JAM
Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007
|
| Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 13 2008,06:31) | | Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 12 2008,15:58) | Would Schindewolf have recognized a transitional fossil if he saw one?
Apparently not: | Quote | | Even the initial joyous satisfaction that once greeted, for example, the discovery of the famous ancestral bird Archaeopteryx did not prove to be justified. Despite all its similarities to reptiles, Archaeopteryx is a true bird; the boundary between the reptile type and the bird type has not yet been bridged by a continuous, uninterrupted linking series. |
|
In a book on paleontology comprising over 400 pages, it is revealing that the sole reference to Archaeopteryx is that short paragraph.
Two sentences that dismiss, without any analysis, one of the most important fossil finds in history. |
And, to anticipate a dishonest attempt to regard Schindewolf's opinion as superior to actual evidence, numerous additional transitionals found since Schindewolf wrote his book do not support his airy dismissal.
There's also that pesky DNA evidence, which unequivocally demonstrates that birds and reptiles are monophyletic--in fact, birds are far more closely related to one group of reptiles than that group is to the remaining reptiles. What's funny is that another of Daniel's opinionated heroes, Denton, claims that this evidence somehow refutes evolution.
|
