Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
30 online now:
GDR, jar, Percy (Admin), ssope, Taq (5 members, 25 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,637 Year: 16,673/19,786 Month: 798/2,598 Week: 44/251 Day: 21/23 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Embarrassed Creationist
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 233 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 65 of 69 (596207)
12-13-2010 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Tupinambis
12-13-2010 6:46 PM


Re: really?
hi tegu,

Tupinambis writes:

For someone who's profile pic is a lizard I was very slow to catch this.
Archaeoraptor is NOT a lizard. I repeat, NOT a lizard. Dinosaurs are NOT lizards. Lizards are Lepidosaurs, have a three chambered heart and their legs are slung to the sides of their bodies. The Archaeoraptor is an Archosaur, has a four chambered heart and its legs are held beneath its body. The two are about as closely related as you and a platypus.

Am I nitpicking details? Why yes I am. But hey, its not the same as nit-picking typos.

no, that's not really a nitpick. it's a very, very large difference between a flying theropod dinosaur and a lizard. he might as well have confused you with crashfrog.

but while you've briefly covered the important differences, i'd like to cover the often neglected part of this old creationist canard.

"archaeoraptor" is not a faked specimen in the way that a creationist might expect. it is not a dinosaur (or "lizard") that someone has carved feathers onto. rather, it is a chimera, and combined from two genuine specimens. one of those, the rear half, happens to be the earliest discovered specimen of microraptor zhaoianus (or perhaps gui, as they might be synonyms). the front is another genuine specimen of yanornis martini. the forgery was discovered, in part, because of the fact that it wouldn't have fit the evolutionary lineage -- it had a tail very much like a non-avian dromaeosaurid dinosaur, but a beak like a bird?

yes, read that closely barackzero. the whole back half of the forgery was a legitimate flying dinosaur, and it was discovered because of the theory of evolution. why the forgery? well, contrary to what the creationists would like, it wasn't committed by scientists. rather, it was the scientists who quickly discovered it, and yanked publication of the article in all but nat. geo. (which sort of jumped the gun) the forgery itself was committed by an unscrupulous chinese fossil prospector, who was selling such items.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Tupinambis, posted 12-13-2010 6:46 PM Tupinambis has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 233 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 67 of 69 (596248)
12-14-2010 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Dr Adequate
12-13-2010 9:39 PM


Re: really?
BarackZero writes:

Then explain why there was yet another fraud when archaeologists faked a feathered flying lizard in China perhaps a decade ago.

man, every time i look at this statement, another error dawns on me.

paleontologists.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-13-2010 9:39 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-14-2010 12:53 AM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019