|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
 Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2011 2:29 am Post subject: Yet another icon of evolution falls. |
 |
|
| Quote: |
Archaeopteryx Knocked From Roost as Original Bird
July 27 2011 Wired science
Archaeopteryx�s status as the forerunner of modern birds is crumbling in the face of a new, closely-related fossil.
The new discovery, a feathered, chicken-sized dinosaur named Xiaotingia, has prompted a fresh look at the dinosaur family tree, casting Archaeopteryx as a bird-like dinosaur rather than dinosaur-like bird.
Archaeopteryx has been fundamental to our understanding of birds� origins but, if confirmed, this finding questions those assumptions.
�It may seem heretical to say that Archaeopteryx isn�t a bird, but this idea has surfaced occasionally since as far back as the 1940s,� said paleontologist Lawrence Witmer of Ohio University in a commentary accompanying the finding. �Perhaps the time has come to finally accept that Archaeopteryx was just another small, feathered, bird-like theropod fluttering around in the Jurassic.�
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/07/archaeopteryx-no-bird/ |
But I'm sure the evo-fantasists will quickly make up more fiction to cover the gaffe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2011 2:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| It's an interesting view of science you have there, Junior. In your view, the discovery of more evidence giving a fuller view is somehow seen as a weakness. Very interesting. Would I be mistaken to assume that, in your view, the less evidence for something there is, the more likely it is to be true? Following that, the complete lack of evidence for something is the best evidence of all that it is true. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2011 5:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| It's an interesting view of science you have there, Junior. In your view, the discovery of more evidence giving a fuller view is somehow seen as a weakness. |
Its significant in that it topples what has been a foundation stone for evolutionist theory-building.
Thus the fact is that archaeopteryx cannot be ancestral to modern birds.
If evolutionists had been honest they might have paid more attention to the fact that modern birds have been found in older strata than archaeopteryx.
Archie was probably just another creature with a mosaic of features, in the same way a platypus has fur like a mammal yet lays shelled eggs like a reptile. Such mosaics do not have to indicate relatedness.
In any case I have always been a little suspicious at how archaeopteryx was conveniently discovered, right on cue, after darwins Origin o.s. was published. Evolutionists needed a missing link and hey presto, they managed to procure one.
| Quote: |
Honest disagreement as to whether Archaeopteryx was or was not a forgery was possible until 1986, when a definitive test was performed. An x-ray resonance spectrograph of the British Museum fossil showed that the finer-grained material containing the feather impressions differed significantly from the rest of the coarser-grained fossil slab. The chemistry of this �amorphous paste� also differed from the crystalline rock in the famous fossil quarry in Bavaria, Germany, where Archaeopteryx supposedly was found.10 Few responses have been made to this latest, and probably conclusive, evidence.11
Fossilized feathers are almost unknown,12 and several complete, flat feathers that just happened to be at the slab/counterslab interface are even more remarkable. Had a feathered Archaeopteryx been buried in mud or a limestone paste, its feathers would have had a three-dimensional shape, typical of the curved feathers we have all held. Indeed, the only way to flatten a feather is to press it between two flat slabs. Flattened feathers, alone, raise suspicions.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ117.html |
So in all likelihood.... archaeopteryx is a forgery.
But contrary evidence has never stopped evolutionists "forging" ahead. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2011 8:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The new discovery, a feathered, chicken-sized dinosaur named Xiaotingia |
What relevance does any of your post have to Xiaotingia? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2011 7:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| It's an interesting view of science you have there, Junior. In your view, the discovery of more evidence giving a fuller view is somehow seen as a weakness. Very interesting. Would I be mistaken to assume that, in your view, the less evidence for something there is, the more likely it is to be true? Following that, the complete lack of evidence for something is the best evidence of all that it is true. |
I know. I wish it had all been written down for us by desert dwellers 2000 years ago.
| Junior wrote: |
| But I'm sure the evo-fantasists will quickly make up more fiction to cover the gaffe. |
Scientists were the ones who discovered the "gaffe" in the first place. Certainly wasn't done at the Discovery Institute. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2011 7:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| What relevance does any of your post have to Xiaotingia? |
Here we have the xiaotingia fossil.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/07/27/article-2019374-0D2EEB3B00000578-13_634x317.jpg
Do you see any feather imprints?
No. Neither do I.
