Downy dinosaur found in China was an early bird

The Times ^ | 1/13/2008 | Lewis Smith

[Coyoteman]

How long do you think it takes for bone to decompose in raw earth?

Don't even think of asking me that question. I can provide you with some real answers--and you won't like it a bit.

I've been an archaeologist for nearly 40 years, and excavated hundreds, or perhaps thousands of burials, so unless you have some real evidence to being to this discussion, don't even bother.

[Coyoteman]

UNLESS YOU CAN COME UP WITH TRANSITIONAL FOSILES THEN YOUR WHOLE ARGUMENT OF EVEOLUTION FAILS TOO!

Oh, is that all? No sweat. Here's one now. And note that this transitional is in our human ancestry as well (see chart below).

Anything else?

---

Fossil: KNM-ER 3733

Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)

Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)

Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)

Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)

Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)

Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)

Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)

See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=33

[guitarplayer1953]

All you have shown me is sculls where is the transitions from one species to another? If everything had one common beginning then there should be transitions from whale to horses to man so to say but you can not show that kind of transition can you? One of the sculls says it is Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8) now how can you tell from a scull that it is a male female scull?

[CommieCutter]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/programs/ht/qt/3013_08.html

The first two minutes are what’s relevant. I’m sure you’ll still hold on tightly to your flute rack Darwin Bible.

[guitarplayer1953]

If we deny evolution, how do we deal with the bones of prehistoric humanlike creatures that paleontologists occasionally dig up? The fact that bones similar to human or ape bones exist does not prove that they belonged to humans or apes. Such bones may be the remains of creatures outside the ancestral line of either. They could point to extinct species of apelike or humanlike creatures with no kinship to humans at all. To claim that the bones of such creatures are stages in the process of evolution is an unwarranted jump to a biased conclusion.

Scientists who are firmly entrenched in the evolutionary theory should be embarrassed by the lack of fossil evidence for transitional species that would demonstrate evolution conclusively. Charles Darwin himself was troubled by the absence of fossil evidence for evolution. He said, “As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of transitional species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?”

Despite claims to the contrary, evolution is not a fact; it is a theory. Data is often interpreted to support the theory by using the assumptions of the theory as the starting point. The result is a tautology—a closed circle of logic without a solid premise: We know that evolution must be true because we have found the bones of evolving humans. We are convinced that these are the bones of evolving humans, because we know that evolution must be true. It just doesn’t work that way.

Unfortunately, the bones paleontologists dig up do not come with identifying labels already attached. As it is, the discoverers name them and give them histories that fit their theories. Dogmatic evolutionists insist that these bones show us stages in the evolution of humans. Dogmatic creationists might as easily insist that they point to some form of human or ape or the remains of an independent, extinct species. The truth is, no one knows what these bones are. All claims are guesses.

[Coyoteman]

...now how can you tell from a scull that it is a male female scull?

That's easy! I did just that for our local county coroner yesterday.

The mandible was missing, so the traits I used were the size of the skull, along with the shape of the cranial base and the degree of pronouncement of the mastoids. All of this suggested a female. Then I looked at the brow ridges and the shape of the orbits and the lower margin of the nasal cavity. The brow ridges were pretty robust, but only medially. The rest of the frontal area was pretty smooth. The muscle attachments were not very pronounced. The palate depth was pretty minimal. Those are only a few of the traits I checked for. I was able to estimate age and determine that the skull was almost certainly Native American.

With a good education and forty years of experience, you can tell a lot from a skull, or even from a few bones.

Your turn.

[Citizen Blade]

JUST LIKE PLESIOSAUR IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF A SNAKE AND A DOLPHIN.

There is no evidence that the plesiosaur is an intermediate between snakes and dolphins. Your analogy doesn't really make sense.

HOW DO YOU KNOW WERE YOU THERE?

If you know of evidence that plesiosaurs were intemediate between snakes and dolphins, please provide it. All the available evidence we have supports the conclusion that the marine reptiles died out and did not evolve into any othr species. Dolphins evolved from land mammals.

I GUESS THIS CRITTER DIDN’T HAVE THE LUCK OF EVOLVING LIKE THE COELACANTH— I WAIT IT DIDN’T EVOLVE EITHER.

