Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Demise of Another Evolutionary Link: Archaeopteryx Falls From Its Perch
Evolution News & Views ^ | October 26, 2009 | Casey Luskin

Posted on 10/27/2009 8:11:33 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts

The Demise of Another Evolutionary Link: Archaeopteryx Falls From Its Perch

A few days ago we saw Ida fall from her overhyped status as an ancestor of humans. Now some scientists are claiming that Archaeopteryx should lose its status as an ancestor of modern birds. Calling Archaeopteryx an “icon of evolution,” the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) borrows a term from Jonathan Wells while reporting that “[t]he feathered creature called archaeopteryx, easily the world's most famous fossil remains, had been considered the first bird since Charles Darwin's day. When researchers put its celebrity bones under the microscope recently, though, they discovered that this icon of evolution might not have been a bird at all.”

According to the new research, inferences about growth rates made from studies of Archaeopteryx’s ancient fossilized bones show it developed much more slowly than modern birds. While the WSJ is reporting these doubts about Archaeopteryx’s ancestral status as if they were something new, those who follow the intelligent design movement know that such skepticism has been around for quite some time. In his 2000 book Icons of Evolution, Jonathan Wells discussed differences between Archaeopteryx and modern birds and the implications for Archaeopteryx's place as an alleged link between dinosaurs and birds:

But there are too many structural differences between Archaeopteryx and modern birds for the latter to be descendants of the former. In 1985, University of Kansas paleontologist Larry Martin wrote: “Archaopteryx is not ancestral of any group of modern birds.” Instead it is “the earliest known member of a totally extinct group of birds." And in 1996 paleontologist Mark Norell, of the American Museum of Natural History in New York, called Archaeopteryx “a very important fossil,” but added that most paleontologists now believe it is not a direct ancestor of modern birds.

(Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution, p. 116 (Regnery, 2000).)Archaeopteryx isn’t the only evolutionary icon losing its claim as the ancestor of birds. In recent months we’ve seen paleontologists increasingly arguing that the entire clade of dinosaurs should no longer be considered ancestral to birds. As the WSJ article states:

There are lingering doubts that birds today are descendants of dinosaurs. Researchers at Oregon State University recently argued that the distinctive anatomy that gives birds the lung capacity needed for flight means it is unlikely that birds descended from dinosaurs like archaeopteryx and its kin. Their findings were published in June in the Journal of Morphology.
As paleontologist John Ruben of Oregon State was quoted saying when his article was published:
But old theories die hard, Ruben said, especially when it comes to some of the most distinctive and romanticized animal species in world history.

"Frankly, there's a lot of museum politics involved in this, a lot of careers committed to a particular point of view even if new scientific evidence raises questions," Ruben said. In some museum displays, he said, the birds-descended-from-dinosaurs evolutionary theory has been portrayed as a largely accepted fact, with an asterisk pointing out in small type that "some scientists disagree."

"Our work at OSU used to be pretty much the only asterisk they were talking about," Ruben said. "But now there are more asterisks all the time. That's part of the process of science."

("Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-bird Links," ScienceDaily, June 9, 2009.)While "museum politics" seem to dominate now more than ever when it comes to evolution, it's nice to at least see some of those asterisks getting a little attention in a major media outlet like Wall Street Journal.



TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; US: Washington
KEYWORDS: antiscienceevos; belongsinreligion; catastrophism; catholic; christian; creation; darwindrones; evangelical; evolution; evoreligionexposed; godsgravesglyphs; intelligentdesign; judaism; notasciencetopic; paleontology; propellerbeanie; protestant; science; templeofdarwin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-234 next last

1 posted on 10/27/2009 8:11:34 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

That clinches it! The Earth is only 6000 years old and God must have created the fossils already in place in the rocks.


2 posted on 10/27/2009 8:13:25 AM PDT by AUH2O Repub ( SPalin/Hunter 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Convolution News... yeah right.

Seems they’ve never once looked at the leg of a large bird.

However, they pick more cherries from questionable sources than an entire immigrant labor force.


3 posted on 10/27/2009 8:14:44 AM PDT by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AUH2O Repub
Your logical thought process seems to be along the lines of "I think the Earth is more than 6000 years old. Therefore, everything the evolutionists say, must be true. QED."

How about addressing the issue that Evolution seems to have a lot of unproven assumptions and involves some very questionable science?

4 posted on 10/27/2009 8:17:41 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (Play the Race Card -- lose the game.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

How timely—I was just reading my son a chapter in Dinosaurs of the Land, Sea, and Air about Archaeopteryx.


