What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
81 Comments
- edd17, on 05/09/2008, -1/+16"How could there be fully-formed birds in a dinosaur era if all birds evolved from dinosaurs"
Oh wow, did you just actually use the "if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys around" argument. - browny1978, on 05/09/2008, -0/+12Science will have to rewrite what it knows - like it always does, and it accepts that, unlike religion which says the book says so, and ***** anything else to the contrary
- DeskFlyer, on 05/09/2008, -2/+14Do you have any idea how rare fossils are? Why do you people seem to think that there is a pristine fossil of everything that ever lived on the planet buried somewhere?
- brstilson, on 05/09/2008, -1/+13"Archaeopteryx is nothing but an ancient bird"
An ancient bird...with claws and teeth. - Zaphrod, on 05/09/2008, -1/+11How is the existence of this bird evidence to the contrary? The evolution of a particular bird or proto-bird from a dinosaur does not preclude the continued existence of all dinosaurs. Your argument seems to be, for evolution to be true, once a bird evolved all dinosaurs must have ceased to exist immediately, as if a creature was born a dinosaur and evolved during its lifetime into a bird and that all dinosaurs evolved into birds at the same time in the same manner.
Dinosaurs existed for over 150 million years from about 230 million yeas ago to about 65 million years ago in as many forms as we have mammals today and this bird existed about halfway through that time period. - eviscerator, on 05/09/2008, -0/+10I think it's safe to say that even if dinosaurs ended up evolving into birds, they probably didn't all do so at the same time. So I fail to see how this fossil disproves anything.
- kotatsu, on 05/09/2008, -2/+12Isn't it nice now how science reports it's findings so they can be discussed, and if required, theories can be revised. I don't think any scientist could claim to understand every aspect of evolution, but it remains the only rational explanation we have for our current state, and it is still supported by plenty of evidence.
- nitsuj, on 05/09/2008, -1/+8"How could there be fully-formed birds in a dinosaur era if all birds evolved from dinosaurs?"
Are you suggesting that it is claimed that ALL dinosaurs spontaneously evolved into birds? Because if you are, and I think you are, you're showing once more how ridiculously ignorant of evolution theory you are.
I'm not sure why you are confused with the fact that Archaeopteryx is 150 million years old and this find, Eoconfuciusornis zhengi, is 130 million years old. We know that they lived amongst dinosaurs and in all likelihood were part of the splinter group that went on to form modern day birds.
This is the same issue that you hear creationists come up with when they ask why apes are still around if we decended from them. Common ancestory is the answer and the same is true for these proto-birds.
Also, I'd check your own links. This one: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/forg ... , explains in detail and concludes that Archaeopteryx is most certainly not a fake. - insanebrain, on 05/09/2008, -2/+9The evolutionairy model allows mistakes. That's the beauty of the system. It doesn't say 'this is the answer'. It says 'this could be the answer'
The morons from that religion 'Intelligent design' say 'this is the answer'. How stupid can you get ? Please stop bashing the evolution theory because it contains mistakes, because saying that you know 'the true answer' is even more stupid. - DeskFlyer, on 05/09/2008, -2/+9I think you missed my point.
- nitsuj, on 05/09/2008, -0/+6I suppose that is purpose of physics, cosmology and geology too right?
These sciences, including evolution theory, are just providing frameworks and explanations for the universe as we find it. Nothing more, nothing less.
The purpose of evolutionary theory is to provide an explanation for the biodiversity of the planet. That's it.
There's no requirement to get rid of a creator because, frankly, what we've found is that there isn't any evidence outside of outlets for human mythology for such an entity. - Zippo, on 05/09/2008, -0/+6the scientific evidence that birds evolved from reptiles is overwhelming... right down to bone structure.
All you have to do is compare the bone structure of a modern-day raptor to a dinosaur raptor. - pyrator, on 05/09/2008, -1/+7No scientist of any seriousness is going to suggest that the evolutionary tree model is fact. The recent discussions regarding comb jellies have shown that and if you read the serious scientific literature as 'evolutionary biologists are still trying to reconstruct ancient episodes in the history of life' http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/04/30/why_weird_ ...
Because even though fossils are rare, there are enough of them buried from different times to show that animals and plants have diverged from common forms over the millennia. So birds have skelatal features in common with therapod dinosaurs, and some therapod fossils show evidence of, for example, feathers. Scientists have found evidence of evolution in a number of ways, both through observing fossils and examining genes, as well as seeing it in action. A fossil such as this furthers understanding. It can never be used to prove evolutionary theory as FACT. But it can help in filling in the gaps.
So yes evolution is a FACT. But no, there is clearly not an established tree model from proteo bacteria to human, only proposals as there is still debate over how often multi cellularity evolved and whether it evolved independently on several occasions - DforSpiD, on 05/09/2008, -1/+7I think you missed the point...
Evolution has room for change, it is possible to find some things were wrong without rocking the very foundations of the science, however this is not true of the book... - inajeep, on 05/09/2008, -2/+8Your ignorance is almost reportable as offensive. As far as those links you posted, I'd rather have a discussion on the evolutionary theory with someone who basis their opinion on facts whether misinterpreted or not rather than explaining everything with magic.
- nitsuj, on 05/09/2008, -0/+5"Look at the mathematic improbability of the bones of a reptile turning into a bird's and the lungs"
Would you like to put forward this math?
Given the initial starting conditions of the universe and taking into account the matter contained within the universe, how about doing the math for the probability of atoms forming your body?
"At this point this is an assumption until you can show direct, solid evidence to support it."
The animal described in the article is another piece of evidence. These are precursors to birds that still have distinctly reptilian attributes.
The other dinosaurs clearly went extinct. No modern day bird fossils have been found in the geology at this time - only these proto-birds which in turn evolved into the birds we have today.
The alternative would claim that animal species have constantly and spontaneously appeared ALL of the time throughout history. The fact that we indeed do have many, many transitional fossil forms rules this out along with the fact that we don't see spontaneous generation but rather adaptation and natural selection. Genetics backs it up. - drgreenberg, on 05/09/2008, -0/+5Who said that it disproved anything? This is what would be expected from a dinosaur-to-bird evolution. Evolution isn't linear. The branch of dinosaurs that led to birds would have started while other dinosaurs went off on dead ends to extinction, the "bird branch" being the sole remaining branch at the end.
At this point, protein similarities between birds and that found preserved in fossils makes the bird-dinosaur hypothesis very strong. - nitsuj, on 05/10/2008, -0/+4"It takes logic and reason to believe in a creator."
Really? Then where did your creator come from? And, given the answer, how do you know this absolutely for sure?
"It's irrational and borderline insanity to think everything just made itself, mutates, grows, gains information by itslef."
Well the latter three points you mention have been observed and there is mountains of evidence for it. Evolution is a fact. Evolution theory is the explanation of this fact.
Your first point regards abiogenesis and whilst there is much more to be learned in this field, there is little reason to believe that life didn't emerge from natural processes. Believing that it was somehow magically brought into an existence by a currently absent impossibly complex creator doesn't answer anything and there's no evidence for it. May as well say that life was created by an army of a billion immortal pixies - you'd have as much luck proving it or finding any evidence for it. - nitsuj, on 05/09/2008, -0/+5True, it could be an independent animal and it could belong to a dead end ancestral line that went extinct.
What it does show though, is that the niche was there for animals to take advantage of and as a result they adapted and evolved to suit this niche. It also has striking similarities to modern birds, feathers for example (evolved from scales), which make it likely that todays modern birds share ancestory with such a creature - if not the exact species. - covertbadger, on 05/09/2008, -1/+5We HAVE seen evolution occur on a macro scale. It happens every day. Fossils are not the only, or even the major, form of evidence for evolution. And the things you are referring to (cats giving birth to dogs, lizards giving birth to birds) are not evolution, not predicted by evolution, and in fact would go some way toward disproving evolution. Come back when you understand the basics of the topic, and we'll talk.
- gordonj, on 05/10/2008, -0/+5A transitional form does not have to be exhibited by a direct ancestor to provide evolutionary information. Often fossils that exhibit transitional forms could just as well be a species that has branched from the lineage that leads to modern creatures. That branched lineage would probably be closely related to the lineage that gave the modern animals (because of the physical similarities) that we make inferences about (i.e. birds), and any structural features that are shared between them are likely to be present in some form in the common ancestor of the fossil species and the modern species (for example feathers on archaeopteryx). Often features are lost in lineages. We know that teeth have been lost in the lineage that gave rise to all modern birds because no birds have teeth, however archaeopteryx did have teeth, which is a transitional form even if archaeopteryx was not a direct ancestor of modern birds.
- gordonj, on 05/10/2008, -0/+4*ahem* circular logic and stretched reason.
- covertbadger, on 05/09/2008, -0/+4"Look at the mathematic improbability of the bones of a reptile turning into a bird's and the lungs, and the heart."
