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
       More disnosaur than bird

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:

How many times have we heard creationists claim archaeopteryx was just a bird?  New evidence once again fully supports evolution,
from here:

Archaeopteryx

"The raptor-like Archaeopteryx has long been viewed as the archetypal first bird, but new research reveals that it was actually a lot less "bird-like" than scientists had believed.

In fact, the landmark study led by paleobiologist Gregory M. Erickson of The Florida State University has upended the iconic first-known-bird image of Archaeopteryx (from the Greek for "ancient wing"), which lived 150 million years ago during the Late Jurassic period in what is now Germany. Instead, the animal has been recast as more of a feathered dinosaur -- bird on the outside, dinosaur on the inside.
That's because new, microscopic images of the ancient cells and blood vessels inside the bones of the winged, feathered, claw-handed creature show unexpectedly slow growth and maturation that took years, similar to that found in dinosaurs, from which birds evolved. In contrast, living birds grow rapidly and mature in a matter of weeks.
Also groundbreaking is the finding that the rapid bone growth common to all living birds but surprisingly absent from the Archaeopteryx was not necessary for avian dinosaur flight."






 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:36 AM on October 10, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
+1

Rate this post:

I would have never said that the Archaeopteryx was just a bird.
but nor would I say it is a 'missing link' between birds and reptiles. like how I would never say the platypus is a 'missing link' between birds and mammals.

it is just another animal that is not quite like one thing, and not quite like another.


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 02:40 AM on October 10, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I would have never said that the Archaeopteryx was just a bird.

Many creationists do say that, they ignore all the dinosaurian characteristics.

but nor would I say it is a 'missing link' between birds and reptiles.

Kind of confused by your comment, Archaeopteryx is transitional between therapod dinosaurs and birds, how else do you explain the combination of bird and dinosaur characteristics (and yes, I know birds are actually dinosaurs...).

like how I would never say the platypus is a 'missing link' between birds and
mammals.


Of course not, the platypus is transitional between reptiles and mammals, how else do you explain it's reptilian and mammilian characteristics?  It's duck bill isn't really a bird bill.

it is just another animal that is not quite like one thing, and not quite like another.

And that's the only explanation you have for explaining common characteristics in organisms???  That simple minded belief allows you to ignore all of biology????  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 03:20 AM on October 10, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Many creationists do say that
I am sure many do, but some don't. Just so long as we are clear that I am in the latter of the two categories

and you say transitional I say missing link. you say /təˈmeɪtoʊ/ I say /təˈmɑːtoʊ/ (WOW that was hard to type).
we are clear on this point too? good ^_^


how else do you explain the combination of bird and dinosaur characteristics
because that is how it was created. it was designed with its odd combination of reptilian and bird characteristics. and they worked together perfectly. I would like to see a half developed dino-bird to that.
(and yes, this is a creationists answer. I give it because you ask for an alternative view)
same goes for the Platypus.

how would you describe the existence of such a unique animal in an ecosystem that has nothing like it. living or extinct.

PS: I didn't know birds where classified as dinosaurs. learn something new every day.


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 05:32 AM on October 10, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That's because new, microscopic images of the ancient cells and blood vessels inside the bones of the winged, feathered, claw-handed creature show unexpectedly slow growth and maturation that took years, similar to that found in dinosaurs, from which birds evolved. In contrast, living birds grow rapidly and mature in a matter of weeks.


Oh yup, that must just prove it. It's amazing how easy it is to prove if you want to believe it. It amazes me what one can see on 165 million year old cells and blood vessels. It amazes that there is still something to see!

Tell me Demon, what features of archaeopteryx are definately dinosaur like?

And that's the only explanation you have for explaining common characteristics in organisms???


Well it's just going to have to do in the absence of evidence for gradualism as observed in the fossil record, and when observed without the jaundiced eye.

And that's the only explanation you have for explaining common characteristics in organisms???  That simple minded belief allows you to ignore all of biology????  


Well when you consider how often homologous structures are apparently unrelated (as evidenced in so-called convergent evolution), explaining common characteristics just  boils down to whatever you find most convenient. You don't have to ignore the whole of biology, you just do what evolutionists do and ignore logic altogether.

Archaeopteryx is transitional between therapod dinosaurs and birds, how else do you explain the combination of bird and dinosaur characteristics


Which dinosaur characteristics Demon, which ones??? I think you flew over the platypus rather quickly as well and didn't quite do it justice.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 07:40 AM on October 10, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 07:40 AM on October 10, 2009 :
That's because new, microscopic images of the ancient cells and blood vessels inside the bones of the winged, feathered, claw-handed creature show unexpectedly slow growth and maturation that took years, similar to that found in dinosaurs, from which birds evolved. In contrast, living birds grow rapidly and mature in a matter of weeks.


Oh yup, that must just prove it. It's amazing how easy it is to prove if you want to believe it. It amazes me what one can see on 165 million year old cells and blood vessels. It amazes that there is still something to see!


What amazes me is that there is NOTHING to see from a world-wide catastrophe that occurred only 4,500 years ago.  


Tell me Demon, what features of archaeopteryx are definately dinosaur like?


Tell us all Lester, what, EXACTLY, would you expect to see in a transitional, I mean if one actually existed.  Please be precise - I'll bet that the reason you've nota nsered this question despite being asked several times over the past few weeks on here is that you have been busily researching your answer such that when you produce it, it will be well thought out, precise, legitimate, and realstic.

That or you have no clue and are content to just reject any and everything presented as a transtional because you are a YEC and the cult of  YEC declares that such things cannot exist.

WELL????


And that's the only explanation you have for explaining common characteristics in organisms???


Well it's just going to have to do in the absence of evidence for gradualism as observed in the fossil record, and when observed without the jaundiced eye.


What, EXACTLY, should we see if "gradualism" were true?

Please be precise and feel free to use a many big, sciency words as you need to - I can take it


And that's the only explanation you have for explaining common characteristics in organisms???  That simple minded belief allows you to ignore all of biology????  


Well when you consider how often homologous structures are apparently unrelated (as evidenced in so-called convergent evolution),

Convergent structures are not considered to be homologous.  Duh!
More of that YEC PhD -learnin'!!


You don't have to ignore the whole of biology, you just do what evolutionists do and ignore logic altogether.

Or, you can do what YEC cultists do and just make shit up.

I think you flew over the platypus rather quickly as well and didn't quite do it justice.

He spent more time on it that any of you have.

Why is it that YECs think merely tossing out an assertion counts as unassailable evidence, while they think that any explanation offered regarding their assertion is not good enough?


Oh Lester - still curious as to why you keep ignoring this:

Quote from Lester10 at 10:24 AM on September 22, 2009 :
It is amazing to me the strength that religionists see in philosophy.


It's amazing to me that so-called scientists are so lost in philosophy without recognizing it and seem unable to distinguish between it and actual science.

Yeah, us poor "so-called" scientists.  I mean obviously we are not actual scientists - like the creation scientists - because we do not immerse ourselves in syllogisms and pseudologic.

Whenone complements the fossil data with the genetic data, the 'story' is rather sound from a scientific perspective.


'Fraid not. As you very well know, you cannot compare the genomes of extinct creatures to living creatures so there is nothing to check but the whale.

'Fraid you just keep exposing how little you actually know about the study of evolution and the use of genetic data generally.

We do not need DNA from extinct creatures to infer phylogeny.

Thus the genetic story is not complementing the fossil data because it doesn't exist. The entire fairytale is morphology based and there is no corroborating evidence.

I am always amazed at how confident those are who understand the least.  This is actually
documented , by the way.

Of note, I saw that you never responded to my offer to send you some DNA sequences and a free alignment prgram to see if your amazing lack of bias produced analysis outcomes that differed friom my biased notions.  Wonder why....


as I had predicted you would reject/dismiss any evidence supportive fo evolution.


I have never rejected actual scientific evidence but the rubbish based on philisophical presumption is rejected with good reason.

Well, isn't that special - you just label everything as being based on philosophical presumption in order to dismiss it.  How intellectual!

So, why not use your special YEC-philosophy to interpret this:

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice
WR Atchley and WM Fitch
Department of Genetics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh 27695.




Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.


or this:

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny
DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.




Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.


It is now thought not to have had a fluke and it is certain that it never had flippers because they subsequently found the hand bones.
Please explain, premised on your own in-depth anatomical expertise, and not the sensationalized claims you're read and taken at face value on some website or creationist book.


How about we take it from the man who speculated on the tail fluke in the first place.


How about you stop misrepresenting what you reply to?  How about you stop butchering what you reply to in order to try to turn the tables (which you are not very good at)?  How about you leave in the context:


Care to guess what animal these bones belonged to?
These?





Please explain, premised on your own in-depth anatomical expertise, and not the sensationalized claims you're read and taken at face value on some website or creationist book.



Think you can do that?

When you dismiss the evidence you are presented with, it is easy to claim that it doesn't exist.


I only dismiss claims for which there is no actual evidence -so drop the supercilious tone and hear what I am saying.

This from the person who wrote about "so-called scientists" and the like.. how rich..
I DO hear what you are saying - you say that if an evolutinist presents somethign as evidence you automatically dismiss it because you feel the evidence was generated/interpreted using a metaphysical worldview that you disdain.
No?

Why was there so much speculation surrounding Rodhocetus? Because it is in the nature of fossils and the philisophical beliefs surrounding them that people who believe whales must have evolved from a mammal will find missing links somewhere even in animals that may be unsuitable for the job. It is unfortunate that one man's speculation got rolled out as proof. I doubt he meant it to go that far. This happens rather often in the world of evolutionary speculation. It doesn't need to be true, it just needs to be believable much like their stories they knit about how one creature became another.


I think you are conflating a museum display with 'proof.'

The speculations were made premised on what was known at the time. NEW INFORMATION showed that the earlier speculations were incorrect.  NEW INFORMATIOn in the form of additional fossil evidence.

Imagine that.

Being 'believable' is not what evidence-based speculation is about in science. Being consistent with the evidence that is available is.  There is a clear and obvious difference.

I think you meant 'beyond observation there is inference'


No, I meant imagination.

Then you are not talking about science, you are talking about your metaphysic tainted understanding of what you need science to be.
We cannot 'observe' atoms, yet I doubt that you would declare our depictions of atoms to be imagination.


Say a murder takes place. We have a body with a knife wound.  We have a suspect whose knife fits the damage done on the body, the victims blood is on the knife and the suspect's clothing.  The suspect left shoe prints and finger prints at the crime scene.  But there were no witnesses.

According to your anti-evolution logic, the suspect must be innocent.


You wish you had so much to infer from. You should recognize the difference between inference and imagination but I see that amongst evolutionists it is quite common to conflate the two and still call it 'science'.


I see some insults and such, but no real reply.


In your case you have this sort of philisophical inference:
One very old tooth which has the shape 'strongly suggestive' of a imagined link between apes and humans. No blood, no murder weapon, no clothing, no other evidence whatsoever -just the one tooth.So strong is the evidence that a top scientific journal writes an article accompanied by an artist's depiction of the half-human half-ape as well as his wife and family, his home and surroundings showing how this all would probably have looked. Later the tooth is discovered to be identical to that of a peccary (an extinct pig) and the story is retracted -usually this happens very quietly in some obscure corner of the journal while the main story is splashed all over the front cover. It has it's expected effect -more people see the image and believe. Seldom does anyone see the retraction.


So, you have to resort to misrepresenting the claims made by one overzealous amateur anthropologist from close to 100 years ago to tar an entire field of science?  
You write that as if you think that is ALL we have for anything.

You are either engaging in this unprecedenmted hyperbole for rhetorical purposes or you really are that uninformed.

Why do you think Rodhocetus is still on display with fluke and flippers?

Perhaps because the museum does not thave the money to change the display?  I've not seen it, myself, so I cannot guarantee that your depiction of it is accurate.  You've seen it, have you?

Because it is seen by the 'believers' to be representative of the truth they believe in even if they don't quite have the correct bones yet.

Well, that must be it.

Perhaps if you had actually addressed the question about the bones I asked above (instead fo lopping off the context and spinning it) you may see that how they were depicted is not that important.


In this case, as in so many, the suspect was innocent despite being framed with all sorts of subsidiary imaginative pictorial additions.

Typical insulting rhetorical insinuations.  Best you YECs have, I guess.

So, by your definition, Physics (radiometric dating), Astronomy (billions of years old universe), geology (no evidence of 'the flood', billions of years old earth), etc. must also not be 'true science.'


It isn't. It is the incorrect interpretation of the evidence based on philisophical imaginings and the exclusion of anything but naturalism in the definition of the new 'science'.


Ah, so NOTHING is 'true' science in your world.

What ID 'true science', I have to wonder -Seeing the blessed Virgin in a water stain on the side of a building?


Don't worry there's lots of good science out there but all of it is based on observation and experimentation unlike evolution which is based on wishful thinking.


More insulting unsupported rhetoric.


I suggest registering at the forum 'Theologyweb' and searching for the posts by "socrates".  


You might be able to find one example out there but in general YEC's are anything but vicious. I've heard some real bombastic, supercilious evos out there though.

I've seen the opposite.  Must be my metaphysical position.

How do you know that genetic relatedness is due to a common ancestor?
Because the means by which such conclusions are drawn have been tested on knowns.


What 'knowns' are you suggesting here? You need to look again and see if your 'knowns story isn't based on the same old assumptions. I have no doubt they are.


Imagine that - a non-scientist YEC (let me guess - you maybe have a BS in something non-science-related, yes?) denigrating those in a field he knows demonstrably very little about.  that must be the 'Christian' way.

I've recently posted them, but here you go again:

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny
DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

and


Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice
WR Atchley and WM Fitch
Department of Genetics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh 27695.

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.


I can't wait to hear your metaphysical stories about how this is all 'assumptions' and the like...


That is merely an ad hoc rationalization.  You can make the same argument for magical bunnies.


No, that is your ad hoc rationalization for why you should discount what I'm saying with no proper justification.


The justification is that the exact same claims can be just as logically made for any mythological construct.  You wrote:

"How do you know that it hasn’t got everything to do with a common, very intelligent designer that programmed the different genotypes to produce different types of creatures. "

A person could, with the same justification and rationale, write:

"How do you know that it hasn’t got everything to do with a flying spaghetti monster that programmed the different genotypes to produce different types of creatures. "

So, were all 1000+ species of bats on the Ark as individual kinds?


I don't have a clue how many original bats were on the ark -it depends entirely on whether they can procreate or not and how much genetic variability the original bats had programmed into them by their creator.

You presuppose that they HAD such "genetic variability... programmed into them by their creator" - you conclude what you seek to support.
Most mutations are neutral.
No, they aren’t.
It depends on where they occur.


I tell you what -why don't you show me all your morphological mutations that have occurred leading to something other than distortion of what that gene used to do and I'll direct you to some demonstrably harmful morphological effects of mutation. After all mutations leading to altered morphology is what we need for the raw material of evolution.


And once again the YEC goal posts twist and shift.

You declared that mutations are not neutral, now you are demanding that show you a mutation that beneficially alters morphology.

How about we stick to one demand at a time?  Perhaps you have heard that Steven Pinker had his genome sequenced and it was compared to Craig Venter's, and you know what was discovered?  Pinker and Venter's DNA differed by many millions of mutations.  According to your folk YEC science, one or both of them should be hideopusly disfigured mutatnts, if alive at all.  Perhaps the problem lies with your understanding of genetics?

Oh, and you ignroed this twice:




[where is a] Positive mutation leading to increased information?


Science 27 September 2002:
Vol. 297. no. 5590, pp. 2253 - 2256

A Single P450 Allele Associated with Insecticide Resistance in Drosophila

P. J. Daborn,1 J. L. Yen,1 M. R. Bogwitz,2 G. Le Goff,1 E. Feil,1 S. Jeffers,3 N. Tijet,4 T. Perry,2 D. Heckel,2 P. Batterham,2 R. Feyereisen,5 T. G. Wilson,3 R. H. ffrench-Constant1*

Insecticide resistance is one of the most widespread genetic changes caused by human activity, but we still understand little about the origins and spread of resistant alleles in global populations of insects. Here, via microarray analysis of all P450s in Drosophila melanogaster, we show that DDT-R, a gene conferring resistance to DDT, is associated with overtranscription of a single cytochrome P450 gene, Cyp6g1. Transgenic analysis of Cyp6g1 shows that overtranscription of this gene alone is both necessary and sufficient for resistance. Resistance and up-regulation in Drosophila populations are associated with a single Cyp6g1 allele that has spread globally. This allele is characterized by the insertion of an Accord transposable element into the 5' end of the Cyp6g1 gene



You lose.


Posted that twice and you ignored it both times.  I can see why.



Make that 4, no 5 times.


I have to wonder why, what with your amazing science-related doctorate and in-depth understanding of all science, you keep avoiding substantive points - especially when this tactic feeds into my character analysis of you and adds more evidence to my demonstration of your projective tendencies.


Oh, and Lester - is it still your position that Darwin knew of Popper's work?


I mean, I thinnk that if I had been caught as you  were on this topic that I would probably run away form it, too.  But at least I would not go on to boast of my superior scientific acumen as you continue to do.,


(Edited by derwood 10/10/2009 at 12:03 PM).

(Edited by derwood 10/10/2009 at 12:04 PM).


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 12:00 PM on October 10, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester

Demon - from Archaeopteryx article

That's because new, microscopic images of the ancient cells and blood vessels inside the bones of the winged, feathered, claw-handed creature show unexpectedly slow growth and maturation that took years, similar to that found in dinosaurs, from which birds evolved. In contrast, living birds grow rapidly and mature in a matter of weeks.


Oh yup, that must just prove it. It's amazing how easy it is to prove if you want to believe it. It amazes me what one can see on 165 million year old cells and blood vessels. It amazes that there is still something to see!


You know Lester, I find myself growing tired of your foolish comments.  It's like trying to explain to someone that the earth is a sphere, but they keep saying 'No, ir's flat'.  Why do we even bother with you?


Tell me Demon, what features of archaeopteryx are definately dinosaur like?


Archaeopteryx - dinosaurian features:
 -  skeleton similar to some theropod dinosaurs - see picture below
 -  jaw with teeth
 -  long bony tail
 -  claws
 -  seperate fingers in wing (like in dinosaurs) - these are fused in modern birds
 -  neck attached to skull from behind (like dinosaurs), as opposed from below (as in modern birds)
 -  as the article Demon pointed out, slower growth rate (like dinosaurs) rather than the rapid growth rate found in modern birds.

Archaeopteryx - Bird-like features:
 -  large feathers - these feathers are asymetrical like modern birds - could it fly?  Don't know.
 -  Opposable big toe

Check ou the figure below - is Archaeopteryx more like a chicken or Compsognathus?

From 'Why Evolution is True'  Jerry Coyne:


(Edited by orion 10/10/2009 at 1:13 PM).
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:46 PM on October 10, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

thank you orion for answering Lester10 question.
I was worried the evo's where just going to just to avoid the question and only post long, off topic, trivial quotes from other threads.

skeleton similar to some theropod dinosaurs - see picture below
no objection.

jaw with teeth
also true. except you forgot to mention that modern birds also have recessive genes for the construction of teeth. see here

long bony tail
no objection. this is a unique feature not found in living birds

claws
claws in feet? as in talons?

separate fingers in wing (like in dinosaurs) - these are fused in modern birds
but not in bats surprisingly. who happen to be the only flying mammals in history.

neck attached to skull from behind (like dinosaurs), as opposed from below (as in modern birds)
I am not sure what definition of 'below' you are using here. but this emu skeleton looks like its head is attached from 'behind'


as the article Demon pointed out, slower growth rate (like dinosaurs) rather than the rapid growth rate found in modern birds.
once again no objection. this is another unique feature not found in living birds.

Bird-like features:
large feathers - these feathers are asymetrical like modern birds - could it fly?  Don't know.
feathers found on birds, but not reptiles. isn't that how the classification system works?
if it didn't have feathers it would just be another Pterodactyl.

Opposable big toe
found in birds of pray. but also found in gorillas and other primates.
this is not a trait that is exclusively found in birds


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 6:29 PM on October 10, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

because that is how it was created. it was designed with its odd combination of reptilian and bird characteristics.

But what do you make of the fact that before Archaeopteryx we see dinosaurs with some of these characteristrics but not all of them, and after archaeopteryx we see animals with more characteristics of modern birds.  Why would a creator have to create in such an akward, deceptive manner?  And if you didn't have the bible, what conclusions would you draw from this evidence?

and they worked together perfectly.

Well, they can't all work perfectly together, because then they wouldn't all be perfect.  How do you have degrees of perfection?  If one design is perfect for a specific environment, why do we have so many different designs for the same environment?  And why do we have organisms going extinct in their environment if they were perfect?  And after these organisms have gone extinct, why have different organisms with different designs arisen to take their place, after all if the first design was perfect, why change the design....

I would like to see a half developed dino-bird to that.

Then look at archaeopteryx, it's just what you asked for.

how would you describe the existence of such a unique animal in an ecosystem that has nothing like it. living or extinct.

Your example doesn't make sense, it's obvious organisms evolved to live in their environments, what do you mean "a unique animal in an environment that has nothing like it. living or extinct."  You have offered no example of an animal like this....


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:55 PM on October 10, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

also true. except you forgot to mention that modern birds also have recessive genes for the construction of teeth. see here

yes, we know about teeth producing genes in birds, it's excellent evidence for evolution.  After all, why would a perfect design have the plans for dinosaur teeth turned off in it's genetic structure?  Evolution explains this nicely, creationism comes up short.

but not in bats surprisingly. who happen to be the only flying mammals in history

Yes here's another problem for your claim, many bats and birds live in the same environment, if they were created, it's much more logical that the creator would use a similar design for both their wings, that's not what we see.  Evolution explains it perfectly, they evolved from different species, that's why a bats arm is closer to our arm then it is to a birds wing.

So to sum up your post, you have no objection to the claim that archaeopteryx has a mix of dinosaur characteristics and bird characteristics...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:02 PM on October 10, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester, I have to say that I find myself losing patience with your foolish comments.

The problem is not with my foolish comments, Orion, but with your foolish beliefs. If I say something that does not fall in with your belief system, it is foolishishness to you; and likewise your comments to me are plain foolish.
You need to examine your beliefs more carefully. Try looking at the fossil record objectively rather than with an eye to possible future finds that might verify your belief system; you need to look at ‘speciation’ more carefully and try to understand why it does not count as macroevolution to people with eyes. Fruit fly to begin with, fruit fly in the end. If it does not count as macroevolution for us, you’re just going to have to try to understand. If you believe that a fruit fly becoming a fruit fly is a clear sign that a far more complex organism is in the offing, then you may be beyond help. If your excuse is that time is essential so the evidence will never be seen, then you need to see that for the faith statement that it is.
skeleton almost identical to that of some theropod dinosaur


Extremely debatable comment –far from convincing.

jaw with teeth


Do you have jaws with teeth? If so, does that mean that you are a dinosaur or just related to them OR could it be part of your design because you also need to eat? Other ancient birds had teeth. The teeth of meat eating dinosaurs are different to the teeth of archaeopteryx. Similarities are circumstantial and inconclusive.

long bony tail


Meat eating dinosaurs had tails 4-5 feet long covered with scales; Archae had a tail 4-5 inches long and covered with feathers. Is that close enough for you?
If ostriches have long necks, does that make them closely related to giraffes? Or is it just a unique design feature of that animal?

claws


So do bats have claws on their wings, so did pterosaurs have claws on their wings, so do ostriches, hoatzins and touracos have claws on their wings.

feathers (asymetrical feathers, at that)  - there is still debate whether the creature could actually fly.


All other birds with assymetrical feathers can fly. Most likely Archeopteryx could fly well. The only thing that would stop it from flying well is the evolutionist’s belief that it was ancient and thus closer to something non-flying. That’s not objective.


The question to ask ourselves is does Archie provide clues as to how scales evolved into feathers or legs into wings?
No.
Or is it more likely a mosaic of complete traits?
Yes.

When we find wings on fossils, we find completely developed, fully functional wings. Same for flying insects, flying reptiles (pterodactyls) and flying mammals (bats).







-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 03:40 AM on October 11, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester, you asked what features Archaeopteryx had that were like those of dinosaurs - I mentioned some of them.  

ToE successfully explains these features.  Creationism can't.  

ToE successfully explains the relationships between various organisms.  Creationism can't.  

ToE is a remarkably successful scientific theory.  Creationism is not.


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:43 PM on October 11, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon38
Your example doesn't make sense, it's obvious organisms evolved to live in their environments, what do you mean "a unique animal in an environment that has nothing like it. living or extinct."  You have offered no example of an animal like this....

sorry, it's my fault for not being more clear with the topic of my question.
my question was referring to the Platypus (see two lines above the question).

so to reword what I asked:
how would you describe the existence of the Platypus in an ecosystem that has no other animals like it. living or extinct.


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 02:09 AM on October 12, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A-E

The echidna is also a monotreme like the platypus!
And what do you make of Steropodon?




-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 05:36 AM on October 12, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

according to Wikipedia:
"Steropodon galmani was a prehistoric species of monotreme, or egg-laying mammal, that lived during the middle Albian stage, in the Lower Cretaceous period."

and what evidence do scientists present to back up this claim? an opalized jaw jaw fragment with three teeth, that somewhat resemble the milk teeth of baby platypus.

so there we go. is this the proof you want to use that the Platypus evolved?



and what about the Echidna? apart from being the only other egg laying mammal in the world, it is nothing like the Platypus. so how is this proof that the Platypus evolved?
and the Echidna raises the same questions. how did it evolve?


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 07:14 AM on October 12, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 03:40 AM on October 11, 2009 :

skeleton almost identical to that of some theropod dinosaur


Extremely debatable comment –far from convincing.


Well, let's debate it.  You claimed anatomical knowledge, I believe.  Let's have at it.



jaw with teeth


Do you have jaws with teeth? If so, does that mean that you are a dinosaur or just related to them OR could it be part of your design because you also need to eat?

No humans - indeed, no mammals, are contemporaneous.

Other ancient birds had teeth.


Such as?
The teeth of meat eating dinosaurs are different to the teeth of archaeopteryx.

So you admit that dinosaurs ate meat?

Similarities are circumstantial and inconclusive.

Not when taken in their proper context (i.e., their temporal relationship).

long bony tail


Meat eating dinosaurs had tails 4-5 feet long covered with scales; Archae had a tail 4-5 inches long and covered with feathers. Is that close enough for you?

Birds do not have bony tails.


If ostriches have long necks, does that make them closely related to giraffes? Or is it just a unique design feature of that animal?

When the creationist starts hurling silly rhetoric like this, you know they're out of their depth.


claws


So do bats have claws on their wings, so did pterosaurs have claws on their wings, so do ostriches, hoatzins and touracos have claws on their wings.

Bats are mammals.  

feathers (asymetrical feathers, at that)  - there is still debate whether the creature could actually fly.


All other birds with assymetrical feathers can fly. Most likely Archeopteryx could fly well. The only thing that would stop it from flying well is the evolutionist’s belief that it was ancient and thus closer to something non-flying. That’s not objective.


What is objective is the fact that Archaeopteryx had a keel-less sternum, meaning that it could not have possessed flight muscles of sufficient size (and therefore strength) to allow flight.

Even ostriches, which do not fly, have a broad, keeled sternum:



And even pigeons have a pronounced keel:




Surely an anatomist like you knows where the sternum is, right?  And the significance of the size of points of muscle attachment?

The question to ask ourselves is does Archie provide clues as to how scales evolved into feathers or legs into wings?
No.


Modern birds still have scales.  As for limbs to wings, yes, since Archie's wings are 'half-way' from limbs to true wings.  Many dinosaurs appear to have had feathers, so feather evolution is not a question that Archie must answer.
Further, I see the use of the feather 'problem' as merely a tool YECs use to dodge the facts.  That we do not have the answer to one question does not logically mean that we should forget the answers provided for dozens of other questions.  If that were so, we should, logically, dismiss the bible since there are a number of 'unanswered questions' about the events described therein.  My bet is that the bible doesn't have to live up to the same critera you demand of other 'beliefs'.


Or is it more likely a mosaic of complete traits?
Yes.

What are the intermediates, do you think, of the scale to feather transition?  What is a 'complete' trait?
Are the limbs of a dwarf not 'complete'?

When we find wings on fossils, we find completely developed, fully functional wings.

How do you know they were 'fully functional'?
Have you done analyses on reconstructed Archie wings?  How did Archie sustain flight with such puny pecs?


(Edited by derwood 10/12/2009 at 09:22 AM).


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 08:43 AM on October 12, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A-E

Have you ever had a close look at an echidna's snout? Its a monotreme, like the platypus. You are obviously not familiar with these animals.  As for Steropodon... did you get the bit about manibular canals and bills? Also follow the links from monotremes to  MONOTREME FOSSILS.... there are more!

Platypus and echidnas are not the same but ARE related and have many features in common like laying eggs, similar snouts, ankle spurs (venomous in platypus but not in echidnas), low body temperature and metabolic rate (also some thermo-regulatory irregularities compared to most placental mammals), lack nipples even though they do have mammary glands (a less than optimal arrangement, really) and they share roughly the same geographical distribution (a fact of greater significance than is immediately obvious). Im sure a qualified monotremist could expand this list somewhat but there is enough here to debunk your assertion that platypus are absolutley unique.

Your assertion that the ONLY trait they share is egg-laying is simply wrong, leaving us to draw the conclusion that you are either biologically ignorant (which leaves you without the biological credentials to comment on evolution) or deliberately deceptive (which would leave you with no credibility whatsoever).

You were the one who asked why platypus had NO near relatives living or extinct and I have simply pointed out the error in YOUR assertion that they are ABSOLUTELY unique.

To be perfectly honest, I have no idea what point you were trying to make by your clearly erroneous assertion but I guess there is no reason to make the point now as its fundamental premise is lost.


-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 09:12 AM on October 12, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You are obviously not familiar with these animals [the platypus and echidna]
and may I ask what I have said in this thread that could have possibly given you that idea?

As for Steropodon... did you get the bit about mandibular canals and bills?
yes I did.
the mandibular canal suggests the presence of a bill. which is not surprising, considering that the fossil found "resembles the milk teeth of baby platypus" (I am pretty sure I have mentioned that before)

Also follow the links from monotremes to  MONOTREME FOSSILS.... there are more!
yes there are more. more jaw bones =)
Teinolophos trusleri: known from a lower jawbone found in Flat Rocks, Victoria, Australia
Obdurodon dicksoni: known from a well preserved skull (with premolar teeth in place), two lower jaw fragments and some isolated teeth. found at Riversleigh, Queensland, Australia
Kollikodon ritchiei: known only from an opalised dentary fragment, with one premolar and two molars in situ. found at Lightning Ridge, New South Wales, Australia

Your assertion that the ONLY trait they share is egg-laying is simply wrong
I stand corrected. my use of the word "nothing" was a vast overstatement. as was my statement that the Platypus had no near relatives. there are some distinct similarities between the Echidna and the Platypus that are not found in other mammals.
but are you suggesting that the Platypus evolved form the Echidna (or vice versa)? of course not. that was what I meant by unique, there are no animals that you can point to as the missing link between the Platypus / Echidna and the dinosaurs.
apart from those imaginary creatures scientist dreamt up from fossilised Platypus jaws. (listed above)

To be perfectly honest, I have no idea what point you were trying to make
there are no animals that you can point to as the missing link between the Platypus and the dinosaurs.
simple enough?


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 5:27 PM on October 12, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A-E

I still dont get your point.

The inherent logic of evolution is that most (if not all) living organisms change over time (species obviously rather than individuals) making every individual potentially transitional.
Clearly not all individuals are preserved as fossils so the absence of individual 'transitional' organisms is inevitable and entirely consistent with evolutionary theory. Furthermore, the evidence that DOES exist does not contradict the evolutionary hypothesis.

I can only assume from your trivially tautological but insistent assertion that the 'missing links' are 'missing' that you believe this poses some sort of problem for evolution. Frankly, I cant see how this produces any serious logical impediment to evolutionary theory.


-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 8:49 PM on October 12, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

there are no animals that you can point to as the missing link between the Platypus and the dinosaurs.  simple enough?

Yes, very simple because no one is claiming the platypus evolved from dinosaurs!  This appears to be a typical creationist ploy, throw out an erroneous claim, then claim it's false!  Are you doing this dishonestly or did you just not bother to do any research...?
Now if you look at the mammal like REPTILES, it's much more obvious.  there is such an amazing amount of fossil transitions showing us this evolutionary change, it's a virtual fact.  We are as certain as anything in biology that mammals evolved from reptiles, not dinosaurs.  Want to do a little research and come back and discuss this or will you just make a few more false claims...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:40 PM on October 12, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

 We are as certain as anything in biology that mammals evolved from reptiles, not dinosaurs.  Want to do a little research and come back and discuss this or will you just make a few more false claims...
I did my research and am back now. and here is what I found:
the definition of a dinosaur is "any chiefly terrestrial, herbivorous or carnivorous reptile of the extinct orders Saurischia and Ornithischia, from the Mesozoic Era, certain species of which are the largest known land animals."

but perhaps what your saying isn't "dinosaurs aren't reptiles" but rather "dinosaurs aren't the reptiles".
so I did a little more research:
the definition of Synapsida is "extinct reptiles of the Permian to Jurassic considered ancestral to mammals"

and after even further research, this time trying to determine which Synapsida the platypus came from, I came across this quote:
"Thus the platypus will remain a significant misfit in any Darwinian scheme. Is it from a sauropsid lineage which includes reptiles and birds? Is it from a synapsid lineage which supposedly led to the emergence of the mammals? Or is it derived independently from some unknown ancestral amniote?"



in light of this new information it seems I have to reword my question. again. hopefully I have worded it perfectly this time so that someone will answer it...
could someone please describe to me, or list to me, any of the known, or theorised, evolutionary ancestors of the duck-billed Platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus).

#almost made a mistake in the question. all fixed now

(Edited by anti-evolutionist 10/13/2009 at 03:24 AM).


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 01:19 AM on October 13, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A-E

You asked for examples of 'theorised' ancestors of the Platypus. Without any idea of what you think you are proving...  here is a blog that represents one such theory.

Platypus Genome

One answer is...   all the therapids prior to the therian split.

This blog clearly illustrates Demon's point that Platypus did not evolve from 'modern' reptiles or from dinosaurs. Look for ancestors common to Platypus, modern reptiles and eutherians like us among the amniotes of the palaeozoic. Look for ancestors common to eutherians and monotremes (but NOT modern reptiles) among the therapids of the late palaeozoic.... and so on.

BUT....   all of this is silly and pointless... as I pointed out in an earlier post...  the fact of holes in the fossil record does not logically compromise evolutionary theory anyway. If you, on the other hand, can clarify your argument with a fully developed syllogism demonstrating the logical flaw in evolutionary theory exposed by the fact of an incomplete fossil record then please let us have the full argument or else stop wasting our time on these "red-herrings".





-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 05:19 AM on October 13, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon38 started this thread saying:
New evidence once again fully supports evolution
the new evidence he is referring to is of the recent discovery that the archaeopteryx  has "unexpectedly slow growth and maturation" for a bird. another characteristic of the archaeopteryx that makes it less bird like and more Dinosaur like.
Demon38 claims (as do all evolutionists that agree with him) that this is more proof of evolution.

so I point to the Platypus to show that just because an animals characteristics place it in between two different categories, that does not prove evolution.
but rather than just saying "see. Platypus. I win", I ask questions to allow Evolutionists to give their side of the story.

I read over the link you gave. the Blogger who wrote it give some colourful diagrams and made statements like "the platypus belongs to a lineage that separated from ours approximately 166 million years ago". but I must have missed the part where he gave evidence for this.
would you mind showing me some of this evidence? just some simple dot points will suit me fine.


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 07:14 AM on October 13, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 07:14 AM on October 13, 2009 :
I read over the link you gave. the Blogger who wrote it give some colourful diagrams and made statements like "the platypus belongs to a lineage that separated from ours approximately 166 million years ago". but I must have missed the part where he gave evidence for this.
would you mind showing me some of this evidence? just some simple dot points will suit me fine.


For that you would have to go to the original article:




We present a draft genome sequence of the platypus, Ornithorhynchus anatinus. This monotreme exhibits a fascinating combination of reptilian and mammalian characters. For example, platypuses have a coat of fur adapted to an aquatic lifestyle; platypus females lactate, yet lay eggs; and males are equipped with venom similar to that of reptiles. Analysis of the first monotreme genome aligned these features with genetic innovations. We find that reptile and platypus venom proteins have been co-opted independently from the same gene families; milk protein genes are conserved despite platypuses laying eggs; and immune gene family expansions are directly related to platypus biology. Expansions of protein, non-protein-coding RNA and microRNA families, as well as repeat elements, are identified. Sequencing of this genome now provides a valuable resource for deep mammalian comparative analyses, as well as for monotreme biology and conservation.
Genome analysis of the Platypus reveals unique signatures of evolution

(Edited by Apoapsis 10/13/2009 at 07:53 AM).


-------
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: 07:41 AM on October 13, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I did my research and am back now. and here is what I found:
the definition of a dinosaur is "any chiefly terrestrial, herbivorous or carnivorous reptile of the extinct orders Saurischia and Ornithischia, from the Mesozoic Era, certain species of which are the largest known land animals."


Yes, very good, even though you should have done this research BEFORE you said the platypus didn't evolve from dinosaurs.  We all knew this.  It made as much sense as saying humans didn't evovle from elephants.

but perhaps what your saying isn't "dinosaurs aren't reptiles" but rather "dinosaurs aren't the reptiles".

Of course that's what I was saying, do you understand the concept of nested hierarchies in evolution?

and after even further research, this time trying to determine which Synapsida the platypus came from, I came across this quote:
"Thus the platypus will remain a significant misfit in any Darwinian scheme. Is it from a sauropsid lineage which includes reptiles and birds? Is it from a synapsid lineage which supposedly led to the emergence of the mammals? Or is it derived independently from some unknown ancestral amniote?"


Well of course this site would say this, it is anti science and is deeply bias and wrong.

could someone please describe to me, or list to me, any of the known, or theorised, evolutionary ancestors of the duck-billed Platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus).

How about evidence that links the platypus to synapsids...from here:

Synapsids/Playtpus

"Understanding the likely evolutionary trajectory which led to live birth and lactation, we can even detect evidence of these phenomena in fossils. Dr. Olav T. Oftedal argues that the epipubic bones found in marsupials and monotremes probably evolved to support developing young in an external pouch. While the pouch and mammary glands on which those young would have suckled do not fossilize, the epipubic bones do, and can be found in some of the earliest ancestors of mammals (Olav T. Oftedal, 2002. "The Mammary Gland and Its Origin During Synapsid Evolution," Journal of Mammary Gland Biology and Neoplasia, 7(3):225-252). "
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:21 AM on October 13, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A-E

You are avoiding my real question.
You seem to be asserting that the fact of holes in the fossil record somehow compromises evolutionary theory yet you cannot produce a logical argument to support that assertion.

Its a lot easier to disprove scientific hypotheses than to 'prove' them. One simple counterexample can demolish an entire theory. Evolution depends on a few simple conditions i) variation, ii) selection & iii) geographical isolation. Any refutation of the theory must attack one or more of these conditions. How about you give it a go and see if you can disprove the theory.

I'll give you an example of how this works. A simple calculation from the Bible ... generations etc... produces an age for the earth of around 4,000 to 6,000 years.
All that is needed is to produce a single piece of conclusive evidence that the earth is older than 6,000 years and you have disproved the Biblical account of cosmological history.

How about you give it a go?
Give us one piece of physical evidence that CONCLUSIVELY DISPROVES evolution. Can you do it? It should be simple!








-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 5:44 PM on October 13, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon38
Understanding the likely evolutionary trajectory which led to live birth and lactation
so this is where scientist look at the data and figure out the "nested hierarchies" in evolution. and decide on which branch is likely responsible for the genetic changes that change egg-laying to live birth?

so when what this branching? the point of time when some lucky mutation allowed live birth instead of eggs?
according to one of the colourful diagrams your blogger posted, this split happened 166 million years ago. when the Prototherian separated form the Therians. like how waterboy said "all the therapids prior to the therian split"
or perhaps I read the diagram wrong and it is back 315 million years ago when the sauropsidans split from the Synapsid (both are classes of land animals)


if this is so, what about fish who give live birth?
such as the Gray Smoothhound Shark (still alive today)
or the Ichthyosaur who (according to evolution) lived 245 million years ago. 1  2
or this fish who lived 375 - 380 million years ago


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 7:10 PM on October 13, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A-E

You're losing it now. Your last post is almost completely incomprehensible and doesnt appear to make any valid or relevant point in this argument.


-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 8:31 PM on October 13, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Synapsids:
are mammal like reptiles.
considered ancestral to mammals.
branched from Amniotes aproximately 324 million years ago.

around 166 million years ago the Synapsids branched into two groups;
Prototherian mammals who retained their egg laying capability
Therian mammals who became able to give birth to live young

so if the ability to give birth to live young evolved from Synapsids (into Therians) then how is it that prehistoric fish can give birth to live young?



-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 9:17 PM on October 13, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

if this is so, what about fish who give live birth?

What about them?  How do they relate to synapsid reptiles?  You can't possibly think that just because they give  birth to live young instead of eggs that that somehow invalidates mammilian evolutionary lineage???  Did you look at their anatomy?  How do they compare?

or the Ichthyosaur who (according to evolution) lived 245 million years ago.

Is the ichtyosaur a synapsid???  What's your point?

Are you claiming that fish and ichthyosaurs had epipubic bones?  Because they don't have them.  You don't seem to understand that there are different methods of bearing live young and laying eggs, to see if they are similar you have to look at the structures and organs used in reproduction.  Marsupials, monotremes and some of the mammal like reptiles had epipubic bones, fish and ichthyosuars did not, so why are you even mentioning them?  It seems, once again, that you truely don't understand what's being discussed here OR you are intentionally trying to concuse the issue.  Which is it?    And let's not forget about the other reptilian like characteristics of the platypus, from here: Platypus
"Many characters of their therapsid ancestors can still be seen in egg-laying mammals including a complex pectoral girdle, laying of eggs rather than bearing live young, limbs oriented with humerus and femur held lateral to body, and a cloaca. "
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:36 PM on October 13, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thank You Demon!
I think WE've answered enough questions. Its time for A-E to explain the logic of his/her missing link argument because I just dont see how it contradicts evolutionary theory and unless s/he CAN construct a satisfactory syllogism to that effect then Im going to lose interest.


-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 02:07 AM on October 14, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Is the ichtyosaur a synapsid???  What's your point?
no the ichtyosaur is not a synapsid. I expect an evolutionist to know that!
the ichtyosaur is an viviparous (gave birth to live young) reptiles that evolved from the amniote lineages.
and my point is that the ichtyosaur, as well as the other viviparous fish previously mentioned, must have evolved their viviparous characteristics seporately to the therians


You can't possibly think that just because they give  birth to live young instead of eggs that that somehow invalidates mammalian evolutionary lineage???
actually that is exactly what I am implying.
with the eye you suggest that evolution progressed gradually from one improvement to another. but for going from laying eggs to giving birth to live young. that includes going from yolk to umbilical cord.
thinking this change could happen once is doubtful at best. but to claim it happened multiple times?


Are you claiming that fish and ichthyosaurs had epipubic bones?
WHAT ??

what have epipubic bones got to do with ANYTHING in this thread? The epipubic bones act as levers to stiffen the trunk. allowing animals to trot / run.
what has this got to do with egg laying and live birth???
It seems, once again, that you truely don't understand what's being discussed here OR you are intentionally trying to concuse the issue.  Which is it?
hows that for irony.


And let's not forget about the other reptilian like characteristics of the platypus
I am not disagreeing that the Platypus has reptilian like characteristics. nor am I disagreeing that the Archaeopteryx has reptilian like characteristics.
I am pointing out that, although Archaeopteryx is lucky enough to fit into the nested hierarchies of evolution, there are some fatal flaws in this proposed hierarchy.


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 02:19 AM on October 14, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A-E
Demon
You can't possibly think that just because they give  birth to live young instead of eggs that that somehow invalidates mammalian evolutionary lineage???



actually that is exactly what I am implying.
with the eye you suggest that evolution progressed gradually from one improvement to another. but for going from laying eggs to giving birth to live young. that includes going from yolk to umbilical cord.
thinking this change could happen once is doubtful at best. but to claim it happened multiple times?


Here we have it in a nutshell.  You have no rational argument. You simply cannot comprehend how evolution could be possible. Fine, I have trouble getting my head around quantum theory....  but then....   I dont parade my ignorance by going around trying to refute quantum theory.



(Edited by waterboy 10/14/2009 at 06:17 AM).


-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 06:14 AM on October 14, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You have no rational argument. You simply cannot comprehend how evolution could be possible.


To me it certainly seems that it is the pot calling the kettle black. The evolutionist has no rational argument but a lot of faith or credulity and a whole bunch of likely/unlikely stories that substitute for evidence. To believe that macroevolution is true in the absence of any evidence for it now, nor any reasonably convincing evidence from the fossil record shows that it is in fact a religion, a silly one but a religion nonetheless.  


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 09:51 AM on October 17, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
To me it certainly seems that it is the pot calling the kettle black. The evolutionist has no rational argument but a lot of faith or credulity and a whole bunch of likely/unlikely stories that substitute for evidence. To believe that macroevolution is true in the absence of any evidence for it now, nor any reasonably convincing evidence from the fossil record shows that it is in fact a religion, a silly one but a religion nonetheless.


Is this supposed to be another example of a 'rational argument' from another creationist? For starters, do you have a meaningful definition of 'macroevolution'? Furthermore, the assertion that I 'believe in' evolution is completely unjustifiable. If you read through my posts in general you will find that I consistently treat evolution as an hypothesis and not as an article of faith. What makes evolution science rather than religion is precisely that it is a refutable hypothesis and NOT an article of faith.

Lester, if you DID manage to present a credible counterexample to evolution that disproved it once and for all it would have no more consequence for me than finding out that string theory was not true.  What would be the consequences for YOU if creation was comprehensively disproved?



(Edited by waterboy 10/17/2009 at 10:30 PM).


-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 9:26 PM on October 17, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok you two, that's enough squabbling.


Orion
now that Lester10 and I have responded to your list of "Archaeopteryx - dinosaurian features". how many of those features do you still class as "dinosaurian"?




-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 11:01 PM on October 17, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A-E

Your responses to the 'Archaeopteryx - dinosaurian features' question are superficial and do NOT logically contradict the features being 'dinosaurian' so I see no reason why Orion should revise his/her assessment of them. This is a general problem with your whole contribution to this debate that you are not constructing fully developed syllogisms and therefore your 'arguments' are not even slightly convincing.


-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 01:58 AM on October 18, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think your dogmatic religious Darwinist belief system is blinding you to reality now, Waterboy. The assertion of evolutionists that many features of archaeopteryx are so clearly dinosaurian as to eliminate other equally clear possibilities, have been shown to be wanting.

In my view we should now decide whether the best transitional cases for evolution (namely dinosaur-bird and land mammal to whale) are compelling enough that we should disregard the problem of the absence of transitional fossils in most of the other animal groups.  



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 10:16 AM on October 18, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hi 'Lester',

I think it is so cute how you ignore my posts when they are substantive and refute something you've overconfidently asserted...

Quote from Lester10 at 03:40 AM on October 11, 2009 :

skeleton almost identical to that of some theropod dinosaur


Extremely debatable comment –far from convincing.


Well, let's debate it.  You claimed anatomical knowledge, I believe.  Let's have at it.



jaw with teeth


Do you have jaws with teeth? If so, does that mean that you are a dinosaur or just related to them OR could it be part of your design because you also need to eat?

No humans - indeed, no mammals, are contemporaneous.

Other ancient birds had teeth.


Such as?
The teeth of meat eating dinosaurs are different to the teeth of archaeopteryx.

So you admit that dinosaurs ate meat?

Similarities are circumstantial and inconclusive.

Not when taken in their proper context (i.e., their temporal relationship).

long bony tail


Meat eating dinosaurs had tails 4-5 feet long covered with scales; Archae had a tail 4-5 inches long and covered with feathers. Is that close enough for you?

Birds do not have bony tails.


If ostriches have long necks, does that make them closely related to giraffes? Or is it just a unique design feature of that animal?

When the creationist starts hurling silly rhetoric like this, you know they're out of their depth.


claws


So do bats have claws on their wings, so did pterosaurs have claws on their wings, so do ostriches, hoatzins and touracos have claws on their wings.

Bats are mammals.  

feathers (asymetrical feathers, at that)  - there is still debate whether the creature could actually fly.


All other birds with assymetrical feathers can fly. Most likely Archeopteryx could fly well. The only thing that would stop it from flying well is the evolutionist’s belief that it was ancient and thus closer to something non-flying. That’s not objective.


What is objective is the fact that Archaeopteryx had a keel-less sternum, meaning that it could not have possessed flight muscles of sufficient size (and therefore strength) to allow flight.

Even ostriches, which do not fly, have a broad, keeled sternum:



And even pigeons have a pronounced keel:




Surely an anatomist like you knows where the sternum is, right?  And the significance of the size of points of muscle attachment?

The question to ask ourselves is does Archie provide clues as to how scales evolved into feathers or legs into wings?
No.


Modern birds still have scales (look at their legs).  As for limbs to wings, yes, since Archie's wings are 'half-way' from limbs to true wings.  Many dinosaurs appear to have had feathers, so feather evolution is not a question that Archie must answer.
Further, I see the use of the feather 'problem' as merely a tool YECs use to dodge the facts.  That we do not have the answer to one question does not logically mean that we should forget the answers provided for dozens of other questions.  If that were so, we should, logically, dismiss the bible since there are a number of 'unanswered questions' about the events described therein.  My bet is that the bible doesn't have to live up to the same critera you demand of other 'beliefs'.


Or is it more likely a mosaic of complete traits?
Yes.

What are the intermediates, do you think, of the scale to feather transition?  What is a 'complete' trait?
Are the limbs of a dwarf not 'complete'?

When we find wings on fossils, we find completely developed, fully functional wings.

How do you know they were 'fully functional'?
Have you done analyses on reconstructed Archie wings?  How did Archie sustain flight with such puny pecs?



-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 11:39 AM on October 18, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 10:16 AM on October 18, 2009 :
I think your dogmatic religious Darwinist belief system is blinding you to reality now, Waterboy. The assertion of evolutionists that many features of archaeopteryx are so clearly dinosaurian as to eliminate other equally clear possibilities, have been shown to be wanting.

In my view we should now decide whether the best transitional cases for evolution (namely dinosaur-bird and land mammal to whale) are compelling enough that we should disregard the problem of the absence of transitional fossils in most of the other animal groups.  





Please informa us all, Lester, with your in-depth and impeccable knowledge of anatomy and evolutionary process, just what, exactly, we should expect a transtional form between birds and non-birds to look like; what features it should possess and to what degree, etc.  Also please tell us all how you came to these conclusions.

Thanks.



-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 12:13 PM on October 18, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester


Is it your sincere belief that dogmatic religious belief systems  blind people to reality?
What does that say about the vast majority of creationists who make no secret of their religious convictions?


Where did anyone say ".. so clearly dinosaurian as to eliminate other equally clear possibilities..".  Those are your words and appear to be a rhetorical 'embellishment' of some sort.  Nice rhetorical trick! But not really consistent with the 'Christian' values of honesty and integrity.

As for transitional species, it is axiomatic within the creationist framework that they never existed which, of course, is why you are compelled to deny their existence in spite of all the evidence. Now, how about you answer Derwood's question and explain to us exactly how the existence of Archeopteryx, platypus etc  contradict evolutionary theory and why we shouldnt draw the conclusion that their existence gives credence to the prediction that transitional species existed (even if they are not, themselves, 'transitional')?

BTW When are you going to provide us with your 'definition' of macroevolution because you asserted that macroevolution has never been observed and this is clearly a false statement based on the definition of macroevolution generally accepted by scientists.


(Edited by waterboy 10/18/2009 at 7:07 PM).


-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 6:42 PM on October 18, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh, and don't forget Tiktaalik!  And let's throw in  Ardipithecus ramidus too.  

Lester can explain why they are not transitional too.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 9:45 PM on October 18, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

although both of your posts where directed at lester10 I'm sure you won't mind me putting in my say.

Derwood
just what, exactly, we should expect a transtional form between birds and non-birds to look like; what features it should possess and to what degree, etc.

the predicted dino-bird's should look like the Archaeopteryx. with some dinosaur characteristics (such as the bony tail) and some bird characteristics (such as the feathers).

But...
the existence of one such creature is not proof of evolution.
yes it fits into evolutions predictions. no question about that. but it is not enough.

the Archaeopteryx does fit the predictions. it has characteristics that are commonly found in one kind of animal but not in another, and other characteristics that are commonly found in one a different kind of animal but not in the first.
but odd combinations of characteristics are found all over the animal kingdom, with specific animals having characeristics usually only found in animals of a different kind. making Archaeopteryx less special (but not less interesting)

examples:
glow worms have bioluminescence, like sea creatures
camelions can change colour at will, like cuttlefish and octopuses
the Common Gliding Lizard and the Squirrel Glider both have the similar gliding adaptation, but are of totally different species
there are only 8 venomous mammals, because venom is an unusual mammilian feature.
and other animals made from an odd combination of features: Jerboa, Pangolin, Okapi, Bongo, platypus, frilled necked lizard, Anemone



waterboy
As for transitional species, it is axiomatic within the creationist framework that they never existed which, of course, is why you are compelled to deny their existence in spite of all the evidence

yes I deny the existence of transitional species because I don't believe in evolution.
you state the existence of transitional species as fact because you do believe in evolution.

evolution has made its predictions within the framework of its theory. it has found some extinct animal fossils that fit its predictions.
now what needs to happen is for evolution to prove that the above mentioned fossils are actually "transitional species" (as evolution claims) and not just "interesting animals" (as creationists claim). and evolution needs to find evidence of transitional species for other peculiar animals.
and the whole while making a clear distinction between what has been 'proven' and what is still only 'predicted'


explain to us exactly how the existence of Archeopteryx, platypus etc  contradict evolutionary theory ...

they do not 'contradict evolutionary' per se, but they do present evolution with a massive obstacle to overcome.
evolution needs to find evidence that their unusual characteristics are a result of evolution and are not just there 'by design'


... and why we shouldn't draw the conclusion that their existence gives credence to the prediction that transitional species existed

the theory of evolution is constantly in need of redefining as new evidence is found that is contradictory to the current theory.
and as such, it is possible for evolutionists conclusions about one aspect of evolution to be shown to be misplaced.

at the same time, there is no reason for you not to say that "the current evidence gives credence to the prediction that transitional species existed"
just so long as you are aware that the current lack of damning evidence does not make your predictions true. only plausible



PS: this is likely to be my last post for a  very long time
sorry


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 11:19 PM on October 18, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 11:19 PM on October 18, 2009 :

PS: this is likely to be my last post for a  very long time
sorry


Bye



-------
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: 11:55 PM on October 18, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A-E

Bye.  Its been a most enjoyable debate.
BTW  Where did I "state the existence of transitional species as fact "


-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 12:29 AM on October 19, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 11:19 PM on October 18, 2009 :

at the same time, there is no reason for you not to say that "the current evidence gives credence to the prediction that transitional species existed"
just so long as you are aware that the current lack of damning evidence does not make your predictions true. only plausible


How about this: " Fossils from numerous families have been discovered to date that show distinct evidence of transitional nature."


(Edited by Apoapsis 10/19/2009 at 01:02 AM).


-------
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: 01:01 AM on October 19, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Waterboy

Is it your sincere belief that dogmatic religious belief systems  blind people to reality?


Yes it is my sincere belief that it can blind people to reality if they are not careful to recognize this belief system for what it is. Generally people who compare the predictions of the two metaphysical belief systems (creation and evolution) are in a better situation to view reality than those who say ‘this and only this must be true because this is how science works.’
When they exclude creation a priori and attempt to explain everything via naturalism (nature is all that exists), they are no longer being objective, they are being dogmatically religious and are deceiving themselves.

What does that say about the vast majority of creationists who make no secret of their religious convictions?


It is better than those atheists that pretend that their atheistic religious beliefs are ‘science’ and do not acknowledge those religious presuppositions for what they are. At least we can look at both sides while your atheist friends pretend to themselves that if it is not natural, it is not science.

As for transitional species, it is axiomatic within the creationist framework that they never existed which, of course, is why you are compelled to deny their existence in spite of all the evidence.


And it is axiomatic within the evolutionist framework that transitionals must have existed. In fact they should be clearly evident throughout the fossil record if gradualistic evolution were true. Unfortunately for these true believers, the fossil record happens to be consistent with creationist predictions and antagonistic to evolutionary belief systems.

For this reason, Niles Eldredge and Stephen J Gould had to come up with their ‘punctuated equilibrium’ model. That was their excuse for why the fossil record fits the creationist framework and not theirs. Other atheist evolutionists continue to live in denial and refuse to see what is incredibly obvious to everybody else –there are large gaps in the fossil record, there are large gaps in living systems. These large systematic gaps are the basis of the classification systems that exist. If gradualism were true, it would be very difficult to classify anything.

‘Transitionals’ are very hard to come by and very suspect in all cases. There are not nearly enough of them to warrant optimism on the part of the evolutionist. They have to imagine that their god ‘evolution’ conspired to keep transitional forms hidden. There are over 200 million fossils in natural history museums around the world, far more than Darwin had to work with. He had reason to expect that as more fossils were uncovered, his optimism regarding transitional forms would be realized. You have no such reason to be optimistic. The fossil record supports creation.

Evolution is clearly a myth, you have to want to believe it. You live in a religious fugue where evidence is overcome by belief and thus you can’t see it even when it is slapping you in the face.          

 





-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 06:54 AM on October 19, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 11:19 PM on October 18, 2009 :
although both of your posts where directed at lester10 I'm sure you won't mind me putting in my say.
-not at all, especially since Lester never seems to actually address questions asked of him, at least not in a direct, intellectually honest way.

Derwood
just what, exactly, we should expect a transtional form between birds and non-birds to look like; what features it should possess and to what degree, etc.

the predicted dino-bird's should look like the Archaeopteryx. with some dinosaur characteristics (such as the bony tail) and some bird characteristics (such as the feathers).

But...
the existence of one such creature is not proof of evolution.
yes it fits into evolutions predictions. no question about that. but it is not enough.


Of course it is not enough.

Nothing will ever be enough.

But thanks for admitting that Archie is, in fact,a great example of a transitional.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 11:29 AM on October 19, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But thanks for admitting that Archie is, in fact,a great example of a transitional.


Sorry Derwood but that's not actually what he said - he said if there were enough of them it might count. As far as I'm concerned, he's being too generous - it's a bad example in a lousy lineup of very few questionable examples actually. Since evolution quite clearly never happened, this grasping at straws is to be expected.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 07:02 AM on October 20, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 07:02 AM on October 20, 2009 :
But thanks for admitting that Archie is, in fact,a great example of a transitional.


Sorry Derwood but that's not actually what he said - he said if there were enough of them it might count.


Here is what he said, in response to my question 'what should a bird-dinosaur transitional look like':

"the predicted dino-bird's should look like the Archaeopteryx. with some dinosaur characteristics (such as the bony tail) and some bird characteristics (such as the feathers)."

IOW - Archie is what a transitional should look like.




As far as I'm concerned, he's being too generous - it's a bad example in a lousy lineup of very few questionable examples actually. Since evolution quite clearly never happened, this grasping at straws is to be expected.



I see no reason to give your piddling unsupported ad hoc 'opinions' any consideration whatsoever.

You continue to refuse or are simply not able, to provide YOUR OWN definition of transitonal and to explain just what a transitional should look like.

You merely toss out denialistic assertions as if anyone shouid care.

You are a typical desperate creationist.  You simply NEED evolution to be wrong so that your faith will not have been wasted.  NOTHING will ever count - you will always merely reject the evidence presented to you.  You are completely unable to engage in any sort fo technical or in-depth discussion on any of the topi9cs discussed on this forum, including issues that YOU bring up (also a typical YEC antic).  You try to 'impress' us with claims of a doctorate in the sciences, and you list off a series of subjects that you claim education in, yet the things you write indicate that you are either lying, were a horrible student and did not actually learn much, or have forgotten what you supposedly had to learn at one time.  

When you feel up to doing more than engaging in knee-jerk denialism and dodging, when you feel up to providing definitions for your terms suich that they can be discussed without fear of you simply changing your definitions mid-discussion (as you 'honest' cretins so often do), you let us all know.




-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 08:19 AM on October 20, 2009 | 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.