[_ Old Earth _] Which came first Arche or the bird. Hmmm?

[brother Paul]

In Richard Monastersky’s “A Clawed Wonder Unearthed in Mongolia,” Science News, 143:245, April 17. (1993) one fossilized bird from a much earlier time than Archaeopteryx was found in Mongolia and yes it had claws and teeth, but it was still just a bird. In addition some modern birds also have a claw or claws on their wing but they are just birds. And what about Protoavis found in Texas? It is a bird with teeth from millions and millions of years before Arche…is Arche really just a transitional form that shows a certain kind of reptile evolved from birds? Researcher and evolutionist Dr. Sankar Chatterjee, the Curator of Paleontology at Texas Tech University, recorded that Protoavis has 23 features that are fundamentally bird-like, as are the forelimbs, the shoulders, and the hip girdle along with “a flexible neck, large brain, binocular vision, and, crucially, portals running from the rear of the skull to the eye socket—a feature seen in modern birds but not dinosaurs.” Anderson, Alan (1991), “


See Early Bird Threatens Archaeopteryx’s Perch,” Science, 253:35, July 5. It certainly does threaten it because it means Avians existed 210,000,000 years ago. But who’s counting?


Feduccia and *H.B. Tordoff, in Science, 203 (1979), p. 1020, tell us “in Archaeopteryx, it is to be noted, the feathers differ in no way from the most perfectly developed feathers known to us." Also Archaeopteryx is said to have thin, hollow wing and leg bones such as a bird has. In fact P. Moody in, Introduction to Evolution (1970), pp. 196-197, points out that “other extinct birds had teeth, and every other category of vertebrates contains some organisms with teeth, and some without (amphibians, reptiles, extinct birds, mammals, etc.)." And A.S. Romer, who actually saw the fossils in his Notes and Comments on Vertebrate Paleontology (1968), p. 144, reveals that despite the common media presentations "This Jurassic bird stands in splendid isolation; we know no more of its presumed thecodont ancestry nor of its relation to later `proper' birds than before."


Conclusion? "It is obvious that we must now look for the ancestors of flying birds in a period of time much older than that in which Archaeopteryx lived." See J. Ostrom, Science News, 112 (1977), p. 198.

Birds obviously existed long before Archaeopteryx (evidence provided)! So if Archy IS a "transitional form" then this alleged dinosaur (terrible or giant LIZARD) had to have evolved from birds, not the other way around (this does not speak to other extant reptiles). Similarity in bone structure (though the quality of bone is far different from their alleged reptilian counterparts) does not guarantee either CAME FROM the other (it is an assumption based conclusion made only by those who are interpreting the evidence from the theory and not forming the theory based on the evidence)

As David Pilbeam, curator of paleoanthropology at the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, points out in his article in Pro-Evolution, Vol. 14, p.127, “...in my own subject of Paleo-anthropology the “theory” heavily influenced by implicit ideas, almost always dominates data...ideas that are totally unrelated to actual fossils have dominated theory building, which in turn strongly influences the way fossils are interpreted ”.

Feduccia and *H.B. Tordoff, in Science, 203 (1979), p. 1020, tell us “in Archaeopteryx, it is to be noted, the feathers differ in no way from the most perfectly developed feathers known to us." Also Archaeopteryx is said to have thin, hollow wing and leg bones such as a bird has. In fact P. Moody in, Introduction to Evolution (1970), pp. 196-197, points out that “other extinct birds had teeth, and every other category of vertebrates contains some organisms with teeth, and some without (amphibians, reptiles, extinct birds, mammals, etc.)." And A.S. Romer, who actually saw the fossils in his Notes and Comments on Vertebrate Paleontology (1968), p. 144, reveals that despite the common media presentations "This Jurassic bird stands in splendid isolation; we know no more of its presumed thecodont ancestry nor of its relation to later `proper' birds than before."

 

[Barbarian]

In Richard Monastersky’s “A Clawed Wonder Unearthed in Mongolia,” Science News, 143:245, April 17. (1993) one fossilized bird from a much earlier time than Archaeopteryx was found in Mongolia and yes it had claws and teeth, but it was still just a bird. In addition some modern birds also have a claw or claws on their wing but they are just birds. And what about Protoavis found in Texas? It is a bird with teeth from millions and millions of years before Arche…is Arche really just a transitional form that shows a certain kind of reptile evolved from birds?

Well, Protoavis is clearly an archesaur, but whether or not it's a bird is still unclear:

Fragmentary remains make it uncertain. It clearly has a dinosaur's tail but the digits are reduced as we see in birds and birdlike dinosaurs. Unfortunately, the details that would make it more certain on which side of the dinosaur/bird transition it is, are missing.

Researcher and evolutionist Dr. Sankar Chatterjee, the Curator of Paleontology at Texas Tech University, recorded that Protoavis has 23 features that are fundamentally bird-like, as are the forelimbs, the shoulders, and the hip girdle along with “a flexible neck, large brain, binocular vision, and, crucially, portals running from the rear of the skull to the eye socket—a feature seen in modern birds but not dinosaurs.” Anderson, Alan (1991), “

I'm hoping for Chatterjee, that it's a misquote.

The theropod dinosaurs, particularly the small ones, close to bird evolution, had binocular vision. Many birds don't.
BINOCULAR VISION IN THEROPOD DINOSAURS
Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 26(2):321-330. 2006
Abstract

The binocular fields of view of seven theropod dinosaurs are mapped using sculpted life reconstructions of their heads and techniques adopted from ophthalmic field perimetry. The tall, narrow snout and laterally facing eyes of the allosauroids Allosaurus and Carcharodontosaurus restricted binocular vision to a region only approximately 20° wide, comparable to that of modern crocodiles. In contrast, the coelurosaurs Daspletosaurus, Tyrannosaurus, Nanotyrannus, Velociraptor, and Troodon had cranial designs that afforded binocular fields between 45–60° in width, similar to those of modern raptorial birds. Binocular field width and predatory style (ambush versus pursuit) is examined for extant taxa, along with a discussion of cranial adaptations that enhance binocular vision. The progressive increase in frontal vision in the tyrannosaurids culminates in broader binocular overlap than that of a modern hawk. The visual acuity and the limiting far point for stereopsis is estimated for Tyrannosaurus based on reptilian and avian models.

Big brains are also first noted in the birdlike dinosaurs such as Troodon.
Troodon is a genus of relatively small, bird-like dinosaurs known definitively from the Campanian age of the Cretaceous period (about 77 mya), though possible additional species are known from later in the Campanian and also from the early (and probably late Maastrichtian age...Troodon had some of the largest known brains of any dinosaur group, relative to their body mass (comparable to modern birds).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troodon

Feduccia and *H.B. Tordoff, in Science, 203 (1979), p. 1020, tell us “in Archaeopteryx, it is to be noted, the feathers differ in no way from the most perfectly developed feathers known to us." Also Archaeopteryx is said to have thin, hollow wing and leg bones such as a bird has.

But of course, it had dinosauran teeth, a dinosaur's tail, no beak, the ribs, backbone, sternum, and pelvis of a dinosaur. Compare here:

But there are earlier antecedents:
Protarchaeopteryx (meaning "before Archaeopteryx") is a genus of turkey-sized feathered theropod dinosaur from China.[1] Known from the Jianshangou bed of the Yixian Formation, it lived during the early Aptian age of the Early Cretaceous, approximately 124.6 million years ago.[2] It was probably an herbivore or omnivore, although its hands were very similar to those of small carnivorous dinosaurs. It appears to be one of the most basal members of the Oviraptorosauria, closely related to or synonymous with Incisivosaurus.[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protarchaeopteryx

Conclusion? "It is obvious that we must now look for the ancestors of flying birds in a period of time much older than that in which Archaeopteryx lived." See J. Ostrom, Science News, 112 (1977), p. 198.

Yep. See above. And there were earlier flying dinosaurs.

Like Archaeopteryx, well-preserved fossils of Microraptor provide important evidence about the evolutionary relationship between birds and dinosaurs. Microraptor had long pennaceous feathers that formed aerodynamic surfaces on the arms and tail but also on the legs. This led paleontologist Xu Xing in 2003 to describe the first specimen to preserve this feature as a "four-winged dinosaur" and to speculate that it may have glided using all four limbs for lift. Subsequent studies have suggested that it is possible Microraptor were capable of powered flight as well.


Microraptor were among the most abundant non-avian dinosaurs in their ecosystem, and the genus is represented by more fossils than any other dromaeosaurid, with possibly over 300 fossil specimens represented across various museum collections.[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microraptor

Birds obviously existed long before Archaeopteryx (evidence provided)! So if Archy IS a "transitional form" then this alleged dinosaur (terrible or giant LIZARD) had to have evolved from birds, not the other way around (this does not speak to other extant reptiles).