5 posted on 10/27/2009 8:22:23 AM PDT by beaversmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

Weren’t there BC comic strips featuring this fossil? (I love and miss that comic strip oh so dearly...one of the best comic strips ever!)


6 posted on 10/27/2009 8:23:15 AM PDT by Ev Reeman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: metmom; DaveLoneRanger; editor-surveyor; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; MrB; GourmetDan; Fichori; ...

Ping!


7 posted on 10/27/2009 8:24:11 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AUH2O Repub

You embarrass yourself by insinuating the majority of creationists are “young earthers”.

Try defending the pitiful “science” on the evolution side of the debate.


8 posted on 10/27/2009 8:24:12 AM PDT by G Larry (DNC is comprised of REGRESSIVES!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

On the flip side of that argument,
evolution REQUIRES huge amounts of time.

This is why “b/millions of years” is defended so vehemently.


9 posted on 10/27/2009 8:28:33 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ev Reeman

Johnny Hart was a great cartoonist! But actually, his strip did not feature this fossil — “B.C.” was graced with the Apteryx (kiwi), a “wingless bird with hairy feathers” (as he invariably introduced himself).


10 posted on 10/27/2009 8:30:22 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (Play the Race Card -- lose the game.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Be not deceived. G-d is not mocked. Galatians 6:7.
11 posted on 10/27/2009 8:30:54 AM PDT by April Lexington (Study the constitution so you know what they are taking away!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Who would have thought.......?


12 posted on 10/27/2009 8:36:15 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
When researchers put its celebrity bones under the microscope recently, though, they discovered that this icon of evolution might not have been a bird at all.”

"recently"????

How long has that fossil been around and someone is just getting around to examining it that closely?

Shades of Piltdown Man.

13 posted on 10/27/2009 8:38:01 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AUH2O Repub
That clinches it! The Earth is only 6000 years old and God must have created the fossils already in place in the rocks.

It doesn't *prove* creation, but this discovery sure weakens the evo position and leaves them with a lot less to lean on than before.

14 posted on 10/27/2009 8:39:13 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: G Larry

Try finding any science on the other side.


15 posted on 10/27/2009 8:43:12 AM PDT by FormerRep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: xcamel; GodGunsGuts
Convolution News... yeah right. Seems they’ve never once looked at the leg of a large bird. However, they pick more cherries from questionable sources than an entire immigrant labor force.

Do you have any intelligent comments or observations to make about the article or are you going to just continue to use these threads as a platform for attacking GGG, creationists, and Christians, as per your usual MO?

I've yet to see you actually contribute anything in support of evolution but rather you tip your hand that all you're interested in is tearing down anything you don't like, Christianity in particular, just like the majority of evo supporters on this forum.

16 posted on 10/27/2009 8:44:04 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: FormerRep; G Larry
(Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution, p. 116 (Regnery, 2000).)Archaeopteryx isn’t the only evolutionary icon losing its claim as the ancestor of birds. In recent months we’ve seen paleontologists increasingly arguing that the entire clade of dinosaurs should no longer be considered ancestral to birds.

Is this inaccurate?

17 posted on 10/27/2009 8:45:59 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

OK, sorry, my bad.


18 posted on 10/27/2009 8:56:46 AM PDT by Ev Reeman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: metmom

You support postings of junk science to support a fairy tale. What else would expect?

My simple and terse comment was 100% accurate. Sorry you don’t like it.


19 posted on 10/27/2009 8:56:47 AM PDT by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: MrB

“On the flip side of that argument,
evolution REQUIRES huge amounts of time.

This is why “b/millions of years” is defended so vehemently”

You, my friend, have hit the evolutionary nail squarely on the head!
Without those millions of years evolution is dead. UNLESS....the evos find a new, quicker way for evo to happen and trust me they would!


20 posted on 10/27/2009 8:58:12 AM PDT by MGBGUN (Freedom is not free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: metmom

As yet there is a difference of opinions with the greater volume of evidence falling on the side of for rather than against. So if you’re asking if there is a disagreement between scientists then the statement is correct. Of course, there was disagreement about fission too until Oppenheimer built the bomb.


21 posted on 10/27/2009 9:00:38 AM PDT by FormerRep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: FormerRep

...and at least two of those scientists were convinced the device was going to consume the earth when detonated.


22 posted on 10/27/2009 9:08:00 AM PDT by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
The Peking Duck (NatGeo News 6/15/06 Dinosaur-Era Birds Surprisingly Ducklike, Fossils Suggest) GANSUS says,
“AFLAKE, AFLAKE!!!”, and flies to the top of the fossil roost.
23 posted on 10/27/2009 9:17:52 AM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: metmom
....."Is this inaccurate?"....

