Evolutionism's appeal to junk science

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
[QB] Bob

I see you are still making the false claim that the conference on Archaeopteryx claimed that it was just a bird and not a transitional. I have already shown you this claim is false. Remember?

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2740/8.html#000116

You "keep saying that" - as if it is true.

In fact in that post you simply "imagined" your "proof".

Bob said -- So are you saying those evolutionists ARE WRONG again??"

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />UTEOTW said
No. They are likely right. I imagine that the conference in question was probably a very good meeting. Its results may be a little outdated now due to the recent discoveries in Liaoning, but that should not distract from their results.

</font>[/QUOTE]Notice how "your imagination" gets more focused as that post continued?

Bob said OR are you saying that this UNIQUE but TRUE Bird is a TRANSITION BETWEEN reptiles and TRUE BIRDS - EVEN though it is a TRUE BIRD??"

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />UTEOTW
I am saying that if you have to pick reptile or bird, then bird is the right choice.

</font>[/QUOTE]Clearly your "imagination" failed you here as the clear objective was to PICK an intermediate BETWEEN Reptile and bird since This is what your initial quote CLAIMED to have.

Odd that you would THEN limit yourself to JUST A or JUST C when your starting quote was "Archaeopteryx is a intermediate transitional BETWEEN reptiles and birds".

I know you "need to pretend" you don't see the obvious glaring problem there ... but.. do you think that stops the rest of us from seeing it?

If so - why?

------------------------------

After that failed - you then try to patch up your difficulty by pointing out the UNIQUE nature of this TRUE BIRD.

UTEOTW
I am also saying that it has a large number of features that make it more than just a unique bird. Because it has over a hundred features that are not found in extant birds but that are found in theropod dinosaurs,

Extant birds have teeth (as it turns out) and other features similar to reptiles in some ways.

But Archaeopteryx is a "perching bird" and was capable of flight with TRUE flight feathers. So although your continued story line merely shows it to be "unique" it REMAINS a "TRUE BIRD" and you are STUCK claiming that "TRUE C" is a perfect "INTERMEDIATE BETWEEN" True A and TRUE C.

Something I have repeated often and something that this review shows you did not refute at all.

As for your "proof" quote -- here is what you gave.

Then I came across your very reference.

Dodson, P., 1985, International Archaeopteryx Conference: Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, vol. 5, p. 177-9.

In here, Dodson lists over 20 specific shared characteristics between Archeopteryx and specifically coelurosaur theropods. I think he was making a case for archy being a transitional, don't you?

This quote of Dodson speaking of himself in the 3rd person (If one is to go with your source AND your quote) where the "speculation" is made about "what I THINK he was saying" - is dubious at best.

My point was that the CONFERENCE itself came to the conclusion that Archaeopteryx was a TRUE BIRD RATHER than a creature BETWEEN Reptiles and TRUE BIRDS. In fact even TODAY - few if ANY atheist evolutionists will argue that Archaeopteryx is the ancestor of ANY bird today.

(Though I am sure they ALL "hope" it is the descendant of some reptile - AND should an intermediate BETWEEN Archy and reptile ever be found -- they would be overjoyed!)

---------------------------------------

Your next attempt at revisionists history is to try to dodge the devastating result of "TRUE BIRD" be assigned to archaeopteryx - by saying that ANY feature that Archy had making it unique is ENOUGH to overcome the devastating problem of having your "ideal INTERMEDIATE BETWEEN A and C be found to be TRUE C".

UTEOTW
Now, it seems strange to me that someone you have cited as saying at a conference that Archaeopteryx was just a bird would be making a case at that conference that it was in fact a transitional. I feel that it was a dishonest claim to begin with.

HEre then is the crux of your tactic and the flaw in your argument. You claim that for us to point out the GLARING defect in your initial quote that "Achaeopteryx is a true INTERMEDIATE BETWEEN Reptile and Bird" can not be sustained by virtue of the fact that it IS a "TRUE BIRD" -- is "a lie" EVEN though you ADMIT it "IS A TRUE BIRD".

Your problem remains.

Your attempt to misdirect fails.

Your addition of accusations in an effort to misdrect and sidtrack does not hold up.

I cited the conference itself - but you attempt to sidetrack and misdirect making it the "opinion of one evolutionist" as if the entire conference can be quietly swept under the rug if sufficient misdirection is applied.

Note what you did

UTEOTW

I think that this was dishonest. You cited Dodson and Howgate. I asked you for evidence that these guys thought that archy was only a bird

IN FACT - my point was to SHOW that they DID think it was a TRUE BIRD. That ALONE provided the point that I was after. EVEN you have not been able to misdirect or sidtrack that point in all your efforts. In fact you have brought yourself to admit that point several times.

You then went into a rather lightweight "story" about how we might expect "TRUE C" to be accepted as "TRUE INTERMEDIATES BETWEEN a TRUE A and TRUE C" rather than actually having TRUE B.

As I said - this is so glaringly obvious that I enjoy spelling it out each time you pretend not to get it (And you seem happy to do it all for the sake of the junk science of evolutionism).

I have never doubted that atheist evolutionists STILL "believe" in evolutionism IN SPITE of the flaws (after all what OTHER choice do they have?). My claim was that they ADMIT that archaeopteryx is a TRUE BIRD. THEY did this at the time when it was hotly debated and at a time when the PREFERENCE was to present Archaeopteryx as a perfect example of a TRANSITION BETWEEN reptiles and birds INSTEAD of "A true bird".

The point is actually quite devastating to the argument for evolutionism.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

"Paul - it is the EVOLUTIONISTS that are confessing that the horse series is bogus and in fact an embarrassment. Re-read the details and get back to me."

No where are they claiming it is an "embarrassment" or "bogus."

What is being said, in these 50 year old quotes I might add, is that the original view of a smooth, linear transition is false. And it is not just the horse series. Originally, when the data set was limited, the thought was the evolution happened in a steady but gradual fashion. Once more data was collected, it was learned that it was not so steady after all but was instead often jerky and that instead of a simple A to B to C progression that instead that there were often many side branches that dies out. Furthermore, because of the spotty nature of the fossil record, it was often these side branches that you found preserved.

"Dogs and wolves are NOT an example of evolution."

You missed his point. WOlves did not disappear just because dogs were domesticated and bred from them. So why do you expect that just because a population of A evolves into B and another population into C that there can not still be examples of A running around? Fish did not disappear when the amphibians evolved. The amphibians did not disappear because some turned into reptiles. The reptiles are still with us even though some became birds and others mammals.

"Actually it is surprising that ANY intermediate form is "lacking" SINCE evolutionists (like UTEOTW) have retreated back to the level of claiming that "TRUE C" is in fact an "INTERMEDIATE BETWEEN" a "TRUE A" and a "TRUE C". (Check out the Archaeopteryx thread)
...
Indeed. And when the day comes that evolutionists stop giving "TRUE C" as an intermediate BETWEEN "TRUE C" and "TRUE A" we may get somewhere.

Do you think?"

Nope. We will not. You are blinded to the truth.

What you fail to realize is that our system of classification does not have a category between A and B. So if A is theropod dinosaurs and B is extant birds, then we feel the need to put archy into A or B. The conference you continue to cite was deciding if archy should be put into A or B. They decided B. But, as shown to you repeatedly, though they put it into B for categorization, they also thought of it as a transition between A and B and presented information to that effect.

Let's look at a different example. You could find many scientists who would call ambulocetus a whale. This is dispite the fact that it was a four-legged amphibious mammal. YOu could even find some who would call Pakicetus a whale even though it was a land dwelling animal. We categorize things with shard boundaries even though life does not always fit those boundaries. For birds, a line is picked and things to one side are reptiles and to the other birds. I imagine different scientists draw that line in different places. DOes not change the fact that they all agree that birds evolved from reptiles and that archy is a fine specimen of a transitional in that series.

"Actually it has been SHOWN that they did NOT conclude that Archaeopteryx was the ancestor of birds. In fact they admit that birds PRE-DATE Archaeopteryx."

Read the other post. Again. The very people you cited were giving talks at the conference on the transitional nature of Archaeopteryx.

As far as the older birds comment...

Remember our discussion above about how you get side branches and that the particular species do not die out just because part of the population evolves into something new? I think you already have your answer.

About Archaeopteryx in particular, the evidence (both when in time it is found and specifics about the anatomy) shows us that it is unlikely that Archaeopteryx is on the direct line to birds but is instead one of the side branches. It preserves for us many of the features of one of the animals on the actual line. This does not take away from its valuable information about the transition from reptiles to birds.

"Why do you insist on calling this a "lie" when in fact NONE of it is refuted AT ALL by anything you have posted? What is your point?"

My point is that it is lying to knowingly say something that you know to be false. In this case you made a claim. I showed you, using the references you gave from your source, that what these people actually had to say was vastly different from what you were claiming they said. Once you have been given this information, you have no excuse for repeating the false claim again. If you still think that Dodson and Howgate believe Archaeopteryx to be only a bird and not a transitional, then go look through their writings, especially from the conference in question, and show that they actually think that it is merely a unique bird and not a transitional. Repeating the same false claim over and over does not make it true. I have given you their opinion on the matter both from the conference and from their other writings. YOu can deny it all you like, it is there for all to see.

"Notice the strong statements OF THE EVOLUTIONISTS about it "never existing in nature" AT ALL."

Nope. What they said was that the smooth, continuous, gradual transition never occured in nature. The bushy, jerky transition did.

"These are evolutionists THAT DO "believe" in the evolution of the horse but that CAN NOT use that series. IT pretends to SHOW something that evolutionists NOW know is not true. YOU want to KEEP that series as if "it is still true when we wrap the right story around it".

The problem is - the SERIES IS IN ERROR. The VERY THING you want to KEEP is in error - and your claim that "surrounding it with a better bandaide story should help" does not work at all."

Nope. They knew that the gradual series was mistaken over 50 years ago. It was modifed to relfect reality as better data became available.

Too bad you are unable to modify your opinions as better data becomes available.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Paul - it is the EVOLUTIONISTS that are confessing that the horse series is bogus and in fact an embarrassment. Re-read the details and get back to me.

What they found out is that the horse series has branches that they were unable to discern before they acquired so many new fossil species. This does not mean horses did not evolve; it means that as protohorses came along, they had related species of fellow pre-equines in the same way that today we have zebras and donkeys and horses and so forth.

