Home » Darwinism, Evolution » David Tyler on rewriting the textbooks on Archaeopteryx – that dinobird, no longer First Bird, downgraded to dinosaur

David Tyler on rewriting the textbooks on Archaeopteryx – that dinobird, no longer First Bird, downgraded to dinosaur

Here. Tenured Darwin bores are just so worried about what creationists might think. But these days, even creationists don’t care what they think as much as the tenured Darwin bores do.

The creationists UD News has monitored thought it was a slow train comin’ – but there’s only one track in this whole wilderness. Anyway, here’s Tyler:

In the past, evolutionists looked for an identifiable trajectory that documented evolution. Now, it is a confused mess which is hard to decipher. Perhaps the most realistic conclusion for the present is that the Late Jurassic-Early Creataceous fossil record shows many features that we do not properly understand, and the most appropriate response is to withhold judgment and await further discoveries and analysis. More.

See also: The dinobird flap: why do they care so much how creationists take it?

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

9 Responses to David Tyler on rewriting the textbooks on Archaeopteryx – that dinobird, no longer First Bird, downgraded to dinosaur

  1. I thought birds were descended from crocodiles.

    Not sure where I got that idea.

    Probably some stupid evolutionist who didn’t know better.

  2. Nope, birds and crocodiles are both descended from an archosaurian ancestor.

  3. Isn’t this the original “Piltdown Chicken” ???

  4. “Nope, birds and crocodiles are both descended from an archosaurian ancestor.”

    This statement left as is, is misleading and falsely worded.

    For all we know today, it is as accurate an evolutionary statement as “vestigial organs” and “junk” dna once were. Which is to say, not very accurate at all.

    It is revealing how evolutionist state story-telling as if it were truth. Yet, you do not actually know if birds and crocodiles are descended from an archosaurian ancestor. It is merely an inference based upon many assumptions, maybes, might haves and ifs. Often wildly varying degrees of hypothetical disagreements amongst the chattering Darwin elitist.

    It is the same type of story-telling Dawkins sold to the UK public about unknown ancestoral links from hoofed animals to whales, which is a great big fish tale indeed. Comes with pictures of the “ancestor” that got away.

    These type of statements, stated as facts are the result of hundreds of years of fairy tales passed down from one Darwin ancestor to another as rote tradition. There is no actual evidence, only conjecture.

    We do have actual evidence of this traditional ancestorial lineage – Darwineosaur. Known for rapid dispersement of verbose fiction, with numerous latin naming conventions, categorizing and much bluffing, the Darwineosaur ruffles it feathers like a peacock and struts often, not for purposes of mating, but for purposes of defending a failed, antiquated theory. It is quite a display.

    Ancestral archosaurs are at best a hodge-podge of “informed” guesses by well-trained, well-indoctrinated Darwinian disciples. It is a faith-based statement, based upon worship, more than science.

    The correct statement is:

    “Nope, birds and crocodiles, theoretically are both descended from an archosaurian ancestor.”

    This would at least distinguish Darwineosaur’s conjecture from applied and operational sciences.

    It is funny how omitting one key word changes everything.

    Lets see, what is really going on at a quick glance, taken from Berkeley.edu website:


    “The systematic position of Euparkeria is problematic.
    The question of its relationships hinges upon the structure of the ankle joint, a pivotal character in understanding the evolution of archosaurs. Whatever the actual case was, there is general agreement that it is either the sister group to all other Archosauria, or is part of the lineage leading to the dinosaurs.”

    Right, well, that’s certainly science at its best. We have a puzzle. We have parts. We have missing parts. We have a lot of grant money. So, we better at least sound like we know what we’re doing.

    Not to mention, today, the Tree of Life is falling down, falling down… the Tree of Life is falling down, fallen down, my fair Darwinians.

    Darwinian/Evolutionary story-telling reminds me of shows on SyFy channel like GhostHunters. You never actually see a ghost, but they sure do tell many stories about them. Likewise, in Transition-Hunters, you never see the millions of transition fossils predicted by Darwinian processes of gradual selection, but Darwinians sure do tell many stories about them. Even state them as fact, much like Ghosthunters on SyFy channel.

  5. Sordid Taxonomic History and False Croc Tears

    Link:
    TransitionHunters Cladogram Tales

    You tell me, is Archeosaur the ancestor of birds and reptiles?

    Or, just a “false” archeosaur lost in a “sordid taxonomic history?”

    As advised by TranstionHunters…
    “Just remember, it’s only a name.”

  6. Anyone with even the slightest training in this field would know that both crocodiles and birds are descendants of Rodan.

  7. Allen MacNeill:

    Nope, birds and crocodiles are both descended from an archosaurian ancestor.

    How can that be tested? Sure it makes for a nice story but sooner or later imagination has to give way to science.

    As for Archie it just goes to show you how difficult it is to classify organisms just based on imprints and fossils. And it also reflects on us and the way we classify things.

  8. lpadron:

    Anyone with even the slightest training in this field would know that both crocodiles and birds are descendants of Rodan.

    And everyone knows Rodan came from a coalmine in Japan. Canaries are used in coalmines. Therefor Rodan is descended from canaries.

    We did it!

  9. The remainder of the animals on the cladogram are all archosaurs, comprising two major groups that correspond to the two branches of the cladogram leading from the archosaur node. One is called the Ornithosuchia, or “bird crocodiles.” It includes all archosaurs more closely related to birds and other dinosaurs than to crocodiles. The second branch is the Pseudosuchia, or “false crocodiles.” It includes all archosaurs more closely related to crocodiles than to birds and other dinosaurs. Note that this does include the crocodiles, so crocodiles are “false crocodiles.” This is an unfortunate consequence of a sordid taxonomic history. Just remember it’s only a name.

    too funny

Leave a Reply