dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (02/21/85)
This is part 2 of my response to Bill Jefferys' reply to SOR #4.
--------------------
> [Bill Jefferys]
> K. Miller comments, "The reason Gish says that intermediate forms do not exist
> is because his model requires that he explain them all away.
This is little more than a statement that a model is a form resulting in
interpretation of data in one way and not another, which is not very
surprising. Most interpretive frameworks result in views such that
certain types of data will be viewed as unlikely or spurious. One could
easily make the converse statement that the reason some evolutionists
grasp at Archaeopteryx as a transition with such tenacity is that they
need it for their theory not to collapse in a heap.
But that statement would be equally unedifying.
> For example,
> *Archaeopteryx*, a clear intermediate between reptiles and birds which in
> some ways is more closely linked with the little dinosaurs of the period than
> with later birds, is declared by Gish to be '100 percent bird'. Why? Because
> it has feathers. This is where he draws the line.
K. Miller is not very even-handed here. "Gish says" and "declared by
Gish" - as though Gish is out there all by his lonesome declaring in his
misguided way obvious heresy. Gish does say such things, but he is not
the only one to declare them. *Evolutionists* have disputed the status
of Archaeopteryx as a transitional form, have classified it as a bird
because of feathers, and sometimes said that it is a descendent of
reptiles, but not an ancestor of modern birds.
-----
For example, several *evolutionists* classify Archaeopteryx as a bird,
precisely because of the *feathers*.
Carl O Dunbar [1961, p. 310]:
"[B]ecause of its feathers [it is] distinctly to be classed as a bird."
Everett Olson [1965, p. 182]:
Because of feathers "it shows itself to be a bird."
W P Pycraft [1906]:
"But in Archaeopteryx, it is noted, the feathers differ in no way from
the most perfectly developed feathers known to us." Because of this,
Pycraft considered Archaeopteryx to be a bird. (Note that Gish
identifies this guote as coming from Gregory; actually Gregory was
quoting Pycraft.)
Colbert [1961, p. 176]:
"The feathers ... [are] typical bird feathers, and because of them,
Archaeopteryx is classified as a bird."
-----
Evolutionists who do not consider Archaeopteryx a transition:
F E Beddard [1898, p. 160]:
"So emphatically were all these creatures [Archaeopteryx, Ichthyornis,
and Hesperornis] birds that the actual origin of Aves is barely hinted
at in the structure of these remarkable remains." Beddard did not
accept Archaeopteryx as a transition in 1898; there are no better
candidates today.
W K Gregory [1916] discusses several older writers, such as W P Pycraft
(already mentioned above), who discussed avian development in terms of
the stages *preceding* Archaeopteryx - he didn't feel Archaeopteryx was
a good case of a transition upon which to base his speculations
regarding intermediates, particularly as he ends by noting that
Archaeopteryx was too advanced for such speculations - because its
feathers are identical to those of modern birds.
and Baron Francis Nopesa [1907]:
"If we ... suppose that Birds, before attaining the *Archaeopteryx*-like
state, originated from..." Considered Archaeopteryx a full bird since
at least one hypothetical stage before Archaeopteryx is a bird. He
considered birds to come from dinosaurs, but by the time of
Archaeopteryx, the dinosaurs had become birds.
In general, none of the authors discussed by Gregory seem to have any
doubt about classifying Archaeopteryx as clearly a bird. They uniformly
seek to explain the transition from reptile to bird, not in terms of
reptile-Archaeopteryx-bird, but in terms of reptile-intermediate-
Archaeopteryx.
W E Swinton [1960, p. 1]:
"The origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no
fossil evidence of the states through which the remarkable change from
reptile to bird was achieved." We may assume that Archaeopteryx was
known to Swinton, and since he considers that there are no reptile-bird
transitions, clearly he doesn't consider Archaeopteryx a transition.
A Romer [1966, p. 166]:
"Archaeopteryx was already definitely a bird, but was still very close
to the archosaurian reptiles in most structures."
-----
Of course it would be untrue to say that all evolutionists feel this
way. There are, for instance, those who express no confidence in the
status of Archaeopteryx:
Pierre-Paul Grasse' [1977, p. 74]:
"[T]here is the outstanding Archaeopteryx, which exhibits a real mixture
of reptilian and birdlike characters. Its ancestors are unknown;
consequently, the precise origin of birds is still to be discovered."
(This might equally be taken as a statement of non-transition.)
-----
There are also those who are confident that Archaeopteryx really is a
transition:
Carl O Dunbar [1961, p. 310]:
"It would be difficult to find a more perfect 'connecting link' between
two groups of animals, or more cogent proof of the reptilian ancestry of
the birds." (But note above that Dunbar classifies Archaeopteryx as a
bird, because of feathers.)
David Raup [1984, p. 157]:
"It is conventional to classify Archaeopteryx as a bird. I have no
doubt that if it were permissible under the rules of taxonomy to put
Archaeopteryx in some sort of category intermiediate between birds and
reptiles that we would indeed do that." Thus, Archaeopteryx is a true
intermediate, but the classificatory system is said to introduce a false
dichotomy where none exists.
Colbert [1961, p. 176]:
"Here was a truly intermediate form between the reptiles and the birds."
-----
Another view is possible, that Archaeopteryx was a descendent of
reptiles but was not an ancestor of modern birds.
Olson [1971, p. 364]:
"Whether Archaeopteryx represents a sideline, not on the course to birds
proper, or is close to the base of the ancestral stock of all birds
cannot be settled from what is known. Opinion has tended to favor the
former alternative."
-----
There is very little common ground here. Perhaps there is better
agreement on something simpler, such as whether Archaeopteryx flew or
not.
"Archaeopteryx ... could not fly" [Bakker, 1975].
"Archaeopteryx did fly" [New Scientist, 1979].
Apparently not...
------------------------------
There is clearly no consensus. It is not clear if it is a transition or
not, whether it flew or not, whether it led to modern birds or not, etc.
The fact that there is such disagreement shows that there is little hope
of achieving a clear resolution of this issue.
So it is unreasonable to single out Gish for vilification. If he is
wrong, he's not the only one. Kenneth Miller should know that; if he
does, his statements are propaganda. If he doesn't, I'm quite
surprised; one doesn't have to do much homework at all to discover that
that status of Archaeopteryx is not and has never been agreed on,
*within* the evolutionary camp. Gish is derided not so much for the
content of his statements (for all of what he says has been said before
by evolutionists) but because he is a creationist.
------------------------------
> Yet, if one really wanted to
> discuss the *Archaeopteryx* fossils in detail, one should be aware that several
> fossilized *Archaeopteryx* skeletons were discovered before one was found
> with feathers preserved. How were these specimens classified? They were
> thought to be reptiles and were placed in museums alongside other small
> dinosaurs. In short, *Archaeopteryx* was an animal whose skeletal structure
> was reptilian but upon whose skin the first feathers had appeared. Just how
> much more intermediate does something have to be?"
> Indeed, it is hardly surprising that *Archaeopteryx* was first classified as a
> reptile.
Here is an example of what Kenneth Miller calls a "shocking untruth":
Archaeopteryx was first classified as a reptile.
I have been completely unable to verify the claims that the first
specimens of Archaeopteryx were without feathers or that they were not
classified as birds. I'd like to see the references for this, because I
think, in light of the account below, that K. Miller is either making
this up, or had been reading someone who didn't get their facts
straight.
Augusta [1961] indicates that H. von Meyer reported (in 1861) the first
finding, of a feather discovered near Solnhofen in 1860, in Upper
Mesozoic (Jurassic) strata. Later in 1861, the remains of a complete
(almost) skeleton were found by Solnhofen. In 1988, in a quarry near
Eichstatt, the second skeleton was found. This is the one we always see
the picture of (the one with the head folded back in an uncomfortable
looking manner). In 1956, the third skeleton was found, also near
Solnhofen. It was poorly preserved. Etc. We now have at least five
skeletons. All of them had feathers.
This is generally consistent with other authors, e.g., Davidheiser
[1969, p. 321] and Hitching [1982, p. 21].
K. Miller also writes elsewhere [1984, p. 51], speaking of transitional
sequences: "The pattern is repeated in the development of birds, where
the first known complete skeletons, including the remarkable fossils of
Archaeopteryx, are completely intermediate in character, and some
specimens would in fact actually have been classified as reptiles but
for the luck fact that certain fossils were found with preserved feather
specimens."
The phrase "would in fact actually have been classified as reptiles"
shows that Miller knows that in fact they were *not*. Yet elsewhere he
says they were.
The only statement I can find even remotely resembling what Miller says
is one by Bakker [1975] that John Ostrom came across an Archaeopteryx
skeleton in a European museum that was mislabelled as a reptile. Which
proves little except, perhaps, that curators make mistakes.
Archaeopteryx was certainly not *first* classified as a reptile.
------------------------------
> McGowan gives a list of features that distinguish reptiles from birds
> taxonomically, (possession of teeth, which Ray Miller harps on, is notably
> absent from this list), and how *Archaeopteryx* falls with respect to each
> of these features:
WHO originally proposed teeth as a reptilian feature of Archaeopteryx
and that it therefore was a reptile-bird transition? Creationists?
Bite your tongue.
> IN *ARCHAEOPTERYX*
> Reptilian Avian
> HIP 1. Pubic peduncle present
> TAIL 2. Long, bony tail
> 3. No pygostyle
Regarding the tail: "The bone and feather arrangement on a present-day
swan shows striking similarities to Archaeopteryx" [Hitching, p. 21].
Is the swan transitional?
> VERTEBRAE 4. Articular surfaces do not appear to be
> saddle-shaped (caution is required here
> because only two articular surfaces can
> be seen)
> CHEST 5. No bony sternum
"There are several generally help misconceptions concerning the pectoral
girdle of modern birds. The most prevalent of these is that the carina
of the sternum is the principal site of origin of the massive pectoralis
miscle, which provides the power stroke of the wing. This is not so.
In most birds, m. pectoralis originates to a greater extent from the
furcula and the coraco-clavicular membrane ... Apart from feathers, the
character of Archaeopteryx most often cited as being bird-like is the
well developed furcula" [Olson and Feduccia, p 248]. The sternum is
diminished, yes. But why doesn't McGowan mention the other relevant
characteristic here?
> 6. Wishbone present
> HAND 7. Three well-developed fingers
> 8. Three well-developed metacarpal bones
> 9. Metacarpal bones unfused
> ANKLE REGION 10. Metatarsal bones separate
> 11. No hypotarsus
> ABDOMEN 12. Abdominal ribs present
> FEATHERS 13. Feathers present
Well, how about:
SKULL Expanded braincase
Closed sutures
BONES Hollow
FOOT Opposable toe
McGowan obviously slanted his presentation towards reptiles.
> In other words, out of thirteen characteristics that are classificatory
> between birds and reptiles, *Archaeopteryx* conforms to the reptiles
> in ten points, to birds in two, and one more is probably also reptilian.
> What better example of a transitional form could one ask for? Does Ray
> know of any other species with so many reptilian characteristics that
> also has feathers?
"The ostrich of today, which also has three claws on its wings, has been
suggested by some experts to have more supposed reptilian features than
Archaeopteryx - but nobody, of course, considers the ostrich a
transitional form" [Hitching, p. 23].
------------------------------
One might note that hodge-podge organisms such as Archaeopteryx are
rejected as transitional by some evolutionists.
duNouy [1947, pp. 58-59]:
"Unfortunately, the greater part of the fundamental types in the animal
realm are disconnected from a paleontological view. In spite of the
fact that it is undeniably related to the two classes of reptiles and
birds (a relation which the anatomy and physiology of actually living
specimens demonstrates), we are not even authorized to consider the
exceptional case of the Archaeopteryx as a true link. By link, we mean
a necessary stage of transition between classes such as reptiles or
birds, or between smaller groups. An animal displaying characters
belonging to two different groups cannot be treated as a true link as
long as the intermediary stages have not been found, and as long as the
mechanisms of the transition remain unknown."
At first reading this passage may seem to contain an unnecessary
premise: that the mechanism of the transition must be known in order to
truly classify an organism as transitional. One might say that given a
complete enough fossil record of the transition, the fact of the
occurrence of evolution would be plain enough, if not the underlying
processes. And of course, this very point *has* been made, e.g., by
Gingerich, who claims that construction of phylogenies "based on a dense
and continuous fossil record are usually very stable and reliable"
[Cracraft and Eldredge, p.55]. To which one might reply (as cladists,
for instance, do in fact reply) by asking how one is to know which
sections of the paleontological record represent "dense and continuous"
fossil records. Perhaps duNouy has a point. The matter is certainly at
issue.
Halstead [1984, pp. 252-253] discusses Gish's use of the quote from
duNouy, adding afterward that invocation of the concept of mosaic
evolution allows a different conclusion to be drawn. Halstead, like
Raup, feels that creationists use a semantic trick - that the taxonomic
system eliminates the possibility of transitional forms. That is not
what duNouy was talking about, however, so the objection misses the
point. Even if we accept Archaeopteryx as a mosaic, there is still
little agreement to be found. Gould, for instance, disagrees with
Halstead's conclusion ("curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count"
[1977, p. 147]). At least he disagrees sometimes ("transitional forms
exist in abundance - especially forms linking ... reptiles and birds"
[Gallant, 1984, p. 296]). One is led to suppose that Archaeopteryx
might be one of those abundant transitions (whatever the others might
be). It is difficult to know just what to make of this apparent
turnabout, especially when one considers that when he describes the
process of arriving at new structural designs he explicitly predicts
forms which would be indistinguishable from mosaics [1980, p. 127].
>> [Ray Miller]
>> Finally, Archaeopteryx cannot be the ancestor of birds, because the fossil
>>record indicates that birds were already in existence during the period in
>>which Archaeopteryx was found [6]. These are just some of the reasons that
>>many evolutionists are beginning to abandon Archaeopteryx as a transitional
>>form.
> [Bill Jefferys]
> Contrary to what Ray says, it is quite possible for *Archaeopteryx* to have
> existed simultaneously with birds that evolved from it. Creationists
> have a curious misconception, as seen by their constant references to "Living
> Fossils", that evolution predicts the extinction of one species if some of its
> representatives evolve into something else. This is completely wrong.
> It is perfectly consistent with evolutionary theory for one isolated breeding
> population to evolve into something else, while another isolated breeding
> population of the same species, because of differing circumstances, does not.
> This results in the "daughter" species coexisting with its "parent".
This paragraph contains two errors:
"Living fossil" is an *evolutionist* concept. I have pointed this out
in the past [1984]. Also, the "curious misconception" that "evolution
predicts the extinction of one species if some of its representatives
evolve into something else" is a product of *evolutionary* minds (for
example, Darwin's). It may be wrong, but it was not made up by
creationists. Your rebuttal may be valid; it hardly applies only to
creationists. I'll give an example, from Dobzhansky [1965, p. 5]:
"[T]o make Darwin's theory as shocking as possible the proposition 'man
and apes have descended from common ancestors' was garbled into 'man has
descended from the apes.' This, of course, is obvious nonsense, since
man's remote ancestors could not have descended from animals which are
our contemporaries."
Davidheiser [p. 25] observes: "It is naive of Professor Dobzhansky to
assert that the theory of evolution prohibits the existence of apes in
the past which were not our contemporaries."
Evolutionists developed the idea. Some evolutionists realize this, some
(as, apparantly, Bill) do not. Some creationists realize this, some do
not. Some creationists realize that it is not necessary to evolutionary
theory, some do not.
But whether the idea is true or not, it *is* the case that a number of
proposed intermediates have been rejected as such (by evolutionists) on
the basis of EXACTLY the above reasoning: a form is not transitional to
another form if it exists contemporaneously with it. Lungfish, for
example. My beloved coelecanth, for another. Archaeopteryx is under
the same pressure since the discovery of other fossils which are clearly
birds contemporary to it.
---
References
[1] "Archaeopteryx did fly". New Scientist, 82(1149), 5 Apr 1979,
25.
[2] Josef Augusta, "Prehistoric Reptiles and Birds". Paul Hamlyn,
London, 1961.
This book gives numerous background details regarding discovery
and acquisition of the fossil remains.
[3] Robert T Bakker, "Dinosaur Renaissance". Scientific American,
232(4), Apr 1975, 58-78.
[4] F E Beddard, "The Structure and Classification of Birds".
Longmans, Green and Co, London, 1898.
[5] Edwin H Colbert, "Evolution of the Vertebrates". John Wiley and
Sons (Science Editions), New York, 1961.
[6] Joel Cracraft, Niles Eldredge, eds., "Phylogenetic Analysis and
Paleontology". Columbia University Press, New York, 1979.
[7] Bolton Davidheiser, "Evolution and Christian Faith".
Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, Phillipsburg, N J, 1969.
[8] Theodosius Dobzhansky, "Mankind Evolving". Yale University
Press, 1962.
[9] Paul DuBois, USENET article <399@uwmacc.UUCP>, 19 Oct 84
21:23:59 GMT.
[10] Carl O Dunbar, "Historical Geology". John Wiley and Sons, New
York, 1961. 310.
[11] L DuNouy, "Human Destiny". New American Library, New York,
1947.
[12] Roy A Gallant, "To Hell with Evolution". Science and
Creationism, Ashley Montagu, Oxford University Press, 1984, 282
(quoting Gould).
[13] Stephen Jay Gould, Niles Eldredge, "Punctuated equilibria: the
tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered". Paleobiology, 3(2),
115-151, 1977.
[14] Stephen Jay Gould, "Is a new and general theory of evolution
emerging?" Paleobiology, 6(1), 119-130, 1980.
[15] Pierre Grasse', "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a
New Theory of Transformation". Academic Press, New York, 1977.
[16] William K Gregory, "Theories of the origin of birds". Ann NY
Acad Sci, 27, 4 May 1916, 31-38.
[17] L Beverly Halstead, "Evolution - The Fossils Say Yes!" In,
Science and Creationism, ed. Ashley Montagu, Oxford University
Press, 1984, 240-254.
[18] Francis Hitching, "The Neck of the Giraffe". New American
Library (Mentor), New York, 1982.
[19] Kenneth R Miller, "Scientific Creationism versus Evolution: The
Mislabeled Debate". In, Science and Creationism, ed. Ashley
Montagu, Oxford University Press, 1984, 18.
[20] Baron Francis Nopesa, "Ideas on the Origin of Flight". Proc
Zool Soc Lond, 12 June 1907.
[21] Everett C Olson, "The Evolution of Life". New American Library,
New York, 1965.
[22] Everett C Olson, "Vertebrate Paleozoology". Wiley-Interscience,
New York, 1971.
[23] Storrs L Olson, Alan Feduccia, "Flight capability and the
pectoral girdle of Archaeopteryx". Nature, 278, 247-248, 15
March 1979.
[24] W P Pycraft, "The Origin of Birds". Knowledge and Science News,
September 1906, 531-532.
[25] David M Raup, "The Geological and Paleontological Arguments of
Creationism". In, Scientists Confront Creationism, ed. Laurie R
Godfrey, W W Norton, New York, 1983, 147.
[26] A S Romer, "Vertebrate Paleontology", 3rd ed. University of
Chicago Press, 1966.
[27] W E Swinton, "Biology and Comparative Physiology of Birds". Ed.
A J Marshall, 1, Academic Press, New York, 1960.
--
Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois |
--+--
"It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but |
the honor of kings is to search out a matter" |
Proverbs 25:2js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (02/25/85)
Paul Dubois, writing on the (mistaken) idea that when a new specie evolves, all members of the parent specie must die out: > Evolutionists developed the idea. Some evolutionists realize this, some > (as, apparantly, Bill) do not. Some creationists realize this, some do > not. Some creationists realize that it is not necessary to evolutionary > theory, some do not. > > But whether the idea is true or not, it *is* the case that a number of > proposed intermediates have been rejected as such (by evolutionists) on > the basis of EXACTLY the above reasoning: a form is not transitional to > another form if it exists contemporaneously with it. Lungfish, for > example. My beloved coelecanth, for another. Archaeopteryx is under > the same pressure since the discovery of other fossils which are clearly > birds contemporary to it. It really doesn't matter *who* has accepted the idea that a form is not transitional to another form if they exist contemporaneously. The idea simply doesn't stand up to examination. Archaeopteryx may or may not have been the link between reptiles and birds, but the fact that Archaeopteryx hadn't died out before birds developed HELPS TO SUPPORT THE IDEA THAT ARCHAEOPTERYX was the parent specie. Birds could hardly have developed from Arch. if Arch. had died out before birds developed. It's almost a tautology. Yet Paul tries to get us to deny the possibility of Arch.'s intermediate status (not solely) on the basis of it's contemporaneousness with birds, a fact which actually *lends support to* it's intermediate status! Just what would you require of an intermediate specie between birds and reptiles, Paul? You criticized Arch.'s feathers as being almost identicle with modern bird feathers. You want maybe some sort of useless half-feather? Why would something like that be selected for? Why would you expect a specie with useless features to survive long enough to leave any kind of fossil record? -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "Have SEX with a beautiful, LIVE girl!" - from a pamphlet from the church of the subgenius.
hammond@petrus.UUCP (02/26/85)
> Just what would you require of an intermediate specie between birds > and reptiles, Paul? You criticized Arch.'s feathers as being almost > identicle with modern bird feathers. You want maybe some sort of useless > half-feather? Why would something like that be selected for? > Why would you expect a specie with useless features to survive > long enough to leave any kind of fossil record? > -- > Jeff Sonntag > ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j I do expect there to be intermediate forms. Arch.'s feathers, being almost identical to modern feathers, are at best at the near end of the intermediate spectrum. I expect to find earlier intermediates. You seem to be giving up on the whole point of Paul's argument, that the fossil record doesn't support intermediates. Paul (I suspect) says they aren't there because they never were. You say they aren't there because the transition had to happen very rapidly, since the intermediate forms were "useless features." That explains the lack, but I don't see how it shows that the fossil record supports evolution. It merely says that the record does not contradict evolution. I am not supportive of creationism so much as interested in how some of the enormously complex systems we see today (bird's flight, ...) evolved from some simple organisms. I'll settle for a plausible explanation of what the intermediate steps were and why they survived long enough to mutate into the present forms. Rich Hammond (decvax | ucbvax | ihnp4 !bellcore!hammond)
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (02/27/85)
> > [Jeff Sonntag] > > Just what would you require of an intermediate specie between birds > > and reptiles, Paul? You criticized Arch.'s feathers as being almost > > identicle with modern bird feathers. You want maybe some sort of useless > > half-feather? Why would something like that be selected for? > > Why would you expect a specie with useless features to survive > > long enough to leave any kind of fossil record? > [Rich Hammond] > I do expect there to be intermediate forms. Arch.'s feathers, being > almost identical to modern feathers, are at best at the near end of > the intermediate spectrum. I expect to find earlier intermediates. > > You seem to be giving up on the whole point of Paul's argument, > that the fossil record doesn't support intermediates. > Paul (I suspect) says they aren't there because they never were. Actually, I didn't say whether I think the fossil record supports intermediates or not, or whether I think Archaeopteryx is an intermediate or not. Given the tenor of a number of the replies I have received in the past, it does not seem to be widely accepted even that I think, let alone think one thing or another. My original article was intended to dispel the erroneous impression the I felt was given by the article I was replying to, i.e., that the status of Archaeopteryx is settled and agreed-upon. It isn't now, and probably never has been. -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois | --+-- "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but | the honor of kings is to search out a matter" | Proverbs 25:2
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (02/28/85)
>> Just what would you require of an intermediate specie between birds >> and reptiles, Paul? You criticized Arch.'s feathers as being almost >> identicle with modern bird feathers. You want maybe some sort of useless >> half-feather? Why would something like that be selected for? >> Why would you expect a specie with useless features to survive >> long enough to leave any kind of fossil record? >> -- >> Jeff Sonntag >> ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j > You seem top be assuming that the *primary* purpose of feathers is flight. This is incorrect, the main purpose of feathers is *insulation*, and even a "half feather" will have more insulating ability than raw scales. Just because full feathers are *also* usefull for flight does not mean that that is all yhey are good for! In fact there is at least one fossil which appears to have these "half-feathers". It is, I think, called "Longisquama", and has seems to have elongate, ridged scales. It was discovered in Russia a few years ago. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (02/28/85)
>Paul Dubois writes: >> >> But whether the idea is true or not, it *is* the case that a number of >> proposed intermediates have been rejected as such (by evolutionists) on >> the basis of EXACTLY the above reasoning: a form is not transitional to >> another form if it exists contemporaneously with it. Lungfish, for >> example. My beloved coelecanth, for another. Archaeopteryx is under >> the same pressure since the discovery of other fossils which are clearly >> birds contemporary to it. Actually there are *no* fossils which are "clearly" birds contemporary with Archaeopteryx. One paleontoligist found a series of fragmentary limb bones from the Morrison formation which he identified as birds. He even named on of them. However several other workers, including the well-respected anatomist - Dr Thulborn, have since questioned his interpretations. It seems most paleontologists consider these specimens to be pterosaurs not birds. This shows the importance of following the discussion in the professional journals, to see what is actually going on. The last time this was brought up in this news group the only reference provided was from "Science News", which is simply a *newspaper* dedicated to reporting scientific news *not* a real journal. As such it has all the shortcommings of other newspapers as far as science is concerned. I had a very difficult time tracing down the actual journal articles involved so I could make a rational evaluation of the evidence. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen