that provide a glimpse of the earliest known stage in feather evolution. Sinosauropteryx feathers are composed of fine filaments branching from hollow quills, rather like down feathers in birds today."

And from here:
dinofeathers

" In the case of Sinornithosaurus and some other dinosaurs, hair-like fluff surrounding the body has been preserved. It is thought to represent some kind of body-covering which was most likely derived from reptilian scales. Some palaeontologists hypothesise these may have been a precursor to bird feathers, a kind of 'missing link' between a scale and a feather.
The team of palaeontologists who studied the original Sinornithosaurus specimen identified many features suggesting the fluff is a strange link between scales and feathers. They note that the fluff grows as tufts or appendages between 30 and 45 millimetres long and one to three millimetres wide. Each tuft is composed of several long filaments that are joined at the base."

There you have it, as more and more transitional fossils are found, more and more evidence is uncovered.  Are you ready to stop making that silly statement that there are no proto feathers?   And what does Archaeopteryx not having a way to get off the ground have to do with anything?

"Its not paleantologists vs. creationists.  Its evolutionists vs. creationists.  They both interpret the facts based on their pre-determined bias.  And some evolutionists get into habits of saying that creationists do no research, don't know anything, "we're smart/ you're dumb" kind of thing."

But this isn't quite true.  Polls continually show that in the U.S. only about .15 of scientists in the life sciences, geology and astronomy accept creationism, POINT 1 5 percent!  Not even 1 whole percent, not even 1/2 a percnet, but .15 percent.  And none of them have any scientific evidence to backup their beliefs, only there faith to back it up.  Now why would the overwhelming majority of these scientists, the experts who really reseach the evidence and study it in detail, support evolution?  Evolutinists criticize creationists because they don't do any research to support their ascertions, period!

"You only hear about the evolutionist ones because that is all the media is willing to present.  There are more of them because in most universities you get kicked out for not believing evolution."

Any evidence that falsified the theory of evolution would be the story of the century.  The scientist who presented it would be world famous, so I flat out deny your accusation that the media just doesn't show any anti evolution material, there is just none to show.
And again, creationism was falsiied over 200 years ago, so as far as the scientific world goes, any one who supports creationism is 200 years behind the times.  And one doesn't believe in evolution, one accepts it based on the evidence.

"Thank you for stooping so low and revealing your true character.  My take is that when people start posting ad hominem/personal attacks on the other party, its a sign that they're out of arguments."

All right, your first statement,
"Also, no fossil could ever count as evidence for evolution since it could never be proven the fossil had any offspring that lived let alone different offspring."

sweeps all the evidence out the door and ignores the fact that these transitional fossils do support evolution because they are transitional just as evolution predicts.  Why wouldn't there be offspring?  What about the fact that there have been multiple Archaeopteryx fossils found, that in itself shows there was a reproducing population.  I think the statement is self serving, flies in the face of the evidence, shows a real lack of understanding of the theory of evolution, the fossilization process and has nothing to back it up.  Is that better than saying it's bull pucky?

The crack about you being an idiot, well, I apologize, I got caught up in the moment.  But why do 100's of thousands of experts consider the fossil record outstanding evidence for evolution and make hundreds of accurate predictions based on it, what kind of research have you done that proves them wrong?

And your last statement is crap!  Evidence is evidence, until you can study it enough to draw your own conclusions, I'll go with the overwhelming majority of experts that atest to it's authenticity.  The burden is on you to show it is a forgery and you have not done that!

"Yep, like I said.  You can pull up evidence for any side you want.  Type in anything you want and someone will have "evidence" for it.  Yes, I've read lots of views from many sources."

But science tries to look at the evidence objectively, creationists don't.  They all ready have their answer and any evidence that contradicts it is thrown out.  Science on the other hand follows where the facts lead, simple as that.  

"And for microraptor, its strange that he came from China, same place as archeaopterx."

No, microraptor gui was discovered in China, Archaeopteryx was found in Germany.  Your trying to insinuate that all fossils found in China are forgeries??  Once again, the experts know enough to tell a forgery from the real thing, just look at archaeoraptor.  So no, you can't get away with that....

"And I still don't see half scale half feather."

That's because you refuse to look, see my posts on Sinosauropteryx and Sinornithosaurus.

So let's recap.  You have yet to show us why a creature that blends avian and dinosaurian traits ISN'T a transitional.  You have yet to show us why dinosaurs without feathers, dinos with feathers, Archaeopteryx (a creature that blends dino and bird characteristics) and then modern birds isn't a logical progression that was predicted by the theory of evolution.  
You make claims of forgery using faulty research done almost 20 years ago and despite the fact that the concensus of the scientific world is that Archaeopteryx is authentic.  Basically your arguement comes down to "They just have to be forgeries because if they're not I'm wrong!"  and that's all you have...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:50 AM on February 17, 2004 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Type in anything you want and someone will have "evidence" for it.  Yes, I've read lots of views from many sources.


And what we need to learn is how to decide which ones give good information and which don't.  Which do you choose?

http://www.harunyahya.com/mediawatch_dino_bird.html

Islamic fundamentalists?  Because they say what you want to hear?  Take off the blinders and LOOK at the evidence, instead of letting someone else interpret it for you.




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 09:58 AM on February 17, 2004 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.