The Coelacanth that was recently discovered is not the same species as the ones that exist in the fossil record. The Coelcanth did evolve over time, which is not surprising. We just thought that its branch of the evolutionary tree died out.

SAME AS IF YOU IGNORE THE PLESIOSAUR’S SNAKE AND DOLPHIN-LIKE FEATURES.

You might have a point if we didn't have a lot of evidence that showed that dolphins and whales evolved from land mammals. There is no evidence that dolphins evolved from sea reptiles or snakes.

BUT WE EVOLVED FROM THEM. THEY SHOULDN’T BE HERE.

There is nothing in evolutionary theory that requires the ancestor species to die out. In any event, we did not evolve from any existing species of ape or monkey. We share common ancestors with existing species of apes and monkeys, but all of thos common ancestors died out. Chimps and gorrillas are our closest relatives, but we did not evolve from them. Think of it like having cousins- you might be related to them, but they are not your ancestors.

WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THEY’RE EVOLVING NOW?

All species undergo environmental pressures, which is what drives evolution. Gorillas and chimps are not immune to this.

IT’S THE TEXT BOOKS THAT TELL US WE CAME FROM THEM SO YOU TELL ME.

There is no science textbook out there that claims we evolved from existing species of apes or monkeys. Our ancestor species are all extinct.

[Citizen Blade]

We have drawn dinos because of the ones that have been found these were done in stone prior to the advent of looking for the fossil records. There are dinos written in ancient manuscripts are they folk lore? It has been researched that most of all folk lore has a point of beginning that was an eye wittiness account.

Our ancestors were not any dumber than us. They undoubtedly discovered fossilized dinosaur bones and used their imagination to extrapolate what those animals might have looked like. Many of our legends of things like dragons and giants probably arose from prehistoric artists' and storytellers' depictions of fossils they stumbled upon.

[Coyoteman]

If we deny evolution, how do we deal with the bones of prehistoric humanlike creatures that paleontologists occasionally dig up? The fact that bones similar to human or ape bones exist does not prove that they belonged to humans or apes. Such bones may be the remains of creatures outside the ancestral line of either. They could point to extinct species of apelike or humanlike creatures with no kinship to humans at all. To claim that the bones of such creatures are stages in the process of evolution is an unwarranted jump to a biased conclusion.

Not such a large jump. If you look at the chart I posted upthread, you will see that some of those skulls do indeed represent species that left the main line and went extinct.

And this is not "an unwarranted jump to a biased conclusion." This is the best explanation based on current data. There is a huge difference between these two statements.

Scientists who are firmly entrenched in the evolutionary theory should be embarrassed by the lack of fossil evidence for transitional species that would demonstrate evolution conclusively. Charles Darwin himself was troubled by the absence of fossil evidence for evolution. He said, “As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of transitional species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?”

Charles Darwin wrote in 1859 and before. At that time there was only one hominid fossil recognized--the original Neanderthal specimen found in 1856, and it was very poorly understood. It is disingenuous to blame Darwin for the lack of fossils then because he was a naturalist, not a paleontologist. There really were no paleontologists at that time.

Since then there have been a large number of transitionals found. I posted a picture of one upthread (if I'm on the right thread--its hard to remember). Creationists deny that there are transitionals, but that means nothing. They are doing religious apologetics, not science. Their conclusions are made in advance, and they manipulate or misrepresent the data to make those conclusions come out right. That's the exact opposite of science.

Despite claims to the contrary, evolution is not a fact; it is a theory. Data is often interpreted to support the theory by using the assumptions of the theory as the starting point. The result is a tautology—a closed circle of logic without a solid premise: We know that evolution must be true because we have found the bones of evolving humans. We are convinced that these are the bones of evolving humans, because we know that evolution must be true. It just doesn’t work that way.

Evolution is both a fact and a theory. That the genome changes in a population from generation to generation, and how it changes, is a fact. Explaining why it changes is a theory--the theory of evolution.

And your concept of how paleontologists and human biologists work is quite flawed. When a new skull is found, the different -ologists who study those things go to work. A lot of opinions are offered and they fight it out until they figure out the best explanation. Now, that explanation is subject to change, but they don't just automatically assume it is in the human line without any evidence. You really need to brush up on how paleontologists and the other -ologists work. Your concepts of science seem to have been corrupted by religious apologists.

Unfortunately, the bones paleontologists dig up do not come with identifying labels already attached. As it is, the discoverers name them and give them histories that fit their theories. Dogmatic evolutionists insist that these bones show us stages in the evolution of humans. Dogmatic creationists might as easily insist that they point to some form of human or ape or the remains of an independent, extinct species. The truth is, no one knows what these bones are. All claims are guesses.

True, no labels. But all claims are not guesses--that's where evidence and research come in. Using the scientific method it is possible to evaluate competing claims, and determine which is more likely to be accurate. Creationists can't do this; they must come up with an answer that fits a priori belief. Scientists are not so restricted; if they think they have a case based on the evidence they'll take on the whole profession. And sometimes they are right. It is through that sometimes bitter contention, the testing of ideas, that science comes up with the most likely explanations.

This is far from guesswork.

[CommieCutter]

There is no evidence that the plesiosaur is an intermediate between snakes and dolphins. Your analogy doesn’t really make sense.

PRECISELY MY POINT. IF THERE IS NO BEFORE OR AFTER WITH ARCHAEOPTERYX— THE SAME LOGIC APPLIES. NONE OF IT MAKES SENSE— BUT YOU TREAT ONE AS THE GOSPEL.

__________________________________________________
If you know of evidence that plesiosaurs were intemediate between snakes and dolphins, please provide it. All the available evidence we have supports the conclusion that the marine reptiles died out and did not evolve into any othr species. Dolphins evolved from land mammals.

AGAIN THAT ANALOGY WAS USED TO ILLUSTRATE A POINT.

____________________________________________

The Coelacanth that was recently discovered is not the same species as the ones that exist in the fossil record.

THEY’RE CLOSE ENOUGH. THEY’RE NOT THE EXACT SAME BECAUSE IT’S CALLED MILLIONS (OR THOUSANDS WHICHEVER) OF YEARS OF BREEDING. JUST LIKE BLOND HAIRED PEOPLE ARE EXPECTED TO BE A THING OF THE PAST IN 100+ YEARS. THAT’S MICRO EVOLUTION NOT MACRO.

_______________________________________________

You might have a point if we didn’t have a lot of evidence that showed that dolphins and whales evolved from land mammals. There is no evidence that dolphins evolved from sea reptiles or snakes.

AGAIN IT’S A POINT TO SHOW THE ABSURDITY OF THE BIRD-O-SAUR.

____________________________________________________-

There is nothing in evolutionary theory that requires the ancestor species to die out. In any event, we did not evolve from any existing species of ape or monkey. We share common ancestors with existing species of apes and monkeys, but all of thos common ancestors died out. Chimps and gorrillas are our closest relatives, but we did not evolve from them. Think of it like having cousins- you might be related to them, but they are not your ancestors.

DIDN’T SAY THEY DIED OUT, I’M SAYING WE SHOULD BE THEM. IF WE ARE THEM... THEN THEY DIDN’T DIE OUT—THEY EVOLVED—THEY’RE US NOW. AND BESIDES IVE HEARD SEVERAL SCIENTISTS SAY THE DINOSAURS ARE STILL WITH US TODAY; THEY’RE THE BIRDS NOW.
_______________________________________________________

All species undergo environmental pressures, which is what drives evolution. Gorillas and chimps are not immune to this.

THE ONLY THING ENVIRONMENTAL PRESSURES PROVE IS, YOU EITHER ADJUST OR YOU DIE. IF I DON’T HAVE A WARM HOUSE TO LIVE IN, THE -5 DEGREE ENVIRONMENTAL PRESSURES HERE WOULD KILL ME.

---

There is no science textbook out there that claims we evolved from existing species of apes or monkeys. Our ancestor species are all extinct.

SO WHERE DID MODERN APES AND MONKEYS COME FROM THEN? WHAT IS THEIR BEFORE SPECIES? IF WE EVOLVED DUE TO “ENVIRONMENTAL PRESSURES” THEN WHY DID “MODERN MONKEY” COME ALONG TO INDULGE IN SAID ENVIRONMENTAL PRESSURES?

CHANGES IN BREED IS NOT MACRO EVOLUTION.

