Found: Evidence That Archaeopteryx Evolved Like Darwin’s Finches

Stars for everyone who actually stayed on the topic, even if they weren't all that great.

To all the other ignorant creationist rants,

a reply to: wildespace

Good find.

But, I always thought feathers were enough to prove it.

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck
Why is it that people here are compelled to sling mud at Christian ignorance

The mantra of this website is "Deny Ignorance". Why is it that Christians feel compelled to blindly attack any scientific study ever posted that has to do with evolution without even reading the article in the OP or any data involved whatsoever? If folks didn't do that, the people who understand science wouldn't be constantly pointing out their flawed reasoning.

If you open minded intellectuals would read Genesis you might see how it supports evolution and how other misinterpreted verses don't support that the universe was created in literally seven days or that creation is merely 10,000 years old.

Actually, if any intellectual reads Genesis,they will observe numerous flaws that blatantly contradict with the scientific picture of the world, whether it was 7 day literal version or not. The creation order is wrong and the story of Adam and Eve involves talking snakes, humans being made from dirt, women coming from man's rib and tons of incest which we know isn't genetically viable to start a population. It also mentions a worldwide flood that geology has already proved wrong. There is nothing about the creation story or book of Genesis that agrees with evolution and science. Genesis postulates that all creatures were created based on their kind. It doesn't say anything about sharing a common ancestor.

It's true in my opinion that certain Christian traditions and an ignorant understanding of the Bible is narrow minded, but bigoted comments about said ignorance contributes nothing to this discussion and makes you look just as ignorant.

No, actually pointing out somebody else's ignorance is VERY important, because there are tons of people reading these threads that aren't members here and might believe an ignorant statement to be factual. We should always demand intellectual honesty and hold claims to high standards. This topic here is about the evolution of Archaeopteryx. Bringing up Christian dogma or doctrine or beliefs is completely irrelevant to the conversation here, so red herrings like that should be called out. You are playing the victim, because you guys are the ones attacking the field of science that this article is based off of.

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck
Stars for everyone who actually stayed on the topic, even if they weren't all that great.

To all the other ignorant creationist rants,

Have you stayed on topic? What was your contribution to the discussion of the evolution of Archaeopteryx?

originally posted by: visitedbythem

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: visitedbythem
I think the dinosaurs all drown a long time ago. There was a big flood reported in many cultures. The ones that couldn't swim, sank

Dinosaurs lived long before people.

Sure they did. That's why there are human footprints next to Dino prints.

No, there actually is not. There are hoaxers that claim this, but none have ever allowed actual scientific research on the so called foot prints.

a reply to: rockdisjoint2

Evolutionnews.org is a known propaganda site. Sorry, but saying there is no evidence of birds evolving from dinosaurs, when the article in the OP shows direct evidence of this is a bit comical.

nhm.org...

evolution.berkeley.edu...

Show some standards.

originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: trollz

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: visitedbythem

obvious question wy did a huge number of marine dinasaurs , like Ichthyosaurus

become extinct at the same time as terrestrial dinosaurs ?

Better yet, why did some land dinosaurs survive, like alligators and crocodiles?

Alligators and crocodiles aren't dinosaurs.

Birds are, though. They are feathered, warm-blooded therapod dinosaurs, very closely related to raptors.

One study found that dinosaurs weren't exactly cold-blooded: www.bbc.co.uk... ...so it's natural to accept that some of those of them who evolved feathers eventually became warm-blooded.

Here in NZ we have a animal called a tuatara. Its a lizard lokking thing. It is called "living fossil" and was around when the dinosaur were roaming.

a reply to: Barcs

I'm not the one supporting these ignorant posts on either side. It would be a very long thread to explain how Genesis actually supports a number of scientific theories, evolution being one. You are merely paraphrasing poorly translated and misunderstood biblical sources to try prove your points. It's not worth arguing with you about how amazing the Genesis ideas are knowing how underdeveloped their scientific reasoning was so long ago. I personally give them credit for such revolutionary thinking.

Even given my generous interpretation of Old Testament folklore, it's nothing I would believe as translated and out of context or as some divine facts that oppose scientific reasoning. I do appreciate those who have contributed to the actual subject here and have not cluttered up the thread with veiled insults against people of faith or of science. I merely pointed out how ignorant people on both sides of that creation vs science argument sound when they start flinging their mud.

ETA: You seem to believe that the "Origins and Creationism" forum is strictly a venue for scientific theories and reasoning. Obviously you are mistaken as science leads one to believe that the universe wasn't created but came into existence by means other than a creator. It's seems that a faith based comment is fair game on this forum, so get over it if that is some kind of problem for you.

a reply to: ZeussusZ

For those who came in late...

The Tuatara is a reptile, but not a lizard.

According to Wikipedia: Tuatara

Tuatara are reptiles endemic to New Zealand. Although resembling most lizards, they are part of a distinct lineage, the order Rhynchocephalia.[2] Their name derives from the Māori language, and means "peaks on the back".[3] The single species of tuatara is the only surviving member of its order, which flourished around 200 million years ago.[4] Their most recent common ancestor with any other extant group is with the squamates (lizards and snakes).[5] For this reason, tuatara are of great interest in the study of the evolution of lizards and snakes, and for the reconstruction of the appearance and habits of the earliest diapsids, a group of amniote tetrapods that also includes dinosaurs, birds, and crocodilians.

It has been around since the Jurassic and is lovingly called a 'living fossil', but is actually one of the fastest evolving animals ever studied.

Tuatara have been referred to as living fossils,[2] which means they retain many basal characteristics from around the time of the squamate – rhynchocephalian split (220 MYA).[25] However, taxonomic work[26] on Sphenodontia has shown this group has undergone a variety of changes throughout the Mesozoic, and a March 2008 molecular study showed their rate of molecular evolution has been the fastest of any animal yet examined.[27][28] Many of the niches occupied by lizards today were then held by sphenodontians. There was even a successful group of aquatic sphenodontians known as pleurosaurs, which differed markedly from living tuatara. Tuatara show cold weather adaptations that allow them to thrive on the islands of New Zealand; these adaptations may be unique to tuatara since their sphenodontian ancestors lived in the much warmer climates of the Mesozoic. For instance, Palaeopleurosaurus appears to have had a much shorter lifespan compared to the modern tuatara.

A very interesting animal.

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck
I'm not the one supporting these ignorant posts on either side. It would be a very long thread to explain how Genesis actually supports a number of scientific theories, evolution being one. You are merely paraphrasing poorly translated and misunderstood biblical sources to try prove your points. It's not worth arguing with you about how amazing the Genesis ideas are knowing how underdeveloped their scientific reasoning was so long ago. I personally give them credit for such revolutionary thinking.

Again, there are numerous flaws with Genesis, and you have to completely take it as a metaphor to make it jive with any scientific theories, and it still doesn't unless you disregard a large portion of it. What am I poorly paraphrasing? I've very familiar with Genesis and the claims about it supporting evolution, but they don't really hold weight unless you don't understand the evolutionary picture of the earliest life and the order in which they emerged. You can try to jam the square peg in the round hole, but it's a purely imaginative story based on what people THOUGHT MIGHT have happened (ie the explanation for snakes) it isn't based on any science at all and only fits if you cherry pick it and make excuses for the problems by adding all kinds of extra meanings and plot devices that aren't even in the texts themselves. I've argued this topic to death, and have never seen it rectified with science / evolution.

Even given my generous interpretation of Old Testament folklore, it's nothing I would believe as translated and out of context or as some divine facts that oppose scientific reasoning. I do appreciate those who have contributed to the actual subject here and have not cluttered up the thread with veiled insults against people of faith or of science. I merely pointed out how ignorant people on both sides of that creation vs science argument sound when they start flinging their mud.

I totally get that. People shouldn't sling mud on either side, but most of the time, the scientific side is not the ignorant side, it's the people who deny it.

ETA: You seem to believe that the "Origins and Creationism" forum is strictly a venue for scientific theories and reasoning. Obviously you are mistaken as science leads one to believe that the universe wasn't created but came into existence by means other than a creator. It's seems that a faith based comment is fair game on this forum, so get over it if that is some kind of problem for you.

No, I don't think origins and creationism is strictly for science, however, people shouldn't be upset when creationists make claims that can't be backed up, and science minded people point out why the claims are wrong and their views blatantly contradict the science. If people didn't post religious views in this thread about the evolution of birds, nobody would be slinging mud at them. It's purely their own doing because they blatantly disregard the topic just to preach. It's the same reason why whenever you go to a youtube video on evolution, have the comments are ignorant denial. Last I checked, scientists aren't showing up at churches to tell you religion is wrong, so why do creations constantly post ignorant nonsense, any time real science is brought up? It's horrible and honestly, sometimes they deserve a little mud thrown at them. They are dishonest.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: rockdisjoint2

Evolutionnews.org is a known propaganda site. Sorry, but saying there is no evidence of birds evolving from dinosaurs, when the article in the OP shows direct evidence of this is a bit comical.

nhm.org...

evolution.berkeley.edu...