This is a logical error, similar to asserting that if you are alive, your uncle has to be dead. Archaeopteryx has just enough avian characteristics to be considered a bird, but it would be astonishingly lucky if it happened to be a direct ancestor of today's birds. Given the many, more primitive birdlike organisms, it seems that Archaeopteryx is close to the group that gave rise to birds, but not directly the ancestor of today's birds. Remember evolution makes a bush, not a ladder. You sometimes see this error made by creationsts in human evolution, asking "if humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?"

Similarity in bone structure (though the quality of bone is far different from their alleged reptilian counterparts)

Pneumatized (hollow bones) are first seen in the birdlike dinosaurs, as are assymetrical flight feathers. I can show you that, if you like.

 

[brother Paul]

Clearly, since there were already birds AND dinosaurs, and then there was the somewhat questionable Arche....the observable demonstrable reality demands that IF one came from another THEN Arche evolved FROM birds or a particular dinosaur but...

the conclusion that ARCHE shows or even supports that "birds" evolved from "dinosaurs" is illogical and an assumption based irrational conclusion...but sadly SOME scientists make this error in reasoning because they have been convinced first that the hypothesis must be true...therefore any discovery MUST BE interpreted to demonstrate this even when it does not.

 

[brother Paul]

National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian Institution
Washington, D. C. 20560

1 November 1999

Dr. Peter Raven,
Committee for Research and Exploration
National Geographic Society
Washington, DC 20036

Dear Peter,

I thought that I should address to you the concerns expressed below because your committee is at least partly involved and because you are certainly now the most prominent scientist at the National Geographic Society.

With the publication of "Feathers for T. rex?" by Christopher P. Sloan in its November issue, National Geographic has reached an all-time low for engaging in sensationalistic, unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism. But at the same time the magazine may now claim to have taken its place in formal taxonomic literature.

Although it is possible that Mr. Czerkas "will later name" the specimen identified on page 100 as Archaeoraptor liaoningensis, there is no longer any need for him to do so. Because this Latinized binomial has apparently not been published previously and has now appeared with a full-spread photograph of the specimen "accompanied by a description or definition that states in words characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon," the nameArchaeoraptor liaoningensis Sloan is now available for purposes of zoological nomenclature as of its appearance in National Geographic (International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, Article 13a, i). This is the worst nightmare of many zoologists---that their chance to name a new organism will be inadvertently scooped by some witless journalist. Clearly, National Geographic is not receiving competent consultation in certain scientific matters.

Sloan's article explicitly states that the specimen in question is known to have been illegally exported and that "the Czerkases now plan to return it to China." In Washington, in June of 1996, more than forty participants at the 4th International Meeting of the Society of Avian Paleontology and Evolution, held at the Smithsonian Institution, were signatories to a letter to the Director of the Chinese Academy of Sciences that deplored the illegal trade in fossils from China and encouraged the Chinese government to take further action to curb this exploitation. There were a few fossil dealers at that meeting and they certainly got the message. Thus, at least since mid-1996 it can hardly have been a secret to anyone in the scientific community or the commercial fossil business that fossils from Liaoning offered for sale outside of China are contraband.

Most, if not all, major natural history museums in the United States have policies in effect that prohibit their staff from accepting any specimens that were not legally collected and exported from the country of origin. The National Geographic Society has not only supported research on such material, but has sensationalized, and is now exhibiting, an admittedly illicit specimen that would have been morally, administratively, and perhaps legally, off-limits to researchers in reputable scientific institutions.

Prior to the publication of the article "Dinosaurs Take Wing" in the July 1998 National Geographic, Lou Mazzatenta, the photographer for Sloan's article, invited me to the National Geographic Society to review his photographs of Chinese fossils and to comment on the slant being given to the story. At that time, I tried to interject the fact that strongly supported alternative viewpoints existed to what National Geographic intended to present, but it eventually became clear to me that National Geographic was not interested in anything other than the prevailing dogma that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

Sloan's article takes the prejudice to an entirely new level and consists in large part of unverifiable or undocumented information that "makes" the news rather than reporting it. His bald statement that "we can now say that birds are theropods just as confidently as we say that humans are mammals" is not even suggested as reflecting the views of a particular scientist or group of scientists, so that it figures as little more than editorial propagandizing. This melodramatic assertion had already been disproven by recent studies of embryology and comparative morphology, which, of course, are never mentioned.

More importantly, however, none of the structures illustrated in Sloan's article that are claimed to be feathers have actually been proven to be feathers. Saying that they are is little more than wishful thinking that has been presented as fact. The statement on page 103 that "hollow, hairlike structures characterize protofeathers" is nonsense considering that protofeathers exist only as a theoretical construct, so that the internal structure of one is even more hypothetical.

The hype about feathered dinosaurs in the exhibit currently on display at the National Geographic Society is even worse, and makes the spurious claim that there is strong evidence that a wide variety of carnivorous dinosaurs had feathers. A model of the undisputed dinosaur Deinonychus and illustrations of baby tyrannosaurs are shown clad in feathers, all of which is simply imaginary and has no place outside of science fiction.

The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists acting in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the first casualties in their program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age---the paleontological equivalent of cold fusion. If Sloan's article is not the crescendo of this fantasia, it is difficult to imagine to what heights it can next be taken. But it is certain that when the folly has run its course and has been fully exposed, National Geographic will unfortunately play a prominent but unenviable role in the book that summarizes the whole sorry episode.

Sincerely,

Storrs L. Olson
Curator of Birds
National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian Institution
Washington, DC 20560

 

[Barbarian]

Clearly, since there were already birds AND dinosaurs,

And dinosaurs with almost every avian characteristic long before there were birds. Birds didn't evolve those traits, they inherited them from earlier species.

and then there was the somewhat questionable Arche....

That assumption isn't a very good one. We don't actually know when the first Archaeopteryx evolved, but we do know that Proarchaeopteryx predates birds by a considerable margin. And it also has most of the characteristics we call "avian."

the observable demonstrable reality demands that IF one came from another THEN Arche evolved FROM birds or a particular dinosaur but...

In other words, if your uncle is alive, then you have to be his daddy. No. I think you're assuming orthgenesis; the idea that if Archaeopteryx gave rise to modern birds, then it had to go extinct. There's another huge assumption here that Archaeopteryx has to be the very ancestor of modern birds. It would be really remarkable if we could find that one last common ancestor. As you learned, there were, about that time, a lot of feathered reptile-like organisms, and precisely which line lead to modern birds is still unclear.

the conclusion that ARCHE shows or even supports that "birds" evolved from "dinosaurs" is...

...based on the fact that almost all the "avian" characteristics, such as feathers, flight, large brain, flow-through respiration and pneumatized bones, evolved first in dinosaurs.

Unfortunately, many creationists, unfamiliar with the way evolution works, assume that if a primitive bird lives on after more advanced birds evolved, that means (whatever their ideology requires them to believe).

 

[Barbarian]

BTW, Storrs Olsen is one of two prominent ornithologists who don't accept the idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs. He and Alan Feduccia (who has written a very accessible book on the evolution of birds) are convinced that birds and dinosaurs had a common thecodont ancestor, and that "avian" characteristics predate both lines.

The fossil record doesn't hold much support for that, but there was the question of reduced digits. Both dinosaurs and birds have reduced digits, but it appeared they had lost different ones, giving Feduccia and Olsen some hope of being vindicated. I was, until a few years ago, somewhat inclined to their point of view.

And then genetics and embryology changed things:
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090617/full/news.2009.577.html

So Olsen looses that point; few ornithologists now believe that he and Feduccia are right. Olsen has a point about Nat. Geographic, however. Several scientists had warned the magazine to wait for peer review before publishing. They had a deadline, and went ahead with it anyway. And were embarrassed when the find turned out to not be what they thought it was.

 

[brother Paul]

1. Clearly, since there were already birds AND dinosaurs,

And dinosaurs with almost every avian characteristic long before there were birds. Birds didn't evolve those traits, they inherited them from earlier species.

Structural and even functional similarity does not necessitate one becoming the other (that’s where one’s interpretive opinion comes into play, we see the same thing in other fields like psychology and even theology)

and then there was the somewhat questionable Arche....

That assumption isn't a very good one. We don't actually know when the first Archaeopteryx evolved, but we do know that Proarchaeopteryx predates birds by a considerable margin. And it also has most of the characteristics we call "avian."

Not an assumption that’s why I used the word “somewhat”. Unlike my first evidentially supported belief, this statement makes no assertion. But let me add that protarche seems more like a bird with some reptilian-like characteristics from my perspective...

the observable demonstrable reality demands that IF one came from another THEN Arche evolved FROM birds or a particular dinosaur but...

In other words, if your uncle is alive, then you have to be his daddy.

Not even relative (no pun intended). The analogy to what I said makes zero logical sense...but feel free to repeat yourself a few more times if it convinces you.

No. I think you're assuming orthgenesis; the idea that if Archaeopteryx gave rise to modern birds, then it had to go extinct.

A few alleged assumptions you mixed here should be cleared up. I am not assuming orthgenesis Darwinians do. With exception of eventual branching the idea carried to its logical conclusion is just such a direction. And ...er....Arche IS extinct! I do not assume anything "had to go extinct"...it either did or it did not....

There's another huge assumption here that Archaeopteryx has to be the very ancestor of modern birds.

I did not say “the very ancestor”, but it is the assumption of EBs that these (along with all the frauds till caught and until we find a few that cannot be proven to be frauds so then are assumed true) lead to modern birds. I merely argue this may not be so...

Also note that just because all frauds are not caught does not negate the ones that are...we saw this in the "peer review" discussion...many are caught (thank God and those honest scientists who reveal them) but sadly too many (any at all for that matter) are not and then sneak through and are accepted as plausible fact effecting or influencing the bigger picture.

It would be really remarkable if we could find that one last common ancestor.

Yes I totally agree! Remarkable! y this line of reasoning it must obviously be some sort of Triops or Nautilus or something of that nature...or perhaps some bacterial creature or the alleged archae...whatever comes earlier in time must be a progenitor according to the hypothesis

As you learned, there were, about that time, a lot of feathered reptile-like organisms, and precisely which line lead to modern birds is still unclear.

Ah yes the George Dubya theory….a bush not a tree or a shrub….


the conclusion that ARCHE shows or even supports that "birds" evolved from "dinosaurs" is...

...based on the fact that almost all the "avian" characteristics, such as feathers, flight, large brain, flow-through respiration and pneumatized bones, evolved first in dinosaurs.

Some early varieties of these lizards many have some characteristics that could be seen as avian does not surprise me, nor that Chinese fraud makers are getting better at their craft. Neither would it surprise me that early avians may share some characteristics with reptiles (like the proarche, which by the way may still prove to be a potential fraud)...yes we see four limbs with similar bone structure (yet different as well) in lizards and in mammals but that does not necessitate one becoming the other over millions of years....

Unfortunately, many creationists, unfamiliar with the way evolution works, assume that if a primitive bird lives on after more advanced birds evolved, that means (whatever their ideology requires them to believe).

Ah yes similar to the way some EBs reason….

Storrs Olsen is one of two prominent ornithologists who don't accept the idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs. He and Alan Feduccia (who has written a very accessible book on the evolution of birds) are convinced that birds and dinosaurs had a common thecodont ancestor, and that "avian" characteristics predate both lines.

Obviously not only two…but yes they hold to that hypothesis….

And then genetics and embryology changed things:
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090617/full/news.2009.577.html

Xing’s alternative explanation is creative and presents one of a number of possibilities but can hardly be established at this point

ALSO why plant another hypothesis based assertion for protarch by using the prefix when the alleged protarch IN REALITY follows the original arch by millions of years,,,why do so many EBs refer to it as an earlier example when in reality it is a later possible relative and nothing more????

Why the attempted deception? Why the additional fraudulence? Why require government mandated legislation to assure the theory is the only one to be considered? Is it in order to "shape" (engineer) public opinion? This is really high quality propaganda technique I must say....and the poor masses living in the matrix just fall in goosestep...

 

[brother Paul]

Barb...you are way too smart to fall for this so let me break it down hopefully for the sake of others who may be following our thread.....

Prot implies proto....before....primary to....it is referred to by the many sad victims of the programming (most EBs) as an earlier representative...but in fact it follows (there is your daddy follows son illogical reasoning, not mine).....if we strip away the program and realize these people have been busted for inventing these types of illusions...then first we MUST realize that just because we cannot catch every deceptive act should still make us doubt every example. Secondly IF we strip away the deception of the implementation of the inappropriate prefix what we have here (totally assuming it is even real) is POSTARCHAEOPTERYX at best....

The sad victims of the programming (most EBs) cannot even see the self deception and contradictions they simultaneously hold to be true...it works exactly the same way with stereotypes and racial prejudice and more....that is why they have to work so hard and spend so much and lobby for law enforcement in order to maintain the lie (its the Geobbels principle at work)

You are very intelligent so please grasp this....it is essential to being able to see clearly....there is not such thing as PROT Arche it is POST Arche....now even though I am sure you WILL NOT admit this in this discussion I KNOW you cannot deny the truth inside yourself...you MAY try and justify it rationalize it, but it IS what it IS not what the consensus accepts it to be as interpreted through their pre-programmed glasses...at least to thine own self be true....even the term Protarchaeopteryx IS an intentional deception

If the Darwinian hypothesis is so true why play these strategies out? Why so many frauds? Why these word games and re-definitions terms? Why need laws and court decisions to guarantee the perpetuation of the continuously questionable notions and hypothesis based Conclusions? Why the bombardment of young minds with artistically engineered images over and over? Why make passing or failing dependent on spitting back the mantra as taught?

It is so obvious that even Caudipteryx zoui is just an early variety of bird (assuming it is not also a fraud that slipped though)...but you see they cannot admit this because if they do the whole legislatively enforced drilled and repeated image imprinted hypothesis falls apart....

Proto? No! Parental ancestor does not follow the offspring...if you accept and claim here that it does and somehow I do not understand then I am afraid you are also living in this matrix like world and not reality....please, think for yourself...step outside the program and look

 

[brother Paul]

Philip Currie of the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Paleontology, Drumheller, Alberta, Canada, said, "For the first time we have something that is unquestionably a dinosaur with unquestionable feathers. So what we have is a missing link between meat-eating dinosaurs and the earliest bird.''


Even though in Protarchaeopteryx robusta (Qiang Ji & Shu-An Ji. 1997) it was openly admitted that “ Protarchaeopteryx presents an interesting contradiction. It is more primitive than Archaeopteryx, so it should have occurred in the fossil record before Archaeopteryx. But that was not the case. It appeared ten million years later.”


See? A simple case for devolution captured by the conflicting illogical reasonings within the victims of the brainwashing themselves (an unreality accepted as reality and acted upon)…plain for all to see who have eyes and can see….but yet both parties here claiming THEY DO SEE are totally blind to their own cognitive dissonance.


So sad don’t ya think? And I see this over and over in so many areas within ONLY this field. I never hear such controversy in physics or chemsirty….only here in EB and on occasion on geology (caused by geologists who likewise suffer the same irrational assumption based self contradictions).

Oh well....the peace of the Lord be with you....

 

[Barbarian]

[quote\Clearly, since there were already birds AND dinosaurs,[/quote]

And dinosaurs with almost every avian characteristic long before there were birds. Birds didn't evolve those traits, they inherited them from earlier species.

Structural and even functional similarity does not necessitate one becoming the other

You're still having problems with homology. We have birds, which have all the structures seen to have been evolved before there were birds, in dinosaurs. So, it wasn't hard to figure out that they evolved from dinosaurs. The fact that some biological molecules from a T rex turned out to be more like that of birds than that of other reptiles confirms the conclusion based on homology and transitional forms.

Even more impressive, it turns out that scutes (found only on archosaurs (dinosaurs and their kin) are genetically and biochemically closest to feathers. In fact, genetic manipulation can induce feathers in scutes.

and then there was the somewhat questionable Arche....

That assumption isn't a very good one. We don't actually know when the first Archaeopteryx evolved, but we do know that Proarchaeopteryx predates birds by a considerable margin. And it also has most of the characteristics we call "avian."

But let me add that protarche seems more like a bird with some reptilian-like characteristics from my perspective...

Well, let's take a look...

Dinosaur head and jaws, with teeth. Dinosaur hips. Dinosaur tail. Feathers, but no assymetrical flight feathers. Dinosaur hands. No beak. No wings, just tufts of feathers on hands. What makes you think it's more like a bird?

the observable demonstrable reality demands that IF one came from another THEN Arche evolved FROM birds or a particular dinosaur but...

Barbarian observes:
In other words, if your uncle is alive, then you have to be his daddy.

Not even relative (no pun intended).

It's a fact. You've assumed that Archaeopteryx must have some direct descent to birds.

Barbarian suggests:
No. I think you're assuming orthgenesis; the idea that if Archaeopteryx gave rise to modern birds, then it had to go extinct.

A few alleged assumptions you mixed here should be cleared up. I am not assuming orthgenesis Darwinians do.

No. Darwin plotted descent as a bush, not a ladder. This illustrates the problem. You're assailing something you think is Darwinian theory, while it's actually a misconception of the theory.

Barbarian observes:
There's another huge assumption here that Archaeopteryx has to be the very ancestor of modern birds.

I did not say “the very ancestor”, but it is the assumption of EBs that these (along with all the frauds till caught and until we find a few that cannot be proven to be frauds so then are assumed true) lead to modern birds.

I know of no scientist who supposes Archaeopteryx is the ancestor of modern birds. It's an offshoot of the line that led to birds. For reasons I've shown you. And notice that it was Darwinians who exposed the fraud that fooled a popular magazine. BTW, both fossils in the composite turned out to be important clues in the evolution of birds.

As you learned, there were, about that time, a lot of feathered reptile-like organisms, and precisely which line lead to modern birds is still unclear.

Ah yes the George Dubya theory….a bush not a tree or a shrub….

Observably true. Creationists constantly stumble on this fact.

Barbarian observes:
...based on the fact that almost all the "avian" characteristics, such as feathers, flight, large brain, flow-through respiration and pneumatized bones, evolved first in dinosaurs.

Some early varieties of these lizards

They weren't lizards. Lizards are very specialized forms of reptiles, which are more distantly related to dinosaurs than alligators and birds.

many have some characteristics that could be seen as avian does not surprise me,

It was laughed at by creationists when scientists first predicted it in the 1800s, based on anatomical comparisons of birds and dinosaurs. It was quite a shock for creationists, many of which simply claimed that all such dinosaurs were frauds. And of course, that story fell apart as it became clear that most avian characters evolved in dinosaurs before birds.

Neither would it surprise me that early avians may share some characteristics with reptiles (like the proarche, which by the way may still prove to be a potential fraud)

Sorry, it's been through a lot of vetting and it is what it is. On the other hand, the fragmentary and incomplete nature of Protoavis makes it impossible to even know if it is a bird at all.
http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/The_Protoavis_controversy

...yes we see four limbs with similar bone structure (yet different as well) in lizards and in mammals but that does not necessitate one becoming the other over millions of years....

No way to make a lizard into a mammal. However, therapsid reptiles were very mammal-like,and over time, one line of them became so mammal-like that it's impossible to say with certainty where therapsids end and mammals begin. Would you like to see that, again?

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Unfortunately, many creationists, unfamiliar with the way evolution works, assume that if a primitive bird lives on after more advanced birds evolved, that means (whatever their ideology requires them to believe).

Ah yes similar to the way some EBs reason….

See above. You've been misled about that.

Barbarian observes:
Storrs Olsen is one of two prominent ornithologists who don't accept the idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs. He and Alan Feduccia (who has written a very accessible book on the evolution of birds) are convinced that birds and dinosaurs had a common thecodont ancestor, and that "avian" characteristics predate both lines.

And then genetics and embryology changed things:
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090617/full/news.2009.577.html

Obviously not only two…

Don't know of any other major ornithologists. Pretty much all of them have come to accept dinosaurs instead of thecodonts.

Xing’s alternative explanation is creative and presents one of a number of possibilities but can hardly be established at this point

So far, no one's found any that hold up. Tell us about yours.

ALSO why plant another hypothesis based assertion for protarch by using the prefix when the alleged protarch IN REALITY follows the original arch by millions of years,,

The specimens of Archaeopteryx we have are about 147 million years old, and the only specimen of Proarchaeopteryx we have is about 135 million years old, so we don't really know which one evolved first. They are uncommon and the age of each species is unknown.

The oldest known fossil unambiguously identified as a bird is still the dinosaur-like Archaeopteryx, from the Solnhofen Limestone of the Upper Jurassic of Germany. However, it was not the only bird of the time. Very recently, another bird of almost the same age was discovered in northeastern China, and named Confuciusornis (shown at left; click for a larger image); Confuciusornis resembles Archaeopteryx in having wing claws, but unlike Archaeopteryx and like modern birds, Confuciusornis lacked teeth.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/birdfr.html

why do so many EBs refer to it as an earlier example when in reality it is a later possible relative and nothing more????

Didn't know that they did. You have a cite? Creationists generally try to conflate "more primitive" with "earlier." As you learned, that is not necessarily the case.

Why the attempted deception?

I think it's more a misconception they have, then an intent to deceive.

Why require government mandated legislation to assure the theory is the only one to be considered?

Never heard of that. There are, in public schools, several theories discussed, including Olsen's, Darwin's, and others. Are you referring to the ruling that doesn't permit religious doctrines to be presented as science? The Constitution won't allow that, and that won't change until you delete religious freedom.

The guys who invented ID admit that it's a plan to impose a religious doctrine on science.

Is it in order to "shape" (engineer) public opinion?

Well, let's see what IDers say about their motives:
Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.
ID leader Philip Johnson

From the Discovery Institute's Wedge Document:
Phase II: Publicity and Opinion-making
Phase II. The pnmary purpose of Phase II is to prepare the popular reception of our ideas. The best and truest research can languish unread and unused unless it is properly publicized. For this reason we seek to cultivate and convince influential individuals in pnnt and broadcast media, as well as think tank leaders, scientists and academics, congressional staff, talk show hosts, college and seminary presidents and faculty, future talent and potential academic allies. Because of his long tenure in politics, journalism and public policy, Discovery President Bruce Chapman brings to the project rare knowledge and acquaintance of key op-ed writers, journalists, and political leaders. This combination of scientific and scholarly expertise and media and political connections makes the Wedge unique, and also prevents it from being "merely academic." Other activities include production of a PBS documentary on intelligent design and its implications, and popular op-ed publishing. Alongside a focus on influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Chnstians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidence's that support the faith, as well as to "popularize" our ideas in the broader culture.

So yes, creationists are indeed hoping to "engineer public opinion." They have initiated a rather sophisticated propaganda campaign, rather than make an attempt to gather evidence to support their new doctrine. It's a very well-designed campaign, and fairly well-financed.

This is really high quality propaganda technique I must say.

No kidding. But it's collapsing, for one reason. They have no evidence to support their new doctrine. And because theirs is a religious campaign, the courts can't let them put it in public school science classes. They are still hoping to impose their beliefs on the rest of us.

...and the poor masses living in the matrix just fall in goosestep...

Not so long as the First Amendment stands.

 

[brother Paul]

So sorry, my artists created this…

Similar yet different and more like a bird….

So truth becomes a matter of engineered artistic representations? Well that is a propaganda technique your side has mastered….

Here is a better one…guess this proves it eh?

 

[brother Paul]

By the way I am against anyone who tries to engineer one's thoughts IDers or otherwise....and I am not speaking about educating people to all the facts or presenting different arguments for and against a point of view o they can make up their own minds,,,but changing definitions, visual imprinting, frauds that sneak through, and more????? NO thanks I know what that is...

 

[Barbarian]

So sorry, my artists created this…

Similar yet different and more like a bird….

Well, everything there, is some artist's idea of what it must have looked like. Let's see why it's not as bird like as Archie:
Protarchaeopteryx also had symmetrical feathers on its tail. Since modern birds that have symmetrical feathers are flightless, and the skeletal structure of Protarchaeopteryx would not support flapping flight, it is assumed that it was flightless as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protarchaeopteryx

Notice teeth ,dinosaur skull, legs, hands, hips, and tail. More dinosauran than Archaeopteryx. And it couldn't fly.

So truth becomes a matter of engineered artistic representations?

Nice try, but we have the skeletal data. Maybe a coat of feathers makes it look birdlike, but the skeleton, as you learned, says otherwise. It's more dinosaur-like than Archaeopteryx, and Archaeopteryx has more dinosaur-like features than bird-like ones. Well that is a propaganda technique your side has mastered….

 

[Barbarian]

So, given that modern birds appeared long after Archaeopteryx, and there were more bird-like dinosaurs before Archaeopteryx, it's clear that Archie preceded the sort of birds we see today.

 

[brother Paul]

Well, everything there, is some artist's idea of what it must have looked like. Let's see why it's not as bird like as Archie:
Protarchaeopteryx also had symmetrical feathers on its tail. Since modern birds that have symmetrical feathers are flightless, and the skeletal structure of Protarchaeopteryx would not support flapping flight, it is assumed that it was flightless as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protarchaeopteryx

Notice teeth ,dinosaur skull, legs, hands, hips, and tail. More dinosauran than Archaeopteryx. And it couldn't fly.



Nice try, but we have the skeletal data. Maybe a coat of feathers makes it look birdlike, but the skeleton, as you learned, says otherwise. It's more dinosaur-like than Archaeopteryx, and Archaeopteryx has more dinosaur-like features than bird-like ones. Well that is a propaganda technique your side has mastered….

Their's was also based on the skeletal data....and "my side" (whoever they are) did not contribute one iota of support or evidence for my opinion...the one flattened fossil plate from China needs closer examination by some other objective scientists

is a little mangled to be clear.

 

[Barbarian]

Notice that all the key parts are there, while your "Protoavis" is missing almost all the key parts. This is how fossils are most often found. And it takes some work and experience to figure them out.

But there's no point in denying what they found.

 

[brother Paul]

Deleted....