Yes, and according to the Discovery Channel, they are having to reform their thinking on the evolution of dino's that are just the same dino at various ages. They have classified many dino's as evolving species, when in fact, they are just examples of the same dino at various ages. If they found your skeleton and your child's skeleton, they could posit that your child was and earlier undeveloped version of you that took millions of years to change. It is messing up many of their previous theories about who formed what.

Keep in mind that ALL theories have to be consistent to even have a half life of a few years. Then something comes along to challenge that theory so adjustments are made to try and explain the anomalies or the anomalies are just ignored.

When someone found an iron hammer encrusted in a block of coal, deep in a coal mine that was said to be millions of years old, they just threw it out and said the mine was still millions of years in the making. So they would either have to say early hominids made iron hammers, or it doesn't take millions of years to make coal. They just ignored it and went on.

When all else fails, they can say a space alien made it.

24 posted on 10/27/2009 9:21:22 AM PDT by chuckles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: AUH2O Repub
...."fossils already in place in the rocks."....

In Texas, we found a fossilized human foot in a creek bed in the 70's. The only problem was it was inside a cowboy boot that was made in the 1950's. It doesn't take millions of years to form a fossil.

25 posted on 10/27/2009 9:26:17 AM PDT by chuckles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MGBGUN
It is Creationists who assume that evolution happens more rapidly than any evolutionary biologist ever suggested.

They presume that every living species on Earth evolved from those primordial “kinds” that could fit on a boat of known dimensions within the last few thousand years.

So on the one hand you have the theory of evolution, which is consistent and based upon evidence; and on the other you have creationism which says that evolution happens thousands of times faster, but is somehow constrained as far as how much change an organism is capable of. Thousands of times faster evolution within a “kind” of animal, but no evolution at all between “kinds”.

26 posted on 10/27/2009 9:26:44 AM PDT by allmendream (Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be RE-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: metmom; xcamel

No, she doesn’t have any intelligent comments, Metmom. After all, she believes she is just rearranged pond scum, and she acts accordingly.


27 posted on 10/27/2009 9:28:21 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

No, I believe that you are the detritus of pond scum. The rest belies your claim of omniscience.


28 posted on 10/27/2009 9:31:47 AM PDT by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: xcamel
LOL...the only thing you believe in is that there is nothing to believe in. You are nothing more than a stimulus-response vehicle that is the product of pond-scum plus millions of years. And as I said before, you act accordingly. Looking forward to the day when your irrationality finally finds its proper home over at the DU. Until then...
29 posted on 10/27/2009 9:41:22 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: chuckles
In Texas, we found a fossilized human foot in a creek bed in the 70's. The only problem was it was inside a cowboy boot that was made in the 1950's. It doesn't take millions of years to form a fossil.

You may find it of interest that even the sensationalist Carl Baugh, who once claimed the artifact you mentioned, has wiped clean his website AND his "Creation Evidence" museum of any and all mentions of the infamous "Limestone Cowboy Boot."

Why? Because it is such a bad fake, that even hardcore bible literalist young earth creationists weren't buying it. Hopefully you'll follow their lead.

In fact, it seems the entire creationist community feels that Baugh's findings are all in question. AIG et al clearly state that his "man next to dinosaur" Paluxey tracks are not what he claims them to be.
30 posted on 10/27/2009 9:42:19 AM PDT by whattajoke (Let's keep Conservatism real.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

If the theory of evolution is that man evolved from a lower order of animals, namely monkeys, why are there still monkeys around?


31 posted on 10/27/2009 9:43:13 AM PDT by Ev Reeman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Why should I want your place as “Hero disruptor of FreeRepublic” over at the DU? You do the job so well...


32 posted on 10/27/2009 9:43:53 AM PDT by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke

Thanks, I was getting to that...

They say “keep an open mind”... as they delight in the act of filling it with crap...


33 posted on 10/27/2009 9:45:51 AM PDT by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Ev Reeman

Mostly because no one has claimed that “man descended from monkeys” in the last 150 years... however GGG is giving baboons a hell of a run for the money.


34 posted on 10/27/2009 9:48:07 AM PDT by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Ev Reeman
If the theory of evolution is that man evolved from a lower order of animals, namely monkeys, why are there still monkeys around?

I trust you are kidding. Right?