Why don't you tell us all what this supposed improbability is, and how to derive it? Be sure to include your working out. - covertbadger, on 05/09/2008, -0/+4Please show your inarguable refutation for the reams of evidence that birds descended from dinosaurs. A glittering career as a renowned scientist awaits if you're not as full of ignorant crap as you appear.
- pyrator, on 05/09/2008, -1/+5On a larger scale there have been examples of lizards in the Adriatic region evolving different gut structures and larger heads. This is evolution and it takes time but it is evolution in action. No scientist in his right mind would ever claim that a lizard would evolve into a bird or a cat into a dog within a few generations. To say otherwise means you are missing the point. Small changes gradually occur and eventually you end up with an animal that is radically different to the form from which it started.
Read about the evolution of the peppered moth or ask yourself why bacteria have become immune to a variety of drugs (e.g. TB and penicillin for example) and you'll see how evolution is occurring with observable consequences within our lifetimes. - pauliusuza, on 05/09/2008, -1/+6Why do you people come and always ruin a fresh piece of scientific evidence with your "God created " assumptions.... arrrgh!! Let us science lovers be.
- magiclava, on 05/09/2008, -3/+7Dunno why you bother commenting Spaza, looking at your profile you're well into the minuses with your comments...
- Wakkyweed, on 05/09/2008, -1/+5The point, Topher, is that normal birds do not have teeth and claws and long bony tails and several other skeletal features that are highly unusual. Only an animal that was half-dinosaur/half-bird would have those characteristics, and that is exactly what evolution predicts. It's one of the many, many missing links that the religious nuts insist don't exist, in spite of all evidence to the contrary.
- pilgrim3970, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3ok, I just re-read that - allow me to rephrase.
Why is it assumed that Archaeopterix is an ancestor of modern birds. Isn't it possible that it is completely distinct and has nothing to do with birds whatsoever? It seems to me from what I have read that claims that it is a direct ancestor is controversial. - pilgrim3970, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3"Apparently in the days of the old testament there used to be a lot of hybrid mixtures of Christianity and Judaism running about, " I'm guessing you meant "in the days of the new testament". If that is the case, you are correct. The writings of the Apostle Paul do mention the "Judaizers" who were Jewish Christians that not only continued to observe the Old Testament ceremonial laws but insisted that gentile converts do the same (such as the controversy - "should gentile converts be required to be circumcised?" - the Council of Jersalem decided "no"). There was a very small minority (their name escapes me at the moment, will edit if I remember at some point) that followed an amalgam of Christianity and Judaism with some gnosticism thrown in but they eventually died out. It doesn't prove anything other than men will follow their own way regardless of the truth.
- RockMuncher, on 05/09/2008, -1/+3Exactly. We have bird species in modern day that evolved their feathers and capacity for flight at different times and along different evolutionary pathways, why would anything have been different (bird into dinosaur) back then?
- pyrator, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2I know that this sounds a bit nit picky but the idea that 'dinosaurs ended up evolving into birds' is not really grasping the evolution of birds and dinosaurs. Birds evolved from a type of dinosaur, true. Probably Archaeopteryx evolved from a common ancestor to other birds but evolved still further into a different form to that taken by the ancestor of todays birds, thus the claws and teeth. Other dinsosaurs evolved into newer dinosaurs while all this was taking place. And they still remained dinosaurs until the day a big asteroid/comet collided with Chicxulub - or were the Deccan traps responsible?
- pilgrim3970, on 05/09/2008, -1/+3If I may pose a question - why is it assumed that Archaeopterix is an ancestor of modern birds? Could this not have been a distinct species?
- covertbadger, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2Oh, classic misdirection. Not going to work, dumbass. I didn't make a comment that needs proving - YOU did. YOU said Zippo was wrong, all I did was ask you to back up your claim. I see you take the oh-so-frequent coward's way out by trying to turn the tables on me because you know full well you have no solid ground to stand on.
So, if you're finding it a bit of a challenge lets take baby steps. talkorigins.org contains a fair amount of evidence, with full references provided to back it up. Why don't you start by proving all of that evidence incorrect, then we'll move on to something a bit larger. - brstilson, on 05/09/2008, -1/+3He won't do that. He's got an agenda to push. Facts just get in the way for creationists.
- nitsuj, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2Not looking at just the teeth but it's entire skeletal structure.
If you want well documented transitional forms the look no further than whale evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
It's very well documented and researched. In particular striking because it traces the evolution of a land animal that adapted and changed physical characteristics for marine living.
Lot's of more examples here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.h ...
Noted that you didn't provide any math for your initial assertion.
Think about it. Your alternative is that millions of different species were spontaneously pinging into existence since the beginning of life - many of them sharing many characteristics and certainly giving the appearance of evolution.
There is not one piece of evidence to support this alternative and we do not see animals constantly and spontaneously appearing. We see existing life adapting over time. - rickcarson, on 05/09/2008, -2/+3Don't get too emotionally attached to this one. A lot of fossil 'discoveries' in China have been shown to be fakes upon closer scrutiny. There's a good article on the net about this, which I seem to have lost track of, does anyone have it?
- edd17, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Please, if you read the article it describes how Archaeopteryx had many dinosaur like characteristics, it was not fully formed. Given that it is thought that birds split from dinosaurs around 150mya and that this fossil dates from 151mya, this fossil fits well into the widely accepted time frame. Birds existed along with the dinosaurs for a long time (until the extinction of the dinosaurs around 65mya) and are often thought of as the only surviving dinosaurs.
- jayb1rd, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1Don't get too excited--it was just John McCain.
- mytruckhasdents, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1the "bird" looks more like a Rorschach test
- eimlauqons, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1By the time other teams go over it, they will just say it is another bird.
- inactive, on 05/10/2008, -1/+2What does the popularity or lack thereof of my comments have to do with the validity, logic, or accuracy of them?
Argumentum ad populum logical fallacy.
Furthermore, why do you think that the only people who matter in Diggland are the ones that comment. There are probably an order of magnitude more people that read these posts who do NOT have Digg accounts. Not to belittle you, but...why do you think that you're so special? - Ocelot13, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1i think i know whats wrong here...
ok, on the doll, point to where onetimer touched you... - inactive, on 05/10/2008, -1/+2Using your example, the equivalent who be to arrest and convict natural processes for killing the woman simply because Mr. X could not be found, analyzed under controlled conditions, and subject to peer review...regardless of circumstanstial evidence.
In much the same manner, some scientists demand a naturalistic answer simply because an intelligent cause is too difficult for them to analyze using their scientific methodology. - pauliusuza, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2We have a neighbor with a spare leg. We call him Octopus.
- Wakkyweed, on 05/10/2008, -1/+2And why WOULDN'T you demand a purely naturalistic cause and process for all life on the planet? Why is it only in this one section of science that you demand a super-natural explanation? You don't ask us to believe that gravity works because god pulls down on our feet, or that molecules are assembled by tiny invisible angels.
By definition, science is the search for answers through observations of natural processes. If you want to claim that Super Magic Guy is the cause behind everything, then I don't care. Just don't try to pass it off as some sort of science. - inactive, on 05/10/2008, -1/+1Evolutionary theory is the best guess that we have...IF we demand a purely naturalistic cause and process for all life on the planet. Therein lies the problem. Most people do not force a naturalistic conclusion when they look at life on the planet.
- inactive, on 05/10/2008, -1/+1Not to be rude, inajeep, but who cares about your personal desires? This is a discussion of the theory of evolution, not a personal whine session.
- inactive, on 05/10/2008, -1/+1If you didn't already conclude and believe that dinosaurs evolved into birds, then you would simply think that Archaeopterix was a really strange bird. But, because you have concluded the end result before all the evidence is in, you shoehorn-fit Archy right into this evolutionary tree model where you think it makes sense. And then you use Archy, now where you want him in the tree model, as evidence that the tree model itself is legitimate.
This is circular reasoning.
I might as well say that the Bible is accurate because God made it...and we know God made the Bible because the Bible says so. - inactive, on 05/10/2008, -1/+1"Only an animal that was half-dinosaur/half-bird would have those characteristics, and that is exactly what evolution predicts."
Not true. You are assuming a conclusion based on the assumptions and goals of the original theory, not because Archy, in and of itself, tells you to fit it on the evolutionary tree model where you have placed it.
Case in point is the modern platypus. This species rocks the evolutionary tree model. How do you know that Archy wasn't simply a weird mutation of a bird that died out instead of propagating?
See? You don't know. No one has a clue if Archy wasn't a unique species that died out or even evolved into something even weirder.
But, you ASSUME that it fits in between dinosaurs and modern birds because you have already concluded beforehand that dinosaurs evolved into birds and humans evolved from proto-bacteria.
This is illogical and unscientific. -
Show 51 - 81 of 81 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is