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 previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 221-234 next last
To: RightWingNilla

Is there a Bible believing Christian that is not? (no, there isn’t)


141 posted on 10/27/2009 6:48:27 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bomb-a administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Nope, your reference to airplanes and then to dogs is totally consistent with ID. You have never explained how such reference does not support ID. Your post leads me to believe that you support PE in spite of the fact that most of the scientific community has moved along. If I were a believer in the theory of evolution I would ask you to stop posting because your lack of understand does not help us. If I were a believer in ID or Creation I would encourage you to keep posting because it is apparent to many on this board that you are confused.
142 posted on 10/27/2009 6:59:24 PM PDT by tongass kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Get out of here! You are really a geocentrist!? Thats awesome.


143 posted on 10/27/2009 7:08:06 PM PDT by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Be careful. Defending science will get you branded as a “liberal disruptor”.


144 posted on 10/27/2009 7:09:22 PM PDT by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: tongass kid
Darwin often used the example of selection in selective breeding to show how natural selection could accomplish the same thing.

That I cite dogs is in no way consistent with the idea that natural selection and genetic variation is insufficient to explain the OBVIOUS common descent of species (which ID admits to when they try to wear their ‘respectable scientist’ hat) and thus a ‘designer’ of some sort (wink wink) needed to intervene.

Punctuated Equilibrium is still widely accepted in the paleontology community. But only those who rely upon Creationist sources think PE is somehow a refutation of evolution through natural selection of genetic variation.

And you even invented a new delusion, that PE was somehow an explanation for or consequence of some sequences being more likely to get mutated than others.

You lack of “belief” in the theory of evolution is obvious. Your “belief” is what it is, you obviously have no actual knowledge of what the theory of evolution is, what punctuated equilibrium is, why some mutations are more likely than others, what a theory is and how it is never “proven”, or how examples of human selection can show the power of natural selection without being an advocation of a ‘god of the gaps’ argument.

145 posted on 10/27/2009 7:14:22 PM PDT by allmendream (Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be RE-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

It needs to be pointed out to the geocentrists, AIDS deniers, and other assorted cranks here that even PE takes place over a very large period of time (thousands of generations).


146 posted on 10/27/2009 7:24:49 PM PDT by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: RightWingNilla
LOL. Yes, and Gould and Eldridge (the formers of Punctuated Equilibrium) were big supporters of Darwin... just not the idea of gradualism. Boo. Down with gradualism. Doesn't support “poof”terism.
147 posted on 10/27/2009 7:28:13 PM PDT by allmendream (Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be RE-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

You make no distinction between macro and micro evolution. There is a big difference!
Evolutionist alternate the terms and blur the meaning to give support to the theory that one species can evolve into another.
Microevolution is something that we belive in and can be observed. It proves that there is variation within a kind. It comes from genetics. The information was already there in the genetic code of the parents. Selective breeding or enviromental factors may play a role but they did not CREATE the information.
For example, my daughter has curly hair. No one in our family has curly hair. Somewhere in our genetics their was the code for curly hair. It was somehow selected.
That is microevolution. It does not prove or even lend support to macroevolution (one species developing into another over time) But evolutionist like to say “Oh look bacteria became drug resistant, they change (micro) so humans can evolve from a ape like ancestor (macro). That is a logical fallacy.


148 posted on 10/27/2009 7:33:59 PM PDT by christianhomeschoolmommaof3 (Best thing about Cash for Clunkers is that 90% of the Obama bumper stickers are now off the road.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: RightWingNilla

Its Genesis Ch 1.


149 posted on 10/27/2009 7:36:13 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bomb-a administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

You have attributed items in my posts that just are not there, perhaps you dream too much. Your airplane and dog post are clear to the readers that you are confused. Evolution biologist are true believers in the theory of evolution and yet their journals are replete with examples of scientific data that does not support the theory of evolution. Because they are often critical of the theory does that make them support ID and Creation? The same can be said for paleontologist which are in agreement that the Darwin theory of evolution based on the fossil record is unsupported. They too are true believers but does their position on Darwin make them ID and Creation supporters? Interestingly the geneticist in general shy away form discussion about evolution and attempt to stay within their discipline. The same can be said for geologist. The field of medical science does not like the word mutation because when it is used in their discipline it is usually in reference to a bad outcome. I find it amusing that you have made an impetuous judgment of me and not been critical of those true believers of the theory of evolution that admit many problem with the theory of evolution. I went to my library and took of the shelf my original copy Darwin’s work and will be ready to discuss it with you.


150 posted on 10/27/2009 7:38:53 PM PDT by tongass kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: RightWingNilla

Evidence of your “thousands of generations has never been found. - Mitochondrial evidence indicates generations in the hundreds only.

Fairy tales fall apart quickly when one demands evidence.


151 posted on 10/27/2009 7:40:47 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bomb-a administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: christianhomeschoolmommaof3
No, creationist alternate the terms in an attempt to blur the meaning.

Macro evolution is the same thing as micro evolution, just micro evolution over long periods of time. Creationists speak of ‘micro’ and ‘macro’ evolution, Biologists speak of evolution and common descent of species.

Curly hair was not “selected” for in your daughter, unless you did a screen for the trait and were willing to abort if she did not have it.

In order to refute something, or to even credibly reject something, it would help if you understood it.

Your daughter having curly hair despite neither parent having it is not an example of microevolution UNLESS it was a new trait caused by a mutation in genes that would otherwise keep the hair straight. Otherwise it would just be an example of an expression of a recessive trait, which is NOT an example of microevolution.

It is not a logical fallacy to observe a known and measurable process and extrapolate that over time in order to see if it can be a logical mechanism to explain historical processes.

For example, the known and measurable “micro” erosion that we see, is both necessary and sufficient to explain the “macro” features of canyons caused by river erosion over millions of years.

Neither is it a logical fallacy to point out that light from an object a hundred million light years away would take a hundred million years to reach the Earth - that is science - the utilization of natural processes to explain natural phenomena in reproducible experiments that collect data that fit within a theoretical framework that is
consistent with what is known.

152 posted on 10/27/2009 7:46:54 PM PDT by allmendream (Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be RE-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Wacka

Yeah, my bad, I was born in 1951. I had the movie in my mind. Old age isn’t easy.


153 posted on 10/27/2009 7:49:31 PM PDT by chuckles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: RightWingNilla
But I want my own AIDS thread! I want AIDS!

Okay, that made me smile. But you should be careful as you're starting to sound like a Bug Chaser... :-)

154 posted on 10/27/2009 7:49:39 PM PDT by scripter ("You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body." - C.S. Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
"You do not understand that no theory is ever ‘proven’."

When proven it ceases to be a theory.

155 posted on 10/27/2009 8:07:20 PM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Oh my,”canyons caused by river erosion over millions of years. Gosh, you did it again. You have not read the works of Icelandic geologist S. Thorarinsson that clearly documents canyon formation in real time in a matter of hours and/or days. You should have been there when it happened to see it with your own eyes and then you would believe. Or better yet his finding of fossils in “new volcanic rock”. We are still attempting to ascertain how those fossils survived the super heat of the volcano. So how would you date the fossils? By the age of the new rock? How would date the rock, by the age of the fossil?
Or perhaps you might wish to use carbon dating? These are existing problems with your dogmatic quote and perhaps you are enough of a scientist to explain why all of this occurred in such a brief time and was fully observed by the scientific community.
156 posted on 10/27/2009 8:07:27 PM PDT by tongass kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
There is no proof. Just evidence that supports or contradicts the theory. A good theory explains all the evidence consistently.

What theories do you consider proven? And how would they be adjusted by contrary data?

157 posted on 10/27/2009 8:10:21 PM PDT by allmendream (Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be RE-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: tongass kid
Please give your cite (or “site” if you prefer) for your contention that Punctuated Equilibrium was offered as a consequence of the fact that some DNA sequences are more likely to be mutated than others.

Or are you trying to deny that you made the claim again?

As to “S. Thrarinsson”, is one man a community? Is the theory that you are subscribing to is that fossils form naturally out of volcanic lava?

158 posted on 10/27/2009 8:14:26 PM PDT by allmendream (Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be RE-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor; RightWingNilla
"Evidence of your “thousands of generations has never been found. - Mitochondrial evidence indicates generations in the hundreds only."

You really should stick to your areas of expertise and not draw conclusions from skimming a Google search. Mitochondrial Eve has been determined to have lived between 150,000 and 250,000 years ago. That is a minimum of 7,500 generations ago. Your "hundreds" number is derived as the interval between SNPs (single-nucleotide polymorphism).Mitochondria within the cell have nearly identical DNA sequence. Within the human gnome about once every 4,000 years a stable mutation occurs in a female that is passed to a female offspring and thus can be passed to subsequent generations. This equates to the 200 generations you were bloviating about.

159 posted on 10/27/2009 8:26:38 PM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law; editor-surveyor
You really should stick to your areas of expertise

Which would be astrophysics?

160 posted on 10/27/2009 8:29:15 PM PDT by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 221-234 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