Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Beware feathered dino fossils hoaxes

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Says Cosmos Magazine here:

National Geographic’s senior editor Christopher Sloan had seen a feathered dinosaur fossil or two. But the specimen he described in the magazine’s November 1999 issue, dubbed Archaeoraptor liaoningensis, took his breath away.

Archaeoraptor would later be dubbed “Piltdown chicken”.

Cut n’ paste job. But even smart folks have been taken in.

The problem of faked fossils in China is serious and growing. Rather than being excavated by palaeontologists on fossil digs, most of the region’s fossils are pulled from the ground by desperately poor farmers and then sold on to dealers and museums. More.

Gotta have one? Don’t pay more than you would for some other souvenir. How about a stuffed gotta-have-one toy dressed as a Mountie?

Cheaper and maybe just as valuable.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
The combinatorial explosion of the search space kills Darwinian evolution and Darwinism/materialism dead in the water. One crackpot theory falsified. Next. Any programmer who is familiar with genetic algorithms know that they are useless on non-toy problems. Why? It's because of the combinatorial explosion. The CE is such an insurmountable problem that GA fanatics have taken to creating genomic "islands" in order to limit the number of variables. The reason is that the search space increases exponentially with the number of variables. RM+NS is less than impotent in such a huge space. It does not even get out of the gate. Darwinism = abject ignorance and stupidity.Mapou
August 2, 2015
August
08
Aug
2
02
2015
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT
Goodusername, 1986 Nat Geo not the same as current day Nat Geo. Gone downhill sigh. http://www.nytimes.com/1986/08/14/us/texas-fossil-may-be-birds-oldest-ancestor.html Anywho, feathers in the Triassic sink NS & RM. Not that it takes much to sink:)ppolish
August 2, 2015
August
08
Aug
2
02
2015
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT
ppolish: If Eodromaeus is a featherless bird, your argument may make sense. Birds, like Protoavis (and Eodromaeus?) do not fossilize well. Hard to find. You're not making much sense. You had claimed there was an inconsistency in dates, which isn't supported by the known fossils. The fact that theropods had feathers isn't inconsistent with evolution either.Zachriel
August 2, 2015
August
08
Aug
2
02
2015
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT
ppolish,
If Eodromaeus is a featherless bird, your argument may make sense. Birds, like Protoavis (and Eodromaeus?) do not fossilize well. Hard to find.
You say that as if there's some magical property of "not fossilizing well" that affects only birds and not close relatives.
Zach be reasonable – if quill knobs were found on a new Jurassic fossil, Nat Geo would be all “bird evolving from Dino”. But quill knobs turning up in the Triassic upsets the narrative. Overturns the narrative. So yes, many have a problem with Protoavis.
I'm pretty sure that you've just been trolling this whole thread and it continues here. You do realize that it was Nat Geo that announced the discovery of protavis, said it had quill knobs, and declared it the first bird (as its name implies), right? Later researchers doubted that it had quill knobs.goodusername
August 2, 2015
August
08
Aug
2
02
2015
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT
Zach be reasonable - if quill knobs were found on a new Jurassic fossil, Nat Geo would be all "bird evolving from Dino". But quill knobs turning up in the Triassic upsets the narrative. Overturns the narrative. So yes, many have a problem with Protoavis.ppolish
August 2, 2015
August
08
Aug
2
02
2015
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT
"Perhaps not, but perhaps there are older fossils of Eodromaeus too." If Eodromaeus is a featherless bird, your argument may make sense. Birds, like Protoavis (and Eodromaeus?) do not fossilize well. Hard to find.ppolish
August 2, 2015
August
08
Aug
2
02
2015
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT
Furthermore, Protoavis is not considered a bird by most paleontologists.
Given that most paleontologists think that birds are dinosaurs, why should anyone care what they think?Virgil Cain
August 2, 2015
August
08
Aug
2
02
2015
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT
ppolish: 210mya should not be considered the oldest. Perhaps not, but perhaps there are older fossils of Eodromaeus too. You made a claim of inconsistency in the dates, which you have not supported. Furthermore, Protoavis is not considered a bird by most paleontologists.Zachriel
August 2, 2015
August
08
Aug
2
02
2015
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT
"Eodromaeus is from about 230 million years ago, Protoavis 210 million years ago" Birds do not fossilize well. 210mya should not be considered the oldest. Evidence is out there. Anyway, Feathers/Birds at the very dawn (before?) the age of Dinos.ppolish
August 2, 2015
August
08
Aug
2
02
2015
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT
ppolish: If Bird (Protoavis) is older than Dino (Eodromaeus), then Bird can’t be ancestor of Dino. Maybe other way around – that would explain all those feathered Dinos:) Eodromaeus is from about 230 million years ago, Protoavis 210 million years ago, so the dates are consistent. Furthermore, most paleontologists don't consider Protoavis a bird. Archaeopteryx lived about 150 million years ago. ppolish: Besides, “Bird is ancestor of extinct Dino” makes no sense. When a species goes extinct, but leaves a daughter species, it's sometimes called pseudoextinction. ppolish: That is why people are sad when species goes extinct waa. “Oh, don’t be sad because polar bear went extinct – it will still have ancestors”. Current rates of extinction exceed the rate of evolutionary adaptation, so many species leave no daughter species. Their lineage simply ends.Zachriel
August 2, 2015
August
08
Aug
2
02
2015
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT
Yes, Zach, you can't predate your ancestors. That was my point. If Bird (Protoavis) is older than Dino (Eodromaeus), then Bird can't be ancestor of Dino. Maybe other way around - that would explain all those feathered Dinos:) Besides, "Bird is ancestor of extinct Dino" makes no sense. Dead men tell no tales. Extinct have no ancestors. That is why people are sad when species goes extinct waa. "Oh, don't be sad because polar bear went extinct - it will still have ancestors".ppolish
August 2, 2015
August
08
Aug
2
02
2015
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT
Also if the alleged evolution of feathers required more than 2 specific mutations then natural selection and drift are out as there isn't enough time to accomplish such a feat.Virgil Cain
August 2, 2015
August
08
Aug
2
02
2015
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT
Birds don’t fossilize well,
And because of that we don't know if they predated dinos or not.
If we take dinosaurs to mean non-avian dinosaurs, then birds do not predate dinosaurs,
You don't know that so please stop talking out of your arse.Virgil Cain
August 2, 2015
August
08
Aug
2
02
2015
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT
ppolish: Feathered Dinos were done in by the meteor. What is the earliest post meteor Bird fossil? Birds don't fossilize well, but neornithes predate the K–Pg boundary. As for after the K-Pg boundary, avian fossils are found in the Paleocene, including owls like Ogygoptynx and Berruornis, and the flightless Gastornis. ppolish: So birds pre-date & post-date Dinos. Aves is a subset of the clade dinosauria. If we take dinosaurs to mean non-avian dinosaurs, then birds do not predate dinosaurs, though they do post-date them. You can't predate your ancestor, but you can coexist with them, and outlive them.Zachriel
August 2, 2015
August
08
Aug
2
02
2015
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT
Heck, Eodromaeus, the "Eve of all Dinos", was probably a featherless bird. Birds rock! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eodromaeusppolish
August 1, 2015
August
08
Aug
1
01
2015
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT
Thanks SA. So birds pre-date & post-date Dinos. Good luck convincing the Nat Geo crowd;)ppolish
August 1, 2015
August
08
Aug
1
01
2015
04:15 PM
4
04
15
PM
PDT
Question. What is the size of the genetic search space in the human genome? Answer. The human genome is a huge number with at least 3 billion base pairs. But this is not the size of the search space. 3 billion would be a breeze for a search mechanism even one as stupid as RM+NS. No Siree. The search space is 4 (the number of letters in DNA) raised to 3 billion or 4^10^9! This is more particles than can be contained in trillions upon trillions of universes. The only way to search through this space is to use intelligence to reduce the search space by 10^9 orders of magnitude! Darwinists want us to believe in their little kiddie fairy tales. Just say NO.Mapou
August 1, 2015
August
08
Aug
1
01
2015
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT
Triassic Shore Birds?! https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/triassic-shore-birds/Silver Asiatic
August 1, 2015
August
08
Aug
1
01
2015
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT
So it seems that birds 35-40 million years ago look like those today: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/birdfr.html They changed from Dino Birds very quickly. Makes you think. Maybe Dino Birds were just Feathered Dinos that all went extinct. Birds have a separate "arrival" and survived the Dino Extinction event.ppolish
August 1, 2015
August
08
Aug
1
01
2015
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT
Mapou,
PS. I know you probably get paid to post here but I’m getting tired of your crap.
You mean you're not getting paid to post here? I thought we all were ...daveS
August 1, 2015
August
08
Aug
1
01
2015
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT
Does anybody know who Zachriel is? It bothers me that some anonymous jackass on the internet gets a free pass to spread lies on this forum with impunity. Are there any UD hackers among us? :-DMapou
August 1, 2015
August
08
Aug
1
01
2015
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT
Feathered Dinos were done in by the meteor. What is the earliest post meteor Bird fossil? What did birds look like 20 million years ago? 40 million? Are there any fossils from this time frame?ppolish
August 1, 2015
August
08
Aug
1
01
2015
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT
Zachriel:
You forgot the maths.
What maths? It's just a simple exponent: n = number of base pairs involved in the relevant genes. It's no more complicated than this. This number is at least in the thousands. Take any number greater than 1 and raise it to 1000 and you get an impossibly huge search space. PS. I know you probably get paid to comment here but I'm getting tired of your crap. Unlike you, I got a life.Mapou
August 1, 2015
August
08
Aug
1
01
2015
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT
DrJDD: How in the world can you get such fine detail of feathers if the deposition of strata to create fossilisations is not rapid but takes millions of years? The shallow sea where the fossil was formed was an anoxic lagoon. Organisms were quickly buried in carbonate mud, then over time formed a flat-cleaving limestone called plattenkalk. Just so you know, cleaving limestone often reveals fossil organisms, and can actually be quite fun. ppolish: Network Evolution is hypothetical, and the Mathematical Models that guide are just that – models. All scientific theories are models. This particular model is consistent with what we know about protein networks, and is consistent with natural evolution. Mapou: It was a premeditated hoax by influential Darwinists who hoped to get away with fraud on a large scale. Actually, it was a farmer who knew that complete fossils were more valuable, so put two of them together, then smuggled it out of China. It was "Darwinists" who quickly exposed the hoax, refusing to publish the find in their "Darwnist" scientific journals. Mapou: This dinochicken looks like it was chiseled out of the rock. In this case, the fossil was found intact when the limestone was cleaved. Mapou: And we all know that the number of variables (base pairs) to consider when going from fish scales to feathers is probably in the millions! You forgot the maths.Zachriel
August 1, 2015
August
08
Aug
1
01
2015
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT
Zachriel:
Mapou: It has nothing to do with feathers. Actually, your statement about “combinatorial explosion” was in direct response to our comment about feathers.
So what? Why do you insist on acting like a moron? The concept of combinatorial explosion has nothing to do with feathers in particular. But everybody who has more than two neurons between their ears knows that the search space used in going from scales to feathers is impossibly huge.Mapou
August 1, 2015
August
08
Aug
1
01
2015
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT
Zachriel, professional Darwinist liar:
Mapou: Nat Geo is a famous publication that subscribes to Darwinist crap. That’s exactly what is meant by an overgeneralization, taking a particular to represent the entire group. In any case, National Geographic admitted their mistake.
Mistake? There you go again with your prevarications. It was a premeditated hoax by influential Darwinists who hoped to get away with fraud on a large scale. They should all be in jail.
Mapou: Care to point out those false statements Sure. You claimed the specimen of Archaeopteryx was “chiseled out of the rock”. In fact, the rock was simply cleaved, revealing the fossil. When this was pointed out, you said “I don’t care.”
Why lie so blatantly? I made no such claim. Here's what I wrote above:
This dinochicken looks like it was chiseled out of the rock.
Who's paying you to lie day in and day out on UD? Care to take back your lie?
Mapou: You mean you don’t understand the concept of combinatorial explosion? In other words, you make claims you have no intention of supporting.
LOL. Zachriel either does not understand the concept of combinatorial explosion or is feigning to. Lies upon lies. For those of you who are interested, here's a simple explanation. RM+NS is faced with an insurmountable combinatorial explosion in the search space for the simple reason that the search space increases exponentially with the number of variables. And we all know that the number of variables (base pairs) to consider when going from fish scales to feathers is probably in the millions or at least in the thousands! The search space is so huge, it cannot be imagined. The RM+NS crap never even gets out of the gate. And it does not matter if you have trillions upon trillions upon quintillions of universes to play with. This is how stupid Darwinism is.Mapou
August 1, 2015
August
08
Aug
1
01
2015
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT
Network Evolution is hypothetical, and the Mathematical Models that guide are just that - models. Cool stuff though. It screams Design.ppolish
August 1, 2015
August
08
Aug
1
01
2015
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT
How in the world can you get such fine detail of feathers if the deposition of strata to create fossilisations is not rapid but takes millions of years?Dr JDD
August 1, 2015
August
08
Aug
1
01
2015
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT
Mapou: Nat Geo is a famous publication that subscribes to Darwinist crap. That's exactly what is meant by an overgeneralization, taking a particular to represent the entire group. In any case, National Geographic admitted their mistake. Mapou: Care to point out those false statements Sure. You claimed the specimen of Archaeopteryx was "chiseled out of the rock". In fact, the rock was simply cleaved, revealing the fossil. When this was pointed out, you said "I don't care." Mapou: You mean you don’t understand the concept of combinatorial explosion? In other words, you make claims you have no intention of supporting. Mapou: It has nothing to do with feathers. Actually, your statement about "combinatorial explosion" was in direct response to our comment about feathers. ppolish: Wagner believes NS & RM affect survival of the fittest – but NOT arrival of the fittest. Network evolution still occurs through random variation. It's just that simple variations in one place can cause coordinated changes throughout the network. This is supported by mathematical models of how networks evolve. An external agent is not required.Zachriel
August 1, 2015
August
08
Aug
1
01
2015
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT
Over at the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) writer Stephanie Keep writes: “ … there are two large circles that list “Victims,” including dinosaurs, marine reptiles, and flying reptiles, and “Survivors,” including turtles, mammals, and birds. Huh? Birds are dinosaurs. Yet there wasn’t even a hint of this fact, known to every ten-year-old, in the signage. … “ Me thinks Ms. Keep and other Darwinists spend far too much time in the museums and in the lecture halls and books of such as Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne … and far to little time actually looking at birds. See more at: https://ayearningforpublius.wordpress.com/2015/06/01/dinosaurs-sea-gulls-and-museums/ayearningforpublius
August 1, 2015
August
08
Aug
1
01
2015
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply