What does the fossil record say?

[Amill]

Not so!

"A thoughtful study of birds gives convincing proof of the Biblical teaching that they are of divine creation. While birds and reptiles are both oviparous, reptiles are cold-blooded, often sluggish, whereas birds are warm-blooded and among the most active of all earth’s creatures; they also have an unusually rapid heartbeat. ​

There is evidence to suggest that dinosaurs were warm blooded, and many had feathers. Why would god make raptors with feathers and then birds with teeth, long tails, and claws and expect us NOT to see the similarities?

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC214_1_1.html
And there's still plenty of debate over whether or not some of these dinosaur/bird specimens were "fully" bird or still developing wings for flight. What's your opinion of the microraptor?

 

[David M]

And heres a lisy of some of the transitional fossils.

CC214: Transitional Birds

 

[painted wolf]

Not to mention dinosaurs with feathers predate the first "bird" Archaeopteryx. Such as Anchiornis, Epidexipteryx, Juravenator, Pedopenna, Scansoriopteryx and others.

wa:do

 

[newhope101]

There is evidence to suggest that dinosaurs were warm blooded, and many had feathers. Why would god make raptors with feathers and then birds with teeth, long tails, and claws and expect us NOT to see the similarities?

CC214.1.1: Archaeopteryx a bird?
And there's still plenty of debate over whether or not some of these dinosaur/bird specimens were "fully" bird or still developing wings for flight. What's your opinion of the microraptor?

Anchiornis is dated to 155-160 million years ago and appears to be the ancestor of maybe a chook.


Archaeopteryx, below, lived around 150-148 million years and looks more primitive than anchiornis. Arch is now a sister species to some supposed common ancestor, now. This specimen appears to be a kind that became extinct.




Microraptor around 120 million years and has 4 wings, more than the older specimens above. So are you suggesting that birds went through a 2 wing stage then 4, then back to 2, to become todays modern moderns. This appears to be a little silly.


Look at anch and arch. Arch looks even more primitive than anchiornis whom is older. What I am alluding to is summarised below....

Wiki:
Troodontids are important in research into the origin of birds because they share many anatomical characters with early birds. Crucially, the substantially complete fossil identified as WDC DML 001 ("Lori") is a troodontid from the Late JurassicMorrison Formation, close to the time of Archaeopteryx and several troodontid specimens from the Tiaojishan Formation of China (Anchiornis) which are even older. The discovery of these Jurassic troodonts is positive physical evidence that derived deinonychosaurs were present before the time that avians arose, and basal paravians must have evolved much earlier. This fact strongly invalidates the "temporal paradox" cited by the few remaining opponents of the idea that birds are closely related to dinosaurs.[8]

The concept of a "temporal paradox" is based on the following facts. The consensus view is that birds evolved from dinosaurs, but the most bird-like dinosaurs, including almost all of the feathered dinosaurs and those believed to be most closely related to birds (the maniraptorans), are known mostly from the Cretaceous, by which time birds had already evolved and diversified. If bird-like dinosaurs are the ancestors of birds they should be older than birds, but Archaeopteryx is 155 million years old, while the very bird-like Deinonychus is 35 million years younger. This idea is sometimes summarized as "you can't be your own grandmother". As Dodson pointed out:

Of course there are scientists that oppose this paradox, as there is always debate and opposition. These opposing researchers again cite that more fossils will solve the problem. Another refute is if birds aren't decendent from dino's then what are they decendant from? A good question actually, that will never be resolved by evo scientists, as birds were created as various birds and never were a dinosaur kind.

Hence, birds were always birds and were never anything but birds. The initial creations of bird kinds may have varied, and humans may have domesticated them, leading to more variation and adaptation, but they were never dinosaurs.

 

[outhouse]

its obvious you dont know what your talking about.

there is no debate within evolution

only those uneducated people in denial

 

[LuisDantas]

(...)

Archaeopteryx, below, lived around 150-148 million years and looks more primitive than anchiornis. Arch is now a sister species to some supposed common ancestor, now. This specimen appears to be a kind that became extinct.

According to whom? I ask because this classification you are using seems more than a bit suspect. Even if it were so easy to conclude that Archaepteryx are "less primitive" then Archiornis, some careful prudence would be in order. You are apparently using careless sources, if not biased or even all-out liar ones.

(...)

Microraptor around 120 million years and has 4 wings, more than the older specimens above. So are you suggesting that birds went through a 2 wing stage then 4, then back to 2, to become todays modern moderns. This appears to be a little silly.

It probably would, to those who can't grasp the idea of a philogenetic tree. Are you working under the mistaken assumption that evolution happens linearly and with some sort of purpose?

(...)

Of course there are scientists that oppose this paradox, as there is always debate and opposition. These opposing researchers again cite that more fossils will solve the problem.

Uh? Which is your source? I can't imagine a honest scientist that would see "more fossils" as a "solution" to a non-existent "problem" such as this.

You really talk a lot more than your understanding of the subject matter justifies, Newhope.

Another refute is if birds aren't decendent from dino's then what are they decendant from? A good question actually, that will never be resolved by evo scientists, as birds were created as various birds and never were a dinosaur kind.

Wishful thinking is so tempting, isn't it?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

You heard her so why aren't you "evolutionist" not listening.....birds are birds and have never been anything but birds...even though chicken has the genes for teeth but they were never anything else. "God" created the chicken as is but with the genes for making teeth just in case one day the chicken wanted a steak....

 

[painted wolf]

Anchiornis is dated to 155-160 million years ago and appears to be the ancestor of maybe a chook.

Actually it's a chickens distant cousin... not ancestor. There are several features of more advanced avians like Archeopteryx that are missing. Such as asymmetrical flight capable feathers.

Archaeopteryx, below, lived around 150-148 million years and looks more primitive than anchiornis. Arch is now a sister species to some supposed common ancestor, now. This specimen appears to be a kind that became extinct.

Actually, it's more advanced than Anchiornis... you shouldn't judge by looking at restoration drawings but from the fossils.

Microraptor around 120 million years and has 4 wings, more than the older specimens above. So are you suggesting that birds went through a 2 wing stage then 4, then back to 2, to become todays modern moderns. This appears to be a little silly.

Actually Anchiornis has four wings as well... Microraptor is also a troodontid dinosaur and this seems to be a shared feature of the group.
Also, if you look at Archy under UV light you see the long feathers on it's hind limbs as well... this is also found in Pedopenna implying that birds actually started with 4 wings and then went down to 2 wings over time.

Look at anch and arch. Arch looks even more primitive than anchiornis whom is older. What I am alluding to is summarised below....

Wiki:
Troodontids are important in research into the origin of birds because they share many anatomical characters with early birds. Crucially, the substantially complete fossil identified as WDC DML 001 ("Lori") is a troodontid from the Late JurassicMorrison Formation, close to the time of Archaeopteryx and several troodontid specimens from the Tiaojishan Formation of China (Anchiornis) which are even older. The discovery of these Jurassic troodonts is positive physical evidence that derived deinonychosaurs were present before the time that avians arose, and basal paravians must have evolved much earlier. This fact strongly invalidates the "temporal paradox" cited by the few remaining opponents of the idea that birds are closely related to dinosaurs.[8]

This says that Anchiornis is more primitive than Archy.... it doesn't support your position at all.

The concept of a "temporal paradox" is based on the following facts. The consensus view is that birds evolved from dinosaurs, but the most bird-like

dinosaurs, including almost all of the feathered dinosaurs and those believed to be most closely related to birds (the maniraptorans), are known mostly from the Cretaceous, by which time birds had already evolved and diversified. If bird-like dinosaurs are the ancestors of birds they should be older than birds, but Archaeopteryx is 155 million years old, while the very bird-like Deinonychus is 35 million years younger. This idea is sometimes summarized as "you can't be your own grandmother". As Dodson pointed out:

recent finds clear up the "temporal parodox" as the previously quoted wiki excerpt explained. Dodson was quoted before those finds were made.

Of course there are scientists that oppose this paradox, as there is always debate and opposition. These opposing researchers again cite that more fossils will solve the problem. Another refute is if birds aren't decendent from dino's then what are they decendant from? A good question actually, that will never be resolved by evo scientists, as birds were created as various birds and never were a dinosaur kind.

Hence, birds were always birds and were never anything but birds. The initial creations of bird kinds may have varied, and humans may have domesticated them, leading to more variation and adaptation, but they were never dinosaurs.

As you can tell by looking at the pretty doodles rather than by carefully examining the fossils themselves. It's just "common sense" after all. :sleep:

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

You heard her so why aren't you "evolutionist" not listening.....birds are birds and have never been anything but birds...even though chicken has the genes for teeth but they were never anything else. "God" created the chicken as is but with the genes for making teeth just in case one day the chicken wanted a steak....

Hey... we all know why chickens have teeth genes...

God was too lazy to delete them from the template he used to intelligently design everything. That and he wanted people to believe in evolution and go to hell so he wouldn't have to have them hanging around bugging him in heaven.

That's why he made the Earth look older than 6,000 years too. Gotta' weed out the billions of souls you have share heaven with or it'll get crowded.

wa:do

 

[outhouse]

despite what the uneducated stubborn people think.

we all know evolution is fact and there is no debate ,,,, only religious denial

 

[newhope101]

Hey Paintedwolf..as I have said to you previously. You should go talk to these fancy researchers and tell them what's what. You appear to have black and white answers to everything. Unfortunately for you, you are not a leading researcher and your leading researchers are confused in relation to bird evolution.

PW quote"Actually it's a chickens distant cousin... not ancestor. There are several features of more advanced avians like Archeopteryx that are missing. Such as asymmetrical flight capable feathers.

See what you have stated to the community above about chickens. In actual fact wolf, your leading researchers are very confused about lineages. You should also be if you have a scientific mind. If you have clarity then obviously you know something that your leading researchers do not. No disprespect, but this I doubt. Even cladistics has problems with Lizards and aves. Hopefully you are aware of this also. Hence these replies you gave me speak to nothing at all but your own rhetoric, out of line with current research. There are no prizes for fooling the community into thinking you have the answers because I can assure the creationist community that you do not.

Some researcers think TRex also had feathers. So what? We have already agreed that traits can arise multiple times and is not necessarily an indication of ancestry or relatedness. Wiki Evolution of birds also speaks to this in relation to bird and lizard hipped dinos, where current thinking is birds came from lizard hipped dinos...really bizarre even from an evo stance!

... and I''m sure you will have something back to say. Yet your researchers are unclear and so should you be!

Huge Genome-Scale Phylogenetic Study Of Birds Rewrites Evolutionary Tree-of-Life (excerpt)

ScienceDaily (June 27, 2008) — The largest ever study of bird genetics has not only shaken up but completely redrawn the avian evolutionary tree. The study challenges current classifications, alters our understanding of avian evolution, and provides a valuable resource for phylogenetic and comparative studies in birds.

Birds adapted to the diverse environments several distinct times because many birds that now live on water (such as flamingos, tropicbirds and grebes) did not evolve from a different waterbird group, and many birds that now live on land (such as turacos, doves, sandgrouse and cuckoos) did not evolve from a different landbird group.
Similarly, distinctive lifestyles (such as nocturnal, raptorial and pelagic, i.e., living on the ocean or open seas) evolved several times. For example, contrary to conventional thinking, colorful, daytime hummingbirds evolved from drab nocturnal nightjars; falcons are not closely related to hawks and eagles; and tropicbirds (white, swift-flying ocean birds) are not closely related to pelicans and other waterbirds.
Shorebirds are not a basal evolutionary group, which refutes the widely held view that shorebirds gave rise to all modern birds.
"With this study, we learned two major things," said Sushma Reddy, another lead author and Bucksbaum Postdoctoral Fellow at The Field Museum. "First, appearances can be deceiving. Birds that look or act similar are not necessarily related. Second, much of bird classification and conventional wisdom on the evolutionary relationships of birds is wrong."

Wiki: Evolution of Birds:
Phylogenetically, Aves is usually defined as all descendants of the most recent common ancestor of a specific modern bird species (such as the House Sparrow, Passer domesticus), and either Archaeopteryx,[1] or some prehistoric species closer to Neornithes (to avoid the problems caused by the unclear relationships of Archaeopteryx to other theropods).[2] If the latter classification is used then the larger group is termed Avialae. Currently, the relationship between dinosaurs, Archaeopteryx, and modern birds is still under debate.


Wait...hang on a minute..it appears PW has the answers about archaeopteryx seeing as she brings it up all the time. No... Hang on a minute,,,no she doesn't just like the leading researchers in this field. However some here think they really know it all, have sorted it out in their lunch break, and can deceive those that are less educated.

So PW, you and others can put up as many microraptors, arches or fossils as you wish and challenge creationists about taxonomy as much as you like. This will NOT change the fact that you are all refuting from your own weak, fumbling, inconsistent, debated and insecure base. Indeed your evolutionary scientists have no idea really. Some researchers can provide good evidence that some dinos evolved from birds. This is spoken to in Wiki also. Your researchers are guessing at best. Aves is one of the most highly contested and debated taxons. Any paper you post, at best, can only be the theories of one researchers, without speaking to the complete body of research available.

Actually PW, I have been telling you that traits arise individually. Hence all your taxons that group species according to traits is flawed. eg ungulates. You do not need to clarify that with me.

All your "actually"s speak to nothing really, as your researchers do not know what came from where. All that you spoke to is debated and unclear. Hence you and your researchers do not have clarity despite what you speak to in refute of myself or any creationist, for that matter.

My stance, that birds were created, appears to be as good a hypothesis as how they came to be here, as evos have at the moment. You say birds evolved from something else but are unclear from what, how, when or why. I say God created birds and likewise cannot answer how God created them and when. I do know why..because God wanted to. I do not see your stance as being any stronger than mine at the moment in relation to birds. Your advantage is the plethora of evos here that continue to post outdated and refuted information to a minority of biblical creationists that are more in tune with current research than many evos, that's about it.

Refuting anything anyone else has to say about bird evolution from a weak, debated, unclear base is not a strong stance at all. You can only offer debated current theories or old research that backs your stance. Really anything you have to add is likely to be 'old hat' and outdated thinking at best or just your personal 'stance' on the issue.

 

[outhouse]

plagiarist SPAM AGAIN

no thanks i already had breakfast!

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Hey Paintedwolf..as I have said to you previously. You should go talk to these fancy researchers and tell them what's what. You appear to have black and white answers to everything. Unfortunately for you, you are not a leading researcher and your leading researchers are confused in relation to bird evolution.

PW quote"Actually it's a chickens distant cousin... not ancestor. There are several features of more advanced avians like Archeopteryx that are missing. Such as asymmetrical flight capable feathers.

See what you have stated to the community above about chickens. In actual fact wolf, your leading researchers are very confused about lineages. You should also be if you have a scientific mind. If you have clarity then obviously you know something that your leading researchers do not. No disprespect, but this I doubt. Even cladistics has problems with Lizards and aves. Hopefully you are aware of this also. Hence these replies you gave me speak to nothing at all but your own rhetoric, out of line with current research. There are no prizes for fooling the community into thinking you have the answers because I can assure the creationist community that you do not.

Some researcers think TRex also had feathers. So what? We have already agreed that traits can arise multiple times and is not necessarily an indication of ancestry or relatedness. Wiki Evolution of birds also speaks to this in relation to bird and lizard hipped dinos, where current thinking is birds came from lizard hipped dinos...really bizarre even from an evo stance!

... and I''m sure you will have something back to say. Yet your researchers are unclear and so should you be!

Huge Genome-Scale Phylogenetic Study Of Birds Rewrites Evolutionary Tree-of-Life (excerpt)

ScienceDaily (June 27, 2008) — The largest ever study of bird genetics has not only shaken up but completely redrawn the avian evolutionary tree. The study challenges current classifications, alters our understanding of avian evolution, and provides a valuable resource for phylogenetic and comparative studies in birds.

Birds adapted to the diverse environments several distinct times because many birds that now live on water (such as flamingos, tropicbirds and grebes) did not evolve from a different waterbird group, and many birds that now live on land (such as turacos, doves, sandgrouse and cuckoos) did not evolve from a different landbird group.
Similarly, distinctive lifestyles (such as nocturnal, raptorial and pelagic, i.e., living on the ocean or open seas) evolved several times. For example, contrary to conventional thinking, colorful, daytime hummingbirds evolved from drab nocturnal nightjars; falcons are not closely related to hawks and eagles; and tropicbirds (white, swift-flying ocean birds) are not closely related to pelicans and other waterbirds.
Shorebirds are not a basal evolutionary group, which refutes the widely held view that shorebirds gave rise to all modern birds.
"With this study, we learned two major things," said Sushma Reddy, another lead author and Bucksbaum Postdoctoral Fellow at The Field Museum. "First, appearances can be deceiving. Birds that look or act similar are not necessarily related. Second, much of bird classification and conventional wisdom on the evolutionary relationships of birds is wrong."

Wiki: Evolution of Birds:
Phylogenetically, Aves is usually defined as all descendants of the most recent common ancestor of a specific modern bird species (such as the House Sparrow, Passer domesticus), and either Archaeopteryx,[1] or some prehistoric species closer to Neornithes (to avoid the problems caused by the unclear relationships of Archaeopteryx to other theropods).[2] If the latter classification is used then the larger group is termed Avialae. Currently, the relationship between dinosaurs, Archaeopteryx, and modern birds is still under debate.


Wait...hang on a minute..it appears PW has the answers about archaeopteryx seeing as she brings it up all the time. No... Hang on a minute,,,no she doesn't just like the leading researchers in this field. However some here think they really know it all, have sorted it out in their lunch break, and can deceive those that are less educated.

So PW, you and others can put up as many microraptors, arches or fossils as you wish and challenge creationists about taxonomy as much as you like. This will NOT change the fact that you are all refuting from your own weak, fumbling, inconsistent, debated and insecure base. Indeed your evolutionary scientists have no idea really. Some researchers can provide good evidence that some dinos evolved from birds. This is spoken to in Wiki also. Your researchers are guessing at best. Aves is one of the most highly contested and debated taxons. Any paper you post, at best, can only be the theories of one researchers, without speaking to the complete body of research available.

Actually PW, I have been telling you that traits arise individually. Hence all your taxons that group species according to traits is flawed. eg ungulates. You do not need to clarify that with me.

All your "actually"s speak to nothing really, as your researchers do not know what came from where. All that you spoke to is debated and unclear. Hence you and your researchers do not have clarity despite what you speak to in refute of myself or any creationist, for that matter.

My stance, that birds were created, appears to be as good a hypothesis as how they came to be here, as evos have at the moment. You say birds evolved from something else but are unclear from what, how, when or why. I say God created birds and likewise cannot answer how God created them and when. I do know why..because God wanted to. I do not see your stance as being any stronger than mine at the moment in relation to birds. Your advantage is the plethora of evos here that continue to post outdated and refuted information to a minority of biblical creationists that are more in tune with current research than many evos, that's about it.

Refuting anything anyone else has to say about bird evolution from a weak, debated, unclear base is not a strong stance at all. You can only offer debated current theories or old research that backs your stance. Really anything you have to add is likely to be 'old hat' and outdated thinking at best or just your personal 'stance' on the issue.

You have no evidence they were "created" and you have no evidence of a "creator" so I'm interested as to what you think evidence means....:sad:

 

[painted wolf]

So... essentially all you have newhope is personal attacks against me?

You didn't address a single point I made except to imply that I have no idea what I'm talking about, while you are some sort of clear minded genius.

Then you continue your usual pattern by adding some quotes that don't support your position and crow that they do.

You still have nothing constructive to contribute do you? You simply repeat the same mantra over and over.

wa:do

ps. given the fact that creationists don't agree on any details of their faith, I doubt you could convince all of them of your views on my knowledge base.

 

[tumbleweed41]

But.....

Does the fossil record lead to an objective conclusions of Creationism?

 

[wilsoncole]

There is evidence to suggest that dinosaurs were warm blooded, and many had feathers.

What evidence? They are still arguing about that.
Consider:
"So, what can we conclude from the above arguments for and against warm-blooded dinosaurs? Many scientists (who are unaffiliated with either camp) believe that this debate is based on false premises--that is, it’s not the case that dinosaurs needed to be either warm-blooded or cold-blooded, with no third alternative.
The fact is, we don’t know enough yet about how metabolism works, or how it can potentially evolve, to draw any definite conclusions about dinosaurs. It’s possible that dinosaurs were neither warm-blooded nor cold-blooded, but had an “intermediate” type of metabolism that has yet to be pinned down. It’s also possible that all dinosaurs were warm-blooded or cold-blooded, but some individual species developed adaptations in the other direction.

If this last idea sounds confusing, bear in mind that not all modern mammals are warm-blooded in exactly the same way. A fast, hungry cheetah has a classic warm-blooded metabolism, but the relatively primitive platypus sports a tuned-down metabolism that in many ways is closer to that of a comparably sized lizard than to that of other mammals. Further complicating matters, some paleontologists claim that slow-moving prehistoric mammals (like Myotragus, the Cave Goat) had true cold-blooded metabolisms.

Today, the majority of scientists subscribe to the warm-blooded dinosaur theory, but that pendulum could swing the other way as more evidence is unearthed. For now, any definite conclusions about dinosaur metabolism will have to await future discoveries." ( Were Dinosaurs Warm-Blooded - The Case for and Against Dinosaurs Having a Warm-Blooded Metabolism

Why would god make raptors with feathers and then birds with teeth, long tails, and claws and expect us NOT to see the similarities?

Because he works to suit himself.
Why did Picasso paint outsized eyes and distorted profiles?
Still, his work is regarded as genius.

CC214.1.1: Archaeopteryx a bird?

This Talkorigins report left out something of importance - bone structure.
No dinosaur bone is built this way:
"The bird’s bones are thin and hollow, unlike the reptile’s solid ones. Yet strength is required for flight, so inside the bird’s bones there are struts, like the braces inside of airplane wings. This design of the bones serves another purpose: It helps to explain another exclusive marvel of birds—their respiratory system.

Muscular wings beating for hours or even days in flight generate much heat, yet, without sweat glands for cooling, the bird copes with the problem—it has an air-cooled "engine."
A system of air sacs reach into almost every important part of the body, even into the hollow bones, and body heat is relieved by this internal circulation of air. Also, because of these air sacs, birds extract oxygen from air much more efficiently than any other vertebrate. How is this done?​

In reptiles and mammals, the lungs take in and give out air, like bellows that alternately fill and empty. But in birds there is a constant flow of fresh air going through the lungs, during both inhaling and exhaling.

Simply put, the system works like this: When the bird inhales, the air goes to certain air sacs; these serve as bellows to push the air into the lungs. From the lungs the air goes into other air sacs, and these eventually expel it. This means that there is a stream of fresh air constantly going through the lungs in one direction, much like water flowing through a sponge. The blood in the capillaries of the lungs is flowing in the opposite direction.


It is this countercurrent between air and blood that makes the bird’s respiratory system exceptional. Because of it, birds can breathe the thin air of high altitudes, flying at over 20,000 feet for days on end as they migrate thousands of miles."
(Creation p.77)
There is nothing to match this in the dinosaur types.

And there's still plenty of debate over whether or not some of these dinosaur/bird specimens were "fully" bird or still developing wings for flight. What's your opinion of the microraptor?

Read very little about it. Don't know for sure.

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[painted wolf]

Theropod dinosaurs had hollow bird bones and air sacs Dinosaur Bird Bones | ScienCentral | Science Videos | Science News

and even crocodiles have lungs more like birds than like lizards. (they have the same one way air flow system). BBC News - Alligators and birds share lung structure and ancestor

And Picasso was mentally ill.... are you suggesting God is as well?

wa:do

 

[wilsoncole]

Originally Posted by wilsoncole
How? Mutations?
Mutations can vary the old, but they can't create the new.

Science disagrees with this assumption and if you "believe" this then fine bu no one here is interested in the (who) its the

It's the how that counts when concerning biology.

&#12288;
"Indeed, the teaching of macroevolution is built upon the claim that mutations can produce not only new species but also entirely new families of plants and animals.
Is there any way to test this bold claim?

Well, consider what some 100 years of study in the field of genetic research has revealed.

In the late 1930’s, scientists enthusiastically embraced the idea that if natural selection could produce new species of plants from random mutations, then artificial, or human-guided, selection of mutations should be able to do so more efficiently.

“Euphoria spread among biologists in general and geneticists and breeders in particular,” said Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, a scientist from the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Germany, who was interviewed by Awake!

Why the euphoria? Lönnig, who has spent some 28 years studying mutation genetics in plants, said: “These researchers thought the time had come to revolutionize the traditional method of breeding plants and animals. They thought that by inducing and selecting favorable mutations, they could produce new and better plants and animals.”

Scientists in the United States, Asia, and Europe launched well-funded research programs, using methods that promised to speed up evolution. After more than 40 years of intensive research, what were the results?

“In spite of an enormous financial expenditure,” says researcher Peter von Sengbusch, “the attempt to cultivate increasingly productive varieties by irradiation, widely proved to be a failure.”

Lönnig said: “By the 1980’s, the hopes and euphoria among scientists had ended in worldwide failure. Mutation breeding as a separate branch of research was abandoned in Western countries. Almost all the mutants exhibited ‘negative selection values,’ that is, they died or were weaker than wild varieties.”

Even so, the data now gathered from some 100 years of mutation research in general and 70 years of mutation breeding in particular enable scientists to draw conclusions regarding the ability of mutations to produce new species.

After examining the evidence, Lönnig concluded:
“Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability. Thus, the law of recurrent variation implies that genetically properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.”


If highly trained scientists are unable to produce new species by artificially inducing and selecting favorable mutations, is it likely that an unintelligent process would do a better job?
If research shows that mutations cannot transform an original species into an entirely new one, then how, exactly, was macroevolution supposed to have taken place?" (AWAKE! 9 06 pp. 14,15)
http://www.weloennig.de/


You try to sidestep the pertinent issues by attacking the individual or publication that dares to disagree with the ToE.
I think it is a stupid and grossly dishonest method of avoiding effective refutation, all the while insisting: “Nobody has disproved the ToE in over 100 years!”

I will save you some trouble:
I know that the Max Plancke Institute has removed references to creation from Loennig’s work on their website, but he still works there in research and has launched his own websites:
http://www.weloennig.de/NaturalSelection.html
http://www.weloennig.de/DynamicGenomes.html
http://www.weloennig.de/Giraffe.pdf
http://www.weloennig.de/Dollo-1a.pdf
http://www.weloennig.de/Questions.html
http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf
(there is also a peer-reviewed short version, but not available at the internet)

PR References:
Leonnig, W.-E. (1995): "Mutationen: Das Gesetz der rekurrenten Variation." pp. 149-165. In: Streitfall Evolution. Hrsg.: J. Mey, R. Schmidt und S. Zibulla. Universitas. Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft. Stuttgart

Leonnig, W.-E.(2005): "Mutation breeding, evolution, and the law of recurrent variation." In: Recent Research Developments in Genetics and Breeding (G. Pandalai, Managing Editor), Vol. 2, 45-70

Leonnig, W.-E.(2006): "Mutations: The law of recurrent variation." In: Floriculture, Ornamental and Plant Biotechnology: Advances and Topical Issues, Vol. 1, 601-607. J.A. Teixeira da Silva (ed.), Global Science Books, London.

You may find some further points under
http://www.weloennig.de/literatur1a.html
&#12288;
Please - don’t tell me this man is not a scientist. Let's deal with the science - avoid slander or negative remarks regarding the nature of the magazine or character of the researcher.

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[Gunfingers]

Emergence of new distinct traits through mutation has been observed, most notably in Lenski's Long Term E-Coli Experiment. The use of artificial selection to select for desired traits is as old as farming, and is how we got modern cows, chickens, dogs, cats, corn, and lord knows what other species.

 

[camanintx]

After examining the evidence, Lönnig concluded:
“Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability. Thus, the law of recurrent variation implies that genetically properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.”

Does anyone know where the "law of recurrent variation" exists other than in Lönnig's imagination?