Real Science Friday: An Extinct Bird - Archaeopteryx

[One Eyed Jack]

It sounds to me like Feduccia's whole point about Archaeopteryx was that many people think this was a creature that ran around on the ground, like we think of dinosaurs doing, and it had feathers.

What I think he was saying is that this creature was not like that image; it was something that flew and had perching claws for sitting in trees, like we imagine birds doing.

I looked for sourced comments to give some context, but I really don't think that he was saying this creature was not a clear transitional form between the dinosaurs and birds, because it clearly is.

No, that's exactly what he was saying. Feduccia doesn't believe that birds evolved from dinosaurs. He believes they evolved from something else.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

How they were fossilized isn't the issue *at all*. The issue at hand is a simple matter of categorization. Even if they were all alive today, would you class Archeopteryx with the birds or the feathered dinosaurs and why? Or would you group them all together?

What difference would it make? To you, a chicken (which is clearly a bird) is a feathered dinosaur.

 

[Frayed Knot]

No, that's exactly what he was saying. Feduccia doesn't believe that birds evolved from dinosaurs. He believes they evolved from something else.

Sure 'nuff, I didn't realize that. However, in reading up on him, he thinks that birds didn't descend from the theropod dinosaurs like is the standard view, but he thinks that the theropod and birds share an earlier common ancestor.

So instead of archaeopteryx being theropods' descendant, archaeopteryx was theropods' cousin. I guess what's clear to all is that they're closely related.

Either way, it doesn't help Enyart's case.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Sure 'nuff, I didn't realize that. However, in reading up on him, he thinks that birds didn't descend from the theropod dinosaurs like is the standard view, but he thinks that the theropod and birds share an earlier common ancestor.

That's a pretty standard view too, from an evolutionist perspective. After all, don't you believe that humans and bananas have a common ancestor, way back when?

So instead of archaeopteryx being theropods' descendant, archaeopteryx was theropods' cousin. I guess what's clear to all is that they're closely related.

At least as closely related as humans and bananas, right?

Either way, it doesn't help Enyart's case.

I believe Enyart's case is that archaeopteryx was a bird rather than a dinosaur. How does Feduccia's agreement with that hurt Enyart's case?

 

[Alate_One]

No, that's exactly what he was saying. Feduccia doesn't believe that birds evolved from dinosaurs. He believes they evolved from something else.

And the something else is . . .another reptile which you STILL don't believe! So what's the point in quote mining Feduccia?

Personally I think it's blatantly obvious that Birds evolved from dinosaurs. I'm not sure how old that paper is that Bob quote mined, but Feduccia is now Professor Emeritus (that's retired for you non-academics). Feduccia has even changed his own position as more fossils are found and more detailed genetic research is done.

But he's essentially playing the same game you did with the whale fossils. The fossils look exactly like they belong in the other group, but you say they can't because there's one feature that bothers you. Feathered dinosaurs can't be dinosaurs because he said so admitting it would upend his little apple cart.

The bottom line is even if Feduccia were right (and he's one of a tiny number of scientists that disagree with the theropod hypothesis), that wouldn't cause a problem for evolution in the slightest . . . .

 

[Alate_One]

What difference would it make? To you, a chicken (which is clearly a bird) is a feathered dinosaur.

Cladistically all birds are dinosaurs. But not all dinosaurs are birds.

What I'm saying is if any open minded person looks at the archeopteryx skeleton and compares it to a modern bird and a Theropod dinosaur, it looks a LOT more like a Theropod than a modern bird.

I am surprised that a creationist would be willing to lump something so different with birds. There are a *lot* of changes that have to take place to get from Archeopteryx to a modern bird.

But you guys seem to be willing to call anything with feathers a bird . . . No matter how vastly different the skeleton might be. :chuckle:

 

[One Eyed Jack]

And the something else is . . .another reptile which you STILL don't believe!

So?

So what's the point in quote mining Feduccia?

How was this quote taken out of context?

Personally I think it's blatantly obvious that Birds evolved from dinosaurs. I'm not sure how old that paper is that Bob quote mined, but Feduccia is now Professor Emeritus (that's retired for you non-academics). Feduccia has even changed his own position as more fossils are found and more detailed genetic research is done.

Link?

But he's essentially playing the same game you did with the whale fossils. The fossils look exactly like they belong in the other group, but you say they can't because there's one feature that bothers you. Feathered dinosaurs can't be dinosaurs because he said so admitting it would upend his little apple cart.

The bottom line is even if Feduccia were right (and he's one of a tiny number of scientists that disagree with the theropod hypothesis), that wouldn't cause a problem for evolution in the slightest . . . .

Of course it wouldn't. So has he changed his position or hasn't he? You seem to be arguing out of both sides of your mouth.

 

[Alate_One]

How was this quote taken out of context?

You're trying to use it in an anti-evolution context. The guy still believes evolution. If your goal is to dismantle evolution, you're barking up the wrong tree.

Of course it wouldn't. So has he changed his position or hasn't he? You seem to be arguing out of both sides of your mouth.

He hasn't accepted the theropod hypothesis, he's simply had to shift his interpretation of the data to try and deal with the new information that's causing his ideas problems. Read this article and the links to get a sense of it.

He's tried to assert that sinosauropteryx didn't have protofeathers but collagen fibers, and then he decided that all most of the feathered dinosaurs had to be birds that lost the ability to fly. Nevermind the fact that the same site has mammals with fur and reptiles with scale impressions. Then he waved his arms and said convergent evolution explained all the similarities between birds and dinosaurs.

He's essentially saying that birds must have evolved from something else but he can't seem to name what that something else could be.

This is a snippet of what Richard Prum had to say.

Feduccia (2002) offers an alternative to the theropod hypothesis of bird origins that is so vague as to be literally untestable. When Heilmann (1926) fi rst proposed the basal archosaur hypothesis of avian origins, he described it optimistically as “wholly without short comings.” Similarly, Feduccia (2002) describes his hypothesized early ancestral archosaurian lineage as having “less specialized anatomical baggage” than theropod dinosaurs. This ancestral tabula rasa hypothesis has survived the intervening 75 years between them only because it is permanently immune to falsifi cation. Any potential character conflicts between birds and any known archosaurs can be rejected as irrelevant because the specifi c organisms can be claimend to not actually represent the yet unknown, hypothetical ancestor that perfectly conforms to the theory. Feduccia’s advocacy of an unfalsifi able alternative hypothesis violates a fundamental tenet of science, but it also permits him to continue his permanent rhetorical battle against the theropod hypothesis of avian origin.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

You're trying to use it in an anti-evolution context.

Why shouldn't I? I don't have to accept evolution to agree that archaeopteryx is a bird.

The guy still believes evolution. If your goal is to dismantle evolution, you're barking up the wrong tree.

It's just another brick in the wall.

 

[Paulos]

I don't have to accept evolution to agree that archaeopteryx is a bird.

According to Talkorigins.org, Archeopteryx had teeth, which no modern birds have, and it had no bill, which all modern birds do have. In fact, Archeopteryx had far more in common with ancient reptiles than with modern birds.

 

[Dr.Watson]

According to Talkorigins.org, Archeopteryx had teeth, which no modern birds have, and it had no bill, which all modern birds do have. In fact, Archeopteryx had far more in common with ancient reptiles than with modern birds.

Don't bother with facts. YEC's aren't interested in them. Citing facts is just an exercise in their incredulity.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Don't bother with facts. YEC's aren't interested in them. Citing facts is just an exercise in their incredulity.

I listen to Mel - - Mulder on AFR . . . most afternoons from school/work . . . his general argument is one of incredulity and monkeyshine words . . . a lot like WizardofOz.

 

[Alate_One]

It's just another brick in the wall.

No, it isn't. It's a tangential issue. A poster on the wall, not the wall itself. It's an argument over WHAT birds evolved from, and you're taking a minority view which is untestable and therefore not science.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

According to Talkorigins.org, Archeopteryx had teeth, which no modern birds have, and it had no bill, which all modern birds do have. In fact, Archeopteryx had far more in common with ancient reptiles than with modern birds.

Alan Feduccia is an ornithologist, and he's says it's a bird. What are you?

 

[One Eyed Jack]

No, it isn't. It's a tangential issue. A poster on the wall, not the wall itself.

I never said it was the wall itself -- just a brick in it. How about letting me make my own metaphors?

It's an argument over WHAT birds evolved from, and you're taking a minority view which is untestable and therefore not science.

Nice try, Alate_One, but I don't subscribe to any view in which reptiles evolved into birds. On the other hand, I've never had a problem with calling a spade a spade. Or a bird a bird.

 

[Alate_One]

Alan Feduccia is an ornithologist, and he's says it's a bird. What are you?

Again, if Archeopteryx is a bird then are you willing to believe that ancestral birds had teeth, long tails, unkeeled sternum, no beak etc. and they later evolved to have them?

The point is Archeopteryx has more characteristics in common with things like microraptor and comsognathus. If you call it a bird, what are these other organisms? Are they all birds or are they dinosaurs? Where is the line?

 

[Flipper]

Alan Feduccia is an ornithologist, and he's says it's a bird. What are you?

Well, here's what he actually says about Archaeopteryx:

"Hi, Ryan,

Yes, of course this is preposterous. I was the person who coined the phrase in 1980 that, "Archaeopteryx is a Rosetta Stone of evolution!"

Archaeopteryx is clearly transitory between reptiles and birds; the question is: what group of reptiles. The current dogma is that birds are directly derived from theropod dinosaurs, but there are numerous serious problems with this proposal, namely,

-the time line is all wrong.
-requires a ground-up origin of flight.
-many characters don't match, especially the digits.
-requires that all sophisticated flight architecture be evolved in an
earth-bound, flightless dinosaur!!

At any rate count on the creationists to misquote people to foster their cause.

Best wishes, alan

Source

 

[Alate_One]

I never said it was the wall itself -- just a brick in it. How about letting me make my own metaphors?

I'm gonna correct them if they're wrong.

Nice try, Alate_One, but I don't subscribe to any view in which reptiles evolved into birds.

Then you don't actually agree with Feduccia. Whether Archeopteryx is classed as a bird or dinosaur is actually immaterial to evolutionary theory. Fact is, it is transitional between birds and reptiles, no matter what those *particular* reptiles are.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Again, if Archeopteryx is a bird then are you willing to believe that ancestral birds had teeth, long tails, unkeeled sternum, no beak etc. and they later evolved to have them?

No -- how many times must I tell you I don't believe in evolution? I just think archaeopteryx was an unusual type of bird.

The point is Archeopteryx has more characteristics in common with things like microraptor and comsognathus. If you call it a bird, what are these other organisms? Are they all birds or are they dinosaurs? Where is the line?

Ask Alan Feduccia -- he's the bird expert.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Then you don't actually agree with Feduccia.

I agree with him that archaeopteryx is a bird.

Whether Archeopteryx is classed as a bird or dinosaur is actually immaterial to evolutionary theory.

Who cares? I'm not an evolutionist.

Fact is, it is transitional between birds and reptiles, no matter what those *particular* reptiles are.

Feduccia says it's a full-fledged bird.