PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Archaeopteryx

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

From here:
ArchyI

"It has long been accepted that Archaeopteryx was a transitional form between birds and reptiles, and that it is the earliest known bird. Lately, scientists have realized that it bears even more resemblance to its ancestors, the Maniraptora, than to modern birds; providing a strong phylogenetic link between the two groups. It is one of the most important fossils ever discovered."

Archaeopteryx was clearly more reptilian than avian.  Look at it's characteristics:
Like a reptile it had socketed teeth, no bird has socketed teeth.  
It had a reptilian mouth and jaws, not a beak like a bird.
It had unfused trunk vertebrae, like a reptile, birds have  fused trunk vertabrea.
Like pubic shafts with plate like and angled transverse cross sections which some dinosaurs have but no birds.
Elongated cerebral hemispheres like reptiles and unlike birds.
Archy's neck attaches to the skull from the rear like dinosaurs, unlike birds whos neck attaches from below.
Reptilian cervical vertebrae, unlike a birds.
A long bony tail with free vertebae, completely unlike a bird.
Slender, reptilian ribs, unjointed and they don't articulate with the sternum, completely different from birds.
Reptilian pelvic girdle and femur joint, unlike a bird.
The pelvic girdle attaches to 6 vertebrae, like reptiles instead of 11-23 like birds.
Reptilian hands with flexible wrist, unlike birds.
Nasal opening like a reptiles, not a birds.
Like a reptile, Deltoid ridge of the humerus faces anteriorly as do the radial and ulnar condyles.
Claws on unfused digits, no bird has 3 claws or unfused digits.
Like reptiles and unlike birds, The fibula is equal in length to the tibia in the leg.
Like reptiles, they have gastralia (ventral ribs) which birds don't.
Looking at strictly avian characteristics,
Opposable hallux, birds have this dinosaurs don't but some therapod dinosaurs come close to this structure.
Backward pointing pubis.
Slightly larger brain than therapod dinosaurs, more birdlike, but still proportionally smaller than modern bird brains.

And of course feathers are a shared characteristic with dinosaurs since clearly feathered dinosaurs have now been found.

That's about it.  Based on comparison of characteristics. Archy is more reptilian
than avian.  But since it has both reptilian and avian characteristics, it is clearly transitional, what else would you call it?  Evolution is the BEST explaination for this evidence.  In order to claim that it is NOT transitional, one must explain why the strictly reptilian features are not reptilian.  

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:51 AM on June 3, 2005 | IP
Cpatain Canuck

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 01:51 AM on June 3, 2005 :
From here:
ArchyI

"It has long been accepted that Archaeopteryx was a transitional form between birds and reptiles, and that it is the earliest known bird. Lately, scientists have realized that it bears even more resemblance to its ancestors, the Maniraptora, than to modern birds; providing a strong phylogenetic link between the two groups. It is one of the most important fossils ever discovered."

Archaeopteryx was clearly more reptilian than avian.  Look at it's characteristics:
Like a reptile it had socketed teeth, no bird has socketed teeth.  
It had a reptilian mouth and jaws, not a beak like a bird.
It had unfused trunk vertebrae, like a reptile, birds have  fused trunk vertabrea.
Like pubic shafts with plate like and angled transverse cross sections which some dinosaurs have but no birds.
Elongated cerebral hemispheres like reptiles and unlike birds.
Archy's neck attaches to the skull from the rear like dinosaurs, unlike birds whos neck attaches from below.
Reptilian cervical vertebrae, unlike a birds.
A long bony tail with free vertebae, completely unlike a bird.
Slender, reptilian ribs, unjointed and they don't articulate with the sternum, completely different from birds.
Reptilian pelvic girdle and femur joint, unlike a bird.
The pelvic girdle attaches to 6 vertebrae, like reptiles instead of 11-23 like birds.
Reptilian hands with flexible wrist, unlike birds.
Nasal opening like a reptiles, not a birds.
Like a reptile, Deltoid ridge of the humerus faces anteriorly as do the radial and ulnar condyles.
Claws on unfused digits, no bird has 3 claws or unfused digits.
Like reptiles and unlike birds, The fibula is equal in length to the tibia in the leg.
Like reptiles, they have gastralia (ventral ribs) which birds don't.
Looking at strictly avian characteristics,
Opposable hallux, birds have this dinosaurs don't but some therapod dinosaurs come close to this structure.
Backward pointing pubis.
Slightly larger brain than therapod dinosaurs, more birdlike, but still proportionally smaller than modern bird brains.

And of course feathers are a shared characteristic with dinosaurs since clearly feathered dinosaurs have now been found.

That's about it.  Based on comparison of characteristics. Archy is more reptilian
than avian.  But since it has both reptilian and avian characteristics, it is clearly transitional, what else would you call it?  Evolution is the BEST explaination for this evidence.  In order to claim that it is NOT transitional, one must explain why the strictly reptilian features are not reptilian.


Unfortunately, you forget to mention that several normal bird fossils have been found that are 75 million years older than the Archaeopteryx fossils.  The naturalist's rebuttle to my statement can be found on the talk-orgins website, I believe, if you want to look it up.  

 


Posts: 11 | Posted: 4:08 PM on June 3, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Unfortunately, you forget to mention that several normal bird fossils have been found that are 75 million years older than the Archaeopteryx fossils.

Unfortunately?  First of all, what 'normal' birds have been found older than Archaeopteryx and secondly, how does this refute evolutionary theory?  Archaeopteryx STILL has a mix of reptilian and avian characteristics, it is still clearly transitional.  Whether or not there are older more avian ancestors doesn't change it's transitional statis at all.  You still have to explain why the reptilian characteristics are not reptilian.  
Did you read the section in Talk Origins
from the page you're siting?
"Some people like to claim that the finding of a fossil bird from the Triassic of Texas (Protavis) proves that Archae cannot be transitional between dinosaurs and birds because Protoavis predates Archae by 75 million years. This is, of course, errant nonsense, mainly because no one is claiming that Archae is the transitional species between dinosaurs and birds, merely that Archae represents a grade of organisation which the proposed lineage went through to get from dinosaurs to birds. Archae is, I'm sorry to say, out on a limb, evolutionarily speaking. It represents a side branch, useful for comparative purposes, but not in the thick of things. So even if there were birds in the Triassic, that fact would not diminish Archae's importance as an indicator that "yes, birds could have evolved from dinosaurs." "
As to Protoavis, it's a contraversial fossil, and it's only one fossil in very bad shape.  The conclusions that it is a bird from the Triassic is rejected by almost every paleontologist.
From here:
Protoavis
"In the course of a succinct if sometimes oversimplified review of the “Protoavis” controversy, data refuting the claims made by Chatterjee on the behalf of his Triassic “bird” have been advanced in an effort to demonstrate how unlikely a controversy this matter should be. As there remains no compelling data to support the avian status of “Protoavis” or taxonomic validity thereof, it seems mystifying that the matter should be so contentious. The author very much agrees with Chiappe in arguing that at present, “Protoavis” is irrelevant to the phylogenetic reconstruction of Aves. While further material from the Dockum beds may vindicate this peculiar archosaur, for the time being, the case for “Protoavis” is non-existent."




 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:55 PM on June 3, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 10:55 PM on June 3, 2005 :

"Some people like to claim that the finding of a fossil bird from the Triassic of Texas (Protavis) proves that Archae cannot be transitional between dinosaurs and birds because Protoavis predates Archae by 75 million years. This is, of course, errant nonsense, mainly because no one is claiming that Archae is the transitional species between dinosaurs and birds, merely that Archae represents a grade of organisation which the proposed lineage went through to get from dinosaurs to birds. Archae is, I'm sorry to say, out on a limb, evolutionarily speaking. It represents a side branch, useful for comparative purposes, but not in the thick of things. So even if there were birds in the Triassic, that fact would not diminish Archae's importance as an indicator that "yes, birds could have evolved from dinosaurs." "

In the words of the great American Philosopher Dick Van Dyke:

Your argument is in essence vague , but in reality, totaly meaningless.


-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 11:16 PM on June 4, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Your argument is in essence vague , but in reality, totaly meaningless.

Only to those who don't understand science or biology!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:15 AM on June 5, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Dino feet for Archy


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 8:36 PM on December 1, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So, does this make Archy a transitional species or a dinosaur with wings?  Is a bat a mammal with wings or a transitional animal?  Is a platypus a mammal with duck bill and egg laying or a transitional animal?  There are animals out there that share traits of more than one species (or above).  It does not necessarily make them transitional.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 1:57 PM on December 2, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So, does this make Archy a transitional species or a dinosaur with wings?

It's still a transitional species, since in has characteristics of both reptiles and birds.

Is a bat a mammal with wings or a transitional animal?

A mammal with wings, of course.  Why do you think it's transitional, what are the characteristics it shares with birds?  Although, according to your claims, since it shares general characteristics with birds, it should be more similar to a bird, but it isn't...

Is a platypus a mammal with duck bill and egg laying or a transitional animal?

Well, a platypus doesn't have a duck bill, it's a flattened snout covered by fine fur.  Once again, your confusing superficial similarities with anatomical ones.  And of course the platypus is transitional between mammals and reptiles, while it is warm blooded, has fur and feeds it's young with milk like a mammal, it lays reptilian eggs, has one exit point on it's body like a reptile (the cloaca) and the males produce poison, like a reptile.  

There are animals out there that share traits of more than one species (or above).  It does not necessarily make them
transitional.


No, but evolution is still the best explaination of these shared traits, creationists only explaination is "Goddidit".  If you have anything more than this, let's see it...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 4:22 PM on December 2, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

New fossil of Archaeopteryx discovered in a private collection.  Now that it has been examined, it provides a wealth of new evidence that supports therapod to bird evolution.  Here's a link to the National Geographic article:
Archy

And here's a few quotes:
""The skull of the new specimen is the best preserved one of an archaeopterygid," said Gerald Mayr, a lead study author and prehistoric bird expert at the Senckenberg Institute for Research in Frankfurt, Germany.
"[It] presents important new details of the skull morphology [shape and function] of the earliest known bird," he said, "showing also that the skull of Archaeopteryx is much more similar to that of nonavian theropod dinosaurs than previously thought." "

This specimen shows that Archy did NOT have a reversed hind toe to give it a perching foot as previously thought, but a foot much more similar to deinonychosaurs (therapod dinosaurs).  

Gerald Mayr, part of the team that studied the new find, sums it up best:
"The find, according to Mayr, "not only provides further evidence for the theropod ancestry of birds, but it blurs the distinction between basal [the earliest] birds and basal deinonychosaurs," their fearsome-clawed ancestors.
"I do think that the question of a theropod ancestry of birds can now be considered settled once and forever," Mayr said."








