Posted on 01/09/2008 3:02:15 PM PST by DaveLoneRanger
Roger Highfield reports new work that shows feathery dinosaurs might not have been as common as experts thought
Feathers are flying once again over Chinese fossils used to back the theory that birds descended from dinosaurs.
Prof Theagarten Lingham-Soliar at the University of KwaZulu Natal, claims today to have "refuted" a suggestion that primitive bristle-like structures that adorn the tail of Psittacosaurus are prototype feathers, as claimed by those seeking evidence to back the widely accepted idea of avian origins.
Psittacosaurus (the "parrot-lizard", named after its strong beak), stood about 4ft tall, was a plant-eater with strong back legs and two smaller front legs. It could either stand up to reach for vegetation or run on all fours to escape predators. Five years ago, it was suggested that it was adorned with primitive feathers too.
But Prof Lingham-Soliar, who attacks this interpretation of the Chinese fossil in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, Biological Sciences, tells The Daily Telegraph: "Scientists must really now choose - belief in the nebulous idea of protofeathers or the reality of collagen, the dominant protein in vertebrates.
"I am convinced from the nonsense spouted by many of the people who denounce collagen in favour of protofeathers that they have never actually seen collagen in its natural or decomposing state."
He adds that, thanks to a quirk of preservation, the fossil provides a "remarkable, unprecedented" insight into the structure of dinosaur skin.
"What is highly significant in the present study are the masses of collagen fibres found - over 40 dermal layers seen for the first time in a fossil animal, which shows how vitally important collagen was in providing support and protection of the enclosed body mass of dinosaurs per se.
"It is hardly surprising that the Chinese dinosaurs, as they decomposed, exposed quantities of these structures."
Earlier this year he cast doubt on the relevance to modern birds of turkey-sized Sinosauropteryx, a fossil found in 1994 by a farmer in Liaoning province, northeastern China, where red-grey mudstone has provided a trove of remains from the Early Cretaceous period some 130 million years ago.
The long-tailed meat-eater was preserved fibre-like structures that, its Chinese researchers claimed, were primitive feathers. But subsequent work by the South African professor concluded they were actually the remains of collagen fibres that reinforced a frill that ran down the dinosaur's back from head to tail, as well as the skin.
Although the new work will not challenge the link between birds and dinosaurs it will lead to a fundamental rethink of why feathers evolved in the first place.
Although the new work will not challenge the link between birds and dinosaurs it will lead to a fundamental rethink of why feathers evolved in the first place.
One of the fundamental attributes with respect to dinosaur-to-bird evolution, and the collapse of currently-held theory on its evolution won't challenge the link? What on earth would?
IBTP
This is a bit odd: I thought I had read already that a great many (non-Creationist) paleontologists had long ago laughed off the bird/dino connection as simply unworkable.
You guys are going Al Gore science! What a joke!
I’ll get you yet. And your little dog, too.
A squabble about feathers and their origins and how they relate to a single fossil specimen does not evidence for creation make, mate.
This confirms what creationists have said all along about these so-called “protofeathers” which evolutionists have been excited about as evidence for evolution.
It’s interesting to note the two extremes, here. Coyoteman tries to downplay the whole thing by saying it’s just silly little protofeathers (wouldn’t be surprised if he’s cursing under his breath) and you are trying to activate the bluff-and-bluster of the vast scope of evolution, like a peacock raising its appendages to look bigger and scarier.
It’s surprising that no matter how many of these blows you absorb on specific information, you either say it’s too small of a point to make a difference (yeah right) or you appeal to how much other evidence evolution still has. When confronted about the points of that evidence, you downplay that or appeal to the vast preponderance of other evidence in evolution’s favor.
They’re both amusing tactics, and both designed to camouflage the fact that you just lost another aspect of the dino-to-bird evolution debate.
No, because a reporter's misunderstanding expressed in his summary sentence is far less than it takes to overturn more than a century of solid evidence concerning the dinosaur -> bird evolutionary transition, Dave. This was one extremely minor datapoint, and if turns out to have been misread it's hardly a scratch on the solid foundation of both evolutionary biology in general, and the evolutionary history of birds in particular. There are so many other indisputed fossils providing evidence for this evolutionary transition, and so many other independent lines of evidence, that this borderline case isn't a big deal one way or the other.
You still really haven't a clue as to how vast and validated the body of evidence and scientific testing is that undergirds evolutionary biology, do you?
Your comment over this minor issue is as goofy as someone wondering why everyone doesn't suddenly abandon Christianity when a copy error in one word is found in one of the books of the Bible... Get a clue, please.
What on earth would?
Something that outweighs 150+ years of massive evidence and validation and testing and passed falsification tests, of course. If you think one guy disputing one feature on one fossil is enough to bring down a huge solid edifice like evolutionary biology (even if he's right, and that's still up in the air), you know less about science than most fourth graders. I guess that explains your very poor performance in your attempted "debate" on the subject.
Oh, and speaking of bird evolution, I'm surprised you would even show your face on the topic after you told a big falsehood about a paleontologist's position with regard to transitional birds, and then later tried to pretend you hadn't been caught misrepresenting.
Could you please explain to me why anti-evolutionists are such frequent shameless liars? I just don't get how there can be so little regard for truth and accuracy.
I mean at least I understand why the folks writing the anti-evolution books and giving the anti-evolution lectures are lying -- they're making money from fleecing the suckers. But what I don't understand is why the rank-and-file aren't ashamed at being shown again and again how often their anti-evolution sources are caught telling giant whoppers. Oh well, I guess that's why the sign in the "Creation (un)museum" says, "DON'T THINK".
I thought creationists were saying that the earth is 6000 years old. If that were true then there wouldn't be a preservation issue about the fossil and questions about dino feathers would already be answered. There would be thousands of these things frozen up in the arctic like the mastodons and we'd be looking at their DNA and what their last meal was, instead of fossilized rocks obviously millions of years old.
You’re wasting your time arguing with Coyoteman as he is the Bishop of the religion of Darwinism on Free Republic and is shooting for Pope. I always show up on these threads just to show off my tag line. They hate it because they don’t want us to know it’s a religion of faith.
When purple fabric decomposes, it looks remarkably like feathers...
They have no science. they have only myths
Sorry, wrong again. See below:
U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
John E. PELOZA v. CAPISTRANO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, 1994.
Summary:
Since the evolutionist theory is not a religion, to require an instructor to teach this theory is not a violation of the Establishment Clause.... Evolution is a scientific theory based on the gathering and studying of data, and modification of new data. It is an established scientific theory which is used as the basis for many areas of science. As scientific methods advance and become more accurate, the scientific community will revise the accepted theory to a more accurate explanation of life's origins.
However, in Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. (2005) creation "science" and intelligent design were both determined to be religious in nature.
I’m not particularly threatened by the possibilities creationism or evolution. Either should be based on evidence if they’re to be regarded as scientific theories. And to cling to the bird-dino connection in the face of crumbling evidence is beginning to leave the realm of science. It has clearly left it when the evidence seems to be based on the conclusion, such as seening feathers that aren’t there.
I wish you Religious Darwinist would quit posting this same crap on every evolution thread. I may have to start posting the Bible to counter act it. Anyone can deny that macro evolution is a religion but we know better. (it’s your faith that traps you)
Dave, I just have to ask... This is an honest question, and I would really appreciate an honest, straightforward answer, so that I can better know how to address this kind of thing from you in the future. Here's my question -- do you actually believe this big load of horse manure (about evolutionary biology's "rotten core and crumbling interior"), or is this just another bit of your dishonest bluster?
I'm serious. If you're as shameless a liar as most of the anti-evolutionists, I want to know so I can not waste my time trying to educate you, and if instead like a large number of other anti-evolutionists you're just an ignorant dupe of the anti-science propagandists, then I'll know not to attribute to malice that which is actually due to being an uneducated dupe of someone else's lies.
At the moment, it's really, really hard to tell the difference, and I'd appreciate if you could clear that up for me.
Doing creation "science" again Dave? That is, misquoting, and fabricating quotes when you think you need them to make your case?
Here is my comment (post #5, above):
Feathery dinosaurs are not as common as experts thought, so creation is proven?You guys are going Al Gore science! What a joke!
Now, how do you get "just silly little protofeathers" and "cursing under his breath" from my post?
No wonder creation "science" is such a laughingstock to real scientists and researchers. You just make your quotes and other evidence up as you go!
What a joke!
To a confirmed evolutionist, nothing!
If the ancient mosaics in Israel, showing dynos and horses together didn't do the trick, its obvious that they are programmed to ignore strong evidence.
The spam man is back with his illogic and pictures.
Thus, these liberals always appeal to public schools and liberal judges. They all want forced indoctrination of the children of other parents.
You would say, evolution is not a belief, not a religion, but you act like a zealot whose cherished faith was just attacked by infidels.
Thanks for the post.
Scientists were wrong? It can’t be.
Evolutionists were wrong? It can’t be.
We all know all evolutionists must be right and anyone who says they have made “mistakes” is a kook, is deluded, is a fundie wacko idiot.
/s
So let me get this straight -- the more actual evidence we present, the less likely you are to take it seriously? Got it...
And actually, many people have read even my longest posts, so don't say that "no one" will ever bother when clearly you're actually speaking for yourself. The kind of people who read my posts are the kind of people who enjoy learning, who actually want to understand a subject that has become controversial so that they can make an informed opinion on which side actually is valid and which side is blowing smoke. Clearly, however, you prefer to make such decisions by just making half-assed presumptions about who makes long posts, which in your mind means that the person is "hysterical". That's an... interesting method, I must say.
You illustrate the evolutionist's greatest weakness--you get hysterical like a PMS-ing girl whenever you run into a creationist.
Where do you fantasize that I "got hysterical like a PMS-ing girl"? You have an ability to read weird things into posts that aren't actually there. So if you don't mind, I don't think I'll be looking to you for indications on how my posts may appear to the more level-headed reader, the kind who might actually read for content.
They have their problems, maybe personal, maybe religious. But it's pretty obvious, you have a personal problem yourself my friend.
Yeah, silly me, I don't like to see people spread false propaganda, especially propaganda that too many school board members and politicians are using to try to set actual science policy. I guess I'm just funny that way -- I prefer to correct falsehoods and educate people, especially when they're in the process of giving conservatism a bad name in an election year. My bad, that's clearly a "personal problem", I guess I should get over it and just fling accusations of "hysteria" and stuff like all the more mature folks, eh?
You would say, evolution is not a belief, not a religion, but you act like a zealot whose cherished faith was just attacked by infidels.
No, actually, I don't. I don't tell lies, I don't threaten people with burning at the stake, I don't quote-mine people out of context (hi Dave!), I don't misrepresent author's opinions (hi Dave!), I don't tell falsehoods about the state of fields of science (hi Dave!), I don't presume that my interpretation of things that might be implied by an ancient book trumps all scientific evidence (hi Dave!), etc.
You, on the other hand, seem to have a penchant for drama-queening the things you read. Why is that?
Also, out of curiosity, what's the last time you wrote a post accusing an anti-evolutionist of being "hysterical like a PMS-ing girl" and "acting like a zealot"?
Someone here is getting shrill, certainly, but it's not me.
But you may have a point -- this often does seem like a case of pearls before swine.
Ok, I’m trying not to laugh at that last bit.
Coyoteman... did you just use the Ninth Circuit to defend yourself?
I expect better of you.
Besides. Isn’t that defering to “consensus”, and not actual knowledge? Doesn’t that then make it an arguement based on someone else’s convictions, and not that of established, empirical evidence?
Would you rather, for intellectual sake, call what the Evo side of the debate credence? conviction? ardor?
My vote still says “religious” though.
-relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality (or deity)
*snicker*
You’re getting slower. Last time I only beat you by one second.
I'll make you a deal --- if the creationists stop telling lies about science, we'll stop telling the truth in order to counter it. It'll save a lot of bandwidth.
I may have to start posting the Bible to counter act it.
Wow, if you think that posting the Bible would actually counter the real-world evidence I've posted from Creation itself, you're pretty confused.
If on the other hand you have any actual evidence or scientific findings to the counter it, I'll be happy to take a look.
Anyone can deny that macro evolution is a religion
And anyone can make the goofy accusation that it is...
but we know better. (it’s your faith that traps you)
What "faith" would that be? If to you a solid confidence borne of decades of personally examining the evidence and conducting experiments to validate things looks like mere "faith", you have a lot to learn. Here, read this to start learning the difference: Do You Believe in Evolution?
In spite of that, they're still failing miserably.
Scores for US public schools are down in science and continue to fall in spite of the virtual monopoly evo has in being taught in public schools. Private schools and homeschools do much better in all areas, verified by test scores, which gives lie to the statement that teaching creation will result in the demise of education.
Yet still they try.
Talk about losing credibility.
Now you laugh at me for bringing evidence to the discussion?
Are you trying to do creation "science" like Dave?
(Hmmmmm. I note that Ichny's long post #15 has been Removed by Moderator).
By that ridiculously broad definition, being a football fan is a "religion", and so is trusting in your car to get you to work tomorrow morning. If you want to stretch "religion" that far in order to have a cheap excuse to minimize actual science, well, that's pretty pathetic, actually.
In any case, explain this one to me -- why is it that whenever someone wants to try to be insulting about science, they call it a "religion"? Is this an admission that religion is *bad* in some way, is just a bag full of unfounded dogmatic beliefs? It's like they're trying to drag science down to the level of their own religion, as in, "hey, your science is no better than my religion, and we all know how shaky *that* is, it's all just opinion!"
If that's how you want to play it, hey, go for it.
Just remember that it doesn't make the science any less valid, any less well-established, any less solidly based on the real-world evidence and testing and other kinds of reality-checks.
Whatever helps you sleep at night, I suppose, if the findings of science are that unsettling to you, that you have to try to pretend that it's "merely" religion...
Talk about losing credibility.
Good old metmom -- why examine the actual decision and admit that it's a valid ruling (or make an argument for where/how it is mistaken) when you can just engage in the childish [i]ad hominem[/i] fallacy, eh?
I'm glad to see you haven't changed any. The shock might have been too much for me if you had started discussing things in a mature manner instead of your usual habit of discourse.
Well of course -- can't let too many facts get in the way of the anti-science echo chamber. Reality to them is like garlic to a vampire. I wonder which of the intellectual cowards hit Abuse on it?
The reason why is clear, though.
I hope you don’t take me to be one of the “lying creationists” -
I would just like tot point out thta within the first few paragraphs, I could tell that the writer had no classical training. He asserted that scientists can *know* things. (Not CAN they, but to be “scientists” they MUST)
Science is a philosophy. It is a method of thinking based on studying empirical (observable) evidence in the world around us. In this nutshell, is exempted the idea of “knowing” probably due to the connection of “know” and “why”.)
Science is the method of How. And in that method, we can only assert claims to a rationaly plausible chance. the very philosophy of science abhors (or SHOULD in any regard) the very idea of claiming to “know”. It can only observe (and speculation is a by-product of human nature).
...such is the empty shell of anti-evolutionism. They can't dispute the science, so they just act like bitter crybabies.
And science continues on, heedless of their hysteria over the fact that they can't figure out how to reconcile their own beliefs with the scientific evidence. That's their problem, not science's problem.
Now you laugh at me for bringing evidence to the discussion?
Your *evidence* is the freaking Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. You might as well have claimed the reaction to Mohammed the Bear was rational because some nutjobs decided to riot over it.
Why don’t you defend your statement by using your own actual observations? Or try what I’ve been doing- looking at what words actually MEAN and then using that to make a point. (Try looking up the words I threw in. Maybe you can make the connections.)
If someone calls your method of thought a “religion”, maybe it’s due to a theological context. Either way, it’s philosophy and etymology.
Try looking at context clues.
And to make sure my point is clear-
I don’t laugh at you for bringing “evidence”. I laugh at you for thinking a black robe (earned for LAW PRACTICE) qualifies anyone to catagorize anything within the realm of theology or science.
It’s as absurd as any claim you’ve ever pointed out about ministers and Bible thumpers making opposing claims.
You might as well accept the word of a dentist to make foreign policy decisions.
How can we be sure who is “anti-science” if noone seems to have taken up your challenge to *discuss the science of it*.
That’s a patently false line of thinking.
If they’re trully *anti-science* then they will have no reason to discuss things “scientifically”.
If they’re NOT *anti-science* then they won’t dispute the “scientific” points you agree with.
If they are *pro-science* and yet still hold a differing amount of observation and experience, then it’s easy to see where you would miss the “science” in the discussion, because you would have dismissed it due to your not sharing the same exact observations.
And instead of sniveling for the fourth time, why don’t you ask the moderators why they pulled it?
I recall having asked several times in the past and they were quite willing to explain.
The fanatics who worship at the Big Government Altar all end up talking about the Public Schools and the blessed judges of the Big Government Oligarchy.
To these fanatics, it is all about liberal courts and liberal public schools as these are the temples of their secular state worship where they want the forced indoctrination of children who belong to other people.
OK then Ichy. I pose a question to you.
Do you feel that you can place full trust in your obsevations of the physical world?
No, Dave, it doesn’t. However, it might be amusing for you to explain something to us — what, exactly, in creationism would allow you to predict anything at all about featherlike structures on some dinosaurs? Be specific. For you know, the creator might have stuck some primitive feathers on some dinosaurs for reasons of his own. Who are you to second-guess him and predict anything about what one might or might not find on certain species of dinosaurs? Why *NOT* primitive feathers, under a creationist scenario? It’s going to be fun watching you tie yourself in knots over that one. It’s one of the reasons that people who actually understand epistemology keep telling you kids that creationism is an untestable hypothesis.
Also, the jury is still out over whether this guy is right, or the scientists on the other side of that particular discussion. So aren’t you being a bit premature to claim that “this confirms” anything about whether creationists have any clue about what any of it means?
which evolutionists have been excited about as evidence for evolution.
It would be an additional chip on the mountain of existing evidence, sure, but if it turns out that this particular dinosaur didn’t have feathers, it’s not a big loss either. We’ll follow the evidence wherever it leads, unlike you guys.
It’s interesting to note the two extremes, here. Coyoteman tries to downplay the whole thing by saying it’s just silly little protofeathers
He didn't say that -- making it up as you go along, Dave?
(wouldn’t be surprised if he’s cursing under his breath)
You shouldn’t make childish guesses when you’re this inexperienced, son.
and you are trying to activate the bluff-and-bluster of the vast scope of evolution, like a peacock raising its appendages to look bigger and scarier.
“Bluff and bluster”? What part of the vast mountain of evidence along multiple cross-confirming lines, and countless experiments and validations, and potential falsification tests passed with flying colors, which support evolutionary biology, do you fantasize is "bluff and bluster"? You're exposing your own "bluff and bluster" with this goofy mischaracterization, Dave.
It’s surprising that no matter how many of these blows you absorb on specific information, you either say it’s too small of a point to make a difference (yeah right) or you appeal to how much other evidence evolution still has.
No, what’s surprising is that you have so little clue as to the actual evidence for evolution that you consider the extremely minor nits you manage to dig up (when you’re not just lying through your teeth) to be “blows”.
Okay, Dave, here’s your big chance. Let’s say that further research demonstrates that this particular fossil didn’t have feathers after all. How exactly is that a “blow” for evolution? Explain it to us. Tell us:
1. Exactly which parts of evolutionary theory were critically dependent upon this one fossil?
2. How would the moving of this fossil from one side of thd dividing line between “feathered dinosaurs” and “nonfeathered” dinosaurs” to the other strike some kind of big “blow” to evolutionary biology, given how many other indisputed feathered fossils have been found with indisputed theropod dinosaur feature?
3. The evolutionary history of birds was well established and developed long before this fossil was even found, which even to your clueless mind should have been a hint that there was already sufficient evidence to support this field of science. So again, how does the removal of this particular fossil suddenly invalidate all the others?
Go for it, Dave — do more than bluster and name-call for a change. Explain to us why there’s (allegedly) actually good reason for us to completely rethink entire fields of science now. We’ll wait.
When confronted about the points of that evidence, you downplay that
When they’re as minor as the goofy stuff you guys keep pulling out of your hats, yeah. Likewise, I wouldn’t expect you to abandon God because tale in the gospels about “let he who is without sin” doesn’t actually exist in the earliest known texts of the gospels and was obviously added by some schmuck copyist long after they were originally penned.
Try to keep some perspective, Dave. That’s how people who have outgrown the adolescent “think they know everything” phase do it.
or appeal to the vast preponderance of other evidence in evolution’s favor.
Oh, right, we’re supposed to *ignore* all the evidence, like you do. No thanks, I prefer to keep my brain working, and actually do reality-checks of my beliefs (by actually comparing them against reality — the evidence from the real world).
They’re both amusing tactics,
Dave, if you think that a) not throwing out entire fields of established knowledge when a minor footnote gets updated, and b) actually paying attention to overwhelming evidence, are nothing but “amusing tactics”, then it’s no wonder that you’re as naive and confused as you so often are.
and both designed to camouflage the fact that you just lost another aspect of the dino-to-bird evolution debate.
Again, Dave, you’re exposing your bias when you prematurely declare that this point is settled — you’re just demonstrating that you won’t accept even the most overwhelmingly well-established findings *for* evolution, but will declare that we “just lost” the instant some guy in China disputes one thing about one fossil in a direction *you* can cling to as sorta-kinda going your way.
That’s really pathetic, Dave.
As for “camouflaging” anything, how about your inability to admit there’s a huge amount of scientific evidence supporting evolutionary biology, precious little if any that positively supports a 6000-year-old Earth (among your other amusing dogmas), and your continuing bluster in pretending that at your tender years and woefully incompetent education you have any chance at all of comprehending, much less causing any serious dent in, the science you’re so desperately unwilling to accept?
No wonder you got your opponent in your “debate” banned (and one of you got my earlier evidence-filled post on this thread removed) — you can’t stand having it demonstrated how unequipped you are to support your false claims, false attacks on science, and false accusations agains the people who dare to point out to you that your claims are hogwash.
Someday, Dave, I hope you take a long, hard look at where you’re going
“Evolutionary biology” is much like dark white, or light black. There is nothing biological about the religion of evolution.
Cutting and pasting a bunch of sketches and opinions is not science. You want to drive people off the thread because it calls attention to the failure of your religion.
Oh, and side-note.
I’m luke-warm on the whole religion thing. I haven’t been to church in 2 years (aside from marriage counseling). I would appreciate it if the “empirically enlightend” side of the debate would kindly stop making assinine assumptions.
I have not provided any evidence to suggest to you that I am calling religion bad. I have also not claimed that science is bad.
My only statement is that you are not making a good case for evolution based on scientific merits. You are also not building a good character case for yourself to lead us to believe you are entirely devout to empirical studies (what with non-linear accusations and using consensus to build your point... two things secular thinkers traditionally “fault” religions with.)
*side note- the word “fault” was used simply to convey the intention of the labeling from the parties involved, not to establish blame.
“You might as well accept the word of a dentist to make foreign policy decisions.”
Or a cleric in the realm of science.
Which was actually within my point.
Thanks for the iteration though. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.