The Myth of Bird Evolution
harunya...@yahoo.com
HARUN YAHYA
Recently, a 140-million-year-old fossil called Shenzhouraptor sinensis
was discovered in the Yixian region of China. According to the
evolutionary paleontologist Ji Qiang, this fossil was a missing link
between dinosaurs and birds. The fact is, however, that this fossil
possesses features that clash with the evolutionists' claims about the
origin of birds. Not just this fossil, but also the whole body of
paleontological data on the subject is at odds with the evolutionary
theory. "The evolution of birds", like other claims made by Darwinism,
is no more scientific than a fairy tale.
Shenzhouraptor sinensis, The Impossible Transitional Form
Evolutionists suggest that Shenzhouraptor sinensis was a transitional
form that was able to fly and possessed both bird and dinosaur
characteristics. This is, however, is in contradiction to other
evolutionist claims on the origin of birds.
Archaeopteryx, the oldest known bird, lived 150 million years ago and
is in many respects no different from flying birds living today.
Shenzhouraptor sinensis, however, lived 140 million years ago, making
it younger than Archaeopteryx. For that reason, it is impossible for it
to be a transitional form, because birds with perfect feathers and the
necessary anatomical structure for flight were living before it.
Archaeopteryx: Recent work shows it to be
"much more birdlike than previously imagined".
At this point, we need to make it clear that the evolutionist claims
regarding Archaeopteryx, on of the principle icons of the theory of
evolution for the last 100 years or so, have lost a great deal of their
validity. It has been realized that this creature was a flying bird,
possessing a flawless flight mechanism. Attempts to compare
Archaeopteryx to a reptile have failed entirely.
As Alan Feduccia, one of the leading ornithologists in the world, has
stated, "Most recent workers who have studied various anatomical
features of Archaeopteryx have found the creature to be much more
birdlike than previously imagined," and "the resemblance of
Archaeopteryx to theropod dinosaurs has been grossly overestimated."
(1)
Another problem regarding Archaeopteryx is that the theropod dinosaurs,
which many evolutionists suggest were Archaeopteryx' ancestors,
actually emerge after it in the fossil record, not before it. This, of
course, leaves no room for any "evolutionary family tree" to account
for the origin of birds.
The Squabbling Evolutionists
The reason for the "dino-bird" and "feathered dinosaur" stories that
frequently appear in the evolutionist press is simply an effort on
their part to show that their claim that birds evolved from dinosaurs
has been proven by fossil discoveries. The fact is, however, that none
of these fossils has offered any scientific evidence at all for that
claim. What is more, many evolutionists do not believe it either. For
instance, renowned ornithologists Alan Feduccia and Larry Martin
believe that it is totally an erroneous scenario. A college textbook,
Developmental Biology reads:
Not all biologists believe that birds are dinosaurs... This group of
scientists emphasize the differences between dinosaurs and birds,
claiming that the differences are too great for the birds to have
evolved from earlier dinosaurs. Alan Feduccia, and Larry Martin, for
instance, contend that birds could not have evolved from any known
group of dinosaurs. They argue against some of the most important
cladistic data and support their claim from developmental biology and
biomechanics. (2)
Feduccia has this to say regarding the thesis of reptile-bird
evolution:
Well, I've studied bird skulls for 25 years and I don't see any
similarities whatsoever. I just don't see it... The theropod origins of
birds, in my opinion, will be the greatest embarrassment of
paleontology of the 20th century. (3)
Larry Martin, a specialist in ancient birds from the University of
Kansas, also opposes the theory that birds are descended from
dinosaurs. Discussing the contradiction that evolution falls into on
the subject, he states:
To tell you the truth, if I had to support the dinosaur origin of birds
with those characters, I'd be embarrassed every time I had to get up
and talk about it. (4)
The disagreement amongst evolutionists themselves stems from the fact
that there is no evidence supporting an evolutionary origin for birds.
They can only build up speculations, just-so stories which are imposed
on the public, misleadingly, as "scientific theories".
The Significant Structural Differences Between Birds And Dinosaurs
Most evolutionists hold that birds evolved from small theropod
dinosaurs. However, a comparison between birds and such reptiles
reveals that the two have very distinct features, making it unlikely
that one evolved from the other.
There are various structural differences between birds and reptiles,
one of which concerns bone structure. Due to their bulky natures,
dinosaurs-the ancestors of birds according to evolutionists-had thick,
solid bones. Birds, in contrast, whether living or extinct, have hollow
bones that are very light, as they must be in order for flight to take
place.
Another difference between reptiles and birds is their metabolic
structure. Reptiles have the slowest metabolic structure in the animal
kingdom. (The claim that dinosaurs had a warm-blooded fast metabolism
remains a speculation.) Birds, on the other hand, are at the opposite
end of the metabolic spectrum. For instance, the body temperature of a
sparrow can rise to as much as 48蚓 (118蚌) due to its fast
metabolism. On the other hand, reptiles lack the ability to regulate
their body temperature. Instead, they expose their bodies to sunlight
in order to warm up. Put simply, reptiles consume the least energy of
all animals and birds the most.
Yet, despite all the scientific findings, the groundless scenario of
"dinosaur-bird evolution" is still insistently advocated. Popular
publications are particularly fond of the scenario. Meanwhile, concepts
which provide no backing for the scenario are presented as evidence for
"dinosaur-bird evolution."
In some popular evolutionist publications, for instance, emphasis is
laid on the differences among dinosaur hip bones to support the thesis
that birds are descended from dinosaurs. These differences exist
between dinosaurs classified as Saurischian (reptile-like, hip-girdled
dinosaurs) and Ornithischian (bird-like, hip-girdled dinosaurs). This
concept of dinosaurs having hip girdles similar to those of birds is
sometimes wrongly conceived as evidence for the alleged dinosaur-bird
link. However, the difference in hip girdles is no evidence at all for
the claim that birds evolved from dinosaurs. That is because,
surprisingly for the evolutionist, Ornithischian dinosaurs do not
resemble birds with respect to other anatomical features. For instance,
Ankylosaurus is a dinosaur classified as Ornithischian, with short
legs, a giant body, and skin covered with scales resembling armor. On
the other hand, Struthiomimus, which resembles birds in some of its
anatomical features (long legs, short forelegs, and thin structure), is
actually a Saurischian. (5)
The Unique Structure of Avian Lungs
Another factor demonstrating the impossibility of the reptile-bird
evolution scenario is the structure of avian lungs, which cannot be
accounted for by evolution.
Land-dwelling creatures have lungs with a two-directional flow
structure. Upon inhaling, the air travels through the passages in the
lungs (bronchial tubes), ending in tiny air sacs (alveoli). The
exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide takes place here. Then, upon
exhaling, this used air makes its way back and finds its way out of the
lung by the same route.
In birds however, air follows just one direction through the lungs. The
entry and exit orifices are completely different, and thanks to special
air sacs all along the passages between them, air always flows in one
direction through the avian lung. In this way, birds are able to take
in air nonstop. This satisfies birds' high energy requirements. Michael
Denton, an Australian biochemist and a well-known critic of Darwinism,
explains the avian lung in this way:
This one-directional flow of air is maintained in breathing in and
breathing out by a complex system of interconnected air sacs in the
bird's body, which expand and contract in such a way as to ensure a
continuous delivery of air through the parabronchi... The structure of
the lung in birds, and the overall functioning of the respiratory
system, are quite unique. No lung in any other vertebrate species in
any way approaches the avian system. Moreover, in its essential details
it is identical in birds. (6)
The important thing is that the reptile lung, with its dual-direction
air flow, could not have evolved into the bird lung with its
single-direction flow, because it is not possible for there to have
been an intermediate model between them. In order for a living thing to
live, it has to keep breathing, and a reversal of the structure of its
lungs with a change of design would inevitably end in death. According
to evolution, this change must happen gradually over millions of years,
whereas a creature whose lungs do not work will die within a few
minutes.
Michael Denton also states that it is impossible to give an
evolutionary account of the avian lung:
...In the case of birds, however, the major bronchi break down into
tiny tubes which permeate the lung tissue. These so-called parabronchi
eventually join up together again, forming a true circulatory system so
that air flows in one direction through the lungs. ...Just how such an
utterly different respiratory system could have evolved gradually from
the standard vertebrate design is fantastically difficult to envisage,
especially bearing in mind that the maintenance of respiratory function
is absolutely vital to the life of an organism to the extent that the
slightest malfunction leads to death within minutes. Just as the
feather cannot function as an organ of flight until the hooks and
barbules are co adapted to fit together perfectly, so the avian lung
cannot function as an organ of respiration until the parabronchi system
which permeates it and the air sac system which guarantees the
parabronchi their air supply are both highly developed and able to
function together in a perfectly integrated manner. (7)
In brief, the passage from a terrestrial lung to an avian lung is
impossible, because an intermediate form would serve no purpose.
Reptiles (and mammals) breathe in and out from the same air vessel. In
birds, while the air enters into the lung from the front, it goes out
from the back. This distinct design is specially made for birds, which
need great amounts of oxygen during flight. It is impossible for such a
structure to evolve from the reptile lung.
Another point that needs to be mentioned here is that reptiles have a
diaphragm-type respiratory system, whereas birds have an abdominal air
sac system instead of a diaphragm. These different structures also make
any evolution between the two lung types impossible, as John Ruben from
Oregon State University, an acknowledged authority in the field of
respiratory physiology, observes in the following passage:
The earliest stages in the derivation of the avian abdominal air sac
system from a diaphragm-ventilating ancestor would have necessitated
selection for a diaphragmatic hernia in taxa transitional between
theropods and birds. Such a debilitating condition would have
immediately compromised the entire pulmonary ventilatory apparatus and
seems unlikely to have been of any selective advantage. (8)
Another interesting structural design of the avian lung which defies
evolution is the fact that it is never empty of air, and thus never in
danger of collapse. Michael Denton explains the situation:
Just how such a different respiratory system could have evolved
gradually from the standard vertebrate design without some sort of
direction is, again, very difficult to envisage, especially bearing in
mind that the maintenance of respiratory function is absolutely vital
to the life of the organism. Moreover, the unique function and form of
the avian lung necessitates a number of additional unique adaptations
during avian development... because first, the avian lung is fixed
rigidly to the body wall and cannot therefore expand in volume and,
second, because of the small diameter of the lung capillaries and the
resulting high surface tension of any liquid within them, the avian
lung cannot be inflated out of a collapsed state as happens in all
other vertebrates after birth. The air capillaries are never collapsed
as are the alveoli of other vertebrate species; rather, as they grow
into the lung tissue, the parabronchi are from the beginning open tubes
filled with either air or fluid. (9)
In other words, the passages in birds' lungs are so narrow that the air
sacs inside their lungs cannot fill with air and empty again, as with
land-dwelling creatures. If a bird lung ever completely deflated, the
bird would never be able to re-inflate it, or would at the very least
have great difficulty in doing so. For this reason, the air sacs
situated all over the lung enable a constant passage of air to pass
through, thus protecting the lungs from deflating.
Of course this system, which is completely different from the lungs of
reptiles and other vertebrates, and is based on the most complex
design, cannot have come about with random mutations, stage by stage,
as evolution maintains. Thus, as Denton also mentions, the avian lung
is enough to answer Darwin's challenge:
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which
could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight,
modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." (10)
Bird Feathers and Reptile Scales
Another impassable gap between birds and reptiles is feathers, which
are peculiar to birds. Reptile bodies are covered with scales, a
completely different structure. The hypothesis that bird feathers
evolved from reptile scales is completely unfounded, and is indeed
disproved by the fossil record, as the evolutionist paleontologist
Barbara Stahl once admitted:
How [feathers] arose initially, presumably from reptiles scales, defies
analysis... It seems, from the complex construction of feathers, that
their evolution from reptilian scales would have required an immense
period of time and involved a series of intermediate structures. So
far, the fossil record does not bear out that supposition. (11)
A. H. Brush, a professor of physiology and neurobiology at the
University of Connecticut, accepts this fact, although he is himself an
evolutionist: "Every feature from gene structure and organization, to
development, morphogenesis and tissue organization is different [in
feathers and scales]." (12) Moreover, Professor Brush examines the
protein structure of bird feathers and argues that it is "unique among
vertebrates." (13)
There is no fossil evidence to prove that bird feathers evolved from
reptile scales. On the contrary, feathers appear suddenly in the fossil
record, Professor Brush observes, as an "undeniably unique" character
distinguishing birds. (14) Besides, in reptiles, no epidermal tissue
has yet been detected that provides a starting point for bird feathers.
(15)
Many fossils have so far been the subject of "feathered dinosaur"
speculation, but detailed study has always disproved it. Alan Feduccia
once wrote the following in an article called "On Why Dinosaurs Lacked
Feathers":
Feathers are features unique to birds, and there are no known
intermediate structures between reptilian scales and feathers.
Notwithstanding speculations on the nature of the elongated scales
found on such forms as Longisquama (discovered 1969 Russia) ... as
being featherlike structures, there is simply no demonstrable evidence
that they in fact are. (16)
More recently, Feduccia, quoting Brush, has the following passage on
the origin of feathers:
Even birds' most scalelike features-the leg scutes (scales), claws, and
the epidermally derived beak-are formed from a single category of
protein, the -keratins. As Alan Brush has written regarding feather
development, "The genes that direct synthesis of the avian -keratins
represent a significant divergence from those of their reptilian
ancestor."(17) (Note that the authors assume a reptilian ancestor for
birds, but accept the genetic gap between these.)
National Geographic's great hit, the perfect "dino-bird" Archaeoraptor
soon turned out to be a hoax. All other "dino-bird" candidates remain
as speculation.
All news about "dino-birds" is speculative. Many claims on the subject
have turned out to false. For example, the "feathered dinosaur" claim
that was put forward in 1996 with a great media fanfare was also
disproved soon. A reptilian fossil called Sinosauropteryx was found in
China, but paleontologists who examined the fossil said that it had
bird feathers, unlike modern reptiles. Examinations conducted one year
later, however, showed that the fossil actually had no structure
similar to a bird's feather. (18)
Every other fossil that has been put forward as "feathered dinosaur" in
the last 10 years is debatable. Detailed studies have revealed that the
structures suggested to have been "feathers" are actually collagen
fibers.(19) The speculations in fact stems from evolutionist prejudice
and wishful thinking. As Feduccia says, "Many dinosaurs have been
portrayed with a coating of aerodynamic contour feathers with
absolutely no documentation."(20) (One of the "feathered dinosaurs" in
question, namely Archaeoraptor, proved to be a fossil forgery).
Feduccia sums the position up in these terms: "Finally, no feathered
dinosaur has ever been found, although many dinosaur mummies with
well-preserved skin are known from diverse localities." (21)
The Design of Feathers
Another problem for the evolutionists is the fact that there is such a
complex design in bird feathers that the phenomenon can never be
accounted for without referring to intelligent design. As we all know,
there is a long, stiff part that runs up the center of the feather.
Attached to the shaft are the vanes. The vane is made up of small
thread-like strands, called barbs. These barbs, of different lengths
and rigidity, are what give the flying bird its aerodynamic nature. But
what is even more interesting is that each barb has thousands of even
smaller strands attached to them called barbules. The barbules are
connected to barbicels, with tiny microscopic hooks, called hamuli.
Each strand is hooked to an opposing strand, much like the hooks of a
zipper.
On just one crane feather, there are up to 650 hairs on the central
tube. Each one of these is covered with some 650 tinier hairs. And
these tiny hairs are linked together by 350 hooks. The hooks come
together like the two sides of a zipper. If the hooks come apart for
any reason, it is sufficient for the bird to shake itself, or, in more
serious cases, to straighten its feathers out with its beak, for the
feathers to return to their previous positions.
To claim that the complex design in feathers could have come about by
the evolution of reptile scales through chance mutations is quite
simply a dogmatic belief with no scientific foundation. Even one of the
doyens of Darwinism, Ernst Mayr, made this confession on the subject
some years ago:
It is a considerable strain on one's credulity to assume that finely
balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates,
or the bird's feather) could be improved by random mutations. (22)
The design of feathers also compelled Darwin to ponder them. Moreover,
the perfect aesthetics of the peacock's feathers had made him "sick"
(his own words). In a letter he wrote to Asa Gray on April 3, 1860, he
said, "I remember well the time when the thought of the eye made me
cold all over, but I have got over this stage of complaint..." And then
continued: "... and now trifling particulars of structure often make me
very uncomfortable. The sight of a feather in a peacock's tail,
whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!" (23)
In short, the enormous structural differences between bird feathers and
reptile scales, and the astonishingly complex-and beautiful-design of
feathers, clearly demonstrate the invalidity of the claim that feathers
evolved from scales through blind natural mechanisms.
Conclusion
The "dino-bird" stories that appear in the evolutionist press consist
of biased analyses by evolutionist palaeontologists, and sometimes even
of distortions of the truth. (In fact, one of the best-known
"dino-bird" discoveries, the Archaeoraptor portrayed by National
Geographic as incontrovertible proof of bird evolution, turned out to
be a forgery produced by combining fossils of five separate specimens).
The "dino-bird" fossils in question are either those of extinct species
of bird or of dinosaurs, and not one of them represents a "missing
link" between birds and dinosaurs. In fact, as we have seen above, it
is impossible for dinosaurs to have evolved into birds and assumed bird
characteristics by means of chance mutations.
Thus the "dino-bird" hype that rages through the media consists of
nothing more than a last-ditch attempt to shore up the collapsed theory
of evolution. However, science and reason will always prevail over such
misconceptions.
LATEST EVIDENCE: OSTRICH STUDY REFUTES THE DINO-BIRD STORY
Dr. Feduccia: His new study is enough to bury the 'dino-bird" myth.
The latest blow to the "birds evolved from dinosaurs" theory came from
a study made on the embryology of ostriches.
Drs. Alan Feduccia and Julie Nowicki of the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill studied a series of live ostrich eggs and, once
again, concluded that, there can not be an evolutionary link between
birds and dinosaurs. EurekAlert, a scientific portal held by the
American Association for the The Advancement of Science (AAAS), reports
the following:
Drs. Alan Feduccia and Julie Nowicki of the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill... opened a series of live ostrich eggs at
various stages of development and found what they believe is proof that
birds could not have descended from dinosaurs"...
Whatever the ancestor of birds was, it must have had five fingers, not
the three-fingered hand of theropod dinosaurs," Feduccia said...
"Scientists agree that dinosaurs developed 'hands' with digits one, two
and three... Our studies of ostrich embryos, however, showed
conclusively that in birds, only digits two, three and four, which
correspond to the human index, middle and ring fingers, develop, and we
have pictures to prove it," said Feduccia, professor and former chair
of biology at UNC. "This creates a new problem for those who insist
that dinosaurs were ancestors of modern birds. How can a bird hand, for
example, with digits two, three and four evolve from a dinosaur hand
that has only digits one, two and three? That would be almost
impossible." (i)
In the same report, Dr. Freduccia also made important comments on the
invalidity-and the shallowness-of the "birds evolved from dinosaurs"
theory:
"There are insurmountable problems with that theory," he [Dr. Feduccia]
said. "Beyond what we have just reported, there is the time problem in
that superficially bird-like dinosaurs occurred some 25 million to 80
million years after the earliest known bird, which is 150 million years
old."
If one views a chicken skeleton and a dinosaur skeleton through
binoculars they appear similar, but close and detailed examination
reveals many differences, Feduccia said. Theropod dinosaurs, for
example, had curved, serrated teeth, but the earliest birds had
straight, unserrated peg-like teeth. They also had a different method
of tooth implantation and replacement." (ii)
This evidence once again reveals that the "dino-bird" hype is just
another "icon" of Darwinism: A myth that is supported only for the sake
of a dogmatic faith in the theory.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i - David Williamson, "Scientist Says Ostrich Study Confirms Bird
'Hands' Unlike Those Of Dinosaurs", EurekAlert, 14-Aug-2002,
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-08/uonc-sso081402.php
ii - David Williamson, "Scientist Says Ostrich Study Confirms Bird
'Hands' Unlike Those Of Dinosaurs", EurekAlert, 14-Aug-2002,
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-08/uonc-sso081402.php
___________________________________________
(1) Alan Feduccia, The Origin and Evolution of Birds, Yale University
Press, 1999, p. 81
(2) Scott F. Gilbert, "Did Birds Evolve from the Dinosaurs?,"
Developmental Biology, Sixth Edition, chapter 16.4
(http://www.devbio.com/chap16/link1604.shtml)
(3) Pat Shipman, "Birds Do It... Did Dinosaurs?," New Scientist,
February 1, 1997, p. 28
(4) Pat Shipman, "Birds Do It... Did Dinosaurs?," New Scientist,
February 1, 1997, p. 28
(5) Duane T. Gish, Dinosaurs by Design, Master Books, AR, 1996. pp.
65-66
(6) Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, London, Burnett
Books Limited, 1985, p. 210-211.
(7) Michael Denton, A Theory in Crisis, Adler & Adler, 1986, pp.
210-212.
(8) J. A. Ruben, T. D. Jones, N. R. Geist, and W. J. Hillenius, "Lung
Structure And Ventilation in Theropod Dinosaurs and Early Birds,"
Science, vol. 278, p. 1267.
(9) Michael J. Denton, Nature's Destiny, Free Press, New York, 1998, p.
361.
(10) Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First
Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 189
(11) Barbara J. Stahl, Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution,
Dover, 1985, pp. 349-350.
(12) A. H. Brush, "On the Origin of Feathers," Journal of Evolutionary
Biology, vol. 9, 1996, p.132.
(13) A. H. Brush, "On the Origin of Feathers," Journal of Evolutionary
Biology, vol. 9, 1996, p.131.
(14) A. H. Brush, "On the Origin of Feathers," Journal of Evolutionary
Biology, vol. 9, 1996, p.133.
(15) A. H. Brush, "On the Origin of Feathers," Journal of Evolutionary
Biology, vol. 9, 1996, p.131.
(16) Alan Feduccia, "On Why Dinosaurs Lacked Feathers," The Beginning
of Birds, Eichstatt, West Germany: Jura Museum, 1985, p. 76.
(17) Alan Feduccia, The Origin and Evolution of Birds, Yale University
Press, 1999, p. 128
(18) Ann Gibbons, "Plucking the Feathered Dinosaur," Science, vol. 278,
no. 5341, 14 November 1997, pp. 1229 - 1230
(19) Ann Gibbons, "Plucking the Feathered Dinosaur", Science, volume
278, Number 5341 Issue of 14 Nov 1997, pp. 1229 - 1230
(20) Alan Feduccia, The Origin and Evolution of Birds, Yale University
Press, 1999, p. 130
(21) Alan Feduccia, The Origin and Evolution of Birds, Yale University
Press, 1999, p. 132
(22) Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species, Dove, New York,
1964, p. 296.
(23) Francis Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Volume II,
>From Charles Darwin to Asa Gray, April 3rd, 1860
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Pease
SNore!!
Plonk
RJ P
<harunya...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125847122....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
rossum
> The Myth of Bird Evolution
>
>HARUN YAHYA
>
>Feduccia has this to say regarding the thesis of reptile-bird
>evolution:
>
>Well, I've studied bird skulls for 25 years and I don't see any
>similarities whatsoever. I just don't see it... The theropod origins of
>birds, in my opinion, will be the greatest embarrassment of
>paleontology of the 20th century. (3)
>
I too can quote Feduccia, from discover magazine:
Question:
"Creationists have used the bird-dinosaur dispute to cast doubt on
evolution entirely. How do you feel about that?"
Feduccia's answer:
"Creationists are going to distort whatever arguments come up, and
they've put me in company with luminaries like Stephen Jay Gould, so
it doesn't bother me a bit. Archaeopteryx is half reptile and half
bird any way you cut the deck, and so it is a Rosetta stone for
evolution, whether it is related to dinosaurs or not. These
creationists are confusing an argument about minor details of
evolution with the indisputable fact of evolution: Animals and plants
have been changing. The corn in Mexico, originally the size of the
head of a wheat plant, has no resemblance to modern-day corn. If
that's not evolution in action, I do not know what is."
http://www.discover.com/feb_03/breakdialogue.html (at the bottom of
the page)
Feduccia believes that birds evolved from non-dinosaurian reptiles
rather than from dinosaurs. The existence of a disagreement between
scientists over details does not invalidate evolution. Does the
disagreement between Sunni and Shi'a about the status of the first
three Caliphs invalidate Islam?
rossum
The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth
Dave
> Archaeopteryx, the oldest known bird, lived 150 million years ago and
> is in many respects no different from flying birds living today.
Except that it had teeth, and looked like a intermediate. We now
believe it was not an ancestor of modern birds, but that just goes to
show that not one but several different lineages of small dinosaurs
were evolving into birdlike creatures.
John Harshman
> The Myth of Bird Evolution
>
> HARUN YAHYA
>
>
>
> Recently, a 140-million-year-old fossil called Shenzhouraptor sinensis
> was discovered in the Yixian region of China. According to the
> evolutionary paleontologist Ji Qiang,
It would only be necessary to put "evolutionary" in if there were
another kind of paleontologist.
> this fossil was a missing link
> between dinosaurs and birds. The fact is, however, that this fossil
> possesses features that clash with the evolutionists' claims about the
> origin of birds. Not just this fossil, but also the whole body of
> paleontological data on the subject is at odds with the evolutionary
> theory. "The evolution of birds", like other claims made by Darwinism,
> is no more scientific than a fairy tale.
This should be fun.
>
> Shenzhouraptor sinensis, The Impossible Transitional Form
>
> Evolutionists suggest that Shenzhouraptor sinensis was a transitional
> form that was able to fly and possessed both bird and dinosaur
> characteristics. This is, however, is in contradiction to other
> evolutionist claims on the origin of birds.
>
> Archaeopteryx, the oldest known bird, lived 150 million years ago and
> is in many respects no different from flying birds living today.
...and is in many other respects no different from non-flying theropods
living in the late Triassic. Hmmm...sounds transitional.
> Shenzhouraptor sinensis, however, lived 140 million years ago, making
> it younger than Archaeopteryx. For that reason, it is impossible for it
> to be a transitional form, because birds with perfect feathers and the
> necessary anatomical structure for flight were living before it.
This is true if you have no idea what a transitional form is, and assume
that it must refer to an actual ancestor. That may be your central
confusion.
> Archaeopteryx: Recent work shows it to be
> "much more birdlike than previously imagined".
> At this point, we need to make it clear that the evolutionist claims
> regarding Archaeopteryx, on of the principle icons of the theory of
> evolution for the last 100 years or so, have lost a great deal of their
> validity. It has been realized that this creature was a flying bird,
> possessing a flawless flight mechanism. Attempts to compare
> Archaeopteryx to a reptile have failed entirely.
This is nonsense. It lacked many of the essential features of modern
bird flight, including a large, keeled sternum, a triosseal canal
allowing breast muscles located below the wing to be used in raising the
wing, fused bones from manus to sacrum, and a pygostyle. It was clearly
much less adapted to flight than modern birds are. And in fact we see
many stages of increasing modernity represented in other fossils, of
which Sinornis and Icthyornis are two of the best.
> As Alan Feduccia, one of the leading ornithologists in the world, has
> stated, "Most recent workers who have studied various anatomical
> features of Archaeopteryx have found the creature to be much more
> birdlike than previously imagined," and "the resemblance of
> Archaeopteryx to theropod dinosaurs has been grossly overestimated."
> (1)
Feduccia is out to lunch on this, as with many other things. He hasn't
been heard from since the discovery of Microraptor gui, either.
> Another problem regarding Archaeopteryx is that the theropod dinosaurs,
> which many evolutionists suggest were Archaeopteryx' ancestors,
> actually emerge after it in the fossil record, not before it. This, of
> course, leaves no room for any "evolutionary family tree" to account
> for the origin of birds.
This is of course false. Archaeopteryx is late Jurassic, and the
earliest known theropod is late Triassic, about 228mya.
> The Squabbling Evolutionists
>
> The reason for the "dino-bird" and "feathered dinosaur" stories that
> frequently appear in the evolutionist press is simply an effort on
> their part to show that their claim that birds evolved from dinosaurs
> has been proven by fossil discoveries. The fact is, however, that none
> of these fossils has offered any scientific evidence at all for that
> claim. What is more, many evolutionists do not believe it either. For
> instance, renowned ornithologists Alan Feduccia and Larry Martin
> believe that it is totally an erroneous scenario. A college textbook,
> Developmental Biology reads:
>
> Not all biologists believe that birds are dinosaurs... This group of
> scientists emphasize the differences between dinosaurs and birds,
> claiming that the differences are too great for the birds to have
> evolved from earlier dinosaurs. Alan Feduccia, and Larry Martin, for
> instance, contend that birds could not have evolved from any known
> group of dinosaurs. They argue against some of the most important
> cladistic data and support their claim from developmental biology and
> biomechanics. (2)
This considerably predates most of the really good feathered theropods,
including some of the feathered dromaeosaurs. Theirs was already a
minority opinion, unsupported by data, and has been rendered completely
untenable in recent years. Irrelevant.
> Feduccia has this to say regarding the thesis of reptile-bird
> evolution:
>
> Well, I've studied bird skulls for 25 years and I don't see any
> similarities whatsoever. I just don't see it... The theropod origins of
> birds, in my opinion, will be the greatest embarrassment of
> paleontology of the 20th century. (3)
That's nice.
> Larry Martin, a specialist in ancient birds from the University of
> Kansas, also opposes the theory that birds are descended from
> dinosaurs. Discussing the contradiction that evolution falls into on
> the subject, he states:
>
> To tell you the truth, if I had to support the dinosaur origin of birds
> with those characters, I'd be embarrassed every time I had to get up
> and talk about it. (4)
I've heard him talk about it. He *should* be embarrassed.
So, do you have anything other than useless and bogus appeals to authority?
> The disagreement amongst evolutionists themselves stems from the fact
> that there is no evidence supporting an evolutionary origin for birds.
> They can only build up speculations, just-so stories which are imposed
> on the public, misleadingly, as "scientific theories".
I note that you never refer to any of the evidence.
> The Significant Structural Differences Between Birds And Dinosaurs
>
> Most evolutionists hold that birds evolved from small theropod
> dinosaurs. However, a comparison between birds and such reptiles
> reveals that the two have very distinct features, making it unlikely
> that one evolved from the other.
>
> There are various structural differences between birds and reptiles,
> one of which concerns bone structure. Due to their bulky natures,
> dinosaurs-the ancestors of birds according to evolutionists-had thick,
> solid bones. Birds, in contrast, whether living or extinct, have hollow
> bones that are very light, as they must be in order for flight to take
> place.
This isn't true. Many theropods had light, hollow bones.
> Another difference between reptiles and birds is their metabolic
> structure. Reptiles have the slowest metabolic structure in the animal
> kingdom. (The claim that dinosaurs had a warm-blooded fast metabolism
> remains a speculation.) Birds, on the other hand, are at the opposite
> end of the metabolic spectrum. For instance, the body temperature of a
> sparrow can rise to as much as 48蚓 (118蚌) due to its fast
> metabolism. On the other hand, reptiles lack the ability to regulate
> their body temperature. Instead, they expose their bodies to sunlight
> in order to warm up. Put simply, reptiles consume the least energy of
> all animals and birds the most.
Didn't you just get finished saying that claims about the metabolic
rates of dinosaurs was speculation? How then can you claim that they
were cold-blooded, unlike birds? Self-contradiction within a single
paragraph is a pretty good trick, though hardly unique in creationist works.
> Yet, despite all the scientific findings, the groundless scenario of
> "dinosaur-bird evolution" is still insistently advocated. Popular
> publications are particularly fond of the scenario. Meanwhile, concepts
> which provide no backing for the scenario are presented as evidence for
> "dinosaur-bird evolution."
> In some popular evolutionist publications, for instance, emphasis is
> laid on the differences among dinosaur hip bones to support the thesis
> that birds are descended from dinosaurs. These differences exist
> between dinosaurs classified as Saurischian (reptile-like, hip-girdled
> dinosaurs) and Ornithischian (bird-like, hip-girdled dinosaurs). This
> concept of dinosaurs having hip girdles similar to those of birds is
> sometimes wrongly conceived as evidence for the alleged dinosaur-bird
> link. However, the difference in hip girdles is no evidence at all for
> the claim that birds evolved from dinosaurs. That is because,
> surprisingly for the evolutionist, Ornithischian dinosaurs do not
> resemble birds with respect to other anatomical features. For instance,
> Ankylosaurus is a dinosaur classified as Ornithischian, with short
> legs, a giant body, and skin covered with scales resembling armor. On
> the other hand, Struthiomimus, which resembles birds in some of its
> anatomical features (long legs, short forelegs, and thin structure), is
> actually a Saurischian. (5)
This would make a lot more sense if birds were thought to be
ornithischians instead of saurischians. As it is, it's merely a comical
error on your part. In case you still haven't guessed, birds are
saurischians, like all other theropods. Birds aren't ornithopods either,
by the way.
Perhaps you haven't thought about this very hard. In fact birds do
inhale and exhale, but a given body of air takes two complete cycles of
inhalation and exhalation to get in and out. Intermediates are pretty
simple to imagine.
> Michael Denton also states that it is impossible to give an
> evolutionary account of the avian lung:
>
> ...In the case of birds, however, the major bronchi break down into
> tiny tubes which permeate the lung tissue. These so-called parabronchi
> eventually join up together again, forming a true circulatory system so
> that air flows in one direction through the lungs. ...Just how such an
> utterly different respiratory system could have evolved gradually from
> the standard vertebrate design is fantastically difficult to envisage,
> especially bearing in mind that the maintenance of respiratory function
> is absolutely vital to the life of an organism to the extent that the
> slightest malfunction leads to death within minutes. Just as the
> feather cannot function as an organ of flight until the hooks and
> barbules are co adapted to fit together perfectly, so the avian lung
> cannot function as an organ of respiration until the parabronchi system
> which permeates it and the air sac system which guarantees the
> parabronchi their air supply are both highly developed and able to
> function together in a perfectly integrated manner. (7)
>
> In brief, the passage from a terrestrial lung to an avian lung is
> impossible, because an intermediate form would serve no purpose.
This is nothing more than a failure of imagination. Just because you and
Denton can't figure out an intermediate series is no reason to suppose
it's impossible, or to ignore the plentiful evidence that it did indeed
happen.
>
> Reptiles (and mammals) breathe in and out from the same air vessel. In
> birds, while the air enters into the lung from the front, it goes out
> from the back. This distinct design is specially made for birds, which
> need great amounts of oxygen during flight. It is impossible for such a
> structure to evolve from the reptile lung.
You are repeating yourself.
> Another point that needs to be mentioned here is that reptiles have a
> diaphragm-type respiratory system, whereas birds have an abdominal air
> sac system instead of a diaphragm. These different structures also make
> any evolution between the two lung types impossible, as John Ruben from
> Oregon State University, an acknowledged authority in the field of
> respiratory physiology, observes in the following passage:
This isn't true. Some reptiles (crocodiles) have a diaphragm system of a
sort, though not quite like the system in mammals. Most reptiles use
costal muscles for respiration, just like birds do.
> The earliest stages in the derivation of the avian abdominal air sac
> system from a diaphragm-ventilating ancestor would have necessitated
> selection for a diaphragmatic hernia in taxa transitional between
> theropods and birds. Such a debilitating condition would have
> immediately compromised the entire pulmonary ventilatory apparatus and
> seems unlikely to have been of any selective advantage. (8)
This is Ruben's claim. One problem with it is that he's just assuming
that theropods had a crocodilian-type respiration, which the evidence
indicates they did not.
But you haven't even tried to explain it. You just claim that it can't
be explained.
> Bird Feathers and Reptile Scales
>
> Another impassable gap between birds and reptiles is feathers, which
> are peculiar to birds. Reptile bodies are covered with scales, a
> completely different structure. The hypothesis that bird feathers
> evolved from reptile scales is completely unfounded, and is indeed
> disproved by the fossil record, as the evolutionist paleontologist
> Barbara Stahl once admitted:
>
> How [feathers] arose initially, presumably from reptiles scales, defies
> analysis... It seems, from the complex construction of feathers, that
> their evolution from reptilian scales would have required an immense
> period of time and involved a series of intermediate structures. So
> far, the fossil record does not bear out that supposition. (11)
This is a seriously out-of date quote, preceding the various feathered
theropods, including some with what are clearly proto-feathers.
> A. H. Brush, a professor of physiology and neurobiology at the
> University of Connecticut, accepts this fact, although he is himself an
> evolutionist: "Every feature from gene structure and organization, to
> development, morphogenesis and tissue organization is different [in
> feathers and scales]." (12) Moreover, Professor Brush examines the
> protein structure of bird feathers and argues that it is "unique among
> vertebrates." (13)
Indeed true. That's why Brush claims that feathers are novel structures
and not modified scales.
> There is no fossil evidence to prove that bird feathers evolved from
> reptile scales. On the contrary, feathers appear suddenly in the fossil
> record, Professor Brush observes, as an "undeniably unique" character
> distinguishing birds. (14) Besides, in reptiles, no epidermal tissue
> has yet been detected that provides a starting point for bird feathers.
> (15)
Again, seriously out of date. Sinosauropteryx provided a perfect
intermediate.
> Many fossils have so far been the subject of "feathered dinosaur"
> speculation, but detailed study has always disproved it. Alan Feduccia
> once wrote the following in an article called "On Why Dinosaurs Lacked
> Feathers":
>
> Feathers are features unique to birds, and there are no known
> intermediate structures between reptilian scales and feathers.
> Notwithstanding speculations on the nature of the elongated scales
> found on such forms as Longisquama (discovered 1969 Russia) ... as
> being featherlike structures, there is simply no demonstrable evidence
> that they in fact are. (16)
Longisquama definitely didn't have feathers, nor was it even an
archosaur. Strangely, Feduccia elsewhere has labeled it a plausible bird
ancestor, and has used its supposed feathers as evidence. No idea how
that contradiction could be reconciled.
> More recently, Feduccia, quoting Brush, has the following passage on
> the origin of feathers:
>
> Even birds' most scalelike features-the leg scutes (scales), claws, and
> the epidermally derived beak-are formed from a single category of
> protein, the -keratins. As Alan Brush has written regarding feather
> development, "The genes that direct synthesis of the avian -keratins
> represent a significant divergence from those of their reptilian
> ancestor."(17) (Note that the authors assume a reptilian ancestor for
> birds, but accept the genetic gap between these.)
Your - should be preceded by "beta". Feather beta-keratins are indeed
somewhat different from scale beta-keratins. Gene duplication, anyone?
> National Geographic's great hit, the perfect "dino-bird" Archaeoraptor
> soon turned out to be a hoax. All other "dino-bird" candidates remain
> as speculation.
Neat. You dispose of all the feathered theropods by insinuating that
they're all hoaxes. No further work needed.
> All news about "dino-birds" is speculative. Many claims on the subject
> have turned out to false. For example, the "feathered dinosaur" claim
> that was put forward in 1996 with a great media fanfare was also
> disproved soon. A reptilian fossil called Sinosauropteryx was found in
> China, but paleontologists who examined the fossil said that it had
> bird feathers, unlike modern reptiles. Examinations conducted one year
> later, however, showed that the fossil actually had no structure
> similar to a bird's feather. (18)
This is a serious distortion. There was some speculation about "collagen
fibers", but serious examination didn't bear this out. They're
proto-feathers.
> Every other fossil that has been put forward as "feathered dinosaur" in
> the last 10 years is debatable. Detailed studies have revealed that the
> structures suggested to have been "feathers" are actually collagen
> fibers.(19)
Nonsense. This "detailed study" involves John Ruben dissecting a sea
snake's tail and claiming that the result looks a bit like
Sinosauropteryx. Some fossil feathers have been shown to contain
beta-keratin remnants (Shuvuuia) or clear feather structures of barbs
and barbules (Microraptor gui, for example).
> The speculations in fact stems from evolutionist prejudice
> and wishful thinking. As Feduccia says, "Many dinosaurs have been
> portrayed with a coating of aerodynamic contour feathers with
> absolutely no documentation."(20)
True. Others, though, have been found with such feathers clearly
preserved. The known phylogenetic distribution of feathers demands the
other reconstructions.
> (One of the "feathered dinosaurs" in
> question, namely Archaeoraptor, proved to be a fossil forgery).
Actually, it was a combination of two fossils. One was a bird and the
other was a feathered dromaeosaur.
> Feduccia sums the position up in these terms: "Finally, no feathered
> dinosaur has ever been found, although many dinosaur mummies with
> well-preserved skin are known from diverse localities." (21)
This is disingenuous. Feduccia does this by declaring all feathered
theropods to be either theropods with structures that just happen to
look like feathers, or flightless birds that just happen to have been
confused with theropods. He has had to expand his definition of birds,
at last count, to include the majority of known theropod groups.
> The Design of Feathers
>
> Another problem for the evolutionists is the fact that there is such a
> complex design in bird feathers that the phenomenon can never be
> accounted for without referring to intelligent design. As we all know,
> there is a long, stiff part that runs up the center of the feather.
> Attached to the shaft are the vanes. The vane is made up of small
> thread-like strands, called barbs. These barbs, of different lengths
> and rigidity, are what give the flying bird its aerodynamic nature. But
> what is even more interesting is that each barb has thousands of even
> smaller strands attached to them called barbules. The barbules are
> connected to barbicels, with tiny microscopic hooks, called hamuli.
> Each strand is hooked to an opposing strand, much like the hooks of a
> zipper.
>
> On just one crane feather, there are up to 650 hairs on the central
> tube. Each one of these is covered with some 650 tinier hairs. And
> these tiny hairs are linked together by 350 hooks. The hooks come
> together like the two sides of a zipper. If the hooks come apart for
> any reason, it is sufficient for the bird to shake itself, or, in more
> serious cases, to straighten its feathers out with its beak, for the
> feathers to return to their previous positions.
Sorry, were we supposed to be impressed by the numbers? Why should it be
harder to make 650 barbs than to make one? And devolopmentally, these
are actually fairly simple structures.
> To claim that the complex design in feathers could have come about by
> the evolution of reptile scales through chance mutations is quite
> simply a dogmatic belief with no scientific foundation. Even one of the
> doyens of Darwinism, Ernst Mayr, made this confession on the subject
> some years ago:
>
> It is a considerable strain on one's credulity to assume that finely
> balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates,
> or the bird's feather) could be improved by random mutations. (22)
I smell a quote mine. What else did Mayr have to say after that sentence?
> The design of feathers also compelled Darwin to ponder them. Moreover,
> the perfect aesthetics of the peacock's feathers had made him "sick"
> (his own words). In a letter he wrote to Asa Gray on April 3, 1860, he
> said, "I remember well the time when the thought of the eye made me
> cold all over, but I have got over this stage of complaint..." And then
> continued: "... and now trifling particulars of structure often make me
> very uncomfortable. The sight of a feather in a peacock's tail,
> whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!" (23)
Another quote mine. For shame.
> In short, the enormous structural differences between bird feathers and
> reptile scales, and the astonishingly complex-and beautiful-design of
> feathers, clearly demonstrate the invalidity of the claim that feathers
> evolved from scales through blind natural mechanisms.
>
>
>
> Conclusion
>
> The "dino-bird" stories that appear in the evolutionist press consist
> of biased analyses by evolutionist palaeontologists, and sometimes even
> of distortions of the truth. (In fact, one of the best-known
> "dino-bird" discoveries, the Archaeoraptor portrayed by National
> Geographic as incontrovertible proof of bird evolution, turned out to
> be a forgery produced by combining fossils of five separate specimens).
> The "dino-bird" fossils in question are either those of extinct species
> of bird or of dinosaurs, and not one of them represents a "missing
> link" between birds and dinosaurs. In fact, as we have seen above, it
> is impossible for dinosaurs to have evolved into birds and assumed bird
> characteristics by means of chance mutations.
Tell us. Which ones are birds and which ones are dinosaurs? How do you tell?
Asked and answered many times. Here are a few:
Galis, F. 2001. Digit identity and digit number: Indirect support for
the descent of birds from theropod dinosaurs. Trends Ecol. Evol. 16:16.
Dahn, R. D., and J. F. Fallon. 2000. Interdigital regulation of digit
identity and homeotic transformation by modulated BMP signaling. Science
289:438-441.
Wagner, G. P., and J. A. Gauthier. 1999. 1, 2, 3 = 2, 3, 4: A solution
to the problem of the homology of the digits in the avian hand. Proc.
Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96:5111-5116.
Larsson, H. C. E., and G. P. Wagner. 2002. Old morphologies
misinterpreted. Trends Ecol. Evol. 18:10.
> In the same report, Dr. Freduccia also made important comments on the
> invalidity-and the shallowness-of the "birds evolved from dinosaurs"
> theory:
>
> "There are insurmountable problems with that theory," he [Dr. Feduccia]
> said. "Beyond what we have just reported, there is the time problem in
> that superficially bird-like dinosaurs occurred some 25 million to 80
> million years after the earliest known bird, which is 150 million years
> old."
This is really pathetic. Feduccia should be embarrassed. But reading
this should fix him up:
Brochu, C. A., and M. A. Norell. 2000. Temporal congruence and the
origin of birds. J. Vert. Paleont. 20:197-200.
> If one views a chicken skeleton and a dinosaur skeleton through
> binoculars they appear similar, but close and detailed examination
> reveals many differences, Feduccia said. Theropod dinosaurs, for
> example, had curved, serrated teeth, but the earliest birds had
> straight, unserrated peg-like teeth. They also had a different method
> of tooth implantation and replacement." (ii)
Interestingly, Protarchaeopteryx has both feathers and serrated teeth.
There are other intermediates in terms of tooth replacement.
> This evidence once again reveals that the "dino-bird" hype is just
> another "icon" of Darwinism: A myth that is supported only for the sake
> of a dogmatic faith in the theory.
Alan Feduccia has been a godsend -- so to speak -- for creationists. But
among systematists and paleontologists his recent work is considered a
joke. Sad.
Steven J.
"John Harshman" <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:PgNSe.181$7D1...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...-- [snip]
>
>> Another problem regarding Archaeopteryx is that the theropod dinosaurs,
>> which many evolutionists suggest were Archaeopteryx' ancestors,
>> actually emerge after it in the fossil record, not before it. This, of
>> course, leaves no room for any "evolutionary family tree" to account
>> for the origin of birds.
>
> This is of course false. Archaeopteryx is late Jurassic, and the
> earliest known theropod is late Triassic, about 228mya.
>
is a mistake, and the passage refers specifically to those theropods like
_Sinosauropteryx_ and feathered dromaeosaurs, which are later than
_Archaeopteryx_ but often cited as intermediates between Archy and more
primitive theropods. So "Harun Yahya" is repeating his earlier confusion of
transitionals and direct ancestors, but I do not think he meant to say that
theropods in general came later than the earliest birds. The poor (if
composite) guy has enough errors in this article without charging him with
those he didn't make (of course, you could substitute one grammatical for
one paleontological error, but again, grammar flames seem superfluous).
>
-- [snip]
>
-- Steven J.
Ron O
Since some people are actually taking the time to respond to this junk,
they can let everyone else know if they find anything interesting.
Just start a new thread that says something like "Earth shattering
news: Harun yoyo says something interesting," so that the rest of us
don't miss it. It is too low grade of ore for me to bother with most
of the time.
While I'm on the topic they can do the same for Pagano's posts. The
guy can't be batting a 1000 in the no content department. He must have
messed up at some time if only stealing what someone else wrote. It
would be interesting to note if he ever has a legitimate argument, but
not interesting enough to read his junk to find out.
Ron Okimoto
r norman
>Since some people are actually taking the time to respond to this junk,
>they can let everyone else know if they find anything interesting.
>Just start a new thread that says something like "Earth shattering
>news: Harun yoyo says something interesting," so that the rest of us
>don't miss it. It is too low grade of ore for me to bother with most
>of the time.
>
>While I'm on the topic they can do the same for Pagano's posts. The
>guy can't be batting a 1000 in the no content department. He must have
>messed up at some time if only stealing what someone else wrote. It
>would be interesting to note if he ever has a legitimate argument, but
>not interesting enough to read his junk to find out.
>
In general you are right about responding to utter nonsense, whether
from trolls or not. However, by the strange dynamics of t.o.
posting, the thread occasionally takes off into a discussion with some
actual content and merit. You are right that a change in the subject
line would be useful when that happens. I flag only a small
percentage of the threads for reading and so I sometimes miss the good
stuff.
