archaeopteryx

[MerlinsByte]

you whine about Nature, have we heard of it. Again, no proper reference.

I quoted the issue month and year ( nature). If you are too lazy to verify its your problem. And I have no desire to post a professional paper for a forum, even one as good as volcano. I do this for recreation, so if you want that professionalism in a common post you will need to pay for my services in dollars. For you however, I will make an exception, a pound of flesh and a few ounces gold will do (per paragraph).

[gallo]

Quote by: MerlinsByte I quoted the issue month and year ( nature). If you are too lazy to verify its your problem.

Now you are playing with the truth. You quoted the month and year completely out of context. As it stood, it referred to nothing, not even a request by me for a reference. Wouldn't it be more truthful that when you parrot material that you tell us where you got it in the first place? Why is it necessary to ask? What is the problem with giving some sort of clear citation in the first place?

You found 5 errors in one paragraph? Really? I missed that. They probably weren't actually errors but matters of alternate means of expression or typos. You on the other hand, boarder on illiterate and then pretend that the reason is that you can't express yourself is because you are doing this for fun. You use bad spelling, bad grammar, bad punctuation, bad science and bad theology. You are smug, rude and abusive and then acuse others of attacking you when they disagree, which is funny since you didn't have the integrity to educate yourself in the first place.

[gallo]

Quote by: MerlinsByte so you consider it all three? explain please.

Ah! Then you actually have no idea what we are talking about, do you? Of course, I'm not surprised. I knew that a long time ago when you tried to tell PooeyPants that that you thought Archaeopteryx was not a "transitionary evolutionary link" but a separate species or phylum. Anyone who would talk of a "transitionary" form is obviously totally ignorant. It is especially amusing that you think that Archaeopteryx is a separate phylum. Any high school biology student knows that the phylum chordata contains the vertebrates, which includes fish, amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, and mammals. The mindless use of the word in that context is just absurd. And then you try to convince us of your scientific abilities!

So now you are asking me to explain really basic ideas, because obviously, you don't know the basics. And this after I gave you the title of a book that is available on line so that you might educate yourself instead of continuing to speak from ignorance. Here is The Compleat Cladist: A Primer of Phylogenetic Procedures. It seems that you were too lazy to look for yourself. I found it through a Google search.

What is "the arch" and why should I care if anyone understood it? So I assume that "the X bird" somehow refers to a bird (I'm quick like that). But are you talking about Caudipteryx, Longipteryx, Archaeopteryx, or Sinosauropteryx, or possibly another. So now that you have given an additional clue by calling it "the arch," I suspect that it is Archaeopteryx that you are too lazy to name. I suspect you fear that you can't spell it unless you look. I understand, since you are such a poor speller. "The X bird" doesn't place demands on your ability to spell. But it isn't how I am used to scientists operating - I suppose it is unreasonable to expect you to conduct yourself to those standards - spelling, grammar, complete names for taxa under discussion, citing quotes with the quotes rather than with insulting remarks in later posts. I'm sorry that I ask for clarity from someone untrained in science, but at least make an attempt and knock off your childish insults when you are questioned about your laziness.

It's funny. "Archy" is so obvious as a lazy name that one wonders why you would select "the X bird" instead. Archy also has the advantage of being recognized by anyone who has taken the trouble to inform themselves of the topic, since it is used even among professionals. One wonders why you wish to discuss a topic of which you are so ignorant. Oh! I forgot. You haven't actually discussed it in spite of requests to do so.

So now, back to the question.

Why should I answer anything that you ask? I have asked questions, presented lists of hominid species, lists of specific fossils, lists of characteristics important to the discussion of Archaeopteryx (that's "the X bird" to you), and you haven't responded to any of them. You said you would but as I expected, you ducked all questions. Instead you serve us a case of smug while failing to support any of your assertions, refusing to discuss any evidence against your assertions, and taking offense with disagreement and explanations of your ignorance of this topic.

I would be more than happy to explain to anyone who really wanted to learn. But I don't see you as one of those. Possibly you see my responses as being aggressive because I am responding to your superior attitude. You actually don't seem to be interested in learning, since your attitude is that you already know the TROOTH. Your willingness to make assertions on topics of which you know little is an example.

So I'll answer your question when you answer mine. You have a backlog, and I have yet to see any honest attempt to address any of it. You just claim that you will address the question later and then duck out.

Let's begin with gastralia. Please discuss the significance of the presence/absence in reptiles, theropods, Archaeopteryx, and birds. Next up, furcula.

But yes. Archaeopteryx is all three, without question. Why do you offer opinions on topics of which you are ignorant? Any fool who has had the integrity to learn the basics knows that Archaeopteryx is all three. But you don't?

[Logjam]

Quote by: jeafl No. I am saying that Archaeopteryx may not be a transitional species between birds and modern reptiles since modern birds may pre-date Archaeopteryx and it is possible that Archaeopteryx survived into historical times- thus disputing the Darwinian chronology.

How old is the archaeopteryx anyway? Birds have been flying for a very long time. Just read in "Discovery Mag" that they've been defying gravity for about 250 million years or so.

I recall seeing the fossil of the archaeopteryx. It had feathers and little teeth in it's beak. I think several have been found.

Is someone here arguing that they never existed?????? Or that they are modern????

It takes a very long time for a fossil to form folks.

[Logjam]

Quote by: gallo Ah! Then you actually have no idea what we are talking about, do you? Of course, I'm not surprised. I knew that a long time ago when you tried to tell PooeyPants that that you thought Archaeopteryx was not a "transitionary evolutionary link" but a separate species or phylum. Anyone who would talk of a "transitionary" form is obviously totally ignorant.

Hey, Gallo; for a fella who seems to be pretty well informed on this subject you sure are an obnoxious bloke.

I suggest that you not call folks who you are debating with "totally ignorant". They probably aren't you know......and consider that calling someone ignorant is not an indicator of intellect.

[jeafl]

Quote by: Pooeypants You've got to be kiddin' me right? Apart from the crocodile and the sharks, no other families have remain substantially unchanged. There is no physical evidence to show that this extinct organism lived to the modern age. I suppose paintings of dragons is evidence to you that there are still dinosaurs out there? :eek: Granted though, if the Archaeopteryx could outcompete the species we have today in the central Americas, I'd take my hat off to it.

My posts simply reflect the information that can be found in some creation science literature. Unless and until you are willing to give creation science a fair hearing, you are in no position to criticize what creation scientists believe.

[gallo]

Quote by: jeafl My posts simply reflect the information that can be found in some creation science literature.

I think that you should have said that your posts reflect the misinformation in "creation science" literature.

Quote by: jeafl Unless and until you are willing to give creation science a fair hearing, you are in no position to criticize what creation scientists believe.

That's not true. When one sees wild assertions without any evidence to support them, followed by a refusal of whoever posted the assertion to follow up with requested evidence, one can pretty much reject the assertion. The is especially true when the assertion is known to be incorrect because it happens to conflict with the field of ones study. Sinc so much of "creation science" (an oxymoron) is nonsense, it is pretty sure that one should first doubt anything said by a creationist until some sort of evidence, followed by testing is done. "Creation science" is religion based on the mythology in an old book.