Skip to comments.Second Look Causes Scientist to Reverse Dino-Bird Claim
Posted on 07/18/2014 8:44:16 AM PDT by fishtank
Second Look Causes Scientist to Reverse Dino-Bird Claim
by Brian Thomas, M.S. *
Stephen Czerkas digs dinosaurs. His early advocacy for feathered dinosaurs makes his recent reversal that much more remarkable. His reexamination of a fossilone that had been known as a feathered dinosaurreveals the fruits of taking a closer look at spectacular claims.
Recently working with University of North Carolina's fossil bird expert Alan Feduccia, Czerkas imaged a Scansoriopteryx with advanced 3-D microscopy and high-resolution photography, visualizing features in the wrist bones, feathers and hind limbs. This year they published their results in the Journal of Ornithology.1
Back in 1999, the National Geographic Society created quite a controversy by prematurely announcing the discovery of a half-bird/half-dinosaur fossil they called Archaeoraptor.2 Czerkas and the Dinosaur Museum in Blanding, Utah purchased the Chinese specimen from an anonymous dealer at the Tucson gem show in early 1999 for the tidy sum of $80,000. The Society quickly announced the so-called "feathered" dinosaur before scientists carefully reviewed the specimen, which turned out to be a complete fabrication.
ICR article image.
Another evo fraud.
"Climate Change" parallel, anyone?
Here's the fraud that Google posted on their page today.
> Another evo fraud.
Just like it’s ugly twin sister, “Climate Change”, it filters observations through preconceived notions, and when the data doesn’t corroborate their worldview, then just fabricate the data.
Another "persistent vision" lie.
Seriously, dude, go do this crap somewhere else. You’re bonkers to post this here.
They are talking about ONE FOSSIL FRAUD. Has nothing to do with the scores of legitimate fossils linking birds to reptiles or the skeletal connections which are too similar and numerous to defy chance. A similar case involved “Piltdown” Man.
Does the “Donation of Constantine” means Christianity is a fraud? Hardly.
More garbage from the Institute for Creative Research.
It sounds like he actually admitted he was wrong. Burn him!
"Archaeoraptor" is the generic name informally assigned in 1999 to a fossil from China in an article published in National Geographic magazine. The magazine claimed that the fossil was a "missing link" between birds and terrestrial theropod dinosaurs. Even prior to this publication there had been severe doubts about the fossil's authenticity. It led to a scandal when evidence demonstrated it to be a forgery through further scientific study. The forgery was constructed from rearranged pieces of real fossils from different species. Zhou et al. found that the head and upper body actually belong to a specimen of the primitive fossil bird Yanornis. A 2002 study found that the tail belongs to a small winged dromaeosaur, Microraptor, named in 2000. The legs and feet belong to an as yet unknown animal.It should be pointed out that National Geographic magazine is not a scientific journal.
Also from Wiki:
However, contrary to the Piltdown Man, "Archaeoraptor" was not a deliberate hoax. Furthermore, the authenticity of "Archaeoraptor" would not have been an essential proof for the hypothesis that birds are theropods, as this is sufficiently corroborated by other data; paleontologist Christopher Brochu concluded in November 2001: "That birds are derived theropod dinosaurs is no longer the subject of scholarly dispute." Though playing the role of "terrestrial dinosaur" in the "Archaeoraptor" affair, Microraptor, showing wings and clear traces of rectrices, is generally assumed to have had at least a gliding capacity and is itself an excellent example of a transitional fossil.Once again the ICR does more harm to religion than good.
All these frauds, evo, global warming, Mandela, low unemployment, Obama, great economy, low inflation, etc., get promoted and low information masses believe it. A retraction usually gets issued many years later and buried on p23 with one sentence. But by then billions of our dollars are spent, wars waged, jobs lost, more statist control, more oppression, heavier taxation, basically the heavy wet blanket that has been laid across the people becomes heavier and yoke around our necks tighter and heavier. Animal farm we are.
Why would a flightless creature evolve a complex mechanism (wings) to achieve the purpose of flight? Purpose requires intent. Intent requires intelligence. So, a pea-brained reptile deduced: “Gee, I’m having a hard time eluding my predators. Wait, I know the answer.....WINGS!”. Interestingly, it can be assumed that somewhere in the millennia between legs and wings, were some sort of a stump that was neither leg nor wing. How would that have worked out for escaping predators? Macro evolution yields far more questions than it answers.
You creationists are so blind! Can you not see all the transitional life forms around you today? Haven’t you studied the hundreds of thousands of transitional fossils? Look at dogs and cats. Except for the head and claws they are almost alike! Go back far enough and you’ll discover their common ancestor. It’s in the fossil record. Bank on it!
Does this need a tag?
But, but....”settled science”?????!!!
Just imagined what would have happened if anyone here questioned this guy’s original findings?
I find it ironic when ICR questions various scientific findings while still clinging to the delusion the Universe is 10,000 or so years old.
Dino probably decided to screw with scientists 60 million years in the future by having friends pad his death bed with feathers.
Scientists can be so gullible.
He should be burned, he’s a witch! A dino-bird, a ... duck?
And I can prove it using the Institute’s scientific methodology.
There are ways of telling whether a person is a witch.
- Are there? What are they? Tell us. - Do they hurt?
- Tell me, what do you do with witches?
- Burn them!
- And what do you burn, apart from witches?
- More witches! - Wood!
- So why do witches burn?
- ‘Cause they’re made of wood? - Good!
- How do we tell if he is made of wood? - Build a bridge out of him.
- But can you not also make bridges out of stone?
- Oh, yeah.
- Does wood sink in water?
- No, it floats. - Throw him into the pond!
- What also floats in water?
- Bread. - Apples.
- Very small rocks. - Cider! Great gravy.
- Cherries. Mud. - Churches.
- Lead. - A duck!
- So, logically—
- If he weighs the same as a duck...
- he’s made of wood.
- And therefore?
- A witch!
- But he’s a dude.
- Burn him anyway.
Of all the things which could not plausibly evolve, flight feathers may be number one.
See my post #13. Wings (muscles, feathers, et al) are such a mechanism of interwoven complexity, it boggles the mind. It took man’s genius until the 20th century to crudely imitate the lowly bird’s incredible ‘evolved’ attributes.
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.