The Demise of Another Evolutionary Link: Archaeopteryx Falls From Its Perch

Evolution News & Views ^ | October 26, 2009 | Casey Luskin

[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 Archaeopteryx’s ancient fossilized bones show it developed much more slowly than modern birds. While the WSJ is reporting these doubts about Archaeopteryx’s 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 isn’t the only evolutionary icon losing its claim as the ancestor of birds. In recent months we’ve 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.

[Wacka]

And you call yourself a surveyor.

[Natural Law]

"What theories do you consider proven?"

A precise use of the language is required to answer the question. A theory, in the emperical scientific sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations. Once proven the structure ceases to be a theory and becomes a principle.

That being said, the theory of relativity (E=MC^2) is pretty well established by the explosion of the atomic bombs.

[christianhomeschoolmommaof3]

YOU “No, creationist alternate the terms in an attempt to blur the meaning.”

We do not alternate the terms. They are two seperate things as defined below.
Microevolution-evolution resulting from small specific genetic changes that can lead to a new subspecies. (http://www.answers.com/topic/microevolution)

Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level.

Neither are from a creationist website. (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIADefinition.shtml)

YOU “Macro evolution is the same thing as micro evolution, just micro evolution over long periods of time.”

That is not what the definitions above say. YOU are the one confusing the terms not me.

YOU “Creationists speak of ‘micro’ and ‘macro’ evolution, Biologists speak of evolution and common descent of species.”
No micro and macro are different things.

YOU “Otherwise it would just be an example of an expression of a recessive trait, which is NOT an example of microevolution.”
Bad example, the point was that the information is already there in the DNA for a trait to be selected.

“In order to refute something, or to even credibly reject something, it would help if you understood it.”

I understand the difference between micro and macro. You obviously think they are the same thing. That is because the terms have been misused and blurred.
I believe in mutations, natural selection and speciation. That is good observable science.
You believe that this is MACROevolution and it is not. Changes can occur within a species even creating a subspecies. No one is arguing that.

YOU “It is not a logical fallacy to observe a known and measurable process and extrapolate that over time in order to see if it can be a logical mechanism to explain historical processes.”

It is a logical fallacy to observe a known and measureable process (natural selection and speciation) and extrapolate that to an unknown and inmeasurable process (macroevolution).

YOU “For example, the known and measurable “micro” erosion that we see, is both necessary and sufficient to explain the “macro” features of canyons caused by river erosion over millions of years.”
I have to laugh at this. You are saying that because we can see erosion now and assume erosion in the past that we can see changes in dogs now and assume they evolved from something else in the past.

You are the one confusing the terms and trying to blur the data not me.

[allmendream]

Yes, we assume that dogs evolved from wolves sometime in the past. Some time after humans domesticated wolves and started breeding them into dogs.

It is not a logical fallacy to take a known and observable process and extrapolate that into explaining what happened in the past - it is the scientific method to do so.

Is the observed and measured motion of the continents both necessary and sufficient to explain why South America used to be joined with Africa and now are so far apart? Why yes, yes it is.

Is the observed and measured selective pressure on genetic variation among dogs necessary and sufficient to explaining the many varieties that humans have developed over the years? Why yes, yes it is.

Is the observed and measured mutation rate in DNA sequences not subject to selective pressure both necessary and sufficient to explain the measured difference in the same DNA sequences between species of assumed common ancestry? Why yes, yes it is.

[tongass kid]

I will gladly respond to your concerns about PE, but I did not say those things. Perhaps you have confused me with another poster. It is interesting that you challenge the work of Thorarinsson. You are the only person that does. I know of no one in the scientific community that does. His work has received special United Nations status. Please tell us what he did wrong because the entire scientific community would like to know. Your statement only leads me to believe you are clueless as to his work and can only support your high school text book view of erosion. I urge you to turn a square corner with us and read his work. Additionally he was not the only scientist to observe the events. Scientist came from around the globe to observe and today the entire project is still accessible only to the scientific community some 40 years later.

[allmendream]

“When it became obvious that the mutation process was certainly not random in came PE to yet greatly modify the inconsistent theory of evolution.”

You also said “The reason I mentioned PE is because PE is an old answer to the problem of non random findings in the fossil record. It is becoming more obvious that the none random fossil record is attributed to the non random mutation observations.”

Please give a cite for this (or “site” if you prefer). I fail to see how a deconstruction of the idea of gradualism would in any way be an explanation for or around or consequence of the fact that some DNA sequences are more likely to be mutated than others.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[christianhomeschoolmommaof3]

You are saying wolves changed into domesticated dogs so therefore apes and people evolved from a common ansector. You are taking something that is observed and extrapolating it to something that isn’t observed. IOW, you are comparing apples to oranges as it were. Again you are confusing micro and macro.

[Wacka]

Wolves, coyotes, and domesticated dogs have common anscestors, just like apes and humans do.

Man was the selective pressure for the wolf/coyote/dog lineage. Starving wolves overcame their fear of man, and accepted food from them.,eventually becoming tame. Then man bred the ones with traits they wanted. Most dog breeds are from the last 500 years or so.
Coyotes probably evolved from wolves without man’s intervention.

What is so hard in understanding that?

[Natural Law]

"You are saying wolves changed into domesticated dogs so therefore apes and people evolved from a common ansector."

Are you denying that domestic dogs (canis lupus familiaris) is not a separate species and did not descend from the wolf (canis lupus)?

[tongass kid]

I find it interesting that you demand an answer to your questions but you do not answer my questions. I believe you misunderstood my quote so I will attempt to add to your understanding. Eldredge and Gould observed that sampling the fossil record was inconsistent with gradualism. Some authors also refer to uniform gradualism. Rather then throw gradualism under the bus they decided to modify the concept of gradualism to be non uniform and comply with their findings of the fossil record. The fact that the fossil record is non random and therefore does not support uniform gradualism. The authors have written may articles on PE and have amended it over time. About two years ago geneticist also observed that mutations occur in non random clusters that appear to help explain the non random occurrence in the fossil record. These findings do not help the old definition off gradualism. Although we still find gradualism in text books it was readily apparent to Nile and Jay that gradualism needed a face lift. With more recent findings it is becoming apparent gradualism needs to be buried six feet under. Unfortunately the early paleontologist such as Darwin never saw a gene and lacked an understanding how gradualism could be so negatively impacted by modern genetics. Now you need to answer my questions.

[Wacka]

As other have said. What is the stop button between micro and macro? Maybe it looks like the “easy” button from Staples?

THERE IS NONE. There is evolution. Over a short time, small traits may be changed, these accumulate and over a long time, a new species arises.

Creationists use more twists of logic than any democrat.

[christianhomeschoolmommaof3]

“Wolves, coyotes, and domesticated dogs have common anscestors”

Agreed. There common ancestor was a dog. And they are all dogs.

“just like apes and humans do.”

There is your leap.

[christianhomeschoolmommaof3]

“Are you denying that domestic dogs (canis lupus familiaris) is not a separate species and did not descend from the wolf (canis lupus)?”

No I am not denying that. I believe that. However, I don’t believe that it proves that apes and people evolved from a common ancestor. Let me clarify what I said “You are saying THAT BECAUSE wolves changed into domesticated dogs (true) that it can be extrapolated that apes and people evolved from a common ansector.”

[christianhomeschoolmommaof3]

“What is the stop button between micro and macro?”
DNA. The traits of the new species came about by some mechanism - natural selection, breeding etc. Those traits were already in the DNA of the parents. For a sea creature to evolve into a land animal, information has to be added. There is no mechanism for this to take place.
I am not saying that a new species of dogs cannot arise after small traits have accumulated over time. They can. The problem comes when you tell me that these small changes can cause a canine to change into another animal altogether.

The word species is used for classification. A new species of the genus canis is not a different animal altogether. It is a variation.

This is what creationist mean when they say animal “kind”. Zebras, horses, mules, donkeys are all variations of one kind of animal.

[tongass kid]

Perhaps you did not like my first response concerning PE. Therefore for your benefit I will call this response PE FOR DUMMIES. Once upon a time there were two scientific dudes called Niles and Jay. Deep down in their hearts they loved the theory of evolution which stood upon two strong legs called random and gradualism. Niles and Jay knew that it is very important that the fossil record totally support the two strong legs called random and gradualism. When they went to the fossil record to find the support for the legs they were sad in their hearts because the support was no where to be found. Further they realized that they could spend the rest of their lives looking for the support and not find it. They knew this because their great uncle Charles had died disappointed many years before looking for the support in the fossil record with out success. In order to remove the pain from their hearts they knew they must make a decision from two options. They could change the fossil record but their uncle Pilt had tried this with disastrous results. The other option would be to change their beloved theory and risk the surgical removal of the two strong legs call random and gradualism. They were very clever and decided to change their beloved theory and call the new modification PE. They would hide the surgically removed legs of random and gradualism by describing their finding of the fossil record as stasis,ecological succession and other clever words. They wrote their other scientific dude friends about their modification called PE. At first the surgically removed legs were well hidden. Over time as Niles, Jay and others continued to discuss PE it became apparent that Niles and Jay had indeed removed those two strong legs. Niles and Jay were still happy in their hearts because they still had a theory to love even though it did not have two legs to stand on. Niles and Jay continued to talk much more about PE and went on to live happily ever after. There you have it, PE FOR DUMMIES.

[tongass kid]

If you really want to know they are in post 176. I hope you enjoy it. It is probably a night mare for the other guy.
cheers

[xcamel]

I think you’re fighting with one of GGG’s many backup aliases... If not, it’s just another bat from it’s belfry..

[FormerRep]

“Old age isn’t easy.”

Amen, Brother. Us grey haired gentlemen have to stick together.

[allmendream]

You have yet to provide an ACTUAL CITATION to any source (besides yourself, despite your denials that you said it) that claims Punctuated Equilibrium is either the consequence of or an explanation for non-random mutation.

So now you admit at least that you said it.

Now provide a source that substantiates it.