DOCSLIB.ORG

Archaeopteryx

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Archaeopteryx Icons of Evolution? Why Much of What Jonathan Wells Writes about Evolution is Wrong Alan D. Gishlick, National Center for Science Education ARCHAEOPTERYX ple of how fossils are important for showing transitional features of evolution, and how the ARCHAEOPTERYX: THE FOSSIL fossil record is good evidence that evolution ontrary to Wells’s subtitle, has occurred. Archaeopteryx is not a “missing link.” WELLS MISSES MORE CThe term “missing link” is an outdated THAN THE LINKS term that does not accurately reflect the way ells objects to textbook treatments biologists and paleontologists think about fos- of Archaeopteryx as a transitional sils. We prefer not to talk about “missing Wform or as an “ancestor” of birds. links” or “intermediate forms,” but rather Wells wants textbooks to say that intermediate features. Archaeopteryx has fea- Archaeopteryx was not an “ancestor” because tures intermediate between those of living modern birds are not descended from it and birds and ancient reptiles; along with many that its transitional status is “controversial.” other fossils, it preserves ancestral features Wells claims that Archaeopteryx has been while it shows descendant novelties. “quietly shelved” by paleontologists and that Archaeopteryx retains the ancestral “reptilian” the search for a “missing link” between features of a long bony tail, clawed hands, dinosaurs and birds goes hopelessly on “as teeth, and many others. It also has the derived though Archaeopteryx had never been found” “avian” features of feathers and powered (Wells, 2000:138). Paleontologists would find flight. Archaeopteryx, along with other this surprising. By making such claims, Wells dinosaur fossils, shows the evolution of avian exposes the depths of his ignorance of phylo- features and flight. These fossils show that genetic methodology, paleontology, and avian many features thought of as unique to a certain evolution. group of animals were also shared by some of Wells is clearly confused by Archaeopteryx, their ancestors; this helps paleontologists to “transitional forms,” and ancestors. First of all, reconstruct the evolutionary history of living Wells asserts that Archaeopteryx is no longer animals. When many fossils are looked at in considered a transitional form or an “ances- their genealogical context, they blur the lines tor.” Wells is correct, but only in a specialized between the normally recognized taxonomic sense, not appropriate in the context of his groups (most of which were based originally generalized discussion. We cannot — and do only on living forms). Archaeopteryx is fre- not — say for certain that the animal that we quently used for pedagogical purposes because call Archaeopteryx was actually genetically it is easy to recognize its mixture of “bird” and transitional to living birds, or that it was a “reptile” features and because it played an his- direct genetic ancestor of living birds. torical role in helping to cement Darwin’s the- However, in a less strict sense (that appropriate ory (it was discovered 2 years after publication to Wells’s discussion), Archaeopteryx has a of the Origin). Textbook authors like great many transitional features between living Archaeopteryx for these reasons and often birds and Mesozoic dinosaurs: if it was not a illustrate their discussions with pictures of the direct ancestor, it was surely a close collateral Berlin specimen, one of the most beautiful fos- ancestor (see below). sils ever discovered, and remarkably complete. Second, there is no such thing as a “missing Textbooks also use Archaeopteryx as an exam- link,” and paleontologists are not looking for 41 Icons of Evolution? Why Much of What Jonathan Wells Writes about Evolution is Wrong Alan D. Gishlick, National Center for Science Education them. Paleontologists collect, survey, and rect. Archaeopteryx has no features that would reconstruct past forms of life. Some of these actually disbar it from being a direct ancestor fossil organisms have features that illustrate of living birds. Whether it was a direct ances- the path evolution took to reach the forms we tor of today’s birds or not is irrelevant: see today. We can think of these organisms as Archaeopteryx exhibits unique features of the showing transitional or ancestral features. last ancestor it shared with birds, so, regardless Paleontologists are also not looking for ances- whether it is a lineal ancestor, it still preserves tors, but rather features of ancestors. features that indicate what the last ancestor of Paleontologists distinguish between lineal and Archaeopteryx and birds may have been like. collateral ancestors. Lineal ancestors are those In other words, Archaeopteryx has many fea- that are directly ancestral to living organisms: tures intermediate between those of its your lineal ancestors are your father and moth- dinosaurian ancestors and its avian descen- er, grandfathers and grandmothers, and so on. dants, which is exactly what would be predict- Collateral ancestors are those organisms that ed by evolution. No amount of stridency on share an ancestor with living organisms: your Wells’s part can change that. collateral ancestors are your uncles, great- When paleontologists reconstruct relation- uncles, cousins, second cousins, and so on. ships of living and fossil organisms, they use Paleontologists do not claim to be able to iden- the features of both living and fossil organ- tify lineal ancestors. Without observational or isms. This allows them to reconstruct the fea- genetic evidence, how could you ever know tures of the ancestors and get a pretty good pic- that a fossil organism left any offspring? It is ture of what the ancestors were like. not the ancestry that is important to paleontol- Phylogenetic systematics, commonly called ogists, but rather the ability to reconstruct the “cladistics,” is the method that nearly all biol- features of those ancestors. This is a powerful ogists use to determine relationships, whether and important concept, one completely lost on they work on dinosaurs or dinoflagellates, and Wells. whether they use molecules or morphology. Its To illustrate this powerful approach, let’s simplicity, objectivity, testability, repeatability, say you wanted to know something about your utility, and firm rooting in the principle of own ancestors. If you knew your ancestors descent has led to its near-universal applica- came from a certain small village in France in tion. Contrary to Wells’s characterization, the 1600s, you could return to that village and, cladistics is not a search for “missing links” or even if you can’t locate their graves, you might direct ancestors, but for shared evolutionary find those of many of their contemporaries in features. The basic idea behind cladistics is the churchyard. A collection of artifacts from that when novel features arise, they are passed any of those people would give you a perfect- on to descendents. Therefore, these “derived ly adequate idea of the characteristics, culture, features” should be more informative in recon- possessions, and daily life of your direct structing relationships than those that are pres- ancestors (Padian and Angielczyk, 1999). ent across a larger group. For example, if a Using similar methods for similar reasons, population of animals evolve stripes on their paleontologists try to uncover features of backs and all their descendants continue to ancestors, not the ancestors themselves. sport stripes, then all the members of that Even Wells’s claim that paleontologists do species that have stripes are probably more not think Archaeopteryx is “ancestral” is incor- closely related to each other than they are to 42 Icons of Evolution? Why Much of What Jonathan Wells Writes about Evolution is Wrong Alan D. Gishlick, National Center for Science Education those without stripes. It is that simple, yet ing” the evidence, stating that the supposed Wells’s discussion of cladistics reveals that he “ancestors” of Archaeopteryx are millions of either does not grasp the method or has no years younger. First of all, none of these more interest in explaining it properly. “recent” avian-like dinosaurs thought to be In the nearly two pages devoted by Wells to closely related to Archaeopteryx (e.g., a discussion of cladistics (Wells, 2000:118– troodontids and dromaeosaurs) are considered 119), he states that cladistics is based on over- “ancestors”; rather, they retain ancestral fea- all similarity. Yet as stated above, cladistics is tures that show us what the ancestors of not based on mere similarity, but instead Archaeopteryx were like. Here again Wells focuses on a special kind of similarity — fea- mistakes lineal for collateral ancestry. Second, tures that are derived, or evolutionary novel- the statement that there are no fossils of these ties. Evolutionary novelties help to show rela- close cousins of Archaeopteryx until “millions tionships and thus are “phylogenetically of years” later is false. Fossils of non-avian informative.” In contrast, similarities that are maniraptor dinosaurs, which are closely relat- not evolutionary novelties are “ancestral” fea- ed to the ancestors of Archaeopteryx, have tures and are not phylogenetically informative. been found in rocks dating to the same age as For example, a derived feature of primates is those in which Archaeopteryx has been found an opposable thumb; this feature is phyloge- (Jensen and Padian, 1989); this discovery was netically informative because it allows us to reported over 10 years ago. Wells apparently group all primates together to the exclusion of has not done his homework very well. other mammals. On the other hand, a five-fin- Despite Wells’s claims to the contrary, gered hand is an ancestral feature and not phy- Archaeopteryx is still an important contributor logenetically informative because we would to our knowledge of transitional features, and not group all animals possessing a five-fin- it clearly shows the dinosaurian ancestry of gered hand together to the exclusion of those birds (Figure 12). To confirm this, all one has that do not. For example, we do not propose to do is peruse any piece of literature on the that all five-fingered mammals are more close- origin of birds.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Wingtips of the Pterosaurs: Anatomy, Aeronautical Function and Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology Xxx (2015) Xxx Xxx 3 Ecological Implications
    Our reference: PALAEO 7445 P-authorquery-v11 AUTHOR QUERY FORM Journal: PALAEO Please e-mail your responses and any corrections to: Article Number: 7445 E-mail: [email protected] Dear Author, Please check your proof carefully and mark all corrections at the appropriate place in the proof (e.g., by using on-screen annotation in the PDF file) or compile them in a separate list. Note: if you opt to annotate the file with software other than Adobe Reader then please also highlight the appropriate place in the PDF file. To ensure fast publication of your paper please return your corrections within 48 hours. For correction or revision of any artwork, please consult http://www.elsevier.com/artworkinstructions. We were unable to process your file(s) fully electronically and have proceeded by Scanning (parts of) your Rekeying (parts of) your article Scanning the article artwork Any queries or remarks that have arisen during the processing of your manuscript are listed below and highlighted by flags in the proof. Click on the ‘Q’ link to go to the location in the proof. Location in article Query / Remark: click on the Q link to go Please insert your reply or correction at the corresponding line in the proof Q1 Your article is registered as a regular item and is being processed for inclusion in a regular issue of the journal. If this is NOT correct and your article belongs to a Special Issue/Collection please contact [email protected] immediately prior to returning your corrections. Q2 Please confirm that given names and surnames have been identified correctly.
    [Show full text]
  • Flying Dromaeosaurs
    A winged, but flightless, Deinonychus by Stephen A. Czerkas FLYING DROMAEOSAURS Stephen A. Czerkas, Dianshuang Zhang, Jinglu Li and Yinxian Li The Dinosaur Museum, 754 South 200 West, Blanding, Utah 84511, USA; Liaoning Provincial Bureau of Land Resources Management, Liaoning Fossil Administration Office, and Liaoning Museum of Paleontology, Left of Nanshan Park, Beipiao, Liaoning Province 122100, People’s Republic of China. The Dinosaur Museum © 2002 Abstract Dromaeosaurs have been regarded as theropod dinosaurs that were among the closest avian ancestors which were strictly terrestrial having not yet evolved the ability to fly. Consequently, phylogenetic analyses have resulted in the claims of birds having evolved from “the ground up” within a dinosaurian ancestry. Though widely accepted, the relationship between birds and dinosaurs has remained highly controversial and disputed by advocates of birds as having been derived from an arboreal, non-dinosaurian type of archosaur. The cladistical interpretation of the dinosaur/bird relationship hinges upon the presumption of the dromaeosaurs inability to fly. Recent discoveries of dromaeosaurs have revealed impressions of feathers and avian characters in the skeleton that nearly equal and even surpass that of Archaeopteryx. Yet despite this, the ability to fly has been discounted due to the shorter length of the forelimbs. Described below are two such dromaeosaurs, but preserved with impressions of primary flight feathers extending from the manus which demonstrate an undeniable correlation towards the ability to fly. This compelling evidence refutes the popular interpretation of birds evolving from dinosaurs by revealing that dromaeosaurs were already birds and not the non-avian theropod dinosaurs as previously believed.
    [Show full text]
  • A Chinese Archaeopterygian, Protarchaeopteryx Gen. Nov
    A Chinese archaeopterygian, Protarchaeopteryx gen. nov. by Qiang Ji and Shu’an Ji Geological Science and Technology (Di Zhi Ke Ji) Volume 238 1997 pp. 38-41 Translated By Will Downs Bilby Research Center Northern Arizona University January, 2001 Introduction* The discoveries of Confuciusornis (Hou and Zhou, 1995; Hou et al, 1995) and Sinornis (Ji and Ji, 1996) have profoundly stimulated ornithologists’ interest globally in the Beipiao region of western Liaoning Province. They have also regenerated optimism toward solving questions of avian origins. In December 1996, the Chinese Geological Museum collected a primitive bird specimen at Beipiao that is comparable to Archaeopteryx (Wellnhofer, 1992). The specimen was excavated from a marl 5.5 m above the sediments that produce Sinornithosaurus and 8-9 m below the sediments that produce Confuciusornis. This is the first documentation of an archaeopterygian outside Germany. As a result, this discovery not only establishes western Liaoning Province as a center of avian origins and evolution, it provides conclusive evidence for the theory that avian evolution occurred in four phases. Specimen description Class Aves Linnaeus, 1758 Subclass Sauriurae Haeckel, 1866 Order Archaeopterygiformes Furbringer, 1888 Family Archaeopterygidae Huxley, 1872 Genus Protarchaeopteryx gen. nov. Genus etymology: Acknowledges that the specimen possesses characters more primitive than those of Archaeopteryx. Diagnosis: A primitive archaeopterygian with claviform and unserrated dentition. Sternum is thin and flat, tail is long, and forelimb resembles Archaeopteryx in morphology with three talons, the second of which is enlarged. Ilium is large and elongated, pubes are robust and distally fused, hind limb is long and robust with digit I reduced and dorsally migrated to lie in opposition to digit III and forming a grasping apparatus.
    [Show full text]
  • Median Fin Patterning in Bony Fish: Caspase-3 Role in Fin Fold Reabsorption
    Eastern Illinois University The Keep Undergraduate Honors Theses Honors College 2017 Median Fin Patterning in Bony Fish: Caspase-3 Role in Fin Fold Reabsorption Kaitlyn Ann Hammock Follow this and additional works at: https://thekeep.eiu.edu/honors_theses Part of the Animal Sciences Commons Median fin patterning in bony fish: caspase-3 role in fin fold reabsorption BY Kaitlyn Ann Hammock UNDERGRADUATE THESIS Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for obtaining UNDERGRADUATE DEPARTMENTAL HONORS Department of Biological Sciences along with the HonorsCollege at EASTERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY Charleston, Illinois 2017 I hereby recommend this thesis to be accepted as fulfilling the thesis requirement for obtaining Undergraduate Departmental Honors Date '.fHESIS ADVI 1 Date HONORSCOORDmATOR f C I//' ' / ·12 1' J Date, , DEPARTME TCHAIR Abstract Fish larvae develop a fin fold that will later be replaced by the median fins. I hypothesize that finfold reabsorption is part of the initial patterning of the median fins,and that caspase-3, an apoptosis marker, will be expressed in the fin fold during reabsorption. I analyzed time series of larvae in the first20-days post hatch (dph) to determine timing of median findevelopment in a basal bony fish- sturgeon- and in zebrafish, a derived bony fish. I am expecting the general activation pathway to be conserved in both fishesbut, the timing and location of cell death to differ.The dorsal fin foldis the firstto be reabsorbed in the sturgeon starting at 2 dph and rays formed at 6dph. This was closely followed by the anal finat 3 dph, rays at 9 dph and only later, at 6dph, does the caudal fin start forming and rays at 14 dph.
    [Show full text]
  • Acoustic Monitoring of Night-Migrating Birds: a Progress Report
    Acoustic Monitoring of Night-Migrating Birds: A Progress Report William R. Evans Kenneth V. Rosenberg Abstract—This paper discusses an emerging methodology that to give regular vocalizations in night migration are the vireos uses electronic technology to monitor vocalizations of night-migrat- (Vireonidae), flycatchers (Tyrannidae), and orioles (Icterinae). ing birds. On a good migration night in eastern North America, If a monitoring protocol is consistently maintained, an array thousands of call notes may be recorded from a single ground-based, of microphone stations can provide information on how the audio-recording station, and an array of recording stations across a species composition and number of vocal migrants vary across region may serve as a “recording net” to monitor a broad front of time and space. Such data have application for monitoring migration. Data from pilot studies in Florida, Texas, New York, and avian populations and identifying their migration routes. In British Columbia illustrate the potential of this technique to gather addition, detection and classification of distinctive call-types information that cannot be gathered by more conventional methods, is possible with computers (Mills 1995; Taylor 1995), thus such as mist-netting or diurnal counts. For example, the Texas information on bird populations might be gained automati- station detected a major migration of grassland sparrows, and a cally. In this paper, we summarize the current state of station in British Columbia detected hundreds of Swainson’s knowledge for identifying night-flight calls to species; present Thrushes; both phenomena were not detected with ground monitor- selected results from four ongoing studies that are monitoring ing efforts.
    [Show full text]
  • Tiny Fossil Sheds Light on Miniaturization of Birds
    Retraction Tiny fossil sheds light on miniaturization of birds Roger B. J. Benson Nature 579, 199–200 (2020) In view of the fact that the authors of ‘Hummingbird-sized dinosaur from the Cretaceous period of Myanmar‘ (L. Xing et al. Nature 579, 245–249; 2020) are retracting their report, I wish to retract this News & Views article, which dealt with this study and was based on the accuracy and reproducibility of their data. Nature | 22 July 2020 ©2020 Spri nger Nature Li mited. All rights reserved. drives the assembly of DNA-PK and stimulates regulation of protein synthesis. And, although 3. Dragon, F. et al. Nature 417, 967–970 (2002). its catalytic activity in vitro, although does so further studies are required, we might have 4. Adelmant, G. et al. Mol. Cell. Proteom. 11, 411–421 (2012). much less efficiently than can DNA. taken a step closer to deciphering the 5. Britton, S., Coates, J. & Jackson, S. P. J. Cell Biol. 202, Taken together, these observations suggest mysterious ribosomopathies. 579–595 (2013). a model in which KU recruits DNA-PKcs to the 6. Barandun, J. et al. Nature Struct. Mol. Biol. 24, 944–953 (2017). small-subunit processome. In the case of Alan J. Warren is at the Cambridge Institute 7. Ma, Y. et al. Cell 108, 781–794 (2002). kinase-defective DNA-PK, the mutant enzyme’s for Medical Research, Hills Road, Cambridge 8. Yin, X. et al. Cell Res. 27, 1341–1350 (2017). inability to regulate its own activity gives the CB2 OXY, UK. 9. Sharif, H. et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Theropod Teeth from the Upper Maastrichtian Hell Creek Formation “Sue” Quarry: New Morphotypes and Faunal Comparisons
    Theropod teeth from the upper Maastrichtian Hell Creek Formation “Sue” Quarry: New morphotypes and faunal comparisons TERRY A. GATES, LINDSAY E. ZANNO, and PETER J. MAKOVICKY Gates, T.A., Zanno, L.E., and Makovicky, P.J. 2015. Theropod teeth from the upper Maastrichtian Hell Creek Formation “Sue” Quarry: New morphotypes and faunal comparisons. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 60 (1): 131–139. Isolated teeth from vertebrate microfossil localities often provide unique information on the biodiversity of ancient ecosystems that might otherwise remain unrecognized. Microfossil sampling is a particularly valuable tool for doc- umenting taxa that are poorly represented in macrofossil surveys due to small body size, fragile skeletal structure, or relatively low ecosystem abundance. Because biodiversity patterns in the late Maastrichtian of North American are the primary data for a broad array of studies regarding non-avian dinosaur extinction in the terminal Cretaceous, intensive sampling on multiple scales is critical to understanding the nature of this event. We address theropod biodiversity in the Maastrichtian by examining teeth collected from the Hell Creek Formation locality that yielded FMNH PR 2081 (the Tyrannosaurus rex specimen “Sue”). Eight morphotypes (three previously undocumented) are identified in the sample, representing Tyrannosauridae, Dromaeosauridae, Troodontidae, and Avialae. Noticeably absent are teeth attributed to the morphotypes Richardoestesia and Paronychodon. Morphometric comparison to dromaeosaurid teeth from multiple Hell Creek and Lance formations microsites reveals two unique dromaeosaurid morphotypes bearing finer distal denticles than present on teeth of similar size, and also differences in crown shape in at least one of these. These findings suggest more dromaeosaurid taxa, and a higher Maastrichtian biodiversity, than previously appreciated.
    [Show full text]
  • A New Raptorial Dinosaur with Exceptionally Long Feathering Provides Insights Into Dromaeosaurid flight Performance
    ARTICLE Received 11 Apr 2014 | Accepted 11 Jun 2014 | Published 15 Jul 2014 DOI: 10.1038/ncomms5382 A new raptorial dinosaur with exceptionally long feathering provides insights into dromaeosaurid flight performance Gang Han1, Luis M. Chiappe2, Shu-An Ji1,3, Michael Habib4, Alan H. Turner5, Anusuya Chinsamy6, Xueling Liu1 & Lizhuo Han1 Microraptorines are a group of predatory dromaeosaurid theropod dinosaurs with aero- dynamic capacity. These close relatives of birds are essential for testing hypotheses explaining the origin and early evolution of avian flight. Here we describe a new ‘four-winged’ microraptorine, Changyuraptor yangi, from the Early Cretaceous Jehol Biota of China. With tail feathers that are nearly 30 cm long, roughly 30% the length of the skeleton, the new fossil possesses the longest known feathers for any non-avian dinosaur. Furthermore, it is the largest theropod with long, pennaceous feathers attached to the lower hind limbs (that is, ‘hindwings’). The lengthy feathered tail of the new fossil provides insight into the flight performance of microraptorines and how they may have maintained aerial competency at larger body sizes. We demonstrate how the low-aspect-ratio tail of the new fossil would have acted as a pitch control structure reducing descent speed and thus playing a key role in landing. 1 Paleontological Center, Bohai University, 19 Keji Road, New Shongshan District, Jinzhou, Liaoning Province 121013, China. 2 Dinosaur Institute, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, 900 Exposition Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90007, USA. 3 Institute of Geology, Chinese Academy of Geological Sciences, 26 Baiwanzhuang Road, Beijing 100037, China. 4 University of Southern California, Health Sciences Campus, BMT 403, Mail Code 9112, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA.
    [Show full text]
  • Winter Bird Feeding
    BirdNotes 1 Winter Bird Feeding birds at feeders in winter If you feed birds, you’re in good company. Birding is one of North America’s favorite pastimes. A 2006 report from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that about 55.5 mil- lion Americans provide food for wild birds. Chickadees Titmice Cardinals Sparrows Wood- Orioles Pigeons Nuthatches Finches Grosbeaks Blackbirds Jays peckers Tanagers Doves Sunflower ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ Safflower ◆ ◆ ◆ Corn ◆ ◆ ◆ Millet ◆ ◆ ◆ Milo ◆ ◆ Nyjer ◆ Suet ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ Preferred ◆ Readily Eaten Wintertime—and the Living’s counting birds at their feeders during selecting the best foods daunting. To Not Easy this winterlong survey. Great Back- attract a diversity of birds, provide a yard Bird Count participants provide variety of food types. But that doesn’t n much of North America, winter valuable data with a much shorter mean you need to purchase one of ev- Iis a difficult time for birds. Days time commitment—as little as fifteen erything on the shelf. are often windy and cold; nights are minutes in mid-February! long and even colder. Lush vegeta- Which Seed Types tion has withered or been consumed, Types of Bird Food Should I Provide? and most insects have died or become uring spring and summer, most dormant. Finding food can be espe- lack-oil sunflower seeds attract songbirds eat insects and spi- cially challenging for birds after a D Bthe greatest number of species. ders, which are highly nutritious, heavy snowfall. These seeds have a high meat-to- abundant, and for the most part, eas- shell ratio, they are nutritious and Setting up a backyard feeder makes ily captured.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Why Darwin Matters Matters Why Darwin Matters: the Case Against Intelligent Design, by Michael Shermer
    Evo Edu Outreach DOI 10.1007/s12052-008-0109-9 BOOK REVIEW Why Why Darwin Matters Matters Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design, by Michael Shermer. New York: Henry Holt, 2006. Pp. xxii + 199. S/b $14.00 Tania Lombrozo # The Author(s) 2008. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com The first decade of the twenty-first century will be a curious a brief but lucid overview of key evolutionary ideas. He chapter in the future history of evolutionary thought. In emphasizes that the source of resistance to evolution is rarely 2005, resistance to evolution manifested in the highly the scientific details but rather the perceived consequences of publicized trial of Dover, Pennsylvania over teaching evolution: atheism, ethical nihilism, and a lack of meaning. Intelligent Design in public schools. Only four years later, What people care about “is whether teaching evolution will in 2009, universities, museums, and individuals across the make their kids reject God, allow criminals and sinners to globe celebrate the 150th anniversary of the publication of blame their genes for their actions, and generally cause society Darwin’s Origin of Species. Released in the interlude, to fall apart” (p. 25). But according to Shermer, an even Michael Shermer’s Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against greater threat to the theory of evolution is misunderstanding. Intelligent Design takes on the challenge these landmark A large proportion of the public not only misunderstands dates represent: how a thoroughly vetted and accepted evolutionary theory but also aspects of science and the scientific theory can be the source of so much cultural scientific process—for example, that calling evolution a conflict.
    [Show full text]
  • New Oviraptorid Dinosaur (Dinosauria: Oviraptorosauria) from the Nemegt Formation of Southwestern Mongolia
    Bull. Natn. Sci. Mus., Tokyo, Ser. C, 30, pp. 95–130, December 22, 2004 New Oviraptorid Dinosaur (Dinosauria: Oviraptorosauria) from the Nemegt Formation of Southwestern Mongolia Junchang Lü1, Yukimitsu Tomida2, Yoichi Azuma3, Zhiming Dong4 and Yuong-Nam Lee5 1 Institute of Geology, Chinese Academy of Geological Sciences, Beijing 100037, China 2 National Science Museum, 3–23–1 Hyakunincho, Shinjukuku, Tokyo 169–0073, Japan 3 Fukui Prefectural Dinosaur Museum, 51–11 Terao, Muroko, Katsuyama 911–8601, Japan 4 Institute of Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100044, China 5 Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources, Geology & Geoinformation Division, 30 Gajeong-dong, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 305–350, South Korea Abstract Nemegtia barsboldi gen. et sp. nov. here described is a new oviraptorid dinosaur from the Late Cretaceous (mid-Maastrichtian) Nemegt Formation of southwestern Mongolia. It differs from other oviraptorids in the skull having a well-developed crest, the anterior margin of which is nearly vertical, and the dorsal margin of the skull and the anterior margin of the crest form nearly 90°; the nasal process of the premaxilla being less exposed on the dorsal surface of the skull than those in other known oviraptorids; the length of the frontal being approximately one fourth that of the parietal along the midline of the skull. Phylogenetic analysis shows that Nemegtia barsboldi is more closely related to Citipati osmolskae than to any other oviraptorosaurs. Key words : Nemegt Basin, Mongolia, Nemegt Formation, Late Cretaceous, Oviraptorosauria, Nemegtia. dae, and Caudipterygidae (Barsbold, 1976; Stern- Introduction berg, 1940; Currie, 2000; Clark et al., 2001; Ji et Oviraptorosaurs are generally regarded as non- al., 1998; Zhou and Wang, 2000; Zhou et al., avian theropod dinosaurs (Osborn, 1924; Bars- 2000).
    [Show full text]
  • Ten Misunderstandings About Evolution a Very Brief Guide for the Curious and the Confused by Dr
    Ten Misunderstandings About Evolution A Very Brief Guide for the Curious and the Confused By Dr. Mike Webster, Dept. of Neurobiology and Behavior, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Cornell University ([email protected]); February 2010 The current debate over evolution and “intelligent design” (ID) is being driven by a relatively small group of individuals who object to the theory of evolution for religious reasons. The debate is fueled, though, by misunderstandings on the part of the American public about what evolutionary biology is and what it says. These misunderstandings are exploited by proponents of ID, intentionally or not, and are often echoed in the media. In this booklet I briefly outline and explain 10 of the most common (and serious) misunderstandings. It is impossible to treat each point thoroughly in this limited space; I encourage you to read further on these topics and also by visiting the websites given on the resource sheet. In addition, I am happy to send a somewhat expanded version of this booklet to anybody who is interested – just send me an email to ask for one! What are the misunderstandings? 1. Evolution is progressive improvement of species Evolution, particularly human evolution, is often pictured in textbooks as a string of organisms marching in single file from “simple” organisms (usually a single celled organism or a monkey) on one side of the page and advancing to “complex” organisms on the opposite side of the page (almost invariably a human being). We have all seen this enduring image and likely have some version of it burned into our brains.
    [Show full text]