[Pagano] still running from this:
Dave Horn
[Begin repost]
[Pagano wrote:]
> The existence of true, unambiguous "transitional" fossils
> would be such powerful evidence in favor of purely
> naturalistic evolution and common descent that pictures
> would appear in every high school and college biology text.
> Yet there are no such photos.
This is another false claim. In fact, it's so blazingly false that I'm
surprised even Pagano could utter such a thing. Of course, Pagano could be
playing semantic games, but I have three introductory biology texts in my
library, and all of them have photos of the fossils of organisms represented
as transitional.
[End segment]
I'm isolating it because Pagano has made a particularly stupid claim this
time. It's false.
See this reference:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/archaeopteryx.html
A photograph of the same specimen represented on this web site appears in:
Starr, Cecie and Ralph Taggart, "Biology - the Unity and Diversity of Life,"
3rd ed., 1984. Pg. 499
Another photograph of the same specimen appears in:
Audeskirk, Gerald and Teresa Audeskirk, "Biology - Life on Earth," 3rd ed.,
1993. Pg. 492.
Pagano says "there are no such photos" of transitional forms in high school
and college biology texts. A claim like this would require an
all-encompassing knowledge of every text used in high school and college
biology and notice that Pagano did not limit himself to *introductory*
biology texts. For the sake of brevity, I did that. I could easily bury
him with references to biology texts that contain photos of this particular
specimen. Instead, I limited myself to introductory texts - and two of the
three introductory biology texts in my library have a photo of the same
specimen, that is, the Berlin specimen of _Archaeopteryx_.
Meanwhile, I am still waiting for an explanation from Pagano about this
creature. _Archaeopteryx_ possesses features common to two different
classes - Class Aves and the reptilia. What is the alternative,
scientifically tenable explanation for this if _Archaeopteryx_ is *not* a
transitional form?
Pagano is still running from a dead bird.
[End repost]
Chris Thompson
>
> Pagano has run from this several times:
>
> [Begin repost]
>
> [Pagano wrote:]
>
> > The existence of true, unambiguous "transitional" fossils
> > would be such powerful evidence in favor of purely
> > naturalistic evolution and common descent that pictures
> > would appear in every high school and college biology text.
> > Yet there are no such photos.
>
There were indeed pictures of transitional fossils in High school (and
grade school!) biology textbooks at one time. Fundamentalist pressure
on school boards forced a dilution of evolutionary thinking in these
books until it was unrecognizable. This was unconscionable (sp?) in my
mind.
Chris
Dave Horn
[Begin repost]
[Pagano wrote:]
> The existence of true, unambiguous "transitional" fossils
> would be such powerful evidence in favor of purely
> naturalistic evolution and common descent that pictures
> would appear in every high school and college biology text.
> Yet there are no such photos.
This is another false claim. In fact, it's so blazingly false that I'm
Thir...@webtv.net
Re: [Pagano] still running from this:
>Group: talk.origins Date: Fri, Jul 27,
> 2001, 9:25pm (CDT+1) From:
> dave...@ns.home.com (Dave Horn)>
requested an answer
>[Begin repost]
>[Pagano wrote:]
>[End segment]
>http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/b
>irds/archaeopteryx.html
>[End repost]
THE GULF BETWEEN REPTILES
AND BIRDS:
Reptites are cold-blooded animals, meaning that their internal
temperature will either increase or decrease depending upon the outside
temperature. Birds, on the other hand, are warm-blooded; their bodies
maintain a relatively constant internal tempeture regardless of the
temperature outside. To solve the puzzle of how warm-blooded bitds came
from cold-blooded reptiles, some evolutionists now say that some of the
dinosaurs
(which were reptiles) were warm-blooded.
{the usual argument that it must ve been so it is}
But the general view is still as Robert Jastrow observes: "Dinosaurs,
like all reptiles, were cold-blooded animals."
"Re Giants and White Dwarfs" 1979, p.253
Lecomte du Nouy, the French evolutionist, said concering the belief
that warm-blooded birds came from cold-blooded reptiles "This stands out
today as one of the greatest puzzles of evolution." ("Human
/Destiny",147, p.72)
[did you ever notice how they say that about a lot of their assertions]
He also made the admission that birds have "all the unsastisfactory
characteristics of absolute creation" --unsatifactory, that is, to the
theory of evolution.
While it is true that both reptiles and birds lay eggs, only birds
must incubate theirs. They are designed for it. Many birds have a
brood spot on their breast, and area that does not have any feathers and
that contains a network of blood vessels, to give warmth for the eggs.
Some birds have no brood patch but they pull out the feathers from their
breast. Also, for birds to incubate the eggs would require evolution to
provide them with new instincts--for building the nest, for hatching the
eggs an for feeding the young-very selfless,altruistic, considerate
behaviors involving skilll, hard work and deliberate exposure to danger.
All of this represents a wide gap between reptiles and birds. But there
is much more:
Feathers are unique to birds. Supposedly, reptilian scales just
happened to become these amazing structures. Out from the shaft of a
feather are rows of barbs. Each barb has many babules and each barbule
has hundreds of barbicels and hooklets. After a microscopic examination
of one pigeon feather, it was revealed that it had "several hundred
thousand barbules and millions of barbicels and hooklets."
("The Birds" Roger Tory Peterson, 1963p.34)
These hooks hold all the parts of a feather together to make flat
surfaces or vanes. Nothing excels the feather as an airfoil, and few
substances equal it as an insulator. A bird the size of a swan has some
25,000 feathers.
If the barbs of these feather become separated, they are combed with
the beak. The beak applies pressure as the barbs pass through it and
the hooks on the barbules link together like the teeth of a zipper.
Most bird have an oil gland at the base of the tail from which they take
oil to condition each feather. Some birds have no oil gland but instead
have special feathers that fray at their tips to prduce a fine talclike
dust for conditioning their feathers. And feathers usually are renewed
by molting once a year.
Knowing all of this about the feather, consider this rather
astounding effort to explain its developement: "How did this structural
marvel evolve? It takes no great stretch of imagination to envisage a
feather as a modified scale, basically like that of a reptile--a longish
scale, whose outer edges frayed and spread out untl it evolved into the
highly complex structure that it is today." (Ibid)
But do you think such an explanation is truly scientific? Or does it
read more like science fiction?
Consider further the design of the bird for flight. The bird's bones
are thin and hollow, unlike the reptile's solid ones. Yet strenght is
required for flight, so inside the bird's bones there are struts, like
the breaces inside of airplane wings. this design of the bones serves
another purpose: It helps to explain another exclusive marvel of
birds--their respiratory system.
Muscular wings beating for hours or even days in flight generate much
heat, yet, without sweat glands for cooling, the bird copes with the
problem--it has an air-cooled "engine." A system of air sacs reach into
almost every important part of the body, even into the hollow bones, and
body heat is relieved by ths internal circulation of air. Also, because
of these air sacs, birds extract oxygen from air much more efficiently
than any other vertebrate. How is this done?
In reptiles and mammals, the lungs take in and give out air, like
bellows that alternately fill and empty. But in birds there is a
constant flow of fresh air going through the lungs, during both inhaling
and exhaling. Simply put, the system works like this: When the bird
inhales, the air goes to certain air sacs; these serve as bellows to
push the air into the lungs. From the lungs the air goes into other air
sacs, and these eventually expel it. This means that there is a stream
of fresh air constantly going throught he lungs in one direction, much
like water flowing through a sponge. The blood in the capillaries of
the lungs is flowing in the opposite direction. It is this
countercurrent between air and blood that makes the bird's respiratory
system exceptional. Because of it, birds can breathe the thin air of
high altitudes, flying at over 20,000 feet for days on end as they
migrate thousands of miles.
Other features widen the gulf between bird and reptile. Eyesight is
one. From eagles to warblers, there are eyes like telescopes and eyes
like magnifying glasses. Birds have more sensory cells in their eyes
than have any other living things. Also, the feet of birds are
different. When they come down to roost, tendons automatically lock
their toes around the branch. And they have only four toes instead of
the reptile's five. Additionally, they have no vocal cords, but they
have a syrinx out of which come melodious songs like those of the
nightingales and mockingbirds. Consider too, that reptiles have a
three-chambered heart; a bird's heart has four chambers. Beaks also set
birds apart from reptiles: beaks that serve as nutcrackers, beaks that
filter food from muddy water, beaks that hammer out holes in trees,
crossbill beaks that open up pinecones --
the variety seems endless. And yet the beak, with such specialized
design, is said to have evolved by 'chance' from the nose of a reptile.
.....
At one time evolutionists believed that Archaeopteryx, meaning
"ancient wing" or "ancient bird," was a link between reptile and bird.
But now, many do not. Its fossilized remains reveal perfectly formed
feathers on aerodynamically designed wings capable of flight. Its wing
and leg bones were thin and hollow. Its supposed reptilian features are
found in birds today. And it does not predate birds, because fossils of
other birds have been found in rocks of the same period as
Archaeopteryx.(*)
[it seems to have been as its name implies, an "ancient bird"]
(*) ("the Neck of the Giraffe", pp.34,35; Science--
"Feathers of Archaeopteryx: Asymmetric Vanes Indicate Aerodymanic
Function", by Alan Feduccia and Harrison B. Tordoff, Mar. 9, 1979,
pp.1021,1022)
"Some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record...
have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed
inormation." --David Raup, Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History
(this time I made a point to not forget to add the origin of this
information. It is taken from the book "Life, How did it get here?--By
evolution or by creation?"
By the Watechtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc.
International Bible Students Association )
{EXCEPT FOR A FEW SPOTS, WHERE I INTERJECTED MY OWN THOUGHTS IN
PARENTHESE}
After reading the intricate, purposeful ways the features of birds are
designed, it does see to be inexcusable for anyone, especially someone
who studies nature, not to see that this, only one tiny part of all of
nature, is so perfecty and uniquely made for its specific purpose not to
have been created by an intelligence not just some blind chance),
Adam Marczyk
news:587-3B62...@storefull-611.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
No, there's considerable evidence suggesting that dinosaurs were
warm-blooded.
> But the general view is still as Robert Jastrow observes: "Dinosaurs,
> like all reptiles, were cold-blooded animals."
> "Re Giants and White Dwarfs" 1979, p.253
> Lecomte du Nouy, the French evolutionist, said concering the belief
> that warm-blooded birds came from cold-blooded reptiles "This stands out
> today as one of the greatest puzzles of evolution." ("Human
> /Destiny",147, p.72)
>
> [did you ever notice how they say that about a lot of their assertions]
>
> He also made the admission that birds have "all the unsastisfactory
> characteristics of absolute creation" --unsatifactory, that is, to the
> theory of evolution.
> While it is true that both reptiles and birds lay eggs, only birds
> must incubate theirs. They are designed for it. Many birds have a
> brood spot on their breast, and area that does not have any feathers and
> that contains a network of blood vessels, to give warmth for the eggs.
