Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jack the Bodiless · 07-04-2003, 04:54 AM

From Ed, on this thread:

Quote:

Fraid not, here is a direct quote from the University of California at Berkeley fossil bird website:
"The fossil record of birds is not extensive: the light, hollow bones of birds are not likely to survive as fossils. However, a growing number of unusually well-preserved fossil birds are contributing much to our understanding of bird evolution. 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. "

Note that Ed posted this AFTER various references to Confuciusornis on the previous Ed thread, such as this:

Quote:

If you're referring to Confuciusornis, then you are making yet another error, since the earliest known members of this genus appear much, much later, approximately 20 million years later, than Archaeopteryx. Check out Swisher et al (1999)

...And this:

Quote:

Ed:
Actually I didnt mean to say modern in the sense of modern robins and blue jays. I meant 100% birds were living at the same time. Like Protoavis and Confucianornis.

Ed, I have shown that there is no sense in which your original statement that modern birds coeexisted with Archaeopteryx is correct.

1. Protoavis is not thought to be a bird at all by most paleontologists. But even if it was, it certainly was not a modern bird, and is not placed in any existing order, familiy, or genus of birds. Also, the only specimen of Protoavis that exists is from the Triassic, and long predates Archaeopteryx, and so did not coexist with Archaeopteryx.

2. Confuciusornis is a bird, but in no sense is it a modern bird, since it does not belong to any existing order, familiy, or genus of birds. And since the oldest specimens of Confuciusornis post-date Archaeopteryx by 20 million years, neither can it be said to have coexisted with Archaeopteryx.

There can be no doubt that you made an error by claiming as fact something that simply is not true. Thus far you have refused to retract the error or even admit the mistake, despite repeated requests to do do. Observers here can only conclude that you have no problem propagating falsehoods, and no interest in admitting to or correcting your errors. Are you sure this is an effective way to champion the biblical worldview?

Patrick

The facts are pretty straightforward, Ed. Confuciusornis is NOT a "modern bird". Not only is it long extinct, it wasn't much more "birdlike" than Archaeopteryx even when it was around (for instance, like Archie, it had no wishbone). And it apparently didn't even coexist with Archie.

So, isn't it time to admit that your claim that "modern birds coexisted with Archaeopteryx" was a falsehood?

lpetrich · 07-04-2003, 08:44 AM

Ed has also failed to reveal what features he thinks a creature must have in order to be a "modern bird".

ps418 · 07-08-2003, 07:17 AM

Ed, my friend, thanks for giving us all another close-up, right-in-the-eyes look at Morton's Demon. I've pointed out numerous times, starting weeks ago, that the deposits from which Confuciusornis derives have been dated to 20 million years younger than Archaeopteryx. No one has held a Jurassic age for Confuciusornis for about 4 years now, since Swisher et al (1999) published the first 40Ar/39Ar dates for the Yixian Formation. Why do you continue to ignore this fact, and deny what is an obvious error?

Quote:

When I was a YEC, I had a demon that did similar things for me that Maxwell's demon did for thermodynamics. Morton's demon was a demon who sat at the gate of my sensory input apparatus and if and when he saw supportive evidence coming in, he opened the gate. But if he saw contradictory data coming in, he closed the gate. In this way, the demon allowed me to believe that I was right and to avoid any nasty contradictory data. Fortunately, I eventually realized that the demon was there and began to open the gate when he wasn't looking.

However, my conversations have made me aware that each YEC is a victim of my demon. Morton's demon makes it possible for a person to have his own set of private facts which others are not privy to, allowing the YEC to construct a theory which is perfectly supported by the facts which the demon lets through the gate. And since these are the only facts known to the victim, he feels in his heart that he has explained everything. Indeed, the demon makes people feel morally superior and more knowledgeable than others.

The demon makes its victim feel very comfortable as there is no contradictory data in view. The demon is better than a set of rose colored glasses. The demon's victim does not understand why everyone else doesn't fall down and accept the victim's views. After all, the world is thought to be as the victim sees it and the demon doesn't let through the gate the knowledge that others don't see the same thing. Because of this, the victim assumes that everyone else is biased, or holding those views so that they can keep their job, or, in an even more devious attack by my demon, they think that their opponents are actually demon possessed themselves or sons of Satan. This is a devious demon!

Patrick

MrDarwin · 07-08-2003, 08:24 AM

I confronted Ed weeks ago about his claims about "modern birds" but he pretty much ignored that fact that he had been exposed in some glaring errors.

ps418 · 07-09-2003, 05:50 AM

Ed continues his pathetic defense:

Quote:

Ed:
Creatures having the characteristics of birds.

Quote:

ps418: So, then, we can intepret your original claim in the following way:

There are creatures that coexisted among archaeopteryxes that, like Archaeopteryx, have some characteristics of birds.

That's a nice bit of revisionist history, though it makes your original claim meaningless and irrelevant.

Quote:

Ed:
No, please read my actual post, I said creatures that have THE characteristics of birds.

I did read your actual post, mangled and imprecise as it was, and showed that, as usual, you were in error. Currently there are no known birds of the same age as Archaeopteryx that have as many birdlike characters as Archaeopteryx, much less more birdlike characters than Archaeopteryx, much less all the characteristics of modern birds.

Patrick

keyser_soze · 07-10-2003, 12:57 PM

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for his response, this is his usual practice. On the other hand, there is no reason to let the thread go down, perhaps you could lay out a crude timeline for those of us with no attention ability, so that we can mark it for reference. I have seen other apologists trying to use this same defense on a dozen boards in the last year.

Ed · 07-19-2003, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
From Ed, on this thread:
Fraid not, here is a direct quote from the University of California at Berkeley fossil bird website:
"The fossil record of birds is not extensive: the light, hollow bones of birds are not likely to survive as fossils. However, a growing number of unusually well-preserved fossil birds are contributing much to our understanding of bird evolution. 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. "

jtb: Note that Ed posted this AFTER various references to Confuciusornis on the previous Ed thread, such as this:

If you're referring to Confuciusornis, then you are making yet another error, since the earliest known members of this genus appear much, much later, approximately 20 million years later, than Archaeopteryx. Check out Swisher et al (1999)

...And this:

Ed:
Actually I didnt mean to say modern in the sense of modern robins and blue jays. I meant 100% birds were living at the same time. Like Protoavis and Confucianornis.

jtb: Ed, I have shown that there is no sense in which your original statement that modern birds coeexisted with Archaeopteryx is correct.

1. Protoavis is not thought to be a bird at all by most paleontologists. But even if it was, it certainly was not a modern bird, and is not placed in any existing order, familiy, or genus of birds. Also, the only specimen of Protoavis that exists is from the Triassic, and long predates Archaeopteryx, and so did not coexist with Archaeopteryx.

2. Confuciusornis is a bird, but in no sense is it a modern bird, since it does not belong to any existing order, familiy, or genus of birds. And since the oldest specimens of Confuciusornis post-date Archaeopteryx by 20 million years, neither can it be said to have coexisted with Archaeopteryx.

There can be no doubt that you made an error by claiming as fact something that simply is not true. Thus far you have refused to retract the error or even admit the mistake, despite repeated requests to do do. Observers here can only conclude that you have no problem propagating falsehoods, and no interest in admitting to or correcting your errors. Are you sure this is an effective way to champion the biblical worldview?

Patrick

The facts are pretty straightforward, Ed. Confuciusornis is NOT a "modern bird". Not only is it long extinct, it wasn't much more "birdlike" than Archaeopteryx even when it was around (for instance, like Archie, it had no wishbone). And it apparently didn't even coexist with Archie.

So, isn't it time to admit that your claim that "modern birds coexisted with Archaeopteryx" was a falsehood?

See my post about how that was a typo for 100% bird. Also reread my post from UCal Berkeley especially the italicized part. Apparently some real paleontologists disagree with you about the dating of Confuciusornus. I think I will stick with them rather than some hyperskeptical atheist non-paleontologist on the web.

Jack the Bodiless · 07-21-2003, 01:44 AM

Quote:

See my post about how that was a typo for 100% bird. Also reread my post from UCal Berkeley especially the italicized part. Apparently some real paleontologists disagree with you about the dating of Confuciusornus. I think I will stick with them rather than some hyperskeptical atheist non-paleontologist on the web.

Given the timescale involved, 20 million years IS "almost the same age". And ALSO "much later": a lot can happen in 20 million years. 20 million years ago, there were no hominids, for instance: all of the modern varieties of great ape had yet to emerge.

However, you're again failing to address the central lie: Confuciusornis is NOT a "modern bird". Not only is it not a currently-existing species, but it isn't much more "birdlike" than Archaeopteryx. It is not a member of the "modern-bird kind".

And this is the opinion of the actual experts, including those at Berkeley. Try telling THEM that "modern birds coexisted with Archaeopteryx" and they'll just laugh at you.

You are again misrepresenting the opinion of those who do NOT share your views.

Jack the Bodiless · 07-21-2003, 02:04 AM

Copied here from the "foramen magnum" thread:

Quote:

See my quote from the UCal Berkeley website, they believe that a 100% bird lived approximately the same time as Archaeopteryx, ie Confuciusornis.

OK, now QUOTE the claim from Berkeley that a "100% bird" lived at approximately the same time as Archaeopteryx.

Or admit that you lied.

NOTE: the quote you've already provided uses the term "bird" to include Archaeopteryx (this is clear from the description of Confuciusornis as "another bird"). So they're plainly NOT talking about "100% modern birds", because Archaeopteryx isn't. They mean "generally birdlike creature".

ps418 · 07-21-2003, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ed
See my post about how that was a typo for 100% bird.

Which, as I already pointed out, makes your point senseless. Archaeopteryx itself is a "100% bird." It is classfied as aves. If you mean to say that more derived bird existed at the same time as Archaeopteryx, then I remind you once again that there is zero evidence for such.

Quote:

Also reread my post from UCal Berkeley especially the italicized part. Apparently some real paleontologists disagree with you about the dating of Confuciusornus.

I did read it, and you are as flat wrong now as you were a month ago. Please give me a single peer-reviewed reference arguing for that the Yixian Formation deposits from which Confuciusornuis derive are less than 20 million years younger than Archaeopteryx, which Bathonian, Jurassic, particularly a reference that postdates the results of Swisher et al. Your reference says nothing at all the contradicts this. Next time you advise someone to read your reference, you may wish to pick a reference that actually supports your point.

Quote:

I think I will stick with them rather than some hyperskeptical atheist non-paleontologist on the web.

Stick with who? Whoever wrote the UCPM article, the one that did nto support your claim? Unlike fundymentalism, you dont have to take anybody's "word" for it. The age of Confuciusornis was settled by Swisher et al's 1999 40Ar/39Ar dates of the Yixian Formation, not by fiat of Infidels board members. And the early Cretaceous date for Confuciusornis is now universally accepted by paleontologists working in this area, as far as I can tell (e.g. Zhou et al, 2003). No matter how many times you ignore this, it wont go away. Zhou et al (2003, p. 808), after noting that evidence previously cited for a Late Jurassic age -- which is still much younger than Archaeopteryx in absolute terms-- is "either equivocal or flawed," cites a variety of evidence for the Cretaceous age for the entire Yixian Formation:

Quote:

Current evidence indicates that the Jehol Biota is of late Early Cretaceous age5,8,41�43,46. 40Ar�39Ar dates of 124.6 ^ 0.1Myr and 125.0 ^ 0.18Myr obtained from total fusion and incremental heating analyses of sanidine and biotite crystals from three different tuff layers in the �Jianshangou beds� of the Yixian Formation indicate referral to the Barremian stage41,42, whereas a 40Ar�39Ar date of 128.4 ^ 0.2Myr from a basalt capping the lowermost �Lujiatun beds� suggests a Hauterivian age for the base of the formation46. A 235U�207Pb zircon date of 125.2 ^ 0.9Myr for the Jianshangou beds is in close agreement46, and a mean age of 121.1 ^ 0.2Myr obtained from overlying lava layers and intrusive volcanics47 adds support to this conclusion41,42. Moreover, 40Ar�39Ar dates of 139.4 ^ 0.19Myr obtained from the underlying Tuchengzi Formation (demonstrating an earliest Cretaceous, Berriasian age for this unit)42 confirm that the succeeding Jehol Group was deposited during the Cretaceous period. An Early Cretaceous age is also supported by numerous biostratigraphical correlations5,8,43, although some of these present minor conflicts with radiometric dating, placing the deposits in the basalmost Cretaceous (Berriasian/Valanginian stages).

Now, then, we're still at the point where we started: what is the evidence for any 100% bird coexisting alongside Archaeopteryx?

Refs

Swisher, C. C., Y. Q. Wang, X. L. Wang, X. Xu, and Y. Wang. 1999. Cretaceous age for the feathered dinosaurs of Liaoning, China. Nature 400:58-61.

Zhou et al, 2003. An exceptionally preserved Lower Cretaceous ecosystem. Nature 421, 807-814.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-04-2003, 08:44 AM	#2
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	Ed has also failed to reveal what features he thinks a creature must have in order to be a "modern bird".

07-08-2003, 08:24 AM	#4
MrDarwin Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 4,140	I confronted Ed weeks ago about his claims about "modern birds" but he pretty much ignored that fact that he had been exposed in some glaring errors.

07-10-2003, 12:57 PM	#6
keyser_soze Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: god's judge (pariah) Posts: 1,281	I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for his response, this is his usual practice. On the other hand, there is no reason to let the thread go down, perhaps you could lay out a crude timeline for those of us with no attention ability, so that we can mark it for reference. I have seen other apologists trying to use this same defense on a dozen boards in the last year.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.