Paul said --
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
2) Just because species a splits off to species b does not mean species a HAS TO DIE OFF. Think about wolves and dogs - wolves are still with us. So yes, a MODERN WOLF could serve as an example of the ancestral species to A DOG FROM A THOUSAND YEARS AGO. Especially if fossilization is a rare event and you're lucky to have a wolf fossil at all.

Dogs and wolves are NOT an example of evolution. They are every day examples of variation WITHIN a kind. Lizards -to- birds ?? YES that would be EVOLUTION.
</font>[/QUOTE]Pay closer attention, BobRyan, I didn't say dogs from wolves prove evolution, I said dogs from wolves proves the ancestral species can continue to exist while the descendant species comes along.

Don't worry, readers, I think BobRyan will get it after it is repeated to him about 30 more times.

Its the logic of the thing you are supposed to grasp and realize that we can get two fossils from exactly the same time period and one of them represents an ancestral species of the other one. Not that the individual was the ancestor, but he is an accurate representation of the true common ancestor way back, compared to the one that diverged.

Paul said -- </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
4) Not one species in a thousand is represented in the fossil record. Of these, some of them have hundreds and hundreds of fossil examples, others only have a few. This is because fossilization is extremely rare and discovery of fossils is a chancy thing.

Actually it is surprising that ANY intermediate form is "lacking" SINCE evolutionists (like UTEOTW) have retreated back to the level of claiming that "TRUE C" is in fact an "INTERMEDIATE BETWEEN" a "TRUE A" and a "TRUE C". (Check out the Archaeopteryx thread)
</font>[/QUOTE]I've been following the threads. What I see is that the people responsible for classifying Archaeopteryx were presented with a dilemma - an established classification scheme that requires them to put the species as either bird or non bird, reptile or non reptile, dinosaur or non dinosaur. Although they all realized it was an intermediate, they decided for the purpose of cataloging the creature to term it a bird.

This little verbal convenience - an arbitrary classification for the sake of conformity to the present cataloging system - you take as proof it is not an intermediate. The physical evidence of the intermediate characteristics means nothing to you. And that is the way you approach all your opposition to science, you put words together to suit yourself regardless of the facts behind the words.

Indeed. And when the day comes that evolutionists stop giving "TRUE C" as an intermediate BETWEEN "TRUE C" and "TRUE A" we may get somewhere.

Do you think?

Yup, we have the true intermediate, more than one of them and we have gotten somewhere and you are being left behind.

 

[UTEOTW]

"In fact in that post you simply "imagined" your "proof"."

No, I actually gave you information from the actual people you cited, including from the actual conference you cited, that showed that they in fact thought that Archaeopteryx was a transitional.

As shown in your bolded quote of me, the only thing that I said I "imagined" was that it was a good conference. Since I was not a participant, I cannot say that it was from firsthand knowledge. But I have attended and presented at enough conferences to know that they are useful exchanges of ideas. And since this is a conference you can still find cited (correctly, I might add, in places other than your posts) today, I am supposing that it was a good conference. I do not see how you think that is something for you to make hay with.

"Clearly your "imagination" failed you here as the clear objective was to PICK an intermediate BETWEEN Reptile and bird since This is what your initial quote CLAIMED to have...I know you "need to pretend" you don't see the obvious glaring problem there ... but.. do you think that stops the rest of us from seeing it?"

Bob, humans by nature want to put things in a category. Just because the category decided for Archaeopteryx was bird, does not mean that it cannot be a transitional. I am sorry that you have blinded yourself to that possibility, but others have not. But scientists do not have the same burden as you. Let me let Dr. Raup explain it for you. (Yes, the one you have misquoted a few times.)

The practicing paleontologist is obliged to place any newly found fossil in the Linnean system of taxonomy. Thus, if one finds a birdlike reptile or a reptilelike bird (such as Archaeopteryx), there is no procedure in the taxonomic system for labeling and classifying this as an intermediate between the two classes Aves and Reptilia. Rather, the practicing paleontologist must decide to place his fossil in one category or the other. The impossibility of officially recognising transitionary forms produces an artificial dichotomy between biologic groups. It is conventional to classify Archaeopteryx as a bird. I have no doubt, however, that if it were permissible under the rules of taxonomy to put Archaeopteryx in some sort of category intermediate between birds and reptiles that we would indeed do that.

Emphasis added.

Raup, D. M. 1983. The geological and paleontological arguments of creationism. p. 147-162. In: Godfrey, L. R. (ed), Scientist Confront Creationism. Norton & Co, New York.

As far as Archaeopteryx goes, it is all instructive to know that one of the six known fossils, the Solnhofen specimen, was initially identified as the dinosaur Compsognathus! Amazing, don't you think, that a creature that you claim is nothing but a unique bird was first identified as a dinosaur when the feathers were not well enough preserved to show otherwise. Without the feathers, they first thought it was nothing more than a small dinosaur!

"This quote of Dodson speaking of himself in the 3rd person (If one is to go with your source AND your quote) where the "speculation" is made about "what I THINK he was saying" - is dubious at best."

Where do you see any quotation marks? I did not put any in there.

If you will read it, I was saying that Dodson, you know the guy you cited, presented information about the transitional nature of Archaeopteryx at the International Archaeopteryx Conference, you know the conference you cited.

