So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work? (SUM. MESSAGES ONLY)

Archaeopteryx is the oldest (~153Ma) and most primitive bird currently known. Nothing has been found "fully formed below it."

1. The Grand Canyon is a landform, not a geological formation (which has a very specific definition).2. We did this. That possibility was thrown out a long time ago.

You can allow for this possibility, but it doesn't make much sense to do so since the fossils that constitute what people tend to refer to as the "Cambrian explosion" aren't even close to the "first things to be covered in sediment at the lowest levels of the geologic column" and the statement "we can't find their precursors at lower levels" is untrue.

This is what sedimentologists do every day.

Granny,
That might be the best characterization of creationist methodologies I have ever seen.

I wrote: Beretta replied: It's what I wrote before: the oldest and most primitive bird currently known. It's a bird.Phylogenetically speaking, it's also a feathered dinosaur, but for this discussion that isn't really important. The statement "some kind of a missing link" doesn't really mean anything scientifically. We don't look for "missing links." To say that we do is just as much a myth (and is just as false) as saying that there are no transitional forms in the fossil record (which is just a blatantly false statement that mischaracterizes what we do). But with respect to Archaeopteryx itself, it's a bird.

My statement doesn't really square with message 54, but that's because there are things in Message 54 that aren't congruent with the data. Just two examples, it stated that: but there are coelurosaurs that have both feathers and clavicles (just one genus as an example, the dromaeosaurid Velociraptor), so this statement is incorrect.Also, message 54 states that Archaeopteryx is "different from birds and the same as the coelurosaurs" in possessing teeth. This statement is also incorrect. The simple fact that Archaeopteryx happens to possess teeth, a trait that all modern birds happen to lack, does not in and of itself mean that Archaeopteryx isn't a bird. There are other birds that have teeth, such as Hesperornis from the Late Cretaceous of North America. Conversely, there are other coelurosaurs that lack teeth, such as the recently described Giganotoraptor from the Late Cretaceous of China.Numerous characters place Archaeopteryx within Avialae as a primitive bird. A statement along the lines of "taxon X is 15% bird and 10% dinosaur" doesn't make a lot of sense. That isn't how we do it.Creationist claims that it's "100% bird and nothing else" ARE clearly completely and utterly false--but that's because they don't understand evolution (and biology, geology, physics, reason, etc.), NOT because Archaeopteryx isn't a bird. It is a basal ("primitive") bird? Yes, absolutely. Is it transitional between "dinosaurs" and "modern birds?" Yes. It is a "missing link?" I don't know what the hell that term is really supposed to mean, so I would refrain from using it. It is a phrase used by the media and it doesn't really help.

Percy, while I 100% appreciate what you're saying, it doesn't matter how I would like to classify Archaeopteryx. I do this stuff for a living and Archaeopteryx is almost universally placed within basal Avialae. In fact, I’ve never seen an analysis where it isn’t. Not really, because the creationists state that it’s JUST a bird. The whole thing hangs on that word. I realize it might--and that stinks, but it isn't about what I prefer. Whereas I understand that creationists might see this as an opportunity to exploit, I’m not going to misrepresent the state of the science because it's convenient for us here on this board. And regardless, they're still wrong if they say it is any threat to evolution. They also like to say fossils are all found within sediments that are laid down in water. They say lots of things that aren’t true. That is part of why this whole thing is so difficult. That Archaeopteryx being a bird somehow weakens evolution is just another example of how they love to twist facts. Archaeopteryx being a bird doesn't give them any more ammunition than Rhea being a bird does. In terms of its anatomy...yes. It already is. The bones don't care if the animal is extinct. The dodo is extinct. Are you arguing that the dodo isn't a bird? Of course not. Why? Because the anatomy of the dodo places it within Aves. Similarly, no one here is arguing that Confuciusornis isn't a bird, even though its fossils date to about 125Ma. It's a bird. Modern birds aren’t ignored when looking at fossil birds. The lines are blurry with Archaeopteryx because it is so damn primitive, but the data are what the data are. Archaeopteryx possesses characters that non-specialists don't associate with birds, which additionally muddies the waters. There’s nothing I can do about that. The fact remains that there is almost 100% consensus that Archaeopteryx is a basal bird, NOT a non-avian dinosaur. That's great except that I’d be putting spin on reality to do so. except that not all of the data that Dwise1 cited were accurate, as I elaborated previously. It's not about what I feel. It's where the science currently is. According to virtually every analysis I have ever seen, it’s currently accurate to state that Archaeopteryx is a basal bird and it is not accurate to state that Archaeopteryx is a bird predecessor (I keep putting qualifiers out because I know there are a couple of detractors, but I’ve never seen contradictory published results)."Primitive" and "advanced" animals are part of the game. It isn't just about what group a taxon is a member of but where in the group it is. It’s currently accurate to state that Guanlong is a very basal tyrannosaurid. Why? Because the analyses published so far place Guanlong within Tyrannosauridae, but "low" in the group. Guanlong has three fingers on its hands instead of the two we associate with tyrannosaurids, but when you look at all of the characteristics of this animal, it falls within Tyrannosauridae. You would look at the skeleton of this beast and say "oh come on, that's not a tyrannosaur" and I’d agree with you that it doesn't look much like one on the surface. But when you look at it in detail, it falls out as one. It would not be accurate to call Guanlong a tyrannosaurid predecessor, because it’s “over the line” into tyrannosaurids. The situation is the same with Archaeopteryx except that Archaeopteryx is even closer to the base of birds. Yes. You have it exactly. So is Rhea. It isn't all or none. As I stated, a number of characters place Archaeopteryx “across the line” into true birds, but yes, because it is so damn primitive, it also shares many characters with non-avian dinosaurs. That's the whole point. It’s a great transitional form”precisely for the reasons that are causing the confusion here. A point lost on the creationists. It isn’t CLEARLY a bird at quick glance . it shares lots of traits with both. BUT, from a classification standpoint, it is across the line INTO birds. Most good examples of transitional forms will end up falling into one of the groups they’re transitional between. Perhaps what you’re hoping for is a non-avian dinosaur that has a ton of bird-like characteristics? There are plenty of those, but this isn’t one of them. Perhaps what you want is a critter that we cannot classify easily because it is so transitional? Something the professionals cannot figure out the position of? We’ve got some. Check out Epidendrosaurus. Or Mononykus. Folks have been arguing back and forth as to whether it’s a dinosaur or a true bird since the damn thing was discovered. Folks have a real hard time figuring it out. Transitional. I agree. I did not dispute this statement, nor would I. I emphasize it because it's “across the line.” I’m not going to talk about what Guanlong is transitional from. What’s cool about it is that it’s a very basal tyrannosaurid. Archaeopteryx is the earliest accepted true bird. What it’s transitional to is the whole point of why this taxon is cool. Unfortunately, that makes Archaeopteryx capable of being twisted to suit creationist purposes. That sucks, but I'd rather not twist the way I present/discuss data. Misrepresenting facts to support their position is what the creationists do. The real solution here is not to base the entire discussion of bird origins on Archaeopteryx. It is only one of many datapoints.

Percy, you're not a nudnik. Evolution isn't particularly user-friendly. We go through years of school to understand it. It's not that hard per se, but it's very subtle and that gets folks in trouble. And there's more mis-information out there than information (which of course is a huge part of the overall problem with creationists (their own constant false statements not withstanding)). How evolution works and how we study it isn't usually communicated well to the non-specialist, nor is it well communicated that science isn't a static collection of facts but rather evolves constantly (I have, myself, made a couple of the papers I've published, totally outdated before they even came out). Unless it's very carefully explained (and this takes lots of words), evolution can be a bit of a minefield to try and negotiate. That sucks for a process that so many folks have issues with, but unfortunately for our society, nature couldn't really care less what we think. Bingo. I'm with you; your concern is valid. This is why you might notice that my points are often long and so full of qualifiers as to be annoying. It's to try and bulletproof the point against invalid criticism (goes back to how non-user-friendly evolution is). I think part of the solution is to not rely so heavily on Archaeopteryx when discussing bird origins. Again, there are other, better datapoints out there. The classification system isn't that arbitrary, although I do have numerous issues with the rigor of cladistics. This of course leads into PaulK's message #68: I sort of did this in my previous comment, and this is the way to do it, but of course this will probably require us having a long drawn-out discussion on how phylogenetic systematics works. Ugh. We could have that thread if people want it, but man...grab the caffeine if we're gonna go there...PaulK then continued: which is how I set up my reply to Percy. I set it up that way to try and make it as clear as possible, but unfortunately, setting it up as binary, while great for this discussion, isn't really accurate as to how we think things truly work. I figured it would work for addressing Percy's concerns, and it looks as though it did, but again, if go want do get more "real" in the mechanisms, then we have to get into a long knock down about cladistics in general. It's like when you take the first class in physics. They tend to initially discuss mechanics as though there is no such thing as friction. This is of course not how the universe works, but it helps to let us understand something of what the heck is going on as a starting point.