Scientists' own inconsistencies raise skepticism of Darwinism
Darwinists argue that there are no weaknesses in the evidence for evolution theory, but a look through the stacks of literature that they present as physical exhibits of evidence shows that this is not the case -- what was once believed to be firm evidence for evolution has been questioned by scientists. One scientific paper says, "Discovery Strengthens Evolutionary Link Between Birds And Dinosaurs," and then another scientific paper says, "Scientists Say No Evidence Exists That Therapod Dinosaurs Evolved Into Birds." Often different scientists draw different conclusions from the same evidence. The following papers are just a sample:
International Research Team Announces Discovery Of Two Species Of Feathered Dinosaurs
Scientists Say No Evidence Exists That Therapod Dinosaurs Evolved Into Birds
Embryo Studies Show Dinosaurs Could Not Have Given Rise To Modern Birds
Scientist Says Ostrich Study Confirms Bird "Hands" Unlike Those Of Dinosaurs
New Sickle-Clawed Fossil From Madagascar Links Birds And Dinosaurs
West Australian Fossil Find Rewrites Land Mammal Evolution
.
International Research Team Announces Discovery Of Two Species Of Feathered Dinosaurs
ScienceDaily (June 30, 1998) — Discovery Strengthens Evolutionary Link Between Birds And Dinosaurs
A team of scientists announced last week (June 23) in Nature the discovery in northeastern China of two 120-million-year-old dinosaur species, both of which show unequivocal evidence of true feathers. Both remarkable new creatures provide further support for the theory that birds evolved from small, meat-eating, ground-dwelling dinosaurs and give new insights into the origin of birds
Scientists Say No Evidence Exists That Therapod Dinosaurs Evolved Into Birds
ScienceDaily (Oct. 10, 2005) —
CHAPEL HILL -- 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.
Embryo Studies Show Dinosaurs Could Not Have Given Rise To Modern Birds
ScienceDaily (Oct. 27, 1997)
CHAPEL HILL -- Careful study of bird, alligator and turtle embryos at early stages offer convincing evidence that the "fingers" of bird wings correspond to the index, middle and ring fingers of humans, while the little finger and "thumb" have been lost.
Such developmental evidence of digit identity conflicts with the theory that modern birds arose from dinosaurs as some paleontologists have claimed since the 1970s. Dinosaurs had "fingers" corresponding to the first, second and third fingers on human hands, and as a result, it is almost impossible to envision how a bird wing could have evolved from a dinosaur hand.
Scientist Says Ostrich Study Confirms Bird "Hands" Unlike Those Of Dinosaurs
ScienceDaily (Aug. 15, 2002) —
CHAPEL HILL -- To make an omelet, you need to break some eggs. Not nearly so well known is that breaking eggs also can lead to new information about the evolution of birds and dinosaurs, a topic of hot debate among leading biologists. Drs. Alan Feduccia and Julie Nowicki of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill have done just that. They opened a series of live ostrich eggs at various stages of development and found what they believe is proof that birds could not have descended from dinosaurs. They also discovered the first concrete evidence of a thumb in birds.
New Sickle-Clawed Fossil From Madagascar Links Birds And Dinosaurs
ScienceDaily (Mar. 16, 1998) — FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 17 MARCH 1998
A new raven-sized fossil bird, showing clear evidence of the close relationship between theropod dinosaurs and birds, has been discovered on the island of Madagascar by scientists working under a National Science Foundation (NSF) grant.
West Australian Fossil Find Rewrites Land Mammal Evolution
ScienceDaily (Oct. 19, 2006) — A fossil fish discovered in the West Australian Kimberley has been identified as the missing clue in vertebrate evolution, rewriting a century-old theory on how the first land animals evolved.
Monash University PhD students Mr Erich Fitzgerald and Mr Tim Holland were part of the research team, led by Museum Victoria's Head of Science Dr John Long, that made the spectacular discovery by studying a 380 million-year-old fossil fish called Gogonasus, or Gogo fish, named after Gogo Station in Western Australia where it was found.
The fossil skeleton shows the fish's skull had large holes for breathing through the top of the head but importantly also had muscular front fins with a well-formed humerus, ulna and radius - the same bones are found in the human arm.
.
Labels: Evolution controversy (4 of 4)
posted by Larry Fafarman | 10/08/2008 06:37:00 PM
12 Comments:
Yet another case of you showing your ignorance, Larry. Firstly, the things you have linked to are NOT 'scientific papers' - they are articles reporting on finds and experiments in an online science news website. Secondly, these articles have never been 'presented as physical exhibits of evidence'. Thirdly, there is a question-mark over what, precisely, birds evolved from, not that they evolved. Both sets of scientists, those who say they evolved from dinosaurs, and those who say they did not, accept they did, in fact, evolve from something.
Secondly, these articles have never been 'presented as physical exhibits of evidence'...they evolved from "something"
"Evolution is a lot of fun,” said Bejerano...“You answer one question, and five others pop up."
LOL
Anonymous driveled,
>>>>>> Yet another case of you showing your ignorance, Larry. <<<<<
"Yet another case"? Where are the other ones?
>>>>>>> Firstly, the things you have linked to are NOT 'scientific papers' - they are articles reporting on finds and experiments in an online science news website. <<<<<<
Wrong, bozo. These are mostly news reports about papers that have been published in scientific journals -- including prestigious journals like "Nature" and "Science."
>>>>> Secondly, these articles have never been 'presented as physical exhibits of evidence'. <<<<<<
Wrong -- examples are here and here.
>>>>>> Thirdly, there is a question-mark over what, precisely, birds evolved from, not that they evolved. Both sets of scientists, those who say they evolved from dinosaurs, and those who say they did not, accept they did, in fact, evolve from something. <<<<<<
That's begging the question and jumping to conclusions.
Dinosaur-to-bird evolution was supposed to be one of the best-understood examples of evolution, so when there is confusion about dinosaur-to-bird evolution, then the credibility of the whole theory is in deep trouble.
Michael said,
>>>>>> "Evolution is a lot of fun,” said Bejerano...“You answer one question, and five others pop up." <<<<<<
There's a joke that every missing link that's discovered creates two new ones. LOL. It's like a hydra-headed monster.
> "Yet another case"? Where are the other ones?<
Yet another case of you showing your ignorance, Larry.
"confusion about dinosaur-to-bird evolution"
They're just trying to clarify the details of the family tree.
For example, I believe (but do not know) that I am likely personally descended from Genghis Khan (along with millions of other people). The odds would be higher if I were Chinese, but they're above average for an Occidental.
Now, you would "skeptically" conclude from this uncertainty that (A) there is no such thing as genealogy, (B) no one is descended from GK, and (C) GK never existed.
"There's a joke that every missing link that's discovered creates two new ones."
That is not a joke. It's a syllogism.
(BTW, have you stopped to consider how many "missing links" there are in your arguments?)
It is more credible (worthy of belief or confidence) and the probability higher that Larry Fafarman could eat 20 bean burritoes and fart his way up to the moon than it is for lifeless matter to move itself and come to life or cause life to happen.
God is the only logical conclusion to the fantastic design and purpose we see around us.
> There's a joke that every missing link that's discovered creates two new ones. LOL. It's like a hydra-headed monster. <
It is like in genealogy. Each ancestor one finds has two parents. Of course in Larry's case, the number of previous ancestors may have a limit due to heavy inbreeding.
'Nonymous said (Thursday, October 09, 2008 11:15:00 AM) --
>>>>>> you would "skeptically" conclude from this uncertainty that (A) there is no such thing as genealogy, (B) no one is descended from GK, and (C) GK never existed. <<<<<<
We know that human genealogy is true because people were here to observe and record it. But no one was here to observe macroevolution.
Wrong, bozo. These are mostly news reports about papers that have been published in scientific journals -- including prestigious journals like "Nature" and "Science."
Exactly - those are news articles, not scientific papers. They may be news articles about papers, but they are not papers themselves.
Wrong -- examples are here and here.
No, those are examples of people putting forth scientific papers as evidence - which even you say these aren't.
That's begging the question and jumping to conclusions.
No, it's jumping to conclusions to conclude that because there is some evidence that suggests the possibility that birds did not descend from dinosaurs specifically, that negates and nullifies evolution generally.
Dinosaur-to-bird evolution was supposed to be one of the best-understood examples of evolution, so when there is confusion about dinosaur-to-bird evolution, then the credibility of the whole theory is in deep trouble.
If that's what you genuinely think, then you don't understand science very well, both in terms of evolutionary science, and science in general.
We know that human genealogy is true because people were here to observe and record it. But no one was here to observe macroevolution.
We know from evidence left behind that genealogy is true - in much the same way that we know evolution is true from the evidence left behind. If you were to apply the same standards to genealogy as you are to evolution, genealogy beyond that which can be directly observed in any one person's lifetime (as in, the same person personally verifying that X gave birth to Y, who gave birth to Z, and so on, by personally witnessing each birth) doesn't happen.
And once again, Larry's failure to either read or comprehend the sources he cites bites him in the ass. His first two news articles, on dinosaur feathers, are presumably offered as contradictions. When you read the stories, the second story actually confirms the first. The second article is actually targeting a third dinosaur, which is mentioned in the first article.
A relevant extract of the first article:
One of the many specimens that has contributed to this new understanding was found in 1996 at the same site as Caudipteryx and Protarchaeopteryx, and was described and named by Dr. Ji Qiang, who called the animal Sinosauropteryx prima, or "first Chinese dragon feather." Sinosauropteryx, a ground-dwelling runner, had tiny fibers believed to be "proto-feathers" bristling down its back. These proto-feathers, coupled with the primitive true feathers of the fossils described this week, give unprecedented insight into the evolutionary development of this feature so long associated with birds.
And now from the second news article:
They found that fossilized patterns that resemble feathers somewhat also occur in fossils known not to be closely related to birds and hence are far more likely to be skin-related tissues, Feduccia said. Much of the confusion arose from the fact that in China in the same area, two sets of fossils were found. Some of these had true feathers and were indeed birds known as "microraptors," while others did not and should not be considered birds at all.
...
Although a few artists depicted feathered dinosaurs as far back as the 1970s, Feduccia said the strongest case for feathered dinosaurs arose in 1996 with a small black and white photo of the early Cretaceous period small dinosaur Sinosauropteryx, which sported a coat of filamentous structures some called "dino-fuzz."
The microraptors the second article confirms as having feathers include the two species mentioned in the first article. So the debate is not whether certain dinosaurs had feathers, but whether certain other dinosaurs had protofeathers. The evidence is recent enough that it is fairly within the developing stage, where alternative hypotheses are expected to be compared until a clearly superior one is validated by further evidence. This is a strength of science, not a weakness. If the hypothesis of the second article is true, it has no effect on the overwhelming evidence of dinosaur->bird evolution (or of evolution in general). It's not like this is calling into question a central piece of evidence that has long been held to be vital to the theory.
And on that note, I will have more to say tonight or tomorrow.
Pettifogging cyberbullying cyberstalking troll Kevin Vicklund strikes again.
>>>>>>> And once again, Larry's failure to either read or comprehend the sources he cites bites him in the ass. His first two news articles, on dinosaur feathers, are presumably offered as contradictions. <<<<<<
My point, bozo, was that "often different scientists draw different conclusions from the same evidence." Here again is my quote from the second article:
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.
>>>>>> And on that note, I will have more to say tonight or tomorrow. <<<<<<<
That's good. I wish that you would have no more to say forever.
Post a Comment
<< Home