 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 04:48 AM on December 9, 2005 | IP
Milken

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 04:48 AM on December 9, 2005 :
New fossil of Archaeopteryx discovered in a private collection.  Now that it has been examined, it provides a wealth of new evidence that supports therapod to bird evolution.  Here's a link to the National Geographic article:
Archy

And here's a few quotes:
""The skull of the new specimen is the best preserved one of an archaeopterygid," said Gerald Mayr, a lead study author and prehistoric bird expert at the Senckenberg Institute for Research in Frankfurt, Germany.
"[It] presents important new details of the skull morphology [shape and function] of the earliest known bird," he said, "showing also that the skull of Archaeopteryx is much more similar to that of nonavian theropod dinosaurs than previously thought." "

This specimen shows that Archy did NOT have a reversed hind toe to give it a perching foot as previously thought, but a foot much more similar to deinonychosaurs (therapod dinosaurs).  

Gerald Mayr, part of the team that studied the new find, sums it up best:
"The find, according to Mayr, "not only provides further evidence for the theropod ancestry of birds, but it blurs the distinction between basal [the earliest] birds and basal deinonychosaurs," their fearsome-clawed ancestors.
"I do think that the question of a theropod ancestry of birds can now be considered settled once and forever," Mayr said."



Archy for therapod to bird evolution? I couldn't disagree more, Niles Eldridge, Stephen Jay Gould, Pierre Lecomte du Nouy deny Archy as a missing link

Archy finding in 1993(more complete fossil), based on the bony sterum suggests it could fly like any other bird.

For Archy to be a transitional form it has to be found between bird- like therapods and birds. It's just the opposite, Archy's are found around 150 million years ago and the only the therapods with any bird qualities are found AFTER.

Archy is an extinct BIRD, unrelated to any birds currently living birds.

I only read what you posted but he it sure does tip toe around the "evidence" but offers a powerful conclusion from Mayr.

Evidence does not have to be in a private collection, we fell for that for over 40 years with the museum in England purporting the missing link for man-apes(FALSE).


 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 01:59 AM on February 16, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Curious that you define an organism with teeth, no hind perching toe, and a therapod skull to be a bird. With that logic, you might as well claim that there needs to be a transitional fossil between a father and his son.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 2/16/2006 at 07:31 AM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 07:30 AM on February 16, 2006 | IP
Army_of_Juan

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Milken at 01:59 AM on February 16, 2006 :
Quote from Demon38 at 04:48 AM on December 9, 2005 :
New fossil of Archaeopteryx discovered in a private collection.  Now that it has been examined, it provides a wealth of new evidence that supports therapod to bird evolution.  Here's a link to the National Geographic article:
Archy

And here's a few quotes:
""The skull of the new specimen is the best preserved one of an archaeopterygid," said Gerald Mayr, a lead study author and prehistoric bird expert at the Senckenberg Institute for Research in Frankfurt, Germany.
"[It] presents important new details of the skull morphology [shape and function] of the earliest known bird," he said, "showing also that the skull of Archaeopteryx is much more similar to that of nonavian theropod dinosaurs than previously thought." "

This specimen shows that Archy did NOT have a reversed hind toe to give it a perching foot as previously thought, but a foot much more similar to deinonychosaurs (therapod dinosaurs).  

Gerald Mayr, part of the team that studied the new find, sums it up best:
"The find, according to Mayr, "not only provides further evidence for the theropod ancestry of birds, but it blurs the distinction between basal [the earliest] birds and basal deinonychosaurs," their fearsome-clawed ancestors.
"I do think that the question of a theropod ancestry of birds can now be considered settled once and forever," Mayr said."



Archy for therapod to bird evolution? I couldn't disagree more, Niles Eldridge, Stephen Jay Gould, Pierre Lecomte du Nouy deny Archy as a missing link

Archy finding in 1993(more complete fossil), based on the bony sterum suggests it could fly like any other bird.

For Archy to be a transitional form it has to be found between bird- like therapods and birds. It's just the opposite, Archy's are found around 150 million years ago and the only the therapods with any bird qualities are found AFTER.

Archy is an extinct BIRD, unrelated to any birds currently living birds.

I only read what you posted but he it sure does tip toe around the "evidence" but offers a powerful conclusion from Mayr.

Evidence does not have to be in a private collection, we fell for that for over 40 years with the museum in England purporting the missing link for man-apes(FALSE).




Way to not understand his post there.

Archy is NOT an ancestor to modern birds and he even said so much. It was an evolutionary dead end but it stands as an example of what a reptilian/bird transisition would look like. Whether true birds were found before or after it is irrelevant. The platypus is mammalian/reptilian but obviously not the ancestor to all mammals.

Archy is not a true bird since it has more reptilian characteristics than avian. This was also mentioned in his post which I suggest you actually read this time.


-------
"I am Sofa-King we Todd Ed." - I. B. Creationist
 


Posts: 15 | Posted: 7:01 PM on February 16, 2006 | IP
Milken

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 07:30 AM on February 16, 2006 :
Curious that you define an organism with teeth, no hind perching toe, and a therapod skull to be a bird. With that logic, you might as well claim that there needs to be a transitional fossil between a father and his son.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 2/16/2006 at 07:31 AM).


1. Ancient BIRDS had teeth, nothing new, they were different from therods which had serrated teeth

2. Your article says. . .

Contrary to all previous reconstructions of Archaeopteryx, the hind toe of the new specimen is not COMPLETELY reversed to form a "perching" foot as it is in modern birds.

TRANSLATION: EVERY ARCH FOSSIL EXCEPT THIS ONE HAS A COMPLETELY REVERSED HIND TOE. I'D RATHER BELIEVE BASED ON THE OVERALL EVIDENCE

The researchers believe that the fully reversed hind toe in other Archaeopteryx fossils shifted during preservation and never existed in the live animal.

EVERY OTHER FOSSIL FIND IS A MISTAKE AND THIS ONE IS CORRECT. . . . OKAY. . . . IT'S ALSO CLEAR THE RESEARCHES ARE NOT CERTAIN

The specimen clearly lacks a reversed toe.

CONTRADICTORY TO THE PREVIOUS STATEMENTS

THE LAST LINE. . . . THAT WAS PRETTY FUNNY!


 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 02:39 AM on February 17, 2006 | IP
Milken

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Army_of_Juan at 7:01 PM on February 16, 2006 :
Quote from Milken at 01:59 AM on February 16, 2006 :
Quote from Demon38 at 04:48 AM on December 9, 2005 :
New fossil of Archaeopteryx discovered in a private collection.  Now that it has been examined, it provides a wealth of new evidence that supports therapod to bird evolution.  Here's a link to the National Geographic article:
Archy

And here's a few quotes:
""The skull of the new specimen is the best preserved one of an archaeopterygid," said Gerald Mayr, a lead study author and prehistoric bird expert at the Senckenberg Institute for Research in Frankfurt, Germany.
"[It] presents important new details of the skull morphology [shape and function] of the earliest known bird," he said, "showing also that the skull of Archaeopteryx is much more similar to that of nonavian theropod dinosaurs than previously thought." "

This specimen shows that Archy did NOT have a reversed hind toe to give it a perching foot as previously thought, but a foot much more similar to deinonychosaurs (therapod dinosaurs).  

Gerald Mayr, part of the team that studied the new find, sums it up best:
"The find, according to Mayr, "not only provides further evidence for the theropod ancestry of birds, but it blurs the distinction between basal [the earliest] birds and basal deinonychosaurs," their fearsome-clawed ancestors.
"I do think that the question of a theropod ancestry of birds can now be considered settled once and forever," Mayr said."



Archy for therapod to bird evolution? I couldn't disagree more, Niles Eldridge, Stephen Jay Gould, Pierre Lecomte du Nouy deny Archy as a missing link

Archy finding in 1993(more complete fossil), based on the bony sterum suggests it could fly like any other bird.

For Archy to be a transitional form it has to be found between bird- like therapods and birds. It's just the opposite, Archy's are found around 150 million years ago and the only the therapods with any bird qualities are found AFTER.

Archy is an extinct BIRD, unrelated to any birds currently living birds.

I only read what you posted but he it sure does tip toe around the "evidence" but offers a powerful conclusion from Mayr.

Evidence does not have to be in a private collection, we fell for that for over 40 years with the museum in England purporting the missing link for man-apes(FALSE).




Way to not understand his post there.

Archy is NOT an ancestor to modern birds and he even said so much. It was an evolutionary dead end but it stands as an example of what a reptilian/bird transisition would look like. Whether true birds were found before or after it is irrelevant. The platypus is mammalian/reptilian but obviously not the ancestor to all mammals.

Archy is not a true bird since it has more reptilian characteristics than avian. This was also mentioned in his post which I suggest you actually read this time.


I said, I only read what he POSTED from the article, I did not read the whole article. Which is evident since I was mentioning Mayr.

You say Archy is not a true bird, I disagree, has nothing to do with not reading.

Personally, I like quality proof for whether it is Creation or Evolution related.  A "transitional" from that does not translate into something else. . . is not transitional. . . like you said it's a dead end, it's not quality proof.

My reply for Archy being transitional is against the article, the article says it's transitional. Maybe you should read, hell, you have an entire ARMY, one of you can read something(lol)!

So my comments were relavant.

Once again Niles Eldridge, Stephen Jay Gould, Pierre Lecomte du Nouy, and Ernst Mayr DISAGREE (all MAJOR evolutionists)! They call it what it is, a BIRD.

Why Birds do not come from Dinos?
1)The first Dinosaurs similar to Birds are found around 50mil years AFTER Arch. This is not the proper transition

2) The feet, Dinosaurs have index, middle, and ring   Birds  middle, ring, and pincky fingers

3)Teeth, Dinosaurs have serrated teeth, birds like archy have nonserrated, pegish teeth

4)The Dino that have some bird charc do not have the pectoral girdle nec for flying

5)Avian experts say learning to fly from the ground up is close to impossible




 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 03:47 AM on February 17, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

2) The feet, Dinosaurs have index, middle, and ring   Birds  middle, ring, and pincky fingers

3)Teeth, Dinosaurs have serrated teeth, birds like archy have nonserrated, pegish teeth

4)The Dino that have some bird charc do not have the pectoral girdle nec for flying

5)Avian experts say learning to fly from the ground up is close to impossible


Though your first one is understandable, none of the following four points are valid:

2.) It depends on the dinosaur when you count fingers. Since Rex only had two of the three fingers you mention, I suppose by your definition that he wasn't a dinosaur.

3.) The majority of dinosaurs did not have serrated teeth. Only the carnivorous did, and that's accounting for a very small population in comparison to the rest of them.

4.) The pectoral girdle would evolve a long time after the initial steps to becoming a bird. Feathers were clearly not used for flying right away, or velociraptor would not have had them. Instead, the most reasonable idea is that feathers conserved heat, and thus helped the dinosaur live in colder weather. Later on, the advantages that feathers offered in catching wind were used.

5.) I really don't understand what you mean. There's no other way to learn how to fly.  



(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 2/17/2006 at 5:15 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 5:13 PM on February 17, 2006 | IP
Milken

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 5:13 PM on February 17, 2006 :
2) The feet, Dinosaurs have index, middle, and ring   Birds  middle, ring, and pincky fingers

3)Teeth, Dinosaurs have serrated teeth, birds like archy have nonserrated, pegish teeth

4)The Dino that have some bird charc do not have the pectoral girdle nec for flying

5)Avian experts say learning to fly from the ground up is close to impossible


Though your first one is understandable, none of the following four points are valid:

2.) It depends on the dinosaur when you count fingers. Since Rex only had two of the three fingers you mention, I suppose by your definition that he wasn't a dinosaur.

3.) The majority of dinosaurs did not have serrated teeth. Only the carnivorous did, and that's accounting for a very small population in comparison to the rest of them.

4.) The pectoral girdle would evolve a long time after the initial steps to becoming a bird. Feathers were clearly not used for flying right away, or velociraptor would not have had them. Instead, the most reasonable idea is that feathers conserved heat, and thus helped the dinosaur live in colder weather. Later on, the advantages that feathers offered in catching wind were used.

5.) I really don't understand what you mean. There's no other way to learn how to fly.  



(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 2/17/2006 at 5:15 PM).


Thank you so much for giving me the first one. lol

2) Are you suggesting birds may have evloved from a T-Rex, please don't? I thought the support limbs (which I'm arguing) had three not two, like the short upper limbs. Check out a picture.

3) You are VERY correct, let's be more specific. Theropods have recurved, flattened, serrated teeth, birds like archy have basic peglike, in a row(or waisted), nonserrated teeth

4) It would take a long time to Evlove, true. Warmth feathers are a far cry from the intricate , interlocking, flight feathers, airplane wings are based off avian wings. Have you ever thought about reptile scales to wings?

5) Actually the Wright Brothers may have learned from the ground but birds learn from the nest.

6) Here's a new one, the avian lung isn't on the radar with dinos.
 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 03:19 AM on February 18, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Archy for therapod to bird evolution? I couldn't disagree more, Niles Eldridge, Stephen Jay Gould, Pierre Lecomte du Nouy deny Archy as a missing link

Then how do you explain all the therapod traits that Archy had?  As to Gould, from here:
Gould

"Since then, Gould has often described Archaeopteryx as being transitional between reptiles and birds. For example, see page 144 of his 1991 book Bully For Brontosaurus."

So you're wrong about Gould...

From here:  
Eldredge

"It's now obvious that Gould and Eldredge weren't arguing against Archaeopteryx being a transitional form, but arguing that it wasn't an example of a perfectly smooth change between body plans (or "Baupläne"). For instance, the wing of Archaeopteryx was in essence the forelimb of a dinosaur covered with feathers. This is what Gould and Eldredge meant by the term "mosaic": a creature that is a mixture of both primitive and advanced features. But mosaic forms are exactly what we should expect from evolutionary transitions, since there's no reason to expect every part of the body to evolve at the same rate or at the same time. Evolution has no destination in mind, just as the Wright Brothers didn't envision modern jet fighters when they flew at Kitty Hawk."

So you're wrong about Eldredge...

Pierre Lecomte du Nouy?!?!  A philosopher who died in 1947?!?  Why should we care what he says?  He's not a biologist and he's hopelessly out of date!  

The experts today all agree, Archy is a transitional!

For Archy to be a transitional form it has to be found between bird- like therapods and birds. It's just the opposite, Archy's are found around 150 million years ago and the only the therapods with any bird qualities are found AFTER

So what?  Are you claiming all fossils that ever existed have been discovered?  Bird like therapods have been found earlier than Archy, we just haven't found any feather fossils earlier yet.  From here:
Dino-Bird

"And a reassessment of other theropods reveals such bird-like features as hollow bones and a foot with three functional toes, bird-like features that appeared over 50 million years before the first feeble flying flaps flung Archaeopteryx into the air. "

So avian characteristics appeared in dinosaurs long before Archy, you're wrong again...

Archy is an extinct BIRD, unrelated to any birds currently living birds.

An extinct bird with dinosaurian features...

You need better research, almost every one of your points was wrong.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:10 AM on February 20, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Let's look at some more of your errors:

1. Ancient BIRDS had teeth, nothing new, they were different from therods which had serrated teeth

Ancient birds had teeth, no birds do today....
those ancient birds were more closely related to their dinosar relatives.  Which ancient birds are you talking about, I'll bet dollars to donuts that they had a wealth of reptile characteristics.  So your point is incorrect, ancient birds with teeth were all transitional.

2. Your article says. . .
Contrary to all previous reconstructions of Archaeopteryx, the hind toe of the new specimen is not COMPLETELY reversed to form a "perching" foot as it is in modern birds.
TRANSLATION: EVERY ARCH FOSSIL EXCEPT THIS ONE HAS A COMPLETELY REVERSED HIND TOE. I'D RATHER BELIEVE BASED ON THE OVERALL EVIDENCE
The researchers believe that the fully reversed hind toe in other Archaeopteryx fossils shifted during preservation and never existed in the live animal.
EVERY OTHER FOSSIL FIND IS A MISTAKE AND THIS ONE IS CORRECT. . . . OKAY. . . . IT'S ALSO CLEAR THE RESEARCHES ARE NOT CERTAIN


That's how science works, whats the problem?
New evidence is studied by new methods and techniques and new tools and this gives us better data.  That's what happened.  From here:ArchyFoot

"An exceptionally well preserved new fossil reveals a foot and skull that more closely resemble those of a group of two-legged predatory dinosaurs called dromeosaurs, than modern birds."

And...

"A complete foot reveals that archaeopteryx had an extensible claw on its second toe, which is a hallmark of raptors, but is absent in all known birds. Its first toe, or "hallux", is also at the side of the foot and not reversed as it is in perching birds, which use it to grasp branches."

So what's your objection to the new data, do you even understand it?  Or are you just trying to confuse the issue by making unsupported insinuations?  

Personally, I like quality proof for whether it is Creation or Evolution related.  A "transitional" from that does not translate into something else. . . is not transitional. . . like you said it's a dead end, it's not quality proof.

Then you don't understand what a 'transitional' is.  Archaeopteryx has both reptilian and avian characteristics, it is transitional.  Doesn't matter whether it is in the direct lineage of modern birds.  Evolution is the only explaination for it.  Are you a paleontologist, on what basis do you make the claim that it's not quality proof?  

So my comments were relavant

Irrelevant comments from an uninformed source.

Once again Niles Eldridge, Stephen Jay Gould, Pierre Lecomte du Nouy, and Ernst Mayr DISAGREE (all MAJOR evolutionists)! They call it what it is, a BIRD.

As stated in my last post, Gould and Eldredge agree that Arhaeopteryx is transitional, you are wrong there.  Pierre lecomte du Nouy is NOT a biologist and is decades out of date, so his unsupported opinion is meaningless.  And please show us where Mayr said Archaeopteryx was not transitional, not that I don't trust you  but your track record has been lousy up to this point...

1)The first Dinosaurs similar to Birds are found around 50mil years AFTER Arch. This is not the proper transition

As I pointed out in an above post, you're simply wrong here.  

"From here:
Dino-Bird

"And a reassessment of other theropods reveals such bird-like features as hollow bones and a foot with three functional toes, bird-like features that appeared over 50 million years before the first feeble flying flaps flung Archaeopteryx into the air. "

So avian characteristics appeared in dinosaurs long before Archy, you're wrong again..."

3)Teeth, Dinosaurs have serrated teeth, birds like archy have nonserrated, pegish
teeth


And modern birds have no teeth.  What happened to them?  And why do the ancient birds that do have teeth, all have numerous reptilian characteristics?

4)The Dino that have some bird charc do not have the pectoral girdle nec for flying

Gee, do you think it could have been that they didn't fly?

5)Avian experts say learning to fly from the ground up is close to impossible

What experts and what is the data that supports this hypothesis?  What about learning to fly from the top down, as supported by microraptor gui?  And your claims are out of date, while we don't know for sure yet how flight evolved, the "ground up" theory is certainly NOT impossible.  From here:
Dinoflight

"Furthermore, these animals evolved the skeletal framework necessary for flapping their feathered forelimbs--the functional precursors of powered flight. Fossils spanning the evolutionary transition from theropod to bird also detail how the wings of these animals became larger as their bodies became smaller. Aerodynamic studies have documented how, by flapping their wings, the animals could have boosted their running speed. Taken together, the evidence suggests that flight could have evolved as a by-product of wing-assisted running in animals that were becoming lighter even as their wings were becoming bigger.

Theories about the origin of flight will continue to be conjectural. Yet aerodynamics, the potential for locomotion, and the documented habits of birds' predecessors all make the ground-up hypothesis the less conflicted of the two conjectures."

So your claim that the origin of flight from the ground up is impossible is just plain wrong.

3) You are VERY correct, let's be more specific. Theropods have recurved, flattened, serrated teeth, birds like archy have basic peglike, in a row(or waisted), nonserrated teeth

Not all therapods have serrated teeth, the spinosaurids had unserrated teeth, so this claim is wrong also.  From here:
Spinosaurids

"The spinosaurids were long predators with elongated vertebral spines and crocodile-like jaws with specialized unserrated teeth."

4) It would take a long time to Evlove, true. Warmth feathers are a far cry from the intricate , interlocking, flight feathers, airplane wings are based off avian wings. Have you ever thought about reptile scales to wings?

What's your point?  We don't have to think about reptile scales to wings, some dinosaurs already had feathers.

5) Actually the Wright Brothers may have learned from the ground but birds learn from the nest.

Again, so what?  Some birds learn from the nest but their ancestors could have learned from the ground up.  You haven't presented any evidence to refute this.

6) Here's a new one, the avian lung isn't on the radar with dinos.

Yes it is.  You obviously aren't up to date on the new evidence.  Dinosaurs had lung systems very similar to birds.  From here:
DinosBreathedLikeBirds

"Big meat-eating dinosaurs had a complex system of air sacs similar to the setup in today's birds, according to an investigation led by Patrick O'Connor of Ohio University. The lungs of theropod dinosaurs -- carnivores that walked on two legs and had bird-like feet -- likely pumped air into hollow sacs in their skeletons, as is the case in birds."

And...

"In the new study, O'Connor and his colleague, Leon Claessens of Harvard University, examined Majungatholus atopus, a recently discovered primitive theropod that is several yards long. They found cavities in its vertebral bones similar to those found in birds."

The new evidence fully supports dino to bird evolution and destroys your counter claims.




 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:46 AM on February 21, 2006 | IP
Milken

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thanks for the info about Gould and Eldridge it looks like they clearly call it a mosaic and since they are who they are it's believable they think it's transitional.

In your resources doesn't Gould mention how rare/next to impossible a true transition is?

I don't disagree with mosaic, but with transitional. For example, a true transitional would have scales and features(sceathers).

Pierre Lecomte du Nouy matters because he's an evolutionist, but still a philosopher.

Whew, so much ground to cover, I'll TRY to stick with the basics this time.

A)From Your Source:
So structurally, the fossils are offering a pretty consistent picture that the Birds-Are-Dinosaurs hypothesis is correct. But there's a hitch. The closest dinosaurian relatives to the birds occur in the fossil record after Archaeopteryx. Unless Velociraptor and kin perfected time travel, there's no way they can be the ancestors of a bird that lived sixty million years earlier. Some recent finds suggest that bird-like dinosaurs did exist earlier than previously thought, but the fossils are scrappy and inconclusive. Given the improbability of fossilisation, it's quite possible that pre-Archaeopteryx dino-birds were simply not preserved.

Bird-like dinosaurs are found after Archy, logically they should be first. The evidence for bird-like dino before archy is inconclusive. They should be found in the Triassic period at least. Archy could fly! How can you call it transitional with such a big jump? It may be possible but not yet.

B) Sinosauropteryx (some believe they didn't have feathers, aka fraud), archeoraptor and any other fossil found in NE China is very susceptible to be fradulent. Alan Feduccia said he's heard rumors of not just fake makers, but factories, because it's such a lucrative business.

C) Check out these Transitional Froms
1)Hoatzin, Ostrich, and touraco are modern birds with claws
2)  penguins have unfused vertabrae
3) though rare, there have been birds with teeth up until recently
4) Teeth isn't a reptile trait, some have them and some don't

looks like we have more missing links, this is excellent proof = )

D) As for breathing, maybe you could find it, but the biggest difference is that birds breath with one directional air flow

E) Archy could fly like any other bird based on 1993(or 1992) finding w/ bird like bony sterum
The proper ancestors are found after

F) Archy's "ancestors" (they're youger) have forelimbs too small to be suitable for flight

G) According to J.D. Steward and two other ornithologists archy has the same type of non-reptilian but bird like teeth found in other teethed birds.

H) Again Dino use digits I II III
              Archy(birds)     II III IV

I) Archy has feathers, wings, eyes, brain of a bird, and teeth just like extinct teethed birds

J) If someone found the proper and accepted ancestor, it would have to be pretty old to allow time for evolution because Archy is one advanced flying bird with teeth.

Side Note:
In general, National Geographic is the tabloid of evolutionary discovery. They report news, and findings but they can not be looked as absolute until the rest of the scientific community examines it.




 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 04:09 AM on February 21, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

OK, here we go...

In your resources doesn't Gould mention how rare/next to impossible a
true transition is?


Well, he does say:
GouldonTransitionalFossils


"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is
infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether though
design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record
includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at
the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a
pamphlet entitled “Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution is a Hoax” states:
“The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge…are forcing
Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God
revealed to us in the Bible."”

He says they are abundant between larger groups, so it's obvious he doesn't
think they are rare.

I don't disagree with mosaic, but with transitional. For example, a true
transitional would have scales and features(sceathers).


Why?  Wouldn't anything that shows characteristics from 2 different groups
of organisms be transitional, like Archaeopteryx?

As for sceathers...well, feather origin is a tricky subject.  Most
paleontologists don't think feathers came from scales, but there is a close
relationship between scutes and feathers, which both dinosaurs, some
reptiles and birds do both possess.  From here:
Scutes

"Scutes are the thick scales on the top of a bird's foot (see figure at
right). There are smaller scutes on the back of the foot, called scutellae,
and scales on the bottom of the digits, called reticulae. Analyses by Alan
Brush have shown that bird scutes, scuttelae, claw sheathes, beak sheathes,
and scales around the eyes are of the same chemical composition as
feathers, and are controlled by the same genes. The reticulae have been
shown to be identical to crocodilian scales both in composition and their
location on the DNA strand.
In all cases where a chick was infected with the inhibitor virus at days
15-18 of development, at least some of the scutes developed into feathers.
The feather development ranged from thickening of the edge of the scute, to
short, fat feathers, to long, thin feather filaments (see figures at left
and right; click on the images to see larger hi-res picture). These
feathers contained the barbs characteristic of normal feathers, although
the barbs were more numerous. The scutellae also developed into feathers to
various degrees."

Pierre Lecomte du Nouy matters because he's an evolutionist, but still a
philosopher.


But he's not a biologist, so it doesn't matter what he thinks.  And his
opinions are hopelessly out of date.  He didn't have the massive amount of
evidence we have today, so one again, I maintain that du Nouy doesn't
matter.

So structurally, the fossils are offering a pretty consistent picture
that the Birds-Are-Dinosaurs hypothesis is correct. But there's a hitch.
The closest dinosaurian relatives to the birds occur in the fossil record
after Archaeopteryx. Unless Velociraptor and kin perfected time travel,
there's no way they can be the ancestors of a bird that lived sixty million
years earlier.


This is not the case!  Dinosaurs that appear after Archy only support the
relationship of dinosaurs and birds.  You forget that evolution isn't a
ladder-like progession, it is a bush with many, many branches.  They shared
characteristics with birds, the best explaination, the only one supported
by the evidence is that they are related.  You also fail to realize we
haven't found every fossil yet, there could be better fossils just waiting
to be found.  And there are fossils of Archy ancestors that appear around
the same time and some that are older.  From here:
ArchyAge

"There are much greater time discordances in the dinosaur fossil record
(Sereno 1997b, 1999a) than this one. But, moreover, there are a variety of
of fragmentary specimens (mostly teeth) of animals that closely resemble
those of dromaeosaurids and troodontids recovered from Middle Jurassic
deposits that predate Archaeopteryx by 20My (Evans and Milner, 1994;
Metcalf and Walker, 1994). Similarly, Zinke (1998) reported an extensive
collection of theropod teeth from deposits perhaps just slightly older than
Archaeopteryx; Zinke made firm assignments of these teeth to
Dromaeosauridae (29 teeth), Troodontidae (14 teeth), and Tyrannosauridae (3
teeth). Finally, Jensen and Padian (1989) described fragmentary but
provocative skeletal material of maniraptoran theropods from the Late
Jurassic Morrison Formation."

The evidence for bird like ancestors of Archy is growing.  And as time goes
on, it will get stronger.  But when we add this to the morphological
evidence, the picture is becoming quite clear, birds evolved from therapod
dinosaurs.  How do you explain the evidence we do have...

Bird-like dinosaurs are found after Archy, logically they should be
first.


Why should they be first?  The theory  of evolution does not say an
ancestral population must die off before a new species arises.  And of
course, they could have been alive before Archy, we just don't have fossil
confirmation yet.

They should be found in the Triassic period at least.

Therapod dinosaurs did live in the Triassic.

Archy could fly! How can you call it transitional with such a big
jump?


Because Arhaeopteryx has both reptilian and avian charateristics, that
makes it transitional.

B) Sinosauropteryx (some believe they didn't have feathers, aka fraud),
archeoraptor and any other fossil found in NE China is very susceptible to
be fradulent.


What evidence do you have that Sinosauropteryx was a fraud?  And Fossils
have been faked since the begining of paleontology.  Paleonotologists are
quite capable of discerning a fake from the real thing, after all they are
the ones that determined that archaeoraptor was a fake.  This is a baseless
argument that is an insult to paleontologists.  So show us your evidence
that any fossil from Liaoning are frauds, besides archaeoraptor, or
withdraw the claim.

1)Hoatzin, Ostrich, and touraco are modern birds with claws

From here:
ArchyClaws


"No modern adult bird has 3 claws, nor do they have unfused digits. The
juvenile hoatzin and Touracos do have 2 claws but loose them as they grow,
the ostrich appears to retain its 2 claws into adulthood, due to the early
termination of development (see section on Ratites). In the case of the
hoatzin it is thought that these claws allow the juvenile to climb. It had
been claimed that since these birds do have claws, even in the juvenile
stage, then the presence of claws cannot be used as a reptilian character.
This is not so, however. In fact almost all birds exhibit claws, but in the
embryonic stage and they are lost by the time the bird leaves the egg. In
the case of the few which do retain claws into the juvenile stage, this is
merely the extension of the condition into the post-embryonic stage. As
McGowan (1984, p 123) says:
"In retaining a primitive reptilian feature which other birds lose just
before leaving the egg [the hoatzin] is showing us its reptilian pedigree.
Far from being evidence to the contrary, the hoatzin is additional evidence
for the reptilian ancestry of birds." "

So no modern bird has 3 claws and unfused digits like Archaeopteryx.

2)Â  penguins have unfused vertabrae

Just like Therapod dinosaurs!  More evidence for dino to bird evolution!

3) though rare, there have been birds with teeth up until recently

Name them and we'll discuss them...

4) Teeth isn't a reptile trait, some have them and some don't

But all therapod dinosaurs had them and some had unserrated teeth, like
Archaeopteryx...

D) As for breathing, maybe you could find it, but the biggest difference
is that birds breath with one directional air flow


Just as new evidence shows us that dinosaurs did also, from here:
DinoLungs


"In the new study, O'Connor and his colleague, Leon Claessens of Harvard
University, examined Majungatholus atopus, a recently discovered primitive
theropod that is several yards long. They found cavities in its vertebral
bones similar to those found in birds.
They found that "the pulmonary system of meat-eating dinosaurs such as T.
rex in fact shares many structural similarities with that of modern birds,"
Claessens said.
A bird's air sacs are distributed throughout its body. The lungs never
change shape, Claessens explained. Instead, fresh air is constantly being
drawn from the air sacs through the lungs, in both directions, creating a
very efficient respiration system.
There is also evidence that the dinosaur's rib cage was adapted for this
type of system, Claessens told LiveScience. "

The new evidence shows us dinosaurs breathed like birds do, more evidence
to support the dino to bird link and it refutes your claim.

E) Archy could fly like any other bird based on 1993(or 1992) finding w/ bird like bony sterum The proper ancestors are found
after


If they are found after Archy, they aren't ancestral.  You're having a real problem understanding transitionals.  As to flight, what's the big deal, pterosaurs had already mastered powered flight in the Triassic period.
Where exactly is the problem for evolution with flying archaeopteryx?

