Eduard wrote::coffee:

There's not enough time in a day when people give such excellent refutations to read up on the citations and matters of interest. Cali and Susu give amazing insights! Well done folks

Meet archaeopteryx. What's that? "Just a bird"? Maybe it appears so at first glance, but when you examine the bones, they tell a different story.

Exhibit A) the tail. It has several vertebrae and is long and reptilian. What we see on modern birds is a short set of fused vertebrae called the pygostyle, shown here:


Exhibit B) the hands. The hands and feet are also made of unfused bone that ends in three claws, a typical saurian feature. Modern birds have fused hands with one protrusion:



Archaeopteryx's hand is in the middle of the picture, a modern bird's "hand" is at the bottom.

Exhibit C) Ventral ribs. These are not present of birds, but they are present on saurians.

Exhibit D) Nostrils. The archaeopteryx has these at the front of the upper maxilla while modern birds have them close to the eyes. Seen here:

Again, archaepteryx is middle, modern bird is bottom.
Also note how the spine attaches to the skull, the archaeopterx attaches to the back of the skull, a modern bird attaches more toward the bottom.

Exhibit E) Teeth. Archaeopteryx has teeth. Show me a modern bird population with teeth.



Exhibit F) The sacrum. The archaeopteryx sacrum contains 6 vertebrae (this is shared with reptiles), the bird sacrum contains between 11-23 vertebrae (depending on the bird species), but never 6.

Exhibit G) The snout. Archaeopteryx lacks a beak or bill which is a defining characteristic of modern birds.

So there you have it, the "bird" that isn't quite a bird (at least, not in the colloquial sense of the term) and has several prominent reptilian features (as well as others that take a little more training in paleontology and anatomy to spot). I await your flaccid denials.

Polanyi wrote:

ALL fucking fossils are exactly as transitional as all others (with the exception of those for which the fossils represent a dead end).

And evolutionists go into denial, I've heard this a thousand times already, Archaeopteryx supposedly was more dinosaur than bird because it had a long bony tail, teeth in it's beak, and claws on its wings, this was suppose to imply one thing: birds evolved from dinosaurs.

My purpose of this thread was merely to show why this assertion is problematic.

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:None of this is evidence birds evolved from theropods and, even if iy was, it wouldn't prove they evolved via Darwinian evolution.

Am I doing it right?

Blitzkrebs wrote:

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:Frankly, the thought of debunking all the woo readily embraced by the United States overwhelms me.

It needn't be. We can divide our workforce so each person gets assigned a different sect of Christianity or religion. I'll handle the New Agers because they probably have all the cool drugs. You get the Mormons.

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:Great. All I get is magical underwear.

Shrunk wrote:If I may, susu.exp and another member, sprite, provided this very clear explanation of the term "transitional" on the old RDF board. I've referred back to it several times since.

eddie.zdi wrote:It is the equivilant of a naked man running up t me in the street and telling me he has nicer clothes than me because my t-shirt has a hole in it.

GenesForLife wrote:is there someone or something named Please that is remaining on topic?

Blitzkrebs wrote:This is the most beautiful thing I've seen all week, withstanding my recent visit to the Portland Museum of Art.