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 ...
An Ann Coulter thread on other than politics...
Which generates an amazing thought.. What do liberals and evolutionists have in common?..
Walking on two legs; broad, flat nails?
Indeed. For example, some seem unaware of even the rudiments of irony.
If I never see another stupid ellipsis for as long as I live it will have been too soon.
It provided three surprises, new features that significantly altered the view of Archaeopteryx. The skeleton is very small -- even smaller than the Eichstätt specimen -- but apparently adult. This has led Peter Wellnhofer, the German paleontologist who described it, to suggest that it represents a new species, Archaeopteryx bavarica. Apart from size, the specimen includes two new anatomical features: a bony sternum, which is unknown in any other specimen and is crucial for the attachment of flying muscles; and a set of bony, interdental plates that are preserved on the inner side of each lower jaw between all tooth positions. Similar interdental plates are found in two different groups that have been suggested as possible ancestors for Archaeopteryx: the theropod dinosaurs and a still more primitive reptilian group, the thecodonts. See also Feduccia (1999, 77) and Elanowski (2001).This excerpt is talking about a possible second species of archaeopteryx. Note that this one has a bony sternum not found in the other species of archaeopteryx. Also note it still maintains some reptilian features in its jaw. Also note, the author cited his sources so that you can go out and check them should you so desire -- something which you have pointedly failed to do.
Now, on the matter of the transitional nature of archaeopteryx, should we trust folks who've spent most of their lives studying this and other critters, or someone whose spelling and grammar indicate an unfamiliarity with basic schooling?
And...
Hard to follow what you're trying to say here; what would you expect a ttransitional to look like?
Read the article
World view philosophy.
Methinks one doest tink doo highly of hissyself.
Me means you.
AIG doesn't have a good track record for scientific veracity.
" What do liberals and evolutionists have in common?..
I call BS. The only place I could find that particular information was on creationist sites. I cannot be certain the information was not taken out of context or otherwise manipulated to portray the view it did.
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.