[guitarplayer1953]

Please if I showed you a bone could you create a complete animal from it? Many of the supposed drawing of dinosaurs from the fine of fossils records where they had only one bone has prove to be wrong. Yet on ancient temples and other places and in ancient clay works dinosaurs have shown up that are true to what we have put together from finding more and more bones to create an accurate idea of what they looked like.

[guitarplayer1953]

If I was to kill someone or lets say someone died out in the jungles of south America or in the jungles of south east Asia how long do you think after they died you would be able to fine any trace of them?

[Citizen Blade]

PRECISELY MY POINT. IF THERE IS NO BEFORE OR AFTER WITH ARCHAEOPTERYX— THE SAME LOGIC APPLIES. NONE OF IT MAKES SENSE— BUT YOU TREAT ONE AS THE GOSPEL.

We don't need to know the exact species that came before and after archie. We can look at dinosaurs that existed at the sae time, and find a lot in common, and we can look at actual birds down the road, and see a lot in common.

THEY’RE CLOSE ENOUGH. THEY’RE NOT THE EXACT SAME BECAUSE IT’S CALLED MILLIONS (OR THOUSANDS WHICHEVER) OF YEARS OF BREEDING. JUST LIKE BLOND HAIRED PEOPLE ARE EXPECTED TO BE A THING OF THE PAST IN 100+ YEARS. THAT’S MICRO EVOLUTION NOT MACRO.

They're not "close enough" they're different species. And the idea that lond-haired people will go exinct is an urban myth. Blond-hair is a recssive genetic trait that will always exist in the human gene pool.

AGAIN IT’S A POINT TO SHOW THE ABSURDITY OF THE BIRD-O-SAUR.

What's so absurb about it? Creationists ask for examples of transitional species, then throw a hissy-fit when presented with one. What would you consider a legitimate example of a transitional?

DIDN’T SAY THEY DIED OUT, I’M SAYING WE SHOULD BE THEM. IF WE ARE THEM... THEN THEY DIDN’T DIE OUT

I guess that's on way to look at it. But, we are a different species from our ancestor species. The species that came before us simply aren't around anymore.

THE ONLY THING ENVIRONMENTAL PRESSURES PROVE IS, YOU EITHER ADJUST OR YOU DIE.

Which is what the theory of evolution is getting at. Species evolve to live in a changing environment, or they die out.

SO WHERE DID MODERN APES AND MONKEYS COME FROM THEN? WHAT IS THEIR BEFORE SPECIES?

They evolved from earlier species of monkey and ape. If you go back far enough, those monkeys and apes precursors evolved from lemur-like animals and so on all the way back to the first shrew-like mammals.

IF WE EVOLVED DUE TO “ENVIRONMENTAL PRESSURES” THEN WHY DID “MODERN MONKEY” COME ALONG TO INDULGE IN SAID ENVIRONMENTAL PRESSURES?

Monkeys, chimps and gorillas all evolved to fit different environmental niches than or ancestors did. Our last branching off occurred when one group of apes remained in the forests and evolved into modern chimps, while another became savannah-dwellers and evolved into humans.

[Citizen Blade]

Please if I showed you a bone could you create a complete animal from it?

From one bone? No. But, if I was a prehistoric artist or story-teller, show me a fossilized T-Rex skull and a few of its other bones, and I might very well come up with the mythological basis for dragons. If anything, our ancestors had a better understanding of what animals looked like without any meat on their bones.

Yet on ancient temples and other places and in ancient clay works dinosaurs have shown up that are true to what we have put together from finding more and more bones to create an accurate idea of what they looked like.

I'd love to see a example of this.

[Coyoteman]

If I was to kill someone or lets say someone died out in the jungles of south America or in the jungles of south east Asia how long do you think after they died you would be able to fine any trace of them?

Jungles are tough on bones. If they were well buried they would last quite a while, millenia, but if they were on the surface you're looking at a matter of a couple of years--if predators don't eat them entirely. Marshes or swamps, or even river sediments are another decent preservation medium, but the bones need to be buried in the sediment somewhat quickly.

But none of that means anything, as there are a lot of environments that would have preserved dinosaur bones if there were any in the past 6,000 or so years. They haven't been found.

[CommieCutter]

We don’t need to know the exact species that came before and after archie. We can look at dinosaurs that existed at the sae time, and find a lot in common, and we can look at actual birds down the road, and see a lot in common.

THAT’S LIKE SAYING THE DUCK-BILLED PLATYPUS IS THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE OTTER AND THE DUCK BECAUSE THEY SIMPLY LOOK A LIKE AND EXIST AT THE SAME TIME. YOU DO NEED TO KNOW WHAT IT WAS BEFORE AND AFTER IN ORDER TO BE IN ACCORD WITH THE VERY WORD: TRANSITION. EVERY ANSWER TO THIS IS “IT COULD HAVE” OR “POSSIBLY THIS”.

WHICH DINOSAURS DO WE SEE IN COMMON WITH TODAY’S BIRDS? YOU MEAN BASED ON DINOSAUR SKELETONS WE HAVE FOUND? SEE, THOSE ACTUALLY DIED THAT’S WHY THEY’RE IN THE GROUND. THERE’S NO PROOF THEY EVOLVED. SO THERE IS NO LOGIC IN USING THEM FOR COMPARISON.

---

They’re not “close enough” they’re different species. And the idea that lond-haired people will go exinct is an urban myth. Blond-hair is a recssive genetic trait that will always exist in the human gene pool.

NO, WHEN IT WAS TOLD BY TEXT BOOKS THEY BECAME DIFFERENT SPECIES IT DIDN’T SHOW THEM BECOMING ANOTHER COELACANTH.

IT’S ALL A MYTH/THEORY INCLUDING EVOLUTION, BECAUSE IT CAN’T BE PROVEN. IT’S THEORY! AND NEEDS TO BE TREATED AS SUCH. BREEDS CHANGE YOU CAN SEE THAT WITH DOGS.

---

What’s so absurb about it? Creationists ask for examples of transitional species, then throw a hissy-fit when presented with one. What would you consider a legitimate example of a transitional?

YOU’RE THE ONE THROWING THE HISSY-FIT (SEE: ARCHIE). IT’S ABSURD BECAUSE YOU TREAT IT AS THE FINAL WORD. IF YOU HAVE “NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO TELL”, AS YOU SAID IN REGARDS TO WHAT THE PREHISTORIC BIRD WAS BEFORE AND THEN BECAME THEN YOU HAVE NO PROOF THAT THE BIRD IS ANY KIND OF TRANSITION.
—I DON’T HAVE TO APPROVE ANY KIND “LEGITIMATE EXAMPLE” OF A TRANSITION, BECAUSE I BELIEVE THERE AREN’T ANY. THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU.

---

I guess that’s on way to look at it. But, we are a different species from our ancestor species. The species that came before us simply aren’t around anymore.

AGAIN IF PREHISTORIC MONKEY EVOLVED INTO US BECAUSE OF CERTAIN CONDITIONS THEN WHY DID MODERN MONKEY EVOLVE INTO SAID CONDITIONS.

---

Which is what the theory of evolution is getting at. Species evolve to live in a changing environment, or they die out.

‘THEORY’.. AND IT IS JUST THAT. NOT THE FINAL WORD AS YOU TREAT IT. THE ONLY THING THAT CAN BE PROVEN IS SPECIES DIE, THAT’S WHAT WE CAN SEE. THAT’S WHAT CAN BE RECORDED.

---

They evolved from earlier species of monkey and ape. If you go back far enough, those monkeys and apes precursors evolved from lemur-like animals and so on all the way back to the first shrew-like mammals.

THEN WHY DID THEY EVOLVE INTO THE SAME ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS WE SUPPOSEDLY EVOLVED OUT OF?

IF WE EVOLVED DUE TO “ENVIRONMENTAL PRESSURES” THEN WHY DID “MODERN MONKEY” COME ALONG TO INDULGE IN SAID ENVIRONMENTAL PRESSURES?

Monkeys, chimps and gorillas all evolved to fit different environmental niches than or ancestors did. Our last branching off occurred when one group of apes remained in the forests and evolved into modern chimps, while another became savannah-dwellers and evolved into humans.

YOU FORGOT ONE THING. THERE’S ALL KINDS OF TRIBES IN THOSE SAME FORESTS. SO THE MAN-GROUP EVOLVED AND THE MONKEY-GROUP DIDN’T BUT NOW THE AFRICAN MAN-GROUP KILLS THE MONKEY-GROUP? WHY DOESN’T THE MODERN-MONKEY GROUP THEN ADJUST?