Transitional fossils and quote mining

Tell me something new. you won't find a derived trait from reptiles either.

Also yes I did get it from an article at creation.com, thank you. Here is original source "Genome consortium, Genome analysis of the platypus reveals unique signatures of evolution, Nature 453:175-183, 2008." So maybe you should stop embarrassing yourself and not be so quick to call me a liar, when you don't seem to know what you are talking about.

The platypus genome, as well as the animal, is an amalgam of
ancestral reptilian and derived mammalian characteristics.

I do know that in his book entitled "Evolution" (bit of an odd title for someone who doesn't believe in evolution isn't it?) Patterson said "[The] "misprints" shared between species ... are (to me) incontrovertible evidence of common descent."

There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs...

biology departments tend to hire off the street.

Eye witnesses? that's your idea of evidence? Eye witness reports are notoriously unreliable.

since you seem to accept pretty much all of evolutionary theory.

you'll find that Tiktaalik was discovered pretty much as I said it was; thanks to the predictive power of the theory of evolution.

National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian Institution
Washington, D. C. 205601 November 1999OPEN LETTER TO:Dr. Peter Raven, Secretary
PRaven@nas.org
Committee for Research and Exploration
National Geographic Society
Washington, DC 20036Dear Peter,I thought that I should address to you the concerns expressed below because your committee is at least partly involved and because you are certainly now the most prominent scientist at the National Geographic Society.With the publication of Feathers for T. rex? by Christopher P. Sloan in its November issue, National Geographic has reached an all-time low for engaging in sensationalistic, unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism. But at the same time the magazine may now claim to have taken its place in formal taxonomic literature.Although it is possible that Mr. Czerkas will later name the specimen identified on page 100 as Archaeoraptor liaoningensis, there is no longer any need for him to do so.Because this Latinized binomial has apparently not been published previously and has now appeared with a full-spread photograph of the specimen accompanied by a description or definition that states in words characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon, the name Archaeoraptor liaoningensis Sloan is now available for purposes of zoological nomenclature as of its appearance in National Geographic (International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, Article 13a, i). This is the worst nightmare of many zoologists---that their chance to name a new organism will be inadvertently scooped by some witless journalist. Clearly, National Geographic is not receiving competent consultation in certain scientific matters.Sloan’s article explicitly states that the specimen in question is known to have been illegally exported and that the Czerkases now plan to return it to China. In Washington, in June of 1996, more than forty participants at the 4th International Meeting of the Society of Avian Paleontology and Evolution, held at the Smithsonian Institution, were signatories to a letter to the Director of the Chinese Academy of Sciences that deplored the illegal trade in fossils from China and encouraged the Chinese government to take further action to curb this exploitation.There were a few fossil dealers at that meeting and they certainly got the message. Thus, at least since mid-1996 it can hardly have been a secret to anyone in the scientific community or the commercial fossil business that fossils from Liaoning offered for sale outside of China are contraband.Most, if not all, major natural history museums in the United States have policies in effect that prohibit their staff from accepting any specimens that were not legally collected and exported from the country of origin. The National Geographic Society has not only supported research on such material, but has sensationalized, and is now exhibiting, an admittedly illicit specimen that would have been morally, administratively, and perhaps legally, off-limits to researchers in reputable scientific institutions.Prior to the publication of the article Dinosaurs Take Wing in the July 1998 National Geographic, Lou Mazzatenta, the photographer for Sloan’s article, invited me to the National Geographic Society to review his photographs of Chinese fossils and to comment on the slant being given to the story. At that time, I tried to interject the fact that strongly supported alternative viewpoints existed to what National Geographic intended to present, but it eventually became clear to me that National Geographic was not interested in anything other than the prevailing dogma that birds evolved from dinosaurs.Sloan’s article takes the prejudice to an entirely new level and consists in large part of unverifiable or undocumented information that makes the news rather than reporting it. His bald statement that we can now say that birds are theropods just as confidently as we say that humans are mammals is not even suggested as reflecting the views of a particular scientist or group of scientists, so that it figures as little more than editorial propagandizing. This melodramatic assertion had already been disproven by recent studies of embryology and comparative morphology, which, of course, are never mentioned.More importantly, however, none of the structures illustrated in Sloan’s article that are claimed to be feathers have actually been proven to be feathers. Saying that they are is little more than wishful thinking that has been presented as fact. The statement on page 103 that hollow, hairlike structures characterize protofeathers is nonsense considering that protofeathers exist only as a theoretical construct, so that the internal structure of one is even more hypothetical.The hype about feathered dinosaurs in the exhibit currently on display at the National Geographic Society is even worse, and makes the spurious claim that there is strong evidence that a wide variety of carnivorous dinosaurs had feathers. A model of the undisputed dinosaur Deinonychus and illustrations of baby tyrannosaurs are shown clad in feathers, all of which is simply imaginary and has no place outside of science fiction.The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists acting in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the first casualties in their program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age---the paleontological equivalent of cold fusion. If Sloan’s article is not the crescendo of this fantasia, it is difficult to imagine to what heights it can next be taken. But it is certain that when the folly has run its course and has been fully exposed, National Geographic will unfortunately play a prominent but unenviable role in the book that summarizes the whole sorry episode.Sincerely,Storrs L. Olson
Curator of Birds
National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian Institution
Washington, DC 20560

Granny writes:
What you will not find is a derived bird trait in a platypus.Arphy writes:
Tell me something new. you won't find a derived trait from reptiles either.Yes you will.

If this paper is supposed to deal a death blow to the ToE, it seems to have slipped past its authors.

I have no idea do I? The full context isn't available to me.

What part of "the creationists are wrong" are you having trouble understanding?

Sure they can be, but a reliable eye witness is far better than "forensic evidence"

This impression is given by the fact that the definition for evolution used on this forum is very broad ...

This "predictive power" is not limited to an evolutionist worldview. It was found in a freshwater fish "graveyard" which again works well with the creationist model.

You (and others) seem so sure that the scientific community supports them in the dino to bird model and yet here is a nice open letter which shows that the layman's view of scientist's opinions is often very different from the actual experts ...

Feduccia: His quotes which were against the ground dweller dino bird to bird theory is just "another feather in the cap" in what creationists are saying. Namely that there is great difficulty as to how Reptiles could evolve into birds.

Platypus:
It's your theory, all i said was that there were avian features, whether derived or not, I didn't specify. And it does have avian features whether the evolutionary story puts these features as having evolved in reptiles who were the descendents of both the birds and platypuses or not does not really worry me. There are still enough problems for the evolutionary story with just looking at the mammal and reptile features

No, It is in line with how evolutionists think, i.e. making up highly imaginative explanations to try to fit an animal into the ToE.

What part of, He is desperatly backpeddaling to save his standing in the scientific community, don't you understand?

Granny writes:biology departments tend to hire off the street.

As in a lay person who has no understanding of biology?

Sure they can be, but a reliable eye witness is far better than "forensic evidence"

This impression is given by the fact that the definition for evolution used on this forum is very broadand does not include pointing out that evolutionists believe that every living thing shares a commen ancestor.

Discussions on this forum would often move along far better if evolutionists would focus on the part of evolution that differentiates it from the creationist model.

This "predictive power" is not limited to an evolutionist worldview. It was found in a freshwater fish "graveyard" which again works well with the creationist model.

Feduccia: His quotes which were against the ground dweller dino bird to bird theory is just "another feather in the cap" in what creationists are saying. Namely that there is great difficulty as to how Reptiles could evolve into birds.

You (and others) seem so sure that the scientific community supports them in the dino to bird model

and yet here is a nice open letter which shows that the layman's view of scientist's opinions is often very different from the actual experts

and don't come back saying "It doesn't say they don't believe in evolution", I know, as I have said before,the underlying dogma is never challenged

I was speaking from a creationist point of view.
Platypus:
It's your theory, all i said was that there were avian features, whether derived or not, I didn't specify. And it does have avian features whether the evolutionary story puts these features as having evolved in reptiles who were the descendents of both the birds and platypuses or not does not really worry me. There are still enough problems for the evolutionary story with just looking at the mammal and reptile features

No, It is in line with how evolutionists think, i.e. making up highly imaginative explanations to try to fit an animal into the ToE.

ok, so you would have to buy it, but it is avaliable.

What part of, He is desperatly backpeddaling to save his standing in the scientific community, don't you understand?

The book "evolution" by colin patterson was written BEFORE his interaction with creationists and his lecture on "Evolutionism and Creationism". yes he certainly used to have the view as in your quote, however this changed as seen by the quotes i have supplied.

There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs...

As for Olsen, is he really just a fringe scientist? He holds quite a high position at a reputable institute for being a fringe scientist, especially when his area of expertise is Birds.

Feduccia: His quotes which were against the ground dweller dino bird to bird theory is just "another feather in the cap" in what creationists are saying. Namely that there is great difficulty as to how Reptiles could evolve into birds.

Without the presence of feathers, indeed, the bones of the early birds are impossible to separate from those of their reptilian ancestors.- Feduccia, A. 1980. The Age of Birds. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, pg. 24.

You (and others) seem so sure that the scientific community supports them in the dino to bird model and yet here is a nice open letter which shows that the layman's view of scientist's opinions is often very different from the actual experts (note letter is in full, no quote mining, and don't come back saying "It doesn't say they don't believe in evolution", I know, as I have said before,the underlying dogma is never challenged)

Dear Peter,I thought that I should address to you the concerns expressed below because your committee is at least partly involved and because you are certainly now the most prominent scientist at the National Geographic Society.With the publication of Feathers for T. rex? by Christopher P. Sloan in its November issue, National Geographic has reached an all-time low for engaging in sensationalistic, unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism. But at the same time the magazine may now claim to have taken its place in formal taxonomic literature.Although it is possible that Mr. Czerkas will later name the specimen identified on page 100 as Archaeoraptor liaoningensis, there is no longer any need for him to do so.Because this Latinized binomial has apparently not been published previously and has now appeared with a full-spread photograph of the specimen accompanied by a description or definition that states in words characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon, the name Archaeoraptor liaoningensis Sloan is now available for purposes of zoological nomenclature as of its appearance in National Geographic (International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, Article 13a, i). This is the worst nightmare of many zoologists---that their chance to name a new organism will be inadvertently scooped by some witless journalist. Clearly, National Geographic is not receiving competent consultation in certain scientific matters.

Sloan’s article explicitly states that the specimen in question is known to have been illegally exported and that "the Czerkases now plan to return it to China." In Washington, in June of 1996, more than forty participants at the 4th International Meeting of the Society of Avian Paleontology and Evolution, held at the Smithsonian Institution, were signatories to a letter to the Director of the Chinese Academy of Sciences that deplored the illegal trade in fossils from China and encouraged the Chinese government to take further action to curb this exploitation.There were a few fossil dealers at that meeting and they certainly got the message. Thus, at least since mid-1996 it can hardly have been a secret to anyone in the scientific community or the commercial fossil business that fossils from Liaoning offered for sale outside of China are contraband.Most, if not all, major natural history museums in the United States have policies in effect that prohibit their staff from accepting any specimens that were not legally collected and exported from the country of origin. The National Geographic Society has not only supported research on such material, but has sensationalized, and is now exhibiting, an admittedly illicit specimen that would have been morally, administratively, and perhaps legally, off-limits to researchers in reputable scientific institutions.

Prior to the publication of the article Dinosaurs Take Wing in the July 1998 National Geographic, Lou Mazzatenta, the photographer for Sloan’s article, invited me to the National Geographic Society to review his photographs of Chinese fossils and to comment on the slant being given to the story. At that time, I tried to interject the fact that strongly supported alternative viewpoints existed to what National Geographic intended to present, but it eventually became clear to me that National Geographic was not interested in anything other than the prevailing dogma that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

Sloan’s article takes the prejudice to an entirely new level and consists in large part of unverifiable or undocumented information that makes the news rather than reporting it. His bald statement that we can now say that birds are theropods just as confidently as we say that humans are mammals is not even suggested as reflecting the views of a particular scientist or group of scientists, so that it figures as little more than editorial propagandizing.

This melodramatic assertion had already been disproven by recent studies of embryology and comparative morphology, which, of course, are never mentioned.

tooth of cover theropod Microraptor showing the typical nonavian tooth morphology of dromaeosaurs;- Feduccia, A. 2002. Birds are Dinosaurs: Simple Answer to a Complex Problem. The Auk 119(4):1187—1201.

...these microraptors are almost certainly remnants of the early avian radiation and are thus birds and not true theropod dinosaurs.- Feduccia, A., T. Lingham-Soliar, & J. R. Hinchliffe. 2005. Do Feathered Dinosaurs Exist? Testing the Hypothesis on Neontological and Paleontological Evidence. Journal of Morphology 266(2):125—166.

The microraptors of China are birds, regardless of their ancestry.- Feduccia et al. 2005.

More importantly, however, none of the structures illustrated in Sloan’s article that are claimed to be feathers have actually been proven to be feathers. Saying that they are is little more than wishful thinking that has been presented as fact. The statement on page 103 that hollow, hairlike structures characterize protofeathers is nonsense considering that protofeathers exist only as a theoretical construct, so that the internal structure of one is even more hypothetical.

The hype about feathered dinosaurs in the exhibit currently on display at the National Geographic Society is even worse, and makes the spurious claim that there is strong evidence that a wide variety of carnivorous dinosaurs had feathers. A model of the undisputed dinosaur Deinonychus and illustrations of baby tyrannosaurs are shown clad in feathers, all of which is simply imaginary and has no place outside of science fiction.

The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists acting in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the first casualties in their program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age---the paleontological equivalent of cold fusion. If Sloan’s article is not the crescendo of this fantasia, it is difficult to imagine to what heights it can next be taken. But it is certain that when the folly has run its course and has been fully exposed, National Geographic will unfortunately play a prominent but unenviable role in the book that summarizes the whole sorry episode.

Let me be clear, if you accept random mutation, natural selection and genetic drift, you have accepted the theory of evolution.

The only thing you reject are the theory’s implications, such as common ancestry between humans and apes, which is no more important to the ToE than common ancestry between gastropods and cephalopods;

I would love to discuss that.

what prevents those mechanisms from causing speciation?

If not, man up and admit that you are citing people who disagree with your position.

dismiss the consensus opinion of the vast majority of experts.

It has already been made clear to you that Feduccia has never said that birds did not evolve from reptiles. He has said that birds did evolve from reptiles.

That’s because the scientific community does support the dino to bird model, save for a few exceptions.

they only superficially resemble birds.

I think you have that backwards

Please specify which bit of the platypus paper you consider to be imaginary and why.

They seem more interested in further lining their pockets.

Arphy writes:ToE may try to use these mechanisms [random mutation, natural selection and genetic drift] to support the theory but they are not the theory itself.

Arphy writes:hmm.. don't think this sentence makes sense. Read it again. Do you think common ancestry is important to the ToE or not?

Arphy writes:Both Olsen and me both agree that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs, so what is wrong with me using his comments as support for this particular purpose.

Great, because your next two sentences show a lack of understanding of the Creation model.

They don't prevent speciation, if by speciation you mean that descendents of of an organism differ greatly enough so that for practical purposes they are given different names.

Tiktaalik:
ok, creationists don't predict a certain type of animal

but where it was found fits in with flood theory.

And again, I don't think that it is a transitional animal.

Evolutionists have already embarassed themselves with the coelacanth first saying that its lobed fins were used for walking until a live coelacanth was found that showed that these fins were definatly used for swimming.

Again, just because I may disagree with a lot of what evolutionists say doesn't mean we can never agree on anything. Both Olsen (at least when the letter was written) and me both agree that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs, so what is wrong with me using his comments as support for this particular purpose.

Ahh.. but not all experts, and that is the point. I believe the creationist experts are right as their arguments are far more logical and fit the facts better.

I agree, however he did say that Archaeopteryx is not evidence for ground to tree evolution of birds (I think I am right in saying this, yes).

Maybe, maybe not, where is your evidence for this. Are these exceptions, experts in that area?

Whatever, its your theory. again there are enough problems even if you take out the bird feature component.

The tree diagrams especially are imaginative.

Actually had another look and they actually only ask for a donation, maninly to cover the cost of shipping. So your assertion is wrong.

Colin Patterson: Again how can you take his comments which i quoted in message 39 any other way than their obvious meaning?

Colin Patterson writes:the creationists' {interpretation} is false

Is this this best you can do? Point to an error made over fifty years ago? An error corrected, not by creationists, but by the scientists themselves? Science continually corrects its errors. Creationism does not.

Yes, they are: a theory is comprised of a series of interconnected mechanisms that together explain a phenomenon.

You are confusing a scientific theory (ToE) with a worldview (philosophical naturalism) that usually includes ToE. That you want to call this worldview "evolutionism" does not mean it is the same thing as the Theory of Evolution.

Nothing. As long as you are only using their arguments against the proposition that birds evolved from coelurosaurian dinosaurs. But, neither you nor any other creationist/IDist is using it in this fashion: you are using it to argue that evolution is itself false.

Arphy writes:And this phenomenon is?

Great, thank you, something i can work with. So YECs like me, and organisations like CMI, ICR, are actually YEC's as well as evolutionists by your definition of evolution. In this case maybe this forum should be called Philosophical naturalism Vs Creation.