Archaeopteryx and Dino-Bird Evolution

There is not one intermediary, transitional form that has ever been presented with any semblance of validity. A transitional form is a link in the chain, which you have presupposed is so blatantly obvious. If all species are inter-related, then surely there should be unquestionable evidence of it. We should see the evidence of this occurrence abounding in the fossil record as well as overwhelming evidence walking around right now. We should see organisms that are a quarter of this, and a quarter of that, half-this, and half-that. Nothing has been discovered that is even remotely comparable to this very necessary evolvement. We aren’t merely speaking about ”the’ missing link, we are talking about ”all’ of the missing links from all taxa, including every kingdom, phylum, genera, etc. Moreover, we are not talking about one link in the chain; we are talking about a large number of chains necessary to compel an amoeba to a man. Changes would have to be so radical and so vast, stretching through so many ages, it would require millions of connecting links. If reptiles became mammals or birds, then there should be some evidence of it.Archaeopteryx has been dubbed a transitional form by nearly all evolutionists. Even supposing that this is a genuine intermediary creature, this example would be one instance out of millions. That is a far, cry from proving macroevolution. The theory alleges that reptiles are most closely related to birds. For starters, Archaeopteryx was the size of a pigeon -a vast difference from the megalithic-sized beasts they claim that it spawned. Furthermore, avian are endothermic (warm-blooded) and reptiles are exothermic (cold-blooded). Avian have temperatures upwards of 105 degrees, whereas, reptiles as low as 40 to 60 degrees. Reptiles have a three-chambered heart, whereas Avian have a four-chambered heart. Avian have hollow bones and saurian have solid bones. The lungs, heart, nervous system, digestive tract are completely different from birds and reptiles. Aside from this, evolutionists don’t claim that Archaeopteryx is one link in the chain between reptiles and birds; rather, they claim that Archaeopteryx ”is’ the missing link. Please tell me, though, how this creature developed wings, a beak, feathers, a completely different heart, lungs, digestive tract, etc, in one felled swoop. How is it that this creature was able to survive natural selection with stump-like appendages as its ancestors were changing from reptile to bird? What unseen event precipitated the changes to occur, far in advance of any conceivable relevance to its survival? The contrivances of the wing must have been totally useless in the earliest stages of development, which should make us wonder what prompted these supposed changes to occur at all. How would this be advantageous as opposed to inhibiting its survival? What would prompt it to develop feathers? What prompted it to develop an elongated beak? Tell me: What advantage did this creature have while it was going through these changes? Answer: It wouldn’t. Natural selection would have gobbled up this critter faster than a fat kid at a buffet. The fact is, Archaeopteryx was not a bird-like dinosaur; Archaeopteryx was a bird -a perching bird. Period.

At the end of this message there several links to threads that might help make your stay here more enjoyable. One thing you should know is that in the various science forums you are expected to back up assertions with either evidence or logic. In your post there is little other than unsupported assertion and what is generally refered to as PRATT (Points Refuted A Thousand Times).It is very likely that you wil be challenged on many of your points, particularly the assertion that "Aside from this, evolutionists don’t claim that Archaeopteryx is one link in the chain between reptiles and birds; rather, they claim that Archaeopteryx ”is’ the missing link.", or "The fact is, Archaeopteryx was not a bird-like dinosaur; Archaeopteryx was a bird -a perching bird. Period."When challenged on those and other assertions you make please try to have some actualy evidence other than your personal incredulity for support.This message has been edited by AdminJar, 05-03-2006 10:56 AM

---

This is just not true. There is, though "inter-related" is not a good way to term it.Now, no scientist will tell you that there isn't much yet to be learned about the origins of flight, but you make the ultimate mistake of assuming a that gap in any type knowledge automatically invalidates that which IS known.There is little doubt that the evolution of flight is one of the sketchiest areas of the ToE, but that in no way detracts from a wealth of evidence that DOES well support evolution. The ToE is far from complete, but for the last 150 years EVERY new observation in its field has supported its core hypothesis.Sooo.....if you disagree with the ToE, stop waving your arms around and produce an alternative hypothesis that can be falsified!

