Not transitional?

[Christ's_Warrior]

Charles Darwin may have just lost Evolution Exhibit A, otherwise known as Archaeopteryx | Space, Military and Medicine | News.com.au

What do you guys make of this?

 

[sfs]

Charles Darwin may have just lost Evolution Exhibit A, otherwise known as Archaeopteryx | Space, Military and Medicine | News.com.au

What do you guys make of this?

If correct(*), it means that archaeopteryx was not a bird, and was not a direct ancestor of modern birds. Instead, it was a dinosaur species closely related to the dinosaur line that led to birds. Down near the point where two lines branch, it can be quite tricky to tell which branch a particular species falls on. This finding is important news for specialists in early bird evolution, but makes no real difference to the overall picture of birds evolving from dinosaurs.

(*) The finding is subject to revision, either because of new data or new analysis of the existing data.

 

[Christ's_Warrior]

Thanks sfs.

 

[Shemjaza]

It may not be ancestral... but it still makes a good transitional fossil, due to having traits of both bird and non-bird reptiels.

 

[Christ's_Warrior]

Doesn't the evidence now point to it being a species of feathered Dino rather than a transition between dinosaurs and birds? That's what it reads like to me, but that's why I want to know what you guys think.

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

It's a common problem, we might have what amounts to a fossil of a perfect example of what we expect for a transitional between, lets say mammals and reptiles but we'd never really know for sure if it was directly ancestral to mammals as it may have been on a related but distinct and now extinct branch.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's a common problem, we might have what amounts to a fossil of a perfect example of what we expect for a transitional between, lets say mammals and reptiles but we'd never really know for sure if it was directly ancestral to mammals as it may have been on a related but distinct and now extinct branch.

Who cares what it is?

It did it's job; i.e. convinced some that macroevolution is viable.

The devil apparently doesn't need it anymore.

It is a modern-day serpent-in-the-garden, if you ask me.

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

Who cares what it is?

It did it's job; i.e. convinced some that macroevolution is viable.

The devil apparently doesn't need it anymore.

It is a modern-day serpent-in-the-garden, if you ask me.

The existance of this thread pretty much disproves this notion. Besides fossiles aren't needed to show evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

Besides fossiles aren't needed to show evolution.

They are if you want to push macroevolution.

You have to have at least some dots to connect.

(As far as I know, anyway.)

 

[Cabal]

They are if you want to push macroevolution.

You have to have at least some dots to connect.

(As far as I know, anyway.)

No....can be done with genetics as well...

 

[Simply_Amazing]

The devil apparently doesn't need it anymore.

It is a modern-day serpent-in-the-garden, if you ask me.

And this folks is why there are still creationists.

 

[Jazer]

if you actually do it without a special permission slip from the church, then I'm going to light you on fire!

Do you mean if you act like a beast or a wild animal, then you are going to perish just like they are going to perish?

 

[Jazer]

And this folks is why there are still creationists.

Theistic Evolution is Creationism.

 

[Cabal]

Do you mean if you act like a beast or a wild animal, then you are going to perish just like they are going to perish?

Stay on topic. My sig is (obviously) not the topic of this thread.

/derail

 

[Split Rock]

Doesn't the evidence now point to it being a species of feathered Dino rather than a transition between dinosaurs and birds? That's what it reads like to me, but that's why I want to know what you guys think.

Just another sensationalistic news article. How many times have we been saying here that Archaeopteryx was a dinosaur with wings, when "creation scientists" have claimed over and over that it was "just a bird." Whether you want to call it a dinosaur, or a bird is arbitrary. That is why it and Xiaotingia zhengi are both transitionals. The title of "first bird" is really an out-dated term in any case. Its like referring to the "first Frenchman."

 

[Split Rock]

Theistic Evolution is Creationism.

And creationists are all evolutionists since they all (with very few exceptions nowadays) accept that species change over time.

 

[Naraoia]

Doesn't the evidence now point to it being a species of feathered Dino rather than a transition between dinosaurs and birds? That's what it reads like to me, but that's why I want to know what you guys think.

Birds are feathered dinos

It doesn't really matter precisely where good ol' Archie (or any number of similar little fuzzballs) falls on that family tree. The traits that connect all of them to birds remain. Wishbones, hands, feathers and all that.

The point of transitional fossils is often misinterpreted. They are not supposed to be ancestors of living groups; they are just more or less close relatives of that ancestor who display characteristics that are, in some way, representative of the transition. And Archaeopteryx (as well as Velociraptor, Microraptor, "Dave" and Anchiornis and Caudipteryx and the rest of that feathered menagerie called Maniraptora) still fulfil that criterion.

They are if you want to push macroevolution.

You have to have at least some dots to connect.

The few million living species are dots enough, and we have some nice sharp comparative pencils.

Fossils certainly enrich our understanding of macroevolution by providing actual long-term observations of it, but it's often possible to figure out what happened without touching a single fossil. Comparative anatomy and molecular biology are just that cool.

 

[AV1611VET]

Fossils certainly enrich our understanding of macroevolution by providing actual long-term observations of it, but it's often possible to figure out what happened without touching a single fossil.

I don't buy this one bit, Naraoia.

If I did, then the next time I saw a grave-robbing scientist out on the field looking for bones, I'll go up to him and ask, "Didn't you get the memo? You guys don't need bones anymore."

Comparative anatomy and molecular biology are just that cool.

Good -- then the next time a shrewdness of scientists want to be sponsored to the next bone orchard, they can be told that their services are needed elsewhere?

 

[Cabal]

I don't buy this one bit, Naraoia.

If I did, then the next time I saw a grave-robbing scientist out on the field looking for bones, I'll go up to him and ask, "Didn't you get the memo? You guys don't need bones anymore."

Good -- then the next time a shrewdness of scientists want to be sponsored to the next bone orchard, they can be told that their services are needed elsewhere?

Why would the fact that genetics alone is sufficient to demonstrate the validity of evolution mean we would stop gathering evidence and checking our ideas?

It's not like people like you would then start honking that we don't question our ideas ever....not what we say, &c....

 

[Mling]

I don't understand the fuss over finding "transitional" fossils. All it takes to be "transitional" is to have offspring. My parents are transitional organisms between my grandparents and myself.

Enough tiny transitions build up to big ones, but the way we group them are arbitrary. Take a spectrum, and draw two lines--everything between the lines represents transition, but what is considered a transition to what else? That has nothing to do with the spectrum itself--it's just a factor of where you drew the lines.