F) Archy's "ancestors" (they're youger) have forelimbs too small to be suitable for
flight


Then they obviously weren't ancestral to archaeopteryx and therefore aren't relevant.

G) According to J.D. Steward and two other ornithologists archy has the same type of non-reptilian but bird like teeth found in other teethed birds.

Please name the birds that have teeth, because primitive birds that did have teeth also had other therapod characteristics becasue they too were more closely related to dinosaurs than modern birds, just like Archaeopteryx.  This is just more evidence to support the dino to bird link.

I) Archy has feathers, wings, eyes, brain of a bird, and teeth just like extinct teethed
birds


It is now conclusiively established that dinosaurs had feathers.  The toothed birds you allude to were much more primitive than modern birds and, like Archy, had therapod characteristics.  It is no surprise and is predicted by evolution that more primitive organisms would retain characteristics of the ancestors they evolved from.  That Archaeopteryx and  Hesperornis had teeth and no modern birds do is evidence for the therapod dinosaur to bird link.

J) If someone found the proper and accepted ancestor, it would have to be pretty old to allow time for evolution because Archy is one advanced flying bird with teeth.

Yet you totally ignore all the other therapod characteristics Archaeopteryx had.  The clearly dinosaurian skull, the neck attachment, the vertebrae that are clearly reptilian, the abdominal ribs found in reptiles not birds, a rib cage which lacks uncinate processes and does not articulate with the sternum, rather than the strutlike uncinates and sternum articulations found in all birds, a sacrum consisting of only 6 vertebrae, rather than the 11-23 found in birds, mobile joints in the bones of the elbow, wrist and fingers, rather than the fused joints found in birds, a shoulder socket that faces downward like a therapod's, rather than outward like a bird's, a long bony tail with free vertebrae, rather than the short fused pygostile found in birds.  
When comparing morphology, you don't get to pick and choose, you have to look at all the evidence and archaeopteryx clearly has reptilian and avian characteristics, making it transitional.  The therapod dinosaurs it evolved from had feathers, a bird like pulmonary system and breathing system.  The best explaination for these similarities is that birds evolved from therapod dinosaurs.  This is the consensus of the majority of the worlds paleontologists.  

Side Note:
In general, National Geographic is the tabloid of evolutionary discovery. They report news, and findings but they can not be looked as absolute until the rest of the scientific community examines it.


I haven't used National Geographic as a source, so I guess this isn't directed at me...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:31 AM on February 22, 2006 | IP
Milken

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You type too much. . . . .

In regards to the philosopher, your job title doesn't mean your opinion in other areas doesn't matter, that's a generalization.

In your previous source Gould does state true tansitionals are rare. Abundant in larger groups(aren't many compared to species) doesn't say much but honestly I could care less.

The comment that starts of "So structually. ." was taken directly from one of your sources, way to refute your own source = ).

Milken: Bird-like dinosaurs are found after Archy, logically they should be
first.

Demon: Why should they be first?  The theory  of evolution does not say an
ancestral population must die off before a new species arises.  And of
course, they could have been alive before Archy, we just don't have fossil
confirmation yet.

Milken: Why should they be first, the root comes before branches, the branches before the blossom? We don't have the fossils because they are not there(not found). In the name of real evidence let's not assume it into existence.


Pre Archy we have dino that don't fit as ancestors for archy.

The point about Archy flying is I think it was just an odd ancient bird with teeth.  To call it transitional we atleast need animals before it that make sense.

Alan Fedducia(bird expert) says Sinosauropteryx had frayed collagen fibres, not feathers.

I mentioned other birds with similar charc because everyone agrees they are birds with unique or rare traits. Flying squirrels aren't birds either.

Point F) was sarcasm, the dinos most similar to archy are after in the fossil record, these dinos have forelimbs to small to be suitable for flight.

T. Huxley originated the dino to bird idea 1860 (unless you disagree), right before the 1st Archy was discovered. He did so because anatomically they had alot of similarities(esp two legged dino). Personally, similarity does not prove ancestry. IDers can use similarity to support their cause alos. Especially since the originator wasn't an evolutionist and used it to point toward common design.
 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 03:24 AM on February 22, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You type too much. . . . .

No I don't, you don't read enough...

In regards to the philosopher, your job title doesn't mean your opinion in other areas doesn't matter, that's a generalization.

But you ignore the fact that whatever information he based his opinion on is out of date and irrelevant.  Geez, the guy died in 1923!  He had NO knowledge of modern paleontology, so his opinion amounts to nothing.

In your previous source Gould does state true tansitionals are rare. Abundant in larger groups(aren't many compared to species) doesn't say much but honestly I could care less.

No he doesn't, it's quite clear, he says transitionals are abundant between larger groups, it means there are a lot of them.  If you couldn't care less, you shouldn't have asked.  As it is now, you asked, got an answer that refuted your point, now the you have been shown to be wrong, you couldn't care less, sour grapes.

The comment that starts of "So structually. ." was taken directly from one of your sources, way to refute your own source = ).

Wasn't taken from one of my sources, so I most definitely didn't refute my own source!
You're imagining things!

Milken: Why should they be first, the root comes before branches, the branches before the blossom? We don't have the fossils because they are not there(not found). In the name of real evidence let's not assume it into existence.

But you're the only one claiming they are the root!  This shows that you don't understand transitionals.  No one is saying Archaeopteryx is intermediate between therapod dinosaurs and birds.  But the fact that it has dinosaur characteristics and avian characteristics means that therapod dinosaurs  and birds are related.
The best explaination of why they are related is evolution.  Archaeopteryx is transitional between therapod dinosaurs and birds, it is evidence for the link between therapod dinosaurs and birds.

Pre Archy we have dino that don't fit as ancestors for archy.

Therapod dinosaurs predate archaeopteryx, archaeopteryx has therapod dinosaur characteristics, therefore, therapod dinosaurs are ancestors of archaeopteryx.

The point about Archy flying is I think it was just an odd ancient bird with teeth.  To call it transitional we atleast need animals before it that make sense.

But Archaeopteryx had plenty of therapod characteristics, so it clearly isn't just an odd ancient bird with teeth.  And the animals that came before it that it shared characteristics with were the therapods.

Alan Fedducia(bird expert) says Sinosauropteryx had frayed collagen fibres, not feathers.

So what?  There are a lot more dinosaurs with feathers than Sinosauropteryx.  When did Fedducia make this statement?  How out of date is this?  In any event, other feathered dinosaurs, from here:
FeatheredDinos
"A number of non-avian dinosaurs are now known to have been feathered. Direct evidence of feathers exists for the following genera (listed in order of publication):
Sinosauropteryx
Protarchaeopteryx
Caudipteryx
Shuvuuia
Sinornithosaurus
Beipiaosaurus
Microraptor
Epidendrosaurus
Cryptovolans
Scansoriopteryx
Yixianosaurus
Dilong
Pedopenna
Jinfengopteryx"

Direct evidence for feathers, there is no doubt about it, many dinosaurs had feathers.

I mentioned other birds with similar charc because everyone agrees they are birds with unique or rare traits. Flying squirrels aren't birds either.

But then you fail to mention that these birds also had therapod characteristics that modern birds don't have.  Glaring omission on your part.  And flying squirrels don't have feathers like therapod dinosaurs...

T. Huxley originated the dino to bird idea 1860 (unless you disagree), right before the 1st Archy was discovered. He did so because anatomically they had alot of similarities(esp two legged dino). Personally, similarity does not prove ancestry.

And since you aren't a biologist, paleontologist or a scientist, who cares what you think proves or disproves ancestory.  You don't understand biology.  Homologies do indeed show common ancestry.  It explains why certain organisms have so many homologies with some organisms and so few with others.  Homologies are rigourously tested by biologists by different criteria.  And so far, using homologies to group animals is almost exactly mirrored when grouping them genetically.  There is no other explaination for this twin nested hierarchy except evolution.  How does anything else explain this fact?

And I see you haven't commented on the other points of my post, the shared characteristics of archaeopteryx and therapod dinosaurs like the skull, abdominal ribs, or the new data that shows us dinosaurs had rspiratin similar to birds.  Are you conceding these points or just ignoring them becasue you can't refute them?  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 04:45 AM on February 22, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok, as much as I hate to agree with Demon (I'm a creationist) I do have to state that since evolution does not require that all members of a species change at the same time, then there is no need for birds to have one root ancestor.  Archy is NOT an ancestor of modern birds (from either the creationist or evolutionist view).  Evolutionists use him as an example of "what could have been".  Creationists treat him like they treat platypus and the like.  It is our belief that some animals were created with characteristics that blur the lines.  Arguing over Archy gets neither side anywhere.

And I think you mean you "could not care less" since saying you "could care less" means you obviously care about it.

And I don't usually argue about spelling (not like I haven't had typos myself), but these two are bugging me....  "loose" means "not tight".  It does not mean "lose".  And the word is "explanation" not "explaination".  There, my inner English teacher is satisfied.  


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 10:08 AM on February 22, 2006 | IP
Milken

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 04:45 AM on February 22, 2006 :

No I don't, you don't read enough...

I hope you don't take this as personal as it sounds.  = )

But you ignore the fact that whatever information he based his opinion on is out of date and irrelevant.  Geez, the guy died in 1923!  He had NO knowledge of modern paleontology, so his opinion amounts to nothing.

I agree his opinon isn't a major issue, he died in 1947.

The comment that starts of "So structually. ." was taken directly from one of your sources, way to refute your own source = ).

Wasn't taken from one of my sources, so I most definitely didn't refute my own source!
You're imagining things!

Check Feb 20th Dino-Bird Link, it's the last paragraph under bird like dinosaurs. It begins, "So structually . ." It basically says the right ancestors come after and the ones before are inconclusive.


Milken: Why should they be first, the root comes before branches, the branches before the blossom? We don't have the fossils because they are not there(not found). In the name of real evidence let's not assume it into existence.

But you're the only one claiming they are the root!  This shows that you don't understand transitionals.  No one is saying Archaeopteryx is intermediate between therapod dinosaurs and birds.

Great, we're clear on something! I think it gradually went away as we've talked about this for so long. You're right about my misunderstanding of intermediate and transitional then. Transitional is essentially shared traits while intermediates have to link two groups?

 But the fact that it has dinosaur characteristics and avian characteristics means that therapod dinosaurs  and birds are related.

The best explaination of why they are related is evolution.  Archaeopteryx is transitional between therapod dinosaurs and birds, it is evidence for the link between therapod dinosaurs and birds.


Therapod dinosaurs predate archaeopteryx, archaeopteryx has therapod dinosaur characteristics, therefore, therapod dinosaurs are ancestors of archaeopteryx.

You are correct. They do predate, but we do not have any feasible ancestorial fossils. Your article, with the paragraph, "So structually. . ." disagrees

But Archaeopteryx had plenty of therapod characteristics, so it clearly isn't just an odd ancient bird with teeth.  And the animals that came before it that it shared characteristics with were the therapods.

 When did Fedducia make this statement? 2001, he also commented on a few others.
 
FeatheredDinos
"A number of non-avian dinosaurs are now known to have been feathered. Direct evidence of feathers exists for the following genera (listed in order of publication):
Sinosauropteryx
Protarchaeopteryx
Caudipteryx
Shuvuuia
Sinornithosaurus
Beipiaosaurus
Microraptor
Epidendrosaurus
Cryptovolans
Scansoriopteryx
Yixianosaurus
Dilong
Pedopenna
Jinfengopteryx"

Direct evidence for feathers, there is no doubt about it, many dinosaurs had feathers.

Honestly I want to leave this is another issue I want to leave alone for clairty sake. If that's the order of publication the oldest dino you listed is around 20million years younger and much less evolved. Assuming they're all real. I done on this one.


I mentioned other birds with similar charc because everyone agrees they are birds with unique or rare traits. Flying squirrels aren't birds either.

But then you fail to mention that these birds also had therapod characteristics that modern birds don't have.  Glaring omission on your part.  And flying squirrels don't have feathers like therapod dinosaurs...

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
That is a Hall of Fame Comment, I feel so evil.


T. Huxley originated the dino to bird idea 1860 (unless you disagree), right before the 1st Archy was discovered. He did so because anatomically they had alot of similarities(esp two legged dino). Personally, similarity does not prove ancestry.

You don't understand biology.  Homologies do indeed show common ancestry.  It explains why certain organisms have so many homologies with some organisms and so few with others.  

The paragraph above did not tell us how homolgy shows common ancestry. Only that similarity explains why certain organisms have so many similarities with some organisms and so few with others. Whew! That's my point, it only proves organisms are similar, not the mechanism by which they are. Richard Owen the founder of the field thought it was evidence for common design. For example, I can ask you to build 100s of different buildings for the same amount of purposes. In the end, many of the buildings will have similarities (windows, doors, roof, floor, etc.).


Homologies are rigourously tested by biologists by different criteria.

presence of intermediary stages between related taxa, agreement with evidence of other homologies,  postion in relation to neighboring organs, existence of intermediaries in fossil record, etc. I know.

year 2001
Ernst Mayr " Homology cannot be proven; it is always inferred."

Ernst Mayr speaking of bird origins, this is a summary/quote/paraphrase (2001):
The fossil record seems to be in conflict with the dinosaur theory. The most birdlike two legged dinos are only 70-100myo while archy is 145myo. Bec Archy has so many advanced characters, it's ancestors must be from the Triassic(around 225mya), but no birdlike dino fossils are found from that period. Dinos and birds have different fingers and the birdlike dino anterior extremities are no where near preadapted for flight. It is quite inconceivable how they could have possibly shifted to flight. There are alot more problems and the issue proably won't be solved until more fossils from the Triassic are found.

                   


And I see you haven't commented on the other points of my post, the shared characteristics of archaeopteryx and therapod dinosaurs like the skull, abdominal ribs, or the new data that shows us dinosaurs had rspiratin similar to birds.  Are you conceding these points or just ignoring them becasue you can't refute them?

I'm trying to get closure by not getting into issues that may not decide the issue. I'd never dogmatically(might as well be faith) support something, being wrong won't hurt my ego.




 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 03:24 AM on February 23, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I hope you don't take this as personal as it sounds.  = )

Not at all, I don't take anything personally in an online debate, I hope you have the same attitude dealing with me, I don't mean anything personal either.

Check Feb 20th Dino-Bird Link, it's the last paragraph under bird like dinosaurs. It begins, "So structually . ." It basically says the right ancestors come after and the ones before are inconclusive.

OK, I see where you got this and how it is part of my source.  But this stems from the mix up with the terms intermediate and transitional, looks like you understand the difference now.

The paragraph above did not tell us how homolgy shows common ancestry. Only that similarity explains why certain organisms have so many similarities with some organisms and so few with others. Whew! That's my point, it only proves organisms are similar, not the mechanism by which they are. Richard Owen the founder of the field thought it was evidence for common design. For example, I can ask you to build 100s of different buildings for the same amount of purposes. In the end, many of the buildings will have similarities (windows, doors, roof, floor, etc.).

But buildings don't reproduce, living organisms do.  How else can you explain them?
From here: Homologies

"If species actually arose independently (naturally or through a divine act) one would think that each organism would have characteristics that were uniquely suited to its nature and environment. That is, an organism's anatomy would function in a manner most suited to its particular way of life. And yet virtually all organisms have anatomical similarities with other very different species which, based on our knowledge of biology, biochemistry and biophysics, don't make any sense functionally.
There are countless examples of these kinds of homologies. One frequently cited example is the pentadactyl (five digit) limb of tetrapods (vertebrates with four limbs including amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals). When you consider the vastly different functions of the various limbs of all of these creatures (grasping, walking, digging, flying, swimming, etc.) there is no functional reason for all of these limbs to have the same basic structure. Why do humans, cats, birds and whales all have the same basic five digit limb structure? (Note: adult birds actually have three digit limbs, but embryonically these digits develop from a five digit precursor.) "

Homologies are best explained by evolution.

year 2001
Ernst Mayr " Homology cannot be proven; it is always inferred."


But Mayr also said, From here:
Mayr

"If we want to find out if a group of organisms is a species, we have to have a method. We can divide them by common characteristics, which is sound. When we classify we make classes, and classes are groups that have features similar to each other. Cladism is a good system for determining phylogeny and descent, but it is not a good classification of living organisms. I accept cladistic analysis, which is a very good method to determine whether the characteristics of a group were derived from a common ancestor, but you cannot arrange things merely by descent without coming into total conflict with degrees of similarity, which is the whole meaning of classification."

Even Mayr says comparing similarities is a good method of determining a common ancestor.  

Ernst Mayr speaking of bird origins, this is a summary/quote/paraphrase (2001):

Mayr was well past his prine in 2001, when was the last time he actively did any research?
By this time, he had spent the last 30 - 35 years in semi retirement, so I wouldn't look to him as an expert on avian evolution.  And there has been a great deal of new evidence found since 2001 that has greatly supported dino to bird evolution, so this statement is, at the very least, out of date.  
Based on all available evidence the majority of paleontologists accept the dino to bird link.

I'm trying to get closure by not getting into issues that may not decide the issue. I'd never dogmatically(might as well be faith) support something, being wrong won't hurt my
ego.


Good!  I think this evidence is important to the discussion.  Do some research and come back here and we can discuss it!  I'll do the same.  And it's a good thing not to worry about being wrong, that's the way science works.  Go where the data leads, even if it contradicts what you think is correct!  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 06:20 AM on February 23, 2006 | IP
Milken

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 10:08 AM on February 22, 2006 :
Ok, as much as I hate to agree with Demon (I'm a creationist) I do have to state that since evolution does not require that all members of a species change at the same time, then there is no need for birds to have one root ancestor.  Archy is NOT an ancestor of modern birds (from either the creationist or evolutionist view).  Evolutionists use him as an example of "what could have been".  Creationists treat him like they treat platypus and the like.  It is our belief that some animals were created with characteristics that blur the lines.  Arguing over Archy gets neither side anywhere.

And I think you mean you "could not care less" since saying you "could care less" means you obviously care about it.

And I don't usually argue about spelling (not like I haven't had typos myself), but these two are bugging me....  "loose" means "not tight".  It does not mean "lose".  And the word is "explanation" not "explaination".  There, my inner English teacher is satisfied.  


I'd like the beneift of the doubt I understand English and usage (do i kare?). I'm not trying to impress anyone with my spelng oar gramer. Thank you for your support, "brother".

 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 01:16 AM on February 24, 2006 | IP
Milken

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Clearing of Fallacies

1) In one breath don't quote Mayr to support your view, and then suggest he's no longer competent. Didn't you just accuse me of picking and chosing what I wanted to believe? You're in direct violation.

2) Age discrimination, someones age is not a reason to disregard there thought or feelings, especially a world renown one. He's written around 8-9 books during the time you suggest he's basically not doing anything except becoming dumber. Attacking the person and not the arguement is a common error.

3) All your sources are not that recent either. The age of a source is not the issue. The issue is the issue presented. At times an older source is what you want and a new source is bad, vice versa.

 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 01:40 AM on February 24, 2006 | IP
Milken

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Clearing of Fallacies

1) In one breath don't quote Mayr to support your view, and then suggest he's no longer competent. Didn't you just accuse me of picking and chosing what I wanted to believe? You're in direct violation.

2) Age discrimination, someones age is not a reason to disregard there thought or feelings, especially a world renown one. He's written around 8-9 books during the time you suggest he's basically not doing anything except becoming dumber. Attacking the person and not the arguement is a common error.

3) All your sources are not that recent either. The age of a source is not the issue. The issue is the issue presented. At times an older source is what you want and a new source is bad, vice versa.

 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 01:40 AM on February 24, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'd like the beneift of the doubt I understand English and usage (do i kare?). I'm not trying to impress anyone with my spelng oar gramer. Thank you for your support, "brother".

I see you accept correction well.  I know if I was doing something wrong I'd want people to point it out to me instead of letting me do it over and over again and embarassing myself.  Just personal preference I suppose.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 08:53 AM on February 24, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1) In one breath don't quote Mayr to support your view, and then suggest he's no longer competent. Didn't you just accuse me of picking and chosing what I wanted to believe? You're in direct violation.

But that's not what I was doing.  I quoted Mayr to show that you were wrong when you claimed that Mayr didn't think homologies supported common descent.  My quote demonstated that he, in fact, did think they supported common descent.  
You then used Mayr to try and support the claim that he didn't buy into the dinosaur to bird link.  It is entirely valid to point out that he had done no recent research on the subject and was ignorant of new finds, so his opinion on the subject is out of date and invalid.

2) Age discrimination, someones age is not a reason to disregard there thought or feelings, especially a world renown one. He's written around 8-9 books during the time you suggest he's basically not doing anything except becoming dumber. Attacking the person and not the arguement is a common error.

And I certainly wasn't doing this.  I have great respect for Ernst Mayr.  But in order to support your claim, show us the research he did on dinosaur to bird evolution....  Show us where he talked about the latest finds that support dinosaur to bird evolution...  If you can't show us the evidence he used to draw his conclusions, your argument is worthless.

3) All your sources are not that recent either. The age of a source is not the issue. The issue is the issue presented. At times an older source is what you want and a new source is bad, vice versa.

