|
|
|
|
Antie
Skeptic Friend
USA
101 Posts |
 Posted - 01/24/2003 : 00:31:12
|
Read this article:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/862757.asp
I find it interesting! However, I have a feeling that many of the Creationists aren't going to stop talking about it for a very long time.
|
Antie. DIES GAUDII.
Facies Fabulosarum Feminarum
If you can name all six of the females in the picture above without looking up their names, and you can read the Latin phrase, pat yourself on the back. You're smart. |
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
 Posted - 01/24/2003 : 04:45:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Antie
..., I have a feeling that many of the Creationists aren't going to stop talking about it for a very long time.
Why? They're relatively small, would have fit conveniently in some corner of the ark, and might have come in handy had Noah run out of doves and ravens. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
 |
|
|
riptor
Skeptic Friend
Germany
70 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2003 : 05:27:34 [Permalink]
|
Huh?
This thingy has already been found two years ago. Since it is not news thus, how'd you call it? Olds? |
Hail the Big bearded Jellyfish up in heaven above. |
|
|
|
Physiofly
Skeptic Friend
USA
90 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2003 : 11:36:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
This thingy has already been found two years ago. Since it is not news thus, how'd you call it? Olds?
This is a new find. Several dinosaurs have been found with feathers in the past but these have long, flight feathers on their arms AND legs which makes them unique. The hypothesis is these dinosaurs were gliders much like flying squirrels. As such they are examples of a transitional species in the evolution of birds. |
"Men are so simple and so much inclined to obey immediate needs that a
deceiver will never lack victims for his deceptions." - Niccolo Machiavelli
|
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2003 : 11:47:21 [Permalink]
|
Riptor, you're thinking of Archaeopteryx. This new one is Microraptor. Entirely different beast.
Physio, what I'm hearing and reading now suggests Microraptor might be an evolutionary dead-end because the leg-sockets don't appear to be adapted to orient the leg-wings for efficient flight. IOW, this one might be a worse flyer than, say Archaeopteryx.
|
I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery.
-Agent Smith |
|
|
|
riptor
Skeptic Friend
Germany
70 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2003 : 09:05:40 [Permalink]
|
No, I'm definitely talking about Microraptor. It even is mentiuoned in the almanach of italian science magazine "Focus", issue 1/2002. I think the new thing about it is that they now finished the reconstruction.
Additionally, Microraptor is a cretaceaous animal though first birds already appeared in late triassic and there first ancestors need to be found in the early to middle triassic. This is about 100 million years earlier.
BTW: The first Archaeopteryx has been found in 19th century. I sure can tell the difference between "2" and "150". |
Hail the Big bearded Jellyfish up in heaven above. |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2003 : 12:58:41 [Permalink]
|
Right. Well, feel free to ignore everything in my last post. It must have been late. And I must have been high. Or something.
|
I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery.
-Agent Smith |
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 01/27/2003 : 02:29:24 [Permalink]
|
Okay, let's prepare for the new/old creationist arguments.
Microraptor had four wings. Birds have two wings. Therefore, it is not a bird, and thus evidence that it must be a created 'kind'. (Forget the feather thing. That only applies with Archaeopterix.)
Where are the intermediate fossils? Everyone already knows there are no transistionals. You see, lizards just don't give birth to birds. (OH, I forgot--It's not a bird!)
And, let's not forget that since it was a lousy flyer, then this is not a case of "survival of the fittest." Detremental traits cannot survive according to the Theory, (just a theory), of Evilution. Thus, Microraptor must have been created, because only an omnipotent creator could design such an inefficient machine. Or, something like that.
I'm sure those guys over at ICR could word it more convincingly than me, but I guess my heart just isn't in it....I'd rather have one of those cute little guys for a pet. Maybe, Abraham kept a house full of them. They kept the rodent population down, and made great dust mops. Just shove a long stick up their little...Well, nevermind.
|
"We got an issue in America. Too many good docs are gettin' out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their -- their love with women all across this country." Dubya in Poplar Bluff, Missouri, 9/6/2004
|
|
|
|
riptor
Skeptic Friend
Germany
70 Posts |
Posted - 01/27/2003 : 07:05:41 [Permalink]
|
You forgot that feathers are no birdish feature. Some dinosaurs had feathers, too. Thus it may still be classified as a dinosaur and has nothing to do with a bird.
Hey, that's great: For the first time within the last 100 years, creationists have to redefine their idea of what dinosaurs were like.
Yeah, they sure will. |
Hail the Big bearded Jellyfish up in heaven above. |
| Edited by - riptor on 01/27/2003 07:06:58 |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 01/27/2003 : 07:59:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by riptor
Huh?
This thingy has already been found two years ago. Since it is not news thus, how'd you call it? Olds?
Never ever trust real news when it comes to "new discovery". I would say that the discovers of the specimen may have just finally published another article on the specimen in question. Every time they do this the news will chime in with their "new discovery" line and then usually somewhere in the article you will find it was discovered a year or two ago.
They use the headline to draw people, what would draw your attention more,
"New discovery of fossil X"
or
"Scientists finally publish more info on old Fossil X".
Edited to add the following:
I would also add that the scientists are not innocent in this either. They do create the press releases the story is based on and they do often describe it as the "new discovery". After all it helps bring more attention to their discovery which helps in getting funding.
The process is kind of like this.
1. Scientists discover specimen
2. Scientists make sensational announcement and press release following by news article with fuzzy details.
3. Within a month or so scientists publish brief summary article of preliminary findings announcing the discovery to the scientific community with press release and news article about new discovery.
4. Scientist begin the long painful process of extracting, reconstructing, and analying the fossil.
5. Some period in the future maybe within a year or two (maybe longer) scientists publish more articles detailing their analysis along with more press releases all of them claiming "new discovery".
6. Eventually the scientists publish all they can on the specimen and it is released to the scientific community usually by placing it in a museum.
This specimen appears to be in step 5.
Several great examples of this are in hominid specimens. The Nariokotome skeleton was discovered in 1984, but the final huge book detailing their analysis was not released until the early 90's. I still wait with excited anticipation for the detailed analysis reports of Stw 573 (Little Foot) discovered in the mid 1990's and a partial skeleton of a juvenile hominid found in Kenya. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1118455.stm
When I asked my Phys Anth professor about the Little Foot specimen he said he didn't know much despite having several "spies" in the Alan Walker camp and jokingly said they probably had a fossil chimp and were too ashamed to admit it  |
| Edited by - jmcginn on 01/27/2003 08:26:11 |
|
|
|
Antie
Skeptic Friend
USA
101 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2003 : 02:47:53 [Permalink]
|
> Why?
I thought it was obvious. Tim wrote some examples of those new "arguments": "Microraptor had four wings. Birds have two wings. Therefore, it is not a bird, and thus evidence that it must be a created 'kind'. (Forget the feather thing. That only applies with Archaeopterix.)" and such. |
Antie. DIES GAUDII.
Facies Fabulosarum Feminarum
If you can name all six of the females in the picture above without looking up their names, and you can read the Latin phrase, pat yourself on the back. You're smart. |
|
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