Show some standards.

My bad, I didn't know.

a reply to: Barcs

OK, I can agree for the most part with your posts. Still, I wouldn't mind seeing some quotes from Genesis, preferably from the earliest translations available, with the context and meaning explained from the point of view of the early scholars of that time and culture. Even with that, they have to be naturally considered to be inaccurate compared to modern science being mythical stories that are thousands of years old.

Is there is a thread or post you made that you could direct me to? As you have stated that you've "argued this topic to death, and have never seen it rectified with science / evolution" I'd assume that you could provide that without beating a dead horse so to speak.

Even if horribly flawed, IMO it seems to coincide with the scientific time line, ie. big bang, plate tectonics, evolution from plants, to aquatic species, to terrestrial, to aerial, then finally mankind. Also, Adam and Eve were not the only early humans in the Genesis story as Cain found his wife in the Land of Nod, presumably from another group of unrelated humans.

I'd provide source material but I'd have to locate my Bible that has the most accurate translations at the time of it's printing. I'd really have to start a whole thread on it and do some really deep research, something I don't feel like doing, at least too soon.

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

Yes, I have argued evolution vs the genesis account many times, but haven't used the original texts, I've used the modern bible (usually KJV or NIV). Let me know which original version of Genesis you would like to use, and I'll be happy to go off that. There used to be a few different versions prior to the Torah being written. I'll go by whichever one you want, provided we have an accurate translation of it, of course. From what I understand, the oldest known writings of Genesis were very fragmented due to erosion and other damage. The way I see it, the book of Genesis in the modern bible is the combination of multiple stories put together into 1, hence why the weird conflicts.

I'm sorry I can't refer you to any posts, simply because my memory is bad and many of the threads are 20-40 pages, so it would take more digging than actually just explaining it to you here, if you are cool with that (it may be a little off topic).

Surprising that no one mentioned the Hoatzin (Opisthocomus hoazin) a species of tropical bird found in swamps of the Amazon and the Orinoco Delta in South America. It has some primitive characteristics similar to the Archaeopteryx, but is apparently unrelated directly.

It still uses it's clawed thumbs and forefingers on it's wings to climb trees as a chick but later losing them as an adult. It isn't the greatest at flight either so I've read. It seems to be a primitive throwback to more ancient birds like the Archaeopteryx. Obviously no teeth are present in it's bill.

In 2015, genetic research indicated that the hoatzin is the last surviving member of a bird line that branched off in its own direction 64 million years ago, shortly after the extinction event that killed the non-avian dinosaurs.

Hoatzin

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: wildespace

Sure to be dismissed. Some prefer to believe God took the etch-a-sketch approach to life on Earth. He drew some dinosaurs and shake shake shake replaced them with Adam and Eve.

In this reality anything seems to go. so it seems. lol I would personally love it if God had an etch-a-sketch. That would explain my ex. Anyways... Nice Av!

a reply to: Akragon

The flood had one purpose...

Wipe this out:

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck
Surprising that no one mentioned the Hoatzin (Opisthocomus hoazin) a species of tropical bird found in swamps of the Amazon and the Orinoco Delta in South America. It has some primitive characteristics similar to the Archaeopteryx, but is apparently unrelated directly.

It still uses it's clawed thumbs and forefingers on it's wings to climb trees as a chick but later losing them as an adult. It isn't the greatest at flight either so I've read. It seems to be a primitive throwback to more ancient birds like the Archaeopteryx. Obviously no teeth are present in it's bill.

In 2015, genetic research indicated that the hoatzin is the last surviving member of a bird line that branched off in its own direction 64 million years ago, shortly after the extinction event that killed the non-avian dinosaurs.

Hoatzin

Ah, I remember reading about this bird a while ago. Nature seems to have kept a few "samples" of transitionary organisms for us to see how evolution works, lol. In the same club are the platypus and the echidna (primitive mammals that lay eggs), and lampreys and hagfish (primitive fish-like creatures that look more like worms).


www.youtube.com...