New Dinosaur Species Found in India

AP ^ | August 13, 2003 | RAMOLA TALWAR BADAM

[DittoJed2]

No they are not. Sometimes they are a loss of information (e.g. excisions), sometimes they are a change in information (e.g. point mutations), sometimes they are a gain of information (e.g. duplications).
Duplications does not equal the kind of added information that evolution requires.

Why isn't it a dinosaur with a bit of a bird? For the same reason that a dog with fur and a long tail is not a "bit of a cat." They are two different kinds of creatures.

[Right Wing Professor]

Many of these scientist, such as Crick, offer non-Darwinian theories of evolution.

That doesn't mean he disbelieves in evolution. Crick has been quoted in 1984 as saying Orgel's Second Law is "evolution in cleverer than you are" He has advised people 'for the sake of their soul' to read Dawkins' 'The Blind Watchmaker'. The page is misrepresenting Crick's development of a speculative hypothesis about panspermia as a rejection of evolution.

He's also a committed atheist, who resigned from his college in Oxford to protest their building a chapel.

[goodseedhomeschool (returned)]

Looking forward to that one.

[DittoJed2]

It is new information perception wise, but it does not change the fundamental nature of the pie. It is still a pie.

[BMCDA]

I don't meant the artist's rendition but the actual fossil to the right. In this picture it's a bit small but VadeRetro had larger version where you actually could see the feathers.

[DittoJed2]

Uh, yes, I know that. And, if you look at my comments, I said that not all of those folks were creationists. They just doubt Darwin. There are several theories of evolution out there, showing that even in the scientific community Darwin's hypothesis is far from proven. If you destroy the dating system of evolution then you destroy the theory. The web link I sent was people who doubt Darwin and/or agree that his theory of evolution needs to be reevaluated. There are major problems in the theory that even athiestic evolutionary thinkers acknowledge.

[DittoJed2]

It is debatable as to whether those are feathers, and there is nothing in creationism that disallows for feathers on a dinosaur. It doesn't make him a bird or a transitional species.

[Right Wing Professor]

Be advised, if you pick a single point and successfully defend it, that success will be marginalized and called meaningless

No fair, old chap - touchdown dances are for after you actually score ;)

Interesting, too, that success for a creationst, in the view of this FReeper, is managing to get one thing right. That's below even the broken-clock criterion.

[Right Wing Professor]

Which was a bird. Try to keep up.

Archaeopteryx was a bird certainly, one of those birds with clawed hands, a bony tail, and teeth.

Know of any other birds like that?

[longshadow]

AND you were supposed to keep that island a secret!

Yeah, isn't that the island where the ET's go for R&R with Earth women who um, have an open-minded attitude about precious bodily fluids?

[DittoJed2]

Hoatzins and Ostriches and apparently other bird species have claws on their wings. Baby birds are born with a tooth like appendage that helps them get out of their shell, so they must have the genetics to form teeth. And, a bony tail could be just a micro-evolution adaptation of a creature or some strange genetic mutation. It doesn't turn him into part dinosaur or indicate that he is a transitional species at all. Further, feathers and scales are quite different and one can not become the other. They don't have the right make up for that.

[BMCDA]

It is new information perception wise...

Then I don't know what definition of information you use.
Meaning is dependent on perception but then it is not quantifiable as is the case with information.

...but it does not change the fundamental nature of the pie. It is still a pie.

And orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos and humans are still hominoids.

[AndrewC]

It's even getting worse, marginalized even before a successful point.

[Junior]

Punctuated equillibrium explains such jumps (species separates from parent and evolves quickly. Returns to the fold and replaces parent species.)

"Quickly" still refers to several thousand or tens of thousands of generations, though.

[VadeRetro]

It's not mine! It has its own page on the American Museum of Natural History site.

As far as the feathers not being feathers (per that AiG claim), that's pretty debatable.

A clue to what's going on: this is probably the second Sinornithosaurus ever found. Much or all of the literature AiG and some others quote refers to the first fossil, a less clear and pretty (but fully adult) specimen shown below. There's more room for claiming the feathers might be something else on the first one.

Above, the first one.

Above, the probable second one (if it isn't a related new species).

Feather detail, first find.

Feather detail, second find.

[VadeRetro]

Archaeopteryx was a bird certainly, one of those birds with clawed hands, a bony tail, and teeth.

Under the feathers, Archy looks so much like an ordinary dromaeosaur that sometimes anti-E's claim it's just an ordinary dromaeosaur fossil with feather impressions faked about it.

(This claim too has been thoroughly debunked.)

[BMCDA]

Yeah, I know it wasn't yours but I knew you had it bookmarked ;)
However, in the mean time I did a websearch and found the link on this feathered dinosaur website.
Just wanted to post it but you beat me to it.

So thanks again for posting it and saving me some work ;)

[VadeRetro]

That's a nice site, too! And it has links to very high resolution pictures of the same fossil.

[Physicist]

a dog with fur and a long tail is not a "bit of a cat." They are two different kinds of creatures.

That's an arguable point. Compared to a squid, dogs and cats are nearly identical. Is a grizzly bear "a bit of a black bear"?

[Lurking Libertarian]

Black bear placemarker.