New Feathers Found: Rare Dinosaur-Era Bird Wings Found Trapped in Amber

[Hieronymus]

Concerning the issue of "Are birds dinosaurs?", awhile back I Saw this and thought it was fascinating in light of something else I came across..specifically on the issue of how reverse engineering techniques have been done to engineer embryos and bodies of chickens where certain traits dormant were brought out - from longer arms to teeth and other characteristics from dinosaur era.

They disabled genes, and it's only conjecture that the traits that emerged of it are dormant dino traits.

The relationship of birds and dinosaurs was plain enough from fossilized skeletal remains alone, as one specimen of Archeopteryx (which had no feathers associated with it) was classified as a dinosaur for a decade or so before the error was discovered. And granted, this was at a time when it was thought feathers were unique to birds. Ultimately, finding feathered dinosaurs was not necessary to establish that birds and dinosaurs are related. Convergent evolution is another dynamic that can be considered, of course, and I am open to that reality as well.

Archaeopterix was a bird.
But you're perhaps not open to that reality...

 

[amariselle]

If you believe "created in the image of God" is a description of literal physical traits, I guess not.

No, it isn't about physical traits. I was trying to say that science holds we were not created by God, and as the Bible says, when He created us, He created us in His image.

 

[Jimmy D]

No, it isn't about physical traits. I was trying to say that science holds we were not created by God, and as the Bible says, when He created us, He created us in His image.

Unless you believe god created us through evolution, it's no more far-fetched than the stories of Genesis.

 

[amariselle]

Unless you believe god created us through evolution, it's no more far-fetched than the stories of Genesis.

I don't believe God created us through evolution, no.

 

[Armoured]

No, it isn't about physical traits. I was trying to say that science holds we were not created by God, and as the Bible says, when He created us, He created us in His image.

A. science doesn't say anything about God's involvement in creating us, and B. yes, I know what the Bible says, but if you think "created in His image" means "God is literally a bipedal carbon based humanoid", I disagree with you.

 

[Armoured]

I don't believe God created us through evolution, no.

Why not? Because an omnipotent and omniscient and eternal deity is more likely to create us on a time scale of thousands of years rather than billions?

 

[Armoured]

They disabled genes, and it's only conjecture that the traits that emerged of it are dormant dino traits.Archaeopterix was a bird.
But you're perhaps not open to that reality...

Archaeopteryx WAS a bird. It was ALSO a dinosaur. That's kind of the point.

 

[amariselle]

Why not? Because an omnipotent and omniscient and eternal deity is more likely to create us on a time scale of thousands of years rather than billions?

So, do you believe that God created some common ancestor we share with monkeys then?

 

[Loudmouth]

They disabled genes, and it's only conjecture that the traits that emerged of it are dormant dino traits.Archaeopterix was a bird.
But you're perhaps not open to that reality...

The reality is that Archaeopteryx has a mixture of bird and dinosaur features, exactly what we should see if evolution is true. That's why Archae is evidence of evolution.

 

[amariselle]

Archaeopteryx WAS a bird. It was ALSO a dinosaur. That's kind of the point.

Archaeopteryx has been confusing scientists and researchers for a long time now, they can't seem to make up their minds about what it truly was.

I imagine if we didn't have actual living Platypuses among us today, but instead found only fossils, scientists would be saying much the same thing about them.

The point is, the confusion about Archaeopteryx alone indicates that there is far from conclusive evidence to claim without doubt that it was some kind of transitional creature between dinosaur and bird. To be honest, it is far more likely that it was some type of bird, not a dinosaur.

However, as with the Platypus, unique creatures with a mix of features that are normal for various species can exist. This does not mean such a creature is evidence for Darwinian evolution and the transition between two species. Such an animal can still be separate and distinct, as the Platypus is.

We know that even though the Platypus has webbed feet, a duck-like bill and lays eggs, that it is not evidence that some mammals are transitioning to birds or that some birds are transitioning to mammals. The Platypus is a distinct and unique mammal, not a transitional species. It continues to reproduce more of its kind, identical to itself, which mature and then produce more Platypuses.

 

[Loudmouth]

Archaeopteryx has been confusing scientists and researchers for a long time now, they can't seem to make up their minds about what it truly was.

Scientists have known for a long time that Archaeopteryx has dinosaur features not found in any modern bird and bird features not found in any dinosaur. Scientists have known for a long time that Archaeopteryx is transitional.

I imagine if we didn't have actual living Platypuses among us today, but instead found only fossils, scientists would be saying much the same thing about them.

The platypus is transitional between reptiles and placental mammals, whether living or dead. The platypus has reptilian features not found in placental mammals and mammal features not found in reptiles.

Perhaps you are confusing the terms "ancestral" and "transitional"?

However, as with the Platypus, unique creatures with a mix of features that are normal for various species can exist.

According to creationism, which mixtures of features are normal, and why?

According to creationism, would a species with a mixture of bird and mammal features be "normal", and why do you answer yes or no?

This does not mean such a creature is evidence for Darwinian evolution and the transition between two species. Such an animal can still be separate and distinct, as the Platypus is.

However, when a theory is able to accurately predict which combinations of features we should see and (most importantly) which we should not see, then it is evidence. It is the pattern of shared and derived features that evidences evolution, and that pattern is a nested hierarchy.

We know that even though the Platypus has webbed feet, a duck-like bill and lays eggs that it is not evidence that some mammals are transitioning to birds or that some birds are transitioning to mammals.

None of those features are bird features. The platypus lays leathery eggs like reptiles do. Webbed feet are found in all types of different creatures, and are derived traits within a lineage. The bill couldn't be more dissimilar between the platypus and the duck, as these pictures show:

Platypus:

Duck:

The platypus bill is still very much like mammals, and nothing like the jaw of birds.

It continues to reproduce more of its kind, identical to itself, which mature and then produce more Platypuses.

No platypus makes clones of itself. Every platypus is born with a unique genome that has never existed before, and it will be slightly different than either parent.

 

[amariselle]

Scientists have known for a long time that Archaeopteryx has dinosaur features not found in any modern bird and bird features not found in any dinosaur. Scientists have known for a long time that Archaeopteryx is transitional.

The platypus is transitional between reptiles and placental mammals, whether living or dead. The platypus has reptilian features not found in placental mammals and mammal features not found in reptiles.

Perhaps you are confusing the terms "ancestral" and "transitional"?

According to creationism, which mixtures of features are normal, and why?

According to creationism, would a species with a mixture of bird and mammal features be "normal", and why do you answer yes or no?

However, when a theory is able to accurately predict which combinations of features we should see and (most importantly) which we should not see, then it is evidence. It is the pattern of shared and derived features that evidences evolution, and that pattern is a nested hierarchy.

None of those features are bird features. The platypus lays leathery eggs like reptiles do. Webbed feet are found in all types of different creatures, and are derived traits within a lineage. The bill couldn't be more dissimilar between the platypus and the duck, as these pictures show:

Platypus:
View attachment 177805

Duck:
View attachment 177806

The platypus bill is still very much like mammals, and nothing like the jaw of birds.

No platypus makes clones of itself. Every platypus is born with a unique genome that has never existed before, and it will be slightly different than either parent.

My point is and remains that a mishmash of features from different species does not mean a creature possessing such features is "transitional." The fossil record shows that the Platypus has undergone no significant change over time. (The only change observed has been in regard to teeth) It is not a transitional species, but a separate and unique one, able to reproduce more of it's own kind, which it has continually done over thousands (or perhaps even millions) of years. The fact that it reproduces in ways that are unique to mammals, while having certain qualities similar to birds or even reptiles, does not make it transitional.

Some people do not want to accept that there is a definite genetic barrier between species, a barrier that prevents one species from becoming an entirely different species. Sometimes there is even a barrier within the same species. For example, horses and donkeys, are both Equines, yet, though they can reproduce, their offspring (the mule) is sterile. Another example is the likewise named "mule duck". A mule duck is the result of a Muscovy duck breeding with any other duck related to the Mallard, their offspring is likewise infertile.

There is simply no conclusive evidence to date that adequately supports the idea that one species can or does ever become an entirely different species. There is however, significant evidence to the contrary.

 

[Loudmouth]

My point is and remains that a mishmash of features from different species does not mean a creature possessing such features is "transitional."

Yes, it does mean it is transitional. That is the very definition of transitional fossil.

"A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.[1]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

The fossil record shows that the Platypus has undergone no significant change over time.

A species doesn't need to change over a significant period of time in order to be transitional.

(The only change observed has been in regard to teeth) It is not a transitional species, but a separate and unique one, able to reproduce more of it's own kind, which it has continually done over thousands (or perhaps even millions) of years.

The platypus isn't separate since it has both mammal and reptile features.

Also, every transitional fossil will be unique since every species will be unique. Being unique does not stop it from being transitional.

The fact that it reproduces in ways that are unique to mammals, while having certain qualities similar to birds or even reptiles, does not make it transitional.

