Xiaotingia zhengi: Newly discovered relative of Archeopteryx

Posted in the Evolution Debate Forum

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#1 Jul 29, 2011
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/07/xi...

The Chinese have discovered a new species that appears transitional between dinosaurs and birds. It has now been included in a computer database that helps determine the phylogenic tree. It has numerous similarities to Archeopteryx, but also has similarities to dinosaurs such as Dromaeosaurus.

The new relations revealed show Archeopteryx to be more closely related to the Dromaeosaurs and more distantly related to true birds.

Creationists will probably crow about this, failing to understand what the science really says. However, as PZ Myers says...

"But don't worry, Archaeopteryx still represents a beautiful example of a transitional form. This new fossil is just another transitional form discovered. Creationists cannot take any consolation from it: Archaeopteryx isn't suddenly gone, it's become a part of a richer picture of bird evolution."

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#2 Jul 30, 2011
Well, as was predicted, the creationists are having a tempest in a teapot over Xiaotingia. Science is so hard and messy.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/07/an...
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#3 Jul 30, 2011
IIRC the "creationist" ... "answer" ... to Archaeopteryx has always been "it's just a perching bird". Yeah, with NO beak, teeth, claws on it's "hands and a spine that comes out of the back of it's head.

Their answer to this will be similar (if they don't ignore it altogether).

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#4 Jul 31, 2011
MIDutch wrote:
IIRC the "creationist" ... "answer" ... to Archaeopteryx has always been "it's just a perching bird". Yeah, with NO beak, teeth, claws on it's "hands and a spine that comes out of the back of it's head.
Their answer to this will be similar (if they don't ignore it altogether).
And the long reptilian tail, and...

The list can go on quite a while. But of course the creationists have no interest in such "fine" details.

Since: Dec 06

Urbana, Illinois

#5 Jul 31, 2011
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyn gula/2011/07/xiaotingia_zhengi .php
The Chinese have discovered a new species that appears transitional between dinosaurs and birds. It has now been included in a computer database that helps determine the phylogenic tree. It has numerous similarities to Archeopteryx, but also has similarities to dinosaurs such as Dromaeosaurus.
The new relations revealed show Archeopteryx to be more closely related to the Dromaeosaurs and more distantly related to true birds.
Creationists will probably crow about this, failing to understand what the science really says. However, as PZ Myers says...
"But don't worry, Archaeopteryx still represents a beautiful example of a transitional form. This new fossil is just another transitional form discovered. Creationists cannot take any consolation from it: Archaeopteryx isn't suddenly gone, it's become a part of a richer picture of bird evolution."
I've been a'saying it's mostly Dinosaurian features with flight feathers. Really, I don't see any big change at all...I don't think anyone had Archaeopteryx in the line for direct ancestry to Birds anyway.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#6 Jul 31, 2011
FossilBob wrote:
<quoted text>
I've been a'saying it's mostly Dinosaurian features with flight feathers. Really, I don't see any big change at all...I don't think anyone had Archaeopteryx in the line for direct ancestry to Birds anyway.
I love how they argue against any transitional fossils at all and now they are up-in-arms about Archeopteryx not being 'central' but closer to being related to dinosaurs. Gotta love the forked-tongue routine.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#7 Jul 31, 2011
FossilBob wrote:
<quoted text>
I've been a'saying it's mostly Dinosaurian features with flight feathers. Really, I don't see any big change at all...I don't think anyone had Archaeopteryx in the line for direct ancestry to Birds anyway.
No one, or at least very few, put Archaeopteryx as a direct ancestor of birds anymore. However, the previous cladistics had A something like a 1st cousin to birds, while the inclusion of X puts A nearer the dinosaur line and more like a 2nd cousin to birds.

Not a huge change, but of course the creationists go crazy because in their view, everything should be exactly right the first go. Otherwise, all of evolutionary theory is wrong.

Silly creationists.

Something cool. Ed Brayton (of Dispatches from the Culture Wars) is starting a new blog called Dispatches from the Creation Wars. He wanted a banner and he may be using the one I photoshoped for him. My basic theme was part of a Laetoli diarama, two A-pithecus, on the left and Renaisance Adam and Eve on the right.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#8 Aug 1, 2011
MIDutch wrote:
IIRC the "creationist" ... "answer" ... to Archaeopteryx has always been "it's just a perching bird". Yeah, with NO beak, teeth, claws on it's "hands and a spine that comes out of the back of it's head.
Their answer to this will be similar (if they don't ignore it altogether).
Actually the creo's have called it everything under the sun, except a transitional fossil. They've called it bird, dino, even a fake (all ten of 'em), it just depends on which creationist you're talking to.

Since: Dec 06

Urbana, Illinois

#9 Aug 1, 2011
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
No one, or at least very few, put Archaeopteryx as a direct ancestor of birds anymore. However, the previous cladistics had A something like a 1st cousin to birds, while the inclusion of X puts A nearer the dinosaur line and more like a 2nd cousin to birds.
Not a huge change, but of course the creationists go crazy because in their view, everything should be exactly right the first go. Otherwise, all of evolutionary theory is wrong.
Silly creationists.
Something cool. Ed Brayton (of Dispatches from the Culture Wars) is starting a new blog called Dispatches from the Creation Wars. He wanted a banner and he may be using the one I photoshoped for him. My basic theme was part of a Laetoli diarama, two A-pithecus, on the left and Renaisance Adam and Eve on the right.
Great. I read Ed Brayton pretty much every day!

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#11 Aug 3, 2011
Brayton has change the name of his blog on Science Blogs to "Dispatches from the Creation Wars". He is posting to it now. And he is using my banner!!! Yeah.

BTW...same link as the old blog.

His old blog has moved to the link I gave above.

Since: Dec 06

Urbana, Illinois

#12 Aug 3, 2011
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
Brayton has change the name of his blog on Science Blogs to "Dispatches from the Creation Wars". He is posting to it now. And he is using my banner!!! Yeah.
I see that:)

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#13 Aug 4, 2011

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#14 Aug 7, 2011

Since: Dec 06

Urbana, Illinois

#15 Aug 7, 2011
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
Well... There were actual pictures documenting the event, so...

...Okay:)
3-headed Elvis clone

San Francisco, CA

#16 Aug 7, 2011
Why is it that no creationist nutcases have shown up yet? It makes no sense!
earnie poochiegian

Highwood, IL

#17 Jan 28, 2013
Actually the feather imprints have indeed been shown to be fake! The upper and lower slabs do not match up correctly either. It's really just a small dinosaur without feathers, as most of the known specimens show. The feathers were only added to two of them, which sold for a lot of money.
Kinda like "archeoraptor", remember that one? Another fake. I'm not a creationist btw, since they read scripture wrong. I just recognize junk science when I see it.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#18 Jan 29, 2013
earnie poochiegian wrote:
Actually the feather imprints have indeed been shown to be fake! The upper and lower slabs do not match up correctly either.
On which particular specimen out of the ten specimens that we have?
earnie poochiegian wrote:
It's really just a small dinosaur without feathers, as most of the known specimens show. The feathers were only added to two of them, which sold for a lot of money.
Yet it's interesting that the scientific community disagrees with you.
earnie poochiegian wrote:
Kinda like "archeoraptor", remember that one? Another fake.
Yes, that one was found to be a fake. By making use of the theory of evolution. It was after all evolutionary scientists who determined it to be fake, as archeoraptor (which was made to sell for lots of money to the highest bidder rather than an unnecessary need to "invent" evidence for evolution) violated nested hierarchies. Meaning if genuine, archaeoraptor would have been a problem for evolution.

As it turned out it was two separate fossils glued together to look like a single complete organism, and those two fossils fit nicely with evolution.
earnie poochiegian wrote:
I'm not a creationist btw
It doesn't matter one bit in the slightest.
earnie poochiegian wrote:
since they read scripture wrong.
Actually you have no idea whether or not they are reading it correctly. Since everyone can read the Bible, and everyone's opinions about the "correct" way it should be interpreted is no better than anyone else's, period.

Science on the other hand only cares whether it matches up with reality. And if taken literally, it doesn't. If not taken literally, then it's too malleable to be objectively reliable since the decisions to say which parts are allegorical or not are subjective.
earnie poochiegian wrote:
I just recognize junk science when I see it.
And you are an archaeologist and/or expert in comparative anatomy? As it happens it matters little, for even if the entire fossil record didn't exist evolution would still be the best explanation we have for biodiversity based on the evidence. The fact it does exist is just a bonus. The fossil itself still exhibits both bird and dinosaur features, and other finds have confirmed the same protein sequences in both dinos and modern birds, plus non-coding DNA has demonstrated birds with teeth, all of which help support the bird-dino transition hypothesis.
MIDutch

Clinton Township, MI

#19 Jan 30, 2013
earnie poochiegian wrote:
Actually the feather imprints have indeed been shown to be fake! The upper and lower slabs do not match up correctly either. It's really just a small dinosaur without feathers, as most of the known specimens show. The feathers were only added to two of them, which sold for a lot of money.
Kinda like "archeoraptor", remember that one? Another fake. I'm not a creationist btw, since they read scripture wrong. I just recognize junk science when I see it.
This would be a LIE!

Why do you "fundamentalist xristians" LIE so much? Isn't LYING a sin in your religion? I know I saw a commandment about it somewhere.

BTW what are YOUR credentials and when, exactly, did you study and publish YOUR research papers about the fossils in question?

My guess, you are NOT a scientist, have NO qualifications relevant to these fossils and are willfully ignorant of the research and empirical evidence that is available concerning these fossils. IOW you merely have a willfully ignorant and baseless opinion you want everyone in the cyber world to know.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 3 min Dogen 482
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 6 min EXPERT 132,372
24 hour dental emergency (Nov '13) 1 hr Zach 4
How would creationists explain... 1 hr TurkanaBoy 314
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 2 hr Ooogah Boogah 13,615
Science News (Sep '13) 6 hr positronium 2,943
Genetic entropy 22 hr Discord 159
More from around the web