Actually there is quite a bit of evidence on the origin of flight, wings and feathers. One of the more likely candidates is reuse and redirection of existing capabilities, a function shift. You can read more about that here.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

There is not one intermediary, transitional form that has ever been presented with any semblance of validity.

---

Actually, there are hundreds, even thousands, of known intermediaries. Kathleen Hunt has written a pretty good description of a few of the important ones. And her essay is now out of date -- it doesn't list tiktallik for example.-

quote:

---

For starters, Archaeopteryx was the size of a pigeon -a vast difference from the megalithic-sized beasts they claim that it spawned.

---

Huh? What are these "megalithic-sized" animals, and why couldn't Archaeopteryx have "spawned" them?-

quote:

---

Furthermore, avian are endothermic (warm-blooded) and reptiles are exothermic (cold-blooded). Avian have temperatures upwards of 105 degrees, whereas, reptiles as low as 40 to 60 degrees. Reptiles have a three-chambered heart, whereas Avian have a four-chambered heart. Avian have hollow bones and saurian have solid bones. The lungs, heart, nervous system, digestive tract are completely different from birds and reptiles.

---

Why couldn't these Avian features have developed from the earlier reptilian features?-

quote:

---

Please tell me, though, how this creature developed wings, a beak, feathers, a completely different heart, lungs, digestive tract, etc, in one felled swoop.

---

It didn't happen in one fell swoop. It happened gradually, over a long period of time.-

quote:

---

What unseen event precipitated the changes to occur, far in advance of any conceivable relevance to its survival?

---

That is an interesting question; what were the environmental pressures which led the the evolution of these particular features? People are still working on this. However, we do have evidence that it did happen, and this question doesn't invalidate the evidence.-

quote:

---

How is it that this creature was able to survive natural selection with stump-like appendages as its ancestors were changing from reptile to bird?

---

Probably the early wings were not stump-like appendages. Why do you think they were?-

quote:

---

The fact is, Archaeopteryx was not a bird-like dinosaur....

---

Actually, it is. It has more dinosaurian characteristics than bird characteristics. This essay describes some of these. Why do you think that Archaeopteryx was just a "perching bird"?

---

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

Its common knowledge that evolutionists have maintained that Archaeopteryx was the missing link in the chain from saurian to avian. This was slightly modified when Falcarius Utahensis was discovered, and again remodified when Archaeoraptor was discovered, er, invented. I'm not sure where the ambiguity is. The trouble remains for the evolutionist to explain how so many gradations existed in one felled swoop.http://www.sciencedaily.com/encyclopedia/ArchaeopteryxAvian body temperature is vastly different from saurians"The circulatory system is similar to those in other vertebrates. As in mammals, birds have a four-chambered heart; however, a bird's heart is proportionately larger and more powerful.
2. Birds usually have higher metabolic rates than mammals, reptiles, or amphibians and need larger, more efficient hearts.
a. Birds require large amounts of energy for flight, and need efficient oxygen circulation in high altitudes. The highest flight recorded for a bird was 11,274 m (37,000 ft.) when a Ruppell's griffon vulture collided into a commercial airline over western Africa (Martin, 1987).
3. Birds normally maintain a body temperature of 380C to 420C (100.40F-107.60F) (Brooke and Birkhead, 1991). They thermoregulate in a variety of ways.
a. Arteries and veins in the head and legs of many birds form heat exchangers called retia mirabilia. A net of vein and arterial vessels lie side by side, allowing outgoing arterial blood to pass heat to the incoming venous blood. This cools the outgoing blood and warms the incoming blood, minimizing heat loss in areas with little or no feathers.
b. Birds also stay warm by increasing their activity rate (metabolism), fluffing feathers to trap insulating air, shivering, or tucking exposed parts, such as faces and legs into feathers.
c. To stay cool, birds can decrease their activity rate, sleek feathers flat to get rid of trapped air, or pant. New World vultures have an interesting cooling method known as urohidrosis. They squirt liquid excrement on their legs, which are cooled as the water in the excrement evaporates."Given the large changes that were required of reptiles in order to change into birds, coupled with the fact that there is no prevailing evidence of such, leads us to believe that it is wholly imagined that any sort of transmogrification has/is/will occur.This message has been edited by AdminJar, 05-03-2006 11:59 AM

As Admins, we do not take part in debating the content or message of posts.In addition, let me point you towards the LGRB (Little Green Reply Button) that is found at the lower right corner of each message. If you use that to reply to a particular message it links the two so that folk can follow the sub threads and conversations. If the other poster has notification turned on it also sends them a notice that someone has replied.I also edited your post to change the part you tried to bold into a quote. If you use the peek function you can see how that was done.

---

Hello, nemesis.

quote:

---

Given the large changes that were required of reptiles in order to change into birds...

---

And what, exactly, is the problem with these "large changes"?-

quote:

---

...coupled with the fact that there is no prevailing evidence of such....

---

There is plenty of evidence that life in general has evolved from a very few, single celled forms over three and a half billion years. There is a lot of evidence that birds, mammals, and reptiles all share a common ancestor. Further, the evidence indicates that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs. I am afraid there is a lack of evidence only because you won't look at it.

---

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

Well from the body of your post, I can tell you have little or no knowledge of the Theory of Evolution, it's predictions, evidence for it, or for that matter the field of general biology.So, rational debate is pretty much out the window right at the get go.I won't try to address your points, since you made none.But I will comment on this -- While this statement is out and out ridiculous, and is a great demonstration of exactly how little the Fundies really understand about biology. I'll leave you to ponder this picture... This is the recently extinct Quagga. Half horse, half zebra? Powned!

I haven't read the whole thread so I don't know if this has been mentioned, but this living relic shares many features with Archeopterix, including claws on the wings.
Coincidence?

"No good evidence exists that fossilized structures found in China and which some paleontologists claim are the earliest known rudimentary feathers were really feathers at all, a renowned ornithologist says. Instead, the fossilized patterns appear to be bits of decomposed skin and supporting tissues that just happen to resemble feathers to a modest degree. Led by Dr. Alan Feduccia of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, a team of scientists says that as a result of their new research and other studies, continuing, exaggerated controversies over "feathered dinosaurs" make no sense. "We all agree that birds and dinosaurs had some reptilian ancestors in common," said Feduccia, professor of biology in UNC's College of Arts and Sciences. "But to say dinosaurs were the ancestors of the modern birds we see flying around outside today because we would like them to be is a big mistake. The theory that birds are the equivalent of living dinosaurs and that dinosaurs were feathered is so full of holes that the creationists have jumped all over it, using the evolutionary nonsense of 'dinosaurian science' as evidence against the theory of evolution," he said. "To paraphrase one such individual, 'This isn't science . . . This is comic relief.'"http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2005/10/051010085411.htmSo, we have here an avowed evolutionist who tacitly implies that he does not agree with the tenets of creationism, but simply reports the plain facts concerning Theropod lineage in modern avian. This flies in the face of everything we were taught in primary school as well as virtually every college biology textbook in the world. Revision? Reproof?Discuss.

quote:

---

Well from the body of your post, I can tell you have little or no knowledge of the Theory of Evolution, it's predictions, evidence for it, or for that matter the field of general biology.
So, rational debate is pretty much out the window right at the get go.

---

You're entitled to your opinion based on Constitutional and Divine Law.

quote:

---

While this statement is out and out ridiculous, and is a great demonstration of exactly how little the Fundies really understand about biology. I'll leave you to ponder this picture...

​

This is the recently extinct Quagga. Half horse, half zebra? Powned!

---

Was that supposed to prove some sort of macroevolutionary progress? Quagga, Zebra, donkeys and horses are all Equine's. Claiming this to be some sort of empirical evidence of transspecific evolution is like using a German Shepherd and a wolf in the same way in the bag of evidence. Maybe I need to clarify any misgivings or misconceptions regarding evolution. In evolution, there are answers to two very different questions. First, evolutionary theory tells us how a certain amount of diversity can develop in already extant, complex life forms. For example, if a small, contingent of birds migrate to an isolated island, a combination of inbreeding, mutation, and natural selection may cause these birds to develop distinct features, not seen in the ancestral population. When viewing the theory in this limited sense, evolution is uncontroversial. Evolutionary biologists are not content, however, on merely explaining how variations occur, but aspire to answer a much broader question. They seek to explain how all of life began in the first place. In this endeavor, they took small pieces of a puzzle and attempted to configure and fashion their own version of events. The Quagga is not even remotely relevant to what is necessary for successful propagation of sustained macroevolution. The Quagga is a product of natural, microevolution. Evolutionists enjoy prominently displaying articles and models on the evolution of horses, whales, and hominids. They confuse the possible with the impossible every chance they get. This is where evolution gets hazy and it is no accident, and so, as a result, you have the majority of the scientific community as well as the media in agreement simply out of ignorance. (Based off of your answers, you fall somewhere precariously in this category). How is it that individuals who pride themselves on their pragmatism and empiricism, continue to follow such an unempirical theory? Undoubtedly, there are powerful alliances with a vested, interest in the propulsion of this untenable theory. They would prefer that you do not challenge or question them, much less, understand all of the facts. Take for example the canine family. We all know there are many breeds of dogs and that their unique characteristics were the product of microevolution. This is unquestionable. You can breed all kinds of dogs with amazing variation because the DNA will permit this. Nevertheless, in the end, a dog is still a dog and will always be a dog. Nothing in the known universe has ever presented a shred of evidence to the contrary. Likewise, botanists have breed many different types of roses, varying in size, shape, and color; but, as the saying goes, ”a rose is still a rose by any other name.’

Thanks Jar!

"Equine" is not a species. Equus, which you may be thinking of, is a genus, containing the different species you've mentioned above. Right. German Shepards and Gray Wolves are two different species. The fact that one evolved from the other is proof of what you call "transspecific evolution." What else would the evolution of one species from another be expected to prove? No, they really don't. The origins of life is the province of biochemists, because the origin on life is a chemical problem.Evolutionary biologists study the history and diversity of species on Earth. Isn't that a pretty powerful indication that you're wrong about evolution? That the evidentiary basis for the theory you dismiss is considerably better developed than you're prepared to admit? Ah, right. Conspiracy theories. That's always a convincing argument. Canidae is a family that contains wolves, dogs, foxes, and jackals. It's a very ancient family that has grown to include a large number of species that cannot possibly interbreed, thus providing a handy proof of macroevolution and the power of random mutation and natural selection to result in completely new species. Which disproves the idea of using common names as a basis for species identification. But for some reason, you persist in doing so. You will not understand how evolution is possible until you understand the organization of living things, and you cannot do that merely by looking at what organisms are called.

No, you have here an avowed evolutionist who tacitly implies that he does not agree with the tenets of creationism, arguing that there is a problem with our assumptuions about the evolution of birds. Nothing he says is a threat to the ToE - he simply sees a lack of evidence in this area. Reproof? No. This isn't how science operates. Science doesn't seek "proof", it seeks the accumulation of evidence to support its hypotheses.Revision? Absolutely! Science is always open to revisions (or revolutions). The ToE has, in effect, been revised repeatedly for 150 years as we have observed and accumulated evidence. Nothing has contradicted Darwin's core assertions, but scientists have refined and revised and rethought many of the details...