Lying - now on the banned list!

nns1400

Somewhere I read a quote by evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould admitting that archaeopteryx did not qualify as a "missing link" because of the reasons cited below (it is too old, for one). I am trying to find it.

EDIT: I will take back what I said about Gould. He apparently was misquoted, or maybe taken out of context. It is hard to say because when reading material from different scientists you have to constantly compare dates of what was said when, and by whom, and constant discoveries are integrated into everyone's debates. It is too late where I am to go through all of it. I am trying to find a book that I guess I loaned to someone, and I am really just relying on memory about what I think it said.

Meanwhile...(and again, I am trying to find all the citations for this to compare against quotes from authors and when each took place...I am starting not to care ) END OF EDIT.

However, there are several points which must be made about archaeopteryx that lead to a question about its missing link status.

Archaeopteryx is Classified as a True Bird

Archaeopteryx is considered by paleoornithologists, people who study the fossil record of birds, to be a true bird. The family of birds is divided into two subclasses. The first subclass is for ancient birds, and contains only Archaeopteryx. All other fossil and living birds are placed in the second subclass, the Neornithes or modern birds.

A total of seven specimens of the bird are known at this time. Archaeopteryx was about the size of a domestic pigeon, with a tail longer than its body. Its wings were small, and it is believed that its ability to fly was limited to gliding over short distances. In fact, it may only have been a ground-dweller.

Its birdlike characteristics were its completely modern feathers, and the shape of its shoulder bones, feet, and parts of the hip bones. It was also birdlike in having a wishbone, a big toe rotated backward to oppose the other toes for gripping, and some fused wrist bones.

However, it did not have bones with air pockets in them like modern birds, and it did not have a hornlike bill or beak.

There are No Transitional Forms Leading Up to Archaeopteryx

There’s nothing in the fossil record prior to archaeopteryx that resembles a transition between dinosaurs and Archaeopteryx. In fact, all the transitional forms that supposedly link birds to dinosaurs are dated AFTER archaeopteryx, sometimes millions of years after.

Its Feathers are Completely Modern

Archaeopteryx definitely had modern birdlike feathers. The only example of an ‘antecedent’ to modern feathers comes from the remains of Sinornithosaurus millenii, a 124-million-year-old raptor dinosaur from China. It is described as being covered with ‘downy fibers’. If evolution were true, we would expect to have found more examples of early featherlike structures 30 million years BEFORE Archaeopteryx lived, rather than 30 million years afterwards.

__________________
This stuff is just crap...Hitchy

mitosis

Stephen Jay Gould is not considered as a main stream evolutionary scientist and has been subject to much criticism (and many accolades).

If the information quoted is from him, he makes the same mistakes that many antievolutionists(?) make and that is to claim evolution happens in one direction only once. The finding of skulls of Homo habilis and Homo erectus together recently shows that evolving of one species or group does not automatically mean the extinction of all preceding groups. The presence of bacteria today, some virtually unchanged for 3500 million years while the rest of the world evolved around them shows this.

I think you'll find that mainstream biologists still consider archaeopteryx a part of the evolutionary history leading from dinosaurs to birds.

nns1400

I just edited that post to take back the quote from Gould, because it apparently is controversial and there was a ton of confusing doubletalk about what he said and who said he said it, and who said he didn't mean that. In my edit I alluded to the fact that there is so much conflict about the debate, it is hard to get to the actual facts of the debate (does that even make sense?)

I didn't write it right, because the stuff in italics wasn't meant to be a quote from Gould. It came from Hugh Ross's website, but I don't think he is the one "speaking." So now I have to go back and figure out what the hell I am talking about!

And dude, I HAVE to go to bed, so I'll read what you said again tomorrow. (Our species is so weak )

__________________
This stuff is just crap...Hitchy

10speedmachine

Are you serious? I'm not sure if the title of this forum has anything to do with religion, your beliefs, etc. As far as I can see, and yes, I am seeing it as very black and white, it is about the evasion of doping by providing false information.

He was rightly fired for breaking the rules that he has agreed to by signing his UCI bound contract. If he doesn't like their rules, go to another sport. Jalabert did it!

__________________
When not cycling, Tekhaus | www.tekhaus.com.au | www.tekhaus-domains.com

geoinmillbrook

It's like a tree - trace the links backwards to a single trunk is the hypothesis. Relationships between species with similar DNA are on the same branch. We (all carbon based life as we know it) all evolved from the primordial goo... all have the same ancestor somewhere in time. You me, protozoa, birds, chimps, toads, fish, all of us.



Interesting

geoinmillbrook

You are are absolutely correct ... Showing my own left leaning tendencies here - latent paranoia and an unfair bias that all "religious" people will resort to violence to support their beliefs.
There are "evil" scientists too - just like there are corrupt televangelists. I can see how that bias can be a distasteful thing. I am appauled at how the most recent renditions of religious zeal (Shiites and Suny's in Iraq, or Taliban) can cause so much pain and suffering in the world. It isn't fair to broadbrush I know but without a voice otherwise, taking swipes in a forum may feel good, but is just blindly lashing out. I apologize to every practical minded, peaceful faithful person out there .. seriously !!

George

alienator

This video is simply astounding and mind blowing. Anyone watching who even has the most remote grasp of statistics would have to realize just how improbable, unlikely, and next to impossible it would be for life to exist nowhere else but on Earth.

Cycler6n

Couldn't agree more, I watched it, amazing. I'm not one to believe in ufo's or aliens flying in our skies, but I do believe that there are different planets, other than ours with life on them, much like us. It astounds me to look up at a clear night sky, knowing that in one little "black" spot, that there are billions of glaxies, and to believe that there is no other life than us, is pretty brave.

__________________
“(Training) doesn't get easier; you just get faster”
-Greg Lemond

batjerk

A valiant attempt to bring this thread back on topic, but since Godwin's Law has been observed to be true in this thread, it is everlastingly too late. Me thinks.

__________________
Always remember: Butter will never claim to taste like margarine.

JohnO

How boring it would be if we were the only life in the universe. (OTOH - a whole universe to rape, pillage, and pollute!) What we think of as a sentient being may well exist in an entirely different form elsewhere. We're perfectly constructed for life on this planet, which does not exclude the possibility that life exists in an optimal form for an entirely different environment.

Besides, if you follow any of the major religions that trace back to Abraham, you will find that none of those religions explicitly state that we're the only form of life. We're just the only ones that he bothered to tell us about.

kclw

Do you know who strick athlete where about programs are. Do you really know every place you are going to be for the next 3 months? When you do your athlete where abouts form you have to fill in you morning and after noon locations for each day.

Missed tests happen all the time. Nobody is that strict about their life. A lot of innocent athlete would be suspended if you missing one test was an automatic exclusion.

Bro Deal

There is an easy way to change your schedule. You can e-mail, FAX, or, I imagine, use your cell phone to change your three month schedule. In Rasmussen's case he claimed he was in Mexico and did not have access to the means to notify the UCI of his whereabouts. Unfortunately for him, he was seen training in Italy.

I really don't see what the issue here is.

__________________
"You are like the wind and I like the lion. You form the tempest. The sand stings my eyes and the ground is parched. I roar in defiance but you do not hear. But between us there is a difference. I, like the lion, must remain in my place. While you like the wind will never know yours." -- Mulay Hamid El Raisuli, Lord of the Riff, Sultan to the Berbers, Last of the Barbary Pirates

alienator

Nor do I. There's a big difference between Mexico and Italy, and I'll bet that where ever he was in Europe, he could have easily made the notification if he wanted.

KellyT

Actually, there is a common factor between the OP and the hijacked post's direction. Apologists with problems defining 'proof'.

Apologists (1) - who insist on 'proving' a case for religion, when the proof simply isn't there.

Aplolgists (2) - who insist on making a case that everything, up to and possibly including, injecting EPO when they are on the winner's rostrum, doesn't actually constitute 'proof' of cheating.

So we have a definition of proof that is anything you care to make it, based on any old crap you come up with, which is unshakeable because you feel like it.

And a definition of proof which makes it copper bottomed impossible to 'prove' anyone is a drug taking cheat, simply because you don't want them to be drug taking cheats (for what ever personal driver you happen to have).

Different goals, same 'reasoning'.