> Some birds have no brood patch but they pull out the feathers from their
> breast. Also, for birds to incubate the eggs would require evolution to
> provide them with new instincts--for building the nest, for hatching the
> eggs an for feeding the young-very selfless,altruistic, considerate
> behaviors involving skilll, hard work and deliberate exposure to danger.
> All of this represents a wide gap between reptiles and birds.
Dinosaurs weren't "reptiles" like crocodiles or lizards, so the argument is
irrelevant. And not all birds incubate their own eggs.
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/feathers.html
> Consider further the design of the bird for flight. The bird's bones
> are thin and hollow, unlike the reptile's solid ones.
There are theropod dinosaurs with hollow bones.
And? Anyone can compare the beginning and end stages of a process, but it
makes more sense to look at the transitionals in between and see how they
cross these supposedly unbridgeable gaps.
> Consider too, that reptiles have a
> three-chambered heart; a bird's heart has four chambers.
We have a preserved dinosaur heart. It has four chambers.
http://www.dinoheart.org/fastfacts/index.html#9
[snip]
--
I want to conquer the world,
give all the idiots a brand new religion,
put an end to poverty, uncleanliness and toil,
promote equality in all of my decisions...
--Bad Religion, "I Want to Conquer the World"
To send e-mail, change "excite" to "hotmail"
Thir...@webtv.net
AND BIRDS:
Reptites are cold-blooded animals, meaning that their
internal temperature will either increase or decrease depending upon the
outside temperature. Birds, on the other hand, are warm-blooded; their
bodies maintain a relatively constant internal tempeture regardless of
came from cold-blooded reptiles, some evolutionists now say that some of
the dinosaurs
(which were reptiles) were warm-blooded. {the usual argument that it
>No, there's considerable evidence
> suggesting that dinosaurs were
> warm-blooded.
check out: http://w.w.w.sciencedaily.com/reeases/
1990/01/990122073705.htm
where it reads,
Oegon State University (OSU) scientists funded by the National Sciece
Foundation (NSF) have completed a study of what they say is the world's
most perfectly preserved fossil of a theropod, or meat-eating, dinosaur.
They believe it provides an unprecedented view of the biology of these
ancient reptiles. The bottom line?
"The exquisitely preserved fossil shows that theropod dinosaurs
had the ventilatory machinery to support periods of high activity but
that they lacked bird-style lungs and other anatomical features
suggestive of a sustained hight metabolic rate, according to Zoe Epply,
program director in NSF's division of intergrative biology and
neuroscience, which further support the view that these dinosaurs were
not warm blooded."
This fossil is helping confim that "the dinsaurs were indeed, by
definition, cold-blooded, and that in all likelihood, birds are NOT the
descendents of any known group of dinosaurs," said Nicholas Geist, a
paleobiologist at OSU.
(credit for this information to:
National Science Foundation)
[read more at web address above]
And,check out :
http://w.w.wyfiles.com/dinobird2.html
---Second study; Evidence 2
(thirsting> I admitted that there are evolutionists who say this.I love
to learn. What evidence?
{thirsting> It says in my post, 'only' birds, not, 'all' birds. And
what I have read, the dinosaurs that are said to have developed into
birds were reptiles. [also read the quote from the National Science
Foundation]
>http://talkorigins.org/faqs/feathers.html
(reads like science fiction)
Consider further the design of the bird for flight.
The bird's bones are thin and hollow, unlike the reptile's solid ones.
>There are theropod dinosaurs with
> hollow bones.
Yet strenght is required for flight, so inside the bird's bones there
are struts, like the braces inside of airplane wings. this design of the
bones serves another purpose: It helps to explain another exclusive
marvel of birds--their respiratory system.
thirsting>(an airplane wing did not just 'evolve itself for its specific
purpose from a car, it had to have an intelligent designer, how much
more so an intricately designed bird's wing)
thirsting>Where are they?
Consider too, that reptiles have a
three-chambered heart; a bird's heart has four chambers.
>We have a preserved dinosaur heart. It
> has four chambers.
>http://www.dinoheart.org/fastfacts/index.
>html#9
thirsting> Anyone reading this post as lurkers pease look at the web
site he is using for 'proof'.
thirsting>Saw the pictures, not too clear.
And who knows? Did some worms eat on it awhile to make holes or maybe
the dinosaur ate a big bird before he was killed and it was pushed into
his heart cavity at some time in the millions of years it was in there
and everything else was decayed away, so it had the space to have been
pushed in there.
Maybe it is the same kind of reptile as alligators and crocodiles,
(which it says, have 4 chambered hearts). (and is it even a heart?)
My assumtions could be just as viable as most evolutionary 'proofs'.
>[snip]
--
>I want to conquer the world,
>give all the idiots a brand new religion,
> put an end to poverty, uncleanliness and> toil, promote equality in
all of my\
> decisions...
> --Bad Religion, "I Want to Conquer
> the World"
>To send e-mail, change "excite" to
>"hotmail"
"mind the empty bottle
with the holes along the bottom,
you see, it's too much to ask for
and I
am not the doctor"
Adam Marczyk
news:587-3B63...@storefull-611.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
Not only is that a dead link, there's no way to tell what a theropod's lung
capacity was from a fossilized skeleton, the protestations of a small group
of diehards notwithstanding. And even if _that_ were not true, this doesn't
show anything about the relation of birds to dinosaurs; endothermy might
simply have evolved after the bird/dinosaur split.
[snip]
So, in other words, you have no substantive rebuttal to this. Fair enough.
[snip]
> >And? Anyone can compare the beginning
> > and end stages of a process, but it
> >
> > makes more sense to look at the
> > transitionals in between and see how
> > they cross these supposedly
> > unbridgeable gaps.
>
> thirsting>Where are they?
Not hard to find. There are theropods with feathers, theropods with
structures that are similar to feathers but not quite identical, and
theropods without feather-like structures but with other distinctively avian
features such as hollow bones, avian-style hips, fused clavicles and
metacarpals, and flexible, articulated wrist joints of the kind you need for
flapping.
http://www.clpgh.org/cmnh/exhibits/feathered/
> Consider too, that reptiles have a
> three-chambered heart; a bird's heart has four chambers.
>
> >We have a preserved dinosaur heart. It
> > has four chambers.
> >http://www.dinoheart.org/fastfacts/index.
> >html#9
>
> thirsting> Anyone reading this post as lurkers pease look at the web
> site he is using for 'proof'.
>
> thirsting>Saw the pictures, not too clear.
Unless you happen to have credentials as a cardiologist or paleontologist,
maybe you should refrain from commenting.
> And who knows? Did some worms eat on it awhile to make holes or maybe
> the dinosaur ate a big bird before he was killed and it was pushed into
> his heart cavity at some time in the millions of years it was in there
> and everything else was decayed away, so it had the space to have been
> pushed in there.
These ideas rank with Zoe Althrop's suggestion that Archaeopteryx has
feathers because the fossil of a reptile got buried together with the fossil
of a bird, with one on top of the other in the exact same position, and then
the two skeletons somehow fused together, leaving the feathers behind.
> Maybe it is the same kind of reptile as alligators and crocodiles,
> (which it says, have 4 chambered hearts).
However, as it also says, crocodilians have a double aorta, while the
preserved Thescelosaurus heart has only one, which is also true of birds and
mammals.
http://www.dinoheart.org/fastfacts/index.html#9
> (and is it even a heart?)
> My assumtions could be just as viable as most evolutionary 'proofs'.
"Could be" being the operative words; they could be, but they aren't. You
have no facts to back them up, and you clearly have no credentials or even
significant education on the topic, as is evidenced by your ludicrous
suggestion that not only could worms bore holes through the dinosaur's heart
without it undergoing any other substantial decomposition before
fossilization, but that qualified scientists would not be able to tell the
difference between this and genuine cardiac chambers.
--
And I want to conquer the world,
Thir...@webtv.net
>Group: talk.origins Date: Sat, Jul 28,
> 2001, 1:38pm (CDT+1) From:
>ebon...@excite.com (Adam Marczyk)
>><Thir...@webtv.net> wrote in
>> message
>>news:587-3B62DF78-219@storefull-61
>>1.iap.bryant.webtv.net... Re: [Pagano]
>>still running from this:
>>[End segment]
>>http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/
>>birds/archaeopteryx.html
(I addressed this question in my original post, which part you
snipped)
THE GULF BETWEEN
REPTILES AND BIRDS:
Reptiles are cold-blooded animals, meaning that
their internal temperature will either increase or decrease depending
upon the outside temperature. Birds, on the other hand, are
warm-blooded; their bodies maintain a relatively constant internal
temperature regardless of the temperature outside. To solve the puzzle
of how warm-blooded birds came from cold-blooded reptiles, some
evolutionists now say that some of the dinosaurs
(which were reptiles) were warm-blooded. {the usual argument that it
must have been so it is}
>>No, there's considerable evidence
>> suggesting that dinosaurs were
>> warm-blooded.
It stated in my post that some
evolutionists believe this.
check out this site:
http://w.w.w.yfiles.com/dinobird2.html.
(Second study: evidence 2)
and this one:
http://w.w.w.sciencedaily.com/release/1990/10/990122073705.htm. which in
part says>
"Oregon State University (OSU) funded by National Science Foundation
(NSF) have completed a study of what they say is the world's most
perfectly preserved fossil of a theropod, or meat-eating dinosaur. They
believe it provides an unprecedented view of the biology of these
ancient reptiles. The bottom line?
"The exquisitely preserved fossil shows that theropod dinosaurs had the
ventilatory machinery to support periods of high activity, but that they
lacked bird-style lungs and other anatomical features suggestive of a
high metabolic
rate,' according to Zoe Eppley, program director in NSF's division of
intergrative biology and neuroscience, which further support the view
that these dinosaurs were not warrm blooded." This fossil is helping
confirm that "the dinosaurs were indeed, by definition, cold-blooded,
and that, in all likelihood, birds are NOT the descendents of any known
group of dinosaurs," said Nicholas Geist, a paleobiologist at OSU.
(credit for this information goes to:
National Science Foundation; see web site address above)
But the general view is still as Robert
Jastrow observes: "Dinosaurs, like all reptiles, were cold-blooded
animals." "Re Giants and White Dwarfs" 1979, p.253
Lecomte du Nouy, the French evolutionist, said
concering the belief that warm-blooded birds came from cold-blooded
reptiles "This stands out today as one of the greatest puzzles of
evolution." ("Human /Destiny",147, p.72) [did you ever notice how they
say that about a lot of their assertions] He also made the admission
that birds have "all the unsastisfactory characteristics of absolute
creation" --unsatisfactory, that is, to the theory of evolution.
While it is true that both reptiles and birds lay eggs, only
birds must incubate theirs. They are designed for it. Many birds have a
brood spot on their breast, and area that does not have any feathers and
that contains a network of blood vessels, to give warmth for the eggs.
Some birds have no brood patch but they pull out the feathers from their
breast. Also, for birds to incubate the eggs would require evolution to
provide them with new instincts--for building the nest, for hatching the
eggs an for feeding the young-very selfless,altruistic, considerate
behaviors involving skilll, hard work and deliberate exposure to danger.
All of this represents a wide gap between reptiles and birds.
>(A)Dinosaurs weren't "reptiles" like
> crocodiles or lizards, so the argument is
> irrelevant. (B) And not all birds incubate
> their own eggs.
(A)See above. (B) In my post it is stated that 'only' birds must
incubate their eggs, not 'all' birds must incubate their eggs.
>http://talkorigins.org/faqs/feathers.html
You can show clear transistions for every process from one end of this
huge gulf to the end result? Ok, I love to learn, show me. Anything
else is pure speculation of how it happened, and conjecture that it did.
Consider too, that reptiles have a three-chambered heart; a bird's heart
has four chambers.
> We have a preserved dinosaur heart. It
> has four chambers.
>http://www.dinoheart.org/fastfacts/index.
>html#9
Looked up this Willo's 'heart'. Not very clearly defined. And, who
knows, maybe sometime in the millions of years it was sitting there,
some worms or something else came along and ate some holes in it. Or,
maybe, it had swallowed a bird whole before it was killed, and the
bird's heart was later pushed up into the chest cavity somehow, or
maybe, the dinosaur is related to the crocodile or alligator, who have
four chambers? My assumptions of what might have taken place way back in
time are as viable as most of the evolutionary scenarios.
>[snip]
--
>I want to conquer the world,
>give all the idiots a brand new religion,
> put an end to poverty, uncleanliness and
> toil, promote equality in all of my
> decisions... --Bad Religion, "I Want
> to Conquer the World" To send e-mail,
> change "excite" to "hotmail"
"mind the empty bottle
with the holes along the bottom,
you see, it's too much to ask for
and I
am not the doctor"
{anything posted past this point on this post is parts of extra copies
that my webtv copied, please ignore, it won't cut them)
r.
l Consider further the design of the
"mind the empty bottle
Thir...@webtv.net
thir...@webtv.net Subject: Re: [Pagano] still running from this: Re:
[Pagano] still running from this:
ebon...@excite.com (Adam Marczyk)
<Thir...@webtv.net> wrote in message
(Adam M)
Thirsting>
At one time evolutionists believed that Archaeopteryx, meaning
"ancient wing" or
"ancient bird", was a link between reptile and bird> But now, many do
not.
Its fossilized remains reveal perfectly formed feathers on
aerodynamically designed wings capable of flight. Its wings and leg
bones were thin and hollow.
Its supposed reptilian features are found in birds today. And it does
not predate birds, because fossils of other birds have been found in
rocks of the same period as Archaeoopteryx."Science",mar.9,
1979,pp.1021,1022
THE GULF BETWEEN REPTILES
AND BIRDS:
Reptites are cold-blooded animals, meaning that
their internal temperature will either increase or decrease depending
upon the outside temperature. Birds, on the other hand, are
warm-blooded; their bodies maintain a relatively constant internal
tempeture regardless of the temperature outside. To solve the puzzle of
how warm-blooded bitds came from cold-blooded reptiles, some
evolutionists now say that some of the dinosaurs
(which were reptiles) were warm-blooded. {the usual argument that it
must ve been so it is}
(Adam m)>No, there's considerable evidence suggesting that dinosaurs
were warm-blooded.
Thirsting>
It stated in my post that some evolutionists believe this.
check out this site:
http://w.w.w.yfiles.com/dinobird2.html.
(Second study: evidence 2)
and this one:
http://w.w.w.sciencedaily.com/release/1990/10/990122073705.htm. which in
part says>
"Oregon State University (OSU) funded by National Science Foundation
(NSF) have completed a study of what they say is the world's most
perfectly preserved fossil of a theropod, or meat-eating dinosaur. They
believe it provides an unprecedented view of the biology of these
ancient reptiles. The bottom line?
"The exquisitely preserved fossil shows that theropod dinosaurs had the
ventilatory machinery to support periods of high activity, but that they
lacked bird-style lungs and other anatomical features suggesve of a high
metabolic
rate,' according to Zoe Eppley, program director in NSF's division of
intergrative biology and neuroscience, which further support the view
that these dinosaurs were not warrm blooded." This fossil is helping
confirm that "the dinosaurs were indeed, by definition, cold-blooded,
and that,
in all likelihood, birds are NOT the descendents of any known group
of dinosaurs," said Nicholas Geist, a paleobiologist at OSU.
(credit for this information goes to:
National Science Foundation; see web site address above)
The general view is still as Robert
Jastrow observes: "Dinosaurs, like all reptiles, were cold-blooded
animals." "Re Giants and White Dwarfs" 1979, p.253
Lecomte du Nouy, the French evolutionist, said
concering the belief that warm-blooded birds came from cold-blooded
reptiles "This stands out today as one of the greatest puzzles of
evolution." ("Human /Destiny",147, p.72) [did you ever notice how they
say that about a lot of their assertions] He also made the admission
that birds have "all the unsastisfactory characteristics of absolute
creation" --unsatifactory, that is, to the theory of evolution.
While it is true that both reptiles and birds lay
eggs, only birds must incubate theirs. They are designed for it. Many
birds have a brood spot on their breast, and area that does not have any
feathers and that contains a network of blood vessels, to give warmth
for the eggs. Some birds have no brood patch but they pull out the
feathers from their breast. Also, for birds to incubate the eggs would
require evolution to provide them with new instincts--for building the
nest, for hatching the eggs an for feeding the young-very
selfless,altruistic, considerate behaviors involving skilll, hard work
and deliberate exposure to danger. All of this represents a wide gap
between reptiles and birds.
AdamM>(A)Dinosaurs weren't "reptiles" like crocodiles or lizards, so the
argument is irrelevant. (B) And not all birds incubate their own eggs.
Thirsting>(A)See above. And you yourself state that Archaeopteryx is
the transition between reptile and bird.
(B) In my post it is stated that 'only' birds must incubate their eggs,
not 'all' birds must incubate their eggs.
(Adam)>
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/feathers.html
Thirsting>
(AdamM)>
And? Anyone can compare the beginning and end stages of a process,
but it makes more sense to look at the transitionals in between and see
how they cross these supposedly unbridgeable gaps.
Thrsting>
You can show clear transistions for every process from one end of this
huge gulf to the end result? Ok, I love to learn, show me. Anything
else is pure speculation of how it happened, and conjecture that it did.
Consider too, that reptiles have a three-chambered heart; a bird's heart
has four chambers.
(AdamM)> We have a preserved dinosaur heart. It has four chambers.
http://www.dinoheart.org/fastfacts/index.html#9
Thirsting>Looked up this Willo's 'heart'. Not very clearly defined. And,
who knows, maybe sometime in the millions of years it was sitting there,
some worms or something else came along and ate some holes in it. Or,
maybe, it had swallowed a bird whole before it was killed, and the
bird's heart was later pushed up into the chest cavity somehow, or
maybe, the dinosaur is related to the crocodile or alligator, who have
four chambers? My assumptions of what might have taken place way back in
time are as viable as most of the evolutionary scenarios.
[snip]
--
I want to conquer the world,
give all the idiots a brand new religion, put an end to poverty,
uncleanliness and toil, promote equality in all of my decisions...
--Bad Religion, "I Want to Conquer the World" To send
e-mail, change "excite" to "hotmail"
"mind the empty bottle
ReidRover
I see you mention the OSU favourably?
I take it "Thirsting", you agree with them and Alan fedducia that birds
EVOLVED from another earlier reptile ancestor? Once again you seem to fall
into the creationisr trap of assuming that disagreement between scientists
means that one siode of the disagreement is against evolution..not true they
all agree with the premise that birds evolved from reptiles, they just cant
agree on which group of reptiles they evolved from.
The rest of your post is an arguement from incredulity.
Thir...@webtv.net
Archaeopteryx is a true transitional example.
The ret of my post is to ask readers to reason the fact of how
unlikely it is that such specific designs in birds could have come just
by some mindless mutant cells replicating or morphing, or whatever other
means you want to cite that doesn't involve an intelligent creator..
I hope my post didn't come up all of the 4 times I tried to post it
and it didn't show up on the list for me. I have a computer, but for
two years I get my internet use for free by using this webtv thing, so I
amm using it.
Steven J.
> >Group: talk.origins Date: Sat, Jul 28,
> > 2001, 1:38pm (CDT+1) From:
> >ebon...@excite.com (Adam Marczyk)
>
>
> THE GULF BETWEEN
> REPTILES AND BIRDS:
> Reptiles are cold-blooded animals, meaning that
> their internal temperature will either increase or decrease depending
> upon the outside temperature. Birds, on the other hand, are
> warm-blooded; their bodies maintain a relatively constant internal
> temperature regardless of the temperature outside. To solve the puzzle
> of how warm-blooded birds came from cold-blooded reptiles, some
> evolutionists now say that some of the dinosaurs
> (which were reptiles) were warm-blooded. {the usual argument that it
> must have been so it is}
>
> >>No, there's considerable evidence
> >> suggesting that dinosaurs were
> >> warm-blooded.
>
> It stated in my post that some
> evolutionists believe this.
>
Cross-sections of the bones of many dinosaurs looks more like that of
modern mammals or birds that that of other reptiles. Predator-prey
ratios of dinosaur fossils are close to those found for warm-blooded
predators, not cold-blooded. Of course, cold-blooded and warm-blooded
are not absolutes, and intermediate states are known in living
creatures, and could well have existed in dinosaurs, or other
intermediates between birds and early archosaurs.
>
> check out this site:
> http://w.w.w.yfiles.com/dinobird2.html.
> (Second study: evidence 2)
>
> and this one:
> http://w.w.w.sciencedaily.com/release/1990/10/990122073705.htm. which in
> part says>
> "Oregon State University (OSU) funded by National Science Foundation
> (NSF) have completed a study of what they say is the world's most
> perfectly preserved fossil of a theropod, or meat-eating dinosaur. They
> believe it provides an unprecedented view of the biology of these
> ancient reptiles. The bottom line?
> "The exquisitely preserved fossil shows that theropod dinosaurs had the
> ventilatory machinery to support periods of high activity, but that they
> lacked bird-style lungs and other anatomical features suggestive of a
> high metabolic
> rate,' according to Zoe Eppley, program director in NSF's division of
> intergrative biology and neuroscience, which further support the view
> that these dinosaurs were not warrm blooded." This fossil is helping
> confirm that "the dinosaurs were indeed, by definition, cold-blooded,
> and that, in all likelihood, birds are NOT the descendents of any known
> group of dinosaurs," said Nicholas Geist, a paleobiologist at OSU.
> (credit for this information goes to:
> National Science Foundation; see web site address above)
>
informative about lung structures. Other experts find some theropod
birdcages and bones very bird-like, including structures that can be
interpreted as early forms of the modern avian lung. But there is a
lot of argument based on very ambiguous evidence.
>
> But the general view is still as Robert
> Jastrow observes: "Dinosaurs, like all reptiles, were cold-blooded
> animals." "Re Giants and White Dwarfs" 1979, p.253
>
recent.
>
> Lecomte du Nouy, the French evolutionist, said
> concering the belief that warm-blooded birds came from cold-blooded
> reptiles "This stands out today as one of the greatest puzzles of
> evolution." ("Human /Destiny",147, p.72) [did you ever notice how they
> say that about a lot of their assertions] He also made the admission
> that birds have "all the unsastisfactory characteristics of absolute
> creation" --unsatisfactory, that is, to the theory of evolution.
> While it is true that both reptiles and birds lay eggs, only
> birds must incubate theirs. They are designed for it. Many birds have a
> brood spot on their breast, and area that does not have any feathers and
> that contains a network of blood vessels, to give warmth for the eggs.
> Some birds have no brood patch but they pull out the feathers from their
> breast. Also, for birds to incubate the eggs would require evolution to
> provide them with new instincts--for building the nest, for hatching the
> eggs an for feeding the young-very selfless,altruistic, considerate
> behaviors involving skilll, hard work and deliberate exposure to danger.
> All of this represents a wide gap between reptiles and birds.
>
structure; they are more like bird eggs than like the eggs of living
reptiles. Eggs can be brooded by piling vegetation on them, and
letting it heat them by rotting. Your information concerning brooding
patches shows, itself, transitional stages in the evolution of such a
feature; it does not half to arise all at once, but can come by small,
accumulated modifications of behavior and body form. The gap in
behavior between reptiles and birds is likewise smaller, if you
consider only crocodilians (the closest living relatives of birds),
which do provide some degree of parental care. The behavioral gap,
like the morphological gap, can be closed small step by small step
(mutations can change the way the brain is wired, which can change
behavior; if the change increases the number of young that live, it
will be passed on to future generations and become more common, and
further modifications can be added over time).
>
> >(A)Dinosaurs weren't "reptiles" like
> > crocodiles or lizards, so the argument is
> > irrelevant. (B) And not all birds incubate
> > their own eggs.
>
> (A)See above. (B) In my post it is stated that 'only' birds must
> incubate their eggs, not 'all' birds must incubate their eggs.
>
> But there is much more:
> Feathers are unique to birds. Supposedly, reptilian scales just
> happened to become these amazing structures. Out from the shaft of a
> feather are rows of barbs. Each barb has many babules and each barbule
> has hundreds of barbicels and hooklets. After a microscopic examination
> of one pigeon feather, it was revealed that it had "several hundred
> thousand barbules and millions of barbicels and hooklets." ("The Birds"
> Roger Tory Peterson, 1963p.34)
>
(_Caudipteryx_, for example), which look a lot like dinosaurs (which
makes sense, if early birds basically *were* dinosaurs). Some very
dinosaur-like fossils have impressions of modern-type feathers; others
have what look like fuzzy "proto-feathers," lacking the complexity of
full-blown feathers. Again, the complexity can be reached by the
gradual accumulation of small changes.
>
> These hooks hold all the parts of a feather together to make flat
> surfaces or vanes. Nothing excels the feather as an airfoil, and few
> substances equal it as an insulator. A bird the size of a swan has some
> 25,000 feathers.
> If the barbs of these feather become separated, they are
> combed with the beak. The beak applies pressure as the barbs pass
> through it and the hooks on the barbules link together like the teeth of
> a zipper. Most bird have an oil gland at the base of the tail from which
> they take oil to condition each feather. Some birds have no oil gland
> but instead have special feathers that fray at their tips to prduce a
> fine talclike dust for conditioning their feathers. And feathers usually
> are renewed by molting once a year.
> Knowing all of this about the feather, consider this
> rather astounding effort to explain its developement: "How did this
> structural marvel evolve? It takes no great stretch of imagination to
> envisage a feather as a modified scale, basically like that of a
> reptile--a longish scale, whose outer edges frayed and spread out untl
> it evolved into the highly complex structure that it is today." (Ibid)
> But do you think such an explanation is truly scientific? Or does
> it read more like science fiction?
>
morphological details, such as the structure of the ear, and the
gizzard) crocodilians are more similar to birds than they are to
lizards and snakes, or to turtles? This is exactly what evolutionary
theory predicts (since dinosaurs were closely related to crocodilians,
and birds evolved either from them, or from some other archosaur
closely related to crocodilians). If _Archaeopteryx_ is not a
theropod dinosaur, it is still *some* kind of archosaur, closely
related to both theropod dinosaurs and crocodilians.
>
> >http://talkorigins.org/faqs/feathers.html
>
> Consider further the design of the bird for flight.
> The bird's bones are thin and hollow, unlike the reptile's solid ones.
> There are theropod dinosaurs with hollow bones. Yet strenght is
> required for flight, so inside the bird's bones there are struts, like
> the breaces inside of airplane wings. this design of the bones serves
> another purpose: It helps to explain another exclusive marvel of
> birds--their respiratory system.
>
coelurosaur theropods. The flapping motion of the wings is also
possible in some theropod arm and shoulder bones.
more receptors in the retina -- simple duplication of an
already-existing structure) from a basic reptile design. Theropod
dinosaurs have very bird-like feet (three toes in front, one in back,
the basic bird fashion, not the "reptile" pattern).
>
> > And? Anyone can compare the
> > beginning and end stages of a process,
> > but it makes more sense to look at the
> > transitionals in between and see how
> > they cross these supposedly
> > unbridgeable gaps.
>
> You can show clear transistions for every process from one end of this
> huge gulf to the end result? Ok, I love to learn, show me. Anything
> else is pure speculation of how it happened, and conjecture that it did.
>
> Consider too, that reptiles have a three-chambered heart; a bird's heart
> has four chambers.
>
> > We have a preserved dinosaur heart. It
> > has four chambers.
> >http://www.dinoheart.org/fastfacts/index.
> >html#9
>
pattern from which dinosaur and bird hearts were modified -- it has
four chambers, although the wall between the ventricles is not yet
fully closed. Turning it into a full, four-chambered heart requires
two small changes: close the remaining opening in the ventricular
septum, and eliminate one of the two aortic arches. Two mutations,
and warm-bloodedness ought to work, if imperfectly, even without them,
or with only one.
>
> Looked up this Willo's 'heart'. Not very clearly defined. And, who
> knows, maybe sometime in the millions of years it was sitting there,
> some worms or something else came along and ate some holes in it. Or,
> maybe, it had swallowed a bird whole before it was killed, and the
> bird's heart was later pushed up into the chest cavity somehow, or
> maybe, the dinosaur is related to the crocodile or alligator, who have
> four chambers? My assumptions of what might have taken place way back in
> time are as viable as most of the evolutionary scenarios.
>
>
-- Steven J.
Dave Horn
[Begin repost]
[Pagano wrote:]
> The existence of true, unambiguous "transitional" fossils
> would be such powerful evidence in favor of purely
> naturalistic evolution and common descent that pictures
> would appear in every high school and college biology text.
> Yet there are no such photos.
This is another false claim. In fact, it's so blazingly false that I'm
surprised even Pagano could utter such a thing. Of course, Pagano could be
playing semantic games, but I have three introductory biology texts in my
library, and all of them have photos of the fossils of organisms represented
as transitional.
[End segment]
I'm isolating it because Pagano has made a particularly stupid claim this
Thir...@webtv.net
>Date: Fri, Jul 27, 2001, 9:25 pm
> (CDT+1)
>From: dave...@ns.home.com
(Dave Horn)
>Meanwhile, I am still waiting for an
> explanation from Pagano about this
> creature. _Archaeopteryx_ possesses
> features common to two different
> classes - Class Aves and the reptilia.
> What is the alternative, scientifically
> tenable explanation for this if
> _Archaeopteryx_ is *not* a transitional
> form?
>Pagano is still running from a dead bird.
>[End repost]
Mr. Horn,
This is what I was responding to.
Not Mr. Pagano's assertion that there are no pictues of the thing in
books, and your proof that there are. That really has no discussion to
it, does it.
And I am sorry for the mess the posting from me is in. I worked and
worked on it to make it post right, but it wouldn't
After 4 tries I just gave up and put it in the way it was so at least it
would get in.
And is there something wrong with putting in information I have read?
And using it for the authority of my posts? I am not a scientist,
although I am very interested in disease pathology, and hope to study
this formally, but for now, I only know what I read ans study about like
everyone else, we don't get knowledge from osmosis. And most of this I
could say in my own words, but The articles are more weighty and like I
said add more authority, because who am I?
Do you want me to do like some others here on the side of creation
(and on the side of evolution ) who say it is so because 'I' say so', or
'God is going to do this or that to you if you don't listen'?
That would give you more fodder, but would serve no purpose.
Boikat
>
> No, I am just using these references to dispute the assertion that
> Archaeopteryx is a true transitional example.
Archaeopteryx has features of both bird and
reptile characteristics, does it not? Yes it
does. Unless you have proof that it was "poofed
into existence", why would it have features of
both birds and reptiles? Perhaps it's
transitional in nature (which does not mean that
it is the direct ancestor of birds). We do not
see species "poofing" into existence today,
however we have seen examples of speciation, where
one segment of a population changes enough to
become reproductively isolated from the parent
population. Often, this includes slight
morphological variations between the two. Since
you cannot show that such successive variations
over time could not add up to relatively large
changes in morphology, such as front limbs
evolving into wings, your argument is an argument
based upon incredulity, ignorance, and religious
biases.
> The ret of my post is to ask readers to reason the fact of how
> unlikely it is that such specific designs in birds could have come just
> by some mindless mutant cells replicating or morphing, or whatever other
> means you want to cite that doesn't involve an intelligent creator..
Mutation, natural selection, time. The lineage
evolved over time to more efficiently exploit the
environment. BTW, can you present objective
evidence of an "intelligent designer" that
"designed" the "half bird, half reptile"?
>
> I hope my post didn't come up all of the 4 times I tried to post it
> and it didn't show up on the list for me. I have a computer, but for
> two years I get my internet use for free by using this webtv thing, so I
> amm using it.
It's not worth it.
Boikat
Dave Horn
news:8662-3B6...@storefull-613.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> >Group: talk.origins
> >Date: Fri, Jul 27, 2001, 9:25 pm
> > (CDT+1)
> >From: dave...@ns.home.com
> (Dave Horn)
> wrote>
>
> >Meanwhile, I am still waiting for an
> > explanation from Pagano about this
> > creature. _Archaeopteryx_ possesses
> > features common to two different
> > classes - Class Aves and the reptilia.
> > What is the alternative, scientifically
> > tenable explanation for this if
> > _Archaeopteryx_ is *not* a transitional
> > form?
> >Pagano is still running from a dead bird.
>
> >[End repost]
>
> Mr. Horn,
> This is what I was responding to.
> Not Mr. Pagano's assertion that there are no pictues
> of the thing in books, and your proof that there are.
> That really has no discussion to it, does it.
If I didn't think there was something there worthy of note, I wouldn't post
it.
> And I am sorry for the mess the posting from me is in.
> I worked and worked on it to make it post right, but
> it wouldn't
I don't know what to tell you.
A great deal of my time in responding in talk.origins these days is spent
reformatting messages so that they are readable. Yours contained a lot of
verbiage that has been dealt with many, many times in the past, said nothing
new or of merit, and would have taken far too long just to put in reasonably
readable form. It simply isn't worth my time.
> After 4 tries I just gave up and put it in the way it
> was so at least it would get in.
> And is there something wrong with putting in
> information I have read?
Absolutely. Much of it is self-serving, out of context or misleading.
For example, you cited a 1979 issue of _Science_ as a reference. Are you
usually in the habit of reading 21-year old issues of _Science_? Or did you
pull that quote out of another source you didn't identify?
Now your article was so badly formatting and your own writing style so hard
to read, I admit I didn't read the whole thing. You might very well have
cited that other source - I didn't see it.
But it appears to me (from what I did read) that you're one of those
cut-and-pasters and I wouldn't be at all surprised if you've never actually
studies the specimen from any perspective other than that of the
creationists, that is, from what you already believe.
> And using it for the authority of my posts? I am not
> a scientist, although I am very interested in disease
> pathology, and hope to study this formally, but for
> now, I only know what I read ans study about like
> everyone else, we don't get knowledge from osmosis.
No, and creationists don't get a knowledge of evolution from reading
creationist literature.
> And most of this I could say in my own words, but The
> articles are more weighty and like I said add more
> authority, because who am I?
>
> Do you want me to do like some others here on the side
> of creation (and on the side of evolution ) who say it
> is so because 'I' say so', or 'God is going to do this or
> that to you if you don't listen'?
People "on the side of evolution" don't do that. If it is so, it is because
the evidence supports it.
By the way, are you done whining now?
> That would give you more fodder, but would serve
> no purpose.
I'll certainly grant you that.
Dave Horn
<Thir...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:587-3B62...@storefull-611.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
>
> Re: [Pagano] still running from this:
>
> >Group: talk.origins Date: Fri, Jul 27,
> > 2001, 9:25pm (CDT+1) From:
> > dave...@ns.home.com (Dave Horn)
>
> requested an answer
>
> >Pagano has run from this several times:
>
> >[Begin repost]
>
> >[Pagano wrote:]
Pagano's statement:
> >The existence of true, unambiguous
> > "transitional" fossils would be such
> > powerful evidence in favor of purely
> > naturalistic evolution and common
> > descent that pictures would appear in
> > every high school and college biology
> > text. Yet there are no such photos.
My reply:
The use of the world "evolutionists" is a dead give-away that this article
comes from a creationist source. Outside of this debate, "evolutionists" is
a word that isn't used much (and I only say much because even though I've
*never* heard it outside of the context of this debate, it's possible that
others have).
> But the general view is still as Robert Jastrow observes:
> "Dinosaurs, like all reptiles, were cold-blooded animals."
> "Re Giants and White Dwarfs" 1979, p.253
Well, first of all, I'm not impressed with articles that refer to 20-year
old references that support a viewpoint and refuse to consider much newer
evidence.
That the dinosaurs could have been warm-blooded is not a new idea any more;
and there's very compelling evidence that this is the case. To simply state
that "some evolutionists now say that some of the dinosaurs (which were
reptiles) were warm-blooded" and then to casually dismiss it because a
scientist - speaking outside of his field of expertise - has made a
statement claiming otherwise, is to oversimplify the issue.
For one thing, there are even arguments as to whether or not dinosaurs were
truly reptiles. There are some who say that dinosaurs are *not* extinct;
and that we can hear their songs on any given spring morning.
But I digress...
So far, I'm seeing an oversimplified argument, and no scientifically tenable
alternative explanation as to why _Archaeopteryx_ had features of both
reptiles and birds if it is *not* a transitional...
Isn't that what you presumed to address?
> Lecomte du Nouy, the French evolutionist, said concering
> the belief that warm-blooded birds came from cold-blooded
> reptiles "This stands out today as one of the greatest puzzles
> of evolution." ("Human Destiny",147, p.72)
Have you read this book? Maybe you should.
That the actual mechanism by which dinosaurs gave rise to birds is a mystery
(if, indeed, that's how birds evolved) is a problem in what way? Science
doesn't pretend to hold all the answers - that's why science is science (and
that's why religion is religion).
> [did you ever notice how they say that about a lot of
> their assertions]
What? That's "it's a mystery?"
You should give a listen to George Carlin sometimes. Actually, listening to
some religionists might work, too. Take this one from Duane Gish:
"We do not know how the Creator created, what processes He used, for He used
processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe. This
is why we refer to creation as special creation. We cannot discover by
scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by the
Creator."
So, the creator created...we don't have any evidence for that (contrary to
Gish's claims) and we can't discover how this creation took place "by
scientific investigation."
Gee...so what is Gish's answer - really - to the question "how did God
create the universe?"
That answer looks all the world to me like "it's a mystery."
[To be continued - we will see that nowhere is my challenge truly answered]
Dave Horn
news:r2d97.31517$oh1.10...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com...
[Snip]
> For example, you cited a 1979 issue of _Science_ as a
> reference. Are you usually in the habit of reading
> 21-year old issues of _Science_? Or did you
> pull that quote out of another source you didn't identify?
Whoops. Two errors here.
First, at least in the article that I found, there was no reference to
_Science_. The 1979 reference was from comments by Robert Jastrow, an
astronomer.
Also in the article that I found, "Thirsting" admits that the article is
largely a cut-and-paste from a Jehovah's Witness source.
I probably remembered a reference to _Science_ from elsewhere in the thread,
but I haven't had enough coffee this morning to be sure.
At any rate, apologies to all and sundry for the misses and errors. When I
return this evening, I will take apart the rest of "Thirsting's" article -
though depending on how busy it gets, it could be Wednesday before I get to
it.
But I *will* get to it.
[Snip]
gen2rev
Get Here", a Watchtower publication:
[Pagano stuff snipped]
> At one time evolutionists believed that Archaeopteryx, meaning
> "ancient wing" or
> "ancient bird", was a link between reptile and bird> But now, many do
> not.
Well, only Francis Hitching seems not to.
> Its fossilized remains reveal perfectly formed feathers on
> aerodynamically designed wings capable of flight. Its wings and leg
> bones were thin and hollow.
> Its supposed reptilian features are found in birds today. And it does
> not predate birds, because fossils of other birds have been found in
> rocks of the same period as Archaeoopteryx."Science",mar.9,
> 1979,pp.1021,1022
This reference only addresses the aerodynamical aspect of
Archaeopteryx's feathers, not the fossil claim. And it doesn't make the
claim that Archaeopteryx was capable of flight, but merely states that
"Archaeopteryx was therefore at least able to glide."
The fossil claim is found on page 35 of Francis Hitching's "The Neck Of
The Giraffe", and as usual, he's not very helpful as to where he got the
information. But I tracked it down to an article in "Science News" (Sept
24, 1977, Vol. 112, page 198). Unfortunately for this particular claim,
it was withdrawn in 1989 (Jensen A., and Padian, K. 1989. Small
Pterosaurs and Dinosaurs from the Uncompahgre Fauna. Journal of
Paleontology, Vol. 63, No. 3. pp. 364-373.)
>
> THE GULF BETWEEN REPTILES
> AND BIRDS:
> Reptites are cold-blooded animals, meaning that
> their internal temperature will either increase or decrease depending
> upon the outside temperature. Birds, on the other hand, are
> warm-blooded; their bodies maintain a relatively constant internal
> tempeture regardless of the temperature outside. To solve the puzzle of
> how warm-blooded bitds came from cold-blooded reptiles, some
> evolutionists now say that some of the dinosaurs
> (which were reptiles) were warm-blooded. {the usual argument that it
> must ve been so it is}
>
> (Adam m)>No, there's considerable evidence suggesting that dinosaurs
> were warm-blooded.
>
> Thirsting>
> It stated in my post that some evolutionists believe this.
> check out this site:
> http://w.w.w.yfiles.com/dinobird2.html.
> (Second study: evidence 2)
The correct URL is http://www.yfiles.com/dinobird2.html
It's written by an Old-Earth creationist, and compares the lungs of
theropod dinosaurs and modern reptiles, but doesn't really address the
issue of whether or not Dinosaurs were warm-blooded in much detail.
"Warm-bloodedness" isn't an either/or kind of thing anyway. There are
even birds that don't have a constant body temperature. And the
"Science" article that this section of the web page refers to makes the
following statement: "These data are consistent with an ectothermic
status for theropod dinosaurs and early birds." So it would seem that
they believe that birds and dinosaurs are related.
> and this one:
> http://w.w.w.sciencedaily.com/release/1990/10/990122073705.htm.
Try this instead:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/01/990122073705.htm
which in
> part says>
> "Oregon State University (OSU) funded by National Science Foundation
> (NSF) have completed a study of what they say is the world's most
> perfectly preserved fossil of a theropod, or meat-eating dinosaur. They
> believe it provides an unprecedented view of the biology of these
> ancient reptiles. The bottom line?
> "The exquisitely preserved fossil shows that theropod dinosaurs had the
> ventilatory machinery to support periods of high activity, but that they
> lacked bird-style lungs and other anatomical features suggesve of a high
> metabolic
> rate,' according to Zoe Eppley, program director in NSF's division of
> intergrative biology and neuroscience, which further support the view
> that these dinosaurs were not warrm blooded." This fossil is helping
> confirm that "the dinosaurs were indeed, by definition, cold-blooded,
> and that,
> in all likelihood, birds are NOT the descendents of any known group
> of dinosaurs," said Nicholas Geist, a paleobiologist at OSU.
As far as I can see, Geist seems to be saying that because Dinosaurs
were cold-blooded, they couldn't be the ancestors of birds. But the
article also states:
What that analysis reveals, Geist said, is an animal that had the best
of both
worlds. Like other cold-blooded animals, theropod dinosaurs had low
metabolic rates while at rest, an excellent strategy for conserving
energy. But
their enhanced lung ventilation capacity gave them the potential for the
aggressive, extended activity typical of birds and mammals. "Theropod
dinosaurs were fast, dangerous animals," Geist said, "certainly not slow
or
sluggish. They could conserve energy much of the time and then go like
hell
whenever they wanted to. That might go a long way towards explaining why
they were able to dominate mammals for 150 million years."
> (credit for this information goes to:
> National Science Foundation; see web site address above)
>
> The general view is still as Robert
> Jastrow observes: "Dinosaurs, like all reptiles, were cold-blooded
> animals." "Re Giants and White Dwarfs" 1979, p.253
Unfortunately, Jastrow has nothing to base this claim on, and the
section of the book that this quote is taken from doesn't address the
evolution of birds at all, but the extinction of the dinosaurs.
> Lecomte du Nouy, the French evolutionist, said
> concering the belief that warm-blooded birds came from cold-blooded
> reptiles "This stands out today as one of the greatest puzzles of
> evolution." ("Human /Destiny",147, p.72) [did you ever notice how they
> say that about a lot of their assertions] He also made the admission
> that birds have "all the unsastisfactory characteristics of absolute
> creation" --unsatifactory, that is, to the theory of evolution.
The full quote is as follows. Discussing constant body temperature, du
Nouy writes:
This is an immense and unquestionable liberation from the servitude to
the environment, and has, it must be admitted, all the unsatisfactory
characteristics of absolute creation, where as we feel that such cannot
be the case. This stand out as one of the greatest puzzles of evolution.
So du Nouy was not advocating creation.
> While it is true that both reptiles and birds lay
> eggs, only birds must incubate theirs. They are designed for it. Many
> birds have a brood spot on their breast, and area that does not have any
> feathers and that contains a network of blood vessels, to give warmth
> for the eggs. Some birds have no brood patch but they pull out the
> feathers from their breast. Also, for birds to incubate the eggs would
> require evolution to provide them with new instincts--for building the
> nest, for hatching the eggs an for feeding the young-very
> selfless,altruistic, considerate behaviors involving skilll, hard work
> and deliberate exposure to danger. All of this represents a wide gap
> between reptiles and birds.
Alligators build nests and guard them as well, so it's not such a jump
as you might believe. Some dinosaur remains have been discovered sitting
on top of nests of their eggs.
> AdamM>(A)Dinosaurs weren't "reptiles" like crocodiles or lizards, so the
> argument is irrelevant. (B) And not all birds incubate their own eggs.
>
> Thirsting>(A)See above. And you yourself state that Archaeopteryx is
> the transition between reptile and bird.
> (B) In my post it is stated that 'only' birds must incubate their eggs,
> not 'all' birds must incubate their eggs.
But some reptiles guard their eggs. To incubate them they'd probably
have to be warm-blooded.
But immediately following that quote we find:
"In fact, birds still wear scales very much like those of reptiles on
their feet and legs. And today the scales on the bare shanks of the bald
eagle develop germ buds quite like those which produce the feathers
adorning the shanks of the golden eagle. Both are products of the skin,
hornified growths as devoid of feeling as our hair or our nails."
And apparently, certain chemicals can cause bird scales to develop into
feathers if applied early in the bird's development.
>
> (Adam)>
> http://talkorigins.org/faqs/feathers.html
>
> Thirsting>
> Consider further the design of the bird for flight. The bird's bones are
> thin and hollow, unlike the reptile's solid ones. There are theropod
> dinosaurs with hollow bones.
Which could be interpreted as evidence that birds are descended from
dinosaur ancestors.
Yet even birds that are flightless have this style of lungs. To what
purpose?
> Other features widen the gulf between bird and
> reptile. Eyesight is one. From eagles to warblers, there are eyes like
> telescopes and eyes like magnifying glasses. Birds have more sensory
> cells in their eyes than have any other living things.
But no one knows what dinosaur eyes were like.
Also, the feet of
> birds are different. When they come down to roost, tendons
> automatically lock their toes around the branch. And they have only four
> toes instead of the reptile's five.
But theropods have four toes as well.
Additionally, they have no vocal
> cords, but they have a syrinx out of which come melodious songs like
> those of the nightingales and mockingbirds.
Perhaps theropods did as well. Who knows?
> (AdamM)>
> And? Anyone can compare the beginning and end stages of a process,
> but it makes more sense to look at the transitionals in between and see
> how they cross these supposedly unbridgeable gaps.
>
> Thrsting>
> You can show clear transistions for every process from one end of this
> huge gulf to the end result? Ok, I love to learn, show me. Anything
> else is pure speculation of how it happened, and conjecture that it did.
Well, I can try. Give me a few days.
> Consider too, that reptiles have a three-chambered heart; a bird's heart
> has four chambers.
>
> (AdamM)> We have a preserved dinosaur heart. It has four chambers.
> http://www.dinoheart.org/fastfacts/index.html#9
>
> Thirsting>Looked up this Willo's 'heart'. Not very clearly defined. And,
> who knows, maybe sometime in the millions of years it was sitting there,
> some worms or something else came along and ate some holes in it.
The worms would leave tunnels inside the rock, assuming they could
tunnel inside the rock.
Or,
> maybe, it had swallowed a bird whole before it was killed, and the
> bird's heart was later pushed up into the chest cavity somehow,
How would the heart survive inside the dinosaur and it's skeleton
disappear?
or
> maybe, the dinosaur is related to the crocodile or alligator, who have
> four chambers?
But wouldn't that be evolution?
My assumptions of what might have taken place way back in
> time are as viable as most of the evolutionary scenarios.
Well, no. They have evidence to support their assumptions. And a lot of
what you write is taken verbatim from "Life-How Did It Get Here", which
takes a lot of stuff out of context.
Thir...@webtv.net
Re: [Pagano] still running from this:
> 2001, 8:50am (CDT+1) From:
> boi...@bellsouth.net (Boikat)
>>
>>Thir...@webtv.net wrote:
>>No, I am just using these references to
>> dispute the assertion that
>> Archaeopteryx is a true transitional
>> example.
>Archaeopteryx has features of both bird
> and reptile characteristics, does it not?
> Yes it does. Unless you have proof that
> it was "poofed into existence", why
> would it have features of both birds and
> reptiles?
A) Read my original post on this.
B) In the fossil record there are many suddenn appearances of species
just 'poofing' up.
> Perhaps it's
>transitional in nature (which does not
> mean that it is the direct ancestor of
> birds). We do not see species "poofing"
> into existence today, however we have
> seen examples of speciation, where one
> segment of a population changes
> enough to become reproductively
> isolated from the parent population.
> Often, this includes slight
>morphological variations between the
> two. Since you cannot show that such
There is the example of the finch that is used for the 'slight
morphological variant changes, isn't it? Aren't these just variations
within the finch family, because they still remain finches. Sort of
llike the peppered moth thing? I will look that one up on the
talk.origins site. I have read much of what is in there.
> successive variations over time could
> not add up to relatively large changes in
> morphology, such as front limbs
> evolving into wings, your argument is a
> argument based upon incredulity,
> ignorance, and religious biases.
I have used what those who study this have said on this, in my posts;
evolutionists and creationists.
I am trying just to discuss the interesting subject in this group in a
civil way. You have your feelings on the matter, and I have mine. I
would not assume to make a judgement on you, for your opinions on the
matter being discussed. You have a right to them.
I, also, have a right to mine, from study and seeing what is in
nature, and the beauty of the earth, and from having spent much time
"making sure of all things." when it comes to what I believe, as I'm
sure you have. So, I would hope that I am given the courtesy from you,
that you must expect from me, to have my view, without people resorting
to rudeness from either side.
I mean, if I have dished any out, then of course, I should expect to get
it back in my face. If I have I'm very sorry.
>> The rest of my post is to ask readers
>> to reason the fact of how unlikely it is
>> that such specific designs in birds
>> could have come just by some
>. mindless mutant cells replicating or
>> morphing, or whatever other means
>> you want to cite that doesn't involve an
>> intelligent creator..
>Mutation, natural selection, time. The
> lineage evolved over time to more
>. efficiently exploit the environment.
>. BTW, can you present objective
> evidence of an "intelligent designer" that
> "designed" the "half bird, half reptile"?
Well, that probably should go into a whole different thread. This one
is about the particular topic above.
<snip>
Boikat
>
>
> Re: [Pagano] still running from this:
>
> >Group: talk.origins Date: Mon, Jul 30,
> > 2001, 8:50am (CDT+1) From:
> > boi...@bellsouth.net (Boikat)
> >>
> >>Thir...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> >>No, I am just using these references to
> >> dispute the assertion that
> >> Archaeopteryx is a true transitional
> >> example.
>
> >Archaeopteryx has features of both bird
> > and reptile characteristics, does it not?
> > Yes it does. Unless you have proof that
> > it was "poofed into existence", why
> > would it have features of both birds and
> > reptiles?
>
> A) Read my original post on this.
Read my rebuttal (It's quoted right above your
response.)
> B) In the fossil record there are many suddenn appearances of species
> just 'poofing' up.
>
Answer my question: Do we see species "poofing
into existence" today that have no parent
population?
> > Perhaps it's
> >transitional in nature (which does not
> > mean that it is the direct ancestor of
> > birds). We do not see species "poofing"
> > into existence today, however we have
> > seen examples of speciation, where one
> > segment of a population changes
> > enough to become reproductively
> > isolated from the parent population.
>
> > Often, this includes slight
> >morphological variations between the
> > two. Since you cannot show that such
>
> There is the example of the finch that is used for the 'slight
> morphological variant changes, isn't it?
Not specifically.
> Aren't these just variations
> within the finch family,
What happens if all the variations except one are
wiped out?
> because they still remain finches.
Nobody said otherwise. However, will they still
be finches in 50,000 years, 100,000 years, 1
million years?
> Sort of
> llike the peppered moth thing? I will look that one up on the
> talk.origins site. I have read much of what is in there.
You have much to read about evolution in general,
and also, you have much to learn about the
difference between science and the pseudo science
of creationism
>
> > successive variations over time could
> > not add up to relatively large changes in
> > morphology, such as front limbs
> > evolving into wings, your argument is a
> > argument based upon incredulity,
> > ignorance, and religious biases.
>
> I have used what those who study this have said on this, in my posts;
> evolutionists and creationists.
> I am trying just to discuss the interesting subject in this group in a
> civil way. You have your feelings on the matter, and I have mine. I
> would not assume to make a judgement on you, for your opinions on the
> matter being discussed. You have a right to them.
Your objections seem to be based upon arguments of
incredulity, ignorance, and religious biases.
That's not an opinion, it's an observation.
> I, also, have a right to mine, from study and seeing what is in
> nature, and the beauty of the earth, and from having spent much time
> "making sure of all things." when it comes to what I believe, as I'm
> sure you have. So, I would hope that I am given the courtesy from you,
> that you must expect from me, to have my view, without people resorting
> to rudeness from either side.
> I mean, if I have dished any out, then of course, I should expect to get
> it back in my face. If I have I'm very sorry.
If you respected what others "believed", (and no,
evolution is not a belief system, like a religious
belief) then you probably would not be here.
>
> >> The rest of my post is to ask readers
> >> to reason the fact of how unlikely it is
> >> that such specific designs in birds
> >> could have come just by some
> >. mindless mutant cells replicating or
> >> morphing, or whatever other means
> >> you want to cite that doesn't involve an
> >> intelligent creator..
>
> >Mutation, natural selection, time. The
> > lineage evolved over time to more
> >. efficiently exploit the environment.
> >. BTW, can you present objective
> > evidence of an "intelligent designer" that
> > "designed" the "half bird, half reptile"?
>
> Well, that probably should go into a whole different thread. This one
> is about the particular topic above.
Yes, and as other's have pointed out, for one
thing, your original source material contained
some very out of date references, and you have not
really addresses the request to explain why
Archaeopteryx is not transitional in nature, given
the traits that are unique to reptiles, unique to
birds, and the traits that are common to both.
Re-reading your original quoted materials does not
answer that question because as others have
pointed out, your quoted materials are wrong, on
several counts.
Boikat
Dave Horn
news:587-3B62...@storefull-611.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
>
> Re: [Pagano] still running from this:
>
> >Group: talk.origins Date: Fri, Jul 27,
> > 2001, 9:25pm (CDT+1) From:
> > dave...@ns.home.com (Dave Horn)>
> requested an answer
>
> >Pagano has run from this several times:
[Snip]
Yo...junior! In case you haven't noticed, I have started to respond to
this. You can stop reposting.
Meanwhile, you have this to answer from this morning:
[Begin repost]
All right, all right, all right...
<Thir...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:587-3B62...@storefull-611.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
>
> Re: [Pagano] still running from this:
>
> >Group: talk.origins Date: Fri, Jul 27,
> > 2001, 9:25pm (CDT+1) From:
> > dave...@ns.home.com (Dave Horn)
>
> requested an answer
>
> >Pagano has run from this several times:
>
> >[Begin repost]
>
> >[Pagano wrote:]
Pagano's statement:
> >The existence of true, unambiguous
> > "transitional" fossils would be such
> > powerful evidence in favor of purely
> > naturalistic evolution and common
> > descent that pictures would appear in
> > every high school and college biology
> > text. Yet there are no such photos.
My reply:
The use of the world "evolutionists" is a dead give-away that this article
comes from a creationist source. Outside of this debate, "evolutionists" is
a word that isn't used much (and I only say much because even though I've
*never* heard it outside of the context of this debate, it's possible that
others have).
> But the general view is still as Robert Jastrow observes:
> "Dinosaurs, like all reptiles, were cold-blooded animals."
> "Re Giants and White Dwarfs" 1979, p.253
Well, first of all, I'm not impressed with articles that refer to 20-year
old references that support a viewpoint and refuse to consider much newer
evidence.
That the dinosaurs could have been warm-blooded is not a new idea any more;
and there's very compelling evidence that this is the case. To simply state
that "some evolutionists now say that some of the dinosaurs (which were
reptiles) were warm-blooded" and then to casually dismiss it because a
scientist - speaking outside of his field of expertise - has made a
statement claiming otherwise, is to oversimplify the issue.
For one thing, there are even arguments as to whether or not dinosaurs were
truly reptiles. There are some who say that dinosaurs are *not* extinct;
and that we can hear their songs on any given spring morning.
But I digress...
So far, I'm seeing an oversimplified argument, and no scientifically tenable
alternative explanation as to why _Archaeopteryx_ had features of both
reptiles and birds if it is *not* a transitional...
Isn't that what you presumed to address?
> Lecomte du Nouy, the French evolutionist, said concering
> the belief that warm-blooded birds came from cold-blooded
> reptiles "This stands out today as one of the greatest puzzles
> of evolution." ("Human Destiny",147, p.72)
Have you read this book? Maybe you should.
That the actual mechanism by which dinosaurs gave rise to birds is a mystery
(if, indeed, that's how birds evolved) is a problem in what way? Science
doesn't pretend to hold all the answers - that's why science is science (and
that's why religion is religion).
> [did you ever notice how they say that about a lot of
> their assertions]
What? That's "it's a mystery?"
You should give a listen to George Carlin sometimes. Actually, listening to
some religionists might work, too. Take this one from Duane Gish:
"We do not know how the Creator created, what processes He used, for He used
processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe. This
is why we refer to creation as special creation. We cannot discover by
scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by the
Creator."
So, the creator created...we don't have any evidence for that (contrary to
Gish's claims) and we can't discover how this creation took place "by
scientific investigation."
Gee...so what is Gish's answer - really - to the question "how did God
create the universe?"
That answer looks all the world to me like "it's a mystery."
[To be continued - we will see that nowhere is my challenge truly answered]
[End repost]
Dave Horn
news:587-3B62...@storefull-611.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
[Snip]
Part of "Thirsting's" presumption with respect to _Archaeopteryx_ is to cite
Francis Hitching's "The Neck of the Giraffe." This is what part of his
article:
[Begin reposted segment]
" At one time evolutionists believed that Archaeopteryx, meaning 'ancient
wing' or 'ancient bird,' was a link between reptile and bird. But now, many
do not. Its fossilized remains reveal perfectly formed feathers on
aerodynamically designed wings capable of flight. Its wing and leg bones
were thin and hollow. Its supposed reptilian features are
found in birds today. And it does not predate birds, because fossils of
other birds have been found in rocks of the same period as Archaeopteryx.(*)
[it seems to have been as its name implies, an "ancient bird"]
(*) ("the Neck of the Giraffe", pp.34,35; Science-- "Feathers
of Archaeopteryx: Asymmetric Vanes Indicate Aerodymanic Function", by Alan
Feduccia and Harrison B. Tordoff, Mar. 9, 1979, pp.1021,1022)"
[End reposted segment]
On occasion, I get asked why I don't do the sorts of articles that I used to
in which I provide detailed responses. This is an example. I can't count
the times I have encountered creationists using Hitching as a source and I
*have* answered these kinds of things many times in the past.
This was originally posted by me in April 1999 in response to another
participant's use of Hitching as a reference.
[Begin repost]
Kristin, it is normally my personal policy not to respond to articles posted
to newsgroups that are entirely quote-mined. That's a combination of time
and laziness, to be honest with you; and frankly, experience is involved,
too. Generally when I get these kinds of messages from people I never heard
of, I used to take the time to refute point-by-point and post it...and I'd
never hear from the other party again. At any rate, I don't usually have
the time these days to respond quote-for-quote. In this case I'll make an
exception because it so happens I have the night off.
Your quoting of Hitching violates every rule I have for my own participation
in the exchange of quoted material. With respect to quoted material that
might be used as material for debate, the following seem to be "common
sense" to me:
1. The quoted party must be considered an authority by all parties engaging
in the debate. If the quoted party is being used to support or refute a
disputed point, then it is useless to derive quoted material from someone
who has no knowledge of the subject matter and cannot be counted on to
provide accurate information.
Hitching violates this first rule right off the proverbial "bat." Hitching
is *not* a biologist, zoologist, ornithologist, or any sort of authority on
the subject matter. I am quite familiar with his 1982 book (I own it, but
it's in storage) and it's basically just a lot of material derived from
other creationist authors and it contains their standard (and long-refuted)
complaints from that era. It amazes me how often creationists quote-mine
stuff this old and then post it to the newsgroup as if no one has ever heard
it before. At any rate, Hitching does not check his sources and is vague
about others. Hitching is/was (not even sure if he's still alive) a hack
writer of TV "speculative" stories.
Since Hitching is not an authority, that makes moot the rest of the rules,
but here they are in simple form anyway:
2. All parties in the debate must believe that the "authority" is being
honestly and completely quoted -- in other words, that the quoted material
has not been lifted out of context.
3. All parties in the debate must believe that the quoted "authority" can
never be wrong about the subject matter and that the quoted material,
therefore, represents "the final word" on the subject and makes debate on
the subject unnecessary.
If you have any questions about these rules, feel free to ask.
Kristin Park wrote in message <2wgU2.5037$6B.1...@news.san.rr.com>...
>Dave Horn wrote in message <7fk3en$66b$1...@news1.rmi.net>...
>
>>Let's take a specific example: _Archaeopteryx_. (Yes, I can
>>hear the groans of my fellow science-minded folks in the forum --
>>just gloss over this part, guys...you already know about this).
>>_Archaeopteryx_ is a specimen represented by a few fossil
>>finds that possesses characteristics of two classes of animal,
>>i.e., Class Aves and the reptilia (or, if you prefer, the dinosauria).
[Snip]
>>Because of the presence of these characteristics, _Archaeopteryx_
>>is viewed as a transitional form between the reptilia (or dinosauria)
>>and Class Aves. Creationists -- including you -- deny that any such
>>transitionals exist. So what is your scientifically tenable alternative
>>explanation for the presence of these characteristics? In addition,
>>you are challenged to explain, with specific reference to
>>_Archaeopteryx_, why it might be "very speculative, involve circular
>>reasoning, misrepresent the actual data, are just-so stories, and/or
>>are outright erroneous."
For the record, Arthur Biele, to whom this challenge was issued, has not
responded...again.
[Snip]
>Below is an excerpt from Francis Hitching's "The Neck of the
>Giraffe", published in 1982. Granted, much may have happened
>since then - nevertheless.............
Not the least of which are the revelations about Hitching that I provided
above. By the way, did you actually type this all out or did you
cut-and-paste it from the site or three that I know of where large segments
of this book appear?
>"But is the case for Archaeopteryx quite so unambiguous...
Nobody said that there isn't some ambiguity...nothing is final in science.
But what I asked for was a scientifically tentable alternative explanation.
Everything Hitching cites can be evidence for reptilian ancestry; and he's
just too ignorant to know it -- and the same can be said for creationists
who quote him. Basically, he just writes "is NOT" and then proceeds to show
that it is.
>...as these claims make out? Apparently not. Every one of
>its supposed reptilian features can be found in various species
>of undoubted birds.
Notice the phrase "supposed reptilian features." As we go through this,
we'll see that Hitching (or his sources) never address specifically the
features that appear in _Archaeopteryx_ -- only what he presumes are similar
features found in modern birds. Specific discussion of _Archaeopteryx_ is
avoided almost entirely.
By the way, not "every one of its supposed reptilian features can be found
in various species of undoubted birds," Kristin, unless you know of any bird
species with abdominal ribs. And since _Archaeopteryx_ is a bird (by virtue
of the appearance of feathers), the phrase "undoubted birds" is simple
rhetoric.
>1. It had a long bony tail, like a reptile's, on which feathers
>grew. While it is generally true that reptiles have tails, and
>birds appear not to, the detailed position is more complex.
Of course it is...but we will see that Hitching doesn't really get all that
detailed...
>In embryo, some living birds have more tail vertebrae than
>Archaeopteryx does...
And some have less...but the point here is that this could easily be
indicative of reptilian ancestry. The actual number of tail vertebrae is
irrelevant. Not all reptiles have the same number of tail vertebrae either
in embryo or as adult forms -- and certainly neither did all dinosaurs.
