Posted on 07/27/2006 8:12:50 AM PDT by Junior
Following her discussion of dinosaurs examined in Part II of this series, Coulter (2006, 219) ventured this:
For over a hundred years, evolutionists proudly pointed to the same sad birdlike animal, Archaeopteryx, as their lone transitional fossil linking dinosaurs and birds. Discovered a few years after Darwin published The Origin of Species, Archaeopteryx was instantly hailed as the transitional species that proved Darwin's theory. This unfortunate creature had wings, feathers, teeth, claws, and a long, bony tail. If it flew at all, it didn't fly very well. Alas, it is now agreed that poor Archaeopteryx is no relation of modern birds. It's just a dead end. It transitioned to nothing.
But could Archaeopteryx be our one example of bad mutations eliminated by natural selection? Archaeopteryx can't fill that role either, because it seems to have no predecessors. The fossils that look like Archaeopteryx lived millions of years after Archaeopteryx, and the fossils that preceded Archaeopteryx look nothing at all like it. The bizarre bird is just an odd creation that came out of nowhere and went nowhere, much like Air America Radio.
Where should one begin with this?
(Excerpt) Read more at talkreason.org ...
Limited vocabulary? ??????
How long does it take to make a fossil, and under what conditions are they preserved?
Do we really think we've seen all the evidence? I think only a small percentage of the natural history even exists for us to ponder about... most has been devoured by time and scattered to the winds. I certainly wouldn't assume we've seen it all. We're looking at a very small sample, and always risk coming to the wrong conclusion about where it fits in the big picture.
The author actually addresses your points.
You posted that there are birds today which have teeth. I asked already which birds these are. I will ask again. Please tell me which birds today have teeth.
Only spontaneous combustion could save Coulter now.
You are hilarious. Completely unaware of your laughable dumbness.
You're serious?
I am literally laughing.
The new Bowery Boys ride again.
There are? Which ones?
Might have... but I forebore reading it ;~D
Which ones? I never heard of this before.
Belay my last. I may have gotten teeth/wing claws mixed up. Hoatzin chicks have small claws allowing them to climb trees.
Can't quite figure out Ms. Coulter. On the one hand, she is a sharp-witted, self-confident lush without falter, whose chutzpah I admire. On the other, she's a "whoosh" who talks trash, and is obviously ignorant about evolution and not afraid to show it.
So, in fact, you are citing Feduccia to try to pretend he supports a point which he does not support.
and regardless, it is a bird, was a bird, always was a bird. paleleobabble still applies to the idea of reptiles to birds as well.
It had teeth. You seem to think that some modern birds have teeth, but you have not yet told us which birds they are. It had a long tail like a reptile. Modern birds have a short, fused pygostyle. It had a full fibula. Modern birds do not. It had a very small sternum, like a reptile, not a modern flying bird.
Coulter is totally ignorant about evolution placemarker.
Are you thinking of wing claws rather than teeth?
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.