I suggest adding a cryptic notation to the subject line when the
thread suddenly develops some content. Perhaps [A.S.M.] for "actual
substantive material, much as people not [O.T.] for off-topic
material.
Ron O
This is true, and a lot of interesting comments are missed. It could
be a good suggestion because I often open the threads to see who is
responding and something catchy in the subject line could point out
things of interest.
Ron Okimoto
Ray Martinez
The solid majority of your relpies are classic ad hocary mockery.
IOW, you are unable to refute.
Harun has wiped the floor with you.
Ray Martinez
Ray Martinez
Your material is top notch and extremely well written. The fact that no
Darwinist can refute, but must insult or engage in ad hoc replies
confirms their inability to refute.
I applaud you.
Standing Ovation.
Ray Martinez
Richard Clayton
Actually, several people did refute him; did you fail to read the other
posts in the thread?
By the way, didn't you declare Islam to be evil?
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"During wars laws are silent." -- Cicero
John Wilkins
> Ray Martinez wrote:
>
>>Harun:
>>
>>Your material is top notch and extremely well written. The fact that no
>>Darwinist can refute, but must insult or engage in ad hoc replies
>>confirms their inability to refute.
>>
>>I applaud you.
>>
>>Standing Ovation.
>
>
> Actually, several people did refute him; did you fail to read the other
> posts in the thread?
> By the way, didn't you declare Islam to be evil?
Ray is about to convert to Islam now. Wahhabist Islam, of course.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
"Darwin's theory has no more to do with philosophy than any other
hypothesis in natural science." Tractatus 4.1122
Dave
One imbecile complementing another.
r norman
wrote:
You started out fine: "John, the solid majority of your replies are
classic." Then you lost it.
John's replies truly are classic examples of clear, logical, rational
scientific exposition.
shane
My, doesn't adversity breed strange bedfellows? And what is Ray's
problem with an ad hoc reply? My guess is that if Harun can be easily
refuted by an ad hoc reply then his argument cannot amount to much. And
inability to refute! John Harshman gives an almost point by point
rebuttal, so Ray is apparently lying about this.
And funny how Ray accuses the responders of insults, but gives no
examples of even one. I went back and checked for any, and couldn't find
one in the direct responses. So unless Ray can show where the insults
are, then it appears he is lying about them also.
--
shane
And the truth shall set you free.
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1126062680.7...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> John:
>
> The solid majority of your relpies are classic ad hocary mockery.
Which means Ray didn't understand them.
>
> IOW, you are unable to refute.
IOW, Ray didn't understand the refutations.
>
> Harun has wiped the floor with you.
Only in the sense that Harun was completely wrong.....
DJT
Dana Tweedy
> Harun:
>
> Your material is top notch and extremely well written.
For a Holocaust denier, that is.
> The fact that no
> Darwinist can refute, but must insult or engage in ad hoc replies
> confirms their inability to refute.
Harun has been refuted many times, Ray. Have you ignored the refutations
again?
>
> I applaud you.
>
> Standing Ovation.
Considering Ray's standards, I'd worry about his support.
DJT
John Harshman
So you're converting to Islam then?
Iago
news:1125847122....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> the claim that birds evolved from dinosaurs. That is because,
> surprisingly for the evolutionist, Ornithischian dinosaurs do not
> resemble birds with respect to other anatomical features. For
> instance, Ankylosaurus is a dinosaur classified as Ornithischian, with
> short legs, a giant body, and skin covered with scales resembling
> armor. On the other hand, Struthiomimus, which resembles birds in some
> of its anatomical features (long legs, short forelegs, and thin
> structure), is actually a Saurischian. (5)
Oh, my.
This is...
Oh, my.
Wow.
I've got tears from laughing so hard.
--
## Iago ##
Augray
from http://www.harunyahya.com/70myth_bird_evolution_sci33.html to
news:<1125847122....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
> The Myth of Bird Evolution
>
> HARUN YAHYA
>
>
>
> Recently, a 140-million-year-old fossil called Shenzhouraptor sinensis
> was discovered in the Yixian region of China. According to the
> evolutionary paleontologist Ji Qiang, this fossil was a missing link
> between dinosaurs and birds. The fact is, however, that this fossil
> possesses features that clash with the evolutionists' claims about the
> origin of birds. Not just this fossil, but also the whole body of
> paleontological data on the subject is at odds with the evolutionary
> theory. "The evolution of birds", like other claims made by Darwinism,
> is no more scientific than a fairy tale.
>
>
>
> Shenzhouraptor sinensis, The Impossible Transitional Form
>
> Evolutionists suggest that Shenzhouraptor sinensis was a transitional
> form that was able to fly and possessed both bird and dinosaur
> characteristics. This is, however, is in contradiction to other
> evolutionist claims on the origin of birds.
>
> Archaeopteryx, the oldest known bird, lived 150 million years ago and
> is in many respects no different from flying birds living today.
But in other respects shows huge differences. See
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html
> Shenzhouraptor sinensis, however, lived 140 million years ago, making
> it younger than Archaeopteryx. For that reason, it is impossible for it
> to be a transitional form, because birds with perfect feathers and the
> necessary anatomical structure for flight were living before it.
What is being claimed is that Shenzhouraptor has features transitional
between Archaeopteryx and modern birds. No one except creationists
disputes this.
> Archaeopteryx: Recent work shows it to be
> "much more birdlike than previously imagined".
> At this point, we need to make it clear that the evolutionist claims
> regarding Archaeopteryx, on of the principle icons of the theory of
> evolution for the last 100 years or so, have lost a great deal of their
> validity. It has been realized that this creature was a flying bird,
> possessing a flawless flight mechanism.
This is absolutely false. Archaeopteryx lacked fusion of the
metacarpals, an alula, and a triosseal canal, a V-shaped ulnare... you
get the idea.
> Attempts to compare
> Archaeopteryx to a reptile have failed entirely.
Absolutely false. I offer to debate this with "Harun Yahya", or anyone
else for that matter. But I won't have any takers.
> As Alan Feduccia, one of the leading ornithologists in the world, has
> stated, "Most recent workers who have studied various anatomical
> features of Archaeopteryx have found the creature to be much more
> birdlike than previously imagined," and "the resemblance of
> Archaeopteryx to theropod dinosaurs has been grossly overestimated."
> (1)
Even Feduccia now recognizes the similarities between certain theropod
dinosaurs and birds, but he now merely claims that these dinosaurs
*aren't* dinosaurs, but closely related to birds. See Feduccia (2002).
> Another problem regarding Archaeopteryx is that the theropod dinosaurs,
> which many evolutionists suggest were Archaeopteryx' ancestors,
> actually emerge after it in the fossil record, not before it.
No one claims that these dinosaurs that are dated after Archaeopteryx
are ancestors, merely closely related to the creatures that *were*
ancestors.
> This, of
> course, leaves no room for any "evolutionary family tree" to account
> for the origin of birds.
Except for Epidendrosaurus, Scansoriopteryx, and Pedopenna, all of which
are more primitive than Archaeopteryx, and predate it.
> The Squabbling Evolutionists
>
> The reason for the "dino-bird" and "feathered dinosaur" stories that
> frequently appear in the evolutionist press is simply an effort on
> their part to show that their claim that birds evolved from dinosaurs
> has been proven by fossil discoveries. The fact is, however, that none
> of these fossils has offered any scientific evidence at all for that
> claim. What is more, many evolutionists do not believe it either. For
> instance, renowned ornithologists Alan Feduccia and Larry Martin
> believe that it is totally an erroneous scenario. A college textbook,
> Developmental Biology reads:
>
> Not all biologists believe that birds are dinosaurs... This group of
> scientists emphasize the differences between dinosaurs and birds,
> claiming that the differences are too great for the birds to have
> evolved from earlier dinosaurs. Alan Feduccia, and Larry Martin, for
> instance, contend that birds could not have evolved from any known
> group of dinosaurs. They argue against some of the most important
> cladistic data and support their claim from developmental biology and
> biomechanics. (2)
The reference cited doesn't seem to be that reliable. Some of the
supposed differences it cites are "Archaeopterix has a wishbone
(furcula) and bird-like feet". A large number of theropod dinosaurs had
wishbones, and *all* had bird-like feet. Also, I notice that they can't
even spell "Archaeopteryx" correctly.
> Feduccia has this to say regarding the thesis of reptile-bird
> evolution:
>
> Well, I've studied bird skulls for 25 years and I don't see any
> similarities whatsoever. I just don't see it... The theropod origins of
> birds, in my opinion, will be the greatest embarrassment of
> paleontology of the 20th century. (3)
Feduccia now believes that some dinosaurs were closely related to birds
(Feduccia 2002).
> Larry Martin, a specialist in ancient birds from the University of
> Kansas, also opposes the theory that birds are descended from
> dinosaurs. Discussing the contradiction that evolution falls into on
> the subject, he states:
>
> To tell you the truth, if I had to support the dinosaur origin of birds
> with those characters, I'd be embarrassed every time I had to get up
> and talk about it. (4)
Yet even Martin now recognizes a close relationship between certain
dromaeosaurs and birds (Martin 2004). Isn't it amazing what evidence can
do? Of course, I'm not sure how seriously we should take someone who
refers to "the maniraptoran crown group" (Martin 2004)
> The disagreement amongst evolutionists themselves stems from the fact
> that there is no evidence supporting an evolutionary origin for birds.
That's an out-and-out lie. There are a large number of similarities
between dinosaurs and birds.
> They can only build up speculations, just-so stories which are imposed
> on the public, misleadingly, as "scientific theories".
This is a lie as well, as we'll soon see.
> The Significant Structural Differences Between Birds And Dinosaurs
>
> Most evolutionists hold that birds evolved from small theropod
> dinosaurs. However, a comparison between birds and such reptiles
> reveals that the two have very distinct features, making it unlikely
> that one evolved from the other.
>
> There are various structural differences between birds and reptiles,
> one of which concerns bone structure. Due to their bulky natures,
> dinosaurs-the ancestors of birds according to evolutionists-had thick,
> solid bones. Birds, in contrast, whether living or extinct, have hollow
> bones that are very light, as they must be in order for flight to take
> place.
In fact, theropod dinosaurs had hollow bones as well.
> Another difference between reptiles and birds is their metabolic
> structure. Reptiles have the slowest metabolic structure in the animal
> kingdom. (The claim that dinosaurs had a warm-blooded fast metabolism
> remains a speculation.)
Stating that it's speculation doesn't make it false. The presence of
bird-style lungs (O’Connor & Claessens 2005) and primitive feathers
(Currie & Chen 2001; Padian et al. 2001; Chen et al. 1998; Xing et al.
1999; Xu et al. 2001) virtually guarantees that some dinosaurs were
warm-blooded.
> Birds, on the other hand, are at the opposite
> end of the metabolic spectrum. For instance, the body temperature of a
> sparrow can rise to as much as 48°C (118°F) due to its fast
> metabolism. On the other hand, reptiles lack the ability to regulate
> their body temperature. Instead, they expose their bodies to sunlight
> in order to warm up. Put simply, reptiles consume the least energy of
> all animals and birds the most.
>
> Yet, despite all the scientific findings, the groundless scenario of
> "dinosaur-bird evolution" is still insistently advocated. Popular
> publications are particularly fond of the scenario. Meanwhile, concepts
> which provide no backing for the scenario are presented as evidence for
> "dinosaur-bird evolution."
>
> In some popular evolutionist publications, for instance, emphasis is
> laid on the differences among dinosaur hip bones to support the thesis
> that birds are descended from dinosaurs. These differences exist
> between dinosaurs classified as Saurischian (reptile-like, hip-girdled
> dinosaurs) and Ornithischian (bird-like, hip-girdled dinosaurs). This
> concept of dinosaurs having hip girdles similar to those of birds is
> sometimes wrongly conceived as evidence for the alleged dinosaur-bird
> link. However, the difference in hip girdles is no evidence at all for
> the claim that birds evolved from dinosaurs. That is because,
> surprisingly for the evolutionist, Ornithischian dinosaurs do not
> resemble birds with respect to other anatomical features.
Yet surprisingly for the author, no one claims that birds are descended
from ornithischian dinosaurs.
> For instance,
> Ankylosaurus is a dinosaur classified as Ornithischian, with short
> legs, a giant body, and skin covered with scales resembling armor.
It's not a case of "scales resembling armor", but bones on the surface
of the skin.
> On
> the other hand, Struthiomimus, which resembles birds in some of its
> anatomical features (long legs, short forelegs, and thin structure),
Who claims that short forelegs is a similarity shared with birds??? No
one.
> is
> actually a Saurischian. (5)
Yet there is a sequence of saurischian dinosaurs displaying a gradual
change to bird-like hips. Why isn't this mentioned?
> The Unique Structure of Avian Lungs
>
> Another factor demonstrating the impossibility of the reptile-bird
> evolution scenario is the structure of avian lungs, which cannot be
> accounted for by evolution.
>
> Land-dwelling creatures have lungs with a two-directional flow
> structure. Upon inhaling, the air travels through the passages in the
> lungs (bronchial tubes), ending in tiny air sacs (alveoli). The
> exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide takes place here. Then, upon
> exhaling, this used air makes its way back and finds its way out of the
> lung by the same route.
>
> In birds however, air follows just one direction through the lungs. The
> entry and exit orifices are completely different, and thanks to special
> air sacs all along the passages between them, air always flows in one
> direction through the avian lung. In this way, birds are able to take
> in air nonstop.
Another falsehood, contradicted by the Denton quote which follows.
> This satisfies birds' high energy requirements. Michael
> Denton, an Australian biochemist and a well-known critic of Darwinism,
> explains the avian lung in this way:
>
> This one-directional flow of air is maintained in breathing in and
> breathing out by a complex system of interconnected air sacs in the
> bird's body, which expand and contract in such a way as to ensure a
> continuous delivery of air through the parabronchi... The structure of
> the lung in birds, and the overall functioning of the respiratory
> system, are quite unique. No lung in any other vertebrate species in
> any way approaches the avian system. Moreover, in its essential details
> it is identical in birds. (6)
Yet there is evidence theropod dinosaurs had bird-like lungs. See
O’Connor & Claessens (2005).
"Perfect integration" isn't necessary. A scenario for the transition to
avian lungs has been presented by Paul (2001).
> In brief, the passage from a terrestrial lung to an avian lung is
> impossible, because an intermediate form would serve no purpose.
>
>
> Reptiles (and mammals) breathe in and out from the same air vessel. In
> birds, while the air enters into the lung from the front, it goes out
> from the back.
Unsurprisingly, "Harun Yahya" gets it backwards. The air enters the lung
from the *back*, and then leaves out the front.
> This distinct design is specially made for birds, which
> need great amounts of oxygen during flight. It is impossible for such a
> structure to evolve from the reptile lung.
>
> Another point that needs to be mentioned here is that reptiles have a
> diaphragm-type respiratory system, whereas birds have an abdominal air
> sac system instead of a diaphragm.
Actually, different reptiles have different breathing systems.
> These different structures also make
> any evolution between the two lung types impossible, as John Ruben from
> Oregon State University, an acknowledged authority in the field of
> respiratory physiology, observes in the following passage:
>
> The earliest stages in the derivation of the avian abdominal air sac
> system from a diaphragm-ventilating ancestor would have necessitated
> selection for a diaphragmatic hernia in taxa transitional between
> theropods and birds. Such a debilitating condition would have
> immediately compromised the entire pulmonary ventilatory apparatus and
> seems unlikely to have been of any selective advantage. (8)
Ruben assumes that theropod dinosaurs had a crocodilian-style breathing
system. At least part of this claim is based on a crack in a fossil
which Ruben at al. interpret as a diaphragm, and the rest on a disputed
interpretation of another fossil. See Paul (2001).
> Another interesting structural design of the avian lung which defies
> evolution is the fact that it is never empty of air, and thus never in
> danger of collapse.
It's never in danger of collapse because it's rigid!
> Michael Denton explains the situation:
>
> Just how such a different respiratory system could have evolved
> gradually from the standard vertebrate design without some sort of
> direction is, again, very difficult to envisage, especially bearing in
> mind that the maintenance of respiratory function is absolutely vital
> to the life of the organism.
Creationist lack of imagination is a problem only for creationists.
> Moreover, the unique function and form of
> the avian lung necessitates a number of additional unique adaptations
> during avian development... because first, the avian lung is fixed
> rigidly to the body wall and cannot therefore expand in volume and,
> second, because of the small diameter of the lung capillaries and the
> resulting high surface tension of any liquid within them, the avian
> lung cannot be inflated out of a collapsed state as happens in all
> other vertebrates after birth. The air capillaries are never collapsed
> as are the alveoli of other vertebrate species; rather, as they grow
> into the lung tissue, the parabronchi are from the beginning open tubes
> filled with either air or fluid. (9)
>
> In other words, the passages in birds' lungs are so narrow that the air
> sacs inside their lungs cannot fill with air and empty again, as with
> land-dwelling creatures. If a bird lung ever completely deflated, the
> bird would never be able to re-inflate it, or would at the very least
> have great difficulty in doing so.
But since bird lungs are rigid, this will never happen.
> For this reason, the air sacs
> situated all over the lung enable a constant passage of air to pass
> through, thus protecting the lungs from deflating.
>
> Of course this system, which is completely different from the lungs of
> reptiles and other vertebrates, and is based on the most complex
> design, cannot have come about with random mutations, stage by stage,
> as evolution maintains. Thus, as Denton also mentions, the avian lung
> is enough to answer Darwin's challenge:
>
> "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which
> could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight,
> modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." (10)
But since a scenario for the evolution of bird lungs has been presented
(Paul 2001), Darwin can rest easy.
> Bird Feathers and Reptile Scales
>
> Another impassable gap between birds and reptiles is feathers, which
> are peculiar to birds. Reptile bodies are covered with scales, a
> completely different structure. The hypothesis that bird feathers
> evolved from reptile scales is completely unfounded, and is indeed
> disproved by the fossil record, as the evolutionist paleontologist
> Barbara Stahl once admitted:
>
> How [feathers] arose initially, presumably from reptiles scales, defies
> analysis... It seems, from the complex construction of feathers, that
> their evolution from reptilian scales would have required an immense
> period of time and involved a series of intermediate structures. So
> far, the fossil record does not bear out that supposition. (11)
But since that was written, intermediate structures have been found. See
Currie & Chen (2001), Padian et al. (2001), Chen et al. (1998), Xing et
al. (1999), and Xu et al. (2001).
> A. H. Brush, a professor of physiology and neurobiology at the
> University of Connecticut, accepts this fact,
He's changed his mind. See Prum & Brush (2002).
> although he is himself an
> evolutionist: "Every feature from gene structure and organization, to
> development, morphogenesis and tissue organization is different [in
> feathers and scales]." (12) Moreover, Professor Brush examines the
> protein structure of bird feathers and argues that it is "unique among
> vertebrates." (13)
This has since been shown to be false. See Schweitzer (2001) and
Schweitzer et al. (1999).
> There is no fossil evidence to prove that bird feathers evolved from
> reptile scales. On the contrary, feathers appear suddenly in the fossil
> record, Professor Brush observes, as an "undeniably unique" character
> distinguishing birds. (14) Besides, in reptiles, no epidermal tissue
> has yet been detected that provides a starting point for bird feathers.
> (15)
> Many fossils have so far been the subject of "feathered dinosaur"
> speculation, but detailed study has always disproved it. Alan Feduccia
> once wrote the following in an article called "On Why Dinosaurs Lacked
> Feathers":
>
> Feathers are features unique to birds, and there are no known
> intermediate structures between reptilian scales and feathers.
> Notwithstanding speculations on the nature of the elongated scales
> found on such forms as Longisquama (discovered 1969 Russia) ... as
> being featherlike structures, there is simply no demonstrable evidence
> that they in fact are. (16)
Feduccia has changed his mind about Longisquama. See Jones at al.
(2000). Citing an outdated reference shows that "Harun Yahya" isn't
doing research of the highest caliber. In fact, this reference
contradicts another "Harun Yahya" page at
http://www.harunyahya.com/dna07.php which tries to pass off Longisquama
as a real bird. For while "Harun Yahya" doesn't name the fossil on that
web page, the New York Times article referred to (Wilford 2000) shows
that it is indeed Longisquama. See
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50D13F734550C708EDDAF0894D8404482
> More recently, Feduccia, quoting Brush, has the following passage on
> the origin of feathers:
>
> Even birds' most scalelike features-the leg scutes (scales), claws, and
> the epidermally derived beak-are formed from a single category of
> protein, the -keratins. As Alan Brush has written regarding feather
> development, "The genes that direct synthesis of the avian -keratins
> represent a significant divergence from those of their reptilian
> ancestor."(17) (Note that the authors assume a reptilian ancestor for
> birds, but accept the genetic gap between these.)
>
>
> National Geographic's great hit, the perfect "dino-bird" Archaeoraptor
> soon turned out to be a hoax. All other "dino-bird" candidates remain
> as speculation.
Based on what? Since then, these discoveries have undergone extensive
testing to determine if they're forgeries. For instance, see Xu et al.
(2003). No other forgeries have been discovered. Anyone familiar with
the subject would know this.
> All news about "dino-birds" is speculative. Many claims on the subject
> have turned out to false. For example, the "feathered dinosaur" claim
> that was put forward in 1996 with a great media fanfare was also
> disproved soon. A reptilian fossil called Sinosauropteryx was found in
> China, but paleontologists who examined the fossil said that it had
> bird feathers, unlike modern reptiles. Examinations conducted one year
> later, however, showed that the fossil actually had no structure
> similar to a bird's feather. (18)
Completely false. From "Harun Yahya"'s own reference:
Meanwhile, Ji Quang, director of the Chinese Geology Museum in
Beijing, insists that the fibers are "obvious primitive feathers".
And from others sources:
"They look very much like feathers," says American Museum of
Natural History bird paleontologist Luis Chiappe, who saw the
fossil in Beijing last month with colleague and dinosaur expert
Mark Norell. [Gibbons 1997a]
It seems to have had something that some have thought might be
feathers. They're not feathers in a modern sense. [Ostrom in
Musante 1997]
...the structures are cylindrical and emerge from the skin in a
manner that is nearly unique to feathers and thus are likely to
have grown from cylindrical follicles. [Prum & Brush 2002]
...the tendency of finer filaments to angle away on both sides from
thicker structures all suggest a feather-like structure with
central shafts and plumulaceous barbs. [Currie & Chen 2001]
> Every other fossil that has been put forward as "feathered dinosaur" in
> the last 10 years is debatable. Detailed studies have revealed that the
> structures suggested to have been "feathers" are actually collagen
> fibers.(19)
This is false. The reference cited is *not* a detailed study, but an
news report. No "detailed studies" have been done that come to this
conclusion. The only "detailed study" which has been done has shown that
these structures are composed of beta keratins, just like feathers
(Schweitzer 2001; Schweitzer et al. 1999).
> The speculations in fact stems from evolutionist prejudice
> and wishful thinking. As Feduccia says, "Many dinosaurs have been
> portrayed with a coating of aerodynamic contour feathers with
> absolutely no documentation."(20)
Although the reference cited is from 1999, it's from the second edition
of Feduccia's "The Origin and Evolution of Birds". The identical passage
is in the first edition, published in 1996, before the feathered
dinosaurs were discovered in China. Documentation is now abundant.
> (One of the "feathered dinosaurs" in
> question, namely Archaeoraptor, proved to be a fossil forgery).
Ironically, the "Archaeoraptor" forgery was composed of two fossils,
both of which had feathers. No one disputes this. See Rowe et al.
(2001), Xu et al. (2000), and Czerkas et al. (2002).
> Feduccia sums the position up in these terms: "Finally, no feathered
> dinosaur has ever been found, although many dinosaur mummies with
> well-preserved skin are known from diverse localities." (21)
Feduccia wrote this in 1996. Once again, it's out of date.
> The Design of Feathers
>
> Another problem for the evolutionists is the fact that there is such a
> complex design in bird feathers that the phenomenon can never be
> accounted for without referring to intelligent design. As we all know,
> there is a long, stiff part that runs up the center of the feather.
> Attached to the shaft are the vanes. The vane is made up of small
> thread-like strands, called barbs. These barbs, of different lengths
> and rigidity, are what give the flying bird its aerodynamic nature. But
> what is even more interesting is that each barb has thousands of even
> smaller strands attached to them called barbules. The barbules are
> connected to barbicels, with tiny microscopic hooks, called hamuli.
> Each strand is hooked to an opposing strand, much like the hooks of a
> zipper.
This is hardly evidence of intelligent design. It's an argument from
incredulity.
> On just one crane feather, there are up to 650 hairs on the central
> tube. Each one of these is covered with some 650 tinier hairs.
Hairs? No one claims they're hairs, or describes them as such.
> And
> these tiny hairs are linked together by 350 hooks. The hooks come
> together like the two sides of a zipper. If the hooks come apart for
> any reason, it is sufficient for the bird to shake itself, or, in more
> serious cases, to straighten its feathers out with its beak, for the
> feathers to return to their previous positions.
>
> To claim that the complex design in feathers could have come about by
> the evolution of reptile scales through chance mutations is quite
> simply a dogmatic belief with no scientific foundation.
Another falsehood. See Prum (1999) and Prum & Brush (2002).
> Even one of the
> doyens of Darwinism, Ernst Mayr, made this confession on the subject
> some years ago:
>
> It is a considerable strain on one's credulity to assume that finely
> balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates,
> or the bird's feather) could be improved by random mutations. (22)
I smell a quote mine. Unfortunately, all copies of this book in my area
are unavailable at the moment.
> The design of feathers also compelled Darwin to ponder them. Moreover,
> the perfect aesthetics of the peacock's feathers had made him "sick"
> (his own words). In a letter he wrote to Asa Gray on April 3, 1860, he
> said, "I remember well the time when the thought of the eye made me
> cold all over, but I have got over this stage of complaint..." And then
> continued: "... and now trifling particulars of structure often make me
> very uncomfortable. The sight of a feather in a peacock's tail,
> whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!" (23)
Fortunately, we now have a better understanding of the origin of
feathers. See Prum (1999) and Prum & Brush (2002).
> In short, the enormous structural differences between bird feathers and
> reptile scales, and the astonishingly complex-and beautiful-design of
> feathers, clearly demonstrate the invalidity of the claim that feathers
> evolved from scales through blind natural mechanisms.
Complexity is not an argument against "blind natural mechanisms". Or
does "Harun Yahya" believe that every snowflake is designed?
> Conclusion
>
> The "dino-bird" stories that appear in the evolutionist press consist
> of biased analyses by evolutionist palaeontologists, and sometimes even
> of distortions of the truth. (In fact, one of the best-known
> "dino-bird" discoveries, the Archaeoraptor portrayed by National
> Geographic as incontrovertible proof of bird evolution, turned out to
> be a forgery produced by combining fossils of five separate specimens).
*Two* separate specimens. See Zhou et al. (2002).
> The "dino-bird" fossils in question are either those of extinct species
> of bird or of dinosaurs, and not one of them represents a "missing
> link" between birds and dinosaurs.
False. I challenge "Harun Yahya" to debate me on the topic.
> In fact, as we have seen above, it
> is impossible for dinosaurs to have evolved into birds and assumed bird
> characteristics by means of chance mutations.
>
> Thus the "dino-bird" hype that rages through the media consists of
> nothing more than a last-ditch attempt to shore up the collapsed theory
> of evolution. However, science and reason will always prevail over such
> misconceptions.
Why does "Harun Yahya" feel the need to spread his own misconceptions?
The fact checking, or lack thereof, in this post is appalling.
Feduccia and Burke (1997) make several *evolutionary* assumptions that
virtually guarantee that they'll get the results they expect. They claim
that certain developmental patterns aren't possible, and don't consider
the possibility that the first digit is in fact a prepollex.
> In the same report, Dr. Freduccia also made important comments on the
> invalidity-and the shallowness-of the "birds evolved from dinosaurs"
> theory:
>
> "There are insurmountable problems with that theory," he [Dr. Feduccia]
> said. "Beyond what we have just reported, there is the time problem in
> that superficially bird-like dinosaurs occurred some 25 million to 80
> million years after the earliest known bird, which is 150 million years
> old."
This is now known to be false, as shown above.
> If one views a chicken skeleton and a dinosaur skeleton through
> binoculars they appear similar, but close and detailed examination
> reveals many differences, Feduccia said. Theropod dinosaurs, for
> example, had curved, serrated teeth, but the earliest birds had
> straight, unserrated peg-like teeth. They also had a different method
> of tooth implantation and replacement." (ii)
This has been known to be false for over ten years. See Currie et al.
(1993).
> This evidence once again reveals that the "dino-bird" hype is just
> another "icon" of Darwinism: A myth that is supported only for the sake
> of a dogmatic faith in the theory.
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> i - David Williamson, "Scientist Says Ostrich Study Confirms Bird
> 'Hands' Unlike Those Of Dinosaurs", EurekAlert, 14-Aug-2002,
> http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-08/uonc-sso081402.php
> ii - David Williamson, "Scientist Says Ostrich Study Confirms Bird
> 'Hands' Unlike Those Of Dinosaurs", EurekAlert, 14-Aug-2002,
> http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-08/uonc-sso081402.php
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________
>
> (1) Alan Feduccia, The Origin and Evolution of Birds, Yale University
> Press, 1999, p. 81
> (2) Scott F. Gilbert, "Did Birds Evolve from the Dinosaurs?,"
> Developmental Biology, Sixth Edition, chapter 16.4
> (http://www.devbio.com/chap16/link1604.shtml)
This link works better: http://www.devbio.com/article.php?id=161
More References:
Burke, A. C., & A. Feduccia. 1997. Developmental Patterns and the
Identification of Homologies in the Avian Hand. Science 278:666-668.
Chen P.-J., Dong Z.-M., and Zheng S.-N. 1998. An exceptionally
well-preserved theropod dinosaur from the Yixian Formation of China.
Nature 391:147-152.
Currie, P. J., & Chen P.-J. 2001. Anatomy of _Sinosauropteryx prima_
from Liaoning, northeastern China. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences
38(12):1705-1727.
Currie, P. J. & Zhao X.-J. 1993. A new troodontid (Dinosauria,
Theropoda) braincase from the Dinosaur Park Formation (Campanian) of
Alberta. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 30:2231-2247
Czerkas, S. A., & Xu X. 2002. A New Toothed Bird form China. In
"Feathered Dinosaurs and the Origin of Flight", edited by S. J. Czerkas,
pp. 43-61. Blanding, Utah: The Dinosaur Museum.
Feduccia, A. 2002. Birds are Dinosaurs: Simple Answer to a Complex
Problem. The Auk 119(4):1187–1201.
Gibbons, A. 1997a. Feathered Dino Wins a Few Friends. Science 275:1731.
Jones, T. D., J. A. Ruben, L. D. Martin, E. N. Kurochkin, A. Feduccia,
P. F. A. Maderson, W. J. Hillenius, N. R. Geist, V. Alifanov. 2000.
Nonavian Feathers in a Late Triassic Archosaur. Science 288:2202-2205.
Available on-line at:
http://arnica.csustan.edu/jones/Publications/pdf/Longisquama.pdf
Martin, L. D. 2004. A basal archosaurian origin for birds. Acta
Zoologica Sinica 50(6):978-990.
Available on-line at: http://www.actazool.org/downloadpdf.asp?id=1434
Musante, F. 1997. Lessons for the Future in Ancient Bones. The New York
Times. June 29, pg. CN3.
O’Connor, P. M., & L. P. A. M. Claessens. 2005. Basic avian pulmonary
design and flow-through ventilation in non-avian theropod dinosaurs.
Nature 436:253-256.
Padian, K., Ji Q., & Ji S.-A. 2001. Feathered Dinosaurs and the Origin
of Flight. In "Mesozoic Vertebrate Life: New Research Inspired by the
Paleontology of Philip J. Currie", edited by Darren H. Tanke & Kenneth
Carpenter, pp. 117-135, & plates 1-3. Bloomington: Indiana University
Press.
Paul, G. S. 2001. Were the respiratory complexes of predatory dinosaurs
like crocodiles or birds? In "New perspectives on the Origin and Early
Evolution of Birds: Proceedings of the International Symposium in Honor
of John H. Ostrom February 13-14, 1999 New Haven, Connecticut", edited
by J. Gauthier & L. F. Gall, pp. 463-482. New Haven: Peabody Museum of
Natural History, Yale University.
Prum, R. O. 1999. Development and Evolutionary Origin of Feathers.
Journal of Experimental Zoology (Molecular and developmental evolution)
285:291–306.
Prum, R. O., & A. H. Brush. 2002. The evolutionary origin and
diversification of feathers. The Quarterly Review of Biology 77:261-295.
Rowe, T., R. A. Ketcham, C. Denison, M. Colbert, Xu X., P. J. Currie.
2001. The _Archaeoraptor_ forgery. Nature 410:539-540.
Schweitzer, M. H. 2001. Evolutionary implications of possible
protofeather structures associated with a specimen of _Shuvuuia
deserti_. In "New Perspectives on the Origin and Early Evolution of
Birds: Proceedings of the International Symposium in Honor of John H.
Ostrom February 13-14, 1999 New Haven, Connecticut", edited by J.
Gauthier & L. F. Gall, pp. 181-192. New Haven: Peabody Museum of Natural
History, Yale University.
Schweitzer, M. H., J.A. Watt, R. Avci, L. Knapp, L. Chiappe, M. Norell,
& M. Marshall. 1999. Beta-Keratin Specific Immunological Reactivity in
Feather-Like Structures of the Cretaceous Alvarezsaurid, _Shuvuuia
deserti_. Journal of Experimental Zoology. 285:146-157.
Wilford, J. N. 2000. Fossil Discovery Threatens Theory of Birds'
Evolution. New York Times, June 23rd 2000, pp. A1, A16.
Xing X., Tang Z.-L., & Wang X.-L. 1999. A therizinosauroid dinosaur with
integumentary structures from China. Nature 399:350-354.
Xu X., Zhou Z.-H., & R. O. Prum. 2001. Branched integumental structures
in _Sinornithosaurus_ and the origin of feathers. Nature 410:200-204.
Xu X., Zhou Z.-H., & Wang X.-L. 2000. The smallest known non-avian
theropod dinosaur. Nature 408:705-708.
Xu X., Zhou Z.-H., Wang X.-L., Kuang X., Zhang F.-C. & Du X. 2003.
Four-winged dinosaurs from China. Nature 421:335-340.
Zhou Z.-H., J. A. Clarke, & Zhang F.-C. 2002. _Archaeoraptor_’s better
half. Nature 420:285.
John Harshman
> On 4 Sep 2005 08:18:42 -0700, harunya...@yahoo.com copy and pasted
> from http://www.harunyahya.com/70myth_bird_evolution_sci33.html to
> news:<1125847122....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
[snip]
> Yet even Martin now recognizes a close relationship between certain
> dromaeosaurs and birds (Martin 2004). Isn't it amazing what evidence can
> do? Of course, I'm not sure how seriously we should take someone who
> refers to "the maniraptoran crown group" (Martin 2004)
What's wrong with that? It's a junior synonym of Neornithes, but
otherwise it seems fine.
[snip]
>>How [feathers] arose initially, presumably from reptiles scales, defies
>>analysis... It seems, from the complex construction of feathers, that
>>their evolution from reptilian scales would have required an immense
>>period of time and involved a series of intermediate structures. So
>>far, the fossil record does not bear out that supposition. (11)
>
>
> But since that was written, intermediate structures have been found. See
> Currie & Chen (2001), Padian et al. (2001), Chen et al. (1998), Xing et
> al. (1999), and Xu et al. (2001).
>
>>A. H. Brush, a professor of physiology and neurobiology at the
>>University of Connecticut, accepts this fact,
>
> He's changed his mind. See Prum & Brush (2002).
Not precisely. Prum and Brush argue that feathers are novel structures,
not modified scales. They may have coopted some of the developmental
pathways also used in scales, but that's a different matter. The
intermediate structures in question are not intermediate between
feathers and scales, but between feathers and the hypothetical,
primitive, tubular protofeather.
>>although he is himself an
>>evolutionist: "Every feature from gene structure and organization, to
>>development, morphogenesis and tissue organization is different [in
>>feathers and scales]." (12) Moreover, Professor Brush examines the
>>protein structure of bird feathers and argues that it is "unique among
>>vertebrates." (13)
>
> This has since been shown to be false. See Schweitzer (2001) and
> Schweitzer et al. (1999).
