Difference between revisions of "Archaeopteryx"
m (1 revision) |
m (1 revision) |
||
| (29 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | |||
{{Evolution Says|Archaeopteryx is the evolutionary intermediate between reptiles and birds. }} | {{Evolution Says|Archaeopteryx is the evolutionary intermediate between reptiles and birds. }} | ||
==The Facts Are ..... == | ==The Facts Are ..... == | ||
| − | + | {{Fact|1}} In 1984, in Eichstätt (Germany), at the International Archaeopteryx Conference, there was a major world-wide gathering of scientists who specialized in avian (bird) evolution. The outcomes of their meetings were that:- (i) they disagreed on just about everything about the creature, and (ii) they had broad agreement amongst themselves that Archaeopteryx was a true bird. Bird evolution is only a theory, and even the experts agree that Archaeopteryx is not a link between birds and reptiles. Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 16, No. 4, 1994 p:16 | |
| − | + | {{Fact|2}} The possession of teeth was considered by evolutionary anatomists to be proof that Archaeopteryx evolved from reptiles. This is considered to be fanciful reasoning when it is considered that:- (i) some fossil birds do have teeth and some do not; (ii) some vertebrates have teeth and some do not; and (iii) most reptiles do not have teeth. Crocodiles are basically the only group of reptiles that consistently have well-developed teeth. Having teeth is therefore, not proof of Archaeopteryx’s relationship. [based on logic] | |
| − | + | {{Fact|3}} Archaeopteryx possessed a robust furcula (wishbone), a flexible bone that is absolutely essential for birds to be able to fly. Therefore, it was not half way between a reptile and a bird, it was a true flying bird. Dr John Ostrom in "The Beginning of Birds", Jura Museum: Eichstatt (West Germany), 1985 p:174 | |
| − | + | {{Fact|4}} "Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test". Contents of a letter written on April 10, 1979, by Dr Colin Patterson, a senior palaeoanthropologist at the British Museum of Natural History. Recorded in Luther Sunderland's "Darwin's Enigma", Master Books: El Cajon (California), 1988 p:88-90 | |
| − | + | {{Fact|5}} "Palaeontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it is not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of 'palaeobabble' is going to change that." Written by Alan Feduccia of the University of North Carolina in Science, Vol. 259, February 5, 1993 p:764 | |
| − | + | {{Fact|6}} "..... we are not even authorized to consider the exceptional case of the Archaeopteryx as a true link. By link, we mean the necessary stage of transition between classes such as reptiles and birds, or between smaller groups. An animal displaying characters belonging to two different groups cannot be treated as a true link as long as the intermediary stages have not been found ....." Noted by Lecomte de Nouy in the book "Human Destiny", New American Library of World Literature Inc: New York, 1957 p:58 | |
| − | + | {{Fact|7}} "No doubt it can be argued that Archaeopteryx hints of a reptilian ancestry but surely hints do not provide a sufficient basis upon which to secure the concept of the continuity of nature. Moreover, there is no question that this archaic bird is not led up by series of transitional forms from an ordinary terrestrial reptile through a number of gliding types with increasingly developed feathers until the avian condition is reached." Written by Michael Denton in his book "Evolution: Theory in Crisis", Burnett Books Ltd: London, 1985 p:176 | |
| − | + | {{Fact|8}} Charles Darwin, who was alive at the time of the acquisition of the Archaeopteryx specimen by the London Museum, did not regard it as convincing evidence for his theory of evolution. In the sixth edition of his book he dismissed it as a 'strange bird'. Charles Darwin, "The Origin of Species", (6th ed. 1859), Senate: London, 1994 imprint, p:284 | |
| − | [[Category: | + | ==References== |
| + | <references></references> | ||
| + | [[Category:Unmasking Evolution]] | ||
Latest revision as of 07:59, 30 May 2014
Evolution Says....
The Facts Are .....
Fact #1
In 1984, in Eichstätt (Germany), at the International Archaeopteryx Conference, there was a major world-wide gathering of scientists who specialized in avian (bird) evolution. The outcomes of their meetings were that:- (i) they disagreed on just about everything about the creature, and (ii) they had broad agreement amongst themselves that Archaeopteryx was a true bird. Bird evolution is only a theory, and even the experts agree that Archaeopteryx is not a link between birds and reptiles. Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 16, No. 4, 1994 p:16
Fact #2
The possession of teeth was considered by evolutionary anatomists to be proof that Archaeopteryx evolved from reptiles. This is considered to be fanciful reasoning when it is considered that:- (i) some fossil birds do have teeth and some do not; (ii) some vertebrates have teeth and some do not; and (iii) most reptiles do not have teeth. Crocodiles are basically the only group of reptiles that consistently have well-developed teeth. Having teeth is therefore, not proof of Archaeopteryx’s relationship. [based on logic]
Fact #3
Archaeopteryx possessed a robust furcula (wishbone), a flexible bone that is absolutely essential for birds to be able to fly. Therefore, it was not half way between a reptile and a bird, it was a true flying bird. Dr John Ostrom in "The Beginning of Birds", Jura Museum: Eichstatt (West Germany), 1985 p:174
Fact #4
"Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test". Contents of a letter written on April 10, 1979, by Dr Colin Patterson, a senior palaeoanthropologist at the British Museum of Natural History. Recorded in Luther Sunderland's "Darwin's Enigma", Master Books: El Cajon (California), 1988 p:88-90
Fact #5
"Palaeontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it is not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of 'palaeobabble' is going to change that." Written by Alan Feduccia of the University of North Carolina in Science, Vol. 259, February 5, 1993 p:764
Fact #6
"..... we are not even authorized to consider the exceptional case of the Archaeopteryx as a true link. By link, we mean the necessary stage of transition between classes such as reptiles and birds, or between smaller groups. An animal displaying characters belonging to two different groups cannot be treated as a true link as long as the intermediary stages have not been found ....." Noted by Lecomte de Nouy in the book "Human Destiny", New American Library of World Literature Inc: New York, 1957 p:58
Fact #7
"No doubt it can be argued that Archaeopteryx hints of a reptilian ancestry but surely hints do not provide a sufficient basis upon which to secure the concept of the continuity of nature. Moreover, there is no question that this archaic bird is not led up by series of transitional forms from an ordinary terrestrial reptile through a number of gliding types with increasingly developed feathers until the avian condition is reached." Written by Michael Denton in his book "Evolution: Theory in Crisis", Burnett Books Ltd: London, 1985 p:176
Fact #8
Charles Darwin, who was alive at the time of the acquisition of the Archaeopteryx specimen by the London Museum, did not regard it as convincing evidence for his theory of evolution. In the sixth edition of his book he dismissed it as a 'strange bird'. Charles Darwin, "The Origin of Species", (6th ed. 1859), Senate: London, 1994 imprint, p:284