It reproduces like reptiles which makes the platypus transitional between reptiles and placental mammals.

Some people do not want to accept that there is a definite genetic barrier between species, a barrier that prevents one species becoming an entirely different species.

What we don't accept are bare assertions supported by zero evidence, and why should we? You have no evidence for this genetic barrier, so why pretend that it is real?

For example, horses and donkeys, are both Equines, yet, though they can reproduce, their offspring (the mule) is sterile.

And yet both horses and donkeys share a common ancestor.

There is simply no conclusive evidence to date that adequately supports the idea that one species can or does ever become an entirely different species. There is however, significant evidence to the contrary.

Here are 29 pieces of evidence:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

 

[amariselle]

Yes, it does mean it is transitional. That is the very definition of transitional fossil.

"A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.[1]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

A species doesn't need to change over a significant period of time in order to be transitional.

If it is in fact transitional, thousands and even millions of years would demonstrate that. It has not.

The platypus isn't separate since it has both mammal and reptile features.

Also, every transitional fossil will be unique since every species will be unique. Being unique does not stop it from being transitional.

Being unique does not make it transitional.

It reproduces like reptiles which makes the platypus transitional between reptiles and placental mammals.

It does not make it transitional between reptiles and placental mammals. The Platypus is it's own unique and separate creature, and it is a mammal.

What we don't accept are bare assertions supported by zero evidence, and why should we? You have no evidence for this genetic barrier, so why pretend that it is real?

We have plenty of evidence for a genetic barrier. Look around. Species are not changing to completely different species. It does not happen.

And yet both horses and donkeys share a common ancestor.

So what? Their offspring are sterile either way. Animals simply cannot continue changing, mutating etc. to become completely different species.

Here are 29 pieces of evidence:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree.

 

[amariselle]

Also, macro-evolution is not adequately supported by the fossil record or by modern day observation, micro-evolution, however, is.

 

[Loudmouth]

If it is in fact transitional, thousands and even millions of years would demonstrate that. It has not.

It has been demonstrated that fossil species have a mixture of features from two divergent taxa. Transitional fossils are a fact.

Being unique does not make it transitional.

Having a mixture of features from two divergent taxa does make it transitional.

It does not make it transitional between reptiles and placental mammals. The Platypus is it's own unique and separate creature, and it is a mammal.

It is a monotreme, and monotremes are transitional between reptiles and eutherians (i.e. placental mammals).

We have plenty of evidence for a genetic barrier. Look around. Species are not changing to completely different species. It does not happen.

Species not changing into completely different species is exactly what we should see if evolution is true.

So what? Their offspring are sterile either way.

You claim that there is a genetic barrier, yet both species were able to evolve from a common ancestor. This completely refutes your claim.

Animals simply cannot continue changing, mutating etc. to become completely different species.

Evolution doesn't need to produce completely different species. Slightly modified species work just fine.

I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree.

I have the evidence. You don't. This is a matter of you refusing to accept the evidence.

 

[amariselle]

It has been demonstrated that fossil species have a mixture of features from two divergent taxa. Transitional fossils are a fact.

Having a mixture of features from two divergent taxa does make it transitional.


It is a monotreme, and monotremes are transitional between reptiles and eutherians (i.e. placental mammals).

Species not changing into completely different species is exactly what we should see if evolution is true.

You claim that there is a genetic barrier, yet both species were able to evolve from a common ancestor. This completely refutes your claim.

Evolution doesn't need to produce completely different species. Slightly modified species work just fine.

I have the evidence. You don't. This is a matter of you refusing to accept the evidence.

To this day the fossil record and our current (modern day) observations do not provide adequate evidence to support macro-evolution, only micro-evolution, and one does not lead to the other, as some assume.

There is also no adequate or complete fossil evidence to even show we DO have a "common ancestor."

 

[amariselle]

I have the evidence. You don't. This is a matter of you refusing to accept the evidence.

This statement is absolutely arrogant.

 

[Loudmouth]

To this day the fossil record and our current (modern day) observations do not provide adequate evidence to support macro-evolution,

Why not?

There is also no adequate or complete fossil evidence to even show we DO have a "common ancestor."

All fossils are consistent with species sharing a common ancestor since all fossils fall into the predicted nested hierarchy. We also have extensive DNA evidence which proves beyond any reasonable doubt that humans share a common ancestor with other primates.

 

[Loudmouth]

This statement is absolutely arrogant.

It isn't arrogance if it is true.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/