Slashdot Mirror
Move Over, Archaeopteryx
Reedo writes "The clearest evidence ever of the missing link between dinosaurs and birds has been found in a newly discovered "feathered" fossil in northeastern China, claim scientists. The specimen was found embedded in a large slab of rock, in what scientists think was a former lake or pond."
It's a bit hasty to pass judgement on a tiny little web image, don't you think?
Missing links are only sought (or feared) by creationists, because it is only they that bring up the red herring of gaps in the fossil record where one might expect to see intermediate forms. So, the fact that this article got any press at all is probably because it would sell some newspapers, not because it's particularly interesting scientifically.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
A CAT scan won't hurt it a bit. They just don't need to do it because it's obvious that the fossil hasn't been constructed out of two unrelated fossils.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
Alternatively everytime a 'missing link' is found it is retrospectively inserted into the somewhat cramped Noah's Ark with a playmate as a distinct 'species'.
Another big point that you are missing is that birds could quite obviously have evolved from already flying reptiles. Ever heard of a Pterodactyl? Pterodactyls were a family of species that looked roughly like giant bats. They didn't have feathers, but they were definately capable of gliding and at the very least limited flight. Feathers could have evolved from scales over time as they changed to be both better for flight control, and for insulation in flight.
"Creationist sympathizer???" What does that mean, you're supportive of their wishful thinking?
Corpset is simply trying to point out that no matter how many gap fossils are found opponents of evolution will always be able to proclaim a gap somehwere else, albeit a narrower one.
That post is definitely not "flame bait".
-- Our systemic servants do not good masters make.
It's only recently that creationists have sought to put their views on a firm scientific footing rather than just pointing at Genesis and screaming, "It's in there, so it must be true!!!" which convinces no one who's not already on their side.
Somebody mod this upto +5 funny. Creationists on a firm scientific footing... as if.
Have the creationists published a single scientific paper (I'm talking about one in a peer reviewed journal, not some website)?
Are they still going on about evolution breaking the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
Still quoting out of context to support their case?
There are some things they do a much better job of explaining then evolutionary biologists, but there are even more subjects on which they raise more questions than they answer.
Like what?
Warning: Some ideologies on the Net are smaller than they appear.
Note that in the talkorigins reference you gave there is no mention of the studies in coal-ified wood and other areas that Gentry presented, just a very weak (IMO) argument against Polonium. The issue of helium levels in the atmosphere, if you accept the ideas on talkorigins used in the Gentry article, are an even stronger argument against old-earth than the halos. And no one has yet taken his challenge of making a granite (the technology is available) to disprove his hypothesis.
/. and see if it gets published. The fact that it doesn't get published only shows the bias of the editorial staff, not the quality of the data, research, and writing in the submitted article.
As to why there have not been more papers published in the mainstream, orthodox scientific press - that's the tyranny of the majority. For example, submit an objectively researched, top quality, highly pro-MS story here on
Got Wisdom?
I will concede that Gentry has had papers published, however, his claims on creationism, haven't been. Rather the logical chain works like this: there are holes in rocks, therefore a young earth is correct. Sadly only the hole in rocks has been published in scientific journals (no claptraps such as Creation Ex Nihilo don't count).
Also, evolution doesn't break information theory, execept in the minds of creationists.
As for quoting out of context, that's a human failing that all sides of this have done; I don't see how that is strictly and only on one side.
If creationists had only misquoted sciences a few times, it could be dismissed as a accident, however given the huge numbers of misquotations by creationists, the only conclusions that I can come up with are that certain creationists are more than happy to lie to support their case.
Warning: Some ideologies on the Net are smaller than they appear.