Beware feathered dino fossils hoaxes

_{Denyse O'Leary

July 30, 2015

Biology, Culture, Intelligent Design, News}

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

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:)ppolish_{August 1, 2015
August
08
Aug
1
01
2015
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT}

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.Mapou_{August 1, 2015
August
08
Aug
1
01
2015
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT}

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.Mapou_{August 1, 2015
August
08
Aug
1
01
2015
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT}

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.Zachriel_{August 1, 2015
August
08
Aug
1
01
2015
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT}

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.ppolish_{August 1, 2015
August
08
Aug
1
01
2015
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT}

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.Zachriel_{August 1, 2015
August
08
Aug
1
01
2015
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT}

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.Virgil Cain_{August 1, 2015
August
08
Aug
1
01
2015
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT}

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:)ppolish_{August 1, 2015
August
08
Aug
1
01
2015
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT}

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."Zachriel_{August 1, 2015
August
08
Aug
1
01
2015
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT}

"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.ppolish_{August 1, 2015
August
08
Aug
1
01
2015
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT}

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.Zachriel_{August 1, 2015
August
08
Aug
1
01
2015
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT}

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.mike1962_{July 31, 2015
July
07
Jul
31
31
2015
09:17 PM
9
09
17
PM
PDT}

"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:)ppolish_{July 31, 2015
July
07
Jul
31
31
2015
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PDT}

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!Silver Asiatic_{July 31, 2015
July
07
Jul
31
31
2015
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT}

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.Mapou_{July 31, 2015
July
07
Jul
31
31
2015
05:15 PM
5
05
15
PM
PDT}

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... SebestyenSebestyen_{July 31, 2015
July
07
Jul
31
31
2015
04:58 PM
4
04
58
PM
PDT}

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.ppolish_{July 31, 2015
July
07
Jul
31
31
2015
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT}

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.Mapou_{July 31, 2015
July
07
Jul
31
31
2015
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT}

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.Mapou_{July 31, 2015
July
07
Jul
31
31
2015
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT}

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.Zachriel_{July 31, 2015
July
07
Jul
31
31
2015
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT}

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.ppolish_{July 31, 2015
July
07
Jul
31
31
2015
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT}

One more thing. Why have you Darwinist jackasses been trying to hack into my UD account and change my password?Mapou_{July 31, 2015
July
07
Jul
31
31
2015
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT}

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.Mapou_{July 31, 2015
July
07
Jul
31
31
2015
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT}

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.Mapou_{July 31, 2015
July
07
Jul
31
31
2015
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT}

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.goodusername_{July 31, 2015
July
07
Jul
31
31
2015
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT}

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.wd400_{July 31, 2015
July
07
Jul
31
31
2015
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT}

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.Zachriel_{July 31, 2015
July
07
Jul
31
31
2015
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT}

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.Barb_{July 31, 2015
July
07
Jul
31
31
2015
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT}

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.Mapou_{July 31, 2015
July
07
Jul
31
31
2015
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT}

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/~bwjones/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Archaeopteryx.jpgZachriel_{July 31, 2015
July
07
Jul
31
31
2015
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply