Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
... an Evolutionist talking about hypocracy is like an alcoholic talking about drink!!!!:D
Actually they do talk about alcohol a lot. Ever heard of AA?J C wrote:... its something that they know intimately from years of practice!!!:D
I wouldn't be so quick to make fun of alcoholics. I know you only jest, but a lot of people have relatives who struggle with this condition and would appreciate it if you didn't make light of teh problem in a (what is meant to be) a serious discussion thread.
edit: I'll comment on that big Archaeopteryx post soon. Need to stock up with some food first as I'm just home from work.
Finally, all this palaeontology information coming in handy!
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
RepublicanEagle wrote: »http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/transitional/transitional06.php
Archaeopteryx, which lived some 150 million years ago, is the species animal most often put forward by evolutionists as evidence for evolution. A great many of them suggest that Archaeopteryx is an extinct transitional form, exhibiting both reptile and bird characteristics.
All is going well, right up until...However, such modern evolutionist authorities as Alan Feduccia discount this claim as false.
Alan Feduccia is a strong believer of evolution and a palaeontologist. He is of teh belief that the ancestry of birds lies within a group of reptiles that predate the dinosaurs (the orthodox scientific theory is that birds descended from small meat eating dinosaurs). He also thinks the dromaeosaurs (or 'raptors' as they are known in the Jurassic Park movies) are in fact flightless birds who have evolved to look like dinosaurs. Both ideas lack evidence.
For example, the creature he cited as being the ancestor to birds was called Protoavis. Unfortunately for him, this creature turned out to be an amalgamation of the bones of several different creatures so is not a valid alternative to Archaeopteryx. It's about as valid as a creature made out of Lego. He then proposed a lizard like creature called Longisquama as a possible candidate. It appears to have had tall strange spiny quills on it's back which he thinks precursed flight feathers. Not everyone is convinced though. Most think it was simply a display organ, while newer research suggests it was not part of Longisquama at all, but a nearby fern taht got squashed in with it.
On the side of the 'birds are dinosaurs' theory many types of dinosaur have bee found with feathers. Earlier, more primitive varieties have primitive feathers which were most likely only used for insulation, while later, more advanced ones had feathers virtually identical to those of flight feathers in birds. In fact the first known feathes appear in dinosaurs, not birds.The latest studies on fossils of Archaeopteryx have revealed that this was no transitional form, but a species of bird, with a few features slightly different from those of birds living today.
That is a creationist interpretation of the evidence. Hardly anyone who isn't a creationist (apart from the aforementioned Feduccia and a few others) thinks this.Herewith, some evolutionist claims regarding Archaeopteryx as a transitional form, and answers to them:
...and rebuttals to said answers (by me
)1. The subsequently discovered breastbone: Until recently, Archaeopteryx was portrayed as having no sternum or breastbone, which lack was put forward as most important evidence that it was unable to fly. (The breastbone lies under the rib cage and is where the muscles essential for flight are attached. All modern-day bird, flying or flightless, and even bats, which belongs to a family very different from birds, have breastbones.)
The seventh Archaeopteryx fossil discovered in 1992 proved, however, that this argument was false. That fossil did in fact possess the breastbone which up until then, evolutionists had discounted.118
This discovery removed the fundamental basis of the claims that Archaeopteryx was a semi-bird, and flightless.
That is a complete falsehood. No credible palaeontologist (that I am aware of) ever claimed that Archaeopteryx was not capable of flying. It had long been thought that it was a very awkward flier. The discovery of the breastbone simply showed taht it was more advanced than previously thought.2. The structure of its feathers: One of the most important pieces of evidence that Archaeopteryx was able to fly is the bird's feather structure. Its asymmetrical feather structure, identical to that of modern-day birds, shows that it was capable of perfect flight. As stated by the well-known paleontologist Carl O. Dunbar, "because of its feathers [Archæopteryx is] distinctly to be classed as a bird."119
The paleontologist Robert Carroll offers this explanation on the subject:The geometry of the flight feathers of Archæopteryx is identical with that of modern flying birds, whereas nonflying birds have symmetrical feathers. The way in which the feathers are arranged on the wing also falls within the range of modern birds . . . According to Van Tyne and Berger, the relative size and shape of the wing of Archæopteryx are similar to that of birds that move through restricted openings in vegetation, such as gallinaceous birds, doves, woodcocks, woodpeckers, and most passerine birds. . . . The flight feathers have been in stasis for at least 150 million years. . . .120
More or less the same thing as before. The fact that it was a good flier does not change the fact that it is a transitional form.3. The claws on its wings and the teeth in its beak: Evolutionists formerly considered the fact that Archaeopteryx had claws on its wings and teeth in its mouth as one of the major proofs that it was a transitional form. Yet these features do not demonstrate any relationship between this animal and reptiles. Two modern-day species of bird, Touraco corythaix and Opisthocomus hoazin, also have claws that help them to cling onto branches. These animals are fully-fledged birds, with no reptilian features. The argument that Archaeopteryx must be a transitional form because it had claws is therefore invalid.
No reptilian features? All birds have scaley feet, a throback to their dnosaur ancestry.In the case of the hoazin, their claws are only useful as juvenilles. As they grow up the claws are less usefull. In Archaeopteryx adults had it too. In the case of the hoazin the claws are on their way to becoming vestigial. Modern emus actually have tiny vestigial claws in their wings (hidden among the feathers) which are no longer of any use to them. In the future, the descendents of emus will most likely lose them altogether.Neither do the teeth in Archaeopteryx's mouth make it a transitional form. Evolutionists are wrong to suggest that these teeth are a reptilian characteristic. Some modern-day reptiles have teeth, but others do not. More importantly, species of toothed birds are not limited to Archaeopteryx. Though they are no longer alive today, when we look at the fossil record-at the same period as Archaeopteryx, afterward, or even at very recent history-we find a separate bird group that we may refer to as toothed birds.
Yes other birds had teeth, but guess where they came from? Their dinosaurian ancestry.More important is that the tooth structure of Archaeopteryx and other birds is very different from that of dinosaurs, these birds' so-called ancestors. According to measurements by such well-known ornithologists as L. D. Martin, J. D. Stewart and K. N. Whetstone, Archaeopteryx and other birds' teeth are flat-topped and broad-rooted. On the other hand, the teeth of the Theropod dinosaurs, claimed to have been the ancestors of birds, are irregularly topped and narrow-rooted.
It's hardly surprising that birds' teeth would become different over time. Teeth evolve over time just like every other part of an organism. The fact that teeth would evolve to be different in different creatures which inhabited different ecological niches should hardly be surprising.The same researchers also compared the wrist bones of Archaeopteryx and its alleged Theropod ancestors, revealing that there was no similarity between them
This statement does not appear to be true. If you compare the wristbone of the dinosaur Deinonychus (left) with Archaeopteryx (right) tehy look very similar indeed.
In fact, at a glance it is very hard to tell the difference.Similarities between this creature and dinosaurs suggested by John Ostrom, one of the most eminent authorities to claim that Archaeopteryx evolved from dinosaurs, were revealed by such anatomists as S. Tarsitano, M. K. Hecht and A. D. Walker to be false interpretations.123
4. Archaeopteryx's ear structure: A. D. Walker studied the ear structure of Archaeopteryx and stated that it was the same as that in present-day birds.
Again, I don't see the problem with Archaeopteryx[/i[ having such bird like features. that's kind of the point really.
[/COLOR](1) Hoatzin
(2) Drawing of a theropod dinosaur
I'm not quite sure what this image of a hoatzin chick and an outdated restoration of Gallimimus (a dinosaur which is not considered to be particularly closely related to birds) has to do with current proceedings.5. Archaeopteryx's wings: J. Richard Hinchcliffe of the University of Wales Biological Sciences Department used modern isotopic techniques in his study of embryos and established that the three dinosaur digits on the forelimbs are I-II-III, whereas bird wing digits are II-III-IV. This is a major difficulty for the proponents of the so-called Archaeopteryx-dinosaur link.125 Hinchcliffe's research and observations were carried in the famous magazine Science in 1977:Doubts about homology between theropod and bird digits remind us of some of the other problems in the "dinosaur-origin" hypothesis.
Fortunately much more research in this field has been accumulated since 1977. The discovery of a dinosaur called Limusaurus has blown this theory out of the proverbial water. You can read all about it here. Long story short, birds and closely related dinosaurs had the same numbered fingers.These include the following: (i) The much smaller theropod forelimb (relative to body size) in comparison with the Archaeopteryx wing. Such small limbs are not convincing as proto-wings for a ground-up origin of flight in the relatively heavy dinosaurs.
This is selective comparison at best, casually ignoring the many small bodied but relatively long armed dinosaurs that are known. It is also worth noting that most palaeontologists side with the 'trees down' theory as opposed to the 'ground up' one.(ii) The rarity in theropods of the semilunate wrist bone, known in only four species (including Deinonychus). Most theropods have relatively large numbers of wrist elements, difficult to homologize with those of Archaeopteryx.
Interestingly, the ones with similar wrist bones to Archaeopteryx are the ones that were more closely related to it. Of course the majority of dinosaurs which were not closely related to Archaeopteryx were very different. This is very simple stuff. I acn only assume the authors were aware of this but chose to ignore it as it contradicts their position.(iii) The temporal paradox that most theropod dinosaurs and in particular the birdlike dromaeosaurs are all very much later in the fossil record than Archaeopteryx.
Actually the earliest dromaeosaurs lived in the middle Jurassic, before Archaeopteryx (which lived in the late Jurassic). A closely related dinosaur called Anchiornis huxleyi lived before Archaeopteryx and even had wing like arms complete with feathers.6. Incompatible timing: The incompatible timing identified by Hinchcliffe is one of the most lethal blows dealt to evolutionists' claims regarding Archaeopteryx. In his book Icons of Evolution, published in 2000, the American biologist Jonathan Wells emphasizes how Archaeopteryx was made into an icon for the theory of evolution, even though the evidence showed that it was not a primitive ancestor of birds at all. One of the indications of this, according to Wells, is that the Theropod dinosaurs suggested as the ancestors of Archaeopteryx are actually younger than it:But two-legged reptiles that ran along the ground, and had other features one might expect in an ancestor of Archaeopteryx, appear later. 127
As I just stated previously, Anchiornis huxleyi lived before Archaeopteryx and even had wing like arms complete with feathers.This all goes to show that Archaeopteryx is not a transitional form, but merely belongs to a separate classification, which may be described as toothed birds. Building a relationship between this animal and theropods is exceedingly inconsistent. In an article called "Demise of the 'Birds are Dinosaurs' Theory," the American biologist Richard L. Deem had this to say about the idea of the so-called bird-dinosaur evolution and Archaeopteryx:The results of the recent studies show that the hands of the theropod dinosaurs are derived from digits I, II, and III, whereas the wings of birds, although they look alike in terms of structure, are derived from digits II, III, and IV . . . There are other problems with the "birds are dinosaurs" theory. The theropod forelimb is much smaller (relative to body size) than that of Archaeopteryx. The small "proto-wing" of the theropod is not very convincing, especially considering the rather hefty weight of these dinosaurs. The vast majority of the theropods lack the semilunate wrist bone, and have a large number of other wrist elements which have no homology to the bones of Archaeopteryx. In addition, in almost all theropods, nerve V1 exits the braincase out the side, along with several other nerves, whereas in birds, it exits out the front of the braincase, through its own hole . . . . There is also the minor problem that the vast majority of the theropods appeared after the appearance of Archaeopteryx. 128
Confuciusornis8.Other ancient bird fossils: Some recently discovered fossils reveal other aspects of the invalidity of the evolutionist scenario with regard to Archaeopteryx.
As stated in my previous rebuttals all of these points have shown to be incorrect.In 1995, two research paleontologists from the Vertebrate Paleontology Institute in China, Lianhai Hou and Zhonghe Zhou, discovered a new bird fossil they named Confuciusornis. This bird, 140 million years old, more or less the same age as the 150- million-year-old Archaeopteryx, had no teeth, and its beak and feathers exhibited the same features as modern birds. On the wings of this bird-with its skeletal structure the same as those of birds of today- were claws like those of Archaeopteryx. The structures known as pygostyles, which support the tail feathers, could also be seen.129
In short, this creature, more or less the same age as Archaeopteryx, regarded by evolutionists as the oldest ancestor of all birds and as a semi-reptile, bore a close resemblance to modern-day birds. This conflicts with the evolutionist thesis that Archaeopteryx is the primitive ancestor of all birds.
False. Confuciusornis lived in the early Cretaceous, a fairly long time after Archaeopteryx (who lived in the late Jurassic.
I will also point out that palaeontologists do not state that Archaeopteryx is the exact direct ancestor of all modern birds. They do state that something very much like it was. Archaeopteryx might well heve been, but they are not ruling out the posibility of there being other similar (albeit thus far undiscovered) creatures from the same time who might also be good candidates.Another fossil, found in China in November 1996, confused matters even more. The existence of this 130 million-year-old bird, known as Liaoningornis, was announced by L. Hou, L. D. Martin and Alan Feduccia in a paper in Science magazine.
Liaoningornis possessed a breastbone to which the flight muscles cling in modern birds. It was also identical to them in almost all other respects. The only difference was that it had teeth in its mouth. This demonstrated that toothed birds did not possess the primitive structure claimed by evolutionists.130
I addressed the breastbone earlier. I'm not bothered pointing it out again. Why the article can't keep all the related stuff together is beyond me.Another fossil which tore down evolutionists' claims concerning Archaeopteryx was Eoalulavis. Some 25 to 30 million years younger than Archaeopteryx, at 120 million years of age, Eoalulavis had the same wing structure as some flying birds today. This proved that creatures identical in many respects to modern birds were flying in the skies 120 million years ago.131
A more advanced bird lived after Archaeopteryx? Stop the presses! That is exactly what evolution would predict. I don't see how that damages the case for bird evoultion in any way shape or form. In fact, it only strenghtens it.In 2002, Ricardo N. Melchor, Silvina de Valais and Jorge F. Genise announced in Nature magazine that they had found footprints belonging to birds which had lived 55 million years before Archaeopteryx:The known history of birds starts in the Late Jurassic epoch (around 150 Myr ago) with the record of Archaeopteryx. . . . ... Here we describe well-preserved and abundant footprints with clearly avian characters from a Late Triassic redbed sequence of Argentina at least 55 Myr before the first known skeletal record of birds.132
Bird and theropod dinosaur footprints are very similar. Who is to say the footprints did not belong to a theropod? Until skeletons are found that match up with the footprints we can only speculate what the footprint makers looked like. It would be illogical to assume that they belonged to birds, which do not appear to have evolved at that point, when they could just as easily belong to theropods which we know did live at the time.It was thus definitively demonstrated that Archaeopteryx and other archaic birds did not constitute transitional forms. The fossils did not indicate that different bird species had evolved from one another. On the contrary, they proved that modern birds and certain Archaeopteryx-like species lived together. Some of these birds, such as Confuciusornis and Archaeopteryx, went extinct, and only a limited number came down to the present day.
Actually the evidence (as demonstrated throughout my post) shows Archaeopteryx's reputation as a transitional form to be very much intact.
I do realise that my post is quite long. Unfortunately this is the only way to assure that I was being thorough with my rebuttal (it is important when dealing with misleading claims). I hope I did not become too technical. If anyone wants me to clarify anything feel free to ask (non loaded :P) questions.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement