| [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Thread Index] | [Date Prev] | [Date Next] | [Date Index] |
Brent, I am not an expert in fossil birds either. However, I can say with assurance that fossil species are all "transitional." Not being able to directly observe exactly what is an active breeding population, fossil species are defined on similarity of observable features. The conclusion is that critters that look enough alike interbreed. Keep this in mind whenever creationists argue that there are no transitional fossils. This sets up a straw man argument (all fossils are some sort of end member, unique unto themselves) and an argument for a condition you can never meet. Take two fossils, A and C, supposedly on the same evolutionary branch. The creationist argument is that there is no transitional fossil between them. As soon as the requested intermediary form, B, is found, the creationist requirement changes. Now, instead of only one transitional fossil, you are required to produce two: A' transitional between A and B, and C' transitional between B and C. The best place I know to research both the creationist claims and their refutations is at www.talkorigins.org. Transitional forms of whales, horses, and others are known. You might check the following links: http://www.amnh.org/ http://www.natcenscied.org/ (educational materials and help for debating creationists) http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/index.html http://www.nap.edu/books/0309063647/html/index.html (Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science, National Academy Press) http://www.nap.edu/books/0309064066/html/ (Science and Creationism, National Academy Press) http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution/ (Evolution and the Fossil Record, American Geological Institute) Hope this helps. At 01:38 PM 8/12/01 +0100, you wrote: >-------------------------------------------------------------- > >Dear Dr Head, > >I am a student in the field of biology in Amsterdam. We have debates with >creationists and there are some points put forth by creationists that I >could not find sufficient information to answer explicitly. So I am >kindly asking you to refer to your in-depth knowledge of science to guide >me answer the below mentioned questions brought up by creationists. > >1. The 150 million year-old bird fossil Archaeopteryx, a transitional >form between reptiles and birds, has teeth in its mouth and claws on its >wings. There are living birds in our day that have similar claws on its >wings. So can we say that these characteristics of Archaeopteryx show >that it is a transitional form, between reptiles and birds? > >2. Are there any perfect bird fossils preceding Archaeopteryx? The >recently found fossil called Longisquama has all the features of a flying >bird though it is 70 million older than Archaeopteryx. Does this finding >refute the hypothesis that Archaeopteryx is the primitive ancestor of the >birds? > >Please kindly inform which museums these transitional forms are displayed. >I thank you in advance for your valuable comments, > >Yours faithfully, > >Brent Betitt >bbetitt@yahoo.com Brandon C. Nuttall BNUTTALL@KGS.MM.UKY.EDU Kentucky Geological Survey (859) 257-5500 University of Kentucky (859) 257-1147 (fax) 228 Mining & Mineral Resources Bldg Lexington, Kentucky 40506-0107 www.uky.edu/KGS/home.htm www.uky.edu/KGS/PTTC/home.htm
Partial index: