ISSN 1995-5928Ingesluit LitNet Akademies
Tuis > SêNet-briewe

Darwinsime se Archaeopteryx (achilleshiel)

Kobus de Klerk 2012-03-23
  • 24
Shares0Pin0Print0LinkedIn0

Wouter plaas ’n interessante uittreksel in ’n kommentaar om via die fossiel Archaeopteryx ’n slag te slaan vir darwinisme teen my en kreasioniste.

Maar, hy kom oudergewoonte weens insigloosheid en onkunde, nie reg, nie.

Wat sy plasing egter uitwys, is een van darwinisme se groot probleme – om te sê dat die ‘missing link’ ’n verouderde miskonsepsie is, is verál ook ’n miskonsepsie. Dit is alles woordespel om ’n darwinistiese verleentheid, gebrek aan ‘links’, wat mettertyd báie prominent uitgestaan het, te probeer wegpraat met semantiek en suggestie – iets waaraan Wouter, veral, die prooi van is – alles kaf, natuurlik.

Sien, vir darwinistiese evolusie om te werk, móét daar eenvoudig transisionele of oorgangsfossiele van een spesie na ’n ander wees voor die spesie uitsterf, júís van voorouerlike aard. Anders kán die beweerde skepping-lose, on-ontwerpte proses nié slaag vanuit ’n oer voorouer na die pletora (plethora vir jou, Kerneels) van lewe wat ons vandag ken, nie. ’n Sogenaamde beweerde ‘verwant’, wat nie ’n voorouer is nie, maar ’n beweerde ‘syverwant’, dui nie op die evolusie proses nie, maar op die bestaan van ’n newe spesie wat gekom en gegaan, het, sónder om as voorouer te dien óf van ’n voorouer af te stam, wat dus véél eerder en nogeens, die kreasionistiese model ondersteun.

Maar hoe betroubaar is die aanspraak van evolusioniste oor Archaeopteryx in elk geval? Hier is ’n interessante gesprek:

Prof. David Menton is Associate Professor (retired) of Anatomy at the Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, Missouri

“Dr Menton, I understand that in the past few years you’ve become interested in scales, feathers and theories of bird evolution?

DM: Yes. Some years ago I picked up a wild bird feather. My area of research deals largely with the skin and, of course, feathers grow from the skin, so I thought it would be appropriate to take a peek under the scanning electron microscope, which stimulated my interest in feathers.

Of course, evolutionists have long argued that feathers evolved from reptile scales and are thus fundamentally the same structure—very similar.

Yes—so I became interested in comparing them myself. I had a laboratory technician at the time who had a ‘pet’ boa constrictor, so I took a look at some of its scales from shed skin. I was amused that they were, of course, not even the slightest bit similar to feathers, as these photographs show [see below]. The only similarity is that they are both made of the protein keratin—like hair, nails and our skin.” –

So, wil die darwinis nie eerder maar sê die mens stam van ’n slang af, as van ’n aapsoort, nie? Nee? Natuurlik stam ons van niks af, as van ander mense, nie. Maar die gesprek gaan vêrder:

“Evolutionists sometimes claim that the fossil creature Archaeopteryx is the link between reptiles and birds.

In Eichstätt, Germany, in 1984 there was a major meeting of scientists who specialize in bird evolution, the International Archaeopteryx Conference. They disagreed on just about anything that was covered there on this creature, but there was very broad agreement on the belief that Archaeopteryx was a true bird. Only a tiny minority thought that it was actually one of the small, lightly built coelurosaurian dinosaurs [small lightly framed dinosaurs].

Did that mean that really they didn’t think it was a transitional pre-bird?

Well, it’s kind of interesting that they found it necessary to draft the following statement. ‘Conferees did agree unanimously to the declaration that organic evolution is a fundamental process of biology and we recognize the importance of the Archaeopteryx contribution to that problem.’ So you can see they were acutely aware that their deliberations might lead some to wonder whether, in fact, Archaeopteryx had anything to say about evolution, so they all did sign this. If, of course, it’s a true bird, it is not the half-way, half-reptile, half-bird like we’ve often heard.

Dr Menton, the first issue of our magazine had an article about Archaeopteryx, which I wrote. At that time everyone was drawing its skull as quite reptilian. I understand that’s changed a bit?

Yes. The crushed nature of the skull in one of the specimens may have caused the problem. The general consensus now is that the brain is essentially that of a flying bird, with a large cerebellum and visual cortex.

Also, in most vertebrates, including reptiles, the mandible (lower jaw) moves, but in birds (including Archaeopteryx) so does the maxilla (upper jaw). Evolutionists point out that it does have some characteristics which are found in other classes, such as reptiles.

This is true, but then it’s true of almost any vertebrate skeleton. There are also design similarities between reptiles, mammals and living birds too. Birds have a distinctive, specialized skeleton because, as one distinguished evolutionist who is also an ornithologist once said, ‘Birds are formed to fly.’ So was Archaeopteryx."

Intussen is daar ook vasgestel dat die omega keratien in vere totaal verskillend is as die alpha keratien in reptielskubbe.

“‘At the morphological level feathers are traditionally considered homologous with reptilian scales. However, in development, morphogenesis, gene structure, protein shape and sequence, and filament formation and structure, feathers are different.’ A.H. Brush, ‘On the origin of feathers’, Journal of Evolutionary Biology 9:131–142, 1996.

Dus, ook die nimlike Archaeopteryx as ’n sogenaamde oorgangsfossiel van reptiel na voël is maar net nóg ’n darwinistiese hersenskim en hipotese-prooi.

Daarom help die filosofie nie. Wetenskap floreer op feite en hipotese floreer op filosofie, maar die twee sit nie langs mekaar in die klas, nie. Dit is Michael Ruse se probleem met die darwinisme, alhoewel hy verbete veg om nié oor te skakel na kreasionisme toe nie. Daar is baie mense wat sê dat Darwin sy teorie geskoei het op sy vooroordeel teenoor God en die Christelike Godsdiens. Dit het Darwin bykans 20 jaar geneem om die moed bymekaar te skraap om die publikasie van Origin of Species te doen en het dit maar net gedoen omdat ’n ander hom wou voorspring en onder druk van Thomas Huxley, wat asof op hete kole, vir daardie ateïstiese ‘bybel’ gewag het. Gould het ook langs daardie lyne daarmee gedeel.

Groete,
Kobus de Klerk

Shares0Pin0Print0LinkedIn0
  • 24

Kommentaar

  • Johan Wiese

    Ek het nogal gewonder of ou KdK gaan galbraak oor die Urvogel, (Oervoël) toe ek Wouter se kommentaar lees. Kobus is reg dat daar besliste kontroversie rakende die oorgangsfase van die vogel bestaan. 

    Tog wonder ek of Christene eerlik en openlik sal debatteer en navorsing doen oor die onsigbare dinge wat in die bybel staan en dit onderhewig sal stel aan spesifieke toetse en opinies. Die geval van die Oervoël bewys net weereens dat die Wetenskap eties met die waarheid omgaan, terwyl die christenskap die onetiese roete verkies en op onetiese wyse die onverklaarbare aan spirituele intelligensie oorlaat.

    Reply
  • Johan Wiese

    Net terloops, dit is verblydend dat Kobus aanhaal uit die Journaal van Biologie, 'n gerekende en gerespekteerde joernaal wat deur Wetenskaplikes en Bioloë wat die evolusieteorie in die praktyk behartig gelees word. Dus word selfs kritiek teenoor sekere studies gepubliseer sonder om foute te ontken. 

    Ek wag vir die dag dat die Joernaal van Kreasionisme eendag sal erken dat god nie fossiele geskape het om ons te toets nie.

    Reply
  • Angus

    Mooi, Kobus, ek sien jy het na my geluister.  'n Aanhaling uit een van my briewe: Bekende onderwerpe om te bewys dat evolusie onmoontlik is, is die Tweede wet van Termodinamika, onverminderde kompleksiteit, die oog, die walvis, van aap tot mens, die Miller-Urey eksperiment, peperkleurige motte, die Archaeopteryx, om maar net ’n paar te noem. 

     
     Hier volg nog ao 'n paar waaroor jy kan skryf: Darwin se vinke,  vrugtevlieg met vier vlerke,  Haeckel se embrios, en jou geliefkoosde  hond word perd. 
     
    Dit alles help niks, Kobus. Evolusie het plaasgevind en is besig om nog steeds plaas te vind en daar kan absoluut niks aan gedoen word nie.
     
    Dis so goed as om te sê Bloedrivier het nooit plaasgevind nie, en dan voer jy bewyse aan waarom nie. 1. Die klein klompie boere kon nie duisende Zulus doodskiet nie. 2. Hulle het te min gewere gehad. 3. Die laai van die Sannas was te tydsaam en ingewikkeld. ens ens. 
     
    Gevolgtrekking : Bloedrivier kon nie plaasvind nie; dit was 'n leuen.
    Reply
  • Stephan Marcus

    "Let me be open. I think that evolution is a fact and that Darwinism rules triumphant. Natural selection is not simply an important mechanism. It is the only significant cause of permanent organic change. I stand someware to the right of Archdeacon Paley on adaptation and design. I see purpose and function everywhere. I am an ardent naturalist and an enthusiastic reductionist, and those who disagree with me are wimps." 

    Micheal Ruse - Can a Darwinian be a Christian? Bl ix.

    "Creationists often like to trade on an ambiguity between evolution as fact and evolution as path and cause, suggesting that because there is debate about the latter there is doubt about the former. Plantinga is past master at this gambit. But it is an ambiguity, and it is being used falsely. No one today thinks that evolution as fact is any less secure than it was for Darwin" 

    Micheal Ruse - Can a Darwinian be a Christian? Bl 59-60

     "So, what does our history tell us? Three things. First, if the claim is that all contemporary evolutionism is merely an excuse to promote moral and societal norms, this is simply false. Today's professional evolutionism is no more a secular religion than is industrial chemistry. Second, there is indeed a thriving area of more popular evolutionism, where evolution is used to underpin claims about the nature of the universe, the meaning of it all for us humans, and the way we should behave. I am not saying that this area is all bad or that it should be stamped out. I am all in favor of saving the rainforests. I am saying that this popular evolutionism—often an alternative to religion—exists. Third, we who cherish science should be careful to distinguish when we are doing science and when we are extrapolating from it, particularly when we are teaching our students. If it is science that is to be taught, then teach science and nothing more. Leave the other discussions for a more appropriate time."

    Micheal Ruse - ScienceVol. 299 no. 5612 pp. 1523-1524, Beklemtoning bygevoeg.

     

    Ek kan tog ook quote mine! Ek dink jy moet nou vir Prof Ruse in vrede laat. Hy kom nie in die kerk nie en jy nie in die biblioteek nie so julle behoort mekaar nooit te pla nie...

    Reply
  • Angus

    Beste Kobus,

    Volgens jou aanhaling uit prof. David Menton het hy reptielskubbe en vere onder 'n elektron mikroskoop beskou en tot die gevolgtrekking gekom dat hulle geen ooreenkoms toon nie: "I was amused that they were, of course, not even the slightest bit similar to feathers, as these photographs show [see below]. The only similarity is that they are both made of the protein keratin—like hair, nails and our skin.” –Hy kyk dus na uiterlike vorm.
     
    As hy 'n eier en 'n hoender onder sy mikroskoop plaas, sal hy ook sien dat hulle van mekaar verskil, maw volgens hom sal 'n eier en 'n hoender geen verband met mekaar hê nie. 
     
    Menton maak sy gevolgtrekking natuurlik uit 'n verkeerde aanname: Of course, evolutionists have long argued that feathers evolved from reptile scales and are thus fundamentally the same structure—very similar."  Vere en skubbe het nie dieselfde struktuur nie, vere is gemodifiseerde skubbe.
     
    Jy beweer dat die keratien van vere en skubbe verskil.  Dan kan jy mos aan my verduidelik wat omega keratien en alpha keratien is en hoe hulle van mekaar verskil. 
     
    Vertel vir ons hoe jy in die laboratorium te werk sal gaan om die verskille aan te dui. Dan kan jy sommer vir ons vertel hoe jy in die laboratorium te werk sal gaan as jy vere en skubbe het, om die keratien inhoud daarvan te bepaal. Hoe sal jy weet dis omega of alpha keratien?
     
    Groete
     
    Sien uit na jou antwoord.
    Reply
  • Kobus de Klerk

    Mooi so, Stephan.

    Dit is juis van in die kerk én die biblioteek kom, dat gelowiges weet hoe om ’n saak behoorlik te benader.

    Met dié dat julle egter nie in die kerk kom nie, is julle tyd in die biblioteek gespandeer, ook maar nodeloos. Die insig ontbreek en dan gebeur soos nou met jou – jy kan papegaai, maar nie insien dat dit meer kwaad doen as goed, nie.

    Wat julle eintlik uitwys, is dat baie van die darwiniste aan ’n soort van skisofrenie ly – so asof dit twee verskillende persone is wat oor dieselfde onderwerp praat – moet seker daardie doellose geknutsel van die skakelaartjies wat so lukraak deur die mutasie monster aan- en af geskakel word, wees, wat sulke kortsluitings veroorsaak, of wie sê ek alles…

    En dit gebeur met ’n klomp van die groot kanonne onder hulle – Mayr, Gould, Ruse… om n par te noem. Tja! Soos ek sê, is maar 'n geval van old habits die hard en natuurlik daardie aggressiewe eweknie druk – iets waarvoor julle berug is – pas in of word vernietig…

    Dus, na dese, Ruse die eierdansende darwinistiese draadsitter.

    Nee, man, wat het jou besiel om óók oor die rand van sinnelose aanhalings te stort?  

    Angus,

    Jy is verkeerd oor Bloedrivier, soos met alles anders van belang  – daar was genoeg boere vir die taak op hand, hulle had geloof, moed en metodiek; Hulle was eensgesind; Hulle infrastruktuur was meesterlik bestuur, hulle kon dus hul sannas vinnig en effektief laai met lopers; Hulle had uitstekende strategie en kennis van hulle vyand se swakhede – gawes van God omdat hulle hul na God gekeer het vir hulp en die vyand, hulle na toordokters en voorvaderlike geeste gewend het. God triomfeer altyd in die stryd tussen boos en heilig (en dit het hoegenaamd niks met verkleur te make, nie).

    Dus, jy weet nie hoe om feite te interpreteer nie,  daarom is jy ’n darwinis en jy sal ook nooit weet nie, want jy is 'n agnostikus.

    Johan,
    Weereens, nogeens, weer 'n keer, nog 'n keer - ons as gelowiges is bepaald nie daarop uit om enigiets in die Woord te wil bewys nie. Ons is gelowiges - ons ken die Gewer van die Woord en die Skepper van alle dinge en daarom sal ons nie dinge wil bewys wat ons reeds ken nie.

    Julle maak egter aanspraak op bewyse vir alles - en dit geld vir julle eie religieuse standpunte - die darwinisme. Op eie aandrang - maar julle kan nie slaag nie.

    Kobus de Klerk

    Reply
  • Wouter
    Hello, 
     
    Hierdie boek is op my boekrak en word nou gereeld opgesoek en sluit dit byvoorbeeld 'n volledige hoofstuk oor evo-devo in en is daar geen teken daarin dat dit kreasionisme ondersteun nie. 
     
    Die detail is soos volg: Evolution: The First Four Billion Years Michael Ruse (Editor), Joseph Travis (Editor), Edward O. Wilson (Foreword). 
     
    Die omvang is soos volg: 
     
    Spanning evolutionary science from its inception to its latest findings, from discoveries and data to philosophy and history, this book is the most complete, authoritative, and inviting one-volume introduction to evolutionary biology available. Clear, informative, and comprehensive in scope, Evolution opens with a series of major essays dealing with the history and philosophy of evolutionary biology, with major empirical and theoretical questions in the science, from speciation to adaptation, from paleontology to evolutionary development (evo devo), and concluding with essays on the social and political significance of evolutionary biology today.
     
    A second encyclopedic section travels the spectrum of topics in evolution with concise, informative, and accessible entries on individuals from ­Aristotle and Linneaus to Louis Leakey and Jean Lamarck; from T. H. Huxley and E. O. Wilson to Joseph Felsenstein and Motoo Kimura; and on subjects from altruism and amphibians to evolutionary psychology and Piltdown Man to the Scopes trial and social Darwinism. Readers will find the latest word on the history and philosophy of evolution, the nuances of the science itself, and the intricate interplay among evolutionary study, religion, philosophy, and ­society.
     
    Die boek is in 2009 publiseer en wat veral moet uitgelig word is die feit dat die redakteur is niemand anders as Micheal Ruse nie en dus glad nie tekenend van hoe Ruse deur De Klerk uitgebeeld word nie. ' Dit is Michael Ruse se probleem met die darwinisme, alhoewel hy verbete veg om nié oor te skakel na kreasionisme toe nie'.
     
    Dus behalwe vir die gawe van 'spirituele intelligensie' kan De Klerk deur die eter gedagtes ook lees. 
     
    In die konteks daarvan is Stephan Marcus se opdatering waardevol en die feit dat Ruse die redakteur van 'n boek is wat evolusie, biologie in soveel detail bespreek, bevestig weereens dat De Klerk soos klokslag, skrywers hier wanvoorstel. 
     
    Reply
  • Wouter
    Uit my argiewe: 
     
    Evolution of Feathers
    The long curious extravagant evolution of feathers
    By Carl Zimmer
     
    Most of us will never get to see nature's greatest marvels in person. We won't get a glimpse of a colossal squid's eye, as big as a basketball. The closest we'll get to a narwhal's unicornlike tusk is a photograph. But there is one natural wonder that just about all of us can see, simply by stepping outside: dinosaurs using their feathers to fly.
     
    Birds are so common, even in the most paved-over places on Earth, that it's easy to take for granted both their dinosaur heritage and the ingenious plumage that keeps them aloft. To withstand the force of the oncoming air, a flight feather is shaped asymmetrically, the leading edge thin and stiff, the trailing edge long and flexible. To generate lift, a bird has merely to tilt its wings, adjusting the flow of air below and above them.
     
    Airplane wings exploit some of the same aerodynamic tricks. But a bird wing is vastly more sophisticated than anything composed of sheet metal and rivets. From a central feather shaft extends a series of slender barbs, each sprouting smaller barbules, like branches from a bough, lined with tiny hooks. When these grasp on to the hooklets of neighboring barbules, they create a structural network that's featherlight but remarkably strong. When a bird preens its feathers to clean them, the barbs effortlessly separate, then slip back into place.The origin of this wonderful mechanism is one of evolution's most durable mysteries. 
     
    In 1861, just two years after Darwin published Origin of Species, quarry workers in Germany unearthed spectacular fossils of a crow-size bird, dubbed Archaeopteryx, that lived about 150 million years ago. It had feathers and other traits of living birds but also vestiges of a reptilian past, such as teeth in its mouth, claws on its wings, and a long, bony tail. Like fossils of whales with legs, Archaeopteryx seemed to capture a moment in a critical evolutionary metamorphosis. "It is a grand case for me," Darwin confided to a friend.
     
    The case would have been even grander if paleontologists could have found a more ancient creature endowed with more primitive feathers—something they searched for in vain for most of the next century and a half. In the meantime, other scientists sought to illuminate the origin of feathers by examining the scales of modern reptiles, the closest living relatives of birds. 
     
    Both scales and feathers are flat. So perhaps the scales of the birds' ancestors had stretched out, generation after generation. Later their edges could have frayed and split, turning them into the first true feathers.
     
    It made sense too that this change occurred as an adaptation for flight. Imagine the ancestors of birds as small, scaly, four-legged reptiles living in forest canopies, leaping from tree to tree. If their scales had grown longer, they would have provided more and more lift, which would have allowed the protobirds to glide a little farther, then a little farther still. 
     
    Only later might their arms have evolved into wings they could push up and down, transforming them from gliders to true powered fliers. In short, the evolution of feathers would have happened along with the evolution of flight.
     
    This feathers-led-to-flight notion began to unravel in the 1970s, when Yale University paleontologist John Ostrom noted striking similarities between the skeletons of birds and terrestrial dinosaurs called theropods, a group that includes marquee monsters like Tyrannosaurus rex and Velociraptor. 
     
    Clearly, Ostrom argued, birds were the living descendants of theropods. Still, many known theropods had big legs, short arms, and stout, long tails—hardly the anatomy one would expect on a creature leaping from trees. 
     
    Other paleontologists argued that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs—rather, their similarities derived from a shared common ancestor deeper in the past.
     
    In 1996 Chinese paleontologists delivered startling support for Ostrom's hypothesis. It was the fossil of a small, short-armed 125-million-year-old theropod, Sinosauropteryx, which had one extraordinary feature: a layer of thin, hollow filaments covering its back and tail. 
     
    At last there was evidence of truly primitive feathers—found on a ground-running theropod. 
     
    In short, the origin of feathers may have had nothing to do with the origin of flight.
     
    Soon paleontologists were finding hundreds of feathered theropods. 
     
    With so many fossils to compare, they began piecing together a more detailed history of the feather. 
     
    First came simple filaments. Later, different lineages of theropods evolved various kinds of feathers, some resembling the fluffy down on birds today, some having symmetrically arranged barbs. 
     
    Other theropods sported long, stiff ribbons or broad filaments, unlike the feathers on any living birds.
     
    The long, hollow filaments on theropods posed a puzzle. If they were early feathers, how had they evolved from flat scales? 
     
    Fortunately, there are theropods with threadlike feathers alive today: baby birds. 
     
    All the feathers on a developing chick begin as bristles rising up from its skin; only later do they split open into more complex shapes. 
     
    In the bird embryo these bristles erupt from tiny patches of skin cells called placodes. 
     
    A ring of fast-growing cells on the top of the placode builds a cylindrical wall that becomes a bristle.Reptiles have placodes too. 
     
    But in a reptile embryo each placode switches on genes that cause only the skin cells on the back edge of the placode to grow, eventually forming scales. 
     
    In the late 1990s Richard Prum of Yale University and Alan Brush of the University of Connecticut developed the idea that the transition from scales to feathers might have depended on a simple switch in the wiring of the genetic commands inside placodes, causing their cells to grow vertically through the skin rather than horizontally. In other words, feathers were not merely a variation on a theme: 
     
    They were using the same genetic instruments to play a whole new kind of music. Once the first filaments had evolved, only minor modifications would have been required to produce increasingly elaborate feathers.
     
    Until recently it was thought that feathers first appeared in an early member of the lineage of theropods that leads to birds. 
     
    In 2009, however, Chinese scientists announced the discovery of a bristly-backed creature, Tianyulong, on the ornithischian branch of the dinosaur family tree—about as distant a relative of theropods as a dinosaur can be. 
     
    This raised the astonishing possibility that the ancestor of all dinosaurs had hairlike feathers and that some species lost them later in evolution. 
     
    The origin of feathers could be pushed back further still if the "fuzz" found on some pterosaurs is confirmed to be feathers, since these flying reptiles share an even older ancestor with dinosaurs.There's an even more astonishing possibility. The closest living relatives of birds, dinosaurs, and pterosaurs are crocodilians. 
     
    Although these scaly beasts obviously do not have feathers today, the discovery of the same gene in alligators that is involved in building feathers in birds suggests that perhaps their ancestors did, 250 million years ago, before the lineages diverged. 
     
    So perhaps the question to ask, say some scientists, is not how birds got their feathers, but how alligators lost theirs.
     
    If feathers did not evolve first for flight, what other advantage could they have provided the creatures that had them? 
     
    Some paleontologists have argued that feathers could have started out as insulation. 
     
    Theropods have been found with their forelimbs spread over nests, and they may have been using feathers to shelter their young.
     
    Another hypothesis has gained strength in recent years: that feathers first evolved to be seen. Feathers on birds today come in a huge range of colors and patterns, with iridescent sheens and brilliant streaks and splashes. 
     
    In some cases their beauty serves to attract the opposite sex. A peacock unfolds his iridescent train, for instance, to attract a peahen. ?
     
    The possibility that theropods evolved feathers for some kind of display got a big boost in 2009, when scientists began to take a closer look at their structure. They discovered microscopic sacs inside the feathers, called melanosomes, that correspond precisely in shape to structures associated with specific colors in the feathers of living birds. 
     
    The melanosomes are so well preserved that scientists can actually reconstruct the color of dinosaur feathers. 
     
    Sinosauropteryx's tail, for example, appears to have had reddish and white stripes. Perhaps the males of the species flashed their handsome tails when courting females. Or perhaps both sexes used their stripes the way zebras use theirs—to recognize their own kind or confuse predators.Whatever the original purpose of feathers, they were probably around for millions of years before a single lineage of dinosaurs began to use them for flight. Paleontologists are now carefully studying the closest theropod relatives of birds for clues to how this transition occurred. 
     
    One of the most revealing is a recently discovered wonder called Anchiornis, more than 150 million years old. 
     
    The size of a chicken, it had arm feathers with black-and-white portions, creating the spangled pattern you might see on a prize rooster at a county fair. On its head it wore a gaudy rufous crown. In structure, Anchiornis's plumes were nearly identical to flight feathers, except that they were symmetrical rather than asymmetrical. Without a thin, stiff leading edge, they may have been too weak for flight.What the plumes lacked in strength, however, they made up for in number. Anchiornis had an embarrassment of feathers. They sprouted from its arms, legs, and even its toes. It's possible that sexual selection drove the evolution of this extravagant plumage, much as it drives the evolution of peacock trains today. And just as their long, heavy trains pose a burden to peacocks, the extravagant feathers of Anchiornis may have been a bit of a drag, literally.Corwin Sullivan and his colleagues at the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology in Beijing have found a way that Anchiornis could have overcome this problem. In the theropods that were closely related to living birds, a particular wristbone was wedge-shaped, allowing them to bend their hands. 
     
    Anchiornis's wrist bone was so wedge-shaped that it could fold its arms to its sides, keeping its arm feathers off the ground as it walked. Modern birds use a similar bone in flight, drawing their wings toward their bodies during an upstroke. 
     
    This crucial flight feature evolved long before birds took wing. It's an example of what evolutionary biologists call exaptation: borrowing an old body part for a new job. It now looks like bird flight was made possible by a whole string of such exaptations stretching across millions of years, long before flight itself arose.
     
    Some scientists argue that feathered dinosaurs evolved flight from the ground up, flapping their feathered arms as they ran. 
     
    Others also point out that the "leg wings" on Anchiornis and other close relatives of birds would have made for very clumsy running. These researchers are reviving the old idea that protobirds used feathers to help them leap from trees, glide, and finally fly.
     
    Ground up, trees down—why not both? Flight did not evolve in a two-dimensional world, argues Ken Dial, a flight researcher at the University of Montana-Missoula. Dial has shown that in many species a chick flaps its rudimentary wings to gain traction as it runs from predators up steep inclines, like tree trunks and cliffs. 
     
    But flapping also helps steady the chick's inevitable return to lower terrain. As the young bird matures, such controlled descent gradually gives way to powered flight. Perhaps, says Dial, the path the chick takes in development retraces the one its lineage followed in evolution—winging it, so to speak, until it finally took wing.
     
    Bogenoemde aanbieding in sy volledigheid, bevestig tot 'n groot mate die belaglikheid van De Klerk se pogings om 'n probleem te probeer vervaardig. Vir elke paragraaf wat buite konteks aangehaal word is daar 'n hele opstel wat dit in konteks moet plaas. 
     
    Aangesien die kreasionis spoeg en plak gebruik word bogenoemde aangebied, omrede daar altyd 'n volledige beskrywing beskikbaar is. 
     
     
    Reply
  • Kobus de Klerk

    Angus, jy moet onthou, regslui weet hoe om met deskundige getuies en getuienis om te gaan – die getuienis is nie ons eie nie en hoef ook mos nie te wees nie – maar word deur ons aangebied komende van deskundiges self. Ek kan sien dat jy heeltemal onkundig is met die hantering van deskundige getuienis. Dus, dit is glad nie nodig vir my om die dinge wat jy vra, te doen nie – jy het reeds die inligting, vir jou verskaf vanaf kundiges op die gebied.

    Dus, jóú metodiek laat veel te wense oor. Nou ja, jy het nou jou tyd gemors – in stede dat jy aanvaarbare weerleggende getuienis aanbied wat nie hipotese is nie, kom jy met die nonsens hierbo.

    Jou bewering dat vere gemodifiseerde skubbe is, is sommer ’n hipotese. Nóg ’n hipotese. Jy is besig om agter Dawkins aan te klim op sy mount improbable wat mount impossible geword het – hier is feite waaraan jy kan herkou “But scales are folds in skin; feathers are complex structures with a barb, barbules, and hooks. They also originate in a totally different way, from follicles inside the skin in a manner akin to hair” Wat van die DNS wat verskil om die twee te produseer?

    Jou hoendereier hipotese is eweneens snert om van kinderagtig nie eens te praat nie – hoewel die dop en skelet anders lyk, is alles in die eier, wat uiteindelik die hoender sal wees. Jou voorbeeld is totaal van punt af wat wys dat jy nie verstaan wat jy self wil propageer nie. Jy dink kundiges is so insigloos soos jy. Vir jou op pad mount impossible op, is ’n hoender en reptiel mos pasmaats soos jy en aap is - albei lê mos eiers!

    Ek sal wel vir jou ’n aanduiding gee oor omega keratien en alfa keratien – lees weer Brush se aanmerking hierbo in my artikel. Verstaan jy dit nie? Waarom op aarde sou ek die toets wou doen om die biochemiese verskil aan te dui? Die deskundiges het dit alreeds gedoen.

    Jy is nou by die stadium wat jy só desperaat is, dat jy weer werklike kundiges wil aanvat. Jou onvolwasse streek is nou weer besig om kop uit te steek.

    Kobus de Klerk  

    Reply
  • Kleinkoos

    Kobus
    Kan jy nie ophou om die valshede hier te beweer nie?
    Soos byvoorbeeld: “Of course, evolutionists have long argued that feathers evolved from reptile scales….” Natuurlik is dit so. Ons kan selfs vir jou foto’s wys van fossiele wat ontwikkeling van skubbe na rudimentêre vere en ook na vere aantoon. Ons het die fossiele.
    “…  and are thus fundamentally the same structure—very similar.”
     Onwaar.  Niemand het nog ooit beweer dat skubbe en vere dieselfde strukture het nie.  Stel jou bron hier ‘n strooiman op?
    Hoekom vertel jou bronne altyd sulke onwaarhede? Miskien omdat jou bron ‘n mediese dokter is wat absoluut niks weet van fossiele nie, maar voorgee hy weet alles?
    Archaopterix is geklassifiseer as ‘n voël omdat hy die vier hoofkenmerke het:
    1.       Vere.
    2.       Opponerende groottone
    3.       ‘n Wensbeen
    4.       Die skaambene was verleng en sit erugwaarst georiënteer.
    Archaeopterix het onder andere ook die verdere kenmerke van reptiele:
    1.       Hy het nie ‘n snawel nie, maar ‘n bek vol tande
    2.       Hy het ‘n lang, gewerwelde stert
    3.       Die bene was pneumaties
    So, Kobus, die Archaeopterix was gelassifiseer as ‘n voël, omdat daar geen is klassifikasie is vir ‘n spesie tussen ‘n voël en ‘n dinosaurus nie.  Archaopterix is dus ‘n voël met ‘n bek vol tande soos ‘n dinosaurus  en ‘n lang, gewerwelde stert soos ‘n dinosaurus. ‘n Fantastiese oorgangsfossiel.
    Kleinkoos

    Reply
  • Wouter

    Baie dankie Chris. 

     
    Bogenoemde volledige aanhaling bevestig maar weereens die probleem om te veg teen die kreasionis en kreasionis De Klerk se quote mining. Die geselekteerde frases word links en regs geplaas, terwyl 'n akkurate en volledige korreksie daarvan 'n opstel verg. 
     
    Mutasie, byvoorbeeld, word gebruik deur De Klerk om voorspooksels van 'n drog-mutant te skep. 'n Tant Alie sal De Klerk se absurde logika volg en glo dat mutasie aanleiding gee tot "monsters"- mutants en dat dit net 'n god se hand is wat die skepping kan reguleer.
     
    Daarom sal dit 'n volledige bespreking oor mutasie/genetika verg om die korrekte konteks te skep. 
     
    Die inligting is beskikbaar, maar ek wil nie graag opstel na opstel hier plaas in sy volledigheid nie, maar dit is wat dit verg om die korrekte weergawe na vore te laat bring. 
     
    Wouter
    Reply
  • Wouter

    Hello Angus, 

     
    De Klerk is nog steeds met sy gewone truuks besig, ten spyte van die melodramatiese: 
     
    "jy moet onthou, regslui weet hoe om met deskundige getuies en getuienis om te gaan – die getuienis is nie ons eie nie en hoef ook mos nie te wees nie – maar word deur ons aangebied komende van deskundiges self"
     
    Gaan kyk hier: 
     
     
    Jy onthou seker nog Jonathan Sarfati. 
     
    De Klerk put uit 'n artikel van hom getiteld, "Kentucky fried dinosaur?"
     
    Hierdie is vir beide De Klerk en Sarfati die boerpot: 
     
    Many evolutionists claim that dinosaurs developed feathers for insulation and later evolved and refined them for flight purposes. But this fails to explain how they evolved—scales are folds in skin; feathers are complex structures with a barb, barbules and hooks. They also originate in a totally different way, from follicles inside the skin in a manner akin to hair. There has been no report yet of a fossil showing scales turning into feathers or a leg turning into a wing. 
     
    Sarfati is 'n besig en kan hier ook nog detail gevind word. 
     
     
    Refuting EvolutionA handbook for students, parents, and teachers countering the latest arguments for evolutionby Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D., F.M.
     
    Bird evolution?
     
    First published in Refuting Evolution, Chapter 4
     
    Wat veral 'n lag 'n minuut is, is hierdie besorge dialoog: Archaeopteryx
     
    Teaching about Evolution has several imaginary ‘dialogues’ between teachers. In one of them (p.8), there is the following exchange:
     
    Karen: A student in one of my classes at university told me that there are big gaps in the fossil record. Do you know anything about that?
     
    Doug: Well, there's Archaeopteryx. It's a fossil that has feathers like a bird but the skeleton of a small dinosaur. It's one of those missing links that's not missing any more.
     
    However, Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an evolutionist himself, disagrees with assertions like those of ‘Doug’:Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it's not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.
     
    Sarfati, is mos die grapjas wat The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on evolution geskryf het. 
     
    Product Description
     
    Richard Dawkins, the undisputed high priest of evolution/atheism, says his book The Greatest Show on Earth: the evidence for evolution is the first time he has presented all the evidence for evolution/long ages. It is promoted as an unanswerable demolition of creation. Scientist, logician, chessmaster and author of the world’s biggest-selling creationist book, CMI’s Dr Jonathan Sarfati, relentlessly demolishes Dawkin’s claims point-by-point, showing biblical creation makes more sense of the evidence. A must-read
     
    Vreemd dus dat Carl Zimmer nie vir die getuienis geroep is nie, maar wel Sarfati, waar prokureur en getuie in ooreenstemming is. 
     
    Hoe lank nog gaan die klug volgehou word. 
     
    Thomas het aangedui dit kan tot 700 jaar neem. 
    Reply
  • Delusie

    Kobus se tegniek is verdagmakery. Kobus se fantasie is dat rasionele mense die baba met die badwater sal uitgooi:- deur Gish Galloping verdagmakery toe te pas gaan mense die hele teorie uitgooi en verplaas met magic, toor, geeste en spoke en (sy) gode - as 'n volwaardige alternatief vir evolusie (common descent)

    Those who cavalierly reject the Theory of Evolution, as not adequately supported by facts, seem quite to forget that their own theory is supported by no facts at all." Herbert Spence

    Lieg vir Jesus Kobus?

    Reply
  • Kobus de Klerk

    Kleinkoos, lees weer:

    “In  Eichstätt, Germany, in 1984 there was a major meeting of scientists who  specialize in bird evolution, the International Archaeopteryx Conference.  They disagreed on just about anything that was covered there on this creature,  but there was very broad agreement on the belief that Archaeopteryx was  a true bird. Only a tiny minority thought that it was actually one of the  small, lightly built coelurosaurian dinosaurs [small lightly framed dinosaurs]. Did  that mean that really they didn’t think it was a transitional pre-bird? Well,  it’s kind of interesting that they found it necessary to draft the following  statement. ‘Conferees did agree unanimously to the declaration that organic  evolution is a fundamental process of biology and we recognize the importance  of the Archaeopteryx contribution to that problem.”

    Jy verstaan Engels?! Jy begryp die betekenis van "true bird"? So, wat is fout met jou, jy is soos ’n plaat wat vashaak met jou “so-en-so vertel nie die waarheid nie…” en só is julle almal op een of ander manier so koddig, ’n mens kan lag daarvoor.

    Wie stel belang in jou storie? Wat weet jý? Wil jy met ’n ganse paneel deskundiges stry?

    Die ding is ’n voël en basta. As oorgangsfossiel is dit 'n "problem" , dit wil sê, vergeet daarvan!

    Al doel wat jý dien, is om uit te wys hoe bereid darwiniste is om oneerlik te wees en dan ander daarvoor en daaroor te beskuldig.  En helaas, dit is juis waaroor my reeks artikels handel - julle blatante oneerlikheid en dat julle dit vir wetenskap wil voorhou.

    Swak man!

    Kobus de Klerk

    Reply
  • Kobus de Klerk

    Kleinkoos,

    Jou kansvatter-desperate bewering van rudimentêre vere as oorgangsfenomeen – bog, man!

    “Sinosauropteryx, a small dinosaur, made headlines in 1996. Why? Because its fossil was reported to have a coat of filamentous structures, dubbed ‘dinofuzz feathers’. It was touted by many as definitive evidence of dino-to-bird evolution. But a recent study by renowned ornithologist Alan Feduccia and his colleagues shows that these and other filamentous structures were not feathers or ‘protofeathers’. Instead, they were likely the remains of collagenous fibre ‘meshworks’ that reinforce the skin. In the light of this and other studies, Dr Feduccia says the continuing controversies over ‘feathered dinosaurs’ make no sense.”

    Elke iedere keer as julle reageer, ontbloot julle nuwe darwinistiese leuens! Hou so aan!

    Terloops, ek wonder of jy werklik weet wat 'pneumaties' beteken - watter belaglike bewering.

    Kobus de Klerk

    Reply
  • Kobus de Klerk

    Ek het slegte nuus vir jou, Delusie,

    Jou darwinistiese fabelstorie wat as wetenskaplike teorie opgedis word, gaan nié oorleef op ’n paar skeletbene vol gate nie – om te oorleef is ’n volle funksionerende liggaam nodig en danksy die navorsingswerk van gelowige wetenskaplikes, wat die darwinistiese delusie (uitstekende skuilnaam wat jy vir jou gekies het) in die laaste paar jaar te ontbloot vir die klug wat dit is, is dié liggaam aan flarde en dit word al erger. Ek sê mos, dis ’n kadawer wat julle probeer regop hou met vuil taktiek – hou jou dop…

    Dus, julle moet maar vrede maak met die feit dat ek die dinge hier uitwys. Jou aanmerking, waar ek júlle leuens uitwys en dan vir my te vra of ék vir Jesus lieg, is só onnosel. Dink jy, jy kan met sulke snert wegkom? In jou eie geledere, ja. Maar nie by mense wat selfstandig kan dink, nie.

    Dus, vir jou inligting, dit is nie ek wat met verdagmakery besig is nie, ek wys julle snert uit wat alreeds verdag is en julle wil dit in almal se keelgate, letterlik met aggressie en bullebak taktiek, afdruk.

    Wouter,

    Dankie vir jou bydrae. Ek het juis gesê ek kan nie by al die verwysings wat julle snert aan flarde skeur, uitkom nie – jy is my behulpsaam. Én jy wys daarop dat Jonathan Sarfati ’n hoogs gerespekteerde, geleerde, sistematiese, intelligente en logies-denkende persoon is en welopgevoed daarby. Dit is waarom Richard Dawkins só deur hom oorskadu en oorheers word, want Sarfati is álles wat Dawkins nie is, nie.

    En dan is jy darem openlik genoeg om weer daardie laggie van jou met ons te deel (nie dat jy wil, nie), jy weet, daardie onwillekeurige senuweeagtige amper histerie-laggie van mense wat desperaat voel…

    Natúúrlik sal ek getuies gebruik wat die Waarheid kom uitwys.

    Kobus de Klerk

    Reply
  • Johan Wiese

    Kobus, daar is derduisende webtuistes daarbuite waarin julle IO tipes probeer bewys dat julle kreasie - teorie ernstig opgeneem moet word. Dit is lekker om voor te lag, maar as julle niks hoef te bewys nie, hoekom soveel propaganda vir IO doen? IO verg tog bewyse ... en alhoewel dit ontbreek spartel julle julself sopnat om julle eie teorie te skep en is die dinge wat jy dan daagliks hier voorle 'n poging om "bewys" te lewer ...

    Reply
  • Kobus de Klerk

    Ons probeer niks bewys nie, Johan,ons ruk julle snert aan flarde en ons geniet dit terdeë. Julle verskaf egter on-goedgunstiglik vir ons al die materiaal wat ons oortuigings as gelowiges (IO is nie noodwendig almal gelowiges nie) in God se skepping bevestig, wyl ons dit al lankal so glo.

    Moenie jouself op jou ou-oudag so mislei nie.

    Ek weet van julle lag - dit is daardie senurukkings voor die hsiterie uitbarstings soo osn al vir Wouter hier sien manifesteer het.

    Sleg vir die hart, hoor!

    Reply
  • CorneliusHenn

    As iemand sou belangstel oor waarheen Kobus de Klerk se drogma aanval nog kan lei, lees gerus die hele verhaal op creation.com.

    Dis eintlik heel maklik om 'n kitsnaslaner se bronne te bepaal.  

    Al wat jy doen is om 'n deel van hul spoeg en blerts te copy&paste, in jou soekblokkie te plak en siedaar - 'n hele rits potensiële bronne kom op jou skerm.  

    Doen dit gereeld en jy sal gou agterkom waar die kitsnaslaner meestal rondhang.  

    In Kobus se geval is creation.com 'n gunsteling.  

    Eintlik jammer om dit te moet seg, maar dr. Johan Kruger (http://creation.com/dr-johan-kruger) is die baas van die plaas op creation.com in Suid Afrika en nie my amigo in Adam - onse grote ou Kobus de Klerk nie.  

    Nie dat onse Bose ou Kobus dalk binnekort 'n plek in hul aktiwiteit aan Mzansi vir sy toegewyde kwasi-Christen tiksels op die werf kan ontvang nie - ek's seker Kobus is 'n goeie kandidaat vir hul Plataarde Genootskap vir Opregte Gelowiges.  

    Maar wag - daar's meer!  

    Creation.com het ook 'n ".mobi"

    Kobus kan dus enige plek sit en homself met die blare van hul mobile tak vee.

    Hindoe-, Moslem-, Joodse,  katolieke en Boeddhistiese liefde,
    Cornelius

    Reply
  • Kobus de Klerk

    Dankie, Kerneels!

    Jy doen goed deur die kreasioniste en ander gelowiges se webwerwe te promoveer.

    Het jy gesien die "bydraes" wat jy weer deesdae maak, hmm? Hoe leeg en banaal dit is? Hoe jy nie in staat is om enigiets sinvol te plaas nie, behalwe as jy iemand anders wat sinvol kan skrywe, aanhaal?

    Kobus de Klerk

    Reply
  • Wouter

    Dit is hoe ek gereeld Henn op Wkipedia gevind het, daarom nou die vertalings uit Henn se hand. So snou deksel nou vir pot. Henn aan De Klerk. 

    Reply
  • CorneliusHenn

    Ai tog ou Woutie ... jy weet jok ... jy't nog altyd 'n probleem met die regte boeke op my rak en persoonlike ervaring waaruit ek aanhaal... nes dié onlangs van Leon Lederman "The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question?" wat ek in my bydrae "Skeppingsleer" verhaal het en jy dit toe nie kon Google nie ... dis mos op rekord vir almal om te sien... moenie soos my amigo in Adam die ou grote Kobus jou kommentaar onder my bydrae "Handves vir Barmhartigheid" gaan staan en ontduik met 'n woernaal nie ... ek stel rêrig belang in die standpunte wat jy daar huldig ... groete ... ekke ... 


    Reply

    • Reageer

    Jou e-posadres sal nie gepubliseer word nie. Kommentaar is onderhewig aan moderering.


     

    Top