Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Missing Link in Bird Evolution Has Been Found!

Gil Dodgen
June 15, 2006
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

I’m suffering from a severe case of cognitive dissonance.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199695,00.html

Those of us with room-temperature IQs are perpetually assured that there is overwhelming evidence for Darwinian gradualism in the fossil record. So, after reading the news release linked above, I asked myself, “Self, why is this big news?”

I guess I just don’t get it. Why has the missing link in bird evolution just been found, when I have been assured for years that there is overwhelming evidence in the fossil record that the enigma of bird evolution was already solved?

Sigh. I’m apparently too stupid to understand Darwinian logic.

Comments

Some skeptics object that the soft tissue may be the result of sloppy lab work resulting in contaminated samples.

I have never seen these claims. Reference? The claims I have seen are that the tissue appears "soft" because it was treated with solutions to disolve mineralizations (as stated in the original article).

In other words, they’re doubting that the soft tissue came out of a dinosaur as its discoverer claims.
The discoverer did not claim that the tissue came out of the dinosaur "soft" - she claimed that soft tissue was present in the fossilization.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22dinosaur%22+%22soft+tissue%22+contamination+Schweitzer -ds franky17
June 16, 2006
June
06
Jun
16
16
2006
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT

"Why has the missing link in bird evolution just been found, when I have been assured for years that there is overwhelming evidence in the fossil record that the enigma of bird evolution was already solved?"

Any time a "missing link" is discovered, two new "missing links" are automatically created. I really don't see the reason for your puzzlement. I very much doubt we will ever run out of "missing links" entirely.

dobeln
June 16, 2006
June
06
Jun
16
16
2006
02:51 AM
2
02
51
AM
PDT
Sagebrush: If that's the link to the article about soft tissue inside a dinosaur bone, that was discussed here a while back. Some skeptics object that the soft tissue may be the result of sloppy lab work resulting in contaminated samples. In other words, they're doubting that the soft tissue came out of a dinosaur as its discoverer claims. There doesn't seem to be evidence for this charge, it's just a charge. The other tack they're taking is that the discovery of soft tissue shows that soft tissue lasts a lot longer then we thought without refrigeration!russ
June 16, 2006
June
06
Jun
16
16
2006
02:28 AM
2
02
28
AM
PDT

According to them, this find should be like another way of proving the Earth is round. Hmmm....I wonder if they found another way of proving the roundness of the Earth if it would be just as big of a story. My guess is NO! Even if this is a genuine transitional form, the mechanisms are the focus of our attention, and the Darwinoids haven't even described (let alone shown) how their mechanisms can do sh**!!!

crandaddy
June 16, 2006
June
06
Jun
16
16
2006
12:14 AM
12
12
14
AM
PDT
I wasn't sure exactly what they meant by "soft tissue" either. I was imagining something like meat but couldn't believe it could be in that condition after 100 million years [sic]. So I went Googling and found this article from 3/28/05 about soft tissue being discovered in a T-Rex fossil by Dr. Mary H. Schweitzer of NCSU, and it was indeed squishy, flexible, red meat: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/ Does anyone know the current status of the T-Rex discovery and any followup work that has been done?sagebrush gardener
June 15, 2006
June
06
Jun
15
15
2006
11:45 PM
11
11
45
PM
PDT

You're mis-construing the inportance. It's not "we've found a missing link, therefore evolution is proved", but rather "we've found a fossil ancestor that tells us something interesting about how birds evolved".

There's a good write-up on Living the Scientific Life.

Bob

Wanna see me turn YOU into a missing link? -dt Bob OH
June 15, 2006
June
06
Jun
15
15
2006
10:36 PM
10
10
36
PM
PDT
You may have jumped to a conclusion, Patrick. As I read the article, I assume that they found fossils of soft tissue, not actual soft tissue. Such would not be that interesting. Alas, from this article I see very little of interest here. The only thing I see of interest is the discovery that yet again gaps are only perceived when "missing links" are found. Alas, a "missing link" is a great way to be noticed by the press.bFast
June 15, 2006
June
06
Jun
15
15
2006
09:45 PM
9
09
45
PM
PDT

I notice that the news story uses the phrase "the missing link" and the scientist quoted uses "a missing link."

If you consider the use of a rather than the, I suspect your point of confusion will disappear.

I can make YOUR confusion disappear, pal. :razz: -dt Tiax
June 15, 2006
June
06
Jun
15
15
2006
09:42 PM
9
09
42
PM
PDT
we found dozens, including some almost complete skeletons with soft tissues. That interested me more than anything else they mentioned.
Patrick
June 15, 2006
June
06
Jun
15
15
2006
08:43 PM
8
08
43
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply