Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Apparently, archaeopteryx has been restored as “first bird” again. Maybe.

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Here.:

“Archaeopteryx lost its exalted place in bird evolution,” says Lee.

But, this new evolutionary tree presented a problem because it placed archaeopteryx in a group of dinosaurs that either didn’t fly at all or glided in a way that was not bird-like.

Lee says, it meant that bird flight most probably evolved more than once and archaeopteryx possibly evolved flight independently of birds in a case of what’s called “convergent evolution”.

As far as evolutionary theory goes, such scenarios are not particularly elegant. So Lee carried out a new analysis of the data to see what he could find.

He found a way to jam it in, to be Darwinian, not convergent. If anyone believes it.

Comments
ScottAndrews2
I’m calling BS. If the fossils document a history of genetic changes, then tell me what at least three of those genetic changes were. Happy Googling.
Don't have to Google, know some off the top of my head. Genetic changes responsible for bat wing development identified: Molecular Determinants of Bat Wing Development Genetic change for non-expression of Tbx4 gene responsible for cetacean loss of rear limbs Sequence Variation in the Tbx4 Gene in Marine Mammals Key gene in sea urchin evolution identified: Transfer of a large gene regulatory apparatus to a new developmental address in echinoid evolution We already know ID doesn't explain the above data, because ID doesn't explain anything. Tell me again - what good is an 'explanation' like ID that doesn't explain? I'll bet you're too lazy and won't read Endless Forms Most Beautiful either. Why do any work for knowledge when ignorance is free?GinoB
October 29, 2011
October
10
Oct
29
29
2011
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PDT
GinoB,
But the fossils do document smooth morphological changes over time, physical changes we know today are caused by genetic changes.
Really, physical changes are cause by genetic changes? I'm sure that was coming real soon on my 365 Useful Facts of Science Calendar, but thanks for the heads up.
But the fossils do document smooth morphological changes over time, physical changes we know today are caused by genetic changes. The genetic record of today does document the genetic history and degree of interrelatedness of different lineages.
Interesting how you put those thoughts together, as if you think they complement one another. I'm calling BS. If the fossils document a history of genetic changes, then tell me what at least three of those genetic changes were. Happy Googling. Or did you mean that in the tautological sense, that physical changes indicate genetic changes, which we already knew? In that case, all you really have, optimistically, is a history of physical changes. Now, explain those physical changes with evolution. Explain them in terms of genetic changes, the phenotypic and behavioral effects, and why each one of those individual changes were selected. Or just give me a few. At this point it becomes apparent that what you have is a series of fossils. I'll allow that they may be transitional, but you have no evolutionary explanation, and neither does anyone else. You show a series of fossils and then beg the question - this must indicate a series of variations and selections because - because - because it must! Begging the question, textbook. This couldn't be simpler. Evolution is the cornerstone of biology. Explain an evolutionary change in terms of evolutionary mechanisms. Or, more likely, don't. Shift the focus to your willfully ignorant, capriciously demanding misconception of ID. You may as well keep strumming that chord, seeing that you don't have any other.ScottAndrews2
October 29, 2011
October
10
Oct
29
29
2011
07:03 PM
7
07
03
PM
PDT
Bird Evolution vs. The Actual Fossil Evidence (notes in description) - video http://vimeo.com/30926629bornagain77
October 29, 2011
October
10
Oct
29
29
2011
06:17 PM
6
06
17
PM
PDT
ScottAndrews2
Now you’re just trolling.
No, I'm just asking for the ID explanation for a huge body of scientific data. You tell me ID can't begin to explain any of it, and I believe you. Sorta makes me question what good is ID in science when it has zero explanatory power though.
What is the evolutionary explanation? Can you drill down a little deeper than ‘something apparently varied and something was apparently selected?’ How can it get past you that none of these evolutionary transitions are ever, ever explained in terms of evolutionary mechanisms?
What do you want to know? In the 180-150 MYA time frame there existed dozens of different species of closely related feathered dinosaurs. At least one (possibly more) of the lineages went on to evolve into modern birds; the others eventually went extinct. Because all are so similar it's extremely difficult to place exactly which species belongs in which lineage. Hence the great uncertainty about archaeopteryx. There is a whole science - evolutionary developmental biology, or evo-devo - that deals with the evolutionary mechanisms and genetic basis for body plans. There's a good layman's introduction book called Endless Forms Most Beautiful by Sean Carroll that would probably help you.
Do you realize that fossils document neither incremental genetic changes nor reasons for selection, and that to apply those factors as mechanisms after the fact is merely begging the question?
