Archie is older than sino by at least 15 million years. Archie has impressions of advanced feathers of a type associated with flight. Sino has "fuzzy" impressions. This chart shows Sino (among other feathered creatures) as older than Archie.
Posted on 03/11/2003 3:01:59 PM PST by Remedy
A university professor said she was asked to resign for introducing elite students to flaws in Darwinian thought, and she now says academic freedom at her school is just a charade.
During a recent honors forum at Mississippi University for Women (MUW), Dr. Nancy Bryson gave a presentation titled "Critical Thinking on Evolution" -- which covered alternate views to evolution such as intelligent design. Bryson said that following the presentation, a senior professor of biology told her she was unqualified and not a professional biologist, and said her presentation was "religion masquerading as science."
The next day, Vice President of Academic Affairs, Dr. Vagn Hansen asked Bryson to resign from her position as head of the school's Division of Science and Mathematics.
"The academy is all about free thought and academic freedom. He hadn't even heard my talk," Bryson told American Family Radio News. "[W]ithout knowing anything about my talk, he makes that decision. I think it's just really an outrage."
Bryson believes she was punished for challenging evolutionary thought and said she hopes her dismissal will smooth the way for more campus debate on the theory of evolution. University counsel Perry Sansing said MUW will not comment on why Bryson was asked to resign because it is a personnel matter.
"The best reaction," Bryson says, "and the most encouraging reaction I have received has been from the students." She added that the students who have heard the talk, "They have been so enthusiastically supportive of me."
Bryson has contacted the American Family Association Center for Law and Policy and is considering taking legal action against the school.
That seems to mean that the chart is wrong.
Yep. Sinosauropteryx was a Coelurosaur, which were contemporaries of Archaeopteryx and probably shared an ancestor, but were not directly related.
http://www.micro.utexas.edu/courses/mcmurry/spring98/21/justin.html
So what was your point again?
He talks about evolution being a perfectly good theory after the "Heavy lifting" has been done. Who's doing the heavy lifting? Could you provide a link to the interview? It's really hard to analyze out of context.
Are the hybrids new species? If they are does that demonstrate evolution? Is the camel/llama hybrid a new species?
Depends on where you draw the lines. Like I said, they can get blurry sometimes. In a very real sense this does demonstrate evolution, but it is too often dismissed as microevolution. Humans have, in a sense, been intentionally forcing dogs, horses, and other domestic animals to evolve for thousands of years through breeding programs. It's the same process, just that we decide the criteria for reproduction instead of natural selection.
Archie is older than sino by at least 15 million years. Archie has impressions of advanced feathers of a type associated with flight. Sino has "fuzzy" impressions. This chart shows Sino (among other feathered creatures) as older than Archie.
So that means the chart is right and Sino is older than Archie contrary to the only factual evidence
After the chat, there was a question and answer period which is also informative(that is the source of the quote I posted). You should read the link Dr. Shapiro gives at the beginning of the chat in order to understand his position.
For all of the intelligent breeding of dogs, when all is said and done we end up with a dog, not a cat. It may be a strange looking dog,
but it is still a dog.
And as I said the fossil evidence shows Archie as a Tithonian fossil and the Sinosauropteryx as a middle Barremian
Age estimates are in millions of years ago (Mega anna, or Ma). Margin of error is in millions of years to two standard deviations.
| Era | Period | Epoch | Age | End | Error | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cenozoic | 0 | 0 | ||||
| Mesozoic | Cretaceous | Late | Senonian | Maastrichtian | 65.0 | 0.1 |
| Campanian | 71.0 | 0.5 | ||||
| Santonian | 83.5 | 0.5 | ||||
| Coniacian | 85.8 | 0.5 | ||||
| Gallic | Turonian | 89.9 | 0.5 | |||
| Cenomanian | 93.5 | 0.2 | ||||
| Early | Albian | 98.9 | 0.6 | |||
| Aptian | 112.2 | 1.1 | ||||
| Barremian | 121.0 | 1.4 | ||||
| Neocomian | Hauterivian | 127.0 | 1.6 | |||
| Valanginian | 132.0 | 1.9 | ||||
| Berriasian | 137.0 | 2.2 | ||||
| Jurassic | Late | Malm | Tithonian | 144.2 | 2.6 | |
| Kimmeridgian | 150.7 | 3.0 | ||||
| Oxfordian | 154.1 | 3.2 | ||||
We are not restricted by randomness.
There is a big problem with the theory that birds evolved from dinosaurs using the Archie, Sino and other fossils and the cladogram shown. Along with the cladogram, goes the following:
Cladograms depend on two main scientific ideas. The first is that time flows in one direction only. The cladogram represents this by moving strictly from left to right. Thus, common ancestors of related groups must arise prior to these descendants in time, just as in genealogy parents arise before their children. Just as parents cannot inherit characteristics from their children, an hypothesis of ancestry requires that the “ancestor”; occurred earlier in time than its first “descendants.”
The fossil dates, as you have noted, deny the cladogram.
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.