It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Another "missing link" fossil found to be fake

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Reptiles turned into birds? Yeah right. Alot of people claim that there are reptile/bird missing links in China, but they always end up being found to be fake or misinterpretations of the data.
www.pureinsight.org...

Another "Missing Link" Fossil Found to be a Fake
Zhou Xin
[PureInsight.org] On November 21, 2002, the journal Nature published an article named "Archaeoraptor's Better Half: The Other Component of the Infamous Fossil Forgery is Identified as a Fish-Eating Bird." (VOl 420, 2002) After careful measurements and morphological study, scientists concluded that the Archaeoraptor fossil that was once proclaimed as a key intermediate between carnivorous dinosaurs and birds is now known to be a forgery. It is a chimera formed of bird and dromaeosaur parts.

Ancient bird scientists Zhonghe Zhou and Fucheng Zhang, from the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology of the Chinese Academy of Science, and Julia A. Clarke from the New York based Museum of Natural History investigated the piece of fossil and confirmed that the Archaeoraptor fossil is a fake. It is composed of the tail of a dromaeosaur and a nearly intact Yanornis martini skeleton. It was previously claimed that this fossil had been smuggled from inland China to America. In 1999, National Geographic reported on it in detail and called it a new species between dinosaurs and birds.

Using X-ray technology, the Archaeoraptor fossil was found to consist of two to five specimens from two or more species. Parts other than the dromaeosaur tail are strikingly similar to Yanornis martini in terms of morphology, body ratio, and anatomy, and completely different from those of a dromaeosaur. In the stomach of a recently discovered Yanornis specimen, scientists found fish remains, which indicates that Yanornis fed on fish.

Over the past one hundred years, Darwin's Theory of Evolution has dominated. Many phenomena cannot be explained according to the theory, but scientists still try to defend it. People try to find the missing links in order to validate the theory of evolution, but so far, no conclusive intermediate species fossils had been found. The "Archaeoraptor" fossil is just another case of this.


Figure: Analysis of the Archaeoraptor forgery and Yanrnis martini specimen.
a: the avian half of the Archaeoraptor fossil
b: Yanrnis martini holotype specimen
c: Insert: recently found Yanrnis martini and the fish remains in it.


www.worldnetdaily.com...

The ridiculous reptile to bird theory

And then there is common sense. In a popular evolutionary explanation, here's how reptiles evolved into birds: They wanted to eat flying insects that were out of reach. So the reptiles began leaping, and flapping their arms to get higher. Over millions of years, their limbs transformed into wings by increments, their tough reptilian scales gradually sprouting soft feathers.

But the theory suffers when scrutinized. According to natural selection, a physical trait is acquired because it enhances survival.

The problem is, wings would have no genuine survival value until they reached the point of flight. Birds' wings and feathers are perfectly designed instruments. Those with crippled or clipped wings cannot fly, and are bad candidates for survival. Likewise, the intermediate creature whose limb was half leg, half wing, would fare poorly -- it couldn't fly, nor walk well. Natural selection would eliminate it without a second thought.

Let's raise an even more fundamental question: Why aren't reptiles today developing feathers? Why aren't fish today growing little legs, trying to adapt to land? Shouldn't evolution be ongoing?

The complete lack of a fossil record

Supposedly invertebrates evolved into the first fish. But despite millions of fossils from both groups, transitional fossils linking them are missing.

Insects, rodents, bats, pterodactyls and numerous other life forms appear in the fossil record with no trace of fossils showing how they developed.

The main point: If evolutionary theory is true, we should find the innumerable transitional forms Darwin predicted would be in the geologic record. We shouldn't find just a handful, but billions of them. Instead, the fossil record shows animals complete -- not in developmental stages -- the very first time they are seen. And this is just what we would expect if the Bible is right and God created animals whole.

James Perloff is the author of Tornado in a Junkyard: The Relentless Myth of Darwinism


Mod Edit: New External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

Impotant:Using content from other websites on ATS. Please review this link.

[edit on 22-6-2008 by GAOTU789]

[edit on 22-6-2008 by GAOTU789]




posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 07:38 PM
link   
Archeoraptor?

Fortunately, the dino-bird theory can withstand the loss of one "link".

Archeopteryx, Protarcheopteryx, Microraptor, Bambiraptor, Caudipteryx, Sinornithosaurus, Sinosauropteryx, Ornitholestes, and Iberomesornis are all links between birds and dinosaurs (in reality there is no real dividing line between the two). They and birds share many characteristics, but not all paleontoligists support the idea that birds are directly descended from dinosaurs; some see more evidence for a line of descent originating in the basal archosaurs, that diverged from the theropod line early on. Either way, both birds and mammals are descended from "reptiles" (too broad a word in my opinion), which are in turn descended from primitive amphibian tetrapods, which are descended from the Sarcopterygii (lobe finned fish).

Feathers are good for more than flight. They are just as effective for display and warmth. Small, light dinosaurs that had these feathers are thought to have at first excelled not at flight but at gliding, and the advantage went to those that could glide further, until they could eventually fly.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 07:31 AM
link   
The view expressed here reveals more than the authors viewpoint regarding this matter, but also the much bigger issue of how creationists will happily use science to try and discredit veiws that challenge their own, but when science goes against their beliefs, thay are quick to rubbish it. It is logical that people who need to use every trick in the book to substantiate their beliefs are wrong. If you believe is some wierd construct, the onus is on you to prove it - and 'it says so in the bible' doesn't cut it. Illogical arguments are quite safe from logical reasoning.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 07:33 AM
link   
sorry to make this just a one liner but absence of proof does not mean proof of absence.



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by SlyCM
Archeoraptor?

Fortunately, the dino-bird theory can withstand the loss of one "link".

Archeopteryx, Protarcheopteryx, Microraptor, Bambiraptor, Caudipteryx, Sinornithosaurus, Sinosauropteryx, Ornitholestes, and Iberomesornis are all links between birds and dinosaurs (in reality there is no real dividing line between the two). They and birds share many characteristics, but not all paleontoligists support the idea that birds are directly descended from dinosaurs; some see more evidence for a line of descent originating in the basal archosaurs, that diverged from the theropod line early on. Either way, both birds and mammals are descended from "reptiles" (too broad a word in my opinion), which are in turn descended from primitive amphibian tetrapods, which are descended from the Sarcopterygii (lobe finned fish).

Feathers are good for more than flight. They are just as effective for display and warmth. Small, light dinosaurs that had these feathers are thought to have at first excelled not at flight but at gliding, and the advantage went to those that could glide further, until they could eventually fly.





Fortunately, the dino-bird theory can withstand the loss of one "link".


The Whole theory can't withstand the weight of it's own BS anymore sly what are you talking about

You may as well call the entire dino to bird theory fake. It didn't happen period. This is just more speculation for macro-evolution in Darwinists desperate attempts to prove a one species can become an entirely differen't species. In the case of Dino to Birds, the idea is absolutley ludicrous like most of the so called "transitional forms" we see from Darwinists, these too have been so debunked that I would think they would have given up on the idea by now.


Many of the alleged ‘intermediates’ actually are fully formed, modern feathers, or structures that are not feathers at all.65 For example, Sinosauropteryx ‘feathers’ are actually ‘filaments’.70–71

Other ancient fossil feather discoveries—such as on the oviraptorosaur Caudipteryx and Protarchaeopteryx—are ‘true feathers’.72 Touted by some as a dinosaur, Caudipteryx has been dated to within the early Cretaceous, often estimated as 30 million years younger than Archaeopteryx.73 Evolutionary paleo-ornithologists Feduccia and Martin, staunch critics of the dinosaur-to-bird theory, believe that Protarchaeopteryx and Caudipteryx are more likely to be flightless birds similar to ostriches.

They have birdlike teeth and lack the long tail seen in theropods. Caudipteryx even used gizzard stones like modern plant-eating birds, but unlike theropods. Far from being ancestors of Archaeopteryx, cladistic evidence points (under evolutionary presuppositions) to their being birdlike (under their own transforming paradigm), and secondarily flightless descendants of Archaeopteryx


It gets worse,

Much worse


The leading paleo-ornithologist and evolutionary critic of the dino-to-bird dogma, Dr Alan Feduccia, who is an evolutionist himself, sounded a note of caution about the ‘feathered dinosaurs’ in general in an interview with the evolutionary Discover magazine (below, emphasis added).3 It certainly seems strange that all these ‘feathered dinosaurs’ come from a single province of China—the same place as the Archaeoraptor hoax came from. Indeed, the holotype (first named specimen) of Microraptor was in fact part of this hoax!4 However, neither our case nor Feduccia’s against previous ‘feathered dinosaurs’ has ever depended on this particular problem, and the same is true of Microraptor gui, as will be shown.

Discover: What about all the other evidence for feathered dinosaurs?
Feduccia: When we see actual feathers preserved on specimens, we need to carefully determine if we are looking at secondarily flightless birds that have retained feathers and only superficially resemble dinosaurs, or if the specimens are in fact related to dinosaurs. That’s a difficult issue to deal with right now, given the existence of fake fossils.

Discover: So far, only one feathered dinosaur, Archaeoraptor, has been publicly acknowledged as a forgery. You think there are others?

Feduccia: Archaeoraptor is just the tip of the iceberg. There are scores of fake fossils out there, and they have cast a dark shadow over the whole field. When you go to these fossil shows, it’s difficult to tell which ones are faked and which ones are not. I have heard that there is a fake-fossil factory in northeastern China, in Liaoning Province, near the deposits where many of these recent alleged feathered dinosaurs were found.

Journals like Nature don’t require specimens to be authenticated, and the specimens immediately end up back in China, so nobody can examine them. They may be miraculous discoveries, they may be missing links as they are claimed, but there is no way to authenticate any of this stuff.

Discover: Why would anyone fake a fossil?
Feduccia: Money. The Chinese fossil trade has become a big business. These fossil forgeries have been sold on the black market for years now, for huge sums of money. Anyone who can produce a good fake stands to profit.

It is not unreasonable to apply Feduccia’s scepticism to the current find. Even the original paper should make us cautious. Commenting on the paper point-by-point:

Notes on the specimens. Of the six specimens in the present study, IVPP V13476 was collected by the Liaoxi expedition team of the IVPP in 2001, IVPP V13352, V13320, V13477 and V13351 were purchased by the IVPP during the field seasons of 2001 and 2002, and TNP00996 was purchased by Tianjin Museum of Natural History in 2002.

It is highly suspicious to rely on purchased fossils, since one has no proof of the geological context or whether they have been doctored. As Dr Feduccia says, no-one from Nature would have checked the authenticity of the specimen. Dr Storrs Olson, Curator of Birds at the National Museum of Natural History of the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. has also noted that Nature’s reliability on this issue is highly suspect:


Now it starts getting pathetic


Careful study of bird, alligator and turtle embryos at early stages offer convincing evidence that the "fingers" of bird wings correspond to the index, middle and ring fingers of humans
www.sciencedaily.com...



Drs. Alan Feduccia and Julie Nowicki of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill have opened a series of live ostrich eggs at various stages of development and found what they believe is proof ... >
www.sciencedaily.com...



No good evidence exists that fossilized structures found in China and which some paleontologists claim are the earliest known rudimentary feathers were really feathers at all, a renowned ... > www.sciencedaily.com...



CORVALLIS, Ore. (June 22, 2000) - Scientists today announced the discovery of the oldest animal ever known to have feathers, which may have been the ancestor of birds but clearly was not a dinosaur - a discovery that calls into serious question many theories about an evolutionary link between dinosaurs and birds.


I think it can be safely assumed that since the day Chuck Darwin first came up with this "stuff", evolutionists have been attempting to flim flam everyone with fraudulent fabrications and machiavellian manufactured evidence to manipulate the masses for so long and so often, they have reduced their credibility so much they can no longer be trusted and the peer reviews they write have also been found to be somewhat of a "Clique" at the top levels where politics and like minded darwininan opinion and support goes further in elevating status than genuine personal acheivment and compelling accurate scientific discovery.

It has been nothing but hoax after hoax after hoax after hoax after hoax.




Piltdownman 45 years they passed that off as fact. Javaman, coloradoman, Haekels manipulated embryos, all these fake bird to dino "thingamabobs" Darwins finches, the crowning glory of Darwinists


I think should be the real take-home lesson of the Peppered Moth saga? The fact that this amazingly banal set of events has been hammered worldwide as ‘ultimate proof’ for a belief that microbes originally turned into moths (and moth researchers)! This is far more stupefying to contemplate than even all the faked photos and talk of fraudulent experiments.
store.creationontheweb.com...


However, it turns out that this classic story is full of holes anyway. Peppered moths don’t even rest on tree trunks during the day. This entire thing was nothing but a HUGE LIE pre meditated out and out fraud!

But there is more!

Watch as the mountain of evidence gets torn down, piece by fraudulent piece.

Where are the transitions?

Their are none, they are all the same creature today as they were millions of years ago.


BOSTON -- Geologists at Ohio State University have found the largest-ever complete fossil of a cockroach, one that lived 55 million years before the first dinosaurs.
www.sciencedaily.com...


Its still a cock roach

The Horseshoe Crab still EXACTLY the same

The Alligator?

Still a gator.

The Bat?


Still a Bat

Sharks?
Still Sharks

Man?
Are we transitioning?




Nope



Darwinism= the ever lieing illusion of

Evolution

- Con







[edit on 21-6-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 07:31 AM
link   
Hello

as science says nature abhors a vacuum. so do scientists it seems,

they just want to fill the gaping holes in "theories"

like using the letter

A

then seeing a

K

and then claiming it is war and peace in its entirety. They flood the world with this "discovery" and that "discovery" using words such as could,should,may,might and then hope that it's a very long time before is is easily disproved so that it becomes accepted.

theorize? Yes, but dont take us for mugs

david



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 07:51 AM
link   
reply to post by drevill
 


Yes, David I agree, that is what "Legitimate" Science does, but what these "Scientists" are about is ONE thing and one thing only.

Making God irrelevent while attempting to justify there place in our Public Schools as an unnecessary addon to Biology Science.

It's no wonder why American Students are lagging further and further behind. They are all studying a bunch a baloney. Can you imagine these kids coming out of Schools thinking those damn peppered moths actually do what they told them they did and that Lucy was a transitional form?

What a waste of time and money.

I think it's time we tell evolutionists to quit talking about the damn mountain of evidence and all the labor pains and

show us the BABY!

- Con

 

Removed entire quote of previous poster and replaced it with Reply To
Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.



[edit on 22-6-2008 by GAOTU789]



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 02:15 PM
link   
hello

yes i agree

Science is frightened of what it doesn't know. it wants to know everything so it can be everything. A lot of it is a faith in its own right. If it admits there is a creator then the worship fails

david



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Hollywood11
 


Your logic is ridiculous. A fake fossil does not disprove evolution. Just as one of those many Christian relics being fake doesn't disprove Christianity.

At least TRY to form an argument. This is getting very tedious.

As for Drevill, no - science isn't "scared" of anything. Science doesn't think. Science doesn't have a blog. Science doesn't have a MySpace page.

SCIENCE IS A METHODOLOGY. It is a way for people to discover things. If science could possibly discover god, science would be the biggest and loudest supporter of god. Saying it's scared is, well, pathetic. Clearly you don't understand what science is, and yet you feel compelled to demonstrate that to everyone, shooting your argument in the foot in the process. Genius.



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 11:34 PM
link   
The OP's source is just plain wrong:




And then there is common sense. In a popular evolutionary explanation, here's how reptiles evolved into birds: They wanted to eat flying insects that were out of reach. So the reptiles began leaping, and flapping their arms to get higher. Over millions of years, their limbs transformed into wings by increments, their tough reptilian scales gradually sprouting soft feathers.


Dino's began evolving feathers from scales long before they ever took flight, they didn't start "flapping their arms" and magically evolve wings, it was a gradual slow process that took millions of years. Also, there are a few different theories as to how flight evolved, I'll point you in the right direction.

Origin of Birds



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 03:23 AM
link   





This has been debunked so bad it should be embarrassing for you to suggest this bunk AGAIN read my post.

They have recently found feathered birds BEFORE the dino existed

whats does that tell you??

uh huh

- con



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 03:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by dave420



Your logic is ridiculous. A fake fossil does not disprove evolution. .


