News:

About us: a forum for monotheists, and discussion of Islam based on The Quran

Main Menu

Archaeopteryx: The "Missing" Link

Started by god1quran1, January 26, 2007, 11:36:32 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

god1quran1

Until yesterday I did'nt realize that I was in distinguished company. A forum member having a very "interesting" avatar.

The   Archaeopteryx has been one of the "prized" finds of the evolutionists, allegedly providing "proof" of a link between  dinosaurs and birds. According to talkorigins,

Quoteit is a "clear fossil intermediate between two vertebrate classes

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html#Archaeopteryx

in a lengthy polemic that makes an attempt to answer some simple questions posed in "Icons of Evolution" by Jonathan Wells.

Mr. Wells' claim was
Quote
This fossil (Archaeopteryx) is portrayed as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds, but modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it.

Without providing clear evidence for the latter part of Mr. Wells question, talkorigins zealously stands by its claom that

QuoteEither way, it is clear evidence that a transition between the classes occurred.

There is another website by the name of New Mexicans for Science and Reason that has attempted to take on Mr. Wells simple query. According to Scott Goodman

QuoteWells misrepresents two crucial facts about Archaeopteryx and how it is presented in modern textbooks. He falsely claims that Archaeopteryx is presented as a direct ancestor of modern birds and presents an incorrect definition of the scientific concept of a transitional form that tries to restrict it apply only to organisms known to be in direct line of descent between two groups. Throughout this chapter, he includes irrelevant information whose sole purpose seems to be to cast aspersions on the honesty and integrity of scientists and teachers generally.

There was a time when Archaeopteryx was considered to be in a direct ancestor-descendent line between dinosaurs and modern birds, but that is no longer the case, largely because of the important morphological differences between Archaeopteryx and modern birds. It is now generally considered to be a side branch. However, while no longer considered to be the "missing link" between dinosaurs and birds, it is unquestionably recognized as an important transitional form between dinosaurs and modern birds and is properly and correctly presented as such in the best modern textbooks.

http://www.nmsr.org/text.htm#archy

So now another evolutionist is claiming that it is no longer considered a missing link between dinosaurs and birds yet is an important transitional form.

Note that talkorigins and NMSR use totally different arguments to defend their claims.

After a lengthy rant, the author ends the argument by saying

QuoteThe right answer is, again, that the Cretaceous dinosaurs and Archaeopteryx shared a common ancestor, a protobird that lived before Archaeopteryx. And while the exact ancestor has not yet been identified, there are small dinosaurs that might be protobirds that have been found to occupy the right period of time to be that ancestor.

Does the above provide any evidence that the Archaeopteryx be considered a transitional form? Ofcourse not.

More recent research has shown the absurdity of such a claim



Date:     October 10, 2005
Scientists Say No Evidence Exists That Therapod Dinosaurs Evolved Into Birds

Science Daily ?

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, arenowned ornithologist says. Instead, the fossilized patterns appear tobe bits of decomposed skin and supporting tissues that just happen toresemble feathers to a modest degree.

Led by Dr. Alan Feduccia ofthe University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, a team of scientistssays that as a result of their new research and other studies,continuing, exaggerated controversies over "feathered dinosaurs" makeno sense.

"We all agree that birds and dinosaurs had somereptilian ancestors in common," said Feduccia, professor of biology inUNC's College of Arts and Sciences. "But to say dinosaurs were theancestors of the modern birds we see flying around outside todaybecause we would like them to be is a big mistake.

"The theorythat birds are the equivalent of living dinosaurs and that dinosaurswere feathered is so full of holes that the creationists have jumpedall over it, using the evolutionary nonsense of 'dinosaurian science'as evidence against the theory of evolution," he said. "To paraphraseone such individual, 'This isn't science . . . This is comic relief.'"


Areport on the team's latest research appears in the Journal ofMorphology published online Monday (Oct. 10). Other authors are Drs.Theagarten Lingham-Soliar of the University of KwaZulu-Natal in SouthAfrica and Richard Hinchliffe of the University College of Wales.

Usingpowerful microscopes, the team examined the skin of modern reptiles,the effects of decomposition on skin and the fossil evidence relatingto alleged feather progenitors, also known as "protofeathers."

Theyfound that fossilized patterns that resemble feathers somewhat alsooccur in fossils known not to be closely related to birds and hence arefar more likely to be skin-related tissues, Feduccia said. Much of theconfusion arose from the fact that in China in the same area, two setsof fossils were found. Some of these had true feathers and were indeedbirds known as "microraptors," while others did not and should not beconsidered birds at all.

"Collagen is a scleroprotein, the chiefstructural protein of the connective tissue layer of skin," he said."Naturally, because of its low solubility in water and its organizationas tough, inelastic fiber networks, we would expect it to be preservedoccasionally from flayed skin during the fossilization process."

Althougha few artists depicted feathered dinosaurs as far back as the 1970s,Feduccia said the strongest case for feathered dinosaurs arose in 1996with a small black and white photo of the early Cretaceous period smalldinosaur Sinosauropteryx, which sported a coat of filamentousstructures some called "dino-fuzz."

"The photo subsequentlyappeared in various prominent publications as the long-sought'definitive' evidence of dinosaur 'feathers' and that birds weredescended from dinosaurs," he said. "Yet no one ever bothered toprovide evidence -- either structural or biological -- that thesestructures had anything to do with feathers. In our new work, we showthat these and other filamentous structures were not protofeathers, butrather the remains of collagenous fiber meshworks that reinforced theskin."

Belief in the existence of the "dino-fuzz feathers" causedsome scientists to conclude that they served as insulation, and hencedinosaurs were warm-blooded.

The researchers also examinedevidence from five independent, agreeing studies involving structuraland genetic analyses related to the "tridactyl," or three-fingered,hand, which is composed of digits 1, 2 and 3 in dinosaurs, Feducciasaid. That is the most critical characteristic linking birds todinosaurs. They found that embryos of developing birds differedsignificantly in that bird wings arose from digits 2, 3 and 4, theequivalent of index, middle and ring fingers of humans. To change soradically during evolution would be highly unlikely.

"If birds descended from dinosaurs, we would expect the same 1, 2 and 3 pattern," he said.


Current dinosaurian dogma requires that all the intricate adaptations of birds'wings and feathers for flight evolved in a flightless dinosaur and thensomehow became useful for flight only much later, Feduccia said. Thatis "close to being non-Darwinian."

Also, the current feathereddinosaurs theory makes little sense time-wise either because it holdsthat all stages of feather evolution and bird ancestry occurred some125 million years ago in the early Cretaceous fossils unearthed inChina.

"That's some 25 million years after the time ofArchaeopteryx, which already was a bird in the modern sense," he said.Superficially bird-like dinosaurs occurred some 25 million to 80million years after the earliest known bird, which is 150 million yearsold."


Feduccia said the publication and promotion of feathereddinosaurs by the popular press and by prestigious journals andmagazines, including National Geographic, Nature and Science, have madeit difficult for opposing views to get a proper hearing.

"Withthe advent of 'feathered dinosaurs,' we are truly witnessing thebeginnings of the meltdown of the field of paleontology," he said."Just as the discovery a four-chambered heart in a dinosaur describedin 2000 in an article in Science turned out to be an artifact,feathered dinosaurs too have become part of the fantasia of this field.Much of this is part of the delusional fantasy of the world ofdinosaurs, the wishful hope that one can finally study dinosaurs at thebackyard bird feeder.

"It is now clear that the origin of birds is a much more complicated question than has been previously thought," Feduccia said.

The UNC scientist is the author of more than 150 papers and six majorbooks, including The Age of Birds, which Harvard University Presspublished in 1980 and The Origin and Evolution of Birds, published byYale University Press in 1996.

Among other discoveries, Feducciafound by a careful examination that Archaeopteryx, the earliest knownbird and one of the world's most famous fossils, could fly. Previously,many scientists thought the animal to be an Earth-bound dinosaur.

Hedetermined its flying ability by observing that the fossil's feathershad leading edges significantly shorter than their trailing edges,which is characteristic of all modern flying birds. The edges offeather of birds incapable of flight, such as ostriches, aresymmetrical.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/06/000625231641.htm





Continued .....


Azfar

god1quran1

Continued from above ....

Another work that challenges the myth of dinosaur to bird link is given below.

Date:     June 26, 2000
   
Ancient Feathered Animal Challenges Dinosaur-Bird Link


Science Daily ? CORVALLIS, Ore. (June 22, 2000) - Scientists today announced the discovery of the oldest animal ever known to have feathers, which may have been the ancestor of birds but clearly was not a dinosaur - a discovery that calls into serious question many theories about an evolutionary link between dinosaurs and birds.


Paleontologists at Oregon State University say the animal, Longisquama insignis, was a small reptile with feathers. It glided among trees in central Asia 220 million years ago, around the time of the earliest dinosaurs and 75 million years before the first bird.

This discovery, to be outlined Friday in the journal Science, may answer some major questions about the earliest development of birds, compel changes in widely accepted theories of evolution and ruffle some feathers in museum exhibits around the world.

"These are some amazing fossils, and at the very least they prove that feathers did not evolve in dinosaurs," said John Ruben, an OSU professor of zoology. "The supposed link between dinosaurs and birds is pretty entrenched in paleontology, but it's not as solid as the public has been led to believe."

Oregon State University scientists John Ruben and Terry Jones developed this artist's image of what they believed Longisquama insignis would have looked like, as it glided through trees in central Asia 220 million years ago. As outlined in a publication in the journal Science, the researchers say this animal may have been the earliest ancestor of birds, but clearly was not a dinosaur. Click on image to go to downloadable photo

While the fossil evidence examined in this study does not conclusively prove that this animal was indeed the ancestor of flying birds, Ruben said, it's clearly consistent with that possibility.

"We can identify certain structures in these fossils that you only find in feathers and just don't see anywhere else," said Terry Jones, also an OSU paleontologist and co-author on the study. "So we're quite sure we're looking at the earliest feather. But beyond that, this animal looks like an ancestral bird even if you ignore the feathers. The teeth, pectoral structure, neck, and skull are just like those of birds."

Scientists from the University of Kansas, Russian Academy of Sciences, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, City University of New York, College of Charleston and Sonoma State University also contributed to this study.

The fossils themselves, Ruben said, were found in Kyrgyzstan in 1969 and had actually been laying in a drawer in Moscow for decades, initially identified as an animal with scales, not feathers. They chanced across them at a touring exhibit of Russian fossils last year.

"I had been asked to give a talk on dinosaur biology in a Kansas City shopping mall where this exhibit was," Ruben said. "Terry Jones and I took one look at these fossils and we realized immediately this was a very old animal with feathers. We stayed up all night in a vacant store in the mall to study it."

About another year of research in collaboration with some of the world's leading experts convinced the scientists they were looking at the oldest fossils ever found that showed an animal with feathers. A key, they say, is fossil evidence of a unique "sheath" that's essential to the growth of feathers, which is later shed.

Longisquama was a small, lizard-sized glider. It had four legs and feathers on its body that would have been adequate for gliding but lacked the musculature for flying, Ruben said.

The oldest animal prior to this that everyone agrees was a feathered bird is called Archaeopteryx, which first appears in the fossil record about 75 million years after Longisquama. It has been a huge mystery where the feathers of Archaeopteryx evolved from, and many experts had theorized they were linked to dinosaurs.

"A point that too many people always ignored, however, is that the most birdlike of the dinosaurs, such as Bambiraptor and Velociraptor, lived 70 million years after the earliest bird, Archaeopteryx," Ruben said. "So you have birds flying before the evolution of the first birdlike dinosaurs. We now question very strongly whether there were any feathered dinosaurs at all. What have been called feathered dinosaurs were probably flightless birds."

On the other hand, Ruben said, Longisquama would have lived in the right time, and had the right physical structure, to have been the distant evolutionary ancestor of birds.

"Feathers are a very complicated structure," Ruben said. "The odds of them evolving first in Longisquama and then separately at some later point in dinosaurs or any other group of animals would have been astronomically small.

"However, given the feathers on Longisquama and about 75 million more years, it would be a fairly easy developmental step for the feathers to grow at a different location, such as the forearms," he said. "In an evolutionary sense, it's not very far from this animal to a bird with flight."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/06/000625231641.htm

In short, one of the "Icons" of evolution, the supposed link between dinosaur to bird can now be safely be put to rest.

peace.
Azfar

jonny_k

Peace "god1quran1",
Archaeopteryx is obviously a bird with reptile feautres. The skeleton is essentially reptilian, with close affinities to theropod dinosaurs, and possesses teeth, a long bony tail, abdominal ribs and three digits on each hand - characters absent in birds.. Please read:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/forgery.html
GOD Bless!
[19:19] He said: I am only a messenger of thy Lord, that I may bestow on thee a faultless son.

jonny_k

Peace,
As regards to Alan Feduccia id like to point out that creationists are fond of using selctive quotations.  Alan Feduccia who opposes the idea that birds are descended from dinosaurs, instead argues that birds are descended from non-dinosaur archosaurs, a taxon that includes dinosaurs. Plz also read:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/#s1-2
Regarding the 2,3 and 4 digits development on birds please see:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB731.html
GOD Bless!
[19:19] He said: I am only a messenger of thy Lord, that I may bestow on thee a faultless son.

jonny_k

Peace,
Regarding the four and three chambered hearts. In the vertebrates all the circulatory systems are closed, and the heart becomes more complex as the organisms do. Most fish have a two-chambered heart, but the lungfish has a three-chambered heart with a similar structure - albeit slightly simpler - to the three-chambered amphibian heart. Amphibians and reptiles, in the main, have three-chambered hearts in which the division of the ventricle while incomplete shows various stages of the growth of the septum that divides the ventricle into two separate chambers in a four-chambered heart. Certain reptile species possess a four-chambered heart, as do birds and mammals.
Now I would like to put the final touches to this response, with respect to the development of the human heart in the growing embryo.
Initially this tiny speck of humanity possesses no heart or circulatory system of any kind, then from some clusters of specialised cells two tiny open-ended muscular tubes grow, these are referred to as the dorsal aorta, and as the embryo grows these two tubes come together to form what will now be called the heart tube. This tiny little tube starts to beat shortly afterwards, pushing blood out into the body cavity and drawing it back when it relaxes. This tube-like heart begins to grow rapidly, folding in on itself to form an S-shaped structure, the atria develop from the ends of the vessels that draw the blood into the heart, the ventricles develop from the opposite end of the heart. And through this process it has no chambers, then two, then three and finally four chambers. So one can see the evolutionary steps right here during embryolonic development. GOD Bless!
[19:19] He said: I am only a messenger of thy Lord, that I may bestow on thee a faultless son.

god1quran1

Quote from: jonny_k on January 26, 2007, 11:55:01 PM
Peace "god1quran1",
Archaeopteryx is obviously a bird with reptile feautres. The skeleton is essentially reptilian, with close affinities to theropod dinosaurs, and possesses teeth, a long bony tail, abdominal ribs and three digits on each hand - characters absent in birds.. Please read:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/forgery.html
GOD Bless!

Now you have me all confused. Can you please answer this simple question

According to talkorigins

A) Archaeopteryx is a bird
B) Archaeopteryx is an intermediate form
C) Archaeopteryx is a feathered dinosaur

peace.

Azfar

jonny_k

Peace "god1quran1",

Quote from: god1quran1 on January 27, 2007, 12:40:25 AM
Now you have me all confused. Can you please answer this simple question

According to talkorigins

A) Archaeopteryx is a bird
B) Archaeopteryx is an intermediate form
C) Archaeopteryx is a feathered dinosaur

peace.



JK- You maybe confused because you havnt studied the evolution side enough dwelling on silly creationists arguments. The point is simple. Archaeopterix is a mixture of bird and dinosaur, or as per Feduccias arguments, archosaurus, of which dinosaurs are a part. What Alen does is he only relates it to a super category of dinosaurs which were also reptilian in nature. Thus birds, if not feathered dinosaurs, which btw is accepted by the majority of the scientific community, definitely evolved from reptiles. Now do you get it? GOD Bless!
[19:19] He said: I am only a messenger of thy Lord, that I may bestow on thee a faultless son.

Andya Primanda

God1quran1,

If Archaeopteryx wasn't something in between, then why would the creator separately create a creature halfway between two classes of animals that looks like a transitional, but it wasn't?

Archaeopteryx makes no sense in the separate creation theory.  Why should a 'separate-creator' create a 'halfway bird' before real birds?

Also, I happen to sympathize with Prof Feduccia's view, and from what I've read in his book Origin and Evolution of Birds, he never denies Archaeopteryx's status as a transitional form between birds and reptiles (archosaurs for him).  Creationists never bother to quote that view.  I can't say if Archaeopteryx is a dinosaur, but it's clear to me that Arch is a reptile and a bird.  A creature whose existence evolution predicted, but the theory of special creation do not predict.

Crocodiles (members of the archosaur group) have 4-chambered hearts.  If you don't believe me go slice open a croc.
29:20
Say: 'Travel through the earth and see how Allah initiate creation!'

god1quran1

JK informs us

Quote from: jonny_k on January 27, 2007, 12:48:42 AM
Peace "god1quran1",
Archaeopterix is a mixture of bird and dinosaur


whereas
Mr. Primanda claims

QuoteI can't say if Archaeopteryx is a dinosaur, but it's clear to me that Arch is a reptile and a bird

Can you two decide what an Archaeopteryx is? This confirms my suspicions in an earlier post where I ask a simple  question. Evolutionists cannot decide amongst themselves about a fossil which they consider an "important piece of the puzzle."


Quote from talkorigins
QuoteMuch has been made in pseudoscientific circles about the position of Archae within the evolutionary scheme of things. The usual "argument" put forward is that Archae cannot be a transitional fossil between birds and dinosaurs because it is a bird. This simplistic line belies the fact that, whilst Archae is indeed classified as a bird, it has been done so on the strength of 4 main characters - 2 of which are not unique to birds. This classification ignores the fact that Archae has numerous characters which are unique, unique in that they are not possessed by birds.

and again in the conclusion

QuoteArchaeopteryx is a bird because it had feathers. However, it retained many dinosaurian characters which are not found in modern birds, whilst having certain characters found in birds but not in dinosaurs. By virtue of this fact Archaeopteryx represents an example of a group in transition - a representative which, although on the sidelines in the dinosaur to bird transition, an echo of the actual event, still allows a brief glimpse into the possible mechanism which brought about the evolution of the birds and by its very existence shows that such a transition is possible.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html


The correct answer is that it is classified as a bird amongst evolution circles with qualifiers either linking it to the dinosaur or the reptile. Having common features in NOT evidence of evolution as reptiles and mammals can have similarities too.  A better example of a reptile - bird link would be if a transitional form would have been found that had feathers having features common with shales.
However, scientific evidence completely rules out this possibility.

Quote?At the morphological level feathers are traditionally considered homologous with reptilian scales. However, in development, morphogenesis, gene structure, protein shape and sequence, and filament formation and structure, feathers are different.? A.H. Brush, ?On the origin of feathers?, Journal of Evolutionary Biology 9:131?142, 1996.]

Another fundamental difference is that the feather grows out of a follicle. A follicle is a tubular down-growth of the epidermis that protrudes deeply into the skin ? all the way down to underlying bone in the case of primary feathers. And this tube of specialized living skin produces the feather inside of itself from a growth matrix at the very bottom. The reptilian scale has absolutely nothing to do with follicles. All of the scales can shed as a sheet because they?re nothing but folds in the epidermis, like fabric folded over on itself, whereas feathers would have to come out of their own follicle.


Stephen J. Gould was right on the money when he wrote in The Panda's thumb that

Quote?[t]he fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change? and ?[t]he extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology?.1


A very simple question. If  Archaeopteryx is a transitional form, why is it classified as a bird in evolutionary circles?

Unfortunately in evolution what I see is not a theory that has any scientific merit, but a shell game that has gone on for too long!

peace.
Azfar

jonny_k

Peace "god1quran1",

Quote from: god1quran1 on January 27, 2007, 02:03:32 PM
JK informs us


whereas
Mr. Primanda claims

Can you two decide what an Archaeopteryx is? This confirms my suspicions in an earlier post where I ask a simple  question. Evolutionists cannot decide amongst themselves about a fossil which they consider an "important piece of the puzzle."

JK- What is definite is that Arch is a mixture of reptile and bird. As regards to it being part of a dino or archeo(of which dinos are a subpart) ONLY THAT remains debatable. I thght you might have understood tht by now.

Quote
Quote from talkorigins
and again in the conclusion

The correct answer is that it is classified as a bird amongst evolution circles with qualifiers either linking it to the dinosaur or the reptile. Having common features in NOT evidence of evolution as reptiles and mammals can have similarities too.  A better example of a reptile - bird link would be if a transitional form would have been found that had feathers having features common with shales.
However, scientific evidence completely rules out this possibility.

JK- Man i pointed out features in Arch which were ucommon to birds including teeth, bony tail and reptilian skeleton structure.

Quote
Another fundamental difference is that the feather grows out of a follicle. A follicle is a tubular down-growth of the epidermis that protrudes deeply into the skin ? all the way down to underlying bone in the case of primary feathers. And this tube of specialized living skin produces the feather inside of itself from a growth matrix at the very bottom. The reptilian scale has absolutely nothing to do with follicles. All of the scales can shed as a sheet because they?re nothing but folds in the epidermis, like fabric folded over on itself, whereas feathers would have to come out of their own follicle.

JK- Feathers in living birds originate in a deep skin layer deep under the outer layer that forms scales. Evolutionarily, then, feathers probably arose under and between reptile scales, not as modified scales. Many birds have scales on their lower legs and feet where feathers are not developed, and penguins have such short feathers on parts of their wings that the skin there is scaly for all practical purposes. So there is no real anatomical problem in imagining the evolution of feathers on a reptilian skin. But feathers are completely novel structures, and any reasonable explanation of their origin has to take this into account also. They evolved in the first birds to replace scales as the primary skin covering.

Quote
Stephen J. Gould was right on the money when he wrote in The Panda's thumb that


A very simple question. If  Archaeopteryx is a transitional form, why is it classified as a bird in evolutionary circles?

Unfortunately in evolution what I see is not a theory that has any scientific merit, but a shell game that has gone on for too long!

peace.


JK- I think ive explained this thoroughly enough. Arch is classified as a bird because it has overall more features of a bird than a reptile. GOD Bless!
[19:19] He said: I am only a messenger of thy Lord, that I may bestow on thee a faultless son.