Melding Evolution and Creationism

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

I could be wrong, given how long it’s been since I was in chemistry, but this idea would seem to me to resolve the paradox of the idea of spontaneous generation of life with the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which holds that systems left alone tend to greater states of disorder (lower states of energy). The life force you’ve been talking about, donated from God, would supply the energy and “will” (a hard concept for the lowest single-cell creatures and viruses (alive? non alive?)). My $0.02 anyway.[/quote]

The entire Big Bang theory relies on there being so much chaos that it suddenly hit that one chance of finding order…and did so in such a grand way that it created and created until entire planets were formed and life appeared and the sun came out and a rainbow shown overhead…but what happened to chaos?

I don’t know about you, but I have yet to see a car accident between a Honda Civic and a Geo Metro explode into a Cadillac Escalade…on Spreewells. I have never seen a building get slammed with a wrecking ball and instantly become a galleria with three tier shopping. I got into a fight once in college and hit this really ugly muthafucka in the eye…and he did not become Tom Cruise. Maybe I just wasn’t trying hard enough.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Professor X wrote:

One thing that can be settled on by all is that the force of life on this planet had to be brought/given/donated to this planet from somewhere or something…

Professor X –

…this idea would seem to me to resolve the paradox of the idea of spontaneous generation of life with the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which holds that systems left alone tend to greater states of disorder (lower states of energy)…[/quote]

BB,

      I understand that the 2nd law applies if energy transfer is constant and continuous. This, it seems to me, is why Newton believed that kick-started the cosmos and makes adjustments along the way; it also made room for the idea of an apocalypse - entropy.
       However, wasn't the desire to avoid entropy one of the big reasons that physicists pursued a non-wave theory of electrodynamics in the first place? Do not the Bohr energy levels imply that energy transmission is only APPROXIMATELY continuous for long wavelengths, and, accordingly, that God need not (or does not) continually feed his system energy to keep it moving?

P.S. -

Thanks for starting this topic. Important topic, good thread.

BB, very good article. Thanks for posting it. Interestingly enough, his belief is similar to my own. Baruch Spinoza actually “proved” the existance of God using Euclidean Geometrical Mathmatics, and in his letters to his friends, went on to describe God as the energy behind the laws of nature, the intelligence behind the design of the universe itself, but he also criticised man’s tendency to “anthropomorphize” God… In other words, Man created God in his own image, not the other way around.

We all intuit the existance of God, but the assignment of human traits (happiness, jealousy, anger, etc) is all just humans trying to relate to something we can’t possibly even concieve of, hence we condense it to an image that we can understand… The form of a man.

I better stop now… I wax philosophical all day if I let myself.

[quote]Roy Batty wrote:
BB, very good article. Thanks for posting it. Interestingly enough, his belief is similar to my own. Baruch Spinoza actually “proved” the existance of God using Euclidean Geometrical Mathmatics, and in his letters to his friends, went on to describe God as the energy behind the laws of nature, the intelligence behind the design of the universe itself, but he also criticised man’s tendency to “anthropomorphize” God… In other words, Man created God in his own image, not the other way around.

We all intuit the existance of God, but the assignment of human traits (happiness, jealousy, anger, etc) is all just humans trying to relate to something we can’t possibly even concieve of, hence we condense it to an image that we can understand… The form of a man.

I better stop now… I wax philosophical all day if I let myself. [/quote]

Wax on.

It is often this “humanized” concept that many who oppose the belief in God conjure up as their reason for why they don’t believe. Maybe it would be easier to swallow if we simply called God “energy”. However, that wouldn’t be giving “Him” the credit “he” deserves. I believe that some of our human traits may be replicant, but I seriously doubt our concepts of God or heaven are anywhere close to accurate. We base most of this on the words of people believed to have experienced something centuries before their time. Streets of gold? I personally think it is highly inaccurate to even think of the Tower Of Babble as a true physical tower meant to touch heaven. I think many of these concepts have been “dumbed down” or analogized for the general public.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Professor X wrote:

One thing that can be settled on by all is that the force of life on this planet had to be brought/given/donated to this planet from somewhere or something. Nothing on this planet creates life so the belief that life just appeared by itself once and only once is ridiculous and has no base in logic.

Professor X –

I conceptualize it the same way you do.

I could be wrong, given how long it’s been since I was in chemistry, but this idea would seem to me to resolve the paradox of the idea of spontaneous generation of life with the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which holds that systems left alone tend to greater states of disorder (lower states of energy). The life force you’ve been talking about, donated from God, would supply the energy and “will” (a hard concept for the lowest single-cell creatures and viruses (alive? non alive?)). My $0.02 anyway.[/quote]

The 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn’t apply since the Earth is not a closed system. We have the Sun to provide energy.

Also, regarding evolution between species, there is evidence that birds and reptiles share common ancestry.

There was a good article in Scientific American earlier this year refuting Creationism that could argue this far better than myself.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Professor X wrote:

One thing that can be settled on by all is that the force of life on this planet had to be brought/given/donated to this planet from somewhere or something. Nothing on this planet creates life so the belief that life just appeared by itself once and only once is ridiculous and has no base in logic.

Professor X –

I conceptualize it the same way you do.

I could be wrong, given how long it’s been since I was in chemistry, but this idea would seem to me to resolve the paradox of the idea of spontaneous generation of life with the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which holds that systems left alone tend to greater states of disorder (lower states of energy). The life force you’ve been talking about, donated from God, would supply the energy and “will” (a hard concept for the lowest single-cell creatures and viruses (alive? non alive?)). My $0.02 anyway.[/quote]

The 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn’t apply since the Earth is not a closed system. We have the Sun to provide energy.

Also, regarding evolution between species, there is evidence that birds and reptiles share common ancestry.

There was a good article in Scientific American earlier this year refuting Creationism that could argue this far better than myself.

Certain of those traits are given to God because He might have them, but I would doubt they would be corrupted as our traits are. I also think that they are words that God would use to explain how He reacts to things we do.

I doubt the Jealousy the Bible describes is anything like what we think it is.

As far as the Tower of Babble it was most likely a temple of sorts, and it was believed to have had the zodiac signs on the top. I believe the term for build a tower to reach Heaven is not meant to be literally build, but it was to be dedicated to Heaven.

Here is a cut and paste from the link I am going to post

http://www.tektonics.org/af/earthshape.html#high

Genesis 11:4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.

This verse was once popular among critics, but not much any more. The words “may reach” are an insertion of the KJV. The reference is now recognized as meaning that the tower was to be dedicated unto heaven, not built to reach it. Of course, even if it did have the other meaning, it only reflects what men “said” at the time – not that they were right about what they said.

[quote]beaudry wrote:

Also, regarding evolution between species, there is evidence that birds and reptiles share common ancestry.

There was a good article in Scientific American earlier this year refuting Creationism that could argue this far better than myself.
[/quote]

Actually, most “evidence” shows that they shared similar bone structures and possibly migratory habits, but there is no fossile link directly between birds and large reptiles. Even though the Pteradactyle could fly, he was not a bird. I was a fan of dinosaurs long before Jurassic Park came out and even though most research is amazing and thought provoking, even that is a theory.

Spinoza is definetely worth bringing up in this discussion, but let’s be clear: His idea is that God manifests himself only through Nature (the sum of all phenomena), which is really to say that he doesn’t manifest himself at all except as the condition for the existence of things. He would not accept creationism; in fact, wasn’t he the first thinker to say that the visions of the prophets were entirely conditioned by the peculiarities of their minds (i.e., ‘Isaiah was a nutjob’)?

It still seems to me that it is impossible to have both a God active in the world and an entirely self-subsistent nature (sum of phenomena). These two understandings of the world are mutually exclusive because either God has acted in the world, or he has not.

And, just to be fully provocative: Creation is free will, and evolution is natural necessity, and never the twain shall meet. (j/k… sort of)

[quote]Ross Hunt wrote:

And, just to be fully provocative: Creation is free will, and evolution is natural necessity, and never the twain shall meet. (j/k… sort of)[/quote]

The simple act of muscle growth goes against that saying. It is my free will to lift weights and eat enough. It is my body’s natural genetic potential that will produce any certain amount of adaptive growth from the process.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
beaudry wrote:

Also, regarding evolution between species, there is evidence that birds and reptiles share common ancestry.

There was a good article in Scientific American earlier this year refuting Creationism that could argue this far better than myself.

Actually, most “evidence” shows that they shared similar bone structures and possibly migratory habits, but there is no fossile link directly between birds and large reptiles. Even though the Pteradactyle could fly, he was not a bird. I was a fan of dinosaurs long before Jurassic Park came out and even though most research is amazing and thought provoking, even that is a theory. [/quote]

I found this site.

Seems to show evidence of an interspecies transition.

“Archaeopteryx is a bird because it had feathers. However, it retained many dinosaurian characters which are not found in modern birds, whilst having certain characters found in birds but not in dinosaurs. By virtue of this fact Archaeopteryx represents an example of a group in transition - a representative which, although on the sidelines in the dinosaur to bird transition, an echo of the actual event, still allows a brief glimpse into the possible mechanism which brought about the evolution of the birds and by its very existence shows that such a transition is possible.”

And I found this article.

Since Dr Olsen wrote that scathing critique of NG, even more disturbing news has surfaced. An eminent paleontologist in Beijing, Xu Xing, now claims that the fossil is not even genuine. Rather, ?Archaeoraptor liaoningensis? was really combined from the body and head of a birdlike creature and the tail of a different dinosaur. Dr Xu said that a fossil in a private collection in China contains the mirror image of the tail of the alleged Archaeoraptor.

But it mightn?t be a deliberate fake like ?Piltdown Man?, a human skull and an ape?s jaw. Dr Xu said:

?For science, this is a disaster. When pieces are stolen and smuggled out, sometimes blocks of fossils are matched together mistakenly. That can be a big mistake, and it misleads the public.?10

At the time of writing, research is still ongoing, but Czerkas said that Xu may be right, and National Geographic plans to publish a correction in the March issue.10

After that, scientists in China claimed to have discovered yet another faked tail?this one added by a Chinese farmer to a flying pterosaur. Apparently this one has fooled the editors of Nature, another journal singled out by Dr Olsen (above) as overzealous to proselytize the dinosaur-to-bird theory.11

Okay, I can’t respond to all the recent posts right now, but here’s something for the dinosaur fans:

Paleontologists have found their sleeping beauty: the first dinosaur fossil discovered in a birdlike sleeping pose. Given the species name Mei long, Chinese for “soundly sleeping dragon,” the duck-size dinosaur apparently died while it napped. Its face is nestled behind one forelimb, which resembles a wing except for the long, clawed fingers at the end. The whole arrangement looks amazingly like the tucked-in nighttime repose of modern birds.
Mei long’s slumber provides rare evidence of a behavior linking dinosaurs to their living bird relatives. “It’s not the kind of thing I would expect to see in a fossil,” says Mark Norell of the American Museum of Natural History, who described the conjunction with Xing Xu from the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing. The researchers were able to study Mei long’s pose precisely because the fossil beds of Liaoning Province in southeastern China preserved the dinosaur in exquisite three-dimensional detail. The region has yielded several other specimens that similarly show signs of a rapid burial. Norell suspects that poisonous gases from a volcanic eruption asphyxiated the dinosaur, then quickly buried it under a blanket of fine ash.

  • Jessa Forte Netting

[quote]beaudry wrote:

I found this site.

Seems to show evidence of an interspecies transition.

“Archaeopteryx is a bird because it had feathers. However, it retained many dinosaurian characters which are not found in modern birds, whilst having certain characters found in birds but not in dinosaurs. By virtue of this fact Archaeopteryx represents an example of a group in transition - a representative which, although on the sidelines in the dinosaur to bird transition, an echo of the actual event, still allows a brief glimpse into the possible mechanism which brought about the evolution of the birds and by its very existence shows that such a transition is possible.”
[/quote]

Archaeopteryx may look like an example of a transitional intermediate in the fossil record; however, it is classified as a bird from a biological standpoint. Certainly evolutionists jumped on the idea that it was part bird, part reptile. A recent study in “Nature” indicates that it is fully bird not a transitional form. Also, Archaeopteryx appears suddenly in the fossil record and transitional forms the precede it are still absent.

Nature vol.430 (2004): 666-69. “The Avian Nature of the Brain and inner Ear of Archaeopteryx”

[quote]ToShinDo wrote:
Okay, I can’t respond to all the recent posts right now, but here’s something for the dinosaur fans:

Paleontologists have found their sleeping beauty: the first dinosaur fossil discovered in a birdlike sleeping pose. Given the species name Mei long, Chinese for “soundly sleeping dragon,” the duck-size dinosaur apparently died while it napped. Its face is nestled behind one forelimb, which resembles a wing except for the long, clawed fingers at the end. The whole arrangement looks amazingly like the tucked-in nighttime repose of modern birds.
Mei long’s slumber provides rare evidence of a behavior linking dinosaurs to their living bird relatives. “It’s not the kind of thing I would expect to see in a fossil,” says Mark Norell of the American Museum of Natural History, who described the conjunction with Xing Xu from the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing. The researchers were able to study Mei long’s pose precisely because the fossil beds of Liaoning Province in southeastern China preserved the dinosaur in exquisite three-dimensional detail. The region has yielded several other specimens that similarly show signs of a rapid burial. Norell suspects that poisonous gases from a volcanic eruption asphyxiated the dinosaur, then quickly buried it under a blanket of fine ash.

  • Jessa Forte Netting[/quote]

Mei long is a very new find, and it is way too soon to determine anything on it.

The dating of this article is only two months ago.

Not against possible evidence, but all we know about it at this point is what they tell us.

[quote]T-Doff wrote:

Archaeopteryx may look like an example of a transitional intermediate in the fossil record; however, it is classified as a bird from a biological standpoint. Certainly evolutionists jumped on the idea that it was part bird, part reptile. A recent study in “Nature” indicates that it is fully bird not a transitional form. Also, Archaeopteryx appears suddenly in the fossil record and transitional forms the precede it are still absent.

Nature vol.430 (2004): 666-69. “The Avian Nature of the Brain and inner Ear of Archaeopteryx”[/quote]

Agreed. It is actually pretty hard to find non-biased info on the fossils of that animal because religious sites claim it as a hoax or a complete bird and evolutionists claim it to be the missing link. I did find this one which seems to try to stay neutral on the concept.

Either way, I am glad it was brought up…however, it does not seem to be the missing link that it was originally thought to be. Also, only one feather was found with one skeleton.

[quote]T-Doff wrote:
beaudry wrote:

I found this site.

Seems to show evidence of an interspecies transition.

“Archaeopteryx is a bird because it had feathers. However, it retained many dinosaurian characters which are not found in modern birds, whilst having certain characters found in birds but not in dinosaurs. By virtue of this fact Archaeopteryx represents an example of a group in transition - a representative which, although on the sidelines in the dinosaur to bird transition, an echo of the actual event, still allows a brief glimpse into the possible mechanism which brought about the evolution of the birds and by its very existence shows that such a transition is possible.”

Archaeopteryx may look like an example of a transitional intermediate in the fossil record; however, it is classified as a bird from a biological standpoint. Certainly evolutionists jumped on the idea that it was part bird, part reptile. A recent study in “Nature” indicates that it is fully bird not a transitional form. Also, Archaeopteryx appears suddenly in the fossil record and transitional forms the precede it are still absent.

Nature vol.430 (2004): 666-69. “The Avian Nature of the Brain and inner Ear of Archaeopteryx”[/quote]

It is classified as a bird, but it contains both reptile and avian characteristics.

Archaeopteryx’s reptile features
5) Premaxilla and maxilla are not horn-covered.
This is posh talk for “does not have a bill.” The premaxilla does not have a keratinized covering, so Archaeopteryx has no bill. The bill is produced via the process of ‘cornification’ which involves the mucus layer of the epidermis (Romanoff 1960) and thus its formation is independant of jaw bone formation.

  1. Trunk region vertebra are free.
    In birds the trunk vertebrae are always fused.

  2. Bones are pneumatic.
    I.e. they appear to have air-sacs, as they do in birds and in some dinosaurs (e.g. Witmer 1990, Brooks 1993). It should be pointed out that previous claims suggesting the bones of Archae were not pneumatic (Lambrecht 1933; de Beer 1954), was based on negative evidence, i.e. that the bones do not exhibit pneumatic pores (through which the air sacs enter the bones) and the bones show none of the plumpness and bulges which characterise the pneumatic bones of modern birds. Britt et al. (1998) found evidence for the presence of pnematic bones in Archaeopteryx:

“Here we re-examine two specimens of Archaeopteryx. These specimens show evidence of vertebral pneumaticity in the cervical and anterior thorasic vertebrae, thus confirming the phylogenetic continuity between the pneumatic systems of non-avialan theropods and living birds” (Britt et al. 1998, p. 374)

  1. Pubic shafts with a plate-like, and slightly angled transverse cross-section
    A Character shared with dromaeosaurs but not with other dinosaurs or birds

  2. Cerebral hemispheres elongate, slender and cerebellum is situated behind the mid-brain and doesn’t overlap it from behind or press down on it.
    This again is a reptilian feature. In birds the cerebral hemispheres are stout, cerebellum is so much enlarged that it spreads forwards over the mid-brain and compresses it downwards. Thus the shape of the brain is not like that of modern birds, but rather an intermediate stage between dinosaurs and birds (e.g. Alexander 1990).

  3. Neck attaches to skull from the rear as in dinosaurs not from below as in modern birds.
    The site of neck attachement (from below) is characteristic in birds, Archaeopteryx does not have this character, but is the same as theropod dinosaurs:
    “Notice that this coelurosaurian-like neck extended back from the rear of the skull in Archaeopteryx - as it does in coelurosaurs [theropod dinosaurs], rather than from beneath as in later birds.” (Ostrom 1976, p. 137).

Skull and brain of Archae is basically reptilian and is not “totally birdlike” (contrary to a certain creationist’s claim).

  1. Center of cervical vertebrae have simple concave articular facets.
    This is the same as the archosaur pattern. In birds the vertebrae are different, they have a saddle-shaped surface:

“The most striking feature of the vertebrae is the simple disk-like facets of their centra, without any sign of the saddle-shaped articulations found in other birds” (de Beer 1954, p. 17).

  1. Long bony tail with many free vertebrae up to tip (no pygostyle).
    Birds have a short tail and the caudal vertebrae are fused to give the pygostyle.

  2. Premaxilla and maxilla bones bear teeth.
    No modern bird possess teeth (e.g. Romanoff 1960; Orr 1966, p. 113). Bird embryos form tooth buds, but do not actually produce teeth. Some birds subsequently produce ridges in the bill, but there is no connection between them and the embryonic tooth buds, since the ridges also form in other areas of the bill where no tooth buds have previouslu formed. Some birds produce hook-like structures which are papillae, and appear to be related to the process of keratinization of the beak (Romanoff 1960), and have nothing to do with teeth. They do not possess blood vessel or nerve connections, nor do they produce dentine.

The expression of tooth buds in the bird embryo has a simple evolutionary explanation, since it suggests that the ancestors of modern birds possessed teeth and that this character has been supressed in modern birds. The presence of tooth buds in the embryos of organisms which do not possess teeth in the adult is a difficulty for anti-evolutionists, since why should a character be expressed that is never used in the organism? Some fossil birds exhibit a reduction in the number of bones which have teeth. Both Hesperornis and Baptornis lack teeth on the premaxilla (Archaeopteryx and theropod dinosaurs have teeth on both the maxilla and premaxilla). Not only that, Hesperornis has a beak, but on the upper jaw only (Gingerich 1975). It therefore has half a beak and teeth. A good example of a morphologicaly intermediate structure between toothed birds which lack a beak, and beaked, toothless birds.

  1. Ribs slender, without joints or uncinate processes and do not articulate with the sternum.
    Birds have stout ribs with uncinate processes (braces between them) and articulate with the sternum.

  2. Pelvic girdle and femur joint is archosaurian rather than avian (except for the backward pointing pubis as mentioned above).
    Here Archae really shows its transitional nature. Whilst the pelvic girdle as a whole is basically free and similar to archosaur girdles, the pubis points backward - a character shared with birds and some other bird-like theropod dinosaurs.

What is interesting is that with the bird pelvis:

“The ischium lies beneath the posterior part of the ilium and beneath this again is the pubis, which is directed backwards (i.e. like this: =). Embryological studies show that the peculiar position of these bones is the result of secondary rotation and that the pectineal process, in front of the ascetabulum, is not the true pubis as some workers have maintained.” (Bellairs & Jenkin 1960, p. 258).

In other words, the embyonic pelvis of the bird, when first formed, looks, in shape and angle between the ilium and the pubis (45 degrees), very similar to the “A”-frame pelvis of Archaeopteryx (i.e. like this: <) (e.g. Romanoff 1960). The fully formed pelvis with all bones lying parallel is the result of secondary rotation of the pubis from “<” to “=”. This supports the view that birds had an ancester with a saurischian pelvis such as the type possessed by Archaeopteryx and other theropod dinosaurs. (see also A tale of two pelvises below)

  1. The Sacrum (the vertebrae developed for the attachment of pelvic girdle) occupies 6 vertebra.
    This is the same as in reptiles and especially ornithipod dinosaurs. The bird sacrum covers between 11-23 vertebrae! So, while the variation seen in modern birds is large, it is nowhere near the number found in Archaeopteryx

  2. Metacarpals (hand) free (except 3rd metacarpal), wrist hand joint flexible.
    This is as in reptiles. In birds the metacarpals are fused together with the distal carpals in the carpo-metacarpus, wrist /hand fused. All modern birds have a carpo-metacarpus, all fossil birds have a carpo-metacarpus - except one (guess!) :-). However, the carpals of several coelurosaur dinosaur groups show a trend towards fusion, and in the Late Cretaceous form Avimimus, a true carpo- metacarpus is formed.

It has been suggested that the ostrich and/or other Ratites also possess unfused wrist/hand bones. This is not correct:

“The ostrich, emus, rheas, cassowaries and kiwis are often referred to together as the Ratites, though they may not be closely related to each other. They have tiny wings and cannot fly, but the bones of their hands are fused together in the same peculiar way as in flying birds, which suggest that they evolved from flying birds.” (Alexander 1990, p. 435).

Some similarity between the hand of the ostrich and some of the more derived theropod dinosaurs was once used to suggest that the Ratites were ‘primitive’ and evolved before the advent of flight in birds. However Tucker (1938b) showed that such similarities are entirely superficial.

“He has directed attention to the bird-like characters of the hand of the dinosaur Ornitholestes as evidence that a bird-like hand can be developed independantly of flight, but the writer has pointed out in the communication mentioned above [Tucker 1938b] that the resemblance is utterly superficial and that the peculiar bowing and terminal fusion of metacarpals 2 and 3 which charcaterise both the Carnate and the Ratite hand are in no wise [sic?] reproduced in the dinosaur.” (Tucker 1938a, p. 334).

“Reverting now to the reasons on which have sought to base the view that the Ratites were primitive birds whose ancesters had never flown, one: the similarity between the hand of the ostrich and that of the dinosaur, has been dismissed as invalid. Tucker (1938b) has shown that such resemblances as there are between them are only superficial and without significance.” (de Beer 1956, p. 65).

  1. Nasal opening far forward, separated from the eye by a large preorbital fenestra (hole).
    This is typical of reptiles, but not of birds. Where a fenestra is present in birds, it is always greatly reduced, and is involved in prokinesis (movement of the beak)

  2. Deltoid ridge of the humerus faces anteriorly as do the radial and ulnar condyles.
    Typical of reptiles but not found in birds

  3. Claws on 3 unfused digits.
    No modern adult bird has 3 claws, nor do they have unfused digits. The juvenile hoatzin and Touracos do have 2 claws but loose them as they grow, the ostrich appears to retain its 2 claws into adulthood, due to the early termination of development (see section on Ratites). In the case of the hoatzin it is thought that these claws allow the juvenile to climb. It had been claimed that since these birds do have claws, even in the juvenile stage, then the presence of claws cannot be used as a reptilian character. This is not so, however. In fact almost all birds exhibit claws, but in the embryonic stage and they are lost by the time the bird leaves the egg. In the case of the few which do retain claws into the juvenile stage, this is merely the extension of the condition into the post-embryonic stage. As McGowan (1984, p 123) says:

“In retaining a primitive reptilian feature which other birds lose just before leaving the egg [the hoatzin] is showing us its reptilian pedigree. Far from being evidence to the contrary, the hoatzin is additional evidence for the reptilian ancestry of birds.”

  1. The fibula is equal in length to the tibia in the leg.
    This again is a typical character of reptiles. In birds the fibula is shortened and reduced.

  2. Metatarsals (foot bones) free.
    In birds these are fused to form the tarsometatarsus. However, in modern bird embryos, the foot bones are initially separate as in the adult Archaeopteryx and is another character supporting a reptilian ancestry for birds. After all, why bother producing separate bones in the embryo and then fuse them? Why not produce a fused mass to start with? No adult modern bird has separate metatarsals, but they are separated, initially, in the embryo. This can be explained in terms of evolution - birds evolved from a group which had unfused metatarsals.

Ceratosaurians, Avimimus, and Elmisauridae all show true tarso-metatarsi. Archae itself only shows the beginning of this structure.

  1. Gastralia present.
    Gastralia are “ventral ribs,” elements of dermal bone in the ventral wall of the abdomen. Typical of reptiles, they are absent in birds, e.g.:

“In addition to the true ribs the British Museum specimen shows a large number of so-called ventral ribs or gastralia, elements of dermal bone lying in the ventral wall of the abdomen.” (de Beer 1954, p. 18)

“The gastralia of the Berlin specimen are identical with those of the British Museum specimen, but more have been preserved.” (de Beer 1954, p. 19)

“The “new” specimen was found 8 September 1970 on display in the Teyler Museum, Haarlem, Netherlands. It consists of two small slabs (specimens 6928 & 6929), part and counterpart which contain impressions or parts of the left manus and forearm, pelvis, both legs and feet, and some gastralia.” (Ostrom 1970, p. 538)

"Also present are numerous fragments of gastralia, faint impressions of three or four dorsal vertebrae, . . " (Ostrom 1972, p. 291).

“The counterpart slab (No. 6929) contains additional gastralia, phalanges, …” (Ostrom 1972, p. 291)

“Gastralia, or dermal abdominal ribs are present in all five skeletal specimens of Archaeopteryx” (Ostrom 1976, p. 139-140).

Gastralia are present on the Eichstatt specimen (See Wellnhofer 1974, fig. 7C)

Here is a webpage that lists other transitional vertebrate fossils.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Agreed. It is actually pretty hard to find non-biased info on the fossils of that animal because religious sites claim it as a hoax or a complete bird and evolutionists claim it to be the missing link. I did find this one which seems to try to stay neutral on the concept.

Either way, I am glad it was brought up…however, it does not seem to be the missing link that it was originally thought to be. Also, only one feather was found with one skeleton.[/quote]

Thanks for trying to remain objective. I agree that it’s worth consideration but even at the end of beaudry’s long article, their (evolutionist) conclusion is that it’s still not a “missing link” even though it has some features of both groups.

[quote]T-Doff wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Agreed. It is actually pretty hard to find non-biased info on the fossils of that animal because religious sites claim it as a hoax or a complete bird and evolutionists claim it to be the missing link. I did find this one which seems to try to stay neutral on the concept.

Either way, I am glad it was brought up…however, it does not seem to be the missing link that it was originally thought to be. Also, only one feather was found with one skeleton.

Thanks for trying to remain objective. I agree that it’s worth consideration but even at the end of beaudry’s long article, their (evolutionist) conclusion is that it’s still not a “missing link” even though it has some features of both groups. [/quote]

And even more info in the on going debate on this Archaeopteryx

http://www.creationinthecrossfire.com/documents/Archaeopteryx/Archaeopteryx.html

There is some question about whether Archaeopteryx, supposedly 150 million years old, is really the ancestor of birds. Bones of a modern bird were found in the same geological strata as Archaeopteryx by James Jensen.{5} In Science News, John Ostrom, a leading bird paleontologist, stated in response to this report: “It is obvious we must now look for ancestors of flying birds in a period of time much older than that in which Archaeopteryx lived.”{6}

Recent discoveries at the Dockum Formation near Post, Texas by Sankar Chatterjee pushed back the date of the earliest known bird to 225 million years ago based on evolutionary reckoning. Two crow-sized birds he calls Protoavis date 75 million years older than Archaeopteryx.{7} They have several features in the skull and shoulder which are more birdlike than Archaeopteryx.

Archaeopteryx couldn?t be the ancestor of birds if a more “modern” type bird than has been found in rock 75 million years older. Some paleontologists, including Ostrom,{8} already felt that Archaeopteryx wasn?t on the main line to modern birds before Protoavis was discovered. If Protoavis is more birdlike, then it would be even less of what one would want as transition form. Controversy over Protoavis has been bubbling for the last six years, and last year it surfaced in full color on the cover of the August 17, 1991 issue of Science News (a very worthwhile magazine).

Concerning Chatterjee?s long-winded paper on the bird published in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, Ostrom says, “Sad to say, for all its length, little support for the claim is to be found in the paper.”{9} He suggested that Chatterjee make the bones available at “the Natural History Museum laboratories at the Smithsonian Institution where it can be the subject of detailed and independent scrutiny.” It seems that is just what he has done, but at another location, for there are other paleontologists who have been able to study it firsthand. Larry Martin, paleontologist at the Museum of Natural History at the University of Kansas, says, “There?s going to be a lot of people with Archaeopteryx eggs on their face.”{10}

All in all Creation, just like Evo are still not proven the quest for knowledge is still going.