Biology Culture Intelligent Design News

Beware feathered dino fossils hoaxes

Spread the love

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!

72 Replies to “Beware feathered dino fossils hoaxes

  1. 1
    tjguy says:

    And yet the evolutionary fairy tale of dinos to birds has received a huge boost of credibility because of these supposed feathered dino fossils.

    +++

    Why are not skeptics very skeptical of these fossils?

    It’s funny how our biases = even in science = influence how we look at data that can be seen to support our particular position. No one is immune from this. It is easy to quickly want to accept findings that agree with our position, but all findings need to be vetted – else we might end up with egg on our face like evolutionists are still trying to wipe off due to the whole vestigial organ and junk DNA fiasco.

    Piltdown Man is another good example of this in history. It is not only evolutionists who have experienced this type of embarrassment.

    Creationists at one point, jumped on fossil evidence that, at that point, could be interpreted as supporting man living with dinosaurs in Texas. Paluxy footprints maybe?
    But later examination showed that conclusion to be questionable. Probably they were too quick to accept those footprints as evidence for their origins beliefs.

    This type of thing happens in science so we need to recognize that further discovery could undermine our current interpretations of the data.

    But especially, don’t you think that these feathered dinosaur fossils that all come from the same area of China and are totally unverifiable because of how the fossils come into scientists’ hands – don’t even you Materialists think that these fossils are not really trustworthy?

  2. 2
    goodusername says:

    Why are not skeptics very skeptical of these fossils?

    Of the fossils being sold on the open market? What makes you think they aren’t? Of course they are. Any fossil not dug up by professionals is highly suspected.
    That’s why they try to protect the important fossil sites from being dug up by amateurs and treasure hunters.

  3. 3
    ppolish says:

    “Of the fossils being sold on the open market?”

    These are faked fossils. Knockoffs. If I buy a Rolex on the open market, I want a real one. If I buy a fossil, I want a Blind Watchmaker one. Blind Watchmaker lol. Like that could ever happen.

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    a few related notes:

    Bird Evolution vs. The Actual Evidence – video (4:18 minute mark)
    https://youtu.be/OZhtj06kmXY?t=258

    When Dinosaurs Flew – February 4, 2014
    Excerpt: A study published online by PeerJ on Jan. 2 detailed the examination of a startlingly complete and pristine specimen of an ancient, dinosaur-era bird: Hongshanornis longicresta, which flapped throughout what is now China roughly 125 million years ago during the early Cretaceous Period.,,,
    “This isn’t a mode of flight we expected from Cretaceous birds,” Habib said, adding that its small size and overall shape are comparable to that of modern birds. “It was pretty much a Cretaceous starling with a larger tail like a mockingbird.”
    Transported to the modern world, it wouldn’t look like anything special to the casual observer, until a closer examination revealed claws at the end of the bird’s wings and tiny teeth in its beak.,,,
    http://dornsife.usc.edu/news/s.....aurs-flew/

    News for the Birds – May 7, 2014
    Excerpt: Yanornis is called an ancestor of birds, but PhysOrg reported on April 18 that a fossil found in China shows that “the digestive system of the ancestors to modern birds was essentially modern in all aspects.”,,,
    But if it was already “essentially modern” in the ancestors, and already integrated with the flight systems, where is the time for natural selection to have supposedly produced it?
    http://crev.info/2014/05/news-for-the-birds-2/

    Origins – Formed to Fly with Dr. David Menton (dinosaur – bird evolution refuted) – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eZ7VUgfH2g

    More Fossil-Molecule Contradictions: Now Even the Errors Have Errors – Cornelius Hunter – June 2014
    Excerpt: a new massive (phylogenetic) study shows that not only is the problem (for Darwinist) worse than previously thought, but the errors increase with those species that are supposed to have evolved more recently.,,,
    “Our results suggest that, for Aves (Birds), discord between molecular divergence estimates and the fossil record is pervasive across clades and of consistently higher magnitude for younger clades.”
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....s-now.html

    Darwin’s Legacy – Donald R. Prothero – February 2012
    Excerpt: In four of the biggest climatic-vegetational events of the last 50 million years, the mammals and birds show no noticeable change in response to changing climates. No matter how many presentations I give where I show these data, no one (including myself) has a good explanation yet for such widespread stasis despite the obvious selective pressures of changing climate.
    http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-02-15/#feature

    “Feathers give no indication that they ever needed improvement. In fact, the “earliest known fossil feather is so modern-looking as to be indistinguishable from the feathers of birds flying today.”
    Yale University’s Manual of Ornithology—Avian Structure and Function

    “The first and most complete fossil of archaeopteryx, found in 1855, was misidentified as a flying pterodacylus for 115 years. The newest finding, though, demonstrates that our understanding of even well-studied fossils like archaeopteryx — scrutinized, measured, modeled for 150 years — can still be upended.”
    Bye Bye Birdie: Famed Fossil Loses Avian Perch – Oct. 2009

    More Vindication for Jonathan Wells – October 8, 2012
    Excerpt: Feduccia calls Berkeley dino-bird advocate Kevin Padian “the Elmer Gantry of the theropod crusade,” criticizing Padian both for his public advocacy of the dino-bird hypothesis (that’s the Elmer Gantry aspect) and for his scientific work. In that respect, Feduccia fully supports Jonathan Wells’s critique of the dino-bird theory. He concludes with this:
    “Small wonder the Creationists are thriving and thoroughly enjoying much of the junk science introduced into the current dino-bird debate. [p. 10]”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....65031.html

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    “The whole notion of feathered dinosaurs is a myth that has been created by ideologues bent on perpetuating the birds-are-dinosaurs theory in the face of all contrary evidence”
    Storrs Olson – curator of birds at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History

    The hype about feathered dinosaurs in the exhibit currently on display at the National Geographic Society is even worse, and makes the spurious claim that there is strong evidence that a wide variety of carnivorous dinosaurs had feathers. A model of the undisputed dinosaur Deinonychus and illustrations of baby tyrannosaurs are shown clad in feathers, all of which is simply imaginary and has no place outside of science fiction.
    – Storrs Olson

    The Archaeoraptor Fraud of National Geographic Magazine (In 1999)
    Excerpt: “The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists acting in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the first casualties in their program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age—the paleontological equivalent of cold fusion.” –
    Storrs Olson – curator of birds at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History

    podcast – Casey Luskin reports on a 2009 peer-reviewed paper (A. McIntosh) arguing for the irreducible complexity of two systems vital to bird flight — feathers and the avian respiratory system.
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....7_18-07_00

    In Touchstone, Luskin Dismantles Giberson and Collins – October 10, 2012
    Excerpt: The cover story in the March 2003 issue of Scientific American states outright that difficulties with the scale hypothesis show that the “long-cherished view of how and why feathers evolved has now been overturned.” Its authors, two leading evolutionary biologists named Richard Prum and Alan Brush, further admit:
    “Although evolutionary theory provides a robust explanation for the appearance of minor variations in the size and shape of creatures and their component parts, it does not yet give as much guidance for understanding the emergence of entirely new structures, including digits, limbs, eyes and feathers. (“Which came first, the feather or the bird?”, p. 86)”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....65051.html

    Alan Feduccia, considered an expert on bird evolution, has written, “The major and most worrying problem of the feathered dinosaur hypothesis is that the integumental structures have been homologized with avian feathers on the basis of anatomically and paleontologically unsound and misleading information.”
    http://www.answersingenesis.or.....e-04142012

    FLIGHT: The Genius of Birds – video clip playlist
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s05koz6adzw&list=PLO673u2zYHhmKlWOnzc6FCbGr42TCB71C

