Educational resources for learning about biology and evolution

[DaveISBA]

I wasn’t aware that Archaeopteryx was “proven to be an obvious fraud”, You may be confusing Archaeopteryx with Archaeoraptor liaoningensis – a known forgery ‘discovered’ in China in 1999 and exposed as a fake made up from fossil parts

List of non-avian dinosaur species preserved with evidence of feathers - Wikipedia

It was Archaeopteryx that was also a proven fraud as well as Archaeoraptor! Read my previous post!

Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source for scientific information! On their own site they stress: “citation of Wikipedia in research papers may be considered unacceptable, because Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source" and the information can be edited by anyone!

The note at the bottom of you're Wikipedia page "Note that the filamentous structures in some ornithischian dinosaurs (Psittacosaurus, Tianyulong and Kulindadromeus) and the pycnofibres found in some pterosaurs may or may not be homologous with the feathers of theropods." and a number of other so called feather dinosaurs are listed as inferred, possibly avialan, or what is claimed to be quill knobs which are not feathers! Also When one actually looks at the images they are either fully bird or dinosaur illustrations with and without imaginary feathers drawn in!

 

[pitabread]

It was Archaeopteryx that was also a proven fraud as well as Archaeoraptor!

No, Archaeopteryx was not proven to be a fraud, quite the opposite.

In fact, the sheer number of fossil discoveries of various feathered dinosaurs is becoming so irrefutable that even YE creationist organizations are rethinking their stances on this subject.

Now if you're trying to claim that every single fossil is fraudulent, I'll happily sell you some tin foil hats. You're going to need them.

 

[Occams Barber]

It was Archaeopteryx that was also a proven fraud as well as Archaeoraptor! Read my previous post!

Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source for scientific information! On their own site they stress: “citation of Wikipedia in research papers may be considered unacceptable, because Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source" and the information can be edited by anyone!

The note at the bottom of you're Wikipedia page "Note that the filamentous structures in some ornithischian dinosaurs (Psittacosaurus, Tianyulong and Kulindadromeus) and the pycnofibres found in some pterosaurs may or may not be homologous with the feathers of theropods." and a number of other so called feather dinosaurs are listed as inferred, possibly avialan, or what is claimed to be quill knobs which are not feathers! Also When one actually looks at the images they are either fully bird or dinosaur illustrations with and without imaginary feathers drawn in!

I've chosen the linked paper below for you for a couple of reasons.

Firstly it accepts feathered dinosaurs as an established scientific fact.

Secondly - it demonstrates that not all feathers are equal. Since feathers themselves also evolved over time and can have a variety of purposes (apart from flight) we can expect to see various forms, shapes, configurations and chemical/molecular composition with simple feather-like structures branching off into a variety of forms. This helps to explain why you will occasionally see references to 'feather like', 'early' or 'simple' when describing feathers. It also helps in understanding why one fossil's feathers may or may not always be 'homologous' with another.

The molecular evolution of feathers with direct evidence from fossils

The article I've linked and quoted from below is from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS). I assume the source meets with your approval.

(from) The molecular evolution of feathers with direct evidence from fossils

Feathers are a key avian feature, used to identify and diagnose birds in the fossil record for centuries. The appearance of feathers has been closely tied to the origin of flight in birds. Although feathers have been used as a taxonomic character of birds, discoveries of fossils from Middle-Late Jurassic to Early Cretaceous sediments in western Liaoning, northern Hebei, and Inner Mongolia of China have revealed a remarkable diversity of nonavian dinosaur fossils displaying a wide range of integumentary appendages interpreted as feathers or feather-like structures (1⇓⇓–4). Some of these structures are present as simple filamentous structures without aerodynamic function, and these are widespread in more basal and flightless dinosaurs, including some ornithischians not on the bird lineage (4⇓–6). This distribution supports the hypothesis that feathers may have originated before the capacity for powered flight and, thus, were first employed for other purposes.
​

OB

 

[DaveISBA]

Fred Hoyle was one of the heroes of my youth. Fred never quite recovered when his Steady State Theory of the Universe got knocked of its pedestal by Big Bang. He even gave Big Bang its name. Fred also had a habit of shooting his mouth off on issues well outside of his area of expertise.

Anyway - Fred may well have cast a temporary shadow over the validity of the Archy fossil but his unqualified opinions (Astronomers aren't Palaeontologists) were eventually unpicked by some real science.

No Dave - Archy wasn't a fake.
The day the fossil feathers flew

OB

An important revelation, strangely not mentioned in your article, was that analysis and the conclusion that the fossil was a fabrication was not only reached by Hoyle, but also by Lee Spetner, a respected Israeli scientist, along with several other well-known scientists, including Hoyle’s colleague N.C. Wickramasinghe!

Dr Amy Scott who conducted the analysis in the article (The day the fossil feathers flew) is also not a paleontologist but interestingly enough is from London's Natural History Museum where the archaeopteryx fossil is kept locked away now from any other scrutiny but theirs! Do you really think she could do anything else but come up with a supportive analysis?

 

[Ophiolite]

Do you really think she could do anything else but come up with a supportive analysis?

Since the London specimen is now mainly of historical rather than taxonomic interest then she would have made an impressive name for herself by demonstrating that it was a fake. Thus your expectation she was bound to do a supportive analysis betrays a lack of knowledge of the fossil record of birds, dinosaur like birds and bird like dinosaurs, and the nitty-gritty of academic competition.

 

[DaveISBA]

No, Archaeopteryx was not proven to be a fraud, quite the opposite.

In fact, the sheer number of fossil discoveries of various feathered dinosaurs is becoming so irrefutable that even YE creationist organizations are rethinking their stances on this subject.

Now if you're trying to claim that every single fossil is fraudulent, I'll happily sell you some tin foil hats. You're going to need them.

There is no such thing as feathered dinosaurs only outlandish claims of such like this misleading headline from smithsonianmag.com (Scientists Discover a Gigantic Feathered Tyrannosaur). They walk back the feather claim in the article “we know that much of this dinosaur’s body was covered in fine, wispy feathers. These were not flight feathers or down that you might see on a modern bird, but simpler structures best described as dino-fuzz.”
Research concludes that this dino-fuzz, also seen on other dinosaurs and claimed as feathers or proto-feathers, are the remains of fiber reinforcement of the frill that extended from the head to the tip of the tail of the dinosaur! According to the research "The fibres show a striking similarity to the structure and levels of organization of dermal collagen" and that "The proposal that these fibres are protofeathers is dismissed." A new Chinese specimen indicates that ‘protofeathers’ in the Early Cretaceous theropod dinosaur Sinosauropteryx are degraded collagen fibres

Speaking of fraudulent fossils...you should find this interesting reading! (How Fake Fossils Pervert Paleontology): "A nebulous trade in forged and illegal fossils is an ever-growing headache for paleontologists"
How Fake Fossils Pervert Paleontology [Excerpt]

 

[DaveISBA]

Since the London specimen is now mainly of historical rather than taxonomic interest then she would have made an impressive name for herself by demonstrating that it was a fake. Thus your expectation she was bound to do a supportive analysis betrays a lack of knowledge of the fossil record of birds, dinosaur like birds and bird like dinosaurs, and the nitty-gritty of academic competition.

Yes made a name for herself just before she got fired from her very lucrative position at the museum!

 

[Ophiolite]

Yes made a name for herself just before she got fired from her very lucrative position at the museum!

You have imagination, but . . . . .

 

[pitabread]

There is no such thing as feathered dinosaurs

Like I said, earlier the evidence is piling up to the point that even some creationists are finding it hard to deny anymore.

You find such examples in this Panda's Thumb article, which discusses the general inconsistencies of how creationists treat fossil classifications: Creationist classification of theropods (Kind of what you'd expect if the overlap between taxa is fuzzy as a result of intermediary forms.)

But if you'd prefer to believe everything to do with such fossils is just a bunch of fakery, that's your prerogative. I'm not nearly so paranoid.

 

[Jimmy D]

An important revelation, strangely not mentioned in your article, was that analysis and the conclusion that the fossil was a fabrication was not only reached by Hoyle, but also by Lee Spetner, a respected Israeli scientist, along with several other well-known scientists, including Hoyle’s colleague N.C. Wickramasinghe

Why were these guys trying to demonstrate that archy was fake?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source for scientific information! On their own site they stress: “citation of Wikipedia in research papers may be considered unacceptable, because Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source" and the information can be edited by anyone!

It's generally reliable enough for everyday use - the injunction refers to research papers.

However, it's entirely reasonable to quote Wikipedia for the lists of references to research papers that it provides - the list of 54 feathered dinosaurs mentioned in the Wiki article is accompanied by reference links to 64 published research papers that describe the finds in detail.

 

[pitabread]

*bump*

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

You have got to be gullible to believe in evolution.

What specific evidence for evolution do you have a problem with?

 

[David Kent]

What specific evidence for evolution do you have a problem with?

