Originally posted by The OmegaWhat scientific magazines have they published their findings in?
National geographic http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/11/1120_021120_raptor.html
Originally posted by The OmegaWhat paleaontologist made those claims?
Alan Feduccia, bird evolution specialist, was quoted as saying, “When they put that feathered dinosaur on the cover last year, I threw 30 years’ worth of magazines out of my house. National Geographic’s journalism is a joke.” [The Report Newsmagazine 12/6/1999] He went on to say, “...the hairlike filaments that accompany some fossils come from beneath the skin. I can duplicate the effect by skinning the tail of a modern lizard.”
Storrs Olson, fossil bird expert from the Smithsonian Institute (also an evolutionist), was reported to have written an open letter to National Geographic where he lambasted them for engaging in “‘sensationalistic, unsubstantiated, tabloid’ journalism. ‘Clearly,’ he wrote, ‘[the magazine] is not receiving competent consultation in certain scientific matters.’ He is especially ‘galled’ by the societies assertions that a wide variety of dinosaurs definitely wore feathers. ‘This is just a ___ lie,’ he says. ‘There is not one undisputed example of a dinosaur with feathers. None. The public deserves to know this.’ ”
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
National geographic http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/11/1120_021120_raptor.htmlAlan Feduccia, bird evolution specialist, was quoted as saying, “When they put that feathered dinosaur on the cover last year, I threw 30 years’ worth of magazines out of my house. National Geographic’s journalism is a joke.” [The Report Newsmagazine 12/6/1999] He went on to say, “...the hairlike filaments that accompany some fossils come from beneath the skin. I can duplicate the effect by skinning the tail of a modern lizard.”
Storrs Olson, fossil bird expert from the Smithsonian Institute (also an evolutionist), was reported to have written an open letter to National Geographic where he lambasted them for engaging in “‘sensationalistic, unsubstantiated, tabloid’ journalism. ‘Clearly,’ he wrote, ‘[the magazine] is not receiving competent consultation in certain scientific matters.’ He is especially ‘galled’ by the societies assertions that a wide variety of dinosaurs definitely wore feathers. ‘This is just a ___ lie,’ he says. ‘There is not one undisputed example of a dinosaur with feathers. None. The public deserves to know this.’ ”
Whoa, did you just create a post quoting National Geographic as right....and then quoted some scientists who bash it!?
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
mutations cannot create new traits or be beneficial it's common sense please name one beneficial mutation and I'll shut up, And I know you cannot pass down acquired trait that's why lamarckism was rejectedEDIT: I'm taking about 100% beneficial.
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
No, you're just stupid.Stop calling it 'Darwinism'. Any of his findings that were incorrect have been thrown out, and replaced with newer, more complete information.
I explained natural selection in the evolution thread, and no, mutations are not always harmful. Where did you hear that made up garbage?
Someone who has an extra finger has a mutation. Someone who has too many teeth has a mutation.
Mutations can be anything. There was a baby born who had a mutation which made his muscle density something like 10 times more dense than an average person's. They found that all the men in his family were unusually strong. Doctors say the baby is perfectly healthy otherwise.
Sounds like a pretty beneficial mutation.
And for the record, nothing is 100% beneficial. If it were, evoloution would stop when everything is perfect. Prove to me some part of a human that is, and i'll give you a cookie.
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
🙄 W/e call me when you have a rebuttal
Cheers.
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Alan Feduccia, bird evolution specialist, was quoted as saying, “When they put that feathered dinosaur on the cover last year, I threw 30 years’ worth of magazines out of my house. National Geographic’s journalism is a joke.” [The Report Newsmagazine 12/6/1999] He went on to say, “...the hairlike filaments that accompany some fossils come from beneath the skin. I can duplicate the effect by skinning the tail of a modern lizard.”
http://www.exn.ca/Stories/1999/06/01/55.asp
Alan Feduccia, an ornithologist and evolutionary biologist at the University of North Carolina isn't convinced that the feather-like markings in the fossil are feathers at all. He's seen the specimens three times and he believes they are like the frills we'd see on the backs of some of today's lizards.
Phil Currie, a paleontologist, said this of Mr. Feduccia's opinion:
He's totally off-base on that," is Currie's response. He points out that the feathers are found not just on the backs of these dinosaurs, but all over their bodies – on the arms (or wings) and the legs.
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Storrs Olson, fossil bird expert from the Smithsonian Institute (also an evolutionist), was reported to have written an open letter to National Geographic where he lambasted them for engaging in “‘sensationalistic, unsubstantiated, tabloid’ journalism. ‘Clearly,’ he wrote, ‘[the magazine] is not receiving competent consultation in certain scientific matters.’ He is especially ‘galled’ by the societies assertions that a wide variety of dinosaurs definitely wore feathers. ‘This is just a ___ lie,’ he says. ‘There is not one undisputed example of a dinosaur with feathers. None. The public deserves to know this.’ ”
All this talk about the hoax of the archaeoraptor. One hoax, and all the specimens are a hoax? Consider the fossils that aren't coming from China. Archaeopteryx, which you'll say is a bird, but this is hardly the case, given the time it lived and the multitude of traits it shares exclusivly with dinosaurs.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html
This Olson guy is, as you said, an evolutionist. However, the point of this thread isn't feathered dinosaurs, it's evolution. You can't disprove evolution by pointing out two evolutionists that disagree with others on one topic. Otherwise, by that logic, you could disprove creationsim, by quoting a Jew and a Christian. Evolution is a concept you are attempting to disprove, however you say you also don't subscribe to creationism. But, the Olson quote you provided, when entered into a search engine, tosses out the following links:
http://www.discovercreation.org/newlet/March-April%202000.htm
http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/index.php?title=Paradigmatic_Schematic
http://www.projectcreation.org/creation_news_update.php
http://www.canadianchristianity.com/cgi-bin/na.cgi?nationalupdates/050223evolution
http://creationsafaris.com/crev03.htm
You don't even have to click on the links, all you have to do is read the names of the pages to which they take you. I'm not saying there aren't scientific pages out there that have this quote and topic being discussed, I'm just saying that the majority of them represent a creationist agenda. One way creationists like to deny evolution is to claim it has an agenda. But, that's a paranoid sign of guilt, knowing it is they who have an agenda. I, again, suggest you just go ahead and come out of teh "creationism closet", because I don't think anyone is going to fall for it much longer. Saying "I don't subscribe to any theory" isn't the same as being right in all things. "The fact I don't have an absolute opinion means I haven't fallen for any of the propaganda these two sides are putting forth" isn't going to make people suddenly decide they have the wrong opinion. Whob would be proud of you though.