    But Is It Evolution ? – February 2011
    Excerpt: Airplane wings exploit some of the same aerodynamic tricks. But a bird wing is vastly more sophisticated than anything composed of sheet metal and rivets. From a central feather shaft extends a series of slender barbs, each sprouting smaller barbules, like branches from a bough, lined with tiny hooks. When these grasp on to the hooklets of neighboring barbules, they create a structural network that’s featherlight but remarkably strong. When a bird preens its feathers to clean them, the barbs effortlessly separate, then slip back into place.
    http://www.creationsafaris.com.....#20110218a

    Bat Evolution? – No Transitional Fossils!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUhOGTgW8q8

    The Unknown Origin of Pterosaurs – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XP6htc371fM

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    Fraudulent fossil specimens in museums revealed at the 11:42 minute mark of the following video

    Bird Evolution vs. The Actual Evidence – video (11:42 minute mark) – video
    https://youtu.be/OZhtj06kmXY?t=704

  7. 7
    Mapou says:

    BA77, thanks for those links. I like it when you keep the excerpts or descriptions short and to the point. It makes for easier reading.

    So this whole feathered dinosaur thing is nothing but a big Darwinist/atheist hoax? Why am I not surprised? The jackasses are known to be allergic to professional ethics and basic decency. But then again, if all you got is a crappy theory, only crap will come out of it.

    [edit] Nat Geo will never get a penny from me, that’s for sure.

  8. 8
    wd400 says:

    Why are not skeptics very skeptical of these fossils?

    Remind us, which scientific journal was Archeorapter published in?

    (It wasn’t published in a journal, but was rejected by Science… almost as if folks are plenty skeptical about these fossils)

  9. 9
    goodusername says:

    It wasn’t published in a journal, but was rejected by Science…

    Yep, and rejected by Nature prior to that.

  10. 10
    Mung says:

    Darwinian evolution does not permit the evolution of hoaxes, hoaxsters, or hucksters. Unless it does.

    Otoh, the evolution of hoaxes, hoaxsters, or hucksters is a prediction of the theory.

  11. 11
    Mapou says:

    Whether or not Science or Nature published the paper is irrelevant. The fact is that a bunch of Darwinist and atheist jackasses at Nat Geo felt it necessary to create and disseminate a hoax. Why? Is it because the theory is shaky and incredible? Is this how you people proselytise, through chicken shit propaganda?

    Or, are you resident atheists claiming that some closet creationists at Nat Geo pulled the hoax in order to discredit atheists and Darwinists? LOL.

    So now what will be the outcome of all this? IMO, regardless of the actual science, the whole dinosaur-birdee theory will always have “hoax” and “BS” written all over it. Why? Because of a bunch of dishonest atheists are trying to promote a weak theory based on a chicken shit ideology.

    Inquiring minds and all that. 😀

  12. 12
    Mapou says:

    BTW, I have yet to see a single dinosaur chicken fossil with feathers. The pictures that I have seen show some nondescript stuff that could be anything. Does anybody have actual images of dinosaur feather fossils that are half way convincing?

  13. 13
    Zachriel says:

    Mapou: I have yet to see a single dinosaur chicken fossil with feathers.

    It’s not a chicken, but it is a dinosaur.
    http://prometheus.med.utah.edu.....pteryx.jpg

  14. 14
    Mapou says:

    Zachriel @13,

    I have seen that picture before. I had not thought about it before but now that I’m looking at it with a different mindset, it sure looks like a fake to me. LOL. This dinochicken looks like it was chiseled out of the rock. Some people are extremely good with a chisel and we all know how motivated Darwinists and atheists are. They got something to prove. Theirs is a theory that can never have enough evidence because there are huge numbers of thinking people, including myself, who still think it’s crap in spite of all the so-called evidence. But, assuming it’s not a fake, I have several questions.

    1. How is this evidence for Darwinian evolution and not evidence for design evolution?

    2. Why are these dinochicken fossils so rare? The fossil record should be full of them.

    3. Do we have a video of the entire chiseling process?

    4. How did RM+NS invent something as complex as feathers? The combinatorial explosion of genetic possibilities would stop any search mechanism dead in its tracks regardless of how fast it is.

