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.
Similar in shape to a European Magpie, with the largest individuals possibly attaining the size of a raven, Archaeopteryx could grow to about 0.5 m (1 ft 8 in) in length. Despite its small size, broad wings, and inferred ability to fly or glide, Archaeopteryx has more in common with other small Mesozoic dinosaurs than it does with modern birds. In particular, it shares the following features with the deinonychosaurs (dromaeosaurs and troodontids): jaws with sharp teeth, three fingers with claws, a long bony tail, hyperextensible second toes ("killing claw"), feathers (which also suggest homeothermy), and various skeletal features.
No, it points out the absurdity of the evolution argument, when viewed in totality.
You actually believe that something infinitely more complex than an Ipad appeared by accident, yet any third grader would be able to tell you that an Ipad was manufactured.
Complexity, form and function to an end are evident in the Ipad, yet we are to suspend our logic and believe that life and humans in particular all happened by sheer accident. What an amazing accident it truly was.
In this context, it means a mechanism that runs autonomously, without a designer, due to whatever forces or chaotic structure the universe may bring to bear.
Seriously? It was not exposed as a fraud for over 40 years. It is still in many textbooks and was received quite enthusiastically by some evolutionists such as, Dawson and Sir Arthur Smith Woodward. For those 40 years it was considered scientific fact. Again this is a bias brought on by wishful thinking, not true science.
True but it is my personal observation that those who most desperately want to believe in evolution, seem to be those who are some of the most anti-god atheists.
Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by SevenThunders
This is still a strawman argument and, further, you're still making the basic mistake of conflating abiogenesis and evolution. They are two separate concepts -- abiogenesis is concerned with how life got here, evolution with what life does once it already exists.
The simple compounds that were present in our primordial atmosphere about four billion years ago readily assemble into amino acids, nucleotides, etc. These building blocks of all life on this planet will readily self-assemble into polypeptide chains and nucleic acids.
Complexity, form and function to an end are evident in the Ipad, yet we are to suspend our logic and believe that life and humans in particular all happened by sheer accident.
What an amazing accident it truly was.
--
When the laws of physics that govern chemical reactions allow the reactions to form all of the building blocks of life to occur, why should it be called an accident?
--
In this context, it means a mechanism that runs autonomously, without a designer, due to whatever forces or chaotic structure the universe may bring to bear.
--
So processes that run and are governed by a set of laws that are determinable are "random chance"? That's a peculiar definition of "random chance".
Scientific fact? Hardly. It was met with skepticism immediately upon being revealed. Less than a year after it was officially presented, and keep in mind this was before the information age, David Waterston concluded that it was a human skull and an ape jawbone. More scientists over the years, like Boule and Weidenreich, concluded the same. An analytical test that could verify whether or not the skull was relatively recent was finally developed in the early 1940's, but then that pesky World War II broke out and it couldn't actually be performed until the late 40's. You can keep flogging it all you want, but it was a fraud perpetrated by a non-scientist and exposed by scientists. Science is self-correcting.
Originally posted by Phoenix267
reply to post by SevenThunders
No, you're incorrect. Archaeopteryx is clearly a transitional form of dinosaurs evolving into birds.
Similar in shape to a European Magpie, with the largest individuals possibly attaining the size of a raven, Archaeopteryx could grow to about 0.5 m (1 ft 8 in) in length. Despite its small size, broad wings, and inferred ability to fly or glide, Archaeopteryx has more in common with other small Mesozoic dinosaurs than it does with modern birds. In particular, it shares the following features with the deinonychosaurs (dromaeosaurs and troodontids): jaws with sharp teeth, three fingers with claws, a long bony tail, hyperextensible second toes ("killing claw"), feathers (which also suggest homeothermy), and various skeletal features.
So, you can see that it is consider a dinosaur, but it is also an early ancestor of modern birds we see today.
I wouldn't doubt scientist have admitted there have mistakes and frauds. But of course science is not religion and will change with correct information.
Originally posted by Phoenix267
reply to post by NihilistSanta
Well, a good example would be archaeopteryx. Which is a genus of early bird that shows the transition of feathered dinosaurs to modern birds. This a great example of a species evolving into a different species. Pakicetus is another good example of transitional forms. The early ancestors of modern day whales.
Archaeopteryx
Pakicetus
Regardless of the exact ancestry of whales, it's pretty obvious their ancestors were land-dwellers at some point, from whale anatomy such as vestigal limbs, isn't it?
Originally posted by Anonymousman
Pakicetus
A Quadrupedal Forced to be the ‘Ancestor of the Whale’
evolutionfactormyth.blogspot.com...
The source you posted is skirting about the real issue, which is described here, and it provides no rebuttal to this.
Vestigial structures are one of the strongest evidence for evolution. A vestigial structure is a homologous structure that is underdeveloped and useless or adapted for different uses. There are plenty of vestigial structures found in organisms, be it extinct or alive. A vestigial structure suggests that the environment the species lived in no longer had selection pressures on that structure, and could focus on other parts.
A lot of skeletons show traits of vestigiality, such as wings on flightless birds, the coccyx of apes etc. The best example is the hind limbs of whales and other cetaceans. The appearance of vestigial pentadactyl limbs in cetaceans is strong evidence that whales were not simply created, but evolved from a earlier tetrapod that lost functionality for its legs. As Douglas Futuyma said, vestigial structures do not make sense without evolution. Why would a creator create such structures cannot be explained by creationists.