The Early Bird: Fossils Depict Aquatic Origins of Near-Modern Birds 115 Million Years Ago

University of Pennsylvania ^ | 15 June 2006 | Staff

[b_sharp]

"I think he thinks paleontologists work like Calvin where he and Hobbes put together a fossilized dinosaur out of plastic cups, plates, and utensils. Sure, they look like wings and feathers, but are they really?

How can a bird with stone wings and feathers fly? It would be much too heavy. Sounds like a bad design to me.

[b_sharp]

"We do double-blind studies because researches know that, no matter how nobel their intentions, KNOWING what result they want, and having access to data that could allow them to manipulate the results, the results often end up manipulated even though they would swear they didn't do so.

Not sure how we would go about doing a double blind study with fossils but if you say so...

I realize that wasn't your point, but it does illustrate the different validation demands inherent in the various fields of science. While there is a possibility of a single scientist finding what he wants to find rather than interpreting the data accurately, the fossils are there for all scientists to see. Unless you are positing a huge conspiracy the chance that an incorrect or horribly biased interpretation will survive the scrutiny of many scientists, some who are at loggerheads with each other, is pretty thin.

[b_sharp]

"IS HOW ANYBODY CAN BELIEVE THIS MESS

Why? Because its not couched in absolute terms? Scientists aren't arrogant enough to assume they know everything and not all of us hinge our self image on rigidly held beliefs. Contrary to what you want to believe, life isn't about dichotomies.

[CharlesWayneCT]

If there were many skeptical scientists looking to see flaws in the logic of a particular piecing together of bone fragments, it would be a good thing.

You are correct you can't do double-blind studies, my point was that D-B studies are evidence that it is an accepted fact that even scientists will see what they are looking for. So in areas where you by nature are going to know what you are looking for, it takes a lot more skepticism and critical thinking.

It would be nice to see at least ONE scientist willing to hypothesize that this creature actually didn't have a skull, and see where it leads them.

Sure, it sounds stupid -- but to someone who is convinced of their position, many alternatives to what they think they see sound stupid.

In this sense, an evolutionist might argue that the politicized nature of the evolution debate makes it harder for real science becuase the scientists are afraid to ask too many skeptical questions since they fear the creationists will jump on those questions and use them to debunk evolution.

That is another danger that has to be dealt with -- the fear of aiding "the enemy" causing people to not question sufficiently.

[WKB]

Why? Because its not couched in absolute terms? Scientists aren't arrogant enough to assume they know everything and not all of us hinge our self image on rigidly held beliefs. Contrary to what you want to believe, life isn't about dichotomies.



Exactly the reply I expected. I just wondered how long it would take.You evos are SOOOOOOOOO predictable.

[b_sharp]

I'm always amazed at how weird real life can get.

[KMJames]

Do you have an actual argument against the findings?

No arguments against the findings...but I'm scratching my head over the conjecture regarding the findings.

[b_sharp]

"Exactly the reply I expected. I just wondered how long it would take.You evos are SOOOOOOOOO predictable."

Congratulations. I take it this is the very first time you have ever been right.

Well keep at it, you never know, you just might be right again.

[Coyoteman]

It would be nice to see at least ONE scientist willing to hypothesize that this creature actually didn't have a skull, and see where it leads them.

Sure, it sounds stupid --

Boneheaded, actually...

[WKB]

I take it this is the very first time you have ever been right.



It's obvious you don't know me very well.

[KMJames]

...However in this case a duck may truly be a duck, and it is only in the eyes of the evolutionist that it fills yet another 'gap'...

Usually the "intermediates" possess transitional features that are only seen in the artist reconstructions.

In this case, we see a "not-quite-beak" that's supposed to look somewhat reptilian - never mind that there is absolutely no evidence of this soft tissue feature, as there is absolutely no head of the specimen.

[PatrickHenry]

Boneheaded, actually...

Why can't you scientists be more open-minded? Have you ever considered the possibility that these creatures lived within rocks? Just as they were found. Well, have you considered it? Huh? HUH!!! No, of course not. Because you're so biased in favor of your dogma! But we can see right through you. You're not fooling anyone. HAHAHAHAHA!!
</creationism mode>

[b_sharp]

"It's obvious you don't know me very well."

You are absolutely correct. That is in fact why I have to take your posts as they are presented.

You were so gleeful at having 'guessed' a response that is given quite frequently to that particular creationist canard that I had to infer that this was your first time.

[Coyoteman]

Why can't you scientists be more open-minded? Have you ever considered the possibility that these creatures lived within rocks? Just as they were found. Well, have you considered it? Huh? HUH!!! No, of course not. Because you're so biased in favor of your dogma! But we can see right through you. You're not fooling anyone. HAHAHAHAHA!!

/creationism mode

Glad you put the "/creationism mode" tag in. Sometimes these days its hard to tell the difference.

[WKB]

I said
"Exactly the reply I expected. I just wondered how long it would take.You evos are SOOOOOOOOO predictable."



You said
"You were so gleeful at having 'guessed' a response that is given quite frequently to that particular creationist canard that I had to infer that this was your first time."


"Expecting" something to happen is quite different from "guessing" something might happen.

[RunningWolf]

Usually the "intermediates" possess transitional features that are only seen in the artist reconstructions

That is a good point.

Take the fish for instance with its unique physiology, bone structure (head gills and all) and then they have it as a amphibian to reptile (or is it now direct to amphibian and reptile) whatever.

In either scenario the leaps are quantum and beyond reasonable conjecture if you really get deep into it. I have been working on a few things. When I get it done and put up on image shack I will ping you in.

Take Care,

[VadeRetro]

In this case, we see a "not-quite-beak" that's supposed to look somewhat reptilian - never mind that there is absolutely no evidence of this soft tissue feature, as there is absolutely no head of the specimen.

Where do you see anything in the article about the beak on the missing head being "not quite?" Did the strawman put up a terrific fight?

A number of birds (ornithuromorphs like this find) from the late Cretaceous (Ichthyornis and Hesperornis for two) had teeth, so I'd incline to bet that this early Cretaceous version still had some chompers.

[KMJames]

Why can't you scientists be more open-minded? Have you ever considered the possibility that these creatures lived within rocks? Just as they were found. Well, have you considered it? Huh? HUH!!! No, of course not. Because you're so biased in favor of your dogma! But we can see right through you. You're not fooling anyone. HAHAHAHAHA!!

Couldn't have said it much better myself.

Why do you think this is anything other than a duck? Apparently, the allegation that it's a gabillion years old has no bearing on whether it can still be an extant species.

Did you see this earlier post: 11 million year old extinct animal alive and well...

[KMJames]

...so I'd incline to bet...

Yes, of course. You would incline so...hmmm...I see. But what on God's green earth are you inclining on? Why not incline on the fact that the animal is so remarkably "like a duck" that it probably was a duck - in light of the fact that there is absolutely no reason to believe it wasn't a duck.

I just don't get you guys sometime.

[VadeRetro]

The Rock Rat is a living representative of a taxonomic FAMILY thought extinct. Learn what words mean.

There is nothing that says this can't happen.