"But it's just a bird"

Ah, Archaeopteryx. Doesn't Ray realise that we found his crocoduck back in 1861?


She's one of the most talked about ancient creatures today, at least in the public arena, and with good reason: the 7 known Archae fossils (and 1 feather) paint an extremely clear picture of modern bird ancestry, and it most certainly doesn't indicate creation from nothing.

Or does it? Is Archae really a transitional fossil, or is she 'just a bird'?

Well, they're right on one count: Archae is defined as a bird. Despite appearances, she's not a dinosaur, or even a reptile: she's a bird.

But most certainly not 'just a bird'.

You see, Archae is defined as a bird based on having the following avian (bird-like) characteristics:

Feathers
This is the big one, the defining characteristic of birds which Archae has. All modern birds have feathers, and no known dino- oh wait, scratch that! With the discovery of Protoarchaeopteryx robusta and Caudipteryx zoui, we've well and truly established that some dinosaurs had feathers. So, since feathers appeared in dinosaurs before they appeared in birds, you'd expect a transitional to have them.

Opposable Big Toe
Far more obscure, but equally defining, all birds have an large toe facing backwards. __*link*__Take a look for yourself. No known dinosaurs have this (although some have something similar), but Archae does. So this feature is 100% unadulterated bird.

Fused Wishbone
Although all birds have a wishbone, in some it can be so poorly formed that it is not fused in the centre, which would strictly mean it isn't a wishbone at all. In addition, several species of dinosaur have been discovered with a wishbone, and many more with clavicles (the two bones
which fuse to become the wishbone).

Reversed, elongated, Pubic bone
This is also found in several types of dinosaur, although Archae's is more developed than theirs.



So, apart from the oppposable toe, all the other features by which Archae is defined as a bird are shared with dinosaurs! But wait: what about her reptile characteristics?

No bill/beak
All modern birds have a hard mouthpiece, covering their jawbone. Archae completely lacks this feature, like most dinosaurs and all modern reptiles.
Teeth
No modern birds have teeth, although some have deactivated genes which can produce vestigial teeth if reactivated. Archae has natural teeth, like all reptiles.
No Fused Vetebrae
Archae doesn't have these, like all reptiles. All birds do have them.
Neck attaches to skull from the rear
... as in reptiles. In birds, it attaches from below.
Long bony tail with completely free vertebrae
Birds have a short tail with fused vertebrae, often with feathers elongating it into a rudder.
Flexible wrist joint and free hand
Birds have completely fused wrists and hand bones.

Etc. etc. etc... the list continues.


I think it's quite clear, then: Archae, despite being defined as a bird because of a few features, is much more similar to ancient reptiles than modern birds. Why the 'just a bird' claims then? Why wouldn't they try to say it's 'just a reptile with feathers', which would be far easier to argue in a scientific arena?

Because the individuals who make the 'just a bird' claims are not interested in arguing in a scientific arena. They want ammunition, not discussion. A glance at Archae's feathers is enough for them to come to a conclusion about her, and that conclusion is appealing to intuition, but not to reasoning or critical thinking. "It looks like a bird, ergo, it is a bird", is not how science works: but it sums up creationism perfectly.

Science - It Works, Bitches!

There is perhaps no greater attack upon science and rational thought than the doctrine of a recent creation. Young earth creationists deny much of astronomy, geology, biology, paleontology, chemistry, linguistics, geomorphology and physics in favor of pseudoscience and their biblically based view that the world is more or less only 6,000 years old.

There is a vast body of evidence, all indicating that the earth is very, very old.
Among these are-

Amino acid racemization - which is a technique that is used to date fossilized objects up to several millions of years in age.

Coral - whose formations take a long time to grow

Continental Drift - Tectonic drift is an incredibly slow process, the separation of landmasses would have taken millions of years. This is verified by satellite measurement.

Cosmogenic nuclide dating - The influx of cosmic rays onto the earth continually produces a stream of cosmogenic nuclides in the atmosphere that will fall to the ground.

Dendochronology - which is a method of scientific dating based on annual tree growth patterns called tree rings.

Distant starlight - Because the speed of light is finite, when you look at an object, what you are actually seeing is how the object was in the past. If the universe is only 6,000 years old how can objects billions of light years away — and therefore billions of years old — be seen?

Erosion - Many places on earth show evidence of erosion taking place over very long time periods, not drastic, as would have been caused by a worldwide flood.

Fission track dating - which is a radiometric dating technique that can be used to determine the age of uranium containing crystalline minerals.

Geomagnetic reversal - which is a change in the polarity of the earth's magnetic field. Around 171 reversals are geologically documented, which would make the earth at least several millions of years old.

Helioseismology - The composition of the sun changes as it ages.

Human Y-chromosomal ancestry - Analysis has shown that man lived around 60,000 years ago.

Ice Layering - Currently the greatest number of layers found in a single ice sheet is over 700,000, which clearly contradicts the idea of an earth less than 10,000 years old.

Impact craters - Asteroid impacts as big those that have been discovered would have led to the extinction of all medium to large size species (an event that is seen in the fossil record).

Length of the prehistoric day - as measured by evidence in coral.

Lunar retreat - which can't corelate with a 6,000 year old earth

Naica megacrystals - Based on classical crystal growth theory these crystals are older than one million years.

Oxidizable Carbon Ratio dating - is a method for determining the absolute age of charcoal samples with relative accuracy. One can determine ages of over 20,000 years ago with a standard error under 3%.

Permafrost - The formation of permafrost (frozen ground) is a slow process.

Petrified wood - The process in which wood is preserved by permineralization, commonly known as petrification, takes extensive amounts of time.

Radiometric decay - is the constant predictable decay of unstable atoms into more stable isotopes or elements. Measurements of atomic decay are generally considered to be one of the most accurate ways of measuring the age of an object, and these measurements form the basis for the scientifically accepted age of the earth. There are many different variations of the radiometric dating technique such as radiocarbon, argon-argon, iodine-xenon, lanthanum-barium, lead-lead, lutetium-hafnium, neon-neon, potassium-argon, rhenium-osmium, rubidium-strontium, samarium-neodymium, uranium-lead, uranium-lead-helium, uranium-thorium, and uranium-uranium, of which every single one will date objects far older than 10,000 years.
Relativistic jetsare jets of plasma that gets ejected from some quasars and galaxy centers that have powerful magnetic fields.

Rock Varnish - is a coating that will form on exposed surface rocks. The varnish is formed as airborn dust acumulates on rock surfaces. This process is extremely slow.

Space weathering - is an effect that is observed on most asteroids. This dating technique exceed millions of years.

Sedimentary varves - are laminated layers of sedimentary rock that are most commonly laid down in glacial lakes. The Green River formation in easter Utah is home to an estimated twenty million years worth of sedimentary layers.

Stalactites - These formations take extremely lengthy periods to form; the average growth rate is not much more than 0.1 mm per year.

Thermoluninescence dating - is a method for determining the age of objects containing crystalline minerals such as ceramics or lava.

Weathering rinds - are layers of weathered material that develop on glacial rocks. Certain weathering rinds on basalt and andesite rocks in the eastern United States appear to have taken over 300,000 years to form.


The evidence for an old Earth is overwhelming. The data is supported by every field of science. More data and studies expand on this body of knowledge and confirm it almost daily. Unrefuted Creationist evidence simply doesn't exist.

Creationists just spew the same old completely refuted nonsense such as "uniformitarianism is just an assumption", "God made the earth with an appearance of age", "radiometric dating has been shown to have errors", "Mount Saint Helen shows _______ (insert whatever disproven junk you want here)", "remains of Noha's ark have been found.", "vertical fossils of trees were found", or crackpottery such as "polonium halos" and "Fine tuning".

Will this list of evidence for an old Earth convince Creationists?

Sadly, no. Or at least, infrequently. On one blog where I presented this information, the Creationist response was-

I just finished reading and I must say I am very upset by what I have read. You seem to be attacking Leif and I can't begin to tell you how angry that makes me!! Why are you attacking him? Did he attack you? There's also such a thing called faith. Blind faith. That's what makes Christianity so differnt. It seems to me that all the evolutionist can do is insult rather than give solid proof. If that's what they want from us then why can't they give it? Where's all their answers to our questions?

and

Hey look evo-dude,
You "seem" to have a huge number of "proofs" that evolution is true and that creationists are naive. But each one you've mentioned is really a bogus claim.

Who are you?
Be brave enough about your "beliefs" to stand up for them ... more than just hiding behind a keyboard.
I'll come to wherever you are. I'll present the truth to whoever you can get together. We'll do this thing and get it over with. There is no hope of any evolutionist pointing out "overwhelming evidence" because there is none.
And I'm not just a Sunday School teacher. I'm a Science Teacher and Professor of 30 years.

This last one was from a Young Earth wacko who claims that he was a biology teacher!
His website is www.PointsofOrigins.com if you want to laugh.


I responded to this crank that "even when I was a child, I never reponded to puerile, infantile "challenges", "dare ya" or "double-dare ya", so I certainly won't respond to your playground foolishness now. You claim to be a scientist and an educator, so act like one."


But I do like the idea of including good scientific info at SMRT, so I will try to post more in this category. Some people want to learn.

Chromosome Number 2

It occured to me that we spend a load of time having a go at creationists, but not so much time on the science which they spend so much time attacking, which is why I entered this debate in the first place. So, in an effort to turn this around, I'm going to do the occasional post on some of the more interesting bits of positive evidence I hear about, or have heard about in the past. Feel free to join me.

WARNING: SCIENCE CONTENT

Now, we all know about chromosomes: they're the things in our cells which hold our genes. Now, all the great apes have 24 pairs of chomosomes. This is fair enough, but (according to evolution) we are just as closely related to the great apes as they are to each other.
So we should also have 24 pairs of chomosomes, correct?

But we don't. Human beings only have 23 chomosomes.

Now, this isn't a massive deal: chromosome counts differ greatly within genus, and sometimes even within species. The plant genus Clarkia, for example, has species with chromosome counts of n = 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 17, 18, and 26 (Lewis 1993) (referenced from TalkOrigins). But chromosomes don't just disappear: when they do, the victim of the mutation is sterile at best, stillborn at worst. So what happened to the 24th human chomosome?

Upon discovering this, a prediction was made: at some point in our ancestory, two chromosomes must have joined. This isn't a harmful mutation: the gene's themselves are still viable, but they are now part of a single chromosome, not two.

Now, chromosomes have easily recognisable sequences at the ends, called telomeres, and another recognisable type of sequence in the centre called centromeres (0). Centromere's are where the chromosome divides during reproduction.

Here's a representation of what I'm talking about, with telomeres's represented by X's and Centromere's represented by 0's:

X----0-----X

So, geneticists realised that if humans really are decended from apes, one of their chromosomes should have two (X's) in the middle of it, with a pair of (0's) flanking them. Keep in mind that if this isn't found, common ancestory is in big trouble: falsified, even.

Here's a abstract representation of Human Chromosome Number 2, as discovered by geneticists who went looking for this pattern as a direct result of the theory of evolution.

X----0-----XX----0-----X

"Evolution has made a testable prediction and has passed."
-- Kenneth Miller

This one I learned from the Dover v Kitzmiller Intelligent Design Trial Transcripts. Kudo's to Ken Miller, who presented it during the trial.

Christians Were Right Again! Argh!

Two new scientific studies confirm what Christians like Ray Comfort have been telling us atheists for some time now.

Study 1: Earth has a special place in the Universe (perhaps in the center) in contradiction to the Copernican principle

"Earth may be trapped in an abnormal bubble of space-time that is particularly void of matter. Scientists say this condition could account for the apparent acceleration of the universe's expansion, for which dark energy currently is the leading explanation.

...

One problem with the void idea, though, is that it negates a principle that has reigned in astronomy for more than 450 years: namely, that our place in the universe isn't special. When Nicholas Copernicus argued that it made much more sense for the Earth to be revolving around the sun than vice versa, it revolutionized science. Since then, most theories have to pass the Copernican test. If they require our planet to be unique, or our position to be exalted, the ideas often seem unlikely.

"This idea that we live in a void would really be a statement that we live in a special place," Clifton told SPACE.com. "The regular cosmological model is based on the idea that where we live is a typical place in the universe. This would be a contradiction to the Copernican principle.""

From www.space.com

Study 2: Religious belief has medical benefits and helps reduce pain.

"Brain scans of volunteers who were subjected to electrical shocks revealed that Roman Catholics felt less pain than atheists and agnostics when they were shown a painting of the Virgin Mary."

From www.guardian.co.uk

Just because Christians were right about these things thousands of years before these groundbreaking studies were conducted doesn't mean we should give up hope of atheism just yet. Remember, we still have the theory of evolution on our side, and no one has yet to challenge that!

the origin of life made easy

Maybe some of you already know this one, but it might improve the debate over at AC if some of the Christians had a look at it.
(Well, that's a little bit to optimistic. But if it reduces the amount of completely ignorant comments on abiogenesis, it's a start.)

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=4mrBJ2WVZ8s

It's quite simplified, but at least it makes clear that scientist don't believe life just popped out of nowhere.

Dark Flow

"As if the mysteries of dark matter and dark energy weren't vexing enough, another baffling cosmic puzzle has been discovered.

Patches of matter in the universe seem to be moving at very high speeds and in a uniform direction that can't be explained by any of the known gravitational forces in the observable universe. Astronomers are calling the phenomenon "dark flow."

The stuff that's pulling this matter must be outside the observable universe, researchers conclude."

Comfort and Friel will no doubt see this and Friel in particular will take great pleasure in mangling it on air into some sort of "Science fails, but they might have found heaven" tripe.

Anyway, an interesting read... http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080923-dark-flows.html

E. O. Wilson and James D. Watson Discuss Darwin with Charlie Rose

A great discussion about Darwin, faith, and science from two great thinkers.

'Tis a Puzzlement

Why would God (Ultimate Insider),

Be opaque, or choose to hide, or

Wish to conceal

What may be revealed

By CERN's new Large Hadron Collider?

***************

(blush)  Eh, that one's not too awful.  

I'm currently trying to write a limerickal expression of my forbidden love for Dr. Stephen Cox, a perfectly adorable young man who works on the LHC.  You may encourage me in this dreadful habit by suggesting rhymes for:

• boson
• subatomic
• particle
• discovery

Many thanks,

Wee

Science Degree Guy

Terry's claim of being a "science degree guy" reminded me of this Edward Current video.

Something for the weekend....

Everyone's favorite fundie has outdone himself yet again.

In the "This is What You Are Saying" post on Ray's increasingly painful to read blog; counselor/pilot/spy/war-hero/schizophrenic Terry Burton (who has previously referred to himself as 'Science Degree Guy') said:


keywesthaven1@msn.com (Terry) said...

@ Andrew IRT: Get a CLUE!

you said "seriously, if you're really interested in learning about physics and biology, there are a ton of excellent resources available"

FYI, I have a degree in science. The THEORY of evolution has nothing to do with physics and biology. In fact, both of these sciences show that our bodies and the world around us is very complex and intricate!

evolution is nothing more than a
bad 'guess' about it. It is NOT a science as nothing has been proven by 'hard evidence'.

Let me know if you find that 'missing link' as no one has found it for thousands of years!

God Bless! Hope you wake up and smell the reality of GOD.

August 29, 2008 6:10 AM

Now I'm no skeptic (ahem), but if Terry Burton has a genuine science degree from a real university then I will personally eat my own head. It would be futile to call him on it though - as we can see from Dimensio's continued efforts to get him to back up his lies about Darwin's Bogus Journey on the Beagle.

In other news; blogger 'andy' found this beautiful piece of scripture that blows a species-sized hole in the whole creationist 'kind' thing:

Andy said...

You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle;...

How can the Bible even talk about "two kinds" of cattle when Ray assures us there's only "Cow" species (kind)?

you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed,

Again, Ray tells us "Tree" is a single species so I'd have to assume "Plant" is also a single species.

Are you sure you're quoting the right bible here? I think you must have one of those idolatry bibles that get everything wrong.

August 28, 2008 8:23 PM

Nice work!

Everyone have a great weekend, I'm off to abort some single-celled humans for fun and, possibly, get some fishing done if I can squeeze in the time.

Laters!

Matt

Carl Sagan: Pale Blue Dot

Camp Inquiry to be featured today on NPR

Today, on National Public Radio's daily program All Things Considered, there will be a story on Camp Inquiry, the summer camp in Holland, New York that provides a friendly, accepting environment for young atheists and agnostics, and teaches the virtues of personal responsibility and critical thought. The camp is for children aged 7-16 and runs for a week in the middle of July, during which time campers can participate in the following workshops:

Monsterbusters & Mythmarauders

Campers will use a variety of methods to investigate claims of the paranormal, urban legends, and UFO sightings.

In the Footprints of Darwin

Experts in the natural sciences will guide campers in understanding the evolutionary model as counter to claims of creationism and intelligent design.

Sleights of Hand & Tricks of the Eye

A professional magician unravels the mysteries of illusion.

Human Expression

Professional artists and teachers lead campers in creative self-expression through the visual and performing arts.

Expressly Human: The Ethical Life

Campers will participate in conversations and activities designed to address the changing global community, diversity, and the need to act as a responsible moral agent.

The Character of Character

Through discussions of film and literature, campers will consider moral and ethical dilemmas faced by both fictional and familiar folks.

Imagination & Science

Campers will discover the fascinating science behind imagination, and find out that the two realms aren’t as far apart as they seem.

All Things Considered airs at 4:00 PM EST (at least it does in Michigan, YMMV).

A Great Teacher

Since many seem to like the idea of expanding some, I want to share this video adn a few thoughts. Does anyone else get a chill when they listen to the opening line of this film? I ask, because I am getting ready to clean and I like some background noise. Well, it's more than noise, it is one of my favorite films by one of my favorite personalities. If the question is posed to me would I rather meet Sagan or Jesus-both being dead-who would I rather meet? Some might say Jesus, because we could clear all this shit up...I don't know. I'm fairly certain I already know the answer. I think it reasonable to suspect that Jesus was a real person, but a person none-the-less. What would I really learn from him? Would I like him? No, I would rather meet what would be a hero of mine if I had heros, Dr. Carl Sagan. His books enthrawl me, more than anything in the Gospels. I have a telescope at my house, and I could think of nothing better than to talk to someone who spent his life pondering and trying to understand how our universe works. What could Jesus tell me about the stars, a man living 2,000 years ago? Even if this decision meant learning if there was a heaven and a hell; I already know they exist, simultaneously here on earth. At least Sagan would know something about heaven! In all likelihood, I have just as much chance of meeting either of them. Well, I've got dishes calling! Enjoy.