But the fossils do document smooth morphological changes over time, physical changes we know today are caused by genetic changes. The genetic record of today does document the genetic history and degree of interrelatedness of different lineages. Something has to explain the data. I'd ask you for the ID explanation for them but you already told me there is no ID explanation.GinoB
October 29, 2011
October
10
Oct
29
29
2011
06:12 PM
6
06
12
PM
PDT
Bingo! Get it?! His name is bingo- "There was a blog that had a troll and bingo was his name-o G-I-N-O-B--- I meanJoseph
October 29, 2011
October
10
Oct
29
29
2011
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PDT
GinoB, Now you're just trolling. I've asked you serious questions and you have retreated to rhetoric. I could "name" half a dozen or more evolutionists posting here who argue their points in sincerity, even though we rarely come to any agreement. Perhaps you should try the darwins-god.blogspot.com forum. The blog entries are quite good, but the discussions are more on your level.ScottAndrews2
October 29, 2011
October
10
Oct
29
29
2011
05:51 PM
5
05
51
PM
PDT
ScottAndrews2
It boggles my mind that, when confronted with the flaws and contradictions in your so-called theory, you retreat to the position that there is no competing explanation. Did it ever occur to you that “no one knows” is an answer, and sometimes the more honest and accurate one?
Seems like lots of things science is knowledgeable about boggle your mind. But that says more about you that it does any deficiencies in mainstream science. Thanks however for admitting that ID has no clue and can't begin to explain the large and growing body of evidence for feathered dinosaurs in paleontology. Is there anything in any branch of science that ID does explain?GinoB
October 29, 2011
October
10
Oct
29
29
2011
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PDT
GinoB, It boggles my mind that, when confronted with the flaws and contradictions in your so-called theory, you retreat to the position that there is no competing explanation. Did it ever occur to you that "no one knows" is an answer, and sometimes the more honest and accurate one? Besides, how can the evolutionary explanation be right when there is none? Evolution is variation and selection, plus whatever the latest fad is. What is the evolutionary explanation? Can you drill down a little deeper than 'something apparently varied and something was apparently selected?' How can it get past you that none of these evolutionary transitions are ever, ever explained in terms of evolutionary mechanisms? Do you realize that fossils document neither incremental genetic changes nor reasons for selection, and that to apply those factors as mechanisms after the fact is merely begging the question? Somehow your comment implies that you have already provided an explanation, and that ID should offer another in response. I, for one, would love to know what you think you have explained. As soon as the 'cornerstone of biology' which unlike ID, claims to explain diversity offer a more meaningful explanation and supports it with more than back-dated narratives, so will I.ScottAndrews2
October 29, 2011
October
10
Oct
29
29
2011
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT
ScottAndrews2
Time and time again the argument is made that the probability of some particular evolutionary pathway is mitigated by the fact that evolution was searching for one of many possible targets.
Scott, since you obviously know more about paleontology than the paleontologists, could you please give us the ID explanation for the data? Was archaeopteryx designed as it, or did it evolve from an earlier design? What about other feathered dinosaurs, like microraptor gui and anchiornis? Where do they fit into the ID explanation of things? You keep telling us evolution is wrong, but when will you tell us what is right?GinoB
October 29, 2011
October
10
Oct
29
29
2011
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT
He found a way to jam it in, to be Darwinian, not convergent.
First: this sentence makes no sense. Convergent evolutionary pathways are not 'un-Darwinian'.
If anyone believes it.
Believe it? At least try and understand it first.Fossfur
October 29, 2011
October
10
Oct
29
29
2011
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT
Eagle owl at 1000 frames per Second towards a camera http://www.dogwork.com/owfo8/bornagain77
October 29, 2011
October
10
Oct
29
29
2011
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT
Time and time again the argument is made that the probability of some particular evolutionary pathway is mitigated by the fact that evolution was searching for one of many possible targets. Then, when it's convenient, they turn around and marvel that it apparently must have hit the same target over and over and over. While not a logical contradiction, is shows a willingness to tell and believe any story when necessary to shield the candle of their faith from the blizzard of reality. (As a side point, no darwinist ever attempts to calculate those probabilities. That's something you can only do if you understand how and why something takes place. And yet if someone else dares to suggest that it is improbable, they ask, 'exactly how improbable?' Their own ignorance of the process which is supposedly the cornerstone of all biology becomes their defense. Somehow it is the most well-supported theory since gravity and yet no one can define it clearly enough to make even the vaguest, generous estimate of the probability of any given outcome. It's all 100%, retroactively.) Don't just listen to it. Smell it. It's not a pleasant fragrance.ScottAndrews2
October 29, 2011
October
10
Oct
29
29
2011
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT
1 4 5 6

Leave a Reply