Skip to comments.
The Demise of Another Evolutionary Link: Archaeopteryx Falls From Its Perch
Evolution News & Views ^
| October 26, 2009
| Casey Luskin
Posted on 10/27/2009 8:11:33 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
The Demise of Another Evolutionary Link: Archaeopteryx Falls From Its Perch
A few days ago we saw Ida fall from her overhyped status as an ancestor of humans. Now some scientists are claiming that Archaeopteryx should lose its status as an ancestor of modern birds. Calling Archaeopteryx an icon of evolution, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) borrows a term from Jonathan Wells while reporting that [t]he feathered creature called archaeopteryx, easily the world's most famous fossil remains, had been considered the first bird since Charles Darwin's day. When researchers put its celebrity bones under the microscope recently, though, they discovered that this icon of evolution might not have been a bird at all.
According to the new research, inferences about growth rates made from studies of Archaeopteryxs ancient fossilized bones show it developed much more slowly than modern birds. While the WSJ is reporting these doubts about Archaeopteryxs ancestral status as if they were something new, those who follow the intelligent design movement know that such skepticism has been around for quite some time. In his 2000 book Icons of Evolution, Jonathan Wells discussed differences between Archaeopteryx and modern birds and the implications for Archaeopteryx's place as an alleged link between dinosaurs and birds:
But there are too many structural differences between Archaeopteryx and modern birds for the latter to be descendants of the former. In 1985, University of Kansas paleontologist Larry Martin wrote: Archaopteryx is not ancestral of any group of modern birds. Instead it is the earliest known member of a totally extinct group of birds." And in 1996 paleontologist Mark Norell, of the American Museum of Natural History in New York, called Archaeopteryx a very important fossil, but added that most paleontologists now believe it is not a direct ancestor of modern birds.
(Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution, p. 116 (Regnery, 2000).)Archaeopteryx isnt the only evolutionary icon losing its claim as the ancestor of birds. In recent months weve seen paleontologists increasingly arguing that the entire clade of dinosaurs should no longer be considered ancestral to birds. As the WSJ article states:
There are lingering doubts that birds today are descendants of dinosaurs. Researchers at Oregon State University recently argued that the distinctive anatomy that gives birds the lung capacity needed for flight means it is unlikely that birds descended from dinosaurs like archaeopteryx and its kin. Their findings were published in June in the Journal of Morphology.
As paleontologist John Ruben of Oregon State was quoted saying when his article was published:
But old theories die hard, Ruben said, especially when it comes to some of the most distinctive and romanticized animal species in world history.
"Frankly, there's a lot of museum politics involved in this, a lot of careers committed to a particular point of view even if new scientific evidence raises questions," Ruben said. In some museum displays, he said, the birds-descended-from-dinosaurs evolutionary theory has been portrayed as a largely accepted fact, with an asterisk pointing out in small type that "some scientists disagree."
"Our work at OSU used to be pretty much the only asterisk they were talking about," Ruben said. "But now there are more asterisks all the time. That's part of the process of science."
("Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-bird Links," ScienceDaily, June 9, 2009.)While "museum politics" seem to dominate now more than ever when it comes to evolution, it's nice to at least see some of those asterisks getting a little attention in a major media outlet like Wall Street Journal.
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; US: Washington
KEYWORDS: antiscienceevos; belongsinreligion; catastrophism; catholic; christian; creation; darwindrones; evangelical; evolution; evoreligionexposed; godsgravesglyphs; intelligentdesign; judaism; notasciencetopic; paleontology; propellerbeanie; protestant; science; templeofdarwin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 221-234 next last
To: allmendream
You state the theory of evolution is “.consistent”. I believe that the scientist in the evolution community will disagree with you. The theory of evolution is considerably inconsistent starting with Darwin's great concerns that the fossil record would not support his work. Darwin was correct in that to date the fossil record has not provided conclusive singular evidence of his work. Next our genetic friends took up the argument that evolution requires extended periods of time and required random mutation. When it became obvious that the mutation process was certainly not random in came PE to yet greatly modify the inconsistent theory of evolution. Next we know that the theory has been modified on several occasions to extend the time needed for evolutionary events to occur. Those that support evolution find it not in their best interest to have the theory be consistent. Indeed it is the inconsistency of the theory that reflects the weakness and invites criticism.
To: tongass kid; allmendream
"Those that support evolution find it not in their best interest to have the theory be consistent." There is a reason it is called the Theory of Evolution instead of the Evolutionary Principle. It is a model that fits the facts and is revised, as necessary, as more data becomes available. An irony that seems to be lost on most YEC types is that theories evolve until they are proven correct or incorrect.
To: allmendream
I like you argument of bicycle makers and airplanes. Nice to know you support intelligent design.
To: editor-surveyor
Are you really a geocentrist?
To: tongass kid
Still timeliness is a relative term based on generations. That’s why most historic models have primarily been Monera due to the logarithmic reproduction. Only recently have new models been chosen (GGG posted an article last month about that). Evolution in the larger scale is still unobservable directly in living models due to the human life span - go figure, eh? Ultimately it’s a theory in progress and is the best foundation that we have to build from even if we must occasionally tear down parts and rebuild it.
To: allmendream
I like your reference to dogs. The dogs you site are a product of selective breeding and therefore support intelligence design. Keep posting and you may yet get totally confused by your own posts.
To: tongass kid
Consistent as a scientific theory means that it forms a coherent whole, not that it is unchanging. The fundamentals of the theory are the same (natural selection of genetic variation), but the implications of each new data point must be considered as a whole.
The fossil record is a testament to evolution. We see vast gulfs of time filled with unbelievable animals for long ages of the Earth, mass extinctions, and the rise and domination of new forms. We see marsupial mammals giving way to placental mammals everywhere on the planet (except opossums and Australia), and then we see it happening before our eyes in Australia with the introduction of placental mammals that now dominate the ecosystem.
Mutation processes are most certainly probabilistic. One cannot induce the exact same mutation consistently as if it were some programmed response. They take place more often in some locations that others because some sequences are chemically or positionally more prone to mutation.
Do you think random means ‘beyond God's control’? The dice fall in the lap, but every result is from the Lord.
Punctuated Equilibrium (PE) was never suggested as an explanation for why mutation is probabilistic not random. Did you just need a segue? PE didn't extensively modify the theory of evolution through natural selection of genetic variation, it explained why we would see what we see in the fossil record and modified the idea of ‘gradualism’.
Gradualism is the idea that if you see fossils of a ‘flying squirrel’ that seems descended from a less aerodynamic squirrel fossil species from two million years before, a squirrel from one million years before in that lineage should be ‘half-way’ towards being a ‘flying squirrel’.
PE and most studies on how speciation actually happens or happened have shown why that is an incorrect assumption; but neither has changed the theory of evolution through natural selection of genetic variation.
“time needed”??? Evolutionary theory doesn't dictate how much time has passed, and is not at all dependent upon how much time has or will pass. You need to look at Astronomy and Geology for that.
However once again we get back to my point. CONSISTENCY. Evolutionary theory, Astronomy, Geology, plate tech-tonics, radiometric dating, human history, archeology; all can be used to construct a CONSISTENT timeline; wherein an insistence upon a young Earth is INCONSISTENT with what we know about universal principles of physics, chemistry, and biology.
127
posted on
10/27/2009 5:28:02 PM PDT
by
allmendream
(Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be RE-distributed?)
To: Natural Law
I totally agree the theory of evolution is unproven. Pick any modification you desire and I will agree that the theory is unproven. I also agree that much of the new data that is recorded does not support the theory and therefore the theory under goes yet another weak modification in a feeble attempt to stave off solid scientific criticism. The invention of PE and the later retraction of PE are great examples of a theory under considerable stress.
To: tongass kid
Intelligent Design indeed. Ancient horse breeders pioneered early genetic experiments on the IGF gene.
To: allmendream
Oh there you go again. I suggest you start by reading Darwin’s work and you will totally agree with the rest of us in the scientific community that according to his standards his theory is totally unproven by the fossil record. On the other hand I note that you have become an intelligent design supportive by some of your prior post. Your post shoot from the hip and lack agreement even in the environmental community. Additionally your comments are false concerning PE to the extent that a response is not needed and again they conflict with the original writings concerning PE.Further I note that you lack the understanding of the word “consistent” as used by the scientific community. I believe you have convinced me you are not a part of this community according to your conflicting post.
To: Wacka
Evolution is to Apollo 11 as Creationism is to Apollo 13.
To: tongass kid
Its like I always say: Where are those damned transitionals?
To: RightWingNilla
Perhaps he should change his tag to allmenfantize.He certainly does not understand his own post.
To: tongass kid
Its amazing what the ancients were able to do. How did they clone the IGF gene without any PCR or restriction enzymes?
To: tongass kid
Seriously where did the transitionals go? I think you had them last.
To: RightWingNilla
I believe you have correctly paraphrased Charles Darwin. He was greatly disappointed that they were not found in the fossil record in his life time. He was totally convinced that the fossils record would produce an overwhelming amount of transitional forms in order to prove his theory. It did not happen in his life time and I will take book that it will not happen in my life time.
Cheers
To: tongass kid
Just in case I come across one, what are the transitionals supposed to look like?
To: tongass kid
“us in the scientific community”?
Are you a scientist? Do you work in the sciences?
No scientific theory is ever “proven” or “unproven”. A theory is either supported by the evidence or the evidence contradicts or adjusts the theory.
You have yet to indicate how the fossil record does anything but support the theory of evolution through natural selection of genetic variation.
PE was never suggested as an explanation of or consequence of mutation being more likely for some sequences than others.
Consistent is, as I told you, that all the theories and all the facts have to be coherent. For example, when South America was joined with Africa - as proposed by plate techtonics- we would expect to see wide ranging species of animals that would be found from that time period in both locations. In time periods where South America had drifted away from Africa, we would expect to see different species develop in isolation from each other.
When we see light from a star one hundred million light years away, it is CONSISTENT with the fundamental principles of physics that the light took one hundred million years to get here.
Our measurement of radioisotopic decay is CONSISTENT with the age of the Earth, tree ring data, the historic record.
What you believe and have convinced yourself of is as of much accord as the quality of your posts warrant, and you write like you describe yourself, as a child.
138
posted on
10/27/2009 6:14:38 PM PDT
by
allmendream
(Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be RE-distributed?)
To: allmendream
My post have been correct and are acceptable to the evolutionary community to the extent that other scientist would have difficulty placing a label on me. The facts are what they are and the ones I site enjoy agreement in the scientific community. On the other hand your post have been inconsistent and one could identify you as a strong advocate of ID and/or someone that is totally confused about the theory of evolution but none the less wishes to support it.
To: tongass kid
They have been absolutely incorrect about PE being somehow an explanation or consequence of the likelihood of mutation of particular sequences, and many other things.
Cite as in citation, not site.
You do not understand that no theory is ever ‘proven’.
Anyone who thinks my posts support the Incompetent Design idiocy put forth by the Discovery Insistute would have to be delusional.
You lack the credibility to make any such assessment; as your lack of understanding of the basics of science, evolution, and punctuated equilibrium is obvious for all to see.
140
posted on
10/27/2009 6:46:09 PM PDT
by
allmendream
(Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be RE-distributed?)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 221-234 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson