Jack the Bodiless

I think you're missing a little "background" there, Randman.

There is no doubt that birds evolved from archosaurs, the same group of reptiles that dinosaurs evolved from. The only controversy is whether or not the ancestors of birds should be classed as "dinosaurs", or classed as a separate branch of the archosaurs (a group which also includes crocodilians, BTW, hence the DNA similarities between birds and crocs: more evidence for evolution).

There is also no doubt that some archosaurs had feathers (or feather-like structures). But it's a huge leap to propose feathered Tyrannosaurs from that. Some mammals have spines, but we do not.

That's the "controversy" being referred to.

But don't expect to get that from FalseOrigin.

randman

Jack, the point is concerning tactics used to popularize evolutionary concepts.

Malaclypse the Younger

• National Geographic is not a peer-reviewed scientific publication
• The National Geographic Society is a private organization; no one can restrain them from publishing anything they choose, wrong or right
• National Geographic apologized in print for the error
• A <a href="http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&querytime=AKfWE&q=Smiths onian+%22National+Geographic%22+evolution+Archaeor aptor" target="_blank">Google Search</a> reveals that this error has been widely publicized
• Even though NGS made an error, the truth does not cast doubt on evolutionary theory, merely a particular conclusion

Science is an error correcting enterprise. That errors exist is unremarkable; indeed if errors did not exist, there would be no need for mechanism to correct them.

National Geographic, a private organization, made a huge and embarassing error, which appears to have been adequetely corrected.

What's your point?

Malaclypse the Younger

It is also worth noting that the correction of this error came from one (many!) of "our own".

What's your point, randman? That human beings are fallible and some of them stupid? Such a statement is not at all in doubt, as you yourself have shown.

Jack the Bodiless

BTW, Randman, you posted a link to a FalseOrigin article containing fifteen creationist lies, on <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000490&p=3" target="_blank">this page</a>.

Just in case you missed that...

MrDarwin

It's also worth noting that National Geographic lost a huge amount of prestige and credibility among scientists over this, and the people responsible for the Archaeoraptor were widely excoriated in the scientific press. The Archaeoraptor fiasco was big news, both in the scientific press and the popular press.

Ironically, randman complains that scientists don't correct the mistakes that occur in the course of teaching or popularizing science, then as evidence turns around and quotes a scientist who is doing exactly what randman is complaining scientists don't do!

Daggah

Furthermore, most evolutionary scientists were skeptical of archeoraptor from the very beginning.

RufusAtticus

Hey, randman, could you point to a single textbook that used archeoraptor as an example of evolution? Afterall, that's where your beef lies, right?

-RvFvS

Valentine Pontifex

Of course Tim LaHay claims that Archeoraptor was used for "many years to brainwash naive school children".