Both you and Hitching are free to elaborate on the significance of this
particular point and answer specifically how it addresses my challenge.
Good luck. Hitching couldn't do it...and neither could any creationist
since the publication of his book whom received this challenge.
>...which later fuse to become an upstanding bone called
>the pygostyle.
Right...a rudimentary tail, apparently. But since birds don't have the
sorts of clear, reptilian tails that _Archaeopteryx_ had but now possess
this rudimentary tail, is it not possible that this indicates reptilian
ancestry? If not...why not?
>The bone and feather arrangement on a present-day swan
>shows striking similarities to Archaeopteryx.
Yes, but there are marked differences, too. Hitching takes much for granted
with these kinds of vague statements. You are free to examine, if you can,
the wing structures of _Archaeopteryx_ and the swan. The "striking
similarities" are evidence of kinship, wouldn't you say? While the
differences show that there must have been some <shiver> descent with
modification. Uh, oh...evolution in action...
>According to one authority, there is no difference in principle
>between the ancient and modern forms: "the difference lies only
>in the fact that the caudal vertebrae are greatly prolonged. But
>this does not make a reptile."
While it is true that the tail does not make a reptile (_Archaeopteryx_ is a
bird), as I recall, this "authority" wasn't identified by HItching *and* the
idea that "there is no difference _in principle_ [emphasis added]" strikes
me as unnecessarily vague considering what Hitching is apparently trying to
accomplish, i.e., falsify _Archaeopteryx_ as a transitional form. There are
*significant* differences in the skeletal construction of _Archaeopteryx_
compared to the swan or of any modern bird. At any rate, the pygostyle is
*fused* in modern birds. This is not true in reptiles or in
_Archaeopteryx_. The presence of a tail does not make a reptile. The
presence of a *reptilian* tail demonstrating an archosaur vertebrae pattern
*does* demonstrate reptilian ancestry...unless you have another scientific
explanation available...
>2. It had claws on its feet and on its feathered forelimbs.
>But so do some modern birds, such as the hoatzin in South
>America and the touraco in Africa.
The hoatzin and the touraco do, indeed, have clawed forelimbs as juveniles;
and these disappear in the adult forms; and most birds that I know of have
claws at least in the embryonic stages. You are free to explain
*scientifically* why this is not evidence of reptilian ancestry. At any
rate, no adult bird possesses unfused or the claws present in
_Archaeopteryx_.
>The ostrich of today, which also has three claws on its
>wings, has been suggested by some experts to have
>more supposed reptilian features than Archaeopteryx
> - but nobody, of course, considers the ostrich a
>transitional form.
If the ostrich has "more supposed reptilian features than Archaepteryx," I
am unaware of it. Hitching could not enlighten me further on this, and
neither could any creatonist since. Care to take as shot? The ostrich has
no tail, no teeth, no abdominal ribs, fused trunk vertebrae and a true beak.
Care to run the list of ostrich features by me that are supposed to be "more
reptilian" than _Archaeopteryx_. Remember, Hitching couldn't do it...and he
wrote the book you're using as a reference.
>3. It had bony jaws lined with teeth.
>Modern birds do not have teeth. But many ancient birds did,
>particularly those in the Mesozoic, and there is no suggestion
>that these are intermediates. It is just as convincing to argue
>that Archaeopteryx was an early bird with teeth.
And how is that so? The fact is that no other birds had *socketed* teeth
such as those that appeared in reptiles. Notice that Hitching doesn't cite
any specific other species of these "many ancient birds" did. At the time
of his writing (1982), there were a couple of other birds said to have
"teeth," but these were not true, *socketed* teeth. In one case, it was
simply a serrated beak. Can you cite any other birds since _Archaeopteryx_
with true, *socketed* teeth such as those that appear in _Archaeopteryx_ and
his reptilian ancestors and contemporaries?
Hitching couldn't...and he wrote the book.
>4. It had a shallow breastbone that would have given it a
>feeble wing beat and poor flight.
>Modern woodcreepers such as the hoatzin have similarly
>shallow breastbones, and this does not disqualify them from
>being classified as birds.
Nobody said that _Archaeopteryx_ *isn't* a bird...
>And there are, of course, many species of bird, now and
>in the past, which are incapable of flight.
....and flight is not diagnostic of birds. No one claimed that all birds
fly. They don't. All that was said was that if _Archaeopteryx_ flew, he
was a poor flyer. This is even subject to debate and was being discussed in
the literature at the time Hitching wrote his book. Feel free to cite any
zoologist or ornithologist who claims that "if it can't fly, it ain't a
bird," as Hitching implies with this particular criticism.
>In any case, recent examination of Archaeopteryx's
>feathers at the Smithsonian Institution has shown that
>they are the same as those belonging to many modern
>accomplished fliers. "This implies at the very least that the
>beast could glide at some speed and lays to rest the
>notion that the feathers evolved as either heat insulation
>or as an aid to trapping insects."
Absolutely correct. But how does this address the argument? Whether
_Archaeopteryx_ could fly or not was not the issue. True flight appears in
the natural history of four animal classes -- the reptilia, Class Aves,
mammalia, and the insecta. What does this have to do with whether or not
_Archaeopteryx_ was transitional? Can you answer that question?
Hitching couldn't.
>5. Its bones were solid, like a reptile's, not thin or hollow
>like a bird's.
>Another idea that has been drastically revised. The long
>bones Archaeopteryx (wings, legs) are known now to have
>been both thin and hollow. It is still debated whether they
>were "pneumatized" like a bird's, i.e. containing an air sac.
Yes, it is still debated; and pneumatic bones have been found in some
dinosaurs that clearly were *not* birds.
Whoops...more evidence of transition...
>6. It predates the general arrival of birds by sixty million
>years.
>Until 1977, Archaeopteryx was uniquely early in the fossil
>record. But in that year, archaeologists from Brigham Young
>University discovered, in western Colorado, a fossil of an
>unequivocal bird, in rocks of the same period as Archaeopteryx.
>Professor John H. Ostrom of Yale University, who positively
>identified the specimen, commented: "It is obvious we must now
>look for the ancestors of flying birds in a period of time much
>earlier than that in which Archaeopteryx lived." This discovery
>much weakens the case for Archaeopteryx as an intermediate,
>and makes it that much more likely that the creature was just
>one of a number of strange birds living at that time. Professor
>Heribert-Nilsson commented forcefully that "they are no more
>reptiles than the present day penguins with their wing-fins are
>transitional forms of fish."
Notice that Hitching doesn't try to identify this "unequivocal bird" even
though this information was available to him at the time. This kind of
vagueness does leave a bit open to interpretation but I did later discover
that this was a reference to what is today known as _Protoavis_, which
actually lived 70 million years or so before _Archaeopteryx_. There is
considerable debate as to whether _Protoavis_ is a bird, at all, but even if
it is, it does not invalidate _Archaeopteryx_ as a transitional form. For
one thing, consider that no one claims that there would only be *one*
transitional form between birds and reptiles (or the dinosaurs, if you
prefer).
>The further point might be made that even if Archaeopteryx
>is in fact a halfway form from reptiles to birds...
Straw man. No one said this, either...only that it's transitional.
>...it is still not very enlightening about the process of evolution...
By itself? No...of course not...and no one claimed that it was.
>...nor in any way evidence of Darwin's hoped-for
>gradual transitions.
Well, this just strikes me as simple denial. It's clearly transitional.
We've only scratched the surface with this exchange. There's much, much
more.
>For that, we would have to see in the fossil record the slow
>development of feathers (perhaps from scales, perhaps from
>some other origin) and the hierarchical change of amphibian
>dinosaurs into delicate, light-boned creatures that could soar
>above the Earth. And here, characteristically, the rocks are
>mute."
Are they *really*?
Hitching couldn't answer that question...or any other question with respect
to his claims.
Can you?
[End repost]
I do intend to thoroughly dispose of "Thirsting's" presumptive "challenge,"
but not tonight. For now, this will have to do.
I will post my rebuttal on Wednesday.
Steven J.
> Re: [Pagano] still running from this:
>
> >Group: talk.origins Date: Mon, Jul 30,
> > 2001, 8:50am (CDT+1) From:
> > boi...@bellsouth.net (Boikat)
> >>
> >>Thir...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> >>No, I am just using these references to
> >> dispute the assertion that
> >> Archaeopteryx is a true transitional
> >> example.
>
> >Archaeopteryx has features of both bird
> > and reptile characteristics, does it not?
> > Yes it does. Unless you have proof that
> > it was "poofed into existence", why
> > would it have features of both birds and
> > reptiles?
>
> A) Read my original post on this.
>
that _Archaeopteryx_ combines reptilian (theropod dinosaur) and bird
traits, including some that are intermediate in character. The
original post ignores many, many respects (hollow bones, three-toed
feet) in which coelurosaurs more closely resembled birds than they do
the reptiles to which it compared birds. It is not relevant to the
question at hand.
>
> B) In the fossil record there are many suddenn appearances of species
> just 'poofing' up.
>
majority of individuals certainly escape fossilization, and this is
believed to be the fate even of the majority of species. Furthermore,
only a tiny fraction of the fossil record has been excavated and
described. Thus, the sudden appearance of a species at some point in
the record is no evidence either that it did not exist earlier, or
that it had no transitionals linking it to an earlier species.
Furthermore, many species show distinctive adaptions present in more
rudimentary form in other (often earlier) species. This is the whole
point of _Archaeopteryx_ and similar early birds/featherless dinosaurs
-- they do NOT possess the whole suite of traits possessed by modern
birds, and retain markers of reptilian ancestry.
>
> > Perhaps it's
> >transitional in nature (which does not
> > mean that it is the direct ancestor of
> > birds). We do not see species "poofing"
> > into existence today, however we have
> > seen examples of speciation, where one
> > segment of a population changes
> > enough to become reproductively
> > isolated from the parent population.
>
> > Often, this includes slight
> >morphological variations between the
> > two. Since you cannot show that such
>
> There is the example of the finch that is used for the 'slight
> morphological variant changes, isn't it? Aren't these just variations
> within the finch family, because they still remain finches. Sort of
> llike the peppered moth thing? I will look that one up on the
> talk.origins site. I have read much of what is in there.
>
FAQs. In any case, Boikat's point is not that we have observed "large
changes in morphology" but that we have observed mutation and natural
selection at work, and the production of new species as well.
Together with the fossil evidence, and the nested hierarchy of
morphological and biochemical homologies, this is evidence for both
common descent and a mechanism able to produce it. This evidence is
stronger than any evidence for creationist mechanisms or models.
-- Steven J.
Dave Horn
[Begin repost]
[Pagano wrote:]
> The existence of true, unambiguous "transitional" fossils
> would be such powerful evidence in favor of purely
> naturalistic evolution and common descent that pictures
> would appear in every high school and college biology text.
> Yet there are no such photos.
This is another false claim. In fact, it's so blazingly false that I'm