What is wishfully described as "A halo of feather imprints" is very obscure. Maybe "random scratches" would be a better description. There is a darker area surrounding the fossil, but that is true of many fossils (presumably it indicates an area of former flesh).
Funny thing is, the same lack of concrete evidence for feathers exists on all the other claimed dino-birds. In fact only someone absolutely desperate to try and advance a theory would try to claim that such fossils are feathered at all.
So how did they get from that (above) to this?
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/07/27/article-2019374-0D2EEB4400000578-85_634x325.jpg
A large dose of imagination is how.
The only fossils with obvious feathers are archeoraptor (which was proved to be a fake) and archaeopteryx (which is very likely fake).
Looking at the artful reconstructions of these imaginary creatures it is fairly obvious that the guy doing them does not have a clue about the real structure of birds. The feather shapes, size and placement just do not make sense.
Nor does it even make sense that a reptile would gradually start mutating a whole lot of absolutely useless mishapen feather-like protrusions on the way to them becoming perfect flying machines. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ED209
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HijackedTw1light
Joined: 24 May 2010
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2011 11:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The fossil record is indeed baffling. Anyone who says differently is selling something. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2011 1:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Obviously a peacocks tail feathers are mostly for display and threat posture, their purpuse is clear. They also are recognisably feathers, with shafts and filaments. Same goes for an emu's feathers. Not all feathers are for flight- in fact on any bird, most of its feathers are not used for flight. They are for insulation and waterproofing.The fact that an emu is flightless does not indicate that dinosaurs are ancestral to birds.
Lets examine these claimed dinobirds a little more closely. Starting with the first, back in 1860.
Archaeopteryx
In 1859 Darwin published the Origin of Species and inside it he agonised that no intermediate fossils had been found to back up his theory-particularly of birds, which he thought maybe descended from dinosaurs.
Within months of the publication of Origin, someone produced an apparently fossilized feather at solnhofen, a quarry in germany where forgers had been selling fake fossils to museums for decades.
The eager evolutionist who bought it named it archaeopteryx. After realising that the two halves of the fossil mismatched, he quickly separated and sold them to two different museums to get his money back.
After much public speculation as to what a half-dinosaur half-bird would look like, the same middleman produced a few months later a fossil of a complete archaeopteryx (minus the head). Except for the attached feathers, it was identical to compsognathus, a small dinosaur that has been found earlier at the same quarry (and nowhere else on earth).
In 1986 proper X-ray chemical analysis finally showed that the amorphous material in which the feather imprints were pressed, was of a different material to the rest of the rock. Obviously someone had squeezed some feathers between two halves of a slab.
The british museum of natural history has now barred further examination of it and locked it away in a vault. Oh well.
http://www.cai.org/bible-studies/archaeopteryx-fossil-forgery
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ117.html
Sinosauropteryx
..this dinosaur, found in 1996, was declared avian based on the fact that it appeared to "covered in fluff" that resembled feathers or "protofeathers". Evo-artists immediately produced dozens ofimaginative pictures of a feathered little monster- which were lapped up by the media.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5c/Sinosauropteryx_prima.JPG/630px-Sinosauropteryx_prima.JPG
However later studies found that the "feathers" were in fact just collagen fibres.
| Quote: |
A new Chinese specimen indicates that �protofeathers� in the Early Cretaceous theropod dinosaur Sinosauropteryx are degraded collagen fibres
Theagarten Lingham-Soliar,1* Alan Feduccia,2 and Xiaolin Wang3
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2270928/ |
That does not stop evolutionists continuing to "accidentally" leave sinosauropteryx in the textbooks of course. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
young_clinton
Joined: 09 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2011 7:11 pm Post subject: Re: Yet another icon of evolution falls. |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| Quote: |
Archaeopteryx Knocked From Roost as Original Bird
July 27 2011 Wired science
Archaeopteryx�s status as the forerunner of modern birds is crumbling in the face of a new, closely-related fossil.
The new discovery, a feathered, chicken-sized dinosaur named Xiaotingia, has prompted a fresh look at the dinosaur family tree, casting Archaeopteryx as a bird-like dinosaur rather than dinosaur-like bird.
Archaeopteryx has been fundamental to our understanding of birds� origins but, if confirmed, this finding questions those assumptions.
�It may seem heretical to say that Archaeopteryx isn�t a bird, but this idea has surfaced occasionally since as far back as the 1940s,� said paleontologist Lawrence Witmer of Ohio University in a commentary accompanying the finding. �Perhaps the time has come to finally accept that Archaeopteryx was just another small, feathered, bird-like theropod fluttering around in the Jurassic.�
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/07/archaeopteryx-no-bird/ |
But I'm sure the evo-fantasists will quickly make up more fiction to cover the gaffe. |
Archeoptyrex was never considered to be the forerunner of modern birds. It was and still is considered to be a bird not a dinosaur, but a red herring because of its unusual characteristics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
young_clinton
Joined: 09 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2011 7:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The dinosaur paleontologists arguments that birds are dinosaurs is and always has been flawed with superficial reasoning and flat out ignoring many of the problems with relating birds to dinosaurs pointed out by ornithologists (who know about birds a lot better than paleontologists). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ED209
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2011 1:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
Obviously a peacocks tail feathers are mostly for display and threat posture, their purpuse is clear. They also are recognisably feathers, with shafts and filaments. Same goes for an emu's feathers. Not all feathers are for flight- in fact on any bird, most of its feathers are not used for flight. They are for insulation and waterproofing.The fact that an emu is flightless does not indicate that dinosaurs are ancestral to birds. |
It does indicate that the terms 'perfect flying machine' and 'The feather shapes, size and placement just do not make sense' are arguments from incredulity.
| Junior wrote: |
Lets examine these claimed dinobirds a little more closely. Starting with the first, back in 1860.
Archaeopteryx
In 1859 Darwin published the Origin of Species and inside it he agonised that no intermediate fossils had been found to back up his theory-particularly of birds, which he thought maybe descended from dinosaurs.
Within months of the publication of Origin, someone produced an apparently fossilized feather at solnhofen, a quarry in germany where forgers had been selling fake fossils to museums for decades. |
If that happened it doesn't surprise me. They were probably among a long line of fossil hunters. Origin helped us make sense of these huge collections of fossils. The stars were in the skies long before telescopes.
Also, which is it?
1. Fossil dating is wrong.
2. These fossils are fake.
3. Both..? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ED209 wrote: |
| 'The feather shapes, size and placement just do not make sense' are arguments from incredulity. |
But the actual xiaotingia fossil doesn't show any feather imprints.
So they must have been on drugs to have come up with the following:
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/wiredscience/2011/07/Xiaotingia_reconstruction_Xing_Lida_and_Liu_Yi.jpg
The promoter of this fossil, Mr Xu, claims that it had feathers, but regretfully admits.."Unfortunately, the feathers are too poorly preserved for details of their structure to be apparent.�
In other words, we are expected to just imagine the feathers when we look at it.
But the same applies to 4 of the six archaeopteryx specimens.
See any feathers?
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/wiredscience/2011/07/archaeopteryx1.jpg
Neither do I.
Let us remember that the xiaotingia fossil was purchased from a dealer in Liaoning.
Thats the equivalent of buying a prada handbag in namdaemun.
| Quote: |
Perhaps no other source for fake fossils has posed such a problem as exists today with fossils from China. We must preface this section to say the fake Chinese fossil market is becoming increasingly sophisticated and changing so rapidly that any fossil now originating in China should be approached with caution. This section deals with only the tip of a massive and growing "iceberg".
Each year, thousands of trusting buyers are duped by both inexpensive and very expensive, highly realistic fakes. More troubling, even scientists have fallen prey to the extraordinary craftsmanship of the Chinese fake fossil artists.
http://www.paleodirect.com/fakechinesefossils1.htm |
| Ed209 wrote: |
Also, which is it?
1. Fossil dating is wrong.
2. These fossils are fake.
3. Both..? |
Personally I dont' see any feathers on these supposed dino-birds.
Except, of course, for Archaeopteryx. But take a closer look at the feathered archie: someone has stuck the bits on with cement!
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/webpictures/faq-archaeopteryx_chewing_gum_blob.jpg
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/webpictures/faq-archaeopteryx_furcula_and_counterslab.jpg
In any case...archaeopteryx makes no sense. Supposedly it had fully developed flight feathers just like modern birds, yet it didn't have a breast bone (which is necessary for flight).
So why did it have these perfect wings if it could not fly?
So ultimately yeah I think 4 of the archaeopteryx fossils (the ones without feathers) are misidentified, they are compsognathus.
The two with feathers are fakes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koreadays
Joined: 20 May 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2011 10:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| when science can explain the energy in living things and where that energy goes after death. I am on the fence! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
