Posted on 10/11/2005 4:07:11 AM PDT by mlc9852
MONDAY, Oct. 10 (HealthDay News) -- Head to the American Museum of Natural History's Web site, and you'll see the major draw this fall is a splashy exhibit on dinosaurs.
And not just any dinosaurs, but two-legged carnivorous, feathered "theropods" like the 30-inch-tall Bambiraptor -- somewhat less cuddly than its namesake.
The heyday of the theropods, which included scaly terrors like T. rex and velociraptor, stretched from the late Triassic (220 million years ago) to the late Cretaceous (65 million years ago) periods.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Did you read the article you linked? The article is about a fraud known as the Archeaoraptor, not Archaeopteryx. Two different things.
Spelling correction: "Archaeoraptor". My keyboard is obviously defective.
There's nothing ironic about it at all. My post is based on the latest evidence and best fits all available research. Feduccia's fringe conclusion is not. As even the "article in question" admits, the theropod dinosaur origins of birds is "the prevailing theory" -- and it got that way because the copious evidence and decades of research has convinced the vast majority of biologists of the correctness of that conclusion. The only significant hold-outs are Feduccia and one other guy (Miller), and they frequently commit widely recognized errors in their methods.
For example, Feduccia has been caught relying on obsolete findings when newer, more complete information has superceded it, and so forth, which is a BIG no-no in science (it's grounds for legitimate considerations of incompetence and/or being dishonestly selective about your facts) so I don't have a lot of confidence in his reliability on that topic.
For one specific, Feduccia keeps harping on the "2-3-4" pattern of bird digits, as if that matter is settled in his favor (and as if it would actually be a major obstacle for bird evolution even if it were). But even the article which started this thread, you'll see that he relies on Hinchcliffe:
But the study's third author, Dr. Richard Hinchliffe -- a recognized expert in vertebrate limb development -- "points out that there are five different assessments showing that the bird hand has the three middle fingers left," the "2-3-4" morphology, Feduccia said.The problem here is that Hinchcliffe's last research paper on this topic was in **1984**, which is ancient history as far as genetics goes. There have been ENORMOUS strides in analytical genetics since then. But Feduccia is still clinging to a twenty-year old study (apparently because he likes its conclusion), while *ignoring* many subsequent findings which use much more reliable analystical methods to find answers to that issue, such as:
The digits of the wing of birds are 1, 2, and 3. A review (J Exp Zoolog B Mol Dev Evol. 2005 May 15;304(3):206-19)Feduccia is either inexcusably careless, or he's picking-and-choosing results based on what he *wants* the results to be, instead of on the latest, most accurate findings. And neither option inspires confidence. There are similar problems with Feduccia's other points which he argues in order to try to support his very minority view on the matter of bird evolution.
Do a Google on Feduccia's name, skip the fawning creationist websites (they love anyone who "bucks the evolutionist party line" no matter how poorly, even when he still espouses Darwinian evolution as Feduccia does), skip Feduccia's own personal pages, and most of what you're left with is pages of folks pointing out Feduccia's many mistakes on the subject.
For example:
The problems with The Origin and Evolution of Birds. Discussion of the problems with hypotheses made by Dr. Alan Feduccia in his new book on bird evolution, plus general discussion on the dinosaurian affinities birds.Gregory Paul's comments about Feduccia's bird digit paper
The Continuing Debate Over Avian Origins (A review of Feduccia's book)
Perhaps you should consider retiring it for a bit....
I have given it all due consideration, and concluded that there is no need to revise my post. It contains no errors, fits all the evidence, and is not contradicted by anyone's findings, not even Feduccia's. If you have any actual evidence to the contrary, feel free to present it.
Huh, "Dr." Hovind? I thought he was in jail for tax evasion. Either that, or riding his pet dinosaurs around his yard.
And by the way, you should never refer to that scoundrel as "Doctor" seeing as though his doctorate was given to him from a diploma mill from a garage. I'm not saying one must be a phd to make a salient point, but I am calling Hovind a despicable liar.
You thought incorrectly.
I found this after a google search: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/11/1120_021120_raptor.html Don't you think this cuts into your credibilty a little bit?
No, but it cuts into *yours*, since you're apparently unable to notice something as elementary as the fact that "Archaeoraptor" is not the same thing as "Archaeopteryx". Dyslexic much?
Just for the record, I'm considerably older than Pure Country and no one that I knew ever believed that polio "came out of the ground" it was known to be a contagious virus.
And I took discrete mathematics at an Ivy League school and I'm fairly certain my prof, nor any in the department were YEC's.
I find this particularly amusing since I'm just a few years older than you, and my father was among the first health officers to authorize mass immunizations against polio. Polio is mostly spread by people who don't wash their hands after using the toilet or changing a diaper. I'm sure you will be amused to know that when the oral vaccine came out it was in short supply, but whole families could be immunized by giving one dose to an infant, because the vaccine was contagious in the same way as the disease.
Your recollection of the science of the day is a false memory.
Think of the advantages of holding to this belief. It's easy to remember, saves oodles of time at the library, and can't be disproved.
Just a reg'lar tour de farce.
Your ignorance really showed with that post ;-)
Now you clearly don't understand science, but that doesn't keep you from pontificating on the topic. Why don't you go back to school and understand what it is you're talking about so you can actually be persuasive?
You all become authorities on everything. First, no museum guide would ever say....now you are saying that you know what every scientist and doctor in the country was saying about polio. And no....my recollection is not a false memory. We DID have to stay indoors and not go out. There was a fear in the country of this very thing. So please, don't assume that you can talk for all--I don't care how old you are.
Oh, and my kids say that I am older than dirt...how old does that make you? :)
Are dinosaur fossils the bones of these animals? NO, fossils are mineral deposits that have leached into and taken the place/shape of these bones. The bone material is long gone.
Then a question that begs an answer is, how long does fossilization take? Laboratory experiment have produced fossilized bone in about one year.
What are the prime ingredients in the formation of fossils? Besides the bone and a mineral source, lots of WATER is necessary for fossilization.
One thing most everyone agrees on is, sometime in the past a catastrophic event killed large numbers of prehistoric animals and left a fossil record.
(Now here is where I lose the darwin wingnuts, Heh, Heh)
What BIBLICAL event spoke of large quantities of water and the death of every air breathing animal (except those in an vessel known as the ARK)? In addition the post flood world was radically different than the preflood world. Possibly including volcanoes and over 19K ft mountains where there were none before.
THAT'S RIGHT THE WORLDWIDE BIBLICAL FLOOD CAUSED THE FOSSIL RECORD. THE FLOOD HAPPENED ABOUT 4000 YEARS AGO!
CASE CLOSED. GOD/BIBLE-HOMERUN.....darwin-0
One more interesting thing about the BIBLE, it spoke about arrogant godless people like we see today.
(2 Ti 3:7) Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
(2 Ti 4:4) And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
If that isn't enough, the New Testament event where JESUS raised Lazarus from the dead. (John 11:39) Jesus said, Take ye away the stone. Martha, the sister of him that was dead, saith unto him, Lord, by this time he stinketh: for he hath been [dead] four days. At four days Lazarus was decomposing. NOW FOR YOU darwing nuts, JESUS in picoseconds (no evolution needed) fully restored life into a purifying dead body. So, seems to me JESUS being both GOD and man could easily create the universe in SIX DAYS. He said so in Genesis and I believe him!
(Phl 2:9-11)Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and [things] in earth, and [things] under the earth; And [that] every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ [is] Lord, to the glory of God the Father
PRAISE THE LORD FOR MAKING HIMSELF KNOWN TO THIS UNWORTHY SOUL!
We do when we spend a great deal of time and effort educating ourselves, yes.
First, no museum guide would ever say....
That's right, they wouldn't (not counting the "Creationist Museums", which misrepresent actual science). Newsgatherer was fabricating false stories.
now you are saying that you know what every scientist and doctor in the country was saying about polio.
That's not what he said, try reading it again.
And no....my recollection is not a false memory. We DID have to stay indoors and not go out.
Because Polio is contagious. Duh. When you stay indoors, you avoid other people who may transmit it to you.
There was a fear in the country of this very thing.
Fear of leaving the house when Polio was rampant. Sure. But not for the reason you claimed in your earlier post. Please support your claim that "scientists" within your lifetime stated that "polio comes out of the ground". Feel free to cite any historical book, document, or other contemporaneous account you choose.
I strongly suspect that you're either misremembering, or you (or your mother) had original misheard/misunderstood, doctors using the euphemism of "soil" for "feces". (As in the phrase, "to soil yourself".) This euphemism was even more common half a century ago, which would make it a likely expression back in your youth, when doctors would have (correctly) warned people to avoid "soiled" items (including baby diapers) and other sources of fecal contamination, since that's the primary means by which polio is transmitted.
You or your mother may well have misunderstood a warning about Polio being found in "soil" (i.e. feces) as meaning in "dirt" (i.e. "in the ground").
Or, in areas without modern flush toilets, doctors may indeed have warned (correctly) that the ground and/or groundwater may be contaminated with infected fecal material. If so, this is hardly a good example for you to use to try to ridicule scientists, since that would have been (and still remains) *valid* advice.
Sorry, we lived way out in the country--very far out in the country-- and not much contact with other people. Your comment not applicable.
Your comment about museum personel is absurd. Where is your scientific method in this? You've made an asumption and backed it up with your opinion. You claim to know all there is to know about all in the country. Laughable!
We did have indoor plumbing.
And don't "DUH" me. Your arrogance is amazing. Are you a Democrat?
You're being trolled, big time.
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.