"(Though I am sure they ALL "hope" it is the descendant of some reptile - AND should an intermediate BETWEEN Archy and reptile ever be found -- they would be overjoyed!)"

You haven't followed the science of this very well have you? Obviously not, given your position.

What about Sinosauropteryx, Microraptor, Yixianosaurus, Compsognathus, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, and Avimimus to name some of what we have.

"HEre then is the crux of your tactic and the flaw in your argument. You claim that for us to point out the GLARING defect in your initial quote that "Achaeopteryx is a true INTERMEDIATE BETWEEN Reptile and Bird" can not be sustained by virtue of the fact that it IS a "TRUE BIRD" -- is "a lie" EVEN though you ADMIT it "IS A TRUE BIRD". Your problem remains. Your attempt to misdirect fails. Your addition of accusations in an effort to misdrect and sidtrack does not hold up. I cited the conference itself - but you attempt to sidetrack and misdirect making it the "opinion of one evolutionist" as if the entire conference can be quietly swept under the rug if sufficient misdirection is applied."

I cannot help it if you do not understand that our classification system does not have a place for between birds and reptiles. It does not seem to be a problem for anyone else. It is dishonest for you to continue to promote Archaeopteryx as merely a true, yet unique bird, based on the references you have tried to use because they have been shown to say something other than what you claim.

Now if you want to prove me wrong, by all means dig up the conference proceedings and show us all that they decided that it was not a transitional.

 

[BobRyan]

"Like the later Piltdown man, Archaeopteryx seemed a perfect intermediate form . . There are, however, disturbing analogies between Piltdown man and Archaeopteryx that have come to light with careful study. Both are hodgepodges of traits found in the forms they are supposed to link,—with each trait present in essentially fully developed form rather than in an intermediate state! Allowing for alterations, Piltdown’s jaw was that of an orangutan; Archaeopteryx’s skull was a dinosaur skull. Moreover, Piltdown man’s cranium was a Homo sapiens skull; Archaeopteryx’s feathers were ordinary feathers, differing in no significant way from those of a strong flying bird such as a falcon . . The lack of proper and sufficient bony attachments for powerful flight muscles is enough to rule out the possibility that Archaeopteryx could even fly, feathers notwithstanding."—W. Frair and P. Davis, Case for Creation (1983), pp. 58-60.

This "explains" the problem of "TRUE BIRD" when in fact what evolutionists NEEDED was non-Bird.

As it turned out - we had "seen this before".

Hmm. Where is the critical thinking mind now?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Those who wish to blindly assert that Archaeopteryx is ANYTHING like an "intermediate BETWEEN" reptiles and birds - showing a BRIDGE or hybrid path FROM Reptiles on their way to eventually becoming TRUE BIRDS .. will want to pay close attention.


16 - Modern birds below it! Not only do we find modern birds in the same strata with Archaeopteryx,—but we also find birds below it!

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
"Perhaps the final argument against Archaeopteryx as a transitional form has come from a rock quarry in Texas. Here scientists from Texas Tech University found bird bones encased in rock layers farther down the geologic column than Archaeopteryx fossils."—Richard Bliss, Origins: Creation or Evolution? (1988), p. 46 [also see Nature 322, August 21, 1986; Science 253, July 5, 1991].

No bird bones of any type have been found below the late Jurassic; but, within the Jurassic, they have been found in strata with Archaeopteryx, and now below it: Two crow-sized birds were discovered in the Triassic Dockum Formation in Texas. Because of the strata they were located in, those birds would, according to evolutionary theory, be 75 million years older than Archaeopteryx. More information on this Texas discovery can be found in *Nature, 322 (1986), p. 677.
</font>[/QUOTE]In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The truly dedicated evolutionist - must CONTINUALLY satisfy himself with endless efforts to turn a blind eye to the frank confessions of his FELLOW true believers in evolutionism.

He must misdirect so that others may not dwell on this embarrassing fact - and then he must boldly misdirect and sidestep such embarrassments as ...

14 - Totally unique. Regarding the Archaeopteryx,

*Romer, the well-known paleontologist, said this::
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

"This Jurassic bird [Archaeopteryx] stands in splendid isolation; we know no more of its presume thecodont ancestry nor of its relation to later ‘proper’ birds than before."—*A.S. Romer, Notes and Comments on Vertebrate Paleontology (19M), p. 144.

From his own study, *Swinton, an expert on birds and a confirmed evolutionist, has concluded:

"The origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved."—*W.E. Swinton, Biology and Comparative Physiology of Birds, Vol. 1 (1980), p. 1.

Other scientists agree. Here is an important statement by *Ostrom:

"It is obvious that we must now look for the ancestors of flying birds in a period of time much older than that in which Archaeopteryx lived."—*J. Ostrom, Science News 112 (1977), p. 198.

"Unfortunately, the greater part of the fundamental types in the animal realm are disconnected [from each other] from a paleontological point of view. In spite of the fact that it is undeniably related to the two classes of reptiles and birds (a relation which the anatomy and physiology of actually living specimens demonstrates), we are not even authorized to consider the exceptional case of the Archaeopteryx as a true link. By link, we mean a necessary stage of transition between classes such as reptiles and birds, or between smaller groups.

An animal displaying characters belonging to two different groups cannot be treated as a true link as long as the intermediate stages have not been found, and as long as the mechanisms of transition remain unknown."—*L. du Nouy, Human Destiny (1947), p. 58.

</font>[/QUOTE]In Christ,

Bob

[ August 11, 2004, 09:55 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

[BobRyan]

Contrast the statements above against the junk science claims posted by UTEOTW --

This was posted on the Baptist board by UTEOTW –
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2740/3.html#000044


From http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/phylo/phylo.htm

"Undeniably, the fossil record has provided disappointingly few gradual series. The origins of many groups are still not documented at all." (Futuyma, D., Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, 1983, p. 190-191)

Sounds bad, doesn't it. But let's give the full quote.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Contrary to Creationist claims, the transitions among vertebrate species are almost all documented to a greater or lesser extent. Archeopteryx is an exquisite link between reptiles and birds; the therapsids provide an abundance of evidence for the transition from reptiles to mammals. Moreover, there are exquisite fossil links between the crossopterygian fishes and the amphibians (the icthyostegids). Of course, many other ancestor-descendent series also exist in the fossil record. I have mentioned (Chapter 4) the bactritid-ammonoid transition, the derivation of several mammalian orders from condylarthlike mammals, the evolution of horses, and of course the hominids. Undeniably, the fossil record has provided disappointingly few gradual series. The origins of many groups are still not documented at all. But in view of the rapid pace evolution can take, and the extreme incompleteness of fossil deposits, we are fortunate to have as many transitions as we do. The creationist argument that if evolution were true we should have an abundance of intermediate fossils is built by denying the richness of paleontological collections, by denying the transitional series that exist, and by distorting, or misunderstanding, the genetic theory of evolution.

In Christ,

Bob
</font>[/QUOTE]

 

[UTEOTW]

More quotes. Fun. More chances to expose YE "junk."

"[/i]Like the later Piltdown man, Archaeopteryx seemed a perfect intermediate form...[/i]"

Alright, Bob, tell us what your point of this quote is. The author of the quote is saying that Archaeopteryx is a fraud cobbled together to make it look like an actual fossil. Is this your new assertion, that Archaeopteryx is a fake? Abandoning your old assertion that is is merely a true bird? Otherwise, look at what you quoted to us. Your "source" tells us that Archaeopteryx had a dinosaur skull and fully developed flight feathers. So, if you are not quoting this to claim that it is a fake, then you are actually giving information to support the transitional nature of Archaeopteryx. How else do you explain a creature with a dinosaur skull and flight feathers.

Which is your story? You sticking with true bird? Then your quote contradicts you. You going for a fake now? Then why are you changing your story line? Cannot find any quotes from the Archaeopteryx Conference that actually show that they thought it was not a transitional, I suppose.

"Modern birds below it! Not only do we find modern birds in the same strata with Archaeopteryx,—but we also find birds below it!"

All together now. Just because part of a population evolves into something new does not mean that the rest of the population dies out. Furthermore, as I have told you, Archaeopteryx is not believed to be on the direct line to birds but is instead a side branch that died out. In the real world, there is not a problem here. I have two dogs at home but the their are still wolves wondering the woods.

Let's give you an example. The mammals evolved from the reptiles. The monotremes are mammals that still preserve many of the features of the transitionals. Leathery eggs and poor temperature regulation for a start. Monotremes are not examples of creatures on the path between reptiles and other mammals such as placentals, but they do preserve many of the features. And that transition happened at about the same time that the dinosaurs were evolving.

In the case of Archaeopteryx, it is not on the direct line. We know this from where in time it is found and from specific physical traits. But it is still very valuable in preserving many of the features of the actual transitional.

"Perhaps the final argument against Archaeopteryx as a transitional form has come from a rock quarry in Texas. Here scientists from Texas Tech University found bird bones encased in rock layers farther down the geologic column than Archaeopteryx fossils."

All together now. Just because part of a population evolves into something new does not mean that the rest of the population dies out. Furthermore, as I have told you, Archaeopteryx is not believed to be on the direct line to birds but is instead a side branch that died out. In the real world, there is not a problem here. I have two dogs at home but the their are still wolves wondering the woods.

"No bird bones of any type have been found below the late Jurassic; but, within the Jurassic, they have been found in strata with Archaeopteryx, and now below it..."

All together now. Just because part of a population evolves into something new does not mean that the rest of the population dies out. Furthermore, as I have told you, Archaeopteryx is not believed to be on the direct line to birds but is instead a side branch that died out. In the real world, there is not a problem here. I have two dogs at home but the their are still wolves wondering the woods.

"This Jurassic bird [Archaeopteryx] stands in splendid isolation"

You have given us a very old quote. Since then we have discovered many examples of creatures closer to reptiles than Archaeopteryx and closer to modern birds. The quote is no longer valid because the information has changed.

"The origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved."

You have given us a very old quote. Since then we have discovered many examples of creatures closer to reptiles than Archaeopteryx and closer to modern birds. The quote is no longer valid because the information has changed.

"It is obvious that we must now look for the ancestors of flying birds in a period of time much older than that in which Archaeopteryx lived."

All together now. Just because part of a population evolves into something new does not mean that the rest of the population dies out. Furthermore, as I have told you, Archaeopteryx is not believed to be on the direct line to birds but is instead a side branch that died out. In the real world, there is not a problem here. I have two dogs at home but the their are still wolves wondering the woods.