All of it.
Is it a steady state universe or a big bang?
If it is a big bang, is it and explosion of space dust?
or space gas?
Or a primaeval atom?
Whichever, where did the first thing come from?
Or as some scientists say, from a vacuum. One said "A vacuum is not empty, it is full of energy."

 

[Occams Barber]

All of it.
Is it a steady state universe or a big bang?
If it is a big bang, is it and explosion of space dust?
or space gas?
Or a primaeval atom?
Whichever, where did the first thing come from?
Or as some scientists say, from a vacuum. One said "A vacuum is not empty, it is full of energy."

None of the above is connected with evolution.

OB

 

[Shemjaza]

None of this is related to the theory of evolution, but it is mostly answered by science.

All of it.
Is it a steady state universe or a big bang?

Big bang, acceleration of space time and the cosmic microwave back ground are evidence that space expanded in the Big Bang approximately 14 billion years ago.

If it is a big bang, is it and explosion of space dust?
or space gas?

Neither, both gas and dust are states of matter which did yet exist in the very early Universe. It was simply too hot and dense for normal matter to exist.

Or a primaeval atom?

People often describe the Universe at the start of the expansion as being smaller then an atom, but that is not the same as it being an atom.

Whichever, where did the first thing come from?

We don't know. All physical laws that let us examine possibilities break down before we get to time zero.

Or as some scientists say, from a vacuum. One said "A vacuum is not empty, it is full of energy."

A vacuum is an expanse of space/time as it does contain energy. Particles and anti-particles can spontaneously form from vacuum.

Bur space was also a part of the expansion of the big bang, so it cant be the origin of it.

 

[David Kent]

Of course it is related to the theory of evolution.
You have to start somewhere and for any of those theories to be true, there was something in the beginning, so where did that come from? Unless you can explain that your Theory of Evolution has no foundation.

 

[Shemjaza]

Of course it is related to the theory of evolution.
You have to start somewhere and for any of those theories to be true, there was something in the beginning, so where did that come from? Unless you can explain that your Theory of Evolution has no foundation.

Totally false.

The theory of evolution exists to explain evidence in biology, that's all. It is not relevant to the source of matter, nor is it even relevant to the origin of life itself.

If life can't form naturally and was in fact created by some supernatural method, then evolution would still be the best explanation of how life has changed and diversified.

 

[Occams Barber]

Of course it is related to the theory of evolution.
You have to start somewhere and for any of those theories to be true, there was something in the beginning, so where did that come from? Unless you can explain that your Theory of Evolution has no foundation.

There are layers of misunderstanding in your posts which make it difficult to provide the clear concise answers you obviously need.

Let's start with 'theory'. In a scientific context a Theory (capital 'T') has a different meaning to the everyday use of the word 'theory'. Under the scientific definition of 'theory', Theories are established science. This is the scientific definition of theory from the American Association for the Advancement of Science:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory". It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.
​

The everyday hunch/guess meaning attached to 'theory' is known as an 'hypothesis' in scientific jargon. You'll find that professional Creationist organisations (like AiG or the Discovery Institute) accept this.

The second problem is a misunderstanding of the differences between a literal Genesis account of 'origins and the scientific explanation. Different concepts of the sequence of events can cause misunderstanding.

A literal Biblical interpretation of 'origins has the creation of the Universe and the creation of diverse life as a more or less single event over a period of days.

A scientific explanation divides the origins process in to three distinct phases:

1. The creation of the Universe, around 14 billion years ago, starting with the Big Bang. A long and complex process which over billions of years eventually results in stars and planets including Earth. Big Bang is a well documented Theory. What caused Big Bang is unknown although there are (small 't') theories

2. Abiogenesis. The process by which life comes into existence from non-life through a process of physics and chemistry. While many of the individual processes and products which might be needed for abiogenesis have been shown to exist naturally or can be duplicated, there is not yet an overarching Theory of Abiogenesis. Abiogenesis happened in excess of 3.5 billion years ago.

3. Evolution. The process by which life diversifies. Evolution is a solid Theory. It is sometimes described as one of our best evidenced Theories.
​

Scientifically speaking, understanding and accepting each of these phases does not require understanding or accepting earlier phase(s).

OB

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

All of it.
Is it a steady state universe or a big bang?
If it is a big bang, is it and explosion of space dust?
or space gas?
Or a primaeval atom?
Whichever, where did the first thing come from?
Or as some scientists say, from a vacuum. One said "A vacuum is not empty, it is full of energy."

Well many others have corrected your errors here. All I would say is if you really want to know why evolution is false then you first need to study why scientists believe it is true. I encourage you to do that if you have enough courage. Do you want to know the truth or not?