New species clarifies bird-dinosaur link

New species clarifies bird-dinosaur link
Field Museum paleontologist helps analyze fossil

CHICAGO – The discovery and analysis of an early carnivorous dinosaur, Sinovenator changii, are clarifying the evolutionary relationship between dinosaurs and birds, according to a paper to be published in Nature Feb. 14, 2002.

The small, relatively complete fossil was found in the rich Yixian Formation of western Liaoning in China, where scientists have recently discovered many groundbreaking fossils, including feathered dinosaurs.

“This new dinosaur, which was probably feathered, is closely related to and almost the same age as the oldest known bird, Archaeopteryx,” says Peter Makovicky, PhD, assistant curator of dinosaurs at The Field Museum and co-author of the paper. “It demonstrates that major structural modifications toward birds occurred much earlier in the evolutionary process than previously thought.

“Furthermore, these findings help counter, once and for all, the position of paleontologists who argue that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs,” he adds.

Article continues at Field Museum Press Release.

A bit of the famous "list-o-links" (so the creationists don't get to start each new thread from ground zero).

01: Site that debunks virtually all of creationism's fallacies. Excellent resource.
02: Creation "Science" Debunked.
03: Creationi sm and Pseudo Science. Familiar cartoon then lots of links.
04: The SKEPTIC annotated bibliography. Amazingly great meta-site!
05: The Evidence for Human Evolution. For the "no evidence" crowd.
06: Massi ve mega-site with thousands of links on evolution, creationism, young earth, etc..
07: Another amazing site full of links debunking creationism.
08: Creationism and Pseudo Science. Great cartoon!
09: Glenn R. Morton's site about creationism's fallacies. Another jennyp contribution.
11: Is Evolution Science?. Successful PREDICTIONS of evolution (Moonman62).
12: Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution. On point and well-written.
13: Frequently Asked But Never Answered Questions. A creationist nightmare!
14: DARWIN, FULL TEXT OF HIS WRITINGS. The original ee-voe-lou-shunist.

The foregoing was just a tiny sample. So that everyone will have access to the accumulated "Creationism vs. Evolution" threads which have previously appeared on FreeRepublic, plus links to hundreds of sites with a vast amount of information on this topic, here's Junior's massive work, available for all to review: The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource [ver 15].

Do you know how many times in the last five years some fossil hunter has claimed that one of their finds "proves beyond all doubt" the dino-bird link?

Remember the one from last year that later proved to be the fossil of two creatures supperimposed on one another? I hope you will forgive me if I am a bit jaded and skepitcal toward such claims at this point. We will see how this holds up. In the meantime, you guys can get to work explaining how the avian continuous through-put resiratory system could possible evlove from the in-out system of all other vertebrates.

PS- if they find any older bird fossils I will consider the growing possiblity that dinosaurs evolved from birds.

The best way to handle supernaturalists is to simple ignore them.

Yes, in most cases that's wise. But sometimes they become pesky, as when they want to wuck up the school system; and then it's valuable to understand their ways. Also, in websites like this one, where so many thousands are lurking and getting their impressions of conservatism, it's important to show that there is indeed rationality on the right. However, I quite agree that no one ever changes the mind of a creationist. But these debates aren't really for that purpose.

I can't disagree with any of what you said.
My personal preference is to not bother with them.
I see your point on the lurkers. The supernaturalist lurkers, however,
wouldn't consider me as a true conservative even though I'm far to the right
of almost all of them.
To them only those of their own cult can possibly be conservative.

Admittedly I'm biased too. I don't consider anyone who would fall for supernaturalist stuff
as a real conservative, because in my opinion, a conservative position is based on reality and logic.
Supernaturalists have demonstrated they don't comprehend either reality or logic.

I fully expect to get flamed for my opinion. Not a problem, I'll just add a few names to my "ignore list."

Supernaturalists have demonstrated they don't comprehend either reality or logic.

The existence of God is a premise, so that the rest of the theology can be derived. An additional premise is that God is good. (If God is evil, then a whole different set of deductions take place.) Neither of those two can be proven or disproven, but assuming those two are true will allow you to use logic to derive a lot of morality.

If you are referring to the young earth creationists and catastrophism proponents, I agree that they will ignore all anecdotal evidence to support their beliefs. Beliefs (premises) that are falsifiable. Assuming that you believe in materialism, and that scientific principles act now like they in the past, and will act the same in the future. I'm not a religious person or very good at logic, so maybe someone who is will comment on this.

Figure skating and boxing have less fraud than the history of evolutionary science.

Actually there is very little fraud (intentional deception) in evolutionary science. As in other fields, fraud in science tends to occur where the most money is. Unsurprisingly a large proportion of scientific fraud occurs in the biomedical fields as this is where a large proportion of research dollars are spent.

There are probably some others, but only two or three examples of fraud in evolutionary biology or paleontology come to mind.

One is the famous Piltdown Hoax. It is the most exceptional in that there seems to have been no financial motivation involved, nor even any motivation of personal glory or reputation (in that the hoaxer never revealed himself, and was almost certainly not among those who published substantial scientific results based on the fossils). Another was the recent Archaeoraptor liaoningensis hoax, which was more typical in apparently involving a Chinese fossil merchant trying to turn a buck. In neither of these cases was the fraud perpetrated by the scientists publicizing the finds; in both cases they were the "dupes".

The only case that comes to mind where the perpetrator and promter of the fraud were one in the same person would be the misleading drawings of vertebrate embryos by Haekel in the 19th century. Even in this case it should be borne in mind that Haekel's drawings were slanted on behalf of a particular theory (embryonic recapitulation) which was widely disputed by other evolutionists even in his own time, and has no currency today.

Do you know of any other examples of evolutionary fraud (intentional deception)?

Do you know of any other examples of evolutionary fraud (intentional deception)?

Don't you realize that scientists don't lie or distort?

Nature's Editors Conceal Fraud

Nature's Editors Conceal Fraud
case report
D.K.Yuryev, d.yuryev@mtu-net.ru

Apparently, most editors of sci. journals publicly agree that to some extent they are responsible for publishing fraudulent papers (as well as erroneous, plagiarized etc.). So did Nature's editor P.Campbell, declaring in a recent big "briefing on science and fraud" that:
"Nature's policy is to publish whatever information it can about published papers that have proved suspect or false. Although after due consultations" (Nature, 398:15, 1999).

Yet, of course, officials may lie (I have informed Mr. Campbell about this suggestion) and actual behaviour of editorial boards may significantly differ from announced principles. My remarkable experience of submitting a whistle blow to Nature clearly shows that its actual editorial practice is to use every possible bureaucratic trick NOT to publish any information about papers that have proved suspect or false.
(Take also look at relevant chapter of a book "A Habit of Lie" by John Hewitt discussing real editorial practices in more philosophic details.)

Well maybe some people don't think that everything is okey-dokey. You might wish to check the Hewitt link.

You might wish to check the Hewitt link.

Well, having read the linked paged, and puttered around a bit in Hewitt's book, I would have to say (on a first impression) that the Nature editor was quite correct in referring to him as a "querulous" and unreasonable person. To that I would add excessively self-absorbed. I can't imagine why you posted this link.

That being said I am quite aware that there is fraud in science. The subject, however, was fraud in the field of evolution. My contention is that fraud tends to be lower in this field than most others (not because evolutionary scientists are better persons or scientists than their peers, but because it is a relatively small field with few high prestige positions available, and one which does not attract a great deal of research funds).

Did you have any examples of fraud in evolutionary science other than Piltdown, Archaeoraptor or Haekel's embryos?

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.