Evolution Based On Lies?

[Winkelix]

Not too long ago, in 1999, a few scientist wanting to further thier careers and decieve many people published an article in N.G., claiming they found a half-bird, half-reptile. They tried to make it seem like it was a "missing link". They simply took dino bones, and combined them with a newer species of birds, and published a whole article about it in the Nov. 1999 issue of N.G.

This was obviously proved wrong later.

 

Some more info:

 

Evidence that does not support dinosaur to bird evolution

 

 

+ Birds wings and feet have digits 2-3-4, where as theropods had digits 1-2-3. This is another piece of evidence that demonstrates birds did not evolve from theropods.[18]

 

 

+ Birds lungs are uniquely equipped for prolonged aerobic activity with air sacs, and a unidirectional flow of air through the lung. Both features greatly increase the efficiency of flight, but there is no evidence of bird-like lungs in dinosaur remains.

 

 

+ Birds flight feathers are highly specialised for flight with interlocking barbules, which enable them to be linked like Velcro, and with excellent strength to weight ratio. They are perfectly designed for flight.

 

 

+ Genuine fossils found with feathers are real birds, although sometimes these birds are flightless as for instance Caudipteryx. Dino-fuzz is no more than collagen fibres that form the surface structure of reptile-like dinosaurs.

 

 

+ The dinosaur to bird evolutionary dating is full of contradictions as well. Archaeopteryx is acknowledged as a full bird and dated by evolutionists to 150m years ago, a full 20 million years older than Microraptor gui. Yanornis martini, also recognised as a fully-fledged bird, is allegedly the same age as Microraptor gui, which allegedly is still evolving into birds. It is perverse to suggest that dinosaurs were still evolving into birds when birds were already present. Bambiraptor was claimed to be even younger than these others at 75 million years old, but that didn’t stop it being presented with a partial covering of feathers even though no such structures were observed on the fossil.

 

This is all clear evidence that evolution isn't going anywhere. It's all based on lies. I'll post some other info later.

[Tormod]

While the dinosaurs-to-birds process is not yet proven, I fail to see how your post in any way deals with evolution on a general basis.

[InfiniteNow]

This is all clear evidence that evolution isn't going anywhere. It's all based on lies.

Well, perhaps not evolution of the human species anyway. Not if people keep thinking like this. :lol:

[ughaibu]

All fish I've encountered have some form of teeth, even if only rudimentary bumps along the jaw, but birds have none, so, I'm suspicious of the hypothesised dinosaur-bird lineage. On the other hand, squid and octopi have beaks, I reckon the paleontologists would do well looking for a cephalopod-bird missing link.

[InfiniteNow]

Not too long ago, in 1999, a few scientist wanting to further thier careers and decieve many people published an article in N.G., claiming they found a half-bird, half-reptile. They tried to make it seem like it was a "missing link". They simply took dino bones, and combined them with a newer species of birds, and published a whole article about it in the Nov. 1999 issue of N.G.

This was obviously proved wrong later.

 

The November 1999 issue of National Geographic magazine and the publication of fossil evidence referenced above was, in fact, retracted by the magazine in October 2000 when it was determined that the evidence was fraudulent. However, the mistake of one scientist does nothing to remove the validity in the work of others.

 

Dino Hoax Was Mainly Made of Ancient Bird, Study Says

"The really unfortunate aspect of the Archaeoraptor forgery was that it was used to suggest that other feathered dinosaur fossils were also faked, and added a layer of confusion to public understanding that shouldn't be there," said Clarke.

 

"There's an abundant amount of evidence that the lineage leading to birds is nested in Dinosauria," she said. "There are many feathered flying and non-flying dinosaur fossils from these two regions that are not forgeries."

 

 

While the dinosaurs-to-birds process is not yet proven...

This isn't really correct. There is pretty significant evidence of the connection, although you're right that we may not yet have a 100% understanding of it all. Although, I suppose it's possible that you were already saying this, just in a different way. :)

 

 

 

The article below in the journal Science, the June 3, 2005 issue, states with near certainty the connection:

 

Gender-Specific Reproductive Tissue in Ratites and Tyrannosaurus rex -- Schweitzer et al. 308 (5727): 1456 -- Science

Unambiguous indicators of gender in dinosaurs are usually lost during fossilization, along with other aspects of soft tissue anatomy. We report the presence of endosteally derived bone tissues lining the interior marrow cavities of portions of Tyrannosaurus rex (Museum of the Rockies specimen number 1125) hindlimb elements, and we hypothesize that these tissues are homologous to specialized avian tissues known as medullary bone. Because medullary bone is unique to female birds, its discovery in extinct dinosaurs solidifies the link between dinosaurs and birds, suggests similar reproductive strategies, and provides an objective means of gender differentiation in dinosaurs.

 

 

 

I fail to see how your post in any way deals with evolution on a general basis.

Indeed. Great point. Sounds to me like the OP was saying, "It didn't rain here today, so there's no such thing as weather." :lol:

 

 

Cheers. :cup:

[Winkelix]

While the dinosaurs-to-birds process is not yet proven, I fail to see how your post in any way deals with evolution on a general basis.

Today 12:22 PM

 

I'm not dealing about the facts of evolution, rather the validity. There have been many hoax's in evolution, and it makes me question whether it really is a valid theory.

 

I found another hoax (sorry, I can't post the website), and it was that sculls very similair to Neanderthals(or some other prehistoric human), were found in the graves of Latin American Indians. They took babies destined to be slaves, and flattened out their heads, marking them forever as slaves. It was a horrific practice, but still, the Neanderthals might have just been Aztec slaves. This confuses me a lot, and makes me question evolution.

 

Another is fossils. A person I know lives by the Niagara Escarpment. He lives by an area with many fossils, and he did a little math a while ago. There was about 100 meters of rock, all with fossils. An explanation board there said it all accumulated in 50 million years. This would mean that every 5000 one of sediment accumulates. How can a skeleton possibly sit that long in one place, without being disturbed for 5000(or more, depending on how big it is) years? It's almost impossible!

[Winkelix]

Another thing I found out. A few years ago, some scientists found a T-rex fossil, estimated to be 68 million years old. It had soft tissue in it, and scientists think it contains cells and blood vessels. I consider this a good thing, because scientists can learn more about how they lived and stuff like that, but how can is survive for 68 million years? It seems way to far fetched for me.

[Dobin]

I found another hoax (sorry, I can't post the website), and it was that sculls very similair to Neanderthals(or some other prehistoric human), were found in the graves of Latin American Indians. They took babies destined to be slaves, and flattened out their heads, marking them forever as slaves. It was a horrific practice, but still, the Neanderthals might have just been Aztec slaves. This confuses me a lot, and makes me question evolution.

 

Neanderthals couldn't have been Aztec slaves. They lived mainly in Europe and the Middle east, and were extinct about 24000 years ago, far before the Aztec civilization. Most likely, as you stated, the skulls are deformed through some sort of traditional practice, just as many other cultures have forms of contorting their bodies. Chinese foot bindings come first to my mind.

 

I still dont see how this changes the validity of Evolution. If you continue to stumble across claims such as these, I suggest you check their facts with other sources.

[Zythryn]

There was this faith-healing preacher in Kansas who was shown be be a fraud. Obviously since there are people that will act fraudulently using religion, religion is false?

Is this the logic you are using Winkelix?

[InfiniteNow]

I would like to ask the membership to see winkelix as a person searching for information. Let's do the right thing and share accurate information with them. It's clear that there are some sources of information they are currently using which are both 1) inaccurate, and 2) not fully understood. Let's do this the Hypography way and share knowledge, discrediting misinformation, and mentoring the (what I presume to be) young man into becoming a more learned individual.

[Cedars]

 

Some more info:

 

Evidence that does not support dinosaur to bird evolution

 

 

+ Birds wings and feet have digits 2-3-4, where as theropods had digits 1-2-3. This is another piece of evidence that demonstrates birds did not evolve from theropods.[18]

 

 

This is all clear evidence that evolution isn't going anywhere. It's all based on lies. I'll post some other info later.

 

I am not sure you havent mixed up some information you were told/read sometime in the past. Its easy enough to do, I do it myself.

 

Heres two links (covering the same story) directly related to the first point you make.

 

Oldest bird had dinosaur feet - life - 01 December 2005 - New Scientist

 

Early Birds Had Dinosaur Feet | LiveScience

 

As a side note, you should maybe read about the penguin bone structure. This bird no longer has hollow bones via evolution and the need to sink. The difference between the penguins 'wings' and a flighted birds wings are quite distinct.

 

Google Penguin skeleton and I think the link is something like learningweb.

[Michaelangelica]

While the dinosaurs-to-birds process is not yet proven, I fail to see how your post in any way deals with evolution on a general basis.

Today 12:22 PM

 

I'm not dealing about the facts of evolution, rather the validity. There have been many hoax's in evolution, and it makes me question whether it really is a valid theory.

You are rabbiting on about something you know little about.

What about the new creationist museum with dinosaurs on Noha's ark?

What sort of a hoax do you think that is?

 

If I believed in an omnipotent, all knowing, god I would be more in awe if I knew he started everything with a big bang a long time ago.

"At first there was nothing and then it exploded"-terry prattchett

Or

Perhaps

"At first there was something and then it exploded." In an instant all the chemicals that make you and I were made.

I find that awesome.

An omnipotent god doesn't need to be tied down to man's silly idea of "time" or some scribblings in a "holy" book.

[swampfox]

 

This is all clear evidence that evolution isn't going anywhere. It's all based on lies.

 

It's Deja vu all over again. How can you know about the cube if you only see the square? How do you know the man if you only see his shadow? Evolution is much more than the images we see in biology. Beneath it all lies a marvelous hidden mechanism but our minds have difficulty understanding it: our intellects are limited and we make errors accidental or otherwise. Try not to miss the forest for the trees by focusing on inconsistencies caused by human frailties. Seek the hidden source of it all. There I believe you'll find something wonderful: an elegant clockwork created not by the Lord's Quantum Mechanics but rather dynamics, dynamics more beautiful than we presently can imagine. But we're starting to grasp it in the form of complexity theory, emergence, and non-linear dynamics. And like the book I read as a child on the history of Medicine, they too will one day read about us and think the same as I did about the people before us: "it's so easy now . . . they just didn't know back then".

[Winkelix]

I would like to ask the membership to forgive me for my rashness. I still need to learn a lot.

 

I would like to ask the membership to see winkelix as a person searching for information.. InfiniteNow

 

Very true

 

If you continue to stumble across claims such as these, I suggest you check their facts with other sources. Dobin

 

You made a point there, i did use wikipedia:doh: .

 

It's clear that there are some sources of information they are currently using which are both 1) inaccurate, and 2) not fully understood

InfiniteNow

Wikipedia can sometimes be good, but sometimes it's just plain inaccurate

[CraigD]

Wikipedia can sometimes be good, but sometimes it's just plain inaccurate

This is true. It’s the responsibility of wikipedia users – who can be anyone – to correct inaccuracies in a consensus-finding manner consistent with its conventions and standards.

 

In other words, if you don’t like a wikipedia article, don’t just complain about it – fix it. If you are unable to reach a consensus about an article with other wikipedia users, you are likely misunderstanding its role as an encyclopedia, which is to present widely agreed-upon knowledge, not offer new ideas for comment and debate.

 

This latter role is reserved for sites such as hypography. Enjoy.

[freeztar]

Systematics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cladistics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Those two links above give a good idea of what is needed to discuss a topic such as this. I've personally reviewed these for consensus on my part and feel confident posting these wiki links as good representations of the respective subjects.

 

I do have a problem with the last paragraph in the first section of the first link which states:

Systematics is also of major importance in understanding conservation issues because it attempts to explain the Earth's biodiversity and could be used to assist in allocating limited means to preserve and protect endangered species, by looking at, for example, the genetic diversity among various taxa of plants or animals and deciding how much of that it is necessary to preserve.

 

I think that statement is unnecessary for the article and represents a narrow viewpoint. I will, as CraigD suggests, make my voice heard on this point. Nonetheless, the preceding paragraphs consisting of the first part were spot on.

 

And now, with the above understood, a recent example:

"Feathered" Dinosaur Was Bald, Not Bird Ancestor, Controversial Study Says

 

 

I'll ask this question, Why do we not see feathers everywhere if there are so many birds about?

[Winkelix]

I am totally neutral on this subject here, and I want to learn a bit from every side. I was just wondering what evolutionists think of the t-rex with the soft tissue that may contain cells and blood vessels. This I didn't get off wikipedia:) , I got it from Discover magazine (though it may still be a fraud, since it was discovered by a creationist). If it is true though, would it be an easy hurdle for evolution to jump over?