Science says that mammal-like critters (Therapsids) were evolved well before dinosaurs and birds.
“Well, it appears science has failed again, in front of overwhelming religious evidence" 
Posted on 06/15/2006 11:39:26 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Five fossil specimens of a near-modern bird found in the Gansu Province of northwestern China show that early birds likely evolved in an aquatic environment, according to a study reported today in the journal Science. Their findings suggest that these early modern birds were much like the ducks or loons found today. Gansus yumenesis, which lived some 105 to 115 million years ago during the Early Cretaceous period, took modern birds through a watery path out of the dinosaur lineage.
The report was co-authored by Peter Dodson of the University of Pennsylvania and his former students Hai-lu You of the Chinese Academy of Geological Sciences, Jerald Harris of Dixie State College of Utah and Matthew Lamanna of Carnegie Natural History Museum in Pittsburgh.
"Gansus is very close to a modern bird and helps fill in the big gap between clearly non-modern birds and the explosion of early birds that marked the Cretaceous period, the final era of the Dinosaur Age," said Peter Dodson, professor of anatomy at Penns School of Veterinary Medicine and professor in Penns Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences. "Gansus is the oldest example of the nearly modern birds that branched off of the trunk of the family tree that began with the famous proto-bird Archaeopteryx."
Gansus yumenensis takes its name from the Gansu region, where it was found, and the nearby city of Yumen. According to Dodson, Gansus is something of a lost species, originally described from a fossil leg found in 1983, but since largely ignored by science. The five specimens described by Dodson and his colleagues had many of the anatomical traits of modern birds, including feathers, bone structure and webbed feet, although every specimen lacked a skull.
"It appears that the early ancestors of modern birds lived lifestyles that today we would stereotype as being duck-like, heron-like, stork-like, loon-like, etc.," said Jerald Harris, director of paleontology at Dixie Sate College of Utah. "Gansus likely behaved much like its modern relatives, probably eating fish, insects and the occasional plan. We won't have a definitive dietary answer until we find a skull."
The skeletons, headless as they are, offer plenty of evidence for a life on the water. Its upper body structure offers evidence that Gansus could take flight from the water, like a modern duck, and the webbed feet and bony knees are clear signs that Gansus swam.
"Webbed feet is an adaptation that has evolved repeatedly in widely separate groups of animals, such as sea turtles, whales and manatees, and would only hinder climbing or landing in trees," Harris said. "The big bony crest that sticks off the knee-end of their lower leg bones are similar to structures seen in loons and grebes. These crests anchor powerful muscles needed for diving under water and swimming."
According to Harris, these adaptations all demonstrate how the Gansus branch of the family tree, the structurally modern birds called ornithuromorphs, split from the enantiornitheans (or "opposite birds"). Enantiornitheans were among the feathered fossils found in northeastern China during the 1990s.
"The enantiornitheans had the best adaptations for perching, so they were able to dominate the ecological niche that we would associate with songbirds, cuckoos, woodpeckers or birds of prey," Harris said. "Gansus appears to have had adaptations for a lifestyle centered around water, based on things like the proportions of the leg and foot bones."
While the enantiornitheans are now long gone, their perching lifestyle has now been taken over by the descendents of birds like Gansus. What remains a mystery for now, according to the researchers, is how the amphibious lifestyle of birds like Gansus helped enable them to survive the cataclysmic end of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago.
Funding was provided by the Discovery Channel (Quest program) and the Science Channel, the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Dixie State College, the Chinese Geological Survey of the Ministry of Land and Resources of China and the Gansu Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources.
i appreciate your compilation of these sources
i will review them as time permits
and i will (eventually) report on my understanding of what they contain...
from the intro to the first source you listed
"universal common descent is restricted to the biological patterns found in the Earth's biota; it does not attempt to explain the ultimate origin of life"
"proponents of special creation are especially hostile to the macroevolutionary foundation of the biological sciences."
and, apparently, some of that hostility is reciprocated...
BTW my interests were toward math and physics. biology and life sciences i skipped for being unscientific (ie not able to be proven)combinations of conjecture and catalog. my apologies to any who placed these subjects in a different order.
Theories are never proven, that isn't what science does. However if you compare the many scientific theories out there, the SToE is among the best supported by evidence.
"i would like some fossil evidence of intermediate speciation
What is intermediate speciation and what morphology would identify an intermediate?
"i do not think this research will provide that
It does indeed provide an example of a transitional species. However it is not as well defined a transitional as is Archeopteryx
Yeah.
Ole St Micheal the LostAngle didn't have his Navsat array launched yet.
Theories in science can never be proved. Rather, a theory is the highest level of scientific explanation. This does not make theories unscientific or less scientific.
Obviously you preferred fields with more straightforward approaches. Some of us prefer the methods and subject matter of the life sciences. Both are scientific.
Take a look at some of the definitions below. I put these together with help from a number of folks on these threads.
Definitions (from a google search, with additions from this thread):
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)
Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."
Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.
Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics."
Model: a simplified representation designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process.
Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence). When a scientist speculates he is drawing on experience, patterns and somewhat unrelated things that are known or appear to be likely. This becomes a very informed guess.
Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information.
Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
Impression: a vague or subjective idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying."
Opinion: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.
Observation: any information collected with the senses.
Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions.
Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact.
Religion: Theistic: 1. the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2. the expression of this in worship. 3. a particular system of faith and worship.
Religion: Non-Theistic: The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life.
Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith.
Faith: the belief in something for which there is no material evidence or empirical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or observation. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.
Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without evidence.
[Last revised 2/23/06]
No, I read the article that was posted. I'm just saying that I wondered how people here were concluding things based on what was written in this article that was posted, because it gave no indication of what they were saying.
We call the main posts of the threads "articles", and the things down below them "comments".
I think he thinks paleontologists work like Calvin where he and Hobbes put together a fossilized dinosaur out of plastic cups, plates, and utensils. Sure, they look like wings and feathers, but are they really?
. . . And you weren't concluding things based upon the article?
Only in an evolution debate would a simple statement of fact cause an argument.
We do double-blind studies because researches know that, no matter how nobel their intentions, KNOWING what result they want, and having access to data that could allow them to manipulate the results, the results often end up manipulated even though they would swear they didn't do so.
Like I said, it's standard practice, because it's a well-known phenomena. Several of the major "gaffes" that in evolutionary thinking were caused not by people TRYING to deceive, but people who were honorable scientists who simply saw what they expected to see.
show that early birds “likely” evolved in an aquatic environment,
Their findings “suggest”
"Gansus is “very close” to a modern bird and “helps fill” in the big gap
“although every specimen lacked a skull.” “We won't have a definitive dietary” answer until we find a skull."
"It appears “
Gansus “likely behaved “
Gansus “appears” to have had adaptations
“What remains a mystery for now,”
IS HOW ANYBODY CAN BELIEVE THIS MESS
Science says that mammal-like critters (Therapsids) were evolved well before dinosaurs and birds.
“Well, it appears science has failed again, in front of overwhelming religious evidence"
Possibly a Placemarker
Do you have an actual argument against the findings?
Do you have an actual argument against the findings?
Do you have any any positive factual assertions from the article?
I'll take that as a "no."
I'll take that as a "no."
How you take doesn't make one bit of difference to me.
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.