New Archaeopteryx fossil provides further insight into bird, dinosaur evolution

an observation:

Notice how most of the posters here immediately look to scientific research to understand what the significance of this finding is? Why don't they go the bible? There is plenty of evidence in the bible to explain these kinds of things. Have you ever heard of the flood? Noah? Go to http://www.drdino.com for both scientific and philisophical proof of genesis.

Make sure to check out this one:
Mt. St. Helens Explosion Gives Creation Evidence
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=7

It just makes me wonder where this faith in science came from. The Bible has been around a lot longer than darwin's theory.

... this just doubles the Evilutionists' problems! Where are the transitional fossils between Archaeopteryx and birds, and between dinosaurs and Archaeopteryx?

Modern bird feet have a hind toe that points backward and helps the birds perch on branches, power lines, and pirates' shoulders. (Emphasis added.)

Alright, I've finally read the Science Magazine article. Basically the authors are saying that, with their new find, in order for Archaeopteryx to be considered part of Aves, the dromaeosaurs and Troodons are all birds as well.

That's basically what I was trying to get at above. It's not the arrangement of the maniraptoran tree that I have a problem with exactly, I just think that Aves proper should start somewhere closer to Confuciusornis than Archaeopteryx. Not that I have any say in the matter, or that it really changes anything. Archaeopteryx was classified as a bird back in 1861 based heavily on the fact that it was feathered, and feathers were synonymous with birds. That is clearly not the case today. Feathers are pretty ubiquitous throughout Coelurosauria. Pennaceous feathers are present in Caudipteryx, which is still considered a non-avian theropod by Mayr et al's new phylogenetic tree. I wouldn't be surprised if powered flight originated outside of Aves as well. I guess I just don't see a reason in classifying a large portion of Maniraptora as Aves just to keep Archaeopteryx as part of the clade.

Arrr... just don't let it be hapnin' agin, or ye'll be keelhauled!

...if birds are descended from Archaeopteryx, why do we still have Archaeopteryx? Oh, wait...

You know, if you wrote an argument like that up for ID or AiG they would probably buy it.

To the extent that we wish to use words like Aves, or its colloquial "birds," to refer to those taxa, other criteria must be used.

Notice how most of the posters here immediately look to scientific research to understand what the significance of this finding is? Why don't they go the bible? There is plenty of evidence in the bible to explain these kinds of things

As far as I know birds which perch on the shoulders of pirates mostly have two forward toes (No. 2 and 3) and two backward ones (No. 1 and 4). According to Britannica.com this arrangement is called zygodactyl and is typical of parrots, woodpeckers, cuckoos and a few other kinds.
In the ordinary bird foot it is toe No. 1 which is turned back.
This arrangement is called anisodactyl, all according to Britannica.com.

PZ, matey, and all you FSMers out there, arrhh, please forgive ol' Steviepinhead. He din't, like, mean no disrespect to pirates' pollies!

— Steviepinhead

Darn simultaneous posts. :-)

Neither Dembski nor Ken Ham's blog (http://info.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld/...) have commented on this yet. I await my entertainment as they will eventually post one or more of the following: 1 it's a lie 2 it's irrelevent 3 it actually challenges evolution somehow 4 it proves Intelligent Design

— steve s

Wow, the Mt. St. Helens article was a revelation!

Into the drastic problem we have with science education in this country. The St. Helens eruption did, in fact, teach us lots of new cool things about geology, none of which are the ones mentioned - like the physics of volcanoes sometimes exploding sideways, rather then straight up, and new possible explanations for the formation of hummocky terrain, and detection of eruption precursors.

But the volcanic material deposited as a result of the eruptions bears only a passing resemblance to the sedimentary rocks deposited through most of earth history. In fact, the most important features they have in common is the layering mentioned in the article. That's the result of gravity acting on sediments. Guess what? Geologists are okay with the idea that gravity has been here the whole time sedimentary rocks have been depositing. Important differences, however, include: grain sorting (distribution of particles of different sizes throughout a given layer), which indicates how material is transported; grain sizes, which indicate how fast material is transported (usually gives water velocity, as most sediments are water-lain); and the really really obvious one, composition (most rocks are not made of volcanic ash).

I don't think people realize how careful quantitative work has allowed us to determine in extensive detail the depositional environments of _thousands_ of individual sedimentary rocks, down to measuring the direction and velocity of stream flow in river deposits.

Aarggh! I can't find it. I remember that post. It's in here somewhere. Anyone?

"theropods lost digits 4 and 5 while the embryos suggest that fingers 2 through 4 were retained."

I didn't look for it here, but PZ's archived post on the digit-numbering question is at:
http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/digit_numbering_and_limb_development/.

Scientists just said that they've found a new archaeoptyrx fossil, and that it confirms birds evolved from dinosaurs. yet i see no response on your website. so do you agree with them?

I hope they get on the case, so I can chortle over another jaw-droppingly stupid fundy excuse for more evidence which supports evolution.

I hope they get on the case, so I can chortle over another jaw-droppingly stupid fundy excuse for more evidence which supports evolution.

Dear kswiston and DouglasG,

Actually, I *am* an expert in early bird evolution (or at least in general theropod evolution, up to and including basal birds), and your points are basically spot on.

Archaeopteryx was central to typological concepts of "birdness" in the literature since the late 1800s primarily because of the preserved presence of feathers on it. Had it been known only from its skeleton, it would have been just one of many mid-Mesozoic bird-like coelurosaurs (although the most bird-like of those known during the 19th and early 20th Centuries). Similarly, if the Jehol Group coelurosaur fossils of Liaoning had been found in the late 1890s rather than the late 1990s, the issue of the dinosaurian origin of birds would have been firmly established long, long ago. But those are matters for allohistorical paleontology, which is an admittedly rather small field... :-)

More importantly here, though, is the unfortunate timing of this publication. It got into the publishing pipeline just a little too early to incorporate Makovicky et al.'s information on Buitreraptor. The inclusion of the latter pulls Rahonavis into a basal clade in Dromaeosauridae. Additionally (and the authors admit this), they really need to add additional Mesozoic birds into the analysis to more fully test whether Archaeopteryx actually has any particularly close phylogenetic relationship with unquestionable birds with regards to dromaeosaurids, troodontids, and the like.

Personally, I would not be surprised at all if Archie winds up as outside a clade comprised of Deinonychosauria (troodontids and dromaeosaurids) and Pygostylia (confuciusornithids, enantiornithines, and ornithuromorphs: i.e., birds). I haven't incorporated either Buitreraptor nor the new Archie data into my matrix, so I'll have to wait and see, though.

Cool things.

I already had a good laugh about (I can remember if it was Blast or Bombadill, a Dembski acolyte) saying the Archaeopteryx find was "confusing" and contributed to a "muddle".

Yeah, it's confusing to you, bitch. It doesn't fit your wrong ideas.

How many characters is your matrix these days, Dr. Holtz?

Sadly, Answers in Genesis has not yet amused me by attempting a reply to the archaeoptyrx find. I just checked their website. Nothing. So to provoke them, I just sent then an email

To GFA:

NCHAR in the total theropod matrix is right around the Number[sub]Beast (mid-600s). It updates the one that was used in Dinosauria II.

I will have a pared down matrix focusing on Tyrannosauroidea in a forthcoming volume from the Burpee Symposium on tyrannosaur evolution from this past September. A lot more tractable...

Nah, they'll just switch from saying "just a bird" to saying "just a dinosaur" in no time, you'll see.
The good thing about being a fraud is you don't have to be consistent with your 'views', as long as you always have something to blab to your followers.
They're not trying to convince us, just to keep their flock from seeing through to them and the fakes that they are.

DR. MENTON REPLIED THE FOLLOWING IN 1994: No. Archaeopteryx, along with all perching birds, has what is called a grasping hallux, or hind toe, pointing backwards. Rearward-facing toes may be found in some of the dinosaurs but not a true grasping hallux with curved claws for perching.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i4/birds.asp

Can we now say that bold statement is FALSE?!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10283203/

If evolution is true, and birds evolved from dinosaurish proto-birds, then why doesn't this fossil transform into a bird fossil when given water and sunlight (2LOT)?

Thanks for your comments Dr. Holtz.

First we had Dr. Fry discussing his recent venom research in the two Dragons and Microbes posts, and now we have Dr. Holtz (who placed the Tyrannosaurs in Coelurosauria) commenting on a post about avian/theropod evolution. Very cool stuff.

Anyhow, I agree that a phylogenetic analysis using more Mesozoic birds needs to be done.

As for the 1-2-3 vs 2-3-4 argument, I personally don't think it's all that strong. The belief that theropods retained digits 1,2 and 3 is based on digit identity homologies with other tetrapods. Modern birds are said to retain digits 2,3 and 4 based on digit positions during embryonic development.

Experiments by Dahn and Fallon have shown that digit identity is determined by gene expression gradients in interdigital mesoderm, not the digit's place of origin. By manipulating BMP levels in interdigital mesoderm, Dahn and Fallon showed that it is possible to anteriorize or posteriorize of any digit (eg. you could force digit identity II into digit position I, or vice versa).

We don't have any non-avian theropod embryos around to examine whether or not they retain a digit in position four. However, in tetrapods, the digit in position four is always the first to form. Along with the ulna, the fourth digit forms a developmental axis of a sort from which the rest of the digits form. It's importance in development would probably favour the retention of digit condensation IV in vertebrates with a reduced number of digits. Plus, when digits are lost in tetrapods, it is almost invariably the outer digits that are lost. Why would theropods be so different?

Wagner and Gauthier's frameshift hypothesis suggested that structure position and identity are causally independent (this was later supported by the Dahn and Fallon study I mentioned above). Basically they suggest that Digit identity I was important to the function of the theropod hand. In order to retain functionality, digit identity 1 was shifted to digit condensation II (ie. position II) when digit condensation I was lost.

The opponents of the frameshift hypothesis want to place Aves outside of Therapoda altogether (actually outside of Saurischia altogether). Given the vast number of Osteological, structural, and inferred behavioural similarities shared between birds and derived theropods, you would have to invoke a hell of a lot of convergent evolution to explain this. Of course, the creationalists like to bring up the digit homology problem for completely different reasons.

Given that six condensations are visable in the developing avian manus, its possible to interpret these in a way consistant with digital development from those numbered I, II and III. This would mean the "primary axis" (ulna, digit IV) would have shifted, but we know that can occur.

Its easy to see that something about avian manal ontogeny is derived, but precisely how (frameshift or primary axis shift) isnt so clear.

For those interested, here's the full references for the studies I discussed above:

Dahn, R.D. and Fallon, J.F. 2000. Interdigital regulation of digit identity and homeotic transformation by modulated BMP signalling. Science. 289: 438---441.

Wagner, G.P. and Gauthier, J.A. 1999. 1,2,3 = 2,3,4: A solution to the problem of the homology of the digits in the avian hand. P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 96: 5111-5116.

For more recent (conflicting) opinions on theropod/avian digit identities, see:

Vargas, A.O. and Fallon, J.F. 2005. The Digits of the Wing of Birds Are 1, 2, and 3. A Review. J. Exp. Zool. (Mol. Dev. Evol.) 304B:206---219.

Galis et al. 2005. Hox Genes, Digit Identities and the Theropod/Bird
Transition. J. Exp. Zool. (Mol. Dev. Evol.) 304B:198---205.

THIS THREAD IS DARKSIDED!

That's not an archeopteryx, that's a GARGYLE!

THIS THREAD IS DARKSIDED!

/slagkicks

The Ghost of Paley wrote:

"Why would creationists adopt this strategy when they can highlight the contradiction between paleontological and developmental data instead? The fossils indicate that theropods lost digits 4 and 5 while the embryos suggest that fingers 2 through 4 were retained. How to reconcile these points of view? Wagner's frameshift hypothesis shows promise, but also attracts its share of critics. Hox gene studies are similarly inconclusive. Finally, some researchers argue that fossils indicate that theropods possessed a pelvovisceral pump system, which pushes them closer to crocs in soft anatomy (my source disputes this, natch). Let's not enshrine the BAD theory just yet."

kswiston highlights much of the papers on the topic. Most recently, the concensus has shown that a Gauthier-Wagnerian frameshift model HAS occured, and more than once in Dinosauria, with one event in the theropods producing a primary shift of manual digit 3 to 2 in the development of Neotheropoda, i.e., Coelophysis and all carnivorous dinosaurs on the line to birds, but not more primitive. In contrast, the primitive theropod Herrerasaurus has a shortest digit 1, a longest digit 3, and a digit 2 intermediate in size with a phalanx on digit 4 and just a nubbin of metacarpal 5. The next major group "up" towards birds, coelophysids, show only 4 metacarpals, with digit 2 longest, not 3, and digit 3 about as long as digit 2. Except in few other animals, 3 never gets longer than 2. This is explained as a frameshift where digit 3 shifted into digit 2 when digit 1 was lost, indicating that virtually all theropods have digits 2, 3, and 4, or a phalangeal formula of X-2-3-4-1 or less, with loss of the primary first digit. All birds in the world can't help us discover the embryological issue without embryos of the primitive taxa with ossified phalanges clearly distinguished.

So far, the critics of the frameshift model have a strong case only in that the fossils can't support it via embryology, but their own weakness is apparent in the fact that they assume because scientists have claimed the outer digits were reduced, this must be the model that is true to disprove a dinosaurian origin of birds, while at the same time ignoring the problem with this: that if their principle of outer digit loss is NOT true, avian embryological phalanx ossification cannot be directly tested, and tells us little.

On another taxt: Theoretically, though ... all dinosaurs are transistory in one fashion or another. A long endless system of them. And the argument of "kinds" tells us also that whales and such are of the "fish kind" and bats are of the "bird kind", not mammals. Either massive convergence drawn by the good Lord Himself, or a fallacy that should be discarded, like a hobby horse you've outgrown and now something to look wistfully at, pretty memories, but re-riding would shatter to pieces. Their hobbyhorses cracking, they plug their ears. Ah, sweet foolishness.

Other bird fossils, I may add, had gastralia and a vertical pubis without a rigidified spine and locked ribcage, indicating a primitive breathing mechanism compared to crocs, which as Ghost of Paley noted, would indicate a more croc-like breathing mechanism. This model, advanced largely through the works of Dr. John Ruben of the Univeristy of Oregon and former students (now scattered), and subsequently advanced through work of Carrier and Farmer, who have proposed that such breathing would have been employed through a pelvic aspiration pump as in crocs, but would also have been present in primitive birds. Indeed, histology of a bird, Confuciusornis, has features indicating a regional endothermic region in the body was developed into high endothermy from a juvenile ectothermic state. So birds also transitioned from this "primitive croc state," making the idea that dinosaur breathing was like crocs largely a matter of plesiomorphy (warm-bloodedness doesn't just arrive out of no where). Indeed, any other model of bird origins still provides that the breathing method and regulated temperature and metabolic conditions arose from a cold-blooded, reptilian platform, so the BAD model only succeeds through secondary data, such as gross skeletal similarity (there are literally tons of discreet features linking birds to maniraptorans among coelurosaurs among theropods among dinosaurs among archosaurs to support this). No one supporting BAD enshrines is that makes a serious investigative study of it, though they hold it as the most likely model and thus work within that framework. While there are some who conclude bar none this is the only correct model, and thus start from that framework to look forward, or compare fossils as though birds are the top of the ladder, and thus the ideal benchmark (recall the Golden Ladder!), they tend to be a small voice in the community. Disagreement and debate is always healthy, of course.

Nah, they'll just switch from saying "just a bird" to saying "just a dinosaur" in no time, you'll see. The good thing about being a fraud is you don't have to be consistent with your 'views', as long as you always have something to blab to your followers. They're not trying to convince us, just to keep their flock from seeing through to them and the fakes that they are.

I already had a good laugh about (I can remember if it was Blast or Bombadill, a Dembski acolyte) saying the Archaeopteryx find was "confusing" and contributed to a "muddle".

— steve s

Excuse me. Isn't it "evolutionary science" that has changed its mind about Archeopteryx?

Any ideas Steve?

Blast's argument for ID:

1) Science once proposed theory X
2) Theory X was proven to be incorrect (by scientists)
3) Science now proposes theory Y
4) Since theory X was shown to be wrong, scientists must also be wrong about theory Y
5) Blast makes specious 'not Y' arguments all the time
6) Therefore, Blast's theory Z, totally unsupported by evidence and totally unrelated to 'not Y,' must be true

Blast's argument for ID: 1) Science once proposed theory X 2) Theory X was proven to be incorrect (by scientists) 3) Science now proposes theory Y 4) Since theory X was shown to be wrong, scientists must also be wrong about theory Y 5) Blast makes specious 'not Y' arguments all the time 6) Therefore, Blast's theory Z, totally unsupported by evidence and totally unrelated to 'not Y,' must be true

Do you mind if I laugh as we read the ensuing posts together?

Although I have tremendously enjoyed lurking here for the past few weeks, I am compelled to pop up this little note.

First, a disclaimer:

I am not a scientist, a teacher, or in any way qualified to weigh in on this debate scientifically. I am a college drop-out, and now own a small woodworking business with my father. I am, however, reasonably intelligent and I design the things I build, so that makes ME the intelligent designer.

I think that Lenny hit on the very first not-utterly-vacuous reason to accept I.D. in comment #61460, when he said, "if ignorance truly is bliss, then *you* must be perpetually orgasmic". I hereby give my full support to I.D. on the basis that I would LOVE to be perpetually orgasmic.

Thank you for your support. I shall now return to my regularly scheduled lurking.

Lou

Mostly, I suspect, because it doesn't exist.

— Lenny

It's just one more sign of the limitations of Noah; we keep finding new special creations that he failed to get on the ark. And God gave him such simple instructions, too; you'd think any idiot could have followed them.

Blast's argument for ID: 1) Science once proposed theory X 2) Theory X was proven to be incorrect (by scientists) 3) Science now proposes theory Y 4) Since theory X was shown to be wrong, scientists must also be wrong about theory Y 5) Blast makes specious 'not Y' arguments all the time 6) Therefore, Blast's theory Z, totally unsupported by evidence and totally unrelated to 'not Y,' must be true

— ben

Blast are you having trouble with what a "recruitment event" is?

Have you actually read any of the papers you where pointed to? Even if you don't understand a phrase in one brief summary you should first go read the papers that where provided to answer your question. Maybe, just maybe, you will be able to work out the phrase by the context it is used in the paper.

Another paper you can read by Dr. Fry that is on line is
Assembling an Arsenal: Origin and Evolution of the Snake Venom Proteome Inferred from Phylogenetic Analysis of Toxin Sequences
located at
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/21/5/870

Don't expect anyone to spoon feed you blast. You willfully distort points made in papers I'm sure very few people want you trying to distort their words directly.

And, Lenny, I hope you did notice that (1) Dr. Fry didn't answer directly my question about "gene recruitment";

As I mentioned before, venom toxins are NOT modified salivary proteins. Rather they are the mutation of a normal body protein for the use as a toxin. There is not a magic little amino acid sequence added on but rather changes to existing functional residues or rearrangement of molecular scaffold. All of which is new information as this is occuring on a duplicate gene to the normal body protein, not to the body protein itself. Venom evolution is much easier to understand if you follow the data trail rather than trying to shoe-horn it into a prepackaged theory that is particularly useless.

and (2) the post(s) were closed rather quickly.

Implicit in this criticism, is a criticism of Darwinism as that agent which slowed down the process.

and (2) the post(s) were closed rather quickly.

Don't expect anyone to spoon feed you blast. You willfully distort points made in papers I'm sure very few people want you trying to distort their words directly.

— Wayne Francis

Rather they are the mutation of a normal body protein for the use as a toxin.

All of which is new information as this is occuring on a duplicate gene to the normal body protein, not to the body protein itself.

Mutation brings about changes in the nucleotide sequence. (And, as Darwinists love tautologies, the follow-up question: What is a mutation? It is a change in nucleotide sequences.)

— Blast

Since you're here, Blast, perhaps you could clarify your comments about HeLa cells that you made in a different thread. You suggested that they are not a new life form. Are you saying that they are not new, or that they are not alive?

Gene recruitment is just one of those words that evolutionary biologists use to try and make sense out of what they see happening.

— BlastfromthePast

Rather they are the mutation of a normal body protein for the use as a toxin.

All of which is new information as this is occuring on a duplicate gene to the normal body protein, not to the body protein itself.

No, really,..Is there some pathway? Are there "intermediate molecular forms"? No. Just a before and after. There's simply change. Mutation brings about changes in the nucleotide sequence.

Here's a quote from a paper: "This kind of gene recruitment reverses the conventional view that gene duplication must precede the acquisition of new protein functions. Thus, in birds and crocodiles, the glycolytic enzyme lactate dehydrogenase B (LDHB) serves two distinct functions as both an enzyme and as Epsilon-crystallin, a major constituent of the lens." So, how does evolution work? Gene duplication and then mutation.

What is gene recruitment? Mutation and then gene duplication.

What is the result of gene recruitment? Evolution.

You see, Darwinism is never wrong.

If he knew the answer