archaeopteryx

[moustache]

A load of BS...

any one disagree?

[Chalk]

I'm not sure what that is.. I'm guessing http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html ?

[moustache]

Yes you got it. Supposedly it is a missing link supporting darwins theory of evolution. The link between birds and reptiles. I disagree.

[G. Adams]

Create an argument first and link to relevant info, otherwise this thread will likely be killed. All I know about the archeaopteryx is that it bore a structure to contemporary flying reptiles but was feathered. It would be impossible to tell from that limited knowledge whether it was a missing link.

[moustache]

Overview:

Regarded by many to be the most famous fossil in the world archaeopteryx or "ancient wing", is a creature dating back 150 million years. With the wings, feathers, and wishbone of a bird, but with a lizard-like tail and claws on its wings, it was hailed as the missing link between reptiles and modern birds.

Argument against:

The "ancient wing" is not even close to half-bird half-reptile. Its a bird with modern feathers, and birds are very different from reptiles in many important ways- their breeding system, bone structure, their lungs, their distribution of weight and muscles. its a bird, thats clear- not part bird and part reptile. It is not the missing link.

[G. Adams]

The 'opteryx also had teeth, a straight boned tail, a flat sternum and belly ribs, unlike birds. When you say bone structure, how do you mean? The light-weight, hollow bones? The pterodactyl also has these types of bones, and it most certainly is a reptile.

Besides, most paeleontologists don't point out the opteryx as the missing link, the opteryx is a fairly unique one off type, it's closest relative the compsugnathus is still pretty damned distant. They usually point towards the dromeosaurs, (Velociraptor, Deinonychus and Utahraptor) as the linking family between dinosaurs and birds.

[gallo]

Quote by: moustache Overview: Regarded by many to be the most famous fossil in the world archaeopteryx or "ancient wing", is a creature dating back 150 million years. With the wings, feathers, and wishbone of a bird, but with a lizard-like tail and claws on its wings, it was hailed as the missing link between reptiles and modern birds. Argument against: The "ancient wing" is not even close to half-bird half-reptile. Its a bird with modern feathers, and birds are very different from reptiles in many important ways- their breeding system, bone structure, their lungs, their distribution of weight and muscles. its a bird, thats clear- not part bird and part reptile. It is not the missing link.

Perhaps you would get more response if you got your argument straight. Archaeopteryx isn't claimed to be a transitional between reptiles and birds. The closest anyone has come to that argument is Feduccia and Olson who claim that it is a transitional between an archosaur, which is a group of reptiles from which the crocodilians also evolved. However, that view is not widely held and there is considerable evidence that it is wrong.

The most widely held view, one for which there is actual evidence, is that birds evolved from dinosaurs. I'm sure that you are aware that dinosaurs are not reptiles. More specifically, birds evolved from a group of theropod dinosaurs called maniraptorans. One characteristic of the theropods is that they were bipedal, with tridactyl feet. Other well known theropods are the tyrannosauroids, Sinosauropteryx, the troodontids, Oviraptor, and the dromaeosaurs such as Sinornithosaurus, Bambiraptor, Velociraptor, and the recently discovered Microraptor. Of course, Compsognathus, the small dinosaur that is almost indistinguishable from Archaeopteryx is also a theropod.

Whoever claimed that Archaeopteryx was half bird and half reptile? That's nonsense. It is an example of a transitional species. A species that has characteristics of two lineages. Archaeopteryx is actually much more like a maniraptor than a bird, so much so that two of the specimens were classified as Compsognathus for many years. Since the "breeding system" of an organism doesn't usually fossilize, there is little evidence that would indicate what the system of Archaeopteryx, however, other dinosaurs clearly laid eggs with hard shells. There is also evidence of the pneumatic bones in several theropod dinosaurs, and some researchers think that they have evidence of that in one of the specimens of Archaeopteryx. As for weight distribution and muscle, that is why it is called a transitional. Archaeopteryx is much more like a theropod, having a long boney tail to which muscles are attached that were involved in walking. The tail was also a counter balance because of the different posture.

It is foolish to talk about "missing links." If they are found, then they aren't missing. And no one, expecially those who use the term, is sure what it is supposed to mean.

[moustache]

here is what Jonathan Wells (who works at the Discovery Institute) has to say about archaeopteryx.

"There are more interesting parts to the archaeopteryx story. The main one comes from a branch of evolutionary theory called cladistics. This takes Darwinian theory to the extreme. Cladists define homology, or physical similarities, as beingdue to common ancestry. They say, well, the main way we can group animals in the evolutionary tree is through homologies, which is already a bit of a circular argument. When they go back into fossil record, they assume birds came from reptiles by descent, and they look for reptiles that are more bird-like in their skeletal structure."

So where do they find them?

Jonathan wells continues...

"It turns out they find them millions of years after archaeopteryx! So here we have archaeopteryx, which is undeniably a bird, and yet the fossils that look most like the reptilian ancestors of birds occur tens of millions of years later in the fossil record. The missing link is still missing! Now evolutionists are stuck looking for another theoretical ancestor to try to fill the gaps, but it hasn't been found."

So the archaeopteryx is not an ancestor of modern birds?

Jonathan wells continues...

" Not at all. Paleontoligists pretty much agree on that. There are too many structural differences. Larry Martin, a paleontologist from the university of kansas, said clearly in 1985 that the archaeopteryx is not an ancestor of any modern birds; instead, its a member of a totally extinct group of birds.

[gallo]

Quote by: moustache here is what Jonathan Wells (who works at the Discovery Institute) has to say about archaeopteryx.

Hairbrained ideas make for strange bedfellows. Jonathan Wells is a bit of a flake. He is a member of the Unification Church, and after earning his degree in theology from Unification Theological Seminary, he pursued a second PhD in biology from U.C. Berkely. He did so with the encouragement and approval of Sun Yung Moon (Yung Myung Mun), the founder and leader of the church. His purpose was to destroy Darwinism, not to learn biology.

Quote by: moustache "There are more interesting parts to the archaeopteryx story. The main one comes from a branch of evolutionary theory called cladistics. This takes Darwinian theory to the extreme. Cladists define homology, or physical similarities, as being due to common ancestry. They say, well, the main way we can group animals in the evolutionary tree is through homologies, which is already a bit of a circular argument. When they go back into fossil record, they assume birds came from reptiles by descent, and they look for reptiles that are more bird-like in their skeletal structure."

Actually, that's not a very good description of cladistics. There used to be a book available on the internet from the University of Kansas Museum of Natural History, The Compleat Cladist: A Primer of Phylogenetic Procedures. Google it to see if it is still available - I have my copy. It used to be used in graduate level courses in biology at several universities. It went out of print and was made available for free on the internet while it was being updated. I have met other biologists on-line who used the book in a graduate course. At any rate, cladistics is more concerned with derived characteristics than with homologies. They aren't quite the same. The human arm and the wing of a bird are homologous, but neither is derived from the other. Both are derived from some ancestor - a basal tetrapod.

Wells is also incorrect in stating that cladists assume that birds evolved from reptiles. Wells is raising a straw man. Claiming that cladists "...look for reptiles that are more bird-like..." is false. The analysis is far above the level of separation from reptiles. In fact, cladistics analysis has been used quite broadly across the diversity of life.

Quote by: moustache So where do they find them? Jonathan wells continues... "It turns out they find them millions of years after archaeopteryx! So here we have archaeopteryx, which is undeniably a bird, and yet the fossils that look most like the reptilian ancestors of birds occur tens of millions of years later in the fossil record. The missing link is still missing! Now evolutionists are stuck looking for another theoretical ancestor to try to fill the gaps, but it hasn't been found."

Is this bit of garbage from Icons of Evolution? Did you actually read the book or are you just parroting something from some web site that you don't understand? Wouldn't it be nice if you supplied some sort of documentation from peer literature for your assertion. Exactly what fossils are you talking about? And why shouldn't some lineage of fossil "reptile" retain show up later. The only reason that it shouldn't be true is if someone were idiotic enough to claim that Archaeopteryx were an ancestor to modern birds. It is one of the signs that the speaker has failed to educate himself before addressing a topic. Such speakers make themselves look like fools.

Quote by: moustache So the archaeopteryx is not an ancestor of modern birds?

Highly unlikely. There is no evidence that it is so.

As for filling the gaps, Wells is behind the times. There are several examples of lineages between the maniraptorans and birds. The Eumaniraptorans, Avialans, Pygostylians, Ornithothoracines, and Ornithurines, for example.

Quote by: moustache Jonathan wells continues... " Not at all. Paleontoligists pretty much agree on that. There are too many structural differences. Larry Martin, a paleontologist from the university of kansas, said clearly in 1985 that the archaeopteryx is not an ancestor of any modern birds; instead, its a member of a totally extinct group of birds.

Well, duh. Typical creationist straw man. No one claims that Archaeopteryx is an ancestor of modern birds. Holy mackeral! It had teeth, three clawed fingers, a long boney tail, no beak, no carina (possibly a small one on one example), gastralia, and several other non bird-like characteristics. Would you like to learn about some of those characteristics?

All in all, Archaeopteryx is a transitional species that shows a mixture of characteristics from two (and only two) lineages, one older and one more recent. It has derived characteristics from the older lineage and it has characteristics the more recent lineage has derived.

Only those who lack the integrity to educate themselves about what they claim to oppose would claim that there is any specific claim of ancestry or descent of any particular species. I wonder if Wells was trying to intentionally lead the moonie travelers astray. It seems that he has been successful with moustache.

By the way, can't you speak for yourself? You seem to more or less worship Wells. Are you a moonie too?

[Pooeypants]

I have to say, Bravo Mr Gallo.

As for Mr Moustache, next time you start a topic, try to set it up proper on first post please?

[RickSp]

Quote by: moustache Overview: Regarded by many to be the most famous fossil in the world archaeopteryx or "ancient wing", is a creature dating back 150 million years. With the wings, feathers, and wishbone of a bird, but with a lizard-like tail and claws on its wings, it was hailed as the missing link between reptiles and modern birds. Argument against: The "ancient wing" is not even close to half-bird half-reptile. Its a bird with modern feathers, and birds are very different from reptiles in many important ways- their breeding system, bone structure, their lungs, their distribution of weight and muscles. its a bird, thats clear- not part bird and part reptile. It is not the missing link.

You seem to be trying to create an argument where there is none. It smells like one of the silly creationist constructs that attempts to use misrepresented science to "prove" that evolution or some other aspect of theory is wrong. Praise Jesus.

I have no doubt that you would get an argument from most educated 5 year olds over whether the archaeopteryx is the "most famous fossil in the world". As famous fossils go the archaeopteryx is distinctly B-list. Language like "missing link" also sounds like a the work not of a scientist but of a science writer dumbing down the copy so his editor can understand it.

[gallo]

Here's something new on the topic.

From the article:

The scientists behind the discovery say it reinforces the evolutionary links between dinosaurs and birds because it suggests their bodies went through similar processes during egg-laying.

and

"In addition to demonstrating gender, it also links the reproductive physiology of dinosaurs to birds very closely. It indicates that dinosaurs produced and shelled their eggs much more like modern birds than like modern crocodiles," said co-author Dr Mary Schweitzer of North Carolina State University in Raleigh, US.

Dr. Schweitzer is the molecular paleontologist who recently discovered remnants of soft tissue for dinosaur bones. In both cases she was working with Dr. Jack Horner, the co-author of this paper, along with Jennifer Wittmeyer.

Yet more evidence for the descent of birds from dinosaurs - even more so, theropod dinosaurs.

[MerlinsByte]

BY RICK SP:::::::::::You seem to be trying to create an argument where there is none. It smells like one of the silly creationist constructs that attempts to use misrepresented science to "prove" that evolution or some other aspect of theory is wrong. Praise Jesus.

There is even a more FAMOUS illustrative fossil that shows what lengths that science is willing to go to support their lies. PILTDOWN MAN a glaring undeniable fraud that was taught as FACT for nearly FORTY YEARS...go get em' ya foolish Darwinites.

you know some of my friends resemble the piltdown man renderings....there might be somthing to that fraud yet!


Piltdown: The Man that Never Was. For forty years they were considered one ... Piltdown was his fourth: Eoanthropus dawsoni, "Dawson's Dawn Man," in Latin. ... http://unmuseum.mus.pa.us/piltdown.htm

[RickSp]

Quote by: MerlinsByte There is even a more FAMOUS illustrative fossil that shows what lengths that science is willing to go to support their lies. PILTDOWN MAN a glaring undeniable fraud that was taught as FACT for nearly FORTY YEARS...go get em' ya foolish Darwinites. you know some of my friends resemble the piltdown man renderings....there might be somthing to that fraud yet! Piltdown: The Man that Never Was. For forty years they were considered one ... Piltdown was his fourth: Eoanthropus dawsoni, "Dawson's Dawn Man," in Latin. ... http://unmuseum.mus.pa.us/piltdown.htm

Go away pagan wizard. No one here or anywhere is suggesting that the fossil records of the Archaeopteryx are in any respect faked. Even the flake Moonies aren't suggesting such a thing. Interesting that you are.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: MerlinsByte There is even a more FAMOUS illustrative fossil that shows what lengths that science is willing to go to support their lies. PILTDOWN MAN a glaring undeniable fraud that was taught as FACT for nearly FORTY YEARS...go get em' ya foolish Darwinites. you know some of my friends resemble the piltdown man renderings....there might be somthing to that fraud yet!

More typical creationist garbage... A profession almost as old as humanity itself (scientist) is successfully hoodwinked by a tiny group of frauds for less than half a century, and that negates an entire body of theory?

To analogize this to something I'm sure creation-"scientists" will latch onto like my three month old at feeding time... This argument that Piltdown man negates all of evolutionary biology is akin to saying that because the Shroud of Turin is a fake, the entire Christian religion must be thrown out.

Science is constantly adapting, changing, and yes, admitting mistakes. This does not negate all of science. People who aren't dogma-spewing fervants understand this.

[MerlinsByte]

archaeopteryxA load of BS...any one disagree?

Go away pagan wizard. No one here or anywhere is suggesting that the fossil records of the Archaeopteryx are in any respect faked. Even the flake Moonies aren't suggesting such a thing. Interesting that you are.

Oh my! Do I rub your fossil (fake) dino feathers the wrong way? My jury is still out on the faked oops...the archaeoptery fossile(s), however other "feathered" dino fossils have been recovered in china and elsewhere so what?....

Afraid of a dissenting opinion? You and yours should be. In any case, I was just trying to illustrate the lengths that all (get down on your knees and throw up your hands to the high science priests) mighty science would go to preserve its untruths, frauds, deceptions and other ruinous lies held up to we as proof!

What other piltdown truths and other air tight proofs of evolution of the species exists in the museums and published swill of the mainstream science community? No one knows.......but the science god. A little levity wont hurt you will it?

mb

[RickSp]

Your rants border on the amusing pagan wizard. Pity they don't quite reach it. I do enjoy a good joke. Regretably "good" is not an adjective that would apply.

[Pooeypants]

MerlinB, unless you have something of actual value to add to this discussion, I suggest you refrain from posting. Otherwise you're just wasting our time again.

[MerlinsByte]

MerlinB, unless you have something of actual value to add to this discussion, I suggest you refrain from posting. Otherwise you're just wasting our time again.

Merlin replies...If you cant stand the truth avert your virgin eyes pooey p. I did add something of value a, dissenting opinion. What are you afraid of Mr pooey? And you waste your own time by being so close minded to only accept opinions that you think are correct.A true yes sir man, you are. So I read your posting advice about my posting but i reject it as well as your attitude. I feel most of your advice is foolhardy. And self serving. And redundant.

I did say that I think the archaeopteryx should still be viewed with suspicion or something to that effect. However I feel that with all the claims that it is a fake none has proven out. So in summery I would say that I believe with a 80% conviction that this one fossil isn't a fake but does not represent a transitionary evolutionary link but rather a separate and distinct species or phylum...get it Pooey P?

mb

[MerlinsByte]

More typical creationist garbage... A profession almost as old as humanity itself (scientist) is successfully hoodwinked by a tiny group of frauds for less than half a century, and that negates an entire body of theory?More typical creationist garbage... A profession almost as old as humanity itself (scientist) is successfully hoodwinked by a tiny group of frauds for less than half a century, and that negates an entire body of theory?

A tiny teeny group? THE JAVA APE-MAN, THE PITHECANTHROPUS ERECTUS , THE NEBRASKA man, should I go on? and on? a tiny group? Read about denial, pathological denial at that. Hmmm' you might as read up on paranoid delusional thinking as well , that is if you beleive that at least five major frauds are a "tiny group". Your resistance of acknowledging the scope and reality these science frauds and debauchery represent seems to be a product of selective memory or ignorance on the subject. I suspect both.

If you would learn both sides of a subject it would improve your debating skills. And, oh yes ,this last statement applies to all the usual suspects here. ; } >

mb