Topic awaiting preservation: A four-winged dinosaur...the evolutionary intermediate? (Page 1 of 2)

This is just fantastic...and should shut-up all those anti-evolutionists, who keep saying there are no evolutionary intermidiate fossil records...Full Story here. Here is a bit from the article

quote:

---

Many key questions remain about just where these unique beasts fit along the evolutionary path from dinosaurs to modern birds, but scientists have never seen their like before and are already speculating about the aerodynamics of the dinosaurs' strange anatomy.

"It's an incredible discovery, the kind of thing we've wished for -- well, for centuries now," said Kevin Padian, a noted paleontologist at UC Berkeley. "The specimens are potentially as important as archaeopteryx," he said, referring to the world's first known true bird.

The report on the 128 million-year-old fossils is appearing in today's issue of the international scientific journal Nature by veteran Chinese paleontologists, headed by Xing Xu and Zhonghe Zhou of the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

---

I find this part to be of most interest

quote:

---

Although no fossil of a dinosaur with four full-fledged wings had ever been known to science, the famed deep-sea-diving naturalist William Beebe, who died in 1962, believed that they must have existed. Beebe roamed the world from the Galapagos to Europe and Asia and was an early advocate of the theory that modern birds evolved from dinosaurs.

In a monograph published in 1915 in the journal Zoologica, he predicted that four-winged dinosaurs looking exactly like Microraptor gui must have existed in the distant past because infant birds were born with downy legs.

---

Ahhh...I love fossiles...

from article

quote:

---

Moreover, he said, "there is no reason to assume that gliding is a necessary way-station to flight, nor that a gliding animal will necessarily evolve powered flight.

---

This sentence just got me thinking, and then suddenly I was picturing a dinosaur, and next thing I knew like in fast forward, I saw a mental image of the dinosaur evolving into the birds we have today. It was like 2 millions years of change seen in super-duper high speed fast forward. It was quite interesting and a rather overwhelming feeling.

Of course all of this is probably just because my wife is 8 1/2 months pregnant, and she is not sleeping well, so therefore neither am I.

Just thought I would share that.

Thanks for the article.

Cell 816~ teamEarth ~Asylum Quotes

Well, congrats!!!

Good stuff, WS. Dinosaurs rule!!! (ummm... I mean they used to)

. . : slicePuzzle

Thanks Bugs.

And yeah, Dinosaurs rule...the air, anyway...

That's one wierd looking creature...hehe...

That's the kind of dinosaur that got beat up in high school.

It's a....flying...monkey...lizard....


very cool find =)

Good job...Score one for the evolutionists, although I am still sticking to my beliefs. Just personal preference, but I am definatly not a "blind believer, I think."

This is a question about evolution that I had though: If it were true, then where did the original chemicals and inanimate object come from?

<.~ - - - - :!: - - - - ~.>

You are not special.
You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake.
You are the same decaying
organic matter as everything
else.

<.~ - - - - :!: - - - - ~.>

[This message has been edited by counterfeitbacon (edited 01-28-2003).]

webshaman?

quote:

---

Ahhh...I love fossiles...

---

how old *is* your wife?

Hehe...she's coming personally to you to reply to that

cfb - hmmm...well, as of yet, no evidence that directly supports the theories (of the beginnings of the Universe)...but, you could give Science a chance... As for where the material came from (you mean the beginning of the Universe, right?)...well, that's something that Science is still trying to figure out. Theories abound...so, we will see...with a bit of time, and luck, maybe the evidence for that is just around the corner...who knows? Cetainly, there is a lot of indirect evidence...and a lot of scientists are working on it...

I think that this fossil is really exciting...for many opponents of evolution have espoused the lack of 'intermediaries' in the fossil records...well, now we have some. Once again, Science comes through with the evidence...was just a matter of time...and a bit of luck.

Still one wierd looking creature, though...hehe.

It's amazing, the way a creature like this can develop. More eye-candy for the Darwinists!

RN3... amazing??? You mean like miraculous sort of amazing?

WS, didn't we settle this in the formal debate? If there was a beginning, science will never be able to touch it.

. . : slicePuzzle

Oh, fond memories, that debate...we need to get another going...

It was really an honor to debate with and against you, Bugs...treasured memories...

But we didn't really get much into what came before the Big Bang...at least, I didn't...because there is no real reliable evidence, as such...it would have been all conjecture...

Fond memories here too, in spades

My point was *not* referring to the Big Bang. Why? Because the Big Bang may very well have been one of millions of big bangs which would not mark the beginning of Creation. What I mean to say is that if indeed there was nothing prior to everything we know as the Universe then science will never be able to touch *that*. Science deals with the universe but it cannot go beyond its boundaries.


[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 01-28-2003).]

I'll accept evolution, I never haven't accepted evolution, especially micro-evolution. I mean, even if you beleive in the Bible you have to beleive in evolution (Noah's ark is what I'm thinking of). I don't see why evolutionists and creationists can't just get along. If you fit both theories together, you'd come up with a sound theory that isn't disputable. You know: God created everything, and let it run it's course, but he intervenes. Humans didn't evolve, but some animals did, and some evoloved into abstractly new creatures, while others just created variations of themselves (eg dogs).

it would be impossible to state that humans did not evolve if you state that everything else did (even on a very small level)

"Here we go.. down that same 'ole road again.." - Dredg

What if humans were created amidst changing creatures?

They would still evolve... we're evolving as we ... type

"Here we go.. down that same 'ole road again.." - Dredg

I'd agree with that, were adapting, but why can't the two theories accept each other, and use each of there qualities to explain the other? Like where matter came from? God could of created it, but let it go at it's own pace. He could of let animals adapt and evolve, and created man in the midst of it.

Sanzen, man hasn't even been on the planet long enough to evolve. What are you talking about? A few thousand years is a drop in the bucket when it comes to seeing any significant changes in a species.

Obviously, that's not quite true, Bugs...what about the appendix (useless organ), wisdom teeth, and balding?

If these don't have anything to do with evolution, then why did God include such imperfections into the human race?

Or were Adam and Eve made without appendixes and wisdom teeth?

And what about body hair?

Modern man has all of those traits, doesn't he?

But upon reflection, I see that I dodged your question and that really sucks.

If God created Adam at a certain point in time, then it is my view that he allowed the organism we know as Modern Man to progress to a certain point in evolutionary history at which point the "breath of life" was breathed into him and he became a "living" being. I totally accept that without our spirits we are animals just like any other on this planet.

I've been meaning to point out that I found myself agreeing almost totally with that link Gilbert posted a little while back... ah yes this one Evolutionary Creationism.

Did you get a chance to read through that one? I'll admit I got about a third of the way through and skimmed to the end but it looked right on target with my feelings at this point in my understanding.

Oh yes...I remember that! Yes, I read it...very interesting...

Yes, one could make the case of Evolutionary Creationism...that brings us back to the original Creator issue, of course...

That interesting debate between is the Universe a natural occurance, or a created one. Unfortunatly, neither Science nor Religion is able to answer this question resoundingly...at least, not yet. It's still a question of belief...

I believe (since I have no real evidence to present) that it is a natural phenomena...since I don't believe in an original Creator...

A natural phenomenon? But before, there would of been nothing, right? Just empty space. OR maybe there wasn't space at all. How can something come out of nothing? That defies the laws of Physics...

...Link=Bookmark! I read about half way through, I'll read the rest later. I'm tending to agree with (most of) it.

No, it violates nothing...because the laws of physics only apply within our universe...and not necessarily in what came before...or from outside of our universe...

Also, it is not clear, if the universe is an ever-expanding one, or a collapsing one...so at this point, it is conjecture, as to whether or not there is a beginning...in that, I mean a first beginning, or origin.

If it was collapsing, for example, then one would naturally wonder how it first got started...but that doesn't mean that there has to have been a first start...it depends on what happens to time, within the final collapse...remember, that the laws of physics may change within the framework of the Big Bang...so, at this point, until there is concrete evidence, it is all theory and conjecture...albeit there is a lot of indirect evidence...

quote:

---

How can something come out of nothing? That defies the laws of Physics...

---

So...where did 'god' come from?

And that, indeed, is the question...and both are impossible to answer, at the moment.

But...at least one can explain possiblilities, to how the universe started...and what came before. Explaining how God came to be, along Scientific lines, is much harder...what, it just popped out of nowhere? Then God is nothing? And if it came from somewhere else, then it is not a supreme being...for then something must have created it.

Would you settle for a God that created the universe, but was, in turn, created by another, more powerful being? And where does the cycle end?

The easiest answer to that DL, is to say that God always was

In fact, there are many who believe the physical universe always was too.

So, in other words (just to make sure we're clear here =), religion can't explain the beginning of things any better than science?

Now, I don't think anyone from any perspective could ever explain how it all started, as it's pretty close to impossible to comprehend "nothing". And how could there be nothing...and then be something...

Yes.

When it comes to answering how any one thing could have become something from absolute nothing, I would agree it really becomes a philosophical point where you choose from "it always existed" or "it had a beginning".

anything that can be "proven" so to speak can be re-worded and such to be .. disproven. Every creating 'myth' is a hypothesis yet to be proven, and none of them have shown significant enough proof that such and such actually happened. All of this relies on faith... the scientist is said to not have faith enough to believe in creation by god, but thats quite ironic. because he has the faith to believe that matter was created out of nothing? Has anyone ever thought that the world was created by other beings? "Extraterrestrials.." as they are so appropriately named. Perhaps they found a way to create a vortex that sucked molecules together and caused a chemical reaction that formed gas that created the earth.... You can believe anything you like. None of it happened. It can't be explained and it wont be.

"Salting the back of a snail... My turkish prison is knowing that i fit in...."- Glassjaw

Sanzen, this

quote:

---

anything that can be "proven" so to speak can be re-worded and such to be .. disproven.

--Sanzen

---

is not always true...if I hold an apple, and drop it (on Earth), then Newton's proof of gravity works. The apple falls. This proof doesn't describe Gravity, only the mechanisms behind the falling of the apple. That is Science.

Conjecture, theory, and postulation, is something different. Until proven, they remain just that...conjectures, theories, and postulations.

Science (in its purest form) is not based on Belief! It's based on providing evidence, that can readily be repeated...to show that it is true. Sometimes, this process is not fully researched, which can (and often does) lead to revisions, as new facts become known, or old 'facts' get disproven.

The only way, to actually prove Religion (or Belief) is if there was provable evidence of God's existence. There may (or may not) be indirect evidence, but the heart of the issue is unproven. That's why it is an issue of belief.

As for the 'beginning of everything' theories...well, they are just that, theories...or beliefs, if you will. It's just that some of them are based on the Scientific method, and others on the Religious method. I personally tend to lean towards the Scientific theories, myself, for I feel that this method has the best chance of proving the issue...

Religion requires me to believe, without proof. Science does not.

you might find this to be interesting

"I can repeat the question, but am I bright enough to ask it?"


[This message has been edited by outcydr (edited 01-30-2003).]

oops


[This message has been edited by outcydr (edited 01-30-2003).]

All I have to say about that, though it was interesting, is

quote:

---

Now do you believe that this protein motor which manufactures ATP has been created by chance or was it the design of an intelligent mind.
This is the issue facing each one of us.
I personally cannot believe it has originated by chance.


--Biblemaths

---

This article is old, apparently...science has already found that the materials needed for organic life are found free-floating in space...one just needs the right conditions for it to start. The Author admits, that it is still, despite the article, a personal choice to believe or not.

We often talk about the creationism vs. evolution, and I've read many articles that provide evidence for evolution. What I haven't really been exposed to is evidence for Creationism.

We should start a thread that just discusses the pros and cons of Creationism and provide evidence for or against it while steering clear of evolutionary arguements. That way we could discuss it's merits without devolving into the same old God - antiGod arguement.

Great idea! Let's get a Debate started! I'm submitting the idea now...

Well, after crawling through that article that outcydr provided...hoboy...I can only say, the man is off his rocker. Much of this stuff was done before, by a Russian Mathmetician, who tried to prove that God existed mathmatically. It was disproven, and the Russian Mathmetician eventually ended up in a madhouse...

As for Pi and E...maw gawd, the guy is really going bananas over this...but the values are incorrect...so much for that...

From his 'Indisputable facts' comes nothing factual out...

*shrugs*

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 01-30-2003).]

The theory of evolution has lots of problems of that you can be sure ***BUT*** proving Evolution wrong does *not* prove Creationism right.

. . : slicePuzzle

quote
"and the Russian Mathmetician eventually ended up in a madhouse..."

like in an asylum?

bwahahaha...couldn't resist that one...bwahahaha...
*runs away*

Maybe he's Ruski?