Real Science Friday: An Extinct Bird - Archaeopteryx

[Jefferson]

RSF: An Extinct Bird - Archaeopteryx

This is the show from Friday April 1st, 2011.

Summary:



* Archaeopteryx, Bison, Pelican, Chimp, and Cancer: Co-hosts Fred Williams with Creation Research Society, and Bob Enyart, on this episode of Real Science Friday draw from the latest issue of Creation magazine, April - June 2011, to discuss:
- Archaeopteryx Just a Bird: After decades of textbooks saying otherwise, this bird is no longer considered transitional. It's just a bird, with wings, feathers, wishbone, perching feet, and bird bones and brain case. As Prof. of Avian Evolution and world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina, Dr. J. Alan Feduccia, has said, "Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it's not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that." And NOW, SOFT TISSUE! Yes, just like the other soft-tissue dinosaurs, according to the Proceedings of the Nat'l Academy of Sciences, an allegedly 150-million year old Archaeopteryx fossil contains all kinds of original biological material.
- Bison Bleed: If one bison is wounded and bleeding the whole herd rubs in the blood so that predators will not be able to target the vulnerability within the herd (from a Denver Post article about a Colorado herd increasingly expressing it's wild genes). Bob and Fred discuss the mechanics of how this might evolve, in a fanciful sense.
- Pelican Fossil: Once again, evolutionists are "surprised" because a supposedly 30-million year old pelican fossil looks suspiciously like a modern species. In fact, there seems to be a trend: the more "remarkably preserved" a fossil is, the more scientists admit that they're "so similar to modern" species. Yes. And where's all the genetic variation, including deterioration, from mutations that should have happened over all that time? It's not there.
- Chimp's Y Chromosome: Oh boy. It's way different from ours. "Horrendously different" in fact!
- Cancer and Egyptian Mummies: and the increasing mutation-driven genetic load on the human race and what a leading geneticist and cancer researcher are saying against evolution.

Today’s Resource: You'll just love the science DVDs, books, and written, audio or video debates we offer through our Real Science Friday broadcasts! So have you browsed through ourScience Departmentin the KGOV Store? Check out Bob most highly-recommended astronomy DVD, What You Aren't Being Told About Astronomy! And see Walt Brown’s great hardcover book, In the Beginning!You’ll also love Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez’ Privileged Planet(clip), and Illustra Media’sUnlocking the Mystery of Life(clip)! You can consider our BELScience Pack; Bob Enyart’sAge of the Earth Debate; Bob's debate aboutJunk DNAwith the infamous anti-creationist Dr. Eugenie Scott. And if you have young kids or grand kids, you owe it to them and to yourself to give them as a gift the SUPERB kids' radio programming on audio CD,Jonathan Park: The Adventure Begins! And Bob strongly recommends that you subscribe to CMI’s tremendousCreationmagazine and Ken Ham's Answers magazine! Or to order by phone just call us at 1-800-8Enyart (836-9278).

* Special Editions of Real Science Friday:
- BEL's famous List of Not-So-Old Things
- Bob's debate with Christian Darwinist British author James Hannam
- PZ Myers blogs against Real Science Friday so we hit back with the PZ Trochlea Challenge
- Waiting for Darwin's Other Shoe: Science mag cover: Darwin Was Wrong on the Tree of Life
- Microbiologist in Studio: Creation Research Society Quarterly editor on new genetic findings
- Caterpillar Kills Atheism: describe how a bug could evolve to liquefy itself and then build itself into a flying creature
- And see the RSF Offer of $2,000 to get 16 letters of the alphabet in their correct places; $500 paid in 1998; $1,500 in 2010...

 

[Alate_One]

I love this "just a bird" line . . . . . Lets play one of these things is not like the other. Tell me which skeleton is the odd one out here?

Now, I think a 5 year old could do this one. . . . .

If Archeopteryx is "just a bird" then most theropods are "just birds" too . . . :chuckle:

 

[fool]

Birds are dinosaurs.

 

[Jukia]

so, instead of acknowledging that his liquid squid ink drama was misleading, now we have this?
Or did I miss Pastor Bob and his buddy admitting that they were wrong on the squid ink issue? If I missed his acknowledgment, could someone point it out for me.

 

[Silent Hunter]

This is the show from Friday April 1st, 2011.

:think:

 

[Granite]

:think:

Good point, but makes me think of Poe's Law.

 

[Alate_One]

And NOW, SOFT TISSUE! Yes, just like the other soft-tissue dinosaurs, according to the Proceedings of the Nat'l Academy of Sciences, an allegedly 150-million year old Archaeopteryx fossil contains all kinds of original biological material.

Biological material does not equal "soft tissue". Perhaps Bob just read the abstract again and assumed that a mention of "soft tissue" meant the tissue was still soft! Oops . . .another one of those "accidents" like the still liquid ink? Of course if he read on, the paper says this, speaking of the new technique that was used:

SRS-XRF thus allows direct study of (i) structures that are not apparent in visible light, (ii) macronutrient and trace metal distribution patterns in bone and mineralized soft tissue areas related to life processes, and (iii) chemical processes of fossilization.

(Emphasis mine)

And in any case who is Bob to say that it's impossible for this kind of preservation to occur over millions of years? For soft tissue to mineralize and some of the constituents remain in place, why must it be a few thousand years? Cause Bob sez?

 

[Silent Hunter]

Biological material does not equal "soft tissue". Perhaps Bob just read the abstract again and assumed that a mention of "soft tissue" meant the tissue was still soft! Oops . . .another one of those "accidents" like the still liquid ink? Of course if he read on, the paper says this, speaking of the new technique that was used:

SRS-XRF thus allows direct study of (i) structures that are not apparent in visible light, (ii) macronutrient and trace metal distribution patterns in bone and mineralized soft tissue areas related to life processes, and (iii) chemical processes of fossilization.

(Emphasis mine)

And in any case who is Bob to say that it's impossible for this kind of preservation to occur over millions of years? For soft tissue to mineralize and some of the constituents remain in place, why must it be a few thousand years? Cause Bob sez?

:mock:Bob Enyart

 

[Jukia]

Biological material does not equal "soft tissue". Perhaps Bob just read the abstract again and assumed that a mention of "soft tissue" meant the tissue was still soft! Oops . . .another one of those "accidents" like the still liquid ink? Of course if he read on, the paper says this, speaking of the new technique that was used:

SRS-XRF thus allows direct study of (i) structures that are not apparent in visible light, (ii) macronutrient and trace metal distribution patterns in bone and mineralized soft tissue areas related to life processes, and (iii) chemical processes of fossilization.

(Emphasis mine)

And in any case who is Bob to say that it's impossible for this kind of preservation to occur over millions of years? For soft tissue to mineralize and some of the constituents remain in place, why must it be a few thousand years? Cause Bob sez?

Yep, this is about it. Pastor Bob makes a statement and his followers climb on board.
I remain amazed that those who buy the Christian god and Pastor Bob are so unappreciative of the real world which their deity left them. Instead they must idolize a strange cobbled together book. I also believe that "idolize" is the proper word. No matter what the real world shows them they must bow in front of the Bible, and they consider Catholics idolatrous.

 

[Paulos]

Skepticism and humility are essential tools in the process of true scientific investigation. Personal bias must be set aside because bias can alter one's perceptions. True scientists must not only be prepared to doubt, question, and test the claims of others, but they must doubt, question, and test their own assumptions as well, and be prepared to accept outcomes that do not conform to their predisposed belief systems.

These essential traits of the true scientific investigator, skepticism and humility, are non-existent in the mindset of the fundamentalist. Fundamentalism replaces skepticism and humility with faith and arrogance. Fundamentalists appeal to authority (scripture) in order to define their beliefs about creationism. The scientific method gets replaced with "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it!" Outcomes of scientific testing that do not conform to the fundamentalist's belief system tend to be simply ignored or denied. This is why religious fundamentalism makes for poor science.

 

[Frayed Knot]

It sounds to me like Feduccia's whole point about Archaeopteryx was that many people think this was a creature that ran around on the ground, like we think of dinosaurs doing, and it had feathers.

What I think he was saying is that this creature was not like that image; it was something that flew and had perching claws for sitting in trees, like we imagine birds doing.

I looked for sourced comments to give some context, but I really don't think that he was saying this creature was not a clear transitional form between the dinosaurs and birds, because it clearly is. If it were a ground-running dinosaur with feathers, we already have other examples of those. Archaeopteryx was more bird-like, having developed several of the characteristics of birds, and of course still having the long bony tail and teeth like its dinosaur ancestors.

It's a clear transitional form, not like those other examples we have of dinosaurs with feathers.

 

[Paulos]

I really don't think that he was saying this creature was not a clear transitional form between the dinosaurs and birds, because it clearly is...It's a clear transitional form, not like those other examples we have of dinosaurs with feathers.

Here's what Mark Norell, Chair of the Division of Paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History, had to say last year about the archaeopteryx:

Mark Norell Publishes New Archaeopteryx Findings

This video describes the different physical characteristics between archaeopteryx and birds:

Archaeopteryx Challenge!

 

[Stripe]

I love this "just a bird" line . . . . . Lets play one of these things is not like the other. Tell me which skeleton is the odd one out here? Now, I think a 5 year old could do this one. . . . . If Archeopteryx is "just a bird" then most theropods are "just birds" too . . .

Any idea on what sort of process could form multiple layers of flat, uninterrupted strata over a vast area and squash flat and preserve millions of dead things between those layers?

I think, before we go making extravagant claims about what was what's grand-daddy, we should understand the basics. :thumb:

 

[Jukia]

Any idea on what sort of process could form multiple layers of flat, uninterrupted strata over a vast area and squash flat and preserve millions of dead things between those layers?

I think, before we go making extravagant claims about what was what's grand-daddy, we should understand the basics. :thumb:

what a smashing idea.

 

[Alate_One]

I think, before we go making extravagant claims about what was what's grand-daddy, we should understand the basics. :thumb:

How they were fossilized isn't the issue *at all*. The issue at hand is a simple matter of categorization. Even if they were all alive today, would you class Archeopteryx with the birds or the feathered dinosaurs and why? Or would you group them all together?

 

[Stripe]

How they were fossilized isn't the issue *at all*.

Yes, it is. All debate over evolution can be put to rest with an honest assessment of the hard evidence.

 

[Alate_One]

Yes, it is. All debate over evolution can be put to rest with an honest assessment of the hard evidence.

Yep, so where is this honest person I can deal with? :rain:

 

[Frayed Knot]

Any idea on what sort of process could form multiple layers of flat, uninterrupted strata over a vast area and squash flat and preserve millions of dead things between those layers?

I think, before we go making extravagant claims about what was what's grand-daddy, we should understand the basics. :thumb:

Translation: "Let's stop talking about whether the Archaeopteryx is a bird or whatever, let's talk about something else - hey, how about that global flood thing?"

 

[Stripe]

Translation: "Let's stop talking about whether the Archaeopteryx is a bird or whatever, let's talk about something else - hey, how about that global flood thing?"

I can easily show that archaeopteryx lived at the same time everything else it was buried with lived. If that doesn't settle the issue then nothing will. :idunno:

 

[Jukia]

I can easily show that archaeopteryx lived at the same time everything else it was buried with lived. If that doesn't settle the issue then nothing will. :idunno:

Golly, imagine that. But show me it lived with people.

But the issue raised was how would you classify it. Bird, dino, mammal?