Evolution in the bible, says Vatican

News.com ^ | 11/7/05 | Mikey_1962

[Mikey_1962]

THE Vatican has issued a stout defence of Charles Darwin, voicing strong criticism of Christian fundamentalists who reject his theory of evolution and interpret the biblical account of creation literally.

Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the Genesis description of how God created the universe and Darwin's theory of evolution were "perfectly compatible" if the Bible were read correctly. His statement was a clear attack on creationist campaigners in the US, who see evolution and the Genesis account as mutually exclusive.

"The fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim," he said at a Vatican press conference. He said the real message in Genesis was that "the universe didn't make itself and had a creator".

This idea was part of theology, Cardinal Poupard emphasised, while the precise details of how creation and the development of the species came about belonged to a different realm - science. Cardinal Poupard said that it was important for Catholic believers to know how science saw things so as to "understand things better".

His statements were interpreted in Italy as a rejection of the "intelligent design" view, which says the universe is so complex that some higher being must have designed every detail.

[pby]

I am sure that Feduccia has better photos than the 1996 photo he referenced as the culprit for advancing the notion of "feathered dinosaurs".

The scale to feather transition hypothesis is only a theoretical construct. There is no evidence for it in the fossil record.

The experts say that "protofeathers" are not feathers whether they are on Sinosauroptyrex, Sinornthosaurus, or any other dinosaur.

That is a big blow to the current avian evolution theory/hypothesis and leaves the "how" of feather evolution without a story and without evidence.

So what? Confuciusornis had a claw similar to a dinosaur. That similarity is not weighty evidence by any stretch (and Archy was a bird).

Heavily debated outside of Darwin Central, the list-o-links, and Nature Magazine.

Feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds has been described as "the paleontological equivalent of cold fusion".

[pby]

It appears that you have an argument with the experts in the field. It is they, in their study (and in other places), who reference the time-line problem.

What about Protavis (sp?)?

[LiteKeeper]

YEC INTREP

[VadeRetro]

I am sure that Feduccia has better photos than the 1996 photo he referenced as the culprit for advancing the notion of "feathered dinosaurs".

I've shown that everyone's had better photos for a minimum of five years. It hasn't been 1996 for almost 10 years now. It doesn't matter what the first photo published in 1996 looked like. There's been ample time for any misleading impressions to be corrected if that were necessary. If he doesn't have new evidence, and I don't see where he does, what's the big deal now?

The scale to feather transition hypothesis is only a theoretical construct. There is no evidence for it in the fossil record.

All of the evidence I've presented is evidence that feathers originated in dinosaurs. Any evidence at all that goes to the saurian origin of birds is also evidence for the saurian origin of feathers. Thus far we have seen that some saurian groups had what can hardly be anything other than feathers. You and Feduccia are ignoring the clear cases to concentrate on the ambiguous ones. Why? We have seen that a progression from clearly saurian to ambiguous to clearly avian forms exists in the fossil record. How is this not evidence for the avian origin of feathers?

The experts say that "protofeathers" are not feathers whether they are on Sinosauroptyrex, Sinornthosaurus, or any other dinosaur.

You have not cited anyone dealing with Sinornithosaurus or anything other than Sinosauropteryx. Why are you claiming to have done so? And why are you mischaracterizing the preponderance of opinion in paleontology when we both know the handful of names you have cited isn't one percent of it?

Here's a nice mainstream site where Kevin Padian works. Are Dinosaurs Really Birds? That's what real science is saying right now.

Here's another author on the creationist tactic of citing a few non-creationist minority "voiced in the wilderness."

Notice the author is citing Feduccia's conclusion, and not his evidence. There is no mention that that his opinion is a minority opinion. Feduccia's peers in the field of bird evolution are "authorities" too. In short this creationist is saying that Feduccia is an authority and that he says that birds are not descended from dinosaurs, therefore birds are not descended from dinosaurs. It is a classic "argument from authority." It is also very inconsistent. Feduccia also says that evolution occurs, so if this argument is to be followed to its logical conclusion, this creationist must accept the evolution of birds from non-birds! One could also cite many more authorities that say birds are descended from theropod dinosaurs. This is why one should not pick and choose authorities. If Feduccia does turn out to be correct and his views become established within the scientific community, then the evolution deniers will probably become fond of quoting what Kevin Padian and other proponents of birds being descended from dinosaurs had to say about Feduccia's views.

That is a big blow to the current avian evolution theory/hypothesis and leaves the "how" of feather evolution without a story and without evidence.

No. As already explained. The only thing going on here is your religious horror driving you to deny a world of scientific evidence.

So what? Confuciusornis had a claw similar to a dinosaur. That similarity is not weighty evidence by any stretch...

