Another "Missing Link" Fossil Found to be a Fake

[Immortal4life]

Yet Another "Missing Link" Fossil Found to be a Fake

 

Here is a great documentary entitled "The Dinosaur that Fooled the World", explaining how evolution theory and the fraud of Archaeoraptor held back our understanding of both dinosaurs and birds, and how the best scientists in the world let themselves be made fools out of because they desperately wanted to find a "missing link" between dinosaurs and birds.

 

The Dinosaur that fooled the world

http://www.123video.nl/playvideos.asp?MovieID=713967

http://www.123video.nl/playvideos.asp?MovieID=713996&Rel=1

 

Reptiles turned into birds? Yeah right, there are many problems with such an idea. To top it off, a lot of people claim that there are reptile/bird missing links in China, but they always end up being found to be fake or misinterpretations of the data-

Another "Missing Link" Fossil Found to be a Fake | Pureinsight

Another "Missing Link" Fossil Found to be a Fake

Zhou Xin

[PureInsight.org] On November 21, 2002, the journal Nature published an article named "Archaeoraptor's Better Half: The Other Component of the Infamous Fossil Forgery is Identified as a Fish-Eating Bird." (VOl 420, 2002) After careful measurements and morphological study, scientists concluded that the Archaeoraptor fossil that was once proclaimed as a key intermediate between carnivorous dinosaurs and birds is now known to be a forgery. It is a chimera formed of bird and dromaeosaur parts.

 

Ancient bird scientists Zhonghe Zhou and Fucheng Zhang, from the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology of the Chinese Academy of Science, and Julia A. Clarke from the New York based Museum of Natural History investigated the piece of fossil and confirmed that the Archaeoraptor fossil is a fake. It is composed of the tail of a dromaeosaur and a nearly intact Yanornis martini skeleton. It was previously claimed that this fossil had been smuggled from inland China to America. In 1999, National Geographic reported on it in detail and called it a new species between dinosaurs and birds.

 

Using X-ray technology, the Archaeoraptor fossil was found to consist of two to five specimens from two or more species. Parts other than the dromaeosaur tail are strikingly similar to Yanornis martini in terms of morphology, body ratio, and anatomy, and completely different from those of a dromaeosaur. In the stomach of a recently discovered Yanornis specimen, scientists found fish remains, which indicates that Yanornis fed on fish.

 

Over the past one hundred years, Darwin's Theory of Evolution has dominated. Many phenomena cannot be explained according to the theory, but scientists still try to defend it. People try to find the missing links in order to validate the theory of evolution, but so far, no conclusive intermediate species fossils had been found. The "Archaeoraptor" fossil is just another case of this.

 

Figure: Analysis of the Archaeoraptor forgery and Yanrnis martini specimen.

a: the avian half of the Archaeoraptor fossil

b: Yanrnis martini holotype specimen

c: Insert: recently found Yanrnis martini and the fish remains in it.

 

 

...and it's not just Archaeoraptor, though Archaeoraptor was one of the most touted by evolutionists before it was exposed as a fraud. There have been many other fakes exposed as well-

Many of the alleged intermediates actually are fully formed, modern feathers, or structures that are not feathers at all.65 For example, Sinosauropteryx feathers are actually filaments.7071

 

Other ancient fossil feather discoveriessuch as on the oviraptorosaur Caudipteryx and Protarchaeopteryxare true feathers.72 Touted by some as a dinosaur, Caudipteryx has been dated to within the early Cretaceous, often estimated as 30 million years younger than Archaeopteryx.73 Evolutionary paleo-ornithologists Feduccia and Martin, staunch critics of the dinosaur-to-bird theory, believe that Protarchaeopteryx and Caudipteryx are more likely to be flightless birds similar to ostriches.

 

They have birdlike teeth and lack the long tail seen in theropods. Caudipteryx even used gizzard stones like modern plant-eating birds, but unlike theropods. Far from being ancestors of Archaeopteryx, cladistic evidence points (under evolutionary presuppositions) to their being birdlike (under their own transforming paradigm), and secondarily flightless descendants of Archaeopteryx

 

Oh but it gets worse.....notice all these "missing links" seem to come from the same province in China, in an area notorious for fakers and frauds?

The leading paleo-ornithologist and evolutionary critic of the dino-to-bird dogma, Dr Alan Feduccia, who is an evolutionist himself, sounded a note of caution about the feathered dinosaurs in general in an interview with the evolutionary Discover magazine (below, emphasis added).3 It certainly seems strange that all these feathered dinosaurs come from a single province of Chinathe same place as the Archaeoraptor hoax came from. Indeed, the holotype (first named specimen) of Microraptor was in fact part of this hoax!4 However, neither our case nor Feduccias against previous feathered dinosaurs has ever depended on this particular problem, and the same is true of Microraptor gui, as will be shown.

 

Discover: What about all the other evidence for feathered dinosaurs?

Feduccia: When we see actual feathers preserved on specimens, we need to carefully determine if we are looking at secondarily flightless birds that have retained feathers and only superficially resemble dinosaurs, or if the specimens are in fact related to dinosaurs. Thats a difficult issue to deal with right now, given the existence of fake fossils.

 

Discover: So far, only one feathered dinosaur, Archaeoraptor, has been publicly acknowledged as a forgery. You think there are others?

 

Feduccia: Archaeoraptor is just the tip of the iceberg. There are scores of fake fossils out there, and they have cast a dark shadow over the whole field. When you go to these fossil shows, its difficult to tell which ones are faked and which ones are not. I have heard that there is a fake-fossil factory in northeastern China, in Liaoning Province, near the deposits where many of these recent alleged feathered dinosaurs were found.

 

Journals like Nature dont require specimens to be authenticated, and the specimens immediately end up back in China, so nobody can examine them. They may be miraculous discoveries, they may be missing links as they are claimed, but there is no way to authenticate any of this stuff.

 

Discover: Why would anyone fake a fossil?

Feduccia: Money. The Chinese fossil trade has become a big business. These fossil forgeries have been sold on the black market for years now, for huge sums of money. Anyone who can produce a good fake stands to profit.

 

It is not unreasonable to apply Feduccias scepticism to the current find. Even the original paper should make us cautious. Commenting on the paper point-by-point:

 

Notes on the specimens. Of the six specimens in the present study, IVPP V13476 was collected by the Liaoxi expedition team of the IVPP in 2001, IVPP V13352, V13320, V13477 and V13351 were purchased by the IVPP during the field seasons of 2001 and 2002, and TNP00996 was purchased by Tianjin Museum of Natural History in 2002.

 

It is highly suspicious to rely on purchased fossils, since one has no proof of the geological context or whether they have been doctored. As Dr Feduccia says, no-one from Nature would have checked the authenticity of the specimen. Dr Storrs Olson, Curator of Birds at the National Museum of Natural History of the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. has also noted that Natures reliability on this issue is highly suspect:

 

On the one had I find it almost humorous, even hilarious, that fakers in China can fool National Geographic and alleged "world class scientists". On the other hand it's almost sad or disappointing that scientists desperate to find evidence for evolution would hold back our understanding of how dinosaurs and birds lived in the past just because they want evidence to support a theory they beolieve in because they were taught it as children in school.

 

It starts getting crazy how far scientists will go to fit fossils into the theory of evolution

 

ScienceDaily, Embryo Studies Show Dinosaurs Could Not Have Given Rise To Modern Birds -

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1997/10/971027064254.htm

 

Scientist Says Ostrich Study Confirms Bird "Hands" Unlike Those Of Dinosaurs-

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/08/020815072053.htm

 

Scientists Say No Evidence Exists That Therapod Dinosaurs Evolved Into Birds-

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051010085411.htm

No good evidence exists that fossilized structures found in China and which some paleontologists claim are the earliest known rudimentary feathers were really feathers at all

 

And check it out!

CORVALLIS, Ore. (June 22, 2000) - Scientists today announced the discovery of the oldest animal ever known to have feathers, which may have been the ancestor of birds but clearly was not a dinosaur - a discovery that calls into serious question many theories about an evolutionary link between dinosaurs and birds.

 

The "ridiculous reptile to bird theory"!

The case against Darwin

The ridiculous reptile to bird theory

 

And then there is common sense. In a popular evolutionary explanation, here's how reptiles evolved into birds: They wanted to eat flying insects that were out of reach. So the reptiles began leaping, and flapping their arms to get higher. Over millions of years, their limbs transformed into wings by increments, their tough reptilian scales gradually sprouting soft feathers.

 

But the theory suffers when scrutinized. According to natural selection, a physical trait is acquired because it enhances survival.

 

The problem is, wings would have no genuine survival value until they reached the point of flight. Birds' wings and feathers are perfectly designed instruments. Those with crippled or clipped wings cannot fly, and are bad candidates for survival. Likewise, the intermediate creature whose limb was half leg, half wing, would fare poorly -- it couldn't fly, nor walk well. Natural selection would eliminate it without a second thought.

 

Let's raise an even more fundamental question: Why aren't reptiles today developing feathers? Why aren't fish today growing little legs, trying to adapt to land? Shouldn't evolution be ongoing?

 

The complete lack of a fossil record

 

Supposedly invertebrates evolved into the first fish. But despite millions of fossils from both groups, transitional fossils linking them are missing.

 

Insects, rodents, bats, pterodactyls and numerous other life forms appear in the fossil record with no trace of fossils showing how they developed.

 

The main point: If evolutionary theory is true, we should find the innumerable transitional forms Darwin predicted would be in the geologic record. We shouldn't find just a handful, but billions of them. Instead, the fossil record shows animals complete -- not in developmental stages -- the very first time they are seen. And this is just what we would expect if the Bible is right and God created animals whole.

 

James Perloff is the author of Tornado in a Junkyard: The Relentless Myth of Darwinism

 

"I think it can be safely assumed that since the day Chuck Darwin first came up with this "stuff", evolutionists have been attempting to flim flam everyone with fraudulent fabrications and machiavellian manufactured evidence to manipulate the masses for so long and so often, they have reduced their credibility so much they can no longer be trusted and the peer reviews they write have also been found to be somewhat of a "Clique" at the top levels where politics and like minded darwininan opinion and support goes further in elevating status than genuine personal acheivment and compelling accurate scientific discovery.

 

It has been nothing but hoax after hoax after hoax after hoax after hoax. "

Edited April 28, 2011 by Immortal4life

[Marblehead]

So what are you suggesting? That all of us believe and accept without question every word that is written in the Christian Bible?

 

I think that if we never search for the real answers we will never find them.

 

Sure, there will be frauds. Sure, there will be errors in judgement. These are traits of many humans.

 

But to not question, I think, is an error.

[Wells]

So how do you explain the multiplicy of the species without evolution?

How do you explain the existence of multicellular organisms like animals at all?

Concerning protozoas, you could say "OK, cell organelles became by accident out of chemicals and by accident fused together to cells".

But every next step in direction of a multicellular organism would already be evolution.

 

Maybe all over the world after earth had cooled down many protozoas developed and everyone evolved to the finished form of a multicellular organism like man, tyrannosaurus rex, shark or eagle. All species existed more or less since the same point of time after evolving from protozoas, but due to environment variables and fight for survival, many species were simply extinguished and others mixed with each other. Mutations also occured. But never evolved one finished species into another!

...and at some point in time the aliens tripled our brain size.

 

Edit: Sure, then why do still protozoas exist that have not evolved to multicellular organisms? Don't know!

Edited April 28, 2011 by Dorian Black

[ralis]

edit

Edited April 28, 2011 by ralis

[ralis]

Yet Another "Missing Link" Fossil Found to be a Fake

 

Here is a great documentary entitled "The Dinosaur that Fooled the World", explaining how evolution theory and the fraud of Archaeoraptor held back our understanding of both dinosaurs and birds, and how the best scientists in the world let themselves be made fools out of because they desperately wanted to find a "missing link" between dinosaurs and birds.

 

The Dinosaur that fooled the world

http://www.123video.nl/playvideos.asp?MovieID=713967

http://www.123video.nl/playvideos.asp?MovieID=713996&Rel=1

 

Reptiles turned into birds? Yeah right, there are many problems with such an idea. To top it off, a lot of people claim that there are reptile/bird missing links in China, but they always end up being found to be fake or misinterpretations of the data-

Another "Missing Link" Fossil Found to be a Fake | Pureinsight

 

 

 

...and it's not just Archaeoraptor, though Archaeoraptor was one of the most touted by evolutionists before it was exposed as a fraud. There have been many other fakes exposed as well-

 

 

Oh but it gets worse.....notice all these "missing links" seem to come from the same province in China, in an area notorious for fakers and frauds?

 

 

On the one had I find it almost humorous, even hilarious, that fakers in China can fool National Geographic and alleged "world class scientists". On the other hand it's almost sad or disappointing that scientists desperate to find evidence for evolution would hold back our understanding of how dinosaurs and birds lived in the past just because they want evidence to support a theory they beolieve in because they were taught it as children in school.

 

It starts getting crazy how far scientists will go to fit fossils into the theory of evolution

 

ScienceDaily, Embryo Studies Show Dinosaurs Could Not Have Given Rise To Modern Birds -

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1997/10/971027064254.htm

 

Scientist Says Ostrich Study Confirms Bird "Hands" Unlike Those Of Dinosaurs-

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/08/020815072053.htm

 

Scientists Say No Evidence Exists That Therapod Dinosaurs Evolved Into Birds-

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051010085411.htm

 

 

And check it out!

 

 

The "ridiculous reptile to bird theory"!

The case against Darwin

 

 

You expect intelligent people here to believe any article from World Net Daily? :lol: That is really an insult. The Falun Dafa site is very scientific. That is on the top of my daily reading list.

Edited April 28, 2011 by ralis

[manitou]

I've heard it said that the human embryo passes through many different animal phases before it morphs into a human fetus. Is this true? Might that not be an indication that humans evolved through all the animal phases the embryo manifests?

[ralis]

I've heard it said that the human embryo passes through many different animal phases before it morphs into a human fetus. Is this true? Might that not be an indication that humans evolved through all the animal phases the embryo manifests?

 

There are many excellent books out there. Dr. Stephen J. Gould would be an excellent place to start.

 

 

http://www.amazon.com/Structure-Evolutionary-Theory-Stephen-Gould/dp/0674006135/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1304005324&sr=8-3

[gendao]

More likely, birds and dinosaurs had a common ancestor. And the birdlike dinosaurs (raptors) actually evolved from birds (not vice-versa).

The weight of the evidence is now suggesting that not only did birds not descend from dinosaurs, Ruben said, but that some species now believed to be dinosaurs may have descended from birds.

 

"We're finally breaking out of the conventional wisdom of the last 20 years, which insisted that birds evolved from dinosaurs and that the debate is all over and done with," Ruben said. "This issue isn't resolved at all. There are just too many inconsistencies with the idea that birds had dinosaur ancestors, and this newest study adds to that."

 

birds may have had an ancient common ancestor with dinosaurs, but they evolved separately on their own path, and after millions of years of separate evolution birds also gave rise to the raptors. Small animals such as velociraptor that have generally been thought to be dinosaurs are more likely flightless birds, he said.

 

"Raptors look quite a bit like dinosaurs but they have much more in common with birds than they do with other theropod dinosaurs such as Tyrannosaurus," Ruben said. "We think the evidence is finally showing that these animals which are usually considered dinosaurs were actually descended from birds, not the other way around."

 

birds were already found in the fossil record before the elaboration of the dinosaurs they supposedly descended from. That would be consistent with raptors descending from birds, Ruben said, but not the reverse.

 

"Pesky new fossils...sharply at odds with conventional wisdom never seem to cease popping up,"

Problem is that overzealous ideologies (religious or atheist) rigidify the mind and spin all the science with cognitive bias. Hence, you can have 20 years worth of "conventional wisdom" turn out utterly wrong.

 

There is no need to get emotional over these issues. Unless you are using them as a proxy to prove something else to yourself.

[Immortal4life]

I've heard it said that the human embryo passes through many different animal phases before it morphs into a human fetus. Is this true? Might that not be an indication that humans evolved through all the animal phases the embryo manifests?

 

This is one of the most famous alleged pieces of evidence that many people have heard of. One of the most well known pieces of evidence related to this issue is the famous "Haeckel's Embryo Chart".

 

The problem is, that the drawings are not accurate, and they are really only cartoons. In schools, they rarely mention that the drawings are "fudged", and are not drawn to be realistic like a photo.

 

[Immortal4life]

So what are you suggesting? That all of us believe and accept without question every word that is written in the Christian Bible?

 

No. I would say religion should be questioned and thought through as well.

 

I think that if we never search for the real answers we will never find them.

 

Sure, there will be frauds. Sure, there will be errors in judgement. These are traits of many humans.

 

But to not question, I think, is an error.

 

I think these are accurate statements.

[Immortal4life]

More likely, birds and dinosaurs had a common ancestor. And the birdlike dinosaurs (raptors) actually evolved from birds (not vice-versa).

 

It is probably true that scientists are moving more in this direction. The direction of saying, "we don't know what evolved out of what, we just say they have a common ancestor".

 

The problem I have with this is that it's sort of a cop out. It is a way of saying, "there was a common ancestor species that existed somewhere at some point in time", yet without having to actually produce or show that common ancestor or "missing link".

 

Problem is that overzealous ideologies (religious or atheist) rigidify the mind and spin all the science with cognitive bias. Hence, you can have 20 years worth of "conventional wisdom" turn out utterly wrong.

 

There is no need to get emotional over these issues. Unless you are using them as a proxy to prove something else to yourself.

 

Yes

Edited April 28, 2011 by Immortal4life

[Immortal4life]

You expect intelligent people here to believe any article from World Net Daily? :lol: That is really an insult.

 

Are you saying they are reporting inaccurate information, or giving false statements?

 

The Falun Dafa site is very scientific. That is on the top of my daily reading list.

 

Indeed it is very progressive, and ahead of it's time in a way, when it comes to scientific investigation.

 

The Pureinsight article cites the Journal Nature.

Edited April 28, 2011 by Immortal4life

[ralis]

It is probably true that scientists are moving more in this direction. The direction of saying, "we don't know what evolved out of what, we just say they have a common ancestor".

 

 

 

You make nothing but outlandish statements that proceed from incorrect conclusions. What scientists? What have they proven to overturn the theory of evolution. Where are their papers? Has their research been been peer reviewed?

 

World Net Daily is a fundamentalist site and out to prove their pseudo scientific beliefs.

Edited April 28, 2011 by ralis

[Immortal4life]

Scientists in general, general trends, and general consensus.

 

If you have specific objections to facts reported in specific articles, you can point them out specifically.

[Marblehead]

Well, I believe the story of Noah's Ark but I still haven't figured out where he got all the marsupials.

 

(I not telling the truth just in case someone wonders about my statement above.)

[ralis]

Scientists in general, general trends, and general consensus.

 

If you have specific objections to facts reported in specific articles, you can point them out specifically.

 

Name them. Scientists in general? I should Google that? What does that mean? You started this with no facts whatsoever.

 

BTW, you started this and so far, you have presented nothing but a fundamentalist point of view.

[Immortal4life]

You should google the subject and check out many sites. Get a good idea of what the general trends are and what scientists in general are saying.

 

What you will find is that they are moving away from specific claims of one species coming from another species, and more often now just say "they share an unknown common ancestor".

 

I can discuss this issue futher in the future, but it is a little bit beyond the scope of this particular thread and encompasses other subjects such as "tree thinking".

[ralis]

You should google the subject and check out many sites. Get a good idea of what the general trends are and what scientists in general are saying.

 

What you will find is that they are moving away from specific claims of one species coming from another species, and more often now just say "they share an unknown common ancestor".

 

I can discuss this issue futher in the future, but it is a little bit beyond the scope of this particular thread and encompasses other subjects such as "tree thinking".

 

Please tell me what is your point in being here? This is a Taoist forum and how does an anti evolution view on your part fit in?

[Immortal4life]

That is a very complex question, with many different answers.

 

For starters though, a simple explanation would be that regardless of your beliefs, religious views, ideologies, etc. It is always good to know what competing ideologies are saying. Whether you want to attack them or defend them.

 

Also, your beliefs about the nature of life, and origins of life, are going to have an effect on your beliefs about spirituality, morality, right and wrong, relationships, behavior, and the universe.

 

In addition to that, I find the subjects of Dinosaurs and Birds to be intereting in themselves.

Edited April 29, 2011 by Immortal4life

[ralis]

That is a very complex question, with many different answers.

 

For starters though, a simple explanation would be that regardless of your beliefs, religious views, ideologies, etc. It is always good to know what competing ideologies are saying. Whether you want to attack them or defend them.

 

Also, your beliefs about the nature of life, and origins of life, are going to have an effect on your beliefs about spirituality, morality, right and wrong, relationships, behavior, and the universe.

 

If you are asking me a question, then the use of "your" is somewhat appropriate. However, you are lecturing me and attempting to frame an argument for me that doesn't exist. I already know all the opposing points of view and taking an extreme view is not my way.

Edited April 29, 2011 by ralis

[Immortal4life]

I already know all the opposing points of view and taking an extreme view is not my way.

 

Based on your replies, I am not completely convinced that you know quite as much about all other viewpoints as you think.

 

No one has asked you to take an extreme view. In fact, what I am doing is giving ideas that may inspire someone to question their beliefs, instead of believing in a theory 100% completely without question.

Edited April 29, 2011 by Immortal4life

[ralis]

Based on your replies, I am not completely convinced that you know quite as much about all other viewpoints as you think.

 

No one has asked you to take an extreme view. In fact, what I am doing is giving ideas that may inspire someone to question their beliefs, instead of believing in a theory 100% completely without question.

 

I have questioned beliefs all my life. I in no way am taking an extreme view as you so believe. The pseudo scientific points of view that you refer to have no basis in debate, except on a religious fundamentalist site.

[Immortal4life]

No matter how hard you try to protest these ideas, it doesn't change the fact that this is not a religous nor a fundamentalist topic or debate.

Edited April 29, 2011 by Immortal4life

[Immortal4life]