Of course my data is up to date!  Please show where it is not or withdraw the claim.  You are partially correct, data is valid no matter how old it is, as long as it hasn't been falsified, or as long as it is valid in light of new evidence.  
For instance, I talked about how the latest research has shown how dinosaur respiration was very similar to avian respiration, this was verified in the last 2 years.  Same with dinosaur reproduction patterns which are more closely related to avians than reptiles, new research that is less than 2 years old.  
New evidence that supports the dinosaur to bird link.  Where do your sources discuss it?  And if they don't discuss it at all, they are out of date.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 1:34 PM on February 24, 2006 | IP
Milken

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I see you accept correction well.  I know if I was doing something wrong I'd want people to point it out to me instead of letting me do it over and over again and embarassing myself.  Just personal preference I suppose.

I don't reread everything I type, obviously. I'm familiar with homophones. You're right, only a fool rejects correction. Oddly enough, it's not embarassing. If an assumption is made about my intelligence over typos and not points made. . .  hmmm . . .  oh well. . . . . an iq test would vindicate me.
 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 12:48 AM on February 25, 2006 | IP
Milken

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1)But that's not what I was doing.  I quoted Mayr to show that you were wrong when you claimed that Mayr didn't think homologies supported common descent.  My quote demonstated that he, in fact, did think they supported common descent.  

I think I said he did not believe homolgies were not proven but inferred.

You then used Mayr to try and support the claim that he didn't buy into the dinosaur to bird link.  It is entirely valid to point out that he had done no recent research on the subject and was ignorant of new finds, so his opinion on the subject is out of date and invalid.

2) And I certainly wasn't doing this.  I have great respect for Ernst Mayr.  But in order to support your claim, show us the research he did on dinosaur to bird evolution....  Show us where he talked about the latest finds that support dinosaur to bird evolution...  If you can't show us the evidence he used to draw his conclusions, your argument is worthless.

Good, I respect him too. It's in his book, What Evolution Is.

3) Of course my data is up to date!  Please show where it is not or withdraw the claim.

I clicked on all your links and compared them to info I had. The articles you use are VERY recent.

You are partially correct, data is valid no matter how old it is, as long as it hasn't been falsified, or as long as it is valid in light of new evidence.  

My point was only age by itself doesn't invalidate.

For instance, I talked about how the latest research has shown how dinosaur respiration was very similar to avian respiration, this was verified in the last 2 years.  Same with dinosaur reproduction patterns which are more closely related to avians than reptiles, new research that is less than 2 years old.  

These are two things I will be looking into.


 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 01:20 AM on February 25, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Let's revisit this thread...

I think I said he did not believe homolgies were not proven but inferred.

But nothing is proven in science, nothing!  So of course Mayr would never say homologies are proven.  But based on an overwhelming amount of evidence, Mayr says homologies are valid.

Good, I respect him too. It's in his book, What Evolution Is.

But here's the problem with your claim, Mayr published his book in 2001, so new discoveries made after 2001 would not be covered in his book.  New discoveries supporting the dinosaur to bird link have been made in the last few years, since they were discovered after 2001, they wouldn't be covered in Mayr's book.

My point was only age by itself doesn't invalidate.

I never disputed this.

The point is, the latest research supports the dinosaur to bird link, what evidence do you have to refute it?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 02:22 AM on March 6, 2006 | IP
Milken

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


Let's revisit this thread...

Whyyy?lol  I've been really busy and tentative about re-entering the time consuming, always surprising. . .  Archy issue.

But nothing is proven in science, nothing!  So of course Mayr would never say homologies are proven.  But based on an overwhelming amount of evidence, Mayr says homologies are valid.

If proven is, applies everywhere all the time throughout the universe, you're correct. Generally speaking, especially of other sciences, it's not true. When talking about evolution, it is true.

But here's the problem with your claim, Mayr published his book in 2001, so new discoveries made after 2001 would not be covered in his book.  New discoveries supporting the dinosaur to bird link have been made in the last few years, since they were discovered after 2001, they wouldn't be covered in Mayr's book.

It's not an issue unless the points are refuted. Let's not over substantiante the internet as a source. How many scientists often use the web as a source? If they do, they're not scientist

The point is, the latest research supports the dinosaur to bird link, what evidence do you have to refute it?

  You've definitely showed some interesting information, but I think this is an overstatement. It's also odd that any creationist source is understood as always false, which I rarely use. The evolutionists are "wrong" also, which is where most of my sources come from, or neutral.
       If I went into the thread with my true feelings, I'd ignore all homology information because it really doesn't prove common descent. I think I previously made this point in a post. In that regards I was arguing hypothetically.
       Let's clarify, are you saying any kind of dinosaur origin, is there an opposing origin?
   





 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 02:38 AM on March 10, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'd ignore all homology information because it really doesn't prove common descent. I think I previously made this point in a post.


You certainly have, and for the third time this week, it's refuted:

Homology can be used as a fact to logically infer both Evolution and Intelligent Design. The problem: we watch species evolve, and we've found that their homology is, believe it or not, consistent, and is a direct path of common decent. Taking into account the fact that DNA, a molecule, will always have the same properties that it has today, and that it always has had the same properties that it has today, we can know that genetic mutations worked the same way millions of years ago. We know this the same way we know Atomic Theory and the Theory of Gravity applied during the time of the dinosaurs. You have absolute squat in asserting that, though DNA enables evolution today, it didn't do so 65 million years ago. You can't show us anything being designed today, and there's simply no reason to assume things were designed back before humans could observe them. Yeah, you can 'infer' that it's possible a supernatural force is behind it all, but that is not a scientific claim, and until you stop avoiding this question and explain exactly how you can test and validate the existence of any supernatural force, you have nothing.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 07:39 AM on March 10, 2006 | IP
Milken

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 07:39 AM on March 10, 2006 :
I'd ignore all homology information because it really doesn't prove common descent. I think I previously made this point in a post.


You certainly have, and for the third time this week, it's refuted:

Homology can be used as a fact to logically infer both Evolution and Intelligent Design. The problem: we watch species evolve, and we've found that their homology is, believe it or not, consistent, and is a direct path of common decent. Taking into account the fact that DNA, a molecule, will always have the same properties that it has today, and that it always has had the same properties that it has today, we can know that genetic mutations worked the same way millions of years ago. We know this the same way we know Atomic Theory and the Theory of Gravity applied during the time of the dinosaurs. You have absolute squat in asserting that, though DNA enables evolution today, it didn't do so 65 million years ago. You can't show us anything being designed today, and there's simply no reason to assume things were designed back before humans could observe them. Yeah, you can 'infer' that it's possible a supernatural force is behind it all, but that is not a scientific claim, and until you stop avoiding this question and explain exactly how you can test and validate the existence of any supernatural force, you have nothing.


No one is arguing Supernatural. Only that it appears animals were designed individually and they're adapting has limits. The definition of "science" was adpoted and run amuck in a very controversial manner but who cares, different subject.

Exactly, it's inferred, not proven, just like I said. Atomic Theory and Theory of Gravity are more than inferred, they're proven, 'hard' science.

We observe small changes in animals, yes, we all agree on that. What we haven't observed is a bacteria turning to something totally different, like a human. All the changes we've observed, it's basically still the same animal. We have rat, now it's brown, now it has a few spots, great, we've proven that a bacteria turned in a human.



 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 04:02 AM on March 15, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Exactly, it's inferred, not proven, just like I said. Atomic Theory and Theory of Gravity are more than inferred, they're proven, 'hard' science.

What are you talking about?  we still can't observe atomic processes, they are inferred.
And the theory of gravity?  We know lmuch less about gravity than we do about evolution.  We know the processes of evolution, we know a great deal about how they work.  We don't even know what gravity is, all we can observe is it's effects.

We observe small changes in animals, yes, we all agree on that. What we haven't observed is a bacteria turning to something totally different, like a human.

You still don't know what evolution is!  A bacteria will NEVER turn into a human being according to the theory of evolution.  One of your many mistakes is you don't realize that individual organisms don't evolve, populations of organisms evolve.

We have rat, now it's brown, now it has a few spots, great, we've proven that a bacteria turned in a human.

But you ignore transitional fossils that blend characteristics of different groups of organisms, Archaeopteryx bird and dinosaur characteristcs, Acanthostega, fish and amphibian characteristics, lines of obviously transitional fossils that demonstrate lines evolving, like the line of whale fossils or the reptile to mammal line of fossils.  Or living transitional organisms like the platypus that has reptilian and mammalian characteristics.  Animals DON'T look like they've stayed the same, they look like they have evolved.  You can close your eyes to the evidence all you want, but that doesn't change reality or the validity of evolution.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 05:41 AM on March 15, 2006 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Milken at 04:02 AM on March 15, 2006 :
. . . Only that it appears animals were designed individually and they're adapting has limits.  . .



Please define the mechanism that sets these "limits".

Have you abandoned the math theorem thread?





-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 09:41 AM on March 15, 2006 | IP
Milken

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 07:39 AM on March 10, 2006 :
Homology can be used as a fact to logically infer both Evolution and Intelligent Design. The problem: we watch species evolve, and we've found that their homology is, believe it or not, consistent, and is a direct path of common decent. Taking into account the fact that DNA, a molecule, will always have the same properties that it has today, and that it always has had the same properties that it has today, we can know that genetic mutations worked the same way millions of years ago.


Yeah it's consistent with the fact we've arranged animals according to how similar they are (taxiwhatever) and now DNA has proven without a doubt we've done a good job. Common descent has proven we can arrange animals in a hierarchy consisten with DNA.  GOOD JOB!

What you can't account for is how a directed process like the workings of DNA formed into how it could even allow "natural selection". Or how DNA, being so organized yields a counter-intuitive mechanism natural selection acting on chance and deterministics. Do you know what the mutation rate is? The chances of a good mutaion.


 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 06:24 AM on March 18, 2006 | IP
Milken

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 02:22 AM on March 6, 2006 :
Let's revisit this thread...

I think I said he did not believe homolgies were not proven but inferred.

But nothing is proven in science, nothing!  So of course Mayr would never say homologies are proven.  But based on an overwhelming amount of evidence, Mayr says homologies are valid.

Good, I respect him too. It's in his book, What Evolution Is.

But here's the problem with your claim, Mayr published his book in 2001, so new discoveries made after 2001 would not be covered in his book.  New discoveries supporting the dinosaur to bird link have been made in the last few years, since they were discovered after 2001, they wouldn't be covered in Mayr's book.

My point was only age by itself doesn't invalidate.

I never disputed this.

The point is, the latest research supports the dinosaur to bird link, what evidence do you have to refute it?


Until we find bird-like dinosaurs in the triassic, I'm not sure if I can be convinced.

Entwi and Apos? What's your stance on who Archy is linked two?


 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 06:27 AM on March 18, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Until we find bird-like dinosaurs in the triassic, I'm not sure if I can be convinced.

Typical creationist tactic, unless we find every link in the chain, dino to bird evolution can't be true despite the overwhelming evidence that supports it...

You still haven't been able to explain why Archaeopteryx has a blend of dinosaurian and avian characteristics.  And you still haven't been able to tell us why evolution isn't the best explaination for the transitional species Archaeopteryx.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 1:16 PM on March 18, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Until we find bird-like dinosaurs in the triassic, I'm not sure if I can be convinced.


Pssh... like any of us could ever be convinced of the other side.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 1:35 PM on March 18, 2006 | IP
Milken

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 1:16 PM on March 18, 2006 :
Until we find bird-like dinosaurs in the triassic, I'm not sure if I can be convinced.

Typical creationist tactic, unless we find every link in the chain, dino to bird evolution can't be true despite the overwhelming evidence that supports it...

You still haven't been able to explain why Archaeopteryx has a blend of dinosaurian and avian characteristics.  And you still haven't been able to tell us why evolution isn't the best explaination for the transitional species Archaeopteryx.


What is it with this Creationist prejudice you carry, everyone is an evil Creationist.

Links, technically you can call it a transitional because it has characteristics of birds and dinos, but if you want to insert ancestory, you atleast need a possible candidate. As an Eist or someone who is truly interested in good science you should appreciate the logic

Dino/reptile origin in my opinion, both Eist sides make good points but I think you all will need the fossil record to give one side the edge. The objections I've given haven't gone out of date.

It has a blend because we've had 1000s of millions of species exist.

For this thread I don't think I argued as an evil Creationist so my point wasn't to refute Evolution, just the origion of Archy.

EntwickelnCollin. . . . this man has spoken the truth. If I thought it made enough sense, I could believe it. GodDidItUntilTheFirst Bacteria isn't all that bad.

 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 01:56 AM on March 20, 2006 | IP
Prototype

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I just registered here, and I found this topic really interesting, and I wanted to post something here.

How on Earth does a Fossil of a bird register as evidence for anything?

I happen to know that this particular bird was found to be a fake. It was in National Geographic itself, saying that they had been swindled by a guy who glued the bones in place.

Another thing. How do some bones in the dirt account for anything concerning evolving from one kind of animal to another? All you know about the fossil is that it died. You have no idea it evolved, and you certainly don't know that he/she had any kids at all, and certainly not ones that were different.

Archaeopteryx is just an unusual bird. But it is still a bird, however odd features it has. It is not a dinosaur, and the fossil they found does not contain any info saying that it was born from a dinosaur and later evolved into a bird that we know today.

For so much battle on transitional fossils, how can we know for sure wether some bones in the dirt really account for evidence of evolving from one kind to another?


-------
I want to know facts for both sides, and I will not take biased words as a valid arguement for whatever reason.
 


Posts: 31 | Posted: 12:33 PM on March 20, 2006 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Milken at 06:24 AM on March 18, 2006 :
What you can't account for is how a directed process like the workings of DNA formed into how it could even allow "natural selection". Or how DNA, being so organized yields a counter-intuitive mechanism natural selection acting on chance and deterministics. Do you know what the mutation rate is? The chances of a good mutaion.


how it could allow for natural selection?  that makes no sense, being that natural selection allowed for dna, not the other way around.  natural selection is not exclusive to organics.  it is an inherent process of everything.  what is able to remain, does; simple as that.  and its not always what is most fit, or most capable, but what actually does remain, due to the circumstances and environment.  the process never changed as molecules formed organics formed life.

the reason why mutations are seemingly random is because life occurs everywhere.  the mutations appear random because the process does not know what will be beneficial to the organism.  one mutation might help an organism in one environment while the same mutation might harm the same organism in a different environment.  if the process were intelligent, then the mutations would not be random because the designer would know what changes to give the organism.  but the process is not itself intelligent, it is merely a physical interaction of the universe and so this is the most efficient it has become so far.

a 'good mutation' is a relative thing.  it depends on the environment that the organism is in.  some don't even have any noticable effects.  the reason why there are so few 'good' mutations is because of the chances that a mutation will be helpful in the exact environment that that organism is in.  but at the same time, if it weren't so random, but still undirected, then there would be less of a chance that organisms would be able to survive because they wouldn't be able to spread out into different environments.
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 1:14 PM on March 20, 2006 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Prototype at 12:33 PM on March 20, 2006 :
I just registered here, and I found this topic really interesting, and I wanted to post something here.

How on Earth does a Fossil of a bird register as evidence for anything?

I happen to know that this particular bird was found to be a fake. It was in National Geographic itself, saying that they had been swindled by a guy who glued the bones in place.

Another thing. How do some bones in the dirt account for anything concerning evolving from one kind of animal to another? All you know about the fossil is that it died. You have no idea it evolved, and you certainly don't know that he/she had any kids at all, and certainly not ones that were different.

Archaeopteryx is just an unusual bird. But it is still a bird, however odd features it has. It is not a dinosaur, and the fossil they found does not contain any info saying that it was born from a dinosaur and later evolved into a bird that we know today.

For so much battle on transitional fossils, how can we know for sure wether some bones in the dirt really account for evidence of evolving from one kind to another?



fossils alone are not enough as evidence, but they are used as such because they provide support or or sometimes proof of an interaction of genes.  often a hypothesis is formed concerning genetics and fossils that are known.  sometimes a new fossil will be found that shows how the hypothesis was right.  thats usually how it works.

the thing with archy (as well as a few other fossils, so its not a fluke) is that it has features both exclusive to modern birds and ancient dinosaurs.  it has the light bones of birds as well as the feathers, but retains more of a dinosaur bone structure, extremely reminiscient of the raptors (funny that we still use that term for both birds of prey and velociraptors, isnt it?  its not quite coincidence).
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 1:16 PM on March 20, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What is it with this Creationist prejudice you carry, everyone is an evil Creationist.

I don't say they are evil, just misguided at best and willfully ignorant at worst.  Ignoring the transitional links by saying there should be MORE links in between the already found links or evolution is not true, is a typical creationist tactic.

Links, technically you can call it a transitional because it has characteristics of birds and dinos, but if you want to insert ancestory, you atleast need a possible candidate.

We can't trace precise ancestry yet, but more and more transitional fossils are being found every day, when the evidence is found, will you admit you were wrong?  The thing is, why did Archy have a blend of avian and dinosaur charateristics.  You claim they were similar because they were similar, this is not a scientifically valid explaination.  We have found other, highly detailed lineages in the fossil record that show us clearly that evolution happens, like the reptile to mammal series of the therapsids, we've started to put together the complex evolutionary history of dinosaurs to birds.  The evidence found so far supports the theory of evolution and is best explained by evolution.

As an Eist or someone who is truly interested in good science you should appreciate the logic

The mere fact that transitionals exist supports evolution.  That we've found many links in the lineage supports evolution.  That we haven't found every link in this chain of evidence, does NOT falsify evolution in general or the dino to bird theory in particular.

Dino/reptile origin in my opinion, both Eist sides make good points but I think you all will need the fossil record to give one side the edge.

Fine, a general prediction is that more and more fossils will be found supporting the link.
That is happening now, let's see what future fossil evidence shows us...

It has a blend because we've had 1000s of millions of species exist.

So, according to you, it's just arbitrary...Then explain why early birds had so many dinosaur characteristics, explain why so many therapod dinosaurs had avian characteristics, then explain why ERV's also support common descent...

For this thread I don't think I argued as an evil Creationist so my point wasn't to refute Evolution, just the origion of Archy.

You use the same, unsupported arguments that creationists do...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 2:44 PM on March 20, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I happen to know that this particular bird was found to be a fake. It was in National Geographic itself, saying that they had been swindled by a guy who glued the bones in place.

Get with the program, that wasn't Archaeopteryx, that was Archaeoraptor!  Sheesh, how can we take any of your claims seriously when you can't even do basic research?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 3:21 PM on March 20, 2006 | IP
Prototype

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from RoyLennigan at 1:16 PM on March 20, 2006 :
Quote from Prototype at 12:33 PM on March 20, 2006 :
I just registered here, and I found this topic really interesting, and I wanted to post something here.

How on Earth does a Fossil of a bird register as evidence for anything?

I happen to know that this particular bird was found to be a fake. It was in National Geographic itself, saying that they had been swindled by a guy who glued the bones in place.

Another thing. How do some bones in the dirt account for anything concerning evolving from one kind of animal to another? All you know about the fossil is that it died. You have no idea it evolved, and you certainly don't know that he/she had any kids at all, and certainly not ones that were different.

Archaeopteryx is just an unusual bird. But it is still a bird, however odd features it has. It is not a dinosaur, and the fossil they found does not contain any info saying that it was born from a dinosaur and later evolved into a bird that we know today.

For so much battle on transitional fossils, how can we know for sure wether some bones in the dirt really account for evidence of evolving from one kind to another?



fossils alone are not enough as evidence, but they are used as such because they provide support or or sometimes proof of an interaction of genes.  often a hypothesis is formed concerning genetics and fossils that are known.  sometimes a new fossil will be found that shows how the hypothesis was right.  thats usually how it works.

the thing with archy (as well as a few other fossils, so its not a fluke) is that it has features both exclusive to modern birds and ancient dinosaurs.  it has the light bones of birds as well as the feathers, but retains more of a dinosaur bone structure, extremely reminiscient of the raptors (funny that we still use that term for both birds of prey and velociraptors, isnt it?  its not quite coincidence).



I still don't see as fossils prove that the bird was born from a dinosaur and gave birth to birds that on and on through the evolving process would give rise to the birds today. I don't know why that would sound logical to anyone.

And I AM talking about the archaeopteryx, Demon38. I've never head of an Archaeoraptor. If you go to that site and watch one of those seminars, you'll see the man bring up a scan of the page of the article refuting the find.



-------
I want to know facts for both sides, and I will not take biased words as a valid arguement for whatever reason.
 


Posts: 31 | Posted: 4:23 PM on March 20, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

still don't see as fossils prove that the bird was born from a dinosaur

A dinosaur didn't give birth to a bird, that's not how evolution works.  Single organisms don't evolve, populations evolve.  And fossils most definitely support evolution.

I don't know why that would sound logical to anyone.

It only sounds logical if you look at all the evidence objectively...

And I AM talking about the archaeopteryx, Demon38.

It has been shown conclusively that archaeopteryx was not a fraud, all attempts to show it was a fraud have been refuted.  There are 10 different Archaeopteryx fossils, which ones are frauds and why.  Come on, give us your sources or retract the claim...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:20 PM on March 20, 2006 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.