. . . ."a theory in crisis" indeed.
Posted on 07/29/2011 9:24:53 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
A fossil touted since the time of Charles Darwin as the "missing link" between dinosaurs and birds is likely just a dinosaur, scientists have admitted in a new report in the journal Nature..
The proposal to reclassify the specimen Archaeopteryx, which has been presented since its discovery in 1861 as a key transitional link, highlights the shifting sands on which much of evolutionary theory is based, according to one expert in the field.
David Menton of Answers in Genesis has a Ph.D. in cell biology from Brown University, taught anatomy at Washington University School of Medicine, lectured in anatomy, was a consulting editor for "Stedman's Medical Dictionary" and has been profiled in "American Men and Women of Science – a Biographical Directory of Today's Leaders in Physical, Biological and Related Sciences."
He told WND the developments reported by Nature directly undercut the assumptions of Darwinian evolutionary theory.
"Just how many papers have we had talking about this being a bird?" he asked.
A summary of the scientific paper in naturenews explains that Xing Xu, a paleontologist at the Institute of Vertebrate Palaeontology and Palaeoanthropology in Beijing, is suggesting Archaeopteryx is "not a bird at all."
David Menton
The report says the latest discovery suggests the assumption that Archaeopteryx is "the evolutionary link between the two [birds and dinosaurs]" may need reconsideration.
The discovery, called Xiaotingia zhengi, was found in western Liaoning, China, in rocks dating to the Jurassic time frame, an assumed 161 million to 145 million years ago.
This one, like others, the report said, has feather impressions in the rock, but it also has claws on its forelimbs and sharp teeth.
"Xu reports that it also has extremely long middle and last finger bones and a wishbone with an L-shaped cross-section at one end.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Captain Obvious, please pick up the white courtesy phone in the lobby, thank you.
embarrassing
It was A transitional form between dinosaurs and birds - a feathered flying dinosaur.
It may not have been THE transitional form that eventually evolved into birds, but rather an offshoot that went extinct.
So how does a feathered flying dinosaur disprove evolution through natural selection of genetic variation again?
It doesn’t.
It is the same “look science changes what it believes based upon evidence, while we still believe the same thing despite all evidence.” creationist canard.
What evidence is there of any connection between birds and dinosaurs at all?
When did this crossover occur?
We simply do not know, and there is zero proof of the connection between birds and dinosaurs.
Scientific theories need to be based on empiricism, not one fanciful wishful thinking like Kiplings, “how the rino got his horns”.
Previously the hip thing was just thought to be a shared trait or an independently derived trait - but the feathers clinched that they belonged to the “bird” clade based upon shared ancestry explaining a derived trait.
There is also protein sequence evidence. The closest sequence to the collagen discovered from a T-rex bone was that of a chicken.
It has long been known that dinosaurs were closer related to birds than to reptiles.
Science doesn't do “proof” it does evidence.
You can ignore the evidence if you want - but it is still there.
The evidence indicates that once there were lots and lots of dinosaurs but no birds. Then there were feathered flying dinosaurs. Then there were birds, including lots of flightless birds that were, without evidence of feathers, thought to be dinosaurs.
Science it keeps changing. Being a creationist means never having to change your opinion based upon evidence. Being a scientist means you must.
Hey Allmendream......
Long time since you’ve laid an ad hominem on me.
There are many issues with the whole dinosaur/bird thing.... here’s a big problem that evolutionists never address:
There are real bird fossils that have been found in much older strata than Archaeopteryx. How could he have been transitional between dinos and birds if birds already existed? Simple question that deserves an explanation.... perhaps you have one Allmendream?
No, the question is how does it prove it.
So how does a feathered flying dinosaur disprove evolution through natural selection of genetic variation again?
Evolution isn’t falsifiable. That’s the problem.
Yes, science requires proof. If someone give me an electrical engineering problem, I can solve it through the application of Kirchoff’s Laws, or I can build the circuits. If the numbers do not match, then I have made an error along the way.
Evolution doesn’t work that way. We simple don’t have the means to test evolutionary theory in an empirical fashion.
Until then, there is no difference between Kipling and Darwin.
And if Archeopteryx is a dead end with derived traits from a transitional between dinosaurs and birds - the existence of more fully formed actual “birds” slightly (as these things go) before it evolved would hardly be surprising.
Kind of like the existence of Neanderthal at the same time as modern man. Or the existence of Australopithecus Robustus at the same time as Australopithecus Afarensis.
The fact that reality doesn't comport well with a creationists simplistic misunderstanding of what evolution actually is isn't a problem with the theory of evolution through natural selection of genetic variation.
"Science" doesn't change - new evidences are discovered which force Darwinists to rewright their texts.
Empiricism Forever!!
Science doesn’t DO “proof” it does “evidence”.
How do you explain the evidence? Science has an explanation for the evidence. Yes, the explanation changes as new evidence comes in. What is your explanation?
Never understood why Evolution and Religion are mutually exclusive....I believe evolution is simply the way God works.
“Answers in Genesis “
In depth lecture series on evolution, creation, archeology, and many many topics. The information is there for anyone who wants to be informed. Christian Scientists (not the religious sect), but actual scientists, go as deep as you can handle. Not for the sound bite crowd. That is if you actually want to know the TRUTH.
for starters.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/daily-articles
They aren’t mutually exclusive. Science and evolution are.
What aspect of evolution (or common descent of species) do you think is unfalsifiable?
I can take ten colonies of bacteria, subject them to ten different stresses, and derive populations that can survive the stress (through genetic changes) that previously they could not. This is reproducible.
What is absolutely falsifiable is the Creationist position that there will be no change at all (i.e. no evolution) or that any mutation will be maladaptive and lead to the degradation of the species, or that the changes were selected from variations that ‘pre - existed’ within the population.
Look into ERV sequences and then try to tell me with a straight face that common descent of species is also not falsifiable.
The pace at which we are gaining biological information keeps increasing, and every bit of data further confirms the pattern expected if one assumes common descent of species.
Besides, unless you think EVERY species that currently existed fit on an Ark of known dimensions - then you accept speciation - the arising of new species from a common ancestor. Those that accept a literal account of the Bible actually accept the common descent of species and evolution at a rate far beyond any proposed by evolutionary biology - they just don't accept evolution between “kinds” whatever the current and individual meaning of that is.
So what mechanism would you use to explain the arising of every modern species from those that could fit on a boat of known dimensions?
What mechanism would you use to explain the arising of antibiotic resistance?
What mechanism would you use to explain the environmental adaptations of different human populations?
Do you have a mechanism? Do you think you don't need one?
I don’t believe I have ever heard the idea that creationism denies micro-evolution. The issue is macro-evolution, by which I mean the change of one form of life into another, including the leap from one phylum to another.
Selecting the survival of arganisms by the introduction of stimuli hasn’t been disputed for some time, to my knowledge. Heck, even Pavlov proved the adaptability of living beings (although not on a genetic level).
Outstanding!
The last paragraph was GOLD, sir.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.