I'm going from memory here, but didn't Schweitzer test for beta-keratin
in general, not specifically for feather beta-keratins?
[snip]
Nice refutation. Lurkers will enjoy it even if "Harun Yahya" ignores it.
In fact, he seems to be gone already, after starting up a bunch of
threads. Typical post-and-run.
Augray
<jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in
news:<oAYTe.1122$JN5...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>:
> Augray wrote:
>
> > On 4 Sep 2005 08:18:42 -0700, harunya...@yahoo.com copy and pasted
> > from http://www.harunyahya.com/70myth_bird_evolution_sci33.html to
> > news:<1125847122....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Yet even Martin now recognizes a close relationship between certain
> > dromaeosaurs and birds (Martin 2004). Isn't it amazing what evidence can
> > do? Of course, I'm not sure how seriously we should take someone who
> > refers to "the maniraptoran crown group" (Martin 2004)
>
> What's wrong with that? It's a junior synonym of Neornithes, but
> otherwise it seems fine.
I should have provided more context. In the reference alluded to, Martin
states that:
Embedding birds in the maniraptoran crown group coupled with a
Late Jurassic age of _Archaeopteryx_ creates a similar problem.
I'm pretty sure that in this case Martin isn't synonymizing the
"maniraptoran crown group" with Neornithes. 8)
Besides, if Martin, Feduccia and friends are right, there *isn't* a
maniraptoran crown group.
> [snip]
>
> >>How [feathers] arose initially, presumably from reptiles scales, defies
> >>analysis... It seems, from the complex construction of feathers, that
> >>their evolution from reptilian scales would have required an immense
> >>period of time and involved a series of intermediate structures. So
> >>far, the fossil record does not bear out that supposition. (11)
> >
> >
> > But since that was written, intermediate structures have been found. See
> > Currie & Chen (2001), Padian et al. (2001), Chen et al. (1998), Xing et
> > al. (1999), and Xu et al. (2001).
> >
> >>A. H. Brush, a professor of physiology and neurobiology at the
> >>University of Connecticut, accepts this fact,
> >
> > He's changed his mind. See Prum & Brush (2002).
>
> Not precisely. Prum and Brush argue that feathers are novel structures,
> not modified scales. They may have coopted some of the developmental
> pathways also used in scales, but that's a different matter. The
> intermediate structures in question are not intermediate between
> feathers and scales, but between feathers and the hypothetical,
> primitive, tubular protofeather.
Very true. I had the phrase "the fossil record" stuck in my head.
> >>although he is himself an
> >>evolutionist: "Every feature from gene structure and organization, to
> >>development, morphogenesis and tissue organization is different [in
> >>feathers and scales]." (12) Moreover, Professor Brush examines the
> >>protein structure of bird feathers and argues that it is "unique among
> >>vertebrates." (13)
> >
> > This has since been shown to be false. See Schweitzer (2001) and
> > Schweitzer et al. (1999).
>
> I'm going from memory here, but didn't Schweitzer test for beta-keratin
> in general, not specifically for feather beta-keratins?
Yes, but she also tested for alpha-keratins, and found none. Apparently
alpha-keratins are absent only in feathers.
> [snip]
>
> Nice refutation.
Thanks.
> Lurkers will enjoy it even if "Harun Yahya" ignores it.
> In fact, he seems to be gone already, after starting up a bunch of
> threads. Typical post-and-run.
He just couldn't defend himself.
John Harshman
> On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 15:15:32 GMT, John Harshman
> <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in
> news:<oAYTe.1122$JN5...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>:
>
>
>>Augray wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 4 Sep 2005 08:18:42 -0700, harunya...@yahoo.com copy and pasted
>>>from http://www.harunyahya.com/70myth_bird_evolution_sci33.html to
>>>news:<1125847122....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>
>>>Yet even Martin now recognizes a close relationship between certain
>>>dromaeosaurs and birds (Martin 2004). Isn't it amazing what evidence can
>>>do? Of course, I'm not sure how seriously we should take someone who
>>>refers to "the maniraptoran crown group" (Martin 2004)
>>
>>What's wrong with that? It's a junior synonym of Neornithes, but
>>otherwise it seems fine.
>
>
> I should have provided more context. In the reference alluded to, Martin
> states that:
>
> Embedding birds in the maniraptoran crown group coupled with a
> Late Jurassic age of _Archaeopteryx_ creates a similar problem.
>
> I'm pretty sure that in this case Martin isn't synonymizing the
> "maniraptoran crown group" with Neornithes. 8)
>
> Besides, if Martin, Feduccia and friends are right, there *isn't* a
> maniraptoran crown group.
What do you think Martin means by the phrase?
Why so she did. Well, anyway, following Feduccia, It's now clear that
theropods aren't dinosaurs at all; they're birds. Dinosauria consists of
two orders: Ornithischia and Sauropodomorpha.
The Last Conformist
Various cladistic schemes (eg www.palaeos.com) define Dinosauria as
Triceratops + budgies or the equivalent. What extras would this
definition include if Feduccia's right?
John Harshman
Nobody knows, since Feduccia has said only what birds are not rather
than what they are. Presumably it would include a number of archosaurs
not now considered to be dinosaurs, but which archosaurs is anybody's guess.
Confession: Feduccia has never actually said that all theropods are
birds. He has weaseled quite a bit. It seems, following his thoughts,
that all dromaeosaurs are birds, probably all or most maniraptorans, and
possibly all coelurosaurs. Further than that, we can't say. He has not
suggested any dividing line or alternative phylogeny. That's not how he
works. He's quite like a creationist in his reasoning, in fact. And
that's been noted before.
Augray
<jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in
news:<lq1Ue.2775$I7....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>:
> Augray wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 15:15:32 GMT, John Harshman
> > <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in
> > news:<oAYTe.1122$JN5...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>:
> >
> >
> >>Augray wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>On 4 Sep 2005 08:18:42 -0700, harunya...@yahoo.com copy and pasted
> >>>from http://www.harunyahya.com/70myth_bird_evolution_sci33.html to
> >>>news:<1125847122....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
> >>
> >>[snip]
> >>
> >>
> >>>Yet even Martin now recognizes a close relationship between certain
> >>>dromaeosaurs and birds (Martin 2004). Isn't it amazing what evidence can
> >>>do? Of course, I'm not sure how seriously we should take someone who
> >>>refers to "the maniraptoran crown group" (Martin 2004)
> >>
> >>What's wrong with that? It's a junior synonym of Neornithes, but
> >>otherwise it seems fine.
> >
> >
> > I should have provided more context. In the reference alluded to, Martin
> > states that:
> >
> > Embedding birds in the maniraptoran crown group coupled with a
> > Late Jurassic age of _Archaeopteryx_ creates a similar problem.
> >
> > I'm pretty sure that in this case Martin isn't synonymizing the
> > "maniraptoran crown group" with Neornithes. 8)
> >
> > Besides, if Martin, Feduccia and friends are right, there *isn't* a
> > maniraptoran crown group.
>
> What do you think Martin means by the phrase?
I don't think he knows what "crown" means, and is just using the phrase
to pass himself off to cladists as being hip to the lingo. It reminded
me of the story of a paleontologist who used the term "crown group
ankylosauria" in a paper.
[snip]
> >>I'm going from memory here, but didn't Schweitzer test for beta-keratin
> >>in general, not specifically for feather beta-keratins?
> >
> > Yes, but she also tested for alpha-keratins, and found none. Apparently
> > alpha-keratins are absent only in feathers.
>
> Why so she did. Well, anyway, following Feduccia, It's now clear that
> theropods aren't dinosaurs at all; they're birds. Dinosauria consists of
> two orders: Ornithischia and Sauropodomorpha.
So much for the different tooth replacement/different ankle/digit
identity arguments. In fact, so much for any BANDit arguments that I'm
aware of. For his next trick, Feduccia will claim that humans aren't
primates.
[snip]
The Last Conformist
Hm. I was under the impression that a crown group was a clade defined
as X+Y, as opposed to a stem group defined as W>Z. Is this then wrong?
One could certainly define Ankylosauria as Ankylosaurus + Nodosaurus.
The Last Conformist
Maybe he should just be done with it and redefine dinosaurs to mean
ornithischians only.
John Harshman
Does that mean Diplodocus is a bird? Cool.
John Harshman
Well, if you've read his Auk paper from 2002, that should be no surprise.
> For his next trick, Feduccia will claim that humans aren't
> primates.
If he were a mammalogist, that's exactly the sort of thing he'd do.
John Harshman
No. A crown group is defined by living members. Crown Ankylosauria would
be defined as the common ancestor of all extant species of Ankyolosauria
and all its descendants.
The X+Y group is a node-based clade definition. The W>Z group is not a
stem group, but a stem-based clade definition, quite a different thing.
Stem groups are paraphyletic; they're what is left of a clade after you
remove the crown group.
The Last Conformist
John Harshman wrote:
> The Last Conformist wrote:
>
> > to mean ornithischians only.
> >
> Does that mean Diplodocus is a bird? Cool.
Yup. Nifty, innit?
John Harshman wrote:
> The Last Conformist wrote:
>
> > Hm. I was under the impression that a crown group was a clade defined
> > as X+Y, as opposed to a stem group defined as W>Z. Is this then wrong?
> > One could certainly define Ankylosauria as Ankylosaurus + Nodosaurus.
> >
> No. A crown group is defined by living members. Crown Ankylosauria would
> be defined as the common ancestor of all extant species of Ankyolosauria
> and all its descendants.
>
> The X+Y group is a node-based clade definition. The W>Z group is not a
> stem group, but a stem-based clade definition, quite a different thing.
> Stem groups are paraphyletic; they're what is left of a clade after you
> remove the crown group.
Ah, OK. Thanks. So "stem Dinosauria" would be traditional dinosaurs
plus non-Neornithine birds?
John Harshman
Yes. Though the usual term would be "stem-group Dinosauria". Crown-group
Dinosauria is, of course, Neornithes. Dinosauria itself would in this
case be called the "total group", = stem group plus crown group.
Augray
<jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in
news:<Ek4Ue.2772$6e1...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>:
> The Last Conformist wrote:
[snip]
> > Hm. I was under the impression that a crown group was a clade defined
> > as X+Y, as opposed to a stem group defined as W>Z. Is this then wrong?
> > One could certainly define Ankylosauria as Ankylosaurus + Nodosaurus.
> >
> No. A crown group is defined by living members. Crown Ankylosauria would
> be defined as the common ancestor of all extant species of Ankyolosauria
> and all its descendants.
>
> The X+Y group is a node-based clade definition. The W>Z group is not a
> stem group, but a stem-based clade definition, quite a different thing.
> Stem groups are paraphyletic; they're what is left of a clade after you
> remove the crown group.
I was under the impression that the stem group included the crown.
Augray
wrote in news:<1126063553.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
Ray, are you sure about that? In his original post, "Harun Yahya" quoted
Alan Feduccia as saying:
Feathers are features unique to birds, and there are no known
intermediate structures between reptilian scales and feathers.
Notwithstanding speculations on the nature of the elongated scales
found on such forms as Longisquama (discovered 1969 Russia) ... as
being featherlike structures, there is simply no demonstrable
evidence that they in fact are.
Yet on another "Harun Yahya" page at http://www.harunyahya.com/dna07.php
he tries to pass off Longisquama as a real bird with feathers. He refers
to a New York Times article, and though "Harun Yahya" doesn't name this
"bird", it is indeed Longisquama. See
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50D13F734550C708EDDAF0894D8404482
Are lies worth a standing ovation? You're quick to praise, but will you
condemn lies as well? Or is lying acceptable to you? Do you feel that
you have to be ethical in your arguments, or is it all about winning, no
matter the cost?
Also, your claim that "Harun Yahya"'s material is "top notch" implies
that you're knowledgeable enough on the subject to pass judgment, and we
both know that you're not. Feel free to prove me wrong by debating me on
bird evolution.
> Ray Martinez
John Harshman
Nope. Stem group + crown group = total group. Perhaps you too were
confused by the term "stem-based clade definition"; of course a group
defined in this way does include the crown, if there is one.