another forgery from EVOS

Larry said:

Disregard that. I see it has already been addressed earlier in this thread.

So to sum this up, the OP author comes across an article that exposes a hoax in regards to a fossil. Not willing to see that it was a hoax played on scientists, and not willing to see that it was scientists who discovered, exposed and dismissed the hoax, the OP author insists on using this as an opportunity to debunk the entire theory of evolution, and discredit the scientific community as a whole.

Is this the gist of it?

Click to expand...

You got it

Sad.

Larry said:

Sad.

Click to expand...

Sure is.

Pennicillian is not effective as so are a growing list of antibiotics today due to the fact that there is genetic resistance within the bacterias dna those without the resistence die out but over time allthat is left is those which had resistance & they eventually dominate & overpower the host. This is true with inseects this is why we must change pesticides every so oft. Aint got a thing to do with eviloution me friend.

Click to expand...

Obviously you do not understand what evolution is if you think antibiotic resistance is not related to evolution.

BTW do you know they can culture from a single bacterium that is not resistant, mutated bacteria that is resistant in just small number of generations? This is by definition evolution.

Napajohn - It seems to me that you've become almost belligerent in attacking evolution. It almost seems like rage, though slightly less angry.

:/

napajohn said:

since I started this thread..the point was that some evos wanted to find the missing link for bird-dino development..in their zeal and along with Nat Geographic, they willingly ignored the evidence to announce this finding...
this was brought up to show the way forgeries are perpetuated on the premise that hopefully it is accepted and evolution is supported in the fossil record..even as late as Dec 2003, Disc Channel was supporting these finds in their programs as evidence for evolution...it may be known thru scientists that the debate is still in question, Disc Channel by their programming did not make this issue known and NG was still supportive of finding another missing link..as regards to your point: scientists do not speak and think in unison as you suggest..there are those that are openly questioning the points of evolution and there are those who want these opinions silenced.

Click to expand...

Intertesting. You seem to believe that the scientific community, for the most part, do not question things. Interesting indeed...

In your assesment, with the short term grant-grabbers aside, (their fraudulent schemes always catch up with them sooner or later), what percentage of scientists cling to beliefs without questioning or testing them?

obediah001 said:

by the way Archie Bunker played the fool as his character on TV I would not put much stock in quotes of one such as he.

Click to expand...

LorentzHA, if I'm not mistaken, this is the second creationist that misunderstood your use of an Archie Bunker-ism in your signature. Interesting...

As for obediah, just check his older posts in the science forum and everyone should see that he's not worth addressing. He's repeating the same things here that he did months ago even though they've been addressed.


And as for the thread itself, I was astonished to see it still continuing--even after numerous clarifications including evidence that the hoax was exposed only a few months after its discovery, and that conclusion was later confirmed by more in-depth study of the hoax. However, the components of the fraud, not constructed or propagated by scientists who accept the theory of evolution (another fact willingly ignored), do have relevance to the theory of evolution and actually provide futher support rather than detracting from it. Yet the thread continues. Is it really that hard for napajohn to admit that he was wrong?

even as late as Dec 2003, Disc Channel was supporting these finds in their programs as evidence for evolution

Click to expand...

You mentioned this in an earlier post as well, and you aren't distinguishing between Archaeoraptor and the other legitimate fossils that have been found in China's Yixian formation. Even though scientists have identified Archaeoraptor as being made up of parts of more than one animal, there are seven other species that I know of (and possibly more than that) that have been found in the same area that provide evidence for a dinosaurian origin of birds, each known for at least one (and often several) fossils that show no evidence of being tampered with. Now that Archaeoraptor has been removed from the set of fossils from China that provide evidence for the dinosaurian origin of birds, any articles or TV shows that you see about these fossils will only mention the other specimens whose authenticity has been confirmed as providing evidence for birds being descended from dinosaurs.

Also, you've mentioned outdated information that's still present in modern textbooks. This not only happens with fossils that have turned out to be forged or misprepared, but EVERY SINGLE aspect of science that has undergone recent changes. I still see dinosaur books that show the bipeds dragging their tails on the ground, which was disproven 20 years ago, even though showing them dragging their tails provides no evidence either way about evolution. If you want something outside of paleontology entirely, I've also seen physics textboooks that still use Bohr's model of the atom, even though Schrodinger's model is now generally considered to be more accurate.

There is no pattern to these mistakes except that the people writing these books are sometimes too lazy to look for the most recent information about whatever topic they're covering. And because there isn't the same sort of rigorous process to confirm the accuracy of a textbook as there is a technical paper, these mistakes don't always get caught. If you want to make sure that what you read is accurate and up-to-date, you have to look at technical papers rather than popular ones--even a magazine like National Geographic apparently sometime jumps the gun on waiting for a specimen's accuracy to be confirmed, since its publishers are in such a rush to beat competitors like Smithsonian, Scientific American, and Discover to the topic.

And as I have said before, creationists make these mistakes far more than any group of mainstream scientists ever does. You should take the plank out of your own eye before you start pointing out the speck of dust in ours.

I'm taking an Organic Evolution class at University of Nebraska at Omaha. In balance to this thread, I'd just like to report a truthful statement made in my textbook (Evolutionary Analysis by Scott Freeman and Jon C. Herron, 3rd edition, 2004) on page 24:

Viruses, like other organisms, only come from reproduction of their own kind.

Click to expand...

Admittedly, it's slow going finding any other truth in there.

kenneth558 said:

I'm taking an Organic Evolution class at University of Nebraska at Omaha. In balance to this thread, I'd just like to report a truthful statement made in my textbook (Evolutionary Analysis by Scott Freeman and Jon C. Herron, 3rd edition, 2004) on page 24:Admittedly, it's slow going finding any other truth in there.

Click to expand...

2004 edition? that was quick

So, In reality, you are pulling an Icons fallacy. You have decided that the Discovery channel talks for all scientists and if they got something wrong, it was really "evos" screwing up.

This is an "Icons" fallacy since the same was done by another creationist in "icons of evolution." In it, he points out the errors in school textbooks and then pretends that falsifies the theory of evolution.

If you are really so mad, maybe you should write the discovery channel about it. There are many scientists that do the same with textbook makers, to try and get them to fix some of their errors.

Again, the challenge is to give us a scientific paper that uses this fossil as evidence since it has been shown to be a fraud. You can search at www.pubmed.com

napajohn said:

since I started this thread..the point was that some evos wanted to find the missing link for bird-dino development..in their zeal and along with Nat Geographic, they willingly ignored the evidence to announce this finding...
this was brought up to show the way forgeries are perpetuated on the premise that hopefully it is accepted and evolution is supported in the fossil record..even as late as Dec 2003, Disc Channel was supporting these finds in their programs as evidence for evolution...it may be known thru scientists that the debate is still in question, Disc Channel by their programming did not make this issue known and NG was still supportive of finding another missing link..as regards to your point: scientists do not speak and think in unison as you suggest..there are those that are openly questioning the points of evolution and there are those who want these opinions silenced.

Click to expand...

LorentzHA said:

True, I would love to go to Scotland!! I have been to England several times but never had then time to make it North to Scotland. I guess I am such a Jet Black groupie that I picked England

Click to expand...

ace, I have a fan club

Jet Black said:

ace, I have a fan club

Click to expand...

I'm signed up. Where's my newsletter?

ObbiQuiet said:

I'm signed up. Where's my newsletter?

Click to expand...

chop down and shred a tree, put the shavings in a bag with some water and ink, shake it around for a few million years and it will evolve on it's own

Howdy folks; Im sorry im so late to this thread -- its one i wouldnt want to miss! Aggie has already covered most of what I would have said, but let me make a couple of points (and reiterate a few more):

1) Although the "Archaeoraptor" material was not conspecific, it contained two great finds, Micoraptor and ornithurine Yanornis. Why havent the creationists addressed this?

2) Feduccia's "Sauriurae" is almost certainly paraphyletic, and the closest I think that man has ever come to advancing an explicit, falsifiable phylogeny for any group of basal birds. All their characters are either plesiomorphic, absent in Enantiornithes, or incoherent (like Chaippe 2001 asks, what exactly do they mean by a "broad furcula"? Wide interclavicular angle? Large width? Who knows)

3) Aggie rightly pointed out that paleontological opinion is firmly in the theropod origins camp. The small cadre of hold-outs (principally Martin, Feduccia, Ruben, Tarsitano, Olson and Hecht) have all but abandoned their classical arguments, and have been forced to even more absurd positions. For example, I have on good word that at the last SVP gathering, Larry Martin has conceded that all maniraptorans were feathered -- because all maniraptorans were neoflightless birds! Even Doc Feduccia (2002) has tentantivly said this. Clearly, these poor saps are no longer practicing science.

4) Longisquama is a funny story, and I think its related to point 3. In the 1996 edition of The Origin and Evolution of Birds, Feduccia dismissed Longisquama as irrelevant to the issue of avian origins. In the 2000 Science paper with Ruben, its dorsal appendages -- if they are appendages at all, and not vegitations -- become homologous with feathers, and the animal itself the closest known non-avian archosaur to birds! What caused this sudden change of heart? I submit its the last gasp of a dying hypothesis (assuming it could be called a hypothesis to begin with).

Quite obviously too, these appendages are in no way related to feathers, and its possible that Longisquama is not even an archosaur at all!

5) Did Compsognathus have feathers? Probably. Other basal coelurosaurians -- indeed, compsognathids (Sinosauropteryx) -- did, so its extremely probable, if not certain. Reversals do happen, however.

6) There is no evidence to indicate that either species of Microraptor had an anisodactyl pes. The halluces of all known specimens are disarticulated. So far as we know, a reversed hallux is still a valid avian synapomorphy. I must also disagree with Aggie's phylogenetic placement of Sinornithosaurus, and submit that Microraptor is most basal know dromaeosaurid. It's quite similar to the basal troodontid Sinovenator.

-GFA

napajohn said:

why is 2000 so significant Nathan?

Click to expand...

Because that's when it was established that archeoraptor was a hoax. If scientists had continued to refer to archeoraptor as if it were a real fossil after that, you would have a point. They didn't, so you don't.

napajohn said:

a show on Discovery Channel Dec 14 of 2003 borrowed from this concept ..they cited fossils from China are giving validity to the dino-bird evolution

Click to expand...

Because there ARE fossils from China that support the dino-bird evolution hypothesis. Did the show on the the Discovery Channel use archeoraptor as one of those examples?

napajohn said:

There were textbooks and documentaries that I read and saw that mention Java Man and Nebraska Man as valid cases for evolution

Click to expand...

When were they published?

It is a fact in Eviloutionary museums all accross the US of A and in textbooks too there are eviloutionary evidences used which have looong ago been shown to be false and even deliberate frauds! All the way back to Haechels which are still in the texts today.

obediah001 said:

It is a fact in Eviloutionary museums all accross the US of A and in textbooks too there are eviloutionary evidences used which have looong ago been shown to be false and even deliberate frauds! All the way back to Haechels which are still in the texts today.

Click to expand...

I don't believe you. Show us an example.

obediah001 said:

It is a fact in Eviloutionary museums all accross the US of A and in textbooks too there are eviloutionary evidences used which have looong ago been shown to be false and even deliberate frauds! All the way back to Haechels which are still in the texts today.

Click to expand...

Please name one false or fraudulent evidence that is still presented in a museum. Please be specific. Museum name, location, and the nature of the exibit. This should be easy.