    Remember this. As a programmer, I know about GAs (I have experimented with them) and I know that they are worthless unless the search space is limited to toy problems. Inquiring minds and all that.

  15. 15
    Barb says:

    wd400: “Remind us, which scientific journal was Archeorapter published in?”

    I remember seeing it in National Geographic as part of an article about the “overwhelming” evidence for evolution.

  16. 16
    Zachriel says:

    Mapou: I had not thought about it before but now that I’m looking at it with a different mindset, it sure looks like a fake to me.

    There are about a dozen different Archeopteryx fossils, by different researchers, at different times, and they have been examined in detail, including by microscopy and chemical analysis.

    Mapou: 1. How is this evidence for Darwinian evolution and not evidence for design evolution?

    No single bit of evidence can be considered conclusive. In any case, you asked for a feathered dinosaur, and that’s what we provided.

    Mapou: 2. Why are these dinochicken fossils so rare? The fossil record should be full of them.

    Most fossils are rare. Complete organisms with feathers rarer still.

    Mapou: 3. Do we have a video of the entire chiseling process?

    They usually aren’t chiseled, but are found when rocks are split along their natural seams.

    Mapou: 4. How did RM+NS invent something as complex as feathers?

    Feathers are modified scales.

  17. 17
    wd400 says:

    Right on the first half Barb, it was published in Nat. Geo. and not a scientific journal. Indeed that article was written by the arts editor! Scientists were skeptical of Archeoraptor from woe to go.

  18. 18
    goodusername says:

    I remember seeing it in National Geographic as part of an article about the “overwhelming” evidence for evolution.

    That was his point. It was published in the magazine Nat Geo rather than a science journal. Nat Geo actually went to both Nature and Science for peer review, and both told them that it was likely a forgery, and yet Nat Geo decided to go ahead and publish the story anyway.

  19. 19
    Mapou says:

    Zachriel:

    Mapou: I had not thought about it before but now that I’m looking at it with a different mindset, it sure looks like a fake to me.

    There are about a dozen different Archeopteryx fossils, by different researchers, at different times, and they have been examined in detail, including by microscopy and chemical analysis.

    None of those researchers can be trusted because, as Darwinists, they have a chicken shit religion to defend and their own careers to promote.

    Mapou: 1. How is this evidence for Darwinian evolution and not evidence for design evolution?

    No single bit of evidence can be considered conclusive. In any case, you asked for a feathered dinosaur, and that’s what we provided.

    First off, stop using this “we” shit with me, alright? I’m not your dog, goddamnit. Second, why is the evidence always presented as if it supports only one hypothesis, the brain dead one? That’s both dishonest and chicken shit.

    Mapou: 2. Why are these dinochicken fossils so rare? The fossil record should be full of them.

    Most fossils are rare. Complete organisms with feathers rarer still.

    Whether or not most fossils are rare is irrelevant. Compared to the other fossils in the same geological strata, these dinochicken fossils are extremely rare. Given the Darwinist conjectures about RM+NS, this should not be the case.

    Mapou: 3. Do we have a video of the entire chiseling process?

    They usually aren’t chiseled, but are found when rocks are split along their natural seams.

    The one you linked to was definitely chiseled.

    Mapou: 4. How did RM+NS invent something as complex as feathers?

    Feathers are modified scales.

    So what? Everything is a modified protein or other. The combinatorial explosion still kills the search mechanism dead. Do the math sometime. It’s not that hard.

    PS. Again, stop using this “we” shit. You sound like an idiot when you do.

  20. 20
    Mapou says:

    goodusername:

    That was his point. It was published in the magazine Nat Geo rather than a science journal. Nat Geo actually went to both Nature and Science for peer review, and both told them that it was likely a forgery, and yet Nat Geo decided to go ahead and publish the story anyway.

    I suspect this is all a lie. They probably got together and decided that it was much better that Nat Geo be the one take the heat if the hoax was discovered and the shit hit the fan. If so, they can always fall back to the obvious “Nat Geo is not a scientific journal” excuse.

  21. 21
    Mapou says:

    One more thing. Why have you Darwinist jackasses been trying to hack into my UD account and change my password?

  22. 22
    ppolish says:

    Mapau, my guess is that the hacker is a Chinese Fossils Dealer. You’re bad for business.

    The sculpted wings on that fossil Zach posted is a work of art. Very pretty. Not easy to sculpt either.

  23. 23
    Zachriel says:

    Mapou: None of those researchers can be trusted because, as Darwinists, they have a chicken shit religion to defend and their own careers to promote.

    In other words, you have no evidence.

    Zachriel: They usually aren’t chiseled, but are found when rocks are split along their natural seams.

    Mapou: The one you linked to was definitely chiseled.

    It was discovered by a quarrier cleaving limestone for use in lithography.

  24. 24
    Mapou says:

    Zachriel:

    Mapou: None of those researchers can be trusted because, as Darwinists, they have a chicken shit religion to defend and their own careers to promote.

    In other words, you have no evidence.

    What do you mean? The Nat Geo hoax is powerful evidence that you people are dishonest and chicken shit.

    Zachriel: They usually aren’t chiseled, but are found when rocks are split along their natural seams.

    Mapou: The one you linked to was definitely chiseled.

    It was discovered by a quarrier cleaving limestone for use in lithography.

    I don’t care.

  25. 25
    Mapou says:

    One more thing, Zachriel. I notice you steered clear of my ‘combinatorial explosion’ argument. I know you are all a bunch of chicken shit pseudoscientists. So I’m challenging the entire Darwinist camp to refute the CE argument.

  26. 26
    ppolish says:

    It was a magic time when scales turned into feathers. That time is no more. Scales beget scales. I miss the magical time. It happened so quickly. Too quickly. Magic is like that I guess. Poof a bird flies out of a hat.

  27. 27
    Sebestyen says:

    Feathers are modified scales.

    This is by far the most ridiculous claim of the whole dinosaur to bird shebang. Even a development from scratch would be more realistic than this.

    How any scientist with a little more than a supraesophageal ganglion can give this fairy tale any credit is beyond me…

    Sebestyen

  28. 28
    Mapou says:

    Well, science by propaganda seems to have worked well for the Darwinist hoaxers. So they figured it should also work for AGW. With enough repeated lies, a lot of the people can be made to believe in any kind of BS.

    Edit: Sorry, wrong thread.

  29. 29
    Silver Asiatic says:

    ppolish

    It was a magic time when scales turned into feathers.

    LOL! You have been on a roll lately. A drum roll .. ba dum dump ching!

  30. 30
    ppolish says:

    “Feathers are modified scales.

    This is by far the most ridiculous claim of the whole dinosaur to bird shebang. Even a development from scratch would be more realistic than this.”

    I’m with you Sebestyen. Scales what? More promising is the “Dingleberry Hypothesis”. Tail feathers emerged first, right? Quickly followed by arm feathers.

    “But feathers emerged very very quickly. Dingleberries were around since the Cambrian”

    Good point. Maybe it was just exactly the right time for feathers. Right Time Theory? Not as offensive as Dingleberry Theory.

    But whatever theory you believe – it was guided, purposeful, and heck, fine tuned. That much we should be able to agree on:)

  31. 31
    mike1962 says:

    And de undesigned neurological programming of de brains just a-magically happened in parallels wit de undesigned morphological changes.

    And if yooz can swallow dat, my uncle Vinnie’s gotta bridge he’d like to sell yooz.

  32. 32
    Zachriel says:

    Mapou: The Nat Geo hoax is powerful evidence that you people are dishonest and chicken shit.

    “You people”? Heh. You should learn not to overgeneralize. The fake fossil was never recognized by any scientific journal, and National Geographic admitted their error.

    Mapou: I don’t care.

    You don’t care about your own false statements, or evidence that contradicts your position.

    Mapou: I notice you steered clear of my ‘combinatorial explosion’ argument.

    Feel free to show your maths for the evolution of feathers.

    ppolish: It happened so quickly.

    If by that you mean million of years, then sure.

    Sebestyen: This is by far the most ridiculous claim of the whole dinosaur to bird shebang.

    Turns out that the type of beta-karatin that is found in avian feathers is also found in alligator scales, which, like birds, are archosaurs. See Alibardi et al., Beta-keratin localization in developing alligator scales and feathers in relation to the development and evolution of feathers, Journal of submicroscopic cytology and pathology 2006. If you look at the evolutionary history of feathers, feathers acquired their more subtle characteristics over time. For instance, the first feathers were unbranched cylinders that developed from the elongation of a placode.

  33. 33
    ppolish says:

    “Turns out that the type of beta-karatin that is found in avian feathers is also found in alligator scales, which, like birds, are archosaur”

    You’re talking modern birds and modern alligators. Alligators eat birds. Is the type of beta-keratin found in feathers also found in humans?

    Beta-keratin is a ingredient of Design btw. Millions and millions and millions of years is not even close to being enough time for scales to become feathers unless the process is guided and purposeful. Obvious.

  34. 34
    Zachriel says:

    ppolish: You’re talking modern birds and modern alligators. Alligators eat birds. Is the type of beta-keratin found in feathers also found in humans?

    Feathers and scales are made up of beta-keratins. Humans have alpha-keratins in their epidermis.

    Feather beta-keratin evolved from reptile beta-keratin. See Greenwold & Sawyer, Genomic organization and molecular phylogenies of the beta-keratin multigene family in the chicken (Gallus gallus) and zebra finch (Taeniopygia guttata): implications for feather evolution, BMC Evolutionary Biology 2010: “As morphological diversification of epidermal appendages occurred and the beta-keratin multigene family expanded, novel beta-keratin genes were selected for novel functions within appendages such as feathers.”

  35. 35
    ppolish says:

    Zach, see Andreas Wagner’s “Arrival of the Fittest”. Says 50 billion years is not enough time for a falcon to evolve its eyesight, wings, etc. And how about that lizard they found in amber same as today. 20 million years living in trees – it’s scales display zero case of feathering.

    How does Andreas Wagner explain? He proposes a multidimensional mega big hyper-library for Nature to utilize. Kind of like the Multiverse of some astrophysicists lol. Mathematically impossible fine tuning calls for extreme measures lol:)

  36. 36
    Virgil Cain says:

    Zachriel:

    Turns out that the type of beta-karatin that is found in avian feathers is also found in alligator scales, …

    Turns out that the same type of wood that is found in my house is also found in houses around the world, houses that are very different from mine.

  37. 37
    Zachriel says:

    ppolish: Says 50 billion years is not enough time for a falcon to evolve its eyesight, wings, etc.

    Actually Wagner says exactly the opposite of that. He says organisms did evolve, but that current explanatory mechanisms for that evolution are incomplete, and proposes network evolution as a workable model. This doesn’t replace evolution by natural selection, but provides insights into how complex systems can evolve and remain robust.

    ppolish: How does Andreas Wagner explain? He proposes a multidimensional mega big hyper-library for Nature to utilize.

    It’s called network evolution, which is a mathematical structure that can grow in complexity from simple beginnings.

    ppolish: Mathematically impossible fine tuning calls for extreme measures lol:)

    Network evolution solves the problem of ‘fine tuning’ by providing a model for evolution that remains robust yet flexible.

  38. 38
    ppolish says:

    So, Zachriel, you guys/gals admit “millions of years” in not nearly enough time for feathers to evolve through NS & RM. Multidimensional Hyper Libraries and Evo Networks are required to perform. That’s an improvement. Baby steps. Good on you guys:gals.

  39. 39
    Zachriel says:

    ppolish: you guys/gals admit “millions of years” in not nearly enough time for feathers to evolve through NS & RM.

    That is incorrect. Network evolution is still natural selection and random variation.

  40. 40
    Mapou says:

    Z:

    Mapou: The Nat Geo hoax is powerful evidence that you people are dishonest and chicken shit.

    “You people”? Heh. You should learn not to overgeneralize. The fake fossil was never recognized by any scientific journal, and National Geographic admitted their error.

    Nat Geo is a famous publication that subscribes to Darwinist crap. They represent Darwinists just as much as the so-called “scientific” journals. As if science belonged to you or anybody else. Get a grip.

    Mapou: I don’t care.

    You don’t care about your own false statements, or evidence that contradicts your position.

    Care to point out those false statements, you lying jackass?

    Mapou: I notice you steered clear of my ‘combinatorial explosion’ argument.

    Feel free to show your maths for the evolution of feathers.

    You mean you don’t understand the concept of combinatorial explosion? It figures. Google is your friend. Hint: It has nothing to do with feathers.

  41. 41
    Mapou says:

    Is Zachriel a paid professional Darwinist propagandist? I’m asking because he seems to spend his entire time on UD and other anti-evolution sites. Where does he find the time? Or is he really a team of paid Darwinist propagandists, as he claims.

    Another question: Why does UD give those jackasses a forum to spread their lies?

    Inquiring minds and all that.

  42. 42
    ppolish says:

    Zach, Wagner believes NS & RM affect survival of the fittest – but NOT arrival of the fittest. You know, the title of his book.

    Feathers did NOT arrive by NS & RM per Wagner. Reread the book maybe? Chapter one is a doozy:)

    “Arrival” is synonymous with “Creation” in Wagner’s book btw:)

  43. 43

    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/

  44. 44
    Zachriel says:

    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.

  45. 45
    Dr JDD says:

    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?

  46. 46
    ppolish says:

    Network Evolution is hypothetical, and the Mathematical Models that guide are just that – models. Cool stuff though. It screams Design.

  47. 47
    Mapou says:

    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.

  48. 48
    Mapou says:

    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.

  49. 49
    Zachriel says:

    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.

  50. 50
    Mapou says:

    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.

  51. 51
    ppolish says:

    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?

  52. 52
    Mapou says:

    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? 😀

  53. 53
    daveS says:

    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 …

  54. 54
    ppolish says:

    So it seems that birds 35-40 million years ago look like those today:
    http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/d.....irdfr.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.

  55. 55
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Triassic Shore Birds?!
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ore-birds/

  56. 56
    Mapou says:

    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.

  57. 57
    ppolish says:

    Thanks SA. So birds pre-date & post-date Dinos. Good luck convincing the Nat Geo crowd;)

  58. 58
    ppolish says:

    Heck, Eodromaeus, the “Eve of all Dinos”, was probably a featherless bird. Birds rock!
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eodromaeus

  59. 59
    Zachriel says:

    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.

  60. 60
    Virgil Cain says:

    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.

  61. 61
    Virgil Cain says:

    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.

  62. 62
    ppolish says:

    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”.

  63. 63
    Zachriel says:

    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.

  64. 64
    ppolish says:

    “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.

  65. 65
    Zachriel says:

    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.

  66. 66
    Virgil Cain says:

    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?

  67. 67
    ppolish says:

    “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.

  68. 68
    ppolish says:

    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.

  69. 69
    goodusername says:

    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.

  70. 70
    Zachriel says:

    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.

  71. 71
    ppolish says:

    Goodusername, 1986 Nat Geo not the same as current day Nat Geo. Gone downhill sigh.
    http://www.nytimes.com/1986/08.....estor.html

    Anywho, feathers in the Triassic sink NS & RM. Not that it takes much to sink:)

  72. 72
    Mapou says:

    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.

Leave a Reply