Evolution - Rescuing out-of-place Fossils

[DerelictJunction]

Read it again. They "solved" the anomaly before investigating it. (they concluded the bird track rocks were younger before searching for how they might be younger) Then they latched onto the one thing that indicated a younger date (U-Pb), while discarding a pile of consilient data that pointed to the original Triassic date.

If you read more than the Highlight section you would know your statement is in error.

You are mistaken. You keep trying to assemble this strawman. For the tenth time, I am talking about a broader context of the implications on theory falsifiability and fossil anachronisms. If you want more detail, you can read through the thread again because I'm tired of repeating myself.

I vacillate between thinking that:
a. You are purposely gleaning selective information from the reports to (barely) support your contentions (similar to quote mining), or
b. You are not bright enough to understand the information in the reports.

Which is it?

You seem to have time to post generalized assertions on other threads...why not here?

 

[DerelictJunction]

...if you want to keep bumping this thread for me, that would be appreciated as well, thank you.

Bump, as you requested. I have not seen you here at CF in a bit and I have not gone to evolutionfairytale to see if you are writing there. Here's hoping you are well and can come back to comment.

 

[Loudmouth]

Just so that we are on common ground here, it would be helpful if lifepsyop would confirm how the original Triassic date was reached. Which rocks were dated, and how was that date produced?

Just as a starter, the sediments that the tracks were found in were not directly dated. Can we all agree to that?

 

[46AND2]

Why is it so hard to understand that the old dates AND the new date ARE ALL STILL CORRECT DATES?

It isn't like they just used the U/Pb method to date the same rock, getting a "better" date, in accordance with evolution. They measured rock from TWO DIFFERENT ERAS.

The consilient dates that were originally given would ALSO be consilient with the U/Pb method, if they had measured that same formation with U/Pb. Likewise, Ar/Ar would be consilient with the U/Pb date, had they measured the tuff that way.

They are not DISCARDING the consilient dates, they are saying that the fossil tracks are not affiliated with the formation that gave those accurate dates. They discovered that the fossil tracks are affiliated with the ALSO accurate dating of the tuff.

 

[SLP]

If you read more than the Highlight section you would know your statement is in error.
I vacillate between thinking that:
a. You are purposely gleaning selective information from the reports to (barely) support your contentions (similar to quote mining), or
b. You are not bright enough to understand the information in the reports.

Which is it?

You seem to have time to post generalized assertions on other threads...why not here?

I read below that this one posts at 'evolutionfairytale' as well.

'Nuff said.

 

[Aggie]

I don't think I want to get seriously involved in this thread, but there are a few things about this that I'd like to address.

I've been familiar with these papers for several years, and the tracks are almost certainly from birds, not just birdlike theropods. The 2009 paper points out that the tracks show the animals that left them taking off and landing, so whatever left them was capable of taking off from the ground. Birds don't have enough space to perform a normal wing stroke while standing on the ground, so the way modern birds take off from the ground involves a special motion known as a "wing flip", in which they raise their wings high above the level of their bodies. To accomplish this, the tendon used to raise the arms is looped through a small gap called the triosseal canal, and acts like a pulley.

However, this sort of shoulder structure isn't found in even the most birdlike of nonavian theropods. The absence of this shoulder structure means that even dinosaurs such as Microraptor, which probably had some flying ability, wouldn't have been able to take off from the ground. (That's discussed in this paper). Archaeopteryx didn't have this shoulder structure either, and might have needed to launch itself out of a tree to take off. Pat Shipman discusses this in about Archaeopteryx in the book Taking Wing.

The first birds with the shoulder anatomy necessary to perform a wing flip were considerably more advanced in flight ability than both Microraptor and Archaeopteryx. If the animals that left these tracks were able to take off from the ground, and it's clear from the tracks that they could, their anatomy would have had to be squarely in bird territory.

There were two possible outcomes.

1. The fossils really were from Triassic birds.

2. The authors of the original article misinterpretted the geologic relationships between the rocks that were dated and the fossil bearing strata.

If it turned out to be the former, then that would be a serious problem for the theory. However, it turned out to be the latter, a bad interpretation of the geologic relationships.

I'm disappointed by how quick everyone in this thread has been to dismiss the idea that the tracks are from actual Triassic birds. As leftrightleftrightleft pointed out, there was a pre-established concordant date of this stratum, based on fossil wood, argon dating, and paleomagnetism. Even including the new uranium-lead results, the preponderance of evidence still favors a Triassic date.

There's something you're all missing here.

If it turned out to be that the fossils were from Triassic birds, that would not be a problem for the theory of evolution in general, or for the theory that birds are descended from theropods. What it would be a problem for is the currently-accepted chronology of birds having evolved in the mid-Jurassic. This chronology is based on the observation that the earliest of the most birdlike theropods, and the earliest well-preserved fossils of birds, are from the Jurassic period. But there are some poorly-preserved remains from earlier time periods that can arguably be interpreted as being from birds, and I don't think it's out of the question that more complete remains from these time periods will eventually be discovered.

Within the past decade, the fossil record of these animals has already been extended back in time a considerable amount. In 2004, the earliest bird known from complete fossils was Archaeopteryx, from about 150 million years ago, while the earliest complete fossils of nonavian maniraptoran theropods were 125-130 million years old. But within the past five years, discoveries such as Anchiornis and Aurornis have extended the time range for both groups back to around 160 million years ago. Is it so impossible that the fossil record for these animals will eventually be extended back even further, to the same age as these trackways?

The sort of discovery which would significantly disrupt the theory of evolution in general would be if someone were to discover fossils of birds (or bird tracks) in Paleozoic or Precambrian strata. But theropod dinosaurs already existed in the Triassic, so if it were proven that the first birds lived in the Triassic, it wouldn't fundamentally alter our understanding of their relationship to one another. What it would change is our understanding of how and when this transition took place.

Sankar Chatterjee discusses this possibility in his book The Rise of Birds. This book was published in 1997, so it doesn't discuss these trackways, but I interpret them as one line of evidence for his theory that birds diverged from theropods in the Triassic. There isn't a lot of evidence for Chatterjee's theory, and it isn't considered mainstream in paleontology. But I think it's a problem for the people at this forum to act as though the only possible model of how evolution happened is the current most widely-accepted mode, as though it's impossible for the evidence to eventually favor someone else's model.

 

[DerelictJunction]

I don't think I want to get seriously involved in this thread, but there are a few things about this that I'd like to address.

I've been familiar with these papers for several years, and the tracks are almost certainly from birds, not just birdlike theropods. The 2009 paper points out that the tracks show the animals that left them taking off and landing, so whatever left them was capable of taking off from the ground. Birds don't have enough space to perform a normal wing stroke while standing on the ground, so the way modern birds take off from the ground involves a special motion known as a "wing flip", in which they raise their wings high above the level of their bodies. To accomplish this, the tendon used to raise the arms is looped through a small gap called the triosseal canal, and acts like a pulley.

However, this sort of shoulder structure isn't found in even the most birdlike of nonavian theropods. The absence of this shoulder structure means that even dinosaurs such as Microraptor, which probably had some flying ability, wouldn't have been able to take off from the ground. (That's discussed in this paper). Archaeopteryx didn't have this shoulder structure either, and might have needed to launch itself out of a tree to take off. Pat Shipman discusses this in about Archaeopteryx in the book Taking Wing.

The first birds with the shoulder anatomy necessary to perform a wing flip were considerably more advanced in flight ability than both Microraptor and Archaeopteryx. If the animals that left these tracks were able to take off from the ground, and it's clear from the tracks that they could, their anatomy would have had to be squarely in bird territory.



I'm disappointed by how quick everyone in this thread has been to dismiss the idea that the tracks are from actual Triassic birds. As leftrightleftrightleft pointed out, there was a pre-established concordant date of this stratum, based on fossil wood, argon dating, and paleomagnetism. Even including the new uranium-lead results, the preponderance of evidence still favors a Triassic date.

There's something you're all missing here.

If it turned out to be that the fossils were from Triassic birds, that would not be a problem for the theory of evolution in general, or for the theory that birds are descended from theropods. What it would be a problem for is the currently-accepted chronology of birds having evolved in the mid-Jurassic. This chronology is based on the observation that all of the most birdlike theropods, and the earliest well-preserved fossils of birds, are from the Jurassic period. But there are some poorly-preserved remains from earlier time periods that can arguably be interpreted as being from birds, and I don't think it's out of the question that more complete remains from these time periods will eventually be discovered.

Within the past decade, the fossil record of these animals has already been extended back in time a considerable amount. In 2004, the earliest bird known from complete fossils was Archaeopteryx, from about 150 million years ago, while the earliest complete fossils of nonavian maniraptoran theropods were 125-130 million years old. But within the past five years, discoveries such as Anchiornis and Aurornis have extended the time range for both groups back to around 160 million years ago. Is it so impossible that the fossil record for these animals will eventually be extended back even further, to the same age as these trackways?

The sort of discovery which would significantly disrupt the theory of evolution in general would be if someone were to discover fossils of birds (or bird tracks) in Paleozoic or Precambrian strata. But theropod dinosaurs already existed in the Triassic, so if it were proven that the first birds lived in the Triassic, it wouldn't fundamentally alter our understanding of their relationship to one another. What it would change is our understanding of how and when this transition took place.

Sankar Chatterjee discusses this possibility in his book The Rise of Birds. This book was published in 1997, so it doesn't discuss these trackways, but I interpret them as one line of evidence for his theory that birds diverged from theropods in the Triassic. There isn't a lot of evidence for Chatterjee's theory, and it isn't considered mainstream in paleontology. But I think it's a problem for the people at this forum to act as though the only possible model of how evolution happened is the current most widely-accepted mode, as though it's impossible for the evidence to eventually favor someone else's model.

Only one part of your post requires a reply since the rest is relatively accurate or irrelevant.

I'm disappointed by how quick everyone in this thread has been to dismiss the idea that the tracks are from actual Triassic birds. As leftrightleftrightleft pointed out, there was a pre-established concordant date of this stratum, based on fossil wood, argon dating, and paleomagnetism. Even including the new uranium-lead results, the preponderance of evidence still favors a Triassic date.

It appears that you missed the part of the report that states the U-Pb date was obtained from a different stratum. So the claim of preponderance of evidence is a non-starter. The whole point behind using a different stratum's date to determine the date of the fossils was because the geology of the region was complex and the early date for the fossils presented an anomaly that required investigation. The detailed investigation by geologists resulted in a new documentation of the relatedness between the geologic strata, placing the U-Pb dated stratum closest to the fossil stratum.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm disappointed by how quick everyone in this thread has been to dismiss the idea that the tracks are from actual Triassic birds. As leftrightleftrightleft pointed out, there was a pre-established concordant date of this stratum, based on fossil wood, argon dating, and paleomagnetism. Even including the new uranium-lead results, the preponderance of evidence still favors a Triassic date.

The pre-established date was for a formation not directly related to the geologic formation with the bird tracks. That was the problem.

The redbed sequence of the former Santo Domingo Formation yielded several-hundred bird-like footprints, which were assigned to Gruipeda dominguensis (the most common ichnotaxon), cf. Alaripeda isp., and another taxonomically indeterminate bird-like footprint2. The age of the stratigraphic unit was considered to be Late Triassic on the basis of known fossil wood remains and geochronological information from basalt lava flows thought to be interbedded in this unit1, 3, 4. Further geological studies revealed that the Santo Domingo Formation contains several thrust sheets of different ages, and that the trace-fossil-bearing horizons belong instead to the recently proposed Laguna Brava Formation, in a thrust sheet separate from the one that contains the dated basalt and fossil wood remains5.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v495/n7441/full/nature11931.html
​

They dated the fossils using dates from the Santa Domingo Formation. Upon further review, they found that the stratum bearing the bird track fossils were instead part of the Laguna Brava Formation, so the dates from the Santo Domingo Formation are useless. That "pre-established date" is for a formation that does not have bird tracks. They went back to the Laguna Brava Formation and found an uninterrupted geologic series that contained those fossils.

A 12-cm-thick crystal-rich ash-fall tuff within the thrust sheet with the bird-like footprints was sampled for this study for U–Pb zircon geochronology (supported by US National Science Foundation grant EAR 0931839 and ANPCyT PICT 13286 from Argentina). This tuff lies 38 m below the first layer with definite G. dominguensis and 124 m below the main horizon with hundreds of G. dominguensis6. There is no stratigraphic discontinuity between the tuff bed and the footprint-bearing levels.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v495/n7441/full/nature11931.html​

That is why the Triassic age of the bird tracks is dismissed. If they had presented these dates in the other order, the Triassic date would have been immediately rejected because those dates do not come from the same formation, and the Eocene date is from the same geologic formation without any discontinuities between the dated material and the bird tracks.

 

[Aggie]

They dated the fossils using dates from the Santa Domingo Formation. Upon further review, they found that the stratum bearing the bird track fossils were instead part of the Laguna Brava Formation, so the dates from the Santo Domingo Formation are useless. That "pre-established date" is for a formation that does not have bird tracks. They went back to the Laguna Brava Formation and found an uninterrupted geologic series that contained those fossils.

All right, I see that now.

The argument lifepsyop was making, that evidence tends to be re-interpreted in order to make it consistent with the currently-accepted hypothesis, is one that I've seen a lot of creationists make about some of the other arguably avian fossils from the Triassic (such as Protoavis). In this case, that does appear to have been done by the original authors of the 2002 paper, who assumed that the tracks must have been left by birdlike theropods rather than birds, because their age at that point was assumed to be Triassic. But as I pointed out, this isn't really related to trying to fit the evidence into an evolutionary model, because Chatterjee's model is also an evolutionary one. The problem is that some scientists are reluctant to suggest ideas that they know are going to be controversial.

I think this same issue probably happens a lot in psychology. Ferahgo (who also posts here) recently had an e-mail discussion about this with Steven Pinker, who told her that there are certain ideas that psychologists deliberately avoid researching for this reason.

 

[lifepsyop]

If it turned out to be that the fossils were from Triassic birds, that would not be a problem for the theory of evolution in general, or for the theory that birds are descended from theropods. What it would be a problem for is the currently-accepted chronology of birds having evolved in the mid-Jurassic. This chronology is based on the observation that the earliest of the most birdlike theropods, and the earliest well-preserved fossils of birds, are from the Jurassic period. But there are some poorly-preserved remains from earlier time periods that can arguably be interpreted as being from birds, and I don't think it's out of the question that more complete remains from these time periods will eventually be discovered.

Evolution is primarily a theory of accommodation (alter the theory to fit with the evidence) so yes I agree from a theoretical standpoint it would not be a problem to just say birds evolved in the Triassic.

However, this would be a public-relations nightmare, because so many evo-spokespeople have gathered around the currently accepted Jurassic Dino-Bird consensus and laughed even dissenters in their own camp to scorn.

The sort of discovery which would significantly disrupt the theory of evolution in general would be if someone were to discover fossils of birds (or bird tracks) in Paleozoic or Precambrian strata.

Well, not even YEC's expect bird tracks (or any terrestrial animal fossils) in the precambrian/lower paleozoic, so that's pretty weak falsification criteria for evolution. (Just saying)

However Evolution theory could eventually recover even from finding mammals/birds,etc. in the Paleozoic (let's say Carboniferous/Permian). It would be assumed that a great deal of vertebrate evolution took place much earlier than anyone thought. This would be blamed on the uncertainties of the fossil record. The anachronistic fossils themselves would be used as positive evidence for this. Yea it would be a major upset to the theory and the book would pretty much have to be rewritten, but it would eventually be spun as a "win for science" and evolutionists would praise themselves on their ability to "follow the data"...

The evolution industry is not going to question whether or not evolution is true. That option is off the table. At its core we are dealing with a religion and its materialistic creation story.

However, as far as birds in the Permian, the more likely thing to happen would just be to say the anachronisms are in reworked rock layers or otherwise dated incorrectly (as we saw in the case presented in this thread). Since birds/mammals, etc. are seen as index fossils of a certain date range, this would be used as evidence that the rocks they are found in could not possibly be lower than that threshold. Any other conflicting dating data would be blamed on nature.

But theropod dinosaurs already existed in the Triassic, so if it were proven that the first birds lived in the Triassic, it wouldn't fundamentally alter our understanding of their relationship to one another. What it would change is our understanding of how and when this transition took place.

You could just say theropods lived earlier than the birds, even though their fossils are contemporaneous. (this "temporal paradox" is already invoked for jurassic theropod-bird "transition" actually) Contrary to public belief, Evolutionists don't need fossils to be in any kind of robust order. So if you find birds before the dinos they're supposed to have evolved from, just say the 'descendents' fossils were formed and discovered before the 'ancestors' and shift everyone's focus to morphology and off chronostratigraphy. (as has recently been done with Tiktaalik and tetrapod "evolution")

But I think it's a problem for the people at this forum to act as though the only possible model of how evolution happened is the current most widely-accepted mode, as though it's impossible for the evidence to eventually favor someone else's model.

Too much investment in the current dino-bird story. Too many "science" blogs preaching that it is beyond question and that only the ignorant question it. Anyone who brings data against it will be portrayed as quacks trying to make a name for themselves. No "transitional" stories are really based on solid data but agreements on a collection of ambiguities. Since most of evolution is subjective interpretation and storytelling, the side with the most agreed subjects usually wins.

The argument lifepsyop was making, that evidence tends to be re-interpreted in order to make it consistent with the currently-accepted hypothesis, is one that I've seen a lot of creationists make about some of the other arguably avian fossils from the Triassic (such as Protoavis). In this case, that does appear to have been done by the original authors of the 2002 paper, who assumed that the tracks must have been left by birdlike theropods rather than birds, because their age at that point was assumed to be Triassic. But as I pointed out, this isn't really related to trying to fit the evidence into an evolutionary model, because Chatterjee's model is also an evolutionary one. The problem is that some scientists are reluctant to suggest ideas that they know are going to be controversial.

Yes, perceived anachronisms could be accommodated into a new evolution theory. Heck, mammals were claimed to have evolved from amphibians at one point, and evolutionists have also proposed that birds are most closely related to mammals. Evolution is a fog that settles around the data. But especially as far as evolutionary timelines go, it is vastly more preferred to keep propping up the consensus.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Evolution is primarily a theory of accommodation (alter the theory to fit with the evidence) so yes I agree from a theoretical standpoint it would not be a problem to just say birds evolved in the Triassic.

However, this would be a public-relations nightmare, because so many evo-spokespeople have gathered around the currently accepted Jurassic Dino-Bird consensus and laughed even dissenters in their own camp to scorn.

Welcome back! I thought you had given up on this thread.
I see you aren't actually addressing the point, however.

Well, not even YEC's expect bird tracks (or any terrestrial animal fossils) in the precambrian/lower paleozoic, so that's pretty weak falsification criteria for evolution. (Just saying)

However Evolution theory could eventually recover even from finding mammals/birds,etc. in the Paleozoic (let's say Carboniferous/Permian). It would be assumed that a great deal of vertebrate evolution took place much earlier than anyone thought. This would be blamed on the uncertainties of the fossil record. The anachronistic fossils themselves would be used as positive evidence for this. Yea it would be a major upset to the theory and the book would pretty much have to be rewritten, but it would eventually be spun as a "win for science" and evolutionists would praise themselves on their ability to "follow the data"...

The evolution industry is not going to question whether or not evolution is true. That option is off the table. At its core we are dealing with a religion and its materialistic creation story.

Following the data has lead to changing of theories before and to the rejection of other theories. That's what science does in order to find what works. We enjoy the highest standard of living out of all the generations before us because of that philosophy.

However, as far as birds in the Permian, the more likely thing to happen would just be to say the anachronisms are in reworked rock layers or otherwise dated incorrectly (as we saw in the case presented in this thread). Since birds/mammals, etc. are seen as index fossils of a certain date range, this would be used as evidence that the rocks they are found in could not possibly be lower than that threshold. Any other conflicting dating data would be blamed on nature.

Wow! You actually went there!
Earlier in this same thread you agreed that could not fault the process the geologists used to determine which stratum was most closely representative of the sediments where the fossils were found. Additionally, you provided no reasoning for your assertion that the investigation was to "save evolution" rather than an investigation of an apparent anomaly. It appears that you don't believe scientists should investigate anomalous data, but should just accept everything that comes from bad instruments, poor sampling techniques, or dishonest scientists. As for me, I don't think science would advance by following that philosophy.

You could just say theropods lived earlier than the birds, even though their fossils are contemporaneous. (this "temporal paradox" is already invoked for jurassic theropod-bird "transition" actually) Contrary to public belief, Evolutionists don't need fossils to be in any kind of robust order. So if you find birds before the dinos they're supposed to have evolved from, just say the 'descendents' fossils were formed and discovered before the 'ancestors' and shift everyone's focus to morphology and off chronostratigraphy. (as has recently been done with Tiktaalik and tetrapod "evolution")

This is the longest rendition of "Why are there still monkeys?" that I have ever read.

Too much investment in the current dino-bird story. Too many "science" blogs preaching that it is beyond question and that only the ignorant question it. Anyone who brings data against it will be portrayed as quacks trying to make a name for themselves. No "transitional" stories are really based on solid data but agreements on a collection of ambiguities. Since most of evolution is subjective interpretation and storytelling, the side with the most agreed subjects usually wins.

This rant is simply bovine excrement unless you can provide evidence of data that is dismissed out of hand. The example you provided in this thread is not supportive of your claims, as we have shown you.

Yes, perceived anachronisms could be accommodated into a new evolution theory. Heck, mammals were claimed to have evolved from amphibians at one point, and evolutionists have also proposed that birds are most closely related to mammals. Evolution is a fog that settles around the data. But especially as far as evolutionary timelines go, it is vastly more preferred to keep propping up the consensus.

I guess you think that with new evidence, the conclusions should not be changed. Of course, you believe that if scientists are incorrect they should remain steadfastly incorrect. That's not how they work 'cause they don't embrace YEC philosophy.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well, not even YEC's expect bird tracks (or any terrestrial animal fossils) in the precambrian/lower paleozoic, so that's pretty weak falsification criteria for evolution. (Just saying)

Why not? We have plenty of terrestrial strata from the pre-Cambrian and paleozoic eras. Why shouldn't we find terrestrial animal fossils in those terrestrial layers if YEC is true?

The evolution industry is not going to question whether or not evolution is true. That option is off the table. At its core we are dealing with a religion and its materialistic creation story.

The interesting part is that the people who claim to be questioning it (i.e., creationists) can not present any evidence that contradicts it.

Too much investment in the current dino-bird story. Too many "science" blogs preaching that it is beyond question and that only the ignorant question it. Anyone who brings data against it will be portrayed as quacks trying to make a name for themselves.

Let's start here. How was the original Triassic age established for the sediments with bird tracks? What was the relationship between the tracks and the objects that were dated? How far away were they from the actual tracks? Was there an uninterrupted sedimentary sequence linking the dated objects and the bird tracks?

 

[lasthero]

The evolution industry

Question: What is the 'evolution industry'?

 

[RickG]

Let's start here. How was the original Triassic age established for the sediments with bird tracks? What was the relationship between the tracks and the objects that were dated? How far away were they from the actual tracks? Was there an uninterrupted sedimentary sequence linking the dated objects and the bird tracks?

Obviously not having read the article in question, are those indeed verified bird tracks? Just wondering?

 

[DerelictJunction]

Obviously not having read the article in question, are those indeed verified bird tracks? Just wondering?

yes
ABE: Wing tip impressions and footprint positioning ("heel" vs toe depth) are typical for landing and taking off in modern birds.

 

[Loudmouth]

Obviously not having read the article in question, are those indeed verified bird tracks? Just wondering?

If you were looking for fossil bird tracks, they have all of the features you would expect to see.

 

[RickG]

yes

Just read the article. The answer is not conclusive as it states:

"This finding poses many questions regarding the origin of birds and the relationships of this unknown group of theropod dinosaurs with other groups of dinosaurs," says Ricardo Melchor from the Universidad Nacional de La Pampa in Argentina, and lead author of the group that published its findings in this week's Nature. "

Even if it were, it only moves the origin of aves back, rather than being an out of place fossil. I'm going to try to locate the original "Nature" article and articles that cite it.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Just read the article. The answer is not conclusive as it states:

"This finding poses many questions regarding the origin of birds and the relationships of this unknown group of theropod dinosaurs with other groups of dinosaurs," says Ricardo Melchor from the Universidad Nacional de La Pampa in Argentina, and lead author of the group that published its findings in this week's Nature. "

Even if it were, it only moves the origin of aves back, rather than being an out of place fossil. I'm going to try to locate the original "Nature" article and articles that cite it.

This article?
Application of neoichnological studies to behavioural and taphonomic interpretation of fossil bird-like tracks from lacustrine settings: The Late Triassic–Early Jurassic? Santo Domingo Formation, Argentina

 

[RickG]

Just tracked down a few subsequent articles that cite the original find and they are pretty much in agreement with they probably are bird tracks, but do as in most science, keep the door open by stating "bird-like" rather than "bird". Anyway, it seems to be a consensus that this is an important discovery and if anything supports theropod dinosaur / bird evolution. I was just wondering if the original claim was a distortion of legitimate science or an actual find.

 

[lifepsyop]

Following the data has lead to changing of theories before and to the rejection of other theories. That's what science does in order to find what works. We enjoy the highest standard of living out of all the generations before us because of that philosophy.

We are talking about evolution, not science.

Additionally, you provided no reasoning for your assertion that the investigation was to "save evolution" rather than an investigation of an apparent anomaly.

So you're still in denial that the researchers arrived at their conclusion before investigating the "anomaly" ? Even though they printed their preformed conclusions in the abstract for you to read?

This is why I stopped wasting my time replying to you, because you refuse to acknowledge basic facts and keep ranting about some vague notion of the wonders of science and how I'm anti-science for exposing evolutionary biases and rescue devices for saving theories from falsification.

This is the longest rendition of "Why are there still monkeys?" that I have ever read.

Then, as usual, you misunderstood what I was saying. I'm saying that because evolution theory is protected from disordered fossil sequences, it can then accommodate out of order fossils.

The punchline to this is that when certain proposed sequences are "in order" such as the mystical evolving mammalian jawbone, evolutionists will use the stratigraphic sequence to prop up their case. Then when other proposed fossil sequences are out of order, they will say the stratigraphic sequence doesn't matter. This is the kind of ambiguous nonsense passing for a scientific theory these days.