Dave,, sigh,, read the post, he isnt saying fake evidence disproves evolution, it is saying evolutionists are using fake evidence to PROVE evolution, try your slippery semantics word games somewhere where the readers are slower ok. This is the third time tonight you have taken a post like this and reversed it to suggest an argument with a statment the post was never making.




At least TRY to form an argument. This is getting very tedious.


I won't even mention ,,, oh maan





Clearly you don't understand what science is,


"clearly" ha ha you kill me dave,,

hey im sending you a u2u also

- Con



[edit on 22-6-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 04:28 AM
link   
Firstly, WorldNetDaily is your where your founding your argument from? Ha!

Secondly, what birds where around before the dinosaurs? Please, show me...

And what say you to dinosaurs having feathers? Many did. While adult T-rex's are known to have had the traditional looking skin, younger T-rex's and other species related to the T-rex have been proven to have had feathers. And that is just one dinosaur species....

You quite obviously do not understand the theory of evolution. Do you think that it means animals consciously evolve? Do you think it means a monkey gave birth to a man?

It is, in a nutshell, purely random. Mutations that occur during conception usually end up killing the organism or conferring a major disadvantage, but if the mutation confers an advantage over other organisms around it, then that animal will not only survive, but will flourish and breed, passing on it's advantageous genetic material to it's offspring. Over time, genetic changes build up and new species emerge.

I find it astounding that people cannot grasp the extraordinarily simple premise behind evolution. It is far more believable than some supernatural being invented by illiterate goat-herders thousands of years ago who based their idea's on nothing more than superstition.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

And what say you to dinosaurs having feathers? Many did. While adult T-rex's are known to have had the traditional looking skin, younger T-rex's and other species related to the T-rex have been proven to have had feathers. And that is just one dinosaur species....







You quite obviously do not understand the theory of evolution.


On the contrary , it is YOU who doesn't understand it. Understanding it isn't necessary however as is with the dino to bird theory, Basic remedial biology is all you need for this one. You suggest believing in the ancient texts as astounding while I find it incomprehensible that you would suggest as a matter of fact the dino to birds macro evolutionary fable predicated on artists renditions and a BOAT LOAD of nothing but pure speculation having no one to observe this phenomena which happend not thousands of years ago with a written record but NONE at all and MILLIONS and Millions of years ago.

You think you got a good dino to bird example?

Show me ONE, the best one ya got and Ill demonstrate why the dino to bird theory is having Darwinists choking on the dust of their own regrets

By the way, you might want to brush up on your Biology rather than your religion of evolution, Atheist.

- Con



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 05:41 PM
link   
Conspiriology thank you for your contributions to this thread



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


I'm confused, why did you give source information for 'reputable' sources but when you used the Answers in Genesis sources you just said quote from external source without giving the source? Are you ashamed of these sources?

To paraphrase GW, I'm against you. Plain and simple. Fundamentalist religion and its associations are like a cancer against Scientific knowledge. Shame.

[edit on 23/9/08 by ChChKiwi]



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 08:39 PM
link   
Good lord this nothing but hate speech.

So you're suggesting that fake bird transitional mean? That birds didn't come from dinosaurs? That makes no sense, where else could they have come from and why do the share the fundamental morphology of dinosaurs? That indicates gaps not that it never happened.

I also heard someone accuse scientists of putting forward piltdown man as evidence of evolution. piltdown man was a proven fake decades ago. Way to be current.

Also bats are bats, crocs are crocs, sharks are sharks and horseshoe crabs are horseshoe crabs. Yes they are, very observant. But to say that that is evidence that evolution doesn't occur demonstrates your misunderstanding of the subject matter. Somethings just aren't pressured to change, are so successful that they stay in the permanent niche for hundreds of thousands of years. Then of course other organisms evolve much more rapidly, like humans. Humans evolutionary path has been well established for a long time now.

Peppered moths do land on trees btw, there was so much anger about them that it had to be demonstrated that they did do so, and they did.



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 02:52 AM
link   
This thread may be dead, but it is a shining example of willful ignorance. Instead of actually doing research and understanding the evidence behind the theory, Hollywood11 has created what he believes the theory of evolution is. It sounds like an observation of evolution as made by a child. I'd like to know where Hollywood11 got his instruction on evolution, because I have NEVER seen it described as he implies. A straw man argument if I ever saw one.

"Let's raise an even more fundamental question: Why aren't reptiles today developing feathers? Why aren't fish today growing little legs, trying to adapt to land? Shouldn't evolution be ongoing?"

Evolution is a process that occurs over millions of years, so of course you won't see a lizard sprout wings and fly in your short lifetime. As for the fish:
en.wikipedia.org...
Wow, that was easy. All I did was Google "amphibious fish".

I agree with dave420. All of this inane ramble is a misunderstanding of what science is. Science is a means to logically explain natural occurrences with evidence that comes from experimentation. Here is what science is:

pesn.com...

Very simple to understand. Science is not a religion or a substitute for it. Science is not a philosophy or belief system. Science has a built in check system. Every day hypotheses are rejected due to new stronger evidence. Also, people fail to realize that when a hypothesis is found to be false, SCIENCE is used to prove it's falsehood. The fossil in question was actually proven to be a fake in less than four months by SCIENTISTS using x-ray analysis. Way to go, chumps. More proof that Science works.

The problems caused between science and religion are the disparities in belief. Most religious people see things as black and white: you believe in something, or you don't. With science, belief scales with evidence: the more evidence you have to prove a hypothesis, the more believable that hypothesis is.

Science works. Accept it and move on.



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 04:41 AM
link   
Only a handful of scientists ever saw Archaeoraptor, but every one who did noted that it was composite piece, and the artistic amateurs who paid for the fossil were repeatedly warned that some parts of it might not even belong to the whole. Popular press foolishly scooped the story prior to peer review, where it was instantly exposed as a fake by multiple experts, and each submission to scientific journals was immediately rejected. Archaeoraptor therefore fooled no one in the scientific community at all.

The irony there is that the tail of the alleged archaeoraptor turned out to belong to the as-yet undiscovered Microraptor, a four-winged and apparently gliding feathered dinosaur which turned out to be even more compelling proof of avian evolution from dinosaurs than Archaeopteryx was in Darwin’s day.



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hollywood11
Reptiles turned into birds? Yeah right. Alot of people claim that there are reptile/bird missing links in China, but they always end up being found to be fake or misinterpretations of the data.


way to be current ..... science was warning it appeared to be a composite, national Geo ran with the story anyway (popular science magazines dont have the same standards as scientific journals) 3-4 months later it was proven a composite fake


found that the head and upper body actually belong to a specimen of the primitive fossil bird Yanornis.[1] A 2002 study found that the tail belongs to a small winged dromaeosaur, Microraptor, named in 2000.[2] The legs and feet belong to an as yet unknown animal.[3][4]


the ironic thing is your first article doesnt mention which dromaeosaur the tail bellonged to, and the simple answer is becasue it belonged to microraptor

Microraptor zhaoianus

Microraptor gui

both these fossils are complete single slab of rock so no this one isnt a composite some chinese farmer glued togather, and we have more then 1 fosil of both species


and what did our friend microraptor look like in real life with a little artistic help it looks like this



yepp a 4 winged feathered gliding dinosaur, it didnt have the muscle for powered flight but it had rthe wing capacity to glide a fair old distance

rather then discredit the dinosaur to bird hypothesis it enhanced it, it gave us 1 of 2 new species of microraptor and when they asked the chinese farmer that glued it together which area he found the parts it gave them an idea where to look, bad chinese farmer for making a fake for cash
good chinese farmer for later helping science



yay lets beat up the strawman




The ridiculous reptile to bird theory

And then there is common sense. In a popular evolutionary explanation, here's how reptiles evolved into birds: They wanted to eat flying insects that were out of reach. So the reptiles began leaping, and flapping their arms to get higher. Over millions of years, their limbs transformed into wings by increments, their tough reptilian scales gradually sprouting soft feathers.
they wanted to fly and jumped up and down? yeah like fish flopped around on land until they grew lungs ..
books arnt that hard to read ya know

shall we look at just how hard it is to turn a birds scales to soft feather? about as hard as getting them to grow teeth

atavisms are the name of the game, genetic material left over from ancestors which under certain circumsatances can be flicked back on to cause what would be considered an abnormality in the present species

becasue birds descended from dinsoaur directly or an earlier lizard as Feducha Et Al believes the genes to form its beak and the genes to form its feathers have been found to be modified versions of earlier genes

where as the gene for teeth in reptiles continues to run until teeth are formed in the fetous in avarian reptiles(birds) it switches off early, if you restart the gene and let it run as it did in its earlier ancestors the beak doesnt form leaving a quasi jawbone with teeth (conical teeth the closet living species that display these teeth are corcodillia), yes hens teeth arnt all that rare if your good at embryology

now birds have scaled legs(depending on the bird some are quite tough) so what does it take to transform hard cale to feather? you guessed it gene reactivation, feathers were just a mutation that altered the stop point of gene expression, turn the gene back on and those hard scales form feathers


But the theory suffers when scrutinized. According to natural selection, a physical trait is acquired because it enhances survival.
not really if yoou actually scrutinise it not just say this is silly cant be true and put your fingers in your ears


The problem is, wings would have no genuine survival value until they reached the point of flight. Birds' wings and feathers are perfectly designed instruments. Those with crippled or clipped wings cannot fly,
ohh but they can glide, they can glide from 1 tree to another to reach food escape predators, and if they fall even half a wing will slow your fall and aid your survival better then no wing at all

and feathers came before powered flight, so before they helped with gliding and fall breaking they provided warmth to help regulate body temperature, we find feathered dinosaur long before they had the ability to fly or glide(and lots of them with feathers were to big to do so anyway)

so its not a problem at all



and are bad candidates for survival. Likewise, the intermediate creature whose limb was half leg, half wing, would fare poorly -- it couldn't fly, nor walk well. Natural selection would eliminate it without a second thought.


why? it would still have the ability to climb, and some ability to glide and some ability to break its fall. that all aids survival so chances are natural selection wouldnt kill them all off

and thats 1/2 arm 1/2 wing not leg silly


Let's raise an even more fundamental question: Why aren't reptiles today developing feathers?
they are small cold blooded and dont need to regulate thier body temperature like warm blooded dinosaurs? (btw crocodillians have been shown to have once been warm blooded too at one point)

becasue it takes a random mutation and the right one hasnt triggered in them?

becasue it would harm not aid them so natural selection would have killed them off?


Why aren't fish today growing little legs, trying to adapt to land? Shouldn't evolution be ongoing?
mudskipper? lungfish? theres quite a few fish that can travel over land

but competition on land is now as fierce as in water so switching from one to the other permanently doesnt provide the benefits it once did so natural selection works against it


The complete lack of a fossil record

Supposedly invertebrates evolved into the first fish. But despite millions of fossils from both groups, transitional fossils linking them are missing.
wernt we on about reptile > avarian reptile?

missing? no we havnt found any missing links once found they stop bieng missing


Insects, rodents, bats, pterodactyls and numerous other life forms appear in the fossil record with no trace of fossils showing how they developed.
bald faced lie


The main point: If evolutionary theory is true, we should find the innumerable transitional forms Darwin predicted would be in the geologic record. We shouldn't find just a handful, but billions of them.

will thousands do?

and no only a very small percentage will fossalise for us to find, fossils can only transform to fossils under certain conditions, most get eaten destroyed and dragged away, others are in soil conditions that destroy the bone (acid soil is a bitch) while others are eroded before we find them and many havnt been found yet

the fact we can use what we already have to make predictions on what to find where and go hunt down specifics transitionals says our fossils records plenty accurate

we know where to look for whale transitionals and fish > tetrapod, tiktaalik wasnt a chance find they went specifically looking for a transitional fossil in the area our understanding of the fossil record tells us they should be


Instead, the fossil record shows animals complete -- not in developmental stages -- the very first time they are seen. And this is just what we would expect if the Bible is right and God created animals whole.
of course theya re complete, they are complete for thier species which is a transitional for the next

if they wernt complete they would die and be unable to form a transition, lack of knowledge on evolutionary thoery is showing here

so lets look at some of the transitional species we supposedly havnt found




so this is up to tetrapods



but this guys JUST has a P.HD. in chemical biology, better find an expert ... palentology to the rescue





[edit on 13/1/09 by noobfun]



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join