|
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 mo | | |
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
