Message from discussion OT: I.D. Meeting Its Maker

Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!news3.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!panix!not-for-mail
From: Steven Sullivan <ssu...@panix.com>
Newsgroups: alt.music.yes
Subject: Re: OT: I.D. Meeting Its Maker
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 01:53:11 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
Lines: 68
Message-ID: <dnl9i7$ham$1@reader2.panix.com>
References: <1133951480.441444.122630@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>   <1134145883.713979.249210@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>   <sebkp1509icg2ud0hl7b1lorrmj3fpuq5c@4ax.com>   <1134194703.495372.107440@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>   <C1Zmf.35565$Y7.22965@trnddc02>   <1134362359.905877.140650@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>   <0R8nf.9266$Ea6.2521@trnddc08>   <1134409560.349775.229650@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <1134432095.979849.239420@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix5.panix.com
X-Trace: reader2.panix.com 1134438791 17750 166.84.1.5 (13 Dec 2005 01:53:11 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 01:53:11 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: tin/1.6.2-20030910 ("Pabbay") (UNIX) (NetBSD/2.0.3 (i386))

use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk <use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> rojon wrote
> > Stephen Bruun wrote:
> [...]
> > > And their [transitional fossils'] proven existence is a problem for creationists, so they deny or
> > > ignore them.  Archaeopteryx is a bird with teeth.  How much more transitional can you get?
> >
> > This raises a good point. I realize the Archaeopteryx is considered the
> > poster boy of transitional forms. Much importance is placed on it
> > precisely because it does represent an example of what would be needed
> > to prove evolution. Transitions. To turn from a reptile to a bird would be a
> > process that would have to take an extreme long time. there would be a slow progression.

> Yes.

> > Archaeopteryx has fully developed wings, not tiny nub like formations in the process of
> > becoming a wing. In fact, even thought the process would have taken eons, there are no partial
> > wing fossils that help trace this development. But suddenly we have more than one example
> > of this specie with fully developed wings. This should be disturbing to followers of macroevo.
> > I have to wonder why it isn't.

> What we would expect to see is several transitional forms between
> obvious reptiles and obvious birds, each one with progressively more
> bird features and less reptile features. OK, so let's lay out some key
> differences between reptiles and birds...

Actually, yet more evidence that Archeopteryx is a dino/bird transitional form came in just a 
this month.  


A Well-Preserved Archaeopteryx Specimen with Theropod Features
    Gerald Mayr, Burkhard Pohl, and D. Stefan Peters
A nearly complete skeleton of Archaeopteryx with excellent bone preservation shows that the 
osteology of the urvogel is similar to that of nonavian theropod dinosaurs. The new specimen 
confirms the presence of a hyperextendible second toe as in dromaeosaurs and troodontids. 
Archaeopteryx had a plesiomorphic tetraradiate palatine bone and no fully reversed first toe. 
These observations provide further evidence for the theropod ancestry of birds. In addition, 
the presence of a hyperextendible second toe blurs the distinction of archaeopterygids from 
basal deinonychosaurs (troodontids and dromaeosaurs) and challenges the monophyly of Aves.    
Science 2 December 2005 310: 1483-1486 [DOI: 10.1126/science.1120331]



(The mainstream press covered it . Google News 'archaeopteryx'.)


And old Archy wasn't alone:

Science 20 March 1998:
The Theropod Ancestry of Birds: New Evidence from the Late Cretaceous of Madagascar
Catherine A. Forster, * Scott D. Sampson, Luis M. Chiappe, David W. Krause


A partial skeleton of a primitive bird, Rahona ostromi, gen. et sp. nov., has been discovered 
from the Late Cretaceous of Madagascar. This specimen, although exhibiting avian features such 
as a reversed hallux and ulnar papillae, retains characteristics that indicate a theropod 
ancestry, including a pubic foot and hyposphene-hypantra vertebral articulations. Rahona has a 
robust, hyperextendible second digit on the hind foot that terminates in a sicklelike claw, a 
unique characteristic of the theropod groups Troodontidae and Dromaeosauridae. A phylogenetic 
analysis places Rahona with Archaeopteryx, making Rahona one of the most primitive birds yet 
discovered.


Btw, what the heck *happened* to these creatures?  Did the intelligent designer just get 
tired or them, or what?  Were they reptiles, or birds?  The godbag crew says reptiles can't 
evolve into birds, so what did the Archy line 'microevolve' into?