You're not seeing the whole truth. Whole species have been shuffled back and forth between the dinosaur and bird clades. Caudipteryx comes to mind. Just now, without looking, I can't rememeber myself just which bin it is in on most web sites. Pretty sure you can find plenty examples of both.

...(and Archy was a bird).

Dealt with already. If you don't have an answer, don't fake it. The whole truth is that the farther back you go, the more birds start to look like dinosaurs and some dinosaurs get to look like birds until you get to things that could just as easily go in one bin as in another. Convergence as you look back through time, divergence as you come forward. That is exactly the diagram Darwin drew in Origin of Species.

... (and Archy was a bird).

Dealt with already. If you don't have an answer, I'd suggest avoiding broken-record repetition of what has been disposed of. Looks worse than you know. Looks like the former Dover School Board under oath in court.

Heavily debated outside of Darwin Central, the list-o-links, and Nature Magazine.

I can cite sources, you can cite sources.

Feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds has been described as "the paleontological equivalent of cold fusion".

Most paleontologists disagree.

[VadeRetro]

What about Protavis (sp?)?

Protoavis (first bird), yeah. Chatterjee's find, anyway. I said Eoavis (dawn bird). My bad. Crushed bones, perhaps a chimera of several life forms.

It appears that you have an argument with the experts in the field.

Your tiniest handful of selected opinions do not constitute a body correctly named "the experts in the field." What the preponderance of opinion in a field of science is is itself a fact which can be correctly stated or misstated. It is helpful to avoid the appearance of deliberate misstatement.

[VadeRetro]

Olson wrote, "...protofeathers exist only as a theoretical construct..." Is this fine group of scientists marginalizing themselves as well? Only in VadeRetro's/Dimensio's little world (and at Darwin Central, of course).

A short bio of Olson. It starts nice. Here's how it ends.

In the past decade Olson has gained a degree of notoreity for his bitter opposition to the theropod origin of birds, including an unprofessional and scathing open letter to National Geographic which has presented a treasure trove of quotes to mine for creationists.

Getting called unprofessional is something like getting marginalized, maybe. A degree of notoriety is good if you're a Howard Stern school radio personality but it can make you sort of marginal in science. It's a picture of a man going from mainstream to crackpot.

[VadeRetro]

Dealt with already.

Somehow, I said that already.

[PatrickHenry]

Placemarker and plug for The List-O-Links.

[VadeRetro]

Here's another author on the creationist tactic of citing a few non-creationist minority "voiced in the wilderness."

Needs a link, of course. And those are "voices" in the wilderness.

[pby]

Calling Olson unprofessional because of his scathing letter to National Geographic seems somewhat ironic...don't you think?

Who, in the case of Archaeoraptor, appears to be unprofessional...Olson or National Geographic?

Olson was dead on right about Archaeoraptor, but the evolutionary zealots at National Geographic were too blinded by their desire to provide definitive evidence for "their" evolutionary theory that they were foolishly sucked into promoting a hoax. (And he was right about that too!)

And if the existing evidence for theropod to bird evolution was already so strong, then why was National Geographic so desperate and careless?

National Geographic should have heeded Olson's warning to perform more study and research before going to print with their outrageous claims and artist renderings relative to Archaeoraptor...but they didn't.

I have seen many of you, from Darwin Central, previuosly post and tout that it was good science, conducted by evolutionists, that caught and fettered out previous evolutionary hoaxes. But in this case, you seem to castigate Olson for passionately applying sound scientific principles and standards and thereby assisting in revealing the fraud.

What is the lesson here...If you dare, if you have the temerity to get in the way of a good evolutionary fraud, Darwin Central will lable you a "crackpot" and Howard Stern-like? (Are you guys channeling Lyshenko again or did the Darwin bust I dropped from the Darwin Central ivory tower fall on your collective head?)

Olson's actions appear to lend credibilty to the scientific community...He did evolutionists a favor.

If anybody was marginalized in this debacle...it was National Geographic and the scientific community that promoted Archaeoraptor...not Olson!

If National Geographic had behaved like scientists instead of fools, this "treasure trove of quote mines for creationists" would never have been created.

Your mischaracterizations of Olson are just unfair, unreasonable and unfounded...but hey, your VadeRetro...we're used to that type of thing from you.

And talk about Howard Stern-like...National Geographic's Archaeoraptor article is their stained blue GAP dress legacy!

[luvbach1]

...or you believe you evolved from monkeys...

With due respect, that old shibboleth again? Darwin and modern evolutionists don't say we evolved from monkeys. They state that we evolved from a common ancestor. There's a big difference. That's why we still have monkeys.

[VadeRetro]

... but the evolutionary zealots at National Geographic were too blinded by their desire to provide definitive evidence for "their" evolutionary theory that they were foolishly sucked into promoting a hoax. (And he was right about that too!)

Archaeoraptor lasted IIRC two months. Nobody brazened it once it was questioned. Yes, National Geographic was hasty and has changed its procedures so that it always waits for peer review before calling the press conference. Olson was very late to the game and was only involved after the announcement of the find and long after others had raised the red flags. Olson simply tried to capitalize to flog the dreaded mainstream science establishment for ignoring his unpopular person views. You are not being cautious in your claims. You misspeak too much.

I have seen many of you, from Darwin Central, previuosly post and tout that it was good science, conducted by evolutionists, that caught and fettered out previous evolutionary hoaxes. But in this case, you seem to castigate Olson for passionately applying sound scientific principles and standards and thereby assisting in revealing the fraud.

There you go again. I have never denounced anyone for exposing Archaeoraptor, especially not the people who actually exposed it. I have no attachment to fakes. I am not the creationist here.

National Geographic was correctly criticized from without and within for its lack of procedural rigor and they have made changes. Olson I think is correctly criticized for his blustery crackpotism. People whose ideas are unpopular in science want too much for Archaeoraptor, but that's not surprising. They still want a pound of flesh for Piltdown Man (1912).

Your mischaracterizations of Olson are just unfair, unreasonable and unfounded...but hey, your VadeRetro...we're used to that type of thing from you.

I'm getting very used to the idea that every other sentence from you is false. That probably puts you above average for a creationist.

[VadeRetro]

... to flog the dreaded mainstream science establishment for ignoring his unpopular person views.

"... Personal views."

If FR ever implements an "edit previous post" function I think I'll swoon with joy.

[VadeRetro]

Darwin and modern evolutionists don't say we evolved from monkeys.

Yes and no. Her's the "yes" part. They don't say we evolved from any monkey species we see today.

In my view that's something of a bait and switch to appease the people horrified by the thought of monkey ancestry. Such people are right to be suspicious. The line of human ancestry definitely does go back through monkeys. Before about 30 million years ago, the ancestors of apes and humans had not sufficiently diverged from monkeys to be called apes. There was nothing more human-like than a monkey. The line of human ancestry was there--in a population of something that you would have to call monkeys. They weren't any particular modern species of monkey but they were monkeys for sure.

[pby]

"I've shown that everyone's had better photos for a minimum of five years."

That is not even relevant...You are missing the point.

In mentioning the 1996 black and white photo, Fedduccia was only giving a historical account of how some/many in the scientific community incorrectly ran with the story of feathered dinosaurs. (Many, in the scientific community, made assumptive conclusions without performing careful study and scientific research.)

The fact that your 2000 color photo shows the so-called protofeathers more decisively is meaningless...the evidence is in...There are no feathers, or anything related to feathers, on that fossil.

Now that more careful study and more in-depth scientific research has been performed, the evidence is actually much different than presented by many in the scientific community. This fossil is not the definitive evidence that many made it out to be, and their artistic, colorful renderings are inaccurate. (Do you think that the feathered renderings and feathered models will be removed from all those museum displays?)

By the way, at the April 24, 1997 press conference (at the Philadelphia Academy of Natural Science) about the discovery of this fossil, the team (Brush, Wellnhofer, Martin and Ostrom...no creationist boogey-men here), which had studied the fossil for three days, did not conclude that Sinosauropteryx had feathers. They said that, "More research, including cross-section and chemical analysis, could determine whether they are protofeathers, feathers, or something totally unrelated."

This being the case, why did so many in the scientific community jump on the feathered dinosaur bandwagon related to this fossil? I, like Olson and others, believe that it is due to an unprincipled, unscientific and zealous fervor to provide definitive evidence (that to this point...does not exist).

To me, there are several parallels in this Sinosauropteryx fossil (and all the alleged chinese feathered dinosaurs) story with the Archaeoraptor fraud.

And, despite the scientific evidence that demonstrates that protofeathers are unrelated to feathers, you attack the the conductors of scientific research and the "creationists" that point to the evidence rather than letting the evidence speak for itself. (strawman and poisoning the well)

The Fedducia team's study generalized about protofeathers on all chinese dinosaurs...read the press release. Obviously, others took it that way as well...Look at how Discovery Channel and others characterize the findings of Feduccia's team. They write about it as destructive to the evidence for feathered dinosaurs.

Whose "religous horror" is driving them to deny scientific evidence?

Given the Archaeoraptor fraud event and the ignoring/attacking of the evidence on the featherless Sinosauroptyrex, and other chinese dinosaurs, the answer to that question seems as clear as the unimpeded view atop the crows nest on the HMS Beagle...it is obviuosly the "religous horror" of the evolutionary zealouts at National Geographic, Darwin Central and like institutions elsewhere.

[pby]

Olson expressed his concerns to National Geographic prior to the article going public. That is historical fact.

Given your postings, you have attacked Olson. You called him a "crackpot". Why did you attack him as such?

You can only name-call.

[VadeRetro]

That is not even relevant...You are missing the point.

No, I anticipated your point. It doesn't matter now if the first photo ever published is small and in B&W. That was in 1996. There's nothing in the big color picture inconsistent with a ridge of feathers. Especially if one does what you and Feduccia don't do and takes the blinders off TO CONSIDER ALL THE OTHER EVIDENCE. There are non-ambiguous fossils. That is why Sinosauropteryx has not been reinterpreted, not because the first impression was from a crappy picture but it was never revisited.

There are multiple finds of this species now. Here's another one.

That specimen reveals what appears to be a tuft of feathers on the end of the tail. Given the blinders the antitheropod guys wear, you have to wonder if Feduccia even looked at that one. If he looked at that one, did he look at the first one?

Pictures of this level of detail have existed for years. Anyone who cares has been looking at THEM.

Most people see feathers because they look like feathers and we have other fossil dinosaur feathers that look even more so. All the naysayers can do is screech that looking like feathers isn't proof of feathers.

By the way, at the April 24, 1997 press conference (at the Philadelphia Academy of Natural Science) about the discovery of this fossil, the team (Brush, Wellnhofer, Martin and Ostrom...no creationist boogey-men here), which had studied the fossil for three days, did not conclude that Sinosauropteryx had feathers. They said that, "More research, including cross-section and chemical analysis, could determine whether they are protofeathers, feathers, or something totally unrelated."

They concluded one fossil specimen of one species they examined in 1997 was an ambiguous data point. I showed you unambiguous feathers on dinosaurs. You want to see another unambiguous case of feathers on a dinosaur skeleton? Look at Archaeopteryx. Yes, it's historically classed as a bird, but it's got a dinosaur skeleton. It was called a bird precisely because it had enough unambiguous feathers to fly. Its closest identified relatives are dromeosaurs including Sinornithosaurus.

This being the case, why did so many in the scientific community jump on the feathered dinosaur bandwagon related to this fossil?

Because of the then-existing preponderance of evidence, which has only increased. You should be asking Feduccia and Olson why they put blinders on and only look at the murkier data points like the tiny ridge on Sinosauropteryx.

And, despite the scientific evidence that demonstrates that protofeathers are unrelated to feathers...

There is no such evidence. All Olsen and Feduccia can mumble is that some of the "protofeather" fossils are not clearly and conclusively modern feathers. So what?

These are feathers.

They're on a dinosaur.

Here's a specimen with no feathers.

It looks like a dinosaur, but it has some wavy irregular outlines that might the the result of the decomposition of feathers. Do we call it a dinosaur? Or do we look at the filename, see that it's a species called Archaeopteryx, recall that other specimens of Archaeopteryx had exquisite preservation of FEATHERS and conclude that this one had feathers too but feathers are hard to preserve well?

I mean, how many points do you score by being dumb as a rock? I'm going to do you a favor and summarize your side because I'm getting tired of repeating mine.

You've got about five non-cretins worldwide saying useful idiot things for you. They wouldn't have anything to do with you on a bet, but you can spin their stuff because their "enemy" is your enemy. You've got some fossil specimens that have something most people think are feathers but can be interpreted as something else if you're militantly determined they can't be feathers. (Never mind that they fit neatly into the pattern of the fossils with clear feathers if so interpreted.) You've got the usual tu quoque rants about evolutionist preconceptions and religiosity.

Ping me when you have something new.

[VadeRetro]

What I said is true. Get something new. Even if it's a lie, get a new lie.

[luvbach1]

They weren't any particular modern species of monkey but they were monkeys for sure.

No problem for me. Call them monkeys. Undoubtedly they were closer to monkeys than humans. I would still call them the common ancestors of today's monkeys and humans.

[pby]

The Feduccia team's new study, and associated results, were based on a study of the fossils themselves...not just the photographs. They concluded that what can be seen in the photographs of the fossil is not actually feathers.

All you can say is..."they look like feathers...they look like feathers"...despite the scientific study and evidence that proves that they are not.

Are you actually the National Geographic editor that went to print with the Archaeoraptor story when you had been warned against doing so?

Are you ascerting that the Feduccia team's findings are based on incomplete and inaccurate scientific research...And do you have specific evidence of this (or are you just assuming conclusions again as you seem to be so prone in doing)?

Do you actually think that this team made their conclusions apart from, and in-spite of, the photographs that you are posting? (If so, you are rabid!)

"Ping me when you have something new".

Ping me when you have some actual evidence of feathered dinosaurs (and Archy is not it).