Just in case you're not, a) that's not what the theory of evolution states and b) your statement is also featured prominently on AIG's "Arguments creationists shouldn't use. I could expand upon my answer, but I'm fairly certain you were joking around.
35 posted on 10/27/2009 9:48:36 AM PDT by whattajoke (Let's keep Conservatism real.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: xcamel; GodGunsGuts; Fichori; tpanther; valkyry1; Mr. Silverback; Gordon Greene; ...
You support postings of junk science to support a fairy tale.

Where? Please go back through my posting history and provide links to support your contention.

36 posted on 10/27/2009 9:51:50 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

Comment #37 Removed by Moderator

To: metmom; xcamel

It’s kind of hard for xcamel to take a stand when she falls for anything.


38 posted on 10/27/2009 9:53:59 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: metmom; xcamel

“...all you’re interested in is tearing down anything you don’t like, Christianity in particular,...”

I’ve noticed that myself.


39 posted on 10/27/2009 9:55:55 AM PDT by scottdeus12 (Jesus is real, whether you believe in Him or not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: metmom
every one of your posts supports it. If they didn't you wouldn't have felt the need to ping out your support network for a "group hug"
40 posted on 10/27/2009 10:13:16 AM PDT by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: scottdeus12
Please point out one single posts by bme that stats unequivocally that I "don’t like Christianity" sound of crickets..
41 posted on 10/27/2009 10:16:58 AM PDT by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

I don’t think evolution happens rapidly. I do think variation within a species happens rapidly, comparatively.
I’ll not change your thinking and you’ll not change mine so lets just drop this now. I was replying to a post by a fellow creationist, not you.


42 posted on 10/27/2009 10:18:58 AM PDT by MGBGUN (Freedom is not free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: AUH2O Repub

The Bible clinched that. What this shows is scientist are not as infallible as the media trained masses think.


43 posted on 10/27/2009 10:22:06 AM PDT by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: demshateGod

Coming from someone who cannot separate the stories of the old testament from the simple instruction of the new.


44 posted on 10/27/2009 10:25:01 AM PDT by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: xcamel; metmom

Okay, here’s one of may favorites:

“So you’re going with the whole Adam/Eve/Cain Humanity-decended-from-incest route, eh? Good luck with that.”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2353460/posts?q=1&;page=51

And I already know what you will say - that it’s not proof you don’t like Christians... but your contempt is showing.

Your posts remind me alot of this guy:

http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:coyoteman/index?brevity=full;tab=comments

Who has since been banned.


45 posted on 10/27/2009 10:30:18 AM PDT by scottdeus12 (Jesus is real, whether you believe in Him or not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

What’s really funny about this post is that creationists for years, including this very same Casey Luskin, have been challenging Archaeopteryx’s status as an ancestor of modern birds by promoting Alan Feduccia’s theory that it was a true bird already. Now all of a sudden it’s not an ancestor because it’s not *enough* of a bird. Thus we see the progress of creation “science”—to heck with consistency, we’ll just cherry-pick and nitpick!

Of course, either way we have an animal that grew like a dinosaur but had feathers like a bird. But no way is it a transitional, nuh-uh, couldn’t be.


46 posted on 10/27/2009 10:32:20 AM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: metmom
How long has that fossil been around and someone is just getting around to examining it that closely?

If you read the article, you'd have seen that they took tiny chips of the fossil bones and put them under the microscope. People were reluctant to take chips of the bones before to avoid damaging them.

Shades of Piltdown Man.

Piltdown Man was a hoax, as you well know. Do you have any reason to think Archaeopteryx is a hoax, or are you just slinging mud as usual?

47 posted on 10/27/2009 10:35:57 AM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: xcamel

Coming from someone who cannot separate the stories of the old testament from the simple instruction of the new.”

WOW! So I see you are quite the Biblical scholar, also, eh?


48 posted on 10/27/2009 10:43:25 AM PDT by ConservativeDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Ev Reeman
If the idea is that Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?

If the idea is that American English derived from British English, why are people still speaking British English?

Monkeys fill an ecological niche, where there is a “demand” for monkeys, nature has provided a “supply”. The “demand” for monkeys up in the trees did not go away just because some monkeys came down from the trees and started living on the ground.

49 posted on 10/27/2009 11:03:21 AM PDT by allmendream (Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be RE-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: MGBGUN
Variation within a species happening rapidly = evolution happening rapidly.

Where do you think this variation comes from?

If you want to drop the conversation I can certainly see why.

50 posted on 10/27/2009 11:04:49 AM PDT by allmendream (Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be RE-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-234 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson