archaeopteryx

[Pooeypants]

There are many areas where evolution can be falsified. Here is a list of the evidences for it and where it can be be potentially falsified.

Every species can be seen as a transitional species because of the way evolution works.

[MerlinsByte]

What is your definition of "transitional species"?

I should have clarified this term, as a debate is raging between the secular evolutionist and the creationists about this word. Transitional species is a misnomer of sorts, and I am leaning towards the secular evolutionists on the use of this term.

Allow me to clarify my position. The fossil record prevents the complete specification of the line of human descent. The gaps in the fossil record indicate that mans lineage cannot be traced back through the record with accuracy, and there is not a smooth progressive transition (of early hominoids) thus there is no transition to modern man.

So while I agree that we share many traits with early hominoids such as the human genus Homo include A. afarensis , and A. africanus. the exact position of these and other early species on the hominid or primate family tree continues to be disputed. I feel that they are not our ancestors and not human.

If a secular scientist takes everything as a transitional species, is he not dealing with absolutes? And if the scientist is dealing with absolutes, how is he not dealing with faith rather than science?

I admire your logic

BTW: Some Creationists claim that there are fossils for true birds that supposedly pre-date Archaeopteryx.

I havent researched this , but it would be nice if true.

[jeafl]

Quote by: MerlinsByte I should have clarified this term, as a debate is raging between the secular evolutionist and the creationists about this word. Transitional species is a misnomer of sorts, and I am leaning towards the secular evolutionists on the use of this term. Allow me to clarify my position. The fossil record prevents the complete specification of the line of human descent.

And the transitional sequence for any other living organism is any better?

Any legitimate scientist would do well to acknowledge that paleontology is a very inexact science- and since it not based on experimentation, I would not call it a true science at all.

Hard fossils (the most abundant type we have) usually can tell us nothing about its producer’s physiology. If we find a T. Rex without any fossilized internal organs, can we really know what it ate? If we find no fossilized reproductive organs, can we really know how this animal reproduced?

But, yet you can find a fragment of a jawbone and few teeth and you have an ape-man intermediate.

The gaps in the fossil record indicate that mans lineage cannot be traced back through the record with accuracy, and there is not a smooth progressive transition (of early hominoids) thus there is no transition to modern man.

In fact, some evolutionists, such as Lord Zuckerman, insist that Australopithecus was nothing more than an ape. It has the same characterizes that are found in modern apes now living in Africa.

But, the Australpithecines have become sacrosanct in standard biology textbooks- and God help any student who tries to tell his teacher otherwise.

On Archaeopteryx

I havent researched this , but it would be nice if true.

It’s in my notes, buried on my hard drive. I’ll try to find the reference for you.

BTW: Anyone know why the quotes in a message I am replying to are not included when I cut and paste so I can prepare a reply with a word processor? I’ve never known any other board to operate this way.

[gallo]

Quote by: MerlinsByte I should have clarified this term, as a debate is raging between the secular evolutionist and the creationists about this word. Transitional species is a misnomer of sorts, and I am leaning towards the secular evolutionists on the use of this term.

No. There is no debate. The term is one of evolutionary biology and the meaning is that given it by evolutionary biologists. You and other creationists are being dishonest when you raise a straw man by giving the term another meaning and then arguing against that. If you can't argue against the meaning used in biology, then what is the point?

Quote by: MerlinBytes Allow me to clarify my position. The fossil record prevents the complete specification of the line of human descent. The gaps in the fossil record indicate that mans lineage cannot be traced back through the record with accuracy, and there is not a smooth progressive transition (of early hominoids) thus there is no transition to modern man.

Learn what you are talking about. No one claims to be able to tract the lineage with accuracy.

Quote by: MerlinBytes I feel that they are not our ancestors and not human.

Who claimed that they were human? Specifically, which fossils are you talking about? So Cro-Magnon aren't human? It is clear that you haven't bothered to learn what a transitional species is. You just work from the views of your creationist masters and argue against straw men.

OK. So discuss StW 573, Sts 5, KNM-ER 406 and KNM-ER 732.

[MerlinsByte]

by Gallo.... The term is one of evolutionary biology and the meaning is that given it by evolutionary biologists

Merlin writes…? The term was transitional and was first used by the creationist. And the debate is real and raging even if you choose to believe otherwise, but hey faith is a good thing gallo!

Gallo.... You and other creationists are being dishonest when you raise a straw man by giving the term another meaning and then arguing against that. If you can't argue against the meaning used in biology, then what is the point?

by Gallo.... Learn what you are talking about. No one claims to be able to tract the lineage with accuracy. by….Gallo.... Who claimed that they were human? Specifically, which fossils are you talking about? So Cro-Magnon aren't human? It is clear that you haven't bothered to learn what a transitional species is. You just work from the views of your creationist masters and argue against straw men.

Merlin writes…I may not understand the implications of your list hominoid/primate fossils then, because I thought that one should use the fossil record to show how man gradually developed from one species to another more complex one. ?.

And if you are saying that we did evolve from any or all of these primates, hominoids, pigs ,whatever, what use are they if we cannot trace our linage back through them, you might as well discard them entirely.
Now, I have told you three times I am the creation master! Dang! I’ll be honest and tell you that I just glanced at your list, I recognized some as the
genus Homo, that of course includes modern humans, Homo erectus, Homo habilis, and Neandertals are of another species.

I will comment on your request in my next post. Thanks for the banter …. ; } >

mb

[jeafl]

Scientific Creationism (public school edition)
Henry M. Morris, editor
Creation Life Publishers
San Diego, Ca.
1974
0890510016 (paperbound)

Serpent Bird of the Mayas, Science Digest, Vol. 64, November 1968 reported the discovery of a Mayan relief that depicted a bird with reptilian characteristics. The relief, in fact, has a striking resemblance to Archaeopteryx.


What is Creation Science?
Henry M. Morris, Gary E. Parker
Creation Life Publishers, Inc.
San Diego, Ca.
1982

In 1977 Paleontologist James “Dinosaur Jim” Jensen found a typical bird femur in a stratum of the same age as that that contained Archaeopteryx. Modern type birds and Archaeopteryx were contemporaries.

[Agent007]

I am inherently against evolution, so I would say that I do not necessarily believe in the archaeoptyrx. However, there are some points in creationist belief that may be interpreted by one so that he or she may in fact find some validity in the various doctrines that support the existence of the creature.

[gallo]

Quote by: MerlinsByte Merlin writes…? The term was transitional and was first used by the creationist. And the debate is real and raging even if you choose to believe otherwise, but hey faith is a good thing gallo!

No. The term is "transitional species," sometimes used as "transitional fossil," or simply a "transitional." It was not first used by creationists. More typically, creationists will use words like "transitionary" and the like, because they have failed to educate themselves. There is not debate among evolutionary scientists about whether transitional species have been found. What you think of as debate is just denials of the creationists who object on religious grounds. Rarely do creationists use the term correctly. Most typically, it is used as a straw man in which creationists, like you, define transitionals out of existance with an incorrect definition, and then argue against that defintion.

Quote by: MerlinsByte Merlin writes…I may not understand the implications of your list hominoid/primate fossils then, because I thought that one should use the fossil record to show how man gradually developed from one species to another more complex one. ?.

No. You haven't bothered to learn what you are talking about. No wonder you think that there is a debate. You have allowed yourself to be duped by your creationist masters.

Quote by: MerlinsByte And if you are saying that we did evolve from any or all of these primates, hominoids, pigs ,whatever, what use are they if we cannot trace our linage back through them, you might as well discard them entirely.

OK. Then please trace your linage back to Adam and Eve for me. Every ancestor. If you cannot, then it is clear that you are not descended from them. If you can raise straw men, then I can too. But to give your question the serious answer it doesn't deserve, of course we can't trace our linage back through them. How would we do that? Evolution isn't a ladder.

Quote by: MerlinsByte Now, I have told you three times I am the creation master! Dang!

Obviously, you're just a dupe.

Quote by: MerlinsByte I’ll be honest and tell you that I just glanced at your list, I recognized some as the genus Homo, that of course includes modern humans, Homo erectus, Homo habilis, and Neandertals are of another species.

Yes. That is correct. Homo sapiens, H. erectus, H. habilis, and H. neanderthalensis are all species, as are the other 6 species of Homo that I mentioned. However, I notice that you have ducked any discussion of specific fossils.

When you get around to it, please include KNM-ER 3733, KNM-ER 992, KNM-ER 3883, KNM WT 15000, OH 7, KNM-ER 1813, KNM-ER 1805, OH 24, Trinil 2, NG 6, and Sangiran 2. I have grouped them appropriately for you. Also please include a discussion of the significance of the Dmanisi finds and, of course, extensive discussion of "Turkana Boy."

Thanks.

[gallo]

Quote by: Agent007 I am inherently against evolution, so I would say that I do not necessarily believe in the archaeoptyrx.

Well, then. We have something in common, since I don't believe in the archaeopteryx either. I don't know what that has to be with being "against" evolution, whatever that means. One believes in Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, the tooth fairy Satan, angles and God. There is no evidence for any of them so you must believe in them without evidence. Archeopteryx, on the other hand, exists in the for of 8 separate fossils, so there is no need to "believe in" it. You can actually see several of the fossils on display in museums. Other museums have very good reproductions of the fossils.

Quote by: Agent007 However, there are some points in creationist belief that may be interpreted by one so that he or she may in fact find some validity in the various doctrines that support the existence of the creature.

Whether or not the "creature" existed has nothing to do with creationist doctrines. It would be silly to base science on mythology.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: jeafl Scientific Creationism (public school edition) Henry M. Morris, editor Creation Life Publishers San Diego, Ca. 1974 0890510016 (paperbound) Serpent Bird of the Mayas, Science Digest, Vol. 64, November 1968 reported the discovery of a Mayan relief that depicted a bird with reptilian characteristics. The relief, in fact, has a striking resemblance to Archaeopteryx. What is Creation Science? Henry M. Morris, Gary E. Parker Creation Life Publishers, Inc. San Diego, Ca. 1982 In 1977 Paleontologist James “Dinosaur Jim” Jensen found a typical bird femur in a stratum of the same age as that that contained Archaeopteryx. Modern type birds and Archaeopteryx were contemporaries.

Wait, I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to claim here but let me guess, you are trying to say that the mythological creatures of a bygone race has something to do with paleontology? Please, can we have some up to date and credible sources?

[MerlinsByte]

Wait, I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to claim here but let me guess, you are trying to say that the mythological creatures of a bygone race has something to do with paleontology? Please, can we have some up to date and credible sources?

Well I'll let you in on a not so secret, secret. I don't know all the answers, I don't know most of the answers, I don't know even 50% of the answers (of the universe and its history and its make up).

(Pssssst) Another main liner belief secret....there are no credible sources when it comes to evolution of the species (that prove the theory).

I feel that I know at least as much as the average scientist, and more than some who claim to be experts. As I’ve said before after 8 years of working as a research scientist (great lakes research center,M , primarily on reactive polymers) I was pining to rid myself of the stuffy no thinking environment (the lab tomb) and be free to study what’s really important in life and apply what I have learned to help others. I did.

So to your question. As a (retired) scientist and as a (active) open theist and as a (active) student (perpetual student it seems) working at an advanced age on (another) advanced degree, the current theroys about our universe are mostly wrong or at least grossly flawed.

With that in mind I am saying that mans fossil record is not only incomplete and unsubstantial, the fossil record tells me that we have it all wrong. I am saying that mans and most other life forms DNA has received help from a GID or other intelligent race or input in the past.

Proof? Evidence, I have FAITH. The same logic that evolution biologists and Darwinists expect the masses to have. And unlike religious thought these butt holes really do shove the THEROY of evolution down the throats of babes and adults alike by force of law…for now that is.

mb

[MerlinsByte]

Thanks Jeafel for the info and taking the time to search for information on primitive birds. It seems that religious people (me for one) spend too much time in defense of God. Individuals (primarily secular) with veiled schemes and hurtful intentions seem bent on destroying what good is left in our world. Not only are they destructive to my universe, they are hell on my sleep as it seems of late that sleep is a rare commodity, what with school, mission work, fund raising etc....oh well some interesting notes below, and thanks again.

It seems that Archaeopteryx is in trouble again. Not only are there problems linking Archaeopteryx to theropods, there is no link from it to any modern birds. Martin (1985, p. 182) states: "Archaeopteryx is not ancestral to any group of modern birds. It has specializations in its tarsometatarsus and skull which show conclusively that it is on a side branch of avian evolution."

So, also, where then are the intermediates lying on the main branch? Answer there are none. ho hum.


mb

[Pooeypants]

Merlin, why are you using sources from 1982? Don't you know that science has moved on?

Anyway, you don't seem to have a constructive argument other than the religous angle so let's talk about that.
You said

Individuals (primarily secular) with veiled schemes and hurtful intentions seem bent on destroying what good is left in our world.

How so? Just because we're finding out how the world really works and not leaving it to some mystic explanation? Or that we're conflicting with your religious dogma and it is destroying YOUR world, your fantasy world where an invisible sky fairy creates everything for you.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: MerlinsByte So to your question. As a (retired) scientist and as a (active) open theist and as a (active) student (perpetual student it seems) working at an advanced age on (another) advanced degree, the current theroys about our universe are mostly wrong or at least grossly flawed.

And you qualified to say this because? Where is your evidence? Do you have support from the scientific community itself? Are you sure you're not just deluding yourself because it sure looks like it from here.

Quote by: MerlinsByte With that in mind I am saying that mans fossil record is not only incomplete and unsubstantial, the fossil record tells me that we have it all wrong. I am saying that mans and most other life forms DNA has received help from a GID or other intelligent race or input in the past.

Say, since when were you an authority on paleontology and anthroprology? I thought you said you had a degree in Chemical engineering or the likes, since when did that make you an expert on fossils?

Quote by: MerlinsByte Proof? Evidence, I have FAITH. The same logic that evolution biologists and Darwinists expect the masses to have. And unlike religious thought these butt holes really do shove the THEROY of evolution down the throats of babes and adults alike by force of law…for now that is. mb

Wait, you call yourself a scientist? You are nothing more than a fraud if your only evidence is faith.
You may deny the evidence of evolution but it remains, you can't change reality but you can keep deluding yourself.
Are you going to challenge the world is flat and the sun revolves around the earth next? 'cause that also conflicts with the bible...

PS You spelt theory incorrectly twice.

[MerlinsByte]

Quote by: MerlinsByte
So to your question. As a (retired) scientist and as a (active) open theist and as a (active) student (perpetual student it seems) working at an advanced age on (another) advanced degree, the current theroys about our universe are mostly wrong or at least grossly flawed.

By pooey...And you qualified to say this because? Where is your evidence? Do you have support from the scientific community itself? Are you sure you're not just deluding yourself because it sure looks like it from here.

by merlin...I was alluding to the serious flaws such as missing mass in the univesrse, small things like that, just little things, whats a little missing mass over 80%? I would be happy to talk with you on the many issues and many fatal flaws that riddles most modern predictive science, and will began a new thread presently to do so.

Say, since when were you an authority on paleontology and anthroprology? I thought you said you had a degree in Chemical engineering or the likes, since when did that make you an expert on fossils?

Merlin sez...I am an expert in scientific methodology, which is absolutely necessary for the process of discovery.I humbely claim be a serious amateur in astronomy and (a bit less learned) in natural sciences. It should be obvious to most people that the fossil record seems to disprove evolution not prove it, and it doesn't take a advanced degree even a GED to determine this, it takes only common sense.

And you qualified to say this because? Where is your evidence? Do you have support from the scientific community itself? Are you sure you're not just deluding yourself because it sure looks like it from here.

hahahha (insanity is cool....if Iyam then I yam) the science community is not only suffering from self inflicted paranoid hallucinations, they are in full blown denial as their reliance on century (s) old rickety and unstable house of cards theories are being dismantled piece by piece by new discoveries and their inability to support the major (scienctific) ones that have been embedded under thinking peoples skin for a hundred years or more...Its Past time for a new myth like evolution ...and mine are as good as any...remember I called my theories the lottery ticket theory(s)...maybe just one in 250,000,000 chance of being right but dammit someone does win!

Pooey loosen up there friend you are starting to kink MY neck!

; { >

mb

[Agent007]

Gallo, I disagree with you and your skewed beliefs.

[gallo]

Quote by: MerlinBytes It seems that Archaeopteryx is in trouble again. Not only are there problems linking Archaeopteryx to theropods,

Actually, there are no problems in linking Archaeopteryx to theropods, since Archaeopteryx is, quite clearly, a theropod. It's skeleton is almost identical to Compsognathus, a theropod found in the same quarry as Archaeopteryx. It makes one wonder what you are talking about. But it is typical for scientific illiterates who are more influenced by what their mythology allows to offer assertion without any support.

Quote by: MerlinBytes ...there is no link from it to any modern birds.

Why is that meaningful? It seems that you continue in your ignorance of science, what it is and how it works, most especially evolutionary theory.

Quote by: MerlinBytes Martin (1985, p. 182) states: "Archaeopteryx is not ancestral to any group of modern birds. It has specializations in its tarsometatarsus and skull which show conclusively that it is on a side branch of avian evolution."

What a totally inadequate cite. There was a Martin mentioned in a quote of Wells on the first page, otherwise we have no idea of your source. But the quote on the first page claims that Martin made a similar statement in 1982. Here, you say it was in 1985. You are even dumb enough to cite the page without citing the book. It is clear that you are being a parrot again. Which of your creationist masters did you get this from. Wouldn't it be nice if you took the time to learn what science is and how it works before you speak? Wouldn't it be nice if you learned how to cite an authority correctly? Maybe I'm used to reading what scientists write and I am being too tough on a scientific illiterate.

But this incompletely cited (and therefore unknown) quote indicates that paleontologists were telling people that Archaeopteryx is not ancestral to modern birds about 20 years ago. And yet you and other scientifically illiterate creationists are still harping on that point as if it were meaningful. Exactly how would that have any bearing on the status of Archaeopteryx as a transitional species? It seems not. You didn't even know the correct word and used some illiterate nonsense jabberwocky like "transitionary" or "transitionatory". Further, you have been asked to define the term and you have failed to do so. All you did was babble some nonsense about modern man and claiming that there was some sort of debate about what the word means. The debate is between creationists like you, who want to misrepresent what the term means to shore up your mythology. There is no debate - the word does not indicate that one species is ancestral to another. Learn what you are talking about.

And since you want to throw in some technical terms, you no doubt can discuss the tarsometatarsus of Archaeopteryx when compared to some of the modern scansorial birds. I guess you aren't aware that the leg bones and the feet bones were generally elongated with similar proportions to those of terrestrial avepods. The degree of elongation of the distal bones of the feet is quite similar to that found in pigeons.

Quote by: MerlinBytes So, also, where then are the intermediates lying on the main branch? Answer there are none. ho hum.

Meaningful because? Where are all of you ancestors going back to Adam and Eve? Since you can't tell me it must mean that you are not descended from Adam and Eve. No doubt. If you're not going to learn the science before you try to discuss it, at least have the integrity to apply the same standards to your mythology.

[gallo]

Quote by: Agent007 Gallo, I disagree with you and your skewed beliefs.

We weren't discussing my beliefs. We were discussing yours - Santa Claus, tooth fairy, and the like. Since I can touch and see Archaeopteryx, as well as other primative birds and feathered dinosaurs, it isn't a matter of belief.

Isn't it funny that you "believe in" the mythology of bronze age, nomadic herdsmen and you call my beliefs (of which you know nothing) skewed?

[Agent007]

Are you really touching the Archaeopteryx? It is a fact that you are touching bones, but it is not a fact that you are touching Archaeopteryx. Next time, do not try to belittle me with your petty insults. We are discussing your beliefs, since they are obviously opposing my valid ones.

[gallo]

Quote by: Agent007 Are you really touching the Archaeopteryx? It is a fact that you are touching bones, but it is not a fact that you are touching Archaeopteryx. Next time, do not try to belittle me with your petty insults. We are discussing your beliefs, since they are obviously opposing my valid ones.

Actually, they won't let you actually touch one of the fossils, but researchers do. And it is possible to see them under a glass cover. But it is the real Archaeopteryx that you will be looking at, one of the 7 skeletal fossils in one of several museums. Do you want me to tell you about them? And yes, they are bones that have been given the taxonomic name, Archaeopteryx lithographica.

Possibly if you actually gave some sort of logical reason for your assertions, you wouldn't see disagreement as being belittled. And no, we are discussing your belief in mythology. My beliefs have nothing to do with it. You haven't shown that any of your beliefs are valid in any way. And opposition to your beliefs (based on no evidence) has no impact on what I may or may not believe.