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.

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

"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.’

Let me repost it: I said,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.This is microevolution, and that is small adaptations which are so obvious. In fact, DNA have so many possible variables as to allow for little, to no chance of carbon copies. The reason why you don't look exactly like your parents is because 1. You have anywhere from 50% of their gentic code, encoded in you. 2. Both you parents have mass quantities of recessive traits. In turn, you too have many recessive traits. This is so we all aren't carbon copies of one another. So, when a group of birds (or whatever organism) becomes isolated, a combination of inbreeding, or mutations can affect any given specie and cause it to exaggerate some of these recessive qualities. What we see is a new specie, but not an entirely new Order which is exactly what Neo-Darwinism claims. I'll give you a for-instance: Darwin's notation on Finches. That was some awesome observations of microevolution at work. However, he came to a very bad conclusion when he started to claim that everything is basically related. That assertion simply isn't supported by much of anything.This is where many evolutionists keep us in the dark. We know that small, nominal changes occur. That's what made the Pygmys short and the Guanches tall. This is absolutely, 100%, normal biological function. But science fiction creeps in when we are expected to believe that a unicellular organism has the compulsion to evolve all the way up to an evolutionist. That is macroevolution, and it has never, ever been observed, either walking the earth today or in the strata layer. This is what I contend, as well as many creationists, and even some secular scientists. For how complex the DNA is, it eventually hits a brick wall. There is an inviolate gulf fixed between certain organisms so that it is inconceivable that they are related in any way.Therefore, horses, dogs, or hominids simply doesn't cut it in proving macroevolution. It just doesn't. And if it did, we'd have a plethora of legitimate, tangible evidence. As it is, we're left with theories like 'punctuated equilibrium' to make excuses for why there is no evidence, or why we shouldn't expect to find any. Well, I'm sorry, but that is laughable, not because it isn't plausible, but because its based totally and completely on faith, consequently, the very same faith they ridicule creationists with.Do you understand the difference between micro and macro? BTW, 'transspecific evolution' is just another name for macroevolution. So no, your Equine premise fails to meet the criteria.

quote:

---

Actually, it is observed in the hierarchical classification of species, the confirmation of the standard classification in molecular studies, in the existence of many transitional species in the fossil record, in the existence of vestigial organs, in the existence of atavisms and retroviral insertions, and on and on.

​

As I have stated before, there is strong evidence for common descent. That you refuse to acknowledge the evidence is not going to make it go away.

---

First of all, Darwin thought of many things that simply aren't true, such as, diet, environment, and exercise being responsible for evolutionary change because evolution requires evolutionary advances to be inherited. That obviously isn't the case. Wouldn't that be nice though? Your Dad worked out like a madman and you inherit all his hard work. .There is no atavistic feature that exists. As well, there is no vestige that doesn't serve some sort of function. And retroviral resistance is woefully inept to explain itself.Alright, viruses that mutate shouldn't shock in the least. That's practically their sole function. Is that really evolution? Think about it. Its a case of Natrual Selection, not evolution. Let's use pesticides and cockroaches as a way to understand what actually happens. Let's say we have 100 roaches. We call the Orkin man and gets over here lickety-split and sprays them all. 98 roaches die. The Orkin man did it again. But wait, there are still 2 left. What happened? The Orkin man says, "Hmmmm, maybe they evolved."What are the problems with the scenario? First, if they evolved a resistance, it completely undermines the need for millions of years of time for evolution, in which case, why aren't we seeing evolution before our eyes all the time? Would we say that the roach 'evolved' upon being sprayed? Obviously not, because why did the other 98 die? So what actually happened? The fact of the matter is, we should thank Natural Selection. For whatever reason, the two roaches, one male and one female, we're either previously introduced to the pesticide and so developed an immunity, just like being around cat dander can cause you to develop an allergy. Or, they were born with a certain combination of genes that allowed them to be stronger and more resistant to the pesticide. Now, the 2 living roaches reproduce and create baby roaches that also are resistant......... That isn't evolution, that is simple survival via natural selection.

quote:

---

Let me see if I've got your position down. And, believe me, you are far from the first to propose it here.

---

Really? I was beginning to think I was the only ID'ist in here. I'm used to that though.

quote:

---

You understand that 1+1=2, the 2+1=3, and that 3+1=4. But in your world the number 1 and the number 4 are far too different to "both be numbers".

​

Small changes add up over time. You can't buy into Micro and disbelieve macro.

---

I understand your point, however, it has nothing to do with anything revealed by science. The stark, undeniable fact is that macroevolutionary theory is as impotent as Bob Dole. There isn't much to go by. You say, 'we can't have micro without macro.' In this way, you agree with Earnst Mayr.“Transspecific evolution is nothing but an extrapolation and magnification of the events that take place within a population.” Earnst MayrIs that really what's going on? If so, where is the overwhelming evidence that would definatley present itself if it were?“Although apes and man admittedly have much in common, biochemically, anatomically and physiologically, they are at the same time a world apart. We cannot accept that the genes for producing great works of art or literature or music, or developing skills in higher mathematics emerged from some chance mutations of monkey genes long ahead of their having any conceivable relevance for survival in a Darwinian sense . If the Earth were sealed off from all sources of external genes: bugs could replicate till doomsday, but they would still be bugs: and monkey colonies would also reproduce but only to produce more monkeys. The Earth would be a dull place indeed.” -Chandra Wickramasinghe“Micromutations do occur, but the fact that these alone account for evolutionary change is a metaphysical theory. It is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to false theory. But that is what happened in biology . I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked as the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens many people will pose the question: How did this ever happen” -Dr. Soren LovtrupEdited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : typo

quote:

---

Actually, all Darwin required was that (1) physical characteristics are inherited, (2) that new characteristics can arise, and (3) that some new characteristics will give to the individuals that possess them an advantage in surviving and leaving behind offspring. All of these things have been observed. The exact mechanisms for the inheritence are unimportant.

---

Physical characteristics are inherited, however, if your father worked out every day of his life before you were born, you are not going to come out muscular. He might have had a predisposition towards being muscular, and you may or may not inherit that. But the belief that working out affects your children in utero is wholly unfactual. This is the same thing for any person who flaps their arms in hopes of flying their whole life, that might somehow 'evolve' wings. This is what macroevolution is essentially claiming. Think about Archaeopteryx being the missing link. That would mean that he develpoed all of these wonderful contrivances in one felled swoop or that he evolved slowly with stump-like appendages. But what conceivable relevance do nubs have while he was in transitional limbo? What prompted the alleges changes to occur at all?

quote:

---

This is getting far from the topic of archaeopteryx; maybe I will start a new thread concerning evolution in general and invite you to participate.

---

Sure, that'd be fine with me.

quote:

---

The human appendix serves no known function. At any rate it is not necessary that there be no function, just that the organ no longer serves its original function.

---

For face value, I'd agree with you. I have had my appendix removed and since then, I haven't appeared to suffer any sort of adverse reaction because of it. We've all heard the proposition of appendices being apart of evolutionary function because they serve alot of useful purpose in lower animals to break down tough fibre, such as bark. The problem it presents in the standard Darwinian model is that it doesn't explain why appendices are present in certain mammals, and not others. As well, speaking from a naturalistic point of view, the prevailing wisdom cannot account for why it is first present in some marsupial animals like the wombat, but absent in all the mammals between the wombat and man.Some doctors theorize that its functionality lies with its ability in lymphnode function. This small organ might principally lie in its contributions to the digestive and lymphatic systems, but this is purely speculative at this point. In any case, if this is the crown jewel for Darwinian macroevolution, then you'll have to excuse me for not starting a slow clap over it.

quote:

---

(Jaws, by the way, are vestigial gills.)

---

Jaws are vestigial gills???? Did I understand that correctly?

quote:

---

This is off the topic of archaeopteryx, as well as irrelevant to what I said in my previous post.

---

I'm just following the dialogue wherever it may lead.

quote:

---

Umm, every single fossil... every single living thing on the planet... that's a lot of evidence.

---

Every single fossil shows evidence of evolution? If that were the case, then why has prominent evolutionists made claims such as:“Not one change into another is on record . we cannot prove that a single species has been changed.” -Charles Darwin110 years later: “The absence of fossil evidence has been a persistent problem for evolution.”-Dr. Steven J. GouldThe reason that there aren't any transitional forms is the reason why punctuated equilibrium had to be invented. Its a theory that attempts to cover up another theory. They are making excuses for other excuses. In respect to this, I then direct you to heed the wise words of Fred Hoyle:“Be suspicious of a theory if more and more hypothesis are needed to support it.”

quote:

---

Or are you asking for evidence which is neither fossil nor living?

---

I was asking for either, not neither. Just show us something.

quote:

---

Could you give us an example of exactly what it is you are looking for?

---

That be kind of hard to describe, being that it doesn't exist. But if I had to conceptualize it, it would all be dependent on the organism.

quote:

---

What, for you, would be proof of macro-evolution? Be realistic - not, "I want to see a pegasus."

---

Realistically, it would have to be recognizable enough to know that it was directly related another specie, but that it now fits into a new genera or order. A new specie is kind of silly because if that didn't happen we'd all be carbon copies of one another. Let me assure you, I'm not expecting Pegasus.

quote:

---

Do you want more primative forms than Archie? Maybe more advanced forms? Would you be satified with dino-like lizard with downy feathers and no flight feather? Would you be satified with a flying, "modern" bird with a claw at the tip of its wing?

---

The thing is, I'm of the belief that if we are evolving in any way, we are physically devolving. So, any evolutionary advancement into greater and more highly intelligent creatures would be fantastic as far as proof is concerned.Maybe I need to give you a little background. I used to be an evolutionist. I left it after some serious investigation. If I was forced to label myself anything, I would label myself a creationist, but perhaps you might be more interested in knowing that I just want the truth, whatever it may be. In my best judgement, macroevolution has been falsified. That's where I'm at in my life.

Of all of the primates, appendices are present in certain lemurs, four types of anthropoid apes, and humans. However, its absent in monkeys. Certain old, nor new world monkeys have an appendix. This doesn't seem to make sense if we are to follow the evolutionary advancement. This seems to jump around quite a bit. The way it jumps around doesn't fit any preconcieved notions of a gradualistic progression, via evolution.