Finally, I still do not understand why you felt the need to quote my example of quote mining there at the end. It contradicts all that you are saying. Let's pull part of the quote out for the audience.

"Contrary to Creationist claims, the transitions among vertebrate species are almost all documented to a greater or lesser extent. Archeopteryx is an exquisite link between reptiles and birds; the therapsids provide an abundance of evidence for the transition from reptiles to mammals. Moreover, there are exquisite fossil links between the crossopterygian fishes and the amphibians (the icthyostegids). Of course, many other ancestor-descendent series also exist in the fossil record. I have mentioned (Chapter 4) the bactritid-ammonoid transition, the derivation of several mammalian orders from condylarthlike mammals, the evolution of horses, and of course the hominids."

Here, Futuyma gives many examples of known transitional series that are "almost all documented to a greater or lesser extent." His list includes the statement that "Archeopteryx is an exquisite link between reptiles and birds."

 

[BobRyan]

So the failed claim is PRECISELY that "Archeopteryx is an exquisite link between reptiles and birds."

Having seen that THIS is the exact claim -- fully debunked in the previous statements - it is easy to see how the junk science of evolutionism is so fully exposed.

It does not get any easier than this!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Unfortunately, the greater part of the fundamental types in the animal realm are disconnected [from each other] from a paleontological point of view. In spite of the fact that it is undeniably related to the two classes of reptiles and birds (a relation which the anatomy and physiology of actually living specimens demonstrates), we are not even authorized to consider the exceptional case of the Archaeopteryx as a true link. By link, we mean a necessary stage of transition between classes such as reptiles and birds, or between smaller groups.

An animal displaying characters belonging to two different groups cannot be treated as a true link as long as the intermediate stages have not been found, and as long as the mechanisms of transition remain unknown."—*L. du Nouy, Human Destiny (1947), p. 58.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
So the failed claim is PRECISELY that "Archeopteryx is an exquisite link between reptiles and birds."

Having seen that THIS is the exact claim -- fully debunked in the previous statements - it is easy to see how the junk science of evolutionism is so fully exposed.

It does not get any easier than this!

In Christ,

Bob

So just where is this claim fully debunked? You have shown no information to that point other than to demonstrate your ability to inaccurately quote scientists and your inability to understand science even when presented to you in quite simple and clear terms.

You still think that if you repeat falsehoods enough times that they will become true, don't you? Why don't you start by supporting your assertion that your favorite Archaeopteryx conference decided that it was not a transitional. I have already shown that the very author you cited presented information on the transitional nature at that very conference.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Hey BobRyan, instead of quoting people about Archaeopteryx, why don't you study its actual characteristics and figure out why it isn't a transitional and present your findings to us in terms of what you actually find?

 

[BobRyan]

UTEOTWSo just where is this claim fully debunked?

Is this the part where you pretend not to know what "Linke BETWEEN reptiles and birds" means?

Is it the part where you pretend to ignore the "salient" point in the following statement?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Unfortunately, the greater part of the fundamental types in the animal realm are disconnected [from each other] from a paleontological point of view. In spite of the fact that it is undeniably related to the two classes of reptiles and birds (a relation which the anatomy and physiology of actually living specimens demonstrates), we are not even authorized to consider the exceptional case of the Archaeopteryx as a true link. By link, we mean a necessary stage of transition between classes such as reptiles and birds, or between smaller groups.

An animal displaying characters belonging to two different groups cannot be treated as a true link as long as the intermediate stages have not been found, and as long as the mechanisms of transition remain unknown."—*L. du Nouy, Human Destiny (1947), p. 58.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [/QUOTE]

Is this your way of asking me to read it back to you?

I am not sure what your point is here. I think you are just trying to dodge another embarrassing moment for evolutionism and have chosen your usual way out.

Why not address the point instead?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

So the failed claim is PRECISELY that "Archeopteryx is an exquisite link between reptiles and birds."

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:

Hey BobRyan, instead of quoting people about Archaeopteryx, why don't you study its actual characteristics and figure out why it isn't a transitional and present your findings to us in terms of what you actually find? [/qb]

The following quote spells it out - in small words - as they say. This just isn't that hard to get. The "equisite link" idea is being addressed.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Unfortunately, the greater part of the fundamental types in the animal realm are disconnected [from each other] from a paleontological point of view. In spite of the fact that it is undeniably related to the two classes of reptiles and birds (a relation which the anatomy and physiology of actually living specimens demonstrates), we are not even authorized to consider the exceptional case of the Archaeopteryx as a true link. By link, we mean a necessary stage of transition between classes such as reptiles and birds, or between smaller groups.

An animal displaying characters belonging to two different groups cannot be treated as a true link as long as the intermediate stages have not been found, and as long as the mechanisms of transition remain unknown."—*L. du Nouy, Human Destiny (1947), p. 58.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [/QUOTE]

Why keep pretending that this is too difficult to understand?

How does this help your argument to pretend not to see the salient point BOLDED for you here?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Oh. Its the ol "its not a link, its two more gaps" argument.

Everybody knows that you could say that no matter what is ever found; and how unfair it is to keep doing that as more and more transitional species are found. L.DuNouy wrote in 1947. There have been species found since he wrote, as Uteotw posted; why don't you check them all out and see what L. DuNouy would have said if he could have taken them into account?

By the way, there are gaps in the Bible. For example, a great big gap between the old testament and the new. Is the presence of this gap a valid argument against the integrety of the Bible, just as you assert your "gaps" are for evolution? Why or why not?

 

[UTEOTW]

Bob says "The following quote spells it out - in small words - as they say. This just isn't that hard to get. The "equisite link" idea is being addressed."

The statement that he is addressing is "An animal displaying characters belonging to two different groups cannot be treated as a true link as long as the intermediate stages have not been found."

Now, Bob is once again ignoring the data presented to him on the previous page. He is using this nearly 60 year old quote to justify why Archaeopteryx cannot be an intermediate.

First Bob claimed that it cannot be an intermediate because it is a "true bird." He even cited Dr. Dodson at a conference on Archaeopteryx from the early 1980's. Now I and others pointed out to Bob that there is not a proper place for an intermediate in the classification system we use. In this case, to properly classify it you must either put it into Aves or into Reptilia. There is not an inbetween place. This does not mean that it is not a transitional. It is just what words we use to classify it. I showed that Dodson present information about the transitional nature of archy at the conference in question. I showed Bob the large number of characteristics that it shares with the theropod dinosaurs but not with any extant bird. In the face of all this, Bob continued to insist that it is only a bird. We have asked Bob to present facts to support his assertion that the conference said that it was not a transitional. We have asked Bob to present his evidence that it actually has no reptilian characteristics. Bob has refused to support any of his assertions but he continues to make them in spite of the evidence. Bob claims that he does not get involved in the facts. We can all see now why. They so fully go against him.

So then Bob drags up a quote charging that Archaeopteryx is a fake. He does not support this assertion when challenged.

He now has a new assertion. Archaeopteryx cannot be a transitional because there are no other intermediates between it and the reptiles or the birds. He drags out a quote from the 1940s to support this. He ignores that on the previous page I gave him a list of creatures More closely related to reptiles. My list, and it is only partial, was Sinosauropteryx, Microraptor, Yixianosaurus, Compsognathus, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, and Avimimus. To complete the thought, here is a partial list of creatures closer to modern birds: Sinornis, Ambiortus, Confuciusornis, Neornithes, Changchengornis, Gobipteryx, Alexornis.

This argument is sometimes known as "moving the goalposts." It goes something like "That cannot be a transitional because we do not have the creatures that connect it to the others." When these are supplied then they will ask for the creatures between those.

Now I have no doubt that Bob will continue to claim the archy is not a transitional. MY bet is that he will go back to the assertion that it is a "true bird" and not a transitional. I'll also bet that he will not dig into the facts to actually support his assertion and that he will continue to ignore the data presented to him. At best, he will give us another list of out-of-context quotes or a copy and paste job from some website with poor fact checking.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
Oh. Its the ol "its not a link, its two more gaps" argument.

Everybody knows that you could say that no matter what is ever found; and how unfair it is to keep doing that as more and more transitional species are found. L.DuNouy wrote in 1947.

AS it turns out - species have not evolved much since 1947. (I am sure that comes as a big surprise to evolutionists).

His point is that the FULLY MATURE BIRD features of Archaeopteryx make it USELESS as a link. Think of how much STRONGER his statement would be if he had the benefit of the "TRUE BIRD" designation for Archaeopteryx pronounced in the 1980's.

This point is so blatantly obvious - it is hard to fathom how evolutionists can continue to "pretend" they don't understand the point.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

My main complaint here is that the evolutionists "tactic" is to "pretend" not to get the point of the argument -- and they play that game chiefly by ignoring the points raised. (A fascinating game they play here but better that than simply have them be embarrassed by the facts - I guess).

However UTEOTW - then steps out of that shell and boldly asserts that he will actually recite and deal with the points raised..

This is a huge step forward - if he would actually do it.

UTOETW
He is using this nearly 60 year old quote to justify why Archaeopteryx cannot be an intermediate.

While UTEOTW gets HIS OWN SIDEPOINT that the quote is from 1947 he does not ACTUALLY respond to anything IN the quote.

So "again" dodging the points raised increases his ability to "pretend" not to get them.

So moving on...

UTOETW
First Bob claimed that it cannot be an intermediate because it is a "true bird."

In fact I claimed (AS DID THE QUOTE Uteotw is ignoring) that you can not claim that TRUE C is a LINK BETWEEN TRUE A and TRUE C.

(Just stating the obvious here)

UTOETW

Now I and others pointed out to Bob that there is not a proper place for an intermediate in the classification system we use.

What a perfect "dodge". The conference on Archaopteryx NEVER argued that SINCE they refused to recognize transitional classifications they would simply DECLARE all transitionals BETWEEN TRUE A and TRUE C to be EITHER TRUE A or TRUE C -- never TRUE B.

The conference never makes that point - and NEVER gives that as a reason for declaring Archaeopteryx to be TRUE C.

IN FACT - If Arhaeopteryx were NOT a perching BIRD with REAL flight feathers - it is highly doubtful the conference would have declared Archaeopteryx to BE a "TRUE BIRD".

This entire "imagined" point by UTEOTW is simply a dodge - rather than a demonstration of any fact used by that conference to come up with their finding.

UTOETW

In this case, to properly classify it you must either put it into Aves or into Reptilia.

Wrong. ANY finding of a REAL transition LINK BETWEEN A and C would NOT simply be INJECTED into one or the other category BECAUSE a new "intermediate" categor is "not allowed". That is just silly.

The conference was NOT debating weather to call Archaeopteryx TRUE reptile or TRUE Bird AS IF they could only choose between those two option.

UTOETW
I showed that Dodson present information about the transitional nature of archy at the conference in question. I showed Bob the large number of characteristics that it shares with the theropod

The supposed list of characteristics making it a UNIQUE BIRD - include teeth - which MODERN birds have and are NOT declared to be "TRUE BIRDS that are really LINKS BETWEEN Bird and reptile" but are only called true birds "because we have no other place for them".

That is just a fairytale UTEOTW is spinning for his entertainment.

UTOETW
Bob continued to insist that it is only a bird.

The conference in question did NOT state" this is BOTH A TRUE BIRD and a TRUE REPTILE" saying "ONLY a BIRD" makes it sound like "you think" it is "ALSO SOMETHING ELSE".

The "ALSO SOMETHING ELSE" language is missing from the conference AND the statement by Nouy makes it clear that MATURE characteristics of a TRUE BIRD can not be considered "A LINK BETWEEN Bird and Reptile"

Nouy is simply stating the obvious - but Christian evolutionists have a hard time with the obvious.

UTOETW
Bob has refused to support any of his assertions but he continues to make them in spite of the evidence.

Again - dodging the point -- why not address it UTEOTW??

You claimed to have a LINK - BETWEEN true reptile and TRue Bird and then only came up with "TRUE BIRD".

How much more obvious could this be UTEOTW?

UTOETW
Bob claims that he does not get involved in the facts.

What a wonderful dodge -- UTEOTW has tired of ignoring the points of the debate and pretending he can not see the quotes and the points raised - so NOW we get this???

How entertaining!

UTOETW
He now has a new assertion. Archaeopteryx cannot be a transitional because there are no other intermediates between it and the reptiles or the birds.

More precisely -- BECAUSE mature characteristics of TRUE C can NOT be regarded as TRANSITIONAL between TRUE A and TRUE C.

oops! Did I say that already???!

Sorry - just "pretend" you don't get the point. (again)

UTEOTW then appears to comment on his own tactics --

UTOETW
This argument is sometimes known as "moving the goalposts."

Hmm. Instructive.

UTOETW
Now I have no doubt that Bob will continue to claim the archy is not a transitional. MY bet is that he will go back to the assertion that it is a "true bird" and not a transitional.

And is that because you are not addressing the point raised - or is it because Bob just doesn't accept "any old dodge" as a persuasive response?

Do you think that "pretending you don't get the pont" is going to serve evolutionism?

I don't see how that is so attractive to you as a well reasoned form of response.

UTOETW
I'll also bet that he will not dig into the facts to actually support his assertion

Too late - already DID dig in and already FOUND the quote showing that TRUE A is not a link BETWEEN TRUE A and TRUE C and neither is TRUE C a LINK between TRUE A and TRUE C.

You keep saying in effect "Well that was true in 1947 but not any more" AS IF that was an enlightened response.

Please be serious.

If your practice of poor fact checking did not consiste of "pretending not to get the point" I think we could advance the discussion up a notch.

As it is - I simply raise the same obvious points and you content yourself with pretending not to know what they are. This list of non-points that you respond to in your post -- shows perfectly well how you "convince yourself" not to see the points raised.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Another impassable gap between birds and reptiles is feathers, which are peculiar to birds. Reptile bodies are covered with scales, a completely different structure. The hypothesis that bird feathers evolved from reptile scales is completely unfounded, and is indeed disproved by the fossil record, as the evolutionist paleontologist Barbara Stahl once admitted:

How [feathers] arose initially, presumably from reptiles scales, defies analysis... It seems, from the complex construction of feathers, that their evolution from reptilian scales would have required an immense period of time and involved a series of intermediate structures. So far, the fossil record does not bear out that supposition. (Barbara J. Stahl, Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution, Dover, 1985, pp. 349-350.)

)


As Alan Feduccia, one of the leading ornithologists in the world, has stated,

"Most recent workers who have studied various anatomical features of Archaeopteryx have found the creature to be much more birdlike than previously imagined," and "the resemblance of Archaeopteryx to theropod dinosaurs has been grossly overestimated." (Alan Feduccia, The Origin and Evolution of Birds, Yale University Press, 1999, p. 81)

Another problem regarding Archaeopteryx is that the theropod dinosaurs, which many evolutionists suggest were Archaeopteryx' ancestors, actually emerge after it in the fossil record, not before it. This, of course, leaves no room for any "evolutionary family tree" to account for the origin of birds.

Feduccia has this to say regarding the thesis of reptile-bird evolution:

Well, I've studied bird skulls for 25 years and I don't see any similarities whatsoever. I just don't see it... The theropod origins of birds, in my opinion, will be the greatest embarrassment of paleontology of the 20th century. ( Pat Shipman, "Birds Do It... Did Dinosaurs?," New Scientist, February